natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As far as the make-to-order process was concerned, the Commission asked the Netherlands to comment on the information provided by Farm Dairy stating that this process constituted an innovation at the time of the application for investment.
V zvezi s postopkom „make-to-order“ je Komisija pozvala Nizozemsko, naj predloži pripombe k informacijam Farm Dairy, da je bil ta postopek v času zahtevka za naložbo inovacija.
Lastly, the Commission asked the Netherlands to comment on the existence of realistic outlets and shortage of capacity at the time the aid was awarded, by providing it with any study or document that may be useful in this respect.
Nazadnje je Komisija pozvala Nizozemsko, naj predloži pripombe k temu, da so v času dodelitve pomoči obstajale resnične prodajne možnosti, zmogljivosti pa so bile nezadostne, ter v zvezi s tem predloži vse primerne študije ali dokumente.
The Netherlands submitted the TNO report and letters sent by the NZO and [x].
Nizozemska je predložila poročilo TNO ter dopisa NZO in […].
This information shows that Farm Dairy was clearly the first to introduce the 2-litre containers on the Dutch market, and that these containers were an innovation in 1999, given that before then milk was sold only in 1 litre or 1,5 litre containers.
Iz teh informacij izhaja, da je bil Farm Dairy res prvo podjetje, ki je na nizozemski trg uvedlo dvolitrsko embalažo, in da je bila ta embalaža leta 1999 inovacija, kajti do tedaj je bilo mleko naprodaj v embalaži iz kartona s prostornino 1 liter ali l,5 litra.
This aspect was not taken into account during the IKC’s assessment and the Province was not aware of this aspect.
V oceni, ki jo je opravil IKC, ta vidik ni bil upoštevan, pokrajina pa o njem ni bila obveščena.
The Netherlands have indicated that this aspect would undoubtedly have changed the opinion given by the IKC at the time, by modifying the opinion on the innovative character of the project.
Nizozemska je navedla, da bi ta vidik nedvomno spremenil takratno mnenje IKC, tako da bi bilo mnenje o inovativnosti projekta drugačno.
Given that the IKC no longer exists, it is no longer possible to ask it for a second opinion.
Ker IKC ne obstaja več, od njega ni mogoče zahtevati drugega mnenja.
At the Commission’s request, the Netherlands sent a detailed list of the costs related only to the specific investment for the introduction of 2-litre containers.
Nizozemska je na zahtevo Komisije predložila podrobnosti o stroških, povezanih izključno z naložbo za uvedbo dvolitrske embalaže.
According to these figures, a total of FL 1840000 (i.e. EUR 834956) was devoted to the specific investment for the 2-litre containers.
Po teh podatkih 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, one line was dedicated entirely to filling the 2-litre containers.
Temu so nizozemski organi prišteli četrtino stroška za polnilnice, kajti ena od štirih polnilnic naj bi bila v celoti namenjena polnjenju dvolitrskih steklenic.
This sum amounted to FL 2936250 (i.e. EUR 1332412).
To znaša 2936250 FL (tj. 1332412 EUR).
The total sum thus amounted to FL 4776250 (i.e. EUR 2167367).
Skupni znesek je torej 4776250 FL (tj. 2167367 EUR).
With regard to the ‘make-to-order’ concept, the Commission asked the Netherlands to comment on its innovative character and to clarify whether the observations presented by Farm Dairy were liable to modify the earlier assessment, according to which the innovative nature of the project was quite poor.
V zvezi z zasnovo „make-to-order“ je Komisija pozvala Nizozemsko, naj predloži pripombe glede njene inovativnosti in navede, ali bi pripombe Farm Dairy lahko spremenile prejšnjo oceno, v skladu s katero projekt ni zelo inovativen.
The Netherlands replied that the IKC’s opinion considered that the project was innovative in part, in that the innovative character was not due to a product innovation but rather a market innovation.
Nizozemska je odgovorila, da je v skladu z mnenjem IKC projekt delno inovativen, ker ni vključeval inovativnih izdelkov, ampak tržne inovacije.
The assessment was made in the context of an application for co-financing from the Ministry of Agriculture.
Oceno je opravilo ministrstvo za kmetijstvo v okviru zahtevka za sofinanciranje.
However, the Netherlands invoked other arguments to justify the innovative character of the project. They claimed that the ‘make-to-order’ system had increased the efficiency of the milk supply, by allowing milk to be kept for a longer period, and that in a country where people primarily consume pasteurised milk (rather than sterilised milk which keeps for longer).
