natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Having concluded that the rebate schemes referred to in recital 109 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, the Commission has to establish whether the aid can be declared compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(2) or (3) of the TFEU.
Vračilo
On the question of the applicability of the exemptions provided for in the Treaty, the Commission took the view in the opening decision that the aid did not qualify for exemption under Article 107(2)(a), because it was not aid having a social character, and that it did not fall within Article 107(2)(c).
V skladu s Pogodbo in ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča je Komisija pristojna za odločanje, ali mora zadevna država ukiniti ali spremeniti pomoč, ko ugotovi, da je ta nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom [68].
For obvious reasons, the exemptions in Article 107(3)(b) and (d) were not applicable either.
Prav tako Sodišče dosledno meni, da je namen obveznosti države, da ukine pomoč, za katero Komisija ugotovi, da ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, ponovna vzpostavitev prejšnjih razmer [69].
Italy did not dispute these findings during the formal investigation.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je ta cilj dosežen, ko prejemnik povrne zneske, dodeljene z nezakonito pomočjo, in s tem izgubi prednost, ki jo je imel pred konkurenti na trgu, ter se ponovno vzpostavijo razmere pred plačilom pomoči [70].
As regards a possible reliance on the exemptions in Article 107(3)(a) and (c), the Commission would refer to the doubts it expressed in the opening decision (see Section 3.3.2 of the opening decision).
V skladu z navedeno sodno prakso člen 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 določa, da „[č]e se v primerih nezakonite pomoči sprejmejo negativne odločbe, Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč […]“.
In its comments, the Member State did not argue that the aid might qualify for exemption under Article 107(3)(a) or (c), nor did it provide any information in the course of the formal investigation that would enable the Commission to assess the compatibility of the schemes in question in the light of those exemptions.
Ko se ugotovi, da pomoč, ki se preiskuje, pomeni nezakonito in nezdružljivo državno pomoč, jo je treba načeloma vrniti, da se ponovno vzpostavijo takšne razmere na trgu, kot so bile pred dodelitvijo pomoči.
Instead, Italy (and the interested third parties who submitted comments) argued that the aid was meant to make good the damage caused by natural disasters, thus implying that it should be assessed on the basis of the exemption in Article 107(2)(b).
Vendar Uredba (ES) št. 659/1999 določa omejitve za določbo o vračilu.
This conclusion is without prejudice to the possibility that individual aid granted under the schemes may be declared compatible following a case-by-case examination, or may be covered by an exemption regulation adopted pursuant to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 [63].
V členu 14(1) je določeno, da „Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti“, kot je na primer varstvo pravne varnosti ali legitimnega pričakovanja.
Since all the rebate measures do indeed relate to undertakings having their registered office or place of business in areas affected by natural disasters, the Commission will consider whether the measures might qualify for exemption under Article 107(2)(b) as ‘aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences’.
Sodišče je priznalo tudi eno izjemo v zvezi z obveznostjo, da država članica izvede odločbo o vračilu, ki je nanjo naslovljena, in sicer obstoj izjemnih okoliščin, zaradi katerih je absolutno nemogoče, da bi država članica odločbo primerno izvedla [71].
Aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters
Med formalno preiskavo so se zainteresirane strani (združenje Confindustria in odvetniška pisarna Chiti) ter italijanski organi sklicevali na takšne izjeme, Komisija pa mora preučiti, ali se lahko uporabijo v zadevnem primeru, da ugotovi, ali je treba vrniti pomoč.
The Commission has examined the aid schemes in question in the light of Article 107(2)(b) of the TFEU, which stipulates that ‘aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences’ is compatible with the internal market.
Združenje Confindustria se sklicuje na legitimna pričakovanja (uvodna izjava 80);
The Commission has to verify whether the disasters indicated by Italy do indeed qualify as ‘natural disasters’ within the meaning of Article 107(2)(b), and whether the following conditions are met:
Komisija opozarja, da upravičenec do ukrepa pomoči, ki ni bil priglašen, načeloma ne more izpodbijati odredbe o vračilu s sklicevanjem na legitimna pričakovanja glede zakonitosti dodelitve pomoči [72], saj mora biti skrben gospodarski subjekt običajno sposoben prepričati se, ali je bila pomoč priglašena [73].
the damage for which the compensation is granted is a direct consequence of the natural disaster in question;
Poleg tega v zadevnem primeru Komisija italijanskim organom in upravičencem ni dala nobenega razloga za legitimna pričakovanja [74].
the aid only makes good the damage caused by the natural disaster and does not result in overcompensation of the damage suffered by the beneficiaries.
