natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 5(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 states: ‘where the Commission considers that information provided by the Member State concerned with regard to a measure notified pursuant to Article 2 is incomplete, it shall request all necessary additional information’.
Člen 5(1) Uredbe �t. 659/1999 določa, da „[č]e Komisija meni, da so podatki, ki jih je predložila država članica v zvezi z ukrepom, prijavljenim na podlagi člena 2, nepopolni, zahteva vse potrebne dodatne podatke.“
The aid schemes for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy authorised until 31 December 1999
Sheme pomoči za naložbe v manj razvitih regijah Italije, odobrene do 31. decembra 1999
By Decreelaw No 415 on the refinancing of Law No 64 of 1 March 1986 laying down provisions governing special intervention measures in the Mezzogiorno (Rifinanziamento della legge 1° marzo 1986, n. 64, recante disciplina organica dell’intervento straordinario nel Mezzogiorno) of 22 October 1992 (GURI no 249 of 22 October 1992, p.
415 z dne 22. oktobra 1992 o financiranju zakona �t. 64 z dne 1. marca 1986 o temeljni ureditvi izredne intervencije v Mezzogiorno (Rifinanziamento della legge 1° marzo 1986, n. 64, recante disciplina organica dell’intervento straordinario nel Mezzogiorno) (GURI �t.
5) (‘Law No 488/1992’), the Italian legislature put in place financial measures intended to encourage companies to develop certain productive activities in less-favoured regions of the country.
488/1992), določil finančne ukrepe, da bi podjetja spodbudil k razvijanju določenih donosnih dejavnosti v manj razvitih regijah države.
On 1 March 1995 and 21 May 1997, the Commission adopted two decisions not to raise objections, initially until 31 December 1996 and then until 31 December 1999, against the successive aid schemes based on Law No 488/1992 and on various provisions implementing that law (State aid Nos N 40/95 and N 27/A/97).
Komisija je 1. marca 1995 in 21. maja 1997 sprejela odločbi, da ne bo vložila ugovora, najprej do 31. decembra 1996 in nato do 31. decembra 1999, zoper sheme zaporednih pomoči na podlagi zakona �t.
Summary notices regarding those decisions were published in the Official Journal of the
488/1992 in različnih določb o njegovi uporabi
4) and on 8 August 1997 in relation to the decision of 21 May 1997 (OJ 1997 C 242, p.
4), in 8. avgusta 1997, kar zadeva odločbo z dne 21. maja 1997 (UL C 242, str.
4) (‘the 1997 decision’).
4, v nadaljevanju: odločba iz leta 1997).
The detailed rules relating to the aid scheme authorised by the 1997 decision (‘the 1997-1999 aid scheme’) were put in place, first, by resolution of the Comitato interministeriale per la programmazione economica (Inter-departmental committee for economic planning) laying down provisions regulating the award of grants for the purposes of Article 1(2) of Law No 488/1992 (direttive per la concessione di agevolazioni ai sensi dell’art. 1, comma 2, del decreto-legge 22 ottobre 1992, n. 415, convertito nella legge 19 dicembre 1992, n. 488, in tema di disciplina organica dell’intervento straordinario nel Mezzogiorno) of 27 April 1995 (GURI No 142 of 20 June 1995, p.
Podrobna pravila sheme pomoči, odobrene z odločbo iz leta 1997 (v nadaljevanju: shema pomoči 1997–1999), so bila določena, prvič, s sklepom Comitato interministeriale per la programmazione economica (medministrski odbor za gospodarski program) z dne 27. aprila 1995 o smernicah za dodeljevanje dotacij v smislu člena 1(2) zakona �t. 488/1992 (direttive per la concessione di agevolazioni ai sensi dell’art. 1, comma 2, del decreto-legge 22 ottobre 1992, n. 415, convertito nella legge 19 dicembre 1992, n. 488, in tema di disciplina organica dell’intervento straordinario nel Mezzogiorno) (GURI �t.
