natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, since the aid scheme in question establishes a differentiation between the excise duty exemptions which benefits certain agricultural undertakings, it cannot be declared compatible with the common market in the light of recital 172 of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 [16].
Vendar obravnavana shema pomoči ne more biti razglašena za združljivo s skupnim trgom ob upoštevanju točke 172 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem in gozdarskem sektorju 2007–2013 [16], saj uvaja diferencirano oprostitev plačila trošarin, ki daje prednost nekaterim kmetijskim podjetjem.
For the whole period covered by the two procedures initiated in relation to the excise duty exemptions (from 3 October 2000 to 31 December 2004 – see recitals 25 and 27 above), the rules applicable to State aid were those set out in the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector [17] (hereinafter ‘the 2000 agricultural guidelines’).
V celotnem obdobje, ki je predmet obravnave obeh postopkov v zvezi z oprostitvami plačila trošarin (od 3. oktobra 2000 do 31. decembra 2004 – glej uvodni izjavi 25 in 27) so se za državne pomoči uporabljala pravila iz kmetijskih smernic za pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju [17] (v nadaljevanju „kmetijske smernice za leto 2000“).
The Commission considers that, taking account of their nature (total exemptions from excise duty), the aid constitutes unilateral State aid simply intended to improve the financial situation of producers without contributing to development of the sector.
Komisija ugotavlja, da pomoči, če upoštevamo njihovo naravo (popolne oprostitve plačila trošarin), pomenijo enostranske državne pomoči, ki so namenjene le izboljšanju finančnega položaja pridelovalcev, ne da bi kakor koli prispevale k razvoju sektorja.
This finding is corroborated by the fact that, in the additional information which they supplied, the Italian authorities explained that the reason for granting the aid was the increase in oil prices (see recital 39 above).
Ta ugotovitev je podkrepljena z dejstvom, da italijanski organi v predloženih dodatnih podatkih pojasnjujejo, da je dodelitev pomoči posledica rasti cen naftnih proizvodov (glej uvodno izjavo 39 te obrazložitve).
In accordance with point 3.5 of the 2000 agricultural guidelines, this aid is operating aid which is incompatible with the common market.
V skladu s točko 3.5 kmetijskih smernic za leto 2000 ta oblika pomoči spada med pomoči za tekoče poslovanje, ki niso združljive s skupnim trgom.
However, point 5.5 of the 2000 agricultural guidelines allows an exception to the provisions of the aforementioned point 3.5 for operating aid for environmental purposes.
V kmetijskih smernicah za leto 2000 pa je v točki 5.5 dovoljena izjema od določb zgoraj navedene točke 3.5 za pomoči za tekoče poslovanje, namenjene varstvu okolja.
In particular, point 5.5.4 of the 2000 agricultural guidelines refers to the specific case of partial or total exemptions from environmental taxes.
Zlasti točka 5.5.4 kmetijskih smernic za leto 2000 se nanaša na poseben primer delne ali popolne oprostitve okoljskih dajatev.
Here, after expressing certain reservations, the Commission stated that such aid could be accepted if the following conditions are all met:
Komisija je v tej točki smernic, potem ko je izrazila določene zadržke, zatrdila, da se tovrstna pomoč lahko dovoli, če so izpolnjeni vsi naslednji pogoji:
if the aid is temporary (maximum duration of five years) and degressive,
če gre za začasne (največ petletne) in upadajoče pomoči,
if it can be shown that the aid is necessary to offset a loss of international competitiveness,
če se lahko dokaže, da je treba nadomestiti izgubo konkurenčnosti na mednarodni ravni,
if the aid scheme constitutes a real incentive to reduce use of the inputs concerned.
če shema pomoči pomeni resnično spodbudo za zmanjšanje uporabe obravnavanih proizvodnih sredstev.
