natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Its financing, to the extent that it is secured by loans obtained on market terms and free of aid, is to be considered as Javor Pivka's own contribution.
Njegovo financiranje, kolikor je zagotovljeno s posojili, ki so pridobljena po tržnih pogojih in brez pomoči, je treba upoštevati kot lastni prispevek družbe Javor Pivka.
In this table, as in the rest of the decision, the Commission has incorporated these amounts in the restructuring costs and in the ‘own funds’.
V tej tabeli in v nadaljevanju te odločbe je Komisija te zneske vključila v stroške prestrukturiranja in v „lastna sredstva“.
Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ C 288, 9.10.1999, p. 2).
Smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah, UL C 288, 9.10.1999, str. 2.
See opening decision (mentioned in footnote 1), points 19 and 20, and also the Commission decision in case C-3/2005 FSO, OJ C 100, 26.4.2005, p. 2, point 38 et seq.
Glej odločitev o sprožitvi postopka (navedeno v opombi 1), točki 19 in 20, pa tudi Odločbo Komisije v zadevi C-3/2005 FSO, UL C 100, 26.4.2005, str. 2, točka 38 in naslednje.
Case No COMM/M.4165 — Sonae Industria/Hornitex, Commission Decision of 28.6.2006, point 11.
Zadeva št. COMM/M.4165 – Sonae Industria/Hornitex, Odločba Komisije z dne 28.6.2006, točka 11.
Case No COMM/M.4165 — Sonae Industria/Hornitex, Decision of 28.6.2006.
Zadeva št. COMM/M.4165 – Sonae Industria/Hornitex, Odločba Komisije z dne 28.6.2006.
At least in view of other examples under the 1999 guidelines, see the Commission Decision in case C-3/2005 FSO, OJ C 100, 26.4.2005, p. 2, point 38 et seq.
Vsaj glede na druge primere v skladu s smernicami iz leta 1999 glej Odločbo Komisije v zadevi C/2005 FSO, UL C 100, 26.4.2005, str. 2, točka 38 in naslednje.
Commission Decision in case N 464/05 AB Kauno of 22.2.2006, point 17.
Odločba Komisije v zadevi N 464/05 AB Kauno z dne 22.2.2006, točka 17.
This was confirmed, as regards cash flow, in Commission Decisions in case C-19/2000 TGI, OJ L 62 of 5.3.2002, p. 30, point 106 and case C-30/1998 Wildauer Kurbelwelle, OJ L 287 of 14.11.2000, p. 51, point 52 and, for the 2004 guidelines, in the AB Kauno case (see footnote 12).
Kar zadeva denarni tok, je bilo to potrjeno v Odločbi Komisije v zadevi C-19/2000 TGI, UL L 62, 5.3.2002, str. 30, točka 106, in v zadevi C-30/1998 Wildauer Kurbelwelle, UL L 287, 14.11.2000, str. 51, točka 52, ter za smernice iz leta 2004 v zadevi AB Kauno (glej opombo 12).
See Commission Decision in case C-39/2000 Doppstadt, OJ L 108, 30.4.2003, p. 8, point 74 and Commission Decision in case C-33/1998 Babcock Wilcox (OJ L 67, 9.3.2002, p. 50).
Glej Odločbo Komisije v zadevi C39/2000 Doppstadt, UL 2003 L 108, str. 8, točka 74, in Odločbo Komisije v zadevi C33/1998 Babcock Wilcox, UL 2002 L 67, str. 50.
See Commission Decision of 13 September 2006 in Case N 350/06 MSO (OJ C 280 of 18.11.2006).
