natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The alternative to the conclusion of agreements provided for in point 51.1(b) cannot be applied in the present case since, during the part of the period under consideration that came after the 2001 guidelines became applicable, glasshouse growers enjoyed a total exemption from excise duty and thus did not pay an amount greater than the Community minimum [20], at such a level as to encourage them to take action to improve environmental protection, as provided for by the 2001 guidelines in cases where the reduction concerns a Community tax.
Nadomestnih rešitev sklepanju sporazumov, ki sta predvideni v zgoraj navedeni točki 51.1(b), ni mogoče uporabljati v obravnavanem primeru, ker so bili v delu upoštevanega obdobja po začetku uporabe Smernic iz leta 2001 pridelovalci v rastlinjakih upravičeni do popolne oprostitve plačila trošarin in torej niso plačali višjega zneska od najnižje vrednosti Skupnosti [20], da bi podjetja spodbujali k izboljšanju varstva okolja, kot je predvideno v teh smernicah v primeru, ko znižanje zadeva davek Skupnosti.
However, recital 52 of the 2001 guidelines states that where an existing tax is increased significantly and where the Member State concerned takes the view that derogations are needed for certain firms, the conditions set out in point 51.1 as regards new taxes are applicable by analogy.
Vendar je v točki 52 Smernic iz leta 2001 navedeno, da se pogoji iz točke 51.1 za nove davke uporabljajo po analogiji, če se obstoječi davek znatno poveča in če država članica meni, da so za nekatera podjetja potrebna odstopanja.
Therefore, it is first necessary to examine whether the excise duties increased significantly.
Treba je torej preučiti zlasti, ali so se trošarine znatno povečale.
The table in point 46 above shows that excise duties did not increase significantly, since their variation was as follows: – 5,4 % between 1999 and 2000, – 6,98 % between 1999 and 2001, + 1,9 % between 1999 and 2002 and + 1,3 % between 1999 and 2003.
Iz tabele, ki je podana v točki 46 te obrazložitve, je razvidno, da se trošarine niso znatno zvišale, saj so se gibale, kot sledi: –5,4 % v obdobju 1999–2000, –6,98 % v obdobju 1999–2001, +1,9 % v obdobju 1999–2002 in +1,3 % v obdobju 1999–2003.
From one year to the next, the variation was as follows: – 5,4 % from 1999 to 2000, – 1,6 % from 2000 to 2001, + 9,5 % from 2001 to 2002 and – 0,5 % from 2002 to 2003.
Od enega do drugega leta so se trošarine gibale, kot sledi: –5,4 % v obdobju 1999–2000, –1,6 % v obdobju 2000–2001, +9,5 % v obdobju 2001–2002 in –0,5 % v obdobju 2002–2003.
It can be seen, therefore, that excise duties have been constantly on the decline except between 2001 and 2002.
Očitno je torej, da se trošarine niso nehale zniževati, razen med letoma 2001 in 2002.
However, the increase seen during that period cannot be considered significant, since, in actual fact, it had practically no effect on trends in the consumer price of diesel for heating (according to the information in the table, the consumer price for diesel for heating increased by only 2,2 % over those two years).
Zabeležene rasti v tem obdobju pa vendarle ni mogoče šteti za znatno, ker v resnici ni imela skoraj nobenega vpliva na gibanje prodajnih cen plinskega olja za ogrevanje (na podlagi podatkov iz tabele se je prodajna cena plinskega olja za ogrevanje v teh dveh letih zvišala le za 2,2 %).
Accordingly, the provisions of point 52 of the 2001 guidelines cannot be applied in this case.
V tem primeru torej ni mogoče uporabljati določb iz točke 52 Smernic iz leta 2001.
Lastly, point 53 of the 2001 guidelines states that when the reductions concern a tax that has been harmonised at Community level and when the domestic tax is lower than or equal to the Community minimum, any exemptions granted must satisfy the conditions laid down in points 45 and 46 and must, in any event, be covered by an express authorisation to derogate from the Community minimum.
Končno je v točki 53 Smernic iz leta 2001 navedeno, da „če zmanjšanje zadeva davek, ki je harmoniziran na ravni Skupnosti, in če je domači davek nižji ali enak najmanjšemu davku Skupnosti, […] morajo odobrene izjeme izpolnjevati pogoje iz točk 45 in 46 ter morajo biti zajete v izrecno odobritev odstopanja od najnižje vrednosti Skupnosti“.
