natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fourthly, the aid can only partially be deemed to be existing aid pursuant to Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Četrtič, pomoč se lahko le delno šteje kot veljavna pomoč v skladu s členom 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
That Article makes the powers of the Commission to recover aid subject to a limitation period of 10 years, beginning on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded.
Navedeni člen daje Komisiji pooblastila zahtevati vračilo pomoči z desetletnim zastaralnim rokom, ki začne teči na dan, ko je dodeljena nezakonita pomoč.
In the case of Italy and France, this period has been interrupted by the Commission's letters of 29 May 1998 and 2 June 1998 [25].
V primeru Italije in Francije je bil ta rok prekinjen z dopisi Komisije z dne 29. maja 1998 in 2. junija 1998 [25].
In the case of Ireland, this period has been interrupted by the Commission's letter of 17 July 2000.
V primeru Irske je bil ta rok prekinjen z dopisom Komisije z dne 17. julija 2000.
This means that only the Irish exemption in as far as it concerns the period before 17 July 1990, can be considered to be existing aid.
To pomeni, da se lahko le irska oprostitev šteje za veljavno pomoč, v kolikor zadeva rok pred 17. julijem 1990.
Finally, Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 does not apply in this case.
Končno, člen 1(b)(v) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 se v tej zadevi ne uporablja.
None of the situations provided for in Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 therefore apply to the French and Italian exemptions and that aid must be regarded as new aid.
Ker noben izmed primerov, ki jih predvideva člen 1(b) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, ne velja za francosko in italijansko oprostitev, se pomoč šteje za novo pomoč.
The Irish exemption must be regarded as new aid only as from 17 July 1990.
Irska oprostitev se kot nova pomoč šteje zgolj od 17. julija 1990.
The Commission consequently has the obligation and competence to assess the compatibility of the new aid with the common market pursuant to Article 88 of the Treaty.
Zato je dolžnost in pristojnost Komisije oceniti združljivost nove pomoči s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 88 Pogodbe.
Neither the Council Decisions referred to in recitals (1), (2) and (3), nor Directives 92/81/EEC and 2003/96/EC, which only concern tax harmonisation, detract from this obligation and competence.
Niti Odločbe Sveta, navedene v uvodnih izjavah (1), (2) in (3), niti Direktivi 92/81/EGS in 2003/96/ES, ki zadevata zgolj davčno usklajevanje, ne spreminjajo te dolžnosti in pristojnosti.
Those legal acts cannot prejudge the assessment of compatibility on the basis of the criteria set out in Articles 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty.
Navedeni pravni akti ne morejo prejudicirati presoje združljivosti na podlagi meril, določenih v členih 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe.
Compatibility of the new aid granted until 31 December 2003
Združljivost nove pomoči, dodeljene do 31. decembra 2003
Compatibility under the rules for environmental aid
Združljivost po pravilih za okoljsko pomoč
The Commission has examined whether the new aid granted by Ireland, France and Italy qualifies for an exemption from the prohibition of State aid contained in Article 87(1), in particular in the light of the rules applicable to environmental aid.
Komisija je proučila, ali nova pomoč, ki so jo dodelile Irska, Francija in Italija, izpolnjuje pogoje za izvzetje iz prepovedi državne pomoči iz člena 87(1), zlasti glede na pravila, ki se uporabljajo za okoljsko pomoč.
The aid granted after 3 February 2001 must be assessed under the 2001 guidelines on State aid for environmental protection in accordance with point 82(a) of those guidelines.
Pomoč, dodeljeno po 3. februarju 2001, je treba presoditi na podlagi Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz leta 2001 v skladu s točko 82(a) navedenih smernic.
The aid granted between 10 March 1994 and 3 February 2001 must be assessed under the 1994 guidelines on State aid for environmental protection.
Pomoč, dodeljeno med 10. marcem 1994 in 3. februarjem 2001 je treba presoditi na podlagi Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz leta 1994.
In respect of the period prior to 10 March 1994, the Commission practice, that was largely codified in the guidelines, is relevant.
V zvezi z obdobjem pred 10. marcem 1994 je pomembna praksa Komisije, ki je bila večinoma kodificirana v smernicah.
Section 3.4 of the 1994 guidelines on State aid for environmental protection explains that operating aid may only be authorised, by way of exception, if it compensates for extra production costs by comparison with traditional costs.
Oddelek 3.4 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz leta 1994 razlaga, da se lahko pomoč za tekoče poslovanje odobri le izjemoma, če izravna dodatne proizvodne stroške v primerjavi z običajnimi stroški.
