natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to a commitment given by the Italian authorities, aid of this kind would be de minimis only.
V skladu z zavezo italijanskih organov bi bila taka pomoč le de minimis.
After the Commission approved the scheme the Regional Government adopted an order (decreto) and a number of resolutions (deliberazioni) to implement the scheme.
Potem ko je Komisija odobrila shemo, je regionalna vlada Sardinije sprejela odredbo (decreto) in številne odločbe (deliberazioni) za izvajanje sheme.
Order No 285 was adopted in April 1999 [5], and was followed by several administrative measures, most notably Resolutions Nos 33/4 and 33/6 of 27 July 2000.
Odredba št. 285 je bila sprejeta aprila 1999 [5], sledilo pa ji je več upravnih ukrepov, zlasti odločbi št. 33/4 in 33/6 z dne 27. julija 2000.
Resolution No 33/6 co-exists with Resolution No 33/4, and states that in certain exceptional cases aid may be granted even though work started before the application was submitted.
Odločba št. 33/6 velja skupaj z odločbo št. 33/4 in je v njej navedeno, da je v nekaterih izjemnih primerih pomoč mogoče dodeliti, čeprav se je delo pri projektu začelo izvajati, preden je bil zahtevek predložen.
Following the adoption of the Italian regional aid map for the period 2000-2006 [6], the aid intensities provided for in the scheme were adjusted.
Po sprejetju italijanske regionalne karte pomoči za obdobje 2000–2006 [6] so bile intenzivnosti pomoči iz sheme prilagojene.
By letter dated 2 November 2000 (ref. A/39177), the Italian authorities informed the Commission of the implementing measures that had been adopted as part of the appropriate measures exercise; they confirmed:
Z dopisom z dne 2. novembra 2000 (sklic A/39177) so italijanski organi obvestili Komisijo o izvedbenih ukrepih, ki so bili sprejeti kot del izvajanja ustreznih ukrepov, ki so potrdili:
that the aid intensities had been adjusted in conformity with the ceilings applicable under the Italian regional aid map for 2000-2006 (see in particular Resolution No 34/73 of 8 August 2000); and
da so bile intenzivnosti pomoči prilagojene v skladu z zgornjimi mejami, ki se uporabljajo v skladu z italijansko regionalno karto pomoči za obdobje 2000–2006 (glej zlasti odločbo št. 34/73 z dne 8. avgusta 2000), in
that the principle of the necessity of the aid had been respected (see in particular Article 6 of Resolution No 33/4 of 27 July 2000, which expressly states that costs are eligible if sustained after the application for financing) [7].
da je bilo načelo nujnosti pomoči upoštevano (glej zlasti člen 6 odločbe št. 33/4 z dne 27. julija 2000, v katerem je izrecno navedeno, da so stroški upravičeni, če nastanejo po predložitvi zahtevka za odobritev financiranja) [7].
On the basis of the information submitted by the Italian authorities, the Commission, in a letter dated 17 May 2001, took note that Italy had accepted the proposal for appropriate measures, and confirmed that the scheme had now been brought into line with the guidelines on national regional aid of 1998 (the 1998 Guidelines) [8].
Na podlagi informacij, ki so jih predložili italijanski organi, je Komisija v dopisu z dne 17. maja 2001 ugotovila, da je Italija sprejela predlog o ustreznih ukrepih, in potrdila, da je bila shema zdaj usklajena s smernicami o nacionalni regionalni pomoči iz leta 1998 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice 1998) [8].
The scheme operated in practice on the basis of published calls for applications asking interested parties to submit applications for aid in line with the resolutions just described.
Shema je delovala na podlagi objavljenih razpisov, ki so pozivali zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo zahtevke za pomoč v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi odločbami.
The Italian authorities state that the first call asking interested parties to submit a formal application for financing under the scheme (known as the 2000 call) was published in 2001.
Italijanski organi navajajo, da je bil prvi razpis, ki je pozival zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo uradni zahtevek za financiranje na podlagi sheme (t.i. razpis 2000), objavljen leta 2001.
