natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The 2003 notification provided for aid for the stocking and destruction of animal meal as well as aid for the transport and destruction of fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste.
V obvestilu iz leta 2003 sta bili predvideni pomoč za skladiščenje in uničevanje živalske moke ter pomoč za prevoz in uničevanje poginulih živali in klavnih odpadkov.
In addition, under the Law of 1996, undertakings that retailed meat and had an annual turnover of less than EUR 762245 were exempt from the levy. According to the information available to the Commission, the Law of 1996 was in force throughout 2003.
Poleg tega je bila v zakonu iz leta 1996 predvidena oprostitev za podjetja, ki prodajajo meso na drobno in katerih prihodki od prodaje so manjši od 762245 EUR. V skladu z informacijami, ki jih je imela Komisija, je zakon iz leta 1996 veljal celotno leto 2003.
In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission concluded that the aid measures concerning the removal and destruction of fallen stock and the stocking and destruction of animal meal and slaughterhouse waste did not risk adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka sklenila, da ukrepi pomoči v zvezi z odstranjevanjem in uničevanjem poginulih živali ter skladiščenjem in uničevanjem živalske moke in klavnih odpadkov ne morejo vplivati na trgovinske pogoje v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
They could therefore qualify under the exception provided for in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU as measures able to contribute to the development of the sector.
Zato je menila, da so ti ukrepi lahko upravičeni do odstopanja iz člena 107(3)(c) PDEU kot ukrepi, ki lahko prispevajo k razvoju sektorja.
On the other hand, the Commission has decided to initiate the procedure referred to in Article 108(2) TFEU as regards the existence and compatibility of aid for trade exempt from the payment of the rendering levy.
Po drugi strani se je Komisija odločila sprožiti postopek iz člena 108(2) PDEU, kar zadeva obstoj in združljivost pomoči za trgovino, oproščeno plačila dajatve na predelavo klavnih odpadkov.
Points raised by the Commission in the context of initiating an investigation procedure
Trditve Komisije v okviru sprožitve postopka preiskave
When the investigation procedure was initiated, the Commission estimated that the exemption from the payment of the rendering levy implied a loss of resources for the State and did not appear to be justified by the nature and the general scheme of the tax system, which is designed to provide the State with revenue.
Komisija je v fazi sprožitve postopka preiskave menila, da oprostitev plačila dajatve na predelavo klavnih odpadkov pomeni izgubo sredstev za državo ter da ni utemeljena z naravo in splošno logiko davčnega sistema, katerega cilj je zagotoviti državne prihodke.
Indeed, according to the information available to the Commission, the exemption was based on the overall turnover, not just the turnover on meat sales.
Glede na informacije, ki jih je imela Komisija, se oprostitev namreč ni nanašala na prihodke, ustvarjene s prodajo mesa, ampak na celotne prihodke od prodaje.
As the rendering levy is calculated on the value of meat products, it did not seem justified to exempt from the payment of the levy undertakings with a higher turnover on meat sales when their competitors with a lower turnover on meat products would have to pay it.
Ker je bila dajatev na predelavo klavnih odpadkov izračunana glede na vrednost mesnih izdelkov, se ni zdelo upravičeno, da se oprostitev plačila te dajatve prizna podjetju, ki ustvarja večje prihodke s prodajo mesa, medtem ko bi moralo konkurenčno podjetje, ki bi s prodajo mesnih izdelkov ustvarilo manjše prihodke, to dajatev plačati.
Consequently, the exemption seemed to constitute a selective advantage.
Zato se je zdelo, da navedena oprostitev pomeni selektivno prednost.
It would be aid in favour of the exempted vendors, whose tax burden would be lighter as a result.
Tako je šlo za pomoč v korist trgovcev, katerih davčna obremenitev je bila zaradi te oprostitve zmanjšana.
On the basis of the figures for trade in meat, the Commission concluded that the exemption of traders with a turnover of less than EUR 762245 from the levy in 2003 was an advantage that might constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisija je na podlagi podatkov o trgovini z mesom sklepala, da je oprostitev plačila dajatve, ki je bila leta 2003 priznana trgovcem s prihodki od prodaje, manjšimi od 762245 EUR, prednost, ki bi lahko pomenila državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Commission could not rule out the possibility that the tax exemption might have an effect on trade between Member States, in particular in border areas.
