natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, the distorting effects of the training aid should be only secondary and indirect.
Zato naj bi bili učinki izkrivljanja, ki jih lahko povzroči pomoč za usposabljanje, le postranski in posredni.
Ford considers that, consequently, considerations related to the impact of aid from the perspective of ‘the structure of relevant markets’ and ‘the sector and industry characteristics’ are not pertinent in relation to general training, as the projected output and technical capacities as such will not be modified.
Družba Ford meni, da ugotovitve glede učinka pomoči z vidika „strukture zadevnih trgov“ ter „značilnosti sektorja in industrije“ zato niso upoštevne v zvezi s splošnim usposabljanjem, saj se predvidena proizvodnja in tehnične zmogljivosti ne bodo spremenile.
By contrast, specific training may directly improve the productivity of the company and thus affect its position on the market.
V nasprotju s tem se lahko zaradi posebnega usposabljanja neposredno izboljša produktivnost družbe, kar vpliva na njen položaj na trgu.
However, specific training represents only a minor part of the proposed additional training.
Vendar je posebno usposabljanje le manjši del predlaganega dodatnega usposabljanja.
Necessity of training
Nujnost usposabljanja
On the issue of whether parts of the training notified as eligible for aid might not have to be given at any rate in order to ensure compliance with internal company safety standards, Ford underlines that this line of reasoning would lead to normative distortions of the ‘race-to-the-bottom’ kind: if only companies with low internal safety standards may benefit from training aid, companies would eventually be discouraged from raising their own internal safety standards.
Kar zadeva vprašanje, ali bi se deli usposabljanja, ki so bili razglašeni za upravičene do pomoči, morda zagotavljali v vsakem primeru za izpolnjevanje notranjih varnostnih standardov družbe, družba Ford poudarja, da bi taka utemeljitev vodila k normativnemu izkrivljanju v smislu „tekmovanja za zniževanje standardov“: če so do pomoči za usposabljanje upravičene le družbe z nizkimi notranjimi varnostnimi standardi, druge družbe morebiti ne bodo imele spodbude za izboljšanje svojih notranjih varnostnih standardov.
Accordingly, Ford wonders whether proposed training aid that should in any case be granted to the beneficiary should not be determined by reference to internal company standards, but to objective criteria applicable to all companies in a given sector.
Zato se družba Ford sprašuje, ali naj se predlagana pomoč za usposabljanje, ki se v vsakem primeru dodeli upravičencu, določi glede na notranje standarde družbe ali glede na objektivna merila, ki veljajo za vse družbe v zadevnem sektorju.
Moreover, with this investment project Ford will become by 2012 Romania’s largest industrial employer.
Poleg tega bo družba Ford s tem naložbenim projektom do leta 2012 postala največji industrijski delodajalec v Romuniji.
Investments of this kind have a ‘lighthouse’ function in the economy, and the Romanian government supports Ford’s plans to make the Craiova plant a benchmark for other employers and new investors.
Tovrstne naložbe imajo v gospodarstvu funkcijo „vzornika“, zato romunska vlada podpira načrte družbe Ford, da bi bila tovarna v Craiovi merilo uspešnosti za druge delodajalce in nove vlagatelje.
Ford also underlines that, in more general terms, the additional training declared eligible for aid is not necessary for the operation of the plant, given the ‘lean manufacturing’ system nowadays applicable within the Ford group.
Družba Ford še poudarja, da dodatno usposabljanje, razglašeno za upravičeno do pomoči, na splošno ni nujno za obratovanje tovarne zaradi sistema „vitke proizvodnje“, ki se zdaj uporablja v skupini Ford.
Car manufactures have moved over time from ‘mass manufacturing’ towards ‘lean manufacturing’, an evolution that entails mainly a behavioural change, in the sense of increasing empowerment at all levels of the internal organisation.
Proizvajalci avtomobilov so sčasoma prešli od „masovne proizvodnje“ k „vitki proizvodnji“, kar je razvoj, ki vključuje predvsem vedenjsko spremembo v smislu krepitve moči na vseh ravneh notranje organizacije.
The non-eligible part of the training programme would be sufficient in order to induce this behavioural change.
Neupravičeni del programa usposabljanja bi zadostoval za uvedbo te vedenjske spremembe.
Intangible regional handicap
Nematerialne regionalne omejitve
Ford supports the arguments put forward by Romania against the idea of a possible overlap between regional investment aid and training aid in relation to intangible regional handicaps in the form of lower skills, and also considers that the level of skills and education in a region should be taken into account when assessing if a proposed training aid measure has positive externalities.
