natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I sagen om »Renaissance« udlejede investorerne skibene til operatøren, medens CIL i det foreliggende tilfælde kun formelt råder over skibet i sin egenskab af bestyrer af anpartsselskabet, idet det formelt er dette, der er den faktiske ejer af skibet.
In the ‘Renaissance’ case the investors leased the vessels to the operator whereas, in the present case, CIL formally disposes of the vessel only in its capacity as manager of the joint-ownership vehicle, the formal operator of the vessel in its own right.
Der er derfor ikke umiddelbart tale om et lejeforhold, som giver mulighed for at overføre fordelen gennem en lejenedsættelse.
There is therefore in principle no tenancy relationship that would allow the benefit to be retroceded through a reduction in the rent.
Overførslen af fordelen til CIL sker konkret på følgende måde.
In practice the benefit is transferred to CIL as follows:
Skibets købsomkostninger og driftsunderskud opføres som tab i de deltagende enmandsvirksomheder med begrænset ansvar (EURL).
The cost of acquiring the vessel and its operating losses are reflected in losses in the shareholding EURLs.
Takket være de skattemæssige fordele i Pons-loven kan investorerne fratrække disse tab fra deres skattepligtige indkomst, og de opnår herved en skattebesparelse, som konkret kommer til udtryk i en skattemæssig fordel og som således består i statslige midler ifølge fællesskabsretten.
Thanks to the tax benefits allowed under the Loi Pons, the investors may deduct these losses from their other revenue liable for income tax, thereby obtaining a tax saving which represents the concretisation of their tax benefit and which consists, as such, of State resources within the meaning of Community law.
I stedet for at beholde disse skattebesparelser har investorerne imidlertid forpligtet sig til at anvende hovedparten af disse midler til at dække ovennævnte EURL’s underskud.
However, rather than keep these tax savings, the investors undertook to use most of them for calls for funds to cover the losses of the EURLs.
Under normale omstændigheder vil en investor imidlertid sikre sig, at hans investering er rentabel (i det foreliggende tilfælde skibet) ved at sikre sig en forrentning af investeringen, der dækker anskaffelsesomkostninger og en passende gevinst.
In the normal process of capitalisation, an investor would make sure of capitalising on his investment (in this case, the vessel) by securing a return on the investment that would cover his purchasing costs and include an adequate profit margin.
I scenariet med udlejningskonstruktionen i sagerne »Club Med« og »Renaissance« blev dette opnået i kraft af den leje, som operatøren betalte (denne leje var alligevel fordelagtig for operatøren, fordi en del af den skattemæssige fordel blev overført til ham i form af en leje, der er lavere end markedsprisen).
In the case of the leasing package in ‘Club Med’ and ‘Renaissance’, this outcome is achieved through the rent paid by the buyer (although the rent is beneficial to the buyer as part of the tax benefit is retroceded to him in the form of a below market-price rent).
Under normale forhold ville disse omkostninger (f.eks. betaling af leje eller dækning af samtlige tab) blive båret af CIL og ikke af investoren.
In a normal situation, these costs (e.g. payment of the rent or covering all the losses) would be borne by CIL and not by the investor.
I den foreliggende konstruktion væltes disse omkostninger imidlertid over på EURL og, via mekanismen for indkaldelse af midler, de udlignes ved hjælp af de skattebesparelser, som betragtes som statsmidler i medfør af traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
In the disputed package, these costs are allocated to the EURLs and, by means of the calls for funds, absorbed into the tax savings which are State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
I samme forbindelse frigøres CIL for de omkostninger, der er forbundet med skibets drift, og som selskabet normalt burde bære.
CIL is likewise relieved of the expenses it would normally have had to bear for the operation of the vessel.
Af alle disse grunde konstaterer Kommissionen, at der er tale om fordele, som investorerne overfører til CIL.
For all the above reasons, the Commission finds that the investors’ benefit is transferred to CIL.
Det skal dog bemærkes, at det ikke er den samlede skattemæssige fordel, der overføres til CIL.
It should nevertheless be said that not all the tax benefit is transferred to CIL.
På basis af den foreliggende finansieringskonstruktion beholder investorerne skattelettelserne for 2003, der var det sidste driftsår.
Under the terms of the package, the investors keep the tax savings relating to 2003, the last year of operation.
Til trods for denne tekniske forskel i konstruktionen i forhold til sagen om »Renaissance« er virkningerne sammenlignelige.
