natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Between 2000 and 2004 Marnavi accounted for about 43 % of Cantieri Navali Termoli's turnover whereas, during the earlier period from 1995 to 1999, its share was close to zero.
Aastatel 2000–2004 moodustas Marnavi Cantieri Navali Termoli käibest ligikaudu 43 %; samas kui vahemikus 1995–1999 oli tema osa peaaegu nullilähedane.
The shipyard is a very small company employing 51 people.
Laevatehas on väga väike ettevõte, kus töötab 51 isikut.
The Italian authorities state that the Commission's reference to the Clarkson report in footnote 11 of the decision to initiate the procedure is incorrect because it refers to a report of November 2003 instead of October 2003.
Itaalia ametiasutused märgivad, et komisjoni viide Clarksoni aruandele menetluse algatamise otsuse joonealuses märkuses nr 11 ei ole korrektne, sest selles viidatakse 2003. aasta novembrikuu aruandele, mitte 2003. aasta oktoobri aruandele.
The Clarkson Shipping Review & Outlook, autumn 2003, pp 7-44 and 127; Clarkson: ‘Review of Tanker/Chemical/Small LPG Markets and Newbuilding Investment over 2001 and onwards’, October 2003, pp.17-20.
Clarkson “Shipping Review & Outlook”, sügis 2003, lk 7–44 ja 127; Clarkson “Review of Tanker/Chemical/Small LPG Markets and Newbuilding Investment over 2001 and onwards”, oktoober 2003, lk 17–20.
The tankers in question are the C.173 and C.180, discussed below.
Kõnealused laevad on C.173 ja C.180, mida käsitletakse edaspidi.
These concern mainly the ship's size and number of tanks, and its length and width.
Need käsitlesid laeva mahutite suurust ja arvu ning laeva pikkust ja laiust.
The Italian authorities say that theses changes concerned both the original C.173 and C.180 (ex C.173) and had been agreed between the yard and the shipowner before suspension of the contract in 2001 following the letter from Novamar of February 2001, which indicated that both ships could be subject to changes.
Itaalia ametiasutused väidavad, et need muudatused, mis puudutasid nii algselt nime C.173 kandnud laeva ja laeva nimega C.180 (endine C.173), olid laevatehase ja laevaomaniku vahel kokku lepitud enne lepingu peatamist aastal 2001 pärast Novamari 2001. aasta veebruaris saadetud kirja, milles viidati, et mõlemat laeva võidakse muuta.
They further state that work on the modified C.180 (ex C.173) was already under way before being formalised in a contract addendum in December 2003.
Lisaks väidavad ametiasutused, et laevaga C.180 (endine C.173) seotud tööd olid enne lepingu lisandi vormistamist 2003. aasta detsembris juba käimas.
According to the Italian authorities’ interpretation of Commission Decisions 691/2003 of 9 July 2003 and 727/1993 of 21 December 1993, the type of ship and the changes in question would qualify for the ‘technical complexity’ exemption accepted by the Commission.
Vastavalt Itaalia ametiasutuste tõlgendusele komisjoni 9. juuli 2003. aasta otsusest nr 691/2003 ja 21. detsembri 2003. aasta otsusest nr 727/1993 kuuluksid kõnealused muudatused seda tüüpi laevade puhul komisjoni poolt aktsepteeritud “tehnilist keerukust” käsitleva erandi alla.
Commission decision C(2004)3344 fin. cor. of 8 September 2004 concerning Case No 147/2004.
Komisjoni 8. septembri 2004. aasta otsus C(2004)3344 lõplik, mis käsitleb juhtumit N 147/2004.
These subsystems of the hull, the carpentry and outfitting services for the vessel, the supply of stainless steel plate, the supply and installation of electrical fittings, and the supply of consultancy services for the modification of the vessel C.173 subsequently rebaptised C.180 to increase its capacity and power.
Lepingute tühistamise tulemusel oli laevatehas sunnitud laevaomaniku suhtes kasutama vääramatu jõu klauslit, mis tõi viimaks kaasa laevaomaniku otsuse loobuda ühe laevatehaselt tellitud laeva ehitamisest.
