natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They state that of all the measures of use to animals and products, which amounted to EUR 91231075, it is fair to consider that only EUR 28280000 funded measures undertaken outside the national territory.
Po mnenju francoskih organov je upravičena ocena, da je bilo od tega zneska ukrepov, ki so koristili vsem živalim in proizvodom, in sicer 91231075 EUR, samo 28280000 EUR porabljenih za financiranje ukrepov, ki so se izvajali zunaj nacionalnega ozemlja.
The measures that specifically concerned exported animals and products related to advertising (for example international trade fairs, professional information and public relations campaigns, International Green Week in Berlin, training on cutting held abroad).
Ukrepi, ki so se nanašali posebej na izvožene živali in proizvode, so bili zlasti promocijski ukrepi (na primer: mednarodni sejmi, ukrepi panožnega obveščanja in stikov z javnostjo, zeleni teden v Berlinu, usposabljanja za razrez v tujini).
The measures that had an impact on animals and products as a whole, regardless of their markets, in France and outside France included publicity campaigns on high-quality European beef, offal, beef breeds, and a number of research activities on food safety, animal welfare, quality management, product characterisation, and the certification and traceability procedures for bovine meat, the results of which were widely circulated in France and abroad.
Ukrepi, ki so se nanašali na vse živali in proizvode ne glede na njihove trge, v Franciji ali zunaj nje, so bili zlasti ukrepi oglaševanja, kot so kampanje o „kakovostni evropski govedini“, drobovini in „mesnih pasmah“, ter vrsta ukrepov raziskav o varnosti živil, dobrem počutju živali, upravljanju kakovosti, označevanju proizvoda, postopkih certificiranja ali sledljivosti govejega mesa, katerih rezultati so se na široko razširjali v Franciji in zunaj nje.
The French authorities believe that the benefits accruing to the exported products as a result of inter-branch measures amounted to EUR 49770000. This sum should be compared to the compulsory voluntary levy imposed on the products that amounted to EUR 38136670. The share of the compulsory voluntary levy paid by French export products during the period from 1995 to 2004 was balanced in relation to the advantages accrued from the measures funded by Interbev.
Francoski organi menijo, da so bili proizvodi, odpremljeni iz Francije, deležni medpanožnih ukrepov v višini 49770000 EUR. Ta znesek je treba primerjati z obveznimi prostovoljnimi prispevki, ki jih je bilo treba plačati, in sicer 38136670 EUR. Delež obveznih prostovoljnih prispevkov, ki ga je plačala izvožena francoska proizvodnja v obdobju 1995–2004, je bil izravnan glede na koristi, ki jih je imela od ukrepov, ki jih je financiralo združenje Interbev.
In their letter of 13 September 2005, the French authorities confirmed that the exported products were not subject to a specific FNE levy.
Francoski organi so v dopisu z dne 13. septembra 2005 potrdili, da odpremljeni proizvodi kot taki niso bili predmet prispevka iz naslova sklada FNE.
Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU apply to all the agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty subject to a common organisation of the market (all agricultural products except horse meat, honey, coffee, alcohol of agricultural origin, vinegar made from alcohol and cork) in accordance with the different regulations governing respective common organisations of markets.
Člena 107 in 108 PDEU se uporabljata za vse kmetijske proizvode iz Priloge I k Pogodbi, ki so predmet skupne ureditve trga (vsi kmetijski proizvodi, razen konjskega mesa, medu, kave, alkohola kmetijskega porekla, kisa, pridelanega iz alkohola, in plute) v skladu z različnimi predpisi, s katerimi se urejajo zadevne skupne ureditve trgov.
EXISTENCE OF AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU
OBSTOJ POMOČI V SMISLU ČLENA 107(1) PDEU
Article 107(1) TFEU states that ‘Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, 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 shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.’
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU je, razen če Pogodba ne določa drugače, 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.
Articles 107 to 109 TFEU were rendered applicable in the bovine meat sector at the material time by Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 [21] on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal.
Členi od 107 do 109 PDEU so se v času dejanskega stanja v sektorju govejega mesa začeli uporabljati s členom 40 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1254/99 [21] o skupni ureditvi trga za te proizvode.
Before the adoption of the latter, these articles were rendered applicable in the same sector by Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in meat and veal [22].