Glej Odločbo Komisije z dne 13. septembra 2006 v zadevi N 350/06 MSO, UL C 280, 18.11.2006.
concerning an Italian State aid scheme to the Sardinian shipping sector C 23/96 (NN 181/95) and C 71/97 (N 144/97)
v zvezi s shemo državne pomoči Italije za sektor ladijskega prevoza na Sardiniji C 23/96 (NN 181/95) in C 71/97 (N 144/97)
(notified under document number C(2007) 3257)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 3257)
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, zlasti prvega pododstavka člena 88(2),
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, zlasti njegovega člena 62(1)(a),
Having, pursuant to those provisions, called on the parties concerned to submit their comments,
potem, ko je zainteresirane strani pozvala k predložitvi pripomb v skladu z navedenimi členi,
By letter of 24 June 1996 [1], the Commission informed the Italian authorities of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 93(2)) with regard to an unlawful aid scheme established by the region of Sardinia in favour of shipping companies for the construction, acquisition, conversion, modification or repair of ships (hereinafter original aid scheme).
V dopisu z dne 24. junija 1996 [1] je Komisija italijanske organe obvestila o svoji odločitvi, da uvede postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES (prej člen 93(2)) v zvezi z nezakonito shemo pomoči, ki jo je uvedla regija Sardinija za ladijske družbe, ki nameravajo graditi, kupovati, preurejati, spreminjati ali popravljati plovila (v nadaljevanju „prvotna shema pomoči“).
After the procedure was opened, the Italian Government sent its observations to the Commission in a letter dated 31 October 1996 (DG7-Transport A/23443).
Po uvedbi postopka je italijanska vlada Komisiji poslala svoje pripombe v dopisu z dne 31. oktobra 1996 (GD VII-Promet A/23443).
The Sardinian regional authorities sent their observations in letters dated 11 October 1996 (DG7-Transport A/21870) and 22 January 1997.
Organi regije Sardinija so svoje pripombe poslali v dopisih z dne 11. oktobra 1996 (DG VII-Promet A/21870) in 22. januarja 1997.
No other Member States or interested third parties sent their observations within the time limit of one month after publication of the decision to open the procedure.
Ne druge države članice ne zainteresirane tretje strani svojih pripomb niso poslale v predpisanem roku en mesec po objavi odločitve o uvedbi postopka.
It should be noted, however, that some third parties submitted comments outside this deadline.
Vendar je treba omeniti, da so nekatere tretje zainteresirane strani svoje pripombe poslale po izteku navedenega roka.
On 21 October 1997, the Commission adopted Decision 98/95/EC, which establishes the incompatibility with the common market of the aid scheme in question [2].
oktobra 1997 je Komisija sprejela Odločbo 98/95/ES, v kateri ugotavlja nezdružljivost navedene sheme pomoči s skupnim trgom [2].
On 12 November 1997 (SG (97) D/9375), the Italian authorities were informed of this decision.
novembra 1997 (SG (97) D/9375) je italijanske organe obvestila o tej odločbi.
In a letter of 14 November 1997, the Commission informed the Italian authorities of its decision to initiate the procedure set out in Article 88(2), of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 93(2)) with regard to Sardinian Regional Law No 9 of 15 February 1996 which amends the original aid scheme implemented for the benefit of shipping companies [3].
V dopisu z dne 14. novembra 1997 je Komisija italijanske organe obvestila o svoji odločitvi, da uvede postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES (prej člen 93(2)) v zvezi z deželnim zakonom Sardinije št. 9 z dne 15. februarja 1996, ki spreminja prvotno shemo pomoči, namenjeno pomorskim podjetjem [3].
The Italian authorities submitted their comments on 16 January 1998 (DG7-Transport A/1221) and 23 December 1997 (DG7-Transport A/144).
Italijanski organi so svoje pripombe predložili 16. januarja 1998 (GD VII-Promet A/1221) in 23. decembra 1997 (GD VII-Promet A/144).
No other Member States or interested third parties sent their observations within the time limit of one month after publication of the decision to initiate the procedure.
Ne druge države članice ne tretje zainteresirane strani pripomb niso poslale v predpisanem roku en mesec po objavi odločbe o uvedbi postopka.
In its judgment of 19 October 2000 (Joined Cases C-15/98 and C-105/99 Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission) [4] the Court of Justice of the European Communities annulled Decision 98/95/EC on the grounds that it lacked an adequate statement of reasons with regard to the effect on Community trade.
