natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In those circumstances, the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Rouen confirmed the judgment of the Evreux labour court and thus ordered the company Aspocomp Group Oyj, which had 99 % control of the management of its subsidiary, to pay: (i) the employees affected by the company-level agreement, the entire compensation and additional payments provided for in that agreement alone, as well as damages for redundancy without actual and serious basis and (ii) the employees laid off under the voluntary liquidation of Aspocomp equivalent payments given that, by not meeting the commitments made, the parent company had acted unfairly and in a culpably thoughtless manner.
V tem okviru je bila s sodbo pritožbenega sodišča v Rouenu potrjena sodba razsodišča med delodajalci in delojemalci v Evreuxu, družbi Aspocomp Group Oyj, ki je 99-odstotno nadzirala upravljanje svoje hčerinske družbe, pa je bilo naloženo, naj izplača: (i) zaposlenim, na katere se nanaša podjetniški sporazum, vse nadomestne in dodatne odškodnine, določene v tem edinem podjetniškem sporazumu, ter odškodnine za odpust brez pravega in resnega vzroka in (ii) zaposlenim, odpuščenim v okviru prijave stečaja družbe Aspocomp, enakovredne odškodnine, ker je matična družba s tem, ko ni izpolnila sprejetih obveznosti, ravnala nelojalno in z graje vredno lahkomiselnostjo.
In the present case, the Commission observes that, according to the supporting documents in the file, a negotiated social plan, based on the 2002 social plan and implemented in the spring of 2005, was suspended on 25 April 2005 by SNCM’s shareholder without consultation with the undertaking’s management.
V obravnavanem primeru Komisija ugotavlja, da iz dokumentov v spisu izhaja, da je delničarka družbe SNCM 25. aprila 2005 ustavila dogovorjeni socialni načrt, ki je temeljil na socialnem načrtu iz leta 2002 in je bil uveden spomladi 2005, brez dogovora z vodstvom podjetja.
The Commission states, moreover, that the the social plan was drawn up prior to the decision of the State to sell SNCM.
Komisija še ugotavlja, da je bil ta socialni načrt izdelan pred odločitvijo države o prodaji družbe SNCM.
The Commission takes the view that, had SNCM been liquidated, the employees of the undertaking would certainly have relied on the provisions of that social plan before the courts.
Komisija meni, da bi zaposleni podjetja, če bi bila družba SNCM likvidirana, zanesljivo uveljavljali določbe tega socialnega načrta na sodišču.
In order for such a step to be relevant in a case such as this one, the Commission should ascertain (i) whether a court would censure the Member State for having suspended the social plan in question without consulting the undertaking’s management (ii) the amount which the Member State could have been ordered to pay in that eventuality and (iii) the degree of probability of that eventuality.
Da bi bil tak pristop lahko upošteven v primeru, kot je ta, bi morala Komisija presoditi, (i) ali bi sodišče državo članico obsodilo zaradi ustavitve zadevnega socialnega načrta brez dogovora z vodstvom podjetja, (ii) znesek, ki bi ga država članica morala plačati v takem primeru, in (iii) stopnjo verjetnosti take možnosti.
The Commission notes that a judgment of the commercial division of the Court of Cassation, in which that court states that it would be prepared to grant an action in damages against a dominant company the wrongful conduct of which led to the downfall of the subsidiary, and as a result, collective redundancies, is to the same effect as the Aspocomp case-law.
Komisija navaja, da gre sodba gospodarskega senata kasacijskega sodišča, v kateri sodišče navaja, da bi bilo pripravljeno ugoditi tožbi na podlagi odgovornosti zoper prevladujočo družbo, katere krivdno ravnanje je povzročilo propad hčerinske družbe in posledično kolektivna odpuščanja, v isti smeri kot sodba Aspocomp.
The Commission notes, however, that the line taken by the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Rouen has so far not been reflected in other judgments of the same kind.
V zvezi s tem Komisija vseeno ugotavlja, da načelo, določeno s sodbo pritožbenega sodišča v Rouenu, do danes ni bilo potrjeno z drugimi tovrstnimi sodbami.
The Commission therefore considers that the French authorities have not sufficiently dispelled the Commission’s doubts regarding the fact that SNCM’s shareholder would be at a reasonably certain risk of its liability being put in issue and of having to make additional redundancy payments on the basis of that case-law.
