natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As stated in the initiating Decision, the Commission considers that the aid scheme in question does not qualify for any of the exemptions laid down in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty.
Komisija meni, kot je navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, da zadevna shema pomoči ne spada v nobeno od izjem iz člena 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe.
In the course of the procedure, the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties presented their arguments to demonstrate that the exemptions provided for in Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty would apply in the case in question [107].
Španski organi in trideset zainteresiranih strani so med postopkom predstavili svoje argumente kot dokaz, da izjeme iz člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe v zadevnem primeru veljajo [107].
The two parties considered that none of the provisions of Article 87(2) or Article 87(3) of the Treaty applied in the case at hand.
Dve strani sta menili, da nobena od določb člena 87(2) ali člena 87(3) Pogodbe v zadevnem primeru ni veljala.
The exemptions in Article 87(2) of the Treaty, concerning aid of a social character granted to individual consumers, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and aid granted to certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany, do not apply in this case.
Izjeme iz člena 87(2) Pogodbe v zvezi s pomočjo socialnega značaja, dodeljeno posameznim potrošnikom, pomočjo za popravilo škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki, ter pomočjo, dodeljeno nekaterim območjem Zvezne republike Nemčije, ne veljajo v tem primeru.
Nor does the exemption provided for in Article 87(3)(a) apply, which authorises aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment because the measure is not conditional on realising any type of activity in specific regions [108].
Prav tako ne velja izjema iz člena 87(3)(a), s katero je odobrena pomoč za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, na katerih je življenjski standard neobičajno nizek ali na katerih je brezposelnost velika, ker ukrep ne pomeni pogoja za izvajanje nobene vrste dejavnosti v posameznih regijah [108].
In the same way, the contested measure adopted in 2001 cannot be regarded as promoting the execution of a project of common European interest or remedying a serious disturbance in the economy of Spain, as provided for in Article 87(3)(b).
Enako se tudi sporni ukrep, sprejet leta 2001, ne more obravnavati kot pospeševanje izvajanja projekta skupnega evropskega interesa ali odpravljanja resnih motenj v španskem gospodarstvu, kot je navedeno v členu 87(3)(b).
Nor is its purpose to promote culture and heritage conservation as provided for in Article 87(3)(d).
Prav tako ni namen tega ukrepa pospeševanje kulture in ohranjanje kulturne dediščine, kot je navedeno v členu 87(3)(d).
Finally, the measure at issue must be examined in the light of Article 87(3)(c), which provides for the authorisation of 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 that is contrary to the common interest.
Nazadnje, zadevni ukrep je treba preučiti v smislu člena 87(3)(c), ki zagotavlja odobritev pomoči za pospeševanje razvoja nekaterih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali nekaterih gospodarskih območij, na katerih taka pomoč ne vpliva negativno na trgovinske pogoje v takem obsegu, da bi bila v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
In this respect, it should first be noted that the measure at issue does not fall under any of the frameworks or guidelines that define the conditions to consider certain types of aid compatible with the common market.
V zvezi s tem je treba najprej ugotoviti, da zadevni ukrep ne spada v noben okvir ali smernice, v katerih so opredeljeni pogoji za preučevanje nekaterih vrst pomoči, združljivih s skupnim trgom.
As regards the arguments raised by the Spanish authorities and by the 30 interested parties based on the State Aid Action Plan of 2005 [109], where they consider that certain measures can be compatible if they essentially respond to a market failure, the Commission observes that the alleged general difficulties in carrying out cross-border mergers cannot be considered a market failure.
V zvezi z argumenti španskih organov in tridesetih zainteresiranih strani na podlagi Akcijskega načrta o državni pomoči iz leta 2005 [109], s katerimi menijo, da so lahko nekateri ukrepi združljivi, če se odzivajo predvsem na tržno nepopolnost, Komisija opaža, da domnevnih splošnih težav pri izvajanju čezmejnih združitev ni mogoče obravnavati kot tržno nepopolnost.
The fact that a specific company may not be capable of undertaking a certain project or transaction without aid does not necessarily mean that there is a market failure.
Dejstvo, da neka družba morda ni sposobna izvesti nekega projekta ali transakcije brez pomoči, ne pomeni nujno obstoja tržne nepopolnosti.
