natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This is the date from which MOL was de facto relieved of the burden of higher fees and consequently favoured over its competitors.
See on kuupäev, millest alates MOL tegelikult vabanes kohustusest maksta suuremat tasu ja järelikult sai konkurentide ees eelise.
The amount to be recovered is HUF 28444,7 million for 2008 and HUF 1942,1 million for 2009.
Tagastatav summa on 28444,7 miljonit Ungari forintit 2008. aasta eest ja 1942,1 miljonit Ungari forintit 2009. aasta eest.
As regards 2010, in respect of mining fee payments already made, the amount to be recovered needs to be calculated by Hungary, in the same way as for 2008 and 2009, until the measure is abolished,
Seoses 2010. aastal juba tasutud kaevandamistasudega peavad Ungari ametiasutused kuni meetme tühistamiseni arvutama sissenõutava summa samamoodi nagu 2008. ja 2009. aasta puhul.
The state aid totals HUF 28444,7 million for 2008 and HUF 1942,1 million for 2009.
Riigiabi summa on 28444,7 miljonit Ungari forintit 2008. aasta eest ja 1942,1 miljonit Ungari forintit 2009. aasta eest.
As regards 2010, the amount of aid has to be calculated by Hungary until the measure is abolished.
Ungari arvutab 2010. aasta abisumma suuruse kuni meetme tühistamiseni.
Approximately EUR 76 million at the ECB exchange rate of EUR/HUF 263 on 16 April 2010.
Umbes 76 miljonit eurot 16. aprillil 2010 kehtinud Euroopa Keskpanga euro/Ungari forinti vahetuskursi järgi (1 euro = 263 Ungari forintit).
In this Decision all EUR/HUF conversions have been done at this rate.
Käesolevas otsuses on euro ja Ungari forinti vahelised ümberarvestused tehtud selle vahetuskursiga.
For the sake of consistency with the opening decision, the amendment of the Mining Act which entered into force on 8 January 2008 will continue to be referred to as the ‘2008 amendment’.
Menetluse algatamise otsuses viidatakse kõnealusele muudatusele kui „2008. aasta muudatusele”. Ungari ametiasutused nentisid oma märkustes, et parlament kiitis kõnealuse muudatuse heaks 2007. aastal.
In the same vein, the amendment that entered into force on 23 January 2009 will be referred to as the ‘2009 amendment’.
Lähtudes menetluse algatamise otsusest, viidatakse kaevandamisseaduse muudatusele, mis jõustus 8. jaanuaril 2008. aastal, ka edaspidi kui „2008. aasta muudatusele”.
évi XLVIII. Törvény a bányászatról (Act No XLVIII of 1993 on Mining).
aasta seadus nr XLVIII kaevandamise kohta
Almost the entire territory of Hungary is defined as 107(3)(a) regions, with the exception of Budapest and Pest county, which are 107(3)(c) regions.
Artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti a piirkonnaks on määratud peaaegu kogu Ungari territoorium, välja arvatud Budapest ja Pesti komitaat, mis on artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti c piirkonnad.
Member States’ legal systems generally attribute control over mineral resources to the public authorities [42]. Therefore, the decision to allow a company to exploit mineral resources, in the form the Member State chooses and against payment of certain fees, is, by reason of its nature and rules, a matter for the public authorities and can be categorised as the exercise of public authority powers. Hungary’s intervention in making mining activity subject to administrative supervision serves the general interest and not commercial ones. This behaviour must therefore be considered a form of state intervention by a public authority not akin to the behaviour of a private investor in a market economy [43].
Seetõttu tuleb sellist tegevust käsitada riigipoolse sekkumisena, mitte erainvestori turumajandusliku tegevusena [42].
(hereinafter ‘Regional Aid Guidelines’) Under the Regional Aid Guidelines, state aid can in principle be authorised only for investment costs [53]. As already mentioned above, the aid at issue cannot be regarded as investment aid. As far as operating aid is concerned, the measure does not facilitate the development of any activities or economic areas and it is not limited in time, degressive or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy specific economic handicaps [54].
Seoses tegevusabiga ei soodusta meede ühegi tegevuse või majanduspiirkonna arengut ja see ei ole ajaliselt piiratud, järk-järgult vähenev ega proportsionaalne määral, mis oleks vajalik konkreetse majandusliku mahajäämuse kõrvaldamiseks [53].
However, a person may not plead infringement of the principle unless he or she has been given precise assurances by the administrative body [57]. In the present case, MOL has not been given any assurance by an authority of the EU which could justify a legitimate expectation.
