natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
When such events cause damage to agricultural production or to the means of agricultural production of a value greater than 20 % of normal production in less-favoured areas and greater than 30 % in other areas, the Commission treats the events as natural disasters and authorises the granting of aid to farmers, designed to offset the losses concerned under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Kadar taki dogodki povzročijo škodo za kmetijsko pridelavo ali sredstva za kmetijsko pridelavo, večjo od 20 % običajne pridelave na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi in 30 % na drugih območjih, jih Komisija izenači z naravnimi nesrečami in odobri dodelitev pomoči kmetovalcem, namenjene nadomestilu teh izgub, na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe.
In general, drought may in fact be put on the same footing as a natural disaster, as happened in the case of Decision No 331/02 [32] because the damage sustained by farmers or producer organisations exceeded a certain threshold.
Na splošno se suša dejansko lahko izenači z naravno nesrečo, kot je bilo to storjeno v odločbi N 331/02 [32] zaradi praga škode, ki so jo utrpeli kmetovalci ali organizacije pridelovalcev.
As pointed out in its letter initiating the investigation procedure, the Commission has, however, always considered that the provisions of point 11.3 of the Guidelines were not applicable to agricultural processing undertakings that, in its view, enjoy a degree of flexibility in the management of their supplies.
Vendar pa je Komisija, kot je navedeno v dopisu o sprožitvi postopka, vedno menila, da se določbe točke 11.3 Smernic ne uporabljajo za agro-industrijske predelovalne obrate, ki so po njenem mnenju lahko prožni pri upravljanju svoje oskrbe.
This may of course result in additional raw material costs and/or a loss of profitability, but seems not to warrant the direct application of the rules applicable to agricultural production.
To lahko seveda vključuje dodatne stroške za surovine in/ali manjšo donosnost, vendar pa ne more upravičevati neposredne uporabe pravil, ki se uporabljajo za kmetijsko pridelavo.
This approach, referred to in point 11.3.8 of the Guidelines, was also confirmed in a recent judgment of the Court of First Instance [33].
Ta pristop, ki je povzet v točki 11.3.8 Smernic, je bil poleg tega potrjen v nedavni sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje [33].
According, then, to point 11.3 of the agricultural Guidelines, aid designed to compensate agricultural processing undertakings from losses resulting from adverse weather conditions is incompatible with the common market.
Iz tega sledi, da točka 11.3 kmetijskih smernic izključuje, da so pomoči za nadomestilo agro-industrijskim predelovalnim obratom za izgube, ki so nastale zaradi slabih vremenskih razmer, združljive s skupnim trgom.
The Italian authorities had based a part of their argument on the fact that the refinery concerned did not have the flexibility to manage its supplies and that, as a result and in view of the close link between sugar beet production and the refinery, the aid should be extended to include the refinery. In this context, the Italian authorities had referred to several Commission decisions as precedents.
Italijanski organi so del svojih utemeljitev oprli na dejstvo, da obravnavana tovarna sladkorja ni mogla prožno upravljati svoje oskrbe in da je bilo zato treba glede na tesno povezavo med pridelavo pese in tovarno sladkorja pomoč razširiti na tovarno sladkorja.
The first series of decisions referred to cannot be considered to be comparable as they refer to occurrences characterised in themselves as natural disasters (aid N 729/02 [34] refers to compensation following flooding in the south-east of France) or exceptional occurrences (aid N 83/2000 [35] relates to dioxin contamination in Belgium, aid N 185/2000 [36] makes good the damage following the proliferation of algae in the Adriatic in Italy and aid N 657/02 [37] relates to the Belgian forestry sector, damaged by an exceptional proliferation of bark beetles and fungi).
