natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
En eksisterende støtte er i henhold til artikel 108, stk. 3, første punktum, i TEUF ikke længere omfattet af overgangsklausulen og er anmeldelsespligtig, hvis støtten blev ændret.
The Court of Justice had held in this respect that no advantage existed where a contribution corresponds to the actual economic cost of the benefits provided in return [11].
En ændring i henhold til artikel 108, stk. 3, første punktum, i TEUF kan efter den faste retspraksis kun accepteres, hvis støtten blev ændret væsentligt.
Such a link between the benefit and the consideration paid for it did exist in the case of (parafiscal) charges if the charges were collected in relation to a specific purpose.
En ændring er kun relevant, hvis den berører støttens »væsentlige karakter«, hvis støtten ydes på et andet retsgrundlag, eller hvis »ordningens rækkevidde« ændres.
As the Commission had itself established [12], such ‘hypothecation’ did exist in this case.
Ændringen vedrører kun § 22, stk. 2, nr. 5, som ikke er relevant her.
Since the benefit (contribution to the levy) exceeded the consideration (lower costs of milk tests) in this case, any advantage relevant from a State aid point of view could be ruled out.
Ændringerne af de enkelte delstaters bestemmelser vedrørte ikke rækkevidden eller karakteren af de pågældende foranstaltninger.
In the alternative, Germany claimed that the sub-measures in question constituted existing aid.
Det er snarere fastsat ved § 22, stk. 2, i lov om mælk og fedtstoffer, til hvilke formål midlerne fra en afgift i henhold til § 22, stk. 1, i lov om mælk og fedtstoffer ville kunne anvendes.
The basis for funding the tests from the revenues generated by the levy was Section 22(2), point 1, of the MFG.
Såfremt de enkelte procedurebestemmelser var blevet ændret, ville den eksisterende støtte derved kun blive ændret i medfør af artikel 108, stk. 3, første punktum, i TEUF, hvis foreneligheden med det indre marked er berørt.
The support granted pursuant to that provision was (at most) existing aid and was therefore subject to grandfathering.
I Bayerns tilfælde regulerer den relevante forordning om en afgift på mælk (Bay MilchUmlV) kun detaljer, f.eks. vedrørende opkrævningen af afgiften, og det samme gælder for Baden-Württemberg.
The support's status as existing aid was undermined neither by any changes nor by any appropriate measures.
De karakteristika, der er væsentlige for støttens forenelighed, — midlernes oprindelse (afgift i henhold til § 22, stk. 1) og formålene med anvendelsen (§ 22, stk. 2) — er imidlertid allerede konkretiseret tilstrækkeligt i lov om mælk og fedtstoffer.
Article 1(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provided that ‘existing aid’ encompasses aid which ‘existed prior to the entry into force of the Treaty in the respective Member States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the Treaty’.
Denne støtte blev ydet på grundlag af lov om mælk og fedtstoffer, som udgør en støtteordning og derfor i kraft af sin natur kun beskriver de enkelte støttetyper abstrakt.
The aid scheme had therefore been introduced well before the relevant qualifying date (1 January 1958).
Desuden skal der ikke gennemgående gøres brug af en støtteordning.
Under the first sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU, existing aid lost its protection under grandfathering and was liable to be notified if the aid was altered.
De i EF-rammebestemmelserne for statsstøtte i landbrugssektoren 2000-2006 [14] (herefter »EF-rammebestemmelserne 2000-2006«) samt i EF-rammebestemmelserne for statsstøtte i landbrugs- og skovbrugssektoren 2007-2013 [15] (herefter »rammebestemmelserne 2007-2013«) indeholdte formålstjenlige foranstaltninger kan ikke anvendes på de her relevante foranstaltninger, således at de fortsat kan falde ind under eksisterende støtte.
According to settled case law and decisional practice, aid could only be deemed to have been altered within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU if it had been significantly amended.
De formålstjenlige foranstaltninger skulle netop vedrøre den pågældende støtte og fastslå, at de ikke er forenelige med det indre marked.
An amendment was only relevant if it affected the essential nature of the aid, if the aid was granted on a different legal basis or if it amended the scope of the scheme.
Rammebestemmelserne 2007-2013 har ikke eller i hvert fald ikke med den nødvendige konkretisering adresseret foreneligheden af støtten til mælkekvalitetskontroller.
The (possibility of applying) the aid scheme had not undergone any significant amendment since 1958.
I denne sammenhæng henviser Tyskland til punkt 108 og 109 i rammebestemmelserne 2007-2013.
