natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of Justice has ruled many times on the compatibility of the statutory provisions on the German spirits monopoly with certain provisions of the EC Treaty (in particular in Hansen and Sektkellerei C.A.
Sodišče Evropskih Skupnosti se je večkrat izreklo glede združljivosti zakonskih določb o nemškem alkoholnem monopolu z določenimi predpisi Pogodbe ES (prim. zlasti sodbi v primerih Hansen in Sektkellerei C.A.
Kupferberg, see paragraph 42).
Kupferberg, glej odstavek 42).
Germany invokes this case law in its replies to the Commission and infers from it that the provisions of the Spirits Monopoly Law of 2 May 1976 have already been examined and confirmed by the Court.
Nemčija se v svojih odgovorih Komisiji sklicuje na to sodno prakso, na podlagi katere ugotavlja, da so bile določbe Zakona o alkoholnem monopolu z dne 2. maja 1976 že preverjene in potrjene s strani Sodišča.
Consequently, the Spirits Monopoly Law (as amended by the Law of 22 December 1999) cannot be called into question by the Commission, since the Court did not object to it.
Komisija zato ne more dvomiti v Zakon o alkoholnem monopolu (v obliki Zakona z dne 22. decembra 1999), saj mu Sodišče ni ugovarjalo.
It is therefore appropriate to go into the operative provisions of this case law in more detail.
Primerna je torej podrobnejša obravnava besedila te sodne prakse.
In the cases cited in this context the Court was asked for a preliminary ruling on the validity in the light of Articles 37 and 95 (now Articles 31 and 90) of the EC Treaty of the tax provisions introduced by the German spirits monopoly.
V zadevah, navedenih v tej zvezi, je bilo Sodišče zaprošeno za predhodno odločitev glede vprašanja pravne veljavnosti davčnih določb, uvedenih z nemškim alkoholnim monopolom, ob upoštevanju členov 37 in 95 (zdaj člena 31 in 90) Pogodbe ES.
The Court on this occasion gave its view on the compatibility of the tax measures resulting from the Spirits Monopoly Law with the EC Treaty.
Sodišče se je ob tej priložnosti izreklo o združljivosti davčnih ukrepov, ki izhajajo iz Zakona o alkoholnem monopolu, z določbami Pogodbe ES.
In its judgment it limited itself to pointing out that ‘the intervention of the Commission plays a large part in the implementation of Articles 92 and 93 whilst Article 37 is intended to be directly applicable’, i.e. it confirmed that the Commission is authorised by the EC Treaty to assess the measures in question from the standpoint of the aid rules.
V svoji sodbi se je omejilo na opozorilo, da „je Komisiji pri izvajanju členov 92 in 93 prepuščene veliko svobode za posredovanje, medtem ko naj bi člen 37 veljal neposredno“, t.j. s tem je potrdilo, da je Komisija na podlagi Pogodbe ES upravičena, da zadevne ukrepe presodi z vidika državne pomoči.
The Court explains, moreover, that while Articles 92 and 93 and Article 37 have the common objective of preventing the Member States from distorting the conditions of competition within the common market and creating a discrimination against the products or trade of other Member States through ‘action by a state monopoly and the granting of aids’, ‘the application of those provisions presupposes distinct conditions peculiar to the two kinds of state measure which they are intended to govern’.
Sodišče tudi navaja, da imata člena 92 in 93 na eni strani ter člen 37 na drugi skupni cilj, in sicer preprečiti, da države članice „z dejavnostjo državnega monopola in dodeljevanjem pomoči“ povzročajo izkrivljanje konkurenčnih pogojev na skupnem trgu ter slabši položaj proizvajalcev ali trgovine drugih držav članic, gre pa za določbe, ki „imajo različne pogoje uporabe, lastne posameznim oblikam državnih ukrepov, sprejetim s strani držav članic“.
Lastly, the Court explained that there was no need in the particular case to examine how far Articles 92 and 93 were applicable to the production of the agricultural products concerned and to trade in them.
