natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
private kreditorer 22,61; offentlige kreditorer 19,56] *
[private creditors 22,61; public creditors 19,56] *
Leasingbanker (privat)
Private Leasing Banks (private)
Ubetalte og kapitaliserede fremtidige leasingafgifter
Unpaid and capitalised future leasing payments
Østrigs postvæsen (privat i dette tilfælde)
Austrian Post (private for this case)
Reklamationsnoter og bonusgodtgørelse
Complaint credit note and returned bonus
Fagforening (offentlig)
Employer's Liability Insurance Association (public)
Bidrag til ulykkesforsikring
Accident insurance fees
Hovedtoldkontor (offentlig)
Main Customs Office (public)
Importafgifter, told
Import sales tax, customs duty
Duales System Deutschland (privat)
Duales System Deutschland (private)
Bidrag »det grønne punkt«
Fees for ‘Der Grüne Punkt’ recycling system
Bidrag for perioden 1.-4. marts 2002
Contributions for the period (1 to 4 March 2002)
Leje for juli-september 2002
Ground rent for the period July to September 2002
Andre leverancer uden sikkerhed (privat)
Other private suppliers without securities (private)
Samlede afkald på krav i gruppe PBS 5: Der blev givet afkald på 90 % af kravene
Overall waivers in group PBS 5: 90 % of the claims was waived
Banker med sikkerhed i løsøre) (privat og offentlig)
Banks with right to separate satisfaction (private and public)
Lån fra perioden inden 3. april 2003
Credits dating from before 3 April 2003
(op til 76,75 mio. EUR)
(waived all but EUR 76,75 million)
Supplerende oplysninger vedrørende gæld til offentlige kreditorer
Additional information on debts with public creditors
De offentlige kreditorer anmeldte krav i forskellige grupper.
Public creditors declared claims in several groups of the insolvency proceedings.
Ingen af de offentlige og private kreditorer i gruppe HAG 2, HAG 3, PBS 3 og PBS 5 havde nogen sikkerhed for deres krav.
It is worth noting that none of the public or private creditors in groups HAG 2, HAG 3, PBS 3 and PBS 5 had any securities on their claims.
Alligevel blev der givet fuldstændigt afkald på de almindelige krav i gruppe HAG 3 og PBS 3, mens de almindelige kreditorer i gruppe HAG 2 og PBS 5 fik udbetalt en proportional dividende.
Despite this fact, the non-lower-ranking claims within groups HAG 3 and PBS 3 were waived completely, while the non-lower-ranking creditors in groups HAG 2 and PBS 5 received a proportional share of payment.
I overensstemmelse med insolvensplanerne fik kreditorerne i gruppe HAG 2 senest 31. marts 2004 udbetalt dividende af det samlede beløb på 0,5 mio. EUR svarende til deres krav.
In accordance with the insolvency plans, the creditors within group HAG 2 received by 31 March 2004 a share of a total amount of EUR 0,5 million, corresponding to the relative size of their claims.
Kreditorerne i gruppe PBS 5 fik udbetalt 10 % af deres krav inden 31. december 2003.
The creditors of group PBS 5 received 10 % of their claims by 31 December 2003.
Tabel 2 og 3 viser omfanget af de offentlige krav og de respektive krav, der blev givet afkald på.
Tables 2 and 3 above show the amounts of the public claims and the respective waivers.
Supplerende oplysninger vedrørende de finansinstitutter, der medvirker i forliget
Additional information on financial institutions covered by the settlement agreement
I begge insolvensplaner omtales et lån, som et bankkonsortium bevilgede Herlitz PBS AG (i det følgende »konsortiallån«).
Both insolvency plans mention a pending credit granted to Herlitz PBS AG by a bank consortium (hereinafter referred to as the consortium credit).
Konsortiets sammensætning svarer til sammensætningen af det i betragtning 10 nævnte konsortium.
The composition of the consortium is very similar to that of the shareholder banks described in recital 10.
