natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The proposed amendment will enable France to bring its scheme into line with the provisions laid down in the new Community guidelines in respect of sea shipping services between a French port and a port of another Member State and will also enable projects granting aid to sea shipping services between two French ports to be made subject to the conditions laid down in the new Community guidelines.
Predlagana sprememba bo omogočila Franciji uskladiti svoj program z določbami, opredeljenimi v novih Smernicah Skupnosti v zvezi z linijsko plovbo med francoskim pristaniščem in pristaniščem v drugi državi članici, poleg tega pa bo tudi omogočila, da bodo za projekte, ki dodeljujejo pomoč za linijsko plovbo med dvema francoskima pristaniščema, veljali pogoji, določeni v novih Smernicah Skupnosti.
More generally, this amendment will mean that France will be implementing its scheme under conditions identical to those prevailing in all the other Member States in pursuance of the said guidelines,
V bolj splošnem smislu ta sprememba pomeni, da bo Francija izvajala svoj program pod enakimi pogoji, kot veljajo v vseh drugih državah članicah v skladu z navedenimi smernicami –
The following third subparagraph shall be added to Article 1 of Decision 2002/610/EC:
V členu 1 Odločbe 2002/610/ES se doda naslednji pododstavek:
‘France shall make the granting of individual aid within the framework of this scheme subject to compliance with Chapter 10 of the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport.Article 2
„Francija dodeli posamezno pomoč v okviru tega programa pod pogojem, da izpolnjuje določbe poglavja 10 novih Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za pomorski promet.Člen 2
OJ L 196, 25.7.2002, p. 31.
UL L 196, 25.7.2002, str. 31.
This Regulation establishes the Marco Polo Programme which enables the Commission to grant a financial contribution from the Community to projects for the start-up of short sea shipping services to shift part of freight transport from road to maritime transport.
Ta uredba vzpostavlja program Marco Polo, ki Komisiji omogoča dodelitev finančnega prispevka projektom za vzpostavitev linijskih prevozov po morju na kratkih razdaljah, da bi del tovornega prometa preusmerili s cestnega v pomorski promet.
Specifically, Article 9 of the said Regulation provides that ‘Community financial assistance for the actions defined by the Programme shall not exclude those actions being granted State aid at national, regional or local level, insofar as such aid is compatible with the State-aid arrangements laid down in the Treaty and within the limits established for each type of action in Article 5(2), Article 6(4) and Article 7(3) respectively.’
Zlasti v členu 9 navedene uredbe je določeno, da „finančna pomoč Skupnosti za dejavnost iz programa ne izključuje dejanj, ki jim je dodeljena državna pomoč na nacionalni, regionalni ali lokalni ravni, če je ta pomoč združljiva z dogovori o državni pomoči iz Pogodbe in v okviru omejitev, določenih za vsako vrsto dejavnosti v členu 5(2), členu 6(4) in členu 7(3)“.
For Community financing or eligibility under various aid schemes, the 30 % ceiling applies to the combined total of the aid and financial assistance.
Pri financiranju Skupnosti ali upravičenosti v okviru raznih programov pomoči velja 30-odstotna zgornja meja za skupno državno pomoč in finančno pomoč.
It should be noted that the intensity of the aid is the same as for modal shift actions within the framework of the Marco Polo programme: see Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1382/2003.
Vendar je treba omeniti, da je intenzivnost pomoči enaka kot za prenos načina v okviru pobude Skupnosti Marco Polo: glej člen 5(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1382/2003.
OJ C 13, 17.1.2004, p. 3.’
UL C 13, 17.1.2004, str. 3.“
on State aid (Germany) exemption from mineral oil tax for greenhouse undertakings
o shemi državnih pomoči Nemčije v obliki oprostitve davka na mineralno olje za rastlinjake
(notified under document number C(2008) 860)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 860)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision cited above and having regard to their comments [1],
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenimi členi, in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb [1],
By letter of 19 April 2005, registered as received on 20 April 2005, Germany notified a measure granting a tax refund for greenhouses in 2005 and 2006.
Z dopisom z dne 19. aprila 2005, evidentiranim 20. aprila 2005, je Nemčija priglasila ukrep za odobritev vračila davka za rastlinjake za leti 2005 in 2006.
The measure contains a suspensive clause making its implementation dependent on approval by the Commission.
Ta ukrep vsebuje klavzulo o odložitvi, ki izvedbo ukrepa pogojuje z odobritvijo s strani Komisije.
The State aid case was registered under the number N 189/05.
Zadeva je bila evidentirana pod številko N 189/05.
The measure is an extension of a non-notified scheme (2001-2002), which was already the subject of an extension (2003-2004), itself also non-notified.
Ta ukrep je podaljšanje nepriglašene sheme (2001–2002), ki je bila predmet podaljšanja (2003–2004), ki prav tako ni bilo priglašeno.
Both those non-notified measures were entered in the register of non-notified aid under the number NN 36/2005.
Oba nepriglašena ukrepa sta bila v register nepriglašenih pomoči evidentirana pod številko NN 36/05.
By letter of 20 October 2005 the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty [2].
Z dopisom z dne 20. oktobra 2005 je Komisija začela uradni postopek preiskave v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES [2].
In response Germany commented by letter of 22 November 2005.
Nemčija je nato predložila pripombe z dopisom z dne 22. novembra 2000.
The Commission received several observations from interested third parties.
Komisija je prejela več pripomb tretjih zainteresiranih strani.
Germany commented on these by letter of 14 June 2006, and provided further information by letter of 12 December 2007.
Nemčija je te pripombe komentirala z dopisom z dne 14. junija 2006, z dopisom z dne 12. decembra 2007 pa je posredovala nadaljnje informacije.
On 16 August 2001, by means of the Law amending the Mineral Oil Tax Law, Germany introduced a two-year tax reduction for fuels (heating oil, natural gas, liquid gas) for use in greenhouses and covered growing areas.
Z Zakonom o spremembi Zakona o davku na mineralno olje je Nemčija 16. avgusta 2001 uvedla dveletno znižanje splošne stopnje davka na mineralno olje za grelne materiale (grelno gorivo, metan, tekoči plin), ki se uporablja v rastlinjakih in zaprtih prostorih za gojenje.
The aid was granted in the form of a tax refund.
Pomoč je bila dodeljena v obliki davčnega povračila.
By means of the Law on the further development of the ecological tax reform of 23 December 2002, the tax refund, which had originally been granted for fuels used between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2002, was extended until 31 December 2004.
Z nemškim Zakonom o nadaljevanju eko davčne reforme z dne 23. decembra 2002 je bilo davčno povračilo, ki je bilo prvotno odobreno za grelne materiale, ki so se uporabljali med 1. januarjem 2001 in 31. decembrom 2002, podaljšano do 31. decembra 2004.
By means of the Law on the implementation of the guidelines of 9 December 2004, Germany intended to retain that tax refund until the end of 2006 and notified the extension measure as State aid N 189/05.
Nemčija namerava z Zakonom o prenosu direktiv z dne 9. decembra 2004 ohraniti to davčno povračilo do konca leta 2006 in je podaljšanje priglasila kot državno pomoč N 189/2005.
The tables in Annex I show the refund rates and financial impact of the tax refund in favour of greenhouses, compared to the rest of the agricultural sector.
Preglednice v Prilogi I ponazarjajo davčna povračila in finančne učinke davčnega povračila za rastlinjake in pokrite objekte v primerjavi z drugimi kmetijskimi sektorji.
The Commission opened the formal investigation procedure for the following reasons:
Komisija je začela uradni postopek preiskave iz naslednjih razlogov:
The measure constitutes State aid.
Ukrep predstavlja državno pomoč.
The German authorities argued that this case was covered by the exemption contained in the Council Directives on the taxation of energy products (Directive 92/81/EEC, replaced from 2003 by Directive 2003/96/EC).
Nemški organi trdijo, da za ta primer velja izjema po direktivah Sveta o obdavčitvi energentov (Direktiva 92/81/EGS, od 2003 nadomeščena z Direktivo 2003/95/ES).
Under those Directives, Member States could grant tax reductions on mineral oils used in horticulture.
Po teh direktivah lahko države članice za mineralna olja, ki se uporabljajo v vrtnarstvu, odobrijo znižanje davčne stopnje.
The Commission expressed doubts in respect of this view.
Komisija je v zvezi s tem izrazila dvom.
Under the Directives on energy products, and in particular Directive 2003/96/EC, the tax measures which Member States may adopt must be compatible with Community law and derogating provisions are to apply without affecting the rules on competition.
V skladu z omenjenima direktivama in zlasti z Direktivo 2003/96/ES morajo biti davčni ukrepi, ki jih lahko države članice sprejmejo, združljivi z zakonodajo Skupnosti, odstopajoče določbe pa morajo veljati brez poseganja v pravila o konkurenci.
The measures must not impair the smooth operation of the internal market or lead to distortions of competition.
Ukrepi ne smejo vplivati na pravilno delovanje notranjega trga in ne smejo izkrivljati konkurence.
Moreover, this aid would appear to have distorted competition, since a reduced tax burden on energy products in a highly energy-intensive economic sector such as greenhouse cultivation had a direct effect on production costs and hence on competitiveness.
Poleg tega je ta pomoč očitno izkrivljala konkurenco, ker ima znižanje davčnega bremena za energente v sektorju visokointenzivne energije, kot je toplogredno vrtnarstvo, neposreden vpliv na stroške proizvodnje in s tem na konkurenčnost.
It was emphasised that this refund had been granted selectively since it differentiated between open-air and greenhouse cultivation within the horticultural sector.
Poudarjena je bila selektivna dodelitev tega davčnega povračila, saj v sektorju vrtnarstva ločimo med gojenjem rastlin na prostem in v rastlinjakih.
The Commission emphasized that tax reductions could be granted, subject to the rules on competition.
Komisija je poudarila možnost držav članic, da dodelijo davčne olajšave, vendar v okviru pravil o konkurenci.
At that stage, there seemed to be no provisions under the State aid rules which would enable Member States to grant fiscal aid of that nature.
Na tej točki se je zdelo, da shema državnih pomoči ne vsebuje določb, ki državam članicam omogočajo dodelitev davčnih pomoči te vrste.
The Commission at that stage considered that this measure constituted operating aid which was incompatible with the common market.
Komisija je bila na tej točki mnenja, da gre pri tem ukrepu za pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
GERMANY’S COMMENTS
PRIPOMBE NEMČIJE
Germany commented both on the matter itself and on the procedure.
Nemčija je predložila pripombe v zvezi z zadevo in tudi v zvezi s postopkom.
Germany argued that the tax reduction was not selective, and that it was in the nature of the matter that heating materials would be used only in covered areas.
Po mnenju Nemčije znižanje davčne stopnje ni bilo selektivno, kar izhaja iz narave zadeve, saj se grelni materiali uporabljajo samo v zaprtih prostorih.
In Germany’s view, if there were selectivity, and therefore aid were being granted, that aid would be justified under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Če bi šlo za selektivnost, torej za pomoč, je ta državna pomoč upravičena v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
Germany claimed that there was special justification for the aid under Article 8(2)(f) of Directive 92/81/EEC and under its successor provision, Article 15(3) of Directive 2003/96/EC.
Posebna pravna upravičenost pomoči izhaja iz člena 8(2)(f) Direktive 92/81/EGS in tudi iz naslednje določbe iz člena 15(3) Direktive 2003/96/ES.
Germany was of the opinion that the measure constituted ‘implementation of the authorisation granted to Member States (…) [by the above-mentioned Directives] (…)’.
Nemčija meni, da gre za „prenos [s temi direktivami] pooblastil, priznanih državam članicam“.
In Germany’s view, it would be contradictory for the Commission (which, after all, proposed those Directives) to put the counter argument to Germany that the measure posed a risk to the common market.
Protislovno je, da Komisija, ki je te direktive nenazadnje predlagala, Nemčiji očita, da iz tega ukrepa izhaja nevarnost za skupni trg.
According to Germany, the competition-law aspects of the Directives in question did not have priority.
Poleg tega zahteve glede konkurence zadevnih direktiv ne bi imele nobene prednosti.
The German Government was of the opinion that point 52 of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection [3] was applicable because an existing tax had been increased significantly.
Po mnenju Nemčije se uporablja odstavek 52 Smernic o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja [3], saj se je obstoječi davek znatno povečal.
It argued that the Mineral Oil Tax Law, and the Energy Tax Law which had taken its place, should be seen as an existing environmental tax.
Zakon o davku na mineralno olje oziroma Zakon o davku na energijo, ki ga nadomešča, je treba obravnavati kot obstoječi okoljski davek.
They stated that the energy tax rates contained therein had been increased significantly as of 1 April 1999 through the ecological tax reform (as shown in the overview in Annex I).
Tam vsebovane davčne stopnje na energijo so se zaradi reforme okoljskega davka, kot je razvidno iz priloženega pregleda (Priloga I), s 1. aprilom 1999 znatno povečale.
The objective of those provisions had been to increase demand for energy-saving, resource-efficient products and drive the development of environmentally friendly procedures and technologies.
Cilj teh določb je preko obdavčitve energije povzročiti preusmeritev povpraševanja na energetsko varčne proizvode, ki ohranjajo energetske vire, ter dajati spodbude za razvoj okolju prijaznih postopkov in tehnologij.
The German Government argued that the legislation relating to the taxation of energy had thus had a significant effect on environmental protection.
Določbe obdavčitve energije bi imele tako občuten vpliv na varovanje okolja.
In this context, the German Government made reference to a study on energy efficiency in greenhouse cultivation which had been conducted by the Centre for Business Management in Horticulture at the Institute of Biological Production Systems at Hannover’s Leibnitz University.
Nemčija tukaj opozarja na študijo Centra za poslovno ekonomijo na Inštitutu za biološke proizvodne obrate univerze Leibnitz Universität Hannover o energetski učinkovitosti v rastlinjakih.
Higher taxation on energy, it was claimed, was a particular burden on undertakings which heated greenhouses or other covered areas, as the operations of those undertakings were energy-intensive.
Višja obdavčitev energije obremenjuje podjetja, ki ogrevajo rastlinjake ali zaprte prostore za gojenje rastlin, še zlasti zaradi energetsko intenzivnega gospodarjenja.
In view of this, it was argued, there had been cause to lessen the burden on those undertakings temporarily by introducing a fiscal incentive.
Na tej podlagi obstaja pobuda za uvedbo davčne ugodnosti za začasno razbremenitev teh podjetij.
It was also argued that there had still been a need for this measure after 31 December 2002 (the date on which the original tax reduction had been due to expire).
Ta potreba obstaja tudi po 31. decembru 2002, času, ko naj bi se prvotno iztekla znižana davčna stopnja.
For this reason, the Law on the further development of the ecological tax reform extended the validity of the tax reduction by two years until 31 December 2004.
Znižana davčna stopnja se je z Zakonom o nadaljevanju eko davčne reforme podaljšala za dve leti do 31. decembra 2004.
In light of the particularly difficult competitive situation in 2005 and 2006 faced by agricultural and forestry undertakings which heated their greenhouses or covered areas for the purpose of cultivating plants, it had been decided to grant the tax reduction for that period also.
Da bi se tudi v letih 2005 in 2006 upošteval posebej težak konkurenčni položaj podjetij na področju kmetijstva in gozdarstva, ki ogrevajo rastlinjake ali zaprte prostore za gojenje rastlin, je bila predvidena ohranitev znižane davčne stopnje tudi v tem obdobju.
The German Government considered the requirements laid down in point 52 of the Community guidelines to have been satisfied.
Po mnenju Nemčije so predpostavke o dejanskem stanju iz odstavka 52 Smernic Skupnosti izpolnjene.
Consequently, it was argued that the provisions of point 51(1)(b) of the Community guidelines could be used as justification for having granted State aid in the form of a tax reduction for the period 2001-06.
Zato je za upravičenost državne pomoči v zvezi z znižanjem davčne stopnje v obdobju od 2001 do 2006 mogoče uporabiti odstavek 51(1)(b) Smernic.
The German Government argued that, where the tax reduction affected a Community tax which had been harmonised in accordance with Directive 92/81/EEC or Directive 2003/96/EC, the tax reduction was compatible with the common market, at least in cases where it was not below the minimum Community tax rate.
Če se znižanje davčne stopnje nanaša na davek Skupnosti, ki mora biti v skladu z Direktivo 92/81/EGS ali Direktivo 2003/96/ES usklajen, mora biti znižanje združljivo s skupnim trgom vsaj do te mere, da ni nižje od zadevne najnižje davčne stopnje Skupnosti.
The same applied to the tax reduction (i.e. compatibility with the common market) according to Germany, if a Community tax was not involved, at least in cases where the reduction was over 20 % of the domestic tax.
Enako velja (tj. združljivost s skupnim trgom) za znižanje davčne stopnje v primeru odsotnosti davka Skupnosti vsaj do te mere, da znižanje presega 20 % domačega davka.
Germany also stated that, during consultations on the draft law introducing the ecological tax reform, the issue had arisen of reducing the burden on agricultural and forestry undertakings which heated their greenhouses or covered areas for the purpose of cultivating plants because those undertakings would have been affected significantly by higher taxation due to their energy-intensive operations.
Nemčija je nadalje pojasnila, da mora biti pri osnutku zakona za vstop v reformo okoljskega davka predmet posvetovanja zmanjšanje davčne obremenitve za podjetja s področja kmetijstva in gozdarstva, ki ogrevajo rastlinjake in zaprte prostore za gojenje, saj so ta zaradi energetsko intenzivnega gospodarjenja še posebej prizadeta zaradi visoke obdavčitve.
Due to the enormous time pressure on passing this legislation through parliament, and the fact that the legislation had originally beens due to enter into force on 1 January 1999, it had been decided to include the agricultural and forestry sector in the tax reduction mechanism for the manufacturing sector.
V okviru parlamentarne obravnave te zakonodaje, ki je pod velikim časovnim pritiskom in ki naj bi prvotno začela veljati 1. januarja 1999, naj bi bila predvidena vključitev kmetijstva in gozdarstva v mehanizem razbremenitve za proizvodno dejavnost.
The introduction of the tax reduction in question was the result of a separate amendment to the Law on mineral oil tax, which had entered into force on 1 January 2001. The first extension of the tax reduction (for the period 2003-2004) was adopted under the Law on the further development of the ecological tax reform.
Uvedba zadevnega znižanja davčne stopnje je prepuščena posebni spremembi Zakona o davku na mineralno olje, ki je začela veljati 1. januarja 2001, medtem ko je bilo prvo podaljšanje, ki se je nanašalo na obdobje od 2003 do 2004, predmet Zakona o nadaljevanju eko davčne reforme.
Germany argued that it had been led to believe that the tax reduction in question was lawful during its communications with the Commission beforehand.
Nemčija je trdila, da je med prejšnjimi stiki s Komisijo dobila občutek, da je zadevno znižanje davčne stopnje zakonito.
Germany referred in particular to verbal statements made by Commission officials during a meeting of the working group ‘Competition conditions in agriculture’ on 26 and 27 October 1999.
Zlasti je opozorila na ustne izjave Komisije med zasedanjem delovne skupine „Pogoji konkurence v kmetijstvu“ med 26. in 27. oktobrom 1999.
In any event, the Commission had, at the latest, been made aware of the facts of the case by Germany’s communication of 29 August 2001, to such an extent that at that juncture the Commission would have been able to assess the compatibility of the tax reduction with the common market.
Vsekakor je bilo Komisiji dejansko stanje znano najpozneje s sporočilom Nemčije z dne 29. avgusta 2001, tako da bi Komisija združljivost znižanja davčne stopnje s skupnim trgom lahko ocenila že tedaj.
Germany expressly invoked Article 10(1) and the second sentence of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [4].
Nemčija se je sklicevala izrecno na člen 10(1) in člen 14(1)(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 [4].
Any recovery of the aid could not, Germany argued, be compatible either with the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty or with the principles of proper administration.
Morebitna zahteva po vračilu pomoči ne bi bila združljiva niti z načeli zaupanja v pravo in pravne varnosti niti z načeli dobrega upravljanja.
According to Germany the observations by interested third parties showed that their expectations were legitimate.
Pripombe zainteresiranih tretjih strani po mnenju Nemčije kažejo, da so njena pričakovanja upravičena.
THIRD PARTY OBSERVATIONS
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH TRETJIH STRANI
The interested third parties essentially put forward arguments which Germany had already used.
Zainteresirane tretje strani so v glavnem predložile argumente, ki jih je Nemčija uveljavljala.
They argued that the measures were also not selective because they were open to all agricultural and forestry undertakings operating greenhouses and covered areas.
Ukrepi niso bili selektivni tudi zato, ker so bili na voljo vsem podjetjem na področju kmetijstva in gozdarstva, ki upravljajo rastlinjake in zaprte prostore za gojenje.
They also argued that Community trade was not disrupted.
Poleg tega je bilo dokazano, da vpliva na trgovino Skupnosti ne bo.
The area under glass had been drastically reduced in the years concerned and imports to Germany of competing products had increased.
Pridelovalne površine pod steklom so bile v zadevnih letih zdesetkane, uvoz konkurenčnih proizvodov v Nemčijo pa se je povečal.
In any case, Germany’s production volumes were hardly significant, compared to intra-Community trade in vegetables.
V vsakem primeru nemške proizvodne količine v primerjavi s trgovino z zelenjavo znotraj Skupnosti niso bile pomembne.
Furthermore, open-air crops and those under glass were not in direct competition with each other and most of them could not be substituted for each other.
Poleg tega pridelki, gojeni na prostem ali v zaprtih prostorih, niso bili v neposredni konkurenci in večinoma niso zamenljivi.
If aid existed, it could be justified on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty since it helped the development of the horticultural sector.
V primeru obstoja pomoči bi ta lahko temeljila na členu 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, saj služi razvoju vrtnarstva.
The aid enabled the horticultural sector to adjust to increased energy prices and reduced the ‘distortions of competition’ resulting from the significantly lower gross energy prices in other Member States and adversely affecting undertakings producing in Germany.
Pomoč vrtnarstvu omogoča, da se prilagodi višjim cenam energije, in zmanjšuje „izkrivljanja konkurence“ v škodo nemških proizvodnih obratov, ki izhajajo iz občutno nižjih bruto cen energije v drugih državah članicah.
It could not be claimed that the German aid was ‘distorting competition’.
O „izkrivljanju konkurence“ zaradi nemške pomoči ni mogoče govoriti.