natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Regarding the restoration of long-term viability and the corresponding doubts raised in the opening decision, the French authorities make a number of comments.
Francoski organi v zvezi s ponovno vzpostavitvijo dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja in s tem povezanima dvomoma iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka opozarjajo na naslednje.
Regarding the absence of compensatory measures, France points out that in 2004 the company sold Brandt Components (Nevers plant).
Glede neobstoja izravnalnih ukrepov Francija ponavlja, da je podjetje že leta 2004 prodalo podružnico Brandt Components (obrat v Neversu).
The company has also reduced its production capacity by ceasing manufacture of chest freezers and freestanding microwave ovens.
Poleg tega je družba zmanjšala proizvodno zmogljivost z ukinitvijo proizvodnje zamrzovalnih skrinj in samostoječih mikrovalovnih pečic.
France maintains that the aid has caused very little distortion and that this reduces the need for compensatory measures.
Francoski organi tudi opozarjajo, da je pomoč povzročila zelo majhno izkrivljanje, zaradi česar se zmanjša potreba po izravnalnih ukrepih.
FagorBrandt has a [0-5] % share of the European market, which is very little compared with its main competitors.
FagorBrandt ima namreč [0–5]-odstotni tržni delež na evropski ravni, kar je zelo malo v primerjavi z njegovimi glavnimi konkurenti.
The French authorities consider, moreover, that the company’s presence in the market helps to prevent oligopoly situations from arising.
Francoski organi poleg tega menijo, da lahko prisotnost podjetja na trgu prepreči oligopolne položaje.
During the formal investigation procedure, the French authorities offered to take additional compensatory measures.
Francoski organi so med formalnim postopkom preiskave predlagali uvedbo dodatnih izravnalnih ukrepov.
Regarding the Commission’s doubts about the limitation of the aid to the minimum and the recipient’s own contribution, the French authorities make the following comments.
Kar zadeva dvome Komisije o omejitvi pomoči na najmanjšo potrebno in lastnem prispevku upravičenca, francoski organi opozarjajo na naslednje.
On the failure to take the reimbursement of the aid into account in the costs of restructuring, they point out that the reimbursement of incompatible aid cannot, prima facie, be counted as a restructuring cost.
V zvezi z neupoštevanjem vračila pomoči pri stroških prestrukturiranja navajajo, da vračila nezdružljive pomoči ni mogoče vnaprej šteti za strošek prestrukturiranja.
As for the ‘recipient’s own share’ (effort propre du bénéficiaire), as it is called in the notification, the French authorities explain that this consists of bank loans.
Glede „lastnega stroška upravičenca“, kot je poimenovan v priglasitvi, francoski organi pojasnjujejo, da so to bančna posojila.
Comments from France on the interested parties’ comments
Stališča Francije do pripomb zainteresiranih strani
In relation to Electrolux’s comments, France states that the restructuring measures taken by Electrolux and other competitors were aimed not at remedying a difficult economic situation but at bolstering positions in the large electrical household appliance market.
Francija v zvezi s stališči podjetja Electrolux poudarja, da ukrepi prestrukturiranja, ki so jih uvedli Electrolux in drugi konkurenti, niso bili namenjeni reševanju iz težkega gospodarskega položaja, temveč krepitvi položaja na trgu bele tehnike.
France accordingly considers that there is no comparison between the situations of FagorBrandt and its competitors, which in any case have far greater financial resources at their disposal owing to their much bigger size.
Francija tako meni, da položaj podjetja FagorBrandt ni primerljiv s položajem njegovih konkurentov, ki so imeli zaradi svoje velikosti na voljo tudi veliko večja finančna sredstva.
In response to the comments concerning FagorBrandt’s long-term viability put forward by the company requesting anonymity, the French authorities state, firstly, that FagorBrandt has taken measures aimed initially at stemming losses and strengthening margins so as to be able ultimately to attain a better position in the market, notably by developing […].
Francoski organi v zvezi s stališči podjetja, ki je želelo ostati anonimno, glede dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja podjetja FagorBrandt poudarjajo, prvič, da je podjetje FagorBrandt sprejelo ukrepe, ki so bili namenjeni predvsem kritju izgub in povečanju varnostne rezerve, da bi lahko v nekaj letih dosegli boljši položaj na trgu, zlasti z razvojem […].
They state, secondly, that FagorBrandt will continue to have at its disposal genuine R & D capacities ‘which will enable it to place on the market innovative, high-value-added products’.
