natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To the extent that De Poli has encountered the same type of disruption on several occasions (not only has it been behind similar requests for extensions in the past [27], the other three contracts which were signed on the same day as the contract for vessel C 241 were also the subject of repeated requests for extensions — see recitals 1, 6 and 7 above), the Commission concludes that such delays can no longer be considered to be genuinely exceptional.
Če se je družba De Poli ob različnih priložnostih srečevala z isto vrsto motenj (ne le zato, ker je bila ladjedelnica De Poli že v preteklosti vlagateljica podobnih prošenj za podaljšanje [27], temveč tudi zato, ker so bile tudi druge tri pogodbe, sklenjene istega dne kot tista za gradnjo ladje C 241, predmet večkrat ponovljenih prošenj za podaljšanje, glej točke 1, 6 in 7), Komisija sklene, da zgoraj navedenih zamud ni več mogoče obravnavati kot povsem izjemne.
In so far as they occurred repeatedly, the disruptions resulting from such repeated delays cannot be viewed as entirely unforeseeable.
Motnje, ki so se dogajale kar pogosto, ne morejo biti obravnavane kot popolnoma nepredvidljive.
Indeed, it is in the light of these past disruptions that De Poli does not appear to have acted diligently in the planning of its production.
In prav na podlagi teh motenj se zdi, da družba De Poli ni dosledno načrtovala proizvodnje.
In the initial working programme, the production of vessel C 241 was scheduled to start in the first quarter of 2006 with delivery scheduled for the second half of 2007, a lead time of between 15 and 24 months.
V prvotnem delovnem programu je bilo predvideno, da se ladja C 241 začne graditi v prvem trimesečju leta 2006 in da se dobavi v drugem polletju leta 2007 oziroma v času, ki je potreben za proizvodnjo, od 15 do 24 mesecev.
According to the information provided by Italy, the planning of vessels of the same type or even of a smaller size to be produced on the same "Scalo Sud" (i.e. vessels C 229 and C 240) allowed for 22 months and 20 months respectively from the start of production to delivery.
Na podlagi informacij, ki so jih predložili italijanski organi, je bilo za proizvodnjo ladij iste vrste ali celo manjših (C 229 in C 240) v istem južnem doku od začetka del do dobave predvidenih 22 mesecev za prvo in 20 mesecev za drugo ladjo.
In addition, the fact that production was only due to begin on 28 September 2006 and delivery of the vessel was planned for 30 December 2007, that is only one month before the ultimate delivery deadline of 28 January 2008, left no margin for any delays in the production process, when the shipyard had previous experience of delays occurring both in the supply of parts and in the production process itself, as evidenced by the other requests for extensions to deadlines made by De Poli.
Poleg tega ni ostalo nič manevrskega prostora za morebitne zamude v proizvodnem procesu, že zaradi dejstva, da se je proizvodnja začela šele 28. septembra 2006, dobava ladje pa je bila predvidena 30. decembra 2007 oziroma le mesec dni pred iztekom roka za dobavo 28. januarja 2008, pri čemer se je ladjedelnica že v preteklosti srečevala z zamudami, tako zaradi dobave delov kot zaradi samega proizvodnega procesa, kar je razvidno iz drugih podaljšanj dobavnih rokov, za katera je prosila družba De Poli.
Furthermore, the fact that it was a period of high demand (Italy provided evidence concerning an increase of around 60 % in orders for diesel engines between 2003 and 2005) leads to the conclusion that it would have been reasonable to engage in some forward planning in the ordering and agreed delivery dates for critical parts such as the gearbox.
Nadalje se lahko na podlagi obdobja povečanega povpraševanja (italijanski organi so predložili dokaze, da se je od leta 2003 do leta 2005 število naročil za dizelske motorje povečalo za približno 60 %) sklepa, da bi morali za naročila tako bistvenih delov, kot je reduktor, in za roke njihove dobave poskrbeti že nekoliko prej.
The statement by De Poli that this is not normal practice is not sufficient, in particular given the high level of demand and previous experience of delays, to conclude that the behaviour of the shipyard was defensible, in that reasonable action was taken to avoid or mitigate delays.
