natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Nor had it been established whether the conditions under which the FASFC provided the services corresponded to market prices, in particular because the Belgian authorities had not stated clearly that the choice of laboratories had been made by means of an open and transparent procedure.
Prav tako ni bilo ugotovljeno, ali so pogoji, pod katerimi je Zvezna agencija za varnost prehranjevalne verige zagotavljala storitve, ustrezali tržnim cenam, zlasti ker belgijski organi niso jasno navedli, da so bili laboratoriji izbrani z odprtim in preglednim postopkom.
Secondly, the mechanism of levies was not clear: in particular, the beneficiaries and the contributors were not clearly established and the mechanism for reimbursement of the prefinancing of the costs of the BSE tests was not clear.
Drugič, mehanizem prelevmanov ni bil jasen. Zlasti upravičenci in plačniki niso bili jasno opredeljeni in mehanizem povračila vnaprej plačanih stroškov testov na BSE ni bil jasen.
There were also questions about the conditions which the parafiscal charges had to meet in order to be considered as complying with the rules on State aid, in particular as regards the exclusion of imported products from the parafiscal charges, as regards whether exported products profited from the aid measure financed by the charges, and whether the charges influenced the price of the final products given that this was determined by changes in supply and demand on the free market.
Dodatna vprašanja so se postavljala v zvezi s pogoji, ki jih morajo izpolnjevati davkom podobne dajatve, da štejejo za skladne s pravili o državni pomoči, zlasti glede oprostitve plačila davkom podobnih dajatev za uvožene proizvode in vprašanj, ali so izvoženi proizvodi imeli koristi od ukrepa pomoči, ki se financira iz davkov, in ali so dajatve vplivale na ceno končnih proizvodov, saj jo določajo spremembe v ponudbi in povpraševanju na prostem trgu.
COMMENTS BY BELGIUM
PRIPOMBE BELGIJE
Classification of the financing of ESB tests as State aid
Opredelitev financiranja testov na BSE kot državne pomoči
By definition, Belgium contests the Commission’s classification of the financing of BSE tests as State aid due to the obligatory nature of these tests.
Belgija takoj nasprotuje opredelitvi Komisije, da je financiranje testov na BSE državna pomoč, saj so ti testi obvezni.
Belgium claims that the obligation to carry out the BSE tests is imposed by Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies [16] to protect public health.
Belgija namreč trdi, da je obvezno izvajanje testov na BSE določeno z Uredbo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 999/2001 z dne 22. maja 2001 o določitvi predpisov za preprečevanje, nadzor in izkoreninjenje nekaterih transmisivnih spongiformnih encefalopatij [16] zaradi varovanja javnega zdravja.
In support of its claim Belgium quotes two judgments [17] in which the Court of Justice held that the costs of controls carried out to protect public health cannot be considered as compensation for a service and that the authority itself must bear these costs.
V podporo svoji trditvi navaja dve sodbi [17], v katerih je Sodišče presodilo, da stroškov pregledov, ki se izvajajo zaradi varovanja javnega zdravja, ni mogoče šteti za nadomestilo za storitev in da morajo organi sami kriti te stroške.
While Belgium recognises that the judgments in question involve the free circulation of goods rather than State aid, it feels that this rationale can be applied to State aid.
Belgija priznava, da se zadevni sodbi nanašata na prosti pretok blaga in ne na državne pomoči, vendar meni, da je sklepanje mogoče prenesti na področje državnih pomoči.
Moreover, Belgium states that as Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 does not oblige enterprises to bear the costs of controls, a Member State may decide to use the ‘normal’ system of financing BSE tests.
Poleg tega Belgija navaja, da se država članica, ker Uredba (ES) št. 999/2001 ne določa, da morajo stroške pregledov kriti podjetja, lahko odloči za „običajen“ sistem financiranja testov na BSE.
Therefore, according to Belgium, the selectivity criterion for State aid must be seen in relation to this normal system [18].
