natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Firstly, the loan of EUR 1600000 given to CMR by the French government constitutes a financial advantage made available from state resources.
Prvič, subvencija v višini 1600000 EUR, ki jo je francoska vlada dodelila podjetju CMR, je finančna prednost, dodeljena iz državnih sredstev. Poleg tega so gospodarske prednosti, ki jih dodelijo regionalni in lokalni organi držav članic, prav tako obravnavne kot državni viri.
As economic benefits granted by regional or local bodies in the Member States are also considered to be state resources, the first criterion for the application of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty is also met with regard to the grants (each amounting to EUR 630000) received from the region of Provence Alpes-Côte d’Azur, the department of Bouches-du-Rhône and the city of Marseille.
Zato prvo merilo za uporabo člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES izpolnjujejo tudi subvencije (od katerih vsaka znaša 630000 EUR), ki so jih podjetju CMR dodelili departma Provence-Alpes Côte d'Azur, departma Bouches-du-Rhône in mesto Marseille.
Secondly, the public contributions were directed to a particular undertaking, CMR. The selectivity criterion governing the application of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty is thus met.
Drugič, ker so bile zadevne subvencije dodeljene točno določenemu podjetju, in sicer podjetju CMR, je bilo merilo selektivnosti, ki je pogoj za uporabo člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, tudi izpolnjeno.
Thirdly, the three grants from the regional and local authorities as well as the interest-free loan from the French government confer on CMR an economic benefit which would be hard to obtain from the private sector.
Tretjič, trije prispevki regionalnih in lokalnih organov ter brezobrestno posojilo s strani francoske vlade podeljujejo podjetju CMR gospodarsko prednost, ki mu ne bi mogla biti dodeljena prek zasebnega sektorja.
Hence, by their very nature, such measures are likely to distort competition.
Ti ukrepi lahko že zaradi svoje narave povzročijo izkrivljanje konkurence.
Fourthly, the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient carries out an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
Četrtič, merilo, po katerem mora ukrep vplivati na trgovino, je izpolnjeno, če prejemnik izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost, ki vključuje trgovino med državami članicami.
This is indeed the case with the ship repair activities carried out by CMR.
Prav to se je zgodilo v primeru dejavnosti popravila ladij, ki jih izvaja podjetje CMR.
In a sensitive sector such as ship repair, it may be assumed that trade is affected, at least potentially.
V tako občutljivem sektorju, kot je popravilo ladij, se lahko predvideva vsaj morebiten vpliv na trgovino.
This assumption underlies the long-term policy pursued with regard to the special rules applicable to state aid in the shipbuilding industry.
To predvidevanje je v bistvu osnova za dolgoročno politiko, ki se izvaja v zvezi s posebnimi pravili, ki se uporabljajo za državne pomoči v sektorju ladjedelništva.
Those rules apply fully to ship repair, which is subject to the same principles as shipbuilding.
Ta pravila se v celoti uporabljajo za popravila ladij, za katera veljajo enaka načela kot za ladjedelništvo.
Furthermore, because of its geographical position, CMR is, at least potentially, in competition with ship repair yards in Italy and Spain.
Poleg tega podjetje CMR zaradi svojega zemljepisnega položaja, vsaj potencialno, konkurira z ladjedelnicami za popravilo ladij v Italiji in Španiji.
The Commission thus concludes that the public contributions to CMR as outlined in Part 1 of Table 3 all constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija zato sklepa, da vsi javni prispevki, namenjeni podjetju CMR, kot so bili opisani v delu 1 tabele 3, pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission also notes that France failed to comply with its obligation under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty not to put its proposed measures into effect until the Commission proceedings had resulted in a final decision (stand-still clause).
Komisija poleg tega ugotavlja, da Francija ni spoštovala svoje obveznosti v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES o neizvajanju predlaganih ukrepov, dokler v postopku ni sprejeta dokončna odločba (klavzula o mirovanju).
The aid is therefore considered to be unlawful.
Zato se obravnava, da je pomoč nezakonita.
Derogation under Article 87 of the EC Treaty
Odstopanje po členu 87 Pogodbe ES
Since CMR engages in ship repair, aid granted to support its activities falls within the scope of the special rules on state aid applicable to shipbuilding.
Ker podjetje CMR posluje v sektorju popravila ladij, spada pomoč, dodeljena v podporo njegovim dejavnostim, v okvir posebnih pravil o državni pomoči za ladjedelništvo.
Since 1 January 2004, these rules have been enshrined in the Framework on state aid to shipbuilding [11], which replaced the Shipbuilding Regulation.
