natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The other interest (for a total of EUR 9,7 million) forms part of the increase in capital.
Druge obresti (skupaj v višini 9,7 milijona EUR) bodo vključene v povečanje kapitala.
All this interest is interest on the debts linked to IFB’s non-French activities,
Vse to so obresti od dolgov, ki so povezani z dejavnostmi IFB izven Francije.
Taxes (section A.4): the taxes paid in 2004 are an accrual from the 1999 tax year.
davki (odsek A.4): davki, plačani leta 2004, so poravnava za davčno leto 1999.
According to Belgium, these finance requirements were partly covered by IFB and partly by SNCB.
Kot navaja Belgija sta te finančne potrebe pokrivali delno IFB in delno SNCB.
As regards IFB’s contribution (section B.2), Belgium provided the following additional information:
V zvezi s prispevkom IFB (odsek B.2) Belgija dodaja naslednje podatke:
These achievements confirm the forecasts made on the basis of the data possessed by the company IFB during the development of the restructuring plan (see points 74 and 75 of this decision),
Povečanja produktivnosti potrjujejo napovedi na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je imela družba IFB med pripravo načrta za prestrukturiranje (glej točki 74 in 75 te odločbe);
Various financial revenues (section B.2.2): these account for EUR 1,4 million. These financial revenues arise from interest which IFB was able to accumulate on its bank accounts.
različni finančni prihodki (odsek B.2.2): v znesku 1,4 milijona EUR. Ti finančni prihodki so obresti, ki so se nabrale na bančnih računih IFB.
These revenues were foreseeable at the time of the restructuring plan, as they correspond to the ‘Euribor’ interest for the sums which IFB could reasonably expect to see in its accounts in view of the forecasts in its restructuring plan,
Te prihodke je bilo mogoče predvideti v načrtu za prestrukturiranje, ker ustrezajo obrestim „EURIBOR“ za zneske, ki jih je IFB lahko pričakovala na svojih računih glede na napovedi iz načrta za prestrukturiranje;
Extraordinary revenues (section B.2.8): these account for EUR 1,1 million. These extraordinary revenues arise from capital appreciation which IFB was able to achieve from the sale of 263 EAOS wagons […].
izredni prihodki (odsek B.2.8): v znesku 1,1 milijona EUR. Ti izredni prihodki izhajajo iz kapitalskega dobička, ki ga je družba IFB ustvarila s prodajo 263 vagonov EAOS […].
In 2003, during the preparation of the restructuring plan, this capital appreciation was foreseeable, as the market for EAOS wagons was experiencing important growth due to the increased demand for this type of wagon in Eastern Europe,
Med pripravo načrta za prestrukturiranje leta 2003 je bilo mogoče predvideti te kapitalske dobičke od prodaje, ker je bilo na trgu veliko povpraševanje po vagonih EAOS zaradi povečanega povpraševanja po teh vagonih v vzhodni Evropi;
In 2004 and 2005, IFB freed up around EUR 2,7 million by lowering its working capital requirement (section B.2.3),
v letih 2004 in 2005 je družba IFB sprostila približno 2,7 milijona EUR, s tem ko je zmanjšala potrebe po gibljivih sredstvih (odsek B.2.3).
IFB financed the restructuring costs partly by the sale of assets (sections B.2.4 and B.2.5).
Družba IFB je stroške prestrukturiranja delno financirala s prodajo premoženja (odseka B.2.4 in B.2.5).
Besides the sale of various assets of relatively limited importance, this part of the contribution principally consisted of divestiture in 2004 of assets utilised at the OCHZ terminal.
Poleg prodaje različnega premoženja v relativno omejenem obsegu ta del prispevka predstavljajo predvsem dezinvesticije sredstev, ki so se uporabljala v terminalu OCHZ, leta 2004.
The co-ownership rights (50 %) of these assets utilised by OCHZ were ceded […] (see line B.2.4 in 2004) and IFB recovered an additional sum of EUR 0,9 million in working capital from OCHZ (see line B.2.5 for 2004),
Solastniške pravice (50 %) do teh sredstev, ki jih je uporabljala OCHZ, so bile prenesene […] (glej vrstico B.2.4 za leto 2004) in družba IFB je od OCHZ prejela dodatni znesek v višini 0,9 milijona EUR v gibljivih sredstvih (glej vrstico B.2.5 za leto 2004);
in 2003, IFB obtained a bank loan for a sum of EUR 2 million from ING Bank (see line B.2.6).
