natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the case in point, it is clear that the undertakings carried out the investments in question without the aid.
Iz obravnavanega primera pa je razvidno, da so podjetja izvedla naložbe brez pomoči.
Another factor that, in the opinion of the Commission, raised doubts about the existence of an incentive element was the drawing up of the ranking lists.
Prav tako je Komisija imela pomisleke glede obstoja elementa spodbude pri sestavljanju prednostnih seznamov.
If this was the way the mechanism was intended to operate, it could be concluded that drawing up a six-monthly ranking list would have enabled the regional authorities accurately to calculate on a regular basis the resources still available, which would have allowed them to refrain from publishing new calls for applications and receiving new applications that could not be accepted because insufficient resources were available.
Če naj se ta mehanizem tako razlaga, bi sestava prednostnega seznama vsakih šest mesecev omogočila deželnim organom natančen izračun razpoložljivih sredstev, ki bi se redno posodabljal, s tem pa bi preprečili nove razpise in sprejemanje novih prošenj, ki jih zaradi nezadostnih razpoložljivih sredstev ni bilo mogoče odobriti.
Further aspects that, in the opinion of the Commission, raised doubts about the existence of an incentive element are the budget provided for in Article 35 of the Law concerned and the intensity and exact amount of the aid.
Komisija je imela dodatne pomisleke glede obstoja elementa spodbude tudi pri dodelitvi finančnih sredstev iz členu 35 zadevnega zakona, intenzivnosti in natančnem znesku pomoči.
The fact that the Italian authorities consider such a low rate of aid as adequate to provide an incentive while a much higher rate of aid was considered necessary for the same type of project in the Regional Operational Programme for 1994-99 is a further indication of the lack of any incentive to carry out the sort of projects for which aid was being provided.
Mnenje italijanskih organov, da tako nizka stopnja pomoči zadostuje za zagotovitev učinka spodbude, medtem ko deželni operativni načrt za 1994–1999 določa, da je za iste projekte treba dodeliti bistveno višjo stopnjo pomoči, še dodatno dokazuje, da ni učinka spodbude za projekte, ki naj bi bili finančno podprti.
In addition, the most recent information received (registered as received on 30 January 2001) contradicted that sent previously:
Poleg tega so zadnje dodatne informacije (evidentirane 30. januarja 2001) vsebovale podatke, ki niso skladni s tistimi, ki so bili predhodno posredovani:
in particular, the ranking list contained 134 projects considered to be eligible rather than 150; the Italian authorities said that financing was still to be provided for 36 of those projects;
na splošni prednostni seznam je bilo uvrščenih 134 projektov, upravičenih do financiranja, in ne 150; od teh naj bi ostalo še 36 nefinanciranih projektov;
in addition, there were discrepancies concerning the exact amount of investments carried out by the beneficiaries: the most recent figure given is ITL 120081 million rather than the ITL 70000 million notified previously.
poleg tega se višine naložb, ki so jih upravičenci že izvedli, ne ujemajo: po zadnjih podatkih naj bi šlo za 120081 milijonov ITL in ne za 70000 milijonov, kakor je bilo predhodno navedeno.
Another aspect to be clarified was the frequency with which the aid is to be granted. The Italian authorities had initially said that this was an extraordinary measure of limited duration (see point 15).
Pojasniti je treba tudi pogostnost ukrepa: italijanski organi so sprva trdili, da je ukrep izredne narave in časovno omejen (glej točko 15).
This is in contradiction with other statements made by those authorities regarding the possibility of granting further financing for the same projects.
To pa je v protislovju z izjavami istih organov o možnosti, da bi se v prihodnje odobrilo financiranje istih projektov.
The initial notification stated that ‘if, when additional verifications have been carried out on the applications, further financing is required, this must be no more than is strictly necessary to cover applications carried over from the previous, 1994-99 programming period’.
V prvi priglasitvi je namreč navedeno, da „če bodo po dodatni preučitvi prošenj potrebna dodatna sredstva, bodo ta na voljo le v najnujnejši višini, potrebni za financiranje prošenj, ki so ostale iz predhodnega programskega obdobja 1994–1999“.
To that end, the regional authorities undertook to notify cases not falling within the scope of the 20 % rule referred to in Commission communication No 54/94/D24823 (of 22 February 1994).
Zato so se deželni organi obvezali, da bodo Komisijo obvestili o primerih, ki presegajo pravilo o 20 % iz Sporočila Komisije št. 54/94/D24823 (z dne 22. februarja 1994).
