natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, Portugal provided a copy of a letter from the relevant Portuguese authorities (Directorate-General for Industry) to ENVC, dated 26 September 2003, acknowledging receipt of the request for aid, requesting evidence of compliance with Article 2(1) of the TDM Regulation (i.e. evidence that there was competition for the contract from a Korean shipyard offering a lower price – this evidence was subsequently submitted by the shipyard) and reminding the shipyard that the granting of aid was subject to prior notification to and approval by the Commission.
Poleg tega je Portugalska predložila izvod dopisa, ki so ga pristojni portugalski organi (Generalni direktorat za industrijo) poslali ladjedelnici ENVC dne 26. septembra 2003, v katerem so potrdili prejem zahtevka za pomoč in zahtevali dokazila o skladnosti s členom 2(1) Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu (tj. dokazila o obstoju konkurence v zvezi s pogodbo s strani korejske ladjedelnice, ki je ponujala nižjo ceno – ladjedelnica je ta dokazila predložila naknadno) ter ladjedelnico opozorili, da je dodelitev pomoči odvisna od predhodne priglasitve pomoči Komisiji in odobritve pomoči s strani Komisije.
The Commission considers that the above facts were indicative of the willingness of the Portuguese authorities to grant the aid, provided all conditions were met.
Komisija meni, da so zgoraj navedena dejstva kazala, da so bili portugalski organi pripravljeni dodeliti pomoč, če bi bili izpolnjeni vsi pogoji.
As the conditions for eligibility appeared to be met in this case, these facts were bound to create expectations on the part of the shipyard that it would receive the aid [11].
Ker se je zdelo, da so bili v tem primeru izpolnjeni vsi pogoji upravičenosti, je ladjedelnica na podlagi teh dejstev verjetno pričakovala, da bo prejela pomoč [11].
On this basis, the Commission's doubts about the incentive effect of the aid are allayed.
To je odpravilo pomisleke Komisije o spodbujevalnem učinku pomoči.
The legal basis
Pravna podlaga
In the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission noted that the TDM Regulation had expired on 31 March 2005 and was therefore no longer in force at the time when Portugal notified the aid.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave ugotovila, da je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu prenehala veljati 31. marca 2005 in da se ni več uporabljala v času, ko je Portugalska priglasila pomoč.
The comments submitted by Portugal following the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure have not allayed the Commission’s doubts on this issue.
Pripombe, ki jih je predložila Portugalska po odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, niso odpravile pomislekov Komisije v zvezi s tem vprašanjem.
The Commission notes that, with regard to notified aid, its practice is to base its assessment on the laws in force at the time of the assessment [12], unless otherwise specified in the law in force itself.
Komisija v zvezi s priglašeno pomočjo ugotavlja, da je njena praksa utemeljiti oceno na zakonodaji, ki velja v času ocene [12], razen če je v sami veljavni zakonodaji določeno drugače.
Portugal internally approved the aid (subject to approval by the Commission) and notified it to the Commission long after the TDM Regulation had expired.
Portugalska je interno odobrila pomoč (ki je predmet odobritve Komisije) in jo priglasila Komisiji dolgo po tem, ko je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu prenehala veljati.
Portugal maintains, in this respect, that the TDM Regulation is applicable to the contract in question based on Article 4 of the Regulation, which states that ‘This Regulation shall be applied to final contracts signed from the entry into force of this Regulation until its expiry …’.
Portugalska v zvezi s tem trdi, da se Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu uporablja za zadevno pogodbo na podlagi člena 4 Uredbe, ki navaja, da „se Uredba uporablja za dokončne pogodbe, podpisane od začetka veljavnosti te uredbe do izteka veljavnosti Uredbe …“.
Portugal argues that the contract was signed on 14 November 2003, i.e. while the TDM Regulation was still in force, and therefore remains eligible for aid.
Portugalska trdi, da je bila pogodba podpisana 14. novembra 2003, tj. v času, ko je še veljala Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, in zato ostaja upravičena do pomoči.
However, the Commission considers that Article 4 as quoted above does not define the application in time of the TDM Regulation.
Komisija pa meni, da člen 4, kot je naveden zgoraj, ne opredeljuje časovne uporabe Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
Rather, the temporal application of the Regulation is defined in Article 5 [13], which states that it ‘shall expire on 31 March 2005’.
Časovna uporaba te uredbe je opredeljena v členu 5 [13], v katerem je navedeno, da „preneha veljati 31. marca 2005“.
In contrast, Article 4 establishes additional conditions for the compatibility of the aid.
