natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Imidlertid havde — som myndighederne selv erkender — bedrifter, der dyrkede disse to frugttyper, i løbet af de pågældende tre år modtaget rentegodtgørelser for lån til kompensation for skader som følge af dårlige vejrforhold, svarende til mindst 35 % af den salgbare bruttoproduktion, uden at der dog blev ydet specifik kompensation til fersken- og nektarinsektoren.
The Italian authorities have calculated the loss incurred by reference to the three years preceding that of the adverse weather referred to above, whereas, by their own admission, while no specific compensation was granted in the peach and nectarine sectors, holdings producing these two types of fruit nevertheless obtained, over the three years in question, interest rate subsidies on loans granted to compensate for damage due to adverse weather representing at least 35 % of the gross production that could be marketed.
Med disse oplysninger in mente er det vanskeligt at forestille sig, at fersken- og nektarindyrkningen havde været skånet for det dårlige vejr, som ellers havde ramt hele bedriften, og at en landbruger, hvis bedrift var ramt i sin helhed, havde kunnet modtage støtte for alle sine afgrøder bortset fra fersken- og nektarinafgrøderne.
In view of this information it was difficult to imagine that the peach and nectarine crops had been spared the adverse weather conditions that had affected the entire holding and that, as a corollary, a farmer whose entire holding had been affected could have received aid for all his crops except peaches and nectarines.
For det femte tvivlede Kommissionen på, at metoden til beregning af støtten var korrekt.
The fifth factor which led the Commission to doubt the compatibility of the aid with the common market was the appropriateness of the method of calculating the aid.
Til beregning af støttebeløbet (0,092 EUR pr. kg) havde de italienske myndigheder således udelukkende anvendt markedets gennemsnitspriser i september 2002 for friske emballerede produkter (0,50 EUR pr. kg for nektariner og 0,45 EUR pr. kg for ferskner) og ikke gennemsnitspriserne i de tre år forud for begivenheden, eksklusive ethvert år, hvor der er betalt kompensation som følge af ugunstige vejrforhold, som fastsat i punkt 11.3.2 i rammebestemmelserne.
In order to calculate the amount of aid payable (EUR 0,092 per kilo), the Italian authorities had used only the average market prices in September 2002 for fresh packaged products (EUR 0,5 per kilo for nectarines and EUR 0,45 per kilo for peaches) and not the average prices for the three years preceding that of the event excluding any year in which compensation had been paid as a result of adverse weather conditions, as prescribed in point 11.3.2 of the guidelines.
Ifølge de italienske myndigheder skulle denne metode gøre det muligt at undgå overkompensation af landbrugernes tab, eftersom tabet skyldtes manglende salg af produkterne, og kostprisen på et kg kunne anslås til ca. 50 % af markedsprisen.
According to the Italian authorities this method was to help prevent overcompensation for losses incurred by farmers, given that the loss was due to the failure to sell the products and that the cost price per kilo of product could be estimated at approximately 50 % of the market price.
På grundlag af disse oplysninger har Kommissionen måttet konstatere, at rammebestemmelsernes punkt 11.3.2 ikke var overholdt, og at støtten syntes at have til formål at kompensere for tab, der ikke skyldtes produktionstab, men derimod tab som følge af en ugunstig markedsudvikling.
In view of this information the Commission could only find that point 11.3.2 of the guidelines appeared not to have been observed and conclude that the aid seemed to be intended to compensate for losses that were due not to a loss of production but to the unfavourable development of the market.
Med hensyn til dette spørgsmål har Kommissionen endvidere udtrykt tvivl om, hvorvidt grundlaget for beregningen af støtten var korrekt, eftersom de italienske myndigheder ikke havde givet nærmere oplysninger om nedsættelse af støttebeløbet med de omkostninger, landbrugerne ikke havde haft som følge af de dårlige vejrforhold, og heller ikke om nedsættelse af støttebeløbet med eventuelle beløb, der var modtaget under forsikringsordninger, og med eventuelle direkte støttebeløb, der var udbetalt, skønt punkt 11.3.2 og 11.3.6 i rammebestemmelserne indeholder krav herom.
