natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In accordance with the last paragraph of the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid [3], where, at the time of a decision, guidelines have been replaced by a regulation, the Commission considers that the rules set out in the regulation have to be applied to the extent that they are more favourable than those set out in of the guidelines [4].
Glede na zadnji pododstavek Obvestila Komisije o določitvi veljavnih pravil za ocenjevanje nezakonite državne pomoči [3], kjer je v času sklepa smernice nadomestila uredba, Komisija meni, da so pravila, določena v Uredbi, ugodnejša od pravil, določenih v smernicah [4].
Accordingly, as regards de minimis aid, the rules of 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 [5] have, in principle, to be applied.
Zato morajo v zvezi z de minimis v principu veljati pravila Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri de minimis pomoč [5].
Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 does not apply to aid for export related activities, namely aid directly linked to the quantities exported as well as to the establishment and operation of a distribution network or to other current expenditure linked to the export activity, as provided for in Article 1(a).
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 v skladu s svojim členom 1(a) se ne uporablja za pomoč, namenjeno dejavnostim v zvezi z izvozom, tj. za pomoč, neposredno povezano z izvoženimi količinami, z ustanovitvijo in delovanjem distribucijskega omrežja ali z drugimi trenutnimi stroški, ki so povezani z izvozno dejavnostjo.
As regards compliance of the aid at issue with the relevant de minimis rules, it has to be noted that the Community guidelines on State aid for SMEs of 1992 [6], which included the de minimis rule in force at the time the aid was granted, did not explicitly exclude export aid but set a lower threshold of ECU 50000.
V zvezi s skladnostjo te pomoči z ustreznimi de minimis pravili je treba opozoriti, da smernice Komisije o državni pomoči za MSP iz leta 1992 [6], veljavno v času, ko je bila pomoč odobrena, izrecno ne izključujejo izvozne pomoči. Določajo pa nižji prag v znesku 50000 ECU.
In the light of the above, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the aid granted to WAM SpA in 1995 under Law No 394/81 could be considered to comply with any relevant de minimis rule.
Komisija glede na zgoraj omenjeno dvomi, da je pomoč, ki je bila WAM S.p.A. odobrena leta 1995 v okviru zakona 394/81, mogoče obravnavati, kot da je v skladu s kakršnim koli de minimis pravilom.
Furthermore, in the light of a preliminary examination, the Commission had serious doubts whether the aid to WAM SpA could be declared compatible with the EC Treaty on the basis of any provision.
Nadalje, Komisija je imela na podlagi predhodnega pregleda resne pomisleke glede tega, ali je pomoč, odobrena WAM-u, v okviru kakršne koli določbe združljiva s Pogodbo ES.
In particular, in view of the fact that, at the time the procedure was initiated, WAM SpA was not regarded as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), the Commission also stressed that aid for market surveys and for participation in fairs and exhibitions, which in principle could qualify as aid for consultancy and other services and activities within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises [7], could not be granted an exemption in the present case.
Natančneje, če WAM S.p.A. v času, ko se je postopek začel, ni bil MSP, Komisija poudarja, da pomoči za tržne raziskave in za sodelovanje na sejmih in razstavah, ki bi v skladu s členom 5 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 70/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe Evropske skupnosti pri pomoči za majhna in srednje velika podjetja [7], v zadevnem primeru ni mogoče obravnavati kot izjemo.
Furthermore, if the aid were to be assessed as foreign direct investment (FDI), it should be noted that, until now, the Commission has not authorised State aid for FDI in the case of large enterprises.
Nadalje, če naj se pomoč ocenjuje kot neposredna tuja naložba (NTN), je treba opozoriti, da Komisija do tega trenutka še ni potrdila državne pomoči za NTN velikih podjetij.
By Decision 97/241/EC of 5 June 1996 [8], the Commission approved a scheme subject to the aid being granted only for foreign direct investment by SMEs — provided that all the conditions laid down for the granting of state aid to SMEs were met — and subject to any aid for large enterprises being notified individually.
Komisija je v odločbi št. 97/241/ES z dne 5. junija 1996 [8] odobrila shemo, po kateri se pomoč odobri le za neposredne tuje naložbe MSP – v primeru, da so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji, določeni za odobritev državne pomoči MSP – in po kateri se glede pomoči za velika podjetja obvešča individualno.
The only notification of an individual aid to a large enterprise on the basis of the above mentioned decision resulted in a negative decision [9].
Edino sporočilo o individualni pomoči za veliko podjetje na podlagi zgoraj omenjene odločbe je imelo za posledico negativno odločbo [9].
