natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With regard to the right to levy taxes or fees, the Belgian authorities consider such a right is linked to AGVO’s public interest tasks and cannot be regarded as State aid and that, in any event, AGVO does not have the power to levy taxes for the locks and the slipways.
V zvezi s pravico do obračunavanja davkov belgijski organi menijo, da je ta pravica povezana z nalogami družbe AGVO v javnem interesu in je ni mogoče obravnavati kot državno pomoč ter da družba AGVO v nobenem primeru ni pristojna za obračunavanje davkov za ladijske prevodnice in operativne površine.
With regard to the buildings, they submit that it would not make any difference whether the buildings are the property of the City or of another public entity.
V zvezi s stavbami navajajo, da je vseeno, ali so v lasti mesta ali druge osebe javnega prava.
They consider the contribution of the buildings to AGVO as a merely internal allocation of property.
Dodelitev stavb družbi AGVO obravnavajo zgolj kot notranjo dodelitev lastnine.
The Belgian authorities recall that AGVO has no commercial activities and that the contribution of the buildings cannot therefore be qualified as State aid.
Belgijski organi opozarjajo, da družba AGVO ne opravlja nobenih trgovinskih dejavnosti in zato dodelitve stavb ni mogoče obravnavati kot državno pomoč.
They add that the contribution of the buildings is linked to the obligation to repair and maintain them in a good state and thus dispute that AGVO has been advantaged by the contribution.
Dodajajo, da je dodelitev stavb povezana z obveznostjo popravil in vzdrževanja v dobrem stanju, tako da družba AGVO s tem ni pridobila ugodnosti.
They consider further that the free guarantees cannot qualify as State aid because they were provided for loans entered into by AGVO for repair works on buildings rented to public authorities.
Belgijski organi nadalje menijo, da brezplačnih garancij ni mogoče obravnavati kot državno pomoč, ker so bile zagotovljene za posojila, za katera je družba AGVO zaprosila za namene popravil stavb, ki jih imajo v najemu javni organi.
They however admit that one of the guaranteed loans (loan of EUR 550000) was used for EVO.
Vendar priznavajo, da je bilo eno od zajamčenih posojil (v znesku 550000 EUR) namenjeno družbi EVO.
Finally, the Belgian authorities note that the Altmark judgment is not relevant because the public tasks of AGVO are non-economic.
Nazadnje, belgijski organi navajajo, da sodna praksa v zadevi Altmark ni pomembna, ker javne naloge družbe AGVO niso gospodarske.
They add that there is no risk of cross-subsidy because AGVO has no commercial activity.
Dodajajo, da ni tveganja navzkrižnega subvencioniranja, ker družba AGVO ne opravlja trgovinskih dejavnosti.
THE AID TO PAKHUIZEN
POMOČ, NAMENJENA DRUŽBI PAKHUIZEN
Belgium submits that Ostend has only a limited right to the land and the long lease is therefore of reduced commercial value.
Belgija navaja, da ima Ostende le omejeno pravico do zemljišč in da ima zato sporazum o emfitevzi manjšo trgovinsko vrednost.
Moreover, PAKHUIZEN is required to repair and renovate the buildings, which is presented as an onerous obligation which amply makes up for the token rent.
Poleg tega mora družba PAKHUIZEN popravljati in obnavljati stavbe, kar se šteje za izredno obveznost, ki v veliki meri nadomešča simbolično najemnino.
The Belgian authorities add that PAKHUIZEN is only active on the market for the management of buildings used in the fishing sector.
Belgijski organi dodajajo, da je družba PAKHUIZEN dejavna le na trgu upravljanja stavb, ki se uporabljajo v ribiškem sektorju.
They take the view that this activity can hardly be considered commercial because of the renovation obligations involved and because of the poor value of the buildings.
Ti organi menijo, da se dejavnost te družbe komaj lahko obravnava kot trgovinska, ker vključuje obveznost obnove in ker je vrednost stavb zelo majhna.
