natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, the Authority cannot accept this argument.
Komisija zato ne more sprejeti tega argumenta.
Second, the Authority will examine whether it can be concluded that the scheme does not involve an advantage for the cooperatives covered by it on the basis that the aid is granted in order to compensate the cooperatives for structural disadvantages.
Drugič, Nadzorni organ bo preveril, ali je mogoče skleniti, da shema ne vključuje prednosti za zadruge, zajete v njej, na podlagi tega, da je pomoč dodeljena zato, da zadrugam zagotovi nadomestilo za njihov strukturno neugoden položaj.
It has been recognised that structural disadvantages may, in certain specific situations, be offset by aid measures [49].
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je mogoče strukturno neugoden položaj v določenih posebnih okoliščinah izravnati z ukrepi pomoči [49].
The compensation of a disadvantage has been considered not to constitute an advantage in some situations, in particular where former state-owned monopolists are restructured and turned into market players when opening the market for competition.
Za nadomestilo za neugoden položaj je bilo ugotovljeno, da v določenih okoliščinah ne pomeni prednosti, zlasti kadar se nekdanji monopolisti v državni lasti prestrukturirajo in se spremenijo v akterje na trgu, ko se trg odpre za konkurenco.
These precedents refer to a factual situation which is different from the one in the present case.
Ti precedensi se nanašajo na dejansko stanje, ki pa se razlikuje od stanja v zadevnem primeru.
Furthermore, neither the case law of the European Courts nor the practice of the European Commission appear to support that a measure such as the one notified does not confer an advantage on the undertaking in question merely because it compensates a ‘disadvantage’ suffered by the undertaking [50].Against this background, the conclusion of the Authority is that the proposed tax concession confers an advantage on the cooperatives covered by the scheme.
Nadalje se zdi, da niti sodna praksa evropskih sodišč niti praksa Evropske komisije ne podpirata mnenja, da ukrep, kot je priglašeni ukrep, ne daje prednosti podjetju zgolj zato, ker zagotavlja nadomestilo za „neugoden položaj“ na strani podjetja [50].Na podlagi tega Nadzorni organ zaključuje, da predlagana davčna ugodnost daje prednost v shemi zajetim zadrugam.
DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECT ON TRADE BETWEEN THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
IZKRIVLJANJE KONKURENCE IN OVIRANJE TRGOVINE MED POGODBENICAMI
As regards the criteria in Article 61(1) EEA on aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, it follows from case law that it is not necessary to establish that the aid has a real effect on trade between the Contracting Parties and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether the aid is liable to affect trade and distort competition [51].The Norwegian authorities argue that the aim of the scheme is to counter the existing competitive disadvantage for cooperatives when it comes to access to equity capital.
Iz sodne prakse izhaja, da v zvezi z merili iz člena 61(1) EGP o pomoči, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, kolikor vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami, ni treba ugotoviti, da pomoč dejansko vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami in da je konkurenca dejansko izkrivljena, temveč zadostuje proučitev, ali bi pomoč lahko vplivala na trgovino in izkrivljala konkurenco [51].Norveški organi navajajo, da je cilj sheme izravnati obstoječi neugoden konkurenčni položaj za zadruge v zvezi z dostopom do kapitala.
On this basis they maintain that the scheme does not distort or threaten to distort competition.
Na podlagi tega vztrajajo, da shema ne izkrivlja ali ne grozi, da bi izkrivljala konkurenco.
The Authority notes that the effect of the scheme is to reduce the corporate tax of the cooperatives covered by the scheme compared to other companies.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je učinek sheme zmanjšati davek od dobička pravnih oseb za zadruge, zajete v shemi, v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji.
Thereby, the competitive position of these cooperatives is strengthened.
Zato je konkurenčni položaj teh zadrug okrepljen.
The fact that the cooperatives are subject to certain limitations according to Norwegian law, which are not imposed on inter alia limited companies, cannot be decisive in this regard.
Dejstvo, da po norveški zakonodaji za zadruge veljajo določene omejitve, ki pa med drugim ne veljajo za družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo, v tem primeru ni odločilno.
Moreover, where aid granted by the State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid.
Kadar pomoč, ki jo dodeli država, okrepi položaj posameznega podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki konkurirajo v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti, navedena pomoč vpliva na ta podjetja.
Conversely, it is not necessary that the recipient undertaking itself be involved in the said trade [52].