The Italian authorities then pointed out in their letter of 24 October 2002 (A/37783) that no aid has ever been granted directly to ‘WAM Engineering’ and that there was no undertaking registered as such in the Italian business register.
Italijanske oblasti so v pismu z dne 24.10.2002 (A/37783) poudarile tudi, da „WAM Engineering-u“ ni bila nikoli odobrena neposredna pomoč in da v italijanskem registru podjetij ni podjetja, registriranega s tem imenom.
First of all, it has to be noted that ‘WAM Engineering Ltd’ is the subsidiary for the United Kingdom and Ireland of ‘WAM SpA’.
Predvsem je treba poudariti, da je „WAM Engineering Ltd“ odvisna družba „WAM S.p.A.“ za Združeno kraljestvo in Irsko.
Secondly, following their letter of 11 October 1999, the Italian authorities announced that in 1995 ‘WAM SpA’ had been granted a subsidised loan under Law No 394/81 and added, by letter A/33699 of 21 May 2002, that the ‘WAM group’ has been granted another subsidised loan under the same scheme on 9 November 2000.
Italijanske oblasti so po svojem pismu z dne 11.10.1999 sporočile tudi, da je bilo „WAM S.p.A.“ v letu 1995 odobreno ugodno posojilo v okviru zakona 394/81, in v pismu A/33699 z dne 21. maja 2002 dodale, da je bilo „WAM group“9. novembra 2000 v okviru iste sheme odobreno še eno ugodno posojilo.
According to Article 10(1) 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 [10], ‘Where the Commission has in its possession information from whatever source regarding alleged unlawful aid, it shall examine that information without delay.’
Člen 10(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [10] se glasi: „Če ima Komisija podatke iz katerega koli vira o domnevni nezakoniti pomoči, te podatke brez odlašanja preveri“.
In conclusion, having regard to the above, the Commission expressed strong doubts as to whether the aid granted in 1995 to WAM SpA under Law No 394/81 might qualify, pursuant to any provision, for an exemption under Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty.
Končno, Komisija je glede na zgoraj omenjeno izrazila resne pomisleke v zvezi s tem, ali je pomoč, ki je bila WAM-u odobrena leta 1995 v skladu z zakonom 394/81, v okviru kakršne koli določbe mogoče obravnavati kot izjemo iz člena 87(3) ES Pogodbe.
Aid granted to WAM SpA in 2000
Kar zadeva pomoč, ki je bila WAM S.p.A. odobrena leta 2000
At the time the formal investigation procedure was initiated, the Commission was not aware of any specific feature, such as aid intensity or eligible expenditure, of the aid granted to the ‘WAM group’ (as defined by the Italian authorities) in 2000, again in the form of a subsidised loan under Law No 394/81. No relevant information had been submitted by the Italian authorities.
V času, ko se je začel formalni postopek preiskave, Komisiji niso bile poznane nobene specifične podrobnosti, kot sta intenzivnost pomoči in upravičeni stroški, glede pomoči, ki je bila „WAM group“ – kot so jo opredelile italijanske oblasti – odobrena leta 2000, še vedno v obliki ugodnega posojila v okviru zakona 394/81, saj italijanske oblasti do takrat še niso predložile nobenih ustreznih informacij.
Accordingly, the Commission was not able at that stage to assess the specific aid in depth. However, given that it served the same purpose and was granted on the same legal basis as the aid granted in 1995, it doubted whether the aid could be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of the Treaty pursuant to any relevant rule.
Zaradi tega Komisija specifične pomoči na tej stopnji ni mogla natančno preučiti, a je izrazila pomisleke glede tega, ali je pomoč mogoče obravnavati, kot da je v skladu z določbami pogodbe v okviru katerega koli ustreznega pravila, saj je služila istemu namenu in je bila odobrena na isti pravni podlagi kot pomoč, ki je bila odobrena leta 1995.
Comments on the opening of proceedings were received from a third party interested in the case at hand, who asked for confidentiality to be preserved.
Pripombe na uvedbo postopka je poslala tretja stranka, zainteresirana za ta primer, ki je prosila, da njeno ime ostane tajno.
These comments applaud the Commission’s efforts to restore a level playing field for competitors in the sector concerned and complain about the engineering skills and jobs being lost on account of the position of WAM SpA on the market.
V teh komentarjih pozdravlja prizadevanja Komisije za vzpostavitev enakih konkurenčnih pogojev v tem specifičnem sektorju in se pritožuje nad inženirskimi spretnostmi ter delovnimi mesti, ki jih je izgubila zaradi položaja WAM S.p.A. na trgu.
