natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
While the table on aid intensities in the Internal EEA Guidelines refer to two different aid intensities for technical preparatory studies carried out by large undertakings in the context of pre-competitive research, namely 50 % and 55 % [54], the State Aid Guidelines explicitly provide that the combination of bonuses may not result in an aid intensity exceeding 50 % for pre-competitive research [55].
Tabela o intenzivnosti pomoči v internih smernicah EGP sicer navaja dve različni stopnji pomoči za tehnične pripravljalne študije, ki jih izvajajo velika podjetja v kontekstu predkonkurenčnih raziskav, in sicer 50 % ter 55 % [54], vendar Smernice o državni pomoči izrecno določajo, da kombinacija bonusov ne sme povzročiti, da se intenzivnost pomoči poveča nad 50 % za predkonkurenčne raziskave [55].
Given that one of the aid intensities set forth in the Internal EEA Guidelines is not in line with the State Aid Guidelines and that there is no evidence of the existence of an instruction on case handlers to apply the aid intensity for the OFU/IFU scheme, which is in line with the State Aid Guidelines, it would appear that the rules of the Wood Scheme envisage a possible aid intensity in excess of the maximum set forth in the State Aid Guidelines.
Glede na to, da intenzivnost pomoči, določena v internih smernicah EGP, ni v skladu s Smernicami o državni pomoči, in da ni dokazov, da bi skrbniki primerov imeli navodila, naj uporabljajo intenzivnost pomoči za shemo OFU/IFU, ki je skladna s Smernicami o državni pomoči, kaže, da pravila Lesne sheme predvidevajo možno intenzivnost pomoči, ki presega zgornjo mejo, določeno v Smernicah o državni pomoči.
Moreover, the Authority has not received any arguments for accepting a higher aid intensity than the one set forth in the State Aid Guidelines.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ ni prejel nobenih argumentov za to, da bi sprejel višjo intenzivnost pomoči, kot je določena v Smernicah o državni pomoči.
Aid for SMEs and training aid
Pomoč za MSP in pomoč za usposabljanje
Aid granted in compliance with the block exemption Regulations on SMEs and/or on training aid is considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement provided that the scheme fulfils all the conditions of the relevant block exemption Regulation and contains an express reference to it (by citing its title and publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Union) [56].
Pomoč, dodeljena v skladu z uredbama o skupinskih izjemah za MSP in/ali pomoč za usposabljanje, se šteje za združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, če shema izpolnjuje vse pogoje zadevne uredbe o skupinskih izjemah in vsebuje izrecno sklicevanje nanjo (z navedbo njenega naslova in objave v Uradnem listu Evropske unije) [56].
However, neither the State budgets nor the Working Group Report or any of the other legislative preparatory works regarding the Wood Scheme include a reference to the application of the block exemption Regulation on SMEs or to the block exemption Regulation on training aid.
Vendar pa niti državni proračuni niti Poročilo delovne skupine niti katera koli druga zakonodajna pripravljalna dela v zvezi z Lesno shemo ne vključujejo sklicevanja na uporabo uredbe o skupinskih izjemah za MSP niti uredbe o skupinskih izjemah za pomoč za usposabljanje.
Moreover, the Authority has not received any information from the Norwegian authorities on the application of any of the block exemption Regulations for publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ od norveških organov ni prejel informacij o uporabi katere koli od uredb o skupinskih izjemah za objavo v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
The Norwegian authorities have therefore not complied with the requirements in the block exemption Regulations and the Wood Scheme therefore cannot be considered to be in compliance with the block exemptions.
Norveški organi torej niso izpolnili zahtev iz uredb o skupinskih izjemah, zato se Lesna shema ne more obravnavati kot skladna s skupinskimi izjemami.
Nonetheless the Wood Scheme may be considered to be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement in the light of the material principles established in the block exemption Regulations on SMEs and training aid.
Kljub temu Lesna shema lahko velja za združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP na podlagi člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP v luči vsebinskih načel, ki jih vsebujejo uredbe o skupinskih izjemah za MSP in pomoč za usposabljanje.
In this regard the Authority observes that all definitions, eligible costs and aid intensities on training aid in the Internal EEA Guidelines [57] correspond to the block exemption Regulation on training aid.
