natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finland is authorised, from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2008, to grant aid to growers established on its territory producing certified seeds and certified cereal seed referred to in the Annex to this Decision, within the limits of the amounts laid down in that Annex.
Finski se dovoli, da od 1. januarja 2007 do 31. decembra 2008 odobri pomoč pridelovalcem s sedežem na njenem ozemlju, ki pridelujejo certificirana semena in certificirana semena žit iz Priloge k tej odločbi, v okviru zneskov iz navedene priloge.
Finland shall ensure, by an appropriate inspection system that the aid is granted only in respect of the varieties referred to in the Annex.
Finska s pomočjo ustreznega sistema nadzora zagotovi, da se pomoč odobri samo za sorte, navedene v Prilogi.
Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1247/2007 (OJ L 282, 26.10.2007, p. 1).
Uredba, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1247/2007 (UL L 282, 26.10.2007, str. 1).
Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 (OJ L 148, 6.6.2008, p. 1).
Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 479/2008 (UL L 148, 6.6.2008, str. 1).
Maximum budget EUR 2190000
Najvišja razpoložljiva sredstva 2190000 EUR
on State aid C 12/07 (ex N 799/06) planned by the Slovak Republic for Glunz&Jensen s.r.o.
o državni pomoči C 12/07 (ex N 799/06) Slovaške za Glunz&Jensen s.r.o.
(notified under document number C(2007) 6045)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 6045)
By electronic notification dated 29 November 2006, registered as received by the Commission on 30 November 2006 under reference number A/39718, the Slovak authorities, in accordance with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, notified the Commission of their intention to grant regional ad hoc investment aid in favour of the company Glunz&Jensen s.r.o.
Z elektronskim obvestilom z dne 29. novembra 2006, ki ga je Komisija evidentirala 30. novembra 2006 pod referenčno številko A/39718, so slovaški organi v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES obvestili Komisijo o svoji nameri, da dodelijo regionalno investicijsko pomoč ad hoc v korist družbe Glunz&Jensen s.r.o.
A request for information was sent on 26 January 2007 (D/50360).
Zahtevek za informacije je bil poslan 26. januarja 2007 (D/50360).
The Slovak authorities replied by letter dated 20 February 2007 (A/31585).
Slovaški organi so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 20. februarja 2007 (A/31585).
By letter dated 24 April 2007 (hereinafter ‘the opening decision’) the Commission informed Slovakia that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the measure.
Z dopisom z dne 24. aprila 2007 (v nadaljevanju „odločitev o sprožitvi postopka“) je Komisija obvestila Slovaško, da se je v zvezi z ukrepom odločila sprožiti postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2].
Odločitev Komisije, da sproži postopek, je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [2].
The Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties or from the Slovak Republic.
Komisija od zainteresiranih strank in Slovaške ni prejela nobenih pripomb.
The aim of the aid measure is to promote regional development in the Prešov region (eastern Slovakia), which was an assisted area under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty in accordance with the Slovak regional aid map [3] applicable at the date of the notification, with a regional aid ceiling of 50 % net grant equivalent (NGE).
Cilj ukrepa pomoči je spodbujati regionalni razvoj v Prešovskem okraju (vzhodna Slovaška), ki je bil območje, upravičeno do pomoči po členu 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES v skladu s slovaško karto regionalne pomoči [3], veljavno na dan priglasitve, z zgornjo mejo regionalne pomoči, ki je znašala 50 % neto ekvivalenta dotacije (NED).
The proposed project constitutes an ad hoc aid measure notified by the Slovak authorities.
Predlagani projekt pomeni ukrep pomoči ad hoc, ki so ga priglasili slovaški organi.
The aid in question is not being granted under an existing scheme (i.e. its legal basis is not listed in the Accession Treaty as an existing aid scheme, nor was it the subject of the so-called interim mechanism, nor has the Commission approved an aid scheme based on these legal provisions since Slovakia’s accession to the EU).
