natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Provinsen Flevoland indgav en anmodning om medfinansiering til landbrugsministeriet (Ministerie voor Landbouw, Natuur and Voedselkwaliteit — LNV) samt en anmodning om vurdering af projektet.
The Province applied to the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture [Ministerie voor Landbouw, Natuur and Voedselkwaliteit — LNV] for co-financing and an assessment of the project.
Provinsen Flevoland og landbrugsministeriets »Directie Noordwest« var umiddelbart uenige med hensyn til anmodningen om medfinansiering, særlig hvad projektets fornyende karakter angik.
There seemed to have been a difference of opinions between the Province and the ‘Directie Noordwest’ of the Ministry of Agriculture concerning the application for co-financing, in particular with regard to the innovative character of the project.
IKC afgav derfor en ny udtalelse.
For this reason, IKC gave a second opinion.
I denne nye udtalelse, som blev fremsendt den 17. december 1998, redegøres der for projektets kvalitet i forhold til beskæftigelse, afsætningsmuligheder og rentabilitet.
This second opinion, issued on 17 December 1998, noted the project’s qualities with regard to employment, outlets and profitability.
Det konkluderes imidlertid, at projektet ikke havde en væsentligt fornyende karakter.
However, it concluded that the innovative character of the project was poor.
Produktionsprocessen var i sig selv ikke fornyende, om end der anvendtes de mest avancerede teknikker. Projektet ville dog skabe markedsinnovation.
The production process itself was not innovative, although it used the most advanced techniques, but the project contained market innovations.
I den nye udtalelse tages flere kriterier i betragtning, bl.a. regionens udvikling og projektets finansielle perspektiver.
This second opinion took several criteria into consideration, such as the development of the region and the financial outlook for the project.
I lyset af at projektet især ville være fordelagtigt for provinsen Flevoland (og i mindre grad på nationalt plan), blev den normale fordelingsnøgle for medfinansiering af støtte reguleret ned, i den forstand at provinsens andel blev hævet.
In view of the fact that the project would be particularly beneficial at provincial level (and less at national level), the usual scale for distributing the co-financing of subsidies was revised downwards, which meant that the provincial quota share was increased.
Efter at landbrugsministeriet havde indtaget denne holdning, besluttede provinsen Flevoland at yde en støtte til Farm Dairy på i alt 1575000 NLG, svarende til 715909 EUR, og meddelte den 3. marts 1999 Farm Dairy, at den agtede at yde denne støtte.
In view of this position adopted by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, the Province issued a decision granting Farm Dairy a total amount of NLG 1575000 (EUR 715909), informing Farm Dairy on 3 March 1999 of its intention to provide this grant.
Støtten skulle finansieres med bidrag fra Den Europæiske Udviklings- og Garantifond for Landbruget (EUGFL), staten og provinsen Flevoland.
The grant was to be financed by contributions from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the central Government and the Province.
Da der var tvivl om, hvorvidt det ville være muligt at opnå Kommissionens godkendelse, besluttede landbrugsministeriet ikke at yde offentlig støtte og meddelte provinsen Flevoland dette ved brev af 14. september 1999.
Following doubts concerning the possibilities of obtaining authorisation for the aid from the European Commission, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture decided not to grant the public financing, informing the Province of this by letter of 14 September 1999.
Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug afgjorde efter at have foretaget en kontrol, at projektet ikke kunne finansieres via SPD, og at den del af støtten, der skulle komme fra EUGFL, derfor ikke ville blive bevilget.
DG Agriculture conducted an inspection and decided that the project could not be financed via the SPD, and that consequently the part of the financing to come from the EAGGF would not be granted.
Kommissionen meddelte provinsen Flevoland denne beslutning ved brev af 25. juni 1999.
It informed the Province of this decision by letter of 25 June 1999.
Provinsen Flevoland besluttede imidlertid at finansiere projektet udelukkende med egne midler.
The Province nevertheless decided to finance the project exclusively out of its own funds.
Farm Dairy blev ved brev af 20. november 2000 underrettet om den endelige støttebevilling og om støttebetalingen.
Farm Dairy was informed of the final award and payment of the aid by letter of 20 November 2000.
Den 23. februar 2001 fandt et uformelt møde sted mellem embedsfolk fra Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug og repræsentanter fra provinsen Flevoland efter anmodning fra sidstnævnte.
On 23 February 2001 an informal meeting was held between DG Agriculture officials and representatives of Flevoland Province, at the latter’s request.
