natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finland requests authorisation to grant aid per hectare for certain areas under Gramineae (grass) and Leguminosae (legumes) seeds species as listed in Annex XI to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and modifying Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 [2], with the exception of Phleum pratense L. (Timothy), and for certain areas under cereal seed.
Soome taotleb luba anda hektaritoetust teatavatele aladele, kus kasvatatakse nõukogu 29. septembri 2003. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 1782/2003 (millega kehtestatakse ühise põllumajanduspoliitika raames kohaldatavate otsetoetuskavade ühiseeskirjad ja teatavad toetuskavad põllumajandustootjate jaoks ning muudetakse määruseid (EMÜ) nr 2019/93, (EÜ) nr 1452/2001, (EÜ) nr 1453/2001, (EÜ) nr 1454/2001, (EÜ) nr 1868/94, (EÜ) nr 1251/1999, (EÜ) nr 1254/1999, (EÜ) nr 1673/2000, (EMÜ) nr 2358/71 ja (EÜ) nr 2529/2001) [2] XI lisas loetletud Gramineae (kõrrelised) ja Leguminosae (liblikõielised) liikide seemneid, v.a Phleum pratense L. (timut), ja teatavatele aladele, kus kasvatatakse teraviljaseemet.
The proposed aid has to meet the requirements laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1947/2005.
Kavandatav toetus peab vastama määruse (EÜ) nr 1947/2005 artiklis 8 sätestatud tingimustele.
The Commission authorisation should be limited to the varieties included in the list of Finnish varieties which are produced solely in Finland.
Komisjoni luba peaks piirduma ainult sortidega, mis on loetletud Soome sordilehel nende sortide hulgas, mida toodetakse ainult Soomes.
Provision should be made for the Commission to be informed of the measures taken by Finland to comply with the limits laid down in this Decision,
Tuleks ette näha, et komisjoni tuleb teavitada meetmetest, mida Soome on võtnud käesolevas otsuses kehtestatud piirmäärade järgimiseks,
Finland is authorised, from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2008, to grant aid to growers established on its territory producing certified seeds and certified cereal seed referred to in the Annex to this Decision, within the limits of the amounts laid down in that Annex.
Soomel lubatakse anda 1. jaanuarist 2007 kuni 31. detsembrini 2008 abi tema territooriumil asuvatele registreeritud seemnekasvatajatele, kes kasvatavad käesoleva otsuse lisas osutatud sertifitseeritud seemet ja teraviljaseemet kõnealuse lisaga ette nähtud kogustes.
Finland shall ensure, by an appropriate inspection system that the aid is granted only in respect of the varieties referred to in the Annex.
Soome tagab asjakohase kontrollisüsteemi kaudu, et abi antakse ainult käesoleva otsuse lisas osutatud sortide puhul.
Finland shall send to the Commission a list of the certified varieties concerned and any amendment thereto and inform it of the areas and quantities of seeds and cereal seed for which the aid is granted.
Soome saadab komisjonile asjaomaste sertifitseeritud sortide nimekirja ja kõik selle muudatused ning esitab komisjonile piirkonnad ning seemne ja teraviljaseemne kogused, millega seoses abi antakse.
Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 (OJ L 148, 6.6.2008, p. 1).
Määrust on viimati muudetud määrusega (EÜ) nr 479/2008 (ELT L 148, 6.6.2008, lk 1).
Eligible Area under certified seed of wheat, oats, barley and rye.
Abikõlblik maa-ala, kus kasvatatakse sertifitseeritud nisu, kaera, otra ja rukist
Maximum budget EUR 2190000
Maksimaalne eelarve 2190000 eurot
on State aid C 12/07 (ex N 799/06) planned by the Slovak Republic for Glunz&Jensen s.r.o.
riigiabi C 12/07 (ex N 799/06) kohta, mida Slovaki Vabariik kavatseb anda ettevõtjale Glunz&Jensen s.r.o.