Združenje Confindustria se v svojih pripombah (glej uvodno izjavo 80) sklicuje tudi na desetletni zastaralni rok iz člena 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
The Italian legislation identifies areas affected by one of three types of natural disasters:
Kakršen koli ukrep glede nezakonite pomoči, ki ga sprejme Komisija ali država članica na zahtevo Komisije, prekine zastaralni rok, ki po vsaki prekinitvi začne teči znova.
earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions.
Zastaralni rok za vračilo pomoči iz člena 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 zato še ni potekel v zvezi z nobenim od ukrepov oprostitve, ki se obravnavajo v tem sklepu.
The Commission has consistently taken the view that earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions constitute natural disasters within the meaning of Article 107(2)(b);
Odvetniška pisarna Chiti trdi (glej uvodno izjavo 73), da v obdobju od konca leta 1994 do leta 2011 noben nacionalni organ ali organ Skupnosti ni postavil vprašanj glede zakonitosti koristi;
consequently, every undertaking that actually suffered damage as a result of these natural disasters may qualify for aid up to an amount necessary to make good such damage [64].
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila pomoč, ki se preiskuje, dodeljena šele, ko so začeli veljati ukrepi oprostitve.
However, the schemes in question do not lay down any definition of damage (whether material or economic), nor do they establish any link between the aid and the damage actually suffered as a result of the natural disaster [65].
Do tedaj so morala podjetja plačati celotni dolgovani znesek davkov in prispevkov.
Furthermore, the schemes do not confine the compensation to the amount necessary to make good the direct damage actually suffered by the particular beneficiary.
zavedati se je treba, da zgolj neukrepanje nacionalnih institucij ali institucij Skupnosti ne pomeni razloga za legitimna pričakovanja.
Finally, the eligible costs are not determined on the basis of the damage suffered by the undertakings as a direct consequence of the natural disaster.
Zato se argument zainteresiranih strani glede tega na podlagi razlogovanja, predstavljenega v predhodnih uvodnih izjavah, zavrne.
This was confirmed by the Italian authorities during the formal investigation (see comments by the INPS at recital 98).
Kar zadeva sklicevanje odvetniške pisarne Chiti na načelo pravne varnosti (glej uvodno izjavo 73), ni nobenega razloga, da bi se ta primer razlikoval od zadeve Lucchini [75].
The Commission concludes that the schemes provided benefits not just to undertakings that suffered actual damage, but to all companies having their registered office or place of business in the areas designated as disaster areas by the Italian authorities, irrespective of whether they actually did suffer any damage as a result of the respective disaster.
Komisija zato meni, da obstoj pravnomočnih sodb nacionalnih sodišč ne preprečuje vračila.
In the light of the above, the measures under investigation are not, by their nature and operational arrangements, designed to ensure that the aid granted is limited to the amount needed to make good the damage caused by natural disasters.
Izjemne okoliščine:
It must therefore be concluded that the formal investigation has not allayed the Commission's doubts about the compatibility of the measures with the internal market.
absolutna nezmožnost vračila
Therefore, as the aid does not qualify for any of the exemptions in Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU, the Commission finds that the schemes are incompatible with the internal market.
V skladu s členom 288 PDEU mora država članica, na katero je naslovljena odločba o vračilu, to odločbo izvesti.
The compatibility of the measures with Union legislation when they are applied to fisheries and aquaculture has to be assessed in the light of the guidelines for the examination of State aid to the fishery and aquaculture sector that were current at the date of the entry into force of the particular scheme.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je Sodišče opredelilo eno izjemo pri tej obveznosti, in sicer kadar države članice dokažejo obstoj izjemnih okoliščin, zaradi katerih je absolutno nemogoče izvesti odločbo.
The Commission has published such guidelines, indicating how it intends to apply the Treaty to State aid to fisheries and aquaculture, since 2001.
