natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
SIDE also challenged a whole series of specific advantages, linked to the preferential relations which CELF allegedly maintains with the public authorities.
Družba SIDE prav tako ugovarja celi vrsti enkratnih ugodnosti, povezanih s privilegiranimi odnosi, ki jih je zadruga CELF vzdrževala z javnimi oblastmi.
Recapitalisation of CELF in 1980
Rekapitalizacija zadruge CELF leta 1980
It will be noted that CELF's capital was raised in 1980 from FRF 80500 to FRF 1280500.
Potrebno je omeniti, da se je kapital zadruge CELF leta 1980 povišal z 80500 FRF na 1280500 FRF.
The operation was financed by ADEF to the tune of 50 % and by the (private) shareholders of CELF, also to the tune of 50 %.
Operacija je bila financirana deloma s strani ADEF, v višini 50 % in deloma s strani (privatnih) delničarjev zadruge CELF, v višini 50 %.
The main objective of ADEF, which brought a number of publishers together, was to promote the presence of French books abroad and to support investments made by publishers or exporters.
Glaven cilj ADEF, ki je združevala določeno število založnikov, je bil ta, da spodbuja prisotnost knjig v francoskem jeziku v tujini in da podpira naložbe, ki so jih izvedli založniki ali izvozniki.
The Association received a public grant from the Ministry of Culture.
Zveza je prejemala državni prispevek, ki ji ga je dodelilo Ministrstvo za kulturo.
Having analysed the documentation submitted by the French authorities, the Commission has reached the conclusion that the disputed capital increase did not constitute State aid but simply the acquisition of a holding.
Potem ko je analizirala dokumentacijo, ki so ji jo predložile francoske oblasti, je Komisija prišla do zaključka, da sporno povišanje kapitala ni izhajalo iz državne podpore, ampak je bilo preprost učinek participacije.
It is not, and cannot be, disputed that private investors participated in setting up the company in its present form.
Dejansko ni zanikano, niti ni sporno, da so bili privatni investitorji udeleženi pri ustanovitvi podjetja v današnji obliki.
The Ministry of Culture, did not contribute to CELF's capital, and ADEF, an association that is admittedly financed in part by the state, always acted like a private investor in a market economy.
Ministrstvo za kulturo ni poseglo v kapital zadruge CELF in ADEF, zveza, ki jo je resda deloma financirala država, je vendarle delovala kot privatni investitor v tržnem gospodarstvu.
ADEF's subscription fully satisfies point 3(2)(iii) of the Commission's notice on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty to public authorities' holdings [46].
Subskripcija zveze ADEF dejansko popolnoma odgovarja točki 3.2, tretja črtica, sporočila Komisije glede uporabnosti členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe ES za javno participacijo [46].
Accordingly, the transaction contained no element of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
V teh okoliščinah postopek ni vseboval elementa državne pomoči v smislu člena 87, odstavek 1, Pogodbe.
Moreover, the recapitalisation had already taken place more than 10 years before SIDE sent its first letter to the Commission, dated 20 March 1992, and before the Commission asked the French authorities for information by letter dated 2 April 1992.
Vrh tega se je ta rekapitalizacija zgodila že več kot deset let od tega, ko je družba SIDE naslovila svojo prvo pismo na Komisijo, dne 20. marca 1992, in ko je Komisija francoske oblasti zaprosila za podatke s pošto z dne 2. aprila 1992.
Consequently, and in accordance with Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [47], the Commission could not, if appropriate, order the recovery of the capital increase, even if State aid were involved.
Zato in v skladu z določbami člena 15 uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 Sveta z dne 22. marca 1999, ki je prinašal spremembe pri izvajanju člena 93 Pogodbe ES [47], Komisija ne bi mogla v tem primeru zahtevati izterjavo prirastka kapitala, pa četudi bi šlo za državno podporo.
