natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvis omstruktureringen var blevet organiseret på et senere tidspunkt, ville der ikke have været behov for støtte, især ikke overgangslånet.
In fact, if the restructuring had been arranged at a later stage, no aid, in particular not the bridging loan guaranteed by the State, would have been necessary.
Derfor vedrører misbruget al støtte tildelt i forbindelse med overgangslånet, som blev anvendt til finansiering af salg og returleje af produktionsaktiver.
Hence the misuse concerns all the funds provided under the bridging loan which were used for the sale and lease-back of the productive assets.
Desuden er Kommissionen klar over, at det ikke er unormalt at have overskydende finansielle midler ved udgangen af en omstrukturering, og at en virksomhed ikke bør straffes for at opnå bedre resultater end forventet.
The Commission is further aware that an excess of resources at the end of the restructuring period is not unusual and that a company should not be punished for achieving better results than expected ex ante.
En sådan situation bør imidlertid anspore virksomheden til bedre resultater, som kan give virksomhederne en større handlingsmargin, f.eks. når det gælder fremrykning af gældsindfrielse.
However, this should lead to better business results, allowing the company some more margins for bringing forward the debt repayment, for example.
Dette betyder ikke, at virksomheden kan omdirigere næsten al støtte til formål, der ikke er angivet i forretningsplanen.
This does not mean that the company may redirect almost all the aid to purposes not indicated in the business plan.
Desuden skal der huskes på, at virksomheden også modtog adskillige andre former for statsstøtte såsom gældseftergivelse og den del af lånegarantien, der anvendtes til finansiering af investeringer.
Secondly, it must be recalled that the company also received several other State aid measures, such as the debt write-off and a part of the guaranteed loan used to finance investments.
Disse foranstaltninger blev gennemført efter planen, og de hjalp virksomheden med at opnå rentabilitet.
These measures were implemented according to the plan and helped to achieve viability for the company.
Ikke desto mindre kan hele omstruktureringen betragtes som mislykket, eftersom planen kun blev delvist gennemført, og kun fuldstændig gennemførelse i ex ante-perspektiv ville have sikret genoprettelse af rentabiliteten.
Nevertheless, it could be assumed that the entire restructuring must be deemed to have failed, because the plan was only partly implemented and, from an ex ante point of view, only full implementation of the restructuring plan would ensure that viability was restored.
I denne sammenhæng kan det være af væsentlig betydning, at virksomheden opnåede rentabilitet [25].
However, in this context it might be of relevance that the company did restore viability [25].
Dette er kun tilfældet, så længe virksomheden ikke modtog overflødig støtte, som ikke var nødvendig for opnåelsen af rentabilitet.
This is the case at least so long as the company did not obtain any excess aid which was not necessary to restore viability.
Med andre ord ville udligningen af denne fordel have genoprettet ex ante-situationen, dvs. kompenseret for modtagelsen af overflødig støtte.
In other words if this advantage were recovered it would restore the ex ante situation, i.e. make good the receipt of excessive aid.
I dette tilfælde kan gennemførelsen af de resterende foranstaltninger i overensstemmelse med planen betragtes som havende bidraget til genoprettelsen af rentabiliteten.
In this case the remaining measures, which were implemented in accordance with the plan, may indeed have contributed to restoring viability.
Derfor kan disse foranstaltninger betragtes som forenelige med forskrifterne, hvis den overskydende støtte tilbagesøges.
They could therefore, provided that the excess aid received was recovered, be considered compatible.
Da de resterende foranstaltninger sikrede genoprettelsen af rentabiliteten med et minimum af støtte, kan Kommissionen konkludere, at kun den omdirigerede del af det statsgaranterede lån og ikke hele omstruktureringsstøtten blev misbrugt, og at de andre foranstaltninger i henhold til IBP 2003 blev anvendt i overensstemmelse med formålet.
Therefore, as the remaining measures did ensure that viability was restored with the minimum aid necessary, the Commission can conclude that only the redirected amount of the guaranteed loan, and not the entire amount of the restructuring aid, was misused, and that the other measures under the 2003 IBP remained compatible.
Støtteelementet i den misbrugte del af det statsgaranterede lån
Aid element of the misused part of the guaranteed loan
Kommissionen erkender imidlertid, at garantien som støtte i dette tilfælde havde begrænset konkurrenceforvridende virkning, idet det lån, HLW fik garanti for, blev indfriet et år senere af Arcelor.
The Commission acknowledges however that the guarantee as a form of aid had in this case a limited distortive effect given that the loan for which HLW obtained a guarantee was repaid after one year by Arcelor.
