natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The fact that state bodies consulted VDM prior to or during legislative and other regulatory procedures and, in order to ensure its independence, regulated its funding on the basis of a mandatory levy did not mean that undertakings that were obliged to finance the provision of information to state bodies through the mandatory levy were being favoured by the State.
Če pa bi se v nasprotju z zgornjimi izvajanji uporaba sredstev od dajatve na mleko, ki jih je VDM prejelo v okviru ukrepov BW 6, BY 9, HE 5, NI 10, NW 9, RP8, SL 6 in TH 6, štela za državno pomoč, bi bili ti ukrepi vsekakor v skladu z ustreznimi določbami sekundarnega prava.
The same applied to the areas of standardisation in the public interest and the support of university scientists, in particular young ones.
Če bi v nasprotju s stališčem, ki se zastopa tukaj, vlogo svetovalca, ki jo ima VDM, šteli za državno pomoč podjetjem v sektorju mleka, bi šlo v tem primeru za dovoljeno tehnično pomoč v smislu točke 14 Smernic skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju 2000–2006 [9] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice Skupnosti 2000–2006) oziroma oddelka IV.K Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem in gozdarskem sektorju 2007–2013 [10] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice 2007–2013).
Finally, the provision of information also lacked any specific favouring of undertakings in the dairy industry.
Glede obdobja 2001–2006 je VDM nadalje navedlo, da so se ukrepi nanašali izključno na mleko kot proizvod iz Priloge I. Predmet ukrepov je razširjanje znanstvenih dognanj, predvsem vsakokratne najsodobnejše tehnologije in dobre prakse, iz česar pa izhajajo tudi norme in standardi, pri katerih nastanku je VDM sodelovalo ali svetovalo, ali razvoj tehnologije, ki naj bi se upošteval pri novih zakonodajnih projektih.
The purpose of that activity was to raise public awareness of issues in the dairy industry and to disseminate knowledge concerning the applicable requirements, rules, standards and the current state of the art in order to ensure high quality and environmental standards in the public interest.
Ne glede na to pa je treba razširjanje znanstvenih dognanj in splošnih objektivnih informacij (v smislu oddelka IV.K. smernic 2007–2013) šteti za dovoljeno tudi s časovnega vidika uporabe smernic Skupnosti, če jih uvrstimo na primer pod pojem svetovalnih storitev ali izobraževanja in usposabljanja [11].
Moreover, if undertakings in the dairy industry did derive advantages from VDM's measures, these were non-measurable, indirect knock-on advantages, which were not enough for these measures implemented with a different objective to become State aid.
Sicer pa bi pri drugačni razlagi smernic nastalo tudi protislovje v razmerju do oglaševalskih ukrepov, ki veliko močneje posegajo v dogajanje na trgu.
Moreover, if it were to be assumed that aid was being granted to the ‘dairy industry’, it would not be possible to recover the aid granted because it could not be determined, even to a limited degree, which undertakings had benefited and to what extent, particularly given that the positive effects were not by any means restricted to undertakings in the German dairy industry but also benefited foreign undertakings if they were active in Germany or if the activities — such as international standardisation and Codex Alimentarius activities — were of international reach.
Ti ukrepi bi bili na podlagi Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za oglaševanje proizvodov dovoljeni tudi pred letom 2007 za proizvode, navedene v Prilogi I Pogodbe ES, in nekatere proizvode, ki niso navedeni v Prilogi I (2001/C-252/03) (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice o oglaševanju).
If, contrary to the above, the use of the funds from the milk levy paid to VDM under measures BW 6, BY 9, HE 5, NI 10, NW 9, RP8, SL 6 and TH 6 were to be regarded as State aid, these would in any case be compatible with the relevant secondary legislation.
Mleko kot presežni proizvod izpolnjuje pozitivna merila, ki se zahtevajo za oglaševanje.
If, contrary to VDM's view, VDM's role as an advisor were to be regarded as constituting State aid to undertakings in the dairy industry, this would be permissible technical support within the meaning of paragraph 14 of the 2000-2006 Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector [9] (the ‘2000-2006 Guidelines’) and Section IV.K. of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 [10] (the ‘2007-2013 Guidelines’).
