natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The report in question does not call into question the analysis made by IKC and the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture at the time, but does include information that was not sent to the Commission before the decision to open the procedure and which was not mentioned in the documents previously sent to the Commission.
Zadevno poročilo ne izpodbija analize, ki sta jo takrat opravila IKC in ministrstvo LNV, ampak vsebuje element, ki pred odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka ni bil posredovan Komisiji in ni bil naveden v dokumentih, ki so bili pred tem poslani Komisiji.
The 2-litre container mentioned was already very successful on the British and American markets.
Omenjena dvolitrska embalaža je že doživela velik uspeh na britanskem in ameriškem trgu.
Farm Dairy was the first to put this type of container on the market.
Farm Dairy je bilo prvo podjetje, ki je dalo na trg to vrsto embalaže.
Consequently, Farm Dairy proved to be a trail-blazer, the 2-litre container becoming commonplace in the Netherlands.
Nato se je izkazalo, da je Farm Dairy pionir, saj je dvolitrska embalaža na Nizozemskem postala običajna.
On the basis of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission is obliged to consider the different information it is sent and examine all the necessary points of view, in particular by requesting information from the recipients, in order to make a finding in full knowledge of all the facts relevant at the time of adoption of its decision [14].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije mora Komisija upoštevati različne predložene elemente in pridobiti vsa potrebna stališča, tako da zlasti od upravičencev zahteva informacije, da bi lahko sprejela odločitev na podlagi celostnega spoznanja relevantnih dejstev na datum sprejetja odločbe. [14]
In the case in question, the Commission asked the Netherlands to confirm the information provided by Farm Dairy.
V zadevnem primeru je Komisija Nizozemsko prosila za potrditev elementov, ki jih navaja Farm Dairy.
The Netherlands confirmed the information from Farm Dairy and provided three separate documents (see supra recitals 51 to 53) proving the innovative nature of the investment relating to the 2-litre containers.
Ta je potrdila navedbe Farm Dairy in predložila tri neodvisne dokumente (glej uvodne izjave od 51 do 53), ki dokazujejo inovativnost naložbe v dvolitrsko embalažo.
This information shows, on one hand, that the Netherlands did not take account of the element of investment for the part concerning the 2-litre containers when evaluating the innovative character, undoubtedly because the examination was on the basis of the SPD criteria and not specifically on the basis of the guidelines mentioned.
Iz teh informacij po eni strani izhaja, da Nizozemska pri oceni inovativnosti ni upoštevala naložbe v dvolitrsko embalažo, nedvomno zato, ker je bil pregled opravljen na podlagi meril iz EPD in ne posebej na podlagi omenjenega okvira.
On the other hand, the Netherlands did use independent experts who knew the market and the way in which dairy products were placed on the market.
Po drugi strani je Nizozemska vključila neodvisne strokovnjake, ki so poznali trg in način dajanja mlečnih izdelkov na trg.
The studies conducted by these experts showed that, in fact, Farm Dairy was the first company to put this type of container on the Dutch market.
Študije teh strokovnjakov so pokazale, da je bilo podjetje Farm Dairy dejansko prvo podjetje, ki je dalo to vrsto embalaže na nizozemski trg.
On the basis of this new information presented by the authorities and by Farm Dairy following the opening of the procedure, the Commission considers that the introduction and production of the 2-litre containers is of an innovative nature.
Na podlagi teh novih elementov, ki so jih predložili organi in Farm Dairy po sprožitvi postopka, Komisija meni, da sta uvedba in proizvodnja dvolitrske embalaže inovativni.
As far as the make-to-order concept is concerned, the question is similar: are the clarifications provided by Farm Dairy and by the Netherlands liable to modify the assessment made by the Commission at the time of the opening of the procedure?
V zvezi z zasnovo „make-to-order“ se postavlja podobno vprašanje: ali pojasnila Farm Dairy in Nizozemske lahko spremenijo presojo Komisije z začetka postopka?