Pred sprejetjem navedene uredbe so se v istem sektorju začeli uporabljati s členom 24 Uredbe (EGS) št. 805/68 z dne 27. maja 1968 o skupni ureditvi trga za goveje in telečje meso [22].
They were rendered applicable in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sectors by Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2529/2001 of 19 December 2001 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat [23].
V sektorju ovčjega in kozjega mesa so se začeli uporabljati s členom 23 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2529/2001 z dne 19. decembra 2001 o skupni ureditvi trga za ovčje in kozje meso [23].
Prior to the adoption of the latter, the articles in question were rendered applicable in the same sector under Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 of 3 November 1998 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat [24] and, prior to the adoption of that Regulation, by Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September 1989 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat [25].
Pred sprejetjem navedene uredbe so se v istem sektorju začeli uporabljati s členom 22 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2467/98 z dne 3. novembra 1998 o skupni ureditvi trga za ovčje in kozje meso [24] ter pred sprejetjem navedene uredbe s členom 27 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 3013/89 z dne 25. septembra 1989 o skupni ureditvi trga za ovčje in kozje meso [25].
Articles 107 to 109 TFEU are applicable today, for the sectors mentioned in recital 32 et seq. of this Decision, by Article 180 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) [26] [27].
Členi od 107 do 109 PDEU so za sektorja, navedena v točki 32 in naslednjih obrazložitve tega sklepa, začeli veljati s členom 180 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007 z dne 22. oktobra 2007 o vzpostavitvi skupne ureditve kmetijskih trgov in o posebnih določbah za nekatere kmetijske proizvode (Uredba o enotni SUT) [26] [27].
According to the Court of Justice, measures which, whatever their form, are likely directly or indirectly to favour certain undertakings or are to be regarded as an economic advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions are regarded as aid [28].
Po mnenju Sodišča se za pomoči štejejo ukrepi, ki lahko ne glede na obliko neposredno ali posredno podjetjem dajo prednost ali ki jih je treba obravnavati kot gospodarsko prednost, ki je podjetje prejemnik v običajnih tržnih razmerah ne bi prejelo [28].
In this case, the support granted has favoured certain undertakings in the cattle and sheep farming sector by implementing measures likely to benefit producers in, or parts of, the sectors represented by Interbev.
V obravnavanem primeru je bila z odobreno podporo prednost dana nekaterim podjetjem, dejavnim v sektorju govedoreje ali ovčereje, z izvajanjem ukrepov, ki bi lahko koristili proizvajalcem ali sektorjem v panogah, ki jih zastopa združenje Interbev.
Moreover, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, 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 [29].
Poleg tega se v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča za pomoči štejejo tudi ukrepi, s katerimi se v različnih oblikah zmanjšujejo stroški, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetja, in ki so zaradi tega, ne da bi bili subvencije v ožjem pomenu besede, enaki in imajo enake učinke [29].
In terms of the existence of an advantage, such an advantage must be demonstrated in relation to the potential beneficiaries of the measures to the benefit of the meat sector and the inter-branch levies in question and their financing.
Obstoj prednosti je treba dokazati na ravni morebitnih upravičencev do ukrepov v korist sektorja mesa ter zadevnih medpanožnih prispevkov in njihovega financiranja.
In this case, the support granted has favoured certain undertakings in the cattle and sheep farming sector by implementing measures likely to benefit producers in the industry.
V obravnavanem primeru je bila z odobreno podporo prednost dana nekaterim podjetjem, dejavnim v sektorju govedoreje ali ovčereje, z izvajanjem ukrepov, ki bi lahko koristili proizvajalcem v sektorju.
AID GRANTED BY THE STATE OR THROUGH STATE RESOURCES
POMOČ, KI JO DODELI DRŽAVA ALI JE DODELJENA IZ DRŽAVNIH SREDSTEV
According to the case-law of the Court, for a benefit to qualify as State aid, it must first be awarded directly or indirectly through State resources and, secondly, it must be attributable to the State [30].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča mora biti prednost, da bi bila lahko opredeljena kot državna pomoč, prvič, dodeljena neposredno ali posredno iz državnih sredstev in, drugič, biti mora pripisljiva državi [30].
