natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the cumulative amount of de minimis aid granted by Greece to agricultural holdings over a period of three financial years did not exceed EUR 75382500, i.e. the maximum cumulative amount of aid laid down for Greece in accordance with Article 3(3) of and the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007.
zbirni znesek pomoči de minimis, ki jih je Grčija dodelila kmetijskim podjetjem v obdobju treh proračunskih let, ni presegel zneska 75382500 EUR, to je najvišjega zbirnega zneska za Grčijo v skladu s členom 3(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1535/2007 in Prilogo k tej uredbi.
Comments on the observations made by third parties
Opombe glede pripomb tretjih oseb
Greece argues that the interested parties have not provided any evidence to prove that the compensation in question has affected the position of their members on the internal market.
Grčija trdi, da zainteresirane strani niso predložile dokazov, ki bi kazali na to, da so zadevne odškodnine vplivale na položaj njihovih članov na notranjem trgu.
With regard to the observation that no description of the adverse weather conditions was provided, the Greek authorities emphasise that, under the Common Ministerial Decision on compensation, no such description is required, but that it was necessary to demonstrate the existence of adverse weather conditions and to prove that the damage caused had reached the minimum threshold of 30 % of normal production.
Grški organi v zvezi s pripombo, da ni bil predložen opis vrste slabih vremenskih razmer, poudarjajo, da tak opis v medministrski odločbi o odškodninah ni nujen in da je bilo treba, nasprotno, po eni strani dokazati obstoj slabih vremenskih razmer in po drugi strani, ali je povzročena škoda dosegla 30-odstotni minimalni prag v primerjavi z običajno proizvodnjo.
Furthermore, Greece did provide, in the context of the observations it submitted to the Commission, analytical data concerning the weather conditions in question, accompanied by the relevant meteorological information.
Grčija je poleg tega v okviru pripomb, ki jih je poslala službam Komisije, ustrezne meteorološke podatke podkrepila s predložitvijo analitičnih podatkov o zadevnih vremenskih razmerah.
With regard to the observation that Greece did not specify either the method used for calculating the compensation in question or the minimum threshold of the loss suffered, the Greek authorities reiterate that, in the context of the observations submitted to the Commission, it provided detailed information in respect of both factors.
Grški organi v zvezi s pripombo, da Grčija ni pojasnila niti uporabljenega načina izračuna zadevnih odškodnin, niti minimalnega praga utrpele škode, opozarjajo, da je Grčija v okviru pripomb, ki so jih predložili Komisiji, zagotovila podrobne informacije o teh dveh vprašanjih.
The Greek authorities claim that the granting of the aid in question did not affect the end-consumer because the fall in the price of the agricultural products concerned did not lead to a fall in retail prices.
Po mnenju grških organov dodelitev zadevnih odškodnin ni vplivala na končne potrošnike, saj znižanje cen zadevnih kmetijskih proizvodov ni povzročilo znižanja maloprodajnih cen.
To support this claim, the Greek authorities submitted articles from the Greek press showing that the retail price of several agricultural products, including those involved in this case, remained high despite the fact that the wholesale price of those agricultural products had fallen.
Grški organi so v podkrepitev tega stališča predložili članke iz grških časopisov, v katerih je navedeno, da so bile maloprodajne cene več kmetijskih proizvodov, vključno s proizvodi, ki se obravnavajo v tej zadevi, še naprej visoke, čeprav se je veleprodajna cena teh kmetijskih proizvodov znižala.
Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty
Obstoj državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe
Article 107(1) of the Treaty states that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the internal market.
V skladu s členom 107(1) Pogodbe 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, če prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission considers that, in respect of the measures in question, the abovementioned conditions have been satisfied.
Komisija meni, da zadevni ukrepi izpolnjujejo zgoraj navedene pogoje.
Measures granted through State resources
Ukrepi, dodeljeni z državnimi sredstvi
In accordance with the Court judgment of 22 March 2003 in Case C-355/00 Freskot AE v Elliniko Dimosio [16] (‘Freskot case’), this condition is satisfied in the present case since the national legislation concerned clearly establishes that the benefits provided by ELGA are granted through State resources and are imputable to the State within the meaning of the Court’s case-law [17].In the present case, as in the Freskot case, under Article 5(a) of Law No 1790/1988 (see also recital 11) and other provisions of Greek legislation in force, ELGA’s income from the special contribution was collected by the tax authorities, entered in the State budget as State revenue and paid to ELGA from the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture (now the Ministry of Rural Development and Food).
