natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission concludes that, in view of these factors, the granting of an advance of EUR 2,5 million to IFB by SNCB to maintain commercial activity without any link to public service is not imputable to the Belgian State.
Glede na vse to Komisija sklepa, da tega, da je SNCB zagotovila IFB predujem v višini 2,5 milijona EUR za ohranitev poslovne dejavnosti brez kakršne koli povezave z javno službo, ni mogoče pripisati Belgiji.
The Commission concludes that this case does not contain any evidence in terms of the involvement of the public administration, the nature of the activities concerned or their status which would allow the Management Board’s decision of 19 July 2002 to grant an advance of EUR 2,5 million to IFB to be imputed to the Belgian State.
Komisija sklepa, da ta primer ne vsebuje kazalcev o vključitvi v javno upravo, naravi dejavnosti in statusu, zaradi katerih bi bilo mogoče Belgiji pripisati odločitev upravnega odbora 19. julija 2002 o zagotovitvi predujma IFB v višini 2,5 milijona EUR.
Period subsequent to the Management Board’s decision of 20 December 2002
Obdobje po odločitvi upravnega odbora 20. decembra 2002
On 20 December 2002, the Management Board decided to finalise a framework agreement with IFB, which had to include rescue measures as well as restructuring measures and increase IFB’s capital.
decembra 2002 se je upravni odbor odločil, da se z IFB sklene okvirna pogodba, ki vsebuje ukrepe reševanja in prestrukturiranja ter vodi k povečanju kapitala IFB.
Analysis of the case by the Commission in its letter initiating the procedure (points 143 to 150) revealed three specific indications of the imputability to the Belgian State of these rescue and restructuring measures in support of IFB.
Komisija je preučila spis in v dopisu o sprožitvi postopka (točke od 143 do 150) navedla tri konkretne kazalce vpletenosti Belgije v ukrepe reševanja in prestrukturiranja IFB.
These indications were:
Ti kazalci so bili:
The submission of the restructuring plan to the Belgian State for approval,
predložitev načrta za prestrukturiranje Belgiji v odobritev;
The press articles demonstrating strong influence of the Belgian Government on SNCB during the year 2003,
prispevki v medijih, ki kažejo močan vpliv belgijske vlade na SNCB v letu 2003;
The scope, contents and conditions of the framework agreement of 7 April 2003.
obseg, vsebina in pogoji okvirne pogodbe z dne 7. aprila 2003.
In their reply to the letter initiating the procedure, the Belgian authorities contested that these three indications were sufficient to establish the imputability of the measures to the State within the meaning of the Stardust Marine case-law.
Belgijski organi v odgovoru na dopis o sprožitvi postopka ugovarjajo, da ti trije kazalci ne zadoščajo kot dokaz vpletenosti države v ukrepe v smislu sodne prakse Stardust Marine.
Below the Commission repeats the contents of the indications, and explains why the Belgian Government’s arguments could not be accepted.
Komisija nato ponovi vsebino kazalcev in razloži, zakaj ne more sprejeti argumentov belgijske vlade.
Approval by public authorities (point 56 of the Stardust Marine ruling)
Odobritev s strani organov oblasti (točka 56 sodbe Stardust Marine)
In its rulings on Van der Kooy [34], Italy/Commission [35] and Commission/France [36], the Court of Justice decided as to the imputability of aid from the fact that the granting of aid had been submitted for the approval of the public authorities.
V sodbah Van der Kooy [34], Italija proti Komisiji [35] in Komisija proti Franciji [36] je Sodišče sklepalo na vpletenost, ker so pomoč morali odobriti organi oblasti.
In the Van der Kooy ruling, this factor alone sufficed to establish imputability; in the Italy/Commission and Commission/France, approval was combined with other elements which showed the influence of central government [37].
V sodbi Van der Kooy je samo ta element zadoščal kot dokaz za vpletenost; v sodbah Italija proti Komisiji in Komisija proti Franciji se odobritev povezuje z drugimi elementi, ki kažejo vpliv državnih organov.
The Space Park Development GmbH decision, which was the first decision by the Commission applying the Stardust Marine ruling, equally inferred the imputability of aid from the fact that the loan in question must been approved by the Bremen authorities [38].
V odločbi Space Park Development GmbH, ki je bila prva odločba Komisije, v kateri je bila uporabjena sodba Stardust Marine, se je na vpletenost sklepalo tudi zato, ker so morali zadevno posojilo odobriti organi oblasti dežele Bremen.
Consequently, the submission of a measure to the Member State for approval constitutes an indication of imputability.
