natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Court held that the most appropriate method for assessing the taxation relationship between beer and wine required a comparison of the tax burden by reference to three different factors: volume, alcoholic strength and product price. 20
ROOTSI sukorda, leidis Euroopa Kohus, et kõige sobivam meetod õlle ja veini maksustamise võrdlemiseks põhineb kolme eri faktoriga — koguse, etanoolisisalduse ja hinnaga — seonduva maksukoormuse võrdlemisel. 20
As regards the difference in taxation by reference to alcoholic strength, a wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5 % vol. is taxed by volume of alcohol at a rate some 20 % higher than beer (SEK 1.77 as compared with SEK 1.47), and a wine with an alcoholic strength of 11 % vol. at a rate some 36 % higher (SEK 2 as compared with SEK 1.47).
Mis puudutab aktsiisi erinevust sõltuvalt etanoolisisaldusest, siis on vein, mille etanoolisisaldus on 12,5 mahuprotsenti, maksustatud alkoholi koguse kohta umbes 20% rohkem kui õlu (1,77 Rootsi krooni 1,47 Rootsi krooni vastu) ning vein, mille etanoolisisaldus on 11 mahuprotsenti, umbes 36% rohkem kui õlu (2 Rootsi krooni 1,47 Rootsi krooni vastu).
A still lighter wine, with an alcoholic strength of 10 % vol., is taxed by volume of alcohol at a rate almost 50 % higher than beer.
Veelgi lahjem vein, mille etanoolisisaldus on 10 mahuprotsenti, on alkoholi koguse kohta maksustatud ligi 50% rohkem kui õlu.
It is scarcely necessary to point out that alcoholic strength is certainly the most pertinent assessment criterion in the present case, since it is used as the tax base for determining excise duty.
Vaevalt on vaja märkida, et etanoolisisaldus kujutab endast kindlasti kõige asjakohasemat hindamise parameetrit käesolevas kohtuasjas, kuna see on aktsiisi kindlaksmääramise alus.
If we compare the rates of taxation by reference to volume, 21 then given that the tax on a litre of beer of average alcoholic strength (5.2 % vol.) 22is SEK 7.64 23and the rate of tax on a litre of wine of alcoholic strength between 8.5 % vol. and 15 % vol. is SEK 22.08, then the rate at which wine is taxed by volume is approximately three 24times higher than that of beer.
Mis puudutab kogusega seonduva maksumäära võrdlemist, 21siis arvestades, et keskmise etanoolisisaldusega (5,2 mahuprotsenti) 22õlle liitrilt makstav aktsiis on 7,64 Rootsi krooni 23ja 8,5 mahu- protsendist suurema ning maksimaalselt 15 mahuprotsendilise etanoolisisaldusega veini liitrilt makstav aktsiis on 22,08 Rootsi krooni, on veinilt makstav maks umbes kolm 24korda suurem, kui õllelt makstav maks.
In the present case, that outcome is not particularly significant,
Käesolevas kohtuasjas ei ole see tulemus siiski eriti tähtis, kuna erinevus maksustamisel mahu alusel on tavaline maksusüsteemis, mis kasutab maksustamise alusena etanoolisisaldust.
20 — Case 170/78, cited above, paragraph 18.21 — Assuming identical volume for both beverages.
20 — Eespool viidatud 12. juuli 1983. aasta kohtuotsus komisjon vs. Ühendkuningriik, punkt 18.
22 — This is the alcoholic strength by volume to which both the Commission and the Swedish Government refer for beer.
22 — Tegemist on etanoolisisaldusega, millele viitavad õllega seonduvalt nii komisjon kui ka Rootsi valitsus.
23 — Beer is taxed at the rate of SEK 1.47 per litre by volume of alcohol: 1.47 x 5.2 = 7.64.
23 — Õlu maksustatakse 1,47 Rootsi krooniga selle etanoolisisalduse iga mahuprotsendi kohta liitris: 1,47 x 5,2 = 7,64.
It is more difficult to make a comparative assessment of the effect of the tax on the final price of the products at issue.
Veelgi raskem on maksustamise mõju hindamine kõnealuste toodete lõpphinnale.
That difficulty basically arises as a result of the disagreement between the parties as to which prices should be used as a basis for calculation.
