natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of Justice of the European Communities found, however, in Cassa di Risparmio, in which it distinguished between ‘an operator in direct contact with the market and, indirectly, [of] another entity controlling that operator as part of an economic unit which they together form’ that ‘the mere fact of holding shares, even controlling shareholdings, is insufficient to characterise as economic an activity of the entity holding those shares, when it gives rise only to the exercise of the rights attached to the status of shareholder or member, as well as, if appropriate, the receipt of dividends, which are merely the fruits of the ownership of an asset’ [27].
Nasprotno je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi Cassa di Risparmio, v kateri je moralo razlikovati med „operaterjem, ki je neposredno povezan s trgom, in posredno drugim subjektom, ki nadzira tega operaterja v okviru skupne gospodarske enote, ki jo skupaj sestavljata,“ menilo, da „samo lastništvo delnic, tudi pod nadzorom, ni dovolj za opredelitev dejavnosti podjetja, ki je lastnik teh delnic, kot gospodarske, če pomeni zgolj uveljavljanje pravic, vezanih na status delničarja ali družbenika, ali če je primerno, prejemanje dividend, ki so zgolj sadovi iz naslova lastništva dobrine“ [27].
Case law thus demonstrates that the classification as an undertaking must be based not just on the legal forms but on an assessment of the economic realities of a specific case.
Sodna praksa kaže, da pravne oblike niso dovolj za opredelitev kot podjetje, ampak mora opredelitev temeljiti na analizi ekonomske realnosti vsakega primera posebej.
CIL and the investors’ status as an undertaking must therefore be established by an assessment of business relationships in the package in order to determine how the economic activity that consists of operating Le Levant as a cruise vessel is actually conducted.
Zato je potrebno status družbe CIL in vlagateljev utemeljiti na podlagi analize gospodarskih razmerij v paketu in tako določiti, na kakšen način se dejansko izvaja gospodarska dejavnost, vezana na obratovanje potniške ladje Le Levant.
In the case at hand, the Commission notes that under the terms of the joint ownership articles of association, each investor exercises rights over the vessel through his shares and that these rights may only be exercised jointly (each share also gives entitlement to a proportional part of the operating revenue).
V tem primeru Komisija ugotavlja, da vsak vlagatelj po pogojih statutov solastništva prek solastniških deležev uveljavlja pravice do ladje. Uveljavljanje pravic je mogoče le kolektivno (vsak solastniški delež lastniku daje pravico do sorazmernega deleža prihodkov od obratovanja).
The investors exercise their rights at the general meeting of joint owners where each shareholder has voting rights proportional to his share in the joint-ownership.
Vlagatelji uveljavljajo svoje pravice v okviru skupščine delničarjev, v kateri ima vsaka solastniška družba sorazmerno pravico do glasovanja glede na njen delež v solastništvu.
In this sense, the investors’ situation is comparable to that of shareholders or members.
Iz tega vidika je položaj vlagateljev primerljiv s položajem delničarjev ali članov.
In addition, investors are not actively involved in Le Levant’s economic activities, which are completely left to CIL.
Vlagatelji sicer niso dejavno vključeni v gospodarsko dejavnost potniške ladje Le Levant, ki je v celoti poverjena družbi CIL.
CIL is responsible for the fitting-out, maintenance, operation and technical and commercial management of the vessel,
je družba CIL odgovorna za opremljanje, vzdrževanje, uporabo in tehnično ter komercialno upravljanje ladje,
CIL manages the hotel and catering services and organises ports of call and sightseeing visits.
družba CIL upravlja hotele in restavracije, pristanišča in turistične ture.
CIL is responsible for managing port and pilotage charges etc. More generally, it operates the vessel on the best economic terms and ‘is authorised to conclude all charter contracts and, more generally, to negotiate all commercial transactions’ (Article 3.1 of the management mandate).
Družba CIL je odgovorna za upravljanje pristaniških stroškov, pilotaže itd. Družba na splošno uporablja ladjo po najboljših gospodarskih pogojih ter „je pooblaščena za sklepanje čarterskih pogodb in na splošno za pogajanje o vseh poslih“ (člen 3.1 mandata upravljanja).
The joint-ownership has therefore given CIL a completely free hand in the core business in question — namely the provision of cruises on board Le Levant,
Solastništvo je torej družbi CIL pustilo proste roke pri izvajanju te ključne gospodarske dejavnosti, to je ponujanja križarjenj na krovu ladje Le Levant,
‘the manager has full powers with respect to third parties to manage the joint-ownership’s property and business and can carry out all tasks relating to administration, including laying-up of the vessel, but not disposition of the property’ (Article 6 of the management mandate).
