natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Statens tilskud til dette projekt vil derfor ikke kunne påvirke besøgstallet og påvirker dermed ikke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
The support given by the State to this project could not therefore affect the flow of visitors or trade between Member States.
Kommissionen erkender, at de aktiviteter, Bioscope tilbyder, er meget forskellige fra det, traditionelle forlystelsesparker byder på.
The Commission recognises that Bioscope offers very different activities from traditional theme parks.
Man kan derfor ikke erstatte et besøg i Bioscope med et besøg i en traditionel forlystelsespark, hvilket afgjort bevirker en kraftig reduktion af det antal besøgende, Bioscope kan forventes at tage fra de traditionelle parker.
A visit to a traditional theme park is therefore not an identical alternative to a visit to Bioscope, and this certainly means a very significant reduction in the number of visitors that Bioscope is likely to attract from other parks.
Kommissionen finder dog, at denne forskel ikke er tilstrækkelig til fuldstændig at udelukke enhver form for substitution.
The Commission does not, however, consider this difference to be sufficient in itself to rule out altogether all forms of substitutability.
Når folk skal bestemme, hvordan de vil bruge deres fritid, vælger de ikke altid mellem aktiviteter af samme type.
When people have to decide how they wish to spend their free time, they do not necessarily choose between similar activities.
De kan f.eks. beslutte at gå i svømmehallen frem for i zoo, selv om et besøg i zoo er en helt anden form for underholdning end en tur i svømmehallen.
They can decide to go to the swimming pool rather than the zoo, despite the fact that the type of entertainment to be enjoyed at the zoo is very different from that at the swimming pool.
På samme måde beslutter forældre ofte at tage med familien på museum, mens deres børn ville have foretrukket at gå i tivoli.
Likewise, parents frequently decide to go on a family visit to a museum whereas, were it up to them, the children would have preferred to go to a fair.
Kommissionen finder derfor, at et besøg i Bioscope faktisk kan være et alternativ til at besøge de tyske forlystelsesparker, om end i begrænset omfang.
The Commission considers, therefore, that a visit to Bioscope could, to a limited extent, be an alternative to a visit to a German theme park.
På baggrund af ovenstående finder Kommissionen, at foranstaltningen i den foreliggende sag må forventes at påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne, og at den dermed opfylder kriteriet.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that, in this particular case, the measure is indeed likely to distort trade between Member States and thus fulfils the relevant criterion.
Fordel
Advantage
For at afgøre om foranstaltningen giver SMVP en konkurrencemæssig fordel, skal Kommissionen vurdere, om statens indgreb stiller virksomheden bedre, end det ville have været tilfældet, hvis markedskræfterne havde fået frit spil.
In order to determine whether the measure confers a competitive advantage on SMVP, the Commission must assess whether State intervention places the undertaking in a better situation than if market forces had been given free rein.
Et økonomisk indgreb fra statens side er ikke tilstrækkeligt til at konkludere, at der er tale om en fordel for den virksomhed, der nyder godt af indgrebet.
The fact that the State intervenes financially is not a sufficient condition to conclude that the recipient undertaking is placed at an advantage.
Statens indgreb kan foregå under samme vilkår, som en privat markedsøkonomisk investor ville have accepteret.
State support can be given on the same terms as would have been accepted by a private investor in a market economy.
Der er således ikke tale om at begunstige som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
It does not, therefore, constitute an advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
I den foreliggende sag bliver en analyse af det statslige indgrebs karakter særligt kompleks på grund af koncessionens retlige status, idet de to parter gives rettigheder og pålægges forpligtelser, der er meget forskelligartede.
In the present case, it is a particularly complicated task to analyse the nature of the State’s intervention as the concession is legal in nature and lays down very dissimilar rights and obligations for each of the two parties.
Meget kort kan man sige, at fra en økonomisk synsvinkel investerer begge parter i Bioscope-projektet, mens det sker med meget forskellige risici.
To sum up very briefly, it can be considered from an economic viewpoint that both parties are investing in the Bioscope project, albeit with differing risks.
Symbio, der repræsenterer det offentlige, løber en ubetydelig risiko, mens SMVP påtager sig størstedelen af de kommercielle risici.
Symbio, the public-sector player, assumes very little commercial risk whereas SMVP assumes the bulk of the risk.
