natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
One of the things defined as ‘new aid’ in Article 1(c) of this Regulation is ‘alterations to existing aid’.
„Nova pomoč“ iz člena 1(c) te uredbe je med drugim opredeljena tudi s pojmom „spremembe veljavne pomoči“.
Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation further states that an ‘alteration to an existing aid shall mean any change other than modification of a purely formal or administrative nature which cannot affect the evaluation of compatibility of the aid measure with the common market’, including increases in the budget of an authorised aid scheme exceeding 20 %.
Člen 4 izvedbene uredbe nadalje navaja, da „sprememba obstoječe pomoči pomeni katero koli spremembo, razen preoblikovanja povsem formalne ali upravne narave, ki ne more vplivati na ocenjevanje združljivosti ukrepa pomoči s skupnim trgom“, vključno s povečanjem proračuna odobrene sheme pomoči, ki presega 20 %.
In this connection, the Commission notes that Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation does not constitute the legal basis for assessing the compatibility of new aid, nor has the Commission, contrary to what is suggested by Italy (see recital 13), relied on this Article for that purpose; rather, this Article provides clarification on how the Commission should apply Article 1(c) of the Procedural Regulation concerning the concept of ‘new aid’.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da člen 4 Izvedbene uredbe ne pomeni pravne podlage za ocenjevanje združljivosti nove pomoči, prav tako se Komisija v zvezi tem ni sklicevala na ta člen, kakor sicer navaja Italija (glej uvodno izjavo 13); ta člen pojasnjuje, kako mora Komisija uporabljati člen 1(c) Postopkovne uredbe glede koncepta „nove pomoči“.
The Commission further notes that Italy’s argument that the measure is a simple ‘updating’ of costs that have proved inadequate, which does not change the fundamental structure of the scheme, does not detract from the fact that the present budget increase qualifies as an alteration of existing aid and is therefore new aid, pursuant to Article 1(c) of the Procedural Regulation and Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da se navedba Italije, da je zadevni ukrep le „posodobitev“ stroškov, ki so se izkazali za neustrezne, kar ne spremeni temeljne sestave sheme, ne odmika od dejstva, da pomeni sedanje povečanje proračuna spremembo obstoječe pomoči in je zato nova pomoč v skladu s členom 1(c) Postopkovne uredbe in členom 4 Izvedbene uredbe.
Similarly, the Commission cannot accept Italy’s argument that under a proper construction of Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation, classification as new aid should be reserved for increases in the budgets of approved aid schemes that are accompanied by an extension of the time within which companies may have access to the relevant benefits, with consequent distortive effects on competition.
Prav tako se Komisija ne more strinjati z navedbo Italije, da mora v skladu z natančno razlago člena 4 Izvedbene uredbe opredelitev za novo pomoč veljati le za povečanje proračunov odobrenih shem pomoči skupaj s podaljšanjem rokov, v času katerih lahko podjetja dostopijo do pomembnih ugodnosti, kar povzroča učinke izkrivljanja konkurence.
The Commission notes that increases in the budget of an approved scheme (other than marginal ones of less than 20 %) are bound to have an impact on competition as they allow the Member State to provide more aid than originally approved.
Komisija ugotavlja, da obstaja učinek povečanja proračuna odobrene sheme (razen zanemarljivega povečanja, ki je manjše od 20 %) na konkurenco, ker državi članici omogoča, da zagotovi več pomoči, kot je bila prvotno odobrena.
This change in the scheme’s effects on competition requires the Commission to make a fresh assessment of its compatibility with the common market.
Zaradi te spremembe vpliva sheme na konkurenco mora Komisija na novo oceniti njeno združljivost s skupnim trgom.
It follows that a budget increase of the size notified by Italy cannot be considered to be of a purely formal or administrative nature or such as not to affect the evaluation of compatibility of the aid with the common market.
Zato se povečanje proračuna v višini, ki jo je priglasila Italija, ne more obravnavati kot povečanje popolnoma formalne ali upravne narave ali brez vpliva na ocenjevanje združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom.
The Commission therefore confirms that the notified measure must be assessed as new State aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija zato potrjuje, da je treba priglašeni ukrep oceniti kot novo državno pomoč v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The TDM Regulation is no longer a valid legal basis
Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu ni več veljavna pravna podlaga.
Concerning Italy’s first remark in this respect, the Commission would first point out that the legal basis for the adoption of the TDM Regulation was not the Shipbuilding Regulation but the EC Treaty, and in particular Articles 87(3)(e), 93 and 133 thereof.