In addition, ‘temporary relief from new environmental taxes may be authorised where it is necessary to offset losses in competitiveness, particularly at international level.
Poleg tega „se začasna oprostitev plačila novih okoljskih davkov lahko dovoli, kadar je to potrebno za izravnavo izgub v konkurenčnosti, zlasti na mednarodni ravni.
Secondly, they did not have a temporary or degressive nature.
Drugič, po svoji naravi niso bili začasni ali degresivni.
Moreover, the exemptions were not directly conditional upon other actions by the beneficiaries to reduce their pollution and, in particular, energy consumption.
Poleg tega oprostitve niso bile neposredno pogojene z drugimi ukrepi upravičencev za zmanjšanje onesnaževanja in zlasti porabe energije.
It is therefore concluded that the aid cannot be found compatible with the common market on the ground of the 1994 guidelines, nor of the Commission's practice before 10 March 1994.
Zato se sklene, da na podlagi Smernic Skupnosti iz leta 1994 in zaradi prakse Komisije pred 10. marcem 1994 pomoč ne more biti združljiva s skupnim trgom.
As regards the period after 3 February 2001, section E.3.2, points 47-52, of the 2001 guidelines on State aid for environmental protection lays down rules applicable to all operating aid in the form of tax reductions or exemptions.
V zvezi z obdobjem po 3. februarju 2001 določajo točke 47–52 oddelka E.3.2 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz leta 2001 pravila, ki se uporabljajo za vso pomoč za tekoče poslovanje v obliki zmanjšanja davkov ali davčnih oprostitev.
Originally, excise duties on mineral oils were not designed as an instrument of environmental policy.
Prvotno trošarine za mineralna olja niso bile oblikovane kot instrument okoljske politike.
However, one likely feature for a levy to be considered as environmental would be that the taxable base of the levy has a clear negative effect on the environment [26].
Vendar bi značilnost dajatve, zaradi katere bi le-ta lahko veljala za okoljsko, bila ta, da obdavčljiva osnova očitno škoduje okolju [26].
As the use of mineral oils has a clear negative effect on the environment, excise duties on mineral oils can be considered as environmental taxes.
Ker uporaba mineralnih olj očitno škoduje okolju, se lahko trošarine za mineralna olja štejejo za okoljske dajatve.
In all three Member States to which this Decision is addressed, the excise duties on mineral oils existed before the introduction of the exemptions in question, and they must therefore be considered as existing taxes within the meaning of point 51.2 of the 2001 guidelines on State aid for environmental protection.
V vseh treh državah članicah, na katere je ta odločba naslovljena, so trošarine za mineralna olja obstajale že pred uvedbo zadevnih oprostitev in se zato štejejo za obstoječe davke v smislu točke 51.2 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz leta 2001.
The excise duties, however, have an appreciable positive impact in terms of environmental protection within the meaning of point 51.2(a), as they constitute a significant incentive for producers to reduce their consumption of mineral oils.
Vendar imajo trošarine precejšen pozitivni vpliv na varstvo okolja v smislu točke 51.2(a), saj predstavljajo pomembno spodbudo proizvajalcem za zmanjšanje porabe mineralnih olj.
The excise taxes concerned may not have had an explicit environmental purpose from the outset and the exemptions were decided on many years ago, in particular in the case of Ireland and Italy, and in any event in all three Member States well before the 2001 environmental aid guidelines became applicable.
Zadevne trošarine od začetka morebiti niso imele izrecnega okoljskega namena in o oprostitvah se je odločalo pred mnogimi leti, zlasti v primeru Irske in Italije, v vseh treh državah članicah pa vsekakor mnogo pred začetkom uporabe smernic za okoljsko pomoč iz leta 2001.
Therefore, their situation may be considered as if they had been decided at the time the excise tax was adopted.
Zato se lahko šteje, da je bilo o oprostitvah odločeno v času sprejetja trošarine.
Consequently, in accordance with point 51.2 of the guidelines, the provisions in point 51.1 may be applied to the exemptions to be assessed in this decision.
Posledično se lahko v skladu s točko 51.2 Smernic določbe iz točke 51.1 uporabljajo za oprostitve, ki se presojajo v tej odločbi.
In their comments, the beneficiaries submitted that they had undertaken significant environmental investments in return for the exemptions.
V svojih pripombah so upravičenci navedli, da so v zameno za oprostitve znatno vlagali v varstvo okolja.
