natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Measure 2
Komisija je v uvodni izjavi 114 sklepa o začetku postopka pojasnila, da glede na uradno priznane izredne razmere v zvezi z varstvom okolja in zdravja v Tarantu, opisane v uvodni izjavi 11, ne bo nasprotovala nobenim takojšnjim ukrepom, ki bi bili po mnenju italijanskih organov potrebni za varovanje zdravja državljanov.
Despite the fact that the EUR 250 million loan had been granted by private banks, the Commission preliminarily considered that the measure is imputable to the State in light of the sequence of events, i.e. the amendment of Law Decree No 101/2013 and the State's involvement in Ilva's negotiations with the banks, which eventually led to the granting of the loan.
Zato uvedba formalnega postopka ni posegala v nobeno javno subvencioniranje stroškov del, potrebnih za sanacijo območja družbe Ilva in okoliških območij, če so taka dela nujno potrebna za odpravo obstoječega onesnaženja in zagotovitev javnega zdravja v mestu Taranto, dokler ni v skladu z zahtevanimi standardi, ki jih določa veljavna zakonodaja, opredeljen onesnaževalec.
The Commission's preliminary view was that, if the State or other public bodies were among Ilva's chief creditors, by granting a higher priority of repayment to the newly issued EUR 250 million private loan, measure 2 would constitute de facto a waiver of public debts.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija v uvodni izjavi 115 sklepa o začetku postopka navedla, da so italijanski organi sprejeli potrebne ukrepe za opredelitev onesnaževalca.
In that case, measure 2 would involve State resources.
Komisija je ob čakanju na izid sodnega postopka menila, da se je italijanska država upravičeno zavzela za zagotovitev, da do zdaj povzročeno onesnaženje ne bi škodovalo zdravju državljanov in okolju na območju mesta Taranto.
According to the Commission, despite the general wording of the amended law, at that point the measure was applied only to Ilva and is therefore de facto selective.
Komisija je pojasnila, da bi moral onesnaževalec, če bi bil opredeljen v tekočem sodnem postopku, v skladu z veljavnimi pravili, s katerimi je vzpostavljeno ali se izvaja načelo „onesnaževalec plača“, vrniti zneske, ki jih je država že porabila za sanacijo, skupaj obrestmi.
By allowing Ilva to meet its liquidity needs, the measure seemed to have conferred an advantage that Ilva would not have been able to obtain under normal market conditions.
Ker italijanski pravosodni organi izvajajo ustrezne ukrepe za opredelitev onesnaževalca in finančnih odgovornosti, ki izhajajo iz njegovih dejanj, ta sklep ne vpliva na finančne posledice glede razdelitve stroškov, nastalih za odpravo obstoječega onesnaževanja, med državo ali druge javne ali zasebne subjekte in onesnaževalca(-e) na podlagi načela „onesnaževalec plača“ iz člena 191(2) PDEU.
Therefore, the Commission preliminarily considered that the measure confers a selective economic advantage to Ilva.
Glede prihodnjih stroškov sanacije Komisija ugotavlja, da je 1,1 milijarde EUR sredstev, ki so jih prenesli sedanji delničarji družbe Ilva, po zakonu namenjenih izvajanju okoljskega načrta (uvodna izjava 21), poleg kakršnih koli nadaljnjih naložb za izboljšanje okoljske uspešnosti obrata v Tarantu, ki bi jih lahko izvedli morebitni prihodnji lastniki in upravljavci (glej uvodni izjavi 15 in 63).
Measure 3
PRIPOMBE ITALIJE
Considering that the State guarantee was issued by Ministerial Decree pursuant to the provisions of a Government Law Decree, the Commission's preliminary view was that measure 3 is imputable to the State.
Splošne pripombe o namenu ukrepov
The risk on State resources could be deducted from the fact that, if triggered, a State guarantee is paid through the State budget.
