natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It assumed that at least the specific training and the security training have to be provided by DHL in any event as the former cannot be provided by outside trainers and as DHL must show that its security training is adequate.
Komisija je menila, da bi morala družba DHL v vsakem primeru izvesti vsaj posebne ukrepe usposabljanja in usposabljanje o varnosti, ker posebnega strokovnega usposabljanja ne morejo izvesti zunanji strokovnjaki, družba DHL pa mora dokazati ustrezno usposobljenost delavcev o varnosti.
Fifth, the Commission had doubts whether DHL would be able to dispense with some of the courses in the training package, in particular as regards Ramp Agent II, for which it was planned, as indicated in the notification, that even workers already in possession of a licence should undergo the entire training again.
Petič, Komisija je imela pomisleke, ali bi lahko družba DHL dejansko izpustila nekatere tečaje v paketu usposabljanja, zlasti ker je za osebje za zemeljsko oskrbo v priglasitvi izrecno navedeno, da morajo tudi osebe, ki so že ustrezno formalno kvalificirane, še enkrat opraviti celotno usposabljanje.
Moreover, it was doubtful whether only a limited number of people could be trained as this might adversely affect the smooth operation of services.
Poleg tega se je zdelo vprašljivo, ali bi lahko usposabljanje dejansko opravilo le omejeno število delavcev, ker bi lahko to negativno vplivalo na nemoteno obratovanje.
In fact, DHL had intentionally already recruited the entire personnel with a view to being trained so that it did not make much sense to abandon the planned training and pay employees who were not engaged in any activity.
Poleg tega je družba DHL že namenoma zaposlila celotno osebje za usposabljanje, zato bi bilo nesmiselno opustiti načrtovano usposabljanje in plačati delavce, ki ne bi opravili svojega dela.
Sixth, the Commission was not sure about DHL's assertion that, in the absence of aid, various services would be contracted out so as to avoid the planned training given that, on the one hand, even then some training under points (a), (b) and (d) would also be necessary and, on the other, the specific aim of DHL's entire investment in Leipzig-Halle is to provide all services related to express parcel delivery using its own personnel and, as the Commission understood from the meeting with the German authorities, even to offer these services to competitors operating at the same airport.
Šestič, Komisija je imela pomisleke glede navedbe družbe DHL, da bi brez pomoči različne storitve oddala zunanjim podjetjem in se tako izognila načrtovanim ukrepom usposabljanja, saj bi bili tudi v tem primeru potrebni nekateri ukrepi usposabljanja iz točk a, b in d ter je celotna naložba družbe DHL na lokaciji Leipzig-Halle namenjena prav izvajanju vseh storitev hitre dostave pošiljk z lastnimi delavci in – kot je Komisija izvedela iz pogovora z nemškimi organi – zagotavljanju teh storitev tudi drugim konkurentom, ki poslujejo na zadevnem letališču.
However, the Commission had, with one exception, no doubt that the training costs had, in principle, been calculated correctly.
Vendar Komisija, razen glede ene točke, ni imela pomislekov, ali so bili stroški usposabljanja na splošno pravilno obračunani.
The only misgivings expressed by the Commission concerned the observation that a large part of the training was to be on-the-job training, with the result that the training might have to be deducted from trainee costs as productive hours.
Komisija je imela pomisleke le glede tega, da naj bi se večji del usposabljanja izvajal na delovnem mestu in bi se lahko zato pri stroških za udeležence usposabljanja odbil kot produktivne ure.
Germany argues that the notified training aid fulfils all of the criteria laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid [8].
Nemčija je navedla, da priglašena pomoč za usposabljanje izpolnjuje vse pogoje o združljivosti iz Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 68/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri pomoči za usposabljanje [8].
Germany first supplied sufficient information to show that no productive hours are involved in the on-the-job training.
Prvič, Nemčija je ustrezno utemeljila, da pri usposabljanju na delovnem mestu niso nastale produktivne ure.
Second, Germany disputes the Commission's right to apply the necessity criterion in the present case as this would be in breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
Drugič, Nemčija se ne strinja, da je Komisija v zadevnem primeru upravičena uporabiti merilo o nujnosti, saj bi s tem ravnala v nasprotju z načelom enake obravnave.
This new approach does not have a legal basis and is not in line with the relevant EC legislation or Commission decision-making practice.
