natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The French authorities cite the following examples of uses in particular:research equipment […] (*) for an evaluation […] (*) or to carry out tests […] (*);research equipment […] (*) to carry out a testing programme of […] (*) or to test a […] (*);a […] (*) specifically adapted by IFP for its research work in […] (*) and […] (*) for […] (*);methodology for […] (*) developed by IFP to carry out a study of […] (*);test cells adapted for […] (*) or […] (*);
Francoski organi so navedli predvsem naslednje primere uporabe:oprema za raziskave […] (*) za oceno […] (*) ali opravljanje poskusov […] (*);oprema za raziskave […] (*) za izvajanje programa poskusov […] (*) ali preizkušanje […] (*);[…] (*), posebej prilagojen za osebo javnega prava IFP za njeno raziskovalno delo na področju […] (*) in […] (*) za […] (*);metodologija […] (*), ki jo je oseba javnega prava IFP razvila za izvedbo študije […] (*);testne celice, prilagojene za […] (*) ali […] (*).
The French authorities cite in particular the example of use of a […] (*) for […] (*).
Francoski organi so navedli predvsem primer uporabe […] (*) za […] (*).
The French authorities cite the following examples of uses in particular:expertise […] (*);feasibility study concerning […] (*);
Francoski organi so navedli predvsem naslednje primere uporabe:izvedensko mnenje […] (*);študija izvedljivosti v zvezi z […] (*).
The French authorities cite the following examples of uses in particular:feasibility study […] (*), feasibility study […] (*): expertise in […] (*) developed with […] (*);study […] (*) on the site of […] (*), project […] (*): expertise in the field of […] (*) – validation and improvement of […] (*);[…] (*) under the project […] (*) (validation of the concept of […] (*)) on behalf of […] (*).
Francoski organi so navedli predvsem naslednje primere uporabe:študija izvedljivosti […] (*); študija izvedljivosti […] (*); izvedensko mnenje na področju […] (*), razvito v sodelovanju z […] (*);študija […] (*) na lokaciji […] (*), projekt […] (*), izvedensko mnenje na področju […] (*) – potrditev in izboljšanje […] (*);[…] (*) v okviru projekta […] (*) (potrditev koncepta […] (*)) v imenu[…] (*).
This involved […] (*), a university recently set up in […] (*), for which the contract research services were invoiced in the context of a research consortium involving IFP, […] (*) acting on behalf of […] (*).
Šlo je za […] (*), nedavno ustanovljeno univerzo v […] (*), za katero so bile pogodbene raziskave zaračunane v okviru raziskovalnega konzorcija, v katerem je sodelovala oseba javnega prava IFP, […] (*), ki je delovala v imenu […] (*).
The research work was carried out on behalf of […] (*).
Raziskave so bile opravljene za […] (*).
The […] (*) in particular enable […] (*) on the basis of […] (*).
[…] (*) omogočajo predvsem […] (*) iz […] (*).
The study was carried out on behalf of […] (*): IFP in particular checked […] (*) and made recommendations on […] (*), used for […] (*).
Študija je bila opravljena za […] (*): oseba javnega prava IFP je predvsem preverila […] (*) in pripravila priporočila o […] (*), ki se uporablja za […] (*).
[…] (*), who was aware of this tool, asked IFP to apply it to […] (*).
[…] (*), ki je bil seznanjen s tem orodjem, je od osebe javnega prava IFP zahteval, naj ga uporabi za […] (*).
[…] (*) asked IFP to adapt […] (*) allowing testing […] (*).
[…] (*) je od osebe javnega prava IFP zahteval, naj prilagodi […] (*), ki omogoča preizkušanje […] (*).
[…] (*) asked IFP to apply its knowhow concerning […] (*) to validate […] (*).
[…] (*) je od osebe javnega prava IFP zahteval, naj svoje znanje in izkušnje v zvezi z […] (*) uporabi za potrditev […] (*).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 5).
