natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the light of all the foregoing considerations the Commission finds that the transferability requirement regarding the proposed additional general training is met.
Glede na vse zgornje ugotovitve Komisija meni, da je zahteva o prenosljivosti v zvezi s predlaganim dodatnim splošnim usposabljanjem izpolnjena.
In the decision to open the investigation, the Commission questioned whether parts of the additional ‘eligible’ training were indeed necessary for future employees, especially considering that the beneficiary had the opportunity to recruit personnel with higher education qualifications.
Komisija se je v odločitvi o sprožitvi preiskave spraševala, ali so deli dodatnega „upravičenega“ usposabljanja dejansko nujni za prihodnje delavce, zlasti ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je imel upravičenec možnost zaposlovanja osebja z višjimi izobrazbenimi kvalifikacijami.
This doubt was resolved by the considerations previously made with respect to the transferability of the additional general training proposed to be provided and its potential to generate positive externalities in an assisted region and for the economy and society as a whole.
Ta dvom je bil odpravljen s prej navedenimi ugotovitvami v zvezi s prenosljivostjo predlaganega dodatnega splošnega usposabljanja, ki se bo zagotovilo, in njegovega potenciala za ustvarjanje pozitivnih vplivov v regiji, ki prejema pomoč, ter na gospodarstvo in celotno družbo.
In light of the above considerations, the justification criterion is considered to be met.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve se merilo upravičenosti šteje za izpolnjeno.
Appropriateness of aid as policy instrument
Primernost pomoči kot instrumenta politike
Under Points 10-11 of the 2009 Training Aid Communication, the Commission must assess whether State aid is the most appropriate policy instrument to encourage training of the kind that is being proposed.
Komisija mora na podlagi točk 10 in 11 Sporočila o pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 2009 presoditi, ali je državna pomoč najprimernejši instrument politike za spodbujanje take vrste usposabljanja, kot se predlaga.
To this end, the Commission must take into account the alternatives to the provision of aid considered by Romania, such as supporting the training through the regional education system, or supporting the individual employees to undertake the training in a different context, outside the company.
Zato mora Komisija upoštevati nadomestne možnosti za pomoč, ki jo predlaga Romunija, kot je podpora za usposabljanje prek regionalnega izobraževalnega sistema ali pomoč posameznim delavcem za udeležbo pri usposabljanju v drugačnih okoliščinah, tj. zunaj družbe.
Romania submitted that the training project will rely almost exclusively on external trainers, to be recruited with the help of a specialised company from regional or foreign specialised private companies.
Romunija je navedla, da bo projekt usposabljanja skoraj izključno temeljil na zunanjih vodjih usposabljanja, ki bodo s pomočjo specializirane družbe najeti iz regionalnih ali tujih specializiranih zasebnih podjetij.
The Commission considers that the alternatives of providing (at least part of) the envisaged training by drawing on local public education institutions has not been satisfactorily explored.
Komisija meni, da nadomestne možnosti za zagotavljanje (vsaj dela) predvidenega usposabljanja prek lokalnih javnih izobraževalnih ustanov niso bile zadovoljivo raziskane.
Notwithstanding this, the Commission accepts Romania’s argument that a comprehensive training programme such as the one proposed for the Craiova plant derives added value from the synergies to be generated between the different types of training offered, which goes beyond the mere sum of the values of individual training courses on specific subjects.
Ne glede na to Komisija sprejema trditev Romunije, da celovit program usposabljanja, kot je predlagan za tovarno v Craiovi, zagotavlja dodano vrednost na podlagi sinergije, ki se bo ustvarila med različnimi vrstami ponujenega usposabljanja in presega preprosto vsoto vrednosti posameznih programov usposabljanj na posameznih področjih.
It is therefore concluded that the appropriateness criterion is also met.
Zato se ugotavlja, da je izpolnjeno tudi merilo primernosti.
Incentive effect/necessity of aid
Spodbujevalni učinek/nujnost pomoči
Under Point 12 of the 2009 Training Aid Communication, the proposed aid shall be deemed to have incentive effect when it is demonstrated that it results in changing the behaviour of the beneficiary so as to provide more and/or better training than in the absence of aid.
Predlagana pomoč se na podlagi točke 12 Sporočila o pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 2009 šteje, kot da ima spodbujevalni učinek, če se izkaže, da vodi k spremembi vedenja upravičenca, da ta zagotovi več usposabljanja in/ali boljše usposabljanje kot v odsotnosti pomoči.
