natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Their value cannot exceed the total sum subscribed by the members and by bodies supporting the consortia.
Njihova vrednost ne sme presegati skupnega zneska, ki ga prispevajo člani in podporni organi konzorcija.
The guarantees in the strict sense must allow the beneficiaries to access credit more easily (since around 70 % of undertakings in the agricultural sector in Sicily are small enterprises, some of them may not be able to establish the necessary security to cover a loan or obtain a guarantee).
Poroštva v strogem pomenu naj bi upravičencem omogočila lažji dostop do posojila (ker je približno 70 % podjetij v kmetijskem sektorju na Siciliji malih podjetij, si nekatera od njih mogoče ne bi mogla zagotoviti zadostnega jamstva za kritje posojila ali pridobitev poroštva).
They have the following characteristics:
Zanje je značilno, da:
the gross grant equivalent is calculated in accordance with the method described in the second subparagraph of point 3.2 of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees [8];they may cover no more than 80 % of the loan, in line with the provisions of points 3.3 and 3.4 of that Notice;
se bruto ekvivalent dotacije izračuna na podlagi metode, opisane v drugem pododstavku točke 3.2 Obvestila Komisije o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES za državno pomoč v obliki poroštev [8],ne smejo pokrivati več kakor 80 % posojila, kot je to določeno v točkah 3.3 in 3.4 Obvestila,
they must be provided for operations whose characteristics (aid intensity, beneficiaries and objectives) are in line with the provisions of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector [9], to solvent undertakings with good financial standing, in line with the provisions of points 3.5 and 5.2 of the aforementioned Notice;they must concern only loans granted in the context, and according to the conditions, of schemes authorised by the Commission;
jih je treba omogočiti za transakcije, katerih značilnosti (intenzivnost pomoči, upravičenci in cilji) so skladne z določbami smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju [9], in jih dodeliti plačilno sposobnim podjetjem v dobrem finančnem položaju v skladu z določbami točk 3.5 in 5.2 zgoraj navedenega obvestila,se morajo nanašati le na posojila, dodeljena v okviru programov, ki jih odobri Komisija, in v skladu s pogoji teh programov,
their liquidation is dependent on the debtor being subject to implementation of the legal procedures laid down in the event of insolvency (placing the beneficiary undertaking in bankruptcy, etc.);
je njihova likvidacija odvisna od dolžnika, za katerega velja izvajanje zakonskih postopkov, določenih za primer plačilne nesposobnosti (uvedba stečaja upravičenega podjetja itd.),
they may be enjoyed also by parties that do not belong to the consortia (membership of the latter is open to all operators in the agriculture sector without restrictions) [10].
jih je mogoče dodeliti tudi zainteresiranim stranem, ki niso vključene v konzorcije (v te se lahko brez omejitev včlanijo vsi subjekti, ki delujejo v kmetijskem sektorju) [10].
Article 124(1) and (2) of Law No 32/2000 provide for start-up grants for producers’ organisations recognised pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables [11].
S členom 124(1) in (2) zakona št. 32/2000 so določene zagonske dotacije za organizacije proizvajalcev, priznane na podlagi Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1035/72 z dne 18. maja 1972 o skupni ureditvi trga za sadje in zelenjavo [11].
Such aid, which is granted for a duration of five years, covers 100 % of the costs incurred by the organisation in the first year and must decrease by 20 % annually in the following years, reaching zero at the end of this period.
Taka pomoč, ki se dodeli za pet let, pokriva 100 % stroškov zadevne organizacije v prvem letu in se mora v vsakem naslednjem letu zmanjšati za 20 %, tako da je ob koncu tega obdobja enaka nič.
In addition, aid cannot be granted after the fifth year or after the organisation has been recognised for seven years.
Poleg tega pomoči ni mogoče dodeliti po petem letu ali po tem, ko je organizacija priznana sedem let.
The aid is financed with part of the EUR 3615198 earmarked for all of the measures provided for by Article 124.
Pomoč se financira iz dela zneska v višini 3615198 EUR, ki je namenjen za vse ukrepe na podlagi člena 124.
In their letter of 13 August 2003, the Italian authorities stated their intention to amend the Law in such a way as to bring the procedure for granting the aid into line with those laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72.
Italijanski organi so v dopisu z dne 13. avgusta 2003 navedli, da nameravajo zadevni zakon spremeniti tako, da se bo postopek dodelitve pomoči skladal s postopki iz Uredbe (EGS) št. 1035/72.
