natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The costs it incurred in this respect were covered in part from the levy charged pursuant to Section 22 of the MFG and in part, as Germany had communicated, from the general budget.
Meiereide tasud kvaliteedikontrolli eest on seevastu kerkinud, et kompenseerida väiksemat maksu kaudu rahastamist.
Since the Länder have the power to regulate who is required to bear the costs for their particular area, certain undertakings were not favoured within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if quality tests were funded within a given Land entirely or partly by the milk levy.
Kohus on selles asjas otsustanud, et soodustusega ei ole tegemist, kui maks vastab tegelikele majanduslikele kuludele vastutasuks ellu viidud tegevuse eest [11].
Federal law was not the correct reference framework for determining the matter of who should bear the costs.
Selline kaup-kauba-vastu-seos esineb (maksutaoliste) lõivude korral, mida kogutaksegi mingil konkreetsel eesmärgil.
It was therefore irrelevant that in Länder other than Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria such (partial) funding from the levy did not take place.
Nagu ka komisjon on märkinud, [12] on praegusel juhul selline püsiv seos olemas.
Within Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg all undertakings had to bear the costs equally.
Kuna käesoleval juhul on tegevus (maks) mahukam kui vastutasuks osutatav tegevus (piimakontrolli väiksemad kulud), on riigiabi seisukohast oluline soodustus välistatud.
There was therefore no (selective) favouring of some undertakings over others.
Teise võimalusena väitis Saksamaa, et asjaomased osameetmed kujutavad endast olemasolevat abi.
A further aspect also demonstrated that there was no favouring of dairies that was relevant from a State aid point of view, i.e. the fact that dairies were not spared costs that they would normally have to bear because they were required in return to pay a higher contribution to the milk levy.
Alus kontrolli rahastamiseks maksu kaudu on piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahvi 22 lõike 2 punkt 1.
The levy was only partially used to fund milk testing.
Selle kohaselt antud toetus on (parimal juhul) olemasolev abi ja sellisena kehtivad selle suhtes varasemad nõuded.
When the level of funding for milk testing from the levy was ended in the light of the Commission's proceedings, the levy rate was also reduced.
Toetuse olemust olemasoleva abina ei kahjusta võimalikud muudatused ega sobivad meetmed.
The remuneration received by dairies in respect of quality tests thus increased in order to offset the lower level of funding from the levy.
Määruse (EÜ) nr 659/1999 artikli 1 punkti b alapunkti i kohaselt hõlmab olemasoleva abi mõiste muu hulgas abi, „mis enne asutamislepingu jõustumist oli olemas vastavates liikmesriikides, see tähendab abikavad ja individuaalne abi, mis kehtisid enne ja mida kohaldatakse ka pärast asutamislepingu jõustumist”.
The Court of Justice had held in this respect that no advantage existed where a contribution corresponds to the actual economic cost of the benefits provided in return [11].
Piima- ja rasvaseadust muudeti 1952. aastal ja see on sellest ajast peale suures osas muutumatult kehtinud.
Such a link between the benefit and the consideration paid for it did exist in the case of (parafiscal) charges if the charges were collected in relation to a specific purpose.
Abikava võeti seega kasutusele juba tunduvalt varem enne asjaomast tähtpäeva (1. jaanuar 1958).
As the Commission had itself established [12], such ‘hypothecation’ did exist in this case.
Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõike 3 esimese lause kohaselt kaotavad varasemad nõuded olemasoleva abi suhtes kehtivuse ja abist tuleb teatada, kui seda muudetakse.
Since the benefit (contribution to the levy) exceeded the consideration (lower costs of milk tests) in this case, any advantage relevant from a State aid point of view could be ruled out.
Muutmist Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõike 3 esimese lause tähenduses eeldatakse väljakujunenud kohtupraktika ja tehtud otsuste kohaselt ainult juhul, kui abi muudetakse olulisel määral.
In the alternative, Germany claimed that the sub-measures in question constituted existing aid.
