natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission initiated a second procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty after obtaining information demonstrating that the excise duty exemption enjoyed by glasshouse growers was actually significantly higher than that analysed when the procedure was first opened.
Komisija je drugi postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe začela, ko je prejela podatke, ki kažejo, da je bila oprostitev plačila trošarine, do katere so bili upravičeni pridelovalci v rastlinjakih, v resnici znatno višja od tiste, ki je bila ugotovljena pri prvem postopku.
The doubts expressed when the procedure was first opened, the causes of which included the fact that the Italian authorities had not replied to the information injunction sent to them, were corroborated by those authorities’ reaction to the initial opening of the procedure.
Dvomi, izraženi v okviru prvega postopka, ki jih je bilo med drugim mogoče pripisati dejstvu, da italijanski organi niso odgovorili na odredbo o predložitvi podatkov, so bili podkrepljeni z odzivom teh organov na prvi začetek postopka.
Essentially, the doubts expressed by the Commission when the procedure was opened for the second time were based on the following considerations:
V bistvu so dvomi, ki jih je Komisija izrazila v zvezi z začetkom drugega postopka, temeljili na naslednjih trditvah:
the Italian authorities considered that, regardless of their level, excise duty exemptions on fuels did not constitute State aid but rather tax measures justified by the nature of the system of which they were part. However, they did not supply any information in support of this argument;
italijanski organi menijo, da oprostitve plačila trošarin za goriva, ne glede na njihovo vrsto, niso državne pomoči, temveč davčni ukrepi, upravičeni zaradi vrste sheme, v katero spadajo, vendar niso predložili nikakršnega dokaza, ki bi podprl te trditve;
the Italian authorities further argued that the excise duty exemption did not distort competition, inasmuch as nursery growers were free to avail themselves of the exemption by practising greenhouse growing. This argument appears doubtful, inasmuch as the exemption was aimed not at encouraging a changeover to glasshouse growing, but rather to provide greenhouse growers who were already in business with relief from a financial burden linked to exercise of their activity;
druga trditev, ki so jo predložili italijanski organi, je, da oprostitev plačila trošarin ne izkrivlja konkurence, ker imajo pridelovalci pravico do oprostitve, če vrtnine pridelujejo v rastlinjakih; ta trditev vzbuja dvome, ker namen oprostitve ni bil spodbujati preusmeritev k pridelovanju v rastlinjakih, ampak pridelovalcem v tej dejavnosti olajšati finančna bremena v zvezi z njihovo dejavnostjo;
although the Italian authorities asserted that there were no elements of State aid, they failed to indicate which rule of competition would, in their opinion, support the compatibility with the common market of the total excise duty exemption;
italijanski organi so pri zagovarjanju trditve, da ne gre za obliko državne pomoči, pozabili navesti, katero konkurenčno pravilo bi po njihovem mnenju upravičilo združljivost popolne oprostitve plačila trošarin s skupnim trgom;
the fact that the exemptions were granted contrary to Directives 92/81/EEC and 2003/96/EC could not be ruled out.
ni mogoče izključiti, da so bile oprostitve odobrene v nasprotju z direktivama 92/81/EGS in 2003/96/ES.
REACTION OF THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES TO THE SECOND OPENING OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 88(2) OF THE TREATY
ODZIV ITALIJANSKIH ORGANOV NA ZAČETEK DRUGEGA POSTOPKA IZ ČLENA 88(2) POGODBE
By letter dated 21 February 2005, the Italian authorities asserted that the matters of substance covered by the second procedure were identical to those dealt with when the procedure was first opened and that the comments that had already been made in relation to the first procedure remained valid.
Italijanski organi so v dopisu z dne 21. februarja 2005 zlasti trdili, da se je drugi postopek nanašal na vsebinsko enaka vprašanja kot prvi in da so bile še vedno veljavne pripombe, ki so jih navedli v odgovoru na prvi postopek.
