natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In light of the above, the Commission concluded that:
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenih ugotovitev je Komisija zaključila:
the financial aid granted under Law No 11/1988 constituted State aid under Article 92(1) of the Treaty (now Article 87(1)),
finančna pomoč, odobrena na podlagi zakona št. 11/1988, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 92(1) Pogodbe (zdaj člen 87(1));
the aid was granted in breach of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (Article 88(3)), and
dodelitev pomoči pomeni kršitev člena 93(3) Pogodbe ES (člen 88(3)) in
in the case in point, none of the derogations provided for in Article 92 could be applied.
v tem pravnem primeru ni bilo mogoče uporabiti nobene izjeme iz člena 92.
The Commission therefore ordered that Italy should recover the unlawful aid granted on the basis of the 1988 aid scheme (Article 2).
Komisija je torej sklenila, da mora Italija izterjati nezakonite pomoči, odobrene na podlagi sheme pomoči iz leta 1988 (člen 2).
The judgment of 19 October 2000 and its legal consequences
Sodba z dne 19. oktobra 2000 in njene pravne posledice
In its judgment of 19 October 2000 (Joined Cases C-15/98 and C-105/99 Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission) [7] the Court of Justice of the European Communities annulled Decision 98/95/EC on the ground that it lacked an adequate statement of reasons with regard to the effect on Community trade.
V sodbi z dne 19. oktobra 2000 je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti (združeni zadevi C-15/98 in C-105/99: Italijanska republika in Sardegna Lines – Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna S.p.A. proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti) [7] razveljavilo odločbo 98/95/ES zaradi nezadovoljivih utemeljitev v zvezi z obstojem motnje trgovanja v Skupnosti.
The Court found that the Commission, in limiting itself to stating that the aid was selective and reserved to the shipping sector in Sardinia, that more than 90 % of goods transport between the mainland and Sardinia took place by sea and that 65 % of tourist transport (passengers with cars) was carried out by shipping companies, failed to provide any information on the competition between the Sardinian shipping companies and companies established in other Member States.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da Komisija, ki se je omejila na trditve, da je pomoč selektivna in omejena na sektor ladijskega prevoza na Sardiniji, da se več kot 90 % blaga prepelje med celino in Sardinijo po morju in da 65 % turističnega prometa (potniki z avtomobili) opravijo ladijske družbe, ni predložila elementov, ki se nanašajo na konkurenco med ladijskimi družbami na Sardiniji in tistimi, ki imajo sedež v drugih državah članicah.
According to the Court, the Commission failed to take into account, in that respect, the fact that, until 1 January 1999, island cabotage in the Mediterranean was excluded from the liberalisation of maritime transport service within Member States.
Po mnenju Sodišča Komisija pri tem ni upoštevala okoliščine, da je bila do 1. januarja 1999 obalna plovba med sredozemskimi otoki izvzeta iz liberalizacije storitev pomorskega prevoza znotraj držav članic.
The Court also noted that the Commission, despite pointing out that the aid scheme to the Sardinian shipping companies was in breach of the fundamental principles of freedom of establishment and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, failed to use this breach as grounds for demonstrating the distortion of trade between Member States.
Sodišče tudi meni, da se Komisija kljub ugotovitvi, da shema pomoči družbam na Sardiniji krši temeljna načela svobode ustanavljanja in prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva, ni osredotočila na tovrstno kršitev, da bi prikazala motnje trgovanja med državami članicami.
In consequence of the judgment of 19 October 2000 the formal investigation procedure initiated by the decision of 24 June 1996 has been reopened.
S sodbo z dne 19. oktobra 2000 se je določil ponovni začetek uradne preiskave, uvedene z odločbo z dne 24. junija 1996.
The Commission must therefore adopt a new final decision.
Od Komisije se torej pričakuje, da sprejme novo končno odločbo.