Således finder Kommissionen, at det med henblik på udligning af den fordel, virksomheden har opnået, kun er nødvendigt at udligne det rentetilskud, som virksomheden modtog i kraft af garantiens sikkerhed i den periode, hvor virksomheden havde adgang til lånemidlerne.
Therefore, the Commission considers that in order to recover all the advantage received by the company it is necessary to recover only the interest subsidy given by the guarantee for the period when the borrowed money was at the company’s disposal.
Desuden bemærker Kommissionen, at virksomheden stadig havde visse muligheder, når det gjaldt adgangen til finansiering, og at den var i stand til at stille tilfredsstillende sikkerhed, hvilket bekræftes af garantiaftalen, hvori der stilles krav om sikkerhed.
Moreover, the Commission notes that the company still had some chances of getting finance and was able to provide decent security. This is confirmed in the guarantee contract, which required security.
I overensstemmelse med Kommissionens faste praksis var rentetilskuddet forskellen mellem den rente, der ville være blevet betalt, hvis der var blevet anvendt markedsrentesatser, og den rente, virksomheden faktisk betalte.
According to constant Commission practice, the interest subsidy would be equivalent to the difference between the interest that would have had to be paid on market terms and the interest actually paid by the company.
Markedsrenten ville i dette tilfælde blive udregnet på basis af referencerentesatsen på det tidspunkt, hvor pengene blev stillet til rådighed (august 2004) plus 400 basispoint, idet HLW ikke var rentabel i 2004 (jf. betragtning 46), men kriseramt [27].
The market interest in this case would be calculated on the basis of the reference rate at the time when the money was made available (August 2004) plus 400 basis points, given that HLW was not viable in 2004 (see above point (46)), but was a company in difficulty [27].
I henhold til Kommissionens praksis kan der ikke anvendes mindre end 400 basispoint [28].
Established Commission practice does not allow going below 400 basis points [28].
Der er imidlertid ikke behov for en forhøjelse af denne sats, da virksomheden stillede sikkerhed, og konjunkturerne var gunstige i stålsektoren i 2004.
However no further increase is necessary as the company provided security and the steel sector was performing well in 2004.
Da lånet blev udstedt i EUR og ikke PLN, anvender Kommissionen referencerentesatsen for euroen, dvs. 4,43 %.
As the loan was provided not in PLN but in euro, the Commission is applying the reference rate for the Eurozone, i.e. 4,43 %.
I denne sammenhæng bør der huskes på, at den fordel, der rent faktisk er opnået, skal bedømmes ved sammenligning af de betingelser, virksomheden har opnået, med de betingelser, den kunne opnå på det frie marked (uden statsgaranti).
In this context it should be recalled that the benefit actually achieved must be assessed by comparing the conditions obtained by the company and the conditions that would have been achieved under market conditions (without the State guarantee).
Det er normal markedspraksis at fastlægge kreditrenten på basis af referencerentesatsen (normalt den relevante interbankrente) for lånets valuta, idet de pengeværdimæssige udsving er relateret til den økonomi, hvor en bestemt valuta anvendes.
It is normal market practice to determine credit interest on the basis of the reference rate (usually the relevant interbank reference rate) for the currency of the principal, because the fluctuation of the value of money is related to the economy in which a particular currency is used.
Derfor bør den rente, en markedsøkonomisk kreditor anvender i forbindelse med et lån udstedt i euro, anvendes, selv om lånet blev udstedt i Polen.
Therefore, in the case of a loan denominated in euro the reference rate applied by a market economy creditor should also be the one used for credit denominated in euro, even though the loan was granted in Poland.
Således burde renten have været på 8,43 % p.a., hvilket ville have givet et rentebeløb på 2807206 EUR. Dette beløb skal sammenlignes med de renteudgifter, virksomheden faktisk havde.
Thus, the interest should have been at 8,43 % p.a., i.e. it should have amounted to EUR 2807206. This needs to be compared with the expenses the company actually incurred.
Disse udgifter består af selve renten på 1061050 EUR samt afgifter for garantien (som angivet i betragtning 42, litra a) og b)), som ifølge Kommissionens praksis skal anvendes ved beregning af garantistøtten [29].
These consist of the interest of EUR 1061050 plus some premiums for the guarantee (as indicated in points (42)(a) and (b)), which, according to Commission practice, have to be considered when calculating the aid amount of a guarantee [29].
Garantiomkostningerne skal fordeles på hele garantibeløbet og relateres til den misbrugte støtte plus de renter, der er omfattet af garantien.
The cost of the guarantee should be spread over the total amount of the guarantee and related to the misused aid plus the interest covered by the guarantee.
