natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I lyset af de mange forskellige størrelser af de fiskerivirksomheder, der er medlem af FPAP, kan man være sikker på, at den støtte, som nogle virksomheder har modtaget, er over 30000 EUR. Eksempelvis for trawlere på 20-25 m, hvor den årlige kompensation ligger på omkring 35000 EUR eller 70000 for de to år 2005 og 2006 [16].
Thus, given the differences in size of the FPAP’s member fisheries undertakings, it is certain that the amount of the aid granted to some undertakings is greater than EUR 30000. For example, for trawlers from 20 to 25 metres, the annual amount of the allowance is around EUR 35000, i.e. EUR 70000 for the two years 2005 and 2006 [16].
Men under alle omstændigheder har Frankrig ikke krævet, at det nye de minimis-loft skal anvendes, og har ikke godtgjort, at det skulle have været tilfældet.
In any event, as indicated above, France did not seek application of the new de minimis ceiling and did not provide any evidence that it did so.
På baggrund af alle ovenstående oplysninger er Kommissionen følgelig forpligtet til i forbindelse med den løbende undersøgelse af statsstøtteordninger at kontrollere, at denne støtte er i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 87.
Consequently, taking all of the above factors into account, in the context of the constant review of State aid schemes the Commission is obliged to verify compliance of this aid with the provisions of Article 87 of the Treaty.
Frankrig finder ikke, at Kommissionen i sin analyse af forekomsten af statsstøtte skal inddrage dette aspekt i fondens aktiviteter.
France takes the view that the Commission has no valid reason to extend its assessment of the existence of State aid to this aspect of the Fund’s activities.
Frankrig mener, at »vurderingen af statsstøtte alene skal baseres på en ad hoc-analyse af det tilbagebetalingspligtige statstilskud og ikke på en analyse af FPAP’s aktiviteter.
According to France, ‘recognition of aid as State aid must be based solely on an ad hoc assessment of the repayable State advance and not on an assessment of the FPAP’s activities.
De franske myndigheder ønsker således, at kun første del af vurderingens del 3.1 skal tages til følge.
Thus the French authorities request that only the first part (Part 3.1) of the assessment be developed.
I del 3.2 fordømmes FPAP’s aktiviteter. FPAP er en fagforening, som køber optioner for at dække sine medlemmer mod udsving i brændstofpriser.« [17].
Part 3.2 amounts to a condemnation of the activities of the FPAP, which is a trade association purchasing options to cover its members against fluctuations in the price of diesel’ [17].
Som svar herpå erindrer Kommissionen om, at støtten i overensstemmelse med fast retspraksis ikke defineres ud fra deres grunde eller målsætninger, men defineres ud fra deres følger [18].
In reply, the Commission points out that, as has been consistently held in case law, aid is not characterised by its causes or objectives, but is defined according to its effects [18].
Forekomst af en finansiel fordel opnået ved hjælp af statsmidler
Existence of a financial advantage granted through State resources
Fiskerivirksomhederne har haft en dobbelt fordel på grund af FPAP’s aktiviteter: dels har de kunnet købe brændstof til en fordelagtig pris, dels har de fået en delvis kompensation for deres brændstofudgifter.
The advantage drawn by fisheries undertakings from the FPAP’s activities is two-fold: on the one hand it consists of the possibility of obtaining fuel at an advantageous price, and on the other of receipt of an allowance partially compensating for their expenditure on fuel.
For så vidt angår det første aspekt, købte FPAP optioner på terminsmarkederne og overførte derefter det pågældende brændstof til selskabet CECOMER, der er en indkøbscentral for maritime kooperativer; derfor kunne FPAP’s medlemsfiskerivirksomheder købe det brændstof, som kooperativerne havde erhvervet, til en pris, der var lavere end den almindelige pris.
As regards the first aspect, the acquisition of options on the futures markets by the FPAP, which then passed on the forward-bought fuel to the Cecomer company, the maritime cooperatives’ central contracting agency, enabled the FPAP’s member undertakings to buy fuel acquired by those cooperatives at a price lower than that on the ordinary market.
Men som det fremgår af ovenstående betragtning 75, har dette kun været muligt, fordi »staten indtil denne dato har ydet tilskud på 65 mio. EUR. På råvaremarkedet har optionerne for øvrigt givet FPAP et overskud på flere millioner euro, hvilket er en ubestridelig værditilvækst.« Kommissionen konstaterer derfor, at levering af brændstof til fiskerivirksomheder til en pris, der er lavere end den almindelige markedspris, har kunnet lade sig gøre på grund af statens tilskud og FPAP’s egne ressourcer, dvs. medlemsbidragene og overskud fra spekulationerne på terminsmarkederne for olieprodukter.
