natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The two measures referred to in the letter initiating the procedure (point 260) concern the Belgian freight transhipment market.
Oba ukrepa, navedena v dopisu o sprožitvi postopka (točka 260), zadevata belgijski trg pretovarjanja.
In the letter initiating the procedure (points 262 to 264), the Commission expressed doubts as to whether these measures were sufficient, notably in view of the fact that it was envisaged that SNCB’s shareholding in the company TRW, which retains significant shareholdings in the Brussels and Zeebrugge terminals, would be transferred to IFB, and that IFB owns minority shareholdings in a number of important Belgian terminals.
Komisija je v dopisu o sprožitvi postopka (točke 262 do 264) izrazila dvom o tem, ali sta ta ukrepa zadostna, zlasti ker je družba TRW, katere delež naj bi družba SNCB vložila v družbo IFB, imela velike deleže v terminalih v Bruslju in Zeebruggu in ker ima družba IFB manjšinske deleže v veliko belgijskih terminalih.
The Belgian Government, in its reply to the letter initiating the procedure, presents several arguments to refute the Commission’s doubts.
Belgijska vlada je v odgovoru na dopis o sprožitvi postopka predstavila več argumentov, da bi zavrnila dvome Komisije.
Firstly, it underlines that IFB experienced less significant growth than the market (4,1 % growth for IFB, 10,7 % growth for the terminals in the port of Antwerp, 12 % growth for the terminals in the ARA region).
Najprej poudarja, da je imela družba IFB počasnejšo rast kot trg (4,1-odstotna rast za IFB, 10,7-odstotna rast za terminale v pristanišču v Antwerpnu, 12-odstotna rast za terminale v regiji ARA).
The Commission considers that this additional information allows the conclusion that IFB’s weight in the market has been reduced following the implementation of the restructuring plan.
Komisija meni, da je na podlagi te dodatne informacije mogoče sklepati, da se je pomen družbe IFB na trgu zmanjšal zaradi izvajanja načrta za prestrukturiranje.
Finally, Belgium informed the Commission that the handover of TRW to IFB will not take place.
Nazadnje, Belgija je obvestila Komisijo, da se vložek TRW v družbo IFB ne bo izvedel.
The Commission considers that this last change is important since it means that the closure of Bressoux and the sale of shareholdings to Brussels and Zeebrugge result in a genuine reduction in IFB’s presence in the Belgian freight transhipment market.
Komisija meni, da je ta zadnja sprememba pomembna, ker je povzročila, da zaprtje terminala v Bressoutu in prodaja deležev v Bruslju in Zeebruggeu vodita v dejansko zmanjšanje prisotnosti družbe IFB na belgijskem trgu pretovarjanja.
In view of these arguments, and the fact that IFB’s market share is reduced, the Commission considers that Belgium has produced proof that sufficient measures to mitigate any unfavourable consequences of the aid for competitors have been taken in the freight transhipment sector.
Komisija na podlagi teh argumentov in zaradi zmanjšanja tržnega deleža družbe IFB meni, da je Belgija dokazala, da so bili sprejeti zadostni ukrepi za čim večjo omilitev škodljivih učinkov pomoči na konkurente v sektorju pretovarjanja.
The Belgian logistics market
Belgijski trg logistike
In its letter initiating the procedure (points 257 to 259), the Commission noted that the proposed measures did not concern the logistics market.
Komisija je v dopisu o sprožitvi postopka (točke 257 do 259) ugotovila, da predlagani ukrepi ne zadevajo trga logistike.
The Commission therefore considered that the absence of measures proposed for the logistics market, together with the fact that the market is in a state of flux and that IFB had been able to increase its volume significantly, created some doubts as to whether Belgium had limited, as far as possible, the unfavourable consequences of IFB’s logistics activities on competition.
Komisija je zato sklepala, da dejstva, da ni predlaganih ukrepov za trg logistike ter da se trg spreminja in da je družba IFB lahko znatno povečala svoj promet, vzbujajo dvom o tem, ali je Belgija čim bolj omejila škodljive učinke na konkurenco, kar zadeva logistične dejavnosti družbe IFB.