Käesoleval juhul ei ole ELi institutsioon andnud MOLile tagatisi, mis õigustaksid õiguspärast ootust.
In this context, the Court has established that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid has been restored [61]. (114) Following that case-law, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 [62] laid down that ‘where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.’.
Kõnealusest kohtupraktikast tulenevalt on nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 659/99 [61] artiklis 14 sätestatud: „Kui ebaseadusliku abi korral tehakse negatiivne otsus, nõuab komisjon, et kõnealune liikmesriik peab võtma kõik vajalikud meetmed, et abisaajalt abi tagasi saada”.
See Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04 Government of Gibraltar v Commission [2008] ECR II-3745 stating that ‘in order to determine whether the measure at issue is selective it is appropriate to examine whether, within the context of a particular legal regime, that measure constitutes an advantage for certain undertakings in comparison with others which are in a comparable legal and factual situation. The determination of the reference framework has a particular importance in the case of tax measures, since the very existence of an advantage may be established only when compared with “normal” taxation ’.
Esimese Astme Kohtu 6. märtsi 2002. aasta otsus liidetud kohtuasjades T-92/00 ja T-103/00: Ramondin (EKL 2002, lk II-1385, punktid 32–35).
Hungary compares the authorisation of mining activities with rental fees requested for communal housing, in a case in which the State can also act as a private operator. This comparison, however, is not accurate, because authorisation of mining activity, contrary to the leasing of housing, cannot be originally exercised by a private actor. In this respect, the activity of granting administrative mining authorisations is more akin to other administrative authorisations typically granted by public authorities, such as for example authorisations for use of public domain. [42] This reality is recognised in Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3) which, for instance, considers that ‘Member States have sovereignty and sovereign rights over hydrocarbon resources on their territories’.
Seda tõsiasja tõdetakse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 30. mai 1994. aasta direktiivis 94/22 süsivesinike geoloogilise luure, uurimise ja tootmise lubade andmis- ning kasutamistingimuste kohta (EÜT L 164, 30.6.1994, lk 3), kus on sätestatud näiteks, et „liikmesriigid on suveräänsed ja neil on suveräänsed õigused oma territooriumil asuvate süsivesinikevarude suhtes”.
For reasons of simplification the mining fee applicable from the 5th year is indicated.Note: In the columns referring to the 2008 and 2009 amendments, the white fields refer to the categories of mining fields where in effect MOL paid more under the extension agreement than under the Mining Act. The fields shaded in dark grey represent the types of fields where MOL pays less under the agreement in any case, regardless of the crude oil price. The fields shaded in light grey represent the types of fields where MOL may pay less under the agreement, depending on the crude oil price.
Tegur „J” arvutatakse valemi abil, mis põhineb ajaloolistel maagaasihindadel, toodetud kogustel ja väärtusel.
Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05 France v Commission and France Telecom v Commission, not yet published, point 207. [51] Regional aid map of Hungary approved by the Commission on 13 September 2006 and published in OJ C 256 of 2006.
Ungari regionaalabi kaart, mille komisjon kiitis heaks 13. septembril 2006. aastal ja mis avaldati Euroopa Liidu Teatajas (ELT C 256, 2006).
Section 5 of Regional Aid Guidelines allows operating aid under strict conditions. Moreover, the measure is ad hoc aid. In this regard, the Guidelines state that ‘Where, exceptionally, it is envisaged to grant individual ad hoc aid to a single firm, or aid confined to one area of activity, it is the responsibility of the Member State to demonstrate that the project contributes towards a coherent regional development strategy and that, having regard to the nature and size of the project, it will not result in unacceptable distortions of competition’. Hungary did not provide any information to demonstrate this.
Euroopa Kohtu 20. septembri 1990. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-5/89: komisjon vs. Saksamaa (EKL 1990, lk I-3437, punkt 14).
OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. [63] Calculated on the basis of the mining fee percentages stipulated in the extension agreement (i.e. 12,24 % for fields put into operation after 1 January 1998 and J % × c for fields put into operation before that date).For details please refer to Table 1.The other components in the extension agreement (the one-off payment made in 2005 and the extension fee; see recital 14) are not included in this amount.
Arvutatud pikendamise lepingus sätestatud kaevandamistasu määra alusel (st 12,24 % suurune määr pärast 1. jaanuari 1998 kasutusele võetud kaevandusväljade eest ja J % × c suurune määr enne seda kuupäeva kasutusele võetud kaevandusväljade eest).Üksikasjade kohta vt tabel 1.Summa ei sisalda muid pikendamise lepingus sätestatud tasukomponente (2005. aastal makstud ühekordne tasu ja tähtaja pikendamise tasu; vt põhjendus 14).