Komisija glede prve pripombe Italije v zvezi s tem najprej poudarja, da pravna podlaga za sprejetje Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu ni bila Uredba o ladjedelništvu, ampak Pogodba ES ter zlasti člen 87(3)(e), člen 93 in člen 133 Pogodbe.
Furthermore, the Commission can see no inconsistency between its position in the present case and the fact that the TDM Regulation referred, for some of its provisions, to the Shipbuilding Regulation.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da njeno stališče v tem primeru ni v neskladju z dejstvom, da se je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu pri nekaterih določbah sklicevala na Uredbo o ladjedelništvu.
This was simply a matter of legislative technique whereby, to avoid repetition, the TDM Regulation did not reiterate certain definitions or rules already given in the Shipbuilding Regulation but simply incorporated the substance of these provisions by reference to them.
Pri tem je šlo le za zakonodajno tehniko, pri čemer Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu z namenom preprečitve ponavljanja ni ponovno navajala nekaterih opredelitev ali pravil, ki so bila že določena v Uredbi o ladjedelništvu, vendar je vsebino teh določb preprosto vključila s sklicevanjem nanje.
The effect of this was not to make the application of the TDM Regulation on these points dependent upon the continued validity of the Shipbuilding Regulation but rather to create new, autonomous provisions in the TDM Regulation of similar substance to the provisions of the Shipbuilding Regulation to which they referred.
Namen tega je, da uporaba Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu glede teh točk ne bi bila odvisna od podaljšanja veljavnosti Uredbe o ladjedelništvu, ampak bi se oblikovale nove, avtonomne določbe v Uredbi o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu s podobno vsebino, kot jo imajo določbe Uredbe o ladjedelništvu, na katero so se sklicevale.
This in no way contradicts the Commission’s view in the present case that an act of the Community institutions must have a legal basis which is in force on the date on which the act is adopted.
To na noben način ni v nasprotju s stališčem Komisije v tem primeru, da mora imeti akt institucij Skupnosti pravno podlago, ki je veljavna na dan sprejetja akta.
As stated in the Commission’s decision of 30 April 2008 opening the formal investigation procedure, the TDM Regulation is no longer in force and thus cannot serve as a legal basis for the assessment of the new aid.
Kot je navedeno v odločitvi Komisije z dne 30. aprila 2008 o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu ni več veljavna in zato ne more biti pravna podlaga za ocenjevanje nove pomoči.
For the reasons indicated in the decision to initiate the investigation procedure (paragraphs 9 and 10), the notified aid is not compatible with the common market under the Framework on State aid to shipbuilding [12], nor does it seem to be compatible with the common market on the basis of any other applicable State aid provisions.
Zaradi razlogov, navedenih v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka preiskave (odstavka 9 in 10), priglašena pomoč ni združljiva s skupnim trgom v skladu z Okvirom za državno pomoč ladjedelništvu [12], niti se ne zdi združljiva s skupnim trgom na podlagi nobenih drugih veljavnih določb o državni pomoči.
The Commission further notes that Italy has not proposed any alternative legal basis for assessing the compatibility of the aid, but rather argued that this is not ‘new aid’ which, as explained in points 18 to 22, the Commission cannot accept.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da Italija ni predlagala nobene nadomestne pravne podlage za ocenjevanje združljivosti pomoči, ampak je trdila, da to ni „nova pomoč“, česar Komisija, kot je razloženo v odstavkih 18 do 22, ne more sprejeti.
Similarly, the Commission cannot accept Italy’s arguments concerning the general legal principles of legitimate expectation and equal treatment.
Komisija prav tako ne more sprejeti navedb Italije o splošnih pravnih načelih zaupanja v pravo in enakem obravnavanju.
Italy contends that shipbuilders who applied for aid under the scheme when the TDM Regulation was still in force and who met the conditions for qualifying for the aid, but did not receive it because of a lack of budgetary resources, have a legitimate expectation in receiving the aid; it also contends that under the general principle of protection of legitimate expectation (and also for reasons of equal treatment with those shipbuilders who did receive aid from the available funds), they are entitled to receive the aid, irrespective of whether or not the TDM Regulation still applies.
