natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den Tjekkiske Republik finder, at det var passende at anvende den tremåneders PRIBOR-sats som grundsats til at fastsætte renten på det pågældende lån i lyset af de finansielle markeders udsving på tidspunktet for undertegnelsen af låneaftalen med Osinek.
In particular, the Czech Republic submits that it was appropriate to use the three-month PRIBOR rate as the base rate to determine the interest of the loan in question given the volatility of the financial markets at the time of signing the Osinek loan agreement.
ČSA vurderes ikke i henhold til ratingsystemer, så Den Tjekkiske Republik er ikke i stand til at fremlægge bevis for sin formodning om, at ČSA var berettiget til en B-rating på det tidspunkt, hvor låneaftalen med Osinek blev undertegnet.
ČSA is not assessed according to rating systems, so the Czech Republic is unable to provide evidence for its assumption that ČSA qualified for a B rating at the time when the Osinek loan agreement was signed.
Den Tjekkiske Republik henviser dog til en rapport af 27. april 2009 fra EBC, i henhold til hvilken ČSA er solvent og kreditværdig.
However, the Czech Republic refers to a report of 27 April 2009 written by EBC according to which ČSA was solvent and creditworthy.
Den Tjekkiske Republik har gentaget, at for at sikre lånet var ČSA nødt til at stille en sikkerhed svarende til mindst 110 % af lånet i hele dets løbetid.
The Czech Republic reiterates that for the purposes of securing the loan ČSA was required to provide collateral amounting to at least 110 % of the loan for its entire duration.
Det faktiske lånebeløb, der blev ydet til ČSA, måtte således på intet tidspunkt være på over 90 % af værdien af den samlede sikkerhedsstillelse.
Thus, the amount of the loan actually granted to ČSA was not at any time to exceed 90 % of the value of all the collateral.
Den Tjekkiske Republik bekræftede, at dette krav under alle omstændigheder var opfyldt, og fremlagde en evalueringsrapport vedrørende de aktiver, der blev brugt som sikkerhedsstillelse for lånet.
The Czech Republic confirmed that this requirement was met in all cases and submitted appraisal reports of assets that were used as collateral for the loan.
Den Tjekkiske Republik tilføjede desuden, at i lyset af at Osinek havde betydelige disponible finansielle ressourcer, ledte dets likvidator efter investeringsmuligheder, der ville give et afkast.
In addition, the Czech Republic argues that the liquidator of Osinek, in view of the fact that Osinek had a considerable amount of available financial resources, sought investment opportunities to generate a return.
Inden Osinek indgik låneaftalen, havde likvidatoren bestilt et uafhængigt konsulentfirma, EBC og et advokatfirma, JUDr.
Before entering into the Osinek loan agreement, the liquidator commissioned the independent consulting company, EBC and the law firm JUDr.
Pavel Štrbík til at udarbejde en økonomisk og juridisk analyse af lånetilbuddet.
Pavel Štrbík to draw up an economic and legal analysis of the loan offer.
EBS's analyse bekræftede, at ČSA kunne anses for solvent, og at risikoen for, at et lån til ČSA kunne forårsage tab for eller skade Osinek var minimal.
The analysis by EBC confirmed that ČSA could be considered solvent and that the risk that lending to ČSA might cause loss or harm to Osinek was minimal.
På grundlag af denne analyse besluttede likvidatoren, at et lån til ČSA kunne udgøre en fordelagtig måde at deponere Osineks disponible finansielle ressourcer på.
Based on this analysis, the liquidator decided that lending to ČSA would be an advantageous means of depositing Osinek's available financial resources.
Den Tjekkiske Republik gjorde desuden opmærksom på, at selv om Kommissionen fandt, at betingelserne for Osineks lån var gunstigere end dem, der blev tilbudt på markedet, var lånet foreneligt med betingelserne i de midlertidige rammebestemmelser.
Additionally, the Czech Republic argues that, even if the Commission found that the terms of the Osinek loan were more favourable than those offered in the market, then the loan would be compatible with the conditions laid down in the Temporary Framework.
Under den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure modtog Kommissionen bemærkninger fra tre interesserede parter og fra den part, der nød godt af den undersøgte foranstaltning, nemlig ČSA (betragtning 4).
