natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Grækenland og støttemodtageren hævder også, at selskabet inden modtagelsen af garantien forelagde de græske myndigheder en omstruktureringsplan med bankfinansiering og uden statsgaranti.
Furthermore, Greece and the beneficiary claim that before having been granted the guarantee, the company had submitted to the Greek authorities a restructuring plan with financing from banks and without any State guarantee.
Kommissionen har aldrig formelt fået en sådan omstruktureringsplan forelagt.
Such a restructuring plan was never formally submitted to the Commission.
Grækenland hævder også, at 2007-garantien blev stillet i overensstemmelse med EU's statsstøtteregler.
Greece also argues that the 2007 guarantee was granted in line with the State aid rules in force in the EU.
Grækenland fremfører, at garantien ikke dækkede mere end 80 % og vedrørte lån til markedsrente.
According to Greece’s allegations, the guarantee had a maximum coverage of 80 % and was granted for loans with market interest rates.
Grækenland hævder, at lånet var behørigt sikret i pantsat ejendom og personlige garantier fra aktionærerne, og at det blev ydet til en specifik transaktion og med en specifik løbetid.
Also, Greece supports that the loan was properly securitised with pledged commodities and personal guarantees of shareholders and that it was granted for a specific transaction and duration.
Grækenland og støttemodtageren hævder, at støttemodtageren er en af de største tekstilvirksomheder i Grækenland med et stort antal medarbejdere, og at den hovedsagelig driver virksomhed i regioner tæt på grænsen.
Moreover, Greece and the beneficiary support that the latter is one of the most significant textile companies in Greece, employing a significant number of staff and operating mainly in regions close to the border.
Grækenland og støttemodtageren fremfører også, at National Bank of Greece (den långivende bank) har indvilliget i at afslå statsgarantien og i stedet udtage pant i fast ejendom tilhørende United Textiles, hvorved garantien vil blive deaktiveret.
Greece and the beneficiary also claim that the National Bank of Greece (the lending bank) has accepted to decline the State guarantee and in its place to inscribe a mortgage on real estate assets of United Textiles, which will inactivate the guarantee.
Slutteligt fremfører Grækenland og støttemodtageren, at garantien er blevet indarbejdet i garantien fra 2010, således at der er en integreret tilgang til afviklingen af selskabets gæld. IV.b.
Finally, Greece and the beneficiary argue that the guarantee was incorporated in the guarantee of 2010, therefore there is a continuum in the settlement of the company’s lending.
Foranstaltning 2: Omlægning af forfalden socialsikringsgæld
IV(b) Measure 2: Rescheduling of overdue public insurance debts
Grækenland og støttemodtageren fremfører, at foranstaltningen er baseret på lov nr. 3762/2009, som er en generel lov, der gælder for alle selskaber med forfaldne eller ubetalte forpligtelser vedrørende offentlig forsikring. Foranstaltningen er således ikke selektiv. IV.c.
Greece and the beneficiary argue that the measure is based on Law No 3762/2009, which is a general law, applicable to all companies with overdue or unpaid public insurance obligations, therefore the measure in question is not selective.
Foranstaltning 3: Statsgarantien i juni 2010
IV(c) Measure 3: The State guarantee of June 2010
Grækenland bekræfter, at 2010-garantien blev stillet og anfører, at dette skyldtes, at den tidligere garanti fra 2009 (som aldrig blev brugt) ikke længere var tilstrækkelig til at dække selskabets likviditetsbehov, og at 2009-garantien derfor blev indarbejdet i 2010-garantien.
Greece acknowledges having granted the 2010 guarantee and argues that the latter was granted because the extent of the previous guarantee of 2009 (which has never been implemented) was not sufficient anymore to cover the company’s liquidity needs, therefore the 2009 guarantee was incorporated into the 2010 guarantee.
Grækenland fremfører, at 2010-garantien er i overensstemmelse med EU's statsstøtteregler for redning og omstrukturering af kriseramte virksomheder (»rammebestemmelserne for redning og omstrukturering«) [12], og at den ikke giver United Textiles en fordel.
Greece argues that the 2010 guarantee is in line with the communication from the Commission — community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [12] (‘Rescue and restructuring guidelines’) and that it does not confer an advantage to United Textiles.
Derudover hævder Grækenland, at princippet om engangsstøtte i rammebestemmelserne for redning og omstrukturering ikke er blevet overtrådt, idet 2010-garantien erstatter 2009-garantien og ændrer flere bestemmelser i 2007-garantien (se foranstaltning 1 i betragtning 14).
