natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the compatibility of the aid with the common market, the Commission felt that it did not appear to satisfy the conditions applicable to the development assistance referred to in Article 4(7) of Directive 90/684/EEC.
Komisija je glede združljivosti te pomoči s skupnim trgom menila, da ta ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se uporabljajo za razvojno pomoč iz člena 4(7) Direktive 90/684/EGS.
In particular, the Commission expressed doubts regarding the condition that the real owner of the vessel must reside in the territory eligible for development assistance and as to the existence of a real development component.
Komisija je še posebej izrazila dvome glede pogoja, da mora biti dejanski lastnik ladje rezident ozemlja, upravičenega do razvojne pomoči, in glede obstoja dejanskega „razvojnega elementa“.
The Commission therefore initiated a formal investigation procedure.
Komisija je posledično sprožila formalni postopek preiskave.
The Commission received comments from CIL and from the investors’ representatives, backed by the Bank.
Komisija je prejela pripombe družbe CIL in predstavnikov vlagateljev, ki jih podpira banka.
CIL comments
Pripombe družbe CIL
CIL first questions the applicability of Directive 90/684/EEC.
Družba CIL je najprej izrazila dvom glede uporabe Direktive 90/684/EGS.
CIL believes that the aim of that Directive is to manage the aid for which shipyards established in the Community may be directly or indirectly eligible and concludes that the Directive applies only to aid that benefits a shipyard.
Družba CIL ocenjuje, da je cilj Direktive 90/684/EGS urejanje pomoči, do katerih so lahko neposredno ali posredno upravičene ladjedelnice z registrirano dejavnostjo v Skupnosti. Zato sklepa, da se lahko zgoraj navedena direktiva uporablja le za pomoči, ki koristijo neki ladjedelnici.
As the Commission had not demonstrated such a benefit, the Commission could not base its assessment of the aid on Directive 90/684/EEC.
Ker Komisija ni prikazala takšne koristi, svoje ocene pomoči ne more osnovati na Direktivi 90/684/EGS.
Secondly, CIL disputes the existence of State aid with reference to the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Družba CIL je nato spodbijala obstoj državne pomoči glede na merila iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Regarding the advantage allegedly obtained by CIL on the purchase of the investors’ shares in the vessel, CIL points out that it bought the shares in the vessel from the joint-ownership companies for a price of EUR 17825989. This price was higher than the vessel’s market value, estimated in June 2004 by the reputable shipbrokers Barry Rogliano Salles at between EUR 14,5 and 16,1 million.
Glede olajšave, ki jo je družba CIL domnevno prejela pri nakupu deležev ladje, ki so bili prej last vlagateljev, je družba CIL poudarila, da je deleže ladje od solastniških družb odkupila za 17825989 EUR. Ta cena naj bi bila višja od tržne vrednosti ladje, ki jo je junija 2004 znana ladijska agencija Barry Rogliano Salles ocenila med 14,5 in 16,1 milijona EUR. Cena naj bi bila višja tudi od te, po kateri je družba CIL junija 2004 ladjo prodala (15322581 milijonov EUR).
It was also higher than the price at which CIL resold the vessel in June 2004 (EUR 15322581). The Commission’s assertion that CIL had thus benefited from an advantage by purchasing the investors’ shares at a reduced price was not therefore accurate.
Trditev Komisije, da je imela družba CIL korist od prednosti pri odkupu deležev vlagateljev po nižji ceni, torej ni bi bila točna.
Regarding the advantage that CIL allegedly gained from operating Le Levant, CIL makes the following three observations.
Glede na prednost, ki jo je družba CIL domnevno imela pri obratovanju potniške ladje Le Levant, je družba CIL predstavila tri opažanja.
Firstly, it is incorrect to regard CIL as operator of the vessel as, in fact, it had acted only in the capacity of manager on behalf of the joint-ownership which was the vessel’s real operator.
Najprej za nepravilno ocenjuje mnenje, da je družba CIL uporabljala ladjo, saj jo je le upravljala v imenu solastništva, ki je bil pravi operater ladje.
Secondly, CIL believes that the Commission has failed to prove that the aid helped to operate Le Levant under more favourable conditions than those available to other operators as the Commission had not quantified the size of the alleged advantage.
Družba CIL poleg tega ocenjuje, da Komisija ni dokazala, da je bilo obratovanje potniške ladje Le Levant zaradi pomoči ugodnejše od tistih, ki so na voljo drugim operaterjem, saj Komisija ni izmerila pomembnosti domnevne prednosti.