Zadevna pomoč se ne dodeljuje v skladu s shemo, ki bi že obstajala (tj. njena pravna podlaga ni navedena v pristopni pogodbi kot obstoječa shema pomoči, ni bila predmet tako imenovanega začasnega mehanizma, Komisija pa od pristopa Slovaške k EU ni odobrila sheme pomoči na podlagi teh pravnih določb).
The form and nature of the aid
Oblika in narava pomoči
The notified aid is to be provided in the form of a tax exemption, applied on an annual basis between 2007-2010, of up to 100 % of the corporate tax liability of the aid recipient, Glunz&Jensen s.r.o.
Priglašena pomoč naj bi bila dodeljena v obliki davčne oprostitve, uporabljene na letni podlagi v obdobju 2007–2010, ki bi znašala do 100 % davčne obveznosti prejemnika pomoči, tj. družbe Glunz&Jensen s.r.o.
The total amount of the tax exemption is limited to SKK 42 million at present value [4] (approx. EUR 1,15 million).
Skupni znesek davčne oprostitve je omejen na 42 milijonov SKK v zdajšnji vrednosti [4] (približno 1,15 milijona EUR).
The aid cannot be cumulated with aid received from other sources for the same investment project.
Pomoči ni mogoče združevati s pomočjo, prejeto iz drugih virov za isti investicijski projekt.
Legal basis of the ad hoc aid
Pravna podlaga pomoči ad hoc
The legal basis of the ad hoc aid is State Aid Act No 231/1999, as amended; Income Tax Act No 595/2003, as amended; and Income Tax Act No 366/1999, as amended at 31 December 2003, in particular Section 52(3) of Income Tax Act No 595/2003, as amended, under the conditions laid down in Section 35a of Income Tax Act No 366/1999, as at 31 December 2003 [5].
Pravna podlaga za pomoč ad hoc zajema Zakon o državni pomoči št. 231/1999, kot je bil spremenjen; Zakon o davku od dohodkov št. 595/2003, kot je bil spremenjen, in Zakon o davku od dohodkov št. 366/1999, kot je bil spremenjen 31. decembra 2003, predvsem oddelek 52(3) Zakona o davku od dohodkov št. 595/2003, kot je bil spremenjen, pod pogoji, določenimi v oddelku 35a Zakona o davku od dohodkov št. 366/1999 kakor je veljal na dan 31. decembra 2003 [5].
The beneficiary of the aid, Glunz&Jensen s.r.o., is a large enterprise, i.e. not an SME within the meaning of Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises [6].
Upravičenec do pomoči Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. je veliko podjetje, tj. ni malo ali srednje veliko podjetje v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 70/2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri državni pomoči za majhna in srednje velika podjetja [6].
Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. is the Slovak subsidiary of Glunz&Jensen A/S (hereinafter ‘Glunz&Jensen’) which has its headquarters in Ringsted (Denmark), with other subsidiaries at the time of notification in Virginia (USA) and in Thetford (UK).
Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. je slovaško hčerinsko podjetje družbe Glunz&Jensen A/S (v nadaljevanju „Glunz&Jensen“), ki ima sedež v Ringstedu (Danska), v času priglasitve pa tudi hčerinski družbi v Virginiji (ZDA) in Thetfordu (Združeno kraljestvo).
Glunz&Jensen is the world’s leading manufacturer and distributor of graphic arts pre-press processing equipment for offset printing plates and plateline equipment, with a market share of approximately […] % [7] in Europe.
Glunz&Jensen je vodilni svetovni proizvajalec in distributer opreme za obdelavo grafik pred tiskanjem za ofsetne tiskarske plošče in opreme za linijo obdelave plošč (plateline), katerega tržni delež v Evropi znaša približno […] % [7].
Investment project
Investicijski projekt
In 2004, Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. started work on an initial investment in Slovakia involving an investment volume of SKK 213 million (approx. EUR 5,8 million).
