natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indeed, since the competent authorities confirmed that they do not have the information requested by the Commission regarding, in particular, the products for which compensation would be provided, the beneficiaries of the measure (primary producers or also processing and marketing operators) and, in certain cases, also the detailed rules for calculating the compensation (see point 28 above), the Commission cannot conclude that the planned aid is necessarily and exclusively linked to the losses caused by the strike and the roadblocks in Sicily which occurred between 30 September and 8 October 2000).
Ker so pristojni organi potrdili, da nimajo na voljo podatkov, ki jih je zahtevala Komisija, zlasti v zvezi s proizvodi, za katere je bilo predvideno nadomestilo, upravičenci do ukrepa (primarni proizvajalci in tudi proizvajalci s področja predelave in trženja) in, v nekaterih primerih, vrstami izračuna nadomestil (glej uvodno izjavo 28), Komisija ne more odločiti, da je predvidena pomoč nujno in izključno povezana z izgubo zaradi stavke in cestnih zapor na Siciliji med 30. septembrom in 8. oktobrom 2000.
In particular, Article 1 of the notified Law and the standard notification form provide for the following beneficiaries: ‘enterprises, or groups thereof, engaged in agricultural production, processing and marketing’. However the explanations provided by the competent authorities as to the detailed rules for calculating the harm suffered and the related compensation appear to refer only to the harm suffered by individual agricultural primary producers.
Zlasti člen 1 priglašenega zakona in obvestilna razpredelnica določata za upravičence do pomoči: „posamezna ali združena podjetja na področju proizvodnje, predelave in trženja kmetijskih proizvodov“, obrazložitve v zvezi z izračunom škode in zadevnega nadomestila, ki so jih predložili pristojni organi, pa veljajo le za škodo posameznih primarnih proizvajalcev.
In the absence of information from the competent authorities, the Commission does not know exactly what type of operators would benefit from the aid measure and, should the aid be granted also to operators in the processing and marketing sectors, the Commission does not know what type of harm each of these two categories of operators suffered and according to what criteria this harm was assessed and calculated.
Ker pristojni organi niso predložili zahtevanih podatkov, Komisiji ni znana točna vrsta proizvajalcev, ki bi lahko prejela pomoč, in ali bi se lahko pomoč odobrila tudi proizvajalcem s področja predelave in trženja; Komisija ne pozna vrste škode, ki sta jo utrpeli ti dve vrsti proizvajalcev, in meril, po katerih je bila ta škoda ocenjena in izračunana.
The Commission therefore considers that the losses for which compensation could be granted to (at least some of) the beneficiaries may therefore be linked (also) to causes other than the strike and the roadblocks concerned.
Komisija zato meni, da je lahko izguba, za katero bi se lahko odobrilo nadomestilo (vsaj nekaterim) upravičencem, povezana (tudi) z drugimi razlogi razen zadevne stavke in cestnih zapor.
With regard to primary producers, the competent authorities planned to provide compensation also to those farmers who, as a result of the strike and of the roadblocks could not collect/harvest their produce and therefore lost their production.
V zvezi s primarnimi proizvajalci so pristojni organi predvidevali tudi plačilo nadomestila kmetom, ki zaradi stavke in cestnih zapor niso mogli nadaljevati pobiranja in so zato izgubili proizvodnjo.
In this case the harm suffered by the farmers would be calculated on the basis of ‘expert reports drawn up by qualified agronomists concerning the value of the production on the plants/trees’ which will be presented together with the contracts.
V tem primeru se škoda kmetov izračuna na podlagi „izvedenskega mnenja usposobljenih kmetijskih tehnikov (agronomov) v zvezi z vrednostjo proizvodnje rastlin“, ki se predloži skupaj z ustreznimi pogodbami.
In the absence of any clarification from the competent authorities, the Commission cannot accept the proposed detailed rules for calculating the harm suffered and the related aid proposed in this specific case since it is not clear why the said detailed rules would in this case differ from those used for other producers (see point 28 above); the nature and purpose of the expert reports concerned are not clear either; it is not specified when and how the said reports were drafted and, lastly, it is not known for what type of products the said expert reports would be used to evaluate the harm.
Ker pristojni organi niso predložili pojasnila, Komisija ne more sprejeti vrst izračuna škode in ustrezne pomoči, določene za ta primer, ker ni jasno, zakaj bi se v tem primeru navedene vrste izračuna razlikovale od tistih, ki so jih uporabili drugi proizvajalci (glej uvodno izjavo 28); razen tega nista jasna vrsta in namen zadevnega izvedenskega mnenja in ni določeno, kdaj in kako se bo sestavilo in katera vrsta proizvodov se bo v njem uporabila za oceno škode.