As a result of these contract cancellations, the yard was obliged to invoke the ‘force majeure’ clause with respect to the shipowner; this eventually prompted the latter’s decision to abandon the construction of one of the two vessels it had ordered at the yard.
Esmavajalike materjalide all mõeldakse laevakere alamsüsteeme, puusepatöid ja kohandusteenuseid, roostevabast terasest plaate, elektrisüsteemide tarnimist ja paigaldamist ning konsultatsiooniteenuste osutamist laeva C.173 kohandamiseks, eesmärgiga suurendada nimetatud laeva mahtu ja võimsust ja nimetada see seejärel ümber C.180ks.
OJ C 317, 30.12.2003, p. 11.
ELT C 317, 30.12.03, lk 11.
See Case No 99/02 (OJ C 262, 29/10/2002), Odense shipyard — Prolongation of three-year delivery limits for two ships (Denmark).
Vt juhtum N 99/02 (EÜT C 262, 29.10.2002), Odense laevatehas – Kolmeaastase üleandmistähtaja pikendamine kahe laeva puhul (Taani).
‘Review of Tanker/Chemical/Small LPG Markets & Newbuilding Investment over 2001 and onwards’, Clarkson Research, November 2003, pp. 19 and 20.
“Review of Tanker/Chemical/Small LPG Markets & Newbuilding Investment over 2001 e onwards”, Clarkson Research, november 2003, lk 19–20.
Article 3(2), second subparagraph, third sentence, of the Shipbuilding Regulation stipulates that: ‘the Commission may, however, grant an extension of the three-year delivery limit when this is found justified by the technical complexity of the individual shipbuilding project concerned or by delays resulting from unexpected disruptions of a substantial and defensible nature in the working programme of a yard due to exceptional circumstances, unforeseeable and external to the company.’
Laevaehitusmääruse artikli 3 lõike 2 teise lõigu kolmandas lauses on sätestatud: “Komisjon võib kolmeaastast üleandmistähtaega siiski pikendada, kui seda peetakse õigustatuks asjaomase laevaehitusprojekti tehnilise keerukuse tõttu või viivituste tõttu, mis tulenevad laevatehase tööprogrammi olulistest ja põhjendatavatest ootamatutest häiretest, mille on tinginud ettenägematud ja ettevõtjavälised erakorralised asjaolud.”
The Commission notes that the extension is sought because Cantieri Navali Termoli could not finish the vessel referred to above on account of unexpected delays external to the company.
Komisjon märgib, et pikendust taotletakse seetõttu, et Cantieri Navali Termoli ei suutnud lõpetada eespool nimetatud laeva ettevõtjaväliste ootamatute viivituste tõttu.
In particular, they explained that in 2000 the shipowner had signed contracts with the yard for two chemical tankers, C.173 and C.180, whose initial contract delivery dates were 31 March 2002 and 30 June 2003 respectively. These dates were subsequently postponed to 31 March 2003 and 31 December 2003.
Eelkõige selgitasid nad, et 2000. aastal alla kirjutatud lepingutega tellis laevaomanik laevatehaselt kaks kemikaalitankerit, mille nimed olid vastavalt C.173 ja C.180, mille algsed üleandmistähtajad olid lepingus kindlaks määratud vastavalt 31.03.2002 ja 30.06.2003 ja mida hiljem pikendati 31. märtsini 2003 ja 31. detsembrini 2003.
In particular, they support their case by arguing that the Commission’s appraisal was based on a report drawn up in the autumn of 2003 i.e. two years after the events, whereas these events had an impact on the commercial strategies of economic operators who had to take decisions at the time the events occurred, i.e. in September 2001 or the months immediately after.
Oma analüüsis toetuvad Itaalia ametiasutused eelkõige sellele, et väidavad, et komisjoni hinnang põhineb aruandel, mis esitati 2003. aastal, st kaks aastat pärast sündmusi, samas kui nende väitel avaldasid need sündmused mõju sündmuste toimumise ajal, st 2001. aasta septembris või järgnevate kuude jooksul otsuseid vastu võtma pidanud ettevõtjate äristrateegiale.
According to the Italian authorities, it was generally known and further confirmed by the Clarkson reports that these events had an impact on the entire maritime goods transportation market, and not just on one type of vessel, i.e. cruise ships.
