natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
MQA adds: ‘If the loans are regarded as aid, not for the FPAP, which is transparent, but for its member fisheries undertakings, it really would be social assistance, since the financial assistance thus granted would be directly linked to the sailors’ pay’.
MQA dodaja: „Če se posojila ne štejejo za pomoč v korist preglednega FPAP, ampak za pomoč v korist ribiških podjetij, ki so njegovi člani, naj bi šlo resnično za socialno pomoč. Finančna pomoč, ki bi bila tako ponujena, bi bila dejansko neposredno povezana s plačilom mornarjev.“
These statements prompt the Commission to make a few comments:
Te trditve zahtevajo več pripomb Komisije:
First of all, it is surprised to read that almost 40 % (25 million out of 65 million) of the cash advances granted by the State in order, according to the three agreements described above (see recital 21 of this Decision), to enable the acquisition of financial options on the petroleum product futures markets, ‘directly relate to advances to the employees and must be regarded as direct social assistance’.
Komisija se najprej čudi podatku, da skoraj 40 % (25 od 65 milijonov) denarnih predplačil, ki jih je odobrila država in katerih namen je v skladu s tremi zgoraj opisanimi sporazumi (glej uvodno izjavo 21 te odločbe) omogočiti nakup finančnih opcij na terminskih trgih naftnih proizvodov, „zadeva neposredno predplačila zaposlenim in se šteje za neposredno socialno pomoč“.
The Commission supposes that this is a rhetorical shortcut on the part of the FPAP, designed to show that the action taken by the FPAP reducing the running costs of fisheries undertakings, given the system of payment by giving employees a share of the profit, ultimately benefits the employees of these undertakings. In that sense the action could be regarded as ‘direct social assistance’.
Komisija meni, da gre tu pri FPAP za retorično bližnjico, ki naj bi pokazala, da ukrepi, ki jih izvaja FPAP s tem, ko zmanjšuje proizvodne stroške ribiških podjetij, in ob upoštevanju sistema plače po količini ulova, na koncu koristijo zaposlenim v teh podjetjih.
In fact nothing in the file indicates that there has been any direct social assistance, i.e. aid paid by the FPAP directly to the employees of these undertakings.
V tem smislu je te ukrepe mogoče šteti „za neposredno socialno pomoč“.
What is more, the FPAP’s articles of association make no provision for this at all (see recital 20 of this Decision).
Iz nobenega elementa v zadevi namreč ni mogoče sklepati, da bi obstajala neposredna socialna pomoč, to je pomoč, ki jo FPAP neposredno nakaže zaposlenim v teh podjetjih, kar sicer sploh ni predvideno v statutu FPAP (glej uvodno izjavo 20 te odločbe).
However, that may be, i.e. whether the aid may have been paid directly to the employees or the effect of the action taken by the FPAP was to provide a benefit for those employees, enabling them to supplement their income based on the system of a share of profits, the Commission points out that, according to settled case-law [27], the concept of aid encompasses advantages granted by public authorities which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking.
V vsakem primeru, se pravi če je bila pomoč morda neposredno nakazana zaposlenim ali če so ti imeli korist od ukrepov FPAP, ker je lahko povečala njihove prihodke zaradi sistema plače po količini ulova, Komisija opozarja, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [27] pojem pomoči zajema ugodnosti, ki jih odobrijo organi oblasti in v različnih oblikah zmanjšujejo obremenitve, ki jih običajno nosijo podjetja.
In this sense, wages are indisputably a part of such charges and an undertaking cannot count on public funding to bear them.
V tem smislu so zaposleni nedvomno del teh obremenitev in podjetje ne more računati na javno financiranje za obvladovanje teh obremenitev.
Consequently, the fact that the advantages enjoyed by fisheries undertakings in the form of the possibility of buying fuel at preferential prices and partial compensation for their fuel expenditure did in reality, according to the FPAP and MQA, benefit the employees of those undertakings is of no relevance for assessing the compatibility of this aid with the common market.
Zato dejstvo, da so ugodnosti, ki jih imajo ribiška podjetja od možnosti nakupa goriva po preferenčni ceni in delnega nadomestila svojih izdatkov za gorivo, v resnici po mnenju FPAP in MQA koristile zaposlenim v teh podjetjih, ni pomembno za presojo združljivosti teh pomoči s skupnim trgom.
It is sufficient to establish that the effect of the advantages granted to fisheries undertakings out of public funds was a reduction of the charges which normally have to be paid out of those undertakings’ budgets.
