natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Then, the Italian authorities argue that the public support measures earmarked for the implementation of the Environmental Plan fall outside the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU as they are intended to remedy environmental damages pending the identification of the polluter, in line with Directive 2004/35/CE and Article 250 of the Italian Environmental Code, as well as with recitals 114 and 115 of the Commission Opening Decision.
Komisija najprije podsjeća da su samo mjere br. 1 i 3 prema zakonu namijenjene provedbi plana zaštite okoliša.
The Commission considers that the reasoning developed by the Italian authorities is flawed for the following reasons.
Najvažnije je da je relevantan jedino učinak mjere na poduzetnika, a ne uzrok ili cilj intervencije države.
As a preliminary remark, the Commission recalls that only measures 1 and 3 have been earmarked by law for the implementation of the Environmental Plan.
S obzirom na to da je bitan jedino učinak mjere na poduzetnika, okolišna ili druga svrha mjere kao takva nije relevantna.
Most importantly, only the effect of the measure on the undertaking is relevant, and not the cause or the objective of the State intervention.
Nije relevantno ni je li prednost obvezna za poduzetnika u smislu da je on ne može izbjeći ili odbiti.
Since only the effect of the measure on the undertaking matters, any environmental or other aim behind the measure is as such irrelevant.
Stoga javne intervencije provedene u skladu s člankom 6. stavkom 3.
It is also irrelevant whether the advantage is compulsory for the undertaking in that it could not avoid or refuse it.
Direktive 2004/35/EZ nisu obuhvaćene područjem primjene članka 107. stavka 1.
Therefore, public interventions carried out pursuant to Article 6(3) of Directive 2004/35/CE do not fall outside the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU.
UFEU-a.
Article 107(1) TFEU equally applies to both different scenarios: (i) when the polluter has not been identified yet; and (ii) when the polluter has been identified but it fails to take the necessary remedial actions.
Članak 107. stavak 1.
In both scenarios, clean-up actions taken by the State become State aid if the State alleviates the burden which is normally incumbent on a beneficiary such as Ilva to bear and does not try to claim back from the identified polluter the resources it employed for the clean-up.
UFEU-a jednako se primjenjuje na oba različita scenarija: i. kad onečišćivač još nije utvrđen i ii. kad je onečišćivač utvrđen, ali nije poduzeo potrebne mjere otklanjanja.
In the case at hand, the Opening Decision allows merely for a temporary coverage by the State of urgent clean-up measures, only until the moment the polluter is identified, and under condition that Italy claims back the costs from the polluter.
U oba scenarija mjere sanacije koje poduzima država postaju državna potpora ako država olakšava teret koji obično snosi korisnik kao što je Ilva i ne pokušava od utvrđenog onečišćivača vratiti sredstva koja je uložila u sanaciju.
The Opening Decision gives therefore no absolute and unconditional permission to use State funds to implement the requirements raised in the Reasoned Opinion and/or in the Environmental Plan of Ilva.
U predmetnom slučaju u odluci o pokretanju postupka državi se dopušta da privremeno pokrije samo hitne mjere sanacije do trenutka utvrđivanja onečišćivača i pod uvjetom da Italija od onečišćivača zahtijeva povrat troškova.
In this respect for example the Commission notes that, the Environmental Plan, to which Italy refers, includes a series of measures that cannot be classified as ‘urgent clean-up measures’ but rather as upgrades aiming at improving Ilva's performance in line with the environmental standards applicable to steel production, as set out in Ilva's environmental permit.
Stoga se u odluci o pokretanju postupka ne daje apsolutno i bezuvjetno dopuštenje za upotrebu državnih sredstava kako bi se ispunili zahtjevi istaknuti u obrazloženom mišljenju i/ili planu zaštite okoliša društva Ilva.
Most importantly, given that only the effects of State measures matter (and not their causes or objectives), it cannot be inferred that measures which as such constitute State aid would cease to be aid just because they would be used for the Environmental Plan of Ilva.
U tom pogledu Komisija, na primjer, napominje da plan zaštite okoliša, na koji Italija upućuje, uključuje niz mjera koje se ne mogu svrstati kao „hitne mjere sanacije”, nego kao modernizacije kojima je cilj poboljšati rezultate društva Ilva u skladu s okolišnim standardima koji se primjenjuju na proizvodnju čelika, kako je utvrđeno u okolišnoj dozvoli društva Ilva.
The Opening Decision does not allow (and could not have allowed) that.
