natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If we attempt to estimate the appropriations necessary for the FPAP to cover the expenditure on ‘diesel insurance’ for 2005, we can start from the assumption that the level of fuel consumption for which compensation was claimed by the fisheries undertakings probably increased from 200 million litres (see recital 94) to a volume that can be estimated at almost 900 million litres.
Če skušamo oceniti, koliko kreditov bi FPAP potreboval za kritje „zavarovanja za dizelsko gorivo“ za leto 2005, je lahko za izhodišče predpostavka, da se je količina porabe goriva, za katero so ribiška podjetja zahtevala nadomestilo, verjetno povečala z 200 milijonov litrov (glej uvodno izjavo 94) na količino, ki jo lahko ocenimo na približno 900 milijonov litrov.
This is because, if we take the averages for annual consumption which served as the basis for the calculations in recitals 55 and 56, the consumption of 1000 vessels of less than 12 metres would be 1000 vessels × 200 tonnes/vessel, i.e. 200000 tonnes, and the consumption of vessels of more than 12 metres would be 1400 vessels × 480 tonnes/vessel, i.e. 672000 tonnes, which is in total 872000 tonnes (or 872 million litres).
Če vzamemo povprečja letne porabe, uporabljene za osnovo izračunov iz uvodnih izjav 55 in 56, bi poraba 1000 plovil do 12 metrov znašala 1000 plovil × 200 ton/plovilo, to je 200000 ton, poraba plovil nad 12 metrov pa 1400 plovil × 480 ton/plovilo, to je 672000 ton, kar znese skupaj 872000 ton (ali 872 milijonov litrov).
In reality, as indicated in recital 55, if we consider that vessels fish for 38 weeks a year rather than 48, consumption is probably closer to 700000 tonnes (1000 vessels of less than 12 m × 158 tonnes, i.e. 158000 tonnes and 1400 vessels of more than 12 m × 380 tonnes, i.e. 532000 tonnes).
Če upoštevamo navedbe iz uvodne izjave 55, da so plovila na ribolovu bolj verjetno 38 tednov na leto kot pa 48, je verjetno poraba bližje 700000 tonam (1000 plovil do 12 m × 158 ton, to je 158000 ton, in 1400 plovil nad 12 m × 380 ton, to je 532000 ton).
Assuming a ceiling on compensation of 12 cent per litre, which was applied to the third advance [19], the annual financial requirements of the FPAP were thus about EUR 85 million. Considering the fact that the fisheries undertakings perhaps only insured part of their fuel consumption, the appropriations required were probably less, but the order of magnitude remains at several tens of millions of euro a year, as compared to the initial estimate of EUR 4 million for 2005.
Pri predpostavki, da je zgornja meja nadomestila 12 centov na liter, to je meja, ki je bila uporabljena za tretje predplačilo [19], bi finančne potrebe FPAP letno znašale približno 85 milijonov EUR. Če upoštevamo, da so mogoče ribiška podjetja zavarovala samo del svoje porabe goriva, bi bilo verjetno potrebnih manj kreditov, vendar red velikosti še vedno ostaja več deset milijonov EUR na leto, če primerjamo s prvotno oceno 4 milijonov EUR za leto 2005.
It is therefore obvious that the FPAP could not have coped with the cover guaranteed to its members, in exchange for their contributions, without receiving external funding, in this case the advances granted by the State.
Tako postane očitno, da sklad svojim članom ne bi mogel izplačati kritja poroštva v zameno za njihove prispevke brez zunanjih sredstev, v tem primeru predplačil, ki jih je odobrila država.
In this context, the FPAP received public funding to meet the needs of this ‘diesel insurance’, with the proviso that it managed the funds as efficiently as possible.
V tem okviru je FPAP prejel javna sredstva za izpolnjevanje potreb „zavarovanja za dizelsko gorivo“ z nalogo, da z njimi čim bolje upravlja.