„upravljavec ima v odnosu do tretjih oseb vse pristojnosti za upravljanje lastnine in dejavnosti solastništva ter lahko opravlja vse upravne posle, vključno z razpremljanjem ladje, ne more pa razpolagati z lastništvom“ (člen 6 mandata upravljanja).
The joint-ownership therefore gives CIL virtually full autonomy as, on its own initiative and without consulting the investors, CIL can even have the vessel laid-up — i.e. terminate its operation,
Solastništvo daje družbi CIL skoraj popolno avtonomijo. Družba CIL lahko na lastno pobudo in brez posvetovanja z vlagatelji prične z razpremo ladje, to je zaključi njeno obratovanje,
according to Article 6 of the management mandate, the manager ‘shall undertake the following measures on behalf of the joint-ownership vehicle: staff recruitment and management, shipboard working arrangements […].
na podlagi člena 6 mandata upravljanja, bo upravljavec „v imenu solastništva sprejel naslednje ukrepe: – zaposlil in upravljal osebje, organiziral delo na ladji […].
The full powers thus conferred on the manager mean that he can undertake management tasks with a maximum degree of flexibility’.
Neomejena pooblastila, ki so poverjena upravljavcu zagotavljajo, da lahko slednji upravljavske naloge v zvezi s solastništvom upravlja z največjo možno prožnostjo“.
The investors’ lack of involvement in operations is not the result of a commercial choice which they could freely go back on — rather it is determined by the actual structure of the package.
Pasivna vloga vlagateljev pri obratovanju ladje ni rezultat poslovne izbire, ki bi jo lahko preprosto spremenili, ampak izhaja iz strukture paketa.
Under the terms of their investment contracts, each joint-ownership company is headed by two joint managers who are actually Bank executives.
Pod pogoji naložbenih pogodb vsako solastniško družbo vodita dva soupravljavca, ki sta višja uslužbenca banke.
The investor cannot appoint other managers or even take over management of his EURL, without sacrificing the Bank’s undertaking to acquire the shares, which is the guarantee of the return on his investment.
Vlagatelj ne more imenovati drugih upravljavcev ali celo sam prevzeti vodenja svoje družbe EURL, ne da bi se odpovedal obljubi banke o odkupu solastniških deležev, ki pomeni jamstvo donosa od njegove naložbe.
As for the choice of manager of the joint-ownership and the terms of its mandate, CIL was appointed in the joint ownership’s articles of association (drawn up by the Bank and CIP) and in practice cannot be revoked except in cases of serious misconduct or wilful wrong.
Glede izbora upravljavca solastništva in pogojev njegovega mandata je bila na ta položaj v statutih solastništva (ki sta jih pripravili banka in družba CIP) imenovana družba CIL, in je v praksi ni mogoče odstaviti, razen v primeru hude kršitve ali namerne napake.
The Commission therefore concludes that the package does not include any way of allowing the joint-ownership to be effectively involved in the operation of Le Levant as a cruise ship, i.e. in the actual business itself, which is carried on exclusively by CIL.
Komisija ugotavlja, da v paketu ni nobenega mehanizma, ki bi solastništvu omogočal dejansko vmešavanje v obratovanje potniške ladje Le Levant oziroma v samo gospodarsko dejavnost, saj je ta izključno stvar družbe CIL.
In short, it can be concluded that the investors signed a membership contract whose terms they could not freely determine.
Skratka je mogoče zaključiti, da so vlagatelji podpisali pristopno pogodbo, katere pogojev niso mogli prosto določiti.
It is also important to note that in the relationship between an owner-operator and his manager, the economic risk inherent in operating the vessel is usually borne by the owner as the manager is paid for his services and is not concerned by the operating results.
Na koncu je pomembno ugotoviti, da ekonomsko tveganje v odnosu med lastnikom-uporabnikom in upravljavcem, ki je vezano na obratovanje ladje, navadno prevzame lastnik, saj je upravljavec plačan za opravljanje svojih storitev in ga izid poslovanja ne zadeva.
In the case of Le Levant, however, as the investors are guaranteed a return by the promoters of the project, they do not run any real risks in respect of the Le Levant’s operating results.
V primeru potniške ladje Le Levant, pa vlagatelji, ki jim donos jamčijo pobudniki projekta, ne prevzemajo nase nobenih realnih tveganj v zvezi z rezultatom obratovanja potniške ladje Le Levant.
