natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The undertakings and cooperatives in question thus enjoy economic benefits they would not otherwise have received in their normal course of business and which improve their competitive position when compared to other farmers in the Community who do not receive the same type of aid.
Zadevna podjetja in zadruge uživajo gospodarske koristi, ki jih pri izvajanju svojih dejavnosti ne bi nikoli dosegle, in lahko zaradi tega izboljšajo svoj konkurenčni položaj v primerjavi z drugimi kmeti v Skupnosti, ki ne prejemajo enake pomoči.
The aid concerned affects competition and trade between Member States.
Takšna pomoč vpliva na konkurenčnost in trgovino med državami članicami.
The beneficiaries carry out an economic activity in sectors (the beef and veal and sheepmeat sectors) that are the subject of trade between Member States.
Upravičenci se namreč ukvarjajo z gospodarsko dejavnostjo v sektorju (goveje in ovčje meso), ki je predmet trgovine med državami članicami.
In 2001, the cattle population in Italy totalled 6932700 head, including 273900 head in Sardinia.
Leta 2001 je imela Italija 6932700 glav goveda, od tega 273900 na Sardiniji.
In that same year, the sheep population was 8311400 head, including 3602200 in Sardinia, and the goat population was 1024800 head, including 240200 head in Sardinia.
Isto leto je imela 8311400 glav ovc, od tega 3602200 na Sardiniji, medtem ko je bilo skupno število koz 1024800 glav, od tega 240000 na Sardiniji.
The measure under examination is therefore state aid as defined in Article 87(1).
Preučeni ukrep zato ustreza opredelitvi državne pomoči iz člena 87(1).
The prohibition on state aid is not absolute.
Prepoved dodelitve državne pomoči ni popolna.
However, in this case, the derogations provided for in Article 87(2) are clearly not applicable and, moreover, were not requested by the Italian authorities.
Vendar izjeme iz člena 87(2) v zadevnem primeru očitno ne veljajo in jih tudi italijanski organi ne navajajo.
Neither does Article 87(3)(a) apply, because the aid is not intended to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment.
Člen 87(3)(a) se prav tako ne uporablja, ker pomoč ni namenjena pospeševanju gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je podzaposlenost velika.
By the same token, the aid is not intended to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State within the meaning of Article 87(3)(b).
Glede člena 87(3)(b) pomoč ni namenjena pospeševanju izvedbe pomembnega projekta skupnega evropskega interesa ali odpravljanju resne motnje v gospodarstvu države članice.
Neither is the aid intended to fulfil the objectives laid down in Article 87(3)(d).
Glede člena 87(3)(d) zadevna pomoč ni namenjena ciljem iz člena.
Given the nature of the aid scheme notified, the only derogation that could be applied is that laid down in Article 87(3)(c).
Ob upoštevanju vrste priglašene sheme je edino odstopanje, ki ga je mogoče uporabiti, tisto iz člena 87(3)(c).
It must therefore be checked whether implementation of the planned measures is eligible for this derogation.
Zato je treba preveriti, ali se za izvajanje predvidenih ukrepov lahko uporabi navedeno odstopanje.
Since Law No 22/2000 was correctly notified by the Italian authorities in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty, it must be assessed in accordance with the Community Guidelines for state aid in the agriculture sector [7] (hereafter referred to as the Guidelines).
Ker so italijanski organi zadevni zakon št. 22/2000 pravilno priglasili v skladu s členom 88(3), se pri njegovem vrednotenju uporabljajo predpisi, določeni v Smernicah Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju [7] (v nadaljnjem besedilu „Smernice“).
Under point 23.3 of the Guidelines, these apply from 1 January 2000 to new state aid, including aid already notified by the Member States on which the Commission has not yet adopted a Decision.
V skladu s točko 23.3 Smernic se Smernice uporabljajo od 1. januarja 2000 za nove oblike državne pomoči, vključno s pomočjo, ki so jo države članice že priglasile in glede katere Komisija še ni odločila.
Under point 11.1.1 of the Guidelines, state aids for agriculture include a group of measures intended to safeguard farmers against damage to agricultural production or the means of production, including buildings and plantations, caused by unforeseen occurrences such as natural disasters, adverse weather conditions or outbreaks of animal or plant disease.
V skladu s točko 11.1.1 Smernic državna pomoč kmetijstvu obsega sklop ukrepov, namenjenih varovanju kmetov pred škodo v kmetijski proizvodnji ali škodo na proizvajalnih sredstvih objektih in nasadih, ki je nastala zaradi nepredvidenih okoliščin, kot so naravne nesreče, slabe vremenske razmere ali izbruhi bolezni živali ali rastlin.
