natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By letters dated 28 September 2000 and 17 October 2000, and on the basis of the information at its disposal, the Commission asked the Italian authorities for clarifications about the partial exemption from excise duties on diesel used in agriculture provided for by Decree-Law No 268 of 30 September 2000 laying down urgent measures on income tax for natural persons and excise duties.
Komisija je z dopisoma z dne 28. septembra 2000 in 17. oktobra 2000 na podlagi informacij, ki so ji bile na voljo, od italijanskih organov zahtevala pojasnila v zvezi z delno oprostitvijo plačila trošarin za plinsko olje, ki se uporablja v kmetijstvu, v smislu zakonskega odloka št. 268 z dne 30. septembra 2000, ki uvaja nujne ukrepe na področju davkov na dohodek fizičnih oseb in trošarin.
The Italian authorities sent the Commission the requested clarifications by letters dated 31 October 2000 and 3 November 2000.
Italijanski organi so Komisiji poslali zahtevana pojasnila z dopisoma z dne 31. oktobra 2000 in 3. novembra 2000.
After examining these clarifications, the Commission sent a letter dated 20 November 2000 asking the Italian authorities for further information on the excise duty exemption.
Komisija je po pregledu teh pojasnil z dopisom z dne 20. novembra 2000 od italijanskih organov zahtevala dodatne podatke o oprostitvi plačila trošarine.
As it had not received a reply within the four-week time-limit prescribed in the aforementioned letter, the Commission sent the Italian authorities a reminder by letter dated 26 April 2001, stating that, if they did not react, it reserved the right to propose to the College of Commissioners that an information injunction be sent pursuant to Article 10(3) 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 [1] (now Article 88).
Ker službe Komisije v roku štirih tednov, ki je bil določen v zgoraj navedenem dopisu, niso prejele odgovora, so z dopisom z dne 26. aprila 2001 italijanskim organom poslale opomin s pojasnilom, da bodo, če se italijanski organi ne odzovejo, Komisiji predlagale, naj sprejme odredbo o predložitvi podatkov v smislu člena 10(3) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [1] (ki je postal člen 88).
By letter dated 10 May 2001, the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union sent the Commission the additional information required of the Italian authorities in the letter of 26 April 2001.
Stalno predstavništvo Italije pri Evropski uniji je z dopisom z dne 10. maja 2001 Komisiji poslalo dopolnjene podatke, ki so se zahtevali od italijanskih organov v dopisu z dne 26. aprila 2001.
On the basis of the above information, the Commission announced by letter dated 2 August 2001 that it was opening a non-notified State aid dossier (ref. NN 70/01) and asked the Italian authorities for further information.
Službe Komisije so z dopisom z dne 2. avgusta 2001 na podlagi zgoraj navedenih podatkov napovedale odprtje svežnja dokumentacije o nepriglašeni državni pomoči s številko NN 70/01 ter od italijanskih organov zahtevale nadaljnje podatke.
As it had not received a reply by the deadline set, the Commission sent a new reminder to the Italian authorities by letter dated 1 July 2003, once again drawing their attention to the fact that, in the event of failure to comply with the four-week deadline set for reply, it reserved the right to propose to the College of Commissioners that an information injunction be sent pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Ker v predpisanem roku niso prejele odgovora, so službe Komisije z dopisom z dne 1. julija 2003 italijanskim organom poslale nov opomin, v katerem so jih ponovno obvestile, da bodo, če jim v predpisanem roku štirih tednov ne bodo poslali odgovora, Komisiji predlagale, naj sprejme odredbo o predložitvi podatkov v smislu člena 10(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
The deadline set for reply expired at the beginning of August 2003.
Predvideni rok za odgovor se je iztekel v začetku avgusta 2003.
As it had not received a reply by the aforementioned deadline, the Commission issued a Decision on 10 October 2003 [2] enjoining Italy to supply it with all the information requested in the letter of 2 August 2001 and stating that, if the Italian authorities failed to reply, it reserved the right to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty.
Ker Komisija ob izteku zgoraj navedenega roka ni prejela odgovora, je z odločbo z dne 10. oktobra 2003 [2] od Italije zahtevala, naj ji pošlje vse podatke, ki so bili zahtevani v dopisu z dne 2. avgusta 2001, in pojasnila, da bo, če ne bo prejela odgovora italijanskih organov, začela postopek na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe.
As it had not received a reply to the information injunction, the Commission wrote to the Italian authorities on 19 February 2004 informing them of its decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty against the provisions of Article 5(5) of Decree-Law No 268 of 30 September 2000 (case C 6/04).
