natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Norwegian authorities submit that the second condition involves a check for ‘manifest error’ as opposed to a ‘reasonable relationship between the aim and the means employed’.
Norveški organi trdijo, da drugi pogoj vključuje preverjanje „očitne napake“ v nasprotju s „primernim odnosom med ciljem in uporabljenimi sredstvi“.
They submit that the derogation applies if it is necessary in order to allow the undertaking to perform its tasks on acceptable financial terms [11].
Trdijo, da se uporablja odstopanje, če je potrebno, da se podjetju omogoči, da svoje naloge opravlja pod sprejemljivimi finančnimi pogoji [11].
The Norwegian authorities exclude the possibility of overcompensation, noting that the allocation of NOK 4,5 million covers only 20 % of the costs of the airline pilot programme.
Norveški organi izključujejo možnost čezmernega nadomestila in ugotavljajo, da dodelitev v znesku 4,5 milijona NOK krije samo 20 % stroškov programa za letalske pilote.
The Norwegian authorities highlight that the requirement in Article 59(2) EEA that trade is not affected ‘to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Contracting Parties’ is less strict that the criterion of effect on trade for the purposes of establishing the presence of aid under Article 61(1) EEA.
Norveški organi poudarjajo, da je zahteva v členu 59(2) EGP, da „na trgovino ne sme vplivati v tolikšni meri, da bi bilo to v nasprotju z interesi pogodbenic“ manj stroga od merila vpliva na trgovino za namene ugotavljanja prisotnosti pomoči v skladu s členom 61(1) EGP.
They cite the balancing exercise referred to by the Court of Justice in its case law [12], and consider that the burden of proof in this matter lies with the Authority [13].Specific comments by Troms County
Navajajo tehtanje, ki ga v svoji sodni praksi navaja Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti [12] in menijo, da v tej zadevi dokazno breme nosi Nadzorni organ [13].Posebne opombe okrožja Troms
Troms County is of the opinion that securing a proper airline pilot education is a vital task of national importance.
Okrožje Troms meni, da je zagotavljanje ustreznega izobraževanja za letalske pilote ključna naloga nacionalnega pomena.
It views its participation, both direct (loan guarantee and remission of loan) and indirect (as owner of NLH), in the financial restructuring of NAC as normal market practice and underlines that its contribution was based on the condition that other creditors participated in the debt restructuring [14].Troms County explained that the guarantee secures a loan to finance a flight simulator.
Svojo neposredno (jamstvo za posojilo in odpust posojila) in posredno (kot lastnik NLH) udeležbo v finančnem prestrukturiranju NLA vidi kot običajno tržno prakso in poudarja, da je njegov prispevek temeljil na pogoju, da drugi upniki sodelujejo v prestrukturiranju dolga [14].Okrožje Troms je pojasnilo, da je jamstvo zavarovanje posojila za financiranje simulatorja letenja.
The ultimate owners of NAC were required, in order to avoid upfront payment, to guarantee the loan.
Končni lastniki NLA so morali zato, da se prepreči začetno plačilo, jamčiti za posojilo.
The guarantee by Troms County represents 12,27 % of the loan amount.
Jamstvo okrožja Troms predstavlja 12,27 % zneska posojila.
Troms County highlights the parent-subsidiary nature of the relationship between NAC and the County.
Okrožje Troms poudarja, da ima odnos med NLA in okrožjem naravo odnosa matična družba-hčerinska družba.
It also states that any premium, had one been demanded, would not have exceeded the de minimis threshold for aid.
Navaja tudi, da premija, če bi se zahtevala, ne bi presegala praga neznatnosti za pomoč.
Specific comments by the Municipality of Målselv
Posebne opombe občine Målselv
The Municipality of Målselv underlines that the financial difficulties experienced by NAC at the time of the loan were perceived to be temporary and, as an interested party, the Municipality participated in the ongoing refinancing process.
Občina Målselv poudarja, da so se zdele finančne težave NLA v času posojila začasne in občina je kot zainteresirana stranka sodelovala v procesu refinanciranja, ki je potekal.
The Municipality submits that, as long as the risks are adequately and objectively assessed at the time the decision to grant a loan was made, the Authority should desist from reviewing the level of interest set unless it appears that there were no objective bona fide grounds for reasonably expecting that a private investor would have lent money in the circumstances of the case.
Občina trdi, da v kolikor so bila v času, ko je bila sprejeta odločitev o odobritvi posojila, tveganja ustrezno in objektivno ocenjena, bi Nadzorni organ moral odstopiti od pregledovanja določene ravni obresti, razen če se zdi, da ni objektivnih razlogov v dobri veri za utemeljeno pričakovanje, da bi zasebni vlagatelj posodil denar v okoliščinah zadeve.