It is therefore clear that, in the case of losses caused by an epizootic disease, compensation may be provided only for losses borne by the productive sector and not those borne by undertakings processing or marketing agricultural products.
Videti je torej, da se lahko v primeru škode zaradi bolezni živali izplačajo le nadomestila za izgube, ki jih je utrpela proizvodnja, ne pa za izgube, ki sta jih utrpeli predelava in trženje kmetijskih proizvodov.
Aid to compensate for such losses must also be compatible with point 11.4 of the Guidelines, which concerns, in particular, aid for combating animal and plant diseases.
Poleg tega mora biti pomoč, namenjena nadomestilu za te izgube, združljiva s točko 11.4 Smernic, ki obravnava pomoč, namenjeno boju proti boleznim živali in rastlin.
The Italian authorities submitted no comments.
Italijanski organi niso izrazili nobene pripombe.
The Commission did therefore not receive additional information that could dispel the doubts stated when it initiated the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty with regard to the aid in question.
Zato Komisija ni prejela dodatnih podatkov, ki bi omogočili opustitev dvomov, nastalih ob sprožitvi postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe v zvezi z zadevno pomočjo.
Furthermore, the Italian authorities have not established in a clear and indisputable manner a direct link between the reduction in deliveries from members of the undertakings or cooperatives due to blue tongue and the losses of income incurred during the same period.
Poleg tega italijanski organi niso jasno in nedvoumno dokazali neposredne zveze med zmanjšanjem oddaje članov podjetij ali zadrug zaradi bolezni modrikastega jezika pri ovcah in izgubami dobička v istem obdobju.
In the absence of a direct link, the losses in question could have been caused by other factors, such as the drought, the crisis on the markets, the financial management of the undertakings concerned, etc. Any aid intended to compensate for this type of loss would constitute operating aid, incompatible with the common market under point 3.5 of the Guidelines [8].
Brez takšne neposredne zveze bi lahko te izgube povzročili drugi dejavniki, kot so suša, tržna kriza, finančno upravljanje zadevnih podjetij itn. Vsaka pomoč, namenjena nadomestilu takšnih izgub, pomeni zato pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom v skladu s točko 3.5 Smernic [8].
In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the aid provided for in Article 5 of Regional Law No 22/2000 constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and that it is ineligible for any of the derogations provided for in Article 87(3).
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega lahko Komisija sklene, da je pomoč iz člena 5 deželnega zakona št. 22/2000 državna pomoč iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe in ni upravičena do odstopanj iz člena 87(3).
Since Article 10 of Law No 22/2000, notified in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty, lays down that the aid provided for in Articles 3, 4 and 5 is to be implemented by the regional authorities only after approval by the European Commission, it is not necessary to provide for the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 5 of the Law,
Ker Zakon št. 22/2000, priglašen v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe, v členu 10 določa, da lahko deželni organi izvajajo pomoč iz členov 3, 4 in 5, šele ko jo odobri Evropska komisija, ni treba odrediti vračila pomoči iz člena 5 zgoraj navedenega zakona –
The aid planned by Italy under Article 5 of Region of Sardinia Law No 22 of 17 November 2000 to compensate agricultural undertakings and cooperatives for losses caused by a lack of raw material for processing caused by a reduction in deliveries from members is incompatible with the common market.
Pomoč Italije iz člena 5 Zakona št. 22 dežele Sardinija za nadomestilo kmetijskim podjetjem in zadrugam za izgube zaradi pomanjkanja surovin za predelavo, ki je posledica manjše oddaje članov, ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The above aid may accordingly not be implemented.
Navedena pomoč se zato ne sme izvajati.
Italy shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Italija v dveh mesecih od uradnega obvestila o tej odločbi obvesti Komisijo o ukrepih, ki jih je sprejela za uskladitev s to odločbo.
The Law was approved by the Regional Council of Sardinia on 25 October 2000 and published in the Bollettino ufficiale della Regione Sardegna (Official Bulletin of the Region of Sardinia) No 36 on 25 November 2000.
Zakon je sprejel Deželni svet Sardinije 25. oktobra 2000 in je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu dežele Sardinija št. 36 z dne 25. novembra 2000.
OJ C 327, 22.11.2001, p. 5.
UL C 327, 22.11.2001, str. 5.
Published in the Bollettino ufficiale della Regione Sardegna No 29 of 19.9.2000, p. 1958.
Objavljena v Uradnem listu Dežele Sardinije št. 29, 19.9.2000, str. 1958.
Decision SG(01) D/285817 of 2 February 2001.
Sklep SG(01) D/285817 z dne 2. februarja 2001.