Raskus tuleneb peamiselt sellest, et pooled ei ole üksmeelel hindade osas, millel arvutus peaks põhinema.
According to the Commission, which is relying on the official Systembolaget statistics, the relevant price bracket — which covers some 79 % of wine sales — ranges from SEK 41 to SEK 70 for a 75cl bottle (from SEK 55 to SEK 93 per litre).
Veini, mille etanoolisisaldus on 12,5 mahuprotsenti, liitri keskmine tarbijahind on 65,33 Rootsi krooni, samas kui 5,2 mahuprotsendilise etanoolisisaldusega õlle liitri keskmine tarbijahind on 30,33 Rootsi krooni.
The average price to the consumer of a litre of wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5 % vol. is stated to be SEK 65.33, whereas the average price to the consumer of a litre of
Rootsi valitsus aga väidab, et täpsem oleks arvestada 12,5 mahuprotsendilise etanoolisisaldusega veini liitri keskmise müügihin-
In order to determine whether national tax arrangements are compatible with the prohibition under Article 90 EC, it is lastly necessary to show that the arrangements are discriminatory in nature.
On ilmne, et veinide kategooria puhul, mida maksustatakse 22,08 Rootsi krooni liitrilt (ehk veinide puhul, mille etanoolisisaldus on 8,5–15 mahuprotsenti), on maksustamise mõju hindade struktuurile protsentuaalselt suurem odavamate ja väiksema etanoolisisaldusega veinide puhul.
In that regard, the Court has made clear that, so far as the first paragraph of Article 90 EC is concerned, discrimination results automatically from the difference in taxation, since, in the case of similar products which are broadly comparable, the prohibition laid down in that provision applies as soon as an imported product is taxed more heavily than a domestic product.
Selles osas on Euroopa Kohus selgitanud, et EÜ artikli 90 esimest lõiku puudutavas tuleneb diskrimineeriv laad maksustamise erinevusest endast, sest kuna tegemist on samasuguste toodetega, mis on hästi võrreldavad, siis kohaldatakse nimetatud sättes kehtestatud keeldu alates hetkest, mil maksusüsteem maksustab imporditud toodet kodumaisest tootest enam.
However, as regards the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, given the difficulty in making a sufficiently precise comparison of the products at issue, that assessment must, according to the Court, be conducted on the basis of a more general criterion, that is to say, the indirectly protectionist nature of the fiscal provision at issue.
Seevastu teise lõigu puhul, arvestades asjaomaste toodete piisavalt täpse võrdlemise raskusega, tuleb hinnang Euroopa Kohtu arvates anda üldisema kriteeriumi alusel, milleks on asjaomase maksusätte kaudset kaitset kehtestav laad. 27
That assessment is without doubt the trickiest assessment to be made under Article 90 EC and, in the context of infringe-
Selline hindamine on loomulikult EÜ artikli 90 raames läbi viidavatest hindamistest kõige delikaatsem ning liikmesriigi
Whatever criterion for comparison is used, the above figures show that the categories of wine that are in competition with beer are subject to a significantly higher rate of tax than beer.
Eespool toodud andmed näitavad, et olenemata arvestatavast võrdluse parameetrist kohaldatakse veini õllega konkureerivatele kategooriatele oluliselt kõrgemat aktsiisi, kui õllele.
25 — That price is derived from the average of the prices of the 22 wines, purchased in bottles or wine boxes, which are most widely sold in the price bracket ranging from SEK 61 to SEK 70, which accounts for the bulk of sales.
25 — See hind tuleneb selle valitsuse väitel hinnavahemikus 61–70 Rootsi krooni, mis hõlmab suurt osa veini müügist, enim müüdud pudelisse villitud või papist pakendis 22 veini keskmisest hinnast.
27 — Case 170/78, cited above, paragraph 9, see also the earlier judgment in Case 27/67, cited above.
26 — 5,2 mahuprotsendilise etanoolisisaldusega õlle liitri keskmine tarbijahind on 30,33 Rootsi krooni.
26 — Average price to the consumer of SEK 30.33 for a litre of beer with an alcoholic strength of 5.2 % vol.
27 — Eespool viidatud 27. veebruari 1980. aasta otsus kohtuasjas komisjon vs. Ühendkuningriik, punkt 9.
COMMISSION v SWEDEN ment proceedings, may place on the Commission a burden of proof which it is hard to satisfy.
