natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this respect, the Commission indicated in its decisions opening the procedure that it considered that the aid should be examined in the light of Directive 90/684/EEC, and in particular, given the purpose of the aid, of Article 4(7) thereof [38].
S tem v zvezi je Komisija v svojih odločbah za uvedbo postopka navedla, da je treba pomoč proučiti ob upoštevanju Direktive 90/684/EGS in glede na namen pomoči še ob upoštevanju člena 4(7) Direktive [38].
The French authorities and the interested parties disputed the relevance of this legal basis on the grounds set out in parts IV and V. The reasons for the choice of this legal basis should therefore be examined.
Francoski organi in zainteresirane stranke so spodbijali primernost te pravne podlage zaradi razlogov, navedenih v poglavjih IV in V. Zato je treba proučiti razloge za izbiro te pravne podlage.
The Commission’s Decision of 27 January 1993 not to raise any State aid objections as regards the Loi Pons clearly stated that ‘the application of the aid in question is subject to the rules and guidelines laid down by Community law in relation to (…) certain industrial sectors …’.
Odločba Komisije z dne 27. januarja 1993 o nenasprotovanju državni pomoči na podlagi Loi Pons je še zlasti predvidevala, da „uporabo zadevne pomoči urejajo pravila in smernice iz prava Skupnosti v zvezi z […] nekaterimi industrijskimi sektorji …“.
Consequently that Decision does not cover the aid in question since it comes under the scope of Directive 90/684/EEC.
Zato navedena odločba ne zajema zadevne pomoči, spada na področje uporabe Direktive 90/684/EGS.
France and the interested parties claim that Directive 90/684/EEC only applies to aid to a shipbuilder and that since the Commission has not identified an advantage for the shipyard that built Le Levant, Directive 90/684/EEC is not applicable to this case.
Francija in zainteresirane stranke trdijo, da Direktiva 90/684/EGS velja le za pomoči, namenjene graditelju ladij, in ker Komisija ni ugotovila dodelitve ugodnosti ladjedelnici, ki je zgradila potniško ladjo Le Levant, Direktiva 90/684/EGS za to zadevo ne velja.
The Commission does not accept this argument.
Komisija ne sprejme tega argumenta.
It is clear from the wording itself of Article 3(1) of Directive 90/684/EEC that it applies to ‘all forms of aid to shipowners or to third parties which are available as aid for the building or conversion of ships’.
Iz besedila člena 3(1) Direktive 90/684/EGS je razvidno, da se uporablja za „vse oblike pomoči lastnikom ladij ali tretjim osebam za pomoč pri gradnji ali predelavi ladij“.
It is therefore not so much the nature of the beneficiary as the purpose of the aid that is decisive for the application of Directive 90/684/EEC, which refers to aid for ‘shipbuilding’ and not for ‘shipbuilders’.
Za uporabo Direktive 90/684/EGS torej ni odločilna narava upravičenca, temveč namen pomoči, ki se dodeljuje, saj se ta direktiva nanaša pomoči „gradnji ladij“ in ne graditeljem ladij.
This interpretation is supported by the case law of the Court which, in response to the argument that only aid available for the production of ships, and not for their operation, should be taken into account in the context of Directive 90/684/EEC, found that its provisions are applicable ‘not only to all forms of production aids granted directly to the yards but also to the aid covered by Article 3(2), which refers to all forms of aids granted to shipowners or to third parties where these aids are actually used for the building or conversion of ships in Community shipyards’ [39].
Tako razlago potrjuje tudi sodna praksa Sodišča, ki v odgovoru na argument, da bi bilo treba v okviru Direktive 90/684/EGS upoštevati samo pomoči, namenjene gradnji ladij in ne njihovemu obratovanju, ugotavlja, da njene določbe veljajo „ne le za vse oblike pomoči proizvodnji, ki jih neposredno prejmejo ladjedelnice, ampak tudi za pomoči iz člena 3(2), ki se nanaša na vse oblike pomoči lastnikom ladij ali tretjim osebam, pod pogojem, da se te pomoči dejansko uporabijo za gradnjo ali predelavo ladij v ladjedelnicah Skupnosti“ [39].
The Commission accordingly confirms that the compatibility of the aid with the common market should be assessed in the light of Directive 90/684/EEC.
Komisija zato potrjuje, da je treba združljivost pomoči s skupnim trgom preučiti v skladu z Direktivo 90/684/EGS.
