natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Gardec is a ship repair undertaking located in Zeebrugge.
Gardec on Zeebrugges asuv laevaremondiettevõte.
BELGIUM’S OBSERVATIONS FOLLOWING THE DOUBTS EXPRESSED IN THE DECISION TO INITIATE THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
BELGIA MÄRKUSED SEOSES UURIMISMENETLUSE ALGATAMISE OTSUSES VÄLJENDATUD KAHTLUSTEGA
In their observations of 8 September 2008 following opening of the formal procedure, the Belgian authorities consider that the Commission should limit its investigation to the fish auction market.
Ametliku menetluse algatamisele järgnenud 8. septembri 2008. aasta märkustes arvavad Belgia ametiasutused, et komisjon peaks uurimisel piirduma kalaoksjonituruga.
As neither AGVO nor PAKHUIZEN are active on those markets, the measures taken in their favour are irrelevant for the present procedure.
Kuna AGVO ega PAKHUIZEN ei ole tegevad nendel turgudel, siis nende kasuks võetud meetmed ei ole käesolevas menetluses asjakohased.
More in general they consider that the Commission has not properly defined the scope of the investigation and that there is a risk of double counting of the aid.
Üldisemalt on nad seisukohal, et komisjon ei ole nõuetekohaselt määratlenud uurimise ulatust ning et on olemas abi kahekordse arvestamise oht.
THE AID TO AGVO
AGVO PUHUL
The Belgian authorities insist upon the fact that AGVO has no commercial activities and that there can therefore be no impact on competition.
Belgia ametiasutused rõhutavad asjaolu, et AGVO ei tegele äritegevusega ja et seetõttu ei saa olla mõju konkurentsile.
The aid granted to AGVO cannot therefore qualify as State aid.
AGVO-le antud abi ei kvalifitseeru seega riigiabiks.
They add that at most, only the funds that have been used for EVO could be taken into account for the investigation (for instance the part of the initial capital that has been passed on to EVO through AGVO).
Nad lisavad, et kui üldse, siis saaks uurimises arvesse võtta ainult rahalisi vahendeid, mida on kasutatud EVO heaks (näiteks osa algkapitalist, mis AGVO kaudu EVO-le üle anti).
They submit that the rest has been used for public interest tasks and cannot have any impact on the competition in the fish auction market.
Nad teatavad, et ülejäänut on kasutatud üldistes huvides ja sel ei saa olla mingit mõju kalaoksjonituru konkurentsile.
The Belgian authorities note that, even though an initial start capital of EUR 6197338,12 has been promised to AGVO, AGVO has so far received only EUR 3569667.
Belgia ametiasutused märgivad, et isegi kui esialgne stardikapital 6197338,12 eurot oli lubatud AGVO-le, on AGVO praeguseks saanud ainult 3569667 eurot.
With regard to the right to levy taxes or fees, the Belgian authorities consider such a right is linked to AGVO’s public interest tasks and cannot be regarded as State aid and that, in any event, AGVO does not have the power to levy taxes for the locks and the slipways.
Maksude või tasude kogumise kohta arvavad Belgia ametiasutused, et õigus makse koguda on seotud AGVO avalike huvidega seotud ülesannetega ning neid ei saa pidada riigiabiks, ning igal juhul ei ole AGVO-l volitusi koguda makse lüüside ja ellingute eest.
With regard to the buildings, they submit that it would not make any difference whether the buildings are the property of the City or of another public entity.
Hoonetega seoses teatavad nad, et ei ole tähtsust, kas hooned kuuluvad linnale või mõnele muule avalik-õiguslikule asutusele.
They consider the contribution of the buildings to AGVO as a merely internal allocation of property.
Nad peavad hoonete üleandmist AGVO-le pelgalt sisemiseks vara jaotamiseks.
The Belgian authorities recall that AGVO has no commercial activities and that the contribution of the buildings cannot therefore be qualified as State aid.
Belgia ametiasutused tuletavad meelde, et AGVO ei tegele äritegevusega ja et hoonete üleandmine ei kvalifitseeru seetõttu riigiabiks.
They add that the contribution of the buildings is linked to the obligation to repair and maintain them in a good state and thus dispute that AGVO has been advantaged by the contribution.
