natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This increase may only be granted for investments which go beyond the minimum Community requirements in force, or for investments made to comply with newly introduced minimum standards.
Tako povečanje se lahko odobri le za naložbe, ki presegajo minimalne veljavne zahteve Skupnosti, ali za naložbe, opravljene za izpolnitev novo uvedenih minimalnih standardov.
The increase must be limited to the extra eligible costs necessary and must not apply in the case of investments which result in an increase in production capacity.
Povečanje mora biti strogo omejeno na izredne upravičene stroške, ki so potrebni, in ni mogoče pri naložbah, ki povzročajo povečanje proizvodnih zmogljivosti.
In the case in question it is clear that the investments are aimed at protecting and improving the environment and the applicable environmental legislation is the nitrates Directive.
V danem primeru je očitno, da gre za naložbe za varstvo in izboljšanje okolja, za katere se je uporabljal zlasti okoljevarstveni standard „nitratna“ direktiva.
This was adopted in 1991 and could not therefore be described as new legislation in 2000.
Ta standard je bil sprejet leta 1991 in se zato leta 2000 ni mogel več obravnavati kot nov standard.
The Commission has already expressed its opinion on that problem as part of State aid N 355/2000, in authorising the continuation of the PMPOA from 2001 to 2006.
Komisija je to problematiko že obravnavala v okviru državne pomoči št. N 355/2000 ter dovolila nadaljevanje programa PMPOA od leta 2001 do 2006.
In line with the arguments invoked at the time, the Commission today insists that it cannot ignore the fact that the initial French action programme implementing the nitrates Directive was only adopted in 1997 and that the actual initial obligations imposed on livestock rearers on the spot, transposing that programme, are subsequent to that date.
Na podlagi takratne utemeljitve Komisija danes vztraja na dejstvu, da ne more prezreti, da je bil prvi francoski akcijski program za izvajanje „nitratne“ direktive sprejet šele leta 1997 in da so prve dejanske obveznosti glede rezultatov, naložene rejcem na terenu, ki izvajajo navedeni program, poznejše.
Even if it seems clear that France did not exercise due diligence in transposing the Directive and that it should have adopted the necessary provisions within time limits long since passed, it cannot be denied that the initial obligations of which the livestock rearers were aware were much more recent.
Čeprav se zdi jasno, da Francija ni bila posebno navdušena pri prenosu direktive in bi morala potrebne določbe sprejeti v rokih, ki jih je močno prekoračila, ni mogoče zanikati, da so prve obveznosti, ki jih poznajo rejci, veliko novejše.
Moreover, unlike some other Community rules, the Nitrates Directive contains no precise obligations to which economic operators had to agree without the prior intervention of the Member State.
Poleg tega v nasprotju z nekaterimi drugimi standardi Skupnosti „nitratna“ direktiva ne vsebuje natančnih obveznosti, ki bi jih gospodarski subjekti morali izpolniti brez predhodnega posredovanja države članice.
Neither does the Directive contain time limits within which installations have to be adapted.
Ta direktiva prav tako ne vsebuje roka, do katerega je treba naprave prilagoditi.
For that reason, the Commission maintains its opinion that, in the light of the particular circumstances surrounding the nitrates Directive, the obligations on the rearers could be deemed to be new rules within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1/2004.
Zaradi tega Komisija še vedno meni, da bi se glede na posebne okoliščine v zvezi z „nitratno“ direktivo obveznosti, ki bremenijo rejce, lahko štele med nove standarde v smislu Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2004.
Any other interpretation would have the effect of penalising rearers because of France’s omission to take legal action.
Vsaka druga razlaga bi namreč rejce kaznovala zaradi nedejavnosti Francije na pravnem področju.
It is the Commission’s opinion that investments in non-vulnerable areas within the meaning of the nitrates Directive, where the conditions required by the Directive do not apply, could in any case benefit from the higher rates because less exacting rules than those envisaged in that Directive apply and the planned work goes beyond the minimum requirements existing in those regions.
