natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By letter dated 5 February 2002 (D/50463), the Commission refused to amend its earlier decision because the aid had been assessed on the basis of a correct calculation of all the relevant factors.
Z dopisom z dne 5. februarja 2002 (D/50463) je Komisija zavrnila spremembo svoje prejšnje odločbe z utemeljitvijo, da je bila pomoč ocenjena na podlagi pravilnega izračuna vseh pomembnih dejavnikov.
More specifically, the Commission could not amend its decision for the following reasons: the assessment of the competition factor relied on a comparison between the evolution of the apparent consumption of the product in question and the growth rate in manufacturing as a whole during the period 1994-1999 and on a forecast which, at the time of the decision, was correct.
Komisija svoje odločbe v podrobnostih ni mogla spremeniti iz naslednjih razlogov: ocena dejavnika konkurenčnosti se je opirala na primerjavo razvoja opazovane porabe zadevnega izdelka in stopnje rasti proizvodne panoge skupno v letih od 1994 do 1999 in na napoved, ki je bila v času odločbe pravilna.
Second notification N 609/2003
Druga prijava N 609/2003
An attempt was made with the second notification to achieve the maximum intensity of 35%, which had been rejected previously, by granting additional aid equivalent to 3,5% (or €3939947).
Z drugo prijavo je bil izveden poskus, da bi z dodelitvijo dodatne pomoči v višini 3,5 odstotkov (preračunano 3939947 EUR) dosegli poprej zavrnjeno višjo intenzivnost v višini 35 odstotkov.
Germany argued that the market definition given in the original notification N 813/2000 had been factually wrong and referred to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [6] (‘Regulation (EC) No 659/1999’), which allows the revocation of a decision under the following conditions: ‘The Commission may revoke a decision taken […] where the decision was based on incorrect information provided during the procedure which was a determining factor for the decision.’
Nemčija je trdila, da je bila opredelitev trga v prvi prijavi N 813/2000 dejansko pomanjkljiva in se sklicevala na člen 9 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [6] (v nadaljevanju Uredba (ES) št. 659/1999), po katerem je mogoče odločbo razveljaviti pod sledečimi pogoji: „Komisija lahko razveljavi odločbo, […], če je odločba temeljila na napačnih podatkih, ki so bili pridobljeni med postopkom in so bili odločilen dejavnik pri sprejetju te odločbe. …“
While the relevant market was defined in the original notification as OSB and plywood, Germany claimed that the newly submitted studies showed that the relevant market was more correctly defined as OSB and only certain segments of plywood.
Medtem ko je bil upoštevni trg v prvotni prijavi opredeljen kot trg za OSB in vezan les, je po podatkih Nemčije iz na novo predloženih raziskav izhajalo, da bi bilo bolj pravilno, upoštevni trg opredeliti kot trg za OSB in le določene segmente vezanega lesa.
Using this new market definition, the relevant market would not be in decline during the period concerned (see point 3.4 of the 1998 multisectoral aid framework) and so the full aid intensity of 35% would have to be approved.
Trg po tej novi opredelitvi trga v zadevnem časovnem obdobju v smislu točke 3.4 večsektorskega okvira pomoči iz leta 1998 ne bi upadal in zato bi morala biti odobrena nezmanjšana intenzivnost pomoči v višini 35 odstotkov.
Decision to initiate the procedure
Sklep o sprožitvi postopka
The Commission did not comply with the request by Germany that, on the basis of a different definition of substitutable products, the relevant market should be limited to OSB and certain segments of plywood.
Komisija zahtevi Nemčije, naj se upoštevni trg na podlagi druge definicije nadomestljivih izdelkov omeji na trg za OSB in določene segmente vezanega lesa, ni ugodila.
The Commission did not consider a reassessment of the market to be necessary because two fundamental elements were missing, and this gave rise to serious doubts as to whether the aid was compatible with the common market:
Komisija meni, da nova opredelitev trga ni potrebna, saj nista bila podana dva pomembna elementa, kar je dalo povod za pomemben dvom o tem, ali je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom:
Lack of incentive The Commission expressed serious doubts about the existence of any incentive effect of the notified aid because the investments had already been made.
Pomanjkanje spodbude Komisija je resno dvomila v spodbujevalni učinek prijavljene pomoči, saj so bile naložbe že izvedene.
If the aid does not provide any incentive, the derogations laid down in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty concerning regional development do not apply.
Če pomoč ne deluje kot spodbuda, se izjeme iz določb iz členov 87(3)(a) in 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES o regionalnem razvoju ne uporabljajo.