Naturligvis modtager den investor, der påtager sig mindst risiko, mindre end den, der løber større risici.
As is only natural, the investor who takes less of a risk receives less than the investor who takes more of a risk.
Analysen skal især vise, hvor rimelig rentabiliteten af de respektive investeringer er.
The analysis must, therefore, determine in particular whether the respective rates of return on investment are appropriate.
Kommissionen bemærker, at denne analyse er foretaget af det uafhængige selskab Rise Conseil, hvis konklusioner de franske myndigheder har fremlagt.
The Commission notes that the analysis was carried out by the independent company Rise Conseil and that its findings were sent to the Commission by France.
Konklusionen på denne analyse er, at rentabiliteten af Bioscope-projektet for SMVP ikke ligger højere end rentabiliteten af lignende investeringer i helt private projekter. Det konkluderes desuden, at Symbios afkast af Bioscope-projektet kan sammenlignes med afkastet af investeringer uden risiko.
The analysis concludes that SMVP’s rate of return on the Bioscope project is no higher than on similar investments in purely private projects and, moreover, is similar to that on risk-free investments.
Dette tyder på, at der er en vis overensstemmelse mellem investorernes rentabilitet og markedsrentabiliteten.
This would suggest that, to a certain degree, the respective investors’ rates of return match the market rates of return.
Denne analyse er imidlertid baseret på den kendsgerning, at man kan acceptere, at offentlige myndigheders investeringer tager en helt anden form end SMVP’s.
This analysis is nevertheless based on the fact that the investment by the public authorities can be expected to take a very different form to SMVP's investment.
For at man kan anvende princippet om den markedsøkonomiske investor, skal der være mulighed for, at en anden privat investor, måske af en anden type end en forvalter af en temapark, også kan forventes at foretage en investering svarende til statens.
For the principle of a market-economy private investor to be met, it would have to be possible for another private investor, not necessarily a pleasure-park operator, to be able to make an investment similar to that made by the State.
Men ifølge SMVP’s egne bemærkninger er det overvejende sandsynligt, om ikke sikkert, at projektet ikke ville være blevet iværksat uden Symbios deltagelse i denne form.
However, SMVP itself points out that it is highly likely, if not certain, that the project could have been launched without the participation of Symbio in this form.
Dette tyder på, at Symbio ikke kunne have været erstattet af en privat investor, selv ikke på samme vilkår (ingen risiko kombineret med et mindre afkast).
This tends to suggest that Symbio’s participation could not have been replaced by that of a private investor, even on identical terms (absence of any risk linked to a lower rate of return).
Kommissionen finder, at dette ikke nødvendigvis er i strid med resultatet af Rise Conseils undersøgelse, for det er muligt, at staten råder over særlige retsmidler, der giver den mulighed for at gribe ind under betingelser, som private aktører ikke kan opnå.
In the Commission’s view, this does not necessarily contradict the findings of the Rise Conseil study as the State may possess special legal instruments allowing it to intervene under conditions not accessible to private operators.
På baggrund af ovenstående kan Kommissionen således ikke udelukke, at SMVP har haft en fordel.
In the light of the above, the Commission cannot therefore rule out the existence of an advantage for SMVP.
I Domstolens dom i Altmark-sagen opstilles fire kumulative betingelser, som når de er opfyldt, gør det muligt at betegne en foranstaltning som kompensation for udgifter i forbindelse med en offentlig tjeneste, hvorved den undgår at blive betegnet som en konkurrencemæssig fordel.
The Court judgment in Altmark sets out four cumulative conditions which, if met, result in the classification of a measure as compensation for charges related to a service of general economic interest and not therefore as a competitive advantage.
Den første af disse betingelser er, at »den begunstigede virksomhed faktisk er blevet pålagt at opfylde forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste, og disse forpligtelser er blevet klart defineret«.
The first of these conditions is that ‘the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined’.
Kommissionen rejste ved indledningen af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure tvivl om, hvorvidt netop denne betingelse var opfyldt i den foreliggende sag.
When opening the formal examination procedure, the Commission had questioned whether this condition in particular was met in the present case.
Efter at have analyseret de oplysninger, der er fremsendt af de franske myndigheder og af tredjemand, finder Kommissionen, at dens tvivl på dette punkt ikke er fjernet.
Having analysed the information provided by France and interested parties, the Commission feels that this doubt remains.
