natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 6 December 2007 the Court of Justice held that by failing to comply with the Commission Decision of 30 March 2004 Italy had failed to fulfil its obligations (Case C-280/05).
Poleg tega je sodišče Italijo 6. decembra 2007 obsodilo zaradi neupoštevanja odločbe z dne 30. marca 2004 (zadeva C-280/05).
Judgment in Electrolux and Whirlpool, cited in footnote 6, at paragraph 67.
Zgoraj v opombi 6 navedena sodba Electrolux in Whirlpool, točka 67.
See the following Commission Decisions: Commission Decision of 21 October 2003 on the research and development aid to the site at Zamudio (Basque Country) which Spain is planning to implement for the company ‘Industria de Turbo Propulsores, SA’ (ITP) ( OJ L 61, 27.2.2004, p. 87, paragraphs 32–36, 55 and 117–119); Commission Decision of 16 March 2005 concerning State aid that Italy (Regione Lazio) intends to grant for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (OJ L 244, 7.9.2006, p. 8); and Commission Decision of 8 November 2006 on State aid C 11/06 (ex N 127/05) which Italy is planning to implement for AEM Torino (OJ L 366, 21.12.2006, p. 62, paragraphs 39–41).
Glej naslednje odločbe Komisije: Odločba z dne 21. oktobra 2003 o pomoči za raziskave in razvoj za mesto Zamudio (Baskija), ki jo namerava Španija odobriti podjetju „Industria de Turbo Propulsores, SA“ (ITP) ( UL L 61, 27.2.2004, str. 87, uvodne izjave 32–36, 55 in 117–119); Odločba z dne 16. marca 2005 o državni pomoči, ki jo namerava Italija – regija Lacij – odobriti za zmanjšanje emisij toplogrednih plinov (UL L 244, 7.9.2006, str. 8); Odločba z dne 8. novembra 2006 o državni pomoči C 11/06 (ex N 127/05), ki jo namerava Italija odobriti v korist AEM Torino (UL L 366, 21.12.2006, str. 62, uvodne izjave 39–41).
Judgment cited in footnote 6, at paragraph 71: ‘Since the Commission did not make the grant of the aid at issue conditional on the recovery of the incompatible Italian aid, it should therefore have examined the cumulative effect of the two types of aid, which it failed to do in the present case.’
Zgoraj v opombi 6 navedena sodba Electrolux in Whirlpool, točka 71: „Ker Komisija dodelitve zadevne pomoči ni pogojila z vračilom nezdružljive italijanske pomoči, bi torej nujno morala analizirati kumulativni učinek teh dveh pomoči, česar pa v tem primeru ni storila.“
In its Decision of 21 June 1994 in Electrolux/AEG (OJ C 187, 9.7.1994, p. 14), the Commission concluded that for large electric household appliances the geographic market was western Europe.
V Odločbi Komisije z dne 21. junija 1994 v zadevi Electrolux proti AEG (UL C 187, 9.7.1994) je ugotovljeno, da geografski obseg trgov bele tehnike zajema zahodno Evropo.
In a Decision of 24 January 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case IV.F.1/36.718.CECED) (OJ L 187, 26.7.2000, p. 47), the Commission concluded that the geographic market was the EEA.
V Odločbi Komisije z dne 24. januarja 1999 v zvezi s postopkom na podlagi člena 81 Pogodbe ES in člena 53 Sporazuma EGP, ki se nanaša na CECED (UL L 187, 26.7.2000, str. 47), je ugotovljeno, da geografska razsežnost zajema EGP.
That case concerned washing machines.
V zadnjem primeru je šlo za sektor pralnih strojev.
The combined market share of FagorBrandt and Fagor Electrodomésticos is at most [5–10] %.
Skupni tržni delež podjetij FagorBrandt in Fagor Electrodomésticos je največ [5–10]-odstotni.
The Commission cannot accept France’s argument that FagorBrandt’s continued presence in the market has a positive effect because it prevents the creation of an oligopolistic situation.
Komisija ne more sprejeti trditve Francije, da ima nadaljnja prisotnost podjetja FagorBrandt na trgu pozitiven učinek, ker preprečuje oligopolni položaj.
