natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
First, the Commission became aware of the existence of two documents indicating that the loans were not being reimbursed.
Najprej je Komisija izvedela, da obstajata dva dokumenta, ki navajata, da se posojila ne vračajo.
The first document was submitted by the anonymous third party.
Prvi dokument je predložila anonimna tretja stranka.
This was a report by a major commercial bank concerning Finmeccanica's financial position.
To je bilo poročilo glavne poslovne banke v zvezi s finančnim položajem družbe Finmeccanica.
In this report, dated 12 August 2004, [the investment bank] wrote that Finmeccanica had stated that ‘the principal has to be repaid only once deliveries exceed a certain ([…]) volume, so that Finmeccanica has very low repayments in the first 15 years and is much less likely to have to repay all of the advance’.
V tem poročilu z dne 12. avgusta 2004 je [investicijska banka] zapisala, da je družba Finmeccanica navedla, da je treba glavnico vrniti le, če dobave presegajo določeno ([…]) količino, pri čemer ima družba Finmeccanica zelo nizka vračila v prvih 15 letih in je malo verjetno, da bo morala poplačati celotno predplačilo.
The second document was a report of the Italian Court of Auditors (Corte dei Conti) on the application of Law No 808/1985.
Drugi dokument je bilo poročilo italijanskega računskega sodišča (Corte dei Conti) o izvajanju Zakona št. 808/1985.
In section 6 of this document, the Court of Auditors analysed the position regarding the reimbursement of loans.
V oddelku 6 tega dokumenta je računsko sodišče analiziralo stališče v zvezi z odplačilom posojil.
The report referred to a ministerial order that laid down the precise mechanism for the reimbursement of loans granted under Law No 808/1985.
Poročilo je zadevalo odredbo ministra, ki je določala natančne mehanizme za odplačilo posojil, odobrenih v okviru Zakona št. 808/1985.
The order has never been provided to the Commission by the Italian authorities, and does not seem to have been made public even in Italy.
Italijanski organi niso nikoli predložili Komisiji te odredbe, pri čemer se zdi, da tudi v Italiji ni bila objavljena.
The Court of Auditors referred to it only by the number of its registration at the Court.
Računsko sodišče se je nanjo sklicevalo le s številko svoje registracije na sodišču.
According to the Court of Auditors, the mechanism laid down in the ministerial order required in particular that the planned reimbursements be set out in a chart showing the instalments to be paid back to the State.
Po navedbah računskega sodišča je mehanizem iz odredbe ministra zahteval zlasti, da se v načrtu s prikazom obrokov za odplačilo državi določijo načrtovana vračila.
However, this schedule of repayments did not have to be adhered to if the programme was not technically or economically successful in the manner originally expected.
Vendar tega časovnega okvira za odplačila ni bilo treba upoštevati, če program ni bil tehnično ali gospodarsko uspešen tako, kot se je najprej pričakovalo.
The report of the Court of Auditors also stated that the proportion of loans actually reimbursed ranged from 0,86 % to 80,18 %, and that the overall proportion of reimbursement of the total loans paid out was 68,92 %; the Court said that in some cases reimbursements had been delayed or had not taken place.
Poročilo računskega sodišča je prav tako navajalo, da je bil delež posojil, ki so bila dejansko vrnjena, od 0,86 % do 80,18 % in da je bil celoten delež odplačila vseh izplačanih posojil 68,92 %; sodišče je sporočilo, da so v nekaterih primerih vračila zamujala ali niso bila izvedena.
Second, France and the anonymous third party submitted lists of other projects which they said had received aid and which Italy had failed to notify.
Drugič, Francija in anonimna tretja stranka sta predložili sezname drugih projektov, za katere sta trdili, da so prejeli pomoč, vendar Italija tega ni priglasila.
The figures they gave were for the amounts of the loans rather than gross grant equivalents.
Številke, ki so jih navedli, so bile v zvezi z zneskom posojil in ne z bruto ekvivalentom dotacije.
