natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Italian authorities undertook, by e-mail of 20 April 2006, to notify the above decrees to the Commission under Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Italijanski organi so se v elektronskem sporočilu z dne 20. aprila 2006 obvezali, da bodo Komisijo na podlagi člena 88(3) Pogodbe uradno obvestili o navedenih odlokih.
By e-mail of 23 May 2006, registered on the same day, the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union notified the Commission, pursuant to Article 88(3) of the Treaty, of the draft Ministerial Decree on the implementing measures for aid financed by the Fund.
Stalno predstavništvo Italije pri Evropski uniji je z elektronskim sporočilom z dne 23. maja 2006, evidentiranim istega dne, Komisijo na podlagi člena 88(3) Pogodbe obvestilo o osnutku ministrskega odloka o ukrepih za izvajanje pomoči, financiranih iz Sklada.
These measures were approved under State aid N 322/06 [8].
Ti ukrepi so bili odobreni v okviru državne pomoči N 322/06 [8].
On several occasions the Commission advised the Italian authorities not to implement the measure provided for in Article 5 of DL 202/05 on the purchase of frozen meat for humanitarian aid [9].
Komisija je italijanskim organom večkrat odsvetovala izvedbo ukrepa iz člena 5 DL 202/05 v zvezi z odkupom zamrznjenega mesa, namenjenega za humanitarno pomoč [9].
The decree of 13 January 2006, which governs the procedures to be adhered to by the AGEA for the purchase of poultry products of Community origin, provides for the following purchase prices:
Odlok z dne 13. januarja 2006 o podrobnih pravilih, ki jih mora AGEA upoštevati pri odkupu perutninskih proizvodov s poreklom iz Skupnosti, določa naslednje nabavne cene:
Carcasses and cuts of meat
Klavni trupi in kosi mesa
Golden and/or Livorno chickens
Piščanci Golden in/ali leghorn
‘Vallespluga’ chickens
Piščanci „Vallespluga“
Chicken legs
Piščančja bedra
Chicken wings
Piščančje peruti
Turkey drumsticks
Bedra puric
Turkey legs
Stegna puric
Turkey wings
Peruti puric
Turkey (breasts)
Purica (prsi)
Guinea fowl and duck
Pegatke in race
All natural or legal persons involved in farming and processing poultry meat for more than 12 months on the date of entry into force of the decree of 13 January 2006 and registered for these activities on the company register of the Chamber of Commerce can offer their products for humanitarian aid purposes.
V okviru humanitarne pomoči lahko svoje proizvode ponudijo vse fizične ali pravne osebe, ki so se na datum začetka veljavnosti odloka z dne 13. januarja 2006 več kot 12 let ukvarjale z rejo in predelavo perutninskega mesa ter so za ti dejavnosti vpisane v sodni register trgovinske zbornice.
The measures laid down in Article 1a(8), (10), (11) and (12) of Law 81/06 setting up a Fund to be used for financing the measures set out in recital 21(a)-(e) of this final decision were examined under State aid N 322/2006 and declared compatible with the common market [10] since they fulfil the relevant conditions of paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 9 and 11.4 of the guidelines [11].
Ukrepi iz člena 1a(8), (10), (11) in (12) zakona 81/06 o ustanovitvi Sklada za financiranje ukrepov iz uvodne izjave 21(a) do (e) te končne odločbe so bili preučeni v okviru državne pomoči N 322/2006 ter razglašeni za združljive s skupnim trgom [10], ker so izpolnjevali zadevne pogoje iz točk 4.1, 4.2, 9 in 11.4 Smernic [11].
This decision therefore relates to the sub-measures set out in recital 20(a), (b) and (c), which deal with the purchase by the AGEA of 17000 tonnes of poultry meat and other poultry products for humanitarian aid; the suspension of payment of taxes, social security contributions and payments in respect of operators in the poultry sector and the granting of aid for loans for the conversion and restructuring of poultry undertakings affected by the situation.
Ta odločba se torej nanaša na podukrepe iz uvodne izjave 20(a), (b) in (c), v okviru katerih bi AGEA odkupila 17000 ton perutninskega mesa in drugih perutninskih proizvodov ter jih namenila za humanitarno pomoč, za izvajalce v perutninskem sektorju bi se začasno ukinilo plačilo davkov, socialnih prispevkov in plačil za dejavnosti financiranja, dodelile pa bi se tudi pomoči za posojila za preobrazbo in prestrukturiranje perutninskih podjetij, ki jih je prizadel težavni položaj.
