natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the 19th January, the Commission decided that a German aid scheme(329) for the construction and development of regional airports in structurally weak regions is compatible with EU state aid rules. e scheme allows for grants which are used only for investment costs in airport infrastructure that are open to all potential users on equal terms.
Komisija je 19. januarja odločila, da je nemška shema pomoči(329) za izgradnjo in razvoj regionalnih letališč v strukturno šibkejših območjih združljiva s pravili EU o državni pomoči. Shema omogoča subvencije, ki se porabijo samo za naložbene stroške v letališko infrastrukturo in ki so pod enakimi pogoji dostopne vsem morebitnim uporabnikom.
However, no cost for the daily operational activity of the airport is eligible for nancial support, nor may any specic investments by an air carrier that uses the airport in question be funded under the scheme.
Vendar do finančne pomoči niso upravičeni stroški vsakodnevne operativne dejavnosti letališča, po tej shemi pa se tudi ne morejo financirati posebne naložbe s strani letalskih prevoznikov, ki uporabljajo zadevno letališče.
On the 20th April, the Commission considered, in particular, that the amount of public contributions and the choice of a commercial partner were nally determined by means of an open and non-discriminatory public tendering procedure, which respected the principle of equal treatment between competitors and ensured that the level of public participation is limited to the minimum necessary.
Komisija je 20. aprila zlasti menila, da sta bila znesek javnih prispevkov in izbira gospodarskega partnerja dokončno določena na podlagi odprtega in nediskriminatornega postopka javnega razpisa, pri katerem se je upoštevalo načelo enakega obravnavanja konkurenčnih ponudnikov in zagotovilo, da je raven javne udeležbe omejena na potrebni minimum.
Case C 11/2004.Case N 644i/2002 — Germany, Commission decision of 19.1.2005.Case N 355/2004 — Belgium, Commission decision of 20.4.2005.
Zadeva C 11/2004.Zadeva N 644i/2002, Nemčija, Odločba Komisije z dne 19.1.2005.Zadeva N 355/2004, Belgija, Odločba Komisije z dne 20.4.2005.
During 2005, the Enforcement Unit in the Competition DG continued to monitor the measures taken by the Member States to execute the Commission’s recovery decisions. e number of recovery decisions still awaiting execution fell from 94 on the 31st De- cember 2004 to 75 on the 31st December 2005.
Enota za izvrševanje v GD za konkurenco je tudi leta 2005 spremljala ukrepe, ki so jih države članice sprejele za izvajanje odločb o vračilu Komisije. Število odločb o vračilu, ki jih je še potrebno izvršiti, se je od 31. decembra 2004 do 31. decembra 2005 znižalo s 94 na 75.
In the course of 2005, the Commission adopted 12 new recovery decisions.
Leta 2005 je Komisija sprejela 12 novih odločb o vračilu državne pomoči.
Taken together, Spain, Italy and France account for a further 53 % of all the pending recovery cases. ere are no pending cases in 16 of the Member States.
Španija, Italija in Francija imajo skupaj nadaljnjih 53 % vseh nerešenih zadev o vračilu. V 16 državah članicah ni nerešenih zadev.
Information provided by the Member States concerned shows that substantial amounts of illegal and incompatible aid have been recovered in recent years.
Podatki, ki so jih predložile zadevne države članice, kažejo na to, da so bile v zadnjih letih povrnjene znatne količine nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči.
In 2005, the Commission received information documenting recovery of signicant amounts related to a limited number of recently adopted decisions such as the decisions concerning German Landesbanks and Bull. ese developments have contributed to a signicant improvement in the overall recovery statistics.
Leta 2005 je Komisija prejela podatke, ki dokazujejo vračilo znatnih zneskov, povezanih z omejenim številom nedavno sprejetih odločb, kot sta odločbi o nemških deželnih bankah (Landesbanken) in družbi Bull. Ti dosežki so prispevali k znatnemu izboljšanju skupne statistike vračil.
Of the EUR 8.6 billion of aid to be recovered under decisions adopted since 2000, some EUR 8.2 billion (a principal amount of EUR 6.0 billion and almost EUR 2.2 billion interest) had been eectively recovered by the end of 2005.
Od 8,6 milijard EUR pomoči, ki jih je treba povrniti na podlagi odločb, sprejetih po letu 2000, je bilo do konca leta 2005 uspešno povrnjenih približno 8,2 milijarde EUR (glavnica v višini 6,0 milijard EUR in skoraj 2,2 milijarde EUR obresti).
Excluding interest, this represents 71 % of the total amount to be recovered(331).
Brez obresti to pomeni 71 % skupnega zneska, ki ga je treba povrniti(331).
