natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It pointed out that the Commission itself requests the notifying Member State to provide estimates and forecasts on the development of the apparent consumption of the product(s) concerned in the three financial years following the notification (see point 5.4.2 in Section 5 of the Annex to the MSF 1998).
Saint-Gobain tõi esile, et komisjon küsis ise liikmesriikidelt teavet kõnealus(t)e too(de)te nähtava tarbimise prognooside ja ennustuste kohta teatisele järgnenud kolme rahandusaasta jooksul (vt MSF 1998 lisa lõike 5 punkti 5.4.2).
Saint-Gobain argued that the relevant market should include the market for processed glass (level 2).
Saint-Gobain kahtles, kas asjaomane turg peaks sisaldama töödeldud klaasi turgu (II aste).
However, according to Saint-Gobain, only a sub-market of the overall processed glass market was relevant in this case.
Saint-Gobaini arvates oli kõnealuses olukorras oluline ainult üldise töödeldud klaasi turu üks osa.
Saint-Gobain made an initial distinction between the markets for automotive glass and general trade glass (building glass), because it claimed that the production technology for automotive glass, the customer base and the way automotive glass was put on the market were totally different from that in the construction sector.
Saint-Gobain eristas esialgselt autoklaasi ja üldise kaubandusklaasi (ehitusklaasi) turgu, kuna tema arvates oli autoklaasi tootmiseks kasutatav tehnoloogia, kliendibaas ja turustamine täiesti erinev ehitussektoris kasutatavast.
It then further divided the building glass sector into four separate markets: (i) sealed units (double or multiple glazing); (ii) toughened glass (safety glass); (iii) laminated glass (safety glass); and (iv) silvered glass (mirrors).
Saint-Gobain jaotas ehitusklaasi sektori omakorda veel neljaks omaette turuks: i) klaaspakett (kahe- või mitmekordne klaas); ii) tugevdatud klaas (turvaklaas), iii) lamineeritud klaas (turvaklaas) ja iv) hõbetatud klaas (peeglid).
As glass consumption for sealed units (double glazing), in terms of volume, amounted to approximately 80 % of float glass used in general trade (non-automotive applications), Saint-Gobain claimed that the main relevant product market in this case was the market for sealed units.
Kuna klaaspaketi tooted (kahekordne klaas) moodustasid mahu poolest umbes 80 % üldises kaubanduses (väljaspool autotööstust) kasutatud valuklaasist, väitis Saint-Gobain, et peamine asjaomane turg kõnealuses kontekstis on klaaspaketiturg.
As to the geographic scope of the above-mentioned markets, Saint-Gobain argued that the markets for silvered glass (mirrors) and laminated glass should be considered to be Community-wide.
Seoses mainitud turgude geograafilise ulatusega väitis Saint-Gobain, et hõbetatud klaasi (peeglid) ja lamineeritud klaasi turge tuleks pidada kogu ühendust hõlmavaks.
However, for the other product markets, in particular toughened glass and sealed units, no clear indications for a Community-wide market seemed to exist.
Siiski ei ole teiste tooteturgude, eriti tugevdatud klaasi ja klaaspaketi puhul, näha selget märki kogu ühendust hõlmava turu olemasolust.
Such markets rather appeared to involve national or even regional markets, essentially due to higher transport costs.
Kõnealused turud hõlmavad pigem riigisiseseid või isegi piirkondlikke turge, seda peamiselt madalamate transpordikulude tõttu.
At current prices for double glazing, the high cost would no longer allow long-distance transport, and — as far as Saint-Gobain was aware — all glass producers supplied sealed units to customers at a distance of approximately 250 to 300 km from the processing plant.
Kahekordse klaasi praeguse kõrge hinna juures ei võimaldaks kõrge hind enam pikamaavedusid ning Saint-Gobainile teadaolevail andmeil tarnisid kõik klaasitootjad klaaspaketitooteid klientidele umbes 250–300 km raadiuses tehasest.
Saint-Gobain therefore argued that the market for sealed units in particular should be considered to be national or even regional in scope.