Najvažnije je da se, s obzirom na to da su bitni samo učinci državnih mjera (a ne njihovi uzroci ili ciljevi), ne može zaključiti da bi mjere koje čine državnu potporu prestale biti potpora samo zato što bi se upotrijebile za plan zaštite okoliša društva Ilva.
In conclusion, Italy cannot rely on the requirements brought forward in the Reasoned Opinion as well as on the wording of recitals 114 and 115 of the Commission's Opening Decision to qualify the State funding of Ilva's current operations as well as environmental costs as non-aid.
To se ne dopušta (i nije se moglo dopustiti) u odluci o pokretanju postupka.
Existence of aid
Zaključno, Italija se ne može oslanjati na zahtjeve istaknute u obrazloženom mišljenju i tekst uvodnih izjava 114. i 115.
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’.
Komisijine odluke o pokretanju postupka kako se državna sredstva uložena u trenutačno poslovanje društva Ilva i troškove zaštite okoliša ne bi smatrala državnom potporom.
The criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are cumulative.
Postojanje potpore
Therefore, in order to determine whether the measure in question constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, all of the following conditions need to be fulfilled:
U skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 1.
the beneficiary is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, which implies that it engages in an economic activity;
UFEU-a „svaka potpora koju dodijeli država članica ili koja se dodjeljuje putem državnih sredstava u bilo kojem obliku kojim se narušava ili prijeti da će narušiti tržišno natjecanje stavljanjem određenih poduzetnika ili proizvodnje određene robe u povoljniji položaj, nespojiva je s unutarnjim tržištem u mjeri u kojoj utječe na trgovinu među državama članicama”.
the measure is financed by State resources and is imputable to the State;
Člankom 107. stavkom 1.
the measure confers an economic advantage;
UFEU-a utvrđeni su kumulativni kriteriji.
this advantage is selective;
Stoga, kako bi se odredilo čini li predmetna mjera potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition and may affect trade between Member States.
UFEU-a, svi sljedeći kriteriji moraju biti ispunjeni:
When it comes to fulfilment of the condition that the beneficiary must be an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Court of Justice has consistently defined undertakings as entities engaged in an economic activity, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed whereas any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a market is an economic activity.
korisnik je poduzetnik u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
The Commission notes that Ilva produces and sells steel on the Union market and abroad, which qualifies as an economic activity.
UFEU-a, čime se podrazumijeva da obavlja gospodarsku djelatnost;
Therefore the Commission concludes that Ilva, irrespective of its ownership or status under extraordinary administration pursuant to Italian law, is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
mjera se financira iz državnih sredstava i može se pripisati državi;
The Commission has to analyse whether the measures at stake distort or threaten to distort competition and are liable to have an effect on trade between the Member States.
mjerom se dodjeljuje gospodarska prednost;
There is an assumption that when aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared to other undertakings competing in intra- Union trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid.
ta je prednost selektivna;
Thereby it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition.
mjerom se narušava ili prijeti da će se narušiti tržišno natjecanje i ona može utjecati na trgovinu među državama članicama.
The carbon steel markets where Ilva operates are subject to intense competition and intra-Union trade and Ilva sells its products in Italy and other Member States.
Kad je riječ o ispunjivanju uvjeta da korisnik mora biti poduzetnik u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
As a result, all measures under assessment distort or threaten to distort competition and may affect trade between Member States.
UFEU-a, Sud je dosljedno definirao poduzetnike kao subjekte koji obavljaju gospodarsku djelatnost bez obzira na njihov pravni status i način na koji ih se financira, dok je djelatnost koja se sastoji od pružanja robe i usluga na tržištu gospodarska djelatnost.
For the other criteria set out in Article 107(1) TFEU and listed above in recital 140, points (b), (c) and (d), the Commission will proceed with a measure by measure assessment.
Komisija napominje da Ilva proizvodi i prodaje čelik na tržištu Unije i u drugim zemljama, što se može smatrati gospodarskom djelatnosti.
As explained in recital 21, on 24 May 2017 the Riva family and Ilva reached a settlement agreement, through which the ongoing dispute between Ilva's extraordinary administration and the members of the Riva family was resolved.
Stoga Komisija zaključuje da je Ilva poduzetnik u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
The settlement agreement is purely an agreement between private parties, namely certain Riva family members acting in their capacity as shareholders of Ilva and the current management of Ilva under extraordinary administration.
UFEU-a bez obzira na vlasništvo ili status pod izvanrednom upravom u skladu s talijanskim pravom.
Ilva is not a party to those criminal proceedings.
