natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 17 November 2008 the Commission asked a number of further questions; the Netherlands replied by letter dated 19 December 2008.
novembril 2008 esitas komisjon täiendavaid küsimusi; Madalmaad vastasid komisjonile 19. detsembri 2008. aasta kirjaga.
By letter dated 11 February 2009, the Commission informed the Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in respect of the aid [2].
veebruari 2009. aasta kirjas teatas komisjon Madalmaadele oma otsusest algatada seoses eespool nimetatud abiga Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu (edaspidi „ELTL”) [2] artikli 108 lõikega 2 ettenähtud menetlus.
On 26 May 2009 the Netherlands submitted its observations on the decision to initiate the procedure.
Madalmaad edastasid oma märkused menetluse algatamise otsuse kohta 26. mail 2009.
The Commission also received comments from other interested parties.
Komisjonile saatsid märkusi ka huvitatud isikud.
It forwarded them to the Netherlands, giving it the opportunity to react; the Netherlands replied by letter dated 7 July 2009.
Komisjon edastas need Madalmaadele, andes Madalmaadele võimaluse reageerida; Madalmaad vastasid kõnealustele märkustele 7. juuli 2009. aasta kirjaga.
On 7 October 2009 the Commission wrote to the Netherlands in order to clarify the procedural status of the case, and out of courtesy asked the Netherlands to submit by 13 October 2009 any observations that it wished the Commission to consider before its final decision.
Komisjon kirjutas 7. oktoobril 2009 Madalmaadele, et selgitada viimastele juhtumi menetlemise seisu, ning palus Madalamaadel igaks juhuks veel kord esitada 13. oktoobriks 2009 kõik märkused, mille puhul Madalmaad soovivad, et komisjon võtaks neid enne lõpliku otsuse tegemist arvesse.
The Netherlands taxes the consumption of energy products under the Environmental Taxes Act [4], whereby a degressive rate applies based on the level of consumption of the business [5].
Madalmaad maksustavad energiatoodete tarbimist vastavalt keskkonnamaksude seadusele, [4] mille alusel kohaldatakse ettevõtjate tarbimise määrast sõltuvat regressiivset maksustamist [5].
Under the aid measure at issue here the Netherlands would grant an exemption from tax for the delivery of natural gas used in installations for the production of ceramic products.
Kõnealuse abimeetmega vabastaksid Madalmaad maksust keraamikatootmise rajatistes kasutatava maagaasi.
The proposed exemption would apply only to natural gas used for production purposes by the Dutch ceramic industry, and not to gas used for other mineralogical processes carried out in the Netherlands [6].
Kavandatud maksuvabastus kehtiks üksnes sellise maagaasi suhtes, mida Madalmaade keraamikatööstus kasutab tootmiseks, ning seda ei kohaldataks muudes mineraloogilistes protsessides kasutatava maagaasi suhtes [6].
The proposed exemption would be introduced by an amendment to the Environmental Taxes Act currently in force.
Maksuvabastus kehtestataks muudatuse tegemisega kehtivasse keskkonnamaksude seadusesse.
According to the notification, the budget for the years 2008–2013 amounts to EUR 4 million annually.
Vastavalt abist teatamise ajal esitatud andmetele oleks abimeetme iga-aastane eelarve ajavahemikul 2008–2013 neli miljonit eurot.
The duration of the measure is unlimited, as the Netherlands considers that it does not give rise to State aid (see further section IV below).
Abimeetme kehtivusaeg on piiramata, sest Madalmaade seisukohast ei kujuta meede endast riigiabi (vt lisaks IV jagu allpool).
The beneficiaries of the measure would be undertakings operating in the ceramic industry in the Netherlands [7].
Abisaajad oleksid Madalmaade keraamikatööstuses tegutsevad ettevõtjad [7].
The Netherlands considers that the exemption is needed in order to restore a level playing field for the Dutch ceramic industry in the internal market.