Komisija meni, da bi lahko naložbe, opravljene na neranljivih območjih v smislu „nitratne“ direktive, na katerih pogoji, zahtevani v tej direktivi, ne veljajo, bile v vsakem primeru upravičene do povečanih stopenj, saj so veljali manj zahtevni standardi, kot so predvideni v navedeni direktivi, in so predvidena dela presegla minimalne zahteve, veljavne na teh območjih.
Turning to investments to be realised in vulnerable areas, the Commission, while remaining consistent to its reasoning already expressed on the new nature of the rules imposed on the rearers, must conclude that an increase in the aid rates could be applied in the case in question.
V zvezi z naložbami, ki jih je bilo treba opraviti na ranljivih območjih, mora Komisija ugotoviti, pri čemer ostaja skladna s svojo že predstavljeno utemeljitvijo o novi naravi standardov, ki bremenijo rejce, da se v danem primeru lahko uporabi povečanje stopenj pomoči.
The rates could therefore be set at 60 % of investment costs, or 75 % in less-favoured areas.
Te stopnje bi tako lahko bile določene na 60 % stroškov za naložbe oziroma 75 % na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi.
Given that the figures provided by the French authorities show that the level of the aid never in practice exceeded 60 % of incurred costs the Commission believes that the aid granted during the period 1994-1999 under the PMPOA can be authorised.
Ker številke, ki so jih predložili francoski organi, kažejo, da stopnja pomoči v praksi ni nikoli presegla 60 % nastalih stroškov, Komisija meni, da se lahko pomoči, dodeljene v obdobju med letoma 1994 in 1999 v okviru programa PMPOA, odobrijo.
In the light of the reasons given, the Commission considers the notified measure to be compatible with Community rules, in particular with Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Komisija glede na razloženo utemeljitev meni, da je priglašeni ukrep skladen s pravili Skupnosti o konkurenci in zlasti s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe.
The measure consisting in the grant of aid to investments in favour of farmers under the programme to control pollution of agricultural origin (PMPOA) during the period 1994-2000 may benefit from the derogation provided for in Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty,
Ukrep, s katerim se kmetovalcem v okviru Programa za nadzor kmetijskega onesnaževanja (PMPOA) dodeli pomoč za naložbe v obdobju 1994–2000, je lahko upravičen do odstopanja iz člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe –
The State aid scheme put into effect by France to finance investments by farmers under the programme to control pollution of agricultural origin (PMPOA) from 1994 to 2000 is compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Program državnih pomoči, ki ga je Francija izvajala za financiranje naložb, ki so jih kmetovalci opravili v okviru Programa za nadzor kmetijskega onesnaževanja (PMPOA) v obdobju med letoma 1994 in 2000, je združljiv s skupnim trgom v okviru člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe.
Done at Brussels, 18 February 2004
V Bruslju, 18. februar 2004.
OJ C 179, 23.6.2001, p. 18.
UL C 179, 23.6.2001, str. 18.
State aid N 136/91.
Državna pomoč št. N 136/91.
OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1.
UL L 218, 6.8.1991, str. 1.
Cf. ruling of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 15 September 1998 in Joined Cases T-126/96 and T-127/96, Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA and others v the Commission, ECR [1998] II-3437.
Glej sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 15. septembra 1998, združeni zadevi T-126/96 in C-127/96, Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA in drugi proti Komisiji, Rec. str. II-3437.
The Court accepted the Commission's argument that a communication from a Member State could not be accepted as a valid notification if it did not explicitly mention Article 93(3) of the Treaty and was not presented to the Secretariat-General.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v njej sprejelo argument Komisije, po katerem se sporočilo države članice ne more sprejeti kot veljavna priglasitev, če ne vsebuje natančnega sklicevanja na člen 88(3) Pogodbe in se ne predloži generalnemu sekretariatu.
The measures in question had therefore to be considered as non-notified.
Zato je treba šteti, kot da se pomoč ni priglasila.
State aid N 342/94.
Državna pomoč št. N 342/94.
Cf. footnote 5.
Glej sprotno opombo št. 5.
Cf. footnote 1.
Glej sprotno opombo št. 1.
