natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Regulation (EC) No 1336/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 in order to adapt it to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 [3] should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Uredbo (ES) št. 1336/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. decembra 2008 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 648/2004 z namenom prilagoditve Uredbi (ES) št. 1272/2008 [3] bi bilo treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
Directive 2008/112/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Council Directives 76/768/EEC, 88/378/EEC, 1999/13/EC and Directives 2000/53/EC, 2002/96/EC and 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in order to adapt them to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 [4] should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2008/112/ES z dne 16. decembra 2008 o spremembi direktiv Sveta 76/768/EGS, 88/378/EGS, 1999/13/ES in direktiv 2000/53/ES, 2002/96/ES in 2004/42/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z namenom prilagoditve Uredbi (ES) št. 1272/2008 [4] bi bilo treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 453/2010 of 20 May 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) [5] should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 453/2010 z dne 20. maja 2010 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o registraciji, evalvaciji, avtorizaciji in omejevanju kemikalij (REACH) [5] bi bilo treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 440/2010 of 21 May 2010 on the fees payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 [6] should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 440/2010 z dne 21. maja 2010 o pristojbinah, ki jih je treba plačati Evropski agenciji za kemikalije na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1272/2008 [6], bi bilo treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement is hereby amended as specified in Annexes I to III to this Decision.
Priloga II (Tehnični predpisi, standardi, preskušanje in certificiranje) k Sporazumu EGP se spremeni, kakor je določeno v prilogah I do III k temu sklepu.
In Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement the following indent shall be added in points 21ab (Council Directive 1999/13/EC), 32e (Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) and 32fa (Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council):
V Prilogi XX (Okolje) k Sporazumu EGP se v točkah 21ab (Direktiva Sveta 1999/13/ES), 32e (Direktiva 2000/53/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta) in 32fa (Direktiva 2002/96/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta) doda naslednja alinea:
32008 L 0112: Directive 2008/112/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 68).’.
32008 L 0112: Direktiva 2008/112/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (UL L 345, 23.12.2008, str. 68).“.
The texts of Regulations (EC) No 1272/2008 and (EC) No 1336/2008, Regulations (EU) No 440/2010 and (EU) No 453/2010, and Directive 2008/112/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.
Besedila uredb (ES) št. 1272/2008 in (ES) št. 1336/2008, uredb (EU) št. 440/2010 in (EU) št. 453/2010 ter Direktive 2008/112/ES v islandskem in norveškem jeziku, ki se objavijo v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije, so verodostojna.
This Decision shall enter into force on …, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee [9].
Ta sklep začne veljati …, pod pogojem, da so bila Skupnemu odboru EGP predložena vsa uradna obvestila v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma EGP [9].
Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 repeals Council Directive 67/548/EEC [8] and Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [9] with effect from 1 June 2015.
Uredba (ES) št. 1272/2008 s 1. junijem 2015 razveljavlja Direktivo Sveta 67/548/EGS [8] ter Direktivo 1999/45/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [9].
Since those Directives have been incorporated into the EEA Agreement, that Agreement should be amended, with effect from 1 June 2015, to take account of their repeal.
Ker sta bili ti direktivi vključeni v Sporazum EGP, bi bilo treba ta sporazum spremeniti z učinkom od 1. junija 2015, da se upošteva razveljavitev direktiv.
Since those Directives have been incorporated into the Agreement, that Agreement should be amended, with effect from 1 June 2015, to take account of their repeal.
Ker sta bili ti direktivi vključeni v Sporazum EGP, bi bilo treba ta sporazum spremeniti z učinkom od 1. junija 2015, da se upošteva razveljavitev direktiv.
on State aid No C 6/08 (ex NN 69/07) implemented by Finland for Ålands Industrihus Ab
o državni pomoči št. C 6/2008 (ex NN 69/07), ki jo je Finska dodelila podjetju Ålands Industrihus Ab
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above [1],
ob pozivu zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi določbami [1],
Through a complaint lodged on 5 September 2006, the Commission was informed of a variety of measures granted by the Local Government of Åland (‘the LG’) in favour of the real estate company Ålands Industrihus Ab (‘ÅI’).
Komisija je bila prek pritožbe, vložene 5. septembra 2006, obveščena o različnih ukrepih, ki jih je lokalna vlada Ålandskih otokov (v nadaljnjem besedilu: lokalna vlada) odobrila v korist nepremičninske družbe Ålands Industrihus Ab (v nadaljnjem besedilu: podjetje ÅI).
