natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 26 January 2016, the Commission adopted a decision to open formal investigation with respect to measures 1 and 4 (‘the Opening Decision’) in order to address its doubts whether these measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and whether they are compatible with the internal market.
26. jaanuaril 2016 võttis komisjon vastu otsuse, et algatada ametlik uurimine seoses 1. ja 4. meetmega (edaspidi „menetluse algatamise otsus“), et analüüsida oma kahtluseid, kas need meetmed kujutavad endast riigiabi aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses ning kas need on siseturuga kokkusobivad.
At the same time, the Commission concluded that measures 2, 3 and 5 do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Samal ajal tegi komisjon järelduse, et 2., 3. ja 5. meede ei kujuta endast riigiabi aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
Since this conclusion has not been disputed, measures 2, 3 and 5 are not the object of the present decision and shall not be further assessed hereinafter.
Kuna seda järeldust ei ole vaidlustatud, ei ole 2., 3. ja 5. meede käesoleva otsuse teemaks ning neid ei hinnata selles rohkem.
DOUBTS CONCERNING MEASURE 1: REDUCED FINANCIAL GUARANTEES
KAHTLUSED SEOSES 1.
The Commission found in the Opening Decision that it could not exclude that Measure 1 may constitute State aid.
MEETMEGA, MIS SEISNEB VÄIKSEMATES FINANTSGARANTIIDES
In particular, it had doubts whether Measure 1 involved transfer of State resources and provided any economic advantage to Iberpotash and it thus invited the Spanish authorities and third parties to provide more evidence in this respect.
Komisjon leidis menetluse algatamise otsuses, et ta ei saa välistada, et 1. meede võib kujutada endast riigiabi.
To the extent Measure 1 constituted State aid, the Commission had doubts that it could be found compatible.
Eelkõige oli tal kahtluseid, kas 1. meede hõlmas riigi ressursside ülekandmist ja andis Iberpotashile majandusliku eelise, ning seega kutsus ta Hispaania ametiasutusi ja kolmandaid isikuid üles esitama selle kohta rohkem tõendeid.
DOUBTS CONCERNING MEASURE 4: COVERING OF VILAFRUNS WASTE HEAP
Määral, mil 1. meede kujutas endast riigiabi, oli komisjonil kahtluseid, kas see võidakse tunnistada siseturuga kokkusobivaks.
The Commission found in the Opening Decision that public financing of the covering of Vilafruns waste heap is likely to constitute State aid.
KAHTLUSED SEOSES 4.
In particular, it considered that Measure 4 was likely to provide a selective economic advantage to Iberpotash by ensuring better prevention against pollution at the waste facility owned by Iberpotash and thus ensuring compliance with its environmental obligations.
MEETMEGA, MIS SEISNEB VILAFRUNSI JÄÄTMEPUISTANGU KATMISES
The Commission thus invited the Spanish authorities and third parties to comment on these preliminary conclusions.
Komisjon leidis menetluse algatamise otsuses, et Vilafrunsi jäätmepuistangu katmise riiklik rahastamine kujutab endast tõenäoliselt riigiabi.
Further, the Commission considered that since the investment costs were fully financed by the public authorities and Iberpotash covers only subsequent maintenance costs, the aid intensity of Measure 4 is well above the intensities for aid for undertakings which go beyond Community standards or increase the level of environmental protection in the absence of these standards under Section 3.1.1 of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (2008/C 82/01) (‘the 2008 Environmental Guidelines’).
Eelkõige leidis ta, et 4. meede andis Iberpotashile tõenäoliselt valikulise majandusliku eelise, tagades Iberpotashile kuuluvas jäätmehoidlas reostuse parema ennetamise ning seega tagades tema keskkonnaalaste kohustuste täitmise.
Therefore, the Commission expressed doubts on the compatibility of such aid and invited the Spanish authorities and third parties to comment on this preliminary finding.