Analysis of compatibility
Analiza združljivosti
Under the terms of Article 4(7) of Directive 90/684/EEC, aid related to shipbuilding and ship conversion granted as development assistance to a developing country may be deemed compatible with the common market if it complies with the terms laid down for that purpose by OECD Working Party No 6 in its Agreement concerning the interpretation of Articles 6 to 8 of the Understanding on Export Credits for Ships or with any later addendum or corrigendum to the said Agreement (hereinafter OECD criteria).
V skladu s členom 4(7) Direktive 90/684/EGS se pomoči za gradnjo in predelavo ladij, ki so odobrene državi v razvoju v okviru razvojne pomoči, lahko štejejo za združljive s skupnim trgom, če so v skladu z določbami, ki jih je v ta namen sprejela delovna skupina št. 6 Organizacije za gospodarsko sodelovanje in razvoj (OECD) v svojem soglasju glede razlage členov 6, 7 in 8 Sporazuma o izvoznih kreditih za ladje in z vsemi njegovimi dodatki ali popravki (v nadaljnjem besedilu: merila OECD).
As communicated to Member States by Commission letter SG(89)D/311 of 3 January 1989, development-aid projects must comply with the following OECD criteria:
Kot je Komisija obvestila države članice z dopisom SG (89) D/311 z dne 3. januarja 1989, morajo projekti razvojne pomoči izpolnjevati naslednja merila OECD:
vessels must not be operated under a flag of convenience,
ladje ne smejo obratovati pod zastavo ugodnosti,
in the event that the aid cannot be classified as public development aid for the purposes of the OECD, the donor must confirm that the aid is part of an intergovernmental agreement,
če pomoči ni mogoče uvrstiti med javne razvojne pomoči v okviru OECD, mora dajalec pomoči potrditi, da je pomoč dodeljena na podlagi medvladnega sporazuma,
the donor must give appropriate assurances that the real owner is resident in the recipient country and that the recipient company is not a non-operational subsidiary of a foreign company (eligible recipient countries include not only developing countries classified as such by the OECD but also all overseas countries and territories associated with the European Union, including the French overseas territories),
dajalec pomoči mora priskrbeti primerna zagotovila, da dejanski lastnik biva v državi upravičenki pomoči in da podjetje, ki je upravičeno do pomoči, ni nedejavna podružnica tujega podjetja (države, ki so upravičene do pomoči, niso le države v razvoju v skladu z razvrstitvijo OECD, ampak tudi čezmorske države in ozemlja, vezana na Evropsko unijo, vključno s francoskimi čezmorskimi ozemlji),
the recipient must give undertakings not to sell the ship without governmental approval.
upravičenec se mora obvezati, da ladje ne bo prodal brez dovoljenja javnih organov.
Also, the aid granted must include a concessionary element of 25 % at least.
Poleg tega mora ugodnost pomeniti vsaj 25 % dodeljene pomoči.
In addition, as indicated above, the Commission must also verify that the project has a genuine ‘development component’.
Kot je že bilo navedeno, mora Komisija preveriti tudi, da projekt vsebuje pravi „razvojni element“.
The Court [40] ruled that the Commission is obliged to verify the development content of the project separately from the OECD criteria.
Sodišče [40] je ocenilo, da mora Komisija „razvojni element“ projekta in spoštovanje meril OECD preveriti ločeno.
It follows that the Commission’s assessment must include verification that projects have a genuine development objective and that they would not be viable without the aid (i.e. that the aid is necessary).
Torej mora Komisija preveriti, ali imajo projekti res razvojni cilj in ali brez pomoči ne bi bili izvedljivi (to pomeni, da je pomoč nujna).
As the Commission indicated when the Article 88(2) procedure was initiated, the project meets the OECD criteria for the following reasons:
Kot je Komisija navedla v svojih odločbah o uvedbi postopka, zadevna pomoč ustreza merilom OECD iz naslednjih razlogov:
Le Levant is operated under the French flag.
potniška ladja Le Levant obratuje pod francosko zastavo.
The requirement that it not be operated under a flag of convenience is thus met,
Pogoj, da ladja ne sme obratovati pod zastavo ugodnosti, je tako izpolnjen,
Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon is on the list of countries eligible for development aid annexed to Commission letter SG(89)D/311 to Member States,
otočje Saint-Pierre in Miquelon je na seznamu držav upravičenk do razvojne pomoči, ki je priložen dopisu SG (89) D/311, ki ga je Komisija poslala državam članicam,
the Commission notes that under the terms of the package, CIL is intended to become the sole owner of the vessel and that, during the intervening period, it operates the vessel in its commercial business as a de facto owner.
Komisija poudarja, da bo družba CIL v skladu s paketom postala edini lastnik ladje in bo v vmesnem času ladjo uporabljala pri svojih poslovnih dejavnostih kot njen dejanski lastnik.