(notified under document number C(2007) 6045)
(teatavaks tehtud numbri K(2007) 6045 all)
By electronic notification dated 29 November 2006, registered as received by the Commission on 30 November 2006 under reference number A/39718, the Slovak authorities, in accordance with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, notified the Commission of their intention to grant regional ad hoc investment aid in favour of the company Glunz&Jensen s.r.o.
novembril 2006 teavitasid Slovakkia ametiasutused komisjoni elektroonilise sõnumiga, mis registreeriti 30. novembril 2006 numbri A/39718 all, kooskõlas EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 88 lõikega 3 oma kavatsusest anda regionaalset sihtotstarbelist investeerimisabi äriühingule Glunz&Jensen s.r.o.
A request for information was sent on 26 January 2007 (D/50360).
Komisjon saatis 26. jaanuaril 2007 teabenõude (C/50360).
The Slovak authorities replied by letter dated 20 February 2007 (A/31585).
Slovakkia ametiasutused vastasid sellele 20. veebruari 2007. aasta kirjaga (A/31585).
By letter dated 24 April 2007 (hereinafter ‘the opening decision’) the Commission informed Slovakia that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the measure.
aprilli 2007. aasta kirjas (edaspidi „algatusotsus”) teavitas komisjon Slovakkiat, et ta on otsustanud algatada kõnealuse meetme suhtes EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 88 lõike 2 kohase menetluse.
The Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties or from the Slovak Republic.
Komisjon ei ole saanud Slovaki Vabariigilt ega asjast huvitatud isikutelt ühtegi märkust.
The aim of the aid measure is to promote regional development in the Prešov region (eastern Slovakia), which was an assisted area under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty in accordance with the Slovak regional aid map [3] applicable at the date of the notification, with a regional aid ceiling of 50 % net grant equivalent (NGE).
Abimeetme eesmärk on edendada regionaalarengut Prešovi piirkonnas (Ida-Slovakkia), mis oli teavitamise ajal kehtinud Slovakkia regionaalabi kava [3] kohaselt vastavalt EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 3 punktile a toetatav piirkond regionaalabi ülemmääraga 50 % toetuse netoekvivalendist.
The proposed project constitutes an ad hoc aid measure notified by the Slovak authorities.
Kavandatav projekt, millest Slovakkia ametiasutused komisjoni teavitasid, on sihtotstarbeline abimeede.
The aid in question is not being granted under an existing scheme (i.e. its legal basis is not listed in the Accession Treaty as an existing aid scheme, nor was it the subject of the so-called interim mechanism, nor has the Commission approved an aid scheme based on these legal provisions since Slovakia’s accession to the EU).
Kõnealust abi ei anta olemasoleva abikava raames (s.t selle õiguslikku alust ei ole ühinemislepingus olemasoleva abikavana loetletud, samuti ei kohaldatud selle suhtes nn vahemehhanismi, ega ole komisjon abikava nimetatud õiguslikel tingimustel heaks kiitnud pärast Slovakkia ühinemist ELiga).
The form and nature of the aid
Abi vorm ja laad
The notified aid is to be provided in the form of a tax exemption, applied on an annual basis between 2007-2010, of up to 100 % of the corporate tax liability of the aid recipient, Glunz&Jensen s.r.o.
Teatatud abi on kavas anda ettevõtjale Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. igaaastase maksuvabastusena perioodil 2007–2010 kuni 100 % ulatuses ettevõtja maksukohustusest.
The total amount of the tax exemption is limited to SKK 42 million at present value [4] (approx. EUR 1,15 million).
Maksuvabastuse maksimaalne kogusumma on praeguses väärtuses [4] 42 miljonit Slovakkia krooni (umbes 1,15 miljonit eurot).
The aid cannot be cumulated with aid received from other sources for the same investment project.
Abi ei tohi kumuleerida samale investeerimisprojektile muudest allikatest laekunud abiga.
Legal basis of the ad hoc aid
Sihtotstarbelise abi õiguslik alus
The legal basis of the ad hoc aid is State Aid Act No 231/1999, as amended; Income Tax Act No 595/2003, as amended; and Income Tax Act No 366/1999, as amended at 31 December 2003, in particular Section 52(3) of Income Tax Act No 595/2003, as amended, under the conditions laid down in Section 35a of Income Tax Act No 366/1999, as at 31 December 2003 [5].
