natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission recognises that both capital injections have been accompanied by restructuring measures, and that both capital injections have been linked to absorbing the losses generated by the contracts for which Combus had made offers which were too low.
Komisija priznava, da so oba kapitalska vložka spremljali ukrepi prestrukturiranja in da sta bila oba povezana z absorpcijo izgub, ki so nastale iz naslova pogodb, za katere je podjetje Combus ponudilo prenizke cene.
Nevertheless, it takes the view that the primary purpose of the two capital injections was different, namely the prevention of bankruptcy in the first case and the preparation of privatisation in the second case.
Kljub temu meni, da je prvotni namen obeh kapitalskih vložkov različen, in sicer preprečitev stečaja v prvem primeru in priprava privatizacije v drugem primeru.
Situation of the company at the time of the measures
Položaj podjetja v času ukrepov
The situation of Combus at the time of the measures had not significantly changed, as it was experiencing losses, mainly due to the public-service contracts concluded at a price at which it could not produce the services.
Položaj podjetja Combus se v času ukrepov ni bistveno spremenil, saj je podjetje beležilo izgube, deloma zaradi javnih naročil storitev, sklenjenih po ceni, po kateri ni bilo mogoče opraviti storitev.
Conclusion: The 1999 and the 2001 measures constitute two separate measures
Sklep: Ukrepa iz let 1999 in 2001 sta dva ločena ukrepa.
In conclusion, the Commission, having taken the submissions of the parties into consideration, and applying the reasoning of the CFI in BP Chemicals, finds that the two tranches of restructuring measures taken in 1999 and 2001 respectively constitute two separate measures for the assessment under Article 87(1) EC treaty.
Ob upoštevanju trditev zadevnih strank in na podlagi utemeljitve SPS v zadevi BPChemicals Komisija končno ugotavlja, da obe tranši ukrepov prestrukturiranja v letih 1999 in 2001 pomenita dva ločena ukrepa za oceno na podlagi člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Three main reasons motivate this assessment:
Za to oceno obstajajo trije glavni razlogi:
The 2001 capital injection was not foreseen at the time the 1999 capital injection was decided.
Kapitalski vložek v letu 2001 ni bil predviden v času, ko je bila sprejeta odločitev o kapitalskem vložku leta 1999.
On the contrary: the Danish authorities assumed that the 1999 capital injection was sufficient.
Nasprotno: danski organi so predvideli, da je kapitalski vložek v letu 1999 zadosten.
There has been a period of one year and six months between the decision to proceed with the first capital injection and the decision to proceed with the second capital injection.
Med odločitvijo o prvem kapitalskem vložku in odločitvijo o drugem kapitalskem vložku je preteklo leto in pol.
The purpose of the first capital injection was to avoid the imminent bankruptcy of Combus, whereas the purpose of the second capital injection was to render the privatisation for a symbolic positive value possible.
Namen prvega kapitalskega vložka je bil izogniti se neizbežnemu stečaju podjetja Combus, medtem ko je bil namen drugega kapitalskega vložka omogočiti privatizacijo za možno simbolično pozitivno vrednost.
Accordingly, they will be analysed as two different measures in the reminder of the legal assessment.
Skladno s tem bosta v nadaljevanju pravne presoje analizirana kot dva ločena ukrepa.
STATE RESOURCES AND SPECIFICITY
DRŽAVNA SREDSTVA IN SPECIFIČNOST
Denmark financed both measures from its budget.
Danska je oba ukrepa financirala iz svojega proračuna.
The measures were thus financed from State resources.
To pomeni, da sta bila ukrepa financirana z državnimi sredstvi.
The measures concern one single undertaking, Combus, and are thus specific.
Ukrepa zadevata samo eno podjetje, Combus, torej sta specifična.
EXISTENCE OF AN ADVANTAGE FOR THE BENEFICIARY UNDERTAKING
OBSTOJ PREDNOSTI ZA UPRAVIČENO PODJETJE
In order to be qualified as State aid, the measures must confer an advantage on the firm.
Ukrepi se opredelijo kot državna pomoč, če prinašajo podjetju prednost.
In this connection, two questions arise:
V zvezi s tem se postavljata dve vprašanji:
The measures do not confer an advantage to Combus if the Danish government behaved as a private investor in a market economy.
