natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det er et halvstatslig organ i kategori B under ministeriet for landbrug og små og mellemstore virksomheder.
It is a category B para-state organisation reporting to the Minister for agriculture, SMEs and the self-employed.
BIRB er et betalingsorgan, som er godkendt i forbindelse med den fælles landbrugspolitik og finansieres af EUGFL [26].
The BIRB is an accredited paying agency in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy, and financed by the EAGGF [26].
Det kan bl.a. tildeles opgaver udsprunget af forbundsregeringens eller regionsregeringernes landbrugspolitik.
It may also be entrusted with tasks arising from the federal or regional governments’ agricultural policy.
Til afbalancering af administrationsbudgettet råder BIRB over en regeringsbevilling, som indgår i den tilsynsførende forbundsmyndigheds budget (Service public fédéral Économie, offentlig forbundstjeneste for økonomi), og en række egne indtægter (indtægter fra nogle få gebyrer og begrænsede investeringsaktiver).
To balance its administrative budget, the BIRB has a government endowment entered in the budget for its supervisory role at federal level (the Federal Public Service Economy) and some revenue of its own (revenue from some fees and limited assets).
På baggrund af ovenstående udgør finansiering gennem BIRD støtte ved hjælp af statsmidler.
In view of the above, financing through the BIRB constitutes financing through State resources.
Fra den 1. juli 2004 til den 30. november 2004:
From 1 July 2004 to 30 November 2004
Fra den 1. juli 2004 til den 30. november 2004 blev testene forfinansieret af AFSCA.
From 1 July 2004 to 30 November 2004, the tests were prepaid by the FASFC (Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain).
Det fremgår følgelig af disse betragtninger, at finansieringer ydet af AFSCA er statsmidler, og at deres anvendelse bestemmes af den offentlige myndighed, da AFSCA er underlagt sundhedsministerens overordnede myndighed.
Consequently, it follows from these considerations that the funds provided by the FASFC constitute State resources and that their allocation is decided by public authority, the FASFC being subject to the hierarchical authority of the Minister responsible for public health.
Fra den 1. december 2004 til den 31. december 2005:
From 1 December 2004 to 31 December 2005
I perioden mellem den 1. december 2004 (hvor den kongelige anordning af 15. oktober 2004 trådte i kraft) og den 31. december 2005 (hvor den kongelige anordning af 10. november 2005 trådte i kraft) blev BSE-testene finansieret af et gebyr på 10,70 EUR pr. testet kreatur med tillæg af en finansiering fra AFSCA's reserver og det forskud, som blev stillet til rådighed af statskassen og skulle betales tilbage.
As far as the period between 1 December 2004 (date on which Royal Decree of 15 October 2004 entered into force) and 31 December 2005 (date on which the Royal Decrees of 10 November 2005 entered into force) is concerned, the BSE tests were financed by a fee of EUR 10,70 per bovine tested in addition to financing by the FASFC from its reserves and from the repayable advance made available to it by the national exchequer.
Den delvise finansiering fra AFSCA's egne midler er anvendelse af statsmidler (se betragtning 82).
The partial financing from the FASFC provided from its own funds constitutes a State resource (see recital 82).
Hvad angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt gebyrerne er statsmidler, kan det være tilfældet, hvis det viser sig, at gebyrerne ikke dækker alle de faktiske udgifter til de ydelser, som de skal godtgøre.
With regard to the question of whether the fees constitute State resources, they may be State resources if they do not cover the real full costs of the services they are intended to pay for.
For hvis udgiften til den ydede tjeneste ikke svarer til gebyret, er det overskydende beløb statsmidler, som det statslige organ, gebyret betales til, kan råde over.
Indeed, if the fee and the cost of the service provided are not the same, the surplus constitutes a State resource at the disposal of the State body to whom the fee is paid.
Derfor er det nødvendigt at godtgøre, om gebyrerne til AFSCA for BSE-test udgør betaling for tjenester, som AFSCA rent faktisk har ydet virksomhederne, og om de var baseret på markedspriserne (se betragtning 54 i beslutningen om indledning af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure).
This is why it is important to verify whether the fees paid to the FASFC for the BSE tests represent payments for the FASFC’s services effectively provided to the enterprises and whether or not they were based on market prices (see recital 54 of the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure).
