natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 107(1) of the TFEU provides: ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, 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 enterprises or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõikes 1 on nähtud ette, et kui aluslepingutes ei ole sätestatud teisiti, 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.
For a measure to be covered by Article 107(1) of the TFEU, each of the following four conditions must be cumulatively met: 1) the measure must be financed by the State or through State resources and be attributable to the State; 2) it must selectively concern certain enterprises or sectors of production; 3) it must involve an economic advantage for the recipient enterprises; 4) it must affect trade within the EU and distort or threaten to distort competition.
Et meede kuuluks ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 kohaldamisalasse, peavad korraga olema täidetud neli järgmist tingimust: 1) meedet rahastatakse riigi poolt või riigi ressurssidest ja see peab olema riigi meede; 2) see peab olema valikuliselt seotud teatavate ettevõtjate või tootmissektoritega; 3) see peab abi saavatele ettevõtjatele tooma kaasa majanduseelise; 4) see peab kahjustama kaubandust liidus või kahjustama või ähvardama kahjustada konkurentsi.
In the following recitals, these four criteria will be applied to the measures which may constitute State aid.
Järgnevates põhjendustes kohaldatakse meetmete suhtes, mis võivad kujutada endast riigiabi, neid nelja kriteeriumi.
As indicated in recital 55, several financing systems were used to finance the costs of the BSE tests.
Nagu on märgitud põhjenduses 55, on TSE testide kulude rahastamiseks kasutatud mitut rahastamissüsteemi.
As part of the examination of the criterion of the presence of State resources, this Decision makes a distinction between the different means of financing the BSE tests.
Riigi vahendite kasutamise kriteeriumi analüüsimisel on käesolevas otsuses tehtud vahet TSE testide rahastamise erinevate viiside vahel.
Presence of State resources
Riigi vahendite kasutamine
From 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001
1. jaanuarist 2001 kuni 31. detsembrini 2001
During the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001, the BSE tests were financed entirely by the national exchequer.
Ajavahemikul 1. jaanuarist 2001 kuni 31. detsembrini 2001 rahastas TSE testide kulu täielikult riigikassa.
There is no doubt that this was a case of financing through State resources.
Ei ole kahtlustki, et niisugusel juhul on tegemist rahastamisega riigi vahenditest.
From 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2004
1. jaanuarist 2002 kuni 30. juunini 2004
During the following period, that is from 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2004, the tests were pre-financed by the BIRB, pending a structural solution for financing the tests.
Järgneval perioodil, st 1. jaanuarist 2002 kuni 30. juunini 2004 tasus testide eest ette BIRB, kuni kõnealuste testide rahastamiseks leiti konstruktiivne lahendus.
The BIRB is a federal public institution with a legal personality, resulting from the merger of the former Office Belge de l’Économie et de l’Agriculture (OBEA) and the agriculture division of the former Office Central des Contingents et Licences (OCCL).
BIRB on õigusvõimeline föderaalne ametiasutus, mis tekkis endise Belgia majandus- ja põllumajandusameti (Office Belge de l’Économie et de l’Agriculture, edaspidi „OBEA”) ja endise kvootide ja lubade keskameti põllumajandusosakonna (division Agriculture de l’ancien Office Central des Contingents et Licences, edaspidi „OCCL”) ümberkujundamise tulemusena.
It is a category B para-state organisation reporting to the Minister for agriculture, SMEs and the self-employed.
Tegemist on riigi osalusega organisatsiooniga, mis asub põllumajanduse ja väikeettevõtluse ministeeriumi haldusalas ning kuulub B-kategooriasse.
The BIRB is an accredited paying agency in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy, and financed by the EAGGF [26].
BIRB on ühise põllumajanduspoliitika raames heaks kiidetud makseasutus, mida rahastab EAGGF [26].
It may also be entrusted with tasks arising from the federal or regional governments’ agricultural policy.
Talle võidakse lisaks anda ülesandeid, mis tulenevad föderaalvalitsuse või regioonide valitsuste põllumajanduspoliitikast.
To balance its administrative budget, the BIRB has a government endowment entered in the budget for its supervisory role at federal level (the Federal Public Service Economy) and some revenue of its own (revenue from some fees and limited assets).
Et BIRB saaks oma halduseelarve tasakaalu viia, saab ta valitsuselt toetust, mis on kantud tema järelevalvevolituste eelarvesse föderaalsel tasandil (Service publik fédéral Économie – föderaalne majandusamet). BIRBil on lisaks ka omavahendid (tulud mõnest teenustasust ja piiratud ulatusega investeeringud).