Zato je predložitev ukrepa državi članici v odobritev kazalec vpletenosti.
In the case in question, Article 2 of the framework agreement obliges the Boards of Directors of SNCB and the IFB to submit their restructuring plan to the Belgian State for approval [39].
V tem primeru člen 2 okvirne pogodbe zavezuje upravna odbora SNCB in IFB, da načrt za prestrukturiranje predložita Belgiji v odobritev [39].
This therefore constitutes initial evidence of imputability to the Belgian State of SNCB’s decision to restructure IFB.
To je torej prvi kazalec vpletenosti Belgije v odločitev SNCB za prestrukturiranje IFB.
The Belgian Government emphasises that, in contrast to the provisions of the framework agreement, SNCB and IFB did not finally submit the restructuring plan for the approval of the Belgian Government, as that would have violated SNCB’s commercial independence.
Belgijska vlada trdi, da v nasprotju s tem, kar je predvideno v okvirni pogodbi, SNCB in IFB navsezadnje nista predložili načrta za prestrukturiranje belgijski vladi v odobritev, ker bi to pomenilo kršitev poslovne neodvisnosti SNCB.
As already explained in the letter initiating the procedure (points 146 and 147), this de facto situation does not render this indication of imputability inoperative: the two parties to the contract, SNCB and IFB, would likely not have included such a clause in the contract, if there was no influence by the Belgian Government to that effect.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno v dopisu o sprožitvi postopka (točki 146 in 147), zaradi dejanskega stanja ta kazalec vpletenosti ne neha učinkovati: zdi se izključeno, da bi podpisnici, SNCB in IFB, v pogodbo vključili tako klavzulo, če na to ne bi vplivala belgijska vlada.
The fact that the Belgian Government claims that it was not formally consulted about the restructuring does not suffice to exclude any informal influence of the Belgian Government during the preparation of the framework agreement of 7 April 2003, nor to exclude approval.
Zatrjevanje belgijske vlade, da ni bila uradno zaprošena za mnenje o prestrukturiranju, ni dovolj, da bi izključili neformalni vpliv belgijske vlade med pripravo okvirne pogodbe z dne 7. aprila 2003, niti tega, da je prišlo do odobritve.
As the Court of Justice stated in its Stardust Marine ruling, ‘… it will, as a general rule, be very difficult for a third party, precisely because of the privileged relations existing between the State and a public undertaking, to demonstrate in a particular case that aid measures taken by such an undertaking were in fact adopted on the instructions of the public authorities’. Therefore, the simple fact that the contract concluded between the parties provides for approval by the Belgian State, is a strong indication of the implication of the Belgian Government.
Kajti, kot je ugotovilo Sodišče v sodbi Stardust Marine, „… ravno zaradi privilegiranih odnosov med državo in javnim podjetjem tretja oseba v konkretnem primeru zelo težko dokaže, da so bili ukrepi pomoči, ki jih je uvedlo takšno podjetje, sprejeti po navodilih javnih organov.“ Zato samo dejstvo, da pogodba, ki sta jo sklenili podpisnici, predvideva odobritev s strani Belgije, pomeni močan kazalec vpletenosti belgijske vlade.
In its reply to the letter initiating the procedure, the Belgian Government explains that the clause contained in Article 2 of the framework agreement does not concern the restructuring plan itself, but the communication by means of which Belgium was going to notify the Commission of the framework agreement.
Belgijska vlada v odgovoru na dopis o sprožitvi postopka razloži, da določba iz člena 2 okvirne pogodbe ne zadeva načrta za prestrukturiranje, ampak sporočilo, s katerim je Belgija nameravala priglasiti okvirno pogodbo pri Komisiji.
The Commission considers that this argument is unconvincing: if the parties to the framework agreement had had mere notification by Belgium to the Commission in mind, they would have expressly written so in Article 2 of the agreement.
Komisija meni, da ta argument ni prepričljiv: če bi podpisnici okvirne pogodbe imeli v mislih samo priglasitev Belgije pri Komisiji, bi to v členu 2 pogodbe izrecno zapisali.
The interpretation proposed by the Belgian Government is contrary to the letter of the agreement.
Razlaga belgijske vlade je v nasprotju z besedilom pogodbe.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that Article 2 of the agreement implies the approval of measures by the Belgian authorities and constitutes an indication of imputability of the measures in question to the Belgian State.
Zato Komisija sklepa, da člen 2 pogodbe vključuje odobritev ukrepov s strani belgijskih organov in je kazalec vpletenosti Belgije pri zadevnih ukrepih.
