natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
’ More specifically, in an article published in Les Echos on 7 July 2004, Brandt executives were quoted as saying that ‘Despite a major drive to boost competitiveness, consisting in buying 35 % of components from China and improving quality and productivity, the fall in market prices has outpaced us’ and that ‘Maintaining a chest freezer production activity no longer makes economic sense within the ElcoBrandt group.
“ Natančneje, odgovorni iz podjetja Brandt so v dnevniku „Les Echos“ v članku, ki je bil objavljen 7. julija 2004, navedli, da „nas je kljub velikim prizadevanjem, da bi z nakupom 35 % sestavnih delov na Kitajskem ali izboljšanjem kakovosti in produktivnosti ohranili konkurenčnost, prehitel padec stroškov na trgu“ in da „ohranitev dejavnosti proizvodnje zamrzovalnih skrinj znotraj skupine ElcoBrandt ni več ekonomsko smiselna.
Each time we sell one of those products, we now make a loss of 25 %.’
Z vsakim prodanim izdelkom namreč ustvarimo 25-odstotno izgubo.“
In the notification, the French authorities state that one of the restructuring plan’s objectives is ‘to rationalise production by abandoning certain bottom-end segments which have become structurally loss-making in order to limit the losses related to the market share gains by low-cost country manufacturers (freestanding microwave ovens, freezers and small refrigerators).’
Francoski organi v priglasitvi navajajo, da je eden od ciljev prestrukturiranja „racionalizacija proizvodnje z opustitvijo nekaterih segmentov najosnovnejših modelov proizvodov, ki so strukturno deficitarni, da bi omejili izgube, povezane s tržnimi deleži, ki so jih pridobili proizvajalci iz poceni držav (samostoječe mikrovalovne pečice, zamrzovalniki in mali zamrzovalniki)“.
This fact was stressed by the French authorities, notably in Annex 7 to the notification.
Na to dejstvo so opozorili francoski organi, med drugim v Prilogi 7 k priglasitvi.
See, for example, the article entitled ‘Brandt: end of Miele contract confirmed.
Glej na primer članek „Brandt: potrjena odpoved pogodbe za Miele.
After the withdrawal of Electrolux, another blow for Aizenay’ appearing in Ouest France on 3 March 2005.
Po umiku Electroluxa nov hud udarec za Aizenay“, ki je bil 3. marca 2005 objavljen v dnevniku Ouest France.
All the less so as the company made a gain of EUR [0-1 million] on the sale.
In to še toliko manj, ker je podjetje ustvarilo kapitalski dobiček v višini [0–1] milijona EUR.
As indicated in section 2.2 of the opening decision, FagorBrandt began to restructure itself in 2004 when the lack of competitiveness and the first financial difficulties became apparent.
Kot je navedeno v oddelku 2.2 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, se je prestrukturiranje skupine FagorBrandt začelo leta 2004, ko so se ob pomanjkanju konkurenčnosti pojavile prve finančne težave.
The Commission considers, therefore, that this divestment is ‘part of the same restructuring’, as required by point 40 of the restructuring guidelines.
Komisija torej meni, da je ta prodaja „del istega prestrukturiranja“, kot se zahteva v odstavku 40 smernic za prestrukturiranje.
The French authorities state that the activity of Brandt Components enabled the company to benefit from a strongly integrated production of high-end washing machines, which is historically a strength of the FagorBrandt group.
Francoski organi navajajo, da bi dejavnost podružnice Brandt Components podjetju pomagala izkoristiti močno vključevanje proizvodnje vrhunskih pralnih strojev, ki je že vseskozi eden od stebrov skupine FagorBrandt.
According to those authorities, this type of integration is particularly highly sought after in the case of innovative products or products requiring specific know-how and is practised by the major operators in the sector (e.g. BSH or Miele).
Po navedbah francoskih organov je ta vrsta vključevanja še zlasti primerna za inovativne proizvode ali proizvode, ki zahtevajo posebno znanje, izvajajo pa jo glavni akterji v sektorju (na primer BSH ali Miele).
