natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lastly, the Commission excludes any aid to export-related activities.
Ning lõpetuseks välistab komisjon igasuguse eksporditegevuse jaoks antava abi.
In this connection, the Commission questioned what the impact would be of the project on the tourism sector in Portugal (and thus in the European Union) and whether or not it would affect trading conditions in the European Union to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Sellega seoses uuris komisjon projekti võimalikku mõju Portugali (ja kogu Euroopa Liidu) turismisektorile ning seda, kas see mõjutaks kaubandustingimusi määral, mis oleks vastuolus ühiste huvidega.
The Commission was also doubtful whether the aid was necessary and/or provided any incentive for the applicant to carry out the investment since the project had been completed even before Djebel formally applied for State aid.
Komisjon kahtles ka selles, kas abi oli vajalik ja/või oli taotlejale investeeringu tegemiseks mingisugusegi ergutava mõjuga, sest projekt viidi lõpule enne, kui Djebel riigiabi saamiseks taotluse esitas.
It requested Portugal to submit comments and provide any information that might help in the assessment of the case.
Komisjon palus Portugalil esitada märkused ja igasuguse teabe, mis võiks aidata käesolevat juhtumit hinnata.
Portugal considered that the necessity of the aid was justified by the fact that the acquisition of RASH constituted the first foreign direct investment project in Brazil by the Pestana Group.
Portugal leidis, et abi vajalikkust õigustab asjaolu, et RASHi omandamine oli kontserni Pestana Group jaoks esimene välismaine otseinvesteering Brasiilias.
This is a group whose activity was focused virtually in its entirety on the Portuguese market.
Varem oli kõnealuse kontserni tegevus piirdunud vaid Portugali turuga.
Portugal stated that the challenge of international expansion into Brazil, a high-risk country but also one with a high development potential and with close historical and cultural links with Portugal, became a decisive issue for the Pestana Group’s development.
Portugal väitis, et kontserni Pestana Group arengu seisukohast sai otsustava tähtsusega asjaoluks rahvusvahelise laienemise võimalus Brasiiliasse, mis on küll kõrge riskitasemega, kuid ka suure arengupotentsiaaliga ning Portugaliga tihedate ajalooliste ja kultuurisidemetega riik.
Portugal pointed out to the Commission that the request for aid from the company was drawn up on 24 May 1999 and was submitted to F. Turismo — Capital de Risco SA, a company managing the risk capital fund FCR F. Turismo.
Portugal juhtis komisjoni tähelepanu sellele, et ettevõtte abitaotlus koostati 24. mail 1999 ning edastati seejärel ettevõttele F.Turismo – Capital de Risco SA, mis haldab ettevõtte FCR F. Turismo riskikapitalifondi.
The notified request constituted a second phase in the assessment of the project.
Teatatud taotlus moodustas projekti hindamise teise etapi.
It should, therefore, be evaluated in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time, namely in May 1999.
Seepärast tuleks seda hinnata sel ajal ehk mais 1999 valitsenud olukorrast lähtuvalt.
In this context and according to the Portuguese authorities, the fact that the investment was carried out without the aid shows that the promoter was confident about obtaining the aid and that it had to seize this business opportunity.
Sellega seoses ja Portugali ametiasutuste sõnul näitab asjaolu, et projekt viidi ellu ilma abirahadeta seda, et projektijuht oli abi saamises veendunud ning et ta pidi selle ärivõimaluse ära kasutama.
The Portuguese authorities argued that the beneficiary should not be penalised because it took longer to present the application that to carry out the investment.
Portugali ametiasutused väitsid, et abisaajat ei tohiks karistada selle eest, et taotluse esitamiseks kulus rohkem aega kui investeeringu tegemiseks.
They also referred to the handicaps and exceptional risks of the operation, such as the high volatility of the Brazilian real and the fact that this is the company's first investment in Brazil.
