natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Following the formal investigation procedure and in the light of the arguments presented in that respect by the French authorities and interested parties, the Commission considers that the tax benefits granted in relation to the construction and operation of Le Levant constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, according to which ‘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 shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
Komisija po uvedbi formalnega postopka preiskave in ob upoštevanju argumentov, ki so jih predstavili francoski organi in zainteresirane stranke, ocenjuje, da so davčne olajšave v zvezi z gradnjo in obratovanjem potniške ladje Le Levant, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe, po katerem „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 classification of a national measure as State aid presupposes that the following cumulative conditions are met: (1) the measure in question confers an advantage through State resources; (2) the advantage is selective, i.e. it favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods; and (3) the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition and is capable of affecting trade between Member States [18].
Da bi nacionalni ukrep veljal za državno pomoč, morajo biti izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji: (1) zadevni ukrep s pomočjo državnih sredstev daje prednost, (2) ta prednost je selektivna, kar pomeni, da daje prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, in (3) ukrep izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco in lahko prizadene trgovino med državami članicami [18].
It is necessary to explain the reasons why it is considered that the tax measures adopted in relation to the construction of Le Levant satisfy these conditions.
Navesti je treba razloge, na podlagi katerih sprejeti davčni ukrepi, povezani z gradnjo potniške ladje Le Levant, izpolnjujejo te pogoje.
The existence of an advantage conferred through State resources
Obstoj prednosti zaradi dodeljenih državnih sredstev
The provisions of the Loi Pons applied to the contested financial package are a derogation from the general tax legislation and, because they allow a larger than usual deduction, confer an advantage on the taxpayers to which they relate.
Določbe Loi Pons, ki se uporabljajo za zadevni paket, pomenijo odstopanje od splošne davčne zakonodaje, in ker omogočajo odbitke, večje od običajnih, dajejo prednosti davčnim zavezancem, za katere se uporabljajo.
By conferring that advantage, France is foregoing tax revenues and its resources are consequently diminished.
V skladu s to prednostjo se Francija odpoveduje davčnim prihodkom, s čimer se zmanjšujejo njena sredstva.
The aid is thus granted through State resources.
Prednost je torej dana s pomočjo državnih sredstev.
The instrument conferring that advantage is the budget minister’s approval decision of 23 November 1996.
Akt, ki dodeljuje to prednost, je odločba o soglasju ministra za proračun z dne 23. novembra 1996.
Pursuant to the approval, the benefit of Article 238a HA IIIb and c CGI is granted to the ‘joint-ownership of the vessel Le Levant’.
V skladu s soglasjem se korist člena 238a HA IIIb in c CGI dodeljuje „pomorskemu solastništvu potniške ladje Le Levant“.
However, the earnings of the joint-ownership vehicle are liable to tax in the hands of the joint-ownership companies that form it and it is to these companies that the possibility of deducting the amount for the purchase of the shares (granted on the basis of Article 238a HA I CGI) relates.
Prihodki iz naslova solastništva so obdavčljivi na ravni solastniških družb, ki to lastništvo sestavljajo, in na te družbe se nanaša možnost odbitka zneska nakupa solastniških deležev (ki so jim bili dodeljeni na podlagi člena 238a HA I CGI) od svojih davčnih rezultatov.
The derogation from Article 156(1a) CGI granted on the basis of Article 238a HA IIIc CGI benefits the investors in whose hands the earnings of the joint-ownership companies are subject to tax (income tax) by virtue of the fiscal transparency of the joint-ownership companies.
Odstopanje od člena 156(1a) CGI, dovoljeno na podlagi člena 238a HA IIIc CGI, koristi vlagateljem, katerih prihodki od solastniških deležev se obdavčijo (davek na prihodek) v skladu z davčno preglednostjo njihovih solastniških družb.
The advantages conferred by the approval thus have an immediate financial impact on the investors in the form of tax savings, made possible by the deductions applied under the Loi Pons derogation scheme.
Prednosti, ki jih prinaša soglasje, imajo neposreden finančni učinek na vlagatelje v obliki davčnih prihrankov, ki izhajajo iz odbitkov na podlagi pravil odstopanja iz Loi Pons.
It should however be noted that the tax savings are not simply left at the investors’ disposal but pre-assigned under the terms of the financing package endorsed by the French authorities under the approval decision.
Vendar je treba poudariti, da vlagatelji z davčnimi prihranki ne razpolagajo prosto, saj so v skladu s paketom, ki so ga francoske oblasti odobrile z odločbo o soglasju, porabljeni za vnaprej določen namen.