The Commission therefore considers that, for this reason too, the losses for which compensation could be granted to (at least some of) the beneficiaries may therefore be linked (also) to causes other than the strike and the roadblocks concerned.
Komisija zato meni, da je lahko izguba, za katero bi se lahko odobrilo nadomestilo (vsaj nekaterim) upravičencem, tudi zaradi tega povezana (tudi) z drugimi razlogi razen zadevne stavke in cestnih zapor.
Moreover, although repeatedly requested, the Italian authorities never provided the Commission with a list of products which, because of their nature (perishability, harvesting period, etc) actually needed to be delivered or collected rapidly over the period concerned (30 September to 8 October 2000), for which no alternative form of storage (freezing for example) could be envisaged and for which the Italian authorities envisaged the compensation.
Razen tega italijanski organi kljub številnim zahtevam Komisiji nikoli niso predložili seznama proizvodov, ki bi morali biti v zadevnem obdobju (od 30. septembra do 8. oktobra 2000) zaradi svojih lastnosti (pokvarljivost, obdobje pobiranja itd.) hitro dostavljeni ali pobrani, za katere nadomestne oblike skladiščenja (na primer zamrznitev) niso bile na voljo in za katere italijanski organi niso predvideli nadomestila.
Since this list was deemed to be necessary for the possible authorisation of the aid measure and in particular to establish the link between the strike and the roadblocks and the losses for which aid could be paid to the beneficiaries, the Commission cannot establish such a link.
Ker je bil seznam potreben za odobritev ukrepa pomoči in zlasti za določitev povezave med stavko in zaporami ter izgubo, za katero bi se lahko izplačalo nadomestilo, Komisija te povezave ne more določiti.
Lastly, the Italian authorities did not exclude the doubt that the road hauliers may be liable under national law for compensation to agricultural undertakings for the (contractual and non-contractual) harm caused by their demonstration, strike and roadblocks, and therefore that the aid measure might be considered as constituting indirect operating aid to the striking road hauliers themselves.
Nazadnje italijanski organi niso izključili dvoma o odgovornosti avtoprevoznikov na podlagi nacionalnega prava za povračilo (pogodbene in nepogodbene) škode, ki so jo njihov shod, stavka in zapore povzročili kmetijskim podjetjem, ter o tem, da bi se lahko zato zadevni ukrep pomoči štel za posredno pomoč pri delovanju v korist stavkajočih avtoprevoznikov.
Since, in order to avoid any duplication of compensation due to potential contractual harm or penalties paid to them by the striking transporters, the beneficiaries would have to declare that they did not initiate any proceedings against the road hauliers concerned, and since the explanation provided by the competent authorities, that the road hauliers would be liable as private individuals and not as undertakings, did not appear convincing and did not appear to exclude that under the national law the striking road hauliers might be indeed liable for harm to the farmers, the Commission cannot conclude that the real beneficiaries of the aid measure are the operators of the agricultural sector and that the measure is not (also) an operating aid the road hauliers themselves or to some of them.
Glede na to, da bi upravičenci, če bi se želeli izogniti dvojnemu nadomestilu zaradi morebitnega plačila kazni in pogodbene škode s strani stavkajočih avtoprevoznikov, morali dokazati, da niso začeli nobenega pravnega postopka zoper vključene avtoprevoznike, in da predložena obrazložitev pristojnih organov, ki navaja, da so avtoprevozniki odgovorni kot posamezni državljani in ne kot podjetniki, ni prepričljiva in ne izključuje, da bi lahko bili stavkajoči avtoprevozniki v skladu z nacionalnim zakonom dejansko odgovorni za škodo, povzročeno kmetom, Komisija ne more odločiti, da so dejanski upravičenci do pomoči proizvajalci v kmetijskem sektorju in da ukrep ne predstavlja (tudi) pomoči pri delovanju v korist samih avtoprevoznikov ali nekaterih od njih.
In the light of the above, since the Italian authorities confirmed that they do not have the information requested regarding any of the doubts expressed by the Commission regarding both the exceptional nature of the event and the other aspects of the aid measure, all the doubts that the Commission had when it decided to initiate the procedure remain and preclude a favourable assessment of the aid measure as an aid to make good the harm caused by an exceptional occurrence within the meaning of Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega in ker so italijanski organi potrdili, da nimajo na voljo podatkov, ki jih je Komisija zahtevala v zvezi z nekaterimi dvomi o izjemnosti zadevnega dogodka in drugih vidikih ukrepa pomoči, vsi dvomi Komisije ob njeni odločbi o sprožitvi postopka še naprej veljajo in onemogočajo oceno v korist pomoči, ker je pomoč namenjena nadomestilu škode, ki jo je povzročil izjemni pojav v smislu člena 87(2)(b) Pogodbe.