The Commission would observe, however, that, beyond the earlier assertions, the French authorities have not furnished any evidence such as might enable it to establish beyond doubt — and even less to quantify the resulting effect — that the divestment of Brandt Components will reduce FagorBrandt’s ability to develop competitive washing machines and will consequently reduce the presence of FagorBrandt in the washing machine market.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da francoski organi razen zgornjih trditev niso navedli nobenih drugih elementov, na podlagi katerih bi lahko nesporno ugotovila – še manj pa ta učinek količinsko opredelila –, da bo prodaja podružnice Brandt Components zmanjšala možnosti podjetja FagorBrandt za razvoj konkurenčnih pralnih strojev in tako zmanjšala njegovo prisotnost na trgu pralnih strojev.
The Commission cannot therefore conclude that the divestment of Brandt Components has a real effect on the large electrical household appliance market.
Komisija tako ne more ugotoviti, da prodaja podružnice Brandt Components dejansko vpliva na trg bele tehnike.
In the French market, Vedette is a brand positioned at the top of the second quartile and in the third quartile of the freestanding products market.
Vedette je blagovna znamka, ki se na francoskem trgu uvršča v zgornji drugi kvartil in tretji kvartil na trgu samostoječih proizvodov.
The measures proposed do not therefore reduce the presence of FagorBrandt in the market for built-in products.
Predlagani ukrepi torej ne zmanjšujejo prisotnosti podjetja FagorBrandt na trgu vgradnih aparatov.
However, the great majority of the groups competing with FagorBrandt in the built-in products market already possess brands competing with Vedette in the freestanding products market.
Vendar ima velika večina skupin, ki so konkurentke skupine FagorBrandt pri vgradnih aparatih, v lasti tudi blagovne znamke, ki znamki Vedette konkurirajo na trgu samostoječih proizvodov.
They will therefore benefit from the withdrawal of the Vedette products described above.
Te bodo torej imele korist od umika zgoraj opisanih proizvodov Vedette.
In 2007, they accounted for [30-40] % of the Vedette brand’s turnover and [4-6] % of FagorBrandt’s sales of large electrical household appliances in the French market.
Ti so leta 2007 obsegali [30–40] % prometa blagovne znamke Vedette in [4–6] % prodaje skupine FagorBrandt na francoskem trgu bele tehnike.
The purpose of this measure is to withdraw the Vedette products concerned from the market.
Cilj tega ukrepa je umik zadevnih proizvodov Vedette s trga.
Clearly, therefore, the effect of the measure would be lost if FagorBrandt were to grant another company a licence for the production and/or marketing of these products under the Vedette brand.
Jasno je torej, da bi se učinek ukrepa izničil, če bi podjetje FagorBrandt drugemu podjetju podelilo licenco za proizvodnjo in/ali trženje teh proizvodov pod blagovno znamko Vedette.
The opening decision stated wrongly that the ‘recipient’s own share’ came to 4,6 %, whereas the notification clearly stated EUR 4,6 million.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je bilo napačno navedeno, da „lastni strošek upravičenca“ znaša 4,6 %, medtem ko je bilo v priglasitvi jasno navedeno, da je ta 4,6 milijona EUR.
Letter from the French authorities dated 15 February 2008.
Dopis francoskih organov z dne 15. februarja 2008.
In its Decision 2006/747/EC, the Commission found that the fact that the restructuring plan submitted did not take into account the reimbursement of incompatible aid received by the company justified concluding that the plan did not enable the company’s long-term viability to be restored.
Komisija je v Odločbi 2006/747/ES menila, da dejstvo, da predloženi načrt prestrukturiranja ne upošteva vračila nezdružljive pomoči, ki jo je prejelo podjetje, potrjuje sklep, da ta načrt ne omogoča ponovne vzpostavitve dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja podjetja.
The abovementioned bank loans amounting to EUR [30-35] million would then be counted as an own contribution in their totality.
Vsa navedena bančna posojila v višini [30–35] milijonov EUR bi se torej štela za lastni prispevek.
