natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Judgment of 2.7.1974 in case C 173/73, Italy v Commission.
Sodba z dne 2.7.1974 v zadevi C-173/73 – Italija proti Komisiji.
Judgment of 22.3.1997 in case C-78/79, Steinike v Federal Republic of Germany.
Sodba z dne 22.3.1997 v zadevi C-78/79 – Steinike proti Zvezni republiki Nemčiji.
Judgment of Court of Justice of 15.7.2004 in case C-345/02.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 15. julija 2004 v zadevi C-345/02.
Official Gazette of Slovenia, Nos 29/01 and 99/01.
Ur. l. RS, št. 29/01 in 99/01.
See last three lines of the tables above.
Glej zadnje tri vrstice zgornjih razpredelnic.
Judgment of the Court of Justice dated 24.7.2003 in case C-280/2000, Altmark trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 24.7.2003 v primeru C-280/00, Altmark trans Gmbh, Regierungsprasidium Magdeburg in Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark Gmbh.
See Commission Decisions in Cases N 34/99 (OJ C 5, 8.1.2002, p. 2), NN 49/99 (OJ C 268, 22.9.2001, p. 7), and N 6/A/2001 (OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 26).
Glej odločitve Komisije v zadevah N 34/99 (UL C 5, 8.1.2002, str. 2), NN 49/99 (UL C 268, 22.9.2001, str. 7) in N 6/A/2001 (UL C 77, 28.3.2002, str. 26).
See Energy package of January 2007, and in particular COM(2006) 843 final.
Glej energetski sveženj iz januarja 2007 in zlasti COM(2006) 843 konč.
The scheme falls into none of the three categories listed above.
Shema ne spada v nobeno od zgoraj navedenih treh kategorij.
Therefore, it must be regarded as new aid upon accession for the purpose of the application of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
Zato jo je treba obravnavati kot novo pomoč ob pristopu za namene uporabe člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
on State aid C 26/2006 (ex N 110/2006), temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding — Portugal
o državni pomoči C 26/2006 (ex N 110/2006), Začasni obrambni mehanizem za ladjedelništvo – Portugalska
(notified under document number C(2007) 1756)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 1756)
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 navedenima členoma [1], in ob upoštevanju njihovih pripomb,
By letter dated 7 February 2006 (registered on 10 February 2006), Portugal notified the Commission of its intention to grant operating aid to Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo SA (ENVC).
Z dopisom z dne 7. februarja 2006 (evidentiranim 10. februarja 2006) je Portugalska uradno obvestila Komisijo o svojem namenu, da bo ladjedelnici Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo SA („ENVC“) dodelila pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
By letter dated 13 March 2006, the Commission requested further clarifications, which Portugal provided by e-mail dated 28 April 2006.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 13. marca 2006 zahtevala dodatna pojasnila, ki jih je Portugalska posredovala z elektronsko pošto z dne 28. aprila 2006.
By letter dated 23 June 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.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 23. junija 2006 obvestila Portugalsko o svoji odločitvi, da bo v zvezi s pomočjo sprožila postopek na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
By letter dated 25 July 2006 (registered on 26 July 2006), the Portuguese authorities presented their comments in the context of the abovementioned procedure.
Z dopisom z dne 25. julija 2006 (evidentiranim 26. julija 2006) so portugalski organi predložili svoje pripombe v okviru zgoraj navedenega postopka.
The Commission called on interested Parties to submit their comments.
Komisija je pozvala vse zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo svoje pripombe.
There were no comments from third Parties.
Tretje stranke niso predložile nobenih pripomb.
The aid is intended for Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo SA (ENVC), a Portuguese shipyard currently employing some 1000 people.
Pomoč je namenjena portugalski ladjedelnici Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo SA („ENVC“), ki trenutno zaposluje približno 1000 delavcev.
On 14 November 2003, ENVC signed a contract with a French ship owner, Fouquet Sacops SA, for the delivery of a chemical and oil tanker (hull No 227), for the contract price of EUR 22900000. The vessel was delivered on 26 April 2005.
Ladjedelnica ENVC je 14. novembra 2003 s francoskim ladjarjem, družbo Fouquet Sacops SA, podpisala sporazum o dobavi tankerja za prevoz kemikalij in nafte (trup št. 227) za pogodbeno ceno v višini 22900000 EUR. Plovilo je bilo dobavljeno 26. aprila 2005.