Komisjon kutsus seega Hispaania ametiasutusi ja kolmandaid isikuid üles nende esialgsete järelduste kohta märkusi esitama.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Lisaks leidis komisjon, et kuna investeerimiskulusid rahastasid täielikult avaliku sektori asutused ning Iberpotash katab üksnes järgnevad hoolduskulud, siis on 4. meetme abi osakaal oluliselt suurem kui abi osakaal ettevõtjate puhul, kes ületavad ühenduse standardeid või tõstavad nende standardite puudumisel keskkonnakaitse taset keskkonnakaitseks antavat riigiabi käsitlevate ühenduse suuniste (2008/C 82/01) (edaspidi „2008. aasta keskkonnasuunised“) punkti 3.1.1 kohaselt.
COMMENTS FROM IBERPOTASH
Komisjon väljendas seega kahtluseid sellise abi siseturuga kokkusobivuse suhtes ning kutsus Hispaania ametiasutusi ja kolmandaid isikuid üles selle esialgse järelduse kohta märkusi esitama.
Iberpotash, for the most part, aligns its comments with the ones submitted by Spain on both measures under investigation.
HUVITATUD ISIKUTE MÄRKUSED
Iberpotash notes, in addition, that Measure 1 does not involve State resources because there has been no transfer of resources by Spain to Iberpotash up to date.
IBERPOTASHI MÄRKUSED
Besides, the risk of this happening is very low, since Iberpotash does not face economic difficulties and will be able to bear the costs of environmental restoration should the amount of the guarantee prove to be insufficient.
Iberpotashi märkused vastavad enamjaolt märkustele, mille Hispaania esitas mõlema uuritava meetme kohta.
Iberpotash expresses the same concerns as Spain with regards to the selectivity of the measures and whether they confer an economic advantage or distort competition between member States.
Iberpotash märgib lisaks, et 1. meede ei hõlma riigi ressursse, sest Hispaania ei ole siiani Iberpotashile ressursse üle kandnud.
Iberpotash repeats that Measure 4 is compatible with the 2008 Environmental Guidelines and that the applicable aid intensity for the restoration of contaminated sites is 100 %.
Pealegi on selle toimumise oht väga väike, sest Iberpotashil ei ole majanduslikke raskusi ning ta suudab kanda keskkonnaalase korrastamise kulusid, kui garantii summa peaks osutuma ebapiisavaks.
COMMENTS FROM THE FIRST INTERESTED PARTY (COMPLAINANT)
Iberpotash väljendab samu kartuseid nagu Hispaania seoses meetmete valikulisusega ja sellega, kas need annavad majandusliku eelise või moonutavad konkurentsi liikmesriikide vahel.
The first interested party, who wishes that its identity be kept confidential, supports the opening of the formal investigation procedure and supports the Commission's arguments in the Opening Decision for both Measures.
Iberpotash kordab, et 4. meede on 2008. aasta keskkonnasuunistega kooskõlas ning saastatud tegevuskohtade kohaldatava abi osakaal on 100 %.
The first interested party adds that the setting of an insufficient guarantee entails a real burden for the public authorities, who bear the cost of Iberpotash's environmental obligations.
MÄRKUSED ESIMESELT HUVITATUD ISIKULT (KAEBUSE ESITAJA)
It also notes that Iberpotash gained an economic advantage because Iberpotash used the financial resources it saved in order to finance its own economic activities.
Esimene huvitatud isik, kes soovib hoida oma isikut konfidentsiaalsena, toetab mõlema meetme puhul ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamist ja menetluse algatamise otsuses esitatud komisjoni argumente.
The first interested party agrees with the Commission that the aid is incompatible because it constitutes operating aid.
Esimene huvitatud isik lisab, et ebapiisava garantii kehtestamine tekitab tegeliku koormuse avaliku sektori asutustele, kes kannavad Iberpotashi keskkonnaalaste kohustuste kulu.
As regards Measure 2, the first interested party draws the Commission's attention to a decision of the Barcelona Provincial Court of 22 February 2016 that confirmed the liability of Iberpotash to restore the lands damaged by its activities.
Ta märgib ka, et Iberpotash sai majandusliku eelise, sest Iberpotash kasutas finantsvahendeid, mille ta kokku hoidis, oma majandustegevuse rahastamiseks.
It also adds that the covering of the salt tip is not a ‘pilot’ project because no documents related to the public financing of this measure describe the project as such, and because the method used is a well-known one that has been used by other mining companies for at least 15 years for similar tips.
