natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
FEDECOM submitted a document describing the composition and arrangements for financing of these committees, along with the role played by the latter in the context of the ‘contingency plans’.
Združenje FEDECOM je poslalo dokument, v katerem so opisani sestava in načini financiranja odborov ter njihova vloga pri „načrtih ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“.
France has not contested the accuracy of these descriptions.
Francija ni izpodbijala resničnosti teh pojasnil.
On the basis of the information provided (set out in sections 1 and 3 of the document referred to in paragraph 32), FEDECOM claims that:
Na podlagi predloženih informacij (ki so navedene v oddelkih 1 in 3 dokumenta iz točke 32) FEDECOM trdi, da:
The economic agricultural committees were not beneficiaries of sums allocated under the ‘contingency plans’.
Kmetijsko-gospodarski odbori niso bili prejemniki zneskov, dodeljenih na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“.
The committees limited themselves to taking receipt of the funds and subsequently redistributing them to the end recipients (the producer organisations and, though them, the producers belonging to the organisations).
Odbori so samo sprejemali sredstva in jih nato razdelili prejemnikom (organizacijam proizvajalcev in prek teh njihovim članom).
The payment of the ‘sectoral contribution’ was voluntary on the part of the producer organisations, the principle of which was subject to approval by the national sections concerned and decided on in accordance with a democratic process.
Plačilo „stanovskega deleža“ je bilo prostovoljno dejanje organizacij proizvajalcev, ki so ga morale odobriti zadevne nacionalne sekcije, ki so odločale po demokratičnem postopku.
According to FEDECOM, the measures taken under the ‘contingency plans’ do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, given that the criterion of financing the aid granted through State resources is not met in this case.
Po mnenju združenja FEDECOM ukrepi, izvedeni na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“, ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe, ker merilo financiranja iz državnih sredstev v tem primeru ni izpolnjeno.
By letter of 4 October 2005, France submitted its comments concerning the Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in respect of the unnotified aid.
Francija je z dopisom z dne 4. oktobra 2005 predložila svoje pripombe o odločitvi Komisije, da bo zoper nepriglašeno pomoč uvedla postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe.
France did not clarify the exact nature of the measures funded under its ‘contingency plans’, nor did it contest the Commission’s preliminary analysis on the incompatibility of this aid with the common market with regard to Community legislation.
Francija ni pojasnila natančne narave ukrepov, financiranih na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“, niti ni izpodbijala predhodne analize Komisije v zvezi z nezdružljivostjo teh pomoči s skupnim trgom glede na zakonodajo Skupnosti.
However, with regard to the nature of the sectoral contributions paid for financing the ‘contingency plans’, France indicated that these contributions constituted the contribution of the sectors concerned for measures financed under the ‘contingency plans’ and did not benefit from the extension of rules as provided for by Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables.
Vendar je Francija v zvezi z naravo stanovskih prispevkov, namenjenih za financiranje „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“, navedla, da ti prispevki pomenijo kompenzacijo zadevnih sektorjev za ukrepe, financirane na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“, in zanje ne velja razširitev pravil, kot je določena v členu 18 Uredbe (ES) št. 2200/96 o skupni ureditvi trga za sadje in zelenjavo.
According to the French authorities, these were voluntary contributions not laid down by the public authorities and which were freely available to the economic committees.
Po mnenju francoskih organov so to bili prostovoljni prispevki, ki jih javne oblasti niso razširile in s katerimi so gospodarski organi lahko svobodno razpolagali.
They were not obligatory in nature.
Ti prispevki nikakor niso bili obvezni.
France concluded that these contributions could not be equated to State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Francija ugotavlja, da teh prispevkov ni mogoče izenačiti z državnimi sredstvi v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
France supplied a table with the amounts of appropriations for the ‘contingency plans’ taken from the ONIFLHOR budget for the years from 1994 to 2002, broken down by production and by measure (see above).
Francija je predložila razpredelnico z zneski sredstev za „načrte ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“ iz proračuna ONIFLHOR za leta od 1994 do 2002, razčlenjenimi po proizvodnjah in po ukrepih (glej zgoraj).
