natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, it is likely that the amount of aid will vary from one insurer to another depending on the profits made from the operations concerned, and this would not comply with the requirement that consumers must benefit from the aid in question irrespective of the economic operator supplying the product or service capable of fulfilling the social objective invoked by the Member State concerned [50].
Nazadnje, znesek pomoči se bo od ene zavarovalnice do druge verjetno razlikoval glede na dobičke, ustvarjene pri zadevnih zavarovalnih poslih, kar ne bi bilo v skladu z zahtevo, da morajo biti potrošniki deležni zadevne pomoči ne glede na to, kateri gospodarski subjekt ponuja proizvod ali storitev, ki bi lahko izpolnila socialni cilj, na katerega se sklicuje zadevna država članica [50].
It therefore has to be concluded that the aid scheme notified by France to promote the development of contrats solidaires et responsables is not compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(2)(a) TFEU.
Treba je torej ugotoviti, da shema pomoči, ki jo je Francija priglasila za oblikovanje polic, ki temeljijo na solidarni odgovornosti, ni združljiva z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(2)(a) PDEU.
Analysis of the compatibility of the measure under other provisions of Article 107 TFEU
Analiza združljivosti ukrepa na podlagi določb člena 107 PDEU
Although France does not explicitly invoke any other provision relating to the compatibility of the State aid, it must be noted that none of the conditions for compatibility provided for in Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU apply to the case in point.
Čeprav se Francija izrecno ne sklicuje na kako drugo določbo v zvezi z združljivostjo državnih pomoči, je treba ugotoviti, da se v obravnavanem primeru ne uporablja nobeno od meril združljivosti iz člena 107(2) in (3) PDEU.
As regards the provisions of Article 107(2) TFEU, other than point (a), it must be noted that the conditions for compatibility provided for in points (b) and (c) obviously do not apply to the case in point.
Glede določb člena 107(2) PDEU, razen točke (a), je treba ugotoviti, da se merila združljivosti iz točk (b) in (c) očitno ne uporabljajo v obravnavanem primeru.
Under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, 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 compatible.
Na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU se pomoč lahko šteje za združljivo, če je namenjena pospeševanju razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
According to the FNMF, the aid is intended to facilitate the development of supplementary health cover which respects the characteristics of solidarity and sense of responsibility under conditions which do not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Kot navaja FNMF, naj bi bila pomoč namenjena lažjemu oblikovanju dopolnilnega zdravstvenega zavarovanja ob upoštevanju solidarne odgovornosti in pod pogoji, ki ne vplivajo na trgovinske pogoje v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
Nevertheless, in spite of its requests, the Commission has not obtained any data from the French authorities allowing support to be given to the applicability of the condition for compatibility mentioned in the previous recital or concerning the effect of the existing tax measures on the distribution of contrats solidaires et responsables, or concerning the relationship between the additional advantage envisaged and the additional costs or requirements associated with the management of this type of policy.
Vendar Komisija kljub zahtevam od francoskih organov ni prejela niti statističnih podatkov, ki bi potrjevali uporabo merila združljivosti iz prejšnje uvodne izjave, niti podatkov o učinku obstoječih davčnih ukrepov na sklepanje pogodb, ki temeljijo na solidarni odgovornosti, niti podatkov o povezavi med načrtovano dodatno ugodnostjo in dodatnimi stroški ali zahtevami v zvezi z upravljanjem teh vrst polic.
The Commission is therefore unable to ascertain the necessity and proportionality of the new exemptions envisaged to achieve the objective described.
Komisija torej ne more preveriti nujnosti in sorazmernosti novih oprostitev, predvidenih za dosego opisanega cilja.
In any case, it must be noted that the exemption from corporation tax is not linked to carrying out investments or creating jobs or specific projects.
Vsekakor je treba ugotoviti, da oprostitev plačila davka od dobička pravnih oseb ni povezana niti z uresničitvijo naložb niti z ustvarjanjem delovnih mest ali posebnih projektov.
It therefore constitutes a continuous reduction in charges which constitutes operating aid which, according to established practice, is not liable to be declared compatible under Article 107(3) TFEU.
Pomeni torej stalno zniževanje stroškov v obliki pomoči za tekoče poslovanje, ki je v skladu z ustaljeno prakso ni mogoče razglasiti za združljivo na podlagi člena 107(3) PDEU.
Finally, no other condition for compatibility provided for in Article 107(3) TFEU was invoked by France.
