natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is worth remembering that the restructuring plan submitted to the Commission in 2004 provided for ‘an annual improvement of around EUR 1 billion by 2008, including EUR 200 million as a result of the load factor and some EUR 770 million from other aspects of the plan; among the most significant improvements brought about by the latter are […] savings on purchases, commercial expenses and staff expenses’ (see recital 203 of the Decision of 7 June 2005).
Opozoriti je treba, da je bilo v načrtu za prestrukturiranje, ki je bil leta 2004 predložen Komisiji, predvideno, „da se bodo poslovni izidi od leta 2008 letno izboljšali za približno milijardo EUR, od tega bi 200 milijonov EUR izhajalo iz stopnje zasedenosti in približno 770 milijonov EUR iz drugih ukrepov iz načrta, katerih glavni vzrok rasti bi bilo varčevanje pri nakupih, stroških poslovanja in odhodkih za osebje“ (glej uvodno izjavo 203 odločbe z dne 7. junija 2005).
The 2004 guidelines state that ‘if rescue aid is granted to a firm that has already received restructuring aid, it can be considered that the beneficiary’s difficulties are of a recurrent nature and that repeated State interventions give rise to distortions of competition that are contrary to the common interest.
V skladu s smernicami iz leta 2004, „če se pomoč za reševanje dodeli podjetju, ki je že dobilo pomoč za prestrukturiranje, je mogoče sklepati, da so težave upravičenca ponavljajoče se narave in da ponovni posegi države povzročajo izkrivljanja konkurence, ki so v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
Such repeated State interventions should not be permitted’ (end of paragraph 72).
Takšni ponovni posegi države niso dovoljeni“ (zadnji del točke 72).
See recital 57 above.
Glej uvodno izjavo 57.
See the footnote 9 of the Bull Decision (previously cited).
Glej opombo 9 v zgoraj navedeni odločbi o družbi Bull.
See recital 71 to the Bull Decision (previously cited).
Glej uvodno izjavo 71 zgoraj navedene odločbe o družbi Bull.
See recital 73 to the Bull Decision (previously cited).
Glej uvodno izjavo 73 zgoraj navedene odločbe o družbi Bull.
See recital 74 to the Bull Decision (previously cited).
Glej uvodno izjavo 74 zgoraj navedene odločbe o družbi Bull.
The Commission would point out that the conditions enabling it to adopt a decision requiring Italy to provisionally recover the measure in question before adoption of this Decision were not met in the case in point, particularly as the existence of a serious risk of substantial and irreparable damage to a competitor of Alitalia was not demonstrated (see Article 11(2) of the previously cited Regulation (EC) No 659/1999).
Komisija želi pripomniti, da pogoji, v katerih bi lahko sprejela odločbo, s katero bi od Italije pred sprejetjem te odločbe zahtevala, da se zadevna pomoč začasno odloži, v tem primeru niso bili izpolnjeni, zlasto ker ni bil dokazan obstoj resne nevarnosti znatne in nepopravljive škode konkurentu družbe Alitalia (glej člen 11(2) zgoraj navedene uredbe št. 659/1999).
See Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (previously cited) and recitals 80, 83 and 113 above.
Glej člen 14(2) Uredbe št. 659/1999 (navedena zgoraj) ter uvodne izjave 80, 83 in 113.
List of interested parties who submitted comments to the Commission under Article 88(2) of the Treaty
Seznam zainteresiranih strani, ki so Komisiji predložile pripombe na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe
The European Travel Agents’ and Tour Operators’ Associations and the Guild of European Business Travel Agents
The European Travel Agents’ and Tour Operators’ Associations in The Guild of European Business Travel Agents
By letter of 30 May 2008 the Italian authorities replied to the Commission’s letter of 24 April 2008.
Italijanski organi so z dopisom z dne 30. maja 2008 odgovorili na dopis Komisije z dne 24. aprila 2008.