Point 45 of the 2001 guidelines states that the duration of the aid must be limited to five years where the aid is degressive and that the aid intensity may reach 100 % of the extra costs [21] in the first year, but must have fallen in a linear fashion to zero by the end of the fifth year.
V točki 45 Smernic iz leta 2001 je navedeno, da je trajanje vsake takšne pomoči omejeno na pet let, če je pomoč ‚upadajoča‘, in da intenzivnost pomoči lahko znaša do 100 % dodatnih stroškov [21] v prvem letu, vendar mora linearno padati do nič do konca petega leta.
Point 46 of the 2001 guidelines states that the duration of non-degressive aid is limited to five years and that its intensity must not exceed 50 % of the extra costs.
V točki 46 Smernic iz leta 2001 je navedeno, da je v primeru ‚neupadajoče‘ pomoči njeno trajanje omejeno na pet let, intenzivnost pa ne sme preseči 50 % dodatnih stroškov.
In the case under examination, the Commission has already noted that the aid was not degressive (see recital 88 above).
Komisija je že ugotovila, da v obravnavanem primeru pomoči niso bile „upadajoče“ (glej uvodno izjavo 88 te obrazložitve).
In consequence, only the provisions of point 46 of the guidelines could be applied to it.
Zaradi tega bi se zanje lahko uporabljale le določbe iz točke 46 Smernic.
However, the information supplied by the Italian authorities in no way allows the Commission to conclude that the aid intensity was limited to 50 % of the extra production costs generated by the excise duties by comparison with the market prices of products grown in glasshouses.
Toda podatki, ki so jih predložili italijanski organi, Komisiji nikakor ne omogočajo, da bi ugotovila, da intenzivnost pomoči ni presegla 50 % dodatnih stroškov, ki so nastali zaradi trošarin, v primerjavi s tržnimi cenami pridelkov iz rastlinjakov.
Accordingly, the aid cannot be considered eligible on the basis of the provisions of point 46 of the 2001 guidelines or, in consequence, on the basis of the provisions of point 53 thereof.
Teh pomoči torej ni mogoče šteti za upravičene na podlagi določb točke 46 Smernic iz leta 2001 in posledično niti na podlagi določb točke 53 istih Smernic.
The considerations set out in recitals 94-112 above demonstrate that the aid under examination cannot be declared compatible with the common market on the basis of the provisions of the 2001 guidelines.
Ugotovitve iz točk 94–112 dokazujejo, da obravnavanih pomoči ni mogoče razglasiti za združljive s skupnim trgom na podlagi določb Smernic iz leta 2001.
With regard to the other arguments put forward by the Italian authorities at the various stages of examination of the case, the Commission considers that there is no information allowing it to dispel the doubts expressed in recital 34(b) above.
Kar zadeva druge trditve italijanskih organov v raznih fazah obravnave svežnja, Komisija ugotavlja, da ni podatkov, ki bi pomagali pojasniti dvome, izražene v točki 34(b) te obrazložitve.
The argument referred to in recital 43 above that the measure adopted by Italy could be compatible with the common market if the beneficiaries paid the minimum amount set at Community level is not relevant, since glasshouse growers enjoyed a total exemption from excise duty for almost the whole period under examination and thus did not pay taxes.
Trditev iz uvodne izjave 43 te obrazložitve, da je ukrep na ravni Italije lahko združljiv s skupnim trgom, če upravičenci plačajo najnižji znesek, ki je določen na ravni Skupnosti, se ne upošteva, ker so bili pridelovalci v rastlinjakih upravičeni do popolne oprostitve trošarin v skoraj celotnem obravnavanem obdobju in torej niso plačevali davkov.
As for the arguments put forward by the interested third party which sent comments after the procedure was initially opened, they do not supply elements supporting the compatibility of the aid with the common market.
Trditve tretje strani, ki je poslala pripombe po začetku prvega postopka, same po sebi ne podprejo združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom.
Indeed, with regard to the difficulty of the situation in which the beneficiary undertakings would find themselves if the aid were declared incompatible and recovered, it should be recalled that recovery of incompatible aid is necessary to restore the previous situation, i.e. the situation without distorted competition that existed before the aid was granted.
Kar pa zadeva negotovost položaja, v katerem bi se znašla podjetja, ki so prejemala pomoč, v primeru razglasitve nezdružljivosti in vračila pomoči, naj spomnimo, da je vračilo nezdružljive pomoči potrebno za vzpostavitev položaja pred dodelitvijo pomoči, torej položaja brez izkrivljanja konkurence pred dodelitvijo pomoči.
