natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission found that SIDE's claims concerning customer transfers were without foundation, on the basis of an analysis of the explanations and documents produced by SIDE itself.
Komisija je na podlagi analize obrazložitev in dokumentov, ki jih je predložila sama družba SIDE, ugotovila, da trditve družbe SIDE glede prehajanja odjemalcev niso utemeljene.
Thus the Commission asked SIDE to justify the customer transfers from which it claimed to have suffered as a result of the advantageous discounts which ‘only CELF’ was able to offer due to the aid it had received.
Tako je Komisija prosila družbo SIDE, naj upraviči prehajanje odjemalcev, katerega žrtev naj bi bila zaradi ugodnih popustov, ki jih je bila „zgolj zadruga CELF“ sposobna ponuditi zahvaljujoč se prejetim podporam.
SIDE accordingly produced a very long document [60], whose data could not be used by the Commission in the form presented, in particular because the said transfers were not absolutely apparent from it.
V ta namen je družba SIDE predložila zelo obsežen dokument [60], katerih podatke v tej obliki Komisija ni mogla preučiti, predvsem zato, ker ti prehodi v njih absolutno niso bili razvidni.
The Commission asked SIDE for further explanations on this point, and the firm was able in particular [61] to state that one customer, the Librairie Française de Milan, had gradually switched its custom to CELF in 1987 to 1988, since CELF had offered it more attractive discounts.
Komisija je prosila družbo SIDE za dodatne obrazložitve glede te točke, ki bi lahko zlasti [61] pojasnile, da naj bi se stranka, „Francoska knjigarna v Milanu“, postopoma odvrnila od njenih storitev v korist storitev zadruge CELF, v letih 1987/1988, ker je zadruga CELF ponudila tej stranki bolj privlačne popuste.
The French authorities pointed out in reply that the Italian market was known for its competitive nature and that, in addition, the increase in CELF's turnover from the said bookshop only became significant in 1999, i.e. well after the period mentioned by SIDE.
Francoske oblasti so v odgovoru poudarile, da je bil italijanski trg znan po svoji konkurenčnosti in da je bilo vrh tega povišanje prometa zadruge CELF s to knjigarno občutno šele od leta 1999 dalje, torej veliko kasneje od obdobja, ki ga omenja družba SIDE.
The Commission found that the other examples quoted by SIDE were not more relevant [62].
Komisija je lahko ugotovila, da ostali primeri, ki jih je navedla družba SIDE, niso nič bolj umestni [62].
Thus one of the bookshops cited by SIDE, Grupodis in Madrid, was never a major customer of CELF's, and the Japanese bookshops cited are in fact large-account customers who are not concerned by the small orders segment of the market.
Tako ena od knjigarn, ki jih je navedla družba SIDE, knjigarna Grupodis iz Madrida, ni bila nikoli pomembna stranka zadruge CELF, ali pa navedene japonske knjigarne, ki so dejansko stranke velikih zneskov, na katere se ne nanaša del trga „naročila na drobno“.
The list of discounts communicated by SIDE did not show that the discounts it offers are less attractive than those offered by CELF.
Poleg tega pa seznam popustov, ki jih je sporočila družba SIDE, ni tak, da bi upravičil, da so njeni popusti manj privlačni od tistih, ki jih ponuja zadruga CELF.
Thus, of the 28 publishers which SIDE selected to illustrate its claim, the Commission finds that SIDE offers more attractive discounts in 16 cases, as opposed to 12 for CELF [63].
Tako je od 28 založnikov, ki jih je družba SIDE izbrala, da bi ponazorila svoje dokazovanje, Komisija ugotovila, da družba SIDE ponuja bolj privlačne popuste v 16 primerih, proti 12 primerom za zadrugo CELF [63].
The difference is even greater, if one takes into account the extra five percentage points discount granted by SIDE for orders of more than 10 copies per title, since in that case CELF offers better discounts for only six publishers as opposed to 22 by SIDE.
