natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Regarding the application of point 4.1 of the Guidelines (aid for investments in agricultural holdings), the conditions of that point have not been satisfied: expenditure on soil sterilisation would not seem to be included among the forms of eligible expenditure in point 4.1.1.5, the rate of aid (50 %) for the purchase of machinery exceeds the maximum permitted rate (40 %) in areas which are not less-favoured (point 4.1.1.2), and respect for the eligibility criteria laid down by point 4.1.1.3 of the Guidelines has not been demonstrated.
V primeru uporabe točke 4.1 Smernic (pomoč za naložbe v kmetijska gospodarstva) ne bi bili izpolnjeni pogoji zadevne točke: stroški sterilizacije površin niso bili med upravičenimi stroški iz točke 4.1.1.5, stopnja pomoči (50 %) za nakup opreme je presegala najvišjo dovoljeno stopnjo (40 %) na območjih, ki niso območja z omejenimi možnostmi (točka 4.1.1.2), in izpolnjevanje meril upravičenosti iz točke 4.1.1.3 Smernic ni bilo dokazano.
Article 5 (co-financing of the national citrus cultivation plan): the funding envisaged by the Article was to finance the national citrus cultivation plan, a plan which was still being examined by the Commission.
Člen 5 (sofinanciranje načrta za gojenje agrumov): odobrena sredstva, določena v členu, so bila namenjena financiranju nacionalnega načrta za gojenje agrumov, ki ga službe Komisije še vedno preučujejo.
Therefore, at that stage of the procedure, it was not yet possible to consider financing of the plan admissible.
Zato upravičenosti financiranja načrta v navedeni fazi postopka še ni bilo mogoče določiti.
Article 6 (crop protection associations): a contribution to the associations' management costs did not seem to satisfy some of the criteria of point 14 of the Guidelines, particularly with regard to the general availability of the services, the limiting of administrative costs for non-members, and the requirement to account separately for the expenditure relating to the subsidised services.
Člen 6 (konzorciji za zaščito): prispevek k stroškom upravljanja konzorcijev ni ustrezal nekaterim merilom iz točke 14 Smernic, zlasti splošni dostopnosti storitev, omejitvi upravnih stroškov za nepartnerje in obveznemu vodenju ločenega računovodstva za stroške v zvezi s subvencioniranimi storitvami.
By letter dated 29 April 2002 Italy provided the following information and clarifications:
S pismom z dne 29. aprila 2002 je Italija predložila naslednje podatke in obrazložitve.
Article 1 (extension of agricultural loans): Italy specified that the provision in question had been repealed by Article 1(2) of Regional Law No 28 of 23 December 2000 (hereinafter ‘Law No 28/2000’).
Člen 1 (odlog plačila kmetijskih menic): Italija je pojasnila, da je bil zadevni predpis razveljavljen z drugim odstavkom člena 1 deželnega zakona št. 28 z dne 23. decembra 2000 (v nadaljnjem besedilu zakon št. 28/2000).
Italy also emphasised that the provision had never been notified, as the extension of agricultural loans did not entail government action and instead was a matter for the contractual parties, and as the responsibilities regarding the extension of the loans rested entirely with the farmers.
Vseeno je Italija poudarila, da predpis nikoli ni bil priglašen, ker odlog plačila kmetijskih menic ne vključuje uprave, ampak je odvisen le od pogodbenega dogovora strank in nosi celotne stroške podaljšanja posojila kmet.
Article 2 (renegotiation of agricultural loans): Italy specified that the possibility of renegotiation would concern only loans financed on the basis of the regional law (Article 2(3) of Regional Law No 13/86) within the period of validity of the approved scheme.
Člen 2 (ponovna preučitev kmetijskih posojil): Italija je pojasnila, da se bodo v času veljavnosti odobrenega programa ponovno preučile le dejavnosti, financirane na podlagi deželnega zakona (člen 2(3) deželnega zakona št. 13/86).
