natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Spain has not rejected the assertion by Chupa Chups that this subsidy was part of the EUR 1540000‘additional non-specified subsidies’ identified in point 5(5) of the decision initiating the procedure.
Španija ni zavrnila trditve Chupa Chupsa, da je bila ta subvencija del „dodatnih nedoločenih subvencij“ v znesku 1540000 EUR, opredeljenih v točki 5(5) odločbe o sprožitvi postopka.
Nor has Spain made any comment on the nature of the subsidy.
Španija prav tako ni komentirala pripombe o naravi subvencije.
Specifically, despite the low amount involved and the Commission’s enquiries in this regard, Spain has not claimed that its granting was subject to the conditions on de minimis aid applicable at the time [24].(31) Consequently, the Commission concludes that Measure 6 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC Treaty to the amount of EUR 100000.
Španija izrecno, kljub nizkemu vpletenemu znesku in poizvedovanjih Komisije v zvezi s tem, ni trdila, da je bila njena odobritev v skladu s pogoji o pomoči de minimis, ki so takrat veljali [24].(31) Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep 6 pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES v znesku 100000 EUR.
Measure 7: endorsement from the Asturias regional government (2005)
Ukrep 7: Potrditev s strani asturijske regionalne vlade (2005)
In view of the information provided by Spain, as described under section IV above, the Commission considers that the endorsement by the Asturias regional government was guaranteed by the firm credit rights that Chupa Chups had vis-à-vis several public authorities.
Glede na informacije, ki jih je predložila Španija, kot je opisano v zgornjem oddelku IV, Komisija meni, da je bila potrditev s strani asturijske regionalne vlade zavarovana s trdnimi posojilnimi pravicami, ki jih je imel Chupa Chups v zvezi z več javnimi organi.
The Commission considers, in particular, that Chupa Chups was formally entitled to receive the subsidies in question at the time the credit was agreed, and that, according to the analysis below (cf. assessment of Measure 4), those subsidies were all compatible aid with the exception of EUR 800000.
Komisija predvsem meni, da je bil Chupa Chups ob dogovoru o posojilu uradno upravičen do prejetja zadevnih subvencij in da so bile v skladu s spodnjo analizo (glej presojo ukrepa 4) vse te subvencije združljiva pomoč, razen 800000 EUR.
In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the intervention of the Asturias government did not involve any significant risk and therefore did not constitute State aid.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da poseg asturijske vlade ni vključeval nobenega bistvenega tveganja in zato ni pomenil državne pomoči.
Measure 8: debt deferral by the tax agency
Ukrep 8: Odlog dolga s strani davčne uprave
The information provided by the Spanish authorities in reaction to the opening decision shows that:
Informacije španskih organov, predložene v odziv na odločbo o sprožitvi postopka, kažejo naslednje:
the Spanish public administration is bound to follow the procedures laid down by General Taxation Law 58/2003 and its implementing law.
španska javna uprava se drži postopkov, določenih v Splošnem davčnem zakonu 58/2003 in njegovih izvedbenih aktih.
Those procedures are administrative in nature, and only in some specific cases, as established in the laws, is the administration required to undertake court procedures,
Ti postopki so upravne narave in od uprave se samo v posebnih primerih, kot so določeni v zakonih, zahteva, da sproži sodne postopke,
the legal figures for the deferment of payments or payment by instalments are described in Article 65 of Law 58/2003,
zakonske številke za odlog plačil ali plačilo po obrokih so opisani v členu 65 Zakona 58/2003,
the possibility of requesting a deferment of payments is open to any taxpayer,
vsak davkoplačevalec ima možnost zahtevati odlog plačil,
the granting of a deferment is subject to the provision of securities that cover the amount deferred, payment of the deferral interest, and a 25 % surcharge on the total.
odobritev odloga je predmet zagotovitve jamstev, ki pokrivajo odloženi znesek, plačila obresti odloženega plačila in 25-odstotnega pribitka na skupni znesek.
