natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Neither the relatively small amount of the aid, nor the relatively small size of the beneficiary undertaking enable to rule out, in principle, the possibility of an impact on trade between Member States [13].
Niti sorazmerno majhen obseg pomoči niti sorazmerno majhna velikost podjetij, ki uživajo koristi, namreč vnaprej ne izključuje možnosti oškodovanja trgovanja med državami članicami [13].
Therefore, the measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in favour of machinery rings.
Zato gre pri tem ukrepu za pomoč kmetijskim strojnim zadrugam v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Aid to the machinery rings’ subsidiaries
Pomoči hčerinskim družbam kmetijskih strojnih zadrug
The examination of issues of commercial or fiscal law in Member States and of complaints made in that connection by economic operators falls, in principle, within the sphere of competence of the Member States.
Preiskava gospodarskopravnih in davčnopravnih težav v državah članicah ter v povezavi s tem navedenih pritožb gospodarskih subjektov je načeloma v pristojnosti držav članic.
However, in this case the aid granted by Germany could distort competition.
Toda v tem primeru bi lahko odobrena pomoč Nemčije izkrivljala konkurenco.
The Commission has therefore examined the measure from that angle.
Zato jo je Komisija preučila s tega stališča.
The comments from interested parties point to the possibility that aid to the machinery rings and KBM may have resulted in cross-subsidisation of the ‘non-core tasks’ carried out by the machinery rings’ subsidiaries.
Izražena stališča zainteresiranih strank kažejo, da bi odobrene pomoči kmetijskim strojnim zadrugam in KBM morda lahko povzročile navzkrižno subvencioniranje „dodatnih dejavnosti“, ki jih izvajajo hčerinske družbe kmetijskih strojnih zadrug.
Indeed, unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that a clear factual and legal separation existed between the activities of the parent machinery ring and its subsidiary, it cannot be ruled out that some of the public funds granted to the parent machinery ring flowed to the subsidiaries.
Če ni mogoče dokazati, da je med dejavnostmi matične (kmetijske strojne zadruge) in hčerinske družbe jasna dejanska in zakonska meja, se ne sme izključiti, da del javnih sredstev, ki jih je prejela matična družba, morda ni prejela hčerinska družba.
It is therefore necessary to examine the factual and legal situation in the period between 1994 and 2000 with respect to the obligations and precautions introduced by Germany to avoid the cross-subsidisation of the machinery rings’ subsidiaries.
Zato je nujno, da se izvede preiskava dejanskega in zakonskega položaja v časovnem obdobju 1994–2000 v zvezi z obveznostmi in previdnostnimi ukrepi, ki jih je Nemčija sprejela za preprečevanje navzkrižnega subvencioniranja hčerinskih družb kmetijskih strojnih zadrug.
In its observations, Germany claims that the machinery rings and their subsidiaries were completely independent in terms of accounting/budgeting, premises, staff and operations.
Nemčija v svojem stališču zagotavlja, da med kmetijskimi strojnimi zadrugami in njihovimi hčerinskimi družbami obstaja popolno ločevanje bilance, prostora, osebja in delovanja.
However, the available evidence points in a different direction.
Razpoložljiva dokazila pa kažejo drugače.
Article 12, first sentence, of the LwFöG lays down that machinery rings and their subsidiaries must keep separate accounting and balance sheets.
Stavek 1 člena 12 LwFöG določa, da morajo kmetijske strojne zadruge in njihove hčerinske družbe ločevati računovodstvo in bilanco.
This requirement appears to have been fulfilled and verified by Bavaria.
Zdi se, da je Bavarska to obveznost izpolnila in nadzorovala.
However, there seems to have been close logistic contiguity between the machinery rings and their subsidiaries.
Logistično gledano pa so kmetijske strojne zadruge in njihove hčerinske družbe očitno zelo blizu.
Premises appear to have been shared in many cases.
V mnogih primerih so se očitno uporabljali isti prostori.
For example, KBM and its subsidiaries MR Bayern GmbH and meinhof.de AG subsidiaries had the same postal address and telephone number, and shared the same offices.
Tako so imele na primer KBM ter hčerinski družbi „MR Bayern GmbH“ in „meinhof.de AG“ isti naslov in telefonsko številko; uporabljali pa so tudi iste pisarniške prostore.
The LwFöG imposes no obligation concerning the separation of staff, and indeed KBM, the machinery rings and their subsidiaries habitually shared the same staff.
LwFöG ne predpisuje ločevanja osebja. Zato so si KBM, kmetijske strojne zadruge in njihove hčerinske družbe navadno delile isto osebje.