Družba Ford podpira trditve, s katerimi Romunija nasprotuje zamisli o morebitnem prekrivanju med regionalno pomočjo za naložbe in pomočjo za usposabljanje, kar zadeva nematerialne regionalne omejitve, ki se kažejo v obliki nižjih kvalifikacij, ter meni, da je treba pri ocenjevanju, ali ima predlagani ukrep pomoči za usposabljanje pozitivne zunanje vplive, upoštevati raven znanj in izobrazbe v regiji.
The counterfactual
Nasprotna dejstva
Ford presents a comparison between the training programme that it has offered at its plant in Saint Petersburg and the one proposed to be carried out at the Craiova plant.
Družba Ford navaja primerjavo med programom usposabljanja, ki ga je zagotovila v svoji tovarni v Saint Petersburgu, in predlaganim programom za tovarno v Craiovi.
The purpose of the comparison is to demonstrate that it is possible to run a Ford plant efficiently with a less ambitious training programme than the one proposed for the Craiova plant, and as a consequence, that aid for the additional training offered at the Craiova plant has an incentive effect.
Namen te primerjave je dokazati, da je mogoče tovarno Ford učinkovito upravljati tudi z manj ambicioznim programom usposabljanja, kot je predlagani program za tovarno v Craiovi, ter da ima posledično ta pomoč za dodatno usposabljanje, zagotovljeno v tovarni v Craiovi, spodbujevalni učinek.
Ford considers that a comparison between the two training projects is pertinent, for the following reasons:
Družba Ford meni, da je primerjava med projektoma usposabljanja ustrezna zaradi naslednjih razlogov:
Production: In Saint Petersburg Ford took over a plant that previously produced large engines for shipbuilding and for the defence industry, while the Craiova plant was previously producing cars.
Proizvodnja: družba Ford je v Saint Petersburgu prevzela tovarno, v kateri so se prej proizvajali veliki motorji za gradnjo ladij in obrambno industrijo, v tovarni v Craiovi pa so se prej proizvajali avtomobili.
At the Saint Petersburg plant Ford produces only vehicles (as of 2002, variations of the Ford Focus II model, and as of 2009, the Ford Mondeo model), whereas in Craiova it will produce both vehicles and engines.
Družba Ford v tovarni v Saint Petersburgu proizvaja le vozila (od leta 2002 različice modela Ford Focus II in od leta 2009 model Ford Mondeo), v Craiovi pa bo proizvajala vozila in motorje.
The Saint Petersburg plant does not have a press shop, unlike the Craiova plant, which does have one.
V tovarni v Saint Petersburgu v nasprotju s tovarno v Craiovi ni stiskalnice.
Notwithstanding these differences, Ford considers that outset conditions at the Craiova and the Saint Petersburg plants are comparable, because both plants were acquired to introduce new car production lines.
Ne glede na te razlike družba Ford meni, da so izhodiščne okoliščine v tovarnah v Craiovi in Saint Petersburgu primerljive, ker sta bili obe tovarni pridobljeni za uvedbo novih proizvodnih linij za avtomobile.
Both plants use the same ‘Ford Production System’ (‘FPS’), and production stages are comparable, including in terms of the level of skills required of the workforce.
V obeh tovarnah se uporablja isti „proizvodni sistem družbe Ford (FPS)“, primerljive pa so tudi proizvodne faze, in sicer tudi v smislu ravni znanj, ki se zahtevajo od delovne sile.
Workforce: In Saint Petersburg Ford did not take over the existing workforce.
Delovna sila: družba Ford v Saint Petersburgu ni prevzela nekdanjih zaposlenih.
The newly recruited workforce was on average younger, higher qualified and less experienced than the existing workforce at the Craiova plant.
Novo zaposleni delavci so bili povprečno mlajši, bolje kvalificirani in manj izkušeni od zaposlenih v tovarni v Craiovi.
Notwithstanding these differences, Ford considers that the two workforces were comparable at the outset.
Ne glede na te razlike družba Ford meni, da so bili zaposleni v obeh tovarnah na začetku primerljivi.
Both workforces were accustomed to working conditions in non-market economies, an initial condition that was reflected, for example, in a different safety culture by comparison to their Western counterparts, and little management and functional experience in a multi-national company (irrespective of education levels).
Vsi delavci so bili prilagojeni delovnim razmeram v netržnih gospodarstvih, kar je začetna okoliščina, ki se je na primer izrazila v drugačni kulturi varnosti glede na delavce na Zahodu ter slabih upravljavskih in funkcionalnih izkušnjah z večnacionalno družbo (ne glede na raven izobrazbe).
