natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Germany argues that it, nor Sovello, have seen any indication in the SME block-exemption Regulation, in the Commission Communication on the Model declaration, or in the information requests of the Commission, which invited them to provide the joint venture agreement in the course of the notification.
Nemčija trdi, da nemški upravni organi in Sovello niti na podlagi Uredbe o skupinski izjemi za MSP, niti na podlagi Sporočila Komisije o vzorcu izjave, niti na podlagi zahtevka Komisije za dodatne informacije niso mogli sklepati, da bi bilo treba pogodbo o skupnem podjetju poslati v postopku priglasitve.
Therefore, Germany is of the opinion that it has submitted complete information at that time.
Zato Nemčija meni, da so bili podatki, ki jih je poslala v tistem času, popolni.
No additional criteria to be considered
Pri preizkusu se ne smejo uporabiti dodatna merila
Germany observes that whereas to define SMEs the former SME recommendation of 1996 [20] refers to thresholds as well as a so-called independency criterion, the actual SME definition solely differentiates between autonomous, partner and linked enterprises.
Nemčija navaja, da naj bi definicija MSP v prejšnjem Priporočilu MSP iz leta 1996 [20] vsebovala mejne vrednosti in pa tako imenovano merilo neodvisnosti, v aktualni definiciji MSP pa naj bi bila navedena le razlika med samostojnim, partnerskim in povezanim podjetjem.
Germany argues that the actual SME block-exemption Regulation, in conjunction with the SME definition, is binding for the Commission, and can certainly not be narrowed by adding unwritten criteria.
Nemčija trdi, da naj bi bila veljavna Uredba o skupinski izjemi za MSP, v povezavi z definicijo MSP, za Komisijo zavezujoča in se je nikakor ne bi smelo omejevati z dodatnimi nenapisanimi merili.
Neither the Court of Justice nor the Court of First Instance has in its judgements considered such unwritten criteria in cases based on the new SME definition.
Niti Sodišče niti Splošno sodišče naj v svojih sodbah v primerih na podlagi nove definicije MSP ne bi smeli uporabiti takih meril.
Germany contests that the independence criteria set out by the Court of Justice in its judgment on case C 91/01 Italy v Commission [21] (hereinafter: the Solar Tech case), based on the former SME recommendation of 1996, remain also valid for cases to be assessed on the basis of the new SME definition.
Nemčija izpodbija, da naj bi merila neodvisnosti, ki jih je Sodišče v sodbi v zadevi Italijanska republika proti Evropski komisiji (C 91/01) [21] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: primer Solar Tech) uporabilo na podlagi prejšnjega Priporočila MSP, veljala tudi v primerih, ki naj bi se jih preizkušalo na podlagi nove opredelitve MSP.
According to Germany, to base an assessment on such unwritten criteria would be incompatible with the objective of revising the SME definition stated in recital 8 of the SME block-exemption Regulation: ‘In order to eliminate differences that might give rise to distortions of competitions, in order to facilitate coordination between different Community and national initiatives concerning small and medium-sized enterprises, and for reasons of administrative clarity and legal certainty, …’.
Nemčija meni, da presoja na podlagi takih nenapisanih meril ni združljiva s ciljem predelave definicije MSP, ki naj bi bil glede na Uvodno izjavo (8) Uredbe o skupinski izjemi za MSP „[…] izogniti se odstopanjem v razlagi, ki bi lahko vodila k izkrivljanju konkurence, olajšati usklajevanje ukrepov Skupnosti in držav članic na področju malih in srednje velikih podjetij in povečati preglednost postopkovnih vprašanj ter pravno varnost […]“.
Germany argues that for the sake of legal certainty and equal treatment, the Commission should first publish possible changes (incorporation of new additional criteria) to the SME definition, before applying such changes to individual cases.
Nemčija trdi, da bi morala Komisija zaradi pravne varnosti in enakega obravnavanja morebitne spremembe (uvedba novih dodatnih meril) definicije MSP najprej objaviti, preden jih uporabi v posameznih primerih.