These amounts do not include the ‘sectoral contributions’ paid by the sector.
Ti zneski ne vključujejo „stanovskih deležev“, ki jih je plačal sektor.
A correction of this table for the year 2002 was sent to the Commission by letter of 28 December 2005.
Z dopisom z dne 28. decembra 2005 je bil Komisiji poslan popravek te razpredelnice za leto 2002.
The Commission finds that Articles 92, 93 and 94 of the Treaty (which have become Articles 87, 88 and 89) were applicable to the production of and trade in fruit and vegetables, by virtue of Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables [9], and of Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, which were applicable at the time the aid was granted.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so se členi 92, 93 in 94 Pogodbe (postali členi 87, 88 in 89) uporabljali za proizvodnjo sadja in zelenjave ter trgovino z njimi na podlagi člena 31 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1035/72 z dne 18. maja 1972 o skupni ureditvi trga za sadje in zelenjavo [9] ter člena 43 Uredbe (ES) št. 2200/96, ki sta se uporabljali v času dodelitve pomoči.
Provision of aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty
Prisotnost pomoči po členu 87(1) Pogodbe
Article 87(1) of the Treaty provides: ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, 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, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
V členu 87(1) Pogodbe je določeno, da je, razen če Pogodba ne določa drugače, 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 s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
For a measure to be within the scope of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, each of the following four conditions must be cumulatively met: 1) the measure must be financed by the State or through State resources and be attributable to the State; 2) it must selectively concern certain undertakings or sectors of production; 3) it must involve an economic advantage for the recipient undertakings; 4) it must affect intra-Community trade and distort or threaten to distort competition.
Da bi ukrep spadal na področje uporabe člena 87(1) Pogodbe, morajo biti kumulativno izpolnjeni naslednji štirje pogoji: (1) financirati ga mora država ali se mora financirati iz državnih sredstev in ga mora biti mogoče pripisati državi; (2) selektivno mora zadevati nekatera podjetja ali sektorje proizvodnje; (3) vsebovati mora gospodarsko prednost za podjetja prejemnike; (4) prizadeti mora trgovino med državami članicami Skupnosti in izkrivljati konkurenco ali groziti, da jo bo izkrivljal.
Firstly, the measures undertaken in the context of the ‘contingency plans’ benefited exclusively (selectively) the fruit and vegetable producers of the French departments concerned.
Prvič, ugotoviti je treba, da so ukrepi, izvedeni na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“, koristili izključno (selektivno) proizvajalcem sadja in zelenjave iz zadevnih francoskih departmajev.
As far as the definition of the beneficiaries is concerned, the effect of the aid suffices to determine its beneficiaries.
Kar zadeva opredelitev prejemnikov, je treba za določitev prejemnikov pomoči upoštevati njene učinke.
The beneficiaries of the aid are those who actually benefited [10] from it and who saw their competitive situation improve after payment of the aid.
Prejemniki pomoči so tisti, ki so jo dejansko uživali [10] in katerih konkurenčni položaj se je po dodelitvi pomoči izboljšal.
In this case, it is clear from the very nature of the actions undertaken in the context of the ‘contingency plans’ (see paragraphs 17 and following of this Decision) that they were intended to facilitate the sale of French produce, by making it possible for producers to benefit from a sales price (or sales-related payment) higher than the actual cost paid by the buyer of the goods.
V obravnavanem primeru izhaja iz same narave ukrepov, sprejetih na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“ (glej točko 17 in naslednje te odločbe), da so bili namenjeni olajšanju prodaje francoske proizvodnje, tako da so proizvajalcem omogočili, da so imeli višjo prodajno ceno (ali plačilo, povezano s prodajo) od realnega stroška, ki ga je nosil kupec blaga.
Thus, it appears that the producers were the final beneficiaries of this aid.
Očitno je torej, da so končni prejemniki te pomoči proizvajalci.
However, the explanations given by FEDECOM and not contested by the French authorities make it clear that the economic agricultural committees initially distributed the funds made available under the contingency plans between the producer organisations, which had been part of the contingency plan initiative and paid the sectoral contributions, the benefit of this aid then being passed on to the producers by the professional organisations.
