natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As far as the first part of the exemption in Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty is concerned, namely aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, the aid does not have purposes such as research and development, investment by small and medium-sized enterprises or rescuing or restructuring the beneficiaries, nor any other purpose that would be relevant for the application of that provision and would allow the Commission to declare the aid compatible.
Kar zadeva prvi del izjeme iz člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, namreč pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti, pomoč ni namenjena raziskavam in razvoju, naložbam malih in srednjih podjetij ali reševanju oziroma prestrukturiranju upravičencev, niti nima nobenenga drugega namena, ki bi lahko bil pomemben za uporabo zadevne določbe in bi Komisiji omogočil razglasiti pomoč za združljivo.
The second part of Article 87(3)(c), namely aid to facilitate the development of certain economic areas, applies to the site of Gardanne, but does not allow the Member States to grant operating aid (see point 4.15 of the guidelines on national regional aid).
Drugi del člena 87(3)(c), namreč pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih območij, se uporablja za lokacijo Gardanne, vendar državam članicam ne dovoljuje dodelitve pomoči za tekoče poslovanje (glej točko 4.15 Smernic o državni regionalni pomoči).
As there are no other grounds for finding the aid to be compatible with the common market, the only aid that can be found compatible is the part of the aid that complies with the environmental aid guidelines as specified in recital (76).
Ker ni drugih razlogov, ki bi potrdili, da je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom, je edina pomoč, ki se lahko šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom, del pomoči, ki je v skladu s smernicami za okoljsko pomoč, kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (76).
Preliminary assessment of the measures for the period since 1.1.2004
Predhodna presoja ukrepov za obdobje pred 1.1.2004
Since Directive 2003/96/EC became applicable on 1 January 2004, dual uses, non-fuel uses of energy and mineralogical processes fall outside its scope and Member States have had discretion as to whether or not to tax such uses.
Odkar se je 1. januarja 2004 začela uporabljati Direktiva 2003/96/ES, dvojna uporaba energentov in njihova uporaba kot negoriv kakor tudi za mineraloške postopke ne sodi v njeno področje uporabe, države članice pa se po lastni presoji odločijo, ali bodo takšne uporabe obdavčile ali ne.
Indeed, an exemption of such energy uses may constitute a general measure that does not involve State aid if it falls within the nature and the logic of the domestic tax system.
Oprostitev takšnih uporab energije lahko predstavlja splošni ukrep, ki ne vključuje državne pomoči, če spada v okvir narave in logike domačega davčnega sistema.
Recital 22 in the preamble to Directive 2003/96/EC states that ‘energy products should essentially be subject to a Community framework when used as heating fuel or motor fuel.
Uvodna izjava 22 v preambuli k Direktivi 2003/96/ES navaja, da „za energente praviloma velja pravni okvir Skupnosti, če se uporabljajo kot gorivo za ogrevanje ali pogonsko gorivo.
To that extent, it is in the nature and the logic of the tax system to exclude from the scope of the framework dual uses and non-fuel uses of energy as well as mineralogical processes’.
V tem pogledu narava in logika davčnega sistema narekujeta, da se iz obsega okvira izključi dvojno uporabo energentov in njihovo uporabo kot negoriv kakor tudi za mineraloške postopke.“
In addition, when Directive 2003/96/EC was adopted, the Council and the Commission jointly declared [30]‘Energy products should essentially be subject to a Community framework when used as heating fuel or motor fuel.
Poleg tega sta Svet in Komisija ob sprejetju Direktive 2003/96/ES skupno razglasila, da [30]„Za energente praviloma velja pravni okvir Skupnosti, če se uporabljajo kot gorivo za ogrevanje ali pogonsko gorivo.
It can be considered that it is in the nature and the logic of the tax system to exclude from the scope of the framework dual uses and non-fuel uses of energy as well as mineralogical processes.
Mogoče je oceniti, da je v naravi in logiki davčnega sistema, da se iz obsega okvira izključi dvojno uporabo energentov in njihovo uporabo kot negoriv kakor tudi za mineraloške postopke.
Member States may then take measures to tax or not to tax or to apply total or partial taxation to each use.
Države članice lahko za vsako uporabo sprejmejo ukrepe za obdavčitev ali neobdavčitev ali za popolno ali delno obdavčitev.
Electricity used in similar ways should be treated on an equal footing.
Električna energija, ki se uporablja na podoben način, se mora obravnavati enakovredno.