Komisija ni mogla izključiti možnosti, da bi oprostitev plačila dajatve vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami, zlasti na obmejnih območjih.
Therefore the exemption of traders with a turnover of less than EUR 762245 from the levy seemed to constitute State aid under the terms of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Zato je menila, da oprostitev plačila dajatve v korist trgovcev, katerih prihodki od prodaje so manjši od 762245 EUR, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The exemption in this case seemed to consist of a tax reduction measure lacking any incentive element or counterpart on the part of the beneficiaries, and its compatibility with competition rules had not been demonstrated.
V tem primeru se je zdelo, da je oprostitev ukrep za zmanjšanje davčne obremenitve, ki ne vsebuje nobene spodbude in od upravičencev ne zahteva ničesar v zameno ter katerega združljivost s pravili o konkurenci ni bila dokazana.
Therefore the Commission considered that the aid fell within the scope of point 3.5 of the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector [7], which were effective at that time.
Zato je Komisija menila, da pomoč spada na področje uporabe točke 3.5 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju [7], ki so veljale v tistem času.
According to that point, any aid measure must contain some incentive element or require some counterpart on the part of the beneficiary in order to be considered compatible with the common market.
Navedena točka je določala, da mora vsak ukrep pomoči, da se lahko šteje za združljivega s skupnim trgom, vsebovati neko spodbudo ali od upravičenca zahtevati nadomestilo.
Unless exceptions are expressly provided for in Community legislation or in the Guidelines, unilateral State aid measures which are simply intended to improve the financial situation of producers but which in no way contribute to the development of the sector are considered to constitute operating aid which is incompatible with the common market.
Tako so, razen če so v zakonodaji Skupnosti ali teh smernicah izrecno določene izjeme, enostranske državne pomoči, ki so namenjene samo izboljšanju finančnega položaja proizvajalcev, vendar nikakor ne prispevajo k razvoju sektorja, primerljive s pomočmi za tekoče poslovanje, ki niso združljive s skupnim trgom.
As regards trade exempt from the payment of the rendering levy, the Commission could not rule out that the aid in question might be State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and might constitute operating aid, regarding the compatibility of which with the internal market the Commission had doubts.
Zato Komisija v zvezi s trgovino, oproščeno plačila dajatve na predelavo klavnih odpadkov, ni mogla izključiti, da zadevna pomoč pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU in da gre za pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, o združljivosti katere z notranjim trgom je dvomila.
Moreover, the Commission had come to a similar conclusion in its Decision 2005/474/EC [8] on the exemption applied between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2002 (aid NN 17/01 reclassified as C 49/02).
Poleg tega jo je Komisija podobno opredelila v svoji odločbi 2005/474/ES [8] v zvezi z oprostitvijo, uporabljeno med 1. januarjem 1997 in 31. decembrom 2002 (pomoč NN 17/01, prerazporejena kot C 49/02).
However, the French authorities had argued prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 that the aid fell within the scope of Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid [9].
Po drugi strani so francoski organi pred začetkom veljavnosti Uredbe (ES) št. 1998/2006 trdili, da zadevna pomoč spada na področje uporabe Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri de minimis pomoči [9].
They pointed out that the number of undertakings concerned, an average of more than 100000 a year, and the turnover threshold used for the exemption (EUR 762245) implied that the amount of the exemption that might constitute State aid would in any case be below the threshold of EUR 100000 over a three-year period provided for in Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.
Navedli so, da iz števila zadevnih podjetij, ki jih je povprečno več kot 100000 na leto, in iz praga prihodkov od prodaje, ki je bil uporabljen za oprostitev (762245 EUR), izhaja, da je znesek oprostitve, ki bi lahko pomenil državno pomoč, v vsakem primeru nižji od praga 100000 EUR za obdobje treh let, predvidenega v Uredbi (ES) št. 69/2001.
In order to show that the amount of the exemption granted to these undertakings in 2003 was consistently below EUR 100000 over a period of 3 years, the French authorities used two methods.
