natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission would emphasise that neither in their comments on the initiation of the procedure nor in their previous comments had the complainants proposed a calculation method that would have made it possible to ascertain whether or not the level of the guarantee premium charged by France led to a reduction in TVO's financing costs.
Komisija poudarja, da pritožniki v svojih pripombah o sproženju postopka in tudi v svojih predhodnih pripombah niso predlagali metode izračuna, s katero bi lahko ugotovili, ali je stopnja jamstvene premije, ki jo je zaračunala Francija, vodila k znižanju finančnih stroškov za TVO.
Classification as State aid: conclusion
Opredelitev državne pomoči: zaključek
As the analysis described in Section 6.1 shows, the Commission has been unable to establish the existence of an advantage for TVO.
Glede na analizo, opisano v oddelku 6.1, Komisija ni mogla ugotoviti, ali obstajajo koristi za podjetje TVO.
In points 69 and 70 of the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission stated that suppliers of nuclear power stations might have competed not only on the price asked for the construction of the power station itself but also on the financing conditions offered to TVO.
V točkah 69 in 70 odločitve o sproženju postopka je Komisija navedla možnost, da dobavitelji jedrskih elektrarn tekmujejo ne le za ceno izgradnje same elektrarne, temveč tudi pri pogojih financiranja, ki jih je ponujalo podjetje TVO.
It noted that, if this were so and suppliers competed on the ‘overall price’ including the financing, the guarantee might have allowed AREVA NP to propose to its customer TVO financing at a more advantageous rate and thus to propose a more attractive ‘overall price’ than the other suppliers of nuclear power stations.
Če je bilo tako in so dobavitelji tekmovali za „celotno ceno“, vključno s financiranjem, Komisija ugotavlja, da bi jamstvo lahko omogočilo podjetju AREVA NP, da svoji stranki, podjetju TVO, predlaga financiranje po ugodnejši stopnji in ji s tem ponudi bolj privlačno „celotno ceno“ kot drugi dobavitelji za jedrske elektrarne.
In such a case, the guarantee would have conferred an advantage on AREVA NP and would have constituted export aid.
V takem primeru bi jamstvo pomenilo korist za podjetje AREVA NP in bi pomenilo izvozno pomoč.
The chronology of events described by the French authorities and summarised in Table 2 rules out the possibility that suppliers might have competed on an ‘overall price’ including the financing.
Vendar pa časovno zaporedje dogodkov, ki so ga navedle francoske oblasti in ki je povzeto v razpredelnici 2, izključuje možnost, da so dobavitelji tekmovali za „celotno ceno“, vključno s financiranjem.
Firstly, the AREVA NP/Siemens consortium was selected as the preferred bidder by TVO before the guarantee had been formally agreed and well before the precise level of the premium had been fixed.
TVO je namreč kot prednostnega ponudnika izbral konzorcij AREVA NP/Siemens, še preden se je formalno dogovoril o jamstvu, in veliko pred določitvijo natančne stopnje premije.
Secondly, the contract for the supply of the power station had been formally signed with the AREVA NP/Siemens consortium before the precise level of the guarantee premium has been formally fixed.
Drugič, pogodbo o dobavi elektrarne se je formalno podpisalo s konzorcijem AREVA NP/Siemens, preden je bila formalno določena natančna stopnja jamstvene premije.
These facts demonstrate that TVO chose AREVA NP/Siemens before knowing the precise cost of the guarantee and hence the cost of financing the project.
Ta dejstva kažejo, da je TVO izbral konzorcij AREVA NP/Siemens, še preden je poznal natančne stroške jamstva in s tem stroške financiranja projekta.
For the rest, even if this latter conclusion were to prove incorrect and if suppliers did indeed compete on an ‘overall price’, the Commission has already come to the conclusion in paragraph 75 of the present decision that the guaranteed loan was not a less expensive source of financing than the other sources available to TVO.
Četudi bi se zadnja sklepna ugotovitev izkazala za napačno in so dobavitelji dejansko tekmovali za „celotno ceno“, je Komisija v odstavku 75 te odločbe že sklenila, da posojilo z jamstvom ni pomenilo cenejšega vira financiranja od drugih virov, ki so bili na voljo podjetju TVO.
Since the guarantee did not have the effect of reducing TVO's financing costs relative to the cost of other financing not covered by the guarantee that was available, it did not reduce the ‘overall price’ of the bid submitted by the AREVA NP/Siemens consortium and did not therefore make this bid more attractive.
