natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They were granted at a time where aid to the shipbuilding sector was still regulated by Directive 90/684/EEC.
Laenud anti ajal, mil abi laevaehitussektorile reguleeris veel direktiiv 90/684/EMÜ.
Articles 4 and 5 of this Directive provides that operating aid may be granted to shipbuilding and ship conversion activities, which are both defined in Article 1 of the Directive.
Selle direktiivi artiklid 4 ja 5 näevad ette, et tegevusabi andmine on lubatud laevade ehitusega ja ümberehitusega seotud tegevusele, millest kumbki on määratletud direktiivi artiklis 1.
However, in the years during which the loans were granted, namely 1997 and 1998, HSY did not have such activities.
Samas puudus HSY-l 1997. ja 1998. aastal, mille vältel laenud anti, vastav tegevus.
As underlined by Greece, the loans have been reimbursed.
Nagu Kreeka on rõhutanud, on laenud tagasi makstud.
The aid as defined previously has therefore to be recovered for the period from the paying out of the loans to HSY until their reimbursement.
Eespool määratletud abi tuleb seetõttu tagastada ajavahemiku eest laenude väljamaksmisest HSY-le kuni nende tagasimaksmiseni.
Cross-subsidisation between military and civil activities until 2001 (measure E17)
Ristsubsideerimine sõjalise tegevuse ja tsiviiltegevuse vahel 2001. aastani (meede E17)
The extension decision indicates that there seems to have existed cross-subsidisation between military and civil activities.
Laiendamisotsuses osutatakse, et sõja- ja tsiviilotstarbelise tegevuse vahel näib olevat toimunud ristsubsideerimine.
In particular, it describes two cases where, in the framework of military contracts, HSY received large advance payments exceeding its short term needs stemming from the execution of the corresponding contract, such that HSY was able to use this cash to finance other activities.
Muu hulgas on kirjeldatud kahte juhtumit, mille korral HSY sai sõjaliste lepingute raames suuri ettemakseid, mis ületasid ettevõtte lühiajalisi vajadusi vastava lepingu täideviimise seisukohast, mistõttu HSY sai kasutada seda raha muu tegevuse rahastamiseks.
The extension decision asserts that when documents explicitly refer to the use of funds received for military contracts for ‘other activities’, the Commission is entitled to doubt that these funds are covered by Article 296 and do not constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 87(1).
Laiendamisotsuses kinnitatakse, et kui dokumentides on selgesõnaliselt viidatud sõjaliste lepingute eest saadud vahendite kasutamisele „muuks tegevuseks”, on komisjonil õigus kahelda, kas need vahendid kuuluvad artikli 296 kohaldamisalasse ega kujuta endast riigiabi artikli 87 lõike 1 tähenduses.
The extension decision also recommends the introduction of separate accounts for civil and military activities, in order to avoid that civil activities are financed by State support provided for the military activities.
Samuti soovitatakse laiendamisotsus eraldi raamatupidamisarvestuse sisseviimist tsiviil- ja sõjaotstarbelise tegevuse jaoks, et vältida tsiviilotstarbelise tegevuse rahastamist sõjaotstarbeliseks tegevuseks ettenähtud riigiabi arvelt.
Elefsis asserts that cross-subsidisation is difficult to detect since there is no accounting separation of HSY’s civil and military activities.
Elefsis kinnitab, et ristsubsideerimist on keeruline avastada, sest HSY ei rakenda tsiviil- ja sõjaotstarbelise tegevuse jaoks raamatupidamise lahusust.
Nevertheless, when the activities undertaken by the yard in 2001 are analysed, it turns out that the military activities were limited.
Samas aga näitab laevatehase poolt 2001. aastal läbiviidud tegevusanalüüs, et sõjalise tegevuse maht oli piiratud.
It is therefore clear that the ‘other activities’ which, according to the Management report, were financed would mainly be civil activities.
Seetõttu on ilmne, et „muu tegevus”, mida tegevusaruande kohaselt rahastati, pidi peamiselt olema tsiviiltegevus.
TKMS/GNSH, which has submitted comments only on this measure and on the following one (measure E18c), considers that Article 296(1)(a) of the Treaty acknowledges that certain restrictions on the disclosure of information can be justified.