Comments submitted by interested third parties
Pripombe, ki so jih predložile zainteresirane tretje strani
By letter dated 3 May 2007, received and registered by the Authority on the same day (Event No 420011), Rørosfly AS submitted comments to the Decision to open the formal investigation.
Rørosfly AS je z dopisom z dne 3. maja 2007, ki ga je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral na isti dan (dogodek št. 420011), predložil pripombe na Odločbo o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.
They support the complainant and underline the competitive advantage public support of only one flight school entails.
Podpirajo pritožnika in poudarjajo konkurenčno prednost, ki jo povzroča javna podpora ene same šole letenja.
By letter dated 4 May 2007, received and registered by the Authority on the same day (Event No 420422), the complainant submitted comments to the decision to open the formal investigation.
Pritožnik je z dopisom z dne 4. maja 2007, ki ga je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral na isti dan (dogodek št. 420422), predložil pripombe na Odločbo o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.
With reference to the argument that NAC does not perform an economic activity, the complainant recalls the breadth of the term ‘undertaking’, suggesting that the test is whether the entity is engaged in an activity that is an economic one, involving the offering of goods or services on the market which could, at least in principle, be carried on by a private undertaking in order to make profits [16].
V zvezi s trditvijo, da NLA ne opravlja gospodarske dejavnosti, pritožnik opozarja na širino izraza „podjetje“, ki pomeni, da se presodi, ali subjekt opravlja dejavnost, ki je gospodarska in vključuje ponujanje blaga ali storitev na trgu, ki bi jo lahko, vsaj načeloma, opravljalo zasebno podjetje z namenom ustvarjati dobiček [16].
In the view of the complainant, NAC conducts a typical commercial business with an evident economic purpose.
Po mnenju pritožnika NLA opravlja tipično poslovno dejavnost z očitnim ekonomskim namenom.
In support of this position, the complainant refers to NAC’s extensive advertising as characteristic of market participants.
V podporo temu stališču se pritožnik sklicuje na obsežno oglaševanje NLA, ki je značilno za udeležence na trgu.
NEAR also refers to the increase in its own intake of students since the winding-up of NAC as illustrative of the competitive relationship between the various flight schools.With regard to the application of Article 59(2) EEA, the complainant queries the precise content of the SGEI invoked by the Norwegian authorities.
NEAR se tudi sklicuje na to, da ima od prenehanja NLA več študentov, kar ponazarja konkurenčno razmerje med različnimi šolami letenja.Glede uporabe člena 59(2) EGP pritožnik dvomi o natančni vsebini SSGP, na katero se sklicujejo norveški organi.
All flight schools in Norway must comply with the same national and international rules.
Vse šole letenja na Norveškem morajo ravnati v skladu z istimi nacionalnimi in mednarodnimi pravili.
Consequently, the activities of NAC as a whole cannot be regarded as an SGEI; NAC must provide something ‘extra’ compared to the other schools.
Zato dejavnosti NLA kot celote ne moremo šteti za SSGP; NLA mora v primerjavi z drugimi šolami ponuditi nekaj „dodatnega“.
The complainant identifies the provision of the entire training in Norway as the only possible ‘extra’ element offered by NAC.
Pritožnik ugotavlja, da je izvajanje celotnega usposabljanja na Norveškem edini možni „dodatni element“, ki ga nudi NLA.
And yet, while the characteristic of a SGEI is that it will not be provided without public intervention, NEAR offers integrated pilot education with training exclusively in Norway (at a lower price than that offered at NAC).
Medtem, ko je za SSGP značilno, da se ne opravlja brez javne intervencije, NEAR izvaja integrirano usposabljanje za pilote z usposabljanjem izključno na Norveškem (po nižji ceni, kot je cena NLA).
The complainant therefore concludes that classifying the service in question as a SGEI amounts to manifest error.
Pritožnik zato ugotavlja, da je razvrstitev zadevne službe kot SSGP očitna napaka.
In any event, the complainant argues that the conditions provided for in Article 59(2) EEA are not satisfied.
Vsekakor pritožnik trdi, da pogoji iz člena 59(2) EGP niso izpolnjeni.
The complainant contests the statement by the Norwegian authorities that entrustment in an official act took place via the Norwegian Aviation Act and the budget allocation.
Pritožnik izpodbija izjavo norveških organov, da je pooblastitev v uradnem aktu potekala preko Norveškega zakona o letalstvu in dodelitve proračunskih sredstev.
