natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It was therefore determined under Land law whether the tests were carried out by a testing body or by the buyer itself.
Tako je na Bavarskem preverjanje mleka naloženo MPBY.
The matter of who was obliged to pay the costs (the buyer or testing body) could also be decided by the Land in question.
MPBY je na Bavarskem edini odobreni organ za analiziranje.
As a result, different arrangements existed in Germany on the matter of who was required to meet the costs.
Kot nevtralna preskusna organizacija opravlja javne naloge in je zato pod stalnim državnim nadzorom.
In accordance with the above-mentioned case law, these formed the reference framework for resolving the question as to which costs an undertaking should ‘normally’ bear.
Stroški, ki so s tem nastali združenju Milchprüfring, so bili deloma kriti iz dajatev v skladu s členom 22 MFG in deloma, kot je sporočila Nemčija, tudi iz splošnih proračunskih sredstev.
In Bavaria, therefore, it was MPBY that is entrusted with testing milk.
Ker so zvezne dežele pristojne, da urejajo obveznost nošenja stroškov za svoje območje, se določenim podjetjem ne daje prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, če se analiza kakovosti znotraj zvezne dežele v celoti ali delno financira z dajatvijo na mleko.
It was the only authorised testing body in Bavaria.
Zvezna zakonodaja ni ustrezni referenčni okvir za obveznost nošenja stroškov.
It performed public tasks as a neutral testing organisation and was therefore subject to permanent State control.
Zato ni odločilno, da se v drugih zveznih deželah razen v Baden-Württembergu in na Bavarskem, tako (delno) financiranje iz dajatve ne izvaja.
The costs it incurred in this respect were covered in part from the levy charged pursuant to Section 22 of the MFG and in part, as Germany had communicated, from the general budget.
Znotraj Bavarske in Baden-Württemberga morajo vsa podjetja nositi enake stroške.
Since the Länder have the power to regulate who is required to bear the costs for their particular area, certain undertakings were not favoured within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if quality tests were funded within a given Land entirely or partly by the milk levy.
Tako ne prihaja do (selektivnega) dajanja prednosti.
Federal law was not the correct reference framework for determining the matter of who should bear the costs.
Proti dajanju prednosti mlekarnam, ki bi bilo pomembno z vidika predpisov, ki urejajo državne pomoči, govori še dodaten vidik: mlekarne niso razbremenjene stroškov, ki bi jih morale navadno nositi, saj morajo zato plačati povečan prispevek za dajatev na mleko.
It was therefore irrelevant that in Länder other than Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria such (partial) funding from the levy did not take place.
Dajatev se uporablja za delno financiranje preverjanj mleka.
Within Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg all undertakings had to bear the costs equally.
Ko je bilo ob upoštevanju postopka Komisije financiranje preverjanj mleka iz dajatve ukinjeno, se je znižala tudi stopnja dajatve.
There was therefore no (selective) favouring of some undertakings over others.
Pristojbine mlekarn za preverjanja kakovosti so se na ta račun povečale, da bi se izravnalo nizko financiranje iz dajatve.
A further aspect also demonstrated that there was no favouring of dairies that was relevant from a State aid point of view, i.e. the fact that dairies were not spared costs that they would normally have to bear because they were required in return to pay a higher contribution to the milk levy.
Sodišče je v tem delu presodilo, da ne gre za dajanje prednosti, če prispevek ustreza dejanskemu ekonomskemu strošku za storitve, opravljene v zameno [11].
The levy was only partially used to fund milk testing.
Taka prepletenost med plačili in nasprotnimi plačili obstaja pri (parafiskalnih) dajatvah, če se te uporabljajo prav za konkreten namen.
When the level of funding for milk testing from the levy was ended in the light of the Commission's proceedings, the levy rate was also reduced.
Kot je tudi ugotovila Komisija [12], v predloženem primeru obstaja taka „povezanost uporabe“.
The remuneration received by dairies in respect of quality tests thus increased in order to offset the lower level of funding from the levy.
Ker je v tem primeru plačilo (prispevek za dajatev) presega nasprotno plačilo (nižji stroški preverjanj mleka), je treba dajanje prednosti, pomembno z vidika predpisov, ki urejajo državne pomoči, izključiti.
The Court of Justice had held in this respect that no advantage existed where a contribution corresponds to the actual economic cost of the benefits provided in return [11].
Nemčija je podredno izrazila, da gre pri zadevnih podukrepih za veljavne pomoči.
Such a link between the benefit and the consideration paid for it did exist in the case of (parafiscal) charges if the charges were collected in relation to a specific purpose.