Poleg tega francoski organi menijo, da bo imelo podjetje FagorBrandt še naprej na voljo realne zmogljivosti za raziskave in razvoj, „ki mu omogočajo, da na trg uvede inovativne proizvode z visoko dodano vrednostjo“.
Concerning, secondly, the assertion that the aid is not limited to the minimum inasmuch as FagorBrandt could obtain financing from its shareholders, the French authorities point out that MCC is a cooperative movement, not a holding company.
Francoski organi v zvezi s trditvijo, da pomoč ni omejena na najmanjšo, ker bi FagorBrandt lahko financirali njegovi delničarji, poudarjajo, da MCC ni holding, ampak zadružna organizacija.
In this cooperative movement, each cooperative, including Fagor and the bank Caja Laboral, is autonomous, and depends on the decisions of its own worker-cooperators, who are its owners.
Vsaka zadruga v tej zadružni organizaciji, vključno z družbo Fagor ali banko Caja Laboral, je samostojna in odvisna od odločitev svojih delavcev – zadružnikov, ki so njeni lastniki.
FagorBrandt can therefore count only on the financial support of Fagor, to the extent of the latter’s existing capabilities.
FagorBrandt tako lahko računa samo na finančno pomoč družbe Fagor, ki je omejena na svoje trenutne zmogljivosti.
The acquisition of FagorBrandt has reduced the amount of cash available to Fagor and Fagor cannot now provide any financing above a certain threshold.
Zaradi prevzema podjetja FagorBrandt se je manevrski prostor družbe Fagor pri razpolaganju z likvidnimi sredstvi zmanjšal, in Fagor danes ne more odobriti finančnih sredstev nad določenim pragom.
Thirdly, in answer to the supposed negative impact on competition, the French authorities point to contradictions in the comments from the interested party requesting anonymity.
Tretjič, francoski organi v odgovor na domnevne negativne učinke na konkurenco opozarjajo na protislovja v pripombah zainteresirane strani, ki je želela ostati anonimna.
On the one hand, the latter asserts that the aid would affect competition in the European market, while on the other it states that FagorBrandt is too small compared with the majors and that this threatens its viability.
Ta po eni strani trdi, da naj bi pomoč vplivala na pogoje konkurence na evropskem trgu. Po drugi strani pa trdi, da je podjetje FagorBrandt premajhno v primerjavi z največjimi podjetji, kar ogroža njegovo sposobnost preživetja.
Moreover, as regards the absence of compensatory measures, the French authorities indicate that they have already taken meaningful compensatory measures and that they propose to take further such measures.
Francoski organi poleg tega v zvezi z neobstojem izravnalnih ukrepov opozarjajo, da so že izvedli veljavne izravnalne ukrepe in da predlagajo izvedbo novih.
Fourthly, in answer to the statements based on the earlier award of unlawful aid by France and Italy, France points out that those unlawful aid measures were directed, not at a restructuring programme for the company, but at a scheme to promote the maintenance of employment in France.
Četrtič, Francija v odgovor na trditve, ki se opirajo na predhodno dodelitev nezakonite pomoči Francije in Italije, opozarja, da ta nezakonita pomoč ni bila namenjena programu prestrukturiranja podjetja, ampak sistemu spodbujanja ohranjanja delovnih mest na ozemlju.
It stresses, moreover, that, on the basis of the information FagorBrandt provided to the Commission on 17 December 2007, there is no actual relationship between the amount of aid granted (approximately EUR 20 million net after tax) and the amount of incompatible aid (approximately EUR [25-30] million including interest).
Sicer pa Francija na podlagi informacij, ki jih je podjetje FagorBrandt Komisiji predložilo 17. decembra 2007, poudarja, da ni prave povezave med zneskom dodeljene pomoči (približno 20 milijonov EUR neto pomoči po odbitku davkov) in zneskom nezdružljive pomoči (približno [25–30] milijonov EUR po izračunu obresti).
Furthermore, the restructuring costs are estimated at EUR [50-90] million and hence are significantly higher than the amount of restructuring aid sought.
Poleg tega se stroški prestrukturiranja ocenjujejo na [50–90] milijonov EUR, torej precej presegajo znesek zaprošene pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
Finally, France points to the fungible nature of the expenditure.
In nazadnje, opozarjajo na zamenljivost izdatkov.
As regards the comments submitted to the Commission by FagorBrandt, the French authorities state that they cannot but agree with these clarifications, all the more so since they complement their own observations.
Kar zadeva stališča, ki jih je Komisiji predložilo podjetje FagorBrandt, francoski organi navajajo, da se z njegovimi pojasnili lahko samo strinjajo, še toliko bolj, ker dopolnjujejo njihove lastne ugotovitve.
