natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Belgian authorities confirmed that although the aid was granted directly to the company S.A. RENDAC-UDES, as a service provider, for the costs of the services provided to owners of agricultural holdings, it was fully passed through to the farmers in order to cover all the costs linked to different activities of collection, transport, storage, processing and destruction, that they would otherwise have to bear.
Belgijski organi so potrdili, da čeprav je pomoč dodeljena neposredno družbi S.A. RENDAC-UDEC kot izvajalcu storitev za stroške opravljenih storitev kmetom, se je v celoti prenesla na kmetovalce za poplačilo vseh stroškov, povezanih z različnimi postopki zbiranja, prevoza, skladiščenja, predelave in uničenja, ki bi jih morali brez sheme pomoči poravnati sami.
The Belgian authorities also confirmed that as regards the amounts paid directly to the company S.A. RENDAC-UDES for the costs for the services provided to owners of agricultural holdings, these corresponded entirely and uniquely to the market prices for the services provided.
Belgijski organi so še zatrdili, da so zneski, ki bili družbi S.A. RENDAC-UDES neposredno izplačani kot plačilo za opravljene storitve kmetom, v celoti in izključno ustrezali tržnim cenam opravljenih storitev.
The Walloon waste office (Office wallon des déchets), a service within the regional Ministry for the Environment, was in charge of paying the invoices presented by S.A. RENDAC-UDES, partly on a flat-rate basis and partly on the basis of price schedules.
Valonski urad za odpadke, ki deluje v okviru regionalnega ministrstva za okolje, je račune, ki jih je izstavila družba S.A. RENDAC-UDES, deloma plačal na pavšalni osnovi in deloma na podlagi specifikacij cen.
In the framework of the examination of Case No NN 48/2003, the Belgian authorities have confirmed that the scheme concerns only fallen stock on agricultural holdings in the Walloon Region.
Belgijski organi so v okviru preučitve zadeve NN 48/03 potrdili, da se shema uporablja samo za poginule živali s kmetijskih gospodarstev v regiji Valoniji.
It does not concern animal carcasses found in animal markets or slaughterhouses.
Ne nanaša se na živalske trupe z živinskih sejmov ali klavnic.
COMMISSION DECISION OF 13 JANUARY 2010
ODLOČITEV KOMISIJE Z DNE 13. JANUARJA 2010
In its decision of 13 January 2010 to initiate an investigation procedure, the Commission expressed doubts as to the compatibility of the aid scheme with the EU State aid rules.
Komisija je v odločitvi z dne 13. januarja 2010 o sprožitvi postopka preiskave izrazila dvome o združljivosti sheme pomoči s pravili Evropske unije o državni pomoči.
More precisely the Commission concluded that the aid scheme measures in question aiming to cover more than 75 % of the costs of destroying carcasses, can be considered to be incompatible with the internal market on the basis of the TSE Guidelines and the Community Guidelines concerning State aid in the agricultural and forestry sector 2007-2013 (‘the 2007-2013 Guidelines’) [8].
Natančneje, ugotovila je, da se lahko ukrepi v okviru zadevne sheme pomoči za kritje več kot 75 % stroškov uničenja trupov štejejo za nezdružljive s skupnim trgom na podlagi Smernic TSE in Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem in gozdarskem sektorju 2007–2013 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Smernice 2007–2013) [8].
In addition, given that the Commission approved the aid scheme until 31 January 2007 on the basis of the Belgian authorities’ commitments to amend the scheme so as to meet the conditions of the TSE Guidelines as of 1 January 2004 and these commitments were not complied with by the Belgian authorities, the Commission has concluded that the aid granted for measures aiming to cover more than 75 % of the costs for the destruction of the carcasses was misused.
Poleg tega je Komisija, glede na to, da je shemo pomoči odobrila do 31. januarja 2007 na podlagi zavez belgijskih organov, ki bi morali shemo spremeniti tako, da bi se od 1. januarja 2004 upoštevali pogoji iz Smernic TSE, in da zadevni organi teh zavez niso izpolnili, ugotovila, da je bila pomoč, s katero naj bi se pokrilo več kot 75 % stroškov uničenja trupov, dodeljena nezakonito.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, and in conjunction with Article 16 of this Regulation concerning misuse of aid, the Commission has decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure and has invited Belgium to submit its comments.
