natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Germany furthermore states that the fact that Q-Cells provided an executive officer for Sovello was only a transitional arrangement (December 2004 until April 2005) which did not reduce the decisive influence of Evergreen, who also provided an executive officer as from the start of the joint venture.
Nemčija še trdi, da naj bi bilo dejstvo, da je imelo podjetje Q-Cells predstavnike na vodilnih mestih v Sovellu, le prehodna ureditev (od decembra 2004 do aprila 2005), ki ni ogrožala možnosti vpliva podjetja Evergreen, ki je imelo od ustanovitve skupnega podjetja prav tako vodilno vlogo.
Germany adds that based on its majority position in the Supervisory Board, Evergreen had the right to appoint or recall any executive officer.
Poleg tega naj bi imelo podjetje Evergreen na podlagi svoje večine v nadzornem svetu pravico do imenovanja in odpoklica vodilnih kadrov.
Germany contests that the formulation in the Heads of Agreement, saying that Q-Cells’ ownership of Sovello must be less than 25 % in order to qualify for certain German government subsidies, would lead to an influence from Q-Cells going beyond its real participation of 24,9 %.
Nemčija izpodbija, da naj bi določilo iz Heads of Agreement, na podlagi katerega mora biti delež podjetja Q-Cells v Sovellu manjši od 25 odstotkov, da se tako zagotovi upravičenost do določenih ukrepov pomoči v Nemčiji, povzročilo, da so bile možnosti vpliva podjetja Q-Cells večje, kot naj bi mu glede na njegov 24,9-odstotni delež pripadale.
Germany rather explains that it only represents what was later taken up in the MJVA1, namely the intention of the parties not to be in breach of any government support conditions.
Nasprotno pa Nemčija pojasnjuje, da je določilo vsebovalo le to, kar je pozneje vseboval tudi SSP1, namreč prizadevanje obeh partnerjev proti kršitvi pogojev za državno pomoč.
Germany also points to another paragraph in the Heads of Agreement, where it is mentioned that as Sovello operations will represent a substantial majority of the manufacturing capacity of Evergreen, Evergreen will be required to own a majority interest in the equity of Sovello in the near term.
Nemčija opozarja na še eno določilo iz Heads of Agreement, v skladu s katerim bi si podjetje Sovello lastilo večinski del proizvodne zmogljivosti podjetja Evergreen, to pa bi v doglednem času posledično postalo lastnik večinskega deleža njegovega kapitala.
Germany finally notes that the Heads of Agreement is only a working base between the parties which was not legally binding.
Nemčija tako ugotavlja, da je bila pogodba Heads of Agreement izključno delovna podlaga obeh partnerjev, ki ni bila zavezujoča.
Germany concludes that the changes to the distribution of ownership after the foundation of Sovello are not based on the original MJVA1, but are linked with the entry of REC into the joint venture, upon the latter’s agreement to supply large quantities of silicon to Sovello, in exchange of a participation of 15 % in the joint venture (as agreed in the MJVA2).
Nemčija tako trdi, da naj spremembe deležev po ustanovitvi podjetja Sovello ne bi temeljile na prvotnem SSP1, ampak naj bi bile povezane z vstopom podjetja REC v skupno podjetje, saj je to v zameno za 15-odstotni delež v skupnem podjetju zagotovilo dobavo velikih količin silicija za Sovello (kot je določeno v SSP2).
Following this entry, Evergreen lowered its participation by 11,1 % and Q-Cells by 3,9 %.
Po vstopu podjetja REC se je delež podjetja Evergreen zmanjšal za 11,1 odstotka, delež podjetja Q-Cells pa za 3,9 odstotka.
According to Germany, this proves the primary willingness of Q-Cells to remain a minority shareholder.
Po mnenju Nemčije to dokazuje, da je podjetje Q-Cells želelo ostati manjšinski družbenik.
It was only at a later stage, when REC agreed to supply additional silicon, and after the technological success of the Sovello1 investment was proven, that the participations of the three shareholders were brought to an equal 33,3 % (modification of the MJVA2, dated 29 September 2006, effective as from 19 December 2006).