In the present case, Chupa Chups provided a mortgage covering EUR 15240000, which is the amount that resulted from those calculations,
V obravnavanem primeru je Chupa Chups predložil hipoteko v znesku 15240000 EUR, kar je znesek, izračunan na podlagi navedenih izračunov,
Chupa Chups did not benefit from any actual ‘tax suspension’ (Moratoria fiscal), but rather from the possibility of paying by instalments.
Chupa Chups ni imel nobene koristi zaradi kakršnega koli dejanskega davčnega odloga plačil (moratoria fiscal), temveč zaradi možnosti plačila po obrokih.
Chupa Chups requested deferral of its tax debts before the period for voluntary payment had expired.
Chupa Chups je za odlog davčnih dolgov zaprosil, preden je poteklo obdobje za prostovoljno plačilo.
This prevented, according to Article 65 of Law 58/2003, the initiation of an execution procedure,
To je v skladu s členom 65 Zakona 58/2003 preprečilo začetek izvršilnega postopka,
the deferment agreement established that any credit position of Chupa Chups vis-à-vis the tax administration would be assigned to the cancellation of debts deferred.
dogovor o odlogu je določal, da bo vsaka Chupa Chupsova postavka v dobro v razmerju do davčne uprave dodeljena za preklic odloženih dolgov.
Given that Chupa Chups is a frequent generator of VAT credits on account of its exporting activities, the schedule of amortisation initially foreseen has been substantially accelerated.
Glede na to, da Chupa Chups zaradi svojih izvoznih dejavnosti pogosto ustvarja dobroimetje DDV, je bil na začetku predviden urnik amortizacije precej pospešen.
On the basis of the above arguments the Commission considers that Spain has provided sufficient evidence that the rescheduling of Chupa Chups debts for VAT and corporate income tax stemmed from the mere application of Spanish taxation law, and that the tax authorities did not enjoy any discretionary power as regards eligibility of the company, securities necessary or interest rates applied.
Na podlagi navedenih argumentov Komisija meni, da je Španija zagotovila zadostna dokazila o tem, da je reprogramiranje Chupa Chupsovih dolgov za DDV in davek od dobička pravnih oseb izhajalo samo iz uporabe španske davčne zakonodaje ter da davčni organi niso bili deležni nobene diskrecijske pravice glede izpolnjevanja pogojev družbe, potrebnih jamstev ali uporabljenih obrestnih mer.
In consideration of this, the Commission concludes that Measure 8 is of a general nature and does not constitute State aid.
Ob upoštevanju tega Komisija ugotavlja, da je ukrep 8 splošne narave in ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Compatibility of Measures 2 to 6
Združljivost ukrepov 2 do 6
Measure 2: subsidy of EUR 1580000 from the Spanish ‘Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca’ in support of investments in the Barcelona plant (1989-1994)
Ukrep 2: subvencija v znesku 1580000 EUR španskega ministrstva za kmetijstvo in ribolov (Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca) v podporo investicijam v barcelonskem obratu (1989–1994)
According to the information submitted by Spain, Measure 2 was granted between 1989 and 1994, i.e. more than 10 years before the earliest action from the Commission in the present case, which was a request for information dated May 2005.
V skladu z informacijami, ki jih je predložila Španija, je bil ukrep 2 odobren med letoma 1989 in 1994, tj. več kot 10 let pred najzgodnejšim ukrepom Komisije v tej zadevi, ki je bil zaprosilo za informacije iz maja 2005.
The Commission therefore concludes that for Measure 2 the limitation period provided for by Article 15 of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [25] has expired and the measure constitutes existing aid.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da se je za ukrep 2 iztekel zastaralni rok, določen v členu 15 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [25], in ukrep pomeni obstoječo pomoč.
