HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
2.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
143/7
DECISIONS
COMMISSION DECISION
of 11 January 2012
on State aid C 21/10 (ex E 1/10) — Finland following the non-acceptance of the appropriate
measures for the Fisheries Insurance Scheme after the adoption by the Commission of revised
Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture
(notified under document C(2011) 10065)
(Only the Finnish and Swedish texts are authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2012/287/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
(3) A
meeting
was
held
between
the
Commission
and
Finland on 11 October 2005. Finland sent additional
information by letter of 24 November 2005.
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union and in particular paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 108
thereof,
(4) The
Guidelines
were
again
revised
in
2008
( 4 ) and the
Commission requested also Member States, by letters of
15 April 2008, to modify their existing schemes by
1 September 2008 at the latest ( 5 ).
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments ( 1 )
pursuant to the provisions cited above,
(5) Finland
replied
by
letter
of
30
May
2008
that
it
was
still
prepared to amend its Fisheries Insurance Scheme as
Whereas:
proposed in 2005 but not to the extent required by
the appropriate measures. A new meeting was held on
6 March 2009 between the Commission and Finland.
1. PROCEDURE
(1) In
2004,
the
Commission
adopted
revised
Guidelines
for (6) A
last
request
for
information
was
sent
by
the
the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture
Commission on 1 October 2009, indicating that, in
(thereafter ‘the Guidelines’) ( 2 ). By letter of 21 October
case Finland does not accept the proposed appropriate
2004, pursuant to point 5.2 of these Guidelines, the
measures, the Commission would be obliged to follow
Commission requested Member States, inter alia
the procedure of Articles 19(2) and Article 4(4) of
Finland, to modify their existing aid schemes in order
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 ( 6 ) and initiate
to make them compatible with these new Guidelines at
the formal investigation procedure laid down in
the latest for 1 January 2005 and to confirm in writing
Article 108(2) TFEU. Finland replied by letter of
that they accept the proposals for appropriate measures
18 November 2009.
no later than 15 November 2004 ( 3 ).
(7) As
Finland
has
not
accepted
in
its
entirety
the
proposal
(2)
By letters of 15 November 2004, 20 January 2005 and
for modification in respect of this scheme, the
14 June 2005, Finland indicated that they did not agree
Commission decided to initiate that procedure. That
to amend the aid scheme ‘Fisheries Insurance Scheme’ in
decision was notified by letter of 15 September 2010
order to make it compatible with these new Guidelines.
which was published in the Official Journal ( 7 ).
That scheme was notified to the Commission on
27 April 1995 on the basis of Article 144 (a) of the
Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Finland to the
(8) Finland
replied
by
letter
of
15
November
2010.
In
European Union, and subsequently was deemed to be
addition, following the publication of the decision
existing aid within the meaning of Article 88(1) of the
in the Official Journal, the Commission received
EC Treaty (now Article 108 TFEU).
( 4 ) OJ C 84, 3.4.2008, p. 10.
( 1 ) OJ C 273, 9.10.2010, p. 6.
( 5 ) Acceptance of the 2008 guidelines was published in OJ C 115,
( 2 ) OJ C 229, 14.9.2004, p. 5.
20.5.2009, p. 15.
( 3 ) Acceptance of the 2004 Guidelines was published in OJ C 278,
( 6 ) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
11.11.2005, p. 14.
( 7 ) See footnote 1.

