natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Accordingly, the Commission believes that, in this particular case, the measure is indeed likely to distort trade between Member States and thus fulfils the relevant criterion.
Na podlagi vsega navedenega Komisija ocenjuje, da ima v tem primeru ukrep vpliv na izmenjavo med državami članicami in tako izpolnjuje zahtevana merila.
Advantage
Prednosti
In order to determine whether the measure confers a competitive advantage on SMVP, the Commission must assess whether State intervention places the undertaking in a better situation than if market forces had been given free rein.
Za določitev, ali ukrep podjetju SMVP omogoča konkurenčno prednost, mora Komisija preveriti, ali posredovanje države podjetju omogoča boljši položaj kot pa bi bil položaj, v katerem se je podjetje znašlo brez posredovanja države.
The fact that the State intervenes financially is not a sufficient condition to conclude that the recipient undertaking is placed at an advantage.
Obstoj finančnega posredovanja države ni zadosten pogoj za obstoj prednosti za podjetje, upravičeno do tega posredovanja.
State support can be given on the same terms as would have been accepted by a private investor in a market economy.
Zato se posredovanje države lahko izvaja pod pogoji, ki so enaki pogojem, ki jih je sprejel zasebni vlagatelj, ki deluje v tržnem gospodarstvu.
It does not, therefore, constitute an advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zato ne predstavlja prednosti v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
In the present case, it is a particularly complicated task to analyse the nature of the State’s intervention as the concession is legal in nature and lays down very dissimilar rights and obligations for each of the two parties.
V tem primeru je analiza narave posredovanja države posebej zapletena zaradi pravne narave koncesije, ki nalaga pravice in naloge, ki so za vsako od strani zelo nesimetrične.
To sum up very briefly, it can be considered from an economic viewpoint that both parties are investing in the Bioscope project, albeit with differing risks.
Hitro lahko ugotovimo, da z gospodarskega vidika v projekt Bioscope vlagata obe strani, vendar pod različnimi pogoji in tveganji.
Symbio, the public-sector player, assumes very little commercial risk whereas SMVP assumes the bulk of the risk.
Symbio, ki predstavlja glas javnosti, prevzema majhna tveganja, medtem ko SMVP prevzema večji del komercialnih tveganj.
As is only natural, the investor who takes less of a risk receives less than the investor who takes more of a risk.
Naravno je, da vlagatelj, ki manj tvega, prejme manj kot pa tisti, ki bolj tvega.
The analysis must, therefore, determine in particular whether the respective rates of return on investment are appropriate.
Analiza mora preveriti zlasti ustreznost stopnje rentabilnosti glede na vlaganja.
The Commission notes that the analysis was carried out by the independent company Rise Conseil and that its findings were sent to the Commission by France.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je to analizo izvedlo neodvisno podjetje Rise Conseil, zaključke analize pa je predložila Francija.
The analysis concludes that SMVP’s rate of return on the Bioscope project is no higher than on similar investments in purely private projects and, moreover, is similar to that on risk-free investments.
Ta analiza ugotavlja, da stopnja donosnosti projekta Bioscope za SMVP ni višja od stopnje donosnosti vlaganj za projekte, ki so v celoti v zasebni lasti. Sklepa, da je stopnja donosnosti projekta Bioscope za sindikat Symbio primerljiva s stopnjo donosnosti investicij brez tveganja.
This would suggest that, to a certain degree, the respective investors’ rates of return match the market rates of return.
To kaže na določeno ustreznost stopnje donosnosti vlaganj glede na stopnjo na trgu.
This analysis is nevertheless based on the fact that the investment by the public authorities can be expected to take a very different form to SMVP's investment.
Zato ta analiza temelji na dejstvu, da je mogoče sprejeti, da vlaganja javnih organov prevzamejo drugačno obliko od tiste, ki jo imajo vlaganja podjetja SMVP.
For the principle of a market-economy private investor to be met, it would have to be possible for another private investor, not necessarily a pleasure-park operator, to be able to make an investment similar to that made by the State.
Da se ustreže načelu zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, je treba omogočiti, da drug zasebni vlagatelj, npr. vlagatelj druge vrst kot upravljavec parka, prav tako lahko vlaga v obliki, primerljivi z državnimi vlaganji.
However, SMVP itself points out that it is highly likely, if not certain, that the project could have been launched without the participation of Symbio in this form.
Glede na ugotovitve podjetja SMVP je zelo verjetno, če ne gotovo, da projekta ne bi bilo mogoče izpeljati brez sodelovanja sindikata Symbio v taki obliki.