Šele pozneje, ko je podjetje REC zagotovilo dobavo še večjih količin silicija, in po tem, ko je bil tehnološki uspeh projekta Sovello1 zagotovljen, se je delež vsakega od družbenikov spremenil v 33,3 odstotka (sprememba SSP2 z dne 29. septembra 2006, veljavna od 19. decembra 2006).
Participation of Q-Cells based on German company law
Delež podjetja Q-Cells na podlagi nemškega prava družb
Germany claims that the decisional rights conferred to Q-Cells in the joint venture are not unusual for young technology joint ventures such as Sovello, and are comparable to those given to venture capital investors holding minority financial participations.
Nemčija poudarja, da naj take pravice do odločanja, kot jih je imelo v skupnem podjetju podjetje Q-Cells, za mlada tehnološka skupna podjetja ne bi bile neobičajne in naj bi ustrezale tistim, ki jih imajo vlagatelji v skupnih podjetjih z manjšinskimi deleži.
Q-Cells does not have more influence than that of a minority shareholder.
Vpliv podjetja Q-Cells ni večji od vpliva manjšinskega družbenika.
It brought in 24,9 % of the capital, but also its cell manufacturing know-how, and hence wanted some influence on decisions related to the contracts of the joint venture cooperation.
Podjetje je poleg 24,9-odstotnega deleža kapitala prispevalo tudi znanje na področju proizvodnje sončnih celic in s tem pridobilo določeno pravico do odločanja v zvezi s pogodbami o sodelovanju družb v skupnem podjetju.
Germany argues that these rights to influence certain corporate decisions were necessary to protect Q-Cells, because it was not excluded that otherwise Evergreen could use its influence on the management of Sovello preferentially in its own interest.
Nemčija trdi, da je bila ta pravica do vpliva na določene poslovne odločitve nujna za zaščito podjetja Q-Cells, saj v nasprotnem primeru ne bi bilo mogoče izključiti, da bi podjetje Evergreen svoj vpliv na vodenje podjetja Sovello prednostno izrabilo v svojo korist.
Germany also adds that it is common practice to allow minority shareholders to appoint a member of the supervisory board.
Običajno naj bi bilo še, da se manjšinskim družbenikom omogoči imenovanje člana nadzornega sveta.
In order to indicate that the participation of 24,9 % of Q-Cells is not determined by the intention to obtain a SME bonus, Germany also refers to German company law.
Nemčija je trditev, da 24,9-odstotni delež podjetja Q-Cells ni bil določen z namenom pridobitve dodatka za MSP, podprla tudi z napotilom na nemško pravo družb.
On the one hand, Germany points out that the influence of Q-Cells is corresponding to the rules on protection of minority shareholders.
Prvič, vpliv podjetja Q-Cells naj bi bil skladen s predpisi o varstvu manjšinskih družbenikov.
On the other hand, Germany mentions as further reason for the conferral of the decisional rights to Q-Cells the fact that due to the participation of only 24,9 % Q-Cells did not dispose of a blocking minority, which would have required a participation of more than 25 %.
Nemčija kot razlog za daljnosežno pravico do soodločanja podjetja Q-Cells navaja še dejstvo, da to z le 24,9-odstotnim deležem ni preseglo z zakonom določene manjšine, ki mora biti več kot 25 odstotkov, da lahko prepreči sprejetje sklepov.
Therefore, the missing protection of Q-Cells by means of law was substituted by the corresponding decisional rights granted on the basis of the agreements.
Zato naj bi se zaradi pomanjkanja z zakonom določene zaščite podjetju Q-Cells s pogodbami priznalo ustrezno pravico do soodločanja.
Germany contests the legal grounds on which the Commission initiated the procedure, arguing that at the time of notification it submitted complete and correct information, and that hence Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 is not applicable.
