natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
OBSERVATIONS FROM ITALY REGARDING THE COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES ON THE FIRST INITIATING DECISION
UGOTOVITVE ITALIJE V ZVEZI S PRIPOMBAMI TRETJIH STRANK O PRVI ODLOČITVI O SPROŽITVI POSTOPKA
Italy did not put forward any observations regarding the comments from Finmeccanica.
Italija ni predložila ugotovitev v zvezi s pripombami družbe Finmeccanica.
Regarding the comments from France and the anonymous third party, Italy observed, first, that they went far beyond the scope of the proceedings.
V zvezi s pripombami Francije in anonimne tretje stranke je Italija najprej izjavila, da bistveno presegajo postopek.
Italy complained that these attempts to widen the scope of the proceedings were not supported by evidence.
Italija je ugovarjala, da ti poskusi širitve postopka ne temeljijo na dokazih.
Italy reiterated that in its view the scheme constituted existing aid, because it had been approved in 1986, and because the Commission had accepted in 2002 that it had in effect been brought into line with the rules now governing aid to R & D (see recital 50).
Italija je ponovno opozorila, da po njenem mnenju program pomeni obstoječo pomoč, ker je bil odobren leta 1986 in ker je Komisija leta 2002 potrdila, da je dejansko usklajen s pravili, ki zdaj urejajo pomoč za raziskave in razvoj (glej uvodno izjavo 50).
As it had been declared compatible, the scheme could not then be challenged in proceedings that were concerned only with individual measures adopted under it, unless it was shown that the original decision to approve the scheme was based on faulty information, in which case the decision might be revoked in accordance with Article 9 of the Procedural Regulation.
Ker je bil program razglašen za združljivega, ga ne bi bilo možno izpodbijati v postopku, ki je povezan le s posameznimi ukrepi, sprejetimi v skladu z njim, razen če bi bilo ugotovljeno, da je prvotna odločitev o odobritvi programa temeljila na nepopolnih informacijah, kar pomeni, da bi lahko v takšnem primeru odločitev bila razveljavljena v skladu s členom 9 postopkovne uredbe.
Second, Italy said that in its view the aid instrument was compatible with the EC Treaty.
Drugič, Italija je izjavila, da je instrument pomoči po njenem mnenju združljiv s Pogodbo ES.
The anonymous third party, Italy argued, was wrong to base itself on the reports to Parliament on the implementation of Law No 808/1985, because the figures indicated in the reports were not those actually granted for the projects.
Italija je trdila, da se anonimna tretja stranka napačno opira na poročila parlamentu o izvajanju Zakona št. 808/1985, ker podatki v poročilih niso enaki zneskom, ki so bili dejansko dodeljeni za projekte.
In the reports the Ministry had included its own targets for projects that could be financed under Law No 808/1985.
Ministrstvo je v poročila vključilo svoje cilje za projekte, ki bi lahko bili financirani v skladu z Zakonom št. 808/1985.
However, in the budgetary process, the normal practice was that these targets were not covered by the available funding, which had been at levels far below those indicated in the abovementioned reports.
Vendar v proračunskem postopku teh ciljev običajno niso zajemala razpoložljiva finančna sredstva, ki so bila bistveno nižja od sredstev, navedenih v zgoraj omenjenih poročilih.
The amounts indicated in the reports for the individual projects were also merely targets, because the Ministry decided the amount of aid actually to be granted to the individual project only after it had received the final budget, which, as already said, was usually normally far below the levels called for.
Poleg tega so bili zneski iz poročil za posamezne projekte le cilji, ker je ministrstvo znesek pomoči, ki se dejansko dodeli posameznemu projektu, določilo šele po prejemu končnega proračuna, ki je bil, kot je bilo že navedeno, običajno bistveno nižji od zahtevanih ravni.
Italy contested the argument put forward by France and by the anonymous third party according to which aid recipients might not be required to reimburse the aid.
Italija je nasprotovala trditvi Francije in anonimne tretje stranke, v skladu s katero prejemnikom pomoči morda ni bilo treba vrniti pomoči.
According to Italy, reimbursements had to be made in accordance with the schedules laid down in the granting decisions.
Po navedbah Italije je bilo treba pomoč vrniti v skladu s časovnimi okviri, določenimi v odločbah o dodelitvi.
Under domestic law the State could renounce such a claim only in the specific case of liquidation of a company.
Država bi lahko v skladu z domačo zakonodajo odklonila takšno zahtevo le v posameznem primeru likvidacije gospodarske družbe.
