natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission considers that inapplicability of bankruptcy law provides an advantage for Tieliikelaitos.
Komisija meni, da je neuporaba stečajne zakonodaje podjetju Tieliikelaitos zagotavljala koristi.
The Commission refers to its Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees, where it is stated in point 2.1.3: ‘The Commission also regards as aid in the form of a guarantee, the more favourable funding terms obtained by enterprises whose legal form rules out bankruptcy or other insolvency procedures or provides an explicit State guarantee or coverage of losses by the State.’
Komisija se sklicuje na sporočilo o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES za državno pomoč v obliki garancij, v katerem je v točki 2.1.3 navedeno: „Komisija kot pomoč v obliki poroštva obravnava tudi ugodnejše pogoje financiranja, ki jih pridobijo podjetja, katerih pravna narava izključuje stečaj ali druge postopke plačilne nesposobnosti, ali ki zagotavljajo izrecno državno poroštvo ali državni prevzem izgube.“.
The Finnish authorities acknowledge that the fact that Tieliikelaitos cannot go bankrupt pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act could theoretically constitute an advantage as Tieliikelaitos’ financing expenses could have been reduced due to a reduction in the lender’s risks.
Finski organi priznavajo, da bi lahko to, da podjetje Tieliikelaitos v skladu z Zakonom o stečaju ne more razglasiti stečaja, teoretično pomenilo korist za podjetje Tieliikelaitos, saj bi se lahko finančni stroški podjetja zmanjšali zaradi manjšega tveganja posojilodajalca.
But Tieliikelaitos did not borrow new funds on the financial market after it had been formed.
Vendar si podjetje Tieliikelaitos po ustanovitvi na finančnem trgu ni sposodilo novih sredstev.
Therefore, according to the Finnish authorities, it has not been possible for Tieliikelaitos to gain a competitive advantage in comparison with private competitors due to non-applicability of the bankruptcy law.
Zato po mnenju finskih organov ni bilo mogoče, da bi podjetje Tieliikelaitos zaradi neuporabe stečajne zakonodaje imelo konkurenčne prednosti v primerjavi z zasebnimi konkurenčnimi ponudniki.
As to the future external borrowing by Tieliikelaitos, the Commission does not agree that existence of a guarantee fee for the loans raised by Tieliikelaitos will eliminate the presence of aid as it is not possible to quantify the market price of an unlimited guarantee, simply because no market operator would grant such guarantee.
Komisija se ne strinja, da bo obstoj plačila garancije za posojila podjetja Tieliikelaitos pri prihodnjih zunanjih posojilih podjetja Tieliikelaitos odpravil prisotnost pomoči, ker ni mogoče količinsko opredeliti tržne cene neomejenega garancije že zato, ker takšne garancije ne bi zagotovil noben akter na trgu.
Besides, Tieliikelaitos continually orders services and materials from external suppliers, which constitutes debt by Tieliikelaitos to these external actors.
Poleg tega podjetje Tieliikelaitos stalno naroča storitve in material pri zunanjih ponudnikih, kar pomeni, da ima podjetje Tieliikelaitos dolg do zunanjih izvajalcev.
In view of non-applicability of bankruptcy law to Tieliikelaitos the Commission considers it is not excluded that Tieliikelaitos benefits from more favourable payment terms than otherwise would have been possible.
V zvezi z neuporabo stečajne zakonodaje za podjetje Tieliikelaitos Komisija meni, da ni izključeno, da ima podjetje Tieliikelaitos koristi od ugodnejših plačilnih pogojev, ki bi sicer veljali.
As the State bears the responsibility for eventual default by Tieliikelaitos with respect to its suppliers without being remunerated for this guarantee, the measure is ‘financed from the State resources’.
Ker je država odgovorna za morebiten dolg podjetja Tieliikelaitos pri izvajalcih, se ukrep „financira z državnimi sredstvi“.
The Commission agrees however with the Finnish authorities that this measure is to be classified as existing aid pursuant to Article 1 (b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 ‘because it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid’.
Komisija se strinja s finskimi organi, da se ta ukrep obravnava kot veljavna pomoč v skladu s členom 1(b)(v) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, „ker je mogoče ugotoviti, da takrat, ko se je začela izvajati, ni bila pomoč“.
Indeed, the respective economic entity has never been subject to bankruptcy legislation, including the period before the liberalisation of road services sector in Finland.