In the course of 2005, the Commission ensured a close and consistent administrative follow-up of all pending recovery decisions to ensure their eective implementation.
V letu 2005 je Komisija omogočila tesno in dosledno upravno spremljanje vseh nerešenih odločb o vračilu, da bi tako zagotovila njihovo učinkovito izvajanje.
On the 19th January(333), the Commission decided to refer Italy to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for failure to comply with a decision of the 5th June 2002.
Komisija se je 19. januarja(333) odločila, da bo zoper Italijo vložila tožbo pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti, ker ni upoštevala odločbe z dne 5. junija 2002.
III — State aid control e decision provided that aid granted by Italy to public service companies was incompatible and had to be recovered from the recipients.
Odločba je določala, da je pomoč, ki jo je Italija dodelila podjetjem za javne storitve, nezdružljiva in da jo morajo prejemniki vrniti.
Two years aer the adoption of the decision, the Commission concluded that Italy had not taken any eective measures under national law to obtain immediate recovery of the aid.
Dve leti po sprejetju odločbe je Komisija ugotovila, da Italija ni sprejela nobenih učinkovitih ukrepov na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje, da bi dosegla takojšnje vračilo pomoči.
On the 16th February, the Commission found that Germany had not fully complied with the recovery decision of the 30th October 2002 regarding aid granted to Ger- man porcelain manufacturer Kahla Porzellan GmbH and its successor company Kahla/üringen Porzellan GmbH.
Komisija je 16. februarja ugotovila, da Nemčija ni ravnala popolnoma v skladu z odločbo o vračilu z dne 30. oktobra 2002 o pomoči, dodeljeni nemškemu proizvajalcu porcelana Kahla Porzellan GmbH in njegovi družbi naslednici Kahla/üringen Porzellan GmbH.
It considered that Germany had failed to seek the recovery of part of the amount of illegal and incompatible aid specied in the decision.
Komisija je menila, da Nemčija ni zahtevala vračila dela zneska nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči, določenega v odločbi.
Urgent employment measures (Italy)(335
Nujni ukrepi na področju zaposlovanja (Italija)(335
On the 6th April, the Commission decided to refer Italy to the ECJ for failure to comply with a recovery decision of the 30th March 2004. e decision found that the
Komisija se je 6. aprila odločila, da bo zoper Italijo vložila tožbo pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti, ker ta ni upoštevala odločbe o vračilu z dne 30. marca 2004.
Italian aid scheme for companies acquiring companies in liquidation was contrary to the state aid rules and that the aid in question had to be recovered from the recipients. e scheme was aimed at protecting employment in large companies in diculties by granting a reduction in social security contributions.
V odločbi je Komisija ugotovila, da je italijanska shema pomoči za gospodarske družbe, ki prevzemajo podjetja v likvidaciji, v nasprotju s pravili o državni pomoči in da je omenjeno pomoč potrebno izterjati od prejemnikov. Shema je bila namenjena zaščiti delovnih mest v velikih podjetjih v težavah, tako da je odobrila določeno znižanje prispevkov za socialno varstvo.
One year aer the adoption of the recovery decision, Italy had not yet informed the Commission of any measures taken to comply with it.
Leto po sprejetju odločbe o vračilu Italija Komisije še ni obvestila o kakršnih koli ukrepih, ki jih je sprejela za upoštevanje te odločbe.
Basque fiscal scheme (Spain)(336
Baskovska davčna ureditev (Španija)(336
On the 20th December, the Commission decided to refer Spain to the Court of Justice for failure to comply with three recovery decisions concerning a Basque fiscal scheme. ese recovery decisions found that the Basque fiscal scheme providing a 10-year corporate tax exemption for newly created firms was contrary to the state aid rules.
Komisija se je 20. decembra odločila, da bo zoper Španijo vložila tožbo pred Sodiščem, ker ni upoštevala treh odločb o vračilu v zvezi z baskovsko davčno ureditvijo. Odločbe o vračilu so določale, da je baskovska davčna ureditev, ki predvideva desetletno oprostitev plačila davka na dohodek pravnih oseb za novoustanovljena podjetja, v nasprotju s pravili o državni pomoči.
Four years aer the adoption of the three decisions, there is still no indication that Spain has taken any concrete measures to put an end to the scheme in question or to recover the illegal and incompatible aid already granted.
Štiri leta po sprejetju treh odločb še vedno ni znakov, da bi Španija sprejela kakršne koli konkretne ukrepe za ukinitev sporne sheme ali izterjavo nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči, ki je bila že dodeljena.
Report on Competition Policy 2005 ity of Rome(338).
