natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Germany has provided evidence that all these measures comply with the terms of the schemes under which they were allegedly granted.
Nemčija je dokazovala, da so vsi ti ukrepi v skladu s programi, po katerih so bili domnevno dodeljeni.
Consequently, measures 24, 25 and 33 constitute existing aid, which the Commission does not need to reassess.
Zato predstavljajo ukrepi 24, 25 in 33 obstoječe pomoči, ki jih Komisiji ni potrebno še enkrat oceniti.
Measure 26: Grants for the promotion of employment in connection with environmental investments, allegedly awarded under an approved scheme, do not count as aid [47].
Ukrep 26: Podpora za spodbujanje zaposlovanja v povezavi z okoljskimi investicijami, ki je bila domnevno dodeljena v okviru odobrenega programa, se ne šteje za pomoč [47].
However, as stated in the decision to extend the formal investigation procedure, the scheme was intended - as far as its environmental aspects are concerned - for the cleaning-up of environmental hazards in state-owned enterprises.
Kot je bilo navedeno v razširitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, je bil program – kar zadeva njegove elemente okolja - namenjen odstranitvi nevarnosti za okolje v podjetjih v državni lasti.
The grants are therefore clearly not in keeping with the scheme on the basis of which they were allegedly granted.
Podpora tako torej ni v skladu s programom, na podlagi katerega je bila domnevno dodeljena.
By letter dated 29 July 1994 [48], Germany explained to the Commission how this provision was to be interpreted.
Z dopisom z dne 29. julija 1994 [48] je Nemčija Komisiji pojasnila, kako je potrebno razlagati to določbo.
Germany clearly stated that such measures could be carried out only in municipalities, towns, etc. Companies held by the THA were also eligible for such aid before their privatisation, as up to that point they were to be regarded as state-owned enterprises [49].
Nemčija je jasno navedla, da je takšne ukrepe mogoče izvajati le v občinah, mestih itd. Podjetja v rokah THA so bila pred privatizacijo prav tako upravičena do te pomoči, saj so bila do takrat obravnavana kot državna podjetja [49].
The Commission considered that such measures did not constitute aid as they did not confer an advantage on any one company [50].
Komisija je zastopala stališče, da ti ukrepi ne predstavljajo pomoči, saj nobenemu podjetju ne dajejo prednosti [50].
When it benefited from these measures, Kahla II was a private company and hence ineligible.
Kahla II je bila v času dodelitve tega ukrepa zasebno podjetje in zato ni bila upravičena do pomoči.
Moreover, part of these grants were awarded by the Land of Thuringia, whereas according to the relevant scheme only the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit was entitled to award such grants.
Poleg tega Komisija opominja, da je bil del te podpore dodeljen s strani dežele Turingija, medtem ko ima po zadevnem programu pravico do dodelitve takšne podpore le Zvezni zavod za zaposlovanje.
Consequently, the Commission is unable to find that these measures constituted existing aid [51].
Zato Komisija ne more ugotoviti, ali so ti ukrepi predstavljali obstoječe pomoči [51].
Following the extension of the formal investigation procedure, Germany changed tack, arguing that these measures did not confer any advantage on the company.
Po razširitvi formalnega postopka preiskave je Nemčija spremenila svojo utemeljitev in trdila, da ti ukrepi podjetju niso dajali nikakršne prednosti.
It stated first of all that the measures had been granted for the clearance of old installations, which was ostensibly of importance to the environment.
Najprej je Nemčija navedla, da so bili ti ukrepi dodeljeni za odstranjevanje stare opreme, kar naj bi domnevno imelo velik pomen za okolje.
However, the Commission cannot accept that the clearance of old installations did not confer an advantage on the company.
Vendar Komisija ne more sprejeti, da odstranitev stare opreme za podjetje ni predstavljalo prednosti.
Any such works would necessarily lead to an increase in the available surface area and in the value of the company.