Nad lisavad, et hoonete üleandmine on seotud kohustusega neid remontida ja heas korras hoida, nii et AGVO ei saanud selle üleandmisega eelist.
They consider further that the free guarantees cannot qualify as State aid because they were provided for loans entered into by AGVO for repair works on buildings rented to public authorities.
Lisaks on nad seisukohal, et tasuta tagatised ei kvalifitseeru riigiabiks, sest need anti laenude jaoks, mis AGVO võttis ametiasutustele renditud hoonete remondiks.
They however admit that one of the guaranteed loans (loan of EUR 550000) was used for EVO.
Nad tunnistavad siiski, et ühte tagatud laenu (550000 eurot) kasutati EVO jaoks.
Finally, the Belgian authorities note that the Altmark judgment is not relevant because the public tasks of AGVO are non-economic.
Lõpuks märgivad Belgia ametiasutused, et Altmarki kohtuotsus ei ole asjakohane, kuna AGVO avalik-õiguslikud ülesanded ei ole majanduslikud.
They add that there is no risk of cross-subsidy because AGVO has no commercial activity.
Nad lisavad, et ristsubsiidiumide ohtu ei ole, sest AGVO ei tegele äritegevusega.
THE AID TO PAKHUIZEN
PAKHUIZEN PUHUL
Belgium submits that Ostend has only a limited right to the land and the long lease is therefore of reduced commercial value.
Belgia teatab, et Oostendel on ainult piiratud õigus maale ja seepärast on pikaajalisel rendilepingul vähenenud kaubanduslik väärtus.
Moreover, PAKHUIZEN is required to repair and renovate the buildings, which is presented as an onerous obligation which amply makes up for the token rent.
Lisaks sellele on PAKHUIZENil kohustus remontida ja renoveerida hooned, mis on esitatud kui erakorraline kohustus, mis suures osas kompenseerib sümboolse rendi.
The Belgian authorities add that PAKHUIZEN is only active on the market for the management of buildings used in the fishing sector.
Belgia ametiasutused lisavad, et PAKHUIZEN tegutseb ainult turul, mis tegeleb kalapüügisektori hoonete haldamisega.
They take the view that this activity can hardly be considered commercial because of the renovation obligations involved and because of the poor value of the buildings.
Ametiasutused on seisukohal, et tema tegevust saab renoveerimiskohustuse ja hoonete madala väärtuse tõttu vaevalt äritegevuseks pidada.
Finally, because the buildings managed by PAKHUIZEN can only be rented for activities linked to the fishing sector, the Belgian authorities argue that PAKHUIZEN does not compete with anyone.
Kuna PAKHUIZENi hallatavaid hooneid saab rentida ainult kalapüügisektoriga seotud tegevuste jaoks, põhjendavad Belgia ametiasutused, et PAKHUIZEN ei konkureeri mitte kellegagi.
The Belgian authorities further observe that AGVO bought the PAKHUIZEN shares at market price and that PAKHUIZEN rents the buildings at market prices (considering that they were not in good state of repair).
Lisaks märgivad Belgia ametiasutused, et AGVO ostis PAKHUIZENi aktsiad turuhinnaga ja et PAKHUIZEN rendib hooneid välja turuhindadega (arvestades, et need ei olnud heas seisukorras).
THE AID TO EVO
EVO PUHUL
The Belgian authorities indicate that the fact that the buildings are at the disposal of EVO free of charge is compensated by the fact that EVO has to bear renovation costs that normally fall upon the owner of the buildings.
Belgia ametiasutused osutavad, et tõsiasja, et hooned on tasuta EVO käsutuses, kompenseerib tõik, et EVO peab kandma renoveerimiskulud, mis tavaliselt on hoone omaniku kohustus.
They further submit that the free guarantees granted for loans to EVO are to be analysed in the framework of the privatisation and restructuring plan of the auction.
Peale selle teatavad nad, et EVO-le antud tasuta laenutagatisi tuleb käsitleda oksjoni erastamise ja ümberkorraldamise kava raamistikus.
They take the view that, in the framework of the restructuring of the fish auction the City acted like a private investor, in so far as the recapitalisation of the fish auction was more profitable from an economic point of view than the closing of the auction and that through the privatisation, the City would be able to recoup its investment through the rent it will ask from the private owner of the auction.