The Netherlands and Farm Dairy had already used these arguments in previous correspondence.
Te argumente sta Nizozemska in Farm Dairy že navedla v prejšnjih dopisih.
No other innovation was shown for the ‘make-to-order’ concept.
Za zasnovo „make-to-order“ ni bila dokazana nobena druga inovacija.
It is also important to verify whether production is in line with demand, as required by the first exception mentioned in Decision 94/173/EC.
Treba je tudi preveriti, ali proizvodnja ustreza gibanju povpraševanja, kot določa prva izjema iz Odločbe 94/173/ES.
From the information supplied to the Commission (see recital 43), the demand for these products mainly came from supermarkets and that contracts had been concluded with at least five supermarkets.
Iz informacij, predloženih Komisiji (glej uvodno izjavo 43), izhaja, da so po teh izdelkih povpraševale predvsem veleblagovnice in da so bile sklenjene pogodbe z najmanj petimi veleblagovnicami.
The Commission considers that this is a serious indication that the innovation was in line with trends in demand.
Komisija meni, da je to zanesljiv znak, da inovacija ustreza gibanju povpraševanja.
This is corroborated by the fact that [x], cited by the Netherlands (see recital 55) significantly increased its turnover thanks to the milk sold by Farm Dairy.
To potrjuje dejstvo, da je […], na katerega se sklicuje Nizozemska (glej uvodno izjavo 55), z mlekom Farm Dairy močno povečal svoj promet.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that the conditions for the first exception are met for the case in question for the investment part concerning the 2-litre containers, given that the investment had an innovative nature in line with trends in demand.
Komisija zato meni, da so v zadevnem primeru za naložbo v dvolitrsko embalažo izpolnjeni pogoji za prvo izjemo, ker je naložba inovativna in ustreza gibanju povpraševanja.
Based on the information supplied to it after opening the formal examination procedure, the Commission must conclude that the conditions of this first exception are met.
Komisija na podlagi informacij, predloženih po sprožitvi uradnega postopka pregleda, ne more ugotoviti, da pogoji za prvo izjemo ne bi bili izpolnjeni.
The Commission does not as a matter of course have to examine which information it could have been sent, but the Commission should, on one hand, examine all the necessary points of view and, on the other hand, base itself on the information it has at the time it adopts its decision [15].
Komisija namreč ni dolžna po uradni dolžnosti ugotavljati, katere informacije bi ji lahko bile predložene, ampak mora po eni strani pridobiti vsa potrebna stališča in se po drugi strani opreti na vse informacije, ki jih ima ob sprejetju odločitve.
In the case in question, on the one hand the Commission opened the procedure and asked the Netherlands, by letter dated 18 September 2009, to confirm certain information mentioned by Farm Dairy in its comments.
Po eni strani je Komisija v zadevnem primeru začela postopek in z dopisom z dne 18. septembra 2009 pozvala Nizozemsko, naj potrdi določene elemente, ki jih Farm Dairy navaja v svojih pripombah.
In this way, the Commission thus used all the means at its disposal to obtain information from third parties or from the Member State.
S tem je Komisija torej uporabila vsa sredstva, ki jih ima, za pridobitev informacij od tretjih oseb ali države članice.
On the other hand, in this decision, the Commission is basing itself on all the information received after opening the procedure.
Po drugi strani se Komisija v tem sklepu opira na vse informacije, ki jih je prejela po sprožitvi postopka.
However, no contrary information was provided that indicated that the investment for the part concerning the 2-litre containers was neither innovative nor in line with trends in demand.
Vendar ni bila predložena nobena nasprotna informacija, v skladu s katero naložba v dvolitrsko embalažo ni inovativna niti ustrezna glede na gibanje povpraševanja.