In section 3.1 of the opening decision, the Commission concluded that the measure constituted aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija je v oddelku 3.1 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka sklenila, da je ukrep pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
None of the parties has challenged that finding.
Tega sklepa ni izpodbijala nobena stran.
Legal basis of the assessment
Pravna podlaga za oceno
Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty lays down exceptions to the general ban in Article 87(1).
Člen 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe določa odstopanja od splošne nezdružljivosti, določene v odstavku 1 navedenega člena.
The exceptions in Article 87(2) of the Treaty are clearly not applicable here.
Odstopanja, določena v členu 87(2) Pogodbe, se v obravnavanem primeru očitno ne uporabljajo.
As for the exceptions in Article 87(3) of the Treaty, the Commission would point out that, inasmuch as the objective of the aid is not regional and the exception in Article 87(3)(b) is clearly not applicable, only the exception in Article 87(3)(c) can apply.
Komisija v zvezi z odstopanji, določenimi v členu 87(3) Pogodbe, ugotavlja, da se uporablja samo odstopanje iz točke (c) navedenega odstavka, ker cilj pomoči ni regionalen in ker se odstopanje iz točke (b) navedenega odstavka očitno ne uporablja.
This provides for the authorisation of State aid granted to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
V njej je predvidena odobritev pomoči za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
In this context, it is common ground that the aid was granted with a view to restoring the long-term viability of a firm in difficulty.
V tem primeru ni dvoma, da je bila pomoč dodeljena za ponovno vzpostavitev dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja podjetja v težavah.
How the Commission assesses the compatibility of such aid is explained in the restructuring guidelines.
Komisija je v smernicah za prestrukturiranje pojasnila, kako ocenjuje združljivost takih pomoči.
It is therefore those guidelines that will serve as the legal basis for the assessment.
Pravna podlaga za oceno bodo torej navedene smernice.
The Commission considers that no other Community rules could apply in the present case.
Komisija meni, da v obravnavanem primeru ne bi bilo mogoče uporabiti nobenega drugega okvira Skupnosti.
France has, moreover, invoked no other exception provided for in the Treaty.
Sicer pa se Francija ni sklicevala na nobeno drugo odstopanje od Pogodbe.
Nor has any of the interested parties criticised this choice of legal basis, which was already announced in the opening decision.
Poleg tega nobena od zainteresiranih strani ni nasprotovala izbiri te pravne podlage, ki je bila navedena že v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
Eligibility of the company for restructuring aid
Upravičenost podjetja do pomoči za prestrukturiranje
In order to be eligible for restructuring aid, the company must first qualify as a firm in difficulty as defined in section 2.1 of the restructuring guidelines.
Podjetje je upravičeno do pomoči za prestrukturiranje, če se, prvič, lahko šteje za podjetje v težavah, kot je določeno v oddelku 2.1 smernic za prestrukturiranje.
In paragraph 24 of the opening decision, the Commission indicated that the company appeared to be in difficulty within the meaning of point 11 of the restructuring guidelines.
Komisija je v odstavku 24 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka navedla, da gre verjetno za podjetje v težavah v smislu odstavka 11 smernic za prestrukturiranje.
In paragraph 27 of the opening decision, the Commission also indicated that, in line with the scenario in point 13 of the restructuring guidelines, the company’s difficulties had become too serious to be dealt with by its Spanish shareholder.
V odstavku 27 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka je tudi navedla, da se je v skladu z odstavkom 13 smernic za prestrukturiranje podjetje znašlo v prevelikih težavah, da bi ga lahko financiral njegov španski delničar.
Disagreeing with this preliminary assessment, the competitor requesting anonymity took the view that FagorBrandt could obtain from Fagor and MCC whatever financial support it needed to overcome its difficulties.
V nasprotju s to predhodno oceno pa konkurent, ki je želel ostati anonimen, meni, da bi lahko podjetje FagorBrandt od družbe Fagor in skupine MCC prejelo potrebno finančno pomoč za rešitev iz težav.
It must therefore be considered whether the preliminary assessment contained in the opening decision needs to be modified.
Treba je torej proučiti, ali je treba spremeniti predhodno oceno iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka.
The Commission would observe that the competitor bases its assertion on a press article [9] which seems to indicate that Fagor can easily raise funds on the financial markets.
Komisija ugotavlja, da trditev konkurenta temelji na časopisnem članku [9], v katerem je navedeno, da lahko Fagor verjetno brez težav pridobi sredstva na finančnih trgih.
