natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Portugal proposes to grant the aid on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding [5] as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 502/2004 [6] (the ‘TDM-regulation’).
Portugalska predlaga, naj se pomoč dodeli na podlagi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1177/2002 o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu za ladjedelništvo [5], kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 502/2004 [6] („Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu“).
The TDM-regulation entered into force on 3 July 2002 and expired on 31 March 2005.
Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu je začela veljati 3. julija 2002 in prenehala veljati 31. marca 2005.
This Regulation was, thus, no longer in force at the time when Portugal approved and notified the aid.
Uredba tako ni bila več veljavna v času, ko je Portugalska odobrila in priglasila pomoč.
Portugal argues that the contracts fall within the scope of application of the TDM-regulation because they were signed while this regulation was still in force.
Portugalska trdi, da pogodbe spadajo v področje uporabe Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, ker so bile podpisane, ko je ta uredba še veljala.
The Commission, in its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in the present case, noted that it had doubts on the compatibility of the aid with the common market based on the TDM-regulation for the following reasons.
Komisija je v svoji odločbi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave za ta primer ugotovila, da ima pomisleke o združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom na podlagi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu iz naslednjih razlogov.
First, the Commission had doubts regarding the incentive effect of the aid.
Prvič, Komisija je imela pomisleke o spodbujevalnem učinku pomoči.
The Commission noted that the application for aid was only submitted after the contracts had been signed.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je bil zahtevek za pomoč predložen šele po podpisu pogodb.
Also Portugal only approved the aid internally (on condition of approval by the Commission) more than a year after the application for aid was submitted.
Poleg tega je Portugalska pomoč odobrila le na notranji ravni (pod pogojem, da jo odobri Komisija) in več kot eno leto po predložitvi zahtevka za pomoč.
Portugal had not provided evidence that at the time ENVC signed the contracts there were any assurances that the shipyard would obtain the aid.
Portugalska ni predložila dokazov, da so v času, ko je ladjedelnica ENVC podpisala pogodbe, obstajala zagotovila, da bo ladjedelnica prejela pomoč.
The Commission, therefore, had doubts that ENVC was induced in any way by State aid to carry out the projects concerned.
Zato je Komisija imela pomisleke, da izvedbe zadevnih projektov s strani ladjedelnice ENVC ni sprožila državna pomoč.
The Commission noted that the TDM-regulation expired on 31 March 2005 and was therefore no longer in force at the time Portugal approved and notified the aid.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu prenehala veljati 31. marca 2005 in tako ni več veljala, ko je Portugalska odobrila in priglasila pomoč.
The Commission also noted that in its decision concerning Case C 26/2006 (ex N 110/2006) [7] it had explained in detail why it considers that the TDM-regulation can no longer be a valid legal basis for approving new operating aid to shipbuilding.
Poleg tega je Komisija ugotovila, da je v svoji odločitvi v zadevi C 26/2006 (ex N 110/2006) [7] podrobno razložila, zakaj meni, da Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu ne more biti več ustrezna pravna podlaga za dodelitev novih pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za ladjedelništvo.
Portugal, in the present case, had not submitted any new information that would modify the Commission's assessment in this respect and therefore the Commission could not consider at that stage that the aid was compatible with the common market.
Portugalska v zadevnem primeru ni predložila novih informacij, ki bi vplivale na presojo Komisije v tem oziru, zato Komisija v tej fazi ni menila, da je bila pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Portugal noted, in general terms, that for the contracts in question the yard was mainly competing with non-Community shipyards, notably with regard to unfair competition from Korean shipyards which was the subject of the TDM regulation.
Splošno povedano, Portugalska je ugotovila, da je v zadevnih pogodbah ladjedelnica večinoma konkurirala ladjedelnicam izven Skupnosti, predvsem nelojalni konkurenci s strani korejskih ladjedelnic, ki je bila predmet Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
Further, the contracts did not affect or threatened to affect competition in the EU because all shipyards in the EU had equal access to aid under the TDM regulation that had direct application in all Member States.
Poleg tega pogodbe niso vplivale ali ne bi mogle vplivati na konkurenco v Evropski uniji, saj so imele vse ladjedelnice v EU enake možnosti za pridobitev pomoči na podlagi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, ki se je neposredno uporabljala v vseh državah članicah.