Italija navaja, da ladjedelničarji, ki so zaprosili za pomoč v skladu s shemo, ko je bila Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu še veljavna, in ki so izpolnjevali pogoje upravičenosti do pomoči, vendar je niso prejeli zaradi pomanjkanja proračunskih sredstev, lahko po načelu zaupanja v pravo pričakujejo prejem pomoči; prav tako navaja, da so v skladu s splošnim načelom varstva zaupanja v pravo (in tudi zaradi enakega obravnavanja z ladjedelničarji, ki so pomoč prejeli iz razpoložljivih skladov), upravičeni do prejema pomoči ne glede na to, ali je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu še veljavna ali ne.
According to settled case law the right to rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectation extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it is clear that the Community authorities have, by giving him precise assurances, led him to entertain legitimate expectations.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso ima pravico do uveljavljanja načela varstva zaupanja v pravo vsak posameznik, v primeru katerega je jasno, da lahko zaradi natančnih zagotovil, ki so mu jih dali organi Skupnosti, pričakuje upoštevanje načela zaupanja v pravo.
However, a person may not plead infringement of this principle unless he has been given precise assurances by the authorities [13].
Vendar oseba ne more navesti kršitve tega načela, če ji organi niso dali natančnih zagotovil [13].
An undertaking may not in principle entertain a legitimate expectation to receive aid which has not been approved by the Commission in accordance with the procedure provided for by the EC Treaty [14].
Podjetje načeloma ne more pričakovati upoštevanja načela zaupanja v pravo glede prejema pomoči, ki je Komisija ni odobrila v skladu s postopkom iz Pogodbe ES [14].
For the same reason, it may not invoke a general principle of equal treatment in order to be treated on an equal footing with the beneficiaries of an approved aid.
Zaradi istega razloga se podjetje ne more sklicevati na splošno načelo enakega obravnavanja, da bi se obravnavalo pod enakimi pogoji kot upravičenci do odobrene pomoči.
Italy further quotes case law which, it considers, reflects application of the principle accessorium sequitur principale (the decision on the main issue applies to associated issues) and supports the inference that even if the updating of public policy resources, designed to correct the effect of time or cost forecasts that have proved inadequate, involves increasing the initial aid, it does not constitute new aid, or is compatible with the legal basis that justified the original aid.
Italija navaja tudi sodno prakso, za katero meni, da izraža uporabo načela „accessorium sequitur principale“ (odločitev o glavnem vprašanju se uporablja za povezana vprašanja) in podpira sklep, da posodobitev javnih političnih sredstev, čeprav za popravo učinkov časa ali napovedi stroškov, ki so se izkazale za neustrezne, vključuje povečanje začetne pomoči, ne pomeni nove pomoči in je združljiva v skladu s pravno podlago, ki upravičuje prvotno pomoč.
However, the case law cited does not support Italy’s position.
Vendar navedena sodna praksa stališča Italije ne podpira.
In its judgment in Case C 223/85, the Court found that the Commission’s failure to act within a reasonable time in conjunction with the fact that the aid was intended to cover the additional costs of an operation which had been in receipt of authorised aid had given the beneficiary a legitimate expectation that the aid would encounter no objection.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je s sodbo v zadevi C-223/85 razsodilo, da je zaradi neuspešnosti Komisije pri ukrepanju v razumnem času, kar zadeva dejstvo, da je bila pomoč namenjena pokritju dodatnih stroškov poslovanja, ki je prejemalo odobreno pomoč, upravičenec lahko po načelu zaupanja v pravo pričakoval, da se pomoči ne bo nasprotovalo.
However, the Commission does not see how this precedent supports Italy’s view that the updating of the scheme’s budget does not constitute new aid or, alternatively, that it is compatible according to the legal basis that justified the original aid, i.e. the TDM Regulation.
Vendar po mnenju Komisije ta precedens ne podpira stališča Italije, da posodobitev proračuna sheme ne pomeni nove pomoči ali da je združljiv v skladu s pravno podlago, ki je upravičila prvotno pomoč, tj. Uredbo o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
On the contrary, the Commission notes that in this ruling the Court in no way questioned that ‘aid … intended to meet additional costs of an operation which had been in receipt of an authorized aid’ required the Commission’s approval under Article 87(1) (then 93) of the EC Treaty.
Nasprotno, Komisija ugotavlja, da Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti v tej odločitvi ni dvomilo o dejstvu, da je bila za „pomoč... namenjena pokritju dodatnih stroškov poslovanja, kateremu je bila odobrena pomoč,“ potrebna odobritev Komisije v skladu s členom 87(1) (nato 93) Pogodbe ES.
In addition, Italy has not shown that in the present case the Commission failed to act within a reasonable time.
Poleg tega Italija ni navedla, da Komisija v tem primeru ni uspela ukrepati v razumnem času.