Ker jamstvo ni vplivalo na zmanjšanje finančnih stroškov podjetja TVO v primerjavi s stroški drugega financiranja, ki jih jamstvo, ki je bilo na voljo, ni pokrilo, to ni zmanjšalo celotne cene ponudbe, ki jo je predložil konzorcij AREVA NP/Siemens, zato njegova ponudba ni bila bolj privlačna.
In conclusion, the possibility that the measure may have conferred an advantage on AREVA NP should be ruled out.
Torej je možnost, da je ukrep koristil podjetju AREVA NP, izključiti.
Since the existence of an advantage, this being a key factor in classification as aid, could not be established either for TVO or for AREVA NP, the Commission concludes that the Coface guarantee for the EUR 570 million loan granted to TVO does not constitute State aid.
Ker obstoja koristi, kar je ključni dejavnik za uvrstitev med pomoč, ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti ne za TVO in ne za AREVA NP, je Komisija sprejela odločitev, da jamstvo Coface za posojilo TVO v vrednosti 570 milijonov EUR ni pomenilo državne pomoči.
CONCLUSION
7 SKLEPNA UGOTOVITEV
The Commission finds that the guarantee provided by France through the intermediary of Coface on 25 March 2004 does not constitute aid,
Komisija ugotavlja, da jamstvo, ki ga je Francija dne 25. marca 2004 odobrila prek posrednika, družbe Coface, ne pomeni pomoči –
The guarantee provided by France on 25 March 2004 in connection with the construction by AREVA NP of a nuclear power station for Teollisuuden Voima Oy does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Jamstvo, ki ga je Francija odobrila dne 25. marca 2004 v zvezi z gradnjo jedrske elektrarne, ki jo bo za Teollisuuden Voima Oy izvedlo podjetje AREVA NP, ne pomeni pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
OJ C 23, 1.2.2007, p. 11.
UL C 23, 1.2.2007, str. 11.
To facilitate understanding of the decision, the current name ‘AREVA NP’ will be used, even for the period preceding the change of name.
Za lažje razumevanje te odločbe se bo trenutno ime „AREVA NP“ uporabljalo tudi za obdobje pred spremembo imena.
This was necessary as some of the measures concerned France while others concerned Germany and Sweden.
Razdelitev je bila nujna, saj so se nekateri ukrepi nanašali na Francijo, drugi pa na Nemčijo in Švedsko.
Some confidential information was provided, especially on the French part of the file, and could not be communicated to the other Member States.
Zlasti v francoskem delu dokumentacije je bilo nekaj zaupnih informacij, s katerimi se druge države članice niso smele seznaniti.
Moreover, the Commission was ready to take a definitive decision on the German and Swedish part of the file on completion of the preliminary investigation, whereas a formal investigation procedure had to be launched for the French part.
Poleg tega je bila Komisija pripravljena sprejeti končno odločitev v zvezi z nemškim in švedskim delom dokumentacije po zaključku predhodne proučitve, medtem ko je morala za francoski del sprožiti uradni postopek preiskave.
C(2006) 4963 final (OJ C 23, 1.2.2007, p. 5).
C(2006) 4963 konč. (UL C 23, 1.2.2007, str. 5).
Information covered by professional secrecy.
Zaupne informacije.
The original text reads as follows: ‘TVO selected the facility on the basis that it had slightly longer maturity profile and it saved some room from banks for future financing needs.’
Izvirno besedilo se glasi: „TVO je kredit izbral zato, ker je imel nekoliko daljši rok zapadlosti, in ker je s tem prihranil nekaj možnosti bančnih posojil za prihodnje potrebe po financiranju.“
Germany, which is chairing the Group, has pointed out that the United Kingdom does not agree with all of the views expressed.
Nemčija, ki predseduje Skupini, je poudarila, da se Združeno kraljestvo ne strinja z vsemi izraženimi stališči.
However, in some cases, the OECD Arrangement may be a significant element to be taken into account in the anlysis of the compatibility of such a measure on the basis of Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty.
Kljub temu je v nekaterih zadevah Sporazum OECD lahko pomemben element, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri analizi združljivosti tovrstnega ukrepa na podlagi člena 87(3) Sporazuma ES.
OJ C 281, 17.9.1997, p. 4.
UL C 281, 17.9.1997, str. 4.
Communication as last amended by the communication of the Commission to Member States amending the communication pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Article 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance (OJ C 325, 22.12.2005, p. 22).
Sporočilo, kakor je bilo spremenjeno s Sporočilom Komisije državam članicam o spremembi sporočila v skladu s členom 93(1) Pogodbe ES o uporabi členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe glede kratkoročnega zavarovanja izvoznih kreditov (UL C 325, 22.12.2005, str. 22).