Ker ni prejela odgovora na odredbo o predložitvi podatkov, je Komisija v dopisu z dne 19. februarja 2004 italijanske organe obvestila o odločitvi o začetku postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe v smislu določb člena 5(5) zakonskega odloka št. 268 z dne 30. septembra 2000 (sveženj C 6/04).
The Decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [3].
Odločba Komisije o začetku postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [3].
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid scheme.
Komisija je pozvala vse zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo svoje pripombe glede zadevne sheme pomoči.
The Commission received comments on the aid scheme from interested third parties and transmitted them to Italy by letter dated 27 April 2004, giving it the opportunity to express its view on them.
Komisija je od zainteresiranih tretjih strani prejela pripombe o shemah pomoči, te pa je posredovala Italiji z dopisom z dne 27. aprila 2004 in ji ponudila možnost, da poda svoje mnenje o njih.
Italy did not express its view on these comments but, after requesting and obtaining an extension to the deadline for responding to the initiation of the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty, sent a reply concerning this procedure by letter dated 21 June 2004, registered as received on 25 June 2004.
Italija o teh pripombah ni podala svojega mnenja, temveč je po odobritvi zahtevanega podaljšanja roka za odgovor ob začetku postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe odgovor v zvezi s tem postopkom poslala z dopisom z dne 21. junija 2004, ki je bil pri Komisiji evidentiran 25. junija 2004.
After it had sent the letter of 19 February 2004 stating that the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty was being initiated against the provisions of Article 5(5) of Decree-Law No 268 of 30 September 2000, the Commission obtained information according to which glasshouse growers were apparently actually benefiting from a total exemption from excise duty on diesel used to heat glasshouses.
Komisija je, potem ko je poslala dopis z dne 19. februarja 2004, v katerem je napovedala začetek postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe v smislu določb člena 5(5) zakonskega odloka št. 268 z dne 30. septembra 2000, prejela podatke, po katerih naj bi bili pridelovalci v rastlinjakih dejansko upravičeni do popolne oprostitve plačila trošarin za plinsko olje, ki se uporablja za ogrevanje rastlinjakov.
By fax dated 10 June 2004, it accordingly asked the Italian authorities for information on this additional exemption.
Komisija je nato s telefaksom z dne 10. junija 2004 od italijanskih organov zahtevala podatke o tej dodatni oprostitvi.
By letter dated 28 July 2004, registered as received on 3 August 2004, the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union sent the Commission the Italian authorities’ reply to the aforementioned letter of 10 June 2004.
Stalno predstavništvo Italije pri Evropski uniji je v dopisu z dne 28. julija 2004, ki je bil evidentiran 3. avgusta 2004, Komisiji poslalo odgovor italijanskih organov na navedeni dopis z dne 10. junija 2004.
This reply showed that the abovementioned additional exemption had been established by means of various provisions: Article 24(3) of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000; Article 13(3) of Law No 448 of 21 December 2001; Article 19(4) of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 and Article 2(4) of Law No 350 of 24 December 2003.
Iz tega odgovora je razvidno, da je bila dodatna oprostitev uvedena na podlagi več predpisov: s členom 24(3) zakona št. 388 z dne 23. decembra 2000, členom 13(3) zakona št. 448 z dne 21. decembra 2001, členom 19(4) zakona št. 289 z dne 27. decembra 2002 in členom 2(4) zakona št. 350 z dne 24. decembra 2003.
On the basis of this information, the Commission decided to open a new non-notified aid dossier (ref. NN 71/04), so as to examine the compatibility of this additional exemption with the common market. It informed the Italian authorities of this by letter dated 4 November 2004.
Službe Komisije so se na podlagi teh podatkov odločile za uvedbo novega svežnja za nepriglašene pomoči s številko NN 71/04, da bi preučile združljivost omenjene dodatne oprostitve s skupnim trgom, italijanske organe pa so o tem obvestile z dopisom z dne 4. novembra 2004.
By letter dated 24 January 2005, the Commission informed the Italian Government of its decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty in relation to the aforementioned additional exemption established by Article 24(3) of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000; Article 13(3) of Law No 448 of 21 December 2001; Article 19(4) of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 and Article 2(4) of Law No 350 of 24 December 2003 (case C 5/05).