Muudatus on oluline üksnes siis, kui see puudutab abi põhiolemust, kui abi antakse teisel õiguslikul alusel või kui muutub abikava ulatus.
The basis for funding the tests from the revenues generated by the levy was Section 22(2), point 1, of the MFG.
Muudatus puudutab vaid siin asjasse mittepuutuvat paragrahvi 22 lõike 2 punkti 5.
The support granted pursuant to that provision was (at most) existing aid and was therefore subject to grandfathering.
Erinevate liidumaade eeskirjade muudatused ei puuduta asjaomaste meetmete ulatust või iseloomu.
The support's status as existing aid was undermined neither by any changes nor by any appropriate measures.
Pigem on piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahvi 22 lõikega 2 ette nähtud, millistel eesmärkidel võib piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahvi 22 lõike 1 kohasest maksust laekunud vahendeid kasutada.
Article 1(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provided that ‘existing aid’ encompasses aid which ‘existed prior to the entry into force of the Treaty in the respective Member States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the Treaty’.
Kui üksikuid menetluseeskirju oleks muudetud, muudetaks olemasolevat abi selle tulemusena Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõike 3 esimese lause tähenduses ainult juhul, kui see mõjutab siseturuga kokkusobivust.
The aid scheme had therefore been introduced well before the relevant qualifying date (1 January 1958).
Abi siseturuga kokkusobivuse jaoks olulisi tunnuseid – vahendite päritolu (maks vastavalt paragrahvi 22 lõikele 1) ja kasutusotstarve (paragrahvi 22 lõige 2) – on piima- ja rasvaseaduses siiski juba piisavalt täpsustatud.
Under the first sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU, existing aid lost its protection under grandfathering and was liable to be notified if the aid was altered.
Asjaolu, et piima- ja rasvaseaduse alusel eraldati vahendeid võib-olla osaliselt üksikjuhtudel ja üksnes ajutiselt, [13] ei ole olemasoleva abi iseloomuga vastuolus.
According to settled case law and decisional practice, aid could only be deemed to have been altered within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU if it had been significantly amended.
Seda toetust antakse piima- ja rasvaseaduse alusel, mis kujutab endast abikava ja kus kirjeldatakse seetõttu selle olemuse tõttu üksikuid toetusi vaid üldiselt.
An amendment was only relevant if it affected the essential nature of the aid, if the aid was granted on a different legal basis or if it amended the scope of the scheme.
Lisaks ei ole vaja abikava läbivalt kasutada.
The (possibility of applying) the aid scheme had not undergone any significant amendment since 1958.
Põllumajandussektori riigiabi käsitlevates ühenduse suunistes aastateks 2000–2006 [14] (edaspidi „ühenduse 2000.–2006. aasta suunised”) ning ühenduse suunistes riigiabi kohta põllumajandus- ja metsandussektoris aastateks 2007–2013 [15] (edaspidi „ühenduse 2007.–2013. aasta suunised”) sisalduvad sobivad meetmed ei ole siinse juhtumi mõttes oluliste meetmete suhtes kohaldatavad, nii et viimased jäävad endiselt olemasolevaks abiks.
In particular, Section 22(2) of the MFG, which serves as a basis for the measures at issue here, had undergone only minimal changes, and point 1 of that provision, which is relevant to this case, had remained completely intact.
Sobivad meetmed peavad olema seotud vahetult kõnesoleva abiga ja nende abil tuleb kindlaks teha, et see ei ole siseturuga kokkusobiv.
Amendments to the provisions of the individual Länder did not affect the scope or nature of the measures in question.
Sellega seoses tugineb Saksamaa ühenduse 2007.–2013. aasta suuniste punktidele 108 ja 109.
Indeed, the purposes for which revenues from the levy could be used were stipulated by Sections 22(1) of the MFG.
Ühenduse 2007.–2013. aasta suuniste ja komisjoni määruse (EÜ) nr 1857/2006 [16] süstemaatika tõttu eristatakse abi loomakasvatusele ning abi põllumajandustoodete tootmisele ja turustamisele.