KOMISJON VS. ROOTSI kohustuste rikkumise menetluse raames võib see seada komisjonile raskesti täidetava tõendamiskoormise.
In an attempt to alleviate that burden, the Court has specified that, for the purposes of applying the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, it is sufficient to establish that a particular taxation system ‘is likely, in view of its inherent characteristics, to bring about the protective effect referred to by the Treaty.’ 28The Court went on to state that ‘[w]ithout … disregarding the importance of the criteria which may be derived from statistics from which the effects of a given taxation system may be measured, it is impossible to require the Commission to supply statistical data on the actual foundation of the protective effect of the tax system complained of.’ 29
Soovides seda koormist kergendada, täpsustas Euroopa Kohus, et EÜ artikli 90 teise lõigu kohaldamiseks on piisav selle tuvastamine, et teatud maksukord, „arvestades sellele iseloomulike tunnustega, võib kaasa tuua kaitsva mõju, millele asutamisleping viitab” 28. Seejärel lisas Euroopa Kohus, et „jätmata […] tähelepanuta niisuguste hindamiselementide tähtsust, mida on võimalik tuletada statistilistest andmetest, mis võimaldavad mõõta teatud maksusätte mõju, ei saa komisjonilt nõuda arvuliste andmete esitamist kritiseeritava maksusüsteemi kaitsva mõju konkreetse sisu kohta” 29.
Relying on that precedent, the Kingdom of Sweden is maintaining, in the present case, that the Commission has failed to satisfy the burden of proof incumbent upon it, since it has failed to take account of the significant price difference between the two products at issue, which would have led it to rule out the possibility that the difference in the taxes applicable to those products exerts any influence on consumer choice.
Sellele pretsedendile tuginedes väidab Rootsi Kuningriik käesolevas kohtuasjas, et komisjon ei ole täitnud temal lasuvat tõendamiskoormist, kuna ta ei ole võtnud arvesse kõnealuste toodete hindade vahelist olulist erinevust, mis välistab nimetatud toodetele kohaldatava maksu erinevuse võimaliku mõju tarbija valikutele.
In its judgment on the tax arrangements for wine and beer in Belgium, however, the Court rejected the Commission’s argument that once a competitive relationship is established between two products, any difference in the rates of tax applied to the same basis of assessment is contrary to the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, and explained that any assessment of the compatibility of a given tax with the second paragraph of Article 90 EC ‘must take account of the impact of that tax on the competitive relationship between the
Belgia veinile ja õllele kohaldatava maksukorraga seonduvas otsuses lükkas Euroopa Kohus siiski tagasi komisjoni teesi, mille kohaselt juhul, kui kahe toote vaheline konkurents on tuvastatud, on mis tahes erinevus samale maksubaasile kohaldatavas maksumääras vastuolus EÜ artikli 90 teise lõiguga, ja täpsustas, et hinnates teatud maksukoor-
As regards the central argument which the Swedish Government advances and which is the mainstay of its defence, I consider it appropriate, before taking my
Kuna tegemist on kostja valitsuse keskse argumendiga, millele viimane keskendab oma kaitse, siis pean vajalikuks uurida selle põhjendatust kohe enne oma analüüsi — kui see osutub vajalikuks — jätkamist. Sellest
28 — Case 170/78, cited above, paragraph 10.
28 — Eespool viidatud 27. veebruari 1980. aasta otsus kohtuasjas komisjon vs. Ühendkuningriik, punkt 10.
Emphasis added.29 — Case 170/78, cited above, paragraph 10.
Kohtujuristi kursiiv.
30 — Case 356/85, cited above, paragraph 15.31 — Case 356/85, cited above, paragraph 16.
31 — Eespool viidatud kohtuotsus komisjon vs. Belgia, punkt 16.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-167/05 analysis any further, to consider whether that argument is well founded.
KOHTUJURIST MENGOZZI ETTEPANEK — KOHTUASI C-167/05 olevale kohtuasjale on õige kohaldada selles kohtuasjas leitud lahendust.
To that end, it is necessary to call to mind briefly the context of the judgment on which the Kingdom of Sweden’s plea is based, as well as the conclusion which the Court reached on that occasion.
vaatepunktist on tarvilik lühidalt meenutada konteksti, mille raames tehti otsus, millest Rootsi Kuningriigi esitatud väide lähtub, ning samuti lahendust, mida Euroopa Kohus sel juhul kohaldas.
