natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission also said that any infringement of the competition rules justifiable under Article 86(2) of the Treaty must be limited to the measures strictly necessary for the operation of a service of general economic interest.
Komisija je opozorila tudi na to, da se mora kakršna koli kršitev pravil o konkurenci, ki jo upravičuje člen 86(2) Pogodbe, omejiti na ukrepe, ki so nujno potrebni za delovanje storitve splošnega gospodarskega interesa.
However, at the time the investigation procedure was opened the Commission did not see how the smooth operation of the scheme and the service of general economic interest required that the rendering service be provided to farmers and slaughterhouses free of charge.
Vendar Komisiji ob začetku preiskovalnega postopka ni bilo jasno, kako je bila brezplačnost sistema predelave klavnih trupov za rejce in klavnice potrebna za dobro delovanje sistema in storitve splošnega gospodarskega interesa.
Similarly, the Commission could not see why the smooth operation of the rendering service required the payment of what was possibly operating aid to undertakings not subject to the levy or payments to rendering undertakings that were possibly above what was necessary to cover the net cost of providing the rendering service.
Komisiji prav tako ni bilo jasno, zakaj je dobro delovanje storitve predelave klavnih trupov zahtevalo možne pomoči za tekoče poslovanje v korist podjetij, ki niso zavezana plačilu dajatve, ali kafilerijam, kar zadeva morebitna plačila, ki so presegala neto strošek opravljanja storitve predelave klavnih trupov.
Neither did it understand why it was necessary to impose the levy on products from other Member States.
Prav tako ni razumela, zakaj je bila potrebna obdavčitev izdelkov iz drugih držav članic.
Finally, the Commission could not, at the time the investigation procedure was opened, rule out the possibility that the total effect of the French rendering scheme could affect trade between Member States to an extent contrary to the Community interest, thus making Article 86(2) of the Treaty inapplicable.
Komisija nazadnje ob začetku preiskovalnega postopka ni mogla izključiti možnosti, da so lahko vsi učinki, ki so bili posledica organizacije francoskega sistema predelave klavnih trupov, vplivali na razvoj trgovine med državami članicami v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju z interesom Skupnosti, zaradi česar člen 86(2) Pogodbe ne bi bil uporaben.
As stated above, the scheme could affect both trade in meat and slaughterhouse services.
Kakor je navedeno zgoraj, bi ti učinki lahko zadevali tako trgovino z mesom kakor tudi storitve klavnic.
OTHER RELEVANT FACTS
DRUGI POMEMBNI ELEMENTI
As stated in the second recital, on 18 September 2000 the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on the rendering levy.
Komisija je 18. septembra 2000, kot je bilo zapisano že v uvodni izjavi 2, izdala obrazloženo mnenje o dajatvi na predelavo klavnih trupov.
In that opinion, the Commission noted that the rendering levy scheme constituted a discriminatory tax measure incompatible with Article 90 of the Treaty because it was applied to meat imported from other Member States whereas only French meat producers had access to the PRS financed by the product of the levy.
Komisija je v tem mnenju ugotovila, da je bil sistem dajatve na predelavo klavnih trupov diskriminacijski davčni ukrep, ki je nezdružljiv s členom 90 Pogodbe, ker se je uporabljal za meso iz drugih držav članic, čeprav so bili do javne storitve predelave klavnih trupov, financirane iz prihodka iz te dajatve, upravičeni samo proizvajalci francoskega mesa.
In addition, under Article 234 of the Treaty, the Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 87(1) of the Treaty [18] with regard to the rendering levy.
Poleg tega je prizivno upravno sodišče iz Lyona Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti v skladu s členom 234 Pogodbe v zvezi z dajatvijo na predelavo klavnih trupov predložilo predhodno vprašanje o razlagi člena 87(1) Pogodbe [18].
The Court gave its judgment in this case on 20 November 2003 (hereafter the GEMO case).
Sodišče je sodbo v tej zadevi (v nadaljevanju „zadeva GEMO“) izreklo 20. novembra 2003.