The FPAP’s liquid assets are thus composed of funds coming from the members’ contributions, the State advances, and the potential profits of its activities on the oil futures markets.
Denarna sredstva FPAP so sestavljena iz sredstev, ki izvirajo iz prispevkov članov, državnih predplačil in morebitnih dobičkov iz njegove dejavnosti na terminskih naftnih trgih.
The part of the funding coming from the State advances is undeniably State resources.
Del teh sredstev, ki izvirajo iz državnih predplačil, nesporno ustreza državnim sredstvom.
As regards the profits made on the futures markets which enabled the fisheries undertakings to be supplied with less expensive fuel, it was only possible for them to be made thanks to the existence of the State resources, which gave the FPAP the means to undertake financial transactions on the futures markets.
Kar zadeva dobičke na terminskih trgih, ki so ribiškim podjetjem omogočili preskrbo s cenejšim gorivom, so bili lahko ustvarjeni samo zaradi državnih sredstev, ki so skladu zagotovila sredstva za opravljanje finančnih poslov na terminskih trgih.
In addition, although the exact characteristics of the agreements concluded between the FPAP and Cecomer are not known and cannot be deduced from any of the documents forwarded by France, the Commission supposes that the compensation paid to the member undertakings, consisting of the difference in price, was lower than if Cecomer and the maritime cooperatives had supplied fuel to the fishermen which had been bought on the ordinary market, i.e. without the FPAP’s operations on the futures markets.
Čeprav podrobnosti sporazumov, sklenjenih med FPAP in družbo CECOMER, niso znane in o njih ni mogoče sklepati iz nobenega dokumenta, ki ga je poslala Francija, Komisija predpostavlja, da je bilo nadomestilo, izplačano članom sklada v višini razlike v ceni, nižje, kot če bi družba CECOMER in ribiške zadruge ribičem dostavljale gorivo, kupljeno na običajnem trgu, to je brez intervencije sklada na terminskih trgih.
Thus, the profit from the FPAP’s operations on the futures markets was transferred to Cecomer, the supply cooperative of the maritime cooperatives, and ultimately to the fisheries undertakings which obtain their fuel from them.
Tako so se dobički iz poslov FPAP na terminskih trgih prenesli na družbo CECOMER, zadrugo za oskrbovanje ribiških zadrug, in nazadnje na ribiška podjetja, ki se pri njih oskrbujejo z gorivom.
The practical effect was certainly that the FPAP could continue paying compensation for a longer period than if the FPAP had only been an intermediate body solely responsible for distributing the EUR 65 (or 77) million provided by the State under cover of the ‘diesel insurance’ mechanism.
Praktični učinek je zagotovo bil, da je FPAP lahko nadaljeval z izplačili nadomestil v daljšem obdobju, kot če bi sklad bil samo posrednik, zadolžen samo za razdelitev 65 ali 77 milijonov EUR, ki jih je zagotovila država za pokrivanje mehanizma „zavarovanja za dizelsko gorivo“.
The Commission therefore takes the view that it was indeed by means of State resources, irrespective of whether they were fed directly into the FPAP’s liquid assets or they were used to make profits further increasing those assets, that the fisheries undertakings were able to enjoy a financial advantage, on the one hand by having the possibility of obtaining supplies of fuel at an advantageous price, and on the other by receiving a compensatory allowance calculated on the basis of a reference price.
Zato Komisija meni, da so prav zaradi državnih sredstev, s katerimi so se neposredno financirala denarna sredstva sklada ali so se uporabila za ustvarjanje dobičkov, s katerimi so se ta sredstva povečevala, ribiška podjetja lahko bila deležna finančne ugodnosti, po eni strani zaradi možnosti oskrbovanja z gorivom po ugodnejši ceni, in po drugi strani s prejemanjem nadomestila, izračunanega glede na referenčno ceno.
The three, or possibly four, agreements concluded between the State and the FPAP provide that the ultimate purpose of the public funds paid in the form of advances is to partially compensate fisheries undertakings for the cost of fuel.