Supplerende oplysninger vedrørende den øvrige gæld til finansinstitutter
Additional information on other debts with financial institutions
På det tidspunkt, hvor kreditorerne godkendte insolvensplanerne, var der andre bankforpligtelser i Herlitz-gruppen, der ikke var omfattet af konsortiallånet og kreditlinjerne.
At the time of the approval of the insolvency plans by the creditors, further bank liabilities existed within the Herlitz Group, which were not covered by the consortium credit and the lines of credit.
For det første gav Hypovereinsbank (Irland), Bayerische Landesbank og Landesbank Berlin fuldstændig afkald på tilbagebetaling af deres ikke-sikrede lån for ikke at bringe fyldestgørelsen af deres delvis sikrede krav inden for konsortiallånet i fare.
Firstly, Hypovereinsbank (Ireland), the Bayerische Landesbank and the Landesbank Berlin banks fully waived the repayment of their non-secured credits in order not to endanger the recovery of their partly secured claims within the consortium credit.
For det andet opnåede Herlitz-gruppen lån, der var sikret ved et foranstillet pant i grunden i Berlin-Tegel: et lån på 15,4 mio. EUR fra Hypovereinsbank og et lån på 30,8 mio. EUR fra Eurohypo.
Secondly, the Herlitz Group also received credits that were fully secured through a first-ranking land charge on the Berlin-Tegel property: a credit of EUR 15,4 million from Hypovereinsbank and a credit of EUR 30,8 million from Eurohypo.
Disse to lån var ikke omfattet af forliget, men over for Herlitz AG og Herlitz PBS AG kunne der dog gives afkald på disse krav, da grunden i Berlin-Tegel, der udgjorde sikkerheden, blev solgt til GGB.
These two credits did not enter into the settlement agreement but could be waived against Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG, because the securing Berlin-Tegel property was sold to GGB.
Den 15. april 2002 bevilgede konsortialbankerne Herlitz et likviditetslån på 15 mio. EUR for at videreføre gruppens drift.
Furthermore, on 15 April 2002 the consortium of banks granted a liquidity loan to the Herlitz Group (liquidity loan). The liquidity loan of EUR 15 million was granted in order to enable the continuation of the group’s operative business.
Lånet blev forlænget to gange og var fuldstændig tilbagebetalt den 17. november 2003.
The loan was twice prolonged (renewed) until 17 November 2003, when it was fully repaid.
Dette lån dækkede gruppens sæsonbetingede likviditetsbehov og ydes muligvis på ny i juni 2004.
This loan covered the seasonal liquidity needs of the group and may be granted again in June 2004.
Supplerende oplysninger vedrørende gæld til leverandører
Additional information on debts with suppliers
Herlitz AG's gæld til leverandørerne i gruppe HAG 2 androg 9,3 mio. EUR. Herlitz PBS AG's leverandører kan inddeles i leverandører med sikkerhed (gruppe PBS 1) og leverandører uden sikkerhed (gruppe PBS 5).
Herlitz AG’s debts with the suppliers amounted to EUR 9,30 million in group HAG 2. The suppliers of Herlitz PBS AG can be divided into those with securities (in group PBS 1) and those without any securities (in group PBS 5).
Leverandørerne i gruppe PBS 1 havde ret til forlods fyldestgørelse for 35 % af Herlitz PBS AG's aktiver og gav derfor ikke afkald på deres krav.
The suppliers in group PBS 1 had a right of separate satisfaction on 35 % of each Herlitz PBS AG’s current assets and therefore made no waivers.
Derimod gav de ikke-sikrede leverandører i gruppe PBS 5 afkald på 90 % af deres krav i lighed med de øvrige almindelige kreditorer i denne gruppe.
By contrast, the unsecured suppliers in group PBS 5 relinquished 90 % of their claims like the other non-lower-ranking creditors in that group.
