natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By letter of 20 June 2003, WAM SpA replied directly to the Commission’s communication to Italy to the effect that it had published the decision.
Podjetje WAM SpA se je z dopisom z dne 20. junija 2003 odzvalo neposredno na obvestilo Komisije Italiji, da je objavila sklep.
The Commission replied by letter of 11 July 2003.
Komisija je odgovorila z dopisom z dne 11. julija 2003.
By letter of 4 July 2003, Morton Machine Company Limited announced that it had been summoned to appear in an Italian court by WAM SpA, which in turn was claiming compensation, and asked the Commission whether it could arrange for the summons to be withdrawn.
Podjetje Morton Machine Company Limited je z dopisom z dne 4. julija 2003 sporočilo, da ga je podjetje WAM SpA poklicalo pred italijansko sodišče, ker zahteva nadomestilo v svojo korist, in vprašalo Komisijo, ali lahko sodni poziv prekliče.
By letter of 10 July 2003, the Commission replied to the two abovementioned letters from Morton Machine Company.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 10. julija 2003 odgovorila na oba zgoraj navedena dopisa podjetja Morton Machines Company.
By letter of 16 July 2003, interested third parties submitted comments and requested that they be kept confidential.
Z dopisom z dne 16. julija 2003 so bile predložene pripombe zainteresiranih strani, ki so zaprosile za zaupno obravnavo.
On 23 July 2003 a meeting took place between the Commission departments and the Italian authorities.
Dne 23. julija 2003 je potekal sestanek med službami Komisije in italijanskimi oblastmi.
By letter of 21 August 2003, Morton Machine Company Limited asked whether a final decision had already been taken and asked to be kept informed of the situation.
Podjetje Morton Machine Company Limited je z dopisom z dne 21. avgusta 2003 vprašalo, ali je končni sklep že bil sprejet, in zaprosilo, da se ga obvešča o stanju.
The Commission replied by letter of 28 August 2003.
Komisija je odgovorila z dopisom z dne 28. avgusta 2003.
By letter of 19 September 2003, Italy submitted to the Commission its observations on the decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Z dopisom z dne 19. septembra 2003 je Italija Komisiji predložila svoje pripombe v zvezi s sklepom o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.
By letter of 3 November 2003, Italy submitted its observations on third-party comments.
Z dopisom z dne 3. novembra 2003 je Italija predložila svoje pripombe v zvezi s pripombami tretjih strani.
Further to the request for compensation submitted by WAM SpA of 30 July 2003, the refusal of access to the documents was confirmed by the Secretariat-General by letter of 16 September 2003.
V zvezi z zahtevo za nadomestilo, ki jo je predložilo podjetje WAM SpA 30. julija 2003, je Generalni sekretariat z dopisom z dne 16. septembra 2003 potrdil zavrnitev zahteve za dostop do dokumentov.
The information missing from the reply of 19 September 2003 was provided by Italy by letter of 14 January 2004.
Informacije, ki so manjkale v odgovoru z dne 19. septembra 2003, je Italija predložila z dopisom z dne 14. januarja 2004.
On 19 May 2004 the Commission adopted a decision under Article 7(3) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [5].
Dne 19. maja 2004 je Komisija sprejela sklep po členu 7(3) in 7(5) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 [5].
Procedure before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice
Postopek pred Sodiščem prve stopnje in Evropskim sodiščem
Both WAM SpA and Italy appealed against the Commission Decision of 19 May 2004 before the Court of First Instance.
Podjetje WAM SpA in Italija sta se na Sodišču prve stopnje pritožila na sklep Komisije z dne 19. maja 2004.
The Court of First Instance, having decided to join the cases, handed down its judgment on 6 September 2006 and overturned the Commission Decision on the grounds that it had failed to provide sufficient evidence that the aid was likely to affect trade and competition in the EU market, given the circumstances of the case [6].