The regional authorities have provided no further details of the possibility of additional sources of financing and the relevant methods of payment and such possibility would appear to contradict the assertion that the notified measure is a one-off measure.
Dodatni podatki deželnih organov niso navajali možnosti dodatnih virov financiranja in morebitnih pogojev izplačila, ki so videti, da se ne ujemajo s podatki o vrsti una tantum priglašenega ukrepa.
Finally, the Italian authorities stated that projects for which aid applications had been submitted and accepted during the 1994-99 programming period but on which work had not already started would be financed under the new Rural Development Plan for the Veneto Region for 2000-06, after their compliance had been checked in the light of the new Community rules in the agricultural sector.
Nazadnje so italijanski organi izjavili, da se bodo projekti, za katere so bile prošnje za dodelitev financiranja vložene in odobrene za programsko obdobje 1994–1999 in ki se še niso začeli izvajati, financirali na podlagi novega Načrta za razvoj podeželja dežele Benečije 2000–2006, in sicer po ugotovitvi skladnosti z novimi pravili Skupnosti za kmetijski sektor.
This is, however, difficult to reconcile with the data provided on the final general ranking list (i.e. on the applications accepted for financing), submitted with the most recent additional information (registered as received on 30 January 2001).
Taka trditev se težko ujema s podatki o dokončnem splošnem prednostnem seznamu (torej o odobrenih prošnjah za financiranje), ki so jih sporočili z zadnjimi dodatnimi podatki (evidentiranimi 30. januarja 2001).
Of the total of 134 projects accepted, 20 had been financed using agrimonetary aid, 10 using aid originating from overbooking, 54 under Regional Law No 88/80, 4 under Decree Law No 173/98 and 10 had been cancelled.
Od skupnih 134 upravičenih projektov je bilo 20 financiranih iz kmetijsko-monetarnih sredstev, 10 iz sredstev iz naslova čezmernih rezervacij, 54 v skladu z Deželnim zakonom št. 88/80, 4 v skladu z Zakonskim odlokom št. 173/98, 10 pa je bilo razveljavljenih.
On that basis, only 36 projects remain to be financed: even if financing could be granted under the new Rural Development Plan for 2000-06, it is not clear to which ‘applications carried over from the previous […] programming period’ the Italian authorities are referring to.
Na podlagi teh podatkov ostane še nefinanciranih samo 36 projektov: čeprav bi lahko določili financiranje na podlagi novega programa za razvoj podeželja 2000–2006, je še vedno nejasno, na katere „prošnje iz prejšnjega programskega obdobja“ se nanašajo italijanski organi.
The Commission reserved the right to examine the question of the use of agrimonetary aid and aid originating from overbooking: the use of such sources of financing could be construed as misuse of decisions to authorise aid or might even not have been notified to the Commission.
Komisija si je pridržala pravico, da preveri uporabo dodeljenih pomoči iz kmetijsko-monetarnega sklada in tistih, ki izhajajo iz čezmernih rezervacij: pri poseganju po takih sredstvih financiranja se lahko izkaže, da gre za zlorabo odločbe o odobritvi pomoči ali da sploh ni bilo priglašeno Komisiji.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ITALY AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
PRIPOMBE ITALIJE IN DRUGIH ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANK
By letter dated 22 June 2001, Italy sent the Commission its comments on the aid scheme in response to the Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty.
V dopisu z dne 22. junija 2001 je Italija na podlagi odločitve o sprožitvi postopka v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe službam Komisije sporočila svoje pripombe k zadevni pomoči.
In their reply, the Italian authorities first of all detailed the administrative procedure for granting aid during the 1994-99 programming period, in order to demonstrate that that procedure created a legal obligation towards potential beneficiaries that might have given rise to (or justified the existence of) a legitimate expectation on their part and therefore constitute a sufficient incentive for starting the work before receiving the aid.
Italijanski organi so v odgovoru najprej obnovili upravni postopek za dodelitev pomoči v programskem obdobju 1994–1999, da bi dokazali, da iz postopka izhaja pravna obveznost do potencialnih upravičencev do financiranja, ki bi določala (in upravičila) utemeljeno pričakovanje slednjih, hkrati pa pomenila zadostno spodbudo za začetek del pred prejetjem pomoči.
In the description of the scheme submitted before the procedure was initiated, the Italian authorities stated that once they had been placed on the single ranking list of undertakings eligible for aid for the agrifood sector, undertakings remained on that list until financing from the Region was available.