Saint-Gobain väitis seetõttu, et eriti klaaspaketiturgu tuleks pidada oma ulatuselt riigisiseseks või isegi piirkondlikuks.
Saint-Gobain also commented on the assessment of the forecasts of the number of new jobs created by the investment.
Saint-Gobain tegi märkuse ka kõnealuse investeeringuga loodud uute töökohtade arvu prognoosi hindamise kohta.
It pointed out that the planned float glass plant in Osterweddingen would be situated 40 km from an already-existing float glass plant in Haldensleben operated by Euroglas.
Saint-Gobain tõstis esile asjaolu, et kavandatav valuklaasitehas Osterweddingenis asuks 40 km kaugusel juba olemasolevast Euroglasile kuuluvast valuklaasitehasest Haldenslebenis.
One of the three shareholders in Euroglas was Trösch.
Üks kolmest Euroglasi aktsionärist on Trösch.
Because of the possible synergies between these two plants and due to the fact that the new e-glass plant was equipped with the most modern technology, Saint-Gobain argued that e-glass was likely to be able to operate its plant with fewer than 120 employees (including trainees).
Võimaliku sünergia tõttu kahe kõnealuse tehase vahel ja asjaolu tõttu, et uues e-glassi tehases kasutatakse kõige moodsamat tehnoloogiat, väitis Saint-Gobain, et on tõenäoline, et e-glass kasutaks oma tehases vähem kui 120 töötajat (sealhulgas praktikandid).
The second interested party, […], submitted updated figures for the information on the market for raw float glass (Community-wide, volume and value) used by the Commission in its decision of 20 April 2004.
Teine huvitatud isik, […] esitas komisjoni 20. aprilli 2004. aasta otsuses kasutatud kohandatud andmed toorvaluklaasituru kohta (ühendust hõlmav, maht ja väärtus).
It also argued that the market situation in Germany should be taken into consideration by the Commission.
Väideti ka, et komisjon peaks arvesse võtma Saksamaa turuolukorda.
It therefore provided figures on the volume and value of total consumption of raw float glass in Germany (2001-2004).
Konkurent esitas seetõttu andmed toorvaluklaasi kogutarbimise mahu ja väärtuse kohta Saksamaal (2001–2004).
The second interested party was also of the opinion that, although it was extremely difficult to obtain recent figures on the volume or value of the consumption of processed glass in the Community, such figures reflected the trend in the raw float glass sector.
Ka teine huvitatud isik oli arvamusel, et kuigi töödeldud klaasi tarbimise mahu või väärtuse kohta ühenduses oli viimaste andmete saamine äärmiselt raskendatud, peegeldasid need andmed toorvaluklaasisektori suundumust.
It emphasised that, since all raw float glass was processed, the trend reflected by the data provided for the raw float glass sector should be similar to that of the processed glass market, and that the fluctuation in imports and exports of processed glass into and from the Community could be ignored.
Huvitatud isik rõhutas, et kuna kogu toorvaluklaas töödeldi, siis peegeldas suundumus saadud andmete alusel, et toorvaluklaasisektor on samasugune töödeldud klaasi turuga ning töödeldud klaasi ühendusse ja ühendusest ekspordi ja impordi kõikumine ei ole suur.
The second interested party also commented on the Commission's assessment of the capital-labour factor.
Teine huvitatud isik tegi märkuse ka komisjoni hinnangu suhtes kapitali/tööjõu suhtarvu kohta.
It pointed out firstly that the construction of a similar float plant by Trösch in Hombourg, France, had created 168 new jobs.
Huvitatud isik märkis Tröschi, et esiteks ehitatud samalaadse valutehasega Hombourgis Prantsusmaal loodi 168 uut töökohta.
Secondly, it argued that Trösch would be able to provide administrative, technical, commercial and other services, management support and training to e-glass.
Teiseks väitis teine huvitatud isik, et Trösch oleks võimeline osutama e-glassile haldus-, tehnilist, kaubandus- ja muid teenuseid ning juhtimisabi ja koolitust.