Moreover, it claims that there is no infringement of the ‘one time last time’ principle as enshrined in the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, since the 2010 guarantee replaces the 2009 guarantee and changes several provisions of the 2007 guarantee (see Measure 1 in recital 18).
arantien indeholder derfor samtlige de bestemmelser, som gælder for selskabets lån, i et enkelt dokument med sammenarbejdede bestemmelser.
Therefore, the 2010 guarantee embodies the totality of the clauses of the company’s loans in a single text with unified provisions.
Grækenland fremfører også, at garantien endnu ikke er trådt i kraft, fordi det ansvarlige departement i ministeriet ikke har godkendt den.
Greece also states that the guarantee is not valid yet, because the Ministry’s competent service has not approved it yet.
Slutteligt har Grækenland meddelt Kommissionen, at 2010-garantien endnu ikke er aktiveret, da selskabet ikke har underskrevet nogen lånekontrakt med en bank, og der ikke har fundet nogen låneudbetaling sted.
Finally, Greece informed the Commission that the 2010 guarantee has not yet been activated, as the company has not signed any loan contract with any bank and no loan payment has taken place.
De græske myndigheder gør Kommissionen opmærksom på, at den ministerielle afgørelse nr. 2/35129/0025/28.06.2010 om godkendelse af garantien fastsatte, at de første to afdrag på lånet (36,6 mio. EUR og 15 mio. EUR) skulle betales senest 28. juli 2010, og da denne dato er overskredet, kan garantien i henhold til sine egne betingelser ikke være aktiveret.
Also, the Greek authorities have drawn the Commission’s attention to the fact that the granting ministerial decision 2/35129/0025/28.06.2010 foresees that the loan’s first two sub-loans (EUR 36,6 million + EUR 15 million) had to be paid until 28 July 2010 and this date has expired, therefore the guarantee actually cannot be activated.
United Textiles fremfører, at den underliggende lånekontrakt ikke er blevet underskrevet, og at der derfor ikke er fastsat en rentesats.
United Textiles argues that the underlying loan contract has not been signed yet, therefore there is no interest rate defined yet.
Når dette er gjort, vil rentesatsen være på markedsvilkår.
When this is done, the interest rate will be market conform.
Med hensyn til omstruktureringsplanen i 2010 (se betragtning 4) fremfører United Textiles, at den indeholder en drastisk produktionsnedsættelse, og at den planlagte genoprettelse af rentabiliteten således ikke er konkurrenceforvridende.
Regarding the restructuring plan of 2010 (see recital 4), United Textiles supports that it foresees a drastic reduction of production, therefore the forecasted return to viability does not distort competition.
Kommissionen vurderer foranstaltningerne i dette afsnit på baggrund af ovenstående oplysninger og de argumenter, som er fremført af Grækenland og United Textiles.
On the basis of the above facts and also of the arguments of Greece and United Textiles, the Commission will assess the measures in question in this section.
Først vurderer Kommissionen United Textiles' situation på tidspunktet for de undersøgte foranstaltninger for at fastslå, om selskabet var kriseramt (afsnit V.a).
First, the Commission will assess the status of United Textiles at the time of the measures under scrutiny, in order to conclude if the company was in difficulty or not (Section V(a)).
Derefter vurderer Kommissionen, om de undersøgte foranstaltninger omfatter statsstøtte (afsnit V.b).
Secondly, the Commission will assess the presence of aid in the measures under scrutiny, in order to conclude if there is aid or not (Section V(b)).
Hvis en foranstaltning omfatter støtte, vurderer Kommissionen derefter, om støtten er forenelig med det indre marked (afsnit V.c).
Thirdly, where a measure indeed involves aid, the Commission will assess its compatibility with the internal market (Section V(c)).
V.a. Selskabets situation
V(a) Status of the company
Som anført i punkt 14 og 15 og vist mere detaljeret i tabel 1 herunder forværredes selskabets driftsmæssige og økonomiske resultater væsentligt i perioden 2004-2009.
As shown in recitals 14 and 15 and set out in more detail in Table 1 below, the company’s operating and financial performance deteriorated significantly in the period 2004-09.
United Textiles' finansielle nøgletal (mio. EUR)
United Textiles’ key financial data (million EUR)
Data fra regnskaberne for 2004–2009.