---

L 143/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
2.6.2012
comments by three interested parties: two letters sent by
— damages to fishing vessels registered in Finland,
two associations representing Finnish professional
fishermen, Suomen Ammatikalastajalitto SAKL ry (letter of
8 November 2011) and Kalatalouden Keskusliitto (letter of
— damages to transport and haulage vehicles used for
16 November 2010) and a letter sent by the six fisheries
winter fishing on the ice, fishing huts and seine
insurance associations existing in Finland (letter of
floating or trawling gear.
16 November 2010). Copies of these letters were sent
to the Finnish authorities on 6 December 2010. Later,
representatives of these associations came to meet the
Commission services on 13 January 2011 and provided
(14) The
law
describes
also
the
conditions
required
for
the
complementary documents.
claims to be considered. The following conditions are
particularly relevant for the Commission’s assessment:
the items insured must be sufficiently well-made and
(9) As
the
Commission
needed
some
clarification
on
the
fully serviceable; the equipment must have been insured
information contained in the letter sent by on
at application for its full value; the damage must be
15 November 2010, a meeting was held with the
reliably shown.
Finnish authorities in the Commission premises on
4 April 2011. The Finnish authorities sent also additional
information by messages of 13 April and 13 May 2011.
(15) In
its
letter
of
15
November
2004,
Finland
has
explained
how this aid scheme works in relation with the damages
suffered by the fishing enterprises. First, there is a
(10) Finally, as it stemmed from the information sent by
Finland that it was ready to amend the scheme in such
franchise linked to the amount of the eligible claim,
a way that it would bring it compatible with the internal
corresponding to 25 % in the case of damages not
market, the Commission requested Finland, by letter of
exceeding EUR 504,56 or a maximum of 5 % in the
6 July 2011, to confirm its official commitment to
case of damages exceeding that figure; the subtraction
amend the legislation which constitutes the legal basis
of this franchise gives the amount of the compensation
of that scheme. Finland replied positively by letter of
paid to the enterprise by the fisheries insurance
19 September 2011.
association concerned. The reimbursement paid to the
fisheries insurance association by the State is then
equal to 40 % of the compensation paid out when the
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID
amount of damages is up to EUR 504,56 and 90 % when
this amount is beyond EUR 504,56.
(11) This
aid
scheme
is
based
on
Law
No
331
of
23
July
1958, last amended by law No 1236 of 29 January
1999 ( 8 ). Finland communicated this scheme to the
(16) In
its
subsequent
letter
of
24
November
2005,
Finland
Commission just after it joined the European
proposed that this scheme be amended so that State aid
Community, on the basis of Article 144 (a) of the
would be paid only to compensate for damages caused
Treaty of Accession of Finland to the European Union.
by the particular conditions pertaining in Finland,
Since then, this aid scheme has been deemed to be
including the condition that the damage occurs north
existing aid in the meaning of Article 88 of the EC
of the 59th parallel.
Treaty (now Article 108(1) TFEU).
(12) The
beneficiaries
of
this
insurance
scheme
are
the
fishing
(17) Finland
described
in
its
letter
of
15
November
2004
enterprises permanently exercising the fishing activity in
what it considers as specific conditions pertaining to
Finland. This insurance is provided by six fisheries
Finland for the fishing activity. These conditions are
insurance associations covering the whole of Finland.
caused by the climatic conditions with inter alia ice
Each association covers a determined geographical area.
formation which can cause damage to both vessels and
gear and freezing temperatures which can affect the
engine of the vessel. These specific conditions are
(13) According
to
Article
7
of
that
law,
an
annual
State
aid
aggravated by factors such as the marine topography of
payment is made to the fishery association amounting to
Finland with shallow waters and uneven sea bottom in a
a part of the claims which the association has paid out
dense archipelago; in these conditions, the risks of
under insurance contracts covered by this law. According
shipwreck associated with storms and currents in icy
to Article 2, the claims may cover the following
conditions is rather high. In addition, there is a large
damages:
seal population which cause significant losses to the
fishing industry by damaging the gear; damages can
also sometimes be caused to the gear (gill nets) by the
— damages to nets, salmon-lines, longlines and to the
cormorants.
anchors attached thereto, ropes and other ancillary
gear,
(18) From the year 2004 to the year 2009, the annual
( 8 ) This last amendment is the only one having modified the law since
number of events which have resulted in compensation,
the accession of Finland to the European Union. This amendment
the global annual compensation paid by the fisheries
was due to the establishment of the Finnish Agency for the Moni
toring of the Insurance Sector. It did not entail any consequence
insurance associations and the part reimbursed by the
from the point of view of the State aid regime itself.
State are as follows:

---

EN
2.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
143/9
Reimbursement
scheme, that it could be qualified as such. In particular,
Year
Enterprises
Number of Compensation
the Commission observed that the fisheries insurance
covered
cases
paid (EUR)
by the State
(EUR)
associations provide insurance services to only a
specific group of enterprises having an economic
2009 472 470 1
296
961 1
026
132
activity consisting in the production of goods sold on
the market, those active in the fishing sector. The
2008 486 459 1
256
200 980
065
Commission had therefore strong doubts that the
providing of commercial insurance to a selected group
2007 503 530 1
564
340 1
197
217
of economic undertakings might qualify as a service of
general economic interest.
2006 519 496 1
234
761 920
167
2005 543 539 1
333
027 992
826
4. COMMENTS FROM THE FINNISH AUTHORITIES AND
FROM THE THIRD PARTIES INTERESTED
2004 576 568 1
607
919 1
111
195
4.1. Comments from the Finnish authorities
(19) The
payments made by the associations are related
(24) The
Finnish
authorities
have
reminded
the
main
char
around 50 % to the gear, 45 % to the vessels and 5 %
acteristics of the functioning of this insurance system.
to the other equipment.
They have also brought a thorough description of the
specific conditions that the fishing industry is facing in
Finland: specific climatic conditions with ice and
3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTI
darkness in winter, the topography of the coastal
GATION PROCEDURE
waters with shallow waters and uneven sea-bottom, the
existence of a large seal population.
(20) As
indicated
above
( 9 ), this aid scheme was notified to
the Commission in 1995 on the basis of Article 144 (a)
of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Finland to
the European Union and subsequently was deemed to be
(25) They
have
also
brought
information
on
the
lack
of
offer
existing aid within the meaning of Article 88(1) of the
for coverage insurance from the private insurance sector
EC Treaty. The Guidelines which were applying until the
to the fishing industry with the same level of coverage
2004 revision contained a specific provision on aid for
for this kind of damages. To support their position, they
insurance premiums and it was on that basis that this aid
have attached to their reply a letter from the Finnish
scheme was considered compatible with the internal
Confederation of the Financial Sector Finanssialan Keskus
market. That provision was taken out with the 2004
liitto.
revision.
(26) In
addition,
they
have
indicated
that
the
value
of
the
(21) The
Commission considered
in
the
initiating
of this
imports corresponds to 6,8 times the value of the
procedure that the damages covered by the Fisheries
exports. In 2009, Finland has imported 95 046 tonnes
Insurance Scheme cannot be considered caused by an
of fish for a value of EUR 244,5 million while it has
exceptional occurrence or a natural disaster but rather
exported 59 905 tonnes for a value of EUR 36 million.
caused by a permanent and structural situation, that is
Only 30 % of the fish consumed is originating from
to say the permanent and structural context within which
Finland. The annual consumption of Finnish fish has
fishing activity is exercised in Finnish waters.
decreased between 2000 and 2009 from 6,1 to 4,5 kg
while the one of imported fish has increased from 6,6 to
11,2 kg. According to the Finnish authorities, this shows
(22) For
that
reason,
in
accordance
with
the
Guidelines
( 10 ),
that this State aid scheme cannot have any negative effect
the Commission considered that this aid was an
on competition.
operating aid which is in principle incompatible since
it has the effect to increase the business liquidity of the
enterprises which benefit from it and was granted
without imposing any obligation on the part of
(27) The
Finnish
authorities
remind
that
the
Commission,
in
its decision for the initiating of the procedure, observed
recipients.
that the deletion of the provision on aid for insurance
premiums in the Guidelines 2004 meant that this kind of
(23) The
Commission
did
not
agree
with
the
argumentation
State aid was not anymore allowed. The Finnish auth
of the Finnish authorities which justified this aid scheme
orities do not agree with that position. First of all, this
by qualifying it as a service of general economic interest
insurance scheme remains fully justified by the specific
in the sense of Article 106(2) of the TFEU. Finland did
climatic and geographic conditions occurring to Finnish
not provide any specific argument justifying that the
waters. In addition, this scheme was considered
provision of insurance to fisheries undertakings could
compatible in 2000, although such aid was not among
be qualified as a service of that kind and the Commission
those listed as allowed to be considered compatible by
did not find, with regard to the characteristics of that
the Guidelines 1997 ( 11 ) which were applying at that
time, in a context which is similar to the one existing
from 2004 with the Guidelines 2004 and 2008.
( 9 ) See recital 2.
( 10 ) See paragraph 3.7 in Guidelines 2004 and paragraph 3.4 in
Guidelines 2008.
( 11 ) OJ C 100, 27.3.1997, p. 12.