It is really CIL which incurs the risks and, even though it has only two shares out of the 740 shares of the joint ownership, it has agreed to assume full responsibility for any losses which exceeded the operating estimates for the period 1996-2003.
Ta tveganja padejo v resnici na družbo CIL, ki je, čeprav razpolaga le z dvema solastniškima deležema od 740-ih, privolila, da bo nase prevzela vso odgovornost za izgube, večje od predvidenih pri obratovanju ladje v obdobju med letoma 1996 in 2003.
The Commission concludes that this distribution of risks, which is unusual in a normal relationship between operator and manager, demonstrates that CIL bears sole responsibility for commercial activity.
Komisija ocenjuje, da razdelitev tveganja, ki je kot taka v običajnem odnosu med uporabnikom in upravljavcem nenavadna, dokazuje, da je družba CIL sama odgovorna za gospodarsko dejavnost.
It is therefore quite right that the Le Levant project was described to potential investors not as an offer to take part in organising and marketing cruises on the board Le Levant but as ‘a profitable, risk-free investment and with no management obligations’ [29].
Projekt Le Levant je bil potencialnim vlagateljem čisto upravičeno opisan ne kot ponudba za udeležbo v organizaciji in trženju križarjenj s potniško ladjo Le Levant, ampak kot „dobičkonosna naložba brez tveganj in brez upravljavskih obveznosti“ [29].
It is also symptomatic of the real relations between CIL and the investors that ‘the CIP via its subsidiary CIL’ is described as ‘shipowner and manager of the joint-ownership vehicle’ [30].
Razmerje med družbo CIL in vlagatelji razkriva tudi dejstvo, da je „družba CIP prek svoje podružnice, družbe CIL“ opisana kot „lastnik in upravljavec solastništva“ [30].
This organisation faithfully reflects the purpose of the package, whereby CIL must acquire a vessel and the investors intervene only in its financing and not in its operation.
Ta organizacija dobro odraža namen paketa, po katerem mora družba CIL kupiti ladjo, vlagatelji pa smejo posredovati samo glede njenega financiranja, ne pa tudi glede njenega obratovanja.
The only reason why the investors, via their companies, are the official owners of the vessels is because of the fiscal engineering of the package. It does not mean actual participation in its commercial operation.
Edini razlog, zakaj so vlagatelji prek svojih družb uradni lastniki ladje, je davčna ureditev paketa in ne pomeni dejanske udeležbe v komercialni uporabi ladje.
The investors’ activity is limited to an equity holding aimed at making a return, with no real participation in Le Levant’s operation.
Dejavnost vlagateljev je omejena na imetje lastniškega kapitala z namenom prejema donosa in brez prave udeležbe v obratovanju potniške ladje Le Levant.
CIL, which in formal terms is just the manager, has the guarantee that on conclusion of the package, it will obtain sole ownership of the vessel at a price calculated according to a pre-determined method. Pending this legal formalisation of its rights over the vessel, it can decide freely (unlike the investors) how it is operated.
Nasprotno pa ima družba CIL, ki je formalno gledano le upravljavec, zagotovilo, da bo ob zaključku dogovora postala ekskluzivni lastnik ladje po ceni, katere izračun je bil vnaprej določen, in med čakanjem na pravno formalizacijo njenih pravic do ladje prosto odloča (za razliko od vlagateljev) o načinu obratovanja ladje.
CIL therefore acts as the real owner of the vessel as regards everything to do with the Le Levant’s commercial operation.
Družba CIL glede komercialne uporabe potniške ladje Le Levant ravna kot njen pravi lastnik.
In terms of Le Levant’s operation, only CIL can be classified as an undertaking under Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Glede obratovanja potniške ladje Le Levant je mogoče kot podjetje v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe opredeliti le družbo CIL.
As the investors are not undertakings in this sense, the advantages that they have obtained through State resources under the Le Levant financing package do no constitute State aid.
Ker vlagatelji niso podjetja v tem smislu, ugodnosti, ki so jih prejeli od države v okviru paketu financiranja potniške ladje Le Levant, ne predstavljajo državne pomoči.
As regards the status of the shipyard, the Commission finds that the comments from interested parties provide no proof of an advantage financed through State resources to the benefit of the shipyard.
Glede statusa ladjedelnice Komisija ugotavlja, da pripombe zainteresiranih strank v tem pogledu ne potrjujejo, da bi bila ladjedelnica deležna finančne ugodnosti v okviru državnih sredstev.
The formal investigation procedure has therefore not found any evidence that the shipyard was the beneficiary of the aid.
