HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 59/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.3.2012
DECISIONS
COMMISSION DECISION
of 13 July 2011
on levies for Interbev
(notified under document C(2011) 4923)
(Only the French text is authentic)
(2012/131/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
(5) On
25
February
2011,
a
request
for
further
information
was sent to France, and a meeting took place on
29 March 2011.
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU), and in particular the first subparagraph of
Article 108(2) thereof ( 1 ),
(6) The
French
authorities
replied
by
letter
of
24
May
2011.
Having invited interested parties to submit comments in
accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 108(2)
TFEU, and having regard to those comments,
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION
Whereas:
1. LEVIES FOR INTERBEV
1.1. INTER-BRANCH ORGANISATIONS (IPO) AND THE
I. PROCEDURE
COMPULSORY VOLUNTARY LEVIES SCHEME
(1)
In the light of the information received regarding the
(7) Inter-branch
organisations
(IPO)
are
umbrella
groups
that
measure in question, the European Commission asked
bring together, by farm sector, the different professions
the French authorities a number of questions by letter
which are the most representative of agricultural
of 2 October 2001. The Permanent Representation of
production, and, if appropriate, processing, marketing
France to the European Union replied to the Commission
and distribution, and which are recognised as inter-
by letter of 9 November 2001.
branch organisations by the competent administrative
authority. Their existence, missions and operation are
governed by Articles L. 631-1 et seq. of the Rural
(2) Since
the
measure
was
applied
without
prior
authori
Code. In order for this type of organisation to be recog
sation by the Commission, it was entered in the
nised, the competent authorities must check to ensure
register of non-notified aid under number NN 39/03.
that they meet various criteria, in particular that their
statutes comply with the legislation (Article L.632-1 of
(3) The
Commission
initiated
the
procedure
provided
for
in
the Rural Code), and that their constituent organisations
Article 108(2) TFEU with respect to the aid measure in
are representative.
question by letter No C(2003) 2057 final on 9 July
2003.
(8)
The mission of the IPO is to act in the interests of all the
(4) The
decision
to
initiate
the
procedure
was
published
in
players in a sector, and they can conclude agreements for
the Official Journal of the European Union ( 2 ). The
that purpose. These agreements and the collection of
Commission invited the other Member States and
voluntary levies intended to fund the measures
interested third parties to submit their comments on
provided for in these agreements can be made
the aid in question. The Commission did not receive
compulsory (‘be extended’) by joint ministerial decree
any comments from third parties. The French authorities
to all the stakeholders in the sector, whether or not
sent their comments by letters of 8 and 10 October
they belong to a professional organisation which is an
2003 and 13 September and 29 November 2005.
IPO member, so long as they comply with objectives laid
down in legislation. The main aim of these agreements is
( 1 ) With effect from 1 December 2009, Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
to promote market awareness, inter-professional
Treaty have become Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, respectively. The
relations, quality and products. The Rural Code only
provisions of the respective articles are identical in terms of
authorises the extension of the agreements where there
substance. For the purposes of this Decision, references to Articles
is ‘a common interest’ based on measures ‘in line with
107 and 108 TFEU should be understood as references to Articles
the general interest and compatible with the rules of the
87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, where appropriate.
( 2 ) Commission Decision C(2003) 2057 final of 9 July 2003 (OJ C 189,
Common Agricultural Policy’ (cf. Article L.632-3 of the
9.8.2003, p. 21).
Rural Code).

---

EN
1.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
59/15
(9) The
arrangements
with
regard
to
the
collection
and (14) The National Inter-Branch Livestock and Meat
distribution of compulsory voluntary levies are
Association (Interbev) is the French inter-branch organi
governed individually by each IPO agreement.
sation for the livestock and meat sector. It was set up on
9 October 1979 on the initiative of the organisations
representing the livestock and meat sectors handling
1.2. THE ROLE OF THE STATE
bovine animals, sheep and equine animals and was
recognised by Decree of 18 November 1980 ( 3 ). Its
(10) Although
the
IPO are
legal
persons
governed
under
role is to defend and advance the common interests of
private law and their funding is guaranteed by
the livestock sector and the sector’s industrial, skilled
contributions from the sector concerned, the functioning
trades’ and marketing activities. Interbev was recognised
of the compulsory voluntary levy system requires State
in 1980 as the inter-branch organisation for the livestock
intervention, particularly with regard to the following:
and meat sector. Interbev comprises thirteen national
organisations representing the different professions in
the livestock and meat sector: producers, live animal
(a) prior to any extension request, the IPO must be
traders, slaughterers, wholesalers, processors and
recognised by the public authorities and comply
distributors.
with the objectives of national agricultural policy
and the common agricultural policy (cf. recitals 7
and 8);
(15) Its
two
main
missions
are
the
establishment
of
inter-
(b) once it has been recognised, the IPO can ask the
branch agreements and reciprocal communication. It
State to make their agreements compulsory by
also supports meat research programmes in the meat
issuing a joint ministerial decree on the extension.
sector. The inter-branch agreements signed within the
In this way, every operator in the production zone
framework of the association lay down the rules
in question becomes subject to the compulsory
governing the sector’s activities. These agreements may
voluntary levy collected by a representative IPO (cf.
be submitted to the public authorities under the
recital 8);
extension procedure. Once the extension has been offi
cially declared in a joint decree issued by the Ministers
for Agriculture and Economic Affairs, the measures laid
(c) pursuant to Article L.632-8-1 of the Rural Code, the
down in an inter-branch agreement are binding on all
competent authorities receive activity reports from
operators in the sector.
each IPO and a summary of the implementation of
each extended agreement.
2.2. MEAT LEVY
2. OBJECTIVE OF THE AID
(16) Under
the
inter-branch
agreement
of 25 July
1995,
(11) The
aid’s
objective
is
to
promote
research
and
devel
which was extended by Decree of 18 December
opment, technical assistance and advertising for the
1995 ( 4 ), Interbev introduced a levy on the meat and
benefit of the livestock industry.
offal of bovine animals and sheep intended for human
consumption and on live bovine animals and sheep
dispatched to EU countries or exported.
2.1. LEVIES INTRODUCED BY INTERBEV
(12) Two
types of inter-branch levies, which were made
compulsory by the public authorities, are the subject of
this Decision. The first relates to the levy on meat and
(17) The
levy
was
imposed
on
three
categories
of
meat
and/or
animal:
offal of bovine animals and sheep intended for human
consumption and on live bovine animals and sheep
dispatched to EU countries or exported (‘the meat levy’)
and the second relates to the levy for the benefit of the
National Livestock Fund (‘the FNE levy’).
(a) meat and offal of animals slaughtered in France
intended for human consumption, set at 0,084
French francs (FRF)/kg ( 5 ) of carcase and paid by
(13) The
inter-branch
agreements
introducing
the
levies
for
the physical or legal person who owned or co-
Interbev that are the subject of this Decision are as
owned the animal at the time of its slaughter;
follows:
(b) meat introduced or imported for consumption in
Meat levy FNE
levy
France, set at FRF 0,042/kg and paid by the
IPO
Extending
IPO
Extending
physical or legal person who first owned or co-
Agreements
Decree
Agreement
Decree
owned the meat on the national territory;
25.7.1995 18.12.1995
18.12.1995
15.6.1994
( 3 ) Information taken from www.interbev.asso.fr
12.6.2001 19.9.2001 19.4.2001
( 4 ) Official Journal of the French Republic No 299 of 27 December 1995.
( 5 ) FRF 1 = EUR 0,15.

---

L 59/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.3.2012
(c) live bovine animals or sheep dispatched to EU
resources and applied research, which in future will
countries or exported, set at FRF 7/head and paid
continue to be key factors in the competitiveness of
by the physical or legal person who last owned or
livestock farming.
co-owned the animals on the national territory.
(24) A
levy
to
service
this
fund
is
borne
by
physical
or
legal
persons who are owners or co-owners of bovine animals
(18) The inter-branch agreement of 25 July 1995 was
and sheep slaughtered in France. Based on the latest data
replaced by another inter-branch agreement of 12 June
submitted by the French authorities, this levy was set at
2001, which was extended by Decree of 19 September
FRF 0,02/kg (EUR 0,003) of slaughtered meat net (or FRF
2001 ( 6 ). Article 1 of the Decree establishes that the
7/head for adult bovine animals, FRF 2,40/head for veal
agreement is extended for a period ending three years
and FRF 0,36/head for sheep — EUR 1,05, EUR 0,36
after the Decree’s publication date, i.e. on 30 September
and EUR 0,054 respectively).
2004.
(25) According to the French authorities, the revenue from
this levy is used for genetic improvement, the genetic
(19) The
inter-branch
agreement
of
12
June
2001
maintained
the categories of meat and/or animals to which levies
information system, biotechnology and economic studies.
were applied and increased the amount of contributions
to: FRF 0,1574 (EUR 0,024) for meat and offal of
animals slaughtered in France intended for human
2.4. THE MEASURES FUNDED
consumption; FRF 0,0656 (EUR 0,010) for meat
(26) The
Interbev
resources
generated
by
meat
levies
are
used
imported for consumption in France; and FRF 11,15
for three types of measure:
(EUR 1,7) for live bovine animals or sheep dispatched
to an EU country or exported.
(a) communication and promotion for the benefit of the
sector;
(20) The inter-branch agreement of 12 June 2001 also
introduced the possibility of a partial refund of the
meat levy at the time of dispatch to an EU country or
(b) technical assistance;
export to a third country. The refund rate was FRF
0,0656/kg (EUR 0,010).
(c) research and experimentation.
(21) The prolongations in 1995 and 2001 did not apply to
(27) Communication
and
promotion
involves
the
financing
of
the levy on meat imported for consumption in France.
campaigns on various topics relating to quality meat
Therefore the compulsory voluntary meat levy is not
products, more general beef and veal campaigns on
imposed on these products.
television and radio, and public relations measures.
Promotion measures on external markets are also
financed, including participation in trade fairs and
promotions.
2.3. FNE LEVY
(22) Under
an inter-branch
agreement of 15 June 1994,
extended by Decree of 18 December 1995 (
(28) Technical
assistance measures cover certification and

7 ) and by
Decree of 19 September 2001 (
qualification of farms, in particular to overcome the

