natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the plan, the abovementioned intervention measures envisage different scenarios, reflecting the best-case, worst-case and intermediate scenarios, and the adoption of the intermediate assumptions of 75 % productivity and sales levels reflecting those registered by the company in 2002 appear to form realistic financial forecasts, the key figures of which are set out in Table 1 below and have to date actually been achieved.
Navedeni intervencijski ukrepi v načrtu predvidevajo različne možnosti za najboljši, najslabši in vmesni scenarij, pri čemer se zdi, da sprejetje vmesnih predpostavk, tj. 75-odstotne stopnje storilnosti in prodaje, ki izraža stopnje, evidentirane v podjetju leta 2002, predstavlja realistične finančne napovedi, katerih ključne vrednosti so navedene v tabeli 1 spodaj in so bile do danes dejansko dosežene.
(EUR million)
[v milijonih EUR]
Thirdly, any undue distortion of competition must be avoided.
Preprečiti je treba vsako neupravičeno izkrivljanje trga.
Since ‘aid to firms in the small to medium-sized category tends to affect trading conditions less than that granted to large firms’, ‘[t]he grant of restructuring aid to SMEs will not usually be linked to compensatory measures’ (paragraph 55 of the 1999 Guidelines).
Ker „pomoč podjetjem, ki sodijo v kategorijo malih in srednje velikih podjetij, ponavadi manj vpliva na pogoje trgovanja kakor pomoč, dodeljena velikim podjetjem“, „dodelitev pomoči za prestrukturiranje malim in srednje velikim podjetjem običajno ni povezana z izravnalnimi ukrepi“ (odstavek 55 smernic iz leta 1999).
In this regard, it should be noted that Pickman is a medium-sized enterprise with 137 employees, sales of EUR 2 million in 2003 and a limited market share at Community level.
Glede tega je treba upoštevati, da je podjetje Pickman srednje veliko podjetje s 137 zaposlenimi, prodajo v vrednosti 2 milijona EUR leta 2003 in omejenim tržnim deležem na ravni Skupnosti.
It should also be pointed out that, in the case of Porcelanas del Principado, a medium-sized enterprise operating in the same sector, the Commission did not impose any compensatory measures.
Prav tako je treba poudariti, da Komisija v primeru podjetja Porcelanas del Principado, tj. srednje velikega podjetja, ki deluje v istem sektorju, ni uvedla nobenih izravnalnih ukrepov.
Following the same practice, the limited distortion of competition which might result from the aid to Pickman does not require the adoption of any compensatory measures.
V skladu z isto prakso tudi za omejeno izkrivljanje konkurence, ki bi lahko izhajalo iz pomoči podjetju Pickman, ni treba sprejeti nobenih izravnalnih ukrepov.
Moreover, in the case of Pickman, it appears that (i) the restructuring plan is not expected to lead to an increase in capacity; (ii) the company’s workforce will be reorganised, with downsizing taking place at certain plants and investment being made in the commercial and IT areas; (iii) Pickman is small, meaning that it can avail itself of aid; (iv) the company’s potential presence in the market is very limited and was even more limited in 2003, as compared to its competitors (see the market study referred to above); and (v) according to the Spanish regional aid map for the period 2000-2006 [15], Andalusia was a NUTS II area and, on the basis of its per capita GDP/PPS of below 60 % by comparison with the Community average, qualified under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
Poleg tega se v primeru podjetja Pickman zdi, (i) da ni pričakovati, da bi se zaradi načrta za prestrukturiranje povečala njegova zmogljivost; (ii) da bodo delavci v podjetju reorganizirani, pri čemer se bo v nekaterih obratih njihovo število zmanjšalo, vlagalo pa se bo na področje trženja in informacijske tehnologije; (iii) da je podjetje Pickman majhno, kar pomeni, da lahko pomoč izkoristi samo; (iv) da je morebitna prisotnost podjetja na trgu v primerjavi z njegovimi konkurenti zelo omejena, leta 2003 pa je bila še bolj omejena (glej zgoraj navedeno raziskavo trga); ter (v) da je bila Andaluzija v skladu s karto regionalnih pomoči v Španiji v obdobju 2000–2006 [15] v območju NUTS II, zato na podlagi BDP/SKM na prebivalca, ki je 60 % nižji od povprečja Skupnosti, zanjo veljajo določbe iz člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES.
In the light of all of the foregoing, particularly Pickman’s commitment not to increase its capacity, the fact that the beneficiary falls within the definition of an SME, has a limited competitive position and is located in an assisted area, the Commission, in line with its standard practice, takes the view that the third condition is satisfied, since the distortion of competition caused by the measures is limited and certainly not to an extent which is contrary to the common interest.