Formalni postopek preiskave torej ni pokazal nobenega prepričljivega dokaza, na podlagi katerega bi lahko ladjedelnico šteli za prejemnico pomoči.
Selective character of the measure
Selektivnost ukrepa
The specific nature of a State measure, namely its selective application, constitutes one of the necessary elements of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Specifičnost državnega ukrepa, z ozirom na njeno selektivno uporabo, je eden od nujnih elementov pojma državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
In that regard, it is necessary to determine whether or not the tax scheme in question entails advantages accruing exclusively to certain undertakings or certain sectors of activity [31].
Zaradi tega je potrebno preveriti, ali zadevna davčna shema pomeni ugodnosti, ki ekskluzivno koristijo nekaterim podjetjem ali nekaterim področjem dejavnosti [31].
In principle, in order for a tax measure to be classified as state aid, the recipient undertakings must belong to a specific category determined by the application, in law or in fact, of the criterion established by the measure in question [32].
Da bi bilo mogoče davčni ukrep opredeliti kot državno pomoč, morajo družbe prejemnice načeloma spadati v posebno kategorijo, ki jo določa pravna ali dejanska uporaba merila, vzpostavljenega z zadevnim ukrepom [32].
In the case at hand, it is sufficient to note that the measure under examination is an application of the Loi Pons, a tax scheme that only concerns investments made in certain French overseas territories and whose selective character was already recognised by the Commission in its Decision of 27 January 1993 not to raise any objections to the state aid scheme established by the Loi Pons [33].
V tem primeru zadošča ugotovitev, da je preiskovani ukrep uporaba Loi Pons, davčna shema, ki se nanaša le na naložbe v določene francoske čezmorske skupnosti in katerega selektivni značaj je Komisija že potrdila v svoji odločbi z dne 27. januarja 1993 o nenasprotovanju državni pomoči na podlagi Loi Pons [33].
The Commission considers that the selective nature of the measure in question has been sufficiently demonstrated by the fact that it results from applying the selective scheme of the Loi Pons and that it is not therefore necessary to comment on the nature of the discretion given to the French authorities in granting the approval provided for under Article 238a HA IIIb of the CGI, a point which the Commission raised merely for the sake of completeness.
Komisija ocenjuje, da je selektivnost zadevnega ukrepa ugotovljena v zadostni meri na podlagi dejstva, da ta izhaja iz uporabe selektivne sheme po Loi Pons in da se ji v tem primeru ni potrebno opredeliti o razsodnosti francoskih organov pri dodelitvi soglasja v skladu s členom 238a HA IIIb CGI. Komisija je to vprašanje izpostavila zgolj za zagotovitev popolnosti preiskave.
Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition
Oškodovanje trgovine med državami članicami in izkrivljanje konkurence
The French authorities and CIL stated that Le Levant was operated out of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, therefore on a very limited market where no other cruise company was present.
Francoski organi in družba CIL so trdili, da je potniška ladja Le Levant obratovala v Saint-Pierre in Miquelonu, torej na zelo omejenem trgu, na katerem ni bila dejavna nobena druga družba za križarjenja.
CIL also invoked Le Levant’s small capacity and the fact that it was mainly targeted at North American customers.
Družba CIL se je prav tako sklicevala na majhno kapaciteto potniške ladje Le Levant in na to, da je bila njena ponudba usmerjena predvsem k severno-ameriškim strankam.
For these reasons, the French authorities and CIL dispute that the advantage granted to CIL could have caused distortion of competition and affected trade between Member States.
Zato francoski organi in družba CIL trdijo, da ugodnost, dodeljena družbi CIL, ni mogla povzročiti izkrivljanja konkurence in oškodovati trgovine med državami članicami.
It should be recalled that aid which is intended to release an undertaking from costs which it would normally have had to bear in its day-to-day management or normal activities, distorts the conditions of competition [34].
Spomniti je treba, da pomoč, katere namen je, da podjetje oprosti stroškov, ki bi jih sicer imelo v okviru tekočega upravljanja ali pri opravljanju običajnih dejavnosti, načeloma izkrivljajo konkurenčnost [34].
It has been ruled that any grant of aid to an undertaking exercising its activities in the Community market would be likely to affect trade between Member States and would threaten to distort competition between Member States [35].
Odločeno je bilo, da vsaka pomoč podjetju, ki svoje dejavnosti opravlja na trgu Skupnosti, lahko vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in povzroči izkrivljanje konkurence med državami članicami [35].
The Commission considers that it is not relevant to consider cruises from Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon as a separate market.