Razhajanje je še večje, če upoštevamo pet dodatnih točk popusta, ki jih družba SIDE namenja za naročila, večja od 10 izvodov na naslov, ker v tem primeru zadruga CELF ne ponuja več boljših popustov razen za 6 založnikov proti 22 družbe SIDE.
The Commission considers, therefore, that customer transfers from SIDE to CELF, due supposedly to the more attractive discounts offered by CELF to its customers as a result of the aid it had received, cannot be established in reality.
Komisija torej meni, da resničnost prehajanja odjemalcev družbe SIDE k zadrugi CELF, katerega izvor naj bi bili bolj privlačni popusti, ki jih zadruga CELF ponuja svojim strankam, zahvaljujoč se prejetim podporam, ni utemeljena.
Transfer of customers from CELF to SIDE
Prehod odjemalcev zadruge CELF k družbi SIDE
As was noted in recital 69, in a letter dated 12 August 2002 to the Commission, SIDE claims that CELF had been applying dissuasive conditions for small accounts for at least two years.
Kot je bilo pokazano v uvodni izjavi 69, v pismu Komisiji z dne 12. avgusta 2002, družba SIDE trdi, naj bi zadruga CELF že najmanj dve leti uporabljala pogoje, ki bi odvračali „majhne zneske“.
The Commission finds, firstly, that the pricing changes objected to [64] occurred during the period when the aid in question had been abolished and/or very significantly reduced, i.e. when CELF had to find alternative solutions in order to continue to try to meet the small orders which it was sent.
Komisija na prvem mestu ugotavlja, da so te tarifne prilagoditve [64] nastopile v obdobju, ko so bile sporne podpore ukinjene in/ali zelo občutno znižane, torej v trenutku, ko je zadruga CELF morala najti alternativne rešitve, če je hotela nadaljevati z zadovoljevanjem naročil na drobno, za katere je bila pooblaščena.
The Commission compared [65] the figures on the two undertakings and finds that there is nothing in them to confirm the remarks of SIDE concerning the recent customer transfers to which it objects.
Komisija je začela s primerjavo [65] številčnih podatkov obeh podjetij in ugotavlja, da iz njih ne izhaja noben element, ki bi lahko potrdil trditve družbe SIDE, ki bi se nanašali na nedavne prehode odjemalcev, ki ji družba razkriva. Dejansko Komisija ne ugotavlja povečanja števila faktur, ki jih je ustvarila družba SIDE.
The Commission finds no increase in the number of invoices drawn up by SIDE: they were 2187 in 1999, and 2137 in 2000. As to the number of customers, the Commission would point out that it cannot make a comparison because it was not able to obtain data from SIDE.
Leta 1999 jih je bilo 2187, in leta 20002137; glede števila strank Komisija spominja, da ni mogla narediti primerjave glede te točke, ker ni mogla dobiti podatkov s strani družbe SIDE.
The Commission cannot identify, either, any factors which show that the number of small orders met by SIDE has increased now that CELF no longer receives any aid.
Komisija prav tako ne najde podatkov, ki bi lahko pokazali, da je število „naročil na drobno“, ki jih je izvedla družba SIDE, naraslo, odkar zadruga CELF ni več prejemala podpor.
On the contrary, the figures supplied by SIDE show that the average number of books per invoice increased from 40,31 in 1999 to 49,38 in 2001, whereas the shift in customers from CELF to SIDE, if confirmed, would have resulted in a decline in the average number of books per invoice.
Nasprotno, številke, ki jih je sporočila družba SIDE, kažejo, da se je povprečno število knjig na fakturo povečalo od 40,31 leta 1999 na 49,38 leta 2001, medtem ko bi se prehod odjemalcev od zadruge CELF k družbi SIDE, če bi se uresničil, moral prevesti v znižanje števila knjig na fakturo.
The Commission notes, finally, that the average number of books sold per line by SIDE is again greater than the average sold by CELF, for the whole of its activity, not just small orders.