Italijanski organi so v tem okviru več odločb Komisije navedli kot precedenčne primere: prvega navedenega niza odločb ni mogoče šteti za primerljivega, ker se odločbe nanašajo na dogodke, ki so sami po sebi opredeljeni kot naravne nesreče (pomoč N 729/02 [34] se nanaša na nadomestila po poplavah na jugovzhodu Francije) ali izjemni dogodki (pomoč N 83/2000 [35] se nanaša na kontaminacijo z dioksinom v Belgiji, primer N 185/2000 [36] se nanaša na nadomestilo za škodo, nastalo zaradi razmnoževanja alg v Jadranskem morju v Italiji, primer N 657/02 [37] pa na belgijski gozdarski sektor, oškodovan zaradi izjemnega razmnoževanja podlubnikov in gliv).
As indicated previously, drought cannot in itself be characterised as a natural disaster or exceptional occurrence and, as a result, the decisions cited cannot be considered as precedents similar to the case in question.
Kot je bilo navedeno, suše kot take ni mogoče opredeliti kot naravno nesrečo ali izjemni dogodek, tako da navedenih odločb ni mogoče šteti za precedenčne primere, podobne obravnavanemu primeru.
The Italian authorities had also referred to decisions N 745/2000–C 4/01 [38] and N 331/02 [39].
Italijanski organi so navedli tudi odločbi N 745/2000–C 4/01 [38] in N 331/02 [39].
In these two cases, the Commission concluded that drought could be likened to a natural disaster because of the threshold of damage exceeded.
Komisija je v teh dveh primerih ugotovila, da se suša lahko izenači z naravno nesrečo zaradi praga povzročene škode.
In both cases, the aid was granted to primary producers and to ‘consorzi di bonifica’ (land reclamation consortia).
V obeh primerih je pomoč dodeljena primarnim proizvajalcem in „consorzi di bonifica“.
The Commission concluded that the agricultural Guidelines did not apply to these ‘consorzi di bonifica’ because of the fact that water is not a product that comes under Annex I of the Treaty.
Komisija je v zvezi s temi „consorzi di bonifica“ ugotovila, da se kmetijske smernice ne uporabljajo, ker voda ni proizvod, ki spada na področje uporabe Priloge I k Pogodbi.
However, these ‘consorzi di bonifica’ cannot be likened to normal undertakings, as is the case with the refinery in question.
Vendar pa teh „consorzi di bonifica“ ni mogoče izenačiti z običajnimi podjetji, kot je zadevna tovarna sladkorja.
The ‘consorzi di bonifica’ are autonomous public undertakings that manage drainage areas.
Consorzi di bonifica so avtonomna javna podjetja, ki upravljajo območja izsuševanja.
In exchange, they receive payments from farmers for the irrigation water provided.
V zameno prejemajo plačila kmetovalcev za dobavljeno vodo za namakanje.
This difference between the ‘consorzi di bonifica’ and undertakings for processing or marketing agricultural products has also been confirmed by the fact that, in the aforesaid case N 745/2000–C 4/01, the Commission decided to initiate the investigative procedure for the portion of the aid concerning undertakings and cooperatives active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products while indicating that, in application of the agricultural Guidelines, aid to these processing undertakings could not be approved.
Ta razlika med „consorzi di bonifica“ in podjetji za predelavo ali trženje kmetijskih pridelkov je bila poleg tega potrjena z dejstvom, da se je Komisija v zgoraj navedenem primeru N 745/00–C 4/01 odločila sprožiti postopek v zvezi z delom pomoči, ki se je nanašal na podjetja in kooperative, dejavne pri predelavi in trženju kmetijskih pridelkov, pri čemer je navedla, da pomoči podjetjem za predelavo ni mogoče odobriti na podlagi kmetijskih smernic.
Notification having subsequently been withdrawn, no final decision was taken where this case was concerned.
Priglasitev je bila nato umaknjena, tako da dokončna odločba v tem primeru ni bila sprejeta.
With regard to the refinery’s difficulty in obtaining supplies from elsewhere, the Italian authorities put forward arguments aimed at demonstrating the inherent difficulties faced by every refinery in obtaining supplies from a sugar beet production basin different from its own because of a contract system linking the sugar beet producers to the refineries, because of the island location of the refinery concerned and because of the short period for which sugar beet can be preserved.
