natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the contrary, it (partially) compensated for an existing ‘distortion of competition’ which put Germany’s greenhouse cultivation at a disadvantage.
Ravno nasprotno, že obstoječe „izkrivljanje konkurence“ v škodo nemškega gojenja rastlin v rastlinjakih se (delno) izravna.
Because they were limited in time, the measures gave the sector a powerful incentive to adapt to increasing energy prices by implementing energy-saving and rationalisation measures and making the appropriate investment.
Zaradi časovne omejitve bi imeli ti ukrepi močan spodbujevalni učinek za zadevni sektor, in sicer za prilagoditev na naraščajoče cene energije preko ukrepov za varčevanje z energijo in racionalizacijo ter za izvedbo ustreznih naložb.
As a result the measures had to be admissible because otherwise the intention of Directive 92/81/EEC and Directive 2003/96/EC would be undermined or inadmissibly restricted.
Zato morajo biti zadevni ukrepi dopustni, saj bi bili v nasprotnem primeru nameni Direktive 92/81/EGS in Direktive 2003/96/ES spodkopani oziroma nedopustno omejeni.
In the alternative, with reference to the RSV judgment [5] of the European Court of Justice it was argued that protecting the legitimate expectations of the beneficiaries precluded any recovery of the aid, since the Commission already knew about the aid on 29 August 2001 but did not make it the subject of an investigation procedure until 20 April 2005 when it requested information.
V pomoč se navede sklic na sodbo RSV [5] Sodišča, da je varstvo zaupanja v pravo upravičenca v nasprotju z morebitno zahtevo po vračilu pomoči, saj je bila Komisija s pomočjo seznanjena že 29. avgusta 2001, vendar pa je to pomoč kot predmet postopka preiskave pomoči uvedla šele 20. aprila 2005 z zahtevo po podatkih.
Moreover, in the event of recovery, a large number of undertakings risked becoming insolvent.
Poleg tega pa v primeru morebitne zahteve po vračilu pomoči veliko podjetjem grozi stečaj.
Under Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables [6], Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the EC Treaty apply to the production of the goods specified in the Regulation and to trade in those goods.
V skladu s členom 43 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2200/96 z dne 28. oktobra 1996 o skupni ureditvi trga za sadje in zelenjavo [6] se uporabljajo členi 87, 88 in 89 Pogodbe ES za pridelavo v Uredbi navedenih proizvodov, pa tudi za trgovino s tem blagom.
The production of, and trade in, fruit and vegetables is therefore subject to the Community provisions on granting State aid.
Tako spadata pridelava in trgovina s sadjem in zelenjavo v okvir predpisov Skupnosti za dodelitev državnih pomoči.
Under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, to be deemed incompatible with the common market.
Na podlagi člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES je državna pomoč ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, v kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
The ECJ has ruled that, when considering whether a State measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty, it is to be determined whether the recipient undertaking has received economic advantage which it would not have received under normal market conditions [7] or has been spared costs which it would normally have had to bear from its own resources [8].
Sodišče je odločilo, da je treba za vprašanje, ali državni ukrep predstavlja pomoč v smislu člena 87 Pogodbe ES, ugotoviti, ali upravičeno podjetje pridobi gospodarsko korist, ki je pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji ne bi [7], oziroma ali je podjetje s tem razbremenjeno stroškov, ki bi jih običajno moralo kriti z lastnimi sredstvi [8].
The measure in the form of tax refunds gives the undertakings which receive them economic advantages in the form of a lower tax burden.
Ukrep v obliki davčnih povračil daje upravičenim podjetjem gospodarske koristi v obliki manjše davčne obremenitve.
This saves them costs which, under normal circumstances, they would have had to bear from their own resources.
To pomeni prihranek stroškov, ki bi jih v običajnih razmerah morala podjetja kriti z lastnimi sredstvi.
The aid is granted from public funds to certain undertakings, namely agricultural and forestry undertakings engaged in production using greenhouses and covered areas.
Pomoč se določenim podjetjem, tj. podjetjem v panogi kmetijstva in gozdarstva, ki upravljajo rastlinjake in zaprte prostore za gojenje, dodeli iz javnih sredstev.
The aid is not granted to all undertakings and is therefore selective.
Pomoč se ne dodeli vsem podjetjem in je zato selektivna.
