natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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 LIT 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 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 3-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.
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 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 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri de minimis pomoči [13] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Uredba (ES) št. 69/2001).
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 above-mentioned 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.
As far as the 2000 loan is concerned, the Italian authorities provided clarification, by letter of 25 July 2003, that the actual total amount of the loan was LIT 3603574689 (corresponding to EUR 1861091,01), rather than LIT 1940579808 (about 1 million EUR), as previously stated in the letter of 21 May 2002, and indicated in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, since the latter figure referred only to the part of the loan which had already been paid at the point at which the letter was written, not the overall amount of aid granted.
Kar zadeva posojilo iz leta 2000, so italijanske oblasti z dopisom z dne 25. julija 2003 pojasnile, da je bil dejanski skupni znesek posojila 3603574689 ITL (1861091,01 EUR) in ne 1940579808 (približno 1 milijon EUR), kakor so pred tem navedle v dopisu z dne 21. maja 2002 in kakor je bilo navedeno v sklepu o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave, saj se je slednji znesek nanašal samo na del posojila, ki je bil v času, ko je bil dopis napisan, že izplačan, pri tem pa se ni upošteval skupni znesek odobrene pomoči.
(in EUR thousand)
(v tisoč EUR)
According to the schedule, repayment should therefore have been completed by 20 February 2008.
Na ta način naj bi bil dolg v celoti odplačan do februarja 2008.
Article 107(1) of the TFEU states that ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.’
Člen 107(1) PDEU navaja, da je „vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
First, there must be an intervention of the state through state resources.
Prvič, obstajati mora posredovanje države preko državnih sredstev.
The aid measures under scrutiny were granted by the committee set up under Article 2 of Law No 394/81 [17] for the 1995 loan and by the ‘Comitato Agevolazioni’ [18] for the 2000 loan.
Zadevno posojilo iz leta 1995 je dodelil odbor, ustanovljen v skladu s členom 2 zakona št. 394/81 [17], zadevno posojilo iz leta 2000 pa „Comitato Agevolazioni“ [18].
Mediocredito Centrale SpA [19] entered into the 1995 financing contract with WAM SpA in order to implement the decision of the committee set up under Article 2 of Law No 394/81.
Banka Mediocredito Centrale SpA [19] je leta 1995 s podjetjem WAM SpA sklenila pogodbo o financiranju, da bi izvršila sklep odbora, ustanovljenega v skladu s členom 2 zakona št. 394/81.
In its judgment of 30 April 2009 the Court of Justice emphasises [23] that ‘even in cases where it is apparent from the circumstances under which it was granted that the aid is liable to affect trade between Member States and to distort or threaten to distort competition, the Commission must at least set out those circumstances in the statement of reasons for its decision’.
(84) Evropsko sodišče v sodbi z dne 30. aprila 2009 poudarja [23], da „tudi ko iz okoliščin, v katerih je bila državna pomoč dodeljena, izhaja, da lahko ta vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, mora Komisija navesti te okoliščine v obrazložitvi svoje odločbe“.
Likewise, it is established case law that ‘when aid granted by Member States strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in the trade within the EU, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid.’
Podobno je ustaljena sodna praksa, da „se, kadar pomoč države članice okrepi položaj enega podjetja v razmerju do drugih konkurenčnih podjetij v trgovini znotraj EU, šteje, da pomoč vpliva na ta podjetja“ [28].
In the same vein, in Vlaams Gewest v. Commission [31] the Court of First Instance stated that ‘even a relatively small amount is liable to affect trade between Member States where there is strong competition in the sectors in which undertakings operate’.
V enakem smislu je Sodišče prve stopnje v zadevi Vlaams Gewest proti Komisiji [31] navedlo, da „lahko celo relativno majhen znesek škodljivo vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, če obstaja močna konkurenca v sektorjih, v katerih so podjetja dejavna“.
In the case at hand, even if in its decision to open the formal investigation procedure the Commission expressed doubts about the possibility of exempting aid under Commission Regulations (EC) No 69/2001 and (EC) No 70/2001, the corresponding rules in force at the time of the decision must be applied, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 [34].
