natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Also, the FPAP recognises the existence of this advantage.
FPAP sicer priznava to ugodnost.
In a document from the Confédération de la Coopération Maritime, not forwarded to the Commission but published on the website of the ‘Assises de la pêche et de l’aquaculture de la Région Bretagne’ [12], Mr de Feuardent, summarising the main points discussed at a meeting with the Region of Brittany on 24 May 2006, writes: ‘The State has granted assistance of EUR 65 million to date. Also, the FPAP has made a profit of several million euro on options on the commodities market, which is an undeniable value added’. The Commission concludes from this that the FPAP was only able to acquire financial options on the petroleum products market thanks to the public funds at its disposal but not at the disposal of other organisations or undertakings, and that it drew direct benefit from that.
V dokumentu Zveze za pomorsko sodelovanje, ki ni bil poslan Komisiji, a je objavljen na spletni strani „Obravnave ribištva in ribogojstva v Bretanji“ [12], g. de Feuardent v povzetku o glavnih točkah, obravnavanih na sestanku v Bretanji 24. maja 2006, navaja: „Država je ribištvu in ribogojstvu takrat že izplačala 65 milijonov EUR. FPAP je na trgih blagovne borze dosegel dobiček z opcijami, ki je nesporno dodana vrednost.“ Komisija iz tega sklepa, da je FPAP lahko opravljal posle pridobitve finančnih opcij na terminskem trgu naftnih proizvodov samo zaradi javnih sredstev, s katerimi je razpolagal, ki pa jih druga podjetja niso imela, in da je z njimi ustvaril neposredni dobiček.
Consequently, the advantage which it enjoyed distorts or threatens to distort competition.
Zato ugodnost, ki je je bil deležen, izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco.
Existence of a financial advantage affecting trade between Member States
Obstoj finančne ugodnosti, ki vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami
In having operated on the commodities market, as Mr de Feuardent indicates, the FPAP operated on the world oil market.
S posredovanjem na blagovni borzi, kot navaja g. de Feuardent, je FPAP posredoval na svetovnem naftnem trgu.
Its activity therefore went beyond a strictly French framework, so that the advances granted must indeed be considered as affecting trade between Member States.
Njegova dejavnost je tako presegla samo francoski okvir, tako da bi bilo treba šteti, da odobrena predplačila vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami.
Thus, the four requirements for establishing the existence of State aid are met: the advances paid to the FPAP come from State resources, they are imputable to the State, they distort or threaten to distort competition, and they affect trade between Member States.
Tako so izpolnjeni štirje pogoji, potrebni za ugotavljanje obstoja državne pomoči: predplačila, izplačana FPAP, izvirajo iz državnih sredstev, lahko jih pripišemo državi, izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami.
The aid enjoyed by the FPAP therefore does constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty as regards the part of its funding coming from State resources used for the acquisition of options on the petroleum product futures market.
Pomoč, ki jo je prejel FPAP, torej lahko opredelimo kot državno pomoč v smislu člena 87 Pogodbe ES, kar zadeva delež denarnih sredstev, ki izvirajo iz državnih sredstev in so bila uporabljena za pridobitev opcij na terminskem trgu naftnih proizvodov.
As the agreements concluded between the State and the FPAP indicate, this State aid in the form of advances was aimed at enabling the FPAP to begin operating on the futures markets for oil and oil by-products and continue doing so.
Kot je navedeno v sporazumih med državo in FPAP, je bil cilj državne pomoči v obliki predplačil omogočiti začetek posredovanja tega sklada na terminskem trgu naftnih proizvodov in naftnih derivatov ter njegovo nadaljnje delovanje.
It is therefore operating aid for the FPAP.
Gre torej za pomoč pri delovanju FPAP.
In its letter of 6 December 2005, France also recognises that the amounts indicated were advanced ‘in order to ensure the operation of the FPAP’.
Francija sicer v svojem dopisu z dne 6. decembra 2005 priznava, da so bili navedeni zneski plačani vnaprej, „da bi zagotovili delovanje FPAP“.
Under Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty, certain categories of aid are or may be considered compatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe se nekatere skupine pomoči štejejo ali bi se lahko štele za združljive s skupnim trgom.
It should be examined whether the operating aid for the FPAP falls under one of these categories.
Treba je preučiti, ali bi se ta pomoč za delovanje FPAP lahko uvrstila v eno od teh skupin.
The Commission observes that this aid does not match any of the cases provided for in Article 87(2).
Komisija ugotavlja, da ta pomoč ne ustreza danim primerom iz člena 87(2).