Data from 2004-09 financial statements.
Aktiekapital
Registered capital
På baggrund af disse tal konkluderer Kommissionen, at selskabet på det tidspunkt, hvor de undersøgte foranstaltninger blev truffet (2007-2010), var »kriseramt« i betydningen i punkt 10 i rammebestemmelserne for redning og omstrukturering.
On the basis of these financial figures, the Commission concludes that the company has been in difficulty in the meaning of point 10 of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines at the time of the granting of the measures under scrutiny (the period 2007-10).
Kommissionen anser også aktuelt selskabet for at være kriseramt.
The Commission equally considers that the company is in difficulties at present.
Med hensyn til punkt 10, litra a), i rammebestemmelserne for redning og omstrukturering var selskabets aktiekapital i perioden 2004-2009, som vist i selskabets regnskaber, ikke tabt, men steg rent faktisk.
More specifically, with regard to point 10(a) of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, the company’s registered capital, as appearing in its financial statements of years 2004-09, was not lost but increased in the period 2004-09.
De forholdsregler, som selskabet kunne have taget, var enten en kapitalforhøjelse eller en kapitalisering af tab, som ville have udslettet aktiekapitalen.
If adopted, those measures would be either the increase of capital or the capitalisation of losses, which would wipe out the registered capital.
I United Textiles' tilfælde ser det imidlertid ud til, at kun en kapitalisering af tab ville have været mulig på grund af selskabets kritiske økonomiske situation (se tabel 1) og dets problemer med at opnå finansiering (se betragtning 15).
It appears that only the latter case would be feasible for United Textiles, due to its critical financial situation (see Table 1) and its difficult access to finance (see recital 15).
Derfor mener Kommissionen, at selskabet i realiteten havde tabt mere end halvdelen af sin aktiekapital.
On the basis of the above, the Commission considers that the company lost more than half of its registered capital.
Med hensyn til punkt 10, litra c) i rammebestemmelserne for redning og omstrukturering har selskabet fra 2008 og fremefter opfyldt de kriterier, som gør det muligt for selskabet at blive underlagt kollektiv insolvensbehandling i henhold til græsk lov [16].
Furthermore, concerning point 10(c) of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, since 2008 the company fulfilled the criteria under Greek law for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings [16].
Med hensyn til punkt 11 i rammebestemmelserne for redning og omstrukturering har de sædvanlige tegn på, at et selskab har problemer som f.eks. stigende tab, faldende omsætning og voksende gæld, været til stede i hvert fald siden 2004. V.b.
Finally, as regards point 11 of the of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, the usual signs of a firm being in difficulty, such as increasing losses, diminishing turnover and mounting debt, have been present since at least 2004.
Statsstøtte i betydningen i artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF
V(b) Presence of aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
I artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF anføres følgende: »Bortset fra de i traktaterne hjemlede undtagelser 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«.
Article 107(1) TFEU states that ‘Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by 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’.
Kommissionen vil nu vurdere, om de foranstaltninger, der er truffet vedrørende United Textiles, udgør statsstøtte i betydningen i artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF.
The Commission will assess whether the measures under scrutiny in favour of United Textiles constitute State aid in the sense of Article 107(1) TFEU.
V.b.1. Foranstaltning 1: Statsstøtte, maj 2007
V(b)(1) Measure 1: State guarantee of May 2007
Støtte til United Textiles
Aid to United Textiles
a. Statsmidler
State resources
Statsgarantien ydes via statsmidler, da den stilles direkte af staten.
The Commission notes that the State guarantee in question indeed involves State resources, as it has been granted directly by the State.
Beslutningen blev taget af den ansvarlige minister, så foranstaltningen må også tilskrives staten.
The decision has been made by the responsible minister; therefore, the measure is also imputable to the State.
Kriteriet om statsmidler er derfor opfyldt.
Thus, the criterion of State resources is fulfilled.
b. Fordel
Advantage
Grækenland og støttemodtageren fremfører, at National Bank of Greece (den långivende bank) har indvilliget i at afslå statsgarantien og i stedet udtage pant i fast ejendom tilhørende United Textiles, hvorved garantien vil blive deaktiveret.
Greece and the beneficiary claim that the National Bank of Greece (the lending bank) has accepted to decline the State guarantee and in its place to inscribe a mortgage on real estate assets of United Textiles, which will deactivate the guarantee.