Po mnenju Italije so bili ukrepi italijanske vlade potrebni za zaščito javnih interesov in ne spadajo na področje uporabe člena 107 PDEU.
As regards the presence of a selective economic advantage, the Commission questioned the market conformity of the State guarantee.
Italija trdi, da se uvodni izjavi 114 in 115 sklepa o začetku postopka nanašata na položaje, opisane v Direktivi 2004/35/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta ter členu 250 italijanskega okoljskega zakonika, v skladu s katerim mora javna uprava nadaljevati potrebno delo za sanacijo okoljske škode, dokler ne bo opredeljen onesnaževalec.
First, it was unclear whether a market operator would have agreed to grant any guarantee at all to Ilva, just two months after it defaulted on a previous loan.
V skladu s temi zakonskimi določbami so bila torej z zakonskim odlokom št. 1/2015 in odlokom predsednika sveta ministrov (Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri) z dne 14. marca 2014 o sprejetju okoljskega načrta izrednim upraviteljem družbe Ilva podeljena javna pooblastila, da ukrepajo v imenu države za okoljsko sanacijo družbe Ilva.
Second, even assuming that Ilva could have potentially had access to external sources of financing and/or external guarantees, the Commission doubted that the premium charged by the Italian State would adequately remunerate the credit risk borne by the State.
V tem okviru bi bilo treba dela za sanacijo okolja v višini […] EUR šteti za dopustna v skladu z uvodnima izjavama 114 in 115 sklepa o začetku postopka.
Measure 4
Ta dela vključujejo:
Based on the relevant set of indicators indicated by the Union Court's case-law, the Commission preliminarily considered that measure 4 implemented by Fintecna is imputable to the Italian State.
sanacijska dela (sanacija voda in onesnaženih območij, ravnanje z odpadki, odstranjevanje azbesta) ter dela, vključena v obrazloženo mnenje Komisije.
As to the origin of the resources involved, the Commission noted that Fintecna qualifies as a public undertaking.
Skupni znesek te kategorije je […] EUR.
Therefore its resources are deemed to be State resources.
dodatna dela, ki jih je Komisija zahtevala v obrazloženem mnenju za odpravo kršitev Direktive 2008/1/ES do 7. januarja 2014 in Direktive 2010/75/EU od istega dne.
As regards the presence of a selective economic advantage, whilst noting that, on its principle, the capped guarantee by the State for environmental damages agreed at the time when the company was State owned before Ilva was privatised and sold to the Riva family was market practice and not objectionable, the Commission questioned both the amount and the timing of the settlement agreement and wondered whether a market economy operator would have behaved similarly in a comparable situation.
Italijanski organi navajajo, da skupni znesek navedenih dopustnih del presega skupni znesek ukrepov 2, 3 in 4.
Measure 5
Italijanski organi prav tako poudarjajo, da je postopek Komisije v zvezi z državno pomočjo neločljivo povezan s postopkom za ugotavljanje kršitev, ki se izvaja vzporedno.
As the measure consists in a loan granted by the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Economy and Finance, out of resources of the budget of the Italian State, the Commission preliminarily considered that it is imputable to the State and involves State resources.
V obrazloženem mnenju Komisije je priznano, da bi lahko težave, s katerimi se je družba Ilva srečevala pri iskanju finančnih sredstev, odložile izvajanje del, potrebnih za izpolnjevanje predpisov njenega okoljskega dovoljenja v Tarantu.
As regards the presence of a selective economic advantage, the Commission wondered whether any private market operator would have agreed to lend EUR 300 million to Ilva at the same conditions as Italy, if at all, considering Ilva's financial difficulties.
V tem okviru je bila dodelitev javnih sredstev izrednim upraviteljem družbe Ilva način, ki so ga italijanski organi izbrali za izpolnjevanje obveznosti iz obrazloženega mnenja in izvedbo potrebnih del.
