natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, the payments in question could not be attributed to the State.
Piimamaksu kogumise korda ja suurust reguleeritakse nii Alam-Saksimaal kui ka Tüüringis maksukogumismäärusega (edaspidi „UmlErhVO”), mis võetakse vastu asjaomase Landesvereinigung'iga konsulteerides.
Moreover, the State neither controlled the level of payments nor was involved organisationally in LVN.
See Landesvereinigung juhib ka eraldi hallatavate maksuvahendite kasutamist (vt piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahvi 22 lõike 3 esimene lause) ja seetõttu kogutakse seda vahetevahel koguni Landesvereinigung'i enda kontole (vt näiteks Tüüringi UmlErhVO paragrahvi 3 lõige 1).
It also stated that LVN was overseen not by state bodies but rather by the Hannover Chamber of Agriculture, a public self-regulating body which therefore did not come directly under the public administration.
Nii töötab Landesvereinigung enda erialasel vastutusel välja ettepanekuid vahendite kasutamiseks.
In supplementary comments submitted on 8 July 2014, LVN referred, inter alia, to the Commission's Val'Hor Decision [13].
Tüüringis toimub see näiteks taotluste alusel, mida liikmed esitavad Landesvereinigung Thüringer Milchile (vt Tüüringi tööjuhendi punkt 6.3).
In that Decision the Commission had acknowledged that neither the state's power to recognise an interbranch organisation nor its regulatory support in the collection of sector-related ‘contributions’ (through the possibility, in the case in question, of extending agreements) led to the conclusion that the measures implemented by the interbranch organisation were attributable to the state.
Siiski on riigiasutus see, kes Landesvereinigung'i koostatud kasutusettepanekud kehtestab (nii on Alam-Saksimaal toetuste juhendi punkti 6.2 kohaselt ja Tüüringis Tüüringi UmlErhVO paragrahvi 4 kohaselt), heaks kiidab või annab sellekohase loa (nii on Nordrhein-Westfalenis ja Baieris).
Whether state involvement in parafiscal systems of funding led to advantages being attributable to the state as ‘State aid’ depended on the circumstances in the individual case and on an overall assessment to be made on that basis.
See ei anna aga veel alust eeldada riigi määravat mõju: riikliku kontrolli ulatus piirdub ainult piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahvi 22 lõike 2 nõuetega.
The aspects that were relevant to an examination as to whether State aid existed, as developed by case-law, were as follows:
Seega annavad kõnealused õigusnormid riigiasutustele rahaliste vahendite haldamise juhtimiseks või mõjutamiseks sama vähe õigust nagu Doux Élevage'i kohtuasjas [14].
Who decided about the collection and use of the funds?
Ka tegelikult kasutatakse maksuvahendeid kõikides liidumaades vastavalt Landesvereinigung'i kasutusettepanekutele.
If this was a private organisation, how did the State influence this decision?
Juba see räägib – sõltumata konkreetsetest õigusnormidest – maksuvahendite riigiga seostamise vastu [15].
From what resources were the payments funded?
LVNi väitel on asjaomasel Landesvereinigung'il puhtalt eraõiguslik staatus.
What type of measures were funded?
Nagu näitavad Landesvereinigung'ide põhikirjad, peavad nad ennast oma eranditult piimasektorist (sealhulgas tarbijate esindajad) pärit liikmete huvide esindajaks.
From whom were the resources collected?
Piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahvi 14 kohaselt on Landesvereinigung piimasektori ettevõtjate ja tarbijate vabatahtlik ühendus oma majandushuvide ühiseks esindamiseks.
Who was responsible for initiating the measure?
Landesvereinigung erineb Pearle'i kohtuasjas vaidluse aluseks olnud optikute kutseühendusest Hoofdbedrijfschap Ambachte, mis tegeles kohustusliku maksu kogumise ja kasutamisega reklaami otstarbel.
Via its legal representatives, LVN had examined the legal situation in other German Länder and had come to the conclusion that the indicators for the existence of State aid developed by case-law were not met, which meant that the MFG could not, overall, be regarded as comprising an aid element.