Dovolj je ugotoviti, da je posledica ugodnosti, odobrene ribiškim podjetjem iz javnih sredstev, zmanjšanje obremenitev, ki jih običajno nosijo navedena podjetja.
Similarly, the Commission cannot accept the claim that the aid for employees’ income is authorised, on the one hand because it is in line with the Community principles guaranteeing employees a fair minimum income and on the other because the system of payment by means of a share of profits is particularly unfavourable to French sailors.
Komisija v istem smislu ne more sprejeti trditve, da naj bi bila pomoč za prihodke zaposlenih odobrena po eni strani, ker naj bi izhajala iz načel Skupnosti, ki zaposlenim zagotavljajo dostojen minimalni dohodek, in po drugi strani, ker naj bi bil sistem plače po količini ulova posebno neugoden za francoske mornarje.
This is because, under the principle of subsidiarity, the rules on minimum wages fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the Member States.
Na podlagi načela subsidiarnosti so predpisi o obstoju minimalne plače v izključni pristojnosti držav članic.
In France, as regards sailors’ wages, this obligation is laid down in Articles L.742-2, D.742-1 and D.742-2 of the Labour Code.
V Franciji je za plače mornarjev ta obveznost določena v členih L.742-2, D.742-1 in D.742-2 Delovnega zakonika.
As recalled by a judgment of the Rennes Court of Appeal of 16 June 1998 [28], those provisions, which apply generally, apply to employees covered by the Maritime Labour Code, whatever the method of remuneration adopted.
Kot je bilo odločeno v sodbi Pritožbenega sodišča v Rennesu z dne 16. junija 1998 [28], se te splošne določbe za zaposlene, ki jih zajema Pomorski delovni zakonik, uporabljajo ne glede na sprejeti način plačila.
The fact that the shipowner and his or her employees agreed at the start that sailors would be paid a share of the (potential) profits does not exempt the shipowner from guaranteeing the sailors’ remuneration at least equal to the minimum wage for the period in which they are on board.
Dejstvo, da so se ladjar in njegovi zaposleni na začetku dogovorili, da bodo mornarji plačani po količini ulova (z morebitnim dobičkom), ladjarja ne odvezuje obveznosti, da mornarjem v obdobju vkrcanja zagotovi plačilo, ki je najmanj enako minimalni plači.
In other words, the share of profits in the fishing industry must be at least equivalent to the remuneration calculated in accordance with the growth-indexed minimum wage.
Z drugimi besedami to pomeni, da morajo biti deleži ribolova najmanj enakovredni plačilu, izračunanemu na podlagi minimalne plače.
In this respect Article 34 of the Maritime Labour Code [29] refers to ‘a national trades agreement or extended branch agreements [for laying down], independently of the actual time worked, the period(s) for calculating the growth-indexed minimum wage for share-fishermen’.
Člen 34 Pomorskega delovnega zakonika [29] se v zvezi s tem sklicuje na „nacionalni panožni sporazum ali razširjene panožne sporazume [da se] ne glede na trajanje dejanskega dela [določi(-jo)] obdobje ali obdobja, ki se upošteva(-jo) pri izračunu minimalne plače mornarjev, plačanih po količini ulova“.
The branch agreement, Article 9(1) of which guarantees a minimum gross annual remuneration for share-fishermen, was signed on 28 March 2001 [30].
Panožni sporazum, ki v prvi alinei člena 9 zagotavlja minimalno letno bruto plačilo zaposlenim mornarjem, plačanim po količini ulova, je bil podpisan 28. marca 2001 [30].
This provision was made compulsory, for all employers and employees covered by this agreement, by an interministerial decree of 3 July 2003 [31].
Ta določba je postala zavezujoča za vse delodajalce in zaposlene, ki spadajo na področje uporabe tega sporazuma, z medministrskim odlokom z dne 3. julija 2003 [31].
The wage cost produced by this legal obligation is thus part of the running costs of fisheries undertakings, the same as expenditure on fuel.
Stroški dela, nastali zaradi te zakonske obveznosti, so tako enako kot izdatki za gorivo proizvodni stroški ribiških podjetij.
Under these circumstances, the Commission therefore cannot accept the argument that the French State is justified in intervening financially because shipowners are failing to meet their legal obligation to ensure a minimum wage for their employees, even where they are share-fishermen.
Komisija v teh okoliščinah torej ne more sprejeti trditve, da je imela Francija utemeljen razlog za finančno pomoč, ker ladjarji ne upoštevajo zakonske obveznosti, da morajo svojim zaposlenim zagotavljati minimalno plačo tudi, kadar so plačani po količini ulova.