Therefore, the number of new jobs created by the e-glass project would be even lower than 168.
Seetõttu oleks e-glassi projektiga loodud uute töökohtade arv isegi veelgi väiksem kui 168.
The third interested party, Pilkington, commented on the reference period to be taken into account for the calculation of the competition factor.
Kolmas huvitatud isik, Pilkington tegi märkuse konkurentsifaktori arvutamisel arvesse võetava vaatlusperioodi kohta.
It argued that the Commission was not continuing the original investigation, but was now carrying out a new investigation.
Pilkington väitis, et komisjon ei jätkanud algset uurimist, vaid oli algatanud uue uurimise.
At the same time, the Commission was obliged to take account of the latest available data.
Samal ajal oli komisjon kohustatud arvesse võtma kõige uuemaid kättesaadavaid andmeid.
Therefore the five-year period to be taken into account was the period 1999 to 2004.
Seetõttu oli arvessevõetavaks viieaastaseks perioodiks ajavahemik 1999–2004.
Pilkington also argued that the relevant product market was processed glass for general trade and not for automotive applications.
Pilkington väitis ka, et asjaomase toote turuks oli üldiseks kauplemiseks mõeldud töödeldud klaas, mitte autotööstuses kasutatav klaas.
Of this latter market, insulating glass units constituted by far the largest element.
Viimati mainitud turust moodustasid klaaspaketid kõige suurema osa.
According to Pilkington, the relevant geographic market for processed glass (level 2) in this case was not Community-wide, but was confined to Germany (or at most to Germany and its immediately adjacent territories).
Pilkingtoni andmeil ei hõlmanud töödeldud klaasi (II aste) asjaomane geograafiline turg antud juhul kogu ühendust, vaid piirnes ainult Saksamaaga (või kõige rohkem Saksamaa ja temaga vahetult külgnevate piirkondadega).
Germany commented by letter dated 7 June 2005, registered as received on 9 June 2005, on the decision to initiate the procedure.
Saksamaa esitas menetluse algatamise otsuse kohta märkused 7. juuni 2005. aasta kirjaga (registreeritud 9. juunil 2005).
As regards the relevant time period for the analysis, Germany supported the Commission's opinion as stated in the decision of 20 April 2005 that the data from 1997 to 2002 needed to be taken into account as these data represented the most recent data available at the time of the notification.
Analüüsi asjakohase ajavahemikuga seoses on Saksamaa samal arvamusel komisjoni 20. aprilli 2005. aasta otsuses menetluse algatamise kohta esitatud arvamusega, et ajavahemikku 1997–2002 käsitlevad andmed tuli arvesse võtta, kuna need andmed kujutasid endast kõige värskemaid andmeid, mis olid teatamise ajal kättesaadavad.
Germany suggested separating the level 2 market in safety glass (ESG and VSG), multiple-walled glass and technical glass.
Saksamaa tegi ettepaneku lahutada II astme turvaklaasi (ESG ja VSG), mitmekordse klaasi ja tehnilise klaasi turud.
Safety glass (ESG and VSG) was used in the automotive industry and the construction sector, multiple-walled glass mainly in the construction sector.
Turvaklaasi (ESG ja VSG) kasutati autotööstuses ja ehitussektoris, mitmekordset klaasi peamiselt ehitussektoris.
As all three shareholders in e-glass produced safety glass (ESG and VSG) and multiple-walled glass for the construction sector, only these sub-markets should be regarded as relevant.
Kõik kolm e-glassi aktsionäri tootsid turvaklaasi (ESG ja VSG) ning mitmekordset klaasi ehitussektorile; ainult kõnealuseid turuosi tuleks pidada asjaomasteks.
In addition, they provided information on the supply-side substitutability of these products.
Lisaks sellele esitas Saksamaa teavet kõnealuste toodete tarnimise asendatavuse kohta.
Germany was of the opinion that the level 2 market in safety glass (ESG and VSG) and multiple-walled glass was EEA-wide.