Čeprav je Komisija v sklepu o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave izrazila dvom glede možnosti izvzetja pomoči v skladu z uredbama Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 in (ES) št. 70/2001, je treba v zadevnem primeru uporabiti ustrezna pravila, ki so veljala v času sklepa, tj. Uredbo (ES) št. 1998/2006 [34].
The Italian authorities declared, in their letter of 11 October 1999, that the legal basis of the aid granted to WAM SpA, namely Law 394 of 29 June 1981, had been notified to the Commission and to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) under Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures (WTO-GATT 1994) [36].
Italijanske oblasti so v dopisu z dne 11. oktobra 1999 izjavile, da je bila pravna podlaga za pomoč, odobreno podjetju WAM SpA, in sicer zakon št. 394 z dne 29. junija 1981, Komisiji in Svetovni trgovinski organizaciji (STO) priglašena v skladu s členom 25 Sporazuma o subvencijah in izravnalnih ukrepih (WTO-GATT 1994) [36].
These kinds of communications, however, cannot be deemed to be in compliance with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, now Article 108(3) of the TFEU, which states that ‘the Commission shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid.’
Vendar pa takšnih obvestil ni mogoče šteti za skladne s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES, zdaj členom 108(3) PDEU, ki navaja, da „mora biti Komisija obveščena o vseh načrtih za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči dovolj zgodaj, da lahko predloži pripombe“.
As the aid to WAM SpA was granted under that scheme, apart from any block exempted aid, it must also be considered unlawful.
Ker je bila pomoč za podjetje WAM SpA dodeljena po tej shemi, je zato nezakonita, razen skupinsko izvzete pomoči.
Article 1(d) stipulates in fact that this Regulation does not apply to ‘aid towards export-related activities towards third countries or Member States, namely directly linked to the quantities exported, to the establishment and operation of the distribution network or to other current expenditure linked to export activity.’
Člen 1(d) _Uredbe pravzaprav določa, da ta uredba ne velja za „pomoči za z izvozom povezane dejavnosti v tretje države ali države članice, kot je pomoč, neposredno povezana z izvoženimi količinami, z ustanovitvijo in delovanjem distribucijske mreže ali drugimi tekočimi izdatki, povezanimi z izvozno dejavnostjo“.
Article 44(2) of the 2008 Block Exemption Regulation stipulates that any aid granted before the entry into force of the Regulation which fulfils neither the conditions laid down in it nor the conditions laid down in Commission Regulations (EC) No 68/2001 [40], (EC) No 70/2001, (EC) No 2204/2002 [41] or (EC) No 1628/2006 [42] must be assessed according to the frameworks, guidelines, communications and notices in force at the time it was granted.
Člen 44(2) Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah iz leta 2008 določa, da je treba vsako pomoč, dodeljeno pred začetkom veljavnosti Uredbe, ki ne izpolnjuje niti pogojev iz Uredbe niti pogojev iz uredb Komisije (ES) št. 68/2001 [40], (ES) št. 70/2001, (ES) št. 2204/2002 [41] ali (ES) št. 1628/2006 [42], oceniti v skladu z ustreznimi okviri, smernicami, sporočili in obvestili, ki so veljala v času dodelitve pomoči.
Moreover, the expenses mentioned in the table in recital 44 and listed at recital 118 cannot be block-exempted on the basis of Regulations (EC) No 68/2001, (EC) No 70/2001, (EC) No 2204/2002 nor (EC) No 1628/2006 either as the conditions laid down in those Regulations are not fulfilled.
Poleg tega stroškov iz preglednice v uvodni izjavi 44 in uvodne izjave 118 ni mogoče skupinsko izvzeti na podlagi uredb (ES) št. 68/2001, (ES) št. 70/2001, (ES) št. 2204/2002 ali (ES) št. 1628/2006, saj pogoji iz teh uredb niso izpolnjeni.
As regards the aid for participation in fairs and exhibitions (LIT 12,19 million), it can be considered compatible with the 1992 SME guidelines on the basis of point 4.5 ‘Aid for other purposes’, as it can be regarded as aid for other means of SME promotion, such as encouraging cooperation.
