natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since the contested decision formed the legal basis of the decision authorising the payment of the final instalment of the aid, the second decision would have had no legal basis if the Court had annulled the contested decision on the ground that it classified the measure at issue as State aid.
Komisjon leidis, et see reform on piirkondlikult valikuline, sest selle tulemusena maksustatakse Gibraltari ettevõtjaid madalama maksumääraga kui Ühendkuningriigi ettevõtjaid.
Further, in that same judgment, the Court held that, although the contested decision had been taken subject to compliance with certain conditions that the Italian authorities had undertaken to comply with, Alitalia had standing to raise a plea against those conditions since they were attributable to the Commission, which has exclusive power to find that aid is incompatible with the common market.
Lisaks leidis komisjon, et kolm maksureformi aspekti on materiaalselt selektiivsed: esiteks annab tingimus, et palgafondimaksu ja BPOT tasumise kohustuse tekkimiseks tuleb kõigepealt teenida kasumit, eelise ettevõtjatele, kes kasumit ei teeni; teiseks annab ülemmäär 15% kasumist, mida kohaldatakse palgafondimaksu ja BPOT osas, eelise ettevõtjatele, kelle asjassepuutuva majandusaasta kasum võrreldes nende töötajate arvu ja kasutatavate äriruumidega on väike; kolmandaks annavad palgafondimaks ja BPOT mõlemad oma olemuse tõttu eelise ettevõtjatele, kes ei asu tegelikult füüsiliselt Gibraltaril.
Concerning the legal interest in bringing proceedings of a beneficiary of aid declared by the Commission to be partially compatible with the common market, the Court held, in Joined Cases T-309/04, T-317/04, T-329/04 and T-336/04 TV 2/Danmark andOthers v Commission (judgment of 22 October 2008), that the way in which the Commission examined the compatibility of the aid at issue precluded examining the admissibility of the action by dividing the contested decision into two parts, the first classifying the contested measures as State aid which was partly incompatible with the common market and the second classifying those measures as State aid which was partly compatible.
Kohaldades territoriaalüksuste antud riigiabi käsitlevas kohtupraktikas17 väljendatud kriteeriume, otsustas EsimeseAstmeKohus , et asjaomase maksureformi regionaalse valikulisuse hindamisel arvessevõetav võrdlusbaas on ainult Gibraltari territoorium ning et seda maksusüsteemi ei saa kuidagi võrrelda Ühendkuningriigis kohaldatava maksusüsteemiga.
The Court further observed that the interest in bringing proceedings can result from a genuine ‘risk’ that the applicants’ legal position will be affected by legal proceedings or where the‘risk’of legal proceedings was vested and present at the date on which the action was brought before the Court.
Materiaalse valikulisuse kohta märkis EsimeseAstmeKohus , et maksumeetme valikulisena kvalifitseerimine eeldab kolmest etapist koosnevat analüüsi. Esiteks peab komisjon kindlaks tegema ja uurima„tavapärast”maksustamiskorda, mida sellel geograafilisel maa-alal kohaldatakse ja mis on asjakohane võrdlusbaas.
TV2 is the subject of legal proceedings at the national level brought by a competitor seeking compensation for the damage that it had suffered because the State aid received by TV2 enabled that company to apply a low-price strategy to sales of its advertising space.
Kui komisjon tõendab, et see meede on„tavapärase”maksusüsteemi erand, mille tõttu tehakse ettevõtjate vahel vahet, siis võib asjaomane liikmesriik tõendada, et see eristamine on põhjendatud asjassepuutuva maksustamiskorra olemuse ja üldise ülesehitusega.
The Court, whilst noting that TV2 brought its action before it before the competitor commenced those proceedings, found that the vested and present nature of the risk of legal proceedings at the date on which TV2 initiated proceedings is demonstrated by the fact that it materialised in the form of the legal proceedings pending before the national court.
Sel juhul peab komisjon kolmandaks kontrollima, kas see on tõepoolest nii. Seoses sellega lisas EsimeseAstmeKohus , et juhul kui komisjon on jätnud vahele eespool viidatud esimese ja teise etapi, ei saata kolmandat hindamisetappi läbi viia, ilma et ta kontrolli piire ületaks.
