natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The capital of RASH was acquired in October 1999 and the hotel was already fully operational at the time of the acquisition.
Kapital podjetja RASH so pridobili oktobra 1999 in hotel je v času pridobitve že polno obratoval.
The cost of acquiring the shares of RASH amounted to EUR 14720474.
Stroški pridobitve delnic podjetja RASH so znašali 14720474 EUR.
Portugal intends to grant a soft loan of EUR 3680119, corresponding to 25 % of the eligible costs, for the abovementioned project.
Portugalska namerava dodeliti ugodno posojilo v višini 3680119 EUR, kar je 25 % upravičenih stroškov zgoraj navedenega projekta.
The amount of aid is EUR 574466, giving a net aid intensity of 3,90 %.
Znesek pomoči je 574466 EUR, pri čemer je intenzivnost neto pomoči 3,90 %.
An additional amount would be granted by the State to Djebel to cover the costs related to studies and technical assistance, financial guarantees and legal assistance under the de minimis Regulation [5].
Država bi podjetju Djebel dodelila dodatni znesek za kritje stroškov, povezanih s študijami, tehnično pomočjo, finančnimi garancijami in pravno pomočjo po členih Uredbe o de minimis pomoči [5].
The present aid scheme was notified under Portuguese aid scheme N 667/1999, approved by the Commission on 8 August 2000 [6].
Ta shema pomoči je bila priglašena v okviru portugalske sheme pomoči N 667/1999, ki jo je Komisija odobrila 8. avgusta 2000 [6].
That scheme, which ran from 2000 to 2006, was designed to promote modern and competitive entrepreneurial strategies.
Namen navedene sheme pomoči, ki je potekala od 2000 do 2006, je bil spodbujanje sodobnih in konkurenčnih podjetniških strategij.
Under it aid for foreign direct investment projects by large companies had to be individually notified to the Commission.
Po tej shemi je treba Komisiji posamezno priglasiti vsak projekt neposrednih naložb velikih podjetij v tujini.
On 24 May 1999 Djebel submitted a proposal to F. Turismo — Capital de Risco, SA (FCR), which is a risk capital fund owned by public and private companies, concerning its participation in the planned project.
Podjetje Djebel je podjetju F. Turismo – Capital de Risco, SA („FCR“), ki je sklad tveganega kapitala v lasti javnih in zasebnih podjetij, 24. maja 1999 dalo predlog v zvezi z njegovim sodelovanjem pri načrtovanem projektu.
According to the Portuguese authorities, interventions by this fund do not contain elements of State aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty.
Po navedbah portugalskih organov posredovanja tega sklada ne vsebujejo elementov državne pomoči v smislu člena 87 Pogodbe ES.
The formal application for aid under State aid scheme N 667/1999 was submitted on 31 January 2001.
Uradni zahtevek za pomoč po shemi državne pomoči N 667/1999 je bil predložen dne 31. januarja 2001.
Portugal explained that the document presented to FCR in 1999 constituted the original aid application and that the project was subsequently carried out on the assumption that it would be eligible for aid under the relevant Portuguese law.
Portugalska je pojasnila, da je dokument, predložen podjetju FCR leta 1999, prvotni zahtevek za pomoč, in da je bil projekt kasneje izveden ob domnevi, da bi bil upravičen do pomoči po ustrezni portugalski zakonodaji.
Owing to internal delays, the Portuguese authorities notified the aid only in April 2005.
Zaradi notranjih zamud so portugalski organi pomoč priglasili šele aprila 2005.
The Commission, in its decision to initiate the procedure in respect of the present case, stated that it would examine the measure in the light of the derogation under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty in order to determine whether the aid could be considered to facilitate the development of a certain economic activity without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka v zvezi s to zadevo navedla, da bo preučila ukrep z vidika odstopanja po členu 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, da bi lahko odločila, ali se pomoč lahko šteje za spodbudo za razvoj določene gospodarske dejavnosti, ne da bi to škodljivo vplivalo na pogoje trgovanja v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
The Commission also stated that it would examine the measure on the basis of criteria normally used for assessing aid to large companies for foreign direct investment (FDI) projects [7].
Komisija je tudi navedla, da bo preučila ukrep na podlagi meril, ki se navadno uporabljajo za ocenjevanje pomoči velikim podjetjem za projekte neposrednih tujih naložb [7].
In these cases it normally weighs the benefits of the measure, in terms of contributing to the international competitiveness of the EU industry concerned, against possible negative effects in the Community, such as the risks of relocation and any adverse impact on employment.