For the purposes of the residence condition for the owner, the Commission finds that CIL should be considered the real owner of Le Levant [41].
Glede pogoja rezidence lastnika Komisija ugotavlja, da je treba družbo CIL šteti za pravega lastnika potniške ladje Le Levant [41].
CIL has its head office in Wallis-et-Futuna.
CIL ima namreč svoj sedež na ozemlju Wallis in Futuna.
Furthermore, CIL is not a non-operational subsidiary of a foreign company,
Poleg tega družba CIL ni nedejavna podružnica tujega podjetja,
the vessel cannot be resold without the approval of the French authorities since the aid is granted on the condition that CIL actually operates the vessel for at least five years mainly to and from Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon,
ladja se ne sme prodati brez soglasja francoskih organov, saj je pomoč dodeljena pod pogojem, da družba CIL ladjo dejansko uporablja najmanj pet let pretežno za poti, katerih cilj ali izhodišče je Saint-Pierre in Miquelon,
the aid intensity exceeds 25 % (see recital 115).
intenzivnost pomoči je večja od 25 % (glej uvodno izjavo 115).
The Commission must still verify the ‘development component’, namely satisfy itself that the aid will contribute to the development of the beneficiary territory.
Komisija mora preveriti še „razvojni element“ oz. se prepričati, da bo pomoč prispevala k razvoju območja, ki je upravičeno do pomoči.
This analysis must take into account the circumstances and specific needs of the territory in question.
Ta analiza mora upoštevati okoliščine in posebne potrebe zadevnega območja.
In this connection, the French authorities underlined that the economy of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon was in a particularly difficult situation when the aid was granted.
Francoski organi so poudarili, da je bilo gospodarstvo otočja Saint-Pierre in Miquelon v času dodelitve pomoči v zelo težkem položaju.
The archipelago was historically dependent on industrial fishing.
Otočje je bilo že v preteklosti odvisno od industrijskega ribolova.
The sudden and total collapse of this industry in 1993, following the settlement in Canada’s favour of a dispute with France on fishing rights and a Canadian moratorium on cod fishing, meant an urgent need to re-orient the territory’s economy.
Zaradi hitrega in obsežnega propada te dejavnosti v letu 1993, ki je sledil za Francijo neugodni rešitvi spora s Kanado glede ribolovnih pravic in kanadskemu moratoriju na ribolov na polenovko, je bilo treba gospodarstvo tega območja preusmeriti.
As Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon could not offer long-stay tourism it seemed reasonable to try developing the archipelago as a cruise port.
Ker Saint-Pierre in Miquelon ne more ponuditi dolgega turističnega bivanja, se je zdelo primerno otočje razviti kot pristanišče za križarke.
In the comments submitted following the Decision of 2 December 1999 initiating the procedure, the French authorities claimed that operating Le Levant would contribute to Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon’s development, in particular by creating jobs and expenditure in the territory generated by its operation.
V pripombah, ki so bile predložene po odločbi o uvedbi postopka z dne 2. decembra 1999, so francoski organi zatrdili, da uporaba potniške ladje Le Levant pripomore k razvoju otočja Saint-Pierre in Miquelon predvsem z ustvarjanjem delovnih mest in s prihodki, ki jih ladja ustvari na ozemlju.
In Decision 2001/882/EC, the Commission concluded, however, that there was no ‘development component’ [42].
Komisija je v Odločbi 2001/882/ES ocenila, da manjka „razvojni element“ [42].
This assessment was based on the following conclusions as regards the economic benefits of the aid:
To mnenje temelji predvsem na ugotovitvah o ekonomskih učinkih pomoči:
the Commission found on the basis of the information at its disposal that the economic benefits linked to operation of le Levant could be estimated at FRF 5,52 million for the period 1999-2001, i.e. some EUR 0,84 million,
Komisija je na osnovi informacij, ki jih je imela na voljo, ugotovila, da bi lahko finančne prihodke obratovanja potniške ladje Le Levant v obdobju med letoma 1999 in 2001 ocenili na 5,52 milijona FRF, tj. okoli 0,84 milijona EUR,
as regards the creation of direct jobs, the Commission considered that there was no proof of any effect as the information provided by the French authorities only stated that ‘four former fishermen from the islands had been trained to work on the ship’,
glede ustvarjanja delovnih mest je Komisija na podlagi navedb francoskih organov o tem, da „so se štirje nekdanji ribiči z otočja usposabljali za delo na ladji“, ocenila, da ni bilo na tem področju nobenega dokazanega učinka,
finally, as regards the effect on the archipelago’s infrastructure development and the indirect effects linked to the possible entry of other operators, the Commission found that the French authorities’ assertions had not been quantified and that it was not necessary to take them into account in the assessment of the aid measure for le Levant.
in končno, glede učinka na razvoj infrastrukture otočja in na posredne prihodke, nastale zaradi drugih operaterjev, ki prav tako organizirajo križarjenja, je Komisija ugotovila, da trditve francoskih organov niso bile izmerjene količinsko in da pri ocenitvi ukrepa pomoči potniški ladji Le Levant tega elementa ni bilo nujno upoštevati.