This is because it is not intended to make good damage caused by natural disasters or other exceptional occurrences.
Dejansko ta pomoč ni namenjena povrnitvi škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali drugi izjemni dogodki.
The Commission would point out in this connection that fluctuations in oil prices are inherent in economic activity.
Glede tega Komisija opozarja, da so nihanja cene nafte del gospodarske dejavnosti.
Fluctuations also affect other sectors of activity which consume petroleum products in all the Member States of the European Union and cannot be regarded as a natural disaster or an exceptional occurrence within the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty.
Ta nihanja zadevajo tudi druge sektorje dejavnosti potrošnikov naftnih proizvodov v vseh državah članicah Evropske unije in jih ni mogoče šteti za naravne nesreče ali izjemne dogodke v smislu člena 87 Pogodbe.
The aid is therefore not compatible with the common market under Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty.
Ta pomoč zato ni združljiva s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 87(2)(b) Pogodbe.
Nor can the aid be considered compatible with the common market on the basis of direct application of Article 87(3) of the Treaty, with the various cases provided for.
Pomoči tudi ni mogoče šteti za združljive s skupnim trgom na podlagi neposredne uporabe člena 87(3) Pogodbe po drugih danih primerih iz tega člena.
It is obviously not aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment (the case provided for in Article 87(3)(a)).
Očitno tudi ne gre za pomoči za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja regij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali brezposelnost velika (primeri, predvideni v členu 87(3)(a)).
The aid is in fact intended to enable the FPAP to operate on the relevant futures markets.
Cilj te pomoči je dejansko omogočiti FPAP posredovanje na ustreznih terminskih trgih.
It is therefore not related to the aid referred to in Article 87(3)(a).
Pomoč torej nima zveze s pomočmi iz točke (a).
The FPAP cannot be regarded as an important project of European interest or aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State (the cases provided for in Article 87(3)(b)).
FPAP ni mogoče šteti za pomemben projekt evropskega interesa ali kot pomoč za odpravljanje resne motnje v gospodarstvu države članice (primeri iz člena 87(3)(b)).
This is because the FPAP is specifically French and the other Member States did not express their intention to set up funds of the same kind. Therefore there is no European dimension to the Fund.
FPAP je specifično francoski in druge države članice niso izrazile namena, da ustanovijo enake sklade; ta sklad zato nima evropske razsežnosti.
As regards the consideration as to whether the aid is intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State, the Commission observes that there is no evidence making it possible to say that providing money for a fund of this kind could bring about such a remedy.
Kar zadeva možnost, da bi pomoč šteli za odpravljanje resne motnje v gospodarstvu države članice, Komisija ugotavlja, da ni nobenega elementa, na podlagi katerega bi bilo mogoče trditi, da bi denarna sredstva, plačana takemu skladu, omogočila tako pomoč.
As regards the aid for the FPAP itself, the aid benefits only one economic entity and, even if it is linked to aid granted to fisheries undertakings, does not benefit the economy of a Member State as a whole.
Kar zadeva pomoč v korist FPAP, je pomoč prejel samo en gospodarski subjekt, in če jo povežemo s pomočjo, odobreno ribiškim podjetjem, je ni prejelo celotno gospodarstvo države članice.
In addition, the Commission would point out that it has always taken the view that the public authorities should not intervene financially against the rise in the price of oil. On the contrary their role should be, in particular, pursuing incentive policies for undertakings so that they adapt to the new economic conditions created by the price increase.
Poleg tega Komisija opozarja, da je vedno menila, da ni stvar javnih organov, da finančno posredujejo pri zvišanju cene nafte; njihova vloga mora nasprotno biti zlasti izvajanje politik spodbujanja podjetij, da se prilagodijo novim ekonomskim razmeram, ki jih to zvišanje ustvarja.
That is why aid aimed at making it possible for an economic entity to operate on the relevant futures markets does not match the desired objective.
Zato pomoč, katere cilj je gospodarskemu subjektu omogočiti, da posreduje na ustreznih terminskih trgih, ne ustreza želenemu cilju.
The existence of the FPAP cannot, in itself, meet the requirements of Article 87(3)(c), which stipulates that aid intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic regions may be compatible with the common market where it does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent that is contrary to the common interest.
Obstoj FPAP sam ne more izpolnjevati pogoja iz člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, ki določa, da se kot združljivo s skupnim trgom lahko šteje pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih regij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
There is no evidence that the development of or increase in operating on the oil futures markets is desirable.
