natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For these reasons, the Italian authorities confirm, as stated in the letter of 24 June 2011 (see paragraph 13 above), that the deferral granted in respect of payment of the levy constitutes de minimis aid.
Na podlagi navedenega italijanski organi potrjujejo, kot je navedeno v dopisu z dne 24. junija 2011 (glej odstavek 13 zgoraj), da odlog, odobren za plačilo dajatev, pomeni pomoč de minimis.
They also point out that they have established that the individual ceiling referred to in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 has been complied with in full, as has the ceiling of EUR 320505000 over a period of three fiscal years established for Italy under the same Regulation, and that the grant equivalent of the deferral of payment was equal to a total of EUR 50877,41. Lastly, they reported that they were in the process of checking whether these ceilings had been complied with, taking into account the other de minimis aid schemes granted during 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Opozarjajo tudi na ugotovitev, da je bila individualna zgornja meja iz člena 3(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1535/2007 v celoti upoštevana, kot tudi zgornja meja 320505000 EUR v obdobju treh proračunskih let, določena za Italijo v okviru iste Uredbe, in da je ekvivalent subvencije za odlog plačila skupaj znašal 50877,41 EUR. Nazadnje so sporočili, da preverjajo, ali se zadevne zgornje meje spoštujejo, ob upoštevanju drugih shem pomoči de minimis, odobrenih v letih 2009, 2010 in 2011.
As regards the Commission’s position that the aid approved by Decision 2003/530/EC had to be considered, given its nature and exceptional character, to be a single maximum aid which cannot be cumulated with any other form of measure, the Italian authorities stressed firstly that the decision in question had recognised the existence of the exceptional circumstances which led the Council to consider the aid to be compatible with Article 107 of the Treaty, subject to certain conditions being met.
V zvezi s stališčem Komisije, da je treba pomoč, ki je bila odobrena v skladu z Odločbo 2003/530/ES, glede na njeno naravo in izjemen značaj šteti za eno največjo dovoljeno pomoč, ki je ni mogoče kumulirati z nobeno drugo obliko ukrepa, so italijanski organi kot prvo poudarili, da so bile v okviru zadevne odločbe priznane izjemne okoliščine, na podlagi katerih je Svet obravnaval pomoč kot združljivo s členom 107 Pogodbe, če so izpolnjeni nekateri pogoji.
They also highlighted the fact that the checks carried out showed that the programme for payment by instalments complied with the provisions of Decision 2003/530/EC, since all producers had made the seventh instalment payment, with the exception of 15 producers who had already been removed from the scheme.
Poudarili so tudi dejstvo, da so opravljena preverjanja pokazala, da je program obročnega plačevanja v skladu z določbami Odločbe 2003/530/ES, saj so vsi proizvajalci plačali sedmi obrok, razen 15 proizvajalcev, ki so že bili izključeni iz sheme.
In their view the exceptional nature of the circumstances resulting in the adoption of Decision 2003/530/EC does not in itself prevent recipients of the aid approved by the Council from accessing any other benefit.
Po njihovem mnenju izjemne okoliščine, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta Odločba 2003/530/ES, prejemnikom pomoči, ki jo je odobril Svet, same po sebi ne preprečujejo dostopa do drugih ugodnosti.
The Treaty refers only to the exceptional circumstances mentioned above, without restricting in any way the nature of the aid authorised or the detailed rules for its implementation; it simply makes the derogation from Article 107 and the regulations referred to in Article 109 of the Treaty subject to the adoption of a unanimous Council decision.
Pogodba se nanaša le na zgoraj navedene izjemne okoliščine, pri čemer na noben način ne omejuje narave odobrene pomoči ali podrobnih pravil za izvajanje pomoči; odstopanje od člena 107 in uredb iz člena 109 Pogodbe je bilo preprosto uvedeno s soglasnim sprejetjem odločbe Sveta.
In this specific case, the exceptional character which led to the adoption of Decision 2003/530/EC is fully reflected in the way in which the decision in question was adopted, namely on a unanimous basis, and relates to the circumstances requiring the adoption of the aid rather than the aid itself.
V tem specifičnem primeru je izjemen značaj, na podlagi katerega je bila sprejeta Odločba 2003/530/ES, v celoti izražen v načinu, na katerega je bila zadevna odločba sprejeta, tj. soglasno, in zadeva okoliščine, v katerih je bolj kot sama pomoč potrebno sprejetje pomoči.
