natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Having regard to Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 [1], and in particular its Article 14,
ob upoštevanju Sklepa št. 1622/2006/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o vzpostavitvi aktivnosti Skupnosti za dogodek Evropske prestolnice kulture za leta 2007 do 2019 [1] in zlasti člena 14 Sklepa,
Having regard to the selection panel report of 5 November 2008 submitted to the Commission, to the European Parliament and to the Council in accordance with Article 14(2) of Decision No 1622/2006/EC,
ob upoštevanju poročila, ki ga je izbirni svet 5. novembra 2008 predložil Komisiji, Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu v skladu s členom 14(2) Sklepa št. 1622/2006/ES,
Considering that the criteria referred to in Article 14(3) of Decision No 1622/2006/EC are entirely fulfilled,
ob upoštevanju, da so v celoti izpolnjena merila iz člena 14(3) Sklepa št. 1622/2006/ES,
Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission of 8 April 2009,
ob upoštevanju priporočila Komisije z dne 8. aprila 2009 –
Guimarães (Portugal) and Maribor (Slovenia) are designated as ‘European Capital of Culture 2012’ in accordance with Article 14 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC.
V skladu s členom 14 Sklepa št. 1622/2006/ES se za „Evropsko prestolnico kulture za leto 2012“ določita mesti Guimarães in Maribor.
Done at Brussels, 12 May 2009.
V Bruslju, 12. maja 2009
on the European Capital of Culture event for the year 2013
o dogodku Evropska prestolnica kulture za leto 2013
Having regard to Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 [1],
ob upoštevanju Sklepa št. 1622/2006/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o vzpostavitvi aktivnosti Skupnosti za dogodek Evropske prestolnice kulture za leta 2007 do 2019 [1],
Having regard to the selection panel reports of September and October 2008 regarding the selection process of the European Capitals of Culture in France and Slovakia respectively and the opinion issued by the European Parliament,
ob upoštevanju poročil izbirnega sveta iz septembra in oktobra 2008 o izbirnem postopku za evropski prestolnici kulture v Franciji in Slovaški ter mnenja Evropskega parlamenta,
Considering that the criteria referred to in Article 4 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC are entirely fulfilled,
ob upoštevanju, da so v celoti izpolnjena merila iz člena 4 Sklepa št. 1622/2006/ES,
Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission of 20 April 2009,
ob upoštevanju priporočila Komisije z dne 20. aprila 2009 –
Marseille (France) and Košice (Slovakia) are designated as ‘European Capital of Culture 2013’.
Za „Evropsko prestolnico kulture za leto 2013“ se določita mesti Marseille (Francija) in Košice (Slovaška).
on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France (C 29/05 (ex NN 57/05))
o „načrtih ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“ v sektorju sadja in zelenjave, ki jih je izvedla Francija (C 29/05 (ex NN 57/05))
(notified under document number C(2009) 203)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2009) 203)
Having given notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) of the Treaty, and having regard to those comments,
po pozivu zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu s prvim pododstavkom člena 88(2) Pogodbe, in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
In response to a complaint, on 31 July 2002 the Commission wrote to the French authorities requesting information on unnotified aid in the fruit and vegetable sector that it was claimed France had been paying for several years under schemes known as contingency plans, strategic plans or annual plans (hereinafter referred to as contingency plans).
Komisija je 31. julija 2002 na podlagi pritožbe Franciji poslala dopis, v katerem je zahtevala informacije o nepriglašenih nacionalnih pomočeh v sektorju sadja in zelenjave, ki naj bi jih Francija že več let izplačevala na podlagi mehanizmov, imenovanih „načrti ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“, „strateški načrti“ ali „kratkoročni načrti“ (v nadaljnjem besedilu: načrti ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih).
A meeting took place between the French authorities and the Commission on 21 October 2002.
Francoski organi in službe Komisije so se sestali 21. oktobra 2002.
By letter of 26 December 2002, registered on 2 January 2003, France provided information confirming that such aid had been paid up until the year 2002.
Francija je z dopisom z dne 26. decembra 2002, evidentiranim 2. januarja 2003, predložila informacije, s katerimi je potrdila, da so se take pomoči dodeljevale do leta 2002.
By letter of 16 April 2003, the Commission asked France to provide it with a complete inventory of aid paid under ‘contingency plans’, broken down by measure and by holding, including the amount of aid paid for each measure and the precise duration of the schemes.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 16. aprila 2003 Francijo zaprosila, naj ji predloži popoln seznam pomoči, dodeljenih na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“ ter razčlenjenih po ukrepih in proizvodnjah, ki bo vseboval znesek pomoči za vsak ukrep in točno trajanje shem pomoči.
