natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Spain also states that if any advantage could be proven to have benefited Bazán in transfer 2, the military nature of Bazán puts doubts as to whether Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty applies, given the exception provided in Article 296 of the EC Treaty.
Španija tudi meni, da čeprav bi se lahko dokazalo, da se je družba Bazán z drugim prevzemom kakor koli okoristila, bi vojaški značaj družbe Bazán podvomil v veljavnost člena 88(2) Pogodbe, upoštevajoč izjemo določeno v členu 296 Pogodbe ES.
It is also claimed that the price used in an internal transaction within a group does not necessarily have to be market based.
Trdijo tudi, da ni nujno, da cena, ki so jo določili v medsebojnih pogajanjih znotraj družbe, temelji na cenah skupnega trga.
However, Spain furthermore claims that in the transactions under consideration the prices used (ESP 1 each) were fully reasonable and reflected the values of the concerned shipyards.
V nadaljevanju Španija trdi, da so bile cene (ena španska pezeta), določene v zadevnih transakcijah popolnoma razumljive in so bile odraz tržne vrednosti zadevnih ladjedelnic.
A market investor would not have paid more, and the use of a price equal to the book value would not have been appropriate in this situation.
Tržni vlagatelj ne bi plačal več in določitev cene, ki bi bila enaka knjigovodski vrednosti, v teh okoliščinah ne bi bila primerna.
Spain argues that as a general principle, the reorganisation of activities within the same group does not affect the competitive situation of the new emerging company, or of the companies which are integrated in this new company.
Španija trdi, da v skladu s splošnim načelom preureditev dejavnosti znotraj iste skupine ni vplivala na konkurenčno stanje nove, pred kratkim ustanovljene gospodarske družbe ali na družbe, ki jo sestavljajo.
Spain in this respect refers to Court Cases 61/79 Denkavit Italiana [9], C-387/92 Banco Exterior de España [10] and C-200/97 Ecotrade and Altiformi [11].
V zvezi s tem se Španija sklicuje na sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske skupnosti v njenih sodbah z dne 27. marca 1980, primer 61/79, Denkavit Italiana [9], z dne 15. marca 1994, primer C-387/92, Banco Exterior de España [10] in z dne 1. decembra 1998, primer C-200/97, Ecotrade/Altiformi [11].
As an ancillary defence, in case the Commission would consider the price too low and therefore constituting an aid to Bazán/IZAR, Spain refers to a Commission decision [12] of 27 July 1994. In this decision it is stated that although a price paid for the transfer of a car plant between two entities of Treuhand was probably too low, the Commission considered this to be irrelevant as it concerned an internal transaction within Treuhand.
V dodatno obrambo, v primeru da bi Komisija določila prenizko ceno in bi se zato štela kot pomoč družbi Bazán/IZAR, se Španija sklicuje na odločbo Komisije z dne 27. julija 1994 [12], kjer je določeno, da bi, čeprav bi bila cena za prevzem tovarne avtomobilov med dvema podružnicama Treuhand najbrž prenizka, Komisija ocenila, da je to nepomembno, saj je vplivala na transakcijo znotraj družbe Treuhand.
Spain further argued that no reasonable market price exists, and failing this, the Commission has not been able to determine the suspected State aid, as is required according to the procedural regulation, the jurisprudence and the Commission’s own practice.
Španija je prav tako zatrjevala, da ni bilo nobene razumljive tržne cene in zato Komisija ni mogla določiti sporne državne pomoči, kakršno določa Uredba (ES) št. 659/1999, sodna praksa in lastna praksa Komisije.
Spain furthermore provided information on the book value of the concerned yards, and the economic risks estimated for each of these yards.
Španija je nadalje predložila poročilo o knjigovodski vrednosti zadevnih ladjedelnic in o vrednostih gospodarskih tveganja, ocenjenih za vsako izmed njih.
The risks were divided into three elements; economic risk in existing contracts, economic risk of under-utilisation of capacity and other economic risks (commercial, labour related and fiscal).
Vrednosti tveganj so bile razdeljene v tri sklope: vrednosti gospodarskega tveganja v obstoječih pogodbah, gospodarskega tveganja zaradi neizkoriščenosti zmogljivosti in drugih gospodarskih tveganj (tržnih, vezanih na delovno silo in davčnih).
Spain claimed that by using the book value as a reference, and deducting the estimated risks, the price of ESP 1 per company reflects the real value, and thus no advantage to the buyer Bazán/IZAR (See table 1).
