natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, the Italian authorities stated that recipients were required to choose the regional aid scheme of reference, because they were not allowed to submit applications under different aid schemes for the same project.
Nazadnje, italijanski organi so navedli, da so morali prejemniki izbrati referenčno shemo regionalne pomoči, saj jim ni bilo dovoljeno predložiti zahtevkov na podlagi drugih shem pomoči za isti projekt.
They stressed that the Sardinian regional aid scheme established by Regional Act No 9 of 1998 (N 272/98) and the countrywide regional aid scheme established by the national Act No 488 of 1992 (N 715/99) were exclusive of each other.
Poudarili so, da sta se shema regionalne pomoči Sardinije, ustanovljena z regionalnim zakonom št. 9 iz leta 1998 (N 272/98), in shema regionalne pomoči na ravni države, ustanovljena z nacionalnim zakonom št. 488 iz leta 1992 (N 715/99), izključevali.
Determination of the de minimis threshold
Določitev praga „de minimis“
The Italian authorities contended that the principle of incentive effect was complied with even where the work had begun before the application was submitted under Article 9 of Regional Act No 9 of 1998.
Italijanski organi so zatrdili, da je bilo načelo spodbujevalnega učinka upoštevano tudi v primerih, ko se je projekt začel izvajati pred predložitvijo zahtevka po členu 9 regionalnega zakona št. 9 iz leta 1998.
They argued that the part of the aid granted before the applications were submitted was covered by the de minimis rules.
Trdili so, da je bil del dodeljene pomoči pred predložitvijo zahtevkov zajet v pravilu de minimis.
The part of the aid below the threshold of EUR 100000 that was granted before the application had to be considered separately, taking account only of the costs incurred before that date and not of the entire cost of the project.
Del pomoči pod pragom 100000 EUR, ki je bil dodeljen pred zahtevkom, je bilo treba obravnavati ločeno, upoštevali pa so se le stroški, ki so nastali pred tistim datumom, in ne celotni stroški projekta.
These considerations applied to 12 projects out of 28.
Ti premisleki so veljali za 12 od 28 projektov.
No further comments were received following the notice correcting and extending the scope of the procedure.
Po obvestilu o popravku in razširitvi postopka ni bilo prejetih nobenih dodatnih pripomb.
The assessment of scheme No N 272/98 concluded that the measure constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty because it met all the criteria set out there.
V oceni sheme št. N 272/98 je bilo ugotovljeno, da je ukrep temeljil na državni pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, saj je zadostil vsem merilom, ki so bila tam določena.
The measure provides an economic advantage to a specific category of recipients, reducing their normal costs.
Z ukrepom se zagotavlja gospodarska prednost posebni kategoriji prejemnikov z zniževanjem njihovih običajnih stroškov.
The advantage is granted through state resources, and it threatens to distort competition, because it strengthens the financial position of some undertakings by comparison with their competitors.
Prednost je dodeljena z državnimi sredstvi in bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, saj krepi finančni položaj nekaterih podjetij v primerjavi z njihovo konkurenco.
Since hoteliers in different Member States compete to attract tourists, support given to the tourism sector is likely to affect intra-Community trade [14].
Ker lastniki hotelov v različnih državah članicah tekmujejo v privabljanju turistov, bo podpora turističnemu sektorju po vsej verjetnosti vplivala na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti [14].
The aid scheme notified to the Commission and approved by it under Article 4(3) of the Procedural Regulation constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Shema pomoči, ki je bila priglašena Komisiji in jo je ta odobrila po členu 4(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/99, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
In the context of the appropriate measures exercise, Resolution No 34/73 adjusted the aid intensity to the new regional aid map ceilings, thus ensuring compatibility with the 1998 Guidelines, while Resolution No 33/4 ensured compliance with the principle of incentive effect; the Commission concluded, therefore, that these resolutions did not add any new element to the aid scheme previously approved, scheme No N 272/98.
V smislu izvajanja ustreznih ukrepov je bila v odločbi št. 34/73 prilagojena intenzivnost pomoči novim zgornjim mejam regionalne karte pomoči, s čimer je bila zagotovljena združljivost s smernicami 1998, medtem ko je bila z odločbo št. 33/4 zagotovljena skladnost z načelom spodbujevalnega učinka; Komisija je zato sklenila, da ti odločbi nista dodali nikakršnega novega elementa predhodno odobreni shemi pomoči, to je shemi št. N 272/98.