Zato Komisija meni, da francoski organi niso zadostno odpravili dvomov Komisije o tem, da bi bil delničar na podlagi te sodne prakse dokaj zanesljivo izpostavljen uveljavljanju svoje odgovornosti in plačilu dodatnih odpravnin.
The Commission takes the view, on the basis of the foregoing, that the choice to sell SNCM at a negative price of EUR 158 million is consistent with the choice which a private group of undertakings in a market economy would have made taking account of the social costs which a liquidation of the undertaking would entail.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Komisija meni, da je odločitev za prodajo družbe SNCM po negativni ceni 158 milijonov EUR v skladu z odločitvijo, ki bi jo sprejela zasebna skupina v tržnem gospodarstvu ob upoštevanju socialnih stroškov, ki bi jih vključevala likvidacija podjetja.
The Commission based the above analysis only on the assumptions which it considered reasonable and sufficiently motivated.
Komisija je zgornjo analizo oprla samo na predpostavke, ki so se ji zdele razumne in zadostno obrazložene.
Those estimates lead to the view that the discrepancy between the scenario chosen by the French authorities and the alternative solution would be at least EUR […] million, which should more than cover a possible error in the estimates arrived at after analysis.
Te analize vodijo do ugotovitve, da bi bila razlika med možnostjo, ki so jo izbrali francoski organi, in alternativno rešitvijo najmanj […] milijonov EUR, kar bi moralo krepko pokriti morebitno napako pri mnenjih, sprejetih po analizi.
Further, the Commission is of the opinion that the negative price of EUR 158 million is the result of a commercial negotiation between the State and the private purchasers following an open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional public selection procedure.
Komisija še meni, da negativna cena 158 milijonov EUR izhaja iz trgovinskega pogajanja med državo in zasebnimi kupci po koncu odprtega, preglednega, nediskriminacijskega in brezpogojnega javnega postopka izbire.
In that respect, the Commission considers that that price, which is the best possible price, constitutes a market price.
V zvezi s tem Komisija meni, da je ta cena, ki je kar se da malo negativna, tržna cena.
In spite of the restrictions referred to in paragraph 284 of this decision, the Commission states that the Commission expert verified the valuation scenarios of SNCM on the basis of the present value method of unrestricted operating cash flows stemming from a report of HSBC bank commissioned by the French authorities.
Kljub omejitvam, navedenim v točki 0 te odločbe, Komisija navaja, da je strokovnjak Komisije preveril možnosti valorizacije družbe SNCM na podlagi metode diskontiranih prostih denarnih tokov, ki izhajajo iz poročila banke HSBC, ki so ga naročili francoski organi.
The Commission’s expert considers that HSBC’s calculations were made correctly.
Strokovnjak Komisije meni, da so bili izračuni HSBC pravilni.
On the basis of the results of those simulations, it may be concluded that the price paid for SNCM is consistent with the value of the undertaking estimated on the basis of the present value method of unrestricted operating cash flows at the time of the transaction.
Na podlagi rezultatov teh simulacij je mogoče ugotoviti, da je cena, plačana za družbo SNCM, v skladu z vrednostjo podjetja, ocenjeno na podlagi metode diskontiranih prostih denarnih tokov v času transakcije.
It follows from section 10.2.2.1 above, without any need to reach a conclusion on the aspects set out in section 10.2.2.2 above, that that measure does not confer any economic advantage on either SNCM or its private purchasers.
Iz oddelka 0 zgoraj izhaja, da navedeni ukrep ne prinaša gospodarske prednosti niti družbi SNCM niti zasebnim kupcem, ne da bi bilo treba odločati o elementih, navedenih v oddelku 0 zgoraj.
Therefore the State’s capital contribution of EUR 158 million prior to the sale of the undertaking to private purchasers, that is to say, the negative sale price of EUR 158 million, does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Zato kapitalski vložek države v višini 158 milijonov EUR pred odprodajo podjetja zasebnim kupcem, to je negativna prodajna cena 158 milijonov EUR, ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
The capital contribution of CGMF of EUR 8,75 million
Kapitalski vložek družbe CGMF v višini 8,75 milijona EUR
If intervention by the public authorities at issue takes place concurrently with significant intervention by private operators, under comparable conditions, the existence of an economic advantage may be automatically ruled out.
Če je posredovanje zadevnih javnih oblasti izvedeno sočasno z znatnim posredovanjem zasebnih gospodarskih subjektov, opravljenim pod primerljivimi pogoji, je mogoče gospodarsko prednost takoj izločiti.
