natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should however be noted that the tax savings are not simply left at the investors’ disposal but pre-assigned under the terms of the financing package endorsed by the French authorities under the approval decision.
Tuleb siiski märkida, et maksude arvelt säästetud summad ei jää investorite käsutusse, vaid kasutatakse Prantsuse ametiasutuste nõusoleku saanud rahastamisskeemi järgi varem kindlaks määratud viisil.
The investors are in fact obliged, under the terms of the investment to which they have subscribed, to reinvest practically all the tax savings in the joint ownership in the form of capital increases by their respective joint-ownership companies in order to cover the costs of financing the purchase of Le Levant and the losses arising from its operation (see recital 27).
Nimelt kohustavad investorite poolt alla kirjutatud investeerimistingimused neid reinvesteerima peaaegu kogu maksude arvelt säästetud summa ühistusse, suurendades igaüks oma äriühingu kapitali, et katta Le Levant’i ostu rahastamiskulusid ja laeva opereerimisest tekkivat kahjumit (vt põhjendus 27).
In order to identify the beneficiaries, a detailed examination is required of the circumstances governing the purchase and operation of Le Levant.
Abisaajate tuvastamine nõuab Le Levant’i ostmist ja opereerimist võimaldavate suhete põhjalikku uurimist.
Firstly it should be recalled that the objective of the financing package, in accordance with the application for approval lodged by CIP, was ‘the purchase of a cruise vessel’ [19].
Esmalt tuleb meenutada, et nagu ilmneb CIP esitatud nõusolekutaotlusest, oli rahastamisskeemi eesmärk „reisilaeva ostmine”. [19]
But ‘the CIP does not possess the necessary financial resources to bear the cost of purchasing Le Levant through a traditional source of financing (mortgage)’.
Kuid „CIPil ei ole vajalikke rahalisi vahendeid, et rahastada Le Levant’i ostu klassikalisel teel (hüpoteeklaenuga)”.
CIP therefore proposes to finance its vessel ‘by means of a financial package qualifying for tax assistance for overseas investment’, which will be based on a ‘financing scheme involving the setting-up of a joint-ownership vehicle’.
Seega soovib CIP rahastada laeva „rahastamisskeemi alusel, mis kasutab ära maksuabi ülemereinvesteeringutele”; rahastamise aluseks saaks „laevaühistu moodustamisel põhinev rahastamisskeem”. Selleks peab Pank „pakkuma oma klientidele võimalust osta kaasomandi osakuid” ja „kuulutama välja avaliku pakkumise …”.
Clearly the purpose of the package was to allow CIP to purchase a vessel which it would own and the role of the investors recruited from the Bank’s clients was merely to finance the purchase.
Seega on selge, et rahastamisskeemi eesmärk oli võimaldada CIPil osta laev, mille omanikuks ta saab, ning panga klientide hulgast leitud investorite roll piirdus ostu rahastamisega.
The financial package selected for this purpose is one that is very common in the case of tax-free overseas investments [21], i.e. an ‘outsourced’ package, where a company that wishes to acquire an asset but which cannot make that investment from its own funds because of a lack of resources brings in outside investors who purchase the asset and put it at the disposal of the operator, who then uses it, and at the end of the period of operation laid down by law, becomes its owner.
Selleks otstarbeks valiti allhankeid rakendav finantsskeem, mida kasutatakse väga sageli maksuvabadeks ülemereinvesteeringuteks [21] ja mille puhul kapitalikaupa soetada sooviv äriühing, kes ei saa ressursside puudusel seda investeeringut oma vahenditest teha, kaasab väljastpoolt investorid, kes ostavad kauba ja annavad selle käsutada ettevõtjale, kes kaupa majandab ja seadusega ette nähtud majandamisperioodi lõppedes selle omanikuks saab.
In packages of this type, the tax benefit is partially transferred to the buyer, while the investor retains another part, thus ensuring a return on his investment.
