natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This cannot be achieved without a significant role being played by wireless infrastructures, including in the provision of broadband to rural areas, part of which can be done by giving early access to the digital dividend to the benefit of such areas.
Seda ei ole võimalik saavutada ilma traadita side infrastruktuuride olulise panuseta, sealhulgas maapiirkondadele lairibaühenduse pakkumisel; selleks tuleks sellistele piirkondadele varakult avada juurdepääs digitaalse dividendi kasutamisele.
COM(2009) 586.
KOM(2009) 586.
the assigned block sizes shall be in multiples of 5 MHz;
eraldatud sagedusplokkide suurus on 5 MHz kordne;
the duplex mode of operation shall be FDD with the following arrangements.
käitamise dupleksrežiim on FDD vastavalt järgmistele eeskirjadele.
10 to – 5 MHz from lower block edge– block EIRP limits per antenna [3]over frequencies of FDD downlink and TDD
10 kuni – 5 MHz ploki alumisest äärest– remaski plokist välja leviva EIRP piirid antenni kohta [3]FDD allalülis ja TDD-režiimis kasutatavate sageduste puhul
5 to 0 MHz from lower block edge– e
5 kuni 0 MHz ploki alumisest äärest– t
dBm/10 MHz
dBm / 10 MHz
concerning the aid awarded for Farm Dairy Flevoland (C 45/08)
Farm Dairyle antud abi kohta (C 45/08)
(notified under document C(2010) 1240)
(teatavaks tehtud numbri K(2010) 1240 all)
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [1], and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,
võttes arvesse Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingut (ELTL), [1] eriti selle artikli 108 lõike 2 esimest lõiku,
After having, in accordance with this article, invited the interested parties to present their observations and having regard to these observations,
olles vastavalt sellele artiklile kutsunud huvitatud isikuid esitama märkusi ja võtnud neid märkusi arvesse
I. Procedure
I. Menetlus
When examining a fact sheet sent in relation to an application for exemption based on Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid [2], the Commission came across information regarding aid granted or to be granted to Farm Dairy Flevoland.
Komisjoni 12. jaanuari 2001. aasta määrusel (EÜ) nr 68/2001 (mis käsitleb EÜ asutamislepingu artiklite 87 ja 88 kohaldamist koolitusabi suhtes) [2] põhineva vabastustaotluse raames saadetud teabelehe läbivaatamise käigus on komisjon saanud teavet Farm Dairy Flevolandile määratud või määratava abi kohta.
By letter of 29 June 2004 (ref. AGR/16887), the Commission asked the Netherlands for information on this measure.
juuni 2004. aasta kirjaga küsis komisjon Madalmaadelt selle meetme kohta teavet.
The Dutch authorities replied by letter of 28 November 2005, registered as received on 29 November 2005.
Madalmaade ametiasutused vastasid 28. novembri 2005. aasta kirjaga, mis registreeriti 29. novembril 2005.
By letter of 22 May 2007 the Commission asked for further information; the Netherlands replied by letter of 22 June 2007, registered as received on 25 June 2007.
mai 2007. aasta kirjaga küsis komisjon täiendavat teavet, millele Madalmaad vastasid 22. juuni 2007. aasta kirjaga, mis registreeriti 25. juunil 2007.
The measure was entered in the register of unnotified aid under number NN 97/05.
Meede lisati teatamata abi registrisse, numbri NN 97/05 all.
The Commission decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure was taken on 26 November 2008 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union [3].
Komisjoni võttis 26. novembril 2008 vastu menetluse algatamist käsitleva otsuse, mis avaldati Euroopa Liidu Teatajas [3].
The Commission called on the other Member States and interested third parties to submit their comments on the aid in question.
Komisjon kutsus teisi liikmesriike ja kolmandaid huvitatud isikuid esitama oma märkusi kõnealuse abimeetme kohta.
The Netherlands sent their comments by letter dated 19 January 2009, registered on the same day.
Madalmaad esitasid oma märkused 19. jaanuari 2009. aasta kirjaga, mis registreeriti samal päeval.