Nemčija izpodbija pravna dejstva, na podlagi katerih je Komisija začela postopek, in trdi, da naj bi ob priglasitvi poslala popolne in pravilne podatke in zato ni uporaben člen 9 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
Germany also claims that the Commission should only base its assessment of the SME status of a company on the respect of the formal criteria (staff headcount and financial ceilings) of the SME definition, and not add ‘unwritten criteria’ to verify whether a company suffers from typical SME handicaps.
Nemčija še trdi, da Komisija lahko preizkus statusa MSP določenega podjetja opravi le na podlagi formalnih meril (število zaposlenih in finančne mejne vrednosti) definicije MSP in da pri ugotavljanju, ali se to podjetje srečuje s težavami, značilnimi za MSP, ne bi smela upoštevati tudi „nenapisanih meril“.
Germany contests that the SME bonus was obtained by Sovello in breach of the State aid rules, and claims that the Commission’s allegations of possible manipulation cannot be maintained.
Nemčija izpodbija, da je z odobritvijo dodatka za MSP podjetju Sovello kršila pravila o državnih pomočeh, in trdi, da so domneve Komisije o morebitni manipulaciji neutemeljene.
Germany states that at the time of notification, Sovello fulfilled the conditions of the SME definition: Q-Cells only held a minority participation of 24,9 % in Sovello, and was nor a partner nor a linked enterprise with Sovello in the sense of the SME definition.
Po mnenju Nemčije je podjetje Sovello ob priglasitvi izpolnjevalo merila definicije MSP: Podjetje Q-Cells je imelo v Sovellu le manjšinski 24,9-odstotni delež in v smislu definicije MSP ni bilo niti partnersko niti s podjetjem Sovello povezano podjetje.
Therefore, no data from Q-Cells were to be taken into account for the calculation of the SME thresholds.
Zato se pri izračunu mejnih vrednosti MSP podatkov podjetja Q-Cells ne sme upoštevati.
Germany contests that the influence of Q-Cells on Sovello at the time of notification was higher than that of an investor owning 24,9 % of the shares.
Nemčija izpodbija, da je bil vpliv podjetja Q-Cells ob priglasitvi na Sovello večji, kot bi ga imel vlagatelj s 24,9-odstotnim deležem v podjetju Sovello.
Moreover, Germany is of the opinion that Sovello suffered indeed from the typical handicaps of an SME, and that without the State aid including the SME bonus, the investment project would not have been carried out.
Poleg tega Nemčija zagovarja, da se je podjetje Sovello vsekakor srečevalo s težavami, značilnimi za MSP, in da naložbenega projekta brez državne pomoči, vključno z dodatkom za MSP, ne bi bilo mogoče izvesti.
Preliminary remarks
Uvodne ugotovitve
On 7 June 2006, the Commission approved a SME bonus of 15 % GGE (granted as a top-up to regional aid) for Sovello.
Komisija je 7. junija 2006 podjetju Sovello (poleg odobrene regionalne pomoči) odobrila dodatek za MSP v višini 15 odstotkov BED.
Subsequently, the Commission uncovered evidence that this initial Commission decision might have been taken on the basis of incorrect information provided with the original notification and, insofar as that information could constitute a decisive factor for the decision, the Commission decided on 17 June 2008 to open the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the aid at issue, with a view to revoking the decision N 426/05 and adopting a new decision.
Pozneje je Komisija odkrila, da je ta prva odločba mogoče temeljila na nepravilnih podatkih, ki jih je prejela ob prvotni priglasitvi; ker so bili ti podatki v tistih okoliščinah odločilni za izid preiskave, se je Komisija 17. junija 2008 odločila, da bo v zvezi z zadevno pomočjo začela postopek v skladu s členom 108(2) PDEU, da bi preklicala Odločbo št. N 426/05 in izdala nov sklep. (Od začetka veljavnosti Lizbonske pogodbe 1. decembra 2009 se novo izdani pravni akti Komisije v nemški različici ne smejo več imenovati „Entscheidung“ (odločba), ampak „Beschluss“ (sklep).)