Komisija nazadnje zapiše, da je povprečno število prodanih knjig na vrsto s strani družbe SIDE še vedno večje od povprečja tistih, ki jih je prodala zadruga CELF, in to velja za celoto njene dejavnosti in ne samo za naročila na drobno.
Consequently, the abolition of the aid did not involve redeploying customers from CELF to SIDE.
Zato ukinitev podpor ni povzročila prehajanja strank zadruge CELF proti družbi SIDE.
In any event, in the analysis of State aid, only distortions of competition caused by that aid are relevant, not the effects of reducing and/or abolishing the aid, regarded as negative by SIDE.
Poleg tega pa so za analizo državnih podpor umestna samo izkrivljanja konkurenčnosti, ki so jih povzročile te podpore, in ne učinki znižanja in/ali ukinitve podpor, ki jih ima družba SIDE za negativne.
Conclusions of the Commission regarding customer transfers
Sklep Komisije glede prehodov odjemalcev
In light of the data communicated by SIDE and the French authorities, the Commission considers that the only visible consequences of abolishing the aid are a reduction in the turnover from small orders met by CELF and a significant reduction in the number of its customers (-17,34 % between 1999 and 2001), as table 5 below shows:
Komisija meni, na podlagi podatkov, ki so jih sporočile tako družba SIDE kot francoske oblasti, da so edine vidne posledice ukinitve podpor zmanjšanje prometa naročil na drobno, ki jih je obravnavala zadruga CELF in znatno znižanje števila strank (-17,34 % med letoma 1999 in 2001) kot to prikazuje naslednja tabela 5:
Table 5 — Trend of activity in small orders and small accounts
Tabela 5 — Razvoj dejavnosti „naročila na drobno in majhni zneski“
Information supplied by the French authorities
Podatki, ki so jih sporočile francoske oblasti
Turnover small orders
Promet naročila na drobno
(euros)
(v eurih)
Trend
Razvoj
The Commission also considers that SIDE's comments contradict its own statements to the effect that only the number of lines inputted by the service provider ought to be taken into consideration, and that the total amount of the order has no effect in terms of profitability.
Komisija prav tako meni, da so komentarji družbe SIDE v nasprotju z njenimi lastnimi trditvami, po katerih naj bi se moralo upoštevati samo število vrst, ki jih prevzame ponudnik storitve, in da je celotni znesek nepomemben v smislu donosnosti.
If this were the case, SIDE would have no reason to think that the alleged transfer of CELF customers to its services (which, moreover, is not clear from the figures provided) increases the distortion of competition suffered by SIDE [66].
Če bi bilo to res, družba SIDE ne bi imela nikakršnega razloga za domneve, da prehod odjemalcev od zadruge CELF proti njenim storitvam (ki poleg tega ni razviden iz predloženih številčnih podatkov) povečuje izkrivljanje konkurenčnosti, ki jo prenaša družba SIDE [66].
Furthermore, the Commission notes that SIDE would seem to contradict itself, when it states in a note dated 9 December 2002, that ‘(…) small orders are overall more profitable to process than large orders’.
Vrhu tega Komisija pokaže, da si družba SIDE nasprotuje, ko pravi, v beležki z datumom 9. december 2002, da „…so naročila na drobno v celoti bolj donosna kot večja naročila“.
Table 6, compiled by the Commission from data communicated by the French authorities and by SIDE, shows that there is no automatic link between the variation in SIDE's turnover and the variation in the grants received.
Tabela 6, ki jo je rekonstruirala Komisija na podlagi podatkov, ki so jih sporočile francoske oblasti in družba SIDE, prikazujejo, da ni avtomatične povezave med zvišanji in znižanji prometa družbe SIDE in med zvišanji in znižanji dodeljenih subvencij.
Table 6
Tabela 6
Reference year
Referenčna leta
Aid granted to CELF
Podpore, dodeljene zadrugi CELF v eurih
Variation in SIDE's turnover
Spreminjanje prometa družbe SIDE
Aid
PODPORA
0(236) The figures supplied by CELF and by SIDE enabled the Commission to establish that the level of aid granted to CELF had no automatic impact on the business and results of SIDE, the only other general agent in the market [67].
