natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In reply, the Commission notes that the total value of French exports of fishery and aquaculture products to the rest of the world was EUR 1290 million in 2005, 80 % of which went to the Member States of the European Union.
Komisija odgovarja, da je skupna vrednost izvoza ribiških proizvodov in proizvodov iz ribogojstva Francije v svet leta 2005 dosegla 1290 milijonov EUR, od tega je bilo 80 % izvoza v države članice Evropske unije.
Similarly, the total value of imports of this category of products to France in 2005 was EUR 3693 million, 40 to 60 % of which, according to sources, came from the Member States of the European Union [22].
Prav tako je skupna vrednost uvoza te vrste proizvodov v Francijo leta 2005 znašala 3693 milijonov EUR, od tega je glede na vire 40–60 % uvoza prihajalo iz držav članic Evropske unije [22].
By comparison, the total value of French production was EUR 1868 million. Consequently, without going into a detailed quantified economic analysis [23], it is clear that, regardless of the price variations for each species recorded each day in French or European ports, the volume of trade in the supply balance of fishery and aquaculture products between France and the rest of Europe is considerable.
Za primerjavo: skupna vrednost francoske proizvodnje je bila 1868 milijonov EUR. Zato je očitno, ne da bi bilo treba opraviti izjemno podrobno ekonomsko analizo [23], da ima ne glede na spremembe cen za posamezne vrste, ugotovljene vsak dan v francoskih ali evropskih pristaniščih, obseg trgovine med Francijo in preostalo Evropo bistveno težo v bilanci oskrbe z ribiškimi proizvodi in proizvodi iz ribogojstva.
Measures aimed at favouring a significant number of French fisheries undertakings (more than 30 % of the fleet) by reducing their running costs necessarily have an impact on trade between Member States in the fisheries sector.
Ukrepi za spodbujanje številnih francoskih ribiških podjetij (več kot 30 % ladjevja) z zmanjševanjem njihovih proizvodnih stroškov so nujno imeli vpliv na trgovino med državami članicami na področju ribištva.
It is therefore clear that the advantage enjoyed by fisheries undertakings by bearing part of their running costs affects trade between Member States.
Torej je očitno, da ugodnost, ki so je bila ribiška podjetja deležna s tem, ko je bil prevzet del njihovih proizvodnih stroškov, vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
The four requirements for establishing the existence of State aid are only partially met.
Štirje pogoji, potrebni za ugotovitev obstoja državne pomoči, so samo delno izpolnjeni.
The advantage enjoyed by fisheries undertakings does result from the use of State resources, it distorts or threatens to distort competition and it affects trade between Member States.
Ugodnost, ki so je bila deležna ribiška podjetja, je posledica uporabe državnih sredstev, izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
On the other hand, it is imputable to the State only up to the amount of the advances, since those advances constitute only a part of the FPAP’s liquid assets and the State did not intervene in the choices made by the FPAP to make profitable use of the funds placed at its disposal.
Nasprotno pa jo je mogoče pripisati državi samo v okviru zneska predplačil, ker so ta predplačila samo del denarnih sredstev FPAP in ker država ni sodelovala pri odločitvah FPAP za oplemenitenje sredstev, ki so mu bila dana na voljo.
Thus, the Commission concludes that State aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty exists only to the extent of the public funding provided, i.e. EUR 65 or 77 million.
Komisija tako lahko ugotovi obstoj državne pomoči v smislu člena 87 Pogodbe ES samo v okviru vložka javnih sredstev, to je 65 ali 77 milijonov EUR.
Finally, the Commission observes that the French authorities, notwithstanding their replies of 7 October 2005 and 21 April 2006, do not actually dispute the Commission’s conclusions on the existence of State aid.
Komisija nazadnje ugotavlja, da francoski organi ne glede na odgovore z dne 7. oktobra 2005 in 21. aprila 2006 v resnici ne izpodbijajo ugotovitev Komisije o obstoju državne pomoči.
This is because, during the examination of the draft finance act for 2007 by the national parliament, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, questioned on the future of the FPAP, replied: ‘the FPAP has been operational since 1 November 2004, but the European Commission is monitoring it closely, because it involves State aid’ [24].
Minister za kmetijstvo in ribištvo, ki so ga ob preučitvi osnutka zakona o javnih financah za leto 2007 v Nacionalni skupščini vprašali o prihodnosti FPAP, je namreč odgovoril: „FPAP deluje od 1. novembra 2004, vendar ga Evropska komisija pozorno spremlja, saj gre za državno pomoč“ [24].
