natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Save as otherwise provided in regulations made pursuant to Article [89] of the Treaty or to other relevant provisions thereof, any plans to grant new aid shall be notified to the Commission in sufficient time by the Member State concerned.
Kui vastavalt asutamislepingu artiklile [89] või muudele asjakohastele sätetele koostatud määrustes ei ole sätestatud teisiti, teatab kõnealune liikmesriik kõikidest uue abi andmise plaanidest komisjonile piisavalt aegsasti.
In a notification, the Member State concerned shall provide all necessary information in order to enable the Commission to take a decision pursuant to Articles 4 and 7 (hereinafter referred to as “complete notification”).’
Teatises annab kõnealune liikmesriik kogu vajaliku teabe, et komisjon saaks teha otsuse vastavalt artiklitele 4 ja 7 (edaspidi „lõplik teatis”).”
Article 4(2) to (4) of Regulation No 659/1999 provides:
Määruse nr 659/1999 artikli 4 lõigetes 2–4 on ette nähtud:
Where the Commission, after a preliminary examination, finds that no doubts are raised as to the compatibility with the common market of a notified measure, in so far as it falls within the scope of Article [87](1) of the Treaty, it shall decide that the measure is compatible with the common market (hereinafter referred to as a “decision not to raise objections”).
Kui komisjon pärast esialgset uurimist leiab, et teatatud meetme ühisturuga kokkusobivuse kohta ei ole ilmnenud mingeid kahtlusi, kuivõrd see jääb asutamislepingu artikli [87] lõike 1 reguleerimisalasse, otsustab ta, et nimetatud meede sobib ühisturuga kokku (edaspidi „vastuväidete esitamata jätmise otsus”).
The decision shall specify which exception under the Treaty has been applied.
Otsuses tuleb täpsustada, millist asutamislepingu erandit on kohaldatud.
Where the Commission, after a preliminary examination, finds that doubts are raised as to the compatibility with the common market of a notified measure, it shall decide to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article [88](2) of the Treaty (hereinafter referred to as a “decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure”).’
Kui komisjon pärast esialgset uurimist leiab, et teatatud meetme ühisturuga kokkusobivuse kohta ilmnes kahtlusi, otsustab ta algatada asutamislepingu artikli [88] lõikes 2 ettenähtud menetluse (edaspidi „ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsus”).”
Article 5(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 states: ‘where the Commission considers that information provided by the Member State concerned with regard to a measure notified pursuant to Article 2 is incomplete, it shall request all necessary additional information’.
Määruse nr 659/1999 artikli 5 lõige 1 täpsustab, et „[k]ui komisjon leiab, et kõnealuse liikmesriigi vastavalt artiklile 2 esitatud teave teatatud meetme kohta ei ole täielik, palub ta esitada kogu vajaliku lisateabe.”
The aid schemes for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy authorised until 31 December 1999
Kuni 31. detsembrini 1999 heakskiidetud abikavad investeeringute tegemiseks Itaalia vähem soodsatesse piirkondadesse
By Decreelaw No 415 on the refinancing of Law No 64 of 1 March 1986 laying down provisions governing special intervention measures in the Mezzogiorno (Rifinanziamento della legge 1° marzo 1986, n. 64, recante disciplina organica dell’intervento straordinario nel Mezzogiorno) of 22 October 1992 (GURI no 249 of 22 October 1992, p.
22. oktoobri 1986. aasta dekreetseadusega nr 415, mis puudutab Mezzogiornole antavat erakorralist abi käsitlevaid ühtseid eeskirju sisaldava 1. märtsi 1986. aasta seaduse nr 64 taasrahastamist (Rifinanziamento della legge 1o marzo 1986, n.
On 1 March 1995 and 21 May 1997, the Commission adopted two decisions not to raise objections, initially until 31 December 1996 and then until 31 December 1999, against the successive aid schemes based on Law No 488/1992 and on various provisions implementing that law (State aid Nos N 40/95 and N 27/A/97).
