natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the basis of the facts outlined, the Commission is therefore in a position to conclude that the aid for slaughterhouses in the case in point, granted in France during the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2002 and covering 100 % of the costs incurred, meets the conditions laid down in the TSE Guidelines.
Komisija lahko na podlagi predstavljenih dejstev zaključi, da v tem primeru pomoči v korist klavnic, ki jih je Francija med 1. januarjem 1997 in 31. decembrom 2002 dodelila v višini 100 % nastalih stroškov, izpolnjujejo pogoje smernic o TSE.
Aid to butchers – SRM seized at butcheries
Pomoč za mesarje – snovi s specifičnim tveganjem, zasežene pri mesarjih
Point 47 of the TSE Guidelines is applicable mutatis mutandis to SRM – in the case in point, spinal columns of bovine animals over 12 months – seized at butcheries and cutting plants.
Točka 47 smernic o TSE velja smiselno za snovi s specifičnim tveganjem – v tem primeru hrbtenice goveda, starejšega od dvanajstih mesecev –, zasežene v mesnicah in razsekovalnicah.
On the basis of the facts outlined, the Commission is thus in a position to conclude that the aid for butchers holding SRM that may have been granted in France during the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2002, covering 100 % of the costs incurred, meets the conditions laid down in the TSE Guidelines.
Komisija lahko na podlagi predstavljenih dejstev zaključi, da pomoči v korist mesarjev, ki imajo snovi s specifičnim tveganjem, ki jih je Francija med 1. januarjem 1997 in 31. decembrom 2002 dodelila v višini 100 % nastalih stroškov, izpolnjujejo pogoje smernic o TSE.
Enterprises exempted from the levy
Podjetja, oproščena plačila dajatve
The Commission has noted that the exemption of undertakings with an annual turnover of less than FRF 2,5 million entails a loss of resources for the State and does not appear to be justified by the nature and the general scheme of the tax system.
Komisija je ugotovila, da oprostitev v korist podjetij, katerih letni prihodek od prodaje je manjši od 2,5 milijona FRF, pomeni izgubo virov za državo in se ne zdi upravičena z naravo in ekonomijo davčnega sistema.
While the latter can of course provide for the measures necessary for it to function rationally and effectively, such as flat-rate levies on small enterprises in order to ease their accounting requirements in particular [46], it is highly unlikely that such measures can go as far as outright exemptions.
Čeprav lahko ta sistem seveda predvideva ukrepe, potrebne za njegovo razumno in učinkovito delovanje, kot so na primer pavšalne obdavčitve za majhna podjetja, ki zmanjšujejo predvsem zahtevnost vodenja računovodstva [46], je težko verjeti, da bi ti ukrepi lahko segli do čistih in preprostih oprostitev.
Furthermore, even if such exemptions were acceptable, the Commission is of the opinion that they should be limited to very marginal cases [47] where accounting requirements and management by the tax authorities both prove to be more costly than the anticipated revenue.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da bi se morale takšne oprostitve, čeprav bi bile sprejemljive, omejiti na zelo obrobne primere [47], kjer bi se zahtevnost računovodstva na eni strani in upravljanje s strani davčnih organov izkazala dražja od pričakovanega prihodka.
In the case in point, it is by no means clear that setting the ceiling at FRF 2,5 million, which is a substantial sum, is justified and this does not appear to have been the case in the preparatory work for law No 96-1139 [48].
Vendar v tem primeru utemeljitev določitve praga na 2,5 milijona FRF, kar je velik znesek, sploh ni samoumevna ter se zdi, da ne izhaja iz pripravljalnih del Zakona št. 96-1139 [48].
The selective scope of the exemption in question is plain when it is borne in mind that, according to the Commission's information, 80 % of meat and meat products is sold in superstores whose average overall turnover and even their specific turnover on meat is, according to the Commission's information, well above that ceiling [49], while small shops (butcheries), whose average turnover is below the ceiling (FRF 1.6 million), are in competition with the large stores.
Selektivnost zadevne oprostitve postane očitna, če upoštevamo, da se po podatkih Komisije 80 % mesa in mesnih izdelkov proda v velikih trgovskih centrih, katerih splošni prihodki od prodaje in celo specifični prihodki od prodaje mesa so po podatkih Komisije precej višji od praga [49], medtem ko majhna podjetja (mesnice), katerih prihodki od prodaje so v povprečju nižji od praga (1,6 milijona FRF), tekmujejo z velikimi.
The effect of the ceiling therefore appears to be to exempt butchers and other stores, while the large majority of distributors, which is made up of large stores, have to pay the levy.