In the case under examination, the Commission considers that the aid is not degressive because, in the light of the various articles of the Finance Laws that provided for the excise duty exemption, the exemption was partial until 31 December 2000 and then total for each of the periods referred to in recital 27 above.
V obravnavanem primeru Komisija ugotavlja, da pomoči niso upadajoče, ker je na podlagi raznih členov finančnih zakonov, ki so predvideli oprostitve plačila trošarine, oprostitev delna do 31. decembra 2000 in nato popolna za vsako od obdobij iz točke 27 te obrazložitve.
In addition, the aid was not temporary since, in reality, with the exception of the second half of 2001, the exemptions were permanent for the entire period considered.
Poleg tega pomoči niso bile začasne, saj so bile oprostitve, z izjemo drugega polletja leta 2001, dejansko stalne v celotnem upoštevanem obdobju.
Although the Italian authorities certainly referred to the existence of a difficult competitive situation (see recital 42 above), they did not supply information proving the loss of competitiveness.
Italijanski organi so se seveda sklicevali na obstoj konkurenčno občutljivih razmer (glej uvodno izjavo 42 te obrazložitve), toda niso predložili podatkov, ki bi dokazovali izgubo konkurenčnosti.
Lastly, it appears implausible that a system of exemptions which, by definition, makes fuels cheaper, could lead the beneficiaries to reduce their use of the inputs concerned (be it glasshouses or, by extension, the fuels themselves, if they are regarded as inputs).
Končno je malo verjetno, da bi shema oprostitev, ki po definiciji znižuje ceno goriva za ogrevanje, upravičence lahko spodbudila k manjši porabi zadevnih proizvodnih sredstev (naj gre za rastlinjake ali širše, za goriva za ogrevanje, če jih štejemo za proizvodna sredstva).
The State aid in question thus cannot be considered to be justified exclusively by the provisions of the 2000 agricultural guidelines which allow pure operating aid to be deemed compatible with the common market.
Obravnavane državne pomoči torej ni mogoče upravičiti izključno na podlagi določb kmetijskih smernic iz leta 2000, ki omogočajo, da se preproste pomoči za tekoče poslovanje lahko štejejo za združljive s skupnim trgom.
However, point 5.6.2 of the 2000 agricultural guidelines also provides for the possibility of assessing aid on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the principles set out in the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental purposes.
Ob upoštevanju vsega navedenega kmetijske smernice iz leta 2000 v točki 5.6.2 predvidevajo tudi možnost, da se opravi pregled pomoči od primera do primera, ob upoštevanju načel, izraženih v Smernicah skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja.
In view of the period to which the two procedures refer, the State aid rules to be considered for analysing the compatibility of the aid in question are as follows:
Ob upoštevanju obdobja, na katero se nanašata postopka, so pravila o državni pomoči, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri analizi združljivosti obravnavane pomoči, naslednja:
According to the 1994 guidelines (point 3.4), the Commission may make an exception to the rule that operating aid is not permitted, provided that such aid only compensates for extra production costs by comparison with traditional production costs, that it is temporary and in principle degressive and that it provides an incentive for reducing pollution or introducing more efficient uses of resources more quickly.
V skladu z določbami Smernic iz leta 1994 (točka 3.4) lahko Komisija načeloma dovoli odstopanja od prepovedi pomoči za tekoče poslovanje, če ni edini cilj teh pomoči nadomestilo dodatnih stroškov glede na tradicionalno pridelavo, pod pogojem, da so začasne in pretežno upadajoče ter pomenijo spodbudo za zmanjšanje onesnaženja ali hitro uvedbo najučinkovitejših načinov uporabe virov.
Point 3.4 also states that temporary relief from new environmental taxes may be authorised where it is necessary to offset losses in competitiveness, particularly at international level.
V isti točki 3.4 je navedeno, da je po potrebi mogoč dogovor o začasni oprostitvi plačila novih okoljskih davkov za nadomestitev izgube konkurenčnosti, zlasti na mednarodni ravni.