---

L 143/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
2.6.2012
(28) However,
in
these
comments,
Finland
indicates
that
it
is
consumed in the country and Finland’s fishing industry
ready to modify its scheme as follows:
and fish market are therefore dependent on imported
fish. For that reason, this association regards the
preliminary conclusion expressed in the initiating of the
— exclusion of the vessels exercising fishing in open sea,
procedure as unfounded.
which means in practice the exclusion of the vessels
over 12 metres long,
(32) The
Fisheries
Insurance
Associations
support
also
the
position expressed by the Finnish authorities. They
— eligibility only for damages suffered in territorial
point out that fishing industry in Finnish waters is
waters of Finland or in its economic exclusive zone,
facing very specific climatic and geographic conditions.
They indicate that this insurance system was established
because of the lack of offer from the private insurance
— coverage of the damages which are caused only by
sector which was not ready to cover such risks for the
the specific conditions of Finland and thus caused by
fishing activity which is an activity of marginal
the adverse climatic or geographical conditions (ice,
importance. In addition, the Fisheries Insurance Associ
snow, strong storms, reefs in shallow waters) or by
ations are obliged to insure all fishermen established in
the seals and cormorants, and suffered by the vessels
the region of their competence.
and fishing gear as well as transport and haulage
vehicles and other specific equipment used for
winter fishing.
5. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
5.1. Existence of State aid
(29) Finland
considers
that
this
modification
could
be
done
within 31 December 2012. This delay is necessary for
(33) Article
107(1)
of
the
TFEU
states
that
‘Save
as
otherwise
two reasons: first, the need to amend the current legis
provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member
lation in force and constituting the legal basis of this
State or through State resources in any form whatsoever
scheme (Law No 331 of 23 July 1958) and, second,
which distorts or threatens to distort competition by
the need to terminate the current contracts under the
favouring certain undertakings or the production of
existing scheme. The new Fisheries Insurance Scheme
certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between
would then enter into force on 1 January 2013.
Member States, be incompatible with the internal
market’.
(30) As
indicated
above
( 12 ), the Finnish authorities confirmed
by letter of 19 September 2011 their commitment to
(34) The
compensation
paid
to
the
fishing
enterprises
by
the
amend the legislation which constitutes the legal basis
fisheries insurance associations comes partly from
of that scheme. They indicated that, if the Commission
monies granted to these associations by the State.
takes its final decision within a reasonable period of time,
These monies come from the State budget. As this
they will be able to present a proposal to its Parliament
compensation brings a financial advantage to the enter
early enough in 2012 to enable the law to come into
prises of the fishing sector, it is a sectorial advantage
force on 1 January 2013. However, they stressed that a
granted through State resources.
transitional period is needed for introducing the new
rules because changes in the terms of the insurance
contracts in force will be required. For that purpose,
(35) According to the case law of the Court of Justice, the
they consider that these changes in these contracts
mere fact that the competitive position of an undertaking
could be done by 1 January 2014 and the amended
is strengthened compared with other competing under
conditions be applied to the aid granted to the insurers
takings, by giving it an economic benefit which it would
from that date onwards.
not otherwise have received in the normal course of its
business, points to a possible distortion of competi
tion ( 13 ). Further, aid for an undertaking that operates
4.2. Comments from third parties
in a market open to intra-Union trade is liable to affect
trade between Member States ( 14 ).
(31) Two fishermen’s associations sent comments to the
Commission: Suoman Ammattikalastajaliitto and Katata
louden Keskuliitto. On the same line than the Finnish auth
orities, both associations put the emphasis on the specific
(36) Given
that
there
is
substantial
trade
in
fisheries
products
conditions of fishing in Finland and the unavailability of
inside the European Union, this measure reinforces
insurance offer for the damages covered. One of them
the position of these enterprises on the Union market
(Suoman Ammattikalastajaliitto) observed that the
and hence is liable to distort or threatens to distort
Commission has not provided any evidence that this
aid scheme is likely to affect competition between
( 13 ) Judgment of the Court of 17 September 1980 in Case 730/79
Member States, noting in particular that professional
Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission of the European Communities
fishing is currently the source of only 7 % of the fish
[1980] ECR 2671.
( 14 ) See, in particular, the judgment of the Court of 13 July 1988 in
Case 102/87 French Republic v Commission of the European Commu
( 12 ) See recital 10.
nities [1988] ECR 4067.