Portugal proposes to grant ENVC aid for this contract in the form of a grant of EUR 1461702 on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding [3], as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 502/2004 [4] (the TDM Regulation).
Portugalska predlaga, naj se ladjedelnici ENVC dodeli pomoč za to pogodbo v obliki nepovratnih sredstev v višini 1461702 EUR na podlagi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1177/2002 o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu za ladjedelništvo [3], kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 502/2004 [4] („Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu“).
The TDM Regulation entered into force on 3 July 2002 and expired on 31 March 2005; therefore, it was no longer in force at the time Portugal notified the aid.
Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu je začela veljati 3. julija 2002 in prenehala veljati 31. marca 2005, tako da ni bila več veljavna v času, ko je Portugalska priglasila pomoč.
Portugal claims that the contract is nonetheless eligible for aid under the TDM Regulation, on the following grounds.
Portugalska trdi, da je zadevna pogodba še vedno upravičena do pomoči na podlagi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu iz naslednjih razlogov.
Article 4 of the TDM Regulation states that ‘This Regulation shall be applied to final contracts signed from the entry into force of this Regulation until its expiry …’.
Člen 4 Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu navaja, da „se Uredba uporablja za dokončne pogodbe, podpisane od začetka veljavnosti te uredbe do izteka veljavnosti Uredbe … “.
Portugal states in this respect that the contract in question was signed on 14 November 2003, i.e. while the TDM Regulation was still in force, and therefore remains eligible for aid.
Portugalska v zvezi s tem trdi, da je bila zadevna pogodba podpisana 14. novembra 2003, tj. v času veljavnosti Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, in je zato še vedno upravičena do pomoči.
Portugal further argues that the contract in question was the subject of lower price offers by Korean shipyards, thus fulfilling the conditions of Article 2 of the TDM Regulation and that the aid is thus justified to counter unfair competition from Korean shipyards.
Portugalska nadalje trdi, da je bila zadevna pogodba predmet nižjih cenovnih ponudb korejskih ladjedelnic in zato izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 2 Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, ter da je pomoč tako upravičena, saj preprečuje nelojalno konkurenco korejskih ladjedelnic.
The Commission, in its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in the present case, stated that it had doubts about the compatibility of the aid with the common market based on the TDM Regulation for the following reasons.
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave v zadevnem primeru navedla, da ima pomisleke o združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom na podlagi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu iz naslednjih razlogov.
First, the Commission had doubts concerning the incentive effect of the aid.
Prvič, Komisija je imela pomisleke o spodbujevalnem učinku pomoči.
The Commission noted, in this respect, that Portugal had not provided evidence that, at the time ENVC signed the contract, there were any public assurances that the shipyard would obtain the aid.
Komisija je v zvezi s tem ugotovila, da Portugalska ni predložila dokazov, da so v času, ko je ladjedelnica ENVC podpisala pogodbo, obstajala javna zagotovila, da bo ladjedelnica prejela pomoč.
On the contrary, Portugal did not have a TDM scheme in place.
Nasprotno, Portugalska ni imela vzpostavljene sheme začasnega obrambnega mehanizma.
In addition, according to the information available, the decision by the Portuguese authorities to grant aid to ENVC (conditional on approval by the Commission) was taken only on 28 December 2005, i.e. long after the contract had been signed and the ship delivered.
Poleg tega je bila glede na razpoložljive informacije odločitev portugalskih organov, da dodelijo pomoč ladjedelnici ENVC (ki je odvisna od odobritve Komisije), sprejeta šele 28. decembra 2005, tj. dolgo po tem, ko je bila pogodba podpisana in ladja dobavljena.
It thus appeared that ENVC had not been induced by State aid to sign the contract, given that the aid was not available at the time the project was concluded.
Tako se je zdelo, da podpisa pogodbe s strani ladjedelnice ENVC ni sprožila državna pomoč, saj pomoč v času zaključka projekta ni bila na razpolago.
Second, the Commission questioned the legal basis for approving the aid.
Drugič, Komisija je izrazila dvom o pravni podlagi za odobritev pomoči.
The Commission pointed out that the TDM Regulation had expired on 31 March 2005 and was therefore no longer in force at the time Portugal notified the aid.