In particular, Section 22(2) of the MFG, which serves as a basis for the measures at issue here, had undergone only minimal changes, and point 1 of that provision, which is relevant to this case, had remained completely intact.
Bestemmelsen i punkt 109 i rammebestemmelserne 2007-2013 kan kun forstås således, at den skal tage højde for denne viden om bevarelsen af husdyrs genetiske kvalitet (punkt 108), idet der udelukkende er tale om dette.
Amendments to the provisions of the individual Länder did not affect the scope or nature of the measures in question.
Også artikel 16 i forordning (EF) nr. 1857/2006, som punkt 109 i rammebestemmelserne 2007-2013 henviser til, vedrører »støtte til husdyrsektoren« og ikke mælkekvalitetskontrollerne i den her relevante forstand.
Indeed, the purposes for which revenues from the levy could be used were stipulated by Sections 22(1) of the MFG.
Artikel 16, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning (EF) nr. 1857/2006 vedrører kontroller af mælkekvaliteten, som har relation til dyreavl.
To the extent that individual procedural rules had been amended, this would have altered the existing aid within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU only if its compatibility with the internal market had been affected.
Dette fremgår også af bestemmelsens kontekst: Undtaget er i henhold hertil støtte (på op til 70 %) for at fastslå husdyrs genetiske kvalitet eller udbytte.
In the case of Bavaria, the relevant Regulation on a levy for milk (BayMilchUmlV) only regulated details, e.g. concerning the collection of the levy, and the same also applied to Baden-Württemberg.
Hvis rutinekontrol af mælkekvaliteten er undtaget herfra, kan dette ligeledes kun vedrøre kontroller, der principielt er beregnet til at fastslå husdyrs udbytte.
The aspects relevant to the aid's compatibility with the internal market, i.e. the provenance of the funds (the levy pursuant to Section 22(1)) and the purpose for which they were used (Section 22(2)) were, however, already sufficiently set out in the MFG.
Undtagelsen vedrører kun rutinekontrol af kvaliteten af den mælk, der blev tappet direkte ved malkekoen, da det kun er ved disse kontroller, at det er muligt at fastslå det pågældende dyrs egenskaber.
The levy rates applied in both Länder had also steadily fallen since 1984.
I Bayern blev denne dyrerelaterede kvalitetsundersøgelse gennemført af Landeskuratorium der Erzeugerringe für tierische Veredelung in Bayern e.V.
Falling levy rates could not undermine the aid scheme's compatibility.
Mælkens egenskaber (bl.a. fedt- og proteinindhold) er relevante for salget og markedsføringen af mælken.
Moreover, it was not required that an aid scheme be used on a continuous basis.
Det er ikke muligt at drage slutninger om de enkelte dyr, idet grundlaget for kontrollerne er et helt andet.
The appropriate measures contained in the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the Agricultural Sector 2000-2006 [14] (hereinafter: ‘the 2000-2006 Guidelines’) and in the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the Agricultural and Forestry Sector 2007-2013 [15] (hereinafter: ‘the 2007-2013 Guidelines’) were not applicable to the measures relevant in this case, meaning that they continued to constitute existing aid.
Prøverne blev ikke adskilt alt efter, hvilken ko de stammede fra.
The appropriate measures would have to relate specifically to the aid in question and determine that it was not compatible with the internal market.
De blev først udtaget i mælkeindsamlingsbilen.
The 2007-2013 Guidelines did not address the matter of the compatibility of support for milk quality checks, at least not with the necessary detail.
I mælkeindsamlingsbilen er det ikke muligt at adskille prøverne i forhold til det enkelte dyr, eftersom mælken ved prøveudtagningen er blandet fra en lang række dyr.
In this context, Germany referred to paragraphs 108 and 109 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines.
Rammebestemmelserne 2007-2013 udelukker derfor hverken i punkt 109 eller andetsteds, at støtte til kontrol af mælkekvaliteten er forenelig med det indre marked.
The classification of aid in the 2007-2013 Guidelines and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 [16] distinguished between ‘aid in the livestock sector’ and ‘aid for the production and marketing of agricultural products’.
Det påhviler Kommissionen at bevise, at enkelte foranstaltninger ikke er forenelige med det indre marked.
Paragraph 108 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines was clearly concerned solely with support for livestock holdings since it related to the ‘genetic quality of Community livestock’.
Eventuelle uklarheder i forbindelse med formuleringen af formålstjenlige foranstaltninger kunne ikke tillægges medlemsstaten [17].
