natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Loss of volume of conventional traffic
Tavavedude mahtude vähendamine
Recovery of wagons maintenance provisions
Vagunite hoolduse reservide korrigeerimine
Increase in intermodal
Ühendvedude kasv
Revision of Railbarge contract (price increase and product re-engineering)
Railbarge lepingu läbivaatamine (hindade tõstmine ja toote ümberkujundamine)
Increase in commissions for representation (agent)
Agenditasude suurendamine
Reduction in general overheads
Üldkulude vähendamine
While carrying out the restructuring plan, which was completed at the end of 2004, two additional measures were taken:
Ümberkorralduskava elluviimise käigus, mis lõppes 2004. aasta lõpus, võeti veel kaks täiendavat meedet:
For the terminal at Cirkeldijck, the price of handling was increased,
Cirkeldijck’i terminali puhul tõsteti laadimisteenuste hinda;
In general, traffic was analysed and, as a consequence, re-directed in consultation with the clients.
trajektoore analüüsiti laialdasemalt ning korrigeeriti neid koostöös klientidega.
Restructuring of the ‘IFB terminal’ activities
IFB Terminals’i tegevuse ümberkorraldamine
The restructuring of the ‘IFB Terminal’ activities, which was completed in 2005, required seven measures, which are described in further detail in points 103 to 107 in the decision initiating the procedure.
IFB Terminals’i tegevuse ümberkorraldamine, mis lõppes 2005. aastal, pidi hõlmama 7 meedet, mida on üksikasjalikumalt kirjeldatud menetluse algatamise otsuse punktides 103–107.
In addition to the measures initially anticipated, IFB Logistics completed an in-depth analysis of its rail products, which revealed the existence of several unprofitable products, which IFB has since ceased to offer.
Lisaks algselt kavandatud meetmetele teostas IFB Logistics oma raudteetoodete kohta põhjaliku analüüsi, kust ilmnes mittekasumlike teenuste olemasolu, mille osutamise IFB seepeale lõpetas.
For other products, this analysis demonstrated the need for improvements in the technical plan.
Teiste teenuste puhul nähtus analüüsist vajadus tehniliste parenduste järele.
These improvements were made, notably in the intermodal container transport sector.
Need parendused tehti, eelkõige ühend-konteinervedude sektoris.
Investments provided for in the restructuring plan
Ümberkorralduskavas ette nähtud investeeringud
The restructuring of Mainhub together with the restructuring of Zomerweg involved the need for new investments […], essentially for investments in renewals […] as well as miscellaneous investments, […].
Mainhub’i, ent ka Zomerweg’i ümberkorraldamisega kaasnes […] investeeringuvajadus, eelkõige seoses […] asendusinvesteeringute ning […] muude mitmesuguste investeeringutega.
Description of the reasons which led to the initiation of the procedure on 7 December 2005
Ülevaade põhjustest, mis tingisid menetluse algatamise 7. detsembril 2005
In its notification, Belgium considered that the measures in question did not constitute State aid, as they were not attributable to Belgium, and, in any case, SNCB had behaved like a private investor in a market economy.
Belgia leidis esitatud teatises, et kõnealused abimeetmed ei kujuta endast riigiabi, kuna nende võtmine ei ole seotud Belgia riigi tegevusega ning kuna SNCB tegutses igal juhul turumajandusliku erainvestorina.
The Commission had doubts as to whether the granting of a payment extension for the existing debts of EUR 63 million and their conversion, together with the conversion of the interest of EUR 11 million pertaining to them, into share capital constitutes State aid.
Komisjon soovis uurida, kas 63 miljoni euro suuruse võla tagasimakse tähtaja pikendamine ning põhivõla ning sellest tulenenud 11 miljoni euro suuruste intresside ümberarvestamine kapitaliks võiks kujutada endast riigiabi.
Its doubts concerned whether SNCB’s conduct could be attributed to its owner, The Belgian State, and whether SNCB has behaved as a private investor in a market economy would have done.