The Belgian Government, in its reply to the letter initiating the procedure, presented five arguments aimed to demonstrate that, contrary to what was being claimed by the Commission in its decision initiating the procedure, IFB had taken sufficient measures to limit distortions of competition (for the details, see the description in section 3 of this decision, points 177 to 187).
Belgijska vlada je v odgovoru na dopis o sprožitvi postopka predstavila pet argumentov, s katerimi naj bi dokazala, da je družba IFB v nasprotju s trditvami Komisije v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka sprejela zadostne ukrepe za omejitev izkrivljanja konkurence (za podrobnosti glej opis v delu 3 te odločbe, točke 177 do 187).
These arguments can be summarised as follows:
Te argumente je mogoče povzeti tako:
Reduction of 49 % in the wagon capacity utilised by IFB,
zmanjšanje zmogljivosti vagonov, ki jih izkorišča družba IFB, za 49 %;
IFB’s market share less than 5 %,
tržni delež družbe IFB nižji od 5 %;
Slower growth than market (9,9 % for IFB, against an average of 12 % for the market),
počasnejša rast kot rast trga (9,9 % za IFB v primerjavi z 12 % v povprečju za trg);
Growth mainly due to freight transport, a sub-sector of the market in which IFB had only a very small presence before 2002,
rast predvsem zaradi prevoza razsutega tovora, podsegmenta trga, na katerem je bila družba IFB pred letom 2002 komaj prisotna;
The liberalisation of the rail freight market from 2007 will once again increase competitive pressure.
liberalizacija trga železniškega prevoza blaga od leta 2007 bo še povečala pritisk konkurence.
The Commission notes that the five arguments presented by the Belgian Government are convincing.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je pet argumentov, ki jih je predstavila belgijska vlada, prepričljivih.
Regarding the first argument, it considers that the Belgian Government has demonstrated that IFB has reduced its logistical capacity by reducing the number of wagons utilised by 49 %, which makes it possible to limit the distortions of competition brought about by the measures in question.
Glede prvega argumenta meni, da je belgijska vlada dokazala, da je družba IFB zmanjšala svojo logistično zmogljivost, s tem ko je za 49 % zmanjšala število vagonov, ki jih izkorišča, kar omogoča omejitev izkrivljanja konkurence, ki ga povzročajo zadevni ukrepi.
Regarding the second argument, the Commission agrees that the Belgian Government that IFB’s market shares of the logistics market have been reduced within the meaning of point 36 of the 1999 guidelines.
Kar zadeva drugi argument, se Komisija strinja z belgijsko vlado, da so se tržni deleži družbe IFB na trgu logistike zmanjšali v smislu člena 36 smernic iz leta 1999.
Regarding the third argument, the Commission considers that the explanations given by Belgium to describe in more detail IFB’s increase in turnover demonstrate that IFB Logistics has grown less quickly than its competitors, and that the most significant growth concerns a sub-sector where IFB is only marginally present.
Komisija v zvezi s tretjim argumentom meni, da pojasnila Belgije, da bi bolje osvetlila povečanje prometa družbe IFB, dokazujejo, da je družba IFB Logistics rasla počasneje kot njeni konkurenti in da je hitrejšo rast dosegla v podsektorju, v katerem je prisotnost družbe IFB le obrobna.
Regarding the fourth argument, the Commission considers that, even if the decision to open its terminals to competitors was probably also due to economic considerations, it nevertheless has the consequence of consolidating the opening-up of the markets in which IFB is active, and can thus limit the negative effects of aid.
Komisija glede četrtega argumenta meni, da odločitev o odprtju terminalov konkurentom, čeprav je bila verjetno sprejeta tudi zaradi ekonomskih razlogov, vseeno povzroča večje odprtje trgov, na katerih deluje družba IFB, in tako lahko omeji negativne učinke pomoči.