In particular, machinery ring staff was mostly employed by the subsidiaries.
Zlasti osebje kmetijskih strojnih zadrug je bilo večinoma zaposleno v hčerinskih družbah.
The chairman of the KBM board of directors was and is also the chairman of the supervisory board of meinhof.de AG, and the manager of MR Bayern GmbH was also the manager of meinhof.de AG.
Tako je bil in je še vedno predsednik predsedstva KBM istočasno predsednik nadzornega odbora družbe „meinhof.de AG“, direktor družbe „MR Bayern GmbH“ pa je bil istočasno direktor družbe „meinhof.de AG“.
Germany appears to have been aware of such contiguity between the machinery rings and their subsidiaries.
Zdi se, da je Nemčija vedela za bližino kmetijskih strojnih zadrug in njihovih hčerinskih družb.
In 1997, a letter of the Bavarian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry set out the principles to be followed in checking the machinery rings’ accounts.
V pismu bavarskega državnega ministrstva za kmetijstvo in gozdarstvo iz leta 1997 so bila določena načela, v skladu s katerimi je treba izvesti revizijo kmetijskih strojnih zadrug.
In particular, the letter laid down that work carried out by machinery rings’ staff on behalf of the commercial subsidiaries should be invoiced at market prices, and that such compensation for services rendered by machinery rings should be deducted from the ‘necessary cost’ which formed the basis for State aid to the machinery rings.
V pismu je zlasti določeno, da je pri delu, ki ga osebje kmetijskih strojnih zadrug opravlja v imenu gospodarskih hčerinskih družb, treba upoštevati tržne cene in da je treba ta plačila za storitve, ki jih opravljajo kmetijske strojne zadruge, odšteti od „nujnih stroškov“, ki sestavljajo podlago za izračun državnih pomoči kmetijskim strojnim zadrugam.
However, in the absence of detailed work records showing the number of hours worked by staff on behalf of the machinery rings and on behalf of their subsidiaries, and considering that premises could be shared, it would have been impossible to check exactly how much work was carried out by the machinery rings’ staff for the benefit of the subsidiaries.
Ker ni izčrpnih delovnih seznamov, iz katerih bi bilo razvidno, koliko ur je delavec opravljal delo za kmetijske strojne zadruge ali njihove hčerinske družbe, in ker so bili lahko uporabljeni isti prostori, bi bilo nemogoče natančno preiskati, koliko časa so delavci kmetijskih strojnih zadrug delali za hčerinske družbe.
The fact that State aid was automatically reduced by 10 % if a machinery ring also exercised non-core tasks through a commercial subsidiary also suggests that the separation of activities could not have been complete, since the existence of a truly separate commercial subsidiary would have had no impact on the ‘necessary cost’ borne by machinery rings to carry out their core tasks.
Dejansko stanje, da se je državna pomoč samodejno zmanjšala za 10 %, ko je kmetijska strojna zadruga prek gospodarske hčerinske družbe izvajala dodatne dejavnosti, nakazuje, da ločevanje dejavnosti ni moglo biti popolno, ker obstoj dejansko ločene gospodarske hčerinske družbe ne bi vplival na „nujne stroške“, ki jih morajo kriti kmetijske strojne zadruge, da lahko opravljajo svoje glavne dejavnosti.
Besides, in 2001 Germany adopted a system of detailed work records whereby, for six months and in turn, each machinery ring would record the number of hours worked by staff on behalf of the machinery ring itself (core tasks) and on behalf of their commercial subsidiaries (non-core tasks).
Razen tega je bil v Nemčiji leta 2001 uveden sistem izčrpnih delovnih seznamov, v skladu s katerim je morala vsaka kmetijsko strojna zadruga za vsakih šest mesecev navesti, koliko ur je osebje delalo za kmetijska strojno zadrugo („glavne dejavnosti“) in koliko za hčerinsko družbo („dodatne dejavnosti“).
This system was introduced to establish roughly what proportion of working time was spent by the machinery rings’ staff on ‘non-core tasks’.
Sistem je bil uveden, zato da bi ugotovili, koliko delovnega časa so delavci kmetijskih strojnih zadrug porabili za opravljanje „dodatnih dejavnosti“.
The introduction of such a mechanism also appears to indirectly substantiate the Commission’s doubt that prior to 2001, staff and operations were not fully separate.
Uvedba takšnega sistema pa tudi posredno nakazuje, da je domneva Komisije, da pred letom 2001 osebje in delovanje nista bila popolnoma ločena, upravičena.
