natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Spain has also agreed to consider the work carried out between certification of the engine and of the aircraft as Experimental Development instead of Industrial Research, since this work is performed on prototypes of the turbine module.
Španija se je tudi strinjala, da se bo delo, opravljeno med certifikacijo motorja in letala, štelo za eksperimentalni razvoj in ne za industrijsko raziskavo, saj se to delo izvaja na prototipih modula turbine.
The Spanish authorities have also agreed to include 100 % of the work performed on tasks relating to the testing of components (EUR […]) in the category Experimental Development.
Španski organi so se tudi strinjali, da bodo vključili 100 % dela, opravljenega v okviru delovnih nalog v zvezi s preskušanjem komponent ([…] EUR), v kategorijo eksperimentalni razvoj.
This is consistent both with the classification used for other tasks and with the definition proposed by ITP itself, according to which tests dedicated to accumulated hours of operation (and fatigue tests belong to this category) are to be considered as Experimental Development.
To je v skladu z razvrstitvijo, ki se uporablja za druge naloge, in opredelitvijo, ki jo je predlagalo podjetje ITP, po kateri je treba preskuse, namenjene zagotovitvi skupnega števila ur obratovanja (in testi z utrujanjem iz te kategorije), šteti kot eksperimentalni razvoj.
In its observations, beyond its support for the arguments put forward by Spain, ITP also acknowledged that its internal accounting system did not allow separation of R & D costs according to the different categories.
Podjetje ITP je v svojih pripombah podprlo utemeljitve Španije ter priznalo, da njihov notranji računovodski sistem ni omogočal ločitev stroškov za raziskave in razvoj po različnih kategorijah.
This explained why the categorisation was made on what appeared as a theoretical model.
To pojasnjuje, zakaj je bila razvrstitev narejena na podlagi modela, ki se je zdel teoretičen.
ITP also stated that it had started adapting its accounting system in order to allow such categorisation, since it is also required by the IFRS accounting standards [26].
Podjetje ITP je tudi navedlo, da je že začelo prilagajati svoj računovodski sistem, da bo omogočal tako razvrstitev, saj jo zahtevajo tudi računovodski standardi MSRP [26].
Spain provided a corrected and final version of the eligible costs, which is presented in the table below.
Španija je predložila popravljeno in končno različico upravičenih stroškov, ki je predstavljena v spodnji razpredelnici.
Experimental development activities costs are EUR 44,212 million (60,1 %).
Stroški dejavnosti eksperimentalnega razvoja znašajo 44,212 milijona EUR (60,1 %).
Preparatory studies worth EUR 59000 are also included in the project.
V projekt so vključene tudi pripravljalne študije v vrednosti 59000 EUR.
Table — Eligible costs
Preglednica – Upravičeni stroški
(in million EUR)
(milijonov EUR)
R & D Category
Kategorija R & R
Industrial research
Industrijske raziskave
Taking into account the detailed information provided by Spain, its acceptance of the observations on the specific aspects relating to the time limit of the project and the classification of some types of expenditure, the Commission is able to have a complete view of the eligible costs and of their categorisation.
Ob upoštevanju podrobnih informacij, ki jih je predložila Španija, njene potrditve pripomb o posebnih vidikih v zvezi z rokom projekta in razvrstitvijo nekaterih vrst izdatkov ima Komisija na voljo popoln pregled upravičenih stroškov in njihove razvrstitve.
In conclusion, the eligible costs include only activities eligible for aid under point 5.1.4 of the R & D & I Framework, correctly allocated to the respective categories of industrial research and experimental development, as defined in section 2.2 of the same Framework.
Upravičeni stroški torej vključujejo samo dejavnosti, ki so upravičene do pomoči v skladu s točko 5.1.4 Okvira R & D & I, ki se pravilno razporedijo po ustreznih kategorijah industrijskih raziskav in eksperimentalnega razvoja v skladu z oddelkom 2.2 istega okvira.