8 ), Interbev introduced a
levy for the National Livestock Fund. The latter Decree
obstacles faced by operators dealing with these
establishes that the extension period for the agreement
procedures. Interbev also draws up joint specifications
ends three years after the Decree’s publication date, i.e.
for the sector and is involved in the distribution and
on 30 September 2004.
implementation of the charter on best livestock-farming

practice and the code of best meat practice. It is also
involved in improving transactions throughout the
sector.
(23) This professional fund, managed in the framework of the
National Livestock Confederation (CNE), was set up to
meet two key objectives. Firstly, to provide an incentive
(29) Research
and
experimentation
measures
are
geared
to
the
for organisations to restructure and promote their
needs of the sector and focus on food safety, quality
adjustment to the future needs of a falling number of
management and animal welfare.
livestock farmers trying to cope with Community
production management policies, and secondly, to
contribute to the continued development of genetic
(30) The
Interbev
resources
generated
by
the
FNE
levy
are
used for the following measures:
( 6 ) Official Journal of the French Republic No 227 of 30 September 2001.
( 7 ) Official Journal of the French Republic No 299 of 24 December 1995.
( 8 ) Official Journal of the French Republic No 227 of 30 September 2001.
(a) genetic improvement;

---

EN
1.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
59/17
(b) genetic information system on livestock;
rules and guidelines in force at the time the aid is
granted. The agricultural guidelines have applied since
1 January 2007. The previous guidelines, the
Community guidelines for State aid in the agricultural
(c) applied research programmes;
sector (2000-2006) ( 11 ), had applied since 1 January
2000. Any aid granted after that date must be assessed
in the light of the 2000 guidelines. By contrast, any aid
(d) economic studies;
granted before that date must be assessed in the light of
the rules and practice applicable before 1 January 2000.
The aid in question has been granted since 1996.
(e) various activities.
(37) Since
this
is
State
aid
funded
by
means
of
parafiscal
3. DURATION OF THE MEASURE
charges, the measures funded by this aid and the
funding of the aid itself must be assessed by the
(31) This
Decision
covers
the
period
from
1996
to
2004,
the
Commission.
year in which the last inter-branch agreement which is
the subject of this procedure expired.
5.1. THE AID MEASURES
4. BENEFICIARIES
5.1.1. Promotion measures
(32) The
beneficiaries
of
the
aid
measure
in
question
are
(38) The
Commission
has
recalled
that
the
compatibility
of
farmers of bovine animals and sheep.
the aid granted before 1 January 2002 must be assessed
in the light of the rules on State aid for advertising of
agricultural products and certain products not covered by
(33) The aid measure is envisaged to benefit mainly agri
Annex II to the EEC Treaty ( 12 ) and that the compatibility
cultural producers, processors and distributors as final
of aid granted after that date must be assessed in the
beneficiaries. It is provided for that certain activities can
light of the Community guidelines applicable to State
be carried out by private companies on behalf of
aid for advertising of products listed in Annex I to the
distributors.
EC Treaty and of certain non-Annex I ( 13 ) products.
Essentially, those two texts are based on the same prin
ciples in that they lay down negative and positive criteria
to be met. As regards the ceiling on the aid, the sector
(34) This Decision is without prejudice to the Commission’s
must fund at least 50 % of the cost of these measures. In
position regarding the compatibility of the selection
this case, the measures are funded entirely out of para
procedure for the service providers that Interbev has
fiscal charges and by definition the levy paid by operators
chosen to carry out its activities with public procurement
in the sector reaches that level. Therefore when the
rules.
Commission initiated the procedure, it considered that
the conditions had been met.
5. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE ( 9 )
(35) Firstly,
the
Commission
noted
that
these
levies
were
5.1.2. Technical assistance measures
made compulsory by the French government under an
extension procedure for inter-branch agreements. The
(39) The
Commission
has
recalled
that
the
compatibility
of
agreements are extended by means of decrees published
the aid granted before 1 January 2000 must be assessed
in the French Official Journal. It follows that this type of
in the light of Commission practice based on the
contribution therefore requires an official act in order to
proposal for the appropriate measures relating to aids
take full effect. Consequently, when the procedure was
granted by Member States in the livestock and livestock
initiated the Commission regarded the levies as parafiscal
products sector ( 14 ) and, in the case of aid granted after
charges, i.e. public resources and therefore illegal aid as
that date, in the light of the agricultural guidelines. Essen
notification had not been given.
tially, Commission practice prior to 2000 and the agri
cultural guidelines are based on the same principles.
Thus, aid covering 100 % of eligible expenditure is auth
orised for this type of aid. Also, the aid must be
(36) According
to
point
194
of
the
Community’s
guidelines
accessible to all potentially interested operators in the
for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007
sector. Therefore the Commission considered that the
to 2013 ( 10 ) (hereinafter: the agricultural guidelines), any
conditions have been met.
unlawful aid must be evaluated in accordance with the
( 11 ) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000, p. 2.
( 9 ) For a complete overview of the Decision, see Commission Decision
( 12 ) OJ C 302, 12.11.1987, p. 6.
C(2003) 2057 final of 9 July 2003, previously referred to in
( 13 ) OJ C 252, 12.9.2001, p. 5.
footnote 2.
( 14 ) Commission letter to Member States No S/75/29416 of
( 10 ) OJ C 319, 27.12.2006, p. 1.
19 September 1975.

---

L 59/18
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.3.2012
5.1.3. Research and experimentation measures
(43) At the investigation stage of the procedure, the
Commission considered that the advantage accrued
(40) The
Commission
has
recalled
that
the
compatibility
of
from imposing the charge on products and animals
this aid must be assessed in the light of the Community
dispatched to other Member States to finance the
framework for State aid for research and devel
promotion, technical assistance, research and experimen
opment ( 15 ) and the Commission communication
tation measures carried out by Interbev could be incom
amending that framework ( 16 ). Thus, aid intensities of
patible with the internal market under the Treaty and
up to 100 % are compatible with the common market
particularly Article 107, and that the State aid so
provided that the four conditions laid down in the
financed could be incompatible with the Treaty. The
framework are met: the aid must be of general interest
charge could disadvantage the production of these
to the sector, the information must be published in the
animals as regards their exportation to other Member
appropriate journals, the research findings must be made
States because the allocation of the revenue was, by its
available on an equal basis in terms of both cost and
very nature, likely to encourage national production
time, and the aid must meet the international trade
marketed in France to the detriment of exported
criteria to which the EU has committed itself. Therefore
national production, and the level of the charge did
when the Commission initiated the procedure, it
not take into account differences in profit generated by
considered that the conditions had been met.
national products depending on whether they are
marketed internally or externally.
5.1.4. Measures funded by the FNE levy
(41) The
Commission
was
unsure
about
the
precise
nature
of
5.2.2. FNE levy
the measures funded by the FNE levy, the aim of which is
to provide an incentive for organisations to restructure
(44) On the basis of the information available at this stage,
and promote their adjustment to the future needs of
the Commission did not have reason to believe that this
livestock farmers, as well as to contribute to the
levy had been imposed on animals imported from or
continued development of genetic resources and applied
dispatched to other Member States.
research. According to the French authorities, the revenue
from this levy is used for genetic improvement, the
genetic information system, biotechnology and
economic studies. This information is not sufficient to
6. COMPATIBILITY OF COMPULSORY LEVIES WITH THE
allow the Commission to conclude whether or not the
SYSTEM OF COMMON ORGANISATION OF MARKETS
measures are compatible with any Community provisions
that may apply. Therefore at this stage the Commission is
(45) With
regard
to
the
compatibility
of
compulsory
levies
unable to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the
with the system of common organisation of markets
measures funded by the FNE levy are compatible with
(hereinafter: CMO), the Commission considered that in
the EC Treaty ( 17 ).
this case, based on the Case C-355/00 Freskot [2003]
ECR I-5263 ( 19 ), compulsory levies did not interfere,
directly or indirectly, with the price of the end
products concerned as the contributions did not
5.2. FUNDING OF THE AID
influence product prices, which were determined by the
free market. Therefore, the burden on meat products and
5.2.1. Meat levy
livestock is neutralised by the advantage accrued from the
funded activities. Consequently, the effects of the
(42) From
1
January
1996
this
levy
is
imposed
on,
inter
alia,
contribution on prices can be considered to be very
live bovine animals and sheep dispatched to other
limited or inexistent.
Member States and bovine meat and sheep products
dispatched to other Member States, although a partial
refund of the levy was introduced in 2001 for the
latter. According to a ruling of the Court of Justice of
the European Union (hereinafter: the Court of Justice) (
III.

18 ),
COMMENTS FROM FRANCE
a charge constitutes a breach of the prohibition of
discrimination laid down by Article 110 TFEU if the
(46) By
letters
of
8
and
10
October
2003,
the
French
auth
advantages accrued, from the use of the revenue
orities submitted their comments on the Commission’s
generated by the charge, particularly benefit the taxed
decision to initiate the procedure provided for in
national products, which are processed and marketed
Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the aid measure in
on the national market, by partially offsetting the
question.
burden borne by these products and placing exported
national products at a disadvantage.
( 15 ) OJ C 45, 17.2.1996, p. 5.
(47) By letters of 13 September and 29 November 2005, the
( 16 ) OJ C 48, 13.2.1998, p. 2.
French authorities submitted other comments in response
( 17 ) France sent information after the initiation of the formal investi
to the Commission’s requests for additional information.
gation procedure, as indicated in section III (Comments from
France).
( 18 ) Case C-234/99, Nygrd [2002] ECR I-3657.
( 19 ) [2003] ECR I-5263.

