natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since less then ten years have elapsed since the restructuring period of Sachsen Zweirad GmbH came to an end and since the Commission is not aware of any exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances, the ‘one time — last time’ condition has not been met in granting the two guarantees.
Ker je od zaključka faze prestrukturiranja podjetja Sachsen Zweirad GmbH minilo manj kot 10 let in ker Komisija ni seznanjena z izrednimi ali nepredvidljivimi okoliščinami, načelo enkratnosti pomoči pri zagotovitvi obeh jamstev ni bilo upoštevano.
Measure 1: a silent participation of EUR 2070732 provided to Bike Systems GmbH & Co. Thüringer Zweiradwerk KG. The aid element corresponds to the difference between the reference interest rate plus 1000 basis points and the remuneration against which the silent participation was provided (fixed remuneration plus 50 % of the variable remuneration);
Ukrep 1: tiha udeležba v podjetju Bike Systems GmbH & Co. Thüringer Zweiradwerk KG v višini 2070732 EUR. Element pomoči ustreza razliki med referenčno mero plus 1000 baznih točk in nadomestilom tihe udeležbe (fiksna mera plus 50 % spremenljivega nadomestila).
The only comparable company is MIFA Mitteldeutsche Fahrradwerke with an annual production of around 700000 bicycles. Other competitors produce only between 250000 and 400000 bicycles a year.
Edino primerljivo podjetje je MIFA Mitteldeutsche Fahrradwerke, ki letno izdela 700000 koles; drugi proizvajalci izdelajo zgolj med 250000 in 400000 koles letno.
The Commission concludes therefore that the silent participation and the two guarantees constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and that the two guarantees were not provided under an approved aid scheme. Measures 1, 2 and 3 thus constitute new aid which has to be assessed accordingly.
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da predstavljajo tiha udeležba in obe jamstvi državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES ter da jamstvi nista bili zagotovljeni v skladu z odobrenim programom pomoči.
on aid scheme C 34/2005 (ex N 113/2005) under Law No 17/2004 (Article 60) of the Region of Sicily which Italy is planning to implement
o shemi pomoči št. C 34/2005 (ex N 113/2005) na podlagi Zakona št. 17/2004 (člena 60) sicilijanske regije, ki jo Italija namerava izvajati
(notified under document number C(2007) 284)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 284)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions [1] and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenimi členi [1], in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
By letter of 9 March 2005, the Italian authorities, acting pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, notified the Commission of an aid measure under Article 60 of Regional Law No 17/2004 laying down planning and financial provisions for 2005.
Z dopisom z dne 9. marca 2005 so italijanski organi v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES Komisiji priglasili ukrep pomoči na podlagi člena 60 Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 o določitvi določb o načrtovanju in finančnih določb za leto 2005.
By letters of 29 March and 10 June 2005, the Commission requested further information on the measure notified.
Z dopisoma z dne 29. marca in 10. junija 2005 je Komisija zahtevala dodatne informacije o priglašenem ukrepu.
The Italian authorities replied by letter of 18 May 2005 following a reminder from the Commission dated 27 April 2005 and by letters of 12 July and 14 July 2005.
Italijanski organi so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 18. maja 2005 po opominu Komisije z dne 27. aprila 2005 in z dopisoma z dne 12. julija in 14. julija 2005.
By letter of 21 September 2005, the Commission informed Italy of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the measure.
Z dopisom z dne 21. septembra 2005 je Komisija Italijo obvestila o svoji odločitvi, da bo v zvezi z ukrepom sprožila postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission Decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2].
Odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [2].
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.
Komisija je pozvala vse zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo svoje pripombe o pomoči.
The Commission received no comments from interested parties.
Komisija ni prejela nobenih pripomb od zainteresiranih strank.
By letter of 10 November 2005, registered as received by it on 15 November 2005, the Italian authorities asked the Commission to suspend the procedure pending the ruling by the Court of Justice in Case C-475/2003 concerning the compatibility of the Italian regional tax on productive activity (IRAP) with Article 33(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment [3].
Z dopisom z dne 10. novembra 2005, ki ga je Komisija evidentirala 15. novembra 2005, so italijanski organi Komisijo pozvali, naj začasno prekine postopek do sodbe Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi C-475/2003 glede združljivosti italijanskega regionalnega davka na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP) s členom 33(1) Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero [3].