Compatibility grounds
Po mnenju italijanskih organov uvodni izjavi 114 in 115 sklepa o začetku postopka kažeta na to, da Komisija tovrstnim ukrepom ne bo nasprotovala.
As the Commission did not see any grounds on which State aid in favour of Ilva would be compatible with the internal market, it invited Italy to substantiate any such grounds and indicate to the Commission the relevant legal basis, if any.
Nazadnje, Italija poudarja socialno-ekonomski pomen obrata v Tarantu, v katerem je neposredno in posredno zaposlenih približno 24 % celotnega zaposlenega prebivalstva v pokrajini Taranto, kjer se je stopnja brezposelnosti povišala s 15,5 % leta 2013 na 18,5 % leta 2014.
On the possible economic continuity between Ilva and the new entity acquiring its assets
Državna sredstva
In recital 107 of the Opening Decision, the Commission recalled that in case of economic continuity between the recipient of aid that the Commission declares incompatible with the internal market and its acquirer, the latter may be called to pay it back.
Po mnenju italijanskih organov ukrep 1 ne vključuje državnih sredstev.
The final scope of the sale may still evolve as a result of the ongoing merger review referred to in recital 15 above.
Italijanski organi so prvi sklop utemeljitev predložili, preden je bil dosežen sporazum o poravnavi med družino Riva in družbo Ilva iz uvodne izjave 21 zgoraj.
Italy and Peacelink have submitted their observations on the issue of economic (dis)continuity between the current Ilva and the buyer of Ilva's assets, however at this stage it would be premature for the Commission to take a final view and this issue is therefore not further assessed in this Decision.
Navedene utemeljitve so predstavljene v uvodnih izjavah od 73 do 77.
No objection to urgent environmental and health interventions
Po sporazumu o poravnavi so italijanski organi svoje pripombe dopolnili z dodatnimi utemeljitvami, da bi dokazali neobstoj državnih sredstev (glej uvodno izjavo 78).
In recital 114 of the Opening Decision, the Commission clarified that it would not oppose to any immediate action, which the Italian authorities may consider necessary in order to protect the health of citizens due to the officially recognised environmental and health emergency situation in Taranto portrayed in recital 11.
Prvič, italijanski organi menijo, da je bila sodna praksa, navedena v sklepu o začetku postopka, zlasti sodba Doux Elevage, oblikovana v popolnoma drugačnih okoliščinah.
Therefore, the opening of formal proceedings was without prejudice to any public support to expenditure on works needed to clean up Ilva's site and the surrounding areas, to the extent that such works would be urgently necessary to cope with existing pollution and to guarantee public health in the city of Taranto, pending the identification of the polluter to requisite standard in compliance with the applicable rules.
V zvezi s tem Italija navaja točki 208 in 209 sodbe Splošnega sodišča z dne 24. septembra 2015 v zadevi T-674/11, da bi poudarila, da se sredstva zasebnih strank lahko štejejo za državna sredstva le, če: (i) so jih njihovi lastniki dali na voljo državi ali (ii) so se jim njihovi lastniki odpovedali in je njihovo upravljanje prevzela država na podlagi svojih suverenih pooblastil.
In this respect, the Commission noted in recital 115 of the Opening Decision that the Italian authorities had taken the necessary steps to identify the polluter.
Ni mogoče šteti, da so sredstva pod javnim nadzorom in so torej državna sredstva v zgornjem smislu zgolj zato, ker je država tretji osebi z zakonodajnim aktom predpisala poseben način uporabe lastnih sredstev.
Pending the outcome of the judicial proceedings, the Commission considered that the Italian State was justifiably acting with a view to ensuring that pollution accumulated so far would not harm the health of citizens and the environment in the area of Taranto.
Po mnenju Italije navedeni pogoji nisi izpolnjeni v primeru ukrepa 1, saj je 1,1 milijarde EUR pripadalo glavnim delničarjem in nekdanjemu vodstvu družbe Ilva.