1. märtsil 1995 ja 21. mail 1997 tegi komisjon kaks otsust mitte esitada vastuväiteid seadusel nr 488/1992 ja selle erinevatel rakendussätetel põhinevatele järjestikustele abikavadele esiteks kuni 31. detsembrini 1996, seejärel kuni 31. detsembrini
European Communities on 18 July 1995 in relation to the decision of 1 March 1995 (OJ 1995 C 184, p.
1999 (riigiabid nr N 40/95 ja N 27/A/97).
4) and on 8 August 1997 in relation to the decision of 21 May 1997 (OJ 1997 C 242, p. 4) (‘the 1997 decision’).
Nende otsuste kohta avaldati kokkuvõtlikud teated Euroopa Ühenduste Teatajas 18. juulil 1995 1. märtsi 1995. aasta otsuse suhtes (EÜT 1995, C 184, lk 4) ja 8. augustil 1997 21. mai 1997. aasta otsuse suhtes (EÜT 1997, C 242, lk 4, edaspidi „1997. aasta otsus”).
The detailed rules relating to the aid scheme authorised by the 1997 decision (‘the 1997-1999 aid scheme’) were put in place, first, by resolution of the Comitato interministeriale per la programmazione economica (Inter-departmental committee for economic planning) laying down provisions regulating the award of grants for the purposes of Article 1(2) of Law No 488/1992 (direttive per la concessione di agevolazioni ai sensi dell’art. 1, comma 2, del decreto-legge 22 ottobre 1992, n. 415, convertito nella legge 19 dicembre 1992, n. 488, in tema di disciplina organica dell’intervento straordinario nel Mezzogiorno) of 27 April 1995 (GURI No 142 of 20 June 1995, p.
1997. aasta otsusega heakskiidetud abikava (edaspidi „1997.–1999. aasta abikava”) rakendamise kord kehtestati esiteks Comitato interministeriale per la programmazione economica (ministeeriumidevaheline majandusplaneerimise komitee) 27. aprilli 1995. aasta otsusega (GURI nr 142, 20.6.1995, lk 17), mis kehtestas suunised toetuste andmiseks seaduse nr 488/1992 artikli 1 lõike 2 tähenduses (direttive per la concessione di agevolazioni ai sensi dell’art. 1, comma 2, del decreto-legge 22 ottobre 1992, n. 415, convertito nella legge 19 dicembre 1992, n.
31), and, thirdly, by Circular No 234363 of the MICA of 20 November 1997 (Ordinary Supplement to GURI No 291 of 15 December 1997).
9.1997, lk 31), ning kolmandaks MICA 20. novembri 1997. aasta ringkirjaga nr 234363 (GURI nr 291 regulaarne lisa, 15.12.1997).
Those detailed rules provided in particular, as follows:
See kord näeb muu hulgas ette, et:
— the financial resources for each year were divided in two equal parts and allocated through an invitation to apply; however, on the basis of the funds available in
– iga aasta jaoks ettenähtud rahalised vahendid jagati kahte võrdsesse ossa ja eraldati kahe taotluste esitamise kutse kaudu; samas võis olenevalt vahendite
— the applications submitted under an invitation to apply were examined by banks appointed for that purpose, which awarded a certain number of marks based on regulatory criteria, known as ‘indicatori’ (hereinafter, ‘indicators’);
– taotluste esitamise kutse raames esitatud taotlusi vaatasid läbi pädevad krediidiasutused, kes andsid normatiivsete kriteeriumide alusel nimetusega indicatori (edaspidi „indikaatorid”) taotlustele teatud arvu punkte;
— on the basis of the results of the banks’ investigations, the MICA established regional ranking lists, in which the applications were recorded in descending order by reference to the number of marks awarded and adopted a decree awarding the aid to the applicants, starting with the first on the list, until the funds allocated to the invitation to apply in question were exhausted;
– pankadelt saadud informatsiooni alusel koostas MICA taotluste piirkondlikud pingeread, kus taotlused olid vastavalt saadud punktidele järjestatud alanevas järjekorras, ja võttis vastu dekreedi abi eraldamise kohta taotlejatele alates esimesest taotlejast kuni vastava kutsega seotud rahaliste vahendite ammendumiseni;