Države članice običajno ta argument uporabijo pri razpravah s Komisijo po sprejetju odločbe, s katero se odredi vračilo [76].
Under the guidelines the requirements for aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters are largely the same as those set out above, and the Commission concludes that the observations made in this section also apply to any aid granted under the measures in the fishery and aquaculture sector.
Vendar je Italija v tem primeru že pred sprejetjem odločbe trdila, da se za nekatere ukrepe ne bi smelo odrediti vračilo, saj bi bilo absolutno nemogoče izvesti odredbo.
Comments by interested parties
Ker je Italija to vprašanje postavila že v okviru formalne preiskave in ker se v skladu s splošnim načelom prava ne more od nikogar zahtevati, da stori nekaj nemogočega, Komisija meni, da je primerno, da se vprašanje obravnava v samem sklepu [77].
Comments on the doubts expressed by the Commission in the opening decision were sent by the Italian authorities and by four other interested parties:
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je Sodišče stalno zelo ozko razlagalo pojem „absolutne nezmožnosti“.
Chiti, Preve-Gavioli, Confindustria, and CGIL L'Aquila.
Pogoj, da mora biti vračilo absolutno nemogoče, ni izpolnjen, kadar država članica zgolj obvesti Komisijo o pravnih, političnih ali praktičnih težavah, povezanih z izvajanjem odločbe [78].
All of the interested parties pointed out that under Article 107(2)(b) of the TFEU aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters is compatible with the internal market.
„Absolutna nezmožnost“ se lahko sprejme samo, kadar bi bilo vračilo objektivno in absolutno nemogoče že od začetka [79].
The measures in question were addressed to undertakings located in areas hit by earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions.
V zadevnem primeru so italijanski organi večkrat trdili, da je absolutno nemogoče natančno izračunati znesek nezdružljive pomoči, ki ga je treba vrniti.
However, in the preceding section (‘Aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters’), the Commission finds that the measures in question were not by their nature and operational arrangements designed to make good the damage caused by the aforementioned natural disasters within the meaning of Article 107(2)(b).
Trdijo, da morajo podjetja v skladu z italijanskim civilnim zakonikom (člen 2200) in davčno zakonodajo hraniti poslovne in računovodske evidence samo deset let.
Chiti and Confindustria also say that the aid provided for by some of the measures was granted only after the actual damage suffered by each undertaking had been verified.
Dokumentarna dokazila o škodi, ki jo je povzročila naravna nesreča, je treba zbrati na podlagi uradnih dokumentov (poslovnih in računovodskih evidenc), sestavljenih v času dogodka.
The possibility cannot be ruled out that in specific cases the aid granted under the measures did not exceed the amount needed to make good the actual damage suffered by the beneficiary as a direct result of the disaster, so that the aid granted to the particular undertaking should be regarded as compatible with the internal market under Article 107(2)(b).
Zato za dogodke, ki so se zgodili pred več kot desetimi leti, ni več mogoče ugotoviti zneska škode, ki so jo utrpeli posamezni upravičenci, ali zneska nadomestila, ki so ga že prejeli od drugih virov, kot so zavarovalnice ali drugi ukrepi pomoči.
However, the measures in question are not, by their nature and operational arrangements, designed to rule out any form of overcompensation of damage, and only to make good the damage caused by the natural disaster.
Za večino ukrepov, ki se preiskujejo, je od naravne nesreče minilo več kot deset let.
As explained in the preceding section (‘Aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters’), their scope is far wider, because they do not require that the aid be linked directly to the damage suffered as a result of the natural disaster.
V skladu s členom 107(2)(b) PDEU je „pomoč za povrnitev škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče“, združljiva z notranjim trgom, medtem ko je nezdružljiva in jo je treba vrniti samo, če presega nastalo škodo.
By failing to make such a link, they fail to confine the compensation to the amount needed to make good the damage actually suffered by the undertakings.
Vendar velika večina upravičencev, ki so utrpeli škodo zaradi naravnih nesreč, od katerih je minilo več kot deset let, nima več dokumentov, s katerimi lahko dokažejo, da so utrpeli škodo, ali dokažejo znesek škode, ki so jo utrpeli, saj v skladu z italijansko zakonodajo podjetjem ni treba hraniti poslovnih in računovodskih evidenc več kot deset let.