The Belgian Government contended that the price of a litre of beer, inclusive of taxes, amounted to BEF 29.75 and that the price of a litre of wine of comparable quality was BEF 125.
Belgia valitsus väitis, et liitri õlle hind, maksud kaasa arvatud, oli 29,75 Belgia franki ja võrreldava kvaliteediga veini liitri hind oli 125 Belgia franki.
Since the Commission’s arguments challenging those facts were rejected in their entirety, it must be inferred that the Court based its analysis on those facts.
Kuna komisjoni argumendid, millega need andmed vaidlustati, lükati täies ulatuses tagasi, siis tuleb sellest järeldada, et Euroopa Kohus tugines oma analüüsis Belgia valitsuse andmetele.
The selling price to the consumer of wine in Belgium, inclusive of VAT, was therefore almost four times 33that of beer, whereas the difference between the VAT rates applied to wine and beer respectively was, as we have seen, 6 % (25 % for wine and 19 % for beer).
Veini tarbijahind Belgias, käibemaks kaasa arvatud, oli seega ligi neli korda 33suurem õlle hinnast, samas kui vastavalt veinile ja õllele kohaldatava käibemaksumäära erinevus oli, nagu eespool nähtud, 6% (veini puhul 25% ja õlle puhul 19%).
In the circumstances of the case which gave rise to that judgment, the Commission imputed to the Kingdom of Belgium the application of a rate of VAT on wine some 6 % higher than the rate on beer.
Kohtuvaidluse, milles nimetatud otsus tehti, esemeks olnud kohtuasjas heitis komisjon Belgia Kuningriigile ette veinile sellise käibemaksumäära kohaldamist, mis oli ligi 6% kõrgem õllele kehtestatud määrast.
On conclusion of its analysis, the Court found that the difference between the rates of tax applied was not such as to influence consumer choice.
Oma analüüsi lõpus tegi Euroopa Kohus järelduse, et kõnealune erinev maksustamine ei mõjuta tarbija valikut.
In particular, the Court considered that the Commission had failed to demonstrate that the difference between the respect- ive prices for the beer and wine in competition with each other was so small that the 6 % difference between the VAT rates applied to the two products was in fact capable of influencing consumer behaviour and thus giving rise to a protectionist effect in favour of beer. 32
Eelkõige leidis Euroopa Kohus, et komisjon ei ole tõendanud, et omavahel konkureerivate veini ja õlle hindade erinevus oleks niivõrd madal, et neile kahele tootele kohaldatava käibemaksumäära 6% erinevus võiks mõjutada tarbija käitumist ja omada seega õlut kaitsvat mõju. 32
In his Opinion, 34 which the Court largely followed on this point, Advocate General Vilaça pointed out that if the VAT rate were standardised at 25 %, thereby increasing the rate applied to beer by 6 percentage points, the difference in price between the two products would decrease by BEF 1.5 (from BEF 95.25 to BEF 93.75), whereas if the rate were standardised at 19 % — that is to say, by reducing the rate applied to wine — the reduction would have amounted to BEF 6 (from BEF 95.25 to BEF 89.25).
Oma ettepanekus, 34mida Euroopa Kohus selles osas sisuliselt järgis, märkis kohtujurist J. L. Vilaça, et juhul kui käibemaksumäär oleks ühtlustatud 25%, tõstes seega õllele kohaldatavat määra 6% võrra, oleks kahe toote hinna vaheline erinevus vähenenud 1,5 Belgia frangi võrra (95,25 Belgia frangilt 93,75 Belgia frangile), samas kui käibemaksumäära ühtlustamine 19%, see tähendab veinile kohaldatava määra vähendamine, oleks alandanud veini hinda 6 Belgia frangi võrra (95,25 Belgia frangilt 89,25 Belgia frangile).
In neither case did the price relationship between wine
Mõlemal juhul ei oleks olulisel määral
A more detailed analysis of the facts of the case allows us to comprehend better the significance of the conclusion which the Court reached and to assess whether, as the Kingdom of Sweden suggests, it is appropriate to transpose to the present case the approach adopted in that earlier case.
