natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Barrandov’s opinion, this assertion is corroborated by a confidential business plan illustrating its recent investment in new studios, which was undertaken on the assumption of having net earnings from the second year of operation and a pay-back period of less than 8 years.
Barrandov meni, da to trditev podpira zaupni poslovni načrt, ki prikazuje zadnja vlaganja v nove studie ter je bil sprejet ob predpostavki, da bodo v drugem letu poslovanja doseženi neto zaslužki in da bo obdobje odplačila manj kot 8 let.
Nor does Barrandov see any rational explanation for the amount of profits (EUR 341 million) expected by the Spanish Authorities by 2014.
Barrandov tudi ne vidi razumne razlage za višino dobička (341 milijonov EUR), ki ga do leta 2014 pričakujejo španski organi.
In its submission of 27 June 2008, Mediterranean Film Studios Limited confines its comments to the water tanks that Ciudad de la Luz announced.
Mediterranean Film Studios Limited se v svojem sporočilu z dne 27. junija 2008 omejuje na bazene, ki jih je objavila Ciudad de la Luz.
They claim that their own water tanks are unique in Europe and comparable only to those of Fox in Baja California (Mexico).
Pravijo, da so njihovi bazeni edini v Evropi in primerljivi samo z bazeni studia Fox v Baji California (Mehika).
Given the low occupancy rate per year of their tanks, they allege that in their view and the industry consensus view, there is already enough capacity in the Mediterranean area or in Europe for filming water tanks.
Glede na nizko stopnjo zasedenosti bazenov na leto po njihovem mnenju in po mnenju celotne industrije zmogljivosti v Sredozemlju ali Evropi že zadoščajo za snemanje v bazenih.
Observations by parties active in the Spanish film sector
Pripombe strank, dejavnih v španskem filmskem sektorju
In its comments dated 30 June 2008, the Federacion de asociaciones de productores audiovisuales espanoles (FAPAE) considers that Ciudad de la Luz has introduced more competition in the market for big production facilities and that the complainants simply wish to maintain their market position and bar the entry of competitors which propose credible alternative service and price-wise to their studios which dominate the European market.
Federacion de asociaciones de productores audiovisuales espanoles (FAPAE) v svojih pripombah z dne 30. junija 2008 meni, da je Ciudad de la Luz povečala konkurenco na trgu velikih produkcijskih objektov ter da želijo pritožniki samo obdržati svoj položaj na trgu in preprečiti vstop konkurentom, ki bi ponudili verodostojne storitve in cene, ki so alternativa studiem, ki obvladujejo evropski trg.
The FAPAE also claims that studios such as Barrandov, Cinecittà, Babelsberg or Mafilms have built up their market position and reputation around public support in different forms, including public participation in share capital.
FAPAE tudi trdi, da so si studii, kot so Barrandov, Cinecittà, Babelsberg ali Mafilms, ustvarili položaj na trgu in ugled na podlagi javne pomoči v različnih oblikah, vključno z javno udeležbo v delniškem kapitalu.
More generally, the FAPAE stresses that the maintenance of cultural diversity justifies strong public intervention in the industry.
Bolj na splošno FAPAE poudarja, da vzdrževanje kulturne raznolikosti upravičuje močno javno intervencijo v sektorju.
In particular, Ciudad de la Luz allegedly provides the Spanish production industry with sophisticated and state-of-the-art services in Spain which would otherwise need to be obtained abroad at higher cost.
Ciudad de la Luz domnevno zlasti španskemu produkcijskemu sektorju zagotavlja zelo izpopolnjene in sodobne storitve v Španiji, ki bi jih sicer morali iskati v tujini po višji ceni.
Against the allegation that Ciudad de la Luz targets super-productions, the FAPAE alleges that Ciudad de la Luz greatly benefits low-budget Spanish productions and focuses on national or local culture, thereby contributing to cultural objectives set out in the former Article 87(3)(d) (now Article 107(3)(d)).
Na trditve, da je Ciudad de la Luz usmerjen na superprodukcije, pa FAPAE odgovarja, da Ciudad de la Luz zelo koristi nizkoproračunskim španskim produkcijam in je osredotočena na nacionalno ali lokalno kulturo, s tem pa prispeva h kulturnim ciljem, določenim v nekdanjem členu 87(3)(d) (zdaj členu 107(3)(d)).
The observations dated 21 May 2008 of the Empreses audiovisuals valencianes federades (EAVf) and those dated 16 May 2008 of the association of Productors audiovisuals valencians largely echo, sometimes verbatim, the comments of FAPAE.