This tends to suggest that Symbio’s participation could not have been replaced by that of a private investor, even on identical terms (absence of any risk linked to a lower rate of return).
Zato je mogoče navesti, da sodelovanje sindikata Symbio ne more biti nadomeščeno z zasebnim vlagateljem, niti pod enakimi pogoji (odsotnost tveganja, povezanega z nižjo stopnjo pristojbine).
In the Commission’s view, this does not necessarily contradict the findings of the Rise Conseil study as the State may possess special legal instruments allowing it to intervene under conditions not accessible to private operators.
Komisija ocenjuje, da to ni nujno v nasprotju z rezultati analize podjetja Rise Conseil, ker je mogoče, da država razpolaga z izrednimi pravnimi sredstvi, ki omogočajo poseganje v pogoje, ki za zasebne akterje ne veljajo.
In the light of the above, the Commission cannot therefore rule out the existence of an advantage for SMVP.
Glede na vse obravnavano Komisija ne more izključiti obstoja koristi za podjetje SMVP.
The Court judgment in Altmark sets out four cumulative conditions which, if met, result in the classification of a measure as compensation for charges related to a service of general economic interest and not therefore as a competitive advantage.
Sklep Sodišča v zadevi Altmark navaja štiri pogoje, ki, ko so izpolnjeni, omogočajo potrditev ukrepa za nadomestilo stroškov, povezanih s storitvijo splošnega gospodarskega interesa in preklic te potrditve konkurenčne prednosti.
The first of these conditions is that ‘the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined’.
Prvi od teh pogojev je, da „je upravičeno podjetje zadolženo za izvajanje obveznosti javne storitve in [da] so te obveznosti jasno opredeljene“.
When opening the formal examination procedure, the Commission had questioned whether this condition in particular was met in the present case.
Komisija dvomi v dejstvo, da je bil ta pogoj ob začetku uradnega preiskovalnega postopka izpolnjen.
Having analysed the information provided by France and interested parties, the Commission feels that this doubt remains.
Po analizi podatkov, ki so jih predložile Francija in druge zainteresirane strani, Komisija ocenjuje, da dvoma v zvezi s to točko ne more odpraviti.
The Commission considers first of all that the Bioscope’s general educational objective, as set out for example in the preamble to the concession, is far too vague to be considered a clear definition of its public-service task.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da je pedagoški in splošnoizobraževalni cilj parka Bioscope, kot je npr. opisan v preambuli koncesije, preveč splošen, da bi ga lahko obravnavali kot jasno opredelitev naloge javne storitve.
In particular, the definition is too wide-ranging to serve as a basis for any estimation of the costs of performing this task.
Ta opredelitev je preveč široko zastavljena, da bi lahko pripomogla k oceni stroškov naloge.
The Commission also considers that France’s argument to the effect that the concession as a whole defines a public-service obligation is equally untenable.
Zato Komisija meni, da argument Francije, ki navaja, da koncesija predstavlja opredelitev obveznosti javne storitve, ni sprejemljiv.
For, the concession contains many articles which would have been entirely identical if Bioscope had not had any pedagogical or educational vocation whatsoever and which cannot therefore be said to define a public-service task.
Ta koncesija zajema več členov, ki bi bili enaki, če Bioscope ne bi vključeval izobraževalnega ali pedagoškega značaja in zato ne morejo opredeljevati naloge javne storitve.
It would, at the very least, be necessary to identify which of the concession’s articles refer to this educational vocation.
Zato je treba določiti, kateri členi koncesije veljajo za izobraževalno nalogo.
The Commission feels, however, that none of the articles are sufficiently specific in this regard, with the possible exception of the articles on special rates for certain categories of visitor, as discussed in point 92.
Ker Komisija ocenjuje, da členi niso dovolj natančno opredeljeni, razen členov v zvezi s posebnimi tarifami za nekatere kategorije uporabnikov, kot npr. v uvodni izjavi 92.
Lastly, the Commission takes the view that the articles in the concession which concern the special rates for certain categories of visitor and to which France referred might indeed be a basis for defining a service of general economic interest.
Končno Komisija ocenjuje, da so členi koncesije v zvezi s posebnimi tarifami za nekatere kategorije obiskovalcev, na kar se sklicuje Francija, lahko pravzaprav osnova za opredelitev naloge splošnega gospodarskega interesa.
It is, however, clear that these articles relate to only a fraction of Bioscope’s activity.
Zato je jasno, da ti členi veljajo le za del dejavnosti parka Bioscope.
If they were invoked with a view to defining a task of general economic interest, the scope of that task would not be sufficient to justify considering the whole project as a public-service project.