Ob upoštevanju vsega navedenega in zlasti zavezanosti podjetja Pickman, da ne poveča svojih zmogljivosti, ter dejstva, da se upravičenec uvršča med mala in srednje velika podjetja, da ima omejen konkurenčni položaj in da je v območju, ki prejema pomoč, Komisija v skladu s svojo običajno prakso meni, da je tretji pogoj izpolnjen, ker je izkrivljanje konkurence zaradi ukrepov omejeno in ker obseg izkrivljanja konkurence zagotovo ni v nasprotju s splošnim interesom.
Fourthly, the amount and the intensity of the aid must be limited to the strict minimum necessary to enable restructuring to be undertaken in a manner commensurate with the company’s existing financial resources.
Znesek in intenzivnost pomoči morata biti omejena na najmanjšo potrebno količino, da se omogoči izvedba prestrukturiranja sorazmerno z obstoječimi finančnimi viri podjetja.
The aid beneficiary is expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from its own resources, since this is considered to be a sign that the markets believe that the return to viability can be achieved.
Pričakuje se, da bo upravičenec do pomoči iz lastnih sredstev znatno prispeval k načrtu za prestrukturiranje, ker je to znak, da trgi verjamejo v ponovno vzpostavitev sposobnosti za preživetje podjetja.
Furthermore, the amount of aid granted by the Spanish authorities to Pickman totalled EUR 4,46 million. A significant part of the aid had to be used to pay short-term creditors (‘Inversiones Jara S.A’ and ‘Faïencerie de Bouskoura’), while the subsidies went to support labour costs and, above all, investments to be made over the years as detailed in Table 2.
Poleg tega je bil skupni znesek pomoči, ki so ga španski organi dodelili podjetju Pickman, 4,46 milijona EUR. Znaten del pomoči je bilo treba porabiti za plačila kratkoročnim upnikom (Inversiones Jara S.A in Faïencerie de Bouskoura), medtem ko so se subvencije porabile za stroške za delavce in zlasti naložbe v obdobju več let, kot je navedeno v tabeli 2.
Tangible and intangible investments [16]
Opredmetene in neopredmetene naložbe [16]
In addition, Pickman made its own contribution to its viability in the sum of EUR 6,24 million, made up of private loans obtained by the new owner on market terms without any form of public support.
Poleg tega je podjetje Pickman za ponovno vzpostavitev svoje sposobnosti za preživetje samo prispevalo 6,24 milijona EUR, ki jih je novi lastnik pridobil z zasebnimi posojili po tržnih pogojih brez vsake javne podpore.
That sum represents 58,3 % of the total financing, which means that therefore Pickman made a ‘significant contribution’ fully in line with the provisions of the 1999 Guidelines.
Ta znesek predstavlja 58,3 % vseh finančnih sredstev, kar pomeni, da je podjetje Pickman v skladu z določbami iz smernic iz leta 1999 dejansko „znatno prispevalo“ k ponovni vzpostavitvi lastne sposobnosti za preživetje.
In addition, the company’s financial assets, as set out in Table 1, clearly show that the plan is not expected to lead to excessive liquidity.
Poleg tega finančna sredstva podjetja, kot so navedena v tabeli 1, jasno ponazarjajo, da načrt po pričakovanjih ne bo povzročil čezmerne likvidnosti.
Accordingly, the Commission takes the view that the aid is limited to the minimum necessary to restore the company’s viability.
Zato Komisija meni, da je pomoč omejena na najmanjši možni znesek, ki je potreben za obnovitev sposobnosti podjetja za preživetje.
In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that, in the light of the foregoing, measures 3 to 6 as envisaged in Pickman’s restructuring plan satisfy the conditions laid down for SMEs in the 1999 Guidelines and are to be regarded as compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Končno Komisija meni, da ob upoštevanju navedenega ukrepi 3 do 6, kot so predvideni v načrtu za prestrukturiranje podjetja Pickman, izpolnjujejo pogoje za mala in srednje velika podjetja iz smernic iz leta 1999 in jih je treba šteti za združljive s skupnim trgom v smislu člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that:
Na podlagi navedenega je Komisija sklenila, da:
measure 2 does not constitute State aid, since the Social Security Treasury acted in accordance with the diligence expected of a hypothetical market economy creditor;
ukrep 2 ne pomeni državne pomoči, ker je organ socialne varnosti deloval v skladu s prizadevnostjo, ki se pričakuje od hipotetičnega upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu;
measures 3 to 6 constitute State aid which is compatible with the common market, in accordance with the 1999 Guidelines;
ukrepi 3 do 6 pomenijo državno pomoč, ki je v skladu s smernicami iz leta 1999 združljiva s skupnim trgom;
measure 7 does contain an element of State aid, but this was below the de minimis threshold applicable at the time it was granted,
ukrep 7 vključuje element državne pomoči, vendar je ta bila pod pragom de minimis, ki se je uporabljal v času njene dodelitve –
The aid granted by Spain by means of measure 2, which involves a waiver of Social Security debts under a special agreement separate from the general creditors’ agreement, does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, since it is consistent with the principle of a market economy private creditor.