Glede opisa, ki je bil poslan pred sprožitvijo postopka, so italijanski organi pojasnili, da so podjetja po uvrstitvi na prednostni seznam upravičencev do pomoči za kmetijsko-živilski sektor čakala na razpoložljivost finančnih sredstev dežele Benečije.
As the necessary resources became available (either from the regional budget, under Article 29 of Regional Law No 88/1980, or under the Veneto ROP under Council Regulation (EC) No 866/90 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products and Regulation (EC) No 951/97 or from the national budget (overbooking and agrimonetary aid)), the regional authorities took an ad hoc administrative decision selecting the undertakings to receive financing from the single ranking list, according to criterion of preference and priority, and in particular those undertakings whose applications would ensure that the resources available would be fully used.
Medtem ko so postopoma pritekala potrebna sredstva (bodisi iz deželnega proračuna na podlagi člena 29 Deželnega zakona št. 88/1980 ali iz DOP Benečije – Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 866/90 z dne 29. marca 1990 o izboljšanju predelave in trženja kmetijskih proizvodov in Uredba 951/97 bodisi iz državnega proračuna – iz čezmernih rezervacij in kmetijsko-monetarnih skladov), je dežela Benečija iz skupnega prednostnega seznama s priložnostnim upravnim aktom in po prednostnih merilih izbrala podjetja, upravičena do financiranja, zlasti tista, katerih prošnje so prispevale k polni uporabi razpoložljivih sredstev.
The Region therefore had a pool of projects that could be quickly implemented at the appropriate time when financing became available.
Dežela je tako imela vrsto projektov, ki so bili pripravljeni na izvajanje, takoj ko bi bila sredstva na voljo.
The regional authorities consider that drawing up a ranking list of eligible projects, even though financing is not immediately available, providing for actual financing at a future date, does not infringe any Community rule.
Deželni organi menijo, da vnaprejšnja sestava prednostnega seznama upravičenih projektov, čeprav sredstva še niso na voljo in se financiranje zaradi tega odloži, ni v nasprotju z nobenim pravilom Skupnosti.
According to the regional authorities, Article 35 of RL No 5/2000 will be applied to the 36 projects/undertakings remaining on the ranking list.
Člen 35 DZ št. 5/2000 naj bi se po mnenju pristojnih organov uporabil za 36 projektov/podjetij, ki so ostali na seznamu.
These remaining projects/undertakings have been re-examined and the procedure has been opened to file two of them that do not comply with the guidelines.
Te projekte (podjetja) so najprej še enkrat preučili in dva od teh arhivirali, ker nista združljiva s Smernicami.
The competent authorities also say that 15 undertakings have submitted applications under the Rural Development Plan for the Region of Veneto for 2000-06 (Measure 7 — Improving processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products) and therefore, with the prospect of financing being granted for the new 2000-06 programming period, have withdrawn their previous applications.
Poleg tega pristojni organi sporočajo, da je 15 podjetij vložilo prošnjo v skladu z NRP za deželo Benečijo 2000–2006 – Ukrep 7 (Izboljšanje predelave in trženja kmetijskih proizvodov) – in se s tem odreklo prejšnjim zahtevam, če se jim v novem programskem obdobju 2000/2006 odobri financiranje.
The regional authorities do not rule out other undertakings withdrawing their projects because, for various reasons, they are no longer interested in carrying them out.
Dežela ne izključuje možnosti, da se bodo tudi druga podjetja odrekla projektom, ker iz različnih razlogov niso več zainteresirana za prvotni projekt.
The number of potential beneficiaries of the aid has therefore been drastically reduced compared with the initial list.
Število potencialnih upravičencev do zadevne pomoči je torej pol manjše od prvotnega seznama.
The Italian authorities take the view that the opinion expressed by the Commission in its letter initiating the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty has no legal basis and contradicts the Commission's usual practice.
Italijanski organi menijo, da je mnenje, ki ga je Komisija izrazila v dopisu o sprožitvi postopka na podlagi nekdanjega člena 88(2) Pogodbe, brez pravne podlage in v nasprotju z uveljavljeno prakso Komisije.
The Commission initiated the procedure regarding the aid because it could be granted to undertakings remaining on the list that had begun to make or had already made the investments concerned after submitting their aid application for the 1994-99 programming period.
Komisija je sprožila postopek glede zadevnih pomoči, ker bi se te lahko dodelile tudi podjetjem, ki so še vključena na seznam in so že začela izvajati naložbe ali so jih že izvedla po vložitvi prošnje za pomoč za programsko obdobje 1994–1999.