Vendar Nizozemska za utemeljitev inovativnosti projekta navaja še druge argumente: sistem „make-to-order“ je povečal učinkovitost dobave mleka, tako da ga je mogoče hraniti dalj časa, in to v deželi, kjer se uživa predvsem pasterizirano mleko (namesto steriliziranega, ki ima daljši rok uporabe).
The Netherlands also cited the TNO study with regard to the innovative nature of the make-to-order system.
V zvezi z inovativnostjo sistema „make-to-order“ Nizozemska navaja tudi študijo TNO.
This study indicates that the main system at the time was the ‘make-to-stock’ system, where a certain amount of stock is kept in reserve to be sold afterwards.
V tej je navedeno, da je takrat prevladoval sistem „make-to-stock“, v katerem se vzdržuje določena zaloga, ki se nato proda.
This reduces delivery times, but also reduces flexibility with regard to the needs of clients ‘such as supermarkets’.
Čas dobave je krajši, vendar je manjša tudi odzivnost glede na potrebe kupcev, „kot so veleblagovnice“.
The ‘make-to-order’ system, for its part, is better able to meet this need for flexibility.
Sistem „make-to-order“ pa ustreza tej potrebi po odzivnosti.
Consequently, the Netherlands concluded that this concept was innovative in nature.
Zato Nizozemska ugotavlja, da je ta zasnova inovativna.
With regard to the existence of outlets and the absence of excess capacity, the Netherlands cited a report from Rabobank International from April 2009, which notes that 2,5 % of all the farm milk processed is imported.
V zvezi z obstojem prodajnih možnosti in neobstojem presežnih zmogljivosti Nizozemska navaja poročilo Rabobank International iz aprila 1999, v katerem je navedeno, da je uvoženega 2,5 % vsega predelanega mleka s kmetij.
When factory milk is taken into account (i.e. milk that has been pasteurised to allow for longer transport), 10,5 % of all processed milk is imported.
Če se upošteva še mleko iz mlekarne (tj. mleko, ki je pasterizirano, da je primerno za daljši prevoz), je uvoženega 10,5 % vsega predelanega mleka.
This shows that the Netherlands consider that there was no excess capacity in the Netherlands.
Po mnenju Nizozemske to pomeni, da na Nizozemskem ni presežnih zmogljivosti.
Regarding the existence of outlets, the Netherlands confirmed Farm Dairy’s analysis (see recitals 44 and 45).
V zvezi z obstojem prodajnih možnosti Nizozemska pritrjuje analizi, ki jo je opravil Farm Dairy (glej uvodni izjavi 44 in 45).
Furthermore, Farm Dairy’s statistics show the possibility of outlets.
Poleg tega statistični podatki Farm Dairy kažejo prodajne možnosti.
It is also clear from the letter from [x] that the sales of 2-litre bottles produced by Farm Dairy increased its turnover.
Tudi iz dopisa […] izhaja, da je Farm Dairy s prodajo dvolitrskih steklenic povečal svoj promet.
Appraisal
Presoja
The Commission noted that Articles 92, 93 and 94 of the EC Treaty (which have become Articles 107, 108 and 109 of the TFEU) were applicable to the production of dairy products and other milk-based deserts at the time the aid was granted by virtue of Article 23 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products [9].
Komisija ugotavlja, da so se členi 92, 93 in 94 Pogodbe ES (zdaj členi 107, 108 in 109 PDEU), ki so veljali ob dodelitvi pomoči, uporabljali za proizvodnjo mlečnih izdelkov in drugih mlečnih sladic na podlagi člena 23 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 804/68 z dne 27. junija 1968 o skupni tržni ureditvi za mleko in mlečne izdelke [9].
Existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU
Obstoj državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU
Article 107(1) of the TFEU states that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or certain production is incompatible with the common market insofar as it affects trade between Member States.
Člen 107(1) PDEU določa, da je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
Aid awarded by the State: This condition was met, as the aid was awarded by Flevoland Province.
Ukrep, ki ga dodeli država članica: Ta pogoj je izpolnjen, ker je ukrep dodelila pokrajina Flevoland.
Measure which affects trade and distorts of threatens to distort competition: The dairy sector is open to competition at Community level [10] and is consequently sensitive to any measure favouring production in a particular country.
Ukrep, ki prizadene trgovino in izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco: Sektor mlečnih izdelkov je odprt za konkurenco na ravni Skupnosti [10], zato je občutljiv za kakršen koli ukrep v korist proizvodnje v kateri koli državi članici.