Tovrstna dela so nujno vodila k povečanju razpoložljivih površin in zato k zvišanju vrednosti podjetja.
Germany recently stated that the measures were intended for the removal of environmental hazards dating from July 1990.
Nemčija je nedavno trdila, da so bili ukrepi predvideni za odstranitev nevarnosti za okolje, ki so nastale v juliju leta 1990.
According to the Commission’s practice, such measures do not constitute aid.
Glede na izkušnje Komisije takšni ukrepi ne predstavljajo pomoči.
However, Germany has not provided any evidence that there were any hazards dating from before July 1990.
Vendar Nemčija ni predložila nobenega dokaza o kakršni koli nevarnosti, ki naj bi nastala pred julijem 1990.
In addition, those hazards had supposedly been removed by Kahla I, which already benefited from such support in 1991 (measure 2) for the amount needed to remove them.
Poleg tega je Kahla I domnevno odstranila takšne nevarnosti, ko je leta 1991 prejela podporo (ukrep 2) v višini zneska, potrebnega za odstranitev nevarnosti.
Germany has never furnished any proof that the environmental hazards had still not been removed when the assets were purchased by Kahla I. Even if this were the case, the acquirer might reasonably be expected to have verified that the assets were free of this type of hazard.
Nemčija nikoli ni predložila dokaza, da nevarnosti za okolje še niso bile odstranjene, ko je bilo premoženje podjetja Kahla I prodano. Tudi če bi temu bilo tako, bi moral kupec ustrezno preveriti, ali premoženje ne vsebuje takšnih nevarnosti.
If it were not the case, he did not exercise the necessary care and it is therefore unacceptable that state support was subsequently provided for the purpose.
Če temu ni bilo tako, ni bil dovolj pazljiv in zato ni sprejemljivo, da se pozneje zahteva državna podpora v ta namen.
If suitable checks had been carried out, the existence of these risks and the need to earmark resources for their removal would have been taken into account in the purchase price and there would have been no subsequent recourse to state support.
Če bi bil izveden ustrezen nadzor, bi bila obstoj takšnih nevarnosti in potreba po sredstvih za odstranitev upoštevana v nakupni ceni, pozneje pa se ne bi zahtevala državna podpora.
Germany also stated that, if the company had known that these measures constituted aid, it might not have carried out the relevant work or it would have employed its own personnel or fewer or different personnel.
Nemčija je tudi navedla, da podjetje zadevnih del morda ne bi izvedlo, če bi vedelo, da ti ukrepi predstavljajo pomoči, ali pa bi zaposlilo svoje osebje ali manj osebja ali drugo osebje.
Germany claims that the fact that the Commission had classified the scheme as non-aid and had approved it was enough to raise legitimate expectations that the measures were not aid.
Nemčija trdi, da je bilo dejstvo, da Komisija programa ni uvrstila med pomoči in ga potrdila, že zadosten razlog za upravičeno pričakovanje, da ukrepi ne predstavljajo pomoči.
The Commission cannot accept this argument as its clearance of the scheme was effected on the basis of the notification and of the additional information submitted by Germany.
Komisija te utemeljitve ne more sprejeti, saj je odobritev programa temeljila na priglasitvi in na dodatnih informacijah, ki jih je posredovala Nemčija.
Hence Germany cannot consciously act in contradiction of the notification and claim breach of legitimate expectations.
Zato Nemčija ne more zavestno ravnati v nasprotju s priglasitvijo in uveljavljati kršitve proti zakonitim pričakovanjem.
Nor can the beneficiary claim such expectations when it is clearly stipulated in the German scheme that these measures cannot be implemented in the interests of an individual company and that only the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit was entitled to award such grants, whereas here part of the support was granted by the Land of Thuringia.
