natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
First, it is to be noted that the indicated aid intensity does not exceed the ceilings laid down in Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001, namely 35 % for specific training (35 % of […] = [(approximately 5-25 %)]) and 60 % for general training (60 % of […] = [(approximately 75-95 %)]).
Prvič, ugotovljeno je, da navedena intenzivnost pomoči ne presega najvišjih zneskov pomoči, in sicer 35 % za posebne ukrepe usposabljanja (35 % od […] = [(približno 5–25 %)]) in 60 % za splošne ukrepe usposabljanja (60 % od […] = [(približno 75–95 %)]) iz člena 4(2) ali (3) Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001.
Germany may raise the ceilings of 25 % and 50 % by 10 percentage points given that the project is located in an area assisted under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
Ker je projekt na območju, upravičenem do pomoči v skladu s členom 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES, lahko Nemčija najvišja zneska pomoči 25 % in 50 % poveča za 10 odstotnih točk.
Second, the measure's eligible costs comply with Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001.
Drugič, upravičeni stroški ukrepa so v skladu s členom 4(7) Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001.
The investigation confirmed that the trainees’ eligible personnel costs were clearly limited to the total amount of the other eligible costs.
S preiskavo je bilo potrjeno, da so upravičeni stroški za osebje, ki se usposablja, nedvomno omejeni na skupni znesek drugih upravičenih stroškov.
Germany furnished proof that, although a large part of the training is on-the-job training, no productive hours are involved.
Nemčija je utemeljila, da se večji del usposabljanja izvaja na delovnem mestu, vendar pri tem ne nastajajo produktivne ure.
Necessity of the aid
Nujnost pomoči
The main argument in the decision initiating the procedure was that a training measure can be found compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty only when it is not directly required for the operational activities of the beneficiary.
Glavna trditev v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je bila, da se lahko ukrep usposabljanja v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES razglasi za združljivega s skupnim trgom le, če ni potreben neposredno za poslovanje upravičenca.
The Commission noted that the necessity of the aid is a general compatibility criterion and concluded that, where the aid does not lead to more measures being undertaken than would be the case with market forces alone, the aid cannot be expected to have positive effects offsetting the distortion of trade and cannot, therefore, be authorised.
Komisija je navedla, da je nujnost pomoči splošno merilo združljivosti, in ugotovila naslednje: kadar se zaradi pomoči ne izvaja več ukrepov, kot bi se le zaradi tržnih sil, ni mogoče pričakovati pozitivnih učinkov pomoči in izravnalnega učinka izkrivljanja pogojev trgovanja, tako da pomoči ni možno odobriti.
If the company would have undertaken the assisted measures in any event, and notably in the absence of aid, the training aid in question cannot be assumed to ‘promote’ economic development within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty and, in accordance with recital 10 to Regulation (EC) No 68/2001, to help correct the market imperfection that results in enterprises generally underinvesting in the training of their workers [16].
Če bi družba podprte ukrepe izvedla v vsakem primeru, torej tudi brez pomoči, zadevne pomoči za usposabljanje ni možno utemeljiti s tem, da je namenjena „pospeševanju“ gospodarskega razvoja v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES ali da v skladu z uvodno izjavo 10 Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001 prispeva k odpravljanju tržne slabosti, zaradi katere družbe na splošno premalo vlagajo v usposabljanje svojih delavcev [16].
This is without prejudice to aid exempted from the notification requirement under Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 where it is assumed prima facie that such aid serves to promote economic development.
To ne vpliva na pomoč, ki je izvzeta iz obveznosti priglasitve v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 68/2001 in za katero najprej velja, da pospešuje gospodarski razvoj.
The fact that the Commission is assessing whether an incentive effect exists and rejects the presence of such an effect where training is required by law is, in Germany's view, a novel approach that is not consistent with the EC rules, arbitrarily deviates from existing decision-making practice and prevents the granting of training aid for regional policy purposes.