Farm Dairy sent the Commission its observations as an interested third party by letter of 18 May 2009.
mai 2009. aasta kirjaga sai komisjon Farm Dairy kui kolmanda huvitatud isiku märkused.
The Commission asked the Netherlands some additional questions by letter dated 18 September 2009.
septembri 2009. aasta kirjaga esitas komisjon Madalmaadele lisaküsimusi.
Background of the measure
Meetme taustteave
Farm Dairy manufactures dairy products.
Farm Dairy on piimatooteid tootev ettevõte.
It moved to its current location in Lelystad, Flevoland, which is a region classified as objective No 1.
Ettevõte kolis oma praegusesse asukohta Lelystadis Flevolandis, mis on liigitatud 1. eesmärgi piirkonnaks.
On 24 August 1998 Farm Dairy applied for investment aid pursuant to point 3.3 of the Flevoland Province SPD (Single Programming Document or ‘Enig Programmeringsdocument’).
augustil 1998 esitas Farm Dairy abitaotluse vastavalt Flevolandi provintsi ühtse programmdokumendi (Enig Programmeringsdocument) punktile 3.3.
The company intended to create both direct and indirect jobs in the region.
Kõnealuse ettevõtte loomisega nähti ette otseste ja kaudsete töökohtade loomist piirkonnas.
On 23 September 1998, the Province gave a favourable opinion to this application for aid.
septembril 1998 andis provints sellele toetustaotlusele positiivse vastuse.
In this decision, the Province based itself, inter alia on the favourable outlook in terms of job creation, environment, reduction of milk transport costs (up to then the milk produced in Flevoland was processed outside of Flevoland and even as far away as Belgium) and the company’s prospects of profitability.
Oma otsuses tugines provints muu hulgas soodsatele väljavaadetele seoses töökohtade loomise, keskkonnaküsimuste, piimaveohindade vähenemise (kuni selle ajani oli Flevolandis toodetud piima töödeldud väljaspool Flevolandi ja isegi Belgias) ning ettevõtte tasuvusega.
Farm Dairy anticipated having contracts with the milk producers of Flevoland and agreements with a well-known supermarket chain, which would ensure the sale of the dairy products.
Farm Dairy kavatses sõlmida lepingud Flevolandi piimatootjatega ning maineka supermarketiketiga, mis tagaks piimatoodete müügi.
Farm Dairy planned to handle 48 million kilos of milk a year.
Farm Dairy kavatses aastas töödelda 48 miljonit kilogrammi piima.
The Province applied to the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture [Ministerie voor Landbouw, Natuur and Voedselkwaliteit — LNV] for co-financing and an assessment of the project.
Provints esitas põllumajandusministeeriumile (Ministerie voor Landbouw, Natuur and Voedselkwaliteit – LNV) nii kaasrahastamise taotluse kui ka projekti hindamise taotluse.
There seemed to have been a difference of opinions between the Province and the ‘Directie Noordwest’ of the Ministry of Agriculture concerning the application for co-financing, in particular with regard to the innovative character of the project.
Provintsi ja põllumajandusministeeriumi loodepiirkonna osakonna (Directie Noordwest) seisukohad kaasrahastamise taotluse küsimuses tundusid erinevat, eelkõige projekti uuendusliku iseloomu osas.
For this reason, IKC gave a second opinion.
Seetõttu esitas IKC teise arvamuse.
This second opinion, issued on 17 December 1998, noted the project’s qualities with regard to employment, outlets and profitability.
detsembril 1998 esitatud teises arvamuses tuuakse välja projekti väärtused seoses tööhõive, väljundite ja tasuvusega.
However, it concluded that the innovative character of the project was poor.
Siiski leitakse kokkuvõtteks, et uuendusliku iseloomu osas on projekt nõrk.
The production process itself was not innovative, although it used the most advanced techniques, but the project contained market innovations.
