natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Basic economic reasoning implies that such an increase in supply will generate an overall price reduction irrespective of the amount of production Ciudad de la Luz is able to attract.
Osnovno ekonomsko razmišljanje zahteva, da bo tako povečanje ponudbe povzročilo splošno znižanje cen, ne glede na količino produkcije, ki jo lahko pritegne Ciudad de la Luz.
As it would affect the overall market price, such a price reduction could not be observed by comparing Ciudad de la Luz’s price-setting with that of its competitors.
Ker bi tako zmanjšanje vplivalo na splošno tržno ceno, tega ne bi bilo mogoče opaziti s primerjavo cene, ki jo določa Ciudad de la Luz, s ceno konkurentov.
Furthermore, the building of Ciudad de la Luz may encourage other Member States to carry out similar investments.
Poleg tega lahko izgradnja Ciudad de la Luz spodbudi druge države članice k podobnim naložbam.
Finally, given its modern facilities, Ciudad de la Luz’s position in the market may change in the future.
Poleg tega se glede na sodobno opremo položaj Ciudad de la Luz na trgu v prihodnje spremeni.
On the basis of the above, the measure cannot be considered to be compatible under Article 107(3)(c), as it does not address a market failure of the sector and risks adversely affecting competition and trade.
Na podlagi navedenega se ukrep ne more šteti za skladnega na podlagi člena 107(3)(c), ker ne rešuje tržne nepopolnosti v sektorju ter tvega, da bo škodljivo vplival na konkurenco in trgovino.
Cultural aid — investment in film studio construction
Pomoč za kulturo – naložba v izgradnjo filmskega studia
The Spanish authorities have not provided any arguments to modify the Commission’s view expressed in the opening decision that it ‘considers that there is no element indicating that [the cultural] exception can be applied to State aid that provides the construction and operating costs of a new, large film studio complex.’ The opening decision discounted the possibility of treating the studios as ‘cultural infrastructure’ as they are highly specialised and their use is limited to the audiovisual sector (for making films, TV productions and commercials).
Španski organi niso predložili nobenih trditev, s katerimi bi spremenili stališče, ki ga je Komisija izrazila v sklepu o začetku postopka, in sicer, da „meni, da ni nobenega elementa, ki bi kazal, da se lahko za državno pomoč, ki pokriva stroške izgradnje in delovanja novega, velikega kompleksa filmskega studia, uporabi izjema [v zvezi s kulturo]“. Sklep o začetku postopka zavrača možnost obravnave studiev kot „kulturne infrastrukture“, ker so visoko specializirani in ker je njihova uporaba omejena na avdiovizualni sektor (za snemanje filmov, TV-produkcij in reklam).
To apply the cultural exception provided for in Article 107(3)(d) TFEU to funding not covered by the Cinema Communication, the aid would need to have been not only necessary, proportionate and adequate, (as for the Article 107(3)(c) assessment above) but also directed towards a cultural objective.
Za uporabo izjeme v zvezi s kulturo iz člena 107(3)(d) PDEU za finančna sredstva, ki jih ne pokriva sporočilo o kinematografiji, bi morala biti pomoč ne le potrebna, sorazmerna in primerna, (kakor v oceni člena 107(3)(c) zgoraj), temveč tudi usmerjena v kulturne cilje.
As it is found that these criteria are not under Article 107(3)(c), the same applies with regard to Article 107(3)(d).
Ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da člen 107(3)(c) ne velja za ta merila, enako velja tudi v zvezi s členom 107(3)(d).
Cultural aid — incentives to film producers
Pomoč za kulturo – spodbude filmskim producentom
In December 2008, the Commission approved the film incentives offered by the Valencia region on the basis of the Cinema Communication [39].
Komisija je decembra 2008 odobrila filmske spodbude, ki jih je ponujala regija Valencija na podlagi Sporočila o kinematografiji [39].
Prior to this, any incentives granted by the Valencia regional government in connection with filming at Ciudad de la Luz cannot be considered compatible in cases where filming in Ciudad de la Luz had been a condition of the aid (this is contrary to the fourth criterion of the Cinema Communication, which excludes aid supplements for specific film production activities).
Pred tem ni bilo mogoče šteti, da so spodbude, ki jih je odobrila regionalna vlada Valencije v zvezi s snemanjem filmov v Ciudad de la Luz, skladne v primerih, če je bilo snemanje filmov v Ciudad de la Luz pogoj za pomoč (to je v nasprotju s četrtim merilom Sporočila o kinematografiji, ki izvzema pomoč za posebne dejavnosti filmske produkcije).
