natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus the first condition for existing aid seems to be satisfied, because the original scheme was put in place before the entry into force of the Treaty in Finland and even before 1 January 1994, which means that paragraph 5 of Article 172 of the Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden is not applicable in this case.
Tako se zdi, da je prvi pogoj za obstoječo pomoč izpolnjen, ker je bila prvotna shema vzpostavljena pred začetkom veljavnosti pogodbe na Finskem in celo pred 1. januarjem 1994, kar pomeni, da se v tem primeru odstavek 5 člena 172 Pogodbe o pristopu Avstrije, Finske in Švedske ne uporablja.
However, the Commission must also assess whether the measures have undergone any substantive alterations since 1 January 1994.
Vendar mora Komisija oceniti tudi, ali je bila od 1. januarja 1994 vsebina teh ukrepov bistveno spremenjena.
At least three amendments to the guarantee scheme were enacted by the regional authorities after 1 January 1994 (by Provincial Acts 1994:29, 1996:56 and 2002:23) and prior to the granting of the first guarantee on 14 August 2003.
Regionalni organi so po 1. januarju 1994 in pred dodelitvijo prvega poroštva dne 14. avgusta 2003 uzakonili najmanj tri spremembe poroštvene sheme (z deželnimi zakoni 1994:29, 1996:56 in 2002:23).
These amendments provided for a substantial increase in the budget of the scheme (i.e. an increase in the global amount of guarantees that could be granted at any given time).
Te spremembe so predvidevale znatno povečanje proračuna sheme (t.j. povečanje skupnega zneska poroštev, ki se lahko kadar koli dodelijo).
Since the present case concerns the granting of a loan guarantee, it should be assessed whether the alterations concerning the budget of the scheme, introduced prior to the measures under discussion, should be considered as substantial and severable from the existing scheme.
Ker se obravnavana zadeva nanaša na dodelitev poroštva za posojilo, je treba oceniti, ali je treba spremembe, ki se nanašajo na proračun sheme, uvedene pred obravnavanimi ukrepi, šteti za bistvene in ločljive od obstoječe sheme.
As described, according to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 budget increases of more than 20 % constitute an alteration of an existing aid scheme.
Kakor je opisano, v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2004 povečanje proračuna za več 20 % pomeni spremembo obstoječe pomoči.
Two of the abovementioned amendments [34] have increased the original budget of the scheme by 50 % and 150 %, respectively.
Dve od zgoraj navedenih sprememb [34] sta začetni proračun sheme povečali za 50 % oziroma za 150 %.
These budget increases constitute substantive alterations to the scheme which were never notified to the Commission.
Ta povečanja proračuna pomenijo vsebinske spremembe sheme, ki Komisiji niso bile nikoli priglašene.
The effect of these substantive alterations cannot be considered as severable from the alleged scheme, with the result that the scheme in its entirety becomes new aid.
Učinka teh vsebinskih sprememb ni mogoče šteti kot ločljivega od domnevne sheme, kar pomeni, da shema v celoti postane nova pomoč.
Indeed, the original aid scheme was limited only as regards the total amount of guarantees that could be outstanding at any given time.
Prvotna shema pomoči je bila res omejena le glede skupnega zneska poroštev, ki so bila lahko kadar koli neodplačana.
With this particular configuration, a very substantial increase in the budget (even without any other alteration of the scheme) touches upon the very essence of the existing rules.
Ta pojavna oblika znatnega povečanja proračuna (tudi brez druge spremembe sheme) se dotika samega bistva obstoječih pravil.
In addition, the Commission notes that it does not appear from the guarantee documents submitted by Finland that the legal basis of these guarantees was the alleged guarantee scheme.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da iz listin o poroštvu, ki jih je predložila Finska, ne izhaja, da je bila pravna podlaga teh poroštev domnevna poroštvena shema.
Consequently, the guarantees covered by this decision must be considered new aid.
Zato je treba vsa poroštva, ki jih ta sklep zajema, šteti kot novo pomoč.
Given that the aid has been put into effect without prior approval by the Commission as required by Article 108 TFEU, it is unlawful.
Ker se je pomoč začela izvajati brez predhodnega soglasja Komisije, kot zahteva člen 108 PDEU, je nezakonita.
THE ALLEGED SHARE SUBSCRIPTION SCHEME (93-079)
DOMNEVNA SHEMA VPISA DELNIC (93-079)
The national rules concerning this alleged scheme were declared to ESA as aid arrangements for share subscriptions.
