natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Concerning the other measures mentioned in recital 96 of the decision to initiate the procedure, the French authorities specify that their effects were not taken into account in the business plan as they are difficult to quantify.
Teiste menetluse algatamise otsuse põhjenduses 96 nimetatud meetmete osas täpsustavad Prantsuse ametiasutused, et nende mõju ei võetud äriplaanis arvesse sellepärast, et seda on raske välja arvutada.
However, these measures would be likely to generate savings.
Need meetmed peaksid siiski aitama kulusid kokku hoida.
Concerning the prevention of any excessive distortion of competition
Põhjendamatute konkurentsimoonutuste vältimine
As regards the prevention of any excessive distortion of competition, the French authorities wish to confirm that the sale of the two vessels, the Renoir and the Cézanne, did indeed occur on 7 July 2011 at the price of USD [0-10] million (EUR [0-10] million).
Põhjendamatute konkurentsimoonutuste ärahoidmise suhtes kinnitavad Prantsuse ametiasutused, et kaks laeva, Renoir ja Cézanne, müüdi tõepoolest 7. juulil 2011 hinnaga [0–10] miljonit USA dollarit ([0–10] miljonit eurot).
Concerning SeaFrance’s own contribution to the restructuring plan
SeaFrance’i omapanus ümberkorralduskavasse
According to the French authorities, a first part of SeaFrance’s own contribution to the restructuring plan consists of the proceeds from the sale of the vessels Renoir and Cézanne, as well as the expected income from the sale of the vessel Nord Pas de Calais.
Prantsuse ametiasutuste sõnul moodustab ühe osa SeaFrance’i omapanusest ümberkorralduskavasse laevade Renoir ja Cézanne müügist saadud tulu ning oodatav tulu laeva Nord-Pas-de-Calais’ müügist.
The French authorities consider in addition that the two loans described in recitals 28 to 33 are exempt from State aid and that the loan of EUR 99,8 million must be considered as an own contribution.
Peale selle leiavad Prantsuse ametiasutused, et põhjendustes 28–33 kirjeldatud kaks laenu ei ole riigiabi ning et 99,8 miljoni euro suurust laenu tuleks käsitada omapanusena.
According to the French authorities, to evaluate the existence of aid, the Commission must take only the Reference Rates Communication as a basis.
Prantsuse ametiasutused leiavad, et abi olemasolu hindamisel peab komisjon toetuma üksnes teatisele viitemäärade kohta.
They point out that the Commission applied this Communication in its decision to initiate the procedure concerning the loan granted to ČSA – Czech Airlines by the publicly owned company Osinek [30] and in its decision concerning the loans granted by the Hungarian Development Bank in favour of Hungarian fertiliser producer Péti Nitrogénmüvek [31].
Nad juhivad tähelepanu sellele, et komisjon toetus sellele teatisele oma menetluse algatamise otsuses laenu kohta, mille avalik-õiguslik asutus Osinek andis ČSAle (Czech Airlines), [30] ning otsuses laenude kohta, mille Ungari Arengupank andis Ungari väetisetootjale Péti Nitrogénmüvek [31].
They consider that, for the reasons described in recitals 28 to 33, the two loans do not constitute aid.
Nad leiavad, et põhjendustes 28–33 kirjeldatud põhjustel ei ole need kaks laenu riigiabi.
ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
ABIMEETMETE HINDAMINE
According to Article 107(1) TFEU, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 kohaselt on „igasugune liikmesriigi poolt või riigi ressurssidest ükskõik missugusel kujul antav abi, mis kahjustab või ähvardab kahjustada konkurentsi, soodustades teatud ettevõtjaid või teatud kaupade tootmist, siseturuga kokkusobimatu niivõrd, kuivõrd see kahjustab liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust”.
The classification of a measure as State aid presupposes that the following cumulative conditions are satisfied, i.e.: 1) the measure in question confers an advantage, 2) this advantage is granted through State resources, 3) this advantage is selective and 4) the measure in question distorts or threatens to distort competition and is liable to affect trade between Member States [32].