På dette møde skulle embedsmændene have antydet, at støtten til Farm Dairy ikke var forenelig med fællesmarkedet og skulle tilbagebetales, men at midlerne kunne anvendes i forbindelse med et andet projekt.
At this meeting the officials pointed out that the aid to Farm Dairy was not compatible with the common market and would have to be recovered or allocated to another project.
Provinsen Flevoland besluttede at yde støtte til Farm Dairy i form af erstatning for tab som følge af tilbagetrækning af beslutningen om at yde støtte.
The Province decided to grant the aid in the form of compensation to Farm Dairy for the damage suffered as a result of the withdrawal of the decision granting the aid.
Erstatningen svarede til det beløb, som Farm Dairy ville have modtaget, hvis støtten var blevet godkendt.
The compensation was equal to the amount which Farm Dairy would have received if the aid had been authorised.
Provinsen Flevoland antog, at eftersom der i beslutningen om at yde støtte ikke var mulighed for at kalde støtten tilbage, var den bundet af denne beslutning og forpligtet til at yde støtte. I modsat fald kunne den forvente et sagsanlæg fra Farm Dairy.
The Province estimated that as the award decision did not provide for the possibility of the aid being withdrawn, it was bound by this decision and obliged to award the aid, or risk Farm Dairy taking legal action against it.
Støtten blev oprindeligt ydet inden for rammerne af SPD for provinsen Flevoland i form af investeringsstøtte i henhold til punkt 3.3 i SPD.
Originally, the aid had been awarded under the SPD for Flevoland Province as aid for investment under point 3.3 of the SPD.
Støtten blev efterfølgende og af ovennævnte årsager ydet i form af erstatning for tab som følge af beslutningen om at kalde støtten tilbage.
Subsequently, and for the reasons explained above, the aid was granted as compensation for the losses suffered as a result of the decision to withdraw the granting of the aid.
Støtten beløber sig til 1575000 NLG, svarende til 715909 EUR. Dette beløb svarer til 8,5 % af det samlede investeringsbeløb, som udgør 18597000 NLG, svarende til 8438951 EUR.
The aid amounts to NLG 1575000 or EUR 715909. This amount corresponds to 8,5 % of the amount of the total investments, namely NLG 18597000 or EUR 8438951.
Støttemodtageren er Farm Dairy Holding B.V. med hjemsted i Lelystad.
The beneficiary is Farm Dairy Holding B.V. situated in Lelystad.
Der er tale om en virksomhed, som fremstiller mejeriprodukter (bl.a. yoghurt og mælkebaserede desserter).
This is a company which produces dairy products (including yoghurts and other milk-based desserts).
Støttens varighed
Duration of the measure
Støtten blev ydet i perioden 1. oktober 1998 til 1. maj 2000, svarende til start- og slutdatoen for projektet Farm Dairy.
The aid was awarded for the period from 1 October 1998 to 1 May 2000, corresponding to the start and end dates of the Farm Dairy project.
Selve beslutningen om at yde støtte blev truffet den 3. marts 1999.
The award decision as such was taken on 3 March 1999.
Kommissionen indledte proceduren efter artikel 108, stk. 2, i TEUF, da den var alvorligt i tvivl om, hvorvidt støtten var forenelig med det indre marked.
The Commission initiated the investigation procedure provided for under Article 108(2) of the TFEU because it had serious doubts as to the compatibility of this aid with the internal market.
Kommissionen foretog en foreløbig undersøgelse af den pågældende støtteforanstaltnings forenelighed ud fra et investeringsstøtte- og erstatningsperspektiv.
In particular, the Commission has, in a preliminary fashion, examined the compatibility of the measures in question from the perspective of aid for investment and aid for compensation of damage.
Med hensyn til investeringsstøtte anvendte Kommissionen de gældende regler på det tidspunkt, hvor støtten blev ydet, dvs. rammebestemmelserne for statsstøtte til investeringer i sektoren for forarbejdning og afsætning af landbrugsprodukter [4] (i det følgende benævnt »rammebestemmelserne«), eftersom det drejede sig om en investering.
In the case of the aid for investment, the Commission applied the rules applicable at the time of granting the aid, i.e. the guidelines for State aid in connection with investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products [4] (hereinafter ‘the guidelines’), given that it related to an investment.
Disse rammebestemmelser udelukker generelt støtte til investeringer i sektoren for komælk og produkter heraf, medmindre en af undtagelserne i punkt 2.3 i bilaget til Kommissionens beslutning 94/173/EF af 22. marts 1994 om fastlæggelse af udvælgelseskriterier for investeringer vedrørende forbedring af vilkårene for forarbejdning og afsætning af landbrugs- og skovbrugsprodukter [5] finder anvendelse.