Leta 2004 je družba Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. začela delo na začetni investiciji na Slovaškem v investicijskem obsegu 213 milijonov SKK (približno 5,8 milijona EUR).
The investment project is being implemented over the period 2004-2009, according to the Slovak authorities, in two phases: 2004-2006 and 2007-2009.
Investicijski projekt se izvaja v obdobju 2004–2009, po podatkih slovaških organov pa poteka v dveh fazah: 2004–2006 in 2007–2009.
The project aims to relocate the production activities that existed in 2004 in the UK and Denmark to Prešov.
Cilj projekta je premestiti proizvodne dejavnosti, ki so obstajale leta 2004, iz Združenega kraljestva in Danske v Prešov.
As a result of the relocation project, the Thetford plant was closed down at the end of 2006.
Zaradi projekta premestitve je bil ob koncu leta 2006 zaprt obrat v Thetfordu.
The Prešov plant is to be developed into the firm’s main production centre.
Obrat v Prešovu naj bi se razvil v glavni proizvodni center družbe.
In fact, as indicated by the Slovak authorities, all machinery to be installed in the Slovak plant is being transferred directly from Denmark and the UK.
Kot so navedli slovaški organi, se dejansko vsi stroji, ki naj bi jih namestili v obratu na Slovaškem, premeščajo neposredno iz Danske in Združenega kraljestva.
The eligible costs of the project therefore include only the buildings and some minor additional equipment.
Zato upravičeni stroški projekta vključujejo le stavbe in nekaj manj pomembne dodatne opreme.
The first step of the 2004-2006 investment phase consisted in the purchase of a production hall and a greenfield site for future expansion.
Prvi korak investicijske faze 2004–2006 je vključeval nakup proizvodne dvorane in nepozidanega območja za prihodnjo širitev.
The subsequent second step involved renovating the facilities and purchasing equipment (not directly linked to production).
Poznejši drugi korak je vključeval obnovo zmogljivosti in nakup opreme (ki ni neposredno povezana s proizvodnjo).
The total amount for the first phase of the investment was SKK 128 million (approx. EUR 3,5 million).
Skupni znesek prve faze investicije je znašal 128 milijonov SKK (približno 3,5 milijona EUR).
As stated in declarations annexed to the notification, Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. did not receive any State aid for this part of the project, nor is any application pending.
Kot je navedeno v izjavah, priloženih priglasitvi, družba Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. ni prejela nobene državne pomoči za ta del projekta, prav tako pa tudi nima v obravnavi nobenega zahtevka.
The second phase of the investment, to be carried out over the period 2007-2009, is the project notified by the Slovak authorities on 29 November 2006.
Druga faza investicije, ki naj bi se izvedla v obdobju 2007–2009, je projekt, ki so ga slovaški organi priglasili 29. novembra 2006.
This part covers continuation of the initial project with the construction of further buildings and the purchase of further equipment (IT, trucks and office equipment) for a total of SKK 84 million at present value (approx. EUR 2,3 million).
Ta del zajema nadaljevanje začetnega projekta z gradnjo nadaljnjih stavb in nakupom nadaljnje opreme (informacijske tehnologije, tovornjakov in pisarniške opreme) v skupnem znesku 84 milijonov SKK v zdajšnji vrednosti (približno 2,3 milijona EUR).
The production unit in Slovakia opened in April 2005.
Proizvodna enota na Slovaškem je začela delovati aprila 2005.
Since then, production at the factory has increased markedly and productivity has improved considerably [8].
Od takrat se je proizvodnja v tovarni izrazito povečala, precej pa se je povečala tudi produktivnost [8].
The Commission, in its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in the present case, noted that it had doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the common market based on Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty and on the Guidelines on National Regional Aid [9] (hereinafter referred to as ‘RAG 1998’) for the following reasons:
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave v obravnavani zadevi navedla, da je bila v dvomih glede združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES in Smernic o državni regionalni pomoči [9] (v nadaljevanju „RAG 1998“) zaradi naslednjih razlogov.
