natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission services’ spring 2010 forecast projects debt to rise further to 62,3 % of GDP in 2010 and 67,6 % in 2011 on the back of a deteriorated primary balance.
Glede na napovedi služb Komisije iz pomladi 2010 naj bi se dolg v letu 2010 nadalje povečal na 62,3 % BDP, v letu 2011 pa na 67,6 % zaradi zmanjšanega primarnega salda.
In view of these trends, the debt ratio cannot be considered as diminishing sufficiently and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact.
Glede na ta gibanja za delež dolga ne more veljati, da se zadosti znižuje in dovolj hitro približuje referenčni vrednosti v smislu Pogodbe ter Pakta za stabilnost in rast.
According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met.
V skladu s členom 2(4) Uredbe (ES) št. 1467/97 se „pomembni dejavniki“ v korakih, ki vodijo do odločitve Sveta o obstoju čezmernega primanjkljaja v skladu s členom 126(6), lahko upoštevajo le, če je v celoti izpolnjen dvojni pogoj – da primanjkljaj ostaja blizu referenčne vrednosti in da je referenčna vrednost presežena začasno.
In the case of Cyprus, this double condition is not met.
V primeru Cipra ta dvojni pogoj ni izpolnjen.
Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,
Zato v korakih, ki vodijo do tega sklepa, pomembni dejavniki niso upoštevani –
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Cyprus.
To sklep je naslovljen na Republiko Ciper.
All EDP-related documents for Cyprus can be found at the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/sgp/deficit/countries/index_en.htm
Vsi dokumenti za Ciper, povezani s postopkom v zvezi s čezmernim primanjkljajem, so na voljo na spletni strani: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/sgp/deficit/countries/index_en.htm
According to the Commission services’ 2010 spring forecast, real GDP in Cyprus is projected to shrink further, although to a lesser extent, by almost ½ % in 2010 compared with 1¾ % in 2009.
V skladu z napovedjo služb Komisije iz pomladi 2010 naj bi se realni BDP na Cipru v letu 2010 dodatno zmanjšal, čeprav v manjšem obsegu, za skoraj ½ % v primerjavi z 1¾ % leta 2009.
However, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary.
Vendar ni mogoče oceniti, da je načrtovano preseganje referenčne vrednosti začasno.
on an aid measure which the Netherlands proposes to implement, granting ceramic producers exemption from an environmental tax C 5/09 (ex N 210/08)
o ukrepu pomoči, ki ga predlaga Nizozemska z odobritvijo oprostitve plačila okoljske dajatve proizvajalcem keramičnih izdelkov C 5/09 (ex N 210/08)
(notified under document C(2009) 9972)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2009) 9972)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant that provision [1], and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo pripombe v skladu z navedeno določbo [1], in ob upoštevanju njihovih pripomb,
By letter dated 24 April 2008, the Netherlands notified a plan to exempt ceramic products from the energy tax on natural gas.
Nizozemska je z dopisom z dne 24. aprila 2008 priglasila, da namerava proizvajalce keramičnih izdelkov oprostiti plačila davka na energijo za zemeljski plin.
On 17 November 2008 the Commission asked a number of further questions; the Netherlands replied by letter dated 19 December 2008.
Komisija je 17. novembra 2008 Nizozemski poslala več dodatnih vprašanj, na katera je Nizozemska odgovorila z dopisom z dne 19. decembra 2008.
By letter dated 11 February 2009, the Commission informed the Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in respect of the aid [2].
Z dopisom z dne 11. februarja 2009 je Komisija obvestila Nizozemsko o svoji odločitvi, da glede pomoči sproži postopek na podlagi člena 108(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije („PDEU“) [2].
On 26 May 2009 the Netherlands submitted its observations on the decision to initiate the procedure.
Nizozemska je 26. maja 2009 predložila pripombe k odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
The Commission also received comments from other interested parties.
Komisija je prejela pripombe tudi od drugih zainteresiranih strani.
It forwarded them to the Netherlands, giving it the opportunity to react; the Netherlands replied by letter dated 7 July 2009.
Posredovala jih je Nizozemski in ji dala priložnost, da izrazi svoje mnenje; Nizozemska je odgovorila z dopisom z dne 7. julija 2009.
On 7 October 2009 the Commission wrote to the Netherlands in order to clarify the procedural status of the case, and out of courtesy asked the Netherlands to submit by 13 October 2009 any observations that it wished the Commission to consider before its final decision.