Compliance with the incentive effect criterion is a sine qua non condition for the approval of aid (Recital 28 of the GBER).
Skladnost z merilom spodbujevalnega učinka je temeljni pogoj za odobritev pomoči (uvodna izjava 28 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah).
The incentive effect of aid is identified by counterfactual analysis, i.e. by comparing the levels of training to be offered with aid, and respectively, in the absence of aid (Point 13 of the 2009 Training Aid Guidelines).
Spodbujevalni učinek pomoči se ugotovi z analizo nasprotnih dejstev, tj. s primerjavo ravni usposabljanja, ki je zagotovljeno na podlagi pomoči in brez pomoči (točka 13 Smernic o pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 2009).
To demonstrate the incentive effect of the proposed aid, Ford presented a comparison between the training programme that it had offered to the employees of its car plant in Saint Petersburg and the one proposed for the Craiova plant.
Družba Ford je za ponazoritev spodbujevalnega učinka predlagane pomoči predstavila primerjavo med programom usposabljanja, ki ga je zagotovila za svoje delavce v tovarni avtomobilov v Saint Petersburgu, in tistim, predlaganim za tovarno v Craiovi.
For the Saint Petersburg training programme, the company had not received aid.
Družba za program usposabljanja v Saint Petersburgu ni prejela pomoči.
The structure of the training programme offered was similar to that of the training project proposed for the Craiova plant, though the scope of the programme and the degree of content elaboration differed.
Struktura zagotovljenega programa usposabljanja je bila podobna strukturi projekta usposabljanja, predlaganega za tovarno v Craiovi, čeprav sta se obseg programa in stopnja vsebinske poglobljenosti razlikovali.
In Saint Petersburg the company offered only the minimum of training necessary to meet safety requirements and Ford production quality levels.
Družba je v Saint Petersburgu zagotavljala le najmanjšo stopnjo usposabljanja, potrebno za izpolnitev varnostnih zahtev in ravni za kakovost proizvodnje v družbi Ford.
Ford argues that, by comparison, the Saint Petersburg programme offered only 57 % of the Safety, 2 % of the Core Skills, 30 % of the Business Skills and 47 % of the Industrial Skills training that is proposed to be offered at the Craiova plant.
Družba Ford trdi, da je bilo v programu v Saint Petersburgu v primerjavi s predlaganim usposabljanjem za tovarno v Craiovi zagotovljeno le 57 % vsebin na področju varnosti, 2 % na področju temeljnih znanj, 30 % na področju poslovnih spretnosti in 47 % na področju industrijskih spretnosti.
The Commission is of the view that the comparison between the Saint Petersburg and the Craiova training programmes is not entirely convincing.
Komisija meni, da primerjava med programoma usposabljanj v Saint Petersburgu in Craiovi ni v celoti prepričljiva.
Outset conditions and the production characteristics of the two plants are not comparable.
Izhodiščne okoliščine in značilnosti proizvodnje v obeh tovarnah niso primerljive.
In Saint Petersburg, Ford took over a plant that previously produced large engines for shipbuilding and the defence industry, while the Craiova plant previously produced vehicles.
Družba Ford je v Saint Petersburgu prevzela tovarno, v kateri so se prej proizvajali veliki motorji za gradnjo ladij in obrambno industrijo, v tovarni v Craiovi pa so se prej proizvajala vozila.
In Saint Petersburg Ford did not have to retain the existing workforce.
Družbi Ford v Saint Petersburgu ni bilo treba ohraniti nekdanjih zaposlenih.
As a consequence, it was able to recruit younger and more qualified, though less experienced employees.
Zato je lahko zaposlila mlajše in bolj kvalificirane, čeprav manj izkušene delavce.
The Saint Petersburg plant has a smaller output that the one projected for the Craiova plant.
Proizvodnja v tovarni v Saint Petersburgu je manjša kot proizvodnja, načrtovana za tovarno v Craiovi.
In Saint Petersburg Ford produces only vehicles (as of 2002, the plant produces the Ford Focus II and Ford Mondeo models), while the Craiova plant will produce both vehicles (the multifunctional models B-MAV and ISV) and engines.
Družba Ford v Saint Petersburgu proizvaja le vozila (v tovarni se od leta 2002 proizvajata modela Ford Focus II in Ford Mondeo), v tovarni v Craiovi pa se bodo proizvajali vozila (večnamenska modela B-MAV in ISC) in motorji.
The former does not have a press shop, while the latter does.