These guidelines exclude, in a general way, aid for investment in the sector of cow’s milk and products of this milk, except in the case of one of the exceptions referred to in point 2.3 of the Annex to Commission Decision 94/173/EC of 22 March 1994 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products [5].
Disse undtagelser vedrører bl.a. investeringer med et væsentligt fornyende aspekt.
These exceptions include investments with a major innovative element.
I den forbindelse konkluderede Kommissionen i sin beslutning om at indlede proceduren, at den ikke var i besiddelse af tilstrækkelige oplysninger til at kunne afgøre, om den pågældende støtte opfyldte betingelserne for at være omfattet af en af undtagelserne.
In this regard, in the decision to open the investigation procedure, the Commission concluded that there were not enough elements to be able to conclude that the aid in question met the conditions to benefit from one of the exceptions.
I henhold til punkt 3, litra d), i rammebestemmelserne kan visse støtteforanstaltninger betragtes som forenelige med fællesmarkedet, hvis de kan omfattes af en EF-medfinansiering.
Point 3 d) of the guidelines provides for the possibility of declaring certain aid compatible if it is eligible for co-financing.
Kommissionen konkluderede i sin beslutning om at indlede proceduren, at denne mulighed ikke var til stede i den pågældende sag, eftersom Kommissionen i et brev af 25. juni 1999 til Nederlandene havde givet afslag på enhver form for finansiering via SPD.
In the decision to open the procedure, the Commission concluded that this possibility could not be applied in the case in question, given that a letter from the Commission to the Netherlands dated 25 June 1999 refused all financing based on the SPD.
Kommissionen undersøgte ligeledes de nederlandske myndigheders argument om, at støtten var blevet ydet som erstatning for tab som følge af en fejl begået af myndighederne, som i første omgang havde ydet en støtte, der efterfølgende viste sig at være ulovlig og muligvis uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
The Commission also examined the argument of the Dutch authorities, according to which the aid had been granted by way of compensation for damage suffered as a result of an error by the authorities in initially granting aid which had later turned out to be illegal and perhaps incompatible with the common market.
Kommissionen konkluderede, at støttemodtageren imidlertid ikke kunne have nogen berettiget forventning om, at støtten var lovlig, hvis den ikke var blevet ydet under iagttagelse af den fastsatte procedure.
The Commission concluded that the company which received the aid could not however have believed in good faith in the legitimacy of the aid if it had not been awarded in accordance with the procedure laid down.
Den tvivlede derfor på, om argumentet om erstatning var tilstrækkeligt grundlag for at konkludere, at den pågældende foranstaltning ikke udgjorde støtte.
It consequently expressed doubts that the compensation was an adequate justification allowing the conclusion that the measure in question did not constitute aid.
Da de nederlandske myndigheder ikke henviste til noget andet retsgrundlag, konkluderede Kommissionen, at der fortsat var tvivl om foranstaltningens forenelighed med fællesmarkedet, og vurderede, at det ikke kunne udelukkes, at der var tale om driftsstøtte.
As the Dutch authorities did not advance any other legal basis, the Commission concluded that there were doubts as to the compatibility of the measures in question and considered that it could not be excluded that they constituted operating aid.
Bemærkninger fra andre interesserede parter
Comments from third parties
Farm Dairy udtrykte først overraskelse over offentliggørelsen af beslutningen om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure.
First of all, Farm Dairy indicated its surprise at the publication of the decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Farm Dairy var nemlig overbevist om, at sagen for længst var lukket.
Farm Dairy was convinced that the case had long since been closed.
Farm Dairy beklagede sig efterfølgende over ikke at have haft mulighed for at blive inddraget i korrespondancen mellem provinsen Flevoland og Kommissionen, idet virksomheden først var blevet underrettet om Kommissionens foreløbige undersøgelse, da den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure blev indledt.
Farm Dairy then complained that it had not been able to exercise any influence on the correspondence between Flevoland Province and the Commission, not having been informed of the Commission’s investigation until the formal investigation procedure was opened.
Bemærkningerne fra Farm Dairy er inddelt i fire punkter: for det første den generelle baggrund for støtten og støttemodtagerens berettigede forventning, for det andet anvendelsen af støtte fra SPD for Flevoland, for det tredje vurderingen i henhold til Kommissionens beslutning 94/173/EF og for det fjerde anfægtelsen af anvendelsen af renters rente i tilfælde af et negativt udfald med krav om tilbagebetaling.