Aid instrument
Instrument pomoči
In the original notification the Spanish authorities intended to use an instrument which combined the characteristics of a repayable advance — with reimbursement of the principal of the loan proportional to the success of the project — and of a soft loan — with no interest payable by the beneficiary.
V prvotni priglasitvi so španski organi nameravali uporabiti instrument, ki združuje značilnosti vračljivega predplačila – s poplačilom glavnice posojila v sorazmerju z uspešnostjo projekta – in ugodnega posojila –, pri čemer upravičencu ni treba plačati obresti.
The Commission, in its decision to open proceedings, raised doubts regarding this hybrid instrument, which would give a double advantage to the beneficiary, combining the risk-sharing element of an advance with the certainty of an advantage in terms of interest not paid.
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka izrazila dvome o tem hibridnem instrumentu, od katerega naj bi imel upravičenec dvojno korist, saj združuje element delitve tveganja v zvezi s predplačilom z zagotovljeno koristjo v smislu neplačanih obresti.
The combination of these two advantages would have rendered the aid too generous for the beneficiary.
S kombinacijo teh dveh ugodnosti bi bila pomoč preveč radodarna za upravičenca.
A soft loan is a loan with a reduced interest rate (in this case a zero interest rate).
Ugodno posojilo je posojilo z znižano obrestno mero (v tem primeru ničelna obrestna mera).
The aid element is the amount of interest not paid by the beneficiary, calculated by the difference between the market rate applicable to the loan and the interest actually paid.
Element pomoči je znesek obresti, ki ga upravičenec ne plača ter se izračuna na podlagi razlike med tržno obrestno mero, ki se uporablja za posojilo, in dejansko plačanimi obrestmi.
In the present case the market rate was the reference rate, with no additional basis points added, and the interest paid was zero.
V tem primeru je bila tržna obrestna mera referenčna obrestna mera, brez dodanih dodatnih baznih točk, znesek plačanih obresti pa je bil nič.
The Commission, in its decision to open proceedings, also raised a doubt about the interest rate to be used in the calculation of the aid element of the loan.
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka izrazila tudi dvom o obrestni meri, ki se uporabi pri izračunu elementa pomoči posojila.
As described below, this aspect is no longer relevant.
Kot je opisano v nadaljevanju, ta vidik ni več pomemben.
In their observations, the Spanish authorities recognised, firstly, the existence of such a double advantage and agreed to correct the aid instrument.
Španski organi so v svojih pripombah priznali, prvič, obstoj take dvojne koristi in se strinjali, da bodo instrument pomoči popravili.
The authorities indicated that they would propose granting the aid through a soft loan.
Navedli so, da bodo predlagali dodelitev pomoči v obliki ugodnega posojila.
According to Spain, the reason for using a soft loan is simply that they thought it would be more easily approvable by the Commission.
Po mnenju Španije je bil razlog za uporabo ugodnega posojila preprosto njihovo mnenje, da ga bo Komisija lažje odobrila.
The same position was taken by ITP in its observations.
Podjetje ITP je v svojih pripombah zavzelo enako stališče.
However, ITP also added that it could agree to the aid instrument taking the form of a repayable advance [27].
Vendar je še dodalo, da bi se strinjalo z instrumentom pomoči v obliki vračljivega predplačila [27].
In its letter of 19 December 2007, the Commission mentioned that repayable advance would probably guarantee greater proportionality in this case.
Komisija je v svojem dopisu z dne 19. decembra 2007 navedla, da bi vračljivo predplačilo v tem primeru verjetno zagotovilo večjo sorazmernost.
The Commission noted that adapting in 2007 the aid instrument as proposed by Spain into a loan with zero interest would have been to the advantage of the beneficiary because in that case commercial risks would have been somewhat reduced, since sales of the engine were increasing.
Komisija je opozorila, da bi preoblikovanje instrumenta pomoči v skladu s predlogom Španije v brezobrestno posojilo leta 2007 pomenilo korist za upravičenca, ker bi se v tem primeru komercialna tveganja nekako zmanjšala, saj se je prodaja motorja povečevala.
