natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission would observe that the competitor bases its assertion on a press article [21] which seems to indicate that Fagor can easily raise funds on the financial markets.
Komisija ugotavlja, da trditev konkurenta temelji na časopisnem članku [21], v katerem je navedeno, da lahko Fagor verjetno brez težav pridobi sredstva na finančnih trgih.
It should be noted, however, that the article in question dates from April 2005 and that Fagor’s financial situation deteriorated markedly thereafter.
Vendar Komisija opozarja, da je bil navedeni članek objavljen aprila 2005 in da se je finančni položaj družbe Fagor pozneje močno poslabšal.
The French authorities point out in this connection that Fagor’s financial debts (not including those of FagorBrandt) trebled in 2005, following the acquisition of all of FagorBrandt’s shares and heavy industrial investment by Fagor.
Francoski organi v zvezi s tem opozarjajo, da so se finančni dolgovi družbe Fagor (brez konsolidacije dolgov skupine FagorBrandt) v letu 2005 potrojili, zlasti zaradi nakupa delnic podjetja FagorBrandt in velikih industrijskih naložb v Fagor.
The French authorities have also explained that the FagorBrandt group’s sole shareholder, Fagor, is a cooperative society incorporated under Spanish law.
Poleg tega so francoski organi pojasnili, da je Fagor, edini delničar skupine FagorBrandt, zadruga delavcev – družbenikov, ustanovljena po španskem pravu.
Fagor’s capital is divided among approximately 3500 members, all of them worker-cooperators; no member may hold more than 25 % of the capital.
Njen kapital je porazdeljen med približno 3500 članov, ki so izključno zaposleni – družbeniki, od katerih nihče ne more imeti v lasti več kot 25 % kapitala zadruge.
As a result of this legal form Fagor is unable to launch increases in capital open to outside subscribers.
Zaradi te pravne oblike Fagor ne more zagotoviti povečanja kapitala, tj. možnosti, ki je na voljo tretjim vlagateljem.
In order to increase its capital it would have to rely on its own members, whose financial capacity is limited to their own personal savings.
Zadruga lahko svoj kapital poveča samo tako, da vključi svoje lastne člane, katerih finančne sposobnosti so omejene z njihovimi lastnimi prihranki.
To finance its development the only courses open to it are to borrow from banks or to issue bonds.
Edina možnost za financiranje svojega razvoja, ki jo ima na voljo, je najemanje posojil pri bankah ali izdajanje obveznic.
MCC is a grouping of cooperatives of which Fagor forms part.
Kar zadeva skupino MCC, gre za skupino zadrug, v katero je vključena tudi družba Fagor.
Each cooperative in the grouping retains its legal and financial autonomy.
Znotraj te skupine vsaka zadruga ohranja svojo pravno in finančno neodvisnost.
In other words, there are no capital links between Fagor and MCC.
Z drugimi besedami, med družbo Fagor in skupino MCC ni nobene kapitalske povezave.
MCC is a cooperative movement, not a holding company.
Skupina MCC torej ni holding, temveč zadružna organizacija.
In this grouping each cooperative, including Fagor and the bank Caja Laboral, is autonomous, and depends on the decisions of its own worker-cooperators, who are its owners.
Vsaka zadruga v tej skupini, vključno z družbo Fagor ali banko Caja Laboral, je samostojna in odvisna od odločitev svojih zaposlenih – zadružnikov, ki so njeni lastniki.
The relations between MCC and its members are not those of a conventional capital-based group.
Odnosov med skupino MCC in njenimi člani torej ni mogoče razumeti kot odnosov v običajni skupini s kapitalskimi povezavami.
As a result of its legal form, MCC could not raise funds as a public limited company might, and cannot be considered a parent company for purposes of point 13 of the restructuring aid guidelines.
Posledično skupina MCC zaradi svoje pravne oblike ni mogla pridobiti sredstev kot delniška družba in je ni mogoče šteti za matično družbo v smislu točke 13 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
FagorBrandt could therefore count on the support only of its parent association Fagor, to the extent that its capacity to contribute permitted.
