natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By notifying the aid scheme with a standstill clause and implementing it under the de minimis Regulation pending authorisation from the Commission, the Italian authorities have complied with the procedural requirements of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
S priglasitvijo sheme pomoči s klavzulo o mirovanju in njenim izvajanjem na podlagi Uredbe de minimis do odobritve Komisije so italijanski organi spoštovali postopkovne zahteve iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
State aid character of the scheme
Narava 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 iz naslednjih razlogov:
Presence of state resources
Obstoj 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, ki se jim je odrekla sicilijanska regija in ki ustrezajo znižani davčni obveznosti upravičenca.
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 firms benefit immediately in the years when the reduction is applied.
Ukrep daje upravičencu gospodarsko prednost, ki je posledica znižanja efektivne davčne obremenitve, kar je finančna prednost v smislu znižanega plačila davka, od česar ima družba takojšnje koristi v letih, ko se znižanje uporablja.
Presence of selectivity in that the measure favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’
Obstoj selektivnosti, saj ukrep daje prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“
The national legislation on the IRAP establishes that all regions have the power to increase or reduce the basic tax rate of 4.25 % by up to one percentage point in either direction; this reflects a symmetrically applied tax system in which all regions are equally entitled, both legally and in practice, to increase or reduce the tax and which does not in itself entail State aid.
Nacionalna zakonodaja o regionalnem davku na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP) določa, da imajo vse regije pristojnost zvišati ali znižati 4,25-odstotno osnovno davčno stopnjo do največ ene odstotne točke v obe smeri; to izraža simetrično uporabljeni davčni sistem, v katerem imajo vse regije enako pravico, zakonsko in v praksi, da zvišajo ali znižajo davek, kar samo po sebi še ni državna pomoč.
The Commission has previously decided [11] that these limited powers to adjust the tax rate are symmetrical in nature provided that the individual regions do not use their powers to apply, within their margin of autonomous discretion, tax rates that differ between sectors and between taxable persons and do not constitute State aid.
Komisija je predhodno že odločila [11], da so ta omejena pooblastila za prilagajanje davčne stopnje simetrične narave, če posamezne regije ne uporabljajo svojih pooblastil za uporabo, v okviru svoje avtonomne presoje, davčnih stopenj, ki se razlikujejo med sektorji in med davčnimi zavezanci ter niso državna pomoč.
This finding is not invalidated by the ruling in Case C-88/2003 Azzorre [12].
Sodba v zadevi C-88/2003 Azzorre [12] te ugotovitve ne razveljavlja.
Article 60(1) of Regional Law No 17/2004 confers an advantage only on Sicilian cooperatives, thereby excluding from the possible beneficiaries under the scheme Sicilian firms operating in all sectors and not in the form of cooperatives.
člen 60(1) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 daje prednost samo sicilijanskihzadrugam, s čimer iz možnih upravičencev zadevne sheme izključujesicilijanske družbe, ki delujejo v vseh sektorjih in ne v obliki zadrug;
Article 60(2) of Regional Law No 17/2004 confers an advantage in that the measure favours the economic activity consisting in providing security services.
člen 60(2) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 daje prednost, saj ukrep dajeprednost gospodarski dejavnosti, ki vključuje zagotavljanje varnostnih storitev.
Firms providing such services also offer the following services: (i) transport, escort and temporary deposit of valuable goods or persons; (ii) guarding of property; (iii) management of specialized archives; and (iv) production of security equipment and systems.
Družbe, ki zagotavljajo take storitve, ponujajo tudi naslednje storitve: (i) prevoz, spremstvo in začasna hramba dragocenega blaga ali oseb; (ii) varovanje lastnine; (iii) upravljanje specializiranih arhivov in (iv) proizvodnjavarnostne opreme in sistemov.
The Commission considers that some of these services can be provided by firms which are not private security firms within the meaning of Royal Decree No 773/1931.
Komisija meni, da lahko nekatere od tehstoritev zagotavljajo družbe, ki niso zasebne družbe za varovanje v smislu Kraljeve uredbe št. 773/1931.
