natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It was not clear how the compatibility with the internal market of aid that had explicitly been included in the 2000-2006 Guidelines should have changed from 2007.
V skladu s členom 22(3) MFG je treba pridobljena sredstva upravljati ločeno.
Comments from interested parties
Teh sredstev ni dovoljeno uporabljati za poravnavo upravnih stroškov najvišjih deželnih organov in njihovih podrejenih služb.
Between 5 and 7 February 2014, the Commission received a total of seven letters from interested parties containing comments concerning the support granted in respect of the milk quality tests.
V načrtu proračuna dežele Baden-Württemberg jih je treba izkazati kot samostojno naslovno skupino.
In its letter of 5 February, the MPBY argued that dairies had not in recent years been afforded any advantage by dint of levy funding.
V deželnem proračunu je navedeno, da gre za namenska sredstva.
It was therefore completely incomprehensible how this long-standing and generally accepted system could distort competition or negatively affect trade between the Member States.
Sredstva iz dajatve na mleko zato nikoli niso bila uporabljena za drugačne namene zunaj MFG.
In the context of the further procedure, therefore, the measures referred to [in the initiation Decision] under the heading BY 1 should, after re-examination, be regarded as settled.
Predvsem pa je MPBW v okviru nanj prenesenih nalog sicer prejel plačila iz sredstev iz dajatev, ki pa niso presegala sredstev, financiranih iz dajatve.
The MPBW stated in its comments of 6 February that payments relating to sub-measure BW 1 did not meet the conditions for aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU.
Zato MPBW niso bila izplačana nobena državna sredstva, kot na primer davki ali drugi prihodki države, ampak samo sredstva iz dajatve iz sektorja mleka, ki so jih plačale mlekarne.
In particular, the system of carrying out quality tests on delivered milk in Baden-Württemberg was not associated with any cost to the public exchequer.
Namesto tega je dežela Baden-Württemberg prevzela le organizacijo in razdelitev dajatve na mleko.
Advantages similar to subsidies that may be traced back to a state measure without there being any corresponding financial loss to the public purse did not, however, fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU [20].
Sistem analiz kakovosti dobavljenega mleka v Baden-Württembergu zato ni pripeljal do izpada prihodkov za organe javne oblasti.
Under Section 22(3) of the MFG, the funds raised had to be managed separately.
Ker dežela Baden-Württemberg ni dodelila subvencij za dajatev na mleko in ker ni obstajala nobena ustrezna finančna neto obremenitev državnega proračuna, dežela Baden-Württemberg ni mogla dodeliti „pomoči v obliki subvencioniranih storitev“.
They were not allowed to be used to cover the administrative costs of the highest Land authorities and their subordinate departments.
Čeprav je treba dajatev iz sektorja mleka v Baden-Württembergu v nasprotju z merili iz sodbe Sodišča EU v zadevi PreussenElektra pripisati državi, ne gre za dajanje prednosti mlekarnam.
They had to be shown in the Baden-Württemberg Land budget under a separate sub-heading, and the budget expressly referred to the fact that they were earmarked for a specific purpose.
Značilnost dajanja prednosti kot osrednje značilnosti dejanskega stanja iz člena 107(1) PDEU se v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča EU in v praksi Komisije razlaga široko [21].
The revenues from the milk levy were therefore never used for purposes not falling within the scope of the MFG.
Parafiskalne dajatve pogosto pomenijo podlago za sisteme za zagotovitev storitev, ki so v posebnem interesu oseb, ki morajo plačati dajatev (značilnost skupinske koristi).
Above all, however, in the context of the tasks assigned to it, the MPBW received payments from levy resources which did not exceed the resources funded from the levy.
V teh sistemih so zato osebe, ki jih zadeva bremenitev, prima facie iste kot uporabniki parafiskalno financirane storitve.
This meant that no State funds — from taxes or other state revenues, for example — were paid to the MPBW but only the revenues accruing from the levy paid by dairies.