Measure 3: subsidy of EUR 4330000 from ‘other public bodies’ supporting the building of the Asturias plant (1994-1997)
Ukrep 3: subvencija v znesku 4330000 EUR od „drugih javnih organov“ v podporo izgradnji obrata v Asturiji (1994–1997)
The Commission notes that according to the information provided by Spain, subsidies of EUR 3600000 within Measure 3 were granted before 1995, i.e. more than 10 years before the earliest action from the Commission in the present case, and therefore the limitation period provided for by Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 has expired.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so bile po informacijah, ki jih je predložila Španija, subvencije v znesku 3600000 EUR v okviru ukrepa 3 odobrene pred letom 1995, tj. več kot 10 let pred najzgodnejšim ukrepom Komisije v tej zadevi, in se je zato iztekel zastaralni rok iz člena 15 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999.
The subsidies thus constitute existing aid.
Tako subvencije pomenijo obstoječo pomoč.
As regards the EUR 730000 in aid granted on 14 March 1997 by the Asturias regional government under Decree 7/96, the Spanish authorities claim that this aid should be regarded as an extension of scheme N 448/94 in support to SMEs in Asturias (exceptionally applicable to large companies contributing to regional development), and that it would constitute a complement to regional aid granted in 1994 by Spain under Law 50/85 (LIR).
Glede 700000 EUR pomoči, ki so jo 14. marca 1997 odobrila asturijska regionalna vlada po Odredbi 7/96, španski organi trdijo, da je treba to pomoč obravnavati kot podaljšanje sheme N 448/94 v podporo malim in srednje velikim podjetjem v Asturiji (ki izjemoma velja za velika podjetja, ki prispevajo k regionalnemu razvoju) in da naj bi pomenila dopolnitev regionalne pomoči, ki jo je Španija odobrila leta 1994 po Zakonu 50/85 (LIR).
The Commission notes that scheme N 448/94 expired at the end of 1996 and was not subsequently extended.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je shema N 448/94 potekla konec leta 1996 in pozneje ni bila podaljšana.
Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the complementary subsidy from the Asturias regional government can be examined on an ad hoc basis in the light of Decree 7/96 and the regional aid ceilings for Spain as laid out in Commission Decision No 463/94 [26].
Komisija kljub temu meni, da je dopolnilno subvencijo asturijske regionalne vlade mogoče preučiti na ad hoc podlagi glede na Odredbo 7/96 in regionalne zgornje meje pomoči za Španijo, kot je določeno v Odločbi Komisije N 463/94 [26].
On this basis, the aid can be declared compatible since: (i) it constitutes regional aid, in so far as it was applied to investments in fixed assets that were eligible under the LIR; (ii) the accumulated aid intensity remained below the 50 % ceiling for the Asturias region applicable at the time.
Na tej podlagi je pomoč mogoče razglasiti za združljivo, ker: (i) pomeni regionalno pomoč, kolikor je bila uporabljena za investicije v osnovna sredstva, ki so izpolnjevale pogoje v skladu z LIR; (ii) je skupna intenzivnost pomoči ostala pod 50-odstotnim pragom za asturijsko regijo, ki je veljal takrat.
Measure 4: subsidy of EUR 6710000 from ‘different public bodies’ for the enlargement of the same Asturias plant (1999-2003)
Ukrep 4: subvencija v znesku 6710000 EUR od „različnih javnih organov“ za širitev istega obrata v Asturiji (1999–2003)
The Commission approved the LIR scheme by decision of 1 September 1987.
Komisija je odobrila shemo LIR z odločbo z dne 1. septembra 1987.
Therefore, the EUR 2550000 subsidy granted to Chupa Chups under this regional aid scheme constitutes compatible aid.
Zato subvencija v znesku 2550000 EUR, odobrena Chupa Chupsu po tej shemi regionalne pomoči, pomeni združljivo pomoč.
As regards the EUR 1980000 subsidy received by Chupa Chups in 1999 under ‘Minería 1’, the Commission notes that this programme is not an approved aid scheme.
Glede subvencije v znesku 1980000 EUR, ki jo je Chupa Chups prejel leta 1999 v skladu z „Minerío 1“, Komisija ugotavlja, da ta program ni odobrena shema pomoči.
