natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to Article 87(1) of the Treaty, any aid granted by States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market.
Skladno s členom 87(1) Pogodbe pomoč ni združljiva z evropskim trgom, če vpliva na izmenjavo med državami članicami in jo dodeli država ali prihaja iz državnih virov v kateri koli obliki, ki podpira določena podjetja ali proizvodnje, pri čemer je konkurenca izkrivljena ali bi lahko bila izkrivljena.
The measure under consideration corresponds to this definition in that it concerns certain types of production and may affect trade by virtue of the position Italy occupies in relation to the products in question (in 2001 Italy was the Union’s second largest producer of peaches and largest producer of nectarines).
Obravnavani ukrep ustreza takšni definiciji, saj ščiti nekatere proizvodnje in zaradi mesta, ki ga Italija zaseda pri zadevni proizvodnji, lahko vpliva na izmenjavo (leta 2001 je bila Italija druga proizvajalka breskev in prva proizvajalka nektarin v Skupnosti).
However, in the cases provided for in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty, certain measures may be considered, as an exception, to be compatible with the common market.
Vsekakor pa se lahko v primerih, ki jih predvideva člen 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe, izjemoma nekateri ukrepi štejejo za združljive s skupnim trgom.
In the case under consideration, the Italian authorities had explained that the damage to the products in question had been caused by adverse weather conditions.
V obravnavanem primeru so italijanski organi razložili, da je bila škoda na zadevnih proizvodih posledica neugodnih vremenskih razmer.
As indicated in recital 12, during the exchange of correspondence with the Italian authorities the Commission had come round to the view that the event responsible for the difficult situation was not a meteorological event but the unfavourable development of the market, in other words, a factor that fell within the normal risks associated with farming.
Kot je že opozorjeno v uvodni opombi 12, je izmenjava pisem z italijanskimi organi Komisijo navedla k mnenju, da odločilno dejstvo za nastanek krize niso bile vremenske razmere, temveč neugoden razvoj trga, ali z drugimi besedami, parameter, ki je običajni del tveganja pri opravljanju kmetijske dejavnosti.
The comments from the Italian authorities following the initiation of the procedure under the former Article 88(2) of the Treaty did not provide any information making it possible to consider this idea less convincing.
Pripombe, ki so jih italijanski organi poslali po začetku postopka po členu 88(2) Pogodbe, niso prispevale prav nobenega podatka, na podlagi katerega bi bila njihova razlaga prepričljivejša.
On the contrary, with reference to the information from the Italian authorities which states that, since the difficult situation was not due to a problem of non-production, all stages of cultivation had been completed, and above all the explanations from the Asprofrut organisation, which says that it applied to the Region, and was authorised, to withdraw from the market a product that was not damaged by hail and in compliance with the Community marketing rules, although it had been regraded as an industrial product on account of the deterioration that had occurred between the date of submission of the application for withdrawal and the start of the actual withdrawal operations (see recitals 22 and 25), the Commission can only remain doubtful about the link between the withdrawal operation that accompanied the aid and a loss of production due to adverse weather conditions.
Nasprotno, glede na navedbe italijanskih organov, po katerih so, kolikor kriza ni nastopila zaradi izostale proizvodnje, bile dokončane vse proizvodne faze, in še zlasti glede na pojasnila organizacije Asprofrut, ki je izjavila, da je deželno upravo prosila in dosegla umik proizvoda s trga, ki ga ni poškodovala toča in je bil v skladu s tržnimi predpisi Skupnosti, čeprav je bil uvrščen na nižjo stopnjo med industrijske proizvode zaradi slabšanja kakovosti v času med predložitvijo vloge za umik in začetkom postopka umika (gl. uvodni opombi 22 in 25), Komisija lahko samo še potrdi dvom o obstoju povezave med umikom, ki je spremljal pomoč, in izgubo pri proizvodnji zaradi vremenskih razmer.
The measure appears to be linked more to the unfavourable development of the market, in other words, to an event falling within the normal risks associated with farming.
Ukrep je torej povezan bolj z neugodnim razvojem trga, torej z dogodkom, ki predstavlja običajni del tveganja pri opravljanju kmetijske dejavnosti.
With regard to the doubts set out in recitals 13, 14 and 15, all of which concern the appropriateness of the method of calculating the losses, the Commission, even if it were to adopt the approach taken by the Italian authorities of compensating for losses caused by natural disasters without taking account of the considerations set out in recital 30, could not find in the comments of those authorities any information that enables it to glimpse a justification for the use of a method of calculating losses that is based on turnover instead of production, or for the choice of reference years.