Nazadnje je Sodišče navedlo, da v konkretnem primeru ni potrebno preveriti, v kolikšni meri so določbe členov 92 in 93 uporabne za proizvodnjo zadevnih kmetijskih proizvodov in trgovino z njimi.
It cannot be inferred from this justification that the Court considered that the aid provisions of the EC Treaty are not applicable to the subsidies granted in the context of the grain brandy monopoly.
Iz te obrazložitve ni mogoče izpeljati, da je Sodišče zastopalo stališče, da določbe Pogodbe ES glede državne pomoči niso uporabne za subvencije, dodeljene v okviru monopola žitnega žganja.
While Germany acknowledges that the Court did not comment directly on the legality of the monopoly as regards Articles 92 and 93, it claims that there is no doubt that the Court classified the product in question as an agricultural product which may be subject to a common organisation of the market.
Nemčija sicer priznava, da se Sodišče ni izreklo neposredno glede zakonitosti monopola glede na člena 92 in 93, trdi pa, da ni dvoma o tem, da je Sodišče zadevni proizvod uvrstilo med kmetijske proizvode, ki so lahko predmet skupne ureditve trga.
The Commission observes that the Court did not comment on the state aid in question.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se Sodišče ni izreklo glede zadevnih državnih pomoči.
It therefore considers that the Court's judgments which Germany invokes in this case do not anticipate either the classification of the product in question or the assessment of the aid to German grain distilleries.
Zato je mnenja, da sodbe Sodišča, na katere se Nemčija sklicuje v tem primeru, ne napovedujeta uvrstitve zadevnega proizvoda in presoje pomoči v korist nemških proizvajalcev žitnega žganja z vidika državne pomoči.
The case law cited is therefore not relevant in the present case.
Navedena sodna praksa torej v zadevnem primeru ni primerna.
Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty lists certain types of aid that are compatible with the EC Treaty.
V členu 87(2) Pogodbe ES so navedene določene vrste pomoči, ki so združljive s Pogodbo.
Given the type and composition of the aid, however, it is clear that the exemptions in Article 87(2)(a), (b) and (c) do not apply in the present case.
Glede na vrsto in naravo pomoči pa je jasno, da posebne določbe, navedene v členu 87(2)(a), (b) in (c) v zadevnem primeru ne veljajo.
Article 87(3) lists the types of aid that may be regarded as compatible with the common market.
V členu 87(3) so naštete vrste pomoči, ki jih je mogoče obravnavati kot združljive s skupnim trgom.
It is clear that the scheme in question does not serve to promote important projects of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State or to promote culture and heritage conservation within the meaning of the exemptions in Articles 87(3)(b) and (d).
Očitno je, da zadevni program ni namenjen niti pospeševanju izvedbe pomembnih projektov skupnega evropskega interesa niti odpravi resne motnje v gospodarstvu države članice ter pospeševanju kulture in ohranjanju kulturne dediščine v smislu posebnih določb člena 87(3)(b) in (d).
As regards the exemptions in Article 87(3)(a) and (c), provided for in the interests of regional development, it should be noted that the aid in question applies to all regions of Germany without distinction.
Glede posebnih določb člena 87(3)(a) in (c), uvedenih zaradi regionalnega razvoja, je treba povedati, da zadevne pomoči veljajo enako za vse nemške regije.
There is also no doubt that the aid is not intended to promote measures within the meaning of the exemption on facilitating the development of certain economic activities (Article 87(3)(c)) in the fields of research and development, environmental protection, employment or training in accordance with the relevant Community frameworks or guidelines.
Prav tako ni dvoma o tem, da namen pomoči ni niti pospeševanje ukrepov v smislu posebne določbe za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih panog (člen 87(3)(c)) na področjih raziskave, razvoja, varstva okolja, zaposlovanja ali izobraževanja v skladu s primernimi okviri ali smernicami Skupnosti.
Since no other reason concerning the development of certain economic activities can be given, the aid in question should be regarded as incompatible with the common market.