Press articles
Prispevki v medijih
The additional evidence of intervention by the Belgian Government in this case is also to be found in press articles [40].
V prispevkih v medijih so še dodatni kazalci vpletenosti belgijske vlade v to zadevo.
Thus, an article which appeared in La Libre Belgique of 19 May 2003 [41] quotes SNCB’s press department, which explains that Belgium had still not notified the Commission of the rescue measures on 19 May 2003, whereas the framework agreement had been signed on 7 April 2003, by the fact that ‘the federal authority is [was] to have its say’.
Tako članek v La libre Belgique19. maja 2003 [41] navaja tiskovno službo SNCB, ki razloži, da Belgija 19. maja 2003 še ni priglasila ukrepov reševanja pri Komisiji, čeprav je bila okvirna pogodba podpisana 7. aprila 2003, zato ker „mora svoje povedati zvezna vlada“.
In an article which appeared in March 2003 on the website www.cheminots.be, Karel Vinck, at the time the Chief Executive of SNCB, was quoted on the subject of the ABX and IFB cases as follows: ‘He demands sufficient financial headroom for the management of the company.’
V članku, objavljenem marca 2003 na spletni strani www.cheminots.be, se omenja takratnega generalnega direktorja SNCB Karla Vincka v zvezi s spisoma ABX in IFB, kot sledi: „Za vodstvo družbe zahteva zadosten manevrski prostor“.
That allows the interpretation that SNCB’s management considered that the State was intervening too much in these cases.
Iz tega je mogoče razumeti, da so vodstveni delavci SNCB menili, da se država preveč vmešava v te zadeve.
Belgium refutes this implication.
Belgija zavrača ta kazalec.
As regards the article in La Libre Belgique, it emphasises, as in Article 2 of the framework agreement, that the federal authority only had something to say about the Belgian Government’s communication to the Commission, by means of which the framework agreement was notified.
V zvezi s člankom v La libre Belgique Belgija na primeru člena 2 okvirne pogodbe trdi, da je morala zvezna vlada dati mnenje samo o sporočilu belgijske vlade Komisiji, s katerim naj bi priglasili okvirno pogodbo.
The text of the press article and SNCB’s press release is clear.
Vendar je besedilo članka in sporočila za javnost družbe SNCB jasno.
If SNCB’s press department had wanted to say that the Belgian Government only had to approve a text for communication to the Commission, it would have indicated that the problem to be resolved was purely a problem of form, and not one of substance.
Če bi tiskovna služba pri SNCB hotela povedati, da mora belgijska vlada samo odobriti besedilo o prenosu Komisiji, bi navedla, da je treba rešiti zgolj formalno in ne vsebinsko vprašanje.
As regards the points made by Karel Vinck, the Belgian authorities consider that these were limited to the management of the public service assignments.
V zvezi z besedami Karla Vincka belgijski organi menijo, da se omejujejo na njegovo upravljanje nalog javne službe.
This does not appear very credible, as he was interviewed on the subject of the ABX and IFB files, which, as the Belgian Government itself recognised, concern SNCB’s commercial activities, and not the public service assignments.
To se zdi malo verjetno, ker je dal intervju o spisih ABX in IFB, ki sta povezana, kot priznava tudi belgijska vlada, s poslovnimi dejavnostmi SNCB in ne z nalogami javne službe.
Scope, contents, conditions of the framework agreement
Obseg, vsebina in pogoji okvirne pogodbe
In a more general manner, the Commission recalls the aforementioned point 56 of the Stardust Marine ruling which states that ‘any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the compass of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains’ must be taken into account to establish the imputability of a measure to the Member State, with the result that the scope, the content, and the conditions of the framework agreement constitute additional indications of imputability.
Na splošno Komisija opozarja, da je v skladu s točko 56 sodbe Stardust Marine, treba upoštevati „kateri koli drugi kazalec, ki v posameznem primeru kaže na sodelovanje javne uprave pri sprejemanju ukrepa ali majhno verjetnost, da ni vpletena, upoštevajoč tudi obseg ukrepa, njegovo vsebino ali pogoje, ki jih vsebuje“ pri ugotavljanju vpletenosti države članice v nek ukrep, tako da so obseg, vsebina in pogoji okvirne pogodbe dodatni kazalci vpletenosti.
Belgium refutes this third suggestion, repeating that SNCB would be completely autonomous in taking all these decisions, with the exception of the management of the public services.
Belgija zavrača tretji kazalec in ponavlja, da je družba SNCB povsem samostojna pri vseh odločitvah, razen pri upravljanju javnih služb.