Podlaga za financiranje preverjanj iz dajatve je točka 1 člena 22(2) MFG.
As the Commission had itself established [12], such ‘hypothecation’ did exist in this case.
Podpora, dodeljena na podlagi točka 1 člena 22(2) MFG, je (vsekakor) veljavna pomoč in se zanjo uporabljajo predhodna pravila.
Since the benefit (contribution to the levy) exceeded the consideration (lower costs of milk tests) in this case, any advantage relevant from a State aid point of view could be ruled out.
Značaja podpore kot veljavne pomoči ne krnijo niti morebitne spremembe niti ustrezni ukrepi.
In the alternative, Germany claimed that the sub-measures in question constituted existing aid.
V skladu s členom 1(b)(i) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 pojem veljavne pomoči pomeni vso pomoč, ki je obstajala pred začetkom veljavnosti Pogodbe v zadevnih državah članicah, to je sheme pomoči in individualno pomoč, ki so se začele izvajati pred začetkom veljavnosti Pogodbe in se še vedno uporabljajo.
The basis for funding the tests from the revenues generated by the levy was Section 22(2), point 1, of the MFG.
MFG je bil spremenjen leta 1952 in od takrat v glavnem velja brez sprememb.
The support granted pursuant to that provision was (at most) existing aid and was therefore subject to grandfathering.
Shema državne pomoči je bila torej uvedena precej pred upoštevnim datumom (1. januarja 1958).
The support's status as existing aid was undermined neither by any changes nor by any appropriate measures.
Za veljavno pomoč se v skladu s prvim stavkom člena 108(3) PDEU prenehajo uporabljati predhodna pravila in jo je treba obvezno priglasiti, če je bila pomoč spremenjena.
Article 1(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provided that ‘existing aid’ encompasses aid which ‘existed prior to the entry into force of the Treaty in the respective Member States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the Treaty’.
Za spremembo pomoči v smislu prvega stavka člena 108(3) PDEU je treba v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso in prakso odločanja gre samo, če je bila pomoč bistveno spremenjena.
The aid scheme had therefore been introduced well before the relevant qualifying date (1 January 1958).
Sprememba se nanaša zgolj na točko 5 člena 22(2), ki tukaj ni upoštevna.
Under the first sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU, existing aid lost its protection under grandfathering and was liable to be notified if the aid was altered.
Spremembe predpisov posameznih zveznih dežel se ne nanašajo na obseg ali značaj posameznih ukrepov.
According to settled case law and decisional practice, aid could only be deemed to have been altered within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU if it had been significantly amended.
Nasprotno je bilo s členom 22(2) MFG določeno, za katere namene bi bilo mogoče uporabljati sredstva iz dajatve v skladu s členom 22(1) MFG.
An amendment was only relevant if it affected the essential nature of the aid, if the aid was granted on a different legal basis or if it amended the scope of the scheme.
V delu, v katerem so bili spremenjeni posamezni postopkovni predpisi, bi bila s tem veljavna pomoč spremenjena samo v smislu prvega stavka člena 108(3) PDEU, šlo za združljivost z notranjim trgom.
The (possibility of applying) the aid scheme had not undergone any significant amendment since 1958.
Upoštevna uredba za dajatev na mleko (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Bay MilchUmlV) v primeru Bavarske ureja samo podrobnosti, npr. glede pobiranja dajatve, enako velja za Baden-Württemberg.
In particular, Section 22(2) of the MFG, which serves as a basis for the measures at issue here, had undergone only minimal changes, and point 1 of that provision, which is relevant to this case, had remained completely intact.
Značilnosti, pomembne za združljivost pomoči z notranjim trgom, kot sta poreklo sredstev (dajatev v skladu s členom 22(1)) in namen uporabe (člen 22(2)), so dovolj podrobno določeni v že MFG.
Amendments to the provisions of the individual Länder did not affect the scope or nature of the measures in question.
Ta podpora je bila dodeljena na podlagi MFG, ki predstavlja shemo državne pomoči, in zato glede na svojo naravo samo abstraktno opisuje posamezne pomoči.
Indeed, the purposes for which revenues from the levy could be used were stipulated by Sections 22(1) of the MFG.
Poleg tega sheme pomoči ne bi bilo treba neprekinjeno uporabljati.
To the extent that individual procedural rules had been amended, this would have altered the existing aid within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU only if its compatibility with the internal market had been affected.
Ustrezni ukrepi, ki so vsebovani v smernicah Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju 2000–2006 [14] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Smernice 2000–2006) ter v smernicah Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem in gozdarskem sektorju 2007–2013 [15] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Smernice 2007–2013), se ne uporabljajo za zadevne ukrepe, tako da še vedno ostajajo veljavne pomoči.