The relationship between the amounts of loans and their gross grant equivalents depends on the manner of reimbursement of the aid.
Razmerje med zneski posojil in njihovimi bruto ekvivalenti dotacije je odvisno od načina vračila pomoči.
As has been explained in paragraphs 0 to 0, the third parties and the Italian authorities disagreed on these mechanisms.
Tretje stranke in italijanski organi se glede teh mehanizmov niso strinjali, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 109–122.
In reply to question on this point the Italian authorities explained that the figures from the third parties were at least in part incorrect.
Kot odgovor na vprašanje o tem, so italijanski organi razložili, da so bile številke tretje stranke vsaj delno nepravilne.
In particular, the reports that the anonymous third party cited as its main sources merely set out hypotheses for possible future aid.
Poročila, ki jih je anonimna tretja stranka navajala kot glavni vir, so le določila domneve za možno prihodnjo pomoč.
Not all the projects considered for aid in this report had actually been launched.
Dejansko vsi projekti pomoči v tem poročilu niso bili izvedeni.
Some of the projects that had in fact been initiated had not received aid, or had received less than was initially foreseen in the reports.
Nekateri projekti, ki so bili začeti, niso prejeli pomoči ali so prejeli manj pomoči, kot je bilo prvotno predvideno v poročilih.
Lastly, some of the projects were of a military nature.
Nazadnje, nekateri projekti so bili vojaške narave.
Third, the Commission learned of two further projects — the AB139 and BA609 — and raised doubts in particular as to whether they could be classified as military, as the Italian authorities claimed.
Tretjič, Komisija je izvedela še za dva projekta, AB139 in BA609, pri čemer je imela pomisleke zlasti glede razvrstitve projektov za vojaške, kot so trdili italijanski organi.
To summarise, since the information available was not conclusive, and since the Commission had become aware of documents and information that raised new issues, the Commission decided to widen the scope of the Article 88(2) proceedings (in the second initiating decision).
Za povzetek, ker informacije, ki so bile na voljo, niso bile prepričljive in ker je Komisija izvedela za dokumente in informacije, ki so sprožili nova vprašanja, se je Komisija odločila, da razširi področje uporabe postopkov iz člena 88(2) (v drugi odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka).
In the second initiating decision, the Commission expressed three main concerns.
V drugi odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija izrazila tri glavne pomisleke.
The first was a question as to the nature of the aid instrument, namely whether the loans provided under Law No 808/1985 were always fully reimbursed.
Prvi pomislek je bilo vprašanje v zvezi z naravo instrumenta pomoči, in sicer, ali so bila posojila v okviru Zakona št. 808/1985 vedno v celoti odplačana.
The Commission also seriously doubted whether the Italian authorities had informed it of all individual cases exceeding the thresholds for individual notification, under the terms of the initial decision of 1986 and of the appropriate measures accepted by Italy in 1996.
Komisija je prav tako resno dvomila, ali so jo italijanski organi obvestili o vseh posameznih primerih preseganja pragov za individualno priglasitev, v okviru pogojev odločitve o sprožitvi postopka iz leta 1986 in ustreznih ukrepov, ki jih je Italija sprejela leta 1996.
Finally, the Commission seriously doubted whether the AB139 and BA609 projects could be qualified as military, as the Italian authorities claimed.
Nazadnje je imela Komisija resne pomisleke, ali je mogoče projekta AB139 in BA609 opredeliti kot vojaška, kot so trdili italijanski organi.
The second initiating decision stated clearly that, although the original investigation concerned only six cases, and although the comments provided by third parties were submitted within the scope of those proceedings, it was clear that the new doubts raised in the comments submitted went beyond the six cases.
V drugi odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je bilo jasno navedeno, da je bilo kljub prvotni preiskavi, ki je zadevala le šest primerov, in pripombam tretje stranke, ki so bile predložene na področju uporabe teh postopkov, jasno, da so novi pomisleki v zvezi s predloženimi pripombami presegali teh šest primerov.