Sihtotstarbelise abi õiguslik alus on riigiabi seadus nr 231/1999 (muudetud), tulumaksuseadus nr 595/2003 (muudetud), tulumaksuseadus nr 366/1999 (muudetud 31. detsembril 2003), eriti tulumaksuseaduse nr 595/2003 artikli 52 lõige 3 (muudetud 31. detsembril 2003 tulumaksuseaduse nr 366/1999 artikli 35a alusel). [5]
The beneficiary of the aid, Glunz&Jensen s.r.o., is a large enterprise, i.e. not an SME within the meaning of Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises [6].
Abisaaja Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. on suurettevõte, st mitte VKE komisjoni määruse (EÜ) nr 70/2001 (mis käsitleb EÜ asutamislepingu artiklite 87 ja 88 kohaldamist väikestele ja keskmise suurusega ettevõtetele antava riigiabi suhtes) [6] tähenduses.
Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. is the Slovak subsidiary of Glunz&Jensen A/S (hereinafter ‘Glunz&Jensen’) which has its headquarters in Ringsted (Denmark), with other subsidiaries at the time of notification in Virginia (USA) and in Thetford (UK).
Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. on ettevõtja Glunz&Jensen A/S (edaspidi „Glunz&Jensen”) tütarettevõte Slovakkias. Glunz&Jenseni peakorter asub Ringstedis (Taani), tema tütarettevõtted asusid teavitamise ajal Virginias (Ameerika Ühendriigid) ja Thetfordis (Ühendkuningriik).
Glunz&Jensen is the world’s leading manufacturer and distributor of graphic arts pre-press processing equipment for offset printing plates and plateline equipment, with a market share of approximately […] % [7] in Europe.
Glunz&Jensen on maailma juhtiv ofset-trükiplaatide jaoks mõeldud graafika trükieelse töötlemise seadmete ning trükiplaatide töötlemisseadmete tootja ja müüja, kelle Euroopa turuosa on umbes […] %. [7]
Investment project
Investeerimisprojekt
In 2004, Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. started work on an initial investment in Slovakia involving an investment volume of SKK 213 million (approx. EUR 5,8 million).
aastal alustas Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. esmast investeerimist Slovakkias mahuga 213 miljonit Slovakkia krooni (umbes 5,8 miljonit eurot).
The investment project is being implemented over the period 2004-2009, according to the Slovak authorities, in two phases: 2004-2006 and 2007-2009.
Vastavalt Slovakkia ametiasutusele rakendatakse investeerimisprojekti aastatel 2004–2009 kahes etapis: 2004–2006 ja 2007–2009.
The project aims to relocate the production activities that existed in 2004 in the UK and Denmark to Prešov.
Projekti eesmärk on paigutada enne 2004. aastat Ühendkuningriigis ja Taanis asunud tootmine ümber Prešovisse.
As a result of the relocation project, the Thetford plant was closed down at the end of 2006.
Ümberpaigutusprojekti tulemusena suleti 2006. aasta lõpul Thetfordi tehas.
The Prešov plant is to be developed into the firm’s main production centre.
Prešovi tehasest arendatakse ettevõtja peamine tootmiskeskus.
In fact, as indicated by the Slovak authorities, all machinery to be installed in the Slovak plant is being transferred directly from Denmark and the UK.
Slovakkia ametiasutuste teatel tuuakse kogu Slovakkia tehasesse paigaldatav sisseseade üle Taanist ja Ühendkuningriigist.
The eligible costs of the project therefore include only the buildings and some minor additional equipment.
Seetõttu kuuluvad projekti abikõlblike kulude hulka vaid hooned ja mõningane väiksem osa sisseseadest.
The first step of the 2004-2006 investment phase consisted in the purchase of a production hall and a greenfield site for future expansion.
2004.–2006. aasta investeeringuetapi esimene samm sisaldas tootmishalli ja tulevikus laiendamiseks mõeldud roheala ostmist.
The subsequent second step involved renovating the facilities and purchasing equipment (not directly linked to production).
Teine samm hõlmas hoonete remonti ja sisseseade (mis ei ole otseselt tootmisega seotud) ostmist.