V tem smislu Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da vse opredelitve, upravičeni stroški in intenzivnost pomoči za usposabljanje v internih smernicah EGP [57] ustrezajo uredbi o skupinskih izjemah za pomoč za usposabljanje.
Moreover, the definitions, eligible costs and applicable aid intensity for consultancy services and fairs for SMEs in the Internal EEA Guidelines [58] correspond to the block exemption Regulation on SMEs.
Poleg tega opredelitve, upravičeni stroški in veljavna intenzivnost pomoči za svetovalne storitve in sejme za MSP v internih smernicah EGP [58] ustrezajo uredbi o skupinskih izjemah za MSP.
However, according to section 4.3.2 of the Internal EEA Guidelines, aid for SMEs may be granted for ‘network and cooperation’ which is a purpose clearly falling outside the scope of the material provisions in the block exemption Regulation on SMEs.
Vendar se glede na oddelek 4.3.2 internih smernic EGP pomoč za MSP lahko dodeli za „omrežje in sodelovanje“, to je namen, ki očitno ne sodi v okvir vsebinskih določb v uredbi o skupinskih izjemah za MSP.
The question is therefore whether funding for such purposes may be considered compatible on the basis of the State Aid Guidelines on SMEs or on the basis of the material principles established therein directly pursuant to Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement [59].The State Aid Guidelines state that funding for ‘cooperation’ to SMEs may be granted provided competition is not affected to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Vprašanje je torej, ali se financiranje za te namene lahko šteje kot združljivo na podlagi Smernic o državni pomoči za MSP ali na podlagi vsebinskih načel, vzpostavljenih neposredno po členu 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP [59].Smernice o državni pomoči navajajo, da se MSP lahko dodelijo sredstva za „sodelovanje“, če to ne vpliva na konkurenco v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
On this basis the Authority considers that the possibility in the Internal EEA Guidelines to fund SMEs for the ‘identification of work partners, strategies and formalisation of cooperation during the establishment phase’ could be acceptable.
Glede na to Nadzorni organ meni, da je možnost financiranja MSP na podlagi internih smernic EGP za „opredelitev poslovnih partnerjev, strategij in za formalizacijo sodelovanja v fazi ustanavljanja“ lahko sprejemljiva.
By contrast, the Authority considers that the possibility to fund unidentified ‘extraordinary joint actions’ [60] during the ‘operational phase’ opens up for the possibility to fund a wide range of measures, at any time, which would not necessarily be within the scope of cooperation between SMEs and may therefore affect competition to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Nasprotno pa Nadzorni organ meni, da možnost financiranja nedoločenih „izrednih skupnih ukrepov“ [60] med „operativno fazo“ ob vsakem času odpira možnost financiranja široke palete ukrepov, kar ne pomeni samo v okviru sodelovanja med MSP in torej lahko vpliva na konkurenco v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
Upon questioning the Norwegian authorities on this matter the authorities argued that funding under this provision is aimed only at consultancy services.
Ko so o tej zadevi povprašali norveške organe, so ti trdili, da je financiranje po tej določbi namenjeno samo svetovalnim storitvam.
However, in the same context the authorities stated that the provision also opened up for the possibility to fund ‘related services’ in the context of network assistance.
Vendar so v istem kontekstu organi izjavili, da je ta določba tudi odprla možnost za financiranje „povezanih storitev“ v kontekstu omrežne pomoči.
The Authority considers that on the basis of such vague and open-ended provisions it cannot reassure itself that the rules of the scheme in respect of funding for SMEs are in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines on SMEs or the material principles therein and therefore cannot be approved pursuant to Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ meni, da na podlagi tako nejasnih in odprtih določb ne more biti prepričan, da so pravila sheme v zvezi s financiranjem MSP skladna s Smernicami o državni pomoči za MSP ali vsebinskimi načeli v njih in zato na podlagi člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP ne more potrditi njene skladnosti z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
Practice of funding 100 % of project costs
Praksa financiranja 100 % stroškov projekta
The Working Group Report provides that the scheme may finance the entire project costs in case it is difficult to identify anyone who can benefit directly from the project.
Poročilo delovne skupine pravi, da se iz sheme lahko financirajo vsi stroški projekta, če je težko ugotoviti, kdo bi lahko imel od projekta neposredno korist.
