natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission doubted already in the decision to initiate the procedure in the present case that the aid was necessary for Djebel to carry out this investment.
Komisija je že v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka podvomila, da potrebuje podjetje Djebel pomoč za izvedbo te naložbe.
In its decision of 22 February 2006, the Commission emphasised that the notified project was not the first internationalisation project of the Pestana Group, of which Djebel forms part.
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi z dne 22. februarja 2006 poudarila, da priglašeni projekt ni bil prvi projekt internacionalizacije skupine Pestana, katere del je tudi podjetje Djebel.
The Group was already active in Mozambique and it was therefore doubtful whether the aid was needed in order to carry out the first internationalisation experience of the Pestana Group in Brazil [10].
Skupina je že bila dejavna v Mozambiku in zato je obstajal dvom, da je pomoč za prvi poskus internacionalizacije skupine Pestana v Braziliji sploh potrebna [10].
Moreover, Djebel is owned by the major hotel group in Portugal.
Poleg tega je podjetje Djebel v lasti glavne hotelske verige na Portugalskem.
From 1999, the firm has expanded its activity in Brazil, where it currently has nine hotels and is among the ten largest hotel chains.
Od leta 1999 je podjetje razširilo svojo dejavnost v Braziliji, kjer ima trenutno devet hotelov in je med desetimi največjimi hotelskimi verigami.
This seems to indicate that the investment would have gone ahead even without the prospect of obtaining the aid.
Kot se zdi, to kaže, da bi naložbo nadaljevali tudi brez možnosti za pridobitev pomoči.
Moreover, an aid granted now for an investment that took place over seven years ago is unlikely to have any practical link with the investment anymore.
Še več, pomoč, dodeljena zdaj za naložbo, izvedeno pred več kot sedmimi leti, verjetno ne bo več imela nobene praktične povezave z naložbo.
In order for aid to have an incentive effect, it must also be established that a request for support was introduced before the investment started.
Da bi pomoč imela spodbujevalni učinek, je treba tudi dokazati, da je bil zahtevek za pomoč predložen pred začetkom naložbe.
The Commission points out that the investment took place in October 1999, more than one year before the beneficiary formally applied for aid under State aid scheme N 667/1999 (on 31 January 2001) and so did not comply with the ‘incentive effect’ criterion normally required by the Community rules on national regional aid [11].
Komisija poudarja, da je bila naložba izvedena oktobra 1999, več kot eno leto, preden je upravičenec uradno zaprosil za pomoč po shemi državne pomoči N 667/1999 (dne 31. januarja 2001), in tako ni izpolnila merila „spodbujevalnega učinka“, ki ga navadno zahtevajo pravila Skupnosti o državni regionalni pomoči [11].
The Portuguese authorities argued that the proposal for the participation of FCR in the investment, which took place on 24 May 1999 (prior to the investment), is sufficient proof that this criterion is met.
Portugalski organi so trdili, da je predlog podjetju FCR za udeležbo pri naložbi, poslan dne 24. maja 1999 (pred naložbo), zadosten dokaz, da je to merilo izpolnjeno.
The Commission does not consider that such a proposal for the participation of a risk capital firm in the investment can, on its own, be considered to constitute an application for State aid capable of justifying its incentive effect.
Komisija ni mnenja, da bi lahko tak predlog za udeležbo podjetja tveganega kapitala pri naložbi samega po sebi šteli za zahtevek za državno pomoč, ki bi lahko utemeljil njen spodbujevalni učinek.
The Commission also stresses that the investment took place around five and a half years before the notification was submitted to it by the Portuguese authorities.
Komisija tudi poudarja, da je podjetje naložbo izvedlo približno pet let in pol pred tem, preden so ji jo portugalski organi priglasili.
On the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that there is no evidence that the aid proposed by Portugal was necessary to compensate for any specific risks associated with the project.
Skladno s tem Komisija sklepa, da Portugalska ni dokazala, da je bila predlagana pomoč potrebna kot nadomestilo za vsa posebna tveganja, povezana s projektom.
Thus, it considers that the aid was not necessary in order for the Pestana Group to carry out the investment in Brazil and to trigger that investment.
Tako meni, da pomoč ni bila nujna za to, da skupina Pestana izvede naložbo v Braziliji in sproži to naložbo.
In its view, the aid has no incentive effect.
Po njenem mnenju pomoč nima nobenega spodbujevalnega učinka.
The Commission has also maintained in previous cases that aid for foreign direct investment is likely to strengthen the beneficiary's overall financial and strategic position and thus affect its relative position relative to competitors on the EU market [12].