To pomeni, da lahko države članice v sektorju mleka podpirajo splošno oglaševanje mleka, tj. oglaševanje, ki je nevtralno glede porekla in podjetja, z državno pomočjo brez nadaljnjih omejitev v višini 100 %.
VDM also claimed that, for the period 2001-2006, the measures related solely to milk, an Annex I product.
To so države članice v veliki meri tudi izkoristile [12].
The measures were concerned with the dissemination of scientific knowledge, in particular the state of the art and current best practice, forming the basis for the standards co-formulated by VDM or established with its input, or influencing new legislative initiatives.
Če je bilo torej v obdobju 2001–2006 dovoljeno splošno oglaševanje mleka in mlečnih izdelkov brez omejitev, ni nobenega razloga za to, da bi za splošno objektivno informiranje oziroma razširjanje znanstvenih dognanj o mleku in mlečnih izdelkih, ki v dogajanje na trgu posegata v veliko manjši meri, veljale zahteve, ki so s pravnega vidika državne pomoči strožje.
VDM's measures in this area thus regularly related to new techniques within the meaning of paragraph 14.1 of the 2000-2006 Guidelines.
Namen materialnega prava o državni pomoči niti in namen Komisije pri oblikovanju smernic Skupnosti ni mogel biti, da bi se oglaševalska kampanja z geslom „Pijte več mleka!“, financirana iz državnih sredstev, štela za dovoljeno državno pomoč pri oglaševanju, kampanja, v kateri je potrošnik objektivno obveščen o hranilni vrednosti in pomenu mleka za prehrano otrok, pa bi se štela za nedovoljeno državno pomoč.
Since they involved the determination and dissemination of scientific knowledge, VDM's standardisation and harmonisation activities should therefore also be categorised as technical support.
Izpolnjeni so tudi drugi pogoji iz točke 14 smernic Skupnosti 2000–2006.
Moreover, the dissemination of scientific knowledge and generic factual information (within the meaning of Section IV.K of the 2007-2013 Guidelines) should also be regarded as having been permissible during the period of validity of the 2000-2006 Guidelines since it could be seen as falling within the scope of consultancy services or education and training [11].
Ker gre za splošne ukrepe, ki so nevtralni glede podjetij, iz tega izhaja, da ti ukrepi samodejno niso omejeni na določene skupine (člen 14(2)).
As a surplus product, milk meets the positive criteria set out for advertising.
Glede obdobja od leta 2007 je VDM navedlo, da se ustrezni ukrepi VDM štejejo za razširjanje znanstvenih dognanj v splošno razumljivi obliki in za splošne objektivne informacije v smislu oddelka IV.K smernic 2007–2013 v povezavi s členom 14 Uredbe (ES) št. 1857/2006.
This meant that in the dairy sector Member States were, without any further restrictions, permitted to grant State aid covering 100 % of the costs of generic (i.e. neutral in terms of origin and the undertakings involved) advertising for milk.
Omejitve na mala in srednja podjetja v tem primeru ni mogoče uporabiti, saj pri splošnih objektivnih informacijah, ki so nevtralne glede podjetij, omejitev na mala in srednja podjetja ni mogoča že zaradi nevtralnosti glede podjetij.
Member States had made extensive use of that possibility [12].
Poleg tega je treba tudi v tem primeru upoštevati, da se smernice ne smejo uporabljati na protisloven način.
Consequently, if generic advertising for milk and dairy products had been permissible without restriction in the period 2001-2006, there was no reason why generic factual information or the dissemination of scientific knowledge concerning milk and dairy products, which had a much smaller impact on the market, should be made subject to much stricter requirements under the State aid rules.
V nasprotnem primeru bi države članice skoraj spodbujali k temu, da bi skušale objektivno informiranje ali razširjanje znanstvenih dognanj povezati s spodbujanjem k nakupu, saj bi ga tako spremenili v oglaševanje, ki je brez dvoma dovoljeno.
It could not have been the intention of substantive State aid law or of the Commission when drawing up the Guidelines to regard a state-funded advertising campaign with the slogan ‘Drink more milk!’ as permissible advertising aid while at the same time treating a campaign informing consumers in a factual way about the nutritional value and importance to child nutrition of milk as unlawful aid.