A further factor to be taken into account is what the firms concerned have to do in return in order to reduce their pollution.
Upoštevati je treba tudi nadomestilo, ki ga morajo zadevna podjetja prispevati zaradi zmanjšanja onesnaženosti.
This provision also applies to reliefs from taxes introduced pursuant to EC legislation.
Ta določba se uporablja tudi za davčne oprostitve na podlagi prava Skupnosti.
Besides the fact that, as indicated in the analysis carried out in the light of point 5.5.4 of the 2000 agricultural guidelines, the aid is neither temporary nor degressive and does not contain any incentive, the Commission considers that the information available to it in no way demonstrates that the aid is strictly limited to compensating an extra production cost by comparison with traditional production costs.
Poleg dejstva, da pomoči niso ne začasne ne upadajoče in ne vsebujejo nikakršne spodbude, kot je pokazala analiza, opravljena na podlagi točke 5.5.4 kmetijskih Smernic iz leta 2000, Komisija ugotavlja, da v podatkih, ki so ji na voljo, ni ničesar, kar bi dokazovalo, da so pomoči strogo omejene na nadomestitev previsoke cene pridelave glede na tradicionalno pridelavo.
Accordingly, the aid does not satisfy the conditions referred to in recital 92 above that would allow it to be considered compatible with the common market.
Pomoči torej ne izpolnjujejo pogojev iz uvodne izjave 92 te obrazložitve, na podlagi katerih bi jih lahko šteli za združljive s skupnim trgom.
In addition, in the present case, the conditions referred to in recital 93 above are not relevant, since the aid does not concern new taxes (the excise duties existed prior to the period to which the two procedures refer: by way of example, Article 24(3) of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000, which introduced the total exemption from excise duty for the period between 1 January and 30 June 2001, refers to Law No 662/1996 which concerned excise duties and, in turn, referred back to Legislative Decree No 504/1995 laying down the Consolidated Text of Legislative Provisions on Taxes on Production and Consumption).
Poleg tega v obravnavanem primeru niso pomembni pogoji iz uvodne izjave 93 te obrazložitve, saj se pomoči ne nanašajo na nove davke (trošarine so obstajale pred obdobjem, na katero se nanašata postopka: na primer člen 24(3) zakona št. 388 z dne 23. decembra 2000, ki uvaja popolno oprostitev trošarin za obdobje od 1. januarja do 30. junija 2001, se sklicuje na zakon št. 662 iz leta 1996, ki je že obravnaval trošarine in je navajal zakonski odlok št. 504/1995, v katerem je enotno besedilo zakonskih določb v zvezi z davki na proizvodnjo in na potrošnjo).
In this connection, the Commission notes that the Italian authorities have not challenged the fact that the duties in question are an ‘existing tax’.
Komisija v zvezi s tem opozarja, da italijanski organi niso oporekali naravi „prej veljavnih davkov“ za obravnavane prispevke.
Moreover, they have never asserted that these taxes were introduced recently (see recitals 40 and 45 above).
Poleg tega niso nikoli trdili, da so bili omenjeni davki uvedeni nedavno (glej uvodni izjavi 40 in 45 te obrazložitve).
Accordingly, this aid cannot be declared to be compatible with the common market on the basis of the 1994 guidelines.
Teh pomoči torej ni mogoče razglasiti za združljive s skupnim trgom na podlagi določb Smernic iz leta 1994.
The 2001 guidelines draw a distinction between new taxes (point 51.1) and existing taxes (points 51.2 and 52).
Smernice iz leta 2001 uvajajo razliko med novimi (točka 51.1) in prej veljavnimi davki (točki 51.2 in 52).
