natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It must be noted that the Commission’s examination here only covers the period between 31 July 1992 to the current date, by virtue of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which states that the powers of the Commission to recover aid shall be subject to a limitation period of 10 years.
Navesti je treba, da se preiskava Komisije tu nanaša samo na obdobje od 31. julija 1992 do danes, in to na podlagi člena 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, v katerem je navedeno, da je zastaralni rok za vračilo pomoči deset let.
If the Commission concludes that the unlawful aid in question here is incompatible with the common market organisation, it may only order its recovery for the period prescribed.
Če bi Komisija ugotovila, da so tu obravnavane nezakonite pomoči nezdružljive, ne bi mogla odrediti vračila za zastarano obdobje.
The prescription period may be interrupted by any measure taken by the Commission with regard to the unlawful aid.
Kakršen koli ukrep glede nezakonite pomoči, ki ga sprejme Komisija, lahko prekine zastaralni rok.
Assessment of the compatibility of the aid
Preučitev združljivosti pomoči
Article 87 of the Treaty admits some exceptions to the general principle of the incompatibility of State aid with the Treaty.
V členu 87 Pogodbe so navedene izjeme od splošnega načela nezdružljivosti državnih pomoči s Pogodbo.
Firstly, the Commission notes that the French authorities have not put forward any argument to show that the aid examined is compatible with the common market.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da francoski organi niso navedli nobene utemeljitve, s katero bi dokazali združljivost obravnavanih pomoči s skupnim trgom.
Secondly, some of the exceptions provided for by the Treaty are clearly not applicable here, notably those provided for in Article 87(2), which covers aid having a social character, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters, and aid relating to German reunification.
Nadalje je treba ugotoviti, da nekatera od odstopanj, določena v Pogodbi, očitno ne veljajo v obravnavanem primeru, zlasti odstopanja iz člena 87(2), ki se nanašajo na pomoči socialnega značaja, pomoči za povrnitev škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče, in pomoči, povezane z združitvijo Nemčije.
The same applies to the exemptions provided for in Article 87(3)(a), (b) and (d) of the Treaty, given that the aid in question was neither intended for the promotion of the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, nor was it intended for projects of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance of the economy of a Member State, nor for the promotion of culture and heritage conservation.
Enako velja za odstopanja iz člena 87(3)(a), (b) in (d) Pogodbe glede na to, da zadevne pomoči niso bile namenjene niti za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območja, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je podzaposlenost velika, niti za pospeševanje izvedbe pomembnega projekta skupnega evropskega interesa ali odpravljanje resne motnje v gospodarstvu države, niti za pospeševanje kulture ali ohranjanje kulturne dediščine.
The only derogation which may apply in the case in point is that provided for in Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, which provides that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be considered to be compatible with the common market where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Edino odstopanje, ki bi se morebiti lahko uporabilo v obravnavanem primeru, je odstopanje iz člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, v katerem je določeno, da se za združljivo s skupnim trgom lahko šteje pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
In order to be covered by this derogation, aid must comply with the Community rules governing State aid.
Da bi bile pomoči lahko upravičene do odstopanja iz navedene točke, morajo biti v skladu s pravili Skupnosti, ki se uporabljajo na področju državnih pomoči.
Identifying the guidelines applicable to the unlawful aid
Določitev smernic, ki se uporabljajo za nezakonite pomoči
In accordance with the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid [19], all unlawful aid under Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 must be examined in accordance with the texts in force at the time when the aid was granted.
V skladu z Obvestilom Komisije o določitvi pravil, ki se uporabljajo za presojo nezakonitih državnih pomoči [19], je treba vsako nezakonito pomoč v smislu člena 1(f) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 preučiti v skladu s pravili in smernicami, ki veljajo ob dodelitvi pomoči.
Thus, the aid paid between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2002 (date on which the aid payments ceased) must be examined in the light of the rules set out in the guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector [20].
Tako je treba pomoči, dodeljene med 1. januarjem 2000 in 31. decembrom 2002 (datum, ko so se pomoči končale), preučiti na podlagi pravil iz smernic za državno pomoč v kmetijskem sektorju [20].
However, any aid granted before this date must be assessed in the light of the measures and practice applicable before 1 January 2000.
