natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
information on trends in the proportion of orders tele-transmitted over the years in question;
podatke o gibanju deleža elektronsko posredovanih naročil v zadevnih letih,
the costs related to small orders in the absence of unjustified multiplying factors;
stroške, povezane z majhnimi naročili, brez neupravičenih množilnih koeficientov,
calculations of the costs incurred by CELF for the processing of small orders without the application of multiplying factors, or with multiplying factors applied only in the case of orders which were not tele-transmitted;
izračun stroškov, ki jih je imela zadruga CELF pri obdelavi majhnih naročil, brez uporabe množilnih koeficientov in tudi ob uporabi množilnih koeficientov samo pri naročilih, ki niso elektronsko posredovana,
the position of the French authorities on the calculation of the Court of First Instance by which, in the absence of the said multiplying factors, the costs linked to small order processing had been reduced by more than FRF 635000 (EUR 96805,13), even without taking into account cost categories other than those for which a multiplying factor of ‘three’ had been applied.
stališče francoskih organov do izračuna Sodišča prve stopnje, v skladu s katerim bi bili stroški, povezani z obdelavo majhnih naročil, brez navedenih koeficientov nižji za več kot 635000 FRF (96805,13 EUR), tudi brez upoštevanja drugih kategorij stroškov, kot so tiste, za katere je bil uporabljen koeficient „tri“.
It should be recalled that, according to the Court’s calculation, the operating results from small order processing would consequently have been positive by more than FRF 600000 (EUR 91469,41);
Opozoriti je treba, da bi bil glede na izračun Sodišča prve stopnje poslovni izid dejavnosti obdelave majhnih naročil posledično pozitiven za več kot 600000 FRF (91469,41 EUR),
the French authorities’ position on the possibility of CELF obtaining a reasonable profit.
stališče francoskih organov do možnosti za zadrugo CELF, da ima razumen dobiček.
In particular, as already indicated in its decision extending the procedure, in the absence of additional explanations and updated data from the French authorities, the Commission is not in a position to use the grant utilisation statements for small order processing that the French authorities provided for the years 1994 to 2001 in their letter dated 17 January 2003, nor the explanations as to how the analytical compatibility analysis was conducted, provided in the letter dated 5 March 1998.
Kot je Komisija navedla že v odločitvi o podaljšanju postopka, ne more uporabiti poročil o uporabi programa obdelave majhnih naročil, ki so jih francoski organi v dopisu z dne 17. januarja 2003 predložili za leta od 1994 do 2001, niti pojasnil v zvezi z izvedbo analize analitičnega knjigovodstva, predloženih v dopisu z dne 5. marca 1998, ker francoski organi niso dodatno pojasnili in posodobili podatkov.
The French authorities did not, however, provide the detailed information that was requested by the Commission in its decision extending the procedure, and merely referred back, with regard to the proportionality of the aid, to elements already provided on 17 September 2002, 17 January 2003 and 11 March 2003, which the Commission could not use due to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008.
Vendar pa francoski organi niso predložili podrobnih podatkov, ki jih je Komisija zahtevala v odločitvi o podaljšanju postopka, ampak so se glede sorazmernosti pomoči samo sklicevali na podatke, ki so jih predložili že 17. septembra 2002, 17. januarja 2003 in 11. marca 2003 ter jih Komisija kot takih glede na sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. aprila 2008 ni mogla uporabiti.
By letter of 8 October 2009, the Commission’s services therefore reminded the French authorities of their request for information on the specific points mentioned, indicating that if this information was not provided within a period of ten working days, the Commission would have to take a final decision on the basis of the information at its disposal, in accordance with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, after issuing, if appropriate, an information injunction, in application of Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Službe Komisije so torej z dopisom z dne 8. oktobra 2009 francoske organe opozorile na svojo zahtevo za predložitev podatkov o navedenih podrobnih točkah in navedle, da bo morala Komisija, če teh podatkov ne bo prejela v desetih delovnih dneh, končno odločbo sprejeti na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov v skladu s členom 13(1) postopkovne uredbe, potem ko bo po potrebi izdala odredbo o predložitvi podatkov na podlagi člena 10(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
By letter dated 21 October 2009, the French authorities indicated that they had no further information to provide and referred back to their comments sent on 9 June 2009.