The Commission accepted the request by letter of 2 August 2006.
Komisija je po zahtevi z dne 11. julija 2006 sprejela zahtevo z dopisom z dne 2. avgusta 2006.
On 3 October 2006 the Court of Justice declared the IRAP to be compatible with Article 33(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC [4].
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je 3. oktobra 2006 razglasilo, da je italijanski regionalni davek na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP) združljiv s členom 33(1) Direktive 77/388/EGS [4].
By letter of 8 May 2006, registered as received by it on 11 May, the Italian authorities informed the Commission about an amendment to Article 60 of Regional Law No 17/2004, stating that the measure was subject to Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (the de minimis Regulation) [5] not only until authorisation by the Commission but also ‘in the case of a negative decision being adopted by the Commission’.
Z dopisom z dne 8. maja 2006, ki ga je Komisija evidentirala 11. maja, so italijanski organi Komisijo obvestili o spremembi člena 60 Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004, pri čemer so trdili, da je bil ukrep predmet Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri pomoči de minimis (Uredba de minimis) [5] ne samo do odobritve Komisije, temveč tudi, „če Komisija sprejme negativno odločbo“.
According to the Italian authorities, the measure is designed to promote the setting up of new companies and to narrow the gap between companies in Sicily and companies located in other regions of Italy where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment within the meaning of Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
Po trditvah italijanskih organov je namen ukrepa spodbujanje ustanavljanja novih podjetij in zmanjšanje razlik med družbami na Siciliji in družbami iz drugih italijanskih regij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je velika podzaposlenost v smislu člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES.
Moreover, the measure in question is aimed at improving investment prospects in Sicily by raising security levels and preventing criminal behaviour.
Poleg tega je zadevni ukrep namenjen izboljšanju naložbenih možnosti na Siciliji z zvišanjem ravni varnosti in preprečevanjem kaznivih dejanj.
Article 60(1) of Regional Law No 17/2004 provides for a reduction in the rate of IRAP by 1 % in 2005, 0.75 % in 2006 and 0.5 % in 2007 for cooperatives (more precisely, ‘società cooperative a mutualità prevalente’) as defined in the Italian Civil Code [6].
Člen 60(1) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 predvideva znižanje stopnje regionalnega davka na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP) za 1 % v letu 2005, 0,75 % v letu 2006 in 0,5 % v letu 2007 za zadruge (natančneje „società cooperative a mutualità prevalente“), kot so opredeljene v italijanskem Civilnem zakoniku [6].
Article 60(2) of Regional Law No 17/2004 extends the same benefit to private security firms as defined in Royal Decree No 773/1931 of 18 June 1931, which defines the conditions under which entities and private persons may be authorised by the provincial prefect (‘prefetto’) to provide security services for movable and immovable property and private investigation services [7].
Člen 60(2) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 razširja isto ugodnost na zasebne družbe za varovanje, kot so opredeljene v Kraljevi uredbi št. 773/1931 z dne 18. junija 1931, ki določa pogoje, na podlagi katerih lahko provincialni prefekt („prefetto“) subjektom in posameznikom dovoli, da zagotavljajo storitve varovanja premičnin in nepremičnin ter storitve zasebnega preiskovanja [7].
Reductions in the IRAP rate are decided by the Region of Sicily by virtue of the power to modify the rate conferred on all regions in Italy under the relevant national legislation [8].
Znižanja stopnje regionalnega davka na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP) določa sicilijanska regija v okviru pooblastila za spremembo stopnje, dodeljene vsem regijam v Italiji v skladu z ustrezno nacionalno zakonodajo [8].
The Italian authorities estimate that the budgetary impact of Article 60 will be around EUR 2 million for the entire period 2005-2007.
Italijanski organi ocenjujejo, da bo proračunski vpliv člena 60 znašal okoli 2 milijona EUR za celotno obdobje 2005–2007.
The measure in question may be cumulated with aid received under other local, regional, national or Community schemes to cover the same eligible costs.
Zadevni ukrep se ne sme kumulirati s pomočjo, prejeto v okviru drugih lokalnih, regionalnih in nacionalnih shem ali shem Skupnosti za kritje istih upravičenih stroškov.
Regional Law No 17/2004 entered into force on 29 December 2004, but Article 60 states that the measure is subject to the de minimis Regulation until authorisation by the Commission.
