Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic. Done at Brussels, 10 December 2003. For the Commission Franz Fischler Member of the Commission (1) OJ C 292, 7.11.1995, p. 14. (2) Cf. footnote 1. (3) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1. (4) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 85. Regulation repealed by Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80). (5) See the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-730/79, Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, grounds 11 and 12. (6) Source: Eurostat. (7) Consistent case-law holds that the condition of the effect on the trade is met since the benefiting company carries out an economic activity which is the subject of trade between the Member States. The simple fact that aid strengthens the position of this company in relation to other competing companies in intra-Community trade makes it possible to consider that this trade was affected. As regards State aid to the agricultural sector, settled case-law holds that, regardless of the relatively small amount of total aid involved and its distribution among many farmers, there is an impact on intra-Community trade and competition (see the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-113/2000, Kingdom of Spain v Commission, [2002] ECR 7601, grounds 30 to 36 and 54 to 56, and in Case C 114/2000, [2002] ECR 7657, grounds 46 to 52, 68 and 69. (8) Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 102/87, French Republic v Commission ECR [1988] 4067. (9) OJ C 232, 12.8.2000, p. 19. (10) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. (11) See Commission letter SG(89) D/5521 of 27 April 1989. (12) See footnote 9. (13) See footnote 4. (14) Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 provided for the grant of an annual aid per hectare or livestock unit removed from a herd to farmers who gave one or more of the undertakings listed in Article 2 for at least five years, in accordance with the programme applicable in the zone concerned. The aid had to be granted in accordance with conditions laid down in the regulation. In particular Article 5 laid down that, in order to achieve the regulation's objectives, the Member States had to determine (a) the conditions for the grant of aid; (b) the amount of aid, on the basis of the undertaking given by the beneficiary and of the loss of income and of the need to provide an incentive; (c) the terms on which the aid for the upkeep of abandoned land as referred to in Article 2(1)(e) may be granted to persons other than farmers, where no farmers are available; (d) the conditions to be met by the beneficiary to ensure that compliance with the undertakings may be verified and monitored; (e) the terms for the grant of aid in cases where the farmer is personally unable to give an undertaking for the minimum period required. No aid could be granted under the regulation for areas subject to the set-aside scheme which were being used for the production of non-food products. While ensuring that the incentive content of the scheme was retained, the Member States could limit the aid to a maximum amount per holding and differentiate according to holding size. (15) Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, see footnote 4. (16) OJ C 232, 12.8.2000. (17) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1783/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 70). This latter Regulation completely replaces Chapter VI of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 as regards agri-environmental measures. (18) OJ L 74, 15.3.2002, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 963/2003 (OJ L 138, 5.6.2003, p. 32). See in particular Articles 13 to 21 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002. (19) See footnote 18 and in particular Articles 13 to 21 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002. For example, pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002, a farmer who gives an agri-environmental commitment for part of his holding must adhere to at least the standard of usual good farming practice throughout the farm.