By letter dated 30 January 2008, the Commission informed Finland that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) [2] in respect of the aid ( ‘the opening decision’).
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 30. januarja 2008 obvestila Finsko, da bo v zvezi s pomočjo začela postopek iz člena 108(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: PDEU) [2] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločitev o sprožitvi postopka).
The Commission’s opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [3].
Odločitev Komisije, da sproži postopek, je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [3].
ÅI is registered in the City of Mariehamn, the capital of Åland, an archipelago in the Baltic Sea between mainland Finland and Sweden with a total population of some 28000.
Podjetje ÅI je registrirano v mestu Mariehamn, glavnem mestu otočja Åland v Baltskem morju med Finsko in Švedsko, in ima približno 28000 prebivalcev.
Åland is a province of Finland but enjoys a high degree of autonomy.
Åland je finska provinca, vendar uživa visoko stopnjo avtonomije.
ÅI is owned mainly by the LG (84,43 %) and the City of Mariehamn (15,01 %).
Podjetje ÅI je v večinski lasti lokalne vlade (84,43 %) in mesta Mariehamn (15,01 %).
Other local authorities in Åland make up the remaining shareholders [4].
Preostali delničarji so drugi lokalni organi Ålandskih otokov [4].
ÅI’s business is the construction, ownership and letting of buildings for industrial and commercial use.
Dejavnost podjetja ÅI je gradnja, lastništvo in dajanje v najem stavb za industrijsko in poslovno uporabo.
According to Finland, the objective of the company’s activities is to provide buildings to companies in Åland in order to contribute to a diversified and competitive economy.
Po mnenju Finske je cilj dejavnosti družbe gospodarskim družbam na Ålandskih otokih zagotoviti stavbe in s tem prispevati k raznovrstnemu in konkurenčnemu gospodarstvu.
Up until 1999 ÅI’s business activities were modest in size [5].
Do leta 1999 so bile poslovne dejavnosti podjetja ÅI majhne [5].
The balance sheet of ÅI grew very slowly, if at all [6].
Bilanca stanja podjetja ÅI je rasla zelo počasi ali pa sploh ne [6].
In this context the board of ÅI decided to start searching for new business opportunities in order to expand.
Zato se je upravni odbor podjetja ÅI odločil, da začne iskati nove poslovne priložnosti za širitev.
At the same time, the local business community (made up almost exclusively of small enterprises) expressed a wish for a ‘technology park’, i.e. a cluster of office properties where local firms could locate under the same roof in order to facilitate cooperation, generate new ideas and enhance entrepreneurship in general.
Hkrati je lokalna poslovna skupnost (sestavljena skoraj izključno iz malih podjetij) izrazila željo po „tehnološkem parku“, t.j. grozdu pisarniških prostorov, kjer bi bila lokalna podjetja lahko pod eno streho, kar bi olajšalo sodelovanje, ustvarjanje novih zamisli in na splošno okrepilo podjetništvo.
This would eventually become the ‘iTiden’ office park (kvarteret iTiden).
To je pozneje postalo poslovni park „iTiden“ (kvarteret iTiden).
The genesis of the project is explained in more detail in Section 2.2.
Geneza projekta je podrobneje pojasnjena v oddelku 2.2.
THE iTiden PROJECT [7]
PROJEKT iTiden [7]
On 12 July 2001, with the help of a capital increase, ÅI bought land in the ‘Västra Klinten’ district of Mariehamn, where iTiden was to be built.
Podjetje ÅI je 12. julija 2001 s pomočjo povečanja kapitala kupilo zemljišče v okrožju „Västra Klinten“ mesta Mariehamn, kjer naj bi se zgradil iTiden.
In connection with this purchase, ÅI also secured the changes necessary for the iTiden project in the town planning.
V povezavi s tem nakupom je podjetje ÅI v urbanističnem načrtu zagotovilo spremembe, potrebne za projekt iTiden.
In the budget for 2002 the LG declared that ÅI would start building the iTiden project in 2002 and that this would in all likelihood require a capital increase (for which the LG requested the necessary budgetary appropriations) [10].
V proračunu za leto 2002 je lokalna vlada izjavila, da bo podjetje ÅI začelo graditi projekt iTiden v letu 2002 in da bo po vsej verjetnosti potrebno povečanje kapitala (za kar je lokalna vlada zahtevala odobritev potrebnih proračunskih sredstev) [10].