In the case at hand, the aid would have played the role of an advance, in that it would have assured ITP that it would have enough cash to make the investments, while at that time it would have spared ITP the interest.
V zadevnem primeru bi imela pomoč vlogo predplačila, ker bi podjetju ITP zagotovila dovolj sredstev za izvedbo naložb, saj mu tedaj ne bi bilo treba plačati obresti.
ITP would not only have repaid only the principal but would also have avoided paying an extra fee in case of success.
Podjetje ITP bi moralo poplačati le glavnico in izognilo bi se plačilu posebne pristojbine v primeru uspeha.
The Commission considered this to be an excessive advantage for the firm and asked the Spanish authorities to suggest ways of reducing it, either by changing the instrument or by introducing clauses and conditions which would have linked the instrument to the risk.
Po mnenju Komisije je to za podjetje čezmerna korist in je španske organe zaprosila, da predlagajo načine za njeno zmanjšanje, bodisi s spremembo instrumenta ali uvedbo klavzul in pogojev, ki bi instrument povezali s tveganjem.
The Commission further pointed out that repayable advances are a risk-sharing instrument which, in case of the success of the projects, allow for a more than proportionate reimbursement from the beneficiary: if sales forecasts are fulfilled, the aid is fully reimbursed, including interests.
Komisija je še opozorila, da so vračljiva predplačila instrument delitve tveganja, ki če so projekti uspešni, omogočajo več kot sorazmerno poplačilo upravičenca: če se napovedana prodaja uresniči, se pomoč v celoti povrne, vključno z obrestmi.
If sales remain below the forecasts, the reimbursement is reduced proportionally [28].
Če prodaja ne doseže napovedi, se povračilo sorazmerno zmanjša [28].
If sales are above forecasts, the reimbursement exceeds the amount of the advance received.
Če prodaja preseže napovedi, pa povračilo preseže znesek prejetega predplačila.
In the assessment of the case, the Commission and Spain arrived at the conclusion that the appropriate aid instrument for this type of aid is a repayable advance, with the specific characteristics outlined below.
Med oceno primera sta Komisija in Španija prišli do sklepne ugotovitve, da je ustrezen instrument pomoči za tovrstno pomoč vračljivo predplačilo s posebnimi značilnostmi, opisanimi v nadaljevanju.
The aid instrument is structured around the reasoning put forward by the Spanish authorities that the two grant decisions in this case are two tranches of the same aid, with a single request for aid.
Instrument pomoči temelji na utemeljitvi španskih organov, da sta dve odločbi o pomoči v tem primeru dva obroka iste pomoči, z enim zahtevkom za pomoč.
The modified schedule for the aid is based on the following elements.
Spremenjen časovni okvir pomoči temelji na naslednjih elementih:
The disbursement of the aid follows the schedule foreseen for the two tranches.
Pomoč se izplača v skladu s predvidenim časovnim okvirom za oba obroka.
The reimbursement is calculated on the basis of the total aid received by ITP adjusted at the reference rate for 2005 (4,08 %).
Poplačilo se izračuna na podlagi celotne pomoči, ki jo prejme podjetje ITP, ki se prilagodi v skladu z referenčno obrestno mero za leto 2005 (4,08 %).
The target date is […], when full adjusted reimbursement should be deemed complete, based on the forecast below.
Ciljni datum je […], ko mora biti v celoti plačan prilagojeni znesek, ki temelji na spodaj navedeni napovedi.
The prudent forecast of engines sold is of […] engines (based on […] aircraft), and does not include replacements.
Po previdni napovedi naj bi se prodalo […] motorjev (na podlagi […] letal), kjer niso vključene nadomestitve.
This figure is mentioned in the internal business plan of ITP presented to the board in view of its decision to invest in the project.
Ta številka je navedena v notranjem poslovnem načrtu podjetja ITP, ki je bil predstavljen odboru v zvezi z njegovo odločitvijo o naložbi v projekt.
