natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The borderline between a pilot project, which could not be used commercially, and a commercial final product seemed very diffuse in the case in hand because the software needs to be adapted anew for each new application specific to each final user.
Meja med pilotskim projektom, ki ga ni mogoče tržno uporabiti, in tržnim končnim proizvodom, se v danem primeru zdi zelo nejasna, ker je treba programsko opremo nanovo prilagoditi za vsako novo aplikacijo, ki je lastna vsakemu končnemu uporabniku.
The Authority questioned to what extent the further development of the software programme Turborouter, for use in developing applications which serve concrete needs for the final users, can be covered by the definition of applied research.
Nadzorni organ se je spraševal, v kolikšni meri je lahko nadaljnji razvoj programske opreme turborouter za uporabo pri razvijajočih se aplikacijah, ki izpolnjujejo konkretne potrebe končnih uporabnikov, zajet v opredelitev pojma uporabne raziskave.
On the basis of the information available at that stage of the procedure, the Authority was not in the position of ascertaining whether these projects were correctly classified as pre-competitive development activities or whether, on the contrary, they were already too close to the market to be eligible for state aid.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij na tej stopnji postopka Nadzorni organ ni mogel ugotoviti, ali so bili ti projekti pravilno razvrščeni kot predkonkurenčne razvojne dejavnosti, ali pa so bili nasprotno že preblizu tržni uporabnosti, da bi bili lahko upravičeni do državne pomoči.
Furthermore, the Authority had doubts concerning the financing of the projects, in particular regarding the effective disbursement of the own-contributions, in kind, of the beneficiaries of the projects.
Poleg tega je Nadzorni organ dvomil o ustreznosti financiranja projektov, še zlasti glede dejstva, ali so prejemniki pomoči za projekte dejansko plačali lastne prispevke v naravi.
Following the arguments put forth by the complainant, the Authority had doubts as to whether the overall costs of the projects had been artificially increased to cover operational expenses of the beneficiary undertakings and whether the real research cost of the projects corresponded to the amounts granted by the RCN.
Po argumentih, ki jih je navedel pritožnik, je Nadzorni organ dvomil, ali niso skupnih stroškov umetno povečali, da bi pokrili operativne stroške podjetij prejemnikov pomoči in ali so dejanski raziskovalni stroški projektov ustrezali zneskom, ki jih je dodelil NRS.
It seemed to the Authority that it was Marintek, the research institute that developed the first software programme Turborouter, which had the necessary know-how and technological competence to do the project.
Nadzornemu organu se je zdelo, da je Marintek, raziskovalni zavod, ki je razvil prvo programsko opremo turborouter, imel potrebno strokovno znanje in izkušnje in tehnološko usposobljenost za projekt.
Therefore, it appeared rational to assume that most of the work would have been carried out by its own staff.
Zato se je zdelo primerno domnevati, da bo večino dela opravilo njegovo osebje.
This would imply, in principle, that the involvement of the staff of the participating undertakings would most probably have been related to the definition of the users needs and/or, to some degree, of testing.
To bi načeloma pomenilo, da bi vključenost osebja sodelujočih podjetij najverjetneje bila povezana z opredelitvijo potreb uporabnikov in/ali, do neke mere, s preskušanjem.
To the extent that the contribution in kind of the participating undertakings may not have corresponded to research costs, the overall costs of the research project would be lower and the aid intensities accordingly higher.
Kolikor prispevek v naravi sodelujočih podjetij ni ustrezal stroškom raziskave, bi bili skupni stroški raziskovalnega projekta nižji in intenzivnost pomoči ustrezno večja.
For these reasons, the Authority had doubts both as to whether the above mentioned projects had received aid in compliance with the applicable R&D Guidelines and as to whether the beneficiaries had used the aid in contravention of the accepted appropriate measures on the scheme Industrial R&D Programmes.