The Commission takes the view that the transitional provisions introduced by Order No 285 of 1999 might have changed the scheme the Commission had originally approved.
Komisija zavzema stališče, da je bila s prehodnimi določbami, ki so bile uvedene z odredbo št. 285 iz leta 1999, morda spremenjena shema, ki jo je Komisija prvotno odobrila.
The Commission never took any position on that implementing measure, but accepts that it never entered into force, as it was annulled by Resolution No 33/3.
Komisija se ni nikoli opredelila glede tega izvedbenega ukrepa, vendar dopušča, da ni nikoli veljal, saj je bil razveljavljen z odločbo št. 33/3.
Scheme No N 272/98 was changed again on 27 July 2000, with the adoption of Resolutions Nos 33/4 and 33/6.
Shema št. N 272/98 je bila 27. julija 2000 znova spremenjena s sprejetjem odločb št. 33/4 in 33/6.
As explained above (recitals 16-21), Resolution No 33/6 made amendments to the notified measure which were not compatible with the terms of the Commission’s Decision to approve the aid.
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj (v odstavkih od 16 do 21), je bil z odločbo št. 33/6 spremenjen priglašeni ukrep, kar pa ni bilo združljivo s pogoji odločbe Komisije za odobritev pomoči.
As explained in recital 38, the Italian authorities contend that they did notify the Commission of these implementing measures as part of the appropriate measures exercise.
Kot je pojasnjeno v odstavku 38, italijanski organi navajajo, da so uradno obvestili Komisijo o teh izvedbenih ukrepih kot del izvajanja ustreznih ukrepov.
The Commission takes the view that the Italian authorities did not notify the resolutions referred to above, and that as part of the appropriate measures exercise they informed the Commission that Resolution No 33/4 ensured compliance with the principle of incentive effect.
Komisija zavzema stališče, da italijanski organi niso priglasili odločb, omenjenih zgoraj, in da so kot del izvajanja ustreznih ukrepov obvestili Komisijo, da se z odločbo št. 33/4 zagotavlja skladnost z načelom spodbujevalnega učinka.
In the course of that exercise they never informed the Commission of Resolution No 33/6, and thus breached Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty and their duty of cooperation under Article 10 of the Treaty [15].
Med izvajanjem pa niso obvestili Komisije o odločbi št. 33/6 ter so tako kršili člen 88(3) Pogodbe ES in obveznost sodelovanja po členu 10 Pogodbe [15].
The aid scheme thereafter applied by the abovementioned implementing provisions is consequently in contravention of the Commission’s original authorising decision.
Shema pomoči, ki se je zatem izvajala po zgoraj omenjenih izvedbenih določbah, je posledično v nasprotju s prvotno odločbo Komisije o odobritvi.
The aid projects on which work started before any application for aid was made must be therefore be considered unlawful.
Projekte pomoči, ki so se začeli izvajati pred predložitvijo zahtevka za pomoč, je zato treba šteti za nezakonite.
The doubts as to compatibility that the Commission expressed in its letters of 3 February 2004 and 22 November 2006, which opened the formal investigation procedure, have not been challenged either by the Italian authorities or by the interested party.
Dvomom o združljivosti, ki jih je Komisija izrazila v dopisih z dne 3. februarja 2004 in 22. novembra 2006, s katerima je bil sprožen uradni postopek preiskave, niso nasprotovali niti italijanski organi niti zainteresirana stranka.
The Commission therefore confirms its assessment, which can be summarised as follows.
Komisija zato potrjuje svojo oceno, ki jo je mogoče povzeti, kot sledi.
As has been explained, at least 28 investment projects were started at a time when they could not qualify for aid under the scheme.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno, se je najmanj 28 projektov začelo izvajati takrat, ko niso bili upravičeni do pomoči na podlagi sheme.
The 1998 Guidelines require that an application for aid be submitted before work starts on the project.
V smernicah 1998 se zahteva, da mora biti zahtevek za pomoč predložen, preden se projekt začne izvajati.
This requirement was repeated in the Commission Decision of 1998 raising no objection to the regional scheme to assist the hotel industry in Sardinia (N 272/1998); that decision expressly states that the recipients must have applied for aid before work on the project begins.
Ta obveznost je bila ponovljena v odločbi Komisije iz leta 1998, v kateri Komisija ni vložila nobenega ugovora glede sheme regionalne pomoči hotelski industriji na Sardiniji (N 272/1998); v tej odločbi je izrecno navedeno, da so morali prejemniki pomoči zaprositi za pomoč pred začetkom izvajanja dela pri projektu.
