natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the buying option for adjacent land in the land sale contract for Sovello1, in this particular case the Commission agrees with the German authorities that as such the buying option may not be a sufficient reason to conclude that there is a functional link within the meaning of point 49 of the MSF 2002, also in view of the fact that the beneficiary did not pay for this buying option, and that alternative locations for Sovello2 were envisaged by the investor.
Kar zadeva možnost nakupa sosednjega zemljišča v pogodbi o prodaji zemljišča za Sovello1, se Komisija v tem posebnem primeru strinja z nemškimi organi, da taka možnost nakupa sama po sebi ne more biti zadosten razlog za sklep, da obstaja funkcionalna povezava v smislu točke 49 Večsektorskega okvira 2002, zlasti ob upoštevanju dejstva, da upravičenec za možnost nakupa ni plačal in da je vlagatelj predvidel tudi druge lokacije za Sovello2.
Based on the elements above, the Commission considers that there is no physical and no strong functional link within the meaning of point 49 of the MSF 2002 between Sovello1 and Sovello2.
Komisija na podlagi zgornjih elementov meni, da med projektoma Sovello1 in Sovello2 ni fizične in močne funkcionalne povezave v smislu točke 49 Večsektorskega okvira 2002.
Clearly identified aim
Jasno opredeljen cilj
The German authorities claim that Sovello1 constituted a pilot project, which was aimed at validating the functioning, yield efficiency, and economic viability of a manufacturing process at industrial scale along the value added chain which was based on a fundamentally innovative technology [36], whereas the objective of Sovello2, subsequent to the demonstrated technical and economic viability, was to expand capacity in view of large-scale manufacturing.
Nemški organi trdijo, da je bil Sovello1 pilotni projekt, s katerim naj bi ovrednotili delovanje, učinkovitost (izkoristek) in ekonomsko upravičenost proizvodnega postopka v industrijskem obsegu vzdolž celotne verige ustvarjanja dodane vrednost, ki je temeljila na popolnoma inovativni tehnologiji [36], medtem ko je bil cilj projekta Sovello2, ki je zaživel, potem ko je bila dokazana tehnična in ekonomska upravičenost, razširiti zmogljivosti za množično proizvodnjo.
They conclude that hence both investment projects Sovello1 and Sovello2 had different aims.
Na podlagi tega ugotavljajo, da sta imela naložbena projekta Sovello1 in Sovello2 različne cilje.
In this respect the Commission would like to point out that, contrary to the interpretations of the German authorities, it did not consider in the Qimonda decision that pilot projects would automatically have a different aim for the purpose of the application of point 49 of the MSF 2002.
Komisija bi v zvezi s tem rada opozorila, da v nasprotju z razlago nemških organov v odločitvi Qimonda ni menila, da imajo pilotni projekti že sami po sebi drugačen cilj za namene uporabe točke 49 Večsektorskega okvira 2002.
The Commission in that decision only found that the particular pilot project at hand had a different objective and did not form a single investment project with the second project.
Komisija je v navedeni odločitvi ugotovila samo, da je imel pilotni projekt, ki ga je obravnavala, drugačen cilj in ni tvoril enotnega naložbenega projekta z drugim projektom.
It is true that, when examining the aims of two projects, the fact that one qualifies as a pilot project, can be a strong indication of the fact that both projects pursue different aims, but depending on the specific characteristics of the projects in each individual case, this qualification may not be enough to clearly distinguish the aims of both projects.
Pri obravnavanju ciljev dveh projektov dejstvo, da se eden šteje za pilotni projekt, že res lahko trdno kaže, da imata projekta različne cilje, vendar ta opredelitev, odvisno od značilnosti projektov v vsakem posameznem primeru, ne more biti ni dovolj, da bi jasno razlikovali med cilji obeh projektov.