Kar zadeva pomisleke iz uvodnih opomb 13, 14 in 15, ki se vsi nanašajo na primernost postopka izračuna izgub, se lahko ugotovi, da četudi bi Komisija sledila ravnanju italijanskih organov v zvezi z odškodnino za škodo, ki naj bi nastala ob naravni nesreči, tudi brez upoštevanja opazk iz uvodne opombe 30, ne bi mogla iz pripomb omenjenih organov pridobiti nikakršne informacije, ki bi upravičevala uporabo postopka izračuna izgube, ki temelji na prometu in ne na proizvodnji, in izbrana leta za takšen izračun.
With regard to the choice of the method of calculation, it should be stressed that, while point 11.3.2 of the guidelines provides for the possibility of adopting a method of calculating losses other than the one recommended, this alternative method must make it possible to determine a loss of production (see the rule [5] according to which ‘the Commission will (...) accept alternative methods of calculation of normal production, including regional reference values, provided it is satisfied that these are representative and not based on abnormally high yields’).
Kar zadeva izbiro postopka za izračun, velja poudariti, da če točka 11.3.2 usmeritev predvideva uporabo postopkov za izračun izgub, ki so različni od predlaganega, morajo takšni postopki omogočati določitev škode pri proizvodnji (gl. načelo [5], po katerem „bo Komisija sprejela … različne postopke za izračun normalne proizvodnje, ki vključujejo regionalne referenčne vrednosti, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da so vzorčne in ne temeljijo na izjemno visokih donosih“).
The reference to turnover cannot be justified therefore in the light of the provisions of point 11.3.2 of the guidelines.
Sklicevanje na promet v okviru določb iz točke 11.3.2 usmeritev ni utemeljeno.
The Commission notes also that in their letter of 16 January 2004 the Italian authorities gave no justification for the choice of reference years used for calculating the loss and no reply to the question how a loss of production of 20 or 30 % was possible, while the estimates of production for the region showed, for 2002, a production higher than that for the three years used as a reference for the calculation of the losses.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da v pismu z dne 16. januarja 2004 niso italijanski organi podali nobene utemeljitve v zvezi z izbiro referenčnih let, ki so jih uporabili pri izračunu izgube, niti niso pojasnili, kako je mogoče prikazati izgubo pri proizvodnji v višini 20 in 30 %, medtem ko so cenitve proizvodnje v regiji prikazovale v letu 2002 višjo proizvodnjo, kot so jo navedli za tri referenčna leta za izračun izgub.
In the absence of this information the Commission still does not know why the Italian authorities used, as a point of reference, years during which, by their own admission, certain holdings producing peaches and nectarines had obtained interest subsidies on loans granted to compensate for damage caused by adverse weather conditions and representing at least 35 % of the gross production that could be marketed (as stated in recital 15, it is difficult to imagine that crops of peaches and nectarines could have been spared the bad weather that affected the whole of a holding and that, as a corollary, a farmer whose entire holding was affected could have received aid for all his crops except peaches and nectarines).
Ob pomanjkanju tovrstnih informacij, je Komisiji še vedno neznano, zakaj so italijanski organi uporabili kot referenčno vrednost tista leta, ko so po njihovih izjavah nekaterim proizvodnim podjetjem, ki gojijo breskve in nektarine, bile dane subvencionirane obrestne mere za posojila, ki so bila dodeljena kot odškodnino za škodo zaradi vremenskih razmer, ki je predstavljala najmanj 35 % bruto proizvodnje za prodajo (kot je bilo povedano v uvodni opombi 15, bi bilo težko verjeti, da nasadov breskev in nektarin ni prizadela škoda, ki je prizadela celotno podjetje, in da je kmetovalec, katerega celotno podjetje je utrpelo škodo, prejel odškodnino za vse proizvode, razen za breskve in nektarine).
The Commission does not understand either how the Italian authorities could justify a loss of 20 or 30 % on the grounds of adverse weather conditions while, apart from the fact that the production estimates for 2002 appeared more favourable than the figures for the three previous years used as a reference, it is clear from the comments of Asprofrut that the products withdrawn had not been damaged by hail but had been regraded as industrial products on account of the deterioration that had occurred between the date the application for withdrawal was submitted and the start of the actual withdrawal operations (see recital 31).