Takšen pristop ni pravno utemeljen in je v nasprotju z ustreznimi pravnimi predpisi ES ali prakso odločanja Komisije.
Germany argues that recital 11 to Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 specifies the three criteria which need to be assessed when determining whether aid is limited to the minimum necessary: the type of training provided, the size of the enterprise and its geographical location.
Nemčija je navedla, da so v uvodni izjavi 11 Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001 navedena tri merila za ocenjevanje, ali je pomoč omejena na najmanjšo možno raven: vrsta projekta usposabljanja, velikost podjetja in lokacija podjetja.
These three criteria make it possible to determine whether the aid measures have an incentive effect and are proportional.
Na podlagi teh meril se sprejme odločitev, ali imajo ukrepi pomoči spodbujevalni učinek in so sorazmerni.
According to the Framework on training aid [9], it is only in the case of specific training measures for large undertakings outside areas assisted under Article 87(3)(a) or (c) of the EC Treaty that the incentive effect is not presumed to exist.
V skladu z okvirom Skupnosti za pomoč za usposabljanje [9] spodbujevalni učinek ni predviden le v primeru pomoči za posebne ukrepe usposabljanja v korist velikega podjetja zunaj območij, upravičenih do pomoči v skladu s členom 87(3)(a) ali (c) Pogodbe ES.
Since more than 80 % of the notified training project consists of general training measures and involves an undertaking in an area assisted under Article 87(3)(a), the training aid has an incentive effect.
Ker pa priglašeni projekt usposabljanja vključuje več kot 80 % splošnih ukrepov usposabljanja in je povezan s podjetjem na območju, upravičenem do pomoči v skladu s členom 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES, ima pomoč za usposabljanje spodbujevalni učinek.
Also, since the notified aid does not exceed the maximum aid intensities, the positive effects of the assisted training measures are proportional to the distortion of competition, thereby fulfilling the proportionality criterion.
Poleg tega pri priglašeni pomoči ni presežena največja intenzivnost pomoči, tako da pozitivni vpliv pomoči za usposabljanje razumno ustreza izkrivljanju konkurence in je merilo sorazmernosti izpolnjeno.
Third, Germany underlines the fact that the Commission is required to apply the compatibility criteria specified in recital 32 also for projects not caught by the notification requirement.
Tretjič, Nemčija opozarja, da merila združljivosti iz odstavka (32) zavezujejo Komisijo tudi pri ocenjevanju projektov, ki jih je treba priglasiti.
It argues that different compatibility criteria should not be applied to aid exempted from notification or to aid which exceeds the EUR 1 million threshold and should therefore be notified; projects which need to be notified must not be assessed in a more restrictive manner than projects exempted from notification.
Nemčija je navedla, da se za pomoč, ki je ni treba priglasiti, in pomoč, ki presega prag 1 milijona EUR in jo je zato treba priglasiti, ne smejo uporabiti različna merila o združljivosti; ocenjevanje projektov, ki jih je treba priglasiti, ne sme biti bolj omejeno od ocenjevanja projektov, ki jih je treba priglasiti.
Therefore, training aid is compatible with the common market if it fulfils all the conditions set out in Regulation (EC) No 68/2001.
Zato je pomoč za usposabljanje združljiva s skupnim trgom, če izpolnjuje vse pogoje iz Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001.
Germany claims that this interpretation has been borne out by the Commission in its long-standing decision-making practice, e.g. in the Volvo Gent case [10].
Po mnenju Nemčije takšno razlago utemeljujejo prejšnje odločitve Komisije, na primer v zadevi Volvo Gent [10].
It expressly states that the Commission should also bear in mind the fact that the DHL training project fulfils the criteria laid down in the Webasto decision [11].
Nemčija izrecno opozarja, da bi morala Komisija upoštevati tudi dejstvo, da projekt usposabljanja družbe DHL izpolnjuje pogoje, določene v odločbi Webasto [11].
Fourth, the application of different assessment criteria contravenes the principles of legal certainty and equality of treatment.
Četrtič, uporaba različnih meril ocenjevanja je v nasprotju z načeloma pravne varnosti in enake obravnave.
Fifth, Germany argues that the Commission decisions in the Ford Genk and GM Antwerp cases do not constitute suitable precedents since the facts of the cases were different from those of the present case.
Petič, Nemčija je navedla, da odločbi Komisije v zadevah Ford Genk in GM Antwerp, ki sta povezani s pomočjo, nista primerna precedensa zadevnega primera, ker temeljita na drugačnem dejanskem stanju.
