natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indeed, according to point 20 of the R&R Guidelines, ‘a firm in difficulty cannot be considered an appropriate vehicle for promoting other public policy objectives until such time as its viability is assured. Consequently, the Commission considers that aid to firms in difficulty may contribute to the development of economic activities without adversely affecting trade to an extent contrary to the Community interest only if the conditions set out in these Guidelines are met.’ Contrary to what Germany claims, the exception laid down in Article 106(2) TFEU is not applicable in the case at hand, because the supported operations cannot be considered as services of general economic interest, since they manifestly constitute operations of commercial nature offered in sectors which are subject to competition.
U skladu s točkom 20.
The exception laid down in Article 107(3)(b) TFEU is not applicable either, since the project and the companies supported through the measures under scrutiny cannot be considered as an important project of common European interest, and Germany was not facing a serious disturbance in its economy.
Smjernica „poduzeće u teškoćama ne može se smatrati odgovarajućim sredstvom za promoviranje drugih ciljeva javne politike sve dok nije osigurana njegova održivost. S obzirom na to, Komisija smatra da potpore poduzećima u teškoćama mogu doprinijeti razvoju gospodarskih djelatnosti bez da štetno utječu na trgovinu u mjeri u kojoj je to suprotno interesu Zajednice samo ako se poštuju uvjeti iz ovih Smjernica.” Suprotno navodima Njemačke izuzeće na temelju članka 107. stavka 2. UFEU-a nije primjenjivo u predmetnom slučaju jer usluge kojima se pruža potpora nisu usluge od općega gospodarskog interesa, nego gospodarske djelatnosti u gospodarskim područjima obuhvaćenima tržišnim natjecanjem.
Finally, the exception laid down in Article 107(3)(d) TFEU is not applicable either, because the aided activities are obviously not related to culture or heritage conservation
Ni izuzeće na temelju članka 107. stavka 3. točke (b) UFEU-a nije primjenjivo u ovom predmetu državne potpore jer se projekt i poduzetnici koji su dobili potporu na temelju ispitanih mjera ne mogu smatrati projektom od zajedničkog europskog interesa i u gospodarstvu Njemačke nije bilo ozbiljnih poremećaja. Nije primjenjivo ni izuzeće na temelju članka 107. stavka 3. točke (d) UFEU-a jer poticane djelatnosti očito ne služe ni promicanju kulture ni očuvanju baštine.
In the case at hand, the relevant conditions of the R&R Guidelines (Sections 3.1 and 3.2) for rescue and/or restructuring aid are not fulfilled. Indeed, the measures were not terminated after 6 months and Germany did not notify a restructuring plan within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines.
U predmetnom slučaju nisu ispunjeni relevantni uvjeti iz odjeljaka 3.1 i 3.2. jer mjere nisu istekle nakon šest mjeseci i Njemačka nije prijavila plan restrukturiranja u smislu Smjernica.
Finally, there is no evidence that the aid was limited to the minimum necessary, notably through a significant own contribution of the aid beneficiary.
Usto nije dokazano da su potpore ograničene na potreban minimum, posebno na temelju znatnog vlastitog doprinosa korisnika potpore.
The authorities did not provide a liquidation plan either.
Nadležna tijela nisu dostavila ni plan likvidacije.
In light of the above, the Commission considers measure 1, part of measure 2 (loans granted by NG to EWN, MAN, TTI, Camp4Fun, BWN1, BWNB and BWN2), as well as measures 3 to 7, 9 to 10, 12 to 14, and 16 to 19 as incompatible with the TFEU.
Stoga Komisija smatra da mjera 1., dio mjere 2. (zajmovi NG-a društvima EWN, MAN, TTI, Camp4Fun, BWN1, BWNB i BWN2) te mjere 3. do 7., 9., 10., 12. do 14. i 16. do 19. nisu spojive s UFEU-om.
According to the TFEU and the Court's established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the Member State concerned must abolish or alter aid when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market [165].