It follows that the measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Iz tega sledi, da gre za državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The tax refund is also likely to distort competition [9] and to affect trade between Member States [10].
Davčno povračilo verjetno izkrivlja konkurenco [9] in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami [10].
Germany is a significant producer of greenhouse products.
Nemčija je pomembna pridelovalka proizvodov, ki se gojijo v rastlinjakih.
Trade in these products is also significant, as the following statistics show.
Tudi trgovina s temi proizvodi je obsežna, kot dokazujejo naslednji statistični podatki.
Value (in thousands of euro)
Vrednost (v 000 EUR)
Flowers
Rože
Germany’s greenhouse products are in competition with the greenhouse products of other Member States.
Nemški proizvodi iz rastlinjakov so v konkurenci s proizvodi iz rastlinjakov iz drugih držav članic.
Not only have Germany and the interested third parties not disputed this, but it has also been explained that greenhouse undertakings were exempted from the tax precisely in order to improve their competitive position vis-à-vis Dutch competitors which, according to the same information, enjoy more favourable production conditions because of lower gross prices for energy.
Temu Nemčija in zainteresirane tretje strani niso samo ugovarjale, temveč je bilo tudi pojasnjeno, da so bili rastlinjaki oproščeni davka z namenom izboljšanja konkurenčnega položaja v primerjavi z nizozemskimi konkurenti, ki so imeli po istih navedbah zaradi nižje bruto cene energije ugodnejše proizvodne pogoje.
Direct competition is therefore involved.
Obstaja torej neposredna konkurenca.
An interested third party’s assertion that greenhouse products were not in direct competition with open-air products is therefore immaterial considering that there is competition between German greenhouse products and greenhouse products of other Member States, including Dutch greenhouse products.
Tako je trditev ene zainteresirane tretje strani, da proizvodi gojenja v rastlinjakih niso v neposredni konkurenci s proizvodi, ki se gojijo na prostem, nepomembna, saj obstaja neposredna konkurenca med nemškimi proizvodi iz rastlinjakov in proizvodi iz rastlinjakov drugih držav članic, vključno z nizozemskimi.
Consequently, the exemption from taxes otherwise due is likely to distort competition.
Tako razbremenitev davkov, ki bi jih v nasprotnem primeru bilo treba plačati, izkrivlja konkurenco.
The argument that energy prices are more favourable in other Member States is unimportant [11].
Pri tem niso pomembne trditve, da so cene v drugih državah članicah ugodnejše [11].
Even if it were true that the starting points differed as regards this production factor, this would not alter the fact that the tax refund granted by Germany is likely to distort competition.
Tudi če bi držalo, da bi morali biti izhodiščni položaji pri tem proizvodnem dejavniku različni, to ne spreminja dejstva, da je davčno povračilo, ki ga je uvedla Nemčija, primerno za izkrivljanje konkurence.
The aid is also likely to impair trade between the Member States.
Pomoč je primerna tudi za negativni vpliv na trgovino med državami članicami.
This is shown by the not insignificant trade flows, as demonstrated above.
Ti kažejo na pomembne trgovske tokove, kot je ugotovljeno zgoraj.
Even if it were true, as has been argued, that the area under glass has been drastically reduced and imports to Germany have increased, that in no way proves that trade has not been disrupted.
Tudi če bi držalo, da so bile pridelovalne površine pod steklom, kot je bilo navedeno, zdesetkane in se je uvoz v Nemčijo povečal, to še ni dokaz, da ni prišlo do negativnega vpliva na trgovino.
It cannot be ruled out that without the measure the growing area would have been even more drastically reduced and/or imports to Germany would have increased still further.
Ni izključeno, da se število pridelovalnih površin brez ukrepov ne bi še bolj zmanjšalo ali da se uvoz v Nemčijo ne bi še bolj povečal.
Since intra-Community trade with Germany in greenhouse products exists, it is not a matter of how significant Germany’s production quantities are to be regarded.
Ker znotraj Skupnosti obstaja trgovina s proizvodi iz rastlinjakov z Nemčijo, se ne postavlja vprašanje, kako pomembne so nemške proizvodne količine.
The ban on granting State aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty does not apply without exception, however.
Vendar pa se prepoved dodelitve državnih pomoči v skladu s členom 86(1) Pogodbe ES ne uporablja brez izjem.