Pripombe z dne 21. maja 2008, ki jih je predložilo Empreses audiovisuals valencianes federades (EAVf), in pripombe z dne 16. maja 2008, ki jih je predložilo združenje Productors audiovisuals valencians, so večinoma podobne, včasih celo popolnoma enake pripombam FAPAE.
In their comments of 5 June 2008, the Associaciò de directors de cinema valencians stresses that the dominance of the US cinema industry marginalises European productions through a variety of allegedly abusive practices.
V pripombah z dne 5. junija 2008 združenje Associaciò de directors de cinema valencians poudarja, da prevladujoč položaj kinematografske industrije ZDA marginalizira evropsko produkcijo z raznovrstnimi domnevno nezakonitimi praksami.
In their view, corrective measures are necessary for European cultural creations to compete on a level playing field.
Po njihovem mnenju evropske kulturne stvaritve potrebujejo korektivne ukrepe, da bodo lahko konkurirale po enakih pogojih.
This association alleges that the public intervention in Ciudad de la Luz is fully instrumental in that respect, to the benefit of European, Spanish and Valencian production and with a view to defending their cultural identities.
Združenje trdi, da javni poseg v Ciudad de la Luz popolnoma podpira ta vidik v korist evropski in španski produkciji ter produkciji v Valenciji zaradi varovanja kulturne identitete.
The observations of Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU (the 100 % owner of Ciudad de la Luz SAU, itself owned by the Comunidad Valenciana) dated 23 June 2008, in essence reproduce the same subsidiary arguments and rely on the evidence adduced by Spain.
Pripombe Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU (100-odstotni lastnik Ciudad de la Luz SAU, ki je sam v lasti Comunidad Valenciana) z dne 23. junija 2008 v bistvu ponavljajo enake trditve in se naslanjajo na dokazila, ki jih navaja Španija.
Some aspects on which their observations place particular emphasis are the following.
V svojih pripombah zlasti poudarjajo naslednje vidike.
Firstly, the fact that a private investor partly funded the project at its inception in 2000 based on the studies available shows that the investment by public authorities followed the logic of a private investor.
Prvič, dejstvo, da je zasebni vlagatelj deloma financiral projekt na začetku leta 2000 na podlagi razpoložljivih študij, priča, da je vlaganje španskih organov sledilo logiki zasebnega vlagatelja.
Both studies in 2000 and 2004 concluded without any reservation that the project was profitable.
Študiji iz leta 2000 in 2004 sta brez zadržkov zaključili, da je projekt donosen.
Secondly, the incentives provided to specific films are commercially justified for a new business and granted as a ‘sponsoring contract’ in exchange for promotion activities which generate a return on the reputation of the studios whilst triggering advertising costs for the recipients.
Drugič, spodbude določenim filmom so ekonomsko utemeljene za novo podjetje in so dodeljene v obliki „sponzorske pogodbe“ v zameno za promocijske dejavnosti, ki povečujejo ugled studiev in hkrati prejemnikom ustvarjajo oglaševalske stroške.
A study carried out in this respect estimates the economic return of sponsoring contracts for Ciudad de la Luz to be to EUR […] [14] million.
Študija, opravljena na tem področju, ocenjuje, da znaša ekonomski donos sponzorskih pogodb za Ciudad de la Luz […] [14] milijonov EUR.
Observations by national film funding bodies
Pripombe nacionalnih organov za financiranje filma
The UK Film Council asserts in its letter of 25 June 2008 that there is a case to answer in the decision opening the formal investigation procedure.
UK Film Council v pismu z dne 25. junija 2008 ugotavlja, da je sklep o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave utemeljen.
After the formal investigation was opened, the Spanish authorities revealed that the initial investment decision was based on a business plan prepared in 2000, and not on the one which they had submitted previously.
Po uvedbi formalnega postopka preiskave so španski organi navedli, da je prvotna odločitev o vlaganju temeljila na poslovnem načrtu iz leta 2000 in ne na tistem, ki so ga predložili prej.
This business plan was in a study carried out in 2004, and not in 2002, as the Spanish authorities had previously informed the Commission.
Ta poslovni načrt je bil v študiji, izvedeni leta 2004, in ne leta 2002, kot so španski organi pred tem sporočili Komisiji.
one in 2000 for the first phase of the project and one in 2004 for the planned extension.
ena leta 2000 za prvo fazo projekta in ena leta 2004 za načrtovano širitev.