Italy indicated, furthermore, that the aim of the provision is to bring the rate applied to loans previously entered into by farmers below the so-called ‘usurious rate’, as defined by Law No 108 of 1996.
Italija je poleg tega navedla, da je namen predpisa znižati obresti, veljavne za posojila, ki so bila predhodno odobrena kmetom, pod tako imenovane „oderuške obresti“, določene v skladu z deželnim zakonom št. 108 iz leta 1996.
In many cases, the loans in question have reference rates which are far higher than the usurious rate, and are two or three times higher than the prevailing market rate.
Obresti zadevnih posojil so pogosto veliko višje od oderuških in so dvakrat do trikrat višje od sedanjih tržnih obresti.
The aim of the renegotiations is to align the old reference rates with current market rates.
Namen dejavnosti ponovne preučitve je uskladiti nekdanje obresti s tržnimi obrestmi.
As a result of the article in question, the institutions granting aid would be able to renegotiate the relevant loans, resulting in savings of public resources.
Na podlagi zadevnega člena bi imele družbe, ki dodeljujejo pomoč, možnost ponovne preučitve zadevnih posojil, s čimer bi se prihranila javna sredstva.
The regional government has undertaken not to change the extent of the state aid in grant-equivalent terms of the initial measure.
Dežela poskuša ohraniti državno pomoč v smislu dotacije, enakovredne začetnemu ukrepu.
The fact that up-dated aid instalments due will benefit the borrower means that, in cases where the loan is settled early, the reduction of aid causes the borrower to receive a lower amount than that which was originally granted, and thus the equivalent aid is also lower.
Ker se bodo obroki pomoči, ki se izteka, posodobili v korist posojilojemalca, prejme posojilojemalec tudi v primeru predčasnega odplačila posojila zaradi znižanih obrokov pomoči znesek, ki je nižji od prvotno odobrenega, zato je ustrezno nižja tudi pomoč.
Article 3 (agri-environmental measures): Italy pointed out that the prohibition on assuming new agri-environmental commitments for programmes expiring at the end of 1998 in the absence of an evaluation (November 1998), as well as the decision not to co-finance certain measures (May 1999), had both occurred after farmers had agreed (in October 1998) to the commitments in question. It should be noted, in the case of Sicily, that the commitments which have been challenged are not ‘new five-year commitments’.
Člen 3 (kmetijsko-okoljski ukrepi): Italija je opozorila, da sta bili prepoved o sprejemanju novih kmetijsko-okoljskih obveznosti znotraj programov, veljavnih do konca leta 1998 brez predhodne ocene (november 1998), in odločitev o nesofinanciranju nekaterih ukrepov (maj 1999) sprejeti potem, ko so oktobra 1998 kmetje že prevzeli zadevne obveznosti.
Rather, they come within the framework of the Sicilian agri-environmental programme which is still valid given that it was approved by the Commission until the end of 1999, and not just until 1998 as was the case for the other regions.
Opozoriti je treba, da v primeru Sicilije obveznosti, ki se izpodbijajo, niso „nove petletne obveznosti“, ampak so del še veljavnega kmetijsko-okoljskega načrta Sicilije, ki ga je Komisija odobrila do konca leta 1999 in ne le do leta 1998, kot za druge dežele.
Article 4 (measures in favour of greenhouse crops): Italy has undertaken to limit the aid solely to the purchase of plastic sheeting to cover tunnel greenhouses.
Člen 4 (ukrepi v zvezi z gojenjem v rastlinjakih): Italija se je zavezala, da bo omejila pomoč pri nakupu plastike za pokritje tunelov.
In order to avoid any risk of overcompensation, Italy has also undertaken that, wherever a farmer has entered into an insurance contract providing cover for damage caused by adverse weather conditions, it would subtract, from the compensation payable, any sums received, as well as any ordinary expenditure not incurred by the farmer.
