natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
One of the reasons for initiating the procedure was that the Commission had doubts as to whether the aid provided for in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regional Law No 21/2003 was compatible with the single market.
Eden od razlogov za sprožitev postopka so bili pomisleki Komisije, da je pomoč, določena v členih 14, 15 in 16 Regionalnega zakona št. 21/2003, združljiva z enotnim trgom.
First of all, the Commission had doubts whether the measure fulfilled the conditions set out in the Guidelines on national regional aid [8] (‘the Guidelines’).
Prvič, Komisija je dvomila, da ukrep izpolnjuje pogoje, določene v Smernicah Skupnosti o državni regionalni pomoči („Smernice“) [8].
In fact, according to the notification, the measure would grant operating aid to Sicilian companies meeting the criteria indicated at points 14 and 17 and to companies operating in the Euro-Mediterranean Financial Services and Insurance Centre.
V skladu s priglasitvijo bi se na podlagi ukrepa pomoč za tekoče poslovanje namreč dodelila sicilijanskim gospodarskim družbam, ki bi izpolnjevale merila iz točk 14 in 17, in gospodarskim družbam, ki delujejo v okviru Evrosredozemskega središča za finančne storitve in zavarovalništvo.
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 se pomoč za tekoče poslovanje lahko dodeli, če je ukrep upravičen zaradi svojega prispevka k regionalnemu razvoju in zaradi svoje narave ter če je njegova višina sorazmerna s pomanjkljivostmi, ki jih želi ublažiti.
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 and whether the aid would be justified in terms of its contribution to regional development.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija dvomila, da je italijanskim organom uspelo upravičiti dodeljevanje pomoči za tekoče poslovanje z dokazovanjem obstoja kakršnih koli ovir in ocenjevanjem njihovega pomena ter da naj bi bila pomoč upravičena zaradi svojega prispevka k regionalnemu razvoju.
The Commission had doubts that the operating aid provided for in Articles 14 and 15 of Regional Law No 21/2003 could be compatible with the common market and that it would contribute to the creation of new companies and reduce the gap between companies operating in Sicily and companies operating elsewhere in Italy.
Komisija je dvomila, da bi bila lahko pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, določena v členih 14 in 15 Regionalnega zakona št. 21/2003, združljiva s skupnim trgom ter da bi prispevala k ustanavljanju novih gospodarskih družb in zmanjševanju razlik med gospodarskimi družbami, ki poslujejo na Siciliji, in gospodarskimi družbami, ki poslujejo drugje po Italiji.
In this respect, the Commission noted that the link between the lowering of IRAP for beneficiaries (e.g. those covered by Article 15) and the creation of new companies in Sicily is unclear and left unexplained by the Italian authorities.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija navedla, da je povezava med zniževanjem davka IRAP za upravičence (npr. tiste, ki so zajeti v členu 15) in ustanavljanjem novih gospodarskih družb na Siciliji nejasna, italijanski organi pa je niso razložili.
Then, the fact that, in theory, lowering IRAP will increase the number of new companies is not sufficient in itself for the aid to be considered compatible.
Poleg tega tudi dejstvo, da se bo zaradi znižanja davka IRAP teoretično povečalo število novih gospodarskih družb, samo po sebi ni dovolj, da bi se lahko pomoč štela za združljivo.
In the notification, the Italian authorities argued that the threshold of EUR 10 million was low enough to ensure that Article 14 applied only to SMEs.
Italijanski organi so v priglasitvi trdili, da je prag 10 milijonov EUR dovolj nizek za zagotovitev, da se člen 14 nanaša samo na mala in srednja podjetja.
The Commission argued that Article 14 was only superficially de facto restricted to SMEs because it did not take into account the number of employees and, above all, the fact that the company benefiting from the measure was a ‘linked’ or ‘partner’ enterprise within the meaning of the SME guidelines [9].
Komisija je trdila, da je člen 14 samo navidezno de facto omejen na mala in srednja podjetja, ker ne upošteva števila zaposlenih in zlasti dejstva, da je gospodarska družba, ki uživa ugodnost ukrepa, „povezano“ ali „partnersko“ podjetje v smislu smernic za mala in srednja podjetja [9].
Moreover, even if the Italian authorities could prove that only SMEs within the meaning of the guidelines benefit from the measure, the Commission observes that the measure in question still constitutes operating aid.