The total amount for the first phase of the investment was SKK 128 million (approx. EUR 3,5 million).
Esimese etapi investeeringute kogusumma oli 128 miljonit Slovakkia krooni (umbes 3,5 miljonit eurot).
As stated in declarations annexed to the notification, Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. did not receive any State aid for this part of the project, nor is any application pending.
Nagu kinnitatakse teatisele lisatud deklaratsioonides, ei saanud Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. projekti kõnealusel etapil riigiabi, samuti ei ole menetluses ühtegi abitaotlust.
The second phase of the investment, to be carried out over the period 2007-2009, is the project notified by the Slovak authorities on 29 November 2006.
Teine investeerimisetapp, mis peab toimuma aastatel 2007–2009, on projekt, millest Slovakkia ametiasutused teatasid 29. novembril 2006.
This part covers continuation of the initial project with the construction of further buildings and the purchase of further equipment (IT, trucks and office equipment) for a total of SKK 84 million at present value (approx. EUR 2,3 million).
See osa hõlmab algse projekti jätkamist täiendavate hoonete ehitamisega ja täiendava sisseseade (IT, veoautod ja büroosisseseade) ostmisega kokku 84 miljoni Slovakkia krooni (umbes 2,3 miljonit eurot) eest praeguses väärtuses.
The production unit in Slovakia opened in April 2005.
Tootmisüksus Slovakkias avati 2005. aasta aprillis. Sellest ajast on tehas märgatavalt suurenenud ja tootlikkus arvestatavalt kasvanud.
The Commission, in its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in the present case, noted that it had doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the common market based on Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty and on the Guidelines on National Regional Aid [9] (hereinafter referred to as ‘RAG 1998’) for the following reasons:
Komisjon märkis oma otsuses algatada kõnealuses juhtumis ametlik uurimismenetlus, et tal on kahtlus, kas abi on kokkusobiv ühisturuga vastavalt EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõikele 3 ja regionaalabi suunistele [9] (edaspidi „RAG 1998”) järgmistel põhjustel:
First, it appeared that the two phases of the investment belong to the same investment project since they constitute part of an overall plan to accommodate the production lines to be relocated gradually from Denmark and the UK.
Esiteks selgus, et kõnealused kaks investeerimisetappi kuuluvad samasse investeerimisprojekti, sest nad moodustavad osa üldisest kavast, mille raames viiakse Taanis ja Ühendkuningriigis asuvad tootmisliinid järkjärguliselt üle.
In the submitted notification the Slovak authorities themselves also referred to the two phases as one single investment project.
Esitatud teatises viitasid ka Slovakkia ametiasutused ise ühe investeerimisprojekti kahele etapile.
‘The investment project submitted by the company Glunz&Jensen is being implemented over the period 2004-2009 in two phases: 2004-2006, 2007-2009’.
„Ettevõtja Glunz&Jenseni esitatud investeerimisprojekti rakendatakse aastatel 2004–2009 kahes etapis: 2004–2006 ja 2007–2009”.
Furthermore, on page 6 of the ‘Application for the provision of State aid in the form of tax relief’ submitted by the beneficiary to the Slovak authorities, which was annexed to the notification, Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. indicated that the investment period runs from 2004 till 2008 [10], and the total investment costs amount to ‘more than SKK 200 million’, which is the amount corresponding to the total investment made by Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. in Slovakia.
Lisaks on Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. märkinud oma Slovakkia ametiasutustele esitatud maksuvabastuse vormis riigiabi taotluse 6. leheküljel, mis oli lisatud ka komisjonile saadetud teatisele, et investeerimisperiood kestab aastast 2004 kuni aastani 2008 [10] ning täiendavad investeeringukulud moodustavad üle 200 miljoni Slovakkia krooni, mis on Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. Slovakkias tehtavate investeeringute kogusumma.
In light of the above, it appeared that the notified project concerned the second phase of a single comprehensive investment project which had already started in 2004.
Eespool toodut arvestades paistis, et teatises nimetatud projekti näol oli tegu üheainsa, juba 2004. aastal alanud kõikehõlmava investeeringuprojekti teise etapiga.