In the GEMO case, the Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal asked the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on whether the levy on purchases of meat provided for in Article 302 ZD of the Code général des impôts could be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty.
Prizivno upravno sodišče iz Lyona je v okviru zadeve GEMO od Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti zahtevalo, da se predhodno izrazi o vprašanju, ali se dajatev na odkup mesa, predvidena v členu 302 ZD Splošnega davčnega zakonika, uvršča v sistem, ki bi se lahko razumel kot pomoč v smislu člena 87 Pogodbe.
The Court replied that the State was responsible for the collection and destruction of animal carcases and slaughterhouse waste from French livestock farmers and slaughterhouses.
Sodišče je odgovorilo, da je zbiranje in odstranjevanje živalskih trupel in klavniških odpadkov, do katerih so upravičeni francoski rejci in klavnice, naloga države.
The Court concluded that the correct interpretation of Article 87(1) of the Treaty was that a scheme that provided, for livestock farmers and slaughterhouses, for the collection and destruction free of charge of slaughterhouse waste was State aid.
Sodišče je sklenilo, da je treba člen 87(1) Pogodbe razlagati v tem smislu, da je treba sistem, ki rejcem in klavnicam zagotavlja brezplačno zbiranje in odstranjevanje klavniških odpadkov, označiti kot državno pomoč.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THIRD PARTIES
PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANI
The interested parties submitted the following comments, which were forwarded to the French authorities on 11 February 2003.
Zainteresirane strani so predložile naslednje pripombe, ki so bile Franciji sporočene 11. februarja 2003.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED UNDERTAKINGS
PRIPOMBE NEKATERIH ZAINTERESIRANIH PODJETIJ
The undertakings submitting the following comments requested that their identity remain confidential.
Podjetja, ki so predložila naslednje pripombe, so zahtevala zaupno obravnavo svoje identitete.
The Commission, after examining the reasons given, took the view that their request should be granted.
Komisija je po preučitvi navedenih razlogov menila, da je njihovo željo primerno upoštevati.
According to these undertakings, the rendering levy is aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty in favour, in particular, of livestock farmers and slaughterhouses.
Po mnenju teh podjetij je dajatev na predelavo klavnih trupov pomoč v smislu člena 87 Pogodbe zlasti v korist rejcev in klavnic.
Therefore, under Article 87(1) of Treaty, by releasing livestock farmers and slaughterhouse from a financial burden, the rendering levy gives a financial advantage to ‘certain undertakings’, affecting ‘trade between Member States’ and ‘distort(ing) competition’, by reducing the cost of French meat exports and burdening meat imports with the cost of destroying dangerous livestock products, a cost they already bear in their country of origin.
Tako je dajatev na predelavo klavnih trupov v skladu s pogoji člena 87(1) Pogodbe in s tem, da je rejce in klavnice oprostila finančnih stroškov, ki so jih bremenili, „nekaterim podjetjem“ priskrbela gospodarsko korist, ki prizadene „trgovino med državami članicami“ in „izkrivlja konkurenco“, ker zmanjšuje stroške francoskega izvoza mesa in bremeni uvoz mesa s stroški odstranjevanja nevarnih proizvodov živalskega izvora, ki jih nosijo že v državi porekla.
Furthermore, they claim the measure is illegal, since it was not notified to the Commission.
Poleg tega je ukrep nezakonit, ker Komisija o njem ni bila obveščena.
A final Commission decision that the aid is compatible would not regularise ex post the rules implementing the aid since they were adopted in infringement of the prohibition laid down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Učinek dokončne odločitve Komisije o združljivosti naj ne bi bil naknadna ureditev izvedbenih aktov, ki so bili neveljavni, ker so bili sprejeti ob neizpolnjevanju prepovedi iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe.
They assert that this in itself makes the aid incompatible.
Pomoč torej zaradi tega ne bi bila združljiva s Pogodbo.
Finally, they argue that the rendering service is not covered by Article 86(2) of the Treaty.