In this letter, the Italian authorities informed the Commission, among other things, of the adoption, on 27 May 2008, of Decree-Law No 93 [3], giving Alitalia the option of counting the value of the aforementioned loan as part of its capital.
Komisijo so v dopisu zlasti obvestili, da je bil 27. maja 2008 sprejet zakonski odlok št. 93 [3], ki določa, da ima Alitalia možnost, da znesek navedenega posojila vključi v lastniški kapital.
In order to enable it to meet its immediate liquidity needs, Article 1 of this Decree-Law authorises the granting to Alitalia of a loan of EUR 300 million, which must be repaid as quickly as possible between the 30th day after transfer of its share capital and 31 December 2008.
V prvem členu tega zakonskega odloka je določeno, da se družbi Alitalia za kritje takojšnjih potreb po likvidnih sredstvih odobri posojilo v višini 300 milijonov EUR, ki ga mora družba vrniti čim prej v obdobju od tridesetega dne po prenosu lastniškega kapitala do 31. decembra 2008.
This Article also states that the loan is subject to an interest rate equivalent to the reference rates adopted by the Commission and, in particular, up to 30 June 2008, the rate indicated in the Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 25 Member States applicable as from 1 January 2008 [5] and, with effect from 1 July 2008, the rate indicated in the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates [6].
V tem členu je za zadevno posojilo določena obrestna mera, enaka referenčni obrestni meri, ki jo je sprejela Komisija, in predvsem do 30. junija 2008 enaka obrestni meri, določeni v Obvestilu Komisije o veljavnih obrestnih merah za vračilo državne pomoči in o referenčnih/diskontnih merah za 25 držav članic, ki veljajo od 1. januarja 2008 [5], od 1. julija 2008 pa enaka obrestni meri, navedeni v Sporočilu Komisije o spremembi metode določanja referenčnih obrestnih mer in diskontnih stopenj [6].
Thirdly, the process of privatisation of the company, together with the measure in question, which was adopted to allow completion of this process, complied with the requirements of point 25(b) of the 2004 guidelines.
Tretjič: postopek privatizacije družbe in obravnavani ukrep, sprejet za dokončanje tega postopka, naj bi bila skladna z zahtevami iz točke 25(b) smernic iz leta 2004.
The EUR 300 million loan simply guaranteed the survival of the company, without allowing it to implement competitive strategies on the air transport market likely to lead to hypothetical economic consequences.
Posojilo v višini 300 milijonov EUR naj bi zagotovilo sam obstoj družbe, ne da bi ji omogočilo izvajanje konkurenčnih strategij na trgu letalskega prometa, ki bi lahko imele hipotetične gospodarske posledice.
Fourthly, with regard to the Commission’s assertion that the State had not given an undertaking to communicate, not later than six months after the measure has been implemented, a restructuring plan [9] (paragraph 25(c) of the 2004 guidelines), the Italian authorities countered that drafting the plan was part of the process of privatising the company, which Italy had discussed in detail in its letter of 30 May 2008 to the Commission.
Četrtič: italijanski organi v zvezi s trditvijo Komisije, da se država ni zavezala, da bo najpozneje šest mesecev po izvedbi ukrepa predložila načrt za prestrukturiranje [9] (točka 25(c) smernic iz leta 2004), ugovarjajo, da je priprava načrta del postopka privatizacije družbe, o katerem naj bi Italija obširno poročala v dopisu Komisiji z dne 30. maja 2008.
In this context, the Italian authorities pointed out that, in the alternative case of full repayment of the loan, Decree-Law No 93 laid down that repayment must occur strictly as soon as possible between the 30th day following the date of transfer by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance of its full shareholding, i.e. the date of loss of effective control, and 31 December 2008.
Italijanski organi v zvezi s tem opozarjajo, da je za alternativni primer vračila celotnega posojila v zakonskem odloku št. 93 določeno, da mora biti posojilo nujno vrnjeno čim prej v obdobju od tridesetega dne po prenosu celotnega lastniškega deleža ministrstva za gospodarstvo in finance, to je po dejanski izgubi nadzora, do 31. decembra 2008.
