natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Belgium submits that the transfer of the tasks and the right to collect the tax duties should be seen as a mere allocation of tasks within the State and cannot qualify as State aid.
Belgia teatab, et ülesannete üleandmist ja õigust koguda makse peaks nägema kui vaid riigisisest ülesannete jaotust ja seda ei saa kvalifitseerida riigiabina.
The Commission has examined whether the right to collect the tax duties and use the proceeds could qualify as a compensation for services of general economic interest and whether the cumulative criteria laid down in the Altmark judgment were fulfilled.
Komisjon on uurinud, kas maksude kogumise ja tulu kasutamise õigust saab kvalifitseerida kui hüvitist üldiste majanduslikku huvi pakkuvate teenuste eest ning kas Altmarki kohtuotsuses kumulatiivsed kriteeriumid olid täidetud.
However, as already established in recital 191 of this Decision, these criteria are not fulfilled, since for instance no parameters for compensation have been established.
Siiski, nagu juba tõestatud käesoleva otsuse põhjendus 191, ei ole need kriteeriumid täidetud, kuna näiteks ei ole hüvitise jaoks parameetreid määratud.
Finally, even if it were accepted that the right to collect tax duties and use its proceeds should be seen as a compensation/remuneration for tasks of public (non-economic) interest, it is nevertheless true that AGVO also carries out commercial activities, which has explicitly been acknowledged by the Belgian authorities.
Lõpuks, isegi kui saaks aktsepteerida, et maksude kogumise ja tulu kasutamise õigust võiks vaadelda kui hüvitist või tasu avaliku (mittemajandusliku) huviga seotud teenuste eest, jääb siiski tõsiasjaks, et AGVO teostab ka äritegevusi, mida Belgia ametiasutused on selgesõnaliselt kinnitanud.
Since the Belgian authorities have also admitted that AGVO had no separate accounts and that it was not possible to isolate the costs and revenues relating to AGVO’s non-commercial tasks, cross subsidies cannot be avoided and the tax duties must be seen as an advantage.
Kuna Belgia ametiasutused on samuti tunnistanud, et AGVO-l ei olnud eraldi raamatupidamist ja et ei olnud võimalik eristada AGVO mitteäriliste ülesannetega seotud kulusid ja tulusid, ei saa ära hoida ristsubsiidiume ja maksude kogumist tuleb näha kui eelist.
In view of the foregoing recitals, the actions mentioned in 10.1.2.1.1 to 10.1.2.1.4 inclusive provided AGVO with an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Silmas pidades eespool esitatut, andsid punktides 10.1.2.1.1–10.1.2.1.4 kirjeldatud tegevused AGVO-le eelise Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
Advantage for EVO
EVO-le antud eelised
The Commission considers that aid has been granted to EVO directly by the City by way of granting it free guarantees for loans from private banks, and, through AGVO, by allowing it free use of 13600 m2 of buildings, by granting free guarantees for loans from private banks and by providing it with an initial capital and capital increases.
Komisjon on seisukohal, et EVO on saanud abi otse linnalt, kes tagas tasuta laene erapankadelt, ning AGVO kaudu, kes võimaldas tal tasuta kasutada hooneid pindalaga 13600 m2, andis tasuta tagatisi erapankadelt võetavate laenude jaoks ning andis algkapitali ja võimaldas kapitali suurendamist.
Free guarantee for loans
Tasuta laenutagatised
As regards the guarantees from the City and AGVO, the Commission observes that no market price has been paid for the guarantees, since the guarantees are completely free of charge.
Seoses tagatistega linnalt ja AGVO-lt märgib komisjon, et tagatiste eest ei ole makstud turuhinda, kuna tagatised olid täielikult tasuta.
Moreover they cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan.
Lisaks sellele katavad need üle 80 % maksmata laenust.
The Belgian authorities submit that it would be normal for a shareholder holding a controlling interest in a company to provide a guarantee free of charge in favour of the company he controls.
Belgia ametiasutused teatavad, et enamusaktsionäri jaoks on tavapärane anda tasuta tagatis ettevõtjale, mida ta kontrollib.