Seda tüüpi rahastamisskeemide puhul kandub maksusoodustus osaliselt edasi rendilevõtjale, osa soodustusest aga jääb investorile, kellele on seega tagatud investeeringu tasuvus.
The transfer of the benefit to the buyer is carried out normally through a reduction in the rent charged during the operating period (a ‘lease’ package).
Enamasti toimub soodustuse ülekandmine rendilevõtjale majandamisperioodi vältel võetava rendi alandamise teel (rendiskeem).
The Commission has already assessed the State aid aspects of such packages in relation to the financing of cruise vessels through the benefits deriving from the Loi Pons in the ‘Club Med’ [22] and ‘Renaissance’ [23] cases.
Komisjon on juba varem uurinud riigiabi aspektist selliseid skeeme, millega rahastatakse Pons’i seaduse soodustuste kaudu kruiisilaevu, nimelt „Club Medi” [22] ja „Renaissance’i” [23] juhtumeid.
The latter case is especially relevant in view of its resemblance to the Le Levant financing operation.
Eriti asjakohane on viimane juhtum, mis on väga sarnane Le Levant’i rahastamisoperatsiooniga.
Both cases concern investors whose tax situation allows them to take advantage of the tax exemption, who form a joint-ownership and who purchase cruise vessels to be operated overseas for a specific period by an operator (Renaissance or CIL) that makes an undertaking to the investors to buy the vessel at the end of the operating period.
Nimelt on mõlemal juhul tegemist ühistusse koondunud investoritega, kelle maksusituatsioon võimaldab saada maksuvabastust ja kes ostavad kruiisilaevad, mida peab kindlaksmääratud aja jooksul ülemerealal opereerima rendilevõtja (Renaissance või CIL), kes kohustub laevad opereerimisaja lõppedes investoritelt välja ostma.
In ‘Renaissance’ the vessel was leased to the operator and the investors’ tax concession under the Loi Pons was transferred to him by means of a reduction in the rent using the traditional technique of a leasing package described in recital 77.
„Renaissance’i” juhtumil oli laev renditud operaatorile ja Pons’i seaduse alusel investoritele tehtud maksusoodustus kandus talle üle rendi vähendamise kaudu vastavalt põhjenduses 77 kirjeldatud klassikalisele rendiskeemile.
The French authorities commented that this package allowed for ‘effective retrocession of the tax aid to the operator’.
Prantsuse ametiasutused osutasid, et selline skeem võimaldas „kanda maksusoodustuse edasi operaatorile”.
The Commission (which, in the initiating decision, had found that the investors were the ‘immediate beneficiaries’ and the ‘beneficiaries of quantifiable aid’ [24]) noted that ‘RF [Renaissance] is the effective recipient of the aid, and since RF is obliged to buy the vessels, RF can be considered to be the de facto owner’.
Komisjon (kes oli menetluse algatamise otsuses nentinud, et investorid olid vahetud abisaajad ja mõõdetava abi saajad) [24] konstateeris, et „RF [Renaissance] on tegelik abisaaja ning kuivõrd ta on kohustatud laevad välja ostma, võib teda pidada nende tegelikuks omanikuks”. Komisjon tegi seega vahet investoritel kui vahetutel abisaajatel ja tegelikul abisaajal (riigiabi reguleerivate eeskirjade tähenduses), kellele maksusoodustused osaliselt üle kanti, kasutades selleks laeva turuhinnast madalama rendi võtmist.
In the case of Le Levant, the tax benefits of the investors (the immediate beneficiaries) were transferred to CIL by a different mechanism.
Le Levant’i juhtumi puhul toimub investorite (vahetute abisaajate) maksusoodustuse ülekandmine CILile teistmoodi.
In the ‘Renaissance’ case the investors leased the vessels to the operator whereas, in the present case, CIL formally disposes of the vessel only in its capacity as manager of the joint-ownership vehicle, the formal operator of the vessel in its own right.
Kui „Renaissance’i” juhtumi puhul rentisid investorid laevad operaatorile, siis käesoleval juhul käsutab CIL laeva vormiliselt üksnes kaasomandi haldajana ning vormiliselt on laeva operaator ühistu.