Ker v zvezi z razvojem določenih gospodarskih panog ne velja niti noben drug razlog, je treba zadevne pomoči uvrstiti med nezdružljive s skupnim trgom.
The Commission considers, however, that there are quite specific reasons for allowing the system practised in Germany to be maintained for a certain transitional period.
Vendar je Komisija mnenja, da obstajajo točno določeni razlogi, ki kažejo na to, da se bo sistem, izvajan v Nemčiji, obdržal še za določeno prehodno obdobje.
After the initiation of the procedure, all circles concerned, with the exception of the spirit drinks industry, protested against the time limit proposed by the Commission.
Po sprožitvi postopka so tako z izjemo predstavnikov alkoholne industrije vsi prizadeti krogi izrazili nasprotovanje roku, ki ga je predlagala Komisija.
Germany explained to the Commission that a period of several years was essential, so that the aid in question could be dismantled under acceptable conditions without threatening the existence of the producers concerned, who had thus far benefited from the duly notified subsidy system, which the Commission had not complained of in several decades.
Nemčija je Komisiji navedla, da je večletni rok nujno potreben za uspešno odpravo zadevnih pomoči pod sprejemljivimi pogoji, ne da bi bil ogrožen obstoj zadevnih proizvajalcev, ki so imeli do sedaj korist od sistema subvencij, ki je prijavljen v skladu s pravili in mu Komisija desetletje ni ugovarjala.
The Commission notes first of all that in grain brandy production the operating year starts on 1 October and ends on 30 September of the following year.
Komisija je najprej navedla, da se poslovno leto v proizvodnji žitnega žganja začne 1. oktobra in se konča 30. septembra naslednjega leta.
It will take account of this in setting the time limit by which Germany must have implemented the statutory reform.
To bo upoštevala pri določanju roka, do katerega mora Nemčija izvesti spremembo zakona.
Germany has convincingly explained to the Commission that the industrial and agricultural distilleries, which have hitherto delivered the distillates manufactured under the monopoly to DKV and would like in future to market the grain brandy themselves under the new system, have to make considerable investments.
Nemčija je Komisiji prepričljivo pojasnila, da morajo industrijske in kmetijske žganjarne, ki so do sedaj destilate, proizvedene v okviru monopola, predale DKV in želijo v bodoče v okviru novega sistema žitno žganje tržiti same, opraviti velike naložbe.
These include, for example, the purchasing of new distillation equipment or the construction of new buildings and storage areas (steel vats, wooden barrels, laboratory equipment, bottling plant, storage area for packaged goods, application for building permits, etc.).
Sem sodi na primer nakup novih destilacijskih naprav ali izgradnja novih objektov in skladišč (jeklene kadi, lesna vlakna, laboratorijska oprema, polnilnica steklenic, skladišče za pakirane izdelke, prošnja za gradbeno dovoljenje itd.).
Germany estimates that a distillery with an annual production of 1000 hl grain alcohol must invest at least EUR 400000 a year in marketing that quantity of alcohol.
Nemčija ocenjuje, da mora žganjarna z letno proizvodnjo 1000 hl žitnega alkohola vložiti najmanj 400000 EUR za trženje te količine alkohola.
Clearly, the necessary restructurings are not feasible unless an additional period is granted in which the existing financial aid, whether in the form of a refund of production costs or of compensatory amounts, is maintained.
Potrebna prestrukturiranja očitno brez odobritve dodatnega roka, v katerem se bo obstoječa finančna pomoč, bodisi v obliki povračila za proizvodne stroške bodisi v obliki zneskov izravnave, ohranila, niso izvedljiva.
This applies in particular to the small distilleries, which make up the overwhelming majority of the undertakings and/or farms.
To velja zlasti za male destilarne, ki predstavljajo prevladujočo večina prizadetih podjetij in/ali kmetijskih obratov.
The Commission accepts the justification for Germany's request, since it can be shown that abruptly stopping aid which has been granted for decades would threaten the existence of most of the firms affected by the measures, especially the agricultural distilleries.