EREF brought before the Court of First Instance an appeal against Commission final decision C(2006) 4963 concerning Case NN 62/B/06.
EREF je na Sodišču prve stopnje vložil pritožbo proti končni odločitvi Komisije C(2006) 4963 v zadevi NN 62/B/2006.
The Court registered the appeal under No T-94/07.
Sodišče je pritožbo evidentiralo pod št. T-94/07.
The two loans are not backed by any particular security.
Nobeno od obeh posojil ni zavarovano s kakršnim koli posebnim zavarovanjem.
Both provide for a negative pledge by TVO.
Obe predstavljata negativno jamstvo za podjetje TVO.
Since both the guaranteed loan and the credit facility are variable-rate loans, the comparison is based on the spread over EURIBOR and not on absolute interest rates, which are in any event unknown since they are determined in the future.
Ker sta tako posojilo z jamstvom kot tudi kredit posojili s spremenljivo obrestno mero, primerjava temelji na rasti po EURIBOR-u in ne na absolutnih obrestnih stopnjah, ki so v vsakem primeru neznane, saj se jih sproti določa v prihodnosti.
Launch of the tender invitation (the criteria for assessing the bids set out in the tender documents do not include the provision of financing by the bidders)
Začetek javnega razpisa (merila za ocenjevanje ponudb, ki so določena v dokumentaciji javnega razpisa, ne vključujejo zagotovljenega financiranja ponudnikov).
Receipt of the bids by TVO and start of the assessment procedure
TVO prejme ponudbe in začne z ocenjevalnim postopkom.
15 October 2003
oktober 2003
The AREVA NP/Siemens consortium is notified by TVO of its ‘preferred bidder’ status
TVO je uradno obvestil konzorcij AREVA NP/Siemens, da ima status „prednostnega ponudnika“.
18 December 2003
december 2003
Signing of the commercial contract between TVO and the AREVA NP/Siemens consortium for the construction of the nuclear power station
Podpis trgovinske pogodbe o gradnji jedrske elektrarne med podjetjem TVO in konzorcijem AREVA NP/Siemens.
Lastly, the Commission notes that the guaranteed loan (EUR 570 million) is small compared with the aggregate amount of capital raised (over EUR 3 billion).
Nazadnje Komisija ugotavlja, da je posojilo z jamstvom (570 milijonov EUR) majhno v primerjavi z zbranim zneskom kapitala (več kot 3 milijarde EUR).
Consequently, even after the intervention of Coface, the bulk of the project is still being financed by the market.
Zato tudi po posredovanju družbe Coface trg še vedno financira večji del projekta.
For this insurance Coface charges a flat-rate premium of [2,5-3,5] % for each payment, the total premiums payable to Coface thus amounting to EUR [14,25-19,95] million.
Coface za to zavarovanje zaračuna pavšalno premijo v vrednosti [2,5–3,5] % za vsako plačilo, kar je [14,25–19,95] milijona EUR celotnih premij, ki jih mora dobiti Coface.
The premium is charged to the banks, which in turn charge it to TVO, in addition to the interest rate referred to in paragraph 38.
Premija se zaračuna bankam, ki jih nato zaračunajo podjetju TVO poleg obrestne stopnje iz odstavka 38.
PROCEDURE (1) By letter of 11 October 2004, registered as received by the Commission on 15 October 2004, Greenpeace submitted to the Commission a complaint concerning the granting by Compagnie française d'assurance pour le commerce extérieur (hereinafter Coface) of a guarantee in respect of the exportable French portion of the services provided by Framatome ANP to the Finnish company Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO).
Greenpeace je z dopisom z dne 11. oktobra 2004, evidentiranim 15. oktobra, vložil pritožbo Komisiji v zvezi z jamstvom družbe Compagnie française d'assurance pour le commerce extérieur (v nadaljnjem besedilu „Coface“) glede izvoznega francoskega deleža storitev, ki jih finskemu podjetju Teollisuuden Voima Oy („TVO“) nudi družba Framatome ANP.
amending Decision 2007/76/EC implementing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws as regards mutual assistance
o spremembi Odločbe 2007/76/ES o izvajanju Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o sodelovanju med nacionalnimi organi, odgovornimi za izvrševanje zakonodaje o varstvu potrošnikov, v zvezi z medsebojno pomočjo
(notified under document number C(2008) 987)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 987)
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation) [1], and in particular Article 7(3), Article 8(7), Article 9(4) and Article 12(6) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 27. oktobra 2004 o sodelovanju med nacionalnimi organi, odgovornimi za izvrševanje zakonodaje o varstvu potrošnikov („Uredba o sodelovanju na področju varstva potrošnikov“) [1], in zlasti člena 7(3), člena 8(7), člena 9(4) in člena 12(6) Uredbe,
On 22 December 2006, the Commission adopted Decision 2007/76/EC implementing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 [2].