Dette spørgsmål behandles senere ved gennemgangen af begrebet fordel.
This question is dealt with below, during the examination of the concept of advantage.
Fra den 1. januar 2006
From 1 January 2006 on
Vedrørende perioden efter de kongelige anordninger af 10. november 2005 trådte i kraft, dvs. begyndende den 1. januar 2006, skal det undersøges, om de ved disse anordninger fastsatte gebyrer og afgifter udgør statsmidler.
As far as the period following the entry into force of the Royal Decrees of 10 November 2005, i.e. the period starting on 1 January 2006, is concerned, it is necessary to examine whether the fees and the contributions set by these Decrees constitute State resources.
Dette spørgsmål er allerede gennemgået i forbindelse med beslutning N 9/05 og N 10/05.
This question was already examined in the context of Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05.
I betragtning 44 anførtes, at afgifterne generelt udgjorde statsmidler, og at gebyrerne kunne være statsmidler, hvis det viste sig, at disse gebyrer ikke dækkede alle de faktiske udgifter til de ydelser, de skulle godtgøre.
In recital 44 there was a general indication that the contributions constituted State resources and that the fees could constitute State resources if those fees did not cover the real full costs of the services they were intended to pay for.
BSE-testene blev finansieret dels af gebyrer, dels af afgifter.
The BSE tests were part-financed by the fees and part-financed by the contributions.
I beslutning N 9/05 og N 10/05 blev det fastslået, at finansieringen af en del af udgifterne til BSE-test gennem gebyrerne ikke var statsstøtte, og at finansieringen gennem afgifterne var forenelig statsstøtte.
Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 concluded that the part-financing of the costs of the BSE tests by the fees did not constitute State aid and that the financing by the contributions was a compatible form of State aid.
Som anført i beslutningen om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, betragtning 34, vedrører nærværende beslutning ikke støtte, som allerede er godkendt ved Kommissionens beslutning, og dette emne vil derfor ikke blive behandlet igen her.
As indicated in recital 34 of the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure, the aid approved by Commission Decision is not the subject of this decision and will not be re-examined here.
En del af afgifterne tjente således til at finansiere BSE-test udført mellem den 1. januar 2003 og den 1. december 2004 med det formål at inddrive de forfinansierede udgifter til obligatoriske BSE-test ud over maksimumsbeløbet på 40 EUR hos landmændene på en kollektiv basis.
Consequently, a part of the contributions was used to finance the BSE tests conducted during the period between 1 January 2003 and 1 December 2004, the aim being to recover from the farmers in a non-individual fashion the pre-financed costs of the compulsory BSE tests that exceeded the maximum amount of EUR 40.
Anvendelsen af en del af indtægterne fra disse afgifter til at tilbagebetale forfinansieringen af testene ændrer på ingen måde deres betegnelse som statsmidler som angivet i beslutning N 9/05 og N 10/05.
Allocating part of the receipts of these contributions to the reimbursement of the pre-financing of the tests does not in any way change the classification as State resources as per Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05.
Selektiv fordel for virksomheder
Selective advantage for an enterprise
I undersøgelsen af om der er tale om en fordel, må der skelnes mellem foranstaltninger finansieret af statsmidler, herunder afgifter, og foranstaltninger finansieret af gebyrer.
In examining the existence of an advantage, it is necessary to distinguish, on the one hand, the measures financed by State resources, including contributions, and the measures financed by fees.
Med hensyn til foranstaltninger finansieret af statsmidler, herunder afgifter, har Kommissionen altid været af den formening [30], at hvis staten finansierer udgifterne til de obligatoriske kontroller vedrørende produktion eller markedsføring af varer, må det betragtes som en selektiv fordel for virksomhederne [31].
With regard to the measures financed through State resources, including the contributions, the Commission has constantly held the opinion [30] that if the State finances the costs of the obligatory controls that concern the production or the marketing of products, this has to be considered as a selective advantage for the enterprises [31].
For staten har lettet de byrder, som normalt indgår i virksomhedernes budget.
Indeed, the State reduced the charges that are normally included in the budget of an enterprise.
Det kan deraf udledes, at landmænd, slagterier og andre virksomheder, som forarbejder, håndterer, sælger eller markedsfører produkter fra kvæg underkastet obligatorisk BSE-test i henhold til gældende lovgivning i den omhandlede periode udøver en økonomisk aktivitet og har modtaget statsstøtte gennem statens finansiering af BSE-test siden den 1. januar 2001.