U skladu s UFEU-om i ustaljenom praksom Suda ako Komisija ustanovi da neka potpora nije spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem, ovlaštena je donijeti odluku prema kojoj dotična država članica mora ukinuti ili izmijeniti takvu potporu [165].
The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a Member State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation [166].
Isto tako prema ustaljenoj praksi Suda obveza države članice da ukine potporu koju Komisija smatra nespojivom s unutarnjim tržištem služi ponovnom uspostavljanju prethodnog stanja [166]. U tom je pogledu Sud utvrdio da je taj cilj ostvaren čim korisnik vrati iznose koji su mu odobreni kao nezakonita državna potpora.
In this context, the Court has established that this objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored [167].
Tim povratom on gubi prednost koju je imao na tržištu u odnosu na svoje konkurente i ponovno se uspostavlja stanje prije isplate potpore [167].
In line with the case-law, Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [168] laid down that ‘where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary […].’
U skladu sa sudskom praksom prema članku 14. stavku 1. Uredbe Vijeća (EZ)br. 659/1999 [168] vrijedi sljedeće: „U slučaju kada se u slučajevima nezakonite potpore donesu negativne odluke, Komisija donosi odluku kojom se od dotične države članice zahtijeva da poduzme sve potrebne mjere kako bi od korisnika povukla sredstva potpore […].”
Thus, given that the measures at hand were not notified to the Commission in violation of Article 108 TFEU and are, therefore, to be considered as unlawful and incompatible aids, they must be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to their granting.
Budući da Komisija nije bila obaviještena o predmetnim mjerama, što je u suprotnosti s člankom 108. UFEU-a, i stoga one predstavljaju nezakonite i nespojive potpore, potrebno ih je povući kako bi se ponovno uspostavila situacija koja je postojala na tržištu prije dodjele potpore.
Recovery should cover the time from when the advantage accrued to the beneficiary, that is to say when the aids were put at the disposal of the beneficiary, until effective recovery, and the sums to be recovered should bear interest until effective recovery.
Povratom bi trebalo obuhvatiti razdoblje od trenutka u kojem je za korisnika nastala prednost, tj. u kojem mu je dodijeljena potpora, sve do stvarnog povrata; iznosi povrata trebali bi uključivati kamate dospjele do stvarnog povrata.
The Commission notes that certain aid beneficiaries (NG, MSR, CMHN, CST [169], IPC) are in insolvency proceedings [170].
Komisija je utvrdila da se određeni korisnici (NG, MSR, CMHN, CST [169], IPC) nalaze u stečajnom postupku [170].
In line with a well-established case-law, the fact that a beneficiary is insolvent or subject to bankruptcy proceedings has no effect on its obligation to repay unlawful and incompatible aid [171].
Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi činjenica da je korisnik nelikvidan ili da se nalazi u stečajnom postupku ne utječe na njegovu obvezu povrata nezakonitih i nespojivih potpora [171].
At the same time, in the majority of cases involving an insolvent aid beneficiary, it is not possible to recover the full amount of unlawful and incompatible aid (including interests), as the beneficiary's assets are insufficient to satisfy all creditors' claims.
Istodobno u većini slučajeva u kojima je korisnik nelikvidan nije moguće dobiti povrat punog iznosa nezakonite potpore nespojive s unutarnjim tržištem (uključujući kamate) jer imovina primatelja nije dovoljna kako bi se zadovoljila sva potraživanja vjerovnika.
Consequently, it is often not possible to fully re-establish the ex ante situation in the traditional manner.
Stoga se stanje koje je postojalo prije dodjele potpore ne može u potpunosti ponovno uspostaviti na uobičajen način.
Since the ultimate objective of recovery is to end the distortion of competition, the European Court of Justice has stated that the liquidation of the beneficiary can be regarded as an acceptable option to recovery in such cases [172].