FagorBrandt je torej lahko računal samo na pomoč svoje matične družbe Fagor v okviru njenih finančnih zmožnosti.
The Commission considers, therefore, that there is no need to revise the assessment contained in the opening decision as regards the company’s eligibility under points 11 and 13 of the restructuring aid guidelines.
Komisija torej meni, da ni potrebna ponovna proučitev ocene iz sklepa o začetku postopka glede upravičenosti podjetja na podlagi točk 11 in 13 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
Regarding the company’s eligibility under the conditions set out in section 2.1 of the restructuring aid guidelines, the opening decision raises only one concern, namely the possible circumvention of the prohibition on restructuring aid to newly created firms (see section 3 above, ‘Grounds for initiating the procedure’).
Kar zadeva upravičenost podjetja glede na pogoje iz oddelka 2.1 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje, je v sklepu o začetku postopka naveden en sam dvom, in sicer o morebitnem izigravanju prepovedi pomoči za prestrukturiranje za nova podjetja (glej oddelek 3, „Razlogi za sprožitev postopka“).
The Commission has analysed the company’s financial situation, which is illustrated by Table 1 below.
Komisija je proučila finančno stanje podjetja, ki je prikazano v preglednici 1 spodaj.
Clearly, during the first three years of its existence, the company — even if it had reimbursed the Article 44 septies aid — did not satisfy the tests of points 10 and 11 of the restructuring aid guidelines for being considered in difficulty As regards point 10 of the restructuring aid guidelines, even if the company had reimbursed the EUR 22,5 million of aid in 2004 (that is to say, in the months following the Commission’s final negative decision), it would still not have lost half of its capital in 2004.
Jasno je, da podjetje v prvih treh letih po ustanovitvi tudi ob morebitnem vračilu pomoči na podlagi člena 44f ni izpolnjevalo meril iz točk 10 in 11 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje, da bi se lahko štelo za podjetje v težavah: kar zadeva točko 10 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje, je očitno, da podjetje tudi ob morebitnem vračilu pomoči v višini 22,5 milijona EUR že leta 2004 (to pomeni v prvih mesecih po dokončni negativni odločbi Komisije) še ne bi izgubilo polovice svojega osnovnega kapitala iz leta 2004.
As regards point 11 of the restructuring aid guidelines, even if the company had reimbursed the EUR 22,5 million of aid in 2004, it would have posted only one loss-making year (2004), which is insufficient for it to be considered in difficulty under that point.
Kar zadeva točko 11 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje, bi podjetje tudi ob morebitnem vračilu pomoči v višini 22,5 milijona EUR že leta 2004 imelo izgube samo v enem letu (2004), kar ne zadostuje, da bi se lahko na podlagi navedene točke štelo za podjetje v težavah.
It was from 2005 onwards that the financial difficulties of the FagorBrandt group increased, with the result that the company might be considered a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the restructuring aid guidelines (that is to say, a firm which is unable to stem losses ‘which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business in the short or medium term’), starting possibly from the following year (bearing in mind the obligation to reimburse the Article 44 septies aid), but definitely from 2007.
Ugotoviti je torej treba, da so se finančne težave skupine FagorBrandt povečevale od leta 2005, tako da bi se lahko podjetje štelo za podjetje v težavah v smislu smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje (to pomeni podjetje, katerega težave bi „brez zunanjega posredovanja državnih organov kratkoročno ali srednjeročno skoraj gotovo ogrozile obstoj družbe“) brez dvoma od naslednjega leta (glede na obveznost vračila pomoči na podlagi člena 44f), zagotovo pa leta 2007.