On this point too, the Commission has expressed doubts about the appropriateness of the basis for calculating the aid because the Italian authorities had not provided any details of deductions for costs not incurred by the farmer owing to the adverse weather or of any amounts received under an insurance policy and of any direct aid received, whereas these reductions are prescribed in points 11.3.2 and 11.3.6 of the guidelines.
Da de italienske myndigheder har anført, at producentorganisationen ville udbetale hele støttebeløbet til landbrugerne, efter at have fratrukket organisationens egne udgifter, har Kommissionen, i mangel af nærmere oplysninger, ikke kunnet afgøre, om de pågældende udgifter, hvis art ikke var oplyst, var overdrevne, og om den støtte, den pågældende producentorganisation havde fået udbetalt, var blevet overført til de pågældende landbrugere i forhold til deres tab.
In addition, since the Italian authorities have indicated that the producer organisation would pay the aid in full to the farmers, after deducting the costs it had incurred, the Commission has been unable, in the absence of fuller details, to determine whether the costs in question, whose nature remained to be specified, were not excessive, and if the aid paid to the producer organisation concerned had been transferred to the latter in proportion to the losses it had incurred.
For det syvende foreligger der formodning om overtrædelse af bestemmelserne om den fælles markedsordning for frugt og grøntsager i forordning (EF) nr. 2200/96.
The seventh factor which led the Commission to doubt the compatibility of the aid with the common market concerned 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.
Eftersom producentorganisationerne i regionen Piemonte allerede havde udtømt muligheden for tilbagekøb som fastsat i den nævnte forordning (jf. betragtning 10), ville ydelse af statsstøtte til tilbagekøb, som indebar overskridelse af de fastsatte muligheder, være i strid med den fælles markedsordning for frugt og grøntsager, hvilket ville have forstyrret fællesmarkedets rette funktion.
Given that the producer organisations in the region of Piedmont had already exhausted the withdrawal possibilities provided for in that Regulation (see recital 10), the grant of State aid for withdrawals that included an overrun of the possibilities set, would have been contrary to the rules governing the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables and would have disturbed the smooth operation of the common market.
Ifølge punkt 3.2 i rammebestemmelserne kan Kommissionen under ingen omstændigheder godkende en støtte, som er uforenelig med de bestemmelser, der regulerer en fælles markedsordning, eller som ville hindre denne i at fungere tilfredsstillende.
According to point 3.2 of the guidelines, the Commission cannot, under any circumstances, approve an aid which is incompatible with the rules governing a common organisation of the market or which would interfere with its proper functioning.
Som følge af utilstrækkelige oplysninger har Kommissionen endelig ikke kunnet kontrollere, om støtten allerede er udbetalt, og om den kan kumuleres med andre støtteordninger med samme formål.
Lastly, the Commission has been unable, in the absence of adequate information, to determine whether the aid had already been paid and whether it could be aggregated with other aids with the same objectives.
KOMMENTARER FRA ITALIEN
COMMENTS BY ITALY
Ved brev af 16. januar 2004, registreret den 19. januar 2004, sendte Italiens Faste Repræsentation ved EU Kommissionen et brev fra de italienske myndigheder med disses kommentarer til indledningen af proceduren i traktatens artikel 88, stk. 2, i anledning af den pågældende støtte.
By letter dated 16 January 2004, recorded as received on 19 January 2004, the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union forwarded to the Commission a letter from the Italian authorities in which the latter submitted their comments on the aid concerned following the initiation of the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty.
Hvad angår nedsættelsen af støttebeløbet med de omkostninger, landbrugeren ikke har haft (jf. betragtning 17), understreger de italienske myndigheder, at da det ikke drejer sig om et problem med manglende produktion, var alle dyrkningsfaserne bragt til ende og de hertil knyttede omkostninger afholdt.
With regard to the deduction of costs not incurred by the farmer (see recital 17 above), the Italian authorities have stressed that since the problem was not one of non-production, all the stages of cultivation had been completed and their costs had been incurred.
Hvad endelig angår overholdelsen af punkt 11.3.8 i rammebestemmelserne (jf. betragtning 18), har de italienske myndigheder erklæret, at medlemmerne af producentorganisationen skulle fordele støtten i forhold til modtagernes tab (beregnet efter den leverede mængde), og at de ville have sørget for, at den del af støtten, som gik til producentorganisationen selv, udelukkende skulle bruges til at dække dennes basisomkostninger.