By letter A/37525 of 3 November 2003, Italy, which was made aware of the third party’s comments by Commission letter D/56068 of 25 September 2003, pointed out that, in its opinion, these comments made no new contribution as they simply confirmed some points already made in the case, including by the complainant.
Komisija je v pismu D/56068 z dne 25.9.2003 obvestila Italijo o pripombah tretjih strank, ta pa je v pismu A/37525 z dne 3.11.2003 izrazila mnenje, da te pripombe niso ničesar prispevale, saj naj bi le potrjevale obtožbe, ki jih je tožnik že izrekel v zvezi s to dokumentacijo.
In particular, Italy considers that sufficient proof has been provided of the lack of any link between the facts claimed in the above-mentioned comments and the funding of WAM SpA under Law No 394/81.
Zlasti Italija meni, da je dovolj trdno dokazala, da povezava med dejstvi, ki jih stranke navajajo v zgoraj omenjenih pripombah, in financiranjem WAM v okviru zakona 394/81 ne obstaja.
V. COMMENTS FROM ITALY
V. PRIPOMBE ITALIJE
Evidence has been provided that, at the moment of the granting of the first aid measure and of the introduction of the relevant application, WAM SpA, on the basis of its 1994 annual accounts, complied with the definition of medium-sized enterprise given at point 2.2 of the 1992 Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises [11], on the grounds that it had 163 employees, had an annual turnover of EUR 16,8 million and a balance-sheet total of EUR 20,1 million and was owned by two undertakings, both fulfilling the definition of an SME.
Predloženi so bili dokazi, da je bil WAM v trenutku, ko mu je bila odobrena prva pomoč, pa tudi ob uvedbi s tem povezane vloge, na podlagi zaključnega računa iz leta 1994 skladen z opredelitvijo srednje velikega podjetja, ki je določena v točki 2.2 smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za MSP iz leta 1992 [11], saj je bilo tam zaposlenih 163 oseb, imel je 16,8 milijonov EUR letnega prometa, bilanca stanja je znašala 20,1 milijon EUR in bil je v lasti dveh podjetij, ki sta ustrezali opredelitvi MSP.
But the Italian authorities themselves agree that WAM SpA was no longer an SME after 1998 or when the second aid measure was granted (2000).
Nasprotno pa se italijanske oblasti same strinjajo, da WAM že od leta 1998 ni več MSP, niti torej ni bil MSP, ko mu je bila odobrena druga pomoč, to je leta 2000.
No new substantive element concerning the first aid measure has been added to the information that the Commission already possessed at the time of the opening of procedure, save for the fact that the loan was made available to the recipient in several instalments for which the grace period could vary from 2 years to zero.
Komisiji v zvezi s prvim financiranjem ni bil predložen noben bistven element, ki ga ni imela že v času začetka postopka, razen podatka, da je posojilo upravičencu bilo dano na voljo v več obrokih, glede na to pa je podaljšani plačilni rok lahko bil od 0 do 2 leti.
Apparently, there was no provision in the original contract for reviewing the interest rate.
Prvotna pogodba očitno ni predvidevala nobene določbe v zvezi s pregledovanjem obrestne mere.
This aid should have been repaid in full by April 2004.
Ta pomoč bi morala biti v celoti povrnjena aprila 2004.
As far as the second subsidised loan granted to WAM SpA in 2000 is concerned, the Italian authorities provided clarification, after the opening of the procedure, by letter A/35269 of 25 July 2003 that its actual overall amount was ITL 3603574689 (EUR 1861091,01), instead of ITL 1940579808 (about EUR 1 million), as previously declared by letter A/33699 of 21 May 2002 and mentioned in the decision to initiate the procedure, since the latter figure referred only to the part of the loan which had already been paid at the moment the letter was written, irrespective of the overall amount of aid granted.
Kar zadeva drugo ugodno posojilo, ki je bilo WAM-u odobreno leta 2000, so italijanske oblasti po začetku postopka v pismu A/35269 z dne 25.7.2003 pojasnile, da je dejanski skupni znesek znašal 3603574689 ITL (1861091,01 EUR), namesto 1940579808 (približno 1 milijon EUR), kot so pred tem navedle v pismu A/33699 z dne 21.5.2002 in kot je bilo omenjeno v sklepu za začetek postopka, saj se je pismo nanašalo samo na del posojila, ki je v času pisanja pisma že bil izplačan, pri tem pa se ni upošteval skupni znesek odobrene pomoči.
Two more instalments of the aid were, in fact, paid.
