natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the question whether the amount of the levy had a direct impact on the amount of State aid, at the stage of the opening decision the Commission did not possess all the necessary information to assess whether this criterion was fulfilled.
Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud Austria Vabariigile.
To this end the Austrian authorities were invited to explain whether the aid amount at stake was directly linked to the revenue from the levy, i.e. whether it was established up-front or whether it depended on the concrete AMA marketing needs.
Brüssel, 7. aprill 2016
The Commission also indicated that, should it conclude after the submission of the necessary information that the levies form an integral part of the aid measure, it would have to examine whether the financing of the scheme discriminates between imported products and products produced in Austria [105], or between exported national products and national products marketed on the domestic market [106] (recital 236 of the opening decision).
Komisjoni nimel
The Austrian authorities were invited to provide information on these points.
Phil Hogan
In particular, they were invited to indicate whether § 21c(2) of the AMA Act, according to which goods originating outside Austria are exempted from the levy (see recital 58, was in force already in 1995 or whether it was inserted by a later amendment of the law.
Kutse märkuste esitamiseks vastavalt ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõikele 2 seoses riigiabijuhtumiga SA.15836, 12. juuni 2012, C(2012) 3760 (lõplik) (ELT C 301, 5.10.2012, lk 22).
Further, the Member State was invited to explain whether products of Austrian origin marketed outside Austria could benefit from the measure to the same extent as products marketed in Austria.
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 27. oktoober 2011, Austria Vabariik vs. Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH jt, C-47/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:698.
In recital 237 of the opening decision the Commission underlined that it also had to verify whether charging the levy did not run counter to the objectives of the common market organisation in the agricultural sector.
Kohtuotsus, Esimese Astme Kohus, 18. november 2009, Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH jt vs. Euroopa Ühenduste Komisjon, T-375/04, ECLI:EU:T:2009:445.
In this respect it had to be assessed whether the levies did not interfere with the price of the end products and thus whether domestic products were not discriminated against compared to imported products.
Sama argumentatsiooni on kasutatud 26. veebruaril 2015 esitatud teabele lisatud õiguslikus arvamuses.
In this regard, in the opening decision the Austrian authorities were invited to provide data showing the percentage of the respective sales prices to which the levy amounted and to explain to which extent a possible negative impact caused by the levy was compensated by the positive effects of the measures financed by the same levy.
Kvaliteedimärki ja ökomärgist käsitlevad AMA meetmed, mida rakendati muudetud sise-eeskirjade alusel alates 26. septembrist 2002, kiideti heaks 30. juunil 2004 otsusega, mille komisjon tegi juhtumi NN 34 A/2000 kohta (vt põhjendused 10–16).
In addition, the Austrian authorities were invited to explain whether the prices of the relevant products are largely market driven.
EÜT C 28, 1.2.2000, lk 2.
In their submission of 14 September 2012, the Austrian authorities informed the Commission that foreign products were exempted from paying the levy according to Article 2c paragraph 2 of the AMA Act.
EÜT C 252, 12.9.2001, lk 5.
This exemption applied since 1 January 1994 and therefore for the entire period of assessment.
Nagu on märgitud põhjenduses (15), olid abikava NN 34 A/2000 alusel ökomärgise reklaamimeetmed piiratud ajaliselt kuni 31. märtsini 2006 ja ökomärgise kvaliteedi toetusmeetmed kuni 31. detsembrini 2008.
As regards the relationship with the objectives of the common market organisation in the agricultural sector, in their submission of 14 September 2012, the Austrian authorities stated that due to the fact that the prices were formed by supply and demand on the relevant markets and that there was no intervention from the side of the authorities, it was not possible to calculate the percentage of sales prices to which the levy amounted.
Vt joonealune märkus 1.
In the same reply the Austrian authorities argued that the amount of the levy did not have a direct impact on the amount of State aid.
Akt Norra Kuningriigi, Austria Vabariigi, Soome Vabariigi ja Rootsi Vabariigi ühinemistingimuste ning Euroopa Liidu asutamislepingutesse tehtavate muudatuste kohta (EÜT C 241, 29.8.1994, lk 21, kohandatult EÜT L 1, 1.1.1995, lk 1).