Nacionalna pravila o tej domnevni shemi so bila Nadzornemu organu Efte prijavljena kot ureditve pomoči za vpise delnic.
It appears from the documents submitted at the time that the ‘Annual budget for Åland’ was given as the national legal basis.
Iz takrat predloženih dokumentov je razvidno, da je bil „letni proračun za Ålandske otoke“ podan kot nacionalna pravna podlaga.
Under the heading ‘maximum possible aid intensity that (…) can be obtained in favour of any one project’, Finland has indicated ‘30 %’.
V rubriki „najvišja možna intenzivnost pomoči, ki […] se lahko pridobi za en projekt“ je Finska navedla „30 %“.
Furthermore, under the heading ‘Budget/expenditure’ Finland has indicated budgets for the years 1992 to 1994 but left a blank under the heading ‘Total budget estimate for the whole planning period of the scheme’.
V rubriki „Proračun/izdatki“ je Finska navedla proračune za leta od 1992 do 1994, rubriko „Ocena celotnega proračuna za celo programsko obdobje sheme“ pa je pustila prazno.
These powers are implemented (e.g. by means of loans, capital injections, guarantees) through provisions in the annual general budget of the LG.
Ta pooblastila se izvajajo (npr. s posojili, dokapitalizacijami, poroštvi) prek določb v splošnem letnem proračunu lokalne vlade.
The Commission notes the following:
Komisija ugotavlja naslednje:
Irrespective of the fact that Finland may qualify the powers of the local authorities to provide such capital injections (under the general powers they are granted by the Autonomy Act) as a ‘scheme’, the Commission must verify whether the provisions of the national law laying down those powers meet the definition of a ‘scheme’ under Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Ne glede na to, da Finska lahko pooblastila lokalnih organov, da zagotavljajo take dokapitalizacije (po splošnih pooblastilih, ki jim jih daje Zakon o samostojnosti) opredeli kot „shemo“, mora Komisija preveriti, ali določbe nacionalnega prava, ki določajo ta pooblastila, ustrezajo opredelitvi „sheme“ iz člena 1(d) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
It appears in this respect that the legal basis (Section 18(22) of Act 1144/1991) consists of rules that relate to the allocation of powers between different authorities within the Finnish legal order and that do not meet the requirements for constituting an aid scheme (which is defined among other things as ‘… an act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made …’).
V tej zvezi se zdi, da pravno podlago (člen 18(22) Zakona 1144/1991) sestavljajo pravila, ki se nanašajo na porazdelitev pooblastil med različnimi organi v finskem pravnem redu in da ne izpolnjujejo zahtev, da bi bili shema pomoči (ki je med drugim opredeljena kot „… akt, na podlagi katerega je mogoče brez nadaljnjih izvedbenih ukrepov dodeliti individualno pomoč …“).
Any allocation of capital to an individual beneficiary would thus first require an appropriation in the annual budget of the LG (voted by the Åland regional assembly at its discretion) and then the implementation of decisions taken by the LG.
Za vsako dodelitev kapitala posameznemu upravičencu je torej najprej potrebna dodelitev proračunskih sredstev v letnem proračunu lokalne vlade (o katerem po lastni presoji glasuje regionalna skupščina Ålandskih otokov) in nato izvajanje sklepov lokalne vlade.
It appears thus that capital injections granted under those powers are to be seen as a succession of individual decisions rather than an aid scheme.
Zdi se, da je treba na dokapitalizacije, dodeljene na podlagi teh pooblastil, razumeti kot zaporedje posameznih sklepov in ne kot shemo pomoči.
In any event, the Commission also notes that the alleged scheme concerned only the years 1992 to 1994, as no other information was given under the heading ‘Budget/expenditure’ although the legal basis was the ‘annual budget for Åland’.
Vsekakor Komisija ugotavlja, da domnevna shema zadeva samo leta od 1992 do 1994, ker v rubriki „Proračun/izdatki“ ni bilo navedenih nobenih drugih informacij, čeprav je bil pravna podlaga „letni proračun za Ålandske otoke“.
Finally, the Commission notes that Finland had indicated that the maximum aid intensity that can ‘be obtained in favour of any one project’ is 30 %.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da je Finska navedla, da je najvišja možna intenzivnost pomoči, ki „se lahko pridobi za en projekt“, 30 %.