There is therefore in principle no tenancy relationship that would allow the benefit to be retroceded through a reduction in the rent.
Seega puudub rendisuhe, mis võimaldaks kanda soodustuse edasi rendi alandamise teel.
In practice the benefit is transferred to CIL as follows:
Soodustuse ülekandmine CILile toimus järgmisel viisil.
The cost of acquiring the vessel and its operating losses are reflected in losses in the shareholding EURLs.
Laeva maksumus ja selle opereerimisel tekkiv kahjum väljenduvad kaasomanikest EURLide puudujäägina.
Thanks to the tax benefits allowed under the Loi Pons, the investors may deduct these losses from their other revenue liable for income tax, thereby obtaining a tax saving which represents the concretisation of their tax benefit and which consists, as such, of State resources within the meaning of Community law.
Tänu Pons’i seadusega võimaldatud maksusoodustusele võivad investorid need puudujäägid oma muudest tulumaksuga maksustatavatest tuludest maha arvata, hoides seega maksude arvel kokku summa, mis kujutabki endast neile antud maksusoodustust ning pärineb seega ühenduse õigusnormide tähenduses riigi ressurssidest.
However, rather than keep these tax savings, the investors undertook to use most of them for calls for funds to cover the losses of the EURLs.
Selle asemel aga, et maksude arvelt kokku hoitud summa endale jätta, on investorid kohustunud kulutama suurema osa sellest rahastamisnõuetele, millega kaetakse EURLide puudujääke.
In the normal process of capitalisation, an investor would make sure of capitalising on his investment (in this case, the vessel) by securing a return on the investment that would cover his purchasing costs and include an adequate profit margin.
Tavapärase tasuvusloogika järgi peaks investor püüdma oma investeeringut (kõnealusel juhul laeva) tasuvaks muuta, tagades endale investeeringult tulu, mis katab ostuga seotud kulud ja tagab piisava kasumimarginaali.
In the case of the leasing package in ‘Club Med’ and ‘Renaissance’, this outcome is achieved through the rent paid by the buyer (although the rent is beneficial to the buyer as part of the tax benefit is retroceded to him in the form of a below market-price rent).
„Club Medi” ja „Renaissance’i” juhtumil kasutatud rendiskeemis saavutatakse see rendilevõtja makstud rendi kujul (mis on siiski rendilevõtjale soodne, sest osa maksusoodustusest kandub talle üle turuhinnast madalama rendi näol).
In a normal situation, these costs (e.g. payment of the rent or covering all the losses) would be borne by CIL and not by the investor.
Seega peaks tavalise stsenaariumi korral kandma kulud (näiteks maksma renti või võtma enda kanda kogu kahjumi) CIL, mitte investor.
In the disputed package, these costs are allocated to the EURLs and, by means of the calls for funds, absorbed into the tax savings which are State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Kõnealuses skeemis aga katavad need kulud EURLid ja kustutavad need rahastamisnõuete mehhanismi kaudu maksude pealt kokku hoitud summadega, mis on asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 tähenduses riigi ressursid.
CIL is likewise relieved of the expenses it would normally have had to bear for the operation of the vessel.
Sama summa ulatuses vabaneb CIL laeva opereerimisega seotud kuludest, mida ta muidu oleks pidanud katma.
For all the above reasons, the Commission finds that the investors’ benefit is transferred to CIL.
Kõigil neil põhjustel tõdeb komisjon, et soodustus kandus investoritelt üle CILile.
It should nevertheless be said that not all the tax benefit is transferred to CIL.
Siiski tuleb märkida, et maksusoodustus ei kandunud CILile üle täies ulatuses.
Under the terms of the package, the investors keep the tax savings relating to 2003, the last year of operation.
Nimelt jääb investoritele summa, mis hoitakse maksude arvelt kokku 2003. aastal, opereerimise viimasel aastal.