It can be deduced from the above that the farmers, the slaughterhouses and other entities which process, handle, sell or market products from bovine animals for whom BSE tests are obligatory by virtue of the legislation in force during the period in question, are conducting an economic activity and have benefited from State aid for the financing of the BSE tests by the State, and this since 1 January 2001.
De af Belgien fremførte argumenter (jf. betragtning 37 ff.) om, at finansieringen af BSE-testene er påkrævet af hensyn til folkesundheden, og at det er op til medlemsstaterne at fastsætte deres normalordning for finansiering af BSE-test, kan ikke godkendes af de i betragtning 74 nævnte grunde.
The arguments put forward by Belgium (see recitals 37 et seq.) according to which the financing of the BSE tests was compulsory with a view to protecting public health and that it is up to the Member State to decide on the normal system of financing BSE tests may not be accepted for the reasons set out in recital 74.
Specifikt i forbindelse med vurderingen af selektiviteten har Belgien fremført, at der kun kan være tale om selektivitet, såfremt visse sektorer eller virksomheder får særbehandling i forhold til normalordningen.
In the more specific context of the selectivity assessment, Belgium argued that one could not speak of selectivity except where certain sectors or enterprises would benefit from preferential treatment in comparison with the normal system.
Hvis der findes forskelle medlemsstaterne imellem vedrørende finansieringen af BSE-test, og det kan føre til konkurrenceforvridninger, er det efter Belgiens opfattelse ikke et spørgsmål om statsstøtte, men om harmonisering af lovgivningerne.
The fact of there being differences between the various Member States as regards the financing of the BSE tests and that this could lead to distortions of competition is not, in Belgium’s view, a question of State aid but of harmonisation of legislations.
Dette argument kan dog ikke godtages.
However, this argument cannot be accepted.
Som anført i beslutning N 9/05 og N 10/05 er selektivitetskriteriet opfyldt, når fordelen er forbeholdt nogle få virksomheder eller en aktivitetssektor.
As indicated in Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, the selectivity criterion is met when the advantage is reserved for some enterprises or one sector.
I den foreliggende sag kommer statsfinansieringen af BSE-test på nationalt plan kun en bestemt sektor til gode, nemlig sektoren for opdræt af dyr, som skal BSE-testes.
In this case, at national level, the financing of the BSE tests by the State only benefited one given sector, namely the sector involved in breeding animals subject to BSE tests.
På fællesskabsplan giver finansieringen af BSE-test gennem statsstøtte eller statsmidler de belgiske virksomheder en fordel i forhold til deres udenlandske konkurrenter, som ikke får dækket finansieringen af de obligatoriske BSE-test af staten eller gennem statsmidler.
At Community level, the fact that the BSE tests were financed by the State or through State resources favoured Belgian enterprises and gave those enterprises an advantage over their foreign competitors for whom the mandatory BSE tests were not financed by the State or through State resources.
I indledningen til TSE-rammebestemmelserne (punkt 8 og 9) anføres klart, at den løbende harmonisering, som kræver omkostningerne afholdt af sektoren, er langsom, og at Kommissionen derfor har besluttet af præcisere og på visse punkter ændre sin politik for statsstøtte, for så vidt angår omkostninger ved BSE-test.
In the preamble to the TSE guidelines (points 8 and 9), it was clearly indicated that the ongoing harmonisation obliging the sector to support the costs was slow, and that the Commission had thus decided to clarify and modify its policy on State aids with regard to the costs generated by the BSE tests.
I punkt 24 i TSE-rammebestemmelserne står, at forpligtelsen til testning kan være baseret på fællesskabslovgivning eller national lovgivning.
Point 24 of the TSE guidelines, for its part, indicates that the examination requirement could be based on Community or national legislation.
Det viser klart, at der ikke er nogen fællesskabsharmonisering af forpligtelsen til testning, hvilket betyder, at der derfor også kan forekomme selektiv støtte, som begunstiger virksomhederne i en bestemt medlemsstat.
This point clearly indicates that there is no Community harmonisation with regard to the obligation to perform the tests, which implies that this could also lead to an aid selectively benefiting the enterprises of a given Member State.
