natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission notes that until 23 July 2002 the State Aid rules for the steel sector were contained in Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996 establishing Community rules for State Aid to the steel industry [49] (hereinafter ‘the Steel Aid Code’) [50].
Komisija navaja, da so bila do 23. julija 2002 pravila o državni pomoči za jeklarski sektor zajeta v Odločbi Komisije št. 2496/96/ESPJ z dne 18. decembra 1996 o določitvi pravil Skupnosti za državno pomoč jeklarski industriji [49] (v nadaljevanju „Kodeks o jeklarski pomoči“) [50].
Commission practice in implementing Protocol No 8 shows that in principle it takes the view that aid awarded under other frameworks such as the R&D framework can be deemed compatible if the Commission has no serious doubts as to its compatibility under Annex IV(3)(2) of the Accession Treaty [51].
Praksa Komisije pri izvajanju Protokola št. 8 kaže, da je načeloma njeno stališče takšno, da pomoč, dodeljena v skladu z drugimi okviri, kot je okvir R in R, lahko šteje za združljivo, če Komisija nima nobenih resnih pomislekov o njeni združljivosti na podlagi Priloge IV(3)(2) k Pristopni pogodbi [51].
First, Article 2 of the Steel Aid Code and the EC State Aid rules authorise aid which is compatible with the EC R&D framework.
Prvič, člen 2 Kodeksa o jeklarski pomoči in pravila ES o državni pomoči dovoljujejo pomoč, ki je združljiva z okvirom R in R Evropske skupnosti.
The R&D subsidies given in the context of the NRP were awarded by KBN and were covered by the Programme of the Chairman of KBN on the Criteria and Arrangements for Awarding and Calculating Financial Support for Science dated 30 November 2001, which was accepted by the Commission as existing aid under Measure PL 6 of Annex IV to the Accession Treaty.
Subvencije za R in R, dodeljene v okviru NPP, je odobril KBN in so bile zajete v Programu predsednika KBN o merilih in ureditvah za dodelitev in izračun finančne podpore za znanost z dne 30. novembra 2001, ki ga je Komisija sprejela kot obstoječo pomoč v skladu z ukrepom PL 6 Priloge IV k Pristopni pogodbi.
The NRP identified the ‘KBN’s resources’ as ‘authorised State Aid instruments in the form of subsidies for R&D’, which it clearly distinguished from ‘restructuring instruments’ [52].
NPP je „sredstva KBN“ opredelil kot „odobrene instrumente državne pomoči v obliki subvencij za R in R“, ki jih je jasno razlikoval od „instrumentov prestrukturiranja“ [52].
This NRP was approved by a Council decision in July 2003.
Ta NPP je bil odobren z odločbo Sveta julija 2003.
The Commission has therefore decided not to raise objections to KBN's aid measure between 1997 and 2003 under Annex IV to the Accession Treaty and considers this aid as compatible R&D aid [53].
Komisija se je zato odločila, da ne bo ugovarjala ukrepu pomoči KBN med letoma 1997 in 2003 v skladu s Prilogo IV k Pristopni pogodbi, in to pomoč obravnava kot združljivo pomoč za R in R [53].
This is true for aid awarded in 2002 and 2003 as well as R&D aid awarded between 1997 and 2000.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila Poljska zmožna dokazati, da je bila ta pomoč izplačana le v povezavi z izvajanjem dejavnosti za R in R. To velja za pomoč, dodeljeno v letih 2002 in 2003, ter za pomoč za R in R, dodeljeno med letoma 1997 in 2000.
However, in the case of the remaining training, employment restructuring and other restructuring aid, the Commission does not see under which provisions of the Steel Aid Code and the EC State Aid rules this aid could be deemed compatible.
Vendar pa v zvezi s preostalo pomočjo za usposabljanje, prestrukturiranje zaposlovanja in drugo pomočjo za prestrukturiranje Komisija ne vidi, v skladu s katerimi določbami Kodeksa o jeklarski pomoči in pravil ES o državni pomoči bi lahko ta pomoč štela za združljivo.