Regarding the fifth argument, the Commission recognises that IFB’s situation is in some ways similar to the situation of SNCF freight, insofar as IFB, like SNCF freight, is active in the sub-sectors ‘rail freight transport’ and ‘combined transport’, which have been completely liberalised since 1 January 2007 [50].
Kar zadeva peti argument, Komisija priznava, da je položaj družbe IFB podoben položaju SNCF fret, ker IFB enako kot SNCF fret deluje v podsektorjih „železniškega prevoza“ in „kombiniranega prevoza“, ki sta v celoti liberalizirana od 1. januarja 2007 [50].
The Commission concludes that Belgium has shown proof that sufficient measures have been taken to mitigate, as far as possible, the unfavourable consequences of aid on competitors in the logistics sectors.
Komisija sklepa, da je Belgija dokazala, da so bili sprejeti zadostni ukrepi za čim večjo omilitev škodljivih učinkov pomoči na konkurente v sektorju logistike.
The Commission concludes that the Belgian authorities have shown proof that they have taken sufficient measures to mitigate, as far as possible, the unfavourable consequences of aid for competitors in the two markets in question.
Komisija sklepa, da so belgijski organi dokazali, da so sprejeli zadostne ukrepe za čim večjo omilitev škodljivih učinkov pomoči na konkurente na obeh zadevnih trgih.
Aid limited to a minimum
Na minimum omejena pomoč
As regards the limitation of aid to a minimum, the 1999 Guidelines state (points 40 and 41):
Smernice iz leta 1999 glede omejevanja pomoči na minimum določajo (točke 40 do 41):
The amount and intensity of the aid must be limited to the strict minimum needed to enable restructuring to be undertaken in the light of the existing financial resources of the company, its shareholders or the business group to which it belongs.
Znesek in intenzivnost pomoči je treba omejiti na minimum, ki bo še omogočil prestrukturiranje, ki ga je treba izvesti z vidika obstoječih finančnih virov podjetja, delničarjev ali poslovne skupine, kateri pripada.
Aid beneficiaries will be expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources, including through the sale of assets that are not essential to the firm’s survival, or from external financing at market conditions.
Upravičenci do pomoči bodo morali znatno prispevati k planu prestrukturiranja na osnovi lastnih virov, tudi s prodajo premoženja, ki ni nujno potrebno za preživetje podjetja, ali na osnovi zunanjega financiranja po tržnih pogojih.
To limit the distortive effect, the amount of the aid or the form in which the aid is granted must be such as to avoid providing the company with surplus cash which could be used for aggressive, market-distorting activities not linked to the restructuring process.
Da bi omejili škodljivi vpliv, mora biti znesek ali oblika pomoči takšna, da podjetju ne bo ustvarjal presežkov gotovine, ki bi se lahko uporabili za agresivne dejavnosti, ki izkrivljajo trg in niso kot take povezane s procesom prestrukturiranja.
The Commission will accordingly examine the level of the firm’s liabilities after restructuring, including the situation after any postponement or reduction of its debts, particularly in the context of its continuation in business following collective insolvency proceedings brought against it under national law.
V skladu s tem bo Komisija preučila stopnjo obveznosti podjetja po prestrukturiranju, vključno z razmerami po odlogu ali zmanjšanju dolgov podjetja, zlasti v okviru nadaljevanja poslovanja po kolektivnih postopkih v primeru insolventnosti, predvidenih po nacionalnem pravu.
Neither should any of the aid go to finance new investment that is not essential for restoring the firm’s viability.
Pomoč tudi ne more financirati novih naložb, ki niso nujno potrebne za obnavljanje sposobnosti preživetja podjetja.
In any event, it must be demonstrated to the Commission that the aid will be used only for the purpose of restoring the firm’s viability and that it will not enable the recipient during the implementation of the restructuring plan to expand production capacity, except in so far as this is essential for restoring viability without unduly distorting competition’.