Zaradi navedenih argumentov je VDM zaprosilo, da Komisija ponovno razmisli o svojih dosedanjih domnevah glede statusa VDM kot podjetja ter o dopustnosti njegove dejavnosti po pravilih o državnih pomočeh.
The other conditions set out in paragraph 14 of the 2000-2006 Guidelines were also met.
Ker je postopek zapleten, si je VDM poleg tega pridržalo pravico, da med postopkom predloži še nadaljnja mnenja.
Because the measures were general and neutral in terms of the undertakings involved, they were not automatically restricted to identified groups (paragraph 14.2).
Pripombe drugih zainteresiranih strani
A detailed financial breakdown showing how the measures were carried out by individual undertakings was — as explained above — impossible to make in the absence of any direct links to them.
Komisija je od 6. do 10. februarja 2014 prejela skupaj šest dopisov zainteresiranih strani, ki so izrazile mnenje o zadevnih ukrepih, izvedenih s strani VDM.
Given the relatively small amount of resources allocated to this aspect and the large number of undertakings operating in the dairy sector, the thresholds set out in paragraph 14.3 were nowhere near being reached.
(dopis z dne 7. februarja 2014) je obširno navedlo, da se mednarodna izmenjava izkušenj preko VDM glede preventivnega varstva potrošnikov spodbuja s pomočjo novih spoznanj iz drugih držav in je zelo cenjena.
For the period from 2007, VDM stated that the corresponding measures it implemented should be regarded as constituting the dissemination of scientific knowledge in a readily understandable form and as generic factual information within the meaning of Section IV.K of the 2007-2013 Guidelines, as read in conjunction with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006.
S tem se ne daje prednost posameznim podjetjem.
The restriction to SMEs was not applicable here because generic factual information that was neutral in terms of the undertaking(s) receiving it could not be restricted to small and medium-sized enterprises by dint of that neutrality itself.
Združenje Landesvereinigung Thüringer Milch e.V. se je v mnenju z dne 6. februarja 2014 sklicevalo na mnenje VDM in ga podprlo.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the 2007-2013 Guidelines could not be applied in a self-contradictory manner.
Združenje Milchprüfring Baden-Württemberg e.V. je v mnenju z dne 6. februarja 2014 obširno navedlo, da VDM spada med ustanove, ki so v zvezni deželi Baden-Württemberg prejele sredstva iz dajatve na mleko.
Here too, the intention could not have been to make generic advertising for milk and dairy products (which are agricultural products) permissible at an intensity of 100 % (see paragraph 157 of the 2007-2013 Guidelines), while making generic factual information, which has a much lower impact on competition, and the dissemination of scientific knowledge subject to stricter requirements.
Vse ustanove, navedene v mnenju, so sprejele ukrepe v smislu sektorja mleka v skladu s členom 22 Zakona o mleku in maščobah.
In view of the above arguments, VDM asked the Commission to review its assumptions concerning VDM's status as an undertaking and the admissibility of its activities from the point of view of the State aid rules.
Združenje Milchwirtschaftliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft Rheinland-Pfalz e.V. je v mnenju z dne 10. februarja 2014 navedlo argumente, ki jih je navedla že Nemčija v mnenju z dne 20. septembra 2013.
Owing to the complexity of the procedure, VDM also reserved the right to submit further comments.
Združenje Milchwirtschaftlicher Verein Baden-Württemberg e.V se je v mnenju z dne 6. februarja 2014 pridružilo navedbam združenja Milchprüfrings Baden-Württemberg e.V. (gl. uvodno izjavo 79).
Comments by other interested parties
LVN je konkretno trdilo, da ukrepi, financirani iz dajatve na mleko, ne obremenjujejo državnega proračuna, da država ni pristojna za razpolaganje s sredstvi iz dajatve na mleko ter da država ne nadzoruje niti višine dajatve niti vsebine ukrepov.
Between 6 and 10 February 2014, the Commission received a total of six letters from interested parties containing comments concerning the measures at issue implemented by VDM.
Državi torej ni mogoče pripisati zadevnih pomoči.