Finally, there is no need to examine further in the framework of the present decision, whether aid was granted to film producers.
Prav tako v okviru tega sklepa ni treba nadalje preučevati, ali je bila pomoč dodeljena filmskim producentom.
The Commission finds that Spain has granted State aid to Ciudad de la Luz SA in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Španija dodelila državno pomoč Ciudad de la Luz SA in s tem kršila člen 108(3) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
The investment in Ciudad de la Luz made by the Valencia region would not have been made by a private investor on the same terms and conditions.
Naložb, ki jih je izvedla regija Valencija v Ciudad de la Luz, zasebni vlagatelj pod enakimi pogoji ne bi izvedel.
As a result, the entire public investment in the project is considered by the Commission to be illegal aid.
Zato Komisija šteje, da je celotna javna naložba v projekt nezakonita pomoč.
Consequently, the aid amount up to December 2010 is the total of EUR 265089599 of direct public investment in Ciudad de la Luz SA and any incentive granted to film producers under the condition that filming took place at Ciudad de la Luz.
Zato se kot pomoč do decembra 2010 šteje celoten znesek 265089599 EUR neposrednih javnih naložb v Ciudad de la Luz SA in vse spodbude filmskim producentom, dodeljene pod pogojem, da snemanje poteka v Ciudad de la Luz.
According to the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union and the established case law of the Court of Justice, the Commission is competent to decide that the State concerned must abolish or alter aid [40] when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market.
V skladu s Pogodbo o delovanju Evropske unije in ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije je Komisija pristojna za odločanje, ali mora zadevna država odpraviti ali spremeniti pomoč [40], če ugotovi, da je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom.
The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish or alter aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation [41].
Sodišče tudi dosledno šteje, da je obveznost države, da odpravi ali spremeni pomoč, ki jo Komisija šteje za nezdružljivo z notranjim trgom, določena tako, da ponovno vzpostavi predhodno stanje [41].
In this context, the Court has established that this objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored [42].
Sodišče je zato odločilo, da je ta cilj dosežen, če prejemnik vrne zneske, ki so bili dodeljeni z nezakonito pomočjo, in se tako odpove ugodnostim, ki jih je užival v primerjavi s konkurenti na trgu, ter če se ponovno vzpostavi stanje pred plačilom pomoči [42].
In accordance with that case-law, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [43] lays down that ‘where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.’
Člen 14 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 [43] v skladu z navedeno sodno prakso določa, da „če se v primerih nezakonite pomoči sprejmejo negativne odločbe, Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč“ –
The initial share capital and the subsequent share capital increases amounting to EUR 94459719, land allocated to Ciudad de la Luz amounting to EUR 9800040, the participating loans amounting to EUR 115 million, the convertible loan stock issued since 2008 totalling EUR 45829840 granted unlawfully to Spain by Ciudad de la Luz SA prior to 31 December 2010, and any incentive granted to film producers under the condition that filming takes place at Ciudad de la Luz, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty, constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market.
Začetni delniški kapital in poznejša dokapitalizacija v višini 94459719 EUR, zemljišče, dodeljeno Ciudad de la Luz v vrednosti 9800040 EUR, udeležbena posojila v znesku 115 milijonov EUR, zamenljive podjetniške obveznice, izdane od leta 2008 naprej, v znesku 45829840 EUR, ki jih je Ciudad de la Luz SA do 31. decembra 2010 nezakonito izdala Španiji, in vse spodbude, dodeljene filmskim producentom pod pogojem, da snemanje poteka v Ciudad de la Luz, ki kršijo člen 108(3) Pogodbe, so državna pomoč, ki je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom.
Spain shall recover the incompatible aid granted under Article 1 from the beneficiary.
Španija od upravičenca izterja dodeljeno nezdružljivo pomoč iz člena 1.
The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Council Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [44].
Obresti se izračunajo na podlagi obrestnoobrestnega računa v skladu s poglavjem V Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 794/2004 [44].
Spain shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.
Španija prekliče vsa neizvedena izplačila pomoči, navedene v členu 1, z začetkom veljavnosti na datum sprejetja tega sklepa.
Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.
Pomoč iz člena 1 mora biti povrnjena takoj in učinkovito.
Spain shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification thereof.
Španija zagotovi, da se ta sklep izvede v štirih mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tem sklepu.
Within two months following notification of this Decision, Spain shall submit the following information:
Španija v dveh mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tem sklepu predloži naslednje podatke:
the total amount (principal and interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;
skupni znesek (glavnica in obresti), ki se izterja od upravičenca;
a detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;
natančen opis ukrepov, ki so že sprejeti ali načrtovani za uskladitev s tem sklepom;
Spain shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed.