Saksamaa oli arvamusel, et turvaklaasi (ESG ja VSG) ning mitmekordse klaasi II astme turg hõlmas kogu EMPd.
In addition, it provided information on the positive development of this market during the years 1997 to 2002.
Lisaks sellele esitasid ametiasutused teavet kõnealuse turu positiivse arengu kohta aastatel 1997–2002.
By letter dated 22 November 2005, registered as received on 25 November 2005, Germany submitted comments on the reactions of the competitors of e-glass.
Saksamaa esitas 22. novembri 2005. aasta kirjaga (registreeritud 25. novembril 2005) märkused e-glassi konkurentide arvamuste kohta.
It stressed that the reference period 1997 to 2002 had to remain unchanged as only information available at the time of the notification could be taken into account.
Saksamaa rõhutas, et vaatlusperioodi ajavahemik 1997–2002 pidi jääma samaks, sest arvesse võis võtta ainult teatamise ajal kättesaadava teabe.
In opening the formal investigation procedure, the Commission was continuing an assessment that had been started following the notification in December 2003.
Algatades ametlikku uurimismenetlust, jätkas komisjon hindamist, mis oli algatatud 2003. aasta detsembris toimunud teavitamise järel.
Germany provided some information on the development of the raw float glass market in the years 2003 and 2004 which underlined the positive development of this market.
Saksamaa esitas andmeid ka toorvaluklaasituru arengute kohta aastatel 2003 ja 2004, mis toonitasid kõnelause turu positiivseid arenguid.
It also showed that the main producers of float glass were planning to increase their production capacity, which supported the positive view on the market.
Saksamaa näitas ka, et peamised valuklaasitootjad kavandasid suurendada oma tootmisvõimsust, mis aitas kaasa turu positiivsele muljele.
As regards the market for processed glass (level 2), Germany remained of the opinion that this market did not need to be included in the analysis.
Seoses töödeldud klaasi (II aste) turuga jäi Saksamaa arvamusele, et kõnealust turgu ei tuleks analüüsi kaasata.
It argued that a very high share of the raw float glass would be directly sold into the market and the shareholders of e-glass would procure the raw float glass at market rates.
Saksamaa väitis, et väga suur osa toorvaluklaasist müüdaks otse turule ja e-glassi aktsionärid hangiksid toorvaluklaasi turuhindadega.
As a consequence, the aid would not have any impact on the level 2 market.
Selle tulemusena ei oleks abil mingisugust mõju II astme turule.
Concerning the definition of the relevant market, Germany argued against the view that only multiple-walled glass would form the relevant market and stressed that the relevant market was EEA-wide and should include safety glass (ESG and VSG) as well as multiple-walled glass.
Saksamaa vaidles seoses asjaomase turu määratlusega vastu arvamusele, et ainult mitmekordne klaas moodustaks asjaomase turu, ja rõhutas, et asjaomane turg hõlmab kogu EMPd ja see peaks sisaldama nii turvaklaasi (ESG ja VSG) kui ka mitmekordset klaasi.
Germany also provided information on the transport costs of raw float glass and processed float glass.
Saksamaa esitas ka teavet toorvaluklaasi ja töödeldud valuklaasi transpordikulude kohta.
The percentage share of transport costs was higher for raw float glass than for processed glass due to the higher price of processed glass.
Transpordikulude protsentuaalne osa oli toorvaluklaasi puhul suurem kui töödeldud klaasi puhul, kuna töödeldud klaasi hind on kõrgem.
This meant an EEA-wide market definition.
See tähendas kogu EMPd hõlmavat turumääratlust.
In addition, Germany suggested that the distribution areas of the production facilities for processed glass in the EEA overlapped, which pointed to the conclusion that the market was EEA-wide.
Lisaks sellele märkis Saksamaa, et EMP töödeldud klaasi tootmisüksuste jaotuspiirkonnad kattuvad, mis viitas järeldusele, et kõnealune turg hõlmab kogu EMPd.