Such exceptions to the general system or differentiations within that system, which are justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system, do not involve State aids’.
Takšne izjeme od splošnega sistema ali razlikovanja znotraj tega sistema, ki jih upravičuje narava splošnega programa davčnega sistema, ne vključujejo državnih pomoči.“
However, in its Staff Working Paper referred to in recital (63) the Commission not only explained the notion of general measures, but also stated that ‘the draft directive on energy taxation contains numerous options, making it impossible to determine in advance whether or not the way they will be implemented by Member States will give rise to State aid within the meaning of Article 87’.
Kljub temu je Komisija v Delovnem dokumentu za osebje, navedenem v uvodni izjavi (63), ne le pojasnila pojem splošnih ukrepov, temveč tudi navedla, da „vsebuje osnutek direktive o obdavčitvi energije številne možnosti, zaradi česar je nemogoče vnaprej določiti, ali bo njihov način izvajanja s strani držav članic imel za posledico državno pomoč v smislu člena 87“.
Recital (32) in the preamble to and Article 26(2) of Directive 2003/96/EC, accordingly, remind Member States of the obligation laid down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty to notify State aid.
Uvodna izjava (32) v preambuli k in člen 26(2) Direktive 2003/96/ES države članice opominjata na obveznost uradne priglasitve državne pomoči, določene v členu 88(3) Pogodbe.
In this specific case, even after Directive 2003/96/EC entered into force, the Commission has doubts as to whether the exemptions in question fall within the nature and logic of the domestic systems.
V tem posebnem primeru Komisija tudi po začetku veljavnosti Direktive 2003/96/ES dvomi, ali zadevne oprostitve spadajo v okvir narave in logike domačih sistemov.
They appear to be highly selective and to apply only in respect of the use of heavy oil for the manufacturing of one single product, namely alumina.
Zdijo se zelo selektivne in se uporabljajo zgolj glede uporabe težkega olja za proizvodnjo enega samega proizvoda, aluminijevega oksida.
In addition, de facto, each of them only benefits a specific undertaking in relation to a plant located in a specific region.
Poleg tega vsaka od njih dejansko koristi le določenemu podjetju, povezanemu s tovarno, ki se nahaja v določeni regiji.
In this context, it could still be considered that the measures at stake constitute State aid.
V tem smislu bi lahko za zadevne ukrepe še vedno veljalo, da pomenijo državno pomoč.
In such a case, the new legal situation created by Directive 2003/96/EC is also relevant for the assessment of the compatibility of such measures with the common market.
V tem primeru je nov pravni položaj, ki je nastal z Direktivo 2003/96/ES, pomemben tudi za presojo združljivosti takšnih ukrepov s skupnim trgom.
Since taxation of mineral oils used for dual uses, non-fuel uses and mineralogical processes is now outside the scope of harmonised Community measures, the exemptions now concern domestic taxes imposed in the absence of a Community tax within the meaning of point 51.1(b), second indent, of the 2001 Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection.
Ker zdaj obdavčitev mineralnih olj, ki se uporablja za njihovo dvojno uporabo, uporabo kot negoriv in za mineraloške postopke, sodi zunaj področja uporabe usklajenih ukrepov Skupnosti, oprostitve zadevajo državne davke, določene v odsotnosti davka Skupnosti v smislu druge alinee točke 51.1(b) Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja.
That provision requires benefiting companies to pay a significant proportion of the national tax.
Navedena določba od podjetij, upravičenih do oprostitev, zahteva, da plačajo pomemben del državnega davka.
The reason for that is to leave them with an incentive to improve their environmental performance.
Razlog za to je spodbujanje podjetij k izboljšanju njihove okoljske uspešnosti.
This follows from the wording of point 51.1(b), first indent, of the guidelines, which allows for tax reductions from a harmonised tax if the beneficiaries pay more than the Community minimum rates ‘in order to provide firms with an incentive to improve environmental protection’.
To sledi iz besedila prve alinee točke 51.1(b) Smernic, ki dovoljuje zmanjšanje usklajenega davka, če je znesek, ki ga podjetja plačajo po zmanjšanju, še vedno višji od najnižjega zneska Skupnosti, „da bi podjetja spodbujali k izboljšanju varstva okolja“.
This also applies where the national tax is significantly higher than comparable taxes in (some) other Member States, as was the case in Italy.
Enako velja v primeru, da je državni davek znatno višji kot primerljivi davki v (nekaterih) drugih državah članicah, kot je veljalo v primeru Italije.