Člen 4 pa nasprotno določa dodatne pogoje za združljivost pomoči.
This is also confirmed by the second part of Article 4, which provides that the TDM Regulation shall not apply to ‘final contracts signed before the Community gives notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities that it has initiated dispute settlement proceedings against Korea (…) and final contracts signed one month or more after the Commission gives notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities that these dispute settlement proceedings are resolved or suspended’.
To potrjuje tudi drugi del člena 4, ki določa, da se Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu ne uporablja za „končne pogodbe, podpisane preden Skupnost v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti objavi, da je proti Koreji začela postopek reševanja spora (…), in za končne pogodbe, podpisane en mesec ali več potem, ko Komisija v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti objavi, da so postopki reševanja spora rešeni ali prekinjeni“.
From the above, it is clear that the TDM Regulation was only to be applied as long as there was a pending dispute with Korea [14] and in any event, no later than 31 March 2005.
Iz zgoraj navedenega je razvidno, da naj bi se Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu uporabljala samo v času nerešenega spora s Korejo [14] in v vsakem primeru najpozneje do 31. marca 2005.
This interpretation is supported by the very objective of the TDM Regulation: it was designed ‘as an exceptional and temporary measure, in order to assist Community shipyards in those segments that have suffered adverse effects in the form of material injury and serious prejudice caused by unfair Korean competition, … [and was to apply] for limited market segments and for a short period only’ [15] (recital 3).
To razlago podpira sam cilj Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu: oblikovana je bila kot „izjemen in začasen ukrep, da se pomaga ladjedelnicam Skupnosti v segmentih, ki so utrpeli škodljive učinke v obliki materialne škode in resno škodo, ki jih je povzročila nelojalna korejska konkurenca, (naj se odobri) za omejene tržne segmente in samo za kratko obdobje …“ [15] (uvodna izjava 3).
The fact that the Council did not renew this Regulation following its expiry is a clear indication that it did not intend to continue to authorise the Commission to approve aid under the TDM Regulation.
Dejstvo, da Svet ni obnovil te uredbe po prenehanju njene veljavnosti je jasen znak, da ni nameraval ohraniti pooblastila Komisije za dodeljevanje odobritev pomoči na podlagi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
This is compatible with the fact that the Community informed the DSB that the Member States could no longer grant operating aid under the Regulation.
To je v skladu z dejstvom, da je Skupnost obvestila OPS, da države članice ne smejo več dodeljevati pomoči za tekoče poslovanje na podlagi zadevne uredbe.
The Commission notes, in this context, that the interpretation of the TDM Regulation must also be seen in the light of the Community’s international obligations.
Komisija v tem okviru ugotavlja, da je treba na razlago Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu gledati tudi z vidika mednarodnih obveznosti Skupnosti.
According to the settled case law of the Court of Justice, Community legislation must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law, including the EC’s WTO obligations [16].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti je treba zakonodajo Skupnosti čim bolj razlagati na način, ki je skladen z mednarodnim pravom, vključno z obveznostmi ES do STO [16].
The Panel report and the DSB ruling adopting that report condemned the TDM Regulation per se for being in breach of WTO rules and required the Community to stop applying the TDM Regulation.
Poročilo Odbora in sklep OPS, s katerim je bilo sprejeto to poročilo, sta obsodila Uredbo o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu kot tako, ker je kršila pravila STO, in od Skupnosti zahtevala, naj preneha uporabljati Uredbo o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
The obligation of the Community to implement the DSB ruling also covers future decisions to grant new aid in application of the TDM Regulation [17].
Obveznost Skupnosti, da izvaja sklep OPS, pokriva tudi prihodnje odločitve o dodelitvi nove pomoči pri uporabi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu [17].
The Community, by informing the DSB that it had already complied with the DSB ruling and recommendations given that the TDM Regulation had expired on 31 March 2005 and Member States could no longer grant operating aid under it, undertook not to authorise new aid under the Regulation.
Ko je Skupnost OPS obvestila, da je že zagotovila skladnost s sklepom in priporočili OPS, saj je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu prenehala veljati 31. marca 2005 in države članice ne smejo več dodeljevati pomoči za tekoče poslovanje na podlagi te uredbe, zavezala, da ne bo več odobrila nove pomoči na podlagi te uredbe.
Accordingly, approving the present aid would result in a breach of the Community’s international commitments.
V skladu s tem bi odobritev zadevne pomoči povzročila kršitev mednarodnih obveznosti Skupnosti.