State aid N 355/2000.
Državna pomoč št. N 355/2000.
According to information available to the Commission — part of it taken from the water supply agencies’ website (http://www.eaufrance.tm) — the agencies are public bodies created in 1964 enjoying legal personality and financial independence.
Po podatkih, ki jih ima Komisija na voljo – delno povzetih po spletni strani agencij za vodo (http://www.eaufrance.tm) –, so agencije za vodo javne državne ustanove, ustanovljene leta 1964, ki so pravne osebe in so finančno neodvisne.
They operate under the supervision of the Ministers of the Environment and of the Economy and Finance and are managed by an administrative council representing the various water users.
Delujejo pod nadzorom Ministrstva za okolje in Ministrstva za gospodarstvo in finance, vodi pa jih upravni svet, ki ga sestavljajo predstavniki različnih uporabnikov voda.
The agencies are split up over six major water regions covering the entire territory of mainland France: Adour-Garonne, Artois-Picardie, Loire-Bretagne, Rhin-Meuse, Rhône-Méditerrannée-Corse and Seine-Normandie.
Agencije so razdeljene na šest velikih porečij, ki zajemajo celotno ozemlje evropskega dela Francije: Adour-Garonne (Adour-Garona), Artois-Picardie (Artois-Pikardija), Loire-Bretagne (Loara-Bretanja), Rhin-Meuse (Ren-Meuse), Rhône-Méditerrannée-Corse (Rona-Sredozemlje-Korzika) in Seine-Normandie (Sena-Normandija).
These have identical structures: a regional committee, a water supply agency and its administrative council.
V njih najdemo podobno organizacijo, ki je sestavljena iz odbora za porečje, agencije za vodo in njenega upravnega sveta.
Their policies are defined by the regional committee and are based on four major components: management of water resources, pollution control, conservation of aquatic environments and monitoring the quality of inland and coastal waters.Between 1997 and 2001 the agencies planned aid to finance works estimated at some €16 billion to conserve water resources and control pollution.
Njihovo politiko določa Odbor za porečje in zadeva štiri glavna področja: gospodarjenje in vodni viri; preprečevanje onesnaževanja, ohranjanje vodnih okolij ter spremljanje kakovosti celinskih in obalnih vod.V obdobju med letoma 1997 in 2001 so agencije za vodo načrtovale, da bodo pomagale pri financiranju obsega del, ocenjenega na okoli 16 milijard eurov, za ohranitev vodnih virov in preprečevanje onesnaževanja.
They provide technical advice to local government, economic operators and farmers and provide them with funding so that they can undertake the works needed to prevent water pollution and protect water resources.
Poslancem, industrijskim podjetjem in kmetom dajejo strokovne nasvete in jim zagotavljajo finančno pomoč pri izvedbi potrebnih del za preprečevanje onesnaževanja voda in varstvo vodnih virov.
The agencies are financed by means of proportional charges imposed on water polluters, users and consumers.
Agencije se financirajo iz sorazmernih dajatev, ki jih plačujejo onesnaževalci, odjemalci in porabniki vode.
Those charges are then redistributed in the form of aid (subsidies and loans) to local authorities, industry and agriculture (and, more generally, to works contractors) to carry out works such as water treatment plants, sanitation networks, drinking water plants, river facilities, studies and measuring networks.
Te dajatve se nato prerazporedijo v obliki pomoči (subvencije in posojila) lokalnim skupnostim, podjetjem in kmetijstvu (in splošneje izvajalcem investicijskih del) za izvedbo del, kot so čistilne naprave za odpadne vode, kanalizacijski sistemi, naprave za pitno vodo, mreže za odvodnjavanje rek, študije, merilne mreže.
Details on the subsidised investments can be consulted in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Podrobne podatke o subvencioniranih naložbah lahko najdete v odločbi o začetku postopka.
Report dated 26 July 1999 published in 2000 on the website of the French Ministry of Agriculture: http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr.
Poročilo, ki je bilo pripravljeno 26. julija 1999 in objavljeno leta 2000 na spletni strani francoskega ministrstva za kmetijstvo: http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr.