V teh primerih Komisija navadno pretehta koristi ukrepa v smislu njegovega prispevka k mednarodni konkurenčnosti zadevne gospodarske panoge v EU glede na možne negativne učinke v Skupnosti, kot so tveganja premestitve in vsak škodljiv vpliv na zaposlovanje.
The Commission also takes into account the necessity of the aid by reference to the risks associated with the project in the country concerned as well as to the deficiencies of the company, such as those faced by SMEs.
Komisija upošteva tudi potrebo po pomoči glede na tveganja, povezana s projektom v zadevni državi, in glede na pomanjkljivosti podjetja, kot so tiste, s katerimi se srečujejo mala in srednje velika podjetja.
One other criterion relates to a possible positive regional impact.
Dodatno merilo je povezano z možnim pozitivnim regionalnim vplivom.
Lastly, the Commission excludes any aid to export-related activities.
Nazadnje Komisija izključuje vsako pomoč za dejavnosti, povezane z izvozom.
In this connection, the Commission questioned what the impact would be of the project on the tourism sector in Portugal (and thus in the European Union) and whether or not it would affect trading conditions in the European Union to an extent contrary to the common interest.
V zvezi s tem je Komisijo zanimalo, kako bo projekt vplival na turizem na Portugalskem (in s tem tudi na Evropsko unijo), in ali bo vplival na pogoje trgovanja v Evropski uniji v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi, ali ne.
The Commission was also doubtful whether the aid was necessary and/or provided any incentive for the applicant to carry out the investment since the project had been completed even before Djebel formally applied for State aid.
Komisija je tudi izrazila dvom, ali je pomoč potrebna in/ali prijavitelju sploh daje kakšno spodbudo, da izvede naložbo, saj je bil projekt zaključen, preden je podjetje Djebel uradno zaprosilo za državno pomoč.
It requested Portugal to submit comments and provide any information that might help in the assessment of the case.
Zaprosila je Portugalsko, da predloži pripombe in zagotovi vse informacije, ki bi lahko bile v pomoč pri oceni zadeve.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PORTUGUESE AUTHORITIES
PRIPOMBE, KI SO JIH PREDLOŽILI PORTUGALSKI ORGANI
Portugal considered that the necessity of the aid was justified by the fact that the acquisition of RASH constituted the first foreign direct investment project in Brazil by the Pestana Group.
Portugalski organi so menili, da je bila potreba po pomoči upravičena z dejstvom, da je bil prevzem podjetja RASH s strani skupine Pestana prvi projekt neposredne tuje naložbe v Braziliji.
This is a group whose activity was focused virtually in its entirety on the Portuguese market.
Dejavnost te skupine je bila skoraj povsem osredotočena na portugalski trg.
Portugal stated that the challenge of international expansion into Brazil, a high-risk country but also one with a high development potential and with close historical and cultural links with Portugal, became a decisive issue for the Pestana Group’s development.
Portugalska je navedla, da je izziv mednarodne širitve v Brazilijo, ki je država z visokim tveganjem, a tudi z velikimi razvojnimi možnostmi ter tesnimi zgodovinskimi in kulturnimi povezavami s Portugalsko, postal odločilno vprašanje za razvoj skupine Pestana.
Portugal pointed out to the Commission that the request for aid from the company was drawn up on 24 May 1999 and was submitted to F. Turismo — Capital de Risco SA, a company managing the risk capital fund FCR F. Turismo.
Portugalska je Komisijo opozorila, da je bil zahtevek za pomoč sestavljen 24. maja 1999 in predložen podjetju F. Turismo – Capital de Risco SA, ki upravlja sklad tveganega kapitala FCR F. Turismo.
The notified request constituted a second phase in the assessment of the project.
Priglašeni zahtevek je pomenil drugo stopnjo pri oceni projekta.
It should, therefore, be evaluated in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time, namely in May 1999.
Zato ga je treba oceniti z vidika okoliščin, ki so prevladovale takrat, torej maja 1999.
In this context and according to the Portuguese authorities, the fact that the investment was carried out without the aid shows that the promoter was confident about obtaining the aid and that it had to seize this business opportunity.
Po mnenju portugalskih organov glede na te okoliščine kaže dejstvo, da je bila naložba izpeljana brez pomoči, na to, da je bil pobudnik prepričan, da bo dobil državno pomoč in da mora izkoristiti to poslovno priložnost.