As indicated above, the restructuring plan started in 2004 and most of the restructuring measures have already been implemented.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, se je načrt prestrukturiranja začel leta 2004, večina ukrepov prestrukturiranja pa je bila že izvedena.
Clerical error: read ‘2007’ instead of ‘2006’.
Vsebinska napaka: namesto „2006“ bi moralo pisati „2007“.
Comments were submitted by Electrolux by letter dated 14 December 2007.
Electrolux je predložil pripombe z dopisom z dne 14. decembra 2007.
Following a meeting with the Commission’s departments on 20 February 2008, Electrolux submitted additional comments by letters dated 26 February and 12 March 2008.
To podjetje je po sestanku s službami Komisije 20. februarja 2008 predložilo dodatne pripombe z dopisoma z dne 26. februarja 2008 in 12. marca 2008.
A competitor which wishes to remain anonymous submitted comments by letter dated 17 December 2007 [3].
Konkurent, ki želi ostati anonimen, je pripombe predložil z dopisom z dne 17. decembra 2007 [3].
FagorBrandt submitted comments by letter dated 17 December 2007.
Podjetje FagorBrandt je pripombe predložilo z dopisom z dne 17. decembra 2007.
By letters dated 15 January and 13 March 2008, the Commission forwarded these comments to France, inviting it to comment on them, which it did by letter dated 15 February 2008 and in a document presented at a meeting on 18 March 2008 (see below).
Komisija je te pripombe poslala Franciji, in sicer v dopisih z dne 15. januarja 2008 in 13. marca 2008, ter ji dala možnost, da v zvezi z njimi izrazi stališča. Ta je prejela z dopisom z dne 15. februarja 2008 in z dokumentom, predloženim na sestanku 18. marca 2008 (glej spodaj).
Following that meeting, the French authorities submitted information by letters dated 24 April and 7 May 2008.
Francoski organi so po tem sestanku predložili informacije z dopisoma z dne 24. aprila 2008 in 7. maja 2008.
A second meeting was held between the same parties on 12 June 2008.
Drugi sestanek istih strank je bil 12. junija 2008.
Following that meeting, the French authorities submitted information by letter dated 9 July 2008.
Francoski organi so po tem sestanku predložili informacije z dopisom z dne 9. julija 2008.
On 15 July 2008, the Commission requested additional information, which the French authorities provided on 16 July 2008.
Komisija je 15. julija 2008 zahtevala dodatne informacije, in francoski organi so jih predložili 16. julija 2008.
In other words, the company had no reason to seek restructuring aid before being in a situation calling for such aid, a situation which came about in 2006.
Z drugimi besedami, podjetje ni imelo razlogov, da bi zaprosilo za pomoč za prestrukturiranje, preden se je znašlo v položaju, ko je bila ta pomoč upravičena, to je leta 2006.
The question of a possible circumvention of the ‘three year’ rule therefore simply does not arise.
Zato je vprašanje morebitnega izigravanja pravila „treh let“ brezpredmetno.
The financial difficulties began in 2004 and the situation grew much worse in 2005 and 2006.
Finančne težave so se namreč začele leta 2004, položaj pa se je močno poslabšal v letih 2005 in 2006.
As the Commission concluded in the opening decision, the company is indeed in difficulty within the meaning of the restructuring guidelines.
Kot je Komisija ugotovila v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, je to podjetje v težavah v smislu smernic za prestrukturiranje.
The question whether the company might survive beyond 2007 or 2008 if it did not have to reimburse the aid is irrelevant, as the reimbursement of the aid is obligatory and has been so since the Commission’s negative decision on the Article 44 septies scheme in 2003.
Vprašanje, ali bi se podjetje v letu 2007 ali 2008 lahko rešilo iz težav ali ne, če mu ne bi bilo treba vrniti pomoči, je brezpredmetno, saj je vračilo pomoči obvezno, in sicer že vse od negativne odločbe Komisije iz leta 2003 v zvezi z ureditvijo iz člena 44f.