Pri parafiskalnih dajatvah je treba zato v skladu s sodno prakso preveriti, ali nasprotno plačilo na podlagi dajatve ustreza vrednosti plačanega zneska, torej, ali obstaja enakovrednost plačila.
Instead, Baden-Württemberg had merely taken on the task of organising and distributing the milk levy.
Pri tem enakovrednosti plačila ne gre preverjati posamezno, ampak v povezavi s celotnim sistemom.
The system of quality tests on delivered milk in Baden-Württemberg did not therefore lead to any financial loss to the public purse.
Sicer parafiskalni sistemi financiranja vsebujejo določen element prerazporejanja, tj. nima vsaka oseba, ki mora plačati dajatev, iz vsake posamezne storitve ponujene palete iste koristi.
Since Baden-Württemberg had not granted any subsidies in addition to the milk levy and there was not any corresponding financial net cost to the Land budget, it could not have granted any aid ‘in the form of subsidised services’.
Vendar je tak sistem v ravnovesju in ne vpliva na enakovrednost plačil, dokler se prerazporejanje izvaja solidarno [22].
Even if the milk levy in Baden-Württemberg were attributable to the State contrary to the criteria set out by the Court of Justice in PreussenElektra, there was not any advantage to dairies.
Višina dajatev v Baden-Württembergu se določi glede na konkretno količino dobavljenega mleka.
The aspect of ‘favouring’ as the central element of Article 107(1) TFEU has been widely interpreted by reference to established case law and the Commission's practice [21].
Mlekarna A, ki je združenju BW dobavila dvakrat večjo količino mleka v preverjanje kakovosti, mora tukaj plačati tudi natančno dvakrat višjo dajatev.
Parafiscal charges often formed the basis for systems involving the provision of services that are in the specific interest of those liable to pay them (aspect of group benefit).
To ne vpliva na enakovrednost plačil.
In such systems, those paying the levy were prima facie identical to those who benefited from the service funded by the parafiscal levy.
Organi, pristojni v Baden-Württembergu, pri izračunu dajatve na mleko nimajo nobene diskrecijske pravice.
In the case of parafiscal levies, case law therefore dictated that it must be examined whether the service received corresponds in value to the contribution (levy) paid, i.e. that there is equivalence in terms of the payment and the benefit received.
Ta sistem tudi zagotavlja, da ne more biti morebitnih strukturnih neto prejemnikov, ker so vse mlekarne vključene v plačevanje dajatev izključno na podlagi dobavljenega mleka in so samo na podlagi tega prejele storitve MPBW.
Such equivalence should not be examined individually but in relation to the overall system.
Zato MPBW domneva, da tudi v tem delu ne gre za pomoč, vsekakor pa ne za dajanje prednosti.
While it is true that parafiscal systems of funding services typically involve a certain element of redistribution, i.e. not all of those liable to pay draw the same benefit from each of the individual services on offer, the aspects of balance and equivalence in such systems were nevertheless not undermined if such redistribution occurred on the basis of solidarity [22].
Deželno združenje Bayerische Milchwirtschaft e.V. v svojih pripombah z dne 5. februarja 2014 navaja, da so potrošniki sistemu pobiranja dajatve na mleko izkazali največje priznanje, da se tudi zunaj Bavarske ni štel za dajanje prednosti z namenom izkrivljanja trga in da niti nacionalne niti mednarodne mlekarne ne dvomijo o njem.
The level of the levy in Baden-Württemberg was determined according to the specific quantity of delivered milk.
Zato je nerazumljivo, da naj analiza kakovosti mleka od leta 2007 ne bi bila več dovoljena.
Dairy A that delivered twice as much milk for quality testing by MPBW would have to pay exactly twice the levy.
Analiza je bila tako v preteklosti kot tudi zdaj namenjena temu, da potrošnikom zagotovi visokokakovostno mleko, brez ostankov inhibitorjev [23].
