natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Export growth is not sufficient to offset the increasing competition in the sector.
Rast izvoza ne more nadomestiti povečane konkurence v tem sektorju.
On the contrary, strong competition and overcapacities are being reinforced owing to new market entrants from south-east Asia and eastern European countries, in particular the Czech Republic and Hungary, all of which benefit from preferential trading arrangements with the European Union [17].
Ravno nasprotno, močna konkurenca in presežne kapacitete se krepijo zaradi vstopa novih udeležencev trga iz JV Azije in vzhodne Evrope (zlasti iz Češke republike in Madžarske), ki imajo zaradi trgovinskega sporazuma z Evropsko unijo veliko korist [17].
REASONS FOR THE INITIATION AND EXTENSION OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
RAZLOGI ZA SPROŽITEV IN RAZŠIRITEV FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
In its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission analysed the financial measures in favour of Kahla I and Kahla II in the light of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Pri sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave je Komisija finančne ukrepe za podjetji Kahla I in Kahla II preiskala ob upoštevanju člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES in člena 61(1) Sporazuma o evropskem gospodarskem prostoru.
The measures derived from state resources and distorted or threatened to distort competition, affecting trade between Member States and conferring advantages on these companies.
Ukrepi so zajemali državna sredstva in so izkrivljali ali bi lahko izkrivljali konkurenco med državami članicami in so dajali prednost tema podjetjema.
In its preliminary assessment the Commission considered that Kahla I and Kahla II were companies in difficulty.
V svoji predhodni presoji je Komisija izrazila mnenje, da sta podjetji Kahla I in Kahla II podjetji v težavah.
The Commission doubted, moreover, whether the State had behaved like a private investor in a market economy when it made financial resources available to them.
Komisija je nadalje dvomila o tem, ali je država ravnala kot tržno usmerjeni podjetnik, saj je tema podjetjema zagotovila finančna sredstva.
In the preliminary assessment, these measures were regarded as state aid.
V predhodni presoji so bili takšni ukrepi obravnavani kot državna pomoč.
The Commission had serious doubts as to whether the aid was compatible with the common market, and it therefore initiated the formal investigation procedure in respect of the ad hoc aid granted to Kahla I and Kahla II.
Ker je Komisija resno dvomila o združljivosti teh pomoči s skupnim trgom, je zaradi začasne pomoči za podjetji Kahla I in Kahla II sprožila formalni postopek preiskave.
In addition, Germany had claimed that a number of aid measures had been granted under approved aid schemes.
Poleg tega je Nemčija trdila, da je bilo v skladu z odobrenimi programi pomoči dodeljenih več ukrepov pomoči.
On the basis of the information available to it, the Commission was not in a position to determine whether these aid measures complied with the terms of the approved aid schemes under which they were purportedly granted.
Po podatkih, ki so bili predloženi, Komisija ni mogla določiti, ali so ti ukrepi v skladu z odobrenimi programi pomoči, po katerih naj bi bile te pomoči domnevno dodeljene.
Therefore, within the context of the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, an information order was addressed to Germany in order to verify this point.
Zato je Komisija v okviru sprožitve formalnega postopka preiskave Nemčiji izdala uredbo o predložitvi podatkov, da bi razjasnila to točko.
The information submitted in response to the order dispelled the Commission’s doubts about the existing-aid character of only a number of measures allegedly granted under approved aid schemes.
Informacije, ki jih je Nemčija posredovala kot odgovor na uredbo o predložitvi podatkov, so pregnale dvome le glede nekaterih ukrepov, domnevno dodeljenih po odobrenem programu pomoči.
In addition, the Commission discovered details of several measures of which it had not been informed before.
Poleg tega je Komisija pri več podrobnostih o ukrepih ugotovila, da o njih ni bila seznanjena.
Consequently, the Commission extended the investigation procedure to assess the measures which still did not seem to comply with approved aid schemes and those measures of which it had been informed only after initiating the formal investigation procedure.
Zato je Komisija razširila formalni postopek preiskave, da bi ocenila ukrepe, ki očitno še vedno niso v skladu z odobrenimi programi pomoči, in ukrepe, s katerimi je bila seznanjena šele po sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
In its letter of 11 November 1999, Germany considered that it need not notify any of the above financial measures to the Commission.
V dopisu z dne 11. novembra 1999 je Nemčija menila, da Komisiji ni bilo treba priglasiti nobenega od zgoraj navedenih finančnih ukrepov.
According to Germany, as from February 1994 Kahla II was an entirely new company and there was no continuity with Kahla I. Germany stated that Kahla II was not in difficulty.