By letter of 30 April 2003, France requested an extension of the deadline for replying to the Commission’s request for information.
Francija je z dopisom z dne 30. aprila 2003 zaprosila za podaljšanje roka za odgovor na zahtevo Komisije po informacijah.
By letter of 22 July 2003, registered on 25 July 2003, France submitted information on the nature of measures financed and tables showing the breakdown of public funding for different holdings for the 1998-2002 period.
Francija je z dopisom z dne 22. julija 2003, evidentiranim 25. julija 2003, poslala informacije o naravi financiranih ukrepov in razpredelnice, v katerih je bila za obdobje 1998–2002 navedena porazdelitev javnih sredstev, namenjenih različnim proizvodnjam.
The measure was subsequently entered in the register of unnotified aid under number NN 57/05.
Ukrep je bil nato pod številko NN 57/05 vpisan v register nepriglašenih pomoči.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [1].
Odločitev Komisije, da sproži postopek, je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [1].
The Commission called on the other Member States and interested third parties to submit their comments on the aid in question.
Komisija je pozvala druge države članice in zainteresirane tretje strani, naj predložijo svoje pripombe o zadevnih pomočeh.
By letter of 22 October 2005, registered on 24 October 2005, the Commission received comments from a third party with an interest, the Federation of Economic Agricultural Committees connected with the fruit and vegetable production sector [Fédération des Comités Economiques Agricoles rattachés à la filière de production des fruits et légumes] (hereinafter referred to as FEDECOM), which is a federation of agri-economic committees and specialist fruit and vegetable federations.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 22. oktobra 2005, evidentiranim 24. oktobra 2005, prejela pripombe ene zainteresirane tretje strani, to je združenja kmetijsko-gospodarskih odborov (Fédération des Comités Economiques Agricoles), povezanih s sektorjem proizvodnje sadja in zelenjave (v nadaljnjem besedilu: FEDECOM), ki združuje kmetijsko-gospodarske odbore in združenja, specializirana za sadje in zelenjavo.
In the same letter, the French authorities sent a correction to the financial tables previously supplied.
Francoski organi so v istem dopisu poslali popravek predhodno poslanih finančnih razpredelnic.
The letters concerned were forwarded to FEDECOM by letter dated 18 January 2006.
Navedena dopisa sta bila združenju FEDECOM poslana z dopisom z dne 18. januarja 2006.
Following an anonymous complaint, the Commission came into possession of a number of documents showing that State aid had been paid to the fruit and vegetable sector in France.
Komisija je na podlagi anonimne pritožbe pridobila številne dokumente, ki dokazujejo, da so bile v Franciji v sektorju sadja in zelenjave dodeljene državne pomoči.
Public funds from the National Interbranch Office for Fruit, Vegetables and Horticulture [Office National Interprofessionnel des Fruits, des Légumes et de l’Horticulture], (hereinafter referred to as ONIFLHOR) had apparently been paid to producers through the economic agricultural committees for undertaking measures to support the fruit and vegetable market.
Javna sredstva urada Office National Interprofessionnel des Fruits, des Légumes et de l’Horticulture (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ONIFLHOR) naj bi bila proizvajalcem dodeljena prek kmetijsko-gospodarskih odborov za izvedbo ukrepov za podporo trga sadja in zelenjave.
Measures to support the fruit and vegetable market
Ukrepi za podporo trga sadja in zelenjave
The economic agricultural committees — composition, task and financing arrangements
Kmetijsko-gospodarski odbori – sestava, naloga in načini financiranja
The economic agricultural committees bring together the agricultural producer groups of a given sector.
Kmetijsko-gospodarski odbori združujejo skupine kmetijskih proizvajalcev določenega sektorja.
They are established by French law [2] and are governed by the provisions of Article 552-1 et seq. of the Rural Code.
Ustanovljeni so s francosko zakonodajo [2], urejajo pa jih določbe člena 552-1 in naslednjih kmetijskega zakonika (Code Rural).
The task of the economic committees is to lay down common rules for their members to harmonise the production, distribution, prices and placing on the market of their products [3].
Naloga gospodarskih odborov je izdelati skupna pravila za svoje člane, da se uskladijo pravila proizvodnje, trženja in cen proizvodov ter njihovega dajanja na trg [3].
Although set up in company forms governed by private law, the committees must be approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and are closely monitored by the public authorities.