Komisija je 22. decembra 2006 sprejela Odločbo 2007/76/ES [2] o izvajanju Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004.
That Decision lays down rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 as regards mutual assistance between competent authorities and the conditions governing that assistance.
Navedena odločba določa pravila za izvajanje Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004 v zvezi z medsebojno pomočjo med pristojnimi organi in pogoje, ki urejajo zadevno pomoč.
Decision 2007/76/EC should be amended to specify the information the authorities are obliged to supply and the time limit for the notification of the enforcement measures taken as well as their effect after a request for enforcement measures.
Odločbo 2007/76/ES je treba spremeniti, da se določijo informacije, ki jih morajo organi predložiti, ter rok za obvestilo o uvedenih izvršilnih ukrepih in njihovem učinku po prošnji za izvršilne ukrepe.
Decision 2007/76/EC should also be amended to specify the information to be supplied for the notification of enforcement measures or a request for mutual assistance following the notification of an alert.
Odločbo 2007/76/ES je treba spremeniti tudi za določitev informacij, ki jih je treba predložiti za obvestilo o izvršilnih ukrepih ali prošnji za medsebojno pomoč, potem ko je bilo opozorilo poslano.
It is also appropriate to lay down the main principles governing the coordination of market surveillance and enforcement activities to ensure effective enforcement throughout the Community.
Ravno tako je primerno določiti glavna načela za usklajevanje tržnega nadzora in izvršilnih dejavnosti, da se zagotovi učinkovito izvrševanje po vsej Skupnosti.
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004,
Ukrepi, predvideni s to odločbo, so v skladu z mnenjem Odbora, ustanovljenega s členom 19(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004 –
In Decision 2007/76/EC the following Article is inserted after Article 7:
V Odločbi 2007/76/ES se za členom 7 vstavi naslednji člen:
Coordination of market surveillance and enforcement activities
Usklajevanje tržnega nadzora in izvršilnih dejavnosti
The principles governing the coordination of market surveillance and enforcement activities are laid down in Chapter 6 of the Annex.’
Načela za usklajevanje tržnega nadzora in izvršilnih dejavnosti so določena v poglavju 6 Priloge.“
The Annex to Decision 2007/76/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.
Priloga k Odločbi 2007/76/ES se spremeni v skladu s Prilogo k tej odločbi.
Regulation as last amended by Directive 2007/65/EC (OJ L 332, 18.12.2007, p. 27).
Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Direktivo 2007/65/ES (UL L 332, 18.12.2007, str. 27).
The Annex to Decision 2007/76/EC is amended as follows:
Priloga k Odločbi 2007/76/ES se spremeni:
in point 1.1. (c), the following entries are added:
V točki 1.1(c) se dodajo naslednji vnosi:
‘(viii)
„(viii)
COICOP code, [Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose (United Nations statistical methodology, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl = 5)],
oznaka COICOP [klasifikacija individualne potrošnje glede na namen (statistična metodologija Združenih narodov, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=5)]];
Advertising and sales medium involved.’;
oglaševanje in vključen prodajni medij.“
after point 1.3.4., the following point is inserted:
Za točko 1.3.4 se vstavi naslednja točka:
When an enforcement measure is taken, the requested authority shall notify, pursuant to Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, the measures taken, and the effect thereof on the intra-Community infringement to the Commission and to all the other competent authorities designated by Member States as being the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the legislation that is subject to the infringement.
Kadar se uvede izvršilni ukrep, zaprošeni organ v skladu s členom 8(6) Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004 pošlje obvestilo o uvedenih ukrepih ter o njihovem učinku na kršitev znotraj Skupnosti Komisiji in vsem drugim pristojnim organom, ki so jih države članice imenovale kot organe, odgovorne za izvrševanje zakonodaje, ki velja za kršitev.