Kuigi kõnealusel optikute kutseühendusel oli avalik-õiguslik staatus, eitas kohus riigiabi olemasolu, sest reklaami ei rahastatud riigiasutuste kasutada antud vahenditest, vaid majandusharu ettevõtjatelt kogutud maksudest [16].
According to LVN, it was the Land associations that decided to collect the levy from dairies.
Landesvereinigung kui piimamaksu kogumise ja kasutamisega seotud peamine asutus erineb ka Plans de Campagne'i kohtuasjas käsitletud põllumajandustootjate piirkondlikest organisatsioonidest, kes ei osalenud meetmete kindlaksmääramisel ja kellel ei olnud meetmete elluviimisel mingit tegutsemisruumi [17].
Under the first sentence of Section 22(1) of the MFG, the levy could only be collected in consultation with the Land associations.
Landesvereinigung on mitteriiklik, puhtalt eraasutus, kes sellisena otsustab piimamaksu ja selle kasutamise üle enda vastutusel.
Under the second sentence of Section 22(1) of the MFG, any increase in the levy had to be requested by the Land association.
Lisaks ei esine piimasektori soodustamisele vastukaaluks riigieelarve koormamist, sest piimamaksu kogutakse piimasektori osalejatelt ja seega korvatakse valikuline soodustamine valikulise koormamisega.
The detailed arrangements and amount of the levy were regulated in Lower Saxony and Thuringia by a Levy Collection Regulation (Umlageerhebungsverordnung (UmlErhVO)) which had been issued ‘in consultation’ with the relevant Land association.
Niisiis puudub soodustav mõju ja konkurentsi moonutamine, kuna meiereide ja piimatootjate eelised tasakaalustatakse täielikult maksuga koormamise kaudu.
The Land association in question also determined how the revenues from the levy, which had to be administered separately (see the first sentence of Section 22(3) of the MFG), were to be used.
Vent de Colère'i kohtuasjas kinnitas kohus maksusüsteemi riiklikku iseloomu muu hulgas seetõttu, et koormised ei ole enam – nagu varasema õiguse kohaselt – tasakaalustatud ainult asjaomase majandusharu osalejate maksude kaudu (energeetikaga seotud juhtumis), vaid pärast seadusemuudatust kõikide riigis elavate elektrienergia lõpptarbijate tasude kaudu [18].
For this reason, they were in some cases even paid into an account belonging to the Land association (see, for example, Section 3(1) of the Thuringia Levy Collection Regulation).
Lisaks ei saa LVNi väitel rääkida riigiabist, kui tegemist on kollektiivse suunitlusega meetmetega, mis viiakse ellu teatud majandusharu huvides ja mida rahastatakse majandusharu osalejatelt kogutud maksetest.
The Land associations thus drew up proposals under their own responsibility in the area as to how the revenues should be used.
Kõikide etteheidetavate meetmete eesmärk on piimaks oleva toote toetamine ja seega piimasektori kollektiivne huvi.
In Thuringia, for example, this occurred on the basis of applications submitted to the local Land association, Landesvereinigung Thüringer Milch (LVTM), by its members (see point 6.3 of the Thuringia Working Guidelines (Thüringer Arbeitsrichtlinie)).
Osaliselt kaitsevad need meetmed ühtlasi tarbijate huve, sest kumbagi eesmärki ei ole võimalik olemasoleva huvide kokkulangevuse alusel üksteisest eraldada.
Although the proposals on the use of the resources drawn up by the Land associations were ‘enacted’ (for Lower Saxony, see point 6.2 of the Payment Guidelines (Zuwendungsrichtlinie), and for Thuringia, see Section 4 of the Thuringia Levy Collection Regulation) or ‘approved’ (as in North Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria) by a state body, this did not mean that the state exercised any significant influence since the only basis for state ‘overseeing’ was what was laid down by Section 22(2) of the MFG.