Čeprav so odbori ustanovljeni kot družbe zasebnega prava, jih mora odobriti minister za kmetijstvo in so pod strogim nadzorom javnih oblasti.
In particular, the Prefect of the region where the committee has its seat attends all the decision-making meetings of the bodies and follows all their deliberations.
Prefekt regije, v kateri ima odbor sedež, je navzoč na vseh sestankih organov, na katerih se sprejemajo odločitve, in potrdi vse sklepe teh sestankov.
To cover their operating costs, the economic committees receive a registration fee from the producer organisations and contributions based on the value of their marketed production [4].
Gospodarski odbori pobirajo za kritje stroškov svojega delovanja pri skupinah proizvajalcev pristojbino za včlanjenje in prispevke, določene na podlagi vrednosti tržene proizvodnje [4].
These contributions are compulsory for the parties involved exclusively by virtue of the contract between the members and the committee (contractual contributions).
Ti prispevki so za zadevne stranke obvezni izključno na podlagi pogodbe, sklenjene med člani in odborom (pogodbeni prispevki).
Furthermore, the approved economic agricultural committees may draw up special rules for production and placing products on the market, which they may require to be extended to all the producers in their territorial area.
Poleg tega lahko odobreni kmetijsko-gospodarski odbori pripravijo pravila proizvodnje in dajanja na trg ter zahtevajo, da se ta razširijo na vse proizvajalce z njihovega območja.
This extension is done by a decree from the Ministry of Agriculture.
Razširitev se izvede z odlokom ministra za kmetijstvo.
The decision to extend the rules creates an obligation for the remaining independent producers to pay contributions to the committees, known as contributions for the extension of the rules.
Odločitev o razširitvi pomeni, da morajo proizvajalci, ki so ostali neodvisni, odborom plačati prispevke, imenovane prispevki zaradi razširitve pravil.
The ‘contingency plans’
„Načrti ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“
Eight economic agricultural committees (Rhône-Méditerranée, Grand Sud-Ouest, Corse, Val de Loire, Nord, Nord-Est, Bretagne and Normandie) received public funding for many years, provided mainly by ONIFLHOR, and used to finance aid known as ‘contingency plans’, comprising measures both inside and outside the EU aimed at facilitating the marketing of agricultural products harvested in France, particularly in periods of crisis.
Osem kmetijsko-gospodarskih odborov (Rhône-Méditerranée, Grand Sud-Ouest, Korzika, Val de Loire, Nord, Nord-Est, Bretanja in Normandija) je vrsto let prejemalo javna sredstva, ki jih je zagotavljal predvsem ONIFLHOR in so se uporabljala za financiranje mehanizmov pomoči, imenovanih „načrti ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“, ki so vključevali ukrepe na trgih v Skupnosti in zunaj nje za olajšanje trženja kmetijskih proizvodov iz Francije, zlasti v obdobju krize.
As far as the exact nature of the measures was concerned, in their letter of 26 December 2002, the French authorities explained that they were aiming to prevent or, in the event of crises, to mitigate the effects of supply temporarily exceeding demand by acting on three levels: external markets, the internal market and processing.
Francoski organi so v dopisu z dne 26. decembra 2002 v zvezi z natančno naravo ukrepov pojasnili, da so namenjeni preprečevanju ali, v primeru kriz, blaženju učinkov začasnih presežkov ponudbe glede na povpraševanje z delovanjem na treh ravneh: zunanji trgi, notranji trg in predelava.
On the external markets, the aim was to maintain the market shares of the French products by allowing exporters to position themselves on strategic markets and compete on prices.
Na zunanjih trgih je bil cilj ohraniti tržne deleže francoskih proizvodov s tem, da so omogočili izvoznikom, da osvojijo položaj na strateških trgih in vzdržijo cenovno konkurenco.
On the internal market, the measures financed were aimed at relieving the market either by offering more attractive prices, or by destroying part of the surplus harvest or encouraging its processing.
Na notranjem trgu je bil cilj financiranih ukrepov razbremeniti trg bodisi s ponudbo privlačnejših cen bodisi z uničenjem dela presežnega pridelka ali njegovo usmeritvijo v predelavo.
The French authorities also refer to measures for the temporary storage of products in the event of market saturation and measures to allow processing companies to improve the market conditions for fresh produce.
Francoski organi navajajo tudi ukrepe začasnega skladiščenja proizvodov v primeru nasičenosti trga in podporo, ki naj bi podjetjem za predelavo omogočila sanacijo trga svežih pridelkov.