This statement is, however, not substantiated by any evidence.
Seda väidet ei põhjenda siiski mitte ükski tõend.
It is moreover particularly difficult to reconcile with the behaviour of a private investor.
Lisaks on seda väidet eriti raske ühitada eravõlausaldaja käitumisega.
In a normal situation, such a guarantee would be remunerated by an appropriate premium, which reflects the risks connected with the guarantee [41], even if the guarantor is a parent company [42].
Tavaolukorras oleks niisuguse tagatise eest nõutud tagatistasu, mis kajastab tagatisega seotud riske, [41] isegi kui garant on emaettevõtja [42].
Moreover, the Court has already found that commercial operations even within a group of public undertakings have to be remunerated according to normal market conditions [43].
Lisaks sellele on kohus määranud, et isegi avalik-õiguslike äriühingute rühma siseselt tuleb äritehingute eest maksta tasu tavaliste turutingimuste kohaselt [43].
It should further be noted that, as set out in greater detail in recital 306, EVO must be considered a company in financial difficulties within the meaning of the 1999 R & R Guidelines and the 2004 Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [44] (‘2004 R & R Guidelines’).
Edasi tuleks märkida, et nagu täpsemalt põhjenduses 306 tõestatud, tuli EVOt pidada raskustes äriühinguks päästmise ja ümberkorraldamise 1999. aasta suuniste ning raskustes olevate äriühingute päästmiseks ja ümberkorraldamiseks antava riigiabi 2004. aasta suuniste (edaspidi „päästmise ja ümberkorraldamise 2004. aasta suunised”) tähenduses [44].
According to established practice, guarantees granted to companies in difficulties are deemed as likely to constitute State aid [45].
Kindlaks kujunenud tava järgi käsitatakse raskustes äriühingutele antavaid tagatisi tõenäolise riigiabina [45].
The Belgian authorities add that without the free guarantee from the City, EVO would not have been able to obtain the loans.
Belgia ametiasutused on lisanud, et linna tasuta tagatiseta ei oleks EVO laene saanud.
In the Commission’s view, this acknowledgement and the constant bad financial situation of EVO reveal that the loans granted by private banks under a free guarantee provided by the City (or AGVO) would not have been obtained either without that guarantee.
Komisjoni vaatepunktist näitab see tunnistus ja EVO pidev kehv finantsolukord, et EVO ei oleks ilma linnapoolse (või AGVO-poolse) tasuta tagatiseta erapankadelt laenu saanud.
Accordingly, the guaranteed loans also grant an advantage to EVO [46].
Seepärast on ka laenutagatised EVO-le eeliseks [46].
Finally the Belgian authorities submit that the guarantees should be viewed as being part of the restructuring of the fish auction.
Lõpuks teatavad Belgia ametiasutused, et tagatisi peaks vaatlema kui osa kalaoksjoni ümberkorraldamise meetmetest.
The Commission notes, however, that neither the free guarantee, nor the investments for which the loans were apparently obtained were mentioned in the business plan.
Komisjon märgib siiski, et äriplaanis ei nimetatud tasuta tagatisi ega investeeringuid, mille jaoks laene ilmselt võeti.
The Commission also observes that one of the loans granted by Fortis and guaranteed by the City was actually used to grant loans to vessel owners and it is difficult to see how this can be viewed as part of a restructuring or even the privatisation plan of the fish auction.
Komisjon märgib ka, et ühte laenu, mille andis Fortis ja tagas linn, kasutati tegelikult laenude andmiseks laevaomanikele ning on raske mõista, kuidas seda saab vaadelda osana ümberkorraldamisest või isegi osana kalaoksjoni tulevasest erastamisplaanist.
Accordingly, the Commission takes the view that the free guarantees granted by the City and AGVO favoured EVO within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Seepärast on komisjon seisukohal, et linna ja AGVO antud tasuta tagatised EVO-le eeliseks Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
Buildings
Hooned
The Belgian authorities have argued that the decision of AGVO to grant EVO the right to use the buildings without charge can be considered to correspond with normal market standards such as a normal private investor in similar conditions would have undertaken.