Razen tega je navedla, da se Italija, če sklene kmet zavarovalno pogodbo v zvezi s pokritjem škode, ki so jo povzročile slabe vremenske razmere, zavezuje, da bo od odškodnine odštela vse prejete zneske, razen običajnih stroškov, ki jih kmet ni imel, da bi se izognila kakršnemu koli tveganju v zvezi s prekomernim nadomestilom.
Article 6 (crop-protection associations): Italy undertook to abrogate the contribution towards the associations' day-to-day management costs.
Člen 6 (konzorciji za zaščito kmetijske proizvodnje): Italija se je zavezala, da bo razveljavila odobritev prispevka k stroškom upravljanja podpornega sklada konzorcijev.
The provision at Article 1 has been repealed (see point (9)) and measures provided for by Articles 5 and 7 were approved within the framework of other aid schemes (see paragraphs (18) and (20)).
Predpis iz člena 1 je bil razveljavljen (glej uvodno izjavo (9)) in ukrepi, določeni v členih 5 in 7 (glej uvodni izjavi (18) in (20)), so bili odobreni znotraj drugih programov pomoči.
Therefore, the following assessment concerns only Articles 2, 3, 4 and 6 of Law No 22/1999.
Zato velja spodnja ocena le za člene 2, 3, 4 in 6 deželnega zakona št. 22 z dne 28. septembra 1999.
Under Article 87(1) of the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State 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.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe je, če vpliva na izmenjavo med državami članicami, s skupnim trgom nezdružljiva tista pomoč, ki jo v kakršni koli obliki odobrijo države ali se izplačuje iz državnih virov in ki zaradi dajanja prednosti nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvajalcem izkrivlja konkurenco ali pomeni tveganje za njeno izkrivljanje.
The final wording of Article 2 of the Regional Law provides for the renegotiation of agricultural loans with special conditions within the meaning of Law No 13/86 (a scheme authorised by the Commission [13] during the validity period of the said scheme (31 December 1997).
Člen 2 končne različice deželnega zakona določa ponovno preučitev kmetijskih posojil z ugodnimi pogoji, odobrenih izključno v skladu z deželnim zakonom št. 13/86 (program, ki ga je odobrila Komisija [13] v času veljavnosti zadevnega programa (do 31. decembra 1997).
The Italian authorities claim that no renegotiation of farm loans took place.
Italijanski organi so potrdili, da se ni izvedla nobena dejavnost ponovne preučitve kmetijskih posojil.
Since, under Article 2(3) of the Regional Law, such renegotiations had to be completed within 18 months of the date of entry into force of the law, the Commission considers it unnecessary to consider the measure.
Ker bi se v skladu s členom 2(3) deželnega zakona takšne dejavnosti morale izvesti v osemnajstih mesecih od začetka veljavnosti zakona, Komisija meni, da je pregled ukrepa nepotreben.
The Commission reserves the right to verify that the national legislation cited in the original notification, even where not directly applicable to the article of the law in question, has been properly notified to and approved by the Commission in so far as it concerns State aid.
Vseeno ima Komisija pravico, da preveri, ali je nacionalne predpise, ki so navedeni v izvirnem obvestilu in zadevajo državno pomoč, ustrezno priglasila in odobrila, tudi če ne veljajo neposredno za člen zadevnega zakona.
Articles 3, 4 and 6 of the Regional Law under examination correspond to the definition of aid in Article 87(1) of the Treaty, due to the fact that they give:
Členi 3, 4 in 6 zadevnega deželnega zakona ustrezajo opredelitvi pomoči iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe, ker dodeljujejo:
economic advantages (unrecoverable financial assistance)
gospodarsko prednost (nepovratna finančna pomoč),
to certain undertakings (Sicilian agricultural undertakings)
nekaterim podjetjem (kmetijskim podjetjem na Siciliji),
financed by public (regional) resources, and
se financirajo iz javnih (deželnih) sredstev in
have the potential to affect trade, given Italy's place in the agriculture sector (for example, in 1999 Italy exported agricultural products to other Member States to a total value of EUR 10258 million, while imports from other Member States were valued at EUR 15271 million [14]).