Til støtte for deres påstand fremlægger Grækenland og støttemodtageren et brev fra National Bank of Greece af 24. december 2010 som svar på brev fra United Textiles af 23. december 2010.
To demonstrate their claim, Greece and the beneficiary submit a letter of the National Bank of Greece, dated 24 December 2010 (replying to a letter of United Textiles dated 23 December 2010).
Kommissionen kan ikke godtage dette argument.
The Commission cannot accept the above.
I det fremlagte brev anfører National Bank of Greece alene, at den vil være villig til at undersøge den foreslåede ombytning af sikkerhed på visse betingelser, hvoraf de vigtigste er, at de aktiver, som skulle pantsættes, skulle udvælges af banken, og at ombytningen skulle accepteres af alle interesserede parter.
Indeed, in the submitted letter of the National Bank of Greece, it is only stated that the bank would be willing to examine the proposed exchange of securities, mainly under the conditions that the bank would choose the assets to be pledged and that the exchange would be accepted by all concerned parties.
Kommissionen er derfor af den opfattelse, at National Bank of Greece i realiteten ikke har accepteret den foreslåede ombytning af sikkerhed.
Thus, the Commission considers that the National Bank of Greece has not actually accepted the proposed exchange of securities.
Grækenland hævder også, at 2007-garantien blev stillet i overensstemmelse med EU's statsstøtteregler.
Greece also argues that the 2007 guarantee was granted in line with the State aid rules that are in force in the EU.
Grækenland hævder, at garantien ikke dækkede mere end 80 % og blev stillet for lån til markedsrente.
According to Greece’s allegations, the guarantee had a maximum coverage of 80 % and that it was granted for loans with market interest rates.
Kommissionen kan ikke acceptere dette ræsonnement og er af den opfattelse, at 2007-garantien rent faktisk gav United Textiles en uretmæssig fordel.
The Commission cannot accept the above argumentation and considers that the 2007 guarantee has indeed procured an undue advantage to United Textiles.
I henhold til punkt 2.2 og 3.2 i garantimeddelelsen opnår en låntager, som ikke betaler en markedspris for en garanti, en fordel.
According to the Guarantee Notice, points 2.2 and 3.2, when the borrower does not pay a market-oriented price for the guarantee, it obtains an advantage.
Uden en statsgaranti ville en kriseramt låntager i visse tilfælde overhovedet ikke være i stand til at finde et finansieringsinstitut, der var rede til at yde lån på nogen betingelser.
In some cases, the borrower, as a firm in financial difficulty, would not find a financial institution prepared to lend on any terms, without a State guarantee.
arantien blev stillet for lån til en kriseramt virksomhed, og der skulle ikke betales nogen præmie til garanten, altså staten.
In the case at hand, the 2007 guarantee was granted for loans of a firm in difficulty and did not foresee a premium for the guarantor (State).
I lyset af punkt 3.2 og 4.2 i garantimeddelelsen påpeger Kommissionen, at virksomhedens økonomiske situation forværredes væsentligt i perioden 2004-2007, at virksomheden var i restance med sine lån, og at virksomhedens långivende banker havde begrænset deres støtte siden 2001 og reduceret kreditlinjer og lån.
In the light of points 3.2 and 4.2 of the Guarantee notice, the Commission notes the significant deterioration of the company’s financial situation in the period 2004-07, the overdue situation of its loans and the fact that already since 2001 its lending banks’ support had been limited, with reduced credit lines and loans.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at United Textiles på det tidspunkt, hvor foranstaltningen blev truffet, var alvorligt kriseramt og må klassificeres i kreditkategorien »dårlig«.
The Commission considers that, since at the time that the measure was taken United Textiles was in serious difficulty, it must be classified in the credit category ‘bad’.
Derudover bemærker Kommissionen, at det i henhold til selskabets årsrapporter for 2007, 2008 og 2009 stadig var planlagt, at det garanterede lån skulle sikres i selskabets aktiver. Dette var tydeligvis ikke sket (se betragtning 18).
In addition to the above, the Commission notes that, according to the company’s annual reports of 2007, 2008 and 2009, the guaranteed loan was still envisaged to be securitised with assets of the company, therefore that securitisation was apparently not realised yet (see recital 18).
Kommissionen bemærker også, at det i december 2010 blev foreslået National Bank of Greece (den långivende bank) at afslå statsgarantien og i stedet optage pant i fast ejendom tilhørende United Textiles (se betragtning 37).
