natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To the contrary, it can be argued that, since part of the aid that was declared illegal and incompatible concerned a fiscal measure, all branches of ACEA have benefited from it in the past.
Nasprotno, mogoče je trditi, da ker je del pomoči, ki je bila razglašena za nezakonito in nezdružljivo, zadeval davčne ukrepe, so imele v preteklosti koristi od pomoči vse podružnice podjetja ACEA.
Fiscal aid, being operating aid, is not as such referable to any activity of the firm in particular.
Davčna pomoč, ki je pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, se kot takšna ne more pripisati posamezni dejavnosti podjetja.
The illegal and incompatible aid covered thus the entire economic activity of ACEA, including the branch that was then transferred to AEP.
Nezakonita in nezdružljiva pomoč je tako pokrila celotno gospodarsko dejavnost podjetja ACEA, vključno s panogo, ki je bila prenesena na podjetje AEP.
This implies that part of that non-recovered aid can be attributed to AEP too.
To pomeni, da se del te neizterjane pomoči lahko pripiše tudi podjetju AEP.
On third parties’ comments
Pripombe tretjih strank
Contrary to what is said by ACEA [26], indeed a long period has passed since the decision to recover was made, without any real step taken by the Italian authorities to recover the aid.
V nasprotju s tem, kar trdi podjetje ACEA [26], je od sprejetja odločbe o vračilu preteklo dolgo obdobje brez kakršnega koli pravega ukrepa italijanskih oblasti, da bi izterjale pomoč.
At the end of January 2005, Italy had yet to approve the procedure for the recovery.
Ob koncu januarja 2005 Italija še ni odobrila postopka za vračilo.
Article 14.3 of the Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 [27] clearly indicates that recovery shall be effected without delay.
Člen 14(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 [27] jasno navaja, da se vračilo izvede nemudoma.
Until now, as mentioned above, no clear procedure has been defined to recover the aid, and no recovery proceedings have been started yet.
Do sedaj, kot je omenjeno zgoraj, še ni bil sprožen postopek za vračilo, pa tudi ne določen jasen postopek za vračilo pomoči.
The goodwill of ACEA [28] does not change the situation de facto, which is still of a non recovered aid.
Dobra volja podjetja ACEA [28] ne spremeni dejstva, da pomoč še ni vrnjena.
The issue under examination — the recovery of an aid that was declared illegal — is a factual one, and is not influenced by the disposition of one of the parties in one sense or another.
Obravnavano vprašanje – vračilo pomoči, ki je bila razglašena za nezakonito – predstavlja dejstvo in nanj ne vpliva volja ene izmed strank.
Furthermore, beyond a simple expression of goodwill, ACEA could have acted towards speeding up the recovery, for instance by indicating the amounts that would be involved, and especially by putting a reserve in a blocked bank account.
Poleg preprostega izraza dobre volje bi podjetje ACEA lahko ukrepalo v smeri pospešitve vračila, na primer z navedbo zadevnih zneskov in zlasti s pologom rezerve na blokiran bančni račun.
Finally, concerning a pretended incoherence by the Commission in the application of the Deggendorf jurisprudence, of which the decision on SFP would be an example [29], it should be noted that the 1998 decision [30] was based on a commitment from France to reimburse the previous aid which had been the subject of a negative decision.
V zvezi z domnevno neskladnostjo Komisije pri uporabi sodne prakse Deggendorf, katere primer je Odločba 1998/466/ES [29], je treba omeniti, da je ta odločba [30] temeljila na obveznosti Francije, da vrne prejšnjo pomoč, ki je bila predmet negativne odločbe.
So, Deggendorf was not applicable.
Tako sodna praksa Deggendorf ni bila uporabljena.
The Decision 1998/466/EC also says that no further aid can be given, except in exceptional circumstances.
Odločba 1998/466/ES tudi navaja, da nadaljnja pomoč ne bo dodeljena, razen v izjemnih okoliščinah.
In 2002, the Commission has adopted a decision on a new intervention from France in favour of SFP, but it concluded that the intervention was not an aid.