Leta 2003 je družba IFB pri ING Bank dobila bančno posojilo v višini 2 milijonov EUR (glej vrstico B.2.6).
In 2006, IFB financed the purchase of ‘reach stackers’ by means of an external loan of EUR 1,3 million,
Leta 2006 je IFB z zunanjim posojilom v višini 1,3 milijona EUR financirala nakup „reach stackers“,
Belgium considers that it has contributed to the restructuring plan from its own resources, as required by the 1999 guidelines.
Belgija meni, da je za načrt za prestrukturiranje zagotovila prispevek iz lastnih sredstev, kot to zahtevajo smernice iz leta 1999.
Evaluation of the aid character of the rescue and restructuring measures
Ocena narave pomoči pri ukrepih reševanja in prestrukturiranja
According to Article 87(1) of the Treaty, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe „je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.“.
Aid granted by the State or through State resources
Pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica ali pomoč iz državnih sredstev
The first question to be considered is whether SNCB’s financial support for IFB was ‘granted by a State or through State resources’.
Najprej se postavi vprašanje, ali je bila finančna podpora družbe SNCB za IFB „pomoč, ki jo dodeli država, ali […] pomoč iz državnih sredstev“.
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Stardust Marine [28], this criterion is fulfilled if, on the one hand, it concerns State resources, and if, on the other hand, their granting is attributable to the State, that is to say Belgium.
V skladu s sodno prakso Stardust Marine Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti [28] je to merilo izpolnjeno, če gre za državna sredstva in če je dodelitev mogoče pripisati državi, torej Belgiji.
In this context, ‘… it should be recalled that it has already been established in the case-law of the Court that Article 87(1) EC covers all the financial means by which the public authorities may actually support undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those means are permanent assets of the public sector.
V tem okviru „… je treba opozoriti, da iz sodne prakse Sodišča izhaja, da člen 87(1) zajema vsa denarna sredstva, ki jih organi oblasti dejansko lahko uporabijo za podporo podjetjem […].
Therefore, even if the sums corresponding to the measure in question are not permanently held by the Treasury, the fact that they constantly remain under public control, and therefore available to the competent national authorities, is sufficient for them to be categorised as State resources’ [29].
Kljub temu da zneski, ki ustrezajo zadevnemu ukrepu, niso v stalni lasti državne blagajne, zadošča dejstvo, da so pod stalnim javnim nadzorom in torej na voljo pristojnim nacionalnim organom, da se obravnavajo kot državna sredstva“ [29].
Consequently, the Commission estimated in its letter initiating the procedure (points 136 to 138) that the sums put at IFB’s disposal must be categorised as State resources.
Zato je Komisija v dopisu o sprožitvi postopka (točke od 136 do 138) ocenila, da je treba zneske, ki jih je družba IFB dobila na razpolago, obravnavati kot državna sredstva.
Belgium contests the fact that all the resources at SNCB’s disposal constitute State resources.
Belgija nasprotuje dejstvu, da so vsa sredstva, s katerimi razpolaga SNCB, državna sredstva.
The Commission responds to the three arguments by Belgium as follows:
Komisija odgovarja na tri belgijske argumente, kot sledi:
The proposed distinction between SNCB’s resources allocated to public service assignments and the resources allocated to commercial activities is not relevant in the light of the Stardust Marine ruling.
Predlagano razlikovanje sredstev SNCB za naloge javne službe in sredstev za poslovne dejavnosti v luči sodbe Stardust Marine ni umestno.
In effect, this ruling concerns the resources of a public bank, which demonstrates well that the resources of a public undertaking allocated to commercial activities can constitute State resources.
Dejansko je to sodba v zvezi s sredstvi javne banke, kar lepo kaže, da so sredstva javnega podjetja, namenjena za poslovne dejavnosti, lahko tudi državna sredstva.
The argument that SNCB’s capital is not at the disposal of Belgium, but allocated to the social aims of SNCB cannot be accepted either.
Tudi argumenta, da premoženje SNCB ni na voljo Belgiji, ampak naj bi bilo namenjeno poslovni dejavnosti SNCB, ni mogoče sprejeti.
The fact that Belgium owns 100 % of SNCB’s capital, that this remains under continuous public control and that the State could at any moment decide to privatise SNCB, demonstrates that the capital of this company is at the disposal of the Belgian State.