Moreover, if the European legislator had wished to consider the criterion of ‘suffering the typical handicaps of an SME’, it would have taken up this criterion in its new SME definition.
Poleg tega bi moral evropski zakonodajalec, če bi želel uporabiti merilo „težav, značilnih za MSP“, tega tudi vključiti v novo definicijo MSP.
Whether a company suffers the typical handicaps of an SME should therefore only be verified using the formal SME criteria.
Ali se podjetje spopada s težavami, ki so značilne za MSP, se lahko preizkusi le na podlagi formalnih meril za MSP.
Germany adds that the determination of a 25 % threshold for partner enterprises would be obsolete when in practice this threshold would not be applied.
Nemčija še navaja, da naj bi bila določitev praga 25 odstotkov za partnerska podjetja nepotrebna, če ta prag v praksi ne velja kot merilo.
Germany states that the aim of the new SME definition was to allow for a consistent promotion of SMEs and their control by national administrations and courts on the basis of clear and unequivocal definitions.
Nemčija poudarja, da naj bi se z novo definicijo MSP prizadevalo za enotno spodbujanje MSP ter njihov upravni in sodni nadzor na podlagi jasnejših in enoumnih definicij.
It deduces that the new SME definition therefore leaves no scope for judgment evaluation or for unwritten conditional elements.
Iz tega Nemčija sklepa, da nova definicija MSP ne dopušča manevrskega prostora za prosto presojo in nenapisane zahteve.
Solar Tech and Pollmeier cases are not comparable to Sovello
Primera Solar Tech in Pollmeier nista primerljiva s primerom Sovello
Germany furthermore brings forward that neither the holding structure nor the economic conditions of the companies referred to in the Solar Tech and the Pollmeier Malchow GmbH & Co. KG v Commission [22] cases, which are judgments based on the former SME recommendation of 1996, are comparable to the situation of Sovello.
Nemčija še trdi, da niti struktura družbenikov niti gospodarski položaj podjetij, na katera se sklicuje v zadevah Solar Tech in Pollmeier Malchow GmbH & Co. KG proti Komisiji [22] (sodbe na podlagi prejšnjega Priporočila MSP iz leta 1996), nista primerljiva s strukturo in položajem podjetja Sovello.
In the Solar Tech case, the beneficiary Solar Tech was owned for only 24 % by the Permasteelisa concern (a large company), but the founder and majority shareholder of this concern, being also the manager of Solar Tech, owned 46 % of the capital, and the president of the concern as well as a member of the board of Permasteelisa both owned 15 % of the capital.
V primeru Solar Tech je bil koncern Permasteelisa (veliko podjetje) lastnik le 24-odstotnega deleža družbe upravičenke, 46-odstotni delež je bil v lasti ustanovitelja in večinskega družbenika tega podjetja, ki je bil hkrati tudi vodja podjetja Solar Tech, direktor koncerna in član upravnega odbora pa sta imela vsak po 15 odstotkov kapitala.
On the basis of this financial interdependence, the possible influence of Permasteelisa shareholders, and the economic and organisational ties with Permasteelisa, the Commission concluded that Solar Tech did not suffer the typical handicaps of an SME and hence did not fulfil the independence criterion.
Glede na navedeno finančno strukturo, mogoč vpliv družbenikov družbe Permasteelisa ter gospodarske in strukturne povezave z družbo Permasteelisa je Komisija sklenila, da se podjetje Solar Tech ni spopadalo s težavami, značilnimi za MSP, in posledično ni izpolnilo merila neodvisnosti.
Germany notes that in the Sovello joint venture however, both shareholders Evergreen and Q-Cells were independent from each other, and the minority shareholder Q-Cells did not have more influence in Sovello than that of a shareholder owning 24,9 % (see also point 5.3 below).
Nemčija pripominja, da sta bila oba družbenika skupnega podjetja Sovello v nasprotju s tem medsebojno neodvisna in da manjšinski družbenik Q-Cells ni imel večjega vpliva na podjetje Sovello kot družbenik s 24,9-odstotnim deležem (glej odstavek 5.3).