In view of the fact that the criteria mentioned in the guidelines in connection with Decision 94/173/EC are met with regard to the innovative character of the investment in relation to the 2-litre containers, but not for the rest of the investment, the costs relating to this investment must be isolated to allow the maximum aid intensity to be deducted from them.
Glede na to, da so merila iz Okvira v povezavi z Odločbo 94/173/ES izpolnjena za inovativnost naložbe, povezane z dvolitrskimi steklenicami, ne pa za ostali del naložbe, je treba stroške za to naložbo ločiti od ostalih, da se zanje določi največja intenzivnost pomoči.
The Dutch authorities indicated that a total of FL 1840000 (i.e. EUR 834956) was devoted to the specific investment for the 2-litre containers.
Nizozemski organi so navedli, da je posebna naložba v dvolitrsko embalažo znašala 1840000 FL (tj. 834956 EUR).
The Dutch authorities added the cost of a quarter of the packaging lines to this, given that of the four packaging lines, only one line was dedicated entirely to filling the 2-litre containers.
Temu so nizozemski organi prišteli četrtino stroška za polnilnice, kajti samo ena od štirih polnilnic bo v celoti namenjena polnjenju dvolitrskih steklenic.
The total sum thus amounted to FL 4776250 (i.e. EUR 2167367) (see recital 53).
Skupni znesek je torej 4776250 FL (tj. 2167367 EUR) (glej uvodno izjavo 53).
No general cost (such as the building or the grounds) was included in this total.
V skupni znesek ni vključen noben splošni strošek (na primer za stavbe ali zemljišča).
The maximum aid intensity should thus be evaluated with respect to these eligible costs.
Zato je treba največjo intenzivnost pomoči oceniti z vidika teh upravičenih stroškov.
As Flevoland was an Objective 1 region at the time of the application for investment, aid could be awarded for up to 75 % of the eligible costs.
Ob predložitvi zahtevka za naložbo je bil Flevoland regija Cilja 1, zato dodeljena pomoč lahko predstavlja do 75 % upravičenih stroškov.
The subsidy granted — EUR 715909 — represents less than 75 % of the eligible costs.
Dodeljena nepovratna sredstva v višini 715909 EUR predstavljajo manj kot 75 % upravičenih stroškov.
Thus, the proposed investment is compatible with the rules on State aid.
Zato je predlagana naložba združljiva s pravili o državnih pomočeh.
The existence of outlets and the shortage of capacity
Obstoj prodajnih možnosti in nezadostne zmogljivosti
Given that the conditions for the first exception mentioned in point 2.3 of the Annex to Decision 94/173/EC are met, and that this allows the aid awarded to be approved in full, there is no need to rule on the fact that the other exception conditions are met.
Ker so izpolnjeni pogoji za prvo izjemo iz točke 2.3 Priloge k Odločbi 94/173/ES in ker to omogoča, da se odobri celotna dodeljena pomoč, ni treba odločati o tem, ali so izpolnjeni pogoji za druge izjeme.
The manufacture of products using traditional or organic methods as defined by Community rules
Priprava izdelkov po tradicionalnih ali ekoloških metodah, kot so opredeljene v predpisih Skupnosti
As for point (b) above, the analysis of this third exception is not necessary insofar as the analysis of the first exception allowed the aid in question to be deemed compatible.
Tako kot za točko (b) zgoraj analiza tretje izjeme ni potrebna, ker je analiza prve izjeme pokazala, da je zadevna pomoč združljiva.
Moreover, this point does not seem relevant in view of the investment project in question which has nothing at all to do with the manufacture of products using traditional or organic methods.
Poleg tega ta točka ni ustrezna glede na zadevni naložbeni projekt, ki nikakor ne zadeva priprave izdelkov po tradicionalnih ali ekoloških metodah.
Consequently, the Commission considers that the measure in question cannot benefit from the exemptions provided for in point 3(d) of the above guidelines.
Zato Komisija meni, da za navedeni ukrep ne velja odstopanje iz točke 3(d) navedenega okvira.