Vendar iz pojasnil združenja FEDECOM, ki jih francoski organi niso izpodbijali, izhaja še, da so kmetijsko-gospodarski odbori sredstva, uporabljena na podlagi načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih, najprej razdelili med organizacije proizvajalcev, ki so pristopile k pobudi načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih in plačale stanovske deleže, koriščenje teh pomoči pa so nato na proizvajalce prenesle stanovske organizacije.
However, the Commission notes that Article L 551-1 of the Rural Code allows for producer organisations to exist under different legal forms, equating to close business links, to a greater or lesser extent, between the members of these organisations.
Komisija ugotavlja, da lahko v skladu s členom L 551-1 kmetijskega zakonika organizacije proizvajalcev obstajajo v različnih pravnih oblikah, ki ustrezajo bolj ali manj tesnim socialnim vezem med člani teh organizacij.
Also, it cannot be ruled out that, in certain exceptional cases, the benefit of the aid is not transferred by the producer organisation to its members, meaning that, in these very particular cases, the final beneficiary of the aid will be the producer organisation.
Tako v nekaterih izjemnih primerih ni mogoče izključiti, da organizacija proizvajalcev koriščenja pomoči ni prenesla na svoje člane, tako da bo v teh zelo posebnih primerih končni prejemnik pomoči organizacija proizvajalcev.
Secondly, the producers in question benefited from an economic advantage in the form of the financing of different market support measures.
Drugič, zadevni proizvajalci so bili deležni gospodarske prednosti v obliki financiranja različnih ukrepov za podporo trga.
This advantage improved their competitive position.
Ta prednost je izboljšala njihov konkurenčni položaj.
According to the established case-law of the Court of Justice, the improvement of the competitive position of an undertaking resulting from State aid, indicates, as a general rule, a distortion of competition compared with other undertakings not receiving the same aid [11].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča izboljšanje konkurenčnega položaja podjetja, ki je posledica državne pomoči, praviloma pomeni izkrivljanje konkurence glede na druga podjetja, ki ne prejemajo enake podpore [11].
Thirdly, at the time of payment of the aid, the fruit and vegetable sector was fully open to competition and characterised by intense intra-Community trade [12].
Tretjič, v času dodelitve pomoči je bil sektor sadja in zelenjave popolnoma odprt za konkurenco, zanj pa je bila značilna intenzivna trgovina med državami članicami Skupnosti [12].
The existence of a common market organisation in the sector is further proof of the importance of intra-Community trade in fruit and vegetables and of the desire to ensure undistorted conditions of competition on the common market.
Skupna ureditev trga v sektorju dokazuje pomen trgovine s sadjem in zelenjavo v Skupnosti in tudi željo, da se zagotovijo pošteni pogoji konkurence na skupnem trgu.
The measures in question, which sought to manipulate the prices and quantities placed on the market, were thus of a nature to affect trade and distort competition.
Zadevni ukrepi, namenjeni manipuliranju s cenami in količinami, danimi na trg, so torej lahko prizadeli trgovino in izkrivljali konkurenco.
With regard to the measures aimed at non-EU markets, the case law of the Court indicates that, given the interdependence of the markets on which Community producers are operating, the possibility that aid could distort intra-Community competition by strengthening the competitive position of operators, even if the aid benefits products for export outside the Community, cannot be ruled out [13].
Kar zadeva ukrepe v zvezi s trgi zunaj Skupnosti, je v sodni praksi Sodišča navedeno, da ob upoštevanju medsebojne odvisnosti trgov, na katerih delujejo proizvajalci Skupnosti, ni izključeno, da bi lahko pomoč izkrivljala konkurenco v Skupnosti z okrepitvijo konkurenčnega položaja proizvajalcev, čeprav je pomoč namenjena proizvodom za izvoz iz Skupnosti [13].
Thus, the criteria concerning the effect on trade and the distortion of competition are fully met.
Merili, ki se nanašata na vpliv na trgovino in izkrivljanje konkurence, sta torej v celoti izpolnjeni.
Fourthly, with regard to the criterion of financing by the State through State resources, an in-depth study should be conducted, inter alia, examining the arguments of the French State and of FEDECOM on the character of State resources of the sectoral contributions.