Küsimus oli selles, kas SNCB käitumist saab seostada selle omaniku ehk Belgia riigiga ning küsimuses, kas SNCB ikka tegutses nii, nagu oleks tegutsenud erainvestor turumajanduse tingimustes.
The Commission also has doubts as to whether the granting of a recoverable advance of EUR 5 million and the granting of a credit facility of EUR 15 million, the conversion of the credit facility of EUR 15 million and the interest of EUR 2,5 million pertaining to it into share capital, and the contribution in kind of EUR 5 million of new share capital, consisting of SNCB’s shareholding in TRW, constitute State aid.
Samuti tekkis küsimus, kas 5 miljoni euro suuruse tagastatava ettemakse tegemine ning 15 miljoni euro suuruse krediidi andmine, 15 miljoni euro suuruse krediidi ja sellega seotud 2,5 miljoni euro suuruste intresside kapitaliks ümberarvestamine ning 5 miljoni euro ulatuses lisakapitali suurendamine SNCB mitterahaliste osakute sissemakse näol TRW-sse kujutavad endast riigiabi.
Inasmuch as this aid constitutes cash aid, the Commission doubts that it can be declared to be compatible with the common market as rescue aid, as it has been granted for a period of more than 12 months.
Kuivõrd tegemist oli likviidsuse parandamisega, kahtles komisjon selles, kas selline abi saab päästmisabina olla ühisturuga kokkusobiv, kuivõrd abi anti enam kui 12 kuuks.
The Commission had some doubts as to whether the aid package could be declared to be compatible with the common market as restructuring aid.
Komisjonil tekkis kahtlusi ka küsimuses, kas kogu abi saab olla ühisturuga kokkusobiv ümberkorraldusabina.
Its doubts concerned the respective applicability at the time of the 1999 [10] Community guidelines for State aid for the rescue and restructuring of businesses in difficulty (hereinafter the 1999 guidelines) and the 2004 [11] Community guidelines concerning State aid for the rescue and restructuring of businesses in difficulty (hereinafter the 2004 guidelines), whether the measures taken were sufficient to mitigate, as far as possible, the unfavourable consequences of the aid on competitors, whether the aid was limited to a strict minimum and whether IFB’s own contribution to the restructuring aid was sufficient.
Kaheldi selles, kas käesoleva juhtumi puhul on ajaliselt kohaldatavad 1999. aasta „Ühenduse suunised raskustes olevate äriühingute päästmiseks ja ümberkorraldamiseks antava riigiabi kohta” [10] (edaspidi „1999. aasta suunised”) ning 2004. aasta dokument „Ühenduse suunised raskustes olevate äriühingute päästmiseks ja ümberkorraldamiseks antava riigiabi kohta” [11] (edaspidi „2004. aasta suunised”) ning selles, kas abi andmisest konkurentidele tekkinud ebasoodsate tagajärgede võimalikuks leevendamiseks võetud meetmed olid piisavad, kas abi andmisel piirduti rangelt miinimumiga ning kas IFB omafinantseering ümberkorraldusabis oli küllaldane.
Belgium sent its comments by letter of 14 February 2006, which was supplemented by letters of 29 June 2006, 20 September 2006, 16 November 2006 and 21 November 2006.
Belgia esitas märkused 14. veebruari 2006. aasta kirjas, mida täiendati 29. juuni, 20. septembri, 16. novembri ja 21. novembri 2006. aasta kirjadega.
In its reply, Belgium repeated its position that the measures in question do not constitute aid, as they are not attributable to the Belgian State, and because SNCB as a private investor would have done in a market economy.
Oma vastuses kordas Belgia oma seisukohta, et kõnealused meetmed ei kujuta endast riigiabi, kuna neid meetmeid ei ole võtnud Belgia riik ning et SNCB tegutses nii, nagu oleks tegutsenud erainvestor turumajanduse tingimustes.
BELGIUM’S COMMENTS
BELGIA MÄRKUSED
Belgium’s position can be summarised as follows.
Belgia seisukoha võib võtta kokku alljärgnevalt.