Dejstvo, da Komisija preverja obstoj spodbujevalnega učinka in ga v primeru zakonsko določenih ukrepov usposabljanja zanika, je po mnenju Nemčije nov pristop, ki ni v skladu s predpisi ES, ki pomeni samovoljno odstopanje od dosedanje prakse odločanja in onemogoča dodeljevanje pomoči za usposabljanje za namene regionalne politike.
The Commission cannot accept these arguments for the reasons stated below.
Komisija se s tem ne more strinjati iz naslednjih razlogov:
First, it should be recalled that training aid is assessed under Regulation (EC) No 68/2001, which states in recital 4 that it is ‘without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to notify training aid.
Najprej je treba omeniti, da ocenjevanje pomoči za usposabljanje temelji na Uredbi (ES) št. 68/2001, ki v uvodni izjavi 4 določa: „Ta uredba ne posega v možnost držav članic, da priglasijo pomoč za usposabljanje.
Such notifications will be assessed by the Commission in particular in the light of the criteria set out in this Regulation, or in accordance with the applicable Community guidelines and frameworks, if such guidelines and frameworks exist.’
Take uradne priglasitve bo Komisija ocenila še zlasti na osnovi kriterijev iz te uredbe ali v skladu z veljavnimi smernicami in okviri Skupnosti, če take smernice in okviri obstajajo.“
Moreover, it is reiterated in recital 16 that ‘It is appropriate that large amounts of aid remain subject to an individual assessment by the Commission before they are put into effect.
V uvodni izjavi 16 je potrjeno: „Pomoči v večjih zneskih mora Komisija preveriti posamično, preden se dodelijo.
Accordingly, aid exceeding a fixed amount, which should be set at EUR 1 million, is excluded from the exemption provided for in this Regulation and remains subject to the requirements of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.’
Za pomoči, ki presegajo znesek v višini 1000000 evrov, se izjema iz te uredbe ne uporablja in zanje še nadalje veljajo zahteve člena 88(3) Pogodbe.“
Finally, it is stipulated in recital 4 that ‘The framework on training aid should be abolished from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, since its contents are replaced by this Regulation.’
V uvodni izjavi 4 pa je določeno: „Okvir, ki velja za pomoč pri usposabljanju, naj se ukine istega dne, ko začne veljati ta uredba, ker je bila njegova vsebina prevzeta s to uredbo.“
As the planned aid exceeds EUR 1 million, there is no doubt that it must be notified and approved by the Commission.
Ker načrtovana pomoč presega 1 milijon EUR, jo je treba nedvomno priglasiti, potem pa jo mora Komisija odobriti.
Moreover, it is clear that such aid must, in principle, comply with the exemption criteria laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001.
Poleg tega mora takšna pomoč načeloma izpolnjevati merila za izvzetje iz člena 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001.
However, Germany questions whether the Commission is also empowered to scrutinise whether the aid has an incentive effect.
Vendar ima Nemčija pomisleke, ali je Komisija pristojna za ocenjevanje, ali ima pomoč spodbujevalni učinek.
The Commission is of the opinion that the concept of State aid and in particular the criterion of the necessity of aid entail the existence of an incentive effect of the aid for the beneficiary.
Komisija meni, da pojem državne pomoči in zlasti merilo o nujnosti vključujeta spodbujevalni učinek pomoči za prejemnika.
It cannot serve the common interest if the State supports measures (including training measures) that a beneficiary would undertake in any event.
Državna podpora ukrepom (tudi ukrepom usposabljanja), ki bi jih prejemnik pomoči v vsakem primeru izvedel, ne more biti v splošnem interesu.
The Commission’s recent decisions have specifically included an assessment of the incentive effect for training measures (Ford Genk, GM Antwerp), in line with Regulation (EC) No 68/2001, the State Aid Action Plan and Court rulings on the conditions for finding aid to be compatible with the common market.
V skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 68/2001, akcijskim načrtom o državnih pomočeh in sodno prakso o pogojih, v skladu s katerimi se lahko pomoč razglasi za združljivo s skupnim trgom, je Komisija v svojih najnovejših odločbah (Ford Genk, GM Antwerp) zadevno pomoč za usposabljanje ocenila tudi glede njenega spodbujevalnega učinka.
In order to underline its position, Germany claims, first, that compatibility with the common market needs to be assessed in the light of the criteria laid down in the Regulation and, in this connection, cites recital 4 to Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 to the effect that the aid will ‘be assessed by the Commission in particular in the light of the criteria set out in this Regulation’.
Prvič, Nemčija potrjuje svoje stališče z utemeljitvijo, da se združljivost pomoči, ki jo je treba priglasiti, s skupnim trgom oceni na podlagi meril iz Uredbe, ter se v zvezi s tem sklicuje na uvodno izjavo 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001, ki določa, da Komisija pomoči oceni „še zlasti na osnovi kriterijev iz te uredbe“.
Germany disregards the fact that the words ‘in particular’ mean precisely that the individual assessment is not limited to the aid assessment provided for in Regulation (EC) No 68/2001.
Nemčija pri tem ne upošteva, da izraz „še zlasti“ dejansko pomeni, da ocena za vsak posamezen primer ni omejena na oceno na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči iz Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001.
Since recital 16 clearly indicates that such aid remains subject to an individual assessment, there can be no doubt that this assessment is not confined to the criteria laid down in the aforementioned Regulation and must be carried out directly on the basis of Article 87 of the EC Treaty.
Ker je v uvodni izjavi 16 izrecno določeno, da je treba ustrezne pomoči še naprej preverjati posamično, je jasno, da ta ocena ni omejena na merila iz navedene uredbe in mora biti izvedena neposredno v skladu s členom 87 Pogodbe ES.
Second, Germany argues that Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 should be interpreted in the light of the 1998 Framework on training aid, which was the predecessor of that Regulation and laid down the criteria for assessing the existence of an incentive effect in the case of substantial aid.
Drugič, Nemčija je navedla, da je treba Uredbo (ES) št. 68/2001 razlagati ob upoštevanju okvira Skupnosti za pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 1998, ki se je začel uporabljati pred začetkom veljavnosti zadevne uredbe in v katerem so določena merila, v skladu s katerimi je treba pri visokih zneskih pomoči oceniti, ali ima pomoč spodbujevalni učinek ali ne.
In particular, it states that the Framework indicated that an incentive effect was to be assumed in the case of training taking place in an area assisted under Article 87(3)(a) or (c).
V skladu z okvirom Skupnosti se spodbujevalni učinek pojavi zlasti takrat, ko se projekt usposabljanja izvaja na območju, upravičenem do pomoči v skladu s členom 87(3)(a) ali (c).
However, the Commission cannot accept this argument as recital 4 to Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 leaves no doubt that the Framework on training aid was abolished on the date of entry into force of the Regulation.
Komisija te navedbe ne more upoštevati, ker uvodna izjava 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001 jasno določa, da je bil okvir Skupnosti za pomoč za usposabljanje ukinjen, ko je začela veljati ta uredba.
The intention of the Commission – and the effect of the Regulation – was to replace the Framework with the Regulation.
Komisija je želela, da se okvir Skupnosti nadomesti z Uredbo (ES) št. 68/2001, tako da ima navedena uredba takšen učinek.
On the one hand, this is apparent from other language versions where recital 4 to Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 makes it clear that the Framework is ‘abolished’ since its contents are ‘replaced’.
To je jasno v drugih jezikovnih različicah, pri čemer uvodna izjava 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001 jasno določa, da se okvir Skupnosti „ukine“, ker se njegova vsebina „nadomesti“.
On the other hand, this is clearly stated in previous Commission decisions [17].