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1998/2006 z dne 15. decembra 2006 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe pri pomoči de minimis, (UL L 379, 28.12.2006, str. 5).
The Commission refers in particular to point 4.1.b of the Guarantees Notice and to points 118 to 123 of the Community guidelines on State aid for railway undertakings (OJ C 184, 22.7.2008, p. 13) (‘the Railway Guidelines’).
Komisija se sklicuje zlasti na točko 4.1(b) zgoraj navedenega obvestila o poroštvih in na točke od 118 do 123 Smernic Skupnosti o državnih pomočeh za prevoznike v železniškem prometu, (UL C 184, 22.7.2008, str. 13) (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice o železnicah).
See in particular point 120 of the Railway Guidelines, recital 127 of the EDF decision cited above, and recital 311 of decision C 56/2007.
Glej zlasti točko 120 zgoraj navedenih smernic o železnicah, uvodno izjavo 127 zgoraj navedene odločbe EDF in uvodno izjavo 311 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007.
Although the expression ‘services of general economic interest’ is not defined in the Treaty, ‘there is broad agreement that the term refers to services of an economic nature which the Member States or the Community subject to specific public service obligations by virtue of a general interest criterion’ (Commission, Green Paper on Services of General Interest, 21 May 2003, point 17, emphasis added).
Čeprav izraz „storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena“ v Pogodbi ni opredeljen, „se na splošno razume, da se nanaša na gospodarske storitve, ki jim države članice ali Skupnost nalagajo posebne obveznosti javnih služb na podlagi merila splošnega interesa“ (Komisija, Zelena knjiga o storitvah splošnega pomena, 21. maj 2003, točka 17, poudarek dodan).
The compatibility of such a use of the aid is analysed in section 7.3.2.
Analiza združljivosti take uporabe pomoči je preučena v delu 7.3.2.
In particular on account of their nature as ‘prototypes’ or ‘pilot projects’ within the meaning of point 2.2(g) of the R & D & I Framework, production of which would be too expensive to allow them to be used only for demonstration and validation by IFP’s customers.
Predvsem zaradi njihove narave „prototipov“ ali „pilotnih projektov“ v smislu točke 2.2(g) okvira R & R & I, katerih proizvodnja bi bila predraga, če bi jih morale uporabljati samo stranke osebe javnega prava IFP za dokazovanje in potrjevanje.
See recitals 168 to 171 of the decision.
Glej uvodne izjave od 168 do 171 Odločbe.
See in this connection SINTEF’s website http://www.sintef.no/default.aspx?id=490 (site consulted on 28 June 2011).
Glej v zvezi s tem spletno mesto SINTEF: http://www.sintef.no/default.aspx?id=490 na dan 28. junija 2011.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development, 2002.
Organizacija za gospodarsko sodelovanje in razvoj, 2002, La mesure des activités scientifiques et technologiques, Méthode type proposée pour les enquêtes sur la recherche et le développement expérimental („Meritve znanstvenih in tehnoloških dejavnosti, predlagana standardna metoda za ankete o raziskavah in eksperimentalnem razvoju“).
Own resources consist of dividends, royalties and other proceeds such as the income from patents filed by IFP.
Lastna sredstva sestavljajo dividende in licenčnine ter drugi prihodki, kot so prihodki od patentov, ki jih je prijavila oseba javnega prava IFP.
In its examination the Commission has taken into account only remuneration paid by Axens and Prosernat.
Komisija je pri preučitvi upoštevala le licenčnine, ki sta jih nakazali družbi Axens in Prosernat.
Data from decision C 51/2005 for 2006 and the annual reports submitted by the French authorities for 2007 to 2009.
Podatki, ki izhajajo iz zgoraj navedene odločbe C 51/2005 za leto 2006 in letnih poročil, ki so jih francoski organi predložili za leta od 2007 do 2009.
See the last two lines of Table 5 in recital 236.
Glej zadnji vrstici v preglednici 5 v uvodni izjavi 236.
Weighted average of the permissible aid intensities for industrial research and feasibility studies.
Tehtano povprečje dovoljenih intenzivnosti pomoči za industrijske raziskave in študije izvedljivosti.
See point 6 of the R&D&I Framework.
Glej točko 6 okvira R & R & I.
This process […] (*) allows […] (*).
Ta postopek […] (*) omogoča […] (*).
This is a key component of the chains […] (*) which are intended to […] (*).
Gre za poglavitni element verig […] (*), ki se uporabljajo za […] (*).
The chain […] (*) also offers the advantage of […] (*).
Veriga […] (*) je pomembna tudi zaradi […] (*).
Post-combustion capture is one of the processes that can prevent the discharge of CO2 into the atmosphere on combustion of a hydrocarbon or carbon.
Zajemanje pri naknadnem zgorevanju je eden od procesov, s katerim je pri zgorevanju ogljikovodika ali premoga mogoče preprečiti uhajanje CO2 v ozračje.
The Commission notes in particular that price competition is not the main argument for differentiation between the offers available on the market, since customers select a technology on the basis of various criteria, some of which, such as the installation cost involved and the profitability of the investment, are considered to be critical, but are totally exogenous to the research projects.
Komisija zlasti ugotavlja, da cenovna konkurenca ni glavni argument razlikovanja ponudb na trgu, saj stranke izbirajo tehnologijo na podlagi različnih meril, od katerih se nekatera, kot so stroški povezane infrastrukture in donosnost naložbe, štejejo za kritična, vendar so popolnoma tuja raziskovalnim projektom.
The Commission refers to recital 204 of decision C 51/2005.
Komisija se sklicuje na uvodno izjavo 204 zgoraj navedene odločbe C 51/2005.
See in particular point 1.5 of the Guarantees Notice, which confirms the principle of neutrality, and point 1.2, which explains that a State guarantee may result from the simple fact of the legal form (second and fourth indents of that point).
Glej zlasti točko 1.5 obvestila o poroštvih, v kateri je potrjeno načelo nevtralnosti, in točko 1.2, v kateri je pojasnjeno, da lahko državno poroštvo izhaja iz same pravne oblike (druga in četrta alinea te točke).
By letter dated 7 November 2008, the Commission accepted that this request was justified and agreed to extend the deadline for UOP’s reply until 30 November 2008.
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 7. novembra 2008 navedla, da sprejema utemeljitev prošnje in družbi UOP Limited odobrava podaljšanje roka za odgovor do 30. novembra 2008.
By letter dated 28 November 2008, registered as received by the Commission on the same day, UOP’s legal advisers forwarded their client’s comments on the opening decision.
Svetovalci družbe UOP Limited so v dopisu z dne 28. novembra 2008, evidentiranem pri Komisiji istega dne, predložili pripombe svoje stranke k odločitvi o začetku postopka.
It asked them to send it their comments by 8 June 2009 at the latest.
Pozvala jih je k predložitvi pripomb, in to najpozneje do 8. junija 2009.
By letter dated 2 June 2009, the French authorities requested that this time limit be extended until 22 June 2009, since, in their view, the comments submitted by the third party required detailed and in-depth analysis and the consultation of several ministerial departments.
Francoski organi so v dopisu z dne 2. junija 2009 zaprosili za podaljšanje navedenega roka do 22. junija 2009, ker sta bila po njihovem mnenju pri pripombah tretje osebe potrebna podrobna in poglobljena analiza ter posvetovanje z več ministrskimi službami.
By letter dated 9 June 2009, the Commission agreed to this extension until 22 June 2009.
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 9. junija 2009 sprejela podaljšanje do 22. junija 2009.
By letter dated 22 June 2009, the French authorities forwarded their observations on the comments made by UOP.
Francoski organi so v dopisu z dne 22. junija 2009 predložili pripombe k pripombam družbe UOP Limited.