The French authorities’ letter of 22 July 2003 included tables of figures indicating the amounts of public aid paid for measures concerning ‘processing’, ‘market relief’, ‘quality’, ‘contracting’, ‘external markets’ and ‘storage’.
V dopisu francoskih organov z dne 22. julija 2003 so predložene številčne razpredelnice, v katerih so navedeni zneski javne pomoči, dodeljeni ukrepom „predelave“, „razbremenitve“, „kakovosti“, „sklepanja pogodb“, „zunanjih trgov“ in „skladiščenja“.
The documents and information available to the Commission contain more precise figures, albeit limited to certain products, on the type of measures likely to have been financed under the ‘contingency plans’.
Dokumenti in informacije, ki jih ima Komisija, zagotavljajo natančnejše podatke, čeprav so ti omejeni na nekatere proizvode, o naravi ukrepov, ki bi lahko bili financirani na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“.
For example, with regard to apple production, a letter received by the Commission in April 2002 refers to aid for export outside the Community which was allegedly paid under cover of aid for marketing.
Komisija je na primer v zvezi s proizvodnjo jabolk aprila 2002 prejela dopis, v katerem se omenja podpora za izvoz iz Skupnosti, ki naj bi bila dodeljena pod pretvezo pomoči za promocijo.
In reality, the measure consisted of offering discounts to the buyer, paid for by the French authorities per box of apples bought.
Ukrep naj bi v resnici vključeval odobritev popustov kupcu, ki so jih francoski organi plačali na kupljen zaboj jabolk.
Moreover, according to other documents, in 2000 the fruit and vegetable economic committee for the Bassin Rhône Méditerranée (BRM) apparently financed items such as ‘production costs’, ‘sales prices’, ‘processing policy’, ‘structural export’, ‘export development’, ‘export during a production peak’, ‘emerging markets’, and ‘internal market development’.
Poleg tega naj bi, kot izhaja iz drugih dokumentov, gospodarski odbor za sadje in zelenjavo območja Bassin Rhône Méditerranée (BRM) leta 2000 financiral ukrepe, kot so „stroški proizvodnje“, „prodajna cena“, „predelovalna politika“, „strukturni izvoz“, „valorizacija izvoza“, „izvoz ob višku proizvodnje“, „nastajajoči trgi“, „valorizacija notranjega trga“.
In the peach and nectarine sectors, this aid appears to have been granted on the basis of quantities produced.
Zdi se, da so bile v sektorjih breskev in nektarin te pomoči dodeljene na podlagi proizvedene količine.
Certain documents in the Commission’s possession indicate that the French authorities were informed of the dubious nature of these actions with regard to Community law.
Nekateri dokumenti, ki jih ima Komisija, kažejo, da so bili francoski organi obveščeni o vprašljivosti teh ukrepov glede na pravo Skupnosti.
They themselves regarded these actions as ‘largely anti-Community’ and drew attention to the ‘threat of an obligation to have the producers reimburse sums unduly paid’ [5].
Sami so te ukrepe opredelili kot „zelo v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti“ in opozorili, da „grozi obveznost, da bodo proizvajalci morali vrniti neupravičeno izplačane zneske“ [5].
A report from the BRM also recalls the ‘confidential nature of the strategic plans and the need for discretion, given their anti-Community element’ [6].
Zapisnik BRM opozarja tudi na „zaupno naravo strateških načrtov in potrebo po diskretnosti, ker so načeloma v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti“ [6].
In its letter of 26 December 2002, France explained that 30-50 % of the funding of these measures was covered by the sectors concerned, with the remainder coming from public funds.
Francija je v dopisu z dne 26. decembra 2002 pojasnila, da so financiranje ukrepov v višini 30 % ali 50 % zagotavljali zadevni sektorji, preostali del pa so financirale javne oblasti.
FEDECOM explained the funding mechanism for the ‘contingency plans’ in detail, along with the role of the committees.
Združenje FEDECOM je podrobno pojasnilo mehanizem financiranja „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“ in vlogo, ki so jo imeli odbori.
France has not contested these explanations.
Francija teh pojasnil ni izpodbijala.
According to FEDECOM, the measures to apply were determined exclusively by ONIFLHOR and the economic committees were obliged to apply them.
Po mnenju združenja FEDECOM je ukrepe, ki jih je bilo treba uporabiti, določal izključno ONIFLHOR, gospodarski odbori pa so jih bili zavezani uporabljati.
At the time of each contingency plan and for each type of plant, ONIFLHOR took a decision on which measures to take and entrusted the relevant national section with implementing them.