In accordance with settled case law [13], for a measure to distort competition it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [13] za to, da ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco, zadostuje, da prejemnik pomoči tekmuje z drugimi podjetji na trgih, ki so odprti za konkurenco.
The Commission observes that the measures contained in Article 60(1) and (2) of Regional Law No 17/2004 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.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se zdi, da ukrepa iz člena 60(1) in (2) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 izkrivljata konkurenco in vplivata na trgovino med državami članicami, saj je njun učinek tak, da upravičence razbremenita bremena, ki bi ga drugače morali nositi.
In the present case, according to the information provided by the Italian authorities, the beneficiaries are cooperatives (Article 60(1)) of all sizes operating in all sectors.
Glede na informacije, ki so jih predložili italijanski organi, so upravičenci zadruge (člen 60(1) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004) vseh velikosti, ki delujejo v vseh sektorjih.
Therefore, the cooperatives compete with other undertakings on markets open to competition so that Article 60(1) potentially distorts competition and affects trade under settled case law.
Zadruge tako tekmujejo z drugimi podjetji na trgih, ki so odprti za konkurenco, zato člen 60(1) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 potencialno izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso.
Similarly, the Commission considers that the measure contained in Article 60(2) distorts competition and affects trade between Member States.
Komisija podobno meni, da ukrep iz člena 60(2) Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004 izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the proposed scheme constitutes State aid.
V skladu s tem Komisija sklepa, da je predlagana shema državna pomoč.
In so far 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).
Če je ukrep državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, je treba njegovo združljivost oceniti glede na izjeme iz člena 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe.
The exemptions in Article 87(2), which concern aid having a social character 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, dodeljeno nekaterim območjem 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 ukrep, ki odpravlja resno motnjo v italijanskem gospodarstvu, kakor je predvideno 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.
Ukrep prav tako ne izpolnjuje pogojev za izjemo na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, ki predvideva 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).
Nazadnje, cilj ukrepa ni pospeševanje kulture in ohranjanje kulturne dediščine, kakor je predvideno 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) predvideva odobritev pomoči za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je podzaposlenost velika.
Sicily is a region eligible for that exemption.
Sicilija je regija, ki izpolnjuje pogoje za to izjemo.
In its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission explained the reasons, summarised in paragraphs 18 to 31, why it doubted that the measure could qualify for the exemption in Article 87(3)(a).
V svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave je Komisija pojasnila razloge, povzete v odstavkih 18 do 31 te odločbe, zakaj dvomi, da bi ukrep lahko izpolnjeval pogoje za izjemo iz člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe.
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 nobenih pripomb Italije ali zainteresiranih tretjih strank, lahko preprosto sklepa, da so ti dvomi potrjeni.
According to the Italian authorities, the aid has not been granted and so there is no need to recover it,
V skladu s trditvami italijanskih organov pomoč ni bila dodeljena, zato ni potrebe po njenem vračilu –
The aid scheme which Italy is planning to implement under Article 60 of Regional Law No 17/2004 constitutes State aid.
Shema pomoči, ki jo namerava Italija izvajati v skladu s členom 60 Regionalnega zakona št. 17/2004, je državna pomoč.
The aid referred to in the preceding paragraph is incompatible with the common market and may not therefore be implemented.
Pomoč, navedena v prejšnjem odstavku, ni združljiva s skupnim trgom in se je zato ne sme izvajati.
Italy shall inform the Commission, within two months of the notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Italija v dveh mesecih od datuma obvestila o tej odločbi obvesti Komisijo o ukrepih, ki jih je sprejela za uskladitev s to odločbo.
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.
Ta odločba je naslovljena na Italijo.
OJ C 82, 5.4.2006, p. 71.
UL C 82, 5.4.2006, str. 71.
Case C-475/2003 Banca popolare di Cremona Soc.coop.arl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona, not yet published.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 3. oktobra v zadevi C-475/2003 Banca popolare di Cremona Soc.coop.arl proti Agenzii Entrate Ufficio Cremona, še neobjavljena.
