natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since the Belgian authorities have also admitted that AGVO had no separate accounts and that it was not possible to isolate the costs and revenues relating to AGVO’s non-commercial tasks, cross subsidies cannot be avoided and the tax duties must be seen as an advantage.
Belgijski organi so prav tako priznali, da družba AGVO nima ločenih računov ter da stroškov in prihodkov iz netrgovinskih nalog družbe AGVO ni mogoče ločiti od drugih stroškov in prihodkov, zato ni mogoče preprečiti navzkrižnega subvencioniranja, davčne dajatve pa je treba obravnavati kot ugodnost.
In view of the foregoing recitals, the actions mentioned in 10.1.2.1.1 to 10.1.2.1.4 inclusive provided AGVO with an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Ob upoštevanju navedenih uvodnih izjav so ukrepi iz točk 10.1.2.1.1 do vključno 10.1.2.1.4 družbi AGVO zagotavljali ugodnost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Advantage for EVO
Ugodnost družbe EVO
The Commission considers that aid has been granted to EVO directly by the City by way of granting it free guarantees for loans from private banks, and, through AGVO, by allowing it free use of 13600 m2 of buildings, by granting free guarantees for loans from private banks and by providing it with an initial capital and capital increases.
Komisija meni, da je mesto družbi EVO pomoč dodelilo neposredno na podlagi zagotovitve brezplačne garancije za posojila pri zasebnih bankah in prek družbe AGVO, tako da ji je omogočila brezplačno uporabo stavb s površino 13600 m2, zagotovila brezplačne garancije za posojila pri zasebnih bankah ter začetni kapital in povečanje kapitala.
Free guarantee for loans
Brezplačne garancije za posojila
As regards the guarantees from the City and AGVO, the Commission observes that no market price has been paid for the guarantees, since the guarantees are completely free of charge.
Komisija ugotavlja, da za garancije mesta in družbe AGVO ni bila plačana nobena tržna cena in da so popolnoma brezplačne.
Moreover they cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan.
Poleg tega krijejo več kot 80 % neodplačanega posojila.
The Belgian authorities submit that it would be normal for a shareholder holding a controlling interest in a company to provide a guarantee free of charge in favour of the company he controls.
Belgijski organi navajajo, da delničar s prevladujočim deležem družbe tej družbi običajno zagotovi brezplačno garancijo.
This statement is, however, not substantiated by any evidence.
Vendar ta izjava ni utemeljena z nobenim dokazom.
It is moreover particularly difficult to reconcile with the behaviour of a private investor.
Poleg tega je to zelo težko uskladiti z ravnanjem zasebnega vlagatelja.
In a normal situation, such a guarantee would be remunerated by an appropriate premium, which reflects the risks connected with the guarantee [41], even if the guarantor is a parent company [42].
V običajnih razmerah bi se takšna garancija plačala s primerno premijo, ki ustreza tveganjem, povezanim z garancijo [41], tudi če je porok matična družba [42].
Moreover, the Court has already found that commercial operations even within a group of public undertakings have to be remunerated according to normal market conditions [43].
Poleg tega je Sodišče že odločilo, da je treba trgovinsko poslovanje tudi s skupino javnih podjetij plačati v skladu z običajnimi tržnimi pogoji [43].
It should further be noted that, as set out in greater detail in recital 306, EVO must be considered a company in financial difficulties within the meaning of the 1999 R & R Guidelines and the 2004 Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [44] (‘2004 R & R Guidelines’).
Navesti je tudi treba, da se mora družbo EVO, kot je podrobneje pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 306, obravnavati kot družbo v finančnih težavah v skladu s Smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 1999 in Smernicami o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah iz leta 2004 [44] („Smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 2004“).
According to established practice, guarantees granted to companies in difficulties are deemed as likely to constitute State aid [45].
V skladu z ustaljeno prakso se za garancije, dodeljene družbam v težavah, šteje, da lahko pomenijo državno pomoč [45].
The Belgian authorities add that without the free guarantee from the City, EVO would not have been able to obtain the loans.
Belgijski organi so dodali, da družba EVO brez brezplačne garancije mesta ne bi dobila posojil.
In the Commission’s view, this acknowledgement and the constant bad financial situation of EVO reveal that the loans granted by private banks under a free guarantee provided by the City (or AGVO) would not have been obtained either without that guarantee.
Komisija meni, da to priznanje in trajen slab finančni položaj družbe EVO dokazujeta, da posojila, ki so jih zasebne banke odobrile na podlagi brezplačnih garancij mesta (ali družbe AGVO), brez teh garancij ne bi bila odobrena.