Zato Belgija meni, da je treba merilo selektivnosti za državne pomoči presojati glede na ta običajni sistem [18].
This could only be State aid in that certain sectors or enterprises might enjoy special treatment compared to the normal Belgian system.
O državnih pomočeh bi lahko govorili le, če bi bili nekateri sektorji ali podjetja obravnavani ugodneje, kot bi bili v običajnem sistemu, ki ga je izbrala Belgija.
Belgium states that the Commission appears to think that normally the costs had to be borne by the farmers; this does not, however, fall under the applicable texts.
Belgija navaja, da se zdi, da Komisija meni, da morajo praviloma stroške nositi kmetje, kar pa ne izhaja iz veljavnih predpisov.
If different systems of financing BSE tests can lead to distortions of competition this problem can in Belgium’s view be solved through harmonisation of legislation [19]; this is in no way a State aid issue.
Če različni sistemi financiranja testov na BSE lahko povzročijo izkrivljanje konkurence, je po mnenju Belgije to treba rešiti z usklajevanjem zakonodaj [19], vendar pa to nikakor ni vprašanje državnih pomoči.
Belgium also quotes the GEMO judgment [20], but does not consider that this changes its line in this particular case.
Belgija navaja tudi sodbo GEMO [20], vendar meni, da to ne spreminja njenega pristopa v obravnavanem primeru.
In its letter of 16 October 2009 Belgium reiterates that it does not agree with the Commission’s classification of the financing as State aid in its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Belgija v dopisu z dne 16. oktobra 2009 ponovno navaja, da se ne strinja z opredelitvijo, ki jo je Komisija navedla v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, da gre za državno pomoč.
Nonetheless, in a spirit of cooperation, Belgium applied the Commission’s arguments in order to clarify the issues raised in that decision.
Vendar je Belgija v duhu sodelovanja sprejela logiko Komisije, da bi pojasnila vprašanja, navedena v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
Classification of the fee
Opredelitev plačila
In Belgium’s view the fee of EUR 10,70 per tested bovine animal cannot be considered as State aid.
Belgija meni, da se plačilo v znesku 10,70 EUR na testirano govedo ne sme šteti za državno pomoč.
According to Belgium State aid can only be present if an advantage is given to one or several enterprises.
Po njenem mnenju bi o državnih pomočeh lahko govorili le, če se enemu ali več podjetjem dodeli ugodnost.
As a result, a received fee can only represent an advantage if it is greater than the amount paid.
Pri plačilu je zato mogoče govoriti o prednosti le, če je prejeta ugodnost višja od plačanega zneska.
If part of the BSE tests is financed by the authorities, the final advantage to the farmer corresponds to the cost of the test minus the fee paid.
Če organi delno financirajo teste na BSE, je kmetova končna ugodnost enaka strošku testa, od katerega se odšteje kmetovo plačilo.
Belgium takes this argument further by stating that, if the costs were recovered, this would mean demanding a higher global payment from the farmer.
Belgija sklepanje nadaljuje s trditvijo, da bi v primeru vračila to pomenilo, da se od kmeta zahteva višji skupni znesek.
In other words, if the total cost of the test has to be repaid, this would mean that in the end this cost is added to the fee already paid.
Če je namreč treba povrniti celotni znesek testa, bi to pomenilo, da se na koncu ta strošek prišteje znesku že poravnanega plačila.
Belgium stresses that in the Court’s judgments State aid is present only when the revenue from fees is used to favour a specific group and does not equally benefit all those who paid a fee [21].
Belgija poudarja, da sodna praksa Sodišča obravnava vprašanje državnih pomoči le, če se prihodki iz dajatev uporabljajo tako, da koristijo določeni skupini in take koristi ne prinašajo vsem, ki so dajatev plačali [21].
In this case the fee of EUR 10,70 per tested bovine animal is paid to economic actors in the bovine meat production sector.
V obravnavanem primeru morajo 10,70 EUR na testirano govedo plačati gospodarski subjekti, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo govejega mesa.