Tudi upravičenec ne more uveljavljati takšnih pričakovanj, če je v nemškem programu jasno predvideno, da ti ukrepi ne morejo biti izvedeni v interesu posameznega podjetja in da je imel samo Zvezni zavod za zaposlovanje pravico dodeliti takšno podporo, medtem ko je v tem primeru del podpore dodelila dežela Turingija.
Germany finally argued that the grants constituted a general measure from which all companies in Germany could benefit without discrimination.
Nemčija je v zaključku trdila, da ta podpora predstavlja splošen ukrep, ki lahko koristi vsem podjetjem v Nemčiji brez diskriminacije.
The Commission notes, however, that this claim contradicts all the information previously submitted.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da je ta trditev v nasprotju z vsemi poprej posredovanimi informacijami.
It is clear from the relevant German legal provisions (Article 249h of the Employment Promotion Act) and from all the documents transmitted to the Commission, which enabled the Commission to classify the scheme as non-aid and to approve it, that not all companies can benefit from such measures.
Iz določb nemškega prava (člen 249h Zakona o spodbujanju zaposlovanja) in iz vseh Komisiji predloženih dokumentov, ki so Komisiji omogočili, da program ne označi kot pomoč in ga odobri, jasno izhaja, da takšni ukrepi ne morejo koristiti prav vsem podjetjem.
On the contrary, the German act and all the documents transmitted by Germany, which were intended to enable the Commission to assess the provisions, refer to public law entities and expressly exclude measures in favour of an individual company.
Nasprotno se nemško pravo in vsi dokumenti, ki jih je posredovala Nemčija in ki naj bi Komisiji omogočili presojo določb, nanašajo na osebe javnega prava in izrecno izključujejo ukrepe za posamezno podjetje.
This provision involves a clear element of selectivity, which means that the measure cannot be considered a general measure.
Ta določba vsebuje jasno selektivno komponento, ki implicira, da ukrep ne more biti ocenjen kot splošen ukrep.
Measure 27: Grants for various purposes awarded in 1995 and 1996.
Ukrep 27: Podpora za različne namene, ki je bila dodeljena v letih 1995 in 1996.
Since no legal basis was invoked, the Commission provisionally regarded them as new aid.
Ker ni bila navedena pravna podlaga, je Komisija podporo začasno označila kot nove pomoči.
Germany then claimed that grants for research and development amounting to DEM 0,318 million had been awarded under an approved aid scheme [52].
Nemčija je trdila, da je bila podpora za raziskave in razvoj v višini 0,318 milijona DEM dodeljena v okviru odobrenega programa pomoči [52].
On the basis of the information available, the aid here complies with the terms of this scheme and thus constitutes existing aid which does not need to be reassessed.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij so te pomoči v skladu s tem programom in zato predstavljajo obstoječe pomoči, ki jih ni treba ponovno oceniti.
As for the employee integration grants amounting to DEM 0,021 million, Germany considers that they do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty as they were simply intended for the promotion of the employment of handicapped people.
Glede podpore za integracijo delavcev v višini 0,021 milijona DEM Nemčija zastopa stališče, da le-ta ne predstavlja pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, saj je bila predvidena le za spodbujanje zaposlovanja invalidnih oseb.
The Commission would point out, however, that, for such measures not to constitute aid, they must be granted in accordance with the guidelines on aid to employment [53] (employment aid guidelines) on the basis of objective criteria to individuals and without favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.
Vendar Komisija poudarja, da pomoči ne predstavljajo le ukrepi, ki veljajo za posameznike v skladu s smernicami za pomoči za zaposlovanje [53] (smernice za zaposlovanje) na podlagi objektivnih meril, ne da bi pri tem dajali prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga.
In spite of the information order relating specifically to this point, Germany has not provided any evidence in this respect.
Kljub uredbi o predložitvi podatkov zlasti glede te točke Nemčija ni predložila dokazil.
