natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Nogle af tredjemændene, der præsenterer sig som eksportgrossister eller som eksportboghandlere, giver udtryk for, at støtten var utilstrækkelig til at opfylde efterspørgslen, uden dog at fremlægge relevante oplysninger til underbygning af disse påstande.
Some third parties, exporting wholesalers or exporting booksellers, point out that the aid was not appropriate for satisfying demand, though no relevant information in support of these claims was produced.
Endelig anførte nogle af tredjemændene, at CELF nød godt af fordele i kraft af virksomhedens særlige forhold til visse offentlige instanser såsom »France édition«.
Lastly, some third parties claimed that CELF benefited from the privileged relations it maintained with certain public organisations, such as France édition.
Især Hexalivre kritiserede holdningen hos »France édition«, som gav CELF en fortrinsbehandling ved at give virksomheden adgang til sin stand på internationale messer, hvilket man nægtede Hexalivre.
Hexalivre, in particular, criticised the attitude of France édition, which, it said, had given CELF special treatment by allowing it access to its stand at international fairs, which it refuses to do for Hexalivre.
Kommissionen har kunnet konstatere, og dette fremgår også af dokumenterne fra de franske myndigheder, at CELF, som er medlem af »France édition«, både har betalt for leje af plads på »France Edition«'s stand og for at komme med i kataloger, som bestiltes hos »France édition«.
The Commission has been able to establish, as the documents communicated by the French authorities testify, that CELF, which is a member of France édition, paid both for the space rental on France édition's stand and for the catalogues it ordered from that organisation.
Under alle omstændigheder vedrørte denne type af forbindelser på ingen måde de offentlige myndigheder, hvilket de franske myndigheder har beskrevet.
In any event, as the French authorities have noted, this type of relation in no way concerns the public authorities.
Men eftersom disse aspekter ikke var indeholdt i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren af 30. juli 1996, vedrører de imidlertid ikke problemstillingen om de »små ordrer«.
However, as these factors did not figure in the decision to initiate proceedings of 30 July 1996, they have no bearing on the ‘small orders’ problem.
Derfor udtaler Kommissionen sig ikke om dette spørgsmål i forbindelse med nærværende procedure.
Consequently, the Commission will not give an opinion on this question in the present proceedings.
De franske myndigheder bebrejdes ligeledes, at de favoriserer CELF gennem offentlige ordrer.
The French authorities are also accused of favouring CELF through public procurement.
Disse påstande vedrører navnlig støtten til iværksættelse af programmer for nyudgivelser, som forvaltes af udenrigsministeriet, og ordrer fra sammenslutninger med tilknytning til dette ministerium og til ministeriet for udviklingssamarbejde (som l'Association pour le développement de la pensée française (ADPF) og l'Association pour le développement de l'enseignement et de la culture en Afrique et à Madagascar (l'AUDECAM).
These claims relate in particular to the assistance granted for implementing the ‘Nouveautés’ programme administered by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the impact of orders placed by associations linked to that Ministry and the Ministry for Cooperation (such as the Association pour le développement de la pensée française (ADPF) and the Association pour le développement de l'enseignement et de la culture en Afrique et à Madagascar (Audecam).
Eftersom disse aspekter ikke var indeholdt i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren af 30. juli 1996, vedrører de imidlertid ikke problemstillingen om de »små ordrer«.
As these factors did not figure in the decision to initiate the proceeding of 30 July 1996, they have no bearing on the problem of small orders.
Endelig anfægter SIDE »hele støttekomplekset, som ikke kun CELF, men også andre organisationer, der ligesom CELF består af forlag og offentlige myndigheder, nyder godt af i største lukkethed«, og de offentlige myndigheders kulturpolitik i almindelighed.
Lastly, SIDE objects to ‘the complex bundle of aid benefiting not only CELF but also various organisations bringing together, like CELF, publishers and public authorities in the greatest obscurity’ and the cultural policy of the public authorities generally.
Som støtte for sine argumenter fremlægger SIDE ligeledes en beretning fra den franske revisionsret fra november 1996.
In support of its claims, SIDE produces in particular a report by the Cour des comptes from November 1996.
Kommissionen bemærker, at beretningen især indeholder generel kritik af måden, hvorpå kulturstøtten udbetales i Frankrig.
The Commission notes that the report basically contains general criticisms of the way cultural aid was awarded in France.