Moreover, in the context of the appropriate measures exercise that followed the entry into force of the 1998 Guidelines, the Italian authorities supplied Resolution No 33/4 of 27 July 2000, Article 6 of which expressly states that costs are eligible if incurred after the submission of the application for aid.
Poleg tega so italijanski organi v smislu izvajanja ustreznih ukrepov, ki je sledilo začetku veljavnosti smernic 1998, predložili odločbo št. 33/4 z dne 27. julija 2000, v katere členu 6 je izrecno navedeno, da so stroški upravičeni, če nastanejo po predložitvi zahtevka za pomoč.
The principle of the necessity of aid is a general principle recognised by the Court in its judgment in the Philip Morris case [16], and is clearly an essential consideration when it has to be determined whether investments carried out by undertakings are eligible for aid under the 1998 Guidelines.
Načelo nujnosti pomoči je splošno načelo, ki ga priznava Sodišče v sodbi v zadevi Philip Morris [16], in je nedvoumno bistven premislek, ko je treba določiti, ali so naložbe, ki jih izvajajo podjetja, upravičene do pomoči po smernicah 1998.
The abovementioned Commission Decision and the Guidelines themselves both state that the application for aid must be submitted before work starts on the projects.
V zgoraj omenjeni odločbi Komisije in smernicah je navedeno, da mora biti zahtevek za pomoč predložen, preden se delo pri projektu začne izvajati.
The Italian authorities argue that the system operating in Italy has created a legitimate expectation that a grant will be available merely on the basis of the submission of the application, no matter whether the projects have already started or not.
Italijanski organi trdijo, da je sistem, ki deluje v Italiji, ustvaril upravičena pričakovanja, da bo donacija na razpolago le na podlagi predložitve zahtevka, ne glede na to, ali se je projekt že začel izvajati ali ne.
The Commission cannot accept this argument, as the decision approving the regional aid scheme under investigation explicitly requires that an application for aid be submitted before work on the project begins.
Komisija ne more sprejeti tega argumenta, saj se z odločbo o odobritvi sheme regionalne pomoči, ki se preiskuje, zahteva, naj se zahtevek za pomoč predloži pred začetkom izvajanja dela pri projektu.
Resolution No 33/6 was not sent to the Commission until after the complaint had been lodged.
Odločba št. 33/6 ni bila posredovana Komisiji, dokler ni bila vložena pritožba.
It was transmitted to the Commission only with memo No 5245 dated 22 April 2003, in the course of the procedure following the complaint (CP 15/2003).
Komisiji je bila poslana z obvestilom št. 5245 z dne 22. aprila 2003 med postopkom po pritožbi (CP 15/2003).
The argument of legitimate expectations invoked by the Italian authorities cannot be accepted, because the Commission did not give any specific assurances to the Italian authorities or to any other interested party, and they could not therefore harbour any legitimate expectation that this condition would not apply.
Argument upravičenih pričakovanj, na katerega so se sklicevali italijanski organi, je nesprejemljiv, ker Komisija italijanskim organom ali kateri koli drugi zainteresirani stranki ni posredovala nobenih natančnih zagotovil, da bi lahko upravičeno pričakovali, da ta pogoj ne bo veljal.
‘It is settled case-law that the right to protection of legitimate expectations may be claimed by any individual who finds himself in a position in which it is shown that the Community administration gave rise to justified hopes on his part … However, no one may plead infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in the absence of specific assurances given to him by the administration’ [17].
„V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso velja, da lahko pravico do varstva upravičenih pričakovanj uveljavlja vsak posameznik, ki se znajde v položaju, v katerem je jasno, da je uprava Skupnosti povzročila upravičena pričakovanja … Vendar se nihče ne more sklicevati na kršitev načela varstva upravičenih pričakovanj, če mu uprava Skupnosti ni posredovala natančnih zagotovil“ [17].
Nor can the Commission accept the arguments proposed by the Italian authorities according to which there was an incentive effect where the recipient applied for aid before the work started on the basis of a different regional aid scheme.
Komisija niti ne more sprejeti argumentov, ki so jih predložili italijanski organi, glede na katere je spodbujevalni učinek obstajal, če je prejemnik zaprosil za pomoč pred začetkom izvajanja dela pri projektu na podlagi drugačne sheme regionalne pomoči.
