natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission does not claim that the FPAP’s financial advantage arose from preferential treatment of the FPAP by the other actors of the market, but that the Fund could only operate on this market because it had a financial intervention margin granted by the State going beyond the FPAP’s own financial capacity, while the State did not grant it under conditions similar to other companies which may have had the same interest as the FPAP in operating on this market (undertakings in other sectors affected by the rise in the cost of oil, for example) or which operate on this market for reasons linked to their economic or commercial strategies (oil companies, for example).
Komisija ne trdi, da bi finančna ugodnost za FPAP izhajala iz privilegiranega obravnavanja sklada s strani drugih subjektov na trgu, ampak da je sklad lahko posredoval na terminskem trgu samo zato, ker je imel manevrski prostor finančne intervencije, ki je bila odobrena s strani države in je presegala finančne sposobnosti sklada, medtem ko država te intervencije v podobnih pogojih ni odobrila drugim podjetjem, ki bi lahko imela enak interes kot FPAP (npr. podjetja drugih sektorjev dejavnosti, ki jih je prizadelo zvišanje cene nafte) ali ki posredujejo na tem trgu iz razlogov, vezanih na svojo gospodarsko in poslovno strategijo (npr. naftne družbe).
Consequently, the Commission considers that the advances granted by the State do in fact fall under the category of operating aid referred to in point 3.7 of the Guidelines, according to which: ‘State aid which is granted without imposing any obligation serving the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy on the part of recipients and which is intended to improve the situation of undertakings and increase their business liquidity (…) is, as operating aid, incompatible with the common market’.
Zato Komisija meni, da predplačila, ki jih je odobrila država, spadajo v vrsto pomoči za tekoče poslovanje iz točke 3.7 Smernic, v kateri je določeno: „Državne pomoči, ki so odobrene, ne da bi bila prejemniku postavljena obveznost v skladu s cilji skupne ribiške politike, in ki so namenjene izboljšanju pogojev podjetij in povečanju poslovne likvidnosti, (…) so, kot operativne pomoči, nezdružljive s skupnim trgom“.
These advances are therefore incompatible with the common market.
Ta predplačila so torej nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
On 7 October 2005 France replied to the Commission’s request of 25 August 2005, stating that ‘no measure under the State aid scheme has been implemented in France to counter the difficulties due to the recent considerable increase in the price of fuel’.
Francija je na zahtevo Komisije z dne 25. avgusta 2005 odgovorila 7. oktobra 2005 in navedla, da „iz sheme državne pomoči ni uvedla nobenega ukrepa za spopad s težavami zaradi nedavnega velikega povečanja cen goriva“.
However, France pointed out that it had encouraged ‘an initiative taken by the trade’ consisting of the creation of a fund for the prevention of risks to fishing.
Navedla je, da kljub temu podpira „postopek, ki so ga začeli izvajalci ribiškega sektorja“ za ustanovitev FPAP.
Its title shall be the Fund for the prevention of risks to fishing’.
Imenovalo se bo FPAP“.
The FPAP is thus designed to be a mutual insurance company providing a number of benefits for its members in exchange for their contributions.
FPAP je tako zasnovan kot vzajemna zavarovalnica, ki svojim članom v zameno za njihove prispevke ponuja nekatere storitve.
According to Article 1 of these agreements, ‘the FPAP shall operate on the basis of contributions paid by its members in order to cover the setting up of financial cover against the risks resulting from fluctuations in the price of oil and the associated administrative costs’.
V skladu s členom 1 teh sporazumov „FPAP deluje na podlagi prispevkov, ki jih nakažejo njegovi član, kot finančno kritje za tveganja, ki izhajajo iz nihanj cen nafte ter posledičnih stroškov upravljanja“.
The agreements show that, although under its articles of association it is formally conceived as having quite a wide range of objectives as regards the benefits that it may provide (see recital 20 of this Decision), in reality the FPAP restricted its activity to providing financial cover for fisheries undertakings against the rise in the price of fuel.
Ti sporazumi kažejo, da čeprav je FPAP po svojem statutu formalno zasnovan za precej široko dejavnost, kar zadeva storitve, ki bi jih lahko zagotavljal (glej uvodno izjavo 20 te odločbe), je v resnici svojo dejavnost omejil na finančno kritje zvišanja cene goriva ribiškim podjetjem.
