natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Imidlertid henviser de indirekte til omstruktureringen af aktiver, når de citerer en passage vedrørende omstruktureringen: »ovennævnte salg vil gøre det muligt for Huta L.W at indfri en del af sine lån og opretholde finansiel likviditet« (punkt 64, brev af 4. juni).
However, they indirectly refer to the asset restructuring when citing a passage from the part on asset restructuring, ‘the above sale will enable Huta L.W. to repay part of its loans and maintain financial liquidity’ (point 64 of letter of 4 June).
De polske myndigheder er imidlertid ikke opmærksomme på, at det ingen steder er anført, at den ændrede tidsplan for indfrielse af gælden skal omfatte alle forpligtelser vedrørende salgs- og returlejeaftalen, og at det flere steder i planen er anført, at den kun vedrører de ikke-produktive aktiver.
However, the Polish authorities fail to accept that it is nowhere stated that the entire debt from the sale and leaseback is to be rescheduled, while the plan indicates at several points that the rescheduling concerns only the non-productive assets.
Dette er anført to gange i det kapitel, hvorfra den af de polske myndigheder citerede passage er hentet.
This is reiterated twice in the same chapter from which the above quote of the Polish authorities was taken.
Faktisk er det her tydeligt angivet, at visse gældsposter i henhold til salgs- og returlejeaftalen - nærmere bestemt gældsposterne vedrørende ikke-produktive aktiver (jf. punkt 4.12.1 i IBP 2003) skal være omfattet af omstruktureringen af aktiver.
In fact, it is clearly set out there that certain debts under the sale and leaseback agreement, namely those concerning non-productive assets (see point 4.12.1 of the 2003 IBP), are to be subject to asset restructuring.
Dette gælder også for »100 hektar-projektet« og »88 hektar«-projektet.
These concern the 100-hectare and 88-hectare projects.
Målet for denne omstrukturering af aktiver var at frigøre kontante midler til gennemførelse af investeringer med nedsatte finansieringsomkostninger.
The purpose of this asset restructuring was to free up cash in order to make the investments. This would simultaneously reduce the financial cost of the debt.
Der er imidlertid ingen indikationer for, at afregningen for hele salgs- og returlejeaftalen skulle finde sted forud for terminen og de finansielle omkostninger dermed begrænses.
However, no indication is given that the entire sale and leaseback agreement should be paid off ahead of schedule in order to reduce financial costs.
I stedet tilsigter omstruktureringen af aktiver alene en »reduktion« af de finansielle omkostninger frem for en fjernelse af disse.
Rather the asset restructuring aims only to ‘reduce’ financial costs, not eliminate them.
Endelig kan Kommissionen i betragtning af HLW's begrænsede finansielle formåen ikke forstå, hvorfor virksomheden tilstræbte at købe sine produktionsaktiver, når tilbagebetalingen først skulle ske på et senere stadium.
Finally, given HLW’s financial constraints, the Commission does not see any reason why HLW had to aim to purchase its productive assets when the repayment was only due at a later stage.
Det er faktisk ingen steder angivet, at lejeaftalen ville udgøre en forhindring for omstruktureringen.
Indeed, it was in no way indicated that the lease contract would be an obstacle to the restructuring.
Især punkt 4.12 i IBP 2003 støtter ikke dette, idet det her alene anføres, at HLW ved salg af nogle aktiver, der tidligere var defineret som ikke-produktive, kunne reducere omkostningerne ved overholdelsen af lejekontrakten.
In particular, point 4.12 of the 2003 IBP does not support this, since it only indicates that by selling off some assets, which were previously identified as the unproductive ones, HLW would be able to reduce the costs of serving the leasing contract.
Dette er kun logisk, når det tages i betragtning, at aktiverne skulle sælges med henblik på (delvis) betaling af lånet, samtidig med at HLW dermed blev fritaget for betaling af renterne på lånet.
This is only logical, given that assets were to be sold in order to (partly) repay the loan and thus relieve HLW from paying interest on the loan.
Dette vedrører imidlertid ikke tilbagekøbet af de produktionsaktiver, der ikke kunne indbringe kontante midler, idet virksomheden ville beholde disse.
However, it in no way relates to the re-purchase of the productive assets, which could not generate any cash as these assets would be kept by the firm.
Tilbagekøb af produktionsaktiver indgik derfor ikke i IBP 2003.