V prvi tovarni v primerjavi z zadnjo ni stiskalnice.
As a consequence, the company’s training needs in order to operate the plant efficiently and to meet (likely different) regulatory and internal safety and quality standards should be different.
Zato se potrebe družbe po usposabljanju za učinkovito obratovanje tovarne in izpolnjevanje (verjetno različnih) regulativnih ter notranjih varnostnih in kakovostnih standardov razlikujejo.
Notwithstanding this, the Commission considers that the Saint Petersburg comparison is at any rate evidence of the fact that a Ford car plant may be run efficiently and meet company internal quality and safety standards with considerably less training than that which is proposed for the Craiova plant.
Komisija vseeno meni, da je primerjava s tovarno v Saint Petersburgu vsekakor dokaz, da je mogoče tovarno avtomobilov Ford voditi učinkovito ter izpolniti notranje kakovostne in varnostne standarde družbe s precej manj usposabljanja, kot se predlaga za tovarno v Craiovi.
This finding supports Romania’s argument that, in the absence of aid, the company would limit itself to offer at the Craiova plant only little more than the training that is necessary for the running of the plant (i.e. the so-called company-specific training, for which the beneficiary committed EUR 29,7 million own funds).
Ta ugotovitev podpira trditev Romunije, da bi se družba brez pomoči omejila na to, da bi v tovarni v Craiovi zagotovila le nekoliko več usposabljanja, ki je potrebno za obratovanje tovarne (tj. usposabljanje za namene družbe, za katerega je upravičenec namenil 29,7 milijona EUR lastnih sredstev).
Ford indeed specifies that, in the absence of aid, it would offer only the company-specific training (i.e. training that is necessary in order to operate the new technology at the plant and to meet internal safety and quality standards, which was not declared eligible for aid, and the costs of which it shall entirely bear) and only up to 40 % of certain additional training courses (as listed in the documentation submitted in relation to the training project).
Družba Ford dejansko navaja, da bi brez pomoči zagotavljala samo usposabljanje za namene družbe (tj. usposabljanje, ki je potrebno za uporabo nove tehnologije v tovarni ter izpolnitev notranjih varnostnih in kakovostnih standardov, ki ni bilo razglašeno za upravičeno do pomoči in katerega stroške bo v celoti krila sama), in le do 40 % vsebine nekaterih dodatnih programov usposabljanja (kot so navedeni v dokumentaciji, predloženi v zvezi s projektom usposabljanja).
In the opening decision the Commission questioned whether parts of the training programme notified as eligible for aid were not in fact necessary in order to operate the new technology introduced at the Craiova plant.
Komisija se je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka spraševala, ali so deli programa usposabljanja, priglašeni kot upravičeni do pomoči, morda nujni za uporabo nove tehnologije, uvedene v tovarni v Craiovi.
In such case, the effect of aid would be only to cover operating costs of the company, i.e. costs that the company should have covered at any rate, and as such, the aid would lack incentive effect.
V tem primeru bi bil učinek pomoči le kritje stroškov poslovanja družbe, tj. stroškov, ki bi jih morala družba v vsakem primeru kriti, pri čemer pomoč ne bi imela spodbujevalnega učinka.
Such a situation would be similar to the ones verified in Ford Genk [42], GM Antwerp [43] and DHL Leipzig [44], where the Commission found the aid incompatible with the internal market for those parts of the training programme linked to e.g. restructuring, the launch of new products, or compulsory to give under the safety regulations.
Tak položaj bi bil primerljiv s položaji, ugotovljenimi v zadevah Ford Genk [42], GM Antwerp [43] in DHL Leipzig [44], ko je Komisija ugotovila, da pomoč ni združljiva z notranjim trgom za tiste dele programa usposabljanja, ki so povezani na primer s prestrukturiranjem, uvajanjem novih proizvodov ali ki so obvezni na podlagi varnostnih predpisov.
The Commission found that, where aid is destined to finance normal operations that companies must at any rate pay for themselves, the aid does not have a real incentive effect, but simply subsidises operating costs of the beneficiary by alleviating it from costs it should normally have had to provide for itself.
Komisija je ugotovila, da pomoč v primerih, ko je namenjena financiranju običajnega poslovanja, katerega stroške morajo družbe v vsakem primeru kriti same, nima pravega spodbujevalnega učinka, ampak le subvencionira stroške poslovanja upravičenca, tako da krije stroške, ki bi jih moral plačati sam.
Romania and Ford underline that the training that is necessary to operate the new technology was clearly separated from the additional general training, which is not necessary for functioning on the job.