First none of the aid is aid for environmental protection in line with the Community guidelines [54].
Prvič, nobena od pomoči ni pomoč za varstvo okolja v skladu s smernicami Skupnosti [54].
Poland argued that aid designated as environmental aid in 1997 was awarded for the purpose of environmental protection, but without providing any details of the objectives in question.
Poljska je ugovarjala, da je bila pomoč, določena kot okoljska pomoč v letu 1997, dodeljena za okoljevarstvene namene, vendar brez določitve kakršnih koli podrobnosti o zadevnih ciljih.
Also, the fact that the aid was provided by the Provincial Funds for Environmental Protection and Water Management does not suffice to demonstrate compatibility, as this fund is explicitly mentioned in the NRP as an example of a ‘restructuring instrument’ and, unlike R&D, it is not distinguished from restructuring instruments (see recital (106) above).
Tudi dejstvo, da je pomoč odobril Regionalni sklad za varstvo okolja in vodno gospodarstvo, ne zadošča za dokazovanje združljivosti, saj je ta sklad izrecno naveden v NPP kot primer „instrumenta prestrukturiranja“ in se v nasprotju z R in R ne razlikuje od instrumentov prestrukturiranja (glej točko 106 zgoraj).
Second, the aid was not used for closures (Article 4 of the Steel Aid Code), as TB did not close any facilities.
Drugič, pomoč ni bila uporabljena za zaprtje (člen 4 Kodeksa o jeklarski pomoči), saj TB ni zaprl nobene zmogljivosti.
In any event, apart from the aid from environmental funds, the Polish authorities did not invoke any derogation under either the Steel Aid Code or the EC rules whereby the aid could be regarded as compatible with the common market.
Vsekakor pa razen pomoči iz okoljskih skladov poljski organi niso uveljavljali nobenega odstopanja v skladu s Kodeksom o jeklarski pomoči ali pravili ES, s katerim bi pomoč lahko štela za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
Lastly, the Commission would point out that, even if certain measures were deemed to constitute compatible restructuring aid within the context of a comprehensive restructuring project ensuring the restoration of viability, the failure to implement the entire restructuring plan successfully and to restore viability means in principle that the whole restructuring project failed and that any aid awarded to that end no longer serves any purpose.
Nazadnje bi Komisija opozorila, da čeprav so določeni ukrepi šteli za predstavljanje združljive pomoči za prestrukturiranje v okviru obsežnega projekta prestrukturiranja za zagotovitev ponovnega doseganja rentabilnosti, pa neuspeh pri uresničevanju celotnega načrta prestrukturiranja in ponovni vzpostavitvi rentabilnosti načeloma pomeni, da je bil celotni projekt prestrukturiranja neuspešen in da se zato nobena dodeljena pomoč ne uporablja več za noben namen.
Consequently aid awarded previously according to the plan is no longer justified either and must consequently be considered ex post as incompatible.
Posledično tudi pomoč, ki je bila prej dodeljena v skladu z načrtom, ni več upravičena in jo je zato treba naknadno obravnavati kot nezdružljivo.
In fact, Poland argues that the employment aid was compatible with the common market because its approval had been linked to other factors in the accession negotiations.
Poljska dejansko meni, da je bila pomoč za zaposlovanje združljiva s skupnim trgom, saj je bila njena odobritev povezana z drugimi dejavniki v pristopnih pogajanjih.
Therefore, if the restructuring fails, individual measures such as employment restructuring must also be regarded as having been misused.
Če prestrukturiranje ne uspe, se morajo tako tudi posamezni ukrepi, kot je prestrukturiranje zaposlovanja, šteti za zlorabljene.
In the absence of any indication that such aid was compatible under other grounds the Commission must conclude that it is incompatible.
Ker ni nobenih kazalnikov, da je bila taka pomoč združljiva na drugih podlagah, mora Komisija v sklepu ugotoviti, da je nezdružljiva.
To sum up, in view of the fact that the remaining training, employment restructuring and other restructuring aid is not covered by any other exception under the ECSC Steel Aid Code or the EC State Aid rules, the Commission takes the view that it constitutes unauthorised restructuring aid which, under Protocol No 8, is deemed incompatible with the common market.