Supplerende oplysninger vedrørende gæld til ansatte og forbundne virksomheder
Additional information on debts with the workforce and connected undertakings
Ifølge den tyske lov om insolvens kan ansatte og forbundne virksomheder deltage i en insolvensprocedure og modtage dividende af deres krav.
Under German insolvency law, employees and connected undertakings can also participate and receive quotas on their claims in insolvency proceedings.
For dem blev der oprettet særskilte »kreditorgrupper« (HAG 4, PBS 4), andre blev medtaget i de blandede grupper (HAG 2, PBS 5).
This is why separate ‘creditor’ groups were created for these (HAG 4, PBS 4) or they were included in mixed groups (HAG 2, PBS 5).
Alternativer til insolvensplanerne
Alternatives to the insolvency plans
Under procedurerne mod Herlitz AG og Herlitz PBS AG besluttede kurator og kreditorerne at videreføre virksomheden ved hjælp af insolvensplaner.
In the Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG proceedings, the insolvency administrator and the creditors opted for maintaining the going concern through insolvency plans.
Som nævnt i betragtning 33 blev samtlige masseomkostninger og massekrav betalt under proceduren.
As explained in recital 33, under the going-concern procedure all the insolvency costs and the debts of the insolvency assets were paid.
Desuden blev der udbetalt 0,5 mio. EUR i dividende til nogle af Herlitz AG’s almindelige kreditorer, mens nogle almindelige kreditorer i Herlitz PBS AG modtog dividende på ca. 10 % af deres krav.
Furthermore, EUR 0,5 million was distributed as a quota to some non-lower ranking creditors of Herlitz AG, while some non-lower ranking creditors of Herlitz PBS AG received 10 % of their claims as a quota.
Som anført i betragtning 47 ville den forventede værdi af insolvensmassen have været væsentligt mindre i tilfælde af likvidation.
As explained in recital 47, the expected value of the insolvency mass was much lower in the option of liquidating the company.
Ved salg af den samlede virksomhed ville kreditorerne have fået bedre fyldestgørelse. Det var imidlertid ikke muligt at finde en investor, der var parat til at overtage hele gruppens aktiver.
Selling the entire company in an asset deal was expected to produce better satisfaction of creditors, but no investor was willing to take over the totality of the assets of the group.
Ifølge et skøn udarbejdet af konsulentfirmaet Roland Berger og ifølge den uafhængige auktionarius ville aktivernes værdi ved en likvidation være faldet fra 84,2 mio. EUR til [10-30] * mio. EUR. Dette beløb skulle først anvendes til fyldestgørelse af krav med forlodsret, hvilket ville efterlade et bo på kun [0-5] * mio. EUR. Herliz-gruppens indtægter ville under insolvensproceduren andrage ca. 1 mio. EUR. Hvis dette beløb lægges til de disponible midler, ville de samlede midler i boet udgøre [1-6] * mio. EUR.
According to an evaluation prepared by the firm Roland Berger and also in the opinion of the independent auctioneer, a liquidation would have reduced the value of movable assets from EUR 84,2 million to EUR [10-30] * million. This amount would have been first used to satisfy the claims with a right to separate satisfaction, leaving free insolvency assets of only EUR [0-5] * million. The revenues of the Herlitz Group during the insolvency proceedings would have amounted to approximately EUR 1 million. After adding this amount to the free assets, the result would have been total free insolvency assets of EUR [1-6] * million.
De disponible midler skulle anvendes til at dække de masseomkostninger og masseforpligtelser, der ville opstå i forbindelse med administration og salg af boet.
The free insolvency assets would have been used to settle, in advance, the insolvency costs and the debts of the insolvency assets, such as those created through the administration and disposition of insolvency assets.
Efter fradrag af masseomkostninger ville de disponible formueværdier kun udgøre [0-1] * mio. EUR. Dette beløb ville ikke kunne have dækket virksomhedens masseforpligtelser og ville derfor ikke have været tilstrækkeligt til at sikre, at de almindelige kreditorer opnåede blot delvis fyldestgørelse.