The fact that certain undertakings are no longer profitable is simply the result of free competition under normal market economy conditions.
Dejstvo, da nekatera podjetja niso več donosna, je le posledica konkurence v normalnih tržnih razmerah.
On the other hand, there is no evidence that reducing diesel consumption necessarily brings about a reduction in the quality of products obtained (at most, such a reduction could slightly delay ripening or growth).
Po drugi strani ni nobenega dokaza, da zmanjšanje porabe plinskega olja nujno pomeni znižanje kakovosti pridelkov (tako zmanjšanje bi kvečjemu lahko malo podaljšalo čas zorenja in rasti).
Lastly, the reference to the situation in other countries in order to demonstrate that competition is not distorted is not relevant.
Končno, sklicevanje na razmere v drugih državah, da bi dokazali, da ni izkrivljanja konkurence, ni primerno.
In this connection, it is sufficient to note that the exemption allows the competitive position of Italian glasshouse growers to be improved as compared to the situation in other countries and that, therefore, the starting point for comparison must be the situation in Italy without the exemptions.
V zvezi s tem zadostuje ugotovitev, da oprostitev omogoča izboljšanje konkurenčnosti italijanskih pridelovalcev v rastlinjakih v primerjavi s konkurenčnostjo v drugih državah in da mora biti torej preizkusni kamen postavljen v razmere, ki so veljale v Italiji brez oprostitev.
CONCLUSION
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI
The Commission finds that Italy has unlawfully implemented the aid in question, contrary to Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Italija nezakonito dodeljevala zadevne pomoči v nasprotju s členom 88(3) Pogodbe.
The analysis set out above demonstrates that the aid cannot be declared compatible with the common market because it does not comply with the conditions of the 2000 and 2007 agricultural guidelines and the 1994 and 2001 environmental guidelines.
Zgoraj navedena analiza dokazuje, da pomoči ni mogoče razglasiti za združljive, ker ne izpolnjujejo zahtev iz kmetijskih smernic iz leta 2000 in 2007 ter iz okoljskih smernic iz leta 1994 in 2001.
Moreover, the analysis has demonstrated that the mere existence of Directives cannot justify the implementation of measures liable to distort competition, and the Italian authorities have not dispelled all the doubts expressed by the Commission when the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty was initiated.
Poleg tega je analiza dokazala, da le obstoj direktiv ne more upravičiti uporabe ukrepov, ki lahko povzročijo izkrivljanje konkurence, italijanski organi pa niso ovrgli vseh dvomov, ki jih je izrazila Komisija ob začetku postopka na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe.
Under Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, where negative decisions are taken in relation to unlawful aid, the Commission is to decide that the Member State concerned must take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary (in this case glasshouse growers).
Če se v primeru nezakonitih pomoči sprejmejo negativne odločbe, Komisija v smislu člena 14(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 sprejme odločitev, da mora država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč (v danem primeru pridelovalci v rastlinjakih).
Italy is thus required to take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the incompatible aid paid, the value of which corresponds to the difference between the total excise duty exemption granted and the reduced rate of excise duty granted to other operators in the agricultural sector.
Italija mora torej sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenci vrnejo neustrezno izplačano pomoč, katere znesek ustreza razliki med odobreno popolno oprostitvijo plačila trošarin in znižano trošarinsko stopnjo, ki je bila odobrena drugim pridelovalcem v kmetijskem sektorju.
Under point 42 of the Notice from the Commission ‘Towards an effective implementation of Commission decisions ordering Member States to recover unlawful and incompatible State aid’ [22], Italy has four months from the entry into force of this Decision to implement its provisions.
V smislu točke 42 Obvestila Komisije „Za učinkovito izvajanje odločb Komisije, ki od držav članic zahtevajo dosego vračila nezakonite in nezdružljive državne pomoči“ [22] ima Italija na voljo štiri mesece za izvedbo te odločbe od dne, ko je začela veljati.
The aid to be recovered must bear interest calculated in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [23] implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Pomoč, ki jo je treba vrniti, mora vključevati obresti, izračunane v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 [23] o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999.