Dette skyldes, at den begrænsede anvendelse af det garanterede lån til investeringer var en forretningsbeslutning, som endnu ikke var kendt på det tidspunkt, hvor det garanterede lån blev udformet som et lån på 46 mio. EUR samt renter i fem år.
This is because the limited use of the guaranteed part of the loan for investments was a business decision that had not yet been taken when the guaranteed loan was arranged as a loan of EUR 46 million plus interest for five years.
Ellers ville det garanterede lån være blevet udformet anderledes.
Otherwise the guaranteed loan would have been arranged differently.
Derfor bør der foretages en beregning af den proportionelle andel af betalingerne, der vedrører henholdsvis garanteret og misbrugt støtte.
Hence a pro rata division should be made by calculating the proportion of the fee relating to the actual amount guaranteed and misused.
Desuden bør betalingerne af samme grund beregnes proportionelt med hensyn til den del af garantiperioden, der reelt udnyttedes, i forhold til den samlede periode på fem år, idet garantien i denne periode var omfattet af en teoretisk afskrivning.
Moreover, for the same reasons the fee should be calculated pro rata of the time actually used in relation to the guarantee for the total period of five years, as the guarantee was theoretically amortised in that period.
En tidligere opsigelse udgør en ændring af en forretningsbeslutning, som er uafhængig af tidligere ordninger.
If it is terminated earlier, this is a revision of a business decision which is independent of the former arrangement.
Dette betyder, at Kommissionen accepterer fradrag for betalingsomkostninger vedrørende afgift til staten og den i betragtning 42 nævnte provision, men på basis af en proportional beregning baseret på a) forholdet mellem det faktisk garanterede beløb (32,3 (=31,24 + 1,06 (hovedstol + betalte renter)) og det samlede garantibeløb (58330000 EUR), og b) den forventede andel af garantiperioden på fem år (dvs. 388 dage ud af potentielt 1826 dage).
This means that the Commission accepts deduction of the costs for the State Treasury fee and the preparation fee as indicated above in point (42), but on the basis of a pro rata calculation, based on (a) the ratio of the amount actually guaranteed (32,3 (=31,24 + 1,06 (principal plus interest actually paid)) to the total amount of the guarantee (EUR 58330000)) and (b) the ratio of actual use to the intended use for five years (i.e. 388 days out of a potential 1826 days).
Den i betragtning 42, litra c) nævnte afgift kan dog efter Kommissionens opfattelse ikke fradrages, idet ethvert lån på markedsvilkår vil indebære lignende omkostninger, som i nogle tilfælde endda kan være højere.
However, as regards fees for the loan indicated above in point (42)(c), the Commission does not consider these as costs deductible from the advantage, given that any loan on market terms must also involve similar costs, which could possibly even have been higher.
Dette fører til nedenstående beregning indeholdende akkumulerede renter for den opnåede fordel fra den 24. august 2004 indtil indfrielsen ved en rentabilitet på 7,62 % p.a.:
This leads to the following calculation, taking into account compound interest on the benefit from 24 August 2004 until repayment, at a recovery rate of 7,62 % p.a.:
Samlet finansieret beløb
Total amount financed
Tilsvarende markedsrenteudgift for perioden 24.8.2004 til 16.9.2005
Appropriate interest required from 24.8.2004 to 16.9.2005
Renter betalt af HLW for det garanterede lån
Interest actually paid by HLW on guaranteed loan
Forberedelsesprovision for garantien, proportionelt med andel af samlet garanti og af låneperiode
Preparation fee for guarantee, pro rata over total guarantee and loan duration
Afgift til staten, proportionelt med andel af samlet garanti og af låneperiode
State Treasury Fee, pro rata over total guarantee and loan duration
Faktiske udgifter i forbindelse med det garanterede lån, i alt
Total costs for guaranteed loan actually incurred
Renteforskel (= fordel)
Interest differential (= benefit)
Plus akkumulerede renter beregnet på basis af rentabiliteten mellem 24.8.2004 og 20.11.2007.
Plus compound interest at recovery rate from 24.8.2004 to 20.11.2007
Skyldigt beløb pr. 20.11.2007
Payable on 20.11.2007
Kommissionen konkluderer, at afregningen for salgs- og returlejeaftalen for produktionsaktiverne ikke var omfattet af IBP 2003, og at den bragte genoprettelsen af virksomhedens rentabilitet i fare, i det mindste på det tidspunkt, hvor der var behov for støtten.
