natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Spanien bestred navnlig Kommissionens konklusion, hvorefter privatiseringen af virksomhederne ikke var den økonomisk mest fordelagtige løsning.
In particular, it contests the Commission's conclusion that privatization of the undertakings was not the most economically advantageous solution.
Med hensyn til virksomheden Hytasa gjorde Kongeriget Spanien navnlig gældende, at omkostningerne ved at likvidere denne virksomhed ville have været væsentligt større end anslået af Kommissionen. Privatiseringsplanen var følgelig til fordel for Patrimonio del Estado.
As regards Hytasa, the Kingdom of Spain claimed in particular that the costs of winding up that undertaking would have been substantially greater than the Commission's estimates.
Ved de tre anfægtede beslutninger havde Kommissionen erklæret den støtte, der var ydet mellem 1986 og 1989, ulovlig, idet den var blevet ydet i strid med procedurereglerne i traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3.
In the three contested decisions the Commission declared the aid provided between 1986 and 1989 to be unlawful on the ground that it had been granted in breach of the procedural rules laid down in Article 93(3) of the Treaty.
Kommissionen havde dog fundet, at støtten opfyldte betingelserne for at kunne henføres under undtagelsesbestemmelsen i traktatens artikel 92, stk. 3, litra c), og at den derfor var forenelig med fællesmarkedet
It nevertheless considered that the aid satisfied the conditions for the exceptions provided for in Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty and was therefore compatible with the common market.
Med hensyn til virksomhederne Imepiel og Intelhorce gjorde Kongeriget Spanien navnlig gældende, at likvidationen af dem ville have medført langt større omkostninger, navnlig som følge af afskedigelsen af 1 450 ansatte (Imepiel) og 1 671 ansatte (Intelhorce), samt som følge af
On the other hand, as regards the capital injections provided to the three companies at the time of their privatization (less the amount of the sale price), the Commission decided that not
Hvad derimod angår de udvidelser af kapitalen, der var gennemført til fordel for de tre selskaber i forbindelse med deres privatisering (minus salgsprisen), havde Kommissionen fastslået, at der ikke alene var tale om støtte, der var ydet i
So far as concerned Imepiel and Intelhorce, the Kingdom of Spain claimed in particular that their liquidation would have entailed very much greater costs, arising in particular from the dismissal of 1 450 employees (Imepiel) and 1 671
statens udgifter til lønninger og arbejdsløshedsydelser, tabet af virksomhedernes aktiver, støtte til at genskabe den industrielle infrastruktur osv.
employees (Intelhorce), salaries and unemployment benefits charged to the State, the loss of the companies' shares, aid for the restructuring of the industrial infrastructure, and so forth.
Kommissionen anførte, at selv om den omtvistede støtte blev anset for regional støtte, var den alligevel ikke omfattet af undtagelsen i artikel 92, stk. 3, litra a), da den ikke bidrog til regionens langsigtede udvikling uden at være til skade for den fælles interesse og for konkurrencevilkårene i Fællesskabet.
The Commission stated that even if the aid in question were to be considered as regional, it would not however be eligible for compatibility under Article 92(3)(a), because it did not contribute to the long-term development of the region without adversely affecting the common interest and competition conditions within the Community.
Domstolen bemærkede, at for at kunne afgøre, om de i sagen omhandlede foranstaltninger udgør statsstøtte, må det undersøges, om en privat investor af en størrelse, der kan sammenlignes med de organer, som forestår forvaltningen af den offentlige sektor, under tilsvarende omstændigheder kunne tænkes at ville have indskudt en kapital af den omhandlede størrelse.
In order to determine whether such measures were in the nature of State aid, it was necessary for the Court to consider whether in similar circumstances a private investor of a size comparable to that of the bodies administering the public sector might have provided capital of such an amount
Domstolen bemærkede, at Kommissionen i henhold til fast retspraksis ved anvendelsen af traktatens artikel 92, stk. 3, har et vidt skøn, bl.a. hvad angår de økonomiske og sociale faktorer, der kommer i betragtning på fællesskabsplan.
The Court had consistently held that, as regards the application of Article 92(3) of the Treaty, the Commission enjoys awide discretion, the exercise of which involves assessments of an economic and social nature which must be made within a Community context.
Herved skal Kommissionens argumentation imidlertid være sammenhængende.
However, the reasoning followed by the Commission must remain consistent.