Nasprotno pa bo treba vsako pomoč, dodeljeno pred tem datumom, presoditi na podlagi določb in prakse, ki so se uporabljale pred 1. januarjem 2000.
Incompatibility of the aid
Nezdružljivost pomoči
According to the information available to the Commission, the ‘contingency plans’ provided for measures intended to deal with crises caused by a surplus of French products on the Community market, in particular by subsidising selling prices and providing subsidies for the storage or destruction of part of the harvest and financial incentives to process fresh products.
Glede na informacije, ki jih ima Komisija, so bili v „načrtih ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“ predvideni ukrepi za premostitev kriz, ki bi jih povzročila presežna ponudba francoskih proizvodov na trgu Skupnosti, zlasti s subvencioniranjem prodajne cene, subvencijami za skladiščenje ali uničenje dela pridelka in finančnimi spodbudami za predelavo svežih pridelkov.
On markets outside the European Union, export subsidies would also have helped to dispose of surplus French products and could have strengthened the operators’ competitive position.
Na trgih zunaj Evropske unije naj bi subvencije za izvoz prav tako prispevale k prodaji presežnih francoskih proizvodov in so lahko okrepile konkurenčni položaj gospodarskih subjektov.
This aid seems to have been provided on the basis of prices and the quantity produced.
Zdi se, da so bile te pomoči dodeljene na podlagi cene in proizvedene količine.
This aid is neither provided for by the abovementioned guidelines nor by any other Community rules on the subject.
Te podpore niso predvidene niti z zgoraj navedenimi smernicami niti s pravili Skupnosti na tem področju.
It clearly constitutes operating aid which was aimed at facilitating the sales of French products by manipulating the sales price or the quantities available on the markets.
Te podpore so očitno pomoči za tekoče poslovanje, njihov cilj pa je bil olajšati prodajo francoskih proizvodov z manipuliranjem prodajne cene ali količin, ponujenih na trgih.
Interventions of this nature are strictly forbidden by Community legislation on State aid.
Predpisi Skupnosti s področja državnih pomoči odločno prepovedujejo taka posredovanja.
It should be recalled that, as the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have ruled, operating aid, i.e. aid aimed at relieving undertakings of costs that they would normally incur in the ordinary management of their activities, in principle distorted competition to the extent that, for one part, it did not facilitate the ‘development’ of any economic sector and, for the other part, it gave the beneficiary artificial financial support causing an ongoing distortion of competition and affecting trade in a manner contrary to the common interest [21].
Opozoriti je treba, da, kot sta razsodili Sodišče in Sodišče prve stopnje, pomoči za tekoče poslovanje, to je pomoči, ki naj bi podjetja razbremenile stroškov, ki bi jih običajno morala nositi pri tekočem upravljanju svojih dejavnosti, načeloma izkrivljajo konkurenco, ker, po eni strani, ne pospešujejo „razvoja“ nobenega gospodarskega sektorja, in, po drugi strani, zagotavljajo upravičencu umetno finančno podporo, ki trajno izkrivlja konkurenco in prizadene trgovino v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom [21].
In particular, the agriculture markets in the European Union are thoroughly regulated through common market organisations (CMO).
Zlasti kmetijski trgi v Evropski uniji so izčrpno urejeni s skupnimi ureditvami trga (SUT).
One of the CMO’s tasks is to ensure fair competition between the operators of the sector concerned within the European Union.
Naloga SUT je, da med drugim zagotovijo lojalno konkurenco med gospodarskimi subjekti zadevnega sektorja v Evropski uniji.
Market support measures such as those introduced and financed by France, based on the prices and quantities produced, are contrary to the aims of the fruit and vegetable CMO, and likely to seriously disturb its operation.
Ukrepi za podporo trga, kot so ukrepi, ki jih je uvedla in financirala Francija ter temeljijo na cenah in proizvedenih količinah, so v nasprotju s cilji skupne ureditve trga za sadje in zelenjavo in lahko resno posežejo v njegovo delovanje.
In the case in the question, the CMO concerned was the fruit and vegetables CMO, based, for the 1992-2002 period, respectively on Regulations (EEC) No 1035/72 and (EC) No 2200/96.