(a) Granting of an economic advantage
Turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva erainvestori kriteerium
In Case T-442/03 SIC v Commission (judgment of 26 June 2008), concerning an application for the annulment of a Commission decision declaring inter alia that certain measures adopted by the Portuguese Republic with regard to Radiotelevisão Portuguesa (‘the RTP’), a company entrusted with providing the Portuguese public television service, did not constitute State aid and that the other measures were compatible with the common market, the applicant claimed inter alia that, at the time of a bond issue, the RTP had received an implicit State guarantee, which explained how it was able to place that issue on the market despite its poor financial position.
17. detsembri 2008. aasta otsuses kohtuasjas T-196/04: Ryanair vs. komisjon (kohtulahendite kogumikus veel avaldamata) tühistas EsimeseAstmeKohus otsuse, milles komisjon uuris eraldi kahte kokkulepet, mille Ryanair oli sõlminud vastavalt Charleroi lennuvälja omanikuks oleva Vallooni regiooniga ja Brussels South Charleroi Airportiga (edaspidi „BSCA”), mis on Vallooni regiooni kontrolli all olev avalik-õiguslik ettevõtja, kes haldab ja käitab seda lennuvälja.
Having established, first, that the RTP was a limited liability company whose debts the Portuguese Republic, which held a 100% stake, was not subject to an unlimited obligation to repay and, second, that the prospectus for the bond issue in question provided for no guarantee on the part of the State, the Court held that the fact that the market agreed to subscribe to the 1994 bond issue because it considered that the State would guaranteed e facto its repayment did not permit a finding that therewas State aid.
Vaidlustatud otsuse kohaselt sisaldasid need kaks kokkulepet ühisturuga kokkusobimatut riigiabi. Komisjon sedastas eelkõige, et Vallooni regioon oli sõlminud esimese kokkuleppe Ryanairiga kui avaliku võimu kandja ning et seega tema rolli selles kokkuleppes ei saanud analüüsida turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva erainvestori põhimõtet kohaldades.
Only objective findings leading to the conclusion that the State legally had to repay that issue in the event of default by the RTP would permit a finding of the existence of a State guarantee.
EsimeseAstmeKohus märkis esmalt, et kuna BSCA on Vallooni regioonist majanduslikult sõltuv üksus, siis oleks komisjon pidanud teda käsitlema ühe ja sama üksusena.
In Hotel Cipriani andOthers vCommission, the undertakings which were beneficiaries of social security exemptions submitted that those exemptions did not confer on the many economic advantage because they compensated the additional costs created by the structural disadvantages in the lagoon area in which they were established.
Seejärel sedastas ta, et kokkuleppe sõlmimisel Ryanairiga oli Vallooni regiooni puhul tegemist majanduslikku laadi tegevusega.
The Court held that the undertakings had failed to demonstrate that therewas a direct connection between the additional costs actually incurred and the amount of the aid received.
Ainuüksi asjaolu, et see tegevus toimus avalik-õiguslikus valdkonnas, et tähenda seda, et see kuulus avaliku võimu teostamise valdkonda.
The mere fact that undertakings located in the lagoon area incur costs higher than on the mainland does not permit the inference to be drawn that the scheme does not confer any advantage on them and does not introduce any discrimination against their competitors in Italy or in other Member States.
Peale selle, üksnes asjaolu, et Vallooni regioonil on määrusandlik pädevus lennujaamatasude kehtestamiseks, ei välista, et nimetatud allahindluste süsteemi uurimisel tuleb lähtuda turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva erainvestori põhimõttest.
Aimed at the undertakings which are the biggest polluters, the system at issue uses an objective criterion which is in conformity with the objective of the protection of the environment.