Kar zadeva težave tovarne sladkorja, da se oskrbi drugje, so italijanski organi navedli trditve, ki naj bi dokazovale težave vsake rafinerije, da se oskrbi iz drugega bazena pridelave pese kot iz lastnega, zaradi sistema pogodb, ki zavezujejo pridelovalce pese in rafinerije, otoškega položaja zadevne rafinerije in kratkega časa shranjevanja pese.
The fact that it is impossible for refineries to obtain supplies from elsewhere is a result, however, of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 which introduced a system of contracts between sugar beet producers and refineries.
Vendar ta nezmožnost oskrbe drugje izhaja iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1260/2001, s katero se uvaja sistem pogodb med pridelovalci pese in rafinerijami.
The Italian authorities have themselves pointed out that, in normal conditions, it is not possible to obtain supplies from other sugar beet production basins intended for other undertakings without causing these other undertakings’ final production to fall and therefore preventing them from achieving their quotas.
Italijanski organi so sami navedli, da se v običajnih okoliščinah ne morejo oskrbeti iz drugih bazenov pridelave pese, namenjenih drugim podjetjem, ne da bi s tem povzročili padec končne proizvodnje sladkorja teh drugih podjetij in jim torej preprečili, da bi dosegla svojo kvoto.
The authorities have therefore indicated that, in general, it is not often that a refinery is able to obtain supplies from production basins other than its usual ones.
Navedli so torej, da na splošno možnost, da se rafinerija oskrbi iz drugih bazenov pridelave, kot so običajni bazeni pridelave, ni pogosta.
Because of the aforesaid Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, any refinery, whatever its location, has the inherent inflexibility invoked as an argument by Italy.
Trditev v zvezi s pomanjkljivo prožnostjo podjetij, na katero se sklicuje Italija, zato velja za vse tovarne sladkorja zaradi zgoraj navedene Uredbe (ES) št. 1260/2001, ne glede na lokacijo podjetja.
Such an argument would thus apply to all processing undertakings whose link with producers is an integral part of the organisation of the market in which they are active.
Taka trditev bi tako veljala za vsa predelovalna podjetja, katerih povezava s pridelovalci je del ureditve trga, na katerem so dejavna.
Acceptance of this argument would go against a strict interpretation of the agricultural Guidelines — a strict interpretation that does need, moreover, to be applied since we are concerned here with an exception to the general rule concerning the incompatibility of aid.
Sprejetje te trditve bi bilo v nasprotju s strogo razlago kmetijskih smernic, ki jo je kljub temu treba uporabiti, kar zadeva izjemo od splošnega pravila nezdružljivosti pomoči.
The Italian authorities had also referred to point 3.4 of the aforesaid agricultural Guidelines as the legal basis for the aid.
Italijanski organi so kot pravno podlago za pomoč navedli tudi točko 3.4 kmetijskih smernic.
In applying this point, the Commission will assess any aid measures that are not covered by the agricultural Guidelines on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the principles set out in Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the Treaty and of the Community’s common agricultural and rural development policies.
Komisija na podlagi te točke oceni vse ukrepe pomoči, ki niso zajeti v kmetijskih smernicah, za vsak primer posebej, pri čemer upošteva načela iz členov 87, 88 in 89 Pogodbe, skupno kmetijsko politiko in politiko Skupnosti za razvoj podeželja.
As indicated in the previous paragraphs, the aid measures concerned (aid to processing undertakings designed to make good the losses sustained due to adverse weather conditions) are specifically covered by point 11.3 of the Guidelines. These exclude such undertakings from the benefit of aid, with the result that point 3.4 does not apply.
Kot je bilo navedeno v predhodnih točkah, zadevne ukrepe pomoči (pomoči predelovalnim podjetjem za nadomestilo škode, nastale zaradi slabih vremenskih razmer) posebej pokriva točka 11.3 Smernic, ki jih izključuje iz upravičenosti do pomoči, tako da se točka 3.4 ne uporablja.