Nazadnje storitev predelave klavnih trupov ne bi smela spadati v okvir določb člena 86(2) Pogodbe.
So, although the rendering service must be financed somehow, it does not have to be financed by means of incompatible aid.
Čeprav je storitev predelave klavnih trupov res treba financirati, ni nujno potrebno, da se njeno financiranje zagotavlja s pomočjo, ki je nezdružljiva s Pogodbo.
Financing could perfectly well be provided by a charge on users of the service that would then be reflected in the price paid for meat by consumers.
To financiranje bi seveda lahko bilo strošek, ki bi ga morali prevzeti uporabniki storitve in bi se lahko prenesel na ceno mesa, ki bremeni potrošnika.
In addition, the levy discriminates between national products and similar imported products in a way likely to affect the development of trade to such an extent as is contrary to the interests of the Community.
Poleg tega dajatev povzroča diskriminacijo med podobnimi nacionalnimi in uvoženimi proizvodi, ki lahko prizadene razvoj trgovine v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju z interesi Skupnosti.
They claim that this prevents the application of Article 86(2) of the Treaty.
Ta uporaba bi ovirala uporabo člena 86(2) Pogodbe.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE L’ASSOCIATION DES ENTREPRISES DE PRODUITS ALIMENTAIRES ÉLABORÉS (ADEPALE) (ASSOCIATION OF FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES)
PRIPOMBE ASSOCIATION DES ENTREPRISES DE PRODUITS ALIMENTAIRES ÉLABORÉS (ADEPALE – ZDRUŽENJE PODJETIJ ZA PREDELANE PREHRAMBNE IZDELKE)
ADEPALE points out that the levy was introduced against the background of serious problems in destroying bovine carcases following the outbreak of BSE.
ADEPALE ugotavlja, da so vzrok za oblikovanje dajatve hude težave pri odstranjevanju živalskih trupel goveda, poginulega zaradi BSE.
However, most of the carcases that had to be destroyed were from dairy cattle, which produce meat only incidentally.
Vendar je bila večina trupel, ki jih je bilo treba uničiti, del mlečne črede, ki samo postransko daje meso.
Consequently, ADEPALE considers that imposing the levy specifically on ‘meat’ and totally exempting milk products is unacceptable.
Zato ADEPALE meni, da posebno področje dajatve „meso“ in popolna oprostitev, odobrena za mlečne izdelke, nista sprejemljiva.
More generally, if a levy had to be imposed on the sectors producing carcases to be destroyed, this should at least have been done in a non-discriminatory way. Therefore egg products should also have been included.
Splošneje rečeno, če je treba obdavčiti panoge, ki proizvajajo trupla, ki jih je treba odstraniti, je treba to vsaj storiti nediskriminacijsko; tako bi to moralo veljati tudi za jajčne izdelke.
Since the levy is applies to the value of meat products containing at least 10 % by weight of meat, it affects the various and varied ingredients of prepared dishes, such as plant products, packaging and, more generally, the fixed overheads and labour costs of undertakings producing prepared dishes.
Dajatev, ki se uporablja za mesne izdelke z najmanj 10 % mesa, zadeva različne in raznovrstne sestavine kuhanih jedi, kot so rastlinski proizvodi, embalaže in splošneje fiksni stroški in stroški delovne sile podjetij, ki proizvajajo kuhane jedi.
ADEPALE rejects the threshold of 10 % chosen by the French administration and takes the view that a meat product is a product in which meat accounts for most of the product weight.
ADEPALE zavrača prag 10 %, ki ga je izbrala francoska uprava, in meni, da je mesni izdelek proizvod, v katerem meso zajema večino teže.
ADEPALE also points out that the levy is, in practice, a tax on consumption, imposed in a discriminatory manner on the retail price of certain products.
ADEPALE poleg tega ugotavlja, da gre v praksi za davek na potrošnjo, ki diskriminacijsko bremeni maloprodajne cene nekaterih izdelkov.