Belgium’s observations on the procedure
Belgia märkused menetluse kohta
In their reply, the Belgian authorities informed the Commission that they had reservations regarding the length of the examination.
Belgia ametiasutused teavitavad komisjoni oma kirjas, et neil on kahtlusi uurimise kestuse küsimuses.
They believe they have legitimate expectations as to the legality of provisionally maintaining the rescue measures until the Commission takes a final decision on the restructuring plan.
Nende hinnangul on neil õiguspärane ootus päästmisabi ajutise jätkamise õiguspärasuse suhtes kuni komisjon teeb ümberkorralduskava kohta lõpliku otsuse.
The communications of 12 August 2003 (registered by the Commission as NN 9/04) and 28 January 2005 (registered by the Commission as N 55/05) are, according to the Belgian authorities, intended to provide the Commission with all information needed to check whether or not SNCB’s measures in support of IFB constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Belgia ametiasutuste sõnul oli 12. augusti 2003. aasta teatise (registreeritud komisjonis numbri all NN 9/04) ja 28. jaanuari 2005. aasta teatise (registreeritud komisjonis numbri all NN 55/05) eesmärk anda komisjonile kogu teave, et võimaldada komisjonil kontrollida, kas SNCB poolt IFB suhtes võetavad meetmed kujutavad endast asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 mõistes riigiabi või mitte.
According to the Belgian authorities, it is only if the measures concerned were deemed to be State aid that the Commission would have been (and would be) required to consider the communications as notifications under Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Belgia ametiasutused on komisjonil palunud neid teatisi asutamislepingu artikli 88 lõike 3 kohaste teatistena käsitleda üksnes juhul, kui need meetmeid oleks nimetatud riigiabiks.
The Belgian authorities consider, more particularly, that the communication of 12 August 2003 did not concede that the rescue and restructuring measures in support of IFB constituted State aid or therefore that the rescue measures could be regarded as non-notified State aid.
Belgia ametiasutused märgivad eelkõige 12. augusti 2003. aasta teatise kohta, et selles ei tunnistatud, et IFB suhtes võetud päästmis- ja ümberkorraldusmeetmete näol on tegemist riigiabiga ning sellest tulenevalt ei saa päästmismeetmeid käsitleda riigiabina, millest ei ole teatatud.
The Belgian authorities consider that the measures were not subject to the obligation of prior notification and to the requirement not to be put into effect within the meaning of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Belgia ametiasutused leiavad, et tegemist ei ole abiga, millest tuleb asutamislepingu artikli 88 lõike 3 mõistes komisjonile ette teatada ja mille rakendamine oleks enne lõpliku otsuse tegemist keelatud.
The Belgian authorities made a similar statement regarding the communication of 28 January 2005 in which Belgium informed the Commission about an additional capital increase of EUR 5 million.
Samasugust seisukohta väljendavad Belgia ametiasutused ka 28. jaanuari 2005. aasta teatise suhtes, milles Belgia teavitas komisjoni kapitali täiendavast suurendamisest 5 miljoni euro võrra.
Absence of ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty
Asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 kohase riigiabi puudumine
Absence of State resources
Riigi vahendite puudumine
Belgium considers that neither the rescue measures nor the restructuring measures granted to IFB were financed from State resources.
Belgia leiab, et ei IFB päästmis- ega ümberkorraldusmeetmeid ei rahastatud riigi vahenditest.
SNCB is said to have financed these measures exclusively from its own resources, without mobilising State resources in any way.
SNCB rahastas neid meetmeid eranditult omavahenditest ning ei kasutanud mingil moel riigi vahendeid.
According to Belgium, the fact that SNCB is a public undertaking within the meaning of Article 2 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings [12] is not sufficient to establish that the measures in question, which had been financed by SNCB, were financed from State resources.
Belgia arvates ei ole asjaolu, et SNCB on riigi osalusega äriühing komisjoni 25. juuni 1980. aasta direktiivi 80/723/EMÜ (liikmesriikide ja riigi osalusega äriühingute vaheliste finantssuhete läbipaistvuse kohta) [12] artikli 2 mõistes piisav leidmaks, et kõnealuseid SNCB rahastatud meetmeid on rahastatud riigi vahenditest.