They also supplemented their reply by stating the following:
Poleg tega so odgovor dopolnili z naslednjimi trditvami:
the expression ‘without prejudice to other Community provisions’ in Article 15(1) of Directive 2003/96/EC could not be interpreted in such a way as to render Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty applicable to every measure reducing excise duties or creating an exemption therefrom and that, if the Community legislature had wished to make every measure adjusting excise duties subject to compliance with Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty, it would have expressed this wish by inserting a reference to them in accordance with the fundamental rule of statutory construction that ‘lex ubi voluit dixit’ [‘that which the law intends, it states’]. Moreover, in any other Community act, the legislature’s wish for given measures to be subject to the rules on State aid was expressed clearly and not through a generic wording such as ‘without prejudice to other Community provisions’. In addition, clear and explicit wording was all the more necessary insofar as stating that a measure ‘constituted State aid’ or ‘did not constitute State aid’ had a significant impact on the nature, arrangements and duration of implementation of the measure;
izraza „brez poseganja v druge določbe Skupnosti“ iz člena 15(1) Direktive 2003/96/ES ni mogoče razlagati v smislu, da se za vsak ukrep zmanjšanja ali oprostitve plačila trošarine lahko uporabljata člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe, kajti če bi zakonodajalec Skupnosti hotel vsako spremembo trošarine podrediti členoma 87 in 88 Pogodbe, bi to izrazil z navedbo teh členov na podlagi temeljnega načela o razlagi zakona lex ubi voluit dixit; po drugi strani pa je volja zakonodajalca, da določene ukrepe uskladi s pravili o državni pomoči, v vsakem aktu Skupnosti izražena jasno, in ne le s splošno formulo „brez poseganja v druge določbe Skupnosti“, poleg tega je jasna in nedvoumna formulacija toliko bolj potrebna, saj opredelitev ukrepa kot ukrepa, ki „pomeni državno pomoč“ ali „ne pomeni državne pomoči“, znatno vpliva na naravo, načine in trajanje izvajanja samega ukrepa;
the fact that the measure did not jeopardise the proper functioning of the internal market and did not distort competition was an objective fact and thus rendered irrelevant the savings that the producers had been able to make thanks to the measure.
dejstvo, da ukrep ne vpliva na dobro delovanje notranjega trga in ne povzroča izkrivljanja konkurence, je objektivno, zato niso pomembni zneski, ki so jih lahko pridelovalci s tem ukrepom privarčevali.
REPLY FROM THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES TO THE INFORMATION INJUNCTION OF 5 DECEMBER 2008
ODGOVOR ITALIJANSKIH ORGANOV NA ODREDBO O PREDLOŽITVI PODATKOV Z DNE 5. DECEMBRA 2008
In their letter dated 5 February 2009, the Italian authorities firstly returned to the argument concerning the compatibility of the aid with the provisions of Directive 92/81/EEC which, in their view, did not provide sufficient clarification on the question of the compatibility of excise duty exemptions or reductions with competition rules.
V dopisu z dne 5. februarja 2009 so italijanski organi znova odprli vprašanje združljivosti pomoči z določbami Direktive 92/81/EGS, ki po njihovem mnenju vprašanja združljivosti oprostitev ali nižje stopnje trošarin s predpisi o konkurenci ne opredeljuje dovolj jasno.
In order to illustrate their position, they referred to Article 8 of the Directive, according to which ‘without prejudice to other Community provisions, Member States may apply total or partial exemptions or reductions in the rate of duty to mineral oils used under fiscal control […] exclusively in agricultural and in horticultural works, and in forestry […]’.
Da bi pojasnili svoj položaj, se sklicujejo na člen 8 Direktive, ki določa, da „brez poseganja v druge določbe Skupnosti lahko države članice uporabijo popolno ali delno oprostitev ali nižjo trošarinsko stopnjo za mineralna olja in druge izdelke, ki so uporabljeni […] pod davčnim nadzorom […] izključno pri kmetijskih in hortikulturnih delih ter v gozdarstvu...“.
Accordingly, the Italian authorities concluded that, taking account of Article 8 of Directive 92/81/EEC, the Member States could legitimately apply excise duty reductions or exemptions in the horticulture sector.
Sklep italijanskih organov je torej, da bi lahko države članice ob upoštevanju določb člena 8 Direktive 92/81/EGS zakonito uporabljale oprostitev ali nižje stopnje trošarin v vrtnarstvu.
The Italian authorities then stressed that implementing Directive 92/81/EEC and thus Directive 2003/96/EC resulted in de facto distortion of competition within the internal market, since the reductions and exemptions provided for benefited those Member States that had greater financial resources and could thus apply excise duty reductions in a uniform manner throughout the entire agricultural sector.
Italijanski organi še poudarjajo, da uporaba Direktive 92/81/EGS in torej tudi Direktive 2003/96/ES dejansko povzroča izkrivljanje konkurence na trgu, saj predvidene oprostitve in nižje stopnje trošarin postavljajo v boljši položaj države članice, ki imajo več gospodarskih virov in torej lahko enako uporabljajo nižje trošarinske stopnje v celotnem kmetijskem sektorju.
As it had limited resources, Italy had decided to take action only in favour of glasshouse growers, insofar as the excise duty reduction and exemption measures were adopted in the context of a crisis caused by price increases for heating products.
Zaradi omejenih virov se je Italija odločila ukrepati izključno v korist pridelovalcev v rastlinjakih, saj so bili ukrepi oprostitve ali znižanja trošarin sprejeti zaradi krize, ki jo je povzročila rast cen proizvodov za ogrevanje.
In this connection, the Italian authorities stated that it was not the Commission’s place to intervene in relation to a Member State’s choice of priorities.
Italijanski organi v zvezi s tem pripominjajo, da poseganje v izbiro prioritet, ki jo opravi neka država članica, ni v pristojnosti Komisije.
the tax in question must have an appreciable positive impact in terms of environmental protection;
zadevni davek mora imeti precejšen pozitivni vpliv na varstvo okolja,
the derogations for the firms concerned must have been decided on when the tax was adopted or must have become necessary as a result of a significant change in economic conditions that placed the firms in a particularly difficult competitive situation.
odstopanja za zadevna podjetja so bila sprejeta, ko je bil sprejet davek, ali so postala potrebna zaradi znatne spremembe v gospodarskih pogojih, ki so podjetja postavila v posebej težek konkurenčni položaj.
In the latter instance, the amount of the tax reduction may not exceed the increase in costs resulting from the change in economic conditions.
V slednjem primeru znesek zmanjšanja ne sme presegati povečanja stroškov zaradi spremembe gospodarskih pogojev.
Once there is no longer any increase in costs, the reduction must no longer apply.
Ko povečanja stroškov ni več, se zmanjšanja ne sme več uporabljati.
According to the Italian authorities, the excise duties on fuels used in agriculture, in particular gas for heating, can be considered environmental taxes and have a positive impact on the environment in that they encourage producers to reduce fuel consumption.
Po mnenju italijanskih organov se trošarine za goriva, ki se uporabljajo v kmetijstvu, zlasti za plin za ogrevanje, lahko obravnavajo kot okoljski davki (ekološki davki) in imajo pozitiven vpliv na okolje, saj proizvajalce spodbujajo k zmanjšanju porabe goriv.
As regards in particular point 51.2(b) of the guidelines, on the basis of which derogations for firms must have been decided on when the tax was adopted, the Italian authorities referred to Commission Decision C(2005) 4436 of 7 December 2005.
Italijanski organi se zlasti glede točke 51.2(b) Smernic, na podlagi katere so bila sprejeta odstopanja za podjetja, ko je bil sprejet davek, sklicujejo na Odločbo Komisije C(2005) 4436 z dne 7. decembra 2005.