Komisija je zato na podlagi člena 4(4) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 v povezavi s členom 16 te uredbe, ki se nanaša na zlorabo pomoči, sprožila formalni postopek preiskave in Belgijo pozvala k predložitvi pripomb.
In its reply of 12 March 2010 Belgium informed the Commission that it would take the required measures to implement a new service procurement contract.
Belgija je v odgovoru z dne 12. marca 2010 Komisijo obvestila, da bo poskrbela za izvedbo novega javnega naročila storitev.
Moreover, the Belgian authorities have also claimed that (i) the Walloon Region will request the application of the de minimis principle in order to settle the situation of owners of agricultural holdings for the period of 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2008, and (ii) that within a maximum of 3 months it will recover from each owner of an agricultural holding an amount corresponding to 25 % of the costs of the processing and destruction of fallen stock, calculated for the period from 1 July 2008 to the date of entry into force of the next public contract.
Belgijski organi so še navedli, (i) da bo regija Valonija zahtevala uporabo načela de minimis za ureditev položaja kmetov v obdobju od 1. januarja 2004 do 30. junija 2008 in (ii) da bo najpozneje v treh mesecih od vsakega kmeta izterjala znesek v višini 25 % stroškov predelave in uničenja poginulih živali, izračunan za obdobje od 1. julija 2008 do datuma začetka veljavnosti prihodnjega javnega naročila.
According to Article 107(1) of the TFEU, 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, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU 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.
These conditions are fulfilled in the present case with regard to aid in favour of the owners of agricultural holdings.
Kar zadeva pomoč za kmete, so ti pogoji v obravnavanem primeru izpolnjeni.
The aid in question is granted by the public authorities of the Walloon Region and confers an advantage to owners of agricultural holdings in the Walloon Region, by eliminating the costs for the removal and destruction of carcasses, which in normal circumstances should have been borne by themselves.
Zadevno pomoč dodeljujejo javni organi regije Valonije, pomeni pa prednost za kmete iz regije Valonije, ker odpravlja stroške odstranitve in uničenja trupov, ki bi jih morali nositi v običajnih okoliščinah.
According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the mere fact that the competitive position of an undertaking is strengthened compared to other competing undertakings, by giving it an economic benefit which it would not otherwise have received in the normal course of its business, points to a possible distortion of competition [10].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije je iz preprostega dejstva, da se z gospodarsko prednostjo, ki je podjetje drugače ne bi prejelo za običajno opravljanje svoje dejavnosti, mogoče sklepati, da obstaja tveganje izkrivljanja konkurence [10].
Aid to an undertaking is considered to affect trade between Member States where that undertaking operates in a market open to trade within the European Union [11].
Šteje se, da pomoč, ki se dodeli podjetju, prizadene trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja konkurenco, če podjetje posluje na trgu, odprtem za trgovanje v Evropski uniji [11].
There is substantial trade in the sector concerned within the European Union.
V zadevnem sektorju obstaja obsežna trgovina znotraj Skupnosti.
Therefore, the present measure is liable to affect trade between Member States.
Ukrep bi lahko torej prizadel trgovino med državami članicami.
In view of the above, it is obvious that the conditions of Article 107(1) of the TFEU are fulfilled, except for aid to which the de minimis legislation applies.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je jasno, da so izpolnjeni pogoji iz člena 107(1) PDEU, razen pri pomočeh, za katere se uporablja zakonodaja de minimis.
De minimis legislation
Zakonodaja de minimis
On several occasions the Belgian authorities have claimed that they have applied the de minimis rules which apply to the agricultural sector.
Belgijski organi so večkrat navedli, da so uporabili pravila de minimis, ki se uporabljajo v kmetijskem sektorju.
The rules which apply during the period for granting the aid are Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production [12], which repealed Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004.
Upoštevni uredbi, ki sta se uporabljali ob dodelitvi pomoči, sta Uredba (ES) št. 1860/2004 in Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1535/2007 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri pomočeh de minimis v sektorju kmetijske proizvodnje [12], s katero je bila razveljavljena Uredba (ES) št. 1860/2004.
Aid which fulfils the conditions for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 or Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 is considered not to fulfil all the criteria contained in Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Za pomoči, ki bi izpolnjevale pogoje za uporabo Uredbe (ES) št. 1860/2004 ali Uredbe (ES) št. 1535/2007, se bo štelo, da ne izpolnjujejo vseh meril iz člena 107(1) PDEU.