They inferred from this that a timetable was indeed submitted at the same time as adoption of the disputed measure and that it substantially satisfied the requirements of the 2004 guidelines in this connection.
Iz tega sklepajo, da je bil časovni razpored res predstavljen ob sprejetju izpodbijanega ukrepa in da ta vsebinsko izpolnjuje ustrezne zahteve iz smernic iz leta 2004.
As regards compatibility of the measure in question with the common market, BA believed that the measure constituted rescue aid and must thus comply with the conditions set out in the 2004 guidelines.
Drugič: družba BA glede združljivosti zadevnega ukrepa s skupnim trgom meni, da je ta ukrep pomoč za reševanje in bi zato moral izpolnjevati pogoje iz smernic iz leta 2004.
This aid had not been notified to the Commission before being implemented and did not satisfy the conditions of those guidelines.
Vendar ta pomoč Komisiji ni bila priglašena, preden se je začela izvajati, in ne izpolnjuje pogojev iz navedenih smernic.
BA inferred from this that this argument could not be validly invoked by Alitalia as reason to derogate from the ‘one time, last time’ principle in the 2004 guidelines.
Družba BA iz tega sklepa, da družba Alitalia ne more uporabiti tega argumenta, da bi upravičila odstopanje od načela o enkratni pomoči iz smernic iz leta 2004.
The company’s need for financing was due to its incapacity to reform with a view to reducing its internal costs, despite the State aid which it had already received.
Potrebe družbe po financiranju so posledica njene nezmožnosti za izvedbo reforme, s katero bi znižala notranje stroške, in to kljub državni pomoči, ki naj bi jo že prejela.
Moreover, according to financial information published by the company, Alitalia recorded pre-tax losses of EUR 214,8 million in the first quarter of 2008, a 41 % increase on the same period in 2007.
Še več, družba Alitalia je imela glede na objavljene finančne podatke v prvem četrtletju 2008 izgubo pred obdavčitvijo v višini 214,8 milijona EUR, kar pomeni, da se je izguba v primerjavi z izgubo v istem obdobju leta 2007 povečala za 41 %.
Furthermore, as at 30 April 2008, Alitalia’s net debt stood at EUR 1,36 billion, an increase of 13 % on the December 2007 level.
Poleg tega je neto zadolženost družbe Alitalia 30. aprila 2008 znašala 1,36 milijarde EUR, kar pomeni, da se je povečala za 13 % v primerjavi z zadolženostjo decembra 2007.
At the same time, the liquidity position, including short-term financial loans, was EUR 174 million as at 30 April 2008, a fall of 53 % as compared to the end of December 2007 [25].
Hkrati so denarna sredstva podjetja, vključno s kratkoročnimi finančnimi krediti, 30. aprila 2008 znašala 174 milijonov EUR, kar pomeni, da so bila v primerjavi s koncem decembra 2007 manjša za 53 % [25].
In view of all these factors, it is possible to consider that Alitalia’s financial situation was very precarious, both as at the date of granting of the EUR 300 million loan by means of Decree-Law No 80 and as at that of adoption of Decree-Law No 93, as indeed the Italian authorities admitted in their letter of 30 May 2008 to the Commission.
Iz vseh teh dejstev je mogoče sklepati, da je bil finančni položaj družbe Alitalia resno ogrožen na dan odobritve posojila v višini 300 milijonov EUR z zakonskim odlokom št. 80 in tudi na dan sprejetja zakonskega odloka št. 93, kot sicer italijanski organi priznavajo v dopisu Komisiji z dne 30. maja 2008.
The Commission considers it appropriate to point out in this connection that this assessment was in no way questioned by the Italian authorities in their comments on initiation of the formal investigation procedure [27].
Komisiji se v zvezi s tem zdi primerno opozoriti, da italijanski organi te ocene nikakor niso izpodbijali v pripombah glede sprožitve formalnega postopka preiskave [27].