This results in a significant difference in the competitiveness of products containing more than 10 % meat and all other foodstuffs, i.e. milk products, egg products, plant products and all prepared products containing less than 10 % meat.
Posledica tega je velika razlika v konkurenčnosti med izdelki z več kot 10 % mesa in vsemi drugimi prehrambnimi izdelki, namreč mlečnimi in jajčnimi izdelki, rastlinskimi izdelki ter vsemi pripravljenimi izdelki z manj kot 10 % mesa.
Finally, if the reason for the levy is to ensure public health, the financing of health monitoring is in theory, according ADEPALE, covered by Council Directive 96/43/EC amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and certain animal products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC [19] and its transposal into French law.
Nazadnje, če je namen dajatve zagotoviti javno zdravje, financiranje zdravstvenega nadzora po mnenju ADEPALE načeloma ureja Direktiva Sveta 96/43/ES z dne 26. junija 1996 o spremembi in pripravi prečiščenega besedila Direktive 85/73/EGS za zagotovitev financiranja veterinarskih pregledov in nadzora živih živali in nekaterih živalskih proizvodov ter o spremembi direktiv 90/675/EGS in 91/496/EGS [19] ter njen prenos v francosko pravo.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE FÉDÉRATION DES ENTREPRISES DU COMMERCE ET DE LA DISTRIBUTION (FCD) (FEDERATION OF TRADERS AND DISTRIBUTORS)
PRIPOMBE FÉDÉRATION DES ENTREPRISES DU COMMERCE ET DE LA DISTRIBUTION (FCD – ZVEZA TRGOVINSKIH IN DISTRIBUCIJSKIH PODJETIJ)
The FCD already took the view that the aid conferred two advantages, reducing the business risks that rendering undertakings normally had to face and eliminating a cost normally borne by livestock farmers and slaughterhouses, as producers of carcases and material seized at slaughterhouses.
FCD je že menil, da je pomoč koristila dvojno: omejila je tveganja podjetnika, ki bi jih ponavadi morale nositi kafilerije, ter odpravila strošek, ki je ponavadi bremenil proračun rejcev in klavnic, ki proizvajajo trupla in klavniške odpadke.
The FCD stressed in particular that the French mechanism for financing the PRS was not compatible with Article 86(2) of the Treaty because no satisfactory measures had been introduced to ensure effective competition when public contracts were awarded for the rendering service and because the financing overcompensated for the cost of the service.
FCD sedaj zlasti poudarja, da je francoski sistem financiranja javne storitve predelave klavnih trupov nezdružljiv s členom 86(2) Pogodbe, ker ni zadovoljivih ukrepov, ki bi zagotavljali dejansko konkurenco pri dodelitvi javnih naročil za opravljanje storitve predelave klavnih trupov, ter ker pri financiranju te storitve obstaja čezmerno nadomestilo.
The FCD also pointed out that the public financing received by the French rendering undertakings was intended not only to finance the PRS as defined by the legislation, but also to finance other activities not falling within the scope of that legislation, such as the destruction of animal meal produced both before and after the Community ban of December 2000, for which aid of EUR 205 million was paid to rendering undertakings as an emergency measure and without an invitation to tender.
FCD tudi opozarja, da so bila javna sredstva, do katerih so bili upravičeni francoski predelovalci klavnih trupov, namenjena ne samo financiranju javne storitve predelave klavnih trupov, kot jo opredeljuje zakon, temveč tudi financiranju drugih dejavnosti, ki niso spadale v področje uporabe zakona, kot so odstranjevanje mesne moke, proizvedene tako po prepovedi, ki jo je izrekla Skupnost decembra 2000, kot pred tem datumom, za katerega naj bi bila predelovalcem klavnih trupov nujno in brez javnega razpisa plačana pomoč v višini 205 milijonov eurov.
The FCD complained about a new illegal State aid introduced in 2002 and financed by means of the levy on meat purchases, granted to small butchers who themselves destroy the bones of the spinal column in direct contact with the spinal cord of bovine animals of more than 12 months old.