The structure of the training programme offered at the Saint Petersburg plant was similar to the one proposed for the Craiova plant.
Struktura programa usposabljanja, ki se je zagotavljala v tovarni v Saint Petersburgu, je bila podobna strukturi predlaganega programa za tovarno v Craiovi.
However, at the Saint Petersburg plant Ford provided only the minimum necessary of training, and staff in leadership positions received more training than blue collar employees.
Vendar je družba Ford v tovarni v Saint Petersburgu zagotovila le najmanjšo potrebno usposabljanje, pri čemer je bilo osebje na vodstvenih položajih deležno več usposabljanja kot fizični delavci.
Production was launched in 2002 with only the minimum levels of training necessary in order to reach Ford quality and safety requirements.
Proizvodnja se je začela leta 2002, pri čemer so bile na voljo le najmanjše ravni usposabljanja, potrebne za izpolnitev kakovostnih in varnostnih zahtev družbe Ford.
Ford simulated the Saint Petersburg training programme if applied for the 9000 employees of the Craiova plant.
Družba Ford je izdelala simulacijo programa usposabljanja iz Saint Petersburga, če bi se ta uporabil za 9000 delavcev v tovarni v Craiovi.
The conclusion was that a Saint Petersburg-type of training programme would amount overall to only about 26 % of the training that is proposed to be offered at the Craiova plant.
Ugotovila je, da bi program usposabljanja, kot je bil uporabljen v Saint Petersburgu, skupno zagotovil le približno 26 % obsega usposabljanja, ki se predlaga za tovarno v Craiovi.
More specifically, such programme would offer only 57 % of the Safety, 2 % of the Core Skills, 30 % of the Business Skills, and 47 % of the Industrial Skills training proposed for the Craiova plant.
Natančneje, tak program bi za usposabljanje, kot se predlaga za tovarno v Craiovi, v smislu obsega zagotovil le 57 % na področju varnosti, 2 % na področju temeljnih znanj, 30 % na področju poslovnih spretnosti in 47 % na področju industrijskih spretnosti.
The measure notified by Romania in favour of Ford Craiova meets the cumulative conditions for qualifying as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Ukrep, ki ga je priglasila Romunija v korist družbe Ford Craiova, izpolnjuje kumulativne pogoje za obstoj državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
The measure consists of a direct grant financed by the Romanian State from public resources.
Ukrep je sestavljen iz neposredne donacije, ki jo financira romunska država iz javnih sredstev.
The measure is also selective, as it involves ad hoc individual financial support to a single beneficiary, Ford Craiova.
Ukrep je tudi selektiven, saj vključuje ad hoc individualno finančno pomoč enemu upravičencu, tj. družbi Ford Craiova.
The beneficiary will derive an advantage from the measure, which relieves it of part of the costs of the proposed training programme.
Upravičencu bo ukrep koristil, saj krije del stroškov predlaganega programa usposabljanja.
The measure distorts competition by favouring the beneficiary company with respect to competitors not receiving aid for similar purposes.
Ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti upravičeni družbi glede na konkurente, ki ne prejemajo pomoči za podobne namene.
Finally, trade between the Member States is affected, as the beneficiary and its competitors sell their products primarily on EU, but also on EEA and worldwide markets.
Končno, pojavlja se vpliv na trgovino med državami članicami, saj upravičenec in njegovi konkurenti proizvode prodajajo predvsem na trgih EU, vendar tudi na trgih EGP in drugod po svetu.
Romania asks for approval of the aid under the rules applicable at the time of the notification (April 2008).
Romunija poziva k odobritvi pomoči na podlagi pravil, ki so se uporabljala ob priglasitvi (aprila 2008).
More specifically, Romania maintains that: (i) the compatibility of the proposed aid with the Treaty should be assessed under the criteria stemming from Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 [25], which was in place at the time of the notification; (ii) the Commission should not apply retroactively the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) (which was published on 9 August 2008 and entered into force twenty days later) [26]; and on a more general level, that (iii) the overly strict application of the incentive effect criterion starting with decisions such as Ford Genk [27] and GM Antwerp [28] is not consistent with the Commission’s overall approach towards training aid.