The French authorities have not backed up that assertion with specific evidence.
Francoski organi trditve niso natančno utemeljili.
The assertion is contradicted, moreover, by their notification, which describes a highly competitive market with diversified competition from, among others, distributor brands.
Poleg tega je ta trditev nasprotna njihovi priglasitvi, v kateri je opisan zelo konkurenčen trg z raznovrstno konkurenco, ki jo ustvarjajo zlasti distribucijske blagovne znamke.
Lastly, point 39 of the restructuring aid guidelines states that account will be taken of ‘a monopoly or a tight oligopolistic situation’, which is not the case here, given that, counting just the majors alone, the number of competitors already comes to four.
Ne nazadnje je v točki 39 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje navedeno, da se upošteva „monopolen ali hud oligopolen“ položaj, kar v tem primeru ne velja, saj so na trgu že zdaj štirje konkurenti, če upoštevamo samo največja podjetja.
According to the data supplied by that competitor, FagorBrandt’s market share in Europe, by volume, fell from 5,3 % in 2004 to 5,2 % in 2005 and 5 % in 2006 and 2007.
Glede na predložene podatke je tržni delež po količini v Evropi upadel s 5,3 % leta 2004 na 5,2 % leta 2005 ter na 5 % v letih 2006 in 2007.
If this analysis is carried out at world level the difference is even bigger, as groups like Electrolux and Whirlpool have very substantial business interests outside Europe.
Na podlagi analize na svetovni ravni je razlika še večja, saj imajo skupine, kot sta Electrolux in Whirlpool, zelo obsežne dejavnosti zunaj Evrope.
For example, in 2005, the combined turnover of FagorBrandt and Fagor Electrodomésticos came to less than EUR 2 billion, whereas the worldwide turnover in large electrical household appliances of Whirlpool, Electrolux, BSH and Indesit, expressed in euros, came to EUR 11,8 billion, EUR 10,8 billion, EUR 7,3 billion and EUR 3,1 billion respectively.
Na primer, leta 2005 je skupni promet podjetij FagorBrandt in Fagor Electrodomésticos znašal manj kot 2 milijardi EUR, medtem ko je svetovni promet podjetij Whirlpool, Electrolux, BSH in Indesit z belo tehniko v EUR znašal 11,8 milijarde, 10,8 milijarde, 7,3 milijarde oziroma 3,1 milijarde.
As indicated, FagorBrandt will no longer itself manufacture […].
Kot je navedeno, podjetje FagorBrandt samo ne bo več proizvajalo […].
It will produce […].
Podjetje FagorBrandt samo bo proizvajalo proizvode […].
In those segments the proportion of products manufactured outside the European Union is smaller.
V teh segmentih je delež proizvodov, ki se proizvajajo zunaj Evropske unije, manjši.
The proportion manufactured outside the European Union is biggest in the case of […].
Delež proizvodov, ki se proizvajajo zunaj Evropske unije, je največji na […].
[50–80] % of FagorBrandt’s sales take place in the French market.
FagorBrandt namreč [50–80] % prodaje ustvari na francoskem trgu.
The Court of Justice has repeatedly held that ‘Where a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, domestic production may for that reason be maintained or increased with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of exporting their products to the market in that Member State’.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče večkrat navedlo, da „kadar država članica dodeli pomoč podjetju, se domača proizvodnja zato lahko ohrani ali poveča, tako da imajo podjetja s sedežem v drugih državah članicah manj možnosti za izvoz svojih izdelkov na trg te države članice“.
See Case C-102/87 France v Commission [1988] 4067, paragraph 19; Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR I-4103, paragraph 40; Case C-310/99 Italy v Commission [2002] ECR I-2289, paragraphs 84 to 86; Case T-152/99 HAMSA v Commission [2002] ECR II-3049, paragraphs 220 and 221.
Sodbe z dne 13. julija 1988 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji (C-102/87, Recueil, str. 04067) (glej točko 19); z dne 14. septembra 1994 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji (C-278/92, C-279/92 in C-280/92, Recueil, str. I-4103) (glej točko 40); z dne 7 marca 2002 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji (C-310/99, Recueil, str. I-2289) (glej točke 84 do 86) in z dne 11. julija 2002 v zadevi HAMSA proti Komisiji (T-152/99, Recueil, str. II-3049) (glej točki 220 in 221).