---

EN
1.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
59/19
(48) Following the Commission’s request for additional
(54) Moreover, the French authorities state that the
information sent on 25 February 2011 and the
Commission was aware of Interbev’s communication
meeting on 29 March 2011, the French authorities
measures as a result of Case C18/95 on measures for
submitted other comments by letter of 24 May 2011.
the sheep sector.
(55) Consequently, as the Commission did not continue with
(49) The
French
authorities
note
that
the
Commission
regards
its investigation of these agreements, the French auth
the revenue from these compulsory voluntary inter-
orities believed that they had legitimate grounds for
branch levies as comparable to parafiscal charges that
considering that the Commission did not oppose their
could lead to distortions of competition in the internal
implementation.
market. The French authorities also stated that the
measures should have been notified. They went on to
(56) In
view
of
this,
the
French
authorities
believed
that
this
make the following remarks:
procedure only covered the inter-branch agreement of
12 June 2001.
1. SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION’S INVESTIGATION
(57) In their letter of 24 May 2011 and at the meeting of
ACCORDING TO THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
29 March 2011, the French authorities finally submitted
information on the entire period to the Commission.
(50) With regard to the contributions levied pursuant to the
inter-branch agreements of 15 June 1994 for the
National Livestock Fund and of 18 December 1995 for
2. GROUNDS JUSTIFYING THE NON-NOTIFICATION OF THE
Interbev, the French authorities considered that the
AID ACCORDING TO THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
Commission opened its investigation by letters of
16 January 1995 (aid NN 34/95) and 18 March 1996
(58) As
regards
the
measures
carried
out
using
the
revenue
and closed it by letter (SG(96) D/6396) of 15 July 1996,
from levies from the new inter-branch agreements dating
concluding that ‘the measures under investigation fall
from 12 June 2001, for the benefit of Interbev and the
exclusively within the scope of Council Regulation
FNE, the French authorities did not believe it was
(EEC) No 2328/91 and must be investigated on the
necessary to notify them because they were funded
basis of that Regulation. Article 35(2) of that Regulation
solely from the private contributions of the sector
excludes the application of Articles 92 and 93 TFEU’.
concerned.
3. INTERBEV MEASURES
(51) In reply to the Commission, which pointed out that at
the time it had not expressed its views on the other
(59) With
respect
to
the
measures
carried
out
by
Interbev,
the
French authorities note that the Commission considers
Interbev measures (as aid NN 34/95 only covered
that they are compatible with the Community guidelines
investments to restructure the production of suckler
on State aid in agriculture (2000-2006) and the
cows), the French authorities stated that their reply to a
Community guidelines on State aid for advertising of
Commission letter of 18 March 1996 was as follows: ‘the
agricultural products and certain products not covered
National Livestock Fund is intended […] to improve
by Annex I, based on the analysis of the information
livestock selection and to support research, particularly
submitted to it by letter of 9 November 2001. They
genetic research […]’ (letter of 13 September 2005).
confirm that during, the period covered by this
Decision, Interbev funded its measures on advertising,
technical assistance, research and experimentation in
(52) The French authorities therefore consider that the
the same way as set out in the letter of 9 November
Commission was fully informed of the existence of
2001.
communication, promotion, research and experimen
tation measures funded by Interbev and that it could
4. FNE RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
have requested additional information from the French
MEASURES
authorities in connection with this case. Since the
Commission took no further action in response to this
(60) As
regards
the
FNE,
the
French
authorities
submitted
the
letter, the French authorities concluded that the
following explanations by letter in reply to the decision
Commission was satisfied with the information it had
to initiate the procedure (8 and 10 October 2003).
received.
(61) The revenue from the FNE levy is used to fund technical
assistance and applied research. The French authorities
(53) In
a
subsequent
letter
to
the
Commission,
which
referred
have confirmed that the measures were devised in
to a request for additional information sent (30 May
compliance with points 14 and 17 of the Community
1996) following the above-mentioned letter, the French
guidelines on State aid in agriculture (2000-2006).
authorities stated that they had never received a request
for additional information and that the failure of the
Commission to act between 30 May 1996 and
(62) Firstly, it is explained that the revenue from the FNE levy
2 October 2001 constituted implicit acceptance of the
was used to fund the following measures:
compatibility of the measures of which it had been
notified.
(a) genetic improvement;

---

L 59/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.3.2012
(b) genetic information system on livestock;
assisted selection. The programme has resulted in a
significant improvement in the yield from traditional
embryo transfer, the development and optimisation of
(c) applied research programmes;
the French method for embryo sexing, the development
of ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval and the
improvement of the in vitro fertilisation technique.
(d) economic studies;
(68) The
FNE
also
participated
in
a
pilot
research
project
on
(e) various activities.
homologous recombination. This INRA-led project uses
transgenic technology and involves the controlled modi
fication of the genome of animals by targeting the intro
4.1. GENETIC RESEARCH
duction of a transgene to a specific site in the DNA.
Gene targeting is intended to enable the replacement of
(63) The
FNE’s
involvement
in
genetics
is
strictly
limited
to
one gene by another without using genetically-modified
supporting certain joint measures under the national
organisms.
genetic improvement programme, as defined by the
National Commission for Genetic Improvement
(CNAG), which includes representatives of the French
government, the profession itself, research and teaching.
(69) The
FNE
participated
in
the
IDEA
programme
on
the
electronic identification of bovine animals and sheep. It
also funded national projects in the framework of the
(64) FNE funds mainly support work by the genetic
EU’s IDEA programme, which seeks to improve the relia
department of the Livestock Breeders Institute whose
bility of animal identification by harnessing new tech
primary mission is to: support organisations on the
niques of electronic use.
ground that contribute to the genetic improvement of
ruminants; draw up, maintain and develop specifications
setting out procedures on the ground; check the devel
4.4. ECONOMIC STUDIES
opment and recording procedures for data in joint
information chains that is required for the genetic
(70) The
FNE
has
helped
to
fund
economic
studies
that
are
evaluation of reproducers; adapt indexing procedures in
critical to livestock organisations, enabling them to meet
partnership with INRA, implement international data
the challenges posed by successive CAP reforms,
sharing procedures and distribute official indices in
enlargement, recent crises and international devel
France.
opments.
4.2. MODERNISATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LIVESTOCK
(71) All
these
studies
have
been
conducted
under
the
aegis
of
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
the Livestock Economic Group (GEB), managed by the
(65) As
part
of
its
support
for
the
modernisation
and
devel
Livestock Breeders Institute, which guarantees the
opment of livestock information systems, the FNE
coherence of the different research programmes
contributes to updating the genetic information system
requested by the profession and their complementarity
(SIG). Modernisation began in 1995 and was needed to
with existing studies.
improve and standardise an information system set up
over 20 years ago in order to ensure more efficient
management of genetic data, integrate the new
(72) Work has resulted in the monitoring of the current
functions required for indexation and to cut costs.
situation for the milk and meat sectors in France and
Europe, in-depth monthly economic analyses on animal
production in France, Europe and the world, specific
(66) The
FNE
also
took
part
in
an
economic,
technical
and
monitoring of prices and production costs and negoti
legal feasibility study for a livestock information system
ations at EU and WTO level.
for professionals (SPIE) that aims to provide and develop
official identification data and other data at a professional
and inter-branch level.
(73) The
GEB’s
economic
observatory
offers
a
practical
under
standing of farm operations, as used by the livestock
networks, and the synergy between a macro and micro
4.3. APPLIED RESEARCH MEASURES
economic approach.
(67) The
FNE
has
funded
several
applied
research
programmes
and is committed to supporting studies of general
interest to the livestock sector, for example, programmes
4.5. VARIOUS MEASURES
on applied research and transfer in reproductive biotech
nologies (embryo transfer, sexing, in-vitro fertilisation
(74) Occasionally the FNE is called on to support the launch
and cloning). This research involves new embryology
of new inter-branch projects intended to facilitate the
techniques, which are of particular interest in view of
sector’s adaptation to socioeconomic developments,
the future use of molecular markers and marker-
such as the drawing up of the charter on best livestock

---

EN
1.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
59/21
farming practice that is the most important initiative of
authorities on several occasions, the Commission has
its kind in Europe, and the launch of a communication
noted that the scope of the joint ministerial decrees
project on the livestock profession, in the aftermath of
extending the inter-branch agreements of 1995 and
the second BSE crisis, in order to restore confidence
2001 has always excluded the levies on imported meat.
between producers and consumers.
5.2. FNE LEVY
4.6. COMMUNITY GUIDELINES
(83) The
Commission noted that
the
FNE
levy
could
be
(75) The
French
authorities
emphasised
that
all
the
funding
imposed on animals reared outside France but imported
measures were of general interest to bovine animal and
into France for slaughtering.
sheep producers and were never limited to the benefit of
individual or particular groups of operators.
(84) In
their
letter
of
6
October
2003,
the
French
authorities
recognised the pertinence of this objection from a
(76) FNE
funds
most
often
accounted
for
less
than
50
%
of
the cost of programmes and research. Funds can be
Community guidelines viewpoint. As a result, they
higher for certain one-off projects, but the amount
agreed to modify the text of the agreement with a
never exceeds 100 % of the cost.
view to excluding any levy on animals reared outside
the national territory, but imported into France for
slaughtering. The French authorities offered to submit
the new text to the Commission as soon as the new
4.6.1. Technical assistance
agreement had been formalised and signed.
(77) Funding for economic studies is allocated on the basis of
an aid ceiling of EUR 100 000 per producer per three-
year period and the rule stipulating that results must be
(85) They
added
that
none
the
less
in
practice
the
imports
of
accessible to all the producers.
live animals were uncommon and did not run the risk of
distorting competition. According to the customs service,
there were 24 933 and 22 250 head of adult finished
4.6.2. Applied research
livestock imported into France in 2001 and 2002
respectively. National slaughterings amount to 4 million
(78) The
French authorities confirmed that the definitive
head; therefore, imports of live animals only represent
results from each economic study, like the data from
0,58 % of the total amount slaughtered. Moreover,
each research programme, are widely distributed. The
more than 70 % of imports are of high conformation
findings from all the FNE funded research are system
and high price animals, destined for a niche market
atically published and distributed so that producers and
that is specific to northern France. Based on the
their organisations on the ground can benefit from and
average import prices for these animals (EUR 1,50/kg
have equal access to them.
of live animal, i.e. equivalent to EUR 2,5/kg net
according to customs office figures), the FNE levy on
these animals must have been approximately a thou
(79) Two
main
distribution
channels
are
used,
namely
the
sandth of the value of the animal.
professional livestock organisations and the Livestock
Breeders Institute, through which technical and
economic publications are sent out to producers and
(86) The
French
authorities
state
that,
firstly,
the
compulsory
technicians.
voluntary levies collected have been minimal, as non-
payment for imported animals was common and later
became systematic, and secondly, the amount of the
(80) Given the general interest character of the research, no
compulsory voluntary levy in question was so low in
commercial use of the results is planned. The real bene
relation to the value of the animals that it could not
ficiaries of the measures are truly the producers of bovine
have distorted competition. In their letter of 24 May
animals and sheep to whom the theoretical and practical
2011, France provided printed copies of the levy calcu
findings are released.
lations and company statements showing that refunds
might have been made in certain cases, but that this
practice was not compulsory.
(81) The
research
funded
does
not
give
rise
to
any
direct
payments to producers or processors.
(87) By the letters of 13 September 2005 and 24 May 2011,
the French authorities confirmed that, from 2003, the
5. LEVIES ON IMPORTED ANIMALS AND MEAT
FNE levy was only imposed on animals reared and
slaughtered in France ( 20 ).
5.1. INTERBEV LEVIES
(
(82) With
regard
to
the
levy
on
meat
from
livestock
imported

20 ) Circular of 2 February 2005: ‘It is recalled that the Interbev and
FNE levies only apply to slaughtering operations for animals reared
from other Member States or third countries to France,
and slaughtered in France. Consequently, animals born and reared
on the basis of information submitted by the French
outside of France are exempted […] at the time of slaughter’.