FCD razkriva, da od leta 2002 obstaja nova nezakonita državna pomoč, financirana iz dajatve na odkup mesa in namenjena mesarjem obrtnikom, ki sami odstranjujejo hrbtenične kosti v neposrednem stiku s hrbtnim mozgom goveda, starejšega od dvanajst mesecev.
They alleged that the aid amounted to EUR 20 million.
Znesek te pomoči naj bi znašal 20 milijonov eurov.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY SPAIN
PRIPOMBE ŠPANIJE
Spain criticises the fact that the scheme discriminates against imports of meat and meat products from other countries, since a levy was imposed on them but nothing was given in return and that the product of the levy solely benefited French livestock farmers and slaughterhouses.
Španija opozarja na dejstvo, da sistem zapostavlja uvoz mesa in mesnih izdelkov iz drugih držav, ker morajo plačati dajatev, ne da bi prejele kakršno koli nadomestilo, do koristi od dajatve pa so upravičeni samo francoski rejci in klavnice.
It argues that the situation was aggravated in Spain by the abolition of all national aid with effect from 1 January 2002 and claim that all the costs of destroying meat waste were already included in the price of exported products.
To vprašanje naj bi se v Španiji zaostrilo zaradi odprave vseh nacionalnih sistemov pomoči v tej državi od 1. januarja 2002 dalje in ker naj bi bili vsi stroški odstranitve mesnih odpadkov že vključeni v ceno izvoženih izdelkov.
With regard to fallen animals on holdings, they state that all aid was abolished from that same date and any expenditure incurred by farmers was covered by an insurance scheme.
Od tega datuma dalje naj bi bila odpravljena tudi vsaka pomoč v zvezi s poginulimi živalmi na kmetijskih gospodarstvih, morebitne stroške rejcev pa naj bi pokril sistem zavarovanja.
By letter dated 10 October 2002, the French authorities presented their comments on the Commission’s Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty with regard to the aid in question.
Francoski organi so v pismu z dne 10. oktobra 2002 predstavili svoje pripombe k sklepu Komisije, da v zvezi z zadevno pomočjo začne postopek, določen v členu 88(2) Pogodbe.
In response to a request from the Commission, additional information was sent by letter dated 23 September 2004.
Na zahtevo Komisije so v pismu z dne 23. septembra 2004 poslali dodatne informacije.
The French authorities deemed it necessary briefly to recall the general financing of the PRS.
Francoski organi so menili, da je treba na kratko opozoriti na splošno ekonomijo javne storitve predelave klavnih trupov.
They explained that the PRS was established by Law No 96-1139 of 26 December 1996 against the background of the BSE crisis.
Tako so pojasnili, da je bila javna storitev predelave klavnih trupov uvedena z Zakonom št. 96-1139 z dne 26. decembra 1996 zaradi krize BSE.
This Law forms part of a health system comprising two basic Decrees:
Ta zakon se uvršča v sistem zdravstvenega varstva, ki vključuje zlasti dve pomembni odredbi:
a Decree of 28 June 1996 amending a Decree of 30 December 1991 and providing for the incineration of finished products manufactured from high-risk material, defined as farm animals not slaughtered for human consumption, other animal carcases, animals slaughtered as a disease-control measure, animal waste presenting clinical signs of a disease communicable to man or other animals, animals dying during transport and animal waste presenting a risk to human or animal health,
odredbo z dne 28. junija 1996, ki spreminja odredbo z dne 30. decembra 1991 in določa sežiganje končnih izdelkov iz snovi z visokim tveganjem, kot so domače živali, ki niso zaklane za prehrano ljudi, druga živalska trupla, živali, zaklane v okviru boja proti bolezni, živalski odpadki s kliničnimi znaki bolezni, ki se lahko prenesejo na človeka ali na druge živali, živali, poginule med prevozom, in živalski odpadki, ki ogrožajo zdravje ljudi ali živali;
a Decree of 10 September 1996 suspending the marketing and release for consumption of certain ruminant tissue and of products incorporating such tissue, known as specified risk material (SRM).
odredbo z dne 10. septembra 1996, ki začasno ustavlja dajanje nekaterih živalskih tkiv prežvekovalcev in izdelkov, ki jih vsebujejo, imenovanih snovi s specifičnim tveganjem (SRM), v promet in njihov vnos v porabo.