They also pointed out that only the following organisations would be able to avail themselves of the aid:
Hkrati so poudarili, da se bodo lahko za pomoč potegovale le navedene organizacije:
ASPROSUD of Messina, recognised on 13 March 1992, for the fourth and fifth year after recognition (1995 and 1996);
ASPROSUD iz Mesine, priznana 13. marca 1992, za četrto in peto leto po priznanju (1995 in 1996),
Sicilia Verde of Bagheria, recognised on 8 July 1993, for the third, fourth and fifth year after recognition (1996, 1997 and 1998);
Sicilia Verde iz Bagherie, priznana 8. julija 1993, za tretje, četrto in peto leto po priznanju (1996, 1997 in 1998),
AGRISUD of Vittoria, recognised on 15 November 1994, for the second, third, fourth and fifth year after recognition (1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999);
AGRISUD iz Vittorie, priznana 15. novembra 1994, za drugo, tretje, četrto in peto leto po priznanju (1996, 1997, 1998 in 1999),
APRO FRUS of Capo d’Orlando, recognised on 23 November 1990, for the fourth and fifth year after recognition (1994-1995 and 1995-1996).
APRO FRUS iz Capa d'Orlando, priznana 23. novembra 1990, za četrto in peto leto po priznanju (1994–1995 in 1995–1996).
INITIATION OF THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 88(2) OF THE TREATY
ZAČETEK POSTOPKA IZ ČLENA 88(2) POGODBE
The Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in relation to the aid under Article 99(2)(a) and Article 124(1) and (2) of Law No 32/2000 (as regards the agriculture sector in the first case and as regards the organisations ASPROSUD, Sicilia Verde and APRO FRUS in the second) as it had doubts as to its compatibility with the common market.
Komisija je začela postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe v zvezi s pomočjo iz člena 99(2)(a) ter člena 124(1) in (2) zakona št. 32/2000 (v prvem primeru glede kmetijskega sektorja, v drugem pa glede organizacij ASPROSUD, Sicilia Verde in APRO FRUS), saj je dvomila o njeni združljivosti s skupnim trgom.
With regard to the aid under Article 99(2)(a) of Law No 32/2000 for the agriculture sector, the very principle of granting a guarantee presupposes the existence of a loan.
Kar zadeva pomoč iz člena 99(2)(a) zakona št. 32/2000 za kmetijski sektor, že samo načelo dodelitve poroštva vključuje obstoj posojila.
The list of schemes to which the provision of guarantees can be applied, which was sent by the Italian authorities at the Commission’s request, included several schemes which would be difficult to finance through loans, given the nature of the measures envisaged (for example, it was hard to imagine that aid intended to cover insurance premiums in the agriculture sector could take the form of a loan).
Seznam programov, za katere se lahko uporabi določba o poroštvih, ki so ga na zahtevo Komisije poslali italijanski organi, je vključeval več programov, ki bi težko pridobili sredstva s posojili ob upoštevanju narave predvidenih ukrepov (na primer, težko je razumljivo, da lahko pomoči, namenjene kritju zavarovalnih premij v kmetijskem sektorju, prevzamejo obliko posojila).
Another element that led the Commission to doubt the compatibility of the aid under Article 99(2)(a) of Law No 32/2000 with the common market is the possibility for it to be granted in combination with application of the measures provided for by Article 124(1) and (2) of the Law.
Komisija je o združljivosti pomoči iz člena 99(2)(a) zakona št. 32/2000 s skupnim trgom podvomila tudi zato, ker je mogoče njeno dodelitev kumulirati z uporabo ukrepov, določenih v členu 124(1) in (2) tega zakona.
The Commission could not avoid doubting its compatibility, given that there were also reservations as to the eligibility of the aid under Article 124(1) and (2).
Komisija se ni mogla izogniti dvomu o združljivosti te pomoči, saj je imela zadržke tudi glede upravičenosti pomoči iz člena 124(1) in (2).
Lastly, the Commission did not have information on how the Italian authorities would check that combining the potential aid element of the guarantees and the aid for the schemes to which such guarantees were applicable did not lead to the eligible aid percentages being exceeded in relation to those schemes.
Nazadnje Komisija ni imela niti podatkov o tem, kako bodo italijanski organi preverili, da kumulacija potencialnega elementa pomoči, ki ga vsebujejo poroštva, in pomoči za programe, za katere je mogoče uporabiti taka poroštva, ne bo privedla do preseganja dopustnih odstotnih deležev pomoči v zvezi z zadevnimi programi.
As regards the aid under Article 124(1) and (2) of Law No 32/2000, the Italian authorities had clarified that this was intended exclusively to settle outstanding payments of grants to producers’ organisations recognised pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72.