Concerned not to leave any avenue unexplored, the Commission has examined whether the guidelines for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty might not be applicable to the case in question.
Komisija bo zaradi izčrpnosti preučila, ali se za obravnavani primer ne uporabljajo smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah.
The first condition to be fulfilled by an undertaking if it is to benefit from rescuing or restructuring aid is that it should be considered as being in difficulty within the meaning of the guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [40].
Prvi pogoj za izkoriščanje pomoči za reševanje ali prestrukturiranje je, da se za zadevno podjetje šteje, da je v težavah v smislu smernic o pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [40].
It is not apparent from the information held by the Commission that the undertaking was in difficulty within the meaning of the above-mentioned guidelines when the aid was notified.
Iz informacij, ki jih ima Komisija, ne izhaja, da bi bilo podjetje ob priglasitvi pomoči v težavah v smislu zgoraj navedenih smernic.
The only known indication that it might have been so is the fact that it needed to be recapitalised because of a large trading deficit in 2003.
Edini poznani znak težav je dejstvo, da je bila zaradi velike izgube leta 2003 potrebna dokapitalizacija.
The private shareholders intervened to recapitalise the company in December 2003, thereby making any public support for its restructuring superfluous.
Zasebni delničarji so posredovali za dokapitalizacijo podjetja decembra 2003, zaradi česar je kakršna koli javna pomoč za dokapitalizacijo postala odvečna.
Moreover, the company had already received restructuring aid, approved by the Commission in 1999 [41].
Poleg tega je podjetje že prejelo pomoč za prestrukturiranje, ki jo je Komisija odobrila leta 1999 [41].
Since fewer than 10 years have elapsed since the end of the restructuring period, no new restructuring aid can be granted because of the ‘one time, last time’ principle referred to in point 3.2.3 of the guidelines on rescuing and restructuring.
Ker je od konca obdobja prestrukturiranja minilo manj kot deset let, na podlagi načela enkratne pomoči iz točke 3.2.3 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje ni mogoče odobriti nobene nove pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
In any case, the Commission wishes to point out that it is up to the Member State concerned to fulfil the duty of cooperation it has towards the Commission by providing all the elements required for the Commission to be able to check that all the conditions of the derogation from which it is asking to benefit have been met [42].
Vsekakor Komisija želi poudariti, da mora zadevna država članica, da bi izpolnila svojo nalogo sodelovanja s Komisijo, predložiti vse dokaze, ki lahko tej instituciji omogočijo preverjanje, ali so pogoji za odstopanje, ki ga želi uporabiti, izpolnjeni [42].
In the case in question, the Italian authorities have never called for the guidelines on rescuing and restructuring to be applied nor supplied any document enabling the Commission to assess the data in the light of these guidelines, and this in spite of the information provided by the Commission in recital 44 of the decision to initiate the investigative procedure.
Italijanski organi se v obravnavanem primeru niso nikjer sklicevali na uporabo smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje niti niso predložili nobenega dokumenta, na podlagi katerega bi Komisija lahko preučila podatke z vidika teh smernic, in to kljub navedbam Komisije v uvodni izjavi 44 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka.
Other doubts expressed by the Commission when the procedure was initiated
Drugi dvomi Komisije ob sprožitvi postopka
The data held by the Commission when the procedure was initiated seemed to indicate that Sadam ISZ and the companies to which Sadam ISZ directly or indirectly belonged — in particular, SAM and FINBIETICOLA Spa — would have been in a position to cope with the fall in Sadam ISZ’s profitability.
Informacije, ki jih je imela Komisija ob sprožitvi postopka, naj bi kazale, da bi bile družba Sadam ISZ in družbe – zlasti SAM in FINBIETICOLA Spa –, ki jim je ta neposredno ali posredno pripadala, sposobne kriti zmanjšanje donosnosti tega obrata.
Sadam ISZ having passed entirely under the control of Eridania Sadam during the procedure, the Commission notes that the lead company has been in a position to honour its obligations towards the controlled company, enabling it to pursue its activity, partly because of the considerable investment made within the framework of the restructuring plan launched in 1999-2000 and of the recapitalisation that took place in 2003-2004.