In nasprotno, ni nujno, da je upravičeno podjetje samo udeleženo v tej trgovini [52].
The proposed tax deduction strengthens the position of the cooperatives in relation to their competitors which are organised differently.
Predlagana davčna olajšava krepi položaj zadrug v primerjavi z njihovimi konkurenti, ki so drugače organizirani.
The tax deduction applies to all main forms of cooperatives, and at least some of them are also active on markets within the EEA.
Davčna olajšava velja za vse glavne oblike zadrug, vsaj nekatere pa so dejavne tudi na trgih znotraj EGP.
In this regard, the Authority notes that the consumer cooperative Coop NKL BA has a market share in the market for groceries in Norway of 24 %.
V zvezi s tem Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da ima potrošniška zadruga Coop NKL BA med trgovinami z živili na Norveškem 24-odstotni tržni delež.
Furthermore, Coop NKL BA cooperates with the other Scandinavian cooperative retail organisations with regard to purchasing and processing.On this basis, the Authority concludes that the notified scheme is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Poleg tega Coop NKL BA sodeluje z drugimi skandinavskimi maloprodajnimi zadružnimi organizacijami na področju nabave in predelave.Na tej podlagi Nadzorni organ sklepa, da bi priglašena shema lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in vplivala na trgovino med pogodbenicami Sporazuma EGP.
THE COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ON COOPERATIVES
SPOROČILO KOMISIJE O ZADRUGAH
The Norwegian authorities seem to argue that the notified scheme does not constitute State aid as it is in accordance with the principles expressed in the Commission Communication on cooperatives.
Zdi se, da norveški organi trdijo, da priglašena shema ne pomeni državne pomoči, saj naj bi bila skladna z načeli iz Sporočila Komisije o zadrugah.
The Norwegian authorities refer in particular to Section 3.2.6 of the Commission Communication, where the European Commission inter alia states that specific tax treatment of cooperatives may be welcomed. This section reads as follows:
Norveški organi se sklicujejo zlasti na oddelek 3.2.6 Sporočila Komisije, v katerem Evropska komisija med drugim navaja, da je posebna davčna obravnava zadrug dobrodošla.
‘Some Member States (such as Belgium, Italy and Portugal) consider that the restrictions inherent in the specific nature of co-operative capital merit specific tax treatment: for example, the fact that co-operatives’ shares are not listed, and therefore not widely available for purchase, results almost in the impossibility to realise a capital gain; the fact that shares are repaid at their par value (they have no speculative value) and any yield (dividend) is normally limited may dissuade new memberships. In addition it is to be mentioned that co-operatives are often subject to strict requirements in respect of allocations to reserves.
Ta oddelek se glasi:
Specific tax treatment may be welcomed, but in all aspects of the regulation of co-operatives, the principle should be observed that any protection or benefits afforded to a particular type of entity should be proportionate to any legal constraints, social added value or limitations inherent in that form and should not lead to unfair competition. In addition any other granted “advantages” should not permit the undesirable use of the co-operative form by non bona fide co-operatives as a means of escaping appropriate disclosure and corporate governance requirements. The Commission invites Member States when considering appropriate and proportionate tax treatment for equity capital and reserves of co-operatives, to take good care that such provisions do not create anticompetitive situations (…)’.
„Nekatere države članice (na primer Belgija, Italija in Portugalska) menijo, da omejitve, ki so del posebne narave kapitala zadrug, zahtevajo posebno davčno obravnavo: na primer, dejstvo, da delnice zadrug ne kotirajo na borzi in zato niso širše razpoložljive za nakup, prinaša skoraj nezmožnost uresničitve kapitalskega dobička; dejstvo, da so te delnice poplačane po nominalni vrednosti (ker nimajo špekulativne vrednosti) in ker je donos (dividenda) omejen, lahko odvrne nove člane. Poleg tega je treba omeniti, da za zadruge pogosto veljajo stroge zahteve v zvezi z dodelitvijo k rezervam. Posebna davčna obravnava je lahko dobrodošla, toda v vseh vidikih ureditve zadrug je treba upoštevati načelo, da mora biti vsaka zaščita ali korist, dodeljena določeni vrsti subjekta, sorazmerna z zakonskimi omejitvami, družbeno dodano vrednostjo ali omejitvami, ki so del te oblike, ter ne sme voditi do nelojalne konkurence. Poleg tega druge dodeljene ‚prednosti‘ ne smejo dovoljevati nezaželene uporabe oblike zadrug s strani nedobrovernih zadrug kot sredstva za izogib primernemu razkritju in zahtevam za upravljanje družb. Komisija poziva države članice, da pri obravnavi primerne in sorazmerne davčne obravnave za lastniški kapital in rezerve zadrug poskrbijo, da takšne določbe ne ustvarijo protikonkurenčnih razmer […]“.