Od 1. januarja 2004 so ta pravila vključena v okvir državne pomoči za ladjedelnice [11], ki nadomešča pravila iz Uredbe o ladjedelništvu.
However, in accordance with the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful state aid [12], unlawful state aid, i.e. aid put into effect in contravention of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, must be assessed in accordance with the substantive criteria set out in any instrument in force at the time when the aid was granted.
Vendar pa se v skladu s Sporočilom Komisije o določitvi pravil, ki se uporabljajo za ovrednotenje nezakonite državne pomoči [12], nezakonite pomoči, to so pomoči, dodeljene v nasprotju členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES, ovrednotijo v skladu z vsebinskimi merili iz vseh veljavnih instrumentov v času dodelitve pomoči.
Therefore the Shipbuilding Regulation is applicable.
Zato se v tem primeru uporabi Uredba o ladjedelništvu.
For the sake of completeness, it should be stated that this has no effect on the outcome of the compatibility assessment, given that the substantive criteria for the assessment of rescue and restructuring aid, of regional aid and of training aid are the same [13], whether the Commission applies the Shipbuilding Regulation or the Framework on state aid to shipbuilding, which replaced the former rules [14].
Zaradi izčrpnosti je treba izjaviti, da dejstvo, ali Komisija uporablja Uredbo o ladjedelništvu ali okvir državne pomoči za ladjedelnice, ki je nadomestil Uredbo [13], nima nobenega vpliva na sklepe o ovrednotenju združljivosti, glede na to, da so vsebinska merila za ovrednotenje pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, regionalnih pomoči ter pomoči za usposabljanje enaka [14].
France asked the Commission to examine whether the financial measures were compatible with the common market directly on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, arguing that ship repair was an essential activity in the proper operation of a port of the size of Marseille.
Francija je zahtevala, da Komisija prouči združljivost zadevnih finančnih ukrepov s skupnim trgom neposredno na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, pri tem pa je navedla, da je popravilo ladij bistvena dejavnost za dobro delovanje pristanišča, ki je tako veliko kot Marseille.
The Commission notes, firstly, that, if the ship repair services provided by CMR were indeed essential to the operation of the port, they should in principle be secured by the port's own resources, without having to resort to state aid.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da bi morale biti v primeru, če bi bile storitve popravila ladij, ki jih zagotavlja podjetje CMR, resnično bistvenega pomena za delovanje pristanišča, te dejavnosti zagotovljene z lastnimi sredstvi pristanišča, ne da bi se bilo treba pri tem zateči k državni pomoči.
Furthermore, the Commission is authorising part of the aid as regional investment aid and is accordingly taking account of the regional concerns involved.
Poleg tega je Komisija odobrila del pomoči kot regionalno pomoč za naložbe in ob tem upoštevala regionalne težave, ki so povezane s tem.
Furthermore, the Shipbuilding Regulation constitutes a specific and exhaustive set of rules applicable to the sector, including ship repair, and stands as a lex specialis in relation to the Treaty.
Poleg tega Uredba o ladjedelništvu pomeni poseben in izčrpen niz pravil, ki se uporabljajo za ta sektor, torej vključno s popravilom ladij, in ki so lex specialis v razmerju do Pogodbe.
Authorising the aid through direct application of the Treaty would thwart the objectives pursued by establishing specific restrictive rules applicable to the sector.
Odobritev pomoči z neposredno uporabo Pogodbe bi ogrozila dosego ciljev, zastavljenih z oblikovanjem posebnih omejevalnih pravil, ki se uporabljajo za ta sektor.
The Commission cannot, therefore, assess the aid directly on the basis of the Treaty.
Komisija zato ne more ovrednotiti zadevne pomoči neposredno na podlagi Pogodbe.
Article 2 of the Shipbuilding Regulation stipulates that aid granted for ship repair may be considered compatible with the common market only if it complies with the provisions of the Regulation.
Člen 2 Uredbe o ladjedelništvu določa, da je pomoč, dodeljena za popravilo ladij, obravnavana kot združljiva s skupnim trgom samo, če je v skladu z določbami Uredbe.
Restructuring aid
Pomoč za prestrukturiranje
According to France, the purpose of the aid is to restructure the activities of CMR.
Francija meni, da je namen zadevne pomoči prestrukturiranje dejavnosti podjetja CMR.
According to Article 5 of the Shipbuilding Regulation, aid for the rescue and restructuring of undertakings active in the shipbuilding sector may exceptionally be considered compatible with the common market provided that it complies with the provisions of the Restructuring Guidelines as well as the specific conditions set out in Article 5 of the Shipbuilding Regulation.