In addition to adopting a new Decision following the Court’s annulment of Decision 98/95/EC, the Commission must also decide as to the amendment to be made to the scheme introduced by Law No 9/1996, in respect of which the investigation procedure of 14 November 1997 was initiated.
Poleg sprejetja nove odločbe potem, ko je Sodišče razveljavilo odločbo 98/95/ES, se mora Komisija odločiti tudi o spremembi sheme, uvedene z zakonom št. 9/1996, v zvezi s katero se je uvedel preiskovalni postopek z dne 14. novembra 1997.
Although at the time it had decided to examine both schemes separately, the Commission must now examine these schemes jointly in the present Decision in order to determine their overall implications.
Čeprav se je Komisija prvotno odločila, da bo ti dve shemi preiskovala ločeno, mora po tej odločbi opraviti skupno preiskavo, da ugotovi njun celovit učinek.
Observations on the original aid scheme submitted in the context of procedure C 23/96
Pripombe glede prvotne sheme pomoči, predložene med postopkom C 23/96
In procedure C 23/96, the Italian authorities informed the Commission in a letter of 31 October 1996 of changes that they had made to the original aid scheme to make it, in their opinion, compatible with Community law.
Med postopkom C 23/96 so italijanski organi v dopisu z dne 31. oktobra 1996 Komisijo obvestili o spremembah prvotne sheme pomoči, da bi jo po njihovem mnenju uskladili z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
The main amendment was the adoption of Regional Law No 9/1996 that removed discriminatory provisions based on nationality and also provisions that were in breach of freedom of establishment.
Glavna sprememba je bila sprejetje deželnega zakona št. 9/1996, s katerim so bile ukinjene diskriminatorne določbe na podlagi državljanstva, poleg tistih, ki kršijo svobodo ustanavljanja.
The authorities also notified the Commission that they had introduced a direct control mechanism to rule out the possibility of aid being granted twice (by the national authorities and by the regional authorities).
Poleg tega so italijanski organi Komisijo obvestili o uvedbi neposrednega nadzornega mehanizma, ki naj bi preprečil, da bi bile pomoči odobrene dvakrat (s strani nacionalnih in deželnih organov).
In its letters of 11 October 1996 and 22 January 1997, the regional authorities justified the need for measures arising out of amendments to Law No 9/1996, inter alia, by the difficult economic conditions in Sardinia, which is an ‘Objective I’ region.
V dopisih z dne 11. oktobra 1996 in 22. januarja 1997 so deželni organi potrebo po ukrepih, ki izhajajo iz sprememb zakona št. 9/1996, med drugim utemeljevali s težkimi gospodarskimi pogoji na Sardiniji, ki je regija, uvrščena v „Cilj I“.
Observations on the modified aid scheme submitted in the context of procedure C 71/97
Pripombe glede spremenjene sheme pomoči, predložene med postopkom C 71/97
As to the observations submitted in the context of procedure C 71/97, the Italian authorities pointed out, first, that they had no way of knowing the Community law referred to by the Commission in its decision to initiate the investigation procedure, arguing that Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/95 [8], amended by Council Regulation No 1904/96, and the Community Guidelines on State aid to Maritime Transport of 1997 had been published after the adoption of Law No 9/1996.
Kar zadeva pripombe, predložene med postopkom C 71/97, so italijanski organi poudarili predvsem nezmožnost poznavanja zakonodaje Skupnosti, na katero se sklicuje Komisija v svoji odločbi o uvedbi preiskovalnega postopka, saj so bile Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 3094/95 [8], kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1904/96, in smernice o državnih pomočeh za pomorski prevoz iz leta 1997 objavljene po sprejetju zakona št. 9/1996.
Secondly, Italy emphasised that the measures envisaged by Law No 9/1996 had not been implemented and that no financial commitments had been assumed with third parties.
Drugič, Italija je poudarila, da se ukrepi, predvideni z zakonom št. 9/1996, niso izvajali in da ni bila prevzeta nikakršna finančna obveznost do tretjih oseb.