Even where beneficiaries are required to prove that they have suffered heavy damage, as in the case of Piedmont, the legislation does not limit the amount of aid to the ascertained loss caused by the floods.
Če bi torej Komisija odredila vračilo zneska pomoči, ki presega raven škode, za katero lahko upravičenci še vedno predložijo dokazila, bi morala država članica izterjati pomoč, ki je bila združljiva z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(2)(b) in do katere so bila podjetja, ki so utrpela škodo zaradi naravne nesreče, dejansko upravičena.
As for the Italian authorities' comments regarding the impact of the 2009 earthquake on the social and economic fabric of Abruzzo, and more specifically on the area affected by this exceptionally violent and destructive earthquake, the Commission points out once again that, according to the Treaty and in line with the Commission's settled practice [66], there must be a clear and direct link between the event that caused the damage and the State aid intended to remedy it.
Načeloma bi morala Komisija odrediti vračilo nezdružljive pomoči, ki jo je Italija dodelila na podlagi ukrepov iz uvodne izjave 109.
Such a link must be established at the level of the individual undertaking, and not at the macroeconomic level, as in the case of the measure under investigation (for the Abruzzo earthquake of 2009, the notified measure that is the subject of case SA.35083 (12/C)).
Vendar so (a) do ukrepov upravičena podjetja na območjih, ki so jih prizadele naravne nesreče;
This Decision requires immediate implementation, which among other things means that aid granted unlawfully and declared incompatible should be recovered.
in nazadnje, (d) v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo upravičencem do pomoči ni treba hraniti evidenc več kot deset let, zato bi bilo objektivno in absolutno nemogoče ugotoviti natančni znesek škode, ki so jo utrpeli neposredno zaradi naravne nesreče.
Italy must cancel any outstanding payments of aid under any of the schemes referred to in recital 109 to this Decision, with effect from the date of adoption of the Decision.
Zato bi bilo izvajanje odredbe o vračilu pod temi pogoji objektivno in absolutno nemogoče.
From that date none of these schemes may be used as a basis of reference for the granting or the payment of aid in the future.
Vendar se nezmožnost izračuna natančnega zneska nezdružljive pomoči, ki ga je treba vrniti, ne uporablja za podjetja, ki v času dogodka niso imela kraja poslovanja (kot je glavna ali druga poslovna enota) na območju, ki ga je prizadela naravna nesreča.
In respect of aid paid to individual undertakings under the measures examined here before the date of the opening decision and the suspension injunction (see recital 54), the scheme should be considered compatible with the internal market under Article 107(2)(b) of the TFEU provided that a clear and direct link can be established between the damage suffered by the particular undertaking as a result of the natural disaster and the State aid granted [67].
Ti upravičenci do ukrepov iz uvodne izjave 109 se ne smejo izključiti iz vračila, saj niso mogli utrpeti nobene neposredne škode zaradi naravne nesreče ter biti upravičeni do pomoči, ki je bila združljiva z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(2)(b) PDEU.
Care should be taken to avoid any overcompensation of the damage suffered by the individual undertaking.
Italijanski organi morajo na podlagi informacij v javnih registrih za obdobje dogodka ugotoviti, ali je obstajal kraj poslovanja.
Recovery
Kadar se je naravna nesreča zgodila več kot deset let pred datumom tega sklepa, se razen za navedeno skupino ne bi smelo odrediti vračilo pomoči, dodeljene na podlagi nezakonitih in nezdružljivih shem.
According to the Treaty and the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, when the Commission finds that aid is incompatible with the internal market, it is competent to decide that the State concerned must abolish or alter it [68].
SKLEP
The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid that the Commission finds to be incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation [69].
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Italija nezakonito izvajala ukrepe pomoči iz uvodne izjave 109 in s tem kršila člen 108(3) PDEU.
The Court has established that this objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage that it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored [70].
Ker ni mogoče opredeliti nobenih razlogov za razglasitev ukrepov za združljive z notranjim trgom, jih je treba šteti za nezdružljive.
In line with that case-law, Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 stipulates that ‘Where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary’.