Germany commented on the competitors’ view that the capital-labour factor needed to be adjusted since Trösch could exploit synergies between the e-glass production site and other factories of the group in the area.
Saksamaa tegi märkuse konkurentide arvamuse kohta, mille kohaselt tuleks kohandada kapitali/tööjõu suhtarvu, kuna Trösch võiks ära kasutada sünergiat e-glassi tootmisobjekti ja samas piirkonnas asuvate kontserni teiste tehaste vahel.
In particular, Germany argued that since Trösch was only one of three shareholders that were all competitors in the market for processed glass, it was not possible to generate these synergies.
Eriti märkis Saksamaa, et kuna Trösch oli ainult üks kolmest aktsionärist, kes kõik olid konkurendid töödeldud klaasi turul, siis ei olnud võimalik kõnealust sünergiat luua.
In addition, it provided information on the correct estimation of the number of staff and argued that comparisons between factories as carried out by competitors were not correct and led to wrong conclusions.
Lisaks sellele esitas Saksamaa teavet personali suuruse õige prognoosi kohta ning oli arvamusel, et konkurentide teostatud tehaste võrdlused ei olnud tõesed ja viisid valede järeldusteni.
On 20 April 2004 the Commission approved the aid intensity for e-glass as notified by Germany on 15 December 2003.
Komisjon kiitis 20. aprillil 2004. aastal heaks e-glassile antava abi osatähtsuse vastavalt Saksamaa 15. detsembril 2003. aastal teavitatule.
Since, after the decision was taken, Germany informed the Commission of incorrect information in the original notification and since this information was a determining factor for the decision, the Commission decided on 20 April 2005 to initiate the formal investigation procedure with a view to revoking the original decision of 20 April 2004 and issuing a new decision.
Pärast otsuse tegemist teavitas Saksamaa komisjoni, et algne teatis sisaldas ebaõiget teavet ning kuna kõnealune teave oli otsuse tegemisel määrava tähtsusega, otsustas komisjon 20. aprillil 2005. aastal algatada ametliku uurimismenetluse eesmärgiga tühistada 20. aprilli 2004. aasta algne otsus ja vastu võtta uus otsus.
The decision of 20 April 2004 contains a complete assessment of the notification.
aprilli 2004. aasta otsus sisaldab teatise täielikku hindamist.
This assessment is taken over in the present Decision except for those parts which need to be corrected because of the information sent by Germany on 25 October 2004 and formed part of the decision of 20 April 2005.
Kõnealune hindamine võetakse üle käesolevasse otsusesse, välja arvatud osad, mida tuleb parandada teabe tõttu, mida Saksamaa saatis 25. oktoobril 2004. aastal ja mis moodustavad osa 20. aprilli 2005. aasta otsusest.
Applicable guidelines
Kohaldatavad suunised
Germany notified the aid to e-glass on 15 December 2003, and this notification was registered as received on 18 December 2003.
Saksamaa teavitas e-glassi abist 15. detsembril 2003. aastal, teatis registreeriti 18. detsembril 2003. aastal.
Point 40 of the 2002 Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (MSF 2002) stipulates that a project has to be assessed in the light of the criteria applicable at the time of notification: ‘…, the provisions of this framework will be applied as from 1 January 2004.
aasta mitut valdkonda hõlmava raamprogrammi (regionaalabi andmiseks ulatuslikele investeerimisprojektidele) (edaspidi MSF 2002) punktiga 40 sätestatakse, et projekti tuleb hinnata teatamise ajal kohaldatud kriteeriumide alusel: „… käesoleva raamprogrammi sätteid kohaldatakse alates 1. jaanuarist 2004.
The previous multisectoral framework will remain applicable until 31 December 2003.
Eelmise mitut valdkonda hõlmava raamprogrammi kohaldamist jätkatakse kuni 31. detsembrini 2003.
Relevant facts
Asjakohased faktid
This assessment will take into account the facts, figures and situations as they existed at the time of the notification on 15 December 2003.
Käesolev hindamine võtab arvesse fakte, andmeid ja olukordi, nagu need eksisteerisid teatamise ajal 15. detsembril 2003. aastal.