Belgium considers that it is necessary to distinguish between, on the one hand, SNCB’s own resources, which arise from revenues generated by its activities and, on the other hand, the funds allocated by the State for SNCB’s public service responsibilities.
Belgia leiab, et eristada tuleb SNCB omavahendeid, mis on saadud tegevusega seotud tulust ning SNCB-le avaliku teenuse osutamise eest antavaid riigi subsiidiume.
Since the funds allocated by the State were not sufficient to finance the expenses incurred in connection with such responsibilities in their entirety, Belgium concludes that there is no possibility that State resources were used by SNCB to finance measures to support IFB.
Kuivõrd riigi subsiidiumid ei olnud piisavad selleks, et rahastada kõiki avaliku teenuse osutamisega seotud kulusid, leiab Belgia, et SNCB poolt riigi vahendite kasutamine IFB suhtes võetud meetmete rahastamiseks on välistatud.
Belgium considers that SNCB’s capital is not at the disposal of the Belgian authorities, but is used for SNCB’s business purposes.
Belgia leiab, et SNCB vara ei kuulu Belgia riigile, vaid on mõeldud SNCB äriliste eesmärkide täitmiseks.
As a consequence, Belgium considers that it is not ‘at the disposal of the public authorities’, as required by the Stardust Marine [13] ruling.
Seetõttu leiab Belgia, et tegemist ei ole avaliku võimu kandjale kuuluva varaga, nagu võiks järeldada Stardust Marine’i kohtuasjas tehtud otsusest [13].
Finally, Belgium considers that any reduction in SNCB’s own funds owing to the measures granted to IFB would not have entailed any ‘loss’ for the State [14], since the resources would in no way have otherwise had to be transferred to the State budget.
Viimaks leiab Belgia, et IFB suhtes võetud meetmetest tingitud SNCB omavahendite vähenemine ei saa tekitada riigile mingisugust „kahju” [14], kuna mingil juhul ei ole tegemist vahenditega, mis oleksid muidu laekunud riigieelarvesse.
Absence of liability on the part of the Belgian State
Mitteseostatavus Belgia riigiga
As regards the granting of a cash advance of EUR 2,5 million in the second half of 2002, the Belgian authorities consider that SNCB’s decision to grant this advance is not attributable to the Belgian State.
Mis puutub 2,5 miljoni euro suuruse rahalise ettemakse tegemisse 2002. aasta teisel poolaastal, leiavad Belgia ametiasutused ka siin, et SNCB otsus selle ettemakse tegemise kohta ei ole seostatav Belgia riigiga.
Belgium puts forward the following arguments to demonstrate its non-liability:
Selle kinnitamiseks toob Belgia järgmised argumendid:
The SNCB’s strategic decision to restructure IFB, rather than allowing it to go bankrupt, was taken independently by SNCB’s executive committee.
Strateegilise otsuse korraldada IFB ümber, selle asemel, et kuulutada välja pankrot, võttis vastu sõltumatult SNCB juhatus.
In particular, IFB’s future was not the subject of the studies commissioned at the end of 2001 by the Belgian Government for the company ABX, nor of the decisions concerning ABX which the Belgian Council of Ministers adopted in 2002,
Eelkõige ei hinnatud IFB tulevikku 2001. aastal Belgia valitsuse poolt äriühingu ABX kohta tellitud uuringutes, ning seda ei käsitletud ka 2002. aastal Belgia ministrite nõukogu poolt ABXiga seotud otsuste vastuvõtmisel.
The decision to grant an advance to IFB had been taken by SNCB’s executive committee.
IFB-le ettemakse tegemise otsustas SNCB juhatus.