But, as indicated above (see recital 75 of this Decision), this was possible only because ‘The State has granted assistance of EUR 65 million to date. Also, the FPAP has made a profit of several million euro on options on the commodities market, which is an undeniable value added’. The Commission therefore notes that the supply of fuel to fisheries undertakings at a price lower than that on the ordinary market was possible due to the advances granted by the State and the FPAP’s own resources, i.e. the product of its members’ contributions and the profits from speculative operations on the futures market for petroleum products.
Denne dobbelte indtægtskilde (statsmidler og midler fra FPAP’s private aktiviteter) gør sig også gældende for finansieringen af kompensationen til fiskerivirksomhederne.
The funds used to finance the compensation paid to fisheries undertakings also came from two sources (State resources and resources from the FPAP’s private activity).
Som beskrevet i ovenstående betragtning 24 betaler FPAP ifølge aftalerne af 12. november 2004 og 27. maj 2005 prisforskellen mellem den »maksimale dækkede pris« og den gennemsnitlige månedlige pris i referenceindekset og — ifølge aftalen af 11. oktober 2005 — mellem prisen på 30 eurocent pr. liter og den gennemsnitlige månedlige pris i referenceindekset, hvis sidstnævnte er højere end denne pris.
As described in recital 24 of this Decision, the FPAP bears the difference in price that exists, under the agreements of 12 November 2004 and 27 May 2005, between the ‘maximum price covered’ and the average monthly price in the reference index and, under the agreement of 11 October 2005, between 30 euro cent per litre and the average monthly reference price if the latter is higher than 30 euro cent.
Den oprindelige »udligningsmekanisme« var baseret på en antagelse af, at ekstraudgifterne i forhold til en referencepris i perioder med høje priser kunne udlignes takket være bidragene fra medlemmerne i perioder med lavere priser.
The ‘evening-out’ mechanism provided for was originally based on the assumption that the additional costs exceeding a reference price in times of high prices could be compensated by means of the contributions paid by the members in times of lower prices.
På den måde skulle systemet være selvfinansierende.
Thus the system would be self-financing.
Som hr. Feuardent anfører i sin skrivelse (nævnt i beslutningens betragtning 75), »var FPAP rent teknisk i stand til at købe de første optioner i april 2004. På det tidsbetragtning kunne CECOMER’s behov (ca. 200 mio. liter) for 2005 dækkes for 4 mio. EUR til 0,28 cent/liter«.
Referring to Mr de Feuardent’s document already mentioned in recital 75 of this Decision, ‘technically the FPAP was able to take the first options from April 2004 onwards; at that time, Cecomer’s requirements (approximately 200 million litres) for 2005 could be met at 0,28 cent/litre, i.e. approximately EUR 4 million’.
FPAP kunne således i begyndelsen af 2004 have opfyldt de relativt beskedne behov for »brændstofforsikring« ved hjælp af sine egne ressourcer.
Thus, at the beginning of 2004 the FPAP could perhaps have covered the relatively modest needs of the ‘diesel insurance’ out of its own resources.
Ifølge den oprindelige tanker ser det derfor ud til, at fonden kunne have været selvfinansierende.
It therefore appears that, as it was originally designed, the Fund could have been self-sufficient.
Men da brændstofpriserne holdt sig på et meget højt niveau, og medlemskab af FPAP blev meget udbredt, steg antallet af medlemmer hurtigt og meget.
However, since oil prices stayed at a very high level and the FPAP’s membership expanded, it rapidly acquired a large number of members.
Omkostningerne til denne »brændstofforsikring« eksploderede derfor og kunne kun oppebæres på grund af statens tilskud til FPAP.
The result was that the cost of this ‘diesel insurance’ exploded and could only be supported by using the advances granted to the FPAP by the State.
Hvis man forsøger at anslå de midler, FPAP skulle råde over for at kunne afholde udgifterne til »brændstofforsikringen« i 2005, kan man tage som udgangspunkt, at det brændstofforbrug, som fiskerivirksomhederne bad om at få kompensation for, sandsynligvis steg fra 200 mio. liter (jf. betragtning 94) til omtrent 900 mio. liter.
If we attempt to estimate the appropriations necessary for the FPAP to cover the expenditure on ‘diesel insurance’ for 2005, we can start from the assumption that the level of fuel consumption for which compensation was claimed by the fisheries undertakings probably increased from 200 million litres (see recital 94) to a volume that can be estimated at almost 900 million litres.