Zato je imel Nadzorni organ pomisleke, ali so zgoraj navedeni projekti prejeli pomoč v skladu z veljavnimi Smernicami o raziskavah in razvoju in tudi ali prejemniki pomoči niso uporabili v nasprotju s sprejetimi ustreznimi ukrepi pri shemi programov industrijskih raziskav in razvoja.
On 24 November 2006, the Authority received comments from an interested party which were more of a general nature than directly related to the doubts the Authority expressed in Decision No 60/06/COL to open the formal investigation procedure on R&D granted in connection with the development of the software programme Turborouter.
Nadzorni organ je 24. novembra 2006 prejel pripombe od ene zainteresirane stranke, ki so bile bolj splošne narave in ne neposredno vezane na dvome, ki jih je izrekel v Odločbi št. 60/06/COL, s katero je sprožil formalni postopek preiskave o pomoči za raziskave in razvoj, dodeljeni v povezavi z razvojem programske opreme turborouter.
This party alleged that the Norwegian Research Council had given substantial funds to a new project called OPTIMAR [16].
Ta stranka je navedla, da je norveški raziskovalni svet dodelil precejšnja sredstva novemu projektu, imenovanemu OPTIMAR [16].
This project is entirely supported by the Norwegian Research Council for the years 2005-09.
Ta projekt je v celoti podprt s sredstvi norveškega raziskovalnega sveta za obdobje od 2005 do 2009.
Ideally, this project is directed by the Department of Operative Research of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (hereinafter NTNU) in Trondheim.
Idealno je, da ga usmerja Oddelek za operativne raziskave pri Norveški univerzi za znanost in tehnologijo (v nadaljevanju „NTNU“) v Trondheimu.
The ultimate goal for this project is to further develop Turborouter into a commercial project, a process which is already under way.
Končni cilj projekta je nadalje razvijati turborouter v tržni proizvod in ta postopek že poteka. Ta stranka je dodala: „Prof.
This party added, ‘Prof Marielle Christiansen (Head of OPTIMAR project) in Trondheim considers that it is very difficult for companies to participate and take advantage of results from this program which is said to be a public research programme with the view of broadening the base for all Norwegian companies, because they are already working closely with SINTEF and MARINTEK and had promised to share the research results with these commercial organisation (SINTEF and MARINTEK are both institutes located in Trondheim and has for a number of reasons close ties with the Technical University NTNU).’
Marielle Christiansen (vodja projekta OPTIMAR) iz Trondheima meni, da podjetja zelo težko sodelujejo in izkoristijo rezultate tega programa, za katerega velja, da je javni raziskovalni program za razširjanje baze za vsa norveška podjetja, ker že tesno sodelujejo s podjetjema SINTEF in MARINTEK in so obljubila, da bodo s temi gospodarskimi organizacijami delili rezultate raziskav (SINTEF in MARINTEK sta zavoda v Trondheimu, ki sta zaradi številnih razlogov tesno povezana s Tehnično univerzo NTNU).“
In the opinion of this party, ‘Turborouter is very much the common element in this issue as all personnel working at NTNU/Dept of Oper Res/Marintek/SINTEF see TURBOROUTER as their common goal’.
Po mnenju te stranke je „turborouter v tej zadevi pravi skupni element, saj vse osebje, ki dela na Tehnični univerzi/oddelku za operativne raziskave/Marinteku/SINTEFU vidi v TURBOROUTER-ju svoj skupni cilj“.
This party alleges that the companies working to develop TURBOROUTER are now getting even more state aid through the NTNU, covered as funds to basic research.
Stranka trdi, da podjetja, ki razvijajo TURBOROUTER, zdaj preko NTNU dobivajo še več državne pomoči, prikazane kot sredstva za osnovne raziskave.
The final comment made was that Turborouter was not used by any of the companies that received funds to develop it, which lead this party to conclude that the funds received in the research project were merely subsidies to their daily operations.
