natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, it is not disputed that AGVO also has the right to offer the buildings for rent or to grant concession rights.
Poleg tega se ne izpodbija, da ima družba AGVO tudi pravico do dajanja stavb v najem ali do podeljevanja koncesijskih pravic.
The buildings, at least part of them, have a commercial value.
Stavbe ali vsaj del stavb imajo trgovinsko vrednost.
The Belgian authorities have admitted that a part of them was rented to public and semi-public organisations and a part for private purposes (see recital 46 of this Decision).
Belgijski organi so priznali, da se je del stavb dajal v najem javnim in delno javnim organizacijam in del v zasebne namene (glej uvodno izjavo 46 tega sklepa).
Finally, the Commission notes that AGVO has been granted another advantage in relation to the said renovation costs.
Nazadnje, Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila družbi AGVO dodeljena še ena ugodnost v zvezi z navedenimi stroški obnove.
The Belgian authorities have sent the Commission a list of guarantees that were given, free of charge, for certain loans.
Belgijski organi so Komisiji posredovali seznam garancij, ki so bile brezplačno zagotovljene za nekatera posojila.
According to the list transmitted to the Commission, some of those guaranteed loans aimed at financing the renovation costs.
Glede na ta seznam je bil namen nekaterih od teh zajamčenih posojil financiranje stroškov obnove.
Thus, in addition to the fact that AGVO was not obliged to engage in such renovation, the costs of at least some of the renovations that AGVO performed was reduced by these guarantees.
Torej ne le, da družba AGVO ni bila zavezana k obnovi, vendar so te garancije tudi zmanjšale stroške vsaj dela obnove, ki jo je izvedla družba AGVO.
It is for this reason also that the argument that the transfer of ownership took place, free of charge, as a kind of ‘compensation’ for particularly high renovation costs which AGVO was obliged to perform, cannot be accepted.
Tudi zato ni mogoče sprejeti utemeljitve, da je bil brezplačen prenos lastništva neke vrste „nadomestilo“ za zlasti visoke stroške obnove, ki jo je morala družba AGVO izvesti.
Even if the renovation costs could be considered particularly significant and constitute a kind of remuneration for the transfer of ownership of the buildings, which has not been demonstrated by the Belgian authorities, the fact that AGVO had since its establishment already been provided with the exclusive right to use the land and buildings of the Ostend fishing port free of charge would still have to be considered an advantage to be regarded as State aid.
Čeprav bi se stroški obnove lahko obravnavali kot zelo pomembni in kot neke vrste plačilo za prenos lastništva nad stavbami, česar belgijski organi niso dokazali, bi bilo treba dejstvo, da je imela družba AGVO že od svoje ustanovitve izključno pravico do brezplačne uporabe zemljišča in stavb v ribiškem pristanišču v Ostendeju, kljub temu obravnavati kot ugodnost, ki izpolnjuje pogoje državne pomoči.
Indeed, the question whether the City acted as a normal private investor must be examined in the light of the elements available at the time the decision was taken [28].
Vprašanje, ali je mesto delovalo kot običajni zasebni vlagatelj, je dejansko treba proučiti ob upoštevanju dejstev, ki so bila na voljo, ko je bila odločitev sprejeta [28].
In the present case, when the decision was taken, the City must have known that it was granting an advantage to AGVO, since point 11 of the business plan prepared by HAMA Consult NV on 9 November 2001 clearly mentions that, since the fish auction had recently been modernised, no significant investments were to be expected in the next 10 years.
V tem primeru je mesto ob sprejetju odločitve zagotovo vedelo, da dodeljuje družbi AGVO ugodnost, ker točka 11 poslovnega načrta, ki ga je HAMA Consult NV pripravil 9. novembra 2001, jasno navaja, da je bila dražba rib nedavno prenovljena in da v naslednjih desetih letih ni pričakovati nobenih pomembnih naložb.
Furthermore, according to the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities [29], in order for a transfer of the ownership of publicly owned buildings to be considered to conform to market value, the sale would normally either have to be by way of an unconditional bidding procedure, or following an independent expert evaluation.
V skladu s Sporočilom Komisije o elementih državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti [29] bi se prodaja, da bi se prenos lastništva nad stavbami v javni lasti lahko obravnaval kot usklajen s tržno vrednostjo, običajno morala izvesti po brezpogojnem postopku za oddajo naročila ali po oceni neodvisnega strokovnjaka.