Ukrepa ne prinašata prednosti podjetju Combus, če je danska vlada ravnala kot zasebni vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The measures do not confer an advantage for Combus, if they serve only to compensate the company for obligations of public service and respect the four Altmark criteria.
Ukrepa ne prinašata prednosti podjetju Combus, če je njun namen samo zagotoviti nadomestilo podjetju za obveznosti javne službe in če izpolnjujeta štiri merila iz sodbe Altmark.
Applicability of the Market Economy Investor Principle
Uporaba načela vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji
The essence of the market economy investor principle was established by the Commission in its Communication to the Member States on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EU Treaty and Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC concerning public companies in the manufacturing sector, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Communication’) [42].
Bistvo načela vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji je določila Komisija v svojem sporočilu državam članicam o uporabi členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe EGS in člena 5 Direktive Komisije 80/723/EGS za javna podjetja v proizvodnem sektorju (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sporočilo) [42].
In addition hereto, judgments by the ECJ and the CFI have given the notion further precision [43].
Poleg tega sta pojem dodatno opredelili sodbi Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in SPS [43].
According to these texts and judgments, the Commission shall take into account the genuine possibilities for a beneficiary undertaking to obtain equivalent financial resources by having recourse to the normal capital market.
Glede na ta besedila in sodbe bo Komisija upoštevala dejanske možnosti, da upravičeno podjetje pridobi enakovredna finančna sredstva s tem, da se obrne na običajni kapitalski trg.
State aid is not involved where it is a question of new capital being contributed in conditions which would be acceptable for a private investor operating under the normal conditions of a market economy [44].
Za državno pomoč ne gre, kadar se nov kapital prispeva v pogojih, ki bi bili sprejemljivi za zasebnega vlagatelja, ki posluje v običajnih pogojih tržnega gospodarstva [44].
Paragraph 35 of the Communication applies to capital injections.
Odstavek 35 sporočila velja za kapitalske vložke.
It states that aid is present where the financial position of the company, and particularly the structure and volume of its debt, is such that a normal return on investment (in dividends or capital gains) cannot be expected within a reasonable timeframe from the capital invested.
Navaja, da gre za pomoč, če so finančni položaj podjetja ter zlasti sestava in obseg njegovega dolga takšni, da ni mogoče pričakovati običajnega donosa na naložbo (v obliki dividend ali kapitalskega dobička) v razumnem času od naložbe kapitala.
Paragraph 39 of the Communication sets out similar criteria for loans stating that where an unsecured loan is given to a company which under normal circumstances would be unable to obtain finance (for example because its prospects of repaying the loan are poor) then the loan effectively equates a grant payment and the Commission would evaluate it as such.
Odstavek 39 sporočila določa podobna merila za posojila, pri čemer je navedeno, da se v primeru odobritve nezavarovanega posojila podjetju, ki v običajnih okoliščinah ne bi moglo pridobiti sredstev (na primer zato, ker je malo verjetno, da bo posojilo poplačalo), takšno posojilo enači z nepovratnim plačilom in ga bo Komisija ocenjevala kot takega.
The conduct of the public investor should therefore be compared with the hypothetical conduct of a private investor, such as a private holding company or a private group of undertakings pursuing a structural, global or sectoral policy and attracted by prospects of longer-term profitability [45].
Ravnanje javnega vlagatelja je treba torej primerjati s hipotetičnim ravnanjem zasebnega vlagatelja, kot je zasebni holding ali zasebna skupina podjetij, ki izvaja strukturno, globalno ali sektorsko politiko in jo je pritegnila možnost dolgoročne donosnosti [45].
A capital contribution necessary in order to ensure the survival of an undertaking experiencing temporary difficulties but which, where appropriate, following the implementation of the necessary measures would be in a position to return to profitability does not necessarily constitute aid if a private investor would have made the same analysis.
Kapitalski vložek, ki je potreben za preživetje podjetja, ki ima začasne težave, vendar bi, kjer je to primerno, po izvedbi potrebnih ukrepov bilo v položaju, da ponovno postane donosno, ne pomeni nujno pomoči, če bi zasebni vlagatelj naredil enako analizo.
Accordingly, the Commission needs to assess whether a private investor and owner of a company similar to Combus would have acted as the Danish government did when granting the measures under assessment.
Skladno s tem mora Komisija oceniti, ali bi zasebni vlagatelj in lastnik podjetja, podobnega podjetju Combus, ravnal kot je danska vlada, ko je odobrila ukrepe, ki se ocenjujejo.