Lastly, with regard to compliance with point 11.3.8 of the guidelines (see recital 18 ), the Italian authorities said that the aid would be allocated in relation to the loss incurred (determined on the basis of the quantity delivered) by the members of the producer organisation, and that they would have seen to it that the share of the aid retained by the producer organisation was intended to cover solely the costs it had incurred.
Brevet af 16. januar 2004 fra Italiens Faste Repræsentation ved EU indeholder endvidere en reaktion fra den producentorganisation, som ville kunne få del i støtten (Asprofrut).
The letter sent on 16 January 2004 by the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union also contains the reactions of the producer organisation which could have qualified for the aid (Asprofrut).
Denne erklærer, at produktionsåret 2002 var meget vanskeligt, navnlig på grund af vejrforholdene i regionen i august måned og det dårlige vejr i samme tidsrum i de centraleuropæiske lande, som sædvanligvis er blandt dens kunder.
The latter states that 2002 was a particularly difficult year, mainly on account of the weather conditions in the region in August and the storms that affected the countries of central Europe at the same time which are among its usual clients.
Den understreger, at den havde anmodet regionen om, og fået tilkendt, tilbagekøb fra markedet af et produkt, som ikke var skadet som følge af haglbyger, og som opfyldte Fællesskabets handelsnormer, selv om produktet var nedklassificeret til industriprodukt på grund af den forringelse af produktet, der var sket mellem anmodningen om tilbagekøb og påbegyndelsen heraf.
It emphasised that it had applied to the Region, and had been authorised, to withdraw from the market a product that was not damaged by hail, and in compliance with Community marketing rules, although it had been regraded as an industrial product on account of the deterioration that had occurred between the date of submission of the application for withdrawal and the start of the actual withdrawal operations.
I henhold til traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, er statsstøtte eller støtte, som ydes ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, uforenelig med fællesmarkedet i det omfang, den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
According to Article 87(1) of the Treaty, any aid granted by States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market.
Den her omhandlede foranstaltning svarer til denne definition, da den begunstiger visse produktioner og vil kunne påvirke samhandelen, i betragtning af Italiens stilling i den pågældende produktion (i 2001 var Italien den næststørste producent af ferskner og den største producent af nektariner i EU).
The measure under consideration corresponds to this definition in that it concerns certain types of production and may affect trade by virtue of the position Italy occupies in relation to the products in question (in 2001 Italy was the Union’s second largest producer of peaches and largest producer of nectarines).
I de i traktatens artikel 87, stk. 2 og 3, omhandlede tilfælde kan visse foranstaltninger imidlertid undtagelsesvist anses for at være forenelige med fællesmarkedet.
However, in the cases provided for in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty, certain measures may be considered, as an exception, to be compatible with the common market.
I det foreliggende tilfælde havde de italienske myndigheder forklaret, at skaderne på de pågældende produkter skyldtes ugunstige vejrforhold.
In the case under consideration, the Italian authorities had explained that the damage to the products in question had been caused by adverse weather conditions.
Som nævnt i betragtning 12 havde Kommissionen af brevvekslingen med de italienske myndigheder fået det indtryk, at krisesituationen ikke skyldtes vejrforholdene, men snarere den ugunstige markedssituation, dvs. en faktor, som hører til de normale risici ved landbrugsaktiviteter.
As indicated in recital 12, during the exchange of correspondence with the Italian authorities the Commission had come round to the view that the event responsible for the difficult situation was not a meteorological event but the unfavourable development of the market, in other words, a factor that fell within the normal risks associated with farming.
De kommentarer, som de italienske myndigheder har fremsendt efter indledningen af proceduren i traktatens artikel 88, stk. 2, har ikke indeholdt oplysninger, der svækker dette indtryk. Tværtimod må Kommissionen fortsat tvivle på sammenhængen mellem tilbagekøbet fra markedet, der ledsagede støtten, og et produktionstab som følge af dårlige vejrforhold.
The comments from the Italian authorities following the initiation of the procedure under the former Article 88(2) of the Treaty did not provide any information making it possible to consider this idea less convincing.