Neither of these procedures has been followed.
Izveden ni bil noben od teh postopkov.
An expert evaluation of the value of the buildings and the proper remuneration for the exclusive usage right granted to AGVO and then the transfer of ownership would in the present case have been all the more necessary since the Belgian authorities considered that the book value did not correspond to the real value.
Strokovna ocena vrednosti stavb ter ustrezno plačilo za izključno pravico do uporabe, dodeljeno družbi AGVO, in za prenos lastništva bi bila v tem primeru še toliko bolj nujna, saj so belgijski organi menili, da knjigovodska vrednost ni ustrezala dejanski vrednosti.
Consequently, it appears that the provision free of charge and subsequently the contribution of the buildings by the City to AGVO is an act which cannot be considered to comply with normal economic standards, such as a normal private investor in similar conditions would have undertaken.
Zato se zdi, da brezplačne zagotovitve in pozneje dodelitve stavb mesta družbi AGVO ni mogoče obravnavati kot dejanje v skladu z običajnimi ekonomskimi standardi, ki bi ga lahko v podobnih okoliščinah pripisali običajnemu zasebnemu vlagatelju.
The Belgian authorities consider that since the property has been transferred back to the City (without compensation) puts an end to the State aid issue.
Belgijski organi menijo, da vprašanje o državni pomoči ni več pomembno, saj je bilo lastništvo ponovno preneseno na mesto (brez nadomestila).
The Commission, however, cannot agree with this position.
Komisija se kljub temu s tem stališčem ne strinja.
Moreover, the Commission considers that to the extent that AGVO would continue to use these buildings free of charge or for a below-market rent after the transfer of property, AGVO would continue to benefit from State aid [30].
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da bi družba AGVO še vedno koristila državno pomoč, če bi po prenosu še naprej brezplačno ali po ceni, nižji od tržne, uporabljala zadevno premoženje [30].
Free guarantees for loans
Brezplačne garancije za posojila
According to point 2.1.1 of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form or guarantees (the ‘Notice on guarantees’) [31], a State guarantee is considered to benefit a certain undertaking where it would allow the borrower to obtain better financial terms for a loan than those normally available on the financial markets without paying a market premium for the guarantee.
Ob upoštevanju točke 2.1.1 Obvestila Komisije o uporabi členov 87 in 88 pogodbe ES za državno pomoč v obliki poroštev („Obvestilo o poroštvih“) [31] se državna garancija obravnava kot ugodnost za neko podjetje, če omogoča posojilojemalcu pridobitev boljših finančnih pogojev za posojilo, kot so običajno na voljo na finančnih trgih, ne da bi za garancijo plačal tržno premijo.
In order to determine the normal market conditions, the conduct of the City ought to be compared with that of a private creditor acting with a view to realising a reasonable profit [32].
Za določitev običajnih tržnih pogojev bi bilo treba ravnanje mesta primerjati z ravnanjem zasebnega upnika, ki deluje z namenom ustvarjanja primernega dobička [32].
The Notice on guarantees gives a certain number of indications as to how a guarantee is assessed within the scope of State aid rules.
Obvestilo o poroštvih vsebuje določeno število navedb, kako se garancija oceni v okviru pravil o državni pomoči.
In particular it states that for a guarantee not to be considered State aid, it must fulfil certain criteria.
Obvestilo zlasti navaja, da morajo garancije, ki se ne obravnavajo kot državna pomoč, izpolnjevati določena merila.
Some of them raise problems in the current case.
Nekatera pa v obravnavani zadevi povzročajo težave.
No market price has been paid for the guarantees, since the guarantees were completely free of charge.
Za garancije ni bila zaračunana nobena tržna cena, saj so bile popolnoma brezplačne.
Moreover, the guarantees covered more than 80 % of the outstanding loan, as they covered the totality of the loan.
Poleg tega so garancije krile več kot 80 % neodplačanega posojila, saj so zajemale celotno posojilo.
This reinforces the advantage received because in the case of a 100 % State guarantee there is no incentive for the lender to properly assess the creditworthiness of AGVO and thus to properly determine the financial terms of the loan in accordance with the risk profile of AGVO [33].