Recapitalisation of CELF via ADEF in 1993
Rekapitalizacija zadruge CELF prek zveze ADEF leta 1993
SIDE also objects to aid which was granted to CELF in 1993 via a sale of shares in ADEF to SNE, which is a collaborator of CELF.
Družba SIDE prav tako razkriva podporo, ki naj bi bila dodeljena zadrugi CELF leta 1993, prek odstopa dejavnosti zveze ADEF sindikatu SNE, ki je sodelavec zadruge CELF.
In its comments of 5 December 2003, SIDE remarked to the Commission that, in accordance with the written evidence it had deposed at the hearing on 4 July 2001, the Commission should give its opinion on the aid which, according to SIDE, had been granted to CELF when ADEF was wound up in June 1993.
V svojih pripombah z dne 5. decembra 2003 je družba SIDE opozorila Komisijo, da bi se morala, v skladu s spisi, ki ji jih je predložila na zaslišanju z dne 4. julija 2001, izraziti glede podpor, ki naj bi bile po njenem podeljene zadrugi CELF pri likvidaciji združenja ADEF junija 1993.
The Commission notes that this point was not covered by the decision to initiate proceedings of 30 July 1996.
Komisija poudarja, da ta točka ni bila vključena v odločbo o odprtju postopka z datumom 30. julij 1996.
Consequently, it will not give its opinion on the question under the present proceedings.
Zato se v tem postopku ne bo izrazila glede tega vprašanja.
Advantages to CELF associated with the ‘administration of public programmes’
Ugodnosti zadruge CELF, povezane z „upravljanjem javnih programov“
SIDE explains that CELF has been able to maintain its presence in the market and continue to grant the same type of discount to its customers after the abolition of the Small Orders programme, since it continues to receive many public grants through programmes such as A l'est de l'Europe, which superseded the programme Page à page, or Programme Plus, to which constantly increasing funds are allocated.
Družba SIDE pojasnjuje, da se je zadruga CELF lahko ohranila na trgu in nadaljevala z nudenjem enakega tipa popusta svojim odjemalcem po ukinitvi „Programa naročila na drobno“, ker je drugače še nadalje prejemala številne državne subvencije preko ovinka s pomočjo programov kot so „Na vzhod Evrope“, ki je nastopil namesto programa „Stran na stran“, ali pa „Program plus“, ki naj bi mu bila dodeljena vedno višja sredstva.
It should be pointed out that these programmes, which had already been approved by the Commission in its decision of 18 May 1993, were also confirmed by the CFI in its judgment of 18 September 1995 [48].
Potrebno je spomniti, da so bili ti programi, ki jih je Komisija že odobrila v svoji odločbi z dne 18. maja 1993, prav tako proglašeni za veljavne s strani Sodišča v njegovi sodbi z dne 18. septembra 1995 [48].
It follows that these aspects were not reported in the decision to initiate proceedings of 30 July 1986.
Iz tega sledi, da se o teh vidikih ni poročalo v odločbi o odprtju postopka z datumom 30. julij 1986.
The aid for small orders was not such as to adversely affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that is contrary to the common interest
Podpora naročilom na drobno ni bila taka, da bi neugodno vplivala na pogoje izmenjav in konkurence v Skupnosti v meri, nasprotni skupnemu interesu.
A mechanism intended to promote an activity abandoned by the publishing trade
Mehanizem, namenjen promociji dejavnosti, ki jo je stroka opustila
The Small Orders programme was designed in 1980 by the Ministry of Culture, at a time when the industry (Groupe Hachette and Messageries du livre) wanted to quit the export agency market.
„Program naročila na drobno“ je Ministrstvo za kulturo zasnovalo leta 1980, v trenutku, ko je stroka (Skupina Hachette in Messageries du livre) želela zapustiti trg izvoznega posredništva.
The disputed mechanism was introduced to encourage operators to become involved in the market, so that all orders for French-language books from bookshops in non-French-speaking areas could be met.
Sporni mehanizem je bil zasnovan tako, da je spodbujal operaterje, da so posegli na tržišče z namenom zadovoljitve vseh naročil knjig v francoskem jeziku, ki prihajajo od knjigarn na nefrankofonskih območjih.