Še več, tudi če bi italijanski organi lahko dokazali, da se ukrep uporablja samo za mala in srednja podjetja v smislu Smernic, Komisija ugotavlja, da je zadevni ukrep še vedno pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
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 companies at a disadvantage.
Poleg tega so italijanski organi trdili, da splošna razširjenost mikro podjetij povzroči višje stroške financiranja in večjo delovno intenzivnost. Ker stroški dela in stroški dolga sestavljajo precejšen del davčne osnove za IRAP, naj bi bile sicilijanske gospodarske družbe tako v slabšem položaju.
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 companies of all sizes would not address the issue because it was not targeted at micro enterprises.
Komisija je navedla, da čeprav je težava, ki pesti sicilijansko gospodarstvo, visok odstotek mikro podjetij in posledice, ki jih to potegne za seboj, pa splošno znižanje davka IRAP za gospodarske družbe vseh velikosti ne bo rešilo tega vprašanja, ker ni usmerjeno na mikro podjetja.
Moreover, the aid did not seem to be designed to address the problems associated with Sicily's island status in that it is not related to extra costs linked to insularity, such as transport costs.
Poleg tega se je zdelo, da pomoč ni namenjena reševanju težav, povezanih z otoško lego Sicilije, ker ni povezana z dodatnimi stroški zaradi oddaljenosti, na primer s prevoznimi stroški.
For example, it does not seem evident to the Commission that companies operating in the sectors of tourism, hotels and cultural goods encounter particular disadvantages as a result of being located in Sicily (Article 14).
Komisiji se na primer ne zdi očitno, da so gospodarske družbe, ki delujejo v sektorjih turizma, hotelirstva in kulturnih dobrin, v še posebej slabem položaju, ker imajo sedež na Siciliji (člen 14).
In addition, the Commission notes that the submissions by the Italian authorities do not contain enough information to guarantee that the aid will be on a declining scale over time.
Poleg tega Komisija opozarja, da predložena stališča italijanskih organov ne vsebujejo dovolj informacij, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče zagotoviti, da se bo pomoč sčasoma zmanjševala.
Furthermore, it does not seem to the Commission that, as Article 15 provides aid to companies of all sizes, the use of data concerning only companies with a turnover of less than EUR 10 million and with fewer than 10 employees in the industrial, ITC and tourist/hotel sectors can demonstrate the proportionality of the measure in question.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da na podlagi podatkov, ki se nanašajo samo na gospodarske družbe, katerih promet je manjši od 10 milijonov EUR ter imajo manj kot 10 zaposlenih v sektorjih industrije, informacijske tehnologije in turizma/hotelirstva, ni mogoče dokazati sorazmernosti zadevnega ukrepa, ker člen 15 določa pomoč za gospodarske družbe ne glede na njihovo velikost.
The Commission argued that the measure seems to be materially selective in that the tax advantages provided for in Articles 14 and 15 exclude from the group of possible beneficiaries various categories of company (see point 56), favouring in particular the tourism, hotel, cultural goods, agri-food and ITC sectors.
Komisija je trdila, da se zdi ukrep materialno selektiven, ker davčne ugodnosti, določene v členih 14 in 15, iz skupine možnih upravičencev izključujejo različne kategorije gospodarskih družb (glej točko 56), pri čemer dajejo prednost zlasti sektorjem turizma, hotelirstva, kulturnih dobrin, agroživilstva in informacijske tehnologije.
Moreover, the measure seems to favour existing and new industrial companies with a turnover of less than EUR 10 million but excludes those operating in the chemical and petrochemical sectors.
Poleg tega se zdi, da ukrep daje prednost obstoječim in novim industrijskim družbam, katerih promet ne presega 10 milijonov EUR, vendar izključuje družbe iz kemičnega in petrokemičnega sektorja.
In their submissions, the Italian authorities stated that companies in the chemical and petrochemical sectors were excluded from the benefit of Article 15 because they were not affected by the high transport costs associated with the island status of Sicily and because the number of companies in those sectors was very small.
Italijanski organi so v predloženih stališčih navedli, da so družbe iz kemičnega in petrokemičnega sektorja izključene iz ugodnosti člena 15, ker nanje ne vplivajo visoki prevozni stroški, povezani z otoško lego Sicilije, in ker je družb v teh sektorjih zelo malo.
