natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under Article 87 (1) of the Treaty, “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, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.”
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe‚ so državne pomoči „nezdružljive s skupnim trgom, v kolikor vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami ali s pomočjo državnih sredstev v kakršnikoli obliki izkrivljajo ali grozijo z izkrivljanjem konkurence ob podpiranju določenih podjetij ali določenih vrst proizvodnje“.
Even though the elements that featured in the Sernam 1 decision are still in existence, it is incumbent on the Commission to ascertain that the four criteria of Article 87(l) are effectively met for all the measures implemented or to be implemented before or after 23 May 2001. In this context, it should also take account of the development of Community law and in particular the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Stardust Marine case.
Čeprav so elementi, značilni za odločbo Sernam 1, še vedno prisotni, se mora Komisija prepričati, da so štiri merila iz člena 87(1) učinkovito združena v celoto izvedenih ukrepov ali ukrepov, ki jih je potrebno izvesti pred ali po 23. maju 2001.
According to this judgment, it is necessary to verify for every subsidy that the decision to pay it is imputable to the State in order to establish whether one of the four criteria of Article 87(1) - the “State resources” criterion - is met.
Dejansko je v skladu s to sodbo treba za vsako denarno pomoč preveriti, ali odločitev za njeno plačilo krije država, da se ugotovi, ali je eno od štirih meril iz člena 87(1) – merilo „državnih sredstev“ zadovoljeno.
Public resources
Javna sredstva
According to the description given above, it should be noted that SNCF, as an EPIC [industrial and commercial public undertaking], is a public undertaking within the meaning of Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings [45] as the public authorities may exercise directly or (159) indirectly a dominant influence on SNCF by virtue of their ownership of it or because of their financial participation in it or the rules which govern it.
Glede na zgornji opis je treba ugotoviti, da je SNCF kot „JITP“ javno podjetje v smislu Direktive Komisije 2000/52/ES z dne 26. julija 2000 o spremembah Direktive 80/723/EGS z dne 25. junija 1980 o preglednosti finančnih odnosov med državami članicami in javnimi podjetji [45] ob predvidevanju, da javna sredstva lahko neposredno ali posredno izvajajo prevladujoč vpliv nad SNCF, bodisi zaradi lastnine, bodisi finančnega prispevka ali pravil, ki z njim upravljajo.
Consequently, the €503 million and €41 million which SNCF/the French State has paid to Sernam are public resources.
Zato 503 mio EUR in 41 mio EUR, ki jih je SNCF/francoska država vplačala Sernamu, predstavlja javna sredstva.
Imputability to the State
Odgovornost države
Under these conditions, there is a strong presumption that SNCF is acting under State control. This presumption is based on several “indicators” highlighted by the Court in the Stardust Marine case.
V teh razmerah obstaja močna domneva, da naj bi SNCF deloval pod državnim nadzorom.
Of the 18 members of the SNCF board of directors, seven directly represent the public authorities, showing a certain level of supervision exercised by the public authorities (even though these seven members of the board do not represent the majority).
izmed 18 članov upravnega sveta SNCF jih sedem neposredno predstavlja javne organe, s tem torej dokazuje določeno intenzivnost zaščite, ki jo izvajajo javni organi (čeprav teh sedem članov upravnega sveta ne predstavlja večine).
Its legal status as an EPIC, which does not come under general company law, puts SNCF in a position allowing it to pursue its activities outside normal conditions of competition with private operators.
njegov pravni status JITP, ki ni odvisen od občega prava družb, postavlja SNCF v položaj, ki mu omogoča izvajati svoje dejavnosti zunaj običajnih konkurenčnih razmer z zasebnimi subjekti.
Moreover, because of its EPIC status, which rules out bankruptcy or other insolvency procedures, the Commission finds, in the light of its Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees, [47] that SNCF has an unlimited guarantee from the State and can thus obtain on the market credit conditions that are more favourable and available only to companies subject to private company law.