The lack of profitability of the freezer business was widely reported in the French press.
V francoskem tisku je bila nedobičkonosnost dejavnosti proizvodnje zamrzovalnikov zelo odmevna.
An article in Ouest France dated 8 July 2004 stated, for example, that ‘In 2005, ElcoBrandt, the French domestic appliance group, will close its freezer manufacturing plant in Lesquin (Nord) because it is “no longer profitable”. Elco took over the plant from Brandt two years ago. The 600 employees agreed to a redundancy programme under which 150 jobs were to be maintained, but they have now been lost. ’ More specifically, in an article published in Les Échos on 7 July 2004, Brandt executives were quoted as saying that ‘Despite a major drive to boost competitiveness, consisting in buying 35 % of components from China and improving quality and productivity, the fall in market prices has outpaced us’ and that ‘Maintaining a chest freezer production activity no longer makes economic sense within the ElcoBrandt group. Each time we sell one of those products, we now make a loss of 25 %.’
V članku v dnevniku Ouest France z dne 8. julija 2004 je bilo na primer navedeno: „ElcoBrandt, francoski proizvajalec električnih gospodinjskih aparatov, bo leta 2005 zaradi ‚izgube dobičkonosnosti zaprl tovarno v Lesquinu (Nord), specializirano za proizvodnjo zamrzovalnikov. Elco je obrat pred dvema letoma prevzel od družbe Brandt. 600 zaposlenih je sprejelo socialni načrt, ki je predvideval ohranitev 150 delovnih mest, ki bodo odslej ukinjena.“ Natančneje, odgovorni iz podjetja Brandt so v dnevniku Les Echos v članku, ki je bil objavljen 7. julija 2004, navedli, da „nas je kljub velikim prizadevanjem, da bi z nakupom 35 % sestavnih delov na Kitajskem ali izboljšanjem kakovosti in produktivnosti ohranili konkurenčnost, prehitel padec stroškov na trgu“ in da ohranitev dejavnosti proizvodnje zamrzovalnih skrinj znotraj skupine ElcoBrandt ni več ekonomsko smiselna. Z vsakim prodanim izdelkom namreč ustvarimo 25-odstotno izgubo.“
In the notification, the French authorities state that one of the restructuring plan’s objectives is ‘to rationalise production by abandoning certain bottom-end segments which have become structurally loss-making in order to limit the losses related to the market share gains by low-cost country manufacturers (freestanding microwave ovens, freezers and small refrigerators).’ In their letter of 15 February 2008, in which they comment on the comments from interested parties, the French authorities state that ‘The French authorities would remind you that … the various measures already taken are intended initially to stem the losses (closure of a loss-making production plant, Lesquin, and abandonment of certain unprofitable product lines, including freestanding microwave ovens).’ These two extracts confirm the earlier conclusions concerning the closure of the Lesquin plant.
Francoski organi v priglasitvi navajajo, da je eden od ciljev prestrukturiranja „racionalizacija proizvodnje z opustitvijo nekaterih segmentov […], ki so strukturno deficitarni, da bi omejili izgube, povezane s tržnimi deleži, ki so jih pridobili proizvajalci iz poceni držav (samostoječe mikrovalovne pečice, […])“. Francoski organi so v dopisu z dne 15. februarja 2008, v katerem odgovarjajo na pripombe zainteresiranih strani, navedli: „Francoski organi opozarjajo, da […] je glavni namen različnih že sprejetih ukrepov preprečiti izgube (zaprtje deficitarnega proizvodnega obrata v Lesquinu in opustitev nekaterih nedobičkonosnih proizvodenj, to je samostoječih mikrovalovnih pečic).“ S tema dvema odlomkoma se potrjujejo tudi predhodne ugotovitve v zvezi z zaprtjem tovarne v Lesquinu.
See, for example, the article entitled ‘Brandt: end of Miele contract confirmed. After the withdrawal of Electrolux, another blow for Aizenay’, appearing in Ouest France on 3 March 2005.