Budući da je povrat naposljetku usmjeren na uklanjanje narušavanja tržišnog natjecanja, Sud je odlučio da se u takvim slučajevima likvidacija poduzetnika koji je korisnik potpore može smatrati prihvatljivom opcijom za povrat [172].
The Commission is therefore of the view that a decision ordering the Member State to recover unlawful and incompatible aid from an insolvent beneficiary may be considered to be properly executed either when full recovery is completed or, in case of partial recovery, when there is an appropriate registration of the liability relating to the payment of the aid in the schedule of liabilities and the company is liquidated and its assets are sold under market conditions, which implies a definitive cessation of its activities.
Stoga Komisija smatra da je odluka kojom se državi članici nalaže da zatraži povrat nezakonite potpore nespojive s unutarnjim tržištem od nelikvidnog primatelja provedena na ispravan način ako je potpora vraćena u potpunosti ili, u slučaju povrata dijela iznosa potpore, ako je potraživanje usmjereno na povrat potpore uneseno u popis potraživanja, poduzetnik je u postupku likvidacije i njegova se imovina otuđuje prema tržišnim uvjetima, što znači njegov potpuni prestanak obavljanja djelatnosti.
More in general it should be ensured that no operator will benefit from the illegal and incompatible aid after the disappearance of the beneficiary.
Općenito je potrebno osigurati da nijedan gospodarski subjekt nema koristi od nezakonitih potpora nespojivih s unutarnjim tržištem nakon prestanka primatelja potpore.
Recovery shall also concern beneficiaries not in the insolvency procedure (NAG, and BikeWorld GmbH for BWN1, BWNB and BWN2, since BWN1 merged with BWNB, subsequently the name of the acquiring company BWNB was changed into BWN2, and the latter company was subsequently renamed to BikeWorld GmbH.
Povrat se odnosi i na korisnike koji nisu u stečajnom postupku: NAG i BikeWorld GmbH za BWN1, BWNB i BWN2 (nakon što je BWNB preuzeo BWN1, restrukturirani poduzetnik preimenovan je u BWNB2; taj je poduzetnik nadalje djelovao pod tvrtkom BikeWorld GmbH).
The Commission notes that certain aid beneficiaries no longer exist at the moment of this decision (EWN, MAN, TTI, Camp4Fun, MIB).
Komisija je utvrdila da određeni korisnici – EWN, MAN, TTI, Camp4Fun i MIB – u trenutku donošenja ove odluke više ne postoje.
For those three aid beneficiaries, there is economic continuity, between them as aid beneficiaries and their remaining shareholder, i.e. NG.
Između tih triju korisnika i NG-a, njihova preostalog člana društva, postoji gospodarski kontinuitet.
Indeed, since NG is the remaining shareholder of these aid beneficiaries, it is responsible for their debts, including the debts resulting from State aid.
Kao preostali član tih korisnika NG odgovara za njihove dugove, uključujući dugove proizišle iz državnih potpora.
Since NG is in liquidation, then it should be ensured that there is an appropriate registration of the liability relating to the payment of the aid in the schedule of NG's liabilities, and that there is a definitive cessation of NG's activities.
Budući da se NG nalazi u likvidacijskom postupku potrebno je osigurati da se potraživanje povezano s plaćanjem potpore na ispravan način unese u popis potraživanja i da NG trajno prestane poslovati.
It should also be ensured that no operator will benefit from the incompatible aid after the disappearance of NG.
Nadalje, potrebno je osigurati da nijedan gospodarski subjekt nema koristi od nezakonitih potpora nespojivih s unutarnjim tržištem nakon prestanka NG-a.
Thus, the Commission concludes that NG as the economic successor of the beneficiaries has to be subject to the recovery of the State aid granted to them.
Stoga Komisija zaključuje da je povrat potpora dodijeljenih korisnicima potrebno zatražiti od NG-a kao njihova gospodarskog sljednika.
