natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As far as the 2000 loan is concerned, the Italian authorities provided clarification, by letter of 25 July 2003, that the actual total amount of the loan was ITL 3603574689 (corresponding to EUR 1861091,01), rather than ITL 1940579808 (about EUR 1 million), as previously stated in the letter of 21 May 2002, and indicated in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, since the latter figure referred only to the part of the loan which had already been paid at the point at which the letter was written, not the overall amount of aid granted.
Kar zadeva posojilo iz leta 2000, so italijanske oblasti z dopisom z dne 25. julija 2003 pojasnile, da je bil dejanski skupni znesek posojila 3603574689 ITL (1861091,01 EUR) in ne 1940579808 (približno 1 milijon EUR), kakor so pred tem navedle v dopisu z dne 21. maja 2002 in kakor je bilo navedeno v sklepu o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave, saj se je slednji znesek nanašal samo na del posojila, ki je bil v času, ko je bil dopis napisan, že izplačan, pri tem pa se ni upošteval skupni znesek odobrene pomoči.
Two more instalments were in fact paid.
Dejansko sta bila po tem izplačana še dva obroka pomoči.
The granting of the entire amount of the 2000 loan in question was decided on 9 November 2000 and the contract was signed on 20 December 2000.
Odobritev celotnega zneska posojila iz leta 2000 je bila sprejeta 9. novembra 2000 in pogodba podpisana 20. decembra 2000.
Below is a schedule of the eligible costs taken into consideration as regards this aid, forwarded by the Italian Government in an annex to the letter of 22 July 2003.
Spodaj je prikazana tabela upravičenih stroškov, upoštevanih pri zadevni pomoči, ki jo je italijanska vlada poslala v prilogi k dopisu z dne 22. julija 2003.
Fairs and promotions
Sejmi in razstave
Furthermore, it is evident from the documents annexed to the letter of 14 January 2004 that the programme in question should have been carried out in China jointly by WAM SpA and ‘WAM Bulk Handling Machinery Shangai Co Ltd’, a local firm wholly owned by WAM SpA.
Iz dokumentov, priloženih dopisu z dne 14. januarja 2004, je tudi razvidno, da naj bi zadevni program na Kitajskem skupaj izvajala podjetje WAM SpA in podjetje „WAM Bulk Handling Machinery Shangai Co Ltd“, ki je lokalno podjetje v izključni lasti podjetja WAM SpA.
Eligible costs were considered to include the rent of premises for offices, storage, showrooms and technical assistance (total surface area of 7500 m2), the purchase, renting or leasing of 3 vehicles and staff costs at the parent firm and abroad (specifically: 1 sales manager and 6 technicians).
Upravičeni stroški so vključevali najemnino prostorov za pisarne, skladišča, razstavne salone in tehnično pomoč (s skupno površino 7500 kvadratnih metrov), nakup, najem ali zakup treh vozil ter osebje v matični družbi in v tujini (natančneje, en vodja prodaje in šest tehnikov).
The interest rate applied to the specific loan was 2,32 %, i.e. 40 % of the reference rate of 5,8 %, in force when the aid was granted.
Obrestna mera za to specifično posojilo je bila 2,32 %, kar je 40 % referenčne obrestne mere 5,8 %, ki je veljala v času, ko je bila pomoč odobrena.
Once again, it seems that no change in the interest rate during the period of the loan was provided for in the contract.
Še enkrat se poudarja, da v pogodbi očitno ni bila predvidena nobena sprememba obrestne mere v času posojila.
The loan was paid to the beneficiary in several instalments, so the grace period varied from 2 years to zero.
Upravičencu je bila pomoč izplačana v več obrokih, zato se podaljšani plačilni rok giblje med nič in dvema letoma.
Furthermore, as regards the modification of the interest rate during the repayment period, the Italian authorities argued that general rules allowing such reductions did exist within the Italian legal framework.
Poleg tega so italijanske oblasti v zvezi s spremembo obrestne mere v obdobju odplačevanja trdile, da splošna pravila, ki dovoljujejo takšno znižanje, dejansko obstajajo v okviru italijanskega pravnega sistema.
In addition, with regard to both loans, the Italian authorities claimed that the cost of the compulsory bank guarantee, which was requested prior to the granting of the loans, had to be deducted from the amount of the aid.
Italijanske oblasti so v zvezi z obema posojiloma trdile, da je treba od zneska pomoči odšteti stroške obvezne bančne garancije, ki se zahteva pred odobritvijo posojil.