lahko vplivajo na izmenjavo na podlagi mesta, ki ga zaseda Italija v kmetijskem sektorju (leta 1999 je bila, na primer, skupna vrednost izvoza kmetijskih proizvodov Italije v druge države članice 10258 milijonov EUR, uvoza iz drugih držav članic pa 15271 milijonov EUR [14].
The prohibition referred to in Article 87(1) of the Treaty is not absolute.
Prepoved iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES ni brezpogojna.
In order to be considered compatible with the common market, the measures referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 6 of the law in question must qualify for one of the derogations provided for in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty.
Za združljivost s skupnim trgom morajo ukrepi iz členov 3, 4 in 6 zadevnega zakona ustrezati enemu od odstopanj, določenih v členu 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe.
The only possible derogation in the case in point is laid down in Article 87(3)(c), according to which aid may be considered compatible with the common market if it is found to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
V zadevnem primeru je edino odstopanje, ki ga je mogoče uporabiti, odstopanje iz člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, ki določa, da je s skupnim trgom združljiva tista pomoč, ki je namenjena lajšanju razvoja nekaterih dejavnosti ali nekaterih gospodarskih območij, če ne spreminja pogojev za izmenjavo, tako da nasprotujejo splošnemu interesu.
In interpreting this derogation, the Commission in dealing with the agricultural sector first of all checks whether Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products [15] is applicable.
Pri razlagi zgornjega odstopanja Komisija v zvezi s kmetijskim sektorjem najprej potrdi, ali se lahko uporabi Uredba (ES) št. 1/2004 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES za državno pomoč malim in srednje velikim podjetjem, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo, predelavo in trženjem kmetijskih proizvodov [15].
If this Regulation does not apply, the Commission refers to the Community Guidelines on State aid in the agricultural sector [16].
Če se ta uredba ne more uporabiti, upošteva Komisija Smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju [16] (v nadaljnjem besedilu Smernice).
Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 is not applicable in the case in point, since the scheme is not restricted to small and medium-sized agricultural undertakings.
V zadevnem primeru se Uredba (ES) št. 1/2004 ne more uporabiti, ker program ni omejen na mala in srednje velika kmetijska podjetja.
The Commission has therefore referred to points 5.3 (agri-environmental commitments) and 11 (compensation for damage caused by bad weather) of the Guidelines.
Zato je Komisija uporabila točko 5.3 (pomoč za kmetijsko-okoljske obveznosti) in točko 11.3 (pomoč kmetom za nadomestilo izgub, ki so jih povzročile slabe vremenske razmere) Smernic.
Agri-environmental measures
O kmetijsko-okoljskih ukrepih
The Commission takes note of the fact that the agri-environmental commitments in question had already been given by the farmers at the time of the Commission's doubts, and then its final decision that such commitments should not be considered eligible for Community co-financing and that, consequently, the farmers had already incurred expenses and lost revenue at the time of the Decision.
Komisija upošteva, da so kmetje v času pojavitve dvoma, to je odločitve Komisije, da takšne obveznosti niso upravičene do sofinanciranja Skupnosti, že sprejeli zadevne kmetijsko-okoljske obveznosti ter so se zato že soočili s stroški in izgubo dohodkov v času te odločitve.
Furthermore, these commitments were part of an agri-environmental programme approved by the Commission until 1999 and thus complied in concept with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999.
Razen tega so bile zadevne obveznosti del kmetijsko-okoljskega načrta, ki ga je Komisija potrdila do leta 1999, in so bile zato v bistvu v skladu z zahtevami Uredbe (ES) št. 1257/1999.
