natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See, for example, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-387/92 Banco Exterior de España [1994] ECR I-877, paragraph 14.
Glej na primer sodbo Sodišča z dne 15. marca 1994, Banco Exterior de España (C-387/92, Recueil, str. I-877, točka 14).
See the judgments of the Court of Justice in France v Commission, cited above in footnote 17, paragraph 24, and Ecotrade v Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola, cited above in footnote 17, paragraphs 40 and 41, and the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-55/99 CETM v Commission [2000] ECR II-3207, paragraph 39.
Glej sodbo Francija proti Komisiji, navedeno v opombi št. 17, točka 24, Ecotrade proti Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola, navedena v opombi št. 17, točki 40 in 41, in sodbo Sodišča z dne 29. septembra 2000, CETM proti Komisiji (T-55/99, Recueil, str. II-3207, točka 39).
See also the Commission Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation, cited above in footnote 30, paragraph 18.
Prav tako glej Sporočilo Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka (navedeno v opombi št. 30, točka 18).
See the judgment in Salzgitter, cited above in footnote 29, paragraph 38.
V zvezi s tem glej sodbo Salzgitter proti Komisiji, navedeno v opombi št. 29, točka 38.
See footnote 34.
Glej opombo 34.
See, by analogy, in the case of a tax measure benefiting only companies carrying on a certain type of operation, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-148/04 Unicredito Italiano [2005] ECR I-11137, paragraphs 45-47.
V zvezi z davčnim ukrepom, ki koristi le družbam, ki izvajajo določeno vrsto dejavnosti, glej, smiselno, sodbo Sodišča z dne 15. decembra 2005, Unicredito Italiano (C-148/04, Recueil I-11137, točke 45 do 47).
See footnote 35.
Glej opombo 35.
See paragraph 70 of Tax Instruction No 120, referred to above in footnote 35.
Glej odstavek 70 davčnega predpisa št. 120, navedenega v opombi št. 35.
Report No 66 — 1998-99 session, Rapporteur-General: Mr P. Marini, Senator/Volume III.
Poročilo št. 66 – zasedanje 1998-1999, skupni poročevalec: P.M. Marini, senator/Del III.
It is clear from the information supplied by the French authorities that fewer than 4 % of approval applications and fewer than 3 % of approvals granted concerned a sector other than transport (see the table in recital 17).
Na podlagi informacij francoskih organov je treba ugotoviti, da manj kot 4 % prošenj za soglasje in manj kot 3 % odobrenih prošenj zadeva sektor, ki ni sektor prometa (glej tabelo iz uvodne izjave 17).
See the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-409/00 Spain v Commission [2003] ECR I-1487, paragraph 48, and the case law cited therein.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 13. februarja 2003, Španija proti Komisiji (C-409/00, Receuil, str. I-1487, točka 48), in navedeno sodno prakso.
See the judgment in Salzgitter, cited above in footnote 29, paragraph 81.
Glej sodbo Salzgitter proti Komisiji, navedeno v opombi št. 29, točka 81.
See, inter alia, the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraph 67, and the case law cited therein, and C-172/03 Heiser v Finanzamt Innsbruck [2005] ECR I-1627, paragraph 54.
Glej zlasti sodbo Sodišča z dne 29. aprila 2004, Italija proti Komisiji (C-372/97, Recueil, str. I-3679, točka 67) in navedeno sodno prakso ter sodbo Sodišča z dne 3. marca 2005, Heiser proti Finanzamt Innsbruck (C-172/03, Recueil, str. I-1627, točka 54).
See the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig v Federal Republic of Germany [1977] ECR 595, paragraph 24, and the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-214/95 Het Vlaamse Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR II-717, paragraph 54.
Glej zlasti sodbo Sodišča z dne 22. marca 1977, Steinike & Weinlig (78/76, Recueil str. 595, točka 24) in sodbo Sodišča z dne 30. aprila 1998, Het Vlaams Gewest proti Komisiji (T-214/95, Recueil, II-717, točka 54).