Accordingly, the guaranteed loans also grant an advantage to EVO [46].
Zato ima družba EVO zaradi zajamčenih posojil prednost [46].
Finally the Belgian authorities submit that the guarantees should be viewed as being part of the restructuring of the fish auction.
Nazadnje, belgijski organi navajajo, da je treba garancije obravnavati kot del prestrukturiranja dražbe rib.
The Commission notes, however, that neither the free guarantee, nor the investments for which the loans were apparently obtained were mentioned in the business plan.
Komisija kljub temu ugotavlja, da v poslovnem načrtu brezplačne garancije ali naložbe, za katere so se posojila očitno pridobila, niso bile navedene.
The Commission also observes that one of the loans granted by Fortis and guaranteed by the City was actually used to grant loans to vessel owners and it is difficult to see how this can be viewed as part of a restructuring or even the privatisation plan of the fish auction.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da se je eno od posojil banke Fortis, za katero je jamčilo mesto, dejansko uporabilo za dodelitev posojil lastnikom ladij, pri čemer je to težko obravnavati kot del načrta za prestrukturiranje ali celo prihodnjega načrta za privatizacijo dražbe rib.
Accordingly, the Commission takes the view that the free guarantees granted by the City and AGVO favoured EVO within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Zato Komisija meni, da so brezplačne garancije, ki sta jih mesto in družba AGVO zagotovila družbi EVO, pomenile ugodnost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Belgian authorities have argued that the decision of AGVO to grant EVO the right to use the buildings without charge can be considered to correspond with normal market standards such as a normal private investor in similar conditions would have undertaken.
Belgijski organi trdijo, da se lahko odločitev družbe AGVO o podelitvi pravice družbi EVO do brezplačne uporabe stavb obravnava kot ukrep v skladu z običajnimi tržnimi standardi, ki bi ga v podobnih razmerah sprejel običajni zasebni vlagatelj.
The Commission cannot accept such a statement.
Komisija te izjave ne more sprejeti.
This statement is already contradicted by the fact that the Belgian authorities have indicated that the future strategic partner will have to conclude a rental agreement for the use of the buildings of the fish auction and will have to pay a rent.
Tej izjavi nasprotuje že navedba belgijskih organov, da bo moral prihodnji strateški partner skleniti najemno pogodbo za uporabo stavb dražbe rib in plačevati najemnino.
Moreover, it cannot be claimed that AGVO, being the full owner of EVO [47], expected EVO’s profits to be substantial so that the capital gains it would thus realise justified not charging any rent.
Poleg tega ni mogoče trditi, da je družba AGVO kot popolna lastnica družbe EVO [47] pričakovala tako velikega prihodka družbe EVO, da bi se s kapitalskimi dobički utemeljilo nezaračunavanje najemnine.
After all, the auction had been running high average annual losses.
Nenazadnje je imela dražba velike povprečne letne izgube.
The Belgian authorities submitted that the absence of rent was compensated by the fact the EVO had to bear renovation and repair costs for the fish auction which would normally have to be borne by the owner.
Belgijski organi so navedli, da je družba EVO neplačevanje najemnine nadomestila s kritjem stroškov obnove in popravil dražbe rib, kar je običajno dolžnost lastnika.
According to the Belgian authorities, EVO paid EUR 182377,31 since 2002 for renovation and infrastructure works on the fish auction.
Po navedbah belgijskih organov je družba EVO od leta 2002 za obnovo in infrastrukturna dela dražbe rib plačala 182377,31 EUR.
The Commission first notes that the Belgian authorities have not submitted any documents confirming that EVO was under the obligation to bear all renovation costs for the fish auction buildings; nor have they submitted any documents confirming that EVO actually paid EUR 182377,31 for renovation works.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da belgijski organi niso predložili nobenih dokumentov, ki bi potrjevali obveznost družbe EVO glede kritja vseh stroškov obnove za stavbe dražbe rib, in tudi ne dokumentov, ki bi dokazovali, da je družba EVO za obnovo dejansko plačala 182377,31 EUR.
The Commission further notes that the Belgian authorities have not demonstrated that it would be so unusual for a tenant to bear renovation costs or that when this is the case he would have no rent to pay.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da belgijski organi niso dokazali, da je kritje stroškov obnove s strani najemnika neobičajno ali da v takšnem primeru ne plačuje najemnine.
Nor have they indicated what kinds of works were undertaken, so that it is not possible for the Commission to determine whether the works concerned were unusual for a tenant.