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 24. januarja 2005 italijansko vlado obvestila o odločitvi o začetku postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES glede navedene dodatne oprostitve, ki je bila uvedena s členom 24(3) zakona št. 388 z dne 23. decembra 2000, členom 13(3) zakona št. 448 z dne 21. decembra 2001, členom 19(4) zakona št. 289 z dne 27. decembra 2002 in členom 2(4) zakona št. 350 z dne 24. decembra 2003 (sveženj C 5/05).
The Decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [4].
Odločba Komisije o začetku postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [4].
The Commission received no comments from interested third parties.
Komisija ni prejela zadevnih pripomb od zainteresiranih tretjih strani.
By letter dated 21 February 2005, registered as received on 22 February 2005, the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union sent the Commission the Italian authorities’ reply concerning initiation of the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty against the aforementioned additional exemption.
Stalno predstavništvo Italije pri Evropski uniji je z dopisom z dne 21. februarja 2005, ki je bil evidentiran 22. februarja 2005, Komisiji poslalo odgovor italijanskih organov v zvezi z začetkom postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe glede omenjene dodatne oprostitve.
By letter dated 27 September 2007, the Commission asked the Italian authorities for additional information on the aid in question and on the replies concerning the initiation of the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty.
Službe Komisije so z dopisom z dne 27. septembra 2007 od italijanskih organov zahtevale dodatne podatke o zadevni pomoči in odgovore v zvezi z začetkom postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe.
In particular, the Italian authorities were asked to justify the argument that the aid was consistent with the Italian tax system and to analyse whether it could be justified in the light of the provisions of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection that were applicable at the time of granting of the aid [5].
Italijanske organe so še zlasti zaprosile, naj dodatno utemeljijo, kako se pomoči skladajo z italijanskim davčnim sistemom, in naj preučijo, ali teh pomoči ne bi bilo mogoče upravičiti v smislu pravil Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja, ki se lahko uporabljajo pri dodelitvi pomoči [5].
The Italian authorities had a month to reply to the request for additional information.
Italijanski organi so imeli en mesec časa za odgovor na zahtevo po dopolnitvi podatkov.
In the absence of a reply for the Italian authorities, the Commission sent them a reminder by fax dated 15 October 2008. This stated that, if it did not receive a reply within the new deadline of one month, it reserved the right to propose to the College of Commissioners that an information injunction be sent pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Ker italijanski organi v predvidenem roku niso poslali odgovora, so jim službe Komisije s telefaksom z dne 15. oktobra 2008 poslale opomin, v katerem so pojasnile, da bodo, če ne bodo prejele odgovora v dodatnem roku enega meseca, Komisiji predlagale, naj sprejme odredbo o predložitvi podatkov v smislu člena 10(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
As it did not receive a reply within the deadline set, the Commission sent Italy such an injunction by letter dated 5 December 2008 [6].
Ker Komisija v zahtevanem roku ni prejela odgovora, je z dopisom z dne 5. decembra 2008 [6] Italiji poslala zgoraj navedeno odredbo.
By e-mail dated 5 February 2009, registered as received on 9 February 2009, the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union sent the Commission the Italian authorities’ reply to the aforementioned injunction.
Stalno predstavništvo Italije pri Evropski uniji je po elektronski pošti z dne 5. februarja 2009, ki je bila evidentirana 9. februarja 2009, Komisiji poslalo odgovor italijanskih organov na navedeno odredbo.
Following a meeting with Commission representatives on 21 April 2009, the Italian authorities sent them a new letter on 19 May 2009 via the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union.
Italijanski organi so po sestanku s službami Komisije z dne 21. aprila 2009 omenjenim službam 19. maja 2009 poslali nov dopis prek Stalnega predstavništva Italije pri Evropski uniji.
Article 5(5) of Decree-Law No 268 of 30 September 2000 provides that, for the period from 3 October to 31 December 2000, the excise duty applied to diesel used to heat glasshouses be 5 % of that laid down for diesel used as fuel.
Člen 5(5) zakonskega odloka št. 268 z dne 30. septembra 2000 določa, da se v obdobju od 3. oktobra do 31. decembra 2000 za plinsko olje, ki se uporablja za ogrevanje rastlinjakov, uporabljajo trošarine v višini 5 % davčne stopnje, določene za plinsko olje, ki se uporablja kot gorivo.
Article 6(1) of that Decree-Law provides that, for the same period, the excise duty rates for diesel used in agriculture be 22 % of that applicable to diesel used as fuel and that the excise duty rates for petrol be 49 % of the normal rate.
Člen 6(1) istega zakonskega odloka določa, da v istem obdobju stopnje trošarin za plinsko olje v kmetijstvu ustrezajo 22-odstotnemu deležu stopnje, ki se uporablja za plinsko olje kot gorivo, trošarine za bencin pa znašajo 49 % od običajne stopnje.
