natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, the Dutch authorities do not consider it necessary to comment these observations.
Zato nizozemski organi menijo, da teh pripomb ni treba komentirati.
The Dutch authorities also do not provide comments on the observations by third parties on the compatibility of any State aid contained in the measure as according to the authorities, a compatibility assessment is not necessary in the current case as no State aid is involved in the measure.
Nizozemski organi prav tako ne prilagajo nobenih pripomb glede ugotovitev tretjih strank o združljivosti kakršne koli državne pomoči, ki jo zajema ukrep, saj po mnenju teh organov ocena združljivosti v obravnavanem primeru ni potrebna, saj ukrep ne vključuje nobene državne pomoči.
STATE AID ASSESSMENT
OCENA DRŽAVNE POMOČI
The Commission has examined whether the measure can be qualified as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, which provides that ‘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 je proučila, ali bi se ukrep lahko štel za državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, ki določa, da „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“.
It follows that in order for a measure to be qualified as State aid, the following cumulative conditions have to be met: 1) the measure has to be granted out of State resources and be imputable to the State, 2) it has to confer an economic advantage to undertakings, 3) the advantage has to be selective and distort or threaten to distort competition, 4) the measure has to affect intra-Community trade.
Iz tega sledi, da morajo biti izpolnjeni naslednji kumulativni pogoji, če naj bi se ukrep štel za državno pomoč: 1) ukrep mora biti odobren iz državnih sredstev in pripisan državi; 2) zagotavljati mora gospodarsko prednost podjetjem; 3) prednost mora biti selektivna in mora izkrivljati konkurenco ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco; 4) ukrep mora vplivati na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti.
When assessing the measure, the market context has to be taken into account: the electronic communications sector has been fully liberalized several years ago in Europe.
Pri ocenjevanju ukrepa je treba upoštevati tudi okoliščine trga: sektor elektronskih komunikacij je bil pred več leti v Evropi popolnoma liberaliziran.
In particular, investments in broadband networks in so-called ‘black areas’ where different broadband services are offered over at least two competing infrastructures (such as telephone and cable TV networks) [57] are primarily driven by private companies.
Naložbe v širokopasovna omrežja na tako imenovanih „črnih območjih“, kjer so različne širokopasovne storitve ponujene prek vsaj dveh konkurenčnih infrastruktur (kot sta telefonsko omrežje in omrežje kabelske televizije) [57], spodbujajo predvsem zasebne družbe.
The Commission’s policy in this field is to be stricter with regard to projects involving public funds in such areas because of the distortive effect on the business of private operators [58].
Politika Komisije na tem področju je biti strožji glede projektov, ki na takih območjih vključujejo javna sredstva, zaradi preprečevanja učinka izkrivljanja poslovanja zasebnih operaterjev [58].
First, it has to be assessed whether the measure is granted directly or indirectly through State resources and imputable to the State [59].
Prvič, oceniti je treba, ali je ukrep neposredno ali posredno odobren iz državnih sredstev in ga je mogoče pripisati državi [59].
The Dutch authorities have not contested the existence of State resources.
Nizozemski organi niso izpodbijali obstoja državnih sredstev.
Market Economy Investor Principle
Načelo vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji
For the purpose of establishing whether a financial investment by the State in an undertaking involves an advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, the Commission applies the MEIP in line with the relevant case law of the Court.
Zaradi ugotavljanja, ali finančna naložba države v podjetje vključuje prednosti v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, Komisija uporablja načelo vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji v skladu z veljavno sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti.
Pursuant to that principle, a transaction does not involve State aid if it takes place at the same time and under the same terms and conditions that would be acceptable to a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions [61].
Po tem načelu transakcija ne vključuje državne pomoči, če se izvede hkrati in pod enakimi pogoji, kot bi bili sprejemljivi za zasebnega vlagatelja, ki posluje pod običajnimi pogoji tržnega gospodarstva [61].
According to established case law, capital placed by the state, directly or indirectly, at the disposal of an undertaking in circumstances which correspond to normal market conditions cannot be regarded as State aid.
V skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso kapital, ki ga država neposredno ali posredno da na voljo podjetju v okoliščinah, ki ustrezajo običajnim tržnim pogojem, ne velja za državno pomoč.