Only where market forces would not in themselves be able to reach an efficient outcome — i.e. where not all potential gains from the transaction are realised — can a market failure be considered to exist.
Le kadar tržne sile same ne zmorejo doseči zadovoljivega rezultata, tj. če niso dosežene vse mogoče koristi iz transakcije, je mogoče šteti, da obstajajo tržne nepopolnosti.
The Commission does not dispute that the costs involved in some transactions may well be higher than those in other transactions.
Komisija ne oporeka, da so lahko stroški, vključeni v nekatere transakcije, precej višji od stroškov pri drugih transakcijah.
However, since these costs are real costs that accurately reflect the nature of the projects being considered — i.e. costs relating to their different geographic location or the different legal environment in which they are to take place — it is efficient for the companies to take these costs fully into account when making their decisions.
Vendar ker so ti stroški realni in natančno kažejo naravo obravnavanih projektov, tj. stroške, ki zadevajo njihovo različno geografsko lokacijo ali različna pravna okolja, v katerih delujejo, je za družbe učinkovito, da te stroške v celoti upoštevajo pri svojih odločitvah.
On the contrary, inefficient outcomes would arise if these real costs were ignored or, indeed, compensated by State aid.
Nasprotno pa bi neučinkoviti rezultati nastali, če se ti realni stroški ne bi upoštevali ali izravnali z državno pomočjo.
The same type of real cost differences also arise when comparing different transactions within the same country as well as when comparing cross-border transactions, and the existence of these differences does not mean that inefficient market outcomes would arise.
Prav tako nastane enaka vrsta razlike med realnimi stroški pri primerjavi različnih transakcij v isti državi in tudi pri primerjavi čezmejnih transakcij, pri čemer obstoj teh razlik ne pomeni, da bodo doseženi neučinkoviti tržni rezultati.
The examples provided by the Spanish authorities of alleged increased costs for conducting international transactions compared to national transactions are all related to real costs of conducting transactions, which should be fully taken into account by market participants in order to achieve efficient outcomes.
Vsi primeri, ki so jih predložili španski organi, o domnevnih povišanih stroških za vodenje mednarodnih transakcij v primerjavi z nacionalnimi transakcijami so povezani z realnimi stroški vodenja transakcij, ki jih morajo udeleženci na trgu v celoti upoštevati, da dosežejo učinkovite rezultate.
For a market failure to be present, essentially there would have to be externalities (positive spillovers) generated by the transactions or significant incomplete or asymmetric information leading to otherwise efficient transactions not being carried out.
Če bi tržna nepopolnost obstajala, bi morali obstajati zunanji dejavniki (pozitivno prelivanje), ki bi jih povzročile transakcije ali pomembne nepopolne ali asimetrične informacije, zaradi katerih sicer učinkovite transakcije ne bi bile izvedene.
While these may be, theoretically, present in certain transactions, both international and national (e.g. in the context of joint R & D programmes), they cannot be considered inherently present in all international transactions, let alone in transactions of the type in question.
Čeprav bi teoretično lahko obstajale pri nekaterih transakcijah, mednarodnih in nacionalnih (npr. na podlagi skupnih raziskovalnih in razvojnih programov), ni mogoče šteti, da so samoumevno prisotne v vseh mednarodnih transakcijah, kaj šele pri transakcijah zadevne vrste.
In this respect, the Commission considers that the claim relating to market failures cannot be accepted.
V zvezi s tem Komisija meni, da trditve v zvezi s tržno nepopolnostjo ni mogoče potrditi.
Moreover it should be recalled that, when assessing whether aid can be deemed compatible with the common market, the Commission balances the positive impact of the measure in reaching an objective of common interest against its potentially negative side effects, such as distortion of trade and competition.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da pri presoji, ali je pomoč domnevno združljiva s skupnim trgom, Komisija tehta pozitiven vpliv ukrepa za doseganje cilja skupnega interesa v primerjavi z mogočimi negativnimi stranskimi učinki, kot je izkrivljanje trgovine in konkurence.
The State Aid Action Plan, building on existing practice, has formalised a three-step ‘balancing test’.
Z Akcijskim načrtom o državni pomoči, ki temelji na sedanji praksi, je vzpostavljen tristopenjski „preskus tehtanja“.
The first two steps address the positive effects of the State aid and the third addresses the negative effects and the resulting balancing of the positive and negative effects.