First, it appeared that the two phases of the investment belong to the same investment project since they constitute part of an overall plan to accommodate the production lines to be relocated gradually from Denmark and the UK.
Prvič, zdelo se je, da obe fazi investicije spadata v isti investicijski projekt, saj sta del celovitega načrta za postopno premestitev proizvodnih linij iz Danske in Združenega kraljestva.
Furthermore, on page 6 of the ‘Application for the provision of State aid in the form of tax relief’ submitted by the beneficiary to the Slovak authorities, which was annexed to the notification, Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. indicated that the investment period runs from 2004 till 2008 [10], and the total investment costs amount to ‘more than SKK 200 million’, which is the amount corresponding to the total investment made by Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. in Slovakia.
Nadalje je na strani 6 „Zahtevka za dodelitev državne pomoči v obliki davčne olajšave“, ki jo je upravičenec predložil slovaškim organom in je bila priložena priglasitvi, družba Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. navedla, da traja investicijsko obdobje od leta 2004 do 2008 [10] in da skupni investicijski stroški znašajo „več kot 200 milijonov SKK“, kar je znesek, ki ustreza skupni investiciji družbe Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. na Slovaškem.
In light of the above, it appeared that the notified project concerned the second phase of a single comprehensive investment project which had already started in 2004.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je bilo videti, da je priglašeni projekt zadeval drugo fazo istega obsežnega investicijskega projekta, ki se je začel že leta 2004.
Moreover, since the aid application by the beneficiary itself did not distinguish between the two phases of investment, the Commission could not rule out the possibility that the investment period was artificially split into two phases so that the beneficiary would be eligible to apply for the aid in 2006.
Ker upravičenec sam v zahtevku za dodelitev pomoči ni razlikoval med dvema fazama investicije, Komisija ni mogla izključiti možnosti, da je bilo investicijsko obdobje umetno razdeljeno na dve fazi, da bi upravičenec lahko zaprosil za pomoč v letu 2006.
Second, according to the information provided by the Slovak authorities, the application for aid, signed on 29 of June 2006, was not submitted until November 2006, i.e. after the first stage of the investment had started in 2004.
Drugič, v skladu z informacijami, ki so jih predložili slovaški organi, zahtevek za pomoč, podpisan 29. junija 2006, ni bil predložen do novembra 2006, to je po začetku prve faze investicije leta 2004.
Consequently, the Commission had doubts whether the condition regarding the incentive effect of the aid as laid down in point 4.2 of RAG 1998 was being respected.
Posledično je Komisija dvomila o upoštevanju pogoja v zvezi s spodbujevalnim učinkom pomoči iz točke 4.2. RAG 1998.
The Commission underlined that, as a general principle, State aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between Member States can only be approved if these negative effects are more than outweighed by the aid’s positive contribution to a Community objective (here: regional development).
Komisija je poudarila, da je po splošnem načelu mogoče odobriti državno pomoč, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, le če pozitiven prispevek te pomoči k cilju Skupnosti (tukaj: regionalnemu razvoju) več kot odtehta te negativne vplive.
The Commission considered that an aid applied for at the end of 2006 could not retrospectively trigger an investment decision which led to work starting in 2004 and production activities getting under way in April 2005.
Komisija je menila, da pomoč, za katero se je zaprosilo ob koncu leta 2006, ne bi mogla za nazaj sprožiti investicijske odločitve, ki je pripeljala do začetka dela leta 2004 in proizvodnih dejavnosti aprila 2005.
Third, the idea that the availability of the aid was not a decisive factor for the beneficiary’s decision to start work on relocation, seemed to be confirmed by the beneficiary’s own statement in its aid application which explained the reasons for relocating its activities to Slovakia: ‘The Board (of Glunz&Jensen) decided during the course of 2003 to investigate the possibility of establishing a production unit in a low-cost country.