Trije, mogoče štirje sporazumi, sklenjeni med državo in FPAP, določajo, da je glavni namen javnih sredstev, izplačanih v obliki predplačil, delno nadomestiti stroške za gorivo, ki jih imajo ribiška podjetja.
The compensation paid to the fishermen in the form of an allowance equivalent to the difference between a reference price and a price at the pump comes in addition to a reduction in the price of diesel at the pump of the supplier, who is, as a rule, the maritime cooperative.
Nadomestilo, izplačano ribičem v obliki nadomestila za razliko med referenčno ceno in ceno na bencinski črpalki, se ujema z zmanjšanjem cene dizelskega goriva na bencinski črpalki dobavitelja, ki je najpogosteje ribiška zadruga.
The FPAP’s liquid assets, originally made up of its members’ contributions then supplemented by an initial advance by the State, enabled it to operate on the futures markets and make profits, although those profits were not sufficient to enable it to simultaneously pay the compensatory allowance guaranteed to the fisheries undertakings in return for their contributions.
Denarna sredstva FPAP, ki so jih najprej sestavljali prispevki članov, nato pa so se povečala za prvo predplačilo države, so temu skladu omogočila, da je posloval na terminskih trgih in imel od tega dobiček, vendar ti dobički niso zadostovali, da bi hkrati nakazal nadomestilo, zagotovljeno ribiškim podjetjem v zameno za njihove prispevke.
However, two, or possibly three, additional advances enabled it to continue its activities before it gradually had to reduce its holdings in order to have the liquidity required to pay the allowances.
Dve, mogoče tri dodatna predplačila so mu kljub temu omogočila nadaljevanje dejavnosti, preden je moral postopno sprostiti pozicije, da je razpolagal s potrebno gotovino za plačilo nadomestil.
The Commission observes that the Decisions on the operations on the futures markets were taken by the President of the FPAP.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je odločitve o transakcijah na terminskih trgih sprejel predsednik FPAP.
They were actually implemented by commissioning brokers and specialised financial institutions (see recital 74), and the amount of remuneration paid to them by the FPAP is not known to the Commission.
Njihovo dejansko izvajanje je potekalo prek borznih posrednikov in specializiranih finančnih ustanov (glej uvodno izjavo 74), katerih plačilo je FPAP zagotavljal v obsegu, ki ga Komisija ne pozna.
However, although the FPAP’s articles of association provide that the President must consult the Board of Directors ‘to decide on proposed cover plans’, the State is not represented on that Board.
Čeprav je v statutu FPAP določeno, da se mora predsednik obvezno posvetovati z upravnim odborom, „da določi projekte kritja, ki jih je treba izvesti“, država nima predstavnika v tem upravnem odboru.
Thus, although the FPAP was generally required ‘to keep accounts so that, on request, information on how the advances have been used and the Fund’s resources and expenditure have been allocated can be obtained’, the State did not have any part in the Decision on the strategy to be followed by the FPAP for acquiring these financial options or on the level of the financial compensation to be paid to the undertakings.
Čeprav je bil FPAP na splošno dolžan „voditi računovodske evidence, iz katerih se je mogoče na zahtevo seznaniti z uporabo predplačila in tudi dodelitvijo sredstev in izdatki Sklada“, država ni določila niti strategije, ki jo mora FPAP upoštevati za pridobitev teh finančnih opcij, niti višine finančnega nadomestila, ki se mora izplačati podjetjem.
Consequently, although, as was demonstrated in paragraph 4.1.1.4, there is no doubt that the aid consisting of the granting of the three, or possibly four, advances is imputable to the State, that is not the case for the additional advantages enjoyed by the fisheries undertakings resulting, on the one hand, from their contributions and, on the other, from the prudent management of the FPAP’s liquid assets as a whole.