Komisija je v prejšnjih zadevah tudi vztrajala, da lahko pomoč za tuje neposredne naložbe okrepi celotni finančni in strateški položaj upravičenca ter tako vpliva na njegov relativni položaj glede na konkurente na trgu EU [12].
The Commission stresses that the Pestana Group increased its commercial activity in the hotel sector following the investment in question, which was not its first investment abroad.
Komisija poudarja, da je skupina Pestana povečala svojo komercialno dejavnost v hotelskem sektorju na podlagi zadevne naložbe, ki ni bila njena prva naložba v tujini.
According to the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, even though it did not benefit from the aid, the investment in Brazil helped to strengthen the competitiveness of the Pestana Group and its visibility in the general tourism market, thanks in particular to the projection of the ‘Pestana Hotels and Resorts’ brand.
Glede na podatke, ki so jih zagotovili portugalski organi, je naložba v Braziliji, čeprav ni izkoristila pomoči, pomagala okrepiti konkurenčnost skupine Pestana in njeno prepoznavnost na svetovnem turističnem trgu, zlasti z izpostavljanjem blagovne znamke „Pestana Hotels and Resorts“.
Lastly, the Commission notes that, even if the investment by Djebel had had a positive impact in Portugal, this cannot, in principle, be attributed to the aid since, as explained above, it has no incentive effect in this case as the project was concluded prior to Djebel's requesting the aid and was not necessary to carry out the investment.
Nazadnje Komisija ugotavlja, da tudi če bi imela naložba podjetja Djebel pozitiven učinek na Portugalskem, se to načeloma ne more pripisati pomoči, ker, kot je zgoraj opisano, ta v tem primeru nima spodbujevalnega učinka, saj je bil projekt zaključen, preden je podjetje Djebel pomoč zahtevalo, in ta ni bila nujna za izvedbo naložbe.
When assessing the compatibililty of aid, the Commission takes a close look at the balance between its positive and negative effects and determines whether its beneficial effects for the Community outweigh its negative effects on competition and trade on the Community market.
Pri ocenjevanju združljivosti pomoči Komisija natančno prouči ravnotežje med njenimi pozitivnimi in negativnimi učinki ter odloči, ali njeni koristni učinki za Skupnost prevladajo nad njenimi negativnimi učinki na konkurenco in trgovino na trgu Skupnosti.
On the basis of the above, it has no reason to believe that the granting of aid to Djebel in respect of its investment in Brazil would help to improve the competitiveness of the European industry or would have a positive effect on the EU regions concerned.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Komisija nima razloga za domnevo, da bi dodelitev pomoči podjetju Djebel v zvezi z njegovo naložbo v Braziliji pomagala izboljšati konkurenčnost evropske industrijske panoge ali imela pozitiven učinek na zadevne regije EU.
On the contrary, the aid would strengthen the position of the beneficiary to the detriment of its competitors receiving State aid in a market that is characterised by intensive competition.
Nasprotno pa bi lahko pomoč okrepila položaj upravičenca v škodo njegovih konkurentov, ki ne prejemajo državne pomoči na trgu, za katerega je značilna intenzivna konkurenca.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the aid would not have any positive effects for the Community that could outweigh its negative effects on competition.
Zato Komisija meni, da pomoč ne bi imela pozitivnih učinkov za Skupnost, ki bi lahko prevladali nad njenimi negativnimi učinki na konkurenco.
The Commission concludes that Portugal has failed to demonstrate that, without the aid, Djebel would not have carried out the project concerned.
Komisija sklepa, da Portugalska ni dokazala, da podjetje Djebel brez pomoči ne bi izvedel zadevnega projekta.
The aid would thus simply have a distorting effect on competition in the common market without contributing to any additional activity on the part of the beneficiary.
Učinek pomoči bi tako bil preprosto izkrivljanje konkurence na skupnem trgu, ne da bi se prispevalo k temu, da bi upravičenec uvedel dodatno dejavnost.
On this basis, the aid cannot be considered to facilitate the development of an economic activity within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) and is thus incompatible with the common market.
Na tej podlagi ne more veljati, da pomoč prispeva k pospeševanju razvoja gospodarske dejavnosti v smislu člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, in je zato nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
Given the above, the Commission does not consider it necessary to assess other aspects that cast doubts on the compatibility of the aid expressed in its Decision of 22 February 2006,
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega se Komisiji ne zdi potrebno, da bi ocenila druge vidike, ki vzbujajo dvome glede združljivosti pomoči, izražene v Odločbi z dne 22. februarja 2006 –
The notified soft loan of EUR 3680119 proposed by Portugal to Djebel for its investment in Brazil is incompatible with the common market since it does not meet the criteria set out in Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty and must not be therefore be granted.