Finally, it should also be noted that Portugal did not submit its notification within a reasonable time.
Nenazadnje je treba opozoriti, da Portugalska ni predložila svoje priglasitve v razumnem roku.
Portugal notified the measure only on 7 January 2006, i.e. about 27 months after the shipyard had filed the application for aid, 10 months after the TDM Regulation had expired and 6 months after the Community had informed the DSB that the Member States could no longer grant operating aid under the TDM Regulation.
Portugalska je priglasila ukrep šele 7. januarja 2006, tj. približno 27 mesecev po tem, ko je ladjedelnica vložila zahtevek za pomoč, 10 mesecev po tem, ko je prenehala veljati Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, in 6 mesecev po tem, ko je Skupnost obvestila OPS, da države članice ne smejo več dodeljevati pomoč za tekoče poslovanje na podlagi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
Given the exceptional and temporary nature of the Regulation, as well as the EC’s WTO commitments, of which Portugal was aware, Portugal could not expect the mechanism to continue being applied beyond the date of its expiry.
Zaradi izjemne in začasne narave uredbe ter obveznosti ES do STO, s katerimi je bila Portugalska seznanjena, Portugalska ni mogla pričakovati, da se bo mehanizem uporabljal tudi po datumu njegovega izteka.
The Commission further notes that even if ENVC had expectations of receiving the aid, this did not entitle the shipyard to receive the aid, which was dependent not only on approval by Portugal but also on notification to and approval by the Commission.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da tudi če je ladjedelnica ENVC pričakovala, da bo prejela pomoč, je to ne upravičuje do prejema pomoči, ki ni bila odvisna samo od odobritve Portugalske, temveč tudi od priglasitve pomoči Komisiji in odobritve Komisije.
Similarly, and contrary to Portugal’s argument, the principle of equal treatment is not in question in the present case.
Podobno in v nasprotju s trditvijo Portugalske v tej zadevi ne obstaja nikakršen dvom glede načela enakega obravnavanja.
Shipyards in Member States which had a TDM scheme in place were entitled to receive aid on the basis of schemes that were approved by the Commission before 30 March 2005, but the Commission has taken no further decisions approving new aid under the TDM Regulation since that date.
Ladjedelnice v državah članicah, ki so imele vzpostavljeno shemo začasnega obrambnega mehanizma, so bile upravičene do prejema pomoči na podlagi shem, ki jih je Komisija odobrila pred 30. marcem 2005, vendar pa Komisija od tega datuma ni sprejela nobenih nadaljnjih odločitev glede odobritve nove pomoči na podlagi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
Also, the Commission notes that pursuant to the DSB ruling, the obligation to no longer grant new aid under the TDM Regulation applies both to aid under approved schemes as well as to ad hoc aid, thus making no distinction between aid to shipyards covered by a scheme or, as in the case at hand, ad hoc aid outside of a scheme (see paragraph 14 above: the DSB ruling recommended that the Community bring not only the TDM Regulation but also the national TDM schemes into conformity with its obligations under the WTO Agreements).
Komisija poleg tega ugotavlja, da v skladu s sklepom OPS obveznost, da se preneha dodeljevati nova pomoč na podlagi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, velja za pomoč na podlagi odobrenih shem in ad hoc pomoč, ter tako ne razlikuje med pomočjo ladjedelnicam na podlagi sheme ali, kot v tem primeru, ad hoc pomočjo izven sheme (glej odstavek 14 zgoraj: sklep OPS je priporočil, naj Skupnost poleg Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu uskladi tudi nacionalne sheme začasnega obrambnega mehanizma s svojimi obveznostmi na podlagi sporazumov STO).
On the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that the notified aid cannot be approved under the TDM Regulation.
Komisija na podlagi zgoraj navedenega ugotavlja, da priglašene pomoči ni mogoče odobriti na podlagi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
Since no other exemption clause under Article 87(2) or (3) of the EC Treaty applies, the aid is thus incompatible with the common market,
Ker se ne uporablja nobena klavzula o izvzetju na podlagi člena 87(2) ali (3) Pogodbe ES, je pomoč nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom –
The notified aid of EUR 1461702 that Portugal planned to grant to Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo SA in relation to a contract signed by the latter cannot be authorised under Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 502/2004, and is therefore incompatible with the common market.
Priglašeno pomoč v višini 1461702 EUR, ki jo je Portugalska nameravala dodeliti ladjedelnici Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo S.A. v zvezi s pogodbo, ki jo je slednja podpisala, ni mogoče odobriti na podlagi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1177/2002 o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu za ladjedelništvo, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 502/2004, in je zato nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
The aid must not be implemented.