Kommissionen finder, at den pædagogiske og generelt indlæringsmæssige målsætning for Bioscope, som den f.eks. fremgår af indledningen til koncessionen, er alt for generel til at kunne betragtes som en klar fastlæggelse af Bioscopes forpligtelse til offentlig tjeneste.
The Commission considers first of all that the Bioscope’s general educational objective, as set out for example in the preamble to the concession, is far too vague to be considered a clear definition of its public-service task.
Denne definition er især for bred til at danne udgangspunkt for et overslag over udgifterne til den offentlige tjeneste.
In particular, the definition is too wide-ranging to serve as a basis for any estimation of the costs of performing this task.
Endvidere finder Kommissionen, at de franske myndigheders argument om, at den samlede koncession definerer forpligtelsen til den offentlige tjeneste, ikke er antageligt.
The Commission also considers that France’s argument to the effect that the concession as a whole defines a public-service obligation is equally untenable.
Koncessionen omfatter en lang række artikler, som ville have været helt identiske, hvis Bioscope ikke havde haft nogen pædagogisk eller indlæringsmæssig målsætning, og som derfor ikke kan siges at definere en forpligtelse til offentlig tjeneste.
For, the concession contains many articles which would have been entirely identical if Bioscope had not had any pedagogical or educational vocation whatsoever and which cannot therefore be said to define a public-service task.
Det skal i det mindste være muligt at afgøre, hvilke artikler i koncessionen der omhandler denne indlæringsmæssige målsætning.
It would, at the very least, be necessary to identify which of the concession’s articles refer to this educational vocation.
Kommissionen finder imidlertid, at der ikke findes nogen artikel, der er tilstrækkeligt præcis på dette punkt, dog muligvis med undtagelse af artiklerne om særlige billetpriser for visse kategorier af brugere, som omhandlet i betragtning 92.
The Commission feels, however, that none of the articles are sufficiently specific in this regard, with the possible exception of the articles on special rates for certain categories of visitor, as discussed in point 92.
Endelig finder Kommissionen, at koncessionens artikel om særlige billetpriser for visse kategorier af besøgende, som de franske myndigheder henviser til, faktisk kunne danne grundlag for definitionen af en tjenesteydelse af almindelig økonomisk interesse.
Lastly, the Commission takes the view that the articles in the concession which concern the special rates for certain categories of visitor and to which France referred might indeed be a basis for defining a service of general economic interest.
Det er dog klart, at disse artikler kun omhandler en brøkdel af Bioscopes aktiviteter.
It is, however, clear that these articles relate to only a fraction of Bioscope’s activity.
Hvis de skulle anvendes til at definere en tjenesteydelse af almindelig økonomisk interesse, ville omfanget af denne tjenesteydelse ikke kunne begrunde, at man betragtede hele projektet som et projekt vedrørende en offentlig tjeneste.
If they were invoked with a view to defining a task of general economic interest, the scope of that task would not be sufficient to justify considering the whole project as a public-service project.
Endvidere er selv omfanget af den offentlige tjeneste, der vedrører disse artikler, ikke særlig klart.
Moreover, the very scope of the public-service task associated with these articles is unclear.
Det er almindeligt, at selv parker, der ikke modtager tilskud, tilbyder særlige billetpriser for visse kategorier af brugere.
Even unsubsidised parks tend to charge special rates for certain categories of visitor.
Det er almindelig forretningsmæssig praksis.
It is a very common business practice.
På baggrund af ovenstående finder Kommissionen derfor, at man ikke kan udelukke, at støttemodtageren har haft en fordel, og at denne fordel muligvis kun i meget begrænset omfang er omfattet af begrebet om kompensation for udøvelse af en tjenesteydelse af almindelig økonomisk interesse.
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that it cannot rule out the existence of an advantage for the beneficiary undertaking and that this advantage could only very partially be covered by the notion of compensation for charges related to a task of general economic interest.
Kommissionen kan således ikke udelukke, at der er tale om statsstøtte til SMVP i henhold til traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
The Commission cannot therefore rule out the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty for SMVP.
Det vil blive påvist i afsnit VII, punkt 2, at hvis der er tale om statsstøtte, er den forenelig med traktaten.
Section VII(2), however, will demonstrate that, inasmuch as State aid exists in this case, it is compatible with the Treaty.