In addition to the revenue from the AMA levy, additional sources of financing existed.
Nimelt viide komisjoni otsusele N 88/98.
Namely, aside from the ‘net revenue’ deriving from the levy, and EU funds (for co-financed actions), other revenues were collected from economic operators by way of licence fees and from the proceeds from the royalties paid in the AMA-shop (cookery books, etc.) to finance the measures.
Vt põhjendus 145 jj.
In fact, the Austrian authorities demonstrated that a part of the financing for the AMA measures was not covered by the levy [107] and thus the amount of the aid spent (which in turn influenced the scope of the measures actually carried out) did not exclusively depend on the levy revenue; in addition, the revenue from the levy was not exclusively allocated for the financing of the aid [108].
Aruanded olid lisatud 16. oktoobri 2000. aasta kirjale, millega Austria ametiastutused vastasid komisjoni 19. juuni 2000. aasta nõudmisele esitada lisateavet.
Hence, the Commission considers that the criteria for hypothecation within the meaning of the case-law were not fulfilled for the period 1995 to 2001.
Aruanded esitati koos Austria ametiasutuste 14. septembri 2012. aasta kirjaga.
PERIOD 2002-2008
Nõukogu 18. juuni 1992. aasta direktiiv 92/50/EMÜ, millega kooskõlastatakse riiklike teenuslepingute sõlmimise kord (EÜT L 209, 24.7.1992, lk 1).
The Austrian authorities were also invited to provide the necessary information to allow the Commission to assess whether the parafiscal financing of the measure (levy) formed an integral part of the aid measures for the period 2002 to 2008 (recital 238 of the opening decision).
Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 31. märtsi 2004. aasta direktiiv 2004/18/EÜ ehitustööde riigihankelepingute, asjade riigihankelepingute ja teenuste riigihankelepingute sõlmimise korra kooskõlastamise kohta (ELT L 134, 30.4.2004, lk 114).
For the reasons stated above, and given that the sources of funding remained the same, the Commission considers that no hypothecation between the levy and the State aid measures existed also for the period 2002 to 2008.
14. septembri 2012. aasta kirja punktide 31 ja 47 lisa.
For the reasons stated above, and notwithstanding recital 378 below, the AMA marketing measures constitute State aid.
Kvaliteedimärk ja ökomärgis olid esitatud juhtumi NN 34 A/2000 kohta tehtud komisjoni otsuse põhjenduses 13.
For the reasons stated above, and notwithstanding recital 378 below, the aid measures referred to in recitals 208, 213, 327, third sentence and 355 are incompatible with the internal market.
Seda logo kasutati ka ajavahemikus 1999–2002.
The other measures assessed above are compatible with the internal market.
Kvaliteedimärki on kasutatud 2000. aasta tootejuhistes (Richtlinien für Frischfleisch, Fleischerbetriebe, Fleischwaren, Frischeier, Putenfleisch, Milch und Milchprodukte, Obst, Gemüse und Speisekartoffeln, Speisefette, Speiseöle, Diverse Lebensmittel).
Any compensation which at the time of the granting fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the de minimis Regulation [109] is deemed not to constitute aid.
Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 20. märtsi 2000. aasta direktiiv 2000/13/EÜ toidu märgistamist, esitlemist ja reklaami käsitlevate liikmesriikide õigusaktide ühtlustamise kohta (EÜT L 109, 6.5.2000, lk 29).
Any aid which, at the time of the granting fulfilled the conditions of a block exemption or an approved aid scheme is compatible with the internal market, up to the maximum aid intensities applicable to that type of aid.
Nõukogu 24. juuni 1991. aasta määrus (EMÜ) nr 2092/91 põllumajandustoodete mahepõllundustootmise ning põllumajandustoodete ja toiduainete puhul sellele viitavate märgiste kohta (EÜT L 198, 22.7.1991, lk 1).
RECOVERY
Nõukogu 17. mai 1999. aasta määrus (EÜ) nr 1257/1999 Euroopa Põllumajanduse Arendus- ja Tagatisfondi (EAGGF) toetuse kohta maaelu arendamiseks ning teatavate määruste muutmise ja kehtetuks tunnistamise kohta (EÜT L 160, 26.6.1999, lk 80).