Španija je trdila, da je, sklicujoč se na knjigovodske vrednosti in ob upoštevanju ocenjenih vrednosti tveganj, cena ene španske pezete za gospodarsko družbo odraz realne vrednosti in zato kupec, družba Bazán/IZAR, ni imela nikakršne koristi (glej Tabelo 1).
Book values and risks related to the individual transactions in July 2000
Knjigovodske vrednosti in vrednost tveganj, vezane na posamezne transakcije julija 2000
Company
Gospodarska družba
Book value
Knjigovodska vrednost
Estimated risks
Ocenjena vrednost tveganja
Estimated net value
Ocenjena neto vrednost
Companies sold by AESA to Bazán
Gospodarske družbe, ki jih je družba AESA prodala družbi Bazán
Companies sold by SEPI to Bazán
Gospodarske družbe, ki jih je družba SEPI prodala družbi Bazán
In reaction to the Danish comments Spain considered that the comments on the aid to Bazán fall outside the scope of the procedure and thus are irrelevant.
Kot odgovor na pripombe Danske v zvezi s pomočjo družbi Bazán je Španija menila, da le-te ne vplivajo na ta postopek in zato niso povezane s tem.
Spain furthermore denied the allegations that the transactions between AESA and SEPI constituted aid as they did not contain any unjustified flow of funds.
Nadalje je Španija zanikala obtožbe, da se transakciji med družbama AESA in SEPI štejeta kot državna pomoč, saj nista bili deležni nikakršnega neupravičenega priliva iz skladov.
Finally Spain states that the problems faced by Danish shipyards are not due to competition from Spanish yards but from unfair competition from Korea.
Na koncu Španija izjavlja, da problemi, s katerimi se soočajo danske ladjedelnice, niso posledice konkurenčnosti španskih ladjedelnic, ampak nelojalne konkurence iz Koreje.
Concerning the comments received from the UK, Spain expresses surprise over allegations of cross subsidies between military and civil production since it alleges that the UK has many yards with mixed civil/military production.
V zvezi s pripombami s strani Združenega kraljestva je Španija presenečena nad obtožbami o navzkrižnih subvencijah med vojaško in civilno proizvodnjo, saj trdi, da ima Združeno kraljestvo veliko ladjedelnic s kombinirano civilno in vojaško proizvodnjo.
It also denies that Spanish shipyards have benefited from any measure that has not been authorised by the European Commission.
Zanika tudi, da bi se španske ladjedelnice okoristile s kakršnim koli ukrepom, ki ga ne bi odobrila Evropska komisija.
Comments following the second extension
Pripombe po drugi širitvi
Following the second extension of the procedure, Spain provided the Commission with the following arguments on why, in its view, no State aid was involved in the loans and capital injections noted by the Commission.
Španija je po drugem postopku širitve Komisiji predložila naslednje utemeljitve v zvezi z razlogi, zaradi katerih, po njenem mnenju pri posojilih in dokapitalizaciji, ki jih je analizirala Komisija, ni šlo za državno pomoč.
Firstly, Spain claims that SEPI acted as a private investor in a market economy, that aims at maximising profits, and that the Commission has not proven that SEPI’s resources comes from the State or are imputable to the State.
Španija najprej trdi, da je matična družba SEPI v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki teži k čim večjim zaslužkom, nastopala kot zasebna vlagateljica in da Komisija ni dokazala, da naj bi sredstva matične družbe SEPI izvirala od države ali se prištevala državi.
Concerning the loans from SEPI to Cadiz, Juliana and Manises, Spain states that when SEPI on 22 December 1999 took over the three companies, they had debts to AESA of respectively EUR 120800000 (Cadiz), EUR 47200000 (Juliana) and EUR 24100000 (Manises).
V zvezi s posojili matične družbe SEPI družbam Cádiz, Juliana in Manises Španija poroča, da so bile na dan 22. decembra 1999, ko je družba SEPI prevzela te tri družbe, le-te posamično zadolžene pri družbi AESA za 120800000 EUR (Cádiz); 47200000 EUR (Juliana) in 24100000 EUR (Manises).
What SEPI did was to take over these claims from AESA.
Družba SEPI je prevzela te dolgove družbe AESA.
This can not be considered to be a new aid to the shipyards.
To se ne bi smelo šteti kot dodatna pomoč ladjedelnicam.
Furthermore, the interest rates charged were similar to the market rate (MIBOR plus 8 points).
Nadalje so bile določene obrestne mere enake tržni stopnji (MIBOR plus 8 točk).
Concerning the capital injection of EUR 252400000 from SEPI to AESA, Spain first states that the capital was not injected on 18 July 2000, as stated in the opening, but in September the same year.