Končna pripomba je bila, da nobeno od podjetij, ki je prejelo sredstva za njegov razvoj, ni uporabljalo turborouterja, zato ta stranka sklepa, da so bila sredstva, prejeta za raziskovalni projekt, samo subvencije za njihove dnevne dejavnosti.
Comments to the Authority's decision to open a formal investigation procedure
Pripombe na odločbo Nadzornega organa, da sproži formalni postopek preiskave
Comments from the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform
Pripombe ministrstva za vladno upravo in reforme
In the letter dated 7 April 2006, the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform referred to the description made in the Authority Decision No 60/06/COL of the formal correspondence with the Norwegian authorities.
V dopisu z dne 7. aprila 2006 se je ministrstvo za državno upravo in reforme sklicevalo na opis formalnega dopisovanja z norveškimi organi, ki ga je Nadzorni organ navedel v Odločbi št. 60/06/COL.
The Norwegian authorities made further reference to the meetings between the Authority and the Norwegian authorities in October 2002, and in September 2004 and added that a meeting had been held between the Authority and the Norwegian authorities in Brussels on 22 May 2003.
Norveški organi so se nadalje sklicevali na sestanke med Nadzornim organom in norveškimi organi oktobra 2002 in septembra 2004 ter dodali, da sta obe strani imeli sestanek v Bruslju 22. maja 2003.
The Norwegian authorities pointed out that the Authority’s Decision No 60/06/COL did not describe how the aid to the development of the Turborouter programme distorted competition in the EEA or in third markets.
Norveški organi so poudarili, da v Odločbi Nadzornega organa št. 60/06/COL ni opisano, kako je pomoč za razvoj programa turborouter izkrivljala konkurenco v EGP ali na tretjih trgih.
In their opinion, this question should be clarified because the Turborouter R&D programme failed to deliver the expected results.
Po njihovem mnenju bi bilo treba to vprašanje razjasniti, ker program raziskav in razvoja turborouter ni dal pričakovanih rezultatov.
Although the Norwegian authorities acknowledged that the intangible know-how from the project had been disseminated into other R&D projects, they did not consider it evident that this had affected competition in the Internal Market, or in third country markets.
Čeprav so norveški organi priznali, da se je neopredmeteno strokovno znanje iz tega projekta razširilo na druge projekte raziskav in razvoja, pa se jim ni zdelo očitno, da je to vplivalo na konkurenco na notranjem trgu ali na trgih tretjih držav.
The Norwegian authorities questioned some of the facts in the complainant’s allegations that were reiterated in the Authority's decision, in particular, the allegations in Section 3 on page 3 in Decision No 60/06/COL and the supporting quotes from the complainant.
Norveški organi so oporekali nekaterim dejstvom v navedbah pritožnika, ki so bile ponovljene v odločbi Nadzornega organa, še zlasti navedbam iz razdelka tri na strani 3 Odločbe št. 60/06/COL in podpornim navedkom pritožnika.
The Norwegian authorities first of all questioned how the complainant had been able to classify the projects as being too close to the market.
Norveški organi so se predvsem spraševali, kako je pritožnik lahko razvrstil projekte kot preblizu tržni uporabnosti.
Further, they questioned how the complainant was able to allege that the R&D results had not been disseminated despite the fact that Marintek received the property rights to the programme.
Nadalje jih je zanimalo, kako je lahko pritožnik navedel, da se rezultati raziskav in razvoja niso razširili, kljub temu, da je Marintek dobil lastninske pravice za ta program.
Finally, they questioned how the complainant was able to claim that the own-capital contributions from the participating companies were in reality lower than stated in the application form.
Nazadnje so se spraševali, kako je pritožnik lahko trdil, da so bili lastni prispevki kapitala sodelujočih podjetij dejansko nižji, kot so bili navedeni v prijavi.
According to the RCN, the complainant has had its request for access to the application forms and the R&D contracts denied for professional confidentiality reasons.
Po informacijah NRS so pritožniku zavrnili zahtevek za dostop do prijav in pogodb raziskav in razvoja zaradi varovanja poklicne tajnosti.