Belgia ametiasutused on väitnud, et AGVO otsust anda EVO-le õigus kasutada hooneid tasuta saab pidada vastavaks tavalistele turunormidele, mille järgi tavaline erainvestor sarnastes tingimustes oleks toiminud.
The Commission cannot accept such a statement.
Komisjon ei saa seda väidet aktsepteerida.
This statement is already contradicted by the fact that the Belgian authorities have indicated that the future strategic partner will have to conclude a rental agreement for the use of the buildings of the fish auction and will have to pay a rent.
Sellele räägib vastu juba tõik, et Belgia ametiasutused on viidanud, et tulevane strateegiline partner peab kalaoksjoni hoonete kasutamiseks sõlmima rendilepingu ja maksma renti.
Moreover, it cannot be claimed that AGVO, being the full owner of EVO [47], expected EVO’s profits to be substantial so that the capital gains it would thus realise justified not charging any rent.
Lisaks sellele ei saa ka väita, et AGVO, olles EVO täielik omanik, [47] eeldas, et EVO kasum oleks märkimisväärne, nii et sellega realiseeritav kapitali kasvutulu oleks õigustanud rendi mittenõudmist.
After all, the auction had been running high average annual losses.
Oksjon kannatas ikkagi suuri iga-aastaseid kahjusid.
The Belgian authorities submitted that the absence of rent was compensated by the fact the EVO had to bear renovation and repair costs for the fish auction which would normally have to be borne by the owner.
Belgia ametiasutused teatasid, et rendi mittenõudmist kompenseeris tõsiasi, et EVO pidi kandma kalaoksjoni renoveerimis- ja remondikulud, mida tavaliselt oleks pidanud tegema omanik.
According to the Belgian authorities, EVO paid EUR 182377,31 since 2002 for renovation and infrastructure works on the fish auction.
Belgia ametiasutuste sõnul maksis EVO alates 2002. aastast kalaoksjoni renoveerimis- ja infrastruktuuritööde eest 182377,31 eurot.
The Commission first notes that the Belgian authorities have not submitted any documents confirming that EVO was under the obligation to bear all renovation costs for the fish auction buildings; nor have they submitted any documents confirming that EVO actually paid EUR 182377,31 for renovation works.
Esiteks märgib komisjon, et Belgia ametiasutused ei ole esitanud ühtegi dokumenti, mis kinnitaks, et EVO-l oli kohustus kanda kalaoksjoni hoonete kõik renoveerimiskulud. Samuti ei ole nad esitanud ühtegi dokumenti, mis kinnitaks, et EVO on renoveerimistööde eest tegelikult 182377,31 eurot maksnud.
The Commission further notes that the Belgian authorities have not demonstrated that it would be so unusual for a tenant to bear renovation costs or that when this is the case he would have no rent to pay.
Peale selle märgib komisjon, et Belgia ametiasutused ei ole näidanud, et see oleks väga ebaharilik, et rentnik kannab renoveerimiskulud või vastava kokkuleppe korral ei pea ta renti maksma.
Nor have they indicated what kinds of works were undertaken, so that it is not possible for the Commission to determine whether the works concerned were unusual for a tenant.
Samuti ei ole nad osutanud, mis liiki töid ette võeti, nii et komisjonil ei ole võimalik kindlaks teha, kas asjaomased tööd olid rentniku jaoks ebaharilikud.
Furthermore, the Belgian authorities have not provided any evidence showing that the EUR 182377,31 allegedly paid by EVO for renovation works would correspond to the rent to be paid for more than five years of use of 13600 m2 buildings under normal market conditions.
Lisaks sellele ei ole Belgia ametiasutused esitanud ühtegi tõendit, mis näitaks, et renoveerimistööde eest väidetavalt EVO makstud 182377,31 eurot oleks tavalistes turutingimustes vastavuses rendiga 13600 m2 hoonete kasutamise eest enam kui viie aasta jooksul.