It should be noted, however, that the article in question dates from April 2005 and that Fagor’s financial situation has greatly deteriorated since then.
Vendar Komisija opozarja, da je navedeni članek iz aprila 2005 in da se je finančni položaj družbe Fagor pozneje močno poslabšal.
The French authorities point out in this connection that Fagor’s financial debts (not including those of FagorBrandt) […] [10] in 2005 following the acquisition of all of FagorBrandt’s shares and heavy industrial investment by Fagor.
Francoski organi v zvezi s tem opozarjajo, da so se finančni dolgovi družbe Fagor (brez konsolidacije dolgov skupine FagorBrandt) v letu 2005 […] [10], zlasti zaradi nakupa delnic podjetja FagorBrandt in velikih industrijskih naložb v Fagor.
The Commission considers, therefore, that there is no need to revise the assessment contained in the opening decision as regards the company’s eligibility under points 11 and 13 of the restructuring guidelines.
Komisija torej meni, da ni potrebna ponovna proučitev ocene iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka glede upravičenosti podjetja na podlagi odstavkov 11 in 13 smernic za prestrukturiranje.
Regarding the company’s eligibility under the conditions set out in section 2.1 of the restructuring guidelines, the opening decision raises only one concern, namely the possible circumvention of the prohibition on restructuring aid to newly created firms (see section 3 above, ‘Grounds for opening the procedure’).
Kar zadeva upravičenost podjetja glede na pogoje iz oddelka 2.1 smernic za prestrukturiranje, je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka naveden en sam dvom, in sicer o morebitnem izigravanju prepovedi pomoči za prestrukturiranje za nova podjetja (glej točko 3 zgoraj, „Razlogi za sprožitev postopka“).
The Commission has analysed the company’s financial situation, which is illustrated by Table 1 below.
Komisija je proučila finančno stanje podjetja, ki je prikazano v spodnji preglednici 1.
It was from 2005 onwards that the financial difficulties of the FagorBrandt group increased, with the result that the company might be considered a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the restructuring guidelines (that is to say, a firm which, ‘without outside intervention by the public authorities’, will ‘almost certainly [be condemned to go] out of business in the short or medium term’) starting possibly from the following year (bearing in mind the obligation to reimburse the Article 44 septies aid), but definitely from 2007.
Treba je torej ugotoviti, da so se finančne težave skupine FagorBrandt povečevale od leta 2005, tako da bi se lahko podjetje štelo za podjetje v težavah v smislu smernic za prestrukturiranje (to pomeni podjetje, katerega težave bi „brez zunanjega posredovanja državnih organov kratkoročno ali srednjeročno skoraj gotovo ogrozile obstoj družbe“) brez dvoma od naslednjega leta (glede na obveznost vračila pomoči na podlagi člena 44f), zagotovo pa v letu 2007.
Gross margin
Bruto dobiček
Capital
Lastna sredstva
On the basis of the above, the Commission considers that the company, which was established in January 2002, could not be deemed to be in difficulty during its first three years of existence even if it had reimbursed the Article 44 septies aid immediately.
Komisija na podlagi navedenega meni, da podjetja, ustanovljenega januarja 2002, v prvih treh letih po ustanovitvi ne bi bilo mogoče šteti za podjetje v težavah, tudi če bi takoj vrnilo pomoč na podlagi člena 44f.
Consequently, it considers that the delay by France in recovering the Article 44 septies aid until January 2005 — that is to say, three years after the creation of FagorBrandt — did not have the effect of keeping artificially afloat a company which would otherwise have exited the market.
Zato meni, da odlašanje Francije z izterjavo pomoči na podlagi člena 44f do januarja 2005 – to je do treh let po ustanovitvi podjetja FagorBrandt –, ni pomenilo, da se je podjetje, ki bi v nasprotnem primeru izginilo s trga, umetno ohranjalo pri življenju.
It also considers that, during that period, the company had no reason to seek restructuring aid.
Meni tudi, da v tem obdobju podjetje ni imelo razloga, da bi zaprosilo za pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
In the light of this, the Commission takes the view that the delay by France in recovering the Article 44 septies aid until January 2005 does not constitute a circumvention of the prohibition on restructuring aid in favour of newly created firms within the meaning of point 12 of the restructuring guidelines.
Komisija na podlagi navedenega meni, da odlašanje Francije z izterjavo pomoči na podlagi člena 44f do januarja 2005 ne pomeni izigravanja prepovedi pomoči za prestrukturiranje za nova podjetja v smislu odstavka 12 smernic za prestrukturiranje.
