natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission also noted that notification had been given of measures 24 and 25 of part B of Annex II to the Decision (cancellation of debt and capital injection) as alternatives in the light of Gdynia Shipyard’s being unable to realise the planned capital injection in Gdańsk Shipyard; hence it was clear that these measures had not been granted before accession and that they constituted planned new aid.
Komisjon märkis ka, et otsuse II lisa B osa 24. ja 25. meetmest (võla kustutamine ja kapitalisüst) oli teatatud kui alternatiividest, juhuks kui Gdynia laevatehas ei suuda teha kavandatud kapitalisüsti Gdański laevatehasesse; seetõttu oli selge, et kõnealuseid meetmeid ei võetud enne ühinemist ja nende puhul oli tegemist kavandatud uue abiga.
Furthermore, the Commission noted that Gdynia Shipyard Group had been benefitting from production guarantees provided by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation, the Polish export credit agency.
Peale selle märkis komisjon, et Gdynia laevatehase kontsern oli kasutanud Poola Ekspordikrediidiagentuuri täitmisgarantiisid.
The Commission raised doubts as to the commercial nature of these guarantees since they had been issued within the framework of the Export Credit Insurance Corporation’s non-commercial activities (with Treasury guarantees).
Komisjon väljendas kahtlust nende garantiide kaubandusliku iseloomu suhtes, sest garantiid olid antud Ekspordikrediidiagentuuri mittekaubandusliku tegevuse raames (riigikassa garantiidega).
Considering that the group was in financial difficulties, the Commission doubted whether the premiums charged properly reflected the risk involved and whether the collateral required by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation was sufficient.
Arvestades, et kontsern oli rahalistes raskustes, kahtles komisjon, kas garantiitasud peegeldasid võetavat riski nõuetekohaselt ja kas Ekspordikrediidiagentuuri nõutud tagatis oli piisav.
Having found that a number of measures for Gdańsk Shipyard constituted new aid, the Commission expressed doubts that any of the conditions for the aid to be approved as restructuring aid had been met.
Olles leidnud, et Gdański laevatehase suhtes võetud mitme meetme puhul oli tegemist uue abiga, väljendas komisjon kahtlust, kas oli täidetud ükski tingimus, mille alusel abi saaks heaks kiita ümberkorraldusabina.
Comments by Gdynia Shipyard Group
Gdynia laevatehase kontserni märkused
The Commission notes that Gdańsk Shipyard itself did not submit comments on the decision to open the formal investigation.
Komisjon märgib, et Gdański laevatehas ise ei esitanud ametliku uurimise algatamise otsuse kohta märkusi.
However the comments submitted by its parent company also addressed the Commission’s conclusions on its competence in respect of the measures listed in part B of Annex II to the decision and in respect of the Commission’s doubts on the compatibility of this aid.
Tema emaettevõtja esitatud märkustes käsitleti aga ka komisjoni järeldusi tema pädevuse kohta seoses otsuse II lisa B osas loetletud meetmetega ja seoses komisjon kahtlustega abi ühisturuga kokkusobivuses.
With regard to the restructuring of public debt under the Chapter 5a procedure, Gdynia Shipyard Group argued that the aid had been awarded by the restructuring decision issued by the Chairman of the IDA.
Seoses avalik-õigusliku võlgnevuse ümberkorraldamisega peatüki 5a kohase menetluse raames väitis Gdynia laevatehase kontsern, et abi anti IDA esimehe ümberkorraldusotsusega.
Gdynia Shipyard Group maintained, however, as did Poland in the initial phase of the Commission’s investigation, that the decision concerning Gdańsk Shipyard had been adopted by the Chairman of the IDA prior to accession, on 30 April 2004.
Gdynia laevatehas jäi aga samale seisukohale mis Poola komisjoni uurimise algusetapis, et otsuse Gdański laevatehase kohta tegi IDA esimees 30. aprillil 2004 enne ühinemist.
Gdynia Shipyard Group argued that it was the agreement of all the individual public creditors to the restructuring under the Chapter 5a procedure which constituted the award of the aid, prior to accession [9].
Gdynia laevatehas väitis, et abi aluseks oli kõikide avalik-õiguslike võlausaldajate enne ühinemist antud nõusolek ümberkorraldamisega peatüki 5a kohase menetluse teel [9].
Contrary to what Poland stated in the first phase of the Commission’s investigation, Gdynia Shipyard Group argued that no default interest had accrued after 30 June 2003 on the public-law debts restructured under Chapter 5a.
Vastupidiselt sellele, mida väitis Poola komisjoni uurimise esimeses etapis, väitis Gdynia laevatehase kontsern, et pärast 30. juunit 2003 ei ole peatüki 5a kohaselt ümberkorraldatud avalik-õiguslikult võlgnevusele viivist lisandunud.
Gdynia Shipyard Group also commented on other aspects of the decision.
Gdynia laevatehase kontsern esitas märkusi ka otsuse muude aspektide kohta.
In particular, it stated that the production guarantees provided to the yard by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation did not constitute State aid.
Eelkõige väitis kontsern, et tehasele Ekspordikrediidiagentuuri poolt antud täitmisgarantiid ei kujutanud endast riigiabi.
Gdynia Shipyard Group argued that the Export Credit Insurance Corporation guarantee scheme was a self-financing system in which, over the long-term, the premiums collected exceeded the risks covered and the amounts actually paid out.
Gdynia laevatehase kontsern väitis, et Ekspordikrediidiagentuuri garantiikava oli isefinantseeriv süsteem, milles kogutud preemiad pikas perspektiivis ületasid kaetavaid riske ja tegelikult väljamakstud summasid.
Gdynia Shipyard Group described the conditions in which the Export Credit Insurance Corporation issues these guarantees (premiums and type of collateral required).
Gdynia laevatehase kontsern kirjeldas tingimusi, millest lähtuvalt Ekspordikrediidiagentuur kõnealuseid garantiisid annab (preemiad ja nõutav tagatise liik).
With regard to the requirement that aid be limited to the minimum necessary, the recipient argued that the amount of the aid had been limited to the strict minimum, and that it would be justified to award more aid, if available.
Seoses nõudega, et abi peab piirduma vajaliku miinimumiga, väitis abisaaja, et abi summa piirdus rangelt miinimumiga ning et võimaluse korral oleks põhjendatud täiendav abi.
Gdynia Shipyard Group also suggested that even if the Commission defined the restructuring costs narrowly (i.e. as not including the running costs of the yard), the financing component of these costs free of State aid would still be of the order of 30 %, thus satisfying the 1999 Restructuring Guidelines [10].
Gdynia laevatehase kontsern arvas ka, et isegi kui komisjon määratleb ümberkorralduskulusid kitsalt (s.o jättes välja tehase jooksvad kulud), oleks nende kulude rahastamisosa ilma riigiabita olnud ikkagi suurusjärgus 30 %, mis vastab 1999. aasta ümberkorraldamissuunistele [10].
Gdynia Shipyard Group also argued that the State aid to the group did not distort competition in Europe, claiming that the real competitive threat to European shipyards came from the Far East.
Gdynia laevatehase kontsern väitis ka, et kontsernile antud riigiabi ei moonutanud Euroopas konkurentsi ja et tegelik konkurentsioht Euroopa laevatehastele tuleb Kaug-Idast.
The recipient acknowledged that container vessels were also built in other European shipyