natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det grundlæggende problem beror endnu engang på at de pågældende bedrifters tab — som erklæret af de italienske myndigheder — skyldes manglende afsætning (jf. betragtning 16) og ikke manglende produktion (jf. betragtning 30).
In actual fact, the fundamental problem again resides in the fact that, as the Italian authorities indicated, the loss incurred by the holdings in question is attributable to the lack of sales of the product (see recital 16) and not to the absence of production (see recital 30).
Kommissionen kan derfor ikke undlade at tvivle på, at den påtænkte støtte skulle tjene andre formål end kompensation for manglende indtægter som følge af den ugunstige markedsudvikling — et fænomen, der hører til de normale risici ved udøvelsen af landbrugsaktiviteter.
Once again, therefore, the Commission can only suspect that the planned aid is being used for purposes other than to compensate for a lack of earnings due to the unfavourable development of the market, which falls within the normal risks associated with farming.
Hvad angår tvivlsspørgsmålene i betragtning 17 og 18 (vedrørende grundlaget for beregning af støtten, fordi de italienske myndigheder ikke havde fremsendt oplysninger om nedsættelsen af beløbet med de omkostninger, landbrugeren ikke havde haft som følge af de dårlige vejrforhold, eller om nedsættelsen af støttebeløbet med eventuelle beløb, der var modtaget under forsikringsordninger, og med eventuelle modtagne støttebeløb), mærker Kommissionen sig, at de italienske myndigheder i deres brev af 16. januar 2004 kun har præciseret, at — i og med at det ikke drejede sig om et problem med manglende produktion — skulle det påtænkte støttebeløb ikke nedsættes med omkostninger, som landbrugeren ikke havde haft, da alle dyrkningsfaserne var bragt til ende og alle hermed forbundne omkostninger derfor afholdt.
With regard to the doubts set out in recitals 17 and 18 (concerning the appropriateness of the basis for calculating the aid, because the Italian authorities had provided no details of the deduction of costs not incurred by the farmer as a result of the adverse weather conditions, or of any amounts received under an insurance policy or any direct aid received), the Commission notes that, in their letter of 16 January 2004, the Italian authorities simply stated that the aid they intend to grant would not be reduced by the amount of costs not incurred by the farmer because, since it was not a question of a lack of production, all the cultivation stages had been completed and the relevant costs had been incurred.
Over for dette svar må Kommissionen konstatere, at de italienske myndigheder ganske vist har besvaret spørgsmålet om eventuel nedsættelse af støttebeløbet med omkostninger, som landbrugeren ikke har haft, men at de derimod ikke har givet nærmere oplysninger om nedsættelse af støttebeløbet med eventuel modtaget direkte støtte og med eventuelle beløb, der er modtaget under forsikringsordninger.
In the light of this response, the Commission notes that, while the question of the deduction of costs not incurred by the farmers has been dealt with, no details have been given regarding the deduction of any direct aid received or of any other amount received under an insurance policy.
Selv om Kommissionen havde kunnet acceptere de italienske myndigheders — allerede gentagne gange nævnte — fremgangsmåde, ville denne mangel på oplysninger i sig selv have været tilstrækkelig til, at den fortsat ikke kunne være sikker på, at alle betingelserne i punkt 11.3 i rammebestemmelserne var opfyldt.
While the Commission had been able to consider the approach taken by the Italian authorities referred to above on several occasions to be valid, this absence of detailed information would have been sufficient in itself for it to continue to harbour doubts about the compatibility of the measure with the common market since it could not have been sure that all the conditions in point 11.3 of the guidelines had been met.
Hvad angår tvivlsspørgsmålene i betragtning 18 vedrørende overholdelsen af punkt 11.3.8 i rammebestemmelserne, mærker Kommissionen sig oplysningerne fra de italienske myndigheder, hvor det hedder, at støtten skulle fordeles af producentorganisationens medlemmer i forhold til den lidte skade (bestemt på grundlag af den leverede mængde), og at myndighederne selv skal føre tilsyn med, at den del af støtten, producentorganisationen tilbageholder til sig selv, udelukkende anvendes til at dække dens basisomkostninger.
With regard to the doubts set out in recital 18, which are linked to compliance with point 11.3.8 of the guidelines, the Commission notes the details provided by the Italian authorities, according to which the aid would be allocated in relation to the loss incurred by the members of the producer organisation (determined on the basis of the quantity delivered), and that they would see to it that the share of the aid withheld by the producer organisation was to cover only the costs it had incurred.