On 22 December 2005 MOL and the minister concluded an extension agreement on the basis of Section 26/A(5) of the Mining Act, on the following terms: (a)
Kui mõni kaevandusväli võeti tegelikult kasutusele, siis tuli määratud tasu kohaldada ülejäänud 15-aastase perioodi jooksul pikendamisega hõlmatud kaevandusväljade eest võetava kaevandamistasuna [22].
Extension fee The twelve mining authorisations subject to the request were extended by 5 years (i.e. MOL would have 5 more years to begin extraction on these fields). The extension fee was stipulated for each of the 5 years of the extension period by using the mining fee of 12 %, which was in force at the time, and a multiplier (‘c’) ranging between 1,020 and 1,050, resulting in the extension fees listed below in Table 1 [21].
Tabel 1
Table 1 Fees stipulated by the extension agreement Year
Kasutamata kaevandusväljade tähtaja pikendamise tasu määr/kõikidele kaevandusväljadele kohaldatav suurendatud tasu määr
(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause) 12 %
(+ 3 % või 6 % Brenti täiendav tasu)
Production started after 1 January 2008 Gas fields with an annual production of less than 300m m3
Maagaasiväljad, kus toodetakse alla 300 miljoni m3 maagaasi aastas
Gas fields with annual production between 300-500m m3 Oil fields with an annual production between 50-200 kt
(+ 3 % või 6 % Brenti täiendav tasu)
(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause) 30 %
(+ 3 % või 6 % Brenti täiendav tasu)
(+ 3 % or 6 % Brent Clause) Hydrocarbons with special mining conditions
Eritingimustes kaevandatavad süsivesinikud
To begin with, it must be recalled that a measure can constitute state aid within the meaning of 107(1) TFEU regardless of its legal form. Even if the extension agreement was concluded in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Mining Act and even if it is up to Hungary to set the mining fee by law, this does not in itself mean that these actions, or their effects, are compatible with EU state aid rules.
Alustuseks tuleb meelde tuletada, et meede võib olla riigiabi ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses selle õiguslikust vormist olenemata Isegi kui pikendamise leping sõlmiti kooskõlas vastavate kaevandamisseaduse sätetega ja isegi kui Ungaril on õigus sätestada kaevandamistasu seadusega, ei tähenda see iseenesest, et kõnealune meede või selle mõju on kooskõlas ELi riigiabieeskirjadega.
Secondly, although the Hungarian authorities claim that there are only competitors who operate or are expected to put into operation smaller fields (i.e. producing less than 500 m3 or 200 kt), the Commission observes that even if such smaller fields were subject to the 12 % category, they will still have to pay the Brent mark-up, whenever applicable. This could lead to a mining fee of up to 18 %.
Teiseks, kuigi Ungari ametiasutused väidavad, et eksisteerivad ainult konkurendid, kes kaevandavad või eeldatavasti hakkavad kaevandama väiksematel kaevandusväljadel (st toodavad vähem kui 500 m3 või 200 kilotonni maagaasi), märgib komisjon, et kuigi need väiksemad kaevandusväljad kuuluvad 12 % kategooriasse, tuleb nende puhul ikkagi vajaduse korral maksta Brenti täiendavat tasu.
This amendment was referred to in the opening decision as the ‘2008 amendment’. The Hungarian authorities pointed out in their submission that this amendment was approved by the Parliament in 2007.
seadus nr CXXXIII.
of 8 February 2011
8. veebruar 2011,
concerning a financial contribution by the Union to the Netherlands for studies on Q fever
milles käsitletakse Euroopa Liidu rahalist toetust Madalmaadele Q-palaviku alaste uuringute jaoks
Having regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field [1], and in particular Article 23 thereof,
võttes arvesse nõukogu 25. mai 2009. aasta otsust 2009/470/EÜ kulutuste kohta veterinaaria valdkonnas, [1] eriti selle artiklit 23,
In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the budget of the European Union shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.
Kooskõlas finantsmääruse artikliga 75 ja rakenduseeskirjade artikli 90 lõikega 1 eelneb Euroopa Liidu eelarvest kulukohustuse võtmisele rahastamisotsus, milles sätestatakse sellise meetme olulised osad, millega kaasneb kulude rahastamine eelarvest; rahastamisotsuse teeb institutsioon või asutus, kelle institutsioon on selleks volitanud.
Q fever is a highly contagious zoonotic disease caused by pathogen Coxiella burnetii which is commonly present in almost all countries worldwide.