Nad on seisukohal, et kalaoksjoni ümberkorraldamise raamistikus käitus linn nagu erainvestor, kuna majanduslikust vaatenurgast oli kalaoksjoni rekapitaliseerimine tulutoovam kui oksjoni sulgemine ning et erastamise kaudu oleks linnal olnud võimalus investeeringute korvamiseks oksjoni eraomanikult võetava rendi abil.
They also stress that already in 2002 there were plans to privatise the fish auction and that privatisation was only possible after restructuring.
Nad rõhutavad ka, et juba 2002. aastal olid plaanid kalaoksjoni erastamiseks ja et erastamine oli võimalik ainult pärast ümberkorraldamise läbiviimist.
More specifically on the free guarantee, they observe that the loans were used to complete the financing of the fish auction, which was primarily financed through a capital injection (to AGVO and, through AGVO, to EVO) from the City.
Põhjalikumalt tasuta tagatisest rääkides märgivad nad, et laene kasutati kalaoksjoni rahastamise lõpuleviimiseks, mida esialgselt rahastati läbi linnapoolse kapitalipaigutuse (AGVO-le ja AGVO kaudu EVO-le).
The Belgian authorities note that through the guarantee the City has substantially reduced the costs incurred for the restructuring.
Belgia ametiasutused märgivad, et tagatise kaudu on linn tunduvalt vähendanud kulusid, mis tekkisid seoses ümberkorraldamisega.
They add that without the guarantee of the City no loan would have been granted and point out that it is normal commercial practice that a parent undertaking offers a guarantee for loans engaged into by its subsidiary.
Nad lisavad, et linna tagatiseta ei oleks laenu antud, ja juhivad tähelepanu, et see on tavaline kaubandustava, kui emaettevõtja pakub laenutagatist laenudele, millega on seotud tema tütarettevõte.
THE AID TO FISHING UNDERTAKINGS/SHIP-OWNERS
ABI KALAPÜÜGIETTEVÕTETELE JA LAEVAOMANIKELE
The Belgian authorities observe that the Commission has counted the same aid twice and that there is either aid to EVO or to the fishermen but not to both.
Belgia ametiasutused märgivad, et komisjon on arvestanud sama abi kaks korda ja et abi on antud EVO-le või kaluritele, ent mitte mõlemale.
They take the view that, should the measures concerned constitute State aid, they then constitute State aid at the level of EVO and PAKHUIZEN and distort competition at that level but not at the level of vessel-owners and fishing undertakings.
Nad on seisukohal, et kui kõnealused meetmed kujutavad endast riigiabi, siis kujutavad nad endast riigiabi EVO ja PAKHUIZENi tasemel ning rikuvad konkurentsi sellel tasemel, mitte laevaomanike ja kalapüügiettevõtete tasemel.
They add that in any event, EVO and PAKHUIZEN do not offer their services below market prices.
Nad lisavad, et mitte mingi juhul ei paku EVO ja PAKHUIZEN teenuseid turuhinnast madalama hinnaga.
Specifically, so far as EVO is concerned, they explain that EVO offers services that are also proposed elsewhere.
Täpsemalt seoses EVOga selgitavad nad, et EVO pakub teenuseid, mida pakutakse ka mujal.
They also observe that EVO does not purport to offer any storage facilities, does not offer electricity free of charge and is not responsible for the manage of the port and the slipways.
Nad märgivad samuti, et EVO ei paku mingeid ladustusvõimalusi, ei paku tasuta elektrit ega vastuta sadama ja ellingute eest.
They indicate that the price for the water is included in the auction fee and that EVO does not grant any loan under market prices to ship-owners.
Nad viitavad, et vee hind sisaldub oksjonitasus ja et EVO ei anna laevaomanikele laenu turuhinnast soodsamalt.
Finally, they state that, in practice, EVO has never enforced the contract articles obliging ship-owners to auction their catches at its auctions.
Lõpuks väidavad nad, et tegelikult ei ole EVO kunagi maksma pannud lepingupunkte, mis kohustavad laevaomanikke oma saake EVOs oksjonile tooma.