Nemčija je trdila, da je Kahla II od februarja 1994 novoustanovljeno podjetje in da ni nadaljevala poslovne dejavnosti podjetja Kahla I. Po navedbah Nemčije podjetje Kahla II ni v težavah.
It insisted on this point throughout the procedure.
Nemčija je pri tem vztrajala ves čas postopka.
In support of this argument, Germany first submitted two consultants reports dated 29 November 1993 and 11 January 1994.
Da bi podkrepila te utemeljitve, je Nemčija predložila dve poročili z dne 29. novembra 1993 in 11. januarja 1994, ki sta ju pripravila svetovalca.
Following the extension of the investigation procedure, Germany submitted a third report by a further consultant, dated 21 January 2002.
Po razširitvi formalnega postopka preiskave je Nemčija posredovala poročilo z dne 21. januarja 2002, ki ga je pripravil drug svetovalec.
Germany stated first of all that most of the financial measures from public entities should not be considered aid because the public authorities had acted like a market economy investor when offering financial support to Kahla II.
Nemčija je najprej ugotovila, da večine finančnih ukrepov pravnih oseb ni mogoče obravnavati kot pomoči, ker so državni organi delovali kot tržno usmerjeni podjetnik, ko so podjetju Kahla II odobrili finančno pomoč.
As regards those financial measures in favour of Kahla II which would not fall under the private investor principle, Germany stated that they were either covered by approved aid schemes or fell under the de minimis rules.
Ostali finančni ukrepi za podjetje Kahla II, ki ne bi spadali v načelo tržno usmerjenega zasebnega investitorja, so po mnenju Nemčije bodisi vključeni v odobrene programe pomoči ali pa jih je mogoče označiti kot pomoči de minimis.
Germany submitted extensive information and documentation.
Nemčija je posredovala izčrpne informacije in dokazila.
After the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, Germany acknowledged that some of the measures might constitute aid and that others might fall outside the de minimis rules as set out in the Commission notice on the de minimis rule for state aid [18] and Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid [19] or outside approved aid schemes.
Po sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave je Nemčija priznala, da bi nekateri ukrepi lahko predstavljali pomoči in da nekateri ukrepi ne bi spadali v področje uporabe odobrenih programov pomoči ter pravil de minimis, ki jih vsebujeta Sporočilo Komisije o pomočeh de minimis [18] in Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri pomoči de minimis [19].
However, Germany considered that, in that case, the aid would be investment aid complying with the regional ceilings.
Nemčija vendarle zavzema stališče, da je pomoč v tem primeru investicijska pomoč, ki je v skladu z regionalno omejitvijo.
In addition, Germany submitted several investment plans and supplementary information in this respect, including an estimate of the aid intensity of the measures.
Nadalje je Nemčija k tej temi predložila več investicijskih načrtov in dopolnjene informacije, vključno z oceno intenzivnosti pomoči ukrepov.
Germany argued finally that, if it would not accept any of the arguments advanced, the Commission should verify – particularly in the case of measure 26 - whether the aid could not be regarded as employment aid compatible with the common market.
V zaključku je Nemčija izjavila, da bi morala Komisija, če ne bi sprejela nobenega od navedenih utemeljitev - še zlasti za ukrep 26 -, preveriti, ali je pomoč mogoče obravnavati kot pomoč za zaposlovanje, združljivo s skupnim trgom.
In its letter of 1 October 2002 Germany stated that if, in the face of all previous arguments, the Commission were to regard Kahla II as a company in difficulty, the aid measures in question should be assessed as restructuring aid on the basis of the Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [20] (restructuring aid guidelines).
Nemčija je v dopisu z dne 1. oktobra 2002 v nasprotju s prejšnjimi utemeljitvami pojasnila, da bi morali biti zadevni ukrepi pomoči v primeru, če bi Komisija Kahlo II obravnavala kot podjetje v težavah, ocenjeni kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje na podlagi smernic Skupnosti za državne pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [20] (smernice za prestrukturiranje).
After initiating and extending the proceedings, the Commission received comments from Kahla II, which were forwarded to Germany by letters dated 7 August 2001 and 6 March 2002.
Po sprožitvi in razširitvi postopka je Komisija prejela pripombe podjetja Kahla II, ki so bile posredovane Nemčiji z dopisoma z dne 7. avgusta 2001 in 6. marca 2002.
Kahla II’s arguments are basically the same as Germany’s.
Utemeljitve podjetja Kahla II se v veliki meri ujemajo z utemeljitvami Nemčije.