Natančneje, Romunija trdi: (i) da je treba združljivost predlagane pomoči s Pogodbo oceniti na podlagi meril iz Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001 [25], ki se je uporabljala ob priglasitvi, (ii) da Komisija ne bi smela za nazaj uporabljati Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah (ki je bila objavljena 9. avgusta 2008 in je začela veljati dvajset dni po tem) [26] ter na splošno, (iii) da pretirano stroga uporaba merila spodbujevalnega učinka na podlagi odločb v zadevah Ford Genk [27] in GM Antwerp [28] ni skladna s splošnim pristopom Komisije k pomoči za usposabljanje.
In the Freistaat Sachsen v. Commission ruling [29], the ECJ clarified the issues surrounding the application rationae temporis of State aid rules for the purposes of assessing the compatibility of notified aid measures.
Sodišče Evropske unije je v sodbi v zadevi Freistaat Sachsen proti Komisiji [29] pojasnilo vprašanja v zvezi s časovno omejeno uporabo pravil o državni pomoči za ocenjevanje združljivosti priglašenih ukrepov pomoči.
The Court established that, for the compatibility assessment, the Commission must apply the rules, principles and criteria in force at the time of issuing the Decision, which are better adapted to the context of competition [30].
Sodišče je razsodilo, da mora Komisija za oceno združljivosti uporabiti pravila, načela in merila, ki so bila veljavna ob izdaji sklepa in so bolje prilagojena konkurenčnim okoliščinam [30].
In this sense, the Court adds, ‘[…] the notification by a Member State of aid or a proposed aid scheme does not give rise to a definitively-established legal situation which requires the Commission to rule on their compatibility with the internal market by applying the rules in force at the date on which that notification took place. On the contrary, it is for the Commission to apply the rules in force at the time when it gives its decision, the only rules on the basis of which the lawfulness of the decision it takes in that regard falls to be assessed.’
Sodišče v tem smislu dodaja, da „[…] priglasitev načrtovane pomoči ali sheme pomoči, ki jo opravi država članica, ne ustvari dokončnega pravnega položaja, ki bi privedel do tega, da bi se Komisija izrekla o [njeni] združljivosti s skupnim trgom, tako da bi uporabila predpise, ki veljajo na datum te priglasitve.
The Court also establishes that, when the compatibility assessment is carried out under new rules, the Commission must give interested parties the opportunity to comment on the compatibility of aid with the latter.
Sodišče navaja še, da mora Komisija, kadar se ocena združljivosti opravlja na podlagi novih pravil, zainteresiranim strankam omogočiti, da predložijo pripombe o združljivosti pomoči z navedenimi pravili.
Notably, this procedural obligation is not triggered when the new rules do not contain substantial amendments with respect to the previous ones [32].
Vendar ta postopkovna obveznost ne velja, če nova pravila ne vsebujejo vsebinskih sprememb glede na prejšnja pravila [32].
It follows from the above that the Commission must assess the compatibility of the aid with the TFEU under the rules and criteria applicable at the time of its decision.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da mora Komisija oceniti združljivost pomoči s Pogodbo o delovanju Evropske unije na podlagi pravil in meril, ki so veljala, ko je Komisija sprejela odločbo.
Individual training aid which does not meet the conditions for exemption must be assessed directly on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, which stipulates that ‘aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest’ may be considered compatible with the TFEU.
Individualno pomoč za usposabljanje, ki ne izpolnjuje pogojev za izjemo, je treba oceniti neposredno na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije, v katerem je navedeno, da je mogoče „pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi,“ šteti za združljivo s Pogodbo o delovanju Evropske unije.
To this end, the Commission must rely on the Communication [35] setting the criteria for assessing training aid subject to individual notification (hereinafter ‘the 2009 Training Aid Communication’), which was published on 11 August 2009 and entered into force on the 20th day following its publication.
V ta namen mora Komisija uporabiti Sporočilo [35] o določitvi meril za oceno pomoči za usposabljanje, za katero velja posamična priglasitev (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporočilo o pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 2009), ki je bilo objavljeno 11. avgusta 2009 in je začelo veljati dvajseti dan po objavi.
To conclude, in compliance with the Freistaat Sachsen principles the Commission must asses the compatibility of the notified aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, against the background of the GBER, and based on the individual assessment criteria set out by the 2009 Training Aid Communication.
Nazadnje, v skladu z načeli iz zadeve Freistaat Sachsen mora Komisija združljivost priglašene pomoči na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije torej oceniti na podlagi Uredbe o izjemah in merila o individualni oceni iz Sporočila o pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 2009.
The Commission considers that assessing the notified aid according to the rules and criteria resulting from the GBER and the 2009 Training Aid Communication does not infringe the procedural rights of the interested parties (see recital 57 above).