— expenditure was eligible provided it was incurred on or after the day following the closing date of the invitation to apply preceding the invitation to which the application referred, except for expenditure on engineers’ reports and on other reports, and for expenditure incurred in connection with the acquisition and development of land belonging to the undertaking, which was eligible with effect from the 12th month preceding the date on which the application was lodged;
– abikõlblikeks kuludeks olid kulud, mis olid tekkinud pärast taotluses viidatud kutsele eelneva kutse tähtpäeva, välja arvatud inseneri- ja muudeks õpinguteks või ettevõtja maa omandamiseks ja arendamiseks tehtud kulutused, mis olid abikõlblikud taotluse esitamise kuupäevale eelnenud 12. kuust alates;
— undertakings whose applications were placed on a regional list but which had been unable to obtain grants because the funds allocated to the invitation to apply in question were less than the total amount of aid applied for, could either resubmit the same project, once only, under the first appropriate invitation to apply immediately following the invitation under which their application had originally been submitted, without amending the information in the application taken into account by the indicators (a procedure known as ‘automatic inclusion’
– ettevõtjad, kelle taotlused kanti piirkondlikku pingeritta, kuid kes toetust ei saanud, kuna kutsele vastavad ressursid olid väiksemad kui taotletud abi kogusumma, võisid kas ühe korra esitada sama projekti uuesti sellele kutsele, mille raames nende taotlus algselt oli esitatud, vahetult järgneva sobiva kutse alusel (taotluse „automaatse ülekandmise” moodus) ilma indikaatorite poolt arvesse võetavaid elemente muutmata, või loobuda automaatsest ülekandmisest ja esitada sama projekti uuesti sellele kutsele, mille raames nende taotlus algselt oli esitatud,
NUOVA AGRICAST of the application), or waive such automatic inclusion and resubmit the same project under the first appropriate invitation to apply following the invitation in respect of which they had waived automatic inclusion, but with amendments to some or all of the indicators in order to make the application more competitive, provided that those amendments did not alter the substance of the project (a procedure known as ‘reformulation’ of the application); in both cases, the conditions applicable to the original applications remained in effect for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the expenditure.
NUOVA AGRICAST järgneva esimese sobiva kutse alusel, muutes taotluse konkurentsivõime suurendamiseks kõiki või osasid indikaatorite poolt arvestatavaid elemente, ilma et projekti olulisi elemente oleks siiski muudetud (taotluse „ülevaatamise” moodus); mõlemal juhul kehtisid kulude abikõlblikkuse suhtes esialgsete taotluste jaoks ette nähtud tingimused.
The guidelines on national regional aid
Regionaalabi suunised
9) (‘the guidelines’). The third subparagraph of point 4.2 of those guidelines provides that ‘aid schemes must lay down that an application for aid must be submitted before work is started on the projects’.
Komisjon avaldas 1998. aastal regionaalabi suunised (EÜT 1998, C 74, lk 9; edaspidi „suunised”), mille punkti 4.2 kolmanda lõigu kohaselt „tuleb abikavas sätestada, et abitaotlus esitatakse enne projekti algust”.
The first subparagraph of point 6.1 of the guidelines states that ‘except for the transitional provisions set out in points 6.2 and 6.3 below, the Commission will assess the compatibility of regional aid with the common market on the basis of these Guidelines as soon as they are applicable’.
Suuniste punkti 6.1 esimene lõik sätestab, et „[k]omisjon hindab piirkondliku abi ja ühisturu kokkusobivust käesoleva juhendi alusel niipea, kui juhend jõustub, välja arvatud punktides 6.2 ja 6.3 sätestatud üleminekusätted.”