Samuti viitasid ametiasutused tegevuse kitsaskohtadele ja tegevusriskidele, näiteks Brasiilia kinnisvaraturu suurtele kõikumistele ja sellele, et kõnealuse investeeringu puhul oleks tegemist ettevõtte esimese investeeringuga Brasiilias.
Portugal took the view that this investment in Brazil contributed to improving the competitiveness of the Pestana Group and reinforcing its standing in the global tourism sector, thanks in particular to the enhanced recognition of the ‘Pestana Hotels and Resorts’ brand, with the accompanying enhanced visibility of Portugal as a destination.
Portugal asus seisukohale, et kõnealune investeering Brasiilias aitaks kaasa kontserni Pestana Group konkurentsivõime parandamisele ja selle positsiooni tugevdamisele üleilmses turismisektoris, mis saavutatakse „Pestana Hotels and Resorts” kaubamärgi suurema tuntuse ning Portugali kui sihtkoha paremini nähtavakstegemise kaudu.
Moreover, the Group’s experience in Mozambique is not remotely comparable to its experience of internationalisation in Brazil, given the different characteristics of the two markets.
Lisaks ei ole kontserni kogemus Mosambiigis kuidagi võrreldav Brasiilia rahvusvahelise kogemusega, võttes arvesse nende kahe turu erinevusi.
Whereas the Mozambique market, despite its high potential, is still only in an embryonic phase of development, Brazil is an open market with a high level of competition and one which presents a far more challenging prospect than Mozambique.
Vaatamata suurele turupotentsiaalile, on Mosambiigi turg ikka veel arengu algetapis, kuid Brasiilia on kõrge konkurentsitasemega avatud turg ning pakub Mosambiigiga võrreldes tunduvalt suuremaid väljakutseid.
In terms of the Pestana Group’s current process of internationalisation, its experience in Mozambique did nothing to attenuate the high risk and anxiety associated with this operation.
Pestana kontserni praeguse rahvusvahelistumise protsessi seisukohast ei leevenda Mosambiigi kogemus kuidagi kõrget riskitaset ning selle tehinguga kaasnevat ebakindlust.
Lastly, the Portuguese authorities claimed that the aid would have a limited effect on trading conditions in the European Union, notably because:
Lõpetuseks väitsid Portugali ametiasutused, et abi mõjutaks kaubandustingimusi Euroopa Liidus vaid piiratud ulatuses järgmistel põhjustel:
the amount of the aid is only EUR 574466, representing 3,9 % of the eligible investment;
abi summa on ainult 574466 eurot, moodustades abikõlblikust investeeringust vaid 3,9 %;
the Pestana Group has a market share of only 2 % in Portugal, which is negligible in European terms;
kontserni Pestana Group turuosa Portugalis on ainult 2 %, mis Euroopa mõistes on tähtsusetu;
the Brazilian market has around 10000 hotels, of which some 7 % are owned by foreign companies;
Brasiilia turul on ligikaudu 10000 hotelli, millest välisettevõtetele kuulub vaid 7 %;
Brazil is a competitive market but one with a very low level of concentration;
Brasiilia on konkurentsivõimeline turg, kus turu kontsentratsioon on väga väike;
the company’s European competitors operating in Brazil already have very high market shares, led by the French group ACCOR, with 108 hotels, and followed by the Spanish Sol Melia group, with 23;
Brasiilias tegutsevate ettevõtte Euroopa konkurentide turuosad on juba väga suured, näiteks kuulub Prantsuse kontsernile ACCOR 108 hotelli ja Hispaania kontsernile Sol Melia 23 hotelli;
in view of the dimension of the Brazilian market, the project is not of a sufficient size to produce any appreciable increase in local supply or to affect the positions of European companies already operating in Brazil.
võttes arvesse Brasiilia turu suurust, ei ole projekt piisava suurusega selleks, et kutsuda esile kohaliku pakkumise märkimisväärset suurenemist või mõjutada Brasiilias juba tegutsevate Euroopa ettevõtete turupositsiooni.