0(236) Številčni podatki, ki sta jih sporočili tako zadruga CELF kot družba SIDE, so Komisiji omogočili ugotoviti, da raven podpor, plačanih zadrugi CELF, nima avtomatične povezave z dejavnostmi in rezultati družbe SIDE, edini drugi splošni posrednik na trgu [67].
For instance, over several years, SIDE's turnover fell even though the aid granted to CELF was declining.
Na primer, več let se je promet družbe SIDE zniževal, pa čeprav se je podpora, dodeljena zadrugi CELF, zniževala.
The Commission observed that a visible, significant consequence of abolishing the aid to CELF on the market was a fall in its small orders turnover and a decline in the number of its small accounts.
Komisija je poleg tega lahko ugotovila, da je bila vidna in pomembna posledica ukinitve podpor zadrugi CELF na trg znižanje njenega prometa „naročil na drobno“ in zmanjšanje števila njenih „majhnih zneskov“.
The Commission finds, on the basis of the figures supplied, that, without the aid, some of the orders no longer appear to be met by CELF, though SIDE does not benefit from the observed disaffection.
Komisija ugotavlja, pri čemer se sklicuje na sporočene številčne podatke, da brez podpor del povpraševanja danes ni več zadovoljen s strani zadruge CELF in da družba SIDE ne izkoristi omenjene nepopolnosti trga.
The Commission also observes that for the period 1994 to 2001, the grants awarded did not cover the entire deficit under the Small Orders programme and accounted for a relatively small proportion of CELF's total turnover: from 3,95 % in 1994 to 0,29 % in 2001 [68].
Komisija je vrh tega lahko ugotovila, da za obdobje 1994-2001 podeljene subvencije niso pokrile celotnega primanjkljaja „Programa naročila na drobno“, in so predstavljale sorazmerno majhen del celotnega prometa zadruge CELF: od 3,95 % leta 1994 do 0,29 % leta 2001 [68].
In light of all the factors examined above, it is clear that the disputed aid concerns a very marginal share of the export agency business, which would obviously not have been performed without the aid in question.
V skladu s celoto podatkov, ki so bili analizirani, se zdi, da se sporne podpore nanašajo na izredno obroben del dejavnosti izvoznega posredništva, ki očitno ne bi bil realiziran brez teh podpor.
The Commission has also established that the aid granted by France did not over-compensate the costs inherent in the activity in question.
Komisija je prav tako lahko ugotovila, da podpore, ki jih je dodelila Francija, niso bile take, da bi pokrile stroške, neločljivo povezane s to dejavnostjo.
The Commission would also point out, as was mentioned in recital 132 et seq., that the effect on trade and the distortion of competition at Community level are very limited in this particular case.
Komisija prav tako spomni, kot je bilo omenjeno v uvodni izjavi 132 in nadalje, da sta vpliv na izmenjavo in izkrivljanje konkurenčnosti na ravni Skupnosti zelo omejena.
These factors have to be taken into account by the Commission when it assesses the compatibility of the aid with Article 87(3) of the Treaty, as the Court of First Instance clearly stated in Ladbroke Racing Ltd [69].
Te elemente mora Komisija upoštevati, ko ocenjuje združljivost podpor s členom 87, odstavek 3, Pogodbe, kot je to jasno nakazalo Sodišče v sodbi z dne 27. januarja 1998 v primeru Ladbroke Racing Ltd c/Commission [69].
Consequently, the aid granted to CELF under the Small Orders programme was not such as to affect competition and trade to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Zato podpore, dodeljene zadrugi CELF v okviru „Programa naročila na drobno“ niso bile take, da bi kvarile konkurenco in izmenjave v meri nasprotni skupnemu interesu.
The action taken by the French authorities was proportional to the objective pursued, and simply made it possible for some of the demand, which would not otherwise have been met, to be met by the service provider without worrying about profitability.