Regionalni zakon št. 17/2004 je začel veljati dne 29. decembra 2004, vendar člen 60 določa, da je do odobritve Evropske komisije ukrep predmet Uredbe de minimis.
By letter of 16 May 2006, the Italian authorities stated that the measure was subject to the de minimis Regulation also in the case of a negative decision being adopted by the Commission.
V dopisu z dne 16. maja 2006 so italijanski organi trdili, da je ukrep predmet Uredbe de minimis, tudi če Komisija sprejme negativno odločbo.
The scheme runs for three tax years, from 2005 to 2007.
Shema bo trajala tri davčna leta, od leta 2005 do leta 2007.
In its letter of 21 September 2005, the Commission took the view that the notified scheme constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty since state resources are involved, since it is selective through being targeted at particular sectors and/or particular categories of undertaking, since it confers an advantage on such undertakings relative to other undertakings that provide the same services and since it might distort competition and affect trade at Community level.
Komisija je v svojem dopisu z dne 21. septembra 2005 zavzela stališče, da je priglašena shema državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, saj vključuje državna sredstva in je selektivna, ker je usmerjena na posebne sektorje in/ali posebne kategorije podjetij, ker daje prednost takim podjetjem v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki zagotavljajo iste storitve, in ker bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco ter vplivala na trgovino na ravni Skupnosti.
One of the reasons for initiating the procedure was that the Commission was not able to rule out the possibility that the effects of the measure on intra-Community trade would be contrary to the common interest, considering also that, under the scheme, the beneficiaries are not required to offset such distortions.
Eden od razlogov za sprožitev postopka je bil, da Komisija ni mogla izločiti možnosti, da bi bili učinki ukrepa na trgovino v Skupnosti v nasprotju s skupnim interesom glede na dejstvo, da se v skladu s shemo od upravičencev ne zahteva izravnava takih izkrivljanj.
The Commission also had doubts whether the measure fulfilled the conditions set out in the Guidelines on national regional aid [9] (‘the Guidelines’).
Komisija prav tako dvomi, ali je ukrep izpolnil pogoje iz Smernic o državni regionalni pomoči [9] („Smernice“).
In fact, according to the notification, the measure would grant operating aid to Sicilian cooperatives and to security firms.
Glede na priglasitev bi ukrep dejansko dodelil pomoč za tekoče poslovanje sicilijanskim zadrugam in družbam za varovanje.
In point 4.15 of the Guidelines, operating aid may be granted if the measure is justified in terms of its contribution to regional development and its nature and if its level is proportional to the handicaps it seeks to alleviate.
V skladu s točko 4.15 Smernic je pomoč za tekoče poslovanje mogoče dodeliti, če je ukrep upravičen v smislu njegovega prispevka k regionalnemu razvoju in njegove narave ter če je njegova raven sorazmerna z ovirami, ki jih skuša zmanjšati.
In this regard, the Commission doubted whether the Italian authorities had succeeded in justifying the granting of operating aid by demonstrating the existence of any handicaps and gauging their importance.
Komisija je v zvezi s tem dvomila, ali je italijanskim organom uspelo dokazati obstoj katerih koli ovir in njihov obseg ter s tem upravičiti dodelitev pomoči za tekoče poslovanje.
The Commission doubted whether the operating aid provided for in Article 60(1) of Regional Law No 17/2004 was compatible with the common market on the grounds that it would contribute to the creation of new firms and reduce the gap between Sicilian firms and firms operating elsewhere in Italy.
Komisija je dvomila, ali je bila pomoč za tekoče poslovanje iz člena 60(1) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 združljiva s skupnim trgom zato, ker bi prispevala k ustanavljanju novih družb in zmanjševala razlike med sicilijanskimi družbami in družbami iz drugih delov Italije.
In this respect, it noted that the link between the lowering of IRAP for all cooperatives and the creation of new firms in Sicily is unclear and left unexplained by the Italian authorities.
V zvezi s tem je opozorila, da je povezava med znižanjem regionalnega davka na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP) za vse zadruge in ustanavljanjem novih družb na Siciliji nejasna in da je italijanski organi niso pojasnili.
In the notification, the Italian authorities argued that Sicilian firms are structurally disadvantaged because Sicily is an outermost island remote from the ‘continental economic centres’.