In accordance with the Treaty and the Court of Justice's established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the Member State concerned must abolish or alter aid [110] when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market.
Neid standardeid on kirjeldatud juhtumi NN 34A/2000 kohta tehtud komisjoni otsuse põhjenduses 59.
The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation [111].
AMA-Gütesiegel Richtlinie Frischfleisch vom April 1999, Richtlinien Frischfleisch vom April 1997, Richtlinien Frischfleisch vom April 1997 (Anpassung entsprechend Beiratsbeschluss vom 22.1.1998), Richtlinien Frischfleisch vom Februar 1996, Richtlinien diverse Lebensmittel.
In this context, the Court has stated that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored [112].
Veebruar 1997.
Following that case-law, Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 [113] (hereinafter Procedural Regulation) lays down that ‘where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.’
Austria ametiasutuste sõnul kasutati seda vormi kuni 31. detsembrini 2000.
According to Article 17 of the Procedural Regulation, the powers of the Commission to recover incompatible aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years.
AMA 1996. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 3.
The limitation period begins on the day on which the unlawful aid was awarded to the beneficiary.
AMA 1996. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 12.
Any action taken by the Commission with regard to the unlawful aid interrupts the limitation period.
AMA 1996. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 35.
The limitation period is suspended for as long as the decision of the Commission is the subject of proceedings before the ECJ.
[…] – Kuulub ametisaladuse alla.
The complaint which triggered the present procedure was received on 21 September 1999 (see recital 4) and the Commission registered the scheme as a non-notified aid in the year 2000 (see recital 8).
AMA 1996. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 15.
Furthermore, the 2004 decision acknowledges the fact that the Commission has decided, for administrative reasons, to split the procedure (see recital 10) and assess the measures before and after the year 2003 separately.
Mõlemad näited on esitatud AMA 1996. aasta tegevusaruande (Tätigkeitsbericht) leheküljel 17.
This splitting of the procedure had been a request of the Austrian authorities dated from 8 March 2004.
AMA 1996. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 19.
The above cited actions (splitting of procedure acknowledged by 2004 decision) and letters (Austrian request of 8 March 2004) are interrupting events in the meaning of Article 17 Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.
AMA 1996. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 13.
This means that the Commission has the power to order recovery as of 1 January 1995, the date of Austria's accession to the European Union.
AMA 1996. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 26.
The Commission decision NN 34A/2000 was challenged before the General Court on 30 June 2004 and its ruling was appealed before the Court of Justice on 27 January 2010.
AMA 1997. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 3.
The judgment of the Court was pronounced on 27 October 2011 (see above recital 22).
„Die österreichische Naturqualität hat sich mit der Unterstützung der AMA auch 1997 am Heimmarkt eine Position gesichert, mit der es gelungen ist, Eintrittsbarieren gegenüber EU-Anbietern aufzubauen und gleichzeitig den heimischen Produkten Unverwechselbarkeit zu garantieren.
According to Article 15 paragraph 2, third sentence of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the limitation period was therefore suspended between 30 June 2004 and 27 October 2011.
Dass der“ Geschmack der Natur „am Heimmarkt sogar Marktanteile zurückgewonnen hat, ist im Marktsegment Fruchtjoghurt klar abzulesen.
For the reasons stated above the 10 years limitation period for recovery with regard to the measures assessed in this decision has not expired.
So konnten 1997 von den heimischen Herstellern 15 % Marktanteil von ausländischen Anbietern zurückgewonnen werden“.
The incompatible State aid specified at recital 374 above must therefore be recovered by the Austrian authorities.
Kuulub ametisaladuse alla.
Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation specifies that ‘where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary’.
14. septembril 2012 esitatud teave.
Article 16(3) of the Procedural Regulation specifies that ‘recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures under the national law of the Member State concerned, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Commission's decision.’
Selle reklaaminäite leiab AMA 1999. aasta tegevusaruande (Tätigkeitsbericht) leheküljelt 10.
The means according to national law established by the Member States, by which they implement recovery decisions, should give full effect to the recovery decision.
AMA 2000. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 9.
It is therefore necessary that the national measures taken by Member States lead to an effective and immediate execution of the Commission decision.