After deduction of the insolvency costs, the final amount of free assets would have been only EUR [0-1] * million. This amount could not cover the debts of the insolvency assets of the company and therefore was insufficient for even a proportional satisfaction of the non-lower-ranking creditors.
Ifølge insolvensplanerne ville det ikke være muligt at foretage en omstrukturering med salg af alle gruppens værdier til en ny ejer.
According to the insolvency plans, a restructuring whereby all assets of the Herlitz Group would have been sold in an asset deal to a new owner was not practicable.
Der blev ganske vist fremsat tilbud om overtagelse af bestemte aktivitetsområder og lagerbeholdninger, men prisen på disse tilbud svarede til likvidationsværdien.
Offers were made for the takeover of certain areas of activity and stocks, but the price offered corresponded to the liquidation value.
Den mest fordelagtige løsning for kreditorerne var derfor at omstrukturere en videreført virksomhed ved hjælp af en insolvensplan.
Therefore, the option promising best satisfaction to creditors was the going-concern restructuring through insolvency plan.
Beslutning om indledning af proceduren efter EF-traktatens artikel 88, stk. 2
The decision to initiate proceedings under Article 88(2) of the Treaty
Kommissionens besluttede den 19. februar 2003 at indlede proceduren efter EF-traktatens artikel 88, stk. 2, på grundlag af tre hovedforhold, der blev afdækket ved undersøgelsen af, om foranstaltningerne var i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsrammebestemmelserne for støtte til redning og omstrukturering af kriseramte virksomheder [16] (herefter »rammebestemmelserne«).
The Commission decided on 19 February 2003 to initiate proceedings under Article 88(2) of the Treaty for three main reasons based on its review of the compatibility of the measures with the Community guidelines on rescue and restructuring aid for firms in difficulty [16] (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines).
For det første fastslog Kommissionen, at ILB's lån til Herlitz PBS AG indeholdt elementer af statsstøtte i den i EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, anførte betydning, som skulle undersøges nærmere.
First, the Commission found that the loan granted by ILB to Herlitz PBS AG contained elements of state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty which needed to be analysed further.
Tyskland havde ikke fremlagt tilstrækkelige oplysninger vedrørende støttens forenelighed med rammebestemmelserne til, at det var muligt at fastslå, hvem de faktiske støttemodtagere var.
As regards compatibility of the aid with the Guidelines, Germany did not submit sufficient information for establishing who the real beneficiary of the aid was.
For det andet var Kommissionen i tvivl om, hvorvidt en række offentlige kreditorers afkald på fordringer (skattemyndigheder, Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, sociale myndigheder og finansmyndigheder) skulle betragtes som støtte i insolvensplanerne.
Second, the Commission wondered whether the waivers of several public creditors (tax authorities, employment institutions, social security and public financial institutions) in the insolvency plans constituted aid.
Med hensyn til Herlitz-gruppens udnyttelse af grunden Berlin-Tegel, der tilhørte delstaten Berlin, nærede Kommissionen for det tredje tvivl om, hvorvidt den pågældende lejeaftale var indgået på markedsvilkår.
Third, as regards the Herlitz Group’s use of the Berlin-Tegel real estate belonging to the Land of Berlin, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the lease contract was concluded under market conditions.
Da der var gået mere end ti år siden lejeaftalens indgåelse, blev denne betragtet som eksisterende støtte.
Since more than 10 years had passed since the contract, the granting of the lease was regarded as existing aid.
Kommissionen kom dog til den konklusion, at det forhold, at delstaten Berlin havde givet afkald på leje og ikke havde forhøjet denne, kunne betragtes som ny støtte.
However, the Commission considered that the Land of Berlin’s waivers of ground rent claims (Erbbauzinsen) and the fact that the rent was not increased could constituted new aid.
Desuden kunne delstaten Berlins indrømmelse og senere afkald på et rentefrit lån på 6 mio. DEM ligeledes udgøre statsstøtte.