---

L 59/22
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.3.2012
6. LEVIES ON ANIMALS AND MEAT DISPATCHED TO
total amount of the revenue generated by all the
OTHER MEMBER STATES
compulsory voluntary levies collected by Interbev
between 1995 and 2004 i.e. (EUR 252 855 282). Based
6.1. INTERBEV LEVIES
on an overview of the period from 1995 to 2004, the
French authorities believe that the amount of revenue
(88) Concerning
the
levy
imposed
on
meat
dispatched
to
generated was proportionate to the advantage accrued
other Member States, the Commission referred to the
to products dispatched to other Member States as a
risk of discrimination in a levy system that did not
result of the measures undertaken.
take into account the dispatch outside the national
territory of certain products subject to levy and fears
that such a measure favours national production
marketed in France.
(95) Furthermore,
the French
authorities
indicate
that the
animals and meat dispatched outside of France
benefited from the measures undertaken outside the
(89) As
set
out
in
recitals
16
et
seq.,
meat
dispatched
to
other
national territory, representing EUR 21 490 848, as well
Member States was subject to a compulsory voluntary
as the measures of use to all animals and products irre
levy of EUR 0,0126/kg and, under the inter-branch
spective of their intended use. They state that of all the
agreement of 12 June 2001, a compulsory voluntary
measures of use to animals and products, which
levy of EUR 0,024/kg. Moreover, under that agreement
amounted to EUR 91 231 075, it is fair to consider
a refund of EUR 0,010/kg was provided for.
that only EUR 28 280 000 funded measures undertaken
outside the national territory.
(90) In
relation
to
the
compulsory
voluntary
levies
imposed
on animals dispatched to other Member States, in their
(96) The measures that specifically concerned exported
letter of 24 May 2011 the French authorities provided
animals and products related to advertising (for
explanations to show that these levies were proportional
example international trade fairs, professional
to the advantages accrued from the measures funded by
information and public relations campaigns, International
the levies.
Green Week in Berlin, training on cutting held abroad).
The measures that had an impact on animals and
products as a whole, regardless of their markets, in
(91) The
French
authorities
explained
that
the
live
animals
France and outside France included publicity campaigns
dispatched were bovine store cattle. As set out in
on high-quality European beef, offal, beef breeds, and a
recitals 17 et seq., these animals were subject to the
number of research activities on food safety, animal
compulsory voluntary levy which was calculated per
welfare, quality management, product characterisation,
head and not per kilogram of meat.
and the certification and traceability procedures for
bovine meat, the results of which were widely circulated
in France and abroad.
(92) The French authorities then provided a calculation
allowing the evaluation of equivalence between weight
per head and per kilogram. Under the inter-branch
(97) The
French
authorities
believe
that
the
benefits
accruing
agreement of 25 July 1995 the compulsory voluntary
to the exported products as a result of inter-branch
levy for slaughter was FRF 0,084/kg of carcase, and the
measures amounted to EUR 49 770 000. This sum
compulsory voluntary levy for the dispatch of live
should be compared to the compulsory voluntary levy
animals was FRF 7 per head of adult bovine animal
imposed on the products that amounted to
(Article 4). However, one live store animal weighs
EUR 38 136 670. The share of the compulsory
approximately 250 to 280 kg, which amounts to an
voluntary levy paid by French export products during
average weight in meat (ratio of 65 %) of 163 kg.
the period from 1995 to 2004 was balanced in
Therefore, the levy of FRF 7 per head was equivalent
relation to the advantages accrued from the measures
to a levy of FRF 0,042/kg, comparable to half of the
funded by Interbev.
levy imposed on meat.
6.2. FNE LEVY
(93) The
inter-branch
agreement
of
12
June
2001
had
main
tained this system of equivalence. The amounts (in euro)
(98) In
their
letter
of
13
September
2005,
the
French
auth
were as follows: compulsory voluntary levy at slaughter
orities confirmed that the exported products were not
of EUR 0,024/kg of carcase (Article 2) and a compulsory
subject to a specific FNE levy.
voluntary levy at dispatch of live animals of EUR
1,7/head of adult bovine animal (Article 4). Therefore,
the levy of EUR 1,7/head of adult bovine animal was
IV. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
equivalent to a levy of EUR 0,0104/kg, comparable to
half of the meat levy.
(99) Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU apply to all the agri
cultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty subject
to a common organisation of the market (all agricultural
(94) The French authorities consider that the total revenue
products except horse meat, honey, coffee, alcohol of
(EUR 38 136 670) generated by the compulsory
agricultural origin, vinegar made from alcohol and
voluntary levy on products dispatched to other Member
cork) in accordance with the different regulations
States (live animals and meat) represented 15 % of the
governing respective common organisations of markets.

---

EN
1.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
59/23
1. EXISTENCE OF AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF
conditions are regarded as aid ( 28 ). In this case, the
ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU
support granted has favoured certain undertakings in
the cattle and sheep farming sector by implementing
(100) Article 107(1) TFEU states that ‘Save as otherwise
measures likely to benefit producers in, or parts of, the
provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member
sectors represented by Interbev.
State or through State resources in any form whatsoever
which distorts or threatens to distort competition by
favouring certain undertakings or the production of
(104) Moreover, according to the case-law of the Court of
certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between
Justice, measures which, in various forms, mitigate the
Member States, be incompatible with the internal
charges which are normally included in the budget of an
market.’
undertaking and which, therefore, without being
subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in
character and have the same effect are also considered to
be aid ( 29 ).
(101) Articles 107 to 109 TFEU were rendered applicable in
the bovine meat sector at the material time by Article 40
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 ( 21 ) on the
(105) In terms of the existence of an advantage, such an
common organisation of the market in beef and veal.
advantage must be demonstrated in relation to the
Before the adoption of the latter, these articles were
potential beneficiaries of the measures to the benefit of
rendered applicable in the same sector by Article 24 of
the meat sector and the inter-branch levies in question
Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June
and their financing. In this case, the support granted has
1968 on the common organisation of the market in
favoured certain undertakings in the cattle and sheep
meat and veal ( 22 ). They were rendered applicable in
farming sector by implementing measures likely to
the sheepmeat and goatmeat sectors by Article 23
benefit producers in the industry.
of Council Regulation (EC) No 2529/2001 of
19 December 2001 on the common organisation of
the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (
1.2. AID GRANTED BY THE STATE OR THROUGH STATE

23 ). Prior to the
adoption of the latter, the articles in question were
RESOURCES
rendered applicable in the same sector under Article 22
(106) According to the case-law of the Court, for a benefit to
of Council Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 of 3 November
qualify as State aid, it must first be awarded directly or
1998 on the common organisation of the market in
indirectly through State resources and, secondly, it must
sheepmeat and goatmeat ( 24 ) and, prior to the adoption
be attributable to the State ( 30 ).
of that Regulation, by Article 27 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September 1989 on the
common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and
(107) As regards the nature of the levies in question (com
goatmeat ( 25 ).
pulsory voluntary levies), the Commission considers
that the levies constitute parafiscal charges, i.e. public
resources. The Commission’s assessment is based on
the following considerations.
(102) Articles 107 to 109 TFEU are applicable today, for the
sectors mentioned in recital 32 et seq. of this Decision,
by Article 180 of Council Regulation (EC) No
(108) Firstly, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-
1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a
law, and paragraph 139 of the Salvat ( 31 ) judgment in
common organisation of agricultural markets and on
particular, the distinction between private and public
specific provisions for certain agricultural products
organisations is not ‘a determining factor for the appli
(Single CMO Regulation) ( 26 ) ( 27 ).
cation of the rules of the Treaty on State aid’. In addition,
the Ladbroke judgment
( 32 ) categorically states that
Article 107(1) TFEU ‘covers all the financial means by
1.1.
which the public sector may actually support under
EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE
takings, irrespective of whether or not those means are
(103) According to the Court of Justice, measures which,
permanent assets of the public sector. Consequently, even
whatever their form, are likely directly or indirectly to
though the sums (…) are not permanently held by the
favour certain undertakings or are to be regarded as an
Treasury, the fact that they constantly remain under
economic advantage which the recipient undertaking
public control, and therefore available to the competent
would not have obtained under normal market
national authorities, is sufficient for them to be
categorised as State aid and for the measure to fall
within Article 107(1) of the Treaty.’
( 21 ) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.
( 22 ) OJ L 148, 28.6.1968, p. 24.
( 23 ) OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 3.
( 28 ) Case C 280/00, Altmark Trans and Regierungsprsidium Magdeburg
( 24 ) OJ L 312, 20.11.1998, p. 1.
[2003], ECR I-7747; and Joined Cases C-34/01, C-35/01,
( 25 ) OJ L 289, 7.10.1989, p. 1.
C-36/01, C-37/01 and C-38/01 [2003] ECR I-14243.
( 26 ) OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.
( 29 ) Case C-355/00 [2003] ECR I-5263.
( 27 ) Derogation (without consequences for this Decision) from Council
( 30 ) Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1433, paragraph
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing
11, Case C-482/99 France v Commission [2002] ECR I-4397,
common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the
paragraph 24, and Case C-126/01 GEMO [2003] ECR I-13769,
common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
paragraph 24.
schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005,
( 31 ) Case T-136/05, Salvat and Others v Commission [2007] ECR II-4063.
(EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007, and repealing Regu
( 32 ) Case C-83/98, France v Ladbroke Racing and Commission, ECR I-3271,
lation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 30, 31.1.2009, p. 16).
paragraph 50