Riigi roll piirdub sellega, et ta annab piimasektorile piima- ja rasvaseaduse alusel kasutada seadusliku hüvitusmehhanismi, millega tagatakse, et piimasektori osalejad, kes saavad asja olemuse tõttu piimaks oleva toote heaks võetud meetmetest kasu, annavad kulude katteks asjakohase panuse.
Consequently, the provisions in question conferred upon state bodies no more power to direct or influence the administration of the funds than in Doux Élevage [14].
Riik toimib seega nii nagu Pearle'i, Doux Élevage'i ja VaľHori kohtuasjades vaid vahendina, et muuta erasektori algatatud hüvitusmehhanism siduvaks ja tekitada nii koormiste võrdsus [19].
Moreover, the revenues from the levy were indeed used in all Länder in accordance with the proposals put forward by the Land associations.
Piimamaksu algatus pärineb Landesvereinigung'ist, seega erasektorist.
That in itself was evidence enough — irrespective of the specific legal arrangements that were applicable — that the revenues in question were not imputable to the State [15].
Nii kogutakse maksu piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahvi 22 kohaselt ainult Landesvereinigung'iga konsulteerides.
According to LVN, each of the Land associations had the status of a private body.
Ka Landesvereinigung ise ei ole riiklike nõuete tulemus, vaid piimasektori osalejate vabatahtlik ühendus (piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahv 14).
Their statutes made it clear that they considered themselves to represent the interests of their members, who were recruited solely from the dairy industry (including consumer representatives).
Üldistades näitlikustab see, et piimamaks kujutab endast puhtalt erasektori hüvitusmehhanismi, mille juures riik toimib ainult vahendina, et muuta maksukohustus siduvaks [20].
In Section 14 of the MFG, Land associations were described as ‘voluntary’ organisations made up of businesses and consumers involved in the dairy industry whose purpose it was to ensure the joint representation of their members' economic interests.
Ühes ülevaates tõi LVN enda seisukohalt võttes esile olemasolevad ühisjooned või erinevused ühelt poolt erinevate kohtuasjade ning teiselt poolt piima- ja rasvaseaduse vahel.
Although that professional association had the status of a public body, the Court of Justice found that State aid did not exist because the advertising measures were funded not by resources made available to state bodies but rather by levies collected from undertakings operating in the sector [16].
Vent de Colère'i kohtuasjas (C-262/12) (tulemus: abi) määratakse maksu suurus – erinevalt piimamaksu juhtumist – ühepoolselt kindlaks ministri käskkirjaga ilma eraettevõtjate osaluseta, olemas on riiklik garantii, vahendeid haldab avalik asutus ja kehtivad riiklikud karistusmehhanismid.
The Land associations, as the bodies competent for collecting and allocating the milk levy, also differed from the agricultural committees in Plans de Campagne, which were not involved in defining the measures in question and did not have any discretion in their application [17].
Doux Élevage'i kohtuasjas (C-677/11) (tulemus: ei ole abi) kogub ja annab vahendeid – nagu piimamaksugi puhul – põhiliselt erasektori vabatahtlikult ühinenud ja riiklikult tunnustatud tootmisharudevaheline organisatsioon, ainuüksi seadusega ettenähtud erasektori tootmisharudevahelise organisatsiooni riikliku tunnustamise võimalus ei tähenda riikliku kontrolli eeldamist, vahendeid rahastatakse täielikult ettevõtjatelt kogutud maksetest, riik ei saa neist maksetest saadud vahendeid teatavate ettevõtjate toetamiseks tegelikult kasutada ning tootmisharudevaheline organisatsioon otsustab ise vahendite kasutamise üle.
The Land associations were non-state and entirely private bodies that determined the amount and allocation of the milk levy as such on their own responsibility.
Plans de Campagne'i kohtuasjas (T-139/09) (tulemus: abi) otsustab – erinevalt piimamaksu juhtumist – maksete suuruse üle ametiasutus, maksetest laekuvat tulu suurendatakse riigi vahendite abil, meetmed määrab kindlaks riik (riigikontrolöri pitser jne), majandusharu organisatsioonid selles kindlaksmääramises ei osale ja neil ei ole ka mingit tegutsemisruumi meetmete elluviimisel ning organisatsioonide koosolekutel osaleb ministri esindaja.