AMA 2000. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 10.
According to a settled jurisprudence, in the case of negative decisions for non-notified aid, particularly where a significant period of time has elapsed, the Commission may resort to approximate evaluations of the sums to be recovered [114].
AMA 2000. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 11.
The Commission would like to point out that, according to the jurisprudence ‘no provision of Community law requires the Commission, when ordering the recovery of aid declared incompatible with the common market, to fix the exact amount of the aid to be recovered.
AMA 2000. aasta tegevusaruanne (Tätigkeitsbericht), lk 12.
It is sufficient for the Commission's decision to include information enabling the recipient to work out himself, without overmuch difficulty, that amount.’ [115]
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 13. märts 2001, Preussen Elektra, C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160, punkt 58; ning kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 20. november 2003, GEMO, C-126/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:622, punkt 23.
Given the nature of some of the measures concerned (i.e. measures concerning indirect aid to a large number of beneficiaries) the Commission is not in a position to determine in the present decision the exact aid amount per beneficiary for each measure for which recovery has been ordered.
14. septembril 2012 esitatud teave.
The Commission would therefore point out that the sums communicated by the Austrian authorities during the investigation period (see recitals 43-45) constitute the starting point for the calculation of the aids to be recovered from the respective beneficiaries.
AMA alusakti § 21i.
The categories of incompatible aid, as well as the relevant periods have been identified in the decision.
AMA alusakti § 21k.
Therefore, the Commission considers that, in the framework of the recovery procedure, a reasonable method of calculating the aid per beneficiary needs to be provided by the Austrian authorities, and communicated to the Commission, in a spirit of loyal cooperation with the Commission,
AMA alusakti § 21l.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
AMA alusakti § 21l lõige 2.
Article 1
Vastavalt AMA alusakti § 21a lõige 1, § 21c ja § 21d.
The State aid which Austria has implemented for the following measures and periods is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:
Vt joonealune märkus 47.
aid for generic advertising in the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001,
AMA alusakti § 11 lõige 1.
advertising aid in the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2006,
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 15. juuli 2004, Pearle BV, C-345/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:448, punktid 35–38.
aid for/by way of advertising campaigns outside Austria and generic advertising in Austria, in the period 1 January 2002 to 1 January 2004,
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 30. mai 2013, Doux Élevage SNC ja Coopérative agricole GBP-ARREE vs. Ministère de l'Agriculture, C-677/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348, punktid 32, 35 ja 38.
quality advertising aid in the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2008,
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 24. juuli 2003, Altmark, C-280/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:415, punkt 84.
aid for/by way of promotion measures in a broader sense and technical support measures in the period 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1999,
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 22. mai 2003, Freskot AE vs. Elliniko Dimosio, C-355/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:298, punkt 83.
aid in the form of technical assistance, advisory services and control measures relating to quality products in the period 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1999,
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 22. märts 1977, Steinike & Weinlig, 78/76, ECLI:EU:C:1977:52, punkt 22.
aid for quality products in the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2006,
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 27. juuni 1999, Belgia vs. komisjon, C-75/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:311, punkt 31.
aid in the form of technical support in the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2006,
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 17. september 1980, Philip Morris Holland BV vs. komisjon, 730/79, ECLI:EU:C:1980:209, punktid 11 ja 12.
aid in the form of technical support for generic products in the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2004,
Vt eelkõige kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 13. juuli 1988, Prantsuse Vabariik vs. komisjon, 102/87, ECLI:EU:C:1988:391.
aid in the form of technical support in the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2008 for primary producers.
Allikas: Eurostat.
Article 2
Nõukogu 22. märtsi 1999. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 659/1999 (millega kehtestatakse üksikasjalikud eeskirjad EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 93 kohaldamiseks (EÜT L 83, 27.3.1999, lk 1)) artikli 4 lõikes 6 – tõlgendatuna koos sama määruse artikli 1 punkti b alapunktiga iii – on sätestatud, et kui komisjon ei ole teinud otsust kahe kuu jooksul pärast abist teatamist, võib asjaomane liikmesriik meedet rakendada, kui ta on sellest eelnevalt komisjonile teatanud ja kui komisjon ei tee otsust sellele teatamisele järgneva 15 tööpäeva jooksul.