In view of the above, financing through the BIRB constitutes financing through State resources.
Eelneva põhjal kujutab BIRBi rahastamine endast rahastamist riigi vahenditest.
From 1 July 2004 to 30 November 2004
1. juulist 2004 kuni 30. novembrini 2004
From 1 July 2004 to 30 November 2004, the tests were prepaid by the FASFC (Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain).
1. juulist 2004 kuni 30. novembrini 2004 tasus testide eest ette AFSCA.
Consequently, it follows from these considerations that the funds provided by the FASFC constitute State resources and that their allocation is decided by public authority, the FASFC being subject to the hierarchical authority of the Minister responsible for public health.
Nendest kaalutlustest tuleneb seega, et AFSCA tasutud raha kujutab endast riigi vahendeid ning et seda, milleks see eraldatakse, otsustab riigiasutus, sest AFSCA allub rahvatervise valdkonnas pädevale ministrile.
From 1 December 2004 to 31 December 2005
1. detsembrist 2004 kuni 31. detsembrini 2005
As far as the period between 1 December 2004 (date on which Royal Decree of 15 October 2004 entered into force) and 31 December 2005 (date on which the Royal Decrees of 10 November 2005 entered into force) is concerned, the BSE tests were financed by a fee of EUR 10,70 per bovine tested in addition to financing by the FASFC from its reserves and from the repayable advance made available to it by the national exchequer.
Ajavahemikul 1. detsembrist 2004 (15. oktoobri 2004. aasta kuningliku määruse jõustumise kuupäev) kuni 31. detsembrini 2005 (10. novembri 2005. aasta kuninglike määruste jõustumise kuupäev) rahastati TSE teste 10,70 euro suurusest teenustasust veise kohta, millele lisandus AFSCA-poolne rahastamine tema reservidest ja tagastatavast ettemaksest, mille riigikassa tema käsutusse andis.
The partial financing from the FASFC provided from its own funds constitutes a State resource (see recital 82).
AFSCA-poolne osaline rahastamine tema omavahenditest kujutab endast riiklikku vahendit (vt põhjendus 82).
With regard to the question of whether the fees constitute State resources, they may be State resources if they do not cover the real full costs of the services they are intended to pay for.
Mis puudutab küsimust, kas teenustasud on riigi vahendid, siis riigi vahenditega võib tegemist olla juhul, kui ilmneb, et teenustasud ei kata teenuste kõiki tegelikke kulusid, mille eest neid makstakse.
Indeed, if the fee and the cost of the service provided are not the same, the surplus constitutes a State resource at the disposal of the State body to whom the fee is paid.
Kui osutatud teenuse kulu ja teenustasu ei ole vastavuses, moodustab ülejääk riikliku vahendi, mida riigiasutus, kellele teenustasu makstakse, võib kasutada.
This is why it is important to verify whether the fees paid to the FASFC for the BSE tests represent payments for the FASFC’s services effectively provided to the enterprises and whether or not they were based on market prices (see recital 54 of the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure).
Seepärast tulebki kontrollida, kas AFSCAle TSE testide eest makstavad teenustasud kujutavad endast makseid teenuste eest, mida AFSCA ettevõtjatele tõesti osutas, ja kas need põhinesid turuhindadel või mitte (vt ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsuse põhjendus 54).
This question is dealt with below, during the examination of the concept of advantage.
Seda küsimust on käsitletud allpool, analüüsides mõistet „eelis”.
From 1 January 2006 on
Alates 1. jaanuarist 2006
As far as the period following the entry into force of the Royal Decrees of 10 November 2005, i.e. the period starting on 1 January 2006, is concerned, it is necessary to examine whether the fees and the contributions set by these Decrees constitute State resources.
Mis puudutab 10. novembri 2005. aasta kuninglike määruste jõustumisele järgnenud ajavahemikku, st perioodi, mis algas 1. jaanuaril 2006, siis tuleb kaaluda, kas nende määrustega kehtestatud teenustasud ja sissemaksed kujutavad endast riigi vahendeid.
This question was already examined in the context of Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05.
Seda küsimust analüüsiti juba otsuse N 9/05 ja N 10/05 raames.
In recital 44 there was a general indication that the contributions constituted State resources and that the fees could constitute State resources if those fees did not cover the real full costs of the services they were intended to pay for.
Selle põhjenduses 44 on üldiselt märgitud, et sissemaksed on riigi vahendid ja et teenustasud võivad olla riigi vahendid, kui selgub, et kõnealused teenustasud ei kata selliste teenuste kõiki tegelikke kulusid, mille eest neid makstakse.