However, it does not seem to the Commission that companies in all the sectors eligible for the aid measure are affected by high transport costs; moreover, the number of beneficiaries has no influence on the classification of a particular measure as aid.
Vendar se Komisiji zdi, da visoki prevozni stroški ne vplivajo na gospodarske družbe iz vseh sektorjev, upravičenih do ukrepa pomoči; poleg tega število upravičencev ne vpliva na klasifikacijo določenega ukrepa pomoči.
Lastly, the Commission noted that the measure discriminates between ‘Sicilian’ and ‘non-Sicilian’ companies in so far as it prevents companies with their registered office in another Member State benefiting from the aid.
Nazadnje je Komisija navedla, da ukrep neupravičeno razlikuje med „sicilijanskimi“ in „nesicilijanskimi“ gospodarskimi družbami, ker gospodarskim družbam s sedežem v drugi državi članici preprečuje uživanje ugodnosti pomoči.
It seems to the Commission that there is no objective reason to justify this choice on the part of the Italian authorities and that this provision of the aid scheme is, therefore, in breach of Article 43 of the EC Treaty.
Komisija meni, da ni objektivnega razloga, s katerim bi lahko upravičili tako izbiro italijanskih organov, in da je ta določba sheme pomoči torej v nasprotju s členom 43 Pogodbe ES.
For this reason, too, the Commission observed that the measure cannot be compatible with the common market [10].
Tudi zaradi tega razloga je Komisija ugotovila, da ukrep ne more biti združljiv s skupnim trgom [10].
It also noted that the measure confers a selective advantage on Sicilian companies in that only taxable undertakings having cumulatively their registered office, their administrative headquarters and their place of business in Sicily can benefit from the scheme.
Navedla je tudi, da ukrep dodeljuje selektivno ugodnost sicilijanskim gospodarskim družbam, ker se shema uporablja samo za podjetja, ki imajo na Siciliji registrirani sedež, sedež uprave in tudi kraj poslovanja.
This does not seem to be the case of all companies that carry on a productive or commercial activity in Sicily and are subject to IRAP on that activity.
Zdi se, da to ne velja za vse gospodarske družbe, ki opravljajo proizvodno ali poslovno dejavnost na Siciliji in so na to dejavnost dolžne plačevati davek IRAP.
The Italian authorities did not provide any argument about that aspect in their submissions.
Italijanski organi v svojih predloženih stališčih niso navedli argumentov v zvezi s tem vidikom.
First of all, the Commission argued that the Italian authorities did not clarify in their submissions why they believe that the aid for the establishment of the Euro-Mediterranean Financial Services and Insurance Centre can qualify for the exemption laid down in Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
Prvič, Komisija je trdila, da italijanski organi v predloženih stališčih niso pojasnili, zakaj menijo, da lahko pomoč za ustanovitev Evrosredozemskega središča za finančne storitve in zavarovalništvo izpolnjuje pogoje za izjemo iz člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES.
The Italian authorities stated in their submissions that the measure in question constitutes operating aid.
Italijanski organi so v predloženih stališčih navedli, da je zadevni ukrep pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
The Commission took the view that the distortion of competition resulting from aid in the financial sector can be very marked and that financial activities do not help significantly to remedy the handicaps faced by regions eligible for the exemption under Article 87(3)(a), as stated in the Commission notice on the application of State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation [11] and in various decisions taken since.
Komisija je menila, da je lahko izkrivljanje konkurence zaradi pomoči v finančnem sektorju zelo občutno in da finančne dejavnosti ne pripomorejo bistveno k odpravi ovir, s katerimi se srečujejo območja, upravičena do izjeme na podlagi člena 87(3)(a), kot je navedeno v Obvestilu Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka [11], in v različnih odtlej sprejetih odločbah.
The Commission recalled that the aforementioned notice clearly states that, in order to be considered compatible with the common market, State aid intended to promote the economic development of particular areas must be ‘in proportion to, and targeted at, the aims sought’.
Komisija je opozorila, da je v navedenem obvestilu jasno navedeno, da se pomoč, katere namen je spodbujati gospodarski razvoj določenih območij, šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom, če je „sorazmerna z želenimi cilji in usmerjena vanje“.
From this perspective, offshore activities and activities that have little or no impact on the local economy are unlikely to be allowed as compatible State aid.