If the Commission finds that the Danish government did act in accordance with the market economy investor principle for one or for both of the measures, the measure, respectively the measures, do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Če Komisija ugotovi, da je danska vlada ravnala skladno z načelom vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji v primeru enega ali obeh ukrepov, tedaj ukrep oziroma ukrepa ne pomenita državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
In recitals 82 to 89 of the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission raised doubts as to whether a private investor would have acted as the Danish government did in a similar situation.
V odstavkih 82 do 89 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka Komisija dvomi, ali bi zasebni vlagatelj v podobnem položaju ravnal enako, kot je danska vlada.
Assessment of the 1999 measure against the Market Economy Investor Principle
Ocena ukrepa iz leta 1999 glede na načelo vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji
The Danish government argues that the 1999 measure respects the private investor principle.
Danska vlada trdi, da ukrep iz leta 1999 upošteva načelo zasebnega vlagatelja.
This is also the reason why it had not been notified to the Commission prior to its realisation.
To je tudi razlog, da pred izvedbo ni obvestila Komisije o njem.
The Commission notes that Denmark has at no point in time presented an economic analysis which would demonstrate that it could reasonably expect on this measure a return on investment comparable to the return on investment a private investor in the bus sector would expect.
Komisija navaja, da Danska ni v nobenem trenutku predložila gospodarske analize, ki bi dokazovala, da je mogoče razumno pričakovati donos na naložbo iz naslova tega ukrepa, ki bi bil primerljiv s pričakovanim donosom na naložbo zasebnega vlagatelja v avtobusnem sektorju.
The Commission furthermore observes that the financial adviser of the Danish government, Alfred Berg, has expressed both in its memo of November 1998 and in its memo of April 1999 its concern that there was ‘no guarantee for a positive return on investment’ if Denmark decided to continue its ownership of Combus with a view of restructuring it following a capital injection.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da je finančni svetovalec danske vlade, podjetje Alfred Berg, v svojem obvestilu iz novembra 1998 in obvestilu iz aprila 1999 izrazilo skrb, da ni „jamstva za pozitiven donos na naložbo“, če se Danska odloči ohraniti lastništvo nad podjetjem Combus z namenom prestrukturiranja po kapitalskem vložku.
Also the bill adopted by the Danish Parliament in May 1999, authorising the capital increase, sets out that it was unlikely that the State would be able to recoup the capital it was about to invest in Combus.
Tudi predlog zakona, ki ga je sprejel danski parlament maja 1999 in ki dovoljuje dokapitalizacijo, opredeljuje, da je bilo malo verjetno, da si bo država lahko poplačala kapital, ki ga je takrat nameravala vložiti v podjetje Combus.
The Commission concludes that Denmark has not provided convincing evidence that the State could reasonably expect a return on its investment comparable to the return a private investor would have requested.
Komisija ugotavlja, da Danska ni zagotovila prepričljivega dokaza, da lahko država razumno pričakuje donos na svojo naložbo, ki bi bil primerljiv z zahtevanim donosom zasebnega vlagatelja.
As regards the ‘group assessment’ reasoning, in accordance with the jurisprudence cited above (Case 303/88), the Commission does not exclude that the State or public companies may bear the losses of one of their subsidiaries in order to enable it to close down its operations under the best possible conditions, if they can prove that the associated cost they bear is lower than the economic damage they would have suffered in other scenarios.
Kar zadeva argument „skupinske ocene“, Komisija v skladu z zgoraj navedeno sodno prakso (zadeva 303/88) ne izključuje možnosti, da lahko država ali javna podjetja nosijo izgubo enega od svojih odvisnih podjetij, da se tako omogoči prenehanje delovanja tega v najboljših možnih pogojih, če lahko dokažejo, da so s tem povezani stroški, ki jih krijejo, nižji od gospodarske škode, ki bi jo utrpeli v primeru drugih scenarijev.
For example, the Commission has applied this reasoning in Case C 53/03, ABX [46], point 196 to 216, in which the Commission took into account costs supported by activities of the rest of the group which were in direct business link with the ailing subsidiary, and for which the relation between the closure of the subsidiary and the effect on the rest of the group had been actually proven.