Følgelig giver foranstaltninger finansieret ved hjælp af statsmidler — herunder afgifter — landmænd, slagterier og andre virksomheder, som forarbejder, håndterer, sælger eller markedsfører produkter fra kvæg underkastet obligatorisk BSE-test i henhold til gældende lovgivning, en selektiv fordel, da de letter omkostningerne for modtagerne af disse ydelser.
In conclusion, the measures financed through State resources, including the contributions, give a selective advantage to farmers, slaughterhouses and other entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing under the applicable legislation, by reducing the costs they must pay.
Disse fordele opnås ikke gennem direkte betalinger, men ved overtagelse af udgifterne til BSE-test af de offentlige myndigheder, som betaler testudgiften direkte til de laboratorier, der udfører dem efter anmodning fra slagterierne og fakturerer AFSCA udgifterne.
These advantages are not conferred by direct payments, but by the public authorities covering the costs of the BSE tests by directly paying the laboratories which perform the tests on request from the slaughterhouses and invoice the costs to the FASFC.
Med hensyn til støtteforanstaltninger finansieret af gebyrer bør det undersøges, om der opnås en fordel gennem disse gebyrer.
As far as the aid measures financed by the fees are concerned, whether an advantage is conferred through these fees must be verified.
Som anført i beslutningen om indledning af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, betragtning 61 og 62, er der kun tale om en fordel, hvis disse gebyrer er lavere end de reelle omkostninger ved de tjenester, AFSCA rent faktisk yder de økonomiske operatører.
As indicated in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure (in recitals 61 and 62), there would be no question of an advantage if those fees were less than the real costs to the economic operators of the services effectively provided by the FASFC.
Det bør ligeledes efterprøves, om gebyrerne udgør betaling for de tjenester, AFSCA rent faktisk yder virksomhederne.
Whether the charges represent payments for the FASFC services effectively provided to the enterprises must be verified.
Helt konkret er spørgsmålet, om der er indrømmet slagterierne og producenterne, som betalte et gebyr på 10,70 EUR pr. testet kreatur i perioden fra den 1. december 2004 til den 31. december 2005, en fordel, og om de rent faktisk har haft fordel de af AFSCA leverede ydelser.
More specifically, the question arises of whether an advantage was conferred on the slaughterhouses and producers who paid the fee of EUR 10,70 per bovine tested during the period between 1 December 2004 and 31 December 2005, and whether they effectively benefited from the services provided by the FASFC.
De belgiske myndigheder anførte i deres svar på beslutningen om indledning af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, at gebyret på 10,70 EUR pr. testet kreatur var AFSCA's eneste finansieringskilde til afholdelse af udgifterne til BSE-test, bortset fra AFSCA's reserver og de forskud fra statskassen, som skulle betales tilbage.
The Belgian authorities indicated in the response to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure that the fee of EUR 10,70 per bovine tested was the only source of financing for the FASFC to support the costs of the BSE tests, with the exception of the FASFC reserves and the recoverable advances from the national exchequer.
Gebyret betales af slagterierne.
The fee was paid by the slaughterhouses.
De belgiske myndigheder har nævnt, at slagterierne ikke var pålagt nogen lovmæssig forpligtelse til at fakturere deres kunder gebyret, men at det er slagteriernes praksis at fakturere producenterne gebyrudgiften separat.
The Belgian authorities mentioned that there was no legal obligation for the slaughterhouses to invoice the amount of the fee to their clients, but that the slaughterhouses’ practice was to separately invoice the cost of the fee to the producers.
Det har Belgien bevist ved at fremlægge eksempler på fakturaer, hvoraf det klart fremgår, at slagterierne fakturerer producenterne gebyrbeløbet separat.
This was proved by Belgium by means of the invoices provided by way of example, where it is clearly visible that the slaughterhouses separately invoice the cost of the fee to the producers.
Belgien finder, at der ikke er grund til at fastsætte formelle regler for, hvordan slagterierne overfører det af dem betalte gebyr til producenterne eller andre potentielle modtagere af deres ydelser, eftersom denne udgift faktureres producenterne på lige fod med andre omkostninger i forbindelse med slagtningen, som faktureres producenterne.
Belgium considers that there is no need to formally regulate the way in which the slaughterhouses repay the fee to the producers or other potential beneficiaries of the services, given that this cost is invoiced to producers in a similar way to the other costs incurred during slaughtering and invoiced to producers.