During the formal investigation procedure the Commission received comments from three interested third parties and from the beneficiary of the measure under investigation, ČSA (paragraph 4).
ČSA's bemærkninger afspejler i alt væsentligt Den Tjekkiske Republiks bemærkninger til beslutningen om at indlede proceduren, der er redegjort for ovenfor.
ČSA's comments reflect in essence the Czech Republic's comments on the opening decision set out above.
ČSA gentager, at lånet fra Osinek blev ydet på markedsvilkår, da Osinek handlede som en rationel markedsøkonomisk investor og snarere var motiveret af kommercielle hensyn end økonomiske eller sociale.
ČSA reiterates that the Osinek loan was granted on market terms, since Osinek acted as a rational operator in a market economy motivated by commercial rather than economic or social policy objectives.
ČSA fremsætter desuden bemærkninger til kvantificeringen af det mulige statsstøtteelement, såfremt Kommissionen skulle konkludere, at lånet fra Osinek blev ydet til en gunstig rente, dvs. formode, at ČSA's rating var dårligere end »B« og/eller at sikkerhedsstillelsen ikke blev betragtet som »høj«,
Moreover, ČSA comments on the quantification of the possible aid element, should the Commission conclude that the Osinek loan was granted at an advantageous interest rate, i.e., assuming that ČSA's rating were worse than ‘B’ and/or the collateral were not be classified as ‘high’.
Alle interesserede tredjeparter er konkurrenter til ČSA og repræsenteres af det samme advokatfirma. Deres analyse er i et vist omfang identisk.
All of the interested third parties are competitors of ČSA and are represented by the same law firm; therefore, their reasoning is identical to some extent.
De interesserede tredjeparter finder, at Osineks lån til ČSA udgjorde statsstøtte, som satte selskabet i stand til at konkurrere på illoyale vilkår ved at fastsætte sine priser på et niveau, som andre konkurrenter, der ikke havde modtaget statsstøtte, ikke kunne tilbyde, uden at de mistede muligheden for at dække deres omkostninger og skabe et rimeligt overskud [10].
The interested third parties argue that the Osinek loan provided ČSA with state aid which enabled the company to compete unfairly by charging prices which the other competitors who have not received any state subsidies cannot offer without losing the capacity to cover their costs and generate a reasonable profit [10].
Under disse omstændigheder måtte lånet fra Osinek anses for at udgøre ulovlig statsstøtte, som er uforenelig med EU-reglerne.
In such circumstances, the Osinek loan would constitute illegal state aid incompatible with EU rules.
Den samme konkurrent forklarede, at det på grundlag af faldet i ČSA's registrerede kapital i 2008 kan det formodes, at selskabet allerede den 1. juli 2008 opfyldte begge betingelser for at blive betragtet som en kriseramt virksomhed i betydningen i punkt 10, litra a) i rammebestemmelserne.
The same competitor explains that it may be assumed from the decrease of registered capital of ČSA in 2008 that already on 1 July 2008 the company met both conditions for a firm in difficulty within the meaning of point 10(a) of the R&R Guidelines.
De interesserede tredjeparter hævdede endvidere, at som følge af selskabets negative cash flow, de mange kreditorer og det forhold, at selskabet havde finansielle forpligtelser, der forfaldt og skulle betales inden 30 dage, kan det antages, at selskabet led af truende insolvens fra slutningen af 2007 og derfor bør betragtes som en kriseramt virksomhed fra 2007 (i henhold til punkt 10, litra c) i rammebestemmelserne).
The interested third parties further claim that due to the negative operating cash flow, the plurality of creditors and the existence of financial obligations due and payable within 30 days, it may be assumed that the company suffered from impending insolvency from the end of the year 2007 and should, therefore, qualify as a firm in difficulty since 2007 (pursuant to point 10(c) of the R&R Guidelines).
BEMÆRKNINGER FRA DEN TJEKKISKE REPUBLIK TIL DE INTERESSEREDE PARTERS BEMÆRKNINGER
COMMENTS FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES
Den Tjekkiske Republik var uenig i de interesserede tredjeparters bemærkninger og enig i ČSA's bemærkninger.