Advertising in the press and on websites was also shared, and the available evidence shows that the commercial subsidiaries made free use of the machinery rings’ logo.
Reklame v medijih in na spletnih straneh so bile prav tako skupne, iz razpoložljivih dokazil pa je razvidno, da so gospodarske hčerinske družbe brez zadržkov uporabljale logo kmetijskih strojnih zadrug.
For example, the subsidiary meinhof.de AG used the logo ‘MR’ (i.e. the logo of the machinery rings) on its order forms, member information sheets and website.
Tako je na primer hčerinska družba „meinhof.de AG“ uporabljala logo „MR“ – torej logo kmetijskih strojnih zadrug – na obrazcih za naročila, članskih informativnih listih in na spletni strani.
The advertisements published in the local press do not enable readers to distinguish between machinery rings and their subsidiaries.
V oglasih v lokalnem tisku bralci niso mogli razlikovati med kmetijskimi strojnimi zadrugami in njihovimi hčerinskimi družbami.
It is also not clear how advertising costs were split between machinery rings and subsidiaries.
Razen tega ni jasno, kako so bili stroški oglaševanja porazdeljeni med kmetijskimi strojnimi zadrugami in hčerinskimi družbami.
Therefore, the Commission considers that Germany did not have a system capable of effectively precluding cross-subsidisation between the machinery rings and their subsidiaries.
Zato Komisija meni, da Nemčija ni imela sistema, s katerim bi bila sposobna vnaprej uspešno preprečiti navzkrižno subvencioniranje med kmetijskimi strojnimi zadrugami in njihovimi hčerinskimi družbami.
Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that part of the State aid received by the machinery rings or KBM flowed to the subsidiaries, for example in the form of staff or services put at the subsidiary’s disposal free of charge or below the market price.
Zato ni mogoče izključiti, da je bil del državnih pomoči, ki so jih prejele kmetijske strojne zadruge ali KBM, preusmerjen k hčerinskim družbam – na primer kot osebje ali storitve, ki so bile hčerinski družbi na voljo brezplačno ali po cenah, ki so bile nižje od tržnih.
On the basis of the available information, it is not possible to ascertain whether such possible aid to the benefit of the subsidiaries is so small that, under Regulation (EC) No 69/2001, it cannot be classified as State aid.
Na podlagi predloženih informacij ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali je takšen element pomoči hčerinskim družbam morda tako majhen, da ga na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 69/2001 ni mogoče uvrstiti med državno pomoč.
Services of general economic interest
Storitve splošnega gospodarskega interesa
As regards the reservation put forward by Germany in its comments that, in view of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Altmark Trans GmbH und Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg case [14], the measure in question could not be classified as State aid, the Commission would like to underline that, prima facie, not all the conditions set out in the Altmark ruling are fulfilled.
V zvezi s pridržkom, ki ga je Nemčija izrazila v okviru svojega mnenja, da predloženega ukrepa na podlagi sodbe Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v primeru Altmark Trans GmbH in predsedstvo vlade Magdeburg [14] ni mogoče šteti kot pojem pomoči, Komisija opozarja, da vse predpostavke s sodbe Altmark niso v naprej izpolnjene.
Firstly, organising loans of machinery and labour between farmers is — as described — a normal commercial activity and not a service in the general economic interest with well-defined public service obligations.
Prvič je posredovanje strojev in delovne sile med kmeti, kot je opisano, normalna gospodarska dejavnost, in ne storitev splošnega gospodarskega interesa, ki je povezana z natančno opredeljenimi obveznostmi iz opravljanja javne storitve.
Secondly, the parameters on the basis of which compensation is calculated were not established beforehand.
Drugič, parametri, na podlagi katerih se izračuna višina nadomestila, niso bili določeni vnaprej.
Thirdly, Germany has not demonstrated that the level of compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the public service obligations.
Tretjič, Nemčija ni dokazala, da višina nadomestila ne presega zneska za celotno ali delno pokritje nastalih stroškov, ki je zaradi zadevnih prihodkov in primernega dobička potreben za zagotavljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega interesa.
Aid to farmers
Pomoči kmetom
The measure also benefited agricultural holdings.
Zaradi ukrepa imajo korist tudi kmetijski obrati.
They could benefit from a network of machinery rings throughout Bavaria which organised the provision of machinery and labour against payment of a membership contribution and fees which did not correspond to the full cost of such services.
Dobiček lahko imajo od vsedržavne mreže kmetijskih strojnih zadrug, ki organizirajo posredovanje strojev in delovne sile za plačilo članarine, ki ne ustreza celotnim stroškom, ali plačilo za posredovanje, ki ne ustreza celotnim stroškom.