Regulation as last amended by Regulation No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).
Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1782/2003 (UL L 270, 21.10.2003, str. 1).
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 1995 in Case T-459/93 Siemens SA v Commission of the European Communities [1995] ECR II-1675.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 8. junija 1995 v zadevi Siemens SA proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, T-459/1993, Recueil 1995, str. II-1675.
amending the Decision 2002/191/EC declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2139 — Bombardier/ADtranz)
o spremembi Odločbe 2002/191/CE o združljivosti koncentracije s skupnim trgom in Sporazumom EGP (Zadeva COMP/M.2139 – Bombardier/ADtranz)
(notified under document number C(2005) 2683)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko K(2005) 2683)
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 57 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o ustanovitvi Evropskega gospodarskega prostora in zlasti člena 57 Sporazuma,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings [1], and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 4064/89 z dne 21. decembra 1989 o nadzoru nad koncentracijami med podjetji [1] in zlasti člena 8(2) Uredbe,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) [2], and in particular Article 26(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 139/2004 z dne 20. januarja 2004 o nadzoru nad koncentracijami med podjetji (Uredba ES o združitvah) [2] in zlasti člena 26(2) Uredbe,
Having regard to the Commission Decision 2002/191/EC of 3 April 2001 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2139 — Bombardier/ADtranz) [3],
ob upoštevanju Odločbe Komisije 2002/191/ES z dne 3. aprila 2001 o združljivosti koncentracije s skupnim trgom in delovanjem Sporazuma EGP (zadeva COMP/M.2139 – Bombardier/ADtranz) [3],
After consulting the Advisory Committee on Concentrations [4],
po posvetu s Svetovalnim odborom za koncentracije [4],
On 3 April 2001, the Commission declared a concentration whereby Bombardier Inc. acquired within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 sole control of the undertaking DaimlerChrysler Rail Systems GmbH (ADtranz) compatible with the common market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Komisija je 3. aprila 2001 razglasila koncentracijo, s katero je podjetje Bombardier Inc. v okviru člena 3(1)(b) Uredbe (EGS) št. 4064/89 pridobilo izključni nadzor nad podjetjem Daimler Chrysler Rail Systems GmbH (ADtranz), za združljivo s skupnim trgom ter z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
That declaration of compatibility was subject to full compliance with several conditions and obligations as set out in the Annex to the Decision.
Navedena izjava o združljivosti je bila predmet izpolnjevanja več pogojev in obveznosti, kot določa Priloga k Odločbi.
One of the conditions concerned the undertaking Elin EBG Traction (ETR), a subsidiary of VA Tech AG, established in Linz, Austria.
Eden od pogojev se je nanašal na podjetje Elin EBG Traction („ETR“), hčerinsko družbo VA Tech AG, ustanovljeno v Linzu, Avstrija.
Bombardier had joint control over ETR, a supplier of electrical propulsion for rail rolling stock.
Bombardier je imel skupni nadzor nad podjetjem ETR, dobaviteljem električnega pogona za železniški vozni park.
Severing ETR’s structural link with Bombardier, as required by paragraph 1(a) of the Annex, turned that company into an independent supplier of propulsion technology for, among others, regional trains and trams/light rail vehicles.
Prekinitev strukturne vezi med podjetjema Bombardier in ETR, kakor zahteva odstavek 1(a) Priloge, je spremenila podjetje ETR v neodvisnega dobavitelja pogonske tehnologije za, med drugim, regionalne vlake in tramvaje/lahka tirna vozila.
Nevertheless, certain guarantees were necessary for a transitional period in order to allow ETR to find new partners, replacing Bombardier, which became vertically integrated after the acquisition of ADtranz and, thus, was no longer to rely on ETR as a supplier of electrical propulsion equipment.
Vendar so bila v prehodnem obdobju potrebna določena jamstva, ki so podjetju ETR omogočila pridobitev novih partnerjev za nadomestitev podjetja Bomardier, ki je po nakupu ADtranz postal vertikalno integriran in se tako ni mogel več zanesti na ETR kot dobavitelja opreme za električni pogon.
These guarantees were intended to create a workload for ETR for a transitional period in order to enable it to survive economically.
Namen teh jamstev je bil ustvariti delovno obremenitev za ETR v prehodnem obdobju, ki bi mu omogočila ekonomsko preživetje.
The condition as set out in paragraph 1(b) of the Annex provided for Bombardier to enter into a Joint Development Agreement with ETR for cooperation between these two companies until 2006 in relation to the tram ‘CityRunner Type Linz’, for which ETR supplies the electrical traction, thereby allowing ETR to continue to be active in the market for trams.