The timetable for investments in the Ciudad de la Luz, as last updated by the Spanish authorities in April 2012, was as follows:
Razpored vlaganj v Ciudad de la Luz, kot so ga španski organi nazadnje posodobili aprila 2012, je bil:
Public investment
Javna vlaganja
Valencia Region decides to develop Ciudad de la Luz
Dežela Valencija se odloči za razvoj Ciudad de la Luz
Ciudad de la Luz SA is created (75 % owned by Parque Temático de Alicante SAU, 25 % owned by Producciones Aguamarga SL)
Ustanovljena je družba Ciudad de la Luz SA (v 75-odstotni lasti Parque Temático de Alicante SAU in 25-odstotni lasti Producciones Aguamarga SL)
Parque Temático de Alicante SAU invests unilaterally for a capital increase of EUR 9 million in Ciudad de la Luz SA (increasing its share to 98,4 %)
Parque Temático de Alicante SAU enostransko vloži 9 milijonov EUR za povečanje kapitala v Ciudad de la Luz SA (svoj delež poveča na 98,4 %)
Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU [15] invests unilaterally in a capital increase of EUR 30 million in Ciudad de la Luz SA (increasing its share to 99,6 %)
Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU [15] enostransko vloži 30 milijonov EUR za povečanje kapitala v Ciudad de la Luz SA (svoj delež poveča na 99,6 %)
Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU invests unilaterally in a capital increase of EUR 54870660 in Ciudad de la Luz SA (increasing its share to 99,8 %)
Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU enostransko vloži 54870660 EUR za povečanje kapitala v Ciudad de la Luz SA (svoj delež poveča na 99,8 %)
Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU acquires the 0,2 % share of Ciudad de la Luz SA owned by Producciones Aguamarga SL (with a nominal value of EUR 150000) for EUR 139059 (increasing its share in Ciudad de la Luz SA to 100 %)
Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU pridobi 0,2-odstotni delež Ciudad de la Luz SA v lasti Producciones Aguamarga SL (z nominalno vrednostjo 150000 EUR) za 139059 EUR (in poveča svoj delež v Ciudad de la Luz SA na 100 %)
Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU ceded the land on which the studios were built to Ciudad de la Luz SA, thereby increasing its equity by EUR 9800040 (even though the land had been valued at EUR 1030856 in the accounts of Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU).
Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU odstopi zemljišče, na katerem so bili zgrajeni studii družbe Ciudad de la Luz SA, in s tem poveča njeno premoženje na 9800040 EUR (čeprav je bilo zemljišče v računovodskih izkazih Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana SAU ocenjeno na 1030856 EUR).
Before this date, the project had already received permission from the Valencian Government to build the studios on the site.
Pred tem datumom je projekt že prejel dovoljenje vlade Valencije za gradnjo studiev na tej lokaciji.
Summer 2005
Poleti 2005
Ciudad de la Luz SA starts its activities as a film studio
Ciudad de la Luz SA začne opravljati dejavnosti kot filmski studio
Participating loan of EUR 95 million
Udeležbeno posojilo v višini 95 milijonov EUR
Participating loan of EUR 20 million
Udeležbeno posojilo v višini 20 milijonov EUR
Convertible loan stock issued with an option to convert the loan to shares before 31 December 2008
Izdane zamenljive podjetniške obveznice z opcijo za zamenjavo posojila za delnice do 31. decembra 2008
Convertible loan stock issued with an option to convert the loan to shares before 30 June 2009.
Izdane zamenljive podjetniške obveznice z opcijo za zamenjavo posojila za delnice do 30. junija 2009
Convertible loan stock authorised up to EUR 30 million with an option to convert the loan to shares before 30 December 2009.
Odobrene zamenljive podjetniške obveznice v višini do 30 milijonov EUR z opcijo za zamenjavo posojila za delnice do 30. decembra 2009
Unpaid interest on participative loans in 2009 & 2010
Neplačane obresti na udeležbena posojila v letih 2009 in 2010
Unpaid interest on unconverted loans in 2009 and 2010
Neplačane obresti na nepretvorjena posojila v letih 2009 in 2010
The Spanish authorities focused their responses on attempting to demonstrate that the investment is not State aid as a market investor would have invested in the project on the same terms and conditions (applying the market economy investor principle).
Španski organi so si v svojih odgovorih prizadevali dokazati, da naložbe niso državna pomoč, saj bi tržni vlagatelj vlagal v projekt pod enakimi pogoji (z uporabo načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu).
They have provided reports from economic consultancy LECG to support this.
V podporo svojim trditvam so predložili poročila gospodarskih svetovalcev družbe LECG.