Seveda zadevni gospodarski subjekt tudi v obdobju pred liberalizacijo sektorja cestnih storitev na Finskem ni bil predmet stečajne zakonodaje.
For the reasons set out above in point 0 and following, the measure did not constitute State aid at the moment of its introduction, and has become State aid due to the evolution of the common market.
Zaradi navedenih razlogov v točki 266 in naslednjih točkah ukrep med uvedbo ni pomenil državne pomoči in je to postal zaradi razvoja skupnega trga.
The Commission considers that continuous de facto full exception from the corporate income tax provides an advantage for Tieliikelaitos.
Komisija meni, da stalna dejanska popolna oprostitev plačila davka od dobička pravnih oseb podjetju Tieliikelaitos zagotavlja koristi.
The Commission considers that, as such, the exemption from the corporate income constitutes State aid.
Komisija meni, da oprostitev plačila davka od dobička pravnih oseb kot takšna pomeni državno pomoč.
It is not justified by the nature and the economy of the tax system.
Oprostitve ne utemeljujeta narava in varčnost davčnega sistema.
When it comes to the determination of the State aid element, the Finnish authorities argue that although Tieliikelaitos does not pay corporate income tax to the State on its profits, this is taken into account when taking annual decisions on profit-crediting to the State by Tieliikelaitos, i.e. the percent of the profit that the undertaking gives away in profit crediting comes close to what the competitor companies pay as corporate income tax and dividends.
O prisotnosti elementa državne pomoči finski organi trdijo, da čeprav podjetje Tieliikelaitos državi ne plačuje davka od dobička pravnih oseb, se ta dejavnik upošteva pri sprejemanju letnih odločitev o tem, koliko dobička bo podjetje Tieliikelaitos pripisalo državi, tj., odstotek dobička, ki ga podjetje pripiše, je skoraj tolikšen, kolikor konkurenčna podjetja plačujejo za davek od dobička pravnih oseb in dividende.
In the view of the Commission, this argument of the Finnish authorities mixes the role of the State as fiscal authority and the role of the State as the owner of undertakings.
Komisija meni, da ta trditev finskih organov ločuje vlogo države kot davčnega organa in vlogo države kot lastnice podjetja.
The Commission considers that for the purpose of State aid control, it is important to clearly distinguish these two roles in line with the jurisprudence.
Komisija meni, da je zaradi nadzora nad državno pomočjo pomembno jasno razlikovati med tema dvema vlogama glede na sodno prakso.
On the one hand, the Commission needs to verify whether the State, in its role as fiscal authority, has treated all undertakings in the same manner; on the other hand, the Commission needs to verify whether the State, in its role as the owner of undertakings, behaves like a private investor, for example when it decides on dividend payments.
Komisija mora torej preveriti, ali je država v vlogi davčnega organa vsa podjetja obravnavala enako, in ali država v vlogi lastnice podjetja ravna kot zasebni vlagatelj, na primer ko se odloča o izplačilu dividend.
Therefore the Commission considers that in order to ensure that Tieliikelaitos does not benefit from more favourable business conditions than its competitors, it is necessary to subject the undertaking to the standard taxation rules.
Zato Komisija meni, da morajo za zagotovitev, da podjetje Tieliikelaitos ne izkorišča ugodnejših poslovnih pogojev, kot jih imajo konkurenčna podjetja, za podjetje veljati običajni davčni predpisi.
The Commission notes that the exemption from the corporate income tax is to be classified as existing aid pursuant to Article 1 (b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 ‘because it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid’.
Komisija navaja, da se oprostitev plačila davka od dobička pravnih oseb opredeli kot veljavna pomoč v skladu s členom 1(b)(v) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, „ker je mogoče ugotoviti, da takrat, ko se je začela izvajati, ni bila pomoč“.
Indeed, the respective economic entity has never been subject to standard corporate income tax rules.
Seveda za zadevni gospodarski subjekt niso nikoli veljali običajni predpisi o plačilu davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
Impact on competition and trade between Member States
Vpliv na konkurenco in trgovino med državami članicami
It is settled case-law that, ‘where an undertaking operates in a sector in which producers from various Member States compete, any aid which it may receive from the public authorities is liable to affect trade between the Member States and impair competition, inasmuch as its continuing presence on the market prevents competitors from other Member States from increasing their market share and reduces their chances of increasing their exports to that Member State’.