To še poveča prejeto ugodnost, ker v primeru 100-odstotne državne garancije posojilodajalec ni spodbujen k ustrezni oceni kreditne sposobnosti družbe AGVO in s tem k ustrezni določitvi finančnih pogojev posojila v skladu s profilom tveganja družbe AGVO [33].
It is therefore clear that these guarantees allowed AGVO to obtain better financial terms for loans than those normally available on the financial markets [34], especially in light of the poor and often negative results of AGVO and its subsidiaries.
Zato je jasno, da so te garancije družbi AGVO omogočile pridobitev boljših finančnih pogojev za posojila od tistih, ki so običajno na voljo na finančnih trgih [34], zlasti ob upoštevanju slabih in pogosto negativnih rezultatov družbe AGVO in njenih hčerinskih družb.
The Belgian authorities submit that it would be normal for a shareholder to provide a guarantee free of charge in favour of an undertaking he controls.
Belgijski organi navajajo, da delničar običajno zagotovi brezplačno garancijo podjetju, katerega delnice ima.
This statement is, however, not substantiated by any evidence or example.
Vendar ta izjava ni utemeljena z nobenim dokazom ali primerom.
It is moreover particularly difficult to reconcile this with the behaviour of a private creditor.
Poleg tega je to zelo težko uskladiti z ravnanjem zasebnega upnika.
Indeed, the decision of the City to provide guarantees to financial institutions for loans taken out by AGVO, without any charges, is particularly unusual under normal conditions on the financial markets.
Odločitev mesta, da zagotovi družbi AGVO garancije za posojila pri finančnih ustanovah, ne da bi ji za to kaj zaračunalo, je pod običajnimi pogoji na finančnih trgih zelo nenavadna.
In a normal situation, such a guarantee would be remunerated by an appropriate premium, which reflects the risks connected with the guarantee [35], even if the guarantor is a shareholder holding a controlling majority [36].
V običajnih razmerah bi se za takšno garancijo plačala primerna premija, ki ustreza tveganjem, povezanim z garancijo [35], tudi če je porok delničar s prevladujočo večino delnic [36].
Moreover, a normal private creditor providing guarantees would take out certain securities before granting it and verify beforehand the conditions of the loan, the risk involved etc. while the information provided by Belgium shows this has not been the case [37].
Poleg tega bi običajni zasebni upnik pred zagotovilom garancije izključil nekatere vrednostne papirje in pred tem preveril pogoje posojila, prisotno tveganje itd., medtem ko glede na informacije, ki so jih predložili belgijski organi, to ni bilo storjeno [37].
This is all the more problematic in the present case given the financial situation of the fish auction, which has suffered recurrent and heavy losses in the past years and operates in a highly competitive and shrinking market [38].
To je toliko bolj sporno v obravnavanem primeru zaradi finančnega položaja dražbe rib, ki je v zadnjih letih utrpela ponavljajoče se velike izgube in deluje na zelo konkurenčnem trgu, ki se krči [38].
It should first be noted that it is not certain that the guaranteed loans were actually used for the intended purpose.
Najprej je treba navesti, da ni gotovo, ali so se zajamčena posojila dejansko uporabila za predvideni namen.
Even if it is true that the information submitted to the Commission seem to indicate that the City granted the guarantees on the basis of AGVO’s intention to use the loans for the financing of renovation works, it also appears that the City did not link the free guarantees to the carrying-out of renovation works, nor did the City withdraw the free guarantees or ask for a remuneration when it was later established that the loans had in fact been used for other purposes.
Tudi če informacije, predložene Komisiji, resnično kažejo, da je mesto zagotovilo garancije na podlagi namere družbe AGVO, da bo s posojili financirala obnovo, se prav tako zdi, da mesto brezplačnih garancij ni povezalo z izvedbo obnove niti ni umaknilo brezplačnih garancij ali zahtevalo plačila, ko se je pozneje izkazalo, da so se posojila uporabila za druge namene.
The Belgian authorities have explained that the loans have at times been used for purposes other than the announced aim.
Belgijski organi so pojasnili, da se posojila včasih niso uporabila za namen, ki je bil napovedan.
For instance a Fortis loan which was initially intended to finance the purchase of the shares in PAKHUIZEN was finally not used for that purpose but apparently for renovation works.
Na primer, posojilo banke Fortis, ki je bilo prvotno namenjeno financiranju nakupa delnic družbe PAKHUIZEN, se je nazadnje namenilo obnovi.