As a consequence, the notified measures could not be considered to affect trade between Member States.
Posledično, priglašeni ukrepi ne morejo vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami.
Regarding the incentive effect of the aid, Portugal argued that it was not materially possible for ENVC to submit a request for aid duly motivated, prior to signing the contracts, because of aspects linked to the negotiation.
Portugalska je v zvezi s spodbujevalnim učinkom trdila, da ni bilo dejansko mogoče, da bi ladjedelnica ENVC pred podpisom pogodb predložila utemeljen zahtevek za pomoč zaradi različnih vidikov, povezanih s pogajanji.
The contacts with the ship owners were initiated prior to ENVC requesting the aid.
Stiki z ladjarji so bili vzpostavljeni, preden je ladjedelnica ENVC zaprosila za pomoč.
Also, Portugal sustains that, although ENVC signed the contracts without public assurances that it would receive the aid, the shipyard negotiated and signed the contracts and built the vessels on the expectation of both the Portuguese authorities and the Commission authorizing the aid, given that the objective conditions for receiving the aid were fulfilled in this case.
Poleg tega Portugalska vztraja, da čeprav je ladjedelnica ENVC podpisala pogodbe brez javnih zagotovil, da bo prejela pomoč, je ladjedelnica izpogajala in podpisala pogodbe ter izdelala ladje na osnovi pričakovanj, da bodo portugalski organi in Komisija odobrili pomoč, glede na to, da so bili v tej zadevi izpolnjeni objektivni pogoji za prejem pomoči.
Concerning the legal basis for approving the aid Portugal referred to its comments submitted in the context of Case C 26/2006 [8] that it considers applicable to the present case.
Portugalska se je v zvezi s pravno podlago za odobritev pomoči sklicevala na tiste svoje pripombe, predložene v zadevi C 26/2006 [8], ki se nanašajo na to zadevo.
Portugal noted that the contracts in question were signed during the period of application of the TDM regulation, i.e. before 31 March 2005 and before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted the panel report condemning the TDM-regulation.
Portugalska je ugotovila, da so bile zadevne pogodbe podpisane v času, ko je še veljala Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, tj. pred 31. marcem 2005, in preden je Organ STO za poravnavo sporov sprejel poročilo odbora, ki zavrača Uredbo o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
Portugal also stated that it was not possible to notify the aid before the expiry of the TDM-regulation because the contracts were only signed in February and March 2005 (i.e. just before the expiry of the TDM-regulation).
Portugalska je tudi izjavila, da pomoči ni bilo mogoče priglasiti, preden je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu prenehala veljati, saj so bile pogodbe podpisane šele februarja in marca 2005 (tj. tik preden je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu prenehala veljati).
However, in Portugal's view this does not annul the validity of these contracts which fulfilled the objective conditions of the TDM-regulation at the time they were signed.
Vendar pa Portugalska meni, da to ne izniči veljavnosti teh pogodb, ki so ob podpisu izpolnjevale objektivne pogoje Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
According to 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.
V skladu s členom 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, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission considers that the proposed measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija meni, da predlagani ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES. Ukrep ima obliko nepovratnih sredstev, ki se financirajo z državnimi sredstvi.
This selective grant is likely to distort competition, by providing ENVC with an advantage over other competitors not receiving the aid.
Ta selektivna nepovratna sredstva lahko povzročijo izkrivljanje konkurence, saj ladjedelnici ENVC zagotavljajo prednost pred konkurenti, ki ne prejemajo pomoči.
In this respect, the fact that ENVC might be competing with shipyards in Korea does not detract from the fact that it was also competing with other shipyards in the common market.
V tem smislu dejstvo, da bi ladjedelnica ENVC lahko konkurirala ladjedelnicam iz Koreje, ne vpliva na dejstvo, da je hkrati konkurirala drugim ladjedelnicam na skupnem trgu.
Finally, shipbuilding is an economic activity involving extensive trade between Member States and the measures are thus likely to affect trade between Member States.