Italijanski organi so v priglasitvi trdili, da so sicilijanske družbe v slabšem strukturnem položaju, saj je Sicilija najbolj oddaljen otok, ki je daleč od „celinskih gospodarskih središč“.
The Commission observes here that the outermost regions are exhaustively listed in Declaration 26 on the outermost regions of the Community, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union [10].
Komisija tu ugotavlja, da so najbolj oddaljene regije izčrpno navedene v Izjavi 26 o najbolj oddaljenih regijah Skupnosti, priloženi k Pogodbi o Evropski uniji [10].
Moreover, the aid does not seem to be tailored to tackling the problems associated with the island status of Sicily because it is unrelated to the extra costs due to insularity, like transport costs.
Poleg tega se zdi, da pomoč ni prilagojena reševanju težav, povezanih s statusom otoka Sicilije, ker ni povezana z dodatnimi stroški zaradi otoške lege, kot so stroški prevoza.
Furthermore, the Italian authorities claimed that the prevalence of micro enterprises resulted in higher financing costs and greater labour intensity; labour and debt costs constitute a large part of the IRAP's tax base, thereby placing Sicilian firms at a disadvantage.
Poleg tega so italijanski organi trdili, da je razširjenost mikro podjetij povzročila višje stroške financiranja in višjo intenzivnost delovne sile; stroški dela in stroški neizterljivih terjatev sestavljajo velik del davčne osnove regionalnega davka na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP) in zato postavljajo sicilijanske družbe v slabši položaj.
The Commission noted that, even if the problem facing the Sicilian economy was the high ratio of micro enterprises and its consequences, a general IRAP reduction for cooperatives of all sizes would not address the issue because it was not targeted at micro enterprises.
Komisija je ugotovila, da se sicilijansko gospodarstvo sicer res srečuje s težavo velikega deleža mikro podjetij in njegovih posledic, vendar splošno znižanje regionalnega davka na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP) za zadruge vseh velikosti ne bi reševalo vprašanja, saj ni usmerjeno na mikro podjetja.
Nor should the aid be granted only to micro cooperatives.
Prav tako se pomoč ne sme dodeljevati samo mikro zadrugam.
The Commission also stressed that differences in effective tax rates such as those referred to by the Italian authorities are present for every tax and are implicit in their nature.
Komisija je tudi poudarila, da razlike v efektivnih davčnih stopnjah, kot so tiste, na katere se sklicujejo italijanski organi, obstajajo pri vseh davkih in so implicitne v svoji naravi.
This does not, however, seem to be a sufficient reason to grant state aid differentiated by type of enterprise and, in the present case, the Italian authorities did not provide concrete evidence that cooperatives are excessively penalised by high effective rates of IRAP.
Kljub temu se zdi, da to ni zadosten razlog za dodelitev državne pomoči glede na vrsto podjetij, v zadevnem primeru pa italijanski organi niso predložili konkretnih dokazov, da so zadruge prekomerno prikrajšane zaradi visokih efektivnih stopenj regionalnega davka na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP).
Moreover, the Commission doubts the robustness of the data used by the Italian authorities to demonstrate that the ‘normal’ Sicilian firm with a turnover of less than EUR 10 million and fewer than 10 workers operating in industry, except for the chemical and petrochemical sectors, and in the ITC and tourist sectors pays a higher rate of IRAP than a comparable ‘normal’ company operating in Lombardy.
Poleg tega Komisija dvomi o trdnosti podatkov, ki so jih uporabili italijanski organi za dokazovanje, da „normalne“ sicilijanske družbe s prometom, ki znaša manj kot 10 milijonov EUR, in z manj kot desetimi zaposlenimi v gospodarski panogi, razen v kemičnem in petrokemičnem sektorju, sektorju informacijske tehnologije in komunikacij ter turističnem sektorju, plačujejo višjo stopnjo regionalnega davka na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP) od primerljivih „normalnih“ družb, ki delujejo v Lombardiji.
In actual fact, as Article 60(1) of Regional Law No 17/2004 provides aid to cooperatives of all sizes and in all sectors, the use of data that concern only firms with a turnover of less than EUR 10 million and fewer than 10 workers operating in industry, except for the chemical and petrochemical sectors, and in the ITC and tourist sectors does not seem to demonstrate the proportionality of the measure in question.