The measures set out in recital 20 appear to qualify as State aid in so far as they are granted by way of State resources, either in the form of loss of earnings from tax revenues for public authorities, or in terms of prices to be paid for the purchase of poultry meat and in so far as these measures could affect trade because of Italy’s position in this sector of production (Italy was the fourth biggest producer of poultry meat in the EU in 2004).
Zdi se, da ukrepi iz uvodne izjave 20 ustrezajo opredelitvi državne pomoči, saj se financirajo iz državnih sredstev v obliki izgube davčnih prihodkov javnih organov ali v smislu odkupne cene perutninskega mesa, in bi lahko glede na položaj Italije v tem proizvodnem sektorju vplivali na trgovino (Italija je bila leta 2004 četrta največja proizvajalka perutninskega mesa v Uniji).
The Commission therefore initiated the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty because it had doubts as to the compatibility of the measures provided for in Article 5 of DL 202/05, as amended by Article 1a(7) of Law 81/06.
Komisija je zato sprožila postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES, saj je podvomila o združljivosti ukrepov iz člena 5 zakonskega odloka št. 202/05, kakor je bil spremenjen s členom 1a(7) zakona št. 81/06.
According to the aforementioned Article 88, aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic regions 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.
V skladu z zgoraj navedenim členom 88 se lahko za združljivo s skupnim trgom 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.
Following the initiation of the procedure, the Commission has received no comments.
Komisija po sprožitvi postopka ni prejela nobenih pripomb.
The Italian authorities sent their comments on the initiation of the procedure by letter of 19 July 2006, registered on 3 August 2006.
Italijanski organi so pripombe glede sprožitve postopka poslali v dopisu z dne 19. julija 2006, evidentiranem 3. avgusta 2006.
First of all, the Italian authorities draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that, despite the urgency, no specific measures have been adopted yet.
Italijanski organi Komisijo najprej opozarjajo na dejstvo, da posebni ukrepi kljub nujnosti še niso bili sprejeti.
The Italian authorities then refer to paragraph 18 of the initiation decision, which provides that under Article 87(1) of the Treaty, 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 the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
Dalje se italijanski organi sklicujejo na točko 18 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, ki določa, da je v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe 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.
They conclude that, based on the interpretation of the spirit and of the letter of the regulation, State aid is prohibited not systematically or absolutely, but only in cases where trade is distorted or market advantage conferred on beneficiaries.
Na podlagi tega sklepajo, da državne pomoči glede na razlago namena in besedila predpisov niso prepovedane dosledno in brezpogojno, temveč samo, če izkrivljajo trgovino in podjetjem, ki te pomoči prejmejo, dajejo prednostni položaj na trgu.
The Italian authorities believe that, in the case in question, these eventualities can be considered to have been ruled out entirely, since the sole intention of the legislature was to establish a system of partial and ex post compensation in respect of losses caused by the crisis in the sector.
Italijanski organi menijo, da sta v zadevnem primeru ti možnosti popolnoma izključeni, saj je bil edini namen zakonodajalca uvesti sistem delnega in naknadnega nadomestila za izgube, ki jih je povzročila kriza v sektorju.
In this regard, they stress, in particular, that the measures referred to in (b) (the suspension of tax payments, social security contributions and payments in respect of operators in the poultry sector — paragraph 3a of Article 1a(7) of Law 81/06) would have applied as de minimis aid if the three-year budget allocated to Italy had not been fully absorbed by another measure.
V zvezi s tem zlasti poudarjajo, da naj bi se ukrepi iz točke (b) (da se za izvajalce v perutninskem sektorju začasno ukine plačevanje davkov, socialnih prispevkov in plačil za dejavnosti financiranja (pododstavek 3a člena 1a(7) zakona 81/06)) uporabljali kot pomoč de minimis, če se triletni proračun, dodeljen Italiji, ne bi v celoti uporabil za drug ukrep.
The Italian authorities cite paragraph 22 of the decision to initiate the procedure, which refers to the possibility of a derogation under 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.