Therefore, and also taking into account the difficulties to define a pilot project, the Commission considers that one must rather look at the individual characteristics of each project to see whether the particular, special pilot character it demonstrates, gives it an objective that is sufficiently different from the second project.
Zaradi tega in ob upoštevanju težav pri opredeljevanju pilotnega projekta Komisija meni, da je bolje upoštevati posamezne lastnosti vsakega projekta in tako preveriti, ali poseben pilotni značaj, ki ga izkazuje projekt, kaže na cilj, ki se dovolj razlikuje od drugega projekta.
In this case a number of elements were put forward which demonstrate that Sovello1 and Sovello2 have a different, clearly identified aim.
V tej zadevi je bilo predloženih več elementov, ki kažejo, da imata Sovello1 in Sovello2 različne, jasno opredeljene cilje.
The comments submitted by EPIA confirm the frequent existence of phased approach in the solar industry for the development of innovations and novel technologies, which is based on economic criteria, and the existence of numerous projects in the photovoltaic sector aiming at verifying the industrial feasibility of innovations as well as the replicability of processes prior to large-scale implementation.
Pripombe, ki jih je predložilo združenje EPIA, potrjujejo, da je postopen pristop na podlagi ekonomskih meril nekaj običajnega pri razvoju inovacij in novih tehnologij v sončni industriji in da v fotovoltaičnem sektorju obstajajo številni projekti, s katerimi se preverjata industrijska izvedljivost inovacij in ponovljivost postopkov, preden se začnejo izvajati v širšem obsegu.
They also confirm that Sovello1 was the first investment worldwide to industrially test the String-Ribbon technology.
Potrjujejo tudi, da je bil Sovello1 prva naložba na svetu za industrijsko preskušanje tehnologije string-ribbon.
The Commission understands from the MJVA that the production in Sovello1 was to be based on the String-Ribbon technology for the wafer production, but had to integrate Q-Cells manufacturing techniques, in view of developing production processes which should be applicable at industrial scale and economically proven.
Komisija iz SSP razume, da bi morala proizvodnja v obratu Sovello1 temeljiti na tehnologiji string-ribbon za izdelavo rezin, a jo je bilo treba združiti s proizvodnimi tehnikami Q-Cells, da bi tako razvili proizvodne postopke, ki naj bi jih bilo mogoče uporabiti v industrijskem obsegu in ki bi morali biti ekonomsko preverjeni.
This implied a range of technological innovations, machinery specifically developed for Sovello1, focussing on automatisation and replicability of the production processes at industrial scale, which led to the production of modules of the Spruce Line type.
To je prineslo niz tehnoloških inovacij, razvoj posebnih strojnih naprav za Sovello1, pri čemer je bil poudarek na avtomatizaciji in ponovljivosti proizvodnih postopkov v industrijskem obsegu, rezultat vsega tega pa je bila proizvodnja modulov tipa Spruce Line.
Sovello1 was therefore a very novel project, that aimed at testing the technical feasibility and economic viability of manufacturing at industrial scale solar modules based on the String-Ribbon technology.
Sovello1 je bil tako izjemno inovativen projekt, usmerjen v preskušanje tehnične izvedljivosti in ekonomske upravičenosti proizvodnje solarnih modulov s tehnologijo string-ribbon v industrijskem obsegu.
Sovello2 would be the industrial large-scale production, which could only be started if Sovello1 was successful.
V obratu Sovello2 naj bi potekala proizvodnja v industrijskem obsegu, ki bi se lahko začela le, če bi bil Sovello1 uspešen.
In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission had questioned the scale of the Sovello1 facility (production capacity of 30 MWp), compared to 15 MWp for laboratory production in Marlboro, and to only 60 MWp for serial production in Sovello2.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka izrazila pomisleke o obsegu obrata Sovello1 (proizvodna zmogljivost 30 MWp), saj je imela laboratorijska proizvodnja v Marlboru zmogljivost 15 MWp, pri serijski proizvodnji v obratu Sovello2 pa so zmogljivosti povečali samo na 60 MWp.