Komisija je leta 2003 na podlagi sodne prakse Deggendorf uvedla postopek iz člena 88(2) glede projekta daljinskega ogrevanja v okolici Rima, ker je bil upravičenec podjetje ACEA, ki ga nadzira rimska občina(338).
In the meantime, ACEA had organised and created a joint venture with the Belgian company Electrabel, called AceaElectrabel.
V tem času je ACEA z belgijsko druž- bo Electrabel ustanovila in vzpostavila skupno podjetje pod imenom AceaElectrabel.
On the 16th March, the Commission decided to close the procedure with a decision conrming that the measure constitutes compatible aid, and that the recipient remains the same as in the Municipalizzate case, even if there is a partial change in the recipient’s identity. e positive decision was taken on the condition that the aid can be granted only aer the recovery of the aid which had been declared illegal and incompatible.
Komisija se je 16. marca odločila, da konča postopek z odločbo, s katero je potrdila, da ukrep pomeni združljivo pomoč in da je prejemnik še naprej isti kot v primeru „municipalizzate“, čeprav je naziv prejemnika deloma spremenjen. Pozitivna odločba je bila sprejeta pod pogojem, da se pomoč lahko dodeli samo po vračilu pomoči, ki je bila razglašena za nezakonito in nezdružljivo.
In August, AceaElectrabel Produzione decided to appeal against this decision before the CFI.
Avgusta se je družba AceaElectrabel Produzione odločila, da se bo zoper to odločbo pritožila pred Sodiščem prve stopnje.
D SELECTED COURT CASES
D IZBRANE SODNE ZADEVE
Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant, a body responsible for collecting waste, had to pay a tax each time waste was delivered to a processing facility.
Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant, podjetje za zbiranje odpadkov, je moralo plačati davek ob vsaki dostavi odpadkov v predelovalno napravo.
It requested a refund of the amount paid on the ground that the tax was levied in breach of the standstill obligation in Article 88(3). e amendments to the law imposing the tax and the exemption from it entered into force before the Commission had approved them.
Zahtevalo je vračilo plačanega zneska z obrazložitvijo, da je bil davek odmerjen v nasprotju z obveznostjo mirovanja iz člena 88(3). Spremembe zakona o davku in oprostitev njegovega plačila so začele veljati, preden jih je Komisija odobrila.
However, aer an investigation of these measures, the Commission concluded that no aid elements were incompatible with the common market.
Vendar je Komisija po preiskavi teh ukrepov sklenila, da nobeden od elementov pomoči ni nezdružljiv s skupnim trgom.
In its judgment of the 13th January on the preliminary questions put by the national court seized of the matter, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that taxes did not fall within the scope of the state aid provisions unless they constituted the method of nancing an aid measure, so that they formed an integral part of that measure. is close relationship and mutual dependence (hypothecation) exist only if the revenue from the tax is necessarily allocated to the nancing of the aid.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v svoji sodbi z dne 13. januarja o predhodnih vprašanjih nacionalnega sodišča, ki mu je bila predložena zadeva, ugotovilo, da davki ne sodijo na področje uporabe določb o državni pomoči, razen če pomenijo način nanci-ranja ukrepa pomoči, tako da so sestavni del tega ukrepa. Takšen tesen odnos in medsebojna odvisnost (namenskost porabe) sta mogoča samo, če se prihodki od davka nujno namenijo za nanciranje pomoči.
In the case of such a link, the notication must also cover the method of nancing and then the tax itself is covered by the prohibition on implementation.
Če takšna povezava obstaja, mora priglasitev zajemati tudi način financiranja, in nato za sam davek velja prepoved izvajanja.
Individuals can rely on the direct eect of this article before national courts not only if they are aected by the distortion of competition, but also simply to obtain a refund of a tax levied in
Posamezniki se lahko pred nacionalnimi sodišči oprejo na neposredni učinek tega člena, ne samo če jih prizadene izkrivljanje konkurence, ampak tudi preprosto zato, da se jim povrne davek,
See Case CR 27/1999 referred to in point 629.Case C-174/2002 Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant.
Zadeva C 35/2003, Lacij – Zmanjševanje emisij toplogrednih plinov.Glej zadevo CR 27/1999, omenjeno v točki 629.Zadeva C-174/02, Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant.
III — State aid control breach of that provision, provided of course that the individual was subject to a tax implemented in breach of the Treaty.
III – Nadzor državnih pomoči odmerjen v nasprotju s to določbo, seveda pod pogojem, da je posameznik moral plačati davek, ki se je izvajal v nasprotju s Pogodbo.