The Czech Republic disagreed with the comments of the interested third parties and agreed with the comments of ČSA.
Den Tjekkiske Republik fastholdt, at lånet fra Osinek blev ydet på markedsvilkår og i overensstemmelse med meddelelsen om referencesatser.
The Czech Republic maintained its argument that the Osinek loan was granted on market terms and in accordance with the Reference Rate Communication.
Den Tjekkiske Republik bemærker, at selv om de driftsresultater, ČSA offentliggør, er udarbejdet i henhold til de tjekkiske regnskabsstandarder og International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), baserede de interesserede tredjeparter udelukkende deres bemærkninger på de resultater, der var udarbejdet i henhold til de tjekkiske regnskabsstandarder, og denne metode giver ikke et sandt billede af selskabets drift.
The Czech Republic notes that, although ČSA publishes the results of its operations compiled in accordance with both Czech Accounting Standards (‘CAS’) and International Financial Reporting Standards (‘IFRS’), the interested third parties based their comments solely on results compiled in accordance with CAS, the methodology of which does not provide a true picture of the company's operations.
Regnskaber, der er udarbejdet i henhold til IFRS, giver flere oplysninger om selskabets økonomiske situation og er derfor mere hensigtsmæssige.
Accounts compiled in accordance with IFRS provide better information about the company's financial condition and are therefore more appropriate.
ČSA anvender de tjekkiske regnskabsstandarder, fordi selskabet er forpligtet til det i henhold til tjekkisk skattelovgivning.
ČSA is using CAS because of its obligation under Czech tax laws.
ČSA's aktiviteter er dog ikke begrænset til Den Tjekkiske Republik, men dækker hele verden, og det er årsagen til, at ČSA også anvender IFRS.
However, ČSA's activities are not limited to the Czech Republic but are global, which is why ČSA has been using IFRS as well.
Den Tjekkiske Republik påpeger, at IFRS anvendes af bankerne, når de træffer beslutninger om lån, fordi de anses for at være mere præcise end de tjekkiske regnskabsstandarder.
The Czech Republic points out that IFRS are applied by banks in their lending decisions because they are considered to be more precise than CAS.
Den Tjekkiske Republik fremlagde sluttelig bevis for, at på det tidspunkt, hvor Osinek ydede sit lån til ČSA, opfyldte selskabet ikke betingelserne for at være insolvent i henhold til den tjekkiske lov om insolvens [11].
Finally, the Czech Republic provided evidence showing that at the time when the Osinek loan was granted ČSA did not fulfil the conditions for insolvency under the Czech Insolvency Act [11].
SPØRGSMÅLET OM STATSSTØTTE
PRESENCE OF STATE AID
I EUF-traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, fastsættes følgende: »… er statsstøtte eller støtte, som ydes ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, uforenelig med det indre marked, i det omfang den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.«
By virtue of Article 107(1) TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever, which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.
Kriterierne i EUF-traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, er kumulative.
The criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are cumulative.
For at fastslå, om de anmeldte foranstaltninger udgør statsstøtte efter EUF-traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, skal det undersøges, om alle nedenstående betingelser er opfyldt.
Therefore, in order to determine whether the notified measures constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU all of the following conditions must be fulfilled.
Den økonomiske støtte skal:
The financial support would have to:
ydes af staten eller ved hjælp af statsmidler,
be granted by the State or through state resources;
give modtageren en økonomisk fordel
confer an economic advantage on the recipient;
begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner,
favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods;
fordreje eller true med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene og
distort or threaten to distort competition; and
Støttebegrebet omfatter enhver begunstigelse, som finansieres direkte eller indirekte med statsmidler og ydes af staten selv eller af organer, der optræder på vegne af staten.
The concept of state aid applies to any advantage granted directly or indirectly, financed out of state resources, granted by the State itself or by any intermediary body acting by virtue of powers conferred on it.
Det skal derfor først fastslås, om lånet fra Osinek skal betragtes som statsmidler.
Therefore, it has to be established, first, whether the Osinek loan must be regarded as state resources.