Lack of necessity The Commission seriously doubted that aid for investments already made could still be considered necessary to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas within the meaning of Article 87(3)(a) and (c).
Pomanjkanje nujnosti Komisija je resno dvomila v to, da bi lahko pomoči za že izvedene naložbe označili kot nujne za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja določene gospodarske panoge ali gospodarskega območja v smislu členov 87(3)(a) in 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
In the case in point, the aid intensity of 31,5% was sufficient to trigger the investment.
Intenzivnost pomoči v višini 31,5 odstotkov je v obravnavanem primeru zadostovala kot spodbuda za izvajanje naložbe.
Germany insisted that the Commission had to reassess the market in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999:
Nemčija je vztrajala pri novi opredelitvi trg s strani Komisije v skladu s členom 9 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999:
The aid would be granted under the joint Federal Government/Länder scheme for improving regional economic structures, which the Commission approved as a regional aid scheme.
Pomoč bi bila dodeljena v okviru „naloge Skupnosti: izboljšanje območnih gospodarskih struktur“, ki jo je Komisija odobrila kot shemo regionalnih pomoči.
The Commission’s duty, therefore, was simply to assess whether the measure notified complied with the requirements set out in the approved aid scheme and was compatible with the 1998 multisectoral aid framework.
Komisija je zato dolžna preveriti, ali prijavljen ukrep ustreza določbam odobrene sheme pomoči in ali je združljiv z večsektorskim okvirom pomoči iz leta 1998.
As the aid concerned by the new notification fulfilled all these requirements, the aid measure was clearly investment aid and not operating aid.
Ker pomoč, sporočena v novi prijavi, te določbe izpolnjuje, je ukrep pomoči nedvomno investicijska pomoč in ne pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
The European Court of First Instance confirmed in its judgment in Kronoply [7] that it was possible to notify additional aid or a change to existing aid.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v svojem sklepu z dne 5. novembra 2003 v zadevi T-130/02 (Kronoply proti Komisiji) [7] potrdilo, da je priglasitev dodatne pomoči ali sprememba že odobrene pomoči mogoča.
The Commission could not, therefore, classify the aid in the second notification as operating aid on the grounds that the project had already been completed.
Tako Komisija druge priglašene pomoči ne more označiti za pomoč za tekoče poslovanje z utemeljitvijo, da je bil projekt že izveden.
Otherwise, the possibility of notifying further aid measures – as confirmed by the Court - would be meaningless.4.
V nasprotnem primeru bi bila možnost za priglasitev nadaljnjih ukrepov pomoči – ki jo je sodišče potrdilo – nična.
Kronoply insisted that several notifications were possible for the same investment project and supported its line of argument with rulings from several court cases:
Kronoply vztraja pri stališču, da je mogočih več priglasitev za isti naložbeni program. To je dokazal s sodbami v različnih pravnih zadevah:
The European Court of First Instance confirmed in Kronoply [8] that additional aid or a change to existing aid was possible: ‘Furthermore, the national authorities cannot be denied the right to notify a measure with which further aid shall be granted or an existing aid measure shall be amended.’
Sodišče prve stopnje je v zadevi Kronoply/Komisija [8] v svojem sklepu potrdilo, da sta mogoči nadaljnja pomoč ali sprememba že odobrene pomoči: „Poleg tega zveznim organom nikakor ni onemogočena prijava namere, s katero naj bi podjetju dodelili nadaljnjo pomoč ali spremenili že dodeljeno pomoč.“
A similar opinion was expressed in Nuove Industrie Molisane Srl [9]: ‘…the [Commission] Decision does not preclude the possibility for the Italian authorities to notify a project to introduce new aid in favour of the applicant, or to amend the aid already granted it.’
To stališče je zastopano tudi v sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 30. januarja 2002 v pravni zadevi T-212/00 (Nuove Industrie Molisane Srl/Komisiji) [9]: „[…] Odločba [Komisije] italijanskim organom [ne jemlje] možnosti za prijavo namere, s katero namerava tožnici dodeliti nadaljnjo pomoč ali spremeniti že dodeljeno pomoč.“
Kronoply also emphasized that the Commission had to assess the new notification on its own merits and advanced two main arguments for this:
Kronoply je tudi poudaril, da mora Komisija novo prijavo stvarno preučiti in za to navedel dva bistvena razloga:
The Commission could not rely on the earlier market assessment because it had been based on a factually wrong market definition.
Komisija se ne more opirati na prejšnjo oceno trga, ker je ta ocena temeljila na dejansko napačni opredelitvi trga.
Kronoply had no possibility of having the Court review the Commission's original decision because its interests were not affected [10].