Germany however explained that the full capacity of the Marlboro plant was only reached in 2004, and argued that this did not indicate that Marlboro applied industrial production processes.
Nemčija je sicer pojasnila, da so bile polne zmogljivosti obrata v Marlboru dosežene šele leta 2004, in po njenih trditvah to ne pomeni, da so se v Marlboru uporabljali postopki industrijske proizvodnje.
This seems to be confirmed by the fact that Evergreen currently envisages to close its manufacturing activities in Marlboro (only maintaining R & D), in conjunction with the ramp up of its new manufacturing facility in Devens [37].
Na to kaže tudi dejstvo, da Evergreen trenutno načrtuje zaprtje proizvodnih dejavnosti v Marlboru (ohranili bodo samo raziskave in razvoj) in okrepitev novih proizvodnih zmogljivosti v Devensu [37].
Germany further indicates that pilot projects with production capacities ranging from 10 to 30 MWp are normal in the photovoltaic industry.
Nemčija še navaja, da so pilotni projekti s proizvodno zmogljivostjo od 10 do 30 MWp v fotovoltaični industriji nekaj običajnega.
They also explain that the 30 MWp of Sovello1 was conditioned by the capacity of the […].
Pojasnjuje tudi, da je bila zmogljivost 30 MWp v obratu Sovello1 odvisna od zmogljivosti […].
The Commission initially had doubts on the ‘limited production capacity’ of Sovello2 compared to the Sovello1 capacity, but the German authorities explained that currently the maximum capacity of String-Ribbon facilities seems to be around 75-80 MWp, and indicated that a further expansion of Sovello (Sovello3) was started in 2008 and is close to its completion.
Komisija je na začetku dvomila o „omejeni proizvodni zmogljivosti“ obrata Sovello2 v primerjavi z zmogljivostjo obrata Sovello1, vendar so nemški organi pojasnili, da se zdi trenutno največja zmogljivost, ki jo je mogoče doseči s tehnologijo string-ribbon, približno 75–80 MWp, in navedli, da se je leta 2008 začela nadaljnja širitev podjetja Sovello (Sovello3), ki bo kmalu končana.
Regarding the cost multiplication factor of the Qimonda investments compared to the cost multiplication factor for the two Sovello investment projects, the Commission notes that the costs in the Qimonda decision refer to three investments, that the costs for building and equipment in the semiconductor industry are much higher than in the photovoltaic industry, and that the output per machine is significantly lower in the semiconductor industry (so for mass production, they need to install much more equipment).
Komisija v zvezi z multiplikacijskim faktorjem stroškov naložb družbe Qimonda v primerjavi z multiplikacijskim faktorjem stroškov za naložbena projekta podjetja Sovello ugotavlja, da se stroški v odločitvi Qimonda nanašajo na tri naložbe, da so stroški za zgradbe in opremo v industriji polprevodnikov veliko višji od stroškov v fotovoltaični industriji in da je izkoristek strojne naprave v industriji polprevodnikov občutno nižji (tako da je treba za množično proizvodnjo namestiti več opreme).
The Commission notes also that pilot projects in the semiconductor sector are relatively less expensive due to the much higher level of standardisation of the machinery in this sector.
Komisija tudi navaja, da so pilotni projekti v sektorju polprevodnikov relativno cenejši zaradi veliko višje stopnje standardizacije strojnih naprav v tem sektorju.
The Commission also considers that a higher ratio ‘cost of follow-up project/cost of pilot project’ could result from a better financial position of the investor.
Komisija tudi meni, da bi višje razmerje med „stroški za nadaljevalni projekt in stroški za pilotni projekt“ lahko izhajalo iz boljšega finančnega položaja vlagatelja.
The Commission also notes that initially, a much larger project had been notified (Sovello2 + Sovello3), and that at a later stage the notification was amended to exclude aid to Sovello3 from its scope, and the Sovello3 investment was delayed.