Ustaljena sodna praksa je, da „če podjetje deluje v sektorju, v katerem konkurirajo proizvajalci iz različnih držav članic, lahko vsaka pomoč, ki bi jo lahko prejelo od javnih organov, vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja konkurenco, ker njegova stalna prisotnost na trgu konkurenčnim ponudnikom iz drugih držav članic preprečuje, da bi povečali svoj tržni delež, in zmanjšuje njihovo možnost za povečanje izvoza v to državo članico“.
In the present case, the Commission observes that the degree of opening of markets for the maintenance of road infrastructure in the various Member States has been sufficient to allow international groups, which are active in more than one Member State, to emerge.
V zvezi z to zadevo Komisija ugotavlja, da je bilo odpiranje trgov za vzdrževanje cestne infrastrukture v različnih državah članicah zadostno in da je omogočilo vključitev mednarodnih skupin, ki so dejavne v več kot eni državi članici.
Tieliikelaitos itself has established, in 2004, a subsidiary in Estonia, thus engaging outside Finland.
Podjetje Tieliikelaitos je leta 2004 ustanovilo podružnico v Estoniji in tako delovalo zunaj Finske.
In addition, Tieliikelaitos is currently involved in a joint venture in Sweden.
Poleg tega je podjetje Tieliikelaitos zdaj vključeno v mešano družbo na Švedskem.
Therefore it is clear that Tieliikelaitos‘operates in a sector in which producers from various Member States compete’.
Jasno je, da podjetje Tieliikelaitos„deluje v sektorju, v katerem konkurirajo proizvajalci iz različnih držav članic“.
As such, it must be held that the grant of a selective advantage to Tieliikelaitos finance by State resources constitutes State aid that is in principle prohibited pursuant to Article 87(1) EC.
Zato se šteje, da dodelitev selektivne prednosti podjetju Tieliikelaitos iz državnih virov predstavlja državno pomoč, ki je v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES načeloma prepovedana.
Conclusion on the presence of State aid
Ugotovitve o prisotnosti državne pomoči
The Commission thus concludes that the measures ‘Negotiated contracts for provision of ferry services’ and ‘Transfer of staff to public administration departments’ do not constitute State aid in the sense of Article 87(1) EC, as they do not confer an economic advantage to Tieliikelaitos.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrepa „naročila trajektnih storitev, oddanih po postopku s pogajanji“ in „premestitev osebja na oddelke javne uprave“ ne pomenita državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, ker podjetju Tieliikelaitos ne dajeta gospodarske prednosti.
However, the measures described above under the following terms: ‘the grant of a preferential State loan’, ‘the attribution of negotiated contracts in road services’ the ‘Funding of Special service projects’, the ‘Staff adjustment measures’, the ‘inapplicability of bankruptcy law’, the ‘inapplicability of the normal corporate tax law’ and the ‘fiscal measure related to land purchase by Tieliikelaitos’ constitute aid that is in principle prohibited pursuant to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Vendar ukrepi, opisani z naslednjimi izrazi: „dodelitev prednostnega državnega posojila“, „oddajanje naročil cestnih storitev po postopku s pogajanji“, „financiranje posebnih storitvenih projektov“, „prilagoditveni ukrepi za osebje“, „neuporaba stečajne zakonodaje“, „neuporaba običajne zakonodaje o obdavčitvi pravnih oseb“ in „davčni ukrepi v zvezi z zemljo, ki jo je kupilo podjetje Tieliikelaitos“, pomenijo državno pomoč, ki je v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES načeloma prepovedana.
There might have been some aid involved also in relation to land and gravel sites.
Del pomoči je povezan tudi z zemljo in gramoznim terenom.
COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID WITH THE COMMON MARKET
ZDRUŽLJIVOST POMOČI S SKUPNIM TRGOM
The same reasons which prevented the Commission from declaring the package of measures carried out for the benefit of Tieliikelaitos as ‘non-aid’ based on the criteria developed in the Altmark judgement (cf. Chapter 6.1), make it impossible for the Commission to clear those measures of the package, which contain State aid elements, as compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 86(2) of EC Treaty.
Zaradi enakih razlogov, zaradi katerih Komisija na podlagi meril iz sodbe Altmark (glej poglavje 6.1) paketa ukrepov, izvedenih v korist podjetja Tieliikelaitos, ni razglasila za „nepomoč“, ukrepov iz paketa, ki vključujejo elemente državne pomoči, ne more označiti kot skladnih s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES.
In line with the Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation, Commission cannot declare as compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 86(2) of the Treaty aid which is not clearly necessary for the performance of the tasks assigned and proportional to that end.