V skladu s členom 5 Uredbe o ladjedelništvu je pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetja, ki deluje v sektorju popravila ladij, lahko izjemoma obravnavana kot združljiva s skupnim trgom, pod pogojem, da je v skladu s smernicami za prestrukturiranje in posebnimi pogoji iz navedenega člena 5.
The Commission consequently considered whether the criteria laid down in the Restructuring Guidelines were met.
Komisija je zato ugotavljala, ali so merila, predvidena v smernicah za prestrukturiranje, izpolnjena.
Eligibility of the firm
Upravičenost podjetja
According to the Restructuring Guidelines, in order to be eligible for restructuring aid, the firm must qualify as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines.
Glede na smernice za prestrukturiranje mora zadevno podjetje, če želi biti upravičeno do pomoči za prestrukturiranje, obravnavano kot podjetje v težavah v smislu navedenih smernic.
While no precise Community definition exists, the Commission regards a firm as being in difficulty where it is unable, whether through its own resources or with the funds it is able to obtain from its owners/shareholders or creditors, to stem losses which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to go out of business in the short or medium term (point 4 of the Restructuring Guidelines).
Čeprav opredelitev Skupnosti ne obstaja, Komisija meni, da je podjetje v težavah, če z lastnimi sredstvi ali sredstvi, ki jih pridobi od lastnikov/delničarjev in upnikov, ne more ustaviti izgub, ki bi ob odsotnosti zunanjega posredovanja javnih organov vodile k skoraj zanesljivemu kratkoročnemu ali srednjeročnemu gospodarskemu zlomu (točka 4 smernic za prestrukturiranje).
These difficulties are manifested for instance by increasing losses, diminishing turnover, growing stock inventories, excess capacity, declining cash flow, mounting debt, rising interest charges and falling or nil net asset value.
Težave podjetja se kažejo kot naraščajoča raven izgub, znižanje prometa, povečevanje zalog, presežna zmogljivost, znižanje bruto denarnega toka, naraščajoča zadolženost, rast finančnih stroškov in tudi slabitev ali zmanjšanje, celo izginotje čiste vrednosti sredstev.
However, point 7 of the Restructuring Guidelines stipulates that a newly created firm is not eligible for restructuring aid, even if its initial position is insecure.
Vendar je v točki 7 smernic za prestrukturiranje navedeno, da novo ustanovljeno podjetje ni upravičeno do pomoči za prestrukturiranje, tudi če je njegov začetni finančni položaj negotov.
This is the case, for instance, where a new firm emerges from the liquidation of a previous firm or merely takes over such firm’s assets.
To se zgodi zlasti, ko je novo podjetje ustanovljeno po likvidaciji prejšnjega podjetja ali prevzema sredstva prejšnjega podjetja.
The reason for excluding new firms from the eligibility for restructuring aid is based on the assumption that the creation of a company should be a decision reflecting the situation on the market in question.
Izključevanje novo ustanovljenih podjetij iz upravičenosti do pomoči za prestrukturiranje izhaja iz načela, da mora biti ustanovitev podjetja rezultat odločitve, ki odraža tržne razmere.
Therefore, a company should be created only if it has a chance of operating on that market, in other words, if it is capitalised and viable ab initio.
Podjetje je lahko torej ustanovljeno le, če ima možnost delovanja na zadevnem trgu, z drugimi besedami, če ima kapital in je sposobno preživeti že od samega začetka.
A new company is not eligible for restructuring aid because, although it might well face start-up difficulties, it cannot encounter difficulties such as those described in the Restructuring Guidelines.
Novo podjetje ne more biti upravičeno do pomoči pri prestrukturiranju, ker se, čeprav ima lahko že od samega začetka težave, ne more soočati s težavami, ki so opisane v smernicah za prestrukturiranje.
Such difficulties (as described in paragraph 70 above) are linked to the history of a company, i.e. they are generated in connection with the operation of a company.
Te težave, opisane v uvodni izjavi 70, so povezane s preteklostjo podjetja, ker izvirajo iz delovanja podjetja samega.
By its nature, a new company cannot encounter this type of difficulties.
Novo podjetje se, glede na svojo naravo, ne more soočati s tako vrsto težav.
A new company may, however, face some start-up losses as it has to finance investments and operating costs that initially may not be covered by the revenues from its activity.
Novo podjetje se lahko, nasprotno, srečuje z začetnimi izgubami, ob upoštevanju, da mora financirati naložbe in stroške delovanja, ki jih na začetku še ne more pokrivati prihodek od dejavnosti.
These costs are, however, associated with the start of a business activity and not with its restructuring.