Priglašeno ugodno posojilo v višini 3680119 EUR, ki ga je Portugalska predlagala podjetju Djebel za naložbo v Braziliji, je nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom, ker ne izpolnjuje meril po členu 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, in se zato ne sme dodeliti.
OJ C 91, 19.4.2006, p. 25.
UL C 91, 19.4.2006, str. 25.
OJ L 107, 30.4.1996.
UL L 107, 30.4.1996.
OJ L 124, 20.5.2003.
UL L 124, 20.5.2003.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 (OJ L 379, 28.12.2006), which deals with the same subject.
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri de minimis pomoči (UL L 10, 13.1.2001, str. 30) in Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1998/2006 (UL L 379, 28.12.2006), ki obravnava isto področje.
By letter SG(2000) D/106085 (OJ C 266, 16.9.2000, p. 4).
Z dopisom SG(2000) D/106085 (UL C 266, 16.9.2000, str. 4).
See Cases C 77/97, Austrian LiftGmbH-Doppelmayr (OJ L 142, 5.6.1999, p. 32) and C 47/02, Vila Galé-Cintra (OJ L 61, 27.2.2004, p. 76).
Glej zadevi C 77/97, Austrian Lift GmbH proti Doppelmayru (UL L 142, 5.6.1999, str. 32) in C 47/02, Vila Galé proti Cintri (UL L 61, 27.2.2004, str. 76).
See Judgment by the European Court of Justice in Case C-142/87, Tubermeuse [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 35.
Glej sodbo Evropskega sodišča v zadevi C 142/87 – Tubermeuse [1990] Recueil I-959, odstavek 35.
See Cases C 41/04, Orfama (Decision of 7 March 2007) and C 36/04, Cordex (Decision of 21 February 2007).
Glej zadevi C 41/04, Orfama (Sklep z dne 7. marca 2007) in C 36/04, Cordex (Sklep z dne 21. februarja 2007).
See Case C 47/02, Vila Galé-Cintra, which involved a first internationalisation experience.
Glej zadevo C 47/02, Vila Galé Cintra, ki je vključevala prvi poskus internacionalizacije.
See point 4.2 of the Guidelines on national regional aid, which states that an application for aid must be submitted before work on the project is started in order to ensure that the required incentive effect exists (OJ C 74, 10.3.1998, p. 13).
Glej točko 4.2 Smernic o državni regionalni pomoči, ki navaja, da mora biti zahtevek za pomoč predložen, preden se projektno delo začne, da se tako zagotovi, da obstaja zahtevani spodbujevalni učinek (UL C 74, 10.3.1998, str. 13).
See Case C 77/97, Austrian Lift GmbH-Doppelmayr (OJ L 142, 5.6.1999, p. 32).
Glej zadevo C 77/97, Austrian Lift GmbH proti Doppelmayru (UL L 142, 5.6.1999, str. 32).
on State aid C 17/2006 (ex N 3/2006), training aid to Autoeuropa — Automóveis Lda, Portugal
o državni pomoči C 17/2006 (ex N 3/2006) – pomoč za usposabljanje podjetju Autoeuropa – Automóveis Lda, Portugalska
(notified under document number C(2007) 3130)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 3130)
Having called on interested Parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions [1] and having regard to their comments,
ob pozivu zainteresiranim strankam, da predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu s temi določbami [1], in ob upoštevanju njihovih pripomb,
By letter of 27 December 2005 (registered as received on 4 January 2006), Portugal notified the Commission of its intention to grant aid amounting to EUR 3552423 to Autoeuropa — Automóveis Lda (Autoeuropa) in connection with a training project that the company wished to implement.
Portugalska je z dopisom z dne 27. decembra 2005 (ki ga je Komisija prejela 4. januarja 2006) Komisiji priglasila svojo namero, da podjetju Autoeuropa – Automóveis Lda („Autoeuropa“) dodeli pomoč v višini 3552423 EUR za projekt usposabljanja, ki ga je želelo izvesti podjetje.
The Commission requested further information by letter of 31 January 2006, to which Portugal replied by letter dated 9 March 2006 (registered as received on 23 March 2006).
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 31. januarja 2006 zahtevala dodatne informacije, ki jih je Portugalska posredovala z dopisom z dne 9. marca 2006 (ki ga je Komisija prejela 23. marca 2006).