Moreover, with reference to the State Aid Guidelines on public service compensation, neither the precise nature of the SGEI nor the parameters for calculating, controlling and reviewing the compensation are specified in any official act.
Poleg tega v zvezi s Smernicami o državni pomoči za nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe noben uradni akt ne navaja podrobno natančne narave SSGP, parametrov za izračun, nadzor in pregled nadomestila.
In this respect, the complainant notes that the Norwegian authorities have not documented the costs related to any SGEI (i.e. the costs related to a potential ‘obligation’ to carry out all flying lessons in Norway).
V tej zvezi pritožnik ugotavlja, da norveški organi niso dokumentirali stroškov, povezanih s SSGP (tj. stroškov, povezanih z možno „obveznostjo“ izvajati vse učne ure letenja na Norveškem).
Indeed, the complainant submits that the same education could be offered by NEAR for a lower price [17].Finally, the complainant comments on the ‘market investor principle’.
Pritožnik trdi, da bi NEAR lahko enako izobraževanje izvajal po nižji ceni [17].Na koncu pritožnik daje pripombe o „načelu tržnega vlagatelja“.
It is submitted that NAC has been in financial difficulty at least since SAS decided to withdraw its support in 2005 and that, at the time of the ‘investments’, the Norwegian authorities had no basis for expecting a reasonable return on the capital invested.
Navaja se, da je NLA v finančnih težavah vsaj od takrat, ko je SAS odločil umakniti podporo v letu 2005 in da v času „vlaganj“ norveški organi niso imeli nobene podlage, da bi pričakovali primeren donos vloženega kapitala.
With respect to the fact that the authorities had an ownership stake in NAC, the complainant refers to case law of the ECJ and submits that, contrary to that case law, the ‘investments’ were not made in the abstract but that social, regional and sectoral considerations came into play.
V zvezi z dejstvom, da so organi imeli lastniški delež v NLA, se pritožnik sklicuje na sodno prasko Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in trdi, da v nasprotju z navedeno sodno prakso „naložbe“ niso bile abstraktne, ampak imajo pri tem vlogo socialni, regionalni in sektorski dejavniki.
More specifically, the complainant submits that Norsk Luftfartshøgskole must be regarded as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA and that the grant of NOK 1,9 million to that entity constitutes an economic advantage which threatens to distort competition.
Ali natančneje, pritožnik trdi, da je treba Norsk Luftfartshøgskole šteti za podjetje v smislu člena 61(1) EGP in da pomoč temu subjektu v znesku 1,9 milijona NOK predstavlja gospodarsko prednost navedenega subjekta, ki pomeni nevarnost izkrivljanja konkurence.
Moreover, the fact that the foundation is non-profit-making, investments can hardly be said to comply with the market investor principle.
Poleg tega bi zaradi dejstva, da je sklad neprofiten, težko rekli, da so naložbe skladne z načelom tržnega vlagatelja.
The complainant reiterates the points made above and concludes that Norsk Luftfartshøgskole is not entrusted with a public service obligation under Article 59(2) EEA, nor does the amount granted bear any relation to the cost of any alleged SGEI.
Pritožnik ponavlja zgornje ugotovitve in ugotavlja, da Norsk Luftfartshøgskole ni naložena obveznost opravljanja javne službe po členu 59(2) EGP, in znesek dodeljene pomoči ni povezan z nobeno domnevno SSGP.
The complainant also identifies, from the comments of the Norwegian authorities to the Decision to open the formal investigation, two further potential elements of aid: NLH relieved NAC of its rent obligations in relation to the dormitory for students for a period of time and it reduced the level of payments due for the lease of the hangar and administration facilities.
Pritožnik iz pripomb norveških organov na Odločbo o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave ugotavlja še dva možna elementa pomoči. NLH je NLA oprostil obveznosti najemnine v zvezi s študentskim domom za določeno obdobje in znižal višino plačil za zakup hangarja in upravnih objektov.
The complainant considers that these actions could not have been undertaken in line with the market investor principle and that they therefore constitute State aid from NLH to NAC.
Pritožnik meni, da teh dejavnosti ne bi bilo mogoče izvesti v skladu z načelom tržnega vlagatelja in zato predstavljajo državno pomoč NLH za NLA.
With regard to the remission of the loan [18], the complainant submits that it is not sufficient to demonstrate that private investors also granted remission and maintains its claim that the loan remission amounts to State aid which is not in line with the market investor principle.
V zvezi z odpustom posojila [18] pritožnik trdi, da ni dovolj dokazati, da so tudi zasebni vlagatelji odobrili odpust in še naprej trdi, da je odpust posojila državna pomoč, ki ni v skladu z načelom tržnega vlagatelja.