Pomoč se ne sme izvajati.
OJ C 223, 16.9.2006, p. 4.
UL C 223, 16.9.2006, str. 4.
See footnote 1 above.
Glej opombo 1 zgoraj.
See EC — Measures affecting trade in commercial vessels, WT/DS301/R, paragraphs 7.184-7.222 and 8.1(d).
Glej EC – Measures affecting trade in commercial vessels (Ukrepi, ki vplivajo na trgovino s trgovskimi plovili), WT/DS301/R, odstavki 7.184–7.222 in 8.1(d).
See WTO document WT/DS301/6.
Glej dokument STO WT/DS301/6.
Paragraphs 4 and 21 of that decision.
Odstavka 4 in 21 te odločbe.
Paragraphs 10 and 21 of that decision.
Odstavka 10 in 21 te odločbe.
Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 (OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 3), to which Article 2(6) of the TDM Regulation refers, states that ‘contract value before aid shall mean the price laid down in the contract plus any aid granted directly to the yard’.
Člen 1(f) Uredbe (ES) št. 1540/98 (UL L 202, 18.7.1998, str. 3), na katerega se nanaša člen 2(6) Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, navaja, da „‚pogodbena vrednost pred pomočjo‘ pomeni ceno, določeno v pogodbi, in katero koli pomoč, ki se neposredno dodeli ladjedelnici “.
On this basis, the aid amount (EUR 1461702) corresponds to 6 % of the ‘contract value before aid’ (EUR 22900000 + EUR 1461702) and complies with the maximum intensity allowed.
Na tej podlagi znesek pomoči ( 1461702 EUR) ustreza 6 % „pogodbene vrednosti pred pomočjo“ ( 22900000 EUR + 1461702 EUR) in je skladen z največjo dovoljeno intenzivnostjo.
See judgment in Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paragraphs 16 and 17.
Glej sodbo v zadevi 730/79 Philip Morris proti Komisiji [1980] Recueil 2671, odstavka 16 in 17.
See, by analogy, Article 38 of the Guidelines on National Regional Aid for 2007-13: ‘aid may only be granted … if the beneficiary has submitted an application for aid and the authority responsible for administering the scheme has subsequently confirmed in writing that subject to detailed verification, the project in principle meets the conditions of eligibility (…) before the start of the work on the project’.
Glej po analogiji člen 38 Smernic o državni regionalni pomoči za 2007–2013: „pomoč je lahko dodeljena v okviru shem pomoči samo, če je upravičenec predložil vlogo za pomoč in je nato organ, odgovoren za upravljanje sheme, pred začetkom dela na projektu pisno potrdil, da projekt, pod pridržkom natančne preveritve, načeloma izpolnjuje pogoje upravičenosti, (…)“.
In the case of aid subject to individual notification to and approval by the Commission, confirmation of eligibility must be made conditional on the Commission decision approving the aid ( OJ C 54, 4.3.2006, p. 13).
V primeru pomoči, ki je predmet individualne priglasitve Komisiji in odobritve Komisije, mora biti potrditev upravičenosti odvisna od odločbe Komisije o odobritvi pomoči ( UL C 54, 4.3.2006, str. 13).
See case N 122/2005 ‘Unless otherwise specified, the Commission applies to notified projects the rules in force at the time of assessment of their compatibility’.
Glej zadevo N 122/2005: „Če ni določeno drugače, Komisija za priglašene projekte uporablja pravila, ki veljajo v času ocene njihove združljivosti.“
As amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 502/2004.
Kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 502/2004.
Recital 7 confirms this assessment: ‘the temporary defensive mechanism should only be authorised after the Community initiates dispute settlement proceedings against Korea (…) and may no longer be authorised if these dispute settlement proceedings are resolved or suspended (…)’.
Uvodna izjava 7 potrjuje to oceno: „začasni obrambni mehanizem naj se odobri šele potem, ko Skupnost proti Koreji začne postopek reševanja spora (…) in ne sme biti več odobren, če se postopek reševanja spora reši ali prekine (…).“
Our underlining.
Podčrtali mi.
Case C-53/96 Hermès International v FHT Marketing Choice BV [1998] ECR I-3603, paragraph 28; Case C-76/00 P, Petrotub SA and Republica SA v Council of the European Union [2003] ECR I-79, paragraph 57.
