natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission will consider that the civil activities accounted for 25 % of the activities of HSY and the military activities for 75 % of the activities.
Eeltoodust lähtuvalt on komisjon seisukohal, et tsiviiltegevus hõlmab 25 % ja sõjaline tegevus 75 % HSY tegevusest.
With regards to the military activities of HSY, the Commission has consistently accepted in earlier decisions that the support provided to them is outside the scope of the State aid rules.
HSY sõjalise tegevuse kontekstis on komisjon tunnistanud varasemates otsustes järjekindlalt, et sõjalisele tegevusele antud toetus jääb riigiabi eeskirjade reguleerimisalast välja.
The Commission repeated that assessment in paragraphs 86 to 90 of the extension decision.
Komisjon kordas seda hinnangut pikendamisotsuse punktides 86–90.
Since the measures which are the subject of the present decision were granted to HSY (i.e. HSY as a whole) during the same period as the period analysed in these earlier decisions, it must be concluded that the part of these measures which has supported the military activities of HSY also fall within the scope of Article 296 of the Treaty and is exempted of State aid rules.
Kuna käesoleva otsuse subjektiks olevaid meetmeid rakendati HSY suhtes (st HSY suhtes tervikuna) sama perioodi jooksul, mida analüüsiti kõnealustes varasemates otsustes, järeldab komisjon, et osa neist meetmetest, mis toetasid HSY sõjalist tegevust, kuuluvad samuti asutamislepingu artikli 296 reguleerimisalasse ja nendele tehakse erand riigiabi eeskirjadest.
When assessing each measure individually, the Commission will establish whether it has exclusively supported the civil activities of HSY or whether it was granted to HSY without being earmarked for a particular use:
Iga meetme individuaalsel hindamisel teeb komisjon kindlaks, kas see toetas eranditult HSY tsiviiltegevust või kas seda rakendati HSY suhtes konkreetset kasutuseesmärki kindlaks määramata.
If only the civil activities were supported, the Commission considers that Article 296 of the Treaty does not apply and the entire measure can be assessed under Article 87 of the Treaty,
Komisjon on seisukohal, et üksnes tsiviiltegevuse toetamise korral ei oleks kohaldatud asutamislepingu artiklit 296 ning kogu meedet oleks saanud hinnata asutamislepingu artikli 87 kohaselt.
If HSY as a whole was supported, the Commission considers that, since 75 % of the activities of the yard is related to military production, 75 % of the State support benefited the military activities and fall under Article 296 of the Treaty.
Komisjon on seisukohal, et kui oleks toetatud ettevõtjat HSY tervikuna, oleks 75 % riigi toetusest läinud sõjalise tegevuse jaoks, sest 75 % laevatehase tegevusest on seotud sõjalise tootmisega ning see kuuluks asutamislepingu artikli 296 reguleerimisalasse.
The remaining 25 % of the State support can be assessed under State aid rules.
Ülejäänud 25 % riigi toetusest saab hinnata riigiabi eeskirjade kohaselt.
THE MEASURES: DESCRIPTION, GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE, COMMENTS RECEIVED, ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION
MEETMED: KIRJELDUS, MENETLUSE ALGATAMISE PÕHJUSED, ESITATUD MÄRKUSED, HINDAMINE JA KOKKUVÕTE
As regards the comments of Greece and of third parties, the Commission observes that they cover a wide range of arguments.
Kreeka ja kolmandate isikute märkuste kontekstis märgib komisjon, et need hõlmavad paljusid argumente.
For instance, in its numerous submissions to the Commission, the complainant Elefsis has claimed that there exist numerous grounds on the basis of which the measures should be considered incompatible aid.
Näiteks väitis kaebuse esitaja Elefsis arvukates märkustes komisjonile, et mitmetel põhjustel tuleks meetmeid pidada kokkusobimatuks abiks.
Similarly, Greece, HSY, and TKMS/GNSH have claimed in their successive submissions to the Commission that there exist numerous grounds on the basis of which the measures could be found compatible with the common market.