Furthermore, in the case in hand, the aim was to process the milk in Flevoland Province, whereas earlier the milk was partly processed in Belgium.
Poleg tega je bil cilj v zadevnem primeru predelovati mleko v pokrajini Flevoland, pred tem pa se je del mleka predelal v Belgiji.
Consequently, this measure threatens to distort competition in the milk and dairy product sector.
Zato bi ta ukrep lahko izkrivljal konkurenco na trgu mleka in mlečnih izdelkov.
Measure which favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods: the aid was awarded in favour of one single company, Farm Dairy.
Ukrep, ki daje prednost določenim podjetjem ali proizvodnji določenega blaga: pomoč je dodeljena samo v korist podjetja Farm Dairy.
For these reasons, the Commission concludes that the measure in question comes under Article 107(1) of the TFEU and constitutes State aid.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep spada na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU in je državna pomoč.
The comments received after opening the procedure have not changed this conclusion.
Pripombe, prejete po sprožitvi postopka, te opredelitve niso ovrgle.
Classification of the measure as illegal aid
Opredelitev ukrepa kot nezakonita pomoč
Since the aid was granted and paid without prior notification to the Commission, it is illegal within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [11].
Ker je bila pomoč dodeljena in izplačana brez predhodne priglasitve, gre za nezakonito pomoč v smislu člena 1(f) Uredbe Sveta (ES) 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [11].
Assessment of the compatibility of the aid measure
Presoja združljivosti pomoči
The opening decision mentioned earlier referred to two possible justifications for the aid awarded by the Dutch authorities.
V zgoraj navedeni odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka sta navedeni dve možni utemeljitvi pomoči, ki so ju navedli nizozemski organi.
At first, i.e. when the aid was awarded, they indicated that it was investment aid which should fall within the scope of the Flevoland SPD (see supra recital 9).
Najprej, tj. ob dodelitvi pomoči, so navedli, da gre za pomoč za naložbo, ki bi morala spadati na področje EPD Flevoland (glej uvodno izjavo 0).
The Flevoland Province authorities later converted this investment aid into compensation for the losses suffered when the aid was withdrawn.
Nato so organi pokrajine Flevoland to pomoč za naložbo spremenili v znesek nadomestila za izgubo, ki je nastala zaradi zavrnitve dodelitve pomoči.
The information provided by Farm Dairy on the opening of the procedure will be examined in the section dealing with the compatibility of the aid as investment aid.
Informacije, ki jih je predložil Farm Dairy v okviru sprožitve postopka, bodo proučene v oddelku, ki obravnava združljivost pomoči kot pomoč za naložbo.
The examination of the aid measure’s compatibility will be divided into two parts: the examination of the compatibility of the aid as investment aid (VI.3.1) and as compensation (VI.3.2).
Pregled združljivosti ukrepa pomoči bo opravljen v dveh delih: pregled združljivosti pomoči kot pomoči za naložbo (VI.3.1) in kot nadomestila (VI.3.2).
At the outset, the Commission wanted however to examine the Farm Dairy’s argument contesting the Commission’s qualification of the measure as coming under point 3.2 of the Flevoland SPD although the Province had presented it to the Commission as a measure under point 3.3 of the Flevoland SPD (see recital 33 and those that follow).
Komisija želi uvodoma proučiti argument, s katerim Farm Dairy izpodbija opredelitev Komisije, da je to ukrep, ki spada na področje točke 3.2 EPD Flevoland, čeprav je pokrajina Komisiji ta ukrep predstavila kot ukrep, ki spada na področje točke 3.3 EPD Flevoland (glej uvodno izjavo 33 in naslednje).
At first the Commission believed that this debate concerned the award of Community funds, which is not the subject of this Decision, which examines the measure granted solely on the basis of the Province’s funds, after the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture took note of the Commission’s refusal to award Community funds.
Najprej Komisija meni, da se ta razprava nanaša na dodelitev sredstev Skupnosti, kar ni predmet tega sklepa, ki proučuje ukrep, dodeljen izključno iz pokrajinskih sredstev, potem ko je bilo ministrstvo LNV seznanjeno s tem, da Komisija zavrača dodelitev sredstev Skupnosti.
This Decision does not explain the reasons why the Commission refused the award of these Community funds, which should have been contested in good time under the procedures applicable to the award of Community funds.
