natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of First Instance concludes from the above that the contested Decision is tainted by defective reasoning such that it is unable to ascertain the merits of the Commission’s appraisal that no advantage is conferred on cooperatives by the tax regime in respect of taxes on capital transfers and documented legal acts, on economic activities, and on immovable property.
Sodišče prve stopnje iz navedenega sklepa, da izpodbijana odločba vsebuje tako pomanjkljivo obrazložitev, da ne more preveriti utemeljenosti presoje Komisije, v skladu s katero ureditev, ki se uporablja za zadruge, na področju davka na prenos premoženja in kolkovine za sklenitev pravnega posla, davka na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davka na nepremičnine ne daje nobene ugodnosti.
Nevertheless, the Court recalls that such defective reasoning can only bring about the annulment of a contested Decision if the Decision itself contains no sufficient statement of reasons to support the operative part which concludes that the disputed measures do not constitute State aid, within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Vendar Sodišče prve stopnje opozarja, da taka pomanjkljiva obrazložitev lahko povzroči razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane odločbe le, če ni zadostno obrazložen njen izrek, v skladu s katerim sporni ukrepi niso državna pomoč v skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU.
The Court of First Instance states that in this respect the Commission affirms in the disputed Decision, on one hand, that the disputed measures do not constitute an advantage and, on the other, that if these measures constitute an advantage, this advantage is not of a selective nature given that it is in keeping with the nature and scheme of the system.
V zvezi s tem Sodišče prve stopnje opozarja, da Komisija v izpodbijani odločbi po eni strani trdi, da sporni ukrepi niso ugodnost, po drugi strani pa, da če so ti ukrepi ugodnost, ta ugodnost ni selektivna, ker je skladna z naravo in splošno shemo sistema.
Second part of the plea: error of assessment that the disputed measures are in keeping with the nature and scheme of the Spanish tax system vitiating the finding of an absence of selectivity in relation to these measures
Drugi del: napačna presoja skladnosti spornih ukrepov z naravo in splošno shemo španskega davčnega sistema, ki je vplivala na presojo, da ti ukrepi niso selektivni
The Court of First Instance considers that the contested Decision does not contain any element which allows it to understand the reasoning adopted by the Commission to arrive at the conclusion that the disputed measures are not selective (recital 148), as they are justified by the nature and scheme of the system (recital 167).
Po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje ni v izpodbijani odločbi naveden noben element, ki bi pojasnil sklepanje Komisije, ko je ugotovila, da sporni ukrepi niso selektivni (uvodna izjava 148), ker so upravičeni zaradi narave in splošne sheme sistema (uvodna izjava 167).
Certainly, states the Court of First Instance, recital 148 of the contested Decision indicates that the Commission considers that the disputed measures are not selective in view of the information submitted by the Kingdom of Spain and Agri–food Cooperatives Spain.
Sodišče prve stopnje trdi, da je v uvodni izjavi 148 izpodbijane odločbe seveda navedeno, da je Komisija na podlagi informacij, ki sta jih sporočili Kraljevina Španija in Konfederacija kmetijskih zadrug Španije, menila, da sporni ukrepi niso selektivni.
Now, firstly, as regards the information submitted by Agri-food Cooperatives Spain as reported in the contested Decision, states the Court, there is no choice but to admit that it concerns the absence of any advantage and not the absence of any selectivity.
Vendar Sodišče prve stopnje najprej v zvezi z informacijami, ki jih je sporočila Konfederacija kmetijskih zadrug Španije, kot so navedene v izpodbijani odločbi, meni, da je treba ugotoviti, da se opirajo na neobstoj ugodnosti in ne na neobstoj selektivnosti.
This information does not therefore contain elements on which to base an argument in relation to the absence of any selective advantage conferred by the disputed measures.
Te informacije torej ne vsebujejo elementov v podporo sklepanju, da ugodnost, ki naj bi izhajala iz spornih ukrepov, ni selektivna.
Next, as regards the information submitted by the Kingdom of Spain, it should be highlighted that this information, as reported in recitals 103 to 120 of the contested Decision, is mainly given over to justifying that the disputed measures fall within the scope of a policy to liberalise the fuel distribution sector.