According to MQA, the measures in question may also be socioeconomic measures: ‘the guidelines (…) state that socioeconomic measures may be declared compatible.
MQA meni, da gre lahko tudi za socialno-ekonomske ukrepe: „v Smernicah (…) je ugotovljeno, da se za združljive lahko štejejo socialno-ekonomski ukrepi.
In this particular case, the FPAP is completely transparent and the schemes classified as aid by the Commission have an obvious socioeconomic character’.
V obravnavanem primeru je FPAP popolnoma pregleden in ukrepi, ki jih je Komisija opredelila kot pomoč, so očitno socialno-ekonomski.“
The Commission notes that MQA has not provided any evidence enabling the aid in question to be examined under point 4.5 of the Guidelines, which provide that, on a case-by-case basis, direct aid for workers equivalent to socioeconomic measures may be considered compatible with the common market.
Komisija ugotavlja, da MQA ne navaja nobenega dejstva, na podlagi katerega bi bilo mogoče preučiti zadevne pomoči z vidika točke 4.5 Smernic, v kateri je določeno, da se glede na posamezni primer lahko za združljive s skupnim trgom štejejo neposredne pomoči delavcem, ki ustrezajo socialno-ekonomskim ukrepom.
This is because that point specifies that they may only be considered compatible ‘provided that it forms part of socioeconomic back-up measures compensating income losses linked to measures designed to achieve an adjustment of capacity adopted pursuant to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002’ (Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy [32]).
V tem odstavku je namreč določeno, da se lahko štejejo za združljive samo „ob upoštevanju, da predstavlja del socialno-ekonomskih sekundarnih ukrepov za kompenzacijo izgub dohodka zaradi ukrepov, namenjenih doseganju prilagoditve kapacitet po členu 11(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 2371/2002“ (Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2371/2002 z dne 20. decembra 2002 o ohranjevanju in trajnostnem izkoriščanju ribolovnih virov v okviru skupne ribiške politike [32].
However, the creation of the FPAP is not part of an overall plan for the adjustment of fishing capacity adopted under Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.
Vendar ustanovitev FPAP ni del splošnega načrta, sprejetega v skladu z Uredbo št. 2371/2002 za prilagoditev ribolovnih zmogljivosti.
Therefore in no way does the argument put forward by MQA justify the grant of such operating aid.
Trditev MQA torej nikakor ne more utemeljiti podelitve te pomoči za tekoče poslovanje.
MQA also points out that it is not correct to state that the aid was granted unconditionally.
MQA tudi trdi, da ni točno trditi, da je bila ta pomoč odobrena brezpogojno.
According to MQA, ‘as a condition for granting these loans the State required the FPAP to produce various supporting documents so as to be able to ensure proper management of funds and establish that the Fund and its members were determined to implement sustainable solutions for the new production conditions in the fisheries sector’.
MQA meni, da je „država za odobritev teh posojil zahtevala, da FPAP predloži številna dokazila, da se dokaže doslednost upravljanja Sklada in tudi odločenost Sklada in njegovih članov za izvajanje trajnih rešitev v novih proizvodnih razmerah ribiškega sektorja“.
MQA points to this transparent accounting requirement and the State Decision to request that an interministerial audit be carried out.
MQA vztraja pri zahtevi po preglednem računovodstvu in pri sklepu države, da zahteva izvedbo medresorske inšpekcije.
The Commission notes the transparency and monitoring requirement, but observes that this would appear to be an elementary requirement, since this is assistance financed out of public funds.
Komisija je seznanjena s to zahtevo po preglednosti in nadzoru, vendar opozarja, da se zdi razumljiva sama po sebi, ker gre za ukrep, ki se financira iz javnih sredstev.
However, it regrets that, in such a context of transparency, the French authorities did not send it all the detailed figures and information on the Fund’s activities, despite the requests made during the procedure.
Vendar obžaluje, da ji francoski organi v takem okviru preglednosti niso poslali vseh podrobnih številk o dejavnostih Sklada kljub zahtevam, izraženim med postopkom.
Lastly, it notes that it was never informed of the audit mentioned by MQA, nor a fortiori of its conclusions, which the French authorities were requested to provide by mid-November 2005.
Nazadnje ugotavlja, da ni bila nikoli obveščena o inšpekciji, ki jo navaja MQA, niti a fortiori o njenih ugotovitvah, ki so jih francoski organi zahtevali do sredine novembra 2005.
The Commission holds that France, in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, has unlawfully implemented the various aid schemes which are the subject of this Decision.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Francija nezakonito in v nasprotju s členom 88(3) Pogodbe izvajala različne ukrepe pomoči, ki so predmet te odločbe.