Selv om Kommissionen havde kunnet acceptere de italienske myndigheders fremgangsmåde, ville den fortsat have tvivlet på, om punkt 11.3.8 i rammebestemmelserne var overholdt, eftersom den leverede mængde ikke ville være en objektiv faktor til bestemmelse af tabet, fordi tilbagekøbsproceduren omfattede frugt, der ikke var skadet af haglbyger, men var nedklassificeret til industriprodukt som følge af den forringelse af produktet, der var sket mellem datoen for anmodningen om tilbagekøb (jf. betragtning 30) og påbegyndelsen heraf, og fordi den i mangel af oplysninger (som den havde anmodet om) om arten af de omkostninger, producentorganisationen Asprofrut havde haft, ikke havde kunnet være sikker på, at disse ikke var overvurderet, hvilket ville have været ensbetydende med ydelse af driftsstøtte til den pågældende organisation.
That being so, even if it had been able to consider the approach taken by the Italian authorities, mentioned above, to be valid, the Commission could only have continued to harbour doubts about compliance with point 11.3.8 of the guidelines, given that the quantity delivered would not have been an objective factor in determining the loss incurred, since the withdrawal operations concerned fruit that had not been damaged by hail but had been regraded as an industrial product on account of the deterioration that occurred between the date of submission of the application for withdrawal (see recital 30) and the start of the actual withdrawal operations, and because without information, which had nevertheless been requested, concerning the nature of the costs incurred by the Asprofrut producer organisation, it could not have been sure that these costs had not been over-estimated, which would have entailed the grant of operating aid to that organisation.
Hvad angår tvivlsspørgsmålene i betragtning 19 vedrørende formodningen om overtrædelse af reglerne om den fælles markedsordning for frugt og grøntsager i forordning (EF) nr. 2200/96, må Kommissionen konstatere, at de italienske myndigheder ikke har fremlagt argumenter, der afkræfter denne formodning.
With regard to the doubts set out in recital 19, which are based on the existence of a presumption of an infringement of the rules governing the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables established by Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, the Commission can only state that the Italian authorities have not made any submissions that allow this presumption to be overturned.
I betragtning af tidspunktet for tilbagekøbet, dvs. på et tidspunkt, hvor producentorganisationerne i Piemonte allerede havde udtømt muligheden for tilbagekøb som fastsat i nævnte forordning (jf. betragtning 10), kan Kommissionen kun konkludere, at ydelsen af statsstøtte til tilbagekøb, som overstiger de fastsatte muligheder, ville stride mod reglerne for den fælles markedsordning for frugt og grøntsager, hvilket ville forstyrre fællesmarkedets rette funktion.
In view of the circumstances in which withdrawal took place, namely at a time when the producer organisations in Piedmont had already exhausted the withdrawal possibilities provided for in that Regulation (see recital 10 above), the Commission can only conclude that the grant of State aid for withdrawals which entail an overrun of the possibilities set would be contrary to the rules governing the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables and would disturb the smooth operation of the common market.
Hvad endelig angår spørgsmålet om støttens udbetaling og eventuel kumulering med anden støtte, skal Kommissionen bemærke, at de italienske myndigheder i brevet af 16. januar 2004 havde anført, at støtten ikke var blevet udbetalt, og producentorganisationen Asprofrut har bekræftet, at den ikke har modtaget noget beløb.
Lastly, with regard to the question of the payment of the aid and any aggregation of payment, the Commission notes that in their letter of 16 January 2004 the Italian authorities said that the aid had not been paid and the producer organisation Asprofrut confirmed that no amount had been received.
Kommissionen har imidlertid ikke fået svar på spørgsmålet om muligheden for kumulering med anden støtte, der tjener samme formål.
No response has been given, however, to the question of whether the aid could be aggregated with other aid pursuing the same ends.
En eventuel kumulering ville nemlig kunne betyde overkompensation for det påberåbte tab, hvilket ville være i strid med punkt 11.3 i rammebestemmelserne.
Aggregation could lead to overcompensation for a loss claimed, which would be contrary to point 11.3 of the guidelines.