For the reasons set out above, the Commission therefore concludes that the event concerned cannot be considered as an exceptional occurrence within the meaning of the Treaty and that, in any case, the necessary and exclusive link between the said event and the losses of the beneficiaries which the aid is aimed at compensating could not be established.
Zaradi zgornjih razlogov Komisija ugotavlja, da se zadevni dogodek ne more šteti za izjemni pojav v smislu Pogodbe in da se v nobenem primeru ne more določiti nujna in izključna povezava med dogodkom in izgubo upravičencev, za katero je predvideno nadomestilo.
Regarding the possibility that the aid measure under scrutiny may satisfy other State aid rules for the agricultural sector, point 3.5 of the Guidelines establishes that in order to be considered compatible with the common market, any aid measure must contain some incentive element or require some counterpart on the part of the beneficiary.
V zvezi z možnostjo, da bi lahko zadevna pomoč izpolnjevala druge predpise v zvezi z javno pomočjo kmetijskemu sektorju, točka 3.5. Smernic določa, da mora pomoč za združljivost s skupnim trgom vključevati element spodbude ali zahtevati obveznost tudi od upravičenca.
Unless exceptions are expressly provided for in Community legislation or in these guidelines, unilateral State aid measures which are simply intended to improve the financial situation of producers but which in no way contribute to the development of the sector are considered to constitute operating aids which are incompatible with the common market.
Če izjeme niso izrecno določene v zakonodaji Skupnosti ali v teh smernicah, se enostranski ukrepi javne pomoči, ki so namenjeni le izboljšanju finančnega položaja proizvajalcev in ne prispevajo k razvoju sektorja, štejejo za pomoč pri delovanju, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Furthermore, by their very nature, such aids are also likely to interfere with the mechanisms of the common organisations of the market.
Razen tega je lahko takšna pomoč že po svoji naravi v navzkrižju z mehanizmi skupne tržne ureditve.
The aid under examination does not contain any incentive element and does not require any counterpart on the part of the beneficiary.
Zadevna pomoč ne vključuje nobenega elementa spodbude in od upravičenca ne zahteva nobene obveznosti.
As shown above, it does not even meet the requirements under point 11 of the Guidelines for consideration as a compensatory aid compatible with the common market.
Kot je dokazano zgoraj, ne izpolnjuje niti zahtev iz točke 11. Smernic, s čimer bi veljala za kompenzacijsko pomoč, združljivo s skupnim trgom.
The aid in question merely improves the financial situation of producers, without contributing to the development of the sector and, in particular, provides for operating aids aimed at relieving the beneficiaries of operating costs linked to normal business risk.
Zadevna pomoč le izboljšuje finančni položaj proizvajalcev, ne da bi na kakršen koli način prispevala k razvoju sektorja, in omogoča pomoč pri delovanju, namenjeno ublažitvi stroškov poslovanja upravičencev, povezanih z običajnim tveganjem, ki ga ima podjetje.
Consequently there is no justification, under the State aid rules applicable to agriculture, for the aid measure provided for in Article 1 of Regional Law No. 27/2000, in favour of undertakings engaged in the production, processing and/or marketing of agricultural products listed in Annex I of the Treaty.
Zato v zvezi s predpisi o javni pomoči v kmetijstvu ukrep pomoči iz člena 1 Deželnega zakona št. 27/2000, predvidene za podjetja na področju proizvodnje, predelave ali trženja kmetijskih izdelkov iz Priloge I Pogodbe, ne more biti upravičen.
The Commission therefore regards this type of aid as operating aid which is not compatible with the common market.
Komisija zato to vrsto pomoči šteje za pomoč pri delovanju, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
This type of aid, which relieves the recipients of a part of their management costs, has no durable and structural effect on the sectors concerned and it only gives an advantage to Sicilian products over products which do not benefit from comparable measures, in Italy or in other Member States.
Tovrstna pomoč, ki ublaži del stroškov upravljanja upravičencev, nima dolgotrajnega in strukturnega vpliva na zadevne sektorje in je omejena na dajanje prednosti proizvodom iz Sicilije pred proizvodi, ki ne prejemajo podobne pomoči v Italiji ali drugih državah članicah.