In the practice of the Commission, it has become clear that, in general 20 %, or the Community minimum that applies to energy uses that do fall within the scope of Directive 2003/96/EC (EUR 15 per tonne), which ever is the lowest, can be regarded as a significant proportion [31].
V praksi Komisije je postalo jasno, da se lahko kot pomemben delež ponavadi šteje 20 % ali najnižji znesek Skupnosti, ki se uporablja za uporabe energije, ki sodijo v področje uporabe Direktive 2003/96/ES (15 EUR na tono), kar koli je nižje [31].
Therefore, at this stage, the Commission considers that only the exemption beyond a level of 20 % of the domestic tax or beyond EUR 15 per tonne, whichever is the lowest, could be considered compatible; the exemption up to the level of 20 %, or up to EUR 15 per tonne, would then constitute incompatible aid.
Zato Komisija na tej stopnji meni, da se lahko za združljivo šteje zgolj oprostitev, ki presega stopnjo 20 % domačega davka ali presega 15 EUR na tono, kar koli je nižje; zato oprostitev do stopnje 20 % ali do 15 EUR na tono predstavlja nezdružljivo pomoč.
Given that Member States and interested parties have not had the opportunity to submit their comments on the legal situation created by Directive 2003/96/EC, the Commission considers it appropriate to extend the formal investigation procedure in respect of the application of the measures since 1 January 2004.
Ker države članice in zainteresirane stranke niso imele priložnosti za predložitev svojih pripomb glede pravnega položaja, nastalega z Direktivo 2003/96/ES, Komisija meni, da je primerno podaljšati formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi z uporabo ukrepov od 1. januarja 2004.
RECOVERY OF THE AID
VRAČILO POMOČI
Under Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission must decide that the Member State concerned is to take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.
V skladu s členom 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, če se v primerih nezakonite pomoči sprejmejo negativne odločbe, Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč.
The Commission must not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.
Komisija ne sme zahtevati vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti.
It should be examined whether, in this case, any general principle of Community law, such as the principle of legitimate expectations or of legal certainty, could be applied in order to preclude recovery from the beneficiaries of the unlawful and incompatible aid.
Treba je preučiti, ali se lahko v tej zadevi uporabi katero od splošnih načel prava Skupnosti, kot je načelo legitimnih pričakovanj ali načelo pravne varnosti, da se prepreči izterjava nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči od upravičencev.
Recovery of the incompatible aid granted until 2 February 2002
Vračilo nezdružljive pomoči, dodeljene do 2. februarja 2002
As regards the possibility for the beneficiaries to rely on legitimate expectations to avoid recovery of illegal and incompatible aid, it follows from the case-law of the Court that, ‘save in exceptional circumstances, a recipient cannot have a legitimate expectation that aid was properly granted unless it has been granted in compliance with the provisions on prior control of State aid.
Glede možnosti upravičencev, da se lahko s sklicevanjem na legitimna pričakovanja izognejo vračilu nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči, iz sodne prakse Sodišča sledi, da „razen v izjemnih okoliščinah prejemnik pomoči ne more imeti legitimnih pričakovanj, da je bila pomoč ustrezno dodeljena, razen če je bila dodeljena v skladu z določbami o predhodnem nadzoru državne pomoči.
A prudent economic operator should usually be able to ascertain that that procedure was followed’ [32].
Preudaren gospodarski subjekt bi ponavadi moral biti sposoben ugotoviti, ali se je ravnalo v skladu s postopkom“ [32].
All the Council decisions referred to in recitals (1), (2) and (3) of this Decision were based on a proposal by the Commission.
Vse Odločbe Sveta, navedene v uvodnih izjavah (1), (2) in (3) te odločbe, so temeljile na predlogu Komisije.
One would generally not expect the Commission to submit proposals to the Council authorising national measures that may be held incompatible with other provisions of the Treaty without hinting at such a possibility, in particular when the proposals concern a very specific issue and a small number of beneficiaries, as in this case, and when those provisions are intended to avoid distortions of competition within the Community.
Bilo bi proti pričakovanjem, da bi Komisija Svetu predložila predloge, ki dovoljujejo nacionalne ukrepe, ki bi veljali za nezdružljive z drugimi določbami Pogodbe, ne da bi nakazala to možnost, zlasti kadar predlogi zadevajo zelo poseben problem in majhno število upravičencev, kot v tem primeru, in so zadevne določbe namenjene preprečevanju izkrivljanja konkurence znotraj Skupnosti.