Itaalia ametiasutused on seisukohal, et on üldteada ja seda kinnitavad ka Clarksoni aruanded, et nimetatud sündmused mõjutasid kogu kaupade mereveosektorit, mitte ainult üht tüüpi laevu, st reisilaevu. Oma väite toetuseks esitasid nad uut teavet, mis toetas nende seisukohta, et eespool mainitud sündmused mõjutasid laeva ehitamist.
In support of their case, they supplied new information supporting their opinion that the above events affected the building of the vessel in the form of copies of the contracts between the shipowner Marnavi and Novamar, a charter company based in Houston (US), for the chartering of two chemical tankers ordered by the shipowner from Cantieri Navali Termoli and the revoking of the contracts by Novamar in the wake of the events of 11 September 2001.
Esitati koopiad laevaomanik Marnavi ja Houstonis (Ameerika Ühendriigid) asuva prahtimisettevõtte Novamar vahel kahe kemikaalitankeri prahtimiseks sõlmitud prahtimislepingutest, mis laevaomanik Cantieri Navali Termolile üle andis, ja andmed prahtimislepingute tühistamise kohta Novamari poolt 2001. aasta 11. septembri sündmuste ajal.
The extension requested concerned the delivery of a vessel named C.180, which was being built by Cantieri Navali Termoli SpA., a shipyard located in the Molise region of Italy. The extension originally requested was until 31 October 2004 (10 months).
Tähtaja pikendamist taotleti laeva nimega C.180 jaoks, mida ehitab Itaalias Molise piirkonnas asuv laevatehas Cantieri Navali Termoli S.p.A.. Algselt taotleti pikendust kuni 31.10.2004 (10 kuud).
However, this does not apply to ships delivered more than three years after the signing of the contract. In such cases, the ceiling applicable is that in force three years before the date of delivery of the ship.
See aga ei kehti laevade puhul, mis antakse üle hiljem kui kolm aastat pärast lepingu allakirjutamist; sellisel juhul rakendatakse abi ülemmäära, mis kehtis kolm aastat enne laeva üleandmiskuupäeva.
Accordingly, the principle that rules governing exemptions are to be interpreted narrowly means that a direct causal link must be established between the circumstances allegedly causing the delay and the delay in the construction of the vessel. However, the information made available to the Commission, including the information submitted by the Italian authorities after the opening of the formal investigation, is rather vague, referring in only general terms to the disruptive effects of the disasters; it fails to demonstrate or quantify the exact impact of those events on the yard’s work programme or on the construction of the vessel in question.
Seega tähendab põhimõte, et erandeid käsitlevaid eeskirju tuleb tõlgendada kitsalt, et väidetavalt viivituse põhjustanud asjaolude ja laeva ehitamise venimise vahel tuleb luua selge põhjuslik seos.
Therefore, the arguments set out in (i) to (iii) cannot be accepted. (24) Given the lack of substantial evidence, the extension cannot be authorised on these grounds.
Seega on komisjon seisukohal, et eespool kirjeldatud erakorralised asjaolud ei mõjutanud laevatehase konkreetset tööprogrammi kõnealuse laeva puhul nii, et see õigustaks üleandmistähtaja 10-kuulist pikendamist.
In addition, the Commission observes that the Italian authorities informed it that construction of vessel C.180 (ex C.173) was approximately 66 %-complete, but that the work had been suspended and the vessel launched in August 2004; therefore, in their opinion, the 10-month extension should now start from the Commission’s decision to authorise the requested extension. First, the Italian authorities' request that the 10-month extension start from the date of the Commission decision cannot be regarded as being in conformity with the Shipbuilding Regulation as it would lead to further unjustified delays. The decision to suspend construction of the vessel was made by the yard under its own responsibility and it generated an additional delay that finds no justification in the Shipbuilding Regulation.