Her henviser den til oplysningerne fra de italienske myndigheder, hvoraf det fremgår, at alle dyrkningsfaserne var bragt til ende, eftersom krisen ikke skyldtes et problem med manglende produktion, og navnlig til forklaringerne fra organisationen Asprofrut, som erklærer, at den havde anmodet regionen om, og fået tilkendt, tilbagekøb fra markedet af et produkt, som ikke var beskadiget af haglbygerne, og som opfyldte Fællesskabets handelsnormer, også selv om produktet var nedklassificeret til industriprodukt som følge af den forringelse heraf, der var sket mellem datoen for anmodningen om tilbagekøb og påbegyndelsen heraf (jf. betragtning 22 og 25).
On the contrary, with reference to the information from the Italian authorities which states that, since the difficult situation was not due to a problem of non-production, all stages of cultivation had been completed, and above all the explanations from the Asprofrut organisation, which says that it applied to the Region, and was authorised, to withdraw from the market a product that was not damaged by hail and in compliance with the Community marketing rules, although it had been regraded as an industrial product on account of the deterioration that had occurred between the date of submission of the application for withdrawal and the start of the actual withdrawal operations (see recitals 22 and 25), the Commission can only remain doubtful about the link between the withdrawal operation that accompanied the aid and a loss of production due to adverse weather conditions.
Støtteforanstaltningen synes snarere at hænge sammen med en ugunstig markedsudvikling, med andre ord en begivenhed, som hører til de normale risici ved landbrugsaktiviteter.
The measure appears to be linked more to the unfavourable development of the market, in other words, to an event falling within the normal risks associated with farming.
Hvad angår den tvivl, der gives udtryk for i betragtning 13, 14 og 15 vedrørende metoden til beregning af tabene, kan Kommissionen ikke finde noget i de italienske myndigheders bemærkninger, der kan tjene til hverken at retfærdiggøre anvendelsen af en tabsberegningsmetode baseret på omsætningen snarere end på produktionen eller valget af referenceår, også selv om Kommissionen, uden hensyntagen til betragtningerne i betragtning 30, fulgte samme fremgangsmåde som de italienske myndigheder med hensyn til kompensation for tab som følge af naturkatastrofer.
With regard to the doubts set out in recitals 13, 14 and 15, all of which concern the appropriateness of the method of calculating the losses, the Commission, even if it were to adopt the approach taken by the Italian authorities of compensating for losses caused by natural disasters without taking account of the considerations set out in recital 30, could not find in the comments of those authorities any information that enables it to glimpse a justification for the use of a method of calculating losses that is based on turnover instead of production, or for the choice of reference years.
Kommissionen mærker sig endvidere, at de italienske myndigheder i brevet af 16. januar 2004 ikke havde givet nogen begrundelse for valget af referenceår for beregning af tabet, og at de heller ikke havde forklaret, hvordan et produktionstab på 20 % og 30 % var muligt, samtidig med at overslagene over regionens produktion for 2002 viste, at produktionen ville blive større end i de tre år, der var anvendt som referencegrundlag for tabsberegningen.
The Commission notes also that in their letter of 16 January 2004 the Italian authorities gave no justification for the choice of reference years used for calculating the loss and no reply to the question how a loss of production of 20 or 30 % was possible, while the estimates of production for the region showed, for 2002, a production higher than that for the three years used as a reference for the calculation of the losses.
Uden disse oplysninger er Kommissionen stadig uvidende om, hvorfor de italienske myndigheder som referencegrundlag har anvendt år, hvor visse producenter af ferskner og nektariner — som de selv erkender — havde modtaget rentegodtgørelser for lån, der var ydet til kompensation for tab som følge af dårlige vejrforhold, og som svarede til mindst 35 % af den salgbare bruttoproduktion (som nævnt i betragtning 15, er det vanskeligt at forestille sig, at fersken- og nektarinafgrøderne skulle være skånet for dårlig vejr, som har ramt bedriften som helhed, og at en landbruger, hvis bedrift er blevet ramt i sin helhed, har kunnet modtage støtte for alle sine afgrøder, bortset fra ferskner og nektariner).