This Decree suspended the marketing and use of the brain, the spinal cord and the eyes of certain bovine, ovine and caprine animals on the same conditions as high-risk products.
Ta odredba je določala začasno ustavitev dajanja v promet možganov, kostnega mozga in oči nekaterih vrst goveda, ovac in koz ter njihovo izkoriščanje pod istimi pogoji kot za izdelke z visokim tveganjem.
These Decrees, adopted to ensure consumer health, prohibited, as a precautionary measure, the introduction of the listed products into the food chain and made their incineration obligatory.
Ti odredbi, sprejeti za zagotavljanje varstva zdravja potrošnikov, sta iz varnostnih razlogov prepovedali vnos naštetih izdelkov v prehrambno verigo in uvedli njihovo obvezno sežiganje.
According to the French authorities, these provisions were pointless unless they formed part of a system that guaranteed total effectiveness.
Po mnenju francoskih organov so bile te določbe smiselne, samo če so bile vključene v sistem, ki je zagotavljal popolno učinkovitost.
This was not the case with the rendering scheme laid down by Law No 75-1336 of 31 December 1975 supplementing and amending the Code rural as regards the rendering industry [20], which was based on adding value to the products collected by the rendering undertaking in exchange for a monopoly on collection in a given area.
To ni veljalo za sistem predelave klavnih trupov, ki je izhajal iz Zakona št. 75-1336 z dne 31. decembra 1975 o dopolnitvi in spremembi Kmetijskega zakonika glede industrije predelave klavnih trupov [20], ki je temeljil na čim večjem izkoristku proizvodov, ki jih je predelovalec klavnih trupov zbral v zameno za monopol nad zbiranjem na danem območju.
Under these conditions, the French authorities decided to establish a public rendering service responsible for collecting and destroying all specified high-risk material intended for incineration.
Francoski organi so se v teh razmerah odločili uvesti javno storitev predelave klavnih trupov, odgovorno za zbiranje in odstranjevanje vseh snovi s specifičnim tveganjem, namenjenih za sežiganje.
Article 264 of the Code rural, as amended by Law No 96-1139 of 26 December 1996, lays down that ‘the collection and destruction of animal carcases and meat and offal seized at slaughterhouses recognised as being unfit for human or animal consumption are tasks that come within the remit of the State’.
Člen 264 Kmetijskega zakonika, kot ga spreminja Zakon št. 96-1139 z dne 26. decembra 1996, določa: „zbiranje in odstranjevanje živalskih trupel ter mesa in drobovine, zaseženih v klavnici, ki so neustrezni za prehrano ljudi in živali, je javna storitev, ki je v pristojnosti države“.
Since the adoption of Law No 2001-1275 of 28 December 2001, the previsions have explicitly mentioned SRM, which the PRS dealt with in the form of material seized at slaughterhouses.
Pojem snovi s specifičnim tveganjem, ki spadajo v okvir javne storitve predelave klavnih trupov kot snovi, zasežene v klavnicah, je bil po sprejetju Zakona št. 2001-1275 z dne 28. decembra 2001 v teh določbah izrecno omenjen.
The French authorities pointed out to the Commission that the PRS only covered products presenting a risk to human or animal health, i.e. approximately 10 % of animal waste in 1996, with other by-products of animal production continuing to be collected under contracts governed by private law.
Francoski organi so glede tega Komisiji natančno pojasnili, da se javna storitev predelave klavnih trupov uporablja samo za izdelke, ki pomenijo tveganje za zdravje ljudi in živali, kar je leta 1996 predstavljalo približno 10 % živalskih odpadkov, medtem ko se druge stranske proizvode, nastale pri reji živali, še naprej zbira v okviru pogodbe zasebnega prava.