natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Board of Auditors shall act as supreme authority for the auditing of programmes and projects under the EEA Financial Mechanism 2014-2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘EEA Financial Mechanism’).
Odbor revizorjev je vrhovni organ za revizijo programov in projektov v okviru finančnega mehanizma EGP 2014–2021 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: finančni mehanizem EGP).
This includes the audit of programmes and projects in the Beneficiary States, the Beneficiary States' management of the programmes and projects and implementation of the EEA Financial Mechanism.
To vključuje revizijo programov in projektov v državah upravičenkah, vodenje programov in projektov s strani držav upravičenk in izvajanje finančnega mehanizma EGP.
An official of EFTA may not be appointed auditor until an interval of three years has elapsed since the end of his appointment with any of the EFTA institutions.
Uradnik Efte ne more biti imenovan za revizorja, dokler ne pretečejo tri leta od konca njegovega mandata v kateri koli instituciji Efte.
The members of the Board of Auditors that perform audits according to Article 1 shall be the same persons as those appointed in and for the same term as set out in the Decisions of the ESA/Court Committee, No 9, 10 and 11 of 12 December 2013 on the Reappointment of the Members of the EFTA Board of Auditors (‘at three’).
Člani odbora revizorjev, ki opravljajo revizije v skladu s členom 1, morajo biti iste osebe kot tiste, imenovane v istem obdobju in za isto obdobje, kot je določeno v sklepih Odbora nadzornega organa in sodišča št. 9, 10 in 11 z dne 12. decembra 2013 o imenovanju članov odbora revizorjev Efte (tri države EGP Efte).
The members of the Board of Auditors shall closely cooperate with the person or persons entrusted with the corresponding audits under the Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period 2014-2021 in audits of activities relating to both Financial Mechanisms.
Člani odbora revizorjev tesno sodelujejo z osebo ali osebami, ki so pri revizijah dejavnosti, ki se nanašajo na oba finančna mehanizma, zadolžene za ustrezne revizije v skladu z norveškim finančnim mehanizmom za obdobje 2014–2021.
Based on a budget proposal from the Board of Auditors and a recommendation from the Financial Mechanism Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘FMC’), the Standing Committee shall agree on the amount to be granted for this purpose.
Na podlagi proračunskega predloga odbora revizorjev in priporočila odbora za finančni mehanizem Stalni odbor odobri višino sredstev v ta namen.
The external experts must fulfil the same requirements of independence and comply with the same duty of cooperation provided for in Article 5 as the members of the Board of Auditors.
Zunanji strokovnjaki morajo izpolnjevati enaka merila neodvisnosti in delovati v skladu z dolžnostjo sodelovanja, določeno v členu 5, kot velja za člane odbora revizorjev.
The Board of Auditors shall propose its own terms of references concerning the audit referred to in Article 1 and submit them, after consultation with the FMC, to the Standing Committee of the EFTA States for adoption.
Odbor revizorjev predlaga svoje pristojnosti v zvezi z revizijami, določenimi v členu 1, in jih po posvetovanju z odborom za finančni mehanizem predloži Stalnemu odboru držav Efte v sprejetje.
Chair
Predsednica
No 3/17/COL
št. 3/17/COL
amending, for the one-hundred and second time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by introducing new Guidelines on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 61(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area [2017/2413]
o stodrugi spremembi procesnih in materialnih pravil na področju državne pomoči z uvedbo novih smernic o pojmu državne pomoči po členu 61(1) Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru [2017/2413]
HAVING regard to:
OB UPOŠTEVANJU:
the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26,
Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP) ter zlasti členov 61 do 63 in Protokola 26,
the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’), in particular to Article 24 and Article 5(2)(b),
Sporazuma med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum o nadzornem organu in sodišču) ter zlasti člena 24 in člena 5(2)(b) Sporazuma,
Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (‘Protocol 3’),
Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Protokol 3),
On 19 May 2016, the European Commission adopted a Notice on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [1],This notice is also of relevance for the European Economic Area,
Evropska komisije je 19. maja 2016 sprejela Obvestilo Komisije o pojmu državne pomoči po členu 107(1) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije [1].Navedeno obvestilo je pomembno tudi za Evropski gospodarski prostor.
HAVING consulted the European Commission,
PO POSVETOVANJU z Evropsko komisijo.