In accordance with its findings in the Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant case discussed above, the ECJ examined in the F.J. Pape case whether the tax in question formed an integral part of an aid measure.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v skladu s svojimi ugotovitvami v zgoraj opisani zadevi Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant v zadevi F.J. Pape preučilo, ali je davek sestavni del ukrepa pomoči.
In its judgment of the 13th January, the Court of First Instance (CFI) annulled the Commission decision of the 15th January 2002 declaring aid granted by France to
Sodišče prve stopnje je v svoji sodbi z dne 13. januarja razveljavilo odločbo Komisije z dne 15. januarja 2002, s katero je razglasila, da je pomoč, ki jo je Francija dodelila Crédit Mutuel, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom. Pomoč je bila dodeljena v obliki zbiranja in upravljanja reguliranih prihrankov po sistemu „Livret Bleu“.
First of all, the CFI stated that the designation of the aid in the operative part of the decision did not enable the persons concerned to identify the state measures held by the Commission to constitute aid.
Prvič, Sodišče prve stopnje je navedlo, da opredelitev pomoči v izreku odločbe zainteresiranim strankam ni omogočila seznanitve z državnimi ukrepi, za katere je Komisija ugotovila, da pomenijo pomoč.
Secondly, as the operative part of the decision and the statement of reasons constitute an indivisible whole, the CFI looked at the other parts of the decision, and in particular at the analysis of the conditions of Article 87(1).
Drugič, ker sta izrek odločbe in utemeljitev nerazdružljiva celota, so Sodišče prve stopnje zanimali drugi deli odločbe, še zlasti analiza pogojev iz člena 87(1).
It concluded that the other parts of the decision did not provide sucient reasons regarding the identication of the measures treated as aid.
Sklenilo je, da v drugih delih odločbe ni zadostnih razlogov glede opredelitve ukrepov, obravnavanih kot pomoč.
In this case, Belgium was seeking the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 concerning the application of Articles 87 and 88 EC to state aid for employment. e ECJ in its judgment of the 14th April rejected the appeal by Belgium,
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v svoji sodbi z dne 14. aprila zavrnilo pritožbo Belgije, podprlo Uredbo Komisije in podalo naslednje ugotovitve o pooblastilih Komisije in Sveta na področju državnih pomoči.
Report on Competition Policy 2005 upheld the Commission regulation and made the following statements concerning the respective powers of the Commission and the Council in the field of state aid.
Poročilo o politiki konkurence za leto 2005
645. e ECJ stated that the Commission did not exceed its powers by dening compatibility criteria for state aid. e Commission did not have to conne itself to simple codication of its previous practice, but was allowed to use its experience to lay down new compatibility criteria, including even stricter criteria than the existing ones. e Council, by means of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98, conferred on the Commission the power to declare that certain categories of aid were compatible with the common market and were not subject to the obligation of notication.
Komisiji se ni bilo treba omejiti na preprosto ko-dikacijo njene prejšnje prakse, ampak ji je bilo dovoljeno, da na podlagi svojih izkušenj določi nova merila združljivosti, ki so lahko celo strožja od obstoječih. Svet je z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 994/98 Komisijo pooblastil za ugotavljanje, da so nekatere kategorije pomoči združljive s skupnim trgom in zanje ne velja obveznost priglasitve.
But this regulation did not confer on the Commission any power to interpret Article 87(1) and to impose a general and binding denition of the concept of state aid as laid down in Article 87(1).
Vendar Komisija s to uredbo ni bila pooblaščena za razlago člena 87(1) ter določitev splošne in zavezujoče opredelitve pojma državne pomoči, kot je določen v členu 87(1).
In the case in question, the applicant, Sniace, a Spanish company producing arti-cial and synthetic fibres, challenged a Commission decision allowing Austria to grant aid to the company Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co. KG (LLG). 647. e CFI emphasised that a competitor, in order to challenge a decision by the Commission, has to show that it is individually concerned by the decision.
V tej zadevi je tožeča stranka, Sniace, španska družba za proizvodnjo umetnih in sintetičnih vlaken, izpodbijala odločbo Komisije, ki je Avstriji dovoljevala dodelitev pomoči za družbo Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co. KG (LLG). 647. Sodišče prve stopnje je poudarilo, da mora konkurent, ki želi izpodbijati odločbo Komisije, dokazati, da ga odločba posamično zadeva.