These conclusions were clearly based on the information available to the Commission at the time when it took its Decision.
Komisija je do teh zaključkov prišla na osnovi informacij, ki jih je imela ob sprejetju odločbe.
As it emerged clearly from the judgment of the Court in the action for annulment in abovementioned Case C-394/01 [43], the Commission could only base its Decision on the information that it had been given during the formal investigation procedure initiated by its Decision of 2 December 1999, which ruled out certain information that the French authorities only presented at the stage of proceedings before the Court.
Kot je jasno razvidno iz sodbe Sodišča, ki je sledila tožbi za razveljavitev v omenjeni zadevi C-394/01 [43], je Komisija osnovala svojo odločbo le na podlagi poznanih elementov iz uradnega postopka preiskave, ki je bil sprožen z odločbo z dne 2. decembra 1999, ki pa ni vseboval nekaterih informacij, ki so jih francoski organi predložili šele med postopkom pred Sodiščem.
In the fresh observations submitted following the Commission’s supplementary decision of 6 December 2006, the French authorities and the interested parties provided information which the Commission did not have when Decision 2001/882/EC was adopted and which give a different impression of the economic effects of operating Le Levant.
Francoski organi in zainteresirane stranke so v novih pripombah, ki so sledile dopolnilni odločbi Komisije z dne 6. decembra 2006, podali informacije, ki jih Komisija v času sprejetja Odločbe 2001/882/ES ni imela in ki kažejo drugačno podobo finančnih prihodkov od obratovanja potniške ladje Le Levant.
It would therefore appear from the observations submitted by the French authorities that at least 14 people from Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon were employed on board Le Levant from 1999 to 25 July 2001.
Glede ustvarjanja delovnih mest je iz pripomb francoskih organov razvidno, da je bilo med letom 1999 in 25. julijem 2001 na potniški ladji Le Levant zaposlenih vsaj 14 oseb iz Saint-Pierre in Miquelona.
In addition to these jobs at sea there were jobs on land because of the use of local suppliers and service providers.
K delovnim mestom na morju je treba prišteti še delovna mesta na kopnem v sklopu sodelovanja z dobavitelji in lokalnimi ponudniki storitev.
The French authorities estimate that operating Le Levant generated at least 10 jobs on land from 1999 to 25 July 2001 [44].
Francoski organi ocenjujejo, da je obratovanje potniške ladje Le Levant med letom 1999 in 25. julijem 2001 ustvarilo vsaj 10 delovnih mest na kopnem [44].
According to the same information from the French authorities, operating Le Levant generated EUR 1,66 million of direct expenditure in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon (linked to the ship’s supplies, passenger transfers etc.) in the period 1999-2001 [45].
V skladu z istimi informacijami francoskih organov je obratovanje potniške ladje Le Levant v obdobju med letoma 1999 in 2001 ustvarilo 1,66 milijona EUR neposrednih stroškov v Saint-Pierre in Miquelonu (povezanih z oskrbo ladje, prevozom potnikov itd.) [45].
Unlike the information available to the Commission in 2001, this new information therefore demonstrates a quantified impact in terms of job creation.
V nasprotju z informacijami, s katerimi je Komisija razpolagala leta 2001, je mogoče na podlagi novih informacij ugotoviti kvantitativen učinek na področju ustvarjanja delovnih mest.
This effect is not insignificant bearing in mind the small size of the labour market in the territory and comparing it with the number of job seekers (409 people in 1999) [46].
Glede na majhnost trga dela na tem območju in glede na število iskalcev dela (409 oseb leta 1999) [46] ta učinek nikakor ni zanemarljiv.
It also shows that direct expenditure in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon linked to operating Le Levant is about twice the amount stated by the Commission in the grounds for Decision 2001/882/EC [47].
Iz informacij je razvidno tudi, da so neposredni stroški, povezani z obratovanjem potniške ladje Le Levant v Saint-Pierre in Miquelonu, dvakrat višji od zneskov, ki jih je Komisija navedla v svoji utemeljitvi Odločbe 2001/882/ES [47].