At the beginning of 2002 a working group for the building of iTiden was appointed and an architect commissioned.
V začetku leta 2002 je bila imenovana delovna skupina za izgradnjo projekta iTiden in izbran je bil arhitekt.
Potential tenants were sounded out for their interest in renting property in iTiden.
Preučen je bil interes potencialnih najemnikov za najem nepremičnin v okviru iTiden.
The construction of phase 2 of iTiden was launched in the autumn of 2006 and completed in 2007.
Gradnja druge faze projekta iTiden se je začela jeseni leta 2006, dokončana pa je bila leta 2007.
THE STATE AID MEASURES
UKREPI DRŽAVNE POMOČI
Date of the measure
Datum ukrepa
Capital increases
Povečanje kapitala
Loan guarantees
Poroštva za posojila
Compared with the table of the measures in point 7 of the opening decision, a loan guarantee of EUR 2587500 dated 26 October 2006 has been removed, as it was never put into effect (following a decision by Finnish courts).
V primerjavi s preglednico ukrepov v točki 7 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka je bilo poroštvo za posojilo v višini 2587500 EUR z dne 26. oktobra 2006 umaknjeno, ker nikoli ni začelo veljati (po odločbi finskih sodišč).
Furthermore, capital increase C-XI, dated 12 June 2006 in the opening decision, is dated 15 February 2007 here as it became clear in the investigation that this measure had been put into effect at that later date.
Povečanje kapitala C-XI ima v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka datum 12. junij 2006, tukaj pa datum 15. februar 2007, ker je v preiskavi postalo jasno, da je ta ukrep začel veljati na navedeni poznejši datum.
The LG’s decision to grant this capital increase has recently (6 April 2011) been annulled by Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court (see recital 114 below).
Finsko vrhovno upravno sodišče je nedavno (6. aprila 2011) razveljavilo sklep lokalne vlade o odobritvi tega povečanja kapitala (glej uvodno izjavo 114 spodaj).
However, as the capital was paid to ÅI in 2007 and has not been paid back, the Commission considers that the national court decision does not remove this measure from the scope of its investigation.
Ker pa je bil kapital podjetju ÅI izplačan v letu 2007 in ni bil vrnjen, Komisija meni, da odločba nacionalnega sodišča tega ukrepa ne umika iz področja preiskave.
According to the Finnish authorities, all capital increases were provided to finance the iTiden project, with the exception of the following:
Po mnenju finskih organov so bila vsa povečanja kapitala namenjena financiranju projekta iTiden, razen naslednjih:
C-I: Capital injection of 18 June 1997 (EUR 84094,39)
C-I) Dokapitalizacija z dne 18. junija 1997 (84094,39 EUR)
C-II: Capital injection of 22 June 2000 (EUR 340582,27)
C-II) Dokapitalizacija z dne 22. junija 2000 (340582,27 EUR)
C-III: Capital injection of 10 October 2000 (EUR 114368,37)
C-III) Dokapitalizacija z dne 10. oktobra 2000 (114368,37 EUR)
C-VIII: Capital injection of 30 September 2004 (EUR 669896,95)
C-VIII) Dokapitalizacija z dne 30. septembra 2004 (669896,95 EUR)
C-IX: Capital injection of 16 June 2005 (EUR 199977,91).
C-IX) Dokapitalizacija z dne 16. junija 2005 (199977,91 EUR).
All the loan guarantees, according to Finland, were issued with the purpose of financing the iTiden project.
Po trditvah Finske so bila vsa poroštva za posojila izdana z namenom financiranja projekta iTiden.
More details on the loan guarantees are given in recitals 66 to 86 below.
Več podrobnosti o poroštvih za posojila je v uvodnih izjavah 66–86 v nadaljevanju.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 108(2) TFEU
RAZLOGI ZA SPROŽITEV POSTOPKA NA PODLAGI ČLENA 108(2) PDEU
In the opening decision, the Commission questioned whether the capital increases and loan guarantees were compatible with the internal market on the following grounds.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka se je Komisija spraševala, ali so povečanja kapitala in poroštva za posojila združljiva z notranjim trgom na podlagi naslednjega.
As regards the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission noted that the measures involved State resources, as they were granted by the local authorities, and that they were selective, as they were targeted at ÅI.