Kar zadeva pomoč iz člena 124(1) in (2) zakona št. 32/2000, so italijanski organi pojasnili, da je bil njen izključni namen poravnati neodplačane dotacije organizacijam proizvajalcev, priznanim na podlagi Uredbe (EGS) št. 1035/72.
These grants should have already been paid, but was not the case because the EAGGF had not guaranteed financial coverage for the financial commitments made at Italian level.
Ta poroštva bi morala biti že plačana, vendar se to ni zgodilo, ker EKUJS ni zagotovil finančnega kritja za finančne obveznosti na ravni Italije.
The Italian authorities had added that the aid could be received only by entities that had acquired a right to the aid prior to 21 November 1996 (the date of entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables [12], which replaced Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72), and had not forfeited that right.
Italijanski organi so dodali, da lahko pomoč prejmejo le subjekti, ki so pravico do nje pridobili pred 21. novembrom 1996 (datumom, ko je začela veljati Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2200/96 z dne 28. oktobra 1996 o skupni ureditvi trga za sadje in zelenjavo [12], ki je nadomestila Uredbo (EGS) št. 1035/72) in jim ta pravica ni zapadla.
When examining the aid dossier, the Commission had been able to establish that, by virtue of Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, any rights acquired by producers’ organisations prior to the entry into force of the Regulation, pursuant to Article 14 and Title IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72, would be maintained until they were exhausted, and that, if all the conditions under Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 were met, any national aid granted under that Article would, ipso jure, be compatible with the rules governing the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables and should not be subject to any further examination in the light of the rules applicable to State aid [13].
Komisija je ob preučevanju dokumentacije o pomoči lahko ugotovila, da se na podlagi člena 53 Uredbe (ES) št. 2200/96 vse pravice, ki so jih organizacije proizvajalcev pridobile pred začetkom veljavnosti navedene uredbe na podlagi člena 14 in naslova IIa Uredbe (EGS) št. 1035/72, ohranijo, dokler niso izčrpane, ter da je zato vsaka državna pomoč, dodeljena na podlagi člena 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1035/72, če so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz tega člena, ipso iure združljiva s pravili, s katerimi je urejen skupni trg za sadje in zelenjavo, in je zato ni mogoče še dodatno preučevati z vidika pravil, ki se uporabljajo za državno pomoč [13].
On the basis of these considerations, the Italian authorities undertook to amend the procedures for granting the aid provided for, so as to bring it into line with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 (see recitals 19 and 20).
Italijanski organi so na podlagi navedenih ugotovitev spremenili postopke dodelitve določenih pomoči, da bi jih uskladili z določbami Uredbe (EGS) št. 1035/72 (glej uvodni izjavi 19 in 20).
However, the Commission noted on the list of beneficiaries supplied by the Italian authorities that, for the organisations referred to in recital 21, the aid laid down would be paid long after the deadline of seven years after recognition of the organisation and that, as a result, all the conditions of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 would no longer be met (since one of these conditions lays down that the aid must be paid over five years up to at most seven years following recognition) and that, in consequence, the aid would have to be examined in the light of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty.
Vendar je Komisija na podlagi seznama upravičencev, ki so ga predložili italijanski organi, ugotovila, da bo organizacijam, navedenim v uvodni izjavi 21, zagotovljena pomoč izplačana dolgo po izteku sedmih let po priznanju posameznih organizacij in zato ne bodo več izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz člena 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1035/72 (z enim od njih je namreč določeno, da je treba pomoč izplačati v roku od pet do največ sedem let po priznanju), kar pomeni, da je treba pomoč preučiti z vidika členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe.
During this examination in the light of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty, the Commission established that, since Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 had been repealed by Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, granting of aid on the basis of a provision that no longer existed to organisations whose rights had lapsed (thus rendering inapplicable Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, to which reference is made in recital 27) would interfere with the operation of the mechanisms for the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables established by Regulation (EC) No 2200/96.
Ker je bila Uredba (EGS) št. 1035/72 razveljavljena z Uredbo (ES) št. 2200/96, je Komisija na podlagi preučitve z vidika členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ugotovila, da je dodelitev pomoči na podlagi določbe, ki več ne obstaja, organizacijam, katerih pravice so prenehale veljati (in zato ni mogoče uporabiti člena 53 Uredbe (ES) št. 2200/96, navedenega v uvodni izjavi 27), v nasprotju z delovanjem mehanizmov za skupno ureditev trga za sadje in zelenjavo, vzpostavljenih z Uredbo (ES) št. 2200/96.