Komisiji tudi ni jasno, kako so lahko italijanski organi utemeljili izgubo v višini 20 ali 30 % z neugodnimi vremenskimi razmerami, medtem ko je ob dejstvu, da so bile ocene za leto 2002 ugodnejše od rezultatov v treh referenčnih letih, iz pripomb podjetja Asprofrut razvidno, da umaknjeni proizvodi niso bili poškodovani zaradi toče, temveč so bili razvrščeni v nižji kakovostni razred, kot industrijski proizvod, zaradi poslabšanja kakovosti, do katerega je prišlo v času med predložitvijo vloge za umik do začetka postopka umika (gl. uvodno opombo 31).
In this situation, even if the Commission had been able to consider the approach to compensating for losses due to natural disasters taken by the Italian authorities to be valid, it would in any case have continued to doubt the appropriateness of the arrangements for calculating the loss threshold triggering entitlement to the aid, of the overrun of that threshold and of the eligibility of the peach and nectarine producers for aid under point 11.3 of the guidelines.
V takem kontekstu je Komisija, četudi bi lahko štela ravnanje italijanskih organov v zvezi z odškodnino za izgubo, ki naj bi nastala ob naravni nesreči, kot utemeljeno, lahko samo še potrdila dvom v primernost postopka izračuna praga izgube, ki daje pravico do upravičenosti do pomoči, ter potrdila dvom v preseganje tega praga in v upravičenost proizvajalcev breskev in nektarin do pomoči v skladu s točko 11.3 usmeritev.
In effect, the use of turnover (in other words, a factor involved distinctly downstream of weather conditions) only reinforces the finding in recital 30, namely that the withdrawal measure that accompanied the aid appears to be linked more to the unfavourable development of the market, i.e. to an event that falls within the normal risks associated with farming.
Uporaba prometa (z drugimi besedami parametra, ki se uporablja izključno za posledice dogodka, kot je naravna nesreča) ne potrjuje dejstev iz uvodne opombe 30, oziroma da je ukrep umika, ki je spremljal pomoč, povezan z neugodnim razvojem razmer na trgu ali z dogodkom, ki predstavlja običajno tveganje pri opravljanju kmetijske dejavnosti.
With regard to the doubts set out in recital 16, concerning the appropriateness of the method of calculation of the aid, the Italian authorities in their letter of 16 January 2004, themselves acknowledged that it was inappropriate before underlining that the figures provided should make it possible for the Commission to find that there could be no overcompensation for the loss incurred.
V zvezi s pomisleki iz uvodne opombe 16, ki zadevajo primernost postopka izračuna pomoči, so italijanski organi v pismu z dne 16. januarja 2004 sicer priznali neprimernost postopka za izračun, vendar pa so tudi poudarili, da bi Komisija na podlagi posredovanih številčnih podatkov lahko ugotovila, da ne more priti do prekomerne kompenzacije nastalih izgub.
Again, in this case, if the Commission had been able to consider the approach to compensating for losses due to natural disasters taken by the Italian authorities to be valid, faced with the acknowledged inappropriateness of the method of calculation it could only doubt the compatibility of the proposed aid with the common market.
Tudi v tem primeru, če bi Komisija lahko upoštevala kot veljavno ravnanje italijanskih organov v zvezi z odškodnino za izgubo, ki naj bi nastala ob naravni nesreči, bi ob prepoznanju neprimernosti uporabljenega postopka za izračun lahko samo še potrdila dvom v združljivost predvidene pomoči s skupnim trgom.
In actual fact, the fundamental problem again resides in the fact that, as the Italian authorities indicated, the loss incurred by the holdings in question is attributable to the lack of sales of the product (see recital 16) and not to the absence of production (see recital 30).
V resnici tiči osnovni problem ponovno v dejstvu, da, kot so izjavili italijanski organi, je škoda, ki so jo utrpela zadevna podjetja, nastala zaradi izpada prodaje proizvodov (gl. uvodno opombo 16), ne pa zaradi izostale proizvodnje (gl. uvodno opombo 30).
Once again, therefore, the Commission can only suspect that the planned aid is being used for purposes other than to compensate for a lack of earnings due to the unfavourable development of the market, which falls within the normal risks associated with farming.
Zato ima tudi tu Komisija pomisleke in meni, da je predvidena pomoč namenjena čemu drugemu kot kritju izgubljenega dobička zaradi neugodnega razvoja razmer na trgu, kar pa predstavlja običajno tveganje pri opravljanju kmetijske dejavnosti.