Nazadnje, Francija se ni sklicevala na nobeno drugo merilo združljivosti iz člena 107(3) PDEU.
Existence of a service of general economic interest compatible on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU
Obstoj storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, združljive na podlagi člena 106(2) PDEU
According to the CTIP, measures based on conventions and collective agreements, like the measure in question, have the objective of remedying the deficiencies of social security.
Kot navaja CTIP, je cilj ukrepov, ki temeljijo na kolektivnih pogodbah in sporazumih, kot je zadevni ukrep, odpraviti pomanjkljivosti sistema socialne varnosti.
The Commission observes that the CTIP does not explicitly invoke the existence of a service of general economic interest and France, whose duty it would be to establish that the aid in question is compatible with the Treaty, does not invoke Article 106(2) TFEU.
Komisija opozarja, da se CTIP ne sklicuje izrecno na obstoj storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, Francija, ki bi morala dokazati združljivost zadevne pomoči s pogodbo, pa se ne sklicuje na člen 106(2) PDEU.
Under these circumstances, the Commission is unable to assess the compatibility of the aid in question in the light of Article 106(2) TFEU.
V teh okoliščinah Komisija ne more preučiti združljivosti zadevne pomoči glede na člen 106(2) PDEU.
Furthermore, the Commission makes the following comments.
Poleg tega Komisija opozarja na naslednje.
Article 106(2) TFEU provides that undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly are subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them.
Člen 106(2) PDEU določa, da podjetja, pooblaščena za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, oziroma podjetja, ki imajo značaj dohodkovnega monopola, ravnajo po pravilih iz Pogodb, zlasti po pravilih o konkurenci, kolikor uporaba takšnih pravil pravno ali dejansko ne ovira izvajanja posebnih nalog, ki so jim dodeljene.
It follows from the case law of the Court of Justice that, with the exception of the sectors in which this question has already been regulated by the European Union, Member States have a wide-ranging discretion regarding the nature of the services which may be classified as being of general economic interest.
Iz sodne prakse Sodišča izhaja, da imajo države članice, razen v sektorjih, v katerih je to vprašanje že urejeno s predpisi Evropske unije, široko diskrecijsko pravico pri presoji narave storitev, ki jih je mogoče opredeliti kot storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
However, even supposing that in the present case a service of general economic interest is concerned (which has not been argued by France), it has to be verified that, for the purposes of Article 106(2) TFEU, the compensation paid to the undertakings assigned a public service mission does not exceed the costs of providing the public service, taking account of the income relating to it and a reasonable profit for the performance of these obligations.
Tudi če bi šlo v obravnavanem primeru za storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena (česar Francija ni trdila), je treba ugotoviti, da se člen 106(2) PDEU uporabi samo, če nadomestilo podjetjem, pooblaščenim za izvajanje naloge javne službe, ne presega stroškov zagotavljanja javne službe ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti.
In this respect, if suffices to point out that the tax measure in question does not contain any mechanism allowing overcompensation to be ruled out in relation to the costs of the burden incurred by the operators concerned.
V zvezi s tem je dovolj navesti, da zadevni davčni ukrep ne vsebuje mehanizma, s katerim bi bilo mogoče izključiti čezmerno nadomestilo glede na stroške naloge, ki jih imajo zadevni izvajalci.
It must be noted in fact that the amount of aid in question (tax exemptions regarding the operations concerned) is in no way linked to the additional costs borne by insurers.
Treba je namreč ugotoviti, da se znesek zadevne pomoči (davčne oprostitve za zadevne zavarovalne posle) nikakor ne navezuje na dodatne stroške, ki jih krijejo zavarovalnice.
It is not linked either to the premiums paid by insured persons or to the number of policies.
Niti se ne navezuje na premije, ki jih plačujejo zavarovanci, niti na število polic.
In this context, the Commission concludes that in any case the measure concerned could not be declared compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU.
V teh okoliščinah Komisija ugotavlja, da zadevnega ukrepa nikakor ni mogoče razglasiti za združljivega z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 106(2) PDEU.
Description of the personal protection market in France
Opis trga dodatne socialne varnosti v Franciji
The ‘personal protection’ market groups together the operations designed to prevent and cover the risk of death, risks relating to personal physical injury or associated with maternity or risks of incapacity for work or invalidity or risk of unemployment [51], as a supplement to the statutory social security system.