See Titolo VI del Libro V of the Civil Code, as amended by Article 8 of Legislative Decree No 6/2003 of 17 January 2003.
Glej Titolo VI del Libro V Civilnega zakonika, kakor je bil spremenjen s členom 8 Zakonodajne uredbe št. 6/2003 z dne 17. januarja 2003.
See Titolo IV of Royal Decree No 773/1931 of 18 June 1931, as subsequently amended.
Glej Titolo IV Kraljeve uredbe št. 773/1931 z dne 18. junija 1931, kakor je bila naknadno spremenjena in dopolnjena.
The provincial prefect can refuse the licence also on the basis of the number and importance of existing entities.
Provincialni prefekt lahko zavrne licenco na podlagi števila in pomena obstoječih subjektov.
Legislative Decree (IRAP) No 446 of 15 December 1997.
Zakonodajna uredba (IRAP) št. 446 z dne 15. decembra 1997.
See footnote 27 to the Guidelines (see footnote 9).
Glej opombo 27 Smernic (glej opombo 9).
Commission Decision C(2005)4675 of 7 December 2005 — State aid case N 198/05 — ‘Tax aid for job creation in assisted areas, IRAP reductions — Law No 80/2005, Art. 11b’, against which the Commission raised no objections ( OJ C 42, 18.2.2006, p. 3).
Odločba Komisije C(2005) 4675 z dne 7. decembra 2005 – Zadeva državne pomoči N 198/05 – „Davčna pomoč za oblikovanje delovnih mest na območjih, ki prejemajo pomoč, znižanja regionalnega davka na proizvodno dejavnost (IRAP) – Zakon št. 80/2005, čl. 11b“, zoper katerega Komisija ni ugovarjala ( UL C 42, 18.2.2006, str. 3).
Judgment of the Court of 6 September 2006, Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities, not yet published.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 6. septembra 2006, Portugalska republika proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, še neobjavljena.
However, in the case notified, the Region of Sicily has not limited its intervention to the margin of autonomous discretion established by national law but has used its power to introduce for certain sectors and taxpayers tax rates that are different from, and lower than, the standard regional tax rates.
V priglašenem primeru sicilijanska regija ni omejila svojega ukrepanja v okvir avtonomne presoje, ki ga določa nacionalna zakonodaja, temveč je uporabila svojo pristojnost za to, da je za določene sektorje in davčne zavezance uvedla davčne stopnje, ki se razlikujejo od standardnih regionalnih davčnih stopenj in so nižje od njih.
In fact:
Dejansko:
The Commission concludes that the measure notified by Italy and described in paragraphs 11 to 17 is not compatible with the common market and is not covered by any of the exemptions laid down in the EC Treaty.
Komisija sklepa, da ukrep, ki ga je priglasila Italija in je opisan v odstavkih 11 do 17, ni združljiv s skupnim trgom in ne spada na področje uporabe nobene izjeme iz Pogodbe ES.
The measure must therefore be prohibited.
Ukrep je zato treba prepovedati.
The Commission has therefore explained that it considered a more thorough analysis of the issue to be necessary.
Komisija je zato pojasnila, da meni, da je potrebna podrobnejša analiza tega vprašanja.
Such an analysis would need to include any comments made by interested third parties.
Taka analiza mora vključevati vse komentarje zainteresiranih tretjih strank.
on State aid C 41/2004 (ex N 221/2004) Portugal Investment aid to ORFAMA, Organização Fabril de Malhas S.A.
o državni pomoči C 41/2004 (ex N 221/2004) – Portugalska – pomoč za naložbe podjetju ORFAMA, Organização Fabril de Malhas S.A.
(notified under document number C(2007) 638)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 638)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions [1] and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenimi določbami [1], in ob upoštevanju njihovih pripomb,
By letter of 5 May 2004 (registered as received on 19 May), Portugal notified the Commission of its intention to provide aid to Organização Fabril de Malhas S.A. (hereinafter ‘ORFAMA’) in order to help finance an investment by the company in Poland.