In the Pollmeier case, the beneficiary Pollmeier was fully owned by a natural person through an intermediary company.
V primeru Pollmeier je bila družba Pollmeier, upravičenka do pomoči, prek obvodne družbe v stoodstotni lasti fizične osebe.
All the other companies controlled by this natural person were active in the same or parallel economic sectors.
Vsa druga podjetja, ki jih je nadzorovala ta fizična oseba, so delovala v istem ali vzporednem gospodarskem sektorju.
The Commission considered the enterprises owned by this natural person as one economic entity and cumulated the financial data and staff headcounts, which exceeded the SME thresholds.
Komisija je izhajala iz tega, da so bila podjetja v lasti te fizične osebe gospodarska enota, zato je združila vse finančne podatke in vsa števila zaposlenih, kar je povzročilo prekoračitev mejnih vrednosti za MSP.
Germany notes that at the time of the creation of Sovello however, both shareholders were independent from each other and had different purposes (research and development in the field of solar technology, for Evergreen, and the production of solar cells, for Q-Cells).
Nemčija pripominja, da sta bila oba družbenika v času ustanovitve podjetja Sovello medsebojno nedvisna in sta zasledovala različne gospodarske cilje (raziskave in razvoj na področju solarne tehnologije v primeru podjetja Evergreen in proizvodnja sončnih celic v primeru podjetja Q-Cells).
The typical SME handicaps of Sovello could hence not be compensated by the integration in a group of large companies.
Težav podjetja Sovello, ki so značilne za MSP, tako ni mogoče pripisati pripadnosti skupini velikih podjetij.
No exception for joint ventures
Brez izjeme za skupno podjetje
Germany claims that the Commission in its opening decision of 17 June 2008 (see recital 5) goes beyond its authority in that it seems to assume that a beneficiary is automatically to be treated as one economic entity together with its joint venture partners, and that therefore the financial data and staff headcounts of all the joint venture partners should always be cumulated for the calculation of the SME thresholds.
Nemčija trdi, da je Komisija prekoračila svoja pooblastila v odločbi o začetku postopka z dne 17. junija 2008 (glej točko 5) in je očitno izhajala iz tega, da je treba upravičenca do pomoči in njegova partnerska podjetja samodejno obravnavati kot gospodarsko enoto ter je zato treba finančne podatke in število zaposlenih vseh partnerjev skupnega podjetja vedno združiti.
Germany states that thus the Commission claims the authority to take out a whole group of undertakings (namely joint ventures) from the application of the legally binding SME definition and to develop and apply particular SME criteria for this group of undertakings.
Nemčija razlaga, da si Komisija s tem pridržuje pravico izvzema celotne kategorije podjetij (namreč skupnih podjetij) iz uporabe zavezujoče definicije MSP in uporabo posebnih meril MSP za to kategorijo podjetij.
Germany contests that such right could be derived from the case law of the European Courts on the former SME recommendation of 1996 or from any past Commission practice.
Nemčija izpodbija, da je to pooblastilo razvidno iz sodne prakse sodišč Evropske unije na podlagi Priporočila MSP iz leta 1996 ali iz dosedanje prakse Komisije.
Typical SME handicaps of Sovello
Težave podjetja Sovello, značilne za MSP
Germany asserts that at the time of notification, with its limited number of employees and limited financial resources, Sovello did suffer from typical SME handicaps related to financing of the investment project, commercialization of the output, as well as business and operational organisation.
Nemčija poudarja, da se je podjetje Sovello ob priglasitvi zaradi omejenega števila zaposlenih in omejenih finančnih sredstev, kar zadeva financiranje naložbenega projekta, trženje proizvodnje ter organizacijo poslovanja in delovanja, spopadalo s težavami, ki so značilne za MSP.
Germany recognizes the synergy effects of the cooperation with Evergreen and Q-Cells, but contests that these could compensate the typical SME handicaps of Sovello.
Nemčija sicer priznava učinke sinergije sodelovanja s podjetjema Evergreen in Q-Cells, izpodbija pa, da bi to lahko ublažilo težave podjetja Sovello, značilne za MSP.