Madalmaad leiavad, et maksuvabastus on vajalik, et taastada Madalmaade keraamikatööstusele võrdsed võimalused siseturul.
The Netherlands refers to the unique position of the Dutch ceramic sector compared with the position of competitors in the neighbouring countries.
Madalmaad viitavad oma riigi keraamikasektori eriolukorrale võrreldes konkurentide olukorraga naaberriikides.
Owing to its geographical location, the Dutch ceramic industry makes use of wet clay, as opposed to the dry clay used in the surrounding countries, and wet clay requires more energy to achieve the same end result.
Geograafilise asukoha tõttu kasutatakse Madalmaade keraamikatööstuses märga savi, samas kui naaberriikides töödeldakse kuiva savi, ning märja savi korral vajatakse sama lõpptulemuse saamiseks rohkem energiat.
Additionally, the Netherlands argues that competing producers in Belgium, Germany or Sweden, for example, are exempt from any similar energy tax.
Lisaks väidavad Madalmaad, et näiteks Belgia, Saksamaa ja Rootsi konkureerivad tootjad on samuti sarnastest energiamaksudest vabastatud.
The Netherlands has confirmed that the measure will enter into force only once it has been authorised by the Commission.
Madalmaad on kinnitanud, et meede hakkab kehtima alles siis, kui komisjon on selle heaks kiitnud.
THE OPENING DECISION
MENETLUSE ALGATAMISE OTSUS
The Commission doubted whether the proposed aid was compatible with the internal market, because it took the preliminary view that the tax exemption for the Dutch ceramic industry was not justified by the nature and overall structure of the national tax system.
Komisjon kahtles, kas kavandatud abi sobib kokku siseturuga, sest komisjoni esialgse seisukoha kohaselt ei olnud Madalmaade keraamikatööstuse maksuvabastus riikliku maksusüsteemi olemusest ja üldisest ülesehitusest lähtudes põhjendatud.
The measure was selective, since only the ceramic industry in the Netherlands would benefit from it, and the exemption would be financed through state resources.
Meede on valikuline, sest sellest saaks kasu vaid Madalmaade keraamikatööstus ning maksuvabastust rahastataks riigi ressurssidest.
The measure also distorted or threatened to distort competition, and affected trade between Member States, as the proposed tax exemption would have a direct impact on production costs and would therefore improve the recipients’ competitive position on the relevant ceramic product markets where they operated, which were open to trade between Member States.
Lisaks oli komisjon seisukohal, et meede moonutab või ähvardab moonutada konkurentsi ja mõjutab liikmesriikide vahelist kaubandust, sest kavandatud maksuvabastusel oleks otsene mõju tootmiskuludele ja seetõttu parandaks see abisaajate konkurentsivõimet asjaomastel keraamikaturgudel, kus abisaajad tegutsevad ja mis on avatud liikmesriikide vahelisele kaubandusele.
The Commission took the view that the measure would confer State aid on the Dutch ceramic industry, and concluded that such aid could be approved only if it satisfied the tests of Chapter 4 (‘aid in the form of reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes’) of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection [8] (hereinafter ‘the environmental aid guidelines’ or ‘the guidelines’).
Komisjon järeldas, et meetmega antaks Madalmaade keraamikatööstusele riigiabi ning sellist abi võib heaks kiita vaid juhul, kui see vastab keskkonnakaitseks antavat riigiabi käsitlevate ühenduse suuniste (edaspidi „keskkonnaabi suunised” või „suunised”) [8] 4. peatükis (Abi keskkonnamaksu vähendamise või sellest vabastuse vormis) määratletud tingimustele.
As the Netherlands had not provided the information required for an assessment on this basis, the Commission was unable to confirm that the measure was compatible, and accordingly decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Kuna Madalmaad ei olnud esitanud teavet, mis on vajalik hindamaks meetme vastavust nimetatud tingimustele, ei olnud komisjonil võimalik meetme kokkusobivust kinnitada ning komisjon otsustas algatada ametliku uurimismenetluse.
OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE NETHERLANDS
MADALMAADE MÄRKUSED
The Netherlands said that it was notifying the case primarily for the sake of legal certainty, and asked the Commission to find that no State aid was involved.
Madalmaad väitsid, et teatasid juhtumist peamiselt selleks, et tagada õiguskindlus ning paluda komisjonil kinnitada, et tegemist ei ole riigiabiga.
The Netherlands took the view that the selective character of the exemption was justified by the nature and overall structure of the national tax system.
Madalmaad olid seisukohal, et riikliku maksusüsteemi laad ja üldine ülesehitus õigustavad maksuvabastuse valikulist olemust.
The purpose of the energy tax was to tax electricity and energy products which were used as heating fuel or motor fuel.
Energiamaksu eesmärk on maksustada elektrienergiat ja energiatooteid, mida kasutatakse kütteaine või mootorikütusena.
To include in the energy tax system an exemption for a process in which natural gas was not used as a heating or motor fuel, therefore, was in accordance with the nature and overall structure of the underlying frame of reference, namely the scheme of energy taxation in force.
Seetõttu on energiamaksusüsteemi täiendamine maksuvabastusega protsessi puhul, mille käigus ei kasutata maagaasi kütteaine või mootorikütusena, kooskõlas kehtiva energiamaksusüsteemi laadi ja üldise ülesehitusega.
The energy tax legislation exempted the delivery of natural gas used for purposes other than as fuel [9].
Energia maksustamise alaste õigusaktidega vabastatakse maksust maagaasi tarnimine, kui maagaasi ei kasutata kütusena, vaid muul otstarbel [9].
The delivery of electricity for processes in which it had a dual use, such as for chemical reduction and in electrolytic and metallurgical processes, was likewise exempt from the energy tax [10].
Elektrienergia tarnimine on energiamaksust vabastatud, kui elektrienergiat kasutatakse kahesuguse kasutusega protsessides, näiteks keemilise reduktsiooni jaoks ning elektrolüütilistes ja metallurgilistes protsessides [10].
In the legislation on the taxation of coal, too, there was an exemption for coal used for purposes other than as fuel and for coal with a dual use [11].
Ka söe maksustamist käsitlevates õigusaktides on söe tarnimine maksust vabastatud, kui sütt ei kasutata kütusena, vaid muul otstarbel, ning kui seda kasutatakse kahesuguse kasutusega protsessides [11].
It was appropriate to add a tax exemption for the delivery of natural gas used in installations for the production of ceramic products.
Seetõttu oli asjakohane lisada maksuvabastus ka keraamikatootmise rajatistes kasutatava maagaasi tarnimisele.
The ceramic process was comparable to a dual-use process, because natural gas was not being used solely as heating fuel or motor fuel.
Keraamiline protsess on võrreldav kahesuguse kasutusega protsessiga, sest maagaasi ei kasutata üksnes kütteaine või mootorikütusena.
The Netherlands pointed out that the exemption from tax on the delivery of natural gas used in installations for the production of ceramic products was to be included in an amended version of Article 64 of the Environmental Taxes Act, which was the provision that exempted other forms of dual use.
Madalmaad juhtisid tähelepanu sellele, et keraamikatootmise rajatiste maagaasiga varustamise maksuvabastus kavatseti lisada keskkonnamaksude seaduse artikli 64 muudetud versiooni; kõnealuse artikliga vabastatakse maksust muud kahesuguse kasutusega protsessid.
The Netherlands referred to Article 2(4)(b) of the Energy Taxation Directive, and to the Council minutes on that Directive [12], and submitted that it was in accordance with the nature and overall structure of the Dutch energy taxation system to add a provision granting exemption for the delivery of natural gas used for the mineralogical process concerned here, that is to say the production of ceramics.