V vsakem primeru je treba Komisiji dokazati, da bo pomoč uporabljena le za obnavljanje sposobnosti preživetja podjetja in da prejemniku v času izvajanja plana prestrukturiranja ne bo omogočala širitve proizvodnih zmogljivosti, razen v primeru, da je nujno potrebna za obnavljanje sposobnosti preživetja in ne povzroča nedovoljenega izkrivljanja konkurence.“
It is therefore necessary to verify firstly whether the aid is limited to the minimum, and then whether IFB has made an adequate contribution itself.
Torej je treba najprej preveriti, ali je pomoč omejena na minimum, in nato, ali je družba IFB vložila primeren lastni prispevek.
Limitation of aid to a minimum
Omejitev pomoči na minimum
In order to demonstrate that the aid is limited to the strict minimum, the Belgian Government explains that the increase in capital is limited to restoring IFB’s capital stock, which has become negative further to losses recorded in 2001 and 2002, to a level which allows it to recover its economic viability.
Da bi dokazala, da je pomoč omejena na strogi minimum, belgijska vlada pojasnjuje, da je povečanje kapitala omejeno na obnovitev osnovnega kapitala družbe IFB, ki je postal negativen po izgubah, zableženih v letih 2001 in 2002, na višino, ki bi družbi omogočila obnovitev sposobnosti preživetja.
As explained in section 2 of this decision, IFB’s solvency rate, that is to say the debt-to-equity ratio, will be 35,6 % after the increase in capital.
Kot je pojasnjeno v delu 2 te odločbe, bo stopnja solventnosti družbe IFB, se pravi razmerje med lastnimi sredstvi in obveznostmi, po povečanju kapitala znašala 35,6 %.
In its decision initiating the procedure (point 268), the Commission noted that the increase in capital was EUR 20 million less than had been recommended by the consultants McKinsey in the restructuring plan; furthermore, the Commission noted (point 268) that the solvency rate envisaged by IFB was less than that of the terminal companies and also, though to a lesser extent, than that of companies with mixed activities.
Komisija je v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka (točka 268) ugotovila, da je bilo povečanje kapitala za 20 milijonov EUR manjše od priporočila svetovalca MyKinseya v načrtu za prestrukturiranje; poleg tega je Komisija ugotovila (točka 268), da je stopnja solventnosti, ki jo je načrtovala družba IFB, nižja od stopnje solventnosti družb s terminali in tudi, čeprav nekoliko manj, od stopnje solventnosti družb z mešanimi dejavnostmi.
However, it noted that the rate was greater than the average of the rates recorded in the transport companies.
Vendar je ugotovila, da je ta stopnja višja od povprečja stopenj, zabeleženih v prevoznih družbah.
In view of that, it concluded that it did not have at its disposal sufficient factors to consider definitively that the aid was limited to the strict minimum.
Zato je sklepala, da nima na voljo zadostnih elementov, da bi dokončno ugotovila, ali je bila pomoč omejena na strogi minimum.
The Commission considers that, to establish that the aid was limited to a minimum, it is necessary to check firstly whether the solvency rate of IFB, which will retain its activities in Belgium, does not exceed the average of its competitors, and then if IFB divested its shareholdings in France at the lowest possible cost.
Komisija meni, da je treba za ugotovitev, da je pomoč omejena na minimum, najprej preveriti, ali stopnja solventnosti družbe IFB, ki bo ohranila svoje dejavnosti v Belgiji, ne presega povprečja njenih konkurentov, in nato, ali je družba IFB umaknila svoje udeležbe v Franciji s čim manjšimi stroški.
Solvency rate not exceeding the average of competitors
Stopnja solventnosti, ki ne presega povprečne stopnje konkurentov
Belgium provided additional information in its reply to the letter initiating the procedure.
Belgija je v odgovoru na dopis o sprožitvi postopka predložila dodatne informacije.
Firstly, it calculated the solvency rate of the six terminal companies which are most comparable to IFB and the solvency rate of the six logistics companies which are most comparable to IFB.
Najprej je izračunala stopnjo solventnosti šestih družb s terminali, ki so najbolj primerljive z družbo IFB, in stopnjo solventnosti šestih logističnih družb, ki so najbolj primerljive z družbo IFB.