Notification requirement, legal basis and applicable law
Obveznost priglasitve, pravna podlaga in veljavni predpisi
Germany notified the SME bonus to Sovello by letter dated 29 August 2005, registered as received on 1 September 2005.
Nemčija je dodatek za MSP za podjetje Sovello priglasila z dopisom z dne 29. avgusta 2005, ki je bil evidentiran 1. septembra 2005.
The SME block-exemption Regulation, applicable at the time of notification, exempts investment aid to be given to SMEs at an intensity of 7,5 % net grant equivalent (NGE) for medium-sized companies and 15 % NGE for small companies anywhere within the EU.
V skladu z Uredbo o skupinski izjemi za MSP, ki je veljala ob priglasitvi, so pomoči za naložbe v prid MSP z intenzivnostjo 7,5 odstotka neto ekvivalenta dotacije (NED) za srednje velika podjetja in 15 odstotkov NED za mala podjetja dovoljena v celotni Evropski uniji.
Where aid is granted in the assisted areas, the SME block-exemption Regulation also exempts aid up to the amount allowed under the RAG 1998 plus the additional SME bonus.
Če ima upravičenec sedež v regiji prejemnici pomoči, je v skladu z Uredbo o skupinski izjemi za MSP mogoča tudi pomoč do višine zneska, ki ga dovoljujejo smernice o regionalni pomoči za leto 1998, k temu pa še dodatek za MSP.
To establish whether a firm constitutes a SME, the Commission applies the SME Recommendation.
Pri preizkusu, ali je določeno podjetje MSP, Komisija upošteva Priporočilo MSP.
Assessment of SME status of Sovello
Preizkus statusa MSP podjetja Sovello
Applicability of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999
Uporaba člena 9 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999
Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 stipulates that ‘the Commission may revoke a decision (…) after having given the Member State concerned the opportunity to submit its comments, where the decision was based on incorrect information provided during the procedure which was a determining factor for the decision.
V členu 9 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 je določeno: „Komisija lahko razveljavi odločbo, […], potem ko je zadevni državi članici omogočila, da predloži svoje pripombe, če je odločba temeljila na napačnih podatkih, ki so bili pridobljeni med postopkom in so bili odločilen dejavnik pri sprejetju te odločbe.
Germany contests to have submitted at any stage of the preliminary examination incorrect, or even incomplete information, as (a) it submitted all information required by the Commission Communication on the Model declaration, and (b) none of the relevant Community tests and provisions contained in the Recommendation required to give additional information on the construction of a joint venture and/or the Articles of Association of a company.
Nemčija izpodbija, da je kadar koli med predhodno preiskavo posredovala nepravilne oziroma nepopolne podatke, ker a) je predložila vse podatke, ki jih je Komisija zahtevala v svojem sporočilu o vzorcu izjave, in ker se b) v nobenem od upoštevnih preizkusov in določil, ki jih je Komisija predvidela v svojem priporočilu, ne zahteva predložitev dodatnih podatkov o strukturi skupnega podjetja oziroma statuta podjetja.
The Commission Communication on the Model declaration however mentions that the use of the declaration is not mandatory, but designed as a possible example, and that such declarations are without prejudice to the checks or investigations provided for under national or EU rules.
V skladu s Sporočilom Komisije o vzorcu izjave uporaba vzorcev izjav ni zavezujoča, ampak je le podlaga, vendar pa izjave ne vplivajo na preizkuse in preiskave v skladu z zakonodajo držav članic in zakonodajo Evropske unije.
In the course of the preliminary investigation, the Commission requested Germany to either submit a declaration under oath from Q-Cells that this shareholder did not fulfil any of the conditions of Article 3(3)(a-d) [26] of the Annex to the SME Recommendation, or, if this was not possible, to provide a copy of the Articles of Association of Sovello.