It is therefore in point of fact the accumulation of financial difficulties that justifies the request for aid, these difficulties being the result of the restructuring costs already borne by the company, the ongoing state of the restructuring process and all the other costs the company has to take into account, among which is the aid reimbursement.
Zahteva za pomoč je torej upravičena prav zaradi nakopičenih finančnih težav, ki izhajajo iz stroškov prestrukturiranja, ki jih podjetje že nosi, nedokončanega prestrukturiranja in vseh drugih stroškov, ki jih mora prevzeti podjetje, vključno z vračilom pomoči.
The forecast 20 % growth in turnover in 2007 compared with 2006 is due primarily to the change in scope of FagorBrandt’s activities in 2006.
Napovedana 20-odstotna rast prometa v letu 2007 glede na leto 2006 temelji predvsem na spremenjenem obsegu dejavnosti skupine FagorBrandt v letu 2006.
As for the failure to take into account the reimbursement of the unlawful aid received by the Italian subsidiary (against the background of the takeover by Brandt Italia of the electrical household appliance business of Ocean Spa), this reimbursement should not affect the company’s viability given that the amount ultimately borne by Brandt Italia should be less than EUR [1 million] [8], the balance being borne by the vendor of the business in question.
Glede neupoštevanja vračila nezakonite pomoči, ki jo je prejela italijanska podružnica (pomoč je bila dodeljena na podlagi prevzema dejavnosti proizvodnje električnih gospodinjskih aparatov podjetja Ocean Spa, ki ga je izvedlo podjetje Brandt Italia), francoski organi navajajo, da to vračilo ne bi smelo vplivati na sposobnost preživetja podjetja, glede na to, da bi moral biti končni znesek, ki bo bremenil Brandt Italia, manjši od [< 1 milijona] [8] EUR, saj naj bi preostanek pokril prodajalec zadevnih dejavnosti.
As regards point 11 of the restructuring guidelines, even if the company had reimbursed the EUR 22,5 million of aid in 2004, it would have posted only one loss-making year (2004), which is insufficient for it to be considered in difficulty under that point.
Kar zadeva odstavek 11 smernic o prestrukturiranju, bi podjetje tudi ob vračilu pomoči v višini 22,5 milijona EUR že leta 2004 imelo izgube samo v enem letu (2004), kar ne zadostuje, da bi se lahko na podlagi navedenega odstavka štelo za podjetje v težavah.
The Commission also notes that, during the first quarter of 2005, the Fagor group decided to buy 90 % of the company’s shares at a cost of EUR [150-200] million. This would indicate that the market did not consider the company to be in difficulty within the meaning of the restructuring guidelines, that is to say, a company which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, was almost certainly condemned to go out of business in the short or medium term.
Komisija je tudi navedla, da je skupina Fagor v prvem četrtletju leta 2005 sprejela odločitev o nakupu 90 % delnic podjetja v višini [150–200] milijonov EUR. To dokazuje, da trg ni menil, da je to podjetje v težavah v smislu smernic za prestrukturiranje, torej podjetje, katerega težave bi brez zunanjega posredovanja državnih organov kratkoročno ali srednjeročno skoraj gotovo ogrozile obstoj družbe.
This shows that the operational restructuring needed to re-establish business profitability is engendering very substantial costs — more substantial than the reimbursement of the Article 44 septies aid, which comes to EUR 22,5 million, not including interest. These elements indicate that FagorBrandt is a firm in difficulty whose existence is in danger.
Drugič, uveden je bil načrt prestrukturiranja dejavnosti, katerega stroški znašajo [50–90] milijonov EUR. To dokazuje, da operativno prestrukturiranje, ki je nujno potrebno za ponovno vzpostavitev dobičkonosnosti dejavnosti, povzroča zelo visoke stroške, ki so višji od vračila pomoči na podlagi člena 44f, ki brez obresti znaša 22,5 milijona EUR. Ta dejstva kažejo, da je FagorBrandt podjetje v težavah, katerega obstoj je ogrožen.
First of all, the Commission sought explanations for the expected 20 % increase in turnover in 2007.