On this background, the Norwegian authorities believed that the allegations from the complainant generally seem to be lacking in substantiation.
Na tej podlagi so norveški organi menili, da se zdi, da navedbe pritožnika na splošno niso podkrepljene z zadostnimi dokazi.
The Norwegian authorities added, ‘The allegations from the complainant that the own-capital contributions from the concerned companies were lower than stated in the application forms also implies that these firms are accused of misusing State aid.
Norveški organi so še dodali: „Navedbe pritožnika, da so bili prispevki lastnega kapitala zadevnih podjetij nižji od tistih, navedenih v prijavah, tudi pomenijo, da so ta podjetja obtožena zlorabe državne pomoči.
This also raises questions related to the legal certainty of the companies that participated in the Turborouter projects.
To tudi sproži vprašanja, povezana s pravno varnostjo podjetij, ki so sodelovala v projektih turborouter.
These claims from the complainant should therefore clearly be substantiated.’
Te navedbe pritožnika bo zato treba jasno podkrepiti z dokazi.“
Comments from the Research Council of Norway
Pripombe Norveškega raziskovalnega sveta
In a letter enclosed to the above mentioned letter from the Ministry of Administration and Reform, the Research Council of Norway (hereinafter the RCN) commented upon the Authority’s Decision No 60/06/COL.
V dopisu, priloženem zgoraj navedenemu dopisu ministrstva za vladno upravo in reforme, je Norveški raziskovalni svet (v nadaljevanju „NRS“) predložil pripombe o Odločbi Nadzornega organa št. 60/06/COL.
The RCN pointed out that it had forwarded to the Authority all available information and clarification requested, including the submission of copies of all project documentation for the four projects related to the development of Turborouter supported with funds from RCN.
NRS je poudaril, da je Nadzornemu organu poslal vse razpoložljive informacije in zahtevana pojasnila in mu tudi predložil kopije celotne projektne dokumentacije za štiri projekte, povezane z razvojem turborouterja, podprte s sredstvi NRS.
According to the RCN, in the meetings and correspondence up to and including the letter from the Norwegian authorities of 20 June 2003, the only matter of discussion was the correct classification of the projects according to the Guidelines for aid for R&D.
Po mnenju NRS je bil edini predmet razprave na sestankih in v dopisovanju do vključno dopisa norveških organov z dne 20. junija 2003 pravilna razvrstitev projektov v skladu s Smernicami za pomoč za raziskave in razvoj.
Regarding the description of the projects, the RCN alleged that the tables given in the description of the funding of the projects in the Authority’s Decision No 60/06/COL did not comply entirely with the figures given in the text.
Glede opisa projektov je NRS navedel, da preglednice opisa financiranja projektov v Odločbi Nadzornega organa št. 60/06/COL niso popolnoma ustrezale številkam v besedilu.
The table below, which is the same as submitted to the Authority in the letter of 11 April 2003, describes the situation.
Spodnja preglednica, ki je enaka tisti, ki so jo predložili Nadzornemu organu v dopisu z dne 11. aprila 2003, ponazarja stanje.
Regarding Project 138811 AlgOpt, the table in Decision No 60/06/COL gives the figures as they were at the start of the project.
Glede projekta 138811 AlgOpt, preglednica v Odločbi No 60/06/COL podaja številke, kot so bile na začetku projekta.
During the execution, the project was given additional funding of NOK 100000 of which NOK 25000 was granted from RCN.
Med izvajanjem je projekt dobil še dodatna sredstva v višini 100000 NOK, od katerih je 25000 NOK podelil NRS.
Projects supported by RCN, involving development of Turborouter
Projekti, ki jih je podprl NRS, vključno z razvojem turborouterja
Strategic activities within maritime transport and logistics
Strateške dejavnosti pri pomorskem prevozu in logistiki
Library of optimisation routines for scheduling in shipping
Knjižnica postopkov za optimizacijo razporejanja v ladijskem prometu
Own Funds
Lastna sredstva
Other private funds
Druga zasebna sredstva
Other public funds
Druga javna sredstva
Of which NSA
od tega Norv. združ. ladj.
