natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This Decision shall be reviewed, as regards the duties referred to in Article 1(1), at the earliest after a period of three years following the establishment of the School.
Ta sklep se ponovno preuči, kar zadeva naloge, določene v členu 1(1) najkasneje po preteku treh let po ustanovitvi Šole.
Any changes to these duties shall require the unanimous agreement of the Secretaries-General, the Registrar of the Court of Justice and the Representative of the Ombudsman on the basis of a relevant proposal adopted by the Management Board by a qualified majority as defined in Article 5(6) of Decision 2002/621/EC in the light of a detailed report prepared by the Principal.
Za morebitno revizijo nalog je potrebno soglasje generalnih sekretarjev, sodnega tajnika Sodišča in predstavnika varuha človekovih pravic na predlog, ki ga je v ta namen sprejel upravni odbor s kvalificirano večino, kot je določeno v členu 5(6) Sklepa 2002/621/ES na podlagi podrobnega poročila direktorja.
Review of the attachment to the Office
Revizija priključitve Uradu
At the latest at the end of the School’s third year of activity, the Head of the Office shall prepare a detailed report to the Management Board regarding the administrative attachment of the School to the Office.
Najkasneje ob koncu tretjega leta dejavnosti Šole pripravi direktor Urada za upravni odbor podrobno poročilo v zvezi z upravno priključitvijo Šole Uradu.
The Management Board may decide to end this attachment by a decision taken in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 4(3) of the Decision setting up the School.
Upravni odbor bo moral s sklepom, sprejetim na način, določen v členu 4(3) Sklepa o ustanovitvi Šole, končati to priključitev.
Where the Management Board decides that the attachment should continue, its decision shall include a reasoned opinion.
V primeru da se upravni odbor odloči za nadaljevanje priključitve, bo moralo biti temu sklepu priloženo utemeljeno mnenje.
Where the Management Board decides under the procedure provided for in paragraph 1 that the attachment shall be renewed, it shall indicate in the decision the date by which it will re-examine the matter.
Če se upravni odbor odloči v skladu s postopkom, določenim v odstavku 1, da podaljša to priključitev, v svojem sklepu navede, kdaj bo ponovno preučil to vprašanje.
The Secretary-General
Generalni sekretar
The Deputy General Secretary
Pomočnik generalnega sekretarja
The Registrar
Sodni tajnik
See page 14 of this Official Journal.
Glej stran 14 tega uradnega lista.
Council Decision 2002/60/EC of 22 January 2002 appointed the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions [1].
Svet je 22. januarja 2002 sprejel Sklep 2002/60/ES [1] o imenovanju članov in nadomestnih članov Odbora regij.
a seat as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Ms Maria Theresia OPLADEN, notified to the Council on 29 November 2004,
Zaradi odstopa ge. Marie Theresie OPLADEN, o katerem je bil Svet obveščen 29. novembra 2004, se je izpraznilo mesto nadomestnega člana Odbora regij –
Mr Hans-Josef VOGEL, Bürgermeister der Stadt Arnsberg, is hereby appointed alternate member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Ms Maria Theresia OPLADEN for the remainder of her term of office, which runs until 25 January 2006.
Hans-Josef VOGEL, Bürgermeister der Stadt Arnsberg, je imenovan za nadomestnega člana Odbora regij, kjer za preostanek mandata, tj. do 25. januarja 2006, nadomesti go. Mario Theresio OPLADEN.
appointing one Portuguese member and two Portuguese alternate members of the Committee of the Regions
o imenovanju portugalskega člana in dveh portugalskih nadomestnih članov Odbora regij
Having regard to the proposal from the Portuguese Government,
ob upoštevanju predloga portugalske vlade,
Council Decision 2002/60/EC of 22 January 2002 appointed the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions [1],
Svet je 22. januarja 2002 sprejel Sklep 2002/60/ES [1] o imenovanju članov in nadomestnih članov Odbora regij.