France objects, claiming that this conclusion is ‘an allegation not based on any precise survey of banking organisations, and that a system of securities could have been set up’.
Francija ugovarja, da je ta sklep „navedba, ki ne temelji na nobeni natančni preiskavi v bančnih ustanovah, in da bi bilo mogoče vzpostaviti sisteme jamstva“.
However, a survey carried out by the Chambre nationale des conseils et experts financiers (National chamber of financial advisers and experts) [10] at thirty-five banks provides a fairly accurate picture of the standards applied in French financial institutions when granting loans to their customers.
Vendar pa daje preiskava, ki jo je Chambre nationale des conseils et experts financiers (Nacionalna zbornica za svetovanje in finančne strokovnjake) [10] izvedla v petintridesetih bankah, precej natančno sliko standardov, ki se uporabljajo v francoskih bančnih ustanovah pri dodeljevanju kreditov svojim strankam.
The list of defensive points also states: ‘As regards its funding, the FPAP is considered [by the Commission] not to be able to operate without the repayable State advance.
V utemeljitvi lahko namreč preberemo: „Šteje se (s strani Komisije), da FPAP z vidika svojih sredstev ni mogel posredovati brez vračljivega državnega predplačila.
No argument can be put forward against this’.
Proti temu dokazu ni mogoče navesti nobenega argumenta“.
Again, according to the list of defensive points, the French authorities deliberately chose not to submit this information, since it states that ‘… this information could be provided to the Commission. However, the advisability of providing such information now must be gauged’.
Po isti utemeljitvi so se francoski organi namerno odločili, da ne bodo sporočili teh informacij; navedli so namreč, da „… bi te elemente lahko zagotovili Komisiji, vendar je treba pretehtati, kakšne bodo koristi, če jih pošljemo takoj“.
The Commission notes that it did not receive such information, neither in that letter nor at a later date.
Komisija pa ugotavlja, da teh elementov ni prejela niti v navedenem dopisu niti pozneje.
France argues that ‘the FPAP cannot be regarded as receiving preferential treatment over other private organisations which could have played the same role because it is the only French professional organisation aimed at bringing together fisheries undertakings to buy options on the futures market’.
Francija trdi, da „ni mogoče šteti, da je FPAP imel prednost pred drugimi zasebnimi podjetji, ki bi lahko imela enako vlogo, ker je edina francoska strokovna ustanova, katere cilj je združiti ribiška podjetja za nakup opcij na terminskem trgu“.
In reply, the Commission observes that the FPAP’s position as regards competition rules should not be assessed solely vis-à-vis other French organisations made up of fisheries undertakings and playing the same role as it, but vis-à-vis all French and European operators that may be active on the futures market for petroleum products.
Komisija v odgovoru ugotavlja, da položaja FPAP glede na pravila o konkurenci ne smemo ocenjevati samo do drugih francoskih podjetij, ki združujejo ribiška podjetja in imajo enako vlogo kot on, ampak do vseh francoskih in evropskih subjektov, ki lahko posredujejo na terminskem trgu naftnih proizvodov.
The Commission therefore notes that the supply of fuel to fisheries undertakings at a price lower than that on the ordinary market was possible due to the advances granted by the State and the FPAP’s own resources, i.e. the product of its members’ contributions and the profits from speculative operations on the futures market for petroleum products.
Komisija torej ugotavlja, da je bila preskrba ribiških podjetij z gorivom po nižji ceni od običajne tržne mogoča zaradi predplačil, ki jih je odobrila država, in lastnih sredstev FPAP, to je seštevka prispevkov njegovih članov in dobička, ustvarjenega s špekulativnimi posli na terminskem trgu naftnih proizvodov.
(Editions Lamy).
Editions Lamy).
But, as indicated above (see recital 75 of this Decision), this was possible only because ‘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’.
Vendar pa, kot je navedeno zgoraj (glej uvodno izjavo 75 te odločbe), je bilo to mogoče samo, ker „je država takrat že izplačala 65 milijonov EUR. FPAP je na trgih blagovne borze z opcijami dosegel več milijonov evrov dobička, ki je nesporno dodana vrednost“.