The authorities indicated that, in the period under consideration, the price of diesel for heating varied as follows: + 37 % in 1999-2000, + 26 % in 1999-2001 and + 26 % in 1999-2002.
Omenjeni organi navajajo, da se je cena plinskega olja za ogrevanje v upoštevanem obdobju gibala, kakor sledi: +37 % v obdobju 1999–2000, +26 % v obdobju 1999–2001 in +26 % v obdobju 1999–2002.
Meanwhile the price structure was as follows (annual average in EUR per litre):
Struktura cen pa je bila naslednja (v EUR/liter kot letno povprečje):
EUR per litre
EUR/liter
Price net of tax
Proizvodna cena
Tax
Davki
Consumer price
Prodajna cena
The Italian authorities pointed out, on the other hand, that applying point 51 of the guidelines in any event required undertakings to pay part of the tax.
Italijanski organi po drugi strani poudarjajo, da uporaba točke 51 Smernic podjetjem v vsakem primeru nalaga plačilo dela davka.
In their view, the measure adopted by Italy could be compatible if beneficiaries paid the minimum amount set at Community level (which, according to the authorities, was EUR 13 per 1000 kg in the 2000-2003 period and EUR 21 per 1000 kg thereafter).
Ukrep, ki ga je sprejela Italija, je po njihovem mnenju lahko združljiv, če upravičenci plačajo najnižji znesek, ki je določen na ravni Skupnosti (ta najnižji znesek je bil po besedah istih organov 13 EUR/1000 kg v obdobju 2000–2003 in pozneje 21 EUR/1000 kg).
Lastly, as regards the total amount of aid granted, the Italian authorities indicated that the figures in the various Finance Laws were estimates based on forecasts of consumption of heating fuels and should be viewed as revenue not collected rather than as resources allocated.
Končno, kar zadeva celoten znesek odobrenih pomoči, italijanski organi navajajo, da številke v različnih finančnih zakonih temeljijo na predvideni porabi goriv za ogrevanje in jih je treba upoštevati kot izpad prihodkov, ne pa kot zagotavljanje finančnih virov.
In their opinion, it was difficult at that stage to quantify the advantage obtained by each producer, since responsibility for administering the tax system lay with the regions, the provinces or even the municipalities.
Po njihovem mnenju je težko količinsko določiti prednost, ki jo je doslej pridobil vsak pridelovalec, saj je vodenje sistema davkov zaupano deželam, pokrajinam ali celo občinam.
The figures would be sent as soon as they were available.
Številke bodo poslane takoj, ko bodo na voljo.
LETTER SENT ON 18 MAY 2009
DOPIS Z DNE 18. MAJA 2009
In this letter, the Italian authorities asserted, firstly, that the excise duties were existing taxes and that, as such, they could be covered by the derogations applicable to them by virtue of the provisions of the guidelines on State aid for environmental protection, for the reasons set out in recital 42 above.
V tem dopisu italijanski organi poudarjajo zlasti, da so trošarine veljavni davki in so zato zanje mogoča odstopanja na podlagi določb Smernic o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja iz razlogov, ki so bili navedeni že v uvodni izjavi 42.
This argument was followed by an updated version of the table given in recital 42 above (the tax column is split between excise duties and VAT).
Tej trditvi sledi posodobljena različica tabele iz uvodne izjave 42 (stolpec z davki je razdeljen med trošarine in DDV).
According the new table, the price structure in the period considered was as follows (this time the data are expressed in EUR per 1000 litres):
Na podlagi nove tabele je bila v upoštevanem obdobju struktura cen naslednja (tokrat so podatki izraženi v EUR/1000 l):
EUR per 1000 litres
EUR/1000 litrov
The Italian authorities underlined that, between 1999 and 2004, consumer prices of diesel for heating had constantly been on the rise, except for a slight decrease between 2000 and 2001.