Sarnaselt väitsid Kreeka, HSY ja TKMS/GNSH oma järgnevates märkustes komisjonile, et eksisteerib mitmeid põhjuseid, mille alusel saab meetmeid pidada ühisturuga kokkusobivateks.
Pursuant to Article 253 of the Treaty, a Commission decision has to state the reasons on which it is based.
Asutamislepingu artikli 253 kohaselt tuleb komisjoni otsuses esitada põhjused, millele otsus tugineb.
However the Commission is not obliged to answer to each of the arguments raised by the parties.
Siiski ei ole komisjon kohustatud vastama kõigile argumentidele, mille osapooled on tõstatanud.
Consequently, the present decision will explicitly deal only with the major points raised by the parties.
Järelikult käsitletakse käesolevas otsuses selgesõnaliselt üksnes osapoolte tõstatud peamisi probleeme.
In particular, the decision will not deal with some grounds raised by the parties which are clearly irreconcilable with the facts, which are in contradiction with points made by the same party in its other submissions or which can be clearly dismissed on the basis of the facts and assessment presented in the present decision.
Eriti ei käsitleta otsuses mõne osapoole tõstatatud põhjuseid, mis on faktidega selgelt kokkusobimatud, vastuolus sama osapoole teistes märkustes esitatud punktidega või mida saab selgelt tagasi lükata käesolevas otsuses tutvustatud faktide ja hinnangute alusel.
Since the present investigation covers a significant number of measures, it is important to number them in order to facilitate the reading and avoid confusion.
Kuna käesolev uurimine hõlmab suurt hulka meetmeid, on oluline need nummerdada loetavuse lihtsustamiseks ja segaduse vältimiseks.
Therefore, the four measures covered by the opening decision will be numbered P1 to P4.
Seetõttu nummerdatakse algatamisotsusega hõlmatud meetmed numbritega P1–P4.
The twelve measures covered by the extension decision will keep the number attributed to each of them in that decision, but preceded by an E.
Pikendamisotsusega hõlmatud kaksteist meedet on sama numbriga nagu käesolevas otsuses, kuid numbrile eelneb täht E.
Misuse of the investment aid endorsed in 1997 (measure P1)
aastal heakskiidetud investeerimisabi väärkasutus (meede P1)
Such aid may not be granted to ship repair yards unless linked to a restructuring plan which results in a reduction in the overall ship repair capacity’.
Niisugust abi ei tohi anda laevaremonditehastele, kui see ei ole seotud ümberkorralduskavaga, mille tulemusena väheneb asjassepuutuva liikmesriigi üldine laevaremondivõimsus”.
The Decision N 401/97 indicates that a business plan has been set up which aims at restoring the competitiveness of the yard through increased productivity and modernisation.
Otsuses N 401/97 osutatakse sellele, et äriplaan koostati eesmärgiga taastada laevatehase konkurentsivõime tootlikkuse suurendamise ja ajakohastamise abil.
The first pillar of this plan is an important reorganisation and reduction of the workforce.
Kõnealuse äriplaani esimene sammas oli ulatuslik ümberkorraldamine ja tööjõu vähendamine.
In particular, the number of workers will be reduced to 2000 by the end of 1997 and more flexible work methods will be introduced.
Eelkõige vähendatakse 1997. aasta lõpuks töötajate arvu 2000-le ning võetakse kasutusele paindlikumad töömeetodid.
The Decision N 401/97 indicates that most of the workforce reduction had already been implemented at the time of the decision, what will contribute to increase the productivity.
Otsuses N 401/97 osutatakse sellele, et suurem osa tööjõu vähendamise kavast oli ellu viidud juba otsuse tegemise ajal, mis aitab tõsta tootlikkust.
The second pillar of the restructuring plan is an investment programme, which aimed at replacing the old and obsolete equipment with new updated technology.
Ümberkorralduskava teine sammas oli investeerimiskava, mille eesmärk oli asendada vanad ja iganenud seadmed uue ajakohase tehnikaga.
The descriptive part of the decision indicates that this programme will be financed in the following manner: GRD 7,81 billion (EUR 22,9 million) of State aid, GRD 3,13 billion (EUR 9,2 million) by an increase of the share capital, and GRD 4,67 billion (EUR 13,7 million) by bank loans.