However, any individual aid granted under the aid scheme under examination which, at the time it was granted, satisfied the conditions laid down in a Commission regulation adopted on the basis of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 [24] (the de minimis Regulation) is not considered to be State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Na podlagi vsega navedenega se posamezne pomoči, odobrene v okviru obravnavane sheme, ki so ob izplačilu izpolnjevale pogoje, predvidene v uredbi Komisije, sprejeti v skladu s členom 2 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 994/98 [24] (uredba de minimis), ne štejejo med državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
No Community provisions governing de minimis aid in the agricultural sector were in force when the aid under examination was granted.
Ob odobritvi obravnavanih pomoči še niso veljale določbe Skupnosti o pomočeh de minimis v kmetijstvu.
The first such Community provisions were those of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of 6 October 2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the agriculture and fisheries sectors [25].
Prve določbe Skupnosti, ki so bile sprejete na tem področju, so določbe Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1860/2004 z dne 6. oktobra 2004 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES za pomoči de minimis v kmetijstvu in ribištvu [25].
In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, aid not exceeding EUR 3000 per beneficiary over a three-year period (this amount constitutes the de minimis aid granted to the undertaking) does not affect trade between Member States and does not distort or threaten to distort competition and therefore is not covered by the prohibition under Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Pomoč, ki v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1860/2004 ne presega zgornje meje 3000 EUR na upravičenca v katerem koli obdobju treh let (v ta znesek je vključena pomoč de minimis, odobrena podjetju), ne vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, ne izkrivlja konkurence in ne pomeni nevarnosti izkrivljanja konkurence, zato ne spada med prepovedi iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, the same applies to aid granted before the entry into force of that Regulation provided that all the conditions laid down in Articles 1 and 3 thereof are satisfied.
Na podlagi člena 5 Uredbe (ES) št. 1860/2004 velja enako za pomoč, ki je bila odobrena pred začetkom veljavnosti te uredbe, če izpolnjuje vse pogoje iz členov 1 in 3.
On 1 January 2008, Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 was replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production [26], which increased the amount of de minimis aid to EUR 7500 per beneficiary over three tax years, irrespective of the form of the aid or the objective pursued, within a ceiling per Member State of 0,75 % the value of annual output.
1. januarja 2008 je Uredbo (ES) št. 1860/2004 nadomestila Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1535/2007 z dne 20. decembra 2007 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri pomočeh de minimis v sektorju kmetijske proizvodnje [26], ki je znesek pomoči de minimis povečala na 7500 EUR na upravičenca za obdobje treh davčnih let, ne glede na obliko pomoči ali njen namen, zgornjo mejo za državo članico pa na 0,75 % letne vrednosti proizvodnje.
Article 6(1) of that Regulation provides that the Regulation ‘[applies] to aid granted before 1 January 2008 to undertakings in the sector of agricultural production, provided that such aid fulfils all the conditions laid down in Articles 1 to 4, except for the reference requirement clearly set out in this Regulation in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1)’.
Člen 6(1) te uredbe določa, da se ta uredba „uporablja za pomoči, dodeljene pred 1. januarjem 2008 podjetjem v sektorju kmetijske proizvodnje pod pogojem, da navedene pomoči izpolnjujejo vse pogoje iz členov od 1 do 4, razen zahteve o izrecnem sklicu na to uredbo iz prvega pododstavka člena 4(1)“.
In this context, the Commission does not consider tax reductions not exceeding EUR 3000 to be State aid provided that, when they were granted, they complied with Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004. The same applies to tax reductions not exceeding EUR 7500 provided that, when they were granted, they complied with Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007,
V tem okviru Komisija med državne pomoči ne šteje davčnih oprostitev, ki ne presegajo zgornje meje 3000 EUR pod pogojem, da so bile ob odobritvi v skladu z določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 1860/2004, niti davčnih oprostitev, ki ne presegajo zgornje meje 7500 EUR pod pogojem, da so bile ob odobritvi v skladu z določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 1535/2007 –
The aid scheme in the form of an exemption from excise duties on diesel used for heating glasshouses, which was implemented unlawfully by Italy between 3 October 2000 and 30 June 2001 and in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004, is incompatible with the common market.
Shema pomoči v obliki oprostitve plačila trošarin za plinsko olje, ki se uporablja za ogrevanje rastlinjakov, ki jo je Italija nezakonito uporabljala od 3. oktobra 2000 do 30. junija 2001 ter v letih 2002, 2003 in 2004, ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Italy is required to recover from the beneficiaries the incompatible aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1.
Italija mora od upravičencev izterjati zneske nezdružljive pomoči, ki so jim bili dodeljeni v okviru sheme iz člena 1.
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until that of their actual recovery.