The doubts now expressed related to the entire application of Law No 808/1985.
Zdaj izraženi pomisleki so zadevali celotno izvajanje Zakona št. 808/1985.
Thus they concerned all individual cases in which the Law had been applied, and among them all of the 13 cases, including those that had been considered not to require prior notification and those to which the Commission had raised no objection in its decision of 1 October 2003.
Tako so zadevali vse posamezne primere, v katerih se je ta zakon izvajal, med njimi vseh 13 primerov, vključno s tistimi, ki niso zahtevali predhodne priglasitve, ter tistimi, ki jim Komisija v sklepu z dne 1. oktobra 2003 ni nasprotovala.
The second initiating decision did not concern projects below the thresholds for individual notification, with the following exception.
Druga odločitev o sprožitvi postopka ni zadevala projektov pod pragom za individualno priglasitev, razen naslednje izjeme.
The Commissions doubts did apply to the application of Law No 808/1985 including all individual decisions granting aid below the individual notification threshold that had been taken since 22 November 2002.
Pomisleki Komisije so veljali za izvajanje Zakona št. 808/1985, vključno z vsemi posamičnimi odločbami za dodelitev pomoči pod pragom za individualno priglasitev, ki so bile sprejete od 22. novembra 2002.
Finally, the second initiating decision indicated clearly that its scope was limited to individual aid measures for civilian projects.
Končno, druga odločitev o sprožitvi postopka je jasno navedla, da je bilo področje uporabe omejeno na posamezne ukrepe pomoči za civilne projekte.
The Commission observed that, at that stage of its analysis, it considered that projects which consisted in modifying a military product to adapt it to civilian use should be considered as civilian.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je v času analize menila, da je treba projekte, ki so zajemali spremembo vojaškega proizvoda za prilagoditev civilni uporabi, obravnavati kot civilne.
ITALY'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE SECOND INITIATING DECISION
UGOTOVITVE ITALIJE O DRUGI ODLOČITVI O SPROŽITVI POSTOPKA
Concerning procedure
V zvezi s postopkom
In the first place, Italy indicated it was presenting its observations together with Finmeccanica.
Italija je predvsem navedla, da predstavlja svoje ugotovitve skupaj z družbo Finmeccanica.
Italy pointed out that in the second initiating decision the Commission had acknowledged that the aid scheme introduced by Law No 808/1985 constituted an existing aid measure, as it had been approved by the Commission in 1986 and again in 2002.
Italija je poudarila, da je Komisija v drugi odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka potrdila, da je program pomoči, ki ga je uvedel Zakon št. 808/1985, pomenil sedanji ukrep pomoči, kar je Komisija odobrila leta 1986 in ponovno leta 2002.
Italy observed that the second initiating decision was based either on Article 16 of the Procedural Regulation or on Article 13.
Italija je ugotovila, da je druga odločitev o sprožitvi postopka temeljila na členu 16 ali členu 13 postopkovne uredbe.
Italy did not agree that there had been misuse of aid: that concept would apply only to misuse by the recipient of the aid it had received.
Italija se ni strinjala, da je prišlo do zlorabe pomoči: ta pojem bi veljal le za zlorabo pomoči s strani prejemnika te pomoči.
All the aid granted under the scheme had been used for the purpose it was granted for.
Vsa pomoč v okviru programa je bila uporabljena za namen, za katerega je bila dodeljena.
Italy objected to the term ‘misuse’ especially with regard to the individual aid granted after 20 November 2002.
Italija je nasprotovala pojmu „zloraba“, zlasti v zvezi z individualno pomočjo, dodeljeno po 20. novembru 2002.
If the Commission had wanted to examine the aid granted in each case under the scheme, it should have done so in the context of the constant review of existing aid schemes provided for in Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty.
Če bi Komisija želela preveriti dodeljeno pomoč v vsakem primeru iz okvira programa, bi morala to storiti v okviru rednega preverjanja sedanjih programov pomoči iz člena 88(1) Pogodbe ES.