The contested decision and the aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy authorised for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2006
Vaidlustatud otsus ja 1. jaanuarist 2000 kuni 31. detsembrini 2006 heakskiidetud abikava investeeringute tegemiseks Itaalia vähem soodsatesse piirkondadesse
On 18 November 1999, the Italian authorities notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 88(3) EC a planned aid scheme which was to be applicable from 1 January 2000 and was based on Law No 488/92. The Commission registered the scheme under number N 715/99.
18. novembril 1999 esitasid Itaalia ametiasutused EÜ artikli 88 lõike 3 alusel komisjonile teate, mille komisjon registreeris numbri N 715/99 all, abikava kohta, mida oli ette nähtud rakendada alates 1. jaanuarist 2000 ja mis põhines seadusel nr 488/1992.
Following a number of exchanges of correspondence and a meeting between representatives of the Italian Government and the Commission, that planned aid scheme was amended by the Italian authorities.
Pärast mitmeid kirju ning Itaalia valitsuse ja komisjoni esindajate kohtumist muutsid Itaalia ametiasutused kõnealust abikava.
By the contested decision, adopted on 12 July 2000 and notified to the Italian Republic by letter SG(2000) D/105754 of 2 August 2000, the Commission decided not to object to that aid scheme for the period until 31 December 2006 (‘the 20002006 aid scheme’).
Vaidlustatud otsusega, mis võeti vastu 12. juulil 2000 ja millest Itaalia Vabariigile teatati 2. augusti 2000. aasta kirjaga SG(2000) D/105754, otsustas komisjon sellele abikavale vastuväiteid mitte esitada kuni 31. detsembrini 2006 (edaspidi „2000.–2006. aasta abikava”).
The contested decision contains a transitional provision designed to give express approval of the measures comprised in that aid scheme which provide for a transition with the 1997-1999 aid scheme (‘the transitional provision’).
Vaidlustatud otsuses on säte, mille spetsiifiline eesmärk on kiita heaks abikavas sisalduvad meetmed, mis tagavad ülemineku 1997.–1999. aasta abikavalt (edaspidi „üleminekusäte”).
That provision states:
See säte on sõnastatud järgmiselt:
‘Only on the occasion of the first implementation of the scheme in question, that is to say on the occasion of the first invitation to apply to be organised on the basis of that scheme, it being understood that applications for aid must in any case be submitted before work is started on the investment project, applications submitted under the last invitation to apply organised under [the 1997-1999 aid scheme] which were considered eligible for aid but in respect of which no aid was granted because insufficient funds were allocated to that invitation, will exceptionally be eligible.’
„Taotlusi, mis esitati [1997.–1999. aasta abikava] raames avaldatud viimase kutse alusel ja mis tunnistati abi saamiseks sobivateks, kuid millele selle kutse jaoks eraldatud rahaliste vahendite vähesuse tõttu abi ei antud, peetakse erandkorras abikõlblikeks vaid käesoleva kava esmakordsel rakendamisel, see tähendab selle kava alusel korraldatud esimese kutse raames ja tingimusel, et abitaotlused on igal juhul esitatud enne investeerimisprojekti elluviimise alustamist.”
Following that decision, the MICA adopted the Decree specifying the maximum limits for grants to promote productive activities in the less-favoured regions of the country referred to in Law No 488/1992 for the regions of Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Apulia, Sardinia and Sicily (misure massime consentite relative alle agevolazioni in favore delle attività produttive nelle aree depresse del Paese di cui alla legge n. 488/1992 per le regioni Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Puglia, Sardegna
Pärast seda otsust võttis MICA vastu 14. juuli 2000. aasta dekreedi (GURI nr 166, 18.7.2000, lk 9), mis täpsustas seaduses nr 488/1992 viidatud riigi vähem soodsates piirkondades arendatava tootmistegevuse jaoks ette nähtud toetuste maksimaalseid lubatud summasid Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Apuulia, Sardiinia ja Sitsiilia piirkondade jaoks (misure massime consentite relative alle agevolazioni in favore delle attività produttive nelle aree depresse del Paese di cui alla legge n. 488/1992 per le regioni Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Puglia, Sardegna e Sicilia), ja 14. juuli
9), and Circular No 9003 of 14 July 2000 (Ordinary Supplement to GURI No 175 of 28 July 2000), for the purpose of laying down the detailed rules for implementing the 20002006 aid scheme.