The Italian authorities also claimed that the deferral of payment constitutes de minimis aid and should therefore be considered an isolated measure, given its low take-up rate among producers, the low value of the amounts in question, and the absence of changes made to the programme for payment by instalments, the structure of which has remained the same, both as regards the total number of instalments and the expiry date.
Italijanski organi so tudi navedli, da odlog plačila pomeni pomoč de minimis in ga je zato treba glede na nizko stopnjo uporabe odloga s strani proizvajalcev, majhno vrednost zadevnih zneskov in nespreminjanje programa obročnega plačevanja, katerega struktura je tako v zvezi s skupnim številom obrokov kot tudi datumom izteka veljavnosti ostala enaka, obravnavati kot ločen ukrep.
Lastly, the Italian authorities have once again stated that, in accordance with the Italian Ministerial Decree of 30 July 2003 implementing the Council Decision, participants in the programme for payment by instalment are required give up any legal action in respect of payment of the levies due and debtors who do not make payments are excluded from the programme.
Nazadnje so italijanski organi ponovno navedli, da morajo v skladu z italijansko ministrsko odredbo z dne 30. julija 2003 o izvajanju Odločbe Sveta udeleženci v programu obročnega plačevanja opustiti kakršen koli pravni ukrep v zvezi s plačilom zapadlih dajatev in da je treba dolžnike, ki ne izvedejo plačil, izključiti iz programa.
The Italian authorities assert that this condition would involve the initiation of enforced recovery procedures resulting in producers bringing new appeals.
Italijanski organi trdijo, da bo ta pogoj vključeval začetek postopkov za prisilno izterjavo, zaradi česar bodo proizvajalci vložili nove pritožbe.
It would therefore be reasonable to avoid legal disputes for the recovery of very low amounts through proceedings that cost more than the amounts to be recovered.
Zato bi bilo smiselno preprečiti pravne spore za izterjavo zelo majhnih zneskov na podlagi postopkov, katerih stroški so višji od zneskov, ki jih je treba izterjati.
In this respect, the Italian authorities refer to Article 32(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy [7], which states that, in duly justified cases, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery procedures if the costs already incurred and likely to result from the recovery are greater than the amount to be recovered.
V zvezi s tem se italijanski organi sklicujejo na člen 32(6) Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1290/2005 z dne 21. junija 2005 o financiranju skupne kmetijske politike [7], ki navaja, da se države članice v utemeljenih primerih lahko odločijo, da ne bodo izvajale postopkov izterjave, če so že obstoječi stroški in stroški, ki bodo verjetno nastali pri izterjavi, višji od zneska, ki ga je treba izterjati.
In their opinion, this provision should be applied by analogy to this case.
Po njihovem mnenju je treba to določbo na podoben način uporabiti v tem primeru.
In any event, similar provisions are also made by Article 25(4) of Law No 289/2002 (the 2003 financial law), in accordance with which the sum of EUR 12 is considered a low amount and not subject to recovery.
Podobne določbe vsebuje tudi člen 25(4) zakona št. 289/2002 (finančni zakon iz leta 2003), v skladu s katerim se znesek 12 EUR šteje za majhen znesek in ga ni treba izterjati.
Of the beneficiaries of the deferral, 559 received aid less than EUR 12.
Med upravičenci do odloga jih je 559 prejelo pomoč, manjšo od 12 EUR.
In the letter sent by e-mail on 26 April 2012, the Italian authorities provided a list of beneficiaries of the deferral and the amount of aid which each of them received.
V dopisu, poslanem po elektronski pošti dne 26. aprila 2012, so italijanski organi predložili seznam upravičencev do odloga in znesek pomoči, ki ga je vsak od njih prejel.
V. COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES ON THE OPENING OF THE PROCEDURE
V. PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI O ZAČETKU POSTOPKA
On 7 March 2012, the Commission received comments from a third party on the opening of the procedure.
Komisija je 7. marca 2012 prejela pripombe tretje strani o začetku postopka.
The interested party essentially wished to know why the Commission had restricted the opening of the procedure to the deferral of payment provided for under Law No 10/2011 and not extended it to the provisions of Article 40 bis of Law No 122/2010, which provides for the deferral of payment of the instalments paid under an additional programme of payment by instalment set up by Law No 33/2009 and urged the Commission to extend the scope of the procedure accordingly.