(EUR million)
V milijonih EUR
Profit or loss
Neto rezultat
Capital and reserves
Lastna sredstva
The Commission also notes that in the first quarter of 2005 the Fagor group decided to buy 90 % of the company’s shares at a cost of EUR [150–200] million. This would indicate that the market did not consider the company to be in difficulty within the meaning of the restructuring aid guidelines, that is to say to be a company which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, was almost certainly condemned to go out of business in the short or medium term.
Komisija je tudi navedla, da je skupina Fagor v prvem četrtletju leta 2005 sprejela odločitev o nakupu 90 % delnic podjetja v višini [150–200] milijonov EUR. To dokazuje, da trg ni menil, da je to podjetje v težavah v smislu smernic za pomoč za prestrukturiranje, torej podjetje, katerega težave bi brez zunanjega posredovanja državnih organov kratkoročno ali srednjeročno skoraj gotovo ogrozile obstoj družbe.
Consequently, it considers that the fact that France had not yet recovered the Article 44 septies aid in January 2005 — three years after the creation of FagorBrandt — did not have the effect of artificially keeping afloat a company which would otherwise have exited the market.
Zato meni, da odlašanje Francije z izterjavo pomoči na podlagi člena 44f do januarja 2005, to je do treh let po ustanovitvi podjetja FagorBrandt, ni pomenilo, da se je podjetje, ki bi v nasprotnem primeru izginilo s trga, umetno ohranjalo pri življenju.
The Commission accordingly takes the view that the fact that in January 2005 France had not yet recovered the Article 44 septies aid does not constitute a circumvention of the prohibition on restructuring aid in favour of newly created firms within the meaning of point 12 of the restructuring aid guidelines.
Komisija na podlagi navedenega meni, da odlašanje Francije z izterjavo pomoči na podlagi člena 44f do januarja 2005 ne pomeni izigravanja prepovedi pomoči za prestrukturiranje za nova podjetja v smislu točke 12 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
In conclusion, the doubts about the company’s eligibility have been removed and the Commission considers that the conditions laid down in section 2.1 of the restructuring aid guidelines are fulfilled.
Skratka, dvomi o upravičenosti podjetja so odpravljeni, in Komisija meni, da so izpolnjeni pogoji iz oddelka 2.1 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
Previsions concerning previous unlawful and incompatible aid
Določbe v zvezi s predhodno nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomočjo
The aid granted by France
Pomoč, ki jo je odobrila Francija
On the basis of point 23 of the restructuring aid guidelines and the fact that the notified aid was prima facie aimed mainly at financing the reimbursement of the Article 44 septies aid, the Commission stated in paragraph 30 of the opening decision that it had misgivings about whether the notified aid constituted a circumvention of the reimbursement obligation and rendered that obligation meaningless and redundant.
S sklicevanjem na točko 23 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje in dejstvo, da je priglašena pomoč očitno namenjena financiranju vračila pomoči na podlagi člena 44f, je Komisija v točki 30 sklepa o začetku postopka navedla dvom, ali priglašena pomoč pomeni izigravanje obveznosti vračila ter ji jemlje bistvo in polni učinek.
Firstly, according to settled case-law, the reimbursement of incompatible aid with interest makes it possible to re-establish the situation which existed before the aid was granted and hence to eliminate the resulting distortion of competition.
Prvič, v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se z vračilom nezdružljive pomoči z obrestmi omogoči, da se znova vzpostavi stanje pred dodelitvijo pomoči in se tako odpravi izkrivljanje konkurence, ki ga je taka pomoč povzročila.
They stem from other sources, which are at the root of the losses incurred since 2004 (see Table 1 above).
Vzroki zanje so drugje, povezani pa so z vzrokom za nastale izgube po letu 2004 (glej preglednico 1).
The future reimbursement of the incompatible aid will merely worsen these difficulties to a point where the company can no longer face up to them without state aid.
Prihodnje vračilo nezdružljive pomoči bo le še povečalo te težave, vse dokler jih podjetje ne bo več moglo reševati brez državne pomoči.