Tootmisprotsess ise ei olnud tõepoolest uuenduslik, isegi kui oleks kasutatud kõige kaasaegsemat tehnikat, kuid projekt sisaldas turu-uuendusi.
This second opinion took several criteria into consideration, such as the development of the region and the financial outlook for the project.
Teises arvamuses võetakse arvesse mitmeid kriteeriume, näiteks piirkonna arengut ja projekti rahalisi väljavaateid.
In view of the fact that the project would be particularly beneficial at provincial level (and less at national level), the usual scale for distributing the co-financing of subsidies was revised downwards, which meant that the provincial quota share was increased.
Arvestades asjaolu, et projekt hakkab kasu tooma eelkõige provintsi tasandil (ja vähem riiklikul tasandil), muudeti toetuste kaasrahastamise tavapärast jaotusmeetodit, suurendades provintsi rahastatavat osa.
In view of this position adopted by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, the Province issued a decision granting Farm Dairy a total amount of NLG 1575000 (EUR 715909), informing Farm Dairy on 3 March 1999 of its intention to provide this grant.
Pärast põllumajandusministeeriumi seisukohavõttu võttis provints vastu otsuse anda Farm Dairyle toetust kogusummas 1575000 Madalamaade kuldnat ehk 715909 eurot ja teavitas 3. märtsil 1999 Farm Dairyt oma otsusest ettevõttele abi anda.
The grant was to be financed by contributions from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the central Government and the Province.
Kõnealust abi rahastavad ühiselt Euroopa Põllumajanduse Arendus- ja Tagatisfond (EAGGF), keskvalitsus ja provints.
Following doubts concerning the possibilities of obtaining authorisation for the aid from the European Commission, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture decided not to grant the public financing, informing the Province of this by letter of 14 September 1999.
Pärast Euroopa Komisjoni väljendatud kahtlusi seoses abi andmise lubamise võimalikkusega otsustas põllumajandusministeerium riiklikust rahastamisest loobuda ja teavitas sellest provintsi 14. septembri 1999. aasta kirjaga.
DG Agriculture conducted an inspection and decided that the project could not be financed via the SPD, and that consequently the part of the financing to come from the EAGGF would not be granted.
Pärast põllumajanduse peadirektoraadi kontrolli otsustas komisjon, et projekti ei saa rahastada ühtse programmdokumendi kaudu ja seega ei eraldata EAGGFist rahastatavat osa.
It informed the Province of this decision by letter of 25 June 1999.
Komisjon teatas otsusest provintsile 25. juuni 1999. aasta kirjaga.
The Province nevertheless decided to finance the project exclusively out of its own funds.
Provints otsustas siiski projekti rahastada üksnes provintsi vahenditest.
Farm Dairy was informed of the final award and payment of the aid by letter of 20 November 2000.
novembri 2000. aasta kirjaga teavitati Farm Dairyt abi lõplikust määramisest ja selle maksmisest.
On 23 February 2001 an informal meeting was held between DG Agriculture officials and representatives of Flevoland Province, at the latter’s request.
veebruaril 2001 toimus põllumajanduse peadirektoraadi ametnike ja Flevolandi provintsi esindajate mitteametlik kohtumine viimaste soovil.
At this meeting the officials pointed out that the aid to Farm Dairy was not compatible with the common market and would have to be recovered or allocated to another project.
Kõnealusel koosolekul viitasid peadirektoraadi ametnikud asjaolule, et Farm Dairyle antud abi ei ole kooskõlas ühisturu nõuetega ning see tuleb kas tagasi nõuda või kasutada mõne muu projekti raames.
The Province decided to grant the aid in the form of compensation to Farm Dairy for the damage suffered as a result of the withdrawal of the decision granting the aid.
Provints otsustas määrata abi Farm Dairyle hüvitisena kahju eest, mille põhjustas abi määramise otsuse tagasivõtmine.
The compensation was equal to the amount which Farm Dairy would have received if the aid had been authorised.
Hüvitise suurus oli võrdne summaga, mille Farm Dairy oleks saanud, kui toetuse andmine oleks lubatud.