Italijanski organi navajajo točko (22) odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, ki se sklicuje na možnost odstopanja na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, v skladu s katerim se lahko za združljivo z notranjim trgom 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 that respect, they point out that there is no dispute that the present case is of a well-known kind and, in accordance with the well-established principles of legal literature and of case-law, well-known facts need not be demonstrated on the basis of evidence; such evidence is only necessary in the case of situations where there is doubt or uncertainty regarding the establishment of facts.
V zvezi s tem pojasnjujejo, da je obravnavani primer popolnoma razumljiv ter da v skladu z ustaljenimi načeli pravne teorije in sodne prakse jasnih dejstev ni treba dokazovati, saj je to nujno samo v primerih, ko se pri ugotavljanju dejstev pojavijo dvomi ali negotovost.
The Italian authorities also draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that if it were deemed that Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty did not apply to the proposed measure, such measure should be authorised on the basis of Article 87(2)(b), which provides that aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences is compatible with the common market.
Italijanski organi Komisijo še opozarjajo, da tudi če bi ugotovila, da se člen 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ne uporablja za predlagani ukrep, bi ga bilo treba dovoliti na podlagi člena 87(2)(b), ki določa, da je pomoč za povrnitev škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki, združljiva s skupnim trgom.
In the present case, according to the Italian authorities, the Council of Ministers already explicitly acknowledged the exceptional nature of the occurrence by adopting Regulation (EC) No 679/2006 of 25 April 2006 amending Regulations (EEC) No 2771/75 and (EEC) No 2777/75 as regards the application of exceptional market support measures [14].
Po njihovem mnenju je izjemno naravo dogodka izrecno priznal že Svet ministrov ob sprejetju Uredbe (ES) št. 679/2006 z dne 25. aprila 2006 o spremembah Uredb (EGS) št. 2771/75 in (EGS) št. 2777/75 glede uporabe izrednih ukrepov za podporo trgu [14].
The Italian authorities consider that one and the same occurrence, deemed to be exceptional for the purposes of adopting exceptional market measures, cannot be deemed to be normal for the purposes of evaluating State aid designed to respond to the same emergency situation.
Italijanski organi dejansko menijo, da istega dogodka, ki se je ob sprejetju izrednih ukrepov na trgu štel za izjemnega, ob oceni državnih pomoči za enak nujni primer ni mogoče šteti za običajnega.
Finally, the Italian authorities point out that the Commission itself actually recognised the exception nature of the occurrence by adopting Regulation (EC) No 1010/2006 of 3 July 2006 on certain exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector in certain Member States [15].
Nazadnje, zgoraj navedeni organi navajajo, da je tudi sama Komisija priznala izjemno naravo tega dogodka, ko je sprejela Uredbo (ES) št. 1010/2006 z dne 3. julija 2006 o nekaterih izrednih ukrepih za podporo trgu z jajci in perutnino v nekaterih državah članicah [15].
Prohibition of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty
Prepoved državnih pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES
Under Article 87(1) of the Treaty, 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 the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(1) ES 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 s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
The measures set out in paragraph 20 of this text appear to qualify as State aid inasmuch as they confer an economic advantage (in the form of a loss of earnings from tax revenues for the state and in terms of the price to be paid for purchasing poultry meat with no access to the Community market on account of avian influenza) on a particular sector (poultry), it amounts to funding from (national) public resources and such aid is likely to affect trade.
Ukrepi iz točke 20 tega besedila ustrezajo opredelitvi državne pomoči, ker dajejo gospodarsko prednost (v obliki izgube davčnih prihodkov države ali v smislu odkupne cene perutninskega mesa, ki ga zaradi aviarne influence nikakor ne bi bilo mogoče prodati na trgu Skupnosti) določenemu sektorju (perutninskemu), ker se financirajo iz javnih (državnih) sredstev in ker bi lahko navedena pomoč vplivala na trgovino.
According to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, an improvement in the competitive position of an undertaking as a result of State aid generally leads to distortion of competition in relation to competing undertakings not receiving such assistance [16].
V skladu s sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča okrepitev konkurenčnega položaja podjetja zaradi državne pomoči na splošno kaže na izkrivljanje konkurence v škodo konkurenčnim podjetjem, ki take podpore niso prejela [16].