Belgium admits that the executive committee decided to submit this measure to the SNCB’s Management Board, but considers that the granting of this cash advance did not require approval by SNCB’s Management Board since, by virtue of the delegation of authority of the Management Board to the executive committee, the latter was empowered to bind SNCB for amounts up to EUR 2,5 million,
Belgia möönab, et juhatus otsustas anda selle meetme arutamiseks SNCB haldusnõukogule, ent leiab, et rahalise ettemakse tegemine ei nõudnud SNCB haldusnõukogu heakskiitu, kuna haldusnõukogu poolt juhatusele antud volituste kohaselt oli juhatusele lubatud võtta SNCB-le kuni 2,5 miljoni euro suuruseid kohustusi.
This advance did not form part of a restructuring plan or other plan or measure which had been submitted to the Belgian State or in respect of which any consultation had taken place with the Belgian State,
Ettemakse ei olnud osa ümberkorralduskavast või muust kavast või meetmest, mis oleks antud arutamiseks Belgia riigile või millega seoses oleks Belgia riigiga mingilgi moel konsulteeritud.
Other factors such as the relatively small size of the advance and its provisional nature equally confirm the conclusion that the granting of this advance can not be attributed to the Belgian State.
Muud tegurid, nagu ettemakse suhteline väiksus ja ajutine iseloom kinnitavad samuti järeldust, et ettemakse tegemist ei saa seostada Belgia riigiga.
As regards the non-payment of SNCB’s invoices by IFB, the Belgian authorities consider that SNCB’s Management Board were not informed of the fact the IFB was no longer settling SNCB’s invoices until December 2002, i.e. when it had decided in principle to increase IFB’s capital.
Mis puutub SNCB esitatud arvete tasumata jätmisse IFB poolt, siis märgivad Belgia ametivõimud, et SNCB haldusnõukogule ei teatatud sellest asjaolust enne kui 2002. aasta detsembris, ehk siis, kui võeti vastu IFB kapitali suurendamise põhimõtteline otsus.
The Belgian authorities consider furthermore that the action or lack of action by the Management Board, by the executive committee and by the Chief Executive are not attributable to the Belgian State, either before or after the conclusion of the framework agreement.
Lisaks leiavad Belgia ametiasutused, et Belgia riigiga ei saa seostada haldusnõukogu, juhatuse või tegevjuhi tegevust ega tegevusetust, olenemata sellest, kas see toimus enne või pärast raamlepingu sõlmimist.
They argue that there is no involvement of the Belgian State whatsoever (in the sense of the ‘Stardust Marine’ case-law) in SNCB’s decision-making process concerning the taking of measures in respect of IFB.
Nende väitel ei ole Belgia riik mitte kuidagi seotud („Stardust Marine'i” kohtuotsuse mõistes) SNCB otsustusprotsessiga IFB-le abi andmiseks.
According to the Belgian authorities, the measures taken by SNCB in respect of IFB are measures concerning an SNCB subsidiary which does not itself undertake public tasks and which is no longer associated with the performance of public tasks by SNCB.
Belgia ametiasutuste sõnul on SNCB poolt IFB-le antud abi näol tegemist abiga, mis eraldati SNCB tütarettevõtjale, mis ise avalikke teenuseid ei osutanud ja mis ei olnud ka SNCB avaliku teenuse täiteülesannetesse kuidagi kaasatud.
IFB’s activities are therefore solely commercial activities, outside of any public tasks.
IFB tegevus oli seega eranditult äriline ja väljaspool igasugust avalike ülesannete täitmist.
Thus, still according to the Belgian authorities, they are not subject to State control as the Belgian authorities are required to respect SNCB’s independence as regards matters which are not public tasks.
IFB tegevus ei allu seega Belgia ametiasutuste sõnul riigi kontrollile, kuna avalike ülesannete täitmisega mitteseotud küsimustes peavad Belgia ametiasutused austama SNCB iseotsustusõigust.
As regards the role of the Government Commissioner, the Belgian authorities say that the IFB file was never submitted to them and that, therefore, they were not competent to intervene, given that the Government Commissioner did not express comments at any stage on the measures taken in respect of IFB and that he also did not intend to take any action whatsoever.