Moreover, since the aid application by the beneficiary itself did not distinguish between the two phases of investment, the Commission could not rule out the possibility that the investment period was artificially split into two phases so that the beneficiary would be eligible to apply for the aid in 2006.
Võttes arvesse, et abisaaja taotluses ei eristata investeeringute kahte etappi, ei saanud komisjon välistada võimalust, et investeerimisperiood jagati kunstlikult kaheks etapiks, et abisaaja saaks abi taotleda 2006. aastal.
Second, according to the information provided by the Slovak authorities, the application for aid, signed on 29 of June 2006, was not submitted until November 2006, i.e. after the first stage of the investment had started in 2004.
Teiseks esitati Slovakkia ametiasutuste andmetel 29. juunil 2006. allakirjutatud abitaotlus alles 2006. aasta novembris, s.o pärast seda, kui investeeringu esimene etapp oli alanud 2004. aastal.
Consequently, the Commission had doubts whether the condition regarding the incentive effect of the aid as laid down in point 4.2 of RAG 1998 was being respected.
Seetõttu kahtles komisjon, kas abil puhul oli täidetud RAG 1998 punktis 4.2 sätestatud ergutava mõju nõue.
The Commission underlined that, as a general principle, State aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between Member States can only be approved if these negative effects are more than outweighed by the aid’s positive contribution to a Community objective (here: regional development).
Komisjon toonitas, et konkurentsi moonutavat või moonutada ähvardavat ning liikmesriikide vahelist kaubandust mõjutavat riigiabi saab heaks kiita vaid juhul, kui abi positiivne panus ühenduse eesmärgi saavutamisse (siin: regionaalarengusse) negatiivse mõju üles kaalub.
The Commission considered that an aid applied for at the end of 2006 could not retrospectively trigger an investment decision which led to work starting in 2004 and production activities getting under way in April 2005.
Komisjon arvas, et 2006. aasta lõpul taotletud abi ei saanud tagasiulatuvalt põhjustada investeerimisotsust, mille tagajärjel alustati 2004. aastal töid ja 2005. aasta aprillist tootmist.
Third, the idea that the availability of the aid was not a decisive factor for the beneficiary’s decision to start work on relocation, seemed to be confirmed by the beneficiary’s own statement in its aid application which explained the reasons for relocating its activities to Slovakia: ‘The Board (of Glunz&Jensen) decided during the course of 2003 to investigate the possibility of establishing a production unit in a low-cost country.
Kolmandaks tundub abisaaja oma avaldus abitaotluses kinnitavat asjaolu, et riigiabi ei olnud otsustav tegur abisaaja otsuses alustada tootmise ümberkolimist: „(Glunz&Jenseni) nõukogu otsustas 2003. aastal uurida võimalust asutada tootmisüksus madalate kuludega riigis.
The objective was to lower the production cost, develop sub-suppliers in central and eastern Europe … Glunz&Jensen has conducted a comparative analysis of 11 central and eastern European countries to decide on the optimal location of the subsidiary ….
Eesmärk oli vähendada tootmiskulusid, luua allhankijate võrk Kesk- ja Ida-Euroopas … Glunz&Jensen võrdles oma analüüsis tütarettevõtte asukoha otsustamiseks 11 Kesk- ja Ida-Euroopa riiki … Nimetatud 11 riigi hulgast uuriti lähemalt Tšehhi Vabariiki, Slovaki Vabariiki ja Bulgaariat.
Out of these 11 countries, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and Bulgaria were investigated.
Järelduses hinnati Slovaki Vabariik kõige sobivamaks, arvestades Glunz&Jenseni tegevusala ja tegurite kombinatsiooni hinnatud turgudel.
The conclusion was that the Slovak Republic was deemed the most appropriate location considering Glunz&Jensen’s business and the factor combinations on the assessed markets [11]’.
[11]” Neljandaks selgitasid Slovakkia ametiasutused, miks et abisaaja ei taotlenud abi investeeringuprojekti esimeseks etapiks.
In their understanding, the application for the aid had to be submitted only in the tax declaration for the year in which the company first incurred a tax liability.