Zdi se, da je učinek praga oprostitve učinek oprostitve v korist mesnic in drugih trgovin, medtem ko je večinski del distribucije, ki jo izvajajo veleblagovnice, obdavčen.
Furthermore, in so far as the ceiling relates to overall turnover (and not just to turnover on meat), a butchery with a turnover of FRF 2,4 million, for example, is exempt from the tax while a large store that sells less meat but has an overall turnover in excess of the ceiling must pay the levy.
Poleg tega je mogoče, ker se prag nanaša na splošne prihodke od prodaje (in ne samo od „prodaje mesa“), da je mesnica, ki ustvari prihodke od prodaje v višini na primer 2,4 milijona FRF, oproščena plačila dajatve, medtem ko mora veleblagovnica, ki bi prodala manj mesa, vendar bi bili njeni prihodki od prodaje večji od praga, plačati dajatev.
The exemption in question thus seems to result in discrimination in the way different meat retailers are treated on the basis of a criterion that does not appear to correspond to any inherent logic in the parafiscal system.
Tako se zdi, da zadevna oprostitev vodi v diskriminacijsko obravnavanje različnih prodajalcev mesa na drobno na podlagi merila, za katerega se zdi, da ne ustreza notranji racionalnosti parafiskalnega sistema.
The Commission does not consider that it has been proved that such an exemption is justified by the overall scheme of the tax system, no evidence to that effect having been provided by the French authorities.
Komisiji se ne zdi dokazano, da je takšna oprostitev upravičena z ekonomijo davčnega sistema, ker francoski organi niso za to zagotovili nobenega primernega podatka.
Since enterprises marketing agricultural products are concerned (as well as products not listed in Annex I to the Treaty, seeing that the levy is also payable on products containing meat), and since the Commission considers that intra-Community trade is affected, it is of the view that the aid falls within the scope of point 3.5 of the agriculture Guidelines.
Komisija o podjetjih za trženje kmetijskih proizvodov (in tudi proizvodov, ki niso navedeni v Prilogi I k Pogodbi, ker dajatev bremeni tudi izdelke, ki vsebujejo meso), meni, da pomoč spada v področje uporabe točke 3.5 kmetijskih smernic, ker je po njenem mnenju prizadeta trgovina v Skupnosti.
The latter provides that, for any aid measure to be regarded as compatible with the common market, it must contain some incentive element or require some compensation on the part of the beneficiary.
Ta točka določa, da mora vsak ukrep pomoči vsebovati neko spodbudo ali zahtevati protivrednost od upravičenca, da se lahko šteje kot združljiv s skupnim trgom.
Thus, leaving aside exceptions explicitly provided for in Community legislation or in the agriculture Guidelines, State aid granted unilaterally simply to improve producers' financial situation but making no contribution to the development of the sector, and in particular aid granted solely on the basis of the price, quantity, production unit or unit of means of production should be treated in the same way as operating aid, which is incompatible with the common market.
Tako so, razen če so izjeme izrecno določene v zakonodaji Skupnosti ali kmetijskih smernicah, enostranske državne pomoči, namenjene samo za izboljšanje finančnega položaja proizvajalcev, ki pa na noben način ne prispevajo k razvoju sektorja, ter zlasti pomoči, dodeljene samo na podlagi cene, količine, proizvodne enote ali enote proizvodnih sredstev, izenačene s pomočmi za tekoče poslovanje, ki so nezdružljive s skupnim trgom.
The exemption in question involves a reduction in charges that does not entail any incentive element or any compensation on the part of the beneficiaries, and its compatibility with the competition rules has not been established.
Oprostitev je v tem primeru zmanjšanje stroškov, ne da bi vsebovalo kakršen koli spodbujevalni element ter od upravičenca zahtevalo kakršno koli protivrednost in katerega združljivosti s pravili o konkurenci ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti.
As regards aid granted prior to 1 January 2000, the Commission's practice at the time involved the concept of operating aid referred to in point 3.5 of the agriculture Guidelines.
Praksa Komisije je v zvezi s pomočmi, dodeljenimi pred 1. januarjem 2000, v tem obdobju že uporabljala pojem pomoči za tekoče poslovanje iz točke 3.5 kmetijskih smernic.
As a result, the exception laid down in Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty is not applicable.
Iz tega sledi, da odstopanje od načela prepovedi pomoči, določeno v točki (c) člena 87(3) Pogodbe, ni uporabno.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the tax exemption in the case in point is aid that is incompatible with the competition rules applicable.