Finally, because the buildings managed by PAKHUIZEN can only be rented for activities linked to the fishing sector, the Belgian authorities argue that PAKHUIZEN does not compete with anyone.
Stavbe, ki jih upravlja družba PAKHUIZEN, se lahko dajo v najem le za dejavnosti, povezane z ribiškim sektorjem, zato belgijski organi nazadnje trdijo, da družba PAKHUIZEN ni konkurenčna nikomur.
The Belgian authorities further observe that AGVO bought the PAKHUIZEN shares at market price and that PAKHUIZEN rents the buildings at market prices (considering that they were not in good state of repair).
Belgijski organi nadalje ugotavljajo, da je družba AGVO kupila delnice družbe PAKHUIZEN po tržni ceni in da daje družba PAKHUIZEN stavbe v najem po tržnih cenah (ob upoštevanju, da niso bile v dobrem stanju).
THE AID TO EVO
POMOČ, NAMENJENA DRUŽBI EVO
The Belgian authorities indicate that the fact that the buildings are at the disposal of EVO free of charge is compensated by the fact that EVO has to bear renovation costs that normally fall upon the owner of the buildings.
Belgijski organi navajajo, da mora družba EVO v zameno za brezplačno razpolaganje s stavbami kriti stroške obnove, ki jih običajno krije lastnik stavb.
They further submit that the free guarantees granted for loans to EVO are to be analysed in the framework of the privatisation and restructuring plan of the auction.
Belgijski organi navajajo tudi, da je treba brezplačne garancije, namenjene družbi EVO, obravnavati v okviru načrta privatizacije in prestrukturiranja dražbe.
They take the view that, in the framework of the restructuring of the fish auction the City acted like a private investor, in so far as the recapitalisation of the fish auction was more profitable from an economic point of view than the closing of the auction and that through the privatisation, the City would be able to recoup its investment through the rent it will ask from the private owner of the auction.
Menijo, da je mesto v okviru prestrukturiranja dražbe rib delovalo kot zasebni vlagatelj, če je bila dokapitalizacija dražbe rib z gospodarskega vidika donosnejša od zaprtja dražbe, in da bo lahko mestu s privatizacijo povrnjena njegova naložba z najemnino, ki jo bo zaračunalo zasebnemu lastniku dražbe.
They also stress that already in 2002 there were plans to privatise the fish auction and that privatisation was only possible after restructuring.
Belgijski organi prav tako poudarjajo, da so že leta 2002 obstajali načrti za privatizacijo dražbe in da je ta mogoča šele po prestrukturiranju.
More specifically on the free guarantee, they observe that the loans were used to complete the financing of the fish auction, which was primarily financed through a capital injection (to AGVO and, through AGVO, to EVO) from the City.
Natančneje v zvezi z brezplačnimi garancijami belgijski organi ugotavljajo, da so se posojila uporabila kot dopolnitev financiranja dražbe rib, ki jo je prvotno financiralo mesto s kapitalskim vložkom (družbi AGVO in prek nje družbi EVO).
The Belgian authorities note that through the guarantee the City has substantially reduced the costs incurred for the restructuring.
Belgijski organi navajajo, da je mesto z garancijo bistveno zmanjšalo stroške prestrukturiranja.
They add that without the guarantee of the City no loan would have been granted and point out that it is normal commercial practice that a parent undertaking offers a guarantee for loans engaged into by its subsidiary.
Poleg tega dodajajo, da posojila brez garancije mesta ne bi bila odobrena, in opozarjajo na običajno poslovno prakso, tj., da matična družba ponudi garancijo za posojila, namenjena svoji hčerinski družbi.
THE AID TO FISHING UNDERTAKINGS/SHIP-OWNERS
POMOČ, NAMENJENA RIBIŠKIM PODJETJEM/LASTNIKOM PLOVIL
The Belgian authorities observe that the Commission has counted the same aid twice and that there is either aid to EVO or to the fishermen but not to both.
Belgijski organi ugotavljajo, da je Komisija isto pomoč štela dvakrat in da gre za pomoč družbi EVO ali pomoč ribičem, ne pa za oboje.