On the contrary, it was, rather, Italy that failed to notify an increase in the scheme while the TDM Regulation was still in force.
Nasprotno, Italija je bila tista, ki ni uradno obvestila o povečanju v shemi, dokler je še veljala Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
Case C-364/90 does not back up Italy’s view either.
Zadeva C-364/90 prav tako ne podpira stališča Italije.
In the part of the judgment to which Italy refers, the Court merely finds that the Commission failed to justify adequately a negative State aid decision and makes the point that certain documents submitted in the pre-litigation phase were sufficiently clear to make the same arguments admissible in the procedure before the Court.
V delu sodbe, na katero se sklicuje Italija, Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti le ugotavlja neuspešnost Komisije pri ustreznem utemeljevanju negativne odločitve o državni pomoči in poudarja, da so bili določeni dokumenti, predloženi pred sodnim postopkom, dovolj jasni, da so lahko bile iste trditve sprejemljive v postopku pred Sodiščem.
The Commission cannot see how these purely procedural points provide any authority for Italy’s view that increasing the budget of the scheme should, as a matter of substantive law, be approved on the basis of the TDM Regulation.
Po mnenju Komisije te popolnoma postopkovne točke niso podlaga za upravičenost stališča Italije, da je treba povečanje proračuna sheme glede na materialno pravo odobriti na podlagi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
Finally, as regards Italy’s comment according to which the notified aid does not conflict with a decision of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which found that the provisions of the TDM Regulation did not comply with WTO rules, the Commission has already noted in previous decisions that, according to the settled case law of the Court of Justice, Community legislation must, as far as possible, be interpreted in the light of international law, including the EC’s WTO obligations [15].
Nazadnje, kar zadeva pripombo Italije, da priglašena pomoč ni v nasprotju z odločitvijo Svetovne trgovinske organizacije, ki je ugotovila, da Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu ni v skladu s pravili STO, je Komisija že v prejšnjih odločitvah ugotovila, da je treba v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti zakonodajo Skupnosti razlagati čim bolj v skladu z mednarodnim pravom, vključno z obveznostmi Evropske skupnosti v okviru STO [15].
Therefore interpretation of the TDM Regulation must also be seen in the light of the Community’s international obligations [16].
Zato je treba razlago Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu prav tako obravnavati ob upoštevanju mednarodnih obveznosti Skupnosti [16].
In this context, the Commission recalls that Korea challenged the compatibility of the TDM Regulation with WTO rules.
V zvezi s tem Komisija opozarja, da je Koreja izpodbijala združljivost Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu s pravili STO.
On 22 April 2005, a Panel issued a report concluding that the TDM Regulation and several national TDM schemes — in place at the time when Korea initiated the WTO dispute — were in breach of Article 23(1) of the Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes (DSU) [17].
Sosvet je 22. aprila 2005 v izdanem poročilu ugotovil, da so Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu in več nacionalnih shem začasnega obrambnega mehanizma, vzpostavljene v času, ko je Koreja sprožila spor glede STO, kršile člen 23(1) dogovora o pravilih in postopkih za poravnavo sporov [17].
On 20 June 2005, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Panel report, which recommended that the Community should bring the TDM Regulation and the national TDM schemes into conformity with its obligations under the WTO Agreements [18].
Organ STO za reševanje sporov je 20. junija 2005 sprejel poročilo sosveta, v katerem je priporočeno, da naj Skupnost uskladi Uredbo o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu in nacionalne sheme začasnega obrambnega mehanizma s svojimi obveznostmi iz sporazumov STO [18].
On 20 July 2005, the Community informed the DSB that its rules were now in conformity with the DSB ruling and recommendations since the TDM Regulation had expired on 31 March 2005 and Member States could no longer grant operating aid under this Regulation.
Skupnost je 20. julija 2005 obvestila organ za reševanje sporov, da so njena pravila usklajena s sklepom in priporočili organa za reševanje sporov, ker je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu prenehala veljati 31. marca 2005 in države članice niso mogle več odobriti pomoči za tekoče poslovanje v skladu s to uredbo.
The Panel report and the DSB ruling adopting that report condemned the TDM Regulation per se for being in breach of WTO rules and required the Community to stop applying it.
V poročilu sosveta in sklepu organa za reševanje sporov, na podlagi katerega organ za reševanje sporov sprejema to poročilo, se Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu kot taka obsoja, ker krši pravila STO, pri čemer se od Skupnosti zahteva, da jo preneha uporabljati.