In order to assess the compatibility with the common market of State aids in connection with agri-environmental commitments, the Commission applies point 5.3 of the Guidelines.
Za ocenitev združljivosti državnih pomoči v zvezi s kmetijsko-okoljskimi obveznostmi s skupnim trgom uporabi Komisija točko 5.3 Smernic.
This point says that State aids may be deemed compatible if they are granted in accordance with the criteria applicable to agri-environmental measures co-financed under Articles 22 to 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999.
Točka 5.3. Smernic določa, da se lahko za združljivo šteje državna pomoč, odobrena pod enakimi pogoji, ki se uporabljajo za kmetijsko-okoljska merila, financirana v skladu s členi 22, 23 in 24 Uredbe (ES) št. 1257/1999.
In the case in point, this condition cannot be met in the light of what was said in paragraph 46.
V zadevnem primeru se lahko ta pogoj upošteva kot izpolnjen v skladu z uvodno izjavo (46).
It is nevertheless necessary to examine why the Commission decided not to co-finance such measures, with a view to excluding any administrative shortcomings or irregularities indicating, for example, any overcompensation of farmers.
Da bi se izključile pomanjkljivosti in nepravilnosti vodenja, ki kažejo, na primer, prekomerno nadomestilo kmetom, je treba vseeno preučiti razloge za odločitev Komisije, da ne bo sofinancirala takšnih ukrepov.
The Commission's communications, as well as internal correspondence of the relevant departments, reveal nothing which can indicate, on the part of the Region of Sicily, any irregular administration or overcompensation of farmers.
Sporočila Komisije in notranja korespondenca zadevnih služb ne kažejo ničesar, na podlagi česar bi bilo razvidno nepravilno upravljanje v zvezi z ukrepi ali prekomerno nadomestilo kmetom v deželi Siciliji.
The reasoning adopted by the Commission (see paragraph 15) for the failure to agree to co-financing concerned the need to take account of the outcome of the assessment of the programme as a result of changes designed to improve it.
Utemeljitev Komisije (glej uvodno izjavo (15) zgoraj) v zvezi z neodobritvijo sofinanciranja navaja potrebo po upoštevanju rezultata ocene načrta na podlagi sprememb za njegovo izboljšanje.
Italy plans to grant aid in the same ways and according to the same criteria as the approved agri-environmental programme at a rate of 50 % of the planned amounts.
Italija ima namen dodeliti pomoč v enaki obliki in pod enakimi pogoji, kot jih določa odobreni kmetijsko-okoljski načrt, v višini 50 % predvidenega zneska.
This percentage matches pro rata temporis the actual duration of the commitments (six months).
Ta odstotek po načelu časovnega sorazmerja ustreza dejanskemu trajanju obveznosti (šest mesecev).
The Italian authorities have shown that the scale of the aid is such as not to result in overcompensation of costs but rather, in the case of certain measures, does not succeed in covering the greater burdens stemming from commitments which have already been honoured.
Italijanski organi so dokazali, da obseg pomoči ne omogoča prekomernega nadomestila stroškov in pri nekaterih ukrepih celo ne pokriva glavnih stroškov že poravnanih obveznosti.
Indeed, when the farmers were informed (May 1999) that there would be no co-financing, the bulk of the cultivation operations had already been carried out in compliance with the commitments given (preparatory work, seeds, fertilisers, spring treatment, pruning).
V času, ko so bili kmetje obveščeni o nesofinanciranju (maj 1999), je bila večina dejavnosti pridelave dejansko že izvedena v skladu s sprejetimi obveznostmi (pripravljalna dela, setev, gnojenje, pomladanska dela in obrezovanje).
The farmers had also incurred the costs of technical consultations and administrative and technical documentation.
Razen tega so kmetje že poravnali stroške strokovnega posvetovanja in tehnično-upravne dokumentacije.
The costs and lost revenue incurred during the six months in question thus represented more than 50 % of the total for a whole farming year.