Francoski organi so z dopisom z dne 21. oktobra 2009 navedli, da nimajo dodatnih podatkov, ki bi jih lahko predložili, in se sklicevali na pripombe, poslane 9. junija 2009.
By a decision dated 20 November 2009 (the ‘injunction decision’), the Commission therefore decided to order France to present the information requested since, despite repeated requests, this information had not been provided.
Komisija se je torej z Odločbo z dne 20. novembra 2009 („odredba o predložitvi podatkov“) odločila Franciji odrediti, naj predloži zahtevane podatke, ker jih kljub večkratnim zahtevam ni predložila.
Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 states that ‘The examination of possible unlawful aid shall result in a decision … If a Member State fails to comply with an information injunction, that decision shall be taken on the basis of the information available.’
Člen 13 postopkovne uredbe določa, da se „[p]regled morebitne nezakonite pomoči […] zaključi z odločbo […] Če država članica ne izpolni odredbe o predložitvi podatkov, se ta odločba sprejme na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov.“
As previously indicated, the French authorities did not provide the Commission with the information that it had requested on several occasions and, most recently, in its injunction decision of 20 November 2009.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, francoski organi Komisiji niso predložili podatkov, ki jih je večkrat zahtevala od njih, nazadnje v odredbi o predložitvi podatkov z dne 20. novembra 2009.
In accordance with Article 13 of the procedural Regulation, the Commission is therefore taking a decision on the basis of the available information, recalling, in any case, that it is for the French authorities to demonstrate the compatibility of the aid in question with the internal market, and thus the proportionality of this aid.
Komisija v skladu s členom 13 postopkovne uredbe ta sklep torej sprejema na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov, pri čemer je treba vsekakor opozoriti, da morajo francoski organi dokazati združljivost obravnavane pomoči z notranjim trgom in njeno sorazmernost.
In the light of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008 and the elements available to the Commission, it does not seem justified to extrapolate on the basis of estimated costs for processing small orders in 1994.
Glede na sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. aprila 2008 in podatke, ki jih ima na voljo Komisija, se zdi, da se ni mogoče opreti na ekstrapolacijo ocenjenih stroškov obdelave majhnih naročil za leto 1994.
Nor does it appear possible to use measures for apportioning costs that are not justified and to base one’s argument on data to which unjustified multiplying factors have been applied, particularly to tele-transmitted orders.
Prav tako se zdi, da ni mogoče uporabiti neupravičenih ključev porazdelitev stroškov in se opreti na podatke, za katere so bili uporabljeni neutemeljeni množilni koeficienti, zlasti za elektronsko posredovana naročila.
In the light of the costs calculation linked to the processing of small orders that appears in the Court judgment, and given that the French authorities have failed to provide the Commission with information that would enable it to clarify the doubts it raised in its decision extending the procedure, with regard to the proportionality of the aid, the loss-making nature of the activity of small order processing has not been established.
Glede na izračun stroškov, povezanih z obdelavo majhnih naročil, iz sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje in ker francoski organi Komisiji niso predložili podatkov, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče odgovoriti na dvome, ki jih je Komisija v odločitvi o podaljšanju postopka sprožila glede sorazmernosti pomoči, deficitarnost dejavnosti obdelave majhnih naročil ni dokazana.
The Commission therefore considers that it has not been demonstrated that the aid paid during the period 1994-2001 was in line with the criterion of proportionality.
Po mnenju Komisije zato ni dokazano, da pomoči, izplačane med letoma 1994 in 2001, izpolnjujejo merilo sorazmernosti.
This aid is therefore not compatible on the basis of Article 107(3)(d) TFEU.
Te pomoči torej niso združljive na podlagi člena 107(3)(d) PDEU.
Assessment of the aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU
Ocena pomoči glede na člen 107(3)(c) PDEU
Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (former Article 87(3)(c) EC) states that ‘Aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the common interest may be considered to be compatible with the internal market’.