Af ovennævnte fremgår det, at den påtænkte støtte til producentorganisationen Asprofrut til dækning af tilbagekøb fra markedet af ferskner og nektariner ikke kan anses for at have til formål at kompensere for tab som følge af dårlige vejrforhold, men at der er tale om et middel til kompensation til visse producenter for manglende indtægter som følge af en ugunstig markedsudvikling — en faktor, der hører til de normale risici ved landbrugsaktiviteter.
The observations set out above show that the proposed aid for the Asprofrut producer organisation to cover an operation for the withdrawal of peaches and nectarines cannot be regarded as intended to compensate for losses caused by adverse weather conditions but constitutes a means of offering certain producers compensation for a loss of earnings owing to the unfavourable development of the market, which falls within the normal risks associated with farming.
At dække en normal risiko ved en landbrugsaktivitet med støtte svarer til at yde den eller de pågældende støttemodtagere driftsstøtte, hvilket er uforeneligt med fællesmarkedet.
Covering a normal risk associated with farming with an aid is equivalent to granting a beneficiary or beneficiaries operating aid which is incompatible with the common market.
Også selv om det havde været muligt at acceptere de italienske myndigheders fremgangsmåde med hensyn til kompensation for et tab, der skyldtes dårlige vejrforhold, indeholder oplysningerne fra de samme myndigheder for mange uklarheder til, at Kommissionen kan gå ud fra, at støtten er ydet i overensstemmelse med punkt 11.3 i rammebestemmelserne.
Even if the approach taken by the Italian authorities of compensating for a loss caused by adverse weather could have been considered valid, there are too many grey areas in the explanations provided by those authorities for the Commission to be able to consider that the aid had been granted in compliance with point 11.3 of the guidelines.
Ud fra denne synsvinkel ville støtten således hverken være omfattet af undtagelsesbestemmelsen i traktatens artikel 87, stk. 2, litra b), som påberåbt af de italienske myndigheder, eller af undtagelsesbestemmelsen i artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c), eftersom støtten ikke ville have bidraget til at fremme udviklingen af den pågældende erhvervsgren.
From this point of view, therefore, the aid could not have qualified for the derogation provided for in Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty relied on by the Italian authorities, or for that provided for in Article 87(3)(c), since it would not have contributed to facilitating the development of the sector.
Støtten ville altså have været uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
It would have been incompatible, therefore, with the common market.
Endelig er der formodning om overtrædelse af bestemmelserne i forordning (EF) nr. 2200/96.
There remains, lastly, the presumption of an infringement of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96.
Da tilbagekøbet har fundet sted på et tidspunkt, hvor mulighederne for tilbagekøb for producentorganisationerne i Piemonte var udtømt, ville ydelsen af støtte til finansiering af en operation, der gik ud over de grænser, der er fastsat i en forordning til regulering af markederne for frugt og grøntsager på europæisk plan, kunne true med at forstyrre disses rette funktion.
Since withdrawal took place at a time when the withdrawal possibilities for the producer organisations in Piedmont had been exhausted, the grant of aid to finance an operation that goes beyond the limits set in a regulation designed to govern the market in fruit and vegetables at European level would risk disturbing the smooth operation of that market.
I medfør af punkt 3.2 i rammebestemmelserne kan Kommissionen ikke under nogen omstændigheder godkende en støtte, der strider mod bestemmelserne til regulering af en fælles markedsordning, eller som ville forstyrre dennes rette funktion.
According to point 3.2 of the guidelines the Commission cannot under any circumstances approve an aid that is incompatible with the provisions governing a common organisation of the market or which would interfere with the proper functioning of the common organisation.
Støtten må derfor betragtes som uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
The aid must be regarded therefore as incompatible with the common market.
Da støtten ikke er udbetalt, skal den ikke kræves tilbagebetalt —
The Commission need not require recovery of the aid since it has not been paid,
Den statsstøtte på 108752 EUR, som Italien påtænker at yde til afhjælpning af krisen i ferskendyrkningssektoren i regionen Piemonte, er uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
The State aid amounting to EUR 108752 which Italy is planning to implement in order to help cope with the difficulties facing the cultivation of peaches in the region of Piedmont is incompatible with the common market.
Den pågældende støtte kan derfor ikke ydes.
The aid in question cannot therefore be implemented.
Italien underretter senest to måneder efter meddelelsen af denne beslutning Kommissionen om, hvilke foranstaltninger der er truffet for at efterkomme beslutningen.
Italy will inform the Commission, within two months of the date of notification of this decision, of the measures that have been taken to comply with it.