Komisija upravičenost prošnje Nemčije prepoznava v tem, da je mogoče dokazati, da bi nenadna ukinitev desetletnih pomoči ogrozila obstoj večine z ukrepi prizadetih podjetij, zlasti kmetijskih žganjarn.
A transitional period should therefore be provided which is determined in such a way that the distilleries can adjust their production in that period to the new situation.
Zato je treba predvideti prehodni rok, izračunan tako, da lahko žganjarne v tem času svojo proizvodnjo prilagodijo novi situaciji.
The Commission also notes that grain brandy competes with other products that come under Annex I and receive aid.
Komisija tudi navaja, da žitno žganje tekmuje z drugimi proizvodi, zajetimi v Prilogi I Pogodbe ES in upravičenimi do pomoči.
Since the present case concerns operating aid, however, the latter must be terminated within an appropriate period: in view of the above explanations, it would probably be appropriate to preserve the scheme for a further two and a half years approximately (until 30 September 2006) in this respect.
Ker pa gre v zadevnem primeru za pomoči za tekoče poslovanje, je treba slednje v primernem roku ukiniti: glede na navedene ugotovitve bi bila lahko ohranitev programa še približno dve leti in pol (do 30. septembra 2006) v tej zvezi primerna.
Thereafter Germany must abolish the scheme and all its consequences.
Zatem mora Nemčija program z vsemi njegovimi posledicami končati.
The Commission therefore determines as follows:
Komisija tako ugotavlja naslednje:
the legislative amendments must ensue as soon as possible after the start of the 2005/2006 operating year and enter into force at the latest by 30 September 2006;
Spremembe zakona je treba opraviti čim hitreje s poslovnim letom 2005/2006, v veljavo pa morajo stopiti najkasneje do 30. septembra 2006.
Germany must inform the Commission of the measures taken in a report to be submitted at the latest at the end of the second quarter of 2005.
Nemčija mora Komisijo obvestiti o sprejetih primernih ukrepih v poročilu, ki ga mora predložiti najkasneje do konca drugega četrtletja 2005.
A second report on the actual implementation of the measures should be submitted to the Commission at the latest by the end of 2006,
Drugo poročilo o dejanski izvedbi ukrepov mora Komisiji predložiti do konca leta 2006 –
The aid scheme for grain brandy producers contained in Germany's Spirits Monopoly Law is incompatible with the common market.
Program pomoči v korist proizvajalcev žitnega žganja, ki ga vsebuje nemški Zakon o alkoholnem monopolu, ni združljiv s skupnim trgom.
Germany shall take all necessary measures to abolish the aid scheme referred to in Article 1 as from 30 September 2006.
Nemčija sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe, da bi s 30. septembrom 2006 ukinila program pomoči, naveden v členu 1.
By 30 June 2005 at the latest Germany shall report to the Commission on the measures for abolishing the aid scheme.
Nemčija najkasneje 30. junija 2005 Komisijo obvesti o ukrepih za ukinitev programa pomoči.
By 31 December 2006 at the latest Germany shall report to the Commission on the actual application of the measures taken.
Najkasneje 31. decembra 2006 Komisija Nemčijo obvesti o dejanski izvedbi sprejetih ukrepov.
Brussels, 16 November 2004.
V Bruslju, 16. novembra 2004
OJ C 269, 8.11.2003, p. 2.
UL C 269, 8.11.2003, str. 2.
Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 1999 Teil I Nr. 58, published in Bonn on 28 December 1999.
Zvezni uradni list („Bundesgesetzblatt“) 1999, del I, št. 58, izdan v Bonnu 28. decembra 1999.
The Budget Consolidation Law introduced a general reform of the German spirits monopoly.
Z Zakonom o konsolidaciji proračuna je bil v celoti spremenjen nemški alkoholni monopol.
It came into force on 1 October 2000.
Zakon je stopil v veljavo 1. oktobra 2000.
Branntweinmonopolgesetz of 2 May 1976.
Zakon o alkoholnem monopolu („Branntweinmonopolgesetz“), 2. maj 1976.
OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1, as amended by the 2003 Act of Accession.
UL L 83, 27.3.1999, str. 1, kakor je bila spremenjena z Aktom o pristopu 2003.
OJ C 308, 11.9.2002, p. 6.
UL C 308, 11.9.2002, str. 6.
Reichsgesetzblatt I, pp. 335, 405.
Reichsgesetzblatt I, str. 335, 405.
ECR 181 (para. 27).
ZOdl. 1976, str.181 (odstavek 27).
The Court held in particular that Article 37 (now Article 31) of the Treaty is infringed ‘if the charge imposed on the imported product is different from that imposed on the similar domestic product which is directly or indirectly covered by the monopoly’.
V tej sodbi je Sodišče predvsem razsodilo, da je člen 37 (zdaj člen 31) Pogodbe kršen v primeru, „ko dajatve na uvožen proizvod odstopajo od dajatev na podoben domač proizvod, ki je neposredno ali posredno podvržen monopolu“.
Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes über das Branntweinmonopol, Bundesgesetzblatt I N 50, 7 May 1976, p. 1145.
Zakon o spremembi Zakona o alhoholnem monopolu, Zvezni uradni list („Bundesgesetzblatt“) I N 50, 7. maj 1976, str. 1145.
The notification concerned all products covered by the monopoly, including grain brandy.
Priglasitev je zadevala vse proizvode, zajete v monopolu, vključno z žitnim žganjem.
OJ 30, 20.04.1962, p. 62/993, as amended by Regulation No 49 (OJ 53, 1.7.1962, p. 62/1571).
UL 30, 20.4.1962, str. 62/993, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo št. 49 (UL 53, 1.7.1962, str. 62/1571).
Annex II of the Treaty became Annex I with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The contents remained unchanged, however.
Priloga II Pogodbe je z začetkom veljavnosti Amsterdamske pogodbe postala Priloga I. Vendar je vsebina ostala nespremenjena.
Rectification: processing of alcohol by distillation, filtration, etc.
Rektifikacija: predelava alkohola z destilacijo, filtracijo in drugimi postopki…
The civil-law partnership DKV (GmbH), set up in 1930 by regulation of the Reichsmonopolamt (now the Bundesmonopolbehörde - Federal Monopolies Authority) and today coming under the Ministry of Finance, holds the exclusive selling rights for grain brandy.
Družba civilnega prava DKV (GmbH), ustanovljena z Uredbo Monopolnega urada rajha („Reichsmonopolamt“, danes Zvezni monopolni organ - „Bundesmonopolbehörde“) in danes delujoča pod Ministrstvom za finance, ima v lasti izključne pravice za trženje žitnega žganja.
Until the entry into force of the Law of 28 December 1999.
Do začetka veljavnosti Zakona z dne 28. decembra 1999.
According to DKV, in the 2000/2001 operating year (i.e. one year after the entry into force of the HsanG) 24 %, and in the 2000/2001 operating year 40,6 %, of grain brandy output was produced in the open market.
Po navedbah DKV je bilo v poslovnem letu 2000/2001, t.j. leto dni po začetku veljavnosti HSanG, 24 %, in v poslovnem letu 2001/2002 40,6 % proizvodnje žitnega žganja proizvedene na odprtem trgu.
The operating year starts on 1 October of each year and ends on 30 September of the following year.
Poslovno leto se vsakokrat začne 1. oktobra in se konča 30. septembra naslednjega leta.
The ‘open’ grain brandy market constituted 40,8 % of the market in the 2001/2002 operating year.
„Svodobni“ trg žitnega žganja je v poslovnem letu 2001/2002 predstavljal 40,8 % trga.
OJ L 60, 12.6.1989, p. 1; as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10 2003, p. 1).
UL L 60, 12.6.1989, str. 1; Uredba, nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 1882/2003 (UL L 284, 31.10.2003, str. 1).
ECR 935.
ZOdl. 1979, str. 935.
ECR 157.
ZOdl. 1985, str. 157.