Prvič, Komisija je zahtevala pojasnila v zvezi s pričakovanim 20-odstotnim povečanjem prometa v letu 2007.
The French authorities explained that FagorBrandt’s area of activity changed in 2006 owing to the transfer by Fagor to FagorBrandt of responsibility for distributing the Fagor brand in the British and French markets, followed by the transfer of Fagor’s entire French business [17].
Francoski organi so pojasnili, da se je obseg dejavnosti skupine FagorBrandt v letu 2006 spremenil, saj je družba Fagor na FagorBrandt prenesla distribucijo blagovne znamke Fagor na angleškem in francoskem trgu, nato pa še vse francoske dejavnosti družbe Fagor [17].
That business’s turnover was put at EUR [50-100] million for 2007 and was included in FagorBrandt’s 2007 turnover.
Promet iz teh dejavnosti je bil ocenjen na [50–100] milijonov EUR za leto 2007 in je bil vključen v promet skupine FagorBrandt za leto 2007.
It came to EUR 903 million compared with EUR 779,7 million in 2006 — a year-on-year increase of approximately 16 %.
Ta znaša 903 milijone EUR v primerjavi s 779,7 milijona EUR v letu 2006, kar je 16-odstotno povečanje od enega leta do drugega.
They add that this assertion is borne out by a decision of 5 July 2004 of a court in Brescia, which, on an application by Brandt Italia following the Commission’s negative decision of 30 March 2004 on the Italian aid scheme, ordered the sequestration of the final instalment of the purchase price paid by Brandt Italia, namely EUR [5-10] million. Consequently, the amount of Italian aid reimbursable by Brandt Italia would probably be less than EUR [1 million].
Francoski organi dodajajo, da to ugotovitev potrjuje odločba sodišča iz Brescie z dne 5. julija 2004, na katero se je družba Brandt Italia obrnila po negativni odločbi Komisije z dne 30. marca 2004 v zvezi z italijansko shemo pomoči in ki je odredilo zaseg zadnjega obroka plačila nakupne cene, ki jo je plačala družba Brandt Italia, to je [5–10] milijonov EUR. Zato bi moralo biti vračilo italijanske pomoči, naloženo družbi Brandt Italia, po vsej verjetnosti manjše od [< 1 milijona] EUR.
As indicated in paragraph 43 of the opening decision, the restructuring costs, as described in the French authorities’ notification, come to EUR [50-90] million. They are financed as follows [37]:
Kot je navedeno v odstavku 43 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, stroški prestrukturiranja, opisani v priglasitvi francoskih organov, znašajo [50–90] milijonov EUR. Financirajo se tako [37]:
Moreover, Fagor injected EUR 26,9 million of capital into FagorBrandt in 2006.
Poleg tega je družba Fagor v letu 2006 vložila 26,9 milijona EUR kapitala v podjetje FagorBrandt.
All of this almost exhausted the debt-servicing capacity of the cooperative, the indebtedness ratios of which greatly exceeded the generally permitted limits.
Vsi ti dejavniki so tako rekoč izčrpali sposobnost zadolževanja zadruge, katere stopnja zadolženosti je močno presegla splošno dovoljene pragove.
Clearly, during the first three years of its existence, the company — even if it had reimbursed the Article 44 septies aid — did not satisfy the tests of points 10 and 11 of the restructuring guidelines for being considered in difficulty. As regards point 10 of the restructuring guidelines, even if the company had reimbursed the EUR 22,5 million of aid in 2004 (that is to say, in the months following the Commission’s final negative decision), it would still not have lost half of its capital in 2004.
Jasno je, da podjetje v prvih treh letih po ustanovitvi tudi ob morebitnem vračilu pomoči na podlagi člena 44f ni izpolnjevalo meril iz odstavkov 10 in 11 smernic za prestrukturiranje, da bi se lahko štelo za podjetje v težavah: kar zadeva odstavek 10 smernic za prestrukturiranje, je očitno, da podjetje tudi ob morebitnem vračilu pomoči v višini 22,5 milijona EUR že leta 2004 (to pomeni v prvih mesecih po dokončni negativni odločbi Komisije) še ne bi izgubilo polovice svojega osnovnega kapitala iz leta 2004.