In addition to such general expectations, one would certainly not expect the Commission to propose that the Council authorise an extension of an existing exemption, if it were to consider that any aid in the existing exemption could be found incompatible with the common market.
Poleg teh splošnih pričakovanj bi bilo gotovo proti pričakovanjem, da bi Komisija Svetu predlagala odobritev podaljšanja veljavne oprostitve, če bi menila, da je možno, da je katera koli pomoč v okviru veljavne oprostitve nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
With the exception of Decision 2001/224/EC none of the decisions referred to in recitals (1), (2) and (3) mentioned any possible contradiction with the State aid rules nor did they make any reference to the obligation to notify.
Razen Odločbe 2001/224/ES ni nobena od Odločb, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah (1), (2) in (3), omenila morebitnega nasprotja s pravili državne pomoči ali se sklicevala na obveznost priglasitve.
Furthermore, the preamble to Decision 92/510/EEC states that ‘it is accepted by the Commission and by all Member States that these exemptions are well founded in terms of specific policies and do not give rise to distortions of competition or interfere with the working of the internal market’.
Poleg tega preambula k Odločbi 92/510/EGS navaja, da „Komisija in vse države članice sprejemajo, da so te oprostitve utemeljene v smislu posebnih politik in ne povzročajo izkrivljanja konkurence ali vplivajo na delovanje notranjega trga“.
The same wording is used in Decisions 93/697/EC and 96/273/EC.
Enako besedilo je uporabljeno v Odločbah 93/697/ES in 96/273/ES.
Decisions 97/425/EC, 99/255/EC and 99/880/EC refer to the fact that ‘the exemptions and reductions will be regularly reviewed by the Commission to ensure that they are compatible with the operation of the internal market and other objectives of the Treaty’ (underlining added).
Odločbe 97/425/ES, 99/255/ES in 99/880/ES se sklicujejo na dejstvo, da „oprostitve in zmanjšanja redno pregleduje Komisija, da bi zagotovila njihovo združljivost z delovanjem notranjega trga in drugimi cilji Pogodbe“ (podčrtanje dodano).
From this wording it appears that one of the elements of the definition of State aid in Article 87 of the Treaty, namely the distortion of competition, is missing.
Iz tega besedila se zdi, da manjka eden od elementov opredelitve državne pomoči v členu 87 Pogodbe, namreč izkrivljanje konkurence.
The fifth recital in the preamble to Decision 2001/224/EC made it clear for the first time that, notwithstanding the authorisation given by the Council in the context of Council Directive 92/81EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils [33], the national measures at stake were to be notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) EC, when they constituted State aid.
Peta uvodna izjava v preambuli k Odločbi 2001/224/ES je prvič pojasnila, da mora biti ne glede na dovoljenje Sveta v okviru Direktive 92/81/EGS z dne 19. oktobra 1992 o uskladitvi trošarinskih struktur za mineralna olja [33] Komisija o zadevnih nacionalnih ukrepih obveščena v skladu s členom 88(3) ES, kadar ti predstavljajo državno pomoč.
Nevertheless, in view of the series of previous exemptions, and the fact that Decision 2001/224/EC itself was adopted on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, some ambiguity remained for the Member States and beneficiaries in the absence of further Commission's action relative to State aid.
Glede na vrsto prejšnjih oprostitev in dejstvo, da je bila tudi Odločba 2001/224/ES sprejeta na podlagi predloga Komisije, je v odsotnosti nadaljnjih ukrepov Komisije glede državne pomoči za države članice in upravičence vseeno ostalo nekaj dvoumnosti.
In general, the Commission considers that in the case of individual aid, legitimate expectations come to an end when the Commission decides to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty.
Na splošno Komisija meni, da se v primeru individualne pomoči legitimna pričakovanja končajo, ko se Komisija odloči za sprožitev postopka na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe.
That decision is notified to the Member State concerned, which informs the beneficiary thereof.
O zadevni odločitvi je uradno obveščena zadevna država članica, ki nato o tem obvesti upravičenca.
However, the circumstances of this case were exceptional insofar as the Commission created and maintained some ambiguity by submitting proposals to the Council.
Vendar so okoliščine te zadeve izjemne, kolikor je Komisija s predložitvijo predlogov Svetu povzročila in ohranila nekatere dvoumnosti.
In addition, the Commission cannot establish whether and, if so, when, the individual beneficiaries were actually informed by the Member States of its decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Poleg tega Komisija ne more ugotoviti, ali so države članice dejansko obvestile posamezne upravičence o odločitvi Komisije za sprožitev formalnega postopka preiskave in, če da, kdaj so to storile.