To je jasno opredeljeno tudi v prejšnjih odločbah Komisije [17].
What is more, the Regulation did not take over the Framework ' s legal presumption of the existence of an incentive effect but instead deliberately stipulated in more general terms that, under certain conditions, training aid can be found to be compatible with the common market [18].
Poleg tega zadevna uredba ne upošteva pravne domneve iz okvira Skupnosti, da obstaja spodbujevalni učinek, ampak na splošno zelo jasno določa, da je mogoče pomoči za usposabljanje pod določenimi pogoji obravnavati kot združljive s skupnim trgom [18].
However, if an enterprise would have undertaken the assisted measures in any event, and notably in the absence of aid, the aid cannot be considered to have an incentive effect.
Če bi podjetje izvajalo zahtevane ukrepe v vsakem primeru, torej tudi brez pomoči, ta pomoč ne bi imela spodbujevalnega učinka.
Third, Germany and in particular the beneficiary argue that an additional assessment of the necessity of the aid based on Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty would mean that Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 would, in its entirety, be in breach of this provision of the Treaty.
Tretjič, Nemčija in zlasti prejemnica pomoči sta navedli, da bi dodatna ocena nujnosti pomoči na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES pomenila, da je celotna Uredba (ES) št. 68/2001 v nasprotju s to določbo Pogodbe.
It is clearly assumed here that the necessity of the aid is not being assessed.
Pri tem je mogoče jasno domnevati, da se nujnost pomoči ne ocenjuje.
The Commission cannot accept this argument either since it obviously disregards the fact that the necessity criterion is also assumed to be met in the case of aid not exceeding EUR 1 million that fulfils the criteria laid down in that Regulation.
Vendar se Komisija s tem ne more strinjati, ker se pri tem očitno ne upošteva, da se pri pomočeh pod 1 milijonom EUR, ki izpolnjujejo merila iz zadevne uredbe, predvideva, da je izpolnjeno tudi merilo o nujnosti.
Fourth, Germany asserts that the Commission is deviating from its practice in previous cases where it did not assess the existence of an incentive effect.
Četrtič, Nemčija trdi, da Komisija odstopa od pristopa, ki ga je uporabila v prejšnjih primerih, pri katerih ni ocenila, ali obstaja spodbujevalni učinek.
This is correct.
To je dejstvo.
However, the Commission has indicated that it changed its practice on the basis of the refined economic approach.
Vendar je Komisija pojasnila, da se je njen pristop spremenil zaradi boljšega gospodarskega vidika obravnavanja.
This change took place in the in-depth assessment of the Ford Genk and GM Antwerp aid cases and was explicitly acknowledged there.
Do te spremembe je prišlo pri temeljiti oceni zadev Ford Genk in GM Antwerp, ki sta povezani s pomočjo, pri kateri se je izrecno uporabljal nov pristop.
Nevertheless, Germany indicates that the Commission's practice lacks coherence since, after initiating the formal investigation procedure in the Ford Genk case, it took a decision in at least two cases, namely BMW Austria (Case N 304/2005) [19] and Webasto (Case N 653/2005), without undertaking a corresponding assessment or on the basis of another assessment.
Kljub temu je Nemčija navedla, da pristop Komisije ni ustrezen, ker je po sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave v zadevi Ford Genk v vsaj dveh primerih, in sicer BMW Österreich (zadeva N 304/2005) [19] in Webasto (zadeva N 653/2005), sprejela odločitev brez ustrezne ocene ali na podlagi druge ocene.
However, the Commission notes that these decisions were taken without an in-depth assessment and before completion of the first of the two in-depth assessments mentioned above, in which the Commission refined its approach.
Vendar Komisija poudarja, da so bile te odločitve sprejete brez temeljite ocene in pred koncem prve od obeh zgoraj omenjenih temeljitih ocen, pri katerih je začela Komisija uporabljati spremenjeni pristop.