Komisija je opozorila, da je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu prenehala veljati 31. marca 2005 in tako ni več veljala, ko je Portugalska priglasila pomoč.
Although the TDM Regulation applied to contracts signed during its period of application, it was doubtful that the Commission could still assess the notified measure on the basis of an instrument that was no longer part of EU law.
Čeprav se je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu uporabljala za pogodbe, podpisane v obdobju njene uporabe, je bilo dvomljivo, da bi Komisija lahko še vedno ocenjevala priglašen ukrep na podlagi instrumenta, ki ni več del zakonodaje EU.
In addition, the Commission noted that Korea had challenged the compatibility of the TDM Regulation with WTO rules.
Komisija je poleg tega opozorila, da je Koreja oporekala skladnosti Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu s pravili STO.
On 22 April 2005, a WTO Panel had issued its report concluding that the TDM Regulation and several national TDM schemes existing at the time when Korea initiated the WTO dispute were in breach of Article 23.1 of the Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes (DSU) [5].
Odbor STO je 22. aprila 2005 izdal poročilo, v katerem je sklenil, da so Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu in več nacionalnih shem začasnega obrambnega mehanizma, ki so obstajale v času, ko je Koreja sprožila spor pri STO, kršile člen 23.1 Sporazuma o pravilih in postopkih poravnavanja sporov (Understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes – DSU) [5].
On 20 June 2005, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) had adopted the Panel report including its recommendation that the Community bring the TDM Regulation and the national TDM schemes into conformity with its obligations under the WTO Agreements [6].
Organ STO za poravnavo sporov (OPS) je 20. junija 2005 sprejel poročilo odbora, vključno z njegovim priporočilom, naj Skupnost zagotovi skladnost Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu in nacionalnih shem začasnega obrambnega mehanizma s svojimi obveznostmi na podlagi sporazumov STO [6].
On 20 July 2005, the Community had informed the DSB that it had already complied with the DSB ruling and recommendations since the TDM Regulation had expired on 31 March 2005 and Member States could no longer grant operating aid under it.
Skupnost je 20. julija 2005 obvestila OPS, 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 morejo več dodeljevati pomoči za tekoče poslovanje na podlagi te uredbe.
Authorising the proposed aid would be tantamount to continuing to apply the TDM Regulation in breach of the Community’s obligation to comply with the DSB ruling.
Če bi odobrili predlagano pomoč, bi bilo enako, kot da bi še naprej uporabljali Uredbo o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu in kršili obveznost Skupnosti, da zagotovi skladnost s sklepom OPS.
The Commission, therefore, did not consider at that stage that the aid could be in conformity with the Community’s international obligations.
Komisija zato v tej fazi ni menila, da bi pomoč lahko bila skladna z mednarodnimi obveznostmi Skupnosti.
Third, concerning the aid intensity, the Commission noted that the aid amount appeared to be in excess of 6 % of the contract value and thus contrary to the maximum aid intensity allowed by Article 2(3) of the TDM Regulation.
Tretjič, Komisija je v zvezi z intenzivnostjo pomoči ugotovila, da je znesek pomoči presegal 6 % pogodbene vrednosti in je bil tako v nasprotju z največjo dovoljeno intenzivnostjo pomoči iz člena 2(3) Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY PORTUGAL
PRIPOMBE, KI JIH JE PREDLOŽILA PORTUGALSKA
Portugal noted that the aid amount referred to by the Commission in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure (EUR 1401702) [7] did not correspond to the notified aid amount (EUR 1461702).
Portugalska je navedla, da znesek pomoči, na katerega se je sklicevala Komisija v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave (1401702 EUR) [7], ni ustrezal priglašenemu znesku pomoči (1461702 EUR).
Concerning the intensity of the aid, Portugal noted that, according to the TDM Regulation, the maximum aid intensity was 6 % of the contract value before aid (as opposed to 6 % of the contract value mentioned in the Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure [8]) and that on this basis the aid intensity complied with the TDM Regulation.
Portugalska je v zvezi z intenzivnostjo pomoči navedla, da je v skladu z Uredbo o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu največja intenzivnost pomoči znašala 6 % pogodbene vrednosti pred pomočjo (v nasprotju s 6 % pogodbene vrednosti, navedenimi v odločitvi Komisije o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave [8] in da je bila na tej podlagi intenzivnost pomoči v skladu z Uredbo o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
More generally, Portugal noted that the objective of the TDM Regulation was to counter unfair competition from Korea and that all shipyards in the EU were subject to the same conditions for obtaining aid under the Regulation.