PRIVATIZATION PROCEDURE LAUNCHED AFTER INITIATION OF THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
PÄRAST UURIMISMENETLUSE ALGATAMIST KÄIVITATUD ERASTAMISPROTSESS
Belgium has informed the Commission that it has been decided on 22 May 2008 to privatise the Ostend fish auction and that the City has launched a public selection procedure in order to attract an operational partner run EVO.
Belgia ametiasutused on komisjonile teatanud, et 22. mail 2008 on otsustatud erastada Oostende kalaoksjon ning et linn on käivitanud avaliku valikumenetluse, et leida tegevuspartner EVO kasutamiseks.
In its comments, Belgium explains that the privatisation will take place through the establishment of a new undertaking (‘NewCo’) that will carry out the operation of the fish auction.
Oma märkustes selgitavad Belgia ametiasutused, et erastamine toimub uue NewCo-ettevõtja asutamise teel, mis hakkab kalaoksjoni tööd läbi viima.
The buildings of the fish auction will return to the City and NewCo will have to sign a lease agreement with the City.
Kalaoksjoni hooned tagastatakse linnale ja NewCo-ettevõtja peab linnaga rendilepingu sõlmima.
NewCo will not be obliged to take over the other assets of the fish auction (employees, fish boxes, contracts, loans to ship-owners, etc.).
NewCo-ettevõttel ei ole kohustust üle võtta kalaoksjoni muid vahendeid (töötajaid, kalakaste, lepinguid, laene laevaomanikele jne).
As the sale and the rental agreement will be negotiated at market prices, no aid will be transferred to NewCo and no aid can be recovered from NewCo.
Kuna müügi- ja rendilepingu tingimuste üle räägitakse läbi turuhindades, siis NewCo-ettevõtjale ei anta üle mingit abi ning mingit abi ei saa NewCo-ettevõtjalt tagasi nõuda.
In its letter of 16 November 2009, Belgium informed the Commission of the further developments of the privatisation process.
novembri 2009. aasta kirjas teavitasid Belgia ametiasutused komisjoni erastamisprotsessi edasisest arengust.
It indicates that, as a first step, the property of the buildings belonging to AGVO has been transferred back, free of charge, to the City on 4 September 2009, as well as rights and obligations relating to the buildings (rental contracts).
Belgia ametiasutused teatavad, et esimese sammuna on 4. septembril 2009 AGVO-le kuuluvate hoonete omandiõigus linnale tasuta tagastatud, samuti hoonetega seotud õigused ja kohustused (rendilepingud).
The City has also taken over various loans from AGVO and PAKHUIZEN.
Linn on AGVO-lt ja PAKHUIZENilt üle võtnud ka mitmesuguseid laene.
Belgium argues that the fact that the property of the buildings has been transferred back to the City puts an end to the State aid issue.
Belgia ametiasutused on seisukohal, et kuna hoonete omandiõigus on linnale tagastatud, teeb see lõpu riigiabi küsimusele.
So far as EVO is concerned, Belgium has explained that the candidate fulfilling the selection criteria did not offer conditions which were satisfactory for the City.
Seoses EVOga on Belgia selgitanud, et partneri valikutingimustele vastav kandidaat ei pakkunud välja tingimusi, mis oleksid linna rahuldanud.
EVO will therefore continue to exist until a suitable candidate is found to take over EVO’s assets.
EVO jätkab eksisteerimist, kuni leitakse sobiv kandidaat, mis võtaks üle EVO varad.
Finally, Belgium indicated that AGVO would continue to exist until all remaining debts/obligations are settled.
Lõpuks osutasid Belgia ametiasutused, et AGVO jätkab eksisteerimist, kuni kõik allesjäänud võlad on makstud ja kohustused täidetud.
Belgium asks the Commission to postpone its decision until the privatisation process is finished.
Belgia ametiasutused paluvad komisjonil otsus edasi lükata, kuni erastamisprotsess on lõpetatud.
BELGIUM’S OBSERVATIONS FOLLOWING THE COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES
BELGIA TÄHELEPANEKUD KOLMANDATE ISIKUTE MÄRKUSTE KOHTA
Belgium indicates, so far as the Icelandic issue is concerned, that EVO never directly purchased fish from Icelandic ship-owners or fishermen but only from Icelandic fish auctions, through a sales agent.