Den indeholder ingen bemærkninger vedrørende støtten til CELF til ekspedition af små ordrer.
It contains nothing about the aid granted to CELF for the processing of small orders.
CELF nævnes, men udelukkende i forbindelse med »Programme page à page« og operationen »programme plus«, programmer, som blev godkendt af Retten i dennes afgørelse af 18. september 1995 [45].
CELF is mentioned, but only in connection with the programme Page à page and the Programme Plus operation, which were approved by the Court of First Instance in its judgment of 18 September 1995 [45].
I denne situation finder Kommissionen ikke, at konklusionerne i revisionsrettens beretning kan anvendes til Kommissionens vurdering i forbindelse med nærværende procedure.
In the circumstances, the Commission considers that the conclusions of the Cour des comptes' report are not likely to help its assessment in these proceedings.
Under alle omstændigheder var SIDE's generelle kritik af den franske politik vedrørende kulturstøtte ikke indeholdt i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren af 30. juli 1996 om de »små ordrer«.
In any event, SIDE's general criticisms of French cultural aid policy were not included in the decision to initiate proceedings of 30 July 1996 with regard to the Small Orders programme.
Derfor udtaler Kommissionen sig ikke om dette spørgsmål i forbindelse med nærværende procedure.
Consequently, the Commission will not give its views on this question in these proceedings.
Svar på SIDE's tilhørende anbringender
Reply concerning SIDE's related claims
I løbet af den første fase af undersøgelsesproceduren vedrørende støtten havde SIDE rejst en række specifikke spørgsmål vedrørende kapitaltilførslen til CELF og de fordele, som virksomheden nød godt af takket være »forvaltningen af offentlige programmer«.
In the first stage of the aid procedure, SIDE raised certain specific questions about the recapitalisation of CELF and the advantages it would receive from ‘administering public programmes’.
SIDE anfægter ligeledes en hel række specifikke fordele i forbindelse med CELF's særlige forhold til de offentlige myndigheder.
SIDE also challenged a whole series of specific advantages, linked to the preferential relations which CELF allegedly maintains with the public authorities.
Kapitaltilførsel til CELF i 1980
Recapitalisation of CELF in 1980
Det skal bemærkes, at CELF's kapital i 1980 blev forhøjet fra 80500 FRF til 1280500 FRF.
It will be noted that CELF's capital was raised in 1980 from FRF 80500 to FRF 1280500.
Denne operation blev finansieret af (ADEF) (med 50 %) på denne ene side og af (private) aktionærer i CELF på den anden (med 50 %).
The operation was financed by ADEF to the tune of 50 % and by the (private) shareholders of CELF, also to the tune of 50 %.
ADEF bestod af en række forlag, og sammenslutningens hovedformål var at fremme fransk litteraturs tilstedeværelse i udlandet og yde støtte til investeringer foretaget af forlag eller eksportører.
The main objective of ADEF, which brought a number of publishers together, was to promote the presence of French books abroad and to support investments made by publishers or exporters.
Sammenslutningen modtog et bidrag fra staten, som blev tildelt af kulturministeriet.
The Association received a public grant from the Ministry of Culture.
Efter at have analyseret dokumentationen fra de franske myndigheder er Kommissionen nået frem til den konklusion, at den omtvistede kapitalforøgelse ikke er statsstøtte, men blot en kapitaldeltagelse.
Having analysed the documentation submitted by the French authorities, the Commission has reached the conclusion that the disputed capital increase did not constitute State aid but simply the acquisition of a holding.
Det anfægtes ikke og kan ikke anfægtes, at private investorer har deltaget i oprettelsen af virksomheden i dens nuværende form.
It is not, and cannot be, disputed that private investors participated in setting up the company in its present form.
Kulturministeriet har ikke deltaget i CELF's kapital, og ADEF, en sammenslutning, som ganske vist delvis finansieres af staten, har imidlertid optrådt som privat investor i en markedsøkonomisk sammenhæng.
The Ministry of Culture, did not contribute to CELF's capital, and ADEF, an association that is admittedly financed in part by the state, always acted like a private investor in a market economy.
ADEF's deltagelse er rent faktisk i fuld overensstemmelse med punkt 3.2, tredje led, i Kommissionens meddelelse om anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 92 og 93 på offentlige myndigheders kapitalinteresser [46].
