natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The derogations in Article 107(2) TFEU, 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.
Odstopanja iz člena 107(2) PDEU v zvezi s pomočjo socialnega značaja, dodeljeno posameznim potrošnikom, pomočjo za povrnitev škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki, ter pomočjo, dodeljeno nekaterim območjem Zvezne republike Nemčije, v tem primeru ne veljajo.
Nor does the derogation provided for in Article 107(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 upon carrying out any type of activity in specific regions [132].
Prav tako ne velja odstopanje iz člena 107(3)(a), s katerim je odobrena pomoč za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je brezposelnost velika, ker ukrep ni pogojen z izvajanjem nobene vrste dejavnosti v posameznih regijah [132].
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 107(3)(b).
Enako se tudi sporni ukrep, sprejet leta 2001, ne more obravnavati kot pospeševanje izvedbe projekta skupnega evropskega interesa ali odpravljanje resne motnje v španskem gospodarstvu, kot je navedeno v členu 107(3)(b).
Nor does it have as its object the promotion of culture and heritage conservation as provided for in Article 107(3)(d).
Prav tako njegov cilj ni pospeševanje kulture in ohranjanje kulturne dediščine, kot je navedeno v členu 107(3)(d).
Finally, the contested measure must be examined in the light of Article 107(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, sporni ukrep je treba preučiti v smislu člena 107(3)(c), ki zagotavlja odobritev pomoči za pospeševanje razvoja nekaterih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali nekaterih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
In this respect, it should first be noted that the contested measure does not fall under any of the frameworks or guidelines which define the conditions for considering certain types of aid compatible with the internal market.
V zvezi s tem je treba najprej ugotoviti, da sporni ukrep ne spada v noben okvir ali smernice, v katerih so opredeljeni pogoji za preučevanje nekaterih vrst pomoči, združljivih z notranjim 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 [133], where they consider that certain measures can be compatible if they essentially respond to a market failure, the Commission observes that alleged general difficulties in carrying out cross-border mergers cannot be regarded as a market failure.
V zvezi z argumenti španskih organov in 30 zainteresiranih strani na podlagi Akcijskega načrta o državni pomoči iz leta 2005 [133], 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.
Only where market forces would not in themselves be able to reach an efficient outcome measure – i.e. where not all potential gains from trade are realised measure – can a market failure be considered to exist.
Le kadar tržne sile same ne zmorejo doseči zadovoljivega končnega ukrepa, 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 involved 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. stroški, 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 bi se 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 with 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.
Da bi tržna nepopolnost obstajala, bi morali dejansko 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 mednarodnih in nacionalnih (npr. na podlagi skupnih raziskovalnih in razvojnih programov) transakcijah, ni mogoče šteti, da so samoumevno prisotne v vseh mednarodnih transakcijah, kaj šele pri transakcijah zadevne vrste.
Moreover it should be recalled that, when assessing whether aid can be deemed compatible with the internal 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 z notranjim 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 first two steps address the positive effects of the State aid and the third addresses the negative effects and 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 based on three questions:
Preskus tehtanja temelji na treh vprašanjih:
assessing whether the aid is aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest, (e.g. growth, employment, cohesion, environment, energy security);
presojanje, ali je cilj pomoči ustrezno opredeljen cilj skupnega interesa (npr. rast, zaposlovanje, kohezija, okolje, varnost preskrbe z energijo);
assessing whether the aid is appropriate to deliver the objective of common interest, i.e. whether the proposed aid addresses the market failure or other objective.
presojanje, ali je pomoč ustrezna za doseganje cilja skupnega interesa, tj. ali se s predlagano pomočjo odpravlja tržno nepopolnost ali se dosega drug cilj.
This assessment requires checking whether:
Pri tej presoji je treba preveriti, ali:
there is an incentive effect, namely whether the aid changes the behaviour of undertakings;
obstaja spodbujevalni učinek, in sicer ali pomoč spremeni ravnanje družb;
the measure is proportionate, namely whether 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 whether 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 skupni rezultat pozitiven.