Trg „dodatne socialne varnosti“ združuje preventivne dejavnosti in zavarovanje za primer smrti, poseganja v fizično integriteto osebe ali materinstva ali za primer delovne nezmožnosti, invalidnosti ali brezposelnosti [51], pri čemer dopolnjuje zakonsko določen sistem socialne varnosti.
Personal protection cover allows:
Zavarovanje za dodatno socialno varnost omogoča:
access to medical care to be facilitated by providing supplementary reimbursement of health expenses in the case of illness, maternity, accident, etc.
lažji dostop do zdravstvenih storitev, saj prinaša dodatno povračilo stroškov zdravljenja v primeru bolezni, materinstva, nesreč itd.,
total or partial maintenance of salary in case of work absence, invalidity or incapacity,
nadomestilo celote ali dela plače v primeru odsotnosti z dela, invalidnosti ali delovne nezmožnosti,
guaranteeing of capital and annuities for the spouse and children in the event of the death of the insured person,
zagotovitev sredstev in pokojnine zakoncu in otrokom v primeru smrti zavarovanca,
a financial supplement to be provided for in case of dependence.
določitev denarnega dodatka za pomoč in postrežbo.
Three categories of undertaking are present in this market: companies subject to the Insurance Code (insurance undertakings, mutual insurance companies and subsidiaries of banks), mutual societies subject to the Mutual Society Code, and provident societies subject to the Social Security Code.
Na tem trgu so prisotne tri kategorije podjetij: družbe, ki jih ureja zakonik o zavarovalništvu (zavarovalnice, vzajemne zavarovalnice in bančne podružnice), vzajemne družbe, ki jih ureja zakonik o vzajemnih družbah, in ustanove dodatne socialne varnosti, ki jih ureja zakonik o socialni varnosti.
Personal protection insurance may be taken out either as a group policy, by subscribing to a group policy through the employer, an occupational or inter-occupational sector, or in an individual capacity by approaching an insurance undertaking or mutual society directly.
Zavarovanje za dodatno socialno varnost je mogoče skleniti kolektivno, z vključitvijo v kolektivno zavarovanje prek delodajalca, panožne ali medpanožne dejavnosti, ali individualno neposredno pri zavarovalnici ali vzajemni družbi.
Nowadays, a very large majority of employees are covered by a group personal protection policy.
Danes je zelo velika večina zaposlenih zavarovana v okviru kolektivnega dodatnega socialnega zavarovanja.
Affiliation can be either obligatory or optional.
Vključitev v zavarovanje je lahko obvezna ali prostovoljna.
A group personal protection scheme involves a triangular relationship:
Kolektivna shema dodatne socialne varnosti vključuje tristransko razmerje:
the employer enters into a commitment to the employees and, in this capacity, takes out an insurance policy [52],
delodajalec je odgovoren do zaposlenih in na podlagi tega sklene zavarovalno polico [52],
the insurer covers the risk, in exchange for collection of premiums,
zavarovalnica krije tveganje v zameno za pobiranje prispevkov,
the employees are the beneficiaries.
zaposleni so upravičenci.
According to the estimates communicated by the French authorities for 2005, the personal protection market accounted for annual turnover of EUR 20 billion (group and individual policies).
Glede na ocene, ki so jih francoski organi poslali za leto 2005, je trg dodatne socialne varnosti ustvaril letni promet v višini 20 milijard EUR (kolektivna in individualna zavarovanja).
Insurance undertakings accounted for the bulk of this market with 71 % of the premium income, whilst provident societies and mutual societies accounted for 21 % and 8 % of the market respectively.
Največji delež na tem trgu naj bi imele zavarovalnice z 71 % vplačanih prispevkov, medtem ko naj bi ustanove za dodatno socialno varnost in vzajemne družbe obsegale 21 % oziroma 8 % trga.
It must nevertheless be pointed out that these last figures relate to all categories of policies in this sector: individual policy, group policy with optional affiliation and group policy with compulsory affiliation.
Kljub vsemu je treba pojasniti, da se ti podatki nanašajo na vse vrste zavarovanj v tem sektorju: individualno zavarovanje, kolektivno zavarovanje s prostovoljno vključitvijo in kolektivno zavarovanje z obvezno vključitvijo.
Moreover, the French authorities consider that the occupational designation market [53] providing cover for death, incapacity and invalidity exceeds EUR 4 billion and covers almost all personal protection operations undertaken by provident societies (EUR 4,2 billion) and part of the group policies of insurance undertakings and mutual societies.