Madalmaad viitasid energia maksustamise direktiivi artikli 2 lõike 4 punktile b ning nõukogu protokollile kõnealuse direktiivi teemal toimunud arutelu kohta [12] ning väitsid, et kõnealuses mineraloogilises protsessis ehk keraamika tootmises kasutatavate maagaasitarnete maksust vabastamine on kooskõlas Madalmaade energia maksustamise süsteemi laadi ja üldise ülesehitusega.
It was appropriate to exempt only ceramic processes, and not all mineralogical processes, because unlike other mineralogical processes the traditional ceramic process was irreversible (clay was changed into ceramic).
Madalmaad leidsid, et asjakohane on maksudest vabastada vaid keraamilised ja mitte kõik mineraloogilised protsessid, sest erinevalt muudest mineraloogilistest protsessidest on traditsioonilised keraamilised protsessid pöördumatud (savi muudetakse keraamilisteks toodeteks).
The Netherlands further referred to the unique position of the Dutch ceramic industry compared with the position of competitors in the surrounding countries.
Lisaks viitasid Madalmaad oma keraamikatööstuse eriolukorrale võrreldes konkurentide olukorraga naaberriikides.
Owing to its geographical location, the Dutch ceramic industry made use of wet clay (which originated in the Alps and was deposited in the rivers in the Netherlands), as opposed to the dry clay used in the surrounding countries, and wet clay required more energy to achieve the same end result [13].
Geograafilise asukoha tõttu kasutatakse Madalmaade keraamikatööstuses märga savi (mis on pärit Alpidest ja sadestunud Madalmaade jõgedes), samas kui naaberriikides töödeldakse kuiva savi, ning märja savi puhul vajatakse sama lõpptulemuse saamiseks rohkem energiat [13].
Additionally, competing producers in Belgium, Germany or Sweden, for example, were exempt from any similar energy tax.
Lisaks on näiteks Belgia, Saksamaa ja Rootsi konkureerivad tootjad sarnastest energiamaksudest vabastatud.
And prices for the use of natural gas in the Netherlands were high.
Samuti on kõrged Madalmaades kehtivad maagaasi kasutushinnad.
Here too the Dutch ceramic industry was at a disadvantage compared to ceramic production in neighbouring countries.
Ka seetõttu on Madalmaade keraamikatööstus naaberriikide keraamikatööstustega võrreldes ebasoodsamas olukorras.
In the Netherlands’ view these factors showed that the selectivity of the measure was justified on the basis of the nature and overall structure of the Dutch energy tax scheme.
Madalmaade seisukohast näitavad need tegurid, et Madalmaade energiamaksusüsteemi laadist ja üldisest ülesehitusest lähtudes on meetme valikulisus põhjendatud.
The Netherlands therefore considered that the tax exemption did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Seetõttu leidsid Madalmaad, et maksuvabastus ei kujuta endast riigiabi Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
The proposed tax exemption would eliminate the disadvantage to the Dutch ceramic industry to some extent, thereby partially restoring a level playing field for the industry in the internal market.
Kavandatud maksuvabastus leevendaks teataval määral Madalmaade keraamikatööstuse ebasoodsat olukorda, taastades sellega osaliselt Madalmaade keraamikatööstuse võrdsed võimalused siseturul.
In the alternative, the Netherlands asked the Commission to authorise the aid on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Alternatiivina palusid Madalmaad komisjonil lubada abi andmine ELTLi artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti c alusel.
The aid was necessary because of the unequal terms of competition in the internal market.
Madalmaade seisukohast on abi vajalik ebavõrdsete konkurentsitingimuste tõttu siseturul.
It was proportionate, because the measure would apply only to natural gas used in the installations, and not to the electricity used in the production of ceramic products.
Madalmaad pidasid abi proportsionaalseks, sest meede kehtiks vaid rajatistes kasutatava maagaasi suhtes ning ei kehtiks keraamika tootmisel kasutatava elektrienergia suhtes.