ONIFLHOR je ob vsakem nepredvidljivem dogodku in za vsako rastlinsko vrsto sprejel odločitev o ukrepih, ki jih je treba izvesti, in njihovo izvedbo naložil zadevni nacionalni sekciji.
ONIFLHOR also decided the sums allocated to the plans in question, as well as the amount of contributions that had to be paid by the economic committees.
ONIFLHOR je odločal tudi o zneskih, dodeljenih zadevnemu načrtu, in o znesku prispevkov, ki so jih morali plačati gospodarski odbori.
The measures were financed from an operational fund managed by the economic committees.
Ukrepi so se financirali iz operativnega sklada, ki so ga upravljali gospodarski odbori.
This fund worked on the basis of the same principles as those governing Community aid provided for by Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables [7], in that part of the money came from public funds and part from financial contributions from the member producers (known as sectoral contributions), based on the quantity or value of the fruit and vegetables sold.
Ta sklad je deloval na podlagi istih načel, kot so načela, ki se uporabljajo za pomoči Skupnosti, iz člena 15 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2200/96 z dne 28. oktobra 1996 o skupni ureditvi trga za sadje in zelenjavo [7], ker se je deloma vzdrževal z javno pomočjo in deloma s finančnimi prispevki proizvajalcev članov (imenovanimi stanovski deleži), določenimi na podlagi količin ali vrednosti trženega sadja in zelenjave.
The sectoral contributions were not made up of contributions for the extension of the rules.
Stanovski deleži niso vključevali prispevkov zaradi razširitve pravil.
Thus they were not compulsory by virtue of a ministerial decree.
Zato niso bili obvezni na podlagi ministrskega odloka.
The sectoral contributions were demanded by the economic agriculture committees and ONIFLHOR paid them from government aid.
K plačilu stanovskih deležev so pozivali kmetijsko-gospodarski odbori, z javno pomočjo pa jih je oskrboval ONIFLHOR.
However, the producer organisations had the option not to take part in the initiative.
Vendar so organizacije proizvajalcev imele možnost, da ne pristopijo k pobudi.
The non-payment of sectoral contributions equated to a rejection of ONIFLHOR aid.
Neplačilo stanovskih deležev je pomenilo zavrnitev prejemanja pomoči ONIFLHOR.
In this case, government aid was blocked at economic committee level and ONIFLHOR asked for ex-post reimbursement.
V takem primeru je javna pomoč ostala blokirana na ravni gospodarskega odbora in ONIFLHOR je naknadno zahteval njeno povračilo.
In fact, certain producer organisations, such as Roussillon Méditerranée, Rambertfruits and Vallée de l’Eyrieux, refused to pay the sectoral contributions and therefore did not benefit from aid under the ‘contingency plans’.
Nekatere organizacije proizvajalcev, na primer Roussillon Méditerranée, Rambertfruits in Vallée de l’Eyrieux, so namreč zavrnile plačilo stanovskih deležev in zato niso prejele pomoči na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“.
However, for 1992 and 1993, the table only shows the overall amount of aid paid.
Vendar je za leti 1992 in 1993 v razpredelnici naveden samo skupni znesek pomoči.
France has explained that the ONIFLHOR archives do not allow for a more detailed breakdown for these two years.
Francija je pojasnila, da arhivi ONIFLHOR ne omogočajo več podrobne razčlenitve za ti leti.
Market relief
Razbremenitev
Contractualisation
Sklepanje pogodb
External markets
Zunanj trgi
Points raised by the Commission in the context of initiating an investigation procedure
Argumenti Komisije v okviru začetka postopka preiskave
The Commission initiated the investigation procedure provided for by Article 88(2) of the Treaty as it had serious doubts as to the compatibility of this aid with the common market and considered that it should initially be categorised as simple operating aid.
Komisija je začela postopek preiskave iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe, ker je resno dvomila o združljivosti teh pomoči s skupnim trgom in na prvi pogled menila, da jih je treba opredeliti kot pomoči za tekoče poslovanje.
Furthermore, such measures appeared to seriously interfere with the mechanisms of the common organisation of the market in the fruit and vegetable sector.
Poleg tega se je zdelo, da taki ukrepi resno posegajo v mehanizme skupne ureditve trga za sadje in zelenjavo.
COMMENTS BY THIRD PARTIES
PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANI
The complainant did not make any comments in the context of the formal investigation procedure.
Pritožnik ni poslal pripomb v okviru formalnega postopka preiskave.