As regards WAM SpA’s exports inside and outside the EU, the following data were provided:
V zvezi z izvozom podjetja WAM SpA znotraj in zunaj EU so bili predloženi naslednji podatki:
EXPORTS INSIDE EU
IZVOZ ZNOTRAJ EU
EXPORTS OUTSIDE EU
IZVOZ ZUNAJ EU
TOTAL EXPORTS
SKUPNI IZVOZ
The Italian authorities informed the Commission that the total export figures indicated above represented 52 % to 57,5 % of WAM SpA’s total annual turnover in 1995 and 1999 respectively.
Italijanske oblasti so Komisijo obvestile, da zgoraj navedene številke za skupni izvoz predstavljajo od 52 % skupnega letnega prometa podjetja WAM SpA za leto 1995 do 57,5 % skupnega letnega prometa podjetja WAM SpA za leto 1999.
Finally, while the Italian authorities acknowledge that the two loans under examination are covered neither by Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 nor by Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 [15], they take the view that the incentives for enterprises from the EU designed to support programmes to be implemented outside the EU do not fall under the scope of Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty, now Article 107(3) of the TFEU.
In nenazadnje, italijanske oblasti priznavajo, da nobeno od obeh zadevnih posojil ni vključeno v Uredbo (ES) št. 69/2001 niti v Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 70/2001 [15], vendar menijo, da spodbude za podjetja iz EU, ki so namenjene izvajanju podpornih programov zunaj EU, ne spadajo v področje uporabe člena 87(3) Pogodbe ES, zdaj člena 107(3) PDEU.
Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU
Obstoj pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU
Article 107(1) of the TFEU states that ‘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, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
Člen 107(1) PDEU navaja, da 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 z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
It follows from Article 107(1) of the TFEU that, in order for a measure to qualify as State aid, four conditions must be met.
Iz člena 107(1) PDEU izhaja, da morajo biti za to, da se ukrep šteje za državno pomoč, izpolnjeni štirje pogoji.
First, there must be an intervention of the State through state resources.
Prvič, obstajati mora posredovanje države preko državnih sredstev.
Secondly, that intervention must confer a selective advantage on its recipient.
Drugič, to posredovanje mora prejemniku dajati selektivno prednost.
Thirdly, it must be liable to affect trade between Member States and, fourthly, it must distort or threaten to distort competition.
Tretjič, pomoč mora vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami, in četrtič, pomoč mora izkrivljati oziroma bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco.
The concept of State aid applies to any advantage, granted directly or indirectly, financed out of state resources, granted by the State itself or by any intermediary body acting by virtue of powers conferred on it.
Pojem državne pomoči se nanaša na vsako neposredno ali posredno dodeljeno prednost, ki se financira iz državnih sredstev in jo odobri država ali posrednik po naročilu države. Sodna praksa Evropskega sodišča zelo jasno določa, da ni razlike med pomočjo, ki jo neposredno dodeli država, in pomočjo, ki jo dodelijo javni ali zasebni subjekti po naročilu države.
The aid measures under scrutiny were granted by the committee set up pursuant to Article 2 of Law No 394/81 [17] for the 1995 loan and by the ‘Comitato Agevolazioni’ [18] for the 2000 loan.
Zadevno posojilo iz leta 1995 je dodelil odbor, ustanovljen v skladu s členom 2 zakona št. 394/81 [17], zadevno posojilo iz leta 2000 pa „Comitato Agevolazioni“ [18].
Mediocredito Centrale SpA [19] entered into the 1995 financing contract with WAM SpA in order to implement the decision of the committee set up pursuant to Article 2 of Law No 394/81.
Banka Mediocredito Centrale SpA [19] je leta 1995 s podjetjem WAM SpA sklenila pogodbo o financiranju, da bi izvršila sklep odbora, ustanovljenega v skladu s členom 2 zakona št. 394/81.
SIMESIT SpA [20] entered into the 2000 financing contract with WAM SpA in order to implement the decision of the ‘Comitato Agevolazioni’.
Podjetje SIMESIT SpA [20] je leta 2000 s podjetjem WAM SpA sklenilo pogodbo o financiranju, da bi izvršil sklep „Comitato Agevolazioni“.
In this case the aid was granted from state resources by entities which acted on behalf of the State, with the objective of promoting economic activities according to the guidelines laid down by the State, and is therefore – in accordance with Court of Justice case law – imputable to the State [21].
V zadevnem primeru so pomoč iz državnih sredstev dodelili subjekti, ki so delovali v imenu italijanske države z namenom spodbujanja gospodarskih dejavnosti v skladu s smernicami, ki jih je določila država, zaradi česar je mogoče pomoč – v skladu s sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča – pripisati državi [21].