Whereas in the first two cases training aid was envisaged for the introduction of a new model and for the continued employment of personnel, the training aid for DHL is to be used for training newly recruited employees to operate a newly built logistics centre.
Medtem ko je bila pomoč za usposabljanje v navedenih primerih namenjena uvedbi novega modela ali ohranjanju zaposlitve, je pomoč za usposabljanje v primeru DHL namenjena usposabljanju novih delavcev za obratovanje novega logističnega centra za zračni prevoz.
The DHL project also differs from the other two cases in the following respects: general training makes up more than 80 % of the project; the undertaking is based in an area assisted under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty; DHL intends to create new jobs at the logistics centre; and, unlike the car sector, the air transport sector does not suffer from overcapacity but is expanding rapidly.
Zato se projekt DHL od drugih dveh projektov razlikuje v naslednjih točkah: ukrepi usposabljanja družbe DHL vključujejo več kot 80 % splošnih ukrepov usposabljanja; družba je na območju, upravičenem do pomoči v skladu s členom 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES; družba DHL želi z vzpostavitvijo novega logističnega centra za zračni prevoz ustvariti nova delovna mesta; poleg tega za sektor zračnega prevoza ni značilna presežna zmogljivost, kot je veljalo za avtomobilsko industrijo, ampak so v tem sektorju dosežene visoke stopnje rasti.
Lastly, Germany provides additional information as regards the matters raised in the decision initiating the procedure.
Šestič, Nemčija je predložila dodatne informacije, s katerimi je odgovorila na vprašanja iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka.
It explains that the relevant legal provisions lay down minimum standards for the level of training.
Nemčija je navedla, da so v ustreznih pravnih predpisih določeni minimalni standardi za stopnjo usposabljanja.
However, they do not set a minimum number of qualified personnel which the undertaking has to recruit.
Vendar v njih ni navedeno najmanjše število ustrezno usposobljenih delavcev, ki jih mora podjetje zaposliti.
On the other hand, Germany indicates how many employees are necessary for the logistics centre to start operating and concludes that the training measures for the additional employees go beyond what is necessary from an operational point of view.
Poleg tega je Nemčija navedla, koliko delavcev je potrebnih za začetek obratovanja logističnega centra, in ugotovila, da ukrepi usposabljanja za dodatne delavce presegajo obseg, potreben za začetek obratovanja.
According to a study provided by Germany and drawn up by an external training consultant, DHL could successfully start operating in Leipzig-Halle with a smaller number of trained employees than envisaged in the notified training project.
V skladu s študijo zunanjega svetovalca za usposabljanje, ki jo je predložila Nemčija, bi lahko logistični center na lokaciji Leipzig-Halle nemoteno začel obratovati z manjšim številom usposobljenih delavcev, kot je določeno v priglašenem projektu usposabljanja.
Comments were also submitted by the beneficiary, DHL, which, like Germany, argues that the Commission diverges in its compatibility assessment from its general decision-making practice in earlier cases.
Pripombe je predložila tudi družba DHL kot prejemnica pomoči, pri čemer je tako kot Nemčija navedla, da je Komisija pri ocenjevanju združljivosti odstopila od svojih odločitev v prejšnjih primerih.
In its view, the notified aid fulfils all the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 68/2001.
Priglašena pomoč je izpolnjevala vsa merila iz Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001.
The Commission's approach violates the principles of legal certainty and equality of treatment, which prohibit treatment different from that of previous training aid decisions where the necessity issue was not assessed in detail.
Takšen pristop je v nasprotju z načeloma pravne varnosti in enake obravnave, v skladu s katerima se postopek ne sme razlikovati od postopka iz prejšnjih odločb o pomoči za usposabljanje, v katerih vprašanje nujnosti ni bilo natančno obravnavano.
Further, the Ford Genk and GM Antwerp decisions do not reflect general decision-making practice because the circumstances of these cases are different and cannot be applied by analogy to the case of DHL Leipzig.
Poleg tega odločbi v zadevah Ford Genk in GM Antwerp, ki sta povezani s pomočjo, ne izražata splošne prakse odločanja, ker sta ta primera utemeljena drugače in se njuno dejansko stanje ne more prenesti na primer družbe DHL Leipzig.
Instead, DHL invokes the criteria set out by the Commission in its decision of June 2006 approving training aid for Webasto and according to which the DHL training project must also be compatible with the common market.