Tööde peatamine laeva C.180 (endine C.173) juures 2004. aastal
concerning a measure taken by the Netherlands with regard to VAOP
Madalmaade meetme kohta seoses VAOPiga
(notified under document number C(2006) 3224)
(teatavaks tehtud numbri K(2006) 3224 all)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments,
olles kutsunud huvitatud isikuid üles esitama oma märkusi eelnimetatud sätete kohaselt ja neid märkusi arvesse võttes
By letter dated 12 June 2002, recorded as incoming mail on 17 June 2002, the Commission received a complaint against four allegedly irregular aid measures benefiting the Association of Suppliers of Waste Paper (Vereniging van Aanbieders van Oud Papier — ‘VAOP’), namely partial exemption from corporation tax and from value added tax, the provision of a loan by Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten (‘BNG’), and the provision of a subordinated loan by a number of municipalities (gemeenten).
juuni 2002. aasta kirjaga, mis registreeriti 17. juunil 2002. aastal, sai komisjon kaebuse Paberijäätmete Tarnijate Ühingu (Vereniging van Aanbieders van Oud Papier, edaspidi “VAOP”) kasuks võetud nelja väidetavalt eeskirjadevastase abimeetme kohta, nimelt ettevõtja tulumaksust ja käibemaksust osalise vabastamise, Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten'i (edaspidi “BNG”) antud laenu ja mitme kohaliku omavalitsuse (gemeenten) antud allutatud laenu kohta.
By letters dated 30 July 2002 and 6 December 2002, the Commission requested information from the Dutch authorities, which replied respectively by letters of 10 October 2002 and 10 February 2003.
juuli 2002. aasta ja 6. detsembri 2002. aasta kirjaga taotles komisjon teavet Madalmaade ametiasutustelt, kes vastasid vastavalt 10. oktoobri 2002. aasta ja 10. veebruari 2003. aasta kirjaga.
A meeting between the complainant and Commission staff took place on 29 April 2003.
aprillil 2003 toimus kaebuse esitaja ja komisjoni ametnike kohtumine.
By letter dated 5 May 2003, the complainant informed the Commission that it intended to collect more information on the case from the Dutch authorities and that, on that basis, it would then focus its complaint on certain measures.
mai 2003. aasta kirjas teatas kaebuse esitaja komisjonile, et kavatses koguda juhtumi kohta Madalmaade ametiasutustelt rohkem teavet ja sellele tuginedes keskenduda oma kaebuses teatavatele meetmetele.
By letter dated 13 September 2004, the complainant submitted additional information and announced its intention to limit its complaint to the loan provided by BNG to VAOP.
septembri 2004. aasta kirjaga saatis kaebuse esitaja lisateavet ning teatas, et kavatseb kaebuses piirduda BNG-lt VAOPile antud laenuga.
On the basis of this new submission, the Commission requested additional information from the Dutch authorities, by letter of 21 October 2004; they replied by letter dated 17 December 2004.
Komisjon taotles selle uue kirja alusel Madalmaade ametiasutustelt lisateavet 21. oktoobri 2004. aasta kirjaga, millele ametiasutused vastasid 17. detsembril 2004.
By letter dated 3 May 2005, the Commission informed the Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the loan granted by BNG and the loan granted by the participating municipalities.
Komisjon teatas Madalmaadele 3. mai 2005. aasta kirjaga, et otsustas algatada EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 88 lõike 2 kohase menetluse BNG antud laenu ja kohalike omavalitsuste antud laenude suhtes.
The Dutch authorities requested two extensions of the time allowed for a reply to the decision initiating the procedure, and ultimately replied by letter dated 29 August 2005.
Madalmaade ametiasutused taotlesid kaks korda menetluse algatamise otsusele vastamise tähtaja pikendamist ja vastasid lõpuks 29. augusti 2005. aasta kirjaga.
By letter dated 9 November 2005, the Commission requested additional information, which was submitted by letter of 8 December 2005.
novembri 2005. aasta kirjaga küsis komisjon lisateavet, mis esitati 8. detsembri 2005. aasta kirjas.
By email message of 4 May 2006, the Commission made an additional request for information, which was answered by letter of 2 June 2006 and by letter of 19 June 2006
Komisjon esitas täiendava teabetaotluse 4. mai 2006. aasta e-kirjaga, millele vastati 2. juuni 2006. aasta ja 19. juuni 2006. aasta kirjaga.
The Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure was published in the Official Journal on 30 September 2005.
Komisjoni otsus menetluse algatamise kohta avaldati Euroopa Liidu Teatajas 30. septembril 2005.