The Portuguese authorities argued that the beneficiary should not be penalised because it took longer to present the application that to carry out the investment.
Portugalski organi so trdili, da upravičenec ne sme biti kaznovan, ker mu je predložitev zahtevka vzela več časa kot izvedba naložbe.
They also referred to the handicaps and exceptional risks of the operation, such as the high volatility of the Brazilian real and the fact that this is the company's first investment in Brazil.
Sklicevali so se tudi na ovire in izjemna tveganja dejanja, kot sta na primer velika nestabilnost brazilskega reala in dejstvo, da je bila to prva naložba podjetja v Braziliji.
Portugal took the view that this investment in Brazil contributed to improving the competitiveness of the Pestana Group and reinforcing its standing in the global tourism sector, thanks in particular to the enhanced recognition of the ‘Pestana Hotels and Resorts’ brand, with the accompanying enhanced visibility of Portugal as a destination.
Portugalska je menila, da je ta naložba v Braziliji prispevala k večji konkurenčnosti skupine Pestana in povečala njen ugled v svetovnem turizmu, zlasti zaradi večje prepoznavnosti blagovne znamke „Pestana Hotels and Resorts“, kar prinaša tudi večjo prepoznavnost Portugalske kot turistične destinacije.
Moreover, the Group’s experience in Mozambique is not remotely comparable to its experience of internationalisation in Brazil, given the different characteristics of the two markets.
Poleg tega pa izkušnje skupine v Mozambiku še zdaleč niso primerljive z izkušnjami internacionalizacije v Braziliji, saj se značilnosti obeh trgov razlikujejo.
Whereas the Mozambique market, despite its high potential, is still only in an embryonic phase of development, Brazil is an open market with a high level of competition and one which presents a far more challenging prospect than Mozambique.
Medtem ko je mozambiški trg kljub svojim velikim zmožnostim še vedno samo na začetni stopnji razvoja, je brazilski trg odprt, z visoko stopnjo konkurenčnosti in daleč bolj izzivalnimi možnostmi kot mozambiški.
In terms of the Pestana Group’s current process of internationalisation, its experience in Mozambique did nothing to attenuate the high risk and anxiety associated with this operation.
Z vidika trenutnega procesa internacionalizacije skupine Pestana njena izkušnja v Mozambiku ni zmanjšala visokega tveganja in zaskrbljenosti, povezane s tem dejanjem.
Lastly, the Portuguese authorities claimed that the aid would have a limited effect on trading conditions in the European Union, notably because:
Nazadnje so portugalski organi zatrdili, da bi imela državna pomoč omejen učinek na pogoje trgovanja v Evropski uniji, zlasti ker:
the amount of the aid is only EUR 574466, representing 3,9 % of the eligible investment;
je znesek pomoči samo 574466 EUR, kar je 3,9 % upravičene naložbe,
the Pestana Group has a market share of only 2 % in Portugal, which is negligible in European terms;
je tržni delež skupine Pestana na Portugalskem samo 2 %, kar je zanemarljivo na evropski ravni,
the Brazilian market has around 10000 hotels, of which some 7 % are owned by foreign companies;
je na brazilskem trgu okoli 10000 hotelov, od katerih jih je približno 7 % v lasti tujih podjetij,
Brazil is a competitive market but one with a very low level of concentration;
je Brazilija sicer konkurenčen trg, a ima zelo nizko stopnjo koncentracije,
the company’s European competitors operating in Brazil already have very high market shares, led by the French group ACCOR, with 108 hotels, and followed by the Spanish Sol Melia group, with 23;
evropski tekmeci družbe, ki delujejo v Braziliji, že imajo visoke tržne deleže, med katerimi vodi francoska skupina ACCOR s 108 hoteli, sledi pa ji španska skupina Sol Melia s 23 hoteli,
in view of the dimension of the Brazilian market, the project is not of a sufficient size to produce any appreciable increase in local supply or to affect the positions of European companies already operating in Brazil.
glede na velikost brazilskega trga projekt ni dovolj obsežen, da bi lahko kakor koli bistveno povečal lokalno ponudbo ali vplival na položaj evropskih družb, ki že delujejo v Braziliji.
Portugal concluded that there was no possibility that the investment concerned, which involved the purchase of only one hotel, could have any significant impact on trading conditions in the European Union and that there was even less possibility that such an impact could be contrary to the common interest.