The Commission considers that the excise duties covered by the exemption must be considered existing taxes throughout the period under examination, since, in addition to the considerations set out in recital 95 above, the exemptions were decided on each year in the various Finance Laws rather than in any single law adopted with automatic derogations at any single time during the period concerned.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je treba trošarine, ki so predmet oprostitev, v obdobju obravnave šteti kot prej veljavne davke, ker se je, poleg ugotovitev iz uvodne izjave 95, o oprostitvah odločalo leto za letom v različnih finančnih zakonih, in ne v katerem koli zakonu s samodejnimi oprostitvami v katerem koli trenutku upoštevanega obdobja.
Moreover, as the Commission has already observed in recital 95 above, the Italian authorities never challenged the fact that the taxes in question were ‘existing taxes’ and never asserted that they were introduced recently.
Poleg tega italijanski organi kot je Komisija opozorila v uvodni izjavi 95 te obrazložitve, niso oporekali naravi „prej veljavnih davkov“ za obravnavane davke in niso nikoli trdili, da so bili ti uveljavljeni nedavno.
As indicated in recital 40 above, point 51.2 of the 2001 guidelines allows the authorisation conditions applicable to new taxes (set out in point 51.1) to be applied to existing taxes if the following two conditions are satisfied at the same time:
V točki 51.2 Smernic iz leta 2001, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 40 te obrazložitve, je predvidena možnost, da se prej veljavnim davkom doda pogoje za odobritev, ki se lahko uporabljajo za nove davke, navedene v točki 51.1, če sta izpolnjena oba naslednja pogoja:
the tax in question must have an appreciable positive impact in terms of environmental protection,
zadevni davek mora imeti precejšen pozitivni vpliv na varstvo okolja,
The Commission can admit that a tax such as excise duty on diesel for heating, the effect of which is an increase in the price of diesel, can cause users to reduce their consumption of diesel with positive effects as regards environmental protection.
Komisija lahko priznava, da lahko davek, kot je trošarina za plinsko olje za ogrevanje, katerega učinek je zvišanje cene plinskega olja, uporabnike prisili k manjši porabi plinskega olja, kar ima ugodne posledice v smislu varstva okolja.
However, the exemptions in question were laid down year after year, with even an interruption between 1 July and 31 December 2001 (see recital 27 above), and the Italian authorities have neither demonstrated nor ever asserted that these derogations were decided on when the tax was adopted.
Vendar so bile te oprostitve določene leto za letom, celo s prekinitvijo med 1. julijem in 31. decembrom 2001 (glej uvodno izjavo 27 te obrazložitve) in italijanski organi niso niti dokazali niti kadar koli trdili, da so bila ta odstopanja sprejeta, ko je bil sprejet davek.
On the contrary, they stressed that the derogations were adopted simply to deal with a situation of economic difficulty, namely the increase in motor and heating fuel prices.
Nasprotno, poudarjali so, da so bila odstopanja sprejeta zaradi preprečevanja učinkov čisto konjunkturnega pojava, to je rast cen pogonskih goriv in goriv za ogrevanje.
It is not possible to accept the argument put forward by the Italian authorities that the Commission should carry out its analysis as if the exemptions had been decided on when the tax was introduced.
Utemeljitve italijanskih organov, da bi Komisija morala svojo analizo opraviti, kot če bi bile oprostitve sprejete, ko je bil sprejet davek, ni mogoče sprejeti.
In effect, the Italian authorities referred to Commission Decision C(2005) 4436 (see recital 42 above).
Organi se res sklicujejo na Odločbo Komisije C(2005) 4436 (glej uvodno izjavo 42 te obrazložitve).
In this Decision (see, in particular, recital 74 thereof), the Commission based its findings on the fact that the exemptions had been decided on well before the 2001 environmental aid guidelines became applicable.
Komisija je v tej odločbi (glej zlasti člen 74 te odločbe) svoje ugotovitve izpeljala iz dejstva, da so bile oprostitve že sprejete, preden so začele veljati Smernice o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz leta 2001.
However, in the case under examination, it must be noted that the first exemptions date back to October 2000, i.e. shortly before these guidelines became applicable.