Portugal concluded that there was no possibility that the investment concerned, which involved the purchase of only one hotel, could have any significant impact on trading conditions in the European Union and that there was even less possibility that such an impact could be contrary to the common interest.
Kokkuvõtteks leidis Portugal, et asjaomane investeering, mis hõlmab ainult ühe hotelli ostmist, ei saa kuidagi märkimisväärselt mõjutada kaubandustingimusi Euroopa Liidus või olla ühiste huvidega vastuolus.
Under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
Vastavalt EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõikele 1 „on igasugune liikmesriigi poolt või riigi ressurssidest ükskõik missugusel kujul antav abi, mis kahjustab või ähvardab kahjustada konkurentsi, soodustades teatud ettevõtteid või teatud kaupade tootmist, ühisturuga kokkusobimatu niivõrd, kuivõrd see kahjustab liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.”
The Commission, in its decision of 22 February 2006, concluded that the aid fell within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty for the following reasons:
veebruari 2006. aasta otsuses leidis komisjon, et abi kuulub EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 kohaldamisalasse järgmistel põhjustel:
Under the notified measure, a large enterprise will receive funds for investing in the tourism sector in Brazil as part of an internationalisation strategy.
teatatud meetme kohaselt saab suurettevõte oma rahvusvahelistumise strateegia raames abi Brasiilia turismisektorisse investeerimiseks.
This measure amounts to preferential treatment of the beneficiary firm, gives it an advantage or an incentive compared with other firms and thereby distorts or threatens to distort competition.
Selle meetme tulemusena saab abisaaja sooduskohtlemise osaliseks ning ühtlasi eelise või soodustuse teiste ettevõtetega võrreldes, mis kahjustab konkurentsi või ähvardab seda teha;
Aid will be granted to a firm in the EU tourism market, where there is or could be trade between Member States or on which firms from other Member States might wish to participate.
abi antakse ettevõttele, kes tegutseb ELi turismiturul, kus esineb või võib esineda kaubandus liikmesriikide vahel või kus teiste liikmesriikide ettevõtted võivad samuti soovida osaleda.
The measure could therefore affect trade between Member States.
Seega võib meede mõjutada liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust;
The measure is funded through State resources.
meedet rahastatakse riiklikest vahenditest.
The Commission considers that the arguments adduced by Portugal (see paragraph 27) are insufficient to modify these conclusions for the following reasons:
Komisjon leiab, et Portugali väited (vt punkt 27) ei ole järelduste muutmiseks piisavad järgmistel põhjustel:
The Pestana Group was the leading Portuguese hotel group, a position which it still holds today, and it owned some 15 hotels in Portugal at the time of the request for aid.
Pestana Group oli ja on ka praegu Portugali juhtiv hotellikontsern, millele abi taotlemise ajal kuulus Portugalis 15 hotelli.
It is clearly advantageous for the national tourism sector as a whole to have one of the most important Portuguese brands represented in South America.
Riigi turismisektori jaoks tervikuna on see loomulikult suur eelis, kui üks kõige olulisematest kaubamärkidest oleks Lõuna-Ameerikas esindatud.
The international scale of ‘Pestana Hotels and Restaurants’ gave the Group enhanced visibility, boosted its negotiating power and strengthened its business activity in the hotel sector.
„Pestana Hotels and Restaurants” rahvusvaheline ulatus muutis kontserni paremini nähtavaks, suurendas selle võimu läbirääkimistel ja tugevdas äritegevust hotellisektoris.
These factors helped to increase its size and to enhance its capacity for investing in the Portuguese market.