The investors are in fact obliged, under the terms of the investment to which they have subscribed, to reinvest practically all the tax savings in the joint ownership in the form of capital increases by their respective joint-ownership companies in order to cover the costs of financing the purchase of Le Levant and the losses arising from its operation (see recital 27).
Vlagatelji morajo upoštevati pogoje naložbe, ki so jih podpisali, kar pomeni, da morajo skoraj vse davčne prihranke znova vložiti v solastništvo v obliki povečanja kapitala svojih solastniških družb za pokritje stroškov financiranja potniške ladje Le Levant in izgub njenega obratovanja (glej uvodno izjavo 27).
In order to identify the beneficiaries, a detailed examination is required of the circumstances governing the purchase and operation of Le Levant.
Pri ugotavljanju upravičencev je treba temeljito proučiti pogoje nakupa in obratovanja ladje Le Levant.
Firstly it should be recalled that the objective of the financing package, in accordance with the application for approval lodged by CIP, was ‘the purchase of a cruise vessel’ [19].
Najprej je treba spomniti, da je bil v skladu z vlogo za soglasje, ki jo je vložila družba CIP, cilj paketa „nakup potniške ladje“ [19].
But ‘the CIP does not possess the necessary financial resources to bear the cost of purchasing Le Levant through a traditional source of financing (mortgage)’.
Vendar „družba CIP ne razpolaga s potrebnimi finančnimi sredstvi za nakup potniške ladje Le Levant z običajno obliko financiranja (s hipotekarnim kreditom)“.
CIP therefore proposes to finance its vessel ‘by means of a financial package qualifying for tax assistance for overseas investment’, which will be based on a ‘financing scheme involving the setting-up of a joint-ownership vehicle’.
Družba CIP zato predlaga, da se ladja financira „s pomočjo finančnega paketa, ki je upravičen do davčne pomoči za čezmorske naložbe“, ki temelji na „finančni shemi, katere podlaga je ustanovitev pomorskega solastništva“.
For this purpose the Bank would ‘propose that its clients buy shares in the joint-ownership’ and ‘launch a public offer …’ [20].
Zato bo banka „svojim strankam predlagala, da kupijo solastniške deleže,“ in „začela z javnim razpisom …“ [20].
Clearly the purpose of the package was to allow CIP to purchase a vessel which it would own and the role of the investors recruited from the Bank’s clients was merely to finance the purchase.
Jasno je, da je bil namen paketa, da se družbi CIP omogoči nakup potniške ladje, katere lastnik bi postala, medtem ko je bila vloga vlagateljev, zbranih izmed strank banke, omejena le na financiranje tega nakupa.
The financial package selected for this purpose is one that is very common in the case of tax-free overseas investments [21], i.e. an ‘outsourced’ package, where a company that wishes to acquire an asset but which cannot make that investment from its own funds because of a lack of resources brings in outside investors who purchase the asset and put it at the disposal of the operator, who then uses it, and at the end of the period of operation laid down by law, becomes its owner.
Finančni paket, izbran v ta namen, je zelo pogost v okviru neobdavčenih čezmorskih naložb [21], tj. „zunanji“ dogovor, v katerem družba, ki želi kupiti neko lastnino, vendar zanjo nima dovolj lastnih sredstev, pozove zunanje vlagatelje, da jo kupijo in dajo v uporabo operaterju, ki jo uporablja in ob koncu zakonsko predpisanega obratovalnega obdobja postane njen lastnik.
In packages of this type, the tax benefit is partially transferred to the buyer, while the investor retains another part, thus ensuring a return on his investment.
V tovrstnih paketih se davčna ugodnost delno prenese na naročnika, delno pa na vlagatelja, s čimer si slednji zagotovi donos od naložbe.
The transfer of the benefit to the buyer is carried out normally through a reduction in the rent charged during the operating period (a ‘lease’ package).
Ugodnost se najpogosteje prenese na naročnika z znižanjem najemnine, ki se zaračunava v obratovalnem obdobju („najemni“ paket).
The Commission has already assessed the State aid aspects of such packages in relation to the financing of cruise vessels through the benefits deriving from the Loi Pons in the ‘Club Med’ [22] and ‘Renaissance’ [23] cases.
Komisija je že ocenila vse vidike državne pomoči tovrstnih paketov, ki se nanašajo na financiranje ladij s pomočjo ugodnosti, ki jih prinaša Loi Pons, v zadevah „Club Med“ [22] in „Renaissance“ [23].
The latter case is especially relevant in view of its resemblance to the Le Levant financing operation.
Slednja je še zlasti primerna, saj obravnava zelo podoben postopek financiranja potniške ladje kot v zadevi Le Levant.