Sodišče prve stopnje, ki se je odločilo, da bo primera združilo, je s sodbo 6. septembra 2006 razveljavilo sklep Komisije z obrazložitvijo, da Komisija ni predložila zadostnih dokazov, da bi pomoč glede na okoliščine zadeve lahko prizadela trgovino in konkurenco na trgu EU [6].
The Court of First Instance’s judgment was appealed against by the Commission.
Komisija se je pritožila zoper sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje.
On 30 April 2009 the Court of Justice dismissed the Commission’s appeal [7].
Dne 30. aprila 2009 je Evropsko sodišče zavrnilo pritožbo Komisije [7].
WAM SpA is a company under Italian law with its registered office in Cavezzo, Italy.
Podjetje WAM SpA je ustanovljeno po italijanskem pravu, z registriranim sedežem v Cavezzu v Italiji.
During the relevant period between 1995 and 2000 it was active in the market for the production and marketing of screw conveyors and feeders, dust collectors and valves for industrial plants.
V zadevnem obdobju med letoma 1995 in 2000 je bilo podjetje dejavno na trgu za proizvodnjo in trženje polžnih transporterjev in dovajalnikov, zbiralnikov prahu in ventilov za industrijske obrate.
There are numerous EU producers in this market.
Na tem trgu je dejavnih veliko proizvajalcev iz EU.
In the dust collectors market in particular, WAM SpA had a number of larger EU competitors with advanced technology and a well-developed commercial structure [8].
Zlasti na trgu zbiralnikov prahu je imelo podjetje WAM SpA več velikih konkurentov iz EU z napredno tehnologijo in dobro razvito prodajno mrežo [8].
In 1995 a Chinese subsidiary was established which was run first as a joint venture with a local partner and, from 1998 as a wholly owned subsidiary of WAM SpA [11].
Leta 1995 je bila ustanovljena kitajska odvisna družba, ki jo je matična družba sprva upravljala kot skupno podjetje z lokalnim partnerjem, leta 1998 pa je odvisna družba prešla v izključno last podjetja WAM SpA [11].
In the period in question, WAM SpA also held 84 % of the shares in ‘WAM Engineering Ltd’, a company under English law with its registered office in Tewkesbury, United Kingdom.
V zadevnem obdobju je imela družba WAM SpA tudi 84 % delnic podjetja „WAM Engineering Ltd“, ustanovljenega po angleškem pravu, z registriranim sedežem v Tewkesburyju v Združenem kraljestvu.
The market segment in which WAM Engineering Ltd was active was the design, manufacture and sale of industrial mixing machinery used mainly in the food, chemical, pharmaceutical and environmental industries.
Podjetje WAM Engineering Ltd je bilo dejavno v tržnem segmentu oblikovanja, izdelave in prodaje industrijskih strojev za mešanje, ki se uporabljajo predvsem v živilski, kemični, farmacevtski in okoljski industriji.
With reference to the pricing policy of WAM Engineering Ltd in the United Kingdom, the complainant argued that WAM was able to offer the same products (industrial mixing machinery) that the complainant’s company manufactured and marketed for about one third of the price – a figure which the complainant claimed would barely cover the raw materials needed to manufacture the machines, thanks – in its view – to Italian Government funding, in particular funding under Law No 394/81.
V zvezi s cenovno politiko podjetja WAM Engineering Ltd v Veliki Britaniji je pritožnik trdil, da je podjetje lahko prodajalo enake proizvode (industrijska oprema za mešanje), kot jih je proizvajalo in tržilo podjetje pritožnika, po približno tretjini cene pritožnika – to pa je cena, s katero je po mnenju pritožnika komajda mogoče nabaviti surovine, ki so potrebne za izdelavo strojev – in sicer, kot meni, zaradi finančne pomoči italijanske vlade, zlasti v okviru zakona št. 394 z dne 29. julija 1981 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zakon št. 394/81).
According to the complainant, WAM Engineering Ltd was granted financial support for market penetration programmes in non-EU countries under Law No 394/81.