ADEF's subscription fully satisfies point 3(2)(iii) of the Commission's notice on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty to public authorities' holdings [46].
Operationen indeholdt dermed ikke elementer af statsstøtte i henhold til traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
Accordingly, the transaction contained no element of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Denne kapitaltilførsel var desuden sket for mere end 10 år siden, da SIDE sendte sit første brev til Kommissionen, den 20. marts 1992, og da Kommissionen bad de franske myndigheder om oplysninger ved brev af 2. april 1992.
Moreover, the recapitalisation had already taken place more than 10 years before SIDE sent its first letter to the Commission, dated 20 March 1992, and before the Commission asked the French authorities for information by letter dated 2 April 1992.
Derfor og i overensstemmelse med artikel 15 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 af 22. marts 1999 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 93 [47], kan Kommissionen i givet fald ikke give ordre til at inddrive kapitaltilførslen, selv om der er tale om statsstøtte.
Consequently, and in accordance with Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [47], the Commission could not, if appropriate, order the recovery of the capital increase, even if State aid were involved.
Kapitaltilførsel til CELF via ADEF i 1993
Recapitalisation of CELF via ADEF in 1993
SIDE anfægter ligeledes støtte, som man mener blev tildelt CELF via en aktieoverdragelse i 1993 til SNE, som er samarbejdspartner med CELF.
SIDE also objects to aid which was granted to CELF in 1993 via a sale of shares in ADEF to SNE, which is a collaborator of CELF.
I sine bemærkninger af 5. december 2003 gør SIDE Kommissionen opmærksom på, at den i henhold til skriftlig dokumentation, som man fremlagde på mødet den 4. juli 2001, skal udtale sig om støtte, som ifølge SIDE blev tildelt CELF ved opløsningen af ADEF i juni 1993.
In its comments of 5 December 2003, SIDE remarked to the Commission that, in accordance with the written evidence it had deposed at the hearing on 4 July 2001, the Commission should give its opinion on the aid which, according to SIDE, had been granted to CELF when ADEF was wound up in June 1993.
Kommissionen præciserer, at dette punkt ikke var indeholdt i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren af 30. juli 1996.
The Commission notes that this point was not covered by the decision to initiate proceedings of 30 July 1996.
Derfor udtaler Kommissionen sig ikke om dette spørgsmål i forbindelse med nærværende procedure.
Consequently, it will not give its opinion on the question under the present proceedings.
CELF's fordele i forbindelse med »forvaltning af offentlige programmer«
Advantages to CELF associated with the ‘administration of public programmes’
SIDE forklarer, at CELF har kunnet opretholde sin tilstedeværelse på markedet og fortsat kunnet yde samme type rabat til sine kunder, efter at »Programme petites commandes« var afskaffet, idet CELF fortsat modtager flere offentlige tilskud gennem programmer som »A l'Est de l'Europe«, som har afløst programmet »Page à page«, eller»Programme plus«, som modtager stadig flere midler.
SIDE explains that CELF has been able to maintain its presence in the market and continue to grant the same type of discount to its customers after the abolition of the Small Orders programme, since it continues to receive many public grants through programmes such as A l'est de l'Europe, which superseded the programme Page à page, or Programme Plus, to which constantly increasing funds are allocated.
Der erindres om, at disse programmer, som Kommissionen allerede godkendte i sin beslutning af 18. maj 1993, ligeledes blev godkendt af Retten i afgørelsen af 18. september 1995 [48].
It should be pointed out that these programmes, which had already been approved by the Commission in its decision of 18 May 1993, were also confirmed by the CFI in its judgment of 18 September 1995 [48].
Der følger heraf, at disse aspekter ikke var indeholdt i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren af 30. juli 1986.
It follows that these aspects were not reported in the decision to initiate proceedings of 30 July 1986.
Støtten til små ordrer kunne ikke påvirke samhandelen og konkurrencesituationen i Fællesskabet i et omfang, der strider mod de fælles interesser.
The aid for small orders was not such as to adversely affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that is contrary to the common interest
En støtteordning for en aktivitet, som branchen havde opgivet
A mechanism intended to promote an activity abandoned by the publishing trade
»Programme petites commandes« blev oprettet af kulturministeriet i 1980 på et tidspunkt, hvor branchen (Groupe Hachette og les Messageries du livre) ønskede at forlade markedet for eksportagenturer.