The Province estimated that as the award decision did not provide for the possibility of the aid being withdrawn, it was bound by this decision and obliged to award the aid, or risk Farm Dairy taking legal action against it.
Provints oli seisukohal, et kuna abi andmise otsuses ei olnud abi tagasinõudmise võimalust ette nähtud, on see otsus provintsi jaoks siduv ja ta on kohustatud abi andma, sest vastasel korral võib Farm Dairy võtta õiguslikke meetmeid.
Originally, the aid had been awarded under the SPD for Flevoland Province as aid for investment under point 3.3 of the SPD.
Algselt oleks abi antud Flevolandi provintsi ühtse programmdokumendi raames investeeringutoetusena nimetatud dokumendi punkti 3.3 alusel.
Subsequently, and for the reasons explained above, the aid was granted as compensation for the losses suffered as a result of the decision to withdraw the granting of the aid.
Seejärel anti abi eespool selgitatud põhjustel hüvitisena kahju eest, mille põhjustas abi määramise otsuse tagasivõtmine.
The beneficiary is Farm Dairy Holding B.V. situated in Lelystad.
Abisaaja on Farm Dairy Holding B.V, mille asukoht on Lelystadis.
This is a company which produces dairy products (including yoghurts and other milk-based desserts).
Tegemist on piimatooteid, näiteks jogurteid ja muid piimal põhinevaid magustoite tootva ettevõttega.
The aid was awarded for the period from 1 October 1998 to 1 May 2000, corresponding to the start and end dates of the Farm Dairy project.
Abi anti ajavahemikuks 1. oktoobrist 1998 kuni 1. maini 2000, mis vastavad Farm Dairy projekti algus- ja lõppkuupäevale.
The award decision as such was taken on 3 March 1999.
Abi andmise otsus kui selline võeti vastu 3. märtsil 1999.
Points raised by the Commission in the context of initiating an investigation procedure
Komisjoni argumendid uurimismenetluse algatamise raames
The Commission initiated the investigation procedure provided for under Article 108(2) of the TFEU because it had serious doubts as to the compatibility of this aid with the internal market.
Komisjon algatas Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõikega 2 ettenähtud uurimismenetluse, sest tal oli tõsiseid kahtlusi kõnealuste abimeetmete ühisturu nõuetega kokkusobivuse suhtes.
In particular, the Commission has, in a preliminary fashion, examined the compatibility of the measures in question from the perspective of aid for investment and aid for compensation of damage.
Kõigepealt uuris komisjon eelkõige seda, kas need meetmed sobivad ühisturuga kokku investeeringutoetuse ja kahjuhüvitisena.
In the case of the aid for investment, the Commission applied the rules applicable at the time of granting the aid, i.e. the guidelines for State aid in connection with investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products [4] (hereinafter ‘the guidelines’), given that it related to an investment.
Investeeringutoetuse suhtes kohaldas komisjon abi andmise ajal kohaldatavaid eeskirju, st põllumajandustoodete töötlemise ja turustamise sektoris investeeringutega seotud riigiabi suuniseid [4] (edaspidi „suunised”), arvestades, et tegemist oli investeeringuga.
These guidelines exclude, in a general way, aid for investment in the sector of cow’s milk and products of this milk, except in the case of one of the exceptions referred to in point 2.3 of the Annex to Commission Decision 94/173/EC of 22 March 1994 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products [5].
Nendes suunistes välistatakse üldiselt riigiabi investeeringutele lehmapiima ja sellest valmistatud toodete sektoris, välja arvatud mõne komisjoni 22. märtsi 1994. aasta otsuse 94/173/EÜ (millega kehtestatakse põllu- ja metsasaaduste töötlemis- ja turustamistingimuste parandamiseks tehtavate investeeringute valiku kriteeriumid) [5] lisa punktis 2.3 osutatud erandi korral.
These exceptions include investments with a major innovative element.
Need erandid käsitlevad muu hulgas selliseid investeeringuid, mis on suures osas uuenduslikud.