Otsuse kirjeldavas osas osutatakse sellele, et kõnealust kava rahastatakse järgmiselt: 7,81 miljardit Kreeka drahmi (22,9 miljonit eurot) riigiabist, 3,13 miljardit Kreeka drahmi (9,2 miljonit eurot) aktsiakapitali suurendamisest ning 4,67 miljardit Kreeka drahmi (13,7 miljonit eurot) pangalaenudest.
The capital increase will be made in the same proportion as the distribution of capital, i.e. 51 % by ETVA and 49 % by the employees of HSY.
Kapitali suurendamine toimub proportsionaalselt kapitaliosade jaotusega, st 51 % ETVA-lt ja 49 % HSY töötajatelt.
The decision further indicates that the bank loans will be raised at normal market conditions without State guarantees.
Lisaks osutatakse otsuses sellele, et pangalaenu antakse tavapäraste turutingimuste kohaselt ilma riigi garantiita.
In its assessment, the Commission notes that according to the restructuring plan, there is no increase in shipbuilding capacity and a decrease in the shiprepair capacity.
Oma hinnangus märgib komisjon, et vastavalt ümberkorralduskavale ei suurene laevaehitusvõimsus ega vähene laevaremondivõimsus.
The Commission also notes that the intensity of the aid (50 %) stays within the regional aid intensity allowed for Greece.
Komisjon märgib samuti, et abi määr (50 %) on kooskõlas Kreeka piirkondliku abimääraga.
The intensity is also justified by the extent of the restructuring involved.
Määr on samuti põhjendatud asjaomase ümberkorraldamise ulatusega.
The Exchange of Letters between Greece and the Commission which has preceded the opening of the procedure has been described in the chapter 1 ‘Procedure’ of the present decision.
Kirjavahetust Kreeka ja komisjoni vahel, mis toimus enne menetluse algatamist, on kirjeldatud käesoleva otsuse 1. peatükis „Menetlus”.
In the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts that the investment aid approved by decision N 401/97 may have been misused.
Algatamisotsuses avaldas komisjon kahtlust, et otsusega N 401/97 heakskiidetud investeerimisabi võidi väärkasutada.
First, the Commission observed that the investment plan was implemented only partially and with important delays.
Esiteks märgib komisjon, et investeerimiskava rakendati üksnes osaliselt ning oluliste viivitustega.
The Greek authorities granted several extensions of the deadline to execute the investment plan after 31 December 1999 without consulting the Commission.
Kreeka ametiasutused pikendasid investeerimiskava rakendamise tähtaega pärast 31. detsember 1999 mitmel korral, konsulteerimata selles küsimuses komisjoniga.
Second, whereas decision N 401/97 indicates that the investment programme will be financed by banks loans raised at normal market conditions without State guarantees, the firm seems to have received loans from a State-owned bank with non market-conform interest rates and it seems that one of the loans was covered by a State guarantee.
Teiseks, arvestades, et otsuses N 401/97 osutatakse, et investeerimiskava rahastatakse tavapärastel turutingimustel antavate pangalaenudega ilma riigi garantiideta, näib, et ettevõte sai laenu riigile kuuluvalt pangalt intressimääraga, mis ei vasta turuväärtustele ja et üks laen oli kaetud riigi garantiiga.
Third, the Greek authorities did not send the yearly reports on the implementation of the plan, as requested by the decision N 401/97.
Kolmandaks ei saatnud Kreeka ametiasutused aastaaruandeid kava rakendamise kohta, nagu see oli ette nähtud otsuses N 401/97.
Due to these three breaches of decision N 401/97, it seems that the investment aid was misused.
Otsuse N 401/97 kolme rikkumise tõttu näib, et investeerimisabi väärkasutati.
Similarly, the privatisation of HSY invoked to justify a delay took place well after the end of 1999 and therefore could not justify HSY’s failure to respect decision N 401/97.