However, if the investment by a public investor disregards any prospect of profitability, even in the long term, such an injection must be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty [62].
Če pa naložba javnega vlagatelja niti dolgoročno ne upošteva nobenih pričakovanj glede dobičkonosnosti, mora takšna injekcija veljati za državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES [62].
On this basis, a capital contribution from public funds must be regarded as satisfying the market economy investor test and not constituting State aid if, inter alia, it was made at the same time as a significant capital contribution on the part of a private investor made in comparable circumstances (the ‘concomitance’ test) [63].
Na tej podlagi za kapitalski vložek iz javnih sredstev velja, da je opravil preskus vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji in ne pomeni državne pomoči, če je bil med drugim izveden hkrati s precejšnjim kapitalskim vložkom zasebnega vlagatelja, izvedenim v primerljivih okoliščinah (preskus „hkratnosti“) [63].
In the present case, the investment by the municipality of Amsterdam was made jointly with two private investors, namely ING RE and Reggefiber.
V obravnavani zadevi je bila naložba mestne občine Amsterdam izvedena skupaj z naložbama dveh zasebnih vlagateljev, družb ING RE in Reggefiber.
The Commission will therefore first examine whether the investment of the municipality of Amsterdam fulfils the market economy investor test due to the fact that it was made concomitantly with a significant private investment.
Zato bo Komisija najprej proučila, ali naložba mestne občine Amsterdam prestane preskus vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji, saj je bila izvedena hkrati s precejšnjo zasebno naložbo.
For this purpose, the Commission will examine the following criteria:
Zato bo Komisija proučila naslednja merila:
First, it has to be identified whether these investors are market investors and whether the investments by the private investors have real economic significance.
Prvič, ugotoviti je treba, ali so ti vlagatelji tržni vlagatelji in ali imajo naložbe zasebnih vlagateljev dejanski gospodarski pomen.
Such significance should be assessed in absolute terms (a significant portion of the total investment) and in relation to the financial strength of the private investor concerned.
Tak pomen je treba oceniti v absolutnem smislu (precejšen delež skupne naložbe) in v povezavi s finančno močjo zadevnega zasebnega vlagatelja.
Second, it has to be assessed whether the investment by all parties concerned take place at the same time (‘concomitance’).
Drugič, oceniti je treba, ali so vse zadevne stranke izvedle naložbo hkrati („hkratnost“).
Third, it has to be identified whether the terms and conditions of the investment are identical for all shareholders.
Tretjič, ugotoviti je treba, ali so pogoji naložbe enaki za vse delničarje.
Fourth, in cases where the State, other investors or the beneficiary have other relationships outside this investment (for example through a side-letter, providing for a guarantee by the State), there may exist grounds to doubt whether such equivalence in the mere investment terms suffices [64].
Četrtič, v primerih, ko imajo država, drugi vlagatelji ali upravičenci zunaj te naložbe druge odnose (na primer prek ločenega sporazuma, ki predvideva jamstvo države), lahko obstajajo razlogi za dvom, ali taka enakovrednost v samih naložbenih pogojih zadošča [64].
Subsequently, and at a subsidiary level, the Commission will also examine GNA’s business plan, in particular in view of the claims of the complainant Liberty Global/UPC and other interested parties, which argued that there is no feasible business case for the network built by GNA.
Posledično in na podporni ravni bo Komisija proučila tudi poslovni načrt podjetja GNA, predvsem z vidika trditev pritožnika Liberty Global/UPC in drugih zainteresiranih strank, ki so trdili, da omrežje, ki ga je zgradilo podjetje GNA, ni ekonomsko upravičeno.
Assessment of the measure in light of the MEIP
Ocena ukrepa glede na načelo vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji
Significant participation by private investors
Precejšnja udeležba zasebnih vlagateljev
As the Commission acknowledged in the opening decision [65], both ING RE and Reggefiber can be considered without any doubt as ‘private investors’ [66].
Kot je Komisija potrdila v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka [65], lahko družbi ING RE in Reggefiber brez kakršnega koli dvoma veljata za „zasebni vlagateljici“ [66].
Additionally, both companies’ business interests are coherent with the project carried out by GNA: ING RE is active in the real estate business and infrastructure type of investments and Reggefiber is engaged in several fibre network projects in the Netherlands.