Ker je družba Sadam ISZ med postopkom v celoti prešla pod nadzor skupine Eridania Sadam, Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila glavna družba sposobna izpolniti svoje obveznosti do nadzorovane družbe, s čimer ji je omogočila nadaljevanje dejavnosti, pri čemer se upoštevajo tudi velike naložbe, odobrene na podlagi načrta za prestrukturiranje, uvedenega leta 1999–2000, in dokapitalizacija v letih 2003–2004.
As indicated in recital 75, the undertaking seems not, therefore, to be in difficulty, meaning that the guidelines on rescuing and restructuring are not applicable.
Zato se, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 75, ne zdi, da bi bilo podjetje v težavah, kar izloči uporabo smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
The decision to initiate the procedure also stated, as a subsidiary point, that, even if it were deemed acceptable (quod non, at this stage of the procedure) to apply the compensation principle described in point 11.3 of the Guidelines to Sadam ISZ, the reference period chosen by the Italian authorities for calculating the aid would be wrong.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je bilo podredno navedeno tudi, da tudi če bi bilo uporabo načela nadomestila iz točke 11.3 Smernic za družbo Sadam ISZ mogoče šteti za sprejemljivo (quod non, na tej stopnji postopka), naj bi bilo referenčno obdobje, ki so ga italijanski organi izbrali za izračun pomoči, napačno.
Since it was not deemed acceptable, for the reasons explained above, to apply point 11.3 of the Guidelines, there is no reason for examining this last doubt raised when the decision was taken to initiate the procedure.
Ker za točko 11.3 Smernic zaradi zgoraj navedenih razlogov ne velja, da se uporablja, ni treba preučiti tega zadnjega dvoma, navedenega ob odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission considers that the State aid of EUR 3,5 million that Italy is considering granting to the Villasor sugar refinery belonging to Sadam ISZ is not compatible with the common market,
Komisija glede na zgornje ugotovitve meni, da državna pomoč, ki jo Italija namerava odobriti sladkorni rafineriji iz Villasorja v lasti družbe Sadam ISZ v višini 3500000 EUR, ni združljiva s skupnim trgom –
The State aid of EUR 3,5 million that Italy is considering granting to the Villasor sugar refinery belonging to Sadam ISZ is not compatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč, ki jo Italija namerava odobriti sladkorni rafineriji iz Villasorja v lasti družbe Sadam ISZ v višini 3500000 EUR, ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Accordingly, the granting of the aid is not authorised.
Odobritev navedene pomoči torej ni dovoljena.
OJ C 51, 1.3.2005, p. 9.
UL C 51, 1.3.2005, str. 9.
The Commission authorised the granting of aid (aid N 745/2000 and aid N 331/02) to Sardinian agricultural producers under point 11.3 of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (OJ C 28, 1.2.2000, p. 2) for the losses they sustained following the drought concerned.
Komisija je odobrila dodelitev pomoči sardinskim kmetijskim pridelovalcem na podlagi točke 11.3 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju (UL C 28, 1.2.2000, str. 2) za škodo, ki so jo utrpeli zaradi te suše, pomoči N 745/2000 in N 331/02.
The competent authorities sent the Commission the balance sheet and their estimate of the value of the loss by letter dated 27 November 2003.
Pristojni organi so bilanco in oceno stroškov škode Komisiji poslali z dopisom z dne 27. novembra 2003.
The competent authorities deducted a rate of 27,2 % for depreciation for 2000-2002, equivalent to the percentage of aid received by Sadam Spa as State aid in relation to the investment made in restructuring the Villasor processing facility.
Pristojni organi so odšteli stopnjo 27,2 % od amortizacij za leta 2000–2002, ki je enaka stopnji pomoči, ki jo je družba Sadam Spa prejela kot državno pomoč za naložbe, opravljene iz naslova prestrukturiranja predelovalnega obrata v Villasorju.