Člen 107(3)(c) PDEU (prejšnji člen 87(3)(c) ES) določa, da se „[k]ot združljiv[a] z notranjim trgom […] lahko 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“.
Such consideration should also be given to the aid paid between 1994 and the end of 2001, for which the Commission concluded in recital (124) above that the exemption stipulated in Article 107(3)(d) TFEU (former Article 87(3)(d) EC) was not applicable.
Enako je treba storiti za pomoči, izplačane od leta 1994 do konca leta 2001, za katere je Komisija v uvodni izjavi 122 tega sklepa ugotovila, da se odstopanje iz člena 107(3)(d) PDEU (prejšnji člen 87(3)(d) ES) zanje ne uporablja.
In order to determine whether Article 107(3)(c) TFEU could serve as a basis for compatibility, the Commission must verify whether the aid in question did indeed have a common interest purpose and whether it affected trading relations to an extent that was contrary to the common interest.
Da bi Komisija ugotovila, ali bi bilo mogoče člen 107(3)(c) PDEU uporabiti kot podlago združljivosti, mora preveriti, ali je cilj zadevne pomoči dejansko v skupnem interesu in ali ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
The Commission considers that the aid was in pursuit of a common interest, as previously identified.
Komisija meni, da je pomoč dejansko v skupnem interesu, kot je bilo opredeljeno zgoraj.
It should, in this regard, be recalled that the introduction, in the Treaty on European Union, of the exemption stipulated in former Article 87(3)(d) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) TFEU) confirmed the policy followed by the Commission on the basis of former Article 92(3)(c) prior to the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je bila s tem, ko je bilo v Pogodbo o Evropski uniji uvedeno odstopanje, določeno v prejšnjem členu 87(3)(d) ES (zdaj člen 107(3)(d) PDEU), potrjena politika, ki ji je Komisija sledila na podlagi prejšnjega člena 92(3)(c) pred začetkom veljavnosti Pogodbe o Evropski uniji.
The Commission had in the past authorised aid with a cultural purpose on the basis of this Article.
Komisija je namreč v preteklosti na podlagi tega člena dovoljevala pomoči s kulturnimi cilji.
This practice was confirmed by the European Union courts, for example, in the above-cited judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 1995 in which the Court concluded that the Commission was in a position to adopt, on the basis of former Article 92(3)(c) EC, a favourable decision with regard to three aid schemes managed by CELF (aid to air freight, the ‘Page à Page’ programme and ‘Programme Plus’).
To prakso so potrdila sodišča Evropske unije, na primer v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 18. septembra 1995, v kateri je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da Komisija na podlagi prejšnjega člena 92(3)(c) ES lahko sprejme ugodno odločbo v zvezi s tremi programi pomoči, ki jih upravlja zadruga CELF (pomoči za letalski tovor, programa „Page à Page“ in „Programme Plus“).
On the other hand, the Commission considers that it has not been demonstrated that the aid was proportional to the intended purpose.
Po drugi strani po mnenju Komisije ni dokazano, da so bile pomoči sorazmerne glede na zastavljeni cilj.
In its decision extending the procedure, and later in its injunction decision, the Commission asked the French authorities to present their comments on the proportionality of the aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Komisija je v odločitvi o podaljšanju postopka in nato v odredbi o predložitvi podatkov od francoskih organov zahtevala, naj predložijo pripombe o sorazmernosti pomoči glede na člen 107(3)(c) PDEU.
As previously indicated, the French authorities did not provide the Commission with the information that would enable the proportionality of the aid paid since 1980 to be demonstrated, a request most recently made to them in the Commission’s injunction decision of 20 November 2009.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, francoski organi Komisiji niso predložili podatkov, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče dokazati sorazmernost pomoči, izplačanih od leta 1980, in ki jih je ta zahtevala od njih, nazadnje v odredbi o predložitvi podatkov z dne 20. novembra 2009.
In accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the Commission is therefore taking a decision on the basis of the available information, recalling, in any case, that it is for the French authorities to demonstrate the compatibility of the aid in question with the internal market, and thus the proportionality of this aid.
Komisija v skladu s členom 13 postopkovne uredbe ta sklep torej sprejema na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov, pri čemer je treba vsekakor opozoriti, da morajo francoski organi dokazati združljivost obravnavane pomoči z notranjim trgom in njeno sorazmernost.
Mutatis mutandis, the reasoning stated previously with regard to the proportionality of the aid in the context of Article 107(3)(d) TFEU, is transposable here.
Predhodno predstavljeno sklepanje o sorazmernosti pomoči v okviru člena 107(3)(d) PDEU se smiselno uporablja tudi tu.
The Commission therefore considers that it has not been demonstrated that the aid paid was in line with the criterion of proportionality.
Po mnenju Komisije zato ni dokazano, da izplačane pomoči izpolnjujejo merilo sorazmernosti.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that the measure in question is not compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Skratka, Komisija meni, da zadevni ukrep ni združljiv z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU.
Assessment of the measure pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU
Ocena ukrepa glede na člen 106(2) PDEU
The French authorities have argued on many occasions that CELF was entrusted with a public service task and that, consequently, the disputed measures had to be assessed pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU (former Article 86(2) EC).
Francoski organi so večkrat trdili, da je bila zadruga CELF pooblaščena za opravljanje javne službe in da je treba sporne ukrepe oceniti glede na določbe člena 106(2) PDEU (prejšnji člen 86(2) ES).
This Article states that ‘undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be 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.
Ta člen določa, da „[p]odjetja, 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.
The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.’
Razvoj trgovine ne sme biti prizadet v takšnem obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju z interesi Unije.“
Firstly, in this particular case, the question must be asked as to whether there was a service of general economic interest.
V obravnavanem primeru se je treba najprej vprašati o obstoju storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
It emerges from the Court of Justice’s case law that, with the exception of sectors for which this issue already forms the object of EU regulations, the Member States have a wide margin of discretion regarding the nature of services that would be classified as being services 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 glede narave storitev, ki se lahko opredelijo kot storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Consequently, it is the Commission’s task to ensure that this margin of discretion is used without manifest error when it comes to defining services of general economic interest.
Zato je naloga Komisije poskrbeti, da se ta diskrecijska pravica uporablja brez očitne napake, kar zadeva opredelitev storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
In this particular case, the French authorities indicated on several occasions that CELF had been given a specific public service task of a cultural nature, consisting of honouring all orders for French-language books coming from bookshops abroad, whatever the volume and nature of the order.
V obravnavanem primeru so francoski organi večkrat navedli, da je zadruga CELF pooblaščena za posebno nalogo opravljanja kulturnih javnih storitev, ki vključujejo izpolnitev vsakega naročila za delo v francoskem jeziku, ki ga oddajo knjigarnarji v tujini, ne glede na obseg in naravo naročila.
The Commission considers that this task could, in fact, form a service of general economic interest.
Komisija meni, da bi ta naloga lahko dejansko pomenila storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Secondly, it should be verified whether CELF had actually been given responsibility for this service of general economic interest.
Drugič, preveriti je treba, ali je bila zadruga CELF dejansko pooblaščena za to storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
In accordance with EU case law, the companies in question must have been entrusted with managing the service by the State by means of one or more official acts, the form of which may be determined by each Member State.
V skladu s sodno prakso Evropske unije je morala namreč država zadevna podjetja pooblastiti za opravljanje obravnavane storitve z enim ali več uradnimi akti, katerih obliko lahko določi vsaka država članica.
In this particular case, the French authorities produced a number of agreements signed between CELF and the Ministry of Culture which they consider demonstrate that CELF was indeed given responsibility for the service of general economic interest in question.
V obravnavanem primeru so francoski organi predložili več pogodb, sklenjenih med zadrugo CELF in ministrstvom za kulturo, iz katerih naj bi bilo po njihovem mnenju razvidno, da je bila zadruga CELF dejansko pooblaščena za opravljanje zadevne storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
According to the French authorities, the Book and Reading Directorate concluded annual agreements with CELF, up until 2001.