To summarise: the Commission concludes that the paying off of the sale and leaseback agreement for the productive assets was not envisaged in the 2003 IBP and put the restoration of viability at risk, at least at the time when the aid was required.
Da virksomheden imidlertid genvandt sin rentabilitet, påvirker den misbrugte støtte ikke foreneligheden af den resterende støtte.
However, as the company nevertheless restored viability, the misuse of the aid does not affect the compatibility of the remaining aid.
Da garantien desuden er inddraget, og lånet er indfriet, er det kun nødvendigt tilbagesøge det rentetilskud, HLW havde fordel af i den periode, hvor pengene var til rådighed (dvs. fra tidspunktet for overførslen af midler til tidspunktet for tilbagebetalingen).
Moreover as the guarantee has been terminated and the loan has already been repaid, only the interest subsidy from which HLW benefited in the period when the money was available (i.e. from the transfer of money to the repayment) need now be recovered.
Dette rentetilskud beløber sig til 1645682 EUR.
This interest subsidy amounts to EUR 1645682.
Ændringen af planen
Change of plan
Polen har anmodet Kommissionen om at godkende en ændret IBP i henhold til punkt 10 i protokol nr. 8.
Poland has asked the Commission to accept an updated IBP under point 10 of Protocol No 8.
Kommissionen har tidligere beskæftiget sig med lignende sager og har i den anledning præciseret: »Kommissionen kan kun godkende ændringer af en IBP ud fra en konstatering af, at ændringernes overensstemmelse med målsætningerne i protokol nr. 8 ikke kan drages i tvivl.
The Commission has dealt with similar cases in the past and has clarified that, ‘An agreement by the Commission to a change of an IBP must be based on the consideration that there is no problem of compatibility of the change with the objectives of Protocol No 8.
Dette er tilfældet, når de vigtige oplysninger, der refereres til i protokollen, vedrørende statsstøtte, produktionskapacitet og tidsplan, forbliver uændrede, og statsstøttens andel i henhold til protokollen forbliver den samme, uden at målet vedrørende rentabiliteten drages i tvivl« [30].
This is the case where the main figures indicated in the Protocol concerning State aid, capacity and timing remain unchanged and the proportionality of the State aids as stipulated in the Protocol remains in place without questioning the objective of viability [30].’
Kommissionen præciserede i sin beslutning om iværksættelse af proceduren, at ændringerne i denne sag ikke vedrørte hverken en forøgelse af den samlede statsstøtte eller en forøgelse af produktionskapaciteten [31] i omstruktureringsperioden, men at den ændrede IBP indebar en væsentlig ændring af virksomhedens investeringsstrategi, at den tildelte statsstøtte tilsyneladende var misbrugt som driftsstøtte, og at fuldendelsen af investeringerne ikke krævede yderligere statsstøtte (jf. betragtning 54 og 56).
The Commission clarified in the opening decision that in this case the changes concerned neither an increase of the total amount of State aid nor an increase of production capacity [31] within the restructuring period, but that the revised IBP mainly implied a significant change in the company’s investment strategy, that the State aid provided seemed to have been abused as operating aid and no more State aid was necessary to complete the investments (see points (54) and (56)).
Undersøgelsen bekræftede grundlæggende, at denne tvivl ikke var ubegrundet, idet støtten rent faktisk var blevet misbrugt således som nævnt og er uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
Essentially, the investigation confirmed that these doubts were not allayed, as the aid was indeed misused, as concluded above, and is incompatible with the common market.
I IBP 2005 er denne fejl — for megen statsstøtte — ikke rettet, og planen kan derfor ikke godkendes i denne form.
The 2005 IBP does not rectify this defect, i.e. the excess of State aid, and can thus not be approved in that form.
Den omstændighed, at AHW i mellemtiden har fornyet sit investeringsprogram, er ikke tilstrækkelig til at rette op på denne fejl.
In particular, the fact that AHW has in the meantime revived the investment programme does not suffice to rectify the defect.
Som påvist ville dette have været tilfældet, selv hvis virksomheden havde gennemført investeringerne i omstruktureringsplanen.
As discussed above, this would have been so even if the company had carried out only the investments indicated in the restructuring plan.
Det nye investeringsprogram vil tydeligvis blive gennemført på et langt senere stadium end det, der er angivet i planen.
It is clear that the new investment programme will be implemented at a much later stage than originally envisaged in the plan.
Det er ligeledes tydeligt, at den oprindelige støtte blev tildelt for sikre, at tidsplanen i omstruktureringsplanen blev overholdt.
It is further clear that the original aid was provided to ensure adherence to the schedule of the restructuring programme.