(letter of 7 February 2014) stated that it supported and highly appreciated the international exchange of experience in which VDM participated as a means of ensuring preventative consumer protection on the basis of knowledge obtained from other countries.
Poleg tega država niti ne nadzira višine pomoči niti ni organizacijsko vključena v LVN.
This did not give rise to any favouring of individual undertakings.
Prav tako je bilo navedeno, da LVN ne preverjajo državni organi, temveč hannovrska kmetijska zbornica, ki je samoupravna organizacija javnega prava in tako ni organ neposredne državne uprave.
In its comments of 6 February 2014, Landesvereinigung Thüringer Milch e.V. referred to the comments submitted by VDM and seconded them.
LVN se je v dopolnilnem mnenju z dne 8. julija 2014 med drugim skliceval na sklep Komisije v zadevi Val'Hor [13].
In its comments of 6 February 2014, Milchprüfring Baden-Württemberg e.V. indicated that VDM was one of the bodies that had received levy resources in Baden-Württemberg.
Kot trdi LVN, je Komisija v tem sklepu priznala, da niti iz pristojnosti države, da prizna medpanožno organizacijo, niti iz njene regulativne podpore pri pobiranju „prispevkov“, ki se nanašajo na panogo (v tedanjem primeru z možnostjo izjave o splošni obveznosti), ni mogoče sklepati, da je treba ukrepe, ki jih je izvedla panožna organizacija, pripisati državi.
All of the bodies referred to under the above heading had implemented measures in favour of the dairy industry under Section 22 of the Milk and Fat Law.
Ali ima državna udeležba v parafiskalnem sistemu financiranja za posledico, da je mogoče dajanje prednosti pripisati državi kot „državno pomoč“, je odvisno od okoliščin posameznega primera in skupne obravnave na tej podlagi.
The allocation of levy resources had been limited to the extent necessary to implement those measures.
Za preverjanje vprašanja, ali gre za državno pomoč, so odločilni predvsem naslednji vidiki, ki so se izoblikovali v sodni praksi:
In its comments of 10 February 2014, Milchwirtschaftliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft Rheinland-Pfalz e.V. presented the same arguments as Germany had put forward in its comments of 20 September 2013.
Kdo odloča o pobiranju in uporabi sredstev?
In its comments of 6 February 2014, Milchwirtschaftlicher Verein Baden-Württemberg e.V. reiterated what Milchprüfring Baden-Württemberg e.V. had stated (see recital 79 above).
Kakšen je vpliv države, če odloča zasebnopravna organizacija?
In its letter of 7 February 2014, Landesvereinigung der Milchwirtschaft Niedersachsen е.V.
Iz katerih sredstev se financirajo pomoči?
(LVN) did not comment directly on the payments granted to VDM, but it did fundamentally deny the existence of any aid for any of the sub-measures under the MFG.
Katera vrsta ukrepov se financira?
On the individual issues, 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 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.
Od koga se pobirajo sredstva?
Moreover, the State neither controlled the level of payments nor was involved organisationally in LVN.
Pravni zastopnik LVN je preučil pravni položaj v drugih zveznih deželah in tudi ugotovil, da indici o obstoju državne pomoči, izoblikovani v sodni praksi, niso podani, tako da MFG v celoti nikakor ni mogoče pripisati značaja pomoči.
It also stated that LVN was overseen not 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, LVN referred, inter alia, to the Commission's Val'Hor Decision [13].
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.
Načine in višino dajatve v Spodnji Saški in Turingiji določa uredba o pobiranju dajatve (UmlErhVO), ki je sprejeta „v posvetovanju“ z 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 deželno združenje usmerja uporabo sredstev iz dajatve, ki jih je treba upravljati ločeno (glej prvi stavek člena 22(3) MFG) in ki se zato včasih celo zbirajo na posebnem računu posameznega deželnega združenja (glej npr. člen 3(1) UmlErhVO zvezne dežele Turingije).
Who decided about the collection and use of the funds?
Tako so deželna združenja na lastno strokovno odgovornost pripravila predloge za uporabo sredstev.
If this was a private organisation, how did the State influence this decision?
V Turingiji to na primer poteka na podlagi predlogov, ki jih dajo člani združenja Landesvereinigung Thüringer Milch (LVTM) (glej točko 6.3 turinških smernic za delo).