They take the view that, should the measures concerned constitute State aid, they then constitute State aid at the level of EVO and PAKHUIZEN and distort competition at that level but not at the level of vessel-owners and fishing undertakings.
Če se zadevni ukrepi obravnavajo kot državna pomoč, belgijski organi menijo, da je to mogoče na ravni družb EVO in PAKHUIZEN in torej na tej ravni izkrivljajo konkurenco, ne pa tudi na ravni lastnikov plovil in ribiških podjetij.
They add that in any event, EVO and PAKHUIZEN do not offer their services below market prices.
Dodajajo, da družbi EVO in PAKHUIZEN v nobenem primeru ne ponujata storitev pod tržnimi cenami.
Specifically, so far as EVO is concerned, they explain that EVO offers services that are also proposed elsewhere.
V zvezi z družbo EVO belgijski organi pojasnjujejo, da enake storitve, kot jih ponuja družba EVO, ponujajo tudi drugje.
Finally, they state that, in practice, EVO has never enforced the contract articles obliging ship-owners to auction their catches at its auctions.
Nazadnje navajajo, da ni družba EVO v praksi nikoli izvrševala členov iz pogodbe, ki lastnike plovil zavezujejo k licitaciji ulova pri družbi EVO.
PRIVATIZATION PROCEDURE LAUNCHED AFTER INITIATION OF THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
POSTOPEK PRIVATIZACIJE, KI SE JE ZAČEL PO SPROŽITVI POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
Belgium has informed the Commission that it has been decided on 22 May 2008 to privatise the Ostend fish auction and that the City has launched a public selection procedure in order to attract an operational partner run EVO.
Belgija je Komisijo obvestila, da je bil 22. maja 2008 sprejet sklep o privatizaciji dražbe rib v Ostendeju in da je mesto sprožilo javni postopek izbire, da bi privabilo operativnega partnerja za upravljanje družbe EVO.
In its comments, Belgium explains that the privatisation will take place through the establishment of a new undertaking (‘NewCo’) that will carry out the operation of the fish auction.
V svojih pripombah Belgija pojasnjuje, da bo privatizacija izvedena z ustanovitvijo nove družbe, ki bo izvajala upravljanje dražbe rib.
The buildings of the fish auction will return to the City and NewCo will have to sign a lease agreement with the City.
Stavbe, ki se uporabljajo za dražbo rib, bodo vrnjene mestu in nova družba bo morala z mestom skleniti najemno pogodbo.
NewCo will not be obliged to take over the other assets of the fish auction (employees, fish boxes, contracts, loans to ship-owners, etc.).
Novi družbi ne bo treba prevzeti ostalega premoženja dražbe rib (zaposlenih, zabojev za ribe, pogodb, posojil lastnikom plovil itd.).
As the sale and the rental agreement will be negotiated at market prices, no aid will be transferred to NewCo and no aid can be recovered from NewCo.
Ker bosta prodajna in najemna pogodba sklenjeni po tržnih cenah, novi družbi ne bo dodeljena nobena pomoč in ta družba prav tako nobene pomoči ne bo vrnila.
In its letter of 16 November 2009, Belgium informed the Commission of the further developments of the privatisation process.
Belgija je v dopisu z dne 16. novembra 2009 Komisijo obvestila o nadaljnjem razvoju postopka privatizacije.
It indicates that, as a first step, the property of the buildings belonging to AGVO has been transferred back, free of charge, to the City on 4 September 2009, as well as rights and obligations relating to the buildings (rental contracts).
Belgijski organi navajajo, da je bilo najprej lastništvo nad stavbami, ki pripadajo družbi AGVO, 4. septembra 2009 brezplačno preneseno nazaj na mesto, vključno s pravicami in obveznostmi v zvezi s stavbami (najemne pogodbe).
The City has also taken over various loans from AGVO and PAKHUIZEN.
Mesto je prevzelo tudi različna posojila od družb AGVO in PAKHUIZEN.