Komisija je 7. oktobra 2009 Nizozemski poslala dopis, v katerem je pojasnila postopkovno stanje primera in jo iz vljudnosti zaprosila, naj do 13. oktobra 2009 predloži pripombe, za katere želi, da jih Komisija preuči pred sprejetjem končne odločitve.
The Netherlands taxes the consumption of energy products under the Environmental Taxes Act [4], whereby a degressive rate applies based on the level of consumption of the business [5].
Nizozemska obdavčuje porabo energentov v skladu z Zakonom o okoljskih dajatvah [4], pri čemer uporablja degresivno stopnjo na podlagi ravni porabe podjetja [5].
Under the aid measure at issue here the Netherlands would grant an exemption from tax for the delivery of natural gas used in installations for the production of ceramic products.
V skladu z navedenim ukrepom pomoči bi Nizozemska odobrila oprostitev plačila davka za dobavo zemeljskega plina, ki se uporablja v obratih za proizvodnjo keramičnih izdelkov.
The proposed exemption would apply only to natural gas used for production purposes by the Dutch ceramic industry, and not to gas used for other mineralogical processes carried out in the Netherlands [6].
Predlagana oprostitev bi se uporabljala samo za zemeljski plin, ki ga v proizvodne namene uporablja nizozemska keramična industrija, ne pa tudi za plin, ki se uporablja v drugih mineraloških postopkih, izvedenih na Nizozemskem [6].
The proposed exemption would be introduced by an amendment to the Environmental Taxes Act currently in force.
Predlagana oprostitev bi se uvedla s spremembo veljavnega Zakona o okoljskih dajatvah.
According to the notification, the budget for the years 2008–2013 amounts to EUR 4 million annually.
Po podatkih iz priglasitve znaša proračun za obdobje 2008–2013 štiri milijone EUR letno.
The duration of the measure is unlimited, as the Netherlands considers that it does not give rise to State aid (see further section IV below).
Trajanje ukrepa je neomejeno, saj se po mnenju Nizozemske ne more šteti za državno pomoč (glej oddelek IV v nadaljevanju).
The beneficiaries of the measure would be undertakings operating in the ceramic industry in the Netherlands [7].
Upravičenci ukrepa bi bila podjetja, ki delujejo v keramični industriji na Nizozemskem [7].
The Netherlands considers that the exemption is needed in order to restore a level playing field for the Dutch ceramic industry in the internal market.
Po mnenju Nizozemske je oprostitev potrebna za vzpostavitev enakih konkurenčnih pogojev za nizozemsko keramično industrijo na notranjem trgu.
The Netherlands refers to the unique position of the Dutch ceramic sector compared with the position of competitors in the neighbouring countries.
Nizozemska se sklicuje na izjemen položaj nizozemskega keramičnega sektorja v primerjavi s položajem konkurentov v sosednjih državah.
Owing to its geographical location, the Dutch ceramic industry makes use of wet clay, as opposed to the dry clay used in the surrounding countries, and wet clay requires more energy to achieve the same end result.
Zaradi svojega zemljepisnega položaja uporablja nizozemska keramična industrija mokro glino v nasprotju s suho, ki se uporablja v sosednjih državah, mokra glina pa potrebuje več energije za dosego enakega končnega rezultata.
Additionally, the Netherlands argues that competing producers in Belgium, Germany or Sweden, for example, are exempt from any similar energy tax.
Nizozemska tudi navaja, da so konkurenčni proizvajalci, na primer v Belgiji, Nemčiji ali na Švedskem, oproščeni plačila kakršnega koli podobnega davka na energijo.
The Netherlands has confirmed that the measure will enter into force only once it has been authorised by the Commission.
Nizozemska je potrdila, da bo ukrep začel veljati šele po predhodni odobritvi Komisije.
The Commission doubted whether the proposed aid was compatible with the internal market, because it took the preliminary view that the tax exemption for the Dutch ceramic industry was not justified by the nature and overall structure of the national tax system.
Komisija je dvomila, da je predlagana pomoč združljiva z notranjim trgom, ker je sprejela predhodno stališče, da narava in splošni ustroj nacionalnega davčnega sistema ne upravičujeta oprostitve za nizozemsko keramično industrijo.
The measure was selective, since only the ceramic industry in the Netherlands would benefit from it, and the exemption would be financed through state resources.
Ukrep bi bil selektiven, saj bi imela od njega koristi samo keramična industrija na Nizozemskem, oprostitev pa bi se financirala z državnimi viri.