---

EN
2.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
143/11
competition and affect intra-Union trade ( 15 ). The fact
regard to the Guidelines 2004 and 2008 is comparable
that the imports are higher than the exports or that
to the one with the Guidelines 1997 by considering that
most of the fish consumed comes from other countries
no provision on aid for insurance premiums has been
is not relevant. On the contrary, this shows that the
laid down in any of them. The deletion in 2004 of the
market for fisheries products in Finland is indeed very
specific provision on such aid which was beforehand
open and suggests then that aid to the Finnish under
enshrined in the Guidelines 2001 ( 16 ) shows that the
takings supports their position with regard to the under
Commission, with the 2004 revision, has clearly
takings established in the other Member States and
considered that such aid could not anymore benefit of
distorts or threatens to distort competition. Even the
a derogation from the principle of incompatibility of
fact that the quantity of imported fish consumed may
State aid with the internal market and be considered
have increased compared to the one of non imported fish
compatible with it from the date of entry into force of
consumed does not change anything from that point of
the Guidelines 2004. That policy decision has remained
view; it could only suggest that the Finnish undertakings
unchanged with the next revision, i.e. the Guidelines
have not made the adaptations which were necessary to
2008.
follow the evolution of the economic conditions
pertaining to the market of fisheries products in
Finland. In any event, these undertakings benefit from
aid which supports their position on the internal
market with regard to foreign undertakings.
(41) Moreover, the overall framework within which the
Commission is assessing State aid for insurance
premiums has changed. This State aid scheme was
considered compatible by the Commission in 2000 ( 17 )
(37) In the light of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the
for the compensation resulting from the ‘exceptional
conditions set out in Article 107(1) are fulfilled and that
conditions specific of Finnish weather and coastal
the compensation paid to the fisheries enterprises and
zones’. To reach that decision, the Commission referred
coming from the State budget is a State aid in the
in its reasoning to the situation in the agriculture sector
sense of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
for which no provision in the Guidelines applying to the
agriculture sector neither existed, but where the
Commission had a practice to decide positively on a
case-by-case basis for aid measure in connection with
5.2. Compatibility with the internal market
insurance against natural disasters and exceptional insur
ances. In 2000, for both agriculture and fisheries sector,
5.2.1. Nature of this aid scheme
the Commission has clarified its policy by laying down
criteria to be followed for the assessment (
(38) The
Fisheries
Insurance
Scheme
is
aimed
at
covering

