EUROPEAN COMMISSION. The Commission has based its decision on the following considerations:

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, C(2016) 3576 final Subject: State aid Denmark SA (2015/N) Compensation for loss of income due to the occurrence of genetically modified material in conventional or organic crops Sir, The European Commission (hereinafter "the Commission") wishes to inform Denmark that, having examined the information supplied by your authorities on the State aid scheme referred to above, it has decided not to raise any objections to the relevant scheme as it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter "TFEU"). The Commission has based its decision on the following considerations: 1. PROCEDURE (1) By letter of 17 November 2015, registered by the Commission on the same day, Denmark notified, according to Article 108(3) TFEU, the above mentioned aid scheme. The Commission sent a request for additional information to the Danish authorities on 15 January and 12 May 2016 which the Danish authorities answered by letter of 15 March and 19 May 2016 respectively, registered by the Commission on 16 March and 20 May Udenrigsminister Kristian JENSEN Udenrigsministeriet Asiatisk Plads 2 DK-1448 København K Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium.

2 2. DESCRIPTION (2) In response to the Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC of 23 July concerning co-existence between genetically modified crops and conventional and organic farming, which recommended that the Member States develop rules for co-existence, Denmark set up a national framework for growing, handling sales and transporting genetically modified crops in In 2004 aid scheme SA (N 568/04) - Compensation for losses due to the presence of certain GMO material was approved by Commission Decision C(2005)4410 for a period of five years. However, to date, no GM crops were ever commercially grown in Denmark. (3) Following the adoption of Directive (EU) 2015/412 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory 2, Denmark has indicated that they expect GM crops to be commercially grown in Denmark in the near future. Therefore, Denmark is once again reviewing the legal framework for coexistence set up under Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC. (4) The notified aid scheme reintroduces the previous Danish aid scheme, SA.18493, which existed between 2005 and The previous scheme SA was never applied as no GM crops were ever commercially grown in Denmark. The scheme has not changed, but as it expired in 2010, the notified scheme is considered a new aid scheme and a full assessment shall be made Title (5) Compensation for loss of income due to the occurrence of genetically modified material in conventional or organic crops 2.2. Objective (6) With the present notified scheme the Danish authorities wish to compensate for loss of income due to the occurrence of genetically modified material in conventional and organic crops (hereinafter "non-gm crops") above 0.9 % following from the EU norms for labelling Legal basis (7) The legal basis: (a) (b) Lovbekendtgørelse nr. 193 af 12. marts 2009 om dyrkning m.v. af genetisk modificerede afgrøder (sameksistensloven). (Act no. 193 of 12 March 2009 on cultivation etc. of genetically modified crops); Bekendtgørelse nr. 177 af 28. februar 2008 om kompensation for tab på grund af visse forekomster af genetisk modificeret materiale (Executive 1 OJ L 189, , p OJ L 68, , p

3 2.4. Duration Order no. 177 of 28 February 2008 on compensating losses due to the presence of genetically modified material in certain cases). (8) From 1 July 2016 to 30 June Budget (9) Overall budget is DKK 2.5 million ( Euro), the annual budget is DKK ( Euro) Eligible costs and aid intensity (10) Eligible for funding are only those losses of income which are a direct result of the admixture of GM crops in non-gm crops above 0.9 % following from the EU norms for labelling. The aid intensity is 100 % of eligible losses Beneficiaries (11) Farmers in Denmark. (12) Compensation will not be paid to: (a) (b) undertakings in difficulty defined in point 35(15) of the European Union Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas 2014 to (hereinafter "the Guidelines") unless the financial difficulty of the undertaking has been caused by the GMO admixture; undertakings, which are subject to an outstanding recovery order following a previous Commission Decision declaring the aid illegal and incompatible with the internal market Description of the aid scheme Justification of the measure (13) According to the Danish authorities the dispositions of Act no. 193 and its implementing legislation are designed to limit any exposure of non-gm crops to GM material. Nevertheless, even if the GM farmer acts in conformity with the national rules, unintended presence of GMO in conventional and organic crops can still occur. The presence of GMO above the 0.9 % threshold could cause a loss of income to the farmer as these conventional or organic crops have now to be labelled as containing GMO, and as a consequence their market price will be lower. (14) The Danish authorities have explained that under Danish law, in the event of involuntary spreading of GM material from fields with GM crops to fields with non-gm crops, the farmer whose non-gm crops have been mixed with GM 3 OJ C 204, , p. 1, as amended by Commission Notice amending the European Union Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas 2014 to 2020 (OJ C 390, , p.5). 3

4 material would have to seek compensation for any losses from the farmer cultivating GM crops in civil proceedings. The burden of proof would be on the farmer seeking compensation, and the procedures may be time-consuming. (15) According to the Danish authorities there are at present still no insurances available in Denmark to cover the losses due the admixture of non-gm crops with GM material. The absence of insurance schemes is due to the lack of experience in this field as no GM crops have been grown commercially in Denmark. The insurance industry has indicated that an adequate risk assessment is at this stage impossible and hence no such insurances are available on the insurance market. The Danish authorities have provided proof to this effect. (16) In response to the adoption of Directive (EU) 2015/412 and in order to provide adequate coverage for the risk involved and thus to contribute to the successful establishment of the co-existence between GM and non-gm crops as requested by the Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMO in conventional and organic-crops 4, the Danish authorities have decided to reintroduce the compensation scheme for farmers that have suffered damage caused by GMO-mixture above 0.9 % the established EU norms for labelling. (17) It is still the intention of the Danish authorities to limit the duration of the compensation scheme until a privately financed insurance solution is found. Therefore legislation setting up the scheme will be evaluated two years after the scheme has come into use, and the duration of the compensation scheme is limited to five years. (18) The Danish authorities commit to supply the Commission with a report every two years concerning the aid scheme once it has come into use, in order to enable the Commission to evaluate the implementation of the measure and the development of the insurance market Compensation fund (19) 12 (1) of Law no. 193 provides that each farmer cultivating GM crops shall pay a cultivation fee of 100 DKK per hectare of land cultivated with such crops. (20) According to 20 of Executive Order no on cultivation etc. of genetically modified crops 5, the cultivation fees are paid to the Danish AgriFish Agency (NaturErhverstyrelsen), which is part of the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food (Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet). The cultivation fees are integrally used to constitute a compensation fund, from which compensation would be paid to farmers who have sustained economic losses due to the presence of GM material in their crops. 4 OJ C 200, , p Bekendtgørelse nr af 11. december 2015 om dyrkning m.v. af genetisk modificerede afgrøder (Executive Order no of 11 December 2015 on cultivation etc. of genetically modified crops) 4

5 (21) The compensation fund is administered in accordance with the Danish Financial Act (Danske Finanslov). This Act is the legal basis for the State to bear expenditures to compensation and receive revenues from the growers. (22) In the long run the compensation scheme should be financed exclusively from the cultivation fees, and there should be a balance between revenues from cultivation fees and the expenditure in terms of payments of compensation. The initial chosen level of 100 DKK is supported by a report prepared by the Department of Food and Resource Economics (IFRO) at the Copenhagen University. (23) The Danish authorities have pointed out that it is possible to estimate revenues and expenditures, as the GM crops cultivated and the size of the fields have to be communicated to the authorities before the cultures are established. Therefore, the cultivation fees could be adjusted beforehand in order to keep the compensation fund in balance. (24) However, if in a given year the compensation claims exceed the projected revenues for the year the compensation will nevertheless be paid out, the difference being financed by the State. The compensation fund would be brought into balance in the subsequent year(s) by raising the cultivation fee if necessary. (25) If the compensation fund has more revenues than compensation claims in a given year, the excess will be carried over to the subsequent year in order to cover higher claims or to lower the cultivation fee Conditions for receiving compensation (26) Payment of compensation is limited to cases where: (a) (b) the GM material found is of the same crop or a closely related crop as the non-gm crop in which the GM crop is found (GM crops that can be crossed into non-gm crops), and the GM crop is grown within a specified area (distance from the non-gm crops) and in the same season as set out in Annex I of Executive order no In case of admixture into organic crop, only the condition concerning the season applies. (27) Compensation for losses can be paid only if the occurrence of GM material in the claimant s crop, as defined above, exceeds the threshold of 0.9 %. The threshold is the limit under which genetically modified food or feedstuffs do not have to be labelled for containing genetically modified organisms, as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1829/ 2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed 6. (28) The farmer must apply for compensation within 14 days after the occurrence of GM material has been observed and no later than then 1 st of August the year after harvest. The presence and amount of GM material will be verified by testing and analysis by official or officially authorised persons nominated by the Danish 6 OJ L 268, , p. 1. 5

6 AgriFish Agency. The farmer must pay for the analysis but is reimbursed in case compensation is paid out. (29) Compensation would be paid regardless of whether the farmer from whose fields the GM material has been spread can be identified. (30) Eligibility for compensation is limited to farmers having sustained losses in primary agricultural production. (31) The level of compensation can be reduced if the claimant intentionally or through negligence has contributed to the cause of the damage or through his/her conduct has diminished the Danish AgriFish Agency's possibility to recover the compensation from the GMO farmer, see section below. (32) No compensation will be paid to farmers who have signed an agreement in accordance with 11 of Executive Order no. 1559, in which he allows for a reduced distance between his crops and GM crops Amount of compensation (33) The amount of compensation is limited to the price difference between the market price of a crop that has to be labelled as containing GM material and a crop for which no such labelling is required ( i.e. GM material content less than 0.9 %). The market price will be determined by the Danish AgriFish Agency on the basis of the monthly statistics from the IFRO. (34) In case of organic farming, compensation may be given for the conversion periods until the production can again be sold as organic. These periods depend on the extent of the admixture and the type of production, and the prevailing rules concerning organic farming. The compensation is limited to the difference between the market prices of the GM labelled products and the prices that could be obtained if the products were sold as organic. (35) If the producer has a contract to deliver his or her products free of GM material at a certain price the basis of the compensation will be the difference between that price and the market price. Nevertheless, the compensation will be paid only for the part of the product where the GM material content is over 0.9 % regardless what degree of maximum GM material content the producer and buyer have agreed. (36) Only demonstrated losses will be eligible for compensation and compensation from any other sources will be deducted from the compensation paid under the notified measure Recovery of compensation from GMO farmers (37) If compensation is paid under the notified measure the Danish AgriFish Agency takes over the claims for damages from the farmer who has received compensation. In practice this means that Danish AgriFish Agency will in all cases take measures to recover the amount paid in compensation from the farmer from whose fields the GM material has spread, if such farmer can be identified. If the authorities cannot obtain recovery by administrative means they will seek recovery in the courts. The Danish authorities have indicated that although recovery will be sought in all cases under Danish private law, liability for 6

7 damages arises only if fault can be demonstrated. Therefore, it could be possible that the courts may turn down claims for damages by the authorities Transparency (38) Information about the scheme and the recipients of compensation will be published on the Danish AgriFish Agency website within 6 months of paying the compensation. 3. ASSESSMENT 3.1. Existence of aid - Application of Article 107(1) TFEU (39) For Article 107(1) TFEU to apply, the scheme must provide an economic benefit to an undertaking which it would not have received in its normal course of business, the aid must be granted to certain undertakings, the benefit must be granted by a Member State or through State resources and the scheme must be capable of affecting trade between Member States. (40) The measure notified by the Danish authorities is financed through a mandatory cultivation fee paid by farmers cultivating GM crops in Denmark. The cultivation fees are paid to the Danish AgriFish Agency, which is part of the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food. The cultivation fees constitute a fund administered under the Danish Budget Act and used for the purposes laid down in legislation. (Recitals 19-21) Therefore the aid is granted through State resources and the measure is attributable to the State. (41) It follows from the Danish notification that the proposed compensation system would cover damage due to GMO admixture satisfying certain conditions regardless whether the origin of the admixture has been identified or if there was fault (recitals 26 and 29). (42) The Danish authorities have also confirmed that in cases of GMO admixture under Danish civil law, liability for compensation will exist only if fault can be demonstrated. It also appears that where the origin of the admixture cannot be identified there will be no possibility of obtaining compensation. Therefore, under the Danish civil law, compensation will be limited to cases where the non-gmo farmer can identify the origin of the admixture and prove fault with the GMO farmer. (Recitals 14 and 37) (43) It appears from the foregoing that the notified compensation scheme gives better possibilities for obtaining compensation in cases of admixture than the application of civil law. Furthermore, under the notified compensation scheme the non-gmo farmer obtains the compensation without having to resort to court proceedings, which might be necessary under civil law. (44) The scheme in question therefore confers an advantage on farmers which demonstrate damages due to GMO admixture above the EU norms for labelling, and fulfil all the requirements for compensation. This advantage is granted through State resources (recital 20) and it favours farmers in Denmark (recital 11). According to the case law of the Court of Justice, the mere fact that the competitive position of an undertaking is strengthened compared to other competing undertakings, by giving it an economic benefit which it would not 7

8 otherwise have received in the normal course of its business, points to a possible distortion of competition. 7 (45) Pursuant to the case law of the Court of Justice, aid to an undertaking appears to affect trade between Member States where that undertaking operates in a market open to intra-eu trade. 8 The beneficiaries of aid operate in the agricultural sector which is a market where intra-eu trade takes place. Statistical data show that in 2014 Danish intra-eu trade in agricultural products amounted to EUR million for exports and to EUR million for imports 9. The sector concerned is open to competition at EU level and therefore sensitive to any measure in favour of the production in one or more Member States. Therefore, the present scheme is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States. (46) In light of the above, the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU are fulfilled. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed scheme constitutes State aid within the meaning of that Article. The aid may only be considered compatible with the internal market if it can benefit from one of the derogations provided for in the TFEU Lawfulness of the aid Application of Article 108(3) TFEU (47) The aid scheme was notified to the Commission on 17 November It has not been implemented. Therefore, Denmark has complied with its obligation under Article 108(3) TFEU Compatibility of the aid Application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (48) Under Article 107(3)(c), an aid may be considered compatible with the internal market, if it is found to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. (49) For this derogation to be applicable, the aid must fulfil the requirements of the relevant Union State aid legislation. (50) Losses caused by external factors are part of the normal operating environment of agricultural production. The Commission considers that, as a rule, farmers have to assume responsibility for dealing with such losses they have sustained or provoked and should assess the risks and losses in order to take appropriate measures, as part of prudent management of the holding, to reduce the economic 7 Judgment of the Court of 17 September 1980 in Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:C:1980: See in particular the judgment of the Court of 13 July 1988 in Case 102/87 French Republic v Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:C:1988: Source: European Commission, Agricultural Policy Perspectives, Member States factsheet-january 2015, Denmark. Available at give the source of the statistical data 8

9 impact of such factors. For this reason the Commission applies a restrictive approach and authorises compensation of losses only in certain cases. (51) Chapter 1.2. Risk and crisis management of the European Union Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas 2014 to 2020 foresees aids to compensate for damage to agricultural production caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences, by adverse climatic events, by animal or plant diseases or by protected animals. (52) GMO are subject to an authorisation procedure laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms 10 and Regulation (EC) No 1829/ 2003 before they can be released on the internal market. As a consequence GMO are thus products that circulate legally on the internal market, hence, any losses caused by such products cannot be considered an exceptional occurrence or a plant disease. Therefore, the provisions in Chapter 1.2. of the Guidelines are not applicable in this case. (53) However, it should be examined whether the compensation scheme notified by the Danish authorities contributes to the improvement of the sector in the common interest in such a way that the State aid for the compensation scheme could nevertheless be authorised under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU Compatibility assessment under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (54) Previously, the Commission has approved aid schemes financed by parafiscal levies to compensate farmers that have suffered damage from the presence of GMO in their crops above the threshold of 0.9 %, by qualifying them compatible with the internal market on the basis of current Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (Cases SA (N 568/04) Denmark, SA (N 679/06) Portugal, SA (N 49/10) Slovenia, and SA (2011/N) Belgium) Contributing to a common objective Compatibility with Community policy concerning coexistence of GM crops with other crops (55) According to Directive 2001/18/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and Directive 2015/412 (hereafter the EU GMO legislation), GMOs can be placed on the EU market only if they have been assessed as regards the potential risk they could pose for health and for the environment and if they have been subsequently authorised for this purpose. Moreover, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 modified Directive 2001/18/EC in order to add a new Article 26a which allows Member States to adopt measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in products; this provision acknowledges the problematic of GMO admixture in non-gm products and the concept of coexistence between GM crops and conventional and organic crops. (56) Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic-crops, which is based on Article 26a of Directive 10 OJ L 106, , p. 1. 9

10 2001/18/EC, recalls in this context that the objective of coexistence measures in areas where GMOs are cultivated is to prevent the potential economic loss and impact of the admixture of GM and non GM crops. It underlines that: (a) (b) (c) In principle, farmers should be able to cultivate the types of agricultural crops they choose be it GM crops, conventional or organic crops. This possibility should be combined with the wish of some farmers and operators to ensure that their crops have the lowest possible presence of GMOs. The objective of co-existence measures in areas where GMOs are cultivated is to avoid unintended presence of GMOs in other products, preventing the potential economic loss and impact of the admixture of GM and non-gm crops (including organic crops). Matters concerning financial compensation or liability for economic damage are the exclusive competence of Member States. (57) The inclusion of Article 26a in Directive 2001/18/EC in 2003 and the Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 show clearly that in the specific case of adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs in other products, the co-legislator has intended to give the possibility for Member States to depart from the principle that farmers have to assume responsibility for dealing with such losses. (58) The compatibility of aid measures to compensate for the loss of income due to admixture of GM material in conventional or organic crops has already been assessed in State aid cases SA.18493, SA.21825, SA and SA In the first three decisions the Commission came to the conclusion that the aid measures were in conformity with the objectives of the Recommendation of 23 July 2003 which was repealed by the Recommendation of 13 July In the fourth decision, the Commission came to the conclusion that the scheme was in conformity with the objectives of the Recommendation of 13 July (59) The aid measure notified by the Danish authorities are the same or similar to those of the decisions in the foregoing recital and meet the objectives of the Recommendation of 13 July 2010 (see recitals 13-14, 16). It can be concluded that the compensation fund contributes to a common objective by promoting the successful coexistence of GM crops with other crops and contributes to improving the structures of agricultural production in a way that is compatible with Union policy concerning such coexistence Need of State intervention, Appropriateness of aid and Incentive effect and need for aid (60) Regarding the liability for losses, the Danish civil law offers only partial possibilities for recovery. In fact the Danish authorities have explained that under Danish civil law, compensation for damages depends on demonstrated fault (see recital 14), which would exclude compensation in cases where the involuntary admixture has taken place with no fault by the GMO farmer. Although at this stage it does not seem possible to determine the probability of such admixture, involuntary admixture without fault could lead to economic losses that the non- GMO farmer would have to bear himself. Moreover, losses due to admixture with 10

11 GM material of unidentified origin would in all cases have to be borne by the farmer with conventional or organic crops. (61) The Danish authorities have stressed that the absence of liability in cases where no fault can be demonstrated is a fundamental principle of the Danish system of civil law. Under such circumstances it appears difficult to adapt the civil law or to derogate from its basic principles to admit liability without fault. Moreover, any changes in civil law would not solve the problem of providing compensation in cases where the source of the admixture with GM material cannot be identified. (62) Under normal circumstances the farmers of conventional or organic crops would be able to take out insurance to cover the risk of GMO admixture. Likewise, GM farmers could take out insurance to cover their liability for the damage. The Danish authorities have however pointed out that although the estimates concerning the possibility of admixture with GM material are based on best available scientific information these have yet to be tested in practice in Denmark. The Danish authorities have informed the Commission that because of the uncertainty with regards to the risk, no insurance policies to cover loss of income due to GM admixture currently exist in the private or public sector in Denmark (see recital 15). (63) Under the circumstances mentioned above, the farmer would seem unable to sufficiently assess and prepare for the risk of such admixture and the financial losses or liabilities it may entail. Therefore the principle, set out in recital 50, that the farmer has to take responsibility for losses he sustains or provokes and take appropriate measures as part of prudent management, appears, for the time being, not to be fully applicable in cases involving admixture with GM material. (64) In line with previous similar cases (SA.18493, SA.21825, SA and SA.33350) that can be applied by analogy, the Commission could conclude that the risk of losses resulting from GMO admixture in conventional or organic crops constitute a specific problem for which the market currently does not provide a solution. In this context, the envisaged measure which foresees the compensation of loss financed by obligatory contributions from GM farmers (see recitals 19-20) could be considered as an appropriate solution until the market presents adequate insurance instruments. At the same time the fact that the fund is entirely financed by the GM farmers (see recital 22) can be considered as an important element, which also takes into account the 'polluter pays principle'. (65) The Danish authorities have indicated that the compensation fund is a temporary measure of five years duration, destined to be replaced by private insurance as soon as such is offered by the insurance industry. Moreover, the Danish authorities have committed to conduct an evaluation to assess the utility and necessity of the aid scheme after two years of use. Once the scheme is taken into use, the Danish authorities commit to send a report on the implementation of the compensation scheme and the situation on the insurance market to the Commission every other year (see recitals 17-18). (66) The Commission concludes that State aid is needed as civil law in Denmark does not provide an adequate solution for receiving compensation for loss, that State intervention is necessary as no adequate market solution in the form of insurances exists, and that the compensation fund set up is appropriate as it is financed by 11