Q-palavik on väga nakkav zoonootiline haigus, mida põhjustab patogeen Coxiella burnetii ja mida esineb peaaegu kõigis maailma riikides.
Many domesticated and wild animals can be carriers of the disease but cattle, goats and sheep are the main reservoirs.
Haiguse edasikandjad võivad olla paljud kodu- ja metsloomad, kuid peamised allikad on veised, kitsed ja lambad.
In the EU, there are no harmonised rules as regards notification or control of Q fever in animals.
ELis ei ole ühtlustatud eeskirju loomade Q-palavikust teatamise ja selle tõrje kohta.
Disease control measures are normally taken on national, regional or even farm level.
Tauditõrjemeetmed võetakse üldiselt riiklikul, piirkondlikul või isegi põllumajandusettevõtete tasandil.
According to the EFSA opinion of 27 April 2010 [4], the overall impact of Q fever on the health of humans and domestic ruminants in EU Member States is limited.
Vastavalt toiduohutusameti 27. aprilli 2010. aasta arvamusele [4] on Q-palaviku üldine mõju inimeste ja kodumäletsejaliste tervisele ELi liikmesriikides piiratud.
However, in certain epidemiological circumstances and for particular risk groups the public health impact and thereby also the impact on society and/or the economy can be significant.
Siiski võib teatavas epidemioloogilises olukorras ja konkreetsete riskirühmade puhul olla mõju rahva tervisele ja seega ka mõju ühiskonnale ja/või majandusele märkimisväärne.
In the years 2008 and 2009, a major increase of human cases of Q fever was observed in the Netherlands, with several human deaths.
Aastatel 2008 ja 2009 täheldati Madalmaades inimeste Q-palavikku nakatumise olulist kasvu ning haigusse on surnud mitu inimest.
The epidemiological investigations indicated a link with large dairy goat holdings in the area, where this particular type of milk production has developed rapidly over the past decade.
Epidemioloogilised uuringud näitasid seost suurte lüpsikitsede kasvatusettevõtetega selles piirkonnas, kus viimasel aastakümnel on kiiresti arenenud just seda tüüpi piima tootmine.
However, the abovementioned EFSA opinion highlighted that the precise reasons for the emergence of clinical problems in the animal population in 2005, and the increase of cases in the human population in 2007 are still unclear.
Siiski toodi eespool nimetatud toiduohutusameti arvamuses esile, et täpsed põhjused, miks ilmnesid kliinilised probleemid loomadel 2005. aastal ja miks suurenes inimeste nakatumine 2007. aastal, ei ole veel selged.
On 24 March 2010, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality submitted a request for co-financing in the framework of Decision 2009/470/EC for technical and scientific studies on disease dynamics and the effectiveness of possible control measures applicable to domestic ruminants, such as vaccination of goats.
märtsil 2010 esitas Madalmaade põllumajanduse, looduse ja toidukvaliteedi ministeerium otsuse 2009/470/EÜ raames kaasrahastamise taotluse tehniliste ja teaduslike uuringute läbiviimiseks haiguse dünaamika ning kodumäletsejaliste suhtes kohaldatavate võimalike tõrjemeetmete (nt kitsede vaktsineerimine) tõhususe kohta.
The studies for which the Netherlands has requested co financing for will address among other things the following topics: (i) characterisation of the different genotypes of Coxiella burnetii that exist in different animal species in the Netherlands and their difference in virulence, if any; (ii) pathogenicity of Coxiella burnetii in pregnant and non-pregnant goats; (iii) the survival of Coxiella burnetii in manure; and (iv) suitable means of disinfection.
Uuringud, mille läbiviimiseks Madalmaad kaasrahastamist taotlesid, käsitlevad muu hulgas järgmiseid teemasid: i) Madalmaades eri loomaliikidel esinevate Coxiella burnetii eri genotüüpide iseloomustus ja nende virulentsuse erinevus, ii) Coxiella burnetii patogeensus tiinete ja mittetiinete kitsede puhul, iii) Coxiella burnetii säilimine sõnnikus ja iv) sobivad desinfitseerimisvahendid.
Pursuant to Article 22 of Decision 2009/470/EC, the Union may undertake, or assist the Member States or international organisations in undertaking, the technical and scientific measures necessary for the development of EU veterinary legislation and for the development of veterinary education or training.
Vastavalt otsuse 2009/470/EÜ artiklile 22 võib liit võtta või aidata liikmesriikidel või rahvusvahelistel organisatsioonidel võtta tehnilisi ja teaduslikke meetmeid, mis on vajalikud liidu veterinaaria valdkonna õigusaktide täiendamiseks ning veterinaariahariduse või -koolituse arendamiseks.