The Court has held that the relatively small amount of aid or the relatively small size of the undertaking which receives it does not as such exclude the possibility that trade between Member States might be affected [17].
V sodni praksi je navedeno, da sorazmerno majhen znesek pomoči ali sorazmerna majhnost podjetja, ki jo prejme, sami po sebi ne izključujeta možnosti vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami [17].
A measure affects trade between Member States when it hinders imports from other Member States or facilitates exports to other Member States.
Ukrep vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, če ovira uvoz iz drugih držav članic ali lajša izvoz v druge države članice.
The crucial factor is that intra-Community trade develops, or is in danger of developing, differently because of the measure in question.
Pri tem je odločilno dejstvo, da se trgovina v Skupnosti zaradi zadevnega ukrepa razvija ali bi se lahko razvijala drugače.
The product benefiting from the aid scheme is the subject of trade between Member States and is therefore exposed to competition.
S proizvodom, ki je upravičen do sistema pomoči, se trguje med državami članicami, zato je torej izpostavljen konkurenci.
Thus, the criteria concerning the effect on trade and the distortion of competition are fully met.
Merili v zvezi z vplivom na trgovino in izkrivljanjem konkurence sta torej v celoti izpolnjeni.
The measure at issue is in effect, therefore, State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Obravnavani ukrep torej dejansko pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The fact that the measure is intended to compensate the poultry sector for losses due to the avian influenza makes no difference to the nature of the aid if such aid fulfils the conditions of Article 87(1), as is the case with the measure in question.
To, da je namen ukrepa nadomestiti izgube, ki jih je perutninski sektor utrpel zaradi aviarne influence, v ničemer ne spreminja narave pomoči, če ta enako kot obravnavni ukrep izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 87(1).
On the other hand, both the guidelines that apply in the present case (in view of the fact that it was notified in 2005) and the new Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 [18] specifically provide for the possibility of granting aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences, or by animal and plant diseases.
Po drugi strani pa smernice, ki se uporabljajo v obravnavanem primeru, saj je bil zadevni ukrep priglašen leta 2005, pa tudi nove smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem in gozdarskem sektorju 2007–2013 [18], izrecno določajo možnost, da se pomoč dodeli za povračilo škode zaradi naravnih nesreč ali izjemnih dogodkov oziroma bolezni živali ali rastlin.
The Commission will discuss below the conditions for the applicability of Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty and of the provisions of the 2000-2006 agricultural guidelines on animal diseases, which were in force when the above measure was notified in 2005.
Komisija bo natančneje preučila pogoje za uporabo člena 87(2)(b) ES in določb kmetijskih smernic za obdobje 2000–2006, ki se nanašajo na bolezni živali in so se uporabljale ob priglasitvi zadevnega ukrepa v letu 2005.
The Italian authorities referred to Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty, which declares aid to make good damage caused by exceptional occurrences compatible with the common market.
Italijanski organi so se sklicevali na člen 87(2)(b) Pogodbe ES, na podlagi katerega je s skupnim trgom združljiva pomoč za povrnitev škode, ki so jo povzročili izjemni dogodki.
In their letter of reply of 19 July 2006 they refer to avian influenza as an exceptional occurrence.
V odgovoru z dne 19. julija 2006 kot izjemni dogodek navajajo aviarno influenco.
No definitions of the terms ‘exceptional occurrence’ and ‘natural disaster’ are given by the Treaty so it needs to be verified whether the avian influenza affecting Italy can be considered a ‘natural disaster’ within the meaning of Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty.
Ker v Pogodbi izraza „izjemni dogodek“ in „naravne nesreče“ nista opredeljena, je treba preveriti, ali se lahko aviarna influenca, ki je prizadela Italijo, šteje za naravno nesrečo v smislu člena 87(2)(b) Pogodbe.
Since they constitute exceptions from the general principle of the incompatibility of State aid with the common market, laid down by Article 87(1) of the Treaty, it has been the consistent practice of the Commission to give a restrictive interpretation of the notions of ‘natural disaster’ and ‘exceptional occurrence’ referred to in Article 87(2)(b), as set out in paragraph 11.2 of the guidelines.
