natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In particular, Article 15(16) of Law No 67/88 provides for the granting of soft loans to agricultural cooperatives and consortia for which a maximum interest subsidy of 10 % may be granted.
Zlasti člen 15(16) Zakona št. 67/88 določa odobritev ugodnih posojil kmetijskim zadrugam in konzorcijem, katerim se lahko odobri subvencija obrestne mere, ki znaša največ 10 %.
It therefore relieves the agricultural undertakings concerned of the burden represented by the payment of the full interest rate in force on the market at the time the loan is granted, which would otherwise be paid by any other agricultural undertaking not entitled to that benefit.
Zato so zadevna kmetijska gospodarstva razbremenjena plačila celotne obrestne mere, ki velja na trgu ob odobritvi posojila, ki bi ga drugače plačalo vsako drugo kmetijsko gospodarstvo, ki nima te ugodnosti.
The ‘relief’ in question would, in this case, be equal to the difference between the market interest rate in force at the time of the loan and the (lower) interest rate actually paid by the beneficiaries thanks to State assistance.
Zadevna razbremenitev bi bila v tem primeru enaka razliki med tržno obrestno mero, ki velja v času posojila, in (nižjo) obrestno mero, ki jo dejansko plačajo upravičenci zaradi državne pomoči.
For its part, Law No 252/91 authorises the allocations of public funds for the implementation of different types of projects in the livestock sector and in thus doing it favours the recipients of these funds with respect to other agricultural undertakings which are obliged to carry out similar projects relying solely on their own financial resources.
Sam Zakon št. 252/91 dovoljuje dodelitev javnih sredstev za izvajanje različnih vrst projektov v živinorejskem sektorju, s čimer prejemnikom teh sredstev daje prednost pred drugimi kmetijskimi gospodarstvi, ki morajo podobne projekte izvesti le z lastnimi finančnimi sredstvi.
By definition, the two measures above seemed to fall within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Glede na opredelitev spadata navedena ukrepa pod člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
When the procedure was initiated, the Commission was not in a position to establish the lawfulness of these aid measures.
Ko se je postopek začel, Komisija ni mogla ugotoviti zakonitosti teh ukrepov pomoči.
Despite specific and repeated requests in this respect, Italian authorities did not confirm to the Commission whether the instruments had been notified in accordance with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty and, therefore, whether the measures therein contained formed part of existing aid schemes assessed by the Commission in the light of Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the EC Treaty or whether they had ever been notified to the Commission.
Kljub posebnim in ponavljajočim se zahtevam v zvezi s tem italijanski organi Komisiji niso potrdili, ali so bili instrumenti predloženi v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES in ali so bili zato ukrepi, zajeti v njih, del obstoječih shem pomoči, ki jih je Komisija ocenila glede na člene 87, 88 in 89 Pogodbe ES, ter ali so bili sploh predloženi Komisiji.
From a substantive point of view, the Commission had doubts as to the compatibility with the common market of some aspects of the aid schemes provided for by these legislative acts.
Z vsebinskega stališča je Komisija dvomila o skladnosti nekaterih vidikov shem pomoči, ki jih določajo ti zakonodajni akti, s skupnim trgom.
On the basis of the information available at the time, derived from an analysis of the texts sent to the Commission, some of the measures contained in Article 15(16) of Law No 67/88 and Law No 252/91, might indeed constitute operating aid.
Na podlagi takrat dostopnih informacij iz analize besedil, ki so bila poslana Komisiji, bi lahko nekateri ukrepi iz člena 15(16) Zakona št. 67/88 in Zakona št. 252/91 dejansko pomenili pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
In the absence of more accurate and detailed information refuting this preliminary approach, this could only induce the Commission to adopt a negative position with respect to such aid.
Zaradi pomanjkanja natančnejših in podrobnejših informacij, ki bi spodbijale predhodni pristop, bi lahko to prepričalo Komisijo, da sprejme negativno stališče glede take pomoči.
The Commission, in its decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty, enjoined Italy to provide all the information available on the terms and conditions (interest rates, guarantees if any, etc.) at which the loans for which an extension was provided by Article 4 of Law No 290/99 were originally granted and the overall amount of the loans granted, as well as to indicate whether the aid formed part of an existing aid scheme (and if so to indicate which one).
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi o začetku postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES Italiji naročila, da zagotovi vse razpoložljive informacije o pogojih (obrestne mere, morebitne garancije itd.), po katerih so bila posojila z odlogom na podlagi člena 4 Zakona št. 290/99, podeljena, ter navede celoten znesek podeljenih posojil in sporoči, ali je bila pomoč del obstoječe sheme pomoči (če je tako, potem je treba navesti, katere).
Since the final decision on Article 4 of Law No 290/99 did not concern or have any effect on the farming, operating and improvement loans which expired on 31 March 1998 for which an extension was provided by the abovementioned Article, these loans still needed to be assessed to establish whether the aid in question was granted at market conditions (and if so, the latter should have been specified) or whether they were part of existing aid schemes approved by the Commission (also to be specified).
Ker dokončna odločitev o členu 4 Zakona št. 290/99 ni zadevala posojil za kmetovanje, poslovanje ali izboljšave, ki so zapadla 31. marca 1998 in za katera je bil določen odlog iz navedenega člena, in nanje ni vplivala, je bila za ta posojila še vedno potrebna ocena za ugotovitev, ali je bila zadevna pomoč dodeljena po tržnih pogojih (če je tako, jo je treba določiti), ali pa so bila del obstoječih shem pomoči, ki jih je odobrila Komisija (ki jih je treba prav tako določiti).
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY ITALY FOLLOWING THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEDURE
INFORMACIJE, KI JIH JE ITALIJA PREDLOŽILA PO ZAČETKU POSTOPKA
Following initiation of procedure, in reply to the Commission's specific requests, the Italian authorities provided detailed information by letters dated 18 May 2000, 13 October 2000, 5 July 2001, 27 February 2003 and 29 October 2004, which was registered on 3 November 2004.
Po začetku postopka in kot odgovor na posebne zahteve Komisije so italijanski organi v dopisih z dne 18. maja 2000, 13. oktobra 2000, 5. julija 2001, 27. februarja 2003 in 29. oktobra 2004, ki je bil vpisan v evidenco 3. novembra 2004, predložili natančne informacije.
The information provided in these letters must be read as a whole, since, following in-depth investigation, the Italian authorities revised some of the data originally provided, in particular those related to financial aggregated data.
Informacije iz teh pisem je treba obravnavati kot celoto, ker so italijanski organi po natančni raziskavi revidirali nekaj že predloženih podatkov, zlasti zbrane finančne podatke.
The information provided is summarised in part III.3, with references to the relevant letter.
Povzetek predloženih informacij s sklicevanjem na zadevne dopise je v delu III.3.
V. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES
V. PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANI
The Commission only received one letter from third parties.
Komisija je od tretjih strani prejela le en dopis.
This letter, dated 30 June 2000, was sent by CONAZO, writing as the leading company of a group of undertakings which had benefited from the funds granted by the Italian authorities on the basis of Laws No 252/91 and No 67/88, which were subject to the Commission's proceedings.
Ta dopis je 30. junija 2000 poslal CONAZO, vodilna družba skupine podjetij, ki so prejela sredstva, ki so jih odobrili italijanski organi na podlagi Zakona št. 252/91 in Zakona št. 67/88, ki ju je upoštevala Komisija.
In its letter, CONAZO mainly expressed its surprise at the fact that, in initiating proceedings, the Commission had clearly stated that it had not been informed of the existence of Laws No 252/91 and No 67/88 and of the fact that the Italian authorities had granted aid on the basis of these laws.
CONAZO je v tem dopisu izrazil predvsem začudenje zaradi dejstva, da je na začetku postopka Komisija jasno navedla, da ni bila obveščena o obstoju Zakona št. 252/91 in Zakona št. 67/88 ter o dejstvu, da so italijanski organi pomoč odobrili na podlagi teh dveh zakonov.
According to this cooperative, the Commission could not ignore the drastic reorganisation programme for the livestock and slaughtering sectors launched by the Italian authorities as early as 1986.
Po navedbah te zadruge Komisija ni mogla prezreti programa temeljite reorganizacije sektorja živinoreje in sektorja za zakol, ki so ga italijanski organi začeli izvajati že leta 1986.
In the same letter, CONAZO referred to the wide-ranging restructuring programme aimed at the two sectors above as drafted by the Italian interministerial committee for economic planning (CIPE) in 1991.
V istem dopisu se je CONAZO skliceval na obširen program prestrukturiranja za navedena sektorja, osnutek katerega je leta 1991 pripravil italijanski medresorski odbor za gospodarsko načrtovanje (CIPE).
The company also recalled that the drastic actions undertaken in the slaughtering sector led to a dramatic reduction in the number of slaughtering plants, which fell from over 8500 in the 1980s to the current 3000.
Družba je prav tako opozorila, da se je zaradi temeljitih ukrepov v sektorju za zakol bistveno zmanjšalo število obratov za zakol, tj. z 8500 v osemdesetih letih 20. stoletja na sedanjih 3000.
According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, 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, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, is incompatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, v kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty apply to the production of and trade in products in favour of which the Italian authorities decided to grant aid.
Člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe se uporabljata za proizvode, za katere so italijanski organi odobrili pomoč, in trgovanje z njimi.
As a matter of fact, Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal provides that, save as otherwise provided in the Regulation, Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the Treaty, apply to the production of and trade in beef and veal.
Člen 40 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1254/1999 z dne 17. maja 1999 o skupni ureditvi trga za goveje in telečje meso dejansko določa, da se členi 87, 88 in 89 Pogodbe uporabljajo za proizvodnjo govejega in telečjega mesa ter trgovanje z njim, če v uredbi ni določeno drugače.
A similar provision is contained in Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat and in Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2529/2001 of 19 December 2001 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat.
Podobno določbo vsebujeta člen 21 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2759/75 z dne 29. oktobra 1975 o skupni Ureditvi trga za prašičje meso in člen 23 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2529/2001 z dne 19. decembra 2001 o skupni ureditvi trga za ovčje in kozje meso.
Aid granted on the basis of Article 15(16) of Laws No 67/88 and No 252/91
Pomoč, odobrena na podlagi člena 15(16) Zakona št. 67/88 in Zakona št. 252/91
By enabling certain agricultural undertakings to continue to benefit of specific aid measures even in cases of non-compliance with all the initial eligibility requirements, the measure seemed to favour these undertakings with respect to those which, in the same situation, were compliant.
Zdi se, da daje ukrep, potem ko se je nekaterim kmetijskim gospodarstvom omogočilo, da imajo še naprej korist zaradi posebnih ukrepov pomoči tudi v primerih neskladnosti z vsemi prvotnimi pogoji za upravičenost, prednost tem kmetijskim gospodarstvom v primerjavi z gospodarstvi, ki so poskrbela za skladnost ne glede na posebne ukrepe pomoči.
Moreover, that Article cannot be assessed in isolation from the legislative acts constituting the legal basis for granting those particular benefits (credit subsidies and financing) it refers to, namely Article 15(16) of Law No 67/88 and Law No 252/91.
Poleg tega navedenega člena ni mogoče oceniti ločeno od zakonodajnih aktov, ki so pravna podlaga za dodelitev navedenih posebnih ugodnosti (kreditne subvencije in financiranje) in katere zadeva, in sicer člen 15(16) Zakona št. 67/88 in Zakon št. 252/91.
As set out in paragraphs 37 to 39 above, these two legislative acts clearly provide for State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Kot določajo odstavki 37 do 39, ta zakonodajna akta jasno določata državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The State therefore relieves the agricultural undertakings concerned of the burden represented by the payment of the full interest rate in force on the market at the time the loan is granted, which would otherwise be paid by any other agricultural undertaking not entitled to the same benefit.
Država zato kmetijska gospodarstva razbremeni plačila celotne obrestne mere, ki velja na trgu ob odobritvi posojila, ki bi ga drugače plačalo vsako drugo kmetijsko gospodarstvo, ki nima te ugodnosti.
In this case, the ‘relief’ in question equals the difference between the market interest rate in force at the time of the loan and the interest rate actually paid by the beneficiaries thanks to State assistance.
Zadevna razbremenitev je v tem primeru enaka razliki med tržno obrestno mero, ki velja v času posojila, in obrestno mero, ki jo dejansko plačajo upravičenci zaradi državne pomoči.
Law No 252/91 authorises the allocations of public funds for the implementation of different types of projects in the livestock sector and, by so doing, it favours the recipients of these funds with respect to other agricultural undertakings which are obliged to carry out similar projects by relying solely on their own financial resources.
Zakon št. 252/91 dovoljuje dodelitev javnih sredstev za izvajanje različnih vrst projektov v živinorejskem sektorju, s čimer daje prejemnikom teh sredstev prednost pred drugimi kmetijskimi gospodarstvi, ki morajo podobne projekte izvesti le z lastnimi finančnimi sredstvi.
According to the case law of the Court of Justice, an improvement in the competitive position of an undertaking as a result of state financial aid leads to possible distortion of competition compared with other competing undertakings not receiving such assistance.
Glede na sodno prakso Sodišča lahko izboljšanje konkurenčnega položaja podjetja zaradi državne finančne pomoči povzroči izkrivljanje konkurence v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenčnimi podjetji, ki ne prejemajo pomoči.
Moreover, as there is heavy intra-Community trade in the livestock sector, the measure may distort competition and affect trade between the Member States.
Ker se v živinorejskem sektorju znotraj Skupnosti veliko trguje, lahko ukrep prav tako izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission therefore concludes that the measure is covered by the prohibition in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija zato zaključuje, da je ukrep zajet v prepovedi iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
VI.1(a) Compatibility of the aid
Združljivost pomoči
The prohibition in Article 87(1) is followed by the exemptions provided for in Article 87(2) and (3).
Prepovedi iz člena 87(1) sledijo izjeme iz člena 87(2) in (3).
The exemptions listed in Article 87(2) are manifestly inapplicable given the nature of the aid measure in question and its objectives.
Izjeme iz člena 87(2) so očitno neuporabne ob upoštevanju vrste zadevnega ukrepa pomoči in njegovih ciljev.
Indeed, Italy did not argue that Article 87(2) was applicable.
Italija se res ni sklicevala na člen 87(2).
Article 87(3) specifies the circumstances under which State aid may be considered to be compatible with the common market.
Člen 87(3) določa okoliščine, v katerih je državna pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Compatibility with the common market must be assessed from the Community's point of view and not from an individual Member State's.
Združljivost s skupnim trgom je treba oceniti s stališča Komisije in ne posamezne države članice.
Article 87(3)(a) is manifestly inapplicable since the aid is not intended to promote the development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment.
Člena 87(3)(a) ni mogoče uporabiti, ker pomoč ni namenjena spodbujanju razvoja regij, v katerih je življenjska raven zelo nizka ali imajo visoko stopnjo brezposelnosti.
As regards Article 87(3)(b), the aid in question is not intended to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in Italy's economy.
Kar zadeva člen 87(3)(b), zadevna pomoč ni namenjena spodbujanju izvedbe pomembnega projekta skupnega evropskega interesa ali odpravljanju večjih motenj v italijanskem gospodarstvu.
This aid is not intended to achieve or suitable for achieving the objectives referred to in Article 87(3)(d).
Pomoč ni namenjena doseganju ciljev iz člena 87(3)(d) in za to tudi ni primerna.
Under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, aid designed to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be considered compatible with the common market provided that it does not adversely affect trade to an extent contrary to the common interest.
V skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe se lahko pomoč za spodbujanje razvoja nekaterih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali nekaterih gospodarskih območij šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom, če trgovini ne škoduje v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
The notified aid scheme must therefore be assessed within the framework of that article and of the specific provisions applicable to the case being examined.
Predloženo shemo pomoči je treba zato oceniti v okviru navedenega člena in posebnih določb, ki se uporabljajo pri primeru v preiskavi.
All the integrated projects which benefited from the aid provided for by Law No 67/88 and Law No 252/91 were approved by 31 December 1992.
Vsi integrirani projekti, za katere je bila dodeljena pomoč na podlagi Zakona št. 67/88 in Zakona št. 252/91, so bili odobreni pred 31. decembrom 1992.
The relevant financial commitments were approved by the same date.
Ustrezne finančne obveznosti so bile odobrene isti dan.
The aid under discussion was never notified to the Commission and is therefore unlawful within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Komisija ni bila nikoli obveščena o zadevni pomoči, ki je zato nezakonita v smislu člena 1(f) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
According to point 23.3 of the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector, unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 must be assessed in accordance with the rules and guidelines in force at the time the aid is granted.
V skladu s točko 23.3 Smernic Skupnosti za državno pomoč v kmetijskem sektorju je treba nezakonito pomoč v smislu člena 1(f) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 oceniti v skladu s pravili in smernicami, ki so veljavne ob odobritvi pomoči.
According to the Italian authorities all the aid granted was connected to investments undertaken within the framework of the five integrated projects approved.
Italijanski organi so navedli, da je bila vsa odobrena pomoč povezana z naložbami, izvedenimi v okviru petih odobrenih integriranih projektov.
The investments were undertaken both at the level of primary production (stockbreeding) and at the level of processing and marketing of agricultural products.
Naložbe so bile izvedene na ravni primarne proizvodnje (živinoreja) ter na ravni predelave in trženja kmetijskih proizvodov.
The investments which were considered eligible for aid substantially concerned: technological and health modernisation, the strengthening of slaughtering plants, the disposal and use of sub-products, meat processing and packaging lines, the adaptation of areas and equipment for a better presentation of the products and implementation or the logistics, the purchase of production facilities and of processing and marketing facilities to improve production technology, the purchase of facilities to favour the development of quality processes.
Naložbe, za katere je pomoč upravičena, so v veliki meri zadevale: posodobitev na področju tehnologij in zdravstva, okrepitev obratov za zakol, odstranjevanje in uporaba polproizvodov, predelavo mesa in tekoče trakove za pakiranje, adaptacijo območij in opreme za boljšo predstavitev proizvodov in izvajanje ali logistiko, nakup proizvodnih, predelovalnih in tržnih obratov za izboljšanje proizvodne tehnologije, nakup obratov za razvoj postopkov kakovosti.
Investments in intangible assets such as marketing and patents were also taken into account in the assessment of the overall projects but were never financed.
V oceni celotnih projektov so bile upoštevane tudi naložbe v neopredmetena sredstva, kot so trženje in patenti, vendar niso bile nikoli financirane.
The following expenses were not eligible for aid:
Do pomoči niso bila upravičena naslednja področja:
promotional and advertising activities,
promocijske dejavnosti in oglaševanje,
intangible investments such as trademarks,
neopredmetene naložbe, kot so blagovne znamke,
design and building costs,
stroški načrtovanja in gradnje,
legal, administrative and tax costs.
pravni, upravni in davčni stroški.
VI.1.(a) 1. Investments connected to the processing and marketing of agricultural products
Naložbe, povezane s predelavo in trženjem kmetijskih proizvodov
At the time the projects and the relevant commitments were approved, the Commission considered compatible with the common market all investments where the aid rates did not exceed the maximum aid rates normally admitted by the Commission for the sector, namely 55 % (75 % in Objective 1 regions) in the case of projects complying with the sectoral programmes or the general criteria laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 and 35 % (50 % in Objective 1 regions) for all the other projects, provided that these were not excluded from the selection criteria laid down in the Annex to the Commission Decision of 7 June 1990 concerning investments which could be financed within the framework of Regulations (EEC) No 866/90 and (EEC) No 867/90, used with the requisite adjustments pursuant to Article 87 of the Treaty.
Komisija je v času, ko so bili odobreni projekti in zadevne obveznosti, štela za združljive s skupnim trgom vse naložbe, pri katerih stopnje pomoči niso presegale največjih stopenj pomoči, ki jih Komisija običajno priznava za sektor, in sicer 55 % (75 % za regije iz cilja 1) za projekte, ki so v skladu s sektorskimi programi ali splošnimi merili iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 866/90, in 35 % (50 % za regije iz cilja 1) za vse druge projekte, če niso bili izključeni iz izbirnih meril iz Priloge k Sklepu Komisije z dne 7. junija 1990 o naložbah, financiranih v okviru Uredbe (EGS) št. 866/90 in Uredbe (EGS) št. 867/90, ki se uporabljata z zahtevanimi spremembami v skladu s členom 87 Pogodbe.
It is therefore to be seen whether the investments benefiting from the aid actually met the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 as well as the sectoral restrictions provided for by the Commission Decision of 7 June 1990.
Zato je treba preveriti, ali naložbe, za katere je bila pomoč upravičena, dejansko izpolnjujejo zahteve iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 866/90 in sektorske omejitve iz Sklepa Komisije z dne 7. junija 1990.