V obravnavanem primeru je bila zadevna SUT skupna ureditev trga za sadje in zelenjavo, ki je za obdobje 1992–2002 temeljila na uredbah (EGS) št. 1035/72 in (ES) št. 2200/96.
As the Court of Justice has repeatedly pointed out [22], any intervention by a Member State in the market mechanisms, excluding those specifically provided for by a Community regulation, risks interfering with the operation of the common market organisations and giving unfair advantages to certain economic groups in the Community.
Kot je Sodišče že večkrat poudarilo [22], lahko kakršen koli poseg države članice v tržne mehanizme, razen posegov, ki so posebej določeni s predpisi Skupnosti, vpliva na delovanje skupnih ureditev trga in ustvari neupravičene prednosti za nekatere gospodarske skupine v Skupnosti.
In particular, in its most recent ruling [23], the Court again pointed out that in a sector covered by a common organisation, a fortiori where that organisation is based on a common pricing system, Member States can no longer take action, through national provisions taken unilaterally, affecting the machinery of price formation at the production and marketing stages established under the common organisation.
Sodišče je v svoji nedavni sodni praksi [23] znova opozorilo, da države članice na področjih, ki so zajeta s skupno ureditvijo, in še toliko bolj, kadar ta ureditev temelji na skupnem sistemu cen, ne smejo več z enostransko sprejetimi nacionalnimi predpisi posegati v mehanizem oblikovanja cen, ki jih skupna ureditev ureja na isti stopnji proizvodnje.
It should be noted that the national mechanisms for aid for prices such as those in question in this case compromise the common pricing system and more generally the finality of mechanisms established by Community regulations on the common organisation of markets, even if their aim was to facilitate the sales of national products on the markets of non-EU countries.
Navesti je treba, da nacionalni mehanizmi subvencioniranja cen, kot so mehanizmi v obravnavanem primeru, ogrožajo skupni sistem cen in splošneje cilj mehanizmov, ustvarjenih s predpisi Skupnosti o skupni ureditvi trgov, celo kadar je njihov namen olajšati prodajo nacionalnih proizvodov na tretjih trgih.
In fact, these regulations also affect the sales of Community products on the markets of non-EU countries and thus harmonise conditions of competition between Community producers.
Ti predpisi namreč zajemajo tudi prodajo proizvodov Skupnosti na tretjih trgih in v zvezi s tem usklajujejo pogoje konkurence med proizvajalci Skupnosti.
In light of the considerations set out above, the Commission concludes that the aid measures described cannot benefit from any derogation provided for by the Treaty, in that they distort competition and are not justified with regard to the common interest.
Glede na zgornje razmisleke Komisija ugotavlja, da opisani ukrepi pomoči ne morejo biti upravičeni do nobenega odstopanja iz Pogodbe, ker izkrivljajo konkurenco in niso upravičeni glede na skupni interes.
The State aid provided by France in the form of ‘contingency plans’ for French fruit and vegetable producers between 1992 and 2002 is incompatible with the common market.
Državne pomoči Francije v obliki „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“ v korist francoskih proizvajalcev sadja in zelenjave med letoma 1992 in 2002 so nezdružljive s skupnim trgom.
The Commission regrets that France operated the above aid measures in contravention of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Komisija obžaluje, da je Francija navedene pomoči dodelila v nasprotju s členom 88(3) Pogodbe.
Where unlawful aid is incompatible with the common market, Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provides that the Commission must decide that the Member State concerned take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.
V členu 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 je v primeru nezdružljivosti nezakonitih pomoči s skupnim trgom določeno, da Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč.
Such reimbursement is necessary to re-establish the situation applying previously, and involves cancelling all the financial advantages from which beneficiaries of the unlawfully granted aid have unduly benefited since the date the aid was granted.
To vračilo je potrebno za ponovno vzpostavitev prejšnjega položaja, tako da se odpravijo vse finančne ugodnosti, ki jih je prejemnik nezakonito dodeljene pomoči neupravičeno lahko koristil od datuma dodelitve te pomoči.
RECOVERY PROCEDURE
POSTOPEK VRAČILA
As indicated in Article 15(64) of the Procedural Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the powers of the Commission to recover aid shall be subject to a limitation period of 10 years (the so-called ‘prescription period’).