I den forbindelse anførte Domstolen, at der må sondres mellem de forpligtelser, staten skal hæfte for som ejer af et selskabs aktiekapital, og de forpligtelser, der kan påhvile den som offentlig myndighed.
In that respect a distinction had to be drawn between the obligations which the State must assume as owner of the share capital of a company and its obligations as a public authority.
Eftersom de tre omhandlede selskaber var blevet oprettet som aktieselskaber, hæftede Patrimonio del Estado som ejer af aktiekapitalen i disse selskaber kun for deres gæld op til 1¡kvidationsværdicn af deres aktiver.
Since the three companies in question were constituted as limited companies, the Patrimonio del Estado, as owner of the share capital, would only have been liable for their debts up to the liquidation value of their assets.
Det fulgte heraf for den pågældende sags vedkommende, at forpligtelserne vedrørende udgifterne til afskedigelse af de ansatte, betaling af ydelser ved arbejdsløshed samt støtte til genskabelse af den industrielle infrastruktur ikke må tages i betragtning ved anvendelsen af kriteriet vedrørende den private investor.
That meant in the present case that the obligations arising from the cost of redundancies, payment of unemployment benefits and aid for the restructuring of the industrial infrastructure were not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the private investor test.
Domstolen bemærkede videre, at Kommissionen i den niende betragtning i den omtvistede beslutnings del VI havde anført, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Hytasa's investeringsplaner er forenelige med Fællesskabets interesser, og spørgsmålet, om de bidrager til en effektiv omstrukturering af selskabet, »behandles yderligere nedenfor«.
The Commission stated in the ninth paragraph of part VI that the question of ascertaining whether the investment projects are in line with the interest of the Community and of ascertaining whether they contribute to a sound restructuring of the company were «discussed further below».
I virkeligheden drøftede den på dette sted spørgsmålet om støttens skadelige virkninger for konkurrencevilkårene, men den undersøgte ikke den reviderede plans betydning for genskabelsen af Hytasa's levedygtighed.
In fact, the Commission discusses below the adverse effects of the aid on the conditions of competition without analysing the impact of the revised plan on the restoration of Hytasa's profitability.
En sådan undersøgelse - fortsatte Domstolen - var imidlertid nødvendig i dette tilfælde, så meget desto mere som der efter planen skulle ske en væsentlig omlægning af produktionen til fremstilling af beklædning.
Such an analysis was necessary in the present case, particularly because the plan provided for a substantial redirection of production towards the manufacture of clothing.
Det af Kongeriget Spanien fremførte anbringende måtte herefter forkastes.
In those circumstances, the argument put forward by the Kingdom of Spain was rejected.
Spørgsmålet om støttens forenelighed med fællesmarkedet
Compatibility of the aid with the common market
a) Traktauns artikel 92, stk 3, litra a)
Article 93(3)(a) of the Treaty
Beslutningen vedrørende Hytasa måtte følgelig annulleres for så vidt angår artikel 2, stk. 2, og artikel 3, 4 og 5.
The second paragraph of Article 2, and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the decision concerning the undertaking Hytasa had therefore to be annulled.
I sag C-278/92 og C-280/92 anførte Kongeriget Spanien, at serv om Kommissionen anerkender, at Sevilla- og Malaga-regionerne, hvor virksomhederne Hytasa og Intelhorce er beliggende, er omfattet af traktatens artikel 92, stk. 3, litra a), havde den alligevel erklæret denne bestemmelse — hvorefter støtte til fremme af den økonomiske udvikling i områder, hvor levestandarden er usædvanlig lav, eller hvor der hersker en alvorlig underbeskæftigelse, kan betragtes som forenelig med fællesmarkedet — for uanvendelig. I denne forbindelse bestred Spanien navnlig Kommissionens anbringende om, at omstruktureringsplanerne ikke var egnede til at sikre de to virksomheders fortsatte levedygtighed.
So far as concerns Intelhorce, since the Commission had serious doubts as to the possibilities of the restructuring programme submitted to secure Intelhorce's viability, as in both its initial and revised versions the company recorded persistent negative financial results, on 18 March 1991 the Commission requested the Spanish authorities to present a newly-revised restructuring plan.
Med hensyn til virksomheden Intelhorce havde Kommissionen fundet det yderst tvivlsomt, om det fremlagte omstruktureringsprogram kunne sikre, at Intelhorce ville overleve, da virksomheden både i den oprindelige og i den reviderede udgave konsekvent gav underskud, og den anmodede derfor den 18. marts 1991 de spanske myndigheder om at fremlægge en ny plan.