Reimbursements have to be considered as amounts of euro per engine sold; the amount per engine will vary as follows: until […] engines sold (40 % of the final forecast) ITP will pay EUR […] for each engine; from […] to […] engines (up to 85 % of the final forecast), ITP will pay EUR […] for each engine; from […] to […] engines (the final forecast), ITP will pay EUR […].
Poplačila je treba obravnavati kot zneske v eurih na prodan motor, znesek na motor pa se bo spreminjal, kot sledi: do […] prodanih motorjev (40 % končne napovedi) bo podjetje ITP plačalo […] EUR za vsak motor; od […] do […] prodanih motorjev (do 85 % končne napovedi), bo plačalo […] EUR za vsak motor; od […] do […] prodanih motorjev (končna napoved) bo plačalo […] EUR.
In setting these amounts, Spain has taken into account the fact that the first engines are sold at greater commercial discount.
Španija je pri določitvi teh zneskov upoštevala dejstvo, da se prvi motorji prodajajo z večjim komercialnim popustom.
It has also taken into account the cash-flow for the project, which is already negative for the first years since the initial investment is very significant and sales are spread over at least twenty years.
Upoštevala je tudi denarni tok projekta, ki je za prva leta že negativen, saj je začetna naložba zelo velika, prodaja pa razpršena na najmanj dvajset let.
After the target forecast of […] engines is reached, ITP will pay an additional success fee of 1 % of the turnover deriving from sale of each engine until the year 2043 [29].
Ko bo dosežena ciljna napoved […] prodanih motorjev, bo podjetje ITP do leta 2043 plačevalo dodatno pristojbino za uspeh v višini enega odstotka prihodka iz prodaje vsakega motorja [29].
Regional bonus
Regionalni dodatek
The Spanish authorities recognise that according to the R & D & I Framework in place since 1 January 2007 no regional bonus can be granted for projects carried out in assisted areas.
Španski organi priznavajo, da se v skladu z Okvirom R & R & I, ki se uporablja od 1. januarja 2007, projektom, ki se izvajajo na območjih, upravičenih do pomoči, ne more dodeliti regionalnega dodatka.
However, they indicated that they would like to give this bonus at least for the eligible costs of the year 2006.
Vendar pa so navedli, da bi radi ta dodatek dodelili vsaj za upravičene stroške za leto 2006.
Therefore the Commission cannot agree that the aid intensity should include such a bonus.
Zato se Komisija ne more strinjati, da bi intenzivnost pomoči morala vključevati tak dodatek.
Collaboration bonus
Dodatek za sodelovanje
The Spanish authorities have indicated that in their view the notified project should be entitled to receive a bonus for international cooperation.
Španski organi so navedli, da bi moral biti po njihovem mnenju priglašeni projekt upravičen do prejema dodatka za mednarodno sodelovanje.
According to their arguments, ITP is participating in an international project for the development of the Trent 1000 engine [30].
V skladu z njihovimi utemeljitvami podjetje ITP sodeluje pri mednarodnem projektu za razvoj motorja Trent 1000 [30].
The R & D & I Framework in point 5.1.3(b) defines very precise conditions for a project to be entitled to additional bonus for international cooperation: ‘The project involves effective collaboration between at least two undertakings which are independent of each other and the following conditions are fulfilled: […] the project must […] be cross border, that is to say, the R & D activities are carried out in at least two different Member States’.
Točka 5.1.3(b) Okvira R & R & I zelo natančno določa pogoje, ki jih mora izpolnjevati projekt, da je upravičen do dodatnega dodatka za mednarodno sodelovanje: „Projekt vključuje učinkovito sodelovanje med vsaj dvema medsebojno neodvisnima podjetjema in so izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji: […] projekt mora biti […] čezmejen, kar pomeni, da se morajo dejavnosti R & R izvajati vsaj v dveh različnih državah članicah“.