Denne beslutning er rettet til Republikken Italien.
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.
EUT C 266 af 5.11.2003, s. 3.
OJ C 266, 5.11.2003, p. 3.
Ifølge oplysningerne fra de italienske myndigheder havde to producentorganisationer indgivet anmodning om støtte: Asprofrut og Lagnasco Group.
According to the information provided by the Italian authorities, two producer organisations applied for assistance, Asprofrut and Lagnasco Group.
Sidstnævnte havde siden trukket sin anmodning tilbage.
The latter later withdrew its application.
Offentliggjort på ny i deres helhed som følge af berigtigelserne i EFT C 232 af 12.8.2000, s. 17.
Republished in full, following amendment, in OJ C 232, 12.8.2000, p. 17.
Punkt 11.3.2. i rammebestemmelserne.
Point 11.3.2. of the guidelines.
For det sjette sætter Kommissionen spørgsmålstegn ved overholdelsen af punkt 11.3.8 i rammebestemmelserne, hvor det hedder, at støtte til en producentorganisation ikke må overstige landbrugerens faktiske tab. Opfattelsen af begrebet »faktisk tab« er allerede draget i tvivl ovenfor (tab af omsætning og ikke af produktion; ukorrekt metode til beregning af tabene).
The sixth factor which led the Commission to doubt the compatibility of the aid with the common market concerned compliance with point 11.3.8 of the guidelines, according to which, where aid is paid to a producer organisation, the amount must not exceed the actual loss incurred by the farmer. The concept of actual loss was called into question in view of the doubts referred to above (loss of turnover and not of production; method of calculating losses not entirely reliable).
Hvad angår nødvendigheden af at undgå overkompensation af tabene (jf. betragtning 15 og 16), har de italienske myndigheder erklæret, at de — uanset spørgsmålet om korrekt beregningsmetode — mente at have afgivet talmæssige oplysninger, som klart viste, at en hvilken som helst form for overkompensation kunne betragtes som højst usandsynlig.
With regard to the need to avoid overcompensation for the loss incurred (see recitals 15 and 16), the Italian authorities said that, leaving aside the inappropriateness of the method of calculation used, they considered that they had provided figures which made it highly unlikely that there would be any over-compensation.
Endvidere slog de fast, at det var vanskeligt at forestille sig, at sektorens tab havde været for små til at udløse støtteudbetaling, i betragtning af misforholdet mellem støttebeløbet og den anvendte markedspris og den kendsgerning, at kostprisen svarer til ca. halvdelen af den ovennævnte markedspris.
They reiterated also that, in view of the disproportion between the amount of the aid and the market price used, and the fact that the cost price corresponds to around half the market price, it was difficult to consider that the losses in the sector were too small for aid to be granted.
Hvad angår valget af beregningsmetode, skal det understreges, at når punkt 11.3.2 i rammebestemmelserne giver mulighed for alternative metoder til beregning af tabene, skal en sådan alternativ metode kunne anvendes til at bestemme produktionstabet (jf. princippet [5], hvor det hedder: »Kommissionen vil dog acceptere alternative metoder til beregning af normal produktion, herunder regionale referenceværdier, hvis den finder det godtgjort, at de er repræsentative og ikke baseret på unormalt høje udbytter.«) Henvisningen til omsætningen kan derfor ikke retfærdiggøres i lyset af bestemmelserne i punkt 11.3.2 i rammebestemmelserne.
With regard to the choice of the method of calculation, it should be stressed that, while point 11.3.2 of the guidelines provides for the possibility of adopting a method of calculating losses other than the one recommended, this alternative method must make it possible to determine a loss of production (see the rule [5] according to which ‘the Commission will (...) accept alternative methods of calculation of normal production, including regional reference values, provided it is satisfied that these are representative and not based on abnormally high yields’). The reference to turnover cannot be justified therefore in the light of the provisions of point 11.3.2 of the guidelines.
om Frankrigs støtte til Compagnie Marseille Réparation (CMR) (Statsstøtte C 34/2003 (ex N 728/2002))
on restructuring aid implemented by France for Compagnie Marseille Réparation (CMR) — State aid C34/03 (ex N 728/02)
(meddelt under nummer K(2004) 3350)
(notified under document number C(2004) 3350)
Ved brev af 18. november 2002, der blev registreret samme dag (i det følgende benævnt »anmeldelsen«), gav Frankrig Kommissionen meddelelse om sine planer om at yde finansiel støtte til reparationsværftet Compagnie Marseille Réparation (CMR).