In Cases C-278/92 and C-280/92 the Kingdom of Spain pointed out that, while acknowledging that the regions of Sevilla and Malaga, in which Hytasa and Intelhorce are located, were covered by Article 92(3)(a) of the Treaty, the Commission none the less declared that provision, by virtue of which aid intended to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living was abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment may be considered compatible with the common market, to be inapplicable.
Serv om myndighederne havde haft til hensigt at fremlægge en sådan ny plan, var den
In that context, it disputed in particular the Commission's affirmation that the restructuring plans were not likely to bring about the viability of the two undertakings in question.
ikke blevet fremlagt på datoen for den omtvistede beslutning, den 25. marts 1992.
plan, it had still not been presented at the time of the disputed decision, 25 March 1992.
fortsætte sin virksomhed med en større produktion, havde Kommissionen hjemmel til at erklære undtagelsen i traktatens artikel 92, stk. 3, litra c), for uanvendelig.
question was to allow the beneficiary to continue its activities on a larger scale, the Commission was justified in declaring inapplicable the derogation provided for in Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Efter Domstolens opfattelse havde Kommissionen på grundlag af disse omstændigheder med rette fastslået, at det fremlagte program ikke bidrog til en reel omstrukturering, der fuldt ud sikrede, at Intelhorce kunne overleve.
On the basis of those factors, the Commission rightly decided that the programme which was presented did not contribute to a genuine restructuring fully ensuring the viability of the Intelhorce.
Den kunne derfor med føje finde, at betingelserne for at anvende artikel 92, stk. 3, litra a), ikke var opfyldt i dette tilfælde.
It therefore justified considering that the conditions which must be fulfilled in order for Article 92(3)(a) to apply had not been met in that case.
For så vidt angår virksomheden Intelhorce havde Kommissionen anført, at ingen af de fremlagte omstruktureringsprogrammer indeholdt en klar forpligtelse til at reducere produktionskapaciteten.
So far as concerns Intelhorce, the Commission noted that none of the proposed restructuring programmes envisaged a commitment for reducing production capacities; on the contrary, the initial programme foresaw a relaunching of the company's activities by a substantial increase in its global sales
b) Traktatens artikel 92, stk 3, litra c)
Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty
Herefter fastslog Domstolen, at heller ikke Intelhorce kunne blive omfattet af undtagelsen i traktatens artikel 92, stk. 3, litra c).
In those circumstances, Intelhorce too could not benefit from the derogation provided for in Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Spørgsmålet om forpligtelsen til tilbagebetaling er ulovlig
Unlawfulness of the obligation to recover
Kongeriget Spanien anførte, at støtten til virksomhederne Imepiel og Intelhorce måtte betragtes som sektorstøtte efter traktatens artikel 92, stk. 3, litra c), hvorefter støtte til fremme af udviklingen af visse erhvervsgrene eller økonomiske regioner kan erklæres forenelig med fællesmarkedet, når den ikke ændrer samhandelsvilkårene på en måde, der strider mod den fælles interesse.
The Kingdom of Spain considered that the aid granted to Imepiel and Intelhorce had to be classified as sectoral aid within the meaning of Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, by virtue of which aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid did not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest may have been considered to be compatible with the common market.
I sag C-279/92 gjorde Kongeriget Spanien gældende, at Imepiel under den betalingsstandsningsprocedure, som verserede, ikke havde mulighed for at gennemføre den af Kommissionen pålagte foranstaltning.
In Case C-279/92 the Kingdom of Spain claimed, moreover, that in the context of proceedings for cessation of payments currently in progress, Imepiel found it impossible to implement the measure imposed by the Commission.
Domstolen bemærkede, at det fremgår af Domstolens praksis, at eventuelle vanskeligheder vedrørende fremgangsmåden eller af anden art, der vedrører gennemførelsen af den anfægtede beslutning, ikke påvirker dennes lovlighed.
According to the Court the Commission was right in considering that, in order to be declared compatible with Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, aid to undertakings in difficulty must be bound to a restructuring programme designed to reduce or redirect their activities.
Den omstændighed, at virksomheden Imepiel efter den omtvistede beslutning var kommet under konkursbehandling, var således uden betydning i den foreliggende sag.
Since, according to the plan presented at the time of Imepiel's privatization, the sole purpose of the aid in
Domstolen bemærkede, at Kommissionen med rette kan finde, at betingelsen for, at støtte til virksomheder i vanskeligheder kan erklæres forenelig med traktatens artikel 92, stk. 3, litra c), er, at støtten er knyttet til en omstruktureringsplan, der skal begrænse eller omlægge virksomhedernes aktivitetsområder.