The BSE tests were part-financed by the fees and part-financed by the contributions.
TSE teste rahastati osaliselt teenustasude ja osaliselt sissemaksetega.
Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 concluded that the part-financing of the costs of the BSE tests by the fees did not constitute State aid and that the financing by the contributions was a compatible form of State aid.
Otsuses N 9/05 ja N 10/05 leiti, et TSE testide kuludest ühe osa rahastamine teenustasudega ei ole riigiabi ja et rahastamine sissemaksetega on riigiabi.
As indicated in recital 34 of the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure, the aid approved by Commission Decision is not the subject of this decision and will not be re-examined here.
Nagu on märgitud ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsuse põhjenduses 34, ei käsitleta käesolevas otsuses komisjoni otsusega heaks kiidetud abi ja seda abi siin seega uuesti ei analüüsita.
Consequently, a part of the contributions was used to finance the BSE tests conducted during the period between 1 January 2003 and 1 December 2004, the aim being to recover from the farmers in a non-individual fashion the pre-financed costs of the compulsory BSE tests that exceeded the maximum amount of EUR 40.
Järelikult kasutati ühte osa sissemaksetest ajavahemikul 1. jaanuarist 2003 kuni 1. detsembrini 2004 tehtud TSE testide rahastamiseks, kusjuures eesmärk oli saada põllumajandustootjatelt mitteisikuliselt tagasi kohustuslike TSE testide eest ette tasutud summad, mis ületasid maksimumsummat 40 eurot.
Allocating part of the receipts of these contributions to the reimbursement of the pre-financing of the tests does not in any way change the classification as State resources as per Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05.
Asjaolu, et üks osa nende sissemaksete tuludest eraldati testide eest ette tasutud summade hüvitamiseks, ei muuda kuidagi riigiabiks kvalifitseerimist otsuses N 9/05 ja N 10/05.
Selective advantage for an enterprise
Ettevõtjale antav valikuline eelis
In examining the existence of an advantage, it is necessary to distinguish, on the one hand, the measures financed by State resources, including contributions, and the measures financed by fees.
Analüüsides, kas on olemas eelis, tuleb eristada riigi vahenditest rahastatavaid meetmeid, sealhulgas sissemaksed, ja teenustasudest rahastavaid meetmeid.
With regard to the measures financed through State resources, including the contributions, the Commission has constantly held the opinion [30] that if the State finances the costs of the obligatory controls that concern the production or the marketing of products, this has to be considered as a selective advantage for the enterprises [31].
Riigi vahenditest rahastatavate meetmete, sealhulgas sissemaksete osas on komisjon olnud alati arvamusel, [30] et kui riik rahastab toodete tootmise või turustamisega seotud kohustuslike kontrollide kulusid, tuleb seda pidada ettevõtjatele antavaks valikuliseks eeliseks [31].
Indeed, the State reduced the charges that are normally included in the budget of an enterprise.
Riik on nimelt leevendanud koormust, mis jääb tavaliselt ettevõtja eelarve kanda.
It can be deduced from the above that the farmers, the slaughterhouses and other entities which process, handle, sell or market products from bovine animals for whom BSE tests are obligatory by virtue of the legislation in force during the period in question, are conducting an economic activity and have benefited from State aid for the financing of the BSE tests by the State, and this since 1 January 2001.
Eelnevast võib järeldada, et põllumajandustootjad, tapamajad ja muud üksused, kes töötlevad, käitlevad, müüvad või turustavad tooteid, mis on saadud veistelt, kellele tehti asjaomasel ajavahemikul kohaldatavate õigusaktide kohaselt kohustuslikus korras TSE testid, tegelevad majandustegevusega ja said TSE testide riigipoolse rahastamise kaudu alates 2001. aasta 1. jaanuarist riigiabi.
The arguments put forward by Belgium (see recitals 37 et seq.) according to which the financing of the BSE tests was compulsory with a view to protecting public health and that it is up to the Member State to decide on the normal system of financing BSE tests may not be accepted for the reasons set out in recital 74.
Belgia esitatud argumentidega (vt põhjendus 37 jj), mille kohaselt on TSE teste vaja rahastada selleks, et kaitsta rahvatervist, ning liikmesriik ise otsustab, kuidas TSE teste tavaliselt rahastatakse, ei saa nõustuda põhjenduses 74 esitatud põhjustel.
In the more specific context of the selectivity assessment, Belgium argued that one could not speak of selectivity except where certain sectors or enterprises would benefit from preferential treatment in comparison with the normal system.