To the extent that individual procedural rules had been amended, this would have altered the existing aid within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU only if its compatibility with the internal market had been affected.
Ühenduse 2007.–2013. aasta suuniste punktis 109 sisalduvast korrast on võimalik aru saada ainult nii, et selles tuleb arvesse võtta kõnealuseid järeldusi karja geneetilise kvaliteedi säilitamise kohta (punkt 108), sest ainult sellest on juttu.
In the case of Bavaria, the relevant Regulation on a levy for milk (BayMilchUmlV) only regulated details, e.g. concerning the collection of the levy, and the same also applied to Baden-Württemberg.
Ka määruse (EÜ) nr 1857/2006 artiklis 16, millele osutatakse ühenduse 2007.–2013. aasta suuniste punktis 109, käsitletakse loomakasvatussektori toetust, mitte piima kvaliteedi kontrolle siinse juhtumi jaoks olulises tähenduses.
The aspects relevant to the aid's compatibility with the internal market, i.e. the provenance of the funds (the levy pursuant to Section 22(1)) and the purpose for which they were used (Section 22(2)) were, however, already sufficiently set out in the MFG.
Määruse (EÜ) nr 1857/2006 artikli 16 lõike 1 punkt b hõlmab piima kvaliteedi kontrolli, mis on seotud loomakasvatusega.
The levy rates applied in both Länder had also steadily fallen since 1984.
See tuleneb ka sätte kontekstist: selle kohaselt on vabastatud abi (ülemmääraga 70 %) karja geneetilise kvaliteedi või tootlikkuse määramiseks.
Falling levy rates could not undermine the aid scheme's compatibility.
Kui piima kvaliteedi rutiinne kontroll on sellest välja jäetud, võib see samamoodi hõlmata ainult kontrolli, mis sobib põhimõtteliselt karja tootlikkuse määramiseks.
The fact that some of the funds had possibly been granted on the basis of the MFG in individual cases and only temporarily [13] (see recital 147 of the Decision) was not an obstacle to their being regarded as existing aid.
Erand kätkeb vaid rutiinset piima kvaliteedi kontrolli, mida tehakse otse piimalehma juures, sest asjaomase looma omadusi on võimalik kindlaks teha ainult sellise kontrolliga.
The appropriate measures contained in the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the Agricultural Sector 2000-2006 [14] (hereinafter: ‘the 2000-2006 Guidelines’) and in the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the Agricultural and Forestry Sector 2007-2013 [15] (hereinafter: ‘the 2007-2013 Guidelines’) were not applicable to the measures relevant in this case, meaning that they continued to constitute existing aid.
Siinsel juhul oluliste piima kvaliteediuuringutega, mida teevad MPBY ja MPBW, selgitatakse seevastu välja piima enda omadused (mitte lehma geneetilisi omadusi).
The appropriate measures would have to relate specifically to the aid in question and determine that it was not compatible with the internal market.
Need piima omadused (muu hulgas rasva- ja valgusisaldus) on olulised piima müügi ja turuleviimise seisukohalt.
The 2007-2013 Guidelines did not address the matter of the compatibility of support for milk quality checks, at least not with the necessary detail.
Tagasiulatuvad järeldused üksikute loomade kohta ei ole võimalikud, sest uuringud on teisiti kavandatud.
In this context, Germany referred to paragraphs 108 and 109 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines.
Proove ei eristata selle järgi, milliselt lehmalt need pärinevad.
The classification of aid in the 2007-2013 Guidelines and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 [16] distinguished between ‘aid in the livestock sector’ and ‘aid for the production and marketing of agricultural products’.
Need võetakse alles piimakogumisauto juures.
Paragraph 108 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines was clearly concerned solely with support for livestock holdings since it related to the ‘genetic quality of Community livestock’.
Seal ei ole loomade kaupa eraldamine võimalik, sest piimakogumisautos on paljude loomade piim kogumisel segunenud.