According to the information available, the first call for applications was followed by the adoption of the following resolutions:
Glede na informacije, ki so bile na voljo, je prvemu razpisu sledilo sprejetje naslednjih odločb:
on 31 January 2002 the Regional Government adopted Resolution No 3/24, proposing an initial list of recipients of aid in certain sectors.
regionalna vlada je 31. januarja 2002 sprejela odločbo št. 3/24 in v njej predlagala začetni seznam prejemnikov pomoči v nekaterih sektorjih.
The selection criteria applied were those listed in Resolution No 33/4, further detailed in a circular dated 21 November 2000,
Uporabljena so bila merila za izbiro, ki so navedena v odločbi št. 33/4 in podrobneje opredeljena v okrožnici z dne 21. novembra 2000;
on 16 April 2002 the Regional Government adopted Resolution No 12/17, amending the abovementioned list of recipients and proposing a further list,
regionalna vlada je 16. aprila 2002 sprejela odločbo št. 12/17 ter v njej spremenila zgoraj omenjeni seznam prejemnikov in predlagala dodatni seznam;
on 18 July 2002 the Regional Government adopted Resolution No 23/40 approving the list of projects eligible under the first call for applications,
regionalna vlada je 18. julija 2002 sprejela odločbo št. 23/40 o sprejetju seznama projektov, upravičenih glede na razpis 2000;
on 7 February 2003 the Regional Government adopted Resolution No 5/38, rectifying errors concerning some aid recipients referred to in Resolution No 23/40.
regionalna vlada je 7. februarja 2003 sprejela odločbo št. 5/38 in z njo odpravila napake v zvezi z nekaterimi prejemniki pomoči, ki so omenjeni v odločbi št. 23/40.
In the information they submitted on 22 April 2003 (ref. A/33012, registered at the Commission on 28 April 2003), on p. 13, the Italian authorities stated that ‘in the interests of the Region’ they had decided ‘to include in the ranking certain so-called “critical” projects (i.e. projects on which work had begun before the date of the application for aid but after the entry into force of the Act on 5 April 1998)’.
V informacijah, predloženih 22. aprila 2003 (sklic A/33012, evidentiranih pri Komisiji 28. aprila 2003), italijanski organi na strani 13 navajajo, da so se „v interesu regije“ odločili „vključiti v razvrstitev nekatere tako imenovane ‚kritične‘ projekte (tj. projekte, ki so se začeli izvajati pred predložitvijo zahtevka za pomoč, vendar po začetku veljavnosti zakona z dne 5. aprila 1998)“.
As a result, they said, aid had been given in 2002 to at least 28 investment projects that had been started before the date of the application for aid, the total amount of aid involved being around EUR 24 million.
Zato je bila leta 2002 po njihovih navedbah pomoč dodeljena najmanj 28 naložbenim projektom, ki so se začeli pred predložitvijo zahtevka za pomoč, celotni znesek omenjene pomoči pa je bil približno 24 milijonov EUR.
When it initiated the formal investigation procedure the Commission drew attention to the fact that point 4.2 of the 1998 Guidelines stated that an application for aid must be submitted before work is started on the project.
Komisija je ob sprožitvi uradnega postopka preiskave opozorila na dejstvo, da je v točki 4.2 smernic 1998 navedeno, da mora biti zahtevek za pomoč predložen pred začetkom izvajanja dela pri projektu.
The Commission also pointed out that that obligation was repeated in the decision of 1998 in which the Commission had decided to raise no objection to the regional scheme of assistance to the hotel industry in the Region of Sardinia (aid measure No N 272/1998).
Komisija je tudi izpostavila, da je bila ta obveznost ponovljena v odločitvi iz leta 1998, v kateri se je Komisija navedla, da ne bo predložila nobenega ugovora glede sheme regionalne pomoči hotelski industriji v regiji Sardinija (ukrep pomoči št. N 272/1998).