Lastly, as regards the effect on trade between Member States, CIL notes that Le Levant is a low-capacity vessel, that it did not once operate in Community waters in the first five years of operation, that its clientele in this period consisted mainly of North Americans, i.e. non-Community nationals, and finally that it had no European competitors in its market niche.
Glede kriterija trgovine med državami članicami družba CIL poudarja, da velja potniška ladja Le Levant za ladjo z majhno kapaciteto, da ladja v prvih petih letih ni obratovala v vodah Skupnosti, da so bile v tem času njene stranke večinoma iz Severne Amerike, tj. zunaj Skupnosti, ter da v svoji tržni niši nima evropskih konkurentov.
CIL doubts whether the operation of Le Levant can be considered to have affected trade between Member States.
Družba CIL dvomi, da bi bilo mogoče obratovanje potniške ladje Le Levant šteti, da je vplivalo na trgovino med državami članicami.
Nor did CIL benefit from aid in its capacity as investor-shareholder given that, as a company established outside mainland France, it did not pay tax in France and could not therefore make any tax deductions.
Družba CIL sicer ni bila deležna pomoči kot solastniška družba, saj kot družba zunaj matične dežele ni zavezana plačevanju davkov v Franciji in si tako tudi ni mogla znižati davkov.
The investors’ comments
Pripombe vlagateljev
The investors consider first that the procedure adopted by the Commission was flawed.
Vlagatelji na začetku ocenjujejo, da je mogoče v postopku Komisije ugotoviti nepravilnosti.
The Court of First Instance judgment of 22 February 2006 had invalidated the initiation decision of 2 December 1999, as this was inextricably linked to the final decision annulled, so the Commission could not legitimately supplement it with its Decision of 6 December 2006.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 22. februarja 2006 je razveljavila odločbo o uvedbi postopka z dne 2. decembra 1999, saj je bila ta tesno povezana s končno razveljavljeno odločbo na način, tako da je Komisija ni mogla zakonito dopolniti z odločbo z dne 6. decembra 2006.
In accordance with the procedure, the Commission should have adopted a new initiation decision and its supplementary decision of 2 December 2006 must thus be regarded as initiating proceedings from scratch.
Zaradi upoštevanja postopka bi morala Komisija sprejeti novo odločbo o uvedbi postopka, in njeno dopolnilno odločbo z dne 2. decembra 2006 je treba razumeti kot ponovno uvedbo (ex novo).
Secondly, the investors believe that the supplementary decision of 6 December 2006 contains a number of errors and shortcomings, in short the omissions identified by the Court of First Instance in its judgment of 22 February 2006 relating in particular to the nature of the business relationship between the investors, the Bank and CIL.
Vlagatelji ocenjujejo, da vsebuje dopolnilna odločba z dne 6. decembra 2006 vrsto napak in pomanjkljivosti, ki zadevajo vrzeli, na katere je v svoji sodbi z dne 22. februarja 2006 opozorilo Sodišče prve stopnje in se zlasti nanašajo na naravo poslovnih odnosov med vlagatelji, banko in družbo CIL.
The investors stress that they had signed a membership contract proposed by the Bank which was designed to bring them the benefits of a tax optimisation scheme.
Vlagatelji še poudarjajo, da so na predlog banke podpisali pristopno pogodbo, v kateri je bilo zapisano, da bodo deležni davčno ugodne sheme.
They also point out that they were not qualified to operate a cruise business as most of them were senior managers or professionals (doctors, chemists, lawyers, bailiffs, solicitors) or had retired.
Poudarjajo tudi, da nimajo nikakršnih strokovnih znanj za opravljanje dejavnosti upravljanja potniške ladje, saj večina od njih spada med višje kvalificirane kadre, strokovne delavce (zdravniki, farmacevti, odvetniki, sodni uradniki, notarji) ali upokojence.
While it is formally correct that they were shareholders in the joint-ownership companies, the latter had no assets other than the shares and at no stage were they undertakings within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Čeprav je formalno res, da so bili delničarji solastniških družb, pa slednje niso posedovale drugega premoženja kot solastniških deležev in niso bile nikoli podjetja v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Rather than economic operators bearing the risks inherent to an economic activity, the investors had merely subscribed to a financial product with a minimum return guaranteed by the promoters of the package.
Vlagatelji naj ne bi bili gospodarski upravljavci, ki bi nosili mogoča tveganja takšne gospodarske dejavnosti, ampak le podpisniki finančnega projekta, ki naj bi imel minimalen donos, ki ga jamčijo predlagatelji paketa.