Ainult selle ja järgmise meetme (meede E18c) kohta märkusi esitanud TKMS/GNSH on seisukohal, et asutamislepingu artikli 296 lõike 1 punkt a tunnustab, et teatud piirangud teabe avaldamisele võivad olla õigustatud.
Consequently, the Commission cannot require Greece to disclose information which relates, for example, to the exact sums spent on different military projects.
Sellest tulenevalt ei saa komisjon nõuda Kreekalt niisuguse teabe avaldamist, mis seondub näiteks erinevatele sõjalistele projektidele kulutatud täpsete summadega.
Second, TKMS/GNSH asserts that there is no legal basis for asking the separation of accounts between civil and military activities.
Teiseks kinnitab TKMS/GNSH, et puudub õiguslik alus tsiviil- ja sõjaotstarbelise tegevuse eraldi raamatupidamisarvestuse nõudmiseks.
Greece claims that to the extent that the amounts referred to in the complaint were linked to the defence activities of the yard, the procedure initiated by the Commission on the basis of Article 88(2) of the Treaty is erroneous and ultra vires.
Kreeka väidab, et niivõrd, kuivõrd kaebuses viidatud summad seondusid laevatehase riigikaitsetegevusega, on komisjoni poolt asutamislepingu artikli 88 lõike 2 põhjal algatatud menetlus ekslik ja võimupiire ületav.
If the Commission thinks that the measures distorted competition, it should follow the procedure described in Article 298 of the Treaty.
Kui komisjon on seisukohal, et meetmed moonutavad konkurentsi, oleks ta pidanud järgima asutamislepingu artiklis 298 kirjeldatud menetlust.
HSY adds that there is no legal obligation for HSY to keep separate accounts.
HSY lisab, et HSY-l puudub juriidiline kohustus eraldi raamatupidamisarvestuse pidamiseks.
No legal basis exists for the Commission request.
Komisjoni nõudel puudub õiguslik alus.
In order to establish whether Articles 296 and 298 of the Treaty are applicable, it is necessary to establish the facts.
Asutamislepingu artiklite 296 ja 298 kohaldatavuse väljaselgitamiseks tuleb tuvastada asjaolud.
According to the documents quoted in the opening decision, during at least several quarters these advance payments were not used for the purpose of executing the military contract concerned.
Algatamisotsuses tsiteeritud dokumentide kohaselt ei kasutatud kõnealuseid ettemakseid vähemalt mitme kvartali vältel asjaomase sõjalise lepingu täideviimiseks.
Neither Greece nor HSY has denied the quotes made in the opening decision.
Ei Kreeka ega HSY ole vaidlustanud algatamisotsuses esitatud tsitaate.
In addition, HSY’s accounts confirm that HSY has received in 2000 and 2001 advance payments from the Navy far in excess of the funds needed in the short term to finance the execution of the corresponding military contracts.
Lisaks kinnitab HSY raamatupidamine, et HSY sai mereväelt 2000. ja 2001. aastal ettemakseid, mis tunduvalt ületasid vastavate sõjaliste lepingute täideviimise rahastamiseks nõutavaid vahendeid lühikeses perspektiivis.
As regards the application of Articles 296 and 298 of the Treaty, the Commission rejects Greece’s argument that any advance payment paid in the framework of a military contract would automatically fall under Article 296.
Seoses EÜ asutamislepingu artiklite 296 ja 298 kohaldamisega lükkab komisjon tagasi Kreeka väite, et ükskõik milline ettemakse sõjalise lepingu raames kuulub automaatselt artikli 296 reguleerimisalasse.
In particular, in the present case the management of HSY itself acknowledged that some advance payments exceeded by far the amounts needed for the execution of the contracts in the short term and therefore were temporarily used for other purposes.
Muu hulgas on HSY juhtkond antud juhul ise tunnistanud, et mõningad ettemaksed ületasid tunduvalt lepingute täideviimiseks lühikeses perspektiivis nõutavaid summasid ja neid kasutati seetõttu ajutiselt muudel eesmärkidel.
A measure falls in the scope of Article 296 only if Greece considers it to be ‘necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material’.