Kronoply ni imel možnosti, da bi prvotno odločbo Komisije predal v proučitev sodišču, ker njegovi interesi niso bili okrnjeni [10].
Kronoply denied that there was any lack of incentives and supported this view with the following main arguments:
Kronoply je oporekal pomanjkanju spodbud in za to navedel sledeče argumente:
Therefore the aid provided the desired incentive and fulfilled the criterion of necessity with a view to promoting economic development within the meaning of Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
Zato je pomoč nudila želeno spodbudo in izpolnila kriterij nujnosti za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij v smislu člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES.
Kronoply had consistently applied for an aid intensity of 35%.
Kronoply je vedno zaprosil za intenzivnost pomoči v višini 35 odstotkov.
The reduction in the intensity of the notified aid did not mean that further aid was no longer necessary.
Zmanjšanje intenzivnosti zaprošene pomoči ne pomeni, da nadaljnja pomoč ni več potrebna.
As the formal procedure might take up to eighteen months, it was more advantageous for the recipient to receive immediately the part of the aid the admissibility of which was not challenged by the Commission.
Ker bi formalen postopek lahko trajal do 18 mesecev, je bilo za prejemnika pomoči bolj primerno, da takoj sprejme del pomoči, katerega zakonitost za Komisijo ni bil sporna.
Having considered the comments submitted by Germany and Kronoply, the Commission maintains the position it took in the decision instituting the procedure, viz. that a reassessment of the market under the 1998 multisectoral aid framework is not necessary because the two fundamental elements of incentive and necessity are missing in the present case.
Po pregledu stališč Nemčije in podjetja Kronoply Komisija ostaja pri svojem stališču, ki ga je zastopala v sklepu o sprožitvi postopka, in sicer, da nova ocena trga po večsektorskem okviru pomoči iz leta 1998 ni potrebna, saj pri pomoči nista izpolnjena dva bistvena pogoja: spodbujevalni učinek in nujnost.
No further eligible investment costs within the meaning of the regional aid guidelines
Nobenih nadaljnjih upravičenih investicijskih stroškov v smislu Smernic za regionalno pomoč
The Commission takes the view that the present notification N 609/03 (dated 22 December 2003) has to be regarded as a separate and second notification of aid for Kronopoly – albeit aid that does not give rise to any new investment or jobs.
Komisija je mnenja, da je obravnavano priglasitev N 609/03 (z dne 22. decembra 2003) mogoče oceniti kot ločeno, drugo priglasitev pomoči za Kronoply, s katero ni mogoče povzročiti nadaljnjih naložb ali odpirati delovnih mest.
Consequently, there are no new additional eligible costs within the meaning of the regional aid guidelines that might justify the granting of additional aid.
Zato ne nastajajo nobeni dodatni upravičeni stroški v smislu Smernic za regionalno pomoč, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče utemeljiti dodelitev dodatne pomoči.
The Commission approved investment aid for Kronoply amounting to €35.4 million in its decision SG (2001) D/289524 of 3 July 2001, which was based on the information provided by the German authorities at the time.
Komisija je s svojo Odločbo SG (2001) D/289524 z dne 3. julija 2001 odobrila investicijsko pomoč v višini 35,4 milijona EUR za Kronoply. Odločba temelji na podatkih, ki jih je takrat predložila Nemčija.
It decided not to raise any objections and approved the aid as finally proposed by Germany.
Komisija je sklenila, da ne bo vložila ugovorov in odobrila pomoč tako, kot je to predlagala Nemčija.
The decision was accepted by Germany and Kronoply.
Odločbo sta sprejeli tako Nemčija kot podjetje Kronoply.
The aid was subsequently granted by the German authorities and Kronoply completed its investment project on 31 January 2003.
Nemški organi so glede na odločbo dodelili pomoč in Kronoply je 31. januarja 2003 zaključil naložbeni program.
Only eighteen months after the Commission's final decision – and almost a year after completion of the investment project - Germany provided a new market definition by notification of 22 December 2003 and explained that, on the basis of new studies, the relevant market was more correctly defined as the market for OSB and only certain segments of plywood.
Šele 18 mesecev po dokončni odločbi Komisije – in skoraj leto po zaključku naložbenega programa – je Nemčija s prijavo z dne 22. decembra 2003 predložila novo opredelitev trga in pojasnila, da bi bilo na podlagi nove raziskave bolj ustrezno, upoštevni trg opredeliti kot trg za OSB in le določene segmente vezanega lesa.
As already stated in its decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission will not, under these circumstances, reconsider its previous decision.
Kot je že bilo pojasnjeno v sklepu o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, Komisija svoje prejšnje odločbe pod temi okoliščinami ne bo revidirala.