Pravzaprav sta bila po tem izplačana še dva obroka pomoči.
In particular, the last one, amounting to EUR 248091,01, was paid on 29 January 2003, while the Commission decision to initiate the procedure had been taken on 21 January 2003 and the Commission letter notifying Italy of that fact is dated 24 January 2003.
Zadnji, ki je znašal 248091,01 EUR, je bil izplačan 29.1.2003, pri tem pa je Komisija sklep o uvedbi postopka sprejela 21.1.2003 in Italijo o začetku postopka obvestila v pismu z dne 24.1.2003.
The conditions on which this loan was granted are the same as those for the first loan since both were granted under Law No 394/81.
Pogoji za odobritev tega posojila so enaki pogojem za odobritev prvega posojila, saj oboji temeljijo na enaki pravni podlagi, ki jo predstavlja zakon 394/81.
The granting of the entire amount of the loan in question was decided on 9 November 2000 and the contract was signed on 20 December 2000.
Odobritev celotnega zneska zadevnega posojila je bila sprejeta 9.11.2000 in pogodba podpisana 20.12.2000.
A schedule of the eligible costs taken into consideration for the aid at issue, transmitted by the Italian Government in the Annex to letter A/35269, is reproduced below.
Tabela upravičenih stroškov, upoštevanih pri zadevni pomoči, ki jo je italijanska vlada poslala priloženo k pismu A/35269, je prikazana spodaj.
(EUR 000)
(v tisočih EUR)
Rent and fitting-out of premises, vehicles
Najemnina in oprema prostorov, vozila
Operating costs (management, goods and personnel)
Stroški poslovanja (delovanje, blago in osebje)
Training
Izobraževanje
Trips by customers to Italy
Potovanja strank v Italijo
Furthermore, it transpires from the documents annexed to letter A/30263 of 14 January 2004 that the programme in question was to be carried out jointly by WAM SpA and ‘WAM Bulk Handling Machinery Shangai (Co Ltd’, which is a local firm wholly owned by WAM SpA.
Iz dokumentov, priloženih pismu A/30263 z dne 14.1.2004, je razvidno tudi, da naj bi zadevni program skupaj izvajala WAM S.p.A. in „WAM Bulk Handling Machinery Shangai Co Ltd“, ki je lokalno podjetje pod 100 % nadzorom WAM S.p.A.
Eligible costs were considered to include the rent of premises for offices, storage, showrooms and a technical assistance workshop (with a total surface area of 7500 m2), the purchase, renting or leasing of 3 vehicles, personnel costs for the parent firm and abroad (in particular 1 sales manager and 6 technicians).
Upravičeni stroški so vključevali najemnino prostorov za pisarne, skladišče, sobo za predstavitve in delavnico za tehnično pomoč v skupni površini 7500 m2, nakup, najem ali zakup 3 vozil ter osebje v starševski družbi in v tujini (natančneje, 1 vodja prodaje in 6 tehnikov).
The interest rate applied to the specific loan is 2,32 %, i.e. 40 % of the reference rate of 5,8 % in force when the aid was granted.
Obrestna mera za to specifično posojilo je 2,32 %, kar je 40 % referenčne obrestne mere (5,8 %), ki je veljala v času, ko je bila pomoč odobrena.
Once again, no change in the interest rate during the duration of the loan seems to have been provided for in the contract.
Še enkrat se poudarja, da v pogodbi očitno ni bila predvidena nobena sprememba obrestne mere v času posojila.
The loan was paid to the recipient in several instalments, so that the grace period varies from 2 years to zero.
Upravičencu je bila pomoč izplačana v več obrokih, zato se podaljšani plačilni rok giblje med nič in dvema letoma.
As regards repayment, the data supplied by Italy show that the grace period of two years, during which only the interest on the loan instalments already made over to the recipient was paid, elapsed on 20 February 2003.
Kar zadeva povračilo, je iz podatkov, ki jih je predložila Italija, razvidno, da je 20. februarja 2003 poteklo dveletno obdobje podaljšanega plačilnega roka, v katerem so bile povrnjene le obresti na obroke posojila, ki so upravičencu že bili izplačani.
According to the schedule, repayment should therefore be completed by February 2008.
Na ta način naj bi bil dolg v celoti odplačan do februarja 2008.
As regards modification of the interest rate during the repayment period, the Italian authorities argue that general rules allowing such reductions did exist within the Italian legal framework.
Italijanske oblasti v zvezi s spremembo obrestne mere v obdobju odplačevanja trdijo, da splošna pravila, ki dovoljujejo takšno znižanje, dejansko obstajajo v okviru italijanskega pravnega sistema.