Et meede kvalifitseeruks riigiabiks, peavad seega olema täidetud järgmised kumulatiivsed tingimused: 1) meede soodustab kedagi, 2) soodustus antakse riigi ressurssidest, 3) soodustus on valikuline ja 4) meede kahjustab või ähvardab kahjustada konkurentsi ning võib kahjustada liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust [32].
The present decision covers three aid measures: the recapitalisation and the two loans described in recitals 28 to 33.
Käesolev otsus hõlmab kolme abimeedet: rekapitaliseerimine ja põhjendustes 28–33 kirjeldatud kaks laenu.
Recapitalisation of SeaFrance
SeaFrance’i rekapitaliseerimine
The French authorities themselves consider in their notification that the capital increase in favour of SeaFrance constitutes State aid.
Prantsuse ametiasutused käsitlevad SeaFrance’i kapitali suurendamist oma teatises ka ise riigiabina.
By their notification, the French authorities admit that the recapitalisation measure is imputable to the State and that it confers a selective advantage on SeaFrance alone.
Teatises möönavad Prantsuse ametiasutused, et rekapitaliseerimismeede on seostatav riigiga ja soodustab valikuliselt üksnes äriühingut SeaFrance.
As regards the existence of an advantage, the Commission considers that, for the reasons to be explained in section 7.2.1, SeaFrance constitutes a firm in difficulty.
Seoses soodustuse olemasoluga leiab komisjon, et põhjustel, mida selgitatakse jaotises 7.2.1, on SeaFrance raskustes olev äriühing.
In view of the very difficult situation of SeaFrance and the fact that it has been placed under the judicial reorganisation procedure, the company would be unable to cope with the implementation of its restructuring plan and its cash requirements.
Arvestades SeaFrance’i väga rasket olukorda ja tema suhtes algatatud pankrotimenetlust, ei tuleks äriühing toime oma ümberkorralduskava elluviimisega ega oma sularahavajaduste rahuldamisega.
In such circumstances, a private operator would not have contributed capital.
Sellises olukorras ei oleks eraettevõtja kapitali investeerinud.
In addition, the French authorities did not even try to demonstrate that the expected return corresponds to that which a private investor would have required.
Peale selle ei püüdnudki Prantsuse ametiasutused tõendada, et oodatav tulusus vastab sellele, mida oleks nõudnud erainvestor.
The measure therefore constitutes a selective advantage since only SeaFrance benefits from it.
Meede on seega valikuline soodustus, sest sellest saab kasu ainult SeaFrance.
It is granted through public resources, since the SNCF is a public undertaking.
See on antud riigi vahenditest, sest SNCF on avalik-õiguslik ettevõte.
It is imputable to the State.
Seega on meede seostatav riigiga.
As regards the effect on competition and on trade within the Union, it should first be pointed out that, according to established case-law, as soon as an undertaking operates in a sector where producers from various Member States are effectively competing, any aid that this undertaking may receive from the public authorities is liable to affect trade between Member States and damage competition, inasmuch as its continuing presence on the market prevents competitors from increasing their market share [33].
Konkurentsi ja liikmesriikidevahelise kaubanduse kahjustamise küsimuses tuleb meenutada, et kohtupraktika on järjekindlalt näidanud, et kui ettevõtja tegutseb sektoris, kus toimub reaalne konkurents erinevate liikmesriikide tootjate vahel, võib igasugune riigiasutuste abi sellele ettevõtjale kahjustada liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust ja ohustada konkurentsi, kuivõrd tema hoidmine turul ei lase konkureerivatel ettevõtjatel oma turuosa suurendada [33].
In this respect, the fact that an economic sector has been liberalised at Union level constitutes evidence that the aid may have a real or potential effect on competition and on trade between Member States [34].