By letter of 16 May 2006, the Commission informed Portugal that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid.
Z dopisom z dne 16. maja 2006 je Komisija obvestila Portugalsko, da se je v zvezi s pomočjo odločila sprožiti postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
The Portuguese authorities presented their comments in accordance with this procedure by letter of 31 August 2006.
V skladu s tem postopkom so portugalski organi v dopisu z dne 31. avgusta 2006 predstavili svoje pripombe.
The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.
Komisija je zainteresirane stranke pozvala, naj predložijo svoje pripombe.
The Commission received comments from interested parties.
Komisija je prejela pripombe zainteresiranih strank. Posredovala jih je Portugalski, ki je imela možnost nanje odgovoriti.
It forwarded them to Portugal, which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received by letter of 13 November 2006.
Portugalska je svoje pripombe sporočila v dopisu z dne 13. novembra 2006.
The Commission requested further information from Portugal by letter of 2 February 2007.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 2. februarja 2007 od Portugalske zahtevala dodatne informacije.
WITHDRAWAL OF THE NOTIFICATION
UMIK PRIGLASITVE
By letter of 4 May 2007, Portugal informed the Commission that the notified aid would no longer be implemented given that Autoeuropa had modified its training project and that the notification thus no longer served any purpose.
Z dopisom z dne 4. maja 2007 je Portugalska obvestila Komisijo, da je Autoeuropa spremenila projekt usposabljanja, zato se priglašena pomoč ne bo izvajala in je priglasitev brezpredmetna.
The Commission notes that, according to Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [3], the Member State concerned may withdraw the notification in due time before the Commission has taken a decision on the aid.
Komisija ugotavlja, da lahko v skladu s členom 8 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 [3] zadevna država članica pravočasno umakne priglasitev, preden Komisija sprejme odločbo o pomoči.
According to Article 8(2), in cases where the Commission has initiated the formal investigation procedure, the Commission must close the procedure.
Člen 8(2) določa, da mora v primerih, ko je Komisija sprožila formalni postopek preiskave, Komisija postopek zaključiti.
Consequently, the Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the relevant aid, given that Portugal has withdrawn its notification,
Ker je Portugalska umaknila svojo priglasitev, se je Komisija odločila, da zaključi formalni postopek preiskave na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES v zvezi z zadevno pomočjo –
Pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and in view of the fact that Portugal has withdrawn its notification, the Commission hereby closes the formal investigation procedure in respect of the training aid that Portugal intended to grant to Autoeuropa — Automóveis Lda.
V skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES in ob upoštevanju, da je Portugalska umaknila svojo priglasitev, Komisija zaključi formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi s pomočjo, ki jo je Portugalska nameravala dodeliti podjetju Autoeuropa – Automóveis Lda.
OJ C 177, 29.7.2006, p. 25.
UL C 177, 29.7.2006, str. 25.
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES (UL L 83, 27.3.1999, str. 1).
amending Decision 2004/558/EC implementing Council Directive 64/432/EEC as regards additional guarantees for intra-Community trade in bovine animals relating to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and the approval of the eradication programmes presented by certain Member States
o spremembi Odločbe Komisije 2004/558/ES o izvajanju Direktive Sveta 64/432/EGS v zvezi z dodatnimi jamstvi za trgovino z govedom med državami članicami Skupnosti v povezavi z infekcioznim bovinim rinotraheitisom in v zvezi s potrditvijo programov za izkoreninjenje, predloženih s strani nekaterih držav članic
(notified under document number C(2007) 3905)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 3905)
Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine [1], and in particular Articles 9(2) and 10(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Direktive Sveta 64/432/EGS z dne 26. junija 1964 o problemih v zvezi z zdravstvenim varstvom živali, ki vplivajo na trgovino z govedom in prašiči znotraj Skupnosti [1], ter zlasti člena 9(2) in člena 10(2) Direktive,
Article 9 of Directive 64/432/EEC provides that a Member State, which has a compulsory national control programme for one of the contagious diseases listed in Annex E(II) to that Directive, may submit its programme to the Commission for approval.
Člen 9 Direktive 64/432/EGS določa, da država članica, ki ima obvezen nacionalni nadzorni program za eno od nalezljivih bolezni iz Priloge E(II) k navedeni direktivi, lahko predloži svoj program Komisiji v odobritev.
That Article also provides for the definition of the additional guarantees which may be required in intra-Community trade.
Ta člen tudi predvideva določitev dodatnih jamstev, ki bi se lahko zahtevala v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti.