Cf. in particular: Court of First Instance judgment of 12 December 1996 in Case T-358/94, Compagnie nationale Air France v the Commission, ECR [1996] II-2109; Court of Justice judgment of 22 March 1977 in Case 78/76, Steinike & Weinlig v FRG, ECR [1977] 595; Court of First Instance judgment of 31 January 2001 in Joined Cases T-197/97 and T-198/97, Weyl Beef Products BV and others v the Commission, ECR [2001] II-303; Court of Justice judgment of 30 January 1985 in Case 290/83, Commission v France, ECR [1985] 439; Commission communication of 26 March 1997 on environmental duties, taxes and charges in the single market (COM (97) 9 final).
Glej zlasti: sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 12. decembra 1996, Nacionalna družba Air France proti Komisiji, zadeva T-358/94, Rec. str. II-2109; sodbo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 22. marca 1977, zadeva 78/76, Steinike & Weinlig proti RFA, Rec., str. 595; sodbo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 31. januarja 2001, združeni zadevi T-197/97 in T-198/97, Weyl Beef Products BV in drugi proti Komisiji, Rec. str. II-303; sodbo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 30. januarja 1985, zadeva 290/83, Komisija proti Franciji, Rec. str. 439; Sporočilo Komisije z dne 26. marca 1997 o okoljskih davkih in dajatvah na skupnem trgu (COM(97) 9 konč.).
Cf. detailed reasoning by the Commission on the public nature of the water supply agencies in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Glej obsežno utemeljitev Komisije o javni naravi agencij za vodo v odločbi o začetku postopka.
OJ C 28, 1.2.2000, p. 2 and corrigendum, OJ C 232, 12.8.2000, p. 17.
UL C 28, 1.2.2000, str. 2 in popravek, UL C 232, 12.8.2000, str. 17.
OJ L 128, 19.5.1975, p. 1.
UL L 128, 19.5.1975, str. 1.
1 FRF = EUR 0,15
1 FRF = 0,15 EUR
Court of Justice judgment of 17 September 1980 in Case 730/79, Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission, ECR [1980] 2671, paragraph 11.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 17. septembra 1980, zadeva 730/79, Philip Morris Holland BV proti Komisiji, Rec. str. 2671, točka 11.
Court of Justice judgment of 9 October 1984 in joined cases 91 and 127/83, Heineken Brouwerijen BV v Inspecteur der Vennootschapsbelasting, Amsterdam and Utrecht, ECR [1984] 3435.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 9. oktobra 1984, združeni zadevi 91 in 127/83, Heineken Brouwerijen BV proti Inspecteur der Vennootschapsbelasting v Amsterdamu in Utrechtu, Rec. str. 3435.
In this case, a time period may be provided for the fulfilment of these minimum standards, where such a period is necessary to solve the specific problems in reaching such standards and where this period is in accordance with the specific legislation concerned.
V tem primeru se lahko določi rok za izpolnitev navedenih minimalnih standardov, če se zdi, da je tak rok potreben za rešitev posebnih težav, ki nastanejo pri izpolnjevanju zadevnih standardov, in če je ta rok v skladu z zadevno specifično zakonodajo.“
It should be noted that as the result of infringement proceedings brought against France the Commission took France to the Court of Justice for incorrect application of the nitrates Directive.
V tej zvezi je treba poudariti, da je Komisija po uvedbi postopka proti Franciji zaradi kršitve zadevo predložila Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti zaradi slabe uporabe „nitratne“ direktive v tej državi.
The Court held against France for failure to take the appropriate steps to identify waters affected by pollution and consequently to designate the corresponding vulnerable zones (Court of Justice judgment in Case C-258/00, Commission v France, ECR [2002] I-05959).
Sodišče je nato Francijo obsodilo, da ni ustrezno opredelila voda, ki naj bi jih prizadelo onesnaženje, in posledično nobenega pripadajočega ranljivega območja (sodba Sodišča z dne 27. junija 2002, zadeva C-258/00, Komisija proti Franciji, Rec. str. I-05959).