Buying back the productive assets was not therefore provided for in the 2003 IBP. Hence, HLW used the aid for a purpose which was not covered by the restructuring plan which was the basis for authorisation of the aid.
HLW brugte således støtten til et formål, der ikke indgik i omstruktureringsplanen, hvilket ellers var grundlaget for dens godkendelse; det betyder at støtten ikke anvendtes i overensstemmelse med KPR og den godkendende beslutning og dermed ikke var i overensstemmelse med protokol nr. 8.
This means that the aid was used in contravention of the NRP and the authorisation decision, i.e. Protocol 8.
I henhold til artikel 1, litra g), i procedureforordningen er dette misbrug af støtte, idet der herved forstås støtte, som støttemodtageren har anvendt i strid med en beslutning om godkendelse af statsstøtte [22].
Under Article 1(g) of the Procedural Regulation, this may be considered misuse, since this is defined as using the aid in contravention of the State aid approval decision [22].
Den misbrugte støttes uforenelighed med fællesmarkedet
Incompatibility of the misused aid
Efter at det er fastslået, at den tildelte statsstøtte ikke er anvendt i overensstemmelse med planen, henstår det at påvise, at den også er uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
After it has been established that the State aid obtained was not used in accordance with the plan, it needs to be demonstrated that this misused aid is also incompatible with the common market.
Rent formelt kan dette allerede udledes af den omstændighed, at virksomheden ikke anvendte støtten i overensstemmelse med omstruktureringsplanen, som den i henhold til protokol nr. 8 var forpligtet til at gennemføre korrekt, og desuden er al anden statsstøtte, som falder uden for IBP, KRP og protokol nr. 8, i henhold til punkt 18 i protokol nr. 8, uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
In formal terms, this can already be concluded from the fact that, firstly, the company did not use the aid in accordance with the plan, which, under Protocol No 8, it is obliged to implement properly and, secondly, that any other State aid outside the IBP, NRP and Protocol No 8 is incompatible with the common market under point 18 of Protocol No 8.
Desuden finder Kommissionen ikke, at den ville finde den faktiske anvendelse af støtten forenelig, selv om AHW genvandt sin rentabilitet.
In addition, the Commission notes that it would not have been able to find the actual use compatible with the common market, despite the fact that AHW restored its viability.
I denne sammenhæng vil Kommissionen gerne præcisere, at selv om støttemodtageren betvivler, at hans nuværende likviditet er tilstrækkelig, må det fastslås, at denne fortolkning af rentabilitet adskiller sig fra definitionen af rentabilitet i bilag 3 til protokol nr. 8.
In this context the Commission would like to clarify that, although the beneficiary doubts that the beneficiary’s current viability is sufficient, it must be considered that its understanding of viability departs from the way viability was predefined in Annex 3 of Protocol No 8.
Denne fortolkning af rentabilitet blev vedtaget for protokol nr. 8, blev observeret af begge kontraherende parter og kan ikke ændres med tilbagevirkende kraft af støttemodtageren.
This understanding was agreed under Protocol No 8, was monitored by both contracting parties and cannot be altered retroactively by a beneficiary.
Kommissionen gentager imidlertid, at forenelighed med fællesmarkedet for det første ikke uden videre følger af den omstændighed, at HLW opnåede rentabilitet i 2006.
However, the Commission reiterates firstly that compatibility does not simply follow from the fact that HLW did restore viability in 2006.
Rentabilitet er ikke i sig selv tilstrækkeligt til gøre et omstruktureringsprojekt foreneligt med fællesmarkedet.
In fact, the restoration of viability is not alone sufficient to render a restructuring project compatible with the common market.
Desuden skal det sikres, at der opnås rentabilitet ved den mindst mulige statsstøtte i forhold til omstruktureringsmålene, og at der gennemføres kompenserende modydelser.
Moreover, it must be ensured that the restoration of viability is achieved with the minimum amount of State aid necessary for the restructuring and that compensatory measures are implemented.
Kommissionen minder om, at disse betingelser nævnes i artikel 8, stk. 4, i Europaaftalen, som der refereres til i punkt 1 i protokol nr. 8.
The Commission recalls that these conditions are stated in Article 8(4) of the Europe Agreement, to which reference is made in point 1 of Protocol No 8.
Især indebærer konceptet mindst mulig statsstøtte, at støtten ikke bør bruges til at finansiere investeringer eller foranstaltninger, der ikke har grundlæggende betydning for omstruktureringen [23].
In particular the concept of State aid being the minimum necessary implies that the aid should not be used to finance an investment or measure that is not essential for the restructuring [23].