Of which public
od tega javna sredstva
Total funds
Skupaj sredstva
Personnel and indirect
Osebje in posredni stroški
Purchase of R&D
Nakup R-R
Contract partner
Pogodbeni partner
Participants
Sodelujoči
NTNU
Tehnična univerza NTNU
Project Period
Obdobje projekta
Regarding the Authority’s comment in Decision No 60/06/COL that the RCN did not seem to control how the own contributions of the beneficiaries were distributed to various activities and whether they were effectively disbursed, the RCN considered that they had described how eligible costs were controlled before aid was paid to the contracting partner and how the different contributions were disbursed in previous correspondence with the Authority [17].Regarding the classification of the Projects 138811 AlgOpt, 144265 Shiplog II and 144214 Library of optimisation routines for scheduling in shipping, the RCN restated that all three projects were classified as pre-competitive development based on a thorough assessment and evaluation of the project applications according to the RCN procedures and guidelines for project evaluation.
Glede pripombe Nadzornega organa v Odločbi št. 60/06/COL, da se zdi, da NRS ni nadzoroval, kako so se lastni prispevki prejemnikov pomoči porazdelili na različne dejavnosti in ali so bili dejansko izplačani, je NRS menil, da so v predhodnem dopisovanju z Nadzornim organom opisali, kako so nadzirali upravičene stroške pred plačilom pomoči pogodbenemu partnerju in kako so bili izplačani različni prispevki [17].Glede razvrščanja projektov 138811 AlgOpt, 144265 Shiplog II in 144214 Knjižnica postopkov za optimizacijo razporejanja v ladijskem prometu je NRS ponovno navedel, da so bili vsi trije projekti razvrščeni na področje predkonkurenčnega razvoja na podlagi temeljite presoje in ocene aplikacij projekta v skladu s postopki NRS in smernicami za ocenjevanje projekta.
These procedures and guidelines were put in place to make sure that aid granted under the aid scheme Industrial R&D Programmes are in accordance with the principles laid down in Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines.
Ti postopki in smernice so bili vzpostavljeni, da bi zagotovili, da je pomoč, dodeljena v okviru sheme pomoči programov industrijskih raziskav in razvoja, v skladu z načeli, določenimi v poglavju 14 Smernic o državni pomoči.
The RCN explained that there is an internal system of quality assurance of RCN’s activities.
NRS je pojasnil, da obstaja notranji sistem zagotavljanja kakovosti dejavnosti NRS.
This system is called DOKSY.
Ta sistem se imenuje DOKSY.
DOKSY comprises a broad documentation of the guidelines, procedures and practices that are followed in the RCN.
DOKSY vsebuje obsežno dokumentacijo smernic, postopkov in praks, po katerih se ravna NRS.
One of these documents is the guidelines for determining aid intensity applied to retained projects.
Eden od teh dokumentov so smernice za določanje intenzivnosti pomoči, uporabljene za izbrane projekte.
This internal document, DOKSY-5-6-1-4-IE, entitled ‘Støtteandel etter EØS-bestemmelser’ (aid intensities according to EEA rules) corresponds to the Authority's R&D Guidelines.
Ta interni dokument DOKSY-5-6-1-4-IE, z naslovom „Støtteandel etter EØS-bestemmelser“ (intenzivnost pomoči v skladu s pravili EGP) ustreza Smernicam Nadzornega organa o raziskavah in razvoju.
The document applies definitions and corresponding aid intensities in compliance with the definition of the different R&D stages in the Authority's R&D Guidelines.
V dokumentu se uporabljajo opredelitve in ustrezne intenzivnosti pomoči v skladu z opredelitvijo različnih stopenj raziskav in razvoja v Smernicah Nadzornega organa o raziskavah in razvoju.