In particular, the complainant notes that no evidence documenting a restructuring plan which would lead to an adequate return on investment has been submitted by the County.
Zlasti pritožnik ugotavlja, da okrožje ni predložilo dokazil o načrtu prestrukturiranja, ki bi vodil do ustreznega donosa naložbe.
With regard to the loan guarantee, the complainant contests the statement by the Norwegian authorities that parent companies do not tend to charge a guarantee premium on loans to subsidiaries and refers to sections 3-8 and 3-9 of the Norwegian Act relating to limited liability companies in support of its claim that the opposite is true.
V zvezi z jamstvom za posojilo pritožnik izpodbija trditev norveških organov, da matične družbe običajno hčerinskim družbam ne zaračunavajo jamstvenih premij za posojila in se v podporo svoji trditvi, da je resnica ravno obratna, sklicuje na oddelke 3 do 8 in 3 do 9 norveškega Zakona, ki se nanaša na družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo.
Finally, with regard to the interest rate of 8,5 % charged on the loan from the Municipality of Målselv, the complainant reiterates the considerations underlying the market investor principle and concludes that, given the financial situation of NAC, the interest rate does not reflect the risk attached to the loan and should be classified as a grant/subsidy which a private investor would not have made.
V zvezi z 8,5 % obrestno mero, zaračunano na posojilo občine Målselv, pa pritožnik ponavlja utemeljitev, na kateri temelji načelo tržnega vlagatelja, in ugotavlja, da ob upoštevanju finančnega položaja NLA obrestna mera ne odraža tveganja, povezanega s posojilom, in jo je treba opredeliti kot pomoč/subvencijo, ki jo zasebni vlagatelj ne bi uresničil.
Comments by the Norwegian authorities to those submissions
Pripombe norveških organov na navedena stališča
The Norwegian authorities responded to the comments submitted by Rørosfly and the complainant by stressing, firstly, that NAC no longer exists as a legal entity and, secondly, that since NEAR does not actively encourage students to take their entire training in Norway, support to NAC was perceived to be the best way to contribute to the aviation learning environment in Norway.
Norveški organi so odgovorili na pripombe, ki sta jih predložila Rørosfly in pritožnik, in poudarili, da, prvič, NLA ne obstaja več kot pravna oseba in, drugič, ker NEAR študentov ne spodbuja več aktivno, naj celotno usposabljanje opravijo na Norveškem, se je zdelo, da je podpora NLA najboljši način prispevka k učenju na področju letalstva na Norveškem.
Scope of the present decision
Področje uporabe te odločbe
In their comments to the Decision to open the formal investigation, the Norwegian authorities describe the relationship between NLH and NAC and mention that, in light of the financial difficulties faced by the latter, NLH temporarily suspended rent obligations in relation to the dormitory it rented to NAC and reduced the payments due as a result of the lease of hangar and administration facilities.
Norveški organi v svojih pripombah na Odločbo o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave opisujejo razmerje med NLH in NLA in navajajo, da je NLH ob upoštevanju finančnih težav, s katerimi se je soočal NLA, začasno opustil obveznosti najemnine v zvezi s študentskim domom, ki ga je oddal NLA, in znižal plačila za zakup hangarja in upravnih objektov.
The complainant highlights this action as two further instances of aid to NAC while the authorities maintain that such action was normal in the circumstances.
Pritožnik poudarja, da sta bila to še dva primera pomoči NLA, organi pa navajajo, da je bilo tako ukrepanje v danih okoliščinah običajno.
These measures were not part of the Decision to open the formal investigation.
Ti ukrepi niso bili del Odločbe o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.
Moreover, in light of the information provided by the Norwegian authorities regarding the recipient of the loan from the Municipality of Målselv, that measure no longer corresponds to the description in the Decision to open the formal investigation.
Poleg tega ob upoštevanju informacij o prejemniku posojila od občine Målselv, ki so jih posredovali norveški organi, navedeni ukrep ne ustreza več opisu v Odločbi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.
The Norwegian authorities have also confirmed that both this loan and the project funding allocated to NLH from Troms County were transferred to NAC ‘for services necessary to carry out a development project’.
Norveški organi so tudi potrdili, da je bilo to posojilo in financiranje projektov, ki ga je NLH dodelilo okrožje Troms, NLA nakazano za „storitve, potrebne za izvedbo razvojnega projekta“.
Again, this transfer of funds was not mentioned in the Decision to open the formal investigation.
Tudi ta prenos sredstev ni bil omenjen v Odločbi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.