The EUR 10,70 used for the test does not represent any economic advantage to these actors and therefore cannot be considered as State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the TFEU.
Teh 10,70 EUR, ki se porabijo za test, zanje ni nikakršna gospodarska prednost, zato jih ni mogoče šteti za državno pomoč v smislu člena 107 PDEU.
According to Belgium the Commission used a similar argument in decision N 9/05 and N 10/05.
Po mnenju Belgije je Komisija podobno sklepala v Odločbi N 9/05 in N 10/05.
Belgium states that in this decision the fee of EUR 10,70 was not qualified as State aid (see recital 98 of the decision).
Belgija navaja, da v tej odločbi plačilo v znesku 10,70 EUR ni bilo opredeljeno kot državna pomoč (glej uvodno izjavo 98 Odločbe).
A similar rationale was used in decision N 21/02, where part of the costs of BSE tests partially financed out of fees paid by the sector was not considered to be State aid.
Podobno je sklepala tudi v Odločbi N 21/02, v kateri dela stroškov testov na BSE, ki so se delno financirali iz sektorskih dajatev, ni štela za državno pomoč.
In its letter of 16 October 2009 Belgium indicates that the fee was charged to the farmer and that it concerned part of the economic costs of the BSE tests.
Belgijski organi so v dopisu z dne 16. oktobra 2009 navedli, da gre plačilo v breme kmeta in da zadeva del ekonomskih stroškov testov na BSE.
Replying to the Commission’s question, i.e. whether the fee corresponded to the true economic cost of the laboratories’ services, Belgium states that the fee only related to part of the costs of the BSE tests, as indicated in decision N 9/05 and N 10/05.
Belgija je na vprašanje Komisije, ali znesek plačila ustreza dejanskemu ekonomskemu strošku storitev, ki jih opravljajo laboratoriji, odgovorila, da se plačilo nanaša samo na del stroškov testov na BSE, kot je navedeno v Odločbi N 9/05 in N 10/05.
The Commission’s reasoning in recitals 61-66 of that decision, that the costs of the services and the amount of the fees were equal, related to services other than the BSE tests.
Sklepanje Komisije v uvodnih izjavah od 61 do 66 te odločbe, v katerih je ugotovila, da so stroški opravljenih storitev in znesek plačil enakovredni, se je nanašalo na druge storitve in ne na teste na BSE.
Belgium reiterates that, regarding the BSE tests, decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 concluded that while the service in the form of BSE tests was State aid, the amount of the fee (EUR 10,70) was not aid and should be subtracted from the cost of the tests.
Belgija ponovno navaja, da je bilo v Odločbi N 9/05 in N 10/05 v zvezi s testi na BSE ugotovljeno, da je storitev v obliki testov na BSE državna pomoč, vendar znesek plačila (to je 10,70 EUR) ni državna pomoč in ga je treba odšteti od stroška testov.
Absence of overcompensation and test prices’ conformity with market prices
Neobstoj prekomernega nadomestila in skladnost cen testov s tržnimi cenami
Belgium refers to point 132 of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 [22] (agriculture guidelines 2007-13) which states that EUR 40 per test is ‘the best price currently available in the Community’.
Belgija se sklicuje na točko 132 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem in gozdarskem sektorju 2007–2013 [22] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Kmetijske smernice 2007–2013), v katerih je navedeno, da je 40 EUR na test „zdaj nekako najugodnejša cena za te teste v Skupnosti“.
Since July 2005 the FASFC’s proposed prices have been less than EUR 40. In the opinion of the Belgian authorities this shows that the prices charged in Belgium are in line with market prices.
Od julija 2005 so cene, ki jih predlaga Zvezna agencija za varnost prehranjevalne verige, nižje od 40 EUR. Po mnenju belgijskih organov to kaže, da so cene v Belgiji skladne s tržnimi cenami.
In decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 the Commission recognised that the laboratories were selected using open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedures, and that the service providers (i.e. the laboratories) could not be seen as receiving State aid.
Komisija je v Odločbi N 9/05 in N 10/05 ugotovila, da so bili laboratoriji izbrani z odprtimi, preglednimi in nediskriminatornimi postopki ter da izvajalcev storitev (to je laboratorijev) ni mogoče šteti za prejemnike državnih pomoči.
The situation has not changed in the meantime.
Od takrat se položaj ni spremenil.
In addition, the Belgian competition authorities are currently carrying out a survey of price-fixing between the laboratories regarding BSE tests.
Poleg tega belgijski organi za konkurenco trenutno preiskujejo sporazume med laboratoriji glede cen testov na BSE.
This clearly shows, according to Belgium, that there was no wish whatsoever to pay a supplementary price to the laboratories.
To po mnenju belgijskih organov jasno kaže, da laboratorijem nikakor ne nameravajo plačevati previsoke cene.
In its letter of 16 October 2009 Belgium stated that the investigation of possible price-fixing between the laboratories would be carried out and should in principle be completed during the first quarter of 2010.
Belgijski organi so v dopisu z dne 16. oktobra 2009 navedli, da bo potekala preiskava morebitnega sporazuma med laboratoriji glede cen in da bi preiskava načeloma morala biti končana v prvem četrtletju 2010.
Levy on imports and exports
Izvozni ali uvozni prelevman
The Belgian authorities state that the contributions and fee were never applied to imports and exports.
Belgijski organi navajajo, da se prispevki in plačila niso nikdar uporabljali za uvoz ali izvoz.
Only enterprises based in Belgium have to pay a contribution and only bovine animals slaughtered in Belgium and over 30 months old are subject to a fee of EUR 10,70.
Prispevek morajo plačati samo podjetja s sedežem v Belgiji, plačilo v višini 10,70 EUR pa se plača samo za govedo, zaklano v Belgiji in starejše od 30 mesecev.
Belgium stresses that the Commission already looked at these measures in decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 and concluded that the contributions were not discriminatory towards imported or exported products and were not contrary to the provisions of the Treaty.
Belgija poudarja, da je Komisija te ukrepe že preučila v Odločbi N 9/05 in N 10/05 ter ugotovila, da prispevki ne diskriminirajo uvoženih ali izvoženih proizvodov ter da niso v nasprotju z določbami Pogodbe.
Absence of a mechanism through which the slaughterhouses pass on the fee to producers or other market actors
Neobstoj mehanizma, s katerim klavnice plačilo prenesejo na proizvajalce ali druge udeležence na trgu
The Belgian authorities indicate that the slaughterhouses pass on the cost of fees to their clients just as any normal enterprise passes on costs incurred to its clients.
Belgijski organi navajajo, da klavnice prenašajo strošek plačila na stranke, tako kot vsako običajno podjetje svoje stroške prenese na kupce.
Normal market mechanisms therefore apply to this passing on of costs.
Zato ta prenos prevzamejo običajni tržni mehanizmi.
Moreover, itemising the cost of fees separately on the invoices submitted to producers is normal practice.
Poleg tega je običajna praksa, da se strošek plačila ločeno navede na računih, izdanih proizvajalcem.
In this connection Belgium quotes recitals 93 and 95 of decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, where the criteria in point 25 of the TSE guidelines are considered to be met.
V zvezi s tem Belgija navaja uvodni izjavi 93 in 95 Odločbe N 9/05 in N 10/05, v katerih je navedeno, da se šteje, da so merila iz točke 25 Smernic TSE izpolnjena.
Classification of the beneficiaries as small and medium-sized enterprises (SME)
Opredelitev prejemnikov kot mala in srednje velika podjetja (v nadaljnjem besedilu: MSP)
Belgium states that all Belgian farmers are SMEs, based on the following criteria: they employ less than 250 people, their annual turnover does not exceed EUR 40 million or their annual balance sheet total is less than EUR 27 million, and 25 % or more of the enterprise is not owned by another company or companies which are not SMEs.