Italy also claimed that the specified measures were necessary to allow for the absence of economies of scale in the goods and passenger maritime transport sector in an island region such as Sardinia.
Poleg tega je Italija trdila, da so bili predvideni ukrepi potrebni zaradi odsotnosti ekonomije obsega v sektorju pomorskega prevoza blaga in potnikov v otoški regiji, kakršna je Sardinija.
In their conclusion, the Italian authorities declared themselves willing to amend the legislation and to respect all Community laws in force.
Italijanski organi so zaključili, da so pripravljeni besedilo zakona spremeniti in upoštevati celotno veljavno zakonodajo Skupnosti.
Assessment of the original scheme applicable during the period 1988-96
Ocena prvotne sheme, ki je veljala v obdobju 1988–1996
Existence of an unlawful new State aid
Obstoj nove nezakonite državne pomoči
The Commission considers that, by failing to notify the aid scheme in question in favour of companies registered in Sardinia intending to build, acquire, convert, modify or repair ships, the Italian authorities failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 88(3) of the Treaty (formerly Article 93(3)).
Komisija meni, da so italijanski organi kršili obveznost iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe (prej člen 93(3)), ker niso priglasili zadevne sheme pomoči za družbe, registrirane na Sardiniji, namenjene izgradnji, nakupu, preurejanju, spreminjanju ali popravilu plovil.
Even though the scheme had been set up before the entry into force of the Treaty, Law No 11/1988 substantially amended the aid scheme introduced by Laws No 20/1951 and No 15/1954.
Čeprav je bila shema vzpostavljena pred začetkom veljavnosti Pogodbe, je zakon št. 11/1988 precej spremenil shemo pomoči, uvedeno z zakonoma št. 20/1951 in 15/1954.
The amendments introduced in 1988 should have therefore been notified to the Commission and therefore constitute new non-notified aids.
Spremembe, uvedene leta 1988, bi zato morale biti priglašene Komisiji in zato pomenijo nove nepriglašene pomoči.
Since this characterisation was not contested by the Italian authorities in their comments following the initiation of the procedure on 24 June 1996 it is therefore confirmed in this Decision.
Italijanski organi v pripombah, predloženih po uvedbi postopka z dne 24. junija 1996, tovrstni opredelitvi niso oporekali, zato je s to odločbo potrjena.
The Commission finds that the measure in question constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija ugotavlja, da zadevni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
The Sardinian companies effectively benefited from interest rates more favourable than market rates and a reduction in costs relating to the loans and leases; they were therefore relieved of a financial burden that they would normally have had to bear.
Družbe na Sardiniji so dejansko uživale subvencionirano obrestno mero namesto tržne in popust pri drugih stroških, povezanih s posojili in finančnimi zakupi; torej so uživale oprostitev plačila finančne obveznosti, ki bi jo v običajnih pogojih morale poravnati.
The financial burden was borne by public resources and the aid was selective because it was reserved to companies operating within the shipping sector and established in Sardinia.
Komisija opaža, da se je tovrstna obveznost financirala iz javnih sredstev in da je bila pomoč selektivna, saj je bila omejena na ladijske družbe s sedežem na Sardiniji.
The Commission also observes that the measure affected trade between the Member States.
Komisija tudi opaža, da ima ukrep učinek na trgovanje med državami članicami.
The scheme implemented by the Italian authorities concerns Sardinian shipping companies in general, whether involved in cabotage activities or international transport.
Shema, ki so jo izvajali italijanski organi, zadeva ladijske družbe na Sardiniji na splošno in ne glede na to, ali opravljajo dejavnosti kabotaže ali mednarodnih prevozov.
While it is true that regulation No 3577/92 [9], which liberalised the maritime cabotage service market within the Community, excluded the liberalisation of cabotage with Mediterranean islands until 1 January 1999, it is also true that this Regulation did not exclude from its scope changes in trade in the maritime service market between different Member States, in particular between France, Spain and mainland Italy.