By letter dated 29 July 2009, the Commission asked the French authorities for additional information, requesting a reply by 24 August 2009.
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 29. julija 2009 francoske organe zaprosila za dodatne informacije in jih pozvala k predložitvi odgovora do 24. avgusta 2009.
By letter dated 19 August 2009, the French authorities asked for an extension until 7 September 2009, to which the Commission acceded by letter dated 20 August 2009.
Francoski organi so v dopisu z dne 19. avgusta 2009 zaprosili za podaljšanje roka za odgovor do 7. septembra 2009, ki ga je Komisija odobrila v dopisu z dne 20. avgusta 2009.
The French authorities finally provided the information requested by letter dated 8 September 2009.
Francoski organi so v dopisu z dne 8. septembra 2009 naposled predložili zahtevane podatke.
By letter dated 14 December 2009, the French authorities asked for an extension until 22 January 2010, which the Commission granted by letter dated 18 December 2009.
Francoski organi so v dopisu z dne 14. decembra 2009 zaprosili za podaljšanje roka za odgovor do 22. januarja 2010, ki ga je Komisija odobrila v dopisu z dne 18. decembra 2009.
The French authorities finally supplied the information requested by letter dated 13 January 2010.
V dopisu z dne 13. januarja 2010 so francoski organi naposled predložili zahtevane podatke.
By letter dated 7 October 2010, the French authorities asked for an extension until 26 November 2010; the Commission agreed by letter dated 8 October 2010.
Francoski organi so v dopisu z dne 7. oktobra 2010 zaprosili za podaljšanje roka za odgovor do 26. novembra 2010, ki ga je Komisija odobrila v dopisu z dne 8. oktobra 2010.
The French authorities finally provided the information requested by letter dated 26 November 2010.
V dopisu z dne 26. novembra 2010 so francoski organi naposled predložili zahtevane podatke.
Following the opening decision cited above, the French authorities submitted observations and proposals to the Commission by letter dated 14 October 2008.
Francoski organi so Komisiji po zgoraj navedeni odločitvi o začetku postopka v dopisu z dne 14. oktobra 2008 poslali pripombe in predloge.
That letter supplemented the observations and proposals set out in the previous letters from the French authorities [25] that were summarised in the opening decision.
Z dopisom so bile dopolnjene pripombe in predlogi iz prejšnjih dopisov francoskih organov, [25] povzetih v odločitvi o začetku postopka.
Third, the Organic Law of 1 August 2001 governing the Finance Act (the ‘LOLF’) lays down that only a provision of a finance act can create a guarantee [29], and the Council of State explicitly confirmed this in its 2006 annual report [30].
Tretjič, sistemski zakon z dne 1. avgusta 2001 o zakonih o financah (LOLF) določa, da se lahko poroštvo oblikuje samo z določbo zakonov o financah, [29] kar naj bi Conseil d'État izrecno potrdil v letnem poročilu za leto 2006 [30].
According to the expert called upon by the French authorities in the postal case cited above [31], therefore, it has been legally impossible to give an implied guarantee since the full entry into force of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act on 1 January 2005.
Zato po mnenju izvedenca, ki so ga francoski organi pooblastili v zgoraj navedeni poštni zadevi [31], od 1. januarja 2005, ko je LOLF začel veljati v celoti, ni bilo mogoče zakonito dati nobenega implicitnega poroštva.
In their letter dated 8 September 2009, the French authorities state that the limitation of liability to customers is provided for in both the framework licensing agreement [66] and the product licensing agreement [67] concluded between IFP and Axens, which entered into force on 1 January 2001.
Francoski organi so v dopisu z dne 8. septembra 2009 pojasnili, da je omejitev odgovornosti do strank določena hkrati v sporazumu o omejeni licenci [66] in sporazumu za licence za izdelke [67], ki sta bila sklenjena med osebo javnega prava IFP in družbo Axens ter sta začela veljati 1. januarja 2001.