Če bi določali drugo nalogo gospodarskega interesa, obseg te naloge ne bi upravičil tega projekta kot projekta javne službe. Poleg tega obseg naloge javne službe, povezan s temi členi, ni jasen.
It is a very common business practice.
Gre za zelo razširjeno trgovinsko prakso.
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that it cannot rule out the existence of an advantage for the beneficiary undertaking and that this advantage could only very partially be covered by the notion of compensation for charges related to a task of general economic interest.
Glede na vse obravnavano Komisija ocenjuje, da ne more izključiti obstoja prednosti za upravičeno podjetje, in da je ta prednost lahko zajeta v nadomestilo stroškov naloge splošnega gospodarskega značaja le delno.
The Commission cannot therefore rule out the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty for SMVP.
Komisija torej ne more izključiti obstoja državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe v korist podjetja SMVP.
Section VII(2), however, will demonstrate that, inasmuch as State aid exists in this case, it is compatible with the Treaty.
Zato bo v delu VII(2) obrazloženo, da če ta pomoč res obstaja, je skladna s Pogodbo.
Compatibility of the aid
Usklajenost pomoči
The Commission notes that the aid is granted to an investment project located in a less-favoured area within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty (the Alsace potassic basin).
Komisija opaža, da je pomoč, dodeljena projektu vlaganja v manj razvitem območju v smislu člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe (območje s kalijevimi usedlinami v Alzaciji (bassin potassique d’Alsace)).
It is an ad hoc aid project as it is not covered by any aid scheme previously approved by the Commission.
Gre za projekt ad hoc pomoči, ker ni del nobenega režima pomoči, ki bi ga predhodno odobrila Skupnosti.
Such investment projects can sometimes be evaluated in the light of the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects.
Taki projekti vlaganj se lahko analizirajo v smislu večsektorske umestitve pomoči za regionalne namene za večje projekte vlaganj.
In this particular case, given that the date on which the aid was granted is the same as the date on which the amendment to the concession was signed, i.e. 9 July 2002, the multisectoral framework applicable is that published in 1998 [11] (the framework).
V tem primeru datum dodelitve pomoči ustreza podpisu dodatka koncesiji, 9. julij 2002, je morebitna večsektorska umestitev tista, ki je bila objavljena leta 1998 [11]. Za umestitev je v nadaljevanju imenovana „okvir“.
Point 2.1 of the framework restricts its own scope to certain projects meeting either of two specific criteria.
Točka 2.1 okvira omejuje obseg izvajanja za nekatere projekte ob preverjanju dveh določenih meril.
The first criterion is itself made up of three cumulative subcriteria:
Prvo merilo je sestavljeno iz naslednjih treh skupnih meril:
the total project cost must be at least EUR 50 million,
skupni strošek projekta mora biti vsaj 50 milijonov EUR,
the cumulative aid intensity must be at least 50 % of the regional aid ceiling for large companies in the area concerned,
intenzivnost zneskov pomoči mora biti vsaj 50 % praga pomoči za regionalni namen, določene za velika podjetja v zadevnem območju,
the aid per job created or safeguarded must amount to at least EUR 40000.
pomoč za ustvarjanje ali ohranjanje zaposlovanja mora biti najmanj 40000 EUR.
This section will demonstrate that the total cost of the project is EUR [60-65]* million and the aid intensity [7-8]* % while the aid ceiling for the area concerned is 10 %, and that the gross grant equivalent of the aid is EUR [5-10]* million, which, for the 105 jobs created, gives aid per job of EUR [45000-95000]*.
Zato je treba v tem delu prikazati, da je skupni strošek projekta [60–65]4, da je intenzivnost pomoči [7–8 %]* in da je prag za zadevno območje 10 %, in da je bruto ekvivalent subvencije [5–10]* milijonov EUR, kar za 105 novih zaposlitev ustreza pomoči za zaposlovanje [45000–95000]* EUR.
The framework is therefore applicable.
Okvir je torej ustrezen.
In order to determine whether the aid is compatible with the criteria of the framework, the Commission must firstly calculate the intensity of the aid.
Komisija mora najprej izračunati intenzivnost pomoči, če želi ugotoviti, ali je v skladu z merili okvira.
This intensity must then be compared with a maximum aid intensity calculated using the formula given in point 3.10 of the framework.
Ta intenzivnost se primerja s pragom intenzivnosti iz formule izračuna iz točke 3.10 okvira.
Aid intensity
Intenzivnost pomoči
The intensity of aid in the form of a grant is the amount of the grant expressed as a percentage of eligible costs.
Intenzivnost pomoči, dodeljene v obliki subvencije je razmerje med subvencijo in upravičenimi stroški.