V sodbi z dne 19. oktobra 2000 je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti (združeni zadevi C-15/98 in C-105/99: Italijanska republika in Sardegna Lines – Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna S.p.A. proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti) [4] razveljavilo Odločbo 98/95/ES zaradi nezadovoljivih utemeljitev obstoja spremenjenega trgovanja v Skupnosti.
Following a letter from the Commission dated 23 November 2006 (D 2006 224962) requesting information from the Italian authorities, a response was sent by e-mail on 8 March 2007 (TRENA/26193).
Potem ko je Komisija v dopisu z dne 23. novembra 2006 (D 2006 224962) od italijanskih organov zahtevala informacije, je bil 8. marca 2007 po elektronski pošti poslan odgovor (TRENA/26193).
The original scheme
Prvotna shema
Following a complaint lodged in 1993, the Commission learned of an aid scheme set up by the region of Sardinia for shipping companies intending to build, purchase, convert or repair ships.
Po pritožbi, predloženi leta 1993, se je Komisija seznanila s shemo pomoči, ki jo je regija Sardinija uvedla za ladijske družbe, namenjeno izgradnji, nakupu, preurejanju ali popravilu plovil.
It took the specific form of loans and leases granted on favourable terms that were agreed initially only with companies whose head office, domicile for taxation purposes and port of register were situated in the region of Sardinia.
Šlo je zlasti za posojila in finančne zakupe, ki so bili prvotno odobreni samo podjetjem s statutarnim sedežem, davčnim domicilom in pristaniščem opreme plovil na ozemlju regije Sardinija.
Regional Law No 20 of 15 May 1951 amended by Law No 15 of 11 July 1954
Deželni zakon št. 20 z dne 15. maja 1951, kakor je bil spremenjen z zakonom št. 15 z dne 11. julija 1954
The scheme in question was set up by Sardinian Regional Law No 20 of 15 May 1951 (hereinafter Law No 20/1951), subsequently amended by Regional Laws No 15 of 11 July 1954 (hereinafter Law No 15/1954) and No 11 of 4 June 1988 (hereinafter Law No 11/1988).
Zadevna shema je bila uvedena z deželnim zakonom Sardinije št. 20 z dne 15. maja 1951 (v nadaljevanju „zakon št. 20/1951“), ki je bil naknadno spremenjen z deželnima zakonoma št. 15 z dne 11. julija 1954 (v nadaljevanju „zakon št. 15/1954“) in št. 11 z dne 4. junija 1988 (v nadaljevanju „zakon št. 11/1988“).
Law No 20/1951, amended by Law No 15/1954, provided for the setting up of a fund for loans to shipping companies intending to build, purchase, convert or repair ships.
Zakon št. 20/1951, kakor je bil spremenjen z zakonom št. 15/1954, je predvideval ustanovitev sklada, namenjenega dodelitvi posojil ladijskim družbam za izgradnjo, nakup, preurejanje ali popravilo plovil.
These loans were to be agreed only with companies with their head office, country of domicile for tax purposes and port of register within the region of Sardinia.
Ta posojila naj bi bila odobrena samo podjetjem s statutarnim sedežem, davčnim domicilom in pristaniščem opreme plovil na ozemlju dežele Sardinija.
Such loans could not exceed 20 % of the investment in cases of building, conversion or repair works for which the applicant had already received aid under national legislation in force at that time.
Ta posojila naj ne bi presegala 20 % naložb v dejavnosti izgradnje, nakupa, preurejanja ali popravila, za katere je prosilec v obdobju veljavnosti sheme že bil upravičenec pomoči na podlagi veljavne nacionalne zakonodaje.
Where no such aid under national legislation had been awarded, loans could not exceed 60 % of investment costs.
Če na podlagi veljavne nacionalne zakonodaje ni bila dodeljena pomoč, posojila naj ne bi presegala 60 % naložb.
Under Law No 20/1951, interest, commission and other charges related to the loan could not exceed 4,5 % per year of the loan where aid had already been received under national legislation, and 3,5 % in all other cases (an average interest rate subsidy of 10-12 percentage points).