Other arguments examined during the opening of the procedure concerning the compatibility of the aid in full
Drugi argumenti, proučeni ob sprožitvi postopka v zvezi z združljivostjo celotne pomoči
During the opening of the procedure, the Commission had examined the compensation of damage following the non-award of the aid as a basis for approving the investment in full.
Komisija je ob sprožitvi postopka proučila nadomestilo za škodo zaradi zavrnitve dodelitve pomoči kot podlago za odobritev celotne naložbe.
During the preliminary phase, the Dutch authorities had indicated that the aid had been granted by way of compensation for damage suffered as a result of an error by the authorities in initially granting aid which had later turned out to be illegal and perhaps incompatible with the common market.
V fazi pred formalnim postopkom so nizozemski organi navedli, da je bila pomoč dodeljena kot nadomestilo za škodo, ki je nastala zaradi napake organov, ki so sprva dodelili pomoč, nato pa se je izkazalo, da je nezakonita in morda nezdružljiva.
The Court of Justice has indicated the payment of liquidated damages did not constitute aid [17].
Sodišče je navedlo, da plačilo odškodnine in obresti ni pomoč.
The Court based itself for this on the fact that State aid is fundamentally different in its legal nature from damages which the competent national authorities may be ordered to pay to individuals in compensation for the damage they have caused to those individuals.
Pri tem se je Sodišče oprlo na dejstvo, da imajo državne pomoči bistveno drugačno pravno naravo kot morebitne odškodnine, ki bi jih nacionalni organi morali plačati posameznikom kot nadomestilo za škodo, ki so jim jo povzročili.
Therefore, in principle the payment of liquidated damages does not give the beneficiary a benefit, as it is simply compensation for a right to which he is entitled.
Zato načeloma plačilo odškodnine upravičencu ne daje ugodnosti, ker gre samo za nadomestilo pravice, do katere je upravičen.
In the case in question, it is difficult to speak of the recipient having a right to compensation, given that this claimed right is based from the outset on illegal behaviour of the Member State.
V zadevnem primeru je težko govoriti o upravičenčevi pravici do nadomestila, ker domnevna pravica vse od začetka temelji na nezakonitem ravnanju države članice.
However, case law has consistently held that in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of State aid by the Commission under Article 108 of the Treaty, undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that Article.
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse namreč izhaja, da ob upoštevanju obveznosti nadzora, ki ga Komisija izvaja nad državnimi pomočmi v skladu s členom 108 PDEU, podjetja, ki jim je bila dodeljena pomoč, načeloma ne smejo legitimno pričakovati, da je pomoč zakonita, razen če je bila dodeljena ob upoštevanju postopka iz navedenega člena. Vesten gospodarski subjekt mora biti namreč navadno sposoben ugotoviti, ali je bil ta postopek spoštovan.
In the case in question, it must also be noted that the award of compensation would be tantamount to circumventing the prohibition on granting aid without the Commission’s approval.
V zadevnem primeru je treba tudi opozoriti, da bi dodelitev nadomestila pomenila izogibanje prepovedi dodeljevanja pomoči brez odobritve Komisije.
This is confirmed by the fact that, when Flevoland Province stated that the aid in question had been granted in the form of compensation for an error by the authorities, it was well aware that the aid should have been notified to the Commission for approval before being paid.
Navedeno potrjuje dejstvo, da se je pokrajina Flevoland, ko je navedla, da je zadevna pomoč dodeljena kot odškodnina za upravno napako, jasno zavedala, da bi bilo treba pomoč pred izplačilom predložiti Komisiji v soglasje.
Consequently, the Commission considers that the whole investment cannot be considered to be compatible because the aid in question would constitute compensation for the damage suffered by the beneficiary.
Zato Komisija meni, da celotne naložbe ni mogoče šteti za združljivo na podlagi dejstva, da naj bi bila zadevna pomoč nadomestilo za škodo, ki jo je utrpel upravičenec.