Glej na primer članek „Brandt: potrjena odpoved pogodbe za Miele. Po umiku Electroluxa nov hud udarec za Aizenay“, ki je bil 3. marca 2005 objavljen v dnevniku Ouest France.
All the less so as the company made a gain of EUR 774000 on the sale.
In to še toliko manj, ker je podjetje ustvarilo kapitalski dobiček v višini 774000 EUR.
As indicated in section 2.2 of the opening decision, FagorBrandt began to restructure in 2004 when the lack of competitiveness and the first financial difficulties became apparent.
Kot je navedeno v oddelku 2.2 sklepa o začetku postopka, se je prestrukturiranje skupine FagorBrandt začelo leta 2004, ko so se ob pomanjkanju konkurenčnosti pojavile prve finančne težave.
The Commission considers, therefore, that this divestment is ‘part of the same restructuring’, as required by point 40 of the restructuring aid guidelines.
Komisija torej meni, da je ta prodaja „del istega prestrukturiranja“, kot se zahteva v točki 40 smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
According to the French authorities, this type of integration is particularly highly sought after in the case of innovative products or products requiring specific know-how and is practised by the major operators in the sector (e.g. BSH or Miele).
Po navedbah francoskih organov je ta vrsta vključevanja še zlasti primerna za inovativne proizvode ali proizvode, ki zahtevajo posebno znanje, izvajajo pa jo glavni akterji v sektorju (na primer BSH ali Miele).
In the French market, Vedette is a brand positioned […] of the […] products market.
Vedette je blagovna znamka, ki se na francoskem trgu uvršča v […] na trgu proizvodov […].
The measures proposed do not therefore reduce the presence of FagorBrandt in the market for […] products.
Predlagani ukrepi torej ne zmanjšujejo prisotnosti podjetja FagorBrandt na trgu proizvodov […].
However, the great majority of the groups competing with FagorBrandt in the […] market already possess brands competing with Vedette in the […] products market.
Vendar ima velika večina skupin, ki so konkurentke skupine FagorBrandt pri […], v lasti tudi blagovne znamke, ki blagovni znamki Vedette konkurirajo na trgu proizvodov […].
In 2007, they accounted for [30–40] % of the Vedette brand’s turnover and [0-10] % of FagorBrandt’s sales of large electrical household appliances in the French market.
Ti so leta 2007 obsegali [30–40] % prometa blagovne znamke Vedette in [0–10] % prodaje skupine FagorBrandt na francoskem trgu bele tehnike.
The table assumes that the measure does indeed begin on 1 January 2009.
Preglednica temelji na predpostavki, da ukrep začne veljati 1. januarja 2009.
All other things being equal, the rate of [1,5–3] % is considered a reasonable hypothesis for turnover growth in the light of group strategy and market prospects (see paragraphs 125 ff.).
Glede na to, da se okoliščine niso spremenile, se zdi ohranitev [1,5–3]-odstotne stopnje razumna, ker ta stopnja predstavlja predvideno smiselno rast prometa glede na strategijo skupine in tržne priložnosti (glej uvodno izjavo (125) in naslednje).
In March 2004 FagorBrandt sold its Nevers plant (electric motors), and in January 2005 it closed its Lesquin plant (freezers).
Skupina FagorBrandt je marca 2004 prodala svojo tovarno v Neversu (električni motorji), januarja 2005 pa je zaprla tovarno v Lesquinu (zamrzovalne skrinje).
In 2006 it stopped production of freestanding microwave ovens at its Aizenay plant.
Leta 2006 je skupina ukinila proizvodnjo samostoječih mikrovalovnih pečic v tovarni v Aizenayu.
The group put in place […].
Skupina je uvedla […].
As part of the measures to help ensure the continuity of the business, following studies carried out in March 2004 and February 2005, the group […].
Glede ukrepov za razvoj nadaljnjega obstoja podjetja je skupina po študijah, opravljenih med marcem 2004 in februarjem 2005, izvedla naslednje: […].
GIFAM: Groupement interprofessionnel des fabricants d’appareils d’équipements ménagers, which groups together 50 or so companies present in the electrical household appliance markets.