Selective advantage granted to an undertaking
Selektivna prednost, dodeljena podjetju
Loans on advantageous terms improve the financial situation of the recipient of the aid, releasing it from costs that it would otherwise have to bear if it were to set up a market penetration programme without state intervention.
Subvencionirana posojila izboljšujejo finančno stanje prejemnika pomoči in krijejo stroške, ki bi jih prejemnik sicer moral kriti sam, če bi izvajal program uveljavitve na trgu brez posredovanja države.
Therefore the State aid measures under scrutiny confer a selective advantage on WAM SpA over its competitors from the EU.
Zato ukrepi državne pomoči iz pregleda podjetju WAM SpA dajejo selektivno prednost pred njegovimi konkurenti iz EU.
As it is active in the market for the production and distribution of screw conveyors and feeders, dust collectors and valves for industrial plants, there is no doubt that WAM SpA carries out an economic activity in that market, which fulfils the definition of an undertaking under EU law [22].
Ker je podjetje WAM SpA dejavno na trgu za izdelavo in distribucijo polžnih transporterjev in dovajalnikov, zbiralnikov prahu in ventilov za industrijske obrate, ni nobenega dvoma, da podjetje WAM SpA opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost na tem trgu, kar ustreza opredelitvi podjetja po evropskem pravu [22].
In conclusion, the aid granted to WAM SpA can be regarded as having conferred a selective advantage on an undertaking.
Pomoč, dodeljeno podjetju WAM SpA, je mogoče šteti za selektivno prednost, dodeljeno podjetju.
In its judgment of 30 April 2009 the Court of Justice emphasises [23] that ‘even in cases where it is apparent from the circumstances under which it was granted that the aid is liable to affect trade between Member States and to distort or threaten to distort competition, the Commission must at least set out those circumstances in the statement of reasons for its decision’.
Evropsko sodišče v sodbi z dne 30. aprila 2009 poudarja [23], da „tudi ko iz okoliščin, v katerih je bila državna pomoč dodeljena, izhaja, da lahko ta vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, mora Komisija navesti te okoliščine v obrazložitvi svoje odločbe“.
However, the Court also considers that the Commission does not have to demonstrate that the aid has a real effect on trade between Member States but only ‘to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition’ [24].
Vendar pa Sodišče tudi meni, da Komisiji ni treba dokazati dejanskega vpliva pomoči na trgovino med državami članicami, ampak mora le „proučiti, ali ta pomoč lahko vpliva na to trgovino in izkrivljanje konkurence“ [24].
Furthermore, the Court of Justice has also ruled that ‘the Commission was not obliged to carry out an economic analysis of the actual situation of the relevant market or the patterns of the trade in question between Member States or to show the real effect of the aid at issue’ in order to demonstrate that the conditions concerning the effects on trade and competition were fulfilled.
Poleg tega je Sodišče tudi odločilo, da „Komisija ni bila dolžna izvesti gospodarsko analizo resničnega položaja na zadevnem trgu ali zadevnih trgovinskih tokov med državami članicami niti ni bila dolžna dokazati dejanskega učinka spornih pomoči“, da bi dokazala, da so bili pogoji v zvezi z vplivom na trgovino in konkurenco izpolnjeni.
WAM SpA is a company operating in the EU and international markets.
Podjetje WAM SpA deluje v EU in na mednarodnih trgih.
It has subsidiaries in many Member States and sells its products throughout the EU as well as outside of it.
Ima odvisne družbe v več državah članicah ter svoje izdelke prodaja po vsej EU in tudi zunaj nje.
Between 1995 and 1999, two thirds of its turnover, EUR 10 million in absolute figures, came from sales in the EU market and one third from sales outside the EU.
Med letoma 1995 in 1999 je podjetje dve tretjini prometa, tj. 10 milijonov EUR v absolutnih številkah, doseglo od prodaje na trgu EU, tretjino prometa pa od prodaje zunaj EU.
In these markets, WAM SpA actually or potentially competes with other EU companies, which are also present internationally.
Na teh trgih podjetje WAM SpA dejansko ali potencialno konkurira drugim podjetjem iz EU, ki so prav tako prisotna na mednarodnih trgih.
As mentioned above (see recital 34), there were at least three other large EU producers of dust filters from various Member States which were present internationally and which could have been potential competitors of WAM SpA in the export of dust filters to Japan or China [25].
Kakor je navedeno zgoraj (glej uvodno izjavo 34), so obstajali najmanj trije večji evropski proizvajalci filtrov za prah iz različnih držav članic, ki so delovali na mednarodnem trgu in ki bi lahko bili potencialni konkurenti podjetja WAM SpA na področju izvoza filtrov za prah na Japonsko ali Kitajsko [25].