Dejansko v nobenem elementu ni navedeno, da je zaželen razvoj ali povečanje dejavnosti posredovanja na terminskih naftnih trgih.
Moreover, that activity is not linked to an economic region.
Poleg tega ta dejavnost tudi ni vezana na določeno gospodarsko regijo.
That is why the aid cannot be considered compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c).
Zato te pomoči ni mogoče šteti za združljivo s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena 87(3)(c).
Lastly, this kind of aid does not fall under the categories of aid which may be considered compatible with the common market by a Decision of the Council adopted in accordance with Article 87(3)(e).
Nazadnje take pomoči ni med vrstami pomoči, ki naj bi se štele za združljive s skupnim trgom po sklepu Sveta, sprejetem v skladu s členom 87(3)(e).
The Commission also notes that none of the guidelines that it has adopted for assessing State aid applies to this operating aid for the FPAP.
Komisija poleg tega tudi ugotavlja, da se za to pomoč pri delovanju FPAP ne uporablja nobena od smernic, ki jih je sprejela za analizo državnih pomoči.
In conclusion, therefore, the result is that the aid for the FPAP for the acquisition of options on the futures markets cannot be considered compatible with the common market under any of the exemptions permitted by the Treaty.
Iz tega torej izhaja, da pomoči FPAP za pridobitev opcij na terminskih trgih ni mogoče šteti za združljivo s skupnim trgom z vidika odstopanj, ki jih dovoljuje Pogodba.
Aid for fisheries undertakings: reduction of expenditure on fuel
Pomoč v korist ribiških podjetij: zmanjšanje izdatkov za gorivo
Before analysing the aid which led to the formal initiation of the investigation procedure, the Commission must give an opinion on the FPAP’s argument that the aid granted to itself and fisheries undertakings should be considered in the light of a raising of the de minimis threshold in the fisheries sector.
Pred analizo pomoči, zaradi katerih se je začel formalni postopek preiskave, mora Komisija izraziti mnenje o argumentu FPAP, da je treba pomoči, ki so bile odobrene njemu in ribiškim podjetjem, obravnavati z vidika zvišanja praga de minimis v ribiškem sektorju.
According to the FPAP, the amounts in question (approximately EUR 16000 per undertaking on average, excluding the aid which it regards as being direct social assistance for fishermen) is considerably lower than those which were in the process of being adopted at the time of payment of the compensation by the FPAP (EUR 30000 per undertaking) [13].
Po mnenju FPAP naj bi bili zadevni zneski (povprečno približno 16000 EUR na podjetje, če izključimo pomoč, ki jo šteje za neposredno socialno pomoč ribičem) precej nižji od tistih, ki so se sprejemali, ko je sklad izplačeval nadomestila (30000 EUR na podjetje) [13].
In their reply the French authorities also refer to the raising of the de minimis threshold but do not seek to apply it to this aid scheme.
Tudi francoski organi se v svojem odgovoru sklicujejo na zvišanje praga de minimis, vendar pa ne zahtevajo, da se ta uporablja že za to pomoč.
First of all, the Commission points out that, under Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of 6 October 2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the agriculture and fisheries sectors [14], i.e. the provision in force at the time the aid was granted to fisheries undertakings, the maximum amount of de minimis aid was EUR 3000 per undertaking over three years. The aid under consideration in this Decision considerably exceeds that amount and in its comments France did not mention any application of this ceiling to the undertakings which could have benefited from it.
Komisija najprej opozori, da je v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1860/2004 z dne 6. oktobra 2004 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES o pomočeh de minimis v kmetijskem in ribiškem sektorju [14], po določbi, veljavni v obdobju, ko so bile ribiškim podjetjem odobrene te pomoči, najvišji znesek pomoči de minimis znašal 3000 EUR na tri leta na podjetje; pomoči, ki jih obravnavamo v tej odločbi, te zneske močno presegajo, sicer pa se Francija v svojih pripombah ne sklicuje na morebitno uporabo te zgornje meje s strani podjetij, ki bi lahko bila upravičena do te pomoči.
Moreover, even if the amount of EUR 30000, which appears in Regulation (EC) No 875/2007 recently adopted by the Commission [15], is higher than the EUR 16000 referred to above by the FPAP, that amount is only an average.
Po drugi strani pa, čeprav je znesek 30000 EUR iz Uredbe (ES) št. 875/2007, ki jo je pred kratkim sprejela Komisija [15], višji od 16000 EUR, ki ga FPAP navaja zgoraj, gre kljub temu za povprečen znesek.