However, there is no evidence that the beneficiaries concluded any agreements with the Member States concerned whereby they committed to achieve environmental protection objectives during the period for which the exemptions applied.
Vendar ni dokazov, da so upravičenci z zadevnimi državami članicami sklenili kakršne koli sporazume, s katerimi bi se zavezali k doseganju ciljev na področju varstva okolja v obdobju, v katerem so se uporabljale oprostitve.
Nor were the tax exemptions subject to conditions that would ensure the same effect as such agreements and commitments.
Prav tako za davčne oprostitve niso veljali pogoji, ki bi zagotavljali enak učinek kot takšni sporazumi ali obveznosti.
Furthermore it appears that the environmental investments did not go beyond what was necessary to comply with relevant legislation or beyond what was feasible and economical from a commercial point of view.
Poleg tega se zdi, da okoljske naložbe niso presegle naložb, potrebnih za uskladitev z ustrezno zakonodajo, ali naložb, ki so bile izvedljive in gospodarne s trgovinskega vidika.
As a consequence, the conditions for applying point 51.1(a) of the 2001 guidelines on State aid for environmental protection are not fulfilled and only the provisions of point 51.1(b) are applicable in this case.
Zato pogoji za uporabo točke 51.1(a) Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz leta 2001 niso izpolnjeni in se v tej zadevi uporabljajo zgolj določbe iz točke 51.1(b).
In respect of the period until 31 December 2003, the exemptions concern a Community tax, namely a tax that has been harmonised on the basis of Directive 92/82/EC.
V zvezi z obdobjem do 31. decembra 2003 zadevajo oprostitve davek Skupnosti, tj. davek, ki je bil usklajen na podlagi Direktive 92/82/ES.
Therefore, point 51.1(b), first indent, of the 2001 guidelines on State aid for environmental protection is applicable.
Zato se uporablja prva alinea točke 51.1(b) Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz leta 2001.
According to that provision, a reduction can be approved if the amount effectively paid by the beneficiaries after the reduction remains higher than the Community minimum.
V skladu z navedeno določbo se zmanjšanje davka Skupnosti odobri, če je znesek, ki ga upravičenci dejansko plačajo po zmanjšanju, še vedno višji od najnižjega zneska Skupnosti.
However, all three exemptions were full exemptions.
Vendar so bile vse tri oprostitve popolne oprostitve.
Taking into account the positive environmental impact of the tax referred to in recital (73) of this Decision, the measures in question can only be declared compatible with the common market to the extent that beneficiaries are required to pay a rate higher than the Community minimum rate set by Directive 92/82/EC, which for that period amounted to EUR 13 per 1000 kg.
Ob upoštevanju pozitivnega vpliva davka na varstvo okolja, omenjenega v uvodni izjavi (73) te odločbe, se zadevni ukrepi lahko razglasijo za združljive s skupnim trgom, kolikor morajo upravičenci plačati višjo stopnjo kot je najnižja stopnja Skupnosti, določena z Direktivo 92/82/ES, ki je takrat znašala 13 EUR na 1000 kg.
Therefore, only the exemption from the tax beyond a rate of EUR 13.01 can be considered compatible, while the exemption up to the level of EUR 13.01 constitutes incompatible aid.
Zato se lahko za združljivo šteje zgolj oprostitev plačila davka, ki presega stopnjo 13,01 EUR, medtem ko predstavlja oprostitev do stopnje 13,01 EUR nezdružljivo pomoč.
Contrary to what Aughinish claims, this assessment is not inconsistent with the Commission's decision in relation to the German Ecotax [27], where the Commission applied the same criteria included in the 2001 guidelines on State aid for environmental protection as in this case.
V nasprotju s trditvami Aughinisha, ta presoja ni v neskladju z odločitvijo Komisije glede nemškega ekološkega davka [27], pri čemer je Komisija uporabila enaka merila, vključena v Smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz leta 2001, kot v tej zadevi.
The arguments put forward by the Member States, the beneficiaries and the EAA during the formal procedure, in particular the arguments that there is no distortion of competition, disregard the existence of exchanges in the alumina and aluminium sectors and do not undermine this conclusion under the environmental aid guidelines.
Argumenti, ki so jih predložile države članice, upravičenci in EAA med uradnim postopkom, zlasti argumenti, da ni izkrivljanja konkurence, ne upoštevajo obstoja izmenjav v sektorju aluminija in aluminijevega oksida in ne spodkopavajo tega sklepa v skladu s smernicami za okoljsko pomoč.