It followed from the case-law of the Court that any procedural or other difficulties in regard to the implementation of the contested measure cannot have any influence on the lawfulness of the measure.
Eftersom den omtvistede støtte ifølge den plan, der blev fremlagt i forbindelse med privatiseringen af Imepiel, alene havde til virkning at sætte støttemodtageren i stand til at
The fact that Imepiel was the subject of insolvency proceedings subsequent to the decision at issue had no bearing on the present dispute.
Artikel 2, stk. 2, og artikel 3, 4 og 5 i Kommissionens beslutning 92/317/EØF af 25. marts 1992 om den støtte, som Spanien har ydet Hytasa, nu benævnt Mediterráneo Técnica Textä SA, og selskabets køber, annulleres.
The second paragraph of Article 2 and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Commission Decision 921317¡EEC of 25 March 1992 on State aid in favour of Hilaturas y Tejidos Andaluces SA, now called Mediterráneo Técnica Textil SA, arid its buyer à annulled;
Sagsøgte frifindes i sag C-279/92 og C-280/9Z
The applications in Cases C-279192 and C-280/92 are dismissed;
Sagens omkostninger bæres af Kommissionen med en tredjedel og af Kongeriget Spanien med to tredjedele.·
The Commission is ordered to bear one-third and the Kingdom of Spain to bear two-thirds of the costs. »
•1) der i sag C-278/92 skal ske annulation af artikel 2, stk. 2, og artikel 3 og 4 i Kommissionens beslutning 92/317/EØF;
«(1) in Case C-278/92, the second paragraph of Article 2 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 92/317/EEC should be annulled;
2) Kommissionen bør frifindes i sagerne C-279/92 og C-280/92;
(2) in Cases C-279/92 and C-280/92 the actions should be dismissed;
»Statsstøtte til en offentlig virksomhed inden for fødevareindustrien (Domstolens plenum)
(State aid to a public undertaking in the agricultural processing industry - injection capital) (Full Court) burdensome manner possible, of its oil division, which represented almost 50% of its total activities.
Ved stævning indleveret den 11. februar 1993 havde Kongeriget Spanien anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 93/133/EØF af 4. november 1992 om den støtte, som den spanske regering havde ydet til virksomheden Merco (fødevareindustrien).
By application lodged on 11 February 1993, the Kingdom of Spain brought an action for the annulment of Commission Decision 93/133/EEC of 4 November 1992 concerning aid granted by the Spanish Government to the Merco company (agricultural processing industry).
Ifølge Kongeriget Spanien havde visse af selskabets aktiviteter kunnet bevares som følge af den i beslutningen omhandlede kapitalforhøjelse, hvilket ellers ikke ville have været muligt, og store dele af indgåede gældsforpligtelser havde kunnet indfris, hovedsagelig gæld til mindre landbrugere, hvis eksistens kunne være bragt i fare, hvis gælden ikke var blevet betalt.
According to the Kingdom of Spain, the increase in capital to which the decision in question refers enabled certain company assets to be recovered, which would otherwise have been impossible, as well as a very considerable amount of contractual debts to be repaid, for the most part to small farmers whose existence could have been jeopardized if they had not been paid.
Kommissionen havde fastslået, at den støtte, den spanske regering havde ydet Merco i form af et kapitalindskud på 5,9 mia. PTA, var ulovlig, idet den var ydet i strid med de i traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3, fastsatte procedureregler.
The Commission declared illegal the aid granted by the Spanish government in the form of an injection of capital of PTA 5 900 million in Merco in 1990, because it was granted in breach of the rules of procedure laid down in Article 93(3) of the Treaty.
Endvidere fandtes støtten at være uforenelig med fællesmarkedet, jf. artikel 92, stk. 1, idet den ikke faldt ind under de i artikel 92, stk. 3, fastsatte undtagelsesbestemmelser.
Furthermore, that aid was considered to be incompatible with the common market under the terms of Article 92(1), since it did not fulfil the conditions for the granting of an exemption under Article 92(3).