However, the Authority notes that in Section 3.2.7 the Commission Communication goes on to state that ‘[c]ooperatives that carry out economic activities are considered as “undertakings” in the sense of Articles 81, 82 and 86 to 88 of the European Community Treaty (EC). They are therefore subject in full to European competition and state aid rules, and also to the various exemptions, thresholds and de minimis rules.’
Vendar Nadzorni organ upošteva, da oddelek 3.2.7 Sporočila Komisije navaja, da „se zadruge, ki opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, obravnavajo kot ‚podjetja‘ v smislu členov 81, 82 in 86 do 88 Pogodbe o Evropski skupnosti (ES). Zato zanje v celoti veljajo evropska pravila o konkurenci in državni pomoči ter tudi različna odstopanja, pragi in pravila de minimis.“
On this basis, the Authority is of the opinion that while the specifics of the cooperatives must be taken into account when examining this case, the Commission Communication, read as a whole, cannot be invoked to argue that State aid granted to cooperatives escapes the scope of the State aid rules in the EEA Agreement.
Na podlagi tega Nadzorni organ meni, da se, čeprav je pri obravnavi tega primera treba upoštevati posebnosti zadrug, ni mogoče sklicevati na Sporočilo Komisije, brano kot celoto, z namenom trditve, da zadrugam dodeljena državna pomoč ne spada v področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči iz Sporazuma EGP.
Therefore, the Authority finds that the Commission Communication on cooperatives, read as a whole, does not necessitate any changes to the conclusion that the proposed tax concession confers an advantage on the cooperatives covered by the scheme.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da Sporočilo Komisije o zadrugah, brano kot celota, ne zahteva sprememb sklepa, da predlagana davčna olajšava daje prednost v shemi zajetim zadrugam.
CONCLUSION WITH REGARD TO THE PRESENCE OF STATE AID
SKLEPNE UGOTOVITVE V ZVEZI Z OBSTOJEM DRŽAVNE POMOČI
On the basis on the considerations set out above, the Authority has reached the conclusion that the notified scheme concerning tax concessions for certain cooperatives constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.
Na podlagi zgornjih premislekov je Nadzorni organ sklenil, da priglašena shema glede davčnih oprostitev za določene zadruge pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) EGP.
Pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3, ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid (…). The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’.
Po členu 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 „mora biti Nadzorni organ Efte obveščen o vseh načrtih za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči dovolj zgodaj, da lahko predloži pripombe […]. Zadevna država ne sme izvajati svojih predlaganih ukrepov, dokler v tem postopku ni sprejeta dokončna odločitev“.
The Norwegian authorities notified the proposed scheme concerning tax benefits for certain cooperatives by letters dated 28 June 2007 and 16 October 2007 and have not implemented the scheme pending a final decision by the Authority.
Norveški organi so predlagano shemo v zvezi z davčnimi ugodnostmi za določene zadruge priglasili z dopisoma z dne 28. junija 2007 in 16. oktobra 2007 in sheme niso uveljavili v pričakovanju končne odločitve Nadzornega organa.
The Authority can therefore conclude that the Norwegian authorities have respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3.
Nadzorni organ lahko zato sklene, da so norveški organi upoštevali obveznosti iz člena 1(3) dela I Protokola 3.
The Authority notes that the Norwegian authorities have, neither in the notification of the scheme nor in their comments to the Authority’s opening decision, submitted any arguments concerning the compatibility of the aid.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da norveški organi niso, niti v priglasitvi sheme niti v pripombah k odločitvi Nadzornega organa o sprožitvi postopka, predložili argumentov v zvezi z združljivostjo pomoči.
The Authority has nevertheless assessed the compatibility of the notified measure with Article 61 EEA on the basis of the information before it.
Nadzorni organ je kljub temu ocenil združljivost priglašenega ukrepa s členom 61 EGP na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij.
The Authority considers that none of the derogations mentioned in Article 61(2) EEA can be applied to the case at hand.
Nadzorni organ meni, da v zadevnem primeru ni mogoče uporabiti nobenih odstopanj, navedenih v členu 61(2) EGP.