Consequently, the Commission concludes on the basis of the information transmitted that these measures constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zato je Komisija na podlagi posredovanih informacij sklenila, da so ti ukrepi predstavljali državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The remaining grants for fair attendance totalling DEM 0,122 million and the grants for advertising amounting to DEM 0,030 million are claimed to fall under the de minimis rules.
Preostala podpora za udeležbo na sejmih v višini 0,122 milijona DEM in podpora za oglaševanje v višini 0,030 milijona DEM spadata domnevno pod pravila de minimis.
Their compliance with the de minimis rules will be assessed below.
V nadaljevanju se preuči, ali so v skladu s pravili de minimis.
Measures 28 and 29: As stated in the decision to extend the formal investigation procedure, on the basis of the information available these measures are regarded as existing aid.
Ukrepa 28 in 29: Kot je bilo navedeno v razširitvi formalnega procesa preiskave so bili ti ukrepi na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij ocenjeni kot obstoječe pomoči.
In addition, the information provided by Germany states that part of the investment aid granted under the special depreciation scheme (measure 33) also contributed to the coverage of these investments.
Poleg tega iz informacij, ki jih je posredovala Nemčija, sledi, da je del investicijske pomoči, dodeljene v okviru programa posebne amortizacije (ukrep 33), prav tako služil pokritju teh investicij.
Germany has provided evidence that these measures comply with the terms of the schemes under which they were allegedly granted.
Nemčija je dokazala, da so vsi ti ukrepi v skladu s programi, v okviru katerih so bili domnevno dodeljeni.
They consequently constitute existing aid which the Commission does not need to reassess.
Zato predstavljajo obstoječe pomoči, ki jih Komisiji ni treba ponovno oceniti.
Measure 31: Further grants for the promotion of employment awarded under an approved aid scheme [54].
Ukrep 31: Nadaljnja podpora za spodbujanje zaposlovanja, ki je bila dodeljena v okviru odobrenega programa pomoči [54].
On the basis of the information submitted by Germany, the Commission considers that these grants comply with the terms of the scheme under which they were awarded.
Na podlagi informacij, ki jih je posredovala Nemčija, je Komisija mnenja, da je ta podpora v skladu s programom, po katerem je bila dodeljena.
Consequently they constitute existing aid which does not need to be reassessed by the Commission.
Zato predstavlja podpora obstoječe pomoči, ki jih Komisiji ni treba ponovno oceniti.
Measure 32: Grants for various purposes.
Ukrep 32: Podpora za različne namene.
Germany claims, however, that the grants for research and development amounting to DEM 0,009 million were awarded under an approved aid scheme [55].
Vendar je Nemčija trdila, da je bila podpora za raziskave in razvoj v višini 0,009 milijona DEM dodeljena v okviru odobrenega programa pomoči [55].
However, this scheme is intended only for SMEs.
Vendar pa je ta program namenjen le MSP.
On the basis of the information available, Kahla II never qualified as an SME between 1997 and 1999, mainly because it always exceeded the ceiling of 250 employees, even after deducting the number of trainees.
Po razpoložljivih informacijah ni bila Kahla II med 1997 in 1999 nikoli uvrščena med MSP, zlasti, ker je imela vedno več kot 250 zaposlenih, niti po tem, ko je zmanjšala število vajencev.
Consequently, the aid manifestly does not come under the scheme under which it was allegedly granted and falls to be assessed as new aid.
Zato pomoči ne spadajo v področje uporabe programa, po katerem so bile dodeljene, in jih je treba označiti kot nove pomoči.
As regards the employee integration grants, Germany again explained that they do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty as they were intended for the promotion of employment of handicapped people.
Glede podpore za integracijo delavcev je Nemčija ponovno pojasnila, da le-ta ne predstavlja pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, saj je bila predvidena za spodbujanje zaposlovanja invalidnih oseb.
However, as in the case of the grants under measure 27 above, Germany has not provided any evidence in this respect in spite of the information order relating specifically to this point.