As a result, neither the investors, nor their joint-ownership companies, nor the joint-ownership vehicle to which they belonged were eligible to receive State aid as they were not engaged in an economic activity.
To pomeni, da niti vlagatelji niti njihove solastniške družbe ali solastništvo, ki jih je združevalo, niso bili upravičeni do državne pomoči, saj niso opravljali gospodarske dejavnosti.
The investors further contend that the Commission made a mistake by applying Directive 90/684/EEC to the aid in question.
Vlagatelji nadalje ocenjujejo, da je Komisija naredila napako, s tem ko je za zadevno pomoč uporabila Direktivo 90/684/EGS.
They believe that the Directive applies only to aid received by a vessel’s constructor (i.e. the shipyard), a fact which the Commission had dismissed in this case.
Menijo, da se navedena direktiva uporablja le za pomoč graditeljem ladij (to je ladjedelnicam), česar pa Komisija v tem primeru ni upoštevala.
In this connection, the investors are also of the opinion that the Commission’s conclusion is based on a superficial analysis and that a closer examination of the facts would have shown that the aid granted had benefited a shipyard.
V tem oziru vlagatelji menijo, da ugotovitev Komisije temelji na površni analizi in da bi podrobnejša preiskava pokazala, da je bila pomoč dejansko dodeljena v korist ladjedelnice.
Winning the contract had given the shipyard, which was in financial difficulties, a genuine lifeline.
Taka pogodba naj bi bila za ladjedelnico, ki je bila v finančnih težavah, prava rešilna bilka.
As the vessel would not have been built without the financing scheme which the Loi Pons allowed, the tax benefits at issue did indeed confer a financial advantage on the yard without any reciprocal concession.
Ker potniške ladje ne bi mogli zgraditi brez finančnega mehanizma, ki ga je dovoljeval Loi Pons, so zadevne davčne olajšave za ladjedelnico pomenile finančno prednost brez povračila.
V. COMMENTS OF THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
V. PRIPOMBE FRANCOSKIH ORGANOV
In their observations, the French authorities first point out that the real purpose of the Loi Pons was to help overseas operators develop their activities in order to compensate for the specific disadvantages they faced.
V okviru svojih opazovanj francoski organi najprej opozarjajo, da je bil pravi predmet Loi Pons pomagati čezmorskim podjetnikom pri razvoju svojih dejavnosti, da bi nadomestili nekatere pomanjkljivosti, s katerimi se soočajo.
It was not therefore aid for shipbuilding and, moreover, no direct construction aid was granted under the project.
Pri tem torej ni šlo za pomoč pomorski gradnji in zato v okviru tega projekta sami gradnji ni bila dodeljena nobena neposredna pomoč.
In this connection the French authorities also comment that, although the financing of the vessel under the Loi Pons requires an outsourcing scheme to bring in investors — in the form of a joint-ownership vehicle — who supply the vessel to the actual operator, the investors’ role is merely as subscribers to a ready-made financial product with potential tax benefits which transmits the aid to the operator who is the real beneficiary insofar as the scheme allows him eventually to acquire the vessel on favourable terms.
V zvezi s tem francoski organi tudi opozarjajo, da čeprav financiranje potniške ladje po Loi Pons zahteva uporabo sheme zunanjega izvajanja, ki vključuje vlagatelje v obliki solastništva in ki dejanskemu operaterju zagotavlja potniško ladjo, imajo ti vlagatelji samo vlogo podpisnikov finančnega projekta po sistemu „na ključ“ z morebitnimi davčnimi ugodnostmi, ki prenaša pomoč na operaterja, ki je dejansko deležen pomoči, kolikor mu shema dovoljuje, da sčasoma ladjo pridobi po ugodnih pogojih.
They therefore formally dispute the fact that the investors can be qualified as beneficiaries of State aid.
Tako uradno spodbijajo, da lahko vlagatelji štejejo za prejemnike državne pomoči.
Regarding the selective nature of the aid, the French authorities dispute the additional argument made by the Commission on the basis of the margin of discretion left to the authorities to issue the approvals necessary for granting tax benefits under the Loi Pons.
Glede selektivnosti pomoči francoski organi spodbijajo dodatni pretirani argument Komisije, da imajo organi pri dajanju potrebnih soglasij za davčne olajšave po Loi Pons vso svobodo.
The French authorities state firstly that the above aspect is part of the Loi Pons as approved unreservedly by the Commission.