Kot je razvidno iz sodne prakse Sodišča v sodbi z dne 22. marca 2003 v zadevi C-355/00, Freskot AE proti Elliniko Dimosio [16], (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zadeva Freskot), je ta pogoj v obravnavanem primeru izpolnjen, saj nacionalna zakonodaja jasno določa, da se storitve organizacije ELGA financirajo iz državnih sredstev in da jih je mogoče v smislu sodne prakse Sodišča [17] pripisati državi.Tako kot v zadevi Freskot tudi v obravnavanem primeru iz člena 5a zakona št. 1790/1988 (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 11) in drugih veljavnih določb veljavne grške zakonodaje izhaja, da prihodke, ki jih ELGA prejme iz posebnega prispevka, pobira davčna uprava, v proračun države se vključijo kot prihodki države, organizaciji ELGA pa se nakažejo iz proračuna ministrstva za kmetijstvo (zdaj ministrstvo za razvoj podeželja in prehrano).
Consequently, the fact that the contributions in question are entered into the accounts as State revenue is sufficient to consider that the payments made by ELGA were financed by State resources.
Dejstvo, da se zadevni prispevki knjižijo med prihodke države, zato zadošča za ugotovitev, da se storitve, ki jih zagotavlja ELGA, plačujejo iz državnih sredstev.
Furthermore, in accordance with Article 2 of Law No 1790/1998 [18], by decision of the Minister for Agriculture ELGA may pay aid or compensation to beneficiaries through a transfer of resources from the State budget or by means of loans taken out by ELGA and guaranteed by the Greek State where the Greek State is obliged to repay the loan.
ELGA lahko poleg tega v skladu s členom 2 Zakona št. 1790/1998 [18] s sklepom ministra za kmetijstvo pomoči ali odškodnine upravičencem izplača s prenosom sredstev iz proračuna države ali s posojili, ki jih najame s poroštvom Grčije in z obveznostjo Grčije, da poplača posojilo.
However, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that benefits granted directly by the State and those granted by a public or private body designated or established by the State constitute State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [19].
Iz sodne prakse Sodišča izhaja, da so ugodnosti, ki jih dodeli neposredno država, in tiste, ki se dodelijo prek javnega ali zasebnega organa, ki ga imenuje ali ustanovi država, državna sredstva v smislu člen 107(1) Pogodbe.
Therefore, in the case in question, the two loans taken out by ELGA for the compensation paid in 2008 and 2009 and guaranteed by the Greek State (see recitals 15 to 17) constitute State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty since they are part of the resources of ELGA, a private legal person wholly owned by the State and under the supervision of the Minister for Agriculture (see also recital 8).(59) Measures which affect trade and distort or threaten to distort competition
V obravnavanem primeru zato obe posojili, ki ju je ELGA najela za izplačilo odškodnin v letih 2008 in 2009 s poroštvom Grčije (glej uvodni izjavi 15 in 17), pomenita državna sredstva v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, saj spadata med sredstva organizacije ELGA, pravne osebe zasebnega prava, ki je v celoti v lasti države in pod nadzorom ministra za kmetijstvo (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 8).(59) Ukrepi, ki vplivajo na trgovino in izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljali konkurenco
The Commission notes that the compensation in question gives national farmers an advantage over those elsewhere in the Union who do not receive the same support.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se z zadevnimi odškodninami daje prednost domačim proizvajalcem pred drugimi proizvajalci iz Skupnosti, ki ne prejemajo enake podpore.
The agricultural sector is open to competition at Union level [20] and is consequently sensitive to any measure favouring production in a particular Member State [21].
Kmetijski sektor je odprt za konkurenco na ravni Unije, [20] zato je občutljiv za vsak ukrep v korist proizvodnji v eni ali drugi državi članici.
The compensation in question therefore threatens to distort competition in the internal market and affects trade between Member States.(60) Measures which favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods
Zadevne odškodnine bi posledično lahko izkrivljale konkurenco na notranjem trgu in vplivale na trgovino med državami članicami.(60) Ukrepi, ki dajejo prednost nekaterim podjetjem ali nekaterim proizvodnjam
Moreover, in accordance with the case-law of the Court [22], measures which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, therefore, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect are also considered to be aid.In the Freskot judgment, the Court found that the term ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 102 of the Treaty does not cover a body such as ELGA in respect of its activities under the compulsory insurance scheme against natural risks (see paragraphs 79 and 88 of the judgment).