The Belgian authorities have furthermore admitted that the EUR 550000 loan from the ING Bank, initially intended for renovation works, was eventually used to support EVO.
Belgijski organi so tudi priznali, da se je posojilo banke ING Bank v višini 550000 EUR, prvotno namenjeno obnovi, nazadnje uporabilo za podporo družbi EVO.
It is undisputed that the free guarantee for this loan cannot be regarded as a contribution to renovation tasks.
Nesporno je, da brezplačne garancije za to posojilo ni mogoče obravnavati kot prispevka za obnovo.
In other words, it cannot be said that the City behaved as a normal private guarantor would do (including one that controlled the company concerned), namely to first examine whether the loan for which the guarantee would give cover would in all likelihood be repaid, and then to verify whether the loan was strictly used for the project for which it was originally intended.
Z drugimi besedami, ni mogoče trditi, da je mesto ravnalo, tako kot bi ravnal običajni zasebni porok (vključno s porokom, ki ima prevladujoči delež zadevne družbe). Ta bi najprej proučil, ali je verjetno, da bo posojilo, za katerega bi jamčil, odplačano, in nato preveril, ali se posojilo uporablja izključno za prvotno predvidene namene.
As for guaranteed loans which were actually (entirely or partly) used to finance renovation works, it must be recalled that the renting activity of AGVO is an economic activity and that the provision of a free guarantee favours AGVO on the rental market.
V zvezi z zajamčenimi posojili, ki so se dejansko (v celoti ali delno) uporabila za financiranje obnove, je treba opozoriti, da so storitve družbe AGVO v zvezi z dajanjem stavb v najem gospodarska dejavnost in da ima družba AGVO zaradi dodelitve brezplačne garancije prednost na trgu najemnih storitev.
Moreover, the free guarantee improves AGVO’s financial situation in general, allowing it to use the financial resources that, under normal circumstances, it would have had to use in order to pay the premium for other purposes than the renovation of the buildings rented to public and semi-public organisms.
Poleg tega brezplačna garancija izboljša finančni položaj družbe AGVO na splošno in ji omogoča uporabo finančnih sredstev, ki bi jih morala v običajnih razmerah uporabiti za plačilo premije za druge namene in ne za obnovo stavb, ki se dajejo v najem javnim in delno javnim organizacijam.
Finally, even if it were to be accepted that the rental of buildings to public and semi-public organisations could be considered a service of general economic interest entrusted to AGVO, the conditions laid down in the Altmark case are not fulfilled, so that it must be concluded that the free guarantees constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Nazadnje, tudi če bi bilo sprejeto, da se lahko dajanje stavb v najem javnim in delno javnim organizacijam obravnava kot storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, za katero je družba AGVO pooblaščena, niso izpolnjeni pogoji iz zadeve Altmark, zato je treba skleniti, da pomeni brezplačna garancija državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In its judgment in Altmark the Court of Justice held that public service compensation does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU if it fulfils the cumulative following criteria: ‘(…) First, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and those obligations must be clearly defined (…); (…); (…) Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner (…); (…) Third, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public services obligation, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit (…); and (…) Fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant a public procurement procedure, which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs, which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided within the same sector would incur, taking into account the receipts and a reasonable profit from discharging the obligations.’
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v sodbi v zadevi Altmark presodilo, da nadomestilo za javne storitve ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, če izpolnjuje naslednja kumulativna merila: „[…] Prvič, podjetje, ki prejema nadomestilo, mora dejansko izpolnjevati obveznosti javne službe, te obveznosti pa morajo biti jasno opredeljene […]“; „[…] Drugič, merila, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, morajo biti določena vnaprej ter objektivno in pregledno […]“; „[…] Tretjič, nadomestilo ne sme presegati tistega, kar je potrebno za kritje vseh ali dela stroškov, ki so nastali z izpolnjevanjem obveznosti javne službe ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička […]“; ter „[…] Četrtič, če podjetje, ki se mu naloži izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe, v konkretnem primeru ni izbrano s postopkom oddaje javnega naročila, ki omogoča, da se izbere tisti ponudnik, ki lahko te storitve opravlja z najnižjimi stroški za skupnost, se mora raven potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih imelo povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje z ustreznimi sredstvi v istem sektorju, ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti.“
In the present case, these criteria are not fulfilled.