The Commission has to take an ex-ante decision on the basis of estimates of future perspectives and market figures.
Komisjon peab tulevaste perspektiivide ja turuandmete põhjal tegema eelotsuse.
The Member State also has no other information available to decide on the aid than the facts, figures and situations as they exist at the time of the notification.
Liikmesriigi käsutuses ei ole abi üle otsustamiseks muud teavet, kui teatamise ajal olemasolevad faktid, andmed ja olukorrad.
The aid intensities are not adapted afterwards if some years later — ex-post — figures show that the market has, for example, turned out differently.
Abi osatähtsusi ei kohandata tagantjärele, juhul kui mõni aasta hiljem peaks andmetest selguma, et turg kujunes teistsuguseks.
Although in the present case the Commission has to take a decision two and a half years after the original notification took place, it must nevertheless base its assessment on the facts and situations which existed at the time of notification.
Kuigi praegusel juhul peab komisjon tegema otsuse kaks ja pool aastat pärast algset teatamist, peab ta oma hindamise rajama siiski faktidele ja olukorrale, mis eksisteeris teatise esitamise ajal.
The reference period in the decision of 20 April 2004 was the years 1997 to 2002.
aprilli 2004. aasta otsuse vaatlusperioodiks olid aastad 1997–2002.
Competitors of e-glass suggested that the reference period for the analysis should be adjusted to take more recent data into account that is now available.
E-glassi konkurendid arvasid, et analüüsi vaatlusperioodi tuleks muuta, et arvesse saaks võtta ka nüüd kättesaadavaks saanud uuemaid andmeid.
Since some time has elapsed between the original notification and the current Decision, situations might have changed, markets might have developed and facts concerning the project might have turned differently than was originally planned.
Kuna algse teatamise ja praeguse otsuse vahepeal on aeg edasi läinud, siis võib olukord olla muutunud, turg võib olla edasi arenenud ja projektiga seotud faktid võivad olla välja kujunenud teisiti, kui algselt kavandati.
For the reasons stated above, this cannot be taken into account by the Commission in its assessment.
Mainitud põhjustel ei saa komisjon seda oma hindamises arvestada.
Existence of aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty
EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 kohase abi olemasolu
The present aid measure was granted by a Member State and through state resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty (see point 2.4 of this Decision).
Käesoleva abimeetme andis EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 kohaselt liikmesriik riigi vahenditest (vt käesoleva otsuse punkti 2.4).
The aid will confer an advantage on e-glass as it would otherwise have had to bear the entire costs of the investment on its own.
Abiga antakse eelis e-glassile, kuna muidu oleks e-glass pidanud kandma kogu investeeringu kulud ise.
As a significant volume of the float glass is transported across international borders, there exists international trade in the float glass market.
Kuna märkimisväärne hulk valuklaasi transporditakse üle rahvusvaheliste piiride, siis eksisteerib valuklaasiturul rahvusvaheline kaubandus.
Therefore, financial advantages conferred on the company may distort competition in a way that may affect trade between Member States.
Seetõttu võivad ettevõtjale antud finantseelised moonutada konkurentsi nii, et see mõjutab liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
Consequently, within this assessment, the Commission considers that the notified measure constitutes state aid to e-glass within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Sellest tulenevalt on komisjon hindamises arvamusel, et teatatud meede kujutab endast EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 kohast riigiabi e-glassile.
Since the criteria set out in point 2.1(i) of the MSF 1998 apply, the aid project must be notified and the maximum allowable aid intensity must be determined in accordance with the MSF 1998.
Kuna kohaldatakse MSF 1998 punkti 2.1 lõikes i sätestatud kriteeriume, peab abiprojektist teavitama ning suurim lubatud abi osatähtsus peab olema määratud kooskõlas MSF 1998ga.
The Commission notes that the aid is based on three regional aid schemes already approved by the Commission.
Komisjon märgib, et abi aluseks on kolm komisjonilt juba heakskiidu saanud regionaalabi kava.