Da bi francoski organi dokazali, da je bil znesek oprostitve, ki je bil leta 2003 dodeljen tem podjetjem, dosledno nižji od 100000 EUR na tri leta, so uporabili dve metodi.
Finally, using the value of these meat purchases, the French authorities estimated the annual turnover on the basis of the maximalist assumption that the undertaking in question specialised in the meat trade.
Nazadnje so iz vrednosti teh odkupov mesa ocenili letne prihodke od prodaje na podlagi maksimalistične predpostavke, da gre za podjetje, specializirano za trgovino z mesom.
This method allowed them to establish a turnover for the undertaking that markedly exceeded the exemption threshold of the levy.
Tako so s to metodo izračunali prihodke od prodaje podjetja, ki so izrazito presegali prag za oprostitev plačila dajatve.
The exemption threshold of EUR 762245 was thus exceeded by far, meaning that a company that pays EUR 100000 in taxes over 3 years may under no circumstances be exempt from the tax on meat purchases.
Prag za oprostitev v višini 762245 EUR je bil torej močno presežen, kar pomeni, da podjetje, ki bi v treh letih plačalo 100000 EUR dajatve na odkup mesa, nikakor ne bi moglo biti oproščeno njenega plačila.
Secondly, the French authorities tried to establish the amount of tax for an undertaking that specialises in meat and has a turnover of EUR 762000, which is just below the exemption threshold. On the basis of a purchases/turnover coefficient of 0,58 [10], the French authorities calculated the value of the meat purchases of the undertaking, i.e. EUR 441960 (762000 × 0,58).
Drugič, francoski organi so poskusili ugotoviti znesek dajatve podjetja, specializiranega za meso, ki bi ustvarilo prihodke od prodaje prav pod pragom za oprostitev, to je v višini 762000 EUR. Na podlagi koeficienta 0,58 [10], ki je predstavljal razmerje med odkupi in prihodki od prodaje, so francoski organi izračunali, da vrednost odkupov mesa tega podjetja znaša 441960 EUR (762000 * 0,58).
This second method shows that the maximum amount of the exemption is EUR 13132 per year and undertaking, in other words less than EUR 100000 over 3 years.
Ta druga metoda kaže, da največja oprostitev znaša 13132 EUR/leto na podjetje, kar je vsekakor manj kot 100000 EUR v treh letih.
Following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006, the French authorities confirmed that the exemption from the payment of the tax on meat purchases (‘rendering levy’), granted for 2003 to certain companies marketing agricultural products, fell within the scope of the said Regulation, in particular Article 5 thereof on transitional measures.
Po začetku veljavnosti Uredbe (ES) št. 1998/2006 so francoski organi potrdili, da oprostitev plačila dajatve na odkup mesa (imenovane „dajatev na predelavo klavnih odpadkov“), ki je bila za leto 2003 priznana nekaterim podjetjem v sektorju trženja kmetijskih proizvodov, spada na področje uporabe navedene uredbe, zlasti njenega člena 5 v zvezi s prehodnimi ukrepi.
Comments of the Confederation of Butchers, Delicatessens and Caterers (CFBCT)
Pripombe zveze CFBCT
Firstly, the Confederation of Butchers, Delicatessens and Caterers (hereinafter ‘CFBCT’) pointed out that the measure in question did not meet the criteria for the definition of State aid and that the tax mechanism applied to certain companies on the basis of the amount of their turnover was fully justified owing to the general scheme of the tax system.
Prvič, zveza CFBCT je navedla, da zadevni ukrep ne ustreza merilom opredelitve državne pomoči in da je davčni mehanizem, ki je bil uporabljen za nekatera podjetja na podlagi njihovih prihodkov od prodaje, popolnoma utemeljen z razlogi v zvezi s splošno sistematiko davčnega sistema.
The CFBCT states that the tax on meat purchases was collected and checked according to the rules applied to VAT and similar taxes.
Po mnenju zveze CFBCT se je dajatev na odkup mesa pobirala in nadzorovala v skladu z veljavnimi pravili za DDV in podobne davke.