Proceedings under Article 88(2) of the Treaty were not possible under the Procedural Regulation unless the cases were identified in a precise and specific manner.
Postopki iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe v okviru postopkovne uredbe niso bili mogoči, razen, če primeri ne bi bili opredeljeni natančno in podrobno.
Concluding on the procedural aspects, Italy observed that the second initiating decision generated a situation of legal uncertainty because of the lack of a clear definition of its scope.
V zvezi s sklepi o postopkovnih vidikih je Italija ugotovila, da je druga odločitev o sprožitvi postopka povzročila pravno negotovost zaradi nejasne opredelitve področja uporabe odločitve.
Development of the scheme
Razvoj programa
In its reply to the second initiating decision, Italy clarified the history of the scheme.
V odgovoru na drugo odločitev o sprožitvi postopka je Italija pojasnila zgodovino programa.
Military programmes had historically been dealt with partly by the Ministry of Industry.
Vojaške programe je v preteklosti delno obravnavalo tudi ministrstvo za industrijo.
Italy summarised the way the scheme had been adapted to the 1996 Framework and to the appropriate measures.
Italija je oblikovala povzetek o načinu prilagajanja programa Okviru iz leta 1996 in ustreznim ukrepom.
It sketched the essential outline of the scheme in the future, which still needed to be transposed into a new internal regulation.
Oblikovala je osnutek prihodnjega programa, ki ga je bilo treba prenesti v novo notranjo ureditev.
Italy commented on the question of reimbursement.
Italija je oblikovala pripombe glede vprašanja vračila.
For an authentic interpretation of the Court of Auditors report referred to in the second initiating decision, the Italian authorities had approached the Court itself.
V zvezi z verodostojno razlago poročila računskega sodišča iz druge odločitve o sprožitvi postopka so se italijanski organi obrnili na sodišče.
In reply the Court said, first and foremost, that the report was concerned only with the period up to 1998.
V odgovoru je sodišče predvsem navedlo, da je poročilo zadevalo le obdobje do leta 1998.
Given the limited period covered, it would be wrong to draw general conclusions.
Glede na omejenost obravnavanega obdobja bi bilo napačno oblikovati splošne ugotovitve.
In the second place, the Court said that the report confirmed that for all projects sales had started and reimbursements had been made, though with some delays.
Drugič, sodišče je dejalo, da je poročilo potrdilo začetek prodaje in opravljena vračila za vse projekte, čeprav z nekaj zamude.
Lastly, as regards the possibility that the State might renounce its claim (which would be the case if the loans were not to be reimbursed), the Court confirmed that it was a general principle of Italian public administration that claims could not be abandoned.
Nazadnje je sodišče v zvezi z možnostjo, da bi lahko država preklicala svoj zahtevek (kar bi se zgodilo, če se posojila ne bi odplačala), potrdilo, da je veljalo splošno načelo italijanske javne uprave, da zahtevkov ni mogoče opustiti.
A ministerial order, the Court said, could not make provision for any such abandonment.
Sodišče je izjavilo, da odredba ministra ne more predvidevati takšne opustitve.
In the report the Court had not mentioned any possibility that the public administration might renounce its claim to reimbursement.
Sodišče v poročilu ni omenilo nobene možnosti, da bi javna uprava lahko preklicala svoj zahtevek za vračilo.
Italy acknowledged that there had been delays in reimbursement in a few cases, but added that a schedule for reimbursement was laid down in the decision to grant the aid.
Italija je priznala, da so bile v nekaj primerih zamude pri odplačevanju, vendar je dodala, da je časovni okvir za odplačila določen v odločbi za dodelitev pomoči.
The recipient had to sign a clause requiring it to repay the principal.
Prejemnik je moral podpisati klavzulo, ki zahteva odplačilo glavnice.
Italy said the Commission had expressed doubts regarding reimbursement partly because of the report from [the investment bank] on Finmeccanica referred to in the second initiating decision.