Prvi dve stopnji obravnavata pozitivne učinke državne pomoči, tretja stopnja pa negativne učinke ter posledično tehtanje pozitivnih in negativnih učinkov.
The balancing test is structured as follows:
Preskus tehtanja sestavljajo:
assessing whether the aid is aimed at a specific objective of common interest (e.g. growth, employment, cohesion, environment or energy security);
presojanje, ali je cilj pomoči poseben cilj skupnega interesa (npr. rast, zaposlovanje, kohezija, okolje ali varnost preskrbe z energijo);
assessing whether the aid is well-designed to deliver the objective of common interest, i.e. whether the proposed aid addresses the market failure or other objective.
presojanje, ali je pomoč dobro oblikovana za doseganje cilja skupnega interesa, tj. ali se s predlagano pomočjo odpravlja tržno nepopolnost ali dosega drug cilj.
For assessing this, it must be checked whether:
Za presojo tega je treba preveriti, ali:
State aid is an appropriate policy instrument;
je državna pomoč ustrezen instrument politike;
there is an incentive effect, namely if the aid changes the behaviour of undertakings;
obstaja spodbujevalni učinek, in sicer ali pomoč spremeni ravnanje družb;
the measure is proportional, i.e. if the same change in behaviour could be obtained with less aid;
je ukrep sorazmeren, tj. ali je mogoče enako spremembo v ravnanju doseči z manjšo pomočjo;
assessing if the distortions of competition and effect on trade are limited, so that the overall balance is positive.
presojanje, ali sta izkrivljanje konkurence in učinek na trgovino omejena, tako da je skupna razlika pozitivna.
It is first necessary to assess whether the objective pursued by the aid can indeed be regarded as being in the common interest.
Najprej je treba presoditi, ali je mogoče cilj pomoči zares obravnavati kot skupni interes.
Despite the alleged aim of fostering single market integration, in the present case the objective pursued by the aid is not clearly defined as it goes beyond market integration, by promoting the expansion of Spanish companies in the European market in particular.
Kljub domnevnemu cilju spodbujanja združevanja enotnega trga v tem primeru cilj pomoči ni jasno opredeljen, ker presega združevanje trga s pospeševanjem širjenja španskih družb zlasti na evropskem trgu.
The second step requires assessing whether the aid is properly designed to reach the specific objective of common interest.
Druga stopnja zahteva presojo, ali je pomoč ustrezno oblikovana za uresničitev posebnega cilja skupnega interesa.
More precisely, State aid must change the behaviour of a beneficiary undertaking in such a way that it engages in activities that contribute to achieving the objective of common interest, which it would not carry out without the aid or would carry out in a limited or different way.
Natančneje, posledica državne pomoči mora biti spremenjeno ravnanje družb upravičenk tako, da se vključujejo v dejavnosti, ki prispevajo k uresničevanju cilja skupnega interesa, pri čemer jih brez pomoči sicer ne bi izvajale ali bi jih izvajale le v omejenem obsegu ali drugače.
The Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties did not present any specific arguments demonstrating the likelihood that this incentive effect would be produced.
Španski organi in trideset zainteresiranih strani niso predložili posebnih argumentov, ki bi dokazali verjetnost nastanka tega spodbujevalnega učinka.
The third question addresses the negative effects of State aid.
Tretje vprašanje zadeva negativne učinke državne pomoči.
Even if it is well-designed to address an objective of common interest, aid granted to a particular undertaking or economic sector may lead to serious distortions of competition and trade between Member States.
Čeprav je pomoč dobro zasnovana za doseganje cilja skupnega interesa, lahko pomoč, dodeljena posamezni družbi ali gospodarskemu sektorju, povzroči resno izkrivljanje konkurence in trgovine med državami članicami.
In this respect, the 30 interested parties consider that the aid scheme does not have an impact on the competitive situation of companies liable to corporate tax in Spain, since the financial effect of Article 12(5) would be negligible.
V zvezi s tem trideset zainteresiranih strani meni, da shema pomoči ne vpliva na konkurenčni položaj družb, ki so zavezane davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Španiji, ker bi bil finančni učinek člena 12(5) zanemarljiv.
However, as already indicated above in recitals 101 et seq., there are serious indications that the effect of Article 12(5) is far from negligible.