S tega vidika je malo verjetno, da bi bile offshore dejavnosti in dejavnosti z majhnim ali nikakršnim vplivom na lokalno gospodarstvo dovoljene kot združljiva državna pomoč.
The Commission doubted therefore that there is proportionality between the level of aid and the handicap it seeks to offset.
Zato je Komisija dvomila, da obstaja sorazmernost med ravnjo pomoči in oviro, ki jo želi odpraviti.
Lastly, the Commission doubted that the measure provided for in Article 16 could be considered to be a project of common European interest within the meaning of Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty.
In končno, Komisija je dvomila, da bi se lahko ukrep, določen v členu 16, štel za projekt skupnega evropskega interesa v smislu člena 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES.
In fact, the main justification put forward by the Italian authorities in support of the aid was that the measure is considered to be a project of common European interest within the meaning of Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty because Article 16 is similar to a provision in Law No 19/1991 on the development of economic activities and international cooperation in the region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia, the province of Belluno and neighbouring areas, which set up the Trieste Financial Services and Insurance Centre, which was found incompatible by the Commission in 2003 after being authorised by it in 1995 under the exemption of Article 87(3)(b) [12] of the EC Treaty.
Glavna utemeljitev, ki so jo italijanski organi navedli v podporo pomoči, je namreč bila, da se pomoč šteje za projekt skupnega evropskega interesa v smislu člena 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES, ker je člen 16 podoben določbi iz Zakona št. 19/1991 o razvoju gospodarskih dejavnosti in mednarodnega sodelovanja v pokrajini Furlanija - Julijska krajina, provinci Belluno in sosednjih območjih, na podlagi katerega je bilo v Trstu ustanovljeno Središče za finančne storitve in zavarovalništvo, katerega nezdružljivost je Komisija ugotovila leta 2003, potem ko ga je leta 1995 odobrila na podlagi izjeme iz člena 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES [12].
In this regard, the Commission remarked that, in its first decision, the aid for the establishment of the Trieste Financial Services and Insurance Centre was considered compatible with the common market under the exemption in Article 92(3)(c) (now Article 87(3)(c)) and not under the exemption in Article 87(3)(b) [13].
V zvezi s tem je Komisija pripomnila, da se je v njeni prvi odločbi pomoč za ustanovitev Središča za finančne storitve in zavarovalništvo v Trstu štela za združljivo s skupnim trgom na podlagi izjeme iz člena 92(3)(c) (zdaj člen 87(3)(c)) in ne na podlagi izjeme iz člena 87(3)(b) [13].
The Italian authorities claimed that the reasons for overturning the previous decision of compatibility by the Commission are based on the fact that Sicily is a region eligible for state aid under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty and that, in the present case, the European capital market is not integrated with the African capital market so that favouring this integration in accordance with the Barcelona Declaration remains a major European objective.
Italijanski organi so trdili, da razlogi za razveljavitev predhodne odločbe Komisije glede združljivosti izhajajo iz dejstva, da je Sicilija pokrajina, upravičena do državne pomoči na podlagi člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES, in da v obravnavanem primeru evropski kapitalski trg ni povezan z afriškim kapitalskim trgom, tako da je spodbujanje tega povezovanja v skladu z Barcelonsko deklaracijo še naprej eden glavnih evropskih ciljev.
The Commission remarked that each analysis has to be carried out on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the different characteristics of seemingly similar schemes that might though be very significant, as in the economic context.
Komisija je pripomnila, da se mora vsaka analiza izvesti za vsak primer posebej, in sicer ob upoštevanju različnih značilnosti navidez podobnih shem, ki so kljub temu lahko zelo občutne, na primer v gospodarskem smislu.
In this connection, it stressed, for example, that the total aid (over the five-year duration of the scheme) provided for the establishment of the Trieste Financial Services and Insurance Centre was capped and that the total amount of loans and investments by companies at the Centre was limited.
V zvezi s tem je na primer poudarila, da je za skupno višino pomoči (v petletnem obdobju trajanja sheme), namenjene ustanovitvi Središča za finančne storitve in zavarovalništvo v Trstu, veljala zgornja meja ter da je bil skupni znesek posojil in naložb s strani gospodarskih družb v središču omejen.