The Commission finds firstly, in agreement with some of the comments from third parties intervening in the proceedings, that the Small Orders programme, which was in fact launched when CELF was set up in its current form, was known to practitioners, which at least initially welcomed it [49], or at the very least did not call it into question, without however applying for it themselves.
Komisija na prvem mestu ugotavlja, v skladu z nekaterimi mnenji tretjih oseb, ki so posegle v postopek, da so „Program naročila na drobno“, ki je dejansko spremljal ustanovitev zadruge CELF v njeni sedanji obliki, poznali ljudje iz stroke, ki so ga, vsaj sprva, tudi dobro sprejeli [49] ali mu vsaj niso ugovarjali, ne da bi zato tudi zaprosili zanj.
SIDE maintains, for its part, that the Small Orders programme was reserved exclusively for CELF.
Družba SIDE trdi, da je bil „Program naročila na drobno“ namenjen izključno zadrugi CELF.
The rejection it received from the Ministry of Culture in 1991, in its view, confirmed this.
Po njenem naj bi to dejstvo potrjevala zavrnitev, ki ji ga je predložilo Ministrstvo za kulturo leta 1991.
At the same time, SIDE did not dispute that its application for aid was justified by its own refusal to accept the transparency requirement for eligibility.
Istočasno pa družba SIDE ne zanika, da je bila zavrnitev njene prošnje za dodelitev podpor upravičena zaradi njene lastne odklonitve, da bi se podredila obveznosti po transparentnosti, ki je bila zahtevana za pridobitev teh podpor.
In 1996, following the annulment of the Commission Decision of 18 May 1993, the Ministry of Culture, wanting to put an end to the proceedings, pointed out to SIDE that the scheme of aid for small orders was not reserved for CELF.
Sicer pa je leta 1996 po razveljavitvi odločbe Komisije z dne 18. maja 1993 Ministrstvo za kulturo, zato, da bi zaključilo postopek, spomnilo družbo SIDE, da program pomoči za naročila na drobno ni bil rezerviran za zadrugo CELF.
By letter dated 3 September 1996, the Ministry offered the company a meeting to examine whether it was able to provide, in the same conditions of transparency, the same services as CELF.
S pošto z dne 3. septembra 1996 ji je predlagalo sestanek, da bi preučilo, če je sposobna nuditi, pod enakimi pogoji transparentnosti, enake storitve, kot jih nudi zadruga CELF.
At a meeting held on 26 September 1996, SIDE's managers refused the proposal which was made to them.
Na sestanku, ki je potekal dne 26. septembra 1996, so vodilni iz družbe SIDE odklonili ponudbo, ki jim je bila predložena.
They told the Ministry of Culture that they refused to benefit from a programme whose compatibility with Community law could be called into question by the Commission.
Ministrstvu za kulturo so dali vedeti, da odklanjajo pridobitev programa, katerega združljivost z zakonodajo Skupnosti bi bila lahko postavljena pod vprašaj s strani Komisije.
In support of its claims, SIDE produces a report by the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, basically criticising the decision of the French authorities not to pay grants direct to booksellers.
Da bi podprla svoje trditve, je družba SIDE predložila poročilo Državnega sklada za družbene vede, ki predvsem kritizira odločitev francoskih oblasti, da subvencij ni plačevala neposredno knjigarnarjem.
The Commission would point out in this respect that national authorities are free to choose the form of subsidy which seems to them to be best suited to the objectives they are pursuing, subject to respecting the relevant Community law.
Glede tega Komisija spomni, da so državne oblasti svobodne pri izbiri načina subvencij, ki se jim zdi najbolj prilagojen ciljem, ki jih zasledujejo, pod pogojem, da spoštujejo ustrezno zakonodajo Skupnosti.
In any event, the Commission stresses that the document produced is not relevant and notes that its authors themselves take a critical view of their own assessment [50].