The German authorities have reported intensities of aid to machinery rings of about 50 % of the ‘necessary cost’ throughout the period considered.
Nemčija je sporočila, da je v zadevnem časovnem obdobju višina pomoči, odobrene kmetijskim strojnim zadrugam, približno 50 % „nujnih stroškov“.
Given the overall amounts of aid involved (around EUR 5 million/year) and the number of farmers who, as members of a machinery ring, were entitled to use their services (around 100000), even if the entire amount of aid was passed on to farmers, the amounts received, on average, by individual farmers would not exceed EUR 50/year.
Ob upoštevanju celotne višine pomoči (približno 5 milijonov EUR na leto) in števila kmetov, ki lahko kot člani kmetijskih strojnih zadrug uporabljajo njihove storitve (približno 100000), je treba ugotoviti, ali zneski, ki so jih prejeli kmetje, v povprečju niso večji kot 50 EUR na leto, tudi če je bil celotni znesek pomoči prenesen na kmete.
Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of 6 October 2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the agriculture and fisheries sectors [15], which is based on the Commission’s experience in this field, lays down that very small amounts of aid granted in the agriculture sector do not fulfil all the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, provided certain conditions are complied with.
V členu 3 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1860/2004 z dne 6. oktobra 2004 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES za de minimis pomoči v kmetijskem in ribiškem sektorju [15], ki temelji na izkušnjah Komisije na tem področju, je določeno, da zelo majhni zneski pomoči, ki se odobrijo za kmetijski sektor, pod določenimi pogoji veljajo za ukrepe, ki ne ustrezajo dejanskemu stanju iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
In particular, the Commission has established that aid which does not exceed EUR 3000 per beneficiary over three years, provided the total amount of aid granted to agricultural undertakings over three years is not more than 0,3 % of the annual value of agricultural production (EUR 133470000 for Germany in 2001) does not distort or threaten to distort competition, and is therefore outside the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija je zlasti določila, da pomoč, ki v celoti ni večja kot 3000 EUR na upravičenca v treh letih, ne izkrivlja konkurence ali ne povzroča nevarnosti, da bo izkrivila konkurenco, in tako ne sodi pod člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES – pod pogojem, da celotni znesek pomoči, dodeljenih podjetjem v kmetijskem sektorju, v časovnem obdobju treh let ni večji kot 0,3 % vrednosti kmetijske proizvodnje na leto (pri čemer je bil leta 2001 skupni znesek pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju v Nemčiji 133470000 EUR).
Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 lays down that that Regulation also applies to aid granted before its entry into force, provided that all its conditions are complied with.
V členu 5(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1860/2004 je določeno, da ta uredba velja tudi za pomoči, ki so bile odobrene pred začetkom veljavnosti, pod pogojem, da pomoči izpolnjujejo pogoje iz Uredbe.
In the case in hand, the Commission considers that such conditions are met, given the very small amounts of individual aid involved and the total sum disbursed by Germany (only approximately EUR 5 million per year), that the aid was not linked to exports or the use of domestic over imported products, nor linked to the price or quantity of products placed on the market.
V zadevnem primeru Komisija meni, da so ti pogoji izpolnjeni; znesek pomoči, ki je bil izplačan posameznikom, je bil namreč zelo nizek, skupni znesek, ki ga je izplačala Nemčija, je bil le 5 milijonov EUR na leto, pomoč ni zadevala dejavnosti, povezanih z izvozom, ni bila odvisna od uporabe domačih izdelkov v škodo uvoznega blaga in ni bila povezana s ceno ali količino prodanih izdelkov.
The economic analysis required under the Regulation has already been carried out by the Commission, notably in the context of the decision on State aid N 145/04 [16].
Ekonomsko analizo, ki jo zahteva Uredba, je Komisija že izvedla, zlasti v zvezi z Odločbo o pomoči N 145/04 [16].
It must be noted that, in its decision authorising such aid to farmers pro futuro [17], the Commission assessed the same measure in the light of section 14 of the Guidelines and found it compatible on that basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of that case.
Treba je poudariti, da je Komisija v svoji odločbi o odobritvi teh pomoči kmetom v prihodnosti [17] ocenila isti ukrep na podlagi oddelka 14 Smernic Skupnosti in ugotovila, da je ukrep pomoči, ob upoštevanju njegovih posebnih dejstev, v skladu s Pogodbo ES.
However, in the case under consideration here, application of the principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 makes it unnecessary to carry out an assessment on the basis of section 14 of the Guidelines.