Dejansko pa se zdi, ker člen 60(1) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 zagotavlja pomoč zadrugam vseh velikosti in v vseh sektorjih, da uporaba podatkov, ki se nanašajo samo na družbe s prometom, ki znaša manj kot 10 milijonov EUR, in z manj kot desetimi zaposlenimi v gospodarski panogi, razen v kemičnem in petrokemičnem sektorju, ne dokazuje sorazmernosti zadevnega ukrepa.
Other doubts related to the information submitted by the Italian authorities to show that the operating aid provided for in Article 60(2) of Regional Law No 17/2004 is compatible with the common market.
Drugi dvomi so povezani z informacijami, ki so jih predložili italijanski organi v dokaz, da je pomoč za tekoče poslovanje iz člena 60(2) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 združljiva s skupnim trgom.
In the notification the Italian authorities argued that Article 60(2) of Regional Law No 17/2004 would help to improve investment prospects in Sicily by raising security levels and preventing criminal behaviour.
Italijanski organi so v priglasitvi trdili, da bo člen 60(2) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 pripomogel k izboljšanju naložbenih možnosti na Siciliji z zvišanjem ravni varnosti in preprečevanjem kaznivih dejanj.
They stressed that the average Sicilian security firm pays a higher rate of IRAP than the average firm operating elsewhere in Italy because the labour costs/net output value ratio for Sicilian security firms is on average higher than elsewhere in Italy and because of the rigidity of Sicilian labour market, which is characterised by low manpower turnover.
Poudarili so, da povprečna sicilijanska družba za varovanje plačuje višjo stopnjo regionalnega davka na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP) kot povprečna družba, ki deluje drugje v Italiji, ker je razmerje med stroški dela in neto proizvedeno vrednostjo za sicilijanske družbe v povprečju višje kot drugje po Italiji in zaradi rigidnosti sicilijanskega trga dela, za katerega je značilna nizka fluktuacija delovne sile.
In this connection, the Commission claims that the existence of a link between Article 60(2) of Regional Law No 17/2004 and the improvement in investment prospects in Sicily by raising security levels as well as the reasons for the higher costs of Sicilian security firms relative to firms operating in other regions of Italy are not sufficiently explained.
Komisija v zvezi s tem trdi, da obstoj povezave med členom 60(2) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 in izboljšanjem naložbenih možnosti na Siciliji z zvišanjem ravni varnosti ter razlogi za višje stroške sicilijanskih družb za varovanje v primerjavi z drugimi družbami, ki delujejo v drugih italijanskih regijah, niso bili dovolj pojasnjeni.
It does not seem that, compared with the labour market in other regions of Italy, the Sicilian labour market has characteristics such as to justify higher wages in this sector.
Zdi se, da v primerjavi s trgom dela v drugih italijanskih regijah sicilijanski trg dela nima takih značilnosti, ki bi upravičevale višje plače v tem sektorju.
Furthermore, the Commission doubts that the arguments presented by the Italian authorities asserting that the provincial prefect may impose price restrictions on services provided in the sector (‘tariffe di legalità’) as well as the necessity of rewarding the professionalism of workers in the sector have to be taken into account.
Poleg tega Komisija dvomi, da je treba upoštevati argumente, ki so jih predložili italijanski organi, v katerih so trdili, da provincialni prefekt lahko naloži omejitve storitev, ki se zagotavljajo v okviru sektorja („tariffe di legalità“), kot tudi nujnost nagrajevanja profesionalnosti delavcev v tem sektorju.
The Commission is of the opinion that these reasons do not explain the impact of differences in ‘tariffe di legalità’ on the increase in labour costs in Sicily.
Komisija meni, da ti razlogi ne pojasnjujejo vpliva razlik „tariffe di legalità“ na povečanje stroškov dela na Siciliji.
Only after considering such comments could the Commission decide whether the measure proposed by the Italian authorities affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Samo po preučitvi takih pripomb lahko Komisija odloča, ali ukrep, ki ga predlagajo italijanski organi, vpliva na trgovinske pogoje v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
The Commission received no comments from the Italian authorities or from interested third parties to allay the doubts raised when the formal investigation procedure was initiated.
Komisija ni prejela nobenih pripomb od italijanskih organov ali zainteresiranih tretjih strank, ki bi odpravile dvome, nastale ob začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.