Komisija še navaja, da je bil prvotno priglašen veliko večji projekt (Sovello2 + Sovello3) in da je bila priglasitev naknadno spremenjena, tako da je bila iz njenega obsega izključena pomoč za Sovello3, naložba v Sovello3 pa je bila odložena.
For these reasons, and taking account of the dynamics and the rapid development of this demand-driven sector, the Commission considers that the ‘low’ cost multiplication factor of the two Sovello investment projects does not allow to exclude Sovello1 from the qualification as a pilot project with a different aim than Sovello2.
Komisija iz vseh teh razlogov ter ob upoštevanju dinamike in hitrega razvoja tega sektorja, ki ga narekuje povpraševanje, meni, da „nizek“ multiplikacijski faktor stroškov dveh naložbenih projektov Sovello ni razlog, da projekta Sovello1 ne bi bilo mogoče opredeliti kot pilotni projekt z drugačnim ciljem, kot ga ima Sovello2.
Furthermore, the Commission also took into account that, before Sovello2 was launched, a genuine go/no go decision for further investments was taken based on the results of Sovello1.
Komisija je poleg tega upoštevala, da je bila še pred začetkom izvajanja projekta Sovello2 na podlagi rezultatov projekta Sovello1 sprejeta dejanska odločitev za ali proti glede nadaljnjih naložb.
In this respect, it is true that an application for aid for Sovello2 was filed already in February 2006 (provisional granting decision December 2006).
V tem smislu drži, da je bil zahtevek za pomoč za Sovello2 vložen že februarja 2006 (začasna odločitev o dodelitvi decembra 2006).
The Commission assumed at the time of opening the formal investigation that at the time of the submission of the aid application file, the aid beneficiary had concrete plans about the scope and the financing of the investment project.
Komisija je ob sprožitvi formalne preiskave domnevala, da je imel upravičenec do pomoči ob predložitvi zahtevka za pomoč konkretne načrte glede obsega in financiranja naložbenega projekta.
However, it appears from the information provided that the final investment decision was only taken in June 2006, after the ‘milestones’ set for Sovello2 were reached.
Na podlagi dobljenih informacij pa se zdi, da je bila dokončna odločitev o naložbi sprejeta šele junija 2006, potem ko so bili doseženi „mejniki“, postavljeni za Sovello2.
This is underscored by the fact that the supply contract with REC (ensuring sufficient silicon for Sovello2) was only signed in June 2006, which appears to confirm that the real ‘go/no go decision’ was only taken then.
To še podkrepljuje dejstvo, da je bila pogodba o dobavi z REC (s katero je bilo zagotovljenega dovolj silicija za Sovello2) podpisana šele junija 2006, kar naj bi potrjevalo dejstvo, da je bila šele takrat sprejeta dejanska „odločitev za ali proti“.
While the management of the beneficiary company may obviously have had earlier indications that the technological and economic targets were likely to be reached, this is not in contradiction with the concept of Sovello1 as a pilot project in 2005, with pre-established technological and economic targets, clearly distinct from those of Sovello2.
Medtem ko je vodstvo upravičenega podjetja prav mogoče lahko že prej videlo znamenja, da bodo tehnološki in ekonomski cilji verjetno doseženi, to ni v nasprotju s pojmovanjem projekta Sovello1 kot pilotnega projekta v letu 2005, saj so se predhodno določeni tehnološki in ekonomski cilji jasno razlikovali od ciljev za Sovello2.
Furthermore, the Commission also took into account that, based on the OECD Frascati Manual [38], which sets global standards accepted in R & D & I policy, Sovello1 has the characteristics of a pilot project.
Poleg tega je Komisija na podlagi Frascatijevega priročnika OECD [38], ki določa splošne standarde, sprejete v okviru politike raziskav, razvoja in inovacij, upoštevala, da ima Sovello1 značilnosti pilotnega projekta.