Hvis man tager det årlige gennemsnitsforbrug, der er brugt som grundlag for beregningerne i betragtning 55 og 56, er forbruget for 1000 fartøjer på under 12 meter 1000 fartøjer × 200 ton/fartøj eller 200000 ton, og for fartøjer på over 12 meter vil det være 1400 fartøjer × 480 ton/fartøj eller 672000 ton, hvilket i alt udgør 872000 ton (eller 872 mio. liter).
This is because, if we take the averages for annual consumption which served as the basis for the calculations in recitals 55 and 56, the consumption of 1000 vessels of less than 12 metres would be 1000 vessels × 200 tonnes/vessel, i.e. 200000 tonnes, and the consumption of vessels of more than 12 metres would be 1400 vessels × 480 tonnes/vessel, i.e. 672000 tonnes, which is in total 872000 tonnes (or 872 million litres).
Som det fremgår af betragtning 55, kan man anslå, at hvis fartøjerne fisker 38 uger om året og ikke 48, ligger forbruget sikkert nærmere 700000 ton (1000 fartøjer på under 12 m × 158 ton eller 158000 ton og 1400 fartøjer på over 12 m × 380 ton eller 532000 ton).
In reality, as indicated in recital 55, if we consider that vessels fish for 38 weeks a year rather than 48, consumption is probably closer to 700000 tonnes (1000 vessels of less than 12 m × 158 tonnes, i.e. 158000 tonnes and 1400 vessels of more than 12 m × 380 tonnes, i.e. 532000 tonnes).
Med et loft for kompensationerne på 12 cent pr. liter, hvilket er det loft, der blev anvendt for det tredje tilskud [19], er FPAP’s finansielle behov årligt 85 mio. EUR. Da fiskerivirksomhederne sandsynligvis kun har forsikret en del af deres brændstofforbrug, var behovet for midler sikkert lavere, men stadig snesevis af millioner euro om året, hvilket skal sammenholdes med det oprindelige skøn på 4 mio. EUR for 2005.
Assuming a ceiling on compensation of 12 cent per litre, which was applied to the third advance [19], the annual financial requirements of the FPAP were thus about EUR 85 million. Considering the fact that the fisheries undertakings perhaps only insured part of their fuel consumption, the appropriations required were probably less, but the order of magnitude remains at several tens of millions of euro a year, as compared to the initial estimate of EUR 4 million for 2005.
Det er derfor indlysende, at FPAP ikke havde kunnet betale den dækning, som fondens medlemmer var garanteret, med midler, der alene stammede fra bidragene, men også havde brug for tilførsel af eksterne midler, i dette tilfælde tilskuddene fra staten.
It is therefore obvious that the FPAP could not have coped with the cover guaranteed to its members, in exchange for their contributions, without receiving external funding, in this case the advances granted by the State.
FPAP har således haft adgang til offentlige midler for at kunne varetage denne »brændstofforsikring«, som den skulle forvalte bedst muligt.
In this context, the FPAP received public funding to meet the needs of this ‘diesel insurance’, with the proviso that it managed the funds as efficiently as possible.
FPAP’s midler består således af medlemsbidrag, statstilskud og eventuelt overskud af fondens aktiviteter på terminsmarkederne for olieprodukter.
The FPAP’s liquid assets are thus composed of funds coming from the members’ contributions, the State advances, and the potential profits of its activities on the oil futures markets.
Den del af midlerne, der stammer fra statstilskud, er uomtvisteligt statsmidler.
The part of the funding coming from the State advances is undeniably State resources.
Med hensyn til overskuddet fra aktiviteterne på terminsmarkederne, som gjorde det muligt for fiskerivirksomhederne at købe billigere brændstof, har dette overskud kun kunnet genereres på grund af forekomsten af statsmidler, som har givet FPAP midlerne til at gennemføre sine finansielle operationer på terminsmarkederne.
As regards the profits made on the futures markets which enabled the fisheries undertakings to be supplied with less expensive fuel, it was only possible for them to be made thanks to the existence of the State resources, which gave the FPAP the means to undertake financial transactions on the futures markets.
Selvom alle detaljer i aftalerne mellem FPAP og CECOMER ikke er kendt og ikke kan udledes af de dokumenter, som Frankrig har fremsendt, formoder Kommissionen, at kompensationen til medlemsvirksomhederne svarende til prisforskellen var lavere, end hvis CECOMER og de maritime kooperativer havde forsynet fiskerne med brændstof købt på det almindelige marked, dvs. uden FPAP’s aktiviteter på terminsmarkederne.