Čeprav je res, da je Uredba (EGS) št. 3577/92 [9], ki je liberalizirala trg storitve pomorske kabotaže znotraj Skupnosti, iz liberalizacije izvzela kabotažo med sredozemskimi otoki do 1. januarja 1999, je res tudi, da ta uredba iz področja svoje uporabe ni izvzela sprememb na trgu pomorskih storitev med različnimi državami članicami, zlasti med celinskim delom Francije, Španije in Italije.
It should be noted in this regard that the aid in question was not limited to cabotage, i.e. to maritime services carried out within Italian territorial waters, liberalised from 1.1.1999, but also concerned Sardinian shipping companies that carried out international maritime transport services, which had already been liberalised in 1986 [10], so that such companies could therefore operate in competition with other Community operators.
Opozoriti je treba, da zadevna pomoč ni bila omejena na kabotažo, torej na pomorske storitve, ki se opravljajo znotraj italijanskih teritorialnih voda in so liberalizirane od 1. januarja 1999, ampak se je nanašala tudi na sardinske ladijske družbe, ki opravljajo storitve mednarodnega pomorskega prevoza, te pa so liberalizirane že od leta 1986 [10], zato bi te družbe lahko poslovale v konkurenci z drugimi operaterji Skupnosti.
Information in the possession of the Commission [11] shows that between 1992 and 1997, maritime traffic existed in the form of merchant shipping (and cruise shipping) leaving and entering Sardinian ports, to and from other EU and non-EU destinations.
Iz podatkov, s katerimi razpolaga Komisija [11], je razvidno, da je med letoma 1992 in 1997 med drugim obstajal pomorski promet s trgovskimi ladjami (in ladjami za križarjenje), ki so prihajale v pristanišča na Sardiniji in odhajale iz njih, in sicer iz oz. v druge destinacije v Skupnosti in zunaj nje.
In particular, a French company operated out of Toulon bound for Sardinia and two Italian companies operated from Corsica to Sardinia.
Zlasti je treba opozoriti na prisotnost francoske družbe iz Toulona, ki je zagotavljala prevoze do Sardinije, in dveh italijanskih družb, ki sta zagotavljali prevoze s Korzike na Sardinijo.
These circumstances show that during that period (between 1988 and 1996) there was an effect on international maritime transport services trade between Italy and certain Member States.
Te okoliščine nakazujejo, da je v tem obdobju (od leta 1988 do 1996) obstajal učinek na trg storitev mednarodnega pomorskega prevoza med Italijo in nekaterimi državami članicami.
In their final letter of 8.3.2007, the Italian authorities claimed that the finance granted under Law No 11/1988 concerned ‘the purchase of vessels with gross tonnage between 24 and 138 tonnes’; these ships were reportedly mainly used for the purpose of coastal maritime transport activities within a market that was not at the time open to competition.
V svojem zadnjem dopisu z dne 8. marca 2007 italijanski organi navajajo, da je financiranje, odobreno na podlagi zakona 11/1988, veljalo za „nakup plovil z bruto tonažo 24 do 138 ton“; ta plovila naj bi bila predvsem namenjena dejavnostim obalnega pomorskega prevoza na trgu, ki tedaj še ni bil odprt za konkurenco.
However, in at least two cases the scheme was applied for the purposes of acquiring ferries used for transporting passengers and vehicles between Sardinia and the mainland, which were able to compete with other national and Community operators.
Vendar iz tega kljub vsemu izhaja, da se je shema izvajala z namenom nakupa trajektov, namenjenih prevozu potnikov in avtomobilov med Sardinijo in celino, ki bi lahko bili konkurenca drugim nacionalnim operaterjem in operaterjem iz Skupnosti.
The Italian authorities stated that they were not in possession of any information on goods and passenger traffic between Sardinia and the rest of Italy and between Sardinia and other Community countries for the period in question.