The Small Orders programme was designed in 1980 by the Ministry of Culture, at a time when the industry (Groupe Hachette and Messageries du livre) wanted to quit the export agency market.
Den anfægtede ordning blev indført for at tilskynde de erhvervsdrivende til at gå ind på markedet, således at alle ordrer på fransksprogede bøger fra boghandlere i ikke-fransktalende områder, kunne efterkommes.
The disputed mechanism was introduced to encourage operators to become involved in the market, so that all orders for French-language books from bookshops in non-French-speaking areas could be met.
Kommissionen konstaterer i første omgang i overensstemmelse med nogle af tredjemændenes udtalelser i sagsforløbet, at »programme petites commandes«, som rent faktisk ledsagede CELF's oprettelse i den nuværende form, var velkendt inden for branchen, hvor det, i det mindste som udgangspunkt, blev vel modtaget [49] eller i det mindste ikke anfægtet, dog uden at man derfor søgte om støtte under programmet.
The Commission finds firstly, in agreement with some of the comments from third parties intervening in the proceedings, that the Small Orders programme, which was in fact launched when CELF was set up in its current form, was known to practitioners, which at least initially welcomed it [49], or at the very least did not call it into question, without however applying for it themselves.
SIDE fastholder for sin del, at »Programme petites commandes« udelukkende var forbeholdt CELF.
SIDE maintains, for its part, that the Small Orders programme was reserved exclusively for CELF.
Dette bekræftes ifølge SIDE af kulturministeriets afvisning i 1991.
The rejection it received from the Ministry of Culture in 1991, in its view, confirmed this.
Samtidig anfægter SIDE ikke, at afvisningen af støtteansøgningen skyldtes, at SIDE afviste at underkaste sig de åbenhedskrav, som var en forudsætning for at kunne modtage støtten.
At the same time, SIDE did not dispute that its application for aid was justified by its own refusal to accept the transparency requirement for eligibility.
Efter annullationen af Kommissionens beslutning af 18. maj 1993 erindrede kulturministeriet, som ønskede at afslutte proceduren, SIDE om, at støtteordningen for små ordrer ikke pr. definition var forbeholdt CELF.
In 1996, following the annulment of the Commission Decision of 18 May 1993, the Ministry of Culture, wanting to put an end to the proceedings, pointed out to SIDE that the scheme of aid for small orders was not reserved for CELF.
Ministeriet foreslog SIDE en samtale i et brev af 3. september 1996 for at undersøge, om SIDE var i stand til at tilbyde de samme tjenesteydelser som CELF i henhold til de samme krav om åbenhed.
By letter dated 3 September 1996, the Ministry offered the company a meeting to examine whether it was able to provide, in the same conditions of transparency, the same services as CELF.
Under en samtale den 26. september 1996 afviste lederne af SIDE det fremsatte tilbud.
At a meeting held on 26 September 1996, SIDE's managers refused the proposal which was made to them.
De meddelte kulturministeriet, at de nægtede at modtage støtte under et program, hvis overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten kunne anfægtes af Kommissionen.
They told the Ministry of Culture that they refused to benefit from a programme whose compatibility with Community law could be called into question by the Commission.
Som støtte for sine argumenter fremlagde SIDE en rapport fra Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, hvori man hovedsagelig kritiserer, at de franske myndigheder har valgt ikke at udbetale støtten direkte til boghandlerne.
In support of its claims, SIDE produces a report by the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, basically criticising the decision of the French authorities not to pay grants direct to booksellers.
Kommissionen erindrer i den forbindelse om, at de nationale myndigheder frit kan vælge den støtteform, som de finder mest velegnet til de mål, de forfølger, så længe den relevante fællesskabslovgivning overholdes.
The Commission would point out in this respect that national authorities are free to choose the form of subsidy which seems to them to be best suited to the objectives they are pursuing, subject to respecting the relevant Community law.
Kommissionen konkluderer, at det fremlagte dokument er uden relevans, og bemærker i øvrigt, at forfatterne selv anlægger en kritisk holdning til deres egen evaluering [50].
In any event, the Commission stresses that the document produced is not relevant and notes that its authors themselves take a critical view of their own assessment [50].
Endelig påstår SIDE, at støtten var unyttig.
Lastly, SIDE maintains that the aid was inappropriate.