2000. aasta ringkirja nr 9003 (GURI nr 175 regulaarne lisa, 28.7.2000), et täpsustada 2000.–2006. aasta abikava rakendamise korda.
The first subparagraph of the second paragraph of the sole article to that decree provides that aid may be granted ‘on the basis … of the expenditure held to be eligible under programmes relating to the last appropriate invitation to apply, which have been examined and approved but in respect of which grants were not awarded because the necessary funds were not available’.
Selle dekreedi ainsa artikli lõike 2 esimene lõik sätestab, et toetusmeetmeid võib eraldada „selliste kulude […] katmiseks, mida peeti abikõlblikuks viimase sobiva kutsega seotud kavade raames, mida oli analüüsitud ja mis olid heaks kiidetud, kuid mis rahaliste vahendite ebapiisavuse tõttu ei olnud toetust saanud”.
On 1 December 1997, the MICA published, under the 1997-1999 aid scheme, the third invitation to apply for aid in the industrial sector, relating to the first semester of 1998 (‘the third invitation to apply’).
1997.–1999. aasta abikava raames avaldas MICA 1. detsembril 1997 kolmanda taotluste esitamise kutse tööstussektoris, mis vastas 1998. aasta esimesele poolaastale (edaspidi „kolmas kutse”).
Undertakings having an interest had until 16 March 1998 to lodge their applications for aid.
Huvitatud ettevõtjatel oli abitaotluste esitamiseks aega 16. märtsini 1998.
They could apply for the funding of expenditure incurred from the day after the expiry of the period for lodging applications under the previous invitation to apply (the second invitation to apply), that is to say, 1 January 1997.
Nad võisid taotleda alates eelneva kutse (teine kutse) alusel esitatud taotluste esitamise tähtaja lõppemisele järgnenud päevast, st alates 1. jaanuarist 1997 tehtavate kulude rahastamist.
On 9 February 1998, Nuova Agricast lodged an application for aid under the third invitation to apply.
9. veebruaril 1998 esitas Nuova Agricast abitaotluse kolmanda kutse alusel.
That application was held to be eligible and was entered in the list of applications for the Apulia Region by Decree of the MICA of 14 August 1998.
See taotlus, mis loeti abikõlblikuks, lisati MICA 14. augusti 1998. aasta dekreediga Apuulia piirkonna taotluste pingeritta.
However, because of the ranking of that application, Nuova Agricast did not obtain the aid applied for since insufficient funds were available.
Oma järjekoha tõttu nimetatud pingereas Nuova Agricast taotletud abi sellegipoolest ei saanud, kuna rahalisi vahendeid ei piisanud.
In the meantime, the fourth invitation to apply for aid in the industrial sector, relating to the second semester of 1998 (‘the fourth invitation to apply’), was published.
Vahepeal avaldati neljas taotluse esitamise kutse tööstussektoris, mis vastas 1998. aasta teisele poolaastale (edaspidi „neljas kutse”).
On 16 September 1998, Nuova Agricast waived automatic inclusion of its application on the list relating to the fourth invitation to apply, so as to be able to lodge a new, reformulated, application under the next appropriate invitation to apply following that invitation.
16. septembril 1998 loobus Nuova Agricast oma taotluse automaatsest ülekandmisest neljanda kutse pingeritta, et saada võimalus esitada ülevaadatud taotlus uuesti, sellele kutsele järgneva esimese sobiva kutse alusel.
However, the Italian authorities published no relevant invitation to apply before 31 December 1999, when the 1997-1999 aid scheme expired.
Itaalia ametivõimud ei avaldanud aga ühtegi sobivat kutset enne 31. detsembrit 1999, mis on 1997.–1999. aasta abikava lõppemise kuupäev.
On 14 July 2000, that is to say, after the entry into force of the 20002006 aid scheme, the Italian authorities published the eighth invitation to apply for aid in the industrial sector (‘the eighth invitation to apply’).