Če povzamemo, glede na dejstvo, da preostala pomoč za usposabljanje in prestrukturiranje zaposlovanja ter druga pomoč za prestrukturiranje ni zajeta v nobeni od izjem po Kodeksu o jeklarski pomoči ESPJ ali v pravilih ES o državni pomoči, Komisija meni, da pomeni nedovoljeno pomoč za prestrukturiranje, ki po Protokolu št. 8 šteje za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom.
The Commission therefore concludes that aid designated as restructuring aid of PLN 849746, as training aid of PLN 132240, as environmental aid of PLN 196800 and as employment aid of PLN 190400, i.e. PLN 1369186 in total, has been misused.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da je bila pomoč, določena kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje v znesku 849746 PLN, pomoč za usposabljanje v znesku 132240 PLN, okoljska pomoč v znesku 196800 PLN in pomoč za zaposlovanje v znesku 190400 PLN, tj. v skupnem znesku 1369186 PLN, zlorabljena.
Aid outside the NRP and after accession
Pomoč zunaj NPP in po pristopu
The non-enforcement of debts at end-2004 constitutes operating aid and is as such clearly incompatible with the common market.
Neizterjava dolgov ob koncu leta 2004 pomeni pomoč za tekoče poslovanje in je kot takšna jasno nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
It is not acceptable as restructuring aid either under Protocol No 8, which categorically prohibits any aid after 2003, or under any other provisions of Article 87(3) TEC.
Ta pomoč ni sprejemljiva kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje niti po Protokolu št. 8, ki brezpogojno prepoveduje vsako pomoč po letu 2003, niti po nobenih drugih določbah člena 87(3) PES.
Indeed, the Commission notes that the Polish authorities have not even claimed the contrary.
Komisija pravzaprav ugotavlja, da poljski organi sploh niso trdili obratno.
Therefore, any aid awarded to TB, BA and HB after Poland’s accession to the EU is incompatible regardless of whether the recipient (here HB) is a steel producer or not.
Zato je nezdružljiva vsaka pomoč, dodeljena TB, BA in HB po pristopu Poljske v EU, ne glede na to, ali je prejemnik (tukaj HB) proizvajalec jekla ali ne.
Aid recipient
Prejemnik pomoči
The Commission expressed its opinion in the decision to initiate the procedure that the aid recipient is the TB group, including all its subsidiaries with the possible exception of TB-ZPR.
Komisija je v odločitvi za sprožitev postopka izrazila svoje mnenje, da je prejemnik pomoči skupina TB, vključno z vsemi njenimi odvisnimi družbami, z možno izjemo TB-ZPR.
This is because HB and BA are clearly part of the same business entity, i.e. the TB group.
To je zato, ker sta HB in BA očitno del istega poslovnega subjekta, tj. skupine TB.
As regards the non-enforcement of debt, which amounted to PLN 20761643 million, the present investigation confirms that parts of the group benefited from it.
Glede neizterjave dolga, ki je znašal 20761643 milijonov PLN, sedanja preiskava potrjuje, da so deli skupine imeli od tega korist.
The Commission could not, however, establish such benefits in the case of ZPR and SAMKOL:
Vendar pa Komisija takšnih koristi ni mogla ugotoviti v primeru ZPR in SAMKOL:
ZPR is not majority owned by TB but by ZPR's employees; under Polish law it is thus not part of the group.
ZPR ni v večinski lasti TB, temveč v večinski lasti zaposlenih v ZPR; tako po poljski zakonodaji ni del skupine.
Furthermore, no investments were made in the company and nor were any assets or capital transferred to it from TB between 2003 and 2006 (and probably not before then either).
Poleg tega v to družbo ni bilo nobenih vlaganj in prenosa sredstev ali kapitala iz TB med letoma 2003 in 2006 (in verjetno niti pred tem ne).
On the other hand, the investigation showed that BA and HB profited from the aid.
Po drugi strani je preiskava pokazala, da sta imela BA in HB korist od pomoči.