V skladu z okvirom Skupnosti za državno pomoč v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve Komisija pomoči, ki ni nujna za opravljanje dodeljenih nalog in sorazmerna z njimi, ne more razglasiti za skladno s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena 86(2) Pogodbe.
As no other specific legal basis exists for examining the aid package in question, the Commission has to assess whether the aid granted to Tieliikelaitos is compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) EC, which foresees that ‘aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest’ can be declared compatible with the common market.
Ker za presojanje zadevnega paketa pomoči ni druge posebne pravne podlage, mora Komisija skladnost pomoči, dodeljene podjetju Tieliikelaitos, s skupnim trgom oceniti na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, ki določa, da se lahko „pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi,“ šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
In order for an aid measure to be compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, the aid must fulfil the following criteria:
Ukrep pomoči je skladen s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, če pomoč izpolnjuje naslednja merila:
the aid must promote or further a project that is in the interest of the Community as a whole,
pomoč mora spodbujati ali podpirati projekt, ki je v interesu Skupnosti kot celote,
the aid must be necessary for the achievement of this result, in that the objective it is seeking to promote could not have been obtained in its absence, and the duration, intensity and scope of the aid must be proportional to the importance of the intended result,
pomoč mora biti potrebna za doseganje tega rezultata, zato ker cilja, ki ga želi spodbujati, ni mogoče uresničiti brez nje, medtem ko so trajanje, intenzivnost in obseg pomoči sorazmerni s pomembnostjo načrtovanega rezultata,
the positive effects that are thus directly attributable to the aid measure must thus be balanced against the aid’s negative effects on competition and trade between Member States, so that it can be concluded that the aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
pozitivni vplivi, ki nastanejo neposredno zaradi ukrepa pomoči, morajo biti uravnoteženi z negativnimi vplivi pomoči na konkurenco in trgovino med državami članicami, tako da se lahko trdi, da pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
In assessing the relevant measures against these criteria, the Commission will distinguish the various State aid measures identified above within two groups:
Pri oceni ustreznih ukrepov glede na ta merila bo Komisija navedene različne ukrepe državne pomoči ločila v dve skupini:
existing aid measures (advantages related to the inapplicability of bankruptcy law, the inapplicability the normal corporate tax law and the fiscal measure related to the acquisition of land by Tieliikelaitos),
veljavni ukrepi pomoči (prednosti zaradi neuporabe stečajne zakonodaje, neuporabe običajne zakonodaje o obdavčitvi pravnih oseb in davčnih ukrepov v zvezi s pridobitvijo zemlje s strani podjetja Tieliikelaitos),
new aid measures mainly linked to the transitional period (advantages related to the State loan, the negotiated contracts in road sector, the special services projects, the staff adjustment measures, possible aid related to land and gravel sites).
novi ukrepi pomoči, povezani predvsem s prehodnim obdobjem (prednosti, nastale z državnim posojilom, naročili v cestnem sektorju, oddanimi po postopku, posebnimi storitvenimi projekti, prilagoditvenimi ukrepi za osebje, morebitno pomočjo za zemljo in gramozni teren).
Compatibility of the existing aid measures
Združljivost veljavnih ukrepov pomoči
The Commission notes that the special corporate income tax provisions and the non-application of the bankruptcy law are measures inherent to the legal status of Tieliikelaitos as a State Enterprise.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so posebne določbe o davku od dobička pravnih oseb in neuporaba stečajne zakonodaje ukrepi, ki so neločljivo povezani s pravnim statusom podjetja Tieliikelaitos kot državnega podjetja.
The same is true with respect to the fiscal measure related to land acquisition by Tieliikelaitos.
Enako velja za davčne ukrepe za pridobitev zemlje s strani podjetja Tieliikelaitos.
Furthermore, these measures are not linked either to the opening of the Finnish market for road construction, road planning, road maintenance or to the development of other economic activities.
Poleg tega ti ukrepi niso povezani z odpiranjem finskega trga za načrtovanje, gradnjo in vzdrževanje cest ali razvojem drugih gospodarskih dejavnosti.
On the basis of the information available to the Commission, the compatibility of the measures pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty can thus not be established.
Na podlagi informacij, ki jih ima na voljo Komisija, ni mogoče potrditi skladnosti ukrepov v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission considers that the so called profit crediting mechanism and guarantee fee mechanism do not guarantee that the advantages related to inapplicability of bankruptcy legislation and corporate income tax legislation are entirely eliminated (see Chapter 6.2).