Upoštevajoč kapitalski vložek 252400000 EUR družbe SEPI v družbo AESA, Španija kot prvo izjavlja, da se kapital ni prilil 18. julija 2000, kot se navaja v sprožitvi, ampak septembra istega leta.
At this time, AESA did not have any activity, since it had already sold its last shipyards to Bazán.
Takrat družba AESA ni izvajala nobene dejavnosti, saj je že pred tem družbi Bazán prodala svoje zadnje ladjedelnice.
Therefore, no distortion of competition could be caused by this capital injection. The capital injection to AESA was furthermore intended to organise an orderly closure of AESA.
Tako ta kapitalska naložba ni mogla povzročiti nikakršnega izkrivljanja konkurence in je bila namenjena odrejenemu zaprtju družbe AESA.
Spain in this respect refers to Court judgment C-303/88, ENI-Lanerossi [14].
V zvezi s tem se Španija sklicuje na sodbo Sodišča z dne 21. marca 1991, primer C-303/88, ENI-Lanerossi [14].
Concerning the suspected capital injections to Astano, Cadiz, Juliana and Manises, Spain informs that the annual report for IZAR for year 2000 takes up EUR 68,2 million loss in connection with the acquisition of the four concerned shipyards.
V zvezi s sumljivimi kapitalskimi vložki v družbe Astano, Cádiz, Juliana in Manises, Španija obvešča, da letno poročilo družbe IZAR za leto 2000 navaja izgubo 68200000 EUR, povezanih s prevzemom štirih zadevnih ladjedelnic.
According to Spain, there was thus no aid involved from SEPI to the shipyards before they were transferred to Bazán.
Po mnenju Španije ladjedelnice, preden jih je prevzel Bazán, niso bile deležne nikakršne pomoči s strani matične družbe SEPI.
Spain furthermore provides extensive argumentation against the possibility that some of the aid authorised in 1997 would become incompatible in case the Commission would declare that further illegal aid has been provided to the public Spanish shipyards.
Španija je nadalje predložila obsežna pojasnila, ki spodbijajo možnost, da bi bil del pomoči, odobren v letu 1997, neupravičen v primeru, če bi Komisija izjavila, da se je javnim španskim ladjedelnicam zagotovila dodatna nezakonita pomoč.
In reaction to the comments provided by third parties, Spain fully agrees with all that was stated by IZAR.
Kot odgovor na pripombe tretje stranke se Španija popolnoma strinja z vsemi izjavami družbe IZAR.
Concerning the issue of production of luxury yachts, taken up by the other two other commenting parties, Spain claims firstly that these ships are not covered by the Shipbuilding Regulation, and that the comments therefore should not be taken into account.
V zvezi s problemom gradnje luksuznih jaht v izjavah drugih dveh strank Španija najprej trdi, da te ladje niso upoštevane v Uredbi (ES) št. 1540/98 in da se zato pripombe ne bi smele upoštevati.
It further states that the luxury yachts are built by IZAR without any State aid, and that IZAR’s worldwide share of this market is minimal (less than […] percent).
Poleg tega družba IZAR gradi luksuzne jahte brez kakršne koli državne pomoči in njen delež na svetovnem trgu je majhen (nižji od […] %).
It also denies that some of the claimed investments in the shipyards San Fernando and Cartagena have taken place.
Zanika tudi, da naj ne bi prišlo do domnevnih naložb v ladjedelnici San Fernando in Cartagena.
V. ASSESSMENT
V. OCENA
Legal base
Pravna podlaga
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 ni nobena pomoč, dodeljena s strani držav članic ali iz državnih sredstev, ki bi kakor koli izkrivljala ali grozila z izkrivljanjem konkurence s tem, da bi dajala prednost določenim podjetjem ali proizvajalcem, če bi bila s tem prizadeta trgovina med državami članicami, v skladu z določili skupnega trga.
Pursuant to the 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 Sodišča se upošteva merilo o vplivu na trgovino, če subvencionirano podjetje opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost, znotraj katere se odvija trgovina med državami članicami.
According to Article 87(3)(e) of the EC Treaty, categories of aid specified by a decision of the Council acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission may be considered compatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(3)(e) Pogodbe ES se lahko šteje v skupino pomoči, ki je v skladu z določili skupnega trga, pomoč, določeno v odločbi, ki jo je na zahtevo Komisije s kvalificirano večino sprejel Svet.
The Commission notes that the Council adopted on this basis on 29 June 1998 the Shipbuilding Regulation, which was in force from 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2003. It applies to any illegal aid provided during this period, in line with the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid [15].