Pogoj, določen v odstavku 1(b) Priloge, je podjetju Bombardier zagotovil sklenitev sporazuma o skupnem razvoju s podjetjem ETR za medsebojno sodelovanje do leta 2006 v zvezi s tramvajem „CityRunner Type Linz“, ki ga ETR oskrbuje s sistemom električne vleke, in s tem zagotovil podjetju ETR nadaljnjo aktivnost na trgu tramvajev.
On 10 January 2005, Siemens notified its planned acquisition of sole control, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation, of VA Tech, whereby it would also acquire control of ETR.
Siemens je 10. januarja 2005 priglasil svojo načrtovano pridobitev izključnega nadzora v okviru člena 3(1)(b) Uredbe (ES) št. 139/2004 („Uredba ES o združitvah“) podjetja VA Tech in bi s tem pridobil nadzor tudi nad ETR.
Siemens is a leading supplier of rail rolling stock which manufactures its own electrical traction for all types of rolling stock it offers.
Siemens je vodilni dobavitelj za železniški vozni park, ki proizvaja svoj električni pogon za vse vrste voznih parkov, ki jih ponuja.
On 13 July 2005, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the EC Merger Regulation, the Commission declared the acquisition of VA Tech by Siemens compatible with the common market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, subject to several conditions and obligations as set out in the Annexes to that Decision.
Komisija je 13. julija 2005 v skladu s členom 8(2) Uredbe ES o združitvah razglasila, da je Siemensov nakup VA Tech združljiv s skupnim trgom ter z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP ob upoštevanju več pogojev in obveznosti, določenih v Prilogi k Odločbi.
As part of Siemens, ETR has the financial background of a multinational firm which is a leader in rolling stock.
Kot del Siemensa ima ETR finančno ozadje multinacionalnega podjetja, ki je vodilno v voznih parkih.
Therefore, ETR no longer needs secured orders for its economic survival as was deemed necessary in 2001 when the structural link with Bombardier was severed.
Zato ETR ne potrebuje več zajamčenih naročil za svoje ekonomsko preživetje, kot je štelo za nujno leta 2001, ko je bila strukturna vez s podjetjem Bombardier prekinjena.
It is, consequently, no longer necessary to impose on Bombardier the condition to source the electrical traction for its CityRunner Type Linz from ETR, should Siemens acquire sole control of ETR.
Če bo Siemens pridobil izključni nadzor nad ETR, podjetju Bombardier ni več potrebno nalagati pogoja, naj pridobiva sistem električne vleke za CityRunner Type Linz pri ETR.
The acquisition of VA Tech by Siemens has been declared compatible with the common market and with the functioning of the EEA subject to compliance with certain conditions.
Siemensova pridobitev VA Tech je bila ob upoštevanju določenih pogojev razglašena za združljivo s skupnim trgom in delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
However, there is a possibility that that decision will be revoked pursuant to Article 8(6) of the EC Merger Regulation.
Vendar obstaja možnost, da bo odločba preklicana na podlagi člena 8(2) Uredbe ES o združitvah.
This Decision, therefore, is conditional on the Commission Decision of 13 July 2005 in case COMP/M.3653 — Siemens/VA Tech [5] remaining in force,
Ta odločba je zato pogojena z Odločbo Komisije z dne 13. julija 2005 v zadevi COMP/M.3653 – Siemens/VA Tech [5], ki ostaja v veljavi –
Article 2 of Decision 2002/191/EC is replaced by the following:
Člen 2 Odločbe 2002/191/ES se nadomesti z naslednjim:
Article 1 is subject to full compliance with the conditions set out in paragraphs 1(a), first subparagraph, 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), first and fourth subparagraphs, 1(f), 1(g), 1(h), and 1(i) of the Annex.’
Člen 1 je predmet izpolnjevanja pogojev, določenih v prvem pododstavku odstavka 1(a), odstavku 1(c), 1(d), prvem in četrtem pododstavku odstavka 1(e), odstavku 1(f), 1(g), 1(h) in 1(i) Priloge.“
This decision shall be conditional on
Ta odločba je pogojena z:
the remaining in force of the Commission Decision of 13 July 2005 declaring the concentration whereby Siemens AG proposes to acquire sole control over VA Tech AG (Case COMP/M.3653 — Siemens/VA Tech) compatible with the common market and the EEA agreement, subject to certain conditions and obligations, and
nadaljnjo veljavnostjo Odločbe Komisije z dne 13. julija 2005 o razglasitvi koncentracije, s katero Siemens AG predlaga pridobitev izključnega nadzora nad VA Tech AG (zadeva COMP/M.3653 – Siemens/VA Tech), ki je združljiv s skupnim trgom in Sporazumom EGP, ob upoštevanju določenih pogojev; in
the implementation of the proposed concentration referred to in point (a).
izvajanjem predlagane koncentracije, navedene v točki (a).