According to Article 3(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007, de minimis aid cannot be cumulated with State aid in respect of the same eligible costs, if such cumulation would result in an aid intensity exceeding that laid down by European Union rules in the specific circumstances of each case.
Kljub temu je treba pojasniti, da se v skladu s členom 3(7) Uredbe (ES) št. 1535/2007 poleg pomoči de minimis v zvezi z istimi upravičenimi stroški ne sme dodeliti še državna pomoč, če bi takšno seštevanje povzročilo intenzivnost pomoči, ki bi presegla intenzivnost, določeno za posebne okoliščine vsakega primera v predpisih Evropske unije.
This provision applies in this case: there can be no cumulation of de minimis aid (which would represent 25 % of the costs for the destruction of carcasses that should be borne by the owners of agricultural holdings) with the remaining 75 % which according to European Union rules (point 133 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines in combination with Article 16(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 [13]) can be considered compatible with Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU.
Ta določba se uporablja v tem primeru: pomoč de minimis (znašala naj bi 25 % stroškov uničenja trupov, ki bi jih morali kriti kmetje) se ne sme kumulirati s preostalimi 75 %, ki se v skladu z ureditvijo Evropske unije (točka 133 Smernic 2007–2013 v povezavi s členom 16(1)(d) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1857/2006 z dne 15. decembra 2006 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe pri državni pomoči za majhna in srednje velika podjetja, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo kmetijskih proizvodov, in o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 70/2001 [13]) lahko štejejo za združljive s členom 107(3)(c) PDEU
However, according to the scheme laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, it appears that a cumulation of the de minimis aid and the amounts making up 75 % of the costs of the destruction of carcasses was not excluded.
Po drugi strani se glede na ureditev v Uredbi (ES) št. 1860/2004 zdi, da tako kumuliranje pomoči de minimis z zneski, ki znašajo 75 % stroškov uničenja trupov, ni bilo izključeno.
This can be inferred by recital 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, according to which ‘The de minimus rule is without prejudice to the possibility that enterprises may receive, for the same project, State aid authorised by the Commission or covered by a group exemption Regulation’.
To je mogoče sklepati na podlagi uvodne izjave 7 v Uredbi (ES) št. 1860/2004, v skladu s katero „pravilo de minimis ne posega v možnost podjetij, da lahko za isti projekt prejmejo državno pomoč, ki jo odobri Komisija ali ki je zajeta z uredbo o skupinski izjemi“.
The conditions for applying the Regulation and in particular the maximum aid threshold of EUR 3000 must be fulfilled, so that any aid in excess of the EUR 3000 threshold cannot benefit from Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 for the whole of the aid amount.
Pri tem je treba spoštovati pogoje za uporabo Uredbe, zlasti najvišji dovoljeni znesek pomoči 3000 EUR, tako da vsaka pomoč, ki preseže prag 3000 EUR, ne more biti deležna ugodnosti iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1860/2004, in to za celotni znesek pomoči.
The aid scheme therefore became an illegal State aid after 1 February 2007.
Shema pomoči je torej po 1. februarju 2007 postala nezakonita državna pomoč.
Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU provides that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered to be compatible with the internal market.
V skladu s členom 107(3)(c) PDEU 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.
The scheme in question concerns the granting of aid, which takes the form of subsidised services, covering all the costs for services relating to the removal, transportation, processing and destruction of fallen stock on agricultural holdings in the Walloon Region.
Zadevna shema se uporablja za dodelitev pomoči v obliki subvencioniranih storitev, in sicer za kritje vseh stroškov, povezanih z odstranitvijo, skladiščenjem, predelavo in uničenjem poginulih živali s kmetijskih gospodarstev v regiji Valoniji.
As regards the period between 31 January 2002 until 31 December 2003, the Commission Decision in case No NN 48/2003 found that the scheme could benefit from the derogation of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU.
Kar zadeva obdobje od 31. januarja 2002 do 31. decembra 2003, je bilo v odločbi Komisije v zadevi NN 48/03 ugotovljeno, da bi se lahko za shemo uporabilo odstopanje iz člena 107(3)(c) PDEU.
This was a requirement imposed by the TSE Guidelines, which was the text applicable at the time.