Secondly, a business restructuring plan costing EUR 62,5 million has been implemented. This shows that the operational restructuring needed to re-establish business profitability is engendering very substantial costs — more substantial than the reimbursement of the Article 44 septies aid, which comes to EUR 22,5 million, not including interest.
Drugič, izveden je bil načrt prestrukturiranja dejavnosti, katerega stroški znašajo 62,5 milijona EUR. To dokazuje, da operativno prestrukturiranje, ki je nujno potrebno za ponovno vzpostavitev dobičkonosnosti dejavnosti, povzroča zelo visoke stroške, ki so višji od vračila pomoči na podlagi člena 44f, ki brez obresti znaša 22,5 milijona EUR. Ta dejstva kažejo, da je FagorBrandt podjetje v težavah, katerega obstoj je ogrožen.
Thirdly, in its 1991 decision in the Deggendorf case, the Commission, observing that ‘The cumulative effect of the illegal aid which Deggendorf has been refusing to repay since 1986 and the present new … aid would give it an excessive and undue advantage which would adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest’, considered the new aid compatible on condition that ‘The … authorities … suspend payment to Deggendorf of the aid … until such time as they have recovered the incompatible aids’ [22].
Tretjič, Komisija je v odločbi iz leta 1991 v zadevi Deggendorf [22] na podlagi ugotovitve, da „bi nezakonito dodeljena pomoč, ki je Deggendorf noče vrniti že od leta 1986, in nova pomoč […] imeli kumulativen učinek, saj bi tej družbi prinesli pretirano in neupravičeno prednost, ki bi spremenila trgovinske pogoje v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi“, menila, da je nova pomoč združljiva, vendar „morajo organi […] odložiti izplačilo pomoči za družbo Deggendorf […], dokler ne izterjajo nezdružljive pomoči […]“.
In a judgment delivered on 15 May 1997 the Court of Justice endorsed the Commission’s approach [23].
Sodišče je v sodbi z dne 15. maja 1997 [23] potrdilo pristop, ki ga je uporabila Komisija.
Since then, the Commission has adopted several decisions in which it follows the same line, finding a new aid measure to be compatible while at the same time requiring that its payment be suspended pending reimbursement of unlawful aid [24].
Odtlej je Komisija sprejela več odločb, v katerih je uporabila enak pristop, to je da se nova pomoč šteje za združljivo, če se njeno izplačilo odloži do vračila nezakonite pomoči [24].
The Commission would point out that, in the present case, once the new aid fulfils the conditions laid down by the restructuring aid guidelines, nothing seems to stand in the way of applying the Deggendorf approach, i.e. finding the new aid compatible provided its payment is suspended pending recovery of the Article 44 septies aid.
Komisija ugotavlja, da v obravnavanem primeru ni razloga, če nova pomoč izpolnjuje pogoje iz smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje, da ne bi uporabili pristopa iz zadeve Deggendorf, to je da se nova pomoč šteje za združljivo, če se njeno izplačilo odloži do izterjave pomoči na podlagi člena 44f.
Point 23 of the restructuring aid guidelines requires the Commission, when assessing restructuring aid, to ‘take into account, first, the cumulative effect of the old aid and of the new aid and, secondly, the fact that the old aid has not been repaid.’ As indicated in footnote 2 to point 23 of the restructuring aid guidelines, this provision is based on the rule in Deggendorf [25].
S točko 23 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje se Komisiji nalaga, naj na podlagi proučitve pomoči za prestrukturiranje „upošteva […] najprej kumulativni učinek stare pomoči in nove pomoči in nato dejstvo, da stara pomoč ni bila povrnjena“. Kot je navedeno v opombi 2 v točki 23 v smernicah o pomoči za prestrukturiranje, ta določba temelji na zgoraj navedeni sodbi Deggendorf [25].
The unlawful Italian aid
Nezakonita italijanska pomoč
On 21 October 2008 Brandt Italia, the Italian subsidiary of FagorBrandt, remained liable for the repayment of part of the aid granted by the Italian authorities.
