natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court has ruled that ‘aid to an undertaking may be such as to affect trade between the Member States and distort competition where that undertaking competes with products coming from other Member States even if it does not itself export its products (…).
Sodišče je odločilo, da „pomoč podjetju lahko vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja konkurenco, kadar so izdelki tega podjetja konkurenčni izdelkom iz drugih držav članic, tudi če podjetje samo ne izvaža svojih izdelkov […].
Where a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, domestic production may for that reason be maintained or increased with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of exporting their products to the market in that Member State’ [27].
Če država članica podjetju odobri pomoč, lahko podjetje iz tega razloga ohrani ali poveča proizvodnjo za notranji trg, podjetja, ki so bila ustanovljena v drugih državah članicah, pa imajo zato manjše možnosti za izvoz svojih izdelkov na trg v tej državi članici [27].“
Therefore, the Commission has examined whether, in general terms, there is intra-community trade in the sectors concerned.
Zato je Komisija preučila, ali v zadevnih sektorjih na splošno poteka trgovina znotraj Skupnosti.
As regards cement-producer Cementir, the Commission has extensively analysed the cement market and its various segments, most notably in its 1994 Cement Decision [28].
V zvezi s proizvajalcem cementa, podjetjem Cementir, je Komisija trg cementnih izdelkov in njegove različne segmente najobširneje analizirala v svoji Odločbi o cementu iz leta 1994 [28].
Cement is a heavy product having a low value in relation to its weight, so that the cost of transport may make it uneconomical to transport over long distances.
Cement je težek izdelek, ki ima v primerjavi s svojo težo nizko vrednost, tako da so stroški prevoza na dolge razdalje negospodarni.
The Commission found, however, that this constraint did not impede intracommunity trade.
Vendar pa je Komisija ugotovila, da ta omejitev ni ovirala trgovine znotraj Skupnosti.
Cement products are de facto traded between Member States, and the conclusion in the past of unlawful agreements and concerted practices between cement producers (sanctioned in the above Decision) in order to protect their home markets is further evidence that there is effective competition at the EU level.
Trgovina s cementnimi izdelki med državami članicami dejansko poteka, sklepanje protipravnih sporazumov in usklajena ravnanja proizvajalcev cementa v preteklosti (ki so bili kaznovani z omenjeno odločbo) za zaščito njihovih domačih trgov pa je dodaten dokaz za to, da na ravni EU vlada učinkovita konkurenca.
As regards Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche, it suffices to say that, in the very merger decision whereby the Commission authorized the takeover by Norsk Hydro of Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche [29], the Commission found that, for the products manufactured by the Terni chemical branch, there was intra-community trade and the geographical market was at least EEA-wide.
Glede podjetja Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche je dovolj reči, da je Komisija ravno v svoji odločbi o združitvi, v kateri je skupini Norsk Hydro dovolila prevzem podjetja Nuova Terni Industrie [29], ugotovila, da se z izdelki, ki jih izdeluje kemična panoga družbe Terni, trguje znotraj Skupnosti in da je njihov geografski trg vsaj EGP.
Concerning ThyssenKrupp, the Commission notes that the steel market is a global, highly competitive market.
V zvezi s podjetjem ThyssenKrupp Komisija ugotavlja, da je trg jekla svetoven in zelo konkurenčen trg.
In previous decisions, the Commission had already found that the market segments in which ThyssenKrupp is active were at least EU-wide [30].
Komisija je že v svojih odločbah v preteklosti ugotovila, da je podjetje ThyssenKrupp dejavno vsaj v tržnih segmentih, ki so na območju EU [30].
Therefore, the conclusion must be drawn that the preferential electricity tariff granted to the three Terni companies is liable to improve their competitive position vis-à-vis competing undertakings in intra-community trade.
Zato je treba sprejeti sklep, da so ugodnejše cene električne energije, ki so bile odobrene trem podjetjem Terni, verjetno izboljšale njihov konkurenčni položaj nasproti konkurenčnim podjetjem v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti.
It is settled case-law [31] that in such circumstances intra-community trade should be considered affected and competition distorted.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [31] se za takšne okoliščine šteje, da so vplivale na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti in izkrivljale konkurenco.
Conclusions on the presence of aid
Sklepne ugotovitve o prisotnosti pomoči
In the light of the above, the Commission has come to the conclusion that the preferential tariff granted to the Terni companies as of 1 January 2005 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and can only be authorized if it can benefit from one of the derogations laid down in the Treaty.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega je Komisija sklenila, da je ugodnejša cena, ki je bila podjetjem Terni odobrena od 1. januarja 2005, državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES in se lahko odobri samo, če se zanjo lahko uporablja eno od odstopanj, ki so določena v Pogodbi.
Qualification of the measure as new aid and lawfulness of the aid
Priznanje statusa nove pomoči ukrepu in zakonitost pomoči
The measure cannot be considered existing aid for the reasons explained in points (119) to (133).
Ukrepa iz razlogov, ki so navedeni v točkah od (119) do (132), ni mogoče šteti za obstoječo pomoč.
The original provision of Law 9/1991 which is considered to be covered by a State aid authorisation was modified in 2005 by Article 11(11) of Law 80/2005.
Prvotna določba zakona št. 9/1991, za katero se šteje, da je bila odobrena kot državna pomoč, je bila spremenjena leta 2005 s členom 11(11) zakona št. 80/2005.
It should be noted that the substance of the implicitly approved tariff and that of the tariff introduced by Law 80/2005 are only apparently similar.
Opozoriti je treba, da sta si podlaga za implicitno odobreno ceno in podlaga za ceno, ki jo je določil zakon št. 80/2005, samo na videz podobni.
Law 80/2005 laid down that Terni should continue benefiting from a preferential tariff until 2010.
Z zakonom št. 80/2005 je bilo določeno, da morajo za družbo Terni ugodnejše cene veljati do leta 2010.
Even if the second extension had been a mere prolongation in time of the previous measure, it would have constituted new aid.
Tudi če bi bilo drugo podaljšanje zgolj podaljšanje veljavnosti predhodnega ukrepa, bi pomenilo novo pomoč.
It is settled case law that an amendment to the duration of an existing aid should be regarded as new aid [32].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se sprememba obdobja veljavnosti obstoječe pomoči namreč šteje za novo pomoč [32].
A more detailed analysis shows, however, that the differences between the two measures are much more substantive.
Podrobnejša analiza pa kaže, da se ukrepa po svoji vsebini dosti bolj razlikujeta.
Before the entry into force of Law 80/2005, the Terni price (and its annual update) was still based on the original parallelism in treatment with self-producers.
Preden je začel veljati zakon št. 80/2005, je cena Terni (in njena letna posodobitev) še vedno temeljila na prvotni sočasni obravnavi s samoproizvajalci.
The level of aid is also raised due to the increase in the quantities supplied at the preferential price.
Obseg pomoči je tudi večji zaradi večanja količin, ki se dobavljajo po ugodnejši ceni.
The degressivity element is eliminated altogether.
Element postopnega zmanjševanja je izključen v celoti.
It should be underlined, in this context, that even if the aid level had remained unchanged, the same conclusion would necessarily have to be drawn, if the the Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly in Case Italy and Sardegna Lines v. Commission [33] is to be followed.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da bi bilo treba, če ravnamo v skladu s stališčem generalnega pravobranilca Fennellyja v Zadevi Italija in Sardegna Lines proti Komisiji [33], sprejeti enak sklep, tudi če se obseg pomoči ne bi spremenil.
In assessing what constitutes a substantive change to a scheme, Advocate General Fennelly stated that ‘the introduction of a wholly new method of providing effectively the same level of aid constituted a significant amendment of the original regime’.
Ko je generalni pravobranilec Fennelly ocenjeval, v čem je vsebinska sprememba sheme, je izjavil, da „je uvedba popolnoma nove metode za zagotavljanje dejansko enakega obsega pomoči bistveno spremenila prvotno ureditev“.
The Commission also notes that, in the light the different mechanisms governing the tariff, it would be impossible to distinguish, in the new measure implemented in 2005, a part which, until 2007, would continue to be existing aid, and an alteration liable to be classified as new aid [34].
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da bi bilo zaradi različnih mehanizmov, ki urejajo ceno, v novem ukrepu, ki se je začel izvajati leta 2005, nemogoče razlikovati med delom, ki bi bil do leta 2007 še naprej obstoječa pomoč, in spremembo, ki bi jo lahko označili za novo pomoč. [34].
Therefore, the Commission considers that the measure referred to as ‘second extension’ is in fact a fully new aid scheme in that it is substantially altered compared to that covered by the 1991 Decision.
Zato Komisija meni, da je ukrep, ki je imenovan „drugo podaljšanje“, v bistvu popolnoma nova shema pomoči, saj je v primerjavi z ukrepom iz odločbe iz leta 1991 bistveno spremenjen.
In the light of the above, the measure must be considered new aid as from 1 January 2005, which is the date when Law 80/2005 made the extension of the tariff applicable [35].
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega je ukrep od 1. januarja 2005, ko je bila z zakonom št. 80/2005 podaljšana veljavnost veljavne cene, treba šteti za novo pomoč [35].
The allegation, made in paragraphs (48) and (60), that the measure should be deemed authorized pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 5 of Regulation N 659/1999 because the Commission had been informed of it and failed to take a decision within the procedural time-limits ) is manifestly unfounded.
Navedba iz odstavkov (48) in (60), da bi bilo treba ukrep šteti za odobren na podlagi odstavka 5 člena 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, ker je bila Komisija o njem obveščena in o njem ni sprejela odločitve v procesnem roku, je očitno neutemeljena.
There is a substantial difference between notifying a measure pursuant to Article 88(3), on the one hand, and simply informing the Commission of the existence of a measure, on the other.
Med uradnim obvestilom Komisije o ukrepu v skladu s členom 88(3) in zgolj obvestilom o obstoju ukrepa, naslovljenim na Komisijo, je velika razlika.
In Breda Fucine Meridionali [36], the Court of First Instance has notably ruled that the transmission of documents which are not addressed to the Secretary General and do not contain an explicit reference to Article 93, paragraph 3 of the EC Treaty cannot not be considered as a valid notification.
V Zadevi Breda Fucine Meridionali [36] je Sodišče prve stopnje odločilo predvsem, da se pošiljanje listin, ki niso naslovljene na generalnega sekretarja in v katerih se izrecno ne sklicuje na odstavek 3 člena 93 Pogodbe ES, ne more šteti za veljavno uradno obvestilo.
Only measures which are duly notified pursuant to Article 88(3) and are not implemented before a Commission Decision can benefit from the procedural time limits set out in Regulation 659/99.
Procesni roki iz Uredbe št. 659/99 veljajo samo za ukrepe, o katerih se na podlagi člena 88(3) pravilno uradno obvesti Komisija in se ne izvajajo pred odločbo Komisije.
In the case as issue, it is undisputed that Article 11(11) of Law 80/2005 was not notified.
V zadevnem primeru je nesporno, da Komisija o členu 11(11) zakona št. 80/2005 ni bila uradno obveščena.
Besides, according to Article 4, paragraph 6 of Regulation 659/99, where the Commission fails to take a decision within the two months' procedural time limits, the aid is deemed to have been authorized provided the Member State gives prior notice of its intention to implement the measure, and unless the Commission takes a decision within a period of 15 working days following receipt of the notice.
Poleg tega se v skladu z odstavkom 6 člena 4 Uredbe št. 659/99, če Komisija ni sprejela odločbe v procesnem roku dveh mesecev, šteje, da je Komisija pomoč odobrila, če zadevna država članica izvaja te ukrepe potem, ko je o tem obvestila Komisijo, razen če Komisija ne odloči v roku 15 delovnih dni po prejemu obvestila.
In the case at hand, no prior notice was given by Italy.
V obravnavanem primeru Italija Komisije ni prej obvestila.
Therefore, even if the Terni’s companies allegation was substantiated, which is not the case, as explained in paragraphs (129) and (130) above, Article 4, paragraph 6 of Regulation 659/99 would not be applicable.
Zato se odstavek 6 člena 4 Uredbe št. 659/99 v tem primeru ne bi mogel uporabljati, tudi če bi bila navedba podjetij Terni utemeljena, kar pa, kot je razloženo v odstavkih (129) in (130), ni.
Since Italy failed to notify Article 11(11) of Law 80/2005, the aid is unlawful.
Ker Italija o členu 11(11) zakona št. 80/2005 ni uradno obvestila Komisije, je pomoč nezakonita.
The first extension
Prvo podaljšanje
Even though this procedure concerns only the second extension of the tariff, the Commission deems it appropriate to make a number of considerations on the first extension and its approval under the State aid rules.
Čeprav se v tem postopku obravnava samo drugo podaljšanje veljavnosti cene, se zdi Komisiji primerno obravnavati tudi prvo podaljšanje in njegovo odobritev v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči.
This first extension of the Terni tariff was provided for in Article 20(4) of Law 9/1991.
Prvo podaljšanje veljavnosti cene Terni je bilo določeno v členu 20(4) zakona št. 9/1991.
However, the internal documents leading to the Commission Decision provided for a brief description and assessment of the articles with State aid relevance.
Vendar pa interni dokumenti, na podlagi katerih je Komisija sprejela odločitev, vsebujejo kratek opis in oceno členov o državni pomoči.
Article 20(4) of the law, providing for the extension of the Terni tariff, was not mentioned.
Člen 20(4) zakona, ki določa podaljšanje veljavnosti cene Terni, v dokumentih ni omenjen.
Given such scant information, it is unfortunately impossible to trace back the reasoning followed in that case, and in particular to know whether the Commission had examined and intended to approve the Terni tariff.
Na podlagi tako skopih informacij je na žalost nemogoče ugotoviti, kateri so bili v tem primeru razlogi za to, in še zlasti izvedeti, ali je Komisija preučila in nameravala odobriti ceno Terni.
However, since Italy notified the entire law and the approval decision also refers to the entire law, the extension of the Terni tariff should be considered covered by the 1991 Commission Decision.
Ker je Italija Komisijo uradno obvestila o celotnem zakonu in se tudi odločba o odobritvi nanaša na celotni zakon, je treba podaljšanje veljavnosti cene Terni obravnavati, kot da je bilo odobreno z odločbo Komisije iz leta 1991.
The second extension under challenge
Drugo podaljšanje pod vprašajem
In derogation from the general prohibition of State aid laid down in Article 87(1) of the EC treaty, aid may be declared compatible if it can benefit from one of the derogations enumerated in the Treaty.
V smislu odstopanja od splošne prepovedi državne pomoči, ki je določeno v členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES, se pomoč lahko razglasi za združljivo, če se zanjo lahko uporablja eno od odstopanj, ki so našteta v Pogodbi.
The State aid granted to the Terni companies pursuant to Article 11(11) of Law 80/2005 can be classified as operating aid.
Državna pomoč, ki je bila podjetjem Terni odobrena na podlagi člena 11(11) zakona št. 80/2005, se lahko šteje za pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
It is settled case-law that operating aid, that is to say, aid intended to relieve an undertaking of the expenses which it would normally have had to bear in its day-to-day management or its usual activities, in principle, distorts competition to an extent contrary to the common interest in the sectors in which it is granted [38].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, to je pomoč, ki naj bi podjetje razbremenila stroškov, ki bi jih običajno imelo pri svojem dnevnem poslovanju ali običajnih dejavnostih, načeloma izkrivlja konkurenco v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi sektorjev, v katerih se jim pomoč odobri.
The Commission notes that operating aid granted in the form of a preferential electricity price to an energy-intensive undertaking, that is, an undertaking having electricity as one of its major cost factors, is a particularly distortive form of support since the aid has a substantial and direct impact on that undertaking’s production cost and resulting competitive position.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki se z ugodnejšimi cenami električne energije odobri energetsko intenzivnemu podjetju, to je podjetju, za katerega so najvišji stroški prav stroški električne energije, še posebno izkrivljajoča oblika pomoči, saj pomoč pomembno in neposredno vpliva na proizvodne stroške tega podjetja in posledično na njegov konkurenčni položaj.
Operating aid may be granted, under specific conditions, under the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection [39].
Pomoč za tekoče poslovanje se lahko pod posebnimi pogoji odobri v skladu s Smernicami o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja [39].
The tariff under consideration, however, serves no environmental purpose.
Vendar pa zadevna cena nima okoljevarstvenih namenov.
Exceptionally, operating aid may be granted in assisted areas eligible for aid under the derogation of Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
Izjemoma se lahko pomoč za tekoče poslovanje odobri območjem, ki prejemajo pomoč in so do pomoči upravičena v skladu z odstopanjem iz člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES.
Throughout the period considered, Region Umbria was not eligible for aid under Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty.
V obravnavanem obdobju dežela Umbrija ni bila upravičena do pomoči na podlagi člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe.
Even though, for the reasons explained above in paragraphs (123) to (127), the two extensions constitute different measures, the Commission deems it useful to recall that, when the first extension was notified, Region Umbria was going through a serious economic crisis, which affected in particular the steel and chemical sectors in the Terni area.
Čeprav gre iz razlogov, ki so navedeni v odstavkih od (123) do (127), pri podaljšanjih za dva različna ukrepa, se zdi Komisiji koristno spomniti, da je bila v času, ko je bila uradno obveščena o prvem podaljšanju, v deželi Umbrija huda gospodarska kriza, ki je vplivala zlasti na sektorja jeklarske in kemične industrije na območju Terni.
This crisis, which had come to a head at the beginning of the 1990s, was acknowledged by the Commission when, in 1997, it approved the Italian map of areas eligible for aid under Article 87(3)(c) [40].
To krizo, ki je svoj vrhunec dosegla v začetku devetdesetih let, je Komisija priznala s tem, da je leta 1997 odobrila italijansko karto območij, ki so na podlagi člena 87.3 (c) upravičena do pomoči.