Vendar obstajajo resni znaki, da učinek člena 12(5) še zdaleč ni zanemarljiv, kot je bilo že navedeno v uvodni izjavi 101 in naslednjih.
Moreover, since the aid scheme is applicable only to foreign transactions, it clearly has the effect of focusing the distortions of competition on foreign markets.
Poleg tega se očitno osredotoča na izkrivljanje konkurence na tujih trgih, ker shema pomoči velja le za tuje transakcije.
The last step in the compatibility analysis is to evaluate whether the positive effects of the aid, if any, outweigh its negative effects.
Zadnja stopnja analize združljivosti je ocena, ali pozitivni učinki pomoči, če obstajajo, presegajo negativne.
As indicated above, in this case the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties did not demonstrate the existence of a specific objective leading to clear positive effects.
Kot je že navedeno, v tem primeru španski organi in trideset zainteresiranih strani niso dokazali obstoja posebnega cilja, ki vodi k očitnim pozitivnim učinkom.
They consider, in general terms, that Article 12(5) TRLIS fulfils the Community objective of promoting cross-border transactions, without embarking on the evaluation of the potential and actual negative effects of the measure at issue.
Na splošno menijo, da člen 12(5) TRLIS izpolnjuje cilj Skupnosti glede pospeševanja čezmejnih transakcij, ne da bi se lotili ocenjevanja mogočih in dejanskih negativnih učinkov zadevnega ukrepa.
In any case, even assuming that the positive effect of the measure is to promote cross-border transactions by eliminating barriers in such transactions, the Commission considers that the positive effects of the measure do not outweigh its negative effects, in particular because the measure’s scope is imprecise and indiscriminate.
Vsekakor tudi ob domnevi, da je pozitivni učinek ukrepa pospeševanje čezmejnih transakcij z odpravo ovir v teh transakcijah, Komisija meni, da pozitivni učinek ukrepa ne odtehta njegovih negativnih učinkov, zlasti ker je obseg ukrepa netočen in samovoljen.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that, as regards the analysis in accordance with Article 87(3)(c) in particular, the tax advantages granted under the measure at issue are not related to investment, job creation or specific projects.
V sklepu Komisija zlasti v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) meni, da v zvezi z analizo davčne prednosti, dodeljene na podlagi zadevnega ukrepa, niso povezane z vlaganjem, ustvarjanjem delovnih mest ali posebnimi projekti.
They simply relieve the undertakings concerned of charges normally borne by those undertakings and must therefore be considered operating aid.
Te prednosti preprosto razbremenijo zadevne družbe stroškov, ki bi jih sicer nosile, zato jih je treba obravnavati kot operativno pomoč.
As a general rule, operating aid does not fall within the scope of Article 87(3)(c) since it distorts competition in the sectors in which it is granted and is at the same time incapable, by its very nature, of achieving any of the objectives laid down in that provision [110].
Na splošno operativna pomoč ne spada na področje uporabe člena 87(3)(c), ker izkrivlja konkurenco v sektorjih, katerim se dodeli, in hkrati glede na svojo naravo ni zmožna uresničiti nobenega cilja iz te določbe [110].
In line with the standard practice of the Commission, such aid cannot be considered compatible with the common market, as it neither facilitates the development of any activities or economic areas nor is it limited in time, degressive or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy a specific economic handicap of the areas concerned.
V skladu z običajno prakso Komisije se taka pomoč ne more obravnavati kot združljiva s skupnim trgom, ker niti ne omogoča razvoja nobene dejavnosti ali gospodarskega področja niti ni časovno omejena, degresivna ali sorazmerna glede na nujno izboljšanje posebnih gospodarskih ovir na zadevnih področjih.
The result of the ‘balancing test’ confirms this analysis.
Rezultat „preskusa tehtanja“ potrjuje to analizo.
In the light of the above, it must be concluded that the aid scheme in question, to the extent that it applies to intra-Community acquisitions, is incompatible with the common market.
V smislu navedenega je treba sklepati, da zadevna shema pomoči, kolikor velja za prevzeme znotraj Skupnosti, ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The measure at issue has been implemented without having been notified in advance to the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Zadevni ukrep se je izvajal brez predhodne priglasitve Komisiji v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe.