In the case of Bavaria, the relevant Regulation on a levy for milk (BayMilchUmlV) only regulated details, e.g. concerning the collection of the levy, and the same also applied to Baden-Württemberg.
Ustrezni ukrepi bi se morali nanašati prav na zadevno pomoč in ugotoviti bi bilo treba, da niso združljivi z notranjim trgom.
The aspects relevant to the aid's compatibility with the internal market, i.e. the provenance of the funds (the levy pursuant to Section 22(1)) and the purpose for which they were used (Section 22(2)) were, however, already sufficiently set out in the MFG.
V Smernicah 2007–2013 združljivost podpore za preverjanja kakovosti mleka ni bila obravnavana ali vsaj ni bila obravnavana dovolj podrobno.
The levy rates applied in both Länder had also steadily fallen since 1984.
V zvezi s tem se Nemčija sklicuje na točki 108 in 109 Smernic 2007–2013.
Falling levy rates could not undermine the aid scheme's compatibility.
Sistematika Smernic 2007–2013 in Uredbe (ES) št. 1857/2006 Komisije [16] razlikuje med „pomočmi za sektor živinoreje“ in „pomočmi za proizvodnjo in trženje kmetijskih proizvodov“.
The fact that some of the funds had possibly been granted on the basis of the MFG in individual cases and only temporarily [13] (see recital 147 of the Decision) was not an obstacle to their being regarded as existing aid.
Točka 108 Smernic 2007–2013 se jasno nanaša le na spodbujanje živinoreje v delu, v katerem zadeva „genetsko kakovost vzrejenih živali v Skupnosti“.
This support was granted on the basis of the MFG, which was an aid scheme and thus, by its nature, described individual aid purely in abstract terms.
Shemo v točki 109 Smernic 2007–2013 je mogoče razumeti samo tako, da je treba ta spoznanja upoštevati za ohranjanje genske kakovosti živine (točka 108), ker govori samo o tem.
The appropriate measures contained in the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the Agricultural Sector 2000-2006 [14] (hereinafter: ‘the 2000-2006 Guidelines’) and in the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the Agricultural and Forestry Sector 2007-2013 [15] (hereinafter: ‘the 2007-2013 Guidelines’) were not applicable to the measures relevant in this case, meaning that they continued to constitute existing aid.
Člen 16(1)(b) Uredbe (ES) št. 1857/2006 se nanaša na preverjanja kakovosti mleka, ki so povezana z rejo.
The appropriate measures would have to relate specifically to the aid in question and determine that it was not compatible with the internal market.
To je razvidno tudi iz konteksta določbe: na podlagi tega so bile izvzete pomoči (do najvišje stopnje 70 %) za določitev genetske kakovosti ali donosa živine.
The 2007-2013 Guidelines did not address the matter of the compatibility of support for milk quality checks, at least not with the necessary detail.
Če so redna preverjanja kakovosti mleka iz tega izvzeta, potem bi se lahko to tudi nanašalo samo na preverjanja, ki so načeloma primerna za ugotavljanje donosa živali.
In this context, Germany referred to paragraphs 108 and 109 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines.
Izjema se nanaša le na redna preverjanja kakovosti mleka, ki se odvzamejo neposredno pri molznici, ker je mogoče samo s tem preverjanjem ugotoviti donos posamezne živali.
The classification of aid in the 2007-2013 Guidelines and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 [16] distinguished between ‘aid in the livestock sector’ and ‘aid for the production and marketing of agricultural products’.
Na Bavarskem to analizo kakovosti, ki se nanaša na živali, izvaja združenje Landeskuratorium der Erzeugerringe für tierische Veredelung in Bayern e.V.
Paragraph 108 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines was clearly concerned solely with support for livestock holdings since it related to the ‘genetic quality of Community livestock’.
(LKV), v Baden-Württembergu pa deželno združenje Landesverband Baden-Württemberg für Leistungsprüfungen in der Tierzucht e.V.
Experience had ‘shown that this aid should be maintained only where it really contributes to the maintenance and improvement of the genetic quality of livestock’.
V tem primeru upoštevne analize kakovosti mleka, ki jih opravljata MPBY in MPBW, pa se nanašajo na določitev značilnosti mleka samega (ne pa na genetske lastnosti krave).
The introduction of innovative animal breeding techniques would be compatible with this, while support for the maintenance of breeding animals would not.
Te značilnosti mleka (med drugim vsebnost maščobe in beljakovin) so pomembne za prodajo in trženje mleka.