Med predhodno preiskavo je Komisija Nemčijo pozvala, naj ali predloži zapriseženo izjavo podjetja Q-Cells, iz katere je razvidno, da ta družbenik ni izpolnjeval nobenega od meril iz člena 3(3), točke od (a) do (d), Priloge k Priporočilu MSP [26], ali, če to ne bi bilo mogoče, posreduje kopijo statuta podjetja Sovello.
On 28 October 2005, the German authorities submitted such declaration under oath from Q-Cells.
Nemčija je 28. oktobra 2005 posredovala tako zapriseženo izjavo podjetja Q-Cells.
As the shareholder structure of Sovello was modified in the course of the preliminary examination of the notified aid by incorporating a third joint venture partner (REC), the German authorities also submitted a declaration under oath from this new shareholder (on 4 April 2006).
Ker se je struktura družbenikov podjetja Sovello med predhodno preiskavo priglašene pomoči s priključitvijo tretjega partnerja v skupnem podjetju (REC) spremenila, je Nemčija (4. aprila 2006) posredovala še zapriseženo izjavo novega družbenika.
The decision N 426/05 was taken after a preliminary examination on the basis of the information submitted by Germany.
Odločba št. N 426/05 je bila sprejeta po končani predhodni preiskavi na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je posredovala Nemčija.
The relevant question to be examined by the Commission was whether the beneficiary company was an SME.
Komisija je morala preizkusiti, ali je bil upravičenec MSP.
If at the time of the preliminary examination documents exist which explicitly reflect in writing that the shareholder structure of a joint venture is designed in order to comply with the SME definition, or which show clear intentions to change the company structure, as soon as a SME bonus is secured, it cannot be argued that such information is not at least relevant to assess the SME status of the joint venture in question and would not constitute a determining factor for the Commission decision.
Če v času predhodne preiskave obstajajo dokumenti, v katerih je izrecno zapisano, da je bila struktura družbenikov določenega skupnega podjetja zasnovana tako, da so bila merila definicije MSP izpolnjena, ali je iz njih razviden jasen namen o spremembi strukture podjetja, takoj ko je odobritev dodatka za MSP zagotovljena, ni mogoče trditi, da naj ti podatki ne bi bili vsaj upoštevni za preizkus statusa MSP zadevnega skupnega podjetja oziroma odločilni pri odločanju.
Therefore, as the Commission did not receive any of these documents (Heads of Agreement, Articles of Association, MJVA1 and MJVA2), it had an incomplete view of the relevant factual situation at that time, and hence took its initial positive decision on the SME bonus for Sovello on the basis of incomplete, and thus incorrect information.
Ker Komisija teh dokumentov (Heads of Agreement, SSP1 in SSP2) ni prejela, je bila njena predstava o dejanskem stanju v tistem času pomanjkljiva, tako da je njena pozitivna odločba o dodatku za MSP za podjetje Sovello temeljila na nepopolnih in s tem nepravilnih podatkih.
The Commission considers that Germany was under an obligation to submit all information which was available at the time and which was relevant for the decision N 426/05.
Po mnenju Komisije je morala Nemčija poslati vse podatke, ki so bili v tistem času razpoložljivi in pomembni za sprejetje Odločbe št. N 426/05.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the information Germany provided was incomplete and thus incorrect.
Na podlagi tega je Komisija ugotovila, da so bili podatki, ki jih je poslala Nemčija, nepopolni in s tem nepravilni.
Consequently Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 is applicable, as it is an objective procedure, which allows the Commission to withdraw wrong decisions.
Posledično velja člen 9 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, v katerem je predviden objektiven postopek, v skladu s katerim lahko Komisija napačne odločbe prekliče.
Under the provisions of the national German rules, Germany was obliged to verify whether any circumvention of the SME definition existed.
V skladu z nemško zakonodajo je bila Nemčija zavezana preveriti, ali je bila definicija MSP izigrana.
Indeed, the text of the German scheme [27] on the basis of which the SME bonus was granted explicitly states that the SME status is excluded — even if the formal criteria of the SME definition are fulfilled — in cases where larger enterprises have factual control, or in the case of economic entities which economically speaking cannot be considered an SME.