The payments had been made using what were known as ‘commitment limits’(limiti d'impegno), under which payments were made to the recipient after the expenses were incurred, beginning the year after the first year of expenditure and continuing for a period of 10 to 15 years.
Plačila so bila izvršena s tako imenovanimi „omejitvami obveznosti“(limiti d’impegno), v skladu s katerimi so bila sredstva izplačana prejemniku, potem ko so stroški nastali, pri čemer je bilo prvo izplačilo izvršeno v letu, ki sledi letu, v katerem so nastali izdatki, in potem naslednjih 10 do 15 let.
Reimbursement started one year after the end of the period of payment, that is to say 11 or 16 years after the start of the project.
Vračilo se je začelo eno leto po koncu plačilnega obdobja, kar pomeni 11 ali 16 let po začetku projekta.
Concerning the comments made by the anonymous third party on the specific R & D projects, Italy in the first place referred back to the observations it had submitted in response to the initiating decision.
V zvezi s pripombami anonimne tretje stranke o posameznih projektih za raziskave in razvoj se je Italija sklicevala predvsem na ugotovitve, ki jih je predložila kot odgovor na odločitev o sprožitvi postopka.
Second, in reply to the comments of the anonymous third party, Italy provided observations on the specific projects.
Drugič, Italija je kot odgovor na pripombe anonimne tretje stranke predložila ugotovitve o posameznih projektih.
Concerning the A109 X, Italy indicated that the project concerned the development of technologies that would be applied in helicopters only after a long period of development.
V zvezi z A109 X je Italija navedla, da je bil projekt povezan z razvojem tehnologij, ki bi se uporabljale v helikopterjih šele po dolgem obdobju razvoja.
The name A109 X was used as a generic name; when the development was finished, the resulting helicopter would be radically new.
Ime A109 X se je uporabljalo kot generično poimenovanje; po koncu razvoja bi bil nastali helikopter povsem nov.
The A109 Power project had been considered at one point, but had never been supported under Law No 808/1985.
Projekt A109 Power je bil v določenem obdobju obravnavan, vendar ni nikoli prejel podpore v skladu z Zakonom št. 808/1985.
As regards the funding for the A109 X, the figure referred to by the anonymous third party was only a forecast.
V zvezi s financiranjem za A109 X je bil podatek, na katerega se je sklicevala anonimna tretja stranka, le predvidena vrednost.
The aid actually granted towards the project was EUR 33,6 million; the additional ITL 49 billion for the period 2002-2005 which the anonymous third party had referred to had never been paid.
Za projekt je bila dejansko dodeljena pomoč 33,6 milijona EUR; dodatnih 49 milijard ITL za obdobje 2002–2005, na katere se je sklicevala anonimna tretja stranka, ni bilo nikoli izplačanih.
Concerning the A109 D/E/F, Italy contested the argument put forward by the anonymous third party that this in reality related to the A109 Power, certified in 1996.
V zvezi z A109 D/E/F je Italija nasprotovala trditvi anonimne tretje stranke, da je ta projekt dejansko povezan s projektom A109 Power, ki je bil potrjen leta 1996.
The main objective of the project was to develop the new A109 F version, with a new engine, rotor and skids, which was subsequently certified in June 2001, 30 months after the end of the R & D project.
Glavni cilj projekta je bil razvoj nove različice A109 F z novim motorjem, rotorjem in saniščem, ki je bila pozneje potrjena junija 2001, kar je 30 mesecev po koncu projekta za raziskave in razvoj.
In reply to the allegations by the anonymous third party regarding the development of Agusta, Italy wrote that the information and data provided by the anonymous third party were not correct.
Italija je na izjave anonimne tretje stranke v zvezi z razvojem družbe Agusta odgovorila, da informacije in podatki, ki jih je zagotovila anonimna tretja stranka, niso pravilni.
Agusta had an average share of around [20-30 %] of the European market for light twin-engine helicopters in the period 1994-2000, compared to over 60 % for its main competitor, Eurocopter.
Povprečni delež družbe Agusta na evropskem trgu za lahke dvomotorne helikopterje v obdobju 1994–2000 je bil približno [20–30 %] v primerjavi z več kot 60 %, ki jih je imel njen glavni konkurent, družba Eurocopter.
Its turnover derived mainly from the military sector ([> 70 %]).
Večino svojega prometa je ustvarila v vojaškem sektorju ([> 70 %]).
In terms of products, Agusta had only one helicopter in two of the segments, compared to Eurocopters three or four in each of these segments.
Kar zadeva izdelke, je Agusta imela le en helikopter v obeh segmentih v primerjavi s tremi ali štirimi helikopterji, ki jih je v vsakem od teh segmentov imela družbo Eurocopter.