I den forbindelse understreger Kommissionen, at støttemodtagerne var forpligtet til at ekspedere ordrer på under 500 FRF.
The Commission would emphasise in this respect that the beneficiaries of the aid were obliged to process all orders of less than FRF 500.
Derved sikrede man, at fransksprogede bøger kunne nå ud til alle boghandlere, også de mindste i fjerne lande, selv om de kun havde brug for nogle få bøger, som i øvrigt ofte udgives af forskellige forlag.
This ensured that French-language books could reach all bookshops, including the smallest in far-off countries, even if they only needed a few books, often published by different publishers.
SIDE kunne ikke garantere dette, og leverede i øvrigt som tidligere anført ikke til alle lande.
This was not guaranteed by SIDE, which, as has already been stated, did not supply all countries.
På grundlag af ovenstående oplysninger har Kommissionen kunnet konstatere, at »Programme petites commandes« i princippet var tilgængeligt for alle virksomheder, der ansøgte om støtte, når blot disse accepterede betingelserne for tildeling af støtte.
In light of the above, the Commission finds that the Small Orders programme was, in principle, accessible to any firm applying, provided it accepted the conditions according to which the aid was granted.
Den konstaterer ligeledes, at SIDE i 1996 klart gav udtryk for, at man ikke ønskede at modtage støtte.
It also notes that, from 1996, SIDE made it clear that it did not want to qualify for the programme.
I denne situation finder Kommissionen ikke, at den anfægtede støtte var udtryk for forskelsbehandling, og at den var nødvendig for at opfylde de franske myndigheders målsætning.
In the circumstances, the Commission considers that the disputed aid was not discriminatory and that it was necessary for the achievement of the objectives pursued by the French authorities.
Under alle omstændigheder finder Kommissionen, at selv om støtten frem til 1996 kunne anses for udelukkende at være forbeholdt CELF, var det op til de franske myndigheder at vurdere, hvilke foranstaltninger der var mest hensigtsmæssige og nyttige med henblik på at nå det ønskede mål, så længe støtten ikke gik ud over, hvad der var nødvendigt for opnåelsen af dette mål, således som det vil blive påvist nedenfor.
In any event, the Commission considers that, even assuming the aid in question could have been regarded until 1996 as being exclusively reserved for CELF, it was for the French authorities to assess what measures were the most appropriate and useful for optimum attainment of the objective pursued, since the aid did not exceed what was necessary for achieving that objective, as will be shown below.
Kommissionens undersøgelse baseret på taloplysninger indsendt af de franske myndigheder og sagsøger
Examination by the Commission, based on the figures supplied by the French authorities and the complainant
Markedet for eksportagenturer for fransksprogede bøger
The export agency market for French-language books
CELF og SIDE distribuerer bøger i ikke-fransktalende lande og territorier som eksportagenturer.
As part of their export agency activity, CELF and SIDE distribute books in non-French-speaking countries and territories.
I fransktalende lande som Belgien, Canada og Schweiz dækkes det lokale marked af store forlag gennem deres datterselskaber eller repræsentanter.
In French-speaking countries, such as Belgium, Canada and Switzerland, the local market is covered by large publishers through their subsidiaries or representatives.
Eksportagenturerne spiller dermed kun en meget marginal rolle på de største markeder for fransksprogede bøger, nemlig de tre ovennævnte lande.
The export agency has only a very marginal role, therefore, in the markets which are the main outlets for books in French, i.e. the three countries mentioned above.
Det er fastslået, at CELF blev oprettet sidst i 1970'erne for at afhjælpe manglen på et marked, som branchen havde opgivet på grund af manglende rentabilitet, og at den omtvistede støtte var rettet mod et tydeligvis urentabelt segment på agenturmarkedet.
It is established that CELF was set up, at the end of the 1970s, to remedy the failures of a market abandoned by firms in the industry because it was not profitable, and that the disputed aid was intended to support a manifestly non-profitable segment of the agents' activity.
I sin beslutning 1999/133/EF afgrænsede Kommissionen det marked, hvor den havde undersøgt virkningerne af den anfægtede støtte som eksportmarkedet for fransksprogede bøger »i almindelighed«.
In Decision 1999/133/EC, the Commission defined the market on which it had examined the effects of the disputed aid as being the market for the export of French-language books ‘in general’.