Trditev družbe De Poli, da ne gre za pogosto prakso, ne zadostuje za sklepanje, da je ladjedelnica sprejela vse potrebne ukrepe, da bi se izognila zamudam ali jih zmanjšala, zlasti ob upoštevanju povečanega povpraševanja in zamud, do katerih je prihajalo že v preteklosti.
As for the doubts expressed by the Commission in its decision to initiate the investigation procedure as to whether the fact that the contract was transferred to a new owner was in itself a cause of delay, the Commission notes in particular that the transfer of the contract between Arcoin SpA and Elbana di Navigazione SpA only took place on 20 July 2006, several months after work was originally scheduled to begin (first quarter of 2006).
Kar zadeva dvome, ki jih je Komisija izrazila v sklepu o sprožitvi postopka glede dejstva, da bi bil lahko že sam prenos pogodbe na novega lastnika vzrok za zamudo, Komisija zlasti ugotavlja, da je do prenosa pogodbe z družbe Arcoin S.p.A. na družbo Elbana Navigazione S.p.A. prišlo šele 20. julija 2006 oziroma več mesecev po prvotno predvidenem datumu začetka del (v prvem trimesečju leta 2006).
It cannot, therefore, be excluded in the present case that the transfer of contracts between shipowners was in itself a cause of delay in beginning production and of the ensuing late delivery of the vessel, especially bearing in mind that the transfer of the contract to another shipowner implied some modifications to the vessel's specifications.
Zato v zadevnem primeru ni mogoče izključiti, da prenos pogodb med lastniki ladij sam po sebi ni bil vzrok zamude z začetkom del in poznejše zamude z dobavo ladje, zlasti če upoštevamo, da je prenos pogodbe na drugega lastnika ladij povzročil nekatere spremembe pri posebnih lastnostih ladje.
To conclude, in the light of the restrictive interpretation which must be attributed to requests for exceptional extensions, Italy has not been able to substantiate coherently the reasons why the circumstances invoked could not have been avoided or why the adverse effects of those circumstances could not have been significantly limited by diligent planning and administration of orders by De Poli.
V smislu restriktivne razlage, ki jo je treba predložiti pri izjemnih prošnjah za podaljšanje, italijanskim organom ni uspelo ustrezno utemeljiti, zakaj se danim okoliščinam ni bilo mogoče izogniti ali zakaj negativnih učinkov teh okoliščin ni bilo mogoče močno zmanjšati z doslednim načrtovanjem in vodenjem naročil v družbi De Poli.
The above considerations lead the Commission to conclude that the circumstances invoked in support of the extension request cannot be characterised as exceptional and unforeseeable such that the delay in delivering vessel C 241 was not unexpected or defensible within the meaning of paragraph 29 of the Italian TDM scheme.
Na podlagi teh ugotovitev Komisija sklene, da okoliščin, ki so bile navedene v podporo prošnji za podaljšanje, ni mogoče šteti za izjemne in nepredvidljive, saj zamuda z dobavo ladje C 241 ni bila nepričakovana ali opravičljiva v smislu odstavka 29 italijanske sheme.
In addition, Italy submitted a request for an eight-month extension to the delivery date of vessel C 241, from 31 December 2007 to 31 August 2008, but only provided some justification for seven of the eight months thereof.
Italija je predložila še prošnjo za osemmesečno podaljšanje roka za dobavo ladje C 241 z 31. decembra 2007 na 31. avgust 2008, vendar je predložila nekaj utemeljitev le za sedem od zadevnih osmih mesecev.
In contrast to previous extension requests concerning vessels being built by De Poli [28], the length of the extension requested by Italy in the present case is longer than the delay invoked by the Italian authorities as the only reason for the request (the late delivery of the gearbox); the existence of a causal link between the delay which forms the basis for the extension request and the delay in the supply of critical parts cannot therefore be said to have been established.