Leta 2002 je Komisija sprejela odločbo glede nove intervencije francoskih organov v korist SFP, vendar je sklenila, da ta intervencija ni pomenila pomoči.
As a consequence, there was no reason to apply the Deggendorf jurisprudence.
Zato ni bilo razloga za uporabo sodne prakse Deggendorf.
CONCLUSION
SKLEPI
On the basis of the considerations above, the Commission finds that the aid amounting to EUR 3800000 for a district heating project near Rome to be granted to the company AEP, taken in isolation, would be compatible with the Treaty.
Na podlagi zgornjih stališč Komisija ugotavlja, da je pomoč, ki znaša 3,8 milijona EUR za projekt daljinskega ogrevanja v bližini Rima, ki se dodeli podjetju AEP, združljiva s Pogodbo.
The payment of the aid to AEP is however suspended until the moment that Italy submits the proof of the reimbursement of the aid by ACEA that was declared illegal and incompatible in the case assessed in the Decision 2003/193/EC, in application of the Deggendorf jurisprudence,
Vendar pa je plačilo pomoči podjetju AEP odloženo do takrat, ko bo Italija predložila dokazilo o povračilu pomoči podjetja ACEA, ki je bila v zadevi Odločbe 2003/193/ES razglašena za nezakonito in nezdružljivo, pri uporabi sodne prakse Deggendorf –
HAS ADOPTED THE PRESENT DECISION:
SPREJELA NASLEDNJO ODLOČBO:
The aid that Italy intends to grant to the company AEP for a district heating project on the base of ‘Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale del Lazio n. 4556’ of 6 August 1999 is compatible with the common market.
Pomoč za projekt daljinskega ogrevanja, ki jo Italija namerava na podlagi Sklepa Deželnega sveta Lacija št. 4556 z dne 6. avgusta 1999 dodeliti podjetju AEP, je združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The aid referred to in paragraph 1 may not be granted before Italy has submitted evidence that ACEA has reimbursed the previous aid assessed on the case covered by the Decision 2003/193/EC, and the interests.
Pomoč iz odstavka 1 se ne sme dodeliti, dokler Italija ne predloži dokaza, da je podjetje ACEA povrnilo nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč, ocenjeno v zadevi, ki je predmet Odločbe 2003/193/ES, in obresti.
Italy informs the Commission, within a deadline of two months starting from the date of the notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Italija obvesti Komisijo v roku dveh mesecev od datuma notifikacije te odločbe o ukrepih, sprejetih v skladu z odločbo.
This Decision is addressed to Italy.
Ta odločba je naslovljena na Italijo.
OJ C 188, 8.8.2003, p. 8.
UL C 188, 8.8.2003, str. 8.
Judgement of the Court of 15 May 1997 in the case C-355/95 P (Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH v Commission of the European Communities and Federal Republic of Germany), Rec. 1997, p. I-2549.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 15. maja 1997 v zadevi C-355/95 P (Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH proti Komisiji in Zvezni republiki Nemčiji), Rec. 1997, str. I–2549.
Point 3.4 of the decision to open the procedure, C(2003) 1468 fin of 13.5.2003, on case N 90/2002.
Točka 3.4 Sklepa o sprožitvi postopka C(2003) 1468 konč. z dne 13. maja 2003 o pomoči N 90/2002.
OJ L 77, 24.3.2003, p. 21.
UL L 77, 24.3.2003, str. 21.
Case T-297/02 (OJ C 289, 23.11.2002, p. 37).
Zadeva T-297/02 (UL C 289, 23.11.2002, str. 37).
Available on the Internet site of ACEA: www.aceaspa.it
Na voljo na spletni strani ACEA: www.aceaspa.it
OJ L 205, 22.7.1998, p. 68.
Odločba z dne 21. januarja 1998 (UL L 205, 22.7.1998, str. 68).
OJ C 6, 10.1.2004, p. 21.
UL C 6, 10.1.2004, str. 21.