Pomoč za udeležbo na sejmih in razstavah (12,19 milijona ITL) je mogoče obravnavati kot združljivo s smernicami za MSP iz leta 1992 na podlagi točke 4.5 „Pomoč za druge namene“, saj jo je mogoče označiti kot pomoč za druge načine spodbujanja MSP, kot je npr. spodbujanje sodelovanja.
The costs considered eligible: rent of premises, insurance and miscellaneous facilities (LIT 122,56 million) and operating costs such as personnel, fittings and equipments for premises (LIT 556,94 million) are costs which the firm should itself have borne; the same applies to display models and spare parts for after-sale service (LIT 38,23 million).
Upravičeni stroški: najemnina za prostore, zavarovanje in stroški objektov (122,56 milijona ITL) in stroški poslovanja, kot so stroški za osebje, pohištvo in opremo za prostore (556,94 milijona ITL), so stroški, ki bi jih podjetje moralo kriti samo; enako velja za vzorce in nadomestne dele za poprodajne storitve (38,23 milijona ITL).
Similarly, with respect to the eligible costs in support of trade promotion, the cost of storage of goods (LIT 456,28 million) does not comply with the 1992 SME guidelines, in the Commission’s opinion, as it cannot be considered an initial investment; the advertising costs (LIT 94,39 million) and business trips (LIT 7,52 million) do not comply with the guidelines either.
Podobno, v zvezi z upravičenimi stroški, namenjenimi podpori pospeševanja prodaje, Komisija meni, da stroški skladiščenja blaga (456,28 milijona ITL) niso skladni s smernicami za MSP iz leta 1992, saj jih ni mogoče šteti za začetno naložbo; s smernicami niso skladni niti stroški za oglaševanje (94,39 milijona ITL) in poslovna potovanja (7,52 milijona ITL)
The Commission takes the view that the training expenses detailed in the letter of 22 July 2003 (EUR 25240 out of total loan of EUR 1,8 million in 2000) (as shown in the table in recital 65), may be exempted on the basis of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 and are therefore compatible with the internal market according to Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty, now Article 107(3) of the TFEU, whether the assessment is based on Article 4(2) (specific training) or Article 4(3) (general training).
Komisija meni, da je stroške za usposabljanje, podrobneje opisane v dopisu z dne 22. julija 2003 (25240 EUR od celotnega posojila v višini 1,8 milijona EUR) (kakor je prikazano v preglednici iz uvodne izjave 65), mogoče izvzeti na podlagi člena 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 68/2001 in so zato združljivi z notranjim trgom v skladu s členom 87(3) Pogodbe ES, zdaj členom 107(3) PDEU, ne glede na to, ali ocena temelji na členu 4(2) (posebno usposabljanje) ali členu 4(3) (splošno usposabljanje).
However, the remainder of the aid in question cannot be considered compatible on the basis of Regulations (EC) No 70/2001, (EC) No 2204/2002 or (EC) No 1628/2006 or any other any legal basis, as it does not promote any other horizontal objective of the European Union within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU, such as research and development, employment, the environment or rescue and restructuring within the meaning of the relevant guidelines, frameworks and regulations.
Vendar pa preostanka zadevne pomoči ni mogoče šteti za združljivega na podlagi uredb (ES) št. 70/2001, (ES) št. 2204/2002 ali (ES) št. 1628/2006 oziroma na kateri koli drugi pravni podlagi, saj ne podpira nobenega drugega horizontalnega cilja Evropske unije v smislu člena 107(3)(c) PDEU, kot so npr. raziskave in razvoj, zaposlovanje, okolje ali reševanje in prestrukturiranje v smislu zadevnih smernic, okvirov in uredb.
Therefore, it must be concluded that since export-related activities are excluded from the application of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 and they cannot be considered compatible with Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU on any legal basis, the aid provided by means of the second loan is incompatible with the internal market, with the exception of the compatible portion of training aid as described above.
Zato je treba zaključiti, da pomoč, dodeljena z drugim posojilom, ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, razen združljivega dela pomoči za usposabljanje, kakor je opisano zgoraj, in sicer zato, ker so dejavnosti, povezane z izvozom, izvzete iz uporabe Uredbe (ES) št. 1998/2006 in jih ni mogoče šteti za združljive s členom 107(3)(c) PDEU ali katero koli drugo pravno podlago.