Širše povedano, Portugalska je navedla, da je bil cilj Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu preprečiti nelojalno konkurenco iz Koreje in da so za vse ladjedelnice v EU veljali enaki pogoji za pridobitev pomoči na podlagi te uredbe.
In Portugal’s view, the aid did not therefore affect trade in the common market and for this reason it was doubtful that it could qualify as State aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Po mnenju Portugalske zato pomoč ni vplivala na trgovino na skupnem trgu in je bilo iz tega razloga dvomljivo, da je šlo za državno pomoč na podlagi člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Concerning the incentive effect, Portugal provided new evidence showing that the shipyard had requested the aid on 25 September 2003, i.e. prior to signing the contract.
Portugalska je v zvezi s spodbujevalnim učinkom predložila nove dokaze, ki kažejo, da je ladjedelnica zahtevala pomoč 25. septembra 2003, tj. pred podpisom pogodbe.
In this context, Portugal submitted a copy of the letter from the Portuguese authorities to the shipyard dated 26 September 2003, in which the Portuguese authorities acknowledged receipt of the request for aid and reminded the shipyard that the aid was conditional on approval by the Commission.
V tej zvezi je Portugalska predložila izvod dopisa, ki so ga portugalski organi poslali ladjedelnici 26. septembra 2003 in v katerem so potrdili prejem zahtevka za pomoč ter ladjedelnico opozorili, da je pomoč odvisna od odobritve Komisije.
According to Portugal, this letter was indicative of the Portuguese authorities willingness to grant the aid, provided all legal conditions were met.
Portugalska meni, da ta dopis kaže na pripravljenost portugalskih organov dodeliti pomoč, če so izpolnjeni vsi pravni pogoji.
Portugal further argued that, based on previous practice, there was an understanding that requests for aid by the shipbuilding industry would be supported by Portugal provided there was a legal basis for doing so (in this case, the TDM Regulation).
Portugalska je nadalje trdila, da je na podlagi predhodne prakse obstajal dogovor, da bo Portugalska podprla zahtevke za pomoč ladjedelniške industrije, če bo za to obstajala pravna podlaga (v tem primeru Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu).
The fact that the aid had been formally approved by Portugal only in December 2005 was due to internal administrative delays.
Dejstvo, da je Portugalska uradno odobrila pomoč šele decembra 2005, je bilo posledica notranjih upravnih zamud.
However, this did not detract from the fact that the shipyard had expectations of receiving the aid, based on the above considerations (see recital 20) and on the general policy of the Portuguese authorities in this respect.
To vseeno ne vpliva na dejstvo, da je ladjedelnica pričakovala prejem pomoči na podlagi zgornjih premislekov (glej uvodno izjavo 20) in splošne politike portugalskih organov v tej zvezi.
The shipyard had evidence that lower prices had been offered by Korean shipyards in relation to the contract and accepted the contract on the assumption that it would receive the aid from the Portuguese authorities.
Ladjedelnica je imela dokaze, da so korejske ladjedelnice ponudile nižje cene v zvezi s pogodbo, in pogodbo je sprejela ob predpostavki, da bo prejela pomoč od portugalskih organov.
Concerning the legal basis for approving the aid, Portugal reiterated its comments in the notification to the effect that the TDM Regulation was the appropriate basis for approving the aid because the contract had been signed while the TDM Regulation was still in force and, indeed, prior to the TDM Regulation being condemned by the DSB.
V zvezi s pravno podlago za odobritev pomoči je Portugalska v priglasitvi ponovila svoje pripombe, da je bila Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu ustrezna podlaga za odobritev pomoči, saj je bila pogodba podpisana v času veljavnosti Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu in dejansko preden je OPS obsodil Uredbo o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
Portugal noted that the situation was therefore no different from that of aid measures granted by other Member States (under TDM schemes) for contracts signed while the TDM Regulation was still in force.
Portugalska je navedla, da se razmere tako niso nič razlikovale od razmer, v katerih so druge države članice dodelile ukrepe pomoči (na podlagi shem začasnega obrambnega mehanizma) za pogodbe, podpisane v času veljavnosti Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
It was the moment when the contracts were signed that determined the eligibility of the contracts for aid, and not the moment when the aid was notified or granted.