Nenazadnje je ladjedelništvo gospodarska dejavnost, ki vključuje obsežno trgovino med državami članicami, in ukrepi kot taki lahko vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission thus confirms that the notified aid measure falls within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija tako potrjuje, da priglašeni ukrep pomoči spada v področje uporabe člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
As a general principle, State aid may only be considered compatible with the common market if it is necessary to induce the recipient firm to act in a manner which assists attainment of the objectives envisaged by the relevant derogation [9].
Državno pomoč je načeloma mogoče šteti za združljivo s skupnim trgom samo, če upravičeno podjetje pripravi do tega, da deluje na način, ki pomaga doseči cilje, predvidene v ustreznem odstopanju [9].
The Commission notes in this respect that the objective of the TDM-regulation was to ‘effectively enable Community shipyards to overcome unfair competition from Korea’ (see paragraph 6 of the preamble).
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da je bil cilj Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu „ladjedelnicam Skupnosti učinkovito omogočiti premagati nelojalno korejsko konkurenco“ (glej odstavek 6 preambule).
Direct aid up to 6 % of contract value before aid could thus be authorized provided there had been competition for the same contract from a shipyard in Korea offering a lower price (Article 2).
Tako bi bilo mogoče dovoliti neposredno pomoč v višini 6-odstotne pogodbene vrednosti, če bi obstajala konkurenca za isto pogodbo s strani neke ladjedelnice v Koreji, ki bi ponujala nižjo ceno (člen 2).
Portugal argues in this case that even if ENVC had no assurances of receiving the aid when it signed the contracts, it had expectations of receiving the aid because the contracts fulfilled the objective conditions to be eligible for aid under the TDM-regulation.
Portugalska v tej zadevi trdi, da, čeprav ladjedelnica ENVC ni imela zagotovil, da bo prejela pomoč, ko je podpisala pogodbe, je pričakovala, da bo prejela pomoč, saj so pogodbe izpolnjevale objektivne pogoje za dodelitev pomoči na podlagi Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
However, the Commission considers that in this case there is not sufficient evidence that the aid was determinant for ENVC to sign the contracts.
Komisija pa meni, da v tej zadevi ne obstajajo zadostni dokazi, da je bila pomoč za ladjedelnico ENVC ključni dejavnik za podpis pogodb.
As already noted in the decision to initiate the investigation procedure, Portugal submitted copy of a letter from a ship owner stating that for six of the contracts in question (vessels C 228 to C 233) the ship owner had received lower offers from Korean shipyards.
Kot je Komisija ugotovila v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka preiskave, je Portugalska predložila izvod dopisa, ki ga je poslal ladjar in ki navaja, da je za šest pogodb v tej zadevi (ladje od C 228 do C 233) prejel nižje ponudbe korejskih ladjedelnic.
However, this letter is dated 9 March 2005, i.e., it was only sent to ENVC after the shipyard had already signed the contracts relating to these offers.
Vendar pa je ta dopis z dne 9. marca 2005, kar pomeni, da je bil poslan ladjedelnici ENVC šele, ko je ta že podpisala pogodbe na osnovi teh ponudb.
Thus, it appears that the shipyard, when it signed the first six contracts, could not have had the certitude that the contracts fulfilled all the eligibility conditions.
Zato se zdi, da ladjedelnica, ko je podpisala prvih šest pogodb, ni mogla z gotovostjo trditi, da pogodbe izpolnjujejo vse pogoje za upravičenost.
As regards the seventh contract (vessel C 210) the situation also appears doubtful, since the indication that lower offers were received from Korea was also only sent to ENVC on 31 March 2005, i.e. the very same day when ENVC signed the contract.
Primer se zdi podobno dvoumen v zvezi s sedmo pogodbo (ladja C 210), saj je bil navedek o nižjih ponudbah iz Koreje poslan ladjedelnici ENVC 31. marca 2005, tj. prav na dan, ko je ladjedelnica ENVC podpisala pogodbo.
Portugal has not submitted any evidence that, formally or informally, ENVC had received indication from the Portuguese authorities, prior to signing the contracts, that the aid could be granted in relation to these contracts [10].
Portugalska ni predložila nobenih dokazov, da je ladjedelnica ENVC uradno ali neuradno prejela navedke portugalskih organov pred podpisom pogodb, da bi lahko prejela pomoč na podlagi teh pogodb [10].
Rather, it would appear that ENVC was prepared to undertake these contracts even without guarantees of receiving aid.