Čeprav torej v skladu z navedbo iz odstavka 4.1.1.4 ni dvoma, da je pomoč, ki jo pomeni dodelitev treh, mogoče štirih predplačil, mogoče pripisati državi, to ne velja za dodatna predplačila, ki so jih ribiška podjetja lahko prejela po eni strani zaradi svojih prispevkov in po drugi strani zaradi preudarnega upravljanja vseh denarnih sredstev FPAP.
This is because, although the aid ultimately paid to the fishermen was higher than the public funds originally received by the FPAP thanks to the operations undertaken on the futures markets, the part of the aid exceeding the amount of the public funding advanced did not result from a State Decision.
Čeprav je bila zaradi transakcij, izvedenih na terminskih trgih, pomoč, ki je bila nazadnje izplačana ribičem, višja od javnih sredstev, ki jih je prvotno prejel FPAP, delež pomoči, ki je presegel znesek nakazanih javnih sredstev, ni izhajal iz odločitve države.
Thus, even if it is not possible, from an accounting point of view, to identify precisely what came from State resources and what came from the Fund’s own resources, since it was the liquid assets as a whole which were used to operate on the oil futures markets and pay the compensatory allowance, in the Commission’s view the advantage resulting from the difference between the total amount of aid paid to the fisheries undertakings and the total amount of the State advances transferred to the fisheries undertakings is not imputable to the State.
Tako po mnenju Komisije, ugodnosti, ki ustreza razliki med skupnim zneskom pomoči, ki so jih prejela ribiška podjetja, in skupnim zneskom državnih predplačil, prenesenih na ribiška podjetja, ni mogoče pripisati državi, kljub temu da z računovodskega vidika ni mogoče natančno ločiti, kaj prihaja iz javnih sredstev in kaj iz lastnih sredstev, ker so bila vsa denarna sredstva uporabljena za poslovanje na naftnih terminskih trgih in plačilo nadomestila.
The Commission considers that the reduction in fuel expenditure enjoyed by the FPAP’s member fisheries undertakings favours those undertakings because they are the only ones able to benefit from the reduction.
Komisija meni, da zmanjšanje, ki so ga bila deležna ribiška podjetja, ki so člani FPAP, za izdatke za gorivo daje prednost tem podjetjem, ker so lahko samo ta upravičena do tega zmanjšanja.
Their position is strengthened in relation to other undertakings competing with them on the Community market, irrespective of whether they are other fisheries undertakings or undertakings in other sectors of economic activity with an interest in reducing their running costs as regards fuel expenditure.
Njihov položaj je močnejši v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so njihovi konkurenti na trgu Skupnosti, naj gre za druga ribiška podjetja ali za podjetja v drugih sektorjih gospodarske dejavnosti, zainteresirana za zmanjšanje proizvodnih stroškov, povezanih z izdatki za gorivo.
Moreover, since the cover mechanism is targeted only at fisheries undertakings, the advantage thus granted to those undertakings must be regarded as a sectoral advantage not accessible to other sectors.
Še več, ker je ta mehanizem kritja namenjen samo ribiškim podjetjem, je tako odobrena ugodnost sektorska ugodnost, ki ni dostopna drugim sektorjem.
But, by favouring a particular sector, any form of aid distorts or threatens to distort competition (see Commission Decision 2006/269/EC of 8 February 2006 on tax deductions for professional fishermen (Sweden) [20], recitals 31 and 35).
Vendar vsaka oblika pomoči, ki daje prednost posebnemu sektorju, izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco (glej Odločbo Komisije 2006/269/ES z dne 8. februarja 2006 o državni pomoči pri davčnih olajšavah za poklicne ribiče (Švedska) [20], uvodni izjavi 31 in 35).
France objects that this aid did not favour the FPAP’s member undertakings insofar as ‘membership of the FPAP is free and open to all fisheries undertakings provided that they pay their contribution’.
Francija ugovarja, da ta pomoč ni dajala prednosti podjetjem članom FPAP, ker je „članstvo v FPAP svobodno in dostopno vsem ribiškim podjetjem pod pogojem, da plačujejo prispevke“.