Despite the fact that the Commission Decision had indicated that recipients must have filed an application for the aid before work started on the project, and despite the fact that in the course of the appropriate measures exercise that followed the entry into force of the 1998 Guidelines the Italian authorities had expressly confirmed that that obligation had been complied with [9], the Italian authorities nevertheless adopted several implementing measures, never submitted to the Commission (in particular the Resolution of 22 December 1998 and Resolution No 33/6 of 27 July 2000), which did allow aid to be granted to projects started before the date of submission of the application, though by way of exception and only in the first year of operation of the scheme on the basis of the first call for applications.
Čeprav je bilo v odločitvi Komisije navedeno, da so morali prejemniki vložiti prošnjo za pomoč pred začetkom izvajanja dela pri projektu, in čeprav so med izvajanjem ustreznih ukrepov po začetku veljavnosti smernic 1998 italijanski organi izrecno potrdili, da je bila obveznost upoštevana [9], so le-ti sprejeli več izvedbenih ukrepov, ki jih niso nikoli predložili Komisiji (zlasti odločbo z dne 22. decembra 1998 in odločbo št. 33/6 z dne 27. julija 2000) in v katerih so dovoljevali dodelitev pomoči za projekte, ki so se začeli pred datumom predložitve zahtevka, čeprav izjemoma in le v prvem letu izvajanja sheme na podlagi prvega razpisa za zahtevke.
The Commission therefore took the view that the Italian authorities had not complied with the obligations imposed by the Commission decision authorising the scheme or with the requirements of the guidelines on national regional aid.
Komisija je zato zavzela stališče, da italijanski organi niso izpolnili obveznosti, ki so jim bile naložene z odločbo Komisije o odobritvi sheme, ali zahtev iz smernic o državni regionalni pomoči.
As a consequence, the Commission considered that the incentive effect of the aid might be undermined if there was no application for aid before work on the project actually started.
Zato je Komisija menila, da bi bil lahko spodbujevalni učinek pomoči oslabljen, če noben zahtevek za pomoč ni bil predložen pred začetkom izvajanja dela pri projektu.
This might constitute a case of misuse of aid measure No N 272/98 that would be caught by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 (the ‘Procedural Regulation’) [10], and the Commission doubted whether aid granted to investments started before the date of the application for the aid would be compatible with the common market.
To lahko kaže na primer zlorabe ukrepa pomoči št. N 272/98, ki je zajet v členu 16 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/99 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Postopkovna uredba) [10], in Komisija je dvomila, da bi bila pomoč, dodeljena za naložbe, ki so se začele pred datumom zahtevka za pomoč, združljiva s skupnim trgom.
GROUNDS FOR CORRECTING AND EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF THE PROCEDURE
RAZLOGI ZA POPRAVLJANJE IN RAZŠIRITEV OBSEGA POSTOPKA
In its first decision to open the investigation procedure, the Commission concentrated its analysis on the fact that measures implementing the scheme had never been brought to its attention.
Komisija je v prvi odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka preiskave svojo analizo osredotočila na dejstvo, da ni bila nikoli obveščena o ukrepih za izvajanje sheme.
The decision did not mention Resolution No 33/6.
V odločitvi ni bila omenjena odločba št. 33/6.
But the aid referred to in recital 22 arose out of Resolution No 33/6, rather than Resolution No 33/4, which was erroneously cited in the initiating decision of 3 February 2004.
Vendar pa je pomoč, omenjena v odstavku 22, izhajala iz odločbe št. 33/6 in ne iz odločbe št. 33/4, kakor je bilo napačno navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka z dne 3. februarja 2004.
The decision originally opening the formal investigation procedure also spoke of misuse of an approved aid scheme within the terms of Article 16.
V odločitvi, s katero se je sprva sprožil formalni postopek preiskave, je bila tudi navedena zloraba odobrene sheme pomoči v smislu člena 16.