In the view of the Italian authorities, Agusta was a company that had been able to develop from being a minor player in the sector into a full competitor, thanks to legal and compatible aid towards R & D, to strategic alliances and to technological innovation.
Italijanski organi so menili, da je Agusta družba, ki se je lahko iz manjšega udeleženca v sektorju razvila v popolnega konkurenta zaradi zakonite in združljive pomoči za raziskave in razvoj, strateških povezav in tehnoloških inovacij.
Finally, the observations from France and the anonymous third party concerning the existence of other non-notified projects were based on a misinterpretation of the reports to Parliament.
Končno, ugotovitve Francije in anonimne tretje stranke o obstoju drugih nepriglašenih projektov so temeljile na napačni razlagi poročil parlamentu.
Italy also commented on some of the projects referred to by the anonymous third party.
Italija je predložila tudi pripombe o nekaterih projektih, na katere se je sklicevala anonimna tretja stranka.
According to Italy, some of these projects had never been funded; some had received aid below the threshold for individual notification; some were military; some others were already within the scope of the proceedings (MD95 and MD11); while another had been excluded by the Commission in the decision to open proceedings.
Po navedbah Italije nekateri od teh projektov niso bili nikoli financirani; nekateri so prejeli pomoč, ki ni presegala praga za individualno priglasitev; nekateri so bili vojaški; nekateri so že bili vključeni v postopek (MD95 in MD11); medtem ko je nekatere Komisija izključila v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
Given the doubts raised in the second initiating decision, and the subsequent discussions on the final list of non-notified projects, it is not necessary to detail these projects at this stage in the Decision.
Glede na pomisleke, izpostavljene v drugi odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, in poznejše razprave o končnem seznamu nepriglašenih projektov teh projektov na tej stopnji Odločbe ni treba natančno opredeliti.
FRESH DOUBTS
NOVI POMISLEKI
In the first initiating decision the Commission expressed doubts regarding the R & D content of six projects and regarding their incentive effect.
V prvem sklepu o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija izrazila pomisleke v zvezi z vsebino šestih projektov za raziskave in razvoj in v zvezi z njihovim spodbujevalnim učinkom.
The Commission there pointed out that its assessment of the R & D projects had to take account of the following factors:
Komisija je pri tem poudarila, da mora ocena projektov za raziskave in razvoj upoštevati naslednje dejavnike:
the time that had passed since the date of the granting;
čas od datuma odobritve pomoči;
the difficulty of making a reasonable assessment of the incentive effect of the projects at that stage (in 2003), applying the criteria of the 1986 and 1996 Frameworks in the scientific, technical and economic context of the aeronautical industry 10 to 15 years before;
težavnost opravljanja razumne ocene spodbujevalnega učinka projektov na tej stopnji (iz leta 2003), z uporabo meril iz leta 1986 in Okvira iz leta 1996 v znanstvenem, tehničnem in gospodarskem okviru letalske industrije od 10 do 15 let pred tem;
the general terms in which some of the rules in the 1986 Framework were expressed.
splošne pogoje, v katerih so bila izražena nekatera pravila v Okviru iz leta 1986.
The Italian authorities provided detailed information about the activities eligible for aid.
Italijanski organi so zagotovili podrobne informacije o dejavnostih, ki so upravičene do pomoči.
They acknowledged that on the basis of the information available to the Commission at the time the Commission's doubts were justified.
Organi so priznali, da so bili pomisleki Komisije na podlagi informacij, ki so ji bile takrat na voljo, upravičeni.
With the information provided, the Commission was now in a better position to understand the content of the different projects and in particular of the work packages that were identified in the first initiating decision.
S predloženimi informacijami je Komisija bolje razumela vsebino različnih projektov in zlasti delovnih paketov, ki so bili opredeljeni v prvi odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
As regards the classification of the activities as eligible R & D activities, the Commission could now say that the information provided by Italy on each project allowed a clear distinction to be made between industrial research and precompetitive development.
V zvezi z razvrstitvijo dejavnosti, kot primernih dejavnosti raziskav in razvoja bi lahko Komisija zdaj sporočila, da so informacije Italije o vsakem projektu omogočile jasno razlikovanje med industrijskimi raziskavami in predkonkurenčnim razvojem.
The Commission also accepted that the information supplied by Italy concerning the incentive effect of the aid given for these projects was sufficient to show that the recipients would not have carried out the projects without the aid.
Komisija je prav tako sprejela, da so bile informacije, ki jih je Italija zagotovila v zvezi s spodbujevalnim učinkom pomoči za te projekte, dovolj za dokaz, da prejemniki ne bi izvedli teh projektov brez pomoči.