Since NG is the aid grantor as well as the economic successor of the aid beneficiaries, recovery must be implemented in such circumstances by the State.
Budući da je NG dodijelio potpore i istodobno je gospodarski sljednik korisnika potpore, država mora izvršiti povrat potpore.
MIB was not liquidated, but merged with NAG on 6 September 2013, and therefore also no longer exists as a legal entity.
MIB nije likvidiran, nego je 6. rujna 2013. pripojen NAG-u i više ne postoji kao pravna osoba.
In consequence, NAG is the economic successor of MIB, on the basis of § 2 paragraph 1 of the German Transformation Act (‘Umwandlungsgesetz’), as indicated in the German trade register.
Posljedično je NAG, kako je navedeno u registru trgovačkih društava, u skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 1. njemačkog Zakona o pretvorbi (njem. Umwandlungsgesetz) gospodarski sljednik MIB-a.
Therefore, NAG as the economic successor of MIB must pay back the aid.
Kao gospodarski sljednik društva MIB NAG mora izvršiti povrat potpore.
Pursuant to § 70 of the Limited Liability Companies Act, the liquidator had ‘to quit the current business, to fulfil liabilities of the dissolved company, to collect the claims of the same company and to convert the company's assets in money …’. The remaining cash assets were then distributed to the shareholders.
U skladu s člankom 70. Zakona o društvima s ograničenom odgovornošću likvidator je morao „završiti tekuće poslove, ispuniti obveze društva koje prestaje poslovati, naplatiti njegova potraživanja i unovčiti imovinu društva …” Zatim je preostali novac raspodijeljen na članove društva.
At that moment in time, the company was dissolved.
U tom je trenutku društvo već prestalo poslovati.
Pursuant to Germany, there was no legal succession in the sense of economic continuity, because at most, cash went to the shareholders, there was no economic activity anymore, and a transfer of the business or a take-over of liability by the shareholders was not carried out.
Njemačka navodi da ne postoji pravna sljednost prema kriteriju gospodarskog kontinuiteta jer su najveći dio novca dobili članovi društva, nije se više obavljala poslovna djelatnost i članovi društva nisu prenijeli poslovanje ili preuzeli obveze.
Germany also indicated that the assets of TTI were not sold in a tender process, since on 12 March 2004 as the date of the opening of the liquidation of TTI, these assets were only the account balance of EUR 19777,39, tax refund claims of EUR 1222,01 and interests from a bank account of EUR 30,69. As TTI was liquidated as mentioned above, it had no economic successor, especially since there was no economic activity run by anybody after liquidation, and the shareholders did not receive assets or any operational elements of TTI but only a very limited amount of cash.
Njemačka je, nadalje, pojasnila da imovina TTI-ja nije otuđena u natječajnom postupku jer je u trenutku pokretanja likvidacijskog postupka TTI-ja 12. ožujka 2004. obuhvaćala samo završno stanje od 19777,39 EUR, pravo na povrat poreza u iznosu od 1222,01 EUR i kamate na bankovnom računu u iznosu od 30,69 EUR. Budući da je TTI likvidiran na opisani način nije imao gospodarskog sljednika, tim više što se nakon likvidacije nije obavljala gospodarska djelatnost i članovi društva nisu dobili imovinu ili elemente poslovanja TTI-ja, nego samo vrlo malen iznos u novcu.
In this context, since there was no transfer of the business of TTI to anybody, the Commission considers that the State aid stemming from the measure at hand was not passed to anybody else.
S obzirom na to, i zato što poslovanje TTI-ja nije ni na koga preneseno, Komisija smatra da potpora uvjetovana predmetnom mjerom nije prenesena ni na koga.
In such case, the company has already been fully liquidated, and recovery becomes without object because the aid beneficiary no longer exists and has no economic successor.
Poduzetnik je već u potpunosti bio likvidiran i traženi je povrat potpore neosnovan jer korisnik potpore više ne postoji i nema gospodarskog sljednika.
ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC CONTINUITY BETWEEN THE INSOLVENT COMPANIES AND THE BUYER OF THE ASSETS
OCJENA GOSPODARSKOG KONTINUITETA IZMEĐU PODUZETNIKA U STEČAJU I PREUZIMATELJA IMOVINE
EXISTENCE OF STATE AID BENEFITING THE BUYER OF THE ASSETS
POSTOJANJE DRŽAVNE POTPORE U KORIST PREUZIMATELJA IMOVINE
In the event of a negative Commission decision regarding the recovery of incompatible aid to an undertaking in the context of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the Member State in question is required to recover the incompatible aid.
Ako Komisija na temelju članaka 107. i 108. UFEU-a donese negativnu odluku kojom se nalaže povrat potpore koja nije spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem, predmetna država članica mora zatražiti povrat nespojive potpore.
The recovery obligation may be extended to a new company, to which the company in question has transferred or sold part of its assets, where that transfer or sale structure will trigger the conclusion that there is economic continuity between the two companies.
Obveza povrata potpore može se zatim proširiti na novog poduzetnika kojem je predmetni poduzetnik prenio ili prodao dio svoje imovine ako struktura prijenosa odnosno otuđenja upućuje na postojanje gospodarskog kontinuiteta između dvaju poduzetnika.
State aid for the buyer could also result from the sale of the assets under their market value (even in the absence of economic continuity).
Državne potpore za preuzimatelja mogle bi biti i rezultat otuđenja imovine ispod njezine tržišne vrijednosti (čak i ako ne postoji gospodarski kontinuitet).
In order to decide on whether there is State aid benefiting the buyer(s) of the assets, the Commission needs to confirm: (a) that the sale of any assets takes place at their market price; and (b) other criteria addressed below.
Kako bi se odlučilo je li preuzimatelj imovine zbog državnih potpora stavljen u povoljniji položaj, Komisija mora ispitati je li imovina otuđena po tržišnoj vrijednosti te provjeriti dodatne kriterije obrađene u nastavku.
According to the Court decision on Italy and SIM 2 v Commission [173], on which the Commission founded its decisions on Olympic Airlines, Alitalia and SERNAM [174], the assessment of economic continuity between the ‘old’ entity and the new structures is established based on a set of indicators.
U skladu s presudom Općeg suda u predmetu Italija i SIM 2/Komisija [173] na kojoj je Komisija temeljila svoje odluke u predmetima državne potpore Olympic Airlines, Alitalia i SERNAM [174] ispituje se gospodarski kontinuitet između „starog” poduzetnika i novih struktura na temelju niza pokazatelja.
The following factors may be taken into consideration:
Pritom se u obzir mogu uzeti sljedeći čimbenici:
the scope of the sold assets (assets and liabilities, maintenance of workforce, bundle of assets), the sale price, the identity of the buyer(s), the moment of the sale (after the initiation of preliminary assessment, the formal investigation procedure or the final decision) and the economic logic of the operation.
Predmet otuđenja (imovina i obveze, preuzimanje radne snage, vezana imovina), kupovna cijena, identitet preuzimatelja (ili više njih), trenutak otuđenja (nakon pokretanja prethodnog ispitivanja, službenog istražnog postupka ili nakon konačne odluke) i ekonomski razlozi za transakciju.
This set of indicators was confirmed by the Court in its decision of 28 March 2012 Ryanair v Commission [175], which confirmed the Alitalia decision.
Te je pokazatelje Opći sud preuzeo u presudi od 28. ožujka 2012. u predmetu Ryanair/Komisija [175], kojom se stoga potvrđuje odluka u predmetu Alitalia.
Scope of assets sold
Predmet otuđenja
The Commission observes that the assets taken over by Capricorn represent all of the assets of the insolvent NG, MSR and CMHN, and they relate to the main activities of these companies.