Poleg tega so poslovni interesi obeh družb skladni s projektom, ki ga izvaja GNA: ING RE posluje na področju nepremičnin in naložb infrastrukturnega tipa, Reggefiber pa je udeležen v več projektih optičnih omrežij na Nizozemskem.
The Commission also notes that the two different private operators can bring different types of expertise in order to contribute to the successfulness of the project.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da lahko obe zasebni vlagateljici prispevata različne vrste strokovnega znanja in izkušenj ter tako pripomoreta k uspešnosti projekta.
In absolute terms, the two private investors both invest a substantial amount (EUR 3 million, respectively) in the partnership GNA.
V absolutnem smislu obe zasebni vlagateljici vlagata v partnerstvo GNA precejšen znesek (vsaka po 3 milijone EUR).
If an investment of EUR 3 million, compared to the financial strength of both ING RE and Reggefiber, could be considered in relative terms to the size of the investors to be a small investment, such an investment is certainly significant in relative terms to the overall capitalisation of GNA and the capital contribution of the municipality of Amsterdam.
Čeprav lahko naložba v znesku 3 milijonov EUR relativno velja za majhno naložbo glede na finančno moč družb ING RE in Reggefiber, pa je taka naložba vsekakor precejšnja glede na splošno kapitalsko strukturo podjetja GNA in kapitalski vložek mestne občine Amsterdam.
Together the two private investors take up one third of the total equity.
Obe zasebni vlagateljici skupaj prispevata tretjino celotnega lastniškega kapitala.
In the context of this project, this stake — while not giving the two companies outright control of GNA — is a significant portion of the overall investment.
V tem projektu je ta delež precejšen del skupne naložbe, čeprav družbama ne omogoča neposrednega obvladovanja podjetja GNA.
To this end, the Commission observes that both ING RE and Reggefiber are major shareholders of GNA.
Zato Komisija meni, da sta družbi ING RE in Reggefiber veliki delničarki podjetja GNA.
Indeed, the largest single shareholder (the Amsterdam municipality) owns 33 % of the equity of GNA.
Največji posamični delničar (mestna občina Amsterdam) ima v lasti 33 % lastniškega kapitala podjetja GNA.
Each ING RE and Reggefiber have a stake equal to half of that of the largest single shareholder; if combined, they hold the same stake as the municipality.
ING RE in Reggefiber imata v lasti delež, ki pri vsaki od njiju znaša polovico deleža največjega posamičnega delničarja; če ta dva deleža združimo, imata obe družbi skupaj v lasti enak delež kot mestna občina.
The remaining shareholders in the venture, the five housing corporations, hold singularly smaller stakes than ING RE and Reggefiber.
Preostali delničarji v skupni naložbi, tj. pet korporacij za upravljanje družbenih stanovanj, imajo v lasti manjši delež kot ING RE in Reggefiber.
It follows that within GNA there is no single shareholder capable of exerting majority control over the company.
Iz tega sledi, da v podjetju GNA ni posamičnega delničarja, ki bi lahko izvajal večinski nadzor nad družbo.
Moreover, the two private investors can be singularly, and even more if taken together, pivotal in forming a controlling majority within GNA [67].
Poleg tega sta navedeni zasebni vlagateljici posamično, sploh pa skupaj lahko ključni pri oblikovanju nadzorne večine v podjetju GNA [67].
The Commission also notes that according to Dutch corporate law, one third of the shares are sufficient to form a blocking minority regarding any important decision of GNA.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da po nizozemskem korporacijskem pravu zadošča tretjina delnic, da se oblikuje manjšina, ki lahko blokira vsako pomembno odločitev, sprejeto v podjetju GNA.
Therefore, the two private investors can jointly form a blocking minority within the company.
Navedeni zasebni vlagateljici lahko torej skupaj oblikujeta manjšino, ki lahko prepreči sprejetje odločitve v družbi.
To conclude, both ING RE and Reggefiber are market investors and their investments have real economic significance both in absolute and relative terms if seen in the context of the shareholding structure of GNA.
Družbi ING RE in Reggefiber sta torej tržni vlagateljici in njune naložbe imajo v strukturi delničarjev podjetja GNA dejanski gospodarski pomen v absolutnem in relativnem smislu.