This meant that the notion of equivalence in terms of the payment and the benefit received was not undermined.
DHB-Netzwerk Haushalt je v svojih pripombah z dne 7. februarja 2014 izrazil mnenje, da so storitve ustanove MUVA (Milchwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs- und Versuchanstalt) Kempten na področju analiz glede sestavin, pomembnih za prehrano, zelo važen prispevek k varstvu in obveščanju potrošnikov.
The competent authorities in Baden-Württemberg had no discretion whatsoever in calculating the milk levy.
Dragoceni so nevtralni rezultati analiz, na katere ne vplivajo mlekarne ali trgovina, hitro prepoznavanje morebitnih škodljivih obremenitev mleka in mlečnih proizvodov ter s tem možnost hitrega odzivanja v krizni situaciji.
This system also ensured that there could not be any structural net beneficiaries because all dairies were liable to the levy solely on the basis of the quantity of milk delivered and would receive services from MPBW solely on that basis.
Navedeni ukrepi so prispevali k temu, da so v trgovino in s tem do potrošnikov prispela visokokakovostna živila.
The MPBW therefore assumed that no aid was being granted, or at least no advantage.
Pomen takih analiz je za vse potrošnike neprecenljiv.
In its comments of 5 February 2014, Landesvereinigung der Bayerischen Milchwirtschaft e.V. claimed that the system of charging a milk levy was highly appreciated among consumers, that it was not seen outside Bavaria as an advantage that distorted competition, and that it was not challenged by dairies either in Germany or abroad.
Sindikat Gewerkschaft Nahrung-Genuss-Gaststätten za regijo Allgäu je v svojih pripombah z dne 6. februarja 2014 navedel, da se deželno združenje bavarskega sektorja mleka vedno obravnava kot združenje za varstvo potrošnikov.
In its comments of 7 February 2014, the DHB — Netzwerk Haushalt considered the services provided by muva Kempten in the area of the tests carried out to detect nutritionally relevant constituents to make a vital contribution to the protection of and information available to consumers.
LVN je konkretneje trdil, da ukrepi, financirani iz dajatve na mleko, niso obremenjevali državnega proračuna, da država ni pristojna za razpolaganje s sredstvi iz dajatve na mleko in nadzora nad njimi ter da država ne nadzoruje niti višine dajatve niti vsebine ukrepov.
These measures helped ensure that high-quality food was available to the trade and thus to consumers.
Dalje država niti ne nadzira ne višine pomoči niti ni organizacijsko vključena v LVN.
The importance of these tests to all consumers could not be overestimated.
Prav tako je bilo navedeno, da LVN ne preverjajo državni organi, ampak hannovrska kmetijska zbornica, ki je samoupravna organizacija javnega prava in tako ni organ neposredne državne uprave.
In its comments of 6 February 2014, the Nahrung-Genuss-Gaststätten Region Allgäu trade union indicated that Landesvereinigung der Bayerischen Milchwirtschaft e.V. had always been seen as a consumer-protection association.
LVN se je v dopolnilnih pripombah z dne 8. julija 2014 med drugim skliceval na Sklep Komisije 2014/416/EU [24] v zadevi Val'Hor.
By deciding on how the resources from the levy were to be used, in particular as regards milk quality tests, it could exert significant influence to be exerted on how these tests were carried out.
Komisija je v tem sklepu priznala, da niti iz pristojnosti države, da prizna medpanožno organizacijo, niti iz njene regulatorne podpore pri pobiranju „prispevkov“, ki se nanašajo na panogo (v primeru z možnostjo izjave o splošni obveznosti), ni mogoče sklepati, da je treba ukrepe, ki jih je izvedla medpanožna organizacija, pripisati državi.
According to the opinion of the Genossenschaftsverband Bayern e.V., as set out in its comments of 5 February 2014, neither individual farms nor individual milk-processing undertakings could derive any kind of competitive advantage from the charging of the levy.