Romunija in družba Ford poudarjata, da je bilo usposabljanje, ki je nujno za uporabo nove tehnologije, jasno ločeno od dodatnega splošnega usposabljanja, ki ni nujno za opravljanje nalog na delovnem mestu.
Under the Business Fundamentals block, the company shall entirely finance the company-specific training courses offered in the areas of Ford Specific IT Systems, Ford Business Processes and Ford Internal Control Processes.
Družba v okviru sklopa ključne poslovne spretnosti v celoti financira programe usposabljanja za namene družbe, ki se zagotavljajo na področjih posebni sistemi IT v družbi Ford, poslovni procesi v družbi Ford in notranji nadzorni postopki v družbi Ford.
Similarly, under the Industrial Skills block the company will entirely finance courses that are necessary for performing on the job, such as Launch, Maintenance and Fork Lift Truck, Robotics and Automation.
Podobno bo družba tudi v okviru sklopa industrijske spretnosti v celoti financirala programe, ki so nujni za opravljanje nalog na delovnem mestu, kot so: začetek izvajanja, vzdrževanje ter viličarji, robotika in avtomatski stroji.
Neither is the additional general training offered under the Core Skills block necessary for functioning on the job, or even for being able to follow the more specialised parts of the training programme, because the new technology used at the plant relies on visual instructions which are easy to follow and can be assimilated in a ‘learning-by-doing’ style.
Za opravljanje delovnih nalog ali celo razumevanje bolj specializiranih delov programa usposabljanja ni nujno niti dodatno splošno usposabljanje, ki se zagotavlja v okviru sklopa temeljna znanja, ker nova tehnologija v tovarni temelji na vizualnih navodilih, ki jim je mogoče preprosto slediti in jih izenačiti z „učenjem skozi prakso“.
The Commission accepts these arguments, which are consistent with the observation that most of the additional ‘eligible’ training proposed conveys general and transferable skills that are not directly linked to performance on the job.
Komisija sprejema te trditve, ki so v skladu z ugotovitvijo, da se z večino predlaganega dodatnega „upravičenega“ usposabljanja zagotavljajo splošna in prenosljiva znanja, ki niso neposredno povezana z uspešnostjo na delovnem mestu.
In this sense, the Commission also notes that the relationship between the additional training to be offered and the business activities of the beneficiary (i.e. the production of vehicles and engines) is less close in the case of courses offered under the Safety, Core Skills and Business Fundamentals blocks (see also recitals 35-36 above) than for the Industrial Skills block (see also recital 37 above).
V tem smislu Komisija še ugotavlja, da je odnos med dodatnim usposabljanjem, ki se bo zagotavljalo, in poslovnimi dejavnostmi upravičenca (tj. proizvodnja vozil in motorjev) manj tesen v primeru programov, ki se zagotavljajo v okviru sklopov varnost, temeljna znanja in ključne poslovne spretnosti (glej tudi uvodni izjavi 35 in 36 zgoraj), kot pri sklopu industrijske spretnosti (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 37 zgoraj).
This is an additional indication of the fact that the relationship between the training offered and the activities of the beneficiary is less close within the meaning of Point 15(d) in the 2009 Training Aid Communication.
To je dodaten dokaz, da je odnos med zagotovljenim usposabljanjem in dejavnostmi upravičenca manj tesen v smislu točke 15(d) sporočila o pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 2009.
The Commission nevertheless considers it necessary to request that the beneficiary undertake a commitment on the exclusion of the costs from the eligible costs claimed in the course of implementation of the programme – see in this sense Article 2(6) of this Decision.
Vendar Komisija meni, da je treba od upravičenca zahtevati, da se zaveže, da bo stroške izključil iz upravičenih stroškov, priglašenih med izvajanjem programa – v zvezi s tem glej člen 2(6) tega sklepa.
In the opening decision, the Commission also questioned whether parts of the Safety training declared as eligible for aid were not actually necessary for the company to offer, as required by EU and/or Romanian safety regulations, or resulting from internal company safety standards.
Komisija se je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka spraševala še, ali so deli usposabljanja na področju varnosti, razglašeni za upravičene do pomoči, za družbo morda dejansko obvezni, ker je to zahtevano v varnostnih predpisih EU in/ali romunskih varnostnih predpisih ali ker izhajajo iz notranjih varnostnih standardov družbe.
Romania and Ford submitted documentation to show that the safety training required by regulation will be provided entirely at the company’s expense, within the company-specific, non-eligible part of the training programme.