See the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-295/97 Piaggio SpA v International Factors Italia SpA and Others [1999] ECR I-3735, paragraph 39, and the case law cited therein, and in Diputación Foral de Álava v Commission, cited above in footnote 17, paragraph 31.
Sodba z dne 17. junija 1999, Piaggio (C-295/97, Recueil, str. I-3735, točka 39) in navedena sodna praksa ter sodba z dne 6. marca 2002, Diputación Foral de Álava proti Komisiji, navedena v opombi št. 17, točka 31.
See the judgment in Spain v Commission, cited above in footnote 40, paragraphs 120 and 121, and the case law cited therein.
Glej sodbo z dne 15. julija 2004, Španija proti Komisiji, navedeno v opombi št. 40, točkah 120 in 121, in navedeno sodno prakso.
According to the French authorities, of the 22 decisions not to grant approval, 7 were based on the lack of any significant economic and social spin-offs.
Treba je opozoriti, da je bilo po mnenju francoskih organov med 22 odločitvami o zavrnitvi soglasja 7 zavrnjenih zaradi pomanjkanja znatnih gospodarskih in socialnih posledic.
Judgments of the Court of First Instance in Diputación Foral de Álava v Commission, cited above in footnote 17, paragraph 35, and in Case T-36/99 Lenzing v Commission [2004] ECR II-3597, paragraph 132.
Sodbi Sodišča z dne 6. marca 2002, Diputación Foral de Álava proti Komisiji, navedena v opombi št. 17, točka 35, in z dne 21. oktobra 2004, Lenzing proti Komisiji (T-36/99, Receuil, str. II-3597, točka 132).
Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-152/99 HAMSA v Commission [2002] ECR II-3049, paragraph 158.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 11. julija 2002, HAMSA proti Komisiji (T-152/99, Receuil, str. II-3049, točka 158).
Judgment in CETM v Commission, cited above in footnote 42, paragraph 49.
Sodba z dne 29. septembra 2000, CETM proti Komisiji, navedena v opombi št. 42, točka 49.
Judgment in Spain v Commission, cited above in footnote 51, paragraphs 52 and 53, and the judgment in Diputación Foral de Álava v Commission, cited above in footnote 17, paragraph 60, and the case law cited therein.
Sodba z dne 13. februarja 2003, Španija proti Komisiji, omenjena v opombi št. 51, točki 52 in 53, in sodba z dne 6. marca 2002, Diputación Foral de Álava proti Komisiji, omenjena v opombi št. 17, točka 60 in navedena sodna praksa.
This case law was reproduced by the Commission in its Notice of 10 December 1998 on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (cited above in footnote 30).
To sodno prakso je Komisija povzela v svojem sporočilu z dne 10. decembra 1998 o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka (navedeno v pripombi št. 30).
The Commission considers it appropriate to refer, by analogy, to the judgment in Case C-308/01 Gil Insurance and Others v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [2004] ECR I-4777, paragraphs 74 et seq., in which the Court of Justice regarded as justified by the nature and general scheme of the national system of taxation of insurance a measure whose aim was to counteract the practice of taking advantage of the difference between the standard rate of insurance premium tax and that of VAT by manipulating the prices of rental or sale of appliances and of the associated insurance.
Komisija meni, da je potrebno smiselno sklicevanje na sodbo z dne 29. aprila 2004, Gil Insurance e.a. (C-308/01, Receuil, str. I-4777, točka 74 in naslednje točke), v kateri je Sodišče ugotovilo, da narava in gospodarnost nacionalnega sistema za obdavčevanje zavarovalnin utemeljujeta ukrep, katerega cilj je preprečevanje postopkov za izkoriščanje razlik med običajno stopnjo davka na zavarovalne premije in stopnjo DDV s prilagoditvijo cen najema ali prodaje naprav in zavarovanj, ki so s tem povezani.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-159/01 Netherlands v Commission [2004] ECR I-4461, paragraph 51, and the case law cited therein.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 29. aprila 2004, Nizozemska proti Komisiji (C-159/00, Receuil, str. I-4461, točka 51) in navedena sodna praksa.