In the case N 707/02 — The Netherlands — MEP — Diffusion of renewable energy, approved by the Commission on 19.3.2003 it is written that the scheme will only favour the producers of renewable electricity and producers of CHP electricity who are feeding that electricity into the grid.
V pomoči N 707/02 Nizozemska – MEP – Distribucija obnovljive energije, ki jo je Komisija sprejela 19. marca 2003, se navaja, da bo program namenjen samo proizvajalcem obnovljive električne energije in proizvajalcem SPTE, ki oskrbujejo omrežje z energijo.
The financial assistance provided to these selective groups of producers of electricity will strengthen their position on the global electricity market, which may possibly lead to a change in market conditions.
Finančna pomoč, ki je zagotovljena tem skupinam proizvajalcev električne energije, bo okrepila njihov položaj na globalnem trgu električne energije, kar lahko vodi k spremembam tržnih pogojev.
Such strengthening of the position of the relevant undertakings as compared with other undertakings competing with them within the Community must be regarded as affecting trade between Member States.
Takšna krepitev položaja zadevnih podjetij v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki jim konkurirajo znotraj Skupnosti, vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami Skupnosti.
See recitals 16 and 25 to 27.
Glej točko 16 in točke 25 do 27.
Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004, in the case T-137/02 (Pollmeier Malchow GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of European Communities).
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 14. oktobra 2004 v zadevi T-137/02 (Pollmeier Malchow GmbH & Co. proti Komisiji).
Letter from Italy of 29.4.2004.
Dopis Italije z dne 29.4.2004.
Decision notified under document number C(2005) 41 of 20.1.2005. See press release IP05/76 of 20.1.2005.
Odločba C(2005) 41 z dne 20.1.2005 (pritožba še ni vložena), glej sporočilo za javnost IP/05/76 z dne 20.1.2005.
See recital 19.
Glej točko 19.
See recital 20.
Glej točko 20.
Article 3 of the Commission Decision stipulates that all necessary measure must be taken by Italy in order to recover from the beneficiaries the unlawful aid thus granted.
Člen 3 Odločbe Komisije določa, da mora Italija sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da od upravičencev izterja tako dodeljeno nezakonito pomoč.
See recital 21.
Glej točko 21.
Letter from Italy, 23.7.2003, p. 6.
Dopis Italije z dne 23. julija 2003, str. 6.
See recital 22.
Glej točko 22.
See recital 23.
Glej točko 23.
See recital 27.
Glej točko 27.
See recital 29.
Glej točko 29.
See recital 30.
Glej točko 30.
See recital 31.
Glej točko 31.
See in particular the third paragraph in the introduction.
Glej zlasti tretji odstavek uvoda.
In view of the fact that the reference investment is nil as the alternative is individual heating of households, the Commission accepted that the full investment cost is eligible.
Referenčna naložba je enaka nič, ker je alternativa individualno ogrevanje gospodinjstev.
In addition, there is no cost saving accruing from the extension of the network.
Poleg tega se stroški, ki izhajajo iz širitve omrežja, ne zmanjšajo.
It finally said no, because of the de minimis rule, the amount in question being limited to EUR 17240. The local authority further took the engagement to verify if there was no cumulation with other de minimis aid over a three years period, for a total amount over EUR 100000, in which case there would have been aid which would not have been granted precisely because of Deggendorf.
Končno je odločila, da ne, zaradi pravila de minimis, ker je zadevni znesek znašal 17240 EUR. Lokalna oblast se je zavezala, da bo preverila, ali v triletnem obdobju ni prišlo do kumulacije z drugo de minimis pomočjo v skupnem znesku več kot 100000 EUR, pri čemer bi šlo za pomoč, ki ne bi bila dodeljena prav zaradi sodne prakse Deggendorf.
Two other neighbourhoods near Rome — Torrino Sud and Mostacciano — are already linked to the combined heat and electricity power plant by means of district heating pipelines.