This decision is addressed to:
Ta odločba je naslovljena na:
Canada — H3B 1Y8 — Québec.
Kanada – H3B 1Y8 – Québec
OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1. As corrected by OJ L 257, 21.9.1990, p. 13.
UL L 395, 30.12.1989, str. 1; popravljena različica v UL L 257, 21.9.1990, str. 13.
OJ L 69, 12.3.2002, p. 50.
UL L 69, 12.3.2002, str. 50.
OJ C 321, 16.12.2005.
UL C 321, 16.12.2005.
of 14 December 2005
z dne 14. decembra 2005
amending Council Directive 2002/56/EC as regards the date laid down in Article 21(3) until which Member States are authorised to extend the validity of decisions concerning equivalence of seed potatoes from third countries
o spremembi Direktive Sveta 2002/56/ES glede datuma, določenega v členu 21(3), do katerega se državam članicam dovoli podaljšanje odločitev v zvezi z enakovrednostjo semenskega krompirja iz tretjih držav
(notified under document number C(2005) 5020)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko K(2005) 5020)
Having regard to Council Directive 2002/56/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of seed potatoes [1], and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 21(3) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Direktive Sveta 2002/56/ES z dne 13. junija 2002 o trženju semenskega krompirja [1], in zlasti drugega pododstavka člena 21(3) Direktive,
Directive 2002/56/EC provides that, with effect from certain dates, Member States may no longer determine for themselves the equivalence of seed potatoes harvested in third countries with seed potatoes harvested within the Community and complying with that Directive.
Direktiva 2002/56/ES določa, da države članice od določenih datumov dalje ne morejo več same določati enakovrednosti semenskega krompirja, proizvedenega v tretjih državah, s semenskim krompirjem, proizvedenim v Skupnosti in skladnim z navedeno direktivo.
However, as work to establish a Community equivalence for seed potatoes from all the third countries concerned had not been completed, Directive 2002/56/EC permitted Member States to extend until 31 March 2005 the validity of equivalence decisions which they had already taken for seed potatoes from certain third countries not covered by a Community equivalence.
Ker delo v zvezi z uvajanjem enakovrednosti semenskega krompirja iz vseh zadevnih tretjih držav v Skupnosti še ni bilo zaključeno, je bilo državam članicam z Direktivo 2002/56/ES dovoljeno, da do 31. marca 2005 podaljšajo veljavnost odločitev, ki so jih že sprejele v zvezi z enakovrednostjo semenskega krompirja iz določenih tretjih držav, ki niso bile zajete v enakovrednosti Skupnosti.
In the absence of Community rules on the equivalence of seed potatoes harvested in third countries with seed potatoes harvested within the Community, the authorisation granted to Member States by Directive 2002/56/EC to extend the period of validity of equivalence decisions should be continued for a three year period.
Ker v Skupnosti ni pravil o enakovrednosti semenskega krompirja, proizvedenega v tretjih državah s semenskim krompirjem, proizvedenim v Skupnosti, je treba državam članicam podaljšati dovoljenje za podaljšanje obdobja veljavnosti odločitev o enakovrednosti, ki jim je dodeljeno z Direktivo 2002/56/ES.
Directive 2002/56/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
Zato je treba Direktivo 2002/56/ES ustrezno spremeniti.
In the first subparagraph of Article 21(3) of Directive 2002/56/EC, ‘31 March 2005’ is replaced by ‘31 March 2008’.
V prvem pododstavku člena 21(3) Direktive 2002/56/ES se „31. marca 2005“ nadomesti z „31. marca 2008“.
Done at Brussels, 14 December 2005.
V Bruslju, 14. decembra 2005
Directive as last amended by Directive 2003/61/EC (OJ L 165, 3.7.2003, p. 23).
Direktiva, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Direktivo (ES) št. 2003/61/ES (UL L 165, 3.7.2003, str. 23).
setting up a group of experts to advise the Commission and to facilitate cooperation between public oversight systems for statutory auditors and audit firms
o ustanovitvi skupine strokovnjakov, ki bo svetovala Komisiji ter olajšala sodelovanje med sistemi javnega nadzora nad zakonsko določenimi revizorji in revizijskimi družbami
Reinforcement of the statutory audit is essential in order to restore investors’ confidence in the financial markets.
Krepitev obvezne revizije je bistvenega pomena za pridobitev ponovnega zaupanja vlagateljev v finančne trge.