Francoski organi na prvem mestu izpostavljajo, da je navedeni vidik del Loi Pons, kakor ga je Komisija brez pridržkov potrdila.
Secondly, the French authorities express surprise that the criteria for granting approval can be qualified as imprecise when they have been clarified by an administrative instruction and are identical to criteria set out in the Loi Paul and Loi Girardin, two State aid schemes which the Commission has approved without any reserves on this point [14].
Nadalje se francoski organi čudijo, da so lahko kriteriji za dodelitev soglasja označeni kot nejasni, medtem ko jih upravna navodila natančno določajo in so enaka tistim, ki jih določata tako imenovana zakona Loi Paul in Loi Girardin, shemi državnih pomoči, ki ju je Komisija potrdila brez pridržkov glede te točke [14].
The French authorities thirdly state that, as the aid had not benefited the shipbuilding industry (and, in particular, had not benefited the shipyard that built Le Levant), Directive 90/684/EEC did not apply.
Francoski organi nadalje izpostavljajo, da ker se državna pomoč ni uporabila za gradnjo potniške ladje (in zlasti ker od nje ni imela koristi ladjedelnica, ki je gradila potniško ladjo Le Levant), se Direktiva 90/684/EGS ne more uporabiti.
Even if the aid were to be assessed in the light of Directive 90/684/EEC, the French authorities are of the opinion that the conditions are met for considering the aid in question compatible as development aid within the meaning of Article 4(7) of the Directive.
Tudi če bi pomoč analizirali v okviru Direktive 90/684/EGS, francoski organi menijo, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za ugotovitev, da je zadevna pomoč združljiva z razvojno pomočjo v smislu člen 4(7) Direktive.
The French authorities put forward the following arguments in particular in this connection.
V ta namen francoski organi izpostavljajo naslednje argumente.
Regarding the condition that the real owner must be resident in the recipient country and that the recipient company must not be a non-operational subsidiary of a foreign company, the French authorities state, with reference to the Commission’s assessment put forward in a similar case, ‘Renaissance’ [15], that CIL must be regarded as the actual owner of the vessel and the real recipient of the aid.
Glede pogoja, da mora biti dejanski lastnik rezident države prejemnice in da družba prejemnica ne sme biti nedejavna podružnica tujega podjetja, francoski organi s sklicevanjem na oceno Komisije v podobnem primeru, imenovanem „Renaissance“ [15], navajajo, da je treba družbo CIL obravnavati kot dejanskega lastnika ladje in pravega prejemnika pomoči.
As CIL is established in Wallis-et-Futuna, a territory that is eligible for development aid, the residence condition is met.
Družba CIL je bila ustanovljena na ozemlju Wallis in Futuna, ki je upravičeno do razvojne pomoči, tako je pogoj rezidence izpolnjen.
Moreover, as CIL is responsible for all aspects relating to the operation of the vessel, it is not a non-operational subsidiary.
Poleg tega je družba CIL odgovorna za vse vidike obratovanja ladje, zato ni nedejavna podružnica.
On the question of the development component, the French authorities have made the following comments:
Kar zadeva „razvojni element“, francoski organi navajajo naslednje pripombe:
firstly, the French authorities consider that the aid should be assessed in the light of the special situation of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, notably its remoteness, the difficult operating conditions there owing to the climate and geographical constraints, and, in particular, the economic and social situation of the islands arising from the fisheries monoculture crisis.
francoski organi najprej ocenjujejo, da mora biti opravljena ocena pomoči glede na poseben položaj Saint-Pierre in Miquelona, zlasti zaradi njegove oddaljenosti in težkih pogojev poslovanja, povezanih s klimatskimi razmerami ter geografskimi omejitvami, in še posebej zaradi gospodarskega in družbenega položaja otočja, ki je v krizi zaradi monokulturnega ribolova.
The French authorities underline the importance in this connection of diversifying tourism to revive the local economy and maintain that the operation of Le Levant would be one of the few major projects likely to contribute to such a revival,
V tem pogledu francoski organi poudarjajo pomen preusmeritve v turizem za poživitev lokalnega gospodarstva in trdijo, da bi bilo obratovanje potniške ladje Le Levant eden od redkih projektov za razširitev dejavnosti, ki bi lahko prispeval k tovrstni poživitvi,
secondly, regarding the repercussions for employment, the French authorities point out that 16 persons from Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon were employed on Le Levant in the first five years of its operation.
francoski organi nadalje navajajo, da je pozitiven učinek opaziti tudi pri zaposlovanju, saj je bilo za delo na ladji za prvih pet let obratovanja zaposlenih 16 oseb iz Saint-Pierre in Miquelona.