See, on the subject of selective exemptions from social security charges, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, paragraphs 27 and 28.
V zvezi s selektivnimi oprostitvami socialnih bremen glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 2. julija 1974, Italija proti Komisiji (173/73, Receuil, str. 709, točki 27 in 28).
See also the judgments in CETM v Commission, cited above in footnote 42, paragraph 53, and in Case T-127/99 Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission [2002] ECR II-1275, paragraph 168.
Glej tudi sodbi z dne 29. septembra 2000, CETM proti Komisiji, navedeno v opombi št. 42, točka 53, in z dne 6. marca 2002, Diputación Foral de Álava e.a. proti Komisiji (T-127/99, Receuil, str. II-1275, točka 168).
See, for example, the judgment in Diputación Foral de Álava v Commission, cited above in footnote 17, paragraph 51.
Glej na primer sodbo z dne 6. marca 2002, Diputación Foral de Álava proti Komisiji, navedeno v opombi št. 17, točka 51.
Judgment in CETM v Commission, cited above in footnote 42, paragraph 53, and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-351/98 Spain v Commission [2002] ECR I-8031.
Sodba CETM proti Komisiji, navedena v opombi št. 42, točka 53, in sodba Sodišča z dne 26. septembra 2002, Španija proti Komisiji (C-351/98, Receuil, str. I-8031).
See the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 57/86 Greece v Commission [1988] ECR 2855, paragraph 10, and in Adria-Wien Pipeline and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke, cited above in footnote 40, paragraph 41, and the case law cited therein.
V zvezi s tem glej sodbi Sodišča z dne 7. junija 1988, Grčija proti Komisiji (57/86, Recueil, str. 2855, točka 10) in z dne 8. novembra 2001, Adria-Wien Pipeline in Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke, navedeno v opombi št. 40, točka 41, in navedeno sodno prakso.
See the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 30, and the case law cited therein.
Glej sodbo z dne 19. septembra 2000, Nemčija proti Komisiji (C-156/98, Recueil, str. I-6857, točka 30) in navedeno sodno prakso.
See, inter alia, the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paragraphs 11 and 12, and in Vlaams Gewest v Commission, cited above in footnote 54, paragraphs 48-50.
Glej zlasti sodbo Sodišča z dne 17. septembra 1980, Philip Morris proti Komisiji (730/79, Recueil, str. 2671, točki 11 in 12) in sodbo z dne 30. aprila 1998, Vlaams Gewest proti Komisiji, navedeno v opombi št. 54, točke 48 do 50).
It is not necessary for the recipient undertaking itself to take part in intra-Community trade.
Opozoriti je treba, da ni nujno, da je upravičeno podjetje udeleženo pri trgovini znotraj Skupnosti.
Where a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, domestic production may for that reason be maintained or increased with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of exporting their products to the market in that Member State.
Ko država članica dodeli pomoč podjetju, se lahko dejansko ohranja ali spodbuja domača dejavnost, kar podjetjem s sedežem v drugih državah članicah zmanjšuje možnosti, da vstopijo na trg te države članice.
Moreover, the strengthening of an undertaking which, until then, did not take part in intra-Community trade may enable it to penetrate the market of another Member State (see Case C-310/99 Italy v Commission [2002] ECR I-2289, paragraph 84).
Razen tega lahko krepitev podjetja, ki do zdaj ni bilo udeleženo v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti, povzroči položaj, ko je temu podjetju omogočen vstop na trg druge države članice (v zvezi s tem glej zlasti sodbo z dne 7. marca 2002, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil, str. I-2289, točka 84).
See the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraphs 44 and 45, and, on the unlawfulness of the scheme at issue, paragraphs 153-155.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 29. aprila 2004, Italija proti Komisiji (C-372/97, Recueil, str. I-3679, točki 44 in 45) in, v zvezi z nezakonitostjo zadevne sheme, uvodne izjave 153 do 155.
See the Commission Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (referred to above in footnote 30), paragraph 35.
Glej sporočilo Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka (navedeno v pripombi št. 30, točka 35).