Vsekakor Komisija poudari pomanjkljivost umestnosti dokumenta, ki je bil predložen, in vrh tega pripomni, da sami pisci tega dokumenta kritično gledajo na lastno oceno [50].
Lastly, SIDE maintains that the aid was inappropriate.
Končno družba SIDE vztraja pri tem, da so bile podpore nekoristne.
The Commission would emphasise in this respect that the beneficiaries of the aid were obliged to process all orders of less than FRF 500.
Glede tega Komisija poudarja, da so bili prejemniki podpore zavezani, da obravnavajo vsa naročila manjša od 500 FRF.
This ensured that French-language books could reach all bookshops, including the smallest in far-off countries, even if they only needed a few books, often published by different publishers.
To je zagotavljalo, da so lahko knjige v francoskem jeziku dosegle vse knjigarne, vključno z najmanjšimi v oddaljenih krajih, tudi če so potrebovale le nekaj knjig, vrh tega pogosto izdanih pri različnih založnikih.
This was not guaranteed by SIDE, which, as has already been stated, did not supply all countries.
Tega pa ni zagotavljala družba SIDE, ki vrh tega, kot je bilo to že povedano, ni oskrbovala vseh držav.
In light of the above, the Commission finds that the Small Orders programme was, in principle, accessible to any firm applying, provided it accepted the conditions according to which the aid was granted.
V skladu s predhodnimi podatki je Komisija lahko ugotovila, da je bil „Program naročila na drobno“ načeloma dosegljiv vsem podjetjem, ki bi vložili prošnjo zanj, od trenutka, ko bi sprejeli pogoje, ki se nanašajo na dodelitev podpor.
It also notes that, from 1996, SIDE made it clear that it did not want to qualify for the programme.
Prav tako Komisija poudari, da je družba SIDE, od leta 1996 dalje, dala jasno vedeti, da ne želi prejeti teh podpor.
In the circumstances, the Commission considers that the disputed aid was not discriminatory and that it was necessary for the achievement of the objectives pursued by the French authorities.
V teh okoliščinah Komisija meni, da sporne podpore niso bile diskriminacijske in da so bile nujne za dosego ciljev, za katerimi so stremele francoske oblasti.
In any event, the Commission considers that, even assuming the aid in question could have been regarded until 1996 as being exclusively reserved for CELF, it was for the French authorities to assess what measures were the most appropriate and useful for optimum attainment of the objective pursued, since the aid did not exceed what was necessary for achieving that objective, as will be shown below.
Na vsak način Komisija meni, da četudi bi se lahko domnevalo, da so bile sporne podpore do leta 1996 rezervirane izključno za zadrugo CELF, so francoske oblasti pooblaščene, da presodijo, kateri ukrepi so najbolj primerni in uporabni za dosego zasledovanih ciljev na optimalen način, seveda dokler podpore ne presežejo uresničevanja zastavljenega cilja, kot bo to pokazano tu spodaj.
Examination by the Commission, based on the figures supplied by the French authorities and the complainant
Preverjanje Komisije na podlagi številčnih podatkov, ki so jih sporočile francoske oblasti in tožnica
The export agency market for French-language books
Trg izvoznega posredništva za knjige v francoskem jeziku
As part of their export agency activity, CELF and SIDE distribute books in non-French-speaking countries and territories.
Zadruga CELF in družba SIDE sta v svoji dejavnosti izvoznega posrednika distribuirale knjige v nefrankofonske države in ozemlja.
In French-speaking countries, such as Belgium, Canada and Switzerland, the local market is covered by large publishers through their subsidiaries or representatives.
Dejansko v frankofonskih deželah, kot so Belgija, Kanada in Švica, lokalni trg pokrit z velikimi založniki s pomočjo njihovih podružnic ali njihovih zastopnikov.
The export agency has only a very marginal role, therefore, in the markets which are the main outlets for books in French, i.e. the three countries mentioned above.