With regard to the doubts set out in recitals 17 and 18 (concerning the appropriateness of the basis for calculating the aid, because the Italian authorities had provided no details of the deduction of costs not incurred by the farmer as a result of the adverse weather conditions, or of any amounts received under an insurance policy or any direct aid received), the Commission notes that, in their letter of 16 January 2004, the Italian authorities simply stated that the aid they intend to grant would not be reduced by the amount of costs not incurred by the farmer because, since it was not a question of a lack of production, all the cultivation stages had been completed and the relevant costs had been incurred.
V zvezi s pomisleki iz uvodnih opomb 17 in 18 (ki zadevajo primernost osnove za izračun pomoči, ker niso italijanski organi predložili natančnih podatkov o odbitku stroškov, ki jih kmetovalec zaradi neugodnih vremenskih razmer ni imel, niti niso posredovali podatkov o prejemkih, ki so bili morebitno nakazani na podlagi zavarovalne police, in o morebitni prejeti pomoči) Komisija jemlje na znanje pismo z dne 16. januarja 2004, v katerem so italijanski organi sporočili le to, da se od pomoči, ki jo nameravajo odobriti, ne odbijajo stroški, ki jih kmetovalec ni imel, saj ne gre za izostalo proizvodnjo, kar pomeni, da so bile vse faze proizvodnje dokončane in vsi nastali stroški poravnani.
In the light of this response, the Commission notes that, while the question of the deduction of costs not incurred by the farmers has been dealt with, no details have been given regarding the deduction of any direct aid received or of any other amount received under an insurance policy.
Ob takem odgovoru je Komisija ugotovila, da je bil sicer posredovan podatek o stroških, ki jih je kmetovalec plačal, niso pa bile posredovane informacije o odbitku neposredne pomoči, ki je bila morda nakazana ali o katerem koli znesku, prejetem na podlagi zavarovalne police.
While the Commission had been able to consider the approach taken by the Italian authorities referred to above on several occasions to be valid, this absence of detailed information would have been sufficient in itself for it to continue to harbour doubts about the compatibility of the measure with the common market since it could not have been sure that all the conditions in point 11.3 of the guidelines had been met.
Če bi Komisija lahko upoštevala kot veljavno večkrat omenjeno ravnanje italijanskih organov, bi ji že odsotnost zahtevanega podatka potrdila dvome glede združljivosti ukrepa s skupnim trgom, saj ne bi imela nobenega zagotovila, da so bili vsi pogoji iz točke 11.3 usmeritev spoštovani.
With regard to the doubts set out in recital 18, which are linked to compliance with point 11.3.8 of the guidelines, the Commission notes the details provided by the Italian authorities, according to which the aid would be allocated in relation to the loss incurred by the members of the producer organisation (determined on the basis of the quantity delivered), and that they would see to it that the share of the aid withheld by the producer organisation was to cover only the costs it had incurred.
Kar zadeva pomisleke iz uvodne opombe 18, ki so povezani s spoštovanjem točke 11.3.8 usmeritev, se je Komisija seznanila s pojasnili, ki so jih posredovali italijanski organi, po katerih naj bi pomoč razdelili sorazmerno s škodo, ki so jo člani organizacije proizvajalcev dejansko utrpeli, in po katerih bodo organi poskrbeli, da se del pomoči, ki jo organizacija zadrži, nameni izključno kritju dejanskih stroškov.
That being so, even if it had been able to consider the approach taken by the Italian authorities, mentioned above, to be valid, the Commission could only have continued to harbour doubts about compliance with point 11.3.8 of the guidelines, given that the quantity delivered would not have been an objective factor in determining the loss incurred, since the withdrawal operations concerned fruit that had not been damaged by hail but had been regraded as an industrial product on account of the deterioration that occurred between the date of submission of the application for withdrawal (see recital 30) and the start of the actual withdrawal operations, and because without information, which had nevertheless been requested, concerning the nature of the costs incurred by the Asprofrut producer organisation, it could not have been sure that these costs had not been over-estimated, which would have entailed the grant of operating aid to that organisation.