Poleg tega Komisija iz njegovega statusa JITP, ki izključuje možnost postopka stečaja ali nezmožnosti plačevanja, ob sklicevanju na svoje sporočilo o državnih pomočeh v obliki jamstev [47] ugotavlja, da SNCF razpolaga z neomejenim državnim jamstvom in lahko tako na trgu izposluje kreditne pogoje, ugodnejše, kot jih lahko podjetja predložijo zasebnemu pravu družb [48].
Since SNCF grants risk capital funds covered by an unlimited and unpaid guarantee to a company in financial difficulties such as Sernam, which operates on markets open to competition (groupage/mail services/road transport), there is, in the light of the abovementioned Notice, an advantage granted to the beneficiary undertaking.
Takoj ko SNCF podeli tvegana sredstva, krita z neomejenim jamstvom in neodplačana v korist podjetja v finančnih težavah, kot je Sernam, ki deluje na konkurenčno odprtih trgih (zbiranje paketov/pošta/cestni prevoz), obstaja ob upoštevanju prej omenjenega sporočila prednost, podeljena podjetju upravičencu [49].
Even if the State does not make payments under the guarantee granted, aid exists within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty as soon as the guarantee is offered.
Čeprav država ni prisiljena v izvedbo plačil v imenu dodeljenega jamstva, obstaja pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) te pogodbe od trenutka, ko je jamstvo ponujeno.
Finally, according to paragraph 15 of the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, “restructuring aid […] may come from State holding companies or public investment companies” and paragraph 17 “where funding is provided or guaranteed by the State to an enterprise that is in financial difficulties […] it must be deemed likely that the financial transfers involve State aid”.
Končno, glede na točko (15) smernic Skupnosti za državne pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah „lahko pomoči za prestrukturiranje […] izhajajo iz javnih dobroimetij ali investicijskih družb, financiranih z javnimi sredstvi“ in v točki (17) „kadar država doprinese ali zagotavlja financiranje podjetju v finančnih težavah, je treba obravnavati kot verjetno, da finančni transferji zajemajo elemente državne pomoči“.
Under these conditions, the Commission considers that the payment at issue of public resources by SNCF to Sernam is imputable to the French State and that the State guarantees granted to SNCF constitute aid.
V teh razmerah Komisija meni, da je vplačilo SNCF Sernamu v zvezi z javnimi sredstvi prištevno francoski državi ter da državna jamstva, podeljena SNCF, predstavljajo pomoč.
The other criteria of Article 87(1)
Druga merila iz člena 87(1)
Application of the other criteria of Article 87(1): According to the information at the Commission’s disposal, it is noted that the other elements determining whether of not there is State aid as established in the Sernam 1 decision are still present.
Uporaba drugih meril iz člena 87(1): Končno, glede na razpoložljive informacije Komisije se šteje, da so drugi elementi, ki predstavljajo ali ne predstavljajo državno pomoč, kot so ugotovljeni v odločbi Sernam 1, še vedno prisotni.
Accordingly, the conclusion of the Sernam 1 decision that State aid is involved in Sernam’s restructuring is still upheld, namely:
Treba je torej ohraniti oceno odločbe Sernam 1, kar zadeva prisotnost državnih pomoči pri prestrukturiranju SERNAM, po kateri:
the logistical cooperation between SNCF and the SCS Sernam limited partnership since 1 February 2000 does not constitute State aid and
logistično sodelovanje med SNCF in SCS Sernam po 1. februarju 2000 ne predstavlja državne pomoči in
the other measures (commercial assistance and turnaround) do constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1).
drugi ukrepi (trgovska pomoč in obnova) predstavljajo državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1).
Consequently, it is found that the measures that have been or will be implemented before or after 23 May 2001 to restructure Sernam constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Zato se ugotovi, da ukrepi, ki so bili ali bodo uporabljeni pred ali po 23. maju 2001 v okviru prestrukturiranja Sernama, predstavljajo državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
As announced when the abovementioned procedure was initiated, the Commission will below analyse the new facts in order to ascertain to what extent they are or are not in conformity with the Sernam 1 decision.
