natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As mentioned above, in the section describing the beneficiary, AEP is different from ACEA.
Kot je omenjeno zgoraj, v točki, ki opisuje upravičenca, se AEP razlikuje od ACEA.
It is a distinct company, jointly controlled by ACEA and Electrabel.
Gre za posebno podjetje, ki ga skupaj nadzirata ACEA in Electrabel.
But the Commission, in its appreciation in the State aid area, must go beyond the legal separation.
Vendar pa mora Komisija, z upoštevanjem področja državnih pomoči, preseči pravno ločitev.
As recently confirmed by the Court of First Instance, with extensive references to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance itself [12].
Kot je nedavno potrdilo Sodišče prve stopnje, z obsežnim sklicevanjem na sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in samega Sodišča prve stopnje [12].
‘It should be noted that, according to settled case-law, where legally distinct natural or legal persons constitute an economic unit, they should be treated as a single undertaking for the purposes of Community competition law (see, to that effect, Case 170/83 Hydrotherm [1984] ECR 2999, paragraph 11, and, by analogy, Case T-234/95 DSG v Commission [2000] ECR II-2603, paragraph 124).
„Treba je upoštevati, da je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, kjer zakonite fizične ali pravne osebe predstavljajo gospodarski subjekt, podjetji treba obravnavati kot eno podjetje za namene zakonodaje Skupnosti o konkurenci (glej, v ta namen, zadevo 170/83 Hydrotherm [1984] Recueil 2999, odstavek 11 in, po analogiji, zadevo T-234/95 DSG proti Komisiji [2000] Recueil II-2603, odstavek 124).
In the field of State aid, the question whether there is an economic unit arises primarily in relation to the question whether there is an aid beneficiary (see, to that effect, Case 323/82 Intermills v Commission [1984] ECR 3809, paragraphs 11 and 12).
Na področju državnih pomoči se vprašanje, ali gre za gospodarsko enoto, postavlja zlasti v odnosu do vprašanja, ali obstaja upravičenec do pomoči (glej, v ta namen, zadevo 323/82 Intermills proti Komisiji [1984] Recueil 3809, odstavka 11 in 12).
It has been held in that regard that the Commission has a broad discretion in determining whether companies which form part of a group should be regarded as an economic unit or rather as legally and financially independent for the purpose of applying the rules governing State aid (see, to that effect, Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94 British Airways and Others v Commission [1998] ECR II-2405, paragraphs 313 and 314, and, by analogy, DSG v Commission, paragraph 124).’
V zvezi s tem naj bi imela Komisija široko diskrecijo pri določanju, ali je treba podjetja, ki sestavljajo del skupine, obravnavati kot gospodarsko enoto ali kot zakonito in finančno neodvisno enoto za namene uporabe pravil o državnih pomočeh (glej, v ta namen, združeni zadevi T-371/94 in T-394/94 British Airways in drugi proti Komisiji [1998] Recueil II-2405, odstavka 313 in 314, ter, po analogiji, DSG proti Komisiji, odstavek 124).“
The Commission has to assess if ACEA and a company that is still part of the ACEA group should be regarded as an economic unit.
Komisija mora oceniti, ali je treba ACEA in družbo, ki je še vedno del skupine ACEA, obravnavati kot gospodarsko enoto.
To this respect, the analysis of the situation of AEP confirms that this is the case.
V zvezi s tem analiza stanja AEP potrjuje, da je tako.
ACEA recognises that it has joint control over AEP, together with Electrabel.
Podjetje ACEA priznava, da skupaj z Electrabelom nadzira AEP.
It mentions it explicitly in one of the submissions [13].
To izrecno omeni v enem izmed odgovorov [13].
This is confirmed by the financial reporting of ACEA, which lists AEP among the consolidated companies.
To potrjujejo tudi finančna poročila podjetja ACEA, ki podjetje AEP uvrščajo med konsolidirane družbe.
The fact that ACEA exercises control on AEP jointly with Electrabel and not alone is not relevant.