Izterjanim zneskom je treba prišteti obresti od dne, ko so bili dani na razpolago upravičencem, do dne njihovega dokončnega vračila.
The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.
Obresti se izračunajo na podlagi sestavljene obrestne mere, v skladu s poglavjem V Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2004.
Recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.
Vračilo pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene v okviru sheme iz člena 1, mora biti takojšnje in učinkovito.
Italy shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of its notification.
Italija poskrbi, da se ta odločba začne izvajati v štirih mesecih od datuma uradne objave.
Within two months of notification of this Decision, Italy shall submit the following information:
V dveh mesecih od uradne objave te odločbe Italija sporoči naslednje podatke:
a list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid received by each of them under the scheme;
seznam upravičencev, ki so prejeli pomoči v okviru sheme iz člena 1, in skupni znesek prejetih pomoči za vsakega posameznika v skladu s to shemo;
the total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from each beneficiary;
skupni znesek (glavnice in obresti), ki ga je treba izterjati od vsakega upravičenca;
a detailed description of the measures already taken and those planned to comply with this Decision;
podroben opis že sprejetih ali predvidenih ukrepov za uskladitev s to odločbo;
documents demonstrating that orders to return the aid have been sent to the beneficiaries.
dokumente, ki potrjujejo, da je bila odredba o vračilu pomoči poslana prejemnikom.
Italy shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 has been completed.
Italija Komisijo ves čas obvešča o napredku pri sprejemanju nacionalnih ukrepov za izvajanje te odločbe do vračila celotnega zneska pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene v okviru sheme iz člena 1.
It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, any information on the measures already taken and those planned to comply with this Decision.
Na zahtevo Komisije takoj posreduje informacije o ukrepih, ki jih je že sprejela ali predvidela za uskladitev s to odločbo.
It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.
Predloži tudi podrobne podatke o znesku pomoči in obresti, ki so jih prejemniki že vrnili.
Decision C(2003) 3802, notified to Italy by means of letter ref. SG(2003) D/232244 of 13 October 2003.
Odločba C(2003) 3802, posredovana Italiji z dopisom SG(2003) D/232244 z dne 13. oktobra 2003.
OJ C 69, 19.3.2004, p. 8.
UL C 69, 19.3.2004, str. 8.
OJ C 101, 27.4.2005, p. 17.
UL C 101, 27.4.2005, str. 17.
Letter ref. SG-Greffe (2008) D/207739.
Dopis SG-Greffe (2008) D/207739.
T-233/04 Netherlands v Commission [2008] ECR II-00591.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 10.4.2008, Nizozemska proti Komisiji, ZOdl str II-00591.
See Commission Decision 2006/323/EC (OJ L 119, 4.5.2006, p. 12).
Odločba Komisije 2006/323/ES (UL L 119, 4.5.2006, str. 12).
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland v Commission [1980] ECR 2671 .
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti (ECJ), sodba z dne 17.9.1980, Philip Morris, zadeva 730/79.
Except for certain provisions not relevant to the matter at hand.
Razen za nekatere določbe, ki niso pomembne v zadevnem primeru.
See footnote 13.
Primerjaj z opombo 13.
See footnote 5.
Primerjaj z opombo 5.
EUR 13 per 1000 kg for the 2000-2003 period and EUR 21 per 1000 litres – see recital 43.
13 EUR za 1000 kg v obdobju 2000–2003 in 21 EUR za 1000 litrov – glej uvodno izjavo 43.
Extra costs are defined in point 43 of the guidelines as extra production costs by comparison with the market prices of the products.
Dodatni stroški so opredeljeni v točki 43 Smernic: gre za dodatne stroške proizvodnje v primerjavi s tržnimi cenami pridelkov.
In the Italian authorities’ opinion, the expression ‘without prejudice’ used in that Article did not establish an obligation to comply with European competition rules, as was the case, by contrast, with Article 26 of Directive 2003/96/EC.
Italijanski organi menijo, da izraz „brez poseganja“, ki se uporablja v tem členu, ne predpisuje obveznega upoštevanja evropskih predpisov o konkurenci, kot to določa člen 26 Direktive 2003/96/ES.
If these two Directives had laid down the same requirement, the Community legislature would have had no reason to be more explicit in Article 26 of Directive 2003/96/EC.
Trdijo še, da zakonodajalec Skupnosti ne bi imel razloga za bolj nedvoumno formulacijo v členu 26 Direktive 2003/96/ES, če bi ti direktivi predvidevali enako obveznost.