Concomitance
Hkratnost
In the opening decision [68], the Commission acknowledged that the municipality invested de jure at the same time as the private investors in the partnership GNA, but expressed some preliminary doubts about the de facto concomitance of the investments of all GNA shareholders, as the municipality had already undertaken initiatives and investments before a final agreement with all other investors was concluded.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka [68] je Komisija potrdila, da je mestna občina s pravnega stališča vlagala v partnerstvo GNA hkrati z zasebnimi vlagatelji, izrazila pa je nekaj predhodnih dvomov o dejanski hkratnosti naložb vseh delničarjev podjetja GNA, saj se je mestna občina lotila pobud in naložb še pred sklenitvijo končnega sporazuma z vsemi drugimi vlagatelji.
The Commission noted that the municipality commissioned several studies in 2003 and 2004 to prepare the project.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je mestna občina v letih 2003 in 2004 naročila več študij za pripravo projekta.
Furthermore, the municipality took initiatives which seem to go beyond these preliminary steps.
Poleg tega je mestna občina prevzela pobude, za katere je videti, da presegajo te predhodne korake.
Despite the absence of a firm commitment by private investors, the municipality published and organised tenders and even negotiated contracts for the construction and the exploitation of the network.
Kljub odsotnosti trdne zaveze zasebnih vlagateljev je mestna občina objavila in organizirala javne razpise ter se celo pogajala o pogodbi za izgradnjo in izkoriščanje omrežja.
In addition, the municipality of Amsterdam financed certain digging activities and purchased software for the construction of the network.
Poleg tega je mestna občina Amsterdam financirala nekatere izkopne dejavnosti in kupila programsko opremo za izgradnjo omrežja.
In this respect, the Dutch authorities provided further information (audited by Deloitte) on the pre-investments and on their reimbursement of the pre-investments after the opening of the formal investigation. According to the Deloitte audit report, the commonly earmarked funding of the GNA shareholders amounted to EUR […] out of the total pre-investments of EUR […].
Glede tega so nizozemski organi po sprožitvi formalne preiskave predložili nadaljnje informacije (ki jih je revidirala družba Deloitte) o predhodnih naložbah in povrnitvi predhodnih naložb.
The remaining EUR […] were initially financed by the municipality only [69].
Po navedbah revizijskega poročila družbe Deloitte so sredstva, ki so jih skupaj zagotovili delničarji podjetja GNA, znašala […] EUR od celotnega zneska predhodnih naložb […] EUR. Preostalih […] EUR je prvotno prispevala mestna občina sama [69].
The new information received during the formal investigation enabled the Commission to establish the following facts: First, a substantial part of the activities and pre-investments (EUR […]) was explicitly agreed in the ‘Letters of Intent’ signed by the prospective shareholders of GNA and co-financed by all of them proportionally to their stake even before the establishment of the company, as all partners in the venture considered necessary to undertake individually and separately certain steps prior to GNA’s incorporation.
Nove informacije, prejete med formalno preiskavo, so Komisiji omogočile ugotovitev naslednjih dejstev: prvič, precejšen del dejavnosti in predhodnih naložb ([…] EUR) je bil izrecno dogovorjen v „pismih o nameri“, ki so jih podpisali prihodnji delničarji podjetja GNA, in so ga delničarji tudi financirali sorazmerno s svojim deležem še pred ustanovitvijo podjetja, saj so vsi partnerji v skupni naložbi menili, da morajo enakovredno prispevati k pokritju pripravljalnih stroškov podjetja GNA.
Second, all pre-investments (including EUR […] earmarked only by the Amsterdam municipality) were included in the business plan on which the investment was based and hence were agreed between all shareholders of GNA.
Drugič, vse predhodne naložbe (vključno z […] EUR, ki jih je predhodno financirala mestna občina Amsterdam sama) so bile vključene v poslovni načrt, na katerem je naložba temeljila. O tem je bil torej dosežen sporazum vseh delničarjev podjetja GNA.
Thus, all partners in the venture considered those pre-investments as useful steps prior to the establishment of GNA.
Tako so vsi partnerji v skupni naložbi obravnavali te predhodne naložbe kot koristne korake pred ustanovitvijo podjetja GNA.