The Commission has examined whether any of the exceptions to the ban in principle on aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty apply.
Komisija je preverila, ali se uporablja ena izmed izjem oziroma oprostitev načelne prepovedi pomoči na podlagi člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The exceptions provided for in Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty, which concern aid of a social character granted to individual consumers, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany, are irrelevant in the present context regardless of who the beneficiaries of the scheme at issue are.
Odstopanja iz člena 87(2) Pogodbe ES v zvezi s pomočmi socialnega značaja, dodeljenimi posameznim potrošnikom, pomočmi za povrnitev škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki, in pomočmi, dodeljenimi gospodarstvu nekaterih območij Zvezne republike Nemčije, v zadevni povezavi ne pridejo v poštev, ne glede na upravičenca zadevne ureditve.
The Commission considers that the exceptions provided for in Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty concerning the development of certain areas are not applicable to the scheme at issue because the measure does not comprise aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment.
Komisija meni, da oprostitev iz člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES v zvezi z razvojem določenih območij pri tej shemi pomoči ni mogoče uporabiti, saj ukrep ne predstavlja pomoči za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je podzaposlenost velika.
As for the exception provided for in Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty, it is sufficient to note that the tax scheme at issue is not an important project of common European interest and does not seek to remedy a serious disturbance in the German economy.
Glede oprostitve iz člena 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES je treba zgolj opozoriti, da pri zadevni davčni ureditvi ne gre za pomemben projekt skupnega evropskega interesa in tudi ne za odpravljanje resne motnje v gospodarstvu Zvezne republike Nemčije.
Nor does it seek to promote culture and heritage conservation within the meaning of the exception provided for in Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty.
Poleg tega ne gre za pospeševanje kulture in ohranjanja kulturne dediščine v skladu s členom 87(3)(d) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission would point out in this connection that neither the German authorities nor any interested parties invoked the above-mentioned exceptions in the course of the investigation procedure.
Komisija v zvezi s tem opozarja, da se med trajanjem postopka preiskave niti Nemčija niti katera koli izmed zainteresiranih tretjih strani ni sklicevala na omenjene izjeme in oprostitve.
The only exception that could be considered is therefore that contained in Article 87(3)(c), according to which an aid may be considered compatible with the common market if it is found 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 contrary to the common interest.
Edina oprostitev, ki bi jo bilo mogoče upoštevati, izhaja iz člena 87(3)(c), v skladu s katerim je pomoč mogoče označiti kot združljivo s skupnim trgom, če ta služi pospeševanju razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
The Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector [12] apply to the measures at issue here [13].
Za zadevne ukrepe je mogoče uporabiti Smernice o kmetijski pomoči [12] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Smernice za kmetijstvo) [13].
However, neither those Community guidelines nor any other rules relating to agriculture provide in respect of the measures described above for express exemptions from the ban in principle on aid contained in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Vendar niti Smernice za kmetijstvo niti druge ureditve na področju kmetijstva za zgoraj opisane ukrepe izrecno ne predvidevajo izjem oziroma oprostitev od načelne prepovedi pomoči v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
In particular the Commission notes that point 4 of the Community guidelines, which relates to investment aid, does not apply in the present case.
Komisija zlasti ugotavlja, da se v zadevnem primeru ne uporablja točka 4 Smernic v zvezi s pomočmi za naložbe.
The tax refund is not linked to carrying out investment.
Davčno povračilo ni vezano na izvedbo naložb.
Germany and a number of interested third parties are of the opinion that a special justification for the aid results from Article 8(2)(f) of Directive 92/81/EEC and Article 15(3) of its successor, Directive 2003/96/EC, and that this would be permitted under point 3.4 of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector.
Nemčija in nekatere zainteresirane tretje strani menijo, da posebna pravna upravičenost pomoči izhaja iz člena 8(2)(f) Direktive 92/81/EGS in iz naslednje določbe iz člena 15(3) Direktive 2003/96/ES, pri čemer Smernice za kmetijstvo to dopuščajo pod točko 3.4.
Having regard to Directive 2003/96/EC, it is stated in recitals (15) and (24) that measures introducing differentiated rates of taxation must be in accordance with the rules on the internal market and competition in order not to result in distortions of competition.