V tem primeru ta merila niso izpolnjena.
Apart from the fact that it can be disputed whether AGVO was entrusted with public service obligations in connection with the rental of buildings to public or semi-public organisations, the Commission notes that the Belgian authorities have explicitly confirmed that no parameters for compensation had been established.
Razen tega, da je mogoče razpravljati o tem, ali so bile družbi AGVO naložene obveznosti javnih storitev v zvezi z dajanjem stavb v najem javnim ali delno javnim organizacijam, Komisija ugotavlja, da so belgijski organi izrecno potrdili, da niso bila določena nobena merila za nadomestilo.
Moreover, AGVO has not opted for a system of separate accounts and nothing prevents overcompensation and cross subsidies between the various activities of AGVO.
Poleg tega se družba AGVO ni odločila za sistem ločenih računov, zato čezmernih nadomestil in navzkrižnega subvencioniranja med različnimi dejavnostmi družbe AGVO ne more nihče preprečiti.
Moreover, AGVO has not been chosen pursuant a public procurement procedure, and the Belgian authorities did not demonstrate that the services are provided at the least cost to the community.
Družba AGVO ni bila izbrana v skladu s postopkom javnih naročil in belgijski organi niso dokazali, da se storitve opravljajo z najmanjšimi stroški za skupnost.
Tax duties
Davčne dajatve
The City granted AGVO the right to establish and collect the community tax duties for the use of the fishing harbour and the auction.
Mesto je družbi AGVO dodelilo pravico do določitve in pobiranja občinskih davčnih dajatev za uporabo ribiškega pristanišča in dražbe.
The tax duties thereby collected by AGVO appear to constitute resources at the disposal of the State, which have partly [40] been transferred to AGVO.
Zato se zdi, da davčne dajatve, ki jih družba AGVO pobira, pomenijo sredstva, ki so na voljo državi in so bila delno [40] prenesena na družbo AGVO.
Moreover, they constitute an advantage which it would normally not receive and, consequently, favour this undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Poleg tega pomenijo ugodnost, ki je družba AGVO sicer ne bi prejela, in ji tako dajejo prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In the present case, the Belgium authorities have indicated that the collection of the levy forms part of, and in fact constitutes a retribution for, the public interest tasks entrusted to AGVO, in particular the task of managing the fishing port.
V tem primeru so belgijski organi navedli, da je pobiranje dajatev del nalog javnega interesa, ki so bile zaupane družbi AGVO, zlasti naloge upravljanja ribiškega pristanišča, oziroma dejansko pomenijo plačilo za te naloge.
Belgium submits that the transfer of the tasks and the right to collect the tax duties should be seen as a mere allocation of tasks within the State and cannot qualify as State aid.
Belgijski organi menijo, da je treba prenos nalog in pravice do pobiranja davčnih dajatev obravnavati le kot razporeditev nalog znotraj države in ne kot državno pomoč.
The Commission has examined whether the right to collect the tax duties and use the proceeds could qualify as a compensation for services of general economic interest and whether the cumulative criteria laid down in the Altmark judgment were fulfilled.
Komisija je proučila, ali bi se lahko pravica do pobiranja davčnih dajatev in uporabe prihodka obravnavala kot nadomestilo za storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena ter ali so bila izpolnjena kumulativna merila iz sodne prakse v zadevi Altmark.
However, as already established in recital 191 of this Decision, these criteria are not fulfilled, since for instance no parameters for compensation have been established.
Vendar kot je že ugotovljeno v uvodni izjavi 191 tega sklepa, ta merila niso izpolnjena, ker na primer merila za nadomestilo sploh niso bila določena.
Finally, even if it were accepted that the right to collect tax duties and use its proceeds should be seen as a compensation/remuneration for tasks of public (non-economic) interest, it is nevertheless true that AGVO also carries out commercial activities, which has explicitly been acknowledged by the Belgian authorities.
Nazadnje, tudi če bi bilo sprejeto, da se pravica do pobiranja davčnih dajatev in uporabe s tem povezanih prihodkov obravnava kot nadomestilo/plačilo za naloge javnega (negospodarskega) interesa, še vedno velja, da opravlja družba AGVO tudi trgovinske dejavnosti, kar so belgijski organi izrecno priznali.