17), as amended by resolution of that Committee of 18 December 1996 (GURI No 70 of 25 March 1997, p.
17), kot je bil spremenjen s sklepom navedenega odbora z dne 18. decembra 1996 (GURI �t. 70 z dne 25. marca 1997, str.
3), as amended by Decree No 319 of that ministry of 31 July 1997 (GURI No 221 of 22 September 1997, p.
319 navedenega ministrstva z dne 31. julija 1997 (GURI �t. 221 z dne 22. septembra 1997, str.
Those detailed rules provided in particular, as follows:
Ta podrobna pravila so določala predvsem to:
— the financial resources for each year were divided in two equal parts and allocated through an invitation to apply; however, on the basis of the funds available in
– vsakoletni finančni viri so bili razdeljeni na dva enaka dela, razporejena v okviru dveh razpisov za dodelitev pomoči; vendar je bilo glede na sredstva, ki so na voljo
2008 — CASE C-390/06 the year to which the resources related, the rules for their distribution could be modified by decree, in particular by allowing the funds in question to be allocated through a single invitation to apply;
2008 – ZADEVA C-390/06 v letu, na katero se nana�ajo viri, mogoče pravila za njihovo razdelitev spremeniti z uredbo, zlasti z razporeditvijo teh sredstev v okviru enega razpisa;
— the applications submitted under an invitation to apply were examined by banks appointed for that purpose, which awarded a certain number of marks based on regulatory criteria, known as ‘indicatori’ (hereinafter, ‘indicators’);
– banke s koncesijo so pregledale pro�nje, vložene na razpis za dodelitev, in jim na podlagi zakonskih meril dodelile določeno �tevilo točk glede na pravila, imenovana „indicatori“, (v nadaljevanju: kazalci);
— on the basis of the results of the banks’ investigations, the MICA established regional ranking lists, in which the applications were recorded in descending order by reference to the number of marks awarded and adopted a decree awarding the aid to the applicants, starting with the first on the list, until the funds allocated to the invitation to apply in question were exhausted;
– na podlagi izida pregledov, ki so jih opravile banke, je MICA sestavilo tabelo regionalne razvrstitve, v katero so bile pro�nje razvr�čene padajoče glede na �tevilo dodeljenih točk, in sprejelo uredbo o dodelitvi dotacij za razvr�čene pro�nje, začen�i s prvo, dokler niso bila izčrpana razpoložljiva sredstva zadevnega razpisa;
— expenditure was eligible provided it was incurred on or after the day following the closing date of the invitation to apply preceding the invitation to which the application referred, except for expenditure on engineers’ reports and on other reports, and for expenditure incurred in connection with the acquisition and development of land belonging to the undertaking, which was eligible with effect from the 12th month preceding the date on which the application was lodged;
– upravičeni izdatki so bili izdatki, ki so nastali po dnevu zaključka razpisa, ki je bil objavljen pred razpisom, na katerega je bila vložena pro�nja za pomoč, razen izdatkov za inženirske načrte in �tudije ter izdatkov za nakup in urejanje zemlji�ča podjetja, ki so bili upravičeni, če so nastali do 12 mesecev pred dnevom, ko je bila vložena pro�nja za pomoč;
— undertakings whose applications were placed on a regional list but which had been unable to obtain grants because the funds allocated to the invitation to apply in question were less than the total amount of aid applied for, could either resubmit the same project, once only, under the first appropriate invitation to apply immediately following the invitation under which their application had originally been submitted, without amending the information in the application taken into account by the indicators (a procedure known as ‘automatic inclusion’
– podjetja, katerih pro�nja za pomoč je bila uvr�čena v regionalno tabelo, a niso mogla prejeti dotacij, ker so bila razpoložljiva sredstva zadevnega razpisa nižja od skupnega zneska zapro�enih pomoči, so lahko samo enkrat ponovno prijavila isti projekt in to na ustreznem razpisu, ki je neposredno sledil razpisu, na katerega so se najprej prijavila, ne da bi spremenila dejavnike, ki so jih upo�tevali kazalci (samodejna uvrstitev pro�nje), ali pa so se odrekla tej samodejni uvrstitvi in so
NUOVA AGRICAST of the application), or waive such automatic inclusion and resubmit the same project under the first appropriate invitation to apply following the invitation in respect of which they had waived automatic inclusion, but with amendments to some or all of the indicators in order to make the application more competitive, provided that those amendments did not alter the substance of the project (a procedure known as ‘reformulation’ of the application); in both cases, the conditions applicable to the original applications remained in effect for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the expenditure.