From what resources were the payments funded?
Predloge za uporabo, ki so jih pripravila deželna združenja, sicer „določi“ (tako v Spodnji Saški v skladu s točko 6.2 Smernic za finančno pomoč), v Turingiji pa v skladu s členom 4 UmlErhVO zvezne dežele Turingije) ali „odobri“ oz. „dovoli“ (tako v Severnem Porenju – Vestfaliji in na Bavarskem) državni organ.
What type of measures were funded?
Vendar to še ne pomeni odločilnega državnega vpliva, kajti merilo za državno „preverjanje“ so zgolj pogoji iz člena 22(2) MFG.
From whom were the resources collected?
S tem se pristojnost za usmerjanje dodeljevanja denarnih sredstev ali vpliv nanj z ustreznimi ureditvami ne prenaša na državne organe nič bolj kot v zadevi Doux Élevage [14].
Who was responsible for initiating the measure?
Tudi dejansko se sredstva iz dajatve v vseh zveznih deželah uporabljajo v skladu s predlogi za uporabo, ki jih dajo deželna združenja.
Via its legal representatives, 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.
Že to ne glede na konkretno pravno formulacijo kaže, da sredstev iz dajatev ni mogoče pripisati državi [15].
According to LVN, it was the Land associations that decided to collect the levy from dairies.
Po mnenju LVN imajo deželna združenja popolnoma zasebnopravni status.
Under the first sentence of Section 22(1) of the MFG, the levy could only be collected in consultation with the Land associations.
Kot je navedeno v njihovih statutih, je treba deželna združenja razumeti kot zastopnike interesov članov, ki prihajajo izključno iz sektorja mleka (vključno s predstavniki potrošnikov).
Under the second sentence of Section 22(1) of the MFG, any increase in the levy had to be requested by the Land association.
V skladu s členom 14 MFG so deželna združenja „prostovoljna“ združenja gospodarskih krogov, ki so udeleženi v sektorju mleka, in potrošnikov z namenom skupnega zastopanja njihovih gospodarskih interesov.
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 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.
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.
Čeprav je to poklicno združenje optikov imelo javnopravni status, je Sodišče presodilo, da ne gre za državno pomoč, ker oglaševanje ni bilo financirano iz sredstev, ki so bila dana na razpolago državnim organom, temveč iz dajatev, pobranih pri podjetjih v panogi [16].
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).
Deželna združenja kot odločujoči organi v zvezi 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 izvajanju ukrepov [17].
The Land associations thus drew up proposals under their own responsibility in the area as to how the revenues should be used.
Deželna združenja so nedržavni, zgolj zasebni organi, ki kot taki na lastno odgovornost odločajo o dajatvi na mleko in njeni uporabi.
In Thuringia, for example, this occurred on the basis of applications submitted to the local Land association, Landesvereinigung Thüringer Milch (LVTM), by its members (see point 6.3 of the Thuringia Working Guidelines (Thüringer Arbeitsrichtlinie)).
Dajanje prednosti sektorju mleka nadalje ni povezano z nobeno obremenitvijo državnega proračuna, ker se dajatev na mleko pobira pri pripadnikih sektorja mleka, zaradi česar je selektivna „prednost“ v sorazmerju s selektivno obremenitvijo, s katero se izravna.
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 Regulation) 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.
Zato ni mogoče govoriti o dajanju prednosti in izkrivljanju konkurence, ker se „prednosti“ mlekarn in proizvajalcev mleka popolnoma izravnajo z obremenitvijo iz dajatve.
Consequently, the provisions in question conferred upon state bodies no more power to direct or influence the administration of the funds than in Doux Élevage [14].
V zadevi Vent de Colère je Sodišče potrdilo državni značaj sistema dajatev med drugim zato, ker se obremenitve niso več, kot je veljalo v skladu s prejšnjo zakonodajo, izravnavale samo z dajatvami pripadnikov zadevne panoge (v tem primeru: energetike), temveč, potem ko je bil zakon spremenjen, z dajatvami vseh končnih odjemalcev električne energije s prebivališčem na nacionalnem ozemlju [18].