V primerjavi s predhodnimi prošnjami za podaljšanje za ladje, ki naj bi jih gradila družba De Poli [28], je v obravnavanem primeru trajanje podaljšanja, za katerega prosi Italija, daljše od zamude, ki jo je sama navedla kot edini razlog (zamude z dobavo reduktorja); zato ni mogoče trditi, da je nastala vzročna povezava med zamudo, na podlagi katere prosi za podaljšanje in prepozno dobavo bistvenih delov.
Italy has provided no explanations for this additional delay of more than two months in the delivery of the vessel and the Commission has received no extension request for the two months concerned.
Italija ni predložila nobenega pojasnila za dodatno več kot dvomesečno zamudo z dobavo ladje, Komisija pa ni prejela nobene prošnje za podaljšanje za ta dva meseca.
Consequently, even if the initial delay had been justified and the extension requested had been granted by the Commission, construction of vessel C 241 would not have been eligible for aid under the Italian TDM scheme since even that extended deadline would not have been met.
Iz navedenega sledi, da za gradnjo ladje C 241 ne bi bila dopustna pomoč na podlagi italijanske sheme, saj ni bil upoštevan niti skrajni podaljšani rok, čeprav bi lahko utemeljili začetno zamudo in bi Komisija odobrila prošnjo za podaljšanje.
As regards vessels C 242, C 243 and C 244, in the light of the formal withdrawal by Italy of the notifications consisting of requests for extension to the delivery deadlines and the fact that no monies were disbursed, the formal investigation procedure is devoid of purpose and shall be closed as such.
Kar zadeva ladje C 242, C 243 in C 244, je formalni postopek preiskave o prošnjah zdaj že brezpredmeten in bo zato zaključen, glede na to, da je Italija uradno umaknila priglasitve prošenj za podaljšanje roka za dobavo ladij in da ni prišlo do izplačil.
As regards vessel C-241, in the light of the above assessment, the conditions required for granting an extension to the three-year delivery limit have not been substantiated and, in any event, the actual delivery of the vessel took place beyond the deadline that would have resulted from granting the extension requested.
Kar zadeva ladjo C 241, glede na zgoraj navedeno oceno niso bili izpolnjeni zahtevani pogoji za dopustnost podaljšanja triletnega dobavnega roka, ladja pa je bila dejansko dobavljena po poteku roka, ki bi bil določen, če bi prošnji za podaljšanje ugodili.
The construction of vessel C 241 is therefore not eligible for aid under the Italian TDM scheme N 59/04, based on the TDM Regulation.
Gradnja ladje C 241 zato ni upravičena do pomoči na podlagi italijanske sheme št. 59/04, ki temelji na Uredbi o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
Given that the Italian authorities confirmed that the aid has not been paid out to De Poli, no recovery of incompatible aid will be necessary,
Ker je Italija potrdila, da pomoč družbi De Poli ni bila izplačana, vračilo pomoči ni potrebno –
The state aid which Italy is planning to implement for De Poli, namely the extension of the three-year delivery limit for vessel C 241 on the basis of the Italian scheme N 59/04, based on the TDM Regulation, is incompatible with the internal market.
Državna pomoč, ki jo Italija namerava izvesti za družbo De Poli, oziroma podaljšanje triletnega roka za dobavo ladje C 241, v smislu italijanske sheme pomoči št. 59/04, ki temelji na Uredbi o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu, ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
The aid may accordingly not be implemented.
Omenjene pomoči zato ni mogoče izplačati.
Italy shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Italija v dveh mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tem sklepu Komisijo obvesti o ukrepih, ki jih je sprejela za uskladitev s tem sklepom.
As regards vessels C 242, C 243 and C 244, in the light of the formal withdrawal by Italy of the notifications consisting of requests for extension of the delivery deadlines, the formal investigation procedure is devoid of purpose and shall be closed as such.
Kar zadeva ladje C 242, C 243 in C 244, je formalni postopek preiskave zdaj že brezpredmeten in bo zato zaključen, glede na to, da je Italija uradno umaknila priglasitve prošenj za podaljšanje roka za dobavo teh ladij.
OJ C 208, 15.8.2008, p. 14.
UL C 208, 15.8.2008, str. 14.