NUOVA AGRICAST ponovno prijavila isti projekt na prvi ustrezni razpis po razpisu, za katerega so se odrekla omenjeni samodejni uvrstitvi, pri čemer so delno ali v celoti spremenila dejavnike, ki so jih upo�tevali kazalci, da bi bila pro�nja za pomoč bolj konkurenčna, vendar se ta sprememba ni smela nana�ati na bistvene dejavnike projekta (sprememba pro�nje); v obeh primerih so zaradi možnosti uveljavljanja izdatkov ostali v veljavi pogoji, določeni za prvotne pro�nje.
The guidelines on national regional aid
Smernice o državni regionalni pomoči
In 1998, the Commission published guidelines on national regional aid (OJ 1998 C 74, p.
Komisija je leta 1998 objavila Smernice o državni regionalni pomoči (UL C 74, str.
9) (‘the guidelines’). The third subparagraph of point 4.2 of those guidelines provides that ‘aid schemes must lay down that an application for aid must be submitted before work is started on the projects’.
9, v nadaljevanju: Smernice), katerih točka 4.2, tretji odstavek, določa, da „morajo sheme pomoči vključevati določilo, da je treba vloge za pomoč vložiti pred začetkom izvajanja projektov“.
The first subparagraph of point 6.1 of the guidelines states that ‘except for the transitional provisions set out in points 6.2 and 6.3 below, the Commission will assess the compatibility of regional aid with the common market on the basis of these Guidelines as soon as they are applicable’.
Točka 6.1 Smernic določa, da „[bo razen] za prehodne določbe, navedene v nadaljevanju v točkah 6.2. in 6.3., […] Komisija ocenila združljivost regionalne pomoči s skupnim trgom na podlagi teh smernic takoj, ko bodo začele veljati“.
The contested decision and the aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy authorised for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2006
Sporna odločba in shema pomoči za naložbe v manj razvitih regijah Italije, odobrene od 1. januarja 2000 do 31. decembra 2006
On 18 November 1999, the Italian authorities notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 88(3) EC a planned aid scheme which was to be applicable from 1 January 2000 and was based on Law No 488/92.
Italijanski organi so 18. novembra 1999 na podlagi člena 88(3) ES Komisiji uradno priglasili predlog sheme pomoči za obdobje od 1. januarja 2000 na podlagi zakona �t. 488/1992, ki ga je Komisija vpisala pod �t. N 715/99.
Following a number of exchanges of correspondence and a meeting between representatives of the Italian Government and the Commission, that planned aid scheme was amended by the Italian authorities.
Italijanski organi so po več dopisih in sestanku med predstavniki italijanske vlade in Komisije spremenili ta predlog sheme pomoči.
By the contested decision, adopted on 12 July 2000 and notified to the Italian Republic by letter SG(2000) D/105754 of 2 August 2000, the Commission decided not to object to that aid scheme for the period until 31 December 2006 (‘the 20002006 aid scheme’).
S sporno odločbo, sprejeto 12. julija 2000, ki je bila Italijanski republiki vročena z dopisom SG(2000) D/105754 z dne 2. avgusta 2000, je Komisija odločila, da do 31. decembra 2006 ne bo vložila ugovora zoper to shemo pomoči (v nadaljevanju: shema pomoči 2000–2006).