Dejstvo, da ima Belgija v lasti 100 % kapitala SNCB, da je ta pod stalnim javnim nadzorom in da se država lahko kadar koli odloči za privatizacijo SNCB, namreč kaže, da Belgija razpolaga s premoženjem SNCB.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Belgian State appoints the administrators of the Management Board, together with the Chief Executive, which bestows upon it a certain control over the business.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da Belgija imenuje člane nadzornega sveta in generalnega direktorja, s čimer pridobi določen nadzor nad podjetjem.
The argument that the measures granted to IFB by SNCB do not lead to any loss of the Belgian State’s capital is factually incorrect: as Belgium is the owner of SNCB, any bad investment which diminishes the SNCB’s value also diminishes the Belgian State’s capital.
Argument, da naj ukrepi, ki jih je družba SNCB namenila v korist IFB, ne bi povzročili izgube premoženja Belgije, je dejansko napačen: ker je Belgija lastnica SNCB, bi vsaka slaba naložba, s katero se zmanjša vrednost SNCB, zmanjšala tudi vrednost premoženja Belgije.
The Commission therefore concludes that the measures examined were financed by State resources.
Komisija torej sklepa, da so bili preučeni ukrepi financirani iz državnih sredstev.
Imputability
Vpletenost
It is therefore clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the criterion of imputability to the State must be examined by the Commission on a case-by-case basis. The Court of Justice admits that as a general rule, ‘… it will 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.’
Iz sodne prakse Sodišča torej izhaja, da mora Komisija za vsak primer posebej preučiti merilo vpletenosti države.
According to the same case-law, ‘… it must be accepted that the imputability to the State of an aid measure taken by a public undertaking may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which that measure was taken’ [31].
Sodišče priznava, da na splošno „… 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, dejansko sprejeti po navodilih organov oblasti.“ V skladu z isto sodno prakso „… je treba priznati, da je na vpletenost države pri ukrepu pomoči, ki ga je sprejelo podjetje, mogoče sklepati iz vseh kazalcev, ki izvirajo iz okoliščin primera in ozadja, v katerem je prišlo do tega ukrepa“ [31].
The Court of Justice then clarifies which criteria may be utilised to demonstrate imputability:
Sodišče nato pojasni, katera merila se lahko uporabijo za dokazovanje vpletenosti:
‘The imputability to the State of an aid measure taken by a public undertaking may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which that measure was taken.
„Na vpletenost države pri ukrepu pomoči, ki ga je sprejelo javno podjetje, je mogoče sklepati iz vseh kazalcev, ki izvirajo iz okoliščin primera in ozadja, v katerem je prišlo do tega ukrepa.
In that respect, the Court has already taken into consideration the fact that the body in question could not take the contested decision without taking account of the requirements of the public authorities (see, in particular, Van der Kooy, paragraph 37) or the fact that, apart from factors of an organic nature which linked the public undertakings to the State, those undertakings, through the intermediary of which aid had been granted, had to take account of directives issued by a Comitato Interministeriale per la Programmazione Economica (CIPE) (Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 11 and 12; Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 13 and 14).
S tega stališča je Sodišče že upoštevalo, da zadevna organizacija ni mogla sprejeti sporne odločitve, ne da bi upoštevala zahteve javnih organov (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Van der Kooy in drugi proti Komisiji, točka 37) in da bi morala javna podjetja, preko katerih so bile dodeljene pomoči, ne glede na organske povezave med javnimi podjetji in državo, upoštevati direktive comitato interministeriale per la programmazione economica (CIPE – medresorskega odbora za gospodarsko načrtovanje) (zgoraj navedeni sodbi z dne 21. marca 1991 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji C-303/88, točki 11 in 12, in C-305/89, točki 13 in 14).
Other indicators might, in certain circumstances, be relevant in concluding that an aid measure taken by a public undertaking is imputable to the State, such as, in particular, its integration into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or 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’ [32].(202) In the letter initiating the procedure (points 140 to 150), as regards the imputability of the measure the Commission distinguished between the period prior to the conclusion of the framework agreement on 7 April 2003 and the period subsequent to this contract.