The Commission’s practice in previous decisions, confirmed by the Community judicature, automatically excludes the aid nature of a capital contribution by the State in such circumstances provided that three conditions are fulfilled:
Praksa odločanja Komisije, ki jo je potrdilo sodišče Skupnosti, v takih okoliščinah takoj izključi naravo pomoči kapitalskega vložka države, če so izpolnjeni trije pogoji:
The private intervention must come from economic operators.
zasebno posredovanje mora prihajati od gospodarskih subjektov.
That is not the case with an acquisition of a holding by employees in the capital of the undertaking concerned,The private intervention must be significant.
To ne drži v primeru deleža zaposlenih v kapitalu zadevnega podjetja,zasebno posredovanje mora biti obsežno.
That is not the case, for example, where such private intervention relates only to 3,3 % of the total amount involved,The private intervention must also be concurrent with the public intervention.
To na primer ne drži za zasebno posredovanje, ki se nanaša samo na 3,3 % skupnega zneska, ki je v igri,zasebno posredovanje mora biti tudi sočasno z javnim posredovanjem.
The Court has thus confirmed the Commission’s analysis that public contributions may constitute State aid when private investments in the same undertaking are made only after the allocation of the public contributions.
Sodišče je tako potrdilo analizo Komisije, da lahko javni vložki pomenijo državno pomoč, če so zasebne naložbe v isto podjetje opravljene šele po dodelitvi javnih vložkov.
The Commission notes, first, that the shares in SNCM were transferred to the economic operators BCP and VT.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da so delnice družbe SNCM prodane gospodarskima subjektoma, to je podjetjema BCP in VT.
Following the transfer transaction, the State had to contribute concurrently a sum of EUR 8,75 million to the undertaking in order to maintain the 25 % holding in SNCM in accordance with its commitment in particular vis-à-vis the employees.
Po končani prodaji je morala država v podjetje sočasno vložiti 8,75 milijona EUR, da bi bil v skladu z njeno obvezo zlasti do zaposlenih ohranjen njen 25-odstotni delež v družbi SNCM.
Since the private intervention relates to 75 % of the total amount, the Commission considers it to be significant.
Ker se zasebno posredovanje nanaša na 75 % skupnega zneska, Komisija meni, da je obsežno.
Moreover the Commission notes, solely in the interest of completeness, that the private partners have a sound financial structure, that the acquisition of SNCM fits perfectly into their entrepreneurial strategy and that the business plan of those purchasers provides for a return to profitability for the end of 2009.
Ob tem Komisija še poudarja, da imajo zasebni partnerji solidno finančno strukturo, da se nakup družbe SNCM popolnoma ujema z njihovo podjetniško strategijo in da je v poslovnem načrtu navedenih kupcev predvideno, da bo donosnost obnovljena konec leta 2009.
As regards, finally, the concurrent nature of the two capital contribution transactions, the Commission’s expert verified that that capital had been paid by all SNCM’s shareholders, including CGMF.
Kar nazadnje zadeva sočasnost obeh postopkov kapitalskih vložkov, je strokovnjak Komisije preveril, ali so navedena sredstva nakazali vsi delničarji družbe SNCM, vključno z družbo CGMF.
It was verified that, on 31 May 2006, the management board of SNCM stated that the two transactions cited above had been carried out.
Potrjeno je namreč bilo, da je 31. maja 2006 upravni odbor družbe SNCM ugotovil, da so bili vsi zgoraj navedeni postopki izvedeni.
The public and private capital contributions are therefore plainly concurrent.
Javni in zasebni kapitalski vložki so torej popolnoma sočasni.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the criteria laid down by the case-law to exclude automatically the aid nature of the measure in question are fulfilled.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija meni, da so merila, določena s sodno prakso za takojšnjo izključitev narave pomoči zadevnega ukrepa, izpolnjeni.
The Commission therefore considers that the French State’s capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million does not confer any economic advantage on SNCM since that contribution was made in parallel to a contribution of private capital under comparable conditions in accordance with Community case-law.
Zato meni, da kapitalski vložek francoske države v višini 8,75 milijona EUR družbi SNCM ne prinaša gospodarske prednosti, ker je bil ta vložek opravljen sočasno z vložkom zasebnega kapitala pod primerljivimi pogoji v smislu sodne prakse Skupnosti.
In any event, the Commission is of the opinion that the rate of return of the State’s contribution, that is, […] % per annum, constitutes adequate long-term profitability for capital invested by a private investor.