Article 24(3) of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000; Article 13(3) of Law No 448 of 21 December 2001; Article 19(4) of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 and Article 2(4) of Law No 350 of 24 December 2003 all established a total exemption from excise duty for diesel used to heat glasshouses in Italy.
Člen 24(3) zakonskega odloka št. 388 z dne 23. decembra 2000, člen 13(3) zakona št. 448 z dne 21. decembra 2001, člen 19(4) zakona št. 289 z dne 27. decembra 2002 in člen 2(4) zakona št. 350 z dne 24. decembra 2003 določajo popolno oprostitev plačila trošarin za plinsko olje, ki se uporablja za ogrevanje rastlinjakov v Italiji.
This exemption covered the following periods respectively: from 1 January to 30 June 2001; all of 2002; all of 2003 and all of 2004.
Ta oprostitev velja za naslednja obdobja: od 1. januarja do 30. junija 2001, vse leto 2002, vse leto 2003 in vse leto 2004.
INITIAL OPENING OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 88(2) OF THE TREATY (CASE C 6/04)
PRVI ZAČETEK POSTOPKA IZ ČLENA 88(2) POGODBE (SVEŽENJ C 6/04)
The Commission initiated the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty against the provisions of Article 5(5) of Decree-Law No 268 of September 2000, as it had doubts as to the compatibility with the common market of the additional 17 percentage points of exemption from excise duty granted to glasshouse growers using diesel to heat glasshouses as compared to other operators in the agricultural sector.
Komisija je začela postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe v zvezi z določbami iz člena 5(5) zakonskega odloka št. 268 z dne 30. septembra 2000, ker je dvomila o združljivosti oprostitve plačila trošarin za dodatnih 17 odstotnih točk, odobrene pridelovalcem, ki so za ogrevanje rastlinjakov uporabljali plinsko olje, v primerjavi z drugimi delavci v kmetijstvu, s skupnim trgom.
The doubts originated from the fact that, despite an information injunction being sent, the Italian authorities did not send any information demonstrating that the exemptions were eligible under competition rules (indeed, they did not even reply to the injunction).
Ti dvomi izhajajo iz dejstva, da italijanski organi kljub sprejetju odredbe o predložitvi podatkov niso predložili dokazil o dopustnosti oprostitev na podlagi pravil o konkurenci (niso poslali niti odgovora na odredbo).
Moreover, the doubts were corroborated by the question of the eligibility of the excise duty exemptions in the light of the provisions of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils [7] and on the Directive repealing it, i.e. Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity [8].
Dvome je še dodatno podkrepilo sporno dovoljenje oprostitev plačila trošarin v smislu določb Direktive Sveta 92/81/EGS z dne 19. oktobra 1992 o uskladitvi trošarinskih struktur za mineralna olja [7] in direktive, ki jo je razveljavila, oziroma Direktive Sveta 2003/96/ES z dne 27. oktobra 2003 o prestrukturiranju okvira Skupnosti za obdavčitev energentov in električne energije [8].
REACTION OF THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES TO THE INITIAL OPENING OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 88(2) OF THE TREATY
ODZIV ITALIJANSKIH ORGANOV NA PRVI ZAČETEK POSTOPKA IZ ČLENA 88(2) POGODBE
In their letter of 21 June 2004, the Italian authorities stated that the excise duty exemptions could not be considered State aid, but had to be examined in the context of Article 8(2)(f) and Article 15(3) of Directives 92/81/EEC and 2003/96/EC respectively.
Italijanski organi so v dopisu z dne 21. junija 2004 navedli, da oprostitve plačila trošarine ni bilo mogoče obravnavati kot državno pomoč, ampak v okviru člena 8(2)(f) in člena 15(3) direktiv 92/81/EGS oziroma 2003/96/ES.
It was their view that glasshouse growing fell within the category of ‘agricultural and horticultural works’, for which Community law allows the Member States to apply total or partial exemptions from excise duty, and that the excise duty exemption for glasshouse growing did not introduce any discrimination in the agricultural and horticultural sector linked to differentiation in exemptions, in that all operators were absolutely free to choose between growing outdoors and growing in glasshouses.