The authorities have explained that 100 % funding of project costs takes place, for example, in cases where it is difficult to identify direct beneficiaries, or recipients are considered to receive a modest benefit only (i.e. preliminary studies and reports in special target areas), on the basis that no aid is present in these cases [61].
Organi so razložili, da do stoodstotnega financiranja stroškov projekta prihaja na primer takrat, ko je težko določiti neposredne upravičence, ali takrat, ko se šteje, da prejemniki dobijo samo skromno ugodnost (npr. predhodne študije in poročila v posebnih ciljnih območjih), saj v teh primerih ni prisotna nobena pomoč [61].
With regard to this practice, the following two comments must be made: 1) although the Norwegian authorities refer to preliminary studies and reports as examples of cases in which no aid is involved, the State Aid Guidelines on research and development set out maximum aid intensities for technical feasibility studies showing that funding for studies (even of a preparatory character) may involve State aid [62]; and 2) unless the amount of aid involved is below the de minimis threshold the receipt of a modest benefit does not, in and of itself, exclude the presence of State aid.
Glede na to prakso je nujno pripomniti dvoje: (1) čeprav norveški organi navajajo predhodne študije in poročila kot primere, v katerih ni prisotna nobena pomoč, Smernice o državni pomoči za raziskave in razvoj določajo največjo intenzivnost pomoči za študije tehnične izvedljivosti, ki kažejo, da financiranje študij (tudi če so te pripravljalne) lahko vključuje državno pomoč [62]; in (2) razen če je znesek zadevne pomoči nižji od praga de minimis, pa prejetje skromne ugodnosti samo po sebi ne izključuje prisotnosti državne pomoči.
On this basis the Authority considers that the practice of funding 100 % of the costs of a project is not based on criteria which would ensure that the presence of State aid is excluded and since 100 % funding is not acceptable under any section of the State Aid Guidelines, nor has it been argued in this case that such an aid intensity is justified directly pursuant to Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, the Authority considers that a scheme which allows such a practice is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Na tej podlagi Nadzorni organ meni, da praksa pokrivanja 100 % stroškov za projekt ne temelji na merilih, ki bi zagotovili odsotnost državne pomoči, in ker stoodstotno financiranje po nobenem oddelku Smernic o državni pomoči ni sprejemljivo, in ker se v tem primeru ni spodbijalo, da je tovrstna intenzivnost pomoči upravičena neposredno po členu 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP, Nadzorni organ meni, da shema, ki takšno prakso omogoča, ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
As appears from the above, on several accounts the Wood Scheme is not in compliance with the State Aid Guidelines and does not qualify for the exception directly pursuant to Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.
Iz prej navedenega izhaja, da Lesna shema v več ozirih ni združljiva s Smernicami o državni pomoči in ne izpolnjuje pogojev za oprostitev neposredno po členu 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority therefore considers that the Wood Scheme cannot be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da Lesna shema ne more veljati za združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
According to the Norwegian authorities the Wood Scheme contains provisions setting out conditions which, when they are met, ensure that grants qualify as de minimis aid.
Po mnenju norveških organov Lesna shema vsebuje določbe, ki določajo pogoje, ki, kadar so izpolnjeni, zagotavljajo, da subvencije štejejo za pomoč de minimis.
The Authority considers that the relevant provisions under the Wood Scheme do not comply with the de minimis rules.
Nadzorni organ meni, da ustrezne določbe v okviru Lesne sheme niso združljive s pravili de minimis.
The grant of aid may qualify as de minimis under the State Aid Guidelines or the subsequent de minimis Regulation with the consequence that the measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and that there is no obligation to notify.
Dodelitev pomoči je mogoče šteti za de minimis na podlagi Smernic o državni pomoči ali naknadne uredbe de minimis, posledica česar je, da ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP in da ni obveznosti priglasitve.
As the Wood Scheme was implemented between 1 July 2000 and the end of 2005 both sets of de minimis rules are relevant for the assessment of the scheme [63].Both the de minimis Regulation and the State Aid Guidelines provide that the national authorities can only grant de minimis aid after first having verified that the total amount of de minimis aid received by the company is not raised by virtue of other de minimis aid having been received during the previous 3 years.