Esimene huvitatud isik nõustub komisjoniga, et abi on siseturuga kokkusobimatu, sest see kujutab endast tegevusabi.
COMMENTS FROM THE SECOND INTERESTED PARTY
Seoses 2. meetmega juhib esimene huvitatud isik komisjoni tähelepanu Barcelona provintsi ringkonnakohtu 22. veebruari 2016. aasta otsusele, milles kinnitati Iberpotashi vastutust tema tegevuse tõttu kahjustatud maa korrastamisel.
The second interested party, who also wishes that its identity be kept confidential, supports the Opening Decision of the Commission.
Ta lisab ka seda, et soolamäe katmine ei ole nii-öelda katseprojekt, sest üheski selle meetme riikliku rahastamisega seotud dokumendis ei kirjeldata projekti sellisena ning kasutatav meetod on tuntud meetod, mida teised kaevandusettevõtted on vähemalt 15 aastat samalaadsete mägede puhul kasutanud.
As regards Measure 1, it notes in addition that the question whether the guarantee amount complies with applicable EU or Spanish legislation is irrelevant, because the aid consists in the State's assuming the financial risk of restoring the affected facilities; the quantification of such risk is exclusively a question of fact, not of law.
MÄRKUSED TEISELT HUVITATUD ISIKULT
Furthermore, the second interested party questions Iberpotash's availability to pay for the environmental restoration when the obligation arises, because Iberpotash's only Spanish assets are its mining facilities, which will be closed and therefore be of low value after 2035.
Teine huvitatud isik, kes soovib samuti hoida oma isikut konfidentsiaalsena, toetab komisjoni menetluse algatamise otsust.
The second interested party also notes that the setting of a sufficient guarantee amount would entail an annual cost of at least EUR 2806000 for Iberpotash, which is hardly an insignificant amount.
Ta märgib lisaks seoses 1. meetmega, et küsimus, kas garantii summa vastab kohaldatavatele ELi või Hispaania õigusaktidele, ei ole oluline, sest abi seisneb selles, et riik võtab mõjutatud hoidlate korrastamise finantsriski; sellise riski kvantifitseerimine on üksnes fakti- ja mitte õiguslik küsimus.
It adds that the setting of the guarantees at the current amount also results in Iberpotash avoiding the collateralisation of its financial reserves.
Peale selle seab teine huvitatud isik kahtluse alla Iberpotashi võime maksta kohustuse tekkides keskkonnaalase korrastamise eest, sest Iberpotashi ainsad Hispaania varad on tema kaevandused, mis suletakse ja on seetõttu pärast 2035. aastat väikese väärtusega.
With regard to Measure 2, the second interested party observes that the Supreme Court judgment of 14 May 2009 along with Council Directive 75/442/EEC and the applicable Spanish law provides that Iberpotash is solely responsible for covering the Vilafruns tip from the very moment that mining rights were transferred to it, regardless whether the site is active or not.
Teine huvitatud isik märgib ka seda, et piisava garantiisumma kehtestamine tähendaks Iberpotashi jaoks iga-aastast kulu vähemalt 2806000 eurot, mis pole kaugeltki väike summa.
As regards Measure 4, the second interested party argues that covering of Vilafruns waste heap is a responsibility of Iberpotash and that Iberpotash thus received a selective advantage due to public financing of the covering.
Ta lisab, et garantiide kehtestamine praeguses summas toob kaasa ka selle, et Iberpotash hoidub oma finantsreserve tagatiseks seadmast.
Further, the second interested party disagrees with qualification of the covering as a pilot project of a new technique of restoration.
Seoses 2. meetmega täheldab teine huvitatud isik, et kooskõlas ülemkohtu 14. mai 2009. aasta otsusega ja nõukogu direktiiviga 75/442/EMÜ ning kohaldatavate Hispaania õigusaktidega vastutab Vilafrunsi mäe katmise eest üksnes Iberpotash alates hetkest, mil talle anti üle kaevandamisõigused, olenemata sellest, kas tegevuskoht toimib või mitte.