However, the Ministerial Decree of 31 March 2000, which is the only legal basis provided for this purpose, applies only to the initiatives funded by Laws Nos 394/81 and 304/1990, and is therefore very selective.
Ne glede na odredbo ministra (Decreto Ministeriale) z dne 31.3.2000, ki predstavlja edino pravno podlago za to, sprememba velja le za pobude, ki jih financirata zakona 394/81 in 304/1990, in je zato videti zelo selektivna.
No further evidence has been provided that the interest rate on the aid in question was modified.
Predloženi niso bili niti dokazi, da je v zvezi z zadevno pomočjo sploh prišlo do spremembe obrestne mere.
Lastly, such a modification could have been made only to the first subsidised loan granted to WAM SpA as it applied to the funding in existence when it came into force, while the second loan had not as yet been granted to WAM SpA.
Navsezadnje bi lahko veljala samo za prvo ugodno posojilo, ki je bilo odobreno WAM, saj velja za financiranja, ki so že obstajala, ko je začela veljati, medtem ko druga pomoč v tistem času WAM S.p.A. še ni bila odobrena.
With regard to both loans, the Italian authorities claim that the cost of the compulsory bank guarantee, which was requested prior to the granting of the loans, has to be deducted from the amount of the aid.
Italijanske oblasti trdijo, da je treba pri obeh pomočeh od njunih zneskov odšteti stroške obveznega bančnega jamstva, ki se zahteva pred odobritvijo posojil.
The Commission observes, first of all, that such a guarantee, or its equivalent, would normally have been requested even by a private credit institution granting loans according to the market economy investor principle and, secondly, that it emerges from letter A of the specifications annexed to the contract that the overlapping of aid for the same programme is not permitted, except for aid related to the guarantee, which consequently is deemed itself to be eligible for aid.
Komisija opozarja najprej, da takšno jamstvo ali ustrezen ekvivalent po navadi zahtevajo tudi zasebne kreditne institucije, ki posojila odobrijo v skladu s principom investitorja v tržni ekonomiji, opozarja pa tudi, da je v pismu -A- specifikacij, priloženih pogodbi, razvidno, da pomoč, ki se prekriva glede na isti program, ni dovoljena, razen v primeru pomoči, povezane z jamstvom, ki se posledično tudi samo obravnava, kot da je upravičeno do pomoči.
As regards WAM SpA’s exports inside and outside the EU, the following data were provided:
V zvezi z izvoznimi kvotami WAM znotraj in zunaj EU so bili predloženi naslednji podatki:
Exports inside EU
Izvoz znotraj EU
Exports outside EU
Izvoz zunaj EU
Total exports
Skupen izvoz
The Italian authorities informed the Commission that the total export figures above represent between 52 % and 57,5 % of WAM SpA’s total annual turnover.
Italijanske oblasti so sporočile, da zgornje številke za skupen izvoz predstavljajo 52 % do 57,5 % skupnega letnega prometa WAM.
Finally, while the Italian authorities acknowledge that the two loans under examination are covered neither by Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 nor by Regulation (EC) No 70/2001, they take the view that the incentives for Community enterprises designed to support programmes to be implemented outside the EU do not fall within the scope of Article 87 of the EC Treaty.
Končno, italijanske oblasti priznavajo, da nobene od zadevnih pomoči ne pokrivata niti Uredba 69/2001 niti Uredba 70/2001, a so mnenja, da pobude podjetjem Skupnosti, ki so namenjene izvajanju podpornih programov zunaj EU, ne spadajo v obseg člena 87 ES Pogodbe.
Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty
Prisotnost pomoči v smislu člena 87§1 Pogodbe ES
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty states that ‘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, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.’
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES navaja, da je „vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.“
The aid under scrutiny consist of transfers of public funding, in the form of subsidised loans, to a specific undertaking, WAM SpA.
Pomoči, ki so pod nadzorom, se izvajajo s subvencijami javnega financiranja v obliki ugodnih posojil specifičnemu podjetju, tj. WAM S.p.A.
These loans improve the financial situation of the aid recipient.
Ti prispevki izboljšujejo finančno stanje upravičenca do pomoči.
As regards the potential effect on trade between Member States, it has been stressed by the Court of Justice [12] that, even if the aid is intended to promote exports outside the EU, intra-Community trade may be affected.
V zvezi s potencialnim vplivom na trgovino med državami članicami je Evropsko sodišče poudarilo [12], da tudi pomoč, namenjena izvažanju zunaj EU, lahko vpliva na izmenjave znotraj Skupnosti.