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 dejansko 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 well 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 ustrezno 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 well-defined objective of common interest.
Druga stopnja zahteva presojo, ali je pomoč ustrezno oblikovana za uresničitev ustrezno opredeljenega 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 the achievement of the objective of common interest, which it would not carry out without the aid or which it 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 30 zainteresiranih strani niso predstavili posebnih argumentov, ki bi dokazali verjetnost nastanka tega spodbujevalnega učinka.
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 of 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 30 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 paragraphs 126 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 odstavkih 126 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.
Ker se poleg tega shema pomoči uporablja le za tuje transakcije, se očitno osredotoča na izkrivljanje konkurence na tujih trgih.
As indicated above, in this case the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties did not demonstrate the existence of a well-defined objective leading to clear positive effects.
Kot je že navedeno, v tem primeru španski organi in 30 zainteresiranih strani niso dokazali obstoja ustrezno opredeljenega cilja, ki vodi k očitnim pozitivnim učinkom.
They consider, in general terms, that Article 12(5) TRLIS fulfils the Union objective of promoting cross-border transactions, without embarking on the evaluation of the potential and actual negative effects of the contested measure.
Na splošno menijo, da člen 12(5) TRLIS izpolnjuje cilj Unije glede pospeševanja čezmejnih transakcij, ne da bi se lotili ocenjevanja mogočih in dejanskih negativnih učinkov spornega ukrepa.
In any case, even assuming that the positive effect of the measure is to promote cross-border transactions by eliminating obstacles 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 107(3)(c) TFEU in particular, the tax advantages granted under the contested measure are not related to investment, job creation or specific projects.
Nazadnje, Komisija zlasti v zvezi z analizo v skladu s členom 107(3)(c) PDEU meni, da davčne prednosti, dodeljene na podlagi spornega 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 to be operating aid.
Te prednosti zadevne družbe le razbremenijo 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 107(3)(c) TFEU 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 [134].
Na splošno operativna pomoč ne spada na področje uporabe člena 107(3)(c) PDEU, ker izkrivlja konkurenco v sektorjih, katerim se dodeli, in hkrati glede na svojo naravo ni zmožna uresničiti nobenega cilja iz te določbe [134].
In line with the standard practice of the Commission, such aid cannot not be considered compatible with the internal 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 to a specific economic handicap of the areas concerned.
V skladu z običajno prakso Komisije se taka pomoč ne more obravnavati kot združljiva z notranjim 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.
In the light of the above, it must be concluded that the entire aid scheme in question, also to the extent that it applies to extra-EU acquisitions, is incompatible with the internal market.
V smislu navedenega je treba sklepati, da celotna zadevna shema pomoči, tudi kolikor velja za prevzeme zunaj EU, ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
The contested measure has been implemented without having been notified in advance to the Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU.
Sporni ukrep se je izvajal brez predhodne priglasitve Komisiji v skladu s členom 108(3) PDEU.
The measure therefore constitutes unlawful State aid.
Zato ukrep pomeni nezakonito državno pomoč.
Where unlawfully granted State aid is found to be incompatible with the internal 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 [135].
Če se ugotovi nezdružljivost nezakonito dodeljene državne pomoči z notranjim 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 [135].
No arguments raised by the Spanish authorities or by the 30 interested parties justify a general departure from this basic principle.
Nobeden od argumentov, ki so jih predložili španski organi ali 30 zainteresiranih strani, ne upravičuje splošnega odstopanja od tega osnovnega načela.
The case law of the Court of Justice and Commission practice have established, among other things, that an order to recover aid infringes a general principle of EU law where, as a result of the Commission’s actions, the beneficiary of a measure has legitimate expectations that the aid has been granted in accordance with EU law [136].