Article 90 (ex Article 95) states: ‘No Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products.
V členu 90 (prej člen 95) piše: „Nobena država članica ne uvaja, neposredno ali posredno, kakršnih koli notranjih davkov na izdelke drugih držav članic, ki bi bili višji od davkov, uvedenih neposredno ali posredno na enakovrstne domače izdelke.
… no Member State shall impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.’
Prav tako nobena država članica ne uvaja takšnih notranjih davkov na izdelke drugih držav članic, s katerimi bi posredno zaščitila druge izdelke“
OJ 7, 30.1.1961, p. 71/61.
UL 7, 30.1.1961, str. 61/71.
OJ L 97, 15.4.2003, p. 9.
UL L 97, 15.4.2003, str. 9.
Commission italics.
Poudarek dodala Komisija.
ECR I-3829.
ZOdl. 1994, str. I-3829.
As various third parties have noted, the designation ‘grain brandy’ may be used, pursuant to the already cited Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89, ‘for the drink produced in Germany and in regions of the Community where German is one of the official languages [24] provided that this drink is traditionally produced in these regions …’.
Kot so večkrat navedle tretje stranke, se lahko ime „Kornbranntwein“ (žitno žganje) glede na že zgoraj naveden citat iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1576/89 uporablja izključno „za pijačo, proizvedeno v Nemčiji in na območjih Skupnosti, kjer je nemščina eden od uradnih jezikov [24], pod pogojem, da se to žganje proizvaja na teh območjih po tradicionalnih postopkih…“.
Moreover, grain brandy competes with other spirits and spirituous beverages from other Member States.
Poleg tega žitno žganje tekmuje z drugimi žganji in žganimi pijačami iz drugih držav članic.
of 24 March 2006
z dne 24. marca 2006
concerning certain protective measures with regard to certain products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, originating in Madagascar
o nekaterih ukrepih zaščite v zvezi z nekaterimi proizvodi živalskega izvora, razen ribiških proizvodov, s poreklom z Madagaskarja
(notified under document number C(2006) 888)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2006) 888)
Commission Decision 97/517/EC of 1 August 1997 concerning certain protective measures with regard to certain products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, originating in Madagascar [2] has been substantially amended [3].
Odločba Komisije 97/517/ES z dne 1. avgusta 1997 o nekaterih ukrepih zaščite v zvezi z nekaterimi proizvodi živalskega izvora, razen ribiških proizvodov, s poreklom z Madagaskarja [2], je bila bistveno spremenjena [3].
In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Decision should be codified.
Zaradi jasnosti in racionalnosti je treba omenjeno odločbo kodificirati.
Community inspections in Madagascar have shown that there are serious deficiencies with regard to infrastructure and hygiene in meat establishments and that there are not enough guarantees of the efficiency of the controls carried out by the competent authorities.
Pregledi Skupnosti na Madagaskarju so pokazali, da obstajajo resne pomanjkljivosti v zvezi z infrastrukturo in higieno v mesnopredelovalnih obratih ter da ni zadostnih jamstev glede učinkovitosti kontrol, ki jih opravljajo pristojni organi.
Animal health management in Madagascar shows severe deficiencies and non-application of Community rules.
Nadzor nad zdravstvenim varstvom živali na Madagaskarju kaže hude pomanjkljivosti in neizpolnjevanje predpisov Skupnosti.
There is a potential risk for public health with regard to the production and processing of animal products, excluding fishery products, in this country.
Obstaja nevarnost za javno zdravje, kar zadeva proizvodnjo in predelavo živalskih proizvodov, razen ribiških proizvodov, v tej državi.
Imports of products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, from Madagascar should not be allowed until it can be guaranteed that no more risk exists.
Uvoz proizvodov živalskega izvora, razen ribiških proizvodov, z Madagaskarja se ne sme dovoliti, dokler ni jamstva, da ni več nobene nevarnosti.
The measures provided for in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
Ukrepi iz te odločbe so v skladu z mnenjem Stalnega odbora za prehranjevalno verigo in zdravje živali –