Anbringendet om, at der ikke foreligger en konkurrencefordrejende støtte, jf. traktatens artikel 92, stk. 1
Absence of aid adversely affecting competition as provided for in Article 92(1) of the Treaty
Kongeriget Spanien anførte, at Kommissionen i forbindelse med analysen af den pågældende kapitalforhøjelse ikke havde taget fornødent
The Kingdom of Spain considered that the Commission's analysis of the capital increase in question failed to take its purpose into account; far from seeking to continue the undertaking's activities in an artificial manner, Spain's action merely facilitated the liquidation, in the least
Domstolen bemærkede, at selv om nedlæggelsen af afdelingen »olie« måtte have bidraget til at forbedre Merco's finansielle situation, havde Kommissionen med rette fundet, at denne disposition ikke kunne betragtes som et tilfredsstillende omstruktureringsprogram, som kunne sikre Merco's rentabilitet.
Even on the assumption that the closing down of the «oil» division contributed to an improvement in Merco's financial situation, the Commission was justified in stating that a measure of that kind could not be considered to be a satisfactory restructuring programme which would ensure the company's profitability.
I den forbindelse bemærkede Domstolen, at det
Since the aid in question
havde bevirket, at der ikke opstod uoprettelige følger for sektoren.
was therefore not linked to an adequate restructuring programme, the Kingdom of Spain's argument could not be accepted.
Kommissionen anførte, at serv om den omhandlede støtte kunne betragtes som regionalstøtte, ville den på ingen måde kunne falde ind under ovennævnte undtagelsesbestemmelser, da støtte, som ydes i henhold til de nævntebestemmelser, skal fremme den langsigtede udvikling af regionen, hvilket i det foreliggende tilfælde ville betyde, at støtten skulle have bidraget til at gøre virksomheden rentabel uden at medføre uacceptable negative virkninger for konkurrencevilkårene inden for Fællesskabet
would still not be eligible for those exemptions, since aid granted pursuant to those provisions must contribute to the region's long-term development, which in this case meant that the aid would have to be used, at the very least, to re-establish the profitability of the company without producing any unacceptable adverse effects on the conditions of competition within the Community.
For så vidt navnlig angår den undtagelsesbestemmelse, som omhandler støtte til fremme af udviklingen af visse erhvervsgrene, anførte Kommissionen, at to betingelser skal være opfyldt: dels skal støtten ud fra et fællesskabssynspunkt være nødvendig for udviklingen af den pågældende sektor, dels må den ikke ændre samhandelsvilkårene på en måde, der strider mod den fælles interesse.
With regard in particular to the exemption laid down in Article 92(3)(c) for aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, the Commission stated that such an exemption was subject to two conditions: first, the aid must be necessary for the development of the sector from the point of view of the Community and, second, it must not affect trading conditions in a manner contrary to the common interest
Den spanske regering gjorde gældende, at det omtvistede kapitalindskud måtte falde ind under undtagelsesbestemmelserne i artikel 92, stk. 3, litra a) og c).
In its third plea, the Spanish Government argued that the injection of capital at issue must be eligible for the exemptions laid down in Article 92(3)(a) and (c).
Kommissionen bemærkede dernæst, at støtten var blevet anvendt til at udligne tab og mindske gælden, at den ikke var knyttet til et tilfredsstillende omstruktureringsprogram, og at den havde kunnet påvirke konkurrencen i Fællesskabet i negativ retning, idet virksomheden havde bevaret sin konkurrenceevne takket være en kunstig forbedring af dens økonomiske situation.
The Kingdom of Spain claimed first of all that Merco pursues its activities almost exclusively in areas eligible for regional aid under Article 92(3)(a) and (c). The marketing of agricultural products in Spain has suffered, and still suffers, from very serious deficiencies.
Kongeriget Spanien anførte i den forbindelse, at Merco næsten udelukkende driver virksomhed i områder, som kan modtage regionalstøtte i henhold til artikel 92, stk. 3, litra a) og c).
The Commission went on to point out that the aid in question was used to onset losses and reduce debts, that it was not linked to a satisfactory restructuring programme and that it could have had a negative impact on Community competitors by maintaining the company's competitiveness by artificially improving its financial position.
Spanien anførte, at afsætningen af landbrugsvarer i Spanien aldrig har fungeret tilfredsstillende og fortsat ikke gør det
Since the Kingdom of Spain had not submitted any evidence of such a kind as to cast doubt on that statement, this plea had to be rejected.
Kongeriget Spanien anførte dernæst, at indskuddet på 5,9 mia. PTA havde gjort det lettere at omstille virksomhedens aktiviteter og
The Commission stated that even if the aid in question were to be considered regional aid, it
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger.*
The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to pay the costs.»