Dve drugi soseščini v bližini Rima – Torrino Sud in Mostacciano – sta že povezani s toplarno za kombinirano proizvodnjo toplotne in električne energije s cevovodi daljinskega ogrevanja.
The new project represents an extension of the network.
Novi projekt predstavlja podaljšanje omrežja.
on the aid scheme which Italy is planning to implement for ship financing
o programu pomoči, ki ga Italija namerava izvajati za financiranje ladij
(notified under document number C(2005) 844)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2005) 844)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above,
po pozivu zainteresiranim strankam, naj oddajo svoje pripombe, v skladu z navedenimi členi,
On 26 November 1998 the Commission approved the Italian shipbuilding guarantee scheme provided for in Article 5 of Law No 261 of 31 July 1997, and considered that the aid intensity provided for by the scheme amounted to 1 %.
Komisija je 26. novembra 1998 odobrila italijansko garancijsko shemo za ladjedelništvo, predvideno v členu 5 Zakona št. 261 z dne 31. julija 1997, in določila, da znaša s shemo predvidena intenzivnost pomoči 1 %.
It is this notification which is the subject of the present decision.
To obvestilo je predmet te odločbe.
Following the notification there was some correspondence with Italy in order to obtain further information.
Po obvestilu so bila z Italijo izmenjana številna pisma za pridobitev nadaljnjih informacij.
In addition, the Commission had numerous informal contacts with the Italian authorities and with their consultant, and met them on two occasions.
Poleg tega je Komisija vzpostavila številne neuradne stike z italijanskimi organi in njihovimi svetovalci ter se z njimi dvakrat sestala ob različnih časih.
By letter dated 30 April 2003, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the notified measure.
Komisija je s pismom z dne 30. aprila 2003 obvestila Italijo, da se je v zvezi s sporočenim ukrepom odločila začeti postopek, določen v členu 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission Decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [1].
Odločitev Komisije o začetku postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [1].
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.
Komisija je povabila zainteresirane stranke, da predložijo svoje pripombe o pomoči.
By letters dated 4 June 2003, 22 July 2003 and 3 June 2004 the Italian authorities submitted their observations on the Commission’s Decision to initiate the procedure.
S pismi z dne 4. junija 2003, 22. julija 2003 in 3. junija 2004 so italijanski organi predložili svoje pripombe o odločbi Komisije z dne 30. aprila 2003.
A meeting between the Italian authorities and the Commission took place on 27 January 2004.
januarja 2004 je potekal sestanek med italijanskimi organi in Komisijo.
By letter dated 3 November 2004 the Italian authorities asked the Commission to define its position on the case.
Italijanski organi so s pismom z dne 3. novembra 2004 pozvali Komisijo, da oblikuje svoje stališče glede zadevnega primera.
The Commission replied to that letter on 22 December 2004; it did not receive any further correspondence from Italy.
Komisija je na to pismo odgovorila 22. decembra 2004. Po tem Komisija od Italije ni prejela nobenih nadaljnjih pisem.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHEME
OPIS PROGRAMA POMOČI
The Special Guarantee Fund for Ship Financing (Fondo speciale di garanzia per il credito navale — ‘the Fund’) was provided for in Article 5 of Law No 261 of 31 July 1997.
„Fondo speciale di garanzia per il credito navale“ („Sklad“) je bil ustanovljen v skladu s členom 5 Zakona št. 261 z dne 31. julija 1997.
Following a tender procedure, the financial, administrative and technical management of the Fund was entrusted to Mediocredito Centrale SpA (‘Mediocredito’).
Po razpisnem postopku je bilo finančno, administrativno in tehnično upravljanje zaupano Mediocredito Centrale SpA („Mediocredito“).
The Fund is intended to cover the risk of failure to recover loans for the construction and conversion of ships granted by banks to Italian and foreign shipowners for work carried out in Italian shipyards.
Namen Sklada je, da krije tveganje nezmožnosti vračila posojil za gradnjo in predelavo ladij, ki so jih banke odobrile italijanskim in tujim lastnikom ladij, za dela, ki jih izvajajo v italijanskih ladjedelnicah.