SME handicaps related to financing
Težave, značilne za MSP, v zvezi s financiranjem
Germany claims that without public support Sovello would not have obtained external financing for its investment project in Thalheim.
Nemčija trdi, da si podjetje Sovello brez javne pomoči ne bi moglo zagotoviti zunanjega financiranja za svoj naložbeni projekt v Thalheimu.
Germany states that the ratio of external investment financing for the Sovello project (EUR 8 million, i.e. 13 % of the total investment) is typical for SMEs.
Delež zunanjih vlaganj v projekt podjetja Sovello (8 milijonov EUR oziroma 13 odstotkov vseh naložb) naj bi bil značilen za MSP.
Germany adds that only […] of the […] solicited banks were interested in financing the project, one of which was only willing to provide EUR […] working capital and bridging finance up to 50 % of the public support.
Po trditvah Nemčije naj bi bilo le […] od […] bank pripravljenih financirati projekt in ena izmed njiju bi dala na razpolago le […] EUR obratnega kapitala in premostitvena sredstva v višini do 50 odstotkov javne pomoči.
This situation would be typical for SMEs, not for large companies.
To naj bi bilo značilno za MSP, ne pa tudi za velika podjetja.
Sovello had difficulties in providing sufficient securities for the loan (as it was not yet owner of the land, machinery and installations had not yet been delivered, buildings were still being constructed and there was no stock).
Podjetje Sovello je le stežka ponudilo zadostna zavarovanja za pridobitev posojila (saj še ni bilo lastnik zemljišča, stroji in naprave še niso bili dobavljeni, zgradba je bila še v gradnji, zaloge pa še niso bile na voljo).
The shareholders could […] provide […] securities either.
Tudi družbeniki niso mogli […] zavarovanj.
Germany argues that the shareholders could only bring in very limited own resources.
Nemčija poudarja, da so družbeniki lahko prispevali le zelo omejena lastna sredstva.
Until 2006, only Evergreen provided financing exceeding its share capital and capital reserves.
Do leta 2006 naj bi le podjetje Evergreen poleg svoje kapitalske udeležbe in kapitalskih rezerv dalo na razpolago finančna sredstva.
Q-Cells was not […] to bring in such extra capital, as its […] resources were […] tied in its own investment projects.
Podjetje Q-Cells ni […] dati na voljo takih finančnih sredstev, saj so bila njegova […] finančna sredstva […] vezana v okviru lastnih naložbenih projektov.
Germany states that the investment project could not have been carried out if no State aid including SME bonus would have been granted.
Nemčija trdi, da naj naložbeni projekt brez državne pomoči, vključno z dodatkom za MSP, ne bi bil uresničljiv.
SME handicaps related to commercialization
Težave, značilne za MSP, v zvezi s trženjem
Germany further argues that Sovello was confronted to a substantial commercial risk, as it was still to demonstrate that the String-Ribbon technology could lead to industrially marketable products.
Nemčija navaja, da je bilo podjetje Sovello izpostavljeno velikim komercialnim tveganjem, saj je moralo najprej dokazati, da je s tehnologijo string ribbon mogoče izdelati tržno zanimive izdelke.
The fact that Sovello had a sales agreement with Evergreen could not really reduce this risk because Evergreen was an SME itself and had no knowledge on the German market.
Dejstvo, da je podjetje Sovello sklenilo pogodbo o odjemu s podjetjem Evergreen, tega tveganja dejansko ni zmanjšalo, saj je bilo podjetje Evergreen prav tako MSP in ni poznalo nemškega trga.
The other shareholder, Q-Cells, had no experience in selling solar modules, as it only produced solar cells.
Drugi družbenik, podjetje Q-Cells, ni imel izkušenj s prodajo solarnih modulov, saj je izdeloval izključno sončne celice.
Moreover, Q-Cells was also an SME [23] and had to concentrate its efforts on the commercialisation of its own output.
Poleg tega je bilo tudi to podjetje MSP [23] in se je moralo osredotočati na trženje svoje proizvodnje.