Vendar je v obravnavanem primeru treba ugotoviti, da so bile prve oprostitve sprejete oktobra 2000, oziroma tik preden so začele veljati zgoraj navedene smernice.
It must be stressed that at no stage did the Italian authorities rely on exemptions previously granted.
Poudariti je treba, da italijanski organi niso nikoli uveljavili prej odobrenih oprostitev.
On the other hand, with regard to the second condition in the second sub-paragraph of point 51.2 of the 2001 guidelines, the Italian authorities have not provided evidence demonstrating a significant change in economic conditions that could have placed the firms in a particularly difficult competitive situation (see recital 88 above) nor proved that the value of the exemption did not exceed the increase in costs resulting from the change in economic conditions.
Po drugi strani, v zvezi z drugim od pogojev iz druge alinee točke 51.2 Smernic iz leta 2001, italijanski organi niso nikoli predložili dokazil o znatni spremembi gospodarskih pogojev, ki bi podjetja lahko spravili v posebej težek konkurenčni položaj (glej uvodno izjavo 88 te obrazložitve), niti dokaza, da znesek oprostitve ni presegel zvišanja bremen v zvezi s spremembo gospodarskih pogojev.
With regard, in particular, to the question of the competitive situation, the data in the tables set out in recitals 42 and 46 above do not contain any comparative information. Therefore, they do not make it possible to identify any deterioration whatsoever in the competitive situation of Italian glasshouse growing undertakings.
Zlasti kar zadeva vprašanje konkurenčnega položaja, podatki v tabelah v uvodnih izjavah 42 in 46 te obrazložitve ne nudijo nobenih primerjalnih podatkov in tako ne dopuščajo, da bi opazili kakršno koli poslabšanje konkurenčnega položaja italijanskih podjetij za pridelavo v rastlinjakih.
In this connection, it should also be highlighted that the increase in the price of oil products affected the whole of Europe and not only Italy.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti še, da je rast cen naftnih derivatov prizadela vso Evropo, in ne le Italije.
Since one of the two conditions referred to in recital 99 above has not been met, the provisions of point 51.2 of the 2001 guidelines cannot be applied, and thus nor can those of point 51.1.
Ker ni bil izpolnjen eden od dveh pogojev iz uvodne izjave 99 te obrazložitve, določb iz točke 51.2 ni mogoče uporabljati in posledično niti tistih iz točke 51.1 Smernic iz leta 2001.
In the alternative, even if the provisions of point 51.2 had been applicable, the exemptions under examination could not have been considered eligible under point 51.1, which provides that:
Drugič, tudi če bi lahko uporabili določbe iz točke 51.2, obravnavane oprostitve ne bi bile dopustne v okviru točke 51.1, ki dejansko določa:
‘When, for environmental reasons, a Member State introduces a new tax in a sector of activity or on products in respect of which no Community tax harmonisation has been carried out or when the tax envisaged by the Member State exceeds that laid down by Community legislation, the Commission takes the view that exemption decisions covering a 10-year period with no degressivity may be justified in two cases:
„Če iz okoljskih razlogov država članica sprejme nov davek v sektorju dejavnosti ali na izdelke, za katere v Skupnosti ni bila opravljena harmonizacija davkov, ali če je davek, ki ga predvideva država članica, višji od tistega, ki ga predpisuje zakonodaja Skupnosti, Komisija meni, da so za 10-letno obdobje določene izjeme, ki ne upadajo, lahko upravičene v dveh primerih:
these exemptions are conditional on the conclusion of agreements between the Member State concerned and the recipient firms whereby the firms or associations of firms undertake to achieve environmental protection objectives during the period for which the exemptions apply or when firms conclude voluntary agreements which have the same effect.