Prav tako niso navedli, kakšna dela so bila izvedena, tako da Komisija ne more ugotoviti, ali so bila zadevna dela za najemnika neobičajna.
Moreover, it appears from the document received that AGVO, also, undertook renovation works relating to the fish auction between 2004 and 2007 for an amount of EUR 36497,40. This does not seem consistent with the statement of the Belgian authorities whereby EVO would have to bear all maintenance and renovation costs.
Poleg tega se na podlagi prejetega dokumenta zdi, da je tudi družba AGVO v obdobju 2004–2007 opravila obnovitvena dela v zvezi z dražbo rib, katerih stroški so znašali 36497,40 EUR. To ni v skladu z izjavo belgijskih organov, da mora družba EVO kriti vse stroške vzdrževanja in obnove.
Furthermore, the Belgian authorities have not provided any evidence showing that the EUR 182377,31 allegedly paid by EVO for renovation works would correspond to the rent to be paid for more than five years of use of 13600 m2 buildings under normal market conditions.
Belgijski organi niso predložili nobenih dokazov, da 182377,31 EUR ki naj bi jih družba EVO plačala za obnovitvena dela, ustreza znesku najemnine za več kot pet let uporabe stavb s površino 13600 m2 pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
Moreover, even if the renovation costs could be considered particularly significant and a kind of remuneration for the use of the buildings, which has not been demonstrated by the Belgian authorities, the business plan of 21 November 2001 clearly mentioned that since the fish auction had recently been modernised, no significant investments were to be expected in the next 10 years.
Čeprav bi se lahko poleg tega stroški obnove šteli za zlasti pomembne in neke vrste plačilo za uporabo stavb, česar pa belgijski organi niso dokazali, poslovni načrt z dne 21. novembra 2001 jasno navaja, da v naslednjih desetih letih ni pričakovati pomembnih naložb, ker je bila dražba rib nedavno posodobljena.
Accordingly, when AGVO decided in 2002 to put the buildings at the disposal of EVO free of charge, without any reasonable expectation that the costs resulting from alleged obligation on EVO to finance their maintenance would be at least equal to the rent which an operator would be prepared to pay for them, AGVO was granting EVO an advantage.
Zato je družba AGVO s tem, ko je leta 2002 družbi EVO zagotovila brezplačno uporabo stavb, brez razumnih pričakovanj, da bodo stroški domnevne obveznosti družbe EVO glede financiranja vzdrževanja stavb vsaj enakovredni najemnini, ki bi jo bil zanje pripravljen plačati zasebni subjekt, družbi EVO dodelila ugodnost.
As the question whether AGVO acted as a normal private investor must be examined in the light of the elements available at the time the decision was taken [48], it must be concluded that EVO received State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU by being granted the use of 13600 m2 of buildings free of charge in 2002.
Ker je treba vprašanje, ali je družba AGVO ravnala kot običajni zasebni vlagatelj, proučiti ob upoštevanju podatkov, razpoložljivih ob sprejetju odločitve [48], je treba skleniti, da je družba EVO z dodelitvijo brezplačne uporabe stavb s površino 13600 m2 leta 2002 prejela državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Initial capital and subsequent capital increases
Začetni kapital in naknadna povečanja kapitala
So far as the initial capital of about EUR 370000 to EVO is concerned, the Commission would refer to its analysis in point 10.1.2.1.1 of this Decision.
Kar zadeva začetni kapital 370000, zagotovljen družbi EVO, se Komisija sklicuje na svojo analizo iz točke 10.1.2.1.1 tega sklepa.
Indeed, the Belgian authorities have confirmed that the initial capital in EVO was financed through the initial capital in AGVO.
Belgijski organi so dejansko potrdili, da se je začetni kapital družbe EVO financiral iz začetnega kapitala družbe AGVO.
As the Commission has already observed, a private investor would not have chosen to restructure the fish auction and invest BEF 250 million in it; he would certainly not established a 100 % subsidiary with part of the fresh capital.
Kot je Komisija že ugotovila, se zasebni vlagatelj ne bi odločil za prestrukturiranje dražbe rib in naložbe vanjo v višini 250 milijonov BEF, zato se še toliko bolj ne bi odločil za to in z delom novega kapitala ustanovil hčerinsko družbo v svoji 100-odstotni lasti.
So far as the capital increases by way of a remission of debt by AGVO are concerned, the Commission would also refer to its analysis in point 10.1.2.1.1 of this Decision.
Kar zadeva povečanje kapitala z oprostitvijo dolgov s strani družbe AGVO, se lahko Komisija sklicuje tudi na svojo analizo iz točke 10.1.2.1.1 tega sklepa.