This can, in any event, only be understood as meaning that capital injections under this alleged scheme were intended to be used together with significant private contributions (at least 70 %) towards ‘projects’ intended to promote the objectives of the alleged scheme, given as being ‘Tourism, industry, R&D’.
V vsakem primeru je to mogoče razumeti le tako, da so bile dokapitalizacije v okviru te domnevne sheme namenjene uporabi skupaj z znatnimi zasebnimi prispevki (najmanj 70 %) za „projekte“, namenjene spodbujanju ciljev domnevne sheme, ki je naveden kot „Turizem, industrija, R&R“.
The capital increases at issue in this decision do not meet this formal condition and can consequently not be covered by the national legal provisions that were submitted to the ESA, irrespective of whether these measures constituted a proper aid scheme and if so whether it applied beyond 1994.
Povečanja kapitala, ki jih ta sklep obravnava, ne izpolnjujejo tega formalnega pogoja in zato ne morejo biti zajeta v nacionalnih predpisih, ki so bili predloženi Nadzornemu organu Efte, ne glede na to, ali so ukrepi predstavljali ustrezno shemo pomoči, in če so, ali se je uporabljala po letu 1994.
Consequently, the State aid given in the form of capital increases to ÅI constitutes new aid.
Zato državna pomoč, dana podjetju ÅI v obliki povečanj kapitala, pomeni novo pomoč.
As the aid has been put into effect without prior approval by the Commission as required by Article 108 TFEU, it is unlawful.
Ker se je pomoč začela izvajati brez predhodnega soglasja Komisije, kot zahteva člen 108 PDEU, je nezakonita.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON RECENT DECISIONS BY FINLAND’S SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
DODATNE PRIPOMBE O NEDAVNIH ODLOČBAH FINSKEGA VRHOVNEGA UPRAVNEGA SODIŠČA
It should also be noted that two measures granted by the LG to ÅI have recently been annulled by a national Finnish court.
Opozoriti je treba tudi, da je nacionalno finsko sodišče nedavno razveljavilo dva ukrepa, ki ju je lokalna vlada odobrila za podjetje ÅI.
The measures are (i) capital increase C-XI paid to ÅI in 2007 (see comment at recital 16 above) and (ii) a 2006 loan guarantee that was never implemented.
Ukrepa sta (i) povečanje kapitala C-XI, ki je bilo podjetju ÅI plačano v letu 2007 (glej pripombo v uvodni izjavi 16 zgoraj), in (ii) poroštvo za posojilo v letu 2006, ki ni bilo nikoli izvedeno.
By decision of 6 April 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court ruled on whether the LG’s decisions were taken in compliance with national administrative rules.
Vrhovno upravno sodišče je z odločbo z dne 6. aprila 2011 odločalo, ali so bili sklepi lokalne vlade sprejeti v skladu z nacionalnimi upravnimi predpisi.
However, in doing so, the Court also assessed whether there were sufficient indications that the measures constituted State aid, meaning that the local authorities should have notified them to the Commission before putting them into effect.
Pri tem je sodišče tudi ocenilo, ali je bilo dovolj indicev, da so ukrepi državna pomoč, kar bi pomenilo, da bi jih lokalni organi morali pred začetkom izvajanja priglasiti Komisiji.
The Court finds that all criteria of State aid are met prima facie.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so na prvi pogled vsa merila državne pomoči izpolnjena.
The Court also analysed Finland’s claim that the measures — if they did constitute aid — would be covered by the national rules that applied prior to accession and consequently qualify as ‘existing aid’.
Sodišče je tudi analiziralo trditev Finske, da so se za ukrepe, tudi če bi pomenili državno pomoč, uporabljali nacionalni predpisi, ki so se uporabljali že pred pristopom, in se zato štejejo za „obstoječo pomoč“.
In doing so, the Court made an in-depth assessment of the national rules and found that, irrespective of whether these rules amounted to genuine State aid schemes or not, the decisions of the local authorities did not comply with the formal requirement under the national rules, mainly owing to the reasons presented above by the Commission.
Sodišče je pri tem podrobno ocenilo nacionalna pravila in ugotovilo, da ne glede na to, ali so bile posledica teh pravil pristne sheme državnih pomoči ali ne, sklepi lokalnih organov niso izpolnjevali formalne zahteve v skladu z nacionalnimi pravili, pretežno zaradi razlogov, ki jih je prej predstavila Komisija.
Therefore the conclusions of the national Supreme Administrative Court are in accord with those of the Commission that the capital injection C-XI under investigation includes new State aid.