In addition, France is wrong to arrive at this amount of EUR 16000, since it excludes the part of the aid which it regards as social assistance and which has to be taken into account in the assessment (see recitals 122 and 123).
Poleg tega je Francija napačno prišla do zneska 16000 EUR, saj je izključila delež pomoči, ki ga je označila za socialno pomoč in ki ga je treba pri analizi upoštevati (glej uvodni izjavi 122 in 123).
Thus, given the differences in size of the FPAP’s member fisheries undertakings, it is certain that the amount of the aid granted to some undertakings is greater than EUR 30000. For example, for trawlers from 20 to 25 metres, the annual amount of the allowance is around EUR 35000, i.e. EUR 70000 for the two years 2005 and 2006 [16].
Glede na različne velikosti ribiških podjetij, ki so člani tega sklada, smo lahko torej prepričani, da je bil znesek, odobren določenim podjetjem, večji od 30000 EUR. Na primer za plovila z vlečno mrežo dolžine od 20 do 25 metrov je bil letni znesek nadomestila približno 35000 EUR, to je 70000 EUR za leti 2005 in 2006 [16].
In any event, as indicated above, France did not seek application of the new de minimis ceiling and did not provide any evidence that it did so.
Ne glede na to, kakor je navedeno zgoraj, Francija ni zahtevala uporabe nove zgornje meje de minimis in ni predložila nobenega dokaza o tem, da bi to storila.
Consequently, taking all of the above factors into account, in the context of the constant review of State aid schemes the Commission is obliged to verify compliance of this aid with the provisions of Article 87 of the Treaty.
Zato mora Komisija glede na vse navedene elemente v okviru stalnega pregleda shem državne pomoči preveriti skladnost teh pomoči z vidika določb člena 87 Pogodbe.
France takes the view that the Commission has no valid reason to extend its assessment of the existence of State aid to this aspect of the Fund’s activities.
Francija meni, da Komisija ni upravičena, da svojo analizo o obstoju državne pomoči opira na vidik dejavnosti sklada.
According to France, ‘recognition of aid as State aid must be based solely on an ad hoc assessment of the repayable State advance and not on an assessment of the FPAP’s activities.
Francija meni, da „mora opredelitev državne pomoči temeljiti samo na analizi ad hoc povračljivega predplačila države in se ne opirati na analizo dejavnosti FPAP.
Thus the French authorities request that only the first part (Part 3.1) of the assessment be developed.
S tem francoski organi želijo, da se razvije samo prvi del 3.1. ocene.
Part 3.2 amounts to a condemnation of the activities of the FPAP, which is a trade association purchasing options to cover its members against fluctuations in the price of diesel’ [17].
To pomeni, da so v delu 3.2 zavrnjene dejavnosti FPAP, strokovnega združenja, ki opravlja dejavnost nakupa opcij za kritje svojih članov pred nihanji cene dizelskega goriva.“ [17]
In reply, the Commission points out that, as has been consistently held in case law, aid is not characterised by its causes or objectives, but is defined according to its effects [18].
V svojem odgovoru Komisija opozarja, da se v skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso pomoči ne opredeljujejo po svojem vzroku ali namenu, ampak glede na svoje učinke [18].
In addition to acquiring financial options on the futures markets, the aim of the FPAP, according to the agreements concluded with the State, is to pay compensation to fisheries undertakings corresponding to the difference in price between the maximum price covered and the average monthly price in the reference index for the month under consideration.
Poleg pridobitve finančnih opcij na terminskih trgih je cilj FPAP v skladu s sporazumi, sklenjenimi z državo, da ribiškim podjetjem izplačuje nadomestila, ki ustrezajo razliki med najvišjo ceno, vključeno v kritje, in povprečno mesečno ceno referenčnega indeksa za zadevni mesec.
Consequently, the Commission takes the view that the fisheries undertakings enjoyed specific advantages as a result of the system set up by the FPAP and that it is necessary to analyse the effects of the advances granted by the State not only from the point of view of the advantage granted to the FPAP, but also from the point of view of the advantages granted to the fisheries undertakings.
Zato Komisija meni, da so ribiška podjetja imela posebne ugodnosti prek sistema, ki ga je vzpostavil FPAP, in da je treba analizirati učinke predplačil, odobrenih s strani države, ne samo z vidika ugodnosti, odobrene skladu, ampak tudi z vidika ugodnosti, odobrenih ribiškim podjetjem.