Seega ei tule abi ühisturuga kokkusobivuse analüüsimisel hinnata mitte ainult seda, kas vastava otsuse vastuvõtmise hetkel on ühenduse huvidest lähtudes nõutav, et abi tagastataks või mitte, vaid komisjon peab kontrollima ka seda, kas kõnealune abi võis ajavahemikul, mil seda maksti, kahjustada konkurentsi.
Second, only the undertakings covered by that scheme must comply, on pain of fine, with an emission standard or strict‘performance standard rate’. Therefore, the
Neile kaalutlustele tuginedes järeldas EsimeseAstmeKohus , et komisjon on rikkunud õigusnormi, kui kohaldas eespool nimetatud erandit 1993. aasta 1. novembrist varasema perioodi suhtes.
Proceedings
Tegevus e)
emit large quantities of NOx
Üldist majandushuvi pakkuvad teenused
On the other hand, in SIC vCommission, the Court held that the Commission had not established to the requisite legal standard that certain advantages from which the RTP benefited (exemption from notarial charges, registration charges and the costs of publication relating to that undertaking’s transformation into a public limited company by way of legislation) did not fulfil the condition of selectivity on the ground that they were justified by the nature or the general logic of the system of which they were a part.
Kohtuasi BUPA jt vs. komisjon ( EsimeseAstmeKohtu 12. veebruari 2008. aasta otsus kohtuasjas T-289/03, kohtulahendite kogumikus veel avaldamata) võimaldas EsimeseAstmeKohtu l edasi arendada oma kohtupraktikat küsimuses, kas ettevõtja üldist majandushuvi pakkuvate teenuste (edaspidi„ÜMPT”) osutamise eest saadav hüvitis on või ei ole riigiabi.
First, the Commission did not examine whether the recourse to a legislative instrument which entailed the exemption from notarial charges had not been chosen with the aim of enabling public undertakings to escape those charges, but was merely part of the logic of the Portuguese legal system.
Vaidlus käsitles Iirimaa eraõigusliku ravikindlustuse (edaspidi„ERK”) süsteemi, mida liberaliseeriti aastatel 1994–1996, mille tagajärjel Voluntary Health Insurance Board (VHI) hakkas konkureerima teiste majandustegevuses osalejatega, kelle hulgas oli ka hageja.
Second, the Commission ought to have established whether it was consistent with the logic of the Portuguese legal system for the RTP’s transformation into a public limited company to occur not in the normal way laid down for private companies, in other words, by a notarial deed (with all the consequences that entails under the general law concerning registration requirements and publication), but by legislation.
Selle liberaliseerimise käigus oli ettenähtud Health Insurance Authority (edaspidi„HIA”) hallatava riskide tasakaalustamise süsteemi (edaspidi„RES”) kehtestamine. RES kujutab endast sisuliselt mehhanismi, millega nähakse esiteks ette sissemakse tasumine HIA-le nende ERK kindlustusandjate poolt, kelle riskiprofiil on madalam kui turu keskmine riskiprofiil, ja teiseks HIA poolt vastavate maksete tegemine neile ERK kindlustusandjatele, kelle riskiprofiil on kõrgem kui turu keskmine riskiprofiil.
In August 2002, the UnitedKingdom notified the Commission of the Government of Gibraltar’s envisaged reform of corporate tax, which included the establishment of three taxes: a registration fee, a payroll tax and a business property occupation tax (‘the BPOT’), on the basis that liability to the latter two taxes would be capped at 15 % of profits.
EsimeseAstmeKohus otsustas, et isegi kui komisjoni hinnangu andmise ajal ei olnud Euroopa Kohus veel teinud 24. juuli 2003. aasta otsust kohtuasjas C-280/00: Altmark Trans ja RegierungspräsidiumMagdeburg19 (edaspidi„kohtuotsus Altmark”), tuli vaidlustatud otsuste seaduslikkust kontrollida, arvestades nelja tingimust, mida Euroopa Kohus selles kohtuotsuses on väljendanud (edaspidi„Altmarki tingimused”).
The Commission considered that that reform was regionally selective since it provided that companies located in Gibraltar would be taxed at a lower rate than those located in the UnitedKingdom .