By virtue of point 3.2 of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector, the Commission may in no case approve aid that is incompatible with the provisions governing the common organisation of a market or that would interfere with the proper functioning thereof.
Komisija na podlagi točke 3.2 smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju ne more v nobenem primeru odobriti pomoči, ki bi bila nezdružljiva z ureditvijo skupnega trga ali ki bi nasprotovala pravilnemu delovanju zadevne ureditve.
Accordingly, the Commission could not avoid doubting that the aid was compatible with the common market.
Komisija je morala zato podvomiti, ali je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom.
These doubts were bolstered by the fact that aid granted in the circumstances outlined would constitute aid with retroactive effect, which is explicitly prohibited in accordance with point 3.6 of the Community guidelines on State aid in the agriculture sector, as it is completely lacking the necessary incentive element that must characterise aid in the agricultural sector, except for aid of a compensatory nature.
Ti dvomi so bili podkrepljeni z dejstvom, da je pomoč, dodeljena v opisanih okoliščinah, retroaktivna pomoč, ki je izrecno prepovedana v točki 3.6 smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju zaradi popolnega pomanjkanja potrebnega spodbujevalnega elementa, ki mora biti prisoten v vseh pomočeh v kmetijskem sektorju (z izjemo kompenzacijskih pomoči).
Lastly, the Commission also had doubts as to the validity of the argument that the EAGGF had not guaranteed financial coverage of the commitments made at Italian level, since cofinancing of the establishment of producers’ organisations involves automatic reimbursement by the EAGGF of part of the aid approved in the context of the common organisation of the market.
Nazadnje je Komisija podvomila tudi o veljavnosti trditve, da EKUJS ni zagotovil finančnega kritja za obveznosti na ravni Italije, saj sofinanciranje ustanovitve organizacij proizvajalcev pomeni, da se iz EKUJS samodejno povrne del zneska pomoči, odobrene v okviru skupne ureditve trga.
By letter dated 26 August 2004, registered as received on 30 August 2004, letter dated 24 November 2004, registered as received on 26 November 2004, and letter dated 26 October 2005, registered as received on 28 October 2005, the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union sent the Commission the Italian authorities’ reply to initiation of the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty in relation to the aid under Article 99(2)(a) and Article 124(1) and (2) of Law No 32/2000 (as regards the agriculture sector in the first case and as regards the organisations ASPROSUD, Sicilia Verde and APRO FRUS in the second).
Stalno predstavništvo Italije pri Evropski uniji je z dopisom z dne 26. avgusta 2004, evidentiranim 30. avgusta 2004, dopisom z dne 24. novembra 2004, evidentiranim 26. novembra 2004, in dopisom z dne 26. oktobra 2005, evidentiranim 28. oktobra 2005, Komisiji poslalo odgovor italijanskih organov na začetek postopka na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe v zvezi s pomočjo iz člena 99(2)(a) ter člena 124(1) in (2) zakona št. 32/2000 (v prvem primeru glede kmetijskega sektorja, v drugem pa glede organizacij ASPROSUD, Sicilia Verde in APRO FRUS).
In their letter dated 26 August 2004, the Italian authorities sent the following requests and comments concerning the aid under Article 99(2)(a) of Law No 32/2000:
Italijanski organi so z dopisom z dne 26. avgusta 2004 poslali spodaj navedene zahteve in pripombe glede pomoči iz člena 99(2)(a) zakona št. 32/2000:
they asked that some schemes mentioned in the list referred to in recital 22 be removed from the list, as they had established that, in practice, they could not be financed through loans;
zahtevali so, naj se nekateri programi, vključeni na seznam, naveden v uvodni izjavi 22, odstranijo s tega seznama, saj so ugotovili, da jih v praksi ne bi bilo mogoče financirati s posojili,
they clarified that, for the schemes still included on the aforementioned list, the guarantee would concern only the private part of the investment where the scheme had already been approved and funded, and the whole eligible amount where the scheme had already been approved but not yet funded, but that, regardless of the case considered, the gross grant equivalent of the guarantee could not exceed the maximum aid permitted by the scheme in question (there was provision for checks on a sample of at least 5 % of the self-certifications requested from the beneficiaries);
pojasnili so, da bo poroštvo za programe, ki so še vedno vključeni na zgoraj navedeni seznam, zadevalo le zasebni del vložka, če je bil program že odobren in financiran, ter ves upravičeni znesek, če je bil program že odobren, vendar še ni bil financiran, da pa bruto ekvivalent dotacije v nobenem primeru ne bo mogel preseči najvišje pomoči, dovoljene na podlagi zadevnega programa (določena so bila preverjanja na podlagi vsaj 5-odstotnega vzorca samopotrdil, ki se zahtevajo od upravičencev),
they confirmed that they would draw up the implementing rules for Article 99(2)(a) of Law No 32/2000 and that these rules would include the aforementioned list.
potrdili so, da bodo opredelili pravila za izvajanje člena 99(2)(a) zakona št. 32/2000 in da bodo ta pravila vključevala zgoraj navedeni seznam.