Moreover, even if the renovation costs could be considered particularly significant and a kind of remuneration for the use of the buildings, which has not been demonstrated by the Belgian authorities, the business plan of 21 November 2001 clearly mentioned that since the fish auction had recently been modernised, no significant investments were to be expected in the next 10 years.
Lisaks sellele, isegi kui renoveerimiskulusid saaks pidada eriti märkimisväärseks ja tasuks hoonete kasutamise eest, mida Belgia ametiasutused ei ole tõendanud, öeldi 21. novembri 2001. aasta äriplaanis selgesti, et kuna kalaoksjon oli hiljuti moderniseeritud, ei olnud järgmise kümne aasta jooksul oodata olulisi investeeringuid.
Accordingly, when AGVO decided in 2002 to put the buildings at the disposal of EVO free of charge, without any reasonable expectation that the costs resulting from alleged obligation on EVO to finance their maintenance would be at least equal to the rent which an operator would be prepared to pay for them, AGVO was granting EVO an advantage.
Sellega, et AGVO 2002. aastal otsustas anda hooned tasuta EVO käsutusse, ilma mingi mõistliku ootuseta, et kulud seoses EVO väidetava kohustusega rahastada hoonete remonti oleksid vähemalt võrdsed rendiga, mida ettevõtja oleks valmis nende eest maksma, andis AGVO EVO-le eelise.
As the question whether AGVO acted as a normal private investor must be examined in the light of the elements available at the time the decision was taken [48], it must be concluded that EVO received State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU by being granted the use of 13600 m2 of buildings free of charge in 2002.
Kuna küsimust, kas AGVO toimis kui tavaline erainvestor, peab uurima, võttes arvesse üksikasju, mis olid kättesaadavad otsuse tegemise ajal, [48] tuleb järeldada, et EVO sai riigiabi Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses, sest tema kasutusse anti 2002. aastal tasuta 13600 m2 hooneid.
Initial capital and subsequent capital increases
Algkapital ja edasised kapitali suurendamised
So far as the initial capital of about EUR 370000 to EVO is concerned, the Commission would refer to its analysis in point 10.1.2.1.1 of this Decision.
Seoses EVO algkapitaliga (umbes 370000 eurot) viitab komisjon analüüsile käesoleva otsuse punktis 10.1.2.1.1.
Indeed, the Belgian authorities have confirmed that the initial capital in EVO was financed through the initial capital in AGVO.
Tõepoolest on Belgia ametiasutused kinnitanud, et EVO algkapitali rahastamine toimus läbi AGVO algkapitali.
As the Commission has already observed, a private investor would not have chosen to restructure the fish auction and invest BEF 250 million in it; he would certainly not established a 100 % subsidiary with part of the fresh capital.
Nagu komisjon on juba märkinud, ei oleks erainvestor valinud kalaoksjoni ümberkorraldamist ja 250 miljoni Belgia frangi investeerimist sellesse. Seda enam ei oleks ta ühe osa uue kapitaliga 100 % tütarettevõtet asutanud.
So far as the capital increases by way of a remission of debt by AGVO are concerned, the Commission would also refer to its analysis in point 10.1.2.1.1 of this Decision.
Kapitali kasvu kohta AGVO kustutatud võla arvel saab komisjon samuti viidata analüüsile käesoleva otsuse punktis 10.1.2.1.1.
Indeed the Belgian authorities have confirmed that the capital increases had also (partly [49]) been financed through the initial capital in AGVO.
Tõepoolest on Belgia ametiasutused kinnitanud, et kapitali kasvu rahastati samuti (osaliselt) [49] AGVO algkapitali abil.
There are, moreover, other reasons why it must be considered that AGVO did not act as a private investor would have done in the same situation.
Peale selle on teisi põhjusi, miks tuleb arvata, et AGVO ei toiminud nii, nagu erainvestor oleks samas olukorras toiminud.