The operating aid did not remain within TB because non-enforcement allowed it to proceed with its business activity and organise its internal restructuring.
Pomoč za tekoče poslovanje ni ostala znotraj TB, saj mu je neizterjava omogočala nadaljevanje poslovanja in organiziranje njegovega notranjega prestrukturiranja.
The restructuring and the operating aid allowed TB first to complete investments in automotive exhaust production of around PLN 6,383 million (see recital (43) above) [55] initiated between 2003 and 2005 and which would not have been possible if TB had had to service its debt properly or to file for bankruptcy earlier.
Prestrukturiranje in pomoč za tekoče poslovanje sta TB omogočila, da je dokončal vlaganje v proizvodnjo avtomobilskih izpušnih cevi v znesku približno 6,383 milijona PLN (glej uvodno izjavo 43 zgoraj) [55], začeto med letoma 2003 in 2005, ki sicer ne bi bilo mogoče, če bi moral TB najprej ustrezno odplačati svoj dolg ali prej vložiti predlog za postopek stečaja.
These assets, essential to automotive production, are today operated by BA.
Ta sredstva, bistvena za avtomobilsko proizvodnjo, danes upravlja BA.
Although BA merely leases these assets from TB it would, had these investments not been realised, have needed to make similar investments itself.
Čeprav ima BA ta sredstva zgolj v zakupu od TB, bi moral BA, če takih vlaganj ne bi bilo, zanje poskrbeti sam.
Moreover, by leasing these assets BA avoids exposure to enforcement of the associated pledges while enjoying similar rights to those of an owner, given that the lease period is unlimited.
Poleg tega se z zakupom teh sredstev BA izogiba izpostavljenosti povezanim zastavnim pravicam, uživa pa pravice, ki so podobne pravicam lastnika, če je obdobje zakupa neomejeno.
Moreover, BA is clearly continuing TB's core activity developed within the framework of TB’s restructuring plan with TB’s productive assets and workforce as part of the TB group.
Poleg tega BA jasno nadaljuje jedrno dejavnost TB, ki je bila razvita v okviru načrta prestrukturiranja TB s proizvodnimi sredstvi TB in delovno silo, ki je bila del skupine TB.
Second, transferring assets, workers and capital to its subsidiaries (PLN 14,81 million to HB and PLN 1,55 million to BA, see recitals (60) and (62)) was possible only because the operating aid saved TB from bankruptcy.
Drugič, prenos sredstev, delavcev in kapitala v odvisni družbi (14,81 milijona PLN v HB in 1,55 milijona PLN v BA, glej uvodni izjavi 60 in 62) je bil mogoč samo zato, ker je pomoč za tekoče poslovanje rešila TB pred stečajem.
Without this aid, the two subsidiaries would most probably not have been set up in the first place and would definitely not have been able to operate.
Brez te pomoči odvisni družbi verjetno sploh ne bi bili ustanovljeni, vsekakor pa ne bi mogli poslovati.
Despite the fact that BA, HB and TB are different legal persons, the Commission considers that economic continuity exists and, in the light of the ownership structure, deems the three companies to form together a single undertaking [56] which should therefore be regarded as the aid recipient [57].
Kljub dejstvu, da so BA, HB in TB različne pravne osebe, Komisija meni, da obstaja gospodarska kontinuiteta in da glede na lastniško strukturo te tri družbe skupaj tvorijo eno samo podjetje, [56] ki ga je torej treba obravnavati kot prejemnika pomoči [57].
This assessment of whether the company received an advantage is not altered by the fact that TB received some consideration in exchange for the benefits (i.e. shares for the capital injections and rent under the lease agreement) because it remained the ultimate owner (directly or indirectly) of all the assets and the transaction was not profit-orientated but carried out for reasons of internal organisation.
Ocene o tem, ali je bila družba deležna prednosti, ne spremeni dejstvo, da je TB prejel nekaj nadomestila v zamenjavo za koristi (tj. deleže za dokapitalizacijo in najemnino za zakupno pogodbo), saj je ostal končni lastnik (neposredno ali posredno) vseh sredstev, transakcija pa ni bila naravnana v dobiček, temveč izvedena zaradi notranje organizacije.