Komisija z vidika zgoraj navedenega zaključuje, da je davčna oprostitev v tem primeru pomoč, ki je nezdružljiva z veljavnimi pravili o konkurenci.
Financing of the aid
Financiranje pomoči
Until 31 December 2000, the French authorities chose to finance the PRS by means of a parafiscal charge levied on retailers of meat and meat products and paid into a fund for managing it.
Francoski organi so do 31. decembra 2000 javno storitev predelave klavnih trupov financirali z davkom podobno dajatvijo, dodeljeno v sklad, ki jo je upravljal in ki je bremenila trgovce na drobno z mesom in mesnimi izdelki.
In the course of the infringement procedure referred to in recital 2, the Commission noted that the method of financing the rendering service excluded any fees levied on those using the service.
Komisija je med postopkom za ugotavljanje kršitev, navedenim v uvodni izjavi 2, ugotovila, da ta način financiranja storitve predelave klavnih trupov izključuje vsa plačila, prejeta od uporabnikov te storitve.
The fact that the State defrays the costs of rendering operations means that the cost price of French production is reduced.
Tako prevzem stroškov predelave klavnih trupov s strani države znižuje lastno ceno francoske proizvodnje.
The levy thus appears as compensation for the advantage afforded by full public financing of the collection and destruction of animal carcases and products seized at slaughterhouses.
Dajatev se tako kaže kot protivrednost koristi, odobrene s celotnim javnim financiranjem zbiranja in uničenja živalskih trupel in snovi, zaseženih v klavnicah.
However, with the exception of live animals imported into France and slaughtered there, the levy was paid under the same conditions and without distinction on products from other Member States marketed in France, but these did not benefit from any of the advantages stemming from the way the funds were financed.
Nasprotno se od izdelkov iz drugih držav članic, ki se tržijo v Franciji, razen uvoženih živih živali, zaklanih v Franciji, plačuje dajatev pod istimi pogoji brez razlikovanja, vendar ti izdelki niso upravičeni do nobene od ugodnosti, ki izhajajo iz financiranja sklada.
It therefore represented a clear monetary levy on such products.
Pri teh proizvodih gre zato za čisto denarno obremenitev.
In other words, while the levy was paid on products of national origin and on products from other Member States on exactly the same conditions in terms of the rules on the tax base, settlement and chargeability, this equality of conditions no longer applied as regards the way the product of the levy is used.
Povedano drugače, dajatev se res uporablja za izdelke nacionalnega porekla in izdelke drugih držav članic pod enakimi pogoji glede na pravila o osnovi, likvidaciji in obveznosti obračuna dajatve, vendar takšne vzporednosti ni več pri dodelitvi prihodka od dajatve,.
Under that infringement procedure, the Commission considered the compatibility of the rendering levy having regard to Articles 25 and 90 of the Treaty.
Komisija je v okviru navedenega postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev preučila združljivost dajatve na predelavo klavnih trupov z vidika členov 25 in 90 Pogodbe.
The Commission took the view that the rendering levy did not infringe Article 25 of the Treaty and that it could not, therefore, be regarded as a charge equivalent in effect to a customs duty, since the French authorities had shown that it is not exclusively used for activities that benefit national products, i.e. French meat.
Komisija je v tem primeru menila, da dajatev na predelavo klavnih trupov ne krši člena 25 ter je torej ni mogoče označiti kot dajatev z učinkom, enakim carini, ker so francoski organi dokazali, da se dajatev ne dodeljuje izključno dejavnostim, ki koristijo nacionalnim izdelkom, se pravi francoskemu mesu.
As regards Article 90 of the Treaty, the Commission concluded that France had failed to meet its obligations under Article 90 of the Treaty by applying the so-called ‘rendering levy’ to purchases of meat and other products specified by any person retailing such products, and that the levy was offset, at least in part, in the case of French products, by full public financing of rendering and the collection of animal carcases and products seized at slaughterhouses, whereas the levy was paid on products from other Member States under the same conditions but they did not benefit from the advantages of the fund into which the levy is paid.
Komisija je glede člena 90 Pogodbe zaključila, da Francija z uporabo navedene dajatve na predelavo klavnih trupov za odkupe mesa in drugih izdelkov, ki jih navede vsak, ki jih prodaja na drobno, pri čemer je bila ta dajatev vsaj delno, kar zadeva francoske izdelke, pokrita s celotnim javnim financiranjem predelave klavnih trupov in zbiranja živalskih trupel in snovi, zaseženih v klavnicah, medtem ko se od izdelkov iz drugih držav, ki se tržijo v Franciji, plačuje dajatev v istih pogojih, ne da bi bili ti izdelki upravičeni do ugodnosti, ki izhajajo iz sklada, v katerega se dajatev dodeli, ni izpolnila obveznosti, ki ji ima po členu 90 Pogodbe.