Experience had ‘shown that this aid should be maintained only where it really contributes to the maintenance and improvement of the genetic quality of livestock’.
Den accept fra medlemsstaten, der er nødvendig i henhold til artikel 19, stk. 1, i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999, får først virkning, hvis medlemsstaten kan godtgøre, hvilke foranstaltninger den konkret accepterer.
The introduction of innovative animal breeding techniques would be compatible with this, while support for the maintenance of breeding animals would not.
De berørte delstater kunne derfor antage, at de omtvistede foranstaltninger er forenelige med det indre marked.
Paragraph 109 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines could only be understood as meaning that it should take account of this knowledge concerning the maintenance of the genetic quality of livestock (paragraph 108) as this was the only thing it dealt with.
Hvis Kommissionen havde haft til hensigt at fastslå uforeneligheden af de bayerske og baden-württembergiske mælkekvalitetskontroller med EU's indre marked, ville den have kunnet adressere dette i en form (udtrykkeligt), som den har gjort det i andre afgørelser [18].
Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006, to which paragraph 109 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines referred, was concerned with ‘support for the livestock sector’ and not with milk quality checks in the sense that was relevant in this case.
Kommissionen har ikke over for Tyskland omtalt foreneligheden af den bayerske og baden-württembergiske afgiftsfinansiering af mælkekvalitetskontrollerne med det indre marked.
Article 16(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 dealt with milk quality checks linked to the breeding of animals.
En udtrykkelig behandling af denne foranstaltning ville — i betragtning af den i det mindste upræcise formulering af rammebestemmelserne 2007-2013 — have været nødvendig i henhold til de generelle principper om bestemthed og loyalt samarbejde (artikel 4, stk. 3, i TEUF), især da de berørte delstater har antaget, at den under BY 1/BW 1 behandlede foranstaltning ikke indeholdt statsstøtte.
This was apparent from the context of the provision, which stipulated that the exemption extended to aid (up to a rate of 70 %) to determine the genetic quality or yield of livestock.
Rammebestemmelserne for 2007-2013 skal derfor ikke forstås således, at de foranstaltninger, der er baseret på § 22, stk. 2, nr. 1, i lov om mælk og fedtstoffer, er uforenelige med det indre marked.
If routine milk quality checks were excluded from this, then this could also only relate to checks that are generally suited to determining the yield of animals.
Den bayerske og baden-württembergiske afgiftsfinansiering af mælkekvalitetskontrollerne (BY 1 og BW 1) er altså ikke omfattet af de formålstjenlige foranstaltninger.
The exception related solely to routine milk quality checks carried out directly on the dairy cow because only such checks could determine the characteristics of the animal in question.
Subsidiært hævdede Tyskland, at foranstaltningerne, selv hvis de udgjorde støtte, er forenelige med det indre marked.
In Bavaria, this quality testing on animals was carried out by the Landeskuratorium der Erzeugerringe für tierische Veredelung in Bayern e.V.
Det fremgår ikke af artikel 16, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning (EF) nr. 1857/2006, at det er uforeneligt med det indre marked at yde støtte til kontroller af mælkekvaliteten.
(LKV), while in Baden-Württemberg it was carried out by the Landesverband Baden-Württemberg für Leistungsprüfungen in der Tierzucht e.V.
I henhold til artikel 16, stk. 1, litra b), i forordningen er denne ganske vist ikke »automatisk« forenelig med det indre marked og dermed undtaget fra anmeldelsespligten.
By contrast, the milk quality testing carried out by the MPBY and the MPBW that is relevant to this case related to determining the characteristics of the milk itself (and not the genetic characteristics of the cow).
Ikke desto mindre kan Kommissionen i det enkelte tilfælde vurdere, at støtten er forenelig med det indre marked.
The characteristics of the milk in question (e.g. fat and protein content) were relevant to the sale and placing on the market of milk.
Den angivelige støtte til de bayerske/baden-württembergiske mejerier er imidlertid forenelig med det indre marked i henhold til artikel 107, stk. 3, litra c), i TEUF.
They did not allow inferences to be made concerning individual animals because they were carried out differently.
Herfor taler også, at denne form for støtte i henhold til punkt 13.3 i EF-rammebestemmelserne 2000-2006 er forenelig med det indre marked, hvilket Kommissionen har anerkendt i åbningsafgørelsen (punkt 164 f.).
Samples were not separated so as to be able to identify which cow they came from, but were instead taken from milk tankers.