Need asjaolud võimaldasid tal veelgi suuremaks saada ja tõsta investeerimisvõimet Portugali turul;
Since the start of its process of internationalisation, the Pestana Group has made a number of investments in Portugal, namely (i) the construction of three new hotels, (ii) the take-up of the management of the Pousadas de Portugal network, (iii) the purchase of a two other inefficient hotel companies and subsequent modernisation of their hotels, and (iv) the development of sizeable tourist projects, such as the Cidade da Criança in the Autonomous Region of Madeira.
alates rahvusvahelistumise protsessi algusest on Pestana Group teinud Portugalis mitmeid investeeringuid, nimelt i) ehitanud kolm uut hotelli, ii) võtnud üle Pousadas de Portugal võrgu juhtimise, iii) omandanud kaks ebatõhusat hotelliettevõtet ning seejärel teinud nendes hotellides olulisi uuendusi ja iv) arendanud mahukaid turismiprojekte nagu Cidade da Criança Madeira autonoomses piirkonnas;
In view of the size of the Pestana Group, a significant increase in the number of jobs created in Portugal would not be the only consequence of buying a hotel in Brazil.
arvestades kontserni Pestana Group suurust, ei oleks Portugalis loodavate töökohtade arvu oluline kasv ainus muutus, mis Brasiilias hotelli ostmisega kaasneks.
Such an increase has indeed already taken place, but primarily as a result of the various abovementioned investments which the Group recently made in Portugal and which are largely due to the momentum generated by its process of internationalisation.
Selline kasv on tõepoolest juba olnud, kuid eelkõige tänu erinevatele eespool osutatud investeeringutele, mida kontsern on viimasel ajal Portugalis teinud, ning tänu rahvusvahelistumise protsessi käigus tehtud edusammudele.
In 1999 the Group had a total workforce of only 1800, whereas by 2005, only six years later, the figure already exceeded 3500.
aastal oli töötajate arv kontsernis kõigest 1800, kuid vaid kuus aastat hiljem 2005. aastal oli see juba üle 3500; meetmega aidatakse Portugali ettevõttel selle rahvusvahelistumise algatuse raames osta hotelli Brasiilias.
By helping with the acquisition of a hotel as part of the internationalisation initiative of a Portuguese company in Brazil, the notified measure favours a certain undertaking or the production of certain goods.
Teisisõnu, sellega eelistatakse teatavat ettevõtet või teatavate kaupade tootmist. Komisjon leiab, et Euroopa Liidu ettevõtetele välismaisteks otseinvesteeringuteks antav abi on võrreldav abiga, mida antakse ettevõtetele, mis ekspordivad peaaegu kogu oma toodangu ühendusest välja.
The Commission considers that aid granted to undertakings of the European Union for foreign direct investment is comparable to aid granted to undertakings that export almost all of their production outside the Community.
Sellistel juhtudel, arvestades nende turgude vahelist suurt vastastikust sõltuvust, kus ühenduse ettevõtted tegutsevad, ei saa välistada ka seda, et abi võib moonutada konkurentsi ühenduses.
In such cases, given the interdependence between the markets on which Community undertakings operate, it cannot be excluded that aid may distort competition within the Community [8].Compatibility of the aid with the EC Treaty
[8]Abi kokkusobivus EÜ asutamislepinguga
The Commission indicated that it would assess the compatibility of the aid with the EC Treaty in the light of the derogation under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, which authorises aid ‘to facilitate the development of ceertain economic activities’ where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Komisjon andis mõista, et ta hindab abi EÜ asutamislepinguga kokkusobivust vastavalt selle lepingu artikli 87 lõike 3 punkti c kohasele erandile, mille kohaselt tohib abi anda „teatud majandustegevuse arengu soodustamiseks”, kui niisugune abi ei kahjusta kaubandustingimusi määral, mis oleks vastuolus ühiste huvidega.
The Commission also indicated that it would take into account certain criteria which it had applied in previous cases of aid to large companies for outward foreign direct investment projects (see paragraph 18) with a view to striking a balance between the benefits of the measure, in terms of contributing to the international competitiveness of the EU industry concerned (e.g. whether the aid is necessary by reference to the risks associated with the project in the country of investment), and its possible negative effects on the EU market [9].