Komisija meni, da tako imenovani mehanizem pripisovanja dobička in mehanizem plačila garancije ne zagotavljata, da bodo prednosti v zvezi z neuporabo stečajne zakonodaje in zakonodaje o davku od dobička pravnih oseb v celoti odpravljene (glej poglavje 6.2).
The Commission also notes that the arrangements involving unlimited State guarantees for the benefit of entities engaged in commercial activities have always been found incompatible with State aid rules of the EC Treaty.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da so ureditve, ki vključujejo neomejene državne garancije v korist subjektov, ki se ukvarjajo s komercialnimi dejavnostmi, vedno veljale za neskladne s pravili o državni pomoči iz Pogodbe ES.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the continuation of derogations from normal corporate income taxation rules and bankruptcy legislation are incompatible with the common market.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da bi bilo nadaljnje odstopanje od običajnih pravil za obdavčevanje dobička pravnih oseb in od stečajne zakonodaje neskladno s skupnim trgom.
In this respect the Commission welcomes the commitment of the Finnish Government to reorganise Tieliikelaitos as a government owned limited company by 1 March 2008.
V zvezi s tem Komisija pozdravlja zavezo finske vlade, da bo podjetje Tieliikelaitos do 1. marca 2008 preoblikovala v družbo z omejeno odgovornostjo v državni lasti.
The Commission agrees with this deadline since it appears to be a reasonable time limit for carrying out such a procedure, in the light of its complexity from a legal standpoint.
Komisija se strinja s tem rokom, ker meni, da je to razumen rok za izvedbo takšnega postopka glede na zahtevnost s pravnega vidika.
Finally, the Commission notes that the existing aid part of the fiscal measure related to the land acquisition by Tieliikelaitos was repealed in 2004.
Komisija navsezadnje ugotavlja, da je bil veljavni del davčnega ukrepa v zvezi s pomočjo, ki se nanaša na pridobitev zemlje s strani podjetja Tieliikelaitos, preklican leta 2004.
Compatibility of the new aid measures
Združljivost novih ukrepov pomoči
This section concerns aid involved in the grant of a preferential State loan, funding of special service projects, attribution of negotiated contracts and funding of Staff adjustment measures, as well as possible aid related to land and gravel sites.
Ta oddelek zadeva pomoč, povezano z dodelitvijo prednostnega državnega posojila, financiranjem posebnih storitvenih projektov, oddajanjem naročil po postopku s pogajanji in financiranjem prilagoditvenih ukrepov za osebje, ter morebitno pomoč v zvezi z zemljo in gramoznim terenom.
By way of preliminary observation, the Commission notes that, as is clear from the submission of the Finnish authorities, the aid in question, which were mainly of transitional nature, do not seem to have negatively affected the competitive structure of the markets on which Tieliikelaitos operates.
S predhodnimi pripombami Komisija ugotavlja, da glede na podatke, ki so jih predložili finski organi, zadevna pomoč, ki je bila predvsem prehodne narave, očitno ni negativno vplivala na konkurenčno strukturo trgov, na katerih deluje podjetje Tieliikelaitos.
Indeed, the information submitted to the Finnish authorities and described above in Section 5.10, shows that competition in the relevant activity has significantly increased throughout the transitional period and that Tieliikelaitos is now subject to substantial competitive pressure.
Dejanske informacije, ki so jih predložili finski organi in so opisane v oddelku 5.10, kažejo, da se je konkurenca pri zadevnih dejavnostih v prehodnem obdobju zelo povečala in da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos zdaj pod velikim konkurenčnim pritiskom.
The evidence put forward by the complainants does not undermine this conclusion.
Dokazi, ki so jih predložili pritožniki, tega sklepa ne poskušajo ovreči.
As regards the alleged high market share of Tieliikelaitos in the sphere of regular road maintenance (see above, in Section 5.10), the Commission considers that, when the relevant figure put forward by the complainant is looked at in its proper economic context, it cannot be established that the competition would not function well in the respective market.
V zvezi z domnevno velikim tržnim deležem podjetja Tieliikelaitos na področju rednega cestnega vzdrževanja (glej oddelek 5.10) Komisija meni, da ob upoštevanju ustreznih podatkov, ki so jih predložili pritožniki, ni mogoče trditi, da konkurenca na zadevnem trgu ne bi dobro delovala v pravem gospodarskem okviru.