Moreover, the benefit enjoyed by the dairy industry was not a drain on the public exchequer because the milk levy was collected from operators belonging to the dairy industry, i.e. the selective ‘advantage’ was offset by a selective burden.
Pearle'i kohtuasjas (C-345/02) (tulemus: ei ole abi) kasutatakse vahendeid – nagu piimamaksugi puhul – eranditult vastava majandusharu eesmärkidel, teatud majandusharu ühendus taotles avalikult asutuselt maksete kogumist, et viia selle majandusharu huvides ellu teatud meetmeid, ent erinevalt piimamaksu juhtumist osaleb kohustusliku maksu kogumisel ja kasutamisel määraval viisil avalik-õiguslik, mitte erasektori kutseühendus, nii et Pearle'i juhtum tundub selles suhtes piimamaksu omast probleemsem.
This in itself was enough to rule out any preferential treatment or distortion of competition because the ‘advantages’ enjoyed by dairies and milk producers were offset by having to pay the levy.
Saksamaa 3. detsembri 2014. aasta märkused
In Vent de Colère, the Court of Justice had found a system of charges to constitute State aid because — following a change to the law — the burden was no longer offset solely by charges paid by members of the economic sector in question (energy) but by charges paid by all end-consumers of electricity resident in the national territory [18].
LVNi 8. juuli 2014. aasta lisamärkuste kohta väitis Saksamaa 3. detsembri 2014. aasta kirjaga järgmist.
LVN also considered State aid not to exist in the event that it related to ‘collective operations’ implemented in the interests of a specific sector and funded on the basis of contributions collected from members of that sector.
LVNi 8. juuli 2014. aasta märkused ning Euroopa kohtute ja Euroopa Komisjoni praeguse aja otsustuspraktika annavad alust põhimõttelisteks lisaselgitusteks küsimuses, kas siin on üldse olemas riigiabi koosseis Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses ja eelkõige, kas siin on täidetud tunnus „riigi ressurssidest”.
The contested measures were intended solely to promote milk as a product and thus the collective interest of the dairy industry.
LVNi 8. juuli 2014. aasta märkused ning eelnimetatud otsuste läbivaatamine lubavad vähemalt kahelda, kas käesoleval juhul on tunnus „riigi ressurssidest” täidetud nii, et piimamaksu kogumisel ja kasutamisel ei ole tegemist riigiabiga.
The measures in question also partially protected consumer interests because the two purposes could not be separated from each other owing to the overlapping of interests that existed.
Seda on võimalik põhjendada järgmiselt.
As in Pearle, Doux Élevage and VaľHor, the State thus functioned solely as a facilitator enabling the compensation mechanism set up by the private sector to be made mandatory and thus ensuring a fair sharing of burdens [19].
Erinevates liidumaades olemasolev piima Landesvereinigung on organisatsioon, mida võib pidada tsiteeritud otsustes nimetatud organisatsioonidega võrreldavaks.
The levy had been initiated by the Land associations and thus by the private sector.
Riigiasutused ei ole kunagi olnud Landesvereinigung'i liikmed.
The levy was thus collected pursuant to Section 22 of the MFG solely in ‘consultation’ with the Land associations.
Nad võtavad koosolekutest osa ilma hääleõiguseta, otsekui väljastpoolt pärit külalised.
The Land associations were themselves not a product of State action either but rather ‘voluntary’ organisations made up of members of the dairy industry (Section 14 of the MFG).
Riigiasutuste osalemine piimamaksu kogumise raames või piima- ja rasvaseadusega ettenähtud õiguslike tingimuste järgimise järelevalves ei muuda kuidagi Landesvereinigung'i olemust projektide valimisel peamise asutusena.
The situation in Thuringia, where the Land association was not recognised until 1999, was clearly documented in this respect.