In the same letter, the Italian authorities made the following comments on the aid under Article 124(1) and (2) of Law No 32/2000 for the three organisations referred to in recital 21:
Italijanski organi so v istem dopisu navedli spodnje pripombe glede pomoči iz člena 124(1) in (2) zakona št. 32/2000, kar zadeva tri organizacije, navedene v uvodni izjavi 21:
they asserted that, in their view, the position adopted by the Commission in the context of aid dossier N 157/2000 had to be followed in the matter at hand too and that the aid laid down for the three organisations in question should not be subject to an examination in the light of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty;
navedli so, da bi morala po njihovem mnenju Komisija tudi v tem primeru ravnati v skladu s stališčem, ki ga je sprejela v okviru dokumentacije o pomoči N 157/2000, zato naj pomoči, določene za navedene tri organizacije, ne bi bilo mogoče preučevati z vidika členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe,
they referred back to the provisions of Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, on the basis of which any rights acquired by producers’ organisations are maintained until they are exhausted (and thus until final settlement of the grant), so as to stress that the right was acquired when the organisation made an application in due form and that, in the matter at hand, all the applications had been submitted within the deadline of seven years after recognition and that the right could not be prejudiced by a delay by the public authorities, in general terms, in seeking appropriate funds to settle the aid;
ponovno so se sklicevali na določbe člena 53 Uredbe (ES) št. 2200/96, v skladu s katerimi vse pravice, ki so jih pridobile organizacije proizvajalcev, veljajo, dokler niso izčrpane (torej do dokončne poravnave dotacije), s čimer so želeli poudariti, da je bila pravica pridobljena, ko je organizacija zanjo zaprosila v predpisani obliki, da so bile v obravnavanem primeru vse prošnje predložene v sedmih letih po priznanju in da v splošnem zamuda javnih organov pri iskanju ustreznih sredstev za poravnavo pomoči ne more vplivati na zadevno pravico,
they confirmed the amendment to Law No 32/2000 referred to in recital 20.
potrdili so spremembo zakona št. 32/2000, navedeno v uvodni izjavi 20.
By letter received on 24 November 2004, the Italian authorities sent a copy of Article 12 of Regional Law No 15 of 5 November 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Law No 15/2004’) amending, inter alia, Articles 99 and 124 of Law No 32/2000.
Italijanski organi so z dopisom z dne 24. novembra 2004 predložili kopijo člena 12 regionalnega zakona št. 15 z dne 5. novembra 2004 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zakon št. 15/2004), s katerim sta bila med drugim spremenjena člena 99 in 124 zakona št. 32/2000.
With regard to Article 99 of Law No 32/2000, Article 12(2) and (4) of Law No 15/2004 increased the number of potential beneficiaries of the measures provided for, by including undertakings that do not belong to organisations and that assume the burden of administrative expenses linked to the provision of a guarantee, and laid down that, for the 2000-06 period, the maximum amount earmarked for the measures under the Article was EUR 20000000.
Kar zadeva člen 99 zakona št. 32/2000, se je na podlagi člena 12(2) in (4) zakona št. 15/2004 povečalo število potencialnih upravičencev do določenih ukrepov, saj so bila mednje všteta tudi podjetja, ki niso vključena v organizacije in prevzamejo breme upravnih stroškov, povezanih z zagotovitvijo poroštva, s tem členom pa je bilo še določeno, da se lahko za obdobje med letoma 2000 in 2006 za ukrepe na podlagi navedenega člena nameni pomoč v višini največ 20 milijonov EUR.
Meanwhile, Article 12(8) of Law No 15/2004 introduced a new paragraph 2 to Article 124 of Law No 32/2000, replacing the procedures for granting the aid described in recital 19 above with procedures in line with Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72.
Medtem je bil s členom 12(8) zakona št. 15/2004 v člen 124 zakona št. 32/2000 vstavljen nov odstavek 2, s katerim so bili postopki za dodelitev pomoči, opisani v uvodni izjavi 19 zgoraj, nadomeščeni s postopki, ki so v skladu s členom 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1035/72.