Det kan derfor udledes af ovenstående, at det rejste tvivlsspørgsmål ved indledningen af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure i betragtning 44, som gik ud på, at gebyret for slagterierne var langt højere end for andre modtagere af ydelsen, er afklaret i de af Belgien fremsendte oplysninger vedrørende fakturering af producenterne for dette gebyr.
Consequently, from the above we can deduce that the doubt expressed during the opening of the formal investigation procedure, in recital 44, which indicates that the charge for the slaughterhouses was a lot higher than for other beneficiaries of the service, had arisen from the information Belgium submitted on how the amount of this fee was invoiced to the producers.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt prisen for BSE-testene svarer til markedsprisen, har Belgien for det første meddelt Kommissionen, at de af AFSCA tilbudte priser siden juli 2005 har ligget under 40 EUR, mens det i rammebestemmelserne for landbrug 2007-2013 anføres, at 40 EUR var den laveste pris i Fællesskabet på daværende tidspunkt.
As for whether the price for the BSE tests was the market price, Belgium firstly indicated to the Commission that since July 2005 the prices proposed by the FASFC were less than EUR 40, while the agricultural guidelines for 2007-13 cite EUR 40 as the lowest price available in the Community at that time.
Det viser, at priserne er på linje med priserne andre steder i Europa i den pågældende periode.
This is an indication that the prices were in line with prices elsewhere in Europe during the period in question.
For det andet har Belgien i svaret på beslutningen om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure anført, at situationen var den samme som i beslutning N 9/05 og N 10/05, hvor det blev fastslået, at tjenesteyderne var udpeget efter åbne og ikkediskriminerende procedurer (se betragtning 82 i beslutning N 9/05 og N 10/05).
Secondly, Belgium responded to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure by saying that the situation was identical to the one examined in Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, which concluded that the service providers were designated in accordance with open and non-discriminatory procedures (see recital 82 of Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05).
For det tredje tager Kommissionen til efterretning, at Belgien har forpligtet sig til at træffe de fornødne juridiske foranstaltninger til at tilbagesøge det, der er betalt for meget for testene, hvis de belgiske konkurrencemyndigheders undersøgelser påviser en ulovlig kartelaftale mellem laboratorierne, som har bevirket en forhøjelse af testpriserne.
Thirdly, the Commission noted the commitment made by Belgium to take all possible legal measures to recover payments made in excess of the price of the tests, in the event of the Belgium competition authority’s enquiries concluding that there was an illegal agreement between the laboratories, the effect of which was to increase the price of the tests.
På grundlag af disse betragtninger konkluderer Kommissionen, at gebyrerne ikke kan betragtes som statsmidler, for så vidt disse gebyrer for BSE-test til AFSCA udgør betaling for tjenester, som AFSCA rent faktisk har ydet virksomhederne, og som var baseret på markedspriserne.
On the basis of these considerations, the Commission concludes that the fees may not be considered as State resources, in that these fees paid to the FASFC for the BSE tests represent payments for the FASFC services effectively provided to the enterprises and were based on market prices.
Det kan konkluderes, at i overensstemmelse med beslutning N 9/05 og N 10/05 har gebyret ikke givet slagterierne eller producenterne en fordel, fordi det dækker betaling for en tjeneste, som er ydet den, der betaler gebyret, og fordi testprisen er baseret på markedsprisen.
It can be concluded, in accordance with Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, that this fee did not give any advantage to the slaughterhouses or the producers, because the fee covers a payment for a service from which the person who paid the fee benefited, and that the test price was based on the market price.
Med denne konklusion kan det også fastslås, at der ikke er anvendt statsmidler til finansieringen, eftersom testprisen svarer til markedsprisen.
This conclusion also permits the conclusion that there was no financing through State resources, given that the test price was in line with the market price.
Konkurrenceforvridning og påvirkning af samhandelen i EU
Distortion of competition and effect on trade within the EU
Med hensyn til de øvrige betingelser for gennemførelse af TEUF's artikel 107, stk. 1, kan foranstaltningen påvirke Belgiens stilling i sektoren [32].
As far as the other conditions governing the application of Article 107(1) of the TFEU are concerned, the measure may have an effect on Belgium’s position in this sector [32].