It takes the view that the submission of a different market definition by Germany cannot be subsumed under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Komisija je mnenja, da predložitve druge opredelitve trga s strani Nemčije ni mogoče uvrstiti pod člen 9 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999.
In line with the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Kronoply, the Commission considers that it is indeed possible for a Member State to notify, and for the Commission to approve, additional aid or a change to an approved project, or even different tranches of state aid for a given project, provided that both the incentive effect and the necessity of the aid can be established for each tranche.
V soglasju z sklepom Sodišča prve stopnje v pravni zadevi Kronoply/Komisija je Komisija zastopala stališče, da lahko država članica priglasi nadaljnjo pomoč ali spremeni že odobren projekt ali različne dele državne pomoči za določen projekt in Komisija lahko to odobri, če je mogoče za vsak del dokazati spodbujevalni učinek in nujnost.
However, Germany did not notify any additional investment projects planned by Kronoply in addition to the already completed project.
Nemčija pa poleg že zaključenega programa ni proglasila nobenih nadaljnjih naložbenih programov podjetja Kronoply.
Besides, the project to be financed had been completed about one year before the new aid project was notified.
Program, za katerega je bilo načrtovano financiranje, pa je bil zaključen približno eno leto pred priglasitvijo nove načrtovane pomoči.
The Commission has thus come to the conclusion that this second notification was designed simply to achieve the higher aid intensity of 35% rejected previously and that there were no additional eligible costs for which aid of €3936947 could be approved and no incentive effect or necessity.
Komisija je zato prišla do zaključka, da naj bi z drugo priglasitvijo želeli doseči prej zavrnjeno višjo intenzivnost pomoči v višini 35 odstotkov, ne da bi pri tem nastali dodatni upravičeni stroški, za katere bi lahko bila odobrena pomoč v višini 3936947 EUR, in ne da bi obstajala spodbujevalni učinek in nujnost.
As the Court of Justice of the European Communities ruled in Germany v Commission [12], the Commission has to consider such aid as operating aid because it is granted without imposing any obligation on the part of recipients and is intended to improve the liquidity situation of their undertakings.
Kot je v svoji sodbi z dne 5. oktobra 2000 v pravni zadevi C-288/96 (Zvezna republika Nemčija/Komisija) [12] pojasnilo Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti, mora Komisija takšno pomoč označiti kot pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, saj se jo dodeli, ne da bi se od upravičenca zahtevala dolžnost glede uporabe in je določena za izboljšanje finančnega položaja podjetja.
Incentive effect
Spodbujevalni učinek
Even though the Commission considers that the foregoing comments are sufficient to show that granting additional aid will not lead to new investments or to any incentive effect, it would like to expand on the concept of incentive effect in response to the comments submitted by Germany and Kronoply.
Komisija je sicer mnenja, da je bilo s temi pripombami v zadostni meri prikazano, da dodelitev nadaljnje pomoči ne bo vodila k novi naložbi in da ne bo dajala spodbude, vendar želi zaradi odgovorov na pripombe Nemčije in podjetja Kronoply še bolj natančno obravnavati pojem spodbujevalnega učinka.
Investment process
Naložbeni proces
Business investment should be seen as a dynamic process.
Na poslovne naložbe je potrebno gledati kot na dinamičen proces.
It is important to differentiate between the ex ante and the ex post stages:
Pomembno je razlikovanje med predhodno fazo in naknadno fazo:
Companies decide ex ante whether or not to undertake an investment, basing their calculations on the expected revenues and costs of the project.
Podjetja predhodno sprejmejo odločitev, ali bodo izvršila naložbo, pri tem pa izračuni temeljijo na pričakovanem prihodku in stroških projekta.
If the expected return on the investment project is higher than the required rate of return, they will embark on the project.
Če je pričakovan donos iz naložbenega projekta nad zahtevano stopnjo donosa, začnejo uresničevati program.
Regional aid should be an incentive for companies to change their behaviour and to invest in regions in which they would otherwise not invest.
Regionalna pomoč naj bi nudila spodbudo, da podjetja spremenijo svoj odnos in investirajo v regijah, v katerih drugače ne bi.
Once an investment has been undertaken, it is difficult to reverse ex post because a substantial part of it goes into specific assets which cannot easily be redeployed.
Ko je naložba izvršena, je to naknadno težko razveljaviti, saj znaten del naložbe teče v investicijo, ki je ni mogoče zlahka premestiti na drugo mesto.
In selling such assets, the seller would lose some of the investment capital.
S prodajo takšnih investicij bi odsvojitelj izgubil del investicijskega kapitala.