Ali državna udeležba v parafiskalnih sistemih financiranja pripelje do tega, da je mogoče ugodnosti pripisati državi kot „državno pomoč“, je odvisno od okoliščin posameznega primera in skupne obravnave, ki jo je treba izvesti na tej podlagi.
When routine milk quality checks had been partially funded from levy resources in the past, milk-processing undertakings had paid contributions towards the levy and therefore bore the full cost of this co-funding.
Odločilni za preverjanje vprašanja, ali gre za državno pomoč, so predvsem naslednji vidiki, razviti v sodni praksi:
In other German Länder in which no levy was charged, dairies did not pay any levies, but testing bodies neither received any levy resources.
Kdo odloča o pobiranju in uporabi sredstev?
In its letter of 7 February 2014, the Landesvereinigung der Milchwirtschaft Niedersachsen е.
Če odloča zasebnopravna organizacija, kakšen je vpliv države?
V.
Iz katerih sredstev se financirajo pomoči?
(LVN) did not comment directly on the payments granted for the milk quality tests, but it did fundamentally deny the existence of any aid for any of the sub-measures under the MFG.
Katere vrste ukrepov se financirajo?
On the individual issues, the LVN put forward its views that the measures funded by milk levy resources did not involve any loss to the Land budget, that the State did not have any power of disposal or control over the milk levy resources, and that the State did not exercise any control over either the amount of the levy or the content of the measures.
Pri kom se pobirajo sredstva?
Consequently, the payments in question could not be attributed to the State.
Kdo daje pobudo za ukrep?
Moreover, the State neither controlled the level of payments nor was it involved organisationally in the LVN.
LVN je s svojim pravnim zastopnikom preiskal pravni položaj v drugih zveznih deželah in v zvezi s tem prišel do zaključka, da indici o obstoju državne pomoči, razviti iz sodne prakse, niso podani, tako da MFG nikakor ni mogoče pripisati značaja pomoči.
It also stated that the LVN was not overseen by state bodies but rather by the Hannover Chamber of Agriculture, a public self-regulating body which therefore did not come directly under the public administration.
Po mnenju LVN deželna združenja merodajno odločajo o pobiranju dajatve pri mlekarnah.
In supplementary comments submitted on 8 July 2014, the LVN referred, inter alia, to the Commission Decision2014/416/EU [24] in the case Val'Hor.
V skladu s prvim stavkom člena 22(1) MFG je mogoče dajatev pobirati samo v posvetovanju z deželnimi združenji.
In that Decision the Commission had acknowledged that neither the State's power to recognise an interbranch organisation nor its regulatory support in the collection of sector-related ‘contributions’ (through the possibility, in the case in question, of extending agreements) led to the conclusion that the measures implemented by the interbranch organisation were attributable to the State.
V skladu z drugim stavkom člena 22(1) MFG je za zvišanje dajatve potreben predlog deželnega združenja.
Whether State involvement in parafiscal systems of funding led to advantages being attributable to the State as ‘State aid’ depended on the circumstances in the individual case and on an overall assessment to be made on that basis.
Načini in višina dajatve so v Spodnji Saški in Turingiji vsakokrat urejeni z uredbo o pobiranju davkov (UmlErhVO), ki je sprejeta „v posvetovanju“ s posameznim deželnim združenjem.
The aspects that were relevant to an examination as to whether State aid existed, as developed by case law, were as follows:
Poleg tega posamezno deželno združenje ureja uporabo sredstev iz dajatev, ki jih je treba upravljati ločeno (glej prvi stavek člena 22(3) MFG), ki jih je zato včasih celo pobiralo posamezno deželno združenje na lastnem računu (glej npr. člen 3(1) turinške uredbe UmlErhVO)).
Who decided about the collection and use of the funds?
Tako so deželna združenja z lastno strokovno odgovornostjo pripravila predloge za uporabo sredstev.
If this was a private organisation, how did the State influence this decision?