Romunija in družba Ford sta predložili dokumentacijo, ki dokazuje, da se bo usposabljanje na področju varnosti, zahtevano v predpisih, v celoti zagotavljalo na stroške družbe v okviru dela programa usposabljanja za namene družbe, ki ni upravičeno do pomoči.
Ford also argues that the incentive effect of aid should not be assessed by reference to internal company standards – internal safety standards in this case – because such an approach would have the distorting effect of determining companies to lower (or keep low) their internal standards in order to be considered eligible for aid.
Družba Ford še trdi, da se spodbujevalnega učinka pomoči ne sme ocenjevati glede na notranje standarde družbe – v tem primeru notranje varnostne standarde –, ker bi imel tak pristop učinek izkrivljanja, saj bi družbam narekoval znižanje (ali ohranjanje nizkih) notranjih standardov za doseganje upravičenosti do pomoči.
The Commission concludes that this question has also been answered in a satisfactory manner.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bil tudi odgovor na to vprašanje zadovoljiv.
Under Point 16 of the 2009 Training Aid Guidelines, the Commission shall verify that the aid amount is limited to the minimum necessary in order to achieve the objective of aid.
Komisija na podlagi točke 16 Smernic o pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 2009 preveri, ali je znesek pomoči omejen na najmanjši znesek, potreben za doseganje cilja pomoči.
To this end, the Commission verifies if claimed eligible costs are calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 39(4) of the GBER and limited to the costs arising from training that would not have been undertaken in the absence of aid, and that the maximum aid intensities established by Article 39(2) of the GBER are respected.
V ta namen Komisija preveri, ali so priglašeni upravičeni stroški izračunani skladno z določbami člena 39(4) Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah in omejeni na stroške usposabljanja, ki se brez pomoči ne bi izvajalo, ter da se upošteva najvišja intenzivnost pomoči iz člena 39(2) Uredbe o izjemah.
Furthermore, Romania and Ford provided detailed explanations as to the cost assumptions and forecasts underlying claims by categories of eligible expenditure, for both the general and specific parts of the additional training.
Poleg tega sta Romunija in družba Ford predložili podrobna pojasnila v zvezi z domnevnimi in predvidenimi stroški, na katerih temeljijo zahtevki glede na kategorije upravičenih izdatkov za splošne in posebne dele dodatnega usposabljanja.
The Commission also notes that detailed explanations were submitted as regards the approximate number of employees to which each specific training course is addressed (distinguishing between present and future employees, and providing separate estimates for the successive years of implementation of the programme), and in close relation, the estimated number of training days/hours to be offered by training course, by block of training, and by year of implementation of the programme.
Komisija še ugotavlja, da so bila predložena natančna pojasnila v zvezi s približnim številom delavcem, ki jim je namenjen vsak posamezni program usposabljanja (pri čemer se razlikuje med sedanjimi in prihodnjimi delavci ter so navedene ločene ocene za zaporedna leta izvajanja programa), in s tem povezanim ocenjenim številom dni/ur usposabljanja po programih usposabljanja, sklopih usposabljanja in letih izvajanja programa.
Romania also shows that, for the purposes of this project, maximum aid intensities of respectively 50 % for general training and 25 % for specific training, were applied.
Romunija še dokazuje, da je bila za ta projekt uporabljena največja intenzivnost pomoči v višini 50 % za splošno usposabljanje in 25 % za posebno usposabljanje.
Thus, the maximum aid intensity applied in relation to the eligible general training is lower than the one permitted by Article 39(2)(a) of the GBER.
Tako je bila največja intenzivnost pomoči, uporabljena za upravičeno splošno usposabljanje, nižja od tiste, ki jo dovoljuje člen 39(2)(a) Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah.
Furthermore, Romania shows that the aid amount was actually limited to EUR 57 million by the beneficiary, although even by applying the less permissive Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 maximum aid intensities to the estimated eligible costs, the project would have qualified for EUR 76,96 million of general training aid and for EUR 0,47 million of specific training aid.
Poleg tega Romunija dokazuje, da je upravičenec znesek pomoči dejansko omejil na 57 milijonov EUR, čeprav bi bil tudi na podlagi uporabe bolj omejevalne največje intenzivnosti pomoči iz Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001 za ocenjene upravičene stroške projekt upravičen do 76,96 milijona EUR za pomoč za splošno usposabljanje in 0,47 milijona EUR za pomoč za posebno usposabljanje.