Komisjon väitis samuti, et võtab arvesse teatavaid kriteeriume, mida ta on varem kohaldanud suurettevõtetele välismaiste otseinvesteerimisprojektide jaoks antud abi suhtes (vt punkti 18), püüdes leida tasakaalu meetmest saadava kasu ehk siis selle positiivse mõju ELi asjaomase tööstusharu rahvusvahelisele konkurentsivõimele (nt kas abi on vajalik, võttes arvesse projektiga seotud riske investeeringu objektiks olevas riigis) ja selle võimalike negatiivsete mõjude vahel ELi turul. [9]
The Commission noted in this context that, as regards the incentive effect of the aid, there appeared to be some indications that the aid did not meet this criterion.
Sellega seoses märkis komisjon, et abi ergutava mõju seisukohast esines märke, et abi sellele kriteeriumile ei vastanud.
In addition, it had doubts as to the impact of the measure on the common market.
Lisaks oli komisjonil kahtlusi seoses abi mõjuga ühisturule.
This included, inter alia, the necessity of the aid given the risks associated with the project in the country concerned as well as the deficiencies of the company (similar to those that may be faced by SMEs).
See hõlmas muu hulgas ka abi vajalikkust, võttes arvesse projektiga seotud riske asjaomases riigis ja ettevõtte vajadusi (nt sarnased VKEde võimalike vajadustega).
As a general principle of State aid legislation, in order for aid to be compatible with the common market, it must be demonstrated that the aid leads to an additional activity by the beneficiary which would not be carried out without the aid.
Riigiabi õigusaktide peamise põhimõtte kohaselt loetakse abi ühisturuga kokkusobivaks, kui sellega kaasneb abisaaja täiendav tegevus, mida ta ei oleks saanud abita teha.
Otherwise, the aid would simply distort competition without having any positive counter-effect.
Vastasel juhul moonutaks abi lihtsalt konkurentsi, ilma et sellega kaasneks mingit positiivset mõju.
The Commission doubted already in the decision to initiate the procedure in the present case that the aid was necessary for Djebel to carry out this investment.
Juba menetluse algatamise otsuses kahtles komisjon selles, kas abi oli Djebelile investeeringu tegemiseks vajalik.
In its decision of 22 February 2006, the Commission emphasised that the notified project was not the first internationalisation project of the Pestana Group, of which Djebel forms part.
Oma 22. veebruari 2006. aasta otsuses rõhutas komisjon, et teatatud projekt ei ole esimene rahvusvahelistumise projekt kontserni Pestana Group jaoks, kuhu kuulub ka Djebel. Kontsern tegutses juba Mosambiigis ning seepärast kaheldi selles, kas abi vajati kontserni Pestana Group esimese rahvusvahelistumise projekti rahastamiseks Brasiilias.
Moreover, Djebel is owned by the major hotel group in Portugal.
Lisaks kuulub Djebel Portugali suurimasse hotellikontserni.
From 1999, the firm has expanded its activity in Brazil, where it currently has nine hotels and is among the ten largest hotel chains.
Alates 1999. aastast on ettevõte oma tegevust Brasiilias laiendanud, olles seal praegu üheksa hotelli omanik ja kuuludes kümne suurima hotelliketi hulka.
This seems to indicate that the investment would have gone ahead even without the prospect of obtaining the aid.
See näitab, et investeering oleks tehtud ka siis, kui abi saamise võimalus oleks puudunud.
Moreover, an aid granted now for an investment that took place over seven years ago is unlikely to have any practical link with the investment anymore.
Lisaks ei oleks enam investeeringuga mingit praktilist seost sellisel abil, mida antakse praegu üle seitsme aasta tagasi tehtud investeeringu jaoks.
In order for aid to have an incentive effect, it must also be established that a request for support was introduced before the investment started.