Dejstvo, da ACEA izvaja nadzor nad AEP skupaj z Electrabelom, in ne samo, ni pomembno.
AEP is mentioned in the accounts of ACEA: in page 35 of the report for the first half of 2004, it is written that ‘having regard of the possibility allowed by Article 37 of the legislative decree 127/91, are also included within the consolidation boundaries the following undertakings over which the holding exercise the control jointly with other partners and on the basis of agreements with them’.
Podjetje AEP je omenjeno v poročilih podjetja ACEA: na strani 35 poročila za prvo polovico leta 2004 je navedeno, da so „ob upoštevanju možnosti, ki jo dovoljuje člen 37 zakonske uredbe 127/91, v konsolidacijo vključena tudi naslednja podjetja, nad katerimi holding izvaja nadzor skupaj z drugimi partnerji in na podlagi sporazumov z njimi“.
The list includes AEP.
Seznam vključuje podjetje AEP.
The Memorandum of Understanding between ACEA and Electrabel, concerning the transfer of the branch from ACEA to AEP does not mention the project at all.
Memorandum o soglasju med podjetjema ACEA in Electrabel v zvezi s prenosom panoge z ACEA na AEP sploh ne omenja tega projekta.
However, it is clear that AEP inherited the project and became the intended beneficiary of the aid as a result of a restructuring within the ACEA group and that it pursues some of the activities that were previously performed by ACEA itself.
Vendar pa je jasno, da je podjetje AEP podedovalo projekt in postalo predvideni upravičenec pomoči kot rezultat prestrukturiranja znotraj skupine podjetja ACEA in da opravlja nekatere izmed dejavnosti, ki jih je prej izvajalo podjetje ACEA.
Furthermore, Article 4 of the agreement to confer the branch to AEP (named at that time GEN.CO) says that any dispute concerning that branch would be left out from the agreement itself, and that the conferred undertaking would not be subject to any dispute that may arise, even if they would originate after December 1, 2002 (date of entering into effect of the agreement) but would be based on facts preceding that date.
Poleg tega člen 4 sporazuma o prenosu panoge na podjetje AEP (takrat se je imenovala Gen.Co) navaja, da se vsi spori v zvezi s to panogo izpustijo iz samega sporazuma in da podjetje, na katerega se je panoga prenesla, ni predmet kakršnega koli spora, ki lahko nastane, tudi če bi nastal po 1. decembru 2002 (datum začetka veljavnosti sporazuma), temveč temelji na dejstvih pred tem datumom.
An agreement between two parties cannot lead to an exemption from the obligation to reimburse the illegal and incompatible aid.
Sporazum med dvema strankama ne more privesti do oprostitve obveznosti povračila nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči.
If such an agreement would be accepted, it could lead to the systematic circumvention of the obligation of the companies to reimburse the illegal and incompatible aid.
Če bi bil takšen sporazum sprejet, bi to lahko vodilo do sistematičnega izogibanja obveznosti družb do povračila nezakonitih in nezdružljivih pomoči.
Furthermore, it should be noted that, at the time of the entering into effect of the agreement, the decision on the aid granted to ACEA had already been taken by the Commission and that ACEA at that time had already introduced an action for annulment of this decision.
Poleg tega je treba upoštevati, da je v času, ko je sporazum stopil v veljavo, Komisija že sprejela odločitev o pomoči, dodeljeni podjetju ACEA, in da je podjetje ACEA v tistem času že sprožilo postopek za razveljavitev te odločbe.
The obligations imposed on ACEA were therefore well known, so that a circumvention of the State aid recovery obligation cannot be excluded.
Obveznosti, naložene podjetju ACEA, so bile torej dobro znane, tako da ni mogoče izvzeti izogibanja obveznosti vračila državne pomoči.
Therefore we conclude that ACEA and AEP are to be considered as a single entity and that, notwithstanding the reorganisation that has taken place within the ACEA group, the group itself, including ACEA, must be considered as beneficiary of the aid.