In this regard, in the decision to open the investigation procedure, the Commission concluded that there were not enough elements to be able to conclude that the aid in question met the conditions to benefit from one of the exceptions.
Selles osas tegi komisjon menetluse algatamise otsuses järelduse, et tal ei ole piisavalt teavet, mis võimaldaks otsustada, et kõnealune abimeede vastab ettenähtud erandite kohaldamiseks nõutavatele tingimustele.
Point 3 d) of the guidelines provides for the possibility of declaring certain aid compatible if it is eligible for co-financing.
Suuniste punktis 3d nähakse ette võimalus kuulutada teatavad abimeetmed ühisturuga kokkusobivaks, kui need on kaasrahastamiseks abikõlblikud.
In the decision to open the procedure, the Commission concluded that this possibility could not be applied in the case in question, given that a letter from the Commission to the Netherlands dated 25 June 1999 refused all financing based on the SPD.
Menetluse algatamise otsuses tegi komisjon järelduse, et seda võimalust ei saa käesoleval juhul kohaldada, kuna komisjoni Madalmaade ametiasutustele 25. juunil 1999 saadetud kirjas keelduti mis tahes rahastamisest ühtse programmdokumendi kaudu.
The Commission also examined the argument of the Dutch authorities, according to which the aid had been granted by way of compensation for damage suffered as a result of an error by the authorities in initially granting aid which had later turned out to be illegal and perhaps incompatible with the common market.
Samuti uuris komisjon Madalmaade ametiasutuste väidet, mille kohaselt anti abi hüvitisena kahju eest, mille põhjustas ametiasutuse eksitus, kes oli alguses andnud abi, mis seejärel osutus ebaseaduslikuks ja võib-olla ühisturuga kokkusobimatuks.
The Commission concluded that the company which received the aid could not however have believed in good faith in the legitimacy of the aid if it had not been awarded in accordance with the procedure laid down.
Komisjon tegi järelduse, et abisaajal ettevõttel ei võinud siiski olla õiguspärast ootust abi seaduslikkuse suhtes, kui seda abi ei antud ettenähtud menetluse kohaselt.
It consequently expressed doubts that the compensation was an adequate justification allowing the conclusion that the measure in question did not constitute aid.
Seetõttu väljendas komisjon kahtlusi seoses sellega, et hüvitis on asjakohane põhjendus, mis võimaldab järeldada, et kõnealune meede ei ole abi.
As the Dutch authorities did not advance any other legal basis, the Commission concluded that there were doubts as to the compatibility of the measures in question and considered that it could not be excluded that they constituted operating aid.
Kuna Madalmaade ametiasutused ei esitanud ühtegi muud õiguslikku alust, järeldas komisjon, et kahtlused kõnealuse abi ühisturuga kokkusobivuse suhtes on endiselt alles ning tema hinnangul ei saanud välistada, et tegemist on tegevusabiga.
Comments from third parties
Kolmandate isikute esitatud märkused
First of all, Farm Dairy indicated its surprise at the publication of the decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Kõigepealt märgib Farm Dairy oma üllatust seoses ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsuse avaldamisega.
Farm Dairy was convinced that the case had long since been closed.
Farm Dairy oli tõepoolest veendunud, et kõnealune toimik suleti juba kaua aega tagasi.
Farm Dairy then complained that it had not been able to exercise any influence on the correspondence between Flevoland Province and the Commission, not having been informed of the Commission’s investigation until the formal investigation procedure was opened.
Seejärel väljendab Farm Dairy kahetsust selle üle, et ta ei saanud kuidagi mõjutada Flevolandi provintsi ja komisjoni vahelist kirjavahetust, sest sai komisjoni uurimisest teada alles ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamisel.
Farm Dairy’s comments are subdivided into four parts: firstly, the general background of the measure and the recipient’s legitimate faith; secondly, the application of the Flevoland SPD measures; thirdly, the assessment with regard to Decision 94/173/EC; and fourthly, the contesting of the application of compound interest in the event of a negative decision with recovery.