V nemških predpisih, [27] na podlagi katerih je bil odobren dodatek za MSP, je status MSP, tudi če so izpolnjena formalna merila definicije MSP, v primerih, ko imajo dejanski nadzor velika podjetja in pri gospodarskih enotah, ki z gospodarskega vidika niso MSP, izrecno izključen.
Admissibility of ‘additional criteria’ for the assessment of the SME status
Dopustnost „dodatnih meril“ pri oceni statusa MSP
Germany argues that as in the SME Recommendation no other than the formal criteria concerning the thresholds are clearly defined, these formal criteria for the determination of the SME status of an enterprise should be decisive, in order to ensure legal certainty and calculability of the Commission State aid control policy.
Nemčija trdi, da bi morala biti pri preizkusu statusa MSP določenega podjetja upoštevna formalna merila, da bi bili od Komisije zagotovljeni pravna varnost in predvidljivost politike nadzora državne pomoči, saj v Priporočilu MSP razen formalnih meril za mejne vrednosti niso jasno določena nobena druga merila.
Germany further argues that possible additional criteria could only be envisaged in the context of a review of the SME definition, and not in the context of individual cases.
Nemčija še trdi, da naj bi bila uporaba vseh dodatnih meril mogoča samo v okviru spremembe definicije MSP, ne pa tudi v posameznih primerih.
For the definition of partner enterprises, the Commission Recommendation does indeed not foresee any other criteria than the 25 % threshold in shares, respectively voting rights.
Pri definiciji partnerskega podjetja v Priporočilu Komisije dejansko ni predvideno nobeno drugo merilo kot mejna vrednost 25 odstotkov kapitala oziroma glasovalnih pravic.
It also does not contain a specific anti-circumvention clause.
Priporočilo tudi ne vsebuje posebne prepovedi izigravanja.
However, the Commission enjoys a degree of discretionary power in the field of State aid, with a view to protect the internal market against not justifiable distortions of competition.
Pri nadzoru pomoči pa ima Komisija na voljo določen manevrski prostor, da se tako lahko zaščiti skupni trg proti neupravičenemu izkrivljanju konkurence.
The Commission acknowledges the need for legal certainty and transparency in the application of the State aid rules.
Komisija priznava, da sta pri uporabi pravil o državnih pomočeh nujni pravna varnost in preglednost.
Therefore, an assessment which goes beyond that of the application of the formal criteria should in any event be limited to very exceptional cases that can be clearly qualified as circumvention.
Zato bi se morali preizkusi, pri katerih ne veljajo samo formalna merila, nujno omejiti na redke primere, v katerih gre brez dvoma za izigravanje.
Nevertheless the Commission does not add ‘additional criteria’ to the SME definition, but simply goes beyond a purely formal analysis which must be possible if the Commission has to take an individual decision based on Article 6 of the SME block-exemption Regulation.
Vsekakor pa Komisija poleg definicije MSP ne uporablja nobenih „dodatnih meril“, ampak samo presega le formalno analizo, kar mora biti mogoče, če naj Komisija razsoja na podlagi člena 6 Uredbe o skupni izjemi za MSP.
By doing so the Commission makes sure that the SME bonus is only granted to genuine SMEs for which size truly represents a handicap and not to enterprises which through linked and/or partner enterprises have access to funds and assistance not available to competitors of equal size.
Tako Komisija zagotavlja, da se dodatki za MSP odobravajo le dejanskim MSP, ki imajo zaradi svoje velikosti dejansko težave, in ne podjetjem, ki imajo s pomočjo skupnih in/ali partnerskih podjetij dostop do finančnih sredstev in finančne podpore, ki konkurenčnim podjetjem enake velikosti niso na voljo.
In order to ensure that only genuine SMEs are included, there has to be a way of eliminating legal arrangements in which the SME definition is circumvented.
Ker je s tem zagotovljeno, da so upoštevna le dejanska MSP, mora veljati način za izključitev pravnih subjektov, s pomočjo katerih se lahko obide definicija MSP.