For det andet minder Kommissionen om, at planen, dvs. omstruktureringsmålene og foranstaltningerne til finansiering heraf, skal sikre opnåelsen af rentabilitet i et ex ante-perspektiv.
Secondly, the Commission recalls that the plan, i.e. the restructuring tasks and the measures to finance them, must, from an ex ante point of view, ensure that viability will be achieved.
I IBP 2003 lagdes der især vægt på gennemførelse og fremskyndelse af investeringer ved anvendelse af statsstøtte.
In fact, the 2003 IBP put special emphasis on investments and on bringing forward investments in its use of State aid.
Derfor blev lånet ydet for at dække dette kreditbehov.
Therefore the loan was provided to bridge the financing gap.
Faktisk gentages det i introduktionen til planen, at »gennemførelsen af omstruktureringsplanen i overensstemmelse med den vedtagne tidsplan samt fortsættelsen af virksomhedens aktiviteter vil kræve et overgangslån«.
Indeed, the introduction to the plan reiterates that ‘implementation of the restructuring programme in accordance with the adopted schedule and continuation of the enterprise will require the necessary bridging loan’.
Sammenfattende kan det siges, at overgangslånet blev betragtet som nødvendigt for at gennemføre investeringerne i overensstemmelse med den fastlagte tidsplan.
In conclusion, the bridging loan was considered necessary in order to bring investments forward according to a specific schedule.
Den omstændighed, at HLW tilbød at afregne for salgs- og returlejeaftalen og ikke gennemførte investeringerne i tide, viser, at HLW's dispositioner i et ex ante-perspektiv bragte virksomhedens chancer for at genvinde sin rentabilitet i fare.
The fact that HLW did opt to pay off the productive assets sale and lease agreement and not to make the investments in time therefore indicates that, from an ex ante point of view, HLW’s action endangered its chances of restoring viability.
Faktisk har de polske myndigheder ikke fremlagt nogen grunde til, at situationen i august 2003, hvor HLW ansøgte om garantien, skulle kunne ændre sig, i betragtning af at der kun var gået fem måneder siden den sidste opdatering af planen i marts 2003.
In fact, the Polish authorities have not communicated any reason why in August 2003, when HLW applied for the guarantee, the situation should have changed, given that it was only five months after the last update of the plan in March 2003.
En sådan anvendelse af støtten var derfor ikke en gennemførelse af planen, men snarere — i betragtning af at investeringerne var knyttet til en tidsplan — en forhindring af en korrekt gennemførelse af planen.
Such use of the aid was therefore not an implementation of the plan but rather, given the fact that the investments were tied to a time schedule, obstruction of proper implementation of the plan.
I ex ante-perspektiv bragte virksomheden tydeligvis sin rentabilitet i fare, selv om den senere genvandt den.
Thus, from the ex ante point of view, the company clearly endangered viability, despite the fact that it later restored it.
Det er sandt, at finansielle midler kan afsættes til forskellige formål, og den omstændighed, at statsstøtten ikke blev anvendt i overensstemmelse med planen, kan forklares ved, at omstruktureringen blev finansieret ved andre midler, som i begyndelsen skulle anvendes til de andre formål, som støtten nu anvendes til.
It is true that financial resources are fungible, and the fact that the State aid was not used in accordance with the plan might imply that the restructuring plan could be financed by other means, which it was originally planned to use for other purposes, for which the aid is now being used.
En sådan argumentation er imidlertid ikke acceptabel i forbindelse med et omstruktureringsprojekt, hvor en virksomheds finansielle midler bør anvendes til omorientering af virksomheden, og hvor der på grund af virksomhedens vanskeligheder ikke bør være midler til rådighed for projekter, der ikke er omfattet af planen.
However, such argumentation is not acceptable in the case of a restructuring project, where the financial means of the company should be used for the firm’s reorientation and, owing to the company’s difficulties, no spare funds should be available for projects outside the plan.
Således er anvendelsen af det statsgaranterede lån til indfrielse af lånet i forbindelse med produktionsaktiverne en årsag til begrænsning af omstruktureringsindsatsen på andre områder, herunder især rettidig gennemførelse af ovennævnte investeringer.
Therefore, the use of the funds from the State-guaranteed loan to pay off the loan for the productive assets is a causal factor in the reduction of restructuring activities elsewhere, in particular timely implementation of the above investments.