Brandt Italia, italijanska podružnica podjetja FagorBrandt, na dan 21. oktobra 2008 še ni povrnila dela pomoči, ki so ji jo dodelili italijanski organi.
The Commission declared this aid incompatible in a Decision adopted on 30 March 2004 [26].
Komisija je v odločbi z dne 30. marca 2004 to pomoč razglasila za nezdružljivo [26].
In such a case, as has been explained in paragraph 61, the findings in Deggendorf confirm that the Commission does not exceed the limits of its discretion where it requires recovery of the previous aid as a condition precedent to the payment of fresh aid [27].
V takem primeru, kot je bilo opozorjeno v uvodni izjavi (61), sodna praksa v zadevi Deggendorf [27] potrjuje, da Komisija ne prekorači svoje diskrecijske pravice, če kot pogoj za izplačilo nove pomoči določi predhodno vračilo prejšnje pomoči.
If the Commission makes the grant of the planned aid subject to the prior recovery of earlier aid, it is not obliged to examine the cumulative effect of the aid on competition: the imposition of such a condition prevents the advantage conferred by the planned aid from combining with that conferred by the earlier aid [28].
Kadar Komisija kot pogoj za dodelitev načrtovane pomoči določi predhodno vračilo ene ali več prejšnjih pomoči, ni dolžna analizirati kumulativnega učinka teh pomoči na konkurenco, pri čemer se s takim pogojem prepreči, da bi se prednost, ki jo daje načrtovana pomoč, kumulirala s prednostjo, ki so jo dajale prejšnje pomoči [28].
In its decision-making practice, therefore, rather than applying point 23 of the restructuring aid guidelines, which would allow it to examine the cumulative effect of the unlawful aid and the new aid, the Commission has preferred to require the recovery of the incompatible aid before the fresh aid is paid [29].
Zato Komisija v okviru svoje prakse odločanja daje prednost vračilu nezdružljivih pomoči pred izplačilom novih pomoči [29] in ne izvajanju točke 23 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje, v skladu s katero lahko upošteva kumulativni učinek nezakonite pomoči in nove pomoči.
In view of the particular circumstances of this case, however, the Commission will apply point 23 of the restructuring aid guidelines.
Vendar zaradi posebnih okoliščin v obravnavanem primeru Komisija namerava izvajati točko 23 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
It consequently cannot take account of fresh commitments that may have been given by the Member State or of the manner of any recovery of unlawful aid that may have taken place since that date.
Komisija torej ne more upoštevati novih obveznosti, ki jih je prevzela država članica po tem datumu, niti pogojev za vračilo nezakonitih pomoči, sprejetih po tem datumu.
In line with the judgment of the General Court in Electrolux and Whirlpool, therefore, the Commission must examine the cumulative effect of the Italian aid and the restructuring aid notified [30].
Zato mora Komisija analizirati kumulativni učinek italijanske pomoči in priglašene pomoči za prestrukturiranje na konkurenco, kar zahteva tudi Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 14. februarja 2012 [30].
It must first be determined what is the amount of the Italian aid that needed to be considered on 21 October 2008.
Vendar je treba najprej določiti znesek italijanske pomoči, ki bi ga bilo treba upoštevati na dan 21. oktobra 2008.
The amount of the Italian aid
Določitev zneska italijanske pomoči
FagorBrandt takes the view that the amount of the Italian aid to be repaid by Brandt Italia will probably be less than EUR 200000.
FargotBrandt ocenjuje, da bi moralo biti vračilo italijanske pomoči, naloženo družbi Brandt Italia, po vsej verjetnosti manjše od 200000 EUR.
In 2003 FagorBrandt, through its subsidiary Brandt Italia, bought the Verolanuova works and its assets from Ocean, which was in court-supervised administration.
Zato je podjetje FagorBrandt prek posrednice svoje podružnice Brandt Italia leta 2003 izvedlo nakup tovarne Verolanuova in njenih sredstev od družbe Ocean, ki je bila v stečajnem postopku.