The notifications were registered as N 319/07 for vessel C 243 (letter of 6 June 2007), N 318/07 for vessel C 244 (letter of 6 June 2007), N 544/07 for vessel C 242 (letter of 24 September 2007), and N 70/08 for vessel C 241 (letter of 6 February 2008).
Priglasitve so bile evidentirane s sklici št. N 319/07 za ladjo C 243 (dopis z dne 6. junija 2007), N 318/07 za ladjo C 244 (dopis z dne 6. junija 2007), N 544/07 za ladjo C 242 (dopis z dne 24. septembra 2007) in N 70/08 za ladjo C 241 (dopis z dne 6. februarja 2008).
OJ C 100, 26.4.2005, p. 27.
UL C 100, 26.4.2005, str. 27.
With effect from 1 December 2009, Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty have become Articles 107 and 108, respectively, of the TFEU. The two sets of provisions are, in substance, identical.
Člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES sta s 1. decembrom 2009 postala člena 107 in 108 PDEU; vendar se njuna vsebina ni spremenila.
Idem 1.
Glej opombo 1.
This letter was only received and registered by the Commission on 19 February 2010.
Komisija je dopis prejela in evidentirala šele 19. februarja 2010.
The Italian insolvency proceedings called "concordato preventivo", i.e. an arrangement with creditors, governed by bankruptcy law, involve the debtor submitting a plan for restructuring the debts to the creditors.
Dogovor z upniki v italijanskem pravu pomeni kolektivni postopek, določen z zakonom o stečaju, s katerim si dolžnik prizadeva doseči poravnavo z upniki tako, da jim predstavi predlog prestrukturiranja dolga.
The proposal is then examined by the court in the place where the company has its registered office.
Predlog nato prouči sodišče v kraju, v katerem ima družba registrirani sedež.
The court may allow the procedure by issuing an order to that effect, or it may dismiss the application and formally declare the operator bankrupt.
Sodišče lahko izda sklep o odobritvi postopka ali predlog zavrne in uradno razglasi dolžnikov stečaj.
Where the arrangement procedure is accepted, the debtor retains control of the company’s assets and activities under the supervision of a receiver.
Če je postopek dogovora z upniki odobren, dolžnik pod nadzorom stečajnega upravitelja še naprej razpolaga s sredstvi družbe in vodi njeno poslovanje.
These withdrawals were re-confirmed by letter of 13 May 2010 (registered on 15 May 2010).
Umik je bil ponovno potrjen z dopisom z dne 13. maja 2010, evidentiranim 15. maja 2010.
The company had asked to be placed in "concordato preventivo" since early 2009 (for a short explanation of what "concordato preventivo" is, see footnote 9 above).
Podjetje je prosilo za odobritev dogovora z upniki že od začetka leta 2009 (glej opombo 9 za kratko opredelitev dogovora z upniki).
The date of completion of vessel C 241 which the Italian authorities note was 30 August 2008 is irrelevant, as the TDM Regulation and the Italian TDM scheme, refer solely to the delivery date.
Rok za dokončanje ladje C 241, ki je bil po navedbah Italije določen 30. avgusta 2008, je brezpredmeten, saj se v Uredbi o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu in italijanski shemi omenja le dobavni rok.
See footnotes 4 and 5.
Glej opombi 4 in 5.
Recital 3 of the TDM Regulation.
Uvodna izjava 3 Uredbe.
Article 2(3) of the Regulation.
Člen 2(3) Uredbe.
As defined in Article 1 of the Regulation.
V smislu člena 1 Uredbe.
Article 2(1) of the Regulation.
Člen 2(1) Uredbe.
Articles 4 and 5 of the Regulation, as amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 502/2004 – see footnotes 4 and 5.
Člena 4 in 5 Uredbe, kakor sta bila spremenjena s členom 1 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 502/2004 – glej opombi 4 in 5.
Article 2(4) of the Regulation.
Člen 2(4) Uredbe.
Idem 3.
Glej opombo 3.
Commission Decision of 21 October 2008 on state aid C 20/08 (ex N 62/08) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N59/04 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding, OJ L 17, 22.1.2010, p. 50 – currently under appeal (Cases T-584/08 and T-3/09).