Nasprotno se družba DHL sklicuje na merila, ki jih je Komisija določila junija 2006 v odločbi o odobritvi pomoči za usposabljanje družbi Webasto in v skladu s katerimi naj bi bil tudi projekt usposabljanja družbe DHL združljiv s skupnim trgom.
Finally, DHL reiterates that differential treatment of the notified training project leads to inadmissible discrimination against it.
Na koncu družba DHL ponovno opozarja, da pristop, s katerim se je Komisija odmaknila od svoje običajne prakse, v primeru priglašenega projekta usposabljanja pomeni nesprejemljivo diskriminacijo družbe DHL.
DHL also provides additional information on the issues raised in the Commission decision to initiate the procedure.
Družba DHL je predložila tudi dodatne informacije, s katerimi je odgovorila na vprašanja iz odločitve Komisije o sprožitvi postopka.
First, the relevant provisions of national, European and international legislation determine only the content of training and qualifications for the handling of freight and aircraft but do not specify a minimum number of employees.
Prvič, v ustreznih nacionalnih, evropskih in mednarodnih pravnih predpisih ni določeno najmanjše število delavcev, ampak le vsebinske zahteve glede usposabljanja in kvalifikacij delavcev na področju ravnanja z letalskim tovorom in zrakoplovi.
Second, the training measures planned not only fulfil the existing legal requirements but go beyond what is mandatory.
Drugič, z načrtovanimi ukrepi usposabljanja ne bi le izpolnili pravnih zahtev, ampak bi presegli predpisan obseg.
Therefore, for all the measures exceeding the legal requirements alternative scenarios could be envisaged (e.g. outsourcing and subcontracting).
Za vse ukrepe, ki bi presegli pravne zahteve, bi bile možne nadomestne rešitve (npr. zunanje izvajanje in zunanje usposabljanje).
However, since these alternative scenarios are only possible variants, DHL did not commission a detailed cost analysis which would include the costs for the mandatory and/or minimum training needed in any event and indicate the extra costs of subcontracting and/or recruiting skilled employees.
Ker pa so takšne rešitve le ena od možnosti, družba DHL ni zahtevala natančne analize stroškov, ki bi zajemala stroške za obvezno in/ali minimalno usposabljanje, potrebno v posameznem primeru, ter določala tudi dodatne stroške za zunanje usposabljanje in/ali zaposlitev že usposobljenih delavcev.
DHL does not have any information on the degree of training normally provided in the sector.
Poleg tega družba DHL ni imela na voljo informacij o potrebni stopnji usposobljenosti za zadevni sektor.
UPS, a competitor of DHL, submitted comments supporting the Commission's position.
Pripombe je predložila tudi družba UPS, ki je konkurent družbe DHL, pri čemer se je strinjala s stališčem Komisije.
First, it explains that the recruitment of new employees for DHL Hub and DHL EAT entails in any event certain training and instruction measures that should be carried out.
Prvič, družba UPS je izjavila, da bi bilo treba v primeru zaposlitve novih delavcev za družbi DHL Hub in DHL EAT v vsakem primeru izvesti nekatere ukrepe usposabljanja in uvajanja.
Thus, the training measures are, to a certain extent, necessary and would need to be carried out by the undertaking even in the absence of aid.
Zato so ukrepi usposabljanja v nekem obsegu nujni in bi jih morala družba izvesti tudi brez pomoči.
Second, according to UPS, DHL is required under the relevant national and European legislation to provide a minimum amount of training for its employees, e.g. regulated agents.
Drugič, družba UPS je navedla, da mora družba DHL v skladu z ustreznimi nacionalnimi in evropskimi pravnimi predpisi omogočiti najnižjo raven usposabljanja za svoje delavce, na primer registrirane agente.
Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security [12] provides that regulated agents must be designated, approved and listed by the appropriate authority, here the Federal Aviation Authority.
V skladu z Uredbo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 2320/2002 z dne 16. decembra 2002 o določitvi skupnih pravil na področju varnosti civilnega letalstva [12] mora registrirane agente imenovati, odobriti ali jih vpisati v seznam pristojni organ (v tem primeru Zvezni urad za civilni zračni promet).
To this end, the Authority adopted guidelines and published a model training course (Musterlehrplan) which lay down the mandatory training measures to be provided.