če so takšne izjeme pogojene s sklepanjem sporazumov med državo članico in podjetji, ki prejmejo pomoč, s katerimi se podjetja ali skupine podjetij zavežejo, da bodo dosegla okoljevarstvene cilje v obdobju, v katerem se uporabljajo izjeme, ali če podjetja prostovoljno sklenejo sporazume z enakim učinkom.
Such agreements or undertakings may relate, among other things, to a reduction in energy consumption, a reduction in emissions or any other environmental measure.
Takšni sporazumi ali obveznosti lahko med drugim zadevajo zmanjšanje porabe energije, zmanjšanje emisij ali druge okoljevarstvene ukrepe.
The substance of the agreements must be negotiated by each Member State and will be assessed by the Commission when the aid projects are notified to it.
O vsebini teh sporazumov se vsaka država članica pogaja, oceni pa jo Komisija, ko so projekti pomoči priglašeni.
Member States must ensure strict monitoring of the commitments entered into by the firms or associations of firms.
Država članica mora zagotoviti strog nadzor obveznosti, ki jih sprejmejo podjetja ali skupine podjetij.
The agreements concluded between a Member State and the firms concerned must stipulate the penalty arrangements applicable if the commitments are not met.
Sporazumi, ki jih sprejmejo države članice z zadevnimi podjetji, morajo določiti kazni, ki se uporabljajo, če obveznosti niso izpolnjene.
These provisions also apply where a Member State makes a tax reduction subject to conditions that have the same effect as the agreements or commitments referred to above;
Takšne določbe se uporabljajo tudi v primeru, da država članica za znižanje davkov uporablja pogoje, ki imajo enak učinek kot zgoraj navedeni sporazumi ali obveznosti;
these exemptions need not be conditional on the conclusion of agreements between the Member State concerned and the recipient firms if the following alternative conditions are satisfied:
takšne izjeme niso nujno pogojene s sklepanjem sporazumov med zadevno državo članico in podjetji, ki prejmejo pomoč, če je izpolnjen eden od naslednjih pogojev:
where the reduction concerns a Community tax, the amount effectively paid by the firms after the reduction must remain higher than the Community minimum in order to provide the firms with an incentive to improve environmental protection,
če zmanjšanje zadeva davek Skupnosti, mora biti znesek, ki ga podjetja dejansko plačajo po zmanjšanju, še vedno višji od najnižjega zneska Skupnosti, da bi podjetja spodbujali k izboljšanju varstva okolja,
where the reduction concerns a domestic tax imposed in the absence of a Community tax, the firms eligible for the reduction must nevertheless pay a significant proportion of the national tax.’
če zmanjšanje zadeva državni davek, določen v odsotnosti davka Skupnosti, morajo podjetja, ki so upravičena do zmanjšanja, vseeno plačati pomemben del državnega davka.“
In the present case, the excise duties applied were certainly higher (before exemptions and reductions) than the harmonised level of taxation (see recitals 43 and 46), but it does not appear that agreements such as those provided for by point 51.1(a) were concluded between the Member State and the beneficiaries or that similar agreements were voluntarily entered into by the latter (the Commission has not been notified of any agreement).
Trošarine, ki so se uporabljale v zadevnem primeru, so bile (brez upoštevanja oprostitev ali znižanj) res višje od harmoniziranega davka (glej uvodni izjavi 43 in 46), vendar ni dokaza, da so bili sklenjeni sporazumi, kot so predvideni v točki 51.1(a) med državo članico in upravičenci do pomoči, ali da so ti podobne sporazume podpisali samodejno (Komisiji ni bil priglašen noben sporazum).
Moreover, the Italian authorities have underlined that the exemptions in question were granted to deal with a difficult economic situation and have never referred to any environmental measure required of the beneficiaries in return.
Italijanski organi so po drugi strani poudarili, da so bile sporne oprostitve odobrene zaradi reševanja zahtevnih gospodarskih razmer, in niso nikoli navedli, da bi se na drugi strani od upravičencev zahtevala kakršna koli korist za okolje.