It argues that covering salt waste heaps with geomembranes is an old technique used already for a long time e.g. by Alsatian and German potash companies.
Seoses 4. meetmega väidab teine huvitatud isik, et Vilafrunsi jäätmepuistangu katmine on Iberpotashi kohustus ja Iberpotash sai seega valikulise eelise tulenevalt katmise riiklikust rahastamisest.
Finally, the second interested party argues that the question whether Iberpotash is the sole potash producer in Spain is irrelevant, because the relevant potash market is global.
Lisaks ei ole teine huvitatud isik nõus sellega, et katmine kvalifitseerub uue korrastamistehnika katseprojektina.
An effect on trade is unquestionable because, geographically, Iberpotash competes with French salt producers, as apparent by the proximity (less than 100 km away) of the Suria and Sallent sites to the French border.
Ta väidab, et soolapuistangu geomembraanidega katmine on vana tehnika, mida on kasutatud juba pikka aega, nt Alsace'i ja Saksamaa kaaliumkarbonaadi kaevandamise ettevõtete poolt.
Both the first and the second interested party provided comments also with respect to other three measures analysed in the Opening Decision (measures relating to (i) new brine collector, (ii) investments in water treatment facilities, and (iii) Cogulló waste heap study).
Lisaks väidab teine huvitatud isik, et küsimus, kas Iberpotash on ainus kaaliumkarbonaadi tootja Hispaanias, on ebaoluline, sest asjaomane kaaliumkarbonaadi turg on üleilmne.
However, as noted in recital 15, the Commission has already concluded in the Opening Decision that these measures do not constitute State aid and are thus not the object of the formal investigation procedure.
Kahtlemata esineb mõju kaubandusele, sest geograafiliselt konkureerib Iberpotash Prantsusmaa soolatootjatega, mida näitab Súria ja Sallenti tegevuskohtade asukoht Prantsusmaa piiri lähedal (vähem kui 100 km kaugusel).
The comments of the third parties provided exclusively with respect to these measures not covered by the formal investigation are thus considered irrelevant for the purpose of this decision.
Nii esimene kui ka teine huvitatud isik esitasid märkusi ka ülejäänud kolme meetme kohta, mida on menetluse algatamise otsuses analüüsitud (meetmed, mis on seotud i) uue soolveekollektoriga, ii) veepuhastusseadmetesse tehtud investeeringutega ja iii) Cogulló jäätmepuistangu uuringuga).
COMMENTS FROM SPAIN
Samas, nagu on märgitud põhjenduses 15, on komisjon juba teinud menetluse algatamise otsuses järelduse, et need meetmed ei kujuta endast riigiabi ning ei ole seega ametliku uurimismenetluse teema.
COMMENTS ON THE OPENING DECISION
Märkusi, mille kolmandad isikud esitasid üksnes seoses nende meetmetega, mis ei ole ametliku uurimismenetlusega hõlmatud, käsitletakse seega käesoleva otsuse puhul ebaolulisena.
As regards Measure 1, Spain is of the view that the amount of the guarantee has always been appropriate and set in accordance to the applicable Spanish and Union legislation.
HISPAANIA MÄRKUSED
More particularly, Spain argues that the possible infringements of Extractive Waste Directive do not include setting the guarantee amount too low, therefore there cannot have been an infringement of the Directive.
MÄRKUSED MENETLUSE ALGATAMISE OTSUSE KOHTA
In addition, with regards to the issue of determining the appropriate guarantee amount, Spain dismisses as inconclusive the statement dated 2 October 2013 of Ms Assumpta Feran (the Director of the Directorate in charge of the environment at the Generalitat de Catalunya) before the Environmental Committee of the Catalan Parliament, who stated that the financial guarantee should amount to EUR 200 million.
Seoses 1. meetmega on Hispaania seisukohal, et garantii summa on olnud alati asjakohane ja kehtestatud kooskõlas kohaldatavate Hispaania ja liidu õigusaktidega.
According to Spain, the statement was made amidst a debate among opposing political parties and therefore driven by political considerations.
Täpsemalt väidab Hispaania, et kaevandamisjäätmete direktiivi võimalikud rikkumised ei hõlma liiga väikese garantiisumma kehtestamist, seega ei ole saanud olla tegu direktiivi rikkumisega.