Then, it calculated an average, weighting the average rates of the terminal companies and the logistics companies in relation to the relative strength of these two activities within IFB.
Nato je izračunala povprečje, tako da je ponderirala povprečne stopnje družb s terminali in logističnih družb glede na relativni delež teh dveh dejavnosti znotraj družbe IFB.
This produced an average solvency rate of 35,6 %, which corresponds to IFB’s solvency rate after the foreseen increase in capital.
Iz tega sledi, da je povprečna stopnja solventnosti 35,6 %, kar ustreza stopnji solventnosti družbe IFB po predvidenem povečanju kapitala.
Furthermore, Belgium demonstrated that the two most direct competitors to IFB, namely the companies Gosselin and Hupac, have very similar solvency rates (38,9 % and 34,9 % respectively).
Poleg tega je Belgija dokazala, da imata dva najbližja konkurenta družbe IFB, in sicer družbi Gosselin in Hupac, zelo podobni stopnji solventnosti (38,9 % oziroma 34,9 %).
In view of the additional information provided by Belgium, and the fact that the increase in capital has been reduced, in relation to the initial recommendation of EUR 120 million contained in the McKinsey plan of December 2003, to EUR 95,3 million, the Commission considers that the increase in capital is limited to what is strictly necessary.
Komisija na podlagi dodatnih informacij, ki jih je predložila Belgija, in ker se je povečanje kapitala v primerjavi s prvotnim priporočilom 120 milijonov EUR v načrtu MyKinsey iz decembra 2003 zmanjšalo na 95,3 milijona EUR, sklepa, da je povečanje kapitala omejeno na to, kar je nujno potrebno.
Divestiture of shareholdings in France at lowest cost
Umikanje udeležb v Franciji s čim manjšimi stroški
As regards the divestiture of IFB’s French subsidiaries, the Commission has further verified that, during its withdrawal, IFB always chose the lowest cost option, in order to limit withdrawal costs, and therefore aid, to a minimum.
Kar zadeva dezinvestiranje hčerinskih družb družbe IFB v Franciji, je Komisija preverila tudi, ali je IFB pri umiku vedno izbrala najcenejšo možnost, da bi omejila stroške umika in torej pomoč na minimum.
The legal divestiture of Acimar by judicial settlement cost of EUR 3,9 million (see section 2 of this decision).
Sodno dezinvestiranje družbe Acimar s prisilno poravnavo je stalo 3,9 milijona EUR (glej del 2 te odločbe).
The Commission notes that Belgium demonstrated that the alternative, that is to say the continuation of its activities, would have necessitated the financing of the annual cash-drain by IFB until the end of 2005, which would have represented a loss of EUR 10,8 million in total, without any certainty of being able recover the debts of EUR 3,9 million which would have had to be abandoned in the judicial settlement.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Belgija dokazala, da bi druga možnost, in sicer nadaljevanje dejavnosti, zahtevala, da družba IFB do konca leta 2005 financira letno izgubo iz poslovanja, ki bi predstavljal izgubo v skupnem znesku 10,8 milijona EUR, brez vsakršne gotovosti, da bo lahko izterjala terjatve v višini 3,9 milijona EUR, ki jih je bilo treba odpisati v okviru prisilne poravnave.
The Commission consequently concludes that IFB chose the lowest cost option for Acimar.
Komisija zato sklepa, da je družba IFB izbrala najcenejšo možnost za Acimar.
As regards NFTI-ou, which was a company controlled jointly by IFB and Port Autonome de Dunkerque, operating the terminals in the port of Dunkerque, IFB explored two possibilities: the pursuit of activities, or divestiture by selling its shareholding.
Družba IFB je za družbo NFTI-ou, ki sta jo skupaj nadzirali IFB in družba Port Autonome de Dunkerque, ki izkorišča terminale v pristanišču v Dunkerquu, preučila dve možnosti: nadaljevanje dejavnosti ali dezinvestiranje s prodajo svojega deleža.