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [22] se za pomoč štejejo predvsem ukrepi, ki v različnih oblikah zmanjšujejo stroške, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetja, ter so zato, ne da bi bili subvencije v pravem pomenu besede, iste narave in imajo enake učinke.Sodišče je v sodbi Freskot ugotovilo, da se pojem podjetja v smislu člena 102 Pogodbe ne nanaša na organ, kot je ELGA, kar zadeva njegove dejavnosti v okviru sistema obveznega zavarovanja pred naravnimi nesrečami (glej točki 79 in 88 sodbe).
In fact, the compulsory insurance scheme in question essentially pursues a social policy objective with a view to ensuring adequate coverage for all agricultural holdings, including those which are at greater risk of damage caused by natural risks (see paragraphs 66 and 67 of the judgment).
Zadevni sistem obveznega zavarovanja dejansko izpolnjuje predvsem cilj socialne politike, da se vsem kmetijskim gospodarstvom zagotovi ustrezno zavarovanje, vključno s tistimi, ki so bolj izpostavljena naravnim nesrečam (glej točki 66 in 67 sodbe).
The insurance contribution applies to all agricultural products at uniform rates which are not related to the actual risk to which the farmer is exposed (based on the solidarity principle).
Prispevek za zavarovanje se za vse kmetijske proizvode plačuje po enakih stopnjah, ne glede na tveganje, ki mu je proizvajalec dejansko izpostavljen (na podlagi načela solidarnosti).
ELGA is audited by the State since the amount of the contribution, on the revenue side, as well as the compensation rate is established by the relevant ministry.
ELGA je pod nadzorom države, saj znesek prispevka v zvezi s prihodki in stopnjo nadomestila določijo pristojni ministri.
As the Court noted in its judgment of 22 January 2002 in Case C-218/00, Cisal v INAIL [23], in the present case the two essential aspects of the ELGA insurance scheme, i.e. the amount of compensation and the level of contributions, are controlled by the State, and the compulsory participation characteristic of the scheme is essential in order to ensure its financial viability and to guarantee that solidarity principle is implemented, which indicates that the compensation paid to the insured party is disproportionate to the contributions made by the latter.
Kot je Sodišče ugotovilo v sodbi z dne 22. januarja 2002 v zadevi C-218/00, Cisal proti INAIL [23], v obravnavanem primeru oba bistvena elementa zavarovalne sheme ELGA, in sicer znesek nadomestil in znesek prispevka, nadzoruje država, obvezna vključitev, ki je značilna za to shemo, pa je nujna za njeno finančno ravnovesje in uresničitev načela solidarnosti, ki pomeni, da nadomestila, ki se izplačajo zavarovancu, niso sorazmerna prispevkom, ki jih je ta vplačal.
Unlike in the Cisal/INAIL case, however, the recipients of compensation from ELGA are undertakings engaged in economic activity.
Vendar so v nasprotju z okoliščinami v zadevi Cisal proti INAIL upravičenci do izplačil zavarovanja organizacije ELGA podjetja, ki izvajajo gospodarsko dejavnost.
The fact that ELGA itself is not engaged in any economic activity is therefore not sufficient grounds for establishing that the beneficiaries of compensation paid by this body are not undertakings within the meaning of the Treaty and are not potential beneficiaries of State aid (see the Freskot judgment, paragraph 80).
Dejstvo, da ELGA sama ne izvaja gospodarske dejavnosti, torej ne zadošča, da upravičenci do izplačil zavarovanja, ki jih izvaja ta organ, ne bi bili podjetja v smislu Pogodbe in ne bi bili morebitni prejemniki državnih pomoči (glej sodbo Freskot, točka 80).
With regard to the issue of economic advantage, the Court simply states in paragraph 84 of the Freskot judgment: ‘Accordingly, it is necessary to answer the question whether, and if so to what extent, in the absence of compulsory cover, Greek agricultural holdings should have and indeed could have obtained insurance cover from private insurers or taken other steps in order adequately to protect themselves against the consequences of natural risks for their farms and, second, to what extent the contribution corresponds to the actual economic cost of the benefits provided by ELGA under the compulsory insurance scheme, if indeed such a cost can be calculated.’ In the next paragraph, however, the Court finds that ‘the Court is not sufficiently apprised of the relevant points of fact and law needed in order to be able to answer the part of the question concerning the potential classification of the benefits granted by ELGA under the compulsory insurance scheme as State aid.’ However, the Court stated in paragraph 87 of the Freskot case that ‘it was not sufficiently apprised of the relevant points of fact and law needed in order to be able to answer the part of the question concerning the potential classification of the benefits granted by ELGA under the compulsory insurance scheme against natural risks as State aid’.