As regards the modification of the interest rate during the loan repayment period, the Italian authorities argued that general rules allowing such reductions did exist within the Italian legal framework.
Italijanske oblasti so v zvezi s spremembo obrestne mere v obdobju odplačevanja trdile, da v okviru italijanskega pravnega sistema dejansko obstajajo splošna pravila, ki dovoljujejo takšno znižanje.
However, the Ministerial Decree of 31 March 2000, which is the only legal basis provided for this purpose, applies only to the initiatives funded by Laws Nos 394/81 and 304/1990, and is therefore very restrictive.
Vendar pa se ministrski odlok z dne 31. marca 2000, ki je edina pravna podlaga, navedena v ta namen, nanaša samo na pobude, financirane z zakonoma št. 394/81 in 304/1990, in je zato zelo omejevalen.
Moreover, it must be emphasised that no further evidence has been provided that the interest rate in respect of the aid in question was modified [44].
Treba je tudi poudariti, da ni bil predložen noben drug dokaz, da je bila obrestna mera v zvezi z zadevno pomočjo spremenjena [44].
The Commission notes that the exemptions provided for in Article 107(2)(a) to (c) [45] of the TFEU do not apply to the loans in question since they do not pursue any of the objectives listed in that article, nor has the Italian Government argued that this was the case.
Komisija ugotavlja, da izjeme iz člena 107(2) (a) do (c) [45] PDEU ne veljajo za zadevni posojili, saj nista namenjeni za nobenega od ciljev, navedenih v tem členu, pa tudi italijanska vlada ne trdi, da sta.
The Commission therefore considers that Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU [46], Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU [47] and Article 107(3)(d) of the TFEU [48] do not apply to the loans under consideration.
Komisija zato meni, da v primeru zadevnih posojil ne veljajo niti člen 107(3)(a) PDEU [46], člen 107(3)(b) PDEU [47] niti člen 107(3)(d) PDEU [48].
The interest rate stipulated by the loan contract (4,4 %), relative to the reference rate periodically fixed by the Commission [49] and in force at the time the loan was granted (11,35 %), has also been taken into consideration.
Upoštevana je bila obrestna mera, ki jo določa posojilna pogodba (4,4 %) glede na referenčno mero, ki jo Komisija periodično določa [49], veljavno v času, ko je bilo posojilo odobreno (11,35 %).
As 6 % of EUR 108165,10 is EUR 6489,906, this amount is considered to constitute the compatible portion of the aid.
Ker je 6 % od 108165,10 EUR 6489,906 EUR, se ta znesek upošteva kot združljiv del pomoči.
Accordingly, providing that the repayments have been made according to the repayment schedule, the grant equivalent of the second loan has been calculated as EUR 173948,56 (EUR 176329 – EUR 2380,44).
V skladu s tem je bil ekvivalent dotacije drugega posojila izračunan v višini 173948,56 EUR (176329 EUR – 2380,44 EUR), v kolikor se vračila izvajajo po načrtu odplačevanja.
It is the Commission’s standard practice, in accordance with Article 107 of the TFEU, to recover from the beneficiary aid that has been unlawfully granted under that article and is incompatible with the internal market, provided that such aid is not covered by the de minimis rules.
Že dolgo veljavna praksa Komisije je, da od prejemnika v skladu s členom 107 PDEU zahteva povračilo pomoči, ki je bila v okviru tega člena nezakonito dodeljena in ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, pod pogojem, da ni zajeta v pravilih de minimis.
The method of application of the interest rate is set out in Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [50] (hereinafter ‘Regulation (EC) No 794/2004’) and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [51] (hereinafter ‘Regulation (EC) No 271/2008’).
Način uporabe obrestne mere je določen v poglavju V Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 z dne 21. aprila 2004 o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [50] (v nadaljnjem besedilu Uredba (ES) št. 794/2004) in v Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 271/2008 z dne 30. januarja 2008 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2004 o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [51] (v nadaljnjem besedilu Uredba (ES) št. 271/2008).