Glede obstoja državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU je Komisija ugotovila, da so ukrepi vključevali državna sredstva, ker so jih odobrili lokalni organi, in da so bili selektivni, ker so bili namenjeni podjetju ÅI.
As regards the criterion of whether the measures granted an ‘advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions’ because a private investor, guided by the prospect of profitability in the long run, would not have given the same support, the Commission doubted that a private investor would have provided capital as the LG did, given ÅI’s long record of losses or, at best, very modest profits.
Glede merila, ali so ukrepi dali „prednost, ki je v običajnih tržnih razmerah ne bi pridobili“, ker zasebni vlagatelj, ki dolgoročno pričakuje donosnost, ne bi dal enake podpore, je Komisija dvomila, da bi ob upoštevanju, da je podjetje ÅI že dolgo beležilo izgube ali v najboljšem primeru skromne dobičke, zasebni vlagatelj zagotovil kapital, kot ga je zagotovila lokalna vlada.
With respect specifically to the loan guarantees, the Commission doubted that ÅI would have been able to obtain comparable financial support on the markets, and that they consequently provided ÅI with an advantage.
Komisija je posebej glede poroštev za posojila dvomila, da bi podjetje ÅI na trgih lahko pridobilo primerljivo finančno pomoč in da so zato podjetju ÅI zagotovili prednost.
The Commission also considered that any such advantages would be liable to distort competition and intra-Community trade.
Komisija je tudi menila, bi vsaka taka prednost lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in trgovino znotraj Skupnosti.
If the measures were considered State aid, the Commission doubted that they could be viewed as compatible with the internal market.
Če se ukrepi štejejo za državno pomoč, Komisija dvomi, da bi se lahko obravnavali kot združljivi z notranjim trgom.
Finally, the Commission questioned Finland’s claim that the measures, if they were indeed considered to constitute State aid, had been granted in compliance with aid schemes that applied already prior to Finland’s accession to the EU and would thus be lawful.
Komisija je podvomila tudi o trditvi Finske, da so bili ukrepi, tudi če bi res predstavljali državno pomoč, odobreni v skladu s shemami pomoči, ki so se uporabljale že pred pristopom Finske v EU in da so zato zakoniti.
THE MEASURES ARE NOT STATE AID
UKREPI NISO DRŽAVNA POMOČ
Finland has taken the view that the LG has acted in accordance with the market investor principle, i.e. that the measures were guided by the LG’s prospects of return on its investment.
Finska je zavzela stališče, da je lokalna vlada delovala v skladu z načelom zasebnega vlagatelja, t.j. ukrepe je vodilo pričakovanje lokalne vlade, da bo njena naložba donosna.
Finland has argued that the investment decisions were motivated by the company’s programme of new investments, chiefly by the iTiden project.
Finska je trdila, da so bile odločitve o vlaganju sprejete zaradi programa novih naložb gospodarske družbe, predvsem projekta iTiden.
The measures were thus not intended to cover previous losses, or to support a loss-making business.
Ukrepi tako niso bili namenjeni kritju prejšnjih izgub ali podpori podjetju, ki ustvarja izgubo.
The LG has obtained concrete value for its investments in new shares in ÅI, as the company’s value increased in line with the share subscription.
Lokalna vlada je pridobila konkretno vrednost za svoje naložbe v nove delnice podjetja ÅI, ker se je vrednost gospodarske družbe povečala skladno z vpisom delnic.
ÅI did not, therefore, obtain any advantage that it would not have been able to obtain from a private investor.
Podjetje ÅI torej ni pridobilo nobene prednosti, ki je ne bi moglo pridobiti od zasebnega vlagatelja.
Irrespective of any possible advantage, Finland has also taken the view that the measures cannot be classified as State aid, because there is no concrete evidence of a significant effect on competition in the Åland real estate market.
Ne glede na možno prednost je Finska zavzela stališče, da ukrepov ni mogoče uvrstiti med državne pomoči, ker ni konkretnega dokaza o večjem vplivu na konkurenco na nepremičninskem trgu na Ålandskih otokih.
IF STATE AID, IT IS LAWFUL UNDER EXISTING AID SCHEMES
ČE JE DRŽAVNA POMOČ, JE ZAKONITA V OKVIRU OBSTOJEČIH SHEM POMOČI
However, if the measures were found to include a State aid element, the aid, according to Finland, should be considered as lawful.