Na tej podlagi je Svet dne 29. junija 1998 v skladu s sporočilom Komisije o določitvi meril, ki se nanašajo na ocenjevanje državnih nelegalnih pomoči [15], sprejel Odločbo (ES) št. 1540/98, ki je veljala od 1. januarja 1999 do 31. decembra 2003 in se nanaša na vsako nezakonito pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena v tem času.
Shipbuilding is an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
Ladjedelništvo je gospodarska dejavnost, ki vključuje trgovino med državami članicami.
Therefore, aid to shipbuilding falls within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zaradi tega je pomoč ladjedelništvu zajeta znotraj člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission notes that according to the Shipbuilding Regulation, ‘shipbuilding’ means building of self-propelled seagoing commercial vessels.
Komisija ugotavlja, da v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1540/98 „ladjedelništvo“ pomeni gradnjo trgovskih plovil na lastni pogon za odprto morje.
The Commission further notes that Article 2 of the said Regulation states that aid granted for shipbuilding, ship repair and ship conversion may be compatible with the common market only if it complies with the provisions of the Regulation.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da člen 2 te uredbe določa, da je dodeljena pomoč, namenjena gradnji, popravilu in predelavi plovil, lahko v skladu z določili skupnega trga le, če upošteva določbe Uredbe.
This provision applies not only to aid granted to undertakings engaged in such activities but also to related entities.
To ne velja le za dodeljevanje pomoči družbam, ki razvijajo take dejavnosti, ampak tudi družbam, ki so z njimi povezane.
In August 1997, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1013/97, the Commission exceptionally approved a package of restructuring aids for the Spanish public merchant shipyards in order for them to return to viability by the end of 1998.
Komisija je v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1013/97 avgusta 1997 izjemoma odobrila paket pomoči za prestrukturiranje španskih javnih civilnih ladjedelnic, da bi lahko bile ob koncu leta 1998 ponovno sposobne obstati.
Including aids previously approved, the total package was ESP 318 billion (EUR 1,9 billion).
Upoštevajoč predhodno odobreno pomoč, je skupni paket pomoči znašal 318000 milijonov španskih pezet (1900 milijonov EUR).
In giving its agreement, the Council stressed the ‘one time, last time’ nature of the aid package.
Ob odobritvi pomoči je Svet poudaril, da je to prvi in zadnji paket pomoči.
The Spanish government had undertaken the commitment that the yards would not receive any further aid for restructuring, rescue, loss compensation or privatisation. This was reflected in the conditions attached to the Commission’s decision approving the aid.
Španska vlada se je zavezala, da ladjedelnice ne bodo prejele nobene dodatne pomoči za prestrukturiranje, reševanje, nadomestilo izgub ali privatizacijo.
It was also underlined in the first indent of the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Shipbuilding Regulation. This provision states that no rescue or restructuring aid may be granted to an undertaking that has been granted such aid pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1013/97.
To se je odražalo v pogojih, določenih v odločbi Komisije, ki je odobrila pomoč, in je bilo tudi poudarjeno v prvi alinei člena 5(1)(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1540/98, ki določa, da se za reševanje in prestrukturiranje gospodarske družbe ne sme dodeliti nikakršne pomoči, če je bila že predhodno dodeljena v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1013/97.
As a consequence, aid in excess of the aid that was authorised by the initial Commission decision of August 1997 would have to be considered as incompatible with the common market, unless approved under another legal base.
Tako ne bi bila nobena pomoč, ki bi bila višja od odobrene v prvotni Odločbi Komisije iz avgusta 1997, v skladu z določili skupnega trga, razen če bi se dokazala na drugi pravni podlagi.
The Commission notes that the shipyards Sestao, Puerto Real, Sevilla, Cadiz, Juliana built or repaired ships at the time and that consequently were undertakings covered by the Regulation.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so ladjedelnice Sestao, Puerto Real, Sevilla, Cádiz in Juliana takrat gradile in popravljale ladje in da je bila zato dejavnost zadevnih gospodarskih družb zajeta v Uredbi.
Manises and Fene (ex Astano) can be considered as related entities.
Manises in Fene (bivši Astano) lahko štejemo kot povezani družbi.
The Commission furthermore notes that AESA and IZAR, as parent companies or owners of several shipyards fall within the scope of Article 1 of the Shipbuilding Regulation.
Komisija prav tako ugotavlja, da družbi AESA in IZAR kot matični družbi ali lastnici več ladjedelnic ostajata zajeti v členu 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 1540/98.