The aid provided for in Article 1 of Regional Law No 27/2000 cannot therefore benefit from a derogation under Article 87(2)(b) or Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty or from any other derogation provided for by the Treaty.
Zato pri pomoči iz člena 1 Deželnega zakona št. 27/2000 ne more veljati nobeno odstopanje v skladu s členom 87(2)(b) ali členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe in nobeno odstopanje, ki ga predvideva Pogodba.
In the light of the points set out above, the aid measure provided for in Article 1 of Regional Law No 27/2000 is incompatible with the common market and may not be implemented.
Ob upoštevanju vsega tega ukrep pomoči iz člena 1 Deželnega zakona št. 27/2000 ni združljiv s skupnim trgom in se ne sme izvajati.
According to Article 2 of Regional Law No 27/2000, the implementation of the aid measures envisaged by this Law is conditional upon their approval by the Commission.
V skladu s členom 2 Deželnega zakona št. 27/2000 mora uporabo ukrepov pomoči iz Zakona odobriti Komisija.
In their observations the competent authorities confirmed that the aids had not been implemented,
Italijanski organi so v ugotovitvah potrdili, da se pomoč še ni začela izvajati –
The State aids which Italy is planning to implement in favour of undertakings engaged in the production, processing and/or marketing of Annex I agricultural products under Article 1 of Sicilian Regional Law No 27/2000 of 23 December 2000 to make good the harm caused by the road hauliers’ strike and the roadblocks in Sicily between 30 September and 8 October 2000 are incompatible with the common market.
Člen 1 Državna pomoč Italije iz člena 1 Zakona dežele Sicilije št. 27 z dne 23. decembra 2000 za nadomestilo škode, ki so jo podjetjem na področju proizvodnje, predelave in trženja kmetijskih proizvodov iz Priloge I Pogodbe povzročile stavka avtoprevoznikov in cestne zapore na Siciliji v obdobju med30. septembrom in 8. oktobrom 2000, ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The above aids may accordingly not be implemented.
Navedena pomoč se ne zato ne sme izvajati.
This Decision is addressed to The Republic of Italy.
Ta odločba je naslovljena na Republiko Italijo.
Done at Brussels, 7 May 2004.
V Bruslju, dne 7. maj 2004
OJ C 127, 29.5.2003.
UL C 127, 29.5.2003.
OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1; Regulation amended by Act of Accession of 2003.
UL L 83, 27.3.1999, str. 1. Uredba, kakor je bila spremenjena z Aktom o pristopu iz leta 2003.
Cf. footnote [1].
Glej opombo 1.
Point 11.2 of the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (OJ C 232 of 12.8.2000, p. 19).
Točka 11.2. Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju (UL C 232, 12.8.2000, str. 19).
See Case C-730/79 [1980] ECR 2671, points 11 and 12.
Glej zadevo C-730/79 Recueil 1980, str. 2671, točki 11 in 12.
According to consistent case-law, the condition of the effect on the trade is met since the benefiting company carries out an economic activity which is the subject of trade between the Member States.
V skladu s stalno sodno prakso je pogoj v zvezi z vplivom na trgovanje izpolnjen, ko podjetje, ki je upravičenec, izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost, ki je predmet trgovanja med državami članicami.
The simple fact that aid strengthens the position of this company in relation to other competing companies in intra-Community trade, makes it possible to consider that this trade was affected.
Že na podlagi dejstva, da pomoč okrepi položaj tega podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenčnimi podjetji na področju trgovanja znotraj Skupnosti, se lahko šteje, da je pomoč vplivala na trgovanje.
With regard to State aids in the agriculture sector it is settled case-law that, even when the overall amount of aid in question is small and it is divided among a large number of farmers, intra-Community trade and competition are affected (see Case C-113/2000 [2002] ECR, 7601, points 30 to 36 and 54 to 56; Case C-114/2000 [2002] ECR 7657, points 46 to 52 and 68 to 69).
Stalna praksa v zvezi z državno pomočjo v kmetijskem sektorju je, da se tudi, ko je skupni znesek pomoči nizek in je bila ta razdeljena med številne kmete, šteje, da je pomoč vplivala na trgovanje med državami članicami in konkurenco (glej zadevo C-113/2000, PSES 2002, str. 7601, točke 30–36 in 54–56 utemeljitve, in zadevo C-114/2000, PSES 2002, str. 7657, točke 46–52 in 68–69 utemeljitve).