Existence of a financial advantage granted through State resources
Obstoj finančne ugodnosti, odobrene prek državnih sredstev
The advantage drawn by fisheries undertakings from the FPAP’s activities is two-fold: on the one hand it consists of the possibility of obtaining fuel at an advantageous price, and on the other of receipt of an allowance partially compensating for their expenditure on fuel.
Ugodnosti, ki so jih imela ribiška podjetja zaradi dejavnosti FPAP, sta dve: prva je možnost priskrbeti si gorivo po ugodnejši ceni in druga prejemanje delnega nadomestila za izdatke za goriva.
As regards the first aspect, the acquisition of options on the futures markets by the FPAP, which then passed on the forward-bought fuel to the Cecomer company, the maritime cooperatives’ central contracting agency, enabled the FPAP’s member undertakings to buy fuel acquired by those cooperatives at a price lower than that on the ordinary market.
Kar zadeva prvi vidik, je pridobitev opcij na terminskih trgih prek FPAP, ki je nato preprodal gorivo, kupljeno s terminskim poslom, družbi CECOMER, skupni službi za nabavo in razvoj ribiških zadrug, omogočila podjetjem, ki so bili člani FPAP, da kupijo gorivo, ki so ga te zadruge dobile po nižji ceni od običajne tržne cene.
The funds used to finance the compensation paid to fisheries undertakings also came from two sources (State resources and resources from the FPAP’s private activity).
Ta dvojni izvor najdemo tudi pri sredstvih (državna sredstva in sredstva iz zasebne dejavnosti FPAP), ki so se uporabila za financiranje nadomestil, izplačanih ribiškim podjetjem.
As described in recital 24 of this Decision, the FPAP bears the difference in price that exists, under the agreements of 12 November 2004 and 27 May 2005, between the ‘maximum price covered’ and the average monthly price in the reference index and, under the agreement of 11 October 2005, between 30 euro cent per litre and the average monthly reference price if the latter is higher than 30 euro cent.
Kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 24 te odločbe, FPAP po sporazumih z dne 12. novembra 2004 in 27. maja 2005 krije obstoječo razliko med „najvišjo ceno, vključeno v kritje“ in povprečno mesečno ceno referenčnega indeksa ter po sporazumu z dne 11. oktobra 2005 razliko od 30 centov na liter do povprečne mesečne referenčne cene, če je ta višja od 30 centov.
The ‘evening-out’ mechanism provided for was originally based on the assumption that the additional costs exceeding a reference price in times of high prices could be compensated by means of the contributions paid by the members in times of lower prices.
Tehnika „glajenja“, ki je bila prvotno predvidena, je temeljila na predpostavki, da bi lahko dodatne stroške glede na referenčno ceno v obdobju visokih cen nadomestili s prispevki, ki so jih člani sklada plačali v obdobju zmernih cen.
Thus the system would be self-financing.
Sistem bi se tako na nek način samofinanciral.
Referring to Mr de Feuardent’s document already mentioned in recital 75 of this Decision, ‘technically the FPAP was able to take the first options from April 2004 onwards; at that time, Cecomer’s requirements (approximately 200 million litres) for 2005 could be met at 0,28 cent/litre, i.e. approximately EUR 4 million’.
Če se sklicujemo na dokument g. de Feuardenta, že naveden v uvodni izjavi 75 te odločbe, „je bil FPAP tehnično sposoben pridobiti prve opcije že od aprila 2004 naprej; takrat bi se potrebe družbe CECOMER (približno 200 milijonov litrov) za leto 2005 lahko pokrile po 0,28 centa/liter za približno 4 milijone EUR“.
Thus, at the beginning of 2004 the FPAP could perhaps have covered the relatively modest needs of the ‘diesel insurance’ out of its own resources.
Tako bi morda sklad na začetku leta 2004 lahko izpolnil relativno skromne potrebe „zavarovanja za dizelsko gorivo“ iz lastnih sredstev.
It therefore appears that, as it was originally designed, the Fund could have been self-sufficient.
Zdi se torej, da bi po svoji prvotni zasnovi sklad lahko bil samozadosten.
However, since oil prices stayed at a very high level and the FPAP’s membership expanded, it rapidly acquired a large number of members.
Vendar pa se je zaradi trajno visokih cen in posplošenega pristopa v FPAP število njegovih članov hitro in znatno povečalo.
The result was that the cost of this ‘diesel insurance’ exploded and could only be supported by using the advances granted to the FPAP by the State.
Iz tega izhaja, da se je strošek „zavarovanja za dizelsko gorivo“ povečal čez vse meje in ga je bilo mogoče kriti samo z uporabo predplačil, ki jih je država odobrila FPAP.