Asjaolu, et mingi majandussektor on liidu tasandil liberaliseeritud, on sealjuures tõendiks, et abil võib olla konkurentsile ja liikmesriikidevahelisele kaubandusele tegelik või võimalik mõju [34].
In this context, it is important to point out that Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries [35] fully liberalised maritime transport between Member States as of 1 January 1993.
Sellel taustal tuleb meenutada, et nõukogu 22. detsembri 1986. aasta määrusega (EMÜ) nr 4055/86 teenuste osutamise vabaduse põhimõtte kohaldamise kohta liikmesriikide ning liikmesriikide ja kolmandate riikide vahelises mereveos [35] liberaliseeriti täielikult liikmesriikidevaheline merevedu alates 1. jaanuarist 1993.
In the present case, as previously established, there is modal competition with the other maritime operators in a liberalised sector and also intermodal competition, especially with railway transport [36].
Nagu eelnevalt tõdetud, on kõnealusel juhul olemas transpordiliigi sisene konkurents teiste mereveoettevõtjatega liberaliseeritud sektoris, samuti transpordiliikide vaheline konkurents eelkõige raudteeveoga [36].
The Commission concludes from this that the recapitalisation is likely to strengthen the position of the company in relation to its competitors in trade between the Member States of the Union.
Komisjon järeldab sellest, et rekapitaliseerimine võib tugevdada äriühingu positsiooni võrreldes konkurentidega ELi liikmesriikide vahelises kaubanduses.
The measure therefore affects trade between Member States and is liable to cause distortions of competition.
Meede kahjustab seega liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust ja võib moonutada konkurentsi.
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that the measure in question constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Eelkirjeldatust lähtudes leiab komisjon, et kõnealune meede on riigiabi ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
The loans described in recitals 28 to 33
Põhjendustes 28–33 kirjeldatud laenud
France considers that the two loans described in recitals 28 to 33 are granted under market conditions and therefore respect the principle of the private market economy investor (see recital 116).
Prantsusmaa on seisukohal, et põhjendustes 28–33 kirjeldatud kaks laenu on antud turutingimustel ja vastavad seega turumajandusliku erainvestori põhimõttele (vt põhjendus 116).
The Commission does not agree with this analysis.
Komisjon ei jaga seda seisukohta.
In fact, in the present case, the SNCF has already granted aid to SeaFrance, notably rescue aid, and is planning to grant new aid, i.e. the recapitalisation.
Kõnealusel juhul on SNCF juba andnud SeaFrance’ile abi, täpsemalt päästmisabi, ja kavatseb anda seda veel kord rekapitaliseerimise näol.
The loans pursue the same purpose as the other aid measures, i.e. the rescue and restructuring of SeaFrance.
Laenud antakse samal eesmärgil nagu muu abi, see tähendab SeaFrance’i päästmiseks ja ümberkorraldamiseks.
They will be granted at a time when SeaFrance is a firm in difficulty and at the same time as the restructuring aid.
Need antakse ajal, kui SeaFrance on raskustes, ning samal ajal kui ümberkorraldusabi.
This is self-evident as regards the loan of EUR 99,7 million, which is intended – just like the recapitalisation – to enable SeaFrance to meet its current capital requirements.
See on selge 99,7 miljoni euro suuruse laenu puhul, mille eesmärgiks on – täpselt nagu rekapitaliseerimiselgi – aidata rahuldada SeaFrance’i jooksvaid kapitalivajadusi.
However, it is also true of the loan of EUR [40-70] million, which serves to refinance and exercise the purchase option under the leasing contract for the vessel Molière earlier than provided for.
Kuid sama kehtib ka [40–70] miljoni euro suuruse laenu kohta, mis antakse laeva Molière liisingulepingu refinantseerimiseks ja laeva ennetähtaegseks väljaostmiseks.
In fact, the financing of means of production, here the vessel, is closely linked to the day-to-day activities of SeaFrance.