Komisija mora analizirati narušava li se predmetnim mjerama ili prijeti da će se narušiti tržišno natjecanje i mogu li one utjecati na trgovinu među državama članicama.
The amounts to be transferred to Ilva under the settlement agreement include: (i) the Riva assets held by the Riva family on their foreign bank accounts, which are to be made definitely available to Ilva in the legal form provided for by Article 3, paragraph 1, of Law Decree No 1/2015, i.e. in the form of bonds to be subscribed by the Fondo Unico di Giustizia, without the bonds having to be returned to the Riva family members even in case of their acquittal; and (ii) a further amount of EUR 145 million.
Pretpostavlja se da se, kada potpora koju dodijeli država članica ojačava položaj jednog poduzetnika u odnosu na druge konkurentne poduzetnike u trgovini unutar Unije, mora smatrati da su potonji zahvaćeni potporom.
As compared to the situation at the time of the Opening Decision, this settlement agreement constitutes a new fact that needs to be taken into account in the Commission's final assessment of measure 1, in particular as regards the possible advantage granted to Ilva and the imputability of the measure to the State.
Stoga je dovoljno da se primatelj potpore natječe s drugim poduzetnicima na tržištima otvorenima za tržišno natjecanje.
In this respect, it is not disputed that the intention of having the Riva assets transferred to Ilva before the end of the criminal proceedings was originally that of the Italian authorities, as explained in the Opening Decision.
Na tržištima ugljičnog čelika na kojima posluje Ilva postoji znatno tržišno natjecanje i trgovina unutar Unije te Ilva svoje proizvode prodaje u Italiji i drugim državama članicama.
Nevertheless it is a fact that, despite the provisions of Law Decree No 1/2015 and the subsequent Decreto di Trasferimento, the transfer of the Riva assets did not take place due to the steady opposition of the Swiss court to execute the order without prior consent of the putative owners of the assets — the Riva family members.
Kao rezultat toga sve mjere koje se ocjenjuju narušavaju ili prijete da će narušiti tržišno natjecanje i mogu utjecati na trgovinu među državama članicama.
The situation could only be unlocked when the members of the Riva family decided themselves, by means of a purely private settlement agreement, to transfer the assets under their control to Ilva.
Za ostale kriterije utvrđene u članku 107. stavku 1.
It is also a fact that the scope of the settlement agreement does not perfectly match the whole construction designed by the Italian authorities in Law Decree No 1/2015: first, the amounts transferred to Ilva are in fact higher than provided for by this Law Decree and, second, there are important counterparts given to the Riva family in exchange for the transfer of the amounts.
UFEU-a i prethodno navedene u uvodnoj izjavi 140. točkama (b), (c) i (d) Komisija će nastaviti ocjenjivati svaku mjeru pojedinačno.
The existence of this private settlement agreement and the fact that the situation only unlocked after this agreement was reached, constitute evidence that the decision to transfer the Riva assets to Ilva was eventually (i) part of a broader deal that was reconciling the private interests of both the Riva family and Ilva; and (ii) in the hands of the Riva family and Ilva (not of the State).
Kako je objašnjeno u uvodnoj izjavi 21., 24. svibnja 2017. obitelj Riva i društvo Ilva postigli su sporazum o nagodbi kojim je riješen spor između izvanredne uprave društva Ilva i članova obitelji Riva.
This has to be taken into account to determine whether the Commission's initial doubts that the transaction would confer an economic advantage on Ilva and be imputable to the State remain.
Sporazum o nagodbi isključivo je sporazum između privatnih stranaka, odnosno određenih članova obitelji Riva koji djeluju u svojstvu dioničara društva Ilva i trenutačne izvanredne uprave društva Ilva.
As regards the imputability to the State of the transfer to Ilva of the Riva assets, the Commission takes note that this transfer took place as part of a broader deal which was decided by the Riva family and Ilva.
Društvo Ilva nije stranka u tom kaznenom postupku.
Again, it is not disputed that the initial intention to transfer assets from the Riva family to Ilva before the end of the criminal proceedings was that of the Italian authorities.
Iznosi koji će se na temelju sporazuma o nagodbi prenijeti društvu Ilva uključuju: i. imovinu obitelji Riva na njezinim računima u stranim bankama koja će društvu Ilva konačno biti dostupna u pravnom obliku predviđenom člankom 3. stavkom 1.
Nevertheless, the final decision was made by the Riva family by means of the settlement agreement, in implementation of which a letter from the Riva family instructing the foreign banks to release the funds effectively allowed the transfer to Ilva.