Na primer, Komisija je ta argument uporabila v zadevi C 53/2003, ABX [46], točke 196 do 216, kjer je upoštevala stroške, ki se krijejo iz dejavnosti preostalih članov skupine, ki so bili poslovno neposredno povezani z vse slabšim odvisnim podjetjem, in za katere je bila dejansko dokazana povezava med zaprtjem odvisnega podjetja in učinkom na preostale člane skupine.
The Commission considers that this is not the case in the present situation, since the Danish authorities have not proven that the link between the economic activity of Combus and the other economic activities of the State (especially as owner of other companies which have no proven particular connection with Combus) is strong enough to reach such a conclusion.
Po mnenju Komisije to ne drži v tem primeru, saj danski organi niso dokazali, da je povezava med gospodarsko dejavnostjo podjetja Combus in drugimi gospodarskimi dejavnostmi države (zlasti kot lastnice drugih podjetij, ki niso dokazano posebej povezana s podjetjem Combus) dovolj močna, da bi prišli do tega sklepa.
In particular, in the absence of other arguments, the Commission is not convinced that the ratings of other public companies, which are normally based on the merits of each individual company, would have been significantly affected by the fate of Combus.
Predvsem zaradi pomanjkanja drugih argumentov Komisija ni prepričana, da bi usoda podjetja Combus bistveno vplivala na boniteto drugih javnih podjetij, ki je običajno povezana z vrednostjo vsakega posameznega podjetja.
The Commission is not either convinced by the argument that the bankruptcy of Combus would have damaged the reputation of the State as an investor, or would have unduly endangered its privatisation programme by casting a doubt on the job security of its former civil servants.
Komisije tudi ni prepričal argument, da bi stečaj podjetja Combus škodil ugledu države kot vlagateljice ali pa znatno ogrozil njen program privatizacije, s tem ko bi vzbudil dvome glede varnosti delovnih mest njenih nekdanjih javnih uslužbencev.
Indeed, as regards the first point, reasonable investors sometimes come to the conclusion that they have to close down unprofitable activities; as regards the second point, it seems rather contradictory to argue that the State had to pay for civil servants to accept private contracts, and, in addition, still had to keep on bearing the costs of ensuring the permanency of their jobs.
Kar zadeva prvo točko, razumni vlagatelji včasih ugotovijo, da morajo zapreti nedonosne dejavnosti; kar zadeva drugo točko, se zdi precej protislovno trditi, da je morala država poleg tega, da je javnim uslužbencem plačala, da so sprejeli zasebne pogodbe, še vedno nositi tudi stroške, da je zagotovila obstoj njihovih delovnih mest.
Assessment of the 2001 measure against the Market Economy Investor Principle
Ocena ukrepa iz leta 2001 glede na načelo vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji
With respect to the 2001 measure, the Commission notes that the Danish government, following the receipt of Arriva’s initial offer in autumn 2000, carried out an evaluation of the different options available to Denmark with respect to Combus, namely a gradual wind-up over 5 years, a continuation with better contracts for 6 years, a continuation for one year without re-financing of debts, an immediate bankruptcy, and Arriva’s offer for sale.
V zvezi z ukrepom iz leta 2001 Komisija navaja, da je danska vlada po prejemu prvotne ponudbe podjetja Arriva jeseni 2000 ocenila različne možnosti, ki so bile Danski na voljo glede podjetja Combus, in sicer postopna likvidacija v obdobju petih let, nadaljnje poslovanje z boljšimi pogodbami za šest let, nadaljnje poslovanje za eno leto brez refinanciranja dolgov, takojšen stečaj in ponudba podjetja Arriva za prodajo.
The results of this study, set out in table 5 of the present decision, show that the option ‘continuation for one year’ (positive value of DKK 71 million) was by far the most attractive, followed by the gradual wind up over 5 years (DKK –331 million) and the continuation with newer better contracts for 6 years (DKK –315 million).
Rezultati te študije, navedeni v tabeli 5 te odločbe, kažejo, da je bila možnost „nadaljnjega poslovanja za eno leto“ (pozitivna vrednost v višini 71 milijonov DKK) daleč najprivlačnejša, sledila je postopna likvidacija v obdobju petih let (–331 milijonov DKK) in nadaljnje poslovanje z novimi in boljšimi pogodbami za šest let (–315 milijonov DKK).
The sale at Arriva’s initial offer was valued at DKK –390 million.
Prodaja po prvotni ponudbi podjetja Arriva je bila ocenjena na –390 milijonov DKK.
There is no indication that the Danish government did again this evaluation following the improvement of the offer of Arriva.