The contested decision contains a transitional provision designed to give express approval of the measures comprised in that aid scheme which provide for a transition with the 1997-1999 aid scheme (‘the transitional provision’).
Sporna odločba vsebuje določbo, ki se izrecno nana�a na odobritev ukrepov navedene sheme pomoči, ki zagotavljajo prehod s sheme pomoči 1997–1999 (v nadaljevanju: prehodna določba). Ta določba določa:
‘Only on the occasion of the first implementation of the scheme in question, that is to say on the occasion of the first invitation to apply to be organised on the basis of that scheme, it being understood that applications for aid must in any case be submitted before work is started on the investment project, applications submitted under the last invitation to apply organised under [the 1997-1999 aid scheme] which were considered eligible for aid but in respect of which no aid was granted because insufficient funds were allocated to that invitation, will exceptionally be eligible.’
„Le ob prvi izvedbi zadevne sheme, torej v primeru prvega razpisa za dodelitev pomoči, ki se opravi na podlagi zadevne sheme, pri čemer morajo biti pro�nje za dodelitev pomoči vložene, preden se začnejo dela na naložbenih projektih, se bo na podlagi pro�enj, ki so bile vložene na zadnji razpis, izveden na podlagi [sheme pomoči 1997–1999], in za katere bi se lahko dodelila pomoč, vendar zanje pomoč ni bila dodeljena zaradi omejenosti proračunskih virov tega razpisa, pomoč lahko dodelila le izjemoma.“
Following that decision, the MICA adopted the Decree specifying the maximum limits for grants to promote productive activities in the less-favoured regions of the country referred to in Law No 488/1992 for the regions of Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Apulia, Sardinia and Sicily (misure massime consentite relative alle agevolazioni in favore delle attività produttive nelle aree depresse del Paese di cui alla legge n. 488/1992 per le regioni Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Puglia, Sardegna
Po tej odločbi je MICA sprejelo uredbo z dne 14. julija 2000 o največjih dovoljenih ukrepih glede dotacij za proizvodne dejavnosti v manj razvitih področjih države, ki so predmet zakona �t. 488/1992 za dežele Bazilikata, Kalabrija, Kampanija, Apulija, Sardinija in Sicilija (misure massime consentite relative alle agevolazioni in favore delle attività produttive nelle aree depresse del Paese di cui alla legge n. 488/1992 per le regioni Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Puglia, Sardegna e Sicilia) (GURI �t. 166 z
9), and Circular No 9003 of 14 July 2000 (Ordinary Supplement to GURI No 175 of 28 July 2000), for the purpose of laying down the detailed rules for implementing the 20002006 aid scheme.
9003 z dne 14. julija 2000 (redni dodatek h GURI �t. 175 z dne 28. julija 2000) zaradi določitve podrobnih pravil za izvajanje sheme pomoči 2000–2006.
The first subparagraph of the second paragraph of the sole article to that decree provides that aid may be granted ‘on the basis … of the expenditure held to be eligible under programmes relating to the last appropriate invitation to apply, which have been examined and approved but in respect of which grants were not awarded because the necessary funds were not available’.
Prvi pododstavek odstavka 2 edinega člena te uredbe določa, da je pomoči mogoče odobriti „na podlagi […] izdatkov, ki se jih �teje za upravičene v okviru programov, ki se nana�ajo na zadnji ustrezni razpis, in ki so bili pozitivno ocenjeni, vendar zanje pomoč ni bila dodeljena, ker ni bilo dovolj sredstev“.
On 1 December 1997, the MICA published, under the 1997-1999 aid scheme, the third invitation to apply for aid in the industrial sector, relating to the first semester of 1998 (‘the third invitation to apply’).
MICA je 1. decembra 1997 v okviru sheme pomoči 1997–1999 objavilo tretji razpis za vložitev pro�enj za pomoč v sektorju industrije za prvo polletje 1998 (v nadaljevanju: tretji razpis).
Undertakings having an interest had until 16 March 1998 to lodge their applications for aid.