Zato je treba podjetji ACEA in AEP šteti za en sam gospodarski subjekt in da se skupina sama, vključno s podjetjem ACEA, ne glede na reorganizacijo, izvedeno znotraj skupine ACEA, šteje za upravičenko do pomoči.
In addition, a different approach might make it possible to circumvent State aid rules.
Poleg tega bi drugačen pristop lahko omogočil kršenje pravil o državnih pomočeh.
The Deggendorf Jurisprudence
Sodna praksa Deggendorf
After more than two years from the Decision 2003/193/EC, Italy has yet to define the amounts which the municipalizzate have to reimburse, let alone recover the aid which had been declared illegal and incompatible.
Po več kot dveh letih od Odločbe 2003/193/ES Italija še ni določila zneskov, ki jih morajo komunalna podjetja povrniti, kaj šele izterjala pomoč, ki je bila razglašena za nezakonito in nezdružljivo.
The situation thus has not changed since the opening of the proceedings in 2003.
Tako se stanje od sprožitve postopka leta 2003 ni spremenilo.
More, the Commission decided to bring Italy to the Court for non-implementation of the Decision 2003/193/EC [14].
Še več, Komisija se je odločila, da bo Italijo privedla pred Sodišče zaradi neizvajanja Odločbe 2003/193/ES [14].
The latest development is the inclusion in the so-called Legge Comunitaria for 2004, whose approval is still pending by both Chambers of Parliament, of a provision which sets out the main directions for the recovery, like asking local governments to indicate possible beneficiaries or asking beneficiaries to self-declare the amount of aid perceived.
Zadnja sprememba je vključitev v tako imenovani Legge Comunitaria za leto 2004, ki je še vedno v postopku odobritve v obeh domovih Parlamenta, določbe, ki zajema glavne smernice za vračilo, kot je prošnja lokalnim vladam, da navedejo možne upravičence, ali prošnja upravičencem, da sami objavijo znesek prejete pomoči.
Therefore the Commission considers that the situation that was in place at the moment of the opening is still present.
Zato Komisija meni, da je stanje, ki je veljalo v trenutku sprožitve postopka, še vedno prisotno.
The Commission confirms that it still cannot determine the exact amount of the advantages perceived by ACEA prior to the new aid.
Komisija potrjuje, da še vedno ne more določiti natančnega zneska pomoči, ki jo je prejelo podjetje ACEA pred zadevno pomočjo.
Neither the Italian government nor ACEA have put forward any specific elements showing that, in the case of ACEA, the advantages arising from the scheme considered as incompatible must be considering as not constituting aid, or constituting existing aid, or compatible aid because of the specific features of its beneficiary.
Niti italijanska vlada niti podjetje ACEA nista predložila nobenih posebnih elementov, ki bi pokazali, da, v primeru podjetja ACEA, ugodnosti, ki izhajajo iz programa, ki se šteje za nezdružljivega, ne predstavljajo pomoči ali da predstavljajo obstoječo pomoč ali združljivo pomoč zaradi posebnih značilnosti njenega upravičenca.
On the contrary, because of its size and because of the activities it performed at the time of the grant of the aid in different markets, including the production and distribution of energy and electricity, advantages granted to ACEA must be considered as affecting intra-Community trade and distorting competition.
Nasprotno, zaradi njihovega obsega in vrste dejavnosti, ki jih je v času dodelitve pomoči podjetje ACEA izvajalo na različnih trgih, vključno s proizvodnjo in distribucijo energije in elektrike, se šteje, da ugodnosti, dodeljene podjetju ACEA, vplivajo na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti in izkrivljajo konkurenco.
In addition, the advantages are considerable since they correspond to the amounts due under the Italian corporate tax (IRPEG) for three years.
Poleg tega so ugodnosti precejšnje, saj ustrezajo zneskom, zapadlim v skladu z italijanskim davkom na dohodek pravnih oseb (IRPEG) za tri leta.
Therefore, the ACEA group, including AEP, is still in receipt of illegal and incompatible aid which still has to be reimbursed and the distortion of competition is still in place.