Komisija ocenjuje, da ni primerno, da križarjenje v Saint-Pierre in Miquelonu šteje za ločen trg.
A consumer who is planning to go on a cruise in that region would probably also be prepared to consider cruises to other destinations or from other ports and his choice would be determined by a range of factors, including price, which could be affected by the measure in question.
Potrošnik, ki bi načrtoval križarjenje v tej regiji, bi bil verjetno pripravljen tudi razmisliti o križarjenju na drugih destinacijah ali z izhodom iz drugih pristanišč, na njegov izbor pa bi vplivalo več faktorjev, na primer cena, na katero bi zadevni ukrep lahko vplival.
Cruises therefore form part of a bigger market and since the tax benefits in question release CIL from costs that it would normally have had to bear to finance its economic activities, the aid could cause a distortion of competition on this market.
Zato so križarjenja del večjega trga in ker je družba CIL zaradi finančne ugodnosti razbremenjena stroškov, ki bi jih sicer imela pri financiranju svoje gospodarske dejavnosti, pomeni, da bi pomoč lahko povzročila izkrivljanje konkurence na tem trgu.
As regards the effect on trade between Member States, the Commission has taken note of the fact that Le Levant mainly targeted the North American market and that CIL therefore worked with a US travel agency which promoted and distributed the cruises.
Glede oškodovanja trgovine med državami članicami je Komisija ugotovila, da je bila ponudba potniške ladje Le Levant pretežno usmerjena k severno-ameriškemu trgu in da je zato družba CIL sodelovala z ameriško turistično agencijo, ki je skrbela za promocijo in dodeljevanje križarjenj.
The Commission nevertheless points out that it is possible that aid might distort competition within the Community, even if the undertaking receiving it exports almost all its production outside the Community [36].
Komisija vseeno poudarja, da ni izključeno, da bi pomoč lahko izkrivljala konkurenco znotraj Skupnosti, celo v primerih, ko prejemnik pomoči svojo proizvodnjo skoraj v celoti izvaža zunaj Skupnosti [36].
Furthermore, it seems that some cruises may have been marketed in Europe.
Poleg tega se zdi, da so bila nekatera križarjenja precej obsežno tržena tudi v Evropi.
The measure in question may therefore distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Zadevni ukrep zato lahko povzroči izkrivljanje konkurence in oškoduje trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission considers that the aid includes all the tax savings passed on by the investors to their joint-ownership companies in the form of the capital increases that they were committed to as part of their involvement in the Le Levant financing package.
Komisija ocenjuje, da pomoč obsega vse davčne prihranke, ki so jih vlagatelji prenesli na svoje solastniške družbe v obliki povečanja kapitala, k čemur so se obvezali v okviru pristopnega paketa financiranja potniške ladje Le Levant.
The French authorities claimed that they are unable to provide figures for the tax savings without conducting a separate examination of the tax situation of each of the investors.
Francoski organi so trdili, da niso zmožni predložiti zneskov glede davčnih prihrankov, ne da bi opravili preverjanja davčnega položaja vsakega posameznega vlagatelja.
The Commission does not in any case consider that it has to provide exact figures for the aid but just to specify the bases of its calculation.
Komisija se v nobenem primeru ne čuti obvezana k predložitvi natančnih zneskov pomoči, temveč le k določitvi osnove za njen izračun.
It points out, however, without prejudice to the calculation of the total amount of the aid, that according to the Bank’s estimates based on the profile of a ‘typical investor’ [37], the tax savings made by deducting just the purchase price of the ship would give capital contributions of FRF 278506 per set of two shares, i.e. for the 738 shares sold to investors, a total of FRF 102490200, namely an intensity of some 44,8 % compared with the price of the ship.
Vendar poudarja, da naj bi, brez kakršnega koli poseganja v izračun skupnega zneska pomoči, da po ocenah banke, opravljenih na podlagi profila „tipičnega vlagatelja“ [37], realizirani davčni prihranki ob odbitku samo nakupne cene ladje dali kapitalske dobičke v višini 278506 FRF na paket dveh solastniških deležev, to pomeni 102490200 FRF za 738 deležev, prodanih vlagateljem, kar pomeni približno 44,8-odstotno intenzivnost v primerjavi s ceno ladje.
Legal provisions applicable
Veljavne pravne določbe
As the Commission found that the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, the question of its compatibility with the common market should be addressed.
Ker je Komisija ugotovila, da zadevni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe, meni, da je treba preveriti njegovo združljivost s skupnim trgom.