Nato je treba v zvezi z informacijami, ki jih je sporočila Kraljevina Španija, opozoriti, da je namen teh informacij, kot so navedene v uvodnih izjavah od 103 do 120 izpodbijane odločbe, v bistvu utemeljiti sporne ukrepe s politiko liberalizacije sektorja distribucije goriva.
However, this explanation does not contribute to an understanding of the reasons why the disputed measures might be justified by the nature or scheme of the tax system.
Vendar taka razlaga ne pojasnjuje, zakaj naj bi bili sporni ukrepi upravičeni zaradi narave ali splošne sheme davčnega sistema.
In fact, states the Court, in the absence of full clarification, which is lacking in this case, a consideration based on Spain’s policy to liberalise the fuel sector does not necessarily concern the nature or scheme of the Spanish tax system.
Sodišče prve stopnje namreč trdi, da brez podrobnega pojasnila, ki ga v tem primeru ni, ugotovitev, ki izhaja iz politike liberalizacije trga goriva v Kraljevini Španiji, ni nujno upravičena z naravo in zgradbo španskega davčnega sistema.
Moreover, states the Court, the circumstance highlighted in recital 119 of the contested Decision, whereby the advantages in respect of taxes on capital transfers and documented legal acts predate the disputed measures and are designed to encourage cooperative societies and the cooperative movement in Spain, does not necessarily fall within the scope of the nature and the scheme of the tax system.
Poleg tega Sodišče prve stopnje trdi, da tudi okoliščina iz uvodne izjave 119 izpodbijane odločbe, v skladu s katero so ugodnosti, povezane z davkom na prenos premoženja in kolkovino za sklenitev pravnega posla, obstajale pred spornimi ukrepi, njihov namen pa je bil okrepiti zadruge in zadružno gibanje v Španiji, ni nujno nastala zaradi narave ali splošne sheme davčnega sistema.
In any event, the Court of First Instance continues, even assuming that the Commission intended to consider, in spite of the absence of any detailed clarification on this point in the contested Decision, that the promotion of the cooperative movement constituted part of the nature and scheme of the Spanish tax system, it must nevertheless be conceded that recital 119 of the same Decision only refers to this reason in relation to the tax advantage in respect of capital transfers and documented legal acts and remains silent on the advantages conferred by the tax regime with regard to immovable property on the one hand and economic activities on the other.
Sodišče prve stopnje nadaljuje, da je treba vsekakor, tudi če bi dopustili mnenje Komisije, da je spodbujanje zadružnega gibanja del narave in splošne sheme španskega davčnega sistema, čeprav v izpodbijani odločbi ni podrobne razlage tega dela, ugotoviti, da je v uvodni izjavi 119 izpodbijane odločbe ta utemeljitev navedena le v zvezi z ugodnostjo, ki izhaja iz davka na prenos premoženja in kolkovine za sklenitev pravnega posla, ni pa govora o ugodnostih, ki izhajajo iz davka na nepremičnine na eni strani in iz davka na gospodarske dejavnosti na drugi.
The Court of First Instance concludes from the above that the contested Decision is tainted by defective reasoning such that it is unable to ascertain the merits of the Commission’s appraisal whereby, assuming that the disputed measures constitute an advantage, this advantage is not selective because it is justified by the nature and scheme of the system.
Za Sodišče prve stopnje iz navedenega izhaja, da izpodbijana odločba vsebuje tako pomanjkljivo obrazložitev, da ne more preveriti utemeljenosti presoje Komisije, v skladu s katero ob predpostavki, da so sporni ukrepi ugodnost, ta ugodnost ni selektivna, ker je upravičena zaradi narave in splošne sheme sistema.
Consequently, the Court finds that, as a result of the determination of the absence of reasons in point 90 above, as well as the determination in the previous point, the contested Decision does not contain sufficient grounds in its assessment as to why the disputed measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Zato Sodišče prve stopnje ugotavlja, da iz ugotovitve o neobstoju obrazložitve iz uvodne izjave 90 zgoraj in iz ugotovitve iz prejšnje uvodne izjave izhaja, da v izpodbijani odločbi presoja, da sporni ukrepi niso državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, ni dovolj obrazložena.
The Court of First Instance concludes that there are grounds to annul the contested Decision in so far as the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 of the TFEU.