Kot je bilo najavljeno v prej omenjenem začetku postopka, bo Komisija v nadaljevanju preučila nova dejstva, da bo ugotovila, v kakšni meri so ali niso v skladu z odločbo Sernam 1.
Moreover, the Commission will verify to what extent the new factual situation today – compared with the Sernam 1 decision – is compatible overall with the guidelines, in particular with regard to the ’one time, last time’ principle.
Poleg tega bo preverila v kakšni meri je celoten novi položaj, dejansko današnji, – v primerjavi z odločbo Sernam 1 – združljiv s smernicami, zlasti glede načela enotne pomoči.
Structure of the analysis
Struktura analize
Initially, the analysis will ascertain to what extent the €503 million in aid, previously authorised in 2001, has been used improperly and whether in this analysis it will be found that the additional illegal aid paid amounting to €41 million is compatible.
Na prvem mestu se preuči v kakšni meri je bila pomoč v višini 503 mio EUR, predhodno odobrena 2001, neprimerno uporabljena ter ali lahko ta analiza omogoči ugotovitev združljivosti dodatne nezakonite pomoči, plačane v višini 41mio EUR.
Secondly, the elements of the 2001 decision that have been complied with will be clarified.
Na drugem mestu se pojasnijo elementi odločbe iz leta 2001, ki so bili upoštevani.
In light of these elements, Sernam’s eligibility for restructuring aid will be re-analysed as well as its potential for returning to viability.
Ob upoštevanju teh elementov bo ponovno analizirano Sernamovo izpolnjevanje pogojev za pridobitev pomoči za prestrukturiranje ter njegove zmožnosti vrnitve k sposobnosti preživetja.
This will be followed by the measures which the Commission intends to take to prevent distortion of competition and guarantee that the amount of aid approved in this decision will be kept to a minimum.
Sledijo bodo ukrepi, ki jih Komisija namerava sprejeti za preprečevanje izkrivljanja konkurence in za zagotavljanje, da bo znesek pomoči, odobren s to odločbo, omejen na minimum.
Misuse of aid authorised by the Sernam 1 decision
Neprimerna uporaba pomoči, odobrene z odločbo Sernam 1
First of all, the Commission cannot accept the argument adduced by the French authorities that the lapsing of the first memorandum of understanding concluded on 21 April 2000 between SNCF and Geodis is imputable neither to Geodis nor to SNCF or the French authorities on the grounds that the Sernam 1 decision was not final before 30 June 2001, the date on which the extension of the memorandum between SNCF and Geodis expired.
V prvi vrsti Komisija ne more sprejeti argumenta francoskih organov, po katerem zapadlosti prvega memoranduma o soglasju, sklenjenega dne 21. aprila 2000 med SNCF in Geodisom, ne gre pripisovati niti Geodisu niti SNCF niti francoskih organom, na podlagi, da odločba Sernam 1 ne bi začela veljati pred 30. junijem 2001, datumom zapadlosti podaljšanja sporazuma med SNCF in Geodis.
The fact is that the Sernam 1 decision was notified to the French authorities on 23 May 2001, i.e. more than one month before the expiry of the extension of the memorandum between SNCF and Geodis.
Dejansko so bili francoski organi o odločbi „Sernam 1“ uradno obveščeni 23. maja 2001, to je en mesec pred zapadlostjo podaljšanja memoranduma med SNCF in Geodis.
Article 254(3) of the Treaty provides that “ … decisions shall be notified [by the Commission] to those to whom they are addressed and shall take effect upon such notification.”
Člen 254(3) Pogodbe torej določa, da „ … [Komisija] prejemnike uradno obvesti o odločbah in začnejo veljati s to uradno objavo“.
Moreover, Article 242 of the Treaty provides that “actions brought before the Court of Justice shall not have suspensory effect.