one seat as a member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Pedro SANTANA LOPES, notified to the Council on 22 July 2004, and one seat as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Roberto de Sousa Rocha AMARAL, notified to the Council on 7 December 2004, and one seat as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the nomination of Mr Manuel do Nascimento MARTINS as a member,
Mesto člana Odbora regij se je sprostilo po odstopu g. Pedra SANTANE LOPES-a, o katerem je bil Svet obveščen 22. julija 2004; mesto nadomestnega člana Odbora regij se je sprostilo po odstopu Roberta de Sousa Rocha AMARAL-a, o čemer je bil Svet obveščen 7. decembra 2004; mesto nadomestnega člana Odbora regij se je sprostilo, ker je bil g. Manuel do Nascimento MARTINS predlagan za člana –
The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions:
Imenujejo se naslednji člani in nadomestni člani Odbora regij:
in place of Mr Pedro SANTANA LOPES;
namesto g. Pedro SANTANA LOPES-a
as alternate members:
nadomestna člana:
Secretário regional da Presidência da Região Autónoma dos Açores
Secretário regional da Presidęncia da Regiăo Autónoma dos Açores,
in place of Mr Roberto AMARAL;
namesto g. Roberta AMARAL-a
in place of Mr Manuel do Nascimento MARTINS;
namesto g. Manuela do Nascimento MARTINS
on the State aid which the Netherlands is planning to implement in favour of four shipyards to support six shipbuilding contracts
o državni pomoči, ki jo Nizozemska namerava nameniti za šest pogodb o gradnji ladij v štirih ladjedelnicah
(notified under document number C(2004) 2213)
(notificirana pod dokumentarno številko K(2004) 2213)
Having regard to the Commission Framework on State aid to shipbuilding [1],
ob upoštevanju okvira Komisije državne pomoči za ladjedelnice [1],
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments [2], pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu zainteresiranim strankam k predložitvi njihovih pripomb [2] na podlagi zgoraj navedenih določb in ob upoštevanju njihovih pripomb,
By letters dated 9 September 2002, The Netherlands notified the Commission of the aid.
Z dopisom z dne 9. septembra 2002 je Nizozemska uradno obvestila Komisijo o pomoči.
By letters dated 30 January 2003, 16 May 2003, 16 July 2003 and 16 September 2003, it provided the Commission with further information.
Z dopisi z dne 30. januarja 2003, 16. maja 2003, 16. julija 2003 in 16. septembra 2003 pa je omenjena država Komisiji posredovala dodatne informacije.
By letter dated 11 November 2003, the Commission informed The Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid.
Z dopisom z dne 11. novembra 2003 je Komisija obvestila Nizozemsko o svoji odločitvi, da začne postopek določen v členu 88(2) Pogodbe ES v zvezi z omenjeno pomočjo.
The Netherlands replied by letters dated 28 November 2003 and 12 December 2003.
Nizozemska je odgovorila z dopisoma z dne 28. novembra 2003 in 12. decembra 2003.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Odločitev Komisije za začetek postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.
Komisija je zainteresirane stranke pozvala, naj o pomoči predložijo svoje pripombe.
The Commission received comments from interested parties.
Komisija je prejela pripombe zainteresiranih strank.
It forwarded them to The Netherlands, which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received by letter dated 23 March 2004.
Posredovala jih je Nizozemski, ki je dobila priložnost za odziv; njene pripombe je Komisija prejela v dopisu z dne 23. marca 2004.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID
PODROBEN OPIS POMOČI
The notifications propose to give aid for a total of EUR 21,6 million, in the form of grants, in support of six shipbuilding contracts to four Dutch shipyards: Bodewes Scheepswerven BV; Bodewes Scheepswerven Volharding Foxhol; Scheepswerf Visser; and Scheepswerf de Merwede.
Uradna obvestila se nanašajo na predlagano pomoč, ki v celoti znaša 21,6 milijona EUR v obliki nepovratnih sredstev, v korist šestih pogodb o gradnji ladij štirih nizozemskih ladjedelnic: Bodewes Scheepswerven BV; Bodewes Scheepswerven Volharding Foxhol; Scheepswerf Visser; in Scheepswerf de Merwede.
The aid has been offered to the yards, subject to the Commission’s approval.
Omenjenim ladjedelnicam je bila ponujena pomoč, ob upoštevanju potrebnega odobritve s strani Komisije.
The purpose of the notified aid is to match aid allegedly offered by Spain to certain private Spanish shipyards which competed for the contracts referred to above.
Namen priglašene pomoči je izenačitev s pomočjo, ki jo je Španija domnevno ponudila določenim zasebnim španskim ladjedelnicam, ki so se potegovale za zgoraj omenjene pogodbe.
According to The Netherlands, the alleged Spanish aid implied a price discount of between 9 and 13 %.
Nizozemska trdi, da je domnevna španska pomoč povzročila med 9 in 13 % nižjo ceno.
The Dutch shipyards received all the concerned orders and the ships are under construction or have already been delivered.
Podrobnosti priglašene pomoči Nizozemske so predstavljene v spodnji tabeli.