Kohtuasja asjaolude täpsem uurimine võimaldab paremini aru saada Euroopa Kohtu järelduste ulatusest ja hinnata, kas — nagu seda väidab Rootsi Kuningriik — käes-
33 — 4.2 times.
33 — 4,2 korda.
Considering the prices net of VAT (BEF 100 for wine and BEF 25 for beer), the differential was precise- ly 1 : 4.
Käibemaksuta hindade (veini puhul 100 Belgia franki ja õlle puhul 25 Belgia franki) korral on suhe täpselt neli ühele.
34 — Opinion delivered on 26 February 1987 in Case 356/85, cited above, [1987] ECR 3299, point 102 et seq.
34 — Esitatud 26. veebruaril 1987 eespool viidatud kohtuasjas komisjon vs. Belgia (EKL 1987, lk 3299, punkt 102 jj).
32 — Case 356/85, cited above, paragraph 18.
32 — Eespool viidatud kohtuotsus komisjon vs. Belgia, punkt 18.
COMMISSION v SWEDEN reduction of 6.65 %.
KOMISJON VS.
The price ratio between wine and beer would decrease by 11.8 %, although continuing to be of the order of 2 : 1.
ROOTSI ja õlle hinna suhe väheneks 11,8% võrra, jäädes siiski ligilähedaseks suhtele kaks ühele.
38 and beer undergo significant change (-1.5 % if the rate were standardised at 25 %, and -6.3 % if the rate were standardised at 19 %).
38 muutunud veini ja õlle hinna suhe (–1,5% käibemaksumäära ühtlustamisel 25% ja –6,3% käibemaksumäära ühtlustamisel 19%).
In the former case, which had to be regarded as the most likely in view of the statements issued by the Belgian Government in the course of the proceedings, the price of a litre of beer would have increased by 5 %, whereas, in the latter case, the price of a litre of wine would have fallen by 4.8 %. 35
Esimesel juhul, mida tuleb lugeda kõige tõenäolisemaks arvestades Belgia valitsuse poolt kohtuasja menetluse jooksul esitatud väiteid, oleks õlle liitri hind tõusnud 5% võrra, samas kui teisel juhul oleks veini liitri hind alanenud 4,8% võrra. 35
In the light of those figures, is it possible to conclude — as the Court did in Case 356/85, referred to above — that the difference in the prices of beer and wine in Sweden is so great that the 20 % disparity 39 between the rates of duty applied to the two beverages is not capable of influencing consumer behaviour?
Kas selliste andmetega arvestades võib järeldada analoogiliselt Euroopa Kohtu poolt eespool nimetatud otsuses komisjon vs. Belgia tehtud otsusega, et erinevus õlle ja veini hinna vahel Rootsis on niivõrd oluline, et neile kahele joogile kohaldatava aktsiisimäära 20% erinevus 39ei mõjuta tarbija käitumist?
At this point, it is necessary to compare the information we have in the present case with the figures set out above, in order to assess whether, in the present case, it is possible to reach the same conclusions as the Court arrived at in Case 356/85 Commission v Belgium.
Siinkohal on asjakohane võrrelda käesoleva kohtuasja andmeid eespool esitatutega, et hinnata, kas käesolevas kohtuasjas on võimalik teha sama järeldus, mille Euroopa Kohus tegi otsuses komisjon vs. Belgia.
On the basis of the data provided by or unchallenged by the Kingdom of Sweden, 36 and applying to a litre of wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5 % vol. the excise duty applicable to beer (SEK 1.47 by volume of alcohol), the outcome is a price reduction in absolute terms of SEK 4.63 per litre (EUR 0.50), 37and, in percentage terms, a
Lähtudes Rootsi Kuningriigi esitatud või tema poolt vaidlustamata andmetest 36ja kohaldades 12,5 mahuprotsendilise etanoolisisaldusega veini liitrile õllele kohaldatavat aktsiisi, see tähendab 1,47 Rootsi krooni etanoolisisalduse iga mahuprotsendi kohta, on tulemuseks hinna alanemine 4,63 Rootsi krooni võrra liitrilt (0,5 eurot) 37ja protsentuaalselt hinna alanemine 6,65% võrra. Veini
In my view, that question must elicit a negative response.
Minu arvates peab sellele küsimusele vastama eitavalt.
A comparison of the data relating to the present case and the facts which gave rise to the judgment in Case 356/85 reveals that the two cases cannot, in fact, be regarded as comparable.