Italija je izjavila, da je imela Komisija pomisleke v zvezi z vračilom, delno zaradi poročila [investicijske banke] o družbi Finmeccanica iz druge odločitve o sprožitvi postopka.
But that report, according to Italy, made it clear that the sentence quoted in the second initiating decision — ‘the principal has to be repaid only once deliveries exceed a certain (high) volume, so that Finmeccanica has very low repayments in the first 15 years and is much less likely to have to repay all of the advance’ — was preceded by a sentence that showed that it referred to the companys defence business.
Vendar je to poročilo po mnenju Italije pojasnilo, da je pred navedkom iz druge odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, da je treba glavnico vrniti le, če dobave presegajo določeno (veliko) količino, pri čemer ima družba Finmeccanica zelo nizka vračila v prvih 15 letih in je malo verjetno, da bo morala poplačati celotno predplačilo, stavek, ki je pokazal, da gre za obrambni sektor podjetja.
Finally, Italy said, the Commission had doubts regarding reimbursement because it believed Italy had refused access to the full texts of the granting decisions.
Končno je Italija dejala, da je imela Komisija pomisleke v zvezi z vračilom, ker je menila, da je Italija zavrnila dostop do celotnih besedil odločb o dodelitvi.
Italy reiterated that the recitals to all the granting decisions were identical, and this included those for military projects.
Italija je vztrajala, da so uvodne izjave k vsem odločbam o dodelitvi enake, kar vključuje tudi odločbe za vojaške projekte.
Furthermore, in Italy's view the recitals omitted could not contain any conditions additional to what was in the main text of the decisions themselves.
Razen tega po mnenju Italije izpuščene uvodne izjave ne bi mogle vsebovati nobenih dodatnih pogojev h glavnemu besedilu samih odločb.
The aid instrument used was a soft loan, with fixed reimbursement schedules that were always adhered to, with a few limited exceptions.
Uporabljeni instrument pomoči je bilo ugodno posojilo z določenimi časovnimi okviri za odplačila, ki so bili vedno upoštevani, z nekaj omejenimi izjemami.
Furthermore, the loans had been paid out to recipients under ‘commitment limits’ over 10 to 15 years, or immediately in a single payment, but in this second case there was involvement on the part of a bank, which had to be discounted.
Razen tega so bila posojila izplačana prejemnikom v okviru „omejitev obveznosti“ v 10 do 15 letih ali takoj v enem obroku, ki je moralo biti diskontirano, vendar je v tem primeru sodelovala banka.
Reimbursement started the first year after the last payment.
Vračilo se je začelo prvo leto po zadnjem plačilu.
To conclude on the aid instrument and the reimbursement, Italy maintained that the instrument used was a soft loan.
V zvezi z zaključkom glede instrumenta pomoči in vračila je Italija vztrajala, da je bil uporabljeni instrument ugodno posojilo.
Italy also submitted observations on the two helicopters referred to in the second initiating decision (the AB139 and the BA609).
Italija je prav tako predložila ugotovitve o dveh helikopterjih iz druge odločitve o sprožitvi postopka (AB139 in BA609).