Glede Direktive 2003/96/ES je v njenih uvodnih izjavah 15 in 24 pojasnjeno, da morajo biti ukrepi, s katerimi se uvedejo različne davčne stopnje, skladni s pravili notranjega trga in konkurence, da ne pride do izkrivljanja konkurence.
The fact that the competition rules must be applied is also confirmed in Article 26 of Directive 2003/96/EC by pointing out to Member States that measures such as tax refunds within the meaning of the Directive might constitute State aid and in those cases have to be notified pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
Nujna uporaba pravil o konkurenci je poleg tega poudarjena tudi v členu 26 Direktive 2003/96/ES, v katerem so države članice opozorjene, da je treba ukrepe, kot so davčna povračila, v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES priglasiti, če bi ti lahko predstavljali državne pomoči.
That Article expressly states that information provided to the Commission on the basis of the Directive does not release Member States from the notification obligation pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
V tem členu je izrecno navedeno, da informacije, posredovane Komisiji na podlagi Direktive, držav članic ne odvezujejo od obveznosti obveščanja v smislu člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
The same applies for the Directive 92/81/EEC, which states in its recitals (sixth recital) that Member States may apply on an optional basis certain (…) exemptions (…) where this does not give rise to distortions of competition.
Enako velja za Direktivo 92/81/EGS, ki v svojih uvodnih izjavah (in sicer v uvodni izjavi 6) natančno določa, da je državam članicam dana možnost uporabe neobvezne razbremenitve, če to ne vodi do izkrivljanja konkurence.
Its Article 8(2) states that the Member States may ‘without prejudice to other Community provisions’ apply total or partial tax exemptions or reductions.
V členu 8(2) je navedeno, da lahko države članice „brez poseganja v druge določbe Skupnosti“ odobrijo neomejene ali omejene oprostitve plačila davkov ali znižanja davčne stopnje.
The Commission recalls, at this occasion, its competence on State aid issues originating directly from the EC Treaty.
Komisija v zvezi s tem opozarja, da njena pristojnost glede vprašanj državnih pomoči izhaja neposredno iz Pogodbe ES.
Any Community legislation can not possibly impair the Commission’s competence in this field.
Morebitna zakonodaja Skupnosti ne more vplivati na pristojnost Komisije na tem področju.
Germany asserts that the tax refund is an implementation of a power granted to Member States by the above-mentioned Directives, to which the Commission responds that this is possible only subject to the above-mentioned conditions.
Če Nemčija meni, da gre pri davčnem povračilu za „prenos (s temi direktivami) pooblastil, priznanih državam članicam“, Komisija meni, da je to mogoče samo v skladu z navedenimi pogoji.
Germany also argues that it is contradictory for the Commission, which after all proposed those Directives, to assert to Germany that there is a resultant danger to the common market.
Nemčija nadalje trdi, da je protislovno, da Komisija, ki je te direktive nenazadnje predlagala, Nemčiji očita, da iz tega ukrepa izhaja nevarnost za skupni trg.
Firstly, Germany did not argue that according to the Commission’s interpretation there was no possibility of actually applying the said Directives.
Nemčija ni nikoli izjavila, da po razlagi Komisije pri navedenih Direktivah ne obstajajo možnosti učinkovite uporabe teh direktiv.
The Commission does not, of course, rule out the possibility of there being cases which have been conceived on the basis of the Directives, but which at the same time satisfy the requirements of fair competition.
Komisija seveda ne izključuje možnosti napak, ki so bile narejene na podlagi direktiv, vendar hkrati zadoščajo potrebam poštene konkurence.
The Commission would point out that the Directives only allow for favourable tax treatment at this stage of the approximation of the fiscal legislation.
Komisija opozarja, da direktive glede na trenutno stanje približevanja davčne zakonodaje dopuščajo samo davčne olajšave.
They do not prescribe it.
Olajšav ne predpisujejo.
Germany disputes that the competition-law aspects of the Directives in question take priority.
Nemčija je zanikala prednost konkurenčnih vidikov zadevnih direktiv.
However, it follows from the above-mentioned considerations that in any case — i.e. even if competition-law considerations do not take priority — aid such as the present tax refund must be examined on the basis of the relevant competition rules under the EC Treaty.