As for the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates [32], it is enough to note that, to the extent that it is applicable, since the loan was granted before its entry into force and the classification of a measure as aid is assessed in relation to the time of its granting, the Italian authorities have not replied to the doubts expressed by the Commission in its Decision of 11 June 2008.
V zvezi s Sporočilom Komisije o spremembi metode določanja referenčnih obrestnih mer in diskontnih stopenj [32] – kolikor se sploh uporablja, saj je bilo posojilo odobreno pred začetkom njegove veljavnosti, ukrep pa se oceni kot pomoč ob odobritvi – je dovolj ugotoviti, da italijanski organi niso odgovorili na pomisleke, ki jih je Komisija izrazila v odločitvi z dne 11. junija 2008.
Accordingly, the doubts expressed by the Commission in this connection remain.
Iz tega sledi, da pomisleki, ki jih je Komisija izrazila glede tega, ostajajo.
The Italian authorities’ comments in their letter of 12 July 2008 cannot cast doubt over this assessment of the interest rates applicable to the measure in question.
Trditve italijanskih organov v dopisu z dne 12. julija 2008 ne morejo ovreči ocene o obrestnih merah, ki se uporabljajo za zadevno pomoč.
Indeed, in their comments the Italian authorities simply stated, without substantiating their position, that the interest rate was set at a level allowing a direct and appropriate return on the capital to be guaranteed.
Italijanski organi so v pripombah samo trdili, ne da bi to podprli z argumenti, da je bila višina obrestne mere določena na ravni, ki omogoča neposreden in ustrezen ekonomski donos kapitala.
The funds were thus made available to Alitalia on that date, as indeed the Italian authorities themselves confirmed at their meeting with the Commission on 23 April 2008.
Družba Alitalia je takrat dobila na razpolago sredstva, kot so italijanski organi sicer potrdili na srečanju s Komisijo 23. aprila 2008.
For its part, Decree-Law No 93, which provided for the option of counting the value of the loan as part of the company’s capital, was adopted on 27 May 2008.
Zakonski odlok št. 93, v katerem je bila predvidena možnost, da se znesek posojila vključi v lastniški kapital, je bil sprejet 27. maja 2008.
Lastly, the Commission believes that the aid measure in question cannot be declared compatible with the common market pursuant to the 2004 guidelines.
Nazadnje Komisija meni, da zadevne pomoči ni mogoče razglasiti za združljivo s skupnim trgom na podlagi smernic iz leta 2004.
Although Alitalia could be classed as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of those guidelines, the other cumulative conditions allowing the loan in question to be considered rescue aid are not met in the case in point.
Čeprav bi bilo družbo Alitalia mogoče označiti za podjetje v težavah v smislu teh smernic, drugi kumulativni pogoji, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče zadevno posojilo šteti za pomoč za reševanje, v obravnavanem primeru niso izpolnjeni.
However, it should be pointed out that the guidelines applicable to Bull were the 1999 guidelines rather than, in the current case, the 2004 guidelines [51].
Treba pa je navesti, da so se za družbo Bull uporabljale smernice iz leta 1999 in ne, kot v obravnavanem primeru, iz leta 2004 [51].
Unlike the 1999 guidelines, those for 2004 provide for account to be taken, for the purposes of application to rescue or recovery aid of the ‘one time, last time’ principle, not only of restructuring aid, but also of rescue aid previously granted to the company concerned.
V nasprotju s smernicami iz leta 1999 je v smernicah iz leta 2004 določeno, da se za namen uporabe načela o enkratni pomoči za pomoč za reševanje ali prestrukturiranje upoštevajo ne samo pomoči za prestrukturiranje, ampak tudi pomoči za reševanje, ki so bile predhodno dodeljene zadevnemu podjetju.
In such cases, the premium may amount to 400 basis points or more if no private bank would have agreed to grant the relevant loan’. The Commission believes that even a premium on the reference rate of 100 basis points, as provided for by Decree-Law No 93, does not take sufficient account of the particularly precarious situation of Alitalia at the time of granting of the measure.