Izvozno posredništvo torej igra zgolj postransko vlogo na trgih, ki predstavljajo glavna tržišča za knjige v francoskem jeziku, torej tri zgoraj omenjene države.
It is established that CELF was set up, at the end of the 1970s, to remedy the failures of a market abandoned by firms in the industry because it was not profitable, and that the disputed aid was intended to support a manifestly non-profitable segment of the agents' activity.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je bila zadruga CELF ustanovljena konec sedemdesetih let zato, da bi olajšala nepopolnosti trga, ko so ga ljudje iz stroke zapustili zaradi nedonosnosti, in da je sporna podpora imela za cilj podpirati očitno nedonosen del dejavnosti posrednikov.
Without questioning the CFI's assessment, the Commission would observe that the evidence produced during the examination of the case, both by the SIDE [51] and by the national authorities, shows that the mechanisms for marketing French-language books abroad are very varied [52], complimentary, and sometimes substitutable, since export agency is one of several existing systems.
Sodišče, ki je v tem sledilo utemeljitvam družbe SIDE [51], je sankcioniralo to analizo in ocenilo, da je Komisija zagrešila očitno napako pri ocenjevanju, ker izvoz knjig v francoskem jeziku in posredništvo pri izvozu knjig v francoskem jeziku ne predstavljata zamenljiva trga, ampak različna trga, pri čemer je drugi pod-trg prvega. (179) Komisija, ne da bi s tem ugovarjala oceni Sodišča, opaža, da dokumenti, ki so bili predloženi med preiskavo zadeve tako s strani družbe SIDE kot s strani francoskih oblasti, kažejo na to, da so mehanizmi razširjanja knjig v francoskem jeziku v tujino zelo različni [52], dopolnjujoči se in včasih zamenljivi, pri čemer izvozno posredništvo predstavlja zgolj enega izmed številnih obstoječih sistemov.
The Commission notes that SIDE and the French authorities appear to agree that it is not always easy to define exactly the various markets in the book marketing sector.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se družba SIDE in francoske oblasti očitno strinjajo, ko priznavajo, da ni vedno lahko določiti točnih robov različnih trgov v posebnem sektorju distribucije knjig.
SIDE states in its most recent comments that general agents like itself and CELF are present on the national market in question.
Družba SIDE v svojih zadnjih pripombah pokaže, da so na spornem državnem trgu prisotni splošni posredniki, kot sta ona sama in zadruga CELF.
Other operators, which it defines in some cases as agents and in others as exporting bookshops [53], also sell, marginally, direct to end-users and would be competing very marginally with the two general agents.
Drugi operaterji, ki jih definira enkrat kot posrednike, drugič kot izvozne knjigarnarje [53], prav tako prodajajo, na postranski način, neposredno končnim uporabnikom in naj bi bili v konkurenci na izredno postranski način z dvema splošnima posrednikoma.
The French authorities share SIDE's analysis in part, while stating that the exporting booksellers to whom the complainant refers are in reality specialised agents.
Francoske oblasti se deloma strinjajo z analizo družbe SIDE, pri čemer jasno izrazijo, da so knjigarnarji izvozniki, na katere se sklicuje tožnica, v resnici specializirani posredniki.
They have added to the list of potential competitors a number of bookshops which meet, even on an occasional basis, orders from foreign booksellers.
Seznamu potencialnih konkurentov dodajo določeno število knjigarnarjev, ki strežejo, pa četudi priložnostno, naročilom tujih knjigarnarjev.
France explains that on-line book shops should now be included among the competitors of the general agents, which the Commission considers to be relevant, even if accurate volume data for this segment, which has been created by the use of new technology, are still unavailable.
Francija pojasni, da se mora odslej elektronske knjigarne šteti med konkurente splošnim posrednikom. Komisija meni, da je ta pripomba umestna, pa čeprav točni podatki, v smislu obsega za ta iz uporabe novih tehnologij izhajajoči del, še niso na voljo.