Esiteks ei piiranud Euroopa Kohus Altmarki kohtuotsuse järeldusi ajaliselt ja teiseks piirdub Euroopa Kohtu poolt ühenduse õigusnormile antud tõlgendus selle tähenduse ja kohaldamisala selgitamise ja täpsustamisega, nii nagu seda oleks tulnud mõista ja kohaldada – ka ühenduse institutsioonides – selle jõustumise hetkest alates.
It also found that three aspects of the tax reform were materially selective: first, the requirement that a company must make a profit before it becomes liable to payroll tax and BPOT, since that requirement favours companies which make no profit; second, the cap limiting liability to payroll tax and BPOT to 15 % of profits, since that cap favours companies which, for the tax year in question, have profits that are low in relation to their number of employees and occupation of business property; and, third, the payroll tax and BPOT, since those two taxes inherently favour companies which have no real physical presence in Gibraltar.
EsimeseAstmeKohus täpsustas, et kõnesolevas asjas tuleb Altmarki kriteeriume, mille ulatus EÜ artikli 86 lõike 2 kriteeriumide ulatusega suures osas kattub, kohaldada kooskõlas nende väljendamisel valitsenud mõtte ja eesmärgiga, kuid kohandades neid kõnesoleva kohtuasja konkreetsetele asjaoludele.
In k Save at issue was regionally selective corresponded exclusively to the territory of Gibraltar and that, consequently, no comparison could be made with the system applicable to the Unit-edKingdom .
Liikmesriikidel on ÜMPT määratlemisel laiaulatuslik kaalutlusõigus ja komisjon saab seda määratlust kahtluse alla seada ainult ilmse vea olemasolul.
With regard to material selectivity, the Court noted that classification of a tax measure as selective requires a three-stage analysis.
EsimeseAstmeKohus see ülesanne olema universaalne ja kohustuslik), mis on ühised kõigil ÜMPT ülesannetel EÜ asutamislepingu tähenduses, ja tõendada, et need tingimused on konkreetse juhtumi puhul täidetud.
The Commission must begin by identifying and examining the‘normal’regime under the tax system applicable in the geographical area constituting the relevant reference framework.
Kui liikmesriik ei tõenda nende tingimuste täitmist, siis võib see osutuda ilmseks hindamisveaks, mida komisjon peab karistama.
It is in relation to this‘normal’tax regime that the Commission must, secondly, determine whether any advantage granted by the tax measure at issue may be selective.
Lisaks peab liikmesriik esitama põhjused, miks ta arvab, et asjaomane teenus väärib oma erilisuse tõttu ÜMPT-na kvalifitseerimist. Ilma sellise põhjenduseta on ühenduse institutsioonide isegi kõrvaline kontroll võimatu.
If the Commission demonstrates the existence of derogations from the‘normal’tax regime resulting in a differentiation between undertakings, the Member State concerned may adduce evidence that that differentiation is justified by the nature and general scheme of its tax system.
EsimeseAstmeKohus täpsustas lisaks, et ÜMPT ülesande määramine ei eelda tingimata seda, et selle saanud ettevõtjale antakse ainu- või eriõigus selle täitmiseks, ja et see ÜMPT ülesande määramine võib seisneda ka mitmele ettevõtjale või koguni kõigile samal turul tegutsevatele ettevõtjatele pandud kohustuses.
In that eventuality, the Commission must determine, in a third stage, that that is indeed the case. In that connection, the Court added that, if the Commission fails to carry out the first two abovementioned stages, it cannot embark upon the third stage, as otherwise it will go beyond the limits of its review.
ÜMPT ülesande olemasoluks peavad aga olema vältimatult täidetud kohustuslikkuse ja universaalsuse tingimus: kui esimene eeldab, et teenuseosutaja peab sõlmima lepingu samadel tingimustel, ilma et tal oleks õigust keelduda teise lepingupoolega lepingut sõlmimast, siis teine tingimuse i tähenda seda, et asjaomast teenust tuleb tingimata osutada kogu liikmesriigi elanikkonnale, kui seda pakutakse ühtsete ja mittediskrimineerivate hindadega ning sarnaste kvaliteeditingimustega kõigile klientidele.