Other points raised by Farm Dairy in the context of initiating an investigation procedure
Drugi argumenti, ki jih je Farm Dairy navedel v okviru sprožitve postopka
Farm Dairy had contested the application of compound interest rates in the event of a negative decision from the Commission with recovery (see supra recital 47).
Farm Dairy je izpodbijal uporabo obrestnih obresti v primeru negativne odločbe Komisije z vračilom (glej uvodno izjavo 47).
Given that the decision in question concluded that the aid was compatible, the recovery of the illegal aid is not envisaged and the comments from Farm Dairy are therefore no longer relevant.
Ker je z zadevnim sklepom ugotovljena združljivost pomoči, ni vračila nezakonite pomoči, zato pripombe Farm Dairy niso več pomembne.
Conclusion
Ugotovitev
The State aid that the Netherlands granted to Farm Dairy is compatible for the part of the investment that concerns the new 2-litre containers.
Nizozemska državna pomoč za Farm Dairy je združljiva v delu naložbe, ki zadeva novo dvolitrsko embalažo.
The initial total of the aid was consequently recalculated in relation to this part of the total investment and it is clear from this calculation that the aid awarded is compatible with the requirements of the guidelines in connection with State aid in connection with investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products.
Začetni znesek pomoči je preračun glede na delež tega dela naložbe v celotni naložbi in iz izračuna izhaja, da je dodeljena pomoč združljiva z zahtevami iz okvira za državno pomoč za naložbe v sektorju predelave in trženja kmetijskih proizvodov.
The Commission regrets, however, that the Netherlands implemented the above aid measure in contravention of Article 108(3) of the TFEU,
Kljub temu Komisija obžaluje, da je Nizozemska pomoč odobrila v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU –
The State aid of EUR 715909 provided by the Netherlands to Farm Dairy is compatible with the internal market.
Nizozemska državna pomoč za Farm Dairy v znesku 715909 EUR je združljiva z notranjim trgom.
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Ta sklep je naslovljen na Kraljevino Nizozemsko.
As of 1 December 2009, Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty have become Articles 107 and 108, respectively, of the TFEU.
S 1. decembrom 2009 sta člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES postala člena 107 in 108 PDEU.
The two series of provisions are identical in substance.
Oba sklopa določb sta vsebinsko enaka.
For the purposes of this decision, the references to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU should be understood as referring to Articles 87 and 88 respectively of the EC Treaty, where necessary.
V tem sklepu je treba sklicevanje na člena 107 in 108 PDEU po potrebi razumeti kot sklicevanje na člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES.
OJ C 87, 16.4.2009, p. 5.
UL C 87, 16.4.2009, str. 5.
OJ C 29, 2.2.1996, p. 4.
UL C 29, 2.2.1996, str. 4.
OJ L 79, 23.3.1994, p. 29.
UL L 79, 23.3.1994, str. 29.
This information is confidential.
Zaupna informacija.
OJ L 91, 6.4.1990, p. 1.
UL L 91, 6.4.1990 str. 1.
TNO is an independent research organisation which works to apply scientific knowledge with the aim of strengthening the innovative power of industry and government (www.tno.nl).
TNO je neodvisno svetovalno podjetje, katerega namen je doseči uporabnost znanstvenih raziskav, da bi se povečala inovativna sposobnost podjetij in javnih organov (www.tno.nl).
According to the case law of the Court of Justice, the improvement of the competitive position of an undertaking resulting from a State aid generally proves a distortion of competition with other competing undertakings not receiving such aid (Case 730/79 [1980] ECR 2671, grounds 11 and 12).
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča izboljšanje konkurenčnega položaja podjetja zaradi državne pomoči praviloma dokazuje, da je glede na druga podjetja, ki niso prejela podobne pomoči, konkurenca izkrivljena (zadeva C-730/79, Recueil 1980, str. 2671, točki 11 in 12).