Experience had ‘shown that this aid should be maintained only where it really contributes to the maintenance and improvement of the genetic quality of livestock’.
Ühenduse 2007.–2013. aasta suunistes ei ole seetõttu punktis 109 ega muus kohas välistatud, et piima kvaliteedi kontrolliks mõeldud abi on siseturuga kokkusobiv.
The introduction of innovative animal breeding techniques would be compatible with this, while support for the maintenance of breeding animals would not.
Komisjoni kohustus on tõendada, et üksikud meetmed ei ole siseturuga kokkusobivad.
Paragraph 109 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines could only be understood as meaning that it should take account of this knowledge concerning the maintenance of the genetic quality of livestock (paragraph 108) as this was the only thing it dealt with.
Võimalik sobivate meetmete sõnastamise ebaselgus ei tohi tuua liikmesriikidele kahju [17].
Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006, to which paragraph 109 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines referred, was concerned with ‘support for the livestock sector’ and not with milk quality checks in the sense that was relevant in this case.
Määruse (EÜ) nr 659/1999 artikli 19 lõike 1 kohaselt vajalik liikmesriigi heakskiit kehtib ainult juhul, kui liikmesriik suudab tõendada, millised meetmed ta konkreetselt heaks kiidab.
Article 16(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 dealt with milk quality checks linked to the breeding of animals.
Asjaomased liidumaad võivad seetõttu lähtuda sellest, et vaidlusalused meetmed on siseturuga kokkusobivad.
This was apparent from the context of the provision, which stipulated that the exemption extended to aid (up to a rate of 70 %) to determine the genetic quality or yield of livestock.
Kui komisjonil oleks olnud kavas teha kindlaks Baieri ja Baden-Württembergi piima kvaliteedi kontrolli kokkusobimatus ELi siseturuga, oleks ta võinud sellega (sõnaselgelt) tegeleda samas vormis nagu teiste otsuste puhul [18].
If routine milk quality checks were excluded from this, then this could also only relate to checks that are generally suited to determining the yield of animals.
Saksamaaga suheldes ei ole komisjon tõstatanud küsimust, kas piima kvaliteedi kontrolli rahastamine Baieris ja Baden-Württembergis maksu kaudu on siseturuga kokkusobiv.
The exception related solely to routine milk quality checks carried out directly on the dairy cow because only such checks could determine the characteristics of the animal in question.
Kõnealuse meetme selgesõnaline käsitlus oleks – võttes arvesse ühenduse 2007.–2013. aasta suuniste kõige vähem ebaselget sõnastust – täpsuse ja lojaalse koostöö üldpõhimõtete kohaselt (Euroopa Liidu lepingu artikli 4 lõige 3) vajalik olnud, liiati kuna asjaomased liidumaad lähtusid sellest, et BY 1 ja BW 1 raames käsitletud meede ei sisalda abi.
In Bavaria, this quality testing on animals was carried out by the Landeskuratorium der Erzeugerringe für tierische Veredelung in Bayern e.V.
Ühenduse 2007.–2013. aasta suuniseid ei tule seetõttu mõista nii, et piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahvi 22 lõike 2 punktil 1 põhinevad meetmed on siseturuga kokkusobimatud.
(LKV), while in Baden-Württemberg it was carried out by the Landesverband Baden-Württemberg für Leistungsprüfungen in der Tierzucht e.V.
Sobivad meetmed ei hõlma seega Baieri ja Baden-Württembergi piima kvaliteedi kontrolli rahastamist maksu kaudu (BY 1, BW 1).
By contrast, the milk quality testing carried out by the MPBY and the MPBW that is relevant to this case related to determining the characteristics of the milk itself (and not the genetic characteristics of the cow).
Teise võimalusena selgitab Saksamaa, et meetmed on siseturuga kokkusobivad, isegi kui need kujutavad endast abi.
The characteristics of the milk in question (e.g. fat and protein content) were relevant to the sale and placing on the market of milk.