Taking an unchanged area of activity as a basis, the forecast increase in turnover would come to only [5-10] %.
Ob stalnem obsegu predvideno povečanje prometa ni preseglo [5–10] %.
Since then, France has communicated to the Commission the turnover actually achieved in 2007.
Po tistem je Francija Komisiji sporočila dejansko doseženi promet v letu 2007.
In paragraph 39 of the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts about whether the measures notified by the French authorities were acceptable as compensatory measures inasmuch as point 40 of the restructuring guidelines states that ‘Write-offs and closure of loss-making activities which would at any rate be necessary to restore viability will not be considered reduction of capacity or market presence for the purpose of the assessment of the compensatory measures.’
Komisija je v odstavku 39 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka izrazila dvom, da bi se ukrepi, ki so jih priglasili francoski organi, lahko šteli za izravnalne ukrepe, saj je v odstavku 40 smernic za prestrukturiranje navedeno, da „[o]dpis dolgov in opustitev deficitnih dejavnosti, ki bi ju bilo v vsakem primeru treba izvesti zato, da se obnovi sposobnost podjetja za preživetje, ne štejeta za zmanjševanje zmogljivosti ali prisotnosti na trgu z namenom ocene izravnalnih ukrepov“.
It appeared that all of the measures described by the French authorities fell under that exclusion.
Bilo naj bi očitno, da se ta izključitev uporablja za vse ukrepe, ki so jih opisali francoski organi.
The Commission considers that such is the case and that the amount of the aid does not provide the company with ‘surplus cash which could be used for aggressive, market-distorting activities not linked to the restructuring process.’
Komisija meni, da je tako in da znesek pomoči za podjetje ne pomeni „presežka denarnih sredstev, ki bi se lahko uporabil za agresivne, tržno izkrivljajoče ukrepe, ki niso povezani s postopkom prestrukturiranja“.
It would point out that, once the aid has been granted and the restructuring is completed, the group will still be significantly indebted.
Komisija ugotavlja, da bo skupina po dodelitvi pomoči in končanem prestrukturiranju še vedno precej zadolžena.
In their letter of 15 February 2008, in which they comment on the comments from interested parties, the French authorities state that ‘The French authorities would remind you that […] the various measures already taken are intended initially to stem the losses (closure of a loss-making production plant, Lesquin, and abandonment of certain unprofitable product lines, including freestanding microwave ovens).’
Francoski organi so v dopisu z dne 15. februarja 2008, v katerem odgovarjajo na pripombe zainteresiranih strani, navedli: „Francoski organi navajajo, da […] je glavni namen različnih že sprejetih ukrepov preprečiti izgube (zaprtje deficitarnega proizvodnega obrata v Lesquinu in opustitev nekaterih nedobičkonosnih proizvodenj, to je samostoječih mikrovalovnih pečic“.
These two extracts confirm the earlier conclusions concerning the closure of the Lesquin plant.
S tema dvema odlomkoma se potrjujejo tudi predhodne ugotovitve v zvezi z zaprtjem tovarne v Lesquinu.
of 22 June 2009
z dne 22. junija 2009
on the purchase of foot-and-mouth disease virus antigens
o nakupu antigenov virusa slinavke in parkljevke
Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field [1], and in particular the second paragraph of Article 14 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Odločbe Sveta 90/424/EGS z dne 26. junija 1990 o odhodkih na področju veterine [1] in zlasti drugega odstavka člena 14 Odločbe,
Having regard to Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC [2], and in particular Article 80(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Direktive Sveta 2003/85/ES z dne 29. septembra 2003 o ukrepih Skupnosti za obvladovanje slinavke in parkljevke, ki razveljavljajo Direktivo 85/511/EGS in odločbe 89/531/EGS in 91/665/EGS ter spreminja Direktivo 92/46/EGS [2], in zlasti člena 80(2) Direktive,