Zainteresirana stran je želela predvsem izvedeti, zakaj je Komisija začetek postopka omejila na odlog plačila iz zakona št. 10/2011 in ga ni razširila na določbe člena 40 bis zakona št. 122/2010, ki predvideva odlog plačila obrokov v okviru dodatnega programa obročnega plačevanja, ki je bil uveden z zakonom št. 33/2009, pri čemer je Komisijo pozvala, naj v skladu s tem razširi področje uporabe postopka.
In this respect, the interested party made the point that a complaint regarding the provisions of Article 40 bis of Law No 122/2010 had already been submitted to the Commission and the case closed by the Commission.
V zvezi s tem je zainteresirana stran navedla, da je bila pritožba glede določb iz člena 40 bis zakona št. 122/2010 Komisiji že predložena in da je Komisija primer zaključila.
On 10 March 2012, the Commission received comments from a second interested party on the opening of the procedure.
Komisija je 10. marca 2012 prejela pripombe druge zainteresirane strani o začetku postopka.
The interested party in question drew the Commission’s attention to the provisions of Article 1(4) of Decree-Law No 16/2012, allowing firms in financial difficulty to pay sums due in regular instalments.
Zadevna zainteresirana stran je Komisijo opozorila na določbe člena 1(4) zakonskega odloka št. 16/2012, ki podjetjem v finančnih težavah omogoča plačevanje dolgovanih zneskov v rednih obrokih.
It asked the Commission to intervene, pointing out that these measures were not compatible with the single market.
Komisijo je pozvala k posredovanju, pri čemer je poudarila, da ti ukrepi niso združljivi z enotnim trgom.
On 14 March 2012, the Commission received comments from a further interested party on the opening of the procedure.
Komisija je 14. marca 2012 prejela pripombe še ene zainteresirane strani o začetku postopka.
In these comments, the interested party also made reference to Decree-Law No 16/2012, stressing the resulting difference in treatment between farmers and also the accuracy of the data used by AGEA (Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura — the Italian paying agency) in order to calculate the additional levy.
V teh pripombah se je zainteresirana stran sklicevala tudi na zakonski odlok št. 16/2012, pri čemer je poudarila različno obravnavanje kmetov in tudi točnost podatkov, ki jih agencija AGEA (Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura – italijanska plačilna agencija) uporablja za izračun dodatnih dajatev.
In accordance with Article 107(1) of the Treaty, aid granted by a Member State or by means of State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, is to be deemed incompatible with the common 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, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.“
The measure in question, namely the aid connected to the deferral of payment (the granting of the equivalent of an interest-free loan, see paragraph 13, second indent above), but also the new aid arising from the breach of Decision 2003/530/EC (interest not paid on annual instalments already made and capital and interest not yet paid in respect of remaining years until the expiry of the payment by instalment, i.e. until 31 December 2017) (new aid, see paragraph 13, third indent) falls under the following definition:
Za zadevni ukrep, tj. pomoč, povezana z odlogom plačila (odobritev ekvivalenta brezobrestnega posojila, glej drugo alineo odstavka 13 zgoraj), pa tudi nova pomoč, ki izhaja iz kršenja Odločbe 2003/530/ES (neplačane obresti za letne obroke, ki so že poravnani, ter neplačana glavnica in obresti za preostala leta do izteka obročnega plačevanja, tj. do 31. decembra 2017) (nova pomoč, glej tretjo alineo odstavka 13), se uporablja naslednja opredelitev:
The measure is imputable to the State since it results from a national law; it is financed using public resources in the sense that the Italian State, by granting the deferral of payment of an annual instalment established in Decision 2003/530/EC and by creating a new aid through that deferral, has denied itself for a specific period of time a sum of money that could be used for other purposes.
Ukrep gre v breme državi, saj izhaja iz nacionalne zakonodaje; financira se iz javnih sredstev, pri čemer se je italijanska država z odobritvijo odloga plačila letnega obroka v skladu z Odločbo 2003/530/ES in z uvedbo nove pomoči na podlagi odloga za določeno obdobje odrekla znesku, ki bi ga lahko uporabila za druge namene.
This situation favours certain undertakings, in particular milk-producing agricultural holdings.
V teh razmerah imajo prednost določena podjetja, zlasti kmetijska gospodarstva, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo mleka.
It may also have an impact on trade, given the Italian position on the market [8].
Glede na položaj Italije na trgu [8] lahko te razmere vplivajo tudi na trgovino.