Sarnaselt kasutati HSY erastamist põhjendusena viivitusele, mis toimus pärast 1999. aasta lõppu ja seega ei põhjendanud see HSY suutmatust täita otsust N 401/97.
Finally, Elefsis claims that, since HSY received a loan guaranteed by the State and loans at non arm’s length conditions, it has breached the conditions laid down in decision N 401/97.
Lõpuks väidab Elefsis, et kuna HSY sai laenu riigi garantiiga ja mitteärilistel tingimustel, rikkus ta otsuses N 401/97 sätestatud tingimusi.
Therefore, this additional aid as well as the investment aid should be recovered.
Seega tuleb täiendav abi ning samuti investeerimisabi tagasi maksta.
HSY submitted the same comments as Greece, which are summarised in the next section.
HSY esitas Kreekaga samasugused märkused; need on kokku võetud järgmises peatükis.
Comments from Greece
Kreeka märkused
In their letter of 20 October 2004, the Greek authorities confirm that they initially set the date of 31 December 1999 for the completion of the investment plan.
Kreeka ametiasutused kinnitasid 20. oktoobri 2004. aasta kirjas, et seadsid esialgu investeerimiskava elluviimise tähtajaks 31. detsembri 1999.
On 27 June 2001, the Greek authorities granted a prolongation until 31 December 2001 for the completion of the investment, because the earthquake of 7 September 1999 had caused damages to the yard’s facilities and delayed the execution of the investment plan.
juunil 2001 pikendasid Kreeka ametiasutused investeeringu rakendamistähtaega 31. detsembrini 2001, kuna 7. septembri 1999. aasta maavärin oli kahjustanud laevatehase rajatisi ning lükkas investeerimiskava rakendamist edasi.
By decision of 28 December 2001, the Greek authorities granted a second prolongation until 30 June 2002 because the privatisation process, which started in January 2001 (and was finally completed on 31 May 2002), requested to freeze the investment plan.
Teist korda pikendasid Kreeka ametiasutused oma 28. detsembri 2001. aasta otsusega tähtaega 30. juunini 2002 erastamisprotsessi tõttu, mis algas 2001. aasta jaanuaris (ja viidi lõplikult ellu 31. mail 2002), milleks oli vaja investeerimiskava külmutada.
When the Greek authorities carried out the second control in May 2002, they determined that the expenses incurred by HSY until 31 December 2001 amounted to GRD 9,8 billion (EUR 28,9 million), or 63 % of the total investment costs.
Teise kontrolli läbiviimisel 2002. aasta mais tegid Kreeka ametiasutused kindlaks, et kulud, mis tekkisid HSY-le enne 31. detsembrit 2001, moodustasid 9,8 miljardit Kreeka drahmi (28,9 miljonit eurot) ehk 63 % investeeringu kogukuludest.
On this occasion, the company asked to remove some of the investment expenses certified on the occasion of the second control.
Sel korral palus ettevõte kõrvaldada mõned investeerimiskulud, mis sertifitseeriti teise kontrolli ajal.
These expenses were advance payments concerning investments that the firm had decided to exclude from the investment plan.
Kõnealused kulud olid ettemaksed investeeringuteks, mille firma oli otsustanud investeerimiskavast välja jätta.
Therefore, the total amount certified after the second control was reduced to EUR 23,3 million, or 50,75 % of the total.
Seetõttu vähenes teise kontrolli järel sertifitseeritud kogusumma 23,3 miljonile eurole ehk 50,75 %-le kogukuludest.
The Greek authorities claim that, when granting the extensions, they considered in good faith that they acted within the limits of the approval decision of the Commission and that it concerned an existing aid for which no new notification was necessary.
Kreeka ametiasutused väidavad, et tähtaja pikendamisel arvasid nad heas usus, et tegutsevad komisjoni heakskiitva otsuse raames ning pidasid seda olemasolevaks abiks, mille puhul uus teatamine ei ole vajalik.
They considered that it was unrealistic not to provide for the possibility of a prolongation of an investment plan of such size and such scope, even more for a yard which had no experience with the implementation of such a plan, as acknowledged by the Commission itself in its approval decision.