Both cases concern investors whose tax situation allows them to take advantage of the tax exemption, who form a joint-ownership and who purchase cruise vessels to be operated overseas for a specific period by an operator (Renaissance or CIL) that makes an undertaking to the investors to buy the vessel at the end of the operating period.
V obeh zadevah gre za vlagatelje, ki jim njihov finančni položaj omogoča, da izkoristijo oprostitev davka, in ki v okviru solastništva kupujejo potniške ladje, ki jih za določeno obdobje v čezmorskih državah in ozemljih upravlja naročnik (družba Renaissance ali CIL), ki se obvezuje, da bo po koncu obdobja obratovanja od njih odkupil ladjo.
In ‘Renaissance’ the vessel was leased to the operator and the investors’ tax concession under the Loi Pons was transferred to him by means of a reduction in the rent using the traditional technique of a leasing package described in recital 77.
V zadevi „Renaissance“ je ladjo najel operater, davčne olajšave, do katerih so bili po Loi Pons upravičeni vlagatelji, pa so se nanj prenesli v obliki znižanja najemnine v skladu s tradicionalnim najemnim paketom, opisanim v uvodni izjavi 77.
The French authorities commented that this package allowed for ‘effective retrocession of the tax aid to the operator’.
Francoski organi so pripomnili, da ta paket omogoča „dejanski prenos davčne pomoči nazaj na operaterja“.
The Commission (which, in the initiating decision, had found that the investors were the ‘immediate beneficiaries’ and the ‘beneficiaries of quantifiable aid’ [24]) noted that ‘RF [Renaissance] is the effective recipient of the aid, and since RF is obliged to buy the vessels, RF can be considered to be the de facto owner’.
Komisija (ki je v svoji odločbi o uvedbi postopka ugotovila, da so vlagatelji „takojšnji upravičenci“ in „upravičenci merljive pomoči“ [24]) je ugotovila, da je „družba RF [Renaissance] dejanski upravičenec pomoči in glede na to, da je zavezana odkupiti ladje, lahko šteje kot njihov dejanski lastnik“.
The Commission therefore made a distinction between the investors, the immediate beneficiaries of the aid, and the ‘effective’ beneficiary (within the meaning of the State aid rules) to whom the tax benefits were partially transferred by means of a rental that was below the vessel’s market value [25].
Komisija je tako razlikovala med vlagatelji, takojšnjimi upravičenci pomoči, in „dejanskimi“ upravičenci (v smislu pravil o državni pomoči), na katere so bile davčne ugodnosti delno prenesene v obliki znižane najemnine, ki je bila pod tržno vrednostjo ladje [25].
In the case of Le Levant, the tax benefits of the investors (the immediate beneficiaries) were transferred to CIL by a different mechanism.
V primeru potniške ladje Le Levant je bil prenos davčnih ugodnosti vlagateljev (takojšnjih upravičencev) na družbo CIL drugačen.
In the ‘Renaissance’ case the investors leased the vessels to the operator whereas, in the present case, CIL formally disposes of the vessel only in its capacity as manager of the joint-ownership vehicle, the formal operator of the vessel in its own right.
V zadevi „Renaissance“ so vlagatelji dajali potniške ladje v najem operaterju, v tej zadevi pa je družba CIL zgolj formalno razpolaga z ladjo kot upravljavec solastništva, ki je formalno dejanski operater ladje.
There is therefore in principle no tenancy relationship that would allow the benefit to be retroceded through a reduction in the rent.
Torej najemno razmerje, ki bi omogočalo prenos ugodnosti nazaj v obliki znižanja najemnine, ne obstaja.
In practice the benefit is transferred to CIL as follows:
Prenos ugodnosti na družbo CIL konkretno poteka na naslednji način.
The cost of acquiring the vessel and its operating losses are reflected in losses in the shareholding EURLs.
Stroški nakupa ladje in izgube njenega obratovanja se kažejo v izgubah solastniških družb EURL.
Thanks to the tax benefits allowed under the Loi Pons, the investors may deduct these losses from their other revenue liable for income tax, thereby obtaining a tax saving which represents the concretisation of their tax benefit and which consists, as such, of State resources within the meaning of Community law.
Vlagatelji lahko s pomočjo davčnih ugodnosti po Loi Pons te izgube odbijejo od svojih drugih obdavčljivih prihodkov in tako dosežejo davčne prihranke, ki so unovčena davčna ugodnost, ki v smislu prava Skupnosti pomeni državna sredstva.