State aid N 157/99, decision (2000) D/103781, 19 May 2000 (OJ C 175, 24.6.2000, p. 20).
Državna pomoč N 157/99, Odločba (2000) D/103781 z dne 19. maja 2000 (UL C 175, 24.6.2000, str. 20).
For the complete reference period, the total fixed costs were EUR 15762413,37 and total sugar production was 94609 tonnes (15762413,37/94609 = EUR 166,61/tonne).
V celotnem referenčnem obdobju je skupni znesek fiksnih stroškov znašal 15762413,37 EUR, skupna količina proizvodnje sladkorja pa je bila 94609 ton (15762413,37/94609 = 166,61 EUR/t).
In 2001, fixed costs amounted to EUR 5760061,14 and sugar production to 20004 tonnes (5760061,14/20004 = EUR 287,95/tonne).
Leta 2001 so fiksni stroški znašali 5760061,14 EUR, proizvodnja sladkorja pa 20004 ton (5760061,14/20004 = 287,95 EUR/t).
In 2002, fixed costs amounted to EUR 6265000,70 and sugar production to 11007 tonnes (6265000,70/11007 = EUR 569,18/tonne).
Leta 2002 so fiksni stroški znašali 6265000,70 EUR, proizvodnja sladkorja pa 11007 ton (6265000,70/11007 = 569,18 EUR/t).
In 2001 (287,95 – 166,61) = EUR 121,34/tonne in 2002 (569,18 – 166,61) = EUR 402,58/tonne.
Leta 2001 (287,95 – 166,61) = 121,34 EUR/t, leta 2002 (569,18 – 166,61) = 402,58 EUR/t.
In 2001 (121,34 × 20004) = EUR 2427278 in 2002 (EUR 402,58 × 11007 tonnes) = EUR 4434170.
Leta 2001 (121,34 × 20004 t) = 2427278 EUR, leta 2002 (402,58 EUR × 11007 t) = 4434170 EUR.
The SAR is Sardinia’s public agro-meteorological service.
SAR je javna agrometeorološka služba Sardinije.
OJ C 28, 1.2.2000, p. 1.
UL C 28, 1.2.2000, str. 1.
In this connection they cite the Commission decision of 5 December 2000, taken within the framework of State aid N 185/2000 (OJ C 19, 20.1.2001, p. 6).
V zvezi s tem navajajo odločbo Komisije z dne 5. decembra 2000, sprejeto v okviru državne pomoči N 185/2000 (UL C 19, 20.1.2001, str. 6).
In this case, the Commission had considered the compensation paid to shellfish-cleaning enterprises following the mucilage pollution in 1997 to be compatible with Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty.
V tem primeru je Komisija odločila, da so odškodnine za podjetja za čiščenje lupinarjev zaradi onesnaženja z rastlinsko sluzjo leta 1997 v skladu s členom 87(2)(b) Pogodbe.
At the time of the notification, the market was governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1).
Ob priglasitvi je bil trg urejen z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1260/2001 z dne 19. junija 2001 o skupni ureditvi trgov za sladkor (UL L 178, 30.6.2001, str. 1).
SAM srl is a company controlled by Sadam Spa.
SAM srl je družba pod nadzorom družbe Sadam Spa.
The Sadam group accounts for 35 % of Italian sugar production.
Skupina Sadam ima 35 % nacionalne proizvodnje sladkorja.
FINBIETICOLA Spa’s particular task is to play a part in those Italian sugar manufacturers in which it holds shares.
Naloga FINBIETICOLA Spa je zlasti udeležba v italijanskih sladkornih podjetjih, v katerih ima deleže v kapitalu.
Letter dated 31 March 2005.
Dopis z dne 31. marca 2005.
Letter dated 10 December 2004.
Dopis z dne 10. decembra 2004.
Fax dated 7 March 2005.
Telefaks z dne 7. marca 2005.
See point 38 of the letter initiating the investigation procedure.
Glej točko 38 v dopisu o sprožitvi postopka.