Such an approach would be liable, first, to enable the Commission to assume the role of the Member State with regard to determination of that State’s tax system and of the‘normal’regime under it and, second, thus to make it impossible for the Member State to justify the differentiations in question on the basis of the nature and of the general scheme of the tax system notified.
Kohaldades neid kriteeriume kõnealuses asjas, otsustas EsimeseAstmeKohus , et RES vastab Altmarki esimesele tingimusele.
Noting that the Commission neither began by identifying the‘normal’regime under the notified tax system nor challenged the Gibraltar authorities’description of that regime, the Court held that that institution was unable to establish that certain of the elements of the notified tax system constituted derogations, and were therefore prima facie selective, vis-à-vis the‘normal’regime.
Mis puutub Altmarki teise tingimusse –mille kohaselt ÜMPT ülesande täitmise eest hüvitise arvutamise kriteeriumid peavad olema eelnevalt objektiivselt ja läbipaistvalt kindlaksmääratud –, siis EsimeseAstmeKohus sedastas, et ka see on vaadeldavas asjas täidetud. Iirimaa ametiasutuste võimalik pädevus RESmaksete arvutamise raames ei oleks iseenesest kokkusobimatu objektiivsete ja läbipaistvate kriteeriumide olemasoluga.
The Court held that it was likewise impossible for the Commission to assess correctly whether any differentiations between undertakings were capable of being justified by the nature or the general scheme of the tax system notified.
Peale selle, asjakohaste kriteeriumide täpsust ja selgelt määratletust ei mõjuta ainuüksi see, et teostatavaid arvutusi reguleerivad majanduslikud ja matemaatilised valemid on keerulised.
(c) Private investor in a market economy test
See ei tähenda aga asjaomase tingimuse rikkumist.
Proceedings
Tegevus likke saajaid ja tõhusat ettevõtjat.
(d) Application ratione temporis of the derogations to the prohibition of State aid
EsimeseAstmeKohus sai 2008. aastal ÜMPT osutamise eest saadud hüvitistega seotud analüüsi täiendada ka teistes kohtuotsustes.
In Case T-348/04 SIDE v Commission (judgment of 15 April 2008), the Commission had applied the derogation relating to measures to promote culture and heritage conservation, provided for in Article 87(3)(d) EC, a provisionwhich entered into force on 1 November 1993, to aid granted by France before that date.
Eespool viidatud kohtuotsuses SIC vs. komisjon asus EsimeseAstmeKohus seisukohale, et Portugali Vabariik ei olnud kohustatud enne üldist majandushuvi pakkuva televisiooniteenuse osutamise lepingu sõlmimist RTP-ga avalikku hankemenetlust läbi viima.
Having recalled that the substantive rules of Communitylaw do not, in principle, apply to situations existing before their entry into force, and made clear that that conclusion applies irrespective of whether those rules might produce favourable or unfavourable effects for the persons concerned, the Court held, first, that all new State aid is necessarily incompatible with the common market if it was capable of distorting competition during the period in which it was paid and if it was not covered by any derogation and, second, that once it has produced its effect, the aid in question becomes definitively compatible or incompatible with the common market.
Avalikõigusliku ringhäälingu spetsiifilisus, mis on seotud iga ühiskonna demokraatlike, sotsiaalsete ja kultuuriliste vajadustega, selgitab ja õigustab seda, et liikmesriik ei ole kohustatud lepingu sõlmimiseks ÜMPT osas läbi viima avalikku hankemenetlust, vähemalt mitte juhul, kui ta on otsustanud osutada niisugust avalikku teenust – nagu see vaadeldaval juhul toimub – riigiosalusega äriühingu kaudu.
Accordingly, since the analysis as to whether aid is compatible with the common market does not only require an assessment of whether, at the time when the relevant decision was adopted, the Community interest demanded that the aid be repaid, the Commission must also ascertain whether the aid in question was likely to distort competition during the period in which it was paid.