Regardless of this technical difference in the package, the results are no different to those produced by the package in the ‘Renaissance’ case.
Hoolimata sellest tehnilisest erinevusest rahastamisskeemis on tulemus sama nagu „Renaissance’i” skeemis.
In fact, as in ‘Renaissance’, CIL enjoys the actual benefit of Le Levant as soon as it is delivered, thus anticipating its formal ownership of the vessel, which will take effect only on completion of the package.
Täpselt samamoodi nagu „Renaissance’i” juhtumi puhul saab CIL Le Levant’i faktiliseks omanikuks niipea, kui laev on üle antud, ennetades laeva vormiliseks omanikuks saamist, mis toimub rahastamisoperatsiooni lõpetamisel.
Just as in ‘Renaissance’, the vessel is made available to CIL without its having to bear the real cost as no financial contribution is required of it.
Täpselt nagu „Renaissance’i” juhtumi puhul antakse laev CILi käsutusse ilma, et ta peaks tasuma selle tegelikku maksumust, sest temalt ei nõuta mingit rahalist tasu.
The costs that CIL should normally have borne for the operation of the vessel are thus reduced, which represents an advantage to CIL.
See vähendab kulutusi, mida CIL peaks tavaolukorras laeva opereerimiseks tegema, andes sellega CILile eelise.
The fact that the investors are able to put the vessel at CIL’s disposal free of charge is due to the tax benefits granted to them under the Loi Pons which enable them, through their EURLs, to deduct from their taxable income both the purchase price of the vessel and the losses of their EURLs, which include the annual capital and interest on the loan granted by the Bank for the purchase of the shares.
Investorid saavad anda laeva CILi käsutusse tasuta tänu Pons’i seaduse alusel tehtud maksusoodustusele, mis võimaldab neil arvata EURLide kaudu oma maksustatavast tulust maha nii laeva hinna kui ka EURLide kahjumi, sealhulgas Panga poolt laevaosakute ostmiseks antud laenu põhiosa ja intresside iga-aastased tagasimaksed.
The deductible profits of the EURL also include their respective shares of Le Levant’s operating profits within the limits guaranteed by CIL.
EURLide mahaarvatav kahjum hõlmab ka nende proportsionaalseid osi Le Levant’i opereerimise tulemist CILi garanteeritud piirides.
The package and the coverage by the investors of the costs of financing and, in part at least, of operating Le Levant by means of the compulsory calls for funds for the EURLs are intended to ensure that CIL benefits from the advantages granted under the Loi Pons.
See rahastamisskeem ning mehhanism, kuidas investorid katavad EURLide kohustuslike rahastamisnõuete kaudu Le Levant’i ostu ja vähemalt osaliselt ka opereerimise maksumuse, on kavandatud selleks, et CIL saaks kasu Pons’i seadusega antud soodustustest.
This mechanism for transferring aid was one of the conditions laid down in the application for approval and was, as such, endorsed by the French authorities.
Niisugune abi ülekandmise mehhanism oli üks nõusolekutaotluses ette nähtud tingimusi ning sai sellisena Prantsuse ametiasutuste heakskiidu.
This transfer of resources from the investors to the joint-ownership vehicle helps to subsidise the operation of Le Levant by the CIL.
Vahendite ülekandmine investoritelt ühistule võimaldab subsideerida Le Levant’i opereerimist CILi poolt.
Without this mechanism, the operation of the vessel by the CIL would not be economically viable.
Ilma selle mehhanismita ei oleks laeva opereerimine CILi poolt majanduslikult tasuv.
For the investors, the return from the package is produced at the end of the financing operation through the purchase of their shares and the fact that they can keep the tax savings relating to 2003, the last year of the period of operation (which is not negated by a compulsory call for funds).
Investorite jaoks realiseerub skeemi tasuvus rahastamisoperatsiooni lõpus selle kaudu, et nende osakud ostetakse välja ja et nad võivad endale jätta summa, mis hoitakse maksude arvelt kokku 2003. aastal, opereerimise viimasel aastal (milleks ei ole ette nähtud kohustuslikku rahastamisnõuet).