Zainteresirana podjetja so lahko do 16. marca 1998 vložila pro�nje za pomoč.
They could apply for the funding of expenditure incurred from the day after the expiry of the period for lodging applications under the previous invitation to apply (the second invitation to apply), that is to say, 1 January 1997.
Zaprosila so lahko za financiranje izdatkov, nastalih po dnevu izteka roka za vložitev pro�enj na razpis (drugi razpis), to je od 1. januarja 1997.
On 9 February 1998, Nuova Agricast lodged an application for aid under the third invitation to apply.
Družba Nuova Agricast je 9. februarja 1998 vložila pro�njo za pomoč na podlagi tretjega razpisa.
That application was held to be eligible and was entered in the list of applications for the Apulia Region by Decree of the MICA of 14 August 1998.
Ta pro�nja, ki je bila ocenjena za upravičeno, je bila uvr�čena v tabelo razvrstitve pro�enj za deželo Apulijo z uredbo MICA z dne 14. avgusta 1998.
However, because of the ranking of that application, Nuova Agricast did not obtain the aid applied for since insufficient funds were available.
Vendar pa glede na mesto razvrstitve navedene pro�nje družba Nuova Agricast ni prejela zapro�ene pomoči, ker ni bilo dovolj sredstev.
In the meantime, the fourth invitation to apply for aid in the industrial sector, relating to the second semester of 1998 (‘the fourth invitation to apply’), was published.
Medtem je bil objavljen četrti razpis za vložitev pro�enj za pomoč v sektorju industrije za drugo polletje 1998 (v nadaljevanju: četrti razpis).
On 16 September 1998, Nuova Agricast waived automatic inclusion of its application on the list relating to the fourth invitation to apply, so as to be able to lodge a new, reformulated, application under the next appropriate invitation to apply following that invitation.
Družba Nuova Agricast se je 16. septembra 1998 odrekla samodejni uvrstitvi svoje pro�nje v tabelo, sestavljeno na podlagi četrtega razpisa, da bi lahko ponovno vložila spremenjeno pro�njo na prvi ustrezni razpis po tem razpisu.
However, the Italian authorities published no relevant invitation to apply before 31 December 1999, when the 1997-1999 aid scheme expired.
Vendar pa italijanski organi niso objavili nobenega ustreznega razpisa pred 31. decembrom 1999, ko se je iztekla shema pomoči 1997–1999.
On 14 July 2000, that is to say, after the entry into force of the 20002006 aid scheme, the Italian authorities published the eighth invitation to apply for aid in the industrial sector (‘the eighth invitation to apply’).
Italijanski organi so 14. julija 2000, kar je po tem, ko je začela veljati shema pomoči 2000–2006, objavili osmi razpis za vložitev pro�enj za pomoč v sektorju industrije (v nadaljevanju: osmi razpis).
In the light of the conditions applying under the 20002006 aid scheme, the reformulated application submitted by Nuova Agricast — which was unable to benefit from the transitional provision included in the contested decision — was held to be inadmissible and was not entered on the list relating to the eighth invitation to apply.
Spremenjena pro�nja družbe Nuova Agricast – za katero ni veljala prehodna določba iz sporne odločbe – je bila ob upo�tevanju pogojev, ki so veljali za shemo pomoči 2000–2006, ocenjena za nedopustno in ni bila uvr�čena v tabelo, sestavljeno na podlagi osmega razpisa.
Nuova Agricast, together with other Italian undertakings in the same situation, thereupon brought its first action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, seeking the annulment of the contested decision.
Družba Nuova Agricast je nato skupaj z drugimi italijanskimi podjetji, ki so bila v enakem položaju, pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti vložila prvo tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe.
By order of 15 June 2005 in Case T-98/04 Nuova Agricast and Others v Commission (not published in the European Court Reports), the Court of First Instance dismissed that action as inadmissible, on the ground that it had been brought after the expiry of the period of two months laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je s sklepom z dne 15. junija 2005 v zadevi Nuova Agricast in drugi proti Komisiji (T-98/04, neobjavljen v ZOdl.) tožbo zavrglo kot nedopustno, ker je bila vložena po izteku dvomesečnega roka iz člena 230, peti odstavek, ES.