MQA adds that membership is open ‘without consideration of the structure or nationality of the recipient’.
MQA dodaja, da je to članstvo dostopno „brez upoštevanja strukture ali državljanstva lastniških interesov“.
Lastly, the FPAP points out that ‘the FPAP’s member undertakings are held by French capital, but also by Spanish and Dutch capital’.
FPAP nazadnje pojasnjuje, da so „podjetja, ki so člani FPAP, v lasti francoskega, vendar tudi španskega in nizozemskega kapitala“.
In reply, the Commission observes that the only fisheries undertakings which may join the FPAP are those which have vessels registered in metropolitan France or the overseas departments.
Komisija odgovarja, da se lahko v FPAP včlanijo samo tista ribiška podjetja, ki imajo plovila, registrirana v celinski Franciji ali čezmorskih departmajih.
Therefore undertakings with Dutch or Spanish capital holding French vessels may indeed become members of the FPAP. It is certainly those vessels to which France and the FPAP allude in their replies.
Podjetja z nizozemskim ali španskim kapitalom, ki imajo francoska plovila, se torej dejansko lahko včlanijo v FPAP; Francija in FPAP se v odgovorih gotovo sklicujeta na primer teh plovil.
But other Community vessels may not become members.
Vendar se druga plovila Skupnosti ne morejo včlaniti v FPAP.
All the undertakings enjoying the compensation paid by the FPAP compete on the Community market with undertakings whose vessels fly the flag of the other Member States and which also have an interest in reducing their running costs as regards fuel expenditure, but which do not have at their disposal any compensation system of the kind set up by the FPAP.
Vsa podjetja, ki so prejela nadomestilo od FPAP, so na trgu Skupnosti konkurenti podjetij, katerih plovila plujejo pod zastavo drugih držav članic in ki so prav tako zainteresirana za zmanjšanje proizvodnih stroškov, povezanih z izdatki za gorivo, vendar pa nimajo na voljo takega sistema nadomestil, kot ga je vzpostavil FPAP.
For that reason, the advantage enjoyed by the member fisheries undertakings or fisheries undertakings which have not yet become members but which are able to do so, i.e. all the undertakings having fishing vessels flying the French flag, is clearly a distortion of competition.
Zato je ugodnost, ki so je deležna ribiška podjetja, ki so člani FPAP ali ki se vanj še niso včlanila, vendar bi to lahko storila, torej vsa podjetja, ki imajo plovila, ki plujejo pod francosko zastavo, jasno izkrivljanje konkurence.
The FPAP also takes the view that the factors distorting competition must be sought elsewhere.
FPAP poleg tega meni, da je treba dejavnike izkrivljanja konkurence iskati drugje.
Referring to the existence of major additional costs which, according to it, are not economically justified, such as costs resulting from the management of the multiannual guidance plans for the fishing fleet, i.e. management of the fleet’s overall capacity, or costs relating to management of ‘production rights’, the FPAP points out in particular that ‘The “rights” attaching to national “policies” represent (…) the real factor distorting European competition they result mainly from the economic field’.
FPAP, ki se sklicuje na visoke dodatne stroške, ki po njegovem mnenju niso ekonomsko utemeljeni, kot so stroški, ki izhajajo iz upravljanja večletnih usmerjevalnih načrtov ribiškega ladjevja, torej iz upravljanja skupne zmogljivosti tega ladjevja, ali stroški, povezani z upravljanjem „pravic do proizvodnje“, predvsem navaja, da so „‚pravice‘, povezane z nacionalnimi ‚politikami‘, (…) resnični dejavnik izkrivljanja evropske konkurence [in] spadajo predvsem na gospodarsko področje“.
In this connection the Commission observes that these costs, whether or not they are higher or lower in France than in the other Member States, are the result of the constraints of the regulatory framework in which fishing is carried out today.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da so ti stroški, naj so v Franciji nižji ali višji od stroškov v drugih državah članicah, posledica omejitev zaradi zakonskega okvira, v katerem se danes izvaja ribiška dejavnost.