The Commission takes the view that the incentive effect cannot be transferred from one scheme to another, and that the fact that an undertaking has chosen to apply under one scheme or another cannot be accepted as showing that the principle of the incentive effect has been complied with.
Komisija zavzema stališče, da spodbujevalnega učinka ni mogoče prenašati z ene sheme na drugo in da dejstvo, da je podjetje vložilo zahtevek po eni ali drugi shemi, ne more biti sprejeto kot primer upoštevanja načela spodbujevalnega učinka.
The Italian authorities have themselves emphasised (see recital 43) that the recipient may not submit more than one application under different aid schemes in respect of the same project, and that the Sardinian regional aid scheme established by Regional Act No 9 of 1998 (N 272/98) and the countrywide regional aid scheme established by the national Act No 488 of 1992 (N 715/99) are exclusive of each other.
Italijanski organi so sami poudarili (glej odstavek 43), da prejemnik pomoči ne sme predložiti več kot enega zahtevka za isti projekt po različnih shemah pomoči ter da se shema regionalne pomoči Sardinije, ustanovljena na podlagi regionalnega zakona št. 9 iz leta 1998 (N 272/98), in shema regionalne pomoči, ustanovljena na podlagi nacionalnega zakona št. 488 iz leta 1992 (N 715/99), izključujeta.
Nor can the Commission accept the arguments advanced by the Italian authorities according to which there is indeed an incentive effect because the grants are necessary to clear bank loans covering the period between the time when the costs were incurred and the payment of the aid.
Komisija tudi ne more sprejeti argumentov italijanskih oblasti, v skladu s katerimi spodbujevalni učinek obstaja, ker so donacije potrebne za vračilo bančnih posojil za obdobje od nastanka stroškov do plačila pomoči.
The fact that an economic operator is prepared to start work, and to borrow money to finance the costs, does not in any way show that aid is needed for the project to go ahead, or that the aid provides an incentive to undertake a project which would not take place otherwise.
Dejstvo, da je gospodarski subjekt pripravljen začeti delati in vzeti posojilo za financiranje stroškov, nikakor ne kaže, da je pomoč potrebna za nadaljevanje projekta ali da ta pomoč zagotavlja spodbudo za začetek izvajanja projekta, ki se sicer ne bi izvajal.
Quite the reverse, the fact that an economic operator is prepared to start work, and to incur the financial risks inherent in the project, even without submitting an application for aid under the relevant scheme, suggests that the aid is not needed in order to provide an incentive.
Ravno nasprotno, dejstvo, da je gospodarski subjekt pripravljen začeti delo in prevzeti finančno tveganje, povezano s projektom, brez predložitve zahtevka za pomoč po ustrezni shemi, kaže, da pomoč ni potrebna za spodbudo.
Lastly, the Commission cannot accept the Italian authorities’ arguments with regard to the de minimis rule, because the de minimis rule cannot be invoked to circumvent the obligation contained in the Guidelines that in order to comply with the principle of incentive effect the application must be submitted before work is started on the project.
Nazadnje, Komisija ne more sprejeti argumentov italijanskih organov glede pravila de minimis, saj se ni mogoče sklicevati na pravilo de minimis, da bi obšli obveznosti iz smernic, da je treba za zagotovitev načela spodbujevalnega učinka zahtevke predložiti pred začetkom izvajanja dela pri projektu.
The sum to be considered must relate to the project in its entirety, and not just the section granted before the application for aid.
Vsota, ki jo je treba upoštevati, se mora nanašati na projekt v celoti in ne le na del, ki je bil dodeljen pred zahtevkom za pomoč.
The Commission cannot accept the suggestion that it ought to consider the initial work eligible under the de minimis rule, thus taking it outside the scope of the Guidelines.
Komisija ne more sprejeti predloga, da bi morala začeto delo šteti za upravičeno po pravilu de minimis in ga s tem obravnavati zunaj okvira smernic.
Furthermore, not only have the Italian authorities failed to consider the projects in their entirety when calculating the de minimis threshold, but the same recipient may have received de minimis aid from other sources, and the Commission understands that the Italian authorities did not take this aspect into account.
Poleg tega pri izračunu praga de minimis italijanski organi niso upoštevali projektov v celoti, pač pa je isti prejemnik lahko prejel pomoč de minimis iz drugih virov, in Komisija razume, da italijanski organi tega vidika niso upoštevali.