Divestiture would have led to costs of EUR 18,5 million (see detailed description in section 2 of this decision).
Dezinvestiranje je ustvarilo stroške v višini 18,5 milijona EUR (glej podroben opis v delu 2 te odločbe).
As regards the alternative, that is to say the continuation of activities, Belgium demonstrated in its reply that this would have generated losses of EUR 36,2 million (see detailed description in section 3 of this decision).
Kar zadeva drugo možnost, se pravi, nadaljevanje dejavnosti, je Belgija v odgovoru dokazala, da bi to ustvarilo izgubo v višini 36,2 milijona EUR (glej podroben opis v delu 3 te odločbe).
In view of the cost of these two options, the Commission considers that IFB chose the least expensive option.
Glede na stroške teh dveh možnosti, Komisija meni, da je družba IFB izbrala najcenejšo.
The handover of IFB France, which subsequently became AGEP, to NFTI-ou cost EUR 0,9 million (see detailed description in section 2 of this decision).
Prenos družbe IFB France, ki je nato postala družba AGEP, na NFTI-ou je stal 0,9 milijona EUR (glej podroben opis v delu 2 te odločbe).
The question arises as to whether allowing IFB France to file for bankruptcy would not have been less costly for IFB.
Poraja se vprašanje, ali ne bi bil stečaj družbe IFB France cenejši za IFB.
The Commission considers that Belgium has not presented evidence of this risk of coverage of liabilities.
Komisija meni, da Belgija ni dokazala tveganja, da bo morala kriti obveznosti.
Therefore, the Commission must reject this argument.
Zato mora Komisija zavrniti ta argument.
The Commission concludes that the handover of IFB France cost at least the same as its continuation would have done.
Komisija torej sklepa, da je prenos družbe IFB France stal najmanj toliko, kot bi stalo nadaljevanje njenih dejavnosti.
The Commission therefore concludes that IFB selected one of the two least expensive options.
Komisija torej sklepa, da je družba IFB izbrala eno od dveh najcenejših možnosti.
For the Dry Port of Dunkerque, it had been decided to liquidate this company, by the preliminary sale of a part of the assets, namely the shareholding of 8,6 % in NFTI-ou.
Kar zadeva Dry Port Dunkerque, je bila sprejeta odločitev o likvidaciji družbe s predhodno prodajo dela sredstev, in sicer 8,6-odstotnega deleža v družbi NFTI-ou.
That cost EUR 7,9 million (see detailed description in section 2 of this decision).
To je stalo 7,9 milijona EUR (glej podroben opis v delu 2 te odločbe).
In the alternative scenario, i.e. the continuation of activities, IFB would have had to finance the annual cash drain generated by the company’s losses, which would have presented an additional charge of EUR 2,6 million.
V alternativnem scenariju, se pravi v primeru nadaljevanja dejavnosti, bi družba IFB morala financirati letni cash-drain, ki bi ga povzročile izgube družbe, kar bi predstavljalo dodatno obremenitev v višini 2,6 milijona EUR.
Consequently, liquidation was the least costly option.
Zato je bila likvidacija najcenejša možnost.
In view of the strategic decision to leave the French market, the decision to sell SSTD for EUR 0,2 million (see detailed description below in section 2) was the most attractive option for IFB.
Ob upoštevanju strateške odločitve o umiku s francoskega trga je bila odločitev o prodaji družbe SSTD za 0,2 milijona EUR (glej podroben opis zgoraj v delu 2) najugodnejša možnost za družbo IFB.
The Commission concludes that IFB divested its shareholdings in France at the lowest possible cost, and that as a consequence the finance allocated by SNCB to finance this divestiture, which was necessary for the viability of the remainder of IFB, was limited to the minimum possible.
Komisija sklepa, da je družba IFB umaknila svoje udeležbe v Franciji z najmanjšimi možnimi stroški in da je bilo zato financiranje, ki ga je družba SNCB dodelila za financiranje tega dezinvestiranja, potrebnega za sposobnost preživetja preostalega dela družbe IFB, najnižje možno.