Expenditure in the islands in connection with the vessel’s operation in the years 1999 to 2003 is estimated at a total of EUR 3328891. In addition to this amount, the French authorities refer to the expenditure in other territories eligible for development aid when Le Levant stops there during its cruises.
Realizirani stroški na otočju se v zvezi z obratovanjem ladje med letoma 1999 in 2003 ocenjujejo na skupaj 3328891 EUR. K tem zneskom je treba prišteti še sredstva, porabljena na drugih ozemljih, upravičenih do razvojne pomoči, ob postankih ladje Le Levant med njenimi križarjenji.
Lastly, in the French authorities’ opinion, the proportionality of the aid should be assessed not in terms of absolute value, but of relative value.
Nazadnje francoski organi ocenjujejo, da bi bilo treba sorazmernost pomoči oceniti v relativni in ne v absolutni vrednosti.
The impact of the aid should be judged in the light of the size of the economy in the islands and their economic potential.
Učinek pomoči je treba oceniti po gospodarski moči otočja in njegovem gospodarskem potencialu.
RESPONSE OF THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES TO THE COMMENTS OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES
ODGOVOR FRANCOSKIH ORGANOV NA PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANK
The comments of interested third parties have been forwarded to the French authorities who have not made any further observations.
Pripombe tretjih zainteresiranih strank so bile posredovane francoskim organom, te pa niso dale nobenih dodatnih pripomb.
The investors’ complaints about irregularities in the procedure must first be dismissed.
Najprej je treba odpraviti očitke o nepravilnosti postopka, ki so jih izrazili vlagatelji.
The Commission cannot agree with the view that the Court of First Instance’s annulment of Decision 2001/882/EC had the effect of invalidating the initiation decision of 2 December 1999.
Komisija se ne more strinjati z mnenjem, da bi razveljavitev Odločbe 2001/882/ES, ki jo je sprejelo Sodišče prve stopnje, lahko vodilo k razveljavitvi odločbe o uvedbi postopka z dne 2. decembra 1999.
It is established case-law that the annulment of a Community measure does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts leading to its adoption [16].
Po običajni sodni praksi razveljavitev akta institucije Skupnosti ne vpliva nujno na pripravljalne akte, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta odločba [16].
It is incumbent on the institution whose act has been declared void to take the necessary measures, having regard both to the operative part and the grounds of the judgment annulling the act, to remedy the defects that gave rise to the annulment.
Institucija, katere akt je bil razglašen za ničnega, mora ob upoštevanju izreka sodbe o razveljavitvi akta in njene obrazložitve, sprejeti ustrezne ukrepe, potrebne za odpravo napak, ki so povzročile razveljavitev odločbe.
In this case, the Court of First Instance annulled Decision 2001/882/EC on the grounds that the Commission had not respected the rights of the defence and the duty to give reasons for its conclusions regarding the existence of a State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
V tem primeru je Sodišče prve stopnje razveljavilo Odločbo 2001/882/ES, saj Komisija ni upoštevala pravice do obrambe in obveznosti utemeljitve svojih zaključkov glede obstoja državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Regarding the acts preliminary to the final decision in this case, the Court’s judgment therefore requires the Commission to take the necessary measures of inquiry in order to comply fully with the rights of the defence of the Member State and interested parties.
Glede aktov, ki jim je sledila končna odločitev v tej zadevi, sodba Sodišča nalaga Komisiji, da sprejme potreben pripravljalne ukrepe, da bodo v celoti upoštevane pravice do obrambe, ki jih imajo države članice in zainteresirane stranke.
This does not mean that the initiation decision of 2 December 1999 should be regarded as invalid and excluded from the procedure, as the investors would appear to believe.
To ne pomeni, da odločba o uvedbi postopka z dne 2. decembra 1999 velja za nično in se izključi iz postopka, kot menijo vlagatelji.
The decision needs only to be amended and the parts that are incomplete supplemented in order for the French authorities and interested parties to be able to duly submit their observations as provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty [17].
Dovolj je, da se odločba spremeni in dopolni na mestih, kjer je pomanjkljiva, da bodo lahko francoski organi in zainteresirane stranke učinkovito predložili svoje pripombe, kot to predvideva člen 88(2) Pogodbe [17].
That result is achieved in full by the supplementary decision of 6 December 2006.
To je v celoti doseženo z dopolnilno odločbo z dne 6. decembra 2006.