Sodišče prve stopnje ugotavlja, da je treba izpodbijano odločbo razglasiti za nično, ker je Komisija kršila obveznost obrazložitve iz člena 296 PDEU.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance ordered the annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/293/EC, finding that the measures to support agricultural cooperatives laid down by Royal Decree-Law No 10/2000 on emergency support for agriculture, fisheries and transport do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Zato je Sodišče prve stopnje razsodilo, da se člen 1 Odločbe Komisije 2003/293/ES razglasi za ničnega v delu, v katerem je navedeno, da ukrepi pomoči kmetijskim zadrugam, ki jih določa kraljevi zakonodajni odlok št. 10/2000 o nujnih ukrepih pomoči kmetijskemu sektorju ter sektorjem ribolova in prometa, niso pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU apply to all the agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty, subject to a common organisation of the market (all agricultural products, except horse meat, honey, coffee, alcohol of agricultural origin, vinegar derived from alcohol and cork) in accordance with the different regulations governing respective common organisations of markets.
Člena 107 in 108 PDEU se uporabljata za vse kmetijske proizvode iz te priloge I, ki so predmet skupne ureditve trga (vsi kmetijski proizvodi, razen konjskega mesa, medu, kave, alkohola kmetijskega porekla, kisa, pridelanega iz alkohola, in plute) v skladu z različnimi predpisi, s katerimi se ureja skupna ureditev zadevnih trgov.
Article 107(1) of the TFEU
Člen 107(1) PDEU
Pursuant to the provisions of 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 is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the internal market.
V skladu z določbami člena 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 z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
The measures in this case take the form of differentiated tax treatment in favour of agricultural cooperatives.
V tem primeru imajo ukrepi obliko različnega davčnega obravnavanja v korist kmetijskih zadrug.
The Commission notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation [21] provides that State aid relating to direct business taxation is subject to the application of Article 107 if:
Obvestilo Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka [21] določa, da se člen 107 uporablja za državne pomoči, povezane z neposredno obdavčitvijo podjetij, če:
the advantage is granted by the State or through State resources,
ugodnost dodeli država ali je dodeljena iz državnih virov,
the measure affects competition and trade between Member States,
ukrep vpliva na konkurenco v trgovini med državami članicami,
the measure is specific or selective in that it favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, i.e. it distorts or threatens to distort competition,
je ukrep poseben ali selektiven tako, da daje prednost nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji določenega blaga, tj. da izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco,
the measure confers on beneficiaries an advantage which relieves them of charges that are normally borne from their budgets.
ukrep daje prejemniku ugodnost oprostitve bremenitev, ki navadno bremenijo njegov proračun.
Firstly, as recalled in point 3.2.7 of the communication from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the promotion of cooperative societies in Europe [22], it should be noted that cooperatives carrying out economic activities, which includes agricultural cooperatives, are considered as ‘undertakings’ in the sense of the TFEU and are therefore subject in full to European competition and State aid rules, and also to the various exemptions, thresholds and de minimis rules.
Najprej je treba navesti, kot je opozorjeno v točki 3.2.7 Sporočila Komisije Svetu, Evropskemu parlamentu Evropskemu ekonomsko-socialnemu odboru in Odboru regij o spodbujanju zadrug v Evropi [22], da se zadruge, ki opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, vključno s kmetijskimi zadrugami, štejejo za „podjetja“ v smislu PDEU, in zanje torej velja sklop evropskih predpisov s področja konkurence in državnih pomoči, vključno z različnimi oprostitvami, pragi in pravili de minimis.
An examination of this case must focus on the particular notified measures in favour of agricultural cooperatives adopted following the increase in fuel prices (Article 1 of Royal Decree-Law No 10/2000) in terms, first and foremost, of the four criteria mentioned above.
V tem primeru je najprej treba proučiti priglašene posebne ukrepe v korist kmetijskih zadrug, sprejete po dvigu cen goriva (člen 1 kraljevega zakonodajnega odloka št. 10/2000), z vidika zgornjih štirih meril.
Since the result of the notified measures was to extend the scope of application of the privileged tax status of cooperatives to include the sale of fuel to non-members, it is necessary to describe this tax status in the light of Article 107 of the TFEU.
Ker se je zaradi priglašenih ukrepov področje uporabe ugodnejšega davčnega statusa zadrug razširilo na dejavnost distribucije goriva nečlanom, je treba ta davčni status oceniti z vidika člena 107 PDEU.