See the table in recital 17.
Glej tabelo iz uvodne izjave 17.
OJ C 258, 9.9.2000, p. 5.
UL C 258, 9.9.2000, str. 5.
OJ C 312, 9.12.2005, p. 1.
UL C 312, 9.12.2005, str. 1.
The Commission would point out in this connection that the compatibility of unlawfully granted aid must be assessed in accordance with the substantive rules in force at the time when the aid was granted (see the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid, OJ C 119, 22.5.2002, p. 22).
Komisija v zvezi s tem opozarja, da je treba združljivost nezakonito dodeljene pomoči oceniti ob upoštevanju materialnih pravil iz vseh instrumentov, veljavnih na dan njihove dodelitve (v zvezi s tem glej Sporočilo Komisije o določitvi pravil, ki se uporabljajo za ovrednotenje nezakonite državne pomoči, UL C 119, 22.5.2002, str. 22).
Where aid measures pursuant to Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code were granted subsequent to the entry into force of the 2004 Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport, only those guidelines will therefore be applicable.
Zato se ob predvidevanju, da so se ukrepi pomoči na podlagi člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih izvajali po začetku veljavnosti smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za pomorski promet iz leta 2004, uporabljajo le te smernice.
The relevant rules have not been amended, save as regards tugs and dredgers (see recital 170 below).
Vendar se ustrezna pravila niso spremenila, razen na področju vlačilcev in plavajočih bagrov (glej uvodno izjavo 170).
See recital 38.
Glej uvodno izjavo 38.
See recitals 25 and 26.
Glej uvodni izjavi 25 in 26.
See recital 57.
Glej uvodno izjavo 57.
See, in this connection, the twelfth to sixteenth paragraphs of point 3.1 of the 2004 Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport, cited above in footnote 12.
V zvezi s tem glej pododstavke 12 do 16 točke 3.1 smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za pomorski promet iz leta 2004, navedene v pripombi št. 12.
Commission Decision C(2003) 1476 FIN of 13 May 2003 — State aid N 737/2002.
Odločba Komisije C (2003) 1476 FIN z dne 13. maja 2003 – Državna pomoč N 737/2002.
See the judgment in RSV v Commission, cited above in footnote 24.
Glej sodbo z dne 24. novembra 1987, RSV proti Komisiji, navedeno v opombi št. 24.
See the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission [2002] ECR I-7869, paragraph 140.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 24. septembra 2002, Falck et Acciaierie di Bolzano proti Komisiji (C-74/00 P in C-75/00 P, Recueil 2002, str. I-7869, točka 140).
The Commission has not provided any specific, unconditional and concordant assurances of such a nature as to give rise to justified hopes on the part of the French authorities and/or beneficiaries under the scheme at issue that the scheme was lawful (see, on the definition of the principle of legitimate expectation, the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases 265/85 Van den Bergh en Jurgens v Commission [1987] ECR 1155, paragraph 44, and C-152/88 Sofrimport v Commission [1990] ECR I-2477, paragraph 26; judgments of the Court of First Instance in Cases T-290/97 Mehibas Dordtselaan v Commission [2000] ECR II-15, paragraph 59, and T-223/00 Kyowa Hakko Kogyo v Commission [2003] ECR II-2553, paragraph 51; see, on the absence of a legitimate expectation on the part of recipients of aid unlawfully implemented, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P Demesa and Territorio Histórico de Álava v Commission [2004] ECR I-10609, paragraphs 44 and 45, and the case law cited therein.