Kar zadeva, četrtič, merilo financiranja od države iz državnih sredstev, je treba opraviti poglobljeno analizo ter med drugim preučiti trditve francoske države in združenja FEDECOM o tem, ali so prispevki sektorja državna sredstva.
In accordance with the case-law of the Court, for a benefit to qualify as State aid, it must first be awarded directly or indirectly through State resources and, secondly, it must be attributable to the State [14].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča velja, da mora biti prednost, da bi lahko bila opredeljena kot državna pomoč, prvič, dodeljena neposredno ali posredno iz državnih sredstev in, drugič, to prednost mora biti mogoče pripisati državi [14].
The Commission notes that ONIFLHOR is a public body.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je ONIFLHOR javni organ.
Consequently, financial support from ONIFLHOR for the ‘contingency plans’ clearly constitutes State resources.
Zato so finančni prispevki ONIFLHOR za „načrte ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“ očitno državna sredstva.
The measures undertaken as part of these plans are moreover attributable to the State, because for each contingency it was ONIFLHOR that decided on the measures to take, entrusted the implementation of these measures to the relevant national section, decided the sums allocated and the amount of the sectoral contributions.
Ukrepe, izvedene na podlagi teh načrtov, je poleg tega mogoče pripisati državi, ker je bil ONIFLHOR tisti, ki je za vsak nepredvidljiv dogodek izdelal ukrepe, ki jih je treba sprejeti, zavezal zadevno nacionalno sekcijo za njihovo izvedbo in odločil o dodeljenih zneskih ter znesku prispevkov sektorja.
In the light of the case-law of the Court [15], the Commission considers the fact that a measure attributable to the State was partially financed by contributions from the undertakings concerned does not divest it of its character of State aid, given that this depends on the arrangements under and effects of the system.
Glede na sodno prakso Sodišča [15] Komisija meni, da to, da se ukrep, ki ga je mogoče pripisati državi, delno financira iz prispevkov zadevnih podjetij, temu ne more odvzeti njegove narave državne pomoči, ker je odvisen od podrobnih pravil in učinkov sheme pomoči.
The mandatory or voluntary nature of these contributions does not play any part in the application of this principle.
Obvezna ali prostovoljna narava teh prispevkov nima nobene vloge pri uporabi tega načela.
Consequently, FEDECOM’s allegation that the measures implemented under the ‘contingency plans’ do not constitute aid due to the private nature of the sectoral contributions must be rejected.
Zato je treba zavrniti trditev združenja FEDECOM, da naj ukrepi, izvedeni na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“, ne bi bili pomoči zaradi zasebne narave prispevkov sektorja.
The Commission is therefore able to find that the measures undertaken under the ‘contingency plans’ were financed by the State or through State resources and were attributable to the State.
Komisija tako lahko ugotovi, da je ukrepe, izvedene na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“, financirala država ali so se financirali iz državnih sredstev in jih je bilo mogoče pripisati državi.
The Commission nevertheless wished to verify that the possible applicability of the recent case-law of the Court with regard to State resources to this case did not call this reasoning into question.
Vendar je Komisija želela preveriti, ali morebitna uporaba nedavne sodne prakse Sodišča na področju državnih sredstev za obravnavani primer ne izpodbija tega sklepanja.
To this end, the main considerations of the Court in the Pearle [16] case should briefly be recalled.
Zato je treba na kratko spomniti na glavne ugotovitve Sodišča v zadevi Pearle [16].
In its judgment, the Court stated that the revenue from a compulsory levy on all the companies in a sector of activity, collected by an intermediate association governed by public law, could be considered as a State resource only if each of the following four conditions were cumulatively met: (a) the measures financed by the mandatory contributions were determined by the sector concerned; (b) 100 % of the financing came from the contributions of the companies in the sector; (c) the contributions were compulsorily earmarked for the funding of the measure, with no possibility for the State to intervene by determining or modifying the use of these resources; (d) the parties who paid the contributions were also the beneficiaries of the measure.