Under Article 87(2)(3) of the Treaty, certain categories of aid are or may be considered compatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe se nekatere vrste pomoči štejejo ali se lahko štejejo za združljive s skupnim trgom.
The Commission observes that this aid does not match any of the cases provided for in Article 87(2) of the Treaty.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ta pomoč ne ustreza primerom iz člena 87(2) Pogodbe.
In arguing that the FPAP acted as ‘a consumer defence organisation’ or as a ‘union of consumers of petroleum products’, MQA seems to suggest that aid for fisheries undertakings could be treated as ‘aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers’ as provided for in Article 87(2).
Zdi se, da MQA s trditvijo, da je FPAP ravnal kot „organizacija za varstvo potrošnikov“ ali kot „združevalec potrošnikov naftnih proizvodov“, predlaga, da bi se pomoč za ribiška podjetja lahko štela za „pomoč socialnega značaja, dodeljeno posameznim potrošnikom“ iz člena 87(1).
In this respect, the Commission would only observe that that paragraph refers specifically to ‘individual consumers’ and not undertakings, and that, consequently, it cannot apply to the present case (see also recital 50 of this Decision).
Komisija v zvezi s tem samo ugotavlja, da se ta odstavek izrecno nanaša na „posamezne potrošnike“ in ne na podjetja ter da se posledično ne more uporabljati za obravnavani primer (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 50 te odločbe).
This aid is therefore not compatible with the common market under Article 87(2)(a) of the Treaty.
Ta pomoč torej ni združljiva s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 87(2)(a) Pogodbe.
The aid is not aid intended to make good damage caused by natural disasters or other exceptional occurrences, since fluctuations in oil prices are inherent in economic activity.
Ta pomoč ni pomoč za povrnitev škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki. Nihanja cen nafte so namreč bistveno povezana z gospodarsko dejavnostjo.
They also affect other sectors of activity which consume petroleum products in all Member States of the European Union and cannot be regarded as a natural disaster or an exceptional occurrence within the meaning of Article 87(2)(b).
Ta nihanja zadevajo tudi druge sektorje dejavnosti potrošnikov naftnih proizvodov v vseh državah članicah Evropske unije in jih ni mogoče šteti za naravne nesreče ali izjemne dogodke v smislu člena 87(2)(b).
However, MQA objects to this analysis, arguing that the aid does result from an exceptional situation ‘since the Commission itself admits the sector’s exceptional economic and social difficulties’.
Vendar MQA nasprotuje tej analizi in trdi, da je pomoč posledica izjemnega položaja, „saj Komisija sama priznava izredne ekonomske in socialne težave tega sektorja“.
It is certainly true that the fisheries sector has to cope with particular difficulties which the Commission analysed in detail in its communication of 9 March 2006 entitled ‘improving the economic situation in the fishing industry’ [25].
Seveda je res, da se mora ribiški sektor srečevati s posebnimi težavami, ki jih je Komisija podrobno analizirala v Sporočilu z dne 9. marca 2006 o izboljšanju gospodarskih razmer v ribiški industriji [25].
In this communication, the Commission showed that the sources of the sector’s economic and social difficulties lie in its inadequate structural adjustment to the constraints to which its activity is subject.
Komisija je v tem sporočilu pokazala, da so razlogi gospodarskih in socialnih težav sektorja v njegovi strukturni neprilagojenosti omejitvam, ki bremenijo njegovo dejavnost.
It also set out various proposals for overcoming the fisheries sector’s economic difficulties.
Poleg tega je v tem sporočilu predstavila več predlogov za rešitev gospodarskih težav ribiškega sektorja.
Examining the compatibility of certain operating aid, it points out very clearly:‘The current difficulties in the fishing industry have been aggravated by the recent increase in fuel prices.
Komisija je preučila združljivost nekaterih vrst pomoči za tekoče poslovanje in zelo jasno navedla: „Obstoječe težave ribiške industrije je povečalo nedavno zvišanje cen goriva.
This has led to calls from the fishing industry for public intervention to compensate for this sudden increase in costs.
Zato je ribiška industrija zahtevala javno posredovanje zaradi kompenzacije tega nenadnega povišanja stroškov.
Such aid would constitute operating aid which is incompatible with the Treaty.
Takšna pomoč bi pomenila pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki ni združljiva s Pogodbo.