Ker se je Lesna shema izvajala med 1. julijem 2000 in koncem leta 2005, za shemo prideta v poštev oba niza pravil de minimis [63].Iz uredbe de minimis in Smernic o državni pomoči izhaja, da lahko nacionalni organi dodelijo pomoč de minimis šele, ko so preverili, da skupni znesek pomoči de minimis, ki jo je prejelo podjetje, ni zvišan na podlagi druge pomoči de minimis, prejete v preteklih treh letih.
Under both the de minimis Regulation and the State Aid Guidelines an acceptable manner of verifying the de minimis threshold is by obtaining information from the recipient on this matter [64].When de minimis aid is granted under the Wood Scheme, reference is made to the de minimis rules and recipients are informed of an obligation to inform the authorities of other de minimis aid received 3 years after the consent to receive de minimis aid was given.
V skladu z uredbo de minimis in Smernicami o državni pomoči je eden od sprejemljivih načinov preverjanja praga de minimis ta, da se od prejemnika pridobijo informacije o tej zadevi [64].Kadar je v okviru Lesne sheme dodeljena pomoč de minimis, se navede sklic na pravila de minimis in prejemniki so obveščeni o obveznosti, da organe obvestijo o drugi pomoči de minimis, prejeti tri leta po tem, ko je bila dana odobritev za dodelitev pomoči de minimis.
In the decision opening the formal investigation procedure the Authority took the view that since this information obligation only concerns de minimis aid received after aid has been received under the Wood Scheme recipients have not been required to submit information on whether any de minimis aid has been received prior to receiving de minimis aid under the Wood Scheme.
V odločbi, s katero je bil odprt formalni postopek preiskave, je Nadzorni organ sprejel stališče, da glede na to, da obveznost obveščanja velja samo za pomoč de minimis, prejeto potem, ko je bila prejeta pomoč v okviru Lesne sheme, prejemnikom ni treba pošiljati obvestil o tem, ali so prejeli pomoč de minimis pred prejemom pomoči de minimis v okviru Lesne sheme.
However, the Norwegian authorities have argued that the consent letter also refers to the rule that aid received over ‘any period of three years’ may not exceed the de minimis threshold.
Vendar so norveški organi trdili, da se dopis o odobritvi nanaša tudi na pravilo, da pomoč, prejeta v „katerem koli obdobju treh let“, ne sme presegati praga de minimis.
The Authority observes that the requirement on the recipient to inform of aid granted ‘from the time of the letter of consent’ contradicts the reference to the rule that aid received during ‘any period of three years’ may not exceed the de minimis threshold.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je zahteva, po kateri mora prejemnik poslati obvestilo o pomoči, dani „od datuma dopisa o odobritvi“ v nasprotju s sklicevanjem na pravilo, da pomoč, prejeta v „katerem koli obdobju treh let“, ne sme presegati praga de minimis.
In such circumstances the Authority cannot reassure itself that a recipient would clearly perceive this message as an obligation to inform of aid received during ‘any period of three years’.
V teh okoliščinah Nadzorni organ ne more biti prepričan, da bo prejemnik to sporočilo jasno dojel kot obveznost poslati obvestilo o pomoči, prejeti v „katerem koli obdobju treh let“.
The Authority therefore maintains its initial position that, in so far as the provisions in question are to be viewed as part of the rules of the scheme, it cannot be concluded that they ensure ex ante that the provisions on de minimis aid are complied with [65].Aside from this the Authority observes that, at least in the versions of the Internal EEA Guidelines dated September 2004 and July 2005, the Wood Scheme has provided for a practice whereby State aid approved for, for example, research and development, could be topped up with further aid granted as de minimis aid [66].
Nadzorni organ zato ostaja pri prvotnem stališču, da glede na to, da je treba zadevne določbe razumeti v okviru pravil sheme, ni mogoče sklepati, da vnaprej zagotavljajo upoštevanje določb o pomoči de minimis [65].Razen tega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je Lesna shema vsaj v različicah internih smernic EGP iz septembra 2004 in julija 2005 predvidela prakso, po kateri se lahko državna pomoč, dodeljena na primer za raziskave in razvoj, kombinira z dodatno pomočjo, dodeljeno kot pomoč de minimis [66].
In line with the Commission Decision in Kahla Porzellan GmbH, the Authority considers that if aid exceeds the de minimis threshold — as a result of total funding granted to the same undertaking within 3 years — the total amount must be considered as State aid [67].