It would offset only a part of the disadvantage to the industry, and consequently had to be considered proportionate.
See vähendaks tööstuse ebasoodsat olukorda vaid osaliselt ning seetõttu tuleb meedet pidada proportsionaalseks.
Finally, it would not lead to incompatible distortion of competition in the internal market.
Lisaks ei tooks see kaasa kokkusobimatut konkurentsimoonutust siseturul.
Besides, the Netherlands submitted that the Energy Taxation Directive did not apply to mineralogical processes, because it was in line with the nature and overall structure of the tax system to exclude mineralogical processes from the scope of the Directive.
Lisaks sellele väitsid Madalmaad, et energia maksustamise direktiivi ei kohaldata mineraloogiliste protsesside suhtes, sest nende välja jätmine direktiivi kohaldamisalast on kooskõlas maksusüsteemi laadi ja üldise ülesehitusega.
Member States were consequently free to decide whether or not to tax these forms of energy use.
Liikmesriikidel on järelikult vabadus otsustada, kas nad maksustavad või ei maksusta kõnealuseid energiakasutusliike.
The proposed measure would not result in distortion of competition, but rather to greater harmonisation of the taxation of energy products, and would be in the Community interest.
Kavandatud meetmega ei moonutata järelikult konkurentsi, vaid pigem ühtlustatakse energiatoodete maksustamist ning meede on seega ühenduse huvides.
V. OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED PARTIES
V. HUVITATUD ISIKUTE MÄRKUSED
Observations on the Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure were submitted by a trade organisation, the VKO (Stichting Verenigde Keramische Organisaties).
Komisjoni menetluse algatamise otsuse kohta esitas oma märkused üks tootmisharusisene organisatsioon: VKO (Stichting Verenigde Keramische Organisaties).
The VKO shared the view of the Netherlands that the tax exemption was justified by the nature and overall structure of the national tax system, and that the measure consequently did not comprise State aid.
VKO jagas Madalmaade seisukohta, et riikliku maksusüsteemi laad ja üldine ülesehitus õigustavad maksuvabastust ning järelikult ei kujuta meede endast riigiabi.
The VKO’s comments were similar to those of the Netherlands.
VKO märkused sarnanesid Madalmaade märkustega.
Like the Netherlands, the VKO considered that the tax exemption could not be regarded as an environmental measure, since it did not pursue any environmental objective.
Sarnaselt Madalmaadele leidis VKO, et maksuvabastust ei saa pidada keskkonnameetmeks, sest sellel ei ole ühtki keskkonnaalast eesmärki.
It would not be right, therefore, to judge the measure on the basis of the environmental aid guidelines.
Seetõttu ei ole õige hinnata meedet keskkonnaabi suuniste alusel.
EXISTENCE OF AID
RIIGIABI OLEMASOLU
Article 107(1) TFEU states that ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.’
Vastavalt ELTLi artikli 107 lõikele 1 on „igasugune liikmesriigi poolt või riigi ressurssidest ükskõik missugusel kujul antav abi, mis kahjustab või ähvardab kahjustada konkurentsi, soodustades teatud ettevõtjaid või teatud kaupade tootmist, siseturuga kokkusobimatu niivõrd, kuivõrd see kahjustab liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust”.
In the view of the Netherlands the measure does not confer any advantage, but instead offsets a disadvantage to the Dutch ceramic industry.
Madalmaade arvates ei anna kõnealune meede mingit eelist, vaid leevendab Madalmaade keraamikatööstuse ebasoodsat olukorda.
The Commission is of the opinion that the tax exemption confers an advantage on undertakings operating in the ceramic industry in the Netherlands, which would benefit as a result of the tax relief because it would reduce the charges that would otherwise be included in their operating costs [14].