When aid is other than in the form of a grant, the grant equivalent must first be calculated before being expressed in terms of the eligible costs.
Ker je pomoč dodeljena v obliki subvencije, mora biti preoblikovana v ekvivalent subvencije, da lahko velja za upravičene stroške.
In this case, the aid granted by the State is complex in nature.
Državna pomoč v tem primeru je sestavljena.
There is not only a grant element, but other elements too, both positive and negative, deriving from the rights and obligations of each of the parties to the concession.
Zajema element subvencije, vendar tudi druge elemente, pozitivne in negativne, ki izhajajo iz pravic in nalog vsake podpisnice koncesije.
All these elements need to be taken into account in calculating the grant equivalent of the aid.
Zato je treba upoštevati vse elemente za izračun ekvivalenta subvencije pomoči.
The following table summarises the elements of the concession in question and their positive and negative impact on the aid granted to SMVP.
Naslednja tabela povzema načela zadevne koncesije in njen pozitiven ali negativen vpliv na pomoč, dodeljeno podjetju SMVP.
Element of the concession
Načelo koncesije
Impact on SMVP
Vpliv na podjetje SMVP
State participation in the initial investment
Sodelovanje države pri začetnem vlaganju
Positive
Pozitiven
Provision of land
Zemljišče, ki je dano na razpolago
Payment of a charge to the State
Plačilo pristojbine državi
Negative
Negativen
Return of the property to the State at the end of the concession
Vračilo premoženja državi po koncu koncesije
In order to calculate the gross grant equivalent of the aid, each of these elements must be quantified and the algebraic sum worked out.
Za oceno bruto ekvivalenta subvencije pomoči je treba količinsko opredeliti vsakega od teh elementov in sešteti vsoto.
The Commission has used the information at its disposal, particularly that contained in the Rise Conseil report, to quantify these elements.
Za količinsko opredelitev elementov je Komisija uporabila podatke, ki so na voljo, zlasti podatke, ki jih vsebuje poročilo podjetja Rise Conseil.
The State’s participation in the initial investment is easy to calculate: it totals EUR 30,5 million. The State will pay this amount in instalments over 10 years, which means that this amount must be discounted to its present value.
Sodelovanje države pri začetnem vlaganju je enostavno oceniti: določeno je na 30,5 milijonov EUR. Prispevek države bo izplačan po obrokih v obdobju 10 let.
In order to do this, the Commission has used the reference and discount rate that it recommended for use by France on the date on which the aid was granted.
Treba ga je torej posodobiti. Za to je Komisija uporabila referenčno in diskontno stopnjo, ki jo je priporočila Franciji na dan odobritve pomoči.
This rate is 5,06 % and is used in all the following calculations.
Ta stopnja je 5,06 %. Uporablja se v vseh izračunih, ki sledijo.
The discounted value of the State’s participation in the initial investment is EUR 25,933 million.
Dejanska vrednost sodelovanja države pri začetnem vlaganju je 25,933 milijonov EUR.
It should also be noted that this grant is the State’s only participation in the investments in Bioscope.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da edino država pri vlaganjih v Bioscope sodeluje v obliki subvencij.
All subsequent investments are the financial responsibility of SMVP.
Nadaljnja vlaganja nosi podjetje SVMP.
The provision of land, i.e. the value of the rent not paid by SMVP, is estimated to be EUR 6,718 million. This calculation is based on the value of the proposed land in the Pulversheim area near Bioscope (EUR 10 to 12/m2) and on an annual rate of land rent of 8 %, as defined by the General Taxation Directorate in France.
Dajanje zemljišča na razpolago, ta najemnina, ki jo podjetju SMVP ni treba plačati, je ocenjena na 6,718 milijonov EUR. Ta izračun temelji na vrednosti zemljišča v območju Pulversheim, ki je blizu parku Bioscope (med 10 in 12 EUR/m2) in stopnji letne najemnine za zemljišče v višini 8 %, kot to določa Generalni direktorat za davke.
The total charge payable by SMVP to Symbio is put at EUR 7,295 million. This figure is based on the estimated turnover given in Bioscope’s business plan, which was sent to the Commission.
Skupna vrednost pristojbine, ki jo sindikatu Symbio plača podjetje SMVP, je ocenjena na 7,295 milijonov EUR. Ta vrednost temelji na številkah, ki jih je v poslovnem načrtu, ki je bil posredovan Komisiji, predvidel park Bioscope.
Quantifying the effect of returning the property to the State is more difficult.
Količinska opredelitev vrnitve premoženja državi je bolj zapletena.
The effect is clearly unfavourable to SMVP.