Public investments are regarded as State aid where it is apparent that the financial position of the company concerned, and particularly the structure and volume of its debts, is such that a normal return (in dividend or capital gains) cannot be expected within a reasonable time from the capital investment.
Riiklikke investeeringuid peetakse riigiabiks, kui on ilmne, et asjaomase äriühingu finantsolukord ning eriti selle võlgade struktuur ja maht on niisugused, et tavapärast kasumit kapitali investeerimisest (dividendides või kapitali kasvutulus) ei saa mõistliku aja jooksul oodata.
The Commission observes that the first increase in capital by remission of debt occurred on 31 December 2004 after almost 1,5 years existence of EVO.
Komisjon märgib, et esimene kapitali kasv võla kustutamise teel toimus 31. detsembril 2004 pärast peaaegu pooltteist aastat EVO loomisest.
The increase in capital was evidently conceived as a measure in order to offset the heavy losses of EVO.
Ilmselt oli kapitali suurendamine vajalik selleks, et kompenseerida EVO ränki kahjumeid.
A private investor would never have decided to grant the increases in capital, especially not the last two increases.
Erainvestor ei oleks mitte kunagi otsustanud kapitali suurendada, eriti mitte kahel viimasel korral.
EVO was not in a good financial and economic position and the situation was clearly not developing according to the business plan, according to which the losses were supposed to decrease steadily, instead of growing fast.
EVO finants- ja majanduslik olukord ei olnud hea ning ei arenenud äriplaani järgi, mis nägi ette kahjude pidevat vähenemist, mitte kiiret kasvu.
Indeed, already at the end of 2003 more than half of EVO’s registered capital had disappeared, a situation which did not change in the following years despite of the successive increases in capital.
Tõepoolest, juba 2003. aasta lõpuks oli kadunud üle poole EVO põhikirjajärgsest kapitalist, selline olukord ei muutunud järgnevatel aastatel, hoolimata kapitali järjestikustest suurendamistest.
Without any prospect of future return on capital, a private investor would not have chosen to increase the capital of the company in order to offset losses [50].
Vähimagi väljavaateta tulevasele kapitalitulule ei oleks erainvestor teinud valikut suurendada äriühingu kapitali, et kahjusid kompenseerida [50].
Instead he would seriously have considered the other options available (winding up, selling, etc.) and would at least have required some guarantees or restructuring measures.
Selle asemel oleks ta tõsiselt kaalunud teisi valikuvõimalusi (sulgemist, müüki jne) ja oleks vähemalt nõudnud mingeid tagatisi või ümberkorraldamismeetmeid.
Also the particular form the capital increase took (remission of debt) confirms that those capital increases cannot be viewed as part of the restructuring planned in 2001.
Samuti kinnitab antud kapitali suurendamise viis (võla kustutamine), et neid kapitali suurendamisi ei saa vaadelda kui osa 2001. aastal kavandatud ümberkorraldustest.
In addition, it should be noted that EVO must be considered a company in financial difficulties [51].
Peale selle tuleks märkida, et EVOt peab pidama raskustes äriühinguks [51].
According to established practice, an increase in capital granted to companies in difficulties is deemed to constitute State aid [52].
Kindlaks kujunenud tava järgi käsitatakse raskustes äriühingute kapitali suurendamist riigiabina [52].
Consequently, the successive increases in capital which EVO benefited from favoured EVO within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Järelikult on EVO-le antud järjestikused kapitali suurendamised talle Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses eeliseks.
Advantage for PAKHUIZEN
PAKHUIZENile antud eelis
So far as concerns the long-term lease for the use of buildings [53] to PAKHUIZEN, having regard to the information available, the Commission takes the view that it grants an advantage.
Seoses PAKHUIZENi pikaajalise rendilepinguga hoonete kasutamiseks, [53] võttes arvesse kättesaadavat teavet, on komisjon seisukohal, et see leping annab talle eelise.
First, the charge of only EUR 25 per year cannot be regarded as normal pay for a long-term lease of 45 years relating to 14754 m2 of buildings, even when in very poor condition and needing renovation.