Moreover, the Commission considers that the same reasoning as that applied in 2003 in the case of Trieste still holds in this case, for the following reasons:
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da nekatere utemeljitve, ki so se leta 2003 nanašale na primer Trst, držijo tudi v obravnavanem primeru, in sicer zaradi naslednjih razlogov:
One of the main arguments for overturning the Trieste decision was that this kind of measure constitutes operating aid which the Commission authorises only exceptionally in sectors of activity which require special treatment.
eden od glavnih razlogov za razveljavitev odločbe v primeru Trst je bil, da je tovrstni ukrep pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki jo Komisija le izjemoma odobri v sektorjih dejavnosti, ki zahtevajo posebno obravnavo.
This is not the case in the financial sector and the Commission has taken the view that, nowadays, aid to participants in the financial markets can engender very significant distortions in this sector.
To ne velja za finančni sektor in Komisija je zavzela stališče, da dandanes lahko pomoč za akterje na finančnih trgih pripelje do precejšnjega izkrivljanja v tem sektorju.
Another argument for overturning the Trieste decision was that, in its assessment made in the light of the State aid rules, the Commission may also take into account the adverse effects on competition that have been highlighted by the work on the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation [14].
Dodatna utemeljitev za razveljavitev odločbe v primeru Trst je bila, da lahko Komisija pri svoji presoji z vidika pravil o državni pomoči upošteva tudi škodljive učinke za konkurenco, ki so bili izpostavljeni v okviru dela za pripravo Kodeksa ravnanja pri obdavčitvi ustvarjenega dohodka [14].
This work showed that tax incentives on internationally mobile activities, such as finance, insurance and intra-group services, may have adverse effects on other Member States, in particular because they create opportunities for tax avoidance.
Pri tem delu se je pokazalo, da imajo lahko davčne spodbude za mednarodno mobilne dejavnosti, na primer finančne in zavarovalniške storitve ter storitve znotraj skupine, škodljive učinke za druge države članice, zlasti ker ustvarjajo priložnosti za izogibanje davkom.
The Trieste regime, which was assessed as a harmful regime under criteria laid down in the Code, may have such potential.
Taka bi bila lahko shema Trst, ki je bila na podlagi meril iz Kodeksa označena za škodljivo shemo.
The Commission points out that the Italian authorities, in their comments at the time on appropriate measures for the Trieste scheme, referred to the meeting on 19 March 2002 of the Code of Conduct Group, at which Italy stated that the Centre would be closed within a period compatible with the programme of work on the Code of Conduct.
Komisija poudarja, da so se italijanski organi v svojih tedanjih pripombah o ustreznih ukrepih za shemo Trst sklicevali na sestanek Skupine za kodeks ravnanja, ki je potekal 19. marca 2002 in na katerem je Italija navedla, da se bo središče zaprlo v obdobju, združljivem s programom dela za pripravo Kodeksa ravnanja.
Lastly, after stressing that two of the countries that had signed the Barcelona Declaration, Cyprus and Malta, were already members of the European Union at the time of notification of the present measure, the Commission considers that the situation in the countries that will benefit from investments by the companies established at the Centre differs in many respects from the situation of the eastern European countries in 1995.
In končno, Komisija ob poudarjanju, da sta bili dve od držav podpisnic Barcelonske deklaracije, Ciper in Malta, ob priglasitvi tega ukrepa že članici Evropske unije, meni, da se položaj držav, ki bodo uživale ugodnosti naložb gospodarskih družb s sedežem v središču, v mnogih pogledih razlikuje od položaja vzhodnoevropskih držav v letu 1995.
In particular, the special problems of transition have either never been encountered by many of the signatories to the Barcelona Declaration or have been encountered in the past (for example, Turkey and Israel are clearly free market economies) and the transitional period has ended (for example, in Algeria).
Mnoge od podpisnic Barcelonske deklaracije se zlasti niso nikoli srečale s posebnimi težavami prehoda ali so se z njimi srečale v preteklosti (na primer Turčija in Izrael sta nedvomno svobodni tržni gospodarstvi) in prehodno obdobje se je že končalo (na primer v Alžiriji).
Therefore, the Commission doubts that Article 16 qualifies for the exemption provided for by Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty.
Zato Komisija dvomi, da člen 16 izpolnjuje pogoje za izjemo, predvideno v členu 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES.
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 na podlagi takih pripomb bi Komisija lahko odločila, ali ukrep, ki so ga predlagali italijanski organi, ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.