Na podlagi zakona št. 20/1951 obresti, pravica do provizije in stroški, povezani s posojilom, v enem letu ne bi smeli presegati 4,5 % prejetega posojila, če je upravičena družba že prejela pomoč po veljavni nacionalni zakonodaji, in 3,5 % v vseh drugih primerih (povprečno znižanje obresti za 10–12 odstotnih točk).
The capital was to be repaid in not more than 12 annual instalments commencing from the third year following entry into service of the ship for which the loan had been granted.
Glavnica naj bi bila poplačana z največ 12 obroki z odplačevanjem od tretjega leta po začetku obratovanja plovila, za katerega je bilo posojilo odobreno.
Regional Law No 11 of 4 June 1988
Deželni zakon št. 11 z dne 4. junija 1988
Articles 99 and 100 of Law No 11/1988 introduced substantive amendments to the aid scheme, but said changes were not notified to the Commission.
Zakon št. 11/1988 je v členih 99 in 100 uvedel bistvene spremembe sheme pomoči, vendar Komisija o teh spremembah ni bila obveščena.
Since the aid scheme had been amended, it therefore constituted non-notified aid.
Shema pomoči, kakor je bila spremenjena, je zato pomenila nepriglašeno pomoč.
The following conditions were added to those provided for by Law No 20/1951 for the granting of aid to beneficiary companies:
K pogojem, predvidenim z zakonom št. 20/1951 za odobritev pomoči upravičenim družbam, so bili dodani naslednji pogoji:
that the undertaking should have its head office, administrative headquarters and shipping business and, where applicable, its main stores, depots and accessory equipment permanently in one of the ports of the region;
da ima družba v enem od pomorskih mest v deželi stalni statutarni in upravni sedež ter sedež opreme plovil, če tega sedeža nima, pa glavne trgovine, skladišča in pripadajočo opremo;
all the vessels owned by the undertaking should be in the registry of one of the ports of the region;
da so vsa plovila v lasti družbe registrirana v enem od pristanišč te regije;
the undertaking should use the ports of the region as the centre of its shipping activities, making them a normal port of call as part of those activities and, where regular services are operated, these should terminate or regularly call at one or more of those ports;
da družba uporablja pristanišča regije kot središče svoje dejavnosti ladijskega prevoza in ima v njih tudi sicer ranžirno postajo glede na naravo same dejavnosti in da je v primeru, če opravlja redne linijske prevoze, matično pristanišče le-teh v enem od zgoraj omenjenih pristanišč ali da ima v njih občasno eno ali več ranžirnih postaj;
the undertaking should commit itself to carrying out refitting work in the ports of the region, provided that shipyards have the operational capacity and that there are no grounds of force majeure, unavoidable chartering requirements or obvious economic or time constraints;
da družba v okviru operativnih zmogljivosti ladjedelnic prevzame obveznost izvajanja prerazporeditve v pristaniščih regije, kadar je pri tem ne ovirajo okoliščine višje sile ali nujne zahteve po najemu ter očitne ekonomske in časovne omejitve;
as regards the crewing of vessels with a gross tonnage of more than 250 tonnes, the undertaking should establish a special complement, comprising all the seafarer categories needed to crew the vessel for which it was requesting aid, using solely crew members registered in the general duty roster of the port of registry, and to take from those rosters all the crew required, whether general or special, the only restrictions being those laid down by the national regulations on the employment of seafarers …’
da družba v zvezi z zaposlitvijo osebja na plovilih z bruto tonažo nad 250 ton prevzame obveznost določitve posebne izmene, ki bo zajela vse kategorije osebja plovila, za katerega zahteva ugodnosti, pri čemer bo zaposlila samo osebje, ki je vpisano v splošni register funkcij pristanišča, in da bo iz teh registrov prevzela vso posadko, splošno in strokovno, pri čemer velja le omejitev, ki jo nalagajo nacionalni predpisi o zaposlovanju mornarjev…“.
Law No 11/1988 also introduced the option whereby the Sardinian authorities could grant a contribution to the costs of a lease where a shipping company had opted for a lease instead of a loan.