Therefore, the measure, to the extent that it applies to intra-Community acquisitions, constitutes unlawful aid.
Zato ukrep, kolikor velja za prevzeme znotraj Skupnosti, pomeni nezakonito pomoč.
Where unlawfully granted State aid is found to be incompatible with the common market, the consequence of such a finding is that the aid should be recovered from the recipients pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [111].
Če se ugotovi nezdružljivost nezakonito dodeljene državne pomoči s skupnim trgom, je posledica take ugotovitve nujno vračilo pomoči prejemnikov v skladu s členom 14 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [111].
Through recovery of the aid, the competitive position that existed before it was granted is restored as far as possible.
Z vračilom pomoči se konkurenčni položaj, ki je obstajal pred dodelitvijo pomoči, čim bolj obnovi.
No arguments raised by the Spanish authorities or by the 30 interested parties justified a general departure from this basic principle.
Dejstvo, da španski organi in trideset zainteresiranih strani niso predložili argumentov, je upravičilo splošno odstopanje od tega osnovnega načela.
Nevertheless, Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provides that ‘the Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law’.
Kljub temu člen 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 določa, da „Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti“.
In its judgment in the Forum 187 case [113], the Court stated that ‘the right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any person in a situation where a Community authority has caused him to entertain expectations which are justified.
Sodišče v sodbi v zadevi Forum 187 [113] navaja, da „pravica sklicevanja na načelo varstva upravičenih pričakovanj velja za vsako zadevno osebo, pri kateri je institucija Skupnosti ustvarila upravičena pričakovanja.
However, a person may not plead infringement of the principle unless he has been given precise assurances by the administration.
Poleg tega se ne sme nihče sklicevati na kršitev tega načela brez natančnih zagotovil, ki mu jih je dala uprava.
Similarly, if a prudent and alert economic operator could have foreseen the adoption of a Community measure likely to affect his interests, he cannot plead that principle if the measure is adopted’.
Kadar lahko razumen in preudaren gospodarski subjekt predvidi sprejetje ukrepa Skupnosti, ki lahko vpliva na njegove interese, se v primeru njegovega sprejetja na to načelo ne more sklicevati.“
The Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties have essentially invoked the existence of legitimate expectations based, firstly, on certain Commission’s replies to written parliamentary questions and, secondly, on the alleged similarity of the aid scheme with earlier measures which have been declared compatible by the Commission.
Španski organi in trideset zainteresiranih strani so se sklicevali predvsem na obstoj upravičenih pričakovanj na podlagi, prvič, nekaterih odgovorov Komisije na pisna parlamentarna vprašanja in, drugič, na domnevno podobnost sheme pomoči s prejšnjimi ukrepi, ki jih je Komisija razglasila za združljive.
Thirdly, the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties consider that the principle of legitimate expectation implies that the Commission can ask for recovery neither of the deductions already realised nor all outstanding deductions, up to the 20-year period established by the TRLIS.
Tretjič, španski organi in trideset zainteresiranih strani menijo, da načelo upravičenih pričakovanj pomeni, da Komisija ne more zahtevati vračila od že izvedenih odbitkov niti od vseh neporavnanih odbitkov do največ 20 let, kot določa TRLIS.
As regards the alleged similarity of the aid scheme to other measures, which have been considered not to constitute State aid, the Commission considers that the aid scheme is substantially different from the measures assessed by the Commission in its Decision of 1984 concerning Belgian coordination centres [114].
V zvezi z domnevno podobnostjo sheme pomoči z drugimi ukrepi, za katere se šteje, da ne pomenijo državne pomoči, Komisija meni, da se shema pomoči bistveno razlikuje od ukrepov, ki jih je sama presodila v odločbi iz leta 1984 o belgijskih centrih za koordinacijo [114].
The measure at issue has a different scope since it does not concern intra-group activities, as in the case of the Belgian coordination centres.
Zadevni ukrep ima drugačen obseg, ker ne zadeva dejavnosti znotraj skupine, kot v primeru belgijskih centrov za koordinacijo.
Moreover, the measure at issue has a different structure, which renders it selective, most notably because it only applies to transactions linked to foreign countries.
Poleg tega ima zadevni ukrep drugačno strukturo, ki povzroča selektivnost, največkrat zato, ker velja le za transakcije, povezane z drugimi državami.