Article 16 is generally understood to refer to situations where the recipient of approved aid applies the aid contrary to the conditions of the individual granting decision or aid contract, and not to situations where a Member State amends an existing aid scheme so as to introduce new unlawful aid (Articles 1(c) and (f) of the Procedural Regulation).
Člen 16 se na splošno nanaša na primere, ko prejemnik odobrene pomoči to uporablja v nasprotju s pogoji odločbe o odobritvi individualne pomoči ali pogodbe o pomoči, in ne na primere, ko država članica spremeni obstoječo shemo pomoči z namenom uvajanja nove, nezakonite pomoči (člen 1(c) in (f) Postopkovne uredbe).
For these reasons, and in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, the Commission considered it necessary to correct and extend the scope of the investigation, and to invite further comments from Italy and interested parties.
Komisija je iz teh razlogov in da bi se izognila kakršnim koli mogočim nesporazumom, menila, da je treba popraviti in razširiti obseg preiskave ter pozvati Italijo in zainteresirane stranke, naj podajo dodatne pripombe.
In response to the publication in the Official Journal of the 2004 decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission received observations from the following interested party:
Po objavi odločitve o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave iz leta 2004 v Uradnem listu Evropske unije je Komisija prejela pripombe od naslednje zainteresirane stranke:
Grand Hotel Abi d’Oru SpA.
Grand Hotela Abi d’Oru SpA.
The interested party argued that there was indeed an incentive effect, and that the principle of the necessity of aid had been complied with.
Zainteresirana stranka je trdila, da je spodbujevalni učinek dejansko obstajal in da je bilo načelo nujnosti pomoči upoštevano.
The interested party contended that the incentive effect and the principle of necessity had been fully respected, for the following reasons:
Zainteresirana stranka je iz naslednjih razlogov menila, da sta bila spodbujevalni učinek in načelo nujnosti pomoči v celoti upoštevana:
first of all, before work started the interested party had applied for aid under another regional aid scheme, No N 715/99 (Act No 488 of 1992) [11].
najprej, zainteresirana stranka je pred začetkom dela zaprosila za pomoč na podlagi druge sheme regionalne pomoči, in sicer št. N 715/99 (zakon št. 488 iz leta 1992) [11].
That application had been accepted twice, but no aid was granted, owing to budgetary constraints,having failed to receive aid under that scheme, and in view of the fact that the measures implementing Regional Act No 9 of 1998 were published at the same time (May 1999), the interested party had decided to apply for aid under the scheme under investigation here.
Prošnja je bila dvakrat odobrena, vendar pomoč ni bila dodeljena zaradi proračunskih omejitev;ker zainteresirana stranka ni prejela pomoči na podlagi tiste sheme, in ob upoštevanju dejstva, da so bili ukrepi za izvajanje regionalnega zakona št. 9 iz leta 1998 objavljeni v istem času (maj 1999), se je zainteresirana stranka odločila zaprositi za pomoč na podlagi sheme, ki je tukaj v postopku preiskave.
It had relied on the acceptance of its application, despite the fact that the projects had already started, on the basis of the provisions of the first implementing measure, Order No 285/99, which allowed aid to be granted for projects already started provided they were started after Regional Act No 9 of 1998 entered into force on 5 April 1998,
Čeprav so se projekti že začeli izvajati, se je zainteresirana stranka zanašala na odobritev zahtevka na podlagi določb prvega izvedbenega ukrepa, odredbe št. 285/99, s katero je bila omogočena dodelitev pomoči za projekte, ki so se že začeli izvajati, pod pogojem, da so se začeli izvajati po začetku veljavnosti regionalnega zakona št. 9/1998 z dne 5. aprila 1998;
the application for aid submitted on the basis of the aid scheme now under investigation concerned only a part of a wider investment project (the eligible costs of the original investment project amounted to EUR 10500000; the eligible costs considered in the application made under the scheme being investigated amounted to EUR 9039028),
zahtevek za pomoč, predložen na podlagi sheme pomoči, ki je zdaj v postopku preiskave, je le delno zadeval širši naložbeni projekt (upravičeni stroški prvotnega naložbenega projekta so znašali 10500000 EUR; upravičeni stroški, ki so zadevali zahtevek na podlagi sheme, ki je v preiskavi, so znašali 9039028 EUR);
it was irrelevant that the application for aid on the basis of the aid scheme under investigation had been submitted after work had begun, as that application was merely a re-submission of the same application that had been submitted previously under a different regional aid scheme and related to the same investment project.