Odločba Komisije z dne 21. oktobra 2008 o državni pomoči C 20/08 (ex N 62/08), ki jo Italija namerava izvesti v skladu s spremenjeno shemo N 59/04 o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu za ladjedelništvo, UL L 17, 22.1.2010, str. 50; trenutno predmet tožbe (zadevi T-584/08 in T-3/09).
A copy of this programme, together with the revised version, was submitted by Italy on 25 February 2008, in connection with notification N 70/08 for vessel C 241.
Italijanski organi so 25. februarja 2008 zagotovili en izvod skupaj s spremenjenim delovnim programom glede priglasitve N 70/08 za ladjo C 241.
See Case C 33/2004, where, despite the transfer of contracts, the Commission considered that the first contract could be considered as the final contract.
Glej zadevo C 33/2004, v kateri je bila po mnenju Komisije prva pogodba končna, čeprav je prišlo do prenosa pogodb.
See Case T-72/98 Astilleros Zamacona SA v Commission ECR [2000] II-1683.
Glej zadevo T-72/98 Astilleros Zamacona SA proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, Recueil 2000, str. II-1683.
This ruling refers to an identical provision that existed under former Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 concerning aid to shipbuilding carried over in the TDM Regulation.
Sodba se sklicuje na identični izrek iz predhodne Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1540/98 o novih pravilih pomoči ladjedelništvu, ki je bil ponovno uporabljen v Uredbi o začasnem obrambnem mehanizmu.
See for instance Giacalone, case N 69/08, paragraph 21.
Glej na primer Giacalone, zadeva N 69/08, točka 21.
See for example cases N 586/03, N 587/03 and N 589/03, as well as cases N 68/08 and N 69/08.
Glej na primer zadeve N 586/03, N 587/03 in N 589/03, ter zadevi N 68/08 in N 69/08.
See cases N 586/03, N 587/2003 and N 589/03.
Glej zadeve N 586/03, N 587/2003 in N 589/03.
See cases N 586/03, N 587/03 and N 589/03.
Glej zadeve N 586/03, N 587/03 in N 589/03.
Italy submitted comments on the decision to initiate the procedure by letter of 16 June 2008 (registered on 17 June 2008).
Italija je predložila pripombe glede odločitve o sprožitvi postopka z dopisom z dne 16. junija 2008, evidentiranim 17. junija 2008.
The Commission received comments from De Poli by letter also dated 16 June 2008 (registered on 17 June 2008).
Komisija je prejela pripombe družbe De Poli prav tako z dopisom z dne 16. junija 2008, evidentiranim 17. junija 2008.
Italy provided additional information by letter of 30 June 2008 (registered on the same date) and by letter of 29 October 2008 (registered on 3 November 2008).
Italija je predložila dodatne informacije z dopisom z dne 30. junija 2008, evidentiranim istega dne, ter z dopisom z dne 29. oktobra 2008, evidentiranim 3. novembra 2008.
On 26 May 2006, the shipyard ordered from a supplier (hereinafter "the supplier") the gearbox for the vessel, an order, confirmed by the supplier, which was due to be delivered by 3 September 2007.
Ladjedelnica je 26. maja 2006 nekemu dobavitelju (v nadaljnjem besedilu: dobavitelj) naročila reduktor za ladjo, ki bi moral biti dobavljen do 3. septembra 2007, kot je potrdil dobavitelj.
According to the information submitted by De Poli, the gearbox for vessel C 241 was a made-to-measure model with unique characteristics, which differed in several technical aspects from the standard gearbox model produced by the same supplier.
Po informacijah ladjedelnice De Poli je reduktor za ladjo C 241 poseben model z enkratnimi lastnostmi, ki se od standardnega proizvoda istega dobavitelja razlikuje v več tehničnih pogledih.
In its submission of the same date, De Poli argues that the fact that both the shipyard and Arcoin SpA belong to members of the De Poli family is not sufficient to doubt the authenticity of the contract initially signed on 28 January 2005.