Portugalska je sklenila, da ni bilo nobene možnosti, da bi lahko zadevna naložba, ki je vključevala nakup samo enega hotela, bistveno vplivala na pogoje trgovanja v Evropski uniji, in da ni bilo niti najmanjše možnosti, da bi lahko bil takšen vpliv v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
Under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
Po členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES je „vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, če prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
The Commission, in its decision of 22 February 2006, concluded that the aid fell within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty for the following reasons:
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi z dne 22. februarja 2006 sklenila, da spada pomoč v okvir člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES zaradi naslednjih razlogov:
Under the notified measure, a large enterprise will receive funds for investing in the tourism sector in Brazil as part of an internationalisation strategy.
Po priglašenem ukrepu bo večje podjetje prejelo sredstva za naložbe v turističnem sektorju v Braziliji v okviru strategije internacionalizacije.
This measure amounts to preferential treatment of the beneficiary firm, gives it an advantage or an incentive compared with other firms and thereby distorts or threatens to distort competition.
Ta ukrep predstavlja prednostno obravnavo upravičenega podjetja, mu daje prednost ali spodbudo v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji in s tem izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco.
Aid will be granted to a firm in the EU tourism market, where there is or could be trade between Member States or on which firms from other Member States might wish to participate.
Pomoč se bo dodelila podjetju na turističnem trgu Evropske unije, na katerem obstaja ali bi lahko obstajalo trgovanje med državami članicami, ali na katerem bi lahko želele sodelovati druge države članice.
The measure could therefore affect trade between Member States.
Ukrep bi torej lahko vplival na trgovanje med državami članicami.
The measure is funded through State resources.
Ukrep se financira iz državnih sredstev.
The Commission considers that the arguments adduced by Portugal (see paragraph 27) are insufficient to modify these conclusions for the following reasons:
Komisija meni, da argumenti, ki jih je navedla Portugalska (glej odstavek 27), ne zadoščajo za spreminjanje teh sklepov zaradi naslednjih razlogov:
The Pestana Group was the leading Portuguese hotel group, a position which it still holds today, and it owned some 15 hotels in Portugal at the time of the request for aid.
Skupina Pestana je bila ob predložitvi zahtevka za pomoč vodilna portugalska hotelska veriga in je imela v lasti približno 15 hotelov na Portugalskem, in ta položaj ima še danes.
It is clearly advantageous for the national tourism sector as a whole to have one of the most important Portuguese brands represented in South America.
Za nacionalni turizem kot celoto je zelo koristno, da je ena od najpomembnejših portugalskih blagovnih znamk zastopana v Južni Ameriki.
The international scale of ‘Pestana Hotels and Restaurants’ gave the Group enhanced visibility, boosted its negotiating power and strengthened its business activity in the hotel sector.
Mednarodna razsežnost „Pestana Hotels and Restaurants“ je pripomogla k večji prepoznavnosti skupine, povečala njeno pogajalsko moč in okrepila njeno poslovno dejavnost znotraj hotelskega sektorja.
These factors helped to increase its size and to enhance its capacity for investing in the Portuguese market.
Ti dejavniki so pomagali povečati skupino in okrepiti njene zmogljivosti za naložbe na portugalskem trgu.
Since the start of its process of internationalisation, the Pestana Group has made a number of investments in Portugal, namely (i) the construction of three new hotels, (ii) the take-up of the management of the Pousadas de Portugal network, (iii) the purchase of a two other inefficient hotel companies and subsequent modernisation of their hotels, and (iv) the development of sizeable tourist projects, such as the Cidade da Criança in the Autonomous Region of Madeira.
Od začetka procesa internacionalizacije je skupina Pestana izvedla veliko naložb na Portugalskem, in sicer (i) zgradila tri nove hotele, (ii) prevzela upravljanje mreže Pousadas de Portugal, (iii) kupila dve drugi neuspešni hotelski podjetji in nato posodobila njune hotele ter (iv) razvila precejšne turistične projekte, kot so Cidade da Criança v avtonomni regiji Madeira.
In view of the size of the Pestana Group, a significant increase in the number of jobs created in Portugal would not be the only consequence of buying a hotel in Brazil.
Glede na velikost skupine Pestana bi imel nakup hotela v Braziliji še druge posledice poleg velikega števila ustvarjenih delovnih mest na Portugalskem.
Such an increase has indeed already taken place, but primarily as a result of the various abovementioned investments which the Group recently made in Portugal and which are largely due to the momentum generated by its process of internationalisation.