Regardless of this technical difference in the package, the results are no different to those produced by the package in the ‘Renaissance’ case.
Som i sagen med »Renaissance« opnår CIL fra leveringstidspunktet reelt brugsret til Le Levant og foregriber hermed det formelle ejerskab til skibet, som først bliver effektivt ved konstruktionens ophør.
In fact, as in ‘Renaissance’, CIL enjoys the actual benefit of Le Levant as soon as it is delivered, thus anticipating its formal ownership of the vessel, which will take effect only on completion of the package.
Som i tilfældet med »Renaissance« stilles skibet til rådighed for CIL, uden at selskabet skal bære den reelle omkostning, fordi der ikke kræves nogen økonomisk modydelse.
Just as in ‘Renaissance’, the vessel is made available to CIL without its having to bear the real cost as no financial contribution is required of it.
De omkostninger, som CIL under normale omstændigheder skulle bære i forbindelse med skibets drift, er derfor begrænsede, hvilket indebærer en fordel for CIL.
The costs that CIL should normally have borne for the operation of the vessel are thus reduced, which represents an advantage to CIL.
Investorerne kan stille skibet gratis til rådighed for CIL takket være de skattemæssige fordele, de opnår i kraft af Pons-loven. Denne lov giver dem via deres EURL mulighed for i deres skattepligtige indkomst at fradrage både skibets købspris og tab, som hovedsagelig består af afdrag og renter på det lån, Banken har indrømmet til køb af skibsanparterne.
The fact that the investors are able to put the vessel at CIL’s disposal free of charge is due to the tax benefits granted to them under the Loi Pons which enable them, through their EURLs, to deduct from their taxable income both the purchase price of the vessel and the losses of their EURLs, which include the annual capital and interest on the loan granted by the Bank for the purchase of the shares.
Det fradragsberettigede resultat omfatter endvidere deres respektive andele i skibets driftsresultater inden for de grænser, der er garanteret af CIL.
The deductible profits of the EURL also include their respective shares of Le Levant’s operating profits within the limits guaranteed by CIL.
Formålet med denne konstruktion og investorernes dækning af omkostningerne ved finansiering og i det mindste til dels driften af Le Levant ved hjælp af en mekanisme, hvor der indkaldes obligatoriske midler til fordel for EURL, er at sikre, at CIL profiterer af fordelene i Pons-loven.
The package and the coverage by the investors of the costs of financing and, in part at least, of operating Le Levant by means of the compulsory calls for funds for the EURLs are intended to ensure that CIL benefits from the advantages granted under the Loi Pons.
Denne mekanisme for overførsel af støtten var en betingelse, der var anført i ansøgningen om godkendelse, og som derfor er godkendt af de franske myndigheder.
This mechanism for transferring aid was one of the conditions laid down in the application for approval and was, as such, endorsed by the French authorities.
Denne overførsel af midler fra investorerne til anpartsselskabet giver mulighed for at støtte CIL’s drift af skibet.
This transfer of resources from the investors to the joint-ownership vehicle helps to subsidise the operation of Le Levant by the CIL.
Uden denne mekanisme ville CIL ikke kunne drive skibet på rentabel vis.
Without this mechanism, the operation of the vessel by the CIL would not be economically viable.
Ved denne finansieringskonstruktions ophør drager investorerne af, at deres skibsanparter tilbagekøbes, og af, at de kan beholde skattelettelserne for 2003, der er det sidste driftsår (og hvor der ikke er noget krav om obligatorisk indkaldelse af midler).
For the investors, the return from the package is produced at the end of the financing operation through the purchase of their shares and the fact that they can keep the tax savings relating to 2003, the last year of the period of operation (which is not negated by a compulsory call for funds).
Statsmidlerne (bestående af investorernes skattebesparelser) bliver således fordelt mellem CIL, som får overført næsten den samlede støtte, og investorerne.
The State resources (consisting of the investors’ tax savings) are thus split between CIL, to whom practically all the aid is retroceded, and the investors.
Den del af fordelen, der overføres til CIL, består af summen af de samlede midler, som investorerne har investeret i EURL.
The part of the benefit retroceded to CIL consists of the total of the calls for funds to which the investors responded for the EURLs.
Bemærkningerne fra CIL, ifølge hvilke Kommissionen ikke har dokumenteret, at støtten skulle have gjort det muligt at drive Levant på mere favorable vilkår end dem, der gælder for andre operatører, godtages derfor ikke.