Ni znakov, da je danska vlada opravila to oceno ponovno, ko je podjetje Arriva dalo boljšo ponudbo.
Given that the amount of money invested by the Danish government through the 2001 measure, namely DKK 140 million, coupled with unlimited guarantees and guarantees capped to 58,9 million, is substantially higher than the first option assessed in the study, the Commission considers that the Danish authorities, when deciding the 2001 measures, could not reasonably expect that a private investor would have acted in the same manner.
Ker je znesek, ki ga je danska vlada vložila v okviru ukrepa iz leta 2001, tj. 140 milijonov DKK, skupaj z neomejenimi jamstvi in jamstvi, omejenimi na 58,9 milijona DKK, bistveno višji od zneska pri prvi možnosti, ki je bila ocenjena v študiji, Komisija meni, da danski organi pri odločanju o ukrepu v letu 2001 niso mogli razumno pričakovati, da bi zasebni vlagatelj ravnal enako.
With respect to the group assessment and the protection of the image of the Danish government, the Commission rejects the arguments for the same reason as for the 1999 measures.
Ob upoštevanju skupinske ocene in zaščite ugleda danske vlade Komisija zavrača argumente iz istega razloga kot v primeru ukrepa iz leta 1999.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that a private investor would not have acted as the Danish government did with respect to the 2001 measure.
Končno pa Komisija meni, da zasebni vlagatelj ne bi ravnal kot danska vlada, kar zadeva ukrep iz leta 2001.
Application of the Altmark jurisprudence
Uporaba sodne prakse Altmark
According to the Altmark judgment ‘public subsidies intended to enable the operation of urban, suburban or regional scheduled transport services are not caught by that provision where such subsidies are to be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations’ [47].
V skladu s sodbo Altmark „za javne subvencije, katerih namen je omogočiti delovanje mestnega, primestnega ali regionalnega rednega prevoza, ne velja ta določba, če se te subvencije štejejo kot nadomestilo za storitve, ki so jih zagotovila podjetja prejemniki, da bi izpolnila obveznosti javne službe“ [47].
In relation hereto, the ECJ has defined four conditions to be fulfilled in order for a public subsidy to constitute ‘a compensation for a public service obligation’.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti opredelilo štiri pogoje, ki morajo biti izpolnjeni, da se lahko javna subvencija šteje za „nadomestilo za obveznost javne službe“.
The CFI, however, in its Combus judgment, declared that at least one of these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case, as the factors on the basis of which the restructuring measure had been calculated had not been established prior to the conclusion of the public service contracts in an objective and transparent manner [48].
Toda v sodbi Combus je SPS izjavilo, da v tem primeru najmanj eden izmed teh pogojev ni bil izpolnjen, saj dejavniki, na podlagi katerih je bil izračunan ukrep prestrukturiranja, niso bili nepristransko in pregledno ugotovljeni pred sklenitvijo pogodb za javna naročila storitev [48].
Accordingly, the Altmark jurisprudence cannot be applied in relation to the restructuring measure granted by the Danish government to Combus [49].
Glede na to ni mogoče uporabiti sodne prakse Altmark v zvezi z ukrepom prestrukturiranja, ki ga je danska vlada odobrila podjetju Combus [49].
Conclusion: presence of an advantage
Sklep: obstoj prednosti
Accordingly, both the 1999 and the 2001 measure did confer an economic advantage to Combus.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno ukrep iz leta 1999 in ukrep iz leta 2001 nista prinesla gospodarske prednosti podjetju Combus.
EFFECT ON INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE AND COMPETITION
VPLIV NA TRGOVANJE IN KONKURENCO V SKUPNOSTI
Furthermore, the measure must distort competition and affect trade between Member States to be qualified as aid.
Poleg tega mora ukrep, če naj bo opredeljen kot pomoč, izkrivljati konkurenco in vplivati na trgovanje med državami članicami.
In this respect, it must be observed, first, that a public subsidy granted to an undertaking which provides only local or regional transport services and does not provide transport services outside its State of origin may nonetheless have an effect on trade between Member States.
V tem pogledu je treba najprej upoštevati, da lahko javna subvencija, dodeljena podjetju, ki zagotavlja samo storitve lokalnega ali regionalnega prevoza in ne opravlja storitev prevoza zunaj svoje države izvora, kljub temu vpliva na trgovanje med državami članicami.