Details of the notified Dutch aid are presented in table 1 below.
TABELA 1
Notification No
Št. uradnega obvestila
Beneficiary Shipyard
Upravičena ladjedelnica
Ships
Ladje
4 container ships
4 ladje za prevoz kontejnerjev
3 ro-ro vessels
3 ro-ro plovila
Arctic Trawler
arktično plovilo z vlečnimi mrežami
4 multi-purpose freight vessels
4 večnamenska tovorna plovila
6 container ships
6 ladij za prevoz kontejnerjev
2 hopper dredgers
2 plavajoča bagra
Legal basis — the aid scheme
Pravna podlaga – shema pomoči
According to the Netherlands, the proposed aid may be granted under the so-called heavy matching provisions (Matchingfonds zwaar) of the Decision on export credit subsidies (Besluit subsidies exportfinancieringsarrangementen, hereinafter called BSE), as first approved by the Commission, letter of 24 June 1992 (SG(92) D/8272 — aid number N 134/92) [4].
Po trditvah Nizozemske je predlagana pomoč lahko odobrena le pod t. i. pogoji strogega ujemanja (Matchingfonds zwaar) Sklepa o izvoznih kreditnih subvencijah (Besluit subsidies exportfinancieringsarrangementen, v nadaljnjem besedilu „BSE“), kakor ga je prvotno odobrila Komisija s pismom z dne 24. junija 1992 (SG (92) D/8272 – številka pomoči N 134/92) [4].
The BSE was subject to various amendments, among which the most important was approved by the Commission in a letter dated 12 December 1997, reference SG(97) D/10395 (aid number N 337/97) [5].
BSE je bil večkrat dopolnjen, najpomembnejšo dopolnitev je Komisija odobrila s pismom z dne 12. decembra 1997, pod številko SG (97) D/10395 (številka pomoči N 337/97) [5].
In this decision the scheme was approved for the period of 1997 to the end of 2002.
V tej odločbi je bila shema odobrena za obdobje od 1997 do konca leta 2002.
Grounds for initiating the procedure
Razlogi za začetek postopka
The opening of the procedure addressed doubts in the following areas:
Začetna faza postopka se je dotaknila dvomov na naslednjih področjih:
the Commission considered that granting aid to match alleged illegal aid from another EC Member State is contrary to the EC Treaty and therefore had doubts that the notified aid could be compatible.
Komisija je menila, da je pomoč, ki bi izenačila domnevne nedovoljene pomoči iz druge države članice ES, v nasprotju s Pogodbo ES in da obstajajo dvomi o združljivosti priglašene pomoči.
In this context it had doubts that the approval of the Dutch scheme included the right to match aid provided from another EU Member State;
V tem kontekstu je Komisija tudi izrazila dvom, da je odobritev nizozemske sheme vključevala pravico do sprejetja vsebinsko enake pomoči s strani druge države članice ES;
even if the scheme would allow for such intra-EU matching, the Commission had doubts as to the fulfilment of the procedures in establishing the existence of illegal aid to match;
tudi v primeru, če bi shema dovoljevala tako dodeljevanje vsebinsko enakih pomoči med državami EU, bi imela Komisija dvome o izvedbi postopkov za ugotavljanje obstoja nezakonite pomoči, za katero naj bi se dodelila vsebinsko enaka pomoč;
the Commission further had doubts that the aid could be approved on the basis of Article 3(4) of the shipbuilding Regulation [6], since that Article concerns export credits to shipowners while the Netherlands notified grants to the shipyards.
Komisija je tudi dvomila, da bi bila pomoč lahko odobrena na osnovi člena 3(4) Uredbe o ladjedelništvu [6], ker se navedeni člen nanaša na izvozne kredite ladjarjem, medtem ko je Nizozemska priglasila nepovratna sredstva ladjedelnicam.
Comments were received from the representative of the beneficiaries and from a party requesting his identity not to be disclosed.
Pripombe zainteresiranih subjektov so prišle s strani predstavnika upravičencev in stranke, ki je zahtevala anonimnost.
All these parties argue that the aid should be approved, stressing among other things that the Commission had approved the matching scheme, that the presented proof of the alleged Spanish aid was sufficient, and that the Spanish denial that the aid would be available was not sufficiently explicit.
Vse stranke trdijo, da bi pomoč morala biti odobrena, in med drugim poudarjajo, da je Komisija že odobrila shemo o dodeljevanju vsebinsko enake pomoči, da je bil predstavljeni dokaz o domnevni španski pomoči zadosten in da špansko zanikanje obstoja omenjene pomoči ni bilo dovolj eksplicitno.