Z dopisom z dne 5. maja 2004 (evidentiranim dne 19. maja) je Portugalska obvestila Komisijo o svoji nameri glede zagotovitve pomoči podjetju Organização Fabril de Malhas S.A. (v nadaljnjem besedilu „ORFAMA“), da bi pomagala financirati naložbo podjetja na Poljskem.
The Commission requested further information by letter of 15 July 2004, to which Portugal replied by letter of 30 September 2004 (registered as received on 5 October).
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 15. julija 2004 zaprosila za dodatne informacije, Portugalska pa je nanj odgovorila z dopisom z dne 30. septembra 2004 (evidentiranim dne 5. oktobra).
By letter of 6 December 2004, the Commission informed Portugal that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid.
Z dopisom z dne 6. decembra 2004 je Komisija sporočila Portugalski, da se je odločila sprožiti postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES glede pomoči.
By letter of 4 February 2005 (registered as received on 9 February), the Portuguese authorities presented their comments in the context of the above-mentioned procedure.
Z dopisom z dne 4. februarja 2005 (evidentiranim dne 9. februarja) so portugalske oblasti predstavile svoje pripombe v okviru zgoraj navedenega postopka.
There were no comments from third parties.
Nobena tretja stranka ni predložila pripomb.
ORFAMA is a producer of fashion knitwear located in Braga, a region falling under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
ORFAMA je proizvajalka modnih pletenin in ima sedež v Bragi, pokrajini, ki spada v člen 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES.
The company sells most of its products in the European Union (50 %), the United States and Canada (38 %) and Japan (5 %) [3].
Podjetje proda največ svojih izdelkov v Evropsko unijo (50 %), v Združene države in Kanado (38 %) ter na Japonsko (5 %).
The project consists in the acquisition of two textile companies, Archimode SP and Wartatex SP, located in Lodz, Poland.
Projekt sestavlja prevzem dveh tekstilnih podjetij, in sicer podjetja Archimode SP in Wartatex SP, ki sta v Lodzu na Poljskem.
Both companies are involved in clothing production.
Dejavnost obeh podjetij je proizvodnja oblačil.
ORFAMA started working with the Polish companies in 1995 under a subcontracting arrangement whereby these companies accounted for some 30 % of ORFAMA’s turnover.
ORFAMA je začela sodelovati s poljskima podjetjema leta 1995 v okviru podizvajalskega dogovora, pri čemer je njun delež v prometu ORFAME znašal približno 30 %.
ORFAMA then decided to consolidate its presence in Poland and in Eastern European markets by acquiring the two Polish companies.
ORFAMA se je potem odločila okrepiti svojo prisotnost na Poljskem in na trgih v vzhodni Evropi s prevzemom teh dveh poljskih podjetij.
The Portuguese authorities noted that ORFAMA will maintain the capacity currently installed in Portugal without relocating activities to Poland.
Portugalske oblasti so ugotovile, da bo ORFAMA ohranila zmogljivosti, ki so trenutno nameščene na Portugalskem, brez premestitve dejavnosti na Poljsko.
The objective of the project is to raise the volume of production, to free up capacity in Portugal for the manufacture of higher-value-added products and to gain access to the German and Eastern European markets.
Cilj projekta je povečati obseg proizvodnje, sprostiti zmogljivosti na Portugalskem za proizvodnjo izdelkov z večjo dodano vrednostjo in pridobiti dostop do nemških in vzhodnoevropskih trgov.
The Portuguese authorities considered that this project would contribute to strengthening the competitiveness of the textile industry in the European Union, given that both ORFAMA and the Polish companies face mounting competition from Asian countries, in particular China.
Portugalske oblasti so menile, da bi ta projekt prispeval h krepitvi konkurenčnosti tekstilne industrije v Evropski uniji v položaju, ko se ORFAMA in obe poljski podjetji spopadajo z naraščajočo konkurenco iz azijskih držav, zlasti iz Kitajske.
The project was completed in December 1999.
Projekt je bil zaključen decembra 1999.