Če je potrebno, bi bili lahko primerni tudi drugi kazalci, iz katerih je mogoče sklepati na vpletenost države pri ukrepu pomoči, ki jo je dodelilo javno podjetje, kot so zlasti vključitev javne gospodarske družbe v okvir javne uprave, značaj njenih dejavnosti in izvajanje le-teh na trgu znotraj splošnih pogojev konkurence z zasebnimi izvajalci, pravni status gospodarske družbe (ki je pod nadzorom javnega prava ali skupnega prava gospodarskih družb), intenzivnost nadzora, ki ga izvajajo javne oblasti nad upravo gospodarske družbe ali kateri koli drugi kazalec, ki v posameznem primeru kaže na sodelovanje javne uprave pri sprejemanju ukrepa ali majhno verjetnost, da ni vpletena, upoštevajoč tudi okoliščine ukrepa, njegovo vsebino ali pogoje, ki jih vsebuje“ [32].(202) V dopisu o sprožitvi postopka (točke od 140 do 150) je Komisija pri vpletenosti v ukrep razločevala med obdobjem pred sklenitvijo okvirne pogodbe 7. aprila 2003 in obdobjem po njej.
In view of Belgium’s observations, it would appear more appropriate to distinguish between three different periods:
Glede na pripombe Belgije se zdi bolj primerno ločiti med tremi različnimi obdobji:
the period prior to 19 July 2002 (date of the decision by SNCB’s Management Board to approve the granting of a cash advance and to accept that an increase in capital for IFB was ‘probable’),
obdobje pred 19. julijem 2002 (datum, ko je upravni odbor SNCB odobril dodelitev gotovinskega predujma in sprejel, da je povečanje kapitala IFB „verjetno“)
the period between 19 July 2002 and 20 December 2002 (date of the decision by SNCB’s Management Board to approve the principle of an increase in IFB’s capital and authorising the executive committee to negotiate the framework contract of 7 April 2003),
obdobje od 19. julija 2002 do 20. decembra 2002 (datum, ko je upravni odbor SNCB odobril načelo povečanja kapitala IFB in pooblastil izvršni odbor, da se pogaja o okvirni pogodbi z dne 7. aprila 2003);
the period subsequent to 20 December 2002.
obdobje po 20. decembru 2002.
Period prior to the Management Board’s decision of 19 July 2002
Obdobje pred odločitvijo upravnega odbora 19. julija 2002
As regards the period prior to this decision of the Management Board, the question is whether the tolerance demonstrated by SNCB’s management (Management Board) in not requiring payment from IFB for transport services from 2000 onward, is attributable to the Belgian State.
V zvezi z obdobjem pred odločitvijo upravnega odbora se postavlja vprašanje, ali je strpnost, ki jo kaže vodstvo (izvršni odbor) SNCB, s tem ko od leta 2000 naprej od IFB ne zahteva plačila opravljenih prevoznih storitev, mogoče pripisati Belgiji.
In its letter initiating the procedure (points 141 to 142), the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the decision to accept the systematic non-payment of invoices during the period from the end of 2000 to the beginning of 2003 had been taken without the intervention of the Belgian authorities.
Komisija je v dopisu o sprožitvi postopka (točki 141 in 142) izrazila dvome, da je bila odločitev o tem, da se privoli v sistematično neplačevanje računov v obdobju od konca leta 2000 do začetka leta 2003, sprejeta brez posredovanja belgijskih organov.
According to the Belgian Government’s response, SNCB’s Management Board was not informed of this practice until 19 July 2002; the Government Commissioner was informed at the same time.
Odgovor belgijske vlade kaže, da je bil upravni odbor SNCB obveščen o tem ravnanju šele 19. julija 2002; hkrati je bil obveščen tudi vladni komisar.
The Commission has not received any observations from third parties.
Komisija od tretjih zainteresiranih strani ni prejela pripomb.
In records of the proceedings in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of 6 March 2002, 24 January 2002 and 28 February 2002, the Commission found comments about IFB, within the context of the members’ and senators’ wider debate on the opening up of the rail market and the ABX case.
Komisija je v zapisnikih razprav v zbornici in senatu z dne 6. marca 2002, 24. januarja 2002 in 28. februarja 2002 našla pripombe o IFB v okviru širše razprave poslancev in senatorjev o odpiranju železniškega trga in spisu ABX.
Consequently, it asked the Belgian Government to send it the studies by Boston Consulting Group and Team Consult which were referred to during these discussions, along with the Belgian Government’s decision of 22 February 2002, which was also discussed.
Zato je belgijsko vlado prosila, naj ji posreduje študije Boston Consulting Group in Team Consult, ki so bile omenjene v razpravi, in sklep belgijske vlade z dne 22. februarja 2002, o katerem so prav tako razpravljali.