Komisija vsekakor meni, da stopnja donosa vložka države, to je […] % na leto, pomeni ustrezno dolgoročno donosnost vloženega kapitala za zasebnega vlagatelja.
In that regard, the Commission notes that the fixed yield of the State’s capital investment in SNCM exempts the latter from any exposure in respect of performance of the business plan since that yield is completely dissociated from the performance (upwards or downwards) of the undertaking.
V zvezi s tem Komisija namreč ugotavlja, da fiksni donos kapitalske naložbe države v družbo SNCM le-to razbremenjuje vsakega tveganja izvajanja poslovnega načrta, ker je ta donos popolnoma nepovezan z uspešnostjo (dvig ali padec) podjetja.
Accordingly, the grant of the public service delegation will not enable the State to increase the yield expected from its holding.
Tako dodelitev PPJS družbi SNCM državi ne bo omogočila izboljšanja pričakovanega donosa njenega deleža.
The Commission’s expert concluded that in terms of risks the French State’s capital contribtution bore more similarity to a bond at a fixed rate than to an investment in shares.
Strokovnjak Komisije je na podlagi tega ugotovil, da je v smislu tveganja kapitalski vložek francoske države bolj podoben obveznici s fiksno stopnjo kot naložbi v delnice.
It follows that the rate of return of […] % should be compared to the rate for bonds in the French private sector at the time of the transaction.
Iz tega sledi, da je treba stopnjo donosa […] % primerjati s stopnjo obveznic francoskega zasebnega sektorja v času transakcije.
According to the Commission’s expert, that rate was established at 4,15 % at the end of May 2006.
Po mnenju strokovnjaka Komisije je bila ta stopnja konec maja 20064,15 %.
The Commission considers, finally, that the existence of the clause to cancel the sale of SNCM is not such as to call into question the principle of equal treatment of investors.
Komisija nazadnje meni, da razvezna klavzula za prodajo družbe SNCM ne more ovreči načela enake obravnave vlagateljev.
That clause relates, in fact, to the entire sale of SNCM to private purchasers and not to the concurrent investment (EUR 35 million) by private investors (EUR 26,25 million) and the State (EUR 8,75 million) in the privatised SNCM.
Ta klavzula se namreč nanaša na celotno odprodajo družbe SNCM zasebnim kupcem, in ne na sočasno naložbo (35 milijonov EUR) zasebnih kupcev (26,25 milijona EUR) in države (8,75 milijona EUR) v privatizirano SNCM.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the measure at issue does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da zadevni ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
Measures involving aid to individuals (EUR 38,5 million)
Ukrepi pomoči za osebe (38,5 milijona EUR)
In order to determine whether a measure gives an undertaking an economic advantage, ‘it is necessary […] to establish whether the recipient undertaking receives an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions’ or if the undertaking avoids ‘having to bear costs which would normally have had to be met out of the undertaking’s own financial resources, and thereby prevented market forces from having their normal effect’.
Za presojo, ali ukrep podjetju prinaša gospodarsko prednost, „je treba […] ugotoviti, ali upravičeno podjetje dobi gospodarsko prednost, ki je v običajnih tržnih razmerah ne bi pridobilo“, ali nasprotno omogoči, da se podjetje izogne „stroškom, ki bi običajno morali bremeniti lastna finančna sredstva podjetja, in tako prepreči običajne učinke tržnih sil“.
The Court has consistently held that a normal charge is a charge which an undertaking must normally be able to bear as part of its day-to-day running or its normal activities.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je običajno breme tisto, ki ga mora podjetje nositi pri svojem tekočem upravljanju ali svojih običajnih dejavnostih.
On 20 September 2001, the Court reaffirmed that approach: ‘an aid consists of a mitigation of the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking, taking account of the nature or general scheme of the system of charges in question, whereas a special charge is, on the contrary, an additional charge over and above those normal charges’.
Sodišče je 20. septembra 2001 potrdilo ta pristop: „pomoč pomeni ublažitev stroškov, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetij, ob upoštevanju narave ali sistematike sistema zadevnih stroškov, medtem ko je posebni strošek nasprotno dodatni strošek glede na te običajne stroške“.
Accordingly, in order to identify what constitutes an advantage in accordance with the case-law on State aid, it is crucial to determine the rule of reference or the common system applicable within a given legal system on the basis of which the advantage in question is to be compared.