HAVING consulted the EFTA States,
PO POSVETOVANJU z državami Efte –
The substantive rules in the field of State aid shall be amended by introducing new Guidelines on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Z uvedbo novih smernic o opredelitvi pojma državne pomoči po členu 61(1) Sporazuma EGP se spremenijo materialna pravila na področju državne pomoči.
Decision made in Brussels, on 18 January 2017.
V Bruslju, 18. januarja 2017
OJ C 262, 19.7.2016, p. 1.
UL C 262, 19.7.2016, str. 1.
GUIDELINES ON THE NOTION OF STATE AID AS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 61(1) OF THE EEA AGREEMENT [1]Table of Contents
SMERNICE O POJMU DRŽAVNE POMOČI PO ČLENU 61(1) SPORAZUMA EGP [1]Kazalo
Exercise of public powers
Izvajanje javnih pooblastil
Education and research activities
Izobraževalne in raziskovalne dejavnosti
Culture and heritage conservation, including nature conservation
Kultura in ohranjanje kulturne dediščine, vključno z ohranjanjem narave
State origin
Državni izvor
Imputability
Pripisljivost državi
Indicators for imputability
Kazalniki za pripisljivost državi
Imputability and obligations under EEA law
Pripisljivost državi in obveznosti po pravu EGP
Controlling influence over the resources
Nadzorni vpliv na sredstva
State involvement in redistribution between private entities
Vpletenost države pri prerazporeditvi med zasebne subjekte
The notion of advantage in general
Pojem prednosti na splošno
The market economy operator (MEO) test
Preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu
Establishing compliance with market conditions
Ugotavljanje skladnosti s tržnimi pogoji
Indirect advantage
Posredna prednost
De jure and de facto selectivity
Pravna in dejanska selektivnost
Selectivity stemming from discretionary administrative practices
Selektivnost, ki izhaja iz diskrecijskih upravnih praks
The assessment of material selectivity for measures mitigating the normal charges of undertakings
Presoja materialne selektivnosti za ukrepe, ki zmanjšujejo običajne stroške podjetij
Institutional autonomy
Institucionalna avtonomija
Procedural autonomy
Postopkovna avtonomija
Economic and financial autonomy
Gospodarska in finančna avtonomija
Specific issues concerning tax measures
Posebna vprašanja v zvezi z davčnimi ukrepi
Undertakings for collective investment
Kolektivni naložbeni podjemi
Tax amnesties
Davčne amnestije
Tax rulings and settlements
Davčna stališča in poravnave
Depreciation/amortisation rules
Pravila o amortizaciji
Fixed basis tax regime for specific activities
Davčna ureditev na fiksni osnovi za posamezne dejavnosti
Anti-abuse rules
Pravila proti zlorabam
Infrastructure: some specific clarifications
Infrastruktura: nekaj posebnih pojasnil
Aid to the developer/owner
Pomoč nosilcu projekta / lastniku
Economic activity versus non-economic activity
Gospodarska dejavnost proti negospodarski dejavnosti
Aid to the developer/owner of an infrastructure – an overview sector-by-sector
Pomoč nosilcu projekta / lastniku infrastrukture – pregled po posameznih sektorjih
Aid to operators
Pomoč operaterjem
Aid to end-users
Pomoč končnim uporabnikom
In the context of the State aid modernisation, the Authority wishes to provide further clarification on the key concepts relating to the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 61(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), with a view to contributing to an easier, more transparent and more consistent application of this notion across the European Economic Area (‘the EEA’).
V okviru posodobitve državne pomoči želi Nadzorni organ predložiti dodatna pojasnila o temeljnih vprašanjih glede pojma državne pomoči po členu 61(1) Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP), da bi tako prispeval k lažji, preglednejši in bolj usklajeni uporabi tega pojma po vsem Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (v nadaljnjem besedilu: EGP).
These Guidelines only concern the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, which both the Authority and national authorities (including national courts) have to apply in conjunction with the notification and standstill obligations provided for in Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’).
Te smernice se nanašajo samo na pojem državne pomoči iz člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, ki ga morajo Nadzorni organ in nacionalni organi (vključno z nacionalnimi sodišči) uporabljati v povezavi z obveznostmi priglasitve in mirovanja iz člena 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum o nadzornem organu in sodišču).