Således var det et mål for støtten at tilskynde HLW til i overensstemmelse med planen at gennemføre disse investeringer rettidigt i perioden 2003-2004.
Thus the aid was related to the purpose of inciting HLW to make these investments in a scheduled, timely fashion in 2003 and 2004.
Hvis tidsplanen for omstruktureringen var blevet forskudt ex ante til 2004 og 2005, ville der ikke have været behov for et overgangslån og således heller ikke for støtte.
In fact, if the restructuring schedule had been delayed ex ante to 2004 and 2005, no bridging loan and thus no aid would have been necessary.
Uanset misbruget af støtten bemærker Kommissionen, at hvis den misbrugte støtte tilbagebetales, vil Kommissionen kunne godkende en ny plan.
Notwithstanding the misuse, the Commission notes that if the misused aid is recovered, it can accept the residual new plan.
I sin beslutning om at iværksætte proceduren bemærkede Kommissionen, at den var parat til at acceptere den nye forretningsstrategi ud fra en erhvervsmæssig synsvinkel, idet den antydede, at den nye investering ville være befordrende for virksomhedens fremtidige økonomiske resultater og ville kunne have andre positive virkninger med hensyn til miljøbeskyttelse og omkostningsreduktion.
In the decision initiating the procedure the Commission noted its readiness to accept the new business strategy from an industrial point of view, accepting that the new investment would be beneficial for the company’s future economic performance and could have other positive effects as regards environmental protection and cost reduction.
Under alle omstændigheder bemærker Kommissionen, at ændringen af planen ikke kræver yderligere støtte, men finansieres fuldt ud med investors egne midler.
In any event the Commission notes that the amendment of the plan does not require any additional aid but is entirely financed from the investor’s funds.
Derfor ser Kommissionen ikke nogen grund til at gøre indsigelser over for den ændrede plan, selv om der er tale om en ændret strategi [32].
Therefore, the Commission sees no reason to object to the updated programme, even if there is a change in strategy [32].
Kommissionen konkluderer, at HLW i henhold til punkt 9 og 18 i protokol nr. 8 misbrugte lånegarantien på 31,2 mio. EUR og tilsidesatte gældende regler.
In short, the Commission concludes that, pursuant to points (9) and (18) of Protocol No 8, the guarantee for loan of EUR 31,2 million was misused and was used in an incompatible manner by HLW.
I betragtning af, at statsgarantien er inddraget og lånet tilbagebetalt, havde HLW en fordel svarende til et rentetilskud på 1645682 EUR, som bør kræves tilbagebetalt.
Taking into account that the State guarantee has been terminated and the loan has been repaid, meaning that there was an advantage for HLW equivalent to an interest subsidy of EUR 1645682, this advantage should be reimbursed.
I betragtning af, at AHW den 20. november 2007 frivilligt indbetalte 2089768 EUR på den spærrede konto svarende til det beløb, der skal tilbagebetales, plus påløbne renter, til de polske myndigheder på ikrafttrædelsesdatoen for denne beslutning, er yderlige tilbagesøgning ikke påkrævet.
Given that on 20 November 2007 AHW voluntarily repaid into the blocked account EUR 2089768, corresponding to the amount to be recovered plus compound interest, to be received by the Polish authorities as of the day of issuance of this decision, no further recovery is necessary.
For så vidt at støtten er tilbagebetalt, kan Kommissionen desuden i henhold til punkt 10 i protokol nr. 8 godkende den ændrede plan, jf. IBP 2005, idet denne ikke indebærer yderligere støtte og styrker virksomhedens rentabilitet —
Moreover, provided that this aid is reimbursed, the Commission can, under point (10) of Protocol No 8, approve the change of plan as indicated in the 2005 IBP, as it does not involve additional aid and reinforces the viability of the firm,
Den støtte på 1645682 EUR, som Polen har ydet HLW/AHW i strid med punkt 18 i protokol nr. 8, er blevet misbrugt af HLW/AHW og er uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
State aid of EUR 1645682 granted to HLW/AHW by Poland in breach of point (18) of Protocol No 8 has been misused by HLW/AHW and is incompatible with the common market.
Da den i artikel 1 nævnte ulovlige støtte er tilbagebetalt, har Kommissionen ingen indvendinger imod godkendelsen af AHW's ændrede forretningsplan.
In view of the repayment of the misused aid referred to in Article 1, the Commission has no objections to AHW’s amendment of its business plan.
EUT C 35 af 17.2.2007, s. 41.
OJ C 35, 17.2.2007, p. 41.
Det antages, at 1 EUR = 4 PLN.
Assuming that EUR 1 = PLN 4.