Komisija je utvrdila da imovinom koju je preuzeo Capricorn obuhvaćena sva imovina društava NG, MSR i CMHN u stečaju i da je povezana s najvažnijim djelatnostima tih društava.
However, the Commission notes that, in the context of the tender process, the assets of NG, MSR and CMHN were split in 11 individual asset clusters and all bidders were allowed to bid for individual assets, as well as for one, several or all asset clusters (see point 2.5).
Međutim, imovina NG-a, MSR-a i CMHN-a podijeljena je u okviru natječajnog postupka u 11 grupa i svi su ponuditelji mogli dostaviti ponude za pojedine dijelove imovine te za jednu grupu, više njih ili sve grupe (vidjeti odjeljak 2.5.).
Those clusters were formed with a view on the expected economic use of the assets, the expected investors' interest as well as the costs of separating the assets.
Podjela u grupe provedena je s obzirom na očekivanu gospodarsku iskoristivost imovine, interes ulagatelja i troškove razdvajanja.
Furthermore, the insolvency administrators did not establish any conditions as regards the future use of the assets.
Stečajni upravitelji nisu postavili nikakve uvjete u pogledu budućeg korištenja imovine.
The Commission notes that the decision that all the assets were sold to one single company was made by the market, i.e. the economic operators bidding for the assets, not by the insolvency administrators or Germany.
Komisija smatra da odluku o prijenosu cjelokupne imovine na jednog poduzetnika nisu donijeli stečajni upravitelji, nego da je donesena na temelju kretanja na tržištu (tj. da su je donijeli gospodarski subjekti koji su dostavili ponudu za imovinu).
Indeed, all the bidders had the possibility to bid for one of the 11 individual clusters of assets, their totality, or specific assets.
Svi su ponuditelji mogli dostaviti ponudu za jednu od 11 grupa, za cjelokupnu imovinu ili za određene dijelove imovine.
For market driven reasons, the value of the bids for individual assets or clusters of assets did not reach the value of the highest bid for the totality of assets.
Zbog razloga povezanih s tržištem vrijednost ponuda za pojedine dijelove imovine ili grupe bila je niža od vrijednosti najviše ponude za cjelokupnu imovinu.
This seems to be the consequence of the economic interdependence of the various clusters of assets:
To je vjerojatno posljedica gospodarske međuovisnosti grupa:
without the race track, the hotels would not be viable; without the hotels, a profitable exploitation of the race track with professional races, rock concerts and other activities with a large catchment area would be more difficult.
bez trkaće staze hoteli ne bi bili održivi, a bez hotela ne bi bilo moguće održivo upravljanje trkaćom stazom uz profesionalne utrke, koncerte rock-glazbe i druge aktivnosti s velikim brojem posjetitelja.
As regards the employees, the tender specifications or the sales contract do not include any specific obligation, e.g. an employment guarantee, to transfer employment contracts to the new owner, apart from what is required by relevant national legislation.
U pogledu zaposlenika ni dokumenti povezani s natječajnim postupkom ni kupoprodajni ugovor ne sadržavaju obveze (npr. jamstvo zapošljavanja) koje bi premašivale mjerodavne njemačke propise u pogledu prijenosa ugovora o radu na novog vlasnika.
Under German law, the employees are automatically transferred to the buyer of the assets.
Prema njemačkom pravu radni se odnosi automatski prenose na preuzimatelja imovine.
However, under German labour courts jurisprudence [176], in an insolvency context the buyer can request from the insolvency administrator to terminate employment contracts.
Prema sudskoj praksi njemačkog Saveznog suda za radne sporove (njem. Bundesarbeitsgericht) [176] preuzimatelj od stečajnog upravitelja može zahtijevati prekid ugovora o radu.
Hence in principle the buyer could take a fresh decision on which personnel it wished to offer new employment.
Posljedično je preuzimatelj u načelu mogao sam odlučiti kojim će zaposlenicima ponuditi nove ugovore.