It also took the view that the granting and subsequent waiver of the interest-free loan of DEM 6 million by the Land of Berlin could constitute State aid.
Den eneste interesserede, der fremsatte bemærkninger vedrørende indledningen af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, var Herlitz PBS AG på vegne af støttemodtageren, Herlitz-gruppen.
The only interested party that commented on the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure was Herlitz PBS AG on behalf of the beneficiary Herlitz Group.
Herlitz PBS AG gik ind for en grundig undersøgelse af sagen, der var baseret på påstanden om tildeling af ulovlig støtte.
Herlitz PBS AG expressed its support for a thorough examination of the facts underlying the allegation of unlawful State aid.
Den meddelte Kommissionen, at den havde fremlagt alle relevante dokumenter til myndighederne.
It informed the Commission that it had provided all the relevant documents to the German authorities.
Med hensyn til redningslånet anførte Herlitz PBS AG, at det var blevet tilbagebetalt, og at betingelserne for tildeling af redningsstøtte var opfyldt.
As regards the rescue aid loan, Herlitz PBS AG submitted that it had been repaid and that it fulfilled the conditions for approving rescue aid.
Med hensyn til de afkald på fordringer, der var givet i insolvensplanerne, anførte virksomheden, at de offentlige kreditorer havde handlet som private kreditorer, og at de pågældende fordringer var værdiløse.
With respect to the waivers in the insolvency proceedings, Herlitz PBS AG stated that the public creditors had acted in a comparable manner to private ones, furthermore the waived claims were worthless.
Det blev understreget, at kreditorerne enstemmigt havde godkendt insolvensplanerne.
Herlitz PBS AG stressed that all creditors had voted unanimously to adopt the insolvency plans.
Efter Herlitz PBS AG's opfattelse kunne de støtteelementer, som Kommissionen havde fundet i forbindelse med de fordringer, der var givet afkald på, betragtes som omstruktureringsstøtte i overensstemmelse med rammebestemmelserne.
Herlitz PBS AG reiterated that any aid elements the Commission might find in the waivers of claims would be eligible for approval as restructuring aid under the Guidelines.
For at undgå gentagelser tilsluttede selskabet sig i øvrigt den retsopfattelse, som Tyskland havde givet udtryk for.
To avoid repetition, Herlitz PBS AG simply supported the legal arguments put forward by Germany.
I sit svar på indledning af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure anførte Tyskland, at det kun var redningslånet fra ILB, der skulle betragtes som statsstøtte, og som var forenelig med Fællesskabet i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c).
In its response to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, Germany stated that the only measure it considered to be State aid was the rescue aid loan granted by ILB. Germany submitted that this aid was compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.
De øvrige foranstaltninger og især de fordringer, der var givet afkald på i insolvensproceduren, var ikke statsstøtte i den i EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, anførte betydning.
Germany stated that the remaining measures and in particular the waivers in the insolvency proceedings did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
De offentlige kreditorer havde under insolvensproceduren givet afkald på uvæsentlige fordringer, og deres adfærd var i øvrigt i overensstemmelse med »det private kreditorprincip«.
Germany submitted that the public creditors in the insolvency proceedings had waived worthless claims and that otherwise their actions were compatible with the private creditor principle.
Hvis nogle af de øvrige foranstaltninger udgjorde statsstøtte, ville de være berettiget til at blive godkendt som omstruktureringsstøtte i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c).
Furthermore, according to Germany even if some of the other measures might constitute aid, they would be eligible for approval as restructuring aid under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Bemærkninger vedrørende redningslån
Germany’s comments on the rescue aid loan
Tyskland henviste til, at beslutningen om tildeling af redningslånet den 10. maj 2002 blev truffet forud for godkendelsen af insolvensplanen 15. juni 2002.
With respect to the rescue aid loan, Germany pointed out that the decision to grant the loan on 10 May 2002 preceded the final adoption of the insolvency plan on 15 June 2002.