V takih primerih lahko premija znaša 400 stotink odstotka ali več, če nobena zasebna banka ne bi odobrila zadevnega posojila.“ Komisija meni, da celo povišanje referenčne obrestne mere za 100 bazičnih točk, kot je določeno v zakonskem odloku št. 93, ne more ustrezno upoštevati posebno ogroženega položaja, v katerem je bila družba Alitalia ob dodelitvi pomoči.
on the aid measure implemented by France for the IFP Group (C 51/05 (ex NN 84/05))
o državni pomoči Francije za skupino IFP (C 51/05 (ex NN 84/05))
(notified under document number C(2008) 1330)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 1330)
By letter dated 25 November 2004, registered as received on 29 November 2004 under number CP221/2004, the Commission received a complaint concerning allegedly unlawful State aid for the Institut Français du Pétrole (IFP) and one of its subsidiaries, Axens.
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 25. novembra 2004, evidentiranem 29. novembra 2004 pod številko CP221/2004, prejela pritožbo o morebitni nezakoniti državni pomoči za skupino Institut Français du Pétrole (IFP) in eno od njenih hčerinskih družb, družbo Axens.
The complainant asked that its identity not be disclosed for fear of negative repercussions in the market.
Pritožnik je zahteval, da se njegova identiteta ne razkrije zaradi strahu, da bi to negativno vplivalo na trg.
By letter dated 21 December 2005, the Commission informed France of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in respect of the measure.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 21. decembra 2005 obvestila Francijo, da bo sprožila postopek na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES v zvezi s tem ukrepom.
The Commission invited interested third parties to submit their comments on the measure.
Komisija je pozvala vse zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo svoje pripombe o zadevnem ukrepu.
By letter dated 15 March 2006, registered as received on the same day, UOP asked for a further period of one month in which to send its comments. The Commission acceded to this request by letter dated 22 March 2006.
Družba UOP je z dopisom z dne 15. marca 2006, evidentiranim istega dne, zahtevala podaljšanje roka za predložitev pripomb za en mesec, ki ga je Komisija odobrila z dopisom z dne 22. marca 2006.
By letter dated 17 March 2006, registered as received on the same day, Haldor Topsoe A/S asked for a further period of one month in which to send its comments. The Commission acceded to this request by letter dated 22 March 2006.
Družba Haldor Topsoe A/S je z dopisom z dne 17. marca 2006, evidentiranim istega dne, zahtevala podaljšanje roka za predložitev pripomb za en mesec, ki ga je Komisija odobrila z dopisom z dne 22. marca 2006.
By letter dated 20 March 2006, registered as received on 22 March 2006, Axens submitted its comments on the measure to the Commission.
Družba Axens je z dopisom z dne 20. marca 2006, evidentiranim 22. marca 2006, Komisiji predložila svoje pripombe o zadevnem ukrepu.
By letter dated 12 April 2006, registered as received on the same day, Haldor Topsoe A/S asked for an extension until 24 April 2006 in which to submit its comments. The Commission acceded to this request by letter dated 19 April 2006.
Družba Haldor Topsoe A/S je z dopisom z dne 12. aprila 2006, evidentiranim istega dne, zahtevala podaljšanje roka za predložitev pripomb do 24. aprila 2006, ki ga je Komisija odobrila z dopisom z dne 19. aprila 2006.
By letter dated 18 April 2006, registered as received on 19 April 2006, UOP submitted its comments on the measure to the Commission.
Družba UPO je z dopisom z dne 18. aprila 2006, evidentiranim 19. aprila 2006, Komisiji predložila svoje pripombe o zadevnem ukrepu.
By letter dated 19 April 2006, the Commission asked the complainant to furnish a non-confidential version of its complaint.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 19. aprila 2006 zahtevala, da pritožnik predloži nezaupno različico svoje pritožbe.