Det drejer sig navnlig om foreskrevne kontroller, som blev gennemført af tredjemand.
This meant that it was no longer possible to separate the milk according to the cow it had come from because milk from a variety of cows had already been mixed together when the sample was taken.
For foreneligheden med det indre marked taler fortsat, at mejerierne selv bærer udgifterne til kvalitetskontrollerne via mælkeafgiften.
Consequently, neither paragraph 109 nor any other provision of the 2007-2013 Guidelines excluded the possibility that aid for milk quality checks was compatible with the internal market.
Herved ville mejeriernes angivelige fordele blive minimeret [19].
The onus was on the Commission to prove that individual measures were incompatible with the internal market.
Konkurrencen mellem mejerierne påvirkes ikke negativt på grund af de forskellige systemer, uafhængigt af om omkostningerne bæres direkte, eller der opkræves en afgift.
Any ambiguity in the formulation of appropriate measures could not be to the detriment of the Member States [17].
Derfor bærer mejerierne i begge tilfælde udgifterne hertil.
The acceptance by the Member State required under Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 could therefore only be effective if the Member State was aware which measures it was specifically accepting.
Det kan ikke fastslås, hvorfor støttens forenelighed med det indre marked, som eksplicit er blevet inkorporeret i EF-rammebestemmelserne 2000-2006, skulle have ændret sig fra og med 2007.
The Länder in question could therefore assume that the disputed measures were compatible with the internal market.
Bemærkninger fra interesserede parter
If the Commission had intended to find the Bavarian and Baden-Württemberg milk quality tests to be incompatible with the common market, it could have (expressly) addressed this in a form consistent with how it had done this in other decisions.
Mellem den 5. og 7. februar 2014 modtog Kommissionen i alt syv bemærkninger fra interesserede parter vedrørende den støtte, der er anvendt til mælkekvalitetskontrollerne.
The Commission had not, however, broached the question of the compatibility with the internal market of funding the milk quality tests in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg by means of a levy.
MPBY anførte i et brev af 5. februar 2014, at der ikke er givet mejerierne nogen fordel via afgiftsfinansieringen i de foregående år.
In view of the wording of the 2007-2013 Guidelines, which is at the very least unclear, it would have been necessary in accordance with the general principles of legal certainty and sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU) to specifically deal with these measures, particularly given that the Länder in question had assumed that sub-measures BY 1 and BW 1 did not involve any aid.
Det er derfor på ingen måde forståeligt, hvordan dette veludviklede og almindeligt anerkendte system ville kunne føre til en konkurrencefordrejning eller have en negativ indflydelse på handelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
The 2007-2013 Guidelines should therefore not be understood as meaning that measures implemented pursuant to Section 22(2)(1) of the MFG were incompatible with the internal market.
I forbindelse med den videre procedure burde den foranstaltning, der nævnes i åbningsafgørelsen under BY 1, derfor anses for at være færdigbehandlet.
Consequently, the funding of milk quality tests in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg by means of a levy (BY 1/BW 1) did not fall under the definition of appropriate measures.
MPBW hævdede i sine bemærkninger af 6. februar 2014, at betalinger vedrørende delforanstaltningen BW 1 ikke opfyldte forudsætningerne for støtte i henhold til artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF.
In the alternative, Germany also argued that the measures were compatible with the internal market even if they did constitute aid.
Navnlig er der ingen belastning af delstatsbudgettet forbundet med systemet med kvalitetskontroller af råmælk i Baden-Württemberg.
It did not result from Article 16(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 that it was incompatible with the internal market to grant aid for controls of milk quality.
Subventionslignende fordele, som er resultatet af en statslig foranstaltning, uden at der har været tilsvarende finansielle tab for det offentlige, faldt derimod ikke ind under anvendelsesområdet for artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF [20].
Under that provision, these were not ‘automatically’ compatible with the internal market and thus exempt from the notification requirement.
I henhold til § 22, stk. 3, i lov om mælk og fedtstoffer skal indtægterne forvaltes særskilt.
However, the Commission could decide in an individual case that the aid was compatible with the internal market.
De må ikke anvendes til dækning af de øverste delstatsmyndigheders og deres underliggende instansers administrationsomkostninger.
The alleged aid for Bavarian/Baden-Württemberg dairies was in any case compatible with the internal market in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
De skal vises som et selvstændigt budgetafsnit i Baden-Württembergs finanslov.