Desuden kan Kommissionen ikke se relevansen af de polske myndigheders og støttemodtagerens argument om, at virksomheden i 2003 befandt sig i en så svær finansiel situation, at den ikke var i stand til at foretage nogen investeringer.
Furthermore, the Commission does not see the relevance of the argument put forward by the Polish authorities and the beneficiary to the effect that in 2003 the company was in such financial distress that it was unable to undertake any investments.
Kommissionen kan således ikke indse, hvorfor en virksomhed i sådan en situation ville vælge at indfri et langfristet lån frem for at gennemføre andre tiltag, der var påpeget som nødvendige for genvindelse af rentabiliteten.
This is because the Commission fails to see why a company in such a situation would have opted for repayment of a long-term debt rather than for other measures which were identified as being necessary to restore viability.
Desuden er det ikke relevant, at virksomheden nu tilbyder at indhente de investeringer, der ikke gennemførtes i 2004, da gennemførelsen af disse var knyttet til en bestemt tidsplan, som var anerkendt som det eneste middel med hensyn til genopnåelse af rentabiliteten ved udgangen af 2006.
Finally, it is also not relevant that the company is now offering to catch up with the investments forgone in 2004, because the implementation was bound to a particular time schedule, which was considered the only way to restore viability by the end of 2006.
Denne overtrædelse er endelig, og den kan heller ikke ændres ved en ændring i IBP.
This infringement is definite and can also not be altered by a change in the IBP.
Dette er tilfældet til trods for, at der i IBP 2005 er specificeret yderligere investeringer, idet disse ikke kan rette op på misbruget af støtten.
This is so even despite the fact that the 2005 IBP provides for additional investments, as these cannot put right the misuse.
For det tredje ville selv den omstændighed, at HLW i august antog, at investeringerne ikke længere var nødvendige med henblik på genoprettelse af rentabiliteten, indebære, at HLW havde angivet for høje omstruktureringsomkostninger i IBP 2003, og at den modtagne støtte ikke var nødvendig for omstruktureringen.
Thirdly, even if HLW assumed in August 2003 that the investments were no longer necessary to restore viability, this would imply that HLW had indicated excessively high restructuring costs in the 2003 IBP and that the aid received was not necessary for the restructuring.
Kommissionen finder det imidlertid usandsynligt, at virksomheden kun fem måneder efter vedtagelsen af IBP 2003 (marts 2003) ændrede mening og i august 2003 ansøgte om statsgaranti med henvisning til, at størstedelen af denne skulle anvendes til indfrielse af lånet i produktionsaktiverne.
However, the Commission finds it unlikely that the company changed its mind just five months after the 2003 IBP had been concluded (in March 2003) when, in August 2003, it applied for the guarantee and indicated that the main part was wanted to pay off the loan on the productive assets.
For at underbygge en sådan påstand burde virksomheden under alle omstændigheder i tide have underrettet Kommissionen, hvilket ikke skete.
In order to substantiate such a finding, the company should then in any event have indicated this fact to the Commission in due time, which it did not.
Selv hvis investeringerne ikke havde været nødvendige, ville omdirigeringen af midler til afregning for salgs- og returlejekontrakten vedrørende produktionsaktiverne ikke kunne retfærdiggøres som omstruktureringsomkostninger.
Nevertheless, even if the investments had not been necessary, the redirecting of the funds to pay off the sale and leaseback of the productive assets would not seem to be justifiable as restructuring costs.
Finansieringen af afregningen for salgs- og returlejeaftalen var arrangeret, og afregningen kunne have fundet sted efter omstruktureringsperiodens udløb.
In fact, the financing to pay off the productive assets sale and leaseback agreement was arranged, and could have been paid off after the end of the restructuring period.
Det kan godt være, at den resulterede i finansielle byrder, men disse var tilsyneladende inddraget i prognoserne i IBP 2003.
It may be true that it resulted in financial burdens, but these were apparently taken into account in the financial projections of the 2003 IBP.
Da aktiverne ikke kunne sælges, ville den eneste virkning af indfrielsen være, at finansieringsbyrden ville være mindre, hvilket ville have givet HLW øget likviditet.
As the assets could not be sold off, the only effect of the repayment would thus be relief from the financial costs, which would have given HLW additional liquidity.
Det betyder, at HLW fik flere kontante midler til sin rådighed, og dette kan betragtes som driftsstøtte, hvilket endda kan forårsage urimelig konkurrenceforvridning.