Sodišče je glede vprašanja gospodarske ugodnosti v točki 84 sodbe Freskot navedlo samo, da je treba „v teh okoliščinah na vprašanje, prvič, ali in po potrebi za koliko bi se grška kmetijska gospodarstva morala zavarovati in bi se dejansko lahko zavarovala pri zasebnih zavarovalnicah ali se kako drugače ustrezno zaščitila pred posledicami naravnih nesreč, ki so jim izpostavljena, in, drugič, koliko prispevek ustreza dejanskim ekonomskim stroškom storitev, ki jih ELGA zagotavlja v okviru obveznega zavarovanja, če je take stroške sploh mogoče izračunati“. Sodišče v naslednji točki kljub temu navaja, da „Sodišče nima na voljo dejanskih in pravnih elementov, da bi odgovorilo na tisti del postavljenega vprašanja, ki se nanaša na morebitno opredelitev storitev, ki jih ELGA zagotavlja v okviru sheme obveznega zavarovanja pred naravnimi nesrečami, kot državnih pomoči“. Vseeno Sodišče v točki 87 v zadevi Frescot navaja, da „[…] nima na voljo potrebnih dejanskih in pravnih elementov, da bi lahko odgovorilo na tisti del postavljenega vprašanja, ki se nanaša na morebitno opredelitev storitev, ki jih ELGA zagotavlja v okviru sheme obveznega zavarovanja pred naravnimi nesrečami, kot državnih pomoči […]“.
According to the case-law of the Court, neither the social character of the aid measure [24], nor the fact that it is fully or partially financed by the contributions imposed by the public authority and charged to the companies concerned [25] is sufficient to prevent the measure being defined as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, which does not distinguish between types of State aid according to the aims or objectives of the measure but rather defines it in terms of its effects [26].
S sodno prakso Sodišča je potrjeno, da niti socialna narava ukrepa [24] niti dejstvo, da se v celoti ali delno financira s prispevki, ki jih naloži javni organ in jih plačujejo zadevna podjetja [25], ne zadošča, da se ukrep ne bi opredelil kot državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, v katerem ni razlikovanja ukrepov državne pomoči glede na vzroke ali cilje, temveč so opredeljeni glede na svoje učinke. [26]
The payments made by ELGA in 2008 as part of the compulsory insurance scheme concerned certain Greek animal products and products of plant origin, while those made in 2009 concerned certain crops.
Odškodnine, ki jih je ELGA leta 2008 izplačala v okviru sheme obveznega zavarovanja, so se nanašale na nekatere grške kmetijske proizvode rastlinskega in živalskega izvora, odškodnine, izplačane leta 2009, pa so se nanašale na nekatere rastlinske proizvode.
Accordingly, it follows that the compensation paid by ELGA to local agricultural producers could give a selective financial advantage to those producers as compared with producers elsewhere in the Union not receiving the same aid.
To pomeni, da bi se z odškodninami, ki jih je ELGA izplačala lokalnim proizvajalcem kmetijskih proizvodov, tem proizvajalcem lahko dajala selektivna prednost pred drugimi proizvajalci iz Unije, ki ne prejemajo enake podpore.
Moreover, where there is a higher risk of damage caused by natural risks, it is unlikely that the agricultural holdings would be able to obtain insurance cover from a private institution under the same terms.
Poleg tega je v primerih, ko je tveganje za škodo zaradi naravnih nesreč večje, vprašljivo, če bi se lahko kmetijska gospodarstva pod enakimi pogoji zavarovala pri zasebnem zavarovatelju.
The Commission finds, therefore, that in the circumstances the compensation paid by ELGA through the scheme in question represents a selective financial advantage for the recipients.
Komisija zato meni, da v teh okoliščinah nadomestila, ki jih ELGA izplačuje prek zadevnega sistema, za prejemnike pomenijo selektivno finančno ugodnost.
The judgment of the Court in the Freskot case (see paragraph 86) raises the question of whether the aid measure in question may be justified in the light of the nature or general scheme of the system of benefits, which is a matter for the Member State concerned to prove [27].
Podobno kot v sodbi Sodišča v zadevi Freskot (glej točko 86) se je kljub temu mogoče vprašati, ali zadevnega ukrepa ne bi bilo mogoče upravičiti z naravo ali splošno sistematiko sistema, kar mora dokazati zadevna država članica.