Kot je navedeno v točki 64, je v členu 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 določeno, da imajo pooblastila Komisije v zvezi z vračilom pomoči desetletni zastaralni rok.
The limitation period shall begin on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded to the beneficiary either as individual aid or as aid under an aid scheme.
Zastaralni rok začne teči na dan, ko se nezakonita pomoč dodeli prejemniku kot individualna pomoč ali na podlagi sheme pomoči.
However, any action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid shall interrupt the limitation period. Each interruption shall start time running afresh.
Kakršen koli ukrep glede nezakonite pomoči, ki ga sprejme Komisija ali država članica na zahtevo Komisije, prekine zastaralni rok, po vsaki prekinitvi pa začne rok znova teči.
Given that the Commission took its first action on 31 July 2002, in the case in question the Commission may not recover any aid which predates 31 July 1992.
Glede na to, da je Komisija prvič ukrepala 31. julija 2002, je v obravnavanem primeru skrajni datum, do katerega Komisija lahko zahteva vračilo pomoči, 31. julij 1992.
The interest rates applicable for recovering the aid deemed incompatible and the rules governing these rates are set out in Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [24], as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 [25].
Obrestne mere za vračilo pomoči, ki veljajo za nezdružljive, in podrobna pravila za uporabo teh obrestnih mer so določeni v poglavju V Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 z dne 21. aprila 2004 o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [24], kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 271/2008 [25].
The aid shall be recovered in accordance with the procedures under French law, provided these allow the immediate and effective implementation of this Decision.
Pomoči je treba vrniti v skladu s postopki, določenimi s francosko zakonodajo, če omogočajo takojšnjo in učinkovito izvršitev te odločbe.
The aid shall be recovered from the beneficiaries of the aid.
Pomoč morajo vrniti prejemniki pomoči.
As mentioned above, the final beneficiaries of the aid are, in principle, the producers belonging to professional organisations who participated in the contingency plans.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, so končni prejemniki pomoči načeloma proizvajalci člani stanovskih organizacij, ki so sodelovali pri načrtih ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih.
However, in exceptional cases, it may be possible that the aid had not been transferred to them by the producer organisations.
Vendar je v izjemnih primerih mogoče, da organizacija proizvajalcev koriščenja pomoči ni prenesla na svoje člane.
Thus, the aid should be recovered from the producers, unless the Member State can show that the aid was not transferred by the producer organisation, in which case the aid shall be recovered from the producer organisation.
Pomoč morajo torej vrniti proizvajalci, razen če država članica lahko dokaže, da organizacija proizvajalcev pomoči ni prenesla na te proizvajalce, v takem primeru mora pomoč vrniti organizacija proizvajalcev.
As regards the quantification of the aid, it follows from the case-law that the Commission is not obliged to quantify the exact amount of aid to be recovered [26].
V zvezi z določitvijo zneska pomoči iz sodne prakse izhaja, da Komisiji ni treba določiti natančnega zneska pomoči, ki jo je treba vrniti [26].
In this case, it is clear from the very nature of the actions undertaken in the context of the ‘contingency plans’ (see in particular paragraphs 17 and following of this Decision) that in essence they consisted of allowing producers to benefit from a sales price (or sales-related payment) higher than the actual cost paid by the buyer of the goods.
V obravnavanem primeru izhaja iz narave ukrepov, sprejetih na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“ (glej točko 17 in naslednje te odločbe), da naj bi ti proizvajalcem omogočili predvsem, da so imeli višjo prodajno ceno (ali plačilo, povezano s prodajo) od realnega stroška, ki ga je nosil kupec blaga.
The amount of the reduction shall thus be the difference between those two amounts.
Znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti, je torej razlika med tema zneskoma.
In the case of aid for destroying a part of the harvest, the amount to be covered shall be all the sums paid in exchange for this destruction.
V primeru pomoči za uničenje dela pridelka so znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti, vsi zneski, izplačani v zameno za to uničenje.
In certain cases, in particular in the specific cases of measures for the temporary storage of products, the measures taken could also have consisted of relieving the beneficiaries of costs which they would normally have incurred (notably storage costs).