Ocena razlogov, zakaj je Komisija zavrnila dodelitev sredstev Skupnosti, ne spada v okvir tega sklepa in bi jo bilo treba izpodbijati v predpisanem roku v okviru postopkov za dodelitev sredstev Skupnosti.
The Commission’s refusal to award Community funds was communicated to the Netherlands by letter dated 25 June 1999, and as the Netherlands took note of it without contesting the measure [12], that refusal should no longer be questioned in this decision.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 25. junija 1999 sporočila Nizozemski, da zavrača dodelitev sredstev Skupnosti, in ta je to vzela na znanje, ne da bi izpodbijala ukrep [12], zato te odločitve ni več mogoče izpodbijati v okviru tega sklepa.
The Commission remarks, however, that the criteria used to assess the measures with regard to the rules on State aid on investment refer to the same criteria as those used for the assessment with regard to point 2.3 of the SPD.
Vendar Komisija opominja, da so merila za oceno ukrepov z vidika pravil o državni pomoči na področju naložb enaka kot merila za oceno z vidika točke 2.3 EPD.
The rules on State aid applicable when the aid was awarded are contained in the guidelines and their point 3(b) refers to points 1.2 and 2 of Decision 94/173/EC.
Pravila o državnih pomočeh, ki so se uporabljala ob dodelitvi pomoči, so namreč vključena v okvir in v točki 3(b) napotujejo na točko 1.2 in točko 2 Odločbe 94/173/ES.
This Decision dealt in a general manner with the Community’s selection criteria for investments that could benefit from Community financing under Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 867/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for forestry products [13].
V tej odločbi so na splošno obravnavana merila Skupnosti za izbor naložb, ki so upravičene do financiranja Skupnosti na podlagi Uredbe (EGS) št. 866/90 in Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 867/90 z dne 29. marca 1990 o izboljšanju pogojev predelave in trženja gozdnih proizvodov [13].
This was intended to harmonise Community financing and national financing.
Namen tega je uskladiti financiranje Skupnosti in nacionalno financiranje.
The Commission underlines, however, that it is not applying Decision 94/173/EC as such, but only insofar as the guidelines refer to it.
Vendar Komisija poudarja, da Odločbo 94/173/ES uporablja le, če se nanjo sklicuje okvir.
Investment aid
Pomoč za naložbo
The Commission examined the measures in light of the guidelines applicable at the time the measure was granted, namely 3 March 1999.
Komisija je ukrepe proučila z vidika okvira, ki se je uporabljal ob dodelitvi pomoči, tj. 3. marca 1999.
By virtue of point 3(b) of the guidelines, the investment aid in favour of the investments mentioned in the second and third indents of point 1.2 in the Annex to Decision 94/173/EC cannot be considered to be compatible with the internal market.
Na podlagi točke 3(b) okvira pomoči za naložbe v korist naložb, navedenih v drugi in tretji alinei točke 1.2 Priloge k Odločbi 94/173/ES, ni mogoče šteti za združljive z notranjim trgom.
Likewise, the investments that are excluded by virtue of point 2 of the same Annex are considered to be incompatible with the common market if the particular conditions provided for in it are not met.
Prav tako se naložbe, ki so izključene na podlagi točke 2 te priloge, štejejo za nezdružljive s skupnim trgom, če niso izpolnjeni posebni pogoji iz te točke.
Point 2.3 of the Annex to Decision 94/173/EC provides that ‘The following investments are excluded in the sector of cow’s milk and cow’s milk products:
Točka 2.3 Priloge k Odločbi 94/173/ES določa, da so „[v] sektorju kravjega mleka in izdelkov iz tega mleka […] izključene naslednje naložbe:
investments concerning the following products: butter, whey powder, milk powder, butteroil, lactose, casein, caseinate,
naložbe, povezane z naslednjimi proizvodi: maslo, sirotka v prahu, mleko v prahu, masleno olje, laktoza, kazein in kazeinat,
investments in the manufacture of fresh products or cheese, except production involving substantial innovation in line with trends in demand and products for which there is a shortage of capacity and for which the existence of realistic potential outlets has been demonstrated, as well as the manufacture of products using traditional or organic methods as defined by Community rules.
naložbe, povezane s pripravo svežih izdelkov ali sirov, razen če proizvodnja vključuje velik delež inovacij v skladu s spremembami povpraševanja, in razen za proizvode, za katere so dokazane nezadostne zmogljivosti in obstajajo resnične in dejanske prodajne možnosti, ter proizvode, pripravljene po tradicionalnih ali ekoloških metodah, kot so opredeljene v predpisih Skupnosti.