However, rather than keep these tax savings, the investors undertook to use most of them for calls for funds to cover the losses of the EURLs.
Vendar so se vlagatelji zavezali, da davčnih prihrankov ne bodo obdržali, ampak bodo večji del teh prihrankov namenili vpoklicem sredstev za kritje izgub družb EURL.
In the normal process of capitalisation, an investor would make sure of capitalising on his investment (in this case, the vessel) by securing a return on the investment that would cover his purchasing costs and include an adequate profit margin.
Navadno bi vlagatelj poskrbel, da se mu naložba (v tem primeru naložba v ladjo) povrne, da bi pokril stroške nakupa in pridobil ustrezno stopnjo dobička.
In the case of the leasing package in ‘Club Med’ and ‘Renaissance’, this outcome is achieved through the rent paid by the buyer (although the rent is beneficial to the buyer as part of the tax benefit is retroceded to him in the form of a below market-price rent).
V najemnih dogovorih v zadevah „Club Med“ in „Renaissance“ je naročnik s plačilom najemnine dosegel tak učinek (ta najemnina je bila za naročnika ugodna, saj se mu je del davčne ugodnosti povrnil nazaj v obliki najemnine, nižje od tržne cene).
In a normal situation, these costs (e.g. payment of the rent or covering all the losses) would be borne by CIL and not by the investor.
V običajnem scenariju bi stroške (kot so na primer stroški plačila najemnine ali kritje celotnih izgub) prevzela družba CIL in ne vlagatelj.
In the disputed package, these costs are allocated to the EURLs and, by means of the calls for funds, absorbed into the tax savings which are State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
V spodbijanem paketu pa morajo stroške kriti družbe EURL, ki pa se na podlagi vpoklicev sredstev pokrijejo iz davčnih prihrankov, ki so državna sredstva v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
CIL is likewise relieved of the expenses it would normally have had to bear for the operation of the vessel.
Družba CIL prav tako nima stroškov, ki bi jih navadno nosila v zvezi z obratovanjem ladje.
For all the above reasons, the Commission finds that the investors’ benefit is transferred to CIL.
Na podlagi vseh teh razlogov Komisija ocenjuje, da se je ugodnost prenesla z vlagateljev na družbo CIL.
It should nevertheless be said that not all the tax benefit is transferred to CIL.
Treba pa je tudi poudariti, da na družbo CIL ni bila prenesena celotna davčna ugodnost.
Under the terms of the package, the investors keep the tax savings relating to 2003, the last year of operation.
Vlagatelji v skladu s paketom zase obdržijo davčne prihranke, ki jim pripadajo v zadnjem letu obratovanja (2003).
Regardless of this technical difference in the package, the results are no different to those produced by the package in the ‘Renaissance’ case.
Čeprav je princip paketa drugačen, pa se učinki ne razlikujejo od tistih iz zadeve „Renaissance“.
In fact, as in ‘Renaissance’, CIL enjoys the actual benefit of Le Levant as soon as it is delivered, thus anticipating its formal ownership of the vessel, which will take effect only on completion of the package.
Kot v zadevi „Renaissance“ dobi družba CIL možnost uporabe potniške ladje Le Levant v svojo korist od datuma njene dobave, s čimer prevzame formalno lastništvo ladje, ki pa bo veljavno šele ob zaključku dogovora.
Just as in ‘Renaissance’, the vessel is made available to CIL without its having to bear the real cost as no financial contribution is required of it.
Kot v zadevi „Renaissance“ družba CIL ladjo uporablja, ne da bi ji bilo treba kriti dejanskih stroškov, saj se od nje ne zahteva nobeno finančno nadomestilo.
The costs that CIL should normally have borne for the operation of the vessel are thus reduced, which represents an advantage to CIL.
Na ta način so znižani stroški obratovanja, ki bi jih družba CIL sicer morala pokrivati, kar pomeni ugodnost za družbo CIL.
The fact that the investors are able to put the vessel at CIL’s disposal free of charge is due to the tax benefits granted to them under the Loi Pons which enable them, through their EURLs, to deduct from their taxable income both the purchase price of the vessel and the losses of their EURLs, which include the annual capital and interest on the loan granted by the Bank for the purchase of the shares.
Vlagatelji lahko brezplačno oddajo ladjo v uporabo družbi CIL le zaradi davčnih ugodnosti, ki jih prejemajo na podlagi Loi Pons in ki jim prek njihovih družb EURL omogočajo, da od svojih obdavčljivih dohodkov odbijejo nakupno ceno ladje in izgube svojih družb EURL, ki jih sestavljajo zlasti anuitete in obresti na posojilo banke za nakup solastniških deležev.