The main issue is that the benefit is relocated within the group, i.e. the competitive position of TB which was created by the distortive aid was transferred.
Najpomembneje je, da je bila korist prerazporejena znotraj skupine, tj. konkurenčna sposobnost TB, ustvarjena s pomočjo, ki povzroča izkrivljanje, se je prenesla.
The fact that TB holds the shares in its subsidiaries does not alter this [58].
Dejstvo, da ima TB deleže v svojih odvisnih družbah, tega ne spremeni [58].
However, the Commission would not go so far as to consider the sale of assets by TB to HB as an advantage, in so far as it was properly remunerated [59].
Vendar pa Komisija ne bi šla tako daleč, da bi prodajo sredstev TB družbi HB obravnavala kot prednost, če je bila ustrezno plačana [59].
On the basis of this assessment of the facts, and in view of the case-law of the European courts, the Commission considers that the incompatible aid should be recovered from the TB group bearing in mind the actual benefit derived from the aid [60].
Na podlagi te ocene dejstev in ob upoštevanju sodne prakse evropskih sodišč Komisija meni, da je treba od skupine TB izterjati nezdružljivo pomoč ob upoštevanju dejanske koristi, ki je bila posledica pomoči [60].
The Commission does not, however, agree with the Polish authorities that the case solely concerns the initial addressee of the claims, which were not enforced and therefore constituted aid.
Vendar pa se Komisija ne strinja s poljskimi organi, da ta primer zadeva izključno prvotnega naslovnika zahtevkov, ki niso bili izterjani in so zato pomenili pomoč.
In this case recovery of the aid could be carried out by registering the claim to the assets of the bankrupt TB.
V tem primeru bi bilo treba pomoč povrniti z evidentiranjem zahtevka do sredstev TB v stečaju.
This option could be implemented on the basis of established case-law which recognises that liquidation of a company is considered as an acceptable alternative to full recovery since the objective is to abolish the aid, and that objective can be attained by way of proceedings to wind up the company [61].
To možnost bi lahko izvedli na podlagi uveljavljene sodne prakse, ki ugotavlja, da likvidacija družbe velja za sprejemljivo alternativo popolni povrnitvi, saj je cilj odpraviti pomoč, in ta cilj je mogoče doseči s postopkom za prenehanje poslovanja družbe [61].
However, the Commission finds that winding up the original aid recipient is unsatisfactory from a competition perspective where the actual benefit of the aid has been passed on.
Vendar pa Komisija ugotavlja, da prenehanje poslovanja prvotnega prejemnika pomoči ni zadovoljivo z vidika konkurence, kadar je bila dejanska korist pomoči prenesena.
In this case, registration of the claim to the assets of the bankrupt TB would not allow the competitive advantage resulting from the actual benefit derived from the aid, which was passed on to TB’s subsidiaries, to be offset.
V tem primeru evidentiranje zahtevka do sredstev TB v stečaju ne bi omogočilo izravnave konkurenčne prednosti, ki je rezultat dejanske koristi, izhajajoče iz pomoči, prenesene na odvisni družbi TB.
Targeting TB alone would result in the sale of the subsidiaries as legal persons, but would not affect their economic activity as such, because the sale would not have an impact on the activity itself, the subsidiaries' accounts or their operations.
Če bi se usmerili samo v TB, bi se to končalo s prodajo odvisnih družb kot pravnih oseb, ne bi pa vplivalo na njihovo gospodarsko dejavnost, saj prodaja ne bi vplivala na samo dejavnost, račune odvisnih družb ali njihovo poslovanje.
Therefore, from a competition perspective, recovery from the actual recipients is the only appropriate option.
Zato je z vidika konkurence edina ustrezna možnost izterjava od dejanskih prejemnikov.
Accordingly, the Polish authorities should primarily target the subsidiaries (reverting to the group only if recovery from the subsidiaries is no longer possible).
Skladno s tem bi se morali poljski organi najprej usmeriti v odvisni družbi (in se obrniti na skupino le, če izterjava od odvisnih družb ne bi bila več mogoča).