In addition, the Commission notes that the National Bank of Greece (the lending bank) was proposed in December 2010 to decline the State guarantee and in its place to inscribe a mortgage on real estate assets of United Textiles (see recital 37).
Kommissionen anser dette forslag for at være en klar indikation af, at der ikke var stillet en sådan sikkerhed.
The Commission considers this proposal to be a clear indication that indeed the securitisation in question was not realised.
De græske myndigheder fremfører, at 2007-garantien var sikret ved pantsat ejendom tilhørende selskabet og i personlige garantier fra aktionærerne (se betragtning 35). Sagens faktiske omstændigheder viser dog, at der kun var tale om personlige garantier fra aktionærerne.
On this issue, the Greek authorities submit that the 2007 guarantee was securitised with commodities of the company and personal guarantees of its shareholders (see recital 35), however the facts of the case only verify the shareholders’ personal guarantees.
Kommissionen vurderer derfor, at det underliggende lån ikke var sikret.
Thus, the Commission considers that the underlying loan was not securitised.
Kommissionen tvivler derfor på, om en privat garant ville have tilbudt en sådan garanti, og om en privat bank ville have accepteret at finansiere selskabet uden en statsgaranti, da det ville have været meget svært for en virksomhed i en sådan situation at tilbagebetale lånet og således for garanten at undgå at skulle udbetale garantien.
On the basis of the above, the Commission doubts that any private guarantor would have offered such a guarantee and that any private bank would have accepted to finance the company without a State guarantee at all, as in a similar situation it would appear extremely difficult for such company to be able to repay the loan and for the guarantor to avoid to honour the guarantee.
Kommissionen finder derfor, at det støttebeløb, som stammer fra 2007-garantien, svarer til hele det garanterede lån, dvs. 16 mio. EUR (80 % af 20 mio. EUR).
Thus, the Commission considers that the aid amount stemming from the 2007 guarantee amounts up to the whole amount of the guaranteed loan, i.e. EUR 16 million (80 % of EUR 20 million).
Grækenland og støttemodtageren fremfører, at 2007-garantien ikke udgør støtte, da den ikke var selektiv: den var ikke begrænset til United Textiles, men blev ydet i henhold til ministeriel afgørelse nr. 2/75172/0025/26.01.2007, som ikke kun vedrører United Textiles, men også andre virksomheder.
Greece and the beneficiary also support that the 2007 guarantee does not constitute aid, as it was not selective to United Textiles: it was granted on the basis of ministerial decision 2/75172/0025/26.01.2007 which concerned not only United Textiles but also other companies.
Kommissionen bemærker, at den ministerielle afgørelse, hvorpå garantien var baseret, var rettet mod bestemte sektorer inden for et specifikt geografisk område, dvs. præfekturet Imathía.
The Commission notes that the ministerial decision on which the guarantee was based targeted certain sectors of a specific geographical area, i.e. the Imathia district.
Derudover havde de græske myndigheder i nærværende sag en bred manøvremargin med hensyn til garantien for United Textiles, da der ikke forelå nogen objektive kriterier for at beslutte, om garantien skulle ydes.
In addition, in the case at hand, the Greek authorities had a wide range of manoeuvre in granting a guarantee in favour of United Textiles, as there were no objective criteria set for deciding whether to grant the guarantee or not.
Da der ikke forelå sådanne objektive kriterier, var foranstaltningen selektiv, fordi myndighederne anvendte den individuelt efter eget skøn [17].
In the absence of such objective criteria, the measure was indeed selective, because the authorities applied it individually on a discretionary basis [17].
Ifølge fast retspraksis gælder det, at når det organ, som yder finansiel støtte, råder over et skøn, der tillader det at vælge støttemodtagerne og fastsætte de betingelser, på hvilke støtten ydes, kan denne støtte ikke antages at have en generel karakter [18].
According to established case-law [18], where the public body granting financial assistance enjoys a degree of latitude which enables it to choose the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the financial assistance is provided, that assistance cannot be considered to be general in nature.
Kriteriet om selektivitet er således opfyldt.
Thus, the criterion of selectivity is indeed fulfilled.
d. Konkurrenceforvridning og påvirkning af samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne
Distortion of competition and affectation of trade between Member States
United Textiles driver virksomhed inden for en branche, hvor produkterne i vid udstrækning handles mellem medlemsstater, og hvor der er skarp konkurrence.
United Textiles is active in a sector whose products are widely traded among Member States and who is subject to intense competition.