Along with these observations, Italy provided the documents requested concerning the legal basis:
Skupaj s temi ugotovitvami je Italija zagotovila tudi zahtevane dokumente v zvezi s pravno podlago:
decision (delibera) of the Interministerial Committee on Economic Programming, dated 15 April 1986, on the initial implementation of Law No 808/1985;
Odločitev medresorskega odbora za gospodarsko načrtovanje z dne 15. aprila 1986 o začetnem izvajanju Zakona št. 808/1985 „Delibera CIPE del 15 aprile 1986 sulla prima attuazione della legge 808/1985“;
order (decreto) of the Minister for Industry, dated 8 June 1986, on the mechanisms for the submission of applications for aid;
Odredba ministra za industrijo z dne 8. junija 1986 o mehanizmih za vložitev zahtevkov za pomoč „Decreto del ministro dell’Industria dell’8 giugno 1986 sulle modalità di presentazione delle richieste di aiuto“;
order of the Minister of the Treasury, dated 7 February 1987, on the role of Mediocredito Centrale;
Odredba ministra za finance z dne 7. februarja 1987 o vlogi banke Mediocredito Centrale „Decreto del ministro del Tesoro del 7 febbraio 1987, sul ruolo di Mediocredito Centrale“;
order of the Minister for Industry, dated 14 March 1988, detailing further criteria for the implementation of Law No 808/1985;
Odredba ministra za industrijo z dne 14. marca 1988 o podrobnostih dodatnih meril za izvajanje Zakona št. 808/1985 „Decreto del ministro dell’Industria del 14 marzo1988, che descrive in maggior dettaglio i criteri di attuazione della legge 808/1985“;
press release issued by the Interministerial Committee on Industrial Policy (CIPI), dated 30 May 1991, on collaboration with foreign partners;
sporočilo za javnost, ki ga je izdal medresorski odbor o industrijski politiki (CIPI) z dne 30. maja 1991 o sodelovanju s tujimi partnerji „Comunicato stampa del Comitato Interministeriale per la Politica Industriale (in prosieguo, CIPI‘) del 30 maggio 1991, sulle collaborazioni con partner stranier“;
Law No 181 of 4 June 1991 refinancing the scheme;
Zakon št. 181 z dne 4. junija 1991 o refinanciranju programa „Legge 4 giugno 1991 n. 181, di rifinanziamento del regime“;
Law No 237 of 19 July 1993 refinancing the scheme;
Zakon št. 237 z dne 19. julija 1993 o refinanciranju programa „Legge 19 luglio 1993, n. 237, di rifinanziamento del regime“;
decision of the Interministerial Committee on Industrial Policy dated 28 December 1993, with new instructions for the implementation of the scheme;
odločitev medresorskega odbora o industrijski politiki z dne 28. decembra 1993 z novimi navodili za izvajanje programa „Delibera CIPI del 28 dicembre 1993, con nuove direttive di attuazione del regime“;
Law No 644 of 22 November 1994, converting the aid instrument into commitment limits;
Zakon št. 644 z dne 22. novembra 1994, ki preoblikuje instrument pomoči v „omejitev obveznosti“„Legge 22.11.1994, n. 644, che trasforma lo strumento di aiuto in cosiddetti ‚limiti d’impegno’‘“;
order of the Minister for Industry, dated 31 May 1995, on non-R & D aspects of the scheme;
Odredba ministra za industrijo z dne 31. maja 1995 o vidikih programa, ki niso povezami z raziskavami in razvojem „Decreto del ministro dell’Industria del 31 maggio 1995 sugli aspetti del regime non associati alla R&S“;
decision of the Interministerial Committee on Economic Programming, dated 8 August 1996, modifying the conditions for eligibility and setting priorities;
Odločitev medresorskega odbora za gospodarsko načrtovanje z dne 8. avgusta 1996 o spremembi pogojev za upravičenost in določanju prednostnih nalog „Delibera CIPE del 8 agosto 1996, che modifica le condizioni di ammissibilità e fissa le priorità“;
Law No 266 of 7 August 1997 refinancing the scheme; this Law also funded the European fighter aircraft (EFA) programme;
Zakon št. 266 z dne 7. avgusta 1997 o refinanciranju programa „Legge 7 agosto 1997, n. 266, di rifinanziamento del regime“; ta zakon je financiral tudi program o evropskem lovskem letalu (EFA);
decision of the Interministerial Committee on Economic Programming, dated 22 December 1998, amending the priorities and criteria for eligibility;
odločitev medresorskega odbora za gospodarsko načrtovanje z dne 22. decembra 1998 o spremembi prednostnih nalog in meril za upravičenost „Delibera CIPE del 22 dicembre 1998, che modifica le priorità e i criteri di ammissibilità“;