Zadeva C-53/96 Hermès International proti FHT Marketing Choice BV [1998] Recueil I-3603, odstavek 28; zadeva C-76/00 P, Petrotub SA in Republica SA proti Svetu Evropske unije [2003] Recueil I-79, odstavek 57.
See EC — Measures affecting trade in commercial vessels, WT/DS301/R, paragraph 7.21.
Glej EC – Measures affecting trade in commercial vessels (Ukrepi, ki vplivajo na trgovino s trgovskimi plovili), WT/DS301/R, odstavek 7.21.
on State aid C 4/2006 (ex N 180/2005) — Portugal — Aid to Djebel
o državni pomoči C 4/2006 (ex N 180/2005) – Portugalska – Pomoč za podjetje Djebel
(notified under document number C(2007) 1959)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 1959)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions [1] and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenimi določbami, [1] in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
By letter of 5 April 2005 (sent via their Permanent Representation), registered as received by the Commission on 7 April, the Portuguese authorities notified the Commission of their intention to grant aid to Djebel — S.G.P.S., S.A. (hereinafter Djebel) in order to help finance an investment by the company in Brazil.
Z dopisom z dne 5. aprila 2005 (poslanim prek stalnega predstavništva), evidentiranim pri Komisiji 7. aprila, so portugalski organi Komisijo obvestili o svoji nameri, da podjetju Djebel – S.G.P.S., S. A. (v nadaljevanju: „Djebel“) dodelijo državno pomoč in tako pomagajo podjetju pri financiranju naložbe v Braziliji.
At the Commission's request, Portugal submitted additional information by letters of 25 July, 26 September and 23 December 2005 (sent via their Permanent Representation), registered as received by the Commission on 27 July and 28 September 2005 and 3 January 2006.
Na zahtevo Komisije je Portugalska predložila dodatne informacije v dopisih z dne 25. julija, 26. septembra in 23. decembra 2005 (poslanimi prek stalnega predstavništva), evidentiranimi pri Komisiji 27. julija in 28. septembra 2005 ter 3. januarja 2006.
By letter of 22 February 2006, the Commission informed Portugal that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid.
Z dopisom z dne 22. februarja 2006 je Komisija sporočila Portugalski, da se je odločila sprožiti postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES glede pomoči.
By letter of 31 March 2006 (registered as received on 4 April), the Portuguese authorities presented their comments in the context of the abovementioned procedure.
Z dopisom z dne 31. marca 2006 (evidentiranim 4. aprila) so portugalski organi predstavili svoje pripombe v okviru zgoraj navedenega postopka.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2].
Odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske Unije [2].
There were no comments from third parties.
Nobena tretja stranka ni predložila pripomb
The companies involved
Udeležena podjetja
Djebel is a company located in Madeira, Portugal.
Djebel je podjetje s sedežem na Madeiri na Portugalskem.
The company is part of the Pestana Group, which is the main hotel group in Portugal and is not covered by the definition of an SME.
Podjetje je del skupine Pestana, ki je glavna hotelska veriga na Portugalskem, in ni opredeljeno kot malo ali srednje veliko podjetje.
It does not comply with the the Commission Recommendation of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises [3] or autonomy criteria set out in Article 3 of the Annex to the Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises [4].
Ne ustreza Priporočilu Komisije z dne 3. aprila 1996 o opredelitvi malih in srednje velikih podjetij [3] ali merilom za samostojnost, določenim v členu 3 Priloge k Priporočilu z dne 6. maja 2003 o opredelitvi mikro, malih in srednje velikih podjetij [4].
It is therefore a large company.
Zato je to veliko podjetje.
Djebel manages a holding company in Brazil that invests in and manages hotels and tourist activities.
Podjetje Djebel upravlja matično podjetje v Braziliji, ki vlaga v hotele in turistične dejavnosti ter jih upravlja.
The Pestana Group had already acquired a hotel in Mozambique before 1999 and has acquired a further four hotels in Brazil in addition to the one covered by the present notification.
Skupina Pestana je poleg hotela, ki je zajet v tej priglasitvi, pred letom 1999 že prevzela hotel v Mozambiku in še štiri hotele v Braziliji.
The project consists in the acquisition by Djebel of shares in the capital of RASH — Administração de Hotéis de Turismo, Lda, a Brazilian company whose only asset is the Hotel Rio Atlântico, located in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Bistvo projekta je, da bi podjetje Djebel pridobilo deleže v kapitalu brazilskega podjetja RASH – Administração de Hotéis de Turismo, Lda, katerega edino premoženje je hotel Rio Atlântico v Riu de Janeiru v Braziliji.