Po njihovem mnenju pridelki v rastlinjakih spadajo na področje „pridelkov v kmetijstvu in vrtnarstvu“, za katere predpisi Skupnosti državam članicam dovoljujejo uporabo delnih ali popolnih oprostitev plačila trošarin, zato oprostitev plačila trošarin za pridelke v rastlinjakih ne povzroča nikakršne diskriminacije zaradi diferenciacije oprostitev v kmetijstvu in vrtnarstvu, ker imajo vsi proizvajalci popolno svobodo izbire med pridelovanjem na prostem ali v rastlinjakih.
According to the Italian authorities, the scheme was of a purely fiscal nature and should be assessed from this viewpoint, so as to allow it to be analysed in an overarching framework covering all the Member States of the European Union, thereby avoiding a situation whereby examining an individual national case outside such a framework could jeopardise the principle of equal treatment of Member States.
Po mnenju italijanskih organov je sporna shema izrazito davčne narave in bi jo bilo treba ocenjevati s tega vidika, da bi omogočili celovitejšo analizo, ki bi zajela vse države Unije, in tako preprečili, da bi preučevanje posameznega primera kake države zunaj tega okvira povzročilo spremembo načela enakih konkurenčnih pogojev med državami članicami.
In this connection, the Italian authorities referred to the political agreement reached by the Council and the Commission at the Ecofin Council on 19 March 2003, under which derogations from a general tax system or differences within it that were justified by the nature or general characteristics of the tax system did not constitute State aid.
Zato so se italijanski organi sklicevali na politični dogovor, ki sta ga sprejela Svet in Komisija na zasedanju Sveta ECOFIN dne 19. marca 2003, na podlagi katerega odstopanja od splošne davčne sheme ali diferenciacija v okviru te, ki jih upravičujejo narava ali splošne značilnosti davčne sheme, ne vključujejo državnih pomoči.
To conclude, the Italian authorities added that, according to the estimates and data available to them, the planned scheme ‘[would] not be detrimental to the proper functioning of the internal market and [would] not result in distortions of competition’ (reference to Recital 24 to Directive 2003/96/EC).
Italijanski organi so v sklepu dodali, da na podlagi ocen in razpoložljivih podatkov predvidena shema „ni škodljiva za pravilno delovanje notranjega trga in ne povzroča izkrivljanja konkurence“ (navedeno v uvodni izjavi 24 Direktive 2003/96/ES).
V. COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THIRD PARTIES FOLLOWING INITIAL OPENING OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 88(2) OF THE TREATY
V. PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANI NA PRVI ZAČETEK POSTOPKA IZ ČLENA 88(2) POGODBE
By letter dated 19 April 2004, registered as received on 21 April 2004, the Commission received comments from an interested third party following opening of the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty.
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 19. aprila 2004, ki je bil evidentiran 21. aprila 2004, prejela pripombe ene od tretjih strani po začetku postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe.
In that letter, the interested party described the fragility of the market in which it operated and the problems connected with the increase in the price of fuels that can be used to heat glasshouses.
Tretja stran v dopisu opisuje ranljivost trga, na katerem posluje, in težave v zvezi z zvišanjem cene goriv, ki se lahko uporabljajo za ogrevanje rastlinjakov.
In the interested third party’s view, if the Commission were to rule against the exemption in question, many undertakings in the sector would be forced to close or to reduce the amount of fuel consumed to heat their glasshouses, with a resulting reduction in the quality of their products.
Če bi se Komisija izrekla proti zadevni oprostitvi, bi morala po mnenju tretje strani mnoga podjetja ustaviti ali zmanjšati porabo goriva za ogrevanje rastlinjakov, s posledičnim zmanjšanjem kakovosti njihovih proizvodov.
Furthermore, according to the interested third party, the prices of the heating fuels used in Belgium and the Netherlands (methane and fuel oil) were 20 % to 40 % lower than the price of agricultural diesel in Italy and that, therefore, applying the exemption in question would in no way distort competition.
Poleg tega so po besedah tretje strani cene goriv za ogrevanje, ki jih uporabljajo v Belgiji in na Nizozemskem (metan in kurilno olje), od 20 % do 40 % nižje od cene plinskega olja za kmetijstvo v Italiji, zato zadevna oprostitev ne bi povzročala nikakršnega izkrivljanja konkurence.
Lastly, again in this party’s view, the number of farms in its sector using methane gas to heat glasshouses was constantly increasing.
Končno je tudi po besedah tretje strani vse več podjetij na tem področju, ki za ogrevanje rastlinjakov uporabljajo metan.
SECOND OPENING OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 88(2) OF THE TREATY (CASE C 5/05)
DRUGI ZAČETEK POSTOPKA IZ ČLENA 88(2) POGODBE (SVEŽENJ C5/05)