Valikulisuse hindamise konkreetsemas kontekstis väitis Belgia, et valikulisusest saab kõnelda üksnes siis, kui teatavatele sektoritele või ettevõtjatele saab osaks eeliskohtlemine võrreldes normaalse süsteemiga.
The fact of there being differences between the various Member States as regards the financing of the BSE tests and that this could lead to distortions of competition is not, in Belgium’s view, a question of State aid but of harmonisation of legislations.
See, et TSE testide rahastamine on erinevates liikmesriikides erinev ja see võib tekitada konkurentsimoonutusi, ei ole Belgia arvates tingitud riigiabist, vaid õigusaktide ühtlustamatusest.
As indicated in Decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, the selectivity criterion is met when the advantage is reserved for some enterprises or one sector.
Nagu on märgitud otsuses N 9/05 ja N 10/05, on valikulisuse kriteerium täidetud, kui eelis on antud mõnele ettevõtjale või ühele tegevussektorile.
In this case, at national level, the financing of the BSE tests by the State only benefited one given sector, namely the sector involved in breeding animals subject to BSE tests.
Praegusel juhul toob TSE testide riigipoolne rahastamine riigisiseselt kasu ainult ühele konkreetsele sektorile, nimelt sellele, kus kasvatatakse loomi, kellele tehakse TSE teste.
At Community level, the fact that the BSE tests were financed by the State or through State resources favoured Belgian enterprises and gave those enterprises an advantage over their foreign competitors for whom the mandatory BSE tests were not financed by the State or through State resources.
Ühenduse tasandil annab TSE testide riigipoolne või riigi vahenditest rahastamine Belgia ettevõtjatele eelise oma välismaiste konkurentide ees, kelle puhul ei rahasta kohustuslikke TSE teste riik või ei rahastata neid riigi vahenditest.
In the preamble to the TSE guidelines (points 8 and 9), it was clearly indicated that the ongoing harmonisation obliging the sector to support the costs was slow, and that the Commission had thus decided to clarify and modify its policy on State aids with regard to the costs generated by the BSE tests.
TSE suuniste preambulis (punktid 8 ja 9) oli selgelt märgitud, et käimasolev ühtlustamine, millega sektorit kohustati kandma kulusid, oli aeglane ning et komisjon otsustas seega oma riigiabipoliitikat TSE testide kulude osas täpsustada ja muuta.
Point 24 of the TSE guidelines, for its part, indicates that the examination requirement could be based on Community or national legislation.
TSE suuniste punktis 24 on omakorda mainitud, et analüüsimise kohustus võib tuleneda ühenduse või liikmesriigi õigusaktidest.
This point clearly indicates that there is no Community harmonisation with regard to the obligation to perform the tests, which implies that this could also lead to an aid selectively benefiting the enterprises of a given Member State.
Selles punktis on selgelt märgitud, et testide tegemise kohustus ei ole ühenduse tasandil ühtlustatud, mis tähendab, et selle tõttu võib ette tulla ka valikulist abi, mis soodustab konkreetse riigi ettevõtjaid.
In conclusion, the measures financed through State resources, including the contributions, give a selective advantage to farmers, slaughterhouses and other entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing under the applicable legislation, by reducing the costs they must pay.
Kokkuvõttes annavad riigi vahenditest, sealhulgas sissemaksetest rahastatavad meetmed põllumajandustootjatele, tapamajadele ja muudele üksustele, kes töötlevad, käitlevad, müüvad või turustavad veiselihasaadusi, millele tehakse kohaldatavate õigusnormide kohaselt kohustuslikus korras TSE test, valikulise eelise, sest need alandavad kulusid, mida isikud, kelle tooteid testitakse, kandma peavad.
These advantages are not conferred by direct payments, but by the public authorities covering the costs of the BSE tests by directly paying the laboratories which perform the tests on request from the slaughterhouses and invoice the costs to the FASFC.
Neid eeliseid ei anta otsetoetustega, vaid nii, et riigiasutused kannavad TSE testide kulud, tasudes testide eest otse laboratooriumidele, kes neid tapamajade taotlusel teevad, ja kandes need kulud AFSCA arvele.
As far as the aid measures financed by the fees are concerned, whether an advantage is conferred through these fees must be verified.
Mis puudutab teenustasudest rahastatavaid abimeetmeid, siis tuleb kontrollida, kas nende teenustasudega antakse eelis.