These companies were, at least potentially, in competition with WAM SpA, because if they decided to export their products to Japan or China, they would be in a worse starting position than WAM SpA, which had received aid in order to penetrate those markets.
Ta podjetja so vsaj potencialno konkurirala podjetju WAM SpA, kajti če bi se podjetja odločila svoje izdelke izvažati na Japonsko ali Kitajsko, bi se znašla v slabšem izhodiščnem položaju kot podjetje WAM SpA, ki je za prodor na te trge prejelo pomoč.
Moreover, as explained in recitals 34 and 35, during the relevant period WAM SpA had a large share of both the national and the European markets.
Poleg tega, kakor je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 34 in 35, je imelo podjetje WAM SpA v zadevnem obdobju velik tržni delež tako na nacionalnem kot tudi na evropskem trgu.
As indicated in recital 38, it also had a commercial presence through a subsidiary in another Member State.
Kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 38, je bilo podjetje tržno prisotno tudi preko odvisne družbe v drugi državi članici.
In the present case three further arguments support this finding:
V zadevnem primeru to ugotovitev podpirajo trije argumenti:
Firstly, the export loans granted to WAM SpA were likely to alter the normal competitive market structure, making it easier for WAM SpA than for its actual or potential competitors from the EU to export their products to foreign markets, as the latter would have to finance the export penetration programme from their own funds.
Prvič, posojila za izvoz, dodeljena podjetju WAM SpA, bi lahko spremenila običajno konkurenčno tržno strukturo, zaradi česar bi podjetje WAM SpA v primerjavi z dejanskimi ali potencialnimi konkurenti iz EU lažje izvažalo svoje izdelke na tuje trge, saj bi morali njegovi konkurenti program za uveljavitev izvozne dejavnosti financirati iz lastnih sredstev.
Secondly, WAM SpA received aid for setting up the market penetration programme and therefore made certain savings.
Drugič, podjetje WAM SpA je prejelo pomoč za vzpostavitev programa uveljavitve na trgu in s tem prihranilo nekaj sredstev.
As WAM SpA invested in the penetration of foreign markets with the aim of exporting its products, these savings could have consequently enabled it to export products manufactured in the EU outside the EU for a lower price or with a higher margin.
Ker je podjetje WAM SpA investiralo v uveljavitev na tujih trgih z namenom izvažanja svojih izdelkov, bi mu ti prihranki lahko posledično omogočili, da bi izdelke, izdelane v EU, izvažalo na trge zunaj EU po nižjih cenah ali z višjo maržo.
Thirdly, as money is fungible, any profits from this activity could have been reinvested within the EU.
Tretjič, ker je denar zamenljiv, bi lahko podjetje dobiček iz te dejavnosti ponovno investiralo znotraj EU.
Another possibility is that, having received aid, WAM SpA was freed from the expense of foreign market penetration and was able use the money saved to strengthen its position in the EU market for other purposes [27].
Druga možnost je ta, da podjetje WAM SpA, ker je prejelo pomoč, ni imelo stroškov za uveljavitev na tujih trgih in je lahko denar, privarčevan za okrepitev svojega položaja na trgu EU, uporabilo za druge namene [27].
Moreover, after the exports have been carried out, any profits from this activity could be reinvested within the EU.
Poleg tega bi lahko podjetje po izvedenem izvozu dobiček iz te dejavnosti ponovno investiralo znotraj EU.
In all these cases, the aid would have a direct impact on the EU market and a distorting effect vis-à-vis WAM’s competitors in the EU.
V vseh treh primerih bi pomoč imela neposreden vpliv na trg EU in škodljiv učinek na konkurente podjetja WAM SpA v EU.
Likewise, it is established case law that ‘when aid granted by Member States strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in the trade within the EU, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid’ [28].
Podobno je ustaljena sodna praksa, da „se, kadar pomoč države članice okrepi položaj enega podjetja v razmerju do drugih konkurenčnih podjetij v trgovini znotraj EU, šteje, da pomoč vpliva na ta podjetja“ [28].
As the aid granted to WAM SpA by Italy strengthened its position vis-à-vis its actual or potential EU competitors, as explained above, such aid also affected trade within the EU.
Ker je pomoč, ki jo je Italija dodelila podjetju WAM SpA, okrepila njegov položaj v razmerju do njegovih dejanskih ali potencialnih konkurentov v EU, kakor je pojasnjeno zgoraj, je imela ta pomoč tudi vpliv na trgovino znotraj EU.