In conclusion, the Commission takes the view that the Italian authorities have failed to demonstrate that the aid was granted in accordance with the terms of the Commission’s approval decision.
Če povzamemo, Komisija zavzema stališče, da italijanski organi niso dokazali, da je bila pomoč dodeljena v skladu s pogoji odločbe Komisije o odobritvi.
Even if this aid were to be considered operating aid, it could not be considered compatible.
Tudi če bi to pomoč šteli za pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, je ne bi bilo mogoče šteti za združljivo.
Under the 1998 Guidelines operating aid may be granted on an exceptional basis in regions eligible under the exemption in Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty.
Po smernicah 1998 je pomoč za tekoče poslovanje v izjemnem primeru mogoče dodeliti regijam, upravičenim na podlagi izjeme po členu 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES.
Sardinia was eligible for aid under Article 87(3)(a) during the period 1998-2006.
Sardinija je bila upravičena do pomoči po členu 87(3)(a) v obdobju 1998–2006.
With the exception of de minimis aid, however, no operating aid was approved under the scheme in question.
Vendar razen pomoči de minimis na podlagi zadevne sheme ni bila odobrena nobena pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
Furthermore, the Italian authorities have not produced any evidence in the context of this investigation that might demonstrate that the aid was justified by its contribution to regional development, or its nature, nor have they shown that it is proportionate to the handicaps it seeks to alleviate.
Poleg tega niso italijanski organi predložili nobenega dokaza znotraj te preiskave, s katerim bi dokazali, da je bila pomoč upravičena zaradi svojega prispevka k regionalnemu razvoju ali zaradi svoje narave, niti niso dokazali, da je sorazmerna s pomanjkljivostmi, ki jih želi ublažiti.
The Italian authorities have not put forward any arguments to suggest the aid concerned might be compatible with other Treaty provisions, state aid rules, frameworks or guidelines.
Italijanski organi niso navedli nobenih razlogov, s katerimi bi dokazali, da bi bila lahko zadevna pomoč združljiva z drugimi določbami Pogodbe ES, pravili o državni pomoči, okviri ali smernicami.
Nor has the Commission been able to identify any other basis for the approval of the aid.
Komisija niti ni mogla opredeliti nobene druge podlage za odobritev pomoči.
As explained above, the measure does not qualify for exemption under Article 87(3)(c), which provides for authorisation to be granted for aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent that is contrary to the common interest.
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, ukrep ne izpolnjuje pogojev za izjemo po členu 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, v katerem je določena dodelitev pomoči za pospeševanje razvoja nekaterih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali nekaterih gospodarskih območij, kadar taka pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
The exemptions in Article 87(2), which concern aid that has a social character and is granted to individual consumers, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences, and aid granted to certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany, do not apply in this case.
Izjeme iz člena 87(2) Pogodbe ES, ki zadevajo pomoč socialnega značaja, dodeljeno posameznim potrošnikom, pomoč za povrnitev škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki, in pomoč, dodeljeno nekaterim območjem Zvezne republike Nemčije, v tem primeru ne veljajo.
The measure cannot be considered to be an important project of common European interest, or to remedy a serious disturbance in the Italian economy as provided for in Article 87(3)(b).
Ukrepa ni mogoče obravnavati kot pomembnega projekta skupnega evropskega interesa ali ukrepa za odpravljanje resne motnje v gospodarstvu Italije, kot je opredeljeno v členu 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES.
The measure does not have as its objective the promotion of culture and heritage conservation provided for in Article 87(3)(d).
Ukrep ni namenjen pospeševanju kulture in ohranjanju kulturne dediščine, kot je določeno v členu 87(3)(d) Pogodbe ES.
Accordingly, the Commission considers incompatible with the common market the aid presumably granted to projects on which work had started before the submission of an application for aid under the regional scheme of assistance to the hotel industry in the Region of Sardinia, approved by the Commission in 1998 (N 272/98), as implemented by Resolution No 33/6 in connection with the first call for applications.
Komisija ima tako pomoč, ki je bila predvidoma dodeljena projektom, pri katerih se je delo začelo izvajati pred predložitvijo zahtevka za pomoč po shemi regionalne pomoči hotelski industriji v regiji Sardinija, ki jo je Komisija odobrila leta 1998 (N 272/98) in ki se uveljavlja z odločbo št. 33/6 v povezavi s prvim razpisom za zahtevke, za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom.