natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission received no comments from the Italian authorities or from interested third parties wishing to allay the doubts raised when the formal investigation procedure was initiated.
Komisija ni prejela pripomb italijanskih organov ali zainteresiranih tretjih strank, katerih namen bi bil odpraviti pomisleke, navedene ob sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
By notifying the aid scheme with a standstill clause or, in the case of Articles 14 and 15, by implementing it under the de minimis Regulation until authorised by the Commission, the Italian authorities have complied with the procedural requirements of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
Italijanski organi so s priglasitvijo sheme pomoči s klavzulo o mirovanju ali, kot v primeru členov 14 in 15, z njenim izvajanjem na podlagi Uredbe o pomoči de minimis do odobritve s strani Komisije ravnali v skladu s postopkovnimi zahtevami člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
State aid character of the scheme
Značaj državne pomoči sheme
The Commission considers that the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty for the following reasons:
Komisija meni, da je ukrep državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES zaradi naslednjih razlogov:
Presence of state resources:
Prisotnost državnih sredstev:
The measure involves the use of State resources in terms of tax revenues forgone by the Region of Sicily and corresponding to the reduced tax liability of the beneficiary.
Ukrep vključuje uporabo državnih sredstev v smislu izpada davčnih prihodkov za pokrajino Sicilijo, ki ustreza znižanju davčne obveznosti za upravičenca.
Economic advantage:
Gospodarska ugodnost:
The measure confers on the beneficiary an economic advantage resulting from the reduction in the effective tax burden, which translates into a financial advantage in terms of a reduced payment of tax from which the companies benefit immediately in the years when the reduction is applied.
Ukrep dodeljuje upravičencu gospodarsko ugodnost, ki izhaja iz znižanja dejanske davčne obremenitve, pretvorjene v finančno ugodnost v smislu znižanja plačila davka, katerega ugodnost gospodarske družbe uživajo neposredno v letih, ko se uporabi znižanje.
Presence of selectivity in that the measure favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’:
Obstoj selektivnosti v smislu, da ukrep daje prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“:
The Commission notes that Articles 14 and 15 have to be examined together because they confer similar advantages on different categories of beneficiary.
Komisija navaja, da je treba člena 14 in 15 preučiti skupaj, ker različnim kategorijam upravičencev dodeljujeta podobne ugodnosti.
The two articles combined exclude from the group of possible beneficiaries various categories of undertaking:
Oba člena skupaj iz skupine možnih upravičencev izključujeta različne kategorije podjetij:
new companies with a turnover of more than EUR 10 million which operate in all sectors other than those mentioned in Article 14(1) (i.e. tourism, hotels, cultural goods, agri-food, ITC and craft activities);
nove gospodarske družbe s prometom nad 10 milijoni EUR in delujoče v vseh sektorjih, ki niso navedeni v členu 14(1) (tj. v sektorjih turizma, hotelirstva, kulturnih dobrin, agroživilstva, informacijske tehnologije in obrtnih dejavnosti);
new companies with a turnover of less than EUR 10 million which operate in all sectors other than those mentioned in Article 14(2) (i.e. industry); these are basically companies in the agricultural and service sectors);
nove gospodarske družbe s prometom pod 10 milijoni EUR in delujoče v vseh sektorjih, ki niso navedeni v členu 14(2) (tj. industrija); v bistvu gre za gospodarske družbe v kmetijskem in storitvenem sektorju);
existing companies operating in the chemical and petrochemical sectors (Article 15).
obstoječe gospodarske družbe iz kemičnega in petrokemičnega sektorja (člen 15).
Consequently, the measure favours certain productive sectors, in particular the sectors of tourism, hotels, cultural goods, agri-food and ITC, in which all companies are eligible for the five-year exemptions from IRAP.
Zato ukrep daje prednost določenim proizvodnim sektorjem, zlasti sektorju turizma, hotelirstva, kulturnih dobrin, agroživilstva in družb informacijske tehnologije, v katerih so vse gospodarske družbe upravičene do petletne oprostitve plačila davka IRAP.
Secondly, it favours existing and new industrial companies with a turnover of less than EUR 10 million, excluding companies operating in the chemical and petrochemical sectors.
Drugič, prednost daje obstoječim in novim industrijskim gospodarskim družbam s prometom, nižjim od 10 milijonov EUR, z izjemo gospodarskih družb iz kemičnega in petrokemičnega sektorja.
Even if the Italian authorities were to prove that there were no new companies with a turnover of more than EUR 10 million in industry, excluding the chemical and petrochemical sectors, the measure, according to established case law [15], would amount to a selective measure favouring the abovementioned productive sector because the five-year IRAP exemption is not available to companies active in sectors other than industry.
Tudi če bi italijanski organi dokazali, da v industriji, z izjemo kemičnega in petrokemičnega sektorja, ni bilo novih gospodarskih družb s prometom, višjim od 10 milijonov EUR, bi ukrep v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [15] pomenil selektivni ukrep, ki daje prednost zgoraj navedenim proizvodnim sektorjem, ker petletna oprostitev plačila davka IRAP ni na voljo gospodarskim družbam, dejavnim v sektorjih, ki niso industrijski.
Lastly, the measure seems to confer a selective advantage on Sicilian companies in that only the taxable undertakings having cumulatively their registered office, their administrative headquarters and their place of business in Sicily can benefit from the scheme.
In končno, zdi se, da ukrep dodeljuje selektivno ugodnost sicilijanskim gospodarskim družbam, ker se lahko shema uporablja samo za podjetja, ki so davčni zavezanci in katerih registrirani sedež, sedež uprave in tudi kraj poslovanja je na Siciliji.
This does not seem to be the case with all undertakings carrying on a productive or commercial activity in Sicily and which are subject to IRAP on that activity.
Zdi se, da to ne velja za vsa podjetja, ki opravljajo proizvodno ali poslovno dejavnost na Siciliji in so za to dejavnost dolžna plačevati davek IRAP.
Article 16: Euro-Mediterranean Financial Services and Insurance Centre
Člen 16: Evrosredozemsko središče za finančne storitve in zavarovalništvo
The Commission observes that Article 16 confers selective advantages insofar as only certain companies can benefit from them.
Komisija ugotavlja, da člen 16 prinaša selektivne ugodnosti, ker so do njih upravičene samo nekatere gospodarske družbe.
Indeed, the advantages are provided only to insurance and finance companies authorised to operate at the Centre.
Ugodnosti so namreč zagotovljene samo zavarovalnim in finančnim družbam z dovoljenjem za delovanje v okviru Središča.
The measure therefore excludes all companies collecting funds on the international markets in order to invest them in the countries referred to in footnote 7 and whose activities with those countries are not carried on at the Centre.
Ukrep torej izključuje vse gospodarske družbe, ki na mednarodnih trgih zbirajo sredstva za naložbe v državah, navedenih v opombi 7, in ki svojih dejavnosti s temi državami ne nadaljujejo v okviru Središča.
Moreover, the measure is selective insofar as it excludes insurance and finance companies investing in Italy and in other countries which do not appear on the exhaustive list given in footnote 7.
Poleg tega je ukrep selektiven, ker izključuje zavarovalne in finančne družbe, ki vlagajo v Italiji in drugih državah, ki niso navedene na izčrpnem seznamu v opombi 7.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the proposed measure is selective.
Komisija tako ugotavlja, da je predlagani ukrep selektiven.
Distortion of competition and trade between Member States
Izkrivljanje konkurence in trgovine med državami članicami
In accordance with settled case law [16], for a measure to distort competition it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition.
Da ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco, je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [16] dovolj, da prejemnik pomoči konkurira drugim podjetjem na trgih, odprtih za konkurenco.
The Commission observes that the measures contained in Articles 14 and 15 seem to distort competition and affect trade between Member States because they have the effect of relieving beneficiaries of a burden that they would otherwise have to bear.
Po mnenju Komisije se zdi, da ukrepi iz členov 14 in 15 izkrivljajo konkurenco in vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami, ker učinkujejo tako, da so upravičenci razrešeni bremena, ki bi ga sicer morali nositi.
In the present case, the beneficiaries are companies of all sizes that operate mainly in industry, excluding the chemical and petrochemical sectors.
V obravnavanem primeru so upravičenci gospodarske družbe vseh velikosti, ki v glavnem delujejo v industriji, z izjemo družb iz kemičnega in petrokemičnega sektorja.
These companies compete with other companies on markets open to competition so that, in accordance with settled case law, the IRAP exemption potentially distorts competition and affects trade.
Te gospodarske družbe na trgih, odprtih za konkurenco, konkurirajo drugim gospodarskim družbam, tako da bi lahko oprostitev plačila davka IRAP v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso izkrivljala konkurenco in vplivala na trgovino.
Similarly, the Commission considers that the measure contained in Article 16 distorts competition and affects trade between Member States.
Podobno Komisija meni, da tudi ukrep iz člena 16 izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Indeed, given the very nature of their business, finance companies, insurance companies, real estate brokerages and trust companies compete with other companies at European level.
Finančne družbe, zavarovalnice, nepremičninske borznoposredniške družbe in investicijske družbe glede na samo naravo svojega poslovanja v resnici konkurirajo drugim družbam na evropski ravni.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the proposed scheme constitutes State aid.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da predlagana shema pomeni državno pomoč.
Insofar as the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, its compatibility must be assessed in the light of the exemptions provided for in Article 87(2) and (3).
Kolikor ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES, je treba njegovo združljivost presoditi z vidika izjem, določenih v členu 87(2) in (3).
The exemptions in Article 87(2), which concern aid having a social character and granted to individual consumers, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and aid granted to certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany, do not apply in this case.
Izjeme iz člena 87(2) Pogodbe, ki se nanašajo na pomoč socialnega značaja, dodeljeno posameznim potrošnikom, pomoč za povrnitev škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki, in pomoč za nekatera območja Zvezne republike Nemčije, se v tem primeru ne uporabljajo.
The measure cannot be considered to be an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the Italian economy, as provided for in Article 87(3)(b).
Ukrepa ni mogoče šteti za pomemben projekt skupnega evropskega interesa ali za odpravljanje resne motnje v italijanskem gospodarstvu, kot je določeno v členu 87(3)(b) Pogodbe.
Nor can the measure qualify for the exemption under Article 87(3)(c), which provides for authorisation to be granted for aid 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 that is contrary to the common interest.
Prav tako ukrep ne izpolnjuje pogojev za izjemo na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, ki določa odobritev pomoči za pospeševanje 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.
Lastly, the measure does not have as its objective the promotion of culture and heritage conservation as provided for in Article 87(3)(d).
In končno, cilj ukrepa ni pospeševanje kulture in ohranjanja kulturne dediščine, kot je določeno v členu 87(3)(d) Pogodbe.
Article 87(3)(a) provides for the authorisation of aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment.
Člen 87(3)(a) določa odobritev pomoči za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka in kjer je podzaposlenost velika.
Sicily is a region eligible for that exemption.
Sicilija je pokrajina, upravičena do te izjeme.
In its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission explained the reasons, summarised in paragraphs 29 to 50, why it doubted that the measure could qualify for the exemption in Article 87(3)(a).
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave pojasnila razloge, povzete v odstavkih 29 do 50, zaradi katerih je dvomila, da bi bil ukrep lahko upravičen do izjeme iz člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe.
Furthermore, it ruled out the possibility that the measure provided for in Article 16 of Regional Law No 21/2003 could qualify for the exemption in Article 87(3)(b), which provides for the authorisation of aid to promote the execution of a project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of Italy.
Poleg tega je izključila možnost, da bi bil lahko ukrep, določen v členu 16 Regionalnega zakona št. 21/2003, upravičen do izjeme iz člena 87(3)(b), ki določa odobritev pomoči za pospeševanje izvedbe projekta skupnega evropskega interesa ali za odpravljanje resne motnje v gospodarstvu Italije.
In the absence of any comments from Italy or interested third parties, the Commission can simply note that these doubts are confirmed.
Ker Komisija ni prejela pripomb Italije ali zainteresiranih tretjih strank, lahko ugotovi samo, da so ti dvomi potrjeni.
According to the Italian authorities, the aid has not been granted, and therefore there is no need to recover it,
Po navedbah italijanskih organov pomoč še ni bila dodeljena, zato je ni treba povrniti –
The aid scheme which Italy is planning to implement under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Law No 21/2003 of the Region of Sicily constitutes State aid.
Shema pomoči, ki jo Italija namerava izvajati na podlagi členov 14, 15 in 16 Zakona št. 21/2003 pokrajine Sicilije, je državna pomoč.
The aid referred in the preceding paragraph is incompatible with the common market and may not therefore be implemented.
Pomoč, navedena v prejšnjem odstavku, je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom in se zato ne sme izvajati.