Ti stroški pa so povezani z začetkom dejavnosti podjetja in ne s prestrukturiranjem.
Such costs cannot therefore be financed by restructuring aid without depriving the latter of its specific purpose and limited scope.
Zato stroški ne morejo biti financirani s pomočjo za prestrukturiranje, ne da bi pomoči odvzeli njen posebni namen in omejen obseg.
This limitation of the scope of the Restructuring Guidelines applies to new companies that emerge out of bankruptcy proceedings of other companies or merely take over other firm’s assets.
Ta omejitev obsega uporabe smernic za prestrukturiranje se uporablja za nova podjetja, ki so bila ustanovljena po likvidaciji predhodnega podjetja, ali po prevzemu sredstev tega podjetja.
The new company in such cases does not in principle take over the debts of its predecessor and thus does not suffer from the difficulties described in the Restructuring Guidelines.
V takem primeru novo podjetje načelno ne prevzame dolgov predhodnega podjetja, kar pomeni, da se ne sooča s težavami, ki so opisane v smernicah za prestrukturiranje.
In the decision to initiate proceedings, the Commission had doubts whether CMR was eligible for restructuring aid, as it appeared to be a newly created company.
V sklepu o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija dvomila, da je podjetje CMR lahko upravičeno do pomoči pri prestrukturiranju, ker je menila, da je novo podjetje.
The Commission notes in this respect, and France acknowledges, that CMR is a new legal entity with a legal personality distinct from CMdR.
V tem smislu je Komisija opazila, da Francija priznava, da podjetje CMR predstavlja novo pravno osebo, ki je različna pravna oseba od podjetja CMdR.
The Commission also takes the view that CMR is a new economic entity that is distinct from CMdR.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da podjetje CMR predstavlja nov gospodarski subjekt, ki je različen od podjetja CMdR.
It is true that CMR continues to carry out an economic activity of the same type as CMdR (ship repair).
Res pa je, da podjetje CMR še naprej izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost iste vrste kot podjetje CMdR (popravilo ladij).
However, it is not possible to conclude that CMR is the same economic entity as CMdR.
Vendar je nemogoče sklepati, da je podjetje CMR isti gospodarski subjekt kot podjetje CMdR.
On the contrary, the Commission considers that, although CMR took over the assets and goodwill as well as the workforce and some liabilities related to the social security legislation, the takeover marked a discontinuity between the old and new activity.
Nasprotno, Komisija meni, da je s prevzemom prišlo do prekinitve zveznosti med starimi in novimi dejavnostmi, kljub temu, da je podjetje CMR prevzelo sredstva in poslovno vrednost podjetja, pa tudi zaposlene in nekatere obveznosti, povezane z zakonodajo o socialni varnosti, in da deluje v istem sektorju dejavnosti kot podjetje CMdR.
It is illustrated by the fact that the takeover was free of debts related to the old activities.
Dejstvo, da prevzem ne vključuje dolgov, povezanih s starimi dejavnostmi, priča o tej prekinitvi zveznosti.
CMR was not therefore in the same financial position as CMdR.
Podjetje CMR tako ni v enakem finančnem položaju kot podjetje CMdR.
In this context, it needs to be said that the reason for which this was the case, i.e. whether it was because the debts stayed with the predecessor or because there were no debts at all, is irrelevant.
V tem smislu je treba pojasniti, da razlogi za nastanek tega položaja, to pomeni, ali da je predhodno podjetje prevzelo dolgove, ali da ni imelo dolgov, v tem položaju niso pomembni.
The actual situation of CMR at the beginning of its operation can be described as a fresh start.
Dejanski položaj podjetja CMR v trenutku, ko je začelo poslovati, je lahko opisan kot nov začetek.
The discontinuity is also confirmed by the fact that no work in progress was taken over: all the work was completed and the suppliers paid before CMdR filed for bankruptcy.
Prekinitev zveznosti potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da ni bilo prevzeto nobeno nedokončano delo; vsa nedokončana dela so bila dokončana in dobavitelji so bili plačani, še preden je podjetje CMdR prijavilo stečaj.
It must therefore be concluded that CMR is indeed a new company.
Tako je treba sklepati, da je podjetje CMR dejansko novo podjetje.
As a matter of fact, France does not dispute this conclusion.
Francija tem sklepom ne ugovarja.
It does, however, argue that although it is a new company, CMR is experiencing difficulties that make it similar to an existing company, the cause of these difficulties being the takeover of the workforce and the related social security costs.