Število delovnih mest se je res povečalo, vendar predvsem zaradi različnih zgoraj navedenih naložb, ki jih je skupina pred kratkim izvedla na Portugalskem in ki večinoma izvirajo iz zagona, ki ga je ustvaril njen proces internacionalizacije.
In 1999 the Group had a total workforce of only 1800, whereas by 2005, only six years later, the figure already exceeded 3500.
Leta 1999 je imela skupina samo 1800 zaposlenih, medtem ko je to število v samo šestih letih, to je leta 2005, že preseglo 3500.
By helping with the acquisition of a hotel as part of the internationalisation initiative of a Portuguese company in Brazil, the notified measure favours a certain undertaking or the production of certain goods.
S pomočjo pri nakupu hotela, kot sestavnega dela pobude za internacionalizacijo portugalskega podjetja v Braziliji, priglašeni ukrep koristi določenemu podjetju ali proizvodnji določenega blaga.
The Commission considers that aid granted to undertakings of the European Union for foreign direct investment is comparable to aid granted to undertakings that export almost all of their production outside the Community.
Komisija meni, da je pomoč, dodeljena podjetjem v Evropski uniji za neposredne tuje naložbe, primerljiva s pomočjo, dodeljeno podjetjem, ki izvozijo skoraj vso svojo proizvodnjo zunaj Skupnosti.
In such cases, given the interdependence between the markets on which Community undertakings operate, it cannot be excluded that aid may distort competition within the Community [8].Compatibility of the aid with the EC Treaty
V takih primerih glede na soodvisnost trgov, na katerih delujejo podjetja Skupnosti, ni mogoče izključiti, da bi pomoč lahko izkrivljala konkurenco znotraj Skupnosti [8].Združljivost pomoči s Pogodbo ES
The Commission indicated that it would assess the compatibility of the aid with the EC Treaty in the light of the derogation under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, which authorises aid ‘to facilitate the development of ceertain economic activities’ where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Komisija je navedla, da bo ocenila združljivost pomoči s Pogodbo ES glede na odstopanje po členu 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, ki dovoljuje pomoč „za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti“, kjer taka pomoč nima škodljivega učinka na pogoje trgovanja v takem obsegu, da bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
The Commission also indicated that it would take into account certain criteria which it had applied in previous cases of aid to large companies for outward foreign direct investment projects (see paragraph 18) with a view to striking a balance between the benefits of the measure, in terms of contributing to the international competitiveness of the EU industry concerned (e.g. whether the aid is necessary by reference to the risks associated with the project in the country of investment), and its possible negative effects on the EU market [9].
Komisija je tudi navedla, da bo upoštevala nekatera merila, ki jih je uporabila v prejšnjih primerih pomoči večjim podjetjem za projekte domačih neposrednih naložb v tujini (glej odstavek 18), da bi našla ravnotežje med koristmi ukrepa v smislu prispevanja k mednarodni konkurenčnosti zadevne gospodarske panoge v EU (to pomeni, ali je pomoč potrebna glede na tveganja, povezana s projektom v državi vlaganja) in njenimi možnimi negativnimi učinki na trgu EU [9].
The Commission noted in this context that, as regards the incentive effect of the aid, there appeared to be some indications that the aid did not meet this criterion.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija ugotovila, da se glede spodbujevalnega učinka pomoči zdi, da obstajajo nekateri znaki, ki kažejo, da pomoč ni izpolnila tega merila.
In addition, it had doubts as to the impact of the measure on the common market.
Poleg tega je imela pomisleke glede vpliva ukrepa na skupni trg.
This included, inter alia, the necessity of the aid given the risks associated with the project in the country concerned as well as the deficiencies of the company (similar to those that may be faced by SMEs).
To je med drugim vključevalo potrebo po pomoči glede na tveganja, povezana s projektom v zadevni državi, in glede na pomanjkljivosti podjetja (podobne tistim, s katerimi se srečujejo mala in srednje velika podjetja).
As a general principle of State aid legislation, in order for aid to be compatible with the common market, it must be demonstrated that the aid leads to an additional activity by the beneficiary which would not be carried out without the aid.
Splošno načelo zakonodaje o državni pomoči je, da mora biti dokazano, da upravičenec s prejemom pomoči uvede dodatno dejavnost, ki brez pomoči ne bi bila uvedena, da se lahko pomoč šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
Otherwise, the aid would simply distort competition without having any positive counter-effect.
Drugače bi pomoč preprosto povzročila izkrivljanje, ne da bi imela kakršen koli pozitivni nasprotni učinek.