The Commission would not approve any aid notified for this purpose’. Referring to a guarantee scheme comparable to that initially thought of when the FPAP was set up, it adds ‘The Commission could approve such a scheme only if it were to provide guarantees of reimbursement of all public aid under commercial conditions, which, in the current economic circumstances, seems very unlikely’.
Komisija ne more odobriti nobene pomoči, priglašene za ta namen.“ Nato je omenila garancijsko shemo, primerljivo shemi, ki je bila prvotno zasnovana ob ustanovitvi FPAP, in dodala, da bi „Komisija takšno shemo odobrila le, če bi zagotavljala povračilo celotne javne pomoči v skladu s trgovinskimi pogoji, kar se v zdajšnjih gospodarskih razmerah zdi zelo neverjetno“.
Fluctuations in the cost of inputs, including fuel, are inherent in economic activity and cannot in themselves constitute an exceptional occurrence.
Nihanja cene vnosov, med drugim cene goriva, so bistveno povezana z gospodarsko dejavnostjo in ne morejo biti sama po sebi izjemen dogodek.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the State aid in question enjoyed by the fisheries undertakings is not compatible with the common market under Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty.
Ob upoštevanju zgornjega Komisija ugotavlja, da zadevna državna pomoč, ki so jo prejela ribiška podjetja, ni združljiva s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena 87(2)(b) Pogodbe.
Nor can the aid be considered compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 87(3) of the Treaty and the various cases which it provides for.
Te pomoči tudi ni mogoče šteti za združljivo s skupnim trgom na podlagi uporabe člena 87(3) Pogodbe z drugimi primeri iz tega člena.
It is not aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment (the case provided for in Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty).
Ne gre za pomoč za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali brezposelnost velika (primer iz člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe).
This aid is intended to reduce the running costs of fisheries undertakings.
Namen te pomoči je zmanjšati operativne stroške ribiških podjetij.
Admittedly, the FPAP points out that the aid is intended to facilitate the maintenance of fishing within a regional framework.
FPAP seveda trdi, da je cilj te pomoči olajšati ohranjanje ribištva v regionalnem okviru.
However, the Commission notes that the aid is granted to fisheries undertakings regardless of their registered place of business or the home port of the vessels that they operate.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da se ta pomoč odobri ribiškim podjetjem ne glede na kraj sedeža teh podjetij ali matično pristanišče plovil, ki jih uporabljajo.
It therefore bears no relation to the aid referred to in Article 87(3)(a).
Pomoč torej ni povezana s pomočjo iz navedene točke (a).
Nor can the aid be regarded as aid intended to promote the implementation of an important project of common European interest or as aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State.
Ta pomoč se torej ne more več šteti za pomoč za pospeševanje izvedbe pomembnega projekta skupnega evropskega interesa ali za odpravljanje resne motnje v gospodarstvu države članice.
It bears no relation to an important project of common European interest.
Pomoč ni povezana s pomembnim projektom evropskega interesa.
Nor can it be described as aid intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State.
Prav tako je ni mogoče opredeliti kot pomoč za odpravljanje resne motnje v gospodarstvu države članice.
This is because the aid granted to fisheries undertakings is aimed at remedying the difficulties of undertakings in an individual economic sector and not undertakings in the French economy as a whole.
Namen pomoči, odobrene ribiškim podjetjem, je namreč odpraviti težave podjetij v posebnem gospodarskem sektorju in ne težav celotnega francoskega gospodarstva.
The sectoral nature of this aid is undeniable since the rise in the cost of oil not only affected undertakings in the fisheries sector but all undertakings across all sectors of activity.
Sektorski značaj te pomoči je torej nesporen, ker zvišanje cen nafte ni prizadelo samo podjetij v ribiškem sektorju, ampak vsa podjetja v vseh sektorjih dejavnosti.
And, in this respect, the Commission has always taken the view that the public authorities should not intervene financially to compensate for the rise, but on the contrary provide incentives for undertakings to adapt to the resultant new economic conditions.
Komisija je v zvezi s tem vedno menila, da organom oblasti ni treba finančno pomagati za nadomestitev tega zvišanja, ampak morajo nasprotno spodbujati podjetja k prilagajanju novim gospodarskim razmeram, ki so posledica tega zvišanja.
Thus, in view of all these factors, the Commission considers that the FPAP for fisheries undertakings cannot be considered compatible under Article 87(3)(b).
Tako Komisija ob upoštevanju vseh teh dejavnikov sklepa, da pomoči FPAP za ribiška podjetja ni mogoče šteti za združljivo na podlagi člena 87(3)(b).