---

L 59/24
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.3.2012
(109) Firstly, in the light of this case-law, the Commission
(b) the objectives of the measure in question are fully
considers that the fact that the compulsory voluntary
financed by the contributions of the undertakings
levies in question consist of contributions from the
in the sector;
private sector and are not at the permanent disposal of
the State does not constitute sufficient grounds for
concluding that they fall outside the scope of
(c) the financing method and the percentage/amount of
Article 107(1) TFEU. In this context, the Commission
the contributions are established within the profes
must also examine the level of control exercised by the
sional organisation by representatives of the
State in relation to the income derived from the
employers and employees without State intervention;
compulsory voluntary levies in question and the State’s
capacity to redirect the resources to finance the aid
(d) the contributions are obligatorily used for the
measures.
financing of the measure, without the possibility for
the State to intervene.
(110) In this case, the Commission notes that the government’s
approval, in the form of the recognition afforded to
Interbev, is a prerequisite for the introduction of
(116) It is clear, however, that the contested measure does not
compulsory voluntary levies. Therefore, although
fulfil all the conditions of the Pearle judgment. Firstly, the
Interbev is an entity under private law, its capacity to
existence, role and operation of Interbev are regulated by
introduce compulsory voluntary levies in its business
national legislation (cf. recitals 10 and 14) and its
sector is subject to State approval of its operation and
financing by the compulsory voluntary levy requires
objectives (cf. recital 14 of this Decision).
State intervention (cf. recital 10). Moreover,
Article 632-2-1 of the Rural Code stipulates that inter-
branch organisations contribute to the implementation of
(111) In addition, it is stipulated under France’s Rural Code that
national and European Union economic policies and may
the levies become compulsory for all members of the
enjoy priority status in the allocation of public aid.
branches in question by virtue of being extended by
Interbev may therefore be considered as an instrument
joint ministerial decree (cf. recital 10 of this Decision).
for the implementation of a policy supported by the
This type of levy therefore requires an official act in order
State carrying out activities in the general interest of
to take full effect ( 33 ).
the inter-branch organisation (cf. recitals 40 and 61).
Furthermore, as set out in Interbev’s statutes, the
(112) On the basis of these facts, the Commission considers
budget of the inter-branch organisation may be supple
that the compulsory voluntary levies examined can be
mented by a direct subsidy from the State. Lastly, in view
considered to be under the control of the State and to
of the general interest of the research activities financed
constitute State resources.
(cf. recital 10), it cannot be claimed with certainty in this
case that the beneficiaries of the aid are always the
parties subject to the charges.
(113) Secondly, the use of the revenue generated by the

compulsory voluntary levies is determined by the
objectives and operational context of the inter-branch
(117) In the light of the considerations set out above, the
organisation as defined in the Rural Code (cf. recitals
Commission concludes that the measures in question
7-10). Consequently, the State has the ability to
are ascribable to the State and financed by State
channel the revenue derived from the compulsory
resources.
voluntary levies to finance the aid measures carried out
by Interbev. The benefits afforded by Interbev can thus
be considered ascribable to the State.
1.3. IMPACT ON TRADE AND DISTORTION OF
COMPETITION
(114) It is also recalled that, in case C-345/02 Pearle ( 34 ), the
(118) In order to fall within the scope of application of
Court of Justice identified a series of aspects which serve
Article 107(1) TFEU, aid must also affect competition
to determine whether parafiscal charges should be
and trade between Member States. This criterion is
considered State resources ascribable to the State when
based on the assumption that the beneficiaries of the
they are essentially collected by an inter-branch organi
aid engage in an economic activity.
sation for the benefit of its members.
(115) In accordance with the test proposed by the Court of
(119) Lastly, in order to establish whether the aid in question
Justice in this case, compulsory levies collected by an
falls within the scope of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, it
intermediary organisation representing the undertakings
must be established whether it is liable to affect trade
of certain economic sectors are not considered to be
among Member States and distort competition.
State resources if all the following conditions are met:
(120) The Court has ruled that when State financial aid
(a) the measure in question is established by the profes
strengthens the position of a category of undertaking
sional body that represents the undertakings and
compared with other undertakings competing in intra-
employees of the sector and does not serve as an
Community trade, the latter must be regarded as
instrument for the implementation of State policies;
affected by that aid ( 35 ), which is sufficient to demon
strate distortion of competition.
( 33 ) Salvat and Others v Commission, referenced under footnote 31 above.
( 34 ) Case 345/02, Pearle and Others [2004] ECR 2004 I-7139.
( 35 ) Case C-730/79, Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671.

---

EN
1.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
59/25
(121) The existence of trade between Member States in the
research and experimentation measures financed by the
meat sector is sufficiently demonstrated by the
Interbev levies, which were not notified in accordance
existence of a common organisation of the market in
with Article 108(3) TFEU.
the sector ( 36 ). By way of example, intra-Community
trade in meat products in France represented around
15 % of total trade in the Union in the products in
(127) These measures were mentioned by France in its letter of
question (
29 April 1996 in the context of case NN 49/96, but only

37 ).
with regard to measures relating to the FNE.
(122) The aid granted is therefore likely to affect trade between
the Member States since it favours domestic production
(128) In response to that letter, the Commission requested
additional information in a letter dated 30 May 1996
to the detriment of production in other Member States.
(VI/021559) in order to clarify the nature and scope of
At the material time to which this Decision relates, the
the financial instruments facilitating the restructuring of
meat sector was extremely open to competition at
the livestock organisations involved in the identification
Community level and, therefore, highly sensitive to any
and selection of animals and the development measures.
measure in favour of production in any Member State.
The Commission also requested that a fact sheet be
completed. However, the French authorities did not
1.4. CONCLUSIONS ON THE NATURE OF ‘AID’ WITHIN THE
reply to the letter and the Commission did not adopt a
MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) OF THE TFEU
position on the compatibility of the measures in question
with the internal market. The Commission opened the
(123) The Commission considers, in the light of the consider
procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, in
ations set out above, that the measures implemented in
relation to the aid in question, by a letter dated 9 July
this case to the benefit of the beneficiaries provide them
2003 ( 39 ).
with an advantage which cannot be enjoyed by other
operators and distort or threaten to distort competition
by favouring certain undertakings and the production of
(129) The inter-branch agreements of 15 June 1994 to the
certain goods since they are likely to affect trade between
benefit of the livestock fund and of 18 December
Member States.
1995 to the benefit of Interbev, as well as the State

aids financed by these agreements, therefore still have
to be examined in the light of the rules on State aid
(124) For these reasons, the Commission concludes that the
since they have not been approved by the Commission.
measure in question falls within the scope of
Article 107(1) TFEU and constitutes State aid.
(130) Consequently, this Decision also concerns the agreements
of 15 June 1994 to the benefit of FNE and 18 December
2. EXAMINATION OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID
1995 to the benefit of Interbev. In its analysis of these
agreements, the Commission did not comment on the
2.1. SCOPE OF THE DECISION
measures financed by the above inter-branch levies.
(125) The French authorities consider that the Decision in
question should relate only to the inter-branch
(131) As indicated in recital 57, the French authorities
agreement of 12 June 2001, as explained above (cf.
implicitly accepted this interpretation.
recital 56).
2.2. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 107(3) TFEU
(126) In the context of aid NN 34/95, the Commission did not
have any information relating to the FNE levies, nor to
(132) There are exceptions to the general principle of the
the system for the financing of aid in this context (
incompatibility of State aid with the TFEU pursuant to

38 ). In
addition, its position only related to aid for investments
Article 107 of the TFEU, whilst it is clear that some are
in favour of certain farmers, particularly in the context of
not applicable to the case in point, notably the
first acquisition of animals. The Commission did not
exceptions under paragraph 2. These were not cited by
adopt positions either with regard to the compulsory
the French authorities.
voluntary levy system, aid for genetic improvement, the
genetic information system, biotechnology and economic
(133) As regards the exceptions provided for in Article 107(3),
studies, or the promotion, technical assistance and
they must be strictly interpreted when examining any
regional or sectoral aid programme or any individual
( 36 ) ‘Agriculture in the European Union, statistical and economic
aid under general aid schemes. In particular, they can
information 2002’, Directorate-General for Agriculture, European
only be granted in cases where the Commission can
Commission.
establish that the aid is necessary to achieve one of the
( 37 ) Source: Eurostat.
stated aims. Granting the benefit of the aforementioned
( 38 ) Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01, Van Calster and Cleeren
exceptions for aid without such consideration would
[2003] ECR I-12249, paragraphs 51 and 52: ‘51. […], the
amount to allowing trade between Member States to be
Member State is required, in order to comply with that obligation,
to notify not only the planned aid in the narrow sense, but also the
damaged and competition distorted, which would be
method of financing the aid inasmuch as that method is an integral
unjustifiable with regard to Community interests, and
part of the planned measure. 52. Since the obligation to notify also
by the same token, would allow undue advantage for
covers the method of financing the aid, the consequences of a
the operators of certain Member States.
failure by the national authorities to comply with the last
sentence of Article 93(3) of the Treaty must apply also to that
aspect of the aid’.
( 39 ) OJ C 149, 9.8.2003, p. 21.