Poleg tega člen 242 Pogodbe predvideva, da „Pritožbe pred Sodiščem nimajo odložne moči.
The Court of Justice may, however, if it considers that circumstances so require, order that application of the contested act shall be suspended”.
Vendar lahko Sodišče, če ocenjuje, da okoliščine to zahtevajo, odredi odlog izvršitve tožbenega dejanja“.
Accordingly, the decision notified to France on 23 May 2001 was applicable from that date, on which it took effect.
V teh razmerah se je odločba, uradno sporočena Franciji dne 23. maja 2001, uporabljala od datuma začetka veljavnosti.
France therefore had the choice of:
V teh okoliščinah se je lahko Francija odločala zgolj med:
either fully (and immediately) applying the decision of 23 May 2001 in order to be able to pay the authorised aid – in which case it should have ensured the application of the memorandum of understanding between SNCF and Geodis because there was still time to do so;
bodisi, da v celoti (in takoj) uporabi odločbo z dne 23. maja 2001, da lahko plača odobreno pomoč – v tem primeru bi morala uporabiti memorandum o soglasju med SNCF in Geodisom, ker je za to še bil čas;
or refraining from paying the aid approved on 23 May 2001 and, where appropriate, notifying the new granting conditions.
bodisi, da ne plača pomoči, odobrene dne 23. maja 2001, in v tem primeru uradno sporoči nove pogoje dodelitve.
The fact is that France did neither of these things.
Francija torej ni storila ne tega ne onega.
Instead, it started the payment of aid, failed to apply the Sernam 1 decision (and therefore the memorandum) correctly and also failed to notify the changes of the granting conditions in violation of the Sernam 1 decision and Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Nasprotno je začela plačilo pomoči, opustila pravilno uporabo odločbe Sernam 1 (in torej memoranduma) ter prav tako opustila uradno objavo sprememb pogojev dodelitve s kršitvijo odločbe Sernam 1 in člena 88(3) Pogodbe.
It is the Commission’s opinion that the failure to apply the Sernam 1 decision and consequently the failure to apply the memorandum of understanding between SNCF and Geodis and the unlawful grant of part of the aid which was paid under circumstances not approved by the Commission is imputable to France, to whom this decision was addressed.
Komisija zato ocenjuje, da je neuporabo odločbe Sernam 1 in zato neuporabo memoranduma o soglasju med SNCF in Geodisom kot tudi nezakonito dodelitev dela pomoči, plačane v okoliščinah, ki jih Komisija ni odobrila, treba pripisati Franciji, na katero je bila ta odločba naslovljena.
It is because of the French authorities’ failure to apply the memorandum of understanding that the Sernam 1decision was not correctly implemented with regard to:
Zaradi neuporabe memoranduma o soglasju s strani francoskih organov odločba Sernam 1 ni bila pravilno uporabljena, glede na:
the first memorandum of understanding, as extended, because Geodis took over only 15% of Sernam instead of the 60% originally planned (this share was subsequently equalled by COGIP, which likewise took a 15% share in Sernam);
to, da je bil prvi memorandum o soglasju podaljšan in se je Geodisov ponovni prevzem Sernama v vrednosti 60 % zgodil samo v vrednosti 15 % (ta delež v lastniškem kapitalu je pozneje izenačil COGIP, prav tako v vrednosti 15 %),
the conclusion of the second agreement between SNCF and Geodis/COGIP [51] which could not be relied upon against the Commission and led to the application of clauses on breach of contract between SNCF and Geodis/COGIP respectively.
sklenitev drugega memoranduma med SNCF in Geodisom/COGIP [51], katerega nenasprotovanje Komisiji je vodilo do izvedbe razveljavitvenih klavzul pogodbe med SNCF in Geodis/COGIP.