The following investments are not concerned by the prohibitions referred to in the preceding indents provided that they do not lead to an increase in capacity:
Prepovedi iz zgornjih alinej ne zadevajo naslednjih naložb, če se zaradi njih ne povečajo zmogljivosti:
investments to bring establishments into line with Community health standards,
naložbe za uskladitev z zdravstvenimi standardi Skupnosti,
investments concerning environmental protection.’
naložbe, katerih namen je varstvo okolja.“
This means that, a priori, investment aid for developing fresh products such as the one in question here would not be compatible with the internal market unless this investment comes under one of the exceptions mentioned in point 2.3 of the Annex to Decision 94/173/EC.
A priori iz tega izhaja, da naložba v pripravo svežih izdelkov, kot se obravnava v tej zadevi, ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, razen če ne spada v eno od izjem iz točke 2.3 Priloge k Odločbi 94/173/ES.
The question of knowing whether one of the exceptions mentioned in point 2.3 of the Annex to Decision 94/173/EC applies was one of the main questions asked in the opening decision.
Vprašanje, ali so izpolnjeni pogoji za katero od izjem iz točke 2.3 Priloge k Odločbi 94/173, je bilo eno glavnih vprašanj iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka.
This decision therefore examines these three exceptions: the substantial innovation in production in line with trends in demand, a shortage of capacity and the existence of realistic potential outlets, the development of products using traditional or organic methods as defined by Community rules.
Zato bodo v tem sklepu proučene tri izjeme: velik delež inovacij v proizvodnji, ki ustrezajo spremembam povpraševanja, nezadostne zmogljivosti in obstoj resničnih in dejanskih prodajnih možnosti ter priprava izdelkov po tradicionalnih ali bioloških metodah, kot so opredeljene v predpisih Skupnosti.
Criteria concerning the substantial innovation in line with demand
Merilo, ki se nanaša na velik delež inovacij, ustreznih glede na povpraševanje
The documents that the Netherlands sent the Commission in 2005 show that the production process was not innovative in the light of the information provided at the time.
Iz dokumentov, ki jih je Nizozemska predložila Komisiji leta 2005, je izhajalo, da proizvodni postopek glede na takratne informacije ni bil inovativen.
As indicated in the opening decision, IKC considered that the project was not totally innovative.
Kot je navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, je IKC menil, da projekt ni popolnoma inovativen.
In particular, it considered that the project did not present innovative products but market innovations, and that the production process was not innovative, but used the most modern techniques.
Natančneje, za projekt je bilo ugotovljeno, da ni uvajal inovativnih proizvodov, ampak tržne inovacije, in da proizvodni postopek ni bil inovativen, je pa uporabljal najmodernejšo tehniko.
However, in view of the fact that the other criteria evaluated by IKC were met, IKC concluded that the project met the criteria to benefit from a subsidy, but reduced the size of it (see supra recital 11).
Vendar je IKC glede na to, da so bili izpolnjeni ostali pogoji, ki jih je ocenjeval, ugotovil, da projekt izpolnjuje pogoje za upravičenost do nepovratnih sredstev, vendar je znižal delež teh sredstev (glej uvodno izjavo 11).
The issue is whether the information supplied by Farm Dairy and the Netherlands in the context of the opening of the procedure is likely to call into question the analysis performed at the time in the context of the examination of the evaluation criteria for the SPD subsidies.
Vprašanje je, ali elementi, ki sta jih predložila Farm Dairy in Nizozemska v okviru tega postopka, lahko ovržejo takratno analizo, opravljeno med pregledom ocenjevalnih meril za nepovratna sredstva na podlagi EPD.
This information (see recitals 36 to 46) has shown that the part of the investment concerning the new 2-litre polyethylene container was totally innovative and that Farm Dairy was the first company to make this product and put in on the Dutch market.
Ti elementi (glej uvodne izjave od 36 do 46) so dokazali, da je bila naložba v novo dvolitrsko embalažo iz polietilena popolnoma inovativna in da je bil Farm Dairy prvo podjetje, ki je to embalažo proizvajalo in jo dalo na nizozemski trg.
The report provided to this effect by Farm Dairy notes the innovative character of this product and seems credible insofar as it was written by an industry expert who was working for one of Farm Dairy’s competitors at the time.
Poročilo, ki ga je v ta namen predložil Farm Dairy in v katerem je navedena inovativnost, se zdi verodostojno, ker ga je napisal strokovnjak iz tega sektorja, ki je takrat delal za konkurenčno podjetje.