In addition, although the exact characteristics of the agreements concluded between the FPAP and Cecomer are not known and cannot be deduced from any of the documents forwarded by France, the Commission supposes that the compensation paid to the member undertakings, consisting of the difference in price, was lower than if Cecomer and the maritime cooperatives had supplied fuel to the fishermen which had been bought on the ordinary market, i.e. without the FPAP’s operations on the futures markets.
Overskuddet fra FPAP’s aktiviteter på terminsmarkederne er således blevet overført til CECOMER, indkøbscentral for maritime kooperativer, og derefter til fiskerivirksomhederne, som køber brændstof hos disse kooperativer.
Thus, the profit from the FPAP’s operations on the futures markets was transferred to Cecomer, the supply cooperative of the maritime cooperatives, and ultimately to the fisheries undertakings which obtain their fuel from them.
Den praktiske konsekvens har helt klart været, at FPAP har kunnet fortsætte med at udbetale kompensationer i en længere periode, end hvis FPAP kun havde været en formidlingsinstans, som skulle fordele 65 (eller 77) mio. EUR fra staten under dække af »brændstofforsikringsordningen«.
The practical effect was certainly that the FPAP could continue paying compensation for a longer period than if the FPAP had only been an intermediate body solely responsible for distributing the EUR 65 (or 77) million provided by the State under cover of the ‘diesel insurance’ mechanism.
Kommissionen finder følgelig, at det er ved hjælp af statsmidler, uanset om disse er tilført FPAP’s likviditet direkte eller brugt til at skabe et overskud, som så er tillagt denne likviditet, at fiskerivirksomhederne har haft adgang til en finansiel fordel, dels på grund af muligheden af at købe brændstof til en gunstig pris, dels ved at modtage en kompensation, der beregnes i forhold til en referencepris.
The Commission therefore takes the view that it was indeed by means of State resources, irrespective of whether they were fed directly into the FPAP’s liquid assets or they were used to make profits further increasing those assets, that the fisheries undertakings were able to enjoy a financial advantage, on the one hand by having the possibility of obtaining supplies of fuel at an advantageous price, and on the other by receiving a compensatory allowance calculated on the basis of a reference price.
Ifølge de tre, eventuelt fire, aftaler indgået mellem staten og FPAP er endemålet med de offentlige midler, der er udbetalt i form af tilskud, at sikre en delvis kompensation af fiskerivirksomhedernes brændstofudgifter.
The three, or possibly four, agreements concluded between the State and the FPAP provide that the ultimate purpose of the public funds paid in the form of advances is to partially compensate fisheries undertakings for the cost of fuel.
Kompensationen til fiskerne, der er udbetalt i form af godtgørelse svarende til forskellen mellem en referencepris og en almindelig pris, skal ses i sammenhæng med faldet i leverandørens, der oftest er det maritime kooperativ, almindelige pris.
The compensation paid to the fishermen in the form of an allowance equivalent to the difference between a reference price and a price at the pump comes in addition to a reduction in the price of diesel at the pump of the supplier, who is, as a rule, the maritime cooperative.
FPAP’s midler, som oprindeligt bestod af medlemsbidrag og senere det første statstilskud, har gjort det muligt for fonden at agere på terminsmarkederne og her skabe et overskud, men dette overskud var dog ikke nok til, at fonden samtidig kunne udbetale den garanterede kompensation til fiskerivirksomhederne til gengæld for deres bidrag.
The FPAP’s liquid assets, originally made up of its members’ contributions then supplemented by an initial advance by the State, enabled it to operate on the futures markets and make profits, although those profits were not sufficient to enable it to simultaneously pay the compensatory allowance guaranteed to the fisheries undertakings in return for their contributions.
Men to, eventuelt tre, yderligere tilskud gjorde det muligt for fonden at fortsætte med sine aktiviteter, før den gradvist skulle afvikle sine positioner for at have tilstrækkelige midler til at udbetale kompensationerne.
However, two, or possibly three, additional advances enabled it to continue its activities before it gradually had to reduce its holdings in order to have the liquidity required to pay the allowances.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at det er FPAP’s formand, der traf beslutningerne vedrørende operationerne på terminsmarkederne.
The Commission observes that the Decisions on the operations on the futures markets were taken by the President of the FPAP.
Den konkrete gennemførelse påhvilede mæglere og specialiserede finansinstitutter (jf. betragtning 74), som modtog betaling fra FPAP i et forhold, som er Kommissionen ukendt.
They were actually implemented by commissioning brokers and specialised financial institutions (see recital 74), and the amount of remuneration paid to them by the FPAP is not known to the Commission.