As regards Article 87(3)(c), the reduction of fuel expenditure cannot, in itself, meet the requirements it lays down, according to which aid intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic regions may be compatible with the common market where it does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent that is contrary to the common interest.
Kar zadeva člen 87(3)(c), zmanjšanje izdatkov za gorivo samo po sebi ne more izpolnjevati pogoja iz navedene točke (c), v kateri je določeno, da se kot združljivo s skupnim trgom lahko šteje pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih regij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
This is because the aid in question is not aimed at encouraging the development of fishing activities towards sustainable fishing, in accordance with the objectives of the common fisheries policy. On the contrary it maintains the level of fishing effort without providing fisheries undertakings with any incentive to reduce their fuel expenditure.
Namen zadevne pomoči namreč ni spodbujati razvoj ribiških dejavnosti v smislu trajnostnega ribolova v skladu s cilji skupne ribiške politike, ampak, nasprotno, podaljševati ravni ribolovnega napora brez spodbujanja ribiških podjetij k zmanjševanju izdatkov za gorivo.
Consequently, their effect is to slow down the necessary adaptation of fisheries undertakings to the constraints resulting from the rise in the price of oil.
Zato je njihova posledica, da se podjetja v ribiškem sektorju počasneje prilagajajo omejitvam, ki so posledica zvišanja cen nafte.
Moreover, this activity is not linked to a particular economic area.
Poleg tega ta dejavnost ni vezana na določeno gospodarsko regijo.
Lastly, this type of aid obviously does not fall under aid to promote culture and heritage conservation or aid considered compatible with the common market by Decision of the Council adopted in accordance with Article 87(3)(e).
Te vrste pomoči očitno tudi niso med pomočmi za pospeševanje kulture in ohranjanja kulturne dediščine niti med pomočmi, ki se štejejo za združljive s skupnim trgom na podlagi odločbe Sveta, sprejete v skladu s členom 87(3)(e).
The result of all these factors is that the State aid granted to fisheries undertakings to reduce their fuel expenditure is not covered by any of the derogations provided for in Article 87 of the Treaty.
Iz vseh teh dejstev izhaja, da državna pomoč, podeljena ribiškim podjetjem za zmanjšanje njihovih izdatkov za gorivo, ne ustreza nobenemu odstopanju iz člena 87 Pogodbe.
Since this is aid for fisheries undertakings, it must also be assessed in the light of the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture (‘Guidelines’ in the following).
Pomoč za ribiška podjetja je treba analizirati z vidika Smernic za pregled državnih pomoči za ribištvo in ribogojstvo (v nadaljnjem besedilu „Smernice“).
The effect of the aid is to reduce the running costs of fisheries undertakings.
Posledica te pomoči je zmanjšanje proizvodnih stroškov ribiških podjetij.
It displays the characteristics of operating aid.
Imajo značaj pomoči za tekoče poslovanje.
First of all the Commission would point out that, under point 3.5 of the Guidelines, ‘State aid may not be protective in its effect: it must serve to promote the rationalisation and efficiency of the production and marketing of fishery products.
Komisija najprej opozarja, da je v točki 3.5 teh smernic določeno, naj „državne pomoči v svojem delovanju ne bodo zaščitne: služiti morajo spodbujanju racionalizacije in učinkovitosti proizvodnje ter trženja ribiških proizvodov.
Any such aid must yield lasting improvements so that the industry can develop solely on the basis of market earnings’.
Vsaka taka pomoč mora doprinesti k trajnim izboljšavam, tako da se industrija lahko razvija izključno na podlagi zaslužkov od trženja.“
However, as set out in recital 115(c) of this Decision, the reduction in fuel expenditure is not aimed at developing fisheries activities towards sustainable fishing, in accordance with the objectives of the common fisheries policy, but the continuation of the fisheries undertakings’ activity unchanged.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 115(c) te odločbe, namen zmanjšanja izdatkov za gorivo ni razvoj ribolovnih dejavnosti v smislu trajnostnega razvoja, skladnega s cilji skupne ribiške politike, ampak ohranjanje enake dejavnosti ribiških podjetij.
This is why the Commission takes the view that this aid is indeed protective in its effect, as referred to in point 3.5 of the Guidelines, and therefore cannot be considered compatible with the principle laid down by the Guidelines.