---

L 59/26
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.3.2012
(134) The Commission considers that the contested aid is not
against the background of Case C-355/00 Freskot ( 43 ) the
intended to promote the economic development of areas
Commission considers that, in the present case, the
where the standard of living is abnormally low or where
compulsory voluntary levies do not interfere, directly or
there is serious underemployment within the meaning of
indirectly, with the price of the end products concerned
Article 107(3)(a). It is also not intended to promote the
since the levies do not have an impact on product prices,
execution of an important project of common European
which are determined by the free market. The levy on
interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the
meat products and animals reared is therefore offset by
economy of a Member State within the meaning of
the benefit represented by the measures financed.
Article 107(3)(b). Nor is it intended to promote culture
Consequently, it can be considered that the impact of
and heritage conservation within the meaning of
the levies on prices is very limited.
Article 107(3)(d).
(140) In the light of the information provided, the financing of
(135) Article 107(3)(c) does however provide that aid intended
this scheme does not give rise to any objections.
to facilitate the development of certain economic
activities or of certain economic areas where such aid
does not adversely affect trading conditions to an
2.5. ANALYSIS IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE RULES
extent contrary to the common interest may be
considered to be compatible with the internal market.
2.5.1. Measures funded by the meat levies
To qualify for the exception referred to in the aforemen
tioned Article, the aid must contribute to the devel
2.5.1.1. Promotion
opment of the sector in question.
(141) As regards the aid for promotion, the compatibility of
the aid granted prior to 1 January 2002 must be assessed
in the light of the rules on State aid for advertising of
2.3. IDENTIFYING THE GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO THE
agricultural products and certain products not covered by
NON-NOTIFIED MEASURES
Annex II to the EEC Treaty ( 44 ) and, for aid granted after
that date, in the light of the Community guidelines for
(136) In accordance with point 194 of the Community
State aid for advertising of products listed in Annex I to
guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry
the EC Treaty and of certain non-Annex I products (
sector and the Commission notice on the determination

45 ).
of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful
State aid ( 40 ), all unlawful aid within the meaning of
Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (
(142) The 1987 rules and the 2002 guidelines apply, for the

41 )
must be assessed in accordance with the texts in force at
most part, the same principles. They set out negative and
the time when the aid was granted (
positive criteria which must be complied with by all

42 ).
national aid schemes. Accordingly, the measures in
question must not be advertising measures which
conflict with the provisions of Article 34 TFEU or
(137) Specific guidelines have applied for the agriculture sector
secondary Community law, nor measures for the
since 1 January 2000. Any aid granted after that date
benefit of specific undertakings. According to the
must therefore be assessed in the light of the guidelines
information provided by the French authorities, it is
applicable to the period concerned. Between 1 January
possible to conclude that the objectives of these
2000 and 31 December 2006, the Community
measures are compliant with several of the positive
guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector applied.
criteria set out in the aforementioned rules and guidelines
With effect from 1 January 2007, the Community
since some relate to the objective of reducing excess
guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry
agriculture production and others to the objective of
sector 2007-2013 have applied.
developing high-quality products and healthy eating.
(138) Conversely, any aid granted before that date must, where
(143) The French authorities have also explained that the
appropriate, be assessed in the light of the measures and
messages conveyed by the advertising measures will not
practice applicable before 1 January 2000.
seek to dissuade consumers from buying products from
other Member States or denigrate those products, nor
will they benefit the brand of a particular undertaking
2.4. COMPATIBILITY OF THE COMPULSORY VOLUNTARY
or an individual producer.
LEVIES WITH THE CMO SYSTEM
(139) With regard to the question of the compatibility of the
(144) As regards the ceilings on aid, up to 50 % of the
compulsory voluntary levies with the CMO system,
financing for publicity measures may come from State
resources and the balance must be provided by the trade
( 40 ) Communication from the Commission, C(2002) 458 of 25 February
bodies and inter-branch organisations that benefit from
2002.
the measures concerned, either in the form of voluntary
( 41 ) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
( 42 ) Extract from the Commission’s Communication: ‘[the Commission]
shall always assess the compatibility of unlawful State aid with the
( 43 ) ECR [2003] I-5263.
common market in accordance with the substantive criteria set out
( 44 ) See footnote 12.
in any instrument in force at the time when the aid was granted’.
( 45 ) See footnote 13.

---

EN
1.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
59/27
contributions or by the levying of parafiscal charges or
and for aid granted after that date, in the light of the
compulsory contributions. In the present case, the
agriculture guidelines, which refer to the framework
measures are entirely financed by parafiscal charges,
under point 17.
where the professionals’ financial contributions to the
campaigns correspond by definition to 50 % of costs.
(151) In accordance with the Community framework, a level of
aid up to 100 % may be compatible with the internal
(145) The Commission considers that the public aid paid to
market, even where research and development is carried
finance the promotion measures in question complied
out by firms, subject to fulfilment in each case of the
with the criteria established under the Community legis
following four conditions:
lation applicable in this area.
(a) the aid is of general interest to the sector concerned,
2.5.1.2. Technical assistance
without causing undue distortion of competition in

other sectors;
(146) The compatibility of the aid granted prior to 1 January
2000 must be assessed in the light of Commission
practice based on the proposal for appropriate
(b) information must be published in appropriate news
measures relating to aids granted by Member States in
papers with at least national circulation and not
the livestock and livestock products sector (
limited to the members of individual organisations

46 ) and, in the
case of aid granted after that date, in the light of the
to ensure that any operator potentially interested in
agricultural guidelines (
the work can easily find out that it is being or has

47 ).
been carried out and that the results are or will be
made available on request to any interested party.
This information must be published on a date not
(147) Essentially, Commission practice prior to the year 2000
and the agricultural guidelines adopted in that year are
later than any information given directly to members
based on the same principles. Thus, aid covering 100 %
of individual organisations;
of eligible expenditure is authorised in particular for
technical assistance measures based on information and
(c) the results of the work will be provided for exploi
accounting support, measures to spread new techniques,
tation by all parties interested, including the bene
and measures relating to the training of farm workers.
ficiary of the aid, on an equal basis in terms of
both cost and timing;
(148) A new condition was introduced with the adoption of
the guidelines in 2000 when it was stipulated that the aid
(d) the aid fulfils the conditions laid down in Annex II
must be accessible to all eligible parties operating in the
‘Domestic support: the basis for exemption from the
area in question under objectively defined conditions, and
State aid reduction commitments’ to the Agreement
that the total amount of aid granted cannot exceed
on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round
EUR 100 000 per beneficiary per three-year period or,
of Multilateral Trade Negotiations ( 48 ).
in the case of SMEs, 50 % of eligible expenditure,
whichever is greater. The French authorities have
explained that the criterion of access to the work
(152) The French authorities have explained in this regard that
carried out by all potentially interested professional
Interbev’s research and technical experimentation
parties is fully respected. The Commission considers, on
measures are carried out to the benefit of all stakeholders
the basis of the information provided by the French auth
in the sector. In addition, the association shares the
orities relating to the very high number of beneficiaries
knowledge acquired and the technical recommendations
in particular, that the criterion relating to the aid ceiling
by organising training sessions and providing documen
is respected.
tation, notices, summaries and information brochures,
including in electronic format. Any farmer, slaughterer,
butcher, processor or vendor in the bovine and sheep
(149) The Commission considers that the public aid paid to
sector can obtain information on the results and access
finance the technical assistance measures in question
summaries of the research on request without discrimi
complies with the criteria established by the
nation and at the same time as any other party. The
Community rules applicable in this area.
French authorities have also given an assurance that the
measures financed do not involve any direct payment to
producers or processors and that they satisfy the inter
2.5.1.3. Research and experimentation
national trade criteria to which the European Union has
committed itself.
(150) With regard to research and development measures, the
compatibility of aid granted before 1 January 2000 must
be verified in the light of the Community framework for
(153) The Commission considers that the public aid paid to
State aid for research and development and the
finance the research and experimentation measures in
Commission Communication amending that framework,
question complied with the criteria established in
Community legislation applicable in this area.
( 46 ) See footnote 14.
( 47 ) See footnote 11.
( 48 ) OJ L 336, 23.12.1994, p. 1.

---

L 59/28
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.3.2012
2.5.2. Measures funded by the FNE
Commission Communication amending that framework,
and for aid granted after that date, in the light of the
2.5.2.1. Technical assistance
agriculture guidelines, which refer to the framework
under point 17.
(154) As regards aid for technical assistance, the compatibility
of the aid granted prior to 1 January 2000 must be
assessed in the light of Commission practice based on
(162) In accordance with the Community framework, a level of
the proposal for appropriate measures relating to aids
aid up to 100 % may be compatible with the internal
granted by Member States in the livestock and livestock
market, even where research and development is carried
products sector ( 49 ) and, in the case of aid granted after
out by firms, subject to fulfilment in each case of the
that date, in the light of the agricultural guidelines ( 50 ).
following four conditions:
(155) Commission practice prior to 2000 and the agricultural
(a) the aid is of general interest to the sector concerned,
guidelines are essentially based on the same principles.
without causing undue distortion of competition in
Thus, aid covering 100 % of eligible expenditure is auth
other sectors;
orised, in particular for technical assistance measures
based on information and accounting support,
measures to spread new techniques, and measures
(b) information must be published in appropriate news
relating to the training of farm workers.
papers, with at least national circulation and not
limited to the members of individual organisations,
to ensure that any operator potentially interested in
(156) A new condition was introduced with the adoption of
the work can readily be aware that it is being or has
the guidelines in 2000 when it was stipulated that the aid
been carried out, and that the results are or will be
must be available to all those eligible in the area
made available, on request, to any interested party.
concerned based on objectively defined conditions and
This information must be published on a date not
that the total amount of aid granted may not exceed
later than any information given directly to members
EUR 100 000 per beneficiary per three-year period or,
of individual organisations;
in the case of SMEs, 50 % of eligible expenditure,
whichever is greater.
(c) the results of the work are made available for exploi
tation by all interested parties, including the bene
(157) The French authorities have emphasised that all the
ficiary of the aid, on an equal basis in terms both
measures financed are of a general interest for all
of cost and of timing;
bovine and sheep farmers; the benefits derived from
the measures are never limited to individual operators
or specific groups of operators.
(d) the aid fulfils the conditions laid down in Annex II,
‘Domestic support: the basis for exemption from the
State aid reduction commitments’, to the Agreement
(158) The FNE’s financial participation accounts for less than
on agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round
50 % of the cost of the work and research in most cases.
of multilateral trade negotiations.
It may account for more than 50 % for some isolated
projects, but the aid level never exceeds 100 %.
(163) In the case at hand, the data pertaining to each economic
study, as well as the results obtained at the end of each
(159) The economic studies are financed with due heed to the
research programme once they are definitive, are widely
limit of EUR 100 000 per farmer per three-year period,
disseminated. The results of all work supported by the
on the one hand, and to the rule according to which all
fund are systematically published and disseminated to
farmers must have access to the results, on the other.
ensure discrimination-free access for farmers and their
organisations in the field, thereby enabling them to
benefit from the results.
(160) The Commission considers that the public aid paid to
finance the technical assistance measures in question
complies with the criteria established in Community
(164) Two main distribution channels are used: professional
legislation applicable in this area.
farming organisations and the Livestock-Breeders’
Institute, by means of technical and economic
publications with high circulations among farmers and
2.5.2.2. Research and experimentation
specialists in the field.
(161) With regard to research and development measures, the
compatibility of aid granted before 1 January 2000 must
(165) In view of the general interest of the research, no
be verified in the light of the Community framework for
commercial use of the results is planned. The question
State aid for research and development and the
of the cost of rights of exploitation or of the conditions
for access to rights of exploitation does not therefore
arise. The real beneficiaries of the measures are all
( 49 ) Commission letter to Member States SG(75) D/29416 of
19 September 1975.
bovine and sheep farmers, to whom the theoretical and
( 50 ) See footnote 11.
practical results of the work are sent.