These two agreements provide that if Axens can prove that its default originates in the services supplied by IFP, the financial liability of the latter will be limited to a percentage [68] of the sums in fact collected by IFP in fee pro rata to the sales transaction that forms the basis of the claim (product licence), and to the unit subject to a sub-licence or to the sales transaction carried out under a sub-licence that forms the basis of the claim (framework licence).
Navedena sporazuma določata, da bo finančna odgovornost osebe javnega prava IFP, če družba Axens lahko dokaže, da svojih obveznosti ne izpolnjuje zaradi storitev, ki jih izvaja oseba javnega prava IFP, omejena na odstotni delež [68] zneskov, ki jih je zadnja dejansko pobrala iz naslova licenčnine pro rata od prodaje, pri kateri je bila uveljavljena reklamacija (licenca za izdelke), in od enote, ki je predmet podlicence, ali od prodaje v okviru podlicence, pri kateri je bila uveljavljena reklamacija (omejena licenca).
In accordance with the analysis developed in recitals 170 to 180 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that in the event of a shortage of funds, French legislation authorises or indeed encourages the State to provide capital to publicly owned establishments, rather than expecting them to secure conventional bank loans; the ‘additional resources’ referred to in the Law of 16 July 1980 may consist of contributions of this kind.
Komisija v skladu z analizo uvodnih izjav od 170 do 180 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katero se smiselno sklicuje, meni, da je s francoskimi pravnimi akti državi dovoljeno ali je ta celo spodbujena, naj osebam javnega prava v primeru nezadostnosti sredstev raje odobri dotacije kot klasična bančna posojila, in sicer dotacije, ki lahko pomenijo „dodatna sredstva“ iz zakona z dne 16. julija 1980.
The Commission also considers that the relevant legislation is known to creditors, who consequently have good reason to believe that the supervising authority will be in a position to secure the resources necessary to ensure that their claims are satisfied.
Meni še, da so upniki s temi akti seznanjeni in lahko torej utemeljeno menijo, da bo nadzorni organ sposoben najti potrebna sredstva za poravnavo njihovih terjatev.
According to the legal literature, ‘Neither the liquidity and exchange agreements between the two entities, nor the exchanges of staff, nor the advances of funds by the parent company, nor the parent company’s control of the management of the subsidiary imply a general disorder in the accounts that would justify the unification of the assets’ [143]. It therefore seems to be particularly difficult to hold a parent company liable for the actions of one of its subsidiaries on the basis of the inseparability of their assets [144], with the level of proof required by the Court of Cassation being extremely high.
V skladu s pravnimi teoretiki [143]„[n]iti pogodbe o denarnih sredstvih in menjavi med subjektoma, niti izmenjave osebja, niti predujmi matične družbe, niti prevzem pristojnosti matične družbe za upravljanje hčerinske družbe ne kažejo na splošno nepregledne računovodske izkaze, ki bi utemeljevali združitev premoženja.“ Zdi se torej posebno težko uveljavljati odgovornost matične družbe za ravnanje katere od njenih hčerinskih družb na podlagi združitve njunega premoženja [144], ker je dokazni standard, ki ga zahteva kasacijsko sodišče za dokaz tega, zelo visok.
Over the same period, following the change of status, IFP has had recourse to borrowing at less than one year only once, in 2009, for a negligible sum of EUR […] (*). Moreover, the rate applied at the time by [Bank No 3] (**) (EONIA + […] (*) %) was […] (*) base points higher (all other things being equal) than the rate negotiated by IFP in 2005 with [Bank No 1] (**) (EONIA + […] (*) %), when IFP it was still a legal person governed by private law, and therefore not yet covered by the State guarantee that it now derives from its status as a publicly owned establishment.