Equally, it has the potential to distort competition, since the undertakings which benefited from it have secured an advantage (the deferral does not earn interest and is therefore equivalent to an interest-free loan) which could not have been acquired under normal market conditions and which has placed the undertaking concerned in a more advantageous competitive situation compared to undertakings which have not received it [9].
Prav tako lahko izkrivlja konkurenco, saj so si podjetja, ki so prejela pomoč, zagotovila prednost (odlog ne ustvarja obresti in je zato enakovreden brezobrestnemu posojilu), ki je ne bi mogla pridobiti pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji in zaradi katere so zadevna podjetja v bolj ugodnem konkurenčnem položaju kot podjetja, ki te pomoči niso prejela [9].
However, in the light of the additional information provided by the Italian authorities in response to the opening of the procedure under Article 108(2) of the Treaty, there is a need to establish whether the measure in question can be considered de minimis aid in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007, and therefore not be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Vendar je treba ob upoštevanju dodatnih informacij, ki so jih italijanski organi predložili kot odgovor na začetek postopka v skladu s členom 108(2) Pogodbe, ugotoviti, ali je mogoče zadevni ukrep šteti za pomoč de minimis v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1535/2007 in ga tako izključiti iz opredelitve državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
The Commission can certainly note that the amount of interest relating to the deferral, taken in isolation, does not exceed the EUR 7500 provided for in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007.
Komisija lahko zagotovo potrdi, da znesek obresti, povezanih z odlogom, sam po sebi ne presega 7500 EUR iz člena 3(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1535/2007.
It also notes that the total aid amount granted by the deferral, i.e. EUR 50877,41, has not resulted in the ceiling of EUR 320505000 allowed for Italy in the Annex to the Regulation being exceeded.
Prav tako ugotavlja, da skupni znesek pomoči, zagotovljen z odlogom, tj.50877,41 EUR, ni presegel zgornje meje 320505000 EUR, ki je v skladu s prilogo k Uredbi dovoljena za Italijo.
Nevertheless, the Commission does not have any new information to indicate that the individual ceiling of EUR 7500 has not been exceeded in any cases, also taking into account all de minimis aid received by the same beneficiary during the period of three fiscal years, because as of 26 April 2012, it had not received any information from the Italian authorities involved in performing these checks.
Kljub temu Komisija nima nobenih novih informacij, ki bi dokazovale, da individualna zgornja meja v znesku 7500 EUR ni bila presežena v nobenem primeru, tudi ob upoštevanju vse pomoči de minimis, ki jo je v obdobju treh proračunskih let prejel isti upravičenec, ker od 26. aprila 2012 od italijanskih organov, ki sodelujejo pri izvajanju teh preverjanj, ni prejela nobenih informacij.
It cannot therefore conclude that that individual aid ceiling has been respected in all cases, particularly since the Commission also has to take into account the new aid arising from the breach of Decision 2003/530/EC.
Zato Komisija ne more sprejeti sklepa, da se je navedena individualna zgornja meja pomoči spoštovala v vseh primerih, zlasti ker mora upoštevati tudi novo pomoč, ki izhaja iz kršenja Odločbe 2003/530/ES.
Indeed, it has to examine the measure in question in its entirety (i.e. the aid related to the granting of the deferral, the granting of the equivalent of an interest-free loan and the new aid arising from the breach of Decision 2003/530/EC): a considerable number of beneficiaries (more than 1250) have benefited from this deferral and the amount of the aid also includes part of the principal sum (i.e. that corresponding to the annual instalments due on 31 December of the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017) plus interest, which far exceeds the interest relating to the deferral of payment taken into account by the Italian authorities in support of their arguments.
Dejansko mora v celoti proučiti zadevni ukrep (tj. pomoč, povezano z odobritvijo odloga, odobritev ekvivalenta brezobrestnega posojila in novo pomoč, ki izhaja iz kršenja Odločbe 2003/530/ES): ta odlog je koristilo precejšnje število upravičencev (več kot 1250), znesek pomoči pa vključuje tudi del zneska glavnice (tj. del, ki je enak letnim obrokom z zapadlostjo 31. decembra 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 in 2017), povečan za obresti, ki daleč presegajo obresti, povezane z odlogom plačila, na katere se italijanski organi sklicujejo v svojih trditvah.
Article 3(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 also states that ‘de minimis aid shall not be cumulated with State aid in respect of the same eligible costs if such cumulation would result in an aid intensity exceeding that laid down by Community rules in the specific circumstances of each case’.