As regards the nature of the levies in question (compulsory voluntary levies), the Commission considers that the levies constitute parafiscal charges, i.e. public resources.
Komisija v zvezi z naravo prispevkov v obravnavanem primeru (obvezni prostovoljni prispevki) meni, da gre za davku podobne dajatve, torej javna sredstva.
The Commission’s assessment is based on the following considerations.
Svojo presojo je oprla na naslednje razmisleke.
Firstly, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, and paragraph 139 of the Salvat [31] judgment in particular, the distinction between private and public organisations is not ‘a determining factor for the application of the rules of the Treaty on State aid’.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso in zlasti točko 139 sodbe Salvat [31] razlikovanje med zasebnimi in javnimi subjekti ni „odločilni element za uporabo pravil Pogodbe glede državne pomoči“.
In addition, the Ladbroke judgment [32] categorically states that Article 107(1) TFEU ‘covers all the financial means by which the public sector may actually support undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those means are permanent assets of the public sector. Consequently, even though the sums (…) are not permanently held by the Treasury, the fact that they constantly remain under public control, and therefore available to the competent national authorities, is sufficient for them to be categorised as State aid and for the measure to fall within Article 107(1) of the Treaty.’
Poleg tega je v sodbi Ladbroke [32] zelo jasno potrjeno, da člen 107(1) PDEU „zajema vsa finančna sredstva, ki jih javni sektor dejansko lahko uporabi za pomoč podjetjem, ne glede na dejstvo, da so ta sredstva stalno ali nestalno v lasti navedenega sektorja. Zato, čeprav zneski […] niso stalno v lasti državne blagajne, dejstvo, da ostajajo stalno pod javnim nadzorom in torej na voljo pristojnim nacionalnim organom, zadostuje, da se jih opredeli kot državna sredstva in da zadevni ukrep spada na področje uporabe člena 107(1) Pogodbe“.
Firstly, in the light of this case-law, the Commission considers that the fact that the compulsory voluntary levies in question consist of contributions from the private sector and are not at the permanent disposal of the State does not constitute sufficient grounds for concluding that they fall outside the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Prvič, Komisija na podlagi te sodne prakse meni, da dejstvo, da zadevni obvezni prostovoljni prispevki vključujejo prispevke zasebnega sektorja in da niso stalno na voljo državi, ne zadostuje za ugotovitev, da ne spadajo na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU.
In this context, the Commission must also examine the level of control exercised by the State in relation to the income derived from the compulsory voluntary levies in question and the State’s capacity to redirect the resources to finance the aid measures.
V zvezi s tem mora Komisija preučiti tudi raven nadzora, ki ga izvaja država v zvezi s prihodki od zadevnih obveznih prostovoljnih prispevkov, in sposobnost države za usmerjanje uporabe sredstev za financiranje ukrepov pomoči.
In this case, the Commission notes that the government’s approval, in the form of the recognition afforded to Interbev, is a prerequisite for the introduction of compulsory voluntary levies.
V obravnavanem primeru Komisija ugotavlja, da odobritev vlade v obliki priznanja združenja Interbev pomeni osnovni pogoj za uvedbo obveznih prostovoljnih prispevkov.
Therefore, although Interbev is an entity under private law, its capacity to introduce compulsory voluntary levies in its business sector is subject to State approval of its operation and objectives (cf. recital 14 of this Decision).
Čeprav je združenje Interbev subjekt zasebnega prava, je torej njegova možnost uvedbe obveznih prostovoljnih prispevkov v njegovem sektorju dejavnosti pogojena s tem, da država odobri njegovo delovanje in cilje (glej točko 14 obrazložitve tega sklepa).
In addition, it is stipulated under France’s Rural Code that the levies become compulsory for all members of the branches in question by virtue of being extended by joint ministerial decree (cf. recital 10 of this Decision).
V kmetijskem zakoniku je določeno tudi, da za vse člane zadevne stroke prispevki, ko so razširjeni z medresorskim odlokom (glej točko 10 obrazložitve tega sklepa), postanejo obvezni.
This type of levy therefore requires an official act in order to take full effect [33].
Iz tega izhaja, da je za tovrstne prispevke potreben akt javnega organa, da bi lahko imeli vse svoje učinke [33].