The Commission clarified that, in case any polluter were to be identified in the ongoing judicial proceedings, it should reimburse with interests, in compliance with applicable rules establishing or implementing the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the amounts already spent by the State for clean-up.
Z drugimi besedami, z zadevnim zakonom je bila zgolj naložena določena uporaba sredstev, ki so bila v lasti glavnih delničarjev in nekdanjega vodstva družbe Ilva in ne države.
Since the Italian judicial authorities are taking appropriate steps to identify the polluter and the financial responsibilities derived from its actions, this Decision is without prejudice to financial consequences as to allocation of costs that were incurred to remedy existing pollution already borne between the State or other public or private entities and the polluter(s) in application of the polluter pays principle set out in Article 191(2) of the TFEU.
Domnevno ukrep ne pomeni razlastitve v korist države.
As regards future clean-up costs, the Commission notes that EUR 1,1 billion of funds transferred by the current shareholders of Ilva are earmarked by law to the Environmental Plan (recital 21), in addition to any further investments for upgrading the environmental performance of the Taranto plant which the possible future owner and manager may implement (see recitals 15 and 63).
Šlo naj bi le za izvajanje splošnega pravnega pravila iz člena 2497 civilnega zakonika, ki določa odgovornost matične družbe do delničarjev in upnikov njenih hčerinskih družb v primeru nepravilnosti pri upravljanju (responsabilità patrimoniale dell'impresa-holding), kot je navedeno v sodni odločbi z dne 28. oktobra 2014, izdani v zvezi s to zadevo.
COMMENTS FROM ITALY
Poleg tega je Fondo Unico di Giustizia zgolj skrbnik (custode ex lege), ki mora upoštevati ustrezne zakonske določbe (npr. ministrsko odredbo z dne 30. julija 2009) in navedbe sodnega organa.
General comments on the purpose of the measures
Ne more prosto razpolagati z zneski, ki jih ima.
According to Italy, the measures adopted by the Italian Government were necessary to preserve public interests and they do not fall within the scope of application of Article 107 TFEU.
Zadevni zneski bodo uporabljeni izključno za odpravo povzročene okoljske škode v skladu z načelom „onesnaževalec plača“.
Italy submits that recitals 114 and 115 of the Opening Decision concern situations described by Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 250 of the Italian Environmental Code, pursuant to which the public administration has to proceed itself with the necessary works to remedy environmental damage pending the identification of the polluter.
Poleg tega prvotni lastniki zaseženega premoženja ne bodo izgubili lastniških pravic, saj bodo v primeru oprostitve prejeli obveznice in pravico do unovčenja ustrezne vrednosti skupaj z obrestmi.
In line with these legal provisions, Law Decree No 1/2015 and the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers (Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri) of 14 March 2014 adopting the Environmental Plan have therefore entrusted Ilva's Extraordinary Commissioners with powers of public nature to act on behalf of the State for the environmental clean-up of Ilva.
Italijanski organi so po podpisu sporazuma o poravnavi iz uvodne izjave 21 predložili naslednje dodatne utemeljitve.
Against this background, environmental works amounting to EUR […] should be considered as permissible according to recitals 114 and 115 of the Opening Decision.
Člani družine Riva so s sporazumom o poravnavi formalno izrazili svoje soglasje, da se zaseženi zneski (ki so jih še vedno imeli v Švici) dokončno dajo na voljo družbi Ilva, tudi v primeru oprostitve.
These works include:
Zato so bili zneski enkrat in za vselej prostovoljno preneseni z družine Riva na družbo Ilva, ne da bi Fondo Unico di Giustizia izvajal kakršen koli nadzor nad njimi.
Clean-up works (clean-up of waters and contaminated areas, waste management, asbestos removal) and works included in the Commission Reasoned Opinion.
Učinek na državni proračun
The total amount of this category is EUR […].