Italy shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Italija bo v dveh mesecih od uradnega obvestila o tej odločbi Komisijo obvestila o ukrepih, sprejetih za njeno izvajanje.
OJ C 263, 22.10.2005, p. 30.
UL C 263, 22.10.2005, str. 30.
Case C-475/2003 of 3 October 2006 Banca popolare di Cremona Soc.coop.arl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona, not yet published.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 3. oktobra 2006 v zadevi C-475/2003 Banca popolare di Cremona Soc.coop.arl proti Agenzii Entrate Ufficio Cremona, še neobjavljena.
To be precise, Sicily would assume, within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Law No 212/2000 of 27 July 2000 laying down provisions on the status of the rights of the taxpayer (Official Gazette No 177 of 31 July 2000), the corporate tax debt payable by beneficiaries with their tax domicile outside of Sicily.
Natančneje, Sicilija naj bi v smislu člena 8(2) Zakona št. 212/2000 z dne 27. julija 2000 o določbah o statusu pravic davkoplačevalca (Uradni list št. 177 z dne 31. julija 2000) domnevala, da morajo dolgovani davek od dobička pravnih oseb plačati upravičenci z davčnim rezidentstvom zunaj Sicilije.
Revenue from corporate taxes paid by Sicilian companies accrue to the Region of Sicily.
Prihodki od davka od dobička pravnih oseb, ki ga plačujejo sicilijanske gospodarske družbe, se namenijo pokrajini Siciliji.
The ‘third countries’ in question are Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the Palestinian Authority.
Zadevne „tretje države“ so Alžirija, Ciper, Egipt, Izrael, Jordanija, Libanon, Malta, Maroko, Sirija, Tunizija, Turčija in Palestinska uprava.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33).
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 70/2001 (UL L 10, 13.1.2001, str. 33).
See in particular, the Annex to the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).
Glej zlasti Prilogo k Priporočilu Komisije z dne 6. maja 2003 o opredelitvi mikro, malih in srednje velikih podjetij (UL L 124, 20.5.2003, str. 36).
See Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission (2000) ECR I-6857, paragraphs 76 to 87.
Glej zadevo C-156/98 Nemčija proti Komisiji [2000] Recueil, I-6857, odstavki 76–87.
OJ C 384, 10.12.1998, p. 3 (see point 33).
UL C 384, 10.12.1998, str. 3 (glej točko 33).
To be more precise, the Centre was established by Article 3 of Law No 19/1991 of 19 January 1991.
Natančneje, središče je bilo ustanovljeno na podlagi člen 3 Zakona št. 19/1991 z dne 9. januarja 1991.
The relevant Commission decisions are Decision 95/452/EC of 12 April 1995 (OJ L 264, 7.11.1995, p. 30) and Decision 2003/230/EC of 11 December 2002 on the existing aid scheme that Italy was authorised to implement for the Trieste Financial Services and Insurance Centre (OJ L 91, 8.4.2003, p. 47).
Zadevni odločbi Komisije sta Odločba 95/452/ES z dne 12. aprila 1995 (UL L 264, 7.11.1995, str. 30) in Odločba 2003/230/ES z dne 11. decembra 2002 o obstoječi shemi pomoči, za katero je Italija dobila dovoljenje, da jo izvaja za Središče za finančne storitve in zavarovalništvo v Trstu (UL L 91, 8.4.2003, str. 47).
The EU's Finance Ministers established the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) at a Council meeting on 9 March 1998, under the chairmanship of UK Paymaster General Dawn Primarolo, to assess the tax measures that may fall within the scope of the Code of Conduct.
Finančni ministri EU so Skupino za kodeks ravnanja (obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka) ustanovili na seji Sveta z dne 9. marca 1998, ki mu je predsedovala vodja državne blagajne Združenega kraljestva, Dawn Primarolo, da bi presojala davčne ukrepe, ki bi lahko sodili na področje uporabe Kodeksa ravnanja.
In a report of November 1999 the Group identified 66 harmful tax measures, one of which was the measure establishing the Trieste Financial Services and Insurance Centre.
Skupina je v poročilu iz novembra 1999 opredelila 66 škodljivih davčnih ukrepov, med katerimi je bil tudi ukrep o ustanovitvi Središča za finančne storitve in zavarovalništvo v Trstu.
See, for example, Case C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten [2001] ECR I-08365 concerning a rebate granted only to undertakings manufacturing goods.