Spain also finds the judgment of 11 October 2011 of the Higher Court of Justice of Catalonia inconclusive for the determination of the appropriate guarantee amount, because the court itself refrained from calculating it.
Lisaks lükkab Hispaania asjakohase garantiisumma kindlaksmääramise küsimuses tagasi väite (ja kinnitab, et see on ebaveenev), mille esitas Assumpta Ferani (Kataloonia piirkondliku valitsuse (Generalitat de Catalunya) keskkonna eest vastutava direktoraadi direktor) 2. oktoobril 2013. aastal Kataloonia parlamendi keskkonnakomisjonile, öeldes, et finantsgarantii peaks ulatuma 200 miljoni euroni.
Furthermore, Spain considers as unreliable the study that the complainant supplied and that the Commission cited in recital 71 of the opening decision, because the study did not calculate the appropriate guarantee amount based on the criteria set forth in Decree 202/1994 of 14 of June, i.e. the applicable legislation relative to the guarantee amount.
Hispaania arvates esitati väide omavahel opositsioonis olevate erakondade arutelu käigus ja lähtus seega poliitilistest kaalutlustest.
Spain argues, in addition, that Measure 1 does not confer a selective economic advantage to Iberpotash.
Hispaania peab ka Kataloonia kõrgema kohtu 11. oktoobri 2011. aasta otsust asjakohase garantiisumma kindlaksmääramisel ebaveenvaks, sest kohus ise keeldus seda arvutamast.
Any alleged advantage was fixed based on a legal framework which was equally applicable to all potential competitors.
Peale selle peab Hispaania ebausaldusväärseks uuringut, mille kaebuse esitaja esitas ja mida komisjon nimetas menetluse algatamise otsuse põhjenduses 71, sest uuringu käigus ei arvutatud välja asjakohast garantiisummat, tuginedes 14. juuni dekreedis 202/1994 sätestatud kriteeriumidele, st kohaldatavale õigusaktile seoses garantiisummaga.
What is more, the exploitations of Sallent and Suria are the only active ones in Spain, therefore Iberpotash could not have gained an advantage since there are no comparable exploitations in Spanish territory.
Hispaania väidab lisaks, et 1. meede ei anna Iberpotashile valikulist majanduslikku eelist.
Spain supports that no State resources are involved because, in case that the guarantee amount proves to be insufficient, Iberpotash's obligation to restore the land affected by the extraction activities remains valid.
Igasugune väidetav eelis määrati kindlaks õigusraamistiku põhjal, mida kohaldati võrdselt kõikide võimalike konkurentide suhtes.
Spain can enforce Iberpotash's obligation by means of seizure of the latter's rights and property on Spanish territory.
Peale selle on Sallenti ja Súria kaevandused ainsad tegutsevad kaevandused Hispaanias, seega ei oleks Iberpotash saanud omandada eelist, sest Hispaania territooriumil puuduvad võrreldavad kaevandamiskohad.
Finally, Spain notes that Measure 1 does not distort competition or affect trade between Member States, because the costs to be incurred by Iberpotash if it were obligated to set a higher guarantee amount are negligible for the standards of the potash extraction industry.
Hispaania toetab väidet, et riigi ressursse ei ole kaasatud, sest juhul kui garantiisumma osutub ebapiisavaks, jääb kehtima Iberpotashi kohustus kaevandamistegevusest mõjutatud maa-alad korrastada.
In relation to Measure 4, Spain argues that Iberpotash cannot have gained an economic advantage because, by not being a polluter, Iberpotash did not have the obligation to cover the salt tip of Vilafruns, according to the generally applicable Spanish legislation.
Hispaania saab jõustada Iberpotashi kohustuse, peatades tema õigused ja arestides tema vara Hispaania territooriumil.
In addition, Iberpotash bears the maintenance costs of the covering of the tip and, therefore, even if, thanks to the public financing, it saved the tip's building costs, it is bound to spend a much greater amount on its maintenance for the next decades and therefore loses any economic advantage gained by the measure.