Vendar vseeno ugovarja, da čeprav je podjetje CMR novo podjetje, se že srečuje s težavami, ki omogočajo primerjavo z obstoječim podjetjem, vzrok teh težav pa je prevzem zaposlenih in pripadajočih socialnih obveznosti.
As to this argument, the Commission notes that CMR does not display the signs of a company in difficulty within the meaning of the Restructuring Guidelines as described in paragraph 70 above.
V zvezi s tem argumentom je Komisija opazila, da podjetje CMR nima značilnosti podjetja v težavah v smislu smernic za prestrukturiranje, kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 70.
It simply faces normal set-up costs and normal start-up losses due to the infant nature of its activity.
Preprosto se sooča z normalnimi ustanovitvenimi stroški in normalnimi začetnimi izgubami, ki izhajajo iz dejstva, da je projekt naložb šele na začetku.
The costs of launching a commercial activity are inevitable and are not related to the history of a company.
Stroški zagona trgovinske dejavnosti so neizbežni in niso povezani s preteklostjo podjetja.
CMR would have faced the same type of costs had its shareholders decided to create a company entirely independent from previous ship repair activities. Such a hypothesis would inevitably have involved start-up costs, such as purchase of machinery, hiring and training of staff, etc.
Podjetje CMR bi se moralo soočiti z enako vrsto stroškov, če bi se delničarji odločili, da ustanovijo podjetje, ki je povsem neodvisno od prejšnjih dejavnosti popravila ladij, to je domneva, ki zajema začetne stroške, zlasti za nakup strojev, zaposlovanje in izobraževanje osebja ipd.
More specifically, the Commission considers that the takeover of the workforce (with no changes in the conditions regarding skills, pay and seniority) and some social security obligations (outstanding payments for holidays, ‘asbestos departures’) was merely a legal requirement of French social security legislation (similar to that in many other countries), which had been known to the investor [15].
Komisija zlasti meni, da prevzem zaposlenih z nespremenjenimi pogoji v zvezi z usposobljenostjo, plačilom in delovno dobo ter nekaterimi socialnimi obveznosti (neizplačani plačani dopusti, „odhodi zaradi azbesta“) predstavljajo preprosto pravno posledico francoske zakonodaje o socialni varnosti [15] (primerljivo glede tega s tisto številnih drugih držav), ki jo je vlagatelj poznal.
In other words, this takeover of the workforce was a condition without which the takeover of the assets could not have taken place.
Z drugimi besedami, ta prevzem je bil pogoj za prevzem sredstev.
Moreover, any costs associated with the acquired assets should have been taken into account when setting the purchase price.
Poleg tega pa bi bilo treba upoštevati vse stroške, povezane s sredstvi, ob določitvi nakupne cene.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that the workforce taken over by CMR is part of the assets taken over and not a liability.
Poleg tega Komisija opaža, da so zaposleni, ki jih je prevzelo podjetje CMR, del prevzetih sredstev in ne obveznost.
In fact, this takeover of the workforce should ease CMR’s entry into market, since it relieves the firm of the costs related to recruiting and training new staff.
Dejansko bi ta prevzem moral poenostaviti vstop podjetja CMR na trg, ker podjetje oprosti stroškov, povezanih z zaposlovanjem in usposabljanjem novega osebja.
France further argues that CMR is a company in difficulty because it exercises the same type of activity as CMdR and because it is bound by the liabilities imposed by French social security legislation, which represent a burden inherited from CMdR.
Francija je poleg tega menila, da je podjetje CMR podjetje v težavah, ker se ukvarja z enako vrsto dejavnosti kot podjetje CMdR in ker mora spoštovati obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz francoske zakonodaje o socialni varnosti, te obveznosti pa prevzete od podjetja CMdR.
Finally, France argues that the difficulties of CMdR were related to the nature of the activities it exercised.
Končno Francija meni, da so bile težave podjetja CMdR povezane z naravo dejavnosti, ki jih je to izvajalo.
However, France also notes that the existence of a single ship repair company in Marseille is in line with the needs of the market.
Kljub temu pa Francija meni tudi, da obstoj enega samega podjetja za popravilo ladij v Marseillu ustreza zahtevam trga.
It is clear that CMR is indeed, after the closure of Marine Technologie and Travofer, the only ship repair company of its sort in Marseille.
Jasno je, da je podjetje CMR po zaprtju podjetij Marine Technologie in Travofer edino podjetje za popravilo ladij v Marseillu.
Hence, the fact that CMR performs ship repair activities should not be the cause of financial difficulty, requiring restructuring.
Zato dejstvo, da podjetje CMR izvaja dejavnosti popravila ladij, ne more biti izvor finančnih težav podjetja in potrebe po prestrukturiranju.