In this connection the FPAP writes: ‘The FPAP is set up as a “prevention group” constituting a legal safety perimeter for its 2500 member undertakings within the meaning of the French Act…. In this connection, the aid for employees’ income within the restructuring perimeter is authorised.
FPAP v zvezi s tem piše: „FPAP je ‚skupina za preprečevanje‘, katere namen je za 2500 podjetij, ki so njeni člani, oblikovati pravni perimeter za reševanje v smislu francoske zakonodaje … Na tej podlagi je pomoč za prihodke zaposlenih, ki je del perimetra za prestrukturiranje, dovoljena.
concerning the non-inclusion of sulphuric acid in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance
o nevključitvi žveplove kisline v Prilogo I k Direktivi Sveta 91/414/EGS in o preklicu registracij fitofarmacevtskih sredstev, ki vsebujejo navedeno snov
(notified under document number C(2008) 7612)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 7612)
Commission Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 [2] and (EC) No 2229/2004 [3] lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.
Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 1112/2002 [2] in (ES) št. 2229/2004 [3] določata podrobna pravila za izvajanje četrte faze delovnega programa iz člena 8(2) Direktive 91/414/EGS in seznam aktivnih snovi, ki jih je treba oceniti zaradi njihove možne vključitve v Prilogo I k Direktivi 91/414/EGS.
That list includes sulphuric acid.
Navedeni seznam vključuje žveplovo kislino.
For sulphuric acid the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed in accordance with the provisions laid down in Regulations (EC) No 1112/2002 and (EC) No 2229/2004 for a range of uses proposed by the notifier.
Vplivi žveplove kisline na zdravje ljudi in okolje so bili ocenjeni v skladu z določbami uredb (ES) št. 1112/2002 in (ES) št. 2229/2004 za vrste uporab, ki jih je predlagal prijavitelj.
Moreover, those Regulations designate the rapporteur Member States which have to submit the relevant assessment reports and recommendations to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in accordance with Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004.
Poleg tega navedeni uredbi določata države članice poročevalke, ki morajo Evropski agenciji za varnost hrane (EFSA) v skladu s členom 20 Uredbe (ES) št. 2229/2004 predložiti ustrezna poročila o oceni in priporočila.
For sulphuric acid the rapporteur Member State was France and all relevant information was submitted in October 2007.
Država članica poročevalka za žveplovo kislino je bila Francija, vse ustrezne informacije pa so bile predložene oktobra 2007.
The Commission examined sulphuric acid in accordance with Article 24a of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004.
Komisija je preučila žveplovo kislino v skladu s členom 24a Uredbe (ES) št. 2229/2004.
A draft review report for that substance was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 26 September 2008 in the format of the Commission review report.
Osnutek poročila o pregledu za navedeno snov so države članice in Komisija pregledale v okviru Stalnega odbora za prehranjevalno verigo in zdravje živali ter končno različico pripravile 26. septembra 2008 v obliki poročila Komisije o pregledu.
During the examination of this active substance by the Committee, it was concluded, taking into account comments received from Member States, that the existing evidence is not sufficient to finalise the consumer risk assessment and to set a reliable Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (AOEL) and such value is necessary to conduct the operator risk assessment.
Odbor je med pregledom te aktivne snovi sklenil, da ob upoštevanju pripomb držav članic obstoječi podatki ne zadostujejo za zaključitev ocene tveganja potrošnikov in določitev zanesljive dopustne izpostavljenosti izvajalca tretiranja (AOEL), ki je potrebna za oceno tveganja izvajalcev tretiranja.
Moreover, other concerns which were identified by the rapporteur Member State in its assessment report are included in the review report for the substance.
V poročilu o pregledu za navedeno snov so vključeni tudi drugi pomisleki, ki jih je imela država članica poročevalka v svojem poročilu o oceni.
However, despite the arguments put forward by the notifier, the concerns identified could not be eliminated, and assessments made on the basis of the information submitted have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing sulphuric acid satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.
Toda kljub argumentom, ki jih je prijavitelj predložil, se navedenih pomislekov ni dalo odpraviti, po ocenah na podlagi predloženih informacij pa ne kaže pričakovati, da bi lahko fitofarmacevtska sredstva, ki vsebujejo žveplovo kislino, pod predvidenimi pogoji uporabe na splošno izpolnjevala zahteve iz člena 5(1)(a) in (b) Direktive 91/414/EGS.