Zato skupina ACEA, vključno s podjetjem AEP, še vedno prejema nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč, ki jo je še vedno treba povrniti, in izkrivljanje konkurence je še vedno prisotno.
Under such circumstances, and even if the exact amount of the first aid is not known, the cumulative effect of the two aids accruing to ACEA and its distortionary impact on the common market render the grant of the notified aid incompatible with the common market.
V takšnih okoliščinah, četudi točen znesek prve pomoči ni znan, je priglašena pomoč zaradi kumulativnega učinka dveh pomoči podjetju ACEA in njihovega izkrivljajočega vpliva na skupni trg nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
Application of the Deggendorf jurisprudence to the case
Uporaba sodne prakse Deggendorf za ta primer
Italy and ACEA put forward a number of arguments on the application of the Deggendorf jurisprudence to this case.
Italija in podjetje ACEA sta predložila številne argumente glede uporabe sodne prakse Deggendorf v tem primeru.
To recall, the Deggendorf jurisprudence established by the Court [15] states that the Commission, when examining the compatibility of an aid, should take into account all the relevant elements and in particular the cumulative effect of the new aid and of aid which has been declared incompatible and has not yet been reimbursed.
Da opomnimo, sodna praksa Deggendorf, ki jo je uvedlo Sodišče [15], določa, da bi morala Komisija pri proučevanju združljivosti pomoči upoštevati vse pomembne elemente in zlasti kumulativni učinek nove pomoči in pomoči, ki se šteje za nezdružljivo in še ni bila povrnjena.
This jurisprudence gives the possibility to suspend the granting of compatible aid as long as the previous illegal and incompatible aid has not been reimbursed.
Ta sodna praksa omogoča odložitev dodelitve združljive pomoči, dokler prejšnja nezakonita in nezdružljiva pomoč ni povrnjena.
First, it is worth repeating what is mentioned in the paragraphs 51 to 60 concerning the identity of the beneficiary.
Najprej je treba ponoviti, kar je omenjeno zgoraj v točkah 51 do 60 v zvezi z identiteto upravičenca.
For the present case, the Commission considers, for the arguments presented above, that AEP is still part of the ACEA Group, and that to the effect of this case the beneficiary is basically the same.
Za ta primer Komisija meni, zaradi zgoraj predstavljenih argumentov, da je podjetje AEP še vedno del skupine ACEA in da je v tem primeru upravičenec isti.
The fact that this is a regional case, while the case concerning the municipalizzate was a national case, is not relevant [16].
Dejstvo, da je to regionalna pomoč, medtem ko je bila pomoč v zvezi s komunalnimi podjetji nacionalna, ni pomembno [16].
For the Commission, all cases are national, as is confirmed by the fact that the national authorities are the only direct interlocutors of the Community institutions.
Za Komisijo so vse pomoči nacionalne, kar potrjuje dejstvo, da so nacionalni organi edini neposredni sogovorniki institucij Skupnosti.
Proof is that the measure was notified by Italy, and that Italy is the addressee of the decision, according to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty.
Dokazano je, da je Italija priglasila ukrep in da je Italija naslovnik odločbe v skladu s členoma 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES.
Furthermore, the resources involved are national, whether they are distributed from the national government or a regional institution.
Poleg tega so zajeti viri nacionalni, ne glede na to, ali jih posreduje nacionalna vlada ali regionalna institucija.
Hence this argument does not hold.
Zato ta argument ne velja.
The Deggendorf jurisprudence applies whenever a beneficiary of an aid has not paid back what the Commission decided, irrespective of the fact that the case is individual or concerns a scheme [17].
Sodna praksa Deggendorf se uporablja, kadar upravičenec do pomoči ni vrnil tistega, kar je odločila Komisija, ne glede na dejstvo, da je pomoč individualna ali zadeva program pomoči [17].
The Commission must consider that ACEA was among the beneficiaries of the aid to the municipalizzate, since at least part of that aid was given to all undertakings falling into that category, hence also to ACEA.