Käesoleva kohtuasja andmete ja selle kohtuasja andmete, milles tehti otsus komisjon vs. Belgia, võrdlemine ei võimalda tegelikult järeldada, et kaks kohtuasja on sarnased.
While the Court was able to hold in Case 356/85 that, given a ratio of 1 : 4 between the price of beer and the price of wine, any reduction in the price of wine in the region of 5 % did not appear capable of influencing consumer choice, the same cannot be claimed with certainty and without taking other factors into consideration if that ratio is 1 : 2, and any reduction in the price of wine is in the region of 6.5 %.
Ehkki Euroopa Kohus sai eespool viidatud otsuses väita, et kuna õlle ja veini hinna suhe on üks neljale, siis ei mõjuta veini hinna võimalik alandamine 5% võrra tarbijate valikuid, ei saa teisi asjaolusid arvestamata kindlalt väita sama, juhul kui õlle ja veini hinna suhe on üks kahele ja veini hinna võimalik alandamine ulatub 6,5%. 40Põhi-
40In principle, the narrower the
35 — Vt eespool viidatud kohtujurist J. L. Vilaça ettepanek, punkt 109.
38 — It would decrease from 2.3 to 2.1.
38 — See oleks 2,3 asemel 2,1.
39 — Comparing the duty levied by volume of alcohol and using as a basis a wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5 % vol.
39 — Võrreldes koguselt makstavat aktsiisi ja arvestades veiniga, mille etanoolisisaldus on 12,5 mahuprotsenti.
36 — The comparison is based on the average price of a litre of wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5 % vol.
36 — Võrdlemine viidi läbi 12,5 mahuprotsendilise etanoolisisaldusega veini liitri keskmise hinna alusel.
It is scarcely necessary to point out that if lighter and less expensive wines — falling within the tax bracket relevant in this case — were taken into consideration, the price difference compared with beer would be less marked, whereas, as we saw above, the difference in taxation to the detriment of wine would be greater.
Vaevalt on vaja märkida, et kui võtta arvesse lahjemaid ja soodsamaid veine, mis kuuluvad asjaomasesse maksustamise kategooriasse, siis on erinevus õlle hinnaga väiksem, samas kui — nagu me eespool nägime — maksukoormuse erinevus oleks veini kahjuks suurem.
40 — But this increases if less expensive wines of lower alcoholic strength are taken into consideration.
40 — Kuid see on suurem juhul, kui võetakse arvesse väiksema etanoolisisaldusega ja madalama hinnaga veine.
37 — The calculation also includes the application of VAT at a rate of 25 %.
37 — Arvutus arvestab ka 25% käibemaksu kohaldamisega.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-167/05 ratio between the prices of two competing products, the more interchangeable they become, and, consequently, the degree of price variation that could make them potential alternates shrinks.
KOHTUJURIST MENGOZZI ETTEPANEK — KOHTUASI C-167/05 eelkõige Systembolageti müügikohtades 41sellistel tingimustel, mis muudavad nende mõtteliselt — mida väiksem on kahe konkureeriva toote hindade erinevus, seda suurem on nende omavahelise asendatavuse aste ja seetõttu on väiksem sellise hinnamuutuse määr, millel võib olla asendamisele kallutav mõju.
circumstances in which it is definitely more straightforward to compare the prices of the beverages per litre, bearing in mind also that, as the Swedish Government pointed out in its observations, the average Swedish consumer tends to buy wine packaged in what is known as the ‘Bag in Box’ format.
jookide hinna võrdlemise liitri maksumuse alusel kahtlemata palju otsesemaks, arvestades ka Rootsi valitsuse poolt tema vastuses viidatud keskmise Rootsi tarbija kalduvusega osta veine, mis on pakendatud niinimetatud Bag in Box meetodil.
42In any event, the Commission has failed to provide any information to demonstrate that its method of comparison is more relevant — bearing in mind the habits of Swedish consumers and the characteristics of the market — than the method suggested by the Swedish Government.
42 Komisjon ei ole igal juhul esitanud elemente, mis võimaldaksid leida, et tema pakutud võrdlusmeetod on Rootsi tarbijate harjumuste ja turule iseloomulike tunnustega arvestades asjakohasem kui kostja valitsuse poolt soovitatu.