The representative of the beneficiaries further argued that there is nothing in the Commission’s decisions approving the scheme, or in the text of the scheme, that suggests that the matching would only be allowed if the competitor originates from a third (non-EU) country.
Zastopnik upravičencev je še trdil, da v odločbah Komisije o odobritvi sheme oziroma v besedilu sheme ni nikjer omenjeno, da je vsebinsko enaka pomoč dovoljena le, če konkurenca prihaja iz tretje države (države, ki ni članica EU).
It also argues that the planned aid is based on an approved scheme and therefore is existing aid, which therefore should not be assessed on the basis of the shipbuilding Regulation.
Poleg tega omenjena stranka meni, da zadevna pomoč temelji na odobreni shemi in torej velja za že obstoječo pomoč in tako ne bi smela biti ovrednotena na osnovi Uredbe o ladjedelništvu.
COMMENTS FROM THE NETHERLANDS
PRIPOMBE NIZOZEMSKE
The Netherlands claims to have acted within the rules (the BSE scheme) governing heavy matching, which were authorised by the Commission and which are in accordance with the relevant OECD procedures.
Nizozemska trdi, da je delovala v okviru pravil (shema BSE) o strogem ujemanju, ki so bila odobrena s strani Komisije in so v skladu z ustreznimi postopki OECD.
The Netherlands maintains that the BSE scheme does not exclude matching against alleged aid provided by another EU Member State and that the procedures have shown with sufficient certainty that there was indeed Spanish aid.
Nizozemska vztraja, da shema BSE ne izključuje dodeljevanja vsebinsko ustrezne pomoči za domnevno pomoč, ki bi jo zagotovila druga država članica EU in da so ustrezni postopki z zadostno gotovostjo pokazali, da je španska pomoč dejansko obstajala.
The Netherlands therefore considers that it is entitled to proceed with the matching and that the beneficiaries have legitimate expectations to receive the aid.
Nizozemska tako meni, da je upravičena do dodeljevanja vsebinsko ustrezne pomoči in da upravičenci upravičeno pričakujejo, da jo bodo prejeli.
The Netherlands also considers that the aid is existing aid, since it is based on an approved scheme, and the fact that the Dutch authorities nevertheless decided to notify these cases was due to an Exchange of Letters between the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and the Commissioner in charge of Competition.
Nizozemska je tudi mnenja, da omenjena pomoč velja za že obstoječo, saj temelji na odobreni shemi, in meni, da so se nizozemski organi kljub temu odločili, da uradno obvestijo Komisijo o teh primerih, le zaradi izmenjave pisem med nizozemskim ministrom za gospodarstvo in komisarjem za varovanje konkurence.
The Dutch authorities consider that the Commission, in this case, should have presented to the Netherlands a recommendation containing appropriate measures before launching a formal investigation procedure.
Nizozemski organi menijo, da bi Komisija v tem primeru morala Nizozemski izdati priporočila, ki bi vsebovala ustrezne ukrepe pred začetkom formalnega preiskovalnega postopka.
Finally, the Netherlands considers that the Commission’s doubts, based on Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 (the shipbuilding Regulation), concerning the right to provide grants to shipyards instead of credit facilities to shipowners, are unfounded since the legal basis should be the Council decisions based on the OECD export credit rules.
Poleg tega je mnenje Nizozemske, da so dvomi Komisije, ki temeljijo na členu 3(4) Uredbe ES št. 1540/98 (Uredba o ladjedelništvu), glede pravice do dodeljevanja nepovratnih sredstev ladjedelnicam namesto dajanja kreditov ladjarjem, neosnovani, ker bi pravna podlaga morale biti odločbe Sveta, ki temeljijo na izvoznih kreditnih pravilih OECD.
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
V. OVREDNOTENJE POMOČI
Legal basis for the assessment
Pravna podlaga za ovrednotenje
According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, 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 common market.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
Pursuant to established case-law of the European courts, the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries out an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
V skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso evropskih sodišč velja, da je trgovina prizadeta, če gospodarska dejavnost podjetja prejemnika pomoči vključuje trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission notes that the Netherlands intends to grant subsidies to four shipyards for the construction of vessels, as detailed above.
Komisija je poudarila, da Nizozemska namerava podeliti subvencije štirim ladjedelnicam za izdelavo plovil, kakor je opisano zgoraj.