Ex ante assessment of the incentive effect under the regional aid guidelines
Predhodna ocena spodbujevalnega učinka na podlagi Smernic o regionalni pomoči
Point 4.2 of the regional aid guidelines applies the following test to determine whether or not the aid has an incentive effect: the beneficiary must apply for aid before the start of the project.
V točki 4.2 Smernic o regionalni pomoči se za proučitev, ali ima pomoč spodbujevalni učinek, uporablja sledeči preizkus: prejemnik pomoči mora vlogo za pomoč vložiti pred začetkom izvajanja projekta.
If this condition is fulfilled, the Commission assumes that there is an incentive effect.
Če je temu tako, Komisija izhaja iz dejstva, da obstaja spodbujevalni učinek.
In their comments, Germany and Kronoply claimed that the test in point 4.2 of the regional aid guidelines was met because Kronoply had submitted its aid application before the start of the project.
Nemčija in podjetje Kronoply sta v svojih pripombah izrazila mnenje, da so bili pogoji iz točke 4.2 Smernic o regionalni pomoči izpolnjeni, saj je podjetje Kronoply vlogo za pomoč vložilo pred začetkom izvajanja projekta.
The test of point 4.2 is designed to check for the incentive effect without unduly delaying the investment.
S preizkusom v točki 4.2 naj bi se poskušalo preveriti spodbujevalni učinek, ne da bi pri tem preveč vplivali na naložbo.
A full analysis of the economic circumstances of the recipient's investment decision might prove very difficult or time-consuming and might therefore hold up the investment and the economic development of the region.
Obširna preiskava vseh gospodarskih vidikov investicijske odločitve prejemnika pomoči bi se lahko izkazala za zelo težavno ali dolgotrajno, s tem pa bi zavirala naložbo in gospodarski razvoj regije.
In assessing the presence of the incentive effect for the additional aid corresponding to 3,5 %, the key question is whether the difference between 31,5% and 35% changed the incentive effect and influenced Kronoply’s investment decision:
Odločilno pri oceni spodbujevalnega učinka dodatne pomoči v višini 3,5 odstotkov je, ali je razlika med 31,5 % in 35 % imela velik vpliv na spodbujevalni učinek in ali je vplivala na investicijsko odločitev podjetja Kronoply:
Prior to the investment, Kronoply could not know how much aid it would eventually receive since the assessment of the adjustment factors in the 1998 multisectoral aid framework is at the discretion of the Commission.
Podjetje Kronoply pred naložbo ni moglo vedeti, kako visoka naj bi bila pomoč, saj je bila ocena korekcijskih dejavnikov v večsektorskem okviru pomoči iz leta 1998 podana v presoji Komisije.
Kronoply was unsure therefore whether it would be granted an aid intensity of 31,5% or 35%.
Podjetje Kronoply ni vedelo zagotovo, ali mu bo dodeljena intenzivnost pomoči v višini 31,5 odstotkov ali 35 odstotkov.
It assumed that the expected intensity would lie between these two values, depending on the probabilities attached to the two possible outcomes.
Zato je podjetje izhajalo iz tega, da bo pričakovana intenzivnost glede na verjetnost obeh možnih rezultatov nekje med obema vrednostima.
Kronoply based its investment decision on the expected amount of aid.
Kronoply se je pri svoji naložbeni odločitvi oprl na pričakovani znesek pomoči.
The Commission notes that Kronoply decided to undertake the investment even though the precise amount of aid or the aid intensity was not known.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se je Kronoply odločil za naložbo, čeprav natančna višina pomoči ali intenzivnosti pomoči ni bila določena.
Moreover, Kronoply completed the investment after an aid intensity of 31,5% was approved.
Poleg tega je podjetje naložbo zaključilo po tem, ko je bila odobrena intenzivnost pomoči v višini 31,5 odstotkov.
It was, therefore, clearly prepared to take on the risk attaching to an aid intensity of only 31,5%.
Kronoply je bil očitno pripravljen nase prevzeti tveganje intenzivnosti pomoči v višini zgolj 31,5 odstotkov.
The fact that Kronoply met the test of point 4.2 of the regional aid guidelines does not therefore mean that the expectation of these extra 3,5 percentage points provided an incentive effect.
Dejstvo, da je Kronoply izpolnjeval pogoje v točki 4.2 Smernic o regionalni pomoči, torej ne pomeni nujno tudi, da je imela pričakovana vrednost teh dodatnih 3,5 odstotnih točk spodbujevalni učinek.
Ex post assessment of the incentive effect on the basis of the facts
Naknadna ocena spodbujevalnega učinka na podlagi dejstev