It does not concern the compatibility of State aid with the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 61(2) and (3) and Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement, which is for the Authority to assess.
Ne nanaša pa se na združljivost državne pomoči z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP v skladu s členom 61(2) in (3) ter členom 59(2) Sporazuma EGP, kar presoja Nadzorni organ.
Given that the notion of State aid is an objective and legal concept defined directly by the EEA Agreement [2], these Guidelines clarify the Authority's understanding of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, the General Court and the EFTA Court (‘the EEA Courts’).
Glede na to, da je pojem državne pomoči objektivni in pravni pojem, ki ga neposredno opredeljuje Sporazum EGP [2], te smernice pojasnjujejo, kako Nadzorni organ razume člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, kakor ga razlagajo Sodišče, Splošno sodišče in Sodišče Efte (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sodišča EGP).
On issues that have not yet been considered by the EEA Courts, the Authority will set out how it considers that the notion of State aid should be construed.
Pri vprašanjih, ki jih sodišča EGP še nista obravnavali, bo Nadzorni organ opisal svoje razumevanje pojma državne pomoči.
The views set out in these Guidelines are without prejudice to the interpretation of the notion of State aid by the EEA Courts [3]; the primary reference for interpreting the EEA Agreement is always the case-law of the EEA Courts.
Stališča v teh smernicah ne posegajo v razlago pojma državne pomoči, kakor jo oblikujejo sodišča EGP [3]; glavni vir za razlago Sporazuma EGP je vedno sodna praksa sodišč EGP.
It should be stressed that the Authority is bound by this objective notion and enjoys only a limited margin of discretion in applying it, namely where the appraisals by the Authority are technical or complex in nature, in particular in situations involving complex economic assessments [4].
Treba je poudariti, da je Nadzorni organ vezan na ta objektivni pojem in ima le omejeno diskrecijsko pravico pri njegovi uporabi, tj. kadar je presoja Nadzornega organa tehnična ali zapletena, zlasti v okoliščinah, ki vključujejo zapletene ekonomske analize [4].
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement defines State aid as ‘any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods […], in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties’.
Člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP opredeljuje državno pomoč kot „vsak[o] pomoč, ki jo dodelijo države članice ES, države Efte ali je dodeljena v kakršni koli obliki iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, […], kolikor škodi trgovini med pogodbenicami“.
These Guidelines will clarify the different constituent elements of the notion of State aid: the existence of an undertaking, the imputability of the measure to the State, its financing through State resources, the granting of an advantage, the selectivity of the measure and its effect on competition and trade between EEA States.
V teh smernicah bodo pojasnjeni različni sestavni elementi pojma državne pomoči: obstoj podjetja, pripisljivost ukrepa državi, financiranje ukrepa iz državnih sredstev, dajanje prednosti, selektivnost ukrepa in njegov vpliv na konkurenco in trgovino med državami EGP.
In addition, given the need for specific guidance expressed by EEA States, these Guidelines provide specific clarification with respect to public funding of infrastructure.
Ker so države EGP izrazile potrebo po posebnih napotkih v zvezi z javnim financiranjem infrastrukture, so v te smernice vključena tudi posebna pojasnila v zvezi s tem.
NOTION OF UNDERTAKING AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
POJEM PODJETJA IN GOSPODARSKE DEJAVNOSTI
The State aid rules only apply where the beneficiary of a measure is an ‘undertaking’.
Pravila o državni pomoči se uporabljajo le, kadar je upravičenec ukrepa „podjetje“.
The EEA Courts have consistently defined undertakings as entities engaged in an economic activity, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed [5] The classification of a particular entity as an undertaking thus depends entirely on the nature of its activities.
Sodišča EGP podjetja dosledno opredeljujejo kot subjekte, ki opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost, ne glede na njihov pravni status in način financiranja [5].
This general principle has three important consequences.
Razvrstitev posameznega subjekta med podjetja je torej v celoti odvisna od narave njegovih dejavnosti.
First, the status of the entity under national law is not decisive.
To splošno načelo ima tri pomembne posledice.
For example, an entity that is classified as an association or a sports club under national law may nevertheless have to be regarded as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Prvič, status subjekta po nacionalnem pravu ni odločujoč.
The same applies to an entity that is formally part of the public administration.