Ettevõtja arvates tuli abitaotlus esitada alles ettevõtja esimese maksukulu aasta maksudeklaratsiooniga.
According to the Slovak authorities, this means that Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. planned to apply for state aid from the very beginning of the investment project’s implementation in 2004.
Slovakkia ametiasutuste väitel tähendab see, et Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. kavatses taotleda riigiabi investeeringuprojekti rakendamise algusest peale 2004. aastal.
In the Commission’s view, the fact that the beneficiary did not know the proper procedure to be followed cannot be taken into account.
Komisjoni arvates ei saa arvesse võtta asjaolu, et abisaaja ei tundnud nõuetekohast korda.
It should be stressed that the aid under Section 35a of Slovak Income Tax Act No 366/1999, as amended, was not granted automatically prior to Slovakia’s accession, nor is it granted automatically now, since there is no existing aid scheme referring to the above mentioned Section.
Tuleb rõhutada, et Slovakkia tulumaksuseaduse nr 366/1999 (muudetud), artikli 35a kohast abi ei antud enne Slovakkia ühinemist automaatselt, ega tehta seda ka praegu, sest nimetatud osa ei sisalda viidet asjaomasele abikavale.
Consequently, this type of aid was and remains individually notifiable to the Commission as ad hoc aid, as is shown by approximately 40 ad hoc notifications submitted by Slovakia applying this legal base under the so-called interim procedure.
Järelikult tuli ja tuleb seda laadi abist kui sihtotstarbelisest teavitada komisjoni, mida näitab umbes 40 sihtotstarbelise abi teatist, mille Slovakkia on nimetatud õiguslikul alusel nn vaheprotseduuri käigus esitanud.
Finally, even if the aid had had an incentive effect, substantial doubts would need to be raised: in fact, RAG 1998 (point 2) takes a negative stance towards ad hoc aid unless it can be proved that the regional contribution of the measure outweighs the distortion of competition and the effects on trade.
Isegi kui abil oleks olnud ergutav mõju, tekiksid olulised kahtlused: RAG 1998 (2. punkt) suunistes suhtutakse negatiivselt sihtotstarbelisse abisse, välja arvatud juhul, kui on võimalik tõendada, et meetme mõju piirkonnale kaalub üles konkurentsi moonutamise ja meetme mõju kaubandusele.
In this context, the Commission noted the following:
Eelöeldut arvestades märkis komisjon järgmist:
Although the measure provides a significant contribution to regional development (155 direct jobs, some 30 indirect jobs), its negative effects seem to be equally substantial.
Ehkki meede annab olulise panuse regionaalarengusse (155 otseselt ja umbes 30 kaudselt tekkivat töökohta), tundub ka selle negatiivne mõju oluline.
The relevant product market of the beneficiary is graphic arts pre-press processing equipment, in particular computer-to-plate (CtP) processors.
Abisaaja tooteturg on graafika trükieelse töötlemise seadmed, eelkõige CtP (computer-to-plate – arvutist trükiplaadile) süsteemi protsessorid.
The Commission noted that the aid is to be granted to a company which has a market share of approximately […] % on the European market.
Komisjon märkis, et abi tuleb anda ettevõtjale, kelle Euroopa turuosa on umbes […] %.
The closest competitors of Glunz&Jensen in Europe along with their market shares are: Height Design […] %, Agfa (Lastra) Belgium […] %, E-graf, Italy […] %, Haase, Germany […] % and Ovit, Italy […] %.
Glunz&Jensen lähimad Euroopa konkurendid ja nende turuosad on: Height Design […] %, Agfa (Lastra) Belgia […] %, E-graf, Itaalia […] %, Haase, Saksamaa […] % and Ovit, Itaalia […] %.
Given the market position of the beneficiary, the Commission was of the opinion that the planned measure could have a major impact on competition in the relevant, very specific market in which the beneficiary is active.
Võttes arvesse abisaaja turuosa, jõudis komisjon seisukohale, et kavandataval meetmel võib olla suur mõju konkurentsile asjaomasel väga spetsiifilisel turul, kus abisaaja tegutseb.