Sodišče v svoji sodbi navaja, da dohodka od obveznega prispevka za vsa podjetja v sektorju dejavnosti, ki ga pobira javni posredniški organ, ni mogoče šteti za državna sredstva, če so izpolnjeni naslednji štirje kumulativni pogoji: (a) ukrepe, ki se financirajo iz obveznih prispevkov, določi zadevni sektor; (b) financiranje v celoti izvira iz prispevkov podjetij sektorja; (c) prispevki so obvezno namenjeni financiranju ukrepa, ne da bi se država lahko vmešala in določila ali spremenila porabo teh sredstev; (d) subjekti, ki plačajo prispevke, so tudi upravičenci ukrepa.
In this case, less than 100 % of the financing came from the contributions of the companies in the sector.
V obravnavanem primeru financiranje ne izvira v celoti iz prispevkov podjetij v sektorju.
Evidently, this does not meet the Pearle criteria.
Merila iz sodbe Pearle očitno niso izpolnjena.
It must, however, be noted that in the Pearle judgment, the Court ruled on a different situation and for a different purpose.
Vendar je treba navesti, da je Sodišče v sodbi Pearle odločalo o drugačnem dejanskem položaju in z drugačnim ciljem.
The Court wanted notably to identify the criteria that would allow the establishment of the circumstances in which the role played by the State in creating a measure entirely financed by the beneficiary sector is so marginal that the measure in question is not considered to meet all the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Sodišče je zlasti želelo opredeliti merila, ki omogočajo ugotoviti, v kakšnih okoliščinah je vloga države pri izvajanju ukrepa, ki ga v celoti financira upravičeni sektor, tako postranska, da se za navedeni ukrep šteje, da ne izpolnjuje vseh meril iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
In the case in question, the State’s role was clearly central at all stages of the implementation of the plans (from the choice of measures to their co-financing).
V obravnavanem primeru je bila vloga države na vseh stopnjah izvajanja načrtov (od izbire ukrepov do njihovega sofinanciranja) očitno osrednja.
The two situations (this case and the case in the Pearle judgment) are thus difficult to compare.
Ta primera (ta primer in primer iz sodbe Pearle) je torej težko primerjati.
Furthermore, the Court of First Instance recently ruled on the infamous role that the French State played in another aid scheme in the agricultural sector, which had led the Court to consider that the sectoral contributions were State resources, inter alia, from the fact that they had required the adoption of an act by a public authority for their impact to be felt [17].
Sodišče prve stopnje je poleg tega nedavno odločalo o splošno znani vlogi, ki jo je francoska država imela v drugi shemi pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju in na podlagi katere je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da so dohodki od sektorskega prispevka državna sredstva, med drugim zato, ker je bilo treba za njihov polni učinek sprejeti akt javnega organa [17].
In this case, the main choice given to the producer organisations was whether or not to take part in the State’s initiative.
V obravnavanem primeru je bila glavna izbira, ki so jo imele organizacije proizvajalcev, da pristopijo k pobudi države ali ne.
Again, if they decided not to take part, the producers affected would lose the benefit of the funds allocated to the contingency plans by ONIFLHOR, which constituted a strong incentive to participate in this initiative.
Če so se odločile, da ne bodo pristopile, so zadevni proizvajalci izgubili pravico do sredstev, ki jih je ONIFLHOR dodelil načrtom ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih, kar je pomenilo močno spodbudo za pristop k tej pobudi.
In view of the considerations set out above, the Commission confirms that an analysis in the light of the four criteria set out in Article 87(1) of the Treaty allows the nature of the measures connected with the ‘contingency plans’ to be conclusively established as State aid.
Glede na zgornje razmisleke Komisija ugotavlja, da je na podlagi analize z vidika štirih meril iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe mogoče nesporno dokazati, da imajo ukrepi, povezani z „načrti ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“, naravo državne pomoči.
The Commission notes that the French authorities did not notify it of the measures introducing the aid in question, as required by Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ji francoski organi v obravnavanem primeru niso priglasili mehanizmov za dodelitev pomoči, kot zahteva člen 88(3) Pogodbe.
The measures thus constitute unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [18].
Ukrepi torej pomenijo nezakonite pomoči v smislu člena 1(f) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [18].