Bolj se zdi, da je bila ladjedelnica ENVC pripravljena izpolniti te pogodbe tudi brez zagotovil o prejemu pomoči.
For example, Portugal in its submission following the initiation of the investigation procedure also stated that ENVC was legally bound to build the vessels even if the aid would not be authorized.
Na primer, Portugalska je v svoji pripombi na sprožitev postopka preiskave med drugim izjavila, da je bila ladjedelnica ENVC pravno zavezana k izdelavi ladij, tudi če pomoč ne bi bila dodeljena.
It adds that in the present case, ENVC only applied for aid after the expiry of the TDM-regulation which appears to confirm that the shipyard was prepared to carry out the projects at the risk of not receiving aid.
Prav tako navaja, da je v zadevnem primeru ladjedelnica ENVC zaprosila za pomoč šele po prenehanju veljavnosti Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, kar se zdi, da potrjuje dejstvo, da je bila ladjedelnica pripravljena izvesti projekte kljub tveganju, da ne bo prejela pomoči.
Also, generally, the Commission considers that the aid has an incentive effect if an application for aid was submitted before the start of the project [11].
Splošno povedano, Komisija tudi meni, da ima pomoč spodbujevalni učinek, če je bil zahtevek za dodelitev pomoči predložen pred začetkom projekta [11].
This was not the case here.
Vendar v tej zadevi to ne velja.
The application for aid was only submitted after the contracts had been signed (i.e. in July 2005, whereas the contracts were signed in February and March 2005).
Zahtevek za pomoč je bil predložen šele, ko so bile pogodbe že podpisane (tj. julija 2005, medtem ko so bile pogodbe podpisane februarja in marca 2005).
Also, Portugal only approved the aid internally (on condition of approval by the Commission) more than a year after the request for aid was presented.
Prav tako je Portugalska pomoč odobrila le na notranji ravni (pod pogojem, da jo odobri Komisija) več kot eno leto po predložitvi zahtevka za pomoč.
So, also from a formal point of view, the incentive effect is not fulfilled
Zato tudi s formalnega vidika spodbujevalni učinek ni bil dosežen.
The Commission therefore concludes that Portugal has not submitted sufficient evidence to prove the incentive effect of the aid.
Komisija tako ugotavlja, da Portugalska ni predložila zadostnih dokazov, da bi dokazala spodbujevalni učinek pomoči.
Regarding the legal basis for approving the aid, Portugal has not submitted any new arguments that would allay the doubts expressed by the Commission in its Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
V zvezi s pravno podlago za odobritev pomoči Portugalska ni predložila nobenih novih utemeljitev, ki bi odpravile dvome, ki jih je Komisija navedla v svoji odločbi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
Portugal's main argument in this respect is that the contracts are eligible for aid because they were signed during the period of application of the TDM-regulation.
Glavna utemeljitev Portugalske v tem smislu je, da so pogodbe upravičene do pomoči, ker so bile podpisane v času, ko je Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu veljala.
Portugal also notes that the fact that the aid was only notified after the expiry of the TDM-regulation has no impact on the eligibility of the contracts for aid.
Portugalska prav tako ugotavlja, da dejstvo, da je priglasila pomoč šele po prenehanju veljavnosti Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, nima vpliva na upravičenost pogodb do pomoči.
However, the Commission, in a previous Decision [12] has already explained why it does not consider that the TDM-regulation is still a valid legal basis for approving new operating aid to shipbuilding.
Vendar pa je Komisija v eni izmed svojih prejšnjih odločb [12] razložila, zakaj meni, da Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu ni več ustrezna pravna podlaga za dodelitev novih pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za ladjedelništvo.
The Commission notes that the temporal application of the TDM-regulation is defined in Article 5 [13] of the regulation, which states the regulation ‘shall expire on 31 March 2005’.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je časovna uporaba Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu opredeljena v členu 5 [13] Uredbe, v katerem je navedeno, da „preneha veljati 31. marca 2005“.
The fact that Article 4 of the TDM-regulation states that this regulation ‘shall be applied to final contracts signed from the entry into force of this Regulation until its expiry (…)’ is, in the Commission's view, a condition of compatibility and not a definition of the application in time of the regulation.