Belgium argues that the fact that the property of the buildings has been transferred back to the City puts an end to the State aid issue.
Belgija navaja, da po vrnitvi lastništva nad stavbami mestu ni več razloga za obravnavo vprašanja državne pomoči.
So far as EVO is concerned, Belgium has explained that the candidate fulfilling the selection criteria did not offer conditions which were satisfactory for the City.
V zvezi z družbo EVO Belgija pojasnjuje, da kandidat, ki je izpolnjeval merila za izbiro, mestu ni omogočal zadovoljivih pogojev.
EVO will therefore continue to exist until a suitable candidate is found to take over EVO’s assets.
Družba EVO bo še naprej poslovala, dokler ne bo izbran primeren kandidat za prevzem njenega premoženja.
Finally, Belgium indicated that AGVO would continue to exist until all remaining debts/obligations are settled.
Nazadnje je Belgija navedla, da bo družba AGVO še naprej poslovala, dokler ne bo poravnala vseh dolgov/obveznosti.
Belgium asks the Commission to postpone its decision until the privatisation process is finished.
Belgija poziva Komisijo k odložitvi svoje odločitve do zaključka postopka privatizacije.
BELGIUM’S OBSERVATIONS FOLLOWING THE COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES
UGOTOVITVE BELGIJE V ZVEZI S PRIPOMBAMI TRETJIH OSEB
Belgium indicates, so far as the Icelandic issue is concerned, that EVO never directly purchased fish from Icelandic ship-owners or fishermen but only from Icelandic fish auctions, through a sales agent.
V zvezi z islandskim vprašanjem Belgija navaja, da ni družba EVO nikoli kupovala rib neposredno od islandskih lastnikov plovil ali ribičev, temveč le na islandskih dražbah rib prek prodajnega zastopnika.
Belgium adds that it soon became clear that the resale of the Icelandic fish was not profitable.
Belgija dodaja, da se je nadaljnja prodaja islandskih rib kmalu pokazala za nedonosno.
Thus, after approximately one year, it was decided, on 17 March 2006, to put an end to these purchases and resales.
Zato je po približno enem letu 17. marca 2006 sklenila prenehati s temi nakupi in nadaljnjo prodajo.
Belgium has submitted a copy of the said decision.
Belgija je predložila izvod navedenega sklepa.
Belgium explains that the reason why fish was bought against high prices at Icelandic fish auctions and then resold in Ostend at lower prices was not due to any strategy aiming at attracting Icelandic fish to Ostend but was due to the fact that the fish of higher quality which was bought by the sales agent in Iceland and meant for EVO never reached EVO but instead was directly bought by a private filleting undertaking, Luna Fish, whereas Icelandic fish of lesser quality arrived at EVO and could then not be sold at profitable prices, given its lesser quality.
Belgija pojasnjuje, da se ribe na dražbah rib v Islandiji niso kupovale po visokih cenah in potem nadalje prodajale v Ostendeju po nižjih cenah z namenom privabljanja islandskih rib v Ostende, ampak zato, ker ribe višje kakovosti, ki jih je prodajni agent kupil na Islandiji za družbo EVO, niso nikoli prispele v družbo EVO, temveč jih je neposredno kupilo zasebno podjetje za filetiranje Luna Fish, medtem ko so v družbo EVO prispele ribe nižje kakovosti, ki jih zaradi tega ni bilo mogoče prodati po dobičkonosnih cenah.
Belgium concludes that EVO was therefore rather a victim of these practices.
Zato Belgija meni, da je bila družba EVO kvečjemu žrtev teh praks.
The delegated administrator of AGVO/EVO and the commercial director were dismissed when the problem was discovered.
Pooblaščeni upravitelj družbe AGVO/EVO in trgovinski direktor sta bila po odkritju težave odpuščena.
So far as the alleged free secondment of staff for administrative, accountancy and maintenance tasks is concerned, Belgium submits that ZV’s statements are based on mere suspicions and that EVO has its own employees to perform those tasks and that, furthermore, some of EVO’s employees sometimes discharge public interest tasks (maintenance of the fish auction road).