GIFAM: medpanožno združenje proizvajalcev gospodinjskih aparatov, v katero je vključenih približno 50 podjetij, ki so prisotna na trgih električnih gospodinjskih aparatov.
The Commission carried out an analysis of whether this increased integration of FagorBrandt in Fagor called into question the conclusions drawn in paragraph 27 of the opening decision concerning FagorBrandt’s eligibility.
Komisija je proučila, ali večje vključevanje podjetja FagorBrandt v družbo Fagor izpodbija ugotovitve iz točke 27 sklepa o začetku postopka, kar zadeva upravičenost podjetja FagorBrandt.
This reduction is due to the impact of suspending the marketing of some products on the visibility of the Vedette brand among distributors.
Vzrok za ta upad je vpliv ustavitve trženja proizvodov na prepoznavnost blagovne znamke Vedette pri distributerjih.
The hypothesis adopted by the French authorities whereby the whole of the decline in microwave oven sales observed over the two-year period is to be attributed entirely to the decision to stop marketing microwave ovens under the Vedette brand therefore seems to be an extreme one.
Trditev, ki so jo zagovarjali francoski organi, to je da je treba celotni upad prodaje mikrovalovnih pečic, evidentiran v navedenih dveh letih, pripisati izključno odločitvi za ustavitev trženja mikrovalovnih pečic pod blagovno znamko Vedette, se torej zdi pretirana.
Letter from the French authorities of 15 February 2008.
Dopis francoskih organov z dne 15. februarja 2008.
In its Decision of 26 April 2006 on State Aid which France is planning to implement for Euromoteurs (OJ L 307, 7.11.2006, p. 213), the Commission found that the fact that the restructuring plan submitted did not allow for the reimbursement of incompatible aid received by the company justified a finding that the plan did not enable the company’s long-term viability to be restored.
Komisija je v Odločbi z dne 26. aprila 2006 o državni pomoči, ki jo Francija namerava izvajati za Euromoteurs (UL L 307, 7.11.2006, str. 213), menila, da dejstvo, da predloženi načrt prestrukturiranja ne upošteva vračila nezdružljive pomoči, ki jo je prejelo podjetje, potrjuje ugotovitev, da ta načrt ne omogoča ponovne vzpostavitve dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja podjetja.
Electrolux submitted comments by letter dated 14 December 2007.
Podjetje Electrolux je predložilo pripombe z dopisom z dne 14 decembra 2007.
Following a meeting with the Commission’s departments on 20 February 2008, Electrolux submitted additional comments by letters dated 26 February and 12 March 2008.
To podjetje je po sestanku s službami Komisije 20. februarja 2008 predložilo dodatne pripombe z dopisoma z dne 26 februarja 2008 in 12. marca 2008.
A competitor who wishes to remain anonymous submitted comments by letter dated 17 December 2007 [4].
Konkurent, ki želi ostati anonimen, je pripombe predložil z dopisom z dne 17 decembra 2007 [4].
On 15 July 2008, the Commission requested additional information, which the French authorities provided on 16 July 2008.
Komisija je 15. julija 2008 zahtevala dodatne informacije, ki so jih francoski organi predložili 16. julija 2008.
As the Commission concluded in the opening decision, the company is indeed ‘in difficulty’ within the meaning of the restructuring aid guidelines.
Kot je Komisija ugotovila v sklepu o začetku postopka, je to podjetje v težavah v smislu smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
As for the failure to take into account the reimbursement of the unlawful aid received by the Italian subsidiary (against the background of the takeover by Brandt Italia of the electrical household appliance business of Ocean SpA), this reimbursement should not affect the company’s viability, given that the amount ultimately borne by Brandt Italia should be less than EUR 200000, the balance being borne by the vendor of the business in question.
Glede neupoštevanja vračila nezakonite pomoči, ki jo je prejela italijanska podružnica (pomoč je bila dodeljena na podlagi prevzema dejavnosti proizvodnje električnih gospodinjskih aparatov podjetja Ocean Spa, ki ga je izvedlo podjetje Brandt Italia), francoski organi navajajo, da to vračilo ne bi smelo vplivati na sposobnost preživetja podjetja, glede na to, da bi moral biti končni znesek, ki bo bremenil Brandt Italia, manjši od 200000 EUR, saj naj bi preostanek pokril prodajalec zadevnih dejavnosti.