V nekaterih primerih, zlasti v posebnem primeru ukrepov začasnega skladiščenja proizvodov, so izvedeni ukrepi lahko vključevali tudi razbremenitev stroškov, ki bi jih prejemniki običajno morali nositi (zlasti stroškov skladiščenja).
The amount of aid thus corresponds to the costs of which the beneficiaries of the aid were relieved.
Znesek pomoči torej ustreza stroškom, ki so jih bili prejemniki pomoči razbremenjeni.
It is for France, pursuant to its Community obligations, to proceed to recover the sums in question.
Izterjavo zadevnih zneskov mora opraviti Francija na podlagi svojih skupnostnih obveznosti.
In the event that France encounters unforeseen difficulties in this recovery, it may submit these problems for consideration by the Commission.
Opozoriti je treba, da če bi Francija pri izterjavi naletela na nepredvidene težave, lahko te težave predloži v presojo Komisiji.
In such a case, the Commission and the Member State must, in accordance with the duty of genuine cooperation, as expressed, inter alia, in Article 10 EC, work together in good faith with a view to overcoming the difficulties whilst fully observing the Treaty provisions, in particular the provisions on aid,
Komisija in država članica morata v takem primeru v skladu z dolžnostjo lojalnega sodelovanja, izraženo zlasti v členu 10 ES, sodelovati v dobri veri, da bosta premagali težave ob polnem upoštevanju določb Pogodbe in zlasti določb o pomoči –
The State aid paid under the ‘contingency plans’ for French fruit and vegetable producers which France unlawfully put into effect between 1992 and 2002 in breach of Article 83(3) of the Treaty is incompatible with the common market.
Državne pomoči, dodeljene proizvajalcem sadja in zelenjave na podlagi „načrtov ukrepov ob nepredvidljivih dogodkih“, ki jih je Francija nezakonito izvedla v nasprotju s členom 83(3) Pogodbe med letoma 1992 in 2002, so nezdružljive s skupnim trgom.
France shall take all necessary measures to recover the incompatible aid referred to in Article 1 from its beneficiaries.
Francija sprejme potrebne ukrepe za izterjavo nezdružljivih pomoči iz člena 1 od prejemnikov teh pomoči.
The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiaries until the date of its recovery.
Pomoči, ki jih je treba vrniti, vključujejo obresti od datuma, ko so bile dane na razpolago prejemnikom, do datuma njihovega vračila.
The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.
Obresti se izračunajo na podlagi obrestnoobrestnega računa v skladu z določbami iz poglavja V Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004.
Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of this Decision.
Vračilo se opravi takoj in v skladu s postopki nacionalnega prava, če ti omogočajo takojšnjo in učinkovito izvršitev te odločbe.
France shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months of its notification.
Francija zagotovi, da se ta odločba izvede v štirih mesecih od datuma, ko je bila o njej uradno obveščena.
Within two months from notification of this Decision, France shall submit the following information to the Commission:
V dveh mesecih od uradnega obvestila o tej odločbi Francija Komisiji predloži naslednje informacije:
the list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount received by each of them;
seznam prejemnikov, ki so prejeli pomoč na podlagi sheme iz člena 1, in skupni znesek pomoči, ki ga je prejel vsak izmed njih;
the total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from the beneficiaries;
skupni znesek (glavnica in obresti vračila), ki ga je treba izterjati od prejemnikov;
a detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;
podroben opis že sprejetih ali načrtovanih ukrepov za uskladitev s to odločbo;
documents demonstrating that the beneficiaries have been ordered to repay the aid.
dokumente, ki dokazujejo, da je bilo prejemnikom odrejeno vračilo pomoči.
France shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed.
Francija obvešča Komisijo o napredku glede sprejetih nacionalnih ukrepov za izvajanje te odločbe, dokler se vračanje pomoči iz člena 1 ne konča.
After the two-month period provided for in paragraph 1, France shall submit, on request from the Commission, a report on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision.
Po dvomesečnem obdobju iz odstavka 1 Francija na zahtevo Komisije predloži poročilo o že sprejetih in načrtovanih ukrepih za uskladitev s to odločbo.