natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the context of that financial restructuring, on 5 September 2003 the Instituto Catalán de Finanzas (ICF, financial agency of the Catalonian regional government) granted to Inmobiliaria Casa Batlló, SL (ICB), a subsidiary of Chupa Chups, a credit of EUR 35 million.
V okviru navedenega finančnega prestrukturiranja je 5. septembra 2003 Instituto Catalán de Finanzas („ICF“, finančna agencija katalonske regionalne vlade) odobril družbi Inmobiliaria Casa Batlló, S.L.
The credit was secured by means of a mortgage on a real estate property owned by ICB [7], whose value had been estimated by an independent expert at EUR 71 million. This credit (Measure 1), which was immediately ‘passed on’ from ICB to Chupa Chups by means of a subordinated loan [8], is at the origin of the complaint that triggered the Commission investigation.
(„ICB“), podružnici Chupa Chupsa, posojilo v znesku 35 milijonov EUR. Posojilo je bilo zavarovano s hipoteko na nepremičnino v lasti ICB [7], katere vrednost je neodvisni strokovnjak ocenil na 71 milijonov EUR. To posojilo ( „ukrep 1“), ki so ga s podrejenim posojilom [8] iz ICB takoj „prenesli“ v Chupa Chups, je vzrok za pritožbo, na podlagi katere je Komisija sprožila preiskavo.
Chupa Chups used these funds to cancel part of the 2002 syndicated loan (EUR 20 million) and to cover other treasury needs.
Chupa Chups je uporabil ta sredstva, da je preklical del sindiciranega posojila iz leta 2002 (20 milijonov EUR) in pokril druge zakladniške potrebe.
The Commission’s preliminary investigation subsequently revealed a number of additional measures in favour of Chupa Chups, namely:
Komisija je v predhodni preiskavi naknadno odkrila številne dodatne ukrepe v korist Chupa Chupsa, in sicer:
subsidy of EUR 1580000 from the Spanish ‘Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca’ in support of investments in the Barcelona plant (1989-1994) (Measure 2),
subvencijo v znesku 1580000 EUR španskega ministrstva za kmetijstvo in ribolov (Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca) v podporo investicijam v barcelonskem obratu (1989–1994) („ukrep 2“),
subsidy of EUR 4330000 from ‘other public bodies’ supporting the building of the Asturias plant (1994-1997) (Measure 3),
subvencijo v znesku 4330000 EUR od „drugih javnih organov“ v podporo gradnji obrata v Asturiji (1994–1997) („ukrep 3“),
subsidy of EUR 6710000 from ‘different public bodies’ for the enlargement of the same Asturias plant (1999-2003) (Measure 4),
subvencijo v znesku 6710000 EUR od „različnih javnih organov“ za širitev istega obrata v Asturiji (1999–2003) („ukrep 4“),
interest-free credit of EUR 2800000 granted by the Spanish ‘Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología’ in 2004 (Measure 5),
brezobrestno posojilo v znesku 2800000 EUR, ki ga je špansko ministrstvo za znanost in tehnologijo (Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología) dodelilo leta 2004 („ukrep 5“),
additional non-specified subsidies for EUR 1540000 (2004) (Measure 6),
dodatne nedoločene subvencije v znesku 1540000 EUR (2004) („ukrep 6“),
in February 2004, the Spanish tax agency authorised Chupa Chups to split the payment of its debts for VAT and corporate income tax into quarterly instalments expiring on 20 February 2008.
februarja 2004 je španska davčna uprava Chupa Chupsu odobrila razdelitev plačila njegovih dolgov za DDV in davek od dobička pravnih oseb na četrtletne obroke, ki potečejo 20. februarja 2008.
As guarantee for this deferral, a new mortgage was established on Casa Batlló (Measure 8).
Kot jamstvo za ta odlog je bila odprta nova hipoteka na Caso Batlló („ukrep 8“).
In its decision of 25 January 2005 to initiate the formal investigation procedure (the opening decision), the Commission expressed its concerns that Chupa Chups had been advantaged by the financing from ICF (Measure 1 above), since:
V svoji odločitvi z dne 25. januarja 2005 o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave („odločba o začetku postopka“) je Komisija izrazila pomisleke, da je bil Chupa Chups deležen prednosti zaradi finančnih sredstev, prejetih od ICF (zgornji ukrep 1), ker:
the credit to ICB did not include any of the restrictive conditions attached to the syndicated loan agreed between Chupa Chups and the private banks one year earlier,
posojilo ICB-ju ni vključevalo nobenih omejevalnih pogojev, ki spremljajo sindicirano posojilo, o katerem so se leto prej dogovorili Chupa Chups in zasebne banke,
the conditions agreed with ICF were probably better for the group than those of the 2002 syndicated loan, since the ICF loan was immediately allocated to the partial cancellation of the syndicated loan,
so bili pogoji, dogovorjeni z ICF, za skupino verjetno boljši od pogojev sindiciranega posojila iz leta 2002, saj je bilo posojilo ICF neposredno dodeljeno za delen preklic sindiciranega posojila,
the interest rate attached to the ICF credit seemed to correspond to the market rate applicable to healthy companies, whereas at the time Chupa Chups was already a ‘firm in difficulty’ within the meaning of the Rescue and Restructuring guidelines [9],the Spanish authorities did not explain why no private bank showed willingness to provide financing with conditions comparable to those of the ICF, nor what were the conditions attached to the syndicated loan of 30 July 2002.
se je zdelo, da obrestna mera pri posojilu ICF ustreza tržni stopnji, ki se uporablja za zdrava podjetja, medtem ko je bil Chupa Chups v tistem času že „podjetje v težavah“ v smislu Smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje [9],španski organi niso razložili, zakaj nobena zasebna banka ni pokazala pripravljenosti zagotoviti finančna sredstva pod pogoji, primerljivimi s pogoji ICF, in kakšni so bili pogoji pri sindiciranem posojilu z dne 30. julija 2002.
As regards Measures 2 to 8 above, the opening decision referred to the fact that the Spanish authorities had not provided any response to the Commission’s request for information on the nature and justification of those measures.
Glede zgornjih ukrepov 2 do 8 se je odločba o začetku postopka sklicevala na dejstvo, da španski organi niso odgovorili na zaprosilo Komisije po informacijah o naravi in utemeljitvi teh ukrepov.
OBSERVATIONS FROM SPAIN
PRIPOMBE ŠPANIJE
Spain contested the initial assessment of the Commission that the ICF credit provides an advantage to the Chupa Chups group, and therefore constitutes State aid.
Španija je izpodbijala začetno oceno Komisije, da posojilo ICF pomeni prednost za skupino Chupa Chups in torej državno pomoč.
In particular, the Spanish authorities advanced the following arguments:
Španski organi so še posebej zagovarjali naslednje argumente:
the 2002 syndicated loan was contracted between Chupa Chups and a group of private banks, whereas the ICF credit was granted to a Chupa Chups subsidiary, ICB, which was soon to become fully independent from the group [10].
leta 2002 je bilo sindicirano posojilo dogovorjeno med Chupa Chupsom in skupino zasebnih bank, posojilo ICF pa je bilo odobreno podružnici Chupa Chupsa, ICB-ju, ki naj bi se kmalu popolnoma osamosvojila od skupine [10].
Therefore, creditors and borrowers were different in the two operations,
Upniki in posojilojemalci so bili torej pri obeh transakcijah različni,
securities were also substantially different.
tudi jamstva so se bistveno razlikovala.
The 2002 syndicated loan to Chupa Chups did not offer any real estate as security.
Pri sindiciranem posojilu Chupa Chupsu iz leta 2002 ni bila kot jamstvo ponujena nobena nepremičnina.
In particular, the company was not in a position to offer the first ranking mortgage in question, since the real estate was owned by ICB [11].
Družba predvsem ni mogla ponuditi zadevne prvorazredne hipoteke, ker je bila nepremičnina v lasti ICB [11].
Instead, Chupa Chups secured its loan by committing itself to a number of behavioural obligations and to compliance with certain financial ratios,
Namesto tega je Chupa Chups svoje posojilo zavaroval tako, da se je zavezal številnim vedenjskim obveznostim in spoštovanju določenih finančnih razmerij,
the interest rate of the syndicated loan to Chupa Chups was also made dependent on the respect of those commitments.
obrestna mera sindiciranega posojila Chupa Chupsu je bila odvisna tudi od spoštovanja teh zavez.
Because of the company’s performance since 2004, this has eventually resulted in rates that are the same, or even lower, than those applied by ICF to ICB,
Zaradi uspešnosti družbe v letu 2004 je to sčasoma pripeljalo do mer, ki so enake meram, ki jih je ICF uporabil za ICB, ali celo nižje,
ICB is not a firm in difficulties but a healthy real estate company with enough income to honour its refunding obligations.
ICB ni podjetje v težavah, temveč je zdravo nepremičninsko podjetje z zadostnim prihodkom, da izpolni svoje odplačilne obveznosti.
Furthermore, it provided securities that were more than sufficient to guarantee the ICF credit.
Poleg tega je zagotovilo jamstva, ki so več kot zadoščala za zavarovanje posojila ICF.
Consequently, that credit took place under normal mortgage-market conditions (where interest rates are usually below rates applied to other types of loans [12] and did not require any risk premium, nor the restrictive behavioural clauses contained in the syndicated loan of Chupa Chups.
Posledično je do tega posojila prišlo pod običajnimi pogoji hipotečnega trga (na katerem so obrestne mere navadno pod merami, ki se uporabljajo za druge vrste posojil [12]) in zanj ni bila potrebna premija za tveganje, prav tako pa niso bile potrebne omejevalne vedenjske določbe, ki jih je vsebovalo sindicirano posojilo za Chupa Chups.
The same credit could have been contracted with any private bank under equivalent conditions,
Za enako posojilo bi se pod enakimi pogoji lahko dogovorili s katero koli zasebno banko,
in conclusion, the market economy investor principle applies to the main credit between ICF and ICB, whereas the subordinated loan between ICB and Chupa Chups is, in substance, a financial operation between two private parties (and therefore irrelevant in terms of State aid control).
za glavno posojilo med ICF in ICB torej velja načelo vlagatelja v tržno gospodarstvo, podrejeno posojilo med ICB in Chupa Chupsom pa je v bistvu finančna transakcija med dvema zasebnima strankama (in zato ni pomembno v smislu nadzora državne pomoči).
According to the information submitted by the Spanish authorities, Measure 2 was granted between 1989 and 1994, i.e. more than 10 years before the earliest action from the Commission in the present case, which was a request for information dated May 2005.
V skladu z informacijami, ki so jih predložili španski organi, je bil ukrep 2 odobren med letoma 1989 in 1994, tj. več kot 10 let pred najzgodnejšim ukrepom Komisije v tej zadevi, ki je bil zaprosilo za informacije iz maja 2005.
Measure 3
Ukrep 3
According to the information submitted by the Spanish authorities, Measure 3 can be split into:
V skladu z informacijami, ki so jih predložili španski organi, je mogoče ukrep 3 razdeliti na:
EUR 3600000 in aid granted before 1995,
3600000 EUR pomoči, odobrene pred letom 1995,
EUR 730000 in aid, corresponding to an aid intensity of 13 %, granted on 14 March 1997 by the Asturias regional government under Decree 7/96 of 15 February establishing various support programmes for SMEs [13] (Decree 7/96).
730000 EUR pomoči, ki ustreza 13-odstotni intenzivnosti pomoči, ki jo je 14. marca 1997 odobrila asturijska regionalna vlada po Odredbi 7/96 z dne 15. februarja o vzpostavitvi različnih podpornih programov za mala in srednje velika podjetja [13] (v nadaljnjem besedilu „Odredba 7/96“).
The Spanish authorities believe that this aid has to be regarded as an extension of scheme N 448/94 in support to SMEs in Asturias (exceptionally applicable to large companies contributing to regional development) [14].