Paragraph 109 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines could only be understood as meaning that it should take account of this knowledge concerning the maintenance of the genetic quality of livestock (paragraph 108) as this was the only thing it dealt with.
Sklepanje o posamezni živali ni mogoče, ker so analize zasnovane drugače.
Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006, to which paragraph 109 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines referred, was concerned with ‘support for the livestock sector’ and not with milk quality checks in the sense that was relevant in this case.
Vzorci niso bili ločeni glede na to, od katere krave so izvirali.
Article 16(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 dealt with milk quality checks linked to the breeding of animals.
Odvzeti so bili šele iz vozil za zbiranje mleka.
This was apparent from the context of the provision, which stipulated that the exemption extended to aid (up to a rate of 70 %) to determine the genetic quality or yield of livestock.
Tam ločevanje po posamezni živali ni mogoče, ker je mleko v vozilu za zbiranje mleka pri zajetju pomešano z mlekom številnih živali.
If routine milk quality checks were excluded from this, then this could also only relate to checks that are generally suited to determining the yield of animals.
V Smernicah 2007–2013 zato niti v točki 109 niti drugje ni izključeno, da so pomoči za preverjanja kakovosti mleka združljive z notranjim trgom.
The exception related solely to routine milk quality checks carried out directly on the dairy cow because only such checks could determine the characteristics of the animal in question.
Komisija mora dokazati, da posamezni ukrepi niso združljivi z notranjim trgom.
In Bavaria, this quality testing on animals was carried out by the Landeskuratorium der Erzeugerringe für tierische Veredelung in Bayern e.V.
Morebitne nejasnosti pri oblikovanju ustreznih ukrepov ne smejo biti v škodo države članice [17].
(LKV), while in Baden-Württemberg it was carried out by the Landesverband Baden-Württemberg für Leistungsprüfungen in der Tierzucht e.V.
Potrebno soglasje države članice v skladu s členom 19(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 lahko učinkuje samo takrat, ko lahko država članica razume, s katerimi ukrepi konkretno soglaša.
By contrast, the milk quality testing carried out by the MPBY and the MPBW that is relevant to this case related to determining the characteristics of the milk itself (and not the genetic characteristics of the cow).
Zadevni deželi bi lahko zato domnevali, da so sporni ukrepi združljivi z notranjim trgom.
The characteristics of the milk in question (e.g. fat and protein content) were relevant to the sale and placing on the market of milk.
Če je Komisija nameravala ugotoviti nezdružljivost preverjanj kakovosti mleka na Bavarskem in v Baden-Württembergu z notranjim trgom EU, bi to lahko (izrecno) obravnavala v taki obliki, kot je to storila pri drugih odločitvah [18].
They did not allow inferences to be made concerning individual animals because they were carried out differently.
Komisija glede Nemčije ni obravnavala združljivosti financiranja preverjanj kakovosti mleka iz dajatve na Bavarskem in v Baden-Württembergu z notranjim trgom.
Samples were not separated so as to be able to identify which cow they came from, but were instead taken from milk tankers.
Izrecna obravnava tega ukrepa bi bila ob upoštevanju vsaj nejasne formulacije Smernic 2007–2013 potrebna v skladu s splošnimi načeli določnosti in lojalnega sodelovanja (člen 4(3) PEU), zlasti ker sta zadevni deželi domnevali, da pri ukrepu, obravnavanem pod BY 1/BW 1, ne gre za pomoč.
This meant that it was no longer possible to separate the milk according to the cow it had come from because milk from a variety of cows had already been mixed together when the sample was taken.
Smernic 2007–2013 zato ni treba razumeti tako, da ukrepi, ki temeljijo na točki 1 člena 22(2) MFG, niso združljivi z notranjim trgom.
Consequently, neither paragraph 109 nor any other provision of the 2007-2013 Guidelines excluded the possibility that aid for milk quality checks was compatible with the internal market.
Financiranje iz dajatve (BY 1, BW 1) na Bavarskem in v Baden-Württembergu torej ni zajeto v ustreznih ukrepih.
The onus was on the Commission to prove that individual measures were incompatible with the internal market.
Nemčija je podredno še navedla, da so ukrepi, čeprav pomenijo pomoč, združljivi z notranjim trgom.
Any ambiguity in the formulation of appropriate measures could not be to the detriment of the Member States [17].
Iz člena 16(1)(b) Uredbe (ES) št. 1857/2006 ne izhaja, da dodelitev pomoči za preverjanja kakovosti mleka ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
The acceptance by the Member State required under Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 could therefore only be effective if the Member State was aware which measures it was specifically accepting.