Landesvereinigung juhib faktiliselt maksutulu ja määrab maksuvahendite kasutamise viisi.
At the request of the Thuringian Farmers' Association, the competent Ministry ‘initiated the necessary formal administrative steps’ to collect the levy from dairies and milk collection centres.
Riigi mõju Landesvereinigung'i ettepanekute riigiasutuste poolse kontrollimise või kehtestamise kaudu faktiliselt puudub, sest seda tehakse ainult piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahvi 22 lõike 2 raames eesmärgiga kontrollida, kas piima- ja rasvaseaduse paragrahvi 22 õiguslikest nõuetest peetakse kinni.
This made it blatantly clear that the milk levy was a purely private compensation mechanism, with the state acting solely as a facilitator in order to make payment of the levy mandatory [20].
Maksuvahendeid kasutatakse Landesvereinigung'i kasutusettepanekute alusel, mis räägib vastavalt Euroopa Kohtu 16. mai 2002. aasta otsusele kohtuasjas Stardust Marine (C-482/99) ühetähenduslikult vahendite riikliku päritolu vastu.
In summing up, LVN stressed what it considered to be the similarities and differences between various legal cases on the one hand and the MFG on the other.
Landesvereinigung on puhtalt eraorganisatsioon.
In VaľHor (Decision 2014/416/EU) (result: no aid), as in the case of the milk levy, the funds were collected and allocated essentially by a state-recognised private and voluntary interbranch organisation, the contributions paid by operators within the branch were used to fund collective operations for the benefit of the branch, the possibility provided for by law of state recognition of the private interbranch organisation did not in itself lead to the assumption of public control, the state could not in fact use the funds to support certain businesses, and the interbranch organisation itself decided on how the funds were to be used.
See asjaolu ja järeldus, et Landesvereinigung juhib piimamaksuga seonduvat ja selle kasutamist, näitavad otsustavalt, et piimamaksu ei saa vastavalt eelnimetatud kohtuasjale liigitada riigiabiks.
In Vent de Colère (C-262/12) (result: aid), unlike with the milk levy, the amount of the charge in question was fixed unilaterally by ministerial decree without the involvement of private parties, there was a state guarantee, the funds were managed by a public body and state penalty mechanisms were put in place.
Riigiabi olemasolu vastu räägib ka see, et piimamaksust laekuvad vahendid on puhtalt eravahendid.
In Doux Élevage (C-677/11) (result: no aid), as in the case of the milk levy, the funds were collected and allocated essentially by a state-recognised private and voluntary interbranch organisation, the possibility provided for by law of state recognition of the private interbranch organisation did not in itself lead to the assumption of public control, the funds came entirely from contributions collected from economic operators, the state could not in fact use the funds to support certain businesses, and the interbranch organisation itself decided on how the funds were to be used.
Need pärinevad maksuga koormatud eraettevõtjate varast.
In Plans de Campagne (T-139/09) (result: aid), unlike with the milk levy, an authority decided on the level of contributions, the income from contributions was topped up by State resources, measures were defined by the State (stamp of the State financial controller, etc.) without involvement on the part of branch committees, the latter had no discretion in applying the measures, and a representative of the Minister took part in committee meetings.
Piimamaksu puhul ei anta riigi toetust ega garantiid erinevalt kohtuasjadest C-262/12 (Vent de Colère) ja T-139/09 (Plans de Campagne), kus sellel põhjusel leidis kinnitust riigiabi olemasolu.
In Pearle (C-345/02) (result: no aid), as in the case of the milk levy, funds were used solely for the purposes of the branch in question, an association of a specific branch had asked a public body to collect contributions in order to implement certain measures for the benefit of that branch, and, unlike with the milk levy, a public and not a private professional association played an important role in collecting and allocating the compulsory levy, with the result that Pearle seemed to be more problematic than the milk levy.
Piimamaks on ka kollektiivset laadi, kogu tootmisharu hõlmav meede, mis ei näita kooskõlas viimase aja õigusliku olukorraga (otsus 2014/416/EL (Val'Hor) ja C-677/11 (Doux Élevage)) riigiabi olemasolu.