V zvezi z domnevnim brezplačnim razpolaganjem z javnimi uslužbenci za upravne, računovodske in vzdrževalne naloge Belgija navaja, da temeljijo izjave ZV le na domnevah in da ima družba EVO za opravljanje navedenih nalog svoje uslužbence ter da poleg tega nekateri uslužbenci družbe EVO včasih opravljajo naloge v javnem interesu (vzdrževanje ceste do dražbe rib).
Belgium also mentions that the statement made by ZV that EVO would guarantee a minimum price by reference to the auction price at the Zeebrugse fish auction is not supported by any evidence.
Belgija tudi omenja, da izjava ZV glede tega, da je družba EVO zagotovila minimalno ceno glede na ceno na dražbi rib v Zeebruggeju, ni podprta z nobenimi dokazi.
Belgium adds that fishing undertakings might have alleged this when negotiating with ZV, as part of a strategy to obtain better commercial conditions from ZV.
Belgija dodaja, da so ribiške družbe pri pogajanju z ZV morda domnevale, da je to del strategije za pridobitev boljših trgovinskih pogojev pri ZV.
As for the Ostend Filleting Factory (OFF) issue, Belgium stresses that the documents submitted by third parties only indicate that OFF was set up by private parties and do not reveal how OFF would have engaged in unfair competition.
V zvezi z vprašanjem tovarne za filetiranje v Ostendeju (Ostend Filleting Factory–OFF) Belgija poudarja, da dokumenti, ki so jih predložile tretje osebe, dokazujejo le, da so to tovarno ustanovile zasebne stranke, in ne razkrivajo sodelovanja tovarne v nelojalni konkurenci.
Belgium states that it was only in March 2006 that PAKHUIZEN acquired 60 % of the shares in OFF. The name ‘OFF’ was then changed to ‘Ostend Premium Fish bvba’ and the company finally went bankrupt on 14 January 2008.
Belgija navaja, da je družba PAKHUIZEN dejansko šele marca 2006 pridobila 60 % delnic tovarne OFF. Ta tovarna se je nato preimenovala v Ostend Premium Fish bvba in nazadnje šla v stečaj 14. januarja 2008.
On the alleged losses suffered by Gardec and Flanders Ship Repair as a result of the State aid, Belgium considers that, even if State aid were to induce vessels to go to Oostende instead of Zeebrugge, the causal link with the loss would still not be demonstrated.
V zvezi z domnevnimi izgubami družbe Gardec in družbe za popravilo ladij v Flandriji zaradi državne pomoči Belgija meni, da kljub odhajanju plovil zaradi državne pomoči v Ostende namesto v Zeebrugge to še vedno ne dokazuje povezave z izgubami.
Belgium submits that ship-owners do not always let their vessel be repaired in their home port and instead make use of cheaper repair services in Eastern Europe (Poland).
Belgija navaja, da lastniki svojih ladij ne peljejo vedno na popravilo v domače pristanišče, ampak raje izkoristijo cenejše storitve v Vzhodni Evropi (na Poljskem).
Belgium observes that there has been a clear decline in ship repair work in Oostende.
Belgija ugotavlja, da je v Ostendeju mogoče opaziti bistveno upadanje družb za popravilo ladij.
By letters of 13 March and 26 June 2006 the Commission asked the Belgian authorities for information about the legal situation of the Ostend fish auction, the involvement of the State and for details about the financial flows between the State and the fish auction.
Komisija je v dopisih z dne 13. marca in 26. junija 2006 belgijske organe zaprosila za informacije o pravnem položaju dražbe rib v Ostendeju in sodelovanju države ter zahtevala podrobnosti glede finančnih tokov med državo in dražbo rib.
In their letter of 19 October 2006, the Belgian authorities underlined the fact that in addition to its commercial activity (running of the fish auction), AGVO was entrusted with public interest tasks.
Belgijski organi so v dopisu z dne 19. oktobra 2006 poudarili, da družba AGVO poleg trgovinskih dejavnosti (vodenje dražbe rib) opravlja naloge javnega interesa.