• first, the role of the competitor in the pre-litigation procedure: Sniace played only a minor role in the pre-litigation procedure, as it lodged no complaint with the Commission and the conduct of the procedure was not largely determined by its submissions;
• najprej vloga konkurenta v predhodnem postopku: Sniace je imel v predhodnem postopku le obrobno vlogo, saj se ni nikoli pritožil Komisiji in njegove ugotovitve niso vplivale na potek postopka;
• second, the evidence adduced by the applicant to show that the decision might aect its position on the market: the CFI noted that the applicant did not operate on the same market as LLG nor did it intend operating on the same market in the future; furthermore, the applicant could not establish suciently that the contested decision could signicantly aect its position on the market since its statements were based on completely unsupported assumptions lacking evidence and giving no indication of losses or negative consequences suered.
• drugič, dokazi, ki jih je tožeča stranka predložila, da bi pokazala, da odločba lahko vpliva na njen položaj na trgu; Sodišče prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da tožeča stranka ni delovala na istem trgu kot LGG, pa tudi v prihodnje ni predvidela delovanja na istem trgu; poleg tega tožeča stranka ni v zadostni meri dokazala, da bi sporna odločba lahko bistveno vplivala na njen položaj na trgu, saj so njene trditve temeljile na povsem neutemeljenih domnevah brez dokazov in navedenih izgub ali negativnih posledic, ki jih je utrpela.
By its judgment of the 10th May in this case, the ECJ partly annulled the Commission decision of the 6th August 1999 initiating proceedings concerning state aid
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je s sodbo v tej zadevi z dne 10. maja delno razveljavilo odločbo Komisije z dne 6. avgusta 1999 o uvedbi postopka v zvezi z državno pomočjo, dodeljeno podjetjem v skupini Tirrenia di Navigazione.
III — State aid control granted to undertakings in the Tirrenia di Navigazione group.
III – Nadzor državnih pomoči
First, concerning the possibility for the Commission to order the suspension of new aid measures, this suspension should be preceded by an opportunity for the Member State to discuss all the measures and to submit comments.
Prvič, kar zadeva možnost Komisije, da odredi ukinitev novih ukrepov pomoči, bi takšna ukinitev morala slediti možnosti držav članic, da obravnavajo vse ukrepe in predložijo pripombe.
In the case at issue, the Commission did not discuss with the Italian authorities the tax treatment which the Tirrenia group beneted from for supplies of fuel and lubricating oil for its vessels. e ECJ therefore concluded that the Commission decision should be partly annulled to the extent to which it entailed suspension of this specic aid measure.
V obravnavani zadevi Komisija z italijanskimi organi oblasti ni razpravljala o davčni obravnavi, katere ugodnost je skupina Tirrenia uživala pri dobavi goriva in mazalnega olja za svoje ladje. Sodišče je zato sklenilo, da je treba odločbo Komisije delno razveljaviti v delu, v katerem je povzročila ukinitev tega posebnega ukrepa pomoči.
Second, on the alleged misuse of powers by the Commission, the ECJ indicated that a misuse of powers could only be established if there were clear doubts that the measures constituted existing aid or measures not incorporating any element of aid.
Drugič, Sodišče je v zvezi z domnevno zlorabo pooblastil s strani Komisije navedlo, da se zloraba pooblastil lahko dokaže samo, če se očitno dvomi, da ukrepi pomenijo obstoječo pomoč ali ukrepe, ki ne vključujejo nobenih elementov pomoči.
In the case in question, the suspension of the measures, classied as new aid measures, did not entail a misuse of powers.
V sporni zadevi ukinitev ukrepov, ki so bili uvrščeni med nove ukrepe pomoči, ni pomenila zlorabe pooblastil.
Finally, the ECJ examined whether the Commission was right in qualifying the measures as new aid in the opening decision. e ECJ first stated that it was the responsibility of the Member State, which considered that the aid in question was existing aid, to provide the Commission at the earliest possible stage with the information on which that position was based, as soon as the Commission drew its attention to the measures concerned.
Nazadnje je Sodišče preučilo, ali je Komisija ravnala prav, ko je v odločbi o uvedbi postopka te ukrepe označila za novo pomoč. Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je najprej navedlo, da bi morala država članica, ki je menila, da je sporna pomoč obstoječa pomoč, Komisiji čim prej, takoj ko je Komisija opozorila na zadevne ukrepe, zagotoviti podatke, na katerih je temeljilo takšno stališče.
Commission v Greece(
Komisija proti Grčiji(
On the 11th December 2002, the Commission took a decision declaring restructuring aid to Olympic Airways to be illegal and incompatible.
Komisija je 11. decembra 2002 sprejela odločbo, s katero je pomoč za prestrukturiranje za Olympic Airways razglasila za nezakonito in nezdružljivo. Posledično je Grčiji odredila izterjavo pomoči.
Some preliminary measures were taken by Greece to recover the aid.
Grčija je sprejela nekaj predhodnih ukrepov za izterjavo pomoči.