The Commission considers that the 1993 Act which regulates SNCB’s status as a joint stock company under public law certainly gives SNCB independence for its commercial activities.
Komisija meni, da zakon iz leta 1993, ki ureja status SNCB kot delniške družbe, ki deluje po javnem pravu, SNCB brez dvoma daje samostojnost za opravljanje poslovnih dejavnosti.
However, the Commission recalls that the Government Commissioner is present at every meeting of the Executive Committee, and can refer a matter to the Belgian authorities in order to revoke a decision made by the Management Board relating to a matter which is not concerned with the fulfilment of public service assignments if that decision is prejudicial to […] the implementation of public service duties.
Vendar Komisija opozarja, da je vladni komisar prisoten na vsaki seji upravnega odbora in lahko s pritožbo opozori belgijske organe, da bi razveljavili odločitev upravnega odbora o zadevi, ki ni povezana z izvajanjem nalog javne službe, če ta odločitev „škodi izvajanju nalog javne službe“.
As already explained, the Commission considers that the decision to grant a cash advance of EUR 2,5 million could not be subject to appeal by the Government Commissioner as, due to its amount and its nature, it could not be prejudicial to the implementation of public service duties.
Kot je bilo že pojasnjeno, Komisija meni, da se vladni komisar ni mogel pritožiti na odločitev, da se zagotovi gotovinski predujem v višini 2,5 milijona EUR, ker predujem zaradi zneska in oblike ni mogel škoditi izvajanju nalog javne službe.
The assessment must be different for the decision to invest nearly EUR 100 million in a company on the verge of bankruptcy.
Ocena odločitve za naložbo v višini skoraj 100 milijonov EUR v družbo tik pred stečajem mora biti drugačna.
That decision should lead the Government Commissioner to intervene, or at least to inform the Belgian authorities so that they could intervene formally or informally, as he did for example in 2000 for the investments in the Italian branch of ABX.
Vladni komisar bi moral poseči v tako odločitev ali o njej vsaj obvestiti belgijske organe, da formalno ali neformalno posredujejo, kot je naredil na primer leta 2000 za naložbe v italijansko vejo ABX.
Consequently, the Commission considers that, taken together with the presence and the powers of the Government Commissioner, the scope, the contents and the conditions of the framework agreement also constitute evidence of imputability.
Zato Komisija meni, da obseg, vsebina in pogoji okvirne pogodbe skupaj s prisotnostjo in pooblastili vladnega komisarja pomenijo kazalec vpletenosti.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the measures in question are imputable to the Belgian State as regards the period subsequent to the decision by SNCB’s Management Board of 20 December 2002.
Zato Komisija sklene, da se Belgiji pripišejo zadevni ukrepi za obdobje po odločitvi upravnega odbora SNCB 20. decembra 2002.
It is therefore necessary to analyse whether the measures taken by SNCB concerning IFB from 20 December onwards conferred an advantage upon the beneficiary, or if, on the contrary, SNCB behaved like an informed investor in a market economy.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali so ukrepi SNCB za IFB po 20. decembru 2002 prejemnici prinesli prednost ali pa je, ravno nasprotno, družba SNCB ravnala kot bi ravnal preudaren vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Advantage to the aid recipient applying the principle of an informed investor in a market economy
Prednost za prejemnika pomoči ob uporabi načela preudarnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu
It is necessary to analyse whether the decision by SNCB’s Management Board of 20 December 2002 to increase IFB’s capital by the conversion of credits due, and to award the rescue measures, which led to SNCB’s signature, on 7 April 2003, of the framework agreement with IFB, created an economic advantage for IFB, or if this decision was the result of an assessment by a private investor in a market economy.
Preučiti je treba, ali je odločitev upravnega odbora SNCB 20. decembra 2002, da se poveča kapital IFB s pretvorbo zapadlih obveznosti in odobrijo ukrepi reševanja, ki je pripeljala do podpisa okvirne pogodbe z IFB 7. aprila 2003, ustvarila gospodarsko prednost za IFB ali pa ta odločitev izhaja iz ocene zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Since SNCB’s decision not to request any further payment of its invoices to IFB from the end of 2000 until December 2002 and SNCB’s decision to award an advance of EUR 2,5 million are not imputable to Belgium, there is no longer any need to analyse these decisions in detail.
Ker odločitve SNCB, da ne zahteva plačila računov, izstavljenih IFB, od konca leta 2000 do decembra 2002 in da odobri predujem v višini 2,5 milijona EUR, ni mogoče pripisati Belgiji, teh odločitev ni treba podrobno preučiti.