The information provided on this point was, however, very sketchy and contained nothing to enable the Commission to assess whether the advantages granted by the City to AGVO could be considered compensation for tasks of general (economic) interest and whether there were no over-compensation and risks of cross-subsidies.
Vendar so bile te informacije zelo omejene in niso vključevale dejstev, na podlagi katerih bi lahko Komisija ocenila, ali je mogoče ugodnosti, ki jih je mesto dodelilo družbi AGVO, obravnavati kot nadomestila za naloge splošnega (gospodarskega) pomena ter ali ni bilo previsokih nadomestil in tveganj navzkrižnega subvencioniranja.
Therefore, by letter dated 11 July 2007, the Commission asked the Belgian authorities, in accordance with Article 10(2) Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, to provide detailed information on the public tasks entrusted to AGVO.
Zato je Komisija v skladu s členom 10(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 v dopisu z dne 11. julija 2007 pozvala belgijske organe k predložitvi podrobnih informacij o javnih nalogah, ki jih opravlja družba AGVO.
In particular, it asked whether and on which basis those tasks could be considered tasks of public service within the meaning of Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest [15].
Komisija je pozvala predvsem k odgovoru, na kakšni podlagi, če je to sploh mogoče, se lahko zadevne naloge obravnavajo kot naloge javnega interesa v skladu z Odločbo Komisije 2005/842/ES z dne 28. novembra 2005 o uporabi člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES za državne pomoči v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve, dodeljene nekaterim podjetjem, pooblaščenim za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena [15].
By letter of 27 November 2007 the Belgian authorities merely stated that none of the tasks entrusted to AGVO were economic and that Decision 2005/842/EC was not relevant.
Belgijski organi so v dopisu z dne 27. novembra 2007 navedli le, da nobena od nalog, ki jih opravlja družba AGVO, ni gospodarskega pomena in da Odločba Komisije št. 2005/842/ES ni pomembna.
They stated that AGVO is not compensated for any of the public tasks it performs.
Prav tako so navedli, da družba AGVO ne prejema nadomestil za javne naloge, ki jih opravlja.
In its decision of 2 July 2008 to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission found that AGVO, EVO and PAKHUIZEN formed a group of undertakings active on the market for fish auctioning and ancillary services and were given various advantages from the City that distorted competition on the market.
Komisija v svoji odločitvi z dne 2. julija 2008 o sprožitvi uradnega postopka preiskave ugotavlja, da družbe AGVO, EVO in PAKHUIZEN oblikujejo skupino družb, dejavnih na trgu licitiranja rib in pomožnih storitev, ter da jim je mesto dodelilo različne ugodnosti, ki izkrivljajo konkurenco na trgu.
On the issue of compensation for public tasks, the Commission noted that there was no element in the file indicating that the criteria developed by the Court of Justice in its Altmark judgment were fulfilled.
V zvezi z nadomestili za javne naloge Komisija ugotavlja, da dokumentacija ne vključuje nobenih dejstev, ki bi kazala, da so merila, ki jih je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti oblikovalo v sodbi Altmark, izpolnjena.
Moreover, given the lack of information on that point, the Commission was not in a position to determine whether in particular the right to establish and collect tax duties could be considered compensation granted for services of public interest and thus doubted the compatibility of the aid.
Poleg tega Komisija zaradi pomanjkanja informacij na tej točki ni mogla oceniti, ali se lahko predvsem pravica do uvedbe in pobiranja davkov obravnava kot nadomestilo za storitve javnega interesa, in je dvomila glede združljivosti pomoči.
Consequently, in recital 121 of its decision to initiate the formal investigation, the Commission invited the Belgian authorities to communicate any information that might be of use for the assessment of the measures at issue.
Zato Komisija v uvodni izjavi 121 odločitve o sprožitvi uradnega postopka preiskave belgijske organe poziva k predložitvi vseh informacij, ki bi lahko bile v pomoč pri oceni zadevnih ukrepov.