Consequently, the 15% which Geodis and COGIP had each acquired in Sernam were returned to SNCF which thus again became the 100% owner of Sernam;
Zato je bilo 15 % Sernama, ki sta jih obojestransko pridobila Geodis in COGIP, vrnjenih nazaj k SNCF, ki je ponovno postal 100 % lastnik Sernama,
the transformation of Sernam into a limited partnership (SCS) in order to make Geodis indefinitely responsible for Sernam’s debts.
spreminjanje Sernama v samostojno delniško družbo (SDD), da bi Geodis neomejeno prevzel Sernamove dolgove.
To this must be added the transfer of the risk which Geodis had to assume vis-à-vis SNCF concerning (i) the amount of investment necessary to turn Sernam around, (ii) the appropriate reduction of Sernam’s operating costs, and (iii) a significant defection by customers in this period of financial uncertainty;
K temu se dodaja prenos tveganja, ki ga mora Geodis prevzeti nase, k SNCF, glede (i) zneska potrebnih naložb za obnovo Sernama, (ii) ustreznega zniževanja stroškov obratovanja Sernama in (iii) veliko pomanjkanje kupcev v tem obdobju finančne negotovosti,
the absence of payment of €67 million by Geodis;
odsotnost plačila 67 mio EUR s strani Geodisa,
partial payment of the total amount of aid approved by the Sernam 1 decision, even though the conditions laid down in this decision were no longer met;
delno vplačilo celotnega zneska pomoči, odobrenih z odločbo Sernam 1, medtem ko se pogoji te odločbe niso več izpolnjevali,
payment of additional aid amounting to €41 million, essentially due to the delay in Sernam’s linkage to Geodis, of which the French authorities informed the Commission only in their annual report of 17 June 2002 even though such an additional sum should have been the subject of a full re-notification of the dossier;
vplačilo dodatnih pomoči v vrednosti 41 mio EUR, predvsem zaradi zamude podpore Geodisa Sernamu in glede katere so francoski organi Komisijo obvestili šele v svojem letnem poročilu z dne 17. junija 2002, medtem ko bi takšen dodatni znesek moral biti del popolne ponovne uradne objave zadeve,
extension of the restructuring plan which had originally been envisaged for the period from 1999 to 2004, and which must now end in 2005-2006 (the time when Sernam should be restored to financial equilibrium), i.e. one to two years later than planned.
podaljšanje načrta prestrukturiranja, ki je bil sprva predviden za obdobje od 1999 do 2004 in se mora zdaj zaključiti v letih 2005–2006 (predvideni čas za vrnitev k finančni obnovi Sernama), to je eno ali dve leti kasneje kot predvideno.
According to the Guidelines, [52]“The company must fully implement the restructuring plan that has been accepted by the Commission and must discharge any other obligations laid down in the Commission decision.
Torej mora glede na smernice [52]„Podjetje v celoti izvesti načrt prestrukturiranja, ki ga je sprejela Komisija, in mora izvršiti vsako drugo obveznost, predvideno v odločbi Komisije.
The Commission will regard any failure to implement the plan or to fulfil the other obligations as misuse of the aid”.
Komisija obravnava neupoštevanje načrta ali obveznosti kot zlorabo pomoči“.
In light of the above, the Commission concludes that there has been failure to comply with the Sernam 1 decision of 23 May 2001 with regard to the above mentioned elements and confirms that this failure constitutes misuse of the aid within the meaning of the Article 1(g) of Regulation (EC) 659/1999 and paragraph 43 of the Guidelines.
Na osnovi zgoraj omenjenega Komisija po eni strani sklepa, da gre za neupoštevanje odločbe Sernam 1 z dne 23.5.2001, kar zadeva zgoraj omenjene elemente, ter po drugi strani potrjuje, da to neupoštevanje predstavlja zlorabo pomoči v smislu člena 1, točke (g) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 in točke 43 smernic.
It follows that the amount of €41 million paid as additional aid by SNCF to Sernam, which is a direct consequence of this misuse (as it was paid because of the delay in linkage), should be declared incompatible with the Treaty and must be paid back in the appropriate form (with interest).