The ‘State resources’ criteria
Merilo „državnih virov“
In accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in order to classify an advantage as State aid, firstly, it must be granted directly or indirectly through State resources and, secondly, it must be attributable to the State [23].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije mora ugodnost, da jo je mogoče opredeliti kot državno pomoč, prvič, biti dodeljena neposredno ali posredno iz državnih sredstev in, drugič, biti jo mora mogoče pripisati državi. [23]
Point 10 of the Commission notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation explains that a loss of tax revenue is equivalent to consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure.
V točki 10 Obvestila Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka, je pojasnjeno, da je izguba davčnega prihodka enakovredna porabi državnih virov v obliki davčnih izdatkov.
Furthermore, State support may be provided just as much through tax provisions of a legislative, regulatory or administrative nature as through the practices of the tax authorities.
Poleg tega država lahko posreduje z davčnimi predpisi zakonske, nadzorne ali upravne narave in praksami davčnih organov.
By virtue of Article 1 of Royal Decree-Law No 10/2000, Spain introduced certain amendments to Law No 27/1999 on cooperatives and Law No 20/1990 on the tax arrangements applying to cooperatives.
Država Španija je s členom 1 kraljevega zakonodajnega odloka št. 10/2000 uvedla nekatere spremembe v zakon št. 27/1999 o zadrugah in zakon št. 20/1990 o davčni ureditvi zadrug.
On the one hand, it abolishes the maximum limit of 50 % of turnover imposed on agricultural cooperatives for transactions with non-member third parties without losing their preferential tax treatment as granted by Law No 20/1990 for deliveries of B diesel.
Po eni strani se za kmetijske zadruge ukine omejitev v višini 50 % njihovega prometa za trgovanje s tretjimi osebami, ki niso člani zadruge, ne da bi izgubile davčno ugodnost, kot je opredeljena v zakonu št. 20/1990, za dejavnost dobave dizelskega goriva B tretjim osebam, ki niso člani zadruge.
On the other hand, Law No 34/1998 on hydrocarbons has also been amended to waive the requirement that agricultural cooperatives must set up a legal entity to which the general tax arrangements apply if they carry out deliveries of B diesel to non-member third parties.
Po drugi strani se spremeni zakon št. 34/1998 o sektorju ogljikovodikov, tako da se za kmetijske zadruge, ki nečlanom prodajajo dizelsko gorivo B, odpravi zahteva, da morajo ustanoviti subjekt, ki ima lastno pravno osebnost in za katerega velja splošna davčna ureditev.
It should be recalled that, as described in recital 20 of this Decision, several advantages are granted to agricultural cooperatives in respect of several taxes.
Treba je opozoriti, kot je opisano v odstavku 20 te odločbe, da je kmetijskim zadrugam dodeljenih več ugodnosti iz naslova več davkov.
By extending the volume of diesel B sales to non-member third parties beyond the maximum limit of 50 % of turnover permitted by law for agricultural cooperatives without losing their preferential tax treatment, Spain does indeed forego tax receipts and therefore, consumes State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure.
S tem ko je država Španija za kmetijske zadruge povečala obseg dejavnosti dobave dizelskega goriva B tretjim osebam, ki niso člani zadruge, na več kot 50 %, določenih z zakonom, ne da bi zadruge izgubile davčno ugodnost, se je odpovedala davčnim prihodkom in torej porabila državna sredstva v obliki davčnih izdatkov.
Moreover, by waiving the requirement for cooperatives to set up a legal entity subject to the general tax system for the sale of B diesel to non-members, the Spanish Government is currently relinquishing any potential tax receipts related to this status and consequently, consuming State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure.
Še več, s tem ko je država Španija za distribucijo dizelskega goriva B nečlanom ukinila zahtevo, da morajo zadruge ustanoviti subjekt, ki ima lastno pravno osebnost in za katerega velja splošna davčna ureditev, se je odpovedala vsem morebitnim davčnim prihodkom, povezanim s tem statusom, in zato rabi državna sredstva v obliki davčnih izdatkov.
In its judgment of 27 January 1998, the Court of First Instance allowed that the criteria for the use of State resources may also take a negative form, if the intervention results in a loss of resources which should have been paid to the State budget, by means of a tax exemption for example, as in the case in question [24].