The State resources (consisting of the investors’ tax savings) are thus split between CIL, to whom practically all the aid is retroceded, and the investors.
Seega jagavad riigi ressursid (mis seisnevad investorite poolt kokku hoitud maksusummades) omavahel CIL, kellele abi peaaegu täies ulatuses üle kandub, ja investorid.
The part of the benefit retroceded to CIL consists of the total of the calls for funds to which the investors responded for the EURLs.
CILile üle kandunud soodustuse osa kujuneb EURLide rahastamisnõuetest, millele investorid vastasid.
CIL’s comment that the Commission has not proved that the aid would allow Le Levant to be operated under more favourable conditions than those available to other operators cannot therefore be accepted.
Seega ei saa pidada õigeks CILi märkust, nagu ei oleks komisjon tõestanud, et abi võimaldas opereerida Le Levant’i teistest operaatoritest soodsamatel tingimustel.
As regards the price for the sale of Le Levant to CIL in January 2004, according to the Commission’s information, it did not appear to include a concessionary element in favour of CIL.
Mis puudutab hinda, millega Le Levant 2004. aasta jaanuaris CILile müüdi, siis komisjoni käsutuses olevast teabest ei ilmne, et see oleks olnud CILile soodne.
According to CIL, the selling price was estimated by an independent maritime broker as higher than the vessel’s market value.
CILi väite kohaselt hindas sõltumatu laevamaakler müügihinna laeva turuhinnast kõrgemaks.
The Commission has no reason to question the validity of this information.
Komisjonil ei ole muud tõendusmaterjali, mis selle teabe ümber lükkaks.
The classification of recipients of State resources as an undertaking
Riigi ressurssidest abi saajate kvalifitseerumine ettevõtjaks
One further precondition for classifying a measure as State aid is that the advantage conferred favours certain undertakings (or the production of certain goods).
Üks riigiabi kriteerium on, et eelis peab soodustama teatud ettevõtjaid (või teatud kaupade tootmist).
According to Article 87(1) of the Treaty, the definition of undertaking covers every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed.
Ettevõtja on asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 tähenduses mis tahes majandustegevust harrastav üksus, sõltumata tema õiguslikust vormist ja rahastamisviisist. Majandustegevus on igasugune tegevus, mis seisneb kaupade või teenuste pakkumises mingil turul.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities found, however, in Cassa di Risparmio, in which it distinguished between ‘an operator in direct contact with the market and, indirectly, [of] another entity controlling that operator as part of an economic unit which they together form’ that ‘the mere fact of holding shares, even controlling shareholdings, is insufficient to characterise as economic an activity of the entity holding those shares, when it gives rise only to the exercise of the rights attached to the status of shareholder or member, as well as, if appropriate, the receipt of dividends, which are merely the fruits of the ownership of an asset’ [27].
Kuid Euroopa Ühenduste Kohus, kes pidi Cassa di Risparmio kohtuasjas eristama olukorda, kus „üks üksus on otseselt turuga kontaktis ja teisalt terviku moodustava majandusüksuse sees seda üksust kontrolliv üksus on kaudselt turuga kontaktis”, leidis selles kohtuasjas, et „üksnes osaluste, isegi kontrollosaluste omamisest ei piisa, et nende osaluste omaniku tegevust majandustegevuseks lugeda, kui see tekitab üksnes aktsionäriks või osanikuks olemisega kaasnevate õiguste kasutamist ning olenevalt olukorrast dividendide saamist, mis on lihtsalt omandi viljad”. [27]
Case law thus demonstrates that the classification as an undertaking must be based not just on the legal forms but on an assessment of the economic realities of a specific case.
Kohtupraktika näitab seega, et ettevõtjaks kvalifitseerumisel tuleb peale õigusliku vormi toetuda ka konkreetse juhtumi tegelikule majanduslikule analüüsile.