Komisija mora upoštevati, da je bilo podjetje ACEA med upravičenci pomoči komunalnim podjetjem, ker je bil vsaj del te pomoči dodeljen vsem podjetjem, ki spadajo v to kategorijo, zato tudi podjetju ACEA.
Furthermore, ACEA presented observations in the course of that procedure in its quality of third interested party arguing for the compatibility of those schemes.
V času postopka je podjetje ACEA kot tretja zainteresirana stranka poleg tega predložilo pripombe, ki so dokazovale združljivost teh programov.
The Commission Decision declared such non-notified schemes unlawful and incompatible and imposed to the Italian State to recover any possible amount disbursed under those schemes [18].
Odločba Komisije je razglasila takšne nepriglašene programe za nezdružljive in nezakonite ter Italiji naložila, da vrne vse zneske, izplačane v skladu s temi programi [18].
ACEA has challenged that decision before the Court of First Instance [19] and, in that context it has submitted that it had benefited from the relevant scheme.
Podjetje ACEA je tej odločitvi oporekalo pred Sodiščem prve stopnje [19] in je v tem smislu potrdilo, da je imelo koristi od zadevnega programa.
As explained above, neither Italy nor ACEA have put forward any specific reasons that could prevent or limit recovery in its specific case.
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, niti Italija niti podjetje ACEA nista navedla posebnih razlogov, ki bi lahko preprečili ali omejili vračilo v tem določenem primeru.
Financial reporting by ACEA mentions the decision of the Commission and the financial risks that may derive for the group.
Finančna poročila podjetja ACEA omenjajo odločbo Komisije in finančna tveganja, ki lahko izhajajo iz skupine.
It even quantifies the likely amounts of the aid that Italy should recover from ACEA, at least for the years 1998 and 1999, since in 1997 ACEA reported a loss (hence no benefits in terms of reduced tax).
Določajo celo višino verjetnih zneskov pomoči, ki bi jih morala Italija prejeti od podjetja ACEA, vsaj za leti 1998 in 1999, ker je leta 1997 podjetje ACEA prijavilo izgubo (zato ni koristi v smislu znižanja dajatev).
ACEA mentions possible figures for 1998 (EUR 28 million) and for 1999 (EUR 290 million, due to some exceptional operations of de-merging).
Podjetje ACEA navaja možne zneske za leto 1998 (28 milijonov EUR) in za leto 1999 (290 milijonov EUR, zaradi nekaterih izrednih operacij razdruževanja).
Contrary to the claim that Deggendorf should apply only when the decision of the Commission are incontrovertible (e.g. only when they are finally confirmed by a ruling of the Court) [20], the Commission reminds that its decisions have immediate effect and validity, as is recognised by Italy [21].
V nasprotju s trditvijo, da bi se morala sodna praksa Deggendorf uporabljati samo pri nespornih odločitvah Komisije (npr. samo če so dokončno potrjene z odločbo Sodišča) [20], Komisija opozarja, da začnejo njene odločbe veljati takoj, kot je med drugim priznala Italija [21].
This is in line with the general principle that appeals do not have any suspension effects (Article 242 EC Treaty).
To je tudi v skladu s členom 242 Pogodbe ES, na podlagi katerega tožbe nimajo odložilnega učinka).
Also, it should be mentioned that no interim measures have been asked for this case.
Treba je tudi omeniti, da v tem primeru ni bilo zaprošeno za začasne ukrepe.
Italy claims that the use of the Deggendorf jurisprudence is an exceptional way to proceed, and should be applied only as extrema ratio.
Italija trdi, da se sodna praksa Deggendorf za začetek sodnega postopka uporablja izjemoma in bi morala veljati samo kot extrema ratio.
Contrary to this point of view, an effective control of State aid policy would push to a constant and immediate use of the Deggendorf jurisprudence in order to ensure the effectiveness of the system, whose purpose is to take into account all State aid that is still available to the beneficiary, thereby reducing distortions of competition and to ensure an effective application of its decisions.