On the basis of the analysis developed in part 4.1 of this Decision, the Commission considers that the FPAP’s additional business liquidity resulting from the granting of three, or possibly four, advances totalling EUR 65 million, or possibly EUR 77 million, constitutes State aid incompatible with the common market under Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty.
Komisija na podlagi analize v delu 4.1 te odločbe meni, da je povečanje denarnih sredstev FPAP z odobritvijo treh, mogoče štirih predplačil v skupnem znesku 65, morda 77 milijonov EUR, državna pomoč, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe.
This is because, since no bank would have granted advances such as those granted to the FPAP and, according to the information available, the advances have not been repaid, the advances have become a direct subsidy (see recital 67) and therefore State aid covering the amount in question.
Ker nobena bančna ustanova ne bi odobrila takih predplačil, kot so bila odobrena FPAP, in ker glede na razpoložljive informacije ta predplačila niso bila povrnjena, so se ta predplačila spremenila v neposredna povratna sredstva (glej uvodno izjavo 67) in torej državno pomoč v višini zadevnega zneska.
On the basis of the analysis developed in part 4.2 of this Decision, the Commission considers that the aid granted in the form of advances to the FPAP and which enabled fisheries undertakings to buy fuel at an advantageous price and to benefit from a compensatory allowance under the diesel insurance, constitutes State aid incompatible with the common market under Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty.
Komisija na podlagi analize v delu 4.2 te odločbe meni, da je pomoč, odobrena v obliki predplačil FPAP, ki je ribiškim podjetjem omogočila nakup goriva po ugodnejši ceni in prejetje nadomestila v okviru zavarovanja za gorivo, državna pomoč, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe.
The amount of State aid paid by France is EUR 65 million, or EUR 77 million if a fourth agreement existed.
Znesek državne pomoči Francije je 65 milijonov EUR, če je obstajal četrti sporazum pa 77 milijonov.
In accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, where negative Decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission must decide that the Member State concerned must take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.
V skladu s členom 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 v primeru negativne odločbe o nezakoniti pomoči Komisija odloči, da država članica sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe, da prejemniki vrnejo pomoč.
The purpose is achieved once the aid in question, together where appropriate with default interest, has been repaid by the recipient or, in other words, by the undertakings which actually benefited from it [33].
Cilj je dosežen, ko prejemniki oziroma podjetja, ki so dejansko uživala zadevne pomoči, te povrnejo, po potrebi skupaj z zamudnimi obrestmi [33].
The purpose of the recovery will therefore be achieved when this amount of EUR 65 or EUR 77 million has been repaid.
Cilj vračila bo torej dosežen, ko bo vrnjen znesek 65 ali 77 milijonov EUR.
In order to determine what has to be recovered from the FPAP on the one hand and the fisheries undertakings on the other, account should be taken of the fact that the objective of the FPAP, although it acts as an economic operator on the futures markets, is to grant allowances to fisheries undertakings under the diesel insurance system which it set up, and to provide them with fuel at an advantageous price.
Za določitev, koliko mora vrniti FPAP na eni strani in koliko ribiška podjetja na drugi strani, je treba upoštevati dejstvo, da je cilj FPAP, ki je kot gospodarski subjekt posloval na terminskih trgih, podeliti nadomestila ribiškim podjetjem v okviru sistema zavarovanja za gorivo, ki ga je vzpostavil, in jim ponuditi gorivo po ugodnejši ceni.
The analysis made in this Decision of the general operation of this particular system shows that the FPAP fulfilled its mission by gradually transferring the aid granted by the State.
Analiza splošne strukture tega posebnega sistema, opravljena v tej odločbi, kaže, da je FPAP izpolnil svojo nalogo, ko je postopno prenesel pomoč, ki mu jo je podelila država.
For that reason, the aid to be recovered from the FPAP is the part of the EUR 65 or EUR 77 million which was not transferred to the fisheries undertakings, and the aid to be recovered from the fisheries undertakings is therefore the part which was transferred to them.
Zato je pomoč, ki jo mora FPAP vrniti, del 65 ali 77 milijonov EUR, ki ni bil prenesen na ribiška podjetja, pomoč, ki jo morajo vrniti ribiška podjetja, pa je del, ki je bil prenesen nanje.
The Commission is not aware of the amount which was actually transferred by the FPAP to the fisheries undertakings.
Komisija ne pozna zneska, ki ga je FPAP dejansko prenesel na ribiška podjetja.