The OECD definition distinguishes between several forms of pilot plants: those concerning the experimental development of a new invention or technology (in this case, String-Ribbon technology) under laboratory conditions, and others concerning the experimental development of a process technology to industrially exploit the new invention or technology.
Opredelitev OECD razlikuje med več oblikami pilotnih obratov: tistimi, ki zadevajo poskusni razvoj novega izuma ali tehnologije (v tem primeru tehnologije string-ribbon) v laboratorijskih razmerah, in drugimi, ki zadevajo poskusni razvoj procesne tehnologije za industrijsko izkoriščanje novega izuma ali tehnologije.
Point 2.3.4 of the Frascati Manual expressly addresses borderline cases between R & D and other industrial activities (such as Sovello1) and provides classifications of how to distinguish R & D from industrial activities.
V točki 2.3.4 Frascatijevega priročnika so izrecno obravnavani mejni primeri med raziskavami in razvojem ter drugimi industrijskimi dejavnostmi (kot je Sovello1), podane so tudi opredelitve, v skladu s katerimi je mogoče razlikovati med raziskavami in razvojem ter industrijskimi dejavnostmi.
It is worth noticing that the industry standards and benchmarks (e.g. cost multiplication factor) can differ from industry to industry.
Treba je pripomniti, da se lahko industrijski standardi in primerjalna merila (npr. multiplikacijski faktor stroškov) po sektorjih razlikujejo.
In light of the description of EPIA of the photovoltaic market as being very dynamic and characterised by high demand, the Commission considers that, in the case at hand, the fact that Sovello1 production was immediately commercialised is no decisive proof that Sovello1 was not conceived as a pilot project.
Ob upoštevanju opisa združenja EPIA, v katerem je navedeno, da je fotovoltaični trg izjemno dinamičen in ga zaznamuje veliko povpraševanje, Komisija meni, da v zadevnem primeru takojšnja komercializacija proizvodnje podjetja Sovello ni odločilen dokaz, da Sovello1 ni bil zasnovan kot pilotni projekt.
The judgment of the European Court of First Instance in Case T-184/97 BP v Commission concerns the meaning of pilot projects for the technological development of more environmentally-friendly products (in particular in relation to fuels from renewable sources).
V sodbi Evropskega sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T-184/97, BP proti Komisiji, je obravnavan pomen pilotnih projektov za tehnološki razvoj do okolja prijaznejših izdelkov (zlasti v zvezi z gorivi iz obnovljivih virov).
The contested scheme in this case goes far beyond the implementation of a pilot project pursuing the technological development, and seems essentially concerned with economic and industrial development pursuing a better market penetration of biofuels.
Sporni program v tej zadevi močno presega izvedbo pilotnega projekta, usmerjenega v tehnološki razvoj, ter se zdi usmerjen predvsem v ekonomski in industrijski razvoj, s katerim bi povečali uveljavitev biogoriv na trgu.
The Sovello1 project, however, pursues both aims: validating a new technological process (String-Ribbon combined with Q-Cells manufacturing techniques) at an industrial scale and testing its economic viability.
Projekt Sovello1 pa je usmerjen v oba cilja: preverjanje novega tehnološkega postopka (string-ribbon v kombinaciji s proizvodnimi tehnikami Q-Cells) v industrijskem obsegu in preskušanje njegove ekonomske upravičenosti.
As explained above, this is indeed not in contradiction with the OECD definition of pilot plants.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno zgoraj, to v resnici ni v nasprotju z opredelitvijo pilotnih obratov, ki jo podaja OECD.
Based on the above, the Commission is of the opinion that Sovello1 and Sovello2, although they have the same precise technical function (production of solar modules based on the same technology), have different aims: the objective of Sovello1 was to verify whether the production of solar modules (based on the String-Ribbon technology combined with Q-Cells manufacturing technologies) was technologically and economically feasible at industrial scale, whereas the objective of Sovello2 was to develop serial production of such modules.