For this purpose the Fund is to provide second-priority end-financing guarantees to the shipowners.
V ta namen sklad zgoraj navedenim lastnikom ladij zagotavlja jamstva druge prioritete za ciljno financiranje.
The Italian authorities have confirmed that the Fund is not yet operative, so that no guarantees have yet been granted.
Italijanski organi so potrdili, da Sklad še ne deluje in zato jamstvo še niso bilo odobreno.
The financing loan must have a duration of no more than 12 years and amount to no more than 80 % of the contract price; the interest rate must be no lower than that referred to in the resolution of the OECD Council of 3 August 1981, as amended, or may be equal to the market rate in the event that the financing does not receive any other public assistance aimed at reducing the burden of interest.
Posojilo za financiranje ne sme trajati več kot dvanajst let in znesek ne sme biti višji od 80 % pogodbene cene, po obrestni meri, ki ni nižja od obrestne mere, navedene v sklepu Sveta OECD z dne 3. avgusta 1981 in naknadnih amandmajih, ali po tržni stopnji, v primeru, da financiranja ne podpirajo druge javne koncesije, namenjene zmanjšanju bremena zainteresiranih tretjih oseb.
In addition, the financing is to be secured by a first mortgage on the vessel.
Poleg tega se financiranje zagotovi s prvo hipoteko na plovilo, ki je predmet financiranja.
The scheme provides guarantees to shipowners assessed as being economically and financially sound by Mediocredito on the basis of the criteria specified in the decree.
Garancijska shema zagotavlja jamstva lastnikom ladij. Za odobritev jamstva Mediocredito na osnovi meril, določenih v Uredbi, oceni, ali so jamstva gospodarsko in finančno zanesljiva.
A guarantee can be given on a sum no greater than 40 % of the loan and — within this limit — may cover up to 90 % of the final loss incurred by the banks for capital, contractual interest and interest on arrears, at a rate no higher than the reference rate in force on the date of legal proceedings for recovery of the debt, and costs, including court and out-of-court expenses incurred.
Jamstvo lahko pomeni znesek, ki ni višji od 40 % posojila in lahko – znotraj te meje – pokriva do 90 % končne izgube, ki nastane bankam zaradi kapitala, pogodbenih obresti in obresti na zaostala plačila, po stopnji, ki ni višja od veljavne referenčne stopnje na dan pravnih postopkov za povračilo dolga in stroškov, vključno z nastalimi sodnimi in izvensodnimi stroški.
The one-off premium to be paid by the beneficiaries of the Fund is fixed, and was originally set at 1,6 % of the guaranteed amount, independently of the duration of the guaranteed loan.
Določena je enkratna premija, ki jo plačajo upravičenci Sklada, in je prvotno znašala 1,6 % zajamčenega zneska, neodvisno od trajanja zagotovljenega posojila.
The Italian authorities subsequently informed the Commission that they intended to redefine the one-off premium, which would now be a maximum of 2,3 % of the guaranteed amount for a 12-year loan, and proportionally less for shorter loans.
Italijanski organi so Komisijo naknadno obvestili o svoji nameri ponovne določitve višine enkratne premije, ki naj bi znašala do 2,3 % zajamčenega zneska, za 12-letna posojila (za krajša posojila se premija sorazmerno zniža).
This one-off 2,3 % premium is equivalent to a premium of 0,5 % per annum on the outstanding guaranteed amount of a 12-year loan.
Ta enkratna premija je enakovredna letni premiji v višini 0,5 % na stanje zadolženosti 12-letnega posojila.
The Italian authorities considered introducing a mechanism of risk differentiation, whereby different projects would be charged different premiums according to the risk involved in financing the project.
Italijanski organi so razmišljali o uvedbi mehanizma diferenciacije tveganja, s čimer bi bile za različne projekte določene različne premije, glede na vključeno tveganje pri financiranju projekta.
However, this system was only briefly outlined, and no other detail or information on its operation has been provided to the Commission.