CIL’s comment that the Commission has not proved that the aid would allow Le Levant to be operated under more favourable conditions than those available to other operators cannot therefore be accepted.
Ifølge de oplysninger, Kommissionen råder over, ser det ikke ud til, at salgsprisen for Le Levant i januar 2004 indeholdt noget gaveelement til fordel for CIL.
As regards the price for the sale of Le Levant to CIL in January 2004, according to the Commission’s information, it did not appear to include a concessionary element in favour of CIL.
Ifølge CIL var salgsprisen endog højere end den markedsværdi, der var vurderet af en uafhængig skibsmægler.
According to CIL, the selling price was estimated by an independent maritime broker as higher than the vessel’s market value.
Kommissionen råder ikke over andre elementer, der kan afkræfte disse oplysninger.
The Commission has no reason to question the validity of this information.
Kvalificering af statsstøttemodtagerne som »virksomhed«
The classification of recipients of State resources as an undertaking
Endnu en betingelse for, at der er tale om statsstøtte, er, at fordelen begunstiger visse »virksomheder« (eller visse produktioner).
One further precondition for classifying a measure as State aid is that the advantage conferred favours certain undertakings (or the production of certain goods).
Begrebet virksomhed i traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, omfatter enhver enhed, som udøver økonomisk aktivitet, uanset denne enheds retlige status og finansieringsmåde.
According to Article 87(1) of the Treaty, the definition of undertaking covers every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed.
En økonomisk aktivitet er enhver aktivitet, der består i at udbyde varer og tjenesteydelser på et bestemt marked [26].
Any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market is therefore an economic activity [26].
I sagen Cassa di Risparmio, hvor EF-Domstolen derimod måtte sondre mellem »en erhvervsdrivende med direkte kontakt til markedet og indirekte, og en anden enhed, der kontrollerer denne erhvervsdrivende inden for rammerne af en økonomisk enhed, som de udgør tilsammen«, fastslog den, at »selve besiddelsen af kapitalandele — selv kontrollerende andele — ikke er tilstrækkelig til at udgøre en økonomisk virksomhed udøvet af den, der har disse kapitalandele i sin besiddelse, når besiddelsen kun danner grundlag for udøvelsen af de rettigheder, der er knyttet til at være aktionær eller medindehaver, samt i givet fald for modtagelsen af udbytte, der blot er afkastet af ejendomsretten til et formuegode« [27].
The Court of Justice of the European Communities found, however, in Cassa di Risparmio, in which it distinguished between ‘an operator in direct contact with the market and, indirectly, [of] another entity controlling that operator as part of an economic unit which they together form’ that ‘the mere fact of holding shares, even controlling shareholdings, is insufficient to characterise as economic an activity of the entity holding those shares, when it gives rise only to the exercise of the rights attached to the status of shareholder or member, as well as, if appropriate, the receipt of dividends, which are merely the fruits of the ownership of an asset’ [27].
Det fremgår således af retspraksis, at betegnelsen »virksomhed« ikke alene skal baseres på retlig status, men også på en analyse af de økonomiske realiteter.
Case law thus demonstrates that the classification as an undertaking must be based not just on the legal forms but on an assessment of the economic realities of a specific case.
Hvorvidt CIL og investorerne skal betragtes som en virksomhed skal derfor fastslås på basis af en analyse af de økonomiske relationer i konstruktionen for at fastslå, på hvilken måde den økonomiske aktivitet, der består i at drive Le Levant som krydstogtskib, rent faktisk udøves.
CIL and the investors’ status as an undertaking must therefore be established by an assessment of business relationships in the package in order to determine how the economic activity that consists of operating Le Levant as a cruise vessel is actually conducted.
Det skal først understreges, at investorerne ifølge den formelle konstruktion præsenteres som dem, der via deres EURL, som tilsammen udgør anpartsselskabet, for egen regning ejer og driver skibet, da CIL’s rolle er begrænset til at forvalte skibet »for anpartsselskabets regning og risiko« [28].
It should first be noted that under the formal terms of the package, it is the investors, through their EURLs brought together in the joint ownership vehicle, who are presented as owners and operators of the vessel, on their own account. CIL’s role, on the other hand, is simply that of the vessel’s manager ‘for the account and risk of the joint ownership vehicle’ [28].