The measure also distorted or threatened to distort competition, and affected trade between Member States, as the proposed tax exemption would have a direct impact on production costs and would therefore improve the recipients’ competitive position on the relevant ceramic product markets where they operated, which were open to trade between Member States.
Ukrep bi tudi izkrivljal ali lahko izkrivljal konkurenco ter vplival na trgovino med državami članicami, ker bi imela predlagana oprostitev plačila davka neposreden vpliv na proizvodne stroške in bi zato krepila konkurenčni položaj prejemnikov na upoštevnih trgih keramičnih izdelkov, na katerih bi poslovali in ki bi bili odprti trgovini med državami članicami.
The Commission took the view that the measure would confer State aid on the Dutch ceramic industry, and concluded that such aid could be approved only if it satisfied the tests of Chapter 4 (‘aid in the form of reductions of or exemptions from environmental taxes’) of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection [8] (hereinafter ‘the environmental aid guidelines’ or ‘the guidelines’).
Komisija je menila, da bi ukrep pomenil državno pomoč za nizozemsko keramično industrijo, in sklenila, da bi se taka pomoč lahko odobrila samo, če bi izpolnjevala merila iz poglavja 4 („pomoč v obliki znižanj ali oprostitev okoljskih dajatev“) Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja (v nadaljnjem besedilu smernice za okoljsko pomoč ali smernice) [8].
As the Netherlands had not provided the information required for an assessment on this basis, the Commission was unable to confirm that the measure was compatible, and accordingly decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Ker Nizozemska ni predložila zahtevanih informacij za oceno na tej podlagi, Komisija ni mogla potrditi, da je ukrep združljiv, zato se je odločila, da sproži formalni postopek preiskave.
OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE NETHERLANDS
PRIPOMBE, KI JIH JE PREDLOŽILA NIZOZEMSKA
The Netherlands said that it was notifying the case primarily for the sake of legal certainty, and asked the Commission to find that no State aid was involved.
Nizozemska je navedla, da je primer priglasila predvsem zaradi pravne varnosti, in zaprosila Komisijo, naj ugotovi, da ni vključena državna pomoč.
The Netherlands took the view that the selective character of the exemption was justified by the nature and overall structure of the national tax system.
Nizozemska je menila, da selektivni značaj oprostitve upravičujeta narava in splošni ustroj nacionalnega davčnega sistema.
The purpose of the energy tax was to tax electricity and energy products which were used as heating fuel or motor fuel.
Namen davka na energijo je bil obdavčiti električno energijo in energente, ki se uporabljajo kot gorivo za ogrevanje ali pogonsko gorivo.
To include in the energy tax system an exemption for a process in which natural gas was not used as a heating or motor fuel, therefore, was in accordance with the nature and overall structure of the underlying frame of reference, namely the scheme of energy taxation in force.
Zato je bila vključitev oprostitve za postopek, pri katerem se zemeljski plin ne uporablja kot gorivo za ogrevanje ali pogonsko gorivo, v sistem obdavčitve energije v skladu z naravo in splošnim ustrojem osnovnega referenčnega okvira, tj. veljavno shemo obdavčitve energije.
The energy tax legislation exempted the delivery of natural gas used for purposes other than as fuel [9].
V skladu z zakonodajo o obdavčitvi energije je bila izvzeta dobava zemeljskega plina, ki se uporabi za druge namene in ne kot gorivo [9].
The delivery of electricity for processes in which it had a dual use, such as for chemical reduction and in electrolytic and metallurgical processes, was likewise exempt from the energy tax [10].
Plačila davka na energijo je bila oproščena tudi dobava električne energije za postopke, v katerih ima dvojno uporabo, na primer za kemijsko redukcijo ter elektrolitične in metalurške postopke [10].
In the legislation on the taxation of coal, too, there was an exemption for coal used for purposes other than as fuel and for coal with a dual use [11].
V skladu z zakonodajo o obdavčitvi premoga je bil oproščen plačila davka tudi premog, ki se uporablja za druge namene in ne kot gorivo, ter premog z dvojno uporabo [11].
It was appropriate to add a tax exemption for the delivery of natural gas used in installations for the production of ceramic products.
Bilo je primerno, da se oprosti plačila davka tudi dobava zemeljskega plina, ki se uporablja v obratih za proizvodnjo keramičnih izdelkov.
The ceramic process was comparable to a dual-use process, because natural gas was not being used solely as heating fuel or motor fuel.