Finska meni, da je treba pomoč šteti za zakonito tudi, če bi se ugotovilo, da ukrepi vključujejo elemente državne pomoči.
Finland has argued that both the capital injections and the guarantees were covered by existing aid schemes that were put into place prior to Finland’s EU membership.
Finska je trdila, da so bile dokapitalizacije in poroštva zajeti v obstoječih shemah pomoči, ki so bile vzpostavljene pred članstvom Finske v EU.
IF IT IS NEW STATE AID, IT IS NEVERTHELESS COMPATIBLE WITH THE INTERNAL MARKET
TUDI, ČE JE NOVA DRŽAVNA POMOČ, JE ZDRUŽLJIVA Z NOTRANJIM TRGOM
Should the measures constitute unlawful State aid, they should nonetheless be considered compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, as their purpose has been the development of the region and the creation of new jobs, mainly by contributing to the diversification of the region’s economy, which relies too heavily on the shipping industry.
Tudi, če ukrepi pomenijo nezakonito državno pomoč, jih je treba šteti za združljive z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU, ker so bili namenjeni razvoju regije in ustvarjanju novih delovnih mest, predvsem s prispevanjem k večji raznovrstnosti gospodarstva regije, ki se preveč opira na sektor pomorskih prevozov.
POSSIBLE RECOVERY
MOŽNO VRAČILO
Should the Commission find that the aid constitutes unlawful and incompatible aid that needs to be recovered, Finland put forward the following arguments.
Če bi Komisija ugotovila, da pomoč pomeni nezakonito in nezdružljivo državno pomoč, ki jo je treba vrniti, je Finska navedla naslednje trditve.
Under Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [12] the Commission will not require recovery of aid where this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.
V skladu s členom 14(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [12] Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti.
This would be the case here, since Finland had legitimate reasons to expect that the abovementioned schemes, which pre-dated accession, were and still are valid, and thus that any aid granted under these rules would be lawful.
Tukaj gre za tak primer, ker je Finska imela zakonite razloge, da je pričakovala, da so zgoraj navedene sheme, ki so bile veljavne pred pristopom, bile in so še vedno veljavne, in zato bi bila vsaka pomoč, dodeljena v skladu s temi pravili, zakonita.
Should the Commission nevertheless consider than the aid is to be recovered, Finland argues that the aid element in the capital increases is not necessarily the full nominal amount of the transactions that comprise State aid.
Če bi Komisija kljub temu menila, da je pomoč treba vrniti, Finska trdi, da element pomoči v povečanjih kapitala ni nujno celotni nominalni znesek transakcij, ki vsebujejo državno pomoč.
In respect of the guarantees, any aid to be recovered cannot be larger than the interest advantage obtained by the firm as a result of the guarantee (by comparison to non-guaranteed loans).
V zvezi s poroštvi morebitna pomoč, ki jo je treba vrniti, ne more biti višja od ugodnosti v obliki obresti, ki jo je podjetje dobilo zaradi poroštva (v primerjavi s posojili brez poroštev).
Similarly, concerning the capital injections, any aid cannot be more than ÅI’s cost of obtaining equivalent capital on the market.
Podobno v zvezi z dokapitalizacijami pomoč ne more biti višja od stroškov, ki bi jih podjetje ÅI imelo pri pridobitvi enakovrednega kapitala na trgu.
QUALIFICATION AS STATE AID
IZPOLNJEVANJE POGOJEV ZA DRŽAVNO POMOČ
According to Article 107(1) TFEU, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU „je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
The qualification of a measure as State aid requires that the following conditions are met: (a) it must be financed by a Member State or through State resources; (b) it must grant a selective advantage liable to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods; and (c) it must distort or threaten to distort competition and have the potential to affect trade between Member States.
Ukrep se opredeli kot državna pomoč, če so izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji: a) financirati ga mora država članica ali se financira iz državnih sredstev; b) dajati mora selektivno prednost, ki lahko daje prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga in c) mora izkrivljati ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in lahko vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
These conditions being cumulative, they must all be present before a measure is characterised as State aid.
Ti pogoji so kumulativni in morajo vsi biti prisotni, preden se ukrep opredeli kot državna pomoč.
STATE RESOURCES AND SELECTIVITY
DRŽAVNA SREDSTVA IN SELEKTIVNOST