Zato so ugotovitve nacionalnega vrhovnega upravnega sodišča skladne s sklepnimi ugotovitvami Komisije, da dokapitalizacija C-XI, ki se preiskuje, vključuje novo državno pomoč.
Finland has argued in general terms that the measures, if found to constitute new State aid, would nevertheless be compatible with the internal market because the purpose of ÅI’s activities, as financed by the aid, was to facilitate the development of the region and create new jobs.
Finska je na splošno trdila, da so ukrepi, tudi, če bi se ugotovilo, da predstavljajo novo državno pomoč, združljivi z notranjim trgom, ker je bil namen dejavnosti podjetja ÅI, ki so bile financirane s pomočjo, pospeševanje razvoja regije in ustvarjanje novih delovnih mest.
State aid, although in principle prohibited, will nevertheless be considered compatible with the internal market in the circumstances mentioned in Article 107(2) TFEU and may be considered compatible if it is used to achieve the objectives mentioned in Article 107(3).
Čeprav je državna pomoč načeloma prepovedana, se kljub temu šteje za združljivo z notranjim trgom v okoliščinah iz člena 107(2) PDEU in se lahko šteje za združljivo, če se uporablja za uresničevanje ciljev iz člena 107(3).
The only ground for compatibility that can be envisaged in this case is 107(3)(a) TFEU, which allows for aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious unemployment, or Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, which provides that State aid may be authorised to facilitate the development of certain economic areas.
Edini način dokazovanja združljivosti v tem primeru je člen 107(3)(a) PDEU, ki dovoljuje pomoč za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je podzaposlenost velika, ali člen 107(3)(c), ki določa, da se državna pomoč lahko dovoli za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih območij.
Under the regional aid rules applicable to Finland at that time (the Regional Aid Maps 2000-2006 and 2007-2013), the City of Mariehamn where iTiden is located was in any event not eligible for such aid.
V skladu s pravili o regionalni pomoči, ki so takrat veljali na Finskem (karte regionalnih pomoči za obdobje 2000–2006 in za obdobje 2007–2013), mesto Mariehamn, kjer je projekt iTiden, v nobenem primeru ni bilo upravičeno do take pomoči.
This means that even if the aid could be said to be assigned to that project, it could not be deemed compatible.
To pomeni, da tudi, če bi lahko rekli, da je bila pomoč dodeljena navedenemu projektu, je ne bi mogli šteti za združljivo.
In addition, the Commission notes that Finland has not shown that any of the conditions for compatibility under the regional aid rules (regarding e.g. the form of aid, eligible costs or maximum aid intensities) are met.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da Finska ni prikazala, da je bil izpolnjen kateri od pogojev za zagotavljanje združljivosti s pravili o regionalni pomoči (npr. oblika pomoči, upravičeni stroški in največja intenzivnost pomoči).
Nor can the aid be considered compatible with the internal market under any of the other Guidelines and Communications adopted by the Commission with regard to the application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU or directly under that Article.
Pomoči tudi ni mogoče šteti za združljivo z notranjim trgom na podlagi drugih smernic in sporočil, ki jih je sprejela Komisija glede uporabe člena 107(3)(c) PDEU ali neposredno na podlagi navedenega člena.
The Finnish authorities have not provided any specific argument or evidence enabling the Commission to approve those measures as compatible under any provision of the TFEU.
Finski organi niso navedli nobene posebne trditve ali dokaza, ki bi Komisiji omogočili odobritev teh ukrepov kot združljivih na podlagi katere koli določbe PDEU.
FINLAND’S ARGUMENTS
TRDITVE FINSKE
Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provides that ‘where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary […]. The Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.’ The natural consequence is therefore that the measures that constitute unlawful State aid to ÅI should be recovered.
Člen 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 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 […]. Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti.“ Zato je naravna posledica, da je treba ukrepe, ki predstavljajo nezakonito pomoč podjetju ÅI, vrniti.
Finland has, however, argued that the Commission should refrain from ordering recovery in this case, because Finland had legitimate expectations that the aid was lawful under the alleged pre-accession schemes and that recovery would be contrary to a principle of Community law.
Finska pa trdi, da bi morala Komisija v tej zadevi opustiti odreditev vračila, ker je Finska upravičeno pričakovala, da je pomoč zakonita v skladu z domnevnimi predpristopnimi shemami, in da bi bilo vračilo v nasprotju z načelom prava Skupnosti.