As indicated in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure (in recitals 61 and 62), there would be no question of an advantage if those fees were less than the real costs to the economic operators of the services effectively provided by the FASFC.
Nagu märgitud ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsuses (põhjendused 61 ja 62), ei ole eelisega tegemist siis, kui need teenustasud jäävad alla nende teenuste tegelike kulude, mida AFSCA ettevõtjatele tegelikult osutab.
Whether the charges represent payments for the FASFC services effectively provided to the enterprises must be verified.
Kontrollida tuleb ka, kas tasud kujutavad endast makseid teenuste eest, mis AFSCA ettevõtjatele tõesti osutas.
More specifically, the question arises of whether an advantage was conferred on the slaughterhouses and producers who paid the fee of EUR 10,70 per bovine tested during the period between 1 December 2004 and 31 December 2005, and whether they effectively benefited from the services provided by the FASFC.
Konkreetselt kerkib küsimus, kas tapamajadele ja tootjatele, kes tasusid ajavahemikul 1. detsembrist 2004 kuni 31. detsembrini 2005 teenustasu 10,70 eurot testitud veise kohta, anti eelis ja kas nemad olid tõesti AFSCA osutatud teenuste saajad.
The Belgian authorities indicated in the response to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure that the fee of EUR 10,70 per bovine tested was the only source of financing for the FASFC to support the costs of the BSE tests, with the exception of the FASFC reserves and the recoverable advances from the national exchequer.
Belgia ametiasutused märkisid oma vastuses ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsusele, et teenustasu 10,70 eurot testitud veise kohta on lisaks AFSCA reservidele ja riigikassa tagastatavatele ettemaksetele AFSCA ainus rahastamisallikas, mille abil ta kannab TSE testide kulud.
The fee was paid by the slaughterhouses.
Teenustasu maksavad tapamajad.
The Belgian authorities mentioned that there was no legal obligation for the slaughterhouses to invoice the amount of the fee to their clients, but that the slaughterhouses’ practice was to separately invoice the cost of the fee to the producers.
Belgia ametiasutused mainisid, et tapamajadele ei ole kehtestatud mingit seaduslikku kohustust kanda teenustasu summa oma klientidele arvele, kuid praktikas kannavad tapamajad teenustasu kulu tootjate arvele eraldi.
This was proved by Belgium by means of the invoices provided by way of example, where it is clearly visible that the slaughterhouses separately invoice the cost of the fee to the producers.
Belgia tõendas seda arvetega, mis ta näiteks esitas ja millelt ilmneb selgelt, et tapamajad kannavad teenustasu summa tootjate arvele eraldi.
Belgium considers that there is no need to formally regulate the way in which the slaughterhouses repay the fee to the producers or other potential beneficiaries of the services, given that this cost is invoiced to producers in a similar way to the other costs incurred during slaughtering and invoiced to producers.
Belgia leiab, et viisi, kuidas tapamajad kannavad makstava teenustasu tootjatele või teistele teenuse potentsiaalsetele saajatele üle, ei ole tarvis ametlikult reguleerida, sest see kulu kantakse tootjatele arvele samamoodi nagu teised kulud, mis tapmisega kaasnevad ja tootjatele arvele kantakse.
Consequently, from the above we can deduce that the doubt expressed during the opening of the formal investigation procedure, in recital 44, which indicates that the charge for the slaughterhouses was a lot higher than for other beneficiaries of the service, had arisen from the information Belgium submitted on how the amount of this fee was invoiced to the producers.
Eelnevast võib seega järeldada, et ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise ajal põhjenduses 44 väljendatud kahtluse, et tapamajadele puhul oli tasu palju kõrgem kui teiste teenuse saajate puhul, kõrvaldas teave, mille Belgia esitas selle teenustasu summa tootjate arvele kandmise kohta.
As for whether the price for the BSE tests was the market price, Belgium firstly indicated to the Commission that since July 2005 the prices proposed by the FASFC were less than EUR 40, while the agricultural guidelines for 2007-13 cite EUR 40 as the lowest price available in the Community at that time.
Küsimuses, kas TSE testide hind on turuhind, märkis Belgia esiteks komisjonile, et alates 2005. aasta juulist on AFSCA välja pakutud hinnad alla 40 euro, samal ajal kui põllumajandussuunistes aastateks 2007–2013 mainitakse, et 40 eurot on hetkel kõige madalam hind ühenduses.
This is an indication that the prices were in line with prices elsewhere in Europe during the period in question.
See näitab, et hinnad on vastavuses mujal Euroopas konkreetsel ajavahemikul kasutatavate hindadega.