This view was also supported by the fact that this form of aid was compatible with the internal market under point 13.3 of the 2000-2006 Guidelines, as the Commission had itself acknowledged in its initiation Decision (paragraphs 164 et seq.).
I finansloven er der henvist til det faktum, at de er øremærket.
In particular, it relates to prescribed checks that are carried out by third parties.
Midlerne fra mælkeafgiften er derfor aldrig blevet anvendt til andre formål uden for lov om mælk og fedtstoffer.
Compatibility with the internal market is further confirmed by the fact that the dairies themselves met the costs of the quality checks via the milk levy.
Først og fremmest har MPBW i forbindelse med de opgaver, som den har fået tildelt, ganske vist modtaget betalinger via afgiftsmidlerne, men disse gik ikke længere end de midler, der blev finansieret via afgiften.
This minimised any potential advantages that the dairies might enjoy [19].
Der er derfor ikke blevet udbetalt nogen statsmidler — såsom skatter eller andre statslige indtægter — til MPBW, men derimod kun midlerne fra mælkeproduktionsafgiften, der blev betalt af mejerierne.
Competition between dairies was not undermined by the different system, irrespective of whether costs were borne directly or a levy was charged.
I stedet har delstaten Baden-Württemberg kun overtaget organiseringen og fordelingen af mælkeafgiften.
The upshot was that dairies bore the costs in either case.
Systemet med kvalitetskontroller af råmælk i Baden-Württemberg medførte således ikke finansielle tab for det offentlige.
It was not clear how the compatibility with the internal market of aid that had explicitly been included in the 2000-2006 Guidelines should have changed from 2007.
Da delstaten Baden-Württemberg ikke har ydet tilskud til mælkeafgiften, og fordi der ikke foreligger nogen tilsvarende finansiel nettobelastning af delstatsbudgettet, kan Baden-Württemberg ikke have ydet »støtte i form af subventionerede tjenesteydelser«.
Comments from interested parties
Selv hvis mælkeafgiften i Baden-Württemberg i modsætning til kriterierne i Domstolens dom i sagen PreussenElektra kan tilregnes staten, havde mejerierne ingen fordel heraf.
Between 5 and 7 February 2014, the Commission received a total of seven letters from interested parties containing comments concerning the support granted in respect of the milk quality tests.
Betingelsen om, at der skal foreligge en økonomisk fordel som en central betingelse i artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF, fortolkes bredt i henhold til Domstolens faste retspraksis og Kommissionens praksis [21].
In its letter of 5 February, the MPBY argued that dairies had not in recent years been afforded any advantage by dint of levy funding.
Parafiskale afgifter udgjorde hyppigt grundlaget for systemer til tilvejebringelse af ydelser, som var i de afgiftspligtiges specifikke interesse (betingelsen om gruppefordel).
It was therefore completely incomprehensible how this long-standing and generally accepted system could distort competition or negatively affect trade between the Member States.
I disse systemer er de afgiftspligtige derfor umiddelbart identiske med modtagerne af den ydelse, der blev finansieret med parafiskale afgifter.
In the context of the further procedure, therefore, the measures referred to [in the initiation Decision] under the heading BY 1 should, after re-examination, be regarded as settled.
I henhold til retspraksis skal det derfor i forbindelse med parafiskale afgifter undersøges, hvorvidt modydelsen på grund af afgiften svarer til værdien af det ydede bidrag, dvs. om der er ydelsesækvivalens.
The MPBW stated in its comments of 6 February that payments relating to sub-measure BW 1 did not meet the conditions for aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU.
I den forbindelse skal ydelsesækvivalensen ikke kontrolleres individuelt, men derimod i forhold til det samlede system.
In particular, the system of carrying out quality tests on delivered milk in Baden-Württemberg was not associated with any cost to the public exchequer.
Parafiskale finansieringssystemer hænger ganske vist typisk uløseligt sammen med et omfordelingselement, dvs. at ikke alle afgiftspligtige får den samme fordel af den enkelte ydelse i den palette, der er stillet til rådighed.
Advantages similar to subsidies that may be traced back to a state measure without there being any corresponding financial loss to the public purse did not, however, fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU [20].
Et sådant system er imidlertid i balance, og ydelsesækvivalensen påvirkes ikke, så længe denne omfordeling sker solidarisk [22].
Under Section 22(3) of the MFG, the funds raised had to be managed separately.
Størrelsen af afgifterne i Baden-Württemberg bestemmes efter den konkrete mængde råmælk.
They were not allowed to be used to cover the administrative costs of the highest Land authorities and their subordinate departments.