Pomoč, ki jo je Španija dodelila z ukrepom 2 in vključuje odpis dolgov za socialno varnost v skladu s posebnim sporazumom, ločenim od splošnih sporazumov z upniki, ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, ker je skladna z načelom zasebnega upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The aid granted by Spain by means of measures 3, 4, 5 and 6, relating to participation loans and subsidies granted by the Regional Government of Andalusia in the context of a restructuring plan submitted at national level only, constitutes illegal State aid which, on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, is compatible with the common market.
Pomoč, ki jo je Španija dodelila z ukrepi 3, 4, 5 in 6 v zvezi s sindiciranimi posojili in subvencijami, ki jih je dodelila regionalna vlada Andaluzije v okviru načrta za prestrukturiranje, predloženega le na nacionalni ravni, pomeni nezakonito državno pomoč, ki je na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The aid granted by Spain by means of measure 7, consisting in a guarantee from the Regional Government of Andalusia of EUR 1,3 million on a EUR 1,6 million loan constitutes de minimis aid which falls outside the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Pomoč, ki jo je Španija dodelila z ukrepom 7 in zajema poroštva regionalne vlade Andaluzije v višini 1,3 milijona EUR za posojilo v višini 1,6 milijona EUR, pomeni pomoč de minimis, ki je zunaj področja uporabe člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Within the meaning of Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).
V smislu Priporočila Komisije z dne 6. maja 2003 o opredelitvi mikro, malih in srednje velikih podjetij (UL L 124, 20.5.2003, str. 36).
Data from the website of the European Ceramics Industry www.cerameunie.eu and Eurostat http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1073,46587259&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_product_code=KS-BW-07-001
Podatki s spletne strani Evropske keramične industrije www.cerameunie.eu in Eurostata http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1073,46587259&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_product_code=KS-BW-07-001
For the sake of clarity, the numbering used in the opening Decision will also be used in the present Decision.
Zaradi jasnosti je v tej odločbi uporabljeno enako številčenje kot v uvodni odločitvi.
N 507/2000 Regional aid scheme to promote investment and employment linked and SMEs.
Zadeva N 507/2000, Regionalni program pomoči za spodbujanje naložb in zaposlovanja, povezanih z malimi in srednje velikimi podjetji.
Commission Decision 2004/32/EC (OJ L 11, 16.1.2004, p. 1).
Odločba Komisije 2004/32/ES (UL L 11, 16.1.2004, str. 1).
See Royal Legislative Decree 1/1994 of 20 June 1994 approving the Amended Text of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social [General Social Security Act], which refers to Article 1924(1) of the Código Civil [Civil Code] and Article 913(1)(D) of the Código de Comercio [Commercial Code].
Glej Kraljevo zakonodajno uredbo 1/1994 z dne 20. junija 1994 o odobritvi spremenjenega besedila Splošnega zakona o socialni varnosti (Ley General de la Seguridad Social), ki se sklicuje na člen 1924(1) Civilnega zakonika (Código Civil) in člen 913(1)(D) Trgovinskega zakonika (Código de Comercio).
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-342/96 Spain v Commission (Tubacex) [1996] ECR I-2459.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji (Tubacex) (C-342/96), [1996] Recueil str. I-2459.
See, for example, case N 512/07 (OJ C 12, 17.1.2009, p. 1).
Glej na primer zadevo N 512/07 (UL C 12, 17.1.2009, str. 1).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30).
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri de minimis pomoči (UL L 10, 13.1.2001, str. 30).
See Commission Decision 2004/32/EC (OJ L 11, 16.1.2004, p. 1).
Glej Odločbo Komisije 2004/32/ES (UL L 11, 16.1.2004, str. 1).
See the Commission Decision in Case N 773/1999, Regional aid map for the period 2000-2006 (OJ C 184, 1.7.2000, p. 22).
Glej Odločbo Komisije v zadevi N 773/1999, Karta regionalnih pomoči v obdobju 2000–2006 (UL C 184, 1.7.2000, str. 22).