The Commission therefore considered that the rendering levy contravened Article 90 of the Treaty because it discriminated fiscally against products from other Member States.
Komisija torej meni, da dajatev na predelavo klavnih trupov krši člen 90 Pogodbe, ker je vzpostavila davčno diskriminacijo v škodo izdelkov iz drugih držav članic.
This concerned all meat imports as well as live animals in so far as they did not benefit from the rendering service.
To zadeva vse uvoženo meso in tudi žive živali, če slednje niso upravičene do dejavnosti predelave klavnih trupov.
On this point it is worth pointing out that meat is imported into France from other Member States in much larger quantities than live animals.
Pri tej točki je treba opozoriti, da je uvoz mesa iz drugih držav članic v Francijo precej večji od uvoza živih živali.
In accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice [50], the Commission normally takes the view that the financing of State aid by means of compulsory charges can have an impact on the aid by having a protective effect that goes beyond the aid itself.
Komisija v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [50] ponavadi meni, da lahko financiranje državne pomoči z obveznimi dajatvami vpliva na pomoč, saj ima zaščitni učinek, ki presega pomoč v pravem pomenu.
The levy in question was a compulsory charge.
Zadevna dajatev je namreč obvezna.
In line with the case law, the Commission considers that an aid measure cannot be financed by parafiscal charges that are levied on products imported from other Member States too.
Komisija v skladu z isto sodno prakso meni, da pomoči ni mogoče financirati z davkom podobnimi dajatvami, ki bremenijo tudi izdelke, uvožene iz drugih držav članic.
In the light of the case law and the fact that the levy was used to finance State aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty and was discriminatory in contravention of Article 90 of the Treaty in so far as it was charged on products from other Member States that cannot benefit from the advantages of the fund into which it was paid, the Commission considered that the proceeds of the levy realised on products imported from other Member States were against the rules on competition.
Komisija ob upoštevanju te sodne prakse in dejstva, da se dajatev uporablja za financiranje državne pomoči v smislu člena 87 Pogodbe in ima diskriminacijsko naravo, ki ni v skladu s členom 90 Pogodbe, ker je treba dajatev plačati tudi od izdelkov iz drugih držav članic, ki pa niso upravičeni do ugodnosti, ki izhajajo iz sklada, v katerega je dajatev dodeljena, meni, da je prihodek od dajatve, ki je bremenila izdelke, uvožene iz drugih držav članic, nepravilno financiranje pomoči z vidika pravil o konkurenci.
After 31 December 2000
Po 31. decembru 2000
Since 1 January 2001, the proceeds of the rendering levy are paid directly into the general budget of the State and no longer into the fund set up for that purpose.
Prihodek od dajatve na predelavo klavnih trupov je od 1. januarja 2001 neposredno dodeljen v splošni državni proračun in ne več v za to oblikovan sklad.
The Commission considers that, in general, paying the product of a levy into the national budget system means it becomes impossible to link the levy and the financing of a given service provided and financed by the State.
Komisija meni, da na splošno zaradi vključitve prihodka od neke dajatve v nacionalni proračunski sistem ni več mogoče izslediti povezave med navedeno dajatvijo in financiranjem določene storitve, ki jo opravlja in financira država.
It accordingly becomes impossible to say whether a levy discriminates against other products because the proceeds of the levy are merged with the rest of the State's revenue and the financing of the aid can no longer be attributed directly to it.
Zato ne bi bilo več mogoče potrditi, da je dajatev diskriminacijska do drugih izdelkov, ker bi se prihodek od dajatve pomešal z drugimi prihodki države, pri čemer financiranja pomoči ne bi bilo mogoče neposredno povezati s tem prihodkom.
The Commission closed the infringement procedure on 26 June 2002.
Komisija je postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev zaključila 26. junija 2002.
Nonetheless, the complaint presented to the Commission put forward arguments that deserve to be considered under this procedure.
Vendar je pritožba, vložena pri Komisiji, predstavila argumente, ki bi jih bilo treba upoštevati v okviru tega postopka.
Those arguments raised doubts as to whether the resource and the way it is used were truly separate and distinct.