Kot primer lahko navedemo subjekt, ki je po nacionalnem pravu razvrščen med združenja ali športne klube, a ga je kljub temu morda treba obravnavati kot podjetje v smislu člena 61(1) Spoprazuma EGP.
The only relevant criterion is whether it carries out an economic activity.
Enako velja za subjekt, ki je formalno del javne uprave.
Second, the application of the State aid rules does not depend on whether the entity is set up to generate profits.
Edino relevantno merilo je, ali izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost.
Non-profit entities can also offer goods and services on a market [6].
Drugič, uporaba pravil o državni pomoči ni odvisna od tega, ali je bil subjekt ustanovljen za ustvarjanje dobička.
Where this is not the case, non-profit entities remain outside the scope of State aid control.
Tudi nepridobitni subjekti lahko na trgu ponujajo blago in storitve [6].
Third, the classification of an entity as an undertaking is always relative to a specific activity.
Če ni tako, nepridobitni subjekti ostanejo izven področja nadzora državne pomoči.
An entity that carries out both economic and non-economic activities is to be regarded as an undertaking only with regard to the former [7].
Tretjič, razvrstitev subjekta med podjetja je vedno povezana s posebno dejavnostjo.
Several separate legal entities may be considered to form one economic unit for the purposes of the application of State aid rules.
Subjekt, ki opravlja gospodarske in negospodarske dejavnosti, se obravnava kot podjetje le v povezavi z gospodarskimi dejavnostmi [7].
That economic unit is then considered to be the relevant undertaking.
Pri uporabi pravil o državni pomoči se lahko več ločenih pravnih subjektov šteje za eno gospodarsko enoto.
In this respect, the Court of Justice considers the existence of a controlling share and other functional, economic and organic links to be relevant [8].
Ta gospodarska enota se potem obravnava kot upoštevno podjetje.
To clarify the distinction between economic and non-economic activities, the EEA Courts have consistently held that any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a market is an economic activity [9].
V zvezi s tem Sodišče upošteva nadzorni delež ter druge funkcionalne, gospodarske in strukturne povezave [8].
The question whether a market exists for certain services may depend on the way those services are organised in the EEA State concerned [10] and may thus vary from one EEA State to another.
Da bi pojasnila razliko med gospodarskimi in negospodarskimi dejavnostmi, so Sodišča dosledno zastopala stališče, da je vsaka dejavnost, ki ponuja blago in storitve na trgu, gospodarska dejavnost [9].
Moreover, due to political choice or economic developments, the classification of a given activity can change over time.
Vprašanje, ali obstaja trg za nekatere vrste storitev, je lahko odvisno od načina organizacije teh storitev v zadevni državi EGP [10] in se zato lahko razlikuje od ene države EGP do druge.
What is not an economic activity today may become one in the future, and vice versa.
Poleg tega se zaradi političnih odločitev ali gospodarskega razvoja razvrstitev neke dejavnosti lahko sčasoma spremeni.
The decision of a public authority not to allow third parties to provide a certain service (for example, because it wishes to provide the service in-house) does not rule out the existence of an economic activity.
To, kar ni gospodarska dejavnost danes, lahko to postane v prihodnosti, in obratno.
In spite of such market closure, an economic activity can exist where other operators would be willing and able to provide the service in the market concerned.
Odločitev javnega organa, da tretjim osebam ne dovoli opravljanja določene storitve (npr. ker želi storitev opravljati interno), ne izključuje obstoja gospodarske dejavnosti.
More generally, the fact that a particular service is provided in-house has no relevance for the economic nature of the activity [11].
Četudi je trg s tem zaprt, gre lahko za gospodarsko dejavnost, kadar so drugi subjekti pripravljeni opravljati storitev na zadevnem trgu in bi jo tudi lahko opravljali.
Since the distinction between economic and non-economic activities depends to some extent on political choices and economic developments in a given EEA State, it is not possible to draw up an exhaustive list of activities that a priori would never be economic.
Dejstvo, da se določena storitev opravlja interno, na splošno ni pomembno za gospodarsko naravo dejavnosti [11].
Such a list would not provide genuine legal certainty and would thus be of little use.
Ker je razlikovanje med gospodarskimi in negospodarskimi dejavnostmi do neke mere odvisno od političnih odločitev in gospodarskega razvoja v zadevni državi EGP, ni mogoče sestaviti izčrpnega seznama dejavnosti, za katere bi lahko vnaprej trdili, da ne bodo nikoli gospodarske.