Sulphuric acid should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.
Žveplova kislina se zato ne sme vključiti v Prilogo I k Direktivi 91/414/EGS.
Measures should be taken to ensure that authorisations granted for plant protection products containing sulphuric acid are withdrawn within a fixed period of time and are not renewed and that no new authorisations for such products are granted.
Sprejeti je treba ukrepe za zagotovitev, da se registracije fitofarmacevtskih sredstev, ki vsebujejo žveplovo kislino, prekličejo v predpisanem roku in se ne podaljšajo ali izdajo nove registracije takih sredstev.
Any period of grace granted by a Member State for the disposal, storage, placing on the market and use of existing stocks of plant protection products containing sulphuric acid should be limited to 12 months in order to allow existing stocks to be used in one further growing season, which ensures that plant protection products containing sulphuric acid remain available to farmers for 18 months from the adoption of this Decision.
Če države članice odobrijo podaljšanje roka za odstranjevanje, skladiščenje, dajanje v promet in uporabo obstoječih zalog fitofarmacevtskih sredstev, ki vsebujejo žveplovo kislino, ga je treba omejiti na obdobje dvanajstih mesecev, da se omogoči uporaba obstoječih zalog v naslednji rastni sezoni, tako da bodo fitofarmacevtska sredstva, ki vsebujejo žveplovo kislino, kmetom na voljo še 18 mesecev po sprejetju te odločbe.
This Decision does not prejudice the submission of an application for sulphuric acid in accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I [4], in view of a possible inclusion in its Annex I.
Ta odločba ne vpliva na predložitev zahtevka za žveplovo kislino v skladu s členom 6(2) Direktive 91/414/EGS in Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 33/2008 z dne 17. januarja 2008 o podrobnih pravilih za izvajanje Direktive Sveta 91/414/EGS glede rednega in pospešenega postopka za oceno aktivnih snovi, ki so bile del programa dela iz člena 8(2) navedene direktive, vendar niso bile vključene v Prilogo I [4], zaradi morebitne vključitve v Prilogo I k navedeni direktivi.
Sulphuric acid shall not be included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.
Žveplova kislina se ne vključi kot aktivna snov v Prilogo I k Direktivi 91/414/EGS.
authorisations for plant protection products containing sulphuric acid are withdrawn by 5 June 2009;
se registracije fitofarmacevtskih sredstev, ki vsebujejo žveplovo kislino, prekličejo do 5. junija 2009;
no authorisations for plant protection products containing sulphuric acid are granted or renewed from the date of publication of this Decision.
se od datuma objave te odločbe nobene registracije fitofarmacevtskih sredstev, ki vsebujejo žveplovo kislino, ne odobrijo ali podaljšajo.
Any period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC, shall be as short as possible and shall expire on 5 June 2010 at the latest.
Morebitno podaljšanje roka, ki ga odobrijo države članice v skladu z določbami člena 4(6) Direktive 91/414/EGS, je čim krajše in traja največ do 5. junija 2010.
on the list of the beneficiary countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance, provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011
o seznamu držav upravičenk, ki so upravičene do posebnega spodbujevalnega režima za trajnostni razvoj in dobro upravljanje, kakor je predvideno v Uredbi Sveta (ES) št. 732/2008 o uporabi sheme splošnih tarifnih preferencialov v obdobju od 1. januarja 2009 do 31. decembra 2011
(notified under document number C(2008) 8028)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 8028)
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007 [1], and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 732/2008 z dne 22. julija 2008 o uporabi sheme splošnih tarifnih preferencialov v obdobju od 1. januarja 2009 do 31. decembra 2011 in spremembah uredb (ES) št. 552/97, (ES) št. 1933/2006 in uredb Komisije (ES) št. 1100/2006 in (ES) št. 964/2007 [1], ter zlasti člena 10(2) Uredbe,
Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 provides for the granting of a special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance to developing countries which satisfy certain requirements established under its Articles 8 and 9.
Uredba (ES) št. 732/2008 določa, da se državam v razvoju, ki izpolnjujejo nekatere zahteve iz členov 8 in 9, dodeli posebni spodbujevalni režim za trajnostni razvoj in dobro upravljanje.