V nasprotju s tem stališčem Komisija ugotavlja, da bi dejanski nadzor politike državne pomoči pripomogel k stalni in takojšnji uporabi sodne prakse Deggendorf in s tem zagotovil učinkovitost sistema, katerega namen je upoštevati vse državne pomoči, ki so še vedno na voljo upravičencu, in s tem zmanjšati izkrivljanje konkurence ter zagotoviti učinkovito uporabo odločitev.
Contrary to the claim by Italy that the application of the Deggendorf jurisprudence by Italy would lead to a reduced number of notifications from Member States [22], the Commission notes that notification is not an option, but an obligation according to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
V nasprotju s trditvijo Italije, da bi uporaba sodne prakse Deggendorf povzročila zmanjšanje števila priglasitev s strani držav članic [22], Komisija ugotavlja, da priglasitev ni možnost, temveč obveznost v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe.
Non-notified aid becomes illegal, even if it may be compatible.
Nepriglašene pomoči so (postanejo) nezakonite, čeprav so lahko združljive.
Concerning the claim by Italy that the Commission is exercising a particular pressure [23], the Commission notes that this case is a simple application of the existing jurisprudence.
Glede trditve Italije, da Komisija izvaja poseben pritisk [23], Komisija ugotavlja, da gre pri tem primeru za preprosto uporabo obstoječe sodne prakse.
ACEA is penalised only to the extent it is the beneficiary of another aid.
Podjetje ACEA je oškodovano samo zato, ker je upravičeno do druge pomoči.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that ACEA is not particularly penalised.
Treba je tudi poudariti, da podjetje ACEA ni posebej oškodovano.
The Commission approved (Decision on case N 614/02 mentioned in paragraph 38) a number of projects in the Region Piemonte.
Komisija je odobrila (odločbo o pomoči N 614/02 iz točke 38) številne projekte v regiji Piemonte.
Two of the projects approved were to be carried out by AEM, the municipalizzata from Torino, and by ASM, the municipalizzata from Settimo Torinese.
Dva izmed odobrenih projektov naj bi izvajalo podjetje AEM, komunalno podjetje iz Torina, in podjetje ASM, komunalno podjetje iz Settimo Torinese.
In the case of AEM, the decision considered whether the Deggendorf jurisprudence would apply.
V primeru podjetja AEM odločba ugotavlja, ali se lahko uporablja sodna praksa Deggendorf.
In the case of ASM, the same Decision on case N 614/02 (mentioned in paragraphs 38 and 75) said:
V primeru podjetja ASM odločba o pomoči N 614/02 (predhodno navedena v točkah 38 in 75) navaja:
‘In view of the Deggendorf case law [24], the Italian authorities have therefore committed to check if Azienda Sviluppo Multiservizi S.p.A. and the other beneficiaries have indeed benefited of such aid and if so not to grant the present State aid before the unlawful and incompatible State aid previously granted has been reimbursed in line with the above mentioned decision.’
„V skladu s sodno prakso Deggendorf [24] so se italijanske oblasti obvezale, da bodo preverile, ali so imeli podjetje Azienda Sviluppo Multiservizi SpA in drugi upravičenci koristi od takšne pomoči, in če so jo imeli, da zadevnih državnih pomoči ne bodo dodelile, dokler prej dodeljena nezdružljiva in nezakonita pomoč ni povrnjena v skladu z zgoraj omenjeno odločbo“.
Finally, the fact that ACEA had various activities, and that it cannot determine on which of these the recovery of the aid will impinge [25], does not influence this case.
Dejstvo, da podjetje ACEA izvaja različne dejavnosti in da ne more določiti, katere izmed teh dejavnosti bo vračilo pomoči prizadelo [25], ne vpliva na ta primer.
It would be too easy for a company to escape to a recovery decision simply by not specifying on which part of its activities or on which branch the recovery would fall.
Bilo bi preveč preprosto, če bi se podjetje izognilo odločbi o vračilu brez določitve, na kateri del njegovih dejavnosti ali na katero panogo bi povračilo padlo.