Määruse (EÜ) nr 1857/2006 artikli 16 lõike 1 punktist b ei tulene, et piima kvaliteedi kontrolliks abi andmine on siseturuga kokkusobimatu.
They did not allow inferences to be made concerning individual animals because they were carried out differently.
Määruse artikli 16 lõike 1 punkti b kohaselt ei ole kontroll tõepoolest automaatselt siseturuga kokkusobiv ega seega teatamiskohustusest vabastatud.
Samples were not separated so as to be able to identify which cow they came from, but were instead taken from milk tankers.
Komisjon võib siiski üksikjuhul kindlaks teha, et abi on siseturuga kokkusobiv.
This meant that it was no longer possible to separate the milk according to the cow it had come from because milk from a variety of cows had already been mixed together when the sample was taken.
Väidetav abi Baieri ja Baden-Württembergi meiereidele on igal juhul Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti c kohaselt siseturuga kokkusobiv.
Consequently, neither paragraph 109 nor any other provision of the 2007-2013 Guidelines excluded the possibility that aid for milk quality checks was compatible with the internal market.
Selle poolt räägib asjaolu, et seda liiki abi on ka ühenduse 2000.–2006. aasta suuniste punkti 13.3 kohaselt siseturuga kokkusobiv, nagu komisjon on algatamisotsuses (punkt 164 jj) tunnistanud.
The onus was on the Commission to prove that individual measures were incompatible with the internal market.
Eelkõige on tegemist ettenähtud kontrolliga, mida teevad kolmandad isikud.
Any ambiguity in the formulation of appropriate measures could not be to the detriment of the Member States [17].
Siseturuga kokkusobivust näitab veel see, et meiereid kannavad kvaliteedikontrolli kulud piimamaksu kaudu ise.
The acceptance by the Member State required under Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 could therefore only be effective if the Member State was aware which measures it was specifically accepting.
See vähendab meiereide väidetavaid eeliseid miinimumini [19].
The Länder in question could therefore assume that the disputed measures were compatible with the internal market.
Meiereide omavahelist konkurentsi erinevad süsteemid ei kahjusta, ükskõik kas kulud kantakse otse või kogutakse maksu.
If the Commission had intended to find the Bavarian and Baden-Württemberg milk quality tests to be incompatible with the common market, it could have (expressly) addressed this in a form consistent with how it had done this in other decisions.
Selle tulemusena kannavad meiereid kulusid mõlemal juhul.
The Commission had not, however, broached the question of the compatibility with the internal market of funding the milk quality tests in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg by means of a levy.
Ei ole arusaadav, miks asjaomase abi kokkusobivus siseturuga, mis on ühenduse 2000.–2006. aasta suunistesse sõnaselgelt lisatud, peaks olema alates 2007. aastast muutunud.
In view of the wording of the 2007-2013 Guidelines, which is at the very least unclear, it would have been necessary in accordance with the general principles of legal certainty and sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU) to specifically deal with these measures, particularly given that the Länder in question had assumed that sub-measures BY 1 and BW 1 did not involve any aid.
Huvitatud isikute märkused
The 2007-2013 Guidelines should therefore not be understood as meaning that measures implemented pursuant to Section 22(2)(1) of the MFG were incompatible with the internal market.
7. veebruarini 2014 sai komisjon huvitatud isikutelt kokku seitse märkust piima kvaliteedi kontrolliks kulutatud toetuste kohta.
Consequently, the funding of milk quality tests in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg by means of a levy (BY 1/BW 1) did not fall under the definition of appropriate measures.
MPBY selgitas oma 5. veebruari 2014. aasta kirjas, et meiereid ei ole varasematel aastatel maksu kaudu rahastamisest eelist saanud.
In the alternative, Germany also argued that the measures were compatible with the internal market even if they did constitute aid.
Seetõttu ei ole mingil viisil arusaadav, kuidas see aja jooksul kinnistunud ja üldtunnustatud süsteem võiks põhjustada konkurentsi moonutamist või liikmesriikidevahelise kaubanduse kahjustamist.