It is not disputed that the Commission can refine and change its approach if there are sufficient reasons to do so.
Komisija lahko nedvomno izboljša in spremeni pristop k ocenjevanju, če za to obstajajo ustrezni razlogi.
This was the case with Ford Genk and GM Antwerp but not with earlier aid decisions.
To se je zgodilo v zadevah Ford Genk in GM Antwerp, vendar ne v prejšnjih zadevah.
Hence the Commission could, prior to the final decision of Ford Genk, still rely on its previous decision-making practice.
Zato je lahko Komisija pred sprejetjem končne odločitve v zadevi Ford Genk še naprej uporabljala prejšnjo prakso odločanja.
Fifth, Germany and the beneficiary challenge the argument that the Commission can rely on the Ford Genk and GM Antwerp decisions because the facts of these cases differ from those in the DHL case.
Petič, Nemčija in prejemnica pomoči se nista strinjali, da se lahko Komisija sklicuje na zadevi Ford Genk in GM Antwerp, povezani s pomočjo, ker je njuno dejansko stanje drugačno kot v primeru DHL.
Instead, the Commission should have relied on the Webasto decision.
Komisija bi se morala bolj opirati na odločitev v zadevi Webasto.
It can certainly not be argued that the aid for DHL should be treated differently because it does not concern, like the other two cases, the automotive sector.
V nobenem primeru ni mogoče trditi, da bi bilo treba pomoč za DHL obravnavati drugače, ker ne zadeva avtomobilskega sektorja kot druga dva primera.
The decision in Webasto, on which Germany and the beneficiary base themselves, concerns the automotive sector.
Tudi odločitev v zadevi Webasto, na katero se sklicujeta Nemčija in prejemnica pomoči, zadeva avtomobilski sektor.
The only difference might be that the first two cases concern existing installations while DHL and Webasto concern new installations.
Edina razlika je morda v tem, da prva dva primera zadevata obstoječe proizvodne lokacije, medtem ko sta primera DHL in Webasto povezana z novimi podjetji.
Nevertheless, while it is not disputed that in the first two cases any support for measures that would have been undertaken in any event is operating aid, the Commission fails to see why no operating aid is involved in training measures in a new installation that would have been undertaken in any event.
Komisija ne more razumeti, da kakršna koli podpora za ukrepe, ki se izvajajo v vsakem primeru, v prvih dveh primerih nedvomno pomeni pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, v novem podjetju pa naj ukrepi usposabljanja, ki se izvajajo v vsakem primeru, ne bi bili pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
Here too, the company receives support for measures it would have to undertake in any event.
Tudi v tem primeru dobi podjetje pomoč za ukrepe, ki jih mora izvesti v vsakem primeru.
What is more, training measures in the case of a new installation that would have been undertaken in any event cannot be justified either by considerations underlying the granting of regional aid as regional disadvantages should be offset by regional investment aid and not by training aid.
Poleg tega v primeru novega podjetja ukrepov usposabljanja, ki bi se izvajali v vsakem primeru, ni mogoče upravičiti z utemeljitvami, na podlagi katerih se zagotovi regionalna pomoč, saj je mogoče regionalne omejitve izravnati z regionalnimi pomočmi za naložbe in ne s pomočmi za usposabljanje.
In this connection, Germany claims that the prospect of receiving State aid for necessary and comprehensive training measures played a crucial role in the final relocation decision taken by DHL.
Nemčija je v zvezi s tem navedla, da je možnost dodelitve državnih pomoči za nujne in obsežne ukrepe usposabljanja bistveno vplivala na končno odločitev družbe DHL o selitvi proizvodnje.
However, the Commission maintains that it is usual in the European Union for undertakings to take decisions in an attempt to reduce costs and increase profitability.
Vendar Komisija meni, da se podjetja v Evropski uniji za lokacijo proizvodnje in njeno selitev običajno odločijo, da zmanjšajo stroške in povečajo donosnost.