Seoses valitsuse asjuri rolliga väidavad Belgia ametiasutused, et neile ei ole IFB toimikut kunagi esitatud ning sellest tulenevalt ei olnud neil pädevust sekkuda, arvestades, et valitsuse asjur ei ole kunagi IFB suhtes võetavate meetmete kohta märkusi teinud ega sellele küsimusele kuidagi reageerida kavatsenud.
Furthermore, they maintain that they did not intervene in any way in SNCB’s decision-making process concerning IFB, or during the period preceding the conclusion of the framework agreement, or during the subsequent period.
Lisaks väidavad Belgia ametiasutused, et nad ei ole mingil moel sekkunud SNCB otsustusprotsessi seoses IFBga ei raamlepingu sõlmimisele eelnenud ajal ega hiljem.
As regards the three items identified by the Commission in the letter initiating the procedure (points 143 to 150), namely the submission of the restructuring plan for approval by the Belgian State, the press articles demonstrating a strong influence by the Belgian Government on SNCB during the year 2003, and the scope, contents and the terms of the framework agreement, the Belgian authorities consider that these factors are not sufficient to establish responsibility in the sense of the Stardust Marine case-law.
Seoses menetluse algatamise kirjas (punktides 143–150) komisjoni välja toodud kolme näitajaga, milleks olid ümberkorralduskava esitamine kinnitamiseks Belgia riigile, ajakirjanduses ilmunud artiklitest nähtuv Belgia valitsuse tõsine surve SNCB-le 2003. aastal ning raamlepingu ulatus, sisu ja tingimused, leiavad Belgia ametiasutused, et need asjaomased näitajad ei ole piisavad, et tuvastada seostavatus Stardust Marine’i kohtuotsuse mõistes.
regards the approval of the restructuring plan by the Belgian State, the Belgian authorities consider that this provision of the framework agreement did not in any way aim to grant the Belgian authorities such competence as to be able to judge the contents of the restructuring plan, but was inspired by the fact that SNCB wanted the restructuring plan, like the framework agreement, to be communicated to the Commission.
Ümberkorralduskava kinnitamise kohta Belgia riigi poolt leiavad Belgia ametiasutused, et selle raamlepingu sättega ei antud Belgia võimudele mingisugust pädevust otsustada ümberkorralduskava sisu üle, vaid tulenes SNCB soovist, et riik edastaks ümberkorralduskava ja raamlepingu komisjonile.
As regards the press articles, the Belgian Government considers that these do not contain any indication of intervention by the Belgian Government in this case, for the following reasons:
Ajakirjanduses ilmunud artiklite kohta leiab Belgia valitsus, et neist ei nähtu mingil moel, et Belgia valitsus oleks kõnealusesse asjasse sekkunud ning seda järgmistel põhjustel:
In the article which appeared in La Libre Belgique on 19 May 2003, SNCB’s press department explains that the Commission had not yet been asked to give the green light for the IFB case, since ‘the federal authority still has to speak’.
mail 2003 väljaandes La Libre Belgique ilmunud artiklis selgitab SNCB pressiesindaja, et IFB küsimuses ei ole komisjonilt veel rohelise tule andmist taotletud, kuna „föderaalvalitsus ei ole oma sõna veel öelnud”.
According to the Belgian Government, these comments refer exclusively to the ‘communication’ of the measures in support of IFB by the Belgian State to the Commission,
Belgia valitsuse sõnul mõeldakse kommentaarides üksnes seda, et Belgia riik „teatab” komisjonile IFB-le eraldatavast abist;
In the article which appeared in La Libre Belgique on 18 December 2002 (in the version published on the website www.cheminots.be), Mr Karel Vinck is quoted as follows: ‘A sufficient financial headroom is required for the management of the company’.
detsembril 2002 väljaandes La Libre Belgique ilmunud artiklis (veebilehel www.cheminots.be ilmunud versioonis) mainitakse Karel Vincki järgmiselt: „Ta nõuab äriühingu juhtimiseks piisavat otsustamisvabadust”.