Odluke br. 1/2015, tj. u obliku obveznica koje će upisati Fondo Unico di Giustizia i koje se ne trebaju vratiti članovima obitelji Riva čak i u slučaju njihove oslobađajuće presude i ii. dodatni iznos od 145 milijuna EUR.
Therefore, the basis for the transfer of the Riva assets to Ilva is the private settlement agreement between the Riva family and Ilva, which is not imputable to the State.
U usporedbi sa situacijom u vrijeme donošenja odluke o pokretanju postupka taj sporazum o nagodbi čini novu činjenicu koju treba uzeti u obzir u Komisijinoj konačnoj ocjeni mjere br. 1, posebno u pogledu moguće prednosti dodijeljene društvu Ilva i pripisivosti te mjere državi.
In addition, the Commission observes, as regards the existence of an economic advantage, that in the settlement agreement with the Riva family Ilva does not appear to have received any benefit that it would not have been able to receive under normal market conditions.
U tom se pogledu ne osporava da su talijanska tijela prvotno namjeravala imovinu obitelji Riva prenijeti društvu Ilva prije okončanja kaznenog postupka, kako je objašnjeno u odluci o pokretanju postupka.
The Riva family had an incentive to enter into settlement negotiations as it was exposed to the risk of owing Ilva up to EUR […] in damage claims under the assumption that all of Ilva's claims would be upheld by the national judge.
Neovisno o tome, činjenica je da unatoč odredbama Odluke br. 1/2015 i kasnije odluke Decreto di Trasferimento nije bilo prijenosa imovine obitelji Riva zbog stalnog odbijanja švicarskog suda da izvrši nalog bez prethodne suglasnosti navodnih vlasnika imovine, odnosno članova obitelji Riva.
On its side, Ilva was in rather urgent need for liquidity, be it to finance current operations or the clean-up measures defined in the Environmental Plan.
Situacija se mogla riješiti samo kada su članovi obitelji Riva sami odlučili, na temelju isključivo privatnog sporazuma o nagodbi, prenijeti imovinu koja je pod njihovom kontrolom na društvo Ilva.
Ilva therefore agreed to renounce to any future claims (potentially worth up to EUR […]) in exchange for the immediate transfer of ca.
Činjenica je i da područje primjene sporazuma o nagodbi ne odgovara u potpunosti cijeloj strukturi koju su talijanska tijela osmislila u Odluci 1/2015: kao prvo, iznosi preneseni na društvo Ilva de facto su viši od iznosa predviđenih tom Odlukom i, kao drugo, u zamjenu za prijenos tih iznosa obitelj Riva dobila je značajnu naknadu.
EUR 1,2 billion, part of it being the Riva assets targeted by Law Decree No 1/2015.
Postojanje tog privatnog sporazuma o nagodbi i činjenica da je situacija riješena tek nakon sklapanja sporazuma dokaz su da je odluka o prijenosu imovine obitelji Riva na društvo Ilva na kraju bila i. dio šireg dogovora u kojemu su pomireni privatni interesi obitelji Riva i društva Ilva te ii. u rukama obitelji Riva i društva Ilva (a ne države).
This behaviour reflects the fact that prudent loss-averse operators may prefer to settle a dispute amicably rather than resorting to a judge or arbitrator after continued litigation.
To je potrebno uzeti u obzir kako bi se odredilo vrijede li i dalje Komisijine početne sumnje da bi se društvu Ilva transakcijom dodijelila gospodarska prednost i da bi se ona mogla pripisati državi.
Against this background, nothing indicates that the settlement agreement reached by Ilva and the Riva family was not decided in the mutual interests of both private parties.
U pogledu pripisivosti državi prijenosa imovine obitelji Riva društvu Ilva Komisija napominje da je taj prijenos izvršen kao dio šireg dogovora o kojemu su odluku donijeli obitelj Riva i društvo Ilva.
Therefore, since the settlement agreement as a whole has taken place under normal market conditions between Ilva and its shareholders and thus does not confer any economic advantage on Ilva, the transfer of the Riva assets which is part of this global settlement does not confer any economic advantage on Ilva either.
Ponovno se ne osporava da su na početku talijanska tijela imovinu obitelji Riva namjeravala prenijeti na društvo Ilva prije okončanja kaznenog postupka.
In light of the above, the Commission considers that the transfer to Ilva of the Riva assets in the legal form provided for by Law Decree No 1/2015 neither confers an economic advantage to Ilva, nor is imputable to the Italian State.