Španski organi menijo, da je treba to pomoč obravnavati kot podaljšanje sheme N 448/94 v podporo malim in srednje velikim podjetjem v Asturiji (ki izjemoma velja za velika podjetja, ki prispevajo k regionalnemu razvoju) [14].
The measure constituted a complement to regional aid granted in 1994 by Spain under Law 50/85 of 27 December on regional incentives to remedy inter-regional economic imbalances (LIR), approved by the Commission [15].Measure 4
Ukrep je pomenil dopolnilo k regionalni pomoči, ki jo je Španija dodelila leta 1994 po Zakonu 50/85 z dne 27. decembra o regionalnih spodbudah za izboljšanje medregionalnih gospodarskih neuravnoteženosti (LIR), ki jih je odobrila Komisija [15].Ukrep 4
According to the information submitted by the Spanish authorities, Measure 4 can be split into the following items:
V skladu z informacijami, ki so jih predložili španski organi, je mogoče ukrep 4 razdeliti na naslednje postavke:
Public body granting the aid
Javni organ, ki je odobril pomoč
National legal basis
Nacionalna pravna podlaga
Subsidy (EUR millions)
Subvencija (v milijonih EUR)
Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade
Ministrstvo za industrijo, turizem in trgovino
Order of 6 March 1998 (Minería 1) [16]
Uredba z dne 6. marca 1998 („Minería 1“) [16]
Order of 17 December 2001
Uredba z dne 17. decembra 2001
(Minería 2) [17]
(„Minería 2“) [17]
Asturias regional government
Vlada Kneževine Asturije
Decree 41/2000 [18]
Odredba 41/2000 [18]
Decree 41/2000
Odredba 41/2000
Measure 5
Ukrep 5
According to the information submitted by the Spanish authorities, Measure 5 was granted under the existing aid scheme ‘Actividades del Centro para el Desarrollo Industrial — CDTI — Desarrollo Tecnológico’ [19].
Po informacijah, ki so jih predložili španski organi, je bil ukrep 5 odobren v skladu z obstoječo shemo pomoči „Actividades del Centro para el Desarrollo Industrial – CDTI – Desarrollo Tecnológico“ [19]. Ukrep 6
Measure 7
Ukrep 7
The Spanish authorities maintained that the credit operation endorsed by the Asturias regional government consisted in advancing to Chupa Chups the amounts corresponding to pending subsidies to which it was already entitled.
Španski organi so trdili, da je posojilna transakcija, ki jo je odobrila asturijska regionalna vlada, pomenila vnaprejšnje plačilo zneskov Chupa Chupsu, ki ustrezajo pričakovanim subvencijam, do katerih je že bil upravičen.
Those subsidies had been granted for the enlargement of the Asturias plant, a condition that the company had already complied with when the credit was agreed.
Te subvencije so bile odobrene za širitev obrata v Asturiji, kar je pogoj, ki ga je družba že izpolnila, ko je bilo posojilo dogovorjeno.
As security in return for the public endorsement, Chupa Chups pledged to the Asturias government its rights over the subsidies, for an amount of EUR 4480000.
Kot jamstvo za javno odobritev je Chupa Chups asturijski vladi zastavil svoje pravice do subvencij v znesku 4480000 EUR.
The endorsement by the Asturias regional government was therefore covered by the pledge of claims that Chupa Chups held vis-à-vis several public authorities.
Odobritev asturijske regionalne vlade je bila zavarovana z zastavo zahtevkov, ki jih je imel Chupa Chups do več javnih organov.
Measure 8
Ukrep 8
The Spanish authorities argued that the rescheduling of Chupa Chups debts for VAT and corporate income tax stemmed from the mere application of Spanish taxation law [20], which defines the criteria for eligibility – in particular as to the financial situation of the undertaking and the type of securities to provide – and the interest rates for arrears (interest rates that were indeed applied to the company).
Španski organi so uveljavljali mnenje, da je reprogramiranje Chupa Chupsovih dolgov za DDV in davek od dobička pravnih oseb izhajalo samo iz uporabe španske davčne zakonodaje [20], ki opredeljuje merila o izpolnjevanju pogojev – zlasti glede finančnega položaja podjetja in vrste jamstev, ki jih je treba zagotoviti – in obrestne mere za zaostala plačila (obrestne mere, ki so bile za družbo dejansko uporabljene).