DEPSE/SDEEA circular No 7001 of 15 January 1996, ‘Aide à la mise en conformité des élevages.
Okrožnice DEPSE/SDEEA št. 7001 z dne 15. januarja 1996, „Pomoči za uskladitev živinorejskih farm s standardi.
Cas des jeunes agriculteurs qui s'installent à compter du 1er janvier 1996’ [aid for standardising livestock farms, where young farmers set up from 1 January 1996].
Primeri mladih kmetov, ki kmetijsko gospodarstvo vzpostavijo po 1. januarju 1996“.
Nevertheless, the French authorities believe that Article 12(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91, later Article 12(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 950/97, could have been used to exceed the rates of 35 % and 45 %.
Francoski organi kljub temu menijo, da bi se za preseganje 35- in 45-odstotnih stopenj lahko uporabile določbe člena 12(5) Uredbe (EGS) št. 2328/91 ter člena 12(3)(d) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 950/97 z dne 20. maja 1997 o izboljšanju učinkovitosti kmetijskih struktur.
According to the French authorities those rules permit derogations from the aid prohibitions and restrictions on exceeding those intensities in the case of certain investments, including those intended to protect the environment.
Te določbe po mnenju francoskih organov omogočajo, da se za nekatere naložbe, med katerimi so naložbe za varstvo okolja, ne uporabijo prepovedi glede pomoči in omejitve glede preseganja teh stopenj.
In addition, the French authorities explained the existence and nature of those ceilings in the sectoral circulars applying the PMPOA as referred to in recital 15. They wrote that the European Union had authorised a derogating rate of 35 % for public aid to this type of investment linked to improvement of the environment.
Francoski organi so obstoj in naravo teh najvišjih določenih zneskov jasno opredelili v sektorskih okrožnicah o uporabi programa PMPOA iz točke 15 preambule.V njih pišejo, da „je Evropska unija dovolila, da lahko javne pomoči za to vrsto naložb, povezanih z izboljšanjem okolja, dosežejo izjemno stopnjo v višini 35 %“.
The actual aid rate could in that case be increased to up to 60 % of the cost of eligible works, as Table 1 shows. However, the cost of the works was usually much lower than for the beef and veal sector.
Dejanska stopnja pomoči se tako lahko poveča do 60 % zneska upravičenih del, kot to kaže tabela 1.Vendar pa je najpogosteje znesek del precej manjši kot za govedo.
Increasing manure capacity. Construction of slurry pit.
Hidroizolacija in streha hlevskih ograd Povečanje zmogljivosti gnojišč Izgradnja greznice
Droppings storage area. Installation of droppings drier.
Izgradnja kokošnjaka Skladiščnega prostora za kokošje iztrebke Naprave za sušenje iztrebkov
The French authorities felt that those cases had to be dealt with separately because in that case the aid no longer fell under aid for environmental protection, but instead under modernisation aid as provided for in Article 7(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 and Article 12(4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 950/97. The amount of aid could therefore not exceed 35 % or 26,25 % (45 % or 38,75 % respectively in less-favoured areas) of the cost of the works, depending on whether the farmer could or could not obtain a material improvement plan.
Po mnenju francoskih organov je treba te primere obravnavati ločeno, saj pomoč ne spada več med pomoči za varstvo okolja, ampak med pomoči za modernizacijo iz člena 7(2)(b) Uredbe (EGS) št. 2328/91 in člena 12(4)(c) Uredbe (ES) št. 950/97.Znesek pomoči tako ne sme presegati 35 ali 26,25 % (45 oziroma 38,75 % na območju z omejenimi možnostmi) stroškov del, odvisno od tega, ali lahko rejec pridobi načrt za izboljšanje materialnih razmer ali ne.
According to the Commission that was some 31,6 % (21,6 % in less-favoured areas) more than the permitted rate. A similarly excessive rate applied to the scheme in favour of young farmers setting up on or after 1 January 1996 since the amendments to the scheme related only to the form of the aid in the part financed by the State and therefore did not result in an overall increase in the assistance rate in favour of them.