Španija obvešča Komisijo o napredku glede nacionalnih ukrepov za izvajanje tega sklepa, dokler se vračanje pomoči iz člena 1 ne konča.
It shall immediately submit, at the request of the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision.
Na zahtevo Komisije takoj predloži informacije o že sprejetih in načrtovanih ukrepih za delovanje v skladu s tem sklepom.
It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered from the beneficiary.
Zagotovi tudi podrobne informacije o zneskih pomoči in obrestih za povračilo pomoči, ki jih je upravičenec že povrnil.
OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 21.
UL C 134, 31.5.2008, str. 21.
Complainant A is a major European film studio.
Pritožnik A je večji evropski filmski studio.
It has asked that its identity is not made public.
Prosil je, naj njegova identiteta ne bo javno objavljena.
‘New Valencia studio offers film rebates’ http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117958591.html?categoryid=19 & cs=1;
„New Valencia studio offers film rebates“ http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117958591.html?categoryid=19 & cs=1;
‘Polanski’s Pompeii takes shape’ http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117963040?refcatid=19 & printerfriendly=true
„Polanski’s Pompeii takes shape“http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117963040?refcatid=19 & printerfriendly=true
Complainant B is a major player in the European film sector.
Pritožnik B je večji subjekt v evropskem filmskem sektorju.
It too has asked that its identity is not made public.
Tudi ta je prosil, naj njegova identiteta ne bo javno objavljena.
With the capital transfer of 7 October 2004, Ciudad de la Luz SA became Ciudad de la Luz SAU, a company with a single shareholder (sociedad anónima unipersonal) with all of its share capital owned by SPTCV.
S prenosom sredstev dne 7. oktobra 2004 je Ciudad de la Luz SA postala Ciudad de la Luz SAU, družba z enim delničarjem (sociedad anónima unipersonal), ves njen delniški kapital pa je bil v lasti SPTCV.
Hollywood Reporter article ‘Let there be light’ — 31 October, 2006:
Članek v Hollywood Reporterju„Let there be light“, 31. oktober 2006:
Annex I to reply from Spain of 28 April 2008:
Priloga I k odgovoru Španije z dne 28. april 2008:
‘La Industria Audiovisual: Continuo crecimiento’ ( Estudios e Investigationes Audiovisuales — January 1999).
„La Industria Audiovisual: Continuo crecimiento“ ( Estudios e Investigationes Audiovisuales – januar 1999).
Annex IV to reply from Spain of 28 April 2008:
Priloga IV k odgovoru Španije z dne 28. april 2008:
‘Estudio de Alternativas de Ubicación de un Centro de Producción Audiovisual de Alta Tecnología en la Comunidad Valenciana — Executive Summary’ (PriceWaterhouseCoopers — 30 January 2000).
„Estudio de Alternativas de Ubicación de un Centro de Producción Audiovisual de Alta Tecnología en la Comunidad Valenciana – Executive Summary“ (PriceWaterhouseCoopers – 30. januar 2000).
Annex II to reply from Spain of 28 April 2008:
Priloga II k odgovoru Španije z dne 28. aprila 2008:
‘Ciudad Audiovisual de la Comunidad Valenciana — Análisis Preliminar de la Viabilidad del Proyecto’ (Arthur Andersen — undated).
„Ciudad Audiovisual de la Comunidad Valenciana – Análisis Preliminar de la Viabilidad del Proyecto“ (Arthur Andersen – brez datuma).
Annex III to reply from Spain of 28 April 2008:
Priloga III k odgovoru Španije z dne 28. aprila 2008:
‘Plan de negocio y viabilidad de la ciudad audiovisual de la Comunidad Valenciana’ (Arthur Andersen — undated).
„Plan de negocio y viabilidad de la ciudad audiovisual de la Comunidad Valenciana“ (Arthur Andersen – brez datuma).
Annex VI to reply from Spain of 28 April 2008:
Priloga VI k odgovoru Španije z dne 28. aprila 2008:
‘Líneas Estratégicas y Plan de Negocio 2004-2014’ (Consultia IT — 7 May 2004).
„Líneas Estratégicas y Plan de Negocio 2004–2014“ (Consultia IT – 7. maj 2004).
Previously known as Sociedad Parque Temático de Alicante, SAU.
Prej imenovana Sociedad Parque Temático de Alicante, SAU.
State aid decisions N379/07 (2.4.2008), N309/08 (15.12.2008) and N108/09 (30.7.2009).