Jasno je, da ima ta vpliv za podjetje SMVP negativne učinke.
With a traditional grant, the beneficiary is and remains the owner of its investment and has full use of it.
V položaju klasične subvencije upravičenec do pomoči ostane lastnik vlaganj, od katerih ima korist.
In particular, it can sell it on the market.
Zlasti lahko prodaja na trgu.
In this particular case, Bioscope is returned to the State in its entirety, goodwill included, at the end of the 30-year concession [12].
V tem primeru bo po preteku 30 let Bioscope v celoti vrnjen državi, vključno s poslovno vrednostjo [12].
Compared with a traditional grant, SMVP thus forgoes the value of this property, which corresponds to the price at which it could have sold it on the market (discounted, of course, to the initial date).
Glede na klasičen položaj podjetje SMVP izgublja vrednost teh sredstev, ki ustreza ceni, za katero bi podjetje lahko park prodalo na trgu (dejanska cena na začetni datum).
The Commission thus considers that this selling price forgone by SMVP can be used to assess the value of the negative effect of returning the property to the State, as required by the concession.
Komisija ocenjuje, da to prodajno ceno, ki jo podjetje SMVP izgubi, lahko uporabi za ocenitev vrednosti negativnih učinkov, ki jih bo imela vrnitev sredstev državi, kot je predvideno v koncesiji.
Two distinct methods have been used to calculate this selling price: the gross operating surplus multiple method and the free cash flow method.
Za izračun prodajne cene sta bili uporabljeni dve različni metodi: metoda mnogokratnika bruto presežka uporabe in metoda prostih denarnih tokov.
The first method consists of valuing the undertaking as a multiple of its normative gross operating surplus.
Prva metoda oceni podjetje glede na mnogokratnik vrednosti bruto presežka predpisane uporabe.
The multiple depends on the sector and is estimated on the basis of published financial data on recent transactions.
Mnogokratnik je odvisen od sektorja in ocenjen na podlagi zadnjih transakcij, za katere so finančni podatki javni.
The Rise Conseil analysis of the values of multiples observed in recent transactions in this sector for which sufficient financial data have been published shows multiples varying between 6,3 [13] and 13,25 [14], with an average of 8,71.
Analiza podjetja Rise Conseil za vrednost mnogokratnika iz zadnjih transakcij v sektorju prinaša dovolj finančnih podatkov, ki so javno objavljeni, da prikazujejo mnogokratnike med 6,3 [13] in 13,25 [14], s povprečjem 8,71.
Applying this average multiple to Bioscope values it at EUR [15-20]* million [15].
Uporaba tega povprečnega mnogokratnika v primeru parka Bioscope pripelje do vrednosti podjetja v višini [15–20]* milijonov EUR [15].
The second method consists in determining a normative cash flow for the undertaking for the period following the start of the concession and in assuming that the undertaking has the same value as a hypothetical company producing such a cash flow in perpetuity.
Druga metoda je sestavljena iz določanja prostega denarnega toka, ki je za podjetje predpisano v obdobju po začetku koncesije, in upoštevanja da je vrednost podjetja stalna.
In order to calculate this, an assumption as to the cash-flow perpetuity rate has to be made.
Ta izračun je nujen za hipotezo o stopnji trajanja denarnih tokov.
The Rise Conseil study of financial analyses of recent transactions gives assumptions for perpetuity levels of between 1 [16] and 3,5 % [17], with an average of 2,2 %.
Študija podjetja Rise Conseil o finančni analizi zadnjih transakcij kaže, da hipoteza o stopnji trajanja variira med 1 % [16] in 3,5 % [17], s povprečjem 2,2 %.
Moreover, perpetuity levels are generally estimated to be of a similar order of magnitude as the economic growth rate.
Poleg tega je stopnja trajanja enaka stopnji rasti gospodarstva.
Given that France's economic growth in recent years has been between 1 and 3 %, the Commission takes the view that a value of 2,2 % can be applied for the perpetuity rate.
Ta stopnja je bila v Franciji v zadnjih 10 letih med 1 % in 3 %, Komisija pa ocenjuje, da je vrednost 2,2 % za stopnji trajanja mogoče ohraniti.
Applying this method on the aforementioned assumptions gives a value of EUR [15-20]* million for the undertaking [18].
Uporaba te metode pri zgoraj omenjenih hipotezah pripelje do vrednosti podjetja v višini [15–20]* milijonov EUR [18].
This figure is similar to the first, an indication of the coherence of these two economic approaches.
Ta vrednost je podobna predhodni, kar ponazarja usklajenost teh dveh ekonomskih pristopov.