Det forhold, at lånet først blev udbetalt 24. juli 2002, skyldtes »nogle åbne spørgsmål«, der først kunne løses med ILB 24. juli.
The fact that the loan was only paid out on 24 July 2002 was due to certain ‘unresolved questions’ which could not be settled with ILB before 24 July 2002. For the period between the contract and the disbursement, the liquidity loan ensured the liquidity of Herlitz PBS AG.
I perioden mellem aftalens undertegnelse og udbetalingen havde dette lån imidlertid skaffet Herlitz PBS AG den nødvendige likviditet, men det havde dog ikke været tilstrækkeligt til at dække det øgede likviditetsbehov, der opstod ved skoleårets begyndelse i august 2003.
However, the liquidity loan was not sufficient to cover the increased liquidity needs in August 2003, which arose because of the start of the school term.
Likviditetslånet var nødvendigt for at dække perioden, indtil insolvensplanerne var godkendt.
Therefore, according to Germany, the rescue aid loan was necessary to cover the period until the adoption of the insolvency plan.
Ifølge Tyskland havde dette lån været begrænset til et minimum, hvilket fremgår af den meget lave likviditet hos Herlitz PBS AG mellem august og december 2002.
Germany submitted that the rescue aid loan was limited to the minimum, as demonstrated by the very low liquidity level of Herlitz PBS AG between August and December 2002.
Ifølge Tysklands opfattelse var det ikke FOP, men Herlitz PBS AG, der var begunstiget af redningslånet.
Germany stated that the beneficiary of the rescue aid loan was not FOP but Herlitz PBS AG.
Bemærkninger vedrørende omstruktureringen på basis af insolvensplaner
Germany’s comments on the restructuring through insolvency plans
Tyskland anførte, at nogle offentlige kreditorers afkald på fordringer ikke havde medført et indtægtstab for staten, da disse fordringer var værdiløse.
Germany submitted that the waivers of certain public creditors did not lead to loss of revenue by the State since the relevant claims were worthless.
Herlitz AG og Herlitz PBS AG's aktier ville kun have været tilstrækkelige til at fyldestgøre fordringer fra kreditorer med ret til særlig fyldestgørelse.
According to Germany, the assets of Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG were only sufficient to cover the claims of creditors with a right to separate satisfaction.
De offentlige kreditorer uden for denne gruppe havde ingen sikkerhed eller kun en efterstillet panteret.
The public creditors outside this group had no securities or only a lower-ranking land charge.
I tilfælde af en likvidation ville de offentlige kreditorer, også selv om de var i besiddelse af et efterstillet pant, ikke have fået noget eller kun have fået lidt udbetalt.
Germany pointed out that in a liquidation scenario little or no payment would have resulted to public creditors, including the ones secured by a lower-ranking land charge.
Ifølge præmis 168 i Førsteinstansrettens dom af 11. juli 2002 i Sml. T-152/99 (HAMSA mod Kommission) [17] bringer en kreditor ikke noget virkeligt offer, hvis han giver afkald på en betydelig del af sine usikrede fordringer, som ved en likvidation ville have været værdiløse.
According to paragraph 168 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-152/99 (HAMSA v Commission) [17], a creditor with an unsecured claim that would be worthless in a liquidation scenario does not make a real sacrifice by waiving a substantial part of his claim.
Ifølge Tysklands opfattelse indebærer en offentlig kreditors afkald på fordringer hverken en ydelse eller en fordel, der kan udtrykkes i penge.
Germany stated that waivers by public creditors do not represent a service (Leistung) or a benefit that can be expressed in monetary terms.
Da Herlitz AG og Herlitz PBS AG var insolvente, ville deres aktiver i tilfælde af likvidation ikke have været tilstrækkelige til at sikre dividende til de offentlige kreditorer.
Since Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG were insolvent, in a liquidation scenario, their assets would not have been sufficient to pay any quota on public claims.