Po navedbah pritožnika je bila podjetju WAM Engineering Ltd dodeljena finančna podpora za program uveljavitve na trgu držav, ki niso članice EU, v skladu z zakonom št. 394/81.
In particular, Law No 394/81 allegedly provided support to Italian companies wishing to establish a subsidiary abroad, in the form of representative offices, sales branches and warehouses.
Zakon št. 394/81 naj bi zlasti zagotavljal podporo italijanskim podjetjem, ki želijo v tujini ustanoviti odvisne družbe, kot so na primer predstavništva, trgovine in skladišča.
The Italian authorities confirmed the granting of aid in the form of subsidised loans amounting to ITL 2281450000 (approx. EUR 1,8 million) to WAM SpA in 1995 for projects in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
Italijanske oblasti so potrdile dodelitev pomoči v obliki subvencioniranih posojil v višini 2281450000 ITL (približno 1,8 milijona EUR) podjetju WAM SpA leta 1995 za projekte na Japonskem, v Južni Koreji in na Tajvanu.
According to the Italian authorities, the beneficiary was actually granted a subsidised loan of ITL 1358505421 (approx. EUR 0,7 million) as the planned projects in Korea and Taiwan were not implemented due to the economic crisis in those countries.
Vendar pa je bil upravičencu po navedbah italijanskih oblasti dejansko dodeljen znesek v višini 1358505421 ITL (približno 0,7 milijona EUR), saj načrtovani projekti v Koreji in na Tajvanu zaradi gospodarske krize v teh državah niso bili izvedeni.
The subsidised loan covered 85 % of the eligible expenditure.
Subvencionirano posojilo je pokrivalo 85 % upravičenih izdatkov.
The interest-rate subsidy could amount to up to 60 % of the reference rate.
Subvencionirana obrestna mera je lahko dosegla 60 % referenčne mere.
The loan was to be repaid in five years, on a straight-line basis and in equal half yearly amounts, with interest payable on the outstanding balance.
Posojilo je moralo biti odplačano v petih letih, časovno enakomerno, v enakih polletnih obrokih, pri tem pa so se obresti zaračunavale na preostanek dolga.
A grace period of two years was envisaged.
Predviden je bil dvoletni podaljšan plačilni rok.
The subsidised interest rate of the specific loan (equal to 4,4 %) was calculated with reference to a market rate of 11 %.
Subvencionirana obrestna mera tega določenega posojila, ki je znašala 4,4 %, je bila izračunana s sklicevanjem na 11-odstotno tržno stopnjo.
In the light of the above and on the basis of the information available at the time of the opening of the procedure, the aid intensity seemed to be equivalent to 16,38 % gross grant equivalent (gge) which would have resulted in aid of ITL 222523000 (approx. EUR 0,115 million).
Glede na zgoraj navedeno in na podlagi informacij, ki so bile na voljo ob začetku postopka, se je štelo, da je intenzivnost pomoči znašala 16,38 % bruto ekvivalenta dotacije, kar bi pomenilo domnevno pomoč v višini 222,523 milijona ITL (približno 115000 EUR).
The eligible costs of this aid have been divided into two categories: costs related to permanent structures abroad and trade promotion costs.
Upravičeni stroški te pomoči so bili razdeljeni v dve kategoriji: na stroške, povezane s stalnimi strukturami v tujini, in na stroške pospeševanja prodaje.
(million ITL)
(v milijonih ITL)
ELIGIBLE COSTS
UPRAVIČENI STROŠKI
LOANS GRANTED
DODELJENA POSOJILA
PERMANENT STRUCTURES
STALNE STRUKTURE
Operating costs (in particular personnel, fittings, equipment for permanent structures)
Stroški poslovanja (zlasti osebje, pohištvo in oprema stalnih struktur)
Consultancy services
Svetovalne storitve
Business trips
Poslovna potovanja
Moreover, by letter of 21 May 2002, the Italian authorities, in response to a request for information from the Commission, stated that WAM SpA was granted another subsidised loan of ITL 1940579808 (approx. EUR 1 million) under the same scheme on 9 November 2000.