In addition, Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC provides that where a Member State considers that its territory or part thereof is free from one of the diseases listed in Annex E(II) to that Directive, it is to present appropriate supporting documentation to the Commission.
Poleg tega člen 10 Direktive 64/432/EGS določa, da če država članica meni, da je njeno ozemlje ali del njenega ozemlja prosto ene od bolezni iz Priloge E(II) k navedeni direktivi, Komisiji predloži ustrezno dokazno dokumentacijo.
Commission Decision 2004/558/EC of 15 July 2004 implementing Council Directive 64/432/EEC as regards additional guarantees for intra-Community trade in bovine animals relating to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and the approval of the eradication programmes presented by certain Member States [2] approves the programmes for the control and eradication of the infection with the bovine herpesvirus type 1 (‘BHV1’) presented by the Member States listed in Annex I to that Decision for the regions listed in that Annex, and for which additional guarantees for BHV1 apply in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 64/432/EEC.
Odločba Komisije 2004/558/ES z dne 15. julija 2004 o izvajanju Direktive Sveta 64/432/EGS v zvezi z dodatnimi jamstvi za trgovino z govedom med državami članicami Skupnosti v povezavi z infekcioznim bovinim rinotraheitisom in v zvezi s potrditvijo programov za izkoreninjenje, predloženih s strani nekaterih držav članic [2], odobri nacionalne programe za nadzor in izkoreninjenje okužbe z bovinim herpesvirusom tipa 1 („BHV1“), ki so jih predložile države članice in so našteti v Prilogi I k navedeni odločbi za regije iz navedene priloge in za katere veljajo dodatna jamstva za BHV1 v skladu s členom 9 Direktive 64/432/EGS.
In addition, Annex II to Decision 2004/558/EC lists the regions of the Member States that are considered free of BHV1 infection and for which additional guarantees apply in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC.
Poleg tega Priloga II k Odločbi 2004/558/ES navaja regije držav članic, za katere se šteje, da so proste okužbe z BHV1 in za katere veljajo dodatna jamstva v skladu s členom 10 Direktive 64/432/EGS.
Annex III to Decision 2004/558/EC defines BHV1-free holdings.
Priloga III k Odločbi 2004/558/ES določa gospodarstva, prosta okužbe z BHV1.
At present, all regions of Germany are listed in Annex I to Decision 2004/558/EC.
Trenutno so v Prilogi I k Odločbi 2004/558/ES navedene vse nemške regije.
Germany has now submitted documentation in support of its application to declare a part of its territory free of BHV1 infection and provided rules for the national movement of bovine animals within and into this part of its territory.
Nemčija je zdaj predložila dokumentacijo k zahtevku za razglasitev dela svojega ozemlja, da je prosto okužbe z BHV1, in zagotovila pravila za gibanje goveda na nacionalnem ozemlju, znotraj navedenega dela svojega ozemlja in nanj.
Accordingly, Germany has requested the application of the additional guaranties, in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC, for the administrative units of Regierungsbezirke Oberpfalz and Oberfranken in the federal state of Bavaria.
Skladno s tem je Nemčija zahtevala uporabo dodatnih jamstev v skladu s členom 10 Direktive 64/432/EGS za administrativni enoti Regierungsbezirke Oberpfalz (Zgornje Pfalško) in Oberfranken zvezne dežele Bavarske.
Following the evaluation of the application submitted by Germany, it is appropriate that those two BHV1-free administrative units in Germany be listed in Annex II to Decision 2004/558/EC and to extend the application of the additional guaranties established in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC to them.
Po oceni zahtevka, ki ga je predložila Nemčija, je primerno, da se navedeni dve nemški upravni enoti, prosti okužbe z BHV1, vključita v Prilogo II k Odločbi 2004/558/ES ter da se podaljša veljavnost dodatnih jamstev za ti enoti v skladu s členom 10 Direktive 64/432/EGS.
Annexes I and II to Decision 2004/558/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
Prilogo I k Odločbi 2004/558/ES je zato treba ustrezno spremeniti.
Italy has submitted the programmes for eradicating BHV1 infection in the Autonomous Region of Friuli Venezia Giulia and in the Autonomous Province of Trento.
Italija je predložila programa za izkoreninjenje v avtonomni deželi Furlaniji - Julijski krajini in avtonomni pokrajini Trentu.
Those programmes comply with the criteria set out in Article 9(1) of Directive 64/432/EEC.
Navedena programa sta v skladu z merili iz člena 9(1) Direktive 64/432/EGS.