Investments take the form of the costs of IT facilities and software (45 %), construction (1,5 %), technical facilities (12 %) and other installations (3 %).
Naložbe predstavljajo stroške za računalniško in programsko opremo (45 %), konstrukcije (1,5 %), tehnično (12 %) in drugo infrastrukturo (3 %).
In fact, in December 2005, Pickman was emerging from the crisis, its losses having fallen from more than EUR 2 million in 2004 to approximately EUR 0,15 million in 2005.
Dejansko se je decembra 2005 začel izhod podjetja Pickman iz krize, pri čemer so se njegove izgube znižale z več kot 2 milijonov EUR leta 2004 na približno 0,15 milijona EUR leta 2005.
In addition, it was able to obtain a loan on normal market terms and did in fact receive a loan of EUR 3,3 million from Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Huelva y Sevilla when it was still in difficulty, securing the totality of that loan with a mortgage.
Poleg tega je lahko podjetje pridobilo posojilo po normalnih tržnih pogojih in je tudi dejansko prejelo posojilo v višini 3,3 milijona EUR od Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Huelva y Sevilla, ko je še bilo v težavah, posojilo pa je v celoti zavarovalo s hipoteko.
On 20 May 2004, the real estate was not mortgaged, whereas on 8 May 2007 it was charged with two mortgages, the first in favour of Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Huelva y Sevilla and the second in favour of IDEA, in the amounts of EUR 3300000 plus interest and costs and of EUR 1300000 plus EUR 104000 in costs respectively.
Nepremičnine 20. maja 2004 niso bile pod hipoteko, medtem ko so bile 8. maja 2007 pod dvema hipotekama, pri čemer je bila prva v višini 3300000 EUR z dodatnimi obrestmi in stroški v korist Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Huelva y Sevilla in druga v višini 1300000 EUR z dodatnimi 104000 EUR stroškov v korist IDEA.
Pickman maintains that the total amount of these two mortgages was still significantly lower than the estimated value of the real estate, and the, very limited, risk borne by IDEA was therefore amply covered, on the basis of the overall market price payable normally.
Podjetje Pickman trdi, da je bil skupni znesek teh dveh hipotek še vedno bistveno nižji od ocenjene vrednosti nepremičnin, zaradi česar je bilo zelo omejeno tveganje, ki je bremenilo IDEA, zadostno krito, in sicer na podlagi skupne tržne cene, ki se običajno izplača.
However, it is true that, in December 2005 Pickman’s financial situation had improved considerably and that the restructuring plan had reached the consolidation stage, profits of EUR 0,7 million having been recorded in 2006. For those reasons, it cannot be ruled out that Pickman was no longer a firm in difficulty when the guarantee was granted.
Vendar je res, da je bil decembra 2005 finančni položaj podjetja Pickman bistveno boljši in da je načrt za prestrukturiranje dosegel fazo konsolidacije, ker je dobiček leta 2006 znašal 0,7 milijona EUR. Zato ni mogoče izključiti, da ob dodelitvi poroštva podjetje Pickman ni bilo več podjetje v težavah.
The Spanish authorities also describe in detail the only two possible alternatives, namely the seizure of specific tangible and intangible assets.
Španski organi so podrobno opisali tudi edini možni nadomestni možnosti, in sicer zaseg določenih opredmetenih in neopredmetenih sredstev.
This, however, does not take priority over other previously registered mortgages or over workforce payments and would therefore very probably result in a lower reimbursement of Pickman’s debts.
Vendar to nima prednosti pred drugimi predhodno evidentiranimi hipotekami ali izplačili delavcem, zato bi bil rezultat zelo verjetno nižje povračilo dolgov podjetja Pickman.
Following publication of the opening Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Commission received observations only from the beneficiary, Pickman, on the various measures at issue.
Po objavi uvodne odločitve v Uradnem listu Evropske unije je Komisija prejela le pripombe upravičenca, tj. podjetja Pickman, glede različnih zadevnih ukrepov.
These observations are contained in paragraphs 24 to 32.
Te pripombe so navedene v odstavkih 24 do 32.
The approved scheme, like the 1999 Guidelines, requires that the aid must be limited to the minimum necessary and that the beneficiary must contribute significantly to the plan to restore its long-term viability, but makes no provision for compensatory measures.
Podobno kot v smernicah iz leta 1999 je v odobreni shemi določeno, da je treba pomoč omejiti na najmanjšo potrebno in da mora upravičenec znatno prispevati k načrtu za obnovitev svoje dolgoročne sposobnosti za preživetje, vendar v njej ni določb za izravnalne ukrepe.