However, after an individual assessment of the measure, the Commission concludes that the subsidy at hand constitutes compatible regional aid according to the 1998 Commission’s Guidelines on national regional aid (1998 RAG) [27].
Vendar pa Komisija po individualni presoji ukrepa sklepa, da zadevna subvencija pomeni združljivo regionalno pomoč v skladu s Smernicami Komisije o nacionalni regionalni pomoči iz leta 1998 (1998 RAG) [27].
In particular, Spain has provided evidence that the aid was limited to the initial investment, that eligible costs were among those considered in the 1998 RAG, that the intensity of the aid respected the regional ceilings applicable in Asturias at the time, that accumulation rules were respected, that at least 25 % of the investment was financed with the beneficiary’s own resources, and that the investment was kept more than five years after the date the aid was granted.
Španija je predvsem zagotovila dokaze, da je bila pomoč omejena na začetno investicijo, da so bili upravičeni stroški med tistimi, ki so obravnavani v 1998 RAG, da je intenzivnost pomoči upoštevala regionalne zgornje meje, ki so takrat veljale v Asturiji, da so bila izpolnjena pravila o akumulaciji, da je upravičenec vsaj 25 % investicije financiral z lastnimi sredstvi in da se je investicija obdržala več kot 5 let po datumu dodelitve pomoči.
Concerning the EUR 800000 in regional aid granted in 2003 under ‘Minería 2’, the Commission notes that ‘Minería 2’ is an approved aid scheme [28].
Glede regionalne pomoči v znesku 800000 EUR, ki je bila odobrena leta 2003 v skladu z „Minerío 2“, Komisija ugotavlja, da je „Minería 2“ odobrena shema pomoči [28].
However, the Commission letter approving the scheme makes clear that it must not apply to companies in difficulties.
Vendar pa dopis Komisije, ki odobrava shemo, jasno navaja, da se ne sme uporabljati za podjetja v težavah.
The Commission notes that further to the heavy losses incurred in 2002 [29] and its performance during 2003 [30], Chupa Chups had to be regarded as a company in difficulties [31] at the time the aid was granted.
Komisija še ugotavlja, da je bilo treba po hudih izgubah v letu 2002 [29] in rezultatih med letom 2003 [30] Chupa Chups v času odobritve pomoči obravnavati kot podjetje v težavah [31].
Therefore, Chupa Chups was not eligible for this aid.
Zato Chupa Chups ni izpolnjeval pogojev za to pomoč.
The Spanish authorities have stated that this aid has not yet been paid out.
Španski organi so navedli, da ta pomoč še ni bila izplačana.
Regarding the two subsidies granted under Decree 41/2000, the Commission notes that the latter decree was approved by decision of 30 May 2000, that in 2000 and 2002 (when the subsidies were granted) Chupa Chups was still eligible for regional aid, and that the regional aid ceilings for Asturias were respected.
Glede dveh subvencij, odobrenih po Odredbi 41/2000, Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila zadnja odredba odobrena z odločbo z dne 30. maja 2000, da je v letih 2000 in 2002 (ko sta bili subvenciji odobreni) Chupa Chups še vedno izpolnjeval pogoje za regionalno pomoč ter da so bile spoštovane regionalne zgornje meje pomoči za Asturijo.
Therefore, the two subsidies in question constitute compatible regional aid.
Zato zadevni subvenciji pomenita združljivo regionalno pomoč.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that of the subsidies encompassed by Measure 4, EUR 5910000 constitute compatible regional aid and EUR 800000 constitute incompatible aid.
Komisija zaključuje z mnenjem, da gre pri subvencijah, ki jih zajema ukrep 4, pri 5910000 EUR za združljivo, pri 800000 EUR pa za nezdružljivo regionalno pomoč.
The latter has not yet been paid out by the Spanish authorities.
Španski organi zadnje še niso izplačali.