In its communication of 26 February 2007 on rights-based management tools in fisheries [21], the Commission points out that the Community fisheries sector is characterised by a multiplicity of management instruments and mechanisms and that comparable situations are treated in sometimes very different ways, depending on the Member State.
Komisija v Sporočilu [21] z dne 26. februarja 2007 o orodjih za upravljanje ribištva na podlagi pravic opozarja, da so za ribiški sektor Skupnosti značilna raznolikost instrumentov in mehanizmov za upravljanje in da se podobni primeri včasih obravnavajo na zelo različne načine glede na državo članico.
The result is, in particular, that selling and buying are current practice in some Member States, either within established markets or indirectly.
Iz tega predvsem izhaja, da ribolovne pravice v državah članicah že prodajajo in kupujejo na urejenih trgih ali posredno.
The costs mentioned by the FPAP are the costs with which the fleets of the various Member States are confronted and correspond to the level of economic development of the fisheries sector.
Stroški, ki jih navaja FPAP, so stroški, s katerimi se ladjevja srečujejo v različnih državah članicah in ustrezajo gospodarskemu razvoju ribiškega sektorja.
They result from the implementation at national level of the management measures which the common fisheries policy lays down or makes necessary.
Ti stroški so posledica nacionalnega izvajanja intervencij upravljanja, ki jih nalaga skupna ribiška politika ali so potrebne zaradi te politike.
This implementation does not justify the introduction of specific aid in an individual Member State.
To izvajanje ne upravičuje uvedbe posebnih pomoči v posamezni državi članici.
For that reason, contrary to what the FPAP argues, the distortion of competition must not be assessed within the confines of a ‘relevant market’, for example a ‘regional micro-market’, a concept to which it refers, but, as is provided for under the Treaty, within the common market as a whole.
Zato se v nasprotju s trditvijo FPAP izkrivljanje konkurence ne sme presojati v okviru „upoštevanega trga“, na primer „regionalnega mikrotrga“, na katerega se sklicuje, ampak na celotnem skupnem trgu, kot je določeno v Pogodbi.
Thus, if the effect of the FPAP’s aid is to facilitate the maintenance of fishing within a regional framework and protect resources by preventing deep-sea vessels from falling back on closer grounds or trawlers from targeting more specific fisheries, as is argued by the FPAP, it perfectly matches aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition and therefore, in this respect, State aid.
Če je torej posledica pomoči FPAP lažje ohranjanje ribolova v regionalnem okviru in zaščita virov s tem, da se plovilom za globokomorski ribolov preprečuje ribolov v bližnjih ribolovnih območjih ali plovilom z vlečnimi mrežami, da se usmerijo k bolj specifičnemu ribolovu, kot trdi FPAP, gre za pomoč, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, in torej za državno pomoč.
Also, for all the reasons set out above, the Commission considers that the funds advanced by the State and enjoyed by the fisheries undertakings, via the FPAP, distort or threaten to distort competition.
Komisija za vse zgoraj navedene razloge ugotavlja, da sredstva, ki jih je država nakazala in so jih ribiška podjetja prejela prek FPAP, izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco.
Existence of a financial advantage which affects trade between Member States
Obstoj finančne ugodnosti, ki vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami
The FPAP disputes the fact that the aid granted to the association’s member fisheries undertakings affects trade between the Member States.
FPAP izpodbija dejstvo, da pomoč, odobrena ribiškim podjetjem, ki so člani sindikata, vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Thus, according to the FPAP, these undertakings carry out their activities in ‘a market which is by no means unique, but which is based more on a “mosaic” of regional micro-markets’.
FPAP namreč meni, da naj bi ta podjetja opravljala svoje dejavnosti na „trgu, ki nikakor ni enoten, ampak temelji predvsem na ‚mozaiku‘ regionalnih mikrotrgov“.