The Commission considers that, in the absence of a legal obligation on the part of the regional authorities towards potential beneficiaries, aid granted retrospectively does not provide the necessary incentive element and therefore constitutes operating aid that is incompatible with the common market.
Ker dežela nima nobene pravne obveznosti do potencialnih upravičencev, Komisija meni, da pomoči, ki so se odobrile za nazaj, ne vsebujejo elementa spodbude in se zato štejejo za pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The Italian authorities take the view that both point 3.6 of the guidelines and the way the Commission has applied it created in the mind of applicants, from the time they submitted their application to the competent authorities, a legitimate expectation that they would receive financing.
Italijanski organi menijo, da so prosilci zaradi točke 3.6 Smernic in njene uporabe s strani Komisije utemeljeno pričakovali odobritev financiranja vse od vložitve zadevne prošnje pri pristojnem organu.
Regional Government Decision No 4202/93 laying down the procedure for submitting applications and for drawing up ranking lists and confirming the provisions of Regional Law 1/1991 assured potential beneficiaries of the eligibility for public financing of investments commenced after an application had been submitted but before a decision had been taken to grant aid.
V tem primeru je prav Sklep deželnega odbora št. 4202/93, ki določa način vlaganja prošenj in sestavljanja prednostnega seznama ter temelji na določbah deželnega zakona 1/1991, zagotavljal potencialnim upravičencem odobritev javnega financiranja naložb, ki so se začele izvajati po vložitvi prošnje in pred odobritvijo pomoči.
In addition, the legitimate expectation that arose when the application was submitted was reinforced when the applicant was entered on the list of undertakings eligible for financing.
Poleg tega so prosilci še bolj verjeli v odobritev sredstev, potem ko so bili po vloženi prošnji uvrščeni na seznam podjetij, upravičenih do financiranja.
Furthermore, the potential beneficiaries of aid, knowing that they had submitted their applications correctly and that they fulfilled the legal requirements, could reasonably expect their applications to be accepted, which was then confirmed with their entry on the ranking list, although they had still to await the decision granting aid.
Možni upravičenci do pomoči so ob zavedanju, da so prošnje pravilno vložili in da izpolnjujejo zakonske zahteve, upravičeno pričakovali odobritev svojih prošenj, ki so bile uvrščene na prednostni seznam, še preden se je dejansko začel izvajati postopek odobritve.
The Italian authorities also point out that it is Commission practice to accept the extension of aid schemes that have already been approved in order to permit them to achieve their objectives, which is basically what the Italian authorities are requesting for the aid scheme to be implemented under Article 35 of RL No 5/2000.
Italijanske oblasti opozarjajo, da Komisija običajno odobri podaljšanje že sprejetih shem pomoči, da se omogoči uresničitev zastavljenih ciljev, kar med drugim zahtevajo tudi nacionalni organi pri predložitvi sheme pomoči v skladu s členom 35 DZ št. 5/2000.
In other words, according to the Italian authorities, the aid would be compatible with the Treaty if it had been granted not later than 1999, i.e. during the period of application of the scheme or schemes for which the applications for financing had been submitted.
Z drugimi besedami bi bile po mnenju italijanskih organov take pomoči skladne s Pogodbo, če bi se dodelile do leta 1999 oziroma do datuma veljavnosti sheme ali shem, za katere so bile vložene prošnje za financiranje.
The Italian authorities explain that, under Italian administrative law, it is possible to contest in an administrative court acts of the public authorities which infringe either individual rights or legitimate interests.
Nacionalni organi menijo, da je v italijanskem upravnem pravu mogoče pri upravnem sodniku izpodbijati akte javne uprave, ki ne kršijo samo osebnih pravic, ampak tudi legitimne interese.
Legitimate interests are defined as the interest of private individuals in the correct use of power by the public authorities, as regards both expectations concerning the extension of their legal sphere (interessi pretensivi — interests involving a claim on the authorities) and the correct application of the procedural obligations imposed on them (interessi procedimentali — procedural interests), in particular under the law on the publication of official acts.
Legitimni interesi so opredeljeni kot interesi zasebnikov, da javna uprava primerno uporablja svoja pooblastila bodisi glede pričakovanja, da razširi pravno območje zasebnikov (interesi v zvezi z zahtevami), bodisi glede ustreznega upoštevanja omejitev, ki ji jih nalagajo postopki (interesi v zvezi s postopki), zlasti v skladu z Zakonom o preglednosti aktov.