Measure 5: interest-free credit of EUR 2800000 granted by the Spanish ‘Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología’ in 2004
Ukrep 5: brezobrestno posojilo v znesku 2800000 EUR, ki ga je špansko ministrstvo za znanost in tehnologijo (Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología) dodelilo leta 2004
The Spanish authorities have provided evidence that Measure 5 was granted under the existing aid scheme ‘Actividades del Centro para el Desarrollo Industrial – CDTI – Desarrollo Tecnológico’.
Španski organi so predložili dokaze, je bil ukrep 5 odobren v skladu z obstoječo shemo pomoči „Actividades del Centro para el Desarrollo Industrial – CDTI – Desarrollo Tecnológico“.
Therefore, it constitutes compatible State aid.
Zato gre za združljivo državno pomoč.
Measure 6: subsidy of EUR 100000 from ICEX further to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000
Ukrep 6: subvencija v znesku 100000 EUR od ICEX po Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 1159/2000
The Commission notes that Regulation 1159/2000 concerns information on publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds and does not provide any legal basis for the granting of the aid.
Komisija ugotavlja, da Uredba (ES) št. 1159/2000 zadeva ukrepe za obveščanje javnosti, ki jih morajo izvesti države članice glede pomoči strukturnih skladov, in ne zagotavlja nobene pravne podlage za odobritev pomoči.
Despite the Commission’s request in that regard, Spain has not justified in any other manner the compatibility of this subsidy.
Kljub zahtevku Komisije Španija glede tega še na noben drug način ni utemeljila združljivosti te subvencije.
In particular, Spain has not submitted any evidence that State aid in the context of the ICEX programme ‘Plan de Marcas Españolas’ constitutes an existing aid scheme.
Španija predvsem ni predložila nobenega dokaza, da državna pomoč v okviru programa ICEX „Plan de Marcas Españolas“ pomeni obstoječo shemo pomoči.
In the absence of information proving the opposite, the Commission finds that none of the exceptions laid down in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty is applicable to the subsidy, and therefore concludes that the aid has to be considered incompatible.
Ob odsotnosti informacij, ki bi dokazovale nasprotno, Komisija ugotavlja, da za subvencijo ne velja nobena od izjem, določenih v členu 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe, in zato zaključuje, da je treba to pomoč obravnavati kot nezdružljivo.
The Commission finds that:
Komisija ugotavlja naslednje:
Measures 1, 7, 8, and the financing of EUR 1590000 within Measure 6 do not constitute State aid;
ukrepi 1, 7 in 8 ter sredstva v znesku 1590000 EUR v ukrepu 6 ne pomenijo državne pomoči;
Measures 2, 3, 5, and EUR 5910000 within Measure 4 can be declared compatible with the common market;
ukrepe 2, 3 in 5 ter sredstva v znesku 5910000 EUR v ukrepu 4 je mogoče razglasiti za združljive s skupnim trgom;
the financing of EUR 800000 in Measure 4 and EUR 100000 in Measure 6 constitute State aid that cannot be declared compatible with the common market under any derogation in the EC Treaty.
sredstva v znesku 800000 EUR v ukrepu 4 in 100000 EUR v ukrepu 6 pomenijo državno pomoč in jih ni mogoče razglasiti za združljiva s skupnim trgom pod nobenim odstopanjem v Pogodbi ES.
According to the Spanish authorities, the EUR 800000 in Measure 4 have not been paid out, and therefore there is only need for recovery of the EUR 100000 in Measure 6,
Po navedbah španskih organov 800000 EUR iz ukrepa 4 ni bilo izplačanih, torej je treba izterjati le 100000 EUR iz ukrepa 6 –
The State aid amounting to EUR 100000, unlawfully granted by Spain in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, in favour of Chupa Chups is incompatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč v znesku 100000 EUR, ki jo je Španija ob kršenju člena 88(3) Pogodbe odobrila v korist Chupa Chupsa, je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
The State aid which Spain is planning to implement for Chupa Chups, amounting to EUR 800000, is incompatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč, ki jo Španija načrtuje izvršiti za Chupa Chups, v znesku 800000 EUR, je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
This part of the aid may accordingly not be implemented.