Tretjič, mnenje, da razpoložljivost pomoči ni bila odločilen dejavnik za upravičenčevo odločitev o začetku dela na premestitvi, je bilo potrjeno z upravičenčevo lastno izjavo v njegovem zahtevku za pomoč, v katerem je razložil razloge za premestitev dejavnosti na Slovaško: „Upravni odbor (družbe Glunz&Jensen) se je med letom 2003 odločil, da bo raziskal možnost ustanovitve proizvodne enote v državi z nižjimi stroški.
The conclusion was that the Slovak Republic was deemed the most appropriate location considering Glunz&Jensen’s business and the factor combinations on the assessed markets [11]’.
Slovaška je bila izbrana kot najprimernejša lokacija glede na poslovno dejavnost družbe Glunz&Jensen in kombinacijo dejavnikov na ocenjenih trgih. [11]“
Fourth, the Slovak authorities explained why the beneficiary did not apply for aid for the first phase of the investment project.
Četrtič, slovaški organi so razložili, zakaj upravičenec ni zaprosil za pomoč za prvo fazo investicijskega projekta.
According to their explanation, the company assumed that prior to the Slovak Republic’s accession to the EU it was not necessary to seek authorisation for State aid in the form of tax relief.
Po njihovi razlagi je družba predvidevala, da pred pristopom Slovaške k EU ni bilo treba zaprositi za dovoljenje za državno pomoč v obliki davčne olajšave.
In their understanding, the application for the aid had to be submitted only in the tax declaration for the year in which the company first incurred a tax liability.
Po njihovem razumevanju je bilo treba zahtevek za pomoč vložiti le v davčni napovedi za leto, v katerem je družba prvič imela davčno obveznost.
According to the Slovak authorities, this means that Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. planned to apply for state aid from the very beginning of the investment project’s implementation in 2004.
Po navedbah slovaških organov to pomeni, da je družba Glunz&Jensen s.r.o. nameravala zaprositi za državno pomoč od samega začetka izvajanja investicijskega projekta leta 2004.
In the Commission’s view, the fact that the beneficiary did not know the proper procedure to be followed cannot be taken into account.
Po mnenju Komisije ni mogoče upoštevati dejstva, da upravičenec ni poznal pravega postopka, ki bi mu bilo treba slediti.
It should be stressed that the aid under Section 35a of Slovak Income Tax Act No 366/1999, as amended, was not granted automatically prior to Slovakia’s accession, nor is it granted automatically now, since there is no existing aid scheme referring to the above mentioned Section.
Poudariti je treba, da se pomoč iz oddelka 35a slovaškega Zakona o davku od dohodkov št. 366/1999, kakor je bil spremenjen, pred pristopom Slovaške ni dodeljevala avtomatično, prav tako pa se ne dodeljuje avtomatično zdaj, saj ni nobene obstoječe sheme pomoči, ki bi se nanašala na zgoraj navedeni oddelek.
Consequently, this type of aid was and remains individually notifiable to the Commission as ad hoc aid, as is shown by approximately 40 ad hoc notifications submitted by Slovakia applying this legal base under the so-called interim procedure.
Posledično je za to pomoč veljalo in še vedno velja, da jo je treba priglasiti Komisiji posamično kot pomoč ad hoc, kar dokazuje približno 40 priglasitev ad hoc, ki jih je predložila Slovaška ob uporabi te pravne podlage po tako imenovanem začasnem postopku. Tudi če bi pomoč imela spodbujevalni učinek, bi sprožila precejšnje dvome.
Finally, even if the aid had had an incentive effect, substantial doubts would need to be raised: in fact, RAG 1998 (point 2) takes a negative stance towards ad hoc aid unless it can be proved that the regional contribution of the measure outweighs the distortion of competition and the effects on trade.