The assessment and classification of all the projects that receive aid from the RCN is based on the DOKSY guidelines.
Presoja in razvrščanje vseh projektov, ki prejmejo pomoč od NRS, temelji na smernicah DOKSY.
After 1999, in addition to DOKSY 5-6-1-4-IE, all projects have been evaluated using the computer-based system ‘Provis’.
Po letu 1999 so bili poleg DOKSY 5-6-1-4-IE vsi projekti ocenjeni z uporabo računalniškega sistema „Provis“.
Provis is described in Doksy No 5-6-1-2-EE ‘Prosjektvurdering i Provis’.
Provis je opisan v Doksyju št. 5-6-1-2-EE „Prosjektvurdering i Provis“.
In Provis, each project is evaluated according to 11 different aspects.
V Provisu je vsak projekt ocenjen po enajstih različnih vidikih.
The most important aspects in Provis related to the classification of research categories, are aspect No 3 ‘Research Content’ and aspect No 9 ‘Additionality’.
Najpomembnejša vidika pri Provisu, povezana z razvrščanjem razredov raziskave, sta vidik št. 3 „Vsebina raziskave“ in vidik št. 9 „Dodatnost“.
For each of the aspects, there are several criteria or characteristics that are applied in order to characterise to what extent the project is in compliance with the aspects.
Pri vsakem od vidikov obstaja več meril ali lastnosti, ki se uporabljajo, da bi označili, v kolikšni meri projekt ustreza vidikom.
In the description of the Guide for evaluation of aspect No 3 in Doksy No 5-6-1-2-IE, it is underlined that ‘Research content indicates to what degree the project produces new knowledge’.
V opisu navodila za ocenjevanje vidika št. 3 v Doksyju št. 5-6-1-2-IE je poudarjeno, da „vsebina raziskave označuje, do katere stopnje projekt ustvarja novo znanje“.
This criterion is directly linked to the description of Industrial Research in the R&D guidelines where the requirement is that the activity is ‘aimed at the acquisition of new knowledge’.
To merilo je neposredno povezano z opisom industrijskih raziskav v Smernicah o raziskavah in razvoju, v katerih se zahteva, da mora dejavnost biti „ciljno usmerjena k pridobivanju novega znanja“.
On this basis, the RCN argued that since the evaluation of the projects was thoroughly carried out in accordance with the RCN procedures and guidelines for project evaluation, it should not be questionable that they were correctly classified.
Na tej podlagi je NRS trdil, da, ker so bili projekti temeljito ocenjeni v skladu s postopki NRS in smernicami za ocenjevanje projekta, ne bi smelo biti vprašljivo, ali so bili pravilno razvrščeni.
The RCN, after the complaint was raised and the Authority started their preliminary investigation, looked again at these projects and nevertheless reiterated its original position.
Potem ko je bila vložena pritožba in je Nadzorni organ začel predhodno preiskavo, je NRS ponovno pregledal te projekte, a vseeno ni spremenil svojega prvotnega stališča.
‘In the meeting in Brussels 22 May 2003, the classification of certain activities in two of the Projects, No 40049 and No 144214, were discussed.
„Na sestanku v Bruslju 22. maja 2003 so razpravljali o razvrstitvi določenih dejavnosti pri projektih št. 40049 in 144214.
In the letter of 20 June 2003, which was a response to this meeting, we advocated that the RCN's principal position was that, at a minimum, all activities in project No 40049 could be classified as industrial research, and all activities in Project No 144214 may at least be classified as pre-competitive development.
V dopisu z dne 20. junija 2003, ki je bil odgovor na ta sestanek, smo zagovarjali, da je bilo glavno stališče NRS, da bi lahko bile razvrščene kot industrijska raziskava vsaj vse dejavnosti projekta št. 40049, medtem ko bi vse dejavnosti projekta št. 144214 lahko razvrstili vsaj kot predkonkurenčni razvoj.