Italijanski organi poudarjajo, da med letoma 1999 in 2004 prodajne cene plinskega olja za ogrevanje niso nehale rasti, če se izključi manjše znižanje med letoma 2000 in 2001.
The arguments already illustrated in recitals 42 and 43 above were then repeated.
Zato se ponovijo trditve, ki so bile predstavljene že v uvodnih izjavah 42 in 43.
As regards the justification for the measure in the light of the Italian tax system, the Italian authorities clarified that, in Italy, the quantities of exempted fuel were apportioned on the basis of surface area, crop quality and amount of agricultural equipment actually used.
Kar zadeva upravičenost ukrepa ob upoštevanju italijanskega davčnega sistema, italijanski organi pojasnjujejo, da so v Italiji količine goriva, ki so oproščene plačila, porazdeljene na podlagi površin, kakovosti pridelkov in opremljenosti s kmetijskimi stroji, ki se dejansko uporabljajo.
Accordingly, it could be stated that the exemption was calculated on the basis of the type of activity carried out and, for glasshouse growing, proportionately since this type of growing was clearly dependent on diesel and marked by completely different conditions of production from open-field crops.
Zato lahko menimo, da je oprostitev izračunana glede na vrsto dejavnosti, ki se opravlja, in, če gre za pridelke v rastlinjakih, sorazmerno, kajti ta vrsta pridelkov je popolnoma odvisna od plinskega olja in so zanjo značilni čisto drugačni pogoji pridelovanja od tistih na prostem.
Moreover, the exemption did not favour any single product because it applied to all products grown in glasshouses and because glasshouse growing could be considered a widespread practice throughout the agricultural sector.
Poleg tega oprostitev ne velja le za en pridelek, ker se uporablja za vse pridelke v rastlinjakih, poleg tega pridelovanje v rastlinjakih lahko štejemo za razširjeno prakso v celotnem kmetijskem sektorju.
With regard to the applicability of Article 87(1) of the Treaty in more general terms, the Italian authorities took the view that the conditions referred to in that paragraph had not been met, in that the exemptions were neither selective nor such as to distort competition.
V bolj splošnem smislu uporabe člena 87(1) Pogodbe italijanski organi menijo, da ni pogojev iz navedenega odstavka, saj oprostitve niso selektivne ne izkrivljajo konkurenco.
With regard to selectivity, they referred to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-233/04 [9].
Glede selektivnosti se sklicujejo na sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T-233/04 [9].
In the opinion of the Italian authorities, the exemption applied to diesel used in covered environments for growing agricultural products in no way distinguished between undertakings in the same legal and factual situation or between products, since all undertakings, regardless of the goods produced, could avail themselves of the exemption when supplying themselves with diesel for glasshouse growing.
Oprostitev za plinsko olje, ki se uporablja v zavarovanem okolju, v katerem poteka pridelava kmetijskih pridelkov, po mnenju italijanskih organov ne ustvarja razlik med podjetji, ki so v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju, niti med pridelki, saj so vsa podjetja neodvisno od pridelanega blaga upravičena do oprostitve, če se za pridelovanje v rastlinjakih oskrbujejo s plinskim oljem.
With regard to the likelihood of the measure distorting competition, the Italian authorities referred to Commission Decision C(2008) 1105, recital 43 of which states that the total and partial exemptions allowed by Article 8(2) of Directive 92/81/EEC pursue the same objectives as the measure provided for in Directive 2003/96/EC and are of rather small scale and that, therefore, it can be said, by analogy, that they should not unduly distort competition.