As far as the existence of intra-Community trade in the milk sector is concerned, see supra, recitals 44, 45 and 55, which the Commission considers to be well-founded.
V zvezi z obstojem trgovine znotraj Skupnosti na trgu z mlekom glej uvodne izjave 44, 45 in 55 zgoraj, za katere Komisija meni, da so utemeljeni.
In the letter of 15 July 1999 sent by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture to Flevoland Province, the Ministry noted that the project was not approved by the Commission and therefore refused to provide any financing itself.
Ministrstvo LNV v dopisu pokrajini Flevoland z dne 15. julija 1999 navede, da Komisija ni odobrila projekta in zato zavrača kakršno koli financiranje s strani LNV.
OJ L 91, 6.4.1990, p. 7.
UL L 91, 6.4.1990, str. 7.
CFI, 9 September 2009, Case T-369/06, Holland Malt v Commission, paragraph 195 (not yet published).
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 9. septembra 2009 v zadevi T-369/06, Holland Malt proti Komisiji, točka 195 (še neobjavljena).
Case T-369/06, op. cit., paragraphs 195-198.
Zadeva T-369/06, op. cit., točke 195–198.
ECJ, Joined Cases 106/87-120/87, Asteris and others v Greece and European Economic Community [1988] ECR I-5515.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 27. septembra 1988 v združenih zadevah C-106/87 do C-120/87, Asteris AE proti Grčiji in EGS, Recueil 1988, str. 5515.
ECJ, Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 14. januarja 1997 v zadevi C-169/95, Španija proti Komisiji, Recueil, str. I–135.
Following a request for a deadline extension and in view of the particular circumstances expressed by Farm Dairy, supplementary annexes to the letter of 18 May 2009 were sent to the Commission by letter of 15 June 2009, registered on 18 June 2009.
Na prošnjo Farm Dairy za podaljšanje roka in ob upoštevanju posebnih okoliščin, ki jih je navedlo to podjetje, so bile dodatne priloge k dopisu z dne 18. maja 2009 Komisiji poslane z dopisom z dne 15. junija 2009, evidentiranim 18. junija 2009.
Those observations were sent to the Dutch authorities by letter of 24 June 2009.
Te pripombe so bile poslane nizozemskim organom z dopisom z dne 24. junija 2009.
The Netherlands replied in turn by letter dated 17 July 2009, registered on the same day.
Nizozemski organi so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 17. julija 2009, evidentiranim istega dne.
The latter asked, by letter dated 16 October 2009, for the deadline for replying to be extended to 18 November 2009.
Ta je z dopisom z dne 16. oktobra 2009 zaprosila za podaljšanje roka za odgovor do 18. novembra 2009.
This extension was granted to them by letter dated 10 November 2009.
Ta rok ji je bil odobren z dopisom z dne 10. novembra 2009.
The Netherlands provided additional information by letter of 23 November, registered on the same day.
Nizozemska je z dopisom z dne 23. novembra, evidentiranim istega dne, predložila dodatne informacije.
The Province informed Farm Dairy of its proposal for compensation by letter dated 10 May 2001.
Pokrajina je podjetju Farm Dairy nadomestilo ponudila z dopisom z dne 10. maja 2001.
Farm Dairy accepted this proposal by letter dated 21 May 2001.
Farm Dairy je ponudbo sprejel z dopisom z dne 21. maja 2001.
In the month of August 1998, Farm Dairy applied to Flevoland Province for subsidies under the 1994-1999 SPD.
Farm Dairy je avgusta 1998 pokrajino Flevoland zaprosil za nepovratna sredstva v okviru EPD 1994–1999.
This SPD particularly emphasised the need to extend the possibilities concerning the processing and marketing of agricultural products in Flevoland Province.
Ta EPD je zlasti poudarjal, da je treba razširiti možnosti predelave in trženja kmetijskih proizvodov v pokrajini Flevoland.