By letter dated 18 November 2002 and registered as received on the same date (hereinafter referred to as the notification), France notified the Commission that it intended to provide financial support for the ship repair yard Compagnie Marseille Réparation (CMR).
Sagen blev registreret under nr. N 728/02.
The case was registered under case number N 728/02.
Ved brev af 13. december 2002 anmodede Kommissionen Frankrig om supplerende oplysninger.
By letter dated 13 December 2002, the Commission asked France for further information.
Frankrig svarede ved brev af 6. marts 2003, der blev registreret den 7. marts 2003.
France replied by letter dated 6 March 2003, registered as received on 7 March 2003.
Kommissionen gav ved brev af 13. maj 2003 Frankrig meddelelse om, at den havde besluttet at indlede proceduren efter traktatens artikel 88, stk. 2, med hensyn til de anmeldte foranstaltninger.
By letter dated 13 May 2003, the Commission informed France that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the notified measures.
Sagen blev registreret under nr. C 34/03.
The case was registered under case number C 34/03.
Kommissionen opfordrede interesserede parter til at fremsætte bemærkninger til de pågældende foranstaltninger.
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures.
Frankrig fremsendte sine bemærkninger ved brev af 31. juli 2003, der blev registreret den 4. august 2003.
France submitted its comments by letter dated 31 July 2003, registered as received on 4 August 2003.
Kommissionen modtog ingen bemærkninger fra tredjemand.
No comments from other interested parties were received.
Frankrig gav supplerende oplysninger ved brev af 2. oktober 2003, der blev registreret den 3. oktober 2003, og ved brev af 10. oktober 2003, der blev registreret samme dag.
France submitted further information by letter dated 2 October 2003, registered as received on 3 October 2003 and by letter dated 10 October 2003, registered as received on the same date.
Ved brev af 21. november 2003 stillede Kommissionen Frankrig en række supplerende spørgsmål, som Frankrig besvarede ved brev af 29. december, der blev registreret den 8. januar 2004, og ved brev af 29. januar 2004, der blev registreret samme dag.
The Commission addressed further supplementary questions to France by letter dated 21 November 2003, to which France replied by letter dated 29 December 2003, registered as received on 8 January 2004, and by letter dated 29 January 2004, registered as received on the same date.
Kommissionen stillede yderligere spørgsmål ved brev af 10. maj 2004, som Frankrig besvarede ved brev af 29. juni 2004, der blev registreret samme dag.
The Commission asked further questions by letter dated 10 May 2004, to which France replied by letter dated 29 June 2004, registered as received on the same date.
Støttemodtageren
The recipient
Støttemodtageren er reparationsværftet CMR, der ligger i Marseille.
The recipient of the financial support is CMR, a ship repair company situated in Marseille.
CMR blev oprettet den 20. juni 2002 med det formål at overtage aktiverne fra det konkursramte skibsværft, Compagnie Marseillaise de Réparations (CMdR).
CMR was founded on 20 June 2002 to take over the assets of the bankrupt ship repair yard Compagnie Marseillaise de Réparations (CMdR).
Tidligere blev skibsreparationer i Marseilles havn varetaget af følgende tre værfter, Marine Technologie, Travofer og CMdR.
Previously, ship repair activities in the port of Marseille had been carried out by three undertakings: Marine Technologie, Travofer and CMdR.
Disse værfter havde i 1996 ca. 430 ansatte (310 hos CMdR, 70 hos Marine Technologie og 50 hos Travofer).
These yards employed some 430 people in 1996 (310 at CMdR, 70 at Marine Technologie and 50 at Travofer).
I 1996 kom CMdR i vanskeligheder og måtte gå i betalingsstandsning.
In 1996, CMdR ran into difficulties and had to file for bankruptcy.
Der blev iværksat en social plan, mens konkursproceduren var i gang, for at hjælpe CMdR med at betale udgifterne i forbindelse med førtidspensionering og omskoling af en del af personalet, inden der blev fremsat et overtagelsestilbud.
A social plan was implemented in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, helping CMdR to pay for charges related to early retirement and retraining leave for some of its staff, pending a takeover offer.
Ifølge Frankrig blev denne plan finansieret af de offentlige myndigheder.
According to France, the plan was financed by the public authorities.