V Turingiji se to na primer opravi na podlagi predlogov, ki so jih vložili člani deželnega združenja Thüringer Milch (LVTM) (glej točko 6.3 turinških navodil za delo).
From what resources were the payments funded?
Tudi dejansko se sredstva iz dajatev v vseh zveznih deželah uporabljajo v skladu s predlogom za uporabo deželnih združenj.
What type of measures were funded?
Že to govori proti temu – ne glede na konkretno pravno oblikovanje – da se sredstva iz dajatev pripišejo državi [26].
Who was responsible for initiating the measure?
Kot je navedeno v njihovih statutih, je treba deželna združenja razumeti kot zastopnike interesov članov, ki prihajajo izključno iz sektorja mleka (vključno z zastopniki potrošnikov).
Via its legal representatives, the LVN had examined the legal situation in other German Länder and had come to the conclusion that the indicators for the existence of State aid developed by case law were not met, which meant that the MFG could not overall be regarded as comprising an aid element.
V skladu s členom 14 MFG so deželna združenja „prostovoljna“ združenja gospodarskih krogov iz sektorja mleka in potrošnikov za skupno zastopanje njihovih gospodarskih interesov.
According to the LVN, it was the Land associations that decided to collect the levy from dairies.
Deželna združenja se razlikujejo od združenja Hoofdbedrijfschap Ambachte, ki je bilo sporno v zadevi Pearle, poklicnega združenja optikov, ki sta mu bila zaupana pobiranje in uporaba obvezne dajatve za oglaševanje.
Under the first sentence of Section 22(1) of the MFG, the levy could only be collected in consultation with the Land associations.
Čeprav je to poklicno združenje optikov imelo javnopravni status, je Sodišče presodilo, da ne gre za državno pomoč, ker oglaševalski ukrepi niso bili financirani iz sredstev, ki so bila dana na razpolago državnim organom, ampak iz dajatev, pobranih pri podjetjih v panogi [27].
Under the second sentence of Section 22(1) of the MFG, any increase in the levy had to be requested by the Land association.
Deželna združenja kot organi, odločilni v povezavi s pobiranjem in uporabo dajatve na mleko, se razlikujejo tudi od kmetijskih odborov v zadevi Plans de Campagne, ki niso bili udeleženi pri določitvi ukrepov in tudi niso imeli nobenega manevrskega prostora pri uporabi ukrepov [28].
The detailed arrangements and amount of the levy were regulated in Lower Saxony and Thuringia by a Levy Collection Regulation [Umlageerhebungsverordnung (UmlErhVO)] which had been issued ‘in consultation’ with the relevant Land association.
Deželna združenja so nedržavni, zgolj zasebni organi, ki kot taki na lastno odgovornost odločajo o dajatvi na mleko in njeni uporabi.
The Land association in question also determined how the revenues from the levy, which had to be administered separately (see the first sentence of Section 22(3) of the MFG), were to be used.
Dajanje prednosti sektorju mleka nadalje ni povezano z nobeno obremenitvijo državnega proračuna, ker se dajatev na mleko pobira pri pripadnikih sektorja mleka, s čimer pa selektivni „prednosti“ za kompenzacijo stoji nasproti selektivna obremenitev.
For this reason, they were in some cases even paid into an account belonging to the Land association (see, for example, Section 3(1) of the Thuringia Levy Collection Regulation).
S tem ni mogoče govoriti o dajanju prednosti in izkrivljanju konkurence, ker so „prednosti“ mlekarn in proizvajalcev mleka z obremenitvijo popolnoma izravnane z dajatvijo.
The Land associations thus drew up proposals under their own responsibility in the area as to how the revenues should be used.
V zadevi Vent de Colère je Sodišče med drugim zaradi tega potrdilo državni značaj sistema dajatev, ker bremena niso več, kot v skladu s prejšnjo zakonodajo, izravnana samo z dajatvami pripadnikov zadevne panoge (v tem primeru energetike), ampak po spremembi zakona z dajatvami vseh končnih odjemalcev električne energije, stanujočih na nacionalnem ozemlju [29].