Komisija na podlagi navedenega meni, da imata Sovello1 in Sovello2, čeprav imata enako natančno določeno tehnično funkcijo (proizvodnjo solarnih modulov na podlagi iste tehnologije), različna cilja: cilj projekta Sovello1 je bil preveriti, ali je proizvodnja solarnih modulov (na podlagi tehnologije string-ribbon v kombinaciji s proizvodnimi tehnologijami Q-Cells) tehnološko in ekonomsko izvedljiva v industrijskem obsegu, medtem ko je bil cilj projekta Sovello2 razviti serijsko proizvodnjo takih modulov.
Economic indivisibility
Ekonomska nedeljivost
Both projects Sovello1 and Sovello2 are independently economically viable.
Projekta Sovello1 in Sovello2 sta vsak zase sposobna ekonomsko preživeti.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that alternative locations for Sovello2, both in Europe and the USA, had been considered by the management of the beneficiary company before choosing Thalheim.
Komisija poleg tega opozarja, da je vodstvo upravičenega podjetja preučevalo alternativne lokacije za Sovello2, tako v Evropi kot v ZDA, preden se je odločilo za Thalheim.
No economic incentive to artificially separate the two investment projects
Nobene ekonomske spodbude, da bi umetno ločili naložbena projekta
The German authorities based their calculation on the assumption that a single investment project (with reduced total costs) would also have benefited of an SME bonus of 15 %, as was the case for the Sovello1 project.
Nemški organi so pri izračunu izhajali iz domneve, da bi enotni naložbeni projekt (z nižjimi skupnimi stroški) izkoristil tudi dodatek za MSP v višini 15 %, kar se je zgodilo pri projektu Sovello1.
It is however not sure that the Commission would have approved an SME bonus for an investment project of such a large scope.
Vseeno pa ni gotovo, ali bi Komisija odobrila dodatek za MSP za tako velik naložbeni projekt.
Whatever the scenario, even if no SME bonus would have been allowed, all calculations suggest that Sovello had no economic incentive to ‘artificially’ split Sovello1 and Sovello2.
Kakor koli, tudi če dodatek za MSP ne bi bil odobren, vsi izračuni kažejo, da podjetje Sovello ni imelo ekonomske spodbude za „umetno“ razdelitev projektov Sovello1 in Sovello2.
Therefore the Commission must always examine the economic reality based on the criteria in paragraph 49 of the MSF 2002, irrespective of the intention of the parties.
Komisija mora zato ne glede na namen strank vedno preveriti ekonomski položaj na podlagi meril iz odstavka 49 Večsektorskega okvira 2002.
Conclusion: no single investment project
Sklep: ni enoten naložbeni projekt
The Sovello investments were not only split because of insufficient financing and insufficient silicon, but also because the investors had to industrially and economically test a highly innovative technology.
Naložbi podjetja Sovello sta bili razdeljeni ne samo zaradi nezadostnega financiranja in nezadostnih količin silicija, temveč tudi zato, ker so morali vlagatelji industrijsko in ekonomsko preskusiti izredno inovativno tehnologijo.
If the factory yield and cell efficiency targets had not been reached, the Sovello2 project would in all likelihood not have been carried out.
Če ne bi dosegli ciljnega izkoristka tovarne in učinkovitosti celic, projekta Sovello2 najverjetneje sploh ne bi mogli izvesti.
It can therefore be concluded that, although Sovello1 and 2 have the same precise technical function, they are not economically indivisible, have no physical and no strong functional link, and have a clearly different aim.
Zato je mogoče skleniti, da imata Sovello1 in 2 sicer enako natančno določeno tehnično funkcijo, a nista ekonomsko nedeljiva, med njima ni fizične in močne funkcionalne povezave, poleg tega imata očitno različne cilje.