In conclusion, the doubts about the company’s eligibility have been removed and the Commission considers that the conditions laid down in section 2.1 of the restructuring guidelines are fulfilled.
Skratka, dvomi o upravičenosti podjetja so odpravljeni, in Komisija meni, da so izpolnjeni pogoji iz oddelka 2.1 smernic za prestrukturiranje.
Provisions concerning recipients of previous unlawful aid
Določbe v zvezi s prejemniki predhodne nezakonite pomoči
On the basis of point 23 of the restructuring guidelines and the fact that the notified aid seems to be aimed primarily at financing the reimbursement of the Article 44 septies aid, paragraph 30 of the opening decision raises concerns as to whether the notified aid constitutes a circumvention of the reimbursement obligation and renders the latter meaningless and redundant.
S sklicevanjem na odstavek 23 smernic za prestrukturiranje in dejstvo, da je priglašena pomoč očitno namenjena financiranju vračila pomoči na podlagi člena 44f, so v odstavku 30 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka navedeni dvomi, ali priglašena pomoč pomeni izigravanje obveznosti vračila ter ji jemlje bistvo in polni učinek.
In assessing this question, the Commission has taken into account the following factors.
Komisija je pri presoji tega vprašanja upoštevala naslednje elemente.
Firstly, according to settled case law, the reimbursement of incompatible aid with interest makes it possible to re-establish the situation which existed before the aid was granted and hence to eliminate the resulting distortion of competition.
Prvič, v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso vračilo nezdružljive pomoči z obrestmi omogoči, da se znova vzpostavi stanje pred dodelitvijo pomoči in se tako odpravi izkrivljanje konkurence, ki ga je taka pomoč povzročila.
Consequently, in the present case, the reimbursement of the Article 44 septies aid with interest — which is a precondition for the payment of the new aid — is intended to re-establish the situation which existed before the aid was granted.
Zato naj bi se v obravnavanem primeru z vračilom pomoči na podlagi člena 44f z obrestmi – kar je pogoj za izplačilo nove pomoči – znova vzpostavilo stanje pred njeno dodelitvijo.
Secondly, the company is eligible for restructuring aid.
Drugič, podjetje je upravičeno do pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
First of all, its financial difficulties do not stem primarily from the reimbursement of the incompatible aid.
Prvič, glavni vzrok finančnih težav podjetja namreč ni vračilo nezdružljive pomoči.
They stem from other sources, which are at the root of the losses incurred since 2004 (see Table 1 above).
Vzroki zanje so drugje, povezani pa so z vzrokom za nastale izgube po letu 2004 (glej preglednico 1 zgoraj).
The future reimbursement of the incompatible aid will merely worsen these difficulties to a point where the company can no longer face up to them without State aid. Secondly, a business restructuring plan costing EUR [50-90] million has been implemented.
Prihodnje vračilo nezdružljive pomoči bo te težave samo še poslabšalo, vse dokler jim podjetje ne bo več kos brez pomoči države.
It can, therefore, like any company in such a situation, receive restructuring aid if it satisfies the other conditions laid down in the restructuring guidelines.
Kot vsako podjetje v takem položaju je torej upravičeno do pomoči za prestrukturiranje, če so izpolnjeni drugi pogoji iz smernic za prestrukturiranje.
Thirdly, in its 1991 decision in the Deggendorf case [11], the Commission, observing that ‘The cumulative effect of the illegal aid which Deggendorf has been refusing to repay since 1986 and the present new […] aid would give it an excessive and undue advantage which would adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest’, considered the new aid compatible on condition that ‘The […] authorities […] suspend payment to Deggendorf of the aid […] until such time as they have recovered the incompatible aids’.
Tretjič, Komisija je v odločbi iz leta 1991 v zadevi Deggendorf [11] na podlagi ugotovitve, da „bi nezakonito dodeljena pomoč, ki je Deggendorf noče vrniti že od leta 1986, in nova pomoč […] imeli kumulativen učinek, saj bi tej družbi prinesli pretirano in neupravičeno prednost, ki bi spremenila trgovinske pogoje v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi“, menila, da je nova pomoč združljiva, vendar „morajo organi […] odložiti izplačilo pomoči za družbo Deggendorf […], dokler ne izterjajo nezdružljive pomoči […]“.
In its judgment of 15 May 1997 [12], the Court of Justice endorsed the Commission’s approach.
Sodišče je v sodbi z dne 15. maja 1997 [12] potrdilo pristop, ki ga je uporabila Komisija.