Iz tega sledi, da je treba znesek dodatne pomoči v višini 41 mio EUR, ki ga je SNCF vplačal Sernamu in je neposredna posledica te neprimerne uporabe (ob upoštevanju, da je bil vplačan zaradi prepozne podpore), razglasiti za nezdružljivega s Pogodbo in mora biti povrnjen v zahtevanih oblikah (skupaj z obrestmi).
Elements in conformity with the Sernam 1 decision
Elementi v skladu z odločbo Sernam 1
However, the Commission notes that the French authorities have met several of their objectives in accordance with the Sernam 1 decision.
Komisija kljub temu ugotavlja, da so francoski organi izpolnili večino svojih ciljev v skladu z odločbo Sernam 1.
For instance, they have opened the contracts between SNCF and Sernam to competition.
Tako so zbrali ponudbe za pogodbe o naročilih med SNCF in Sernamom.
Moreover, France has complied with the Sernam 1 decision with regard to the number of closures of Sernam’s sorting centres and their reorganisation, employee training, development in terms of staff reduction, phasing in a new transport plan, switching computer systems to those of Geodis, reducing turnover by 18% between 2000 and 2005, non-replacement by the State of the €67 million which Geodis will not provide to Sernam, changeover from Sernam’s traditional mail activities to express mail services, and in particular the changeover to an innovative service in railway transport focusing on the new combination of “range of express services” and “Train Bloc Express (TBE)” which occupies a new market segment whose full potential remains to be developed.
Poleg tega je Francija upoštevala odločbo Sernam 1 v zvezi s številom zapiranj lokacij Sernama za razvrščanje in njihovo preureditvijo, izobraževanjem delojemalcev, spremembami v pomenu zmanjševanja števila delojemalcev, postopno vzpostavitvijo novega načrta za prevoz, prehodom računalniških sistemov v sisteme Geodisa, 18 % znižanjem prometa med leti 2000 in 2005, nenadomestitvijo 67 mio EUR s strani države, ki jih Geodis ne bo prispeval Sernamu, razvojem v pomenu spreminjanja Sernamovih dejavnosti od tradicionalne pošte k hitri pošti in zlasti usmeritvami k inovativnim storitvam, usmerjenimi na železniški sektor okoli združevanja novega „obsega hitre storitve“ in „Train Bloc Express (TBE)“ znotraj področja novega trga, katerega polno zmogljivost je treba razviti.
Moreover, in paragraph 3.2.4. of the Guidelines, the Commission specifies the conditions under which a restructuring plan may be amended.
Komisija poleg tega v točki 3.2.4 smernic natančno določa pogoje, pod katerimi se lahko načrt prestrukturiranja spremeni.
With regard to the dossier at issue, the Commission notes the following:
V okviru te zadeve Komisija ugotavlja, da:
Apart from the sale of Sernam which has not (not yet) been carried through, the restructuring plan as initially envisaged is moving ahead basically according to plan.
se razen prodaje Sernama, ki (še) ni izvedena, načrt prestrukturiranja, kakor je sprva predviden, v glavnem ter v skladu z začetnim načrtom nadaljuje.
Essentially this involves reorganising the transport plan, reorganising and reducing the number of sites, the turnover and the staff as provided for in the initial plan and even going beyond the reduction envisaged in the Sernam 1 decision, and also refocusing activities on an innovative development concept (TBE).
Gre predvsem za preureditev in zmanjšanje števila lokacij, prometa in osebja, kakor je predvideno v začetnem načrtu ter vse preko zmanjševanja, predvidenega v odločbi Sernam 1, kakor tudi ponovnega usmerjanja dejavnosti v smislu inovativnega razvoja (TBE),
The company’s difficulties noted prior to 23 May 2001 necessarily remain unchanged.
težave podjetja, ugotovljene pred 23. majem 2001, nujno ostajajo nespremenjene,