Analysis of these documents has not revealed any indication of influence by the Belgian Government on SNCB’s decisions concerning the future of IFB.
Analiza teh dokumentov ni razkrila kazalcev, da je belgijska vlada vplivala na odločitve SNCB o prihodnosti IFB.
Therefore, the question is whether the tolerance of the management of a public undertaking, as described in point 203 of this decision, may be imputed to the Belgian State, when there is no evidence of any specific intervention on the part of the administration as the situation emerged.
Zato se postavlja vprašanje, ali je strpnost vodstva javnega podjetja, kot je opisana v točki 203 te odločbe, mogoče pripisati Belgiji, če ni dokazov, da bi uprava posebej posegala v oblikovanje razmer.
According to the 1993 Act establishing SNCB as a joint stock company under public law, SNCB’s management, that is to say the Chief Executive and the members of the executive committee, manage the business autonomously, without the intervention of the public authorities.
V skladu z zakonom iz leta 1993 o ustanovitvi SNCB kot delniške družbe, ki deluje po javnem pravu, vodstvo SNCB, to so generalni direktor in člani izvršnega odbora, upravlja podjetje neodvisno in brez poseganja organov oblasti.
Therefore, in the absence of concrete evidence of State intervention in the management of the IFB case, the Commission must conclude that the decision by SNCB’s management to tolerate the non-payment of IFB’s invoices during the period from the end of 2000 to July 2002 is not imputable to the Belgian State.
Ker ni konkretnih znakov poseganja države v upravljanje spisa IFB, Komisija sklepa, da odločitve vodstva SNCB, da privoli v neplačevanje računov s strani IFB, od konca leta 2000 do julija 2002 ni mogoče pripisati Belgiji.
Period between the Management Board’s decision of 19 July 2002 and the Management Board’s decision of 20 December 2002
Obdobje med odločitvijo upravnega odbora 19. julija 2002 in odločitvijo upravnega odbora 20. decembra 2002
Since 19 July 2002, SNCB’s Management Board, among whom the Government Commissioner who represents Belgium’s interests on SNCB’s Management Board, has known that IFB had not been paying its invoices since the end of 2000, and approved the granting of an advance of EUR 2,5 million to IFB during the second half of 2002.
julija 2002 je upravni odbor SNCB in z njim vladni komisar, ki v njem zastopa interese Belgije, izvedel, da IFB od konca leta 2000 ne plačuje več računov SNCB, in odobril dodelitev predujma IFB v višini 2,5 milijona EUR v drugem polletju 2002.
In this respect, the Commission must verify if the criteria established by the Stardust Marine case-law allows this decision by SNCB’s Management Board to be imputed to Belgium.
V zvezi s tem mora Komisija preveriti, ali je to odločitev upravnega odbora SNCB v skladu z merili iz sodne prakse Stardust Marine mogoče pripisati Belgiji.
In other words, it is a question of verifying in this particular case if the presence of the Government Commissioner on the Management Board, despite his lack of any concrete intervention in the measure in question, allows the decision to be imputed to the Belgian State in any case.
Povedano z drugimi besedami, za ta primer je treba preveriti, ali prisotnost vladnega komisarja v upravnem odboru, kljub temu da ni konkretno posredoval pri zadevnem ukrepu, vseeno ne omogoča, da se odločitev pripiše Belgiji.
As regards the presence of the Government Commissioner on SNCB’s Management Board, the Commission notes that the commissioner’s role was limited (see also the Audit Office report on this subject [33]:): The Government Commissioner could only intervene with regard to the decision of 19 July 2002 if it was likely to prejudice the implementation of SNCB’s public service duties.
V zvezi s prisotnostjo vladnega komisarja v upravnem odboru SNCB Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila vloga komisarja omejena (glej tudi poročilo Računskega sodišča o tej temi [33]): vladni komisar bi lahko posegel v odločitev 19. julija 2002 le, če bi utegnila škodovati izvajanju nalog javne službe SNCB.
In view of the amount of the aid (EUR 2,5 million) and the nature of the aid (cash advance, with interest), it has to be concluded that the decision was not such as to prejudice the implementation of SNCB’s public service duties.
Glede na znesek pomoči (2,5 milijona EUR) in njeno obliko (gotovinski predujem z obrestmi) je treba ugotoviti, da narava odločitve ni bila taka, da bi škodila izvajanju nalog javne službe SNCB.