Po mnenju Italije je treba za ugotovitev obstoja državne pomoči dokazati dovolj neposredno povezavo med prednostjo, dodeljeno prejemniku, in zmanjšanjem državnega proračuna ali dovolj konkretnim gospodarskim tveganjem za bremenitev tega proračuna.
Additional works required by the Commission in its Reasoned Opinion to remedy the violations of Directive 2008/1/EC until 7 January 2014 and Directive 2010/75/EU as from the same date.
V tem pogledu je trditev Komisije v sklepu o začetku postopka, da se je država z vložitvijo zaseženih zneskov v obveznice družbe Ilva in ne v državne obveznice morda odpovedala mogočim prihodkom, popolnoma hipotetična in neutemeljena.
The Italian authorities note that the total amount of those permissible works exceeds the combined amount of measures 2, 3, and 4.
Prvič, ni razloga za domnevo, da bi bili v obratnem scenariju zaseženi zneski naloženi v državne obveznice in ne bi bili preprosto položeni na bančni račun Fondo Unico di Giustizia.
The Italian authorities also underline that the Commission's State aid procedure is intrinsically linked to its parallel infringement procedure.
Drugič, Komisija ni dokazala dovolj neposredne povezave med odločitvijo, da se zaseženi zneski ne vložijo v državne obveznice, in morebitnim negativnim učinkom na državni proračun.
The Commission's Reasoned Opinion acknowledges that Ilva's difficulties in finding financial resources could delay the implementation of the works that are necessary to meet the prescriptions of its environmental permit in Taranto.
Italijanski organi torej ugotavljajo, da ukrep 1 nima negativnega učinka na državni proračun.
In this context, the granting of public resources to Ilva's Extraordinary Commissioners has been the way chosen by the Italian authorities to comply with the obligations set out in the Reasoned Opinion, and to implement the necessary works.
Nasprotno, nanj lahko vpliva pozitivno.
According to the Italian authorities, recitals 114 and 115 of the Opening Decision imply that the Commission would not oppose to this type of measures.
Selektivna prednost
Last, Italy stresses the socioeconomic importance of the Taranto plant, which employs directly and indirectly around 24 % of the total employed population in the Taranto province, in a Region where unemployment raised from 15,5 % in 2013 to 18,5 % in 2014.
Italija tudi trdi, da družbi Ilva ni bila dodeljena nikakršna selektivna prednost.
State resources
Zadevni zneski naj bi bili položeni na ločen račun ter namenjeni okoljskemu načrtu in delom, predpisanim v obrazloženem mnenju.
According to the Italian authorities, measure 1 does not involve State resources.
Ukrep je torej omejen na upoštevanje načela „onesnaževalec plača“ z doseganjem ustreznega ravnotežja med ustavno pomembnimi interesi na področju varovanja zdravja, zaposlovanja in okolja.
The Italian authorities provided a first set of arguments before the settlement agreement between the Riva family and Ilva, referred to in recital 21 above, was reached.
Cilj ukrepa je namreč: (i) olajšati izredno upravo družbe Ilva, tako da se ji dajo na voljo potrebna sredstva za izvedbo del, ki jih je Komisija Italiji naložila v obrazloženem mnenju, in (ii) zaščititi zakonite pravice posameznikov, ki so predmet kazenske preiskave.
Those arguments are presented in recitals 73-77.
Na splošno za zadevni ukrep glede na njegovo posebno naravo ni mogoče šteti, da je z njim dodeljena selektivna prednost, in sicer najmanj iz dveh razlogov.
After the settlement agreement, the Italian authorities complemented their observations with additional arguments to demonstrate the absence of State resources (see recital 78).
Prvič, države članice se lahko svobodno odločijo, kako bodo obvladovale položaj do zaključka kazenskega postopka (res controversa), saj je ta zadeva zunaj nadzora Komisije na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči.