A financial contribution should be granted to the studies on Q fever in the Netherlands as the outcomes may lead to new insights that may contribute to possible future development of veterinary legislation in the Union, in particular as regards the possible adoption of harmonised rules on monitoring and reporting of this disease.
Q-palaviku alaseid uuringuid Madalmaades tuleb rahaliselt toetada, kuna nende tulemused võivada aidata kaasa liidu veterinaaria valdkonna õigusaktide edasisele täiendamisele, eelkõige seoses haiguse seire ja sellest teatamise ühtlustatud eeskirjade võimaliku vastuvõtmisega.
Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy [5], veterinary measures are to be financed under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund.
Nõukogu 21. juuni 2005. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 1290/2005 (põllumajanduspoliitika rahastamise kohta) [5] kohaselt tuleb veterinaarmeetmeid rahastada Euroopa Põllumajanduse Tagatisfondist.
For financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of that Regulation are to apply.
Finantskontrolli läbiviimise eesmärgil kohaldatakse kõnealuse määruse artikleid 9, 36 ja 37.
The payment of the financial contribution must be subject to the condition that the studies planned have actually been carried out and that the authorities supply all the necessary information to the Commission.
Rahaline toetus makstakse välja tingimusel, et kavandatud uuringud on tegelikult ellu viidud ja ametiasutused on esitanud komisjonile kogu vajaliku teabe.
The Union shall grant the Netherlands financial assistance for their studies on Q fever, as summarised in the Annex.
Euroopa Liit annab Madalmaadele rahalist toetust Q-palaviku alasteks uuringuteks, mis on kokkuvõtlikult esitatud lisas.
The present Decision constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.
Käesolev otsus kujutab endast rahastamisotsust finantsmääruse artikli 75 tähenduses.
The following conditions must be fulfilled:
Täidetud peavad olema järgmised tingimused:
the outcomes of the studies must be made available to the Commission and all Member States and presented at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health;
uuringute tulemused tuleb teha kättesaadavaks komisjonile ja kõigile liikmesriikidele ning esitada toiduahela ja loomatervishoiu alalisele komiteele;
the Netherlands must forward a final technical and financial report to the Commission on 31 March 2012 at the latest, the financial report accompanied by supporting documents justifying evidence as to the costs incurred and the results attained.
Madalmaad peavad esitama komisjonile tehnilise ja finantsaruande hiljemalt 31. märtsiks 2012. aastal ning koos finantsaruandega tuleb esitada tehtud kulutusi ja saadud tulemusi tõendavad dokumendid.
The maximum contribution authorised by this Decision for the costs incurred for the work referred to in Article 1(1) is set at EUR 500000 to be financed from the following Budgetary Line of the General Budget of the European Union for 2011:
Artikli 1 lõikes 1 osutatud tööde teostamiseks käesoleva otsusega ette nähtud toetuse maksimummäär on 500000 eurot, mida rahastatakse Euroopa ühenduste 2011. aasta üldeelarve järgmisest eelarvereast:
Budgetary Line No 17 04 02 01: EUR 500000.
eelarverida nr 17 04 02 01: 500000 eurot.
The Union’s financial assistance shall be paid following presentation of the reports and supporting documents referred to Article 1(2)(b).
Liidu rahaline toetus makstakse välja pärast artikli 1 lõike 2 punktis b osutatud aruannete ja tõendavate dokumentide esitamist.
Done at Brussels, 8 February 2011.
Brüssel, 8. veebruar 2011
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Scientific Opinion on Q Fever.
Euroopa Toiduohutusameti loomatervishoiu ja loomade heaolu komisjon (AHAW); Scientific Opinion on Q Fever.
[114 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.159.
[lk 114]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.159.
Description of the technical and scientific studies on the epidemiology of Q fever and the effectiveness of possible control measures applicable to domestic ruminants, referred to in Article 1(1)
Artikli 1 lõikes 1 osutatud Q-palaviku epidemioloogiat ning võimalike kodumäletsejaliste suhtes kohaldatavate tõrjemeetmete tõhusust käsitlevate tehniliste ja teaduslike uuringute kirjeldus
Project 1 ‘Q fever in goats’ involves the cultivation of C. burnetii and the characterisation of C. burnetii of the different genotypes that exist in the Netherlands.
Projekt 1 „Q-palavik kitsedel” hõlmab bakteri C. burnetii kasvatamist ja Madalmaades leiduvate C. burnetii eri genotüüpide iseloomustamist.