Komisija ni zagotovila natančnih brezpogojnih in usklajenih zagotovil, na podlagi katerih bi lahko francoski organi in/ali upravičenci zadevne sheme utemeljeno pričakovali, da je shema pravilna (v zvezi z opredelitvijo načela legitimnega pričakovanja glej sodbe Sodišča z dne 11. marca 1987, Van den Bergh en Jurgens proti Komisiji, 265/85, Recueil, str. 1155, točka 44, in z dne 26. junija 1990, Sofrimport proti Komisiji, C-152/88, Recueil, str. I-2477, točka 26; in sodbe Sodišča z dne 18. januarja 2000, Mehibas Dordtselaan proti Komisiji, T-290/97, Recueil, str. II-15, točka 59; z dne 9. julija 2003, Kyowa Hakko Kogyo proti Komisiji, T-223/00, Recueil, str. II-2553, točka 51; v zvezi s pomanjkanjem legitimnega pričakovanja upravičencev nezakonito izvajane pomoči glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 11. novembra 2004, Demesa in Territorio Histórico de Álava proti Komisiji, C-183/02 P in C-187/02 P, Recueil, str. I-10609, točki 44 in 45 ter navedena sodna praksa).
See recitals 153-155.
Glej uvodne izjave 153 do 155.
The Commission would point out that, since the entry into force of Regulation No 659/99 (referred to above in footnote 90) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing it (OJ L 140, 30.4.2001, p. 1), such a state of affairs cannot happen again.
Komisija vseeno opozarja, da se takšne razmere ne morejo ponoviti od začetka veljavnosti Uredbe št. 659/99 (navedene v opombi 90) in Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 z dne 21. aprila 2004 o njenem izvajanju (UL L 140, 30.4.2004, str. 1).
Both Regulations remind Member States of their obligation to notify in advance any proposal to grant new aid.
Dejansko se v skladu s tema dvema uredbama opozarja, da morajo države članice pravočasno uradno obvestiti vsak nov projekt pomoči.
The practical arrangements for making such notifications, such as the use of standard forms, are set out clearly.
Praksa, zlasti uporaba standardnih obrazcev, v skladu s katerimi je treba ta obvestila posredovati, je v zvezi s tem jasno določena.
Referred to above in footnote 16.
Navedeno v opombi št. 16.
Referred to above in footnote 15.
Navedeno v opombi št. 15.
See the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-109/01 Fleuren Compost v Commission [2004] ECR II-127, paragraphs 74 et seq.
V zvezi s tem glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 14. januarja 2004, Fleuren Compost proti Komisiji (T-109/01, Recueil, str. II-127, točka 74 in naslednje točke).
See recitals 150-152.
Glej uvodne izjave 150 do 152.
See, by analogy, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-183/91 Commission v Greece [1993] ECR I-3131, end of paragraph 16.
V tem smislu glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 10. junija 1993, Komisija proti Grčiji (C-183/91, Recueil, str. I-3131, točka 16 na koncu).
List of interested parties who submitted comments to the Commission under Article 88(2) of the Treaty
Seznam zainteresiranih strank, ki so v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe predloile pripombe Komisiji
Anonymous
Neimenovana stranka
Information concerning implementation of the Commission Decision 2007/731/EC
Informacije v zvezi z izvajanjem Odločbe 2007/731/ES
(to be transmitted to the Directorate-General for Competition in the case of projects in the industrial sector and to the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport in the case of projects in the transport sector)
(ki se predloži generalnemu direktoratu za konkurenco za projekte v sektorju industrije ter generalnemu direktoratu za energetiko in promet za projekte v sektorju prometa)
Total number of recipients and total amount of aid to be recovered under Article 4(1) of this Decision
Skupno število upravičencev in skupni znesek pomoči, ki se vrne na podlagi člena 4(1) te odločbe
Please explain how the amount of aid to be recovered from the various recipients will be calculated, giving a breakdown into:
Podrobno navedite, kako se bo izračunal znesek vrnjene pomoči glede na različne upravičence
capital:
glavnica:
interest:
obresti:
What is the total amount of unlawful aid granted under the scheme that has to be recovered (gross grant equivalent, price, etc.)?
Kakšen je skupni znesek nezakonito dodeljene pomoči iz sheme, ki ga je treba vrniti (ustrezna bruto subvencija, cene...)?
What is the total number of recipients from whom unlawful aid granted under the scheme has to be recovered?
Kakšno je skupno število upravičencev, ki morajo vrniti nezakonito dodeljeno pomoč iz te sheme?