In this connection the Commission observes that, despite an injunction addressed to France to provide all the necessary information on the FPAP’s operation, it has not forwarded any details of how the Fund’s financial resources were used or of its accounts.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da Francija kljub odredbi, ki ji je bila poslana, naj pošlje vse potrebne informacije o delovanju FPAP, ni sporočila načina uporabe denarnih sredstev tega sklada niti poslala njegovih računovodskih evidenc.
In the absence of this information and in order to take account of the Court’s Decisions [34], the Commission thinks it useful to provide guidelines on the methodology to be used for determining the amount of aid to be recovered.
Ker Komisija nima teh informacij in zaradi upoštevanja sodne prakse Sodišča [34], meni, da je treba navesti nekatere smernice o metodi, ki jo je treba uporabiti za izračun zneska pomoči, ki jo je treba vrniti.
In laying down these guidelines, the Commission took into account the fact that, under the agreements, the FPAP is required to keep accounts so that information on how the advances have been used and resources and expenditure have been allocated can be obtained, and undertook to keep the accounting documents for a minimum period of ten years, and make them available to the various State bodies on request (see recital 27).
Komisija je ob določitvi teh smernic upoštevala dejstvo, da je bil FPAP na podlagi sporazumov dolžan voditi računovodske evidence, iz katerih je mogoče izvedeti o uporabi predplačil in tudi dodelitvah sredstev in izdatkov, ter da se je zavezal, da bo hranil računovodske listine najmanj deset let in jih na zahtevo dal na voljo različnim državnim organom (glej uvodno izjavo 27).
On the basis of this information, the authorities or bodies instructed to apply the recovery Decision will be able to obtain information on the FPAP’s liquid assets and the cash situation at the time the Decision has to be implemented.
Na podlagi teh dejstev bodo organi, pristojni za izvajanje odločbe o vračilu, lahko poznali gibanje denarnih sredstev FPAP in stanje teh denarnih sredstev, ko bo treba to odločbo izvršiti.
Also, since the fisheries undertakings’ accounts are normally kept by management groups belonging to the Centre de gestion de la pêche artisanale (Small-Scale Fishery Management Centre), which is represented on the FPAP’s Board of Directors, it is also possible to identify the allowances paid by the FPAP in the undertakings’ accounts.
Ker računovodske evidence ribiških podjetij običajno vodijo skupine za upravljanje, ki so del Centra za upravljanje malega priobalnega morskega ribolova, ki ima predstavnika v upravnem odboru FPAP, je v računovodskih evidencah podjetij mogoče ugotoviti tudi nadomestila, ki jih je nakazal FPAP.
Recovery from the FPAP
Vračilo s strani FPAP
The amount of incompatible aid to be recovered from the FPAP is equivalent to that part of the State aid which was not ultimately transferred to the fisheries undertakings, i.e. the amount of the advances which funded the operating costs of the FPAP and the amount of the advances that it kept as liquid assets.
Znesek nezdružljive pomoči, ki ga mora vrniti FPAP, ustreza deležu državne pomoči, ki nazadnje ni bil prenesen na ribiška podjetja, to je znesku predplačil, s katerim so se financirali operativni stroški FPAP, in znesku teh predplačil, ki ga je FPAP ohranil v svojih denarnih sredstvih.
It will be possible for the authority instructed to implement recovery to find out the total amount of the operating costs from the FPAP’s accounts.
Organ, pristojen za izvedbo vračila, bo lahko izvedel skupni znesek operativnih stroškov iz računovodskih evidenc FPAP.
Given the fungible nature of money and the impossibility of knowing what money is used where, the Commission takes the view that the proportion of State advances which financed these operating costs is the total amount of those expenses multiplied by the ratio of the advances to the sum of the advances and the FPAP’s own funds (its members’ contributions).
Komisija zaradi zamenljivosti denarja in nezmožnosti razlikovanja njegovega porekla glede na njegovo uporabo sklepa, da del državnih predplačil, s katerim so se financirali ti operativni stroški, ustreza skupnemu znesku teh stroškov, pomnoženemu z razmerjem med temi predplačili ter vsoto teh predplačil in lastnih sredstev FPAP (prispevki članov).
In the same way, the amount of the advances kept as liquid assets can be determined by multiplying the remaining liquid assets by the same ratio.
Znesek predplačil, ohranjen v denarnih sredstvih, se prav tako lahko določi tako, da se preostali del denarnih sredstev pomnoži z istim razmerjem.
Recovery from the fisheries undertakings
Vračilo s strani ribiških podjetij