Som nævnt ovenfor var Osinek på det tidspunkt, hvor lånet blev ydet, 100 % ejet af det tjekkiske finansministerium og derfor er det uanset dets status som selskab eller en hvilken som helst andet juridisk status et offentligt foretagende i betydningen i artikel 2, litra b), i Kommissionens direktiv 2006/111/EF af 16. november 2006 om gennemskueligheden af de økonomiske forbindelser mellem medlemsstaterne og de offentlige virksomheder og om den finansielle gennemskuelighed i bestemte virksomheder [12].
As mentioned above, Osinek was, at the time when the loan was granted, 100 %-owned by the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic and, for this reason, irrespective of its corporate or any other legal status, it is a public undertaking within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as financial transparency within certain undertakings [12].
Kommissionen finder således, at lånet fra Osinek blev finansieret med statsmidler.
Thus, the Commission considers that the Osinek loan is financed from state resources.
Den omstændighed, at en offentlig virksomhed er undergivet statslig kontrol, er derfor ikke i sig selv tilstrækkelig til at tilregne staten de af virksomheden trufne foranstaltninger såsom den pågældende låneaftale.
Therefore, the mere fact that a public undertaking is under state control is not sufficient for measures taken by that undertaking, such as the loan agreement in question, to be considered imputable to the State.
Det er også nødvendigt at undersøge, om de offentlige myndigheder på den ene eller den anden måde må anses for at være impliceret i vedtagelsen af denne foranstaltning.
It is also necessary to examine whether the public authorities must be regarded as having been involved, in some way or other, in the adoption of this measure.
På det punkt anførte Domstolen, at det må antages, at en foranstaltning, som er truffet af en offentlig virksomhed, efter omstændighederne kan tilregnes staten på grundlag af en bedømmelse af sagens omstændigheder som helhed og den sammenhæng, hvori foranstaltningen er truffet [13].
On that point, the Court indicated that the imputability to the State of a measure taken by a public undertaking may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which that measure was taken [13].
Disse omstændigheder kan være integrationen af selskabet i den offentlige forvaltnings strukturer, arten af dets aktiviteter og udøvelsen af disse på markedet på normale konkurrencemæssige vilkår sammen med private aktører, selskabets juridiske status (hvorvidt det er omfattet af forvaltningsret eller almindelig selskabsret), omfanget af det tilsyn, de offentlige myndigheder udøver over for selskabets ledelse, eller andre omstændigheder, der i dette særlige tilfælde viser, at de offentlige myndigheder er involveret i vedtagelsen af en foranstaltning eller den manglende sandsynlighed for, at de ikke er involveret, idet der også tages hensyn til foranstaltningens omfang, indhold eller de betingelser, der gælder for den.
Such indicators can be the integration of the undertaking into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the scope of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains.
Kommissionen bemærker, at flertallet af medlemmerne af Osineks tilsynsråd er repræsentanter for offentlige myndigheder (såsom finansministeriet).
The Commission notes that the majority of Osinek Supervisory Board members are representatives of public authorities (such as the Ministry of Finance).
Osinek gik i likvidation den 5. november 2008, efter at dets eneaktionær på samme dato havde truffet beslutning herom.
Osinek went into liquidation on 5 November 2008 by virtue of the decision of its sole shareholder of the same date.
Selv om en likvidator i henhold til tjekkisk lovgivning skal handle uafhængigt og uden instrukser fra selskabets organer under likvidationsproceduren, har Kommissionen endvidere bemærket, at likvidatoren blev udpeget af det tjekkiske finansministerium, som var eneaktionær i Osinek.
Although, under Czech law, the liquidator has to act on his/her own and without instructions from the company's bodies during the liquidation process, the Commission further notes that the liquidator was appointed by the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic acting as the sole shareholder of Osinek.
De tjekkiske myndigheder har desuden sendt Kommissionen ekspertudtalelserne fra JUDr.
In addition, the Czech authorities have provided the Commission with expert opinions from JUDr.
Jiří Rybář og JUDr.
Jiří Rybář and JUDr.
Pavel Štrbík, hvori det henstilles, at inden beslutningen om at yde et lån til ČSA skulle Osineks likvidator konsultere Osineks aktionær, dvs. Den Tjekkiske Republik.
Pavel Štrbík which recommended that before taking the decision to grant a loan to ČSA the liquidator of Osinek should consult Osinek's shareholder, i.e. the Czech Republic.