The Commission notes that Finland has formally argued legitimate expectations only as regards the LG.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Finska formalno navedla upravičena pričakovanja samo glede lokalne vlade.
Legitimate expectations on behalf of the beneficiary were not expressly argued.
Upravičena pričakovanja upravičenca niso bila izrecno navedena.
In any event, the Commission cannot accept this argument.
Vsekakor Komisija te trditve ne more sprejeti.
As regards the capital increases, the Commission has shown above that, irrespective of what ÅI or anyone else may have had reason to believe about the legal status of the alleged share subscription scheme in relation to State aid rules, they did not even comply with the formal conditions of the alleged scheme as it had been notified to ESA.
Kakor je glede povečanj kapitala ugotovila Komisija, ne glede na to kaj je podjetje ÅI ali kdo drug morebiti upravičeno domneval o pravnem položaju domnevne sheme vpisa delnic v zvezi s pravili o državni pomoči, niso bili izpolnjeni niti formalni pogoji domnevne sheme, kot je bila priglašena Nadzornemu organu Efte.
It is thus not possible to argue that ÅI could benefit from a legitimate expectation as to the lawfulness of the capital increases, since these could not have been covered by the national rules in relation to which Finland claims to have had legitimate expectations.
Zato ni mogoče trditi, da je podjetje ÅI upravičeno pričakovalo zakonitost povečanj kapitala, ker ta povečanja niso mogla biti zajeta v nacionalnih pravilih, v zvezi s katerimi Finska trdi, da je imela upravičena pričakovanja.
Concerning the loan guarantees, the Commission has shown that the guarantee scheme had been substantively altered even before the granting of the guarantees at issue in this decision.
Glede poroštev za posojila je Komisija ugotovila, da je bila poroštvena shema vsebinsko spremenjena že pred dodelitvijo poroštev, ki jih obravnava ta sklep.
These alterations, made by the Åland authorities, have not been notified to the Commission.
Te spremembe, ki so jih izvedli organi Ålandskih otokov, niso bile priglašene Komisiji.
The consequence is that any guarantees granted under the national rules that made up the original scheme have to be considered new aid.
Posledica tega je, da je vsa poroštva, dodeljena na podlagi nacionalnih pravil, ki so sestavljala prvotno shemo, treba šteti za novo pomoč.
It is well-established that no beneficiary of aid can legitimately expect that aid that should have been notified to the Commission under Article 108 TFEU but has not been so, is lawful [35].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso noben upravičenec pomoči ne more upravičeno pričakovati, da je pomoč, ki bi jo bilo treba priglasiti Komisiji v skladu s členom 108 PDEU, vendar ni bila priglašena, zakonita [35].
In summary, both the guarantees and the capital increases constitute new State aid that should have been notified to the Commission before implementation.
Če povzamemo, poroštva in povečanja kapitala predstavljajo novo državno pomoč, ki bi jo bilo treba priglasiti Komisiji pred izvajanjem.
It is established case law [36] that a Member State whose authorities have granted aid contrary to the procedural rules laid down in Article 108 TFEU may not rely on the legitimate expectations of the aid recipients in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligation to take the steps necessary to implement a Commission decision instructing it to recover the aid.
Ustaljena sodna praksa [36] je, da se država članica, katere organi so pomoč dodelili v nasprotju s postopkovnimi pravili iz člena 108 PDEU, ne more sklicevati na upravičeno pričakovanje prejemnikov pomoči, da bi se izognila obveznosti sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe za izvršitev sklepa, s katerim ji Komisija nalaga vračilo te pomoči.
If national authorities were able to rely on their own unlawful conduct, they would completely invalidate Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU and deprive decisions taken by the Commission under these provisions of their effectiveness.
Če bi se nacionalni organi lahko oprli na lastno nezakonito ravnanje, bi popolnoma razveljavili člena 107 in 108 PDEU in sklepom Komisije, sprejetim na podlagi navedenih določb, odvzeli učinek.
The same principle must necessarily apply when the national authorities argue that they themselves had a legitimate expectation about the legality of the measures, but did not notify them to the Commission although the measures constituted new aid [37].
Isto načelo se mora nujno uporabljati kadar nacionalni organi trdijo, da so sami imeli upravičena pričakovanja o zakonitosti ukrepov, vendar jih niso priglasili Komisiji, čeprav so ukrepi predstavljali novo pomoč [37].