V tem primeru, ki ga je treba preveriti, je iz uporabe načel iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1860/2004 razvidno, da je ocena v skladu z oddelkom 14 Smernic Skupnosti nepotrebna.
Therefore, aid granted to farmers in the form of services provided by machinery rings at lower cost does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Pomoč, ki se odobri kmetom v obliki storitev, ki jih po nizki ceni izvajajo kmetijske strojne zadruge, zato ni državna pomoč v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission therefore concludes that this measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, benefiting KBM, individual machinery rings and their subsidiaries.
Komisija zaradi vseh teh razlogov ugotavlja, da je zadevni ukrep v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES uvrščen med pomoč KBM, posameznim kmetijskim strojnim zadrugam in njihovim hčerinskim družbam.
The measure does not constitute aid in favour of farmers.
Ukrep ne vključuje pomoči kmetom.
Application of Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty
Uporaba člena 87(3) Pogodbe ES
The question therefore arises as to whether one of the exceptions or exemptions from the basic prohibition of State aid under Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty can apply.
Zato je treba preveriti, ali se lahko uporabljajo posamezne izjeme ali izvzetja iz osnovne prepovedi pomoči v skladu s členom 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe ES.
This particular measure is neither aid having a social character within the meaning of Article 87(2)(a) of the EC Treaty nor aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences within the meaning of Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty, nor aid relating to the division of Germany within the meaning of Article 87(2)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Zadevni ukrep ni niti pomoč socialne narave v skladu s členom 87(2)(a) Pogodbe ES niti pomoč za odpravo škode zaradi naravnih katastrof ali drugih izjemnih dogodkov v skladu s členom 87(2)(b) Pogodbe ES niti ni pomoč v zvezi z delitvijo Nemčije v skladu s členom 87(2)(c) Pogodbe ES.
Nor are the special factors referred to in Article 87(3)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of the EC Treaty applicable.
Tudi posebna dejanska stanja iz člena 87(3)(a), (b), (d) ali (e) Pogodbe ES se ne uporabljajo.
Nor has Germany cited any of these provisions.
Nemčija se ni sklicevala na te določbe.
The only possibly applicable exceptional circumstances are those set out in Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Edine možne uporabne izjemne okoliščine so tiste iz člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
Compatibility of aid to KBM
Združljivost pomoči KBM
As described in recitals 42 to 50, it is unclear whether aid to KBM falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.
Kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah (42) do (50), je nejasno, ali pomoči KBM sodijo na področje uporabe Uredbe (ES) št. 69/2001.
According to the available information, the aid granted is not linked to investment and does not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001.
V skladu z razpoložljivimi informacijami odobrene pomoči niso povezane z naložbami in ne spadajo na področje uporabe Uredbe (ES) št. 70/2001.
Nor have any other eligible activities been brought to the Commission’s attention.
Tudi druga zaželena dejanska stanja niso bila deležna pozornosti.
Therefore, according to the consistent judgments in case law, financial contributions paid out to KBM are to be classified as operating aid, incompatible with the common market [18], in so far as they have not been passed on to the machinery rings, and in so far as they exceed the maximum limits laid down in Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.
Zato se finančni prispevek za KBM v skladu s stalno sodno prakso uvršča med pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom [18], ob pogoju, da sredstva niso bila prenesena na kmetijske strojne zadruge in da presegajo najvišje zneske iz Uredbe (ES) št. 69/2001.
Compatibility of aid to the machinery rings and their subsidiaries
Združljivost pomoči kmetijskim strojnim zadrugam in njihovim hčerinskim družbam
As described in recitals 42 to 60, machinery rings and their subsidiaries received benefits in the form of services provided by KBM for consultancy, training and further training of their staff.
Kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah (42) do (60), so kmetijske strojne zadruge in njihove hčerinske družbe imele korist prek storitev, ki jih je zanje izvajal KBM v obliki posvetovanj ter izobraževanja in usposabljanja osebja.
Such measures are to be considered training and further training aid in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid [19].
Ti ukrepi se uvrščajo med pomoči za izobraževanje in usposabljanje v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 68/2001 Komisije z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri pomoči za usposabljanje [19].
As regards consultancy, Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 may be applicable.
V zvezi s svetovalnimi storitvami se lahko uporablja Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 70/2001.
However, the information which Germany has provided the Commission with is not sufficient to enable it to assess whether the requirements of these Regulations have been met.
Informacije, ki jih je Nemčija predložila Komisiji, ne zadoščajo za oceno, ali so bile upoštevane določbe teh uredb.