In addition, a new complaint was received alleging that Kahla II had received fresh aid.
Poleg tega je prispela nova pritožba, da je podjetje Kahla II prejelo nadaljnjo pomoč.
On 29 May 2002 Germany replied, stating that the company had not received any grants other than those of which the Commission had been informed.
maja 2002 je Nemčija odgovorila in izjavila, da podjetje ni dobilo nobene druge podpore kot tisto, s katero je bila Komisija seznanjena.
On 30 July 2002, Kahla II submitted further comments to the Commission which contained no new facts or evidence but in which Germany stood by its previous arguments to the effect that the company had never been in difficulty, that certain measures did not constitute aid and that the ad hoc aid should be regarded as compatible regional aid.
julija 2002 je podjetje Kahla II Komisiji posredovalo novo pripombo, ki ni vsebovala nobenih novih dejstev ali dokazov. V pripombi je Nemčija še naprej vztrajala pri svojih prejšnjih utemeljitvah, da podjetje nikoli ni bilo v težavah, da določenih ukrepov ni mogoče označiti kot pomoči in da morajo biti začasne pomoči obravnavane kot združljive regionalne pomoči.
In its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission could not determine, on the strength of the information available, whether Kahla I and Kahla II were independent undertakings or to what extent Kahla II should be regarded as the successor to an undertaking or as an Auffanglösung.
Ob sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave Komisija na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov ni mogla določiti, ali sta bili podjetji Kahla I in Kahla II neodvisni podjetji ali v kolikšni meri je mogoče podjetje Kahla II označiti kot naslednico podjetja ali kot Auffanglösung.
Germany was therefore requested to provide sufficient information to clarify this point.
Zato je bila Nemčija pozvana, naj predloži zadostne podatke, da bi se ta točka razjasnila.
In its decision to extend the formal investigation procedure, the Commission concluded that Kahla I and Kahla II were different legal entities.
Komisija je v razširitvi formalnega postopka preiskave prišla do sklepa, da sta Kahla I in Kahla II različni pravni osebi.
Kahla II was regarded as an Auffanggesellschaft as it had been created by Mr G. Raithel as a shell company to continue the activities and to take over the assets of Kahla I in liquidation.
Podjetje Kahla II je bilo obravnavano kot Auffanggesellschaft, ker je bilo ustanovljeno s strani g. G. Raithela kot navidezno podjetje, ki bi nadaljevalo dejavnosti in prevzelo premoženje Kahle I, ki je bila v likvidaciji.
The documents submitted often refer to Kahla II as an Auffanggesellschaft and the Commission noted that a change of control, ownership and legal personality took place.
V posredovanih dokazilih je podjetje Kahla II opisano kot Auffanggesellschaft in Komisija je ugotovila, da je prišlo do sprememb nadzora, lastniških razmerij in pravne osebe.
Germany has not contradicted this view.
Nemčija temu mnenju ni oporekala.
The sale of the assets to Kahla II did not take place according to an open, unconditional bidding procedure.
Prodaja premoženja podjetju Kahla II ni potekala z javnim in brezpogojnim razpisom.
Germany states that the industry was aware that the assets were being offered for sale.
Nemčija pojasnjuje, da so bili udeleženci na trgu obveščeni o nameri prodaje premoženja.
According to Germany, following negotiations with two potential investors, Mr G. Raithel was chosen by the administrator in bankruptcy as the best bidder.
Po besedah Nemčije je stečajni upravitelj po pogajanjih z dvema potencialnima investitorjema za najbolj ugodnega ponudnika izbral g. G. Raithela.
The reasons for choosing him were, according to the administrator in bankruptcy, both his experience of the porcelain market and the fact that he made a substantially higher offer than the other candidate, who according to Germany offered DEM 1.
Po navedbah stečajnega upravitelja so bili razlogi za izbor izkušnje ponudnika na trgu porcelana in dejstvo, da je bila njegova ponudba precej višja od ponudbe drugega ponudnika, ki je po navedbah Nemčije ponudil 1 DEM.
The Commission notes, however, that, although Mr Raithel did indeed make an offer which was higher than DEM 1, the price he offered was to be financed through state resources.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da je g. G. Raithel res ponudil več kot 1 DEM, vendar naj bi se ponujeni znesek financiral iz državnih sredstev.
None the less, the information available indicates that Mr Raithel brought in DEM 55000 from his own resources, which is higher than DEM 1.
Iz razpoložljivih informacij izhaja, da je g. G. Raithel prispeval 55000 DEM iz lastnih sredstev, kar je več kot 1 DEM.