The complainant sent observations on this decision by letter dated 28 October 2005, and requested the Commission to attach the complainant’s letters of 12 June 2002 and 13 September 2004 and the record of the discussions of 29 April 2003 to that submission and to consider them an integral part of the submission.
Kaebuse esitaja saatis 28. oktoobri 2005. aasta kirjaga otsuse kohta märkused ja taotles, et komisjon lisaks esitatud märkustele kaebuse esitaja 12. juuni 2002. aasta ja 13. septembri 2004. aasta kirjad ning 29. aprillil 2003 toimunud arutelude protokolli ning käsitleks neid kaebuse osana.
A non-confidential version of the two letters was sent to the Netherlands by letter of 24 November 2005, and the Netherlands replied by letter of 16 December 2005.
Madalmaadele saadeti 24. novembril 2005 kahe kirja mittekonfidentsiaalne versioon ja Madalmaad vastasid 16. detsembri 2005. aasta kirjaga.
By letter of 28 October 2005, the Commission received comments on the decision initiating the procedure from the alleged recipient, VAOP, which also requested a meeting.
oktoobri 2005. aasta kirjaga sai komisjon märkused menetluse algatamise otsuse kohta väidetavalt abisaajalt VAOPilt, kes taotles ka kohtumist.
A meeting was held on 31 January 2006.
Kohtumine toimus 31. jaanuaril 2006.
By letter dated 27 March 2006, VAOP submitted further information to supplement the observations it had put forward at the meeting.
VAOP täiendas kohtumisel esitatud märkusi 27. märtsi 2006. aasta kirjaga.
VAOP was set up in the beginning of the 1990s by a number of Dutch municipalities.
VAOPi asutasid 1990ndate alguses mitu Madalmaade kohalikku omavalitsust.
It is a not-for-profit cooperative association with limited liability, which seeks to offer certain services to its members on terms as favourable as possible.
See on piiratud vastutusega mittetulunduslik ühendus, mille eesmärk on pakkuda oma liikmetele teatavaid teenuseid võimalikult soodsatel tingimustel.
More specifically, its object is to organise the optimal collection, initial treatment (sorting/pressing) and sale of waste paper from the municipalities which are its members.
Täpsemalt on VAOPi eesmärk korraldada selle liikmeks olevates kohalikes omavalitsustes paberijäätmete tõhusat kogumist, eeltöötlemist (sorteerimist ja pressimist) ning müüki.
Its activities have subsequently been expanded to include waste glass and other recyclable waste.
Hiljem on ühingu tegevust laiendatud klaasijäätmetele ja muudele ringlusse võetavatele jäätmetele.
VAOP is not a fully vertically integrated undertaking.
VAOP ei ole vertikaalselt täielikult integreeritud ettevõtja.
It merely organises the tasks concerned for its members: most of the operational work, such as the transport of the waste, it subcontracts to other enterprises.
Ta ainult korraldab oma liikmete jaoks asjakohaseid tegevusi: enamiku töödest, näiteks jäätmete veo, ostab ta teistelt ettevõtjatelt sisse.
The Dutch tax authorities do not consider VAOP to be a branch of public administration.
Madalmaade maksuhaldurid ei käsitle VAOPi riikliku haldusorganina.
The first entity that was set up was the cooperative association with limited liability Coöperative Vereniging VAOP BV.
Esimene üksus, mis loodi, oli piiratud vastutusega ühing Coöperative Vereniging VAOP BV.
Over the course of the years, this parent body set up several subsidiaries to harbour the operational part of its activities.
Aastate jooksul asutas see emaettevõtja oma tegevuse korraldamiseks mitu tütarettevõtjat.
These subsidiaries are in the form of private limited companies.
Need tütarettevõtjad on piiratud vastutusega äriühingud.
The Commission will consider all these companies as a group constituting one single economic entity (‘VAOP’), because the parent holds majority stakes in all the subsidiaries.
Komisjon käsitleb kõiki neid äriühinguid ühe majandusüksusena (VAOP), sest emaettevõtjal on kõigis tütarettevõtjates enamusosalus.
The subsidiaries are included in the consolidated accounts of the parent.