In relation to the change in recipient of the loan from the Municipality of Målselv, the Authority considers that the contested measure, funds from the municipality at a preferential rate, remains identifiable with that described in the Decision to open the formal investigation and will therefore assess that measure in relation to the new beneficiary rather than NAC.
V zvezi s spremembo prejemnika posojila občine Målselv Nadzorni organ meni, da izpodbijani ukrep, sredstva občine po preferencialni stopnji, ostaja opredeljiv z opisanim v Odločbi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave in bo zato ta ukrep ocenil v zvezi z novim upravičencem in ne z NLA.
However, concerning the other points raised, it does not appear clear to the Authority that no doubts can be raised as to the conformity of these various measures with the State aid rules.
Glede drugih točk pa se Nadzornemu organu ne zdi jasno, da ni mogoče dvomiti o skladnosti teh različnih ukrepov s pravili o državni pomoči.
As a result, these measures cannot be concluded upon and will not be considered further in the present decision.
Zato o teh ukrepih ni mogoče sklepati in v tej odločbi ne bodo nadalje obravnavani.
The scope of this decision therefore extends only to the measures described at I-2.1(a) to (e) above.
Zato na področje uporabe te odločbe sodijo samo ukrepi, opisani v I.2.1(a) do (e) zgoraj.
The presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA
Prisotnost državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) EGP
Before looking at these criteria in turn, a preliminary point should be made regarding the nature of the activity carried out by NAC, namely the provision of airline pilot education.
Pred izmeničnim pregledom teh meril je potrebna predhodna opomba o naravi dejavnosti, ki jo opravlja NLA, in sicer izvajanje izobraževanja za letalske pilote.
It would appear that a competitive market exists for the provision of such services, the cost of which is not insubstantial.
Zdi se, da za opravljanje takih služb, katerih cene niso neznatne, obstaja konkurenčni trg.
The fact that the service presents an educational aspect does not, of itself, alter the economic nature of the activity.
Dejstvo, da služba predstavlja izobraževalni vidik, samo po sebi ne spreminja gospodarske narave dejavnosti.
On the contrary, the case law invoked by the Norwegian Government would appear to support the view that while courses provided under the national education system do not constitute services within the meaning of Article 50 EC [19], courses which are financed essentially from private funds, in particular by students or their parents, do fall within the scope of that Article [20].
Nasprotno, zdi se, da sodna praksa, na katero se sklicuje norveška vlada, podpira stališče, da programi, ki se izvajajo v okviru nacionalnega izobraževalnega sistema, ne predstavljajo službe v smislu člena 50 ES [19], programi, ki pa se financirajo v glavnem z zasebnimi sredstvi, zlasti s sredstvi študentov in njihovih staršev, pa sodijo na področje uporabe navedenega člena [20].
Moreover, this reasoning, which relates to the notion of ‘service’ within the meaning of Articles 49 EC and 36 EEA, can be transposed to the field of State aid and the question of whether an activity is economic and thus performed by an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA [21].
Poleg tega se obrazložitev, ki se nanaša na pojem „služba“ v smislu členov 49 ES in 36 EGP, lahko prenese na področje državne pomoči in vprašanje, ali je dejavnost gospodarska in jo tako opravlja podjetje v smislu člena 61(1) EGP [21].
It has not been argued, nor does the information on the file support a conclusion that the course at NAC is not funded essentially from private funds.
Nihče ni zatrjeval in tudi informacije v spisu ne podpirajo ugotovitve, da se program v NLA ne financira pretežno z zasebnimi sredstvi.
The aid measure must be granted by the State or through state resources.
Ukrep pomoči mora dodeliti država ali se mora dodeliti iz državnih sredstev.
The contested funding consists of a direct grant allocated in the context of the Revised National Budget, or of monies disbursed or advantages granted by the local authorities.
Sporno financiranje je sestavljeno iz neposredne pomoči, dodeljene v okviru revidiranega državnega proračuna, ali iz denarnih sredstev ali ugodnosti, ki jih dodelijo lokalne oblasti.
It is therefore clear that all the contested funding was granted by the State or through State resources.
Zato je jasno, da je sporno financiranje dodelila država ali je bilo dodeljeno iz državnih sredstev.
First, the aid measure must confer on the recipients advantages that relieve it of charges that are normally borne from its budget.
Prvič, ukrep pomoči mora prejemniku prinesti ugodnosti, na podlagi katerih je oproščen dajatev, ki običajno bremenijo njegov proračun.
However, only transfers of resources which favour undertakings fall to be assessed under Article 61(1) EEA.
Vendar se na podlagi člena 61(1) EGP ocenjuje samo prenos sredstev, ki daje prednost podjetjem.