Et abil oleks ergutav mõju, tuleb abitaotlus esitada enne investeerimistegevuse algust.
The Commission points out that the investment took place in October 1999, more than one year before the beneficiary formally applied for aid under State aid scheme N 667/1999 (on 31 January 2001) and so did not comply with the ‘incentive effect’ criterion normally required by the Community rules on national regional aid [11].
Komisjon juhib tähelepanu sellele, et investeering tehti oktoobris 1999 ehk enam kui aasta varem abikava N 667/1999 raames ametliku taotluse esitamisest (31. jaanuar 2001). Seega ei ole täidetud abi ergutava mõju kriteerium, mis on ette nähtud piirkondlikku riigiabi käsitlevates ühenduse eeskirjades. [11]
The Portuguese authorities argued that the proposal for the participation of FCR in the investment, which took place on 24 May 1999 (prior to the investment), is sufficient proof that this criterion is met.
Portugali ametiasutuste väitel piisab kõnealuse kriteeriumi täitmise tõendamiseks asjaolust, et FCR esitas investeeringus osalemistaotluse 24. mail 1999 (enne investeeringu tegemist).
The Commission does not consider that such a proposal for the participation of a risk capital firm in the investment can, on its own, be considered to constitute an application for State aid capable of justifying its incentive effect.
Komisjon ei leia, et riskikapitaliettevõtte investeeringus osalemistaotlust üksi saaks lugeda riigiabitaotluseks, millega oleks võimalik õigustada abi ergutavat mõju.
The Commission also stresses that the investment took place around five and a half years before the notification was submitted to it by the Portuguese authorities.
Samuti rõhutab komisjon, et investeering tehti ligikaudu viis ja pool aastat varem kui Portugali ametiasutused teda sellest teavitasid.
On the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that there is no evidence that the aid proposed by Portugal was necessary to compensate for any specific risks associated with the project.
Eespool esitatu põhjal leiab komisjon, et puuduvad tõendid selle kohta, et Portugali taotletav abi oli projektiga seonduvate konkreetsete riskide hüvitamiseks vajalik.
Thus, it considers that the aid was not necessary in order for the Pestana Group to carry out the investment in Brazil and to trigger that investment.
Seepärast arvab komisjon, et abi ei olnud kontserni Pestana Group jaoks Brasiilias investeeringu tegemiseks ja selle investeeringu käivitamiseks vajalik.
In its view, the aid has no incentive effect.
Komisjoni arvates puudub abil ergutav mõju.
The Commission has also maintained in previous cases that aid for foreign direct investment is likely to strengthen the beneficiary's overall financial and strategic position and thus affect its relative position relative to competitors on the EU market [12].
Varasemate juhtumite puhul on komisjon samuti väitnud, et välismaisteks otseinvesteeringuteks antav abi võib tugevdada abisaaja üldist finantsseisundit ja strateegilist positsiooni ning seega mõjutada abisaaja seisundit võrreldes konkurentidega ELi turul. [12]
The Commission stresses that the Pestana Group increased its commercial activity in the hotel sector following the investment in question, which was not its first investment abroad.
Komisjon rõhutab, et pärast kõnealust investeeringut, mis ei olnud kontserni esimene investeering välismaal, suurendas Pestana Group oma äritegevust hotellisektoris.
According to the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, even though it did not benefit from the aid, the investment in Brazil helped to strengthen the competitiveness of the Pestana Group and its visibility in the general tourism market, thanks in particular to the projection of the ‘Pestana Hotels and Resorts’ brand.
Portugali ametiasutuste esitatud teabe kohaselt aitas Brasiiliasse tehtud investeering, isegi kui selleks abi ei antud, tugevdada kontserni Pestana Group konkurentsivõimet ja muuta kontsern turismisektoris paremini nähtavaks, eelkõige tänu „Pestana Hotels and Resorts” kaubamärgile.