This new information shows that the aid to le Levant generated economic effects, admittedly limited but which could none the less contribute to Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon’s economic development.
Na podlagi novih informacij je mogoče ugotoviti, da je pomoč potniški ladji Le Levant zagotovila ekonomske prihodke, ki so sicer omejeni, pa vendar dovolj veliki za prispevek k gospodarskemu razvoju otočja Saint-Pierre in Miquelon.
The French authorities also argued that the aid could, more generally, contribute to the development of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon by encouraging the necessary economic diversification.
Francoski organi so poleg tega poudarili, da bi pomoč lahko na splošno prispevala k razvoju Saint-Pierre in Miquelona s spodbujanjem nujne razvejanosti njegovega gospodarstva.
On this point, the Commission’s investigation procedure showed that Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon’s economy had been almost entirely dependent on industrial fishing until 1993 and then it was dependent on the public sector and public procurement [48].
V tem pogledu je Komisija s postopkom preiskave ugotovila, da je bilo gospodarstvo Saint-Pierre in Miquelona do leta 1993 skoraj izključno odvisno od industrijskega ribolova, potem pa je postalo odvisno od javnega sektorja in javnih naročil [48].
The Commission accepts that this dependence on very limited sources of jobs and income may hold back the territory’s development.
Komisija se strinja, da so zaradi odvisnosti od tako majhne ponudbe delovnih mest in nizkih dohodkov, možnosti razvoja nekega območja manjše.
In view of the particular geographic characteristics of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon and the very small size of its domestic market, the Commission admits that economic diversification was useful for its development and that tourism could prove a promising path for diversification when the aid was granted.
Prav tako priznava, da je bila glede na geografske posebnosti Saint-Pierre in Miquelona ter omejenost njegovega notranjega trga večja razvejanost gospodarstva koristna za njegov razvoj, in da bi bil lahko razvoj turistične dejavnosti obetaven dejavnik za večjo razvejanost gospodarstva v času odobritve pomoči.
The Commission also accepts the French authorities’ comments that the small size of the archipelago limited the possibilities for proposing long-stay tourism but that on the other hand it was suited to developing cruise activities.
Komisija se strinja tudi s pripombami francoskih organov glede majhnosti otočja, zaradi katere so možnosti turistične ponudbe za daljše bivanje na otočju manjše, so pa zato možnosti razvoja dejavnosti križarjenj toliko večje.
The Commission notes that according to the information provided by the French authorities, the number of cruises visiting the archipelago fluctuated sharply in the years prior to the granting of the aid and the commissioning of Le Levant, but that this figure seems to have stabilised at a relatively high level from 2000 [49].
Komisija v skladu z informacijami francoskih organov ugotavlja, da je število potnikov na križarjenjih, ki obiščejo otočje, v letih pred odobritvijo pomoči in pred začetkom obratovanja potniške ladje Le Levant zelo nihalo, vendar se zdi, da se je od leta 2000 [49] naprej ustalilo na nekoliko višji ravni.
However real they are, these contributions to Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon’s development may never the less seem limited, especially in comparison with the aid intensity.
Naj bo prispevek k razvoju Saint-Pierre in Miquelona še tako resničen, se lahko kljub temu zdi skromen, predvsem v primerjavi z intenzivnostjo pomoči.
The Commission considers, however, that the compatibility of the aid with the common market should be assessed by comparing the contribution that the aid can make to Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon’s development and the degree of trade distortion between Member States that it could cause.
Vendar Komisija meni, da je treba združljivost pomoči s skupnim trgom ocenjevati glede na razmerje med prispevkom k razvoju, ki ga pomoč lahko prinese Saint-Pierre in Miquelonu, in razsežnostjo izkrivljanja trgovine med državami članicami, ki ga pomoč lahko povzroči.
In this respect, the Commission considers that while there is no doubt that the aid could have some adverse effect on trade between Member States as shown in section 2.4, it is none the less likely that this effect will be very slight given the specific circumstances of the case.
Glede tega Komisija meni, da čeprav ni dvoma, da bo imela pomoč negativen učinek na trgovino med državami članicami, kot je bilo prikazano v poglavju 2.4, je verjetno, da bo ta učinek zelo omejen glede na posebne okoliščine zadeve.
In this connection, the Commission notes the following:
V zvezi s tem Komisija poudarja naslednje:
Le Levant is a small capacity ship as it carries only about 95 passengers, which obviously limits its impact on the market,
Le Levant je ladja z majhno kapaciteto, ki lahko sprejme le okoli 95 potnikov, kar samodejno zmanjša njen vpliv na trg,