Komisija meni, da ocenjevanje priglašene pomoči na podlagi pravil in meril iz Uredbe o izjemah ter Sporočila o pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 2009 ni v nasprotju s postopkovnimi pravicami zainteresiranih strank (glej uvodno izjavo 57 zgoraj).
According to the Freistaat Sachsen ruling, the Commission must offer to the interested parties the possibility to comment on the application of the new rules to the notified aid only in so far as the new rules introduce substantive changes with respect to the previous ones.
Komisija mora skladno s sodbo v zadevi Freistaat Sachsen zainteresiranim strankam zagotoviti možnost, da predložijo pripombe o uporabi novih pravil za priglašeno pomoč, če se nova pravila vsebinsko razlikujejo od prejšnjih pravil.
In this respect, the Commission underlines that it had indicated in the Decision to open the formal investigation of September 2008 that the aid would be assessed by reference to the GBER.
V zvezi s tem Komisija poudarja, da je v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalne preiskave iz septembra 2008 navedla, da se bo pomoč ocenjevala glede na Uredbo o splošnih skupinskih izjemah.
The interested parties were thus given the opportunity to present comments on the assessment of the notified aid by reference to the GBER.
Tako je bila zainteresiranim strankam dana možnost, da predložijo pripombe o oceni priglašene pomoči glede na Uredbo o splošnih skupinskih izjemah.
Indeed, in its comments of November 2008, Romania invoked arguments against the application of the GBER to the present case.
Romunija je v pripombah iz novembra 2008 dejansko navedla trditve proti uporabi Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah v tej zadevi.
Romania argued in particular that the assessment criteria resulting from the GBER are partially different from those previously applicable under Regulation (EC) No 68/2001, especially with respect to the maximum aid intensity permitted for general training, which increased from 50 % of the eligible costs under Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 to 60 % of the eligible costs under the GBER [36].
Romunija je zlasti trdila, da se merila za ocenjevanje iz Uredbe o izjemah delno razlikujejo od meril iz Uredbe št. 68/2001, ki so se uporabljala prej, zlasti kar zadeva največjo intenzivnost pomoči, dovoljeno za splošno usposabljanje, ki se je s 50 % upravičenih stroškov na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001 povečala na 60 % upravičenih stroškov na podlagi Uredbe o izjemah [36].
The Commission also considers that the 2009 Training Aid Communication does not introduce substantive changes with respect to the assessment of aid of the kind envisaged by the Freistaat Sachsen ruling [37].
Komisija še meni, da se s sporočilom o pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 2009 ne uvajajo vsebinske spremembe glede ocenjevanja pomoči take vrste, kot je predvidena v sodbi v zadevi Freistaat Sachsen [37].
The 2009 Training Aid Communication codifies and reinforces long-standing principles and criteria of EU State aid control, such as the market failure/positive externalities rationale, the distinction between general and specific training, the appropriateness of aid as policy instrument, the incentive effect criterion, the proportionality principle and the analysis of the distorting potential of the aid.
V sporočilu o pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 2009 so kodificirana in potrjena dolgo veljavna načela in merila za nadzor državne pomoči v EU, kot so tržne pomanjkljivosti/pozitivni zunanji vzroki, razlikovanje med splošnim in posebnim usposabljanjem, primernost pomoči kot instrumenta politike, merilo spodbujevalnega učinka, načelo sorazmernosti in analiza učinka izkrivljanja, ki ga lahko povzroči pomoč.
Romania and the beneficiary appear to be principally concerned with the alleged overly strict interpretation and application of so-called incentive criterion for the assessment of training aid.
Zdi se, da sta Romunija in upravičenec zaskrbljena zlasti zaradi domnevno prestroge razlage in uporabe tako imenovanega merila spodbujevalnega učinka za oceno pomoči za usposabljanje.
The Commission considers however that the spelling out of the incentive criterion in the 2009 Training Aid Communication cannot be qualified as a substantive change of the assessment rules.
Vendar Komisija meni, da navedbe merila spodbujevalnega učinka v sporočilu o pomoči za usposabljanje iz leta 2009 ni mogoče razumeti kot vsebinsko spremembo pravil za ocenjevanje.
The Ford Genk [38] and GM Antwerp [39] decisions, which Romania invokes as examples of an excessively tight interpretation of the incentive effect criterion, actually date from before the time of the notification.
Zadevi Ford Genk [38] in GM Antwerp [39], ki ju Romunija navaja kot primera pretirano ozke razlage merila spodbujevalnega učinka, sta bili dejansko sprejeti pred priglasitvijo.