Farm Dairy’s comments are subdivided into four parts: firstly, the general background of the measure and the recipient’s legitimate faith; secondly, the application of the Flevoland SPD measures; thirdly, the assessment with regard to Decision 94/173/EC; and fourthly, the contesting of the application of compound interest in the event of a negative decision with recovery.
Den generelle baggrund for støtten
General background of the measure
Projektet Farm Dairy syntes i den forbindelse at være særlig lovende, da formålet var at opføre en fabrik med selvstændig forarbejdning af mælk i Lelystad.
In this context, the Farm Dairy project seemed particularly relevant, as it intended to build an independent milk processing plant in Lelystad.
Farm Dairy skaber efterfølgende positive resultater med opførelsen af fabrikken i Lelystad: øget konkurrence på det nederlandske marked for mejeriprodukter, som på daværende tidspunkt var domineret af Friesland Coberco og Campina Melkunie; beliggenhed i nærheden af mælkeleverandørerne; fornyende aspekter (ordrestyret produktion); lancering af tolitersbeholdere på det nederlandske marked; øget beskæftigelse i en mål 1-region; fremme af den økonomiske vækst i regionen.
Farm Dairy reported a posteriori the positive results engendered by the construction of the Lelystad plant: emergence of competition on the Dutch dairy products market, dominated at the time by Friesland Coberco and Campina Melkunie; proximity of the milk producers; innovations (make-to-order system); introduction of 2-litre containers on the Dutch market; increase in employment in an ‘objective 1’ region; stimulation of economic growth in the region.
Farm Dairy havde dengang til hensigt at lancere en serie af nyskabende specialprodukter på det nederlandske marked.
At the time, Farm Dairy intended to develop a line of special and innovative products on the Dutch market.
Farm Dairy anfører, at anmodningen om støtte blev vurderet positivt af provinsen Flevoland og landbrugsministeriet (LNV) på grundlag af en uafhængig udtalelse fra IKC, som konkluderede, at projektet var delvist fornyende.
Farm Dairy indicated that the application for subsidies had been assessed positively by the Province and by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture (LNV) on the basis of an independent opinion from the IKC, which concluded that the project was innovative in part.
Der blev efterfølgende den 24. februar 1999 indgået en aftale mellem provinsen Flevoland og Farm Dairy om bevilling af støtte i henhold til punkt 3.3 i SPD for Flevoland.
An agreement had consequently been signed on 24 February 1999 between Flevoland Province and Farm Dairy, awarding a subsidy under measure 3.3 of the Flevoland SPD.
Farm Dairy understreger, at provinsen Flevoland først i 2001 underrettede virksomheden om, at støtten ikke var blevet godkendt i henhold til statsstøttereglerne.
Farm Dairy emphasises that it was only in 2001 that it was informed by Flevoland Province that the aid was not authorised under State aid rules.
For at undgå en retssag foreslog provinsen Flevoland at betale erstatning.
To avoid legal proceedings, the Province proposed paying compensation.
Farm Dairy anfører, at det af beslutningen om at indlede proceduren fremgår, at støttens uforenelighed med fællesmarkedet var blevet nævnt i en samtale mellem provinsen Flevoland og Kommissionen.
Farm Dairy noted that the decision to open the investigation procedure mentions that the incompatibility of the aid was brought up only in the course of a conversation between the Province and the Commission.
Provinsen Flevoland påpegede imidlertid over for Farm Dairy, at en embedsmand i Kommissionen skulle have antydet, at der ville kunne betales erstatning.
Yet, the Province had indicated to Farm Dairy that a Commission official had suggested that compensation could be paid.
Farm Dairy anførte under henvisning til disse forhold, at virksomheden kunne have en berettiget forventning om, at sagen var lukket.
In view of these elements, Farm Dairy indicates that it could have legitimate faith in the fact that the case was closed.
Med hensyn til støtteintensiteten anførte Farm Dairy, at den endelige støtteintensitet var på […] [6] % af de faktiske investeringsomkostninger i modsætning til de anslåede 8,5 % af investeringsomkostningerne.
As far as the intensity of the aid is concerned, Farm Dairy noted that the final intensity of the aid was […] [6] % of the real investment costs, contrary to the figure of 8,5 % of the estimated investment costs.
Denne procentsats er væsentligt lavere end de tilladte procentsatser (for f.eks. små og mellemstore virksomheder).
This percentage is clearly lower than the authorised percentages (for example, in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises).