The Commission notes, therefore, that the beneficiaries are involved in an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
Komisija zato dodaja, da so upravičenci vključeni v gospodarsko dejavnost, ki vključuje trgovino med državami članicami.
The alleged ‘raison d'être’ of the measures is indeed (unfair) competition from shipyards of another Member State.
Domnevni razlog za ukrepe je nedvomno (nepoštena) konkurenca s strani ladjedelnic druge države članice.
The Commission considers that the notified aid falls within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija je v skladu s tem prepričana, da priglašena pomoč spada na področje uporabe določb člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
According to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered to be compatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES se pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi, lahko šteje kot združljivo s skupnim trgom.
Based on this Article, the BSE scheme was approved in 1992 and was modified in 1997. However, it was stated in the general provision that requests for subsidies will be turned down if they are in contravention of the EEC Treaty.
Na podlagi tega člena je bila leta 1992 odobrena shema BSE, leta 1997 spremenjena, ter s splošno določbo, ki zahteva, da bodo prošnje za subvencije zavrnjene, če bodo le te v nasprotju s pogodbo EGS.
Furthermore, the Commission has clarified its interpretation of the rules on state aid applicable to shipbuilding in its Framework on State aid to shipbuilding, which is applicable from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006.
Poleg tega je Komisija z okvirom državne pomoči za ladjedelnice razjasnila svoje pojmovanje pravil o državni pomoči za ladjedelnice, ki se uporablja od 1. januarja 2004 do 31. decembra 2006.
Previously, State aid to shipbuilding was regulated by the shipbuilding Regulation.
Pred tem se je državna pomoč ladjedelnicam urejala z Uredbo o ladjedelništvu.
Assessment of whether the aid is contrary to general principles of EC law
Ovrednotenje, ali je pomoč v nasprotju s splošnimi načeli zakonodaje ES
The principle that a Member State should not act on its own to counter the effects of unlawful aid from another Member State has been clearly established by the Court.
Načelo, ki pravi, da se država članica učinkom nezakonite pomoči s strani druge države članice ne sme zoperstaviti sama, je jasna politika Sodišča.
Specifically, the Court has held that it is not possible to justify an aid on the ground that other Member States have granted illegal aid [7].
Le-to izrecno podpira stališče, da ni možno upravičiti pomoči na osnovi tega, da so druge države članice odobrile nezakonito pomoč [7].
The Commission observes that the notified aid aims at matching alleged illegal aid from another EC Member State.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je cilj priglašene pomoči dodelitev vsebinsko ustrezne pomoči za domnevno nelegalno pomoč druge države članice.
This is therefore contrary to the general principles of the EC Treaty.
To je v nasprotju s splošnimi načeli Pogodbe ES.
The notified aid is incompatible with the EC Treaty and should therefore not be authorised.
Priglašena pomoč je torej nezdružljiva z omenjeno pogodbo in ne sme biti odobrena.
Assessment whether the aid could be approved based on the BSE scheme
Ovrednotenje, ali se pomoč lahko odobri na osnovi sheme BSE
Since the Netherlands argues that the aid would be compatible with the BSE scheme, and therefore compatible with the EC treaty, this issue has also been assessed by the Commission.
Glede na to, da Nizozemska trdi, da bi bila pomoč združljiva s shemo BSE in s tem združljiva s Pogodbo ES, je treba ta problem prav tako posebej ovrednotiti.
The Commission can conclude that the notified aid cannot be authorised under this scheme for two reasons.
Komisija lahko sklene, da priglašena pomoč v okviru te sheme ne more biti odobrena iz dveh razlogov.
Firstly, the Commission’s approval of the BSE scheme expired by the end of 2002.
Prvič zato, ker se je shema BSE iztekla s koncem leta 2003.
Since the Commission must base its decisions for notified State aid on the legislation in force at the time of its decision, it is not possible to authorise any aid based on an aid scheme for which the approval has expired.
Glede na to, da mora Komisija svoje odločbe o priglašeni državni pomoči osnovati na veljavni zakonodaji v času sprejetja odločbe, ni mogoče odobriti kakršne koli pomoči, ki temelji na shemi pomoči, katerega veljavnost je že potekla.
Secondly, even if the aid scheme had not expired, the Commission considers that the aid scheme in question did not authorise aid to match alleged aid from another Member State.
Drugič, Komisija meni, da ne glede na to, če bi bila shema pomoči še vedno veljavna, zadevna shema pomoči ni odobrila vsebinsko enake pomoči za domnevno pomoč druge države članice.