The exemption threshold was based on an objective and logical criterion identical to that for thresholds applied to other taxes.
Določitev praga za oprostitev naj bi temeljila na objektivnem in razumnem merilu, ki je enak merilom, določenim za pragove v okviru drugih davkov.
The Law of 1996 was part of the French system of collecting VAT.
Zakon iz leta 1996 naj bi bil v skladu s francoskim sistemom pobiranja DDV.
The goal was not to grant an exceptional advantage for certain companies but rather, by introducing a threshold level, to take into account the taxpaying capacity of undertakings and, in particular, the viability of artisanal butchers.
Zato naj njegov namen ne bi bil zagotoviti izjemno prednost nekaterim podjetjem, temveč naj bi se z njim dejansko želela upoštevati – na podlagi uvedbe praga za obdavčitev – davčna sposobnost podjetij in zlasti sposobnost preživetja mesarskih obrti.
Secondly, according to the CFBCT, this measure did not affect intra-Community trade.
Drugič, po mnenju zveze CFBCT s tem ukrepom trgovina znotraj Skupnosti ni bila prizadeta.
Indeed, the extremely modest size of the companies concerned by the measure in question and the extremely limited geographical market on which they operate cast doubt on the claim that the measure constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Zaradi majhnosti podjetij, na katere se je nanašal zadevni ukrep, in izjemno omejenega geografskega trga, na katerem delujejo, naj bi bilo mogoče dvomiti o obstoju državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Even if it were considered that the tax-exempt undertakings had received aid, the CFBCT maintains that, in any case, this aid would comply with the rules of the Treaty.
Tudi če bi se štelo, da so bila podjetja, ki so bila oproščena dajatve, dejansko deležna pomoči, zveza CFBCT trdi, da bi bila ta pomoč v vsakem primeru skladna s pravili Pogodbe.
The Commission should take the view that exempting small butcheries and artisanal butchers was, in fact, justified by an objective of general interest: the management of the mad cow crisis and the treatment necessary for dangerous products.
Komisija naj bi morala zavzeti stališče, da je oprostitev, namenjena malim mesarskim podjetjem in obrtem, v tem primeru utemeljena s ciljem v splošnem interesu: obvladovanjem krize bolezni norih krav in nujno obdelavo nevarnih proizvodov.
Besides, this measure only concerned SMEs and would probably be covered by the exemption regulations valid at the time, namely Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises [11] and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products [12].
Poleg tega naj bi ta ukrep zadeval samo mala in srednje velika podjetja ter naj bi lahko spadal v okvir takrat veljavnih uredb o izjemah, in sicer Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 70/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri pomoči za majhna in srednje velika podjetja [11] ter Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1/2004 z dne 23. decembra 2003 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi ES za državno pomoč malim in srednje velikim podjetjem, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo, predelavo in trženjem kmetijskih proizvodov [12].
In any case, the CFBCT maintains that the requirement that the aid be recovered, which would be the consequence of classifying the measure as incompatible State aid, would violate Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [13], because a negative decision and recovery would not take into account the legitimate expectations of the recipient undertakings.
Zveza CFBCT zatrjuje, da bi zahteva za vračilo pomoči, ki bi bila posledica morebitne opredelitve ukrepa kot nezdružljive državne pomoči, v vsakem primeru pomenila kršitev člena 14 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [13], ker se z negativno odločitvijo, ki bi vključevala vračilo, ne bi upoštevala legitimna pričakovanja upravičenih podjetij.
Furthermore, if the amount of the aid were evaluated a posteriori on the basis of presumptive retroactive taxation it would probably remain below the de minimis thresholds, given that most of the potential beneficiaries of the aid were microenterprises.
Vsekakor naj bi bilo pri naknadni oceni zneska pomoči, izvedeni na podlagi pavšalne obdavčitve za nazaj, verjetno, da bi bila ta ocena nižja od pragov de minimis, saj naj bi bili mogoči prejemniki te pomoči večinoma mikro podjetja.
Comments from a private company domiciled in France
Pripombe zasebne družbe s sedežem v Franciji
According to the information available to the Commission, the private company in question engages in food distribution operations in France.