Poleg tega so italijanske oblasti z dopisom z dne 21. maja 2002, ki je bil odgovor na zahtevo Komisije za informacije, navedle, da je bilo podjetju WAM SpA v okviru iste sheme 9. novembra 2000 odobreno še eno subvencionirano posojilo v višini 1940579808 ITL (približno 1 milijon EUR).
The Commission was not aware, at the time of the opening of the procedure, of any other details concerning this additional aid.
Komisiji v času začetka postopka druge podrobnosti v zvezi s to nadaljnjo pomočjo niso bile znane.
Aid granted to WAM SpA in 1995
Pomoč, dodeljena podjetju WAM SpA leta 1995
The Italian authorities maintained in their letter of 21 May 2002 that the aid granted to WAM SpA in 1995 under Law No 394/81 was significantly below the de minimis threshold and that no other de minimis aid had been granted to the same beneficiary over the same three-year period.
Italijanske oblasti so v dopisu z dne 21. maja 2002 trdile, da je bila pomoč, odobrena podjetju WAM SpA v letu 1995 v okviru zakona št. 394/81, občutno pod pragom de minimis in da v istem triletnem obdobju temu upravičencu ni bila odobrena nobena druga pomoč de minimis.
The Commission pointed out that most of the eligible costs taken into account for the specific aid granted to WAM SpA in 1995, such as rent, insurance, miscellaneous facilities and operating costs (in particular for staff, fittings and equipment) in connection with a permanent place of business abroad, could have been considered aid for the establishment and operation of a distribution network.
Komisija pa je poudarila, da bo večino upravičenih stroškov, ki se upoštevajo pri zadevni pomoči, odobreni podjetju WAM SpA v letu 1995, kot so npr. najemnina, zavarovanje, stroški objektov in stroški poslovanja (zlasti za osebje, pohištvo in opremo), povezani s stalno strukturo v tujini, morda treba opredeliti kot pomoč za ustanovitev in delovanje distribucijskega omrežja.
Likewise, in the Commission’s opinion, costs for consultancy services related to permanent structures abroad, advertising and business trips should have been classified as current expenditure relating to export activities.
Prav tako bi bilo treba po mnenju Komisije tudi stroške za svetovalne storitve, ki so povezani s stalnimi strukturami v tujini, oglaševanje in poslovna potovanja, opredeliti kot tekoče stroške, povezane z izvozno dejavnostjo.
In the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission stated that, pursuant to the last paragraph of the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid [12], where, at the time of a decision, guidelines have been replaced by a regulation, the Commission considers that the rules set out in the regulation have to be applied to the extent that they are more favourable than those set out in the guidelines.
V sklepu o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave je Komisija navedla, da je treba po njenem mnenju v skladu z zadnjim odstavkom obvestila Komisije o določitvi pravil, ki se uporabljajo za ovrednotenje nezakonite državne pomoči [12], tam, kjer so v času sklepa smernice bile nadomeščene z uredbo, uporabiti pravila iz zadevne uredbe, pod pogojem, da so ta pravila bolj ugodna od pravil, določenih v smernicah.
Accordingly, the Commission noted in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure that as regards de minimis aid, the rules of Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid [13] (hereinafter: Regulation (EC) No 69/2001) in principle had to be applied.
Zato je Komisija v sklepu o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave navedla, da morajo v zvezi s pomočjo de minimis načeloma veljati pravila Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri de minimis pomoči [13] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Uredba (ES) št. 69/2001).
However, Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 did not apply to aid for export-related activities, that is, aid directly linked to the quantities exported as well as to the establishment and operation of a distribution network or to other current expenditure linked to export activities, as provided in Article 1(a).