The only obligation incumbent on the aid beneficiary is to not increase its production capacity.
Edina obveznost, ki je za upravičenca do pomoči obvezna, je, da ne poveča svoje proizvodne zmogljivosti.
In the light of the foregoing, while the Commission cannot rule out that, on 28 December 2005, Pickman still qualified as a firm in difficulty, it nonetheless takes the view that Pickman could, in principle, have obtained a loan on market terms without State intervention.
Čeprav ob upoštevanju navedenega Komisija ne more izključiti, da je bilo podjetje Pickman 28. decembra 2005 še vedno v težavah, meni, da bi podjetje Pickman načeloma lahko pridobilo posojilo po tržnih pogojih brez posredovanja države.
Accordingly, the amount of the aid does not correspond to the total amount of the loan, but rather to the potential economic advantage derived from that State guarantee.
Zato znesek pomoči ne ustreza skupnemu znesku posojila, ampak morebitni gospodarski prednosti, ki izhaja iz državnega poroštva.
of 25 November 2009
z dne 25. novembra 2009
establishing a questionnaire for Member States reports on the implementation of Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators
o uvedbi vprašalnika za poročila držav članic o izvajanju Direktive 2006/66/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o baterijah in akumulatorjih ter odpadnih baterijah in akumulatorjih
Having regard to Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC [1], and in particular Article 22(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Direktive 2006/66/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 6. septembra 2006 o baterijah in akumulatorjih ter odpadnih baterijah in akumulatorjih in razveljavitvi Direktive 91/157/EGS [1] ter zlasti člena 22(2) Direktive,
Under Article 22(1) of Directive 2006/66/EC, Member States are required to report regularly and on the basis of a questionnaire on the implementation of that Directive.
V skladu s členom 22(1) Direktive 2006/66/ES morajo države članice na podlagi vprašalnika redno poročati o izvajanju navedene direktive.
In order to avoid excessive administrative burden linked with the drawing up of that report, it is appropriate to limit the list of information required to those data which are most relevant for the Commission to assess the need for improving the implementation of Directive 2006/66/EC.
Da bi preprečili čezmerno upravno breme, povezano s sestavljanjem navedenega poročila, je primerno, da se seznam zahtevanih informacij omeji le na tiste podatke, ki so za Komisijo najpomembnejši pri ocenjevanju potrebe za izboljšanje izvajanja Direktive 2006/66/ES.
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 18(1) of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and the Council [2],
Ukrepi, določeni s to odločbo, so v skladu z mnenjem odbora, ustanovljenega v skladu s členom 18(1) Direktive 2006/12/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [2] –
Member States shall draw up their reports on the implementation of Directive 2006/66/EC on the basis of the questionnaire set out in the Annex to this Decision.
Države članice na podlagi vprašalnika, določenega v Prilogi k tej odločbi, sestavijo poročila o izvajanju Direktive 2006/66/ES.
Done at Brussels, 25 November 2009.
V Bruslju, 25. novembra 2009
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE REPORT OF THE MEMBER STATES ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2006/66/EC
VPRAŠALNIK ZA POROČILO DRŽAV ČLANIC O IZVAJANJU DIREKTIVE 2006/66/ES
Transposition into national law
Prenos v nacionalno zakonodajo
Information to be provided in the first Member State report:
Informacije, ki morajo biti vključene v prvo poročilo države članice:
Please provide a reference and an electronic link, if available, to your national laws transposing the Directive, including to any amendments.
Prosimo, navedite sklic in, če je na voljo, elektronsko povezavo z vašo nacionalno zakonodajo za prenos Direktive, vključno z vsemi spremembami.
Has any provision set up in Articles 8, 15 and 20 been transposed by means of voluntary agreements between the competent authorities and the economic operators concerned?
Ali je bila katera koli določba iz členov 8, 15 in 20 prenesena s prostovoljnimi sporazumi med pristojnimi organi in zadevnimi gospodarskimi udeleženci?
Environmental performance
Okoljska učinkovitost
What steps, including economic instruments of Article 9, have been taken to increase the environmental performance of batteries and accumulators in line with Article 5 of the Directive?
Kateri ukrepi, vključno z instrumenti gospodarske politike iz člena 9, so bili v skladu s členom 5 Direktive sprejeti za izboljšanje okolju prijaznejšega delovanja baterij in akumulatorjev?
Please describe in brief (maximum 100 words) how Article 8 has been implemented in practice.
Prosimo, na kratko opišite (z največ 100 besedami), kako se člen 8 izvaja v praksi.