Spain also notes that any aid contained in the public funding of Ciudad de la Luz and in the incentives offered to films should be viewed in the perspective of the distorting effects of national film support schemes approved by the Commission in other Member States which attract major film productions to competitors of Ciudad de la Luz [17].
Španija tudi navaja, da bi bilo treba morebitno pomoč, ki jo vsebujejo javno financiranje Ciudad de la Luz in spodbude za filme, obravnavati v luči izkrivljanja, ki ga povzročajo nacionalne sheme za podporo filma, ki jih je odobrila Komisija v drugih državah članicah in ki privabljajo večje filmske produkcije h konkurentom Ciudad de la Luz [17].
Spain also contends that the Regional aid guidelines applicable at the time (1998) would have allowed an aid intensity of 36 % for the investment project.
Španija tudi trdi, da bi takrat veljavne smernice o regionalni pomoči (1998) dovoljevale pomoč v višini 36 % vrednosti projekta.
The additional conditions introduced later in the 2002 Multi-sectoral framework for large investment projects with less than 25 % market share and 5 % capacity increase on the market would also be met.
Izpolnjeni bi bili tudi dodatni pogoji, sprejeti leta 2002 v večsektorskem okviru za velike investicijske projekte z manj kot 25-odstotnim tržnim deležem in 5-odstotnim mogočim povečanjem zmogljivosti za trgu.
Spain provided a second LECG report which criticised the analysis of the 2004 business plan by the Commission services.
Španija je predložila drugo poročilo LECG, ki je kritiziralo analizo poslovnega načrta, ki so jo službe Komisije pripravile leta 2004.
LECG criticised the analysis of the Commission services and provided alternative values for the data and risk factors, as well as providing retrospective valuations of the land on which Ciudad de la Luz was constructed.
LECG je kritiziralo analizo služb Komisije ter je predložilo druge vrednosti za podatke in dejavnike tveganja, pa tudi ocene zemljišča, na katerem je bilo zgrajeno Ciudad de la Luz, za nazaj.
A second economic analysis by the Commission services examined the 2000 business plan and the retrospective land valuations provided by Spain.
V drugi ekonomski analizi so službe Komisije preučile poslovni načrt iz leta 2000 in cenitev zemljišča za nazaj, ki jo je poslala Španija.
In addition, an independent economic assessment of the market economy investor principle test was carried out by an independent consultancy at the request of the Commission.
Poleg tega je neodvisni svetovalec na zahtevo Komisije opravil neodvisno ekonomsko oceno preizkusa načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The independent report was sent to the Spanish authorities on 30 September 2011.
Neodvisno poročilo je bilo španskim organom poslano 30. septembra 2011.
The Spanish authorities reiterated their view, as in their observations to the opening decision, that the profitability prospects of Ciudad de la Luz should be benchmarked against its main EU competitors in the film studio business (e.g. Babelsberg, Pinewood) and not, as Ecorys [18] does, with diversified US audiovisual conglomerates (Time Warner, Disney) [19].
Španski organi so ponovili svoje stališče, ki so ga izrazili v pripombah k sklepu o začetku postopka, da bi bilo treba možnosti donosnosti Ciudad de la Luz meriti glede na glavne konkurente v EU v sektorju filmskih studiev (npr. Babelsberg, Pinewood) in ne glede na raznovrstne avdiovizualne konglomerate v ZDA (Time Warner, Disney) [18], kot je naredila družba Ecorys [19].
The Spanish authorities maintain that this benchmarking should be based on publicly available information (e.g. Bloomberg) from the time of their investment decision (i.e. 2000 and 2004, not 2008).
Španski organi trdijo, da bi morala ta primerjava temeljiti na javno razpoložljivih podatkih (npr. Bloomberg) iz časa naložbene odločitve (tj. iz let 2000 in 2004 in ne 2008).
Finally, they also claim that a number of misunderstandings or technical flaws invalidate the conclusions of the Ecorys study [20].
Trdijo tudi, da so sklepi študije družbe Ecorys neveljavni zaradi številnih nesporazumov ali tehničnih napak [20].
The Spanish authorities claimed that, if these were corrected and the appropriate benchmarking with competitors carried out, the profitability of the prospects of the investment decision based on the evidence available at the time would meet the requirements of the MEIP test.
Španski organi trdijo, da bi v primeru, da bi te napake odpravili in izvedli primerno primerjavo s konkurenti, pričakovana donosnost naložbene odločitve na podlagi takrat razpoložljivih podatkov izpolnjevala zahteve preizkusa načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
According to Article 107(1) of the 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, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
Člen 107(1) PDEU pravi, da „[r]azen če Pogodbi ne določata drugače, 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“.