Vendar pa Uredba (ES) št. 69/2001 ni veljala za pomoč za dejavnosti, povezane z izvozom, tj. pomoči, ki so neposredno povezane z izvoženimi količinami, z vzpostavitvijo in delovanjem distribucijske mreže ali z drugimi tekočimi izdatki, povezanimi z izvozno dejavnostjo, kakor je določeno v členu 1(a).
As regards the compliance of the aid in question with the relevant de minimis rules, it must be noted that the Commission stated in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure that the 1992 Community guidelines on State aid for SMEs [14] (hereinafter: the 1992 SME guidelines) did not explicitly exclude export aid but set a lower threshold for de minimis aid of ECU 50000.
V zvezi s skladnostjo zadevne pomoči z ustreznimi pravili de minimis je treba opozoriti, da je Komisija v sklepu o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave navedla, da smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za MSP iz leta 1992 [14] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice za MSP iz leta 1992) izrecno ne izključujejo izvozne pomoči, določajo pa nižji prag za pomoč de minimis v višini 50000 ECU.
In the light of the above, the Commission expressed doubts in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure as to whether the aid granted to WAM SpA in 1995 under Law No 394/81 could be considered to comply with any relevant de minimis rule.
Komisija glede na zgoraj navedeno v sklepu o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave dvomi, da je pomoč, ki je bila podjetju WAM SpA dodeljena leta 1995 v okviru zakona št. 394/81, mogoče obravnavati kot skladno s kakršnim koli pravilom de minimis.
Furthermore, in the light of a preliminary examination, the Commission had serious doubts whether the aid to WAM SpA could be declared compatible with the EC Treaty (now the TFEU) on the basis of any provision.
Poleg tega je imela Komisija na podlagi predhodnega pregleda resne pomisleke glede tega, ali je pomoč, dodeljena podjetju WAM SpA, v okviru kakršne koli določbe združljiva s Pogodbo ES (zdaj PDEU).
Aid granted to WAM SpA in 2000
Pomoč, dodeljena podjetju WAM SpA leta 2000
Accordingly, the Commission was not able at that stage of the procedure to assess the specific aid in depth.
Zato Komisija zadevne pomoči na tej stopnji ni mogla natančno proučiti.
However, given that it served the same purpose and was granted on the same legal basis as the aid granted in 1995, it doubted whether the aid could be deemed to be in compliance with any of the relevant provisions of the EC Treaty (now the TFEU).
Vendar je izrazila pomisleke glede tega, ali je pomoč mogoče obravnavati kot skladno z določbami Pogodbe ES (zdaj PDEU), saj je služila istemu namenu in je bila odobrena na isti pravni podlagi kot pomoč, ki je bila odobrena leta 1995.
The Italian authorities also pointed out, in their letter of 24 October 2002, that no aid had ever been granted directly to ‘WAM Engineering’ and that there was no undertaking registered as such in the Italian business register.
Italijanske oblasti so v dopisu z dne 24. oktobra 2002 tudi poudarile, da podjetju „WAM Engineering“ ni bila nikoli odobrena neposredna pomoč in da v italijanskem registru podjetij ni podjetja, registriranega s tem imenom.
The Commission however noted, firstly, that ‘WAM SpA’ held 84 % of ‘WAM Engineering Ltd’ shares and, secondly, that since their letter of 11 October 1999, the Italian authorities had announced that ‘WAM SpA’ had been granted a subsidised loan in 1995 under Law No 394/81 and had added, by letter of 21 May 2002, that ‘WAM group’ had been granted another subsidised loan under the same scheme on 9 November 2000.
Komisija pa je kot prvo poudarila, da je imelo podjetje „WAM SpA“ 84 % delnic podjetja „WAM Engineering Ltd“. Kot drugo pa je navedla, da so italijanske oblasti že s svojim dopisom z dne 11. oktobra 1999 sporočile, da je bilo podjetju „WAM SpA“ odobreno subvencionirano posojilo v smislu zakona št. 394/81, v dopisu z dne 21. maja 2002 pa so dodale, da je bilo „družbi WAM“9. novembra 2000 v okviru iste sheme odobreno še eno subvencionirano posojilo.