This means that HLW obtained additional cash, which can be considered operating aid, which could have even resulted in measures involving excessive distortion of the market.
Kommissionen kan således ikke forestille sig, at sådanne foranstaltninger kunne være godkendt, hvis de var blevet anmeldt til Kommissionen.
Thus the Commission does not see how such measures could have been authorised if notified to the Commission.
Hvis investeringerne i virkeligheden ikke var påkrævede, ville den faktiske anvendelse af støtten også være uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
Thus also, if the investments were really not necessary, the actual use of the aid would also be considered incompatible with the common market.
Kommissionen bestrider desuden ikke støttemodtagerens argument om, at garantien blev anvendt i overensstemmelse med regeringens beslutning, og at denne var kompetent med hensyn til at kunne bestemme støttens formål.
Finally, the Commission does not dispute the beneficiary’s argument that the guarantee was used in accordance with the government decision and that the government was competent to determine the purpose of the aid.
Kommissionen bemærker dog, at dette ikke berører garantiens forenelighed med fællesmarkedet, idet denne skal bestemmes i overensstemmelse med protokol nr. 8 og IBP 2003, som ikke indeholder bestemmelser om støtte til de formål, regeringen har vedtaget at støtte i sin beslutning.
However, the Commission notes that this is without effect on the compatibility of the guarantee, which has to be determined in accordance with Protocol No 8 and the 2003 IBP, which do not include aid for the purpose approved by the government in the granting decision.
På denne baggrund finder Kommissionen, at støtten er anvendt i strid med punkt 9 og 18 i protokol nr. 8.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission must conclude that the aid has been used in a manner incompatible with points 9 and 18 of Protocol No 8.
Støtten er således uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
It is therefore incompatible with the common market.
Virkningerne af den misbrugte støttes uforenelighed for hele omstruktureringsprogrammet
Effect of the incompatibility of the misused aid on the entire restructuring plan
Endelig skal virkningerne af den misbrugte støttes uforenelighed fastslås.
Finally, the effect of the incompatibility of the misuse must be determined.
I dette øjemed ønsker Kommissionen først at påpege, at denne undersøgelse ikke har vist, at visse omstruktureringsomkostninger var unødvendige, men at en del af statsmidlerne blev misbrugt.
To this end, the Commission would first like to point out that the present investigation did not find that some restructuring costs had become obsolete, but that parts of the State funds had been misused.
Det kan være tilfældet, at visse investeringer kunne annulleres — ideelt set efter Kommissionens godkendelse heraf.
It might be true that some investments could have been cancelled — ideally after obtaining Commission approval.
Dette ville betyde, at de faktiske omstruktureringsomkostninger var lavere, og at den relevante andel af støtten måtte tilbagesøges — en fremgangsmåde, Kommissionen har accepteret i tidligere omstruktureringssager inden for stålsektoren [24].
This would mean that the actual restructuring costs were lower and the relevant proportion of the aid would have to be recovered; an approach which the Commission has accepted in previous steel restructuring cases [24].
I den foreliggende sag drejer det sig imidlertid ikke kun om, at nogle omstruktureringsomkostninger har vist sig at være unødvendige, men, som nævnt ovenfor, at hele finansieringen af en del af omstruktureringen (31,2 mio. EUR) forfejlede sit mål, idet overgangslånet i ex ante-perspektiv næsten udelukkende blev anvendt til formål, der ikke var i overensstemmelse med IBP, og som truede genvindelsen af rentabiliteten, eller set i det perspektiv, hvor ændringen indtraf, gav virksomheden overskydende kontante midler, som bør returneres.
However, in the present case it is not only that some restructuring costs have become redundant but, as discussed above, the problem is that the entire financing of a part of the restructuring (i.e. the EUR 31,2 million) has lost its object, given that from the ex ante point of view the bridging loan was used almost entirely in a way that was not in line with the IBP and endangered the restoration of viability or, from the point of view of the time when the change occurred, it equipped the company with surplus cash, which must be returned.
Desuden kan der ikke rettes op på et sådant misbrug med tilbagevirkende kraft ved, at virksomheden senere gennemfører investeringer, eftersom støtten blev tildelt til finansiering af investeringer og finansiel omstrukturering på et bestemt tidspunkt.
Moreover, such misuse can not be rectified retroactively, by the company implementing investment later, because the funds were given in order to enable financing of investments and financial restructuring at a certain point in time.
Dette mål var uaktuelt allerede i 2005.
This incentive for the aid was already outdated in 2005.