However, this assessment was made on the basis of the information available at the time, notably concerning the number of projects to be assessed.
Vendar je bila ta ocena opravljena na podlagi takrat dostopnih informacij, predvsem v zvezi s številom projektov, ki jih je bilo treba oceniti.
When it reached these conclusions, the Commission took it that the Italian authorities were right to describe the form of the aid as that of a soft loan, with the principal always being fully reimbursable.
Komisija je po sprejetju teh sklepov ugotovila, da so italijanski organi upravičeno opisali obliko pomoči kot ugodno posojilo, ki se načeloma vedno v celoti vrne.
This assumption was a decisive factor in the Commission's assessment, in particular because when it has to be determined whether an individual aid measure exceeds the notification threshold it is essential to establish the gross grant equivalent of the aid.
Ta domneva je bila odločilna pri oceni Komisije, zlasti zato, ker je pri ugotavljanju, ali posamezni ukrep pomoči presega prag za priglasitev, bistveno določiti bruto ekvivalent dotacije pomoči.
Since the Commission began investigating the original complaint regarding the application of Law No 808/1985, the Italian authorities have maintained that at least in the 13 cases referred to in the first initiating decision aid has been granted in the form of soft loans, which are interest-free but always reimbursable in full.
Odkar je Komisija začela preiskovati prvotno pritožbo v zvezi z uporabo Zakona št. 808/1985, so italijanski organi vztrajali, da je bila pomoč v vsaj 13 primerih iz prve odločitve o sprožitvi postopka odobrena v obliki ugodnih posojil, ki so brez obresti, vendar se vedno v celoti povrnejo.
France and the anonymous third party challenged this understanding of the matter, contending that the principal had to be repaid only to the extent the programmes concerned were commercial successes.
Francija in anonimna tretja stranka sta izzvali ta dogovor s trditvijo, da je treba glavnico poplačati le toliko, kolikor so bili zadevni programi tržno uspešni.
The Commission tried to establish which view was the correct one, at least for the six cases that were the subject of the proceedings in which France and the anonymous third party had intervened.
Komisija je poskušala ugotoviti, kateri vidik je bil pravi v vsaj šestih primerih, v zvezi s katerimi je potekal postopek, v katerega sta posegli Francija in anonimna tretja stranka.
The Commission accordingly had to turn to the detailed implementing mechanisms which, as provided in the original Law No 808/1985 and in the Commission's 1986 decision on the Law, were to be determined in further rules.
Zato si je Komisija morala pomagati z natančnim izvajanjem mehanizmov, ki se morajo določiti v prihodnjih predpisih, kot določata prvotni Zakon št. 808/1985 in Odločba Komisije iz leta 1986 o tem zakonu.
In order to ascertain in detail whether and in what way the loans had to be repaid, the Commission asked the Italian authorities to provide it with a copy of each of the decisions (provvedimenti di concessione) granting aid in the six cases.
Za natančno določitev, ali je treba posojila odplačati in kako, je Komisija prosila italijanske organe, da ji predložijo izvod vsake odločbe o dodelitvi pomoči (provvedimenti di concessione) v šestih primerih.
The Italian authorities first provided the Commission with extracts from the granting decisions.
Italijanski organi so Komisiji najprej predložili izpiske odločb o dodelitvi.
Among other things the extracts did not include the recitals to the decisions.
Med drugim ti izpiski niso vsebovali uvodnih izjav k odločbam.
The Italian authorities maintained that the recitals could not be provided to the Commission for reasons of national security.
Italijanski organi so vztrajali, da uvodnih izjav Komisiji ni mogoče zagotoviti zaradi nacionalne varnosti.
The recitals of granting decisions under Law No 808/1985, they said, were common to civilian and military projects.
Dejali so, da so uvodne izjave odločb o dodelitvi v okviru Zakona št. 808/1985 skupne civilnim in vojaškim projektom.
Even though the six cases related to civilian aircraft, therefore, the recitals to the granting decisions also referred to matters of national security.
Čeprav je šest primerov zadevalo civilno letalstvo, so uvodne izjave k odločbam o dodelitvi zadevale tudi zadeve nacionalne varnosti.
The extracts from the granting decisions provided by the Italian authorities did not enable the Commission to arrive at a definitive view of the conditions for the reimbursement of the loans.
Izpiski iz odločb o dodelitvi, ki so jih predložili italijanski organi, Komisiji niso omogočili sprejetja dokončnega stališča o pogojih za odplačilo posojil.