Neovisno o tome, konačnu odluku obitelj Riva donijela je na temelju sporazuma o nagodbi, pri čijoj je provedbi dopisom obitelji Riva stranim bankama da oslobode sredstva stvarno dopušten njihov prijenos na društvo Ilva.
Conclusion on measure 1
Stoga je osnova za prijenos imovine obitelji Riva na društvo Ilva privatni sporazum o nagodbi između obitelji Riva i društva Ilva, koji se ne može pripisati državi.
Based on the above facts, the Commission concludes that the implemented measure is not imputable to the State.
Uz to, Komisija primjećuje da se čini da u pogledu postojanja gospodarske prednosti društvo Ilva sporazumom o nagodbi s obitelji Riva nije ostvarilo korist koju ne bi moglo ostvariti u uobičajenim tržišnim uvjetima.
Since the criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are cumulative, the Commission concludes that measure 1 does not constitute State aid.
Obitelj Riva imala je razlog za sudjelovanje u pregovorima o nagodbi jer je bila izložena riziku da će društvu Ilva dugovati do […] EUR na temelju odštetnih zahtjeva ako nacionalni sud prihvati sva potraživanja društva Ilva.
Economic advantage stemming from State resources
Sa svoje je strane društvo Ilva prilično hitno trebalo likvidna sredstva kako bi financiralo trenutačno poslovanje ili mjere sanacije definirane u planu zaštite okoliša.
In order to assess whether measure 2 confers an economic advantage on Ilva, the Commission first analysed Italy's arguments presented in recital 87 as to the regulatory character of this measure.
Stoga je društvo Ilva pristalo odreći se svih budućih potraživanja (koja su mogla iznositi do […] EUR) u zamjenu za hitan prijenos približno 1,2 milijarde EUR, pri čemu je dio toga imovina obitelji Riva obuhvaćena Odlukom br. 1/2015.
By adopting measure 2, Italy placed all nearly insolvent companies, such as Ilva, which are of national strategic interest under the pre-deductibility regime, which is a common characteristic of insolvency proceedings.
U tom se ponašanju odražava činjenica da bi razumni subjekti koji žele izbjeći gubitke mogli prednost dati rješavanju dugotrajnog spora mirnim putem umjesto pribjegavanju sudu ili arbitraži.
It is an essential characteristic of the general insolvency law framework applicable to all undertakings subject to or close to insolvency operating in Italy (‘Legge Fallimentare’ set out in Regio decreto 16 March 1942, No 267 (see recital 92).
U tom kontekstu ništa ne upućuje na to da sporazum o nagodbi koju su postigli društvo Ilva i obitelj Riva nije donesen u obostranom interesu privatnih stranaka.
The Commission considers that, since Italy acted as a public regulatory authority rather than as an investor, there are no grounds to apply the market economy operator test to measure 2.
Stoga, s obzirom na to da je sporazum o nagodbi između društva Ilva i njegovih dioničara u cjelini sklopljen u uobičajenim tržišnim uvjetima i da se prema tome njime društvu Ilva ne dodjeljuje nikakva gospodarska prednost, ni prijenosom imovine obitelji Riva, koji je dio te ukupne nagodbe, ne dodjeljuje se nikakva gospodarska prednost.
In other words, by adopting measure 2, Italy acted in the exercise of its regulatory State powers to preserve the value of assets of undertakings faced with the risk of insolvency and not as a market operator.
S obzirom na prethodno navedeno Komisija smatra da se prijenosom imovine obitelji Riva društvu Ilva u pravnom obliku predviđenom Odlukom br. 1/2015 tom društvu ne dodjeljuje gospodarska prednost niti se on može pripisati talijanskoj državi.
Indeed, via measure 2, Italy unilaterally re-determined the priority of Ilva's creditors, which is an action not comparable with actions that private persons can undertake.
Zaključak o mjeri br. 1
Only the State has the power to subordinate all existing claims (including senior debt) to the newer ones, such a power not being available to private creditors, or private persons in general.
Na temelju prethodnih činjenica Komisija zaključuje da se provedena mjera ne može pripisati državi.
Therefore, the market economy operator test is not applicable for measure 2.
Budući da su kriteriji utvrđeni člankom 107. stavkom 1.
It follows from the non-applicability of the market economy operator test that the decisive criterion for the existence of advantage in measure 2 is not whether the State maximises the return or minimises the loss of State resources stemming from the measure.
UFEU-a kumulativni, Komisija zaključuje da mjera br. 1 ne čini državnu potporu.