As far as the application of Article 61(3) EEA is concerned, the tax benefit for cooperatives cannot be considered to fall within the scope of Article 61(3)(a) EEA since none of the Norwegian regions qualify for this provision, which requires an abnormally low standard of living or serious underemployment.
V zvezi z uporabo člena 61(3) EGP davčna ugodnost za zadruge ne spada v področje uporabe člena 61(3)(a) EGP, saj nobena od norveških regij ne izpolnjuje pogojev za uporabo te določbe, ki se nanaša na neobičajno nizek življenjski standard ali visoko brezposelnost.
Nor does the scheme seem to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of the Norwegian state, as would be necessary for compatibility on the basis of Article 61(3)(b) EEA.
Prav tako se ne zdi, da shema spodbuja izvajanja pomembnega projekta v skupnem evropskem interesu ali popravlja resno motnjo v gospodarstvu Norveške, kar bi bilo nujno za združljivost na podlagi člena 61(3)(b) EGP.
Concerning Article 61(3)(c) EEA, aid could be deemed compatible with the EEA Agreement if it facilitates the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
V zvezi s členom 61(3)(c) EGP bi bilo mogoče pomoč šteti za združljivo s Sporazumom EGP, če bi spodbujala razvoj določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij brez škodljivih vplivov na trgovinske pogoje v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
The Authority notes that the measure is neither limited to the regions covered by the Norwegian regional aid map nor falls under any of the existing State aid guidelines concerning compatibility with the EEA Agreement on the basis of its Article 61(3)(c).
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da ukrep ni niti omejen na regije, zajete v karti norveških regionalnih pomoči, niti ne spada v nobene obstoječe smernice o državni pomoči v zvezi z združljivostjo s Sporazumom EGP na podlagi člena 61(3)(c).
As no guidelines are directly applicable to the notified scheme, the Authority will assess the compatibility of the scheme directly under Article 61(3)(c) EEA [53].
Ker se za priglašeno shemo neposredno ne uporabljajo nobene smernice, bo Nadzorni organ ocenil združljivost sheme neposredno po členu 61(3)(c) EGP [53].
Derogations within the meaning of Article 61(3)(c) EEA must be interpreted narrowly [54] and may be granted only when it can be established that the aid will contribute to the attainment of an objective of common interest, which could not be secured under normal market conditions alone.
Odstopanja v smislu člena 61(3)(c) EGP je treba ozko razlagati [54] in se jih lahko odobri samo, če je mogoče ugotoviti, da bo pomoč prispevala k doseganju cilja v skupnem interesu, ki ga ne bi bilo mogoče doseči pod normalnimi tržnimi pogoji.
The so-called ‘compensatory justification principle’ was endorsed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the Philip Morris case [55].Appreciating the compatibility of State aid is fundamentally about balancing the negative effects of aid on competition with its positive effects in terms of common interest [56].
V zadevi Philip Morris je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti potrdilo tako imenovano „načelo upravičenosti nadomestil“ [55].Ocena združljivosti državne pomoči je v bistvu izravnava negativnih učinkov pomoči na konkurenco s pozitivnimi učinki z vidika skupnega interesa [56].
In order to be declared compatible under Article 61(3)(c) EEA, a State aid scheme must:be aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest,
Da bi shema državne pomoči veljala za združljivo po členu 61(3)(c) EGP, mora:biti usmerjena v dobro opredeljen cilj v javnem interesu,
be well-designed to deliver the objective of common interest, and in that regard, be an appropriate instrument, have an incentive effect, and be proportionate,
biti dobro oblikovana, da se doseže cilj v javnem interesu, in v zvezi s tem predstavljati ustrezen instrument, imeti spodbujevalen učinek in biti sorazmerna,
not distort competition and trade in the EEA to an extent contrary to common interest [57].The Authority must assess whether the objective pursued by the measure is necessary, in line with objectives of common interest and, if so, whether this is the least distortive method of pursuing that objective.
ne sme izkrivljati konkurence in trgovine v EGP v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom [57].Nadzorni organ mora oceniti, ali je cilj ukrepa nujen, skladen s cilji v javnem interesu ter, če prej navedeno velja, ali je to najmanj izkrivljajoč način doseganja tega cilja.
Well-defined objective of common interest
Dobro opredeljen cilj v javnem interesu
The Norwegian authorities have argued that the ultimate objective of the notified scheme is to ensure that the cooperative form is upheld.