Belgija navaja, da so vsi kmetje v Belgiji MSP na podlagi naslednjih pogojev: imajo zaposlenih manj kot 250 oseb, njihov letni promet ne presega 40 milijonov EUR ali njihova skupna letna bilanca stanja ne presega 27 milijonov EUR in 25 % podjetja ali več ni v lasti drugih podjetij, ki niso MSP.
Comments on the compatibility of aid during the three periods identified in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure (2001-2003; 2003-2007; after 2007)
Pripombe v zvezi z združljivostjo pomoči v treh obdobjih, opredeljenih v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave (od 2001 do 2003, od 2003 do 2007, po letu 2007)
Belgium has no particular comment to make regarding the period from 1 January 2001 to 1 January 2003, given that the Commission itself assumes, in recital 80 of the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, that the aid was probably compatible.
Belgija v zvezi z obdobjem od 1. januarja 2001 do 1. januarja 2003 nima posebnih pripomb, saj Komisija v uvodni izjavi 80 odločitve o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave sama ugotavlja verjetno združljivost.
Belgium does, however, state that the aid was not more than 100 % of the costs incurred and that it agrees to provide further information in this regard if necessary.
Belgija kljub temu navaja, da pomoči niso presegle 100 % nastalih stroškov in da lahko po potrebi predloži več podatkov.
However, Belgium insists that this information is only given in passing, since its initial point of view is that State aid is not an issue in this case, because it is up to Belgium to choose how it finances BSE tests.
Vendar Belgija poudarja, da so ti podatki predloženi le podredno, saj je njeno prvotno stališče, da v obravnavanem primeru ne gre za državne pomoči, ker Belgija odloča, kako bo financirala teste na BSE.
During the period 1 January 2003 to 1 January 2007, Belgium indicates that no aid in excess of 100 % of the test costs was paid.
Belgija za obdobje od 1. januarja 2003 do 1. januarja 2007 navaja, da ni bila izplačana nobena pomoč, ki bi presegla 100 % stroškov testa.
It refers to decision N 9/05 and N 10/05 which already dealt with this issue.
Belgija se sklicuje na Odločbo N 9/05 in N 10/05, v kateri je bilo to vprašanje že obravnavano.
Regarding the period from 1 January 2007, Belgium never granted aid exceeding EUR 40, as the cost of the tests was less than that amount.
Belgija v obdobju, ki se začne 1. januarja 2007, ni nikdar dodelila pomoči, ki bi presegala 40 EUR, saj so bili stroški testov nižji od 40 EUR.
Belgium, as an enclosure to its comments, submits a detailed sequence of the measures taken with regard to the financing of BSE tests.
Belgija svojim pripombam prilaga podroben časovni razpored ukrepov, sprejetih v okviru financiranja testov na BSE.
As this information is largely repeated in the descriptive part of this decision, the sequence in this section is not exhaustive.
Ker so ti podatki večinoma povzeti v opisnem delu tega sklepa, časovni razpored v tem oddelku ni povzet v celoti.
Some elements are, however, repeated below.
Kljub temu bodo nekateri podatki povzeti v nadaljevanju.
The sequence of BSE test financing is as follows:
Časovni razpored financiranja testov na BSE:
1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001: tests entirely financed by the Exchequer,
od 1. januarja 2001 do 31. decembra 2001: teste v celoti financira državna blagajna,
1 January 2002 to 30 June 2004: tests prefinanced by the BIRB.
od 1. januarja 2002 do 30. junija 2004: teste vnaprej plačuje urad za intervencije in nadomestila.