On the basis of these facts, the Commission considers that the compulsory voluntary levies examined can be considered to be under the control of the State and to constitute State resources.
Komisija na podlagi teh dejstev ugotavlja, da se za obravnavane obvezne prostovoljne prispevke lahko šteje, da so pod nadzorom države in da pomenijo državna sredstva.
Secondly, the use of the revenue generated by the compulsory voluntary levies is determined by the objectives and operational context of the inter-branch organisation as defined in the Rural Code (cf. recitals 7-10).
Drugič, uporaba prihodkov od obveznih prostovoljnih prispevkov je določena s cilji in okvirom delovanja medpanožne organizacije, kot so opredeljeni v kmetijskem zakoniku (glej točke od 7 do 10 obrazložitve).
Consequently, the State has the ability to channel the revenue derived from the compulsory voluntary levies to finance the aid measures carried out by Interbev.
Tako država lahko usmerja uporabo prihodkov od obveznih prostovoljnih prispevkov za financiranje ukrepov pomoči, ki jih izvaja združenje Interbev.
The benefits afforded by Interbev can thus be considered ascribable to the State.
Za prednosti, ki jih je dodelilo združenje Interbev, je torej mogoče šteti, da jih je mogoče pripisati državi.
It is also recalled that, in case C-345/02 Pearle [34], the Court of Justice identified a series of aspects which serve to determine whether parafiscal charges should be considered State resources ascribable to the State when they are essentially collected by an inter-branch organisation for the benefit of its members.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da je Sodišče v zadevi Pearle (C-345/02) [34] opredelilo nekatera znamenja, na podlagi katerih je mogoče ugotoviti, ali je treba davku podobne dajatve, kadar jih pobira predvsem medpanožna organizacija v korist svojih članov, šteti za državna sredstva, ki jih je mogoče pripisati državi, ali ne.
In accordance with the test proposed by the Court of Justice in this case, compulsory levies collected by an intermediary organisation representing the undertakings of certain economic sectors are not considered to be State resources if all the following conditions are met:
V skladu s preizkusom, ki ga je v navedeni zadevi predlagalo Sodišče, se obvezni prispevki, ki jih je zbral posrednik, ki zastopa podjetja iz nekaterih gospodarskih sektorjev, ne štejejo za državna sredstva, če so izpolnjeni vsi naslednji pogoji:
the measure in question is established by the professional body that represents the undertakings and employees of the sector and does not serve as an instrument for the implementation of State policies;
zadevni ukrep sprejme panožni organ, ki zastopa podjetja in zaposlene v sektorju ter se ne uporablja kot instrument za izvajanje politik države;
the objectives of the measure in question are fully financed by the contributions of the undertakings in the sector;
cilji zadevnega ukrepa se v celoti financirajo s prispevki podjetij v sektorju;
the financing method and the percentage/amount of the contributions are established within the professional organisation by representatives of the employers and employees without State intervention;
načine financiranja in delež/obseg prispevkov določijo predstavniki delodajalcev in delavcev v okviru panožnega organa, brez kakršnega koli posredovanja države;
the contributions are obligatorily used for the financing of the measure, without the possibility for the State to intervene.
prispevki se obvezno uporabljajo za financiranje ukrepa, ne da bi država lahko posredovala.
It is clear, however, that the contested measure does not fulfil all the conditions of the Pearle judgment.
Očitno je, da obravnavani ukrep ne izpolnjuje vseh pogojev iz sodbe Pearle.
Firstly, the existence, role and operation of Interbev are regulated by national legislation (cf. recitals 10 and 14) and its financing by the compulsory voluntary levy requires State intervention (cf. recital 10).
Najprej, obstoj, naloge in delovanje združenja Interbev so urejeni z nacionalno zakonodajo (glej točki 10 in 14 obrazložitve), za njegovo financiranje z obveznim prostovoljnim prispevkom pa je potrebno posredovanje države (glej točko 10 obrazložitve).
Moreover, Article 632-2-1 of the Rural Code stipulates that inter-branch organisations contribute to the implementation of national and European Union economic policies and may enjoy priority status in the allocation of public aid.