Paragraphs 17 to 37 instead seek to clarify the distinction with respect to a number of important areas.
Takšen seznam ne bi zagotavljal resnične pravne varnosti in zato ne bi bil zelo koristen.
The simple fact that an entity holds shares, even a majority shareholding, in an undertaking providing goods or services on a market does not mean that that entity should automatically be considered an undertaking for the purposes of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Točke 17 do 37 namesto tega poskušajo pojasniti navedeno razlikovanje v zvezi s številnimi pomembnimi področji.
Where that shareholding only gives rise to the exercise of rights attached to the status of shareholder as well as, if appropriate, the receipt of dividends, which are merely the fruits of the ownership of an asset, that entity will not be considered an undertaking if it does not itself provide goods or services on a market [12].
Samo dejstvo, da ima subjekt delnice ali celo večinski delež v podjetju, ki ponuja blago ali storitve na trgu, ne pomeni, da bi se ta subjekt moral avtomatsko šteti za podjetje za namene člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement does not apply where the State acts ‘by exercising public power’ [13] or where public entities act ‘in their capacity as public authorities’ [14].
Kadar ta delež zagotavlja le uveljavljanje pravic, ki izhajajo iz statusa delničarja ter, če je to primerno, prejemanje dividend, ki so zgolj rezultat lastništva sredstev, se ta subjekt ne bo štel za podjetje, če sam ne ponuja blaga ali storitev na trgu [12].
An entity may be deemed to act by exercising public power where the activity in question forms part of the essential functions of the State or is connected with those functions by its nature, its aim and the rules to which it is subject [15].
Člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP se ne uporablja, kadar država „izvaja javna pooblastila“ [13] ali kadar javni subjekti delujejo „kot javni organi“ [14].
Generally speaking, unless the EEA State concerned has decided to introduce market mechanisms, activities that intrinsically form part of the prerogatives of official authority and are performed by the State do not constitute economic activities.
Za subjekt se lahko šteje, da izvaja javna pooblastila, kadar je zadevna dejavnost del ključnih funkcij države ali je povezana s temi dejavnostmi po svoji naravi, namenu in pravilih, ki jih mora upoštevati [15].
Examples of such activities are the following:
Dejavnosti, ki so neločljivo povezane s posebnimi pravicami uradnega organa in jih izvaja država, na splošno niso gospodarske dejavnosti, razen če se je zadevna država EGP odločila za uvedbo tržnih mehanizmov.
the army or the police [16];
Primeri takšnih dejavnosti so:
air navigation safety and control [17];
vojska ali policija [16];
maritime traffic control and safety [18];
varnost in nadzor zračne navigacije [17];
anti-pollution surveillance [19];
varnost in nadzor pomorskega prometa [18];
the organisation, financing and enforcement of prison sentences [20];
nadzor onesnaževanja [19];
the development and revitalization of public land by public authorities [21]; and
organizacija, financiranje in izvrševanje zapornih kazni [20];
the collection of data to be used for public purposes on the basis of a statutory obligation imposed on the undertakings concerned to disclose such data [22].
razvoj in oživitev javnih zemljišč, ki ju izvajajo javni organi [21]; ter
In so far as a public entity exercises an economic activity which can be separated from the exercise of public powers that entity acts as an undertaking in relation to that activity.
zbiranje podatkov, ki se uporabljajo za javne namene na podlagi zakonske obveznosti zadevnih podjetij, da jih razkrijejo [22].
In contrast, if that economic activity cannot be separated from the exercise of public powers, the activities exercised by that entity as a whole remain connected with the exercise of those public powers and therefore fall outside the notion of undertaking [23].
Če javni subjekt opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost, ki se lahko loči od izvajanja javnih pooblastil, ta subjekt v zvezi s to dejavnostjo deluje kot podjetje.
Whether schemes in the area of social security are to be classified as involving an economic activity depends on the way they are set up and structured.
Če pa te gospodarske dejavnosti ni mogoče ločiti od izvajanja javnih pooblastil, so dejavnosti, ki jih izvaja ta subjekt kot celota, še vedno povezane z izvajanjem teh javnih pooblastil in zato niso vključene v pojem podjetja [23].