Tootmisvahendite (vaatlusalusel juhul laeva) rahastamine on tihedalt seotud SeaFrance’i igapäevase tegevusega.
Through the refinancing and early purchase under the leasing contract, SeaFrance aims to reduce its operating costs, which comes under the restructuring of the company.
Liisingulepingu refinantseerimise ja ennetähtaegse väljaostmisega soovib SeaFrance vähendada oma tegevuskulusid, mis on seotud äriühingu ümberkorraldamisega.
Consequently, the loan of EUR [40-70] million also comes under the logic of restructuring SeaFrance.
Seega täidab ka [40–70] miljoni euro suurune laen SeaFrance’i ümberkorraldamise eesmärki.
In its BP Chemicals judgment, the Court of First Instance clarified that in such a situation, it is appropriate to analyse the loans, from the point of view of State aid, not in isolation, but together with the other measures [37].
Üldkohtu kohtuasjas BP Chemicalsi tehtud otsuses on selgitatud, et sellises olukorras tuleb analüüsida laene riigiabi seisukohast koos teiste meetmetega, mitte eraldivõetuna [37].
According to the judgment of the Court of First Instance, it is true that the mere fact that a public undertaking has already made capital injections into a subsidiary which are classed as ‘aid’ does not, in principle, mean that a further capital injection cannot be classed as an operation which satisfies the private market economy investor test.
See, et avalik-õiguslik ettevõtja on varem teinud oma tütarettevõttesse abi nime all kapitaliinvesteeringuid, ei välista küll Üldkohtu otsuse kohaselt automaatselt seda, et hilisemad meetmed võivad kvalifitseeruda turumajandusliku erainvestori kriteeriumile vastavaks tehinguks.
However, the Court considers that, in a case which concerned three capital injections made by the same investor over a period of two years, the first two of which brought no return, it was for the Commission to determine whether the third injection could reasonably be dissociated from the first two and classed, for the purposes of the private investor test, as an independent investment.
Siiski leidis Üldkohus juhtumi puhul, kus üks ja sama investor tegi kahe aasta jooksul kolm kapitaliinvesteeringut, millest kaks esimest ei teeninud mingit tulu, et komisjon oleks pidanud kontrollima, kas kolmandat investeeringut saab kahest esimesest põhjendatult lahutada ja käsitleda erainvestori kriteeriumi seisukohast iseseisva investeeringuna.
The Court considers that the considerations relevant to determining whether the subsequent measure could reasonably be dissociated from the first two and classed, for the purposes of the private investor test, as an independent investment, include in particular the timing of the capital injections in question, their purpose and the subsidiary’s situation at the time when each decision to make an injection was made.
Üldkohus leiab, et asjaolud, mis võimaldavad hinnata, kas hilisemat meedet sai põhjendatult lahutada kahest esimesest ja käsitleda erainvestori kriteeriumi seisukohast iseseisva investeeringuga, on muu hulgas investeeringute ajaline järgnevus, nende eesmärk ning tütarettevõtja seisund sellel ajal, kui võeti vastu asjaomaste investeeringute tegemise otsus.
France does not dispute the fact that the recapitalisation constitutes aid, as it has no prospect of obtaining a return corresponding to that which a private investor would have demanded.
Prantsusmaa ei vaidlusta, et rekapitaliseerimine on abi, sest sellel ei ole mingeid väljavaateid teenida sellist tulu, nagu oleks nõudnud erainvestor.
Since the two loans have the same purpose as the recapitalisation, i.e. the financing of the restructuring costs, and since the economic situation of the company is unchanged (it is in difficulty) and the loans are granted at the same time as the recapitalisation, these loans cannot reasonably be dissociated from the rescue aid and the recapitalisation.
Kuivõrd kahel laenul on sama eesmärk nagu rekapitaliseerimisel, st ümberkorraldamise rahastamine, ning kuna ettevõtja majanduslik olukord on sama (ta on raskustes) ja laenud antakse rekapitaliseerimisega samaaegselt, ei saa neid laene põhjendatult lahutada päästmisabist ja rekapitaliseerimisest.