On the basis of the information available, the Commission will follow Germany’s view that Mr Raithel was the best bidder.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij se Komisija strinja z Nemčijo, da je bil g. G. Raithel najboljši ponudnik.
The Commission acknowledges that the value of Kahla I’s real estate was based on studies by independent experts.
Komisija priznava, da je vrednost zemljišča podjetja Kahla I temeljila na mnenju neodvisnih strokovnjakov.
According to Germany, the value of plant and stocks – together some DEM 3,5 million - was not determined on the basis of a study owing to practical difficulties and because much of the plant was in poor condition and would need to be replaced.
Nemčija je pojasnila, da vrednost opreme in zalog – skupaj okoli 3,5 milijona DEM – ni bila ugotovljena na podlagi mnenja, ker so obstajale praktične težave in ker je bil velik del opreme v slabem stanju in bi ga bilo treba nadomestiti.
Taking these facts into account, the Commission concludes that there are no reasons to doubt that the price paid for Kahla I’s assets did not correspond to the market price.
Ob upoštevanju teh dejstev je Komisija sklenila, da ni razlogov za dvom glede tega, ali je cena za premoženje Kahle I ustrezala tržni ceni.
As regards the subsequent sale of TIB’s 49 % stake in Kahla II, the question whether this amounted to the behaviour of a market economy investor will be examined in the sections below.
Kasnejša prodaja 49-odstotnega deleža TIB-a Kahli II in vprašanje, ali to ravnanje ustreza ravnanju tržno usmerjenega podjetnika, bosta obravnavana v naslednjih odstavkih.
The Commission notes, however, that the sale of the stake to Mr Raithel and his son on 31 December 1999 did not take place after any open, transparent and unconditional call for tenders.
Komisija vendarle ugotavlja, da prodaja tega deleža g. G. Raithelu in njegovemu sinu 31. decembra 1999 ni potekala z javnim, preglednim in brezpogojnim razpisom.
TIB is a state-owned financial institution.
TIB je finančna institucija v državni lasti.
According to the established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and Commission policy, the Commission considers that the sale price for a public shareholding does not contain any state aid elements where it is sold in an open, unconditional and non-discriminatory tender procedure.
V skladu z veljavno sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in politike Komisije je Komisija mnenja, da prodajna cena za delež v lasti države ne vsebuje elementov državne pomoči, dokler je predmet prodaje ponujen v okviru javnega, na noben pogoj vezanega in nediskriminatornega razpisnega postopka.
Member States are, however, not obliged to follow such a procedure when disposing of their public shareholdings.
Države članice pa nikakor niso zavezane k upoštevanju tega postopka pri prodaji deležev v državni lasti.
In the absence of such a procedure, the price may involve state aid elements and the Commission may therefore verify, where appropriate, whether the price represents fair value for the public shareholding.
Če se takšen postopek ne izvede, lahko prodajna cena vsebuje elemente državne pomoči. Komisija lahko zato preveri, kadar je to primerno, ali prodajna cena ustreza vrednosti deleža v državni lasti.
The Commission notes in this respect that the price at which the shares were sold to Mr Raithel and his son was higher than the price which TIB had itself paid almost six years earlier.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila prodajna cena za deleže, prodane g. G. Raithelu in njegovemu sinu, višja od zneska, ki ga je za te deleže skoraj šest let prej odštel TIB.
It is also noted that the stake represented a minority shareholding.
Nadalje se ugotavlja, da delež predstavlja manjšinski delež.
It should finally be stressed that, in the context of the initiation or the extension of the formal investigation procedure, no interested party has claimed arbitrary exclusion from the sale and none ever made any offer for the shareholding.
Treba je tudi poudariti, da v zvezi s sprožitvijo in razširitvijo formalnega postopka preiskave nobena zainteresirana stranka ni vložila pritožbe zaradi samovoljne izključitve iz prodaje in ni predložila ponudbe za udeležbo.
Consequently, the Commission does not have any evidence of aid in this share deal.
Zato po mnenju Komisije pri prodaji tega državnega deleža ni dokazov o pomoči.
Aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty
Pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES
Financial assistance deriving from public resources was awarded to Kahla I and Kahla II, conferring on these companies advantages over their competitors.
Kahla I in Kahla II sta prejeli finančno pomoč iz državnih sredstev, ki je obema podjetjema dajala prednost pred konkurenti.
It is on record that state-controlled entities grant loans to and acquire shareholdings in private enterprises, as did TIB in the case of Kahla II, and their activities are clearly to be classed as state activities.