Oseba javnega prava IFP je v istem obdobju po spremembi statusa samo enkrat, in sicer leta 2009, najela posojilo z rokom zapadlosti manj kot eno leto za zanemarljiv znesek […] (*) EUR. Poleg tega je treba ugotoviti, da je bila tedanja obrestna mera [banke št. 3] (**) (EONIA + […] (*) %) za […] (*) bazičnih točk višja (vse drugo sicer nespremenjeno) od obrestne mere, ki jo je oseba javnega prava IFP iztržila leta 2005 pri [banki št. 1] (**) (EONIA + […] (*) %), ko je bila še pravna oseba zasebnega prava in torej še ni bila krita z državnim poroštvom, ki ga ima danes zaradi statusa osebe javnega prava.
Regarding activities of the first type carried out by IFP for third parties and its own subsidiaries, the French authorities in their letter dated 26 November 2010 provided figures for the volume of economic activities carried by IFP between 2006 and 2009.
Francoski organi so v zvezi s prvo vrsto dejavnosti osebe javnega prava IFP za tretje osebe in njene hčerinske družbe v dopisu z dne 26. novembra 2010 predložili znesek gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki jih je oseba javnega prava IFP izvedla med letoma 2006 in 2009.
It emerges from this information that the average annual value of research services during this period is in the order of EUR […] (*), including EUR […] (*) on behalf of third parties and EUR […] (*) on behalf of the subsidiaries.
Iz navedenih informacij je razvidno, da je povprečni letni znesek raziskovalnih storitev v tem obdobju […] (*) EUR, od tega za tretje osebe […] (*) EUR in za hčerinske družbe […] (*) EUR.
IFP became an EPIC on 7 July 2006, by Decree of 6 July 2006, adopted under Law No 2005-781 of 13 July 2005.
Oseba javnega prava IFP je z odlokom z dne 6. julija 2006, sprejetim na podlagi zakona št. 2005-781 z dne 13. julija 2005, 7. julija 2006 postala EPIC.
This change of legal form is the basis of an unlimited State guarantee granted to the publicly owned establishment IFP.
Zaradi te spremembe statusa je bilo osebi javnega prava IFP odobreno neomejeno državno poroštvo.
The measure in question must therefore be categorised as new aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) of the Procedural Regulation.
Zadevni ukrep je treba torej opredeliti kot novo pomoč v smislu člena 1(c) postopkovne uredbe.
The French authorities have supplied costings of the contract research activities and the provision of services on behalf of third parties by IFP for the period 2004-2009.
Francoski organi so predložili oceno stroškov dejavnosti pogodbenih raziskav in storitev, ki jih je oseba javnega prava IFP izvajala za tretje osebe v obdobju od leta 2004 do leta 2009.
The information sent shows that these research services represent annually about [0-5] (**) % of IFP’s total budget (i.e. EUR […] (*) in services for about EUR 300 million in budget), which means that this economic activity can be regarded as only residual within the activities of the publicly owned establishment.
Iz predloženih informacij je razvidno, da navedene storitve raziskav letno zajemajo približno [0–5] (**) % celotnega proračuna osebe javnega prava IFP (kar je […] (*) EUR storitev za približno 300 milijonov EUR proračuna), tako da se lahko ta gospodarska dejavnost opredeli kot pomožna dejavnost osebe javnega prava.
The Commission came to the conclusion that within the meaning of the 1996 R&D Framework this work consisted in industrial research activities and technical feasibility studies preparatory to industrial research activities.
Komisija je na podlagi navedenega sklepala, da navedena dela po eni strani zajemajo dejavnosti industrijskih raziskav in po drugi strani pripravljalne študije tehnične izvedljivosti za projekte industrijskih raziskav v smislu okvira R & R iz leta 1996.
Each research activity carried out by IFP and Axens on the one hand, and by IFP and Prosernat on the other, was classified on the basis of the specific examples and explanations provided by the Frascati Manual.
Raziskovalne dejavnosti so bile razvrščene na podlagi posebnih primerov in razlag v priročniku Frascati za vsako raziskovalno dejavnost osebe javnega prava IFP in družbe Axens na eni strani ter osebe javnega prava IFP in družbe Prosernat na drugi strani.