Sklepi o državni pomoči N379/07 (2.4.2008), N309/08 (15.12.2008) in N108/09 (30.7.2009)
The national subsidy can be as high as 24 % of the production costs in the UK and 20 % in Germany.
Nacionalna subvencija lahko doseže do 24 % stroškov produkcije v Združenem kraljestvu in 20 % v Nemčiji.
The subsidy race between national film support schemes to attract inward investment from major film productions is being addressed by the Commission in its review of the Cinema Communication.
Komisija v svojem pregledu Sporočila o kinematografiji obravnava tekmovanje v subvencijah med nacionalnimi shemami za podporo filma, s katerimi bi privabili notranje naložbe.
However, Ecorys also includes the European studios Babelsberg in the benchmarking, aggregated to the other worldwide companies.
Svetovalna družba Ecorys je pripravila neodvisno študijo o zadevi. Glej podrobnosti v oddelku V.
Study on applying the market economy investor principle to the public investment in Ciudad de la Luz — Final report (Ecorys — 19 July 2011).
Study on applying the market economy investor principle to the public investment in Ciudad de la Luz – Final report (Ecorys, 19. julija 2011)
For instance, in Citynet Amsterdam, the Commission considered that the MEIP was fulfilled, as the public investor invested on terms comparable to those of the private investor in the project.
V primeru Citynet Amsterdam je Komisija na primer ugotovila, da je projekt ustrezal načelu vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, ker je javni vlagatelj vlagal po pogojih, ki so primerljivi s pogoji zasebnega vlagatelja v projektu.
Decision of 11 December 2007, C 53/2006.
Odločba z dne 11. decembra 2007, C 53/2006.
In Valmont, the CFI considered that the Commission should not have simply relied on the existence of an independent expert’s assessment to determine whether a sale of land involved the granting of State aid.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v zadevi Valmont menilo, da se Komisija ne bi smela zanesti samo na poročilo neodvisnega cenilca, da bi odločila, ali je šlo pri prodaji zadevnih zemljišč za državno pomoč.
The CFI required that the Commission should also have verified its evidential value, something which the CFI then did itself (Case T-274-01).
Sodišče prve stopnje je zahtevalo, da bi morala Komisija preveriti tudi dokazno vrednost, kar je potem storilo samo (zadeva T-274/01).
In Hamsa (Case C-316/02) and Lenzing (Case C-525/04), the Court of Justice recognised that the Commission has a margin of discretion with regard to economic matters, but that it ‘must establish whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent …’.
V zadevah Hamsa (C-316/02) in Lenzing (C-525/04) Sodišče Evropske unije Komisiji priznava območje proste presoje glede ekonomskih zadev, hkrati pa mora Sodišče „preveriti […] samo vsebinsko točnost navedenih dokazov, njihovo zanesljivost in doslednost“.
By definition, the internal rate of return corresponds to the discount rate which makes the net present value of the investment equal to zero.
Notranja stopnja donosa po definiciji ustreza diskontirani stopnji, po kateri je neto sedanja vrednost naložbe enaka nič.
Brealey and Myers, 2000, Principles of Corporate Finance, Sixth Edition (Chapter 5, p. 100).
Brealey in Myers, 2000, Principles of Corporate Finance, šesta izdaja (poglavje 5, str. 100)
See for e.g. Brealey and Myers, 2000, Principles of Corporate Finance, Sixth Edition (Chapter 8).
Glej npr. Brealey in Myers, 2000, Principles of Corporate Finance, šesta izdaja (poglavje 8)
Pablo Fernández 2004, ‘Market risk premium: required, historical and expected’, Working paper IESE Business School.
Pablo Fernández 2004, „Market risk premium: required, historical and expected“, Working paper IESE Business School.
‘The equity premium in 150 textbooks’, Working paper IESE Business School.
„The equity premium in 150 textbooks“, Working paper IESE Business School.
The independent Ecorys report goes further, looking also at the assumptions of the business plan and criticising several of them.
Neodvisno poročilo družbe Ecorys gre še naprej ter upošteva tudi predpostavke poslovnega načrta in nekatere kritizira.
For instance, it points out that ‘the choice of its location does not seem strategically obvious as no synergies with surrounding film industry could be identified. And there are other regions in Spain with similar geographical locations nearer to existing film industry cluster’ (p. 30).
Izpostavlja na primer, da „izbor lokacije ni videti strateško utemeljen, ker ni mogoče utemeljiti nobene povezave z okoliško filmsko industrijo. V Španiji so druge regije s podobnimi geografskimi lokacijami, ki so bližje jedrom filmske industrije“ (str. 30).