It should be noted that SIDE sent the Commission certain figures purporting to show the ‘dominant position’ of CELF [54] on the submarket concerned.
Potrebno je opozoriti, da je družba SIDE Komisiji sporočila nekatere številčne podatke, ki skušajo ponazoriti „vodilni položaj“, ki ga zaseda zadruga CELF [54] na zadevnem pod-trgu.
As was pointed out in recital 29, the Commission will not give its opinion in this decision about SIDE's complaint based on Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, since this question is the subject of a separate examination.
Komisija se v tej odločbi ne bo, kot je bilo to povedano v uvodni izjavi 29, izrazila glede pritožbe družbe SIDE, utemeljene na podlagi členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe, ker to vprašanje predstavlja predmet ločene preiskave.
It should be noted in this respect that a preliminary letter conveying the Commission's preliminary intention to reject the complaint was sent to SIDE on 7 August 2003.
Glede tega je potrebno pojasniti, da je bilo dne 7. avgusta 2003 na družbo SIDE naslovljeno pismo, ki je sporočalo o predhodnem namenu Komisije, da bo zavrnila tožbo.
However, without prejudging the final position it takes in the other half of the dossier, the Commission would point out that CELF, an interprofessional firm, was set up, which on the basis in particular of third parties' comments is not disputed, to remedy the failings of a market abandoned by the industry.
Kljub temu in ne da bi to jemala kot dokončno stališče, ki ga bo morala zavzeti v neki drugi vrsti uradnih spisov, Komisija spomni, da je bila zadruga CELF, družba, ki združuje več poklicev, ustanovljena zato, in kar zlasti ni bilo zanikano v primeru mnenj tretjih oseb, da bi zapolnila nepopolnosti trga, ki so ga zapustili ljudje iz stroke.
Thus it is not surprising that the market shares held by the firm are very large.
Tudi ni čudno, da so tržni deleži tega podjetja zelo veliki.
The Commission considers that CELF's position on the market in question, still has no direct bearing on the granting of the aid.
Komisija meni, da je položaj zadruge CELF na obravnavanem trgu vendarle brez neposredne povezave z vprašanjem o dodelitvi odobrenih podpor.
The Commission is solely concerned to check the compatibility of the aid on the export agency market under Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty.
Komisija si prizadeva izključno za preverjanje združljivosti podpore na trgu izvoznega posredništva s členom 87, odstavek 3, točka (d) Pogodbe.
Relevance of the notion ‘small orders’ in connection with the export agency business
Umestnost pojma „naročila na drobno“ znotraj izvoznega posredništva
The book export agency business consists in meeting orders that are not very large.
Posredništvo pri izvozu knjig obstaja v tem, da zadovolji manj pomembna naročila.
The market was abandoned at the end of the 1970s by publishers and traditional distributors because it was not profitable enough.
Ta trg so konec sedemdesetih let založniki in tradicionalni distributerji zapustili, ker ni bil dovolj donosen.
In any event, therefore, the export agency business concerns small orders.
Izvozno posredništvo se torej vsekakor nanaša na naročila na drobno.
SIDE and the French authorities agree as to the definition of the service involved.
Družba SIDE in francoske oblasti se ujemajo pri definiciji obravnavane storitve.
However, their positions diverge when it comes to identifying, on the export agency market, ‘lesser’ orders (e.g. an order for an inexpensive work by an African bookshop), which generate extra costs so that the service cannot be profitable.
Nasprotno pa se njihova stališča razhajajo, ko je potrebno znotraj trga izvoznega posredništva identificirati „manj pomembna“ naročila (npr.: naročilo enega poceni dela s strani afriške knjigarne), ki povzročajo tako povišanje stroškov, da storitev ne more biti donosna.
The Ministry of Culture fixed the amount for ‘small orders’ which should be subsidised at a threshold of FRF 500 (EUR 76,22).
Ministrstvo za kulturo je določilo znesek „naročil na drobno“, ki jih je bilo potrebno subvencionirati, na pragu 500 FRF (76,22 eurov).