V pripombah, ki so bile poslane še istega dne, družba De Poli trdi, da le dejstvo, da sta ladjedelnica in družba Arcoin S.p.A. v lasti članov družine De Poli, ni zadostna podlaga za dvome o veljavnosti pogodbe, ki je bila najprej sklenjena 28. januarja 2005.
This argument is supported by the Italian authorities, which point out that, at the time when the contract for vessel C 241 was signed, there were no direct ownership links between the shipyard and Arcoin SpA (other than the fact that Arcoin SpA was held by members of the De Poli family, but not entirely the same ones as held stakes in De Poli).
Trditev podpirajo tudi italijanski organi, ki opozarjajo, da ob sklenitvi pogodbe za ladjo C 241 ni bilo neposrednih družbeniških povezav med ladjedelnico in družbo Arcoin S.p.A. (razen dejstva, da je bila družba Arcoin S.p.A. v lasti članov družine De Poli, ki niso popolnoma sovpadali z delničarji družbe De Poli).
According to the initial working programme submitted by De Poli to the Italian authorities [22], the construction of vessel C 241 was scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2006, and delivery was foreseen for the second half of 2007.
Na podlagi začetnega načrtovanja del, ki ga je družba De Poli predstavila italijanskim organom [22], bi morali ladjo C 241 začeli graditi v prvem trimesečju leta 2006, dobavni rok pa je bil predviden v drugi polovici leta 2007.
However, according to the revised working programme, work on vessel C 241 was scheduled to begin on 28 September 2006 on the "Scalo Sud" (one of the shipyard's two slipways).
Vendar pa bi se na podlagi spremenjenega delovnega načrta za ladjo C 241 dela morala začeti 28. septembra 2006 (v južnem doku, enem od dveh dokov ladjedelnice).
Before assessing Italy's submissions, the Commission notes as a preliminary point that in the Astilleros Zamacona judgment of 16 March 2004 [24], the Court of First Instance of the European Union ruled that the provision (concerning exceptional circumstances) establishing a system that is in derogation from the principles set out in the first subparagraph of that provision (the three-year limit) had to be given "a restrictive interpretation".
Pred nadaljnjim ocenjevanjem elementov, ki jih je predložila italijanska stran, Komisija v uvodu ugotavlja, da je Sodišče Evropske unije v sodbi Astilleros Zamacona z dne 16. marca 2004 [24] ugotovilo, da „je treba za tako določbo [glede izjemnih okoliščin], ki predvideva sistem odstopanj od načel iz prvega odstavka te določbe [triletni rok], uporabljati restriktivno razlago“.
According to the Court, the very wording "exceptional circumstances" in the provision shows that the Community legislature intended to reserve its application for very specific situations.
Pojem „izjemne okoliščine“, ki se pojavlja v izreku, po mnenju Sodišča pomeni namero zakonodajalca Skupnosti, da njihovo uporabo omeji na zelo posebne primere.
In the revised working programme, however, production was only to start on 28 September 2006 and delivery of the vessel was to take place on 30 December 2007, that is just one month before the ultimate delivery deadline of 28 January 2008.
V spremenjenem delovnem programu pa se je gradnja začela šele 28. septembra 2006, dobava ladje pa je bila predvidena 30. decembra 2007 oziroma le en mesec pred zadnjim rokom dobave 28. januarja 2008.
This change in planning allowed for a lead time of only 15 months in all to produce the vessel according to the terms of the contract.
Tako spremenjen delovni program je za celotno proizvodnjo ladje na podlagi pogodbenih rokov predvidel le 15 mesecev.
Indeed, the Commission notes that the gearbox was ordered on 26 May 2006 for delivery in September 2007, leaving little, if any, margin for possible delays in view of the vessel's delivery deadline of 31 December 2007.
Komisija namreč ugotavlja, da je bil reduktor naročen 26. maja 2006, dobavljen pa naj bi bil septembra 2007, pri čemer je ostalo malo ali nič manevrskega časa za morebitne zamude, glede na to, da je rok za dobavo ladje C 241 potekel 31. decembra 2007.