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 102/87 French Republic v Commission of the European Communities [1988] ECR 4067.
Sodba Evropskega sodišča z dne 13. julija 1988 v zadevi 102/87, Republika Francija proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, Recueil 1988, str. 4067.
Since the notification does not specify that the aid scheme under examination applies only to small and medium-sized enterprises in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004, this Regulation is not applicable (see Article 20 of Commission Regulation No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 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, OJ L 1 of 3.1.2004).
Če obvestilo ne navaja, da velja zadevna shema pomoči le za mala in srednje velika podjetja, se v zadevnem primeru ne more uporabiti Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1/2004 z dne 23. decembra 2003 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi ES za državno pomoč malim in srednje velikim podjetjem, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo, predelavo in trženjem kmetijskih proizvodov (UL L 1, 3.1.2004, str. 1).
OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
Glej opombo 2.
OJ C 232, 12.8.2000.
Glej opombo 9.
See point 92 of Commission Decision 2000/625/EC of 13 June 2000 on the aid scheme implemented by Ireland to promote the transport of Irish livestock by sea to continental Europe (OJ L 263 of 18.10.2000, p. 17).
Glej točko 92 Odločbe Komisije 2000/625/ES z dne 13. junija 2000 o shemi pomoči Irske za spodbujanje pomorskega prevoza irske živine v kontinentalno Evropo (UL L 263, 18.10.2000, str. 17).
See also point 33 of the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — The repercussions of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air transport industry/* COM/2001/0574 final */.
Glej tudi točko 33 Sporočila Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu – Posledice napadov na Združene države na letalsko prevozništvo/* COM/2001/0574 konč.*/.
See Commission Decision 96/148/EC of 26 July 1995 on the measures decided by France as a result of the blockade of the French road network in 1992 (OJ L 34 of 13/02/1996 p. 38).
Glej Odločbo Komisije 96/148/ES z dne 26. julija 1995 o ukrepih Francije zaradi zastoja cestne mreže v Franciji leta 1992 (UL L 34, 13.2.1996, str. 38).
See footnote 15 above.
Glej opombo 15.
Article 2 reads: ‘1.
Člen 2 navaja: „1.
The measures provided for in this law are subject to compliance with EC rules on State aid, and to the conclusion of the procedures under by Article 88(2) and (3) of the Treaty’.
Ukrepi iz tega zakona zahtevajo izpolnjevanje veljavnih predpisov v zvezi z državno pomočjo in opredelitev postopka iz člena 88(2) in (3) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti.“
Moreover Italy has not submitted that Article 87(3)(a) is applicable.
Italija namreč ni zahtevala uporabe točk a) in c) člena 87(2).
Article 87(3)(b) is also inapplicable as the aids in question are not intended to promote the implementation of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in Italy’s economy.
Člen 87(3)(a) se prav tako ne more uporabiti, ker pomoč ni namenjena gospodarskemu razvoju dežel, kjer je življenjska raven neobičajno nizka ali kjer prevladuje velika stopnja podzaposlenosti.
The Commission decision to initiate proceedings was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.
Odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti.
The derogations listed in Article 87(2)(a) and (c) are manifestly inapplicable given the nature of the aid measures in question and their objectives. Indeed, Italy has not submitted that either Article 87(2)(a) or (c) are applicable. (41) Article 87(3)(a) is also inapplicable since the aids are not intended to promote the development of regions where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment.
Razvidno je, da se odstopanja iz člena 87(2)(a) in (c) zaradi vrste in namena zadevnega ukrepa pomoči ne morejo uporabiti.
on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom
o državni pomoči, ki jo izvaja Francija v korist podjetja France Télécom
(notified under document number C(2004) 3060)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2004) 3060)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to those comments,
po povabilu zainteresiranih, da predstavijo svoje pripombe s skladu z omenjenimi členi, in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
By letter dated 31 January 2003, the Commission informed France of its decision to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (‘the opening decision’) in respect of financial measures introduced by the French authorities for France Télécom (‘France Télécom’, ‘FT’ or ‘the Company’) and in respect of the business tax scheme applicable to that operator.
S pismom z dne 31. januarja 2003 je Komisija obvestila Francijo o svoji odločitvi za začetek uradnega postopka preiskave iz člena 88(2) Sporazuma (v nadaljevanju „odločitev o začetku“) glede finančnih ukrepov, ki so jih francoski organi sprejeli v korist podjetja France Télécom (v nadaljevanju „FT“ ali „podjetje“), in glede sistema davkov na dohodek, ki velja za tega operaterja.