Zakon št. 11/1988 je sardinskim organom omogočil tudi odobritev prispevka za stroške finančnih zakupov, če so ladijske družbe izbrale tovrstno financiranje namesto posojil.
The contribution is equal to the difference between the interest actually owed on a loan, corresponding to the annual amortisation rate, calculated at the commercial reference interest rate for shipping in Italy and the interest payable on the same loan calculated at 5 % (an average interest rate subsidy of about 10 percentage points).
Ta prispevek je enak razliki med dejansko dolgovanimi obrestmi za posojila po referenčni tržni stopnji za posojila v pomorstvu v Italiji in obrestmi, dolgovanimi za posojila v enakem znesku in izračunanimi po 5-odstotni obrestni meri (razlika, ki pomeni povprečno znižanje obrestne mere za okoli 10 odsotnih točk).
At the end of the contract, the ship for which the contribution was paid may be purchased by the leasee by paying an amount equal to 1 % of the purchase price.
Po poteku pogodbe lahko najemnik kupi plovilo, za katerega je prejel prispevek, z nakazilom v višini 1 % nabavne cene.
According to the Italian authorities, (letter of 5.6.1988 and reply of 1.7.1998), no lease was signed under Law No 11/1988.
Po trditvah italijanskih organov (dopis z dne 5. junija 1988 in odgovor z dne 1. julija 1998) ni bil sklenjen nikakršen finančni zakup v skladu z zakonom št. 11/1988.
According to information in the possession of the Commission, loans amounting to the sum of ITL 12697450000 (approximately EUR 6,5 million) have been granted since the entry into force of the original aid scheme.
Na podlagi informacij, ki jih ima na voljo Komisija, so bila od začetka veljavnosti prvotne sheme pomoči odobrena posojila v skupni vrednosti 12697450000 ITL (približno 6,5 milijona EUR).
The last financing decision was taken in December 1991.
Zadnja odločitev o financiranju je bila sprejeta decembra 1991.
Doubts raised over the original aid scheme subject to procedure C 23/96
Dvomi v zvezi s prvotno shemo pomoči, ki je predmet postopka C 23/96
In the document initiating the procedure on 24 June 1996, the Commission expressed serious doubts over the compatibility of the aid with the common market on the basis of information available to it for the following reasons:
Komisija je z uvedbo postopka dne 24. junija 1996 na podlagi informacij, ki so ji bile na voljo, izrazila resne dvome glede združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom iz naslednjih razlogov:
the aid scheme contained provisions which involved discrimination on the grounds of nationality in that ship operators were obliged, inter alia, as an effective condition of aid, to employ Sardinian seafarers on board their vessels,
shema pomoči je vsebovala diskriminatorna pravila na podlagi državljanstva, saj je bilo med pogoji za odobritev pomoči navedeno, da morajo upravičene družbe zaposlovati osebje s Sardinije,
the scheme conflicted with the principle of freedom of establishment inasmuch as the aid was conditional, inter alia, on operators having their head office in Sardinia,
shema je bila v nasprotju z načelom svobode ustanavljanja, saj je bila pomoč med drugim omejena s pogojem, da je statutarni sedež upravičenih družb na Sardiniji,
the scheme involved aid to encourage investment in ships in a way which is liable to infringe Community law.
shema je predvidevala pomoč za spodbujanje naložb v plovila na način, ki bi lahko kršil zakonodajo Skupnosti.
The scheme amended by Law No 9 of 15 February 1996
Shema, spremenjena z zakonom št. 9 z dne 15. februarja 1996
To make Law No 20/1951 compatible with Community law and the relevant Directives, the regional authorities amended the original aid scheme by means of Regional Law No 9 of 15 February 1996 (hereinafter Law No 9/1996) as follows:
Zaradi uskladitve zakona št. 20/1951 z zakonodajo Skupnosti in zadevnimi direktivami so deželni organi prvotno shemo pomoči spremenili z deželnim zakonom št. 9 z dne 15. februarja 1996 (v nadaljevanju: „zakon št. 9/1996“), kot sledi:
the provisions which involved discrimination on the grounds of nationality were removed;
odpravljene so bile diskriminatorne določbe na podlagi državljanstva;
a new condition was introduced whereby a preference for innovative, high technology vessels was agreed;
uveden je bil nov pogoj, po katerem se prizna prednost inovativnim in visokotehnološkim prevoznim sredstvom;
a system was introduced to check that the aid was not granted twice (by the national authorities and by the regional authorities) for the same loans/leases.
uveden je bil sistem, po katerem je mogoče preveriti, ali je bila pomoč za ista posojila/finančne zakupe dodeljena dvakrat (s strani nacionalnih in deželnih organov).