Vendar je bil ta sistem samo na kratko opisan in Komisija ni prejela nobenih drugih podrobnosti in informacij o njegovem delovanju.
In its decision to initiate proceedings, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the scheme satisfied all the tests in point 4(3) of the notice of 11 March 2000 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (the ‘Guarantees Notice’) [2], which would have allowed the Commission to conclude that there was no aid involved.
V svoji odločitvi o začetku postopkov je Komisija izrazila dvome o tem, ali italijanska garancijska shema za financiranje ladij izpolnjuje vse pogoje iz točke 4 (3) obvestila z dne 11. marca 2000 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES o državni pomoči v obliki jamstev („Obvestilo o jamstvih“) [2], kar bi Komisiji omogočilo, da izključi obstoj pomoči.
Among other things, the Commission wondered whether a State-provided guarantee scheme which charged the same premium to all users independently of the individual risks of the financed project — in a sector where there was a market willing to offer such guarantees — could be considered likely to be self-financing.
Komisija se je med drugim spraševala, ali s strani države zagotovljena garancijska shema, ki zaračunava enako premijo vsem uporabnikom, neodvisno od individualnih tveganj financiranega projekta – ki se uporablja v sektorju, za katerega obstaja trg, ki je pripravljen nuditi takšna jamstva – ne bo po vsej verjetnosti samofinancirana.
Also, the Commission had doubts that the premiums paid by the beneficiaries were in line with the market, or sufficient to cover all the costs of the scheme.
Komisija je dvomila, da so plačane premije upravičencev v skladu s trgom in v vsakem primeru zadostne za kritje vseh stroškov sheme.
Last, the Commission could not be certain that a percentage of only 10 % of the most risky part of the loan would be enough to ensure that the lender assessed the creditworthiness of the borrower properly and minimised the risks associated with the transaction.
Komisija ni mogla izključiti, da bi se delež v višini samo 10 % najbolj tveganega dela posojila, ki je „brez hipoteke“, za katerega posojilodajalec nosi tveganje, lahko izkazal za nezadostnega za zagotovitev, da posojilodajalec ustrezno oceni kreditno sposobnost posojilojemalca in zmanjša tveganje, ki je povezano s transakcijo.
The Italian authorities submit that the Fund does not involve aid, for the following reasons:
Italijanski organi so navedli, da Sklad ne vključuje pomoči iz naslednjih razlogov:
the rules of the Fund permit guarantees to be granted only to shipowners of meeting strict economic criteria, with a risk profile below the average; these beneficiaries have similar risk profiles, and thus no substantial differentiation of guarantee premiums appears necessary;
pravila Sklada dovoljujejo odobritev jamstev samo lastnikom ladij z visokim ekonomskim standardom, s profilom tveganja, ki je pod povprečjem; ti upravičenci imajo podobne profile tveganj in zato ni potrebna bistvena diferenciacija jamstvenih premij;
a market survey conducted among several credit institutions operating in Italy has shown that the average market premium for similar guarantees is substantially equivalent to that proposed by the Italian authorities.
opravljena analiza trga pri različnih kreditnih ustanovah, ki delujejo v Italiji, je pokazala, da je povprečna tržna premija za podobna jamstva enakovredna tisti, ki so jo predlagali italijanski organi.
Thereafter, by letter of 3 June 2004, the Italian authorities indicated their readiness to adopt a system of risk differentiation whereby projects would be charged different premiums according to the financial risk involved.
Italijanski organi so zato s pismom z dne 3. junija 2004 izrazili svojo pripravljenost, da sprejmejo sistem diferenciacije tveganja, s čimer bi se projektom določile različne premije, glede na vključeno finančno tveganje.
This system takes as its point of departure the original 0,5 % p.a. premium.
Ta sistem jemlje za izhodišče prvotno 0,5 % letno premijo.
Essentially, the premiums would vary according to the length of the loan and the risk of the project.
Premije se bi pravzaprav spreminjale glede na dolžino trajanja posojil in tveganje projektov.