V takih razmerah je Komisija, čeprav bi lahko upoštevala navedeno ravnanje italijanskih organov, lahko samo še potrdila dvom o spoštovanju določb iz točke 11.3.8 usmeritev, saj izročena količina ne predstavljala objektivnega faktorja za določanje izgube, ker je umik s trga namreč zadeval sadje, ki ga toča ni poškodovala, marveč je bilo razvrščeno v nižji kakovostni razred, med industrijske proizvode, zaradi poslabšanja kakovosti, do katerega je prišlo v času od predložitve vloge za umik (gl. uvodno opombo 30) do začetka postopka umika; poleg tega, zaradi pomanjkanja informacij, ki so jih sicer večkrat zahtevali, o naravi stroškov, ki jih je imela organizacija proizvajalcev Asprofrut, Komisija ne bi mogla zagotoviti, da ti stroški niso bili precenjeni, kar bi povzročilo dodelitev pomoči za delovanje organizacije.
With regard to the doubts set out in recital 19, which are based on the existence of a presumption of an infringement of the rules governing the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables established by Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, the Commission can only state that the Italian authorities have not made any submissions that allow this presumption to be overturned.
V zvezi s pomisleki iz uvodne opombe 19, ki zadevajo obstoj domnevne kršitve predpisov o ureditvi skupnega trga sadja in zelenjave, ki jih določa uredba (ES) št. 2200/96, mora Komisija ugotoviti, ali niso italijanski organi predložili utemeljitve, ki bi tako domnevo ovrglo.
In view of the circumstances in which withdrawal took place, namely at a time when the producer organisations in Piedmont had already exhausted the withdrawal possibilities provided for in that Regulation (see recital 10 above), the Commission can only conclude that the grant of State aid for withdrawals which entail an overrun of the possibilities set would be contrary to the rules governing the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables and would disturb the smooth operation of the common market.
Glede na okoliščine, v katerih se je vršil umik, namreč trenutek, ko so organizacije proizvajalcev iz Piemonta že izrabile možnosti umika, ki jih predvideva navedena uredba (gl. uvodno opombo 10), lahko Komisija samo sklene, da bi bila odobritev državne pomoči za umike, ki presegajo predpisane možnosti, v nasprotju s predpisi o skupni ureditvi trga sadja in zelenjave in da bi moteče vplivala na urejeno delovanje skupnega trga.
Lastly, with regard to the question of the payment of the aid and any aggregation of payment, the Commission notes that in their letter of 16 January 2004 the Italian authorities said that the aid had not been paid and the producer organisation Asprofrut confirmed that no amount had been received.
Slednjič, v zvezi s plačilom pomoči in morebitnim kopičenjem, Komisija opozarja, da so v pismu z dne 16. januarja 2004 italijanski organi natančno navedli, da pomoč ni bila nakazana, kar je potrdila tudi organizacija proizvajalcev Asprofrut.
No response has been given, however, to the question of whether the aid could be aggregated with other aid pursuing the same ends.
Ni pa prispel noben odgovor v zvezi z možnostjo kopičenja pomoči iz ostalih virov z enakimi cilji.
Aggregation could lead to overcompensation for a loss claimed, which would be contrary to point 11.3 of the guidelines.
Možno kopičenje bi lahko predstavljalo prekomerno kompenzacijo prijavljene izgube, v nasprotju z določbami točke 11.3 usmeritev.
CONCLUSIONS
ZAKLJUČEK
The observations set out above show that the proposed aid for the Asprofrut producer organisation to cover an operation for the withdrawal of peaches and nectarines cannot be regarded as intended to compensate for losses caused by adverse weather conditions but constitutes a means of offering certain producers compensation for a loss of earnings owing to the unfavourable development of the market, which falls within the normal risks associated with farming.
Gornja opažanja dokazujejo, da pomoči organizaciji proizvajalcev Asprofrut za pokrivanje umika breskev in nektarin s trga ni moč obravnavati kot pomoč za kritje izgub zaradi neugodnih vremenskih razmer, temveč predstavlja sredstvo nekaterih proizvajalcev za pridobitev odškodnine ob izpadu izgubljenega dobička zaradi neugodnega razvoja razmer na trgu, kar sicer predstavlja običajno tveganje pri opravljanju kmetijske dejavnosti.
Covering a normal risk associated with farming with an aid is equivalent to granting a beneficiary or beneficiaries operating aid which is incompatible with the common market.
Pokrivanje običajnega tveganja, ki je povezano z opravljanjem kmetijske dejavnosti, s pomočjo, pomeni dodelitev pomoči za tekoče delovanje prejemniku ali prejemnikom, kar pa ni združljivo s skupnim trgom.