According to the Dutch authorities, there was agreement among all shareholders that the portion initially financed by the municipality would be reimbursed by GNA.
Po navedbah nizozemskih organov so se vsi delničarji dogovorili, da bo podjetje GNA povrnilo delež, ki ga je prvotno financirala mestna občina.
In other words, the municipality’s conduct did not pre-empt or influence the behaviour of the other market investors.
Z drugimi besedami, ravnanje mestne občine ni vnaprej pogojevalo ravnanja drugih tržnih vlagateljev oziroma ni vplivalo nanj.
On the basis of the above, the Commission considers that the fact that the municipality of Amsterdam did carry out some limited pre-investments prior to the formal setup of GNA does not call into question the fulfilment of the MEIP given that there was agreement among all shareholders that the municipality of Amsterdam would have to be reimbursed for these pre-investments.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da dejstvo, da je mestna občina Amsterdam izvedla nekatere predhodne naložbe pred uradno ustanovitvijo podjetja GNA, ne postavlja pod vprašaj spoštovanja načela vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji, saj je obstajal sporazum med vsemi delničarji, da bodo mestni občini Amsterdam te predhodne naložbe povrnjene.
In the opening decision [70], the Commission expressed preliminary doubts whether the terms and conditions of the investment for all shareholders were identical.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka [70] je Komisija izrazila predhodne dvome o tem, ali so bili pogoji naložbe enaki za vse delničarje.
More specifically, the Commission expressed its doubts that the pre-investments undertaken by the municipality of Amsterdam might have absorbed or mitigated some start-up risks associated with the project for other investing parties.
Povedano natančneje, Komisija je izrazila dvome, da so predhodne naložbe mestne občine Amsterdam morda odstranile nekatera tveganja v začetni fazi poslovanja, ki bi jih bile v povezavi s projektom deležne druge naložbene stranke.
These preliminary doubts derived from the fact that, although the Commission had requested several times a complete overview of the pre-investment costs [71], and the Dutch authorities submitted some information on the settlements between Amsterdam, GNA and its shareholders in this respect, this did not fully clarify all ‘pre-financing’ activities by the municipality including the amounts actually spent by the municipality of Amsterdam.
Ti predhodni dvomi izhajajo iz dejstva, da čeprav je Komisija večkrat zaprosila za celovit pregled nad stroški predhodnih naložb [71] in so nizozemski organi v zvezi s tem predložili nekaj informacij o dogovorih med mestno občino, podjetjem GNA in njegovimi delničarji, to ni v celoti pojasnilo vseh dejavnosti „predhodnega financiranja“ mestne občine, vključno z zneski, ki jih je mestna občina Amsterdam dejansko porabila.
Based on the submissions by the Dutch authorities at the moment the formal investigation was initiated, the Commission was not in a position to calculate or verify the total amount of these ‘pre-investments’ which the Commission estimated to be in the magnitude of EUR 1,5 million. Furthermore, it was not fully clear to the Commission how those costs were shared between the shareholders and included in the business plan of GNA.
Na podlagi predloženih dokumentov nizozemskih organov ob sprožitvi formalne preiskave Komisija ni mogla izračunati ali preveriti skupnega zneska teh „predhodnih naložb“, ki ga je Komisija ocenjevala na 1,5 milijona EUR. Poleg tega Komisiji ni bilo popolnoma jasno, kako so bili ti stroški razdeljeni med delničarji in vključeni v poslovni načrt podjetja GNA.
In particular, the Commission feared that the ‘pre-financing’ by the municipality — partly without the explicit agreement of some of the other investors — might have reduced the investment risk of the other investors in GNA and could have had a positive impact on their willingness to invest in GNA.
Komisijo je predvsem skrbelo, da bi „predhodno financiranje“ mestne občine – deloma brez izrecnega dogovora z nekaterimi drugimi vlagatelji – lahko zmanjšalo naložbeno tveganje drugih vlagateljev v podjetje GNA in pozitivno vplivalo na njihovo pripravljenost za naložbo v podjetje GNA.
The information submitted by the Dutch authorities following the opening of the formal investigation allayed these preliminary doubts.
Informacije, ki so jih nizozemski organi predložili po sprožitvi formalne preiskave, so pomirili te predhodne dvome.