V skladu s členom 16(1)(b) Uredbe te sicer niso „samodejno“ združljive z notranjim trgom in s tem izvzete iz obveznosti priglasitve.
The Länder in question could therefore assume that the disputed measures were compatible with the internal market.
Vendar lahko Komisija v posameznih primerih ugotovi, da so pomoči združljive z notranjim trgom.
If the Commission had intended to find the Bavarian and Baden-Württemberg milk quality tests to be incompatible with the common market, it could have (expressly) addressed this in a form consistent with how it had done this in other decisions.
Domnevne pomoči za bavarske oziroma baden-württemberške mlekarne so vsekakor v skladu s členom 107(3)(c) PDEU združljive z notranjim trgom.
The Commission had not, however, broached the question of the compatibility with the internal market of funding the milk quality tests in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg by means of a levy.
To potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da je ta oblika pomoči v skladu s točko 13.3 Smernic Skupnosti 2000–2006 združljiva z notranjim trgom, kot je Komisija priznala v sklepu o začetku postopka (točka 164 in naslednja).
In view of the wording of the 2007-2013 Guidelines, which is at the very least unclear, it would have been necessary in accordance with the general principles of legal certainty and sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU) to specifically deal with these measures, particularly given that the Länder in question had assumed that sub-measures BY 1 and BW 1 did not involve any aid.
Zlasti gre za predpisana preverjanja, ki jih izvajajo tretje osebe.
The 2007-2013 Guidelines should therefore not be understood as meaning that measures implemented pursuant to Section 22(2)(1) of the MFG were incompatible with the internal market.
Združljivost z notranjim trgom dalje potrjuje dejstvo, da mlekarne stroške za preverjanje kakovosti z dajatvijo na mleko nosijo same.
Consequently, the funding of milk quality tests in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg by means of a levy (BY 1/BW 1) did not fall under the definition of appropriate measures.
S tem se zmanjšajo domnevne prednosti mlekarn [19].
In the alternative, Germany also argued that the measures were compatible with the internal market even if they did constitute aid.
Različni sistemi ne vplivajo na konkurenco med mlekarnami ne glede na to, ali stroške nosijo neposredno same ali se pobira dajatev.
It did not result from Article 16(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 that it was incompatible with the internal market to grant aid for controls of milk quality.
Navsezadnje mlekarne nosijo stroške v obeh primerih.
Under that provision, these were not ‘automatically’ compatible with the internal market and thus exempt from the notification requirement.
Ni jasno, zakaj naj bi se od leta 2007 spremenila združljivost ustreznih pomoči z notranjim trgom, ki so bile eksplicitno sprejete v Smernice Skupnosti 2000–2006.
However, the Commission could decide in an individual case that the aid was compatible with the internal market.
Pripombe zainteresiranih strani
The alleged aid for Bavarian/Baden-Württemberg dairies was in any case compatible with the internal market in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Komisija je med 5. in 7. februarjem 2014 prejela skupno sedem pripomb zainteresiranih strani za podpore, porabljene za preskuse kakovosti mleka.
This view was also supported by the fact that this form of aid was compatible with the internal market under point 13.3 of the 2000-2006 Guidelines, as the Commission had itself acknowledged in its initiation Decision (paragraphs 164 et seq.).
MPBY je v svojem dopisu z dne 5. februarja 2014 navedel, da mlekarne v prejšnjih letih niso imele prednosti zaradi financiranja iz dajatve.
In particular, it relates to prescribed checks that are carried out by third parties.
Zato nikakor ni mogoče razumeti, kako bi lahko ta izoblikovani in splošno sprejeti sistem pripeljal do izkrivljanja konkurence ali do negativnega vpliva na meddržavno trgovino.
Compatibility with the internal market is further confirmed by the fact that the dairies themselves met the costs of the quality checks via the milk levy.
V okviru nadaljnjega postopka je treba zato ukrep, naveden v sklepu o začetku postopka pod BY 1, po ponovnem preverjanju šteti za zaključen.
This minimised any potential advantages that the dairies might enjoy [19].
MPBW je v svojih pripombah z dne 6. februarja 2014 trdil, da plačila v zvezi s podukrepom BW 1 ne izpolnjujejo pogojev pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Competition between dairies was not undermined by the different system, irrespective of whether costs were borne directly or a levy was charged.
Zlasti s sistemom analiz kakovosti dobavljenega mleka v Baden-Württembergu ni povezana nobena obremenitev državnega proračuna.
The upshot was that dairies bore the costs in either case.
Ugodnosti, ki so enake subvencijam in izhajajo iz ukrepa države, ne da bi v območju javnih organov nastale ustrezne finančne izgube, pa ne spadajo na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU [20].