The price Brandt Italia offered for the assets was EUR 10 million.
Cena, ki jo je Brandt Italia ponudila za zadevna sredstva, je znašala 10 milijonov EUR.
Ocean’s court-appointed administrators considered this sum to be insufficient, and the Italian authorities then sought to extend to takeover operations of this kind certain provisions of two schemes considered compatible with European law, the laid-off workers’ mobility scheme (mobilità) and the lay-off fund (cassa integrazione).
Ker so stečajni upravitelji družbe Ocean menili, da je ta znesek prenizek, so italijanski organi želeli določbe, ki izhajajo iz ureditev „Mobilita“ in „Cassa Integrazione“, tj. določbe, ki so bile razglašene za združljive z veljavno evropsko zakonodajo, razširiti na takšne ponudbe za prevzem.
Those provisions allowed firms recruiting unemployed workers to enjoy an exemption from social security contributions.
Te določbe med drugim določajo, da so podjetja, ki najemajo brezposelne delavce, lahko oproščena plačila socialnih prispevkov.
The purpose of extending these measures was that the benefit to the purchaser would increase the value of the assets proportionally.
Cilj razširitve teh ukrepov je bil doseči, da bi se dobiček pridobitelja povečal sorazmerno s ceno nakupa zadevnih sredstev.
The Italian authorities therefore enacted a decree-law, dated 14 February 2003, which provided that the purchaser of any company in special administration (amministrazione straordinaria) that employed more than 1000 people would qualify for a reduction in social security contributions and an additional grant for every employee transferred.
Italijanski organi so zato 14. februarja 2003 sprejeli uredbo z zakonsko močjo, ki določa, da je kupec sredstev katere koli družbe, ki je v stečajnem postopku in ki zaposluje več kot 1000 delavcev, lahko upravičen do oprostitve plačila socialnih in drugih prispevkov za vsakega prevzetega delavca.
The acquisition by Brandt Italia of Ocean’s electrical household appliances business, which took place on 7 March 2003, was eligible for the scheme set up by this legislation.
Družba Brandt Italia je bila zaradi nakupa dejavnosti proizvodnje električnih gospodinjskih aparatov podjetja Océan SpA, ki ga je izvedla 7. marca 2003, upravičena do te ureditve, sprejete na podlagi zadevne uredbe z zakonsko močjo.
The value of the exemptions, estimated at EUR 8,5 million, was consequently added to the purchase price offered by Brandt Italia, which now increased to EUR 18,5 million.
Zato se je nakupna cena, ki jo je predlagala družba Brandt Italia, povečala za znesek teh oprostitev plačila, ocenjen na 8,5 milijona EUR, in je na koncu znašala 18,5 milijona EUR.
On 30 March 2004 the Commission adopted a Decision finding that the Decree-law of 14 February 2003, converted into statute by an Act of 17 April 2003, was a state aid measure that was unlawful and incompatible with the internal market [31].
Komisija je v odločbi z dne 30. marca 2004 [31] navedla, da uredba z zakonsko močjo z dne 14. februarja 2003, ki je bila spremenjena v zakon 17. aprila 2003, pomeni shemo nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči.
When Brandt Italia learned of the Commission Decision, it obtained an order from the Ordinary Court (Tribunale) of Brescia, dated 5 July 2004, seizing the last instalment of the purchase price (EUR 5,7 million), and approached the supervisors of the Ocean proceedings with a view to recovering the amount paid in excess.
Potem ko je bila družba Brandt Italia seznanjena s to odločbo Komisije, je 5. julija 2004 od gospodarskega sodišča v Brescii prejela odredbo o zasegu zadnjega obroka plačila nakupne cene (5,7 milijona EUR), nato pa je pri organih, vključenih v postopek v zvezi s podjetjem Ocean, vložila zahtevek za izterjavo presežno izplačanega zneska.