Kot v primeru podpore, omenjene v ukrepu 27, tudi tukaj Nemčija kljub uredbi o predložitvi podatkov, zlasti glede te točke, ni predložila nobenega dokazila.
According to the figures in the company’s annual reports [56], the employee integration grants amounted to DEM 0,119 million in 1997 and 1998 and to an unknown proportion of the grants for fair attendance and job familiarisation amounting to DEM 0,121 million for 1999 listed in the 1999 annual report.
Po podatkih v letnih poročilih podjetja [56] je podpora za integracijo delavcev znašala 0,119 milijona DEM za leti 1997 in 1998 in neznan znesek podpore za sejme in čas uvajanja 0,121 milijona DEM za leto 1999.
Consequently, the Commission concludes on the basis of the information available that these measures constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zato je Komisija na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij sklenila, da so ti ukrepi prestavljali državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The remaining grants for fair attendance and grants for advertising amounting to DEM 0,103 million for 1997 and 1998 and an unknown proportion of the grants for fair attendance and job familiarisation amounting to DEM 0,121 million for 1999 listed in the 1999 annual report are claimed to fall under the de minimis rules.
Preostala podpora za udeležbo na sejmih in podpora za oglaševanje v višini 0,103 milijona DEM za leti 1997 in 1998 in neznan del podpore za sejme, navedene v letnem poročilu 1999, ter podpora za integracijo v višini 0,121 milijona DEM za leto 1999 domnevno spadajo pod pravila de minimis.
Their compliance with the de minimis rules is assessed in Section D of the Assessment.
V oddelku D presoje se preuči, ali so v skladu s pravili de minimis.
In view of the above, measures 17, 18, 19, 22, 24 and 25, part of measure 27, and measures 28, 29, 31 and 33 constitute existing aid which the Commission does not need to reassess.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno predstavljajo ukrepi 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, del ukrepa 27, ukrepi 28, 29, 31 in 33 obstoječe pomoči, ki jih Komisiji ni treba ponovno oceniti.
Measures claimed to be de minimis
Domnevni ukrepi de minimis
Measures 13, 14, 23, part of measure 27, measure 30 and part of measure 32 are claimed to fall under the de minimis rules [57].
Ukrepi 13, 14, 23, del ukrepa 27, ukrep 30 ter del ukrepa 32 spadajo domnevno pod pravila de minimis [57].
This rule stipulates that the ceiling for aid to be considered de minimis will be €100000 over a three-year period beginning when the first de minimis aid was granted.
Po teh pravilih znaša najvišji skupni znesek pomoči de minimis 100000 EUR v triletnem obdobju od prve pomoči de minimis.
This ceiling will apply to the total of public assistance considered to be de minimis aid and will not affect the possibility of the recipient obtaining aid under schemes approved by the Commission.
Ta znesek zajema vse vrste državnih pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene kot pomoči de minimis, in ne vpliva na možnost, da prejemnik na podlagi s strani Komisije odobrenih programov prejme druge pomoči.
The relevant periods are 25 March 1994 to 25 March 1997 and 25 March 1997 to 25 March 2000.
Zadevni obdobji sta od 25. marca 1994 do 25. marca 1997 in od 25. marca 1997 do 25. marca 2000.
As regards the first period from 1994 to 1997, the measures claimed to fall under de minimis rules are 13, 14, 23 and part of measure 27.
Ukrepi 13, 14, 23 in del ukrepa 27 iz obdobja od 1994 do 1997 spadajo domnevno pod pravila de minimis.
Although the part of the grants under measure 27 claimed to be de minimis, i.e., grants for fair attendance of DEM 122000 and grants for advertising of DEM 30000, totals 152000 (€77716), this amount should be combined with the aid equivalent of the guarantees under measures 13, 14 and 23.