18 ) of such
expenses which are partially covered by insurance
kind of aid in the respective Guidelines. Since then,
premiums. It is not per se an aid for insurance
such criteria still exist in the agriculture Guidelines ( 19 )
premiums; it is not aimed at covering a part of
while they do not exist anymore in the fisheries Guide
insurance premiums, but at covering a part of the
lines. Thus, while the Commission, in the agriculture
claims for compensation submitted by the enterprises
sector, has laid down precise criteria for considering aid
to the fisheries insurance associations.
for insurance premiums compatible with the internal

market, those criteria have been deleted in the fisheries
Guidelines. For the fisheries sector, the Commission is
then obliged to revert to the general principle of incom
(39) However, as these claims are submitted to these associ
patibility of State aid and assess the compatibility or
ations which have to pay out for the eligible amount of
incompatibility of a scheme of that kind on the basis
damages suffered, the Commission considers that the
of the provisions which may apply.
effect of this aid is to lower the premiums that the
fishing enterprises should have paid if the fisheries
insurance associations concerned had not expected to
get monies from the State. Thus, it has the same effect
as an aid scheme for insurance premiums. This scheme
(42) The provision of the current Guidelines which may apply
is paragraph 4.9 which says that the aid measures for
can therefore be considered as an aid scheme for
which there is no applicable provision in the other para
insurance premiums.
graphs listing the different categories of aid which may
be considered compatible with the internal market
cannot in principle be considered compatible.
5.2.2. Compatibility with the internal market
( 16 ) OJ C 19, 20.1.2001, p. 7.
(40) The
Commission
cannot
concur
with
the
opinion
of
the
( 17 ) Decision communicated to Finland by letter of 11 May 2000.
Finnish authorities when they say that the situation with
( 18 ) For the agriculture sector, OJ C 28, 1.2.2000, p. 2 (see paragraph
11.5.1); for the fisheries sector Guidelines 2001 (see above footnote
14).
( 15 ) It appears from the Eurostat data that Finland imported from other
( 19 ) OJ C 319, 27.12.2006, p. 1; see point 140 which refers to
Member States an average of 30 000 tonnes of fisheries products
Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of
per year during the years 2007 to 2009 for an average value of
15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of
EUR 90 million per year and exported to other Member States an
the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active
average of 20 000 tonnes per year during the same period for an
in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation
average value of EUR 15 million per year.
(EC) No 70/2001 (OJ L 358, 16.12.2006, p. 3).

---

L 143/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
2.6.2012
(43) By
exception,
an
aid
scheme
can
however
be
considered
exercise of fishing in these waters. This would also help
compatible if the Member State demonstrates that it
maintaining the socioeconomic fabric of the coastal
complies with the various principles set out in those
communities concerned.
Guidelines and serves the objectives of the common
fisheries policy.
(49) The Commission observes
in addition that this aid
scheme, when amended, will not in any event offer a
(44) In
its
reply
to
the
initiating
of
the
procedure,
Finland
has
full compensation for the damages concerned. The
made concrete proposals to amend the scheme in a
current system, with first a franchise and, second, only
restrictive manner ( 20 ). In addition it has justified its
a partial reimbursement of the compensation paid ( 22 ),
continuation by the existence of a market failure in the
will remain in place. Thus, the existence of a counterpart
insurance market for the coverage of a significant part of
needed from the beneficiaries of this aid scheme, as
these damages.
requested by point 3.3 of the Guidelines, still remains.
(45) In
its
letter
attached
to
this
reply,
the
Finnish
Confed
(50) Finally, the Commission considers that the period that
eration of the Financial Sector Finanssialan Keskusliitto
Finland considers necessary to amend the scheme ( 23 ) is
recognises that they would not be able to cover all the
acceptable. Taking into account the necessary legislative
damages as it now stands with the Fisheries Insurance
procedure, the deadline of 1 January 2013 for the
Associations. This coverage would be a very partial
entrance into force of the law amending the current
coverage or even in some cases, for instance for the
legal basis of this scheme is a reasonable one. In
damages to gear, would not be possible. Insurance
addition, at that time, the insurance contracts in force
companies cannot consider such damages as insurable
between the fishing enterprises and the fisheries
or, to consider them so, the insurance premiums would
insurance associations will have been renewed during
be beyond a reasonable rate.
the year 2012 under the conditions applying at that
date, with expiration during the year 2013. It is
reasonable to allow these contracts to run until their
expiration under the terms agreed. They will then be
(46) This
shows
that
the
fisheries
insurance
associations
are
not in a position to distort competition with respect to
renewed again in 2013 in accordance with the new
the private insurance companies. This characterises the
conditions applying at this time. Therefore, the ultimate
existence of a market failure in Finland for the
deadline of 31 December 2013 with entry into force of
coverage of these damages by private companies.
such adapted contracts the day after, i.e. 1 January 2014,