Det er meget tænkeligt, at en ejer/operatør overdrager den daglige drift af sin økonomiske aktivitet til en bestyrer, men han vil alligevel blive betragtet som en virksomhed efter statsstøttereglerne, hvis han opfylder kriterierne i retspraksis, dvs. han udøver en aktivitet, der består i at udbyde varer og tjenesteydelser på et marked, og at han ikke begrænser sig til at besidde andele og opkræve udbytte.
It is, of course, perfectly feasible for an owner/operator to entrust a manager with the day-to-day management of his economic activities. This does not mean that the owner is not classified as an undertaking within the meaning of the State aid rules, provided that he meets the determining criteria formulated by case law, namely that he is engaged in an activity consisting of supplying goods and services in a given market and that he does not merely have shareholdings and receive dividends.
I det foreliggende tilfælde anfører Kommissionen, at hver investor ifølge anpartsselskabets vedtægter via sine skibsanparter udøver rettighed over skibet, og at disse rettigheder kun kan udøves kollektivt (hver anpart giver også ret til en tilsvarende andel af driftsindtægterne).
In the case at hand, the Commission notes that under the terms of the joint ownership articles of association, each investor exercises rights over the vessel through his shares and that these rights may only be exercised jointly (each share also gives entitlement to a proportional part of the operating revenue).
Investorerne udøver deres rettigheder på generalforsamlingen, hvor hver andelshaver har stemmeret svarende til hans anpart i skibet.
The investors exercise their rights at the general meeting of joint owners where each shareholder has voting rights proportional to his share in the joint-ownership.
Ud fra denne synsvinkel kan investorernes situation sammenlignes med aktionærers eller medindehaveres.
In this sense, the investors’ situation is comparable to that of shareholders or members.
Investorerne er endvidere ikke aktivt inddraget i driften af Le Levant, som fuldstændig er overdraget til CIL.
In addition, investors are not actively involved in Le Levant’s economic activities, which are completely left to CIL.
CIL således varetager drift, vedligeholdelse, den tekniske og kommercielle forvaltning af skibet.
CIL is responsible for the fitting-out, maintenance, operation and technical and commercial management of the vessel,
CIL varetager drift af hotel- og restaurationsvirksomhed, organiserer anløb i havnebyer og turistudflugter og sørger for betaling af havneudgifter, lodsomkostninger osv.
CIL manages the hotel and catering services and organises ports of call and sightseeing visits.
Selskabet driver kort sagt skibet så godt som muligt under de givne økonomiske forhold og »har beføjelse til at indgå fragtaftaler og til at forhandle alle former for kommercielle aftaler« (artikel 3.1 i mandatet).
CIL is responsible for managing port and pilotage charges etc. More generally, it operates the vessel on the best economic terms and ‘is authorised to conclude all charter contracts and, more generally, to negotiate all commercial transactions’ (Article 3.1 of the management mandate).
Anpartsselskabet har således givet CIL fuldstændig frihed med hensyn til licensen af den omhandlede økonomiske aktivitet, nemlig udbud af krydstogter om bord på Le Levant.
The joint-ownership has therefore given CIL a completely free hand in the core business in question — namely the provision of cruises on board Le Levant,
»Bestyreren har i forhold til tredjeparter de videst mulige beføjelser til at forvalte anpartsselskabets aktiver og anliggender og har således beføjelse til at foretage alle administrative handlinger, herunder oplægning af skibet, men ikke til at afhænde aktivet« (artikel 6 i forvaltningsmandatet).
‘the manager has full powers with respect to third parties to manage the joint-ownership’s property and business and can carry out all tasks relating to administration, including laying-up of the vessel, but not disposition of the property’ (Article 6 of the management mandate).
Anpartsselskabet giver hermed CIL nærmest fuldstændig frie hænder, idet CIL selv på eget initiativ og uden at konsultere investorerne kan oplægge skibet, dvs. at tage det ud af drift.
The joint-ownership therefore gives CIL virtually full autonomy as, on its own initiative and without consulting the investors, CIL can even have the vessel laid-up — i.e. terminate its operation,
Ifølge artikel 6 i mandatet varetager bestyreren selv eller får følgende opgaver udført på anpartsselskabets vegne: »personaleansættelse og -administration, tilrettelæggelse af arbejdet om bord […].
according to Article 6 of the management mandate, the manager ‘shall undertake the following measures on behalf of the joint-ownership vehicle: staff recruitment and management, shipboard working arrangements […].