They therefore consider that the tax authorities did not enjoy any discretionary power.
Zato menijo, da davčni organi niso bili deležni nikakršne diskrecijske pravice.
V. OBSERVATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES
V. PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANK
The submission from Chupa Chups repeated the arguments advanced by the Spanish authorities as regards the lack of State aid in the ICF credit.
V predloženih pripombah Chupa Chupsa so bili ponovljeni argumenti, ki so jih glede neobstoja državne pomoči v posojilu ICF predložili španski organi.
It also provided detailed data, along the same lines already submitted by Spain, on the other measures included in the opening decision.
Predloženi so bili tudi podrobni podatki, podobno kot jih je že predložila Španija, o drugih ukrepih, vključenih v odločbo o začetku postopka.
Chupa Chups also claimed that in addition to the EAGGF refunds, Measure 6 included a subsidy of EUR 100000 from the Instituto de Comercio Exterior (ICEX), granted in 2003 in the framework of a programme under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 [21] of 30 May 2000 on information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds.
Chupa Chups je tudi trdil, da je poleg nadomestil EKUJS ukrep 6 vključeval subvencijo Instituta de Comercio Exterior („ICEX“) v znesku 100000 EUR, dodeljeno leta 2003 v okviru programa iz Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1159/2000 [21] z dne 30. maja 2000 o ukrepih informiranja in obveščanja javnosti, ki jih izvajajo države članice v zvezi s pomočjo iz Strukturnih skladov.
Inmobiliaria Casa Batlló submitted its annual accounts for business years 2001 to 2004 and the annual accounts for the same period of the real estate company ‘Casa Batlló, SL’, which is linked to it.
Družba Inmobiliaria Casa Batlló je predložila svoje letne računovodske izkaze za poslovna leta od 2001 do 2004 ter za enako obdobje letne računovodske izkaze nepremičninske družbe „Casa Batlló, S.L.“, s katero je povezana.
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty declares aid granted in any form whatsoever by a Member State or through State resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods and affects trade between Member States to be incompatible with the common market.
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES določa, da je vsaka pomoč, ki jo odobri država članica, oziroma kakršna koli oblika pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti določenim podjetjem ali proizvodnji določenega blaga in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
Measure 1: ICF credit (2003)
Ukrep 1: posojilo ICF (2003)
As regards the ICF credit, it must be determined whether it confers on Chupa Chups a support that the company would not have been able to obtain on market conditions.
Glede posojila ICF je treba ugotoviti, ali za Chupa Chups pomeni podporo, ki je družba v tržnih pogojih ne bi bila zmožna pridobiti.
In other words, the Commission has to assess whether this public body acted as a hypothetical market economy investor would have done under similar circumstances.
Z drugimi besedami, Komisija mora presoditi, ali je ta javni organ deloval tako, kot bi v podobnih okoliščinah vlagatelj v hipotečnem tržnem gospodarstvu.
As set out under Section IV above, further to the opening decision Spain submitted information showing that the 2002 syndicated loan and the ICF credit cannot be compared because the borrowers were different in the two operations, securities were different, ICB was not a firm in difficulties, and ICB provided a security that was more than sufficient to guarantee the ICF credit.
Kot je navedeno v zgornjem oddelku IV, je Španija po odločbi o začetku postopka predložila informacije, ki kažejo, da sindiciranega posojila iz leta 2002 in posojila ICF ni mogoče primerjati, ker sta bila v obeh transakcijah posojilojemalca različna, različna so bila jamstva, ICB ni bil družba v težavah in ICB je predložil jamstvo, ki je več kot zadoščalo za zavarovanje posojila ICF.
On the basis of the information and arguments provided by Spain, the Commission considers that it has been sufficiently proved that the market economy investor principle was complied with in the main credit operation between ICF and ICB, and that the subordinated loan between ICB and Chupa Chups is a financial operation between two private parties.