Taken as a whole, the return on the rescue aid and on the recapitalisation and the two loans is below the return that a private market economy investor would require.
Päästmisabi, rekapitaliseerimine ja kaks laenu koos võetuna on väiksema tasuvusega, kui nõuaks turumajanduslik erainvestor.
The following developments are therefore set out for the sake of completeness.
Järgnev arutluskäik on seega esitatud vaid lisateabe eesmärgil.
The French authorities cite the Reference Rates Communication to justify the absence of aid as regards the two loans.
Prantsuse ametiasutused toetuvad teatisele viitemäärade kohta, põhjendamaks, et kaks laenu ei kujuta endast abi.
They consider that, in view of the company rating (CCC) and the collateral offered (normal), the rate must amount to 8,55 %, i.e. EURIBOR 12 months plus 650 basis points.
Nad leiavad, et äriühingu olukorda (CCC) ja tagatiste kategooriat (tavaline) arvestades peab intressimäär olema 8,55 %, see tähendab 12 kuu EURIBOR pluss 650 baaspunkti.
The French authorities consider that this is a conservative application of the Reference Rates Communication.
Prantsuse ametiasutuste hinnangul tähendab see viitemäärade teatise konservatiivset rakendamist.
Even if the two loans were to be assessed in isolation – which is not the case –, the French authorities would not have demonstrated that they were granted at a market rate.
Isegi kui kahte laenu tuleks hinnata eraldivõetuna – quod non –, ei ole Prantsuse ametiasutused tõendanud, et need on antud turumääraga.
In this respect, the Commission first wishes to emphasise that, as pointed out in the first paragraph of the Reference Rates Communication: ‘The reference and discount rates are applied as a proxy for the market rate and to measure the grant equivalent of aid, in particular when it is disbursed in several instalments and to calculate the aid element resulting from interest subsidy schemes. They are also used to check compliance with the de minimis rule and block exemption regulations.’ [38].
Komisjon juhib selles küsimuses kõigepealt tähelepanu asjaolule, et, nagu täpsustatakse viitemäärade teatise esimeses lõigus, „[v]iite- ja diskontomäärasid kohaldatakse turumäära indikaatorina eelkõige mitme osamaksena välja makstava abi toetusekvivalendi mõõtmiseks ning intressitoetuse skeemidest tuleneva abi osakaalu arvutamiseks. Samuti kasutatakse kõnealuseid määrasid kontrollimaks vastavust nii vähese tähtsuse abi eeskirjale kui ka grupierandi määrustele” [38].
The Reference Rates Communication cannot therefore be binding on the Commission as regards its application of the principle of the private market economy operator, especially in cases where real market data are available which are manifestly different from those resulting from the methodology set out in this Communication.
Teatis viitemäärade kohta ei piira seega komisjoni turumajandusliku erainvestori põhimõtte rakendamisel, eriti juhtudel, kus on olemas tegelikud turuandmed, mis erinevad selgelt kõnealuses teatises kirjeldatud metodoloogiast tulenevatest arvudest.
In this case, since the provider of the aid is also supplying the loan, in order to ensure that the proposed remuneration does in fact correspond to market remuneration, the Commission must take operators external to the SNCF as a basis.
Kuivõrd abiandja ja laenaja on vaatlusalusel juhul sama, peab komisjon toetuma SNCFi-välistele ettevõtjatele, et hinnata kavandatud intressi vastavust turumäärale.
The Commission asked the French authorities on several occasions to produce an example of an offer from an independent financial institution.
Komisjon palus Prantsuse ametiasutustel korduvalt esitada näide sõltumatu finantsasutuse pakkumisest.
This offer was never produced.
Seda ei tehtud.
Furthermore, the Commission also carried out a market survey.
Komisjon tegi ka turu-uuringu.