Støttens kompatibilitet
Compatibility of the aid
Kommissionen bemærker, at støtten gives til et investeringsprojekt i et ugunstigt stillet område, jf. traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c) (det såkaldte bassin potassique i Alsace).
The Commission notes that the aid is granted to an investment project located in a less-favoured area within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty (the Alsace potassic basin).
Der er tale om ad hoc-støtte, eftersom den ikke indgår i nogen støtteordning, som Kommissionen allerede har godkendt.
It is an ad hoc aid project as it is not covered by any aid scheme previously approved by the Commission.
Sådanne investeringsprojekter kan undertiden analyseres på baggrund af de multisektorale rammebestemmelser for regionalstøtte til store investeringsprojekter.
Such investment projects can sometimes be evaluated in the light of the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects.
I den foreliggende sag svarer datoen for tildelingen af støtten til den dato, hvor tillægget til konventionen blev undertegnet, dvs. den 9. juli 2002. Derfor er de rammebestemmelser, der eventuelt skal anvendes, den udgave, der blev offentliggjort i 1998 [11]. De kaldes herefter »rammebestemmelserne«.
In this particular case, given that the date on which the aid was granted is the same as the date on which the amendment to the concession was signed, i.e. 9 July 2002, the multisectoral framework applicable is that published in 1998 [11] (the framework).
I rammebestemmelsernes punkt 2.1 begrænses anvendelsesområdet til projekter, der opfylder to præcise kriterier.
Point 2.1 of the framework restricts its own scope to certain projects meeting either of two specific criteria.
Det første kriterium består igen af tre kumulative underkriterier:
The first criterion is itself made up of three cumulative subcriteria:
De samlede projektomkostninger skal være mindst 50 mio. EUR.
the total project cost must be at least EUR 50 million,
Den kumulerede støtteintensitet skal udgøre mindst 50 % af regionalstøtteloftet for store virksomheder i det pågældende område.
the cumulative aid intensity must be at least 50 % of the regional aid ceiling for large companies in the area concerned,
Støtten pr. oprettet eller bevaret job skal være på mindst 40000 EUR.
the aid per job created or safeguarded must amount to at least EUR 40000.
Det påvises i dette afsnit, at de samlede projektomkostninger er på [60-65]* mio. EUR, at støtteintensiteten er på [7-8 %]*, mens loftet for det pågældende område er 10 %, og at støttens bruttosubventionsækvivalent er på [5-10]* mio. EUR, hvilket for de 105 oprettede arbejdspladser svarer til en støtte pr. job på [45000-95000]* EUR.
This section will demonstrate that the total cost of the project is EUR [60-65]* million and the aid intensity [7-8]* % while the aid ceiling for the area concerned is 10 %, and that the gross grant equivalent of the aid is EUR [5-10]* million, which, for the 105 jobs created, gives aid per job of EUR [45000-95000]*.
Rammebestemmelserne finder derfor anvendelse.
The framework is therefore applicable.
For at afgøre om støtten er forenelig med betingelserne i rammebestemmelserne, skal Kommissionen først beregne støtteintensiteten.
In order to determine whether the aid is compatible with the criteria of the framework, the Commission must firstly calculate the intensity of the aid.
Denne intensitet skal derefter sammenholdes med den maksimale intensitet, der opnås ved den beregningsmetode, der er beskrevet i rammebestemmelsernes punkt 3.10.
This intensity must then be compared with a maximum aid intensity calculated using the formula given in point 3.10 of the framework.
Støtteintensitet
Aid intensity
Intensiteten af den støtte, der gives i form af tilskud, er forholdet mellem tilskuddet og de støtteberettigede udgifter.
The intensity of aid in the form of a grant is the amount of the grant expressed as a percentage of eligible costs.
Når støtten gives i en anden form end tilskud, skal den først omregnes til subventionsækvivalent og derefter sammenholdes med de støtteberettigede udgifter.
When aid is other than in the form of a grant, the grant equivalent must first be calculated before being expressed in terms of the eligible costs.
Den støtte, staten har ydet i den foreliggende sag, er kompleks.
In this case, the aid granted by the State is complex in nature.
Den omfatter et element af tilskud, men også andre negative og positive elementer, der er en følge af de rettigheder og forpligtelser, som parterne i koncessionen har.
There is not only a grant element, but other elements too, both positive and negative, deriving from the rights and obligations of each of the parties to the concession.