Under these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that beneficiaries were entitled to rely on legitimate expectations until 2 February 2002, when the decisions by the Commission to initiate the procedure laid down Article 88(2) of the Treaty with respect to the exemptions were published in the Official Journal.
V teh okoliščinah ni mogoče izključiti dejstva, da so imeli upravičenci pravico zanašati se na legitimna pričakovanja do 2. februarja 2002, ko so bile odločitve Komisije za sprožitev postopka v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe glede oprostitev objavljene v Uradnem listu.
At the very latest, that publication eliminated any uncertainty as to the fact that the measures in question had to be approved by the Commission in accordance with Article 88 of the Treaty, if they constituted State aid,.
Najpozneje s to objavo je bila odpravljena negotovost v zvezi z dejstvom, da bi morala zadevne ukrepe odobriti Komisija v skladu s členom 88 Pogodbe ES, če so ti predstavljali državno pomoč.
Ordering the recovery of the incompatible aid for the period until 2 February 2002 would also breach the principle of legal certainty under the exceptional circumstances of this specific case.
Odreditev vračila nezdružljive pomoči za obdobje do 2. februarja 2002 bi v izjemnih okoliščinah te posebne zadeve tudi kršilo načelo pravne varnosti.
According to the case-law, that principle is breached when the circumstances of uncertainty and lack of clarity led to the creation of an equivocal situation which the Commission should have clarified before it could take any action to order recovery [34].
V skladu s sodno prakso je to načelo kršeno, kadar negotove okoliščine in nejasnosti povzročijo dvoumni položaj, katerega bi Komisija morala razjasniti pred sprejetjem ukrepov za odreditev vračila [34].
The circumstances in this case did lead to an equivocal situation, not only for the beneficiary, but also for the Member States, which were entitled to rely on the wording of Decisions 92/510/EEC, 93/697/EC, 96/273/EC, 97/425/EC, 1999/255/EC, 1999/880/EC and 2001/224/EC.
V tej zadevi okoliščine so povzročile dvoumni položaj, ne le za upravičenca, temveč tudi za države članice, ki so bile upravičene, da se zanašajo na besedila Odločb 92/510/EGS, 93/697/ES, 96/273/ES, 97/425/ES, 1999/255/ES, 1999/880/ES in 2001/224/ES.
In conclusion, it would be contrary to general principles of Community law to recover the aid resulting from the exemptions granted until 2 February 2002 from the beneficiaries.
Končno bi bila izterjava pomoči od upravičencev, ki izhaja iz oprostitev, odobrenih do 2. februarja 2002, v nasprotju s splošnimi načeli prava Skupnosti.
Ireland, Italy and France should therefore not be required to recover such aid.
Zato se od Irske, Italije in Francije ne zahteva izterjava takšne pomoči.
Recovery of the incompatible aid granted from 3 February 2002 till 31 December 2003
Vračilo nezdružljive pomoči, odobrene od 3. februarja 2002 do 31. decembra 2003
As explained in recital 97, the Commission considers that the series of previous exemptions, and the fact that Decision 2001/224/EC itself was adopted on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, created some ambiguity.
Kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi 97, Komisija meni, da sta vrsta prejšnjih oprostitev in dejstvo, da je bila tudi Odločba 2001/224/ES sprejeta na podlagi predloga Komisije, povzročila nekatere dvoumnosti.
However, the reference to the State aid rules in Decision 2001/224/EC is clear and reminded the Member States of their duty to notify State aid to the Commission, so that the latter could make its assessment under those rules.
Vendar pa je sklicevanje na pravila državne pomoči v Odločbi 2001/224/ES jasno in države članice opominja, da je njihova dolžnost priglasiti državno pomoč Komisiji, da jo slednja na podlagi navedenih pravil lahko presodi.
In addition, before Decision 2001/224/EC was adopted, the Commission had repeatedly invited Ireland, France and Italy to notify the measures in question.
Poleg tega je Komisija pred sprejetjem Odločbe 2001/224/ES večkrat pozvala Irsko, Francijo in Italijo, naj zadevne ukrepe priglasijo.
The Commission's decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty finally confirmed the Commission's doubts as regards the existence or compatibility of the aid.
Odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi postopka v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe je dokončno potrdila dvome Komisije v zvezi z obstojem ali združljivostjo pomoči.