It follows that in order to be qualified as State aid, the following cumulative conditions have to be met:
Iz tega sledi, da mora pomoč, da se lahko šteje za državno pomoč, izpolnjevati naslednje kumulativne pogoje:
the measure has to be granted out of State resources, (2) it has to confer an economic advantage to undertakings, (3) the advantage has to be selective and distort or threaten to distort competition, (4) the measure has to affect intra-Community trade.
ukrep mora biti odobren iz državnih sredstev, (2) podjetju mora zagotavljati gospodarsko korist, (3) prednost mora biti selektivna in izkrivljati konkurenco ali groziti z izkrivljanjem konkurence, (4) ukrep mora vplivati na trgovino v Skupnosti.
As pointed out above, the Spanish authorities have argued that the measure does not constitute State aid, as it fulfils the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’) test.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, so španski organi trdili, da ukrep ni državna pomoč, ker ustreza preizkusu načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
This test considers whether a market investor would have invested in the project on the same terms and conditions as the public investor at the time when the decision to make public investment was taken.
Ta preizkus ugotavlja, ali bi vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu vlagal v projekt po enakih pogojih kot javni vlagatelj ob sprejetju odločitve o javni naložbi.
In this respect it is relevant that initially there had been a private investor in the project [21] and that the Spanish authorities had commissioned several studies which concluded that the project would generate a positive cash flow (see recital 22).
Glede tega je pomembno, da je bil najprej v projektu zasebni vlagatelj [21] in da so španski organi naročili več študij, ki so ugotovile, da bi projekt ustvarjal pozitivni denarni tok (glej uvodno izjavo 22).
As pointed out in recital 17, in the case of Ciudad de la Luz, initially a private investor (the managing company) held 25 % of the project (i.e. EUR 150000 of the initial share capital of EUR 600000).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 17, je v primeru Ciudad de la Luz prvotno imel zasebni vlagatelj (družba za upravljanje) v lasti 25 % projekta (tj. 150000 EUR začetnega delniškega kapitala v višini 600000 EUR).
However, this private investor withdrew before it had committed any further funds itself (it was bought out by SPTCV in 2004).
Vendar pa se je zasebni vlagatelj umaknil, preden je sam vložil nadaljnja sredstva (izplačala ga je SPTCV leta 2004).
Subsequently, no other private investor invested in the project.
Potem v projekt ni vlagal več noben zasebni vlagatelj.
The fact that the only available private investor had only committed a marginal amount while withdrawing at the moment where the bulk of the investment had to be committed may be considered as prima facie evidence that a private investor would not have carried out such a project under the conditions available at the time.
Ker je edini zasebni vlagatelj vložil le manjši znesek, potem pa se je umaknil, ko je bilo treba vložiti večji del sredstev, bi to lahko šteli kot zadosten dokaz, da zasebni vlagatelj takega projekta ne bi izpeljal pod pogoji, ki so veljali v tistem času.
Furthermore, the situation of this private investor was very specific (and therefore not in line with the market investor considered by case law), since it was also responsible for initiating the project, for overseeing the construction work and for managing and promoting the studios in return for a management fee.
Poleg tega je bil ta zasebni vlagatelj v zelo posebnem položaju (kar ni v skladu z vlagateljem v tržnem gospodarstvu, kot ga obravnava sodna praksa), ker je bil odgovoren tudi za začetek projekta, za nadzor gradbenih del ter za upravljanje in promocijo studiev v zameno za nadomestilo za upravljanje.
This means that its initial investment could be rational for other reasons than its mere profitability, when considered in isolation.
To pomeni, da bi bila lahko ta prva naložba smiselna tudi zaradi drugih razlogov in ne le donosnosti, če se obravnava ločeno.
In the absence of any private shareholder, the regional authority based its investment decision on the results of the consultancy studies.
Ob odsotnosti zasebnih delničarjev je deželni organ svoje naložbene odločitve utemeljil na rezultatih svetovalnih študij.
However, the mere existence of such studies is not sufficient for fulfilling the MEIP test.
Toda sam obstoj takih študij ni dovolj, da bi bil opravljen preizkus načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Before committing funds on the scale invested into Ciudad de la Luz, one would expect a private investor to examine thoroughly the business plan and the assumptions on which such studies are based.
Pred zagotovitvijo sredstev v obsegu, kakršen je bil vložen v Ciudad de la Luz, bi od zasebnega vlagatelja pričakovali, da bo temeljito preučil poslovni načrt in predpostavke, na katerih temeljijo take študije.