These elements indicate that FagorBrandt is a firm in difficulty whose existence is in danger. It can, therefore, like any company in such a situation, receive restructuring aid if it satisfies the other conditions laid down in the restructuring aid guidelines.
Kot vsako podjetje v takem položaju je torej upravičeno do pomoči za prestrukturiranje, če so izpolnjeni drugi pogoji iz smernic o pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
In this Decision the Commission is required, on the basis of the findings in Deggendorf, to transform that commitment into a condition precedent to the compatibility of the notified aid.
Komisija mora v tej odločbi v skladu z navedeno sodno prakso v zadevi Deggendorf to zavezo spremeniti v pogoj za združljivost priglašene pomoči.
The Commission here has to adopt a fresh Decision following the annulment by the General Court of the Commission’s Decision of 21 October 2008.
Zato mora Komisija v tem primeru sprejeti nov sklep, ker je Sodišče prve stopnje odločbo z dne 21. oktobra 2008 razglasilo za nično.
The Commission cannot consider information that was not in its possession at the time of the first Decision.
V tem okviru Komisija ne more upoštevati informacij, ki jih ni imela na voljo na dan sprejetja prve odločbe.
The first judgment, dated 1 February 2008, suspended a recovery order issued against Brandt Italia by the INPS on 18 December 2007.
S prvo sodbo z dne 1. februarja 2008 je bil odložen nalog za izterjavo, ki ga je INPS 18. decembra 2007 izdal zoper družbo Brandt Italia.
The INPS appealed against that judgment.
INPS je vložil pritožbo zoper to sodbo.
In the light of this information the Commission must determine the amount of aid to be repaid by Brandt Italia/FagorBrandt that could reasonably have been estimated on 21 October 2008.
Komisija mora torej na podlagi teh informacij določiti znesek pomoči, ki ga mora družba Brandt Italia/FagorBrandt vrniti in ki ga je bilo mogoče oceniti na dan 21. oktobra 2008.
The Commission observes that the judgment of the Ordinary Court of Brescia of 8 July 2008 ordered Brandt Italia to repay EUR 8890878,02.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da je sodišče v Brescii v sodbi z dne 8. julija 2008 družbi Brandt Italia naložilo vračilo zneska v višini 8890878,02 EUR.
The Commission considers, however, that the sum seized, EUR 5,7 million, must be deducted from that figure. That sum was provisionally frozen by the judgment of the Ordinary Court of Brescia of 5 July 2004, and was not available to Brandt Italia thereafter.
Vendar Komisija ocenjuje, da je treba od tega zneska odšteti še znesek zaseženih sredstev v višini 5,7 milijona EUR. Družba Brandt Italia po sprejetju sodbe gospodarskega sodišča v Brescii z dne 5. julija 2004 ni več razpolagala s tem začasno blokiranim zneskom.
The order to freeze it was made by reason of the Commission’s Decision of 30 March 2004: thus the sum was frozen as a precaution against the need to recover it.
Ta odločitev je bila sprejeta na podlagi odločbe Komisije z dne 30. marca 2004, pri čemer je bil torej zadevni znesek blokiran zaradi predvidene izterjave.
The Commission takes the view that the date to be considered in order to determine the amount of interest is not the date of the actual recovery of the aid but the date of the decision that was annulled, because the Commission is here assessing the compatibility of the French aid on 21 October 2008.
Kar zadeva obresti, Komisija meni, da datum, ki ga je treba upoštevati za določitev njihovega zneska, ni datum dejanskega vračila pomoči, temveč datum razglasitve ničnosti odločbe, saj v tem primeru Komisija analizira združljivost francoske pomoči na dan 21. oktobra 2008.
On 21 October 2008 the French aid was combined with the Italian aid including the interest running to that date.
Francoska pomoč se je 21. oktobra 2008 kumulirala z italijansko pomočjo in je vključevala obresti do tega datuma.