Komisjon on seisukohal, et maksuvabastus annab eelise Madalamaade keraamikatööstuses tegutsevatele ettevõtjatele, kes saavad maksuvabastusest kasu, sest maksuvabastus vähendab kulutusi, mis sisalduksid muidu nende tegevuskuludes [14].
STATE RESOURCES AND IMPUTABILITY TO THE STATE
RIIGI RESSURSID JA RIIGILE OMISTATAVUS
The Netherlands considers that the measure would not be not financed through state resources, because the financing of the exemption is budget neutral [15].
Madalmaad leiavad, et meedet ei rahastata riigi ressurssidest, sest maksuvabastuse rahastamise mõju eelarvele on neutraalne [15].
Thus no state resources would be involved.
Seega ei ole riigi ressursid kaasatud.
The VKO puts forward a similar argument.
VKO esitab sarnase väite.
The Commission takes the view that the measure concerns a tax benefit that would be financed by the Dutch State, so that state resources are being forgone.
Komisjon on seisukohal, et meede kujutab endast maksusoodustust, mida rahastab Madalmaade valitsus riigi ressurssidest loobumise teel.
Put differently, the proposed tax exemption results in a loss of tax revenue to the Dutch State.
Ehk teisisõnu: maksuvabastus vähendab Madalmaade maksutulu.
Even if the financing of the exemption were indeed to be offset indirectly by an increased rate of energy tax on natural gas in the highest tranche, that conclusion would remain unchanged.
Komisjoni lõplikku arvamust ei muuda isegi see, et maksuvabastuse võib kaudselt korvata tõusnud maksumäär maagaasi kõige kõrgemas energiamaksuosas.
The Commission notes that the Netherlands has acknowledged that, compared with the current tax system, the measure gives rise to an advantage of an estimated EUR 4 million annually, without any quid pro quo on the part of the recipients [16].
Komisjon märgib, et Madalmaad on tunnistanud, et võrreldes kehtiva maksusüsteemiga annab meede abisaajatele igal aastal 4 miljoni suuruse eelise, ilma et abisaajad peaksid selle heaks midagi tegema [15] Abist teatamise dokumendi 1. lisa. .
The proposed measure is imputable to the Netherlands, as it derives directly from an amendment to the national legislation in force.
Kavandatud meetme saab omistada Madalmaadele, sest see on otseselt seotud kehtiva riikliku õigusakti muutmisettepanekuga.
Article 2(1) of the Energy Taxation Directive states that the Directive does not apply to the consumption of energy in mineralogical processes and certain other uses of energy products and electricity; it is left to the Member State, therefore, to decide whether or not to tax such processes and if so whether to tax them in their entirety or only in part.
Energia maksustamise direktiivi artikli 2 lõikes 1 sätestatakse, et direktiivi ei kohaldata energia tarbimise suhtes mineraloogilistes protsessides ning teatavate muude energiatoodete ja elektrienergia kasutamise viiside suhtes; liikmesriikidele on jäetud õigus otsustada, kas selliseid protsesse maksustada või mitte ning kas maksustada neid täielikult või osaliselt.
Irrespective of the Directive, however, Member States are in any event bound by the Community acquis in matters of State aid.
Hoolimata direktiivist, on ühenduse õigustik liikmesriikidele riigiabi küsimustes siiski igal juhul siduv.
This means that the selectivity of the measure at hand, and hence the existence of State aid, must be assessed by reference to the domestic energy tax system.
See tähendab, et kõnealuse meetme valikulisust ning järelikult ka riigiabi olemasolu tuleb hinnata, lähtudes siseriiklikust energia maksustamise süsteemist.
There is recent case-law on the interpretation of selectivity.
Valikulisuse tõlgendamise kohta on olemas värske kohtupraktika.
The Gibraltar judgment accepted a standard State aid analysis for tax cases [17].
Gibraltari kohtuasjas tehtud otsuses tunnistati vastuvõetavaks riigiabi standardanalüüsi kasutamine maksujuhtumite korral [16].