Ta del pomoči se temu primerno ne sme izvršiti.
The remaining State aid which Spain has implemented in favour of Chupa Chups, comprising a subsidy of EUR 1580000 in support of investments in the Barcelona plant, a subsidy of EUR 4330000 supporting the building of the Asturias plant, a subsidy of EUR 5910000 for the enlargement of the same Asturias plant, plus an interest-free credit of EUR 2800000, is compatible with the common market.
Preostala državna pomoč, ki jo je Španija izvršila v korist Chupa Chupsa in vključuje subvencijo v znesku 1580000 EUR v podporo investicijam v barcelonskem obratu, subvencijo v znesku 4330000 EUR v podporo izgradnji asturijskega obrata, subvencijo v znesku 5910000 EUR za širitev istega asturijskega obrata, plus brezobrestno posojilo v znesku 2800000 EUR, je združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Out of these amounts, EUR 6640000 (corresponding to EUR 730000 supporting the building of the Asturias plant plus EUR 5910000 for the enlargement of that plant), and the interest-free credit of EUR 2800000 are compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, whereas EUR 5180000 (corresponding to a EUR 1580000 subsidy in support of investments in the Barcelona plant plus EUR 3600000 supporting the building of the Asturias plant) are considered as existing aid since the limitation period has expired.
Od teh zneskov je 6640000 EUR (kar ustreza 730000 EUR v podporo gradnji asturijskega obrata, plus 5910000 EUR za širitev istega obrata) in brezobrestno posojilo v znesku 2800000 EUR združljivih s skupnim trgom po členu 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, medtem ko 5180000 EUR (kar ustreza subvenciji v znesku 1580000 EUR v podporo investicijam v barcelonskem obratu, plus 3600000 EUR v podporo izgradnji asturijskega obrata) velja za obstoječo pomoč, ker se je iztekel zastaralni rok.
The remaining measures described in the present decision in favour of Chupa Chups, namely a EUR 35000000 credit from ICF, EUR 1590000 export refunds from EAGGF, the endorsement by the Asturias regional government of a commercial loan of EUR 4480000 and the deferments of taxes granted by the Spanish tax agency do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Preostali ukrepi, opisani v tej odločbi v korist Chupa Chupsu, in sicer posojilo ICF v znesku 35000000 EUR, izvozna nadomestila EKUJS v znesku 1590000 EUR, odobritev komercialnega posojila v znesku 4480000 EUR s strani asturijske regionalne vlade in odlogi plačil, ki jih je odobrila španska davčna uprava, ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Spain shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1(1) from the beneficiary.
Španija od upravičenca izterja pomoč, navedeno v členu 1(1).
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.
Zneski, ki jih je treba izterjati, vključujejo obresti od datuma, ko so bili dani na voljo upravičencu, do njihove dejanske povrnitve.
The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [32].
Obresti se izračunajo ob uporabi obrestno obrestnega izračuna v skladu s Poglavjem V Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 [32].
Spain shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 1(1) with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.
Španija prekliče vsa neizvedena plačila pomoči, navedene v členu 1(1), z začetkom veljavnosti na datum sprejetja te odločbe.
Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1(1) shall be immediate and effective.
Pomoč iz člena 1(1) mora biti povrnjena takoj in učinkovito.
Spain shall implement this Decision within four months following the date of its notification.
Španija izvrši to odločbo v štirih mesecih od datuma, ko je bila o njej uradno obveščena.
Within two months following notification of this Decision, Spain shall submit the following information to the Commission:
Španija v dveh mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tej odločbi predloži Komisiji naslednje informacije:
the total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;
skupni znesek (glavnico in obresti izterjave), ki ga je treba izterjati od upravičenca;