Indeed the Belgian authorities have confirmed that the capital increases had also (partly [49]) been financed through the initial capital in AGVO.
Belgijski organi so dejansko potrdili, da se je povečanje kapitala (delno [49]) financiralo tudi iz začetnega kapitala družbe AGVO.
There are, moreover, other reasons why it must be considered that AGVO did not act as a private investor would have done in the same situation.
Obstajajo tudi drugi razlogi, zaradi katerih je treba skleniti, da družba AGVO ni ravnala tako, kot bi ravnal zasebni vlagatelj v enakem položaju.
Public investments are regarded as State aid where it is apparent that the financial position of the company concerned, and particularly the structure and volume of its debts, is such that a normal return (in dividend or capital gains) cannot be expected within a reasonable time from the capital investment.
Javne naložbe se štejejo za državno pomoč, če je jasno, da so finančni položaj zadevne družbe ter zlasti struktura in obseg njenih dolgov takšni, da v razumnem času ni mogoče pričakovati običajnega dobička (v dividendah ali kapitalskih dobičkih) iz vloženega kapitala.
The Commission observes that the first increase in capital by remission of debt occurred on 31 December 2004 after almost 1,5 years existence of EVO.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se je kapital prvič povečal z oprostitvijo dolgov 31. decembra 2004, ko je družba EVO obstajala že skoraj leto in pol.
The increase in capital was evidently conceived as a measure in order to offset the heavy losses of EVO.
Povečanje kapitala se je očitno obravnavalo kot ukrep za nadomestitev velikih izgub družbe EVO.
A private investor would never have decided to grant the increases in capital, especially not the last two increases.
Zasebni vlagatelj se nikoli ne bi odločil za povečanje kapitala, zlasti ne za zadnji dve povečanji.
EVO was not in a good financial and economic position and the situation was clearly not developing according to the business plan, according to which the losses were supposed to decrease steadily, instead of growing fast.
Finančni in gospodarski položaj družbe EVO je bil slab in jasno je, da se položaj ni odvijal v skladu z napovedmi v poslovnem načrtu, pri čemer naj bi se izgube stalno zmanjševale in ne hitro naraščale.
Indeed, already at the end of 2003 more than half of EVO’s registered capital had disappeared, a situation which did not change in the following years despite of the successive increases in capital.
Dejansko je bila že ob koncu leta 2003 izgubljena več kot polovica delniškega kapitala družbe EVO in te razmere se v naslednjih letih niso spremenile kljub zaporednim povečanjem kapitala.
Without any prospect of future return on capital, a private investor would not have chosen to increase the capital of the company in order to offset losses [50].
Brez vsake možnosti prihodnjega donosa kapitala se zasebni vlagatelj ne bi odločil za povečanje kapitala družbe, da bi nadomestil njene izgube [50].
Instead he would seriously have considered the other options available (winding up, selling, etc.) and would at least have required some guarantees or restructuring measures.
Namesto tega bi resno proučil druge razpoložljive možnosti (zaprtje, prodaja itd.) in zahteval vsaj nekakšne garancije ali ukrepe prestrukturiranja.
Also the particular form the capital increase took (remission of debt) confirms that those capital increases cannot be viewed as part of the restructuring planned in 2001.
Tudi posebna oblika povečanja kapitala (oprostitev dolgov) potrjuje, da se zadevno povečanje kapitala ne more obravnavati kot del prestrukturiranja, načrtovanega leta 2004.
In addition, it should be noted that EVO must be considered a company in financial difficulties [51].
Poleg tega je treba navesti, da je treba družbo EVO obravnavati kot družbo v finančnih težavah [51].
According to established practice, an increase in capital granted to companies in difficulties is deemed to constitute State aid [52].
V skladu z ustaljeno prakso se za povečanje kapitala družb v težavah šteje, da pomeni državno pomoč [52].
Consequently, the successive increases in capital which EVO benefited from favoured EVO within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Zato so zaporedna povečanja kapitala družbi EVO zagotovila ugodnost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Advantage for PAKHUIZEN
Ugodnost družbe PAKHUIZEN
So far as concerns the long-term lease for the use of buildings [53] to PAKHUIZEN, having regard to the information available, the Commission takes the view that it grants an advantage.
Ob upoštevanju razpoložljivih informacij Komisija meni, da se z dolgoročno zakupno pogodbo z družbo PAKHUIZEN za uporabo stavb dodeljuje ugodnost [53].
First, the charge of only EUR 25 per year cannot be regarded as normal pay for a long-term lease of 45 years relating to 14754 m2 of buildings, even when in very poor condition and needing renovation.