Sodišče prve stopnje je v sodbi z dne 27. januarja 1998 priznalo, da je merilo porabe državnih sredstev lahko tudi negativno, kadar posredovanje vodi v izgubo sredstev, ki bi morala biti plačana v državni proračun, na primer v obliki davčne oprostitve kot v zadevnem primeru. [24]
Consequently, the measures considered in this case are indeed advantages attributable to the State and are granted directly through State resources.
Zato so obravnavani ukrepi v tem primeru ugodnosti, ki jih je mogoče pripisati državi in so dodeljeni neposredno iz državnih sredstev.
The ‘affecting trade’ criterion
Merilo „vpliva na trgovino“
In order to fall within the scope of application of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, aid must also affect competition and trade between Member States.
Da pomoči spadajo na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU, morajo poleg tega prizadeti konkurenco in trgovino med državami članicami.
This criterion is based on the assumption that the beneficiaries of the aid engage in an economic activity.
S tem merilom se predpostavlja, da upravičenci do pomoči opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost.
According to established case law on this subject, trade is affected from the moment that the beneficiary business engages in an economic activity which involves trade between Member States.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je trgovina med državami članicami prizadeta, kadar podjetje, upravičeno do pomoči, opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost, ki je predmet trgovine med državami članicami. Sodišče je ugotovilo, da se šteje, da je na določeno vrsto podjetij vplivala prednost, ki jim jo je dala določena država članica, kadar se z njo okrepi njihov položaj v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenčnimi podjetji v trgovini med državami članicami Skupnosti.
In the case under consideration, agricultural cooperatives engage in an economic activity which involves trade between Member States.
V zadevnem primeru kmetijske zadruge opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost, ki je predmet trgovine med državami članicami.
In fact, there is a very high level of trade in agricultural products between the European Union and Spain.
Trgovina s kmetijskimi proizvodi med Evropsko unijo in Španijo je namreč zelo pomembna.
In this particular case, the beneficiary businesses operate in a sector which is subject to competition, namely the sale of fuel.
Zlasti v tem primeru podjetja, upravičena do pomoči, delujejo v sektorjih, ki so izpostavljeni konkurenci, tj. v sektorju distribucije goriva.
It is worth mentioning that there is intense competition between Member State producers whose products are traded within the Community.
Pomembno je opozoriti, da med proizvajalci v državah članicah, katerih proizvodi so predmet trgovanja znotraj Skupnosti, obstaja ostra konkurenca.
Spanish producers are highly competitive within this market.
Španski proizvajalci polno sodelujejo v tej konkurenci.
Moreover, the considerable number of beneficiaries of these measures will increase their impact on trade.
Poleg tega se bo zaradi velikega števila upravičencev ukrepov povečal vpliv ukrepov na trgovino.
Thus, it seems that these measures threaten to affect trade between Member States of the products in question, which occurs when such measures favour operators in one Member State to the detriment of other Member States.
Tako se zdi, da bi ti ukrepi lahko prizadeli trgovino s temi proizvodi med državami članicami, kar se zgodi, kadar ukrepi dajejo ugodnost aktivnim proizvajalcem v eni državi članici v škodo drugih držav članic.
The two measures in question have a direct and immediate effect on the production costs of the products in question in Spain.
Zadevna ukrepa imata takojšnji in neposredni učinek na proizvodne stroške zadevnih proizvodov v Španiji.
Consequently, they affect competition and trade between Member States.
Zato prizadevajo konkurenco in trgovino med državami članicami.
The ‘advantage’ criterion
Merilo „ugodnosti“
According to established case law on the subject, aid is a more general concept than the concept of subsidies, as it includes not only positive benefits such as subsidies themselves, but also measures taken by the State in a variety of forms to relieve the charges which normally burden the budget of a business and which, although not subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are of the same nature and have identical effects [27].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je pojem državne pomoči splošnejši od pojma subvencije, ker zajema ne le aktivna ravnanja, kot so same subvencije, ampak tudi ukrepe, ki v različnih oblikah zmanjšujejo obremenitve, ki jih običajno nosijo podjetja in ki so potemtakem, ne da bi bile subvencije v strogem smislu besede, enake narave in imajo enake učinke [27].