CIL and the investors’ status as an undertaking must therefore be established by an assessment of business relationships in the package in order to determine how the economic activity that consists of operating Le Levant as a cruise vessel is actually conducted.
Et tuvastada, kas CIL ja investorid kvalifitseeruvad ettevõtjaks, tuleb seega analüüsida rahastamisskeemi osapoolte majanduslikke suhteid, et teha kindlaks, kuidas toimub tegelikult majandustegevus, milleks on Le Levant’i opereerimine kruiisilaevana.
It should first be noted that under the formal terms of the package, it is the investors, through their EURLs brought together in the joint ownership vehicle, who are presented as owners and operators of the vessel, on their own account. CIL’s role, on the other hand, is simply that of the vessel’s manager ‘for the account and risk of the joint ownership vehicle’ [28].
Kõigepealt tuleb märkida, et vormiliselt on rahastamisskeemis laeva omanike ja operaatoritena esitatud investoreid ühistusse koondunud EURLide kaudu, samas kui CILi roll piirdub laeva haldamisega „ühistu nimel ja riisikol”.
It is, of course, perfectly feasible for an owner/operator to entrust a manager with the day-to-day management of his economic activities. This does not mean that the owner is not classified as an undertaking within the meaning of the State aid rules, provided that he meets the determining criteria formulated by case law, namely that he is engaged in an activity consisting of supplying goods and services in a given market and that he does not merely have shareholdings and receive dividends.
Loomulikult on täiesti võimalik olukord, kus omanik-operaator usaldab oma majandustegevuse igapäevase korraldamise haldajale, kuid kvalifitseerub siiski riigiabi reguleerivate normide tähenduses ettevõtjaks, tingimusel et ta vastab kohtupraktikas välja töötatud kriteeriumidele, see tähendab osaleb tegevuses, mis seisneb kaupade või teenuste pakkumises mingil turul, ega piirdu üksnes osaluste omamisega ja dividendide saamisega.
In the case at hand, the Commission notes that under the terms of the joint ownership articles of association, each investor exercises rights over the vessel through his shares and that these rights may only be exercised jointly (each share also gives entitlement to a proportional part of the operating revenue).
Konkreetse juhtumi puhul märgib komisjon, et ühistu põhikirja kohaselt on igal investoril oma osakute kaudu laevale õigused, mida saab kasutada üksnes kollektiivselt (iga osak annab niisiis õiguse proportsionaalsele osale majandustulemusest).
The investors exercise their rights at the general meeting of joint owners where each shareholder has voting rights proportional to his share in the joint-ownership.
Investorid kasutavad oma õigusi kaasomanike üldkoosoleku kaudu, kus igal kaasomanikul on hääleõigus, mis on proportsionaalne tema osaga kaasomandis.
In this sense, the investors’ situation is comparable to that of shareholders or members.
Selles mõttes on investorite olukord võrreldav aktsionäride või osanike omaga.
In addition, investors are not actively involved in Le Levant’s economic activities, which are completely left to CIL.
Pealse selle ei osale investorid aktiivselt Le Levant’i majandustegevuses, mis on usaldatud täielikult CILile.
CIL is responsible for the fitting-out, maintenance, operation and technical and commercial management of the vessel,
CILi ülesanne on laeva varustamine, hooldamine, opereerimine ning tehniline ja majanduslik haldamine.
CIL manages the hotel and catering services and organises ports of call and sightseeing visits.
CIL korraldab majutust ja toitlustust, vahepeatusi ja ekskursioone. CILi ülesanne on sadamatasude, lootsitasude jne maksmine.
CIL is responsible for managing port and pilotage charges etc. More generally, it operates the vessel on the best economic terms and ‘is authorised to conclude all charter contracts and, more generally, to negotiate all commercial transactions’ (Article 3.1 of the management mandate).
Üldisemalt öeldes tegeleb ta laeva majandamisega parimal võimalikul viisil ja „on volitatud sõlmima kõik prahtimislepingud ja üldisemalt rääkima läbi kõik äritehingud” (haldusvolituse artikkel 3.1).