Meede kuulub artikli 296 kohaldamisalasse vaid juhul, kui Kreeka peab seda „vajalikuks oma oluliste julgeolekuhuvide kaitseks ja mis on seotud relvade, laskemoona või sõjavarustuse tootmise või kaubandusega”.
The Commission observes that Greece has not explained why the part of the advance-payments that exceeded the funds necessary to execute the military projects concerned would have contributed to ‘the protection of the essential interests of its security’.
Komisjon märgib, et Kreeka ei ole selgitanud, kuidas oleks ettemaksete asjaomaste sõjaliste projektide täideviimiseks nõutavaid vahendeid ületav osa kaasa aidanud „oma oluliste julgeolekuhuvide kaitsele”.
The Commission itself fails to understand why it would be the case since the yard did not need them to produce the war material concerned and did not use them for that purpose.
Komisjon ei mõista, miks see peaks nõnda olema, sest laevatehas ei vajanud neid asjaomase sõjavarustuse tootmiseks ega kasutanud neid sel eesmärgil.
In such a case, where the facts indicate that Article 296 does not apply, Greece should have explained why it nevertheless considers that these excess advance payments have contributed to its security.
Niisugusel juhul, kui faktid viitavad sellele, et artikkel 296 ei ole kohaldatav, oleks Kreeka pidanud selgitama, miks on need liigsed ettemaksed Kreeka arvates aidanud kaasa riigi julgeolekuhuvide kaitsele.
Since it was not done, the Commission concludes that these advance payments, in the period during which they were not necessary for the execution of the military contracts concerned, do not fall within the scope of Article 296 of the Treaty.
Et seda ei ole tehtud, järeldab komisjon, et kõnealused ettemaksed ajavahemiku vältel, mil need polnud vajalikud asjaomaste sõjaliste lepingute täideviimiseks, ei kuulu EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 296 kohaldamisalasse.
Since the advance payments have initially been used for financing all the activities of the yards, the Commission considers that 75 % of these advance payments has financed military activities and 25 % has financed civil activities.
Kuna ettemakseid kasutati algselt laevatehase kõigi tegevuste rahastamiseks, on komisjon arvamusel, et 75 % neist ettemaksetest kasutati ära seoses sõjalise tegevuse ja 25 % seoses tsiviiltegevusega.
In other words, during at least one year 25 % of EUR 81,3 million and 25 % of EUR 40 million fell under State aid rules.
Teisisõnu kuulusid vähemalt ühel aastal 25 % 81,3 miljonist eurost ja 25 % 40 miljonist eurost riigiabi eeskirjade kohaldamisalasse.
These excessive advance payments constitute interest-free loans granted by the State.
Need liigsed ettemaksed kujutavad endast riigi antud intressivabu laene.
They therefore convey a selective advantage to HSY.
Seetõttu annavad nad HSY-le valikulise eelise.
One could argue that if the State purchases products in a way which would be acceptable for a private firm, the purchase contract — including its terms like the advance payments — can not convey a selective advantage to the producer.
Võib väita, et kui riik ostab tooteid viisil, mis oleks eraettevõttele vastuvõetav, ei saa ostuleping – sh selle tingimused, näiteks ettemaksete osas – tootjale valikulist eelist anda.
However, in the framework of the military contracts awarded to HSY, the State has never behaved in a way acceptable for a private firm wanting to purchase goods.
Samas ei ole riik HSYga sõlmitud sõjaliste lepingute raames kunagi käitunud viisil, mis oleks vastuvõetav kaupu osta soovivale eraettevõttele.
In particular, a private firm would have sought to pay the lowest price possible by considering all potential suppliers in the world.
Muu hulgas oleks eraettevõte püüelnud madalaima võimaliku hinna tasumise poole, kaaludes kõiki potentsiaalseid tarnijaid kogu maailmas.
Conversely, Greece has always limited its choices to suppliers active in Greece (or to consortia having a member active in Greece), in order to support employment in Greece and in order to maintain capacity of production of military products in Greece.
Kreeka aga on alati piirdunud valikute tegemisel Kreekas tegutsevate tarnijatega (või konsortsiumidega, mille üks liige tegutseb Kreekas), tööhõive toetamiseks Kreekas ja sõjaväetoodete tootmisvõimsuste säilitamiseks Kreekas.