---

EN
1.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
59/29
(166) The studies financed do not involve any direct payment
case the compulsory voluntary levies, forms an integral
to producers or processors. They satisfy the general and
part of the aid measure, and should therefore be taken
specific conditions in Annex II ‘Domestic support: the
into account by the Commission when examining the
basis for exemption from the reduction commitments’,
aid. As the method of financing the aid could infringe
to the Agreement on agriculture concluded during the
Article 110 TFEU, the Commission cannot state that the
Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.
scheme was compatible if it discriminates between
imported products and national ones ( 55 ), or between
exported products and national ones ( 56 ).
(167) The Commission considers that the public aid paid to
finance the research and experimentation measures in
question complies with the criteria established in
Community legislation applicable in this area.
(172) In this case, the levy was raised on domestic production,
as well as on exported meat and animals (in the form of
compulsory voluntary levies on meat) and imported meat
2.6. FINANCING OF THE AID
and animals (in the form of the compulsory voluntary
levies collected by the FNE).
(168) Since State aid financed by a parafiscal charge is involved
(compulsory voluntary levies), the Commission must
examine both the measures financed, i.e. the aid, and
(173) The Commission’s examination relates to several aspects
the way they are financed. According to the Court of
linked to the meat levy and the FNE levy since these
Justice ( 51 ), where the method of financing the aid, in
levies could have an impact on intra-Community trade.
particular through compulsory contributions, forms an
integral part of the aid measure, the Commission must
take that method of financing into account when
examining the aid.
2.6.1. The meat levies (Interbev levies)
2.6.1.1. Imported meat
(169) In order to define whether the measure forms an integral
part of the aid measure, several elements should be taken
(174) As set out under recital 82, the levy on imported meat
into account: the revenue from the charge must be
was not mandatory under French legislation between
reserved exclusively for funding the aid and must
1996 and 2004. It therefore falls beyond the scope of
necessarily be allocated to the financing of the aid (
this Decision since it does not constitute State aid as

52 ),
the charge must be hypothecated to the aid measure
such. One of the decisive criteria cited under recital 10
under the relevant national rules (
— mandatory force — is not fulfilled. Consequently, and

53 ), and the amount
of the charge should have a direct impact on the
on the basis of the information set out above, the
amount of State aid (
measures financed by the levy raised on imported

54 ).
products do not constitute State aid and, accordingly,
do not fall within the scope of this Decision.
(170) The Commission takes note of the following points on
the application of these criteria to the measures in
question. Firstly, the legal basis of the measures in
2.6.1.2. Exported products
question, i.e. the inter-branch agreements, extended by
decree, define the compulsory levies. This means that
(175) As set out in recitals 16 et seq.
( 57 ), with effect from
each levy is collected exclusively for the benefit of the
1 January 1996 the levy has been imposed on
fund in question, without being allocated to Interbev’s
products exported to other Member States, although a
general budget or that of the State. The levy must
partial refund of the levy was introduced in 2001. In
therefore be considered as being reserved for funding
the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, this
the aid and allocated for the financing of the aid, on
levy could result in discrimination in respect of
basis of the national rules in force. Secondly, the aid
exporters if the measures financed by the levy are not
measures are financed exclusively by the sectoral levies.
applicable to them and do not offset the expenses
Interbev does not make use of its other sources of
borne ( 58 ). It must therefore be demonstrated that the
funding to supplement the financing of the measures
allocation of the revenue from this levy has not
planned. It can therefore be concluded that the amount
favoured domestic produce marketed in France to the
of the charge has a direct impact on the amount of State
detriment of domestic produce exported.
aid.
(171) On the basis of these elements, the Commission
(176) The measures relating specifically to exported animals
concludes that the method of financing the aid, in this
and products included promotion actions in particular
(for example, international trade fairs, professional
information and public relations activities, Green Week
( 51 ) Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 [2003] ECR I-12249, paragraph 49.
in Berlin, training on cutting held abroad).
( 52 ) Case C-174/02 [2005] ECR I-85, paragraph 26; Case C-526/04
[2006] ECR I-7529, paragraph 44.
( 53 ) Case C-174/02 [2005] ECR I-85, paragraph 26; Cases C-266/04 to
( 55 ) Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 [2003] ECR I-12249,
C-270/04, C-276/04 and C-321 to C-325/04 [2005] ECR I-9481,
paragraph 48.
paragraphs 46-49.
( 56 ) Case C-234/99 [2002] ECR I-3657.
( 54 ) Case C-174/02 [2005] ECR I-85, paragraph 28; Joined Cases
( 57 ) See also recital 88 et seq.
C-393/04 and C-41/05 [2006] ECR I-5293, paragraph 46.
( 58 ) Case C-234/99, referred to in footnote 56 above.

---

L 59/30
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.3.2012
(177) Measures relating to all animals and products, irrespective of their markets, in France and outside
France, included publicity campaigns on high-quality European beef, offal, beef breeds, and a number
of research activities on food security, animal welfare, quality management, product characterisation,
and the certification and traceability of bovine meat, the results of which were circulated widely in
France and abroad.
(i) Meat and animals exported to other Member States
(178) According to the French authorities, measures which benefited products and animals exported to
other Member States, exclusively or together with domestic products, were not the only measures
financed by the compulsory voluntary levies.
(179) It must therefore be established on a year-by-year basis and in overall terms whether the products
exported to other Member States benefited from the measures undertaken by the inter-branch
organisation.
(180) The table below sets out the breakdown of revenue from the compulsory voluntary levies in euro for
the different measures undertaken by Interbev year by year, as well as the percentage of measures
intended exclusively for exported meat and animals and the percentage intended for measures
including domestic products and animals.
Measures intended for Measures intended for
As a % of all
Year
Measures intended for
Total measures per
all products
products in France
exported products
measures financed
only
only
year
(rounded)
1996 5
517
088,95 13
308
769,70 2
101
111,35 20
926
970,00 36
1997 9
244
861,43 8
723
278,25 2
104
379,32 20
072
518,99 56
1998 8
995
703,14 11
214
605,23 927
146,63 21
137
455,00 46
1999 9
780
064,41 10
308
559,00 1
058
778,36 21
447
401,76 50
2000 8
245
970,18 10
126
453,50 991
754,32 19
264
178,00 47
2001 9
447
359,23 15
115
169,26 1
720
267,50 26
282
796,00 42
2002 10
553
240,96 24
553
282,92 4
326
569,12 39
433
093,00 37
2003 12
626
096,22 21
010
195,68 3
761
566,70 37
398
458,60 43
2004 11
288
281,00 20
527
149,24 4
045
129,24 35
860
559,48 42
(181) The table indicates that, over the entire period
resulting advantages, the Commission considers that the
considered, exported products benefited on average
revenue from the charges on exported products intended
from around 44 % of all measures financed by the
to finance the measures implemented by Interbev
compulsory voluntary levy. It should be noted that the
constitute aid-financing compatible with the rules set
French authorities have indicated that, for the same
out in the TFEU and Article 107 in particular and,
period, total revenue from levies raised on exported
consequently, that the State aid thus financed is
products accounted for 15 % ( 59 ). The French authorities
compatible with the Treaty.
have also indicated that the 15 % figure is an average and
have provided the figures for each year showing that the
volume of levies raised on exported products was never
2.6.2. The FNE levy
more than 18 %.
2.6.2.1. Imported animals
(ii) Compatibility with Article 110 TFEU
(183) According to the French authorities, until 2003 animals
reared outside France but imported into France for
(182) In view of the consequences of the Court’s ruling in the
slaughter were also subject to the levies collected to the
Nygard ( 60 ) case and the fact that the measures financed
benefit of the FNE.
by the charge constitute State aid within the meaning of
Article 107 TFEU, and that the charge is not of a
discriminatory nature in contravention of Article 110
(184) Following doubts expressed by the Commission, the
TFEU, since it was also applied to exported products
French authorities confirmed that the text of the inter-
and animals which benefited proportionally from the
branch agreement had been amended to exclude levies
on animals imported into France. According to the
( 59 ) Cf. recital 94 et seq.
French authorities, these levies apply exclusively to
( 60 ) Case C-234/99, referred to in footnote 56 above.
animals reared and slaughtered in France.