In the absence of this information the Commission still does not know why the Italian authorities used, as a point of reference, years during which, by their own admission, certain holdings producing peaches and nectarines had obtained interest subsidies on loans granted to compensate for damage caused by adverse weather conditions and representing at least 35 % of the gross production that could be marketed (as stated in recital 15, it is difficult to imagine that crops of peaches and nectarines could have been spared the bad weather that affected the whole of a holding and that, as a corollary, a farmer whose entire holding was affected could have received aid for all his crops except peaches and nectarines).
Kommissionen er endvidere ikke klar over, hvordan de italienske myndigheder har kunnet retfærdiggøre et tab på 20 % eller 30 % med dårlige vejrforhold, mens det — ud over den kendsgerning, at produktionsoverslagene for 2002 var gunstigere end tallene for de tre år, der var anvendt som beregningsgrundlag — af bemærkningerne fra organisationen Asprofrut fremgår, at de tilbagekøbte produkter ikke var skadet af hagl, men var nedklassificeret til industriprodukt som følge af den forringelse, der var sket mellem datoen for anmodningen om tilbagekøb og påbegyndelsen heraf (jf. betragtning 31).
The Commission does not understand either how the Italian authorities could justify a loss of 20 or 30 % on the grounds of adverse weather conditions while, apart from the fact that the production estimates for 2002 appeared more favourable than the figures for the three previous years used as a reference, it is clear from the comments of Asprofrut that the products withdrawn had not been damaged by hail but had been regraded as industrial products on account of the deterioration that had occurred between the date the application for withdrawal was submitted and the start of the actual withdrawal operations (see recital 31).
På denne baggrund ville Kommissionen — også selv om den havde kunnet acceptere de italienske myndigheders fremgangsmåde, hvad angår kompensation for tab som følge af naturkatastrofer — ikke desto mindre fortsat have sat spørgsmålstegn ved metoden til beregning af den tabstærskel, der udløste retten til støtte, ved overskridelsen af denne tærskel og ved fersken- og nektarinproducenternes adgang til støtte i henhold til punkt 11.3 i rammebestemmelserne.
In this situation, even if the Commission had been able to consider the approach to compensating for losses due to natural disasters taken by the Italian authorities to be valid, it would in any case have continued to doubt the appropriateness of the arrangements for calculating the loss threshold triggering entitlement to the aid, of the overrun of that threshold and of the eligibility of the peach and nectarine producers for aid under point 11.3 of the guidelines.
Anvendelsen af omsætningen (dvs. en parameter, der klart følger efter den klimatiske begivenhed) understøtter kun konstateringen i betragtning 30, nemlig at tilbagekøbsforanstaltningen, som ledsagede støtten, snarere synes at skyldes ugunstige markedsforhold, dvs. en begivenhed, der hører til de normale risici ved udøvelsen af landbrugsaktiviteter.
In effect, the use of turnover (in other words, a factor involved distinctly downstream of weather conditions) only reinforces the finding in recital 30, namely that the withdrawal measure that accompanied the aid appears to be linked more to the unfavourable development of the market, i.e. to an event that falls within the normal risks associated with farming.
Hvad angår tvivlsspørgsmålene i betragtning 16 vedrørende metoden til beregning af støtten, erkender de italienske myndigheder i brevet af 16. januar 2004, at deres beregningsmetode var ukorrekt, inden de understreger, at de fremlagte tal burde vise Kommissionen, at der ikke kunne være tale om overkompensation af tabene.
With regard to the doubts set out in recital 16, concerning the appropriateness of the method of calculation of the aid, the Italian authorities in their letter of 16 January 2004, themselves acknowledged that it was inappropriate before underlining that the figures provided should make it possible for the Commission to find that there could be no overcompensation for the loss incurred.
Selv om Kommissionen havde kunnet acceptere de italienske myndigheders fremgangsmåde, hvad angår kompensation for tab som følge af naturkatastrofer, ville den heller ikke i dette tilfælde, i betragtning af den erkendte mangel ved beregningsmetoden, kunne have undladt at sætte spørgsmålstegn ved den påtænkte støttes forenelighed med fællesmarkedet.
Again, in this case, if the Commission had been able to consider the approach to compensating for losses due to natural disasters taken by the Italian authorities to be valid, faced with the acknowledged inappropriateness of the method of calculation it could only doubt the compatibility of the proposed aid with the common market.