The investment in acquiring both companies amounted to EUR 9217516 (EUR 8900205 for Archimode and EUR 317311 for Wartatex).
Naložba v prevzem obeh podjetij je znašala 9217516 EUR (8900205 EUR za Archimode in 317311 EUR za Wartatex).
ORFAMA financed 97 % of the investment with bank loans and the remainder with own capital.
ORFAMA je financirala 97 % naložbe z bančnimi posojili, ostanek pa z lastnim kapitalom.
Portugal intends to grant ORFAMA a tax credit of EUR 921752, corresponding to 10 % of the total eligible investment costs for the above-mentioned project.
Portugalska namerava odobriti ORFAMI davčni dobropis v višini 921752 EUR, kar ustreza 10 % skupnih upravičenih stroškov naložbe za zgoraj navedeni projekt.
The measure was notified under a Portuguese scheme for promoting the modernisation and internationalisation of economic agents [4].
Ukrep je bil priglašen v okviru portugalskega programa za pospeševanje posodobitve in internacionalizacije gospodarskih subjektov.
This scheme requires aid to large companies to be notified on an individual basis.
V okviru tega programa se zahteva priglasitev pomoči večjim podjetjem na individualni podlagi.
The Portuguese authorities explained that the request for aid was presented on 31 March 2000.
Portugalske oblasti so razložile, da je bil zahtevek za pomoč predložen 31. marca 2000.
The project was carried out just before this date for strategic reasons, on the assumption that it would be eligible for aid under the relevant Portuguese legislation.
Projekt je bil izveden tik pred tem datumom iz strateških razlogov, ob domnevi, da bi bil upravičen do pomoči na podlagi zadevne portugalske zakonodaje.
Internal delays meant that the Portuguese authorities notified the aid only in January 2004.
Notranje zamude so pomenile, da so portugalske oblasti priglasile pomoč šele januarja 2004.
The Commission, in its decision to initiate the procedure in respect of the present case, stated that it would examine the measure in the light of the derogation under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty in order to determine whether the aid could be considered as facilitating the development of a certain economic activity without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka v zvezi s tem primerom navedla, da bo proučila ukrep glede odstopanja v okviru člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, da bi lahko presodila, ali se pomoč lahko šteje za spodbudo za razvoj neke gospodarske dejavnosti, ne da bi to imelo negativen učinek na pogoje trgovanja v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
The Commission also stated that it would examine the measure on the basis of the criteria normally used for assessing aid to large companies for foreign direct investment (FDI) projects, given the similarity of this case to cases of investment aid outside the European Union.
Komisija je tudi navedla, da bo glede na podobnost tega primera s primeri pomoči za naložbe zunaj Evropske unije proučila ukrep na podlagi meril, ki se navadno uporabljajo za ocenjevanje pomoči večjim podjetjem za projekte neposrednih tujih naložb.
The measure was notified under a Portuguese scheme for promoting the internationalisation of Portuguese companies.
Ukrep je bil prijavljen v okviru portugalskega načrta za pospeševanje internacionalizacije portugalskih podjetij.
It shuld be noted that, at the time the project was carried out and the aid applied for, Poland was not yet a member of the European Union.
Treba je opozoriti, da Poljska v času, ko je bil projekt izveden in ko je bila dana vloga za pomoč, še ni bila članica Evropske unije.
The investment thus qualifies as foreign direct investment under the relevant Portuguese aid scheme.
Naložba tako pomeni neposredno tujo naložbo na podlagi ustreznega portugalskega programa pomoči.
In these cases the Commission normally weighs the benefits of the measure, in terms of its contribution to the international competitiveness of the EU industry concerned, against possible negative effects in the Community, such as the risks of relocation and any adverse impact on employment.
V teh primerih Komisija navadno pretehta koristi ukrepa v smislu njegovega prispevka k mednarodni konkurenčnosti zadevne gospodarske panoge v EU in možne negativne učinke v Skupnosti, kot so tveganja premestitve in kakršen koli škodljiv učinek na zaposlovanje.