A private firm would therefore not have concluded these purchase contracts.
Seetõttu ei oleks eraettevõte neid ostulepinguid sõlminud.
In addition, a private firm would not have accepted to make advance payments exceeding what was needed to execute its orders, but would have tried to limit advance payments as much as possible.
Lisaks ei oleks eraettevõte nõustunud tegema tema tellimuste täitmiseks nõutavat summat ületavaid ettemakseid, vaid oleks üritanud ettemakseid võimalikult palju piirata.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers these excessive advance payments as an interest-free loan.
Nende asjaolude juures käsitleb komisjon liigseid ettemakseid intressivaba laenuna.
The aforementioned documents shows that at least during one year these funds have been used for other activities than the execution of the contracts concerned.
Eespool nimetatud dokumendid näitavad, et vähemalt ühe aasta jooksul on kõnealuseid vahendeid kasutatud seoses muu tegevusega ja mitte asjaomaste lepingute täideviimiseks.
The Commission therefore considers them equivalent to a one-year loan free of any interest.
Seetõttu võrdsustab komisjon need üheaastase intressivaba laenuga.
In accordance with the analysis of the creditworthiness of HSY laid down in section 3.1 of the present decision, the amount of aid included in these loans granted after 30 June 1999 is equal to the reference rate for Greece plus 600 basis points.
Kooskõlas HSY krediidivõimelisuse analüüsiga, mis on esitatud selle otsuse lõikes 3.1, võrdub nendes pärast 30. juunit 1999 antud laenudes sisalduv abisumma Kreeka viitemääraga pluss 600 baaspunkti.
The Commission has not found a basis on which this aid could be found compatible.
Komisjon ei ole leidnud alust, mille põhjal kõnealust abi saaks kokkusobivaks tunnistada.
Since this aid supports the general operation of the yard, it seems to be operating aid, but, as already explained in the assessment of prior measures, this yard was not entitled to receive operating aid in 1999, 2000 or 2001.
Kuna abi toetab laevatehase tegevust üldiselt, näib tegu olevat tegevusabiga, kuid nagu juba selgitatud eelnevate meetmete hindamisega seoses, ei olnud laevatehasel õigust saada tegevusabi 1999., 2000. või 2001. aastal.
Since the aid is unlawful and incompatible, it must be recovered.
Et käsitletav abi on ebaseaduslik ja kokkusobimatu, kuulub see tagasinõudmisele.
As regards the separation of accounts, the Commission will deal with this issue at the end of the present decision.
Raamatupidamise lahususega tegeleb komisjon selle otsuse lõpuosas.
Indemnifying clause in favour of HDW/Ferrostaal in the case where aid would be recovered from HSY (measure E18c)
Hüvitamiskohustus HDW/Ferrostaali kasuks abi tagasinõudmise korral HSY-lt (meede E18c)
The extension decision indicates that the Greek State promised to indemnify the purchaser of HSY (i.e. HDW/Ferrostaal) in case incompatible aid granted before and at the time of the privatisation was recovered from HSY.
Laiendamisotsuses osutatakse, et Kreeka riik lubas maksta hüvitist HSY ostjale (st HDW/Ferrostaalile) juhul, kui HSY-lt nõutakse tagasi enne erastamist ja selle ajal antud kokkusobimatu abi.
From a legal point of view, this guarantee was granted through a two steps mechanism:
Juriidilisest vaatepunktist anti vastav garantii kaheetapilise mehhanismi kaudu:
On the one hand, ETVA granted a guarantee to the purchaser of HSY (i.e. HDW/Ferrostaal).
Ühelt poolt andis HSY ostjale (st HDW/Ferrostaalile) garantii ETVA.
According to this indemnification guarantee, ETVA would indemnify HDW/Ferrostaal for any aid recovered from HSY.
Selle hüvitisgarantii kohaselt pidi ETVA hüvitama HDW/Ferrostaalile kogu HSY-lt tagasinõutava abi.
The extension decision underlines that in the Agreement for the sale of the share of HSY (hereinafter ‘HSY SPA’) concluded between ETVA and HDW/Ferrostaal on 11 October 2001, ETVA, which was at that moment still under the control of the State, already promised to provide this guarantee to HDW/Ferrostaal.