Bemærkninger fra Farm Dairy vedrørende vurderingen i henhold til SPD for Flevoland
Farm Dairy’s observations concerning assessment under the Flevoland SPD
Provinsen Flevoland vurderede støtten i henhold til punkt 3.3 i SPD for Flevoland, som vedrører fremme af nye landbrugsaktiviteter, der skaber beskæftigelse og har miljømål.
Flevoland Province assessed the measure under measure 3.3 of the Flevoland SPD, which is intended to stimulate new agricultural activities and has environmental and job creation goals.
Farm Dairy udtrykker overraskelse over, at Kommissionen mener, at støtten skal vurderes i henhold til punkt 3.2 i SPD for Flevoland, som vedrører Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 866/90 af 29. marts 1990 om forbedring af vilkårene for forarbejdning og afsætning af landbrugsprodukter [7].
Farm Dairy expressed its surprise to see the Commission qualify the measure as requiring assessment under point 3.2 of the Flevoland SPD regarding Council Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products [7].
En vurdering i det perspektiv medfører en forpligtelse til at overholde visse kriterier for de investeringer, der er omhandlet i punkt 2.3 i bilaget til beslutning 94/173/EF.
An assessment from this perspective entails an obligation to meet the criteria for investments in point 2.3 of the Annex to Decision 94/173/EC.
Farm Dairy anfører, at betingelserne i punkt 3.3 i SPD for Flevoland efter virksomhedens opfattelse er opfyldt, navnlig eftersom Farm Dairy skabte 61 job i 2000 (i stedet for 35 som oprindeligt forventet) og investerede i alt […] mio. NLG (i stedet for 18,5 mio. NLG som oprindeligt forventet).
Farm Dairy noted that it considered that the conditions set out in point 3.3 of the Flevoland SPD had been met: in particular, in 2000 Farm Dairy had created 61 jobs (instead of the 35 initially planned) and had invested a total of NLG […] million (instead of the 18,5 million initially planned).
Investeringen har desuden haft positive miljøvirkninger, da CO2-udledningen og brændstofforbruget er blevet reduceret som følge af fabrikkens beliggenhed i nærheden af mælkeleverandørerne.
Moreover, the investment was positive in environmental terms: there was a reduction in the rates of CO2 emissions and in the use of fuels because of the proximity of the milk producers.
Det nyskabende koncept med ordrestyret produktion har desuden reduceret behovet for kølekapacitet, som er meget energikrævende.
The innovative concept of the ‘make-to-order’ system reduced the need for refrigerated capacity, which consumes a lot of energy.
Som konklusion på dette punkt anførte Farm Dairy, at Kommissionen burde have godkendt støtten i henhold til punkt 3.3 i stedet for punkt 3.2 i SPD for Flevoland.
Farm Dairy concluded this point by indicating that the Commission should have approved the subsidy under measure 3.3 instead of measure 3.2 of the Flevoland SPD.
Bemærkninger fra Farm Dairy vedrørende vurderingen i henhold til beslutning 94/173/EF
Farm Dairy’s observations concerning an assessment under Decision 94/173/EC
Farm Dairy finder for det første, at støtten er forenelig med kriterierne i punkt 1.1 i beslutning 94/173/EF.
Firstly, Farm Dairy considered that the aid was compatible with the criteria set out in point 1.1 of Decision 94/173/EC.
Som angivet ovenfor har investeringen været gavnlig for miljøet, og den har ført til teknologiske fornyelser.
As indicated above, the investment was beneficial for the environment and featured technological innovations.
Fabrikkens beliggenhed i nærheden af mælkeleverandørerne har desuden gjort det muligt at nedbringe omkostningerne til afhentning af mælk, og idéen med at samle produktionskæden i én virksomhed har muliggjort direkte distribution.
Furthermore, the proximity of milk suppliers allowed the interim costs of collecting the milk to be reduced and the concept of centralising the production chain in one company allowed direct distribution.
Farm Dairy finder desuden, at den pågældende støtte overholder kravene i henhold til kriterierne i punkt 2.3 i bilaget til førnævnte beslutning 94/173/EF.
Secondly, Farm Dairy considered that the aid in question met the requirements made by the criteria mentioned in point 2.3 of the Annex to Decision 94/173/EC mentioned earlier.
Farm Dairy fastholder navnlig, at investeringen har et væsentligt fornyende aspekt, og lægger følgende to årsager til grund. Den interne proces i virksomheden er for det første baseret på ordrestyret produktion.
In particular, Farm Dairy argued that the investment included a major innovative part, for two reasons: firstly, the company’s internal process is based on a ‘make-to-order’ system.