Nadzorni organ v skladu z Odločbo Komisije v zadevi Kahla Porzellan GmbH meni, da je treba, če pomoč presega prag de minimis – zaradi stoodstotnega financiranja, odobrenega istemu podjetju v treh letih – skupni znesek šteti kot državno pomoč [67].
On this basis the Authority considers that a practice whereby the de minimis threshold is respected only for a part of the aid granted to an undertaking implies, by definition, that the total amount granted may exceed the de minimis threshold [68].In view of the above the Authority considers that the relevant provisions under the Wood Scheme do not comply with the de minimis rules and that the Scheme therefore cannot be approved as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Na tej podlagi Nadzorni organ meni, da praksa, po kateri se prag de minimis spoštuje samo za del pomoči, dodeljene podjetju, po definiciji pomeni, da skupni odobreni znesek lahko presega prag de minimis [68].Glede na navedeno Nadzorni organ meni, da ustrezne določbe v okviru Lesne sheme niso skladne s pravili de minimis in da zato sheme ni mogoče odobriti kot združljive z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority takes the view that the Wood Scheme involves the grant of State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement that is not compatible with the Agreement.
Na podlagi informacij, ki so jih predložili norveški organi, Nadzorni organ meni, da Lesna shema vključuje dodeljevanje državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, ki ni združljivo s Sporazumom.
However, in line with the Commission’s practice in this regard, the Authority considers that although the Wood Scheme, viewed as a scheme, is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, individual aid grants awarded under the Wood Scheme which fulfil the criteria laid down in the State Aid Guidelines on SMEs and/or research and development, or with the material rules in the block exemption Regulations on aid to SMEs and training can be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement [69].As the Wood Scheme has not been notified to the Authority, any aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement granted under the Wood Scheme constitutes unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Vendar Nadzorni organ v skladu s prakso Komisije v tem smislu meni, da čeprav Lesna shema, če jo gledamo kot shemo, ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, pa posamezne pomoči, dodeljene v okviru Lesne sheme, ki izpolnjujejo merila, določena v Smernicah o državni pomoči za MSP in/ali raziskave in razvoj, ali so združljive z vsebinskimi pravili v uredbah o skupinskih izjemah glede pomoči za MSP in za usposabljanje, lahko veljajo za združljive z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP [69].Ker Lesna shema ni bila priglašena Nadzornemu organu, kakršna koli pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, dodeljena v okviru Lesne sheme, pomeni nezakonito pomoč v smislu člena 1(f) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
It follows from Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement that the Authority shall decide that unlawful aid which is incompatible with the State aid rules under the EEA Agreement must be recovered from the beneficiaries.
Iz člena 14 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču izhaja, da Nadzorni organ odloči, da morajo upravičenci vrniti nezakonito pomoč, ki je nezdružljiva s pravili o državni pomoči iz Sporazuma EGP.
This is, however, without prejudice to (i) individual aid awards fulfilling the conditions for de minimis aid pursuant to the State Aid Guidelines or the de minimis Regulation; and (ii) individual awards being found to be compatible on the basis of compliance with the State Aid Guidelines on SMEs and/or research and development, or with the material rules in the block exemption Regulations on aid to SMEs and training, and which fulfil the relevant aid intensities set forth therein,
To kljub temu ne vpliva na to, da (i) posamezne pomoči izpolnjujejo pogoje za pomoč de minimis na podlagi Smernic o državni pomoči ali uredbe de minimis; in (ii) da so posamezne pomoči združljive na podlagi svoje združljivosti s Smernicami o državni pomoči za MSP in/ali raziskave in razvoj ali z vsebinskimi pravili v uredbah o skupinskih izjemah glede pomoči za MSP in usposabljanje ter upoštevajo ustrezno intenzivnost pomoči, kakor je tam določena –
The Wood Scheme is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Lesna shema ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Individual aid awards granted under the Wood Scheme do not constitute state aid if they fulfil the conditions on de minimis aid laid down in the State Aid Guidelines or the de minimis Regulation, whichever was applicable at the time of the grant.
Posamezne pomoči, dodeljene v okviru Lesne sheme, niso državna pomoč, če izpolnjujejo pogoje o pomoči de minimis, določene v Smernicah o državni pomoči ali uredbi de minimis, kar koli od tega se je ob dodeljevanju pomoči uporabljalo.