According to the Commission’s estimates, with normal collateral, the rate on the loans, to be in line with market conditions, should be around 14 % (5-year swap rate of 2,825 % [39] + average CDS [40] below B- (i.e. CCC) of 11,18 % + premium of 0,2 %).
Komisjoni hinnangul oleks turutingimustele vastav laenuintress tavalise tagatise korral ligikaudu 14 % (viieaastaste vahetustehingute intressimäär 2,825 % [39] + madalama kui B- kategooria (st CCC kategooria) krediidiriski vahetustehingute keskmine [40] 11,18 % + preemia 0,2 %).
In addition, on several occasions [42], the Commission asked the French authorities to consider external financing or to produce a rating or a rate proposal from a commercial bank.
Samuti palus komisjon korduvalt, [42] et Prantsuse ametiasutused kaaluksid välist rahastamist või esitaksid mõne kommertspanga reitingu või intressipakkumise.
These suggestions were not formally followed up.
Neile ettepanekutele ei järgnenud mingeid ametlikke samme.
Finally, the arguments put forward by the French authorities under recital 116 that the Commission applied the Reference Rates Communication in two recent procedures could not be accepted.
Viimaks ei saa arvestada põhjenduses 116 esitatud Prantsuse ametiasutuste argumente, mille kohaselt komisjon rakendas teatist viitemäärade kohta kahes hiljutises menetluses.
In fact, as regards these two procedures, one of which is still in progress, the issues were different.
Nende kahe menetluse puhul, millest üks veel kestab, olid probleemid teistsugused.
As regards Péti Nitrogénmüvek, all the measures under examination constituted State aid.
Péti Nitrogénmüveki puhul kujutasid kõik uurimise all olnud meetmed endast riigiabi.
As for Osinek, the Commission has not yet taken a final decision and at the time when the loan was granted, no aid measure had been notified.
Osineki osas aga ei ole komisjon veel lõplikku otsust langetanud ning laenu andmise ajal ei olnud ühestki abimeetmest teatatud.
The Commission concludes that the loans used to finance the own contribution and the early exercise of the purchase option for the vessel Molière also confer an advantage on SeaFrance.
Kokkuvõttes järeldab komisjon, et omapanuse rahastamiseks ja laeva Molière ostuoptsiooni ennetähtaegseks kasutamiseks ettenähtud laenud on samuti SeaFrance’i soodustavad.
For the reasons set out in recitals 121 to 126, the other three conditions for the existence of aid (selective advantage granted through public resources, effect on competition and effect on intra-Community trade) are also satisfied.
Põhjendustes 121–126 esitatud põhjustel on täidetud ka kolm ülejäänud abi olemasolu tingimust (riigi vahenditest antud valikuline soodustus, mõju konkurentsile ja liikmesriikide vahelise kaubanduse kahjustamine).
These loans therefore constitute State aid.
Laenud on seega riigiabi.
The rescue aid
Päästmisabi
For the reasons set out in recitals 30 to 47 of the Commission decision of 18 August 2010, the loan granted by the SNCF to SeaFrance as rescue aid constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisjoni 18. augusti 2010. aasta otsuse põhjendustes 30–47 esitatud põhjustel on laen, mille SNCF andis SeaFrance’ile päästmisabina, riigiabi ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
Compatibility of the three aid measures
Kolme abimeetme kokkusobivus siseturuga
In view of the purpose of the three restructuring aid measures in question and the claims made by the French authorities in the context of their notifications, the Commission considers that the compatibility of the three aid measures with the internal market must be analysed on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and in the light of the Guidelines.
Arvestades seda, et kolme abimeetme eesmärk on kõnealune ümberkorraldamine, ning võttes arvesse Prantsuse ametiasutuste väiteid neist teatamisel, leiab komisjon, et kolme abimeetme kokkusobivust siseturuga tuleb analüüsida ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti c ning suuniste alusel.
Eligibility: firm in difficulty
Abikõlblikkus: raskustes olev äriühing