On 21 September 2005, Nuova Agricast brought a second action before the Court of First Instance, which was registered under number T-362/05, seeking compensation from the Commission in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by it as a result of the adoption of the contested decision.
Družba Nuova Agricast je 21. septembra 2005 pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje vložila drugo tožbo, vpisano pod �tevilko T-362/05, s katero je predlagala, naj se Komisiji naloži povračilo �kode, ki naj bi jo utrpela s sprejetjem sporne odločbe.
Those proceedings are currently pending.
Ta postopek je trenutno v teku.
In addition, Nuova Agricast has brought an action before the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Rome District Court) seeking compensation from the Ministero delle Attività Produttive, which has taken over the responsibilities of the MICA, in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by it by reason of the non-payment of the aid applied for.
Poleg tega je družba Nuova Agricast pri Tribunale ordinario di Roma (redno sodi�če v Rimu) vložila tožbo, s katero je predlagala, naj se ministrstvu za proizvodne dejavnosti, ki je prevzelo pristojnosti MICA, naloži povračilo �kode, ki naj bi jo utrpela, ker ni prejela zapro�ene pomoči.
In those proceedings, Nuova Agricast has claimed in particular that in its discussions with the Commission which led to the renewal of the aid scheme after 31 December 1999, the Italian State failed properly to protect the rights acquired by undertakings which, like Nuova Agricast, had waived automatic inclusion in the list relating to the fourth invitation to apply — which, in the event, was the last invitation to apply in the industrial sector before the expiry of the 1997-1999 aid scheme — in order to lodge a reformulated application under the first appropriate invitation to apply following that invitation.
Družba Nuova Agricast je v tem postopku navedla predvsem to, da italijanska država v pogovorih s Komisijo zaradi podalj�anja sheme pomoči po 31. decembru 1999 ni pravilno varovala pridobljenih pravic podjetij, ki so se, tako kot ona, odrekla samodejni uvrstitvi v tabelo, sestavljeno na podlagi četrtega razpisa – ki se je izkazal za zadnji razpis v sektorju industrije pred iztekom sheme pomoči 1997–1999 –, da bi vložila spremenjeno pro�njo na prvi ustrezni razpis po tem razpisu.
The Italian State misled the Commission by failing to inform it that those undertakings were also the holders of acquired rights, and in so doing it infringed the legitimate expectation which those undertakings had that they would be able to lodge a reformulated application.
Italijanska država naj bi namreč Komisijo spravila v zmoto, s tem da je ni obvestila, da so imela tudi ta podjetja pridobljene pravice, in je s tem �kodovala legitimnemu pričakovanju, ki so ga imela navedena podjetja glede možnosti vložitve spremenjene pro�nje.
The national court is of the opinion that Nuova Agricast had a ‘relevant legal interest’ in having its amended application entered on the list relating to the first appropriate invitation to apply following the invitation in respect of which it waived its right to automatic inclusion of its original application.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da je imela družba Nuova Agricast „ustrezen pravni interes“, da se njena spremenjena pro�nja uvrsti v tabelo, sestavljeno na podlagi prvega ustreznega razpisa po razpisu, na katerem se je odrekla samodejni uvrstitvi prve pro�nje.
As a result, the legitimate expectation of Nuova Agricast was definitively frustrated by the contested decision, since that decision amended the 20002006 aid scheme by comparison with the 1997-1999 aid scheme by providing that only expenditure for implementing approved projects incurred after the lodging of the application was
Sporna odločba naj bi zato dokončno ukinila legitimno pričakovanje družbe Nuova Agricast, saj je spremenila shemo pomoči 2000–2006 v primerjavi s shemo pomoči 1997–1999, s tem da je določila, da so upravičeni le izdatki za izvedbo podprtih