Each developing country wishing to avail itself of the special incentive arrangement had to submit a request to that effect by 31 October 2008, accompanied by comprehensive information concerning ratification of the relevant conventions, the legislation and measures to implement effectively the provisions of the conventions and its commitment to accept and comply fully with the monitoring and review mechanism envisaged in the relevant conventions and related instruments.
Vse države v razvoju, ki želijo uporabljati posebni spodbujevalni režim, so do 31. oktobra 2008 morale za ta namen predložiti zahtevek z izčrpnimi informacijami o ratifikaciji zadevnih konvencij, zakonodaji in ukrepih za učinkovito izvajanje določb konvencij ter svojo zavezo, da bodo sprejele in v celoti upoštevale mehanizem spremljanja in pregledovanja, ki je predviden v zadevnih konvencijah in v povezanih instrumentih.
To be granted the request, the requesting country also has to be considered to be a vulnerable country as defined in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008.
Da se državi prosilki zahtevek odobri, mora biti obravnavana kot ranljiva država, kakor je določeno v členu 8(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 732/2008.
The Commission has examined the requests made, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, and has established the list of beneficiary countries which fulfil the criteria.
Komisija je te zahtevke preučila v skladu z določbami člena 10(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 732/2008 in oblikovala seznam držav upravičenk, ki izpolnjujejo merila.
Accordingly, the special incentive arrangement should be granted to those countries from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011.
V skladu s tem je treba navedenim državam od 1. januarja 2009 do 31. decembra 2011 dodeliti posebni spodbujevalni režim.
In accordance with Article 10(6) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, the fulfilment of criteria which are also subject of the pending investigations with regard to Sri Lanka [2] and El Salvador [3] initiated by the Commission pursuant to Article 18(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 980/2005 [4], is being examined in the course of these investigations.
V skladu s členom 10(6) Uredbe (ES) št. 732/2008 se izpolnjevanje meril, ki se upoštevajo tudi v trenutnih preiskavah v zvezi s Šrilanko [2] in Salvadorjem [3], ki jih je začela Komisija v skladu s členom 18(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 980/2005 [4], med trajanjem teh preiskav preverja.
Timely publication of this Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union should ensure that the obligation pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, to publish a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union listing the countries benefiting from the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance as from 1 January 2009, is met.
Pravočasna objava te odločbe v Uradnem listu Evropske unije mora zagotoviti, da se v skladu s členom 10(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 732/2008 izpolni obveza o objavi obvestila v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, ki navaja države, ki uživajo koristi iz posebnega spodbujevalnega režima za trajnostni razvoj in dobro upravljanje od 1. januarja 2009.
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Generalised Preferences Committee,
Ukrepi iz te odločbe so v skladu z mnenjem Odbora za splošne preferenciale –
The following developing countries shall benefit from the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance provided for in Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011:
Do ugodnosti posebnega spodbujevalnega režima za trajnostni razvoj in dobro upravljanje iz Uredbe (ES) št. 732/2008 so od 1. januarja 2009 do 31. decembra 2011 upravičene naslednje države v razvoju:
(AM) Armenia
(AM) Armenija
(AZ) Azerbaijan
(AZ) Azerbejdžan
This Decision is addressed to: the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Bolivia, the Republic of Colombia, the Republic of Costa Rica, the Republic of Ecuador, the Republic of El Salvador, Georgia, the Republic of Guatemala, the Republic of Honduras, Mongolia, the Republic of Nicaragua, the Republic of Paraguay, the Republic of Peru, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Ta odločba je naslovljena na: Republiko Armenijo, Azerbajdžansko republiko, Republiko Bolivijo, Republiko Kolumbijo, Republiko Kostariko, Republiko Ekvador, Republiko Salvador, Gruzijo, Republiko Gvatemalo, Republiko Honduras, Mongolijo, Republiko Nikaragvo, Republiko Paragvaj, Republiko Peru, Demokratično socialistično republiko Šrilanko, Bolivarsko republiko Venezuela.
OJ L 211, 6.8.2008, p. 1.
UL L 211, 6.8.2008, str. 1.
OJ L 277, 18.10.2008, p. 34.
UL L 277, 18.10.2008, str. 34.