V dokumentaciji zapisana dejstva kažejo, da je mogoče, ker ustanove pod državnim nadzorom dodeljujejo posojila in deleže v državni lasti zasebnim podjetjem, kot TIB Kahli II, njihove dejavnosti pripisati državi.
In this connection reference is made to a consultants report dated 29 November 1993, according to which the entire Kahla restructuring plan is to be viewed in the light of the regional government’s efforts to safeguard jobs at Kahla [21].
V tej zvezi se je mogoče sklicevati na poročilo svetovalca z dne 29. novembra 1993, po katerem je treba na celoten načrt prestrukturiranja Kahle gledati v luči prizadevanja regionalnih oblasti, da bi zagotovile delovna mesta pri Kahli [21].
As the porcelain market is a highly competitive European product market suffering from overcapacity, financial advantages favouring one company over its competitors threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Ker je trg izdelkov iz porcelana zelo konkurenčen evropski proizvodni trg, na katerem obstajajo presežne kapacitete, bi lahko finančne ugodnosti, ki nekemu podjetju zagotavljajo boljši položaj v primerjavi z njegovim konkurentom, izkrivljale konkurenco in negativno vplivale na trgovino med državami članicami.
As regards Kahla I, in its decision to extend the formal investigation procedure the Commission came to the conclusion that measures 2, 3 and 9 did not constitute aid.
Glede podjetja Kahla I je Komisija v razširitvi formalnega postopka preiskave sklenila, da ukrepi 2, 3 in 9 ne predstavljajo pomoči.
The remaining measures granted by Germany were still regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Ostali ukrepi, dodeljeni s strani Nemčije, so še vedno označeni kot pomoč v smislu člena 87 (1) Pogodbe ES.
Germany has not challenged this point of view, and it is therefore maintained.
Nemčija temu mnenju ni oporekala, zato se to mnenje ohrani.
As regards Kahla II, Germany persists in its view that this is a new company which provides no continuity with Kahla I and which was never in difficulty.
Glede podjetja Kahla II je Nemčija še vedno mnenja, da gre za novoustanovljeno podjetje, ki ni nadaljevalo dejavnosti podjetja Kahla I in ki nikoli ni bilo v težavah.
Therefore, when offering financial support to it, the public authorities acted like market economy investors.
Zato so javni organi pri dodelitvi finančne podpore delovali kot tržno usmerjeni podjetnik.
The Commission will analyse first of all whether the public entities which provided financial support to Kahla II acted like market economy investors.
Komisija bo najprej preverila, ali so javne ustanove, ki so Kahli II dodelile finančno pomoč, delovale kot tržno usmerjeni podjetnik.
It will then examine the issue of the company’s difficulties.
Nato bo Komisija raziskala vprašanje težav podjetja.
Market economy investor
Tržno usmerjeni podjetnik
Germany has provided two consultants reports in support of its contention that the public entities which provided financial support to Kahla II acted like market economy investors.
Nemčija je predložila dve poročili, ki sta ju pripravila svetovalca, da bi podkrepila svojo tezo, da so javne ustanove, ki so Kahli II zagotovile finančna sredstva, ravnale kot tržno usmerjeni investitor.
As indicated in paragraph 91, the first report, dated 29 November 1993, proposes a restructuring plan for the Auffanggesellschaft in the light of the regional government’s efforts to preserve jobs at Kahla [22].
Kot je razloženo v odstavku 91, predlaga prvo poročilo z dne 29. novembra 1993 načrt za prestrukturiranje za Auffanggesellschaft v luči prizadevanj deželne vlade, da bi ohranila delovna mesta pri Kahli [22].
Restructuring was to take place over the period 1994-1997 and to cost a total of DEM 18,779 million.
Do prestrukturiranja naj bi prišlo v obdobju med 1994 in 1997, skupni stroški naj bi znašali 18,779 milijona DEM.
The break-even point was to be reached in 1996, with a positive result of DEM 0,101 million.
Prag dobička naj bi bil dosežen leta 1996 s pozitivnim rezultatom v višini 0,101 milijona DEM.
The second report was prepared for TIB on 11 January 1994, i.e., before it took its 49 % stake in the company.
Drugo poročilo je bilo pripravljeno 11. januarja 1994 za TIB, še preden je le-ta prevzel svoj 49-odstotni delež v podjetju.
The study explains that TIB’s objective is to maintain and create jobs in Thuringia [23].
Raziskava je pokazala, da je bil cilj TIB-a ohranitev in ustvarjanje delovnih mest v Turingiji [23].