Člen 3(7) Uredbe (ES) št. 1535/2007 določa, da se „[p]oleg pomoči de minimis […] v zvezi z istimi upravičenimi stroški ne sme dodeliti še državna pomoč, če bi takšno seštevanje povzročilo intenzivnost pomoči, ki bi presegala intenzivnost, določeno za posebne okoliščine vsakega primera v predpisih Skupnosti“.
In this regard, the Commission has already indicated, by initiating the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty, that this deferral was in addition to the aid approved by the Council, which should be regarded as the maximum which could be granted in this context.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija z začetkom postopka iz člena 108(2) Pogodbe že nakazala, da je bil ta odlog odobren poleg pomoči, ki jo je odobril Svet in ki bi se morala šteti za največjo dovoljeno pomoč, ki se lahko odobri v tem kontekstu.
The Italian authorities also take the view that the deferral of payment should be regarded as a stand-alone measure, given the low take-up rate amongst producers, the low value of the amounts in question, and the fact that no changes have been made to the programme for payment by instalments, the structure of which has remained the same, both as regards the total number of instalments and the expiry date.
Italijanski organi tudi menijo, da je treba odlog plačila glede na nizko stopnjo uporabe odloga s strani proizvajalcev, majhno vrednost zadevnih zneskov in nespreminjanje programa obročnega plačevanja, katerega struktura je tako v zvezi s skupnim številom obrokov kot tudi datumom izteka veljavnosti ostala enaka, obravnavati kot samostojen ukrep.
The Commission does not share this opinion.
Komisija se s tem ne strinja.
Indeed, it is clear that the deferral of payment is directly linked to a reimbursement, the payment in instalments of which was provided for in detail in Decision 2003/530/EC.
Dejansko je jasno, da je odlog plačila neposredno povezan s povračilom, plačilom v obrokih, ki je podrobno določeno v Odločbi 2003/530/ES.
The first indent of Article 1(1) of that Decision clearly states that the repayment ‘shall be […] by yearly instalments of equal size’.
V prvi alinei člena 1(1) navedene odločbe je jasno določeno, da se povračilo izvede v „letnih enako velikih obrokih“.
The deferral cannot therefore be considered as being entirely unrelated to the system of instalments established by Decision 2003/530/EC.
Zato odloga ni mogoče obravnavati kot popolnoma nepovezanega s sistemom obročnega plačevanja iz Odločbe 2003/530/ES.
The Italian authorities also dispute the fact that the aid authorised by the Council is the maximum amount that may be granted to milk producers.
Italijanski organi tudi izpodbijajo trditev, da je pomoč, ki jo je odobril Svet, največji dovoljeni znesek, ki se lahko dodeli proizvajalcem mleka.
They take the view that the decision in question has recognised the existence of exceptional circumstances resulting in the approval of the programme for repayment in instalments, but that this exceptional character does not in itself justify beneficiaries having no possibility of any other support, since the Treaty only refers to exceptional circumstances, without restricting the nature of the aid authorised or the detailed rules for its implementation.
Menijo, da so bile v okviru zadevne odločbe priznane izjemne okoliščine, na podlagi tega pa je bil odobren program obročnega odplačevanja, vendar ta izjemen značaj sam po sebi ne utemeljuje, da upravičenci ne morejo prejeti nobene druge pomoči, ker se Pogodba nanaša le na izjemne okoliščine, ne da bi omejevala naravo odobrene pomoči ali podrobnih pravil za izvajanje pomoči.
In this specific case, the exceptional character which led to the adoption of Council Decision 2003/530/EC is fully reflected in the way in which the decision in question was adopted, namely on a unanimous basis, and relates to the circumstances requiring the adoption of the aid rather than the aid itself.
V tem specifičnem primeru je izreden značaj, na podlagi katerega je bila sprejeta Odločba Sveta 2003/530/ES, v celoti izražen v načinu, na katerega je bila zadevna odločba sprejeta, tj. soglasno, in zadeva okoliščine, v katerih je bolj kot sama pomoč potrebno sprejetje pomoči.
The Commission does not agree with the Italian authorities.
Komisija se z italijanskimi organi ne strinja.
While the reference to unanimity made by the Italian authorities can indeed demonstrate that the procedure was exceptional, it does not call into question the unique nature of the aid as set out in the Decision.
Čeprav lahko sklicevanje italijanskih organov na soglasnost dejansko dokazuje, da je bil postopek izjemen, to ne izpodbija edinstvene narave pomoči iz Odločbe.