Kar zadeva možnost izkrivljanja konkurence, se italijanski organi sklicujejo na Odločbo Komisije C(2008) 1105, ki v uvodni izjavi 43 določa: „Popolne in delne oprostitve na podlagi člena 8(2) Direktive 92/81/EGS poskušajo doseči iste cilje kot ukrepi iz Direktive 2003/96/ES, le v manjšem obsegu, tako da smiselno lahko sklepamo, da ne bi smele neopravičeno izkrivljati konkurence.“
The Italian authorities also added that, in recital 32 of that Decision, the Commission had considered that measures of this type applied to fuel used in primary agricultural production would not unduly distort competition in the light of the small size of farms in the European Union (more than 60 % of farms have less than 5 hectares of utilised agricultural area).
Italijanski organi dodajajo še, da Komisija v točki 32 iste odločbe meni, da tovrstni ukrepi, ki so povezani z gorivi za uporabo v primarni kmetijski proizvodnji, ne nezakonito izkrivljajo konkurence zaradi majhnih razsežnosti kmetijskih podjetij v Evropski uniji (čez 60 % podjetij ima manj kot 5 hektarov obdelanih kmetijskih površin).
Using this consideration as a starting point, the stressed that, applying the same size criterion, it would be difficult for the exemptions in question to distort competition, since around 80 % of farms in Italy have less than 5 hectares of utilised agricultural area.
Na podlagi te ugotovitve poudarjajo, da bi zadevne oprostitve na podlagi navedenega merila velikosti težko izkrivljale konkurenco, saj ima približno 80 % italijanskih kmetijskih podjetij manj kot 5 ha obdelane kmetijske površine.
The Italian authorities also argued that the quantity of diesel needed to heat 1 m3 of glasshouse was around only 2 litres.
Druga trditev italijanskih organov je, da je količina plinskega olja, ki se lahko nameni ogrevanju 1 m3 rastlinjaka, le 2 litra.
Moreover, on the basis of a study carried out by Enama (Ente nazionale per la meccanizzazione agricola – National Agricultural Mechanisation Body) on diesel consumption in 14 of Italy’s 20 regions, the diesel used in glasshouses (167436001 litres) accounted for only 11,77 % of agricultural diesel consumption in 2002 and 10,67 % in 2003.
Poleg tega je na podlagi študije Enama (državnega zavoda za kmetijsko mehanizacijo) o porabi plinskega olja v 14 od 20 italijanskih dežel delež plinskega olja, ki se uporablja v rastlinjakih (167436001 litrov), pomenil le 11,77 % porabe plinskega olja v kmetijstvu v letu 2002 in 10,67 % v letu 2003.
After supplying these clarifications in support of their view that the exemptions in question did not include elements of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, the Italian authorities reiterated the cross-cutting nature of the exemptions, stressed the fact that all agricultural producers could avail themselves of it if they practised glasshouse growing and underlined that the criterion of non-discrimination could not be applied retroactively, for reasons of legitimate expectation and legal certainty.
Po predložitvi teh pojasnil v podporo svoji trditvi, da zadevne oprostitve niso oblika državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, italijanski organi potrjujejo enakovredno naravo oprostitev in vztrajajo, da bi bili do njih lahko upravičeni vsi kmetijski pridelovalci, če bi se ukvarjali s pridelavo v rastlinjakih. Poudarjajo še, da načela nediskriminacije ni mogoče uporabljati za nazaj zaradi legitimnih pričakovanj in pravne varnosti.
This Decision concerns the difference between the excise duty exemptions on diesel used for heating glasshouses, on the one hand, and excise duty exemptions on diesel used as fuel, on the other.
Ta odločba se nanaša na razliko med oprostitvami od plačila trošarin za plinsko olje, ki se uporablja za ogrevanje rastlinjakov na eni strani, in oprostitvami od plačila trošarin za plinsko olje, ki se uporablja kot pogonsko gorivo na drugi strani.
Taking account of the arguments put forward by the Italian authorities in their replies to the first and second opening of the procedure, it is necessary first to examine whether the scheme contains elements of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Ob upoštevanju utemeljitev, ki so jih italijanski organi predložili v odgovorih na obvestila o začetku postopka, je treba preučiti zlasti, ali shemo sestavljajo oblike državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.