Selvom det hedder i FPAP’s vedtægter, at formanden skal konsultere bestyrelsen »vedrørende beslutninger om, hvilke dækningsprojekter der skal gennemføres«, er staten ikke repræsenteret i bestyrelsen.
However, although the FPAP’s articles of association provide that the President must consult the Board of Directors ‘to decide on proposed cover plans’, the State is not represented on that Board.
Selvom FPAP således generelt var forpligtet til at »føre et regnskab, der viser, hvordan tilskuddet er anvendt, og fondens ressourcer og udgifter udnyttet«, traf staten hverken beslutning om FPAP’s strategi vedrørende køb af disse finansielle optioner eller om omfanget af den finansielle kompensation til virksomhederne.
Thus, although the FPAP was generally required ‘to keep accounts so that, on request, information on how the advances have been used and the Fund’s resources and expenditure have been allocated can be obtained’, the State did not have any part in the Decision on the strategy to be followed by the FPAP for acquiring these financial options or on the level of the financial compensation to be paid to the undertakings.
Selvom der følgelig, som det fremgår af betragtning 4.1.1.4, ikke er nogen tvivl om, at støtten i form af tre, eventuelt fire tilskud kan tilregnes staten, gælder det samme ikke for de yderligere fordele, som fiskerivirksomhederne havde adgang til på grund af dels deres bidrag, dels FPAP’s fornuftige forvaltning af alle fondens midler.
Consequently, although, as was demonstrated in paragraph 4.1.1.4, there is no doubt that the aid consisting of the granting of the three, or possibly four, advances is imputable to the State, that is not the case for the additional advantages enjoyed by the fisheries undertakings resulting, on the one hand, from their contributions and, on the other, from the prudent management of the FPAP’s liquid assets as a whole.
Hvis den støtte, der i sidste instans blev udbetalt til fiskerne, på grund af transaktionerne på terminsmarkederne, oversteg den støtte af offentlige midler, som oprindeligt blev udbetalt til FPAP, var den del af støtten, som oversteg de offentlige midler, ikke resultatet af en beslutning truffet af staten.
This is because, although the aid ultimately paid to the fishermen was higher than the public funds originally received by the FPAP thanks to the operations undertaken on the futures markets, the part of the aid exceeding the amount of the public funding advanced did not result from a State Decision.
Selvom det ikke rent regnskabsmæssigt er muligt nøjagtig at isolere, hvad der stammer fra statslige ressourcer og fra egne ressourcer, fordi det er de samlede midler, som er brugt til aktiviteterne på terminsmarkederne for olieprodukter og til at betale kompensationerne, mener Kommissionen ikke, at den fordel, der svarer til forskellen mellem det samlede kompensationsbeløb, som fiskerivirksomhederne har fået udbetalt, og det samlede statstilskud overført til fiskerivirksomhederne, kan tilregnes staten.
Thus, even if it is not possible, from an accounting point of view, to identify precisely what came from State resources and what came from the Fund’s own resources, since it was the liquid assets as a whole which were used to operate on the oil futures markets and pay the compensatory allowance, in the Commission’s view the advantage resulting from the difference between the total amount of aid paid to the fisheries undertakings and the total amount of the State advances transferred to the fisheries undertakings is not imputable to the State.
Kommissionen finder, at den nedsættelse af udgifterne til brændstof, som FPAP’s fiskerivirksomhedsmedlemmer havde adgang, sætter disse virksomheder i en gunstigere situation, fordi det kun er disse medlemmer, der har adgang til denne lempelse.
The Commission considers that the reduction in fuel expenditure enjoyed by the FPAP’s member fisheries undertakings favours those undertakings because they are the only ones able to benefit from the reduction.
Disse virksomheder befinder sig i en bedre situation end andre, som de konkurrerer med på fællesskabsmarkedet, uanset om det er andre fiskerivirksomheder eller virksomheder i andre sektorer, som har interesse i at mindske deres produktionsomkostninger til brændstof.
Their position is strengthened in relation to other undertakings competing with them on the Community market, irrespective of whether they are other fisheries undertakings or undertakings in other sectors of economic activity with an interest in reducing their running costs as regards fuel expenditure.
Da dækningsmekanismen desuden kun er åben for fiskerivirksomheder, skal den således tildelte fordel betragtes som en sektorbestemt fordel, som andre sektorer ikke har adgang til.
Moreover, since the cover mechanism is targeted only at fisheries undertakings, the advantage thus granted to those undertakings must be regarded as a sectoral advantage not accessible to other sectors.