Alle disse elementer skal inddrages i beregningen af støttens subventionsækvivalent.
All these elements need to be taken into account in calculating the grant equivalent of the aid.
Denne tabel giver en oversigt over koncessionens bestanddele samt deres positive eller negative virkning for støtten til SMVP.
The following table summarises the elements of the concession in question and their positive and negative impact on the aid granted to SMVP.
Koncessionens bestanddele
Element of the concession
Virkning for SMVP
Impact on SMVP
Statens deltagelse i initialinvesteringen
State participation in the initial investment
Grunde stillet til rådighed
Provision of land
Betaling af gebyr til staten
Payment of a charge to the State
Genoverdragelse af aktiverne til staten efter koncessionens udløb
Return of the property to the State at the end of the concession
For at vurdere støttens bruttosubventionsækvivalent må man beregne dens forskellige elementer og lægge dem sammen.
In order to calculate the gross grant equivalent of the aid, each of these elements must be quantified and the algebraic sum worked out.
Ved beregningen af de enkelte elementer har Kommissionen brugt de oplysninger, den havde adgang til, især i rapporten fra Rise Conseil.
The Commission has used the information at its disposal, particularly that contained in the Rise Conseil report, to quantify these elements.
Ved denne beregning anvender Kommissionen den referencesats, den anbefalede for Frankrig på datoen for tildeling af støtten.
In order to do this, the Commission has used the reference and discount rate that it recommended for use by France on the date on which the aid was granted.
Denne sats er 5,06 %. Den er anvendt i alle nedenstående beregninger.
This rate is 5,06 % and is used in all the following calculations.
Nutidsværdien af statens deltagelse i initialinvesteringen er på 25,933 mio. EUR.
The discounted value of the State’s participation in the initial investment is EUR 25,933 million.
Det skal i øvrigt bemærkes, at det er statens eneste støtte til investeringerne i Bioscope.
It should also be noted that this grant is the State’s only participation in the investments in Bioscope.
De senere investeringer blev alle foretaget af SMVP.
All subsequent investments are the financial responsibility of SMVP.
Brugsretten til grundene, dvs. værdien af den leje, SMVP ikke betaler, anslås til 6,718 mio. EUR. Dette overslag er baseret på værdien af grunde i industriområdet Pulversheim i nærheden af Bioscope (mellem 10 og 12 EUR/m2) og en årlig leje af jorden på 8 %, som fastsat af det franske skattevæsen.
The provision of land, i.e. the value of the rent not paid by SMVP, is estimated to be EUR 6,718 million. This calculation is based on the value of the proposed land in the Pulversheim area near Bioscope (EUR 10 to 12/m2) and on an annual rate of land rent of 8 %, as defined by the General Taxation Directorate in France.
Den samlede værdi af det gebyr, SMVP har betalt Symbio, anslås til 7,295 mio. EUR. Dette overslag er baseret på den omsætning, Bioscope har anført i sin forretningsplan, som blev meddelt Kommissionen.
The total charge payable by SMVP to Symbio is put at EUR 7,295 million. This figure is based on the estimated turnover given in Bioscope’s business plan, which was sent to the Commission.
Beregningen af virkningen af genoverdragelsen af aktiverne til staten er mere kompleks.
Quantifying the effect of returning the property to the State is more difficult.
Denne virkning er tydeligvis negativ for SMVP.
The effect is clearly unfavourable to SMVP.
I en traditionel subventionssituation er og forbliver støttemodtageren ejer af investeringen, som vedkommende har den fulde fordel af.
With a traditional grant, the beneficiary is and remains the owner of its investment and has full use of it.
Den kan især sælges på markedet.
In particular, it can sell it on the market.
I den foreliggende sag vil hele Bioscope blive genoverdraget til staten, inklusive virksomhedens goodwill, når den 30-årige koncession udløber [12].
In this particular case, Bioscope is returned to the State in its entirety, goodwill included, at the end of the 30-year concession [12].
I forhold til en traditionel situation mister SMVP dermed parkens værdi, der svarer til den pris, virksomheden kunne have solgt den til på markedet (naturligvis ajourført fra den oprindelige dato).
Compared with a traditional grant, SMVP thus forgoes the value of this property, which corresponds to the price at which it could have sold it on the market (discounted, of course, to the initial date).