Zato je za opredelitev, kaj v smislu sodne prakse glede pojma državne pomoči pomeni prednost, v okviru določene pravne ureditve treba ugotoviti referenco, na podlagi katere se primerja to prednost.
In this respect, the Court has also held that the determination of the reference framework is of particular importance in the case of tax measures since the very existence of an advantage may be established only in relation to ‘normal’ taxation, that is the tax rate in force in the reference geographical area.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče poleg tega razsodilo, da ima določitev referenčnega okvira poseben pomen pri davčnih ukrepih, ker je sam obstoj prednosti mogoče dokazati le, če se primerja s tako imenovano „normalno“ obdavčitvijo, to je stopnjo obdavčitve, ki velja na referenčnem geografskem območju.
Furthermore, it is established case-law that ‘for the application of Article 92 of the Treaty, it is irrelevant that the situation of the presumed beneficiary of the measure is better or worse in comparison with the situation under the law as it previously stood, or has not altered over time.
Poleg tega v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, „za uporabo člena 92 Pogodbe ni pomembno, da se je položaj domnevnega upravičenca ukrepa izboljšal ali poslabšal glede na prejšnje pravno stanje ali je nasprotno ostal nespremenjen […].
[…] The only question to be determined is whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a State measure is such as to favour “certain undertakings or the production of certain goods” within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question’.
Ugotoviti je treba samo, ali je v okviru dane pravne ureditve državni ukrep tak, da daje prednost“ posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga „v smislu člena 92(1) Pogodbe v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so glede na cilj, ki se ga prizadeva doseči z zadevnim ukrepom, v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju“.
It follows from the case-law and the Commission’s past practice that, in order to rule out the aid nature of the measure in question, the Commission must ascertain that the measure does not exempt SNCM from having to pay charges arising out of its day-to-day operations, that is, in the present case, charges arising out of the normal application of social legislation applicable to the sector in respect of employment contracts.
Iz sodne prakse in prakse odločanja Komisije izhaja, da mora Komisija, da bi izključila naravo pomoči zadevnega ukrepa, preveriti, da ukrep družbe SNCM ne razbremenjuje stroškov, ki so del njenega tekočega upravljanja, to je v obravnavanem primeru stroškov, ki izhajajo iz običajne uporabe socialne zakonodaje, ki velja za sektor v okviru odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
In that respect, the Commission confirms that, in compliance with the memorandum of understanding signed by the parties, the escrow account may be used solely for the purpose of financing compensation paid to individuals whose employment contracts with SNCM have been terminated prematurely.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da se v skladu z memorandumom o soglasju, podpisanim med strankami, depozitni račun lahko sprosti samo za financiranje nadomestil, izplačanih posameznikom, katerih pogodba o zaposlitvi z družbo SNCM je bila predhodno prekinjena.
Therefore, it is neither the intention nor the effect of those measures to make it possible for employees to leave who, without those measures, would have been able to remain the responsibility of SNCM.
Tako ni niti cilj niti učinek teh ukrepov, da bi omogočili odhod zaposlenih, ki bi, če teh ukrepov ne bi bilo, lahko ostali v breme družbe SNCM.
The Commission also notes that the grant of that compensation to workers laid off after the sale of SNCM was approved by the State in the exercise of its public authority and not by the company.
Komisija navaja še, da je dodelitev teh nadomestil osebju, odpuščenemu po prodaji družbe SNCM, odobrila državna oblast, in ne podjetje.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that those additional social measures go beyond the compensation provided for by social legislation and the applicable collective agreements.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da ti dodatni socialni ukrepi presegajo nadomestila, določena s socialno zakonodajo in veljavnimi kolektivnimi pogodbami.
The costs arising out of the application of the latter therefore continue to be borne in their entirety by SNCM.
Stroški, ki izhajajo iz uporabe zadnjih, ostanejo tako v celoti v breme družbe SNCM.
Finally, the Commission observes that those additional social measures will be implemented if, once SNCM has been sold, the purchasers decide to reduce staff numbers.
Komisija nazadnje ugotavlja, da bodo ti dodatni socialni ukrepi izvedeni, če bodo kupci potem, ko bo družba SNCM prodana, uresničili načrt zmanjšanja števila zaposlenih.
In other words, that compensation does not relate to the planned staff reductions provided for under the 2002 restructuring plan.
Z drugimi besedami, ta nadomestila se ne ujemajo z izvedbo načrtov za zmanjšanje števila zaposlenih, določenih na podlagi načrta prestrukturiranja iz leta 2002.