Keramični postopek je bil primerljiv s postopkom z dvojno uporabo, ker se zemeljski plin ni uporabljal izključno kot gorivo za ogrevanje ali pogonsko gorivo.
The Netherlands pointed out that the exemption from tax on the delivery of natural gas used in installations for the production of ceramic products was to be included in an amended version of Article 64 of the Environmental Taxes Act, which was the provision that exempted other forms of dual use.
Nizozemska je poudarila, da je treba oprostitev plačila davka za dobavo zemeljskega plina, ki se uporablja v obratih za proizvodnjo keramičnih izdelkov, vključiti v spremenjeno različico člena 64 Zakona o okoljskih dajatvah, ki je vseboval določbo o oprostitvi drugih oblik dvojne uporabe.
The Netherlands referred to Article 2(4)(b) of the Energy Taxation Directive, and to the Council minutes on that Directive [12], and submitted that it was in accordance with the nature and overall structure of the Dutch energy taxation system to add a provision granting exemption for the delivery of natural gas used for the mineralogical process concerned here, that is to say the production of ceramics.
Nizozemska se je sklicevala na člen 2(4)(b) Direktive o obdavčitvi energije in na zapisnik Sveta o navedeni direktivi [12] ter navedla, da je v skladu z naravo in splošnim ustrojem nizozemskega sistema za obdavčitev energije, da se doda določba o odobritvi oprostitve za dobavo zemeljskega plina, ki se uporablja za zadevni mineraloški postopek, tj. za proizvodnjo keramičnih izdelkov.
It was appropriate to exempt only ceramic processes, and not all mineralogical processes, because unlike other mineralogical processes the traditional ceramic process was irreversible (clay was changed into ceramic).
Bilo je primerno, da se oprosti samo keramične postopke in ne vseh mineraloških postopkov, ker je za razliko od drugih mineraloških postopkov klasični keramični postopek ireverzibilen (glina se spremeni v keramiko).
The Netherlands further referred to the unique position of the Dutch ceramic industry compared with the position of competitors in the surrounding countries.
Nizozemska se je sklicevala tudi na izjemen položaj nizozemske keramične industrije v primerjavi s položajem konkurentov v sosednjih državah.
Owing to its geographical location, the Dutch ceramic industry made use of wet clay (which originated in the Alps and was deposited in the rivers in the Netherlands), as opposed to the dry clay used in the surrounding countries, and wet clay required more energy to achieve the same end result [13].
Zaradi svojega zemljepisnega položaja uporablja nizozemska keramična industrija mokro glino (ki izvira iz Alp in se je odlagala v rekah na Nizozemskem) v nasprotju s suho glino, ki se uporablja v sosednjih državah, mokra glina pa potrebuje več energije za dosego enakega končnega rezultata [13].
Additionally, competing producers in Belgium, Germany or Sweden, for example, were exempt from any similar energy tax.
Poleg tega so bili konkurenčni proizvajalci, na primer v Belgiji, Nemčiji ali na Švedskem, oproščeni plačila kakršnega koli podobnega davka na energijo.
And prices for the use of natural gas in the Netherlands were high.
Cene za uporabo zemeljskega plina pa so bile na Nizozemskem visoke.
Here too the Dutch ceramic industry was at a disadvantage compared to ceramic production in neighbouring countries.
Tudi tukaj je bila nizozemska keramična industrija v slabšem položaju v primerjavi s proizvodnjo keramičnih izdelkov v sosednjih državah.
In the Netherlands’ view these factors showed that the selectivity of the measure was justified on the basis of the nature and overall structure of the Dutch energy tax scheme.
Nizozemska je menila, da ti dejavniki kažejo, da je selektivnost ukrepa upravičena na podlagi narave in splošnega ustroja nizozemske sheme davka na energijo.
The Netherlands therefore considered that the tax exemption did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Zato je Nizozemska menila, da oprostitev plačila davka ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The proposed tax exemption would eliminate the disadvantage to the Dutch ceramic industry to some extent, thereby partially restoring a level playing field for the industry in the internal market.
Predlagana oprostitev plačila davka bi nekoliko izboljšala položaj nizozemske keramične industrije in ji zagotovila delno enake konkurenčne pogoje na notranjem trgu.
In the alternative, the Netherlands asked the Commission to authorise the aid on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Kot drugo možnost je Nizozemska zaprosila Komisijo, naj odobri pomoč na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU.
The aid was necessary because of the unequal terms of competition in the internal market.