In the decision to open proceedings, the Commission raised two doubts: (a) the Commission doubted that ITP and RR can be considered as independent undertakings, since RR is a shareholder of ITP with almost 47 % of the shares; and (b) the R & D activities of the notified project could not be carried out entirely outside Spain.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija izrazila dva dvoma: (a) Komisija je dvomila, ali se podjetji ITP in RR lahko štejeta za neodvisni podjetji, saj ima podjetje RR v lasti skoraj 47 % delnic podjetja ITP; ter (b) dejavnosti R & R za priglašeni projekt se ne bi mogle izvajati povsem zunaj Španije.
ITP and RR are not independent enterprises
ITP in RR nista neodvisni podjetji
Spain provided various arguments in support of the independence of the two enterprises.
Španija je predložila različne utemeljitve kot dokaz o neodvisnosti obeh podjetij.
In their view, ITP is participating in the project as risk-sharing partner, under similar conditions as other partners: the fact that the conditions for the contract are the same as for the other RRSP partners would show that ITP is at the same level as the other RRSP with whom RR has no shareholding link.
Po njenem mnenju podjetje ITP sodeluje v projektu kot partner pri delitvi tveganja pod podobnimi pogoji kot drugi partnerji: dejstvo, da so pogoji pogodbe enaki kot za druge partnerje pri delitvi tveganja in prihodkov, naj bi dokazovalo, da je podjetje ITP na isti ravni kot drugi partnerji pri delitvi tveganja in prihodkov, s katerimi podjetje RR ni povezano kot njihov delničar.
Secondly, according to Spain, if ITP was not independent, it could not work for competitors of RR such as General Electric and Honeywell.
Drugič, po mnenju Španije podjetje ITP, če ne bi bilo neodvisno, ne bi moglo delati za tekmece podjetja RR, kot sta General Electric in Honeywell.
Thirdly, RR has only 47 %, which is not a controlling stake, compared with 53 % held by the other shareholder, Sener Aeronautica.
Tretjič, podjetje ima v lasti le 47 % delnic, kar ni kontrolni delež, v primerjavi s 53-odstotnim deležem, ki ga ima drug delničar, Sener Aeronautica.
The board members nominated by RR are the minority (four out of a total of nine), the remaining being nominated by the largest shareholder.
Člani odbora, ki jih imenuje podjetje RR, so v manjšini (štirje od skupno devetih), druge imenuje največji delničar.
Finally, according to Spain, independence is also proved by the duration of the negotiation between ITP and RR on the project, which took two years before an agreement could be reached.
In končno, po mnenju Španije neodvisnost dokazujejo tudi dolgotrajna pogajanja med podjetjema ITP in RR o projektu, ki so trajala dve leti, preden sta se podjetji dogovorili.
These arguments were also put forward by ITP in its observations.
Te utemeljitve je v svojih pripombah posredovalo tudi podjetje ITP.
In addition, according to ITP, its independence from RR is obvious, since ITP sales to RR are only 25 % of its turnover in 2008, with a tendency to decrease.
Poleg tega podjetje ITP meni, da je njegova neodvisnost od podjetja RR očitna, saj je leta 2008 znašala prodaja podjetja ITP podjetju RR le 25 % njegovih prihodkov, se pa še zmanjšuje.
In its letter of 19 December 2007, the Commission also sought RR’s views on whether ITP and RR could be considered to be independent.
Komisija je v svojem dopisu z dne 19. decembra 2007 želela izvedeti tudi mnenje podjetja RR o tem, ali se podjetji ITP in RR lahko štejeta za neodvisni.
Further, according to RR, ‘ITP is a legally and financially independent company and […] is not controlled by RR.
Nadalje, po mnenju podjetja RR je „podjetje ITP pravno in finančno neodvisno podjetje in […] ga podjetje RR ne obvladuje.