Po navedbah francoskih organov je direkcija za knjigo in branje do leta 2001 sklepala letne pogodbe z zadrugo CELF.
However, despite the Commission’s requests, including in its injunction decision, the French authorities have not produced copies of the public service agreements for each of the years in question.
Vendar pa francoski organi kljub zahtevam Komisije, vključno z odredbo o predložitvi podatkov, niso predložili kopij pogodb o javni službi za vsako od zadevnih let.
In addition, the precise nature of the public service obligations is not established in the agreements available to the Commission (and thus the amount at which orders are considered ‘small orders’ is not stated in the agreement).
Poleg tega v pogodbah, ki so Komisiji na voljo, ni opredeljena natančna narava obveznosti javne službe (tako v pogodbah ni naveden znesek, do katerega se naročila štejejo za „majhna naročila“).
It emerges that, even for these years, there is no document indicating the public service obligations entrusted to CELF with sufficient clarity.
Iz tega izhaja, da niti za ta leta ne obstaja akt, iz katerega bi bile dovolj natančno razvidne obveznosti javne službe, ki jih je imela zadruga CELF.
Consequently, the Commission considers that it has not been demonstrated that CELF was actually entrusted with the public service in question by means of an official act for each of the years in question.
Po mnenju Komisije zato ni dokazano, da je bila zadruga CELF dejansko za vsako od obravnavanih let z uradnim aktom pooblaščena za opravljanje zadevne javne službe.
Finally, and without it being necessary to conclude as to the condition of necessity, since the conditions are cumulative, the Commission considers that the condition of proportionality has not been met.
Nazadnje in ne da bi bilo treba preučiti pogoj nujnosti, ker so pogoji kumulativni, Komisija meni, da tudi pogoj sorazmernosti ni izpolnjen.
In the agreements available to the Commission, there is no explanation of the way in which the amount of aid was calculated.
V pogodbah, ki jih ima na voljo Komisija, namreč ni nikakor pojasnjeno, kako je bil izračunan znesek pomoči.
Moreover, CELF’s obligation to provide grant utilisation statements for the aid was not accompanied by a clear definition of the parameters of the calculation or monitoring of the cost of the public service activity, which would enable verification that there was no overcompensation.
Poleg tega obveznosti, naložene zadrugi CELF, da predloži poročila o porabi subvencije, ne spremlja natančna opredelitev parametrov izračuna in nadzora nad stroški dejavnosti javne službe, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče preveriti, da ni čezmernega nadomestila.
In addition, while the agreements did anticipate a carry forward from 1 year to another if part of the grant was not used, they contained no clarity as to how this mechanism would operate. It would seem, moreover, that this mechanism was not applied.
Poleg tega pogodbe, čeprav je bilo v njih dejansko določeno, da se del subvencije, ki ne bi bil porabljen, prenese iz enega leta v drugo, ne vsebujejo nobenega pojasnila v zvezi z delovanjem tega mehanizma, za katerega se sicer zdi, da ni bil uporabljen.
Finally, in more general terms and in the context of analysing the proportionality criterion with regard to Article 107(3) TFEU, the French authorities did not provide any new information demonstrating the proportionality of the aid with regard to the different points of the Court’s judgment.
Nazadnje, splošneje in kot je bilo navedeno pri analizi merila sorazmernosti glede na člen 107(3) PDEU, francoski organi niso predložili podatkov, ki bi dokazovali sorazmernost pomoči glede na različne točke sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje.
The French authorities thus did not provide the Commission with the information that would enable the proportionality of the aid in the context of Article 106(2) TFEU to be demonstrated, and this was last requested of them in its injunction decision of 20 November 2009.
Tako francoski organi Komisiji niso predložili podatkov, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče dokazati sorazmernost pomoči na podlagi člena 106(2) PDEU in ki jih je ta zahtevala od njih, nazadnje v odredbi o predložitvi podatkov z dne 20. novembra 2009.