It should be determined whether the special characteristics of the agricultural sector and its particular dependence on certain climatic conditions, as well as its vulnerability to natural risks in Greece, could make it necessary to set up a State scheme which assures a minimum level of compensation based on the principle of solidarity.
Treba je preučiti, ali posebne značilnosti kmetijskega sektorja in njegova posebna odvisnost od nekaterih vremenskih razmer ter njegova občutljivost na naravne nesreče v Grčiji morda zahtevajo uvedbo državne sheme, ki bi zagotavljala minimalno nadomestilo na podlagi solidarnosti.
However, a measure introducing an exception to the application of the general parafiscal/tax system may be justified by the general scheme and nature of the tax system if the Member State concerned can prove that this measure results directly from the founding principles or policy of this system.
Ukrep, ki odstopa od uporabe splošnega (para)fiskalnega sistema, je vseeno mogoče upravičiti z naravo in splošno sistematiko sistema, če lahko zadevna država članica dokaže, da ukrep izhaja neposredno iz temeljnih ali vodilnih načel tega sistema. _Treba je razlikovati med zunanjimi cilji posebne sheme na eni strani ter mehanizmi, ki so sestavni del samega sistema in so nujni za dosego teh ciljev, na drugi.
Since it appears that ELGA is not solely financed by parafiscal levies but also by direct State contributions, it cannot be justified on the basis of solidarity between farmers, which means that the whole scheme must be regarded as being selective.
Ker se zdi, da se ELGA ne financira izključno z davkom podobnimi prispevki, ampak tudi z neposrednimi prispevki države, taka utemeljitev na podlagi solidarnosti med proizvajalci ni upoštevna, zato je treba shemo v celoti šteti za selektivno.
Thus, in the case in question, most of the compensation paid to farmers in 2008, i.e. EUR 386986648, was not financed by special compulsory contributions, as these amounted to just EUR 88353000.
V obravnavanem primeru se odškodnine, ki so bile proizvajalcem izplačane leta 2008, in sicer v višini 386986648 EUR, niso financirale večinoma s posebnimi obveznimi prispevki, saj so ti znašali samo 88353000 EUR. V tem primeru ne bi bilo več mogoče šteti, da so se izplačila zavarovanim proizvajalcem financirala izključno s prispevki.
In order to pay these higher sums to producers of agricultural products, ELGA had to take out two loans to be repaid over a 10-year period (see recitals 16 and 17).
ELGA je lahko te visoke odškodnine proizvajalcem kmetijskih proizvodov izplačala samo z najemom dveh posojil, ki bosta poplačani v desetih letih (glej uvodni izjavi 16 in 17).
On the basis of the information provided by the Greek authorities concerning the annual interest and capital repayments on the two loans taken out by ELGA to pay the compensation, ELGA will not be able to repay the loans over a 10-year period by means of the producers’ special insurance contributions, particularly since those contributions will have to be used to pay the compensation for the damage incurred during the years in question.
Glede na podatke, ki so jih grški organi predložili v zvezi z gibanjem letnih obrokov obresti in amortizacije za obe posojili, je treba ugotoviti, da ELGA teh letnih obrokov v desetih letih ne bo mogla plačati s posebnimi obveznimi prispevki proizvajalcev, še zlasti ker bo treba te prispevke nameniti izplačilu odškodnin za škodo, ki bo v zadevnih letih nastala.
In the additional information they provided, the Greek authorities had stated that the new Law No 3877/2010 concerning the protection and insurance system for agricultural activities was adopted with a view to increasing ELGA’s revenue.
Grški organi so v okviru dodatnih predloženih informacij navedli, da je bil novi zakon št. 3877/2010 o sistemu zaščite in zavarovanja kmetijske dejavnosti sprejet, da bi se povečali prihodki organizacije ELGA.
The Commission is of the opinion that the abovementioned law could in fact improve the functioning of ELGA in the future.
Komisija meni, da lahko navedeni zakon dejansko pripomore k izboljšanju delovanja organizacije ELGA v prihodnje.
However, increasing ELGA’s future revenue does not enable the conclusion to be drawn that it will be sufficient to repay the loans in question and to grant aid to farmers for the years concerned.
Kljub temu ni mogoče sklepati, da bi povečanje prihodkov organizacije ELGA v prihodnosti zadoščalo za poplačilo zadevnih posojil in dodelitev odškodnin proizvajalcem v zadevnih letih.