14. juulil 2000, s.o pärast 2000.–2006. aasta abikava jõustumist, avaldasid Itaalia ametivõimud kaheksanda taotluste esitamise kutse tööstussektoris (edaspidi „kaheksas kutse”).
In the light of the conditions applying under the 20002006 aid scheme, the reformulated application submitted by Nuova Agricast — which was unable to benefit from the transitional provision included in the contested decision — was held to be inadmissible and was not entered on the list relating to the eighth invitation to apply.
2000.–2006. aasta abikava raames kehtinud tingimusi arvestades leiti, et Nuova Agricasti ülevaadatud taotlus, mille puhul ei olnud võimalik tugineda vaidlustatud otsuses olevale üleminekusättele, on vastuvõetamatu ning seda ei lisatud pärast kaheksandat kutset koostatud pingeritta.
Nuova Agricast, together with other Italian undertakings in the same situation, thereupon brought its first action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, seeking the annulment of the contested decision.
Nuova Agricast esitas seejärel koos teiste samas olukorras olevate Itaalia ettevõtjatega hagi Euroopa Ühenduste Esimese Astme Kohtule, nõudes vaidlustatud otsuse tühistamist.
By order of 15 June 2005 in Case T-98/04 Nuova Agricast and Others v Commission (not published in the European Court Reports), the Court of First Instance dismissed that action as inadmissible, on the ground that it had been brought after the expiry of the period of two months laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
15. juuni 2005. aasta määrusega kohtuasjas T-98/04: Nuova Agricast jt vs. komisjon lükkas Esimese Astme Kohus hagi vastuvõetamatuse tõttu tagasi, põhjusel et see oli esitatud pärast EÜ artikli 230 viiendas lõigus ette nähtud kahekuulise tähtaja möödumist.
On 21 September 2005, Nuova Agricast brought a second action before the Court of First Instance, which was registered under number T-362/05, seeking compensation from the Commission in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by it as a result of the adoption of the contested decision.
21. septembril 2005 esitas Nuova Agricast Esimese Astme Kohtule teise hagi, mis registreeriti numbri T-362/05 all, vaidlustatud otsuse vastuvõtmise järel väidetavalt komisjoni poolt tekitatud kahju hüvitamise nõudes.
Those proceedings are currently pending.
Praegu menetlus selles asjas kestab.
In addition, Nuova Agricast has brought an action before the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Rome District Court) seeking compensation from the Ministero delle Attività Produttive, which has taken over the responsibilities of the MICA, in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by it by reason of the non-payment of the aid applied for.
Lisaks esitas Nuova Agricast kaebuse Tribunale ordinario di Romale (Rooma üldkohus), nõudes, et Ministero delle Attività Produttivet, kes võttis üle MICA ülesanded, kohustataks hüvitama kahju, mida Nuova Agricast oli väidetavalt kandnud taotletud abi saamata jäämise tõttu.
In those proceedings, Nuova Agricast has claimed in particular that in its discussions with the Commission which led to the renewal of the aid scheme after 31 December 1999, the Italian State failed properly to protect the rights acquired by undertakings which, like Nuova Agricast, had waived automatic inclusion in the list relating to the fourth invitation to apply — which, in the event, was the last invitation to apply in the industrial sector before the expiry of the 1997-1999 aid scheme — in order to lodge a reformulated application under the first appropriate invitation to apply following that invitation.
Selles menetluses väitis Nuova Agricast eelkõige, et komisjoniga peetud läbirääkimistel abikava uuendamiseks pärast 31. detsembrit 1999 ei olnud Itaalia riik nõuetekohaselt hoolitsenud selliste ettevõtjate õiguste kestmajäämise eest, kes nagu temagi olid loobunud automaatsest kandmisest pingeritta, mis vastas neljandale kutsele – mis osutus viimaseks kutseks tööstussektoris enne 1997.–1999. aasta abikava lõppemist –, selleks et esitada ülevaadatud taotlus sellele kutsele järgneva sobiva kutse alusel.