Farm Dairy märkused jagunevad neljaks osaks: esiteks, meetme üldine kontekst ja abisaaja õiguspärased ootused, teiseks Flevolandi ühtse programmdokumendi meetmete kohaldamine, kolmandaks, hindamine seoses otsusega 94/173/EÜ ja neljandaks, liitintressi kohaldamise vaidlustamine negatiivse otsuse korral koos abi tagasinõudmisega.
General background of the measure
Meetme üldine kontekst
In this context, the Farm Dairy project seemed particularly relevant, as it intended to build an independent milk processing plant in Lelystad.
Sellega seoses tundus Farm Dairy projekt eriti väljapaistev, sest selle eesmärk oli rajada Lelystadi sõltumatu piimatöötlustehas.
Farm Dairy reported a posteriori the positive results engendered by the construction of the Lelystad plant: emergence of competition on the Dutch dairy products market, dominated at the time by Friesland Coberco and Campina Melkunie; proximity of the milk producers; innovations (make-to-order system); introduction of 2-litre containers on the Dutch market; increase in employment in an ‘objective 1’ region; stimulation of economic growth in the region.
Hiljem tõi Farm Dairy esile Lelystadi tehase ehitamise positiivsed tulemused: konkurentsi tekkimine Madalmaade piimatoodete turul, kus sel ajal olid valitseval positsioonil Friesland Coberco ja Campina Melkunie; piimatarnijate lähedus; uuendused (make-to-order system); kaheliitriste pakendite tootmine Madalmaade turule; tööhõive suurenemine eesmärgi 1 piirkonnas; piirkonna majanduskasvu stimuleerimine.
At the time, Farm Dairy intended to develop a line of special and innovative products on the Dutch market.
Sel ajal kavatses Farm Dairy arendada välja Madalmaade turul eriliste ja uudsete toodete liini.
Farm Dairy indicated that the application for subsidies had been assessed positively by the Province and by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture (LNV) on the basis of an independent opinion from the IKC, which concluded that the project was innovative in part.
Farm Dairy osutab, et provints ja põllumajandusministeerium andsid toetuse taotlusele positiivse hinnangu, tuginedes IKC sõltumatule arvamusele, milles leiti, et asjaomane projekt on osaliselt uuenduslik.
An agreement had consequently been signed on 24 February 1999 between Flevoland Province and Farm Dairy, awarding a subsidy under measure 3.3 of the Flevoland SPD.
Seetõttu kirjutati 24. veebruaril 1999 alla Flevolandi provintsi ja Farm Dairy vahelisele lepingule, millega anti toetust Flevolandi ühtse programmdokumendi meetme 3.3 raames.
Farm Dairy emphasises that it was only in 2001 that it was informed by Flevoland Province that the aid was not authorised under State aid rules.
Farm Dairy rõhutab, et Flevolandi provints teavitas teda alles 2001. aastal sellest, et riigiabi eeskirjadest tulenevalt ei olnud abi andmine lubatud.
To avoid legal proceedings, the Province proposed paying compensation.
Kohtumenetluse vältimiseks tegi provints ettepaneku maksta hüvitist.
Farm Dairy noted that the decision to open the investigation procedure mentions that the incompatibility of the aid was brought up only in the course of a conversation between the Province and the Commission.
Farm Dairy osutab, et menetluse algatamise otsuses märgitakse, et ühes provintsi ja komisjoni vahelises kohtumises osutati abi kokkusobimatusele ühisturu nõuetega.
Yet, the Province had indicated to Farm Dairy that a Commission official had suggested that compensation could be paid.
Samas oli provints viidanud Farm Dairyle, et ühe komisjoni ametniku hinnangul oleks võinud maksta hüvitist.
In view of these elements, Farm Dairy indicates that it could have legitimate faith in the fact that the case was closed.
Neid asjaolusid arvestades osutab Farm Dairy asjaolule, et tal võisid olla õiguspärased ootused selle kohta, et toimik oli suletud.