Ta zahteva je bila naložena v Smernicah TSE, ki so bile takrat veljavna zakonodaja.
In point 29, the TSE Guidelines provided that:
Točka 29 Smernic TSE je določala:
From 1 January 2004 onwards, Member States may grant State aid of up to 100 % of costs of removal of fallen stock, which has to be disposed of, and 75 % of the costs of destruction of such carcasses; […]’
Od 1. januarja 2004 lahko države članice dodelijo državne pomoči, ki lahko znašajo največ 100 % stroškov odstranitve poginulih živali, ki jih je treba uničiti, in največ 75 % stroškov uničenja teh trupov; […]“.
Points 30 and 31 of the TSE Guidelines provided exceptions to the rule that the aid may cover only up to 75 % of the costs of destroying the fallen stock:
V točkah 30 in 31 Smernic TSE je bila določena izjema od pravila, v skladu s katero lahko pomoč krije največ 75 % stroškov uničenja poginulih živali:
Alternatively, Member States may grant State aid of up to 100 % for costs of removal and destruction of carcasses where the aid is financed through fees or through compulsory contributions destined for the financing of the destruction of such carcasses, provided that such fees or contributions are limited to and directly imposed on the meat sector. 31.
Druga možnost držav članic je, da dodelijo državne pomoči v višini do 100 % stroškov odstranitve in uničenja trupov, če se pomoč financira s prelevmani ali obveznimi prispevki za financiranje uničenja teh trupov, vendar morajo biti ti prelevmani in prispevki omejeni na sektor mesa in veljati samo zanj.
Member States may grant State aid of up to 100 % for the costs of removal and destruction of fallen stock where there is an obligation to perform TSE tests on the fallen stock concerned.’
Države članice lahko dodelijo državne pomoči v višini do 100 % stroškov odstranitve in uničenja poginulih živali, če zanje velja obveznost testiranja na TSE.“
It is to be noted, that within the framework of the examination of Case NN 48/2003, the Belgian authorities did at no time argue that one of these exceptions could apply.
Treba je navesti, da belgijski organi v okviru preučitve zadeve NN 48/03 niso nikoli trdili, da se lahko uporabi ena od teh izjem.
Article 16 of the Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 does not alter the substance as regards the assessment of aid granted for the removal and destruction of fallen stock.
Člen 16 Uredbe (ES) št. 1857/2006 ne vpliva na vsebino ocene pomoči, dodeljene za odstranitev in uničenje poginulih živali.
As was the case in the TSE Guidelines, it stipulates that aid at a rate of up to 100 % of costs of removal of fallen stock and 75 % of the costs of destruction of such carcasses shall be deemed compatible with the internal market (Article 16(1)(d)).
Enako kot v Smernicah TSE je v členu 16(1)(d) Uredbe določeno, da se za združljivo z notranjim trgom šteje pomoč v višini do 100 % stroškov odstranitve poginulih živali in do 75 % stroškov uničenja trupov.
The provisions of Article 16(1)(e) and 16(1)(f) provide for the possibility of derogating from the 75 % ceiling, whereby the aid rate can be increased to 100 %, when: (i) the aid is financed through fees or through compulsory contributions destined for the financing of the destruction of such carcasses, provided that such fees or contributions are limited to and directly imposed on the meat sector; or (ii) there is an obligation to carry out a TSE test on fallen stock.
V členu 16(1)(e) in (f) je povzeta možnost odstopanja od zgornje meje 75 %, tako da lahko pomoč znaša 100 %, v naslednjih primerih: (i) če je pomoč financirana s pristojbinami ali obveznimi prispevki, namenjenimi financiranju uničenja takih trupov, pod pogojem, da so take pristojbine ali prispevki omejeni in neposredno naloženi v sektorju mesa; ali (ii) če za poginule živali velja obveznost testiranja na TSE.
Since the situation has not been changed in terms of the substance under the new rules (2007-2013 Guidelines and Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006) as compared to the old rules (the TSE Guidelines), the assessment of the case as regards the applicable European Union rules should be the same for the whole of the period concerned (1 January 2004 – present).
Ker nova ureditev (Smernice 2007–2013 in Uredba (ES) št. 1857/2006) ni prinesla vsebinskih sprememb v primerjavi s prejšnjo (Smernice TSE), bi morala biti ocena zadeve z vidika zadevnih pravil Evropske unije enaka za celotno zadevno obdobje (to je od 1. januarja 2004 do danes).