Prvič, letne dajatve v višini le 25 EUR ni mogoče obravnavati kot običajno plačilo za dolgoročni zakup za obdobje 45 let v zvezi s stavbami s površino 14754 m2, čeprav so stavbe v zelo slabem stanju in jih je treba obnoviti.
The fact that PAKHUIZEN is required to renovate the buildings does not change this.
Tega ne spremeni niti dejstvo, da mora družba PAKHUIZEN stavbe obnoviti.
Indeed, according to Belgian law [54], the owner of the buildings is not under the obligation to repair the buildings.
V skladu z belgijsko zakonodajo [54] lastnik stavb dejansko ni zavezan k njihovemu popravilu.
By contrast, the tenant is under the obligation to maintain the buildings in good condition and to undertake any ordinary repair works.
Ravno nasprotno pa je najemnik zavezan k ohranjanju stavb v dobrem stanju in izvedbi kakršnih koli običajnih popravil.
The Belgian authorities have not demonstrated that the renovation works PAKHUIZEN was bound to undertake under the long-term lease would go beyond ‘ordinary repair works’.
Belgijski organi niso dokazali, da so obnovitvena dela, ki jih je morala družba PAKHUIZEN izvesti v okviru dolgoročne zakupne pogodbe, presegla „običajna popravila“.
Moreover, the Belgian authorities have not provided any evidence that the cost flowing from that obligation is equal to the rent which could have been obtained for the buildings under normal market conditions.
Poleg tega belgijski organi niso dokazali, da so stroški, ki izhajajo iz navedene obveznosti, enaki vrednosti najemnine stavb, ki bi se lahko zaračunala pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
In addition, the Belgian authorities have admitted that PAKHUIZEN has not fulfilled its renovation obligations and has not respected the destination of the buildings.
Belgijski organi so tudi priznali, da družba PAKHUIZEN ni izpolnila svoje obveznosti glede obnove in ni upoštevala namembnosti stavb.
The City has obviously not taken any action against PAKHUIZEN in order to enforce the agreement, although it was entitled to do so.
Mesto proti družbi PAKHUIZEN očitno ni sprejelo nobenega ukrepa, da bi se sporazum uveljavil, čeprav je bilo do tega upravičeno.
Therefore, even if having regard to the renovation costs, the rent of EUR 25 per year could have been regarded as corresponding to the market price — quod non — PAKHUIZEN would in any event have received an advantage from the moment it became apparent that the City had not enforced the contract.
Čeprav bi se ob upoštevanju stroškov obnove letna najemnina v znesku 25 EUR lahko obravnavala kot v skladu s tržno ceno, kar pa ne drži, se šteje, da je družba PAKHUIZEN v vsakem primeru prejemala ugodnost, od trenutka, ko je postalo jasno, da je mesto opustilo izvajanje pogodbe.
Moreover, as regards the lease of the buildings to PAKHUIZEN subject to the conditions of maintaining and renovating the buildings, according to the market economy investor principle, to the conditions established in the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities, a public authority can be considered to be acting as a market economy operator if it offers its contracts at the highest possible price within an open, transparent and non-discriminating tender, to the highest bidder or following an estimation of the market value by an independent expert.
Poleg tega je treba v zvezi z dajanjem stavb v zakup družbi PAKHUIZEN pod pogoji vzdrževanja in obnavljanja stavb navesti, da je glede na načelo vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji in tudi ob upoštevanju pogojev, določenih v Sporočilu Komisije o elementih državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti, ravnanje javnega organa mogoče obravnavati kot ravnanje nosilca dejavnosti v tržnem gospodarstvu, če ponudi pogodbo v javnem, preglednem in nediskriminatornem razpisu po najvišji možni ceni najvišjemu ponudniku ali po tem, ko neodvisni strokovnjak oceni tržno vrednost.
This seems however not to have been the case.
Vendar se zdi, da se to ni zgodilo.
Finally, the fact that after 27 years the owner of the buildings (originally the City, then AGVO) is entitled to half the yearly profit of PAKHUIZEN, does not change the above analysis.
Nazadnje, dejstvo, da je lastnik stavb (prvotno mesto, nato družba AGVO) po 27 letih upravičen do polovice letnega dobička družbe PAKHUIZEN, ne spremeni zgoraj navedene analize.
Such an advantage is too distant and uncertain to have any genuine net present value for the owner of the buildings.
Ta ugodnost je preveč oddaljena in negotova, da bi imela za lastnika stavb kakršno koli resnično neto sedanjo vrednost.