It did not result from Article 16(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 that it was incompatible with the internal market to grant aid for controls of milk quality.
Edasise menetluse käigus tuleks seetõttu algatamisotsuses BY 1 all nimetatud meetme käsitlemine pärast veelkordset kontrollimist lõpetatuks lugeda.
Under that provision, these were not ‘automatically’ compatible with the internal market and thus exempt from the notification requirement.
MPBW väitis oma 6. veebruari 2014. aasta märkustes, et osameetmega BW 1 seotud maksed ei täida abi eeltingimusi Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
However, the Commission could decide in an individual case that the aid was compatible with the internal market.
Eelkõige ei koorma tarnitud piima kvaliteediuuringute süsteem Baden-Württembergis riigieelarvet.
The alleged aid for Bavarian/Baden-Württemberg dairies was in any case compatible with the internal market in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Toetusega võrdsed soodustused, mis tulenevad riigi meetmest, ilma et avalikus sektoris tekiks sellele vastav rahaline kaotus, ei kuulu seevastu Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 kohaldamisalasse [20].
This view was also supported by the fact that this form of aid was compatible with the internal market under point 13.3 of the 2000-2006 Guidelines, as the Commission had itself acknowledged in its initiation Decision (paragraphs 164 et seq.).
Piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahvi 22 lõike 3 kohaselt hallatakse laekuvaid vahendeid eraldi.
In particular, it relates to prescribed checks that are carried out by third parties.
Neid ei tohi kasutada liidumaa kõrgeimate asutuste ja nendele alluvate üksuste halduskulude katmiseks.
Compatibility with the internal market is further confirmed by the fact that the dairies themselves met the costs of the quality checks via the milk levy.
Need tuleb kajastada Baden-Württembergi eelarves iseseisva alapealkirja all.
This minimised any potential advantages that the dairies might enjoy [19].
Riigieelarves on osutatud nende sihtotstarbele.
Competition between dairies was not undermined by the different system, irrespective of whether costs were borne directly or a levy was charged.
Piimamaksust laekunud vahendeid ei ole seetõttu kasutatud kunagi muudel eesmärkidel väljaspool piima- ja rasvaseadust.
The upshot was that dairies bore the costs in either case.
Eeskätt on aga MPBW saanud talle antud ülesannete raames makseid piimamaksust laekunud vahenditest, mis ei ületanud siiski maksust rahastatud vahendeid.
It was not clear how the compatibility with the internal market of aid that had explicitly been included in the 2000-2006 Guidelines should have changed from 2007.
Seetõttu ei makstud MPBW-le välja riigi ressursse – näiteks makse või muid riigi tulusid –, vaid ainult piimasektori maksust laekunud vahendeid, mida tasusid meiereid.
Comments from interested parties
Selle asemel võttis Baden-Württembergi liidumaa üle vaid piimamaksu korraldamise ja jagamise.
Between 5 and 7 February 2014, the Commission received a total of seven letters from interested parties containing comments concerning the support granted in respect of the milk quality tests.
Tarnitud piima kvaliteediuuringute süsteem Baden-Württembergis ei põhjustanud seetõttu rahalist kaotust avalikus sektoris.
In its letter of 5 February, the MPBY argued that dairies had not in recent years been afforded any advantage by dint of levy funding.
Kuna Baden-Württembergi liidumaa ei ole eraldanud piimamaksu jaoks toetusi ja riigieelarvele ei ole tekkinud sellele vastavat rahalist netokoormust, ei ole Baden-Württemberg andnud abi subsideeritud teenustena.
It was therefore completely incomprehensible how this long-standing and generally accepted system could distort competition or negatively affect trade between the Member States.
Isegi kui Baden-Württembergi piimasektori maks oleks vastupidiselt Euroopa Kohtu otsuses käsitletud PreussenElektra kriteeriumidele seostatav riigiga, ei oleks tegemist soodustusega meiereidele.