Doubts expressed during proceeding C 71/97
Dvomi, izraženi v okviru postopka C 71/97
In its Decision of 14 November 1997 the Commission, while noting that the notified aid scheme no longer contained discriminatory provisions based on breach of the right to establishment, expressed serious doubts over the compatibility of the amendments with the common market for the following reasons:
V odločbi z dne 14. novembra 1997 je Komisija ob upoštevanju dejstva, da priglašena shema pomoči ne vsebuje več določb, ki pomenijo diskriminacijo v zvezi s kršitvijo pravice do ustanavljanja, izrazila resne dvome o združljivosti sprememb s skupnim trgom zaradi:
risk of conflict with Community legislation on shipbuilding in force at that time [5],conflict between the aid scheme and the guidelines on State aid to maritime transport current at that time [6],existence of unlawful operating aid, granted in the form of leases on favourable terms for the acquisition of ships.
nevarnosti, da bi bile v nasprotju s tedaj veljavno zakonodajo Skupnosti o ladjedelništvu [5],neusklajenosti sheme pomoči s tedaj veljavnimi smernicami o državnih pomočeh za pomorski promet [6],obstoja neupravičenih pomoči za poslovanje, odobrenih v obliki subvencioniranih finančnih nakupov plovil.
Commission Decision of 98/95/EC
Odločba Komisije 98/95/ES
In Decision 98/95/EC, the Commission, without reference to the amendments added subsequently, found the original aid scheme constituted State aid for the purposes of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as: ‘(a) the beneficiary companies are relieved of a financial burden which they would normally bear (normal commercial interest rates and other charges on loans/leases); (b) the burden is borne by State resources (the Sardinian authorities); (c) the aid is selective (being reserved to the shipping sector); and (d) the aid affects trade between Member States.’
Z odločbo 98/95/ES je Komisija, ne da bi se izrekla glede naknadno sprejetih sprememb, kot državne pomoči opredelila pomoči, odobrene med veljavnostjo prvotne sheme pomoči, na podlagi naslednjih dejstev: (a) „upravičena podjetja so oproščena plačevanja finančne obveznosti, ki bi jo sicer morala poravnati (tržna obrestna mera in drugi dodatni stroški za posojilo in finančni zakup); (b) ta obveznost se plačuje iz javnih sredstev (zlasti s strani deželnih organov); (c) pomoč je selektivna (omejena izključno na ladijske družbe); (d) pomoč vpliva na trgovanje med državami članicami.“
With regard to letter (d), the Decision initiating the proceedings states that ‘more than 90 % of the goods from Member States are transported towards Sardinia by sea and more than 90 % of goods from Sardinia are transported towards Member States by the same route.
Kar zadeva točko (d), je v sklepu o uvedbi postopka navedeno, da se „več kot 90 % blaga, ki izvira iz držav članic, prepelje v Sardinijo po morju, in več kot 90 % blaga, ki izvira iz Sardinije, prepelje v države članice po isti poti.
It was also noted that 65 % of tourist traffic (passengers and vehicles) between Member States and Sardinia are managed by shipping companies.’ The Commission also noted that the observations made by the Italian authorities did not contest these data, or the categorisation of the aid scheme as State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1).
Med drugim je bilo ugotovljeno, da 65 % turističnega prometa (potniki in vozila) med državami članicami in Sardinijo upravljajo ladijske družbe.“ Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da italijanski organi v svojih pripombah niso oporekali tem podatkom in prav tako ne opredelitvi sheme pomoči kot državne pomoči v smislu člena 92(1).