Upravičenost pogodb do pomoči je bila odvisna od trenutka, v katerem so bile podpisane pogodbe, in ne od trenutka, ko je bila pomoč priglašena ali dodeljena.
Portugal also noted that none of the beneficiary shipyards had been requested to reimburse the aid following the WTO panel report.
Portugalska je prav tako navedla, da se od nobene upravičene ladjedelnice ni zahtevala povrnitev pomoči po poročilu Odbora STO.
Failing to improve the aid to ENVC would, thus, be contrary to the general principle of equal treatment.
Neodobritev pomoči ladjedelnici ENVC bi bila zato v nasprotju s splošnim načelom enakega obravnavanja.
According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, is incompatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission considers that the proposed measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty: it takes the form of a grant financed by State resources; even if the TDM Regulation applied in all Member States, as argued by Portugal, the measure is selective as it is limited to ENVC; this selective grant is likely to distort competition by providing ENVC with an advantage over other competitors not receiving aid.
Komisija meni, da predlagan ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES: ukrep ima obliko nepovratnih sredstev, ki se financirajo z državnimi sredstvi; tudi če bi se Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu uporabljala v vseh državah članicah, kot to trdi Portugalska, je ukrep selektiven, saj je omejen samo na ladjedelnico ENVC; ta selektivna nepovratna sredstva lahko povzročijo izkrivljanje konkurence, saj ladjedelnici ENVC zagotavljajo prednost pred konkurenti, ki ne prejmejo pomoči.
Finally, shipbuilding is an economic activity involving extensive trade between Member States.
Nenazadnje je ladjedelništvo gospodarska dejavnost, ki vključuje obsežno trgovino med državami članicami.
As such, the measure affects trade between Member States.
Ukrep kot tak vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission thus confirms that the notified aid measure falls within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija tako potrjuje, da priglašeni ukrep pomoči spada na področje uporabe člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The aid amount and aid intensity
Znesek pomoči in intenzivnost pomoči
Following the comments submitted by Portugal, the Commission confirms that the notified aid amount is EUR 1461702. On the basis of Article 2(3) of the TDM Regulation, the maximum aid intensity allowed is 6 % of the contract value before aid [9].
Po pripombah, ki jih je predložila Portugalska, Komisija potrjuje, da priglašen znesek pomoči znaša 1461702 EUR. Na podlagi člena 2(3) Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu je največja dovoljena intenzivnost pomoči 6 % pogodbene vrednosti pred pomočjo [9].
The Commission concludes that the notified aid conforms to the maximum aid intensity allowed by the TDM Regulation.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je priglašena pomoč skladna z največjo intenzivnostjo pomoči, ki jo dovoljuje Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
The incentive effect
Spodbujevalni učinek
As a general principle, State aid may be considered compatible with the common market only if it is necessary to induce the recipient firm to act in a manner which assists attainment of the objectives envisaged by the relevant derogation [10].
Državno pomoč je načeloma mogoče šteti za združljivo s skupnim trgom samo, če upravičeno podjetje pripravi do tega, da deluje na način, ki pomaga doseči cilje, predvidene v ustreznem odstopanju [10].
The Commission notes in this respect that the objective of the TDM Regulation was to ‘effectively enable Community shipyards to overcome unfair competition from Korea’ (see recital 6).
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da je bil cilj Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu „ladjedelnicam Skupnosti učinkovito omogočiti premagati nelojalno korejsko konkurenco“ (glej uvodno izjavo 6).
Direct aid up to 6 % of the contract value before aid could thus be authorised provided there had been competition for the same contract from a shipyard in Korea offering a lower price (Article 2).
Tako bi bilo mogoče dovoliti neposredno pomoč v višini 6 % pogodbene vrednosti, če bi obstajala konkurenca za isto pogodbo s strani neke ladjedelnice v Koreji, ki bi ponujala nižjo ceno (člen 2).
The new evidence supplied by Portugal shows that the aid was requested by the shipyard prior to signing the contract.
Iz novih dokazov, ki jih je predložila Portugalska, je razvidno, da je bila pomoč zahtevana pred podpisom pogodbe.