Poleg tega francoski organi ocenjujejo, da je trg poklicnih zavarovanj z imenovanjem [53] za primere smrti, delovne nezmožnosti in invalidnosti večji od 4 milijard EUR ter naj bi obsegal skoraj vse dejavnosti na področju dodatne socialne varnosti, ki jih pokrivajo ustanove za dodatno socialno varnost (4,2 milijarde EUR), ter del kolektivnih zavarovanj, ki jih ponujajo zavarovalnice in vzajemne družbe.
However, no precise figures were communicated concerning the share of the latter in the designation market.
Vendar natančni podatki o deležu teh družb na trgu zavarovanj z imenovanjem niso bili poslani.
Although France accepted the classification as State aid of the measure in its notification, it subsequently pointed out that at least part of the scheme should not be considered aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU on account of the specific characteristics of designation policies (strong constraints in terms of rates, risk selection and management) which made these policies particularly sensitive to the risks of shifts in loss expectancy compared with original estimates and therefore fully justified a particularly prudent allocation scheme and therefore a higher tax deductibility of allocations to provisions without this giving rise to the existence of an advantage.
Čeprav se je Francija v priglasitvi strinjala z opredelitvijo ukrepa kot državne pomoči, je v nadaljevanju opozorila, da se vsaj del mehanizma ne bi smel šteti za pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU zaradi posebnosti pogodb o imenovanju (stroge omejitve glede premij, izbire tveganj in upravljanja), zaradi katerih naj bi bile te pogodbe zelo dovzetne za odklone deleža škod glede na prvotne ocene, zato naj bi v celoti upravičevale še zlasti previdno shemo rezervacij in torej možnost višjega davčnega odbitka sredstev, dodeljenih za rezervacije, ne da bi to povzročilo obstoj ugodnosti.
France therefore considers that part of the tax deduction of the allocations under adapted and strengthened conditions, extending beyond the tax regime under ordinary law existing in Article 39 quinquies GB of the CGI, is justified at regulatory and prudential level and does not constitute an advantage.
Francija torej meni, da je del davčnega odbitka sredstev, dodeljenih v ustreznih in resnejših okoliščinah, ki presega davčni mehanizem v okviru občega prava iz člena 39d GB splošnega zakonika o davkih, upravičen z zakonodajnega in bonitetnega vidika ter ne pomeni ugodnosti.
It is therefore appropriate to examine first of all whether the measure gives rise to the existence of an advantage for the insurers concerned.
Najprej je treba torej preučiti, ali ukrep zadevnim zavarovalnicam prinaša ugodnost.
Article 39(1)(5) of the above-mentioned Code provides for the deductibility of ‘provisions constituted with a view to offsetting losses or clearly specified charges which events in progress render probable, provided that they were in fact recorded in the accounts for the financial year’.
Člen 39(1)(5) navedenega zakonika določa, da je mogoče kot davčni odbitek uveljavljati „rezervacije, namenjene pokritju izgub ali stroškov, ki so jasno določeni in se zaradi trenutnih dogodkov zdijo verjetni, če so bile v poslovnem letu dejansko vknjižene“.
The Code provides in certain cases for flat-rate deductibility for certain types of operation.
Zakonik v nekaterih primerih določa možnost pavšalnega odbitka za nekatere vrste poslov.
This is more particularly the case in the field of insurance and reinsurance for which Articles 39 quinquies G to 39 quinquies GD of the Code lay down specific rules for the deductibility of provisions in order to take account of the specific characteristics of the insurance sector, the principal activity of which consists precisely in covering risks.
To posebej velja na področju zavarovanj in pozavarovanj, kjer členi od 39d G do 39d GD zakonika določajo posebna pravila glede možnosti odbitka rezervacij, da se upoštevajo posebnosti zavarovalništva, katerega glavna dejavnost je prav kritje tveganj.
To determine whether any advantage exists, it is therefore appropriate to verify whether the operations covered by the measure do in fact entail loses or additional charges within the meaning of Article 39(1)(5) of the above-mentioned Code to the extent provided for by Article 39 quinquies GD.
Pri ugotavljanju obstoja morebitne ugodnosti je torej treba preveriti, ali dejavnosti, na katere se nanaša ukrep, dejansko povzročijo izgube ali dodatne stroške v smislu člena 39(1)(5) navedenega zakonika v obsegu, določenem v členu 39d GD.