Poseg francoskih oblasti je bil sorazmeren z zasledovanim ciljem, dopuščal je izključno to, da se bo izpolnilo del povpraševanja, ki drugače ne bi bil zadovoljen, zunaj vsakih skrbi glede donosnosti s strani podjetja ponudnika storitev.
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 86(2) OF THE TREATY
B/ Uporabnost določb člena 86, odstavek 2, Pogodbe
POSITION OF THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
1/ STALIŠČE FRANCOSKIH OBLASTI
The French authorities argue, as they did in 1998 [70] that CELF was entrusted with a public service task and that, consequently, the disputed measures must be assessed in the light of Article 86(2) of the Treaty, which states that ‘undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them.
Francoske oblasti zagovarjajo stališče, kot so to naredile leta 1998 [70], da je bila zadruga CELF pooblaščena za storitev v javnem interesu in da morajo biti zato sporni ukrepi ocenjeni z vidika določb člena 86, odstavek 2, Pogodbe, ki določa, da „Podjetja, zadolžena za vodenje storitev v splošnem gospodarskem interesu ali da predstavljajo značaj fiskalnega monopola, so podvržena pravilom te Pogodbe, zlasti pravilom o konkurenčnosti, v mejah, ko uporaba teh pravil ne povzroči, da pravno ali dejansko spodleti izpolnitev posebnega poslanstva, ki mu je bilo dodeljeno.
The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Community’.
Na razvoj izmenjav se ne sme vplivati v meri, nasprotni interesu Skupnosti.“.
In this connection, the French authorities submitted several instruments [71] which, in their view, confirm that the task entrusted to CELF was a service of general economic interest.
V tem pogledu so francoske oblasti sporočile več besedil [71], ki naj bi po njihovem mnenju potrjevala značaj storitve v splošnem gospodarskem interesu, ki se nanaša na poslanstvo, zaupano zadrugi CELF.
The French authorities stated, on the basis of these instruments, that the Book and Reading Directorate had concluded with CELF, until 2001, annual agreements defining the objectives of the collaboration between the Ministry and CELF and the respective obligations of the parties.
Francoske oblasti so na podlagi teh besedil pokazale, da je Uprava za knjigo in branje do leta 2001 z zadrugo CELF vsako leto sklenila pogodbo, ki je določila cilje sodelovanja med ministrstvom in zadrugo CELF, kot tudi obveznosti za vsako stran.
The French authorities submitted several of these agreements.
Francoske oblasti so predložile več svojih pogodb.
Article 1 of the first of these, dated 25 April 1991, specifies that ‘the Ministry shall provide its assistance for the combining of small orders of books by CELF intended for abroad (…)’.
Prva, z datumom 25. april 1991, določa v svojem členu 1, da „ministrstvo podeljuje svojo podporo za dejavnosti prerazporeditve naročil knjig na drobno s strani zadruge CELF, ki so namenjena v tujino…“.
Another agreement, dated 23 October 1997, mentions, it would seem, for the first time, that ‘the Ministry shall provide its assistance for the operating costs of CELF's public service associated with small orders’.
Druga pogodba, z datumom 23. oktober 1997, tako se zdi, prvič omenja, da „ministrstvo podeljuje svojo podporo za operativne stroške javne storitve zadruge CELF, ki so povezani z naročili na drobno“.
The agreements concluded subsequently, until 2001, are identical except for the amount of aid granted.
Pogodbe, ki so bile sklenjene v nadaljevanju do leta 2001, so popolnoma enake, razen glede zneska podeljenih podpor.
ASSESSMENT BY THE COMMISSION
2/ OCENA KOMISIJE
The Commission has already concluded in this Decision that the aid granted to CELF is State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and that it is compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(d).
Komisija je že sklenila v tej odločbi, da je podpora, podeljena zadrugi CELF, državna podpora v skladu s členom 87, odstavek 1 Pogodbe in da je združljiva s skupnim trgom z uporabo člena 87, odstavek 3, točka (d) Pogodbe.