Belgia osutab seoses Islandi küsimusega, et EVO ei ostnud mitte kunagi kala otse Islandi laevaomanikelt või kaluritelt, vaid ainult Islandi kalaoksjonilt müügiesindaja vahendusel.
Belgium adds that it soon became clear that the resale of the Icelandic fish was not profitable.
Belgia lisab, et varsti selgus, et Islandi kala edasimüük ei olnud tulutoov.
Thus, after approximately one year, it was decided, on 17 March 2006, to put an end to these purchases and resales.
Seega umbes ühe aasta pärast, 17. märtsil 2006, otsustati need ostud ja edasimüügid lõpetada.
Belgium has submitted a copy of the said decision.
Belgia on esitanud nimetatud otsuse koopia.
Belgium explains that the reason why fish was bought against high prices at Icelandic fish auctions and then resold in Ostend at lower prices was not due to any strategy aiming at attracting Icelandic fish to Ostend but was due to the fact that the fish of higher quality which was bought by the sales agent in Iceland and meant for EVO never reached EVO but instead was directly bought by a private filleting undertaking, Luna Fish, whereas Icelandic fish of lesser quality arrived at EVO and could then not be sold at profitable prices, given its lesser quality.
Belgia selgitab, et põhjus, miks kala osteti Islandi kalaoksjonilt kõrgete hindadega ja seejärel Oostendes madalamate hindadega edasi müüdi, ei olnud mingi strateegiline eesmärk Islandi kala toomiseks Oostendesse, vaid selle põhjuseks oli asjaolu, et kvaliteetne kala, mida osteti müügiesindaja vahendusel Islandilt ja mis oli mõeldud EVO-le, ei jõudnudki kunagi EVOsse, selle asemel ostis kala otse eraomandisse kuuluv fileerimisettevõte Luna Fish, aga madalama kvaliteediga Islandi kala saabus EVOsse ja seda ei saadud madalama kvaliteedi tõttu kasulikumate hindadega müüa.
Belgium concludes that EVO was therefore rather a victim of these practices.
Belgia teeb järelduse, et EVO oli pigem sellise teguviisi ohver.
The delegated administrator of AGVO/EVO and the commercial director were dismissed when the problem was discovered.
Kui probleem avastati, vallandati AGVO/EVO haldur ja turundusjuht.
So far as the alleged free secondment of staff for administrative, accountancy and maintenance tasks is concerned, Belgium submits that ZV’s statements are based on mere suspicions and that EVO has its own employees to perform those tasks and that, furthermore, some of EVO’s employees sometimes discharge public interest tasks (maintenance of the fish auction road).
Seoses väidetava linnateenistujate tasuta kasutamisega haldus-, raamatupidamis- ja hooldusülesannete täitmiseks teatab Belgia, et ZV väited põhinevad pelgalt kahtlustel ja et EVO-l on oma töötajad nende ülesannete täitmiseks ning lisaks sellele täidavad mõned EVO töötajad mõnikord avalike huvidega seotud ülesandeid (kalaoksjoni tee hooldus).
Belgium also mentions that the statement made by ZV that EVO would guarantee a minimum price by reference to the auction price at the Zeebrugse fish auction is not supported by any evidence.
Belgia märgib samuti, et ZV väidet, et EVO garanteerib miinimumhinna võrreldes Zeebrugge kalaoksjoni hinnaga, ei toeta mitte ükski tõend.
Belgium adds that fishing undertakings might have alleged this when negotiating with ZV, as part of a strategy to obtain better commercial conditions from ZV.
Belgia lisab, et kalapüügiettevõtted võisid seda väita osana strateegiast paremate äritingimuste saamiseks ZV-lt, kui temaga läbirääkimisi pidasid.
As for the Ostend Filleting Factory (OFF) issue, Belgium stresses that the documents submitted by third parties only indicate that OFF was set up by private parties and do not reveal how OFF would have engaged in unfair competition.
Fileerimistehase Ostend Filleting Factory (edaspidi „OFF”) kohta rõhutab Belgia, et kolmandate isikute esitatud dokumendid näitavad ainult seda, et OFFi asutasid eraisikud ja need ei kajasta, kuidas OFF oleks osalenud ebaausas konkurentsis.