Ti argumenti vzbujajo dvome o tem, ali je bila povezava med virom in njegovo uporabo resnično prekinjena.
Thus, while the new system designed by the French authorities did involve paying the proceeds of the levy into the general budget of the State, once they were paid into the budget, the proceeds appear to have been allocated to a particular chapter of the Ministry of Agriculture, from where they could then be transferred to the budget of CNASEA, the body responsible for the financial management of the rendering service.
Tako se zdi, da naj bi bil prihodek od dajatve, čeprav se po novem sistemu, ki so ga zasnovali francoski organi, res dodeljuje v splošni državni proračun, potem ko je bil enkrat vključen v proračun, dodeljen v določeno poglavje ministrstva za kmetijstvo, iz katerega naj bi se nato plačal v proračun CNASEA, organa, ki je bil odgovoren za finančno poslovodenje storitve predelave klavnih trupov.
The figures in the Commission's possession also appeared to raise doubts about that separation.
Zdelo se je, da so številke, ki jih je Komisija imela na voljo, tudi vzbudile dvom o navedeni prekinitvi povezave.
After considering the French legislative documents, the Commission looked at the claimed separation between the resource and the way it is used.
Komisijo je po pregledu francoskih zakonskih dokumentov zanimala domnevna prekinitev povezave med virom in njegovo uporabo.
Such a separation could in practice amount to the tax system that was called into question by the Commission under Article 90 of the Treaty, under the infringement procedure referred to in recital 2.
Takšna prekinitev povezave bi se v praksi lahko izkazala za isto kot davčni sistem, ki ga je Komisija že obravnavala z vidika člena 90 Pogodbe v okviru postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev, navedenega v uvodni izjavi 2.
The French authorities admit that, when the new provisions on the levy were presented, the emphasis was laid on the need to continue financing the PRS.
Francoski organi priznavajo, da je bila v okviru predstavitve novih določb o dajatvi poudarjena nujnost nadaljevati financiranje javne storitve predelave klavnih trupov.
This was all the more logical as the levy had been earmarked for that precise purpose since 1 January 1997.
Ta utemeljitev je bila toliko bolj smiselna, ker je bila dajatev od 1. januarja 1997 dodeljena prav za ta cilj.
From the legal viewpoint, no binding text has been adopted to date on the financing of the PRS using the proceeds of the rendering levy, as was the case in 1997.
Vsekakor drži, da na pravni ravni ni bil sprejet noben zavezujoč dokument, ki bi določal, da se javna storitev predelave klavnih trupov financira iz prihodka od dajatve na predelavo klavnih trupov, kot je bilo to storjeno leta 1997.
At that time, Article 1 of Law No 96-1139 of 26 December 1996 provided that the proceeds of the levy were to be paid into a fund with the aim of financing the collection and destruction of animal carcases and products seized at slaughterhouses and recognised as unfit for human and animal consumption.
Člen 1 Zakona št. 96-1139 z dne 26. decembra 1996 je takrat določal, da se prihodek od dajatve dodeli v sklad, katerega namen je financiranje zbiranja in odstranjevanja trupel in snovi, zaseženih v klavnicah, ki so neustrezne za prehrano.
The French authorities explain that since 1 January 2001, the fund to finance the PRS has ceased to exist and the appropriations allocated to the PRS are entered in the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture in the same way as other expenditure.
Francoski organi pojasnjujejo, da od 1. januarja 2001 sklad za financiranje javne storitve predelave klavnih trupov ne obstaja več ter da so sredstva, dodeljena za opravljanje javne storitve predelave klavnih trupov, vključena v proračun ministrstva za kmetijstvo prav tako kot drugi odhodki.
In addition, the proceeds of the levy and the cost of the PRS are not equivalent.
Poleg tega zneski, ki so povezani s prihodkom od dajatve in stroškom opravljanja javne storitve predelave klavnih trupov, niso enaki.
The proceeds of the levy amounted to EUR 550 million in 2003 whereas the total appropriations allocated to the PRS by the Ministry of Agriculture for that year amounted to EUR 280 million.
Prihodek od dajatve namreč znaša 550 milijonov eurov za leto 2003, medtem ko znaša skupni znesek sredstev, dodeljenih ministrstvu za kmetijstvo za isto leto, 280 milijonov eurov.
As a consequence, the French authorities consider that the amounts are no longer earmarked for the PRS although the original heading stands.
Francoski organi zato menijo, da ta dajatev, čeprav je ohranila prvotno ime, ni več izrecno dodeljena za financiranje javne storitve predelave klavnih trupov.