Italijanski organi so izjavili, da ne razpolagajo z nikakršnimi podatki o potniškem in blagovnem prometu v navedenem obdobju med Sardinijo in preostalo Italijo na eni strani ter med Sardinijo in drugimi državami Skupnosti na drugi.
It should also be noted that Regulation No 3577/92 on cabotage did not rule out the existence of competition between companies in the maritime transport market operating between Sardinia and the Italian mainland during the period prior to 1 January 1999 because foreign companies were entitled to carry out maritime cabotage services in Italy, subject to registering their ship there, but were not able to benefit from the aid schemes reserved for Sardinian shipping companies.
Poleg tega je treba omeniti, da Uredba o kabotaži št. 3577/92 ni izključila obstoja konkurence med družbami na trgu pomorskih prevozov med Sardinijo in italijanskim polotokom v obdobju pred 1. januarjem 1999, saj so imele tuje družbe pravico opravljati storitve pomorske kabotaže v Italiji, potem ko so svoja plovila registrirale v tej državi članici, vendar niso mogle biti upravičene do sheme pomoči, ker je bila omejena na sardinske ladijske družbe.
This scheme therefore had the effect of discouraging shipping companies from other Member States from opening branches in Italy to carry out maritime cabotage services with Sardinia, in view of the fact that they would have been unable to benefit from the aid while having to compete with other operators who were able to obtain this aid.
Učinek te sheme je torej bil odvračanje ladijskih družb iz drugih držav članic od tega, da bi v Italiji odpirale podružnice za opravljanje storitev pomorske kabotaže s Sardinijo, saj v nobenem primeru niso mogle biti upravičene do zadevne pomoči in bi morale tekmovati z drugimi operaterji, ki so to pomoč lahko pridobili.
Non-applicability of the derogations provided for in Article 87(2) and (3)
Neuporaba izjem iz člena 87(2) in (3)
For the following reasons, none of the derogations provided for in Article 87(2) and (3) (formerly Article 92(2) and (3)) may be applied.
Iz spodaj navedenih razlogov ni mogla biti uporabljena nobena od izjem iz člena 87(2) in (3) (prej člen 92(2) in (3)).
The Italian authorities stated that the aid was required to allow the development of a region beset by difficult economic circumstances.
Italijanski organi zatrjujejo, da je bila pomoč potrebna, da omogoči razvoj regije, za katero so značilni težki gospodarski pogoji.
Although Sardinia is a region eligible for regional aid, the derogation provided for in Article 87(3)(a), of the Treaty cannot be applied because the aid in question was not granted for the purpose of promoting regional development but simply to benefit shipping companies.
Čeprav je Sardinija regija, upravičena do regionalnih pomoči, se izjema, predvidena v členu 87(3)(a) Pogodbe, ne more uporabiti, saj navedene pomoči niso odobrene za spodbujanje regionalnega razvoja, ampak le za korist ladijskih družb.
The Italian authorities failed to demonstrate sufficiently how the aid schemes benefiting Sardinia shipping companies enabled development of the region under the terms of Community laws applicable at that time, i.e. the Commission communication on the method of application of Article 92(3)(a) and (c) to regional aid [12].
Italijanski organi niso zadovoljivo utemeljili, na kakšen način naj bi shema pomoči za sardinske ladijske družbe omogočila razvoj regije v smislu tedaj veljavne zakonodaje Skupnosti, tj. Sporočila Komisije o načinu uporabe člena 92(3)(a) in (c) za regionalne pomoči [12].
Although the region of Sardinia was included in the list of proposed regions for the purpose of Article 92(3)(a), (see Annex I to the above mentioned Communication), it has not been shown that the measure was necessary as an aid to initial investment or to job creation, or that it could be considered a short-term operational aid to compensate for particular or permanent regional disadvantages, allowing sustainable and balanced development without giving rise to excess capacity in the sector in question.