Komisija zato sklepa, da ima ta pomoč zaščitni značaj iz točke 3.5 Smernic in se torej ne more šteti za združljivo z načelom, določenim v Smernicah.
It is true that, in its replies to the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, France indicated that ‘the actions of the FPAP anticipated useful measures which the recovery and restructuring plans, once ratified, will only illustrate and confirm’.
Francija je v odgovorih na začetek formalnega postopka preiskave seveda trdila, da „so ukrepi FPAP prehiteli ustrezne ukrepe, ki jih bodo načrti za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, ko bodo enkrat potrjeni, samo ponazorili in potrdili“.
However, it was only much later, in January 2008, that France informed the Commission of the implementation of measures presented as being aid schemes for the rescue and restructuring of fisheries undertakings, registered by the Commission under number NN 09/08 and currently in the process of being assessed.
Vendar je Francija šele veliko pozneje – januarja 2008 – obvestila Komisijo o izvajanju ukrepov, ki jih je predstavila kot ukrepe pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje za ribiška podjetja, ki jih je Komisija evidentirala pod številko NN 09/2008 in se sedaj preučujejo.
Nevertheless, even if France’s argument, i.e. that the action taken by the FPAP anticipates to a certain degree the aid schemes for rescue and restructuring, is accepted, that does not affect their compatibility with the common market as a result of the fundamental differences between the measures implemented by the FPAP and the requirements which the aid schemes for the rescue and restructuring of undertakings must meet, which are described in the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [26].
Čeprav torej sprejmemo trditev Francije, da naj bi ukrepi FPAP nekako prehiteli te ukrepe pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, to ne vpliva na njihovo združljivost s skupnim trgom zaradi temeljnih razlik med ukrepi, ki jih izvaja FPAP, in pogoji, ki jih morajo izpolnjevati programi pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij in so opisani v Smernicah Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [26].
This is because, contrary to what is required in those guidelines, the aid resulting from the action taken by the FPAP was granted indiscriminately to all fisheries undertakings and not only to undertakings in difficulty.
V nasprotju z zahtevami v Smernicah so bile namreč pomoči, ki izhajajo iz ukrepov FPAP, dodeljene brez razlikovanja vsem ribiškim podjetjem in ne samo podjetjem v težavah.
Moreover, rescue aid may not exceed a period of six months and must take the form of a repayable loan or a guarantee. As regards restructuring aid, it must be granted under specific conditions and for a limited duration.
Po drugi strani pomoč za reševanje ne sme trajati dlje od šestih mesecev in mora imeti obliko vračljivega posojila ali poroštva; pomoč za prestrukturiranje pa se mora dodeliti v določenih pogojih za omejeno obdobje.
However, the aid granted by France via the FPAP does not meet any of the conditions laid down: fisheries undertakings have been receiving this aid since 2004, it is not granted in the form of a loan or guarantee, and no provision has been made for its repayment under a restructuring plan.
Pomoč, ki jo je Francija podelila prek FPAP, ne izpolnjuje nobenega od zahtevanih pogojev: ribiška podjetja prejemajo to pomoč od leta 2004, pomoč ni odobrena v obliki posojila ali poroštva in njeno povračilo v okviru načrta za prestrukturiranje ni predvideno.
The FPAP also considers that the aid granted is justified by the fact that in reality it is aid for employees’ income.
FPAP tudi meni, da je podeljena pomoč utemeljena s tem, da gre v resnici za pomoč za prihodke zaposlenih.
It does not affect the competition rules in any way.
V ničemer ne vpliva na pravila o konkurenci.
On the contrary, it is in line with the Community principles guaranteeing employees a fair minimum income’. The FPAP goes on to state that the system of payment for fishermen in France by giving them a share of the crew’s profit has had the effect of depriving the employees of fisheries undertakings of their wages or even putting them in debt to the shipowners.
Nasprotno pa izhaja iz načel Skupnosti, ki zaposlenim zagotavljajo dostojen minimalni dohodek.“ FPAP nadalje trdi, da bi bila v Franciji posledica sistema plačevanja mornarjev po količini ulova, da bi zaposleni v ribiških podjetjih ostali brez plače ali bili celo dolžni ladjarjem.
Lastly, it points out that 25 million of the 65 million advance granted by the State ‘directly relate to advances to employees and must be regarded as direct social assistance’.
Nazadnje pojasnjuje, da 25 od 65 milijonov EUR predplačila, ki jih je odobrila država, „zadeva neposredno predplačila zaposlenim in se šteje za neposredno socialno pomoč“.