Zato je Zvezni urad za civilni zračni promet sprejel smernice in izdal predlogo učnega načrta, ki določa predpisano usposabljanje.
As regards the employees of DHL EAT, the mandatory training measures are spelt out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks [13].
Obvezno usposabljanje za delavce družbe DHL EAT je določeno v Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 2042/2003 z dne 20. novembra 2003 o stalni plovnosti zrakoplovov in letalskih proizvodov, delov in naprav ter o potrjevanju organizacij in osebja, ki se ukvarjajo s temi nalogami [13].
Third, since DHL has received regional aid for job creation, it is not to be assumed that DHL would dispense with the training measures and recruit fewer people, and instead would subcontract or outsource.
Tretjič, družba DHL je prejela regionalno pomoč za ustvarjanje novih delovnih mest, zato zadeve ni možno utemeljevati s trditvijo, da bi družba opustila ukrepe usposabljanja, zaposlila manj delavcev in se namesto tega odločila za zunanje usposabljanje ali zunanje izvajanje.
ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
OCENA V SKLADU S SMERNICAMI
Existence of State aid
Odobritev državne pomoči
The Commission considers that the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty that has been made available in the form of a grant financed by state resources.
Komisija meni, da je ukrep državna pomoč v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES, ki je dodeljena v obliki dotacije iz državnih sredstev. Ukrep je selektiven, ker je omejen na družbo DHL.
Finally, the market for express parcel delivery, on which DHL is a major player, is characterised by intensive trade between Member States.
Poleg tega je mogoče ugotoviti, da na trgu za storitve hitre dostave, na katerem je DHL eno od vodilnih podjetij, poteka intenzivno trgovanje med državami članicami.
Germany requests approval of the aid on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001.
Nemčija je zaprosila za odobritev pomoči na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001.
According to Article 5 of that Regulation, where the amount of aid granted to one enterprise for a single training project exceeds EUR 1 million, the aid is not exempted from the notification requirement pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
V skladu s členom 5 Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001 pomoč, ki za eno podjetje za posamezen projekt usposabljanja presega 1 milijon EUR, ni izvzeta iz obveznosti priglasitve v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission notes that the proposed aid in this case amounts to EUR 7753307 and is to be paid to one enterprise and that the training measures constitute a single project.
Komisija ugotavlja, da načrtovana pomoč znaša 7753307 EUR, da se izplača enemu podjetju in da so ukrepi usposabljanja posamičen projekt.
It considers that the notification requirement therefore applies to the proposed aid and that it has been complied with by Germany.
Zato Komisija meni, da za načrtovano pomoč velja obveznost priglasitve, ki jo je Nemčija izpolnila.
Recital 16 to Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 reiterates the rationale of Article 5 and explains that such aid cannot be exempted: ‘It is appropriate that large amounts of aid remain subject to an individual assessment by the Commission before they are put into effect.’
V uvodni izjavi 16 Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001 je potrjen namen, na katerem temelji člen 5, in je pojasnjeno, da izvzetje za takšno pomoč ne velja: „Pomoči v večjih zneskih mora Komisija preveriti posamično, preden se dodelijo.“
Therefore, when assessing individual training aid which does not qualify for the exemption laid down in Regulation (EC) No 68/2001, the Commission must, in line with its previous decisions [14], make an individual assessment [15] on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty before approving implementation of the aid.
Zato mora Komisija pri ocenjevanju posamezne pomoči za usposabljanje, za katero ne velja izvzetje iz Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001, takšno pomoč ob upoštevanju svojih prejšnjih odločb [14] oceniti posamično [15] na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, preden lahko odobri njeno izvajanje.
For this individual assessment, it must, by analogy, base itself on the fundamental principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 68/2001.
Vendar Komisija pri tem posamičnem ocenjevanju smiselno upošteva temeljna načela iz Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001.
This entails in particular verification of compliance with the formal exemption criteria laid down in Article 4 of that Regulation and of whether the aid is necessary as an incentive for the beneficiary to undertake the training activities.
To pomeni, da zlasti oceni, ali so izpolnjena formalna merila za izvzetje iz člena 4 navedene uredbe in ali je pomoč potrebna kot spodbuda, da prejemnik pomoči izvede ukrepe usposabljanja.
In the decision initiating the procedure the Commission assessed compliance of the notified project with the exemption criteria laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001.
Komisija je že v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka ocenila, ali priglašeni projekt izpolnjuje merila za izvzetje v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001.