nepomembno je bilo, da je bil zahtevek za pomoč na podlagi sheme pomoči v preiskavi predložen po začetku izvajanja dela, saj je bil ta zahtevek zgolj vnovična predložitev istega zahtevka, ki je bil prej predložen na podlagi druge sheme regionalne pomoči in povezan z istim naložbenim projektom.
The interested party also submitted that the aid was necessary, arguing that it would not have undertaken such an investment project in the absence of public financing.
Zainteresirana stranka je tudi trdila, da je bila pomoč nujna, navajajoč, da se ne bi odločila za tak naložbeni projekt, če javno financiranje ne bi bilo na voljo.
In order to launch the investment, pending the granting of the aid, it had had recourse to short-term bank funding.
Da bi začela izvajati naložbo pred dodelitvijo pomoči, se je zatekla h kratkoročnemu bančnemu posojilu.
The Commission did not receive any further comments following the publication of the decision correcting and extending the scope of the procedure [12].
Komisija po objavi odločitve o popravku in povečanju obsega postopka [12] ni prejela nobenih dodatnih pripomb.
In response to the assessments made by the Commission in the letter initiating the investigation, the Italian authorities put forward three main arguments, regarding the existence of legitimate expectations, the incentive effect of the aid, and the determination of the de minimis threshold.
V odgovor na ocene Komisije v dopisu o sprožitvi postopka so italijanski organi predstavili tri glavne argumente v zvezi z obstojem upravičenih pričakovanj, spodbujevalnim učinkom pomoči in določitvijo praga de minimis.
Legitimate expectations and incentive effect
Upravičena pričakovanja in spodbujevalni učinek
In their observations the Italian authorities claimed legitimate expectations, and also invoked the principle of legal certainty.
Italijanski organi so v svojih stališčih zahtevali priznanje upravičenih pričakovanj in se tudi sklicevali na načelo pravne varnosti.
First, they explained that Regional Act No 9 of 1998 was in some sense considered by recipients to be a continuation of a previous scheme, Regional Act No 40 of 1993, which was still in force at the relevant time, and which operated on a continuous basis (scheme No N 611/93 as amended by N 250/01).
Najprej so pojasnili, da je bil regionalni zakon št. 9 iz leta 1998 po mnenju prejemnikov pomoči v nekem smislu nadaljevanje predhodne sheme, regionalnega zakona št. 40 iz leta 1993, ki je v zadevnem času še vedno veljal in ki je neprekinjeno deloval (shema št. N 611/93, kakor je bila spremenjena z N 250/01).
This earlier system had helped to give recipients a legitimate expectation that they would be able to obtain subsidies when they submitted their application, irrespective of whether or not work had begun.
Zaradi tega predhodnega sistema so imeli prejemniki upravičena pričakovanja, da bodo lahko prejeli subvencije, ko bodo predložili zahtevke, ne glede na to, ali se je projekt že začel izvajati ali ne.
The Italian authorities pointed out, furthermore, that the measures implementing the scheme were taken after the scheme had been approved by the Commission.
Italijanski organi so poudarili tudi, da so bili izvedbeni ukrepi sprejeti po tem, ko je Komisija odobrila shemo.
The first such measure, Order No 285 of 1999, was adopted on 29 April 1999.
Prvi tak ukrep, odredba št. 285 iz leta 1999, je bil sprejet 29. aprila 1999.
Article 17 of that Order (transitional provisions) stated that expenditure incurred after the Act entered into force on 5 April 1998 was eligible.