Compatibility of the new aid pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty
Združljivost nove pomoči v skladu s členom 87(3)(a) Pogodbe
As regards the exemption in Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty, which refers to promotion of the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, the Commission notes that for the latter part of the period for which the exemptions were granted, the 1998 Community guidelines on national regional aid are applicable.
V zvezi z izjemo iz člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe, ki se nanaša na pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je podzaposlenost velika, Komisija ugotavlja, da se za poznejši del obdobja, za katerega so bile oprostitve odobrene, uporabljajo Smernice Skupnosti o državni regionalni pomoči iz leta 1998.
Point 4.15 of those guidelines specifies that operating aid may exceptionally be granted in regions eligible under the derogation in Article 87(3)(a), provided that it is justified in terms of its contribution to regional development and its nature and its level is proportional to the handicaps it seeks to alleviate.
Točka 4.15 teh smernic določa, da se lahko pomoč za tekoče poslovanje izjemoma dodeli v regijah, ki so upravičene na podlagi odstopanja iz člena 87(3)(a), pod pogojem, da je upravičena zaradi svojega prispevka k regionalnemu razvoju in zaradi svoje narave ter da je njena višina sorazmerna z razvojnimi problemi, ki jih želi ublažiti.
It is for the Member State to demonstrate the existence of any handicaps and gauge their importance.
Država članica mora sama dokazati obstoj kakršnih koli problemov in izmeriti njihovo pomembnost.
In accordance with point 4.17 of the guidelines, operating aid must be both limited in time and progressively reduced.
V skladu s točko 4.17 Smernic mora biti pomoč za tekoče poslovanje časovno omejena in se postopno zmanjševati.
Those conditions have not been fulfilled in this case.
Navedeni pogoji v tej zadevi niso izpolnjeni.
Gardanne is not a region eligible under the derogation in Article 87(3)(a) and that exception therefore does not apply to the French exemption.
Gardanne ni regija, ki je upravičena z odstopanjem iz člena 87(3)(a), in zato ta izjema ne velja za francosko oprostitev.
Sardinia is a region eligible under the derogation in Article 87(3)(a).
Sardinija je regija, ki je upravičena z odstopanjem iz člena 87(3)(a).
The Shannon region was a region eligible under the derogation in Article 87(3)(a) only until the review of the regional map in 1999.
Regija Shannon je bila regija, upravičena z odstopanjem iz člena 87(3)(a), zgolj do revizije regionalne karte leta 1999.
As a transitional measure, regional operating aid in that region could, exceptionally, be allowed until the end of 2001.
Kot prehodni ukrep bi se pomoč za tekoče poslovanje v navedeni regiji lahko izjemoma dovolila do konca leta 2001.
In the decisions by which the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty [28], the Commission raised doubts as to whether the aids could be found compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty.
V odločitvah, s katerimi je Komisija sprožila postopek na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe [28], je Komisija izrazila dvome o tem, ali so pomoči lahko združljive s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 87(3)(a) Pogodbe.
The Italian and Irish authorities did not bring forward any elements in order to alleviate those doubts.
Italijanski in irski organi niso predložili nobenih pojasnil, da bi ublažili te dvome.
They did not demonstrate the existence of particular handicaps nor did they gauge their importance in order to justify the granting of operating aid.
Niso dokazali obstoja posebnih razvojnih problemov ali izmerili njihove pomembnosti, da bi s tem opravičili dodelitev pomoči za tekoče poslovanje.
High energy prices and competition from third-country imports, in particular, do not have a regional character.
Zlasti pa visoke cene energije in konkurenca uvozov iz tretjih držav nimajo regionalnega značaja.
Even if the non-availability of natural gas were to be a particular regional handicap of the regions concerned, which has not been proven, Ireland and Italy have not gauged the importance of any such handicap to justify the level of aid.
Četudi bi za zadevne regije nerazpoložljivost zemeljskega plina predstavljala posebno regionalno oviro, kar pa ni bilo dokazano, Irska in Italija nista dokazali pomembnosti takšnih razvojnih ovir, da bi opravičili obseg pomoči.
The Italian legislation, which according to Eurallumina results in additional costs, may partly have a regional character as Sardinia has been declared an area of high risk of environmental crisis but, in general, cannot be considered as a particular handicap for the region.