This corresponds to the line that the Commission has taken in previous decisions linked to public Spanish shipyards, in particular its decision to approve aid in 1997, and its decision [16] in 1999 to declare aid from SEPI to AESA incompatible.
Ta upošteva načelo, ki se ga je Komisija držala v predhodnih odločbah o španskih javnih ladjedelnicah, zlasti o Odločbi za odobritev pomoči v letu 1997 in Odločbi iz leta 1999 [16], ko je izjavila, da je pomoč matične družbe SEPI družbi AESA neupravičena.
Assessment of aid in the different transfers
Ocena pomoči v različnih prevzemih
As stated above, this case covers three different transfers of companies between different holding companies, and potential aid provided in connection with these transfers.
Kot je bilo predhodno navedeno, ta primer zajema tri različne prevzeme gospodarskih družb med različnimi matičnimi družbami in možnost za dodelitev pomoči, vezanih na te prevzeme.
The assessment will be carried out by examining the relevant aspects in each of these three transfers.
Ocena bo podana po pregledu zadev v zvezi s tem za vsakega od teh treh prevzemov.
Therefore the issues raised in the opening of the procedure and the two extensions cannot be treated separately.
Zato se zadeve, predstavljene v sprožitvi postopka, in obe širitvi ne morejo obravnavati ločeno.
The role of SEPI
Vloga matične družbe SEPI
In the opening and extensions the Commission presumed that SEPI acted on behalf of the State, i.e. that its behaviour in the different transactions is imputable to the state.
V sprožitvi in prevzemih je Komisija predpostavljala, da je državna družba SEPI delovala v državnem imenu, torej da je za njihovo ravnanje v različnih transakcijah odgovorna država.
Spain has contested this, and claimed that SEPI functions independently from the State and that therefore its behaviour is not imputable to the State.
Španija je izpodbijala to izjavo s trditvijo, da družba SEPI deluje neodvisno in zato država ne odgovarja za njihovo ravnanje.
In any way, in Spain’s view, SEPI acted as a market investor and therefore the funds provided from SEPI in this case could not be considered as State aid.
Kakor koli, po mnenju Španije je družba SEPI nastopala kot tržna vlagateljica, zato se sredstva, ki jih je vložila družba SEPI, v tem primeru ne smejo šteti kot državna pomoč.
The Commission notes that SEPI is a public holding company which is directly depending on the Ministry of Finance. As such it is considered as a public undertaking in the sense of Commission Directive 2000/52/EC [17] amending Commission Directive 80/723/EEC [18], since due to its ownership or its financial participation the public authorities can directly or indirectly exercise a dominant influence on SEPI.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je družba SEPI javna matična družba, ki je neposredno odvisna od Ministrstva za finance, zato velja za javno družbo v okviru Direktive Komisije 2000/52/ES z dne 26. julija 2000 [17], zaradi katere se spremeni Direktiva Komisije 80/723/EGS z dne 25. junija 1980 [18], saj lahko javne oblasti na podlagi svojih lastniških pravic ali finančne udeležbe posredno ali neposredno vplivajo na družbo SEPI.
The Court has defined when funds are considered to be State resources. It has e.g. stated that even if the sums corresponding to the measure in question are not permanently held by the Treasury, the fact that they constantly remain under public control, and therefore available to the competent national authorities, is sufficient for them to be categorised as State resources (Court judgment in Case C-83/98 P France v Ladbroke Racing and Commission [19]).
Sodišče je določilo, kdaj se sredstva štejejo kot državna sredstva, in navaja, da je dovolj, da jih vrednotimo kot državna sredstva (Sodba Sodišča z dne 23. novembra 1999, primer C-83/98, P. France/Ladbroke Racing in Komisija [19], čeprav sredstva, ki so v skladu z zadevnim merilom, ne bi bila trajno v lasti zakladnice in zaradi dejstva, da ostajajo pod stalnim javnim nadzorom in so zato dostopna pristojnim državnim organom.
This clearly applies to SEPI’s resources.
To očitno velja za sredstva družbe SEPI.
The Court has further taken a decision (Court judgment C-482/99, Stardust marine [20]), outlining the criteria for imputability to the State of an aid measure taken by a public undertaking.
Sodišče je v svoji sodbi z dne 16. maja 2002, primer C-482/99, Stardust Marine [20] povzelo merila, po katerih se lahko odgovornost za ukrep pomoči, ki ga je sprejela javna gospodarska družba, pripiše državi.
This may, according to the Court, be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which that measure was taken.
V skladu s Sodiščem se to lahko sklepa iz vrste kazalcev, ki izhajajo iz okoliščin in iz vsebine primera, na podlagi katerega je bilo merilo sprejeto.