12 obligatory contributions from GM farmers. No incentive effect is required as this is a compensation scheme Proportionality of the aid and avoidance of undue negative effects on competition and trade (67) The compensation only covers the difference, if any, between the market price of a conventional or organic product and the market price of a crop containing GMO admixture above 0.9 % (see recital 27). If the producer had a contract to sell the product as GMO free at a certain price, this price will be used as the market price (see recital 35). The market prices are calculated based on the monthly statistics from the IFRO (see recital (33)). This compensation can be increased with costs for tests (see recital 28) and for organic farming compensation may be given for the conversion periods until the production can again be sold as organic (see recital 34). The farmer must be able to demonstrate the losses (see recital 36). (68) Only the affected crops that are the same as the GM crops or a closely related crop, that were cultivated on land within the reporting distance as set out in law 11 (this condition does not apply to organic crop) and outside the isolation distance are eligible for compensation (see recital 26). Any other compensation for losses will be deducted from the compensation paid under the notified aid scheme (see recital 36). (69) Since the compensation only covers the difference between the expected market price or the price laid down contractually and the threshold used is that laid down in Community legislation, there appears to be no overcompensation. (70) The Commission considers that the compensation is proportionate in that it only covers the difference in market price, is only paid for demonstrated losses and only covers losses up to 100 %. For the same reasons and considering the financing of the aid, the Commission considers that undue negative effects on competition and trade are avoided Transparency (71) The Danish authorities have committed to publish information about the scheme and aid recipients on the Danish AgriFish Agency website within 6 months of paying the compensation (see recital 38). Therefore the Commission considers that the paying out of compensation is done in a transparent manner Financing of the aid (72) The compensation fund is financed by cultivation fees based on the size of the parcels for the cultivation of GM crops (hectare). The aid is then allocated to conventional and organic crops which have suffered from GM admixture in order to compensate for the damage that the admixture has caused. The cultivation fees are thus not intended to finance activities for the special advantage of the taxed 11 Bekendtgørelse nr. 177 af 28. februar

13 (domestic) GM product 12. Hence, the cultivation fee is a tax and is not to be considered a parafiscal charge. (73) On the basis of the above points it can be concluded that the financing of the aid raises no need for further analysis in order to determine the compatibility of the aid. 4. CONCLUSION The Commission has accordingly decided not to raise objections to the notified aid on the grounds that it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. If any parts of this letter are covered by the obligation of professional secrecy according to the Commission communication on professional secrecy in State aid decisions 13 and should not be published, please inform the Commission within fifteen working days of notification of this letter. If the Commission does not receive a reasoned request by that deadline Denmark will be deemed to agree to the publication of the full text of this letter. If Denmark wishes certain information to be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy please indicate the parts and provide a justification in respect of each part for which non-disclosure is requested. Your request should be sent electronically via the secured system Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) in accordance with Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/ , to the following address: agri-state-aids-notifications@ec.europa.eu. For the Commission Phil Hogan Member of the Commission 12 Judgment of the Court of 11 March 1992 in Joined Cases C-78/90, C-79/90, C-80/90, C-81/90, C-82/90 and C-83/90, Compagnie commerciale de l'ouest [1992] ECR I-1847, paragraph Commission communication C(2003) 4582 of 1 December 2003 on professional secrecy in State aid decisions, OJ C 297, , p Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 140, , p. 1). 13