Norveški organi so navedli, da je končni cilj priglašene sheme zagotoviti, da se ohrani oblika zadruge.
The Norwegian authorities argue that facilitating the cooperatives’ access to equity capital is essential in order to attain this objective.
Norveški organi tudi trdijo, da je olajšanje dostopa zadrug do lastniškega kapitala bistvenega pomena za doseganje tega cilja.
The Authority recognises that cooperatives have certain specific features, as set out in the Commission Communication on cooperatives.
Nadzorni organ priznava, da imajo zadruge nekatere posebne značilnosti, kot je navedeno v Sporočilu Komisije o zadrugah.
The Commission Communication states that the promotion of the cooperative model can in principle lead to a more efficient functioning of the economy and have positive social effects.
Sporočilo Komisije navaja, da lahko spodbujanje modela zadrug načeloma privede do učinkovitejšega delovanja gospodarstva in ima pozitivne družbene učinke.
The Commission Communication seems to indicate that in view of the broad equity, social and coordination gains that the cooperative model is considered to provide, and which would not otherwise be available on the market, maintenance of the cooperative model may be viewed as a common interest objective.
Zdi se, da Sporočilo Komisije navaja, da je ohranitev modela zadruge mogoče šteti za cilj v skupnem interesu zaradi širših koristi za lastniški kapital, družbenih in usklajevalnih koristi, ki naj bi jih model zadruge zagotavljal in ki sicer ne bi bile razpoložljive na trgu.
Furthermore, the possible role of the cooperative model as a means for building or increasing the economic power of SMEs, providing services that lucrative companies would not provide and contributing to the building of a knowledge-based society is underlined [58].
Poleg tega so poudarjeni možna vloga modela zadrug kot sredstva za ustvarjanje ali povečanje gospodarske moči MSP, zagotavljanje storitev, ki jih dobičkonosna podjetja ne nudijo, in prispevanje k ustvarjanju družbe znanja [58].
It should be kept in mind, however, that the definition of a cooperative in the Commission Communication seems to be relatively strict, as the Commission Communication in general seems to concern pure mutual cooperatives [59].
Treba pa je upoštevati, da je opredelitev zadruge v Sporočilu Komisije precej stroga, saj se zdi, da se Sporočilo Komisije na splošno nanaša na popolnoma vzajemne zadruge [59].
On this basis, the Authority is of the opinion that the scheme is aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest, to the extent that it is aimed at pure mutual cooperatives.
Na podlagi tega Nadzorni organ meni, da je shema namenjena dobro opredeljenemu cilju v skupnem interesu, če je namenjena popolnoma vzajemnim zadrugam.
Well-designed scheme
Dobro oblikovana shema
The second step is to assess whether the aid is properly designed to reach the objective of common interest pursued, in this case to ensure that the cooperative form is upheld by facilitating the cooperatives’ access to equity capital.
Drugi korak je oceniti, ali je pomoč pravilno oblikovana za doseganje cilja v skupnem interesu, v tem primeru zagotovitve, da se oblika zadruge ohrani s pomočjo dostopa zadrug do lastniškega kapitala.
A distinction could be made between pure mutual and non-pure mutual cooperatives, mutuality being the key hallmark of cooperatives.
Mogoče je razlikovati med popolnoma vzajemnimi in nepopolnoma vzajemnimi zadrugami, pri čemer je vzajemnost ključna značilnost zadrug.
The stronger the cooperative is characterised by mutuality the more the cooperative could be regarded as different from lucrative undertakings.
Bolj kot je za zadrugo značilna vzajemnost, bolj se razlikuje od dobičkonosnih podjetij.
Therefore, the objective of common interest of upholding cooperatives as defined in the Commission Communication on cooperatives can best be reached by granting aid to cooperatives which are truly mutual.
Zato je cilj v skupnem interesu, tj. ohranitev zadrug, opredeljenih v Sporočilu Komisije o zadrugah, najlažje doseči z dodelitvijo pomoči zadrugam, ki so resnično vzajemne.
Concerning the concept of mutual cooperatives, the Authority has doubts as to whether it would be sufficient in order for a cooperative to qualify as a mutual cooperative in the sense of the Commission communication on cooperatives that the cooperative trades mainly with its members.
V zvezi s konceptom vzajemnih zadrug Nadzorni organ dvomi, da bi za označitev zadruge kot vzajemne zadruge v smislu Sporočila Komisije o zadrugah zadostovalo, da zadruga posluje predvsem s svojimi člani.