Tütarettevõtjad kajastuvad emaettevõtja konsolideeritud aastaaruandes.
In addition, BNG, which is VAOP’s principal creditor, has concluded only a single loan contract with the group, and not one with each separate company, even though that contract lays down credit limits for some individual subsidiaries.
Lisaks sõlmis BNG, kes on VAOPi peamine võlausaldaja, kogu kontserniga ainult ühe laenulepingu, mitte iga äriühinguga eraldi, kuigi selles lepingus sätestatakse eraldi mõne tütarettevõtja krediidilimiidid.
Finally, the contract provides for cross-guarantees between the different companies of the group: each company is liable vis-à-vis BNG for the debts of any of the others.
Peale selle sätestatakse laenulepingus kontserni kuuluvate äriühingute risttagatised: iga äriühing vastutab BNG ees kõigi teiste võlgade eest.
In the 1990s VAOP’s activities grew strongly.
1990 ndatel kasvas VAOPi tegevus jõuliselt.
Its share of the Dutch market for waste paper collection reached between 25 and 30 % by the beginning of the present decade.
Tema osa Madalmaade paberijäätmete kogumise turul oli käesoleva kümnendi alguses 25–30 %.
It is also an important player on the market for waste paper initial treatment (sorting/pressing).
VAOP on oluline ettevõtja ka paberijäätmete eeltöötlusturul (sorteerimine ja pressimine).
It entered the Dutch market for waste glass collection, where it became one of the market leaders.
Kontsern pääses samuti Madalmaade klaasijäätmete kogumise turule, kus sai üheks liidriks.
Some of the companies active on these markets are subsidiaries of foreign companies.
Mõned nendel turgudel tegutsevad äriühingud on välismaiste ettevõtjate tütarettevõtjad.
Dutch law requires local authorities to collect waste paper separately and to offer it on the market for recycling, but the way in which these operations have to be performed is not defined.
Madalmaade õigusaktid kohustavad kohalikke omavalitsusi koguma paberijäätmeid eraldi ja pakkuma neid ringlussevõtu turule, kuid nende ülesannete täitmise kord ei ole kindlaks määratud.
Most Dutch municipalities put the work out to tender.
Suurem osa Madalmaade kohalikest omavalitsustest korraldab nende tööde tegemiseks avaliku pakkumise.
VAOP has tendered for such work, thus competing directly with private-sector companies offering the same services.
VAOP on sellistel pakkumistel osalenud ning võistelnud seega otseselt samu teenuseid pakkuvate eraettevõtjatega.
VAOP also tries to attract new members by approaching municipalities and suggesting that they should join.
Samuti üritab VAOP meelitada endaga ühinema uusi kohalikke omavalitsusi.
Here too VAOP can be considered to be in competition with private sector companies seeking to attract the same customers.
Ka selles võib VAOPi pidada konkurendiks erasektori äriühingutele, kes soovivad teenindada samu kliente .
The two measures
Kaks meedet
Firstly, in March 1998, BNG granted VAOP a credit facility of NLG 16,3 million (EUR 7,4 million, ‘the first measure’).
Kõigepealt andis BNG 1998. aasta märtsis VAOPile 16,3 miljoni Hollandi kuldna (7,4 miljoni euro) suuruse laenu (edaspidi “esimene meede”).
On 31 December 1997, VAOP’s consolidated balance sheet indicated that its equity amounted to NLG 0,8 million (EUR 0,4 million) and its balance sheet total amounted to NLG 17,3 million (EUR 7,9 million).
detsembril 1997 näitas VAOPi konsolideeritud bilanss, et tema omakapital oli 0,8 miljonit Hollandi kuldnat (0,4 miljonit eurot) ja bilansimaht 17,3 miljonit Hollandi kuldnat (7,9 miljonit eurot).
One year later, after the provision of the loan, the equity was NLG 0,09 million (EUR 0,04 million) and the balance sheet total was NLG 29,1 million (EUR 13,2 million).
Aasta hiljem, pärast laenu andmist, oli omakapital 0,09 miljonit Hollandi kuldnat (0,04 miljonit eurot) ja bilansimaht 29,1 miljonit Hollandi kuldnat (13,2 miljonit eurot).