---

EN
1.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
59/31
(185) The amendments to the inter-branch agreement have not
that exported products are not, as such, subject to a levy
been submitted to the Commission. The only document
in respect of the FNE and are therefore outside the scope
provided was the circular of 2 February 2005 (cf. recital
of this Decision.
87), which states that the levies to the benefit of the FNE
apply only to meat from animals reared and slaughtered
in mainland France.
3. UNLAWFULNESS OF THE AID
(191) As indicated in the decision to initiate the procedure, the
(186) Consequently, between 1 January 1996 and 30
Commission emphasises that France did not inform it, in
September 2004, the levy on meat was also raised on
accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, of the decrees
meat from animals reared abroad but slaughtered in
extending the scope of the voluntary levies by making
France.
them compulsory or of the measures financed therewith
before their implementation (cf. recital 2 of this Deci
sion).
(187) The French authorities have not been able to demonstrate
that the measures financed by these levies benefited
farmers operating outside of France. Those who
(192) Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 clearly
exported their products and were subject to the
defines unlawful aid as new aid put into effect in contra
compulsory voluntary levies did not receive any refund
vention of Article 108(3) TFEU. The obligation to notify
or reduction in spite of the fact that they did not derive
State aid is set out in Article 2 of that Regulation.
full benefit from the measures in question. Research and
development and technical assistance measures can only
benefit domestic products (meat from bovine animals
reared and slaughtered in France) by definition.
(193) With regard, firstly, to the nature of the contested levies,

the Commission notes that they require an official act in
order to take full effect. Consequently, the Commission
considers that this is a case of parafiscal charges, i.e.
(188) The fact that there were few imports of live animals at
public resources.
the time ( 61 ) and that only importers of live animals
could declare tonnages of imported animals for
deduction from the basis for the calculation of the levy
and request a refund has no direct consequence as
(194) To the extent that the compulsory voluntary levies are
public resources (as indicated in recitals 106 et seq.)
regards the Commission’s detailed analysis. In addition,
which are an integral part of an aid scheme (recitals
any discrimination, however minimal, falls within the
171 et seq.) and that these have been used to finance
scope of Article 110 TFEU.
advantages to the benefit of undertakings in the meat
sector, notification of such levies to the Commission is
an obligation pursuant to Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
(189) In view of the consequences of the Court’s ruling in the
Nygard ( 62 ) case and the fact that the measures financed
by the charge constitute State aid within the meaning of
Article 107 TFEU and that the charge is of a discrimi
(195) As indicated in recitals 123 and 124, since the measures
implemented by France contain elements of State aid, it
natory nature in contravention of Article 110 TFEU,
constitutes new aid, not notified to the Commission, and
since it was also applied to exported products from
therefore unlawful under the Treaty.
other Member States which did not benefit fully from

the resulting advantages, the Commission considers that
the revenue from the charges on animals imported from
other Member States to finance the measures imple
(196) The Commission notice on the determination of the
mented by the FNE constitute aid-financing which is
applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State
incompatible with the internal market under the Treaty,
aid ( 63 ) provides that all unlawful aid within the
in particular Article 107, and, consequently, that the
meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No
State aid thus financed is incompatible with the Treaty.
659/1999 must be examined in accordance with the
texts in force at the time when the aid was granted.
2.6.2.2. Animals exported
V. CONCLUSIONS
(190) Since the FNE levy applies to animals reared or
slaughtered in France, the Commission can conclude
(197) In the light of the above, the Commission considers that
there are no objections to the financing of this scheme
( 61 ) According to the figures provided by the French authorities
with compulsory voluntary levies in as far as they are
(customs authorities), there were 24 933 and 22 250 head of
applied to domestic products and exported products and
adult finished livestock imported into France in 2001 and 2002
animals (in the present case, the compulsory voluntary
respectively. National slaughterings amount to 4 million head;
levies paid on meat between 1996 and 2004).
therefore, imports of live animals only represent 0,58 % of the
total amount slaughtered.
( 62 ) Case C-234/99, referred to in footnote 56 above.
( 63 ) OJ C 119, 22.5.2002, p. 22.

---

L 59/32
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.3.2012
(198) To the extent that levies are also imposed on imported
the FNE between 1996 and 2004) in proportion to the
animals (in the present case, the levies on animals to the
benefits of the aid which were not applicable to the
benefit of FNE between 1996 and 2004), it follows from
products in question. Making good this breach will
the considerations set out above that the system of
make the aid concerned compatible with Article 107
compulsory voluntary levies is incompatible with the
TFEU.
internal market on account of the contravention of
Article 110 TFEU, since France has not been able to
demonstrate that imported products have benefited
(205) The conditions to be met for the repayment will be laid
from the aid to the same extent as domestic products.
down by the Commission. France must thus reimburse to
the persons who paid the charge that part of the charge
imposed on the aforementioned imported products from
(199) In addition, the aid in question here was not notified to
other Member States between the date when the charge
the Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU
first entered into force and 30 September 2004 in full
and therefore constitutes illegal aid within the meaning
compliance with the following conditions:
of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
(a) if they can provide evidence that the compulsory
(200) The Commission regrets that France operated the above
voluntary levy was imposed on imported products,
aid measures in contravention of Article 108(3) TFEU.
the persons who paid the charge can claim the
repayment of a proportion of the revenue from the
(201) It should be remembered that, in the case of aid
charge intended to fund services exclusively bene
measures implemented without awaiting the Commis
fiting domestic products within a time limit set in
sion’s final decision, given the binding nature of the
accordance with domestic law and in no case less
rules of procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU,
than six months from the notification of this
which the Court of Justice recognised as having direct
Decision;
effect in several rulings ( 64 ), the unlawfulness of the aid
concerned cannot be regularised ex post facto ( 65 ).
(b) France will establish the extent of any discrimination
affecting imported products. To that end, France
(202) The Court of Justice recalled that where an aid measure,
must check, during a reference period, the financial
of which the method of financing is an integral part, has
equivalence between the overall amounts levied on
been implemented in breach of the obligation to notify,
domestic products by way of the charge concerned
national courts must in principle order the
and the advantages from which these products
reimbursement of charges or contributions levied
exclusively benefit;
specifically for the purpose of financing that aid. It also
noted that it is for the national courts to uphold the
rights of the persons concerned in the event of a
(c) repayment must be made within a maximum time
possible breach by the national authorities of the
limit of six months from the submission of the
prohibition on putting aid into effect, referred to in the
request;
last sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU and directly appli
cable. Such breaches cited by interested individuals and
(d) the amounts repaid must include interest calculated
ascertained by national courts must result in the courts
as from the date on which they were levied up until
drawing the necessary consequences, in accordance with
the date of actual repayment. This interest is to be
national law, with regard to both the validity of the acts
calculated on the basis of the Commission’s reference
giving effect to the aid and the recovery of financial
rate laid down by the method for setting the
support granted ( 66 ).
reference and discount;
(203) The Commission considers appropriate in this case the
adoption of a conditional decision in application of the
(e) the French authorities must accept any reasonable
possibility provided for by Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC)
evidence provided by the payers of the charge of
No 659/1999, according to which the Commission may
the amounts paid in respect of the charge imposed
attach to its decision conditions subject to which an aid
on products from other Member States;
may be considered compatible with the internal market
and may lay down obligations to enable compliance with
(f) the right to repayment cannot be subject to other
the decision to be monitored.
conditions, particularly that of the charge not
having been passed on;
(204) In order to make good the breach of Article 110 TFEU
and thus retrospectively remove the discrimination,
(g) where the charge has not yet been paid, the French
France must refund that part of the charge imposed on
authorities are to formally waive payment of the
imported products (levies on animals to the benefit of
proportion of the charge imposed on products
imported from other Member States in respect of
( 64 ) Case C-77/72 [1973] ECR 611; Case 120/73 [1973] ECR 1471;
which it is demonstrated that the amount in
Case 78/76 [1977] ECR 595.
question is intended to finance the part of the aid
( 65 ) Case 354/90 Fédération nationale du commerce extérieur des produits
which exclusively benefits domestic products. Any
alimentaires and Others v France [1991] ECR, I-5505; and Joined
Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 [2003] ECR I-12249.
related interest on late payment is also to be
( 66 ) Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 [2003] ECR I-12249.
waived by the authorities;

---

EN
1.3.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
59/33
(h) where the Commission so requests, France
(d) the amounts repaid shall include interest calculated as from
undertakes to submit a full report proving the
the date on which they were levied up until the date of
proper implementation of the repayment measure;
actual repayment. This interest shall be calculated on the
basis of the Commission’s reference rate laid down by the
method for setting the reference and discount;
(i) if a charge has been imposed in another Member
State on the same products which have been
subject to the charge in France, the French authorities
(e) the French authorities shall accept any reasonable evidence
undertake to reimburse those persons who have paid
provided by the payers of the charge of the amounts paid in
the charge for that part of it which affected products
respect of the charge imposed on products from other
from that other Member State;
Member States;
(j) France undertakes to make this decision known to all
(f) the right to repayment cannot be subject to other
potential payers of the charge,
conditions, particularly that of the charge not having been
passed on;
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
(g) where the charge has not yet been paid, the French auth
orities shall formally waive payment of the proportion of
Article 1
the charge imposed on products imported from other
Member States in respect of which it is demonstrated that
1. The
State
aid
for
promotion,
advertising,
technical
the amount in question is intended to finance the part of
assistance and research and development unlawfully imple
the aid which exclusively benefits domestic products. Any
mented by France contrary to Article 108(3) TFEU and
related interest on late payment shall also be waived by the
financed by a parafiscal charge (compulsory voluntary levy on
authorities;
meat and live animals dispatched to other Member States
between 1996 and 2004, and on live animals imported
(h) where the Commission so requests, France shall undertake
between 1996 and 2004) is State aid compatible with the
to submit a full report proving the proper implementation
internal market in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in
of the repayment measure;
respect of the period between the date of implementation of the
charge and 30 September 2004, provided that France complies
with the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of this Article.
(i) if a charge has been imposed in another Member State on
the same products which have been subject to the charge in
France, the French authorities shall undertake to reimburse
2. France
shall
thus
reimburse
to
the
persons
who
paid
the
those persons who have paid the charge for that part of it
charge that part of the charge imposed on imported products
which affected products from that other Member State;
between the date when the charge first entered into force and
30 September 2004 in full compliance with the following
conditions:
(j) France undertakes to make this decision known to all
potential payers of the charge.
(a) if they can provide evidence that the compulsory voluntary
Article 2
levy was imposed on imported products, the persons who
paid the charge can claim the repayment of a proportion of
France shall inform the Commission, within two months of
the revenue from the charge intended to fund services
notification of this Decision, of the measures that it has taken
exclusively benefiting domestic products within a time
to comply with it.
limit set in accordance with domestic law and in no case
less than six months from the notification of this Decision;
Article 3
(b) France shall establish the extent of any discrimination
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.
affecting imported products. To that end, France must
check, during a reference period, the financial equivalence
between the amounts levied overall on domestic products
Done at Brussels, 13 July 2011.
by way of the charge concerned and the advantages from
which these products exclusively benefit;
For the Commission
(c) repayment shall be made within a maximum time limit of
Dacian CIOLO
six months from the submission of the request;
Member of the Commission

---

Document Outline

• �

---