As regards the amount of aid, the Court of Justice held in Philip Morris v Commission [29] and France v Commission [30] that, even if the amount of aid received is relatively low or the undertaking is small, there is still a possibility that trade within the EU may be affected.
V zvezi z zneskom pomoči je Evropsko sodišče v zadevah Philip Morris proti Komisiji [29] in Francija proti Komisiji [30] odločilo, da kljub relativno nizkemu znesku pomoči ali majhnosti podjetja še vedno obstaja možnost, da pomoč škodljivo vpliva na trgovino znotraj EU.
In the same vein, in Vlaams Gewest v Commission [31] the Court of First Instance stated that ‘even a relatively small amount is liable to affect trade between Member States where there is strong competition in the sectors in which undertakings operate’.
V enakem smislu je Sodišče prve stopnje v zadevi Vlaams Gewest proti Komisiji [31] navedlo, da „lahko celo relativno majhen znesek škodljivo vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, če obstaja močna konkurenca v sektorjih, v katerih so podjetja dejavna“.
Moreover, the Court of Justice stated in Heiser [32] that there is no threshold or percentage below which it might be considered that trade between Member States is not affected.
Poleg tega je Evropsko sodišče v zadevi Heiser [32] navedlo, da ne obstaja prag ali odstotek, do katerega bi se lahko štelo, da trgovina med državami članicami ni prizadeta.
In the case at hand, therefore, the relatively small amount of the aid does not contradict the finding that there may be an effect on trade within the EU and on competition.
V zadevnem primeru torej relativno nizek znesek pomoči ne nasprotuje ugotovitvi, da lahko obstaja vpliv na trgovino znotraj EU in na konkurenco.
Although the amount of aid is quite low, because of the intense nature of existing as well as potential competition in the sector in which WAM SpA operates, there is a great risk that competition would be distorted and that trade within the EU would be affected.
Čeprav je znesek pomoči precej nizek, zaradi intenzivne narave obstoječe in tudi potencialne konkurence v sektorju, v katerem deluje podjetje WAM SpA, obstaja tveganje, da bi bila konkurenca izkrivljena, trgovina znotraj EU pa prizadeta.
On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that the aid granted to WAM SpA by Italy is very likely to affect trade and distort competition in the internal market.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega je mogoče skleniti, da je zelo verjetno, da bo pomoč, ki jo je Italija dodelila podjetju WAM SpA, škodljivo vplivala na trgovino in izkrivljala konkurenco na notranjem trgu.
In conclusion, the public support given to WAM SpA constitutes State aid within in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Sledi, da javna podpora, dana podjetju WAM SpA, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In accordance with the tempus regis actum principle, the procedural rules in force when the decision is to be adopted have to be applied to non-notified aid unless explicitly provided otherwise [33].
V skladu z načelom tempus regis actum je treba pri sprejemanju sklepa za nepriglašeno pomoč uporabiti veljavna postopkovna pravila, razen če je izrecno določeno drugače [33].
Given that the exemption rules (including the de minimis rules) exempt certain aid measures from the notification obligation and replace the centralised system of State aid control with a decentralised system of State aid control, they are considered as being of a procedural nature.
Ker pravila o izjemah (tudi pravila de minimis) določene ukrepe pomoči izvzemajo iz obveznosti proglasitve in centralizirani sistem nadzora državnih pomoči nadomeščajo z decentraliziranim sistemom nadzora državnih pomoči, se šteje, da so postopkovne narave.
In the case at hand, even if in its decision to open the formal investigation procedure the Commission expressed doubts about the possibility of exempting aid under Commission Regulations (EC) No 69/2001 and (EC) No 70/2001, the corresponding rules in force at the time of the decision must be applied, i.e. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 [34].
Čeprav je Komisija v sklepu o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave izrazila dvom glede možnosti izvzetja pomoči v skladu z uredbama Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 in (ES) št. 70/2001, je treba v zadevnem primeru uporabiti ustrezna pravila, ki so veljala v času sklepa, tj. Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1998/2006 [34].
Likewise, Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty [35] (hereinafter: the 2008 Block Exemption Regulation) applies to individual aid granted before its entry into force, if the aid fulfils all the conditions laid down in this Regulation, with the exception of Article 9.
Podobno Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 800/2008 z dne 6. avgusta 2008 o razglasitvi nekaterih vrst pomoči za združljive s skupnim trgom z uporabo členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe [35] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Uredba o splošnih skupinskih izjemah iz leta 2008) velja za posamezno pomoč, dodeljeno pred njenim začetkom veljavnosti, če pomoč izpolnjuje vse pogoje iz te uredbe, razen člena 9.