Dejstvo, da člen 4 Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu navaja, da se Uredba „uporablja za dokončne pogodbe, podpisane od začetka veljavnosti te uredbe do izteka veljavnosti Uredbe (...)“, je po mnenju Komisije pogoj za združljivost in ne opredelitev časovne uporabe Uredbe.
The above is also confirmed by the second part of Article 4, which provides that the TDM-regulation shall not apply to ‘final contracts signed before the Community gives notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities that it has initiated dispute settlement proceedings against Korea (…) and final contracts signed on month or more after the Commission gives notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities that these dispute settlement proceedings are resolved or suspended’.
Zgoraj navedenemu pritrjuje tudi drugi del člena 4, ki določa, da se Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu ne uporablja za „končne pogodbe, podpisane, preden Skupnost v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti objavi, da je proti Koreji začela postopek reševanja spora (...), in za končne pogodbe, podpisane en mesec ali več po tem, ko Komisija v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti objavi, da so postopki reševanja spora rešeni ali prekinjeni.“
From the above, it is clear that the TDM-regulation was only to be applied as long as there was a pending dispute with Korea [14] and in any event, no later than 31 March 2005.
Iz zgoraj navedenega je razvidno, da naj bi se Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu uporabljala samo v času nerešenega spora s Korejo [14] in v vsakem primeru najpozneje do 31. marca 2005.
This interpretation is supported by the very objective of the TDM-regulation: it was designed ‘as an exceptional and temporary measure, in order to assist Community shipyards in those segments that have suffered adverse effects in the form of material injury and serious prejudice caused by unfair Korean competition (…) [which] should be authorised for limited market segments and for a short period only’ [15] (recital 3).
To razlago podpira sam cilj Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu: oblikovana je bila kot „izjemen in začasen ukrep, da se pomaga ladjedelnicam Skupnosti v segmentih, ki so utrpeli škodljive učinke v obliki materialne škode in resno škodo, ki jih je povzročila nelojalna korejska konkurenca (...) [ki] naj se odobri za omejene tržne segmente in samo za kratko obdobje“ [15] (uvodna izjava 3).
In the present case, the application for aid was only submitted by ENVC to the Portuguese authorities, approved by Portugal and notified to the Commission after the expiry of the TDM-regulation, so clearly, the measures fall outside the temporal application of the TDM-regulation.
V tem primeru je ladjedelnica ENVC zahtevek za pomoč predložila portugalskim organom, Portugalska pa ga je odobrila in priglasila Komisiji šele po izteku veljavnosti Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, zato je jasno, da ukrepi ne spadajo v časovno uporabo Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
The Commission further notes that, as already explained in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in the present case, the interpretation of the TDM-regulation must also be seen in the light of the Community's international obligations. According to the settled case law of the Court of Justice, Community legislation must, so far as possible be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law, including the EC's WTO obligations.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da, kot je že razložila v odločbi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave v zadevnem primeru, je treba na razlago Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu gledati tudi z vidika mednarodnih obveznosti Skupnosti.
In this context, the Commission recalls that Korea challenged the compatibility of the TDM-regulation with WTO rules.
V tem okviru Komisija opozarja, da je Koreja izpodbijala združljivost Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu s pravili STO.
On 22 April 2005, a Panel issued its report concluding that the TDM and several national TDM schemes — existing at the time when Korea initiated the WTO dispute — were in breach of Article 23.1 of the Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes (DSU) [17].
Odbor STO je 22. aprila 2005 izdal svoje poročilo, v katerem je sklenil, da so Uredba o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu in več nacionalnih shem začasnega obrambnega mehanizma – ki so obstajale v času, ko je Koreja sprožila spor pri STO, kršile člen 23.1 Sporazuma o pravilih in postopkih poravnavanja sporov (Understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes – DSU) [17].
On 20 June 2005, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Panel report including its recommendation that the Community brings the TDM-regulation and the national TDM schemes into conformity with its obligations under the WTO Agreements [18].
Organ STO za poravnavo sporov (OPS) je 20. junija 2005 sprejel poročilo Odbora, vključno z njegovim priporočilom, naj Skupnost zagotovi skladnost Uredbe o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu in nacionalnih shem začasnega obrambnega mehanizma s svojimi obveznostmi na podlagi sporazumov STO [18].