Esiteks ei saa tasu ainult 25 eurot aastas pidada tavaliseks tasuks 45 aasta pikkuse rendilepingu puhul hoonete eest pindalaga 14754 m2, isegi kui need on väga kehvas seisukorras ja vajavad renoveerimist.
The fact that PAKHUIZEN is required to renovate the buildings does not change this.
Tõsiasi, et PAKHUIZENilt nõutakse hoonete renoveerimist, ei muuda seda.
Indeed, according to Belgian law [54], the owner of the buildings is not under the obligation to repair the buildings.
Tõepoolest, Belgia õiguse kohaselt [54] ei ole hoonete omanikul kohustust neid remontida.
By contrast, the tenant is under the obligation to maintain the buildings in good condition and to undertake any ordinary repair works.
Vastupidiselt on rentnikul kohustus hoida hooned heas seisukorras ja teostada tavaremonti.
The Belgian authorities have not demonstrated that the renovation works PAKHUIZEN was bound to undertake under the long-term lease would go beyond ‘ordinary repair works’.
Belgia ametiasutused ei ole näidanud, et renoveerimistööd, mida PAKHUIZEN pidi pikaajalise rendilepingu alusel teostama, oleksid olnud enam kui tavaremont.
Moreover, the Belgian authorities have not provided any evidence that the cost flowing from that obligation is equal to the rent which could have been obtained for the buildings under normal market conditions.
Lisaks sellele ei ole Belgia ametiasutused esitanud ühtegi tõendit, et kohustuse täitmisest tulenev kulu oleks võrdne renditasuga, mida oleks võinud hoonete eest tavapärastel turutingimustel saada.
In addition, the Belgian authorities have admitted that PAKHUIZEN has not fulfilled its renovation obligations and has not respected the destination of the buildings.
Peale selle on Belgia ametiasutused tunnistanud, et PAKHUIZEN ei ole täitnud oma renoveerimiskohustust ja ei ole kinni pidanud hoonetele määratud otstarbest.
The City has obviously not taken any action against PAKHUIZEN in order to enforce the agreement, although it was entitled to do so.
Linn ei ole ilmselt võtnud meetmeid PAKHUIZENi suhtes, et sundida teda lepingut täitma, kuigi tal oli selleks õigus.
Therefore, even if having regard to the renovation costs, the rent of EUR 25 per year could have been regarded as corresponding to the market price — quod non — PAKHUIZEN would in any event have received an advantage from the moment it became apparent that the City had not enforced the contract.
Seepärast, isegi kui arvesse võtta renoveerimiskulusid ja renti 25 eurot aastas oleks peetud turuhinnale vastavaks, quod non, oleks PAKHUIZEN igal juhul saanud eelise alates hetkest, mil oli ilmne, et linn oli loobunud lepingu täitmisele sundimisest.
Moreover, as regards the lease of the buildings to PAKHUIZEN subject to the conditions of maintaining and renovating the buildings, according to the market economy investor principle, to the conditions established in the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities, a public authority can be considered to be acting as a market economy operator if it offers its contracts at the highest possible price within an open, transparent and non-discriminating tender, to the highest bidder or following an estimation of the market value by an independent expert.
Lisaks sellele tuleb seoses PAKHUIZENile renditud hoonetega, mida oli vaja lepingutingimuste kohaselt hooldada ja renoveerida, märkida, et turumajandusliku investeerimise põhimõtte kohaselt ja arvesse võttes tingimusi, mis on sätestatud komisjoni teatises ametiasutuste korraldatavas maa ja hoonete müügis sisalduvate riigiabi elementide kohta, võib ametiasutust käsitada kui turumajanduse ettevõtjana tegutsejat, kui ta pakub oma lepinguid kõige kõrgema võimaliku hinnaga avalikul, läbipaistval ja mittediskrimineerival pakkumisel kõige kõrgema tasuga pakkujale või pärast turuväärtuse hinnangu andmist sõltumatu asjatundja poolt.
This seems however not to have been the case.
See ei näi siiski olevat niisugune juhtum.