Sodna praksa Sodišča in praksa Komisije sta med drugim določili, da odločba o vračilu pomoči krši splošno načelo zakonodaje EU, kadar upravičenec do ukrepa zaradi ukrepov Komisije upravičeno pričakuje, da je bila pomoč dodeljena v skladu z zakonodajo EU [136].
In its judgment in the Forum 187 case [137], the Court of Justice held 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 je v sodbi v zadevi Forum 187 [137] navedlo, da „pravica sklicevanja na načelo varstva upravičenih pričakovanj velja za vsako zadevno osebo, pri kateri je institucija Skupnosti ustvarila upravičena pričakovanja.
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 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 30 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 expectations implies that the Commission can ask for recovery neither of the deductions already realised nor of all outstanding deductions, up to the 20-year period established by the TRLIS.
Tretjič, španski organi in 30 zainteresiranih strani menijo, da načelo upravičenih pričakovanj pomeni, da Komisija ne more zahtevati vračila že izvedenih odbitkov niti 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 takes the view that the aid scheme is substantially different from the measures assessed by the Commission in its Decision of 1984 concerning Belgian coordination centres [138].
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 [138].
The contested measure has a different scope since it does not concern intra-group activities, as in the case of the Belgian coordination centres.
Sporni ukrep ima drugačen obseg, ker ne zadeva dejavnosti znotraj skupine kot v primeru belgijskih centrov za koordinacijo.
Moreover, the contested measure has a different structure, which renders it selective, most notably because it applies only to transactions linked to foreign countries.
Poleg tega ima sporni ukrep drugačno strukturo, ki povzroča selektivnost, zlasti ker velja le za transakcije, povezane z drugimi državami.
As regards the impact of the Commission’s statements on the beneficiaries’ legitimate expectations, the Commission takes the view that a distinction should be drawn between two periods: (a) the period starting from the entry into force of the measure on 1 January 2002 until the date of publication of the opening Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union on 21 December 2007; and (b) the period following the publication of the opening Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union.
V zvezi z vplivom izjav Komisije o upravičenih pričakovanjih upravičencev Komisija meni, da je treba razlikovati med dvema obdobjema: (a) obdobjem od začetka veljavnosti ukrepa 1. januarja 2002 do datuma objave odločitve o sprožitvi postopka v Uradnem listu Evropske unije z dne 21. decembra 2007 in (b) obdobjem po objavi odločitve o sprožitvi postopka v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
With reference to the first period, the Commission acknowledges its answers to the parliamentary questions by Mr Erik Mejier and Ms Sharon Bowles regarding the possibility that the contested measure constituted State aid.
Komisija ob sklicevanju na prvo obdobje priznava svoje odgovore na parlamentarna vprašanja Erika Mejierja in Sharon Bowles v zvezi z možnostjo, da je sporni ukrep pomenil državno pomoč.
More precisely, in reply to the parliamentary question by Mr Erik Meijer MEP, on 19 January 2006 a Commissioner answered on behalf of the Commission as follows: ‘The Commission cannot confirm whether the high bids by Spanish companies are due to Spain’s tax legislation enabling undertakings to write off goodwill more quickly than their French or Italian counterparts.
Natančneje, v odgovoru na parlamentarno vprašanje poslanca Evropskega parlamenta Erika Meijerja z dne 19. januarja 2006 je komisar v imenu Komisije odgovoril: „Komisija ne more potrditi, ali visoke ponudbe španskih družb temeljijo na davčni zakonodaji Španije, ki omogoča družbam, da odpišejo dobro ime hitreje kot njihovi francoski ali italijanski kolegi.
The Commission can confirm, however, that such national legislations do not fall within the scope of application of state aid rules, because they rather constitute general depreciation rules applicable to all undertakings in Spain’ [139].
Vendar Komisija lahko potrdi, da take nacionalne zakonodaje ne spadajo na področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči, ker pomenijo splošna pravila o amortizaciji, ki veljajo za vse družbe v Španiji“ [139].