This was sent to the Commission by letter dated 26 April 2006, registered as received on 27 April 2006.
Ta različica je bila Komisiji predložena z dopisom z dne 26. aprila 2006, evidentiranim 27. aprila 2006.
By letter dated 3 May 2006, registered as received on the same day, Haldor Topsoe A/S asked for a further extension, which the Commission refused by letter dated 4 May 2006.
Družba Haldor Topsoe A/S je z dopisom z dne 3. maja 2006, evidentiranim istega dne, zahtevala podaljšanje roka, ki ga je Komisija zavrnila z dopisom z dne 4. maja 2006.
By letter dated 22 June 2006, the Commission forwarded to France a copy of the comments submitted by UOP and Axens and of the complaint.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 22. junija 2006 Franciji predložila izvod pripomb, ki sta jih predložili družbi UOP in Axens, ter izvod pritožbe.
It also sent a request for additional information.
Prav tako je predložila zahtevo po dodatnih informacijah.
By letter dated 18 July 2006, registered as received on 19 July 2006, France informed the Commission of the transformation of IFP into a State-owned industrial and commercial establishment (établissement public à caractère industriel et commercial – EPIC).
Poleg tega je Francija z dopisom z dne 18. julija 2006, evidentiranim 19. julija 2006, Komisijo obvestila o preoblikovanju skupine IFP v javno ustanovo industrijske in gospodarske narave.
By letter dated 13 October 2006, the Commission asked France to provide additional information.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 13. oktobra 2006 od Francije zahtevala dodatne informacije.
This was sent to the Commission by France by letter dated 24 October 2006, registered as received on 26 October 2006.
Te informacije je Francija predložila Komisiji z dopisom z dne 24. oktobra 2006, evidentiranim 26. oktobra 2006.
A working meeting took place between France and the Commission on 15 June 2007.
Delovno srečanje med Francijo in Komisijo je potekalo 15. junija 2007.
By letter dated 19 June 2007, the Commission asked France for additional information.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 19. junija 2007 od Francije zahtevala dodatne informacije.
Up until 2006, IFP was a trade body set up under private law (établissement professionnel de droit privé [3], without any capital or shareholders, placed under the economic and financial control of the French Government [4].
Skupina IFP je bila do leta 2006 panožna pravna oseba zasebnega prava („établissement professionnel de droit privé“) [3] brez kapitala in delničarjev pod gospodarskim in finančnim nadzorom francoske vlade [4].
Ever since Decree No 2006-797 of 6 July 2006 implementing Law No 2005-781 of 13 July 2005, IFP has been an EPIC.
Skupina IFP je v skladu z uredbo št. 2006–797 z dne 6. julija 2006, ki je bila sprejeta na podlagi zakona št. 2005–781 z dne 13. julija 2005, postala pravna oseba javnega prava industrijske in gospodarske narave („établissement public à caractère industriel et commercial“).
The question of the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty resulting from this change of status is the subject of a Commission investigation in another proceeding (NN 11/08).
Komisija je v okviru drugega postopka (NN11/2008) preučila vprašanje, ali gre za državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, ki ga je povzročila ta sprememba statusa.
Under its statutes, IFP performs three tasks: research and development in the fields of oil and gas prospecting and refining and petrochemicals technologies; the training of engineers and technicians; and the provision of sector information and documentation.
Skupina IFP na podlagi svojega statuta izpolnjuje tri naloge: nalogo raziskovanja in razvoja na področjih pridobivanja nafte in plina, tehnoloških postopkov rafiniranja in petrokemije, nalogo usposabljanja inženirjev in tehnikov ter nalogo zbiranja podatkov in dokumentacije za sektorje.
A contract of objectives with the State lays down the broad lines of its work for five years at a time.
Pogodba z državo o ciljih določa širše smernice ukrepanja za petletno obdobje.
In return, IFP receives an annual budgetary allowance.
V zameno je skupina IFP upravičena do letnih proračunskih sredstev.