SME handicaps related to business and operational organisation
Težave, značilne za MSP, v zvezi z organizacijo poslovanja in delovanja
The German authorities claim that the costs linked to business and operational organisation of Sovello were comparably higher than those of large enterprises.
Nemčija trdi, da so bili stroški, ki jih je imelo podjetje Sovello na področju organizacije poslovanja in delovanja višji kot tovrstni stroški velikih podjetij.
E.g. Sovello had to […].
Podjetje Sovello je moralo na primer […].
Influence of Q-Cells on Sovello
Vpliv podjetja Q-Cells na podjetje Sovello
Germany contests that the influence of Q-Cells on Sovello at the time of notification was higher than the normal influence of a shareholder owning 24,9 % in Sovello.
Nemčija izpodbija, da je bila možnost vpliva podjetja Q-Cells na podjetje Sovello ob priglasitvi večja, kot naj bi jo navadno imel družbenik s 24,9-odstotnim deležem.
It rather says that such participation percentage is not unusual for similar projects of start-ups in high technology sectors.
Nasprotno naj tak delež ne bi bil neobičajen pri primerljivih projektih novoustanovljenih podjetij v panogah na področju visoke tehnologije.
Germany explains that Evergreen took the initiative to start the project.
Nemčija navaja, da je bilo podjetje Evergreen pobudnik za začetek projekta.
In 10 years Evergreen had spent more than USD […] million developing the String-Ribbon technology without succeeding in making it profitable.
V več kot desetih letih je podjetje Evergreen v razvoj tehnologije string ribbon vložilo več kot […] milijonov USD, ne da bi doseglo njeno ekonomičnost.
Q-Cells was a good candidate because in addition to finance, it could also bring in its experience in building industrial plants in the photovoltaic sector and its knowledge in solar cells technology.
Podjetje Q-Cells je bilo ustrezen kandidat, saj je imelo poleg finančnih sredstev tudi izkušnje z gradnjo obratov v fotovoltaičnem sektorju in je lahko prispevalo znanje na področju tehnologije sončnih celic.
Germany further reports that for these reasons Evergreen decided to choose Q-Cells as joint venture partner and not […], who was a stronger financial party but wanted more influence.
Nemčija še navaja, da se je podjetje Evergreen iz teh razlogov pri izbiri partnerja za skupno podjetje odločilo za podjetje Q-Cells, in ne za podjetje […], ki je bilo močnejši finančni partner, vendar je želelo imeti tudi večji vpliv.
At the time of concluding the MVJA1 with Evergreen, Q-Cells had already invested in a large project for the production of conventional solar cells.
Ob sklenitvi SSP1 s podjetjem Evergreen je podjetje Q-Cells že vlagalo v večji projekt proizvodnje konvencionalnih sončnih celic.
It had only limited resources available for investment in other projects.
Zato je lahko le omejeno vlagalo v druge projekte.
According to Germany, the purpose of Q-Cells’ participation in Sovello was to gain knowledge in new technologies for the production of solar wafers, cells and modules, as well as to exploit its experience in the development of solar cell plants.
Po trditvah Nemčije je podjetje Q-Cells v partnerstvu s podjetjem Sovello želelo pridobiti znanje na področju novih tehnologij za proizvodnjo sončnih rezin, celic in modulov ter na drugi strani uporabiti svoje izkušnje na področju razvoja obratov za proizvodnjo sončnih celic.
For the above reasons, Q-Cells accepted a minority participation of 24,9 %.
Zaradi tega se je podjetje Q-Cells strinjalo z manjšinskim, 24,9-odstotnim deležem.
Germany mentions that in the same logic, Q-Cells had taken a similar minority participation (21,19 %) in CSG Solar AG [24], a company producing solar modules based on the thin-film technology.
Nemčija navaja, da je bilo to tudi ozadje primerljive manjšinske udeležbe podjetja Q-Cells (21,19 odstotka) v podjetju CSG Solar AG, [24] ki proizvaja solarne module na podlagi tehnologije tankega filma.