V zvezi s tem argumentom je treba pritrditi, da iz navedenih premislekov sledi, da je treba v vsakem primeru – torej tudi, če prednosti ne obstajajo – preveriti pomoči, kot je zadevno davčno povračilo, in sicer na podlagi zadevnih pravil o konkurenci v skladu s Pogodbo ES.
The question of whether or not there is priority is, therefore, without significance [14].
Iz tega nadalje sledi, da je vprašanje, ali obstaja prednost ali ne, nepomembno [14].
The scope for assessment and discretion accorded to the Commission by the EC Treaty as regards the application of the exemptions under Article 87(3) was not and could not be restricted by the Directives in question in any way.
Možnost presoje pri uporabi oprostitev iz člena 87(3), ki je Komisiji priznana s Pogodbo ES, na noben način ni omejena z zadevnimi direktivami.
Point 3.5 of the Community guidelines reflects the principles of State aid policy and the Common Agricultural Policy.
Točka 3.5 zgoraj navedenih smernic odraža načela politike na področju državnih pomoči in načela skupne kmetijske politike.
It states that unilateral State aid measures which are simply intended to improve the financial situation of producers but which in no way contribute to the development of the sector, and in particular aid which is granted solely on the basis of price, quantity, unit of production or unit of the means of production is considered to constitute operating aid which is incompatible with the common market.
Smernice predvidevajo, da se ukrepi državnih pomoči, katerih edini cilj je izboljšanje finančnega stanja proizvajalcev in ki nikakor ne prispevajo k razvoju sektorja, in zlasti pomoč, ki je dodeljena samo na podlagi cene, količine, enote proizvodnje ali enote načina proizvodnje, štejejo za pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
As already stated, the aid in question is not linked to investment likely to modernise the sector (e.g. through better heat insulation or investment to increase energy utilisation).
Kot je že bilo navedeno, zadevne pomoči niso vezane na naložbe, ki so namenjene posodobitvi sektorja (kot primer bi bilo mogoče uporabiti boljšo toplotno izolacijo ali naložbe za večji izkoristek energije).
On the contrary, necessary adjustments (such as the above-mentioned) are likely to be delayed by such subsidies.
Nasprotno, potrebne prilagoditve (kot so zgoraj navedene) je mogoče s takšnimi subvencijami odložiti.
The sector therefore remains dependent on this aid.
Sektor tako ostane odvisen od teh pomoči.
Development either does not occur at all or takes place only after a corresponding delay.
Do razvoja ne pride ali pa do njega pride z ustreznimi zakasnitvami.
Contrary to what some interested third parties argue, not only is there no incentive effect to undertake the necessary investment, but the existing incentive of high energy prices is reduced by the subsidies.
V nasprotju z navedbami posameznih zainteresiranih tretjih strani ne obstaja nikakršen spodbujevalni učinek za izvedbo potrebnih naložb, temveč se obstoječa spodbuda v obliki visoke cene energije s subvencijami celo zmanjša.
The aid in question is therefore to be classified as operating aid in the sense referred to above.
Zadevne pomoči se torej označijo kot pomoči za tekoče poslovanje v navedenem smislu.
The new Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007-2013 [15] did not enter into force until 1 January 2007.
Nove smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem in gozdarskem sektorju 2007–2013 [15] so začele veljati šele 1. januarja 2007.
Point 172 provides for retroactive applicability in respect of unlawful tax refunds granted under Directive 2003/96/EC, but only if the conditions of that Directive have been met and there has been no differentiation within the agricultural sector.
Za protipravna davčna povračila, dodeljena na podlagi Direktive 2003/96/ES, točka 172 predvideva retroaktivno uporabo.
The same would apply for unlawful tax refunds granted under Directive 92/81/EEC.
Enako velja za protipravna davčna povračila, dodeljena na podlagi Direktive 92/81/EGS. Vendar pa to velja samo, če so izpolnjeni pogoji iz teh direktiv in če v kmetijskem sektorju ni bilo izvedeno razlikovanje.
Since the measure in question applies only in favour of certain agricultural undertakings, however, point 172 does not therefore constitute a basis which would allow the Commission to regard the present tax refunds as compatible with the common market.
Ker zadevni ukrep velja izključno za določena podjetja na področju kmetijstva, točka 172 ni podlaga, ki bi Komisiji omogočala označitev zadevnih davčnih povračil kot združljivih s skupnim trgom.