Lisaks märgib Hispaania, et 1. meede ei moonuta konkurentsi ega kahjusta liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust, sest Iberpotashi kantavad kulud, kui ta oleks kohustatud kehtestama suurema garantiisumma, on kaaliumkarbonaadi kaevandamise tööstuse standardite puhul mittearvestatavad.
Spain alleges that Measure 4 cannot be selective because Iberpotash is the only undertaking in Spain involved in potash extraction activities.
Seoses 4. meetmega väidab Hispaania, et Iberpotash ei ole saanud omandada majanduslikku eelist, sest kuna Iberpotash ei ole saastaja, ei olnud tal kooskõlas üldiselt kohaldatavate Hispaania õigusaktidega kohustust katta Vilafrunsi soolamägi.
In addition, the measure does not have a distortive effect on competition between Member States given that the extracted salt, due to transportation difficulties, cannot be transferred between member States.
Lisaks kannab Iberpotash mäe katmise hoolduskulud ning isegi kui ta säästab seega tänu riiklikule rahastamisele mäe ehituskulud, peab ta kulutama järgmistel kümnenditel oluliselt suurema summa selle hooldusele ning kaotab seega meetmega saadud majandusliku eelise.
If, despite the above, the Commission decides that Measure 4 constitutes State aid, Spain considers that it falls within the thresholds for de minimis aid of Commission Regulations (EC) No 1998/2006 and (EU) No 1407/2013.
Hispaania väidab, et 4. meede ei saa olla valikuline, sest Iberpotash on Hispaanias ainus ettevõtja, kes tegeleb kaaliumkarbonaadi kaevandamisega.
Finally, Spain asks that Measure 4 be declared compatible on the basis of the 2008 Environmental Guidelines and especially in view of the innovative character of the technology used to cover the Vilafruns salt tip, which, unlike the technology used in other mining facilities, it is also designed to prevent leaks of the deposited material.
Lisaks ei ole meetmel liikmesriikide vahelist konkurentsi moonutavat mõju, sest transpordiraskuste tõttu ei saa kaevandatud soola liikmesriikide vahel transportida.
RESPONSE OF SPAIN TO COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THIRD PARTIES
Kui komisjon otsustab ülaltoodust olenemata, et 4. meede kujutab endast riigiabi, siis Hispaania leiab, et see jääb komisjoni määruste (EÜ) nr 1998/2006 ja (EL) nr 1407/2013 kohase vähese tähtsusega abi künnise piiresse.
Spain responded to the observations formulated on Measure 1 by the two interested parties by pointing out, once more, to the administrative procedure in place under Spanish law for the enforcement of the environmental obligations of Iberpotash and for the recoupment from Iberpotash of any amount Spain would eventually pay if the guarantee for the environmental restoration proves to be insufficient.
Lisaks palub Hispaania tunnistada 4. meetme siseturuga kokkusobivaks, tuginedes 2008. aasta keskkonnasuunistele ja pidades silmas eelkõige Vilafrunsi soolamäe katmiseks kasutatava tehnoloogia uuenduslikku laadi, kuna see tehnoloogia on erinevalt teistes kaevandustes kasutatud tehnoloogiast mõeldud ka ladustatud materjali lekete ärahoidmiseks.
The ability to enforce as such Iberpotash's obligation means that there is no burden on the State budget and, consequently, no transfer of State resources.
HISPAANIA VASTUS KOLMANDATE ISIKUTE ESITATUD MÄRKUSTELE
Spain responded to the observations formulated on Measure 4 by the two interested parties by explaining that the decision of the Barcelona Provincial Court of 22 February 2016 included a list of areas where Iberpotash was obligated to implement measures of environmental restoration, which neither includes the Vilafruns tip nor mentions that the tip is a source of pollution.
Hispaania vastas 1. meetme kohta kahe huvitatud isiku sõnastatud tähelepanekutele, osutades veel kord Hispaania õigusel alusel kehtivale haldusmenetlusele Iberpotashi keskkonnaalaste kohustuste jõustamiseks ning Iberpotashi poolt mis tahes summa hüvitamisele, mille Hispaania peaks lõpuks tasuma, kui keskkonnaalase korrastamise garantii osutub ebapiisavaks.