Pravzaprav je v RAG 1998 (točka 2) izraženo negativno mnenje glede pomoči ad hoc, razen če je mogoče dokazati, da regionalni prispevek ukrepa odtehta izkrivljanje konkurence in vplive na trgovino.
In this context, the Commission noted the following:
V zvezi s tem je Komisija ugotovila naslednje:
Although the measure provides a significant contribution to regional development (155 direct jobs, some 30 indirect jobs), its negative effects seem to be equally substantial.
Čeprav ukrep zagotavlja precejšen prispevek k regionalnemu razvoju (155 neposrednih delovnih mest, približno 30 posrednih delovnih mest), se zdijo njegovi negativni učinki prav tako precejšnji.
The relevant product market of the beneficiary is graphic arts pre-press processing equipment, in particular computer-to-plate (CtP) processors.
Upoštevni proizvodni trg upravičenca je trg opreme za obdelavo grafik pred tiskanjem, predvsem procesorjev za obdelavo od računalnika do plošče (CtP).
The Commission noted that the aid is to be granted to a company which has a market share of approximately […] % on the European market.
Komisija je ugotovila, da bi se pomoč dodelila družbi, katere tržni delež na evropskem trgu znaša približno […] %.
The closest competitors of Glunz&Jensen in Europe along with their market shares are: Height Design […] %, Agfa (Lastra) Belgium […] %, E-graf, Italy […] %, Haase, Germany […] % and Ovit, Italy […] %.
Najbližji tekmeci družbe Glunz&Jensen v Evropi skupaj s pripadajočimi tržnimi deleži so: Height Design […] %, Agfa (Lastra) Belgija […] %, E-graf Italija […] %, Haase Nemčija […] % in Ovit Italija […] %.
Given the market position of the beneficiary, the Commission was of the opinion that the planned measure could have a major impact on competition in the relevant, very specific market in which the beneficiary is active.
Glede na tržni položaj upravičenca je Komisija menila, da bi načrtovani ukrep lahko močno vplival na konkurenco na zelo specifičnem upoštevnem trgu, na katerem je dejaven upravičenec.
Furthermore, the project concerns the relocation of production activity and machinery from Denmark and the UK.
Poleg tega projekt zadeva premestitev proizvodne dejavnosti in strojev iz Danske in Združenega kraljestva.
Because it was solely a production facility, the plant in Thetford in the UK was closed down at the end of 2006, following the transfer of production to Slovakia.
Ker je šlo samo za proizvodno zmogljivost, je bil obrat v Thetfordu v Združenem kraljestvu zaprt ob koncu leta 2006, po preselitvi proizvodnje na Slovaško.
According to information found on the company’s web site, 77 employees were made redundant in Thetford.
Po informacijah s spletne strani družbe je v Thetfordu izgubilo delo 77 zaposlenih.
The Danish company will focus in future on sales, customer services, R&D and the operation of a pilot plant.
Danska družba se bo v prihodnosti osredotočila na prodajo, storitve za stranke, raziskave in razvoj ter delovanje pilotnega obrata.
The relocation therefore has a significant effect on trade between Member States.
Zato premestitev precej vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
COMMENTS FROM THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC AND INTERESTED PARTIES
PRIPOMBE SLOVAŠKE IN ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANK
No comments were received from the Slovak authorities or from third parties to allay the doubts which were raised when the formal investigation was initiated.
Od slovaških organov in tretjih strank ni bilo prejetih nobenih pripomb v zvezi z dvomi, ki so nastali ob sprožitvi uradne preiskave.
By notifying the aid measure with a standstill clause until authorised by the Commission, the Slovak authorities have complied with the procedural requirements of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
S priglasitvijo ukrepa pomoči s klavzulo o mirovanju, dokler ga ne odobri Komisija, so slovaški organi izpolnili postopkovne zahteve člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
State aid character of the measure
Značaj državne pomoči pri ukrepu