Nad olid seisukohal, et sellise suuruse ja ulatusega investeerimiskavale pikendamisvõimaluse mittepakkumine on ebarealistlik, eriti laevatehase puhul, kellel puuduvad kogemused sellise kava rakendamiseks, nagu komisjon ise tunnistas oma heakskiitvas otsuses.
It simply aimed to adapt the content of the plan to the new circumstances: the privatisation of the yard, the new contracts of unforeseen nature (submarines), the 1999 earthquake, and the technological progress.
Selle eesmärk oli üksnes kohandada kava sisu uute tingimustega: laevatehase erastamine, uued ettenägematut laadi lepingud (allveelaevad), 1999. aasta maavärin ning tehnoloogia areng.
The Greek authorities also fail to see how the prolongations could affect the substance of the aid and therefore its compatibility.
Kreeka ametiasutused ei näinud samuti, kuidas võiks tähtaja pikendamine mõjutada abi olemust ja seega selle kokkusobivust.
Finally, they claim that the Commission should assess the compatibility of the prolongation of the investment plan on the basis of the point 52 of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (hereafter ‘the 1999 R & R guidelines’).
Lõpuks väidavad nad, et komisjon peaks investeerimiskava pikendamise kokkusobivust hindama ühenduse suuniste, milles käsitletakse raskustes olevate äriühingute päästmiseks ja ümberkorraldamiseks antavat riigiabi, punkti 52 kohaselt (edaspidi „1999. aasta ühenduse suunised”).
Finally, the ‘one time, last time’ principle would not be breached since the aid would take place in the adaptation of an existing restructuring plan.
Lõpuks ei rikutud ühekordse abi (one time, last time) põhimõtet, kuna abi antakse olemasoleva ümberkorralduskava kohandamisel.
Concerning the non-submission of annual reports on the implementation of the investment plan, Greece considers that this fact is not of sufficient importance to prevent the modification of the plan.
Mis puutub aastaaruannete esitamata jätmisse investeerimiskava rakendamise kohta, on Kreeka seisukohal, et see asjaolu ei ole piisavalt tähtis, et takistada kava muutmist.
Article 296 of the Treaty
Asutamislepingu artikkel 296
Before undertaking an assessment of the compatibility under Article 87 and 88 of the Treaty, the applicability of Article 296 Treaty needs to be considered.
Enne kokkusobivuse hindamist asutamislepingu artikli 87 ja 88 kohaselt tuleb kaaluda asutamislepingu artikli 296 kohaldatavust.
In this respect, the Commission observes the following elements.
Sellega seoses teeb komisjon kolm tähelepanekut.
First, the investment aid had been notified by Greece in 1997 in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Esiteks teatas Kreeka 1997. aastal investeerimisabist vastavalt menetlusele, mis on ette nähtud asutamislepingu artikli 88 lõikes 3.
By notifying the aid, Greece acknowledged that the investment plan was mainly related to the civil activities of HSY (i.e. ship repair and ship building), because if the plan had been related to military activities and had been important for national security, Greece could have invoked Article 296 of the Treaty at the time and would not have had to notify this investment aid.
Abist teatamisega tunnistas Kreeka, et investeerimiskava on peamiselt seotud HSY tsiviiltegevusega (st laevaremondi ja laevaehitusega), sest juhul kui kava oleks olnud seotud sõjalise tegevusega ja oluline riigi julgeoleku jaoks, oleks Kreeka saanud kasutada EÜ asutamislepingu artiklit 296 ega oleks pidanud investeerimisabist teatama.
Moreover, Greece did not contest the approval decision in which the Commission assessed the notified aid under the State aid rules.
Lisaks ei vaidlustanud Kreeka heakskiitvat otsust, kus komisjon hindas teatatud abi vastavalt riigiabi eeskirjadele.
Finally, Greece has not invoked Article 296 in its reaction to the opening decision.
Lõpuks ei kasutanud Kreeka artiklit 296 oma märkustes algatamisotsuse kohta.
The prior elements are sufficient to conclude that the investment plan did not affect the security interests of Greece and any aid financing the investment plan can be dealt with under State aid rules laid down in Article 87 and 88 of the Treaty.