In accordance with the case law of the Italian Court of Cassation, private individuals may take action under administrative law not only to obtain the annulment of an act by a public authority that infringes their legitimate interests or their subjective rights, but also to obtain the adoption of an expected act and compensation for losses caused by the adoption or by the failure to adopt an act.
Po sodni praksi italijanskega kasacijskega sodišča se lahko zasebnik obrne na upravno sodišče ne samo zato, da se razveljavi akt, s katerim javna uprava krši enega od legitimnih interesov zasebnika ali njegovo osebno pravico, ampak tudi zato, da doseže sprejetje pričakovanega ukrepa in vračilo škode, nastale zaradi sprejetja ali nesprejetja akta.
In the case in question, the legitimate interest of the applicants (for public financing) remaining on the list is an interest involving a claim on the authorities, since the applicants legitimately expected their rights to be extended by the decision granting aid.
V tem primeru je legitimni interes prosilcev (za javno financiranje), ki so ostali na seznamu, interes v zvezi z zahtevami, ker gre za utemeljeno pričakovanje o razširitvi njihovega pravnega območja z ukrepom dodelitve pomoči.
On the basis of that case law of the Court of Cassation, the Italian authorities do not rule out that, if an action were brought, an administrative court might decide to order the regional authorities to pay compensation.
Zaradi navedene sodne prakse kasacijskega sodišča italijanski organi ne izključujejo možnosti, da imenovani upravni sodnik odloči, da mora deželna uprava povrniti nastalo škodo.
The Italian authorities state that none of the undertakings eligible for financing remaining on the list has brought an administrative action in the reasonable expectation of being granted aid.
Italijanski organi menijo, da nobeno podjetje, ki je upravičeno do financiranja in je še na seznamu, ni vložilo pritožbe upravnemu sodniku, ker so upravičeno pričakovala, da se jim bo dodelila pomoč.
To bring action against the Region of Veneto, the undertakings concerned would have to demonstrate an interest in so doing because of an act that causes them an actual loss.
Da bi lahko navedena podjetja sprožila postopek zoper deželo Benečijo, bi morala pokazati interes za izpodbijanje akta, ki jim je povzročil dejansko škodo.
The Italian authorities define that act as a failure to grant financing and the cancellation of the ranking list: an action could legitimately be brought only against a decision to cancel the aid or to repeal Decision 4102/99, since this would damage their legitimate and actual aspiration to obtain the aid concerned.
Tak akt je po mnenju italijanskih organov nefinanciranje z razveljavitvijo prednostnega seznama: utemeljeno bi se lahko pritožili samo čez ukrep o preklicu prispevka ali razveljavitev odločbe 4102/99, ker bi kršil sedanjo upravičeno potegovanje za dodeljene ugodnosti.
As regards the Commission's reservations concerning the use of agrimonetary aid and aid originating from overbooking referred to in point 31 of the letter initiating the procedure, the Italian authorities state that:
Kar zadeva pomisleke Komisije glede uporabe pomoči, dodeljenih iz kmetijsko-monetarnih skladov in iz čezmernih rezervacij iz točke 31 dopisa o sprožitvi postopka, italijanski organi navajajo, da:
the aid scheme relating to initiatives in the agrifood sector, which is covered by Regulation (EC) No 951/97 and which used funding resulting from the revaluation of the Italian lira in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 724/97, falls within the programme of measures for Italy approved by the Commission by note No 5372 of 2 July 1998;
shemo pomoči za pobude v kmetijsko-živilskem sektorju, kakor določa Uredba (ES) št. 951/97 in za katero so se uporabljala sredstva, ki izhajajo iz revalorizacije italijanske lire, prej Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 724/97, zajema program ukrepov za Italijo, ki ga je Komisija odobrila z obvestilom 5372 z dne 2. julija 1998;
the overbooking amounts originate from financing additional to that already granted by the rotating fund for implementing Community policies for the Veneto ROP covered by Regulation (EC) No 951/97, the Veneto ROP constituting a legal basis, as approved by the Commission in Decision C(96) 2598 of 2 October 1996.
da zneski čezmernih rezervacij izhajajo iz financiranja dodatnih kvot ob tistih, ki jih je že dodelil rotacijski sklad za izvajanje politik Skupnosti za DOP Benečije na podlagi Uredbe (ES) 951/97, pri čemer se DOP Benečije šteje za pravno podlago, ker ga je Komisija odobrila z Odločbo (ES) C/96 2598 z dne 2. oktobra 1996.