It shall provide, with the enforcement measures taken and the effect thereof on the intra-Community infringement, the following information:
Skupaj z uvedenimi izvršilnimi ukrepi in njihovem učinku na kršitev znotraj Skupnosti zagotovi naslednje informacije:
the details of the requested and of the applicant competent authorities;
podrobnosti o zaprošenih pristojnih organih in pristojnih organih prosilcih;
the name of the seller or supplier;
ime prodajalca ali dobavitelja;
the name of the product or service;
ime izdelka ali storitve;
the classification code;
klasifikacijsko oznako;
the advertising or sales medium involved;
oglaševanje ali vključen prodajni medij;
the legal basis;
pravno podlago;
the type of intra-Community infringement;
vrsto kršitve znotraj Skupnosti;
the estimated number of consumers likely to be harmed and the estimated financial detriment.’;
ocenjeno število potrošnikov, ki bodo verjetno oškodovani, in ocenjeno finančno škodo.“
in point 2.1.5 the first sentence is replaced by the following:
V točki 2.1.5 se prvi stavek nadomesti z naslednjim:
The applicant authority shall request the Commission to remove the information from the database as soon as technically possible and, in any case, not later than seven days after the closure of the case, if following a request pursuant to Article 6 of the Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004:’;
Organ prosilec na podlagi prošnje v skladu s členom 6 Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004 zaprosi Komisijo, da informacije umakne iz baze podatkov takoj, ko je to tehnično izvedljivo, v vsakem primeru pa najpozneje sedem dni po tem, ko je primer končan, če:“
after point 2.1.5 the following point is inserted:
Za točko 2.1.5 se vstavi naslednja točka:
The requested authority shall notify the Commission and the other competent authorities concerned of the enforcement measures taken pursuant to Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 as soon as this is technically possible and in any case not later than seven days after the measures were taken.’;
Zaprošeni organ obvesti Komisijo in druge zadevne pristojne organe o izvršilnih ukrepih, ki so bili uvedeni v skladu s členom 8(6) Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004, takoj ko je to tehnično izvedljivo, v vsakem primeru pa najpozneje sedem dni po tem, ko so bili ukrepi uvedeni.“
the title of Chapter 3 shall be replaced by ‘Alerts’;
Naslov poglavja 3 se nadomesti z „OPOZORILA“.
in Chapter 3, the number ‘3.1.’ is added at the beginning of the text;
V poglavju 3 se na začetku besedila doda številka „3.1“.
in Chapter 3, the following points shall be inserted at the end of the existing text:
V poglavju 3 se na koncu obstoječega besedila vstavita naslednji točki:
When a competent authority takes enforcement measures related to an alert, it shall, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, notify these measures to the Commission and to all the other competent authorities designated by Member States as being the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the legislation that is subject to the infringement.
Kadar pristojni organ uvede izvršilne ukrepe v zvezi z opozorilom, obvesti v skladu s členom 7(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004 o teh ukrepih Komisijo in vse druge pristojne organe, ki so jih države članice imenovale kot organe, odgovorne za izvrševanje zakonodaje, ki velja za kršitev.
It shall provide, with the enforcement measures taken, the following information:
Skupaj z uvedenimi izvršilnimi ukrepi zagotovi naslednje informacije:
the details of the competent authority which has taken the measures;
podrobnosti o pristojnem organu, ki je uvedel ukrepe;
the estimated number of consumers likely to be harmed and the estimated financial detriment.
ocenjeno število potrošnikov, ki bodo verjetno oškodovani, in ocenjeno finančno škodo.
When a competent authority receives a request for mutual assistance related to an alert, it shall notify the request, identifying the type of request, to the Commission and to all the other competent authorities designated by Member States as being the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the legislation that is subject to the infringement.
Kadar pristojni organ prejme prošnjo za medsebojno pomoč v zvezi z opozorilom, o prošnji obvesti Komisijo in vse druge pristojne organe, ki so jih države članice imenovale kot organe, odgovorne za izvrševanje zakonodaje, ki velja za kršitev, pri tem pa navede vrsto prošnje.
It shall provide with the request received, the following information:
Skupaj s prejeto prošnjo zagotovi naslednje informacije:
the details of the competent authority requesting mutual assistance;
podrobnosti o pristojnem organu, ki je zaprosil medsebojno pomoč;
the name of the seller or supplier, if available;
ime prodajalca ali dobavitelja, če je na voljo;
CHAPTER 6 — COORDINATION OF MARKET SURVEILLANCE AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
„POGLAVJE 6 – USKLAJEVANJE TRŽNEGA NADZORA IN IZVRŠILNIH DEJAVNOSTI
In order to fulfil the obligation pursuant to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, all the competent authorities concerned may decide that one of them will coordinate the enforcement action.
Za izpolnitev zahteve v skladu s členom 9(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004 se lahko vsi zadevni pristojni organi odločijo, da eden izmed njih usklajuje izvršilni ukrep.