Kar zadeva odstopanja od splošnega načela nezdružljivosti državnih pomoči s skupnim trgom, določenega v členu 87(1) Pogodbe, je ustaljena praksa Komisije, da pojma „naravne nesreče“ in „izjemni dogodki“ iz člena 87(2)(b), kot sta povzeta v točki 11.2 Smernic, razlaga omejevalno.
The need for such a restrictive interpretation has been consistently confirmed by the Court of Justice [19].
Sodišče je nujnost take omejevalne razlage dosledno potrjevalo. [19]
To date, the Commission has considered earthquakes, avalanches, landslides and floods as natural disasters.
Do zdaj je Komisija za naravne nesreče štela potrese, snežne in zemeljske plazove ter poplave.
Exceptional occurrences that have been accepted include war, internal disturbances or strikes and, with certain reservations and depending on their extent, major nuclear or industrial accidents and fires that result in widespread loss.
Kot izjemni dogodki so se priznavali vojne, notranji nemiri in stavke ter pod nekaterimi pogoji in glede na obseg tudi hude jedrske in industrijske nesreče ter požari z velikimi izgubami.
As a general rule, the Commission does not accept that outbreaks of animal or plant diseases can be considered to constitute natural disasters or exceptional occurrences.
Komisija se po navadi ne strinja, da bi se lahko izbruhi bolezni živali ali rastlin šteli za naravne nesreče ali izjemne dogodke. Kljub temu je zelo razširjen izbruh povsem nove bolezni v enem primeru priznala za izjemen dogodek.
The consistent practice of the Commission has been to consider avian influenza as an animal disease [21] and to use long-established principles in the Guidelines on the fight against animal and plant diseases.
Ustaljena praksa Komisije je, da aviarno influenco [21] šteje za bolezen živali in da uporablja načela, ki so pri preprečevanju bolezni živali in rastlin že dolgo uveljavljena s Smernicami.
In general, an exceptional occurrence must at least present the characteristics of an occurrence that, by its nature and its effect on the operators concerned, is clearly distinguished from usual conditions and is outside the framework of the normal conditions under which a market operates.
Na splošno velja, da mora imeti izjemen dogodek vsaj značilnosti dogodka, ki se po svoji naravi in vplivu na zadevne gospodarske subjekte jasno razlikuje od običajnih okoliščin ter ne ustreza običajnim razmeram za delovanje trga.
Moreover, the data submitted by Italy lead to the conclusion not that the aforementioned disease was of an exceptional nature but that it is a recurring phenomenon.
Poleg tega iz podatkov, ki jih je predložila Italija, ni mogoče sklepati o izjemni naravi navedene bolezni, temveč prej o kroničnem pojavu.
According to the Italian authorities the exceptional nature of the occurrence was explicitly recognised by the Council of Ministers when it adopted Regulation (EC) No 679/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1010/2006.
Kot navajajo italijanski organi, je Svet ministrov izjemno naravo dogodka izrecno priznal ob sprejetju Uredbe (ES) št. 679/2006 in Uredbe (ES) št. 1010/2006.
In the cases above, the avian influenza crisis had led to a fall in the consumption of poultry and eggs in a number of Member States, resulting in a sharp drop in prices.
V zgoraj navedenih primerih se je v nekaterih državah članicah zaradi aviarne influence zmanjšala poraba perutninskega mesa in jajc, kar je povzročilo močan padec cen.
The regulations governing the eggs and poultry market allowed the EU to co-finance compensation measures only in cases where there was a case of avian influenza on a farm or where farmers were prevented from moving their poultry because of restrictions imposed on farmers by veterinary orders.
Evropska unija je lahko na podlagi predpisov, ki so urejali trg jajc in perutnine, ukrepe nadomestil sofinancirala izključno ob izbruhu aviarne influence na nekem gospodarstvu ali v primeru omejitev prevoza živali, ki so se rejcu naložile z veterinarsko odredbo.
There was no possibility to provide EU aid to take account of market problems linked to a fall in sales caused by a loss of consumer confidence.
Pomoči Skupnosti nikakor ni bilo mogoče dodeliti za odpravo težav na trgu, povezanih z zmanjšanjem prodaje zaradi izgube zaupanja potrošnikov.