Poleg tega člen 632-2-1 kmetijskega zakonika določa, da medpanožne organizacije prispevajo k izvajanju nacionalnih gospodarskih politik in gospodarskih politik Evropske unije ter da imajo pri dodelitvi javnih pomoči lahko prednost.
Interbev may therefore be considered as an instrument for the implementation of a policy supported by the State carrying out activities in the general interest of the inter-branch organisation (cf. recitals 40 and 61).
Združenje Interbev je torej mogoče šteti za instrument za izvajanje politike, ki jo je podprla država in s katero se uresničujejo dejavnosti v splošnem interesu medpanožne organizacije (glej točki 40 in 61 ter naslednje obrazložitve).
Furthermore, as set out in Interbev’s statutes, the budget of the inter-branch organisation may be supplemented by a direct subsidy from the State.
Poleg tega, kot je določeno v statutu združenja Interbev, se lahko proračun medpanožne organizacije financira z neposredno subvencijo države.
Lastly, in view of the general interest of the research activities financed (cf. recital 10), it cannot be claimed with certainty in this case that the beneficiaries of the aid are always the parties subject to the charges.
Nazadnje, ob upoštevanju splošnega interesa financiranih raziskovalnih dejavnosti (glej točko 10 obrazložitve) ni mogoče zanesljivo ugotoviti, da so v obravnavanem primeru prejemniki pomoči vedno zavezanci za dajatve.
In the light of the considerations set out above, the Commission concludes that the measures in question are ascribable to the State and financed by State resources.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve Komisija ugotavlja, da je zadevne ukrepe mogoče pripisati državi in da se financirajo iz državnih sredstev.
IMPACT ON TRADE AND DISTORTION OF COMPETITION
VPLIV NA TRGOVINO IN IZKRIVLJANJE KONKURENCE
In order to fall within the scope of application of Article 107(1) TFEU, aid must also affect competition and trade between Member States.
Da bi pomoči spadale na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU, morajo tudi vplivati na konkurenco in trgovino med državami članicami.
This criterion is based on the assumption that the beneficiaries of the aid engage in an economic activity.
S tem merilom se predpostavlja, da prejemniki pomoči opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost.
Lastly, in order to establish whether the aid in question falls within the scope of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, it must be established whether it is liable to affect trade among Member States and distort competition.
Da bi ugotovili, ali ta pomoč spada na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU, je treba nazadnje ugotoviti, ali ta pomoč lahko vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja konkurenco.
The Court has ruled that when State financial aid strengthens the position of a category of undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid [35], which is sufficient to demonstrate distortion of competition.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je treba, kadar prednost, ki jo je odobrila država članica, okrepi položaj ene kategorije podjetij v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenčnimi podjetji v trgovini v Skupnosti, za zadnje šteti, da je ta prednost vplivala nanje [35], kar zadostuje za dokaz izkrivljanja konkurence.
The existence of trade between Member States in the meat sector is sufficiently demonstrated by the existence of a common organisation of the market in the sector [36].
Obstoj trgovine med državami članicami v sektorju mesa je zadostno dokazan z obstojem skupne ureditve trga v sektorju [36].
By way of example, intra-Community trade in meat products in France represented around 15 % of total trade in the Union in the products in question [37].
Za ponazoritev, v Franciji je trgovina z mesnimi proizvodi v Skupnosti predstavljala približno 15 % celotne trgovine z navedenimi proizvodi v Uniji [37].
The aid granted is therefore likely to affect trade between the Member States since it favours domestic production to the detriment of production in other Member States.
Dodeljene pomoči torej lahko vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami, ker dajejo prednost nacionalni proizvodnji v škodo proizvodnje iz drugih držav članic.
At the material time to which this Decision relates, the meat sector was extremely open to competition at Community level and, therefore, highly sensitive to any measure in favour of production in any Member State.
Sektor mesa je bil namreč v času dejanskega stanja, na katero se nanaša ta sklep, na ravni Skupnosti izjemno odprt za konkurenco in torej zelo občutljiv za kakršen koli ukrep v korist proizvodnje v eni ali drugi državi članici.
CONCLUSIONS ON THE NATURE OF ‘AID’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) OF THE TFEU
SKLEPNE UGOTOVITVE O NARAVI „POMOČI“ V SMISLU ČLENA 107(1) PDEU