Laiendamisotsuses rõhutatakse, et ETVA ja HDW/Ferrostaali vahel 11. oktoobril 2001 sõlmitud HSY osaluse müügilepingu (edaspidi „HSY SPA”) kohaselt lubas tollal veel riigi kontrolli all olnud ETVA juba siis HDW/Ferrostaalile vastavat garantiid.
The guarantee granted by ETVA seems therefore imputable to the State,
Seetõttu näib, et ETVA antud garantii on seostatav riigiga.
On the other hand, the State provided a guarantee to the purchaser of 57,7 % of the shares of ETVA (i.e. Piraeus Bank).
Teiselt poolt andis riik garantii 57,7 % ETVA aktsiate ostjale (st Piraeus Bankile).
According to this indemnification guarantee, the State would pay to Piraeus Bank 100 % of any amount paid by ETVA to the purchaser of HSY as a consequence of an indemnification guarantee granted by ETVA to the purchaser of HSY.
Selle hüvitisgarantii kohaselt pidi riik maksma Piraeus Bankile 100 % ükskõik millisest ETVA poolt HSY ostjale antud hüvitisgarantii kohaselt ETVA poolt HSY ostjale tasumisele kuuluvast summast.
The following graph illustrates the structure of the two steps guarantee, such a described in the extension decision (the continuous lines indicate the indemnification flows under each of the two steps of the guarantee, while the dotted line indicates the ownership after the closing of the sale of HSY and of 57,7 % of the shares of ETVA).
Järgnev skeem käsitleb kaheetapilise garantii struktuuri, nagu seda on kirjeldatud laiendamisotsuses (pidevjooned tähistavad hüvitisevooge garantii mõlema etapi raames ja katkendjoon omandiõigusi HSY ning 57,7 % ETVA aktsiate müügitehingu sooritamise järel).
Greek government
Kreeka valitsus
(Seller of ETVA)
(ETVA müüja)
(Purchaser of ETVA)
(ETVA ostja)
(Seller of HSY)
(HSY müüja)
(Purchaser of HSY)
(HSY ostja)
The extension decision indicates that a private seller would not have given such a guarantee because it is not limited in time or amount.
Laiendamisotsuses osutatakse, et erasektori müüja ei oleks niisugust garantiid andnud, sest see ei ole ajaliselt ega rahaliselt piiratud.
In addition, a market economy shareholder would have preferred to let HSY go bankrupt and be liquidated rather than selling it in these circumstances.
Lisaks oleks turumajanduslik aktsionär pigem eelistanud HSY pankrotistumist ja likvideerimist kui müüki niisuguste asjaolude juures.
Indeed, the sale price received by the State was only EUR 6 million and the indemnity payments that the State should have expected to make under the guarantee were much larger.
Riigi saadud müügihind oli vaid 6 miljonit eurot ja hüvitismaksed, mille tasumist riik garantii alusel oleks eeldama pidanud, olid märksa suuremad.
Whereas the legal beneficiary of the two steps guarantee is HDW/Ferrostaal, the extension decision indicates that HSY is the real beneficiary of the whole mechanism.
Samas kui kaheastmelise garantii korral on õiguslikus tähenduses kasusaajaks HDW/Ferrostaal, näidatakse laiendamisotsuses, et kogu mehhanismi tegelikuks kasusaajaks on HSY.
Without such State indemnifying provision, no investor would have been ready to purchase HSY.
Ilma riigi pakutava hüvitiseta ei oleks ükski investor HSYd osta soovinud.
The Greek State explicitly recognised this fact.
Kreeka riik on seda selgesõnaliselt tunnistanud.
Therefore, it is likely that without such a guarantee HSY would have remained unsold and unable to face its financial difficulties, and would have gone bankrupt.
Seetõttu on tõenäoline, et ilma taolise garantiita oleks HSY jäänud müümata ja ei oleks tulnud toime oma rahaliste raskustega ning oleks pankrotistunud.
The extension decision also indicates that such a guarantee seems incompatible per se as it impairs the ‘effet utile’ of any recovery decision.
Samuti osutatakse laiendamisotsuses, et niisugune garantii näib iseenesest kokkusobimatuna, sest see kahjustaks ükskõik milliste tagasinõudmisotsuste „kasulikku mõju”.