Hvad angår statens tilsyn med Osineks aktiviteter, har Kommissionen endvidere bemærket, at den tjekkiske regering efterfølgende også traf beslutning om at frigive den sikkerhed, der var stillet lånet fra Osinek, og ved resolution nr. 333 at konvertere fordringerne til andele i ČSA's egenkapital.
As regards the supervision of the activities of Osinek by the State, the Commission further observes that the Czech Government subsequently also took the decision to decollateralise the Osinek loan and swap the debt for ČSA's equity by Resolution No 333.
Kommissionen bemærker, at hvis staten stiller supplerende kapital til rådighed for et selskab på bedre betingelser end de normale markedsbetingelser, kan dette i henhold til veletablerede principper i EU-retten falde inden for anvendelsesområdet for EUF-traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, da det i betydningen i denne artikel vil medføre, at et bestemt selskab begunstiges.
The Commission notes that, according to well-established principles of EU law, if additional capital is made available by the State to an undertaking on conditions better than normal market conditions, this could fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU, as it would result in favouring the particular undertaking within the meaning of that Article.
For at afgøre, om staten har givet en virksomhed en økonomisk fordel, som den ikke ville have opnået på normale markedsbetingelser, anvender Kommissionen »det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip« [14].
In order to determine whether an undertaking has been granted an economic advantage by the State which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions, the Commission applies the ‘market economy investor principle’ (‘the MEIP’) [14].
I henhold til dette princip vil der ikke være tale om statsstøtte, hvis en privat investor, der handler under normale markedsøkonomiske vilkår, og som er af en størrelse, der kan sammenlignes med den offentlige sektors forvaltningsorganer, under tilsvarende omstændigheder kunne være foranlediget til at foretage den omhandlede kapitaltilførsel.
According to that principle, no state aid would be involved where, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a comparable size to that of the bodies operating in the public sector could, while operating in normal market conditions of a market economy, have been prompted to make the capital contribution in question.
Kommissionen skal derfor vurdere, om en privat investor ville have gennemført transaktionen på de samme vilkår.
The Commission must therefore assess whether a private investor would have entered into the transaction in question on the same terms.
En hypotetisk investor handler som en fornuftig investor, der ønsker at maksimere sin fortjeneste uden dog at løbe en for stor risiko i forhold til afkastet.
The projected behaviour of the hypothetical private investor is that of a prudent investor whose goal of profit maximisation is tempered by caution about the level of risk acceptable for a given rate of return.
I henhold til dette princip bør kapital, som staten direkte eller indirekte stiller til rådighed for en virksomhed under forhold, der svarer til de normale markedsbetingelser, ikke betragtes som statsstøtte [15].
According to this principle, capital put at the disposal of a company by the State, directly or indirectly, in circumstances which correspond to the normal conditions of the market, should not be regarded as state aid [15].
I henhold til fast retspraksis finder det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip anvendelse på lån.
According to established case law, the MEIP is applicable to loans.
Når det anvendes på ydelse af lån, rejser det spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en privat investor ville have ydet lånet til låntager på de vilkår, det faktisk blev ydet [16].
When applied to the grant of a loan, this principle raises the question of whether a private investor would have granted the loan to the beneficiary on the terms on which it was actually granted [16].
Kommissionen vurderer i den henseende, om lånet er ydet på normale markedsvilkår, og om sådanne lån kan opnås i en forretningsbank.
In this respect, the Commission assesses whether the loan is made on normal commercial terms and whether such loans would have been available from a commercial bank.
Hvad angår betingelserne for sådanne lån, tager Kommissionen også hensyn til bl.a. både rentesatsen og den sikkerhed, der stilles til dækning for lånet.
With regard to the terms of such loans, the Commission takes into account in particular both the interest rate charged and the security sought to cover the loan.
Kommissionen vurderer, om den givne sikkerhed er tilstrækkelig til at tilbagebetale lånet fuldt ud i tilfælde af misligholdelse, og undersøger selskabets økonomiske situation på det tidspunkt, lånet blev givet [17].
The Commission assesses whether the security given is sufficient to repay the loan in full in the event of default and the financial position of the company at the time when the loan is made [17].