First of all, it is appropriate to accept the principle that the nature and intensity of the risks of loss in the supplementary insurance sector providing cover for death, incapacity and invalidity are liable to vary according to the types of population covered and the terms and conditions of cover (individual/group policies, optional/compulsory).
Najprej se je treba strinjati z načelom, da se lahko narava in stopnja tveganja deleža škod v sektorju dopolnilnega zavarovanja za primer smrti, delovne nezmožnosti in invalidnosti spreminjata glede na kategorije zavarovanega prebivalstva in ureditev zavarovanja (individualna/kolektivna zavarovanja, prostovoljna/obvezna zavarovanja).
The policies arising from company agreements, including the designation policies arising from such agreements, relate to a limited population.
Zavarovanja na podlagi podjetniških sporazumov, vključno s pogodbami o imenovanju na podlagi takih sporazumov, zadevajo omejen krog prebivalstva.
They entail a ‘specific’ risk (risk of loss in the undertaking concerned) without always offering the possibility of mutualisation within a large population.
Povzročajo „konično“ tveganje (tveganje za nastanek škodnega dogodka v zadevnem podjetju), ne da bi omogočali razpršitev znotraj večjega kroga prebivalstva.
The group policies covering a sector (economic activity) concern a wider population and therefore a priori entail greater mutualisation.
Kolektivna zavarovanja, ki se nanašajo na sektor (panogo), zadevajo širši krog prebivalstva in torej a priori povzročajo večjo razpršenost.
For this latter type of policy, there would nevertheless seem to be a strong correlation between loss expectancy and the periods of crisis which may affect an entire economic sector.
Pri tej vrsti zavarovanj naj bi kljub temu obstajala močna povezava med deležem škod in obdobji krize, ki lahko prizadenejo celoten gospodarski sektor.
According to the CTIP, the periods of crisis would amplify the volatility of losses at sector level.
Kot navaja CTIP, naj bi obdobja krize še okrepila nestabilnost deleža škod na ravni panoge.
As regards designation group policies resulting from a company agreement, the Commission considers that there is no reason to think that the nature and intensity (and consequently the fluctuation) of the risk of loss is significantly different from the situation in which this same type of policy is concluded outside joint negotiations between trade unions and employers (and therefore outside the designation process).
Kar zadeva kolektivne pogodbe o imenovanju na podlagi podjetniškega sporazuma, Komisija meni, da ni razlogov za sklepanje, da sta narava in stopnja (in posledično nihanje) tveganja za nastanek škodnega dogodka bistveno drugačna kot v primeru, če je ta vrsta pogodbe sklenjena brez pogajanj na enakovredni ravni med sindikatom in delodajalci (in torej brez postopka imenovanja).
Moreover, in the absence of precise information on the frequency of losses in this sector, it cannot be concluded that the fluctuations in risks specific to sector designation policies (policies characterised by greater sensitivity to the economic climate but also by greater mutualisation) would be of a greater order of magnitude than the same risks relating to company policies (policies characterised by a specific risk and by lesser mutualisation).
Poleg tega brez natančnih podatkov o deležu škod v tem sektorju ni mogoče ugotoviti, da je nihanje tveganj v okviru panožnih pogodb o imenovanju (za te pogodbe sta značilni večja občutljivost na trenutne razmere, pa tudi večja razpršenost) večje kot pri enakih tveganjih v okviru podjetniških pogodb (za te pogodbe sta značilna konično tveganje in manjša razpršenost).
In addition, should the constraints of the designation invoked by France in fact have the effect of leading to supplementary pressure at the level of the premiums received by insurers, it has to be noted that this is a circumstance which could affect income and not the expenditure from losses.
Poleg tega je treba tudi v primeru, če bi omejitve na podlagi imenovanja, na katere se sklicuje Francija, dejansko povzročile dodaten pritisk na višino premij, ki jih pobirajo zavarovalnice, ugotoviti, da gre za okoliščino, ki bi lahko vplivala na prihodke in ne na stroške škodnih dogodkov.
This type of risk (loss of income) is not therefore covered by Article 39(1)(5) of the CGI and is not therefore eligible to benefit from allocations to the deductible provisions.
Člen 39(1)(5) splošnega zakonika o davkih se torej ne nanaša na to vrsto tveganja (izgubo prihodkov), zato to ne more biti upravičeno do dodelitve sredstev za rezervacije z možnostjo odbitka.