First, the Italian authorities are of the opinion that the jurisprudence quoted in the Opening Decision, in particular the Doux Elevage judgement, was developed in completely different circumstances.
Drugič, začasno predvidevanje izida tekočega kazenskega postopka je splošno načelo, ki je skupno večini evropskih pravnih sistemov, in kot tako ne more dodeljevati selektivne prednosti podjetju, ki ima koristi od takega predvidevanja.
In this respect, Italy quotes paragraphs 208 and 209 of the judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 in case T-674/11 to stress that resources from private parties can be considered as State resources only if: (i) those resources were placed at the disposal of the State by their owners; or (ii) have been abandoned by their owners, the State having assumed management of them by virtue of its sovereign powers.
Selektivnost
It cannot be held that resources are under public control and therefore constitute State resources in the above sense simply on the basis that, by legislative action, the State requires a third party to use its own resources in a particular way.
Po mnenju Italije se z zadevno zakonodajno določbo zgolj izvaja splošno pravno načelo, ki dopušča prednostni status posojil, če je to potrebno za ohranitev vrednosti podjetja in upravljanje njegovega premoženja.
According to Italy, those conditions are not met in the case of measure 1, as the EUR 1,1 billion belonged to Ilva's main shareholders and former management.
Žrtvovanje, naloženo nekaterim upnikom, se izravna z ohranitvijo sredstev podjetja.
In other words, the law at issue merely imposed a certain use of assets that were owned by Ilva's main shareholders and former management and not by the State.
Dejstvo, da ni še nobeno drugo podjetje izkoristilo te določbe, je zgolj posledica tega, da je bila ta zakonodajna določba uvedena pred kratkim.
Allegedly, the measure does not qualify as an expropriation in favour of the State.
Državna sredstva in učinek na državni proračun
It would be a mere implementation of a general rule of law from article 2497 of Civil Code which provides for liability of the parent company vis-à-vis shareholders and creditors of its subsidiaries, in case of maladministration (‘responsabilità patrimoniale dell'impresa-holding’), as stated in a judicial decree of 28 October 2014 rendered on the matter).
Po mnenju Italije ukrep 2 ne vključuje državnih sredstev.
Furthermore, the Fondo Unico di Giustizia is a mere custodian (custode ex lege) who is bound to respect the applicable legal provisions (e.g. the Ministerial Decree of 30 July 2009) and the indications from the judicial authority.
Z zadevno zakonsko določbo pristojni organ ni bil „pooblaščen za vodenje in nadziranje upravljanja sredstev“.
It does not have the amounts at its free disposal.
V tem primeru italijanski organi niso bili vključeni v odnose med finančnimi institucijami in družbo Ilva.
The sum in question will be used solely for restoring the environmental damage caused, in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.
Poleg tega ukrep nima negativnega učinka na državni proračun, niti v zvezi z državnimi posojili za družbo Ilva.
In addition, the initial owners of the seized assets will not lose their property rights since, in case of acquittal, they receive the bonds and a relevant right to cash-in the relevant value plus interests.
Razen davčnih ukrepov mora Komisija dokazati dovolj neposredno povezavo med prednostjo, dodeljeno prejemniku, in konkretnim gospodarskim tveganjem za bremenitev državnega proračuna.
After the settlement agreement referred to in recital 21 was signed, the Italian authorities presented the following additional arguments.
V tej zadevi povezava ne obstaja.
As a result, the amounts have been voluntarily transferred from the Riva family to Ilva, once and for all, without the Fondo Unico di Giustizia exercising any control on them.
Drugič, ukrep ne zmanjšuje možnosti države, da izterja svoja posojila, niti teh posojil ne postavlja v slabši položaj v primerjavi z drugimi posojili.
Effect on State budget
Nasprotno, z ohranitvijo premoženja družbe Ilva je ukrep pozitivno vplival na vse upnike, vključno z državo, ki bodo svoje terjatve poravnali iz tega premoženja.