De beføjelser, der således er tillagt bestyreren, er så omfattende, at denne kan varetage anpartsselskabets drift med størst mulig frihed«.
The full powers thus conferred on the manager mean that he can undertake management tasks with a maximum degree of flexibility’.
Det forhold, at investorerne ikke er inddraget i driften, er ikke en følge af et kommercielt valg, som de frit kan ændre, men følger af finansieringskonstruktionens form.
The investors’ lack of involvement in operations is not the result of a commercial choice which they could freely go back on — rather it is determined by the actual structure of the package.
I henhold til investeringsaftalerne ledes hver EURL af to medbestyrere, som i realiteten er Bankens medarbejdere.
Under the terms of their investment contracts, each joint-ownership company is headed by two joint managers who are actually Bank executives.
Alle praktiske aspekter i forbindelse med oprettelse og drift af EURL varetages af disse bestyrere eller personer, der er udpeget af Banken, og på anpartsselskabets generalforsamling (hvor investorerne i teorien kan udøve deres rettigheder over skibet og driften heraf) er EURL ikke repræsenteret af ejerne, men af bestyrerne.
All the practical aspects of setting up and running the joint-ownership companies are undertaken by these managers or people presented by the Bank. At the joint-ownership’s general meeting (where, in theory the investors could exercise their rights over the vessel and its operation), the joint-ownership companies are represented not by their members but by their managers.
En investor kan kun udpege andre bestyrere eller selv overtage ledelsen af sit EURL, hvis han giver afkald på Bankens »tilbagekøbsløfte« vedrørende skibsanparterne, da dette løfte udgør garantien for forrentningen af hans investering.
The investor cannot appoint other managers or even take over management of his EURL, without sacrificing the Bank’s undertaking to acquire the shares, which is the guarantee of the return on his investment.
Med hensyn til valg af bestyrer for anpartsselskabet og omfanget af dennes forvaltningsmandat er CIL i anpartsselskabets vedtægter (der er fastlagt af Banken og CIP) udpeget som bestyrer og kan i praksis kun afskediges på grund af en alvorlig og grov forseelse.
As for the choice of manager of the joint-ownership and the terms of its mandate, CIL was appointed in the joint ownership’s articles of association (drawn up by the Bank and CIP) and in practice cannot be revoked except in cases of serious misconduct or wilful wrong.
Kommissionen fastslår derfor, at denne finansieringskonstruktion ikke rummer nogen ordning, der giver anpartsselskabet mulighed for effektivt at blande sig i driften af Le Levant som krydstogtskib, dvs. i selve den økonomiske aktivitet, som udelukkende varetages af CIL.
The Commission therefore concludes that the package does not include any way of allowing the joint-ownership to be effectively involved in the operation of Le Levant as a cruise ship, i.e. in the actual business itself, which is carried on exclusively by CIL.
Sammenfattende kan det konkluderes, at investorerne har undertegnet en aftale, uden at de har haft indflydelse på betingelserne heri.
In short, it can be concluded that the investors signed a membership contract whose terms they could not freely determine.
Endelig er det vigtigt at fastslå, at det i forholdet mellem ejer/operatør og bestyrer er normalt, at den økonomiske risiko ved driften af aktivet påhviler ejeren, idet bestyreren aflønnes for sine tjenester og ikke er berørt af driftsresultatet.
It is also important to note that in the relationship between an owner-operator and his manager, the economic risk inherent in operating the vessel is usually borne by the owner as the manager is paid for his services and is not concerned by the operating results.
I forbindelse med Le Levant er det imidlertid ikke investorerne, som nyder godt af projektpromotorens udbyttegaranti, der bærer de reelle risici i forbindelse med skibets drift.
In the case of Le Levant, however, as the investors are guaranteed a return by the promoters of the project, they do not run any real risks in respect of the Le Levant’s operating results.
Disse risici bæres i realiteten af CIL, som, selv om selskabet kun ejer 2 af de 740 anparter, har accepteret at påtage sig det fulde ansvar for alle de tab, der overstiger driftsprognoserne for 1996-2003.
It is really CIL which incurs the risks and, even though it has only two shares out of the 740 shares of the joint ownership, it has agreed to assume full responsibility for any losses which exceeded the operating estimates for the period 1996-2003.