Čeprav je sardinska regija na seznamu regij, predlaganih za namene člena 92(3)(a) (glej Prilogo I zgoraj navedenega Sporočila), ni bilo dokazano, da bi bil ukrep potreben kot zagonska pomoč za naložbe ali za odpiranje delovnih mest, niti da bi to pomoč lahko šteli kot pomoč za poslovanje, ki je časovno omejena in namenjena premagovanju posebnih ali stalnih razvojnih ovir regije ter omogočanju trajnostnega in uravnoteženega razvoja, ne da bi sprožila presežek zmogljivosti zadevnega sektorja.
The communication also states that any regional aid should respect the Community guidelines laid down for given industrial sectors such as the shipbuilding sector, which is not the case in the aid scheme in question, as will be shown below.
Poleg tega Sporočilo potrjuje, da mora kakršna koli regionalna pomoč upoštevati smernice Skupnosti za nekatere industrijske sektorje, kakršen je ladjedelništvo, kar pa ne velja za navedeno shemo pomoči, kot je razloženo v nadaljevanju.
The aid could not therefore benefit from the derogation in Article 87(3)(a).
Za pomoč torej ne velja izjema iz člena 87(3)(a).
Nor may the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) on aid for the purpose of promoting the development of certain economic activities be relied upon since the scheme in question does not respect Community guidelines in force during the period 1988-96.
Prav tako ni bilo mogoče uporabiti izjeme iz člena 87(3)(c), ki se nanaša na pomoči, namenjene podpiranju razvoja nekaterih gospodarskih dejavnosti, saj zadevna shema ne upošteva smernic Skupnosti, veljavnih v obdobju 1988–1996.
The relevant regulations in force at the time, i.e., Chapter II of Annex I to the 1989 guidelines on State aid to shipping companies [13], provided that such aid may be granted on the condition that it did not alter trade conditions to an extent contrary to common interest.
Tedaj veljavna zakonodaja na tem področju, tj. Priloga I, naslov II smernic iz leta 1989 o državnih pomočeh ladijskim družbam [13], je pravzaprav predvidevala, da bi te pomoči lahko bile odobrene pod pogojem, da ne spreminjajo pogojev trgovanja tako, da bi bilo to v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
Chapter II(6) of Annex I to the 1989 guidelines on State aid to shipping companies provided that aid could be granted to shipping companies for the building, conversion or repair of ships only on condition that they were calculated within limits established by Community law and in particular by Council Directive 87/167/EEC of 26 January 1987 on aid for shipbuilding [14] and by Council Directive 90/684/EEC [15] and Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/95 [16].
Poleg tega Poglavje II(6) Priloge I zgoraj navedenih smernic iz leta 1989 o državnih pomočeh ladijskim družbam določa, da bi se jim pomoči lahko odobrile za izgradnjo, preurejanje ali popravilo plovil samo pod pogojem, da se izračunajo v mejah, določenih z zakonodajo Skupnosti in zlasti z Direktivo Sveta 87/167/EGS z dne 26. januarja 1987 o pomoči ladjedelništvu [14], ki sta ji sledili Direktiva Sveta 90/684/EGS [15] in Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 3094/95 [16].
Article 4 of Directive 87/167/EEC provided as follows: production aid in favour of shipbuilding and ship conversion may be considered compatible with the common market provided that the total amount of aid granted in support of any individual contract does not exceed, in grant equivalent, a common maximum ceiling expressed as a percentage of the contract value before aid, hereinafter referred to as the ceiling.
Člen 4 Direktive 87/167/EGS določa, da pomoči za dejavnosti, povezane z ladjedelništvom in preurejanjem plovil, veljajo za združljive s skupnim trgom pod pogojem, da skupna pomoč, odobrena s posamezno pogodbo, ali protivrednost subvencije ne presega največjega skupnega zneska, izraženega v odstotku pogodbene vrednosti pred prejetjem pomoči, v nadaljevanju imenovana „maksimalna vrednost“.