To bi po mnenju Komisije dovoljeno stopnjo preseglo za okoli 31,6 % kritih stroškov (21,6 % na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi).
OJ L 214, 13.8.1999, p. 31. The second paragraph of Article 2 stipulates that where investments are made in order to comply with newly introduced minimum standards regarding the environment, […] support may be granted in order to reach these new standards.
UL L 214, 13.8.1999, str. 31.Drugi pododstavek člena 2 določa, da „kadar se naložbe opravijo za uskladitev z novo uvedenimi minimalnimi standardi, zahtevanimi na področju okolja […], se lahko podpora dodeli za izpolnitev teh novih standardov.
DEPSE/SDEEA circular No 7001 of 15 January 1996 amended the aid rates in favour of young farmers setting up from 1 January 1996. The capital subsidy rate was increased from 30 % to 35 % in less-favoured areas and priority rural development areas.
Okrožnica DEPSE/SDEEA št. 7001 z dne 15. januarja 1996 je spremenila stopnje pomoči za mlade kmete, ki so kmetijsko gospodarstvo vzpostavili po 1. januarju 1996.Stopnja finančne subvencije se zviša s 30 na 35 % na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi in prednostnih razvojnih podeželskih območjih.
Separate water network. Covering of runs.
Omrežje za ločevanje voda Pokrito dvorišče
52 dairy cows, 20 sucklers plus replacements, or 120 UGBN Sealing and covering exercise area.
52 krav molznic 20 krav dojilj in obnova staleža ali 120 GVŽ N
60 dairy cows and replacements, or 80 UGBN Sealing existing pit.
60 krav mlekaric in obnova staleža, ali 80 GVŽ N
Construction of open pit. Sealing exercise area.
Nepropustnost obstoječe greznice Izgradnja nepokrite greznice Hidroizolacija hlevske ograde
90 dairy cows and replacements, or 120 UGBN Creation of slurry.
90 krav mlekaric in obnova staleža, ali 120 GVŽ N
Increase in capacity of pit. Rainwater separation. Spreading plan.
Postavitev gnojišča Povečanje zmogljivosti greznice Ločitev meteorne vode Načrt za gnojenje
Increase to 9 months in waste storage capacity. Coverage of exercise area. Water fountain for pigs.
Prehod na 9-mesečno skladiščenje živalskih odpadkov Streha hlevske ograde Rezervoar za vodo za prašiče
210 sows, 1318 fatstock pigs, or 167 UGBN. Sealing slurry pit.
210 svinj, 1318 prašičev za pitanje, ali 167 GVŽ N
Drainage network. Multi-phase supply.
Hidroizolacija gnojišča Odtočna mreža Večfazno napajanje
Construction of straw pens for all animals. Installation of gutters.
Izgradnja slamnate zgradbe za bivanje vseh živali Namestitev strešnih žlebov
Construction of open-run housing. Increase in slurry and dung storage.
Izgradnja zgradbe za prosto bivanje Povečanje zmogljivosti skladiščenja gnojišča in greznice
82 sucklers and replacements, or 134 UGBN Construction of open-run housing.
82 krav dojilj in obnova staleža ali 134 GVŽ N
Sealing of concrete areas. Increase in slurry and dung storage.
Izgradnja zgradbe za prosto bivanje Hidroizolacija betoniranih površin Povečanje zmogljivosti skladiščenja gnojišča in greznice
70 sucklers and renewals, or 110 UGBN Construction of open-run housing.
70 krav dojilj in obnova staleža, ali 110 GVŽ N
Sealing of concrete areas. Construction of slurry pit.
Izgradnja zgradbe za prosto bivanje Hidroizolacija betoniranih površin Izgradnja bazena z gnojevko
34650 laying hens, or 214 UGBN Construction of coops.
34650 kokoši nesnic, ali 214 GVŽ N
State aid which Italy (Sicily) has envisaged for the promotion and advertising of agricultural products
o državni pomoči Italije, dežela Sicilija, za promocijo in oglaševanje kmetijskih proizvodov
(notified under document number C(2004) 1923)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2004) 1923)