Further:
Dalje:
‘Note in this respect that especially in the first years of operation of the studio and the school, there will be no locally trained and graduated resources locally available. Therefore a prudent private investor would probably have preferred another location to implement a similar film studio’ (p. 31).With regard to the 2004 investment, it points out:
„Glede tega je treba omeniti, da zlasti v prvih letih delovanja studia in šole v bližini ne bo lokalno usposobljenih in izobraženih virov. Zato bi verjetno preudaren zasebni vlagatelj raje izbral drugo lokacijo za izvedbo podobnega filmskega studia“ (str. 31). V zvezi z naložbo iz leta 2004 poudarja:
‘It can be questioned if a private investor would choose to build a greenfield film studio in an area where no adequate human resources were available in the first years of operation of the studio and the school’ (p. 39).
„Vprašljivo je, ali bi se zasebni vlagatelj odločil za gradnjo novega filmskega studia na območju, kjer v prvih letih delovanja studia in šole ni na voljo primernih človeških virov“ (str. 39).
Reference to second LECG report.
Sklic na drugo poročilo LECG.
Ecorys, Study on applying the market economy investor principle to the public investment in Ciudad de la Luz, 19 July 2011.
Ecorys, Study on applying the market economy investor principle to the public investment in Ciudad de la Luz, 19. julija 2011.
Pages 30 and 39 of the Ecorys report.
Strani 30 in 39 poročila Ecorys.
As set out in recitals 29 and 53.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 29 in 53.
As the loans are considered equity investment, interest charges are not taken into account.
Ker se posojila štejejo za kapitalske naložbe, se stroški obresti ne upoštevajo.
See in particular, NN 84/2004 of 22 March 2006 — France — Régimes d’aide au cinéma et à l’audiovisuel.
Glej zlasti NN 84/04 z dne 22. marca 2006 – Francija – sheme pomoči za kinematografijo in avdiovizualno produkcijo.
In this case, the Commission cleared ex post on the basis of Articles 107(3)(c) and/or (d) TFEU, aid measures to support, notably, film distribution, creation, refurbishment or modernisation of cinemas, video-music or video distribution, R & D and development of post-production technologies.
V tem primeru je Komisija naknadno odobrila ukrepe pomoči na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) in/ali (d) PDEU, namenjene zlasti podpori filmske distribucije, ustvarjanja, prenove ali posodobitve kinematografov, distribucije video-glasbe ali videa, raziskavam in razvoju ter razvoja postprodukcijskih tehnologij.
See also N 192/2008 of 11 April 2008 — Spain — Promotion of dubbing and subtitling of movies in Basque.
Glej tudi N 192/08 z dne 11. aprila 2008 – Španija – promocija sinhronizacije in podnaslavljanja filmov v baskovščini.
Public goods exist in cases where it is not possible to provide a good or service to one person without excluding others or where there is non-rivalry in consumption (e.g. street lighting, roads).
Javne dobrine obstajajo v primerih, ko ni mogoče zagotoviti blaga ali storitev eni osebi, ne da bi izključili drugih, ali če v potrošnji ni konkurence (npr. ulična razsvetljava, ceste).
Goods of general interest or merit goods are those goods and services that the government feels that people will under-consume and which therefore ought to be subsidised or provided for free (e.g. education, public libraries).
Blago v splošnem interesu ali javne dobrine so tisto blago in storitve, za katere vlada meni, da jih ljudje potrošijo premalo in jih je zato treba subvencionirati ali zagotoviti zastonj (npr. izobraževanje, javne knjižnice).
The 2001 Cinema Communication sets out the criteria by which the cultural derogation of Article 107(3)(d) could be applied to aid schemes supporting the production of audiovisual works.
Sporočilo o kinematografiji iz leta 2001 določa merila, s katerimi se lahko uporabljajo kulturna odstopanja iz člena 107(3)(d) za sheme pomoči za podporo produkciji avdiovizualnih del.
Case C-70/72 Commission v Germany, paragraph 13.
Zadeva Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-70/72, točka 13.
Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Commission, paragraph 75.
Združene zadeve Španija proti Komisiji, C-278/92, C-279/92 in C-280/92, točka 75.
Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission, paragraphs 64-65.
Zadeva Belgija proti Komisiji, C-75/97, točki 64–65.
Total amount of aid to be recovered [1](Principal)
Skupni znesek pomoči, ki ga je treba izterjati [1](glavnica)
Total amount already reimbursed [1]
Skupni že povrnjeni znesek pomoči [1]
Millions of national currency.
V milijonih nacionalne valute.