Na podlagi informacij in argumentov, ki jih je predložila Španija, Komisija meni, da je bilo v zadostni meri dokazano, da je bilo v glavni posojilni transakciji med ICF in ICB izpolnjeno načelo vlagatelja v tržno gospodarstvo ter da gre pri podrejenem posojilu med ICB in Chupa Chupsom za finančno transakcijo med dvema zasebnima strankama.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that Measure 1 does not involve State aid.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep 1 ne vključuje državne pomoči.
Measures 2 to 5
Ukrepi 2 do 5
As regards in particular Measure 5, Spain used State resources by granting an interest-free loan to the company.
Zlasti glede ukrepa 5 je Španija uporabila državna sredstva z odobritvijo brezobrestnega posojila podjetju.
The measures have provided Chupa Chups with advantages vis-à-vis competitors which distort competition, inasmuch as the company has reinforced its financial position and has increased its investment capacity.
Ukrepi so Chupa Chupsu zagotovili prednosti v primerjavi s tekmeci, kar izkrivlja konkurenco, ker je podjetje okrepilo svoj finančni položaj in povečalo svoje investicijske zmožnosti.
Since Chupa Chups is active in the candies market, a sector in which trade exists between Member States, and it is an internationally active company, the criterion of affecting trade within the Community is also fulfilled.
Ker je Chupa Chups dejaven na trgu slaščic, ki je sektor, na katerem obstaja trgovina med državami članicami, in ker je mednarodno dejavno podjetje, je bilo izpolnjeno tudi merilo vplivanja na trgovino v Skupnosti.
The Commission therefore concludes that Measures 2 to 5 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC Treaty.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrepi 2 do 5 pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The Spanish authorities do not dispute this analysis.
Španski organi tej analizi ne nasprotujejo.
Measure 6: additional non-specified subsidies for EUR 1540000
Ukrep 6: dodatne nedoločene subvencije v znesku 1540000 EUR
Further to the information received from Spain and Chupa Chups, it must be concluded that Measure 6 encompasses the following elements:
Poleg informacij, prejetih od Španije in Chupa Chupsa, je treba navesti, da ukrep 6 vključuje naslednje elemente:
a subsidy of EUR 1590000 from the EAGGF concerning refunds on exports to third countries [22].
subvencijo v znesku 1590000 EUR od EKUJS glede nadomestil za izvoz v tretje države [22].
The Commission notes that, according to the case law of the Court of Justice (see paragraph 22 of the judgment of 13 October 1982 in Joined Cases 213-215/81 Norddeutsches Vieh- und Fleischkontor), export funds granted by the EAGGF under Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) rules do not constitute State aid [23].
Komisija ugotavlja, da v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti (glej odstavek 22 sodbe z dne 13. oktobra 1982 v Združenih primerih 213-215/81 Norddeutsches Vieh- und Fleischkontor) izvozna sredstva, ki jih je odobril EKUJS v skladu s pravili skupne kmetijske politike (CAP), ne pomenijo državne pomoči [23].
This measure therefore does not contain State aid elements;
Ta ukrep torej ne vsebuje elementov državne pomoči,
according to the comments from Chupa Chups received on 30 May 2006, Measure 6 also includes a subsidy of EUR 100000 from ICEX granted in 2003 in the framework of the programme ‘Plan de Marcas Españolas’ for activities related to the promotion of the brand ‘Chupa Chups’ in South Korea.
v skladu s pripombami Chupa Chupsa, prejetimi 30. maja 2006, vključuje ukrep 6 tudi subvencijo v znesku 100000 EUR od ICEX, odobreno leta 2003 v okviru programa „Plan de Marcas Españolas“ za dejavnosti, povezane s promocijo znamke „Chupa Chups“ v Južni Koreji.
This programme was introduced by ICEX in 2003 and, according to Chupa Chups, the Spanish authorities considered at the time it was granted that the subsidy to the company complied with Regulation 1159/2000.
Ta program je uvedel ICEX leta 2003 in po navedbah Chupa Chupsa so španski organi v času odobritve menili, da je bila subvencija podjetju skladna z Uredbo (ES) št. 1159/2000.