[…] Nevertheless, ITP is an important collaborator for RR in certain civil programmes, notably the Trent 500 and 900 engines, and RR maintains its shareholding in ITP partly to protect its interests in those collaborative programmes and also to help develop ITP as an independent player (and partner) in the aeronautical sector’.
[…] Podjetje ITP je pomemben sodelavec podjetja RR pri nekaterih civilnih programih, zlasti pri motorjih Trent 500 in 900, podjetje RR pa ohranja svoj delež v podjetju ITP delno za zavarovanje svojih interesov v teh skupnih programih ter tudi za pomoč pri razvoju podjetja ITP kot neodvisnega akterja (in partnerja) v letalskem sektorju.“
RR also writes that ‘establishing relationships with long term independent strategic partners who can share risk, provide design capabilities and make resources available is a logical and not unusual step for OEMs involved in the design and manufacture of gas turbines’.
RR tudi navaja, da „je povezava z dolgoročno neodvisnimi strateškimi partnerji, s katerimi se lahko deli tveganje, ki zagotovijo zmogljivosti za konstruiranje in dajo na voljo vire, smiseln in ne nenavaden korak za proizvajalca originalne opreme, ki se ukvarja s konstruiranjem in izdelavo plinskih turbin“.
The Commission has assessed in detail the relationship between ITP and RR.
Komisija je podrobno preverila povezavo med podjetjema ITP in RR.
RR is a large shareholder (47 %), with several board members.
Podjetje RR je velik delničar (47 %) in ima v odboru več članov.
RR members abstain when RR projects are discussed, but on the other hand are present when strategies are decided.
Člani odbora iz podjetja RR se pri razpravi o projektih podjetja vzdržijo, so pa navzoči pri odločanju o strategijah.
Secondly, the Commission notes that ITP has participated in several other RR projects (the Trent 1000 being the third largest engine in which ITP is involved).
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da je podjetje ITP sodelovalo že pri več drugih projektih podjetja RR (Trent 1000 je tretji največji motor, pri katerem sodeluje podjetje ITP).
The provision in the R & D & I Framework relating to ‘independent’ has to be interpreted as being different from ‘not controlled’.
Določba iz Okvira R & R & I o „neodvisnosti“ se ne sme razumeti kot „ga ne obvladuje drugo podjetje“.
In other words, it is not enough not to be controlled by another company to be viewed as being independent from it.
Drugače povedano, če podjetja ne obvladuje drugo podjetje, še ne pomeni, da ni odvisno od njega.
By analogy with the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) [31], companies having capital links with one another (in this case a 47 % share) should be considered as linked enterprises.
Po analogiji z opredelitvijo malih in srednjih podjetij (MSP) [31] je treba podjetja, ki so med seboj kapitalsko povezana (v tem primeru 47-odstotni delež), šteti za povezana podjetja.
They could still be considered to be independent for the purpose of merger control [32] or from the point of view of accounting rules, since ITP is not consolidated in RR’s accounts.
Lahko se štejeta za neodvisni podjetji za namen nadzora združevanja [32] ali z vidika računovodskih pravil, ker podjetje ITP ni vključeno v finančna poročila podjetja RR.
The relevant aspect in this case is that two linked enterprises active in the same sector have no difficulty in collaborating.
Pomemben vidik tega primera je, da dve povezani podjetji, ki delujeta v istem sektorju, nimata težav pri sodelovanju.
This is confirmed if one looks at the issue from a substantial point of view, that is, if ITP and RR face difficulties in collaborating in R & D projects.
To se potrdi, če na zadevo pogledamo z bistvenega vidika, to je, ali imata podjetji ITP in RR težave pri sodelovanju pri projektih R & R.
RR’s investment in ITP was made precisely in order to develop a stable long term relationship [33], which is a common feature in the sector between the OEMs and their main partners.
Podjetje RR je investiralo v podjetje ITP ravno zato, da bi vzpostavilo trdno dolgotrajno sodelovanje [33], kar je splošna sektorska značilnost povezav med proizvajalci originalne opreme in njihovimi najpomembnejšimi partnerji.