Glej na primer zadevo C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH in Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH proti Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten [2001] Recueil, I-08365, o povračilu, dodeljenemu samo podjetjem, ki proizvajajo blago.
Case T-214/95 Het Vlaamse Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR II-717.
Zadeva T-214/95 Het Vlaamse Gewest proti Komisiji [1998] Recueil, II-717.
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.
Komisija je pozvala zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v zvezi s pomočjo.
The Commission concludes that the measure notified by Italy and described in paragraphs 10 to 28 is not compatible with the common market and is not covered by any of the exemptions laid down in the EC Treaty.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep, ki ga je priglasila Italija in je opisan v odstavkih 10 do 28, ni združljiv s skupnim trgom in ni zajet v nobeni od izjem, določenih v Pogodbi ES.
The Commission has therefore explained that it considered a more thorough analysis of the issue to be necessary.
Na podlagi tega je Komisija pojasnila, da meni, da je potrebna temeljitejša analiza tega vprašanja.
Such an analysis would need to include any comments made by interested third parties.
Taka analiza bi morala vključevati morebitne pripombe zainteresiranih tretjih strank.
In the example given, it seems that the Italian authorities intend to reduce the proportion of the IRAP exemption.
V obravnavanem primeru se zdi, da italijanski organi nameravajo zmanjšati delež oprostitve plačila davka IRAP.
However, this does not guarantee per se that the aid amount will be on a declining scale.
Vendar to samo po sebi še ne zagotavlja, da se bo znesek pomoči zmanjševal.
on State aid No C 16/2006 (ex NN 34/2006) to be implemented by the Region of Sicily for Nuova Mineraria Silius SpA
o državni pomoči C 16/2006 (ex NN 34/2006) pokrajine Sicilije za Nuova Mineraria Silius SpA
(notified under document number C(2007) 473)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 473)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above [1] and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi členi [1], in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
The aid that Italy is planning to grant to Nuova Mineraria Silius was notified to the Commission by letter of 30 November 2005.
Pomoč, ki jo Italija namerava odobriti družbi Nuova Mineraria Silius, je bila priglašena Komisiji z dopisom z dne 30. novembra 2005.
The Commission requested further information on 21 December 2005 and Italy replied by letter registered as received on 7 February 2006.
Komisija je 21. decembra 2005 zahtevala dodatne informacije in Italija je odgovorila z dopisom, evidentiranim 7. februarja 2006.
By letter of 26 April 2006, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 26. aprila 2006 obvestila Italijo, da bo glede pomoči sprožila postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission requested additional information by letter of 18 September 2006, to which Italy replied on 3 November and 31 December.
Komisija je zahtevala dodatne informacije z dopisom z dne 18. septembra 2006, na katerega je Italija odgovorila dne 3. novembra in 31. decembra.
The reply by the Italian authorities was submitted by letter of 3 November 2006.
Odgovor italijanskih organov je bil posredovan z dopisom z dne 3. novembra 2006.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BENEFICIARY AND AID MEASURES
OPIS UPRAVIČENCA IN UKREPOV POMOČI
NMS exploits a deposit of fluorite [3] in the municipality of Silius, Sardinia.
NMS izkorišča najdišče fluorita [3] v občini Silius, Sardinija.
In 2004 (the most recent year for which data are available) the company had a turnover of EUR 4,96 million and 163 employees.
Leta 2004 (zadnje leto, za katero so na voljo podatki) je imela družba promet v višini 4,96 milijona EUR in 163 zaposlenih.
NMS was established in 1992 by RAS and the Minmet Financing Company.
NMS sta leta 1992 ustanovili RAS in finančna družba Minmet.
RAS subsequently assigned ownership (97,5 % in 1996 and currently 100 %) to the public entity Ente Minerario Sardo (‘EMSA’).
RAS je nato prenesla lastništvo (97,5 % leta 1996 in zdaj 100 %) osebi javnega prava Ente Minerario Sardo („EMSA“).
In 1998 EMSA was put into liquidation.
Leta 1998 je bil proti EMSA uveden postopek likvidacije.
The official receiver was charged with privatising the activities where possible and otherwise with arranging their closure.
Likvidacijski upravitelj je bil zadolžen za privatizacijo dejavnosti, kjer je bilo to mogoče, in za ureditev zaprtja v ostalih primerih.