Measures taken and to be taken to recover the aid
Načrtovani in že izvedeni ukrepi za vračilo pomoči
What measures have been or will be taken to recover the aid immediately and effectively?
Navedite načrtovane ukrepe in ukrepe, ki so že bili izvedeni, za takojšnje in učinkovito vračilo pomoči.
What is the legal basis for those measures?
Prav tako navedite, če je to primerno, pravno podlago teh ukrepov.
When will all the aid have been recovered?
Kdaj bo vračanje pomoči v celoti izvedeno?
Information on individual recipients
Informacije glede na posameznega upravičenca
For each recipient from whom unlawful aid granted under the scheme at issue is to be recovered, please fill in the following table:
Izpolnite naslednjo tabelo za vsakega upravičenca, ki mora vrniti nezakonito dodeljeno pomoč iz zadevne sheme:
Name of recipient
Identiteta upravičenca
Amount of unlawful aid granted [1]Currency:…
Znesek nezakonito dodeljene pomoči [1]Valuta: …
Amount of aid made available to the recipient (gross grant equivalent, price, etc.)
Znesek pomoči, ki je na voljo upravičencu (ustrezna bruto subvencija, cena...).
o Gross amounts reimbursed (including interest)
Vrnjeni bruto zneski (vključno z obrestmi).
A — MARITIME AND AIR TRANSPORT
A – POMORSKI IN LETALSKI PROMET
(to be transmitted to the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport)
(ki se predloži generalnemu direktoratu za energetiko in promet)
FOR EACH MARITIME OR AIR TRANSPORT COMPANY
(ZA VSAKO DRUŽBO ZA POMORSKI ALI LETALSKI PROMET)
Nature of the investment and eligibility under the applicable guidelines.
Vrsta vlaganja in upravičenost do veljavnih smernic.
For example, in the case of air transport: location in an outermost region, additional operating costs; maximum eligible expenditure under the guidelines, etc.
Zlasti za letalski promet: omejitev na najbolj oddaljene regije, dodatni stroški delovanja; najvišji upravičeni stroški na podlagi smernic itd.
Calculation of the aid to be reimbursed
Izračun pomoči za vračilo
Share of the advantage passed on by the EIG to the company.
Stopnja vračila gospodarskega interesnega združenja družbi.
Amount of the advantage received by the company under Article 39 CA for its entire air or sea fleet throughout the period concerned.
Znesek ugodnosti, do katerega je upravičena družba za celotno letalsko ali pomorsko floto na podlagi člena 39 CA v obravnavanem obdobju.
Amount of any other aid granted to the company under the applicable guidelines during the period concerned.
Znesek drugih dodeljenih pomoči družbi v skladu z veljavnimi smernicami v obravnavanem obdobju.
Maximum allowable amount of aid which may be granted to the company under the applicable guidelines.
Najvišji dovoljeni znesek pomoči, ki se lahko dodeli družbi v skladu z veljavnimi smernicami.
= (2) + (3) — (4) is the amount of any incompatible aid to be reimbursed
= (2) + (3) – (4) je možen znesek nezdružljive pomoči za vračilo
If (5) is a positive figure, the EIG concerned must reimburse: (5) * [1- (1)]
Če je (5) pozitiven, mora zadevno gospodarsko interesno združenje vrniti: (5) * [1- (1)],
and the company must reimburse: (5) * (1)
podjetje pa mora vrniti: (5) * (1).
B — INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENTS AND THE CORRESPONDING EIGs
B – INDUSTRIJSKA VLAGANJA IN USTREZNA GOSPODARSKA INTERESNA ZDRUŽENJA
(to be transmitted to the Directorate-General for Competition)
(ki se predloži generalnemu direktoratu za konkurenco)
Amount of the investment, region in which it was carried out and payment of the recipient's 25 % contribution
Znesek vlaganja, področje izvedbe in pogoj 25-odstotnega deleža upravičencev
Regional aid ceiling for the region concerned
Zgornja meja regionalne pomoči zadevnega področja
Amount of the advantage such as it results from the ministerial instruction
Znesek ugodnosti, ki izhaja iz navodila ministrstva