In addition, the Belgian authorities have argued on several occasions (for instance in the letter dated 27 November 2008) that the second of the exceptions mentioned in recital 42 can indeed apply and that the aid can cover up to 100 % of the costs for the destruction of the carcasses.
Poleg tega so belgijski organi v okviru te zadeve večkrat navedli (na primer v dopisu z dne 27. novembra 2008), da se lahko druga od izjem, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 42, dejansko uporabi in da lahko pomoč krije do 100 % stroškov uničenja trupov.
The reason, according to the Belgian authorities, was that there was an obligation to perform TSE tests on all fallen stock (Point 31 of the TSE Guidelines, and Article 16(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006.
Po navedbah teh organov je izjema upravičena, ker je bilo treba teste na TSE obvezno izvesti za vse poginule živali (točka 31 Smernic TSE in člen 16(1)(f) Uredbe (ES) št. 1857/2006).
However, they have not submitted evidence in support of this claim.
Vendar dokazi v podporo tej trditvi niso bili predloženi.
The main argument that Belgium brings in support of its claim is that it is obliged to perform such tests, in application of 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 [14].
Belgija je svojo trditev v glavnem utemeljila z navedbo, da mora te teste obvezno izvesti v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 999/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2001 o določitvi predpisov za preprečevanje, nadzor in izkoreninjenje nekaterih transmisivnih spongiformnih encefalopatij [14].
However, this argument cannot be accepted.
Vendar se s to utemeljitvijo ni mogoče strinjati.
The reason is that in application of this Regulation, the Walloon authorities have the obligation to test fallen stock for TSE as follows:
Na podlagi navedene uredbe morajo namreč valonski organi poginule živali testirati na TSE ob upoštevanju naslednjih pogojev:
between 1 July 2001 and 31 December 2008, on all bovine animals over 24 months of age which have died on the holding, and,
med 1. julijem 2001 in 31. decembrom 2008 vse govedo, starejše od 24 mesecev, ki je poginilo na kmetijskem gospodarstvu, in
as from 1 January 2009, on all bovine animals over 48 months of age which have died on the holding.
od 1. januarja 2009 vse govedo, starejše od 48 mesecev, ki je poginilo na kmetijskem gospodarstvu.
A Member State may, however, decide to continue testing at a lower age limit between 24-48 months.
Kljub vsemu se lahko država članica odloči, da bo še naprej testirala mlajše govedo, staro od 24 do 48 mesecev.
Therefore, the obligation to perform tests applies only for animals of a certain age (24 months for the period 1 July 2001-31 December 2008 and 48 months after that).
Zato je testiranje obvezno samo za živali, ki dosežejo določeno starost (24 mesecev za obdobje od 1. julija 2001 do 31. decembra 2008 in 48 mesecev po tem datumu).
More importantly the obligation applies only for bovine animals.
Kar je še pomembneje, ta obveznost velja samo za govedo.
Animals of other fallen species on the holding (pigs, horses, poultry etc.) do not have to be compulsorily subjected to TSE tests.
Za druge živalske vrste, ki poginejo na kmetijskem gospodarstvu (prašiči, konji, perutnina itd.), testiranje na TSE ni obvezno.
From the information provided by the Belgian authorities (letter dated 27 November 2008) it appears that the number of carcasses that might be affected by this exemption under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 represents less than 20 % - 25 % of the total costs for the fallen stock processed within the framework of the service contract.
Iz podatkov, ki so jih predložili belgijski organi (dopis z dne 27. novembra 2008), je razvidno, da število trupov, za katere bi se morda lahko uporabila ta izjema v skladu z določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 999/2001, kakor je bila spremenjena, pomeni manj kot 20–25 % vseh stroškov, nastalih pri obravnavi poginulih živali v okviru naročila storitev.
Therefore only aid related to costs which are strictly linked to the obligation to carry out the TSE tests, as provided for by Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 may be declared compatible, on the condition that these costs can be quantified precisely.
Zato je mogoče za združljive razglasiti samo stroške, ki so strogo povezani z obveznostjo testiranja na TSE, kot je določena z Uredbo (ES) št. 999/2001, če je mogoče te stroške natančno količinsko opredeliti.