EsimeseAstmeKohus märkis, et liikmesriigid on pädevad määratlema üldist majandushuvi pakkuvad ringhäälinguteenused viisil, mis hõlmab laia programmivaliku pakkumist, lubades ÜMPT-d osutaval ettevõtjal ühtlasi tegeleda niisuguse kommertstegevusega nagu reklaamiaja müük.
On the basis of those considerations, the Court concluded that the Commission had erred in law by applying the abovementioned derogation to the period before 1 November 1993.
Kui see ei oleks nii, seaks see üldist majandushuvi pakkuvate ringhäälinguteenuste määratluse sõltuvusse nende rahastamise viisist, samas kui ÜMPT määratlemine toimub eelduslikult üldise huvi kaudu, mille rahuldamiseks see on mõeldud, mitte niisuguste teenuste osutamist tagavate rahaliste vahendite kaudu.
Case T-289/03 BUPA andOthers v Commission (judgment of 12 February 2008) afforded the Court the opportunity to develop its case-law relating to the question whether or not the compensation received by an undertaking in return for a service of general economic interest (‘SGEI’) that it carries out constitutes State aid.
Mis puutub kontrolli RTP-le avaliku teenuse osutamiseks antud ülesannete täitmise üle, siis EsimeseAstmeKohus täpsustas, et üksnes liikmesriik saab hinnata seda, kas avalik-õiguslik ringhäälinguettevõtja on täitnud talle avaliku teenuse osutamisel antud ülesannete puhul ettenähtud kvaliteedinõuded.
In the framework of that liberalisation, the establishment of a‘Risk Equalisation Scheme’(‘RES’) managed by the Health Insurance Authority (‘the HIA’) had been provided for .
Komisjon peab kontrollima vaid seda, kas liikmesriigi tasandil eksisteerib sõltumatu kontrollimehhanism, mis oli vaadeldavas asjas olemas.
The RES is essentially a mechanism which provides for payment of a charge to the HIA by PMI insurers with a lower risk profile than the average market risk profile and for a corresponding payment by the HIA to PMI insurers whose risk profile is higher than the average profile.
Mis puutub avaliku teenuse kulude rahastamise proportsionaalsusse, siis EsimeseAstmeKohus järeldas, et kuna komisjon ei ole Portugali Vabariigilt nõudnud RTP teatud auditiaruannete
Court ofFirstInstance
EsimeseAstmeKohus esitamist, siis on ta rikkunud oma kontrollikohustust.
The Court held that, even though, at the time of the Commission’s analysis, the Court of Justice’s judgment of 24 July 2003 in Altmark Trans and RegierungspräsidiumMagdeburg (19)
Komisjon ei saa jätta taotlemata sellise teabe edastamist, mis võib kinnitada või ümber lükata muu teabe, mis on kõnesoleva meetme uurimise juures asjakohane, kuid mille usaldusväärsust ei saa pidada piisavalt tõendatuks.
(‘Altmark’) had not yet been delivered, it was in the light of the four conditions set out in that judgment (‘the Altmark conditions’) that it was appropriate to assess the legality of the contested decision.
EsimeseAstmeKohus täpsustas lisaks eespool viidatud kohtuotsuses TV 2/Danmark jt vs. komisjon, et üldist majandushuvi pakkuvate ringhäälinguteenuste puhul ei pea tingimata piirduma tulu mittetoovate saadete edastamisega.
First, the Court of Justice did not place any temporal limitation on the scope of its findings in Altmark, and, second, the Court of Justice’s interpretation of a provision of Communitylaw is limited to clarifying and defining the meaning and scope of that provision as it ought to have been understood and applied, including by the Community institutions, from the time of its entry into force.
EsimeseAstmeKohus leidis, et väide, mille kohaselt TV 2, kelle ülesanne on ÜMPT osutamine, hakkaks paratamatult oma kommertstegevust rahastama riigi poolt avaliku teenuse osutamiseks antavast toetusest, viitab sellisele ohule, mida liikmesriikidel on kohustus ennetada ja mida komisjon peab asjakohastel juhtudel karistama.