Undertakings considering a relocation of their production often consider several competing sites in different Member States.
Podjetja, ki nameravajo preseliti svojo proizvodnjo, pogosto proučijo več konkurenčnih proizvodnih lokacij v različnih državah članicah.
The decision on location is ultimately influenced not only by expected operating costs (including training costs for newly recruited, often unskilled employees) and other economic advantages or disadvantages (e.g. local rules on operating schedules) but also, to a certain extent, by the possibility of receiving government support (i.e. regional aid).
Vendar odločitev o proizvodni lokaciji ni odvisna le od pričakovanih stroškov poslovanja (vključno s stroški usposabljanja za nove delavce, ki pogosto niso ustrezno usposobljeni) in drugih gospodarskih prednosti ali slabosti (npr. lokalni predpisi o delovnem času), ampak v določenem obsegu tudi od možnosti za pridobitev državne finančne podpore (tj. regionalne pomoči).
The Commission cannot accept Germany’s argument since, unlike regional investment aid, the objective of training aid is not to influence the choice of location but to offset the underinvestment in training in the Community.
Komisija se s tem ne more strinjati, ker naj pomoči za usposabljanje, v nasprotju z regionalnimi pomočmi za naložbe, ne bi vplivale na odločitev o proizvodni lokaciji, ampak naj bi izravnale nezadostne naložbe v ukrepe usposabljanja v Skupnosti.
Lower skill levels in an assisted area are a regional problem which is to be resolved by regional investment aid.
Nižja stopnja usposobljenosti na območju, upravičenem do pomoči, je regionalen problem, ki ga je treba odpraviti z regionalno pomočjo za naložbe.
On the basis of the information provided, the Commission comes to the conclusion that DHL would need to provide much of the training for its employees in any event, i.e. even in the absence of aid.
Na podlagi predloženih informacij je Komisija ugotovila, da mora družba DHL večino ukrepov usposabljanja za svoje delavce izvesti v vsakem primeru, torej tudi brez pomoči.
This follows from two main observations which are elaborated on below: first, training for employees is necessary in order to be able to start operating the logistics centre and, second, the training measures are, to a large extent, required by law.
To načeloma izhaja iz dveh ugotovitev, ki sta v nadaljevanju pojasnjeni. Prvič je usposabljanje delavcev nujno za začetek obratovanja logističnega centra za zračni prevoz, drugič pa so ukrepi usposabljanja večinoma zakonsko določeni.
Training required for operation of the new installation
Ukrepi usposabljanja, potrebni za obratovanje
As regards the necessity of training, the relocation of DHL to Leipzig-Halle, Germany, is similar in its effects to the establishment of a new undertaking in that DHL must employ new workers in order to start operations.
V zvezi z nujnostjo ukrepov usposabljanja je treba ugotoviti, da ima selitev proizvodnje DHL na lokacijo Leipzig-Halle (Nemčija) podobne učinke kot ustanovitev novega podjetja, ker mora družba DHL za začetek obratovanja zaposliti nove delavce.
Its operational needs can apparently be met in three ways: it could employ new workers who would need training; it could recruit skilled employees; or it could, in the absence of skilled employees, subcontract certain services.
Operativne potrebe je mogoče zaenkrat izpolniti na tri načine: družba DHL lahko zaposli nove delavce, ki jih mora usposobiti; družba DHL lahko zaposli že usposobljene delavce; če družba DHL nima na voljo ustreznih delavcev, lahko določene storitve odda v izvajanje zunanjim izvajalcem.
For one thing, Germany has not provided any additional information to allay the Commission's doubts as to whether DHL would be able to recruit a sufficiently trained workforce for its new location.
Prvič, Nemčija ni predložila dodatnih informacij, na podlagi katerih Komisija ne bi več dvomila, da lahko družba DHL na novi proizvodni lokaciji zaposli dovolj usposobljene delavce.