Germany's comments of 3 December 2014
Samuti kaheldakse soodustuse olemasolus, mis on abi eeldamiseks kindlasti vajalik.
Germany responded to an additional opinion of LVN dated 8 July 2014 by letter dated 3 December 2014, as follows:
Seda on võimalik põhjendada sellega, et soodustused, mida meiereid ja piimatootjad said, tühistati täielikult või tasakaalustati meiereidelt ja seega kaudselt ka piimatootjatelt kogutud maksudega.
In their comments in the formal investigation procedure concerning the milk levy provided for in the MFG, the German Länder in question had focused on two aspects: the consistency of the measures implemented with the material requirements of the State aid rules (in particular as regards their compatibility with the requirements of the Agriculture Exemption Regulation and the current agricultural guidelines), and the question whether there was any ‘favouring’ relevant to the State aid rules within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Seda kinnitab ka Euroopa Kohtu 19. detsembri 2013. aasta otsus (C-262/12; Vent de Colère), milles riigiabi koosseis peeti just seetõttu täidetuks, et koormiseid ei koguta enam ainult tootmisharu osalejatelt, vaid kõikidelt riiklikelt elektritarbijatelt.
LVN's comments of 8 July 2014 and the current decisional practice of the European Courts and the European Commission gave rise to the need for additional comments of a fundamental nature concerning whether State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU indeed existed, and in particular whether the constituent element of aid being granted ‘through state resources’ applied.
Nende punktide põhjal, millest osa tuleneb piimamaksusüsteemi uuest läbivaatamisest, ja asjaomaste liidumaade senise seisukoha juurde jäädes tuleb järeldada, et on kaheldav, kas piimamaksusüsteemi puhul on tegemist riigiabiga.
LVN's comments of 8 July 2014 and an examination of the abovementioned Judgments at least gave rise to doubts as to whether the element of aid being granted ‘through state resources’ applied in this case and whether, therefore, the collection and allocation of the milk levy constituted State aid.
Küsimusele, kas tegemist on riigiabiga ja eelkõige, kas siin on täidetud tunnus „riigi ressursid”, peab vastama Euroopa Komisjon.
The reasons for this were as follows:
HINNANG
As had emerged from the Val'Hor Decision (Decision 2014/416/EU) and in Doux Élevage (C-677/11), measures funded and implemented by private interbranch organisations did not constitute State aid.
Osameetmed, mis ei kujuta endast abi
The Land associations for milk that existed in the individual Länder were organisations that could be regarded as comparable to the organisations referred to in Val'Hor and Doux Élevage. state bodies had never been members of these Land associations.
Teadlaste toetamine
They took part in meetings without any voting rights and thus essentially as external guests.
Teadlaste toetamise kohta (vt põhjendus 61) märgib komisjon, et toetati eraisikuid.
The involvement of state bodies in implementing the milk levy or monitoring compliance with the legal conditions set out in the MFG did not alter the fact that the Land associations were the competent body for selecting projects.
Lisaks lähtub komisjon sellest, et need teadlased osalesid sõltumatus teadus- ja arendustegevuses teadmiste suurendamise ja arusaamise parandamise nimel komisjoni teatise (mis käsitleb Euroopa riigiabi eeskirjade kohaldamist üldist majandushuvi pakkuvate teenuste osutamise eest makstava hüvitise suhtes) punkti 19 tähenduses [21].
In actual fact, it was the respective Land associations that managed revenues from the levy and determined how they should be allocated.
Sel juhul lähtub komisjon mittemajandusliku tegevuse olemasolust.
No state influence as a result of the ‘monitoring’ or ‘adoption’ of the Land associations' proposals by state bodies existed in reality since the latter merely operated as provided for in Section 22(2) of the MFG and sought to examine whether the statutory requirements of Section 22 of the MFG were being met.
Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses käsitatakse ettevõtjana ainult majandustegevusega seotud isikut.