is justified.
(47) The
Commission considers
that
a
State
aid
measure
which addresses a market failure can be considered
6. CONCLUSION
compatible with the internal market when it fulfils
(51) In the light of the foregoing analysis, the Commission
objectives of common interest. This meets the
concludes that the ‘Fisheries Insurance Scheme’ can be
requirements of point 4.9 of the Guidelines concerning
considered compatible with the internal market when it
compliance with the principles set out in the Guidelines
is amended in accordance with the following principles:
and with the objectives of the common fisheries policy.
— exclusion of the vessels exercising fishing in the open
(48) The
objectives
of
the
common
fishery
policy
are
to
sea, which means in practice the exclusion of the
ensure the exploitation of living aquatic resources that
vessels over 12 metres long,
provides sustainable economic, environmental and
social conditions ( 21 ). The Commission considers that
this scheme, as amended in accordance with the modifi
cations described by Finland, would contribute to provide
— eligibility only for damages suffered in territorial
such conditions. Along with the application of the
waters of Finland or in its economic exclusive zone,
conservation and management rules for the exploitation
of these resources, it would allow continuation of fishing
in conditions which are those specific to the coastal
waters of Finland, including damages caused to the
— only coverage of the damages which are caused by
equipment (fishing nets) by seals and, sometimes,
the specific conditions of Finland and thus caused by
cormorants. This would help providing them sound
the adverse climatic or geographical conditions (ice,
economic, environmental and social conditions to the
snow, strong storms, reefs in shallow waters) or by
fishing enterprises facing the specific constraints of the
the seals and cormorants, and suffered by the vessels
and fishing gear as well as transport and haulage
vehicles and other specific equipment used for
( 20 ) See above recital 28.
winter fishing.
( 21 ) Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of
20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploi
tation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy
( 22 ) See above recital 15.
(OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59).
( 23 ) See above recital 30.

---

EN
2.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
143/13
(52) The Commission takes note of the commitment of the
— only coverage of the damages which are caused by the
Finnish authorities to amend the legal basis of that aid
specific conditions of Finland and thus caused by the
scheme at the latest by 1 January 2013 in order that the
adverse climatic or geographical conditions (ice, snow,
terms of the insurance contracts be changed at the latest
strong storms, reefs in shallow waters) or by the seals and
by 1 January 2014,
cormorants, and suffered by the vessels and fishing gear as
well as transport and haulage vehicles and other specific
equipment used for winter fishing.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
2. The
legal
provisions
amending
this
scheme
shall
enter
into
Article 1
force at the latest by 1 January 2013 and the relevant insurance
1. The
existing
aid
scheme
‘Fisheries
Insurance
Scheme’ contracts concluded on their basis shall enter into force at the
which was subject to a proposal for appropriate measures
latest by 1 January 2014.
after the revision of the Guidelines for the examination of
State aid to fisheries and aquaculture is compatible with the
Article 2
internal market when it is amended in accordance with the
following commitment made by Finland:
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Finland.
— exclusion of the vessels exercising fishing in the open sea,
Done at Brussels, 11 January 2012.
which means in practice the exclusion of the vessels over 12
metres long,
For the Commission
— eligibility only for damages suffered in territorial waters of
Maria DAMANAKI
Finland or in its economic exclusive zone,
Member of the Commission

---

Document Outline

• �

---