In particular, the clause concerning reimbursement was worded in an ambiguous manner: it first stated that the aid ‘will be reimbursed in progressive instalments computed on the basis of revenues deriving from sales’ (verrà restituito mediante quote progressive calcolate sulla base degli incassi relativi alle vendite), but then added that this would be done in accordance with the mechanisms laid down in the granting decision, which included a chart with a fixed schedule for reimbursement of 100 % of the principal.
Dvoumno je bila oblikovana zlasti določba v zvezi s vračilom: najprej navaja, da bo pomoč vrnjena v postopnih obrokih, izračunanih na podlagi prihodkov od prodaje (verrà restituito mediante quote progressive calcolate sulla base degli incassi relativi alle vendite), vendar nato dodaja, da se bo to izvedlo v skladu z mehanizmi iz odločbe o dodelitvi, ki je vključevala načrt z določenim časovnim okvirom za 100-odstotno vračilo glavnice.
No provision that might reconcile these two apparently inconsistent aspects appeared in any of the extracts provided.
V nobenem od predloženih izpiskov ni bilo določbe, ki bi lahko uskladila oba očitno neskladna vidika.
INFORMATION INJUNCTION
ODREDBA O PREDLOŽITVI PODATKOV
Since a provision of this kind might appear in the missing parts of the decisions, the Commission issued an information injunction requiring that the full texts of the decisions be produced.
Ker se lahko določba te vrste pojavi v manjkajočih delih odločbe, je Komisija izdala odredbo o predložitvi podatkov, ki zahteva, da se da na voljo celotno besedilo odločbe.
Italy replied to the information injunction by stating that in its view it had sent the Commission all the relevant information concerning the granting decisions.
Italija se je odzvala na odredbo o predložitvi podatkov z izjavo, da je po njenem mnenju Komisiji poslala vse pomembne informacije v zvezi z odločbo o odobritvi.
It added that the recitals to the decisions referred to matters of national security, which could not be disclosed to any third party, and not even to the recipient of the aid.
Dodala je, da uvodne izjave k odločbam zadevajo nacionalno varnost in jih ni možno razkriti nobeni tretji stranki, niti prejemniku pomoči.
Italy concluded that in its view the recitals could not in any circumstances contain any clause additional to those in the main text.
Italija je sklenila, da po njenem mnenju uvodne izjave v nobenem primeru ne morejo vsebovati nobene dodatne določbe za glavno besedilo.
It should be pointed out that Italy had not responded positively to the information injunction.
Poudariti je treba, da se Italija ni pozitivno odzvala na odredbo o predložitvi podatkov.
In other words, it continued to refuse access to the full text of documents requested by the Commission.
Z drugimi besedami, še naprej je omejevala dostop do celotnega besedila dokumentov, ki jih je zahtevala Komisija.
However, when it subsequently submitted observations in reply to the extension of the proceedings, Italy did in fact transmit all the requested documents.
Vendar je Italija dejansko poslala vse zahtevane dokumente, ko je pozneje predložila pripombe v odgovor na podaljšanje postopkov.
In the last analysis, therefore, it can be said that Italy did comply with the information injunction.
Zato je mogoče v zadnji analizi ugotoviti, da je Italija ravnala v skladu z odredbo o predložitvi podatkov.
To conclude on this point, the Commission would observe that Italy's reply did not satisfy the requirements of Article 12 of the Procedural Regulation.
V zvezi s sklepom o tej točki Komisija ugotavlja, da odgovor Italije ni izpolnil zahtev iz člena 12 postopkovne uredbe.
In addition, the argument that the recitals concerned matters of national security, and consequently could not be disclosed to the recipient, has been proved wrong, because from the copies that Italy subsequently sent the Commission it is clear that the recipients received — and signed — full copies of the granting decisions.
Razen tega je argument o uvodnih izjavah v zvezi z nacionalno varnostjo, ki jih zato ni mogoče razkriti prejemniku, dokazano napačen, ker je iz izvodov, ki jih je Italija pozneje poslala Komisiji, očitno, da so prejemniki prejeli in podpisali celotne izvode odločb o dodelitvi.
However, Italy did eventually provide the information requested.
Seveda je Italija nazadnje predložila zahtevane informacije.
DOUBTS EXPRESSED IN THE DECISION TO EXTEND PROCEEDINGS (THE SECOND INITIATING DECISION)
POMISLEKI IZ ODLOČITVE O RAZŠIRITVI POSTOPKOV (DRUGA ODLOČITEV O SPROŽITVI POSTOPKA)
As explained in the second initiating decision, several new issues arose in the course of the proceedings.
Med postopki se je pojavilo več novih vprašanj, kot navaja druga odločitev o sprožitvi postopka.