The Commission wishes to point out that this Decision is without prejudice to the compatibility of the national framework represented by Law No 394/81, which is the legal basis of the State aid granted to WAM SpA, with respect to which the Commission, in line with the case law of the Court of First Instance [52], did not find it necessary, in the current case, to initiate proceedings.
Komisija opozarja, da ta sklep ne posega v združljivost nacionalnega okvira, tj. zakona št. 394/81, ki je pravna podlaga za državno pomoč, odobreno podjetju WAM SpA, v zvezi s katerim se Komisiji v tem primeru, v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča prve stopnje [52], ni zdelo potrebno, da začne postopek.
The aid amounting to EUR 176329 which Italy granted to WAM SpA on 9 November 2000 in the form of an interest-rate subsidy, constitutes State aid.
Pomoč v višini 176329 EUR, ki jo je Italija podjetju WAM SpA dodelila 9. novembra 2000 v obliki subvencionirane obrestne mere, predstavlja državno pomoč.
The aid portion corresponding to eligible costs for training measures and amounting to EUR 2380,44, constitutes State aid compatible with the internal market.
Del pomoči, ki ustreza upravičenim stroškom za usposabljanje in znaša 2380,44 EUR, predstavlja državno pomoč, združljivo z notranjim trgom.
Italy shall take all necessary measures to recover the incompatible aid amount of EUR 173948,56 from the beneficiary, WAM SpA.
Italija sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe, da od upravičenca, podjetja WAM SpA, izterja znesek nezdružljive pomoči, ki znaša 173948,56 EUR.
Recovery of the aid referred to Article 2 shall be immediate and effective.
Povračilo pomoči iz člena 2 se izvede takoj in učinkovito.
Italy shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months following the date of notification to Italy of this Decision.
Italija zagotovi, da se ta sklep izvrši v štirih mesecih od datuma uradnega obvestila Italiji o tem sklepu.
Within 2 months following the notification of this Decision, Italy shall submit the following information to the Commission:
V dveh mesecih od obvestila o tem sklepu Italija Komisiji predloži naslednje informacije:
C(2003) 35 final (OJ C 142, 18.6.2003, p. 2).
C(2003) 35 konč. (objavljeno v UL C 142, 18.6.2003, str. 2).
See footnote 9.
Prim. opombo 9.
See Case 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig [1977] ECR 595, paragraph 21; Case 290/83 Commission v France [1985] ECR 439, paragraph 14; Joined Cases 67/85 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 219, paragraph 35; and Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraph 13.
Glej zadevo Steinike & Weinlig, 78/76, Recueil 1977, str. 595, točka 21; zadevo Komisija proti Franciji, 290/83, Recueil 1985, str. 439, točka 14; združene zadeve Van der Kooy in drugi proti Komisiji, 67/85, 68/85 in 70/85, Recuei 1988l, str. 219, točka 35; in zadevo Italija proti Komisiji, C-305/89, Recueil 1991, str. ECR I-1603, točka 13.
The committee, established at the Ministry of Foreign Trade, is made up of: a) the Minister for Trade, or, by delegation, the Secretary of State, who chairs it; b) a manager from each of the following departments: Treasury, Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Crafts, Ministry of Trade, or similarly qualified replacements appointed by the respective Ministers; c) the Director-General of Mediocredito Centrale, or in his absence, a replacement designated by him; d) the Director-General of the National Institute for Foreign Trade (Istituto nazionale per il commercio estero), or in his absence, a replacement designated by him.
Odbor, ustanovljen na ministrstvu za zunanjo trgovino, sestavljajo: a) minister za trgovino oziroma, po pooblastilu, državni sekretar, ki odboru tudi predseduje; b) vodja vsake od naslednjih služb: zakladništva, ministrstva za industrijo, trgovino in obrt, ministrstva za trgovino oziroma podobno usposobljeni namestniki, ki jih imenujejo zadevni ministri; c) generalni direktor banke Mediocredito Centrale oziroma v njegovi odsotnosti njegov namestnik, ki ga imenuje generalni direktor; d) generalni direktor Nacionalnega inštituta za zunanjo trgovino (Istituto nazionale per il commercio estero) oziroma v njegovi odsotnosti njegov namestnik, ki ga imenuje generalni direktor.