For information, the rescue measures consist of:
Naj spomnimo, da so ukrepi reševanja zajemali:
The granting of a payment extension for debts of EUR 63 million,
odobritev odloga plačila dolgov v višini 63 milijonov EUR;
The granting of a credit facility of EUR 15 million,
zagotovitev posojila v višini 15 milijonov EUR;
The granting of a recoverable advance of EUR 5 million.
zagotovitev predujma, ki ga je treba vrniti, v višini 5 milijonov EUR;
The restructuring measures consisted of the divestiture of the subsidiaries in France and the restructuring and continuation of activities in Belgium.
Ukrepi prestrukturiranja so zajemali umik iz hčerinskih družb v Franciji ter prestrukturiranje in nadaljevanje dejavnosti v Belgiji.
The financing of these measures was initially ensured by the rescue measures, the restructuring plan providing that this finance would be secured by the conversion of the subsequent debts into capital stock:
Financiranje teh ukrepov je bilo najprej zagotovljeno z ukrepi reševanja, kajti načrt za prestrukturiranje je predvideval, da se financiranje podaljšuje s pretvorbo naslednjih terjatev v osnovni kapital:
The conversion of debts of EUR 63 million for which a payment extension had been granted into capital stock,
pretvorba dolgov v višini 63 milijonov EUR, za katere je bil odobren odlog plačila, v osnovni kapital;
The conversion of the credit facility of EUR 15 million into capital stock,
pretvorba posojila v višini 15 milijonov EUR v osnovni kapital;
The conversion of the capitalised interest on the payment extension and on the credit facility into capital stock.
pretvorba kapitaliziranih obresti odloga plačila in posojila v osnovni kapital.
In order to establish whether SNCB behaved as a private investor in a market economy would have done, it is necessary to assess whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a size comparable to SNCB, finding itself in a situation comparable to that of SNCB, would have acted in the same way [42].
Da bi ugotovili, ali je družba SNCB ravnala, kot bi ravnal zasebni vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu, je treba oceniti, ali bi primerljivo velik zasebni vlagatelj v podobnih okoliščinah in primerljivem položaju kot SNCB ravnal enako [42].
The Court of Justice stated that, while the conduct of a private investor is not necessarily that of an ordinary investor placing capital funds with a view to their profitability in the shorter or longer term, it must, at least, be that of a private holding, or a group of private businesses pursuing a structural, global or sector policy, and guided by the prospects of profitability in the longer term [43].
Sodišče je razložilo, da ni nujno, da je ravnanje zasebnega vlagatelja enako ravnanju običajnega vlagatelja, ki naloži kapital zaradi bolj ali manj kratkoročnega donosa, vendar pa mora biti enako ravnanju zasebnega holdinga ali zasebne skupine podjetij, ki izvaja strukturno, globalno ali panožno politiko in ga vodijo obeti dolgoročne donosnosti [43].
The Court stated that the Commission is obliged to ‘conduct a complete analysis of all the factors pertinent to the contested action and in its context’ in order to know whether the State acted as an informed investor in a market economy would have done [44].
Sodišče prve stopnje je povedalo, da mora Komisija „narediti izčrpno analizo vseh primernih elementov sporne operacije in njenega ozadja“, da bi vedeli, ali je država ravnala, kot bi ravnal preudaren vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu [44].
In its reply to the letter initiating the procedure, Belgium considers that SNCB’s decision to request IFB to divest the group’s French subsidiaries, and also SNCB’s decision to request IFB to restructure and continue with its activities in Belgium correspond to decisions which a private investor in a market economy would have taken.
Belgija v odgovoru na dopis o sprožitvi postopka meni, da odločitev SNCB, da zahteva od IFB, naj umakne naložbe iz francoskih hčerinskih družb ter prestrukturira in nadaljuje svoje dejavnosti v Belgiji, ustreza odločitvam, kakršne bi sprejel zasebni vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The Commission however considers that the pertinent question is not to know whether IFB, in divesting its subsidiaries in France and restructuring and continuing its activities in Belgium, acted in the same way as an investor in a market economy, but to know whether SNCB’s decision to finance these two measures is a decision that a private investor would have taken.
Vendar pa Komisija meni, da ne gre za vprašanje, ali je IFB z umikom iz hčerinskih družb v Franciji ter prestrukturiranjem in nadaljevanjem dejavnosti v Belgiji ravnala, kot bi ravnal vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu, ampak za vprašanje ali je bila odločitev družbe SNCB, da bo financirala ta dva ukrepa, odločitev, kakršno bi sprejel zasebni vlagatelj.