Člen 14 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 določa, da „[č]e se v primerih nezakonite pomoči sprejmejo negativne odločbe, Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč […].
Thus, once the aid under investigation is found to constitute unlawful and incompatible State aid, it must in principle be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid.
Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti“ [80].
However, Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 imposes limits on the provision for recovery.
Glede na izjemne okoliščine, obravnavane v uvodnih izjavah od 147 do 152, se vračilo ne bi smelo odrediti, kadar je bila pomoč dodeljena na podlagi zadevnih ukrepov posameznim upravičencem na območjih, ki so jih naravne nesreče prizadele več kot deset let pred datumom tega sklepa, razen kadar upravičenec v času dogodka ni imel kraja poslovanja na območju, ki ga je prizadela naravna nesreča.
Article 14(1) provides that ‘The Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law’, which might for example be the protection of legal certainty or of legitimate expectations.
Italija je dokazala, da bi bilo absolutno nemogoče izračunati natančni znesek nezdružljive pomoči, ki ga je treba vrniti.
The Court of Justice has also recognised one exception to the obligation for a Member State to implement a recovery decision addressed to it, namely the existence of exceptional circumstances that make it absolutely impossible for the Member State to execute the decision properly [71].
Posamezni upravičenci, upravičeni do pomoči, ki je združljiva z notranjim trgom v skladu z izjemo iz člena 107(2)(b) PDEU, morda nimajo več na voljo dokumentov, potrebnih za to, da dokažejo škodo, ki jo je povzročila naravna nesreča, ter da dokažejo, ali so že prejeli nadomestilo za celotno škodo ali del škode, ki so jo utrpeli.
In the course of the formal investigation, exceptions of this kind were raised by interested parties (Confindustria and Chiti) and by the Italian authorities, and the Commission must examine whether they apply to the present case in order to determine whether recovery is required.
Vendar je treba pomoč vrniti, če je bila dodeljena na podlagi katerih koli od zadevnih ukrepov posameznim upravičencem, ki v času dogodka niso imeli kraja poslovanja na območju, ki ga je prizadela naravna nesreča (tudi kadar se je naravna nesreča zgodila več kot deset let pred datumom tega sklepa).
Confindustria invokes legitimate expectations (recital 80);
Italija mora na podlagi informacij v javnih registrih za obdobje dogodka ugotoviti, ali je obstajal kraj poslovanja.
the Commission points out that, in principle, the beneficiary of an aid measure that was not notified cannot challenge a recovery order by submitting that it holds a legitimate expectation that the grant of aid is lawful [72], as a diligent businessman should normally be able to determine whether the aid was notified [73].
Komisija bo zato od Italije zahtevala, naj sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe, da izterja samo nezdružljivo pomoč, dodeljeno in izplačano posameznim podjetjem na podlagi ukrepov iz uvodne izjave 109, razen v posameznih primerih, ki izpolnjujejo preizkuse združljivosti z notranjim trgom na podlagi izjeme iz člena 107(2)(b) Pogodbe, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 136, v primerih, kadar je posamezna dodelitev v skladu z uredbo de minimis, ki se uporablja, ali v primerih, kadar se posamezna korist dodeli v skladu z odobreno shemo pomoči ali uredbo o izjemi, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 134.
Moreover, in the cases at hand the Commission itself has not given the Italian authorities or the beneficiaries any grounds for entertaining legitimate expectations [74].
Italija mora v dveh mesecih po obvestilu o tem sklepu od prejemnikov pomoči zahtevati vračilo navedene nezakonite in nezdružljive državne pomoči.
In its comments (see recital 80) Confindustria also invokes the 10-year period of limitation laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
V skladu s členom 14(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti, vključuje obresti, ki se izračunajo v skladu s členom 9 Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2004 [81] od datuma, ko je bil ta znesek dan na voljo upravičencu, do njegovega vračila v celoti.
The Regulation provides that when it adopts a negative decision in a case of unlawful aid, the Commission is to require the Member State to take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary;
Komisija od Italije zahteva, da predloži priloženi obrazec za beleženje napredka pri postopku vračila, pripravi seznam upravičencev ter jasno navede ukrepe, ki jih je sprejela za takojšnjo in učinkovito vračilo pomoči.