Comments on the decision to open the formal investigation procedure were received from an interested third party who asked not to be named.
Pripombe na sklep o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave je poslala ena zainteresirana tretja stran, ki pa je prosila, naj njeno ime ostane tajno.
The third party comments supported the Commission’s efforts to restore a level playing field for competitors in the sector concerned and complained about the technical skills and jobs being lost on account of WAM SpA’s position in the market.
Tretja stran je v svojih pripombah pozdravila prizadevanja Komisije za vzpostavitev enakih konkurenčnih pogojev v zadevnem sektorju ter se pritožila zaradi izgube tehničnih veščin in delovnih mest zaradi položaja podjetja WAM SpA na trgu.
By letter of 3 November 2003, the Italian authorities, who were made aware of the third party’s comments by letter of 25 September 2003 from the Commission, stated that in their view these comments added nothing new as they simply confirmed some of the assertions already made in the case, by the complainant among others.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 25. septembra 2003 obvestila italijanske oblasti o pripombah tretjih strani, italijanske oblasti pa so z dopisom z dne 3. novembra 2003 izrazile mnenje, da te pripombe niso prispevale ničesar novega, saj naj bi le potrjevale obtožbe, ki jih je pritožnik že izrekel v zvezi s to zadevo.
In particular, the Italian authorities considered that sufficient proof had been provided to demonstrate that there was no link between the claims made in the abovementioned comments and the funding of WAM SpA under Law No 394/81.
Italijanske oblasti zlasti menijo, da so dovolj trdno dokazale, da ne obstaja povezava med trditvami iz zgoraj navedenih pripomb in financiranjem podjetja WAM SpA v okviru zakona št. 394/81.
V. COMMENTS FROM THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES
V. PRIPOMBE ITALIJANSKIH OBLASTI
With regard to the 1995 loan, the Italian authorities provided evidence that, at the point at which the application was made for the first aid measure and the loan granted, WAM SpA complied with the definition of a medium-sized enterprise given at point 2.2 of the 1992 SMEs guidelines, as illustrated by the company’s 1994 annual accounts, on the grounds that it had 163 employees, an annual turnover of EUR 16,8 million and a balance-sheet total of EUR 20,1 million and was owned by two undertakings, both fulfilling the definition of an SME.
V zvezi s posojilom iz leta 1995 so italijanske oblasti predložile dokaze, da je bilo podjetje WAM SpA v času, ko mu je bil odobren prvi ukrep pomoči, pa tudi ob odobritvi posojila, na podlagi zaključnega računa za leto 1994 v skladu z opredelitvijo srednje velikega podjetja, ki je določena v točki 2.2 smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za MSP iz leta 1992, saj je imel 163 zaposlenih, 16,8 milijona EUR letnega prometa, bilanca stanja je znašala 20,1 milijona EUR in bil je v lasti dveh podjetij, ki sta ustrezali opredelitvi MSP.
But the Italian authorities themselves agreed that WAM SpA was no longer an SME after 1998, or when the second aid was granted (2000).
Vendar pa so se italijanske oblasti same strinjale, da podjetje WAM SpA že od leta 1998 ni več MSP, niti ni bilo MSP, ko mu je bila odobrena druga pomoč (leta 2000).
No other new substantive element concerning the first aid measure was added to the information that the Commission already possessed when the procedure was initiated, except for the fact that the loan was made available to the beneficiary in several instalments for which the grace period could vary from 2 years to zero.
Komisiji v zvezi s prvim ukrepom pomoči, poleg informacij, ki jih je imela že na začetku postopka, ni bil predložen noben bistven element, razen podatka, da je bilo posojilo upravičencu dano na voljo v več obrokih, za katere je bil podaljšani plačilni rok lahko od nič do dve leti.
This loan was scheduled to be repaid in full in April 2004.
To posojilo bi moralo biti v celoti povrnjeno aprila 2004.