V skladu z informacijami, ki jih ima Komisija, zadevna zasebna družba v Franciji opravlja dejavnost distribucije živil.
Having paid the rendering levy for the years 2001 to 2003 and having requested that the French tax authorities refund the amount paid, the company considers that it is in its interest to submit its comments in the present procedure.
Ker je ta družba poravnala dajatev na predelavo klavnih odpadkov za leta od 2001 do 2003 in od francoskih davčnih služb zahtevala vračilo plačanega zneska, meni, da ima interes za predložitev pripomb v tem postopku.
The company maintains that, contrary to the Commission’s conclusion in its decision of 5 July 2005 (2005/C 228/06) [14] to initiate an investigation procedure, there was no disconnection between the aid to the rendering sector and the tax on meat purchases.
Navedena družba v nasprotju z ugotovitvijo Komisije v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka z dne 5. julija 2005 (2005/C 228/06) [14] trdi, da povezava med pomočjo v sektorju predelave klavnih odpadkov in dajatvijo na odkup mesa ni prekinjena.
It considers that the rendering tax paid for 2003 is based on Article 302a ZD of the French General Tax Code and finances a State aid scheme pursuant to Article 107 TFEU.
Po njenem mnenju dajatev na predelavo klavnih odpadkov, plačana za leto 2003, temelji na členu 302a ZD splošnega davčnega zakonika, z njo pa se financira mehanizem državne pomoči v skladu s členom 107 PDEU.
As this mechanism was not notified to the Commission in advance, it should be declared illegal.
Ker ta mehanizem ni bil vnaprej priglašen Komisiji, naj bi ga bilo treba opredeliti kot nezakonitega.
In addition, the company maintains that the tax exemption is incompatible with Article 107 TFEU and that it would make the tax incompatible with the principle of equality vis-à-vis charges levied by the State and consequently with the rules on competition.
Poleg tega ta družba zatrjuje, da oprostitev plačila dajatve ni združljiva s členom 107 PDEU in da bi bila zaradi tega dajatev nezdružljiva z načelom enakosti obdavčitve, posledično pa tudi s pravili o konkurenci.
Pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, 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 is incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, save as otherwise provided for in the Treaty.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami, razen če Pogodba ne določa drugače.
Articles 107, 108 and 109 TFEU apply to the pigmeat sector pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat [15].
Členi 107, 108 in 109 PDEU se uporabljajo za sektor prašičjega mesa v skladu s členom 21 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2759/75 z dne 29. oktobra 1975 o skupni ureditvi trga za prašičje meso [15].
They apply to the beef and veal sector pursuant to Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal [16].
Za sektor govejega mesa se uporabljajo v skladu s členom 40 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1254/1999 z dne 17. maja 1999 o skupni ureditvi trga za goveje in telečje meso [16].
Prior to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999, Articles 107, 108 and 109 TFEU applied to the beef and veal sector pursuant to Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council [17].
Pred sprejetjem Uredbe (ES) št. 1254/1999 so se členi 107, 108 in 109 PDEU za sektor govejega mesa uporabljali na podlagi člena 24 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 805/68 [17].
They apply to the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector pursuant to Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 of 3 November 1998 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat [18].
Za sektorja ovčjega in kozjega mesa se navedeni členi uporabljajo v skladu s členom 22 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2467/98 z dne 3. novembra 1998 o skupni ureditvi trga za ovčje in kozje meso [18].
They apply to the poultrymeat sector pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat [19].
Za sektor perutninskega mesa se uporabljajo v skladu s členom 19 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2777/75 z dne 29. oktobra 1975 o skupni tržni ureditvi za perutninsko meso [19].
Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products ('single CMO Regulation') [20] repealed these Regulations, and Article 180 thereof states that the rules on State aid apply to the above-mentioned products.
Z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007 z dne 22. oktobra 2007 o vzpostavitvi skupne ureditve kmetijskih trgov in o posebnih določbah za nekatere kmetijske proizvode („Uredba o enotni SUT“) [20] so bile te različne uredbe razveljavljene, v njenem členu 180 pa je določeno, da se pravila o državni pomoči uporabljajo za zgoraj navedene proizvode.