Zato so bili stroški in izguba dohodkov v zadevnih šestih mesecih več kot 50 % stroškov celotnega kmetijskega leta.
However, the information available to the Commission does not make it possible to verify whether the Region of Sicily conducted the proper checks to ensure that farmers complied with their agri-environmental commitments in 1999 and whether such checks proved positive.
Vseeno podatki, ki jih ima na voljo Komisija, ne zadostujejo za potrditev, da je dežela Sicilija v letu 1999 izvedla ustrezne preglede izvajanja kmetijsko-okoljskih obveznosti kmetov in da je bil rezultat teh pregledov pozitiven.
The Commission therefore believes that the State aid in question should be considered compatible with the common market only in so far as Italy can prove that the checks referred to in paragraph 52 were conducted between October 1998 and May 1999 and proved positive.
Zato Komisija meni, da se zadevna državna pomoč upošteva kot združljiva s skupnim trgom le, če lahko Italija dokaže, da je od oktobra 1998 do maja 1999 izvedla preglede iz uvodne izjave (52) s pozitivnim rezultatom.
Measures in favour of greenhouse crops
O ukrepih v zvezi z gojenjem v rastlinjakih
In the final version of the measure the aid in question will be granted to greenhouse farmers who have suffered from adverse weather conditions in accordance with Article 49 of Law No 86/1982, which extends to crops grown under cover the benefits of Law No 37/1974.
V končni različici ukrepa bo zadevna pomoč odobrena kmetom, ki se ukvarjajo z gojenjem v rastlinjakih, za škodo, ki so jo povzročile slabe vremenske razmere, kot določa člen 49 zakona št. 86/1982, ki razširja koristi iz deželnega zakona št. 37/1974 na poljščine, zaščitene s tuneli.
However, only the costs of purchasing plastic sheeting for tunnel greenhouses will be considered eligible.
Vseeno bodo upravičeni le stroški nakupa plastike za pokritje tunelov.
Article 49 of Law No 86/92 was approved by the Commission since it concerned aid intended to compensate the damage caused to greenhouses and plastic sheetings by the severe storms and heavy hail showers occurring in areas where greenhouse cultivation is the main form of farming.
Komisija je odobrila določbe iz člena 49 deželnega zakona št. 86/92, ker zadevajo pomoč, namenjeno nadomestilu škode, ki so jo na rastlinjakih in plastiki za pokritje povzročile silovite nevihte in močna toča, značilne za območja, kjer prevladuje gojenje v rastlinjakih.
Aid intended to compensate damage caused to buildings and equipment by adverse weather conditions can be authorised on the basis of point 11.3 of the Guidelines up to 100 % of actual costs, with no minimum threshold being applied.
Pomoč, namenjena nadomestilu škode, ki so jo na zgradbah in opremi povzročile slabe vremenske razmere, se lahko na podlagi točke 11.3 Smernic odobri v višini do 100 % dejanskih stroškov, brez uporabe najnižje spodnje meje.
However, point 11.3.6 of the Guidelines lays down that, in order to avoid excessive compensation, any sums received from insurance schemes and normal costs not incurred by farmers must be deducted from the amount of the aid.
Vseeno točka 11.3.6 Smernic določa, da se za izognitev previsokim nadomestilom od zneska pomoči odštejejo vsi prejeti zneski na podlagi zavarovalnih polic in običajni stroški, ki jih kmet ni imel.
Furthermore, in accordance with point 11.3.1 of the Guidelines, the aid measures must be accompanied by appropriate meteorological information.
Razen tega morajo ukrepe pomoči v smislu točke 11.3.1 Smernic spremljati ustrezni meteorološki podatki.
As outlined in paragraph 34, Italy has indicated that the eligible expenses were limited to the cost of replacing plastic sheeting.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (34), je Italija pojasnila, da so bili upravičeni stroški omejeni na stroške obnove plastike za pokritje tunelov.