Čeprav znaša del v okviru ukrepa 27 dodeljene podpore, ki domnevno spada pod pravila de minimis, tj. podpore za udeležbo na sejmih v višini 122000 DEM in podpore za oglaševanje v višini 30000 DEM, skupaj 152000 DEM (77716 EUR), bi moral biti ta znesek združen z ekvivalentom pomoči dodeljenih jamstev iz ukrepov 13, 14 in 23.
As stated in paragraph 124, the value of the guarantee may be as high as the amount effectively covered by that guarantee [58].
Kot je navedeno v odstavku 124, je lahko vrednost jamstva enaka znesku, ki je z jamstvom učinkovito pokrit [58].
This implies that the aid element in these guarantees was, at the time of their award, potentially 90 % of the credits to which they relate, which largely exceeds the de minimis limit.
To pomeni, da je element pomoči teh jamstev v času dodelitve znašal morda celo 90 % ustreznih kreditov, kar pa daleč presega mejo pravil de minimis.
Consequently, it cannot be accepted that all these measures fall under the de minimis rules.
Zato ni sprejemljivo, da vsi ti ukrepi spadajo pod pravila de minimis.
As regards the period 1997-2000, the guarantee under measure 30 and part of measure 32 are claimed to fall under the de minimis rules.
Za obdobje od 1997 do 2000 spadata jamstvo v okviru ukrepa 30 in del ukrepa 32 domnevno pod pravila de minimis.
As regards the guarantee under measure 30, applying a 2 % aid equivalent as explained in paragraph 125, the aid element in this guarantee can be put at DEM 41760.
Glede jamstva, dodeljenega po ukrepu 30, je mogoče element pomoči določiti na 41760 DEM, če je uporabljen ekvivalent pomoči v višini 2 %, kot je to pojasnjeno v odstavku 125.
The part of measure 32 claimed to be de minimis consists of grants for fair attendance of DEM 294000 and grants for cost reduction of DEM 114000.
Del ukrepa 32, ki domnevno spada pod pravila de minimis, zajema podporo za udeležbo na sejmih v višini 294000 DEM in podporo za zmanjšanje stroškov v višini 114000 DEM.
In addition, the new value of the guarantee under measure 13, as from the moment it covered the market loans, should be added.
Poleg tega je treba prišteti novo vrednost jamstva po ukrepu 13 od trenutka, ko je pokrilo posojila pod tržnimi pogoji.
As explained in paragraph 47, these loans totalled DEM 7,329 million.
Kot je pojasnjeno v odstavku 47, ta posojila skupaj znašajo 7,329 milijona DEM.
Applying again a 2 % aid equivalent to the amount of the loans covered by the guarantee, this results in an aid equivalent of DEM 131922.
Če se tudi tukaj uporabi ekvivalent pomoči v višini 2 % za znesek posojil, ki so zajeta z jamstvom, znaša element pomoči 131922 DEM.
Hence the measures claimed to be de minimis for the period 1997-2000 total DEM 581682, which far exceeds the de minimis limit.
Zato znašajo ukrepi iz obdobja od 1997 do 1999, ki domnevno spadajo pod pravila de minimis, skupaj 581682 DEM. Ta znesek močno presega mejo pravil de minimis.
In view of the above, the Commission cannot accept that the de minimis rules apply to all these measures.
Zato Komisija ne more sprejeti, da vsi ti ukrepi spadajo pod pravila de minimis.
Consequently, they constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Posledično predstavljajo pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
New aid
Nove pomoči
In view of the foregoing, measure 8 in favour of Kahla I and measures 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 30 and 32 in favour of Kahla II fall to be assessed as new aid.
Zaradi zgoraj navedenega so ukrep 8 za Kahlo I in ukrepi 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 30 in 32 za Kahlo II označeni kot nove pomoči.
On the basis of the information available, the Commission cannot conclude that they comply with the terms of approved aid schemes.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov Komisija ne more ugotoviti, ali so v skladu z odobrenimi programi pomoči.