Consequently, in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice [72], there is no need for the Commission to assess further the subsidised activities of CELF in the light of Article 86(2) of the Treaty.
Zato in v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [72], se Komisiji ni potrebno nadalje ukvarjati z ocenjevanjem subvencioniranih dejavnosti zadruge CELF v luči člena 86, odstavek 2, Pogodbe.
The Court confirmed this position in its judgment of 22 June 2000 [73], the Court having concluded that even aid justified on the basis of Article 86(2) must be notified to the Commission.
To stališče je potrdilo Sodišče v sodbi z dne 22. junija 2000 [73], kjer je sklenilo, da mora biti pri Komisiji prijavljena tudi podpora, ki je upravičena na podlagi člena 86, odstavek 2, Pogodbe.
It is therefore not necessary to determine whether the aid to CELF is also justified under Article 86(2) of the Treaty.
Torej ni več potrebno določiti, ali so podpore zadruge CELF upravičene tudi v skladu s členom 86, odstavek 2, Pogodbe.
The Commission notes that, in the meantime, in Altmark [74] the Court clarified the conditions in which a grant to an undertaking responsible for administering a service of general economic interest does not constitute State aid.
Komisija pripominja, da je medtem, v sodbi Altmark [74], z datumom 24. julij 2003, Sodišče točno določilo, v katerih okoliščinah neka subvencija podjetju, ki je pooblaščeno za vodenje storitve v splošnem gospodarskem interesu, ne predstavlja državne podpore.
The Commission finds that in the case in point these conditions are not satisfied.
Toda Komisija ugotavlja, da v tem primeru okoliščine niso bile upoštevane.
It considers, first, that the condition set out in paragraph 89 of Altmark has not been met, since the legal basis of the aid does not expressly concern CELF.
Kot prvo, Komisija meni, da okoliščina, ki jo predvideva točka 89 sodbe Altmark ni bila upoštevana, ker se sodna podlaga podpore ne nanaša izrecno na zadrugo CELF.
It also considers that paragraph 90 of the said judgment, which concerns the establishment in advance of the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated, has not been observed either, even if overall the aid has not exceeded the amount necessary to compensate for the costs of processing small orders.
Nadalje Komisija meni, da točka 90 te sodbe, ki se nanaša na predhodno določitev parametrov, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, prav tako ni bila izpolnjena, pa čeprav podpora ni v celoti presegla zneska, ki je nujen za nadomestitev stroškov, ki se nanašajo na obravnavo naročil na drobno.
CONCLUSION
VI/ ZAKLJUČEK
In view of the above, it is clear that the aid in question meets the requirements of Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty, in that it is proportional to the cultural objective pursued.
Ob upoštevanju tega, kar je bilo povedano, se zdi, da sporne podpore odgovarjajo potrebam, določenim v določbah člena 87, odstavek 3, točka (d) Pogodbe, s tem, da ustrezajo zasledovanemu kulturnemu cilju.
The Commission found that the aid was not such as to affect trade and competition in the Community to an extent contrary to the common interest,
Dejansko je Komisija ugotovila, da ne izkrivljajo izmenjav in konkurence v Skupnosti v meri, nasprotni skupnemu interesu —
The aid to the Coopérative d'exportation du livre français (CELF) for processing small orders of French-language books, implemented by France between 1980 and 2001, is aid that is caught by Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Podpora, namenjena Zadrugi za izvoz francoskih knjig (CELF) za obravnavo naročil na drobno knjig v francoskem jeziku, ki jo je Francija izvedla med letoma 1980 in 2001, predstavlja podporo, ki ustreza členu 87, odstavek 1, Pogodbe.
Since France failed to notify the aid to the Commission before implementing it, the aid was granted unlawfully.
Ker se je Francija izognila uradni prijavi te podpore Komisiji, preden jo je izvedla, je bila ta podpora podeljena nezakonito.
It is, however, compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty.
Podpora je kljub temu združljiva s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 87, odstavek 3, točka d), Pogodbe.
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.
Republika Francija je naslovljenka te odločbe.