Elefsis claims, in accordance with the Commission’s initial assessment, that no private seller would have granted such an unlimited guarantee.
Elefsis väidab kooskõlas komisjoni algse hinnanguga, et ükski erasektori müüja ei oleks niisugust piiramatut garantiid andnud.
As regards the Commission’s claim that no investor would have been ready to purchase the yard without such a provision, Elefsis contests it since Elefsis, who participated in the tender procedure and wanted to buy HSY, did not put that condition in its bid for HSY and was ready to purchase HSY without such a guarantee.
Elefsis vaidlustab komisjoni väite, mille kohaselt ükski investor ei oleks nõustunud ostma HSYd ilma taolise garantiita, sest Elefsis, kes osales pakkumismenetluses ja soovis HSYd osta, ei esitanud oma pakkumises HSY omandamiseks vastavat tingimust ning oli valmis ostma HSYd ilma vastava garantiita.
According to Elefsis, the guarantee was exclusively granted to HDW/Ferrostaal.
Elefsise väitel anti garantii üksnes HDW/Ferrostaalile.
The latter and HSY are therefore the beneficiaries of the guarantee.
Seetõttu on garantii kasusaajateks HDW/Ferrostaal ja HSY.
Piraeus Bank, which commented only on that measure because it is the only one in which it is directly involved, provides several documents showing that ETVA already agreed to grant the indemnifying clause in favour of HDW/Ferrostaal at the time of conclusion of HSY’s SPA in October 2001, at a time when ETVA was still controlled by the State.
Piraeus Bank (esitas märkused vaid selle meetme osas, sest on vaid sellega otseselt seotud) esitas mitu dokumenti, mis kinnitavad, et ETVA nõustus hüvitamiskohustusega HDW/Ferrostaali ees juba HSY SPA sõlmimise ajal 2001. aasta oktoobris, kui ETVA oli alles riigi kontrolli all.
Piraeus Bank produces contracts, documents and press articles illustrating that the privatisation procedure of HSY was managed by the State.
Piraeus Bank esitas lepingud, dokumendid ja ajakirjanduses avaldatud artiklid, mis annavad tunnistust sellest, et HSY erastamismenetlust juhtis riik.
The agreement between the Greek government and Piraeus Bank, dated 20 March 2002, provides that, even though Piraeus Bank became the majority shareholder of ETVA, the privatisation process of HSY would continue to be managed by the State.
märtsi 2002. aasta leping Kreeka valitsuse ja Piraeus Banki vahel näeb ette, et vaatamata enamusosaluse omandamisele ETVAs Piraeus Banki poolt jätkub HSY erastamismenetlus riigi juhtimisel.
Finally, Piraeus Bank shows that in the invitation to tender sent to potential bidders in July 2001, it was already explicitly stipulated that in the event that a recovery is imposed on HSY pursuant to a potential breach of the EU regulations regarding State aid, the highest bidder will not be responsible for the payment of such a recovery.
Lõpuks osutab Piraeus Bank, et 2001. aasta juulis potentsiaalsetele pakkujatele saadetud pakkumiskutses oli selgesõnaliselt sätestatud, et kui HSY suhtes kohaldatakse tagasinõudmist riigiabiga seonduvate ELi õigusaktide võimaliku rikkumise eest, ei ole parima pakkumise tegija tagasinõutava summa tasumise eest vastutav.
TKMS/GNSH indicates that during the negotiations with ETVA for the purchase of HSY, it became clear that HSY had received some financial support from the Greek State.
TKMS/GNSH osutab, et läbirääkimiste käigus ETVAga HSY omandamiseks ilmnes, et HSY oli saanud Kreeka riigilt teatavat rahalist toetust.
However, neither the extent of these measures nor the precise circumstances under which they had been taken was known to the potential buyers.
Samas ei olnud vastavate meetmete ulatus ega nende rakendamise täpsed asjaolud potentsiaalsetele ostjatele teada.
During the bidding process the buyers received very little information on the various measures which are now subject of the present procedure.
Pakkumismenetluse käigus said ostjad väga vähe teavet erinevate meetmete kohta, mis nüüd on antud menetluse objektiks.