The level of the participation is not only based on the possible financial contribution but also on the technological input.
Velikost deleža naj ne bi temeljila le na morebitnem finančnem, ampak tudi tehnološkem vložku.
Germany stresses that the participation quotes of the shareholders in Sovello fully represented the real intention and influence of both joint venture partners, and that the voting rights were shared accordingly.
Nemčija poudarja, da so deleži osnovnega kapitala družbenikov Sovella v celoti prikazovali dejanske namene in dejanski vpliv obeh partnerjev v skupnem podjetju ter da so bile glasovalne pravice ustrezno porazdeljene.
This resulted in the factual situation that Evergreen could take important business decisions on its own, while Q-Cells did not have this possibility.
To naj bi dejansko vodilo k temu, da je lahko podjetje Evergreen, v nasprotju s podjetjem Q-Cells, samo odločalo o pomembnih poslovnih vprašanjih.
Germany argues that a potential future increase of Q-Cells’ participation was agreed but was subject to certain conditions and contribution of corresponding extra capital.
Nemčija navaja, da je bilo morebitno povečanje deleža podjetja Q-Cells v prihodnosti sicer dogovorjeno, ampak izvedljivo le pod določenimi pogoji in le, če bi bila zagotovljena ustrezna denarna sredstva.
One of the conditions mentioned in the MJVA1 was that such a participation increase should not jeopardise the aid granted to Sovello.
Eden izmed pogojev iz SSP1 je bil, da tako povečanje ne sme ogroziti pomoči za Sovello.
Germany points out that the aid measure was the reason for the location of the investment project in Germany instead of the USA, and that this is not in contradiction with State aid rules.
Nemčija opozarja, da je bil ukrep pomoči odločilen za izvedbo naložbenega projekta v Nemčiji, in ne v ZDA, in da to ni pomenilo kršitve pravil o državnih pomočeh.
Germany adds that Q-Cells had no influence on this, and that it is not illegitimate nor a circumvention of the rules if the joint venture partners aim to safeguard the total financing of Sovello.
Nemčija dodaja, da podjetje Q-Cells ni imelo nikakršnega vpliva na to odločitev in da partnerja v skupnem podjetju nista niti kršila pravil o državnih pomočeh niti jih obšla, ko sta si prizadevala zagotoviti finančna sredstva za Sovello.
Germany is of the view that there is a distinction between influence existing at a certain moment in time and potential future influence based on a possible increase of the participation of Q-Cells.
Nemčija meni, da je treba razlikovati med vplivom, ki se je izvajal v določenem času, in možnim vplivom v prihodnosti, ki je posledica morebitnega povečanja deleža podjetja Q-Cells.
Germany stresses that it was totally uncertain whether this participation increase would take place, and that both parties knew it would not follow quickly and certainly not before the probation of the new technology.
Nemčija poudarja, da nikakor ni bilo gotovo, ali se bo delež sploh povečal, in da sta bila oba partnerja seznanjena s tem, da povečanje ne bo izvedeno v bližnji prihodnosti in vsekakor ne pred uveljavitvijo nove tehnologije.
In fact, the proposed increase up to 50 % as taken up in the MJVA1 was never realized.
Povečanje deleža do 50 odstotkov, kot je to določeno v SSP1, dejansko nikoli ni bilo izvedeno.
Quite to the contrary, on the basis of the second agreement (the MJVA2) dated 22 November 2005, Q-Cells’ participation was lowered to 21 %.
Nasprotno pa se je delež podjetja Q-Cells na podlagi druge pogodbe (SSP2) z dne 22. novembra 2005 zmanjšal na 21 odstotkov.
According to Germany, this clearly shows that there is no ‘automatism’ allowing to conclude that it was established from the outset that Q-Cells would own more than 24,9 % of Sovello’s shares.
Nemčija meni, da naj bi bilo iz tega jasno razvidno, da ni šlo za „avtomatizem“, ki bi opravičeval tak sklep, da naj bi bilo že na začetku dogovorjeno, da bo delež podjetja Q-Cells v podjetju Sovello večji od 24,9 odstotka.