V členu 17 te odredbe („prehodne določbe“) je navedeno, da so stroški, ki nastanejo po uveljavitvi zakona z dne 5. aprila 1998, upravičeni.
The Order was published in the official gazette of the Region of Sardinia on 8 May 1999 [13].
Odredba je bila objavljena v uradnem listu regije Sardinija 8. maja 1999 [13].
The Italian authorities added that Order No 285 of 1999 had been annulled by Resolution No 33/3 on 27 July 2000 on the ground that it was defective.
Italijanski organi so dodali, da je odredba št. 285 iz leta 1999 bila 27. julija 2000 razveljavljena z odločbo št. 33/3 z utemeljitvijo, da je bila nepravilna.
At the same time, the Regional Government adopted new implementing measures, which were notified to the Commission on 20 September 2000.
Hkrati je regionalna vlada sprejela nove izvedbene ukrepe, ki so bili Komisiji priglašeni 20. septembra 2000.
The Italian authorities emphasised that when adopting these resolutions on 27 July 2000, the Region of Sardinia had had to bear in mind that the publication of Order No 285/99 in the official gazette generated legitimate expectations among the recipients.
Italijanski organi so poudarili, da je ob sprejetju teh odločb 27. julija 2000 regija Sardinija morala upoštevati, da je objava uredbe št. 285/99 v uradnem listu ustvarila upravičena pričakovanja med prejemniki.
This was why for the first call for applications it was decided that applications in respect of investment projects already started would be accepted under Article 9 of Regional Act No 9 of 1998.
Zato je bilo glede prvega razpisa za zahtevke odločeno, da bodo zahtevki za naložbene projekte, ki so se že začeli izvajati, odobreni v skladu s členom 9 regionalnega zakona št. 9 iz leta 1998.
Resolution No 33/6, ‘Transitional provision for the first call for applications’, accordingly stated that by way of exception, in the case of applications submitted in response to the first call, costs would be eligible for aid if they were incurred after 5 April 1998, the date on which Regional Act No 9 of 1998 entered into force.
V odločbi št. 33/6, „Prehodne določbe za prvi razpis za zahtevke“, je bilo torej navedeno, da bi bili stroški, če so zahtevki predloženi kot odgovor na prvi razpis, izjemoma upravičeni do pomoči, če bi nastali po 5. aprilu 1998, to je po datumu začetka veljavnosti regionalnega zakona št. 9 iz leta 1998.
The Italian authorities pointed out that in its letter of 17 May 2001 (ref. D/52027), as part of the appropriate measures exercise, the Commission had concluded that the scheme was compatible with the common market, after asking the Italian authorities to implement Article 9 of Act No 9 of 1998 in accordance with the de minimis rules in Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.
Italijanski organi so poudarili, da je Komisija z dopisom z dne 17. maja 2001 (sklic D/52027) v okviru izvajanja ustreznih ukrepov sklenila, da je bila shema združljiva s skupnim trgom, po tem, ko je od italijanskih oblasti zahtevala, naj izvajajo člen 9 zakona št. 9 iz leta 1998 v skladu s pravili de minimis iz Uredbe (ES) št. 69/2001.
They also explained that after the Resolution of 27 July 2000 had entered into force the practical implementation of the scheme required that applications for aid submitted before the publication of the first call for applications be submitted afresh using the new forms.
Prav tako so pojasnili, da je po začetku veljavnosti odločbe z dne 27. julija 2000 praktično izvajanje sheme zahtevalo, naj se zahtevki za pomoč, ki so bili predloženi pred objavo prvega razpisa, znova predložijo v novi obliki.
The Italian authorities repeated that there was indeed an incentive effect, since the grants were needed to clear bank loans covering the period between the point when the costs were incurred and the payment of the aid.
Italijanski organi so ponovili, da je spodbujevalni učinek dejansko obstajal, saj so bile donacije potrebne za poravnavo bančnih posojil za obdobje med nastankom stroškov in plačilom pomoči.