The deductible profits of the EURL also include their respective shares of Le Levant’s operating profits within the limits guaranteed by CIL.
Dobički, ki jih smejo družbe EURL odbiti, vsebuje tudi njihove deleže pri dobičku od obratovanja potniške ladje Le Levant v okviru omejitev, ki jih jamči družba CIL.
The package and the coverage by the investors of the costs of financing and, in part at least, of operating Le Levant by means of the compulsory calls for funds for the EURLs are intended to ensure that CIL benefits from the advantages granted under the Loi Pons.
Ta paket in kritje stroškov financiranja ter delno stroškov obratovanja ladje Le Levant, ki ga vlagatelji zagotavljajo s pomočjo obveznega vpoklica sredstev za družbe EURL, sta namenjena temu, da lahko družba CIL koristi ugodnosti, ki jih omogoča Loi Pons.
This mechanism for transferring aid was one of the conditions laid down in the application for approval and was, as such, endorsed by the French authorities.
Ta mehanizem za prenos pomoči je bil eden od pogojev, predvidenih v vlogi za soglasje, in so ga francoski organi kot takega potrdili.
This transfer of resources from the investors to the joint-ownership vehicle helps to subsidise the operation of Le Levant by the CIL.
Prenos sredstev vlagateljev v korist solastništva omogoča subvencioniranje obratovanja potniške ladje Le Levant, ki ga opravlja družba CIL.
Without this mechanism, the operation of the vessel by the CIL would not be economically viable.
Brez tega obratovanje ladje s strani družbe CIL ne bi bilo gospodarsko upravičeno.
For the investors, the return from the package is produced at the end of the financing operation through the purchase of their shares and the fact that they can keep the tax savings relating to 2003, the last year of the period of operation (which is not negated by a compulsory call for funds).
Vlagatelji donos od paketa unovčijo ob zaključku postopka financiranja z odprodajo svojih solastniških deležev in s tem, da lahko zase zadržijo davčne prihranke, ki jim pripadajo v zadnjem obratovalnem letu 2003 (ki niso pod hipoteko zaradi vpoklica sredstev).
The State resources (consisting of the investors’ tax savings) are thus split between CIL, to whom practically all the aid is retroceded, and the investors.
Tako se državna sredstva razporedijo (sestavljena so iz davčnih prihrankov vlagateljev) med družbo CIL, na katero je nazaj prenesena skoraj celotna pomoč, in vlagatelje.
The part of the benefit retroceded to CIL consists of the total of the calls for funds to which the investors responded for the EURLs.
Del ugodnosti, ki je prenesen na družbo CIL, je sestavljen iz zneskov vpoklicev sredstev, na katere so se vlagatelji odzvali v korist družb EURL.
CIL’s comment that the Commission has not proved that the aid would allow Le Levant to be operated under more favourable conditions than those available to other operators cannot therefore be accepted.
Pripomba družbe CIL, da Komisija ni dokazala, da bi pomoč omogočila obratovanje potniške ladje Le Levant v ugodnejših razmerah od tistih, ki jih imajo na voljo drugi operaterji, zato ni sprejemljiva.
As regards the price for the sale of Le Levant to CIL in January 2004, according to the Commission’s information, it did not appear to include a concessionary element in favour of CIL.
Po informacijah Komisije naj cena prodaje potniške ladje Le Levant družbi CIL januarja 2004 ne bi vsebovala ugodnosti v korist družbi CIL.
According to CIL, the selling price was estimated by an independent maritime broker as higher than the vessel’s market value.
Pravzaprav je ceno odkupa po besedah družbe CIL oblikoval neodvisni pomorski posrednik in je bila višja od tržne vrednosti ladje.
The Commission has no reason to question the validity of this information.
Komisija ne razpolaga z dokazi, ki bi ovrgli te informacije.
The classification of recipients of State resources as an undertaking
Opredelitev upravičencev do državnih sredstev kot „podjetij“
One further precondition for classifying a measure as State aid is that the advantage conferred favours certain undertakings (or the production of certain goods).
Dodatni pogoj za opredelitev ukrepa kot državno pomoč je, da ugodnost spodbudi določena podjetja (ali določeno proizvodnjo).
According to Article 87(1) of the Treaty, the definition of undertaking covers every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed.
Pojem podjetja v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe zajema vsako podjetje, ki opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost, neodvisno od pravnega statusa tega podjetja in načina, kako se financira.
Any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market is therefore an economic activity [26].
Gospodarska dejavnost pa je vsakršna dejavnost, ki na danem trgu zagotavlja dobrine ali storitve [26].