Pomoč je bila potrebna zaradi neenakih konkurenčnih pogojev na notranjem trgu.
It was proportionate, because the measure would apply only to natural gas used in the installations, and not to the electricity used in the production of ceramic products.
Bila bi sorazmerna, ker bi se ukrep uporabljal samo za zemeljski plin, ki se uporablja v obratih, in ne za električno energijo, ki se uporablja v proizvodnji keramičnih izdelkov.
It would offset only a part of the disadvantage to the industry, and consequently had to be considered proportionate.
Slabši položaj panoge bi izravnala le delno, zato bi se morala šteti za sorazmerno.
Finally, it would not lead to incompatible distortion of competition in the internal market.
In končno, ne bi povzročila nezdružljivega izkrivljanja konkurence na notranjem trgu.
Besides, the Netherlands submitted that the Energy Taxation Directive did not apply to mineralogical processes, because it was in line with the nature and overall structure of the tax system to exclude mineralogical processes from the scope of the Directive.
Nizozemska je navedla tudi, da se Direktiva o obdavčitvi energije ne uporablja za mineraloške postopke, ker je v skladu z naravo in splošnim ustrojem davčnega sistema, da se mineraloški postopki izključijo s področja uporabe Direktive.
Member States were consequently free to decide whether or not to tax these forms of energy use.
Države članice so se zato lahko same odločile, ali bodo te oblike uporabe energije obdavčile ali ne.
The proposed measure would not result in distortion of competition, but rather to greater harmonisation of the taxation of energy products, and would be in the Community interest.
Posledica predlaganega ukrepa ne bi bilo izkrivljanje konkurence, pač pa večja usklajenost na področju obdavčitve energentov, kar bi bilo v interesu Skupnosti.
V. OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED PARTIES
V. PRIPOMBE, KI SO JIH PREDLOŽILE ZAINTERESIRANE STRANI
Observations on the Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure were submitted by a trade organisation, the VKO (Stichting Verenigde Keramische Organisaties).
Pripombe k odločitvi Komisije o sprožitvi postopka je predložila trgovinska organizacija VKO (Stichting Verenigde Keramische Organisaties).
The VKO shared the view of the Netherlands that the tax exemption was justified by the nature and overall structure of the national tax system, and that the measure consequently did not comprise State aid.
Stališče organizacije VKO je bilo enako stališču Nizozemske, da oprostitev plačila davka upravičujeta narava in splošni ustroj nacionalnega davčnega sistema ter da zato ukrep ne vključuje državne pomoči.
The VKO’s comments were similar to those of the Netherlands.
Pripombe organizacije VKO so bile podobne pripombam Nizozemske.
Like the Netherlands, the VKO considered that the tax exemption could not be regarded as an environmental measure, since it did not pursue any environmental objective.
Podobno kot Nizozemska je tudi organizacija VKO menila, da se oprostitev plačila davka ne more šteti za okoljski ukrep, saj ne vključuje okoljskih ciljev.
It would not be right, therefore, to judge the measure on the basis of the environmental aid guidelines.
Zato ne bi bilo prav, da bi se ukrep presojal na podlagi smernic za okoljsko pomoč.
Article 107(1) TFEU states that ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.’
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU „je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.“
In the view of the Netherlands the measure does not confer any advantage, but instead offsets a disadvantage to the Dutch ceramic industry.
Po mnenju Nizozemske ukrep ne zagotavlja prednosti, kvečjemu izravnava slabši položaj nizozemske keramične industrije.
The Commission is of the opinion that the tax exemption confers an advantage on undertakings operating in the ceramic industry in the Netherlands, which would benefit as a result of the tax relief because it would reduce the charges that would otherwise be included in their operating costs [14].
Po mnenju Komisije pomeni oprostitev plačila davka prednost za podjetja, ki delujejo v keramični industriji na Nizozemskem in bi imela korist od davčne olajšave, ker bi jim zmanjšala stroške, ki bi jih sicer morala vključiti v svoje operativne stroške [14].
STATE RESOURCES AND IMPUTABILITY TO THE STATE
DRŽAVNA SREDSTVA IN PRIPISLJIVOST DRŽAVI
The Netherlands considers that the measure would not be not financed through state resources, because the financing of the exemption is budget neutral [15].
Po mnenju Nizozemske se ukrep ne bi financiral z državnimi sredstvi, ker je financiranje oprostitve plačila davka proračunsko nevtralno [15].