The total amount prefinanced is EUR 67156527,65,
Skupni znesek vnaprejšnjih plačil urada za intervencije in nadomestila je 67156527,65 EUR,
1 July 2004 to 30 November 2004: tests prefinanced by FASFC,
od 1. julija 2004 do 30. novembra 2004: teste vnaprej plačuje Zvezna agencija za varnost prehranjevalne verige,
1 December 2004 to 31 December 2005: a fee of EUR 10,70 for each bovine animal tested pursuant to the Royal Decree of 15 October 2004, as well as financing by the FASFC out of its reserves and the reimbursable advance provided by the Exchequer,
od 1. decembra 2004 do 31. decembra 2005: plačilo 10,70 EUR na testirano govedo na podlagi kraljevega odloka z dne 15. oktobra 2004 z dodatnim financiranjem Zvezne agencije za varnost prehranjevalne verige iz njenih rezerv in vračljivih predplačil iz državne blagajne,
from 1 January 2006: financing via a fee of EUR 10,70 for each bovine animal tested and from contributions imposed on seven different sectors [23].
od 1. januarja 2006: financiranje iz plačila 10,70 EUR na testirano govedo in prispevkov, naloženih 7 različnim sektorjem [23].
The prices of the BSE tests are as follows:
Cene testov na BSE:
Total cost of tests [24]
Skupni strošek testov [24]
Amount of fee
Znesek plačila
Replies to additional questions asked by the Commission
Odgovori na dodatna vprašanja Komisije
In its letter of 16 October 2009 Belgium makes several clarifications in reply to the questions asked by the Commission on 24 July 2009 after receiving Belgium’s comments.
Belgija je v dopisu z dne 16. oktobra 2009 odgovorila na vprašanja, ki jih je Komisija postavila 24. julija 2009, to je po tem, ko je Belgija predložila svoje pripombe.
Belgium begins by reiterating its position that a Member State is not obliged to make economic actors bear the costs of the BSE tests.
Najprej je Belgija ponovila svoje stališče, da državi članici ni treba določiti, da morajo stroške testov na BSE nositi gospodarski subjekti.
Since these are linked to public health protection, the costs of controls imposed by public authorities cannot be seen as compensation for a service and passed on to the economic actors.
Ker gre za stroške varovanja javnega zdravja, se stroški pregledov, ki jih naložijo javni organi, ne morejo šteti za nadomestilo za storitev in jih ni mogoče naložiti gospodarskim subjektom.
However, in a spirit of cooperation, Belgium has decided to reply to the Commission’s questions by using the logic expressed in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Vendar se je zaradi sodelovanja odločila odgovoriti na vprašanja Komisije in sprejeti logiko iz odločitve o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
Concerning the share of Community funding, Belgium confirms that this had been included in the previously communicated figures.
Belgija je v zvezi z delom, ki ga financira Skupnost, potrdila, da je vključen v podatke, ki jih je že sporočila.
Belgium then indicated that, with regard to funding during the period from 30 June 2004 to 31 December 2005, this had been carried out by FASFC based on sources of funding available to it and taken from the former bodies from which it had been created.
Nato je Belgija v zvezi z obdobjem od 30. junija 2004 do 31. decembra 2005 navedla, da je financiranje izvajala Zvezna agencija za varnost prehranjevalne verige s sredstvi, s katerimi je razpolagala in ki jih je prevzela od prejšnjih subjektov, iz katerih izhaja.
No parafiscal charges had been levied during this period.
V tem obdobju ni bilo davkom podobnih dajatev.
The Commission had asked about the link between the amount of EUR 15237646 and that of EUR 67156527,65 mentioned in Belgium’s comments (see recital 55).
Komisija je postavila vprašanja o povezavi zneska 15237646 EUR z zneskom 67156527,65 EUR, omenjenim v pripombah Belgije (glej uvodno izjavo 55).
Belgium replied that the first sum was an integral part of the second amount. The Belgian authorities also indicated their willingness to perform calculations to verify the correctness of the amount mentioned.
Belgija je odgovorila, da je znesek 15237646 EUR v celoti del zneska 67156527,65 EUR. Poleg tega so belgijski organi navedli, da nameravajo preveriti pravilnost izračuna navedenega zneska.