The Terni and Perugia areas were declared eligible for aid under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds.
Območji Terni in Perugia sta bili razglašeni za upravičenca do pomoči v skladu s ciljem 2 strukturnih skladov.
In 2005, however, at the time Law 80/2005 was adopted, the process of structural adjustment in Umbria had already largely taken place.
Vendar pa je leta 2005, v času, ko je bil sprejet zakon št. 80/2005, proces strukturnega prilagajanja v deželi Umbrija večinoma že potekal.
In the proposed regional aid map for the period 2007-2013, Umbria will lose the status of assisted region altogether.
Na podlagi predlagane karte regionalnih pomoči za obdobje 2007–2013 bo dežela Umbrija sploh izgubila status območja, ki prejema pomoč.
Therefore, while it is difficult to know whether Regional development considerations may have played a role in the original approval decision, it is nevertheless certain that the Commission cannot rely on any such considerations in assessing the second extension of the tariff.
Zato Komisija pri ocenjevanju drugega podaljšanja veljavnosti cene zagotovo ne more upoštevati takih pomislekov, čeprav je težko izvedeti, ali so pomisleki glede regionalnega razvoja vplivali na prvotno odobritev.
Italy has in fact extensively explained the industrial policy reasons for the second prolongation of the Terni tariff (see paragraph (61)).
Italija je dejansko obširno pojasnila razloge s področja industrijske politike, zaradi katerih je drugič podaljšala veljavnost cene Terni (glej odstavek (61)).
The main thrust of Italy’s argument in favour of the tariff is that energy intensive companies in other Member States can also benefit from reduced energy prices and the tariff is required as a transitional measure to avoid delocalization outside the EU pending the full liberalization of the energy market and the improvement of infrastructure.
Bistvo utemeljitev, ki jih Italija navaja za ceno, je, da lahko tudi energetsko intenzivna podjetja v drugih državah članicah prejemajo ugodnosti nižjih cen električne energije in da je cena potrebna kot prehodni ukrep, da bi se preprečila preselitev proizvodnje v države zunaj EU, dokler se energetski trg ne bi popolnoma liberaliziral in se infrastruktura ne bi izboljšala.
Incidentally, these explanations contradict the Italian claim that the Terni tariff would still be compensatory and certainly offer no justification for a revision of the expropriation package.
Po naključju so te razlage v nasprotju s trditvijo Italije, da je cena Terni še vedno nadomestilo, in nikakor ne upravičujejo revizije razlastitvenega paketa.
The Commission notes that the Court has ruled that ‘the fact that a Member State seeks to approximate, by unilateral measures, conditions of competition in a particular sector of the economy to those prevailing in other Member States cannot deprive the measures in question of their character as State aid’ [41].
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Sodišče odločilo, da „dejstvo, da si država članica z enostranskimi ukrepi prizadeva približati pogoje konkurence v nekem gospodarskem sektorju pogojem konkurence, ki veljajo v drugih državah članicah, zadevnim ukrepom ne more odvzeti značaja državne pomoči“.
Further, the Italian argument that such a State aid would be justified by the existence of other (equally distortive) State aids in the EU is to be dismissed altogether.
Poleg tega je treba utemeljitev Italije, da je takšna državna pomoč upravičena zaradi obstoja drugih (enako izkrivljajočih) državnih pomoči v EU, v celoti zavrniti.
Such an approach would lead to subsidy races and would run counter to the very objective of State aid control.
Tak pristop bi povzročil subvencijsko tekmo in bi nasprotoval bistvenemu cilju nadzora državnih pomoči.
As regards the alleged risk of delocalization outside the EU, the Commission notes that there is no precedent in its decisional practice or in the jurisprudence of the Community courts, where such an argument has been accepted as a justification for the grand of State aids.
Glede domnevnega tveganja, da bi se proizvodnja preselila v države zunaj EU, Komisija ugotavlja, da v njeni praksi odločanja ali v sodni praksi sodišč Skupnosti ni precedenčnega primera, v katerem bi se taka utemeljitev upravičila odobritev državnih pomoči.
In the case at issue, there is no need for the Commission to even consider this question since the Italian authorities have not provided any substantiation for such an allegation.
V zadevnem primeru ni treba Komisiji niti obravnavati tega vprašanja, saj italijanski organi oblasti niso predložili nobenih utemeljitev za takšno domnevo.
Notably, it has not been shown that the tariff was necessary and proportionate to prevent that risk.
Predvsem niso dokazali, da je bila cena potrebna in sorazmerna za preprečitev tega tveganja.