Eeltoodud punktid on piisavad järeldamaks, et investeerimiskava ei mõjutanud Kreeka julgeolekut ning mis tahes abi investeerimiskava rahastamiseks saab käsitleda asutamislepingu artiklites 87 ja 88 ette nähtud riigiabi eeskirjade kohaselt.
Existence of a misuse of the aid
Abi väärkasutuse olemasolu
The three doubts raised in the opening decision will be analysed successively.
Algatamisotsuses esitatud kolme kahtlust analüüsitakse järjest.
As regards the breach of the condition that loans have to be raised at market rates and without State guarantees, the Commission considers that this breach affects the compatibility of the latter measures and not the compatibility of the investment aid.
Mis puutub tingimuse rikkumisse, et laenu tuleb anda turuhinnaga ja ilma riigi garantiita, on komisjon seisukohal, et kõnealune rikkumine mõjutab viimaste meetmete kokkusobivust ja mitte investeerimisabi kokkusobivust.
Indeed, the purpose of such a condition is to avoid the granting of additional aid in favour of the investment programme (i.e. to avoid the accumulation of aid above the intensity laid down in the decision N 401/97).
Tõepoolest on sellise tingimuse eesmärk vältida täiendava abi andmist investeerimiskava jaoks (st vältida abi suurenemist üle määra, mis on ette nähtud otsusega N 401/97).
Anyway, as will be explained later in the present decision, the Commission finds on the basis of other legal grounds that the State guarantee granted to HSY constitutes incompatible aid that has to be recovered.
Nagu on selgitatud allpool käesolevas otsuses, leiab komisjon muude õiguslike aluste põhjal, et HSY-le antud riigi garantii kujutab endast kokkusobimatut abi, mis tuleb tagasi maksta.
As regards the loans, the Commission also finds that the aid element has to be recovered.
Laenude suhtes on komisjon samuti seisukohal, et abi element tuleb tagasi maksta.
Since the aid elements will be recovered, the initial situation will be restored and the financing costs of HSY will not be lower than the market rate.
Kuna abi element makstakse tagasi, taastatakse esialgne olukord ja HSY rahastamiskulud ei ole turuhinnast väiksemad.
In other words, by means of these recoveries, the objective of the condition laid down in decision N 401/97 will be fulfilled, namely to avoid the granting of additional aid by means of financing granted to HSY below market price.
Teisisõnu ei ole kõnealuse tagasimaksmise tõttu täidetud tingimuse eesmärk, mis nähti ette otsuses N 401/97 ja milleks oli täiendava abi andmise vältimine rahaliste vahendite abil, mis anti HSY-le alla turuhinna.
The Commission therefore rejects Elefsis’ aforementioned claim that both the aid element in the loans and guarantee and the investment aid endorsed by decision N 401/97 have to be recovered.
Seetõttu lükkab komisjon tagasi ettevõtja Elefsis ülalmainitud väite, et laenude ja garantiide mõlemad abielemendid ning investeerimisabi, mis kiideti heaks otsusega N 401/97, tuleb tagasi maksta.
As regards the absence of yearly reporting raised in the opening decision, the Commission considers that the non-submission of yearly reports does not as such constitute a misuse of the aid.
Algatamisotsuses tõstatatud aastaaruannete mitteesitamise puhul leiab komisjon, et aruannete mitteesitamine ei kujuta endast abi väärkasutust.
Indeed, it does not change the characteristics of the aid, its effect or the characteristics of the investment programme.
Tõepoolest ei muuda see abi olemust, mõju ega investeerimiskava olemust.
However, since Greece has not provided this information in due time and has therefore not informed the Commission about the delays at the moment when they occurred, it has prevented the Commission from adopting a decision on these issues at the appropriate moment.
Kuna Kreeka ei esitanud seda teavet siiski õigeaegselt ning seetõttu ei teavitanud komisjoni viivitustest nende tekkimise hetkel, takistas ta komisjonil kõnealustes küsimustes õigeaegse otsuse vastuvõtmist.