The Community’s obligation to implement the DSB ruling also applies to future decisions to grant new aid in application of the TDM Regulation [19].
Obveznost Skupnosti glede izvajanja sklepa organa za reševanje sporov velja tudi za prihodnje odločitve o odobritvi nove pomoči z uporabo Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu [19].
The Community, by informing the DSB that its rules now complied with the DSB ruling and recommendations, since the TDM Regulation had expired on 31 March 2005 and Member States could therefore no longer grant operating aid under that Regulation, undertook no longer to apply the Regulation to grant new aid.
Skupnost se je s tem, ko je obvestila organ za reševanje sporov, da so njena pravila usklajena s sklepom in priporočili organa za reševanje sporov, ker je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu prenehala veljati 31. marca 2005 ter zaradi tega države članice niso mogle več odobriti pomoči za tekoče poslovanje v skladu s to uredbo, obvezala, da ne bo več uporabljala te uredbe za odobritev nove pomoči.
Accordingly, approving the present aid would result in a breach by the Community of its international commitments.
V skladu s tem bi Skupnost z odobritvijo te pomoči kršila svoje mednarodne obveznosti.
For the reasons set out above, the Commission finds that the notified State aid is incompatible with the common market,
Zaradi navedenih razlogov Komisija ugotavlja, da priglašena državna pomoč ni združljiva s skupnim trgom –
The State aid which Italy is planning to implement by altering scheme N 59/04 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding, which entails an increase of EUR 10 million, is incompatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč, ki jo Italija namerava izvesti v skladu s spremenjeno shemo N 59/04 o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu za ladjedelništvo, kar vključuje povečanje proračuna za 10 milijonov EUR, ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Therefore the aid may not be implemented.
Zato se ta pomoč ne more izvajati.
Italy shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Italija v dveh mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tej odločbi obvesti Komisijo o ukrepih, ki jih je sprejela za uskladitev s to odločbo.
OJ C 140, 6.6.2008, p. 20.
UL C 140, 6.6.2008, str. 20.
Judgment of the Court Justice in Case 323/82 Intermills v Commission [1984] ECR 1984, p. 3809, paragraph 17.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi 323/82 Intermills proti Komisiji [1984] Recueil 1984, str. 3809, odstavek 17.
RSV v Commission [1987] ECR 4617.
RSV proti Komisiji [1987] Recueil 4617.
Italy v Commission [1993] ECR I-2097.
Italija proti Komisiji [1993] Recueil I-2097.
See, inter alia, the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 in Case T20/03 Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan, not yet reported paragraph 146.
Glej med drugim sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 24. septembra 2008 v zadevi T20/03 Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan, poročilo še ni na voljo, odstavek 146.
See, for instance, the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-5/89 Commission v Germany [1990] ECR I-3437, paragraph 14.
Glej na primer sodbo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi C-5/89 Komisija proti Nemčiji [1990] Recueil I-3437, odstavek 14.
Case C-53/96 Hermes [1998] ECR, I-3603, paragraph 28; Case C-76/00 P, Petrotub [2003] ECR.
Zadeva C-53/96 Hermes [1998] Recueil I-3603, odstavek 28; Zadeva C-76/00 P Petrotub [2003] Recueil.
I-79, paragraph 57.
I-79, odstavek 57.
Cases C 26/06 (ex N 110/06) (OJ L 219, 24.8.2007, p. 25) and C 32/07 (ex N 389/06) (OJ L 108, 18.4.2008, p. 23).
Zadevi C 26/06 (ex N 110/06), (UL L 219, 24.8.2007, str. 25) in C 32/07 (ex N 389/06) (UL L 108, 18.4.2008, str. 23).
See EC — Measures affecting trade in commercial vessels, WT/DS301/R, paragraphs 7.184-7.222 and 8.1(d).
Glej EC — Measures affecting trade in commercial vessels (Ukrepi, ki vplivajo na trgovino s trgovskimi plovili), WT/DS301/R, odstavki 7184 - 7222 in 8.1(d).
See EC — Measures affecting trade in commercial vessels, WT/DS301/R, paragraph 7.21.
Glej EC — Measures affecting trade in commercial vessels (Ukrepi, ki vplivajo na trgovino s trgovskimi plovili), WT/DS301/R, odstavek 7.21.
By letter dated 9 June 2008, the Commission granted the request and extended the deadline for the submission of comments to 7 July 2008.
Z dopisom z dne 9. junija 2008 je Komisija to prošnjo odobrila in podaljšala rok za predložitev pripomb do 7. julija 2008.