In Thuringia, for example, this occurred on the basis of applications submitted to the local Land association, the Landesvereinigung Thüringer Milch (LVTM), by its members (see point 6.3 of the Thuringia Working Guidelines [Thüringer Arbeitsrichtlinie]).
Dalje po mnenju LVN ne gre za državno pomoč, ko gre za „kolektivno usmerjene ukrepe“, ki so izvedeni v interesu določene panoge in ki bi se financirali s prispevki, ki so bili pobrani od pripadnikov panoge.
Although the proposals on the use of the resources drawn up by the Land associations were ‘enacted’ (for Lower Saxony, see point 6.2 of the Payment Guidelines [Zuwendungsrichtlinie], and for Thuringia, see Section 4 of the Thuringia Levy Collection Order) or ‘approved’ (as in North Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria) by a State body, this did not mean that the State exercised any significant influence since the only basis for State ‘overseeing’ was what was laid down by Section 22(2) of the MFG.
Vsi sporni ukrepi so služili spodbujanju „proizvoda mleko“ in s tem kolektivnemu interesu sektorja mleka.
Consequently, the provisions in question conferred upon State bodies no more power to direct or influence the administration of the funds than in Doux Elevage [25].
Delno ti ukrepi hkrati ščitijo interese potrošnikov, kajti ta namena sta zaradi obstoječega ujemanja interesov neločljiva.
Moreover, the revenues from the levy were indeed used in all Länder in accordance with the proposals put forward by the Land associations.
Vloga države je omejena na to, da daje sektorju mleka z MFG na voljo zakonski kompenzacijski mehanizem, ki omogoča, da pripadniki sektorja mleka, ki imajo že po naravi zadeve korist od ukrepov, izvedenih za „proizvod mleko“, plačajo ustrezen prispevek za dajatve.
That in itself was evidence enough — irrespective of the specific legal arrangements that were applicable — that the revenues in question were not imputable to the State [26].
Država ima tako kot v zadevah Pearle in Doux Elevages in zadevi VaľHor zgolj vlogo instrumenta, s katerim zasebni kompenzacijski mehanizem postane obvezen in se tako breme pravično porazdeli [30].
According to the LVN, each of the Land associations had the status of a public body.
Pobuda za dajatev je prišla od deželnih združenj, torej iz zasebnega sektorja.
Their statutes made it clear that they considered themselves to represent the interests of their members, who were recruited solely from the dairy industry (including consumer representatives).
Tako se dajatev v skladu s členom 22 MFG pobira samo v „posvetovanju“ z deželnimi združenji.
In Section 14 of the MFG, Land associations were described as ‘voluntary’ organisations made up of businesses and consumers involved in the dairy industry whose purpose it was to ensure the joint representation of their member's economic interests.
Deželna združenja sama prav tako niso bila ustanovljena zaradi državnih predpisov, ampak so „prostovoljna“ združenja pripadnikov sektorja mleka (člen 14 MFG).
The Land associations differed from the Hoofdbedrijfschap Ambachte, the opticians' trade association entrusted with collecting and allocating a compulsory levy for advertising measures, which was at issue in the case Pearle.
S tem se induktivno pojasnjuje, da gre pri dajatvi na mleko le za zaseben kompenzacijski mehanizem, pri katerem država deluje samo kot „instrument“, s katerim obveznost dajatve postane zavezujoča [31].
Although this trade association had the status of a public body, the Court of Justice found that State aid did not exist because the advertising measures were not funded by resources made available to State bodies but rather by levies collected from undertakings operating in the sector [27].
LVN je v preglednici opozoril na po njegovem mnenju obstoječe skupne značilnosti oziroma razlike med različnimi zadevami na eni strani in MFG na drugi strani.