Belgium states that it was only in March 2006 that PAKHUIZEN acquired 60 % of the shares in OFF. The name ‘OFF’ was then changed to ‘Ostend Premium Fish bvba’ and the company finally went bankrupt on 14 January 2008.
Belgia osutab, et see oli tegelikult alles 2006. aasta märtsis, kui PAKHUIZEN omandas 60 % OFFi aktsiatest. OFF sai siis nimeks Ostend Premium Fish bvba ja läks lõpuks 14. jaanuaril 2008 pankrotti.
On the alleged losses suffered by Gardec and Flanders Ship Repair as a result of the State aid, Belgium considers that, even if State aid were to induce vessels to go to Oostende instead of Zeebrugge, the causal link with the loss would still not be demonstrated.
Seoses väidetavate kahjudega, mida Gardec ja Flanders Ship Repair riigiabi tulemusena kannatasid, on Belgia seisukohal, et isegi kui riigiabi põhjustas laevade siirdumise Zeebrugge asemel Oostendesse, siis põhjuslikku seost kahjudega ei saa ikkagi esitada.
Belgium submits that ship-owners do not always let their vessel be repaired in their home port and instead make use of cheaper repair services in Eastern Europe (Poland).
Belgia tunnistab, et laevaomanikud ei lase alati oma laevu kodusadamas remontida ja selle asemel kasutavad ära odavamaid remonditeenuseid Ida-Euroopas (Poolas).
Belgium observes that there has been a clear decline in ship repair work in Oostende.
Belgia märgib, et Oostendes võib täheldada laevaremondiettevõtete selget vähenemist.
By letters of 13 March and 26 June 2006 the Commission asked the Belgian authorities for information about the legal situation of the Ostend fish auction, the involvement of the State and for details about the financial flows between the State and the fish auction.
märtsi ja 26. juuni 2006. aasta kirjadega palus komisjon Belgia ametiasutustelt teavet Oostende kalaoksjoni juriidilise staatuse ja riigi osaluse kohta ning nõudis riigi ja kalaoksjoni vaheliste finantsvoogude üksikasju.
In their letter of 19 October 2006, the Belgian authorities underlined the fact that in addition to its commercial activity (running of the fish auction), AGVO was entrusted with public interest tasks.
oktoobri 2006. aasta kirjas rõhutasid Belgia ametiasutused tõika, et äritegevuse kõrval (kalaoksjoni pidamine) oli AGVO-le usaldatud avalike huvidega seotud ülesandeid.
The information provided on this point was, however, very sketchy and contained nothing to enable the Commission to assess whether the advantages granted by the City to AGVO could be considered compensation for tasks of general (economic) interest and whether there were no over-compensation and risks of cross-subsidies.
Siiski oli kõnealuse küsimuse kohta esitatud teave väga lühike ja ei sisaldanud üksikasju, mis oleks komisjonil võimaldanud hinnata, kas linna poolt AGVO-le antud eeliseid oleks saanud pidada hüvitiseks üldist (majanduslikku) huvi pakkuvate teenuste eest ning kas seal ei olnud liigset hüvitamist või ristsubsiidiumide ohtu.
Therefore, by letter dated 11 July 2007, the Commission asked the Belgian authorities, in accordance with Article 10(2) Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, to provide detailed information on the public tasks entrusted to AGVO.
Seepärast, nagu sätestatud määruse (EÜ) nr 659/1999 artikli 10 lõikes 2, palus komisjon 11. juuli 2007. aasta kirjaga Belgia ametiasutustel esitada üksikasjalikku teavet AGVO-le antud avalike ülesannete kohta.
In particular, it asked whether and on which basis those tasks could be considered tasks of public service within the meaning of Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest [15].
Ta palus eriti välja tuua, kas ja mis alusel saab neid ülesandeid pidada avalikeks teenusteks vastavalt komisjoni 28. novembri 2005. aasta otsusele 2005/842/EÜ EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 86 lõike 2 kohaldamise kohta üldist majanduslikku huvi pakkuvaid teenuseid osutavatele ettevõtjatele avalike teenuste eest makstava hüvitisena antava riigiabi suhtes [15].