This solution is in line with established case-law [62] on bankrupt undertakings and, in particular, with the Seleco case, which is based on similar facts but in which the Commission argued that the recovery claim should be extended to the hived-off entity.
Ta rešitev je skladna z uveljavljeno sodno prakso [62] o podjetjih v stečaju, predvsem pa z zadevo Seleco, ki je temeljila na podobnih dejstvih, v kateri pa je Komisija zahtevala, da je treba zahtevek za izterjavo razširiti na odcepljeno pravno osebo.
Contrary to the Seleco case, the Commission does not, however, want to extend recovery but has simply opted for recovering the actual benefit within the group.
Vendar pa, obratno kot v zadevi Seleco, Komisija ne želi razširiti izterjave, temveč se je preprosto odločila za izterjavo dejanske koristi znotraj skupine.
While the crucial issue as regards the extension of recovery is whether a hive-off removed resources from the bankrupt undertaking’s assets [63], this is irrelevant in an intra-group scenario as indicated above.
Bistveno vprašanje glede razširitve izterjave je sicer, ali je odcepljena družba odstranila sredstva iz premoženja podjetja v stečaju, [63] vendar pa to v zgoraj navedenem scenariju znotraj skupine ni pomembno.
In any event, the European courts accept that recovery can be demanded from a subsidiary if it was the actual recipient of the aid [64], which is the case here.
Vsekakor evropska sodišča dopuščajo, da je mogoče zahtevati povrnitev od odvisne družbe, če je bila dejanski prejemnik pomoči, [64] kot se je zgodilo v tem primeru.
Moreover, the Court of Justice has also accepted that the Commission should be allowed to seek recovery outside the liquidation procedure to avoid the risk of recovery being deprived of its effect [65].
Poleg tega je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti tudi privolilo v dovoljenje Komisiji, da zahteva povrnitev zunaj likvidacijskega postopka za izognitev tveganju, da bi povrnitvi odvzeli njen učinek [65].
As explained in recital (56) above, TB deliberately hived off the automotive steel business into BA in order to continue the activity that benefited from the aid [66].
Kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi 56 zgoraj, je TB namenoma odcepil jeklarsko dejavnost za avtomobilsko industrijo v BA, da bi nadaljeval to dejavnost, ki je imela korist od pomoči [66].
However, the Commission considers this as simply an additional reason for recovering the aid from the actual recipient.
Vendar pa Komisija meni, da je to preprosto še dodatni razlog za izterjavo pomoči od dejanskega prejemnika.
The Commission concludes that the restructuring of TB was not properly implemented and failed, and that all restructuring aid awarded to TB during the restructuring period must therefore be deemed to have been misused.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bilo prestrukturiranje TB neustrezno izvedeno in neuspešno ter da je treba zato vso pomoč, odobreno TB med prestrukturiranjem, obravnavati kot zlorabljeno.
However, any aid which is compatible because it was awarded for R&D, and which was spent for that purpose, was not misused.
Vendar pa kakršna koli pomoč, ki je združljiva, ker je bila odobrena za R in R, in ki je bila porabljena za to, ni bila zlorabljena.
Accordingly, the restructuring aid of PLN 1369186 received by the TB group between 1997 and 2003 is incompatible with points 9 and 18 of Protocol No 8 to the Accession Treaty and must be repaid pursuant to point 18 of Protocol No 8.
Skladno s tem je pomoč za prestrukturiranje v znesku 1369186 PLN, ki jo je prejel TB med letoma 1997 in 2003, nezdružljiva s točkama 9 in 18 Protokola št. 8 k Pristopni pogodbi in jo je treba vrniti v skladu s točko 18 Protokola št. 8.
Moreover, the restructuring aid received as of end-2004 of PLN 20761643 is incompatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(1) TEC and points 6 and 18 of Protocol No 8.
Poleg tega je pomoč za prestrukturiranje, prejeta od konca leta 2004 v znesku 20761643 PLN, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom v smislu člena 87(1) PES ter točk 6 in 18 Protokola št. 8.