Italijanska zakonodaja, ki po navedbah Eurallumine povzroča dodatne stroške, ima deloma lahko regionalni značaj, saj je bila Sardinija razglašena za območje z veliko nevarnostjo za okoljsko krizo, vendar pa je na splošno ni mogoče obravnavati kot poseben razvojni problem regije.
In any event, it appears that the exemptions in question in this case are not limited in time nor progressively reduced as the guidelines require.
Vsekakor se zdi, da zadevne oprostitve niso časovno omejene in se ne zmanjšujejo postopno, kot zahtevajo smernice.
Therefore the aid can not be found to be compatible with the common market on the ground that it facilitates the development of certain regions.
Torej pomoč ne more biti združljiva s skupnim trgom na podlagi dejstva, da pospešuje razvoj nekaterih regij.
As regards the period before the Community guidelines on national regional aid became applicable, the same holds true.
Enako velja glede obdobja pred začetkom uporabe Smernic Skupnosti o državni regionalni pomoči.
It must be noted, in particular, that Ireland wrote, in 1983, that it would ensure that the limits applicable under the Co-ordination Principles of Regional Aid Systems of 1978 [29] would be adhered to fully.
Zlasti je treba opozoriti, da je leta 1983 Irska v dopisu zagotovila, da se bodo omejitve, ki veljajo na podlagi Usklajevalnih načel za regionalne sisteme pomoči iz leta 1978 [29], v celoti spoštovale.
It is clear that the rules set out in that document cannot justify the granting of aid continuously until the 1990s and Ireland has not provided any monitoring reports showing that the aid remained below the aid intensities applicable at that time.
Jasno je, da pravila, določena v navedenem dokumentu, ne morejo upravičevati dodeljevanja pomoči neprekinjeno vse do devetdesetih let, prav tako Irska ni predložila nobenih poročil o spremljanju, s katerimi bi dokazala, da pomoč ni presegala takrat veljavne intenzivnosti pomoči.
Those rules confirm, moreover, the Commission's negative position as to the compatibility of operating aid with the common market.
Poleg tega zadevna pravila potrjujejo negativno stališče Komisije glede združljivosti pomoči za tekoče poslovanje s skupnim trgom.
Furthermore, when the Commission adopted the Guidelines on national regional aid in 1998, it also proposed appropriate measures to be taken by the Member States to bring their measures into conformity with the new rules and asked Member States to provide a list of all measures that would continue to be applicable.
Ko je Komisija leta 1998 sprejela Smernice o državni regionalni pomoči, je tudi predlagala ustrezne ukrepe, ki naj bi jih države članice sprejele za uskladitev svojih ukrepov z novimi pravili, ter prosila države članice, naj pripravijo seznam vseh ukrepov, ki bi se še naprej uporabljali.
None of the measures to which this Decision relates have been included in such lists.
Na te sezname ni bil vključen noben od ukrepov, na katere se ta odločba nanaša.
Compatibility of the new aid under other provisions
Združljivost nove pomoči v skladu z drugimi določbami
The Commission has assessed whether the exemptions set out in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty apply to the new aid.
Komisija je ocenila, ali se izjeme, določene v členu 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe, uporabljajo za novo pomoč.
The exemptions in Article 87(2) of the Treaty could serve as a basis to consider the aid compatible with the common market.
Izjeme iz člena 87(2) Pogodbe bi lahko služile kot osnova za ugotovitev združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom.
However, the aid does not have a social character and is not granted to individual consumers, it does not make good the damages caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and it is not required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany.
Vendar pomoč nima socialnega značaja in ni dodeljena posameznim potrošnikom, ne povrača škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki, in ni potrebna za nadomestilo gospodarske škode, ki jo je povzročila delitev Nemčije.
Article 87(2) therefore does not apply in this case.
Zato se v tej zadevi člen 87(2) ne uporablja.
The exemptions in Article 87(3)(b) and (d) of the Treaty, which refer to projects of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance of the economy of a Member State and to the promotion of culture and conservation, obviously do not apply in this case.
Izjeme iz člena 87(3)(b) in (d) Pogodbe, ki se nanašajo na projekte skupnega evropskega interesa ali na odpravljanje resne motnje v gospodarstvu države članice in na pospeševanje kulture in ohranjanja kulturne dediščine, se v tem primeru seveda ne uporabljajo.
Ireland, Italy and France have not attempted to justify the aids on any of those grounds.
Irska, Italija in Francija niso poskusile upravičiti pomoči na osnovi teh razlogov.