The following State aid schemes, unlawfully put into effect by Austria in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are incompatible with the internal market, for the respective periods indicated:
N 175/2006, N 589/2008 ja N 496/2009.
aid for generic advertising in the period 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1999,
Kohtuotsus, Esimese Astme Kohus, 18. november 2009, Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH jt vs. Euroopa Ühenduste Komisjon, T-375/04, ECLI:EU:T:2009:445, punktid 86 ja 87.
aid for the quality label in the period 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1999,
See viide on alates 1995. aastast kõikides värske liha logo reguleerivate eeskirjade artiklites, mis käsitlevad toote päritolu.
aid for quality products in the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2008,
EÜT C 119, 22.5.2002, lk 22.
technical support for undertakings active in processing and marketing in the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2008.
ELT C 319, 27.12.2006, lk 1.
Article 3
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 12. veebruar 2008, CELF vs. SIDE, C-199/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:79, punkt 68.
Individual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 2 does not constitute aid if, at the time it was granted, it fulfilled the conditions laid down by a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 [116] which was applicable at the time the aid was granted.Article 4
EÜT C 272, 28.10.1986, lk 3.
Individual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 2 which, at the time it was granted, fulfilled the conditions laid down by a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98 or by any other approved aid scheme is compatible with the internal market, up to the maximum aid intensities applicable to that type of aid.
EÜT C 302, 12.11.1987, lk 6.
Article 5 Austria shall recover the incompatible aid referred to in Article 2 from its beneficiaries.
EÜT C 252, 12.9.2001, lk 5.
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date of their disbursement until their actual recovery.
1987. aasta reklaamiraamistiku punkt 1.1.
The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [117].Article 6
2001. aasta reklaamisuuniste punkti 5 alapunkt b.
Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 shall be immediate and effective.
2001. aasta reklaamisuuniste punkti 7.
Austria shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months following the date of notification of this Decision.
2007.–2013 aasta suuniste punkti 152 alapunkt a.
Article 7
Tuleks märkida, et 1987. aasta reklaamiraamistiku punktis 2.1.1 (koos joonealuse märkusega 1) on viidatud otse 1986. aasta teatises sisalduvatele komisjoni suunistele.
Within 2 months following notification of this Decision, Austria shall submit the following information to the Commission:
Nagu on näha 1986. aasta teatisest, püüti selles esitada juhiseid, mis pidanuks tagama, et liikmesriikide müügiedenduskampaaniad jäävad piiridesse, mis on heaks kiidetud Euroopa Kohtu praktikaga, eelkõige otsusega kohtuasjas 222/82: Apple & Pear Development Council vs. K.J.
the list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the schemes referred to in Article 2 and the total amount of aid received by each of them under the scheme;
Lewis Ltd jt, EU:C:1983:370.
the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiaries;
Võttes arvesse 1986. aasta teatist.
a detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;
Vt ka põhjendus 65.
documents demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.
2004. aastale järgnevat ajavahemikku on käsitletud otsuses juhtumi N 239/2004 kohta.
Austria shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 2 has been completed.
Vt põhjendus 39.
It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision.
Nõukogu 20. septembri 2005. aasta määrus (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 Maaelu Arengu Euroopa Põllumajandusfondist (EAFRD) antavate maaelu arengu toetuste kohta (ELT L 277, 21.10.2005, lk 1).
It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.
Vt näiteks komisjoni otsused seoses juhtumitega N 570/1998 (millele on põhjenduses 41 juba viidatud), N 662/1998 (komisjoni 30. aprilli 1999. aasta otsus SG(99) D/3095) ja K(1999) 4227 (komisjoni 25. novembri 1999. aasta otsus 2000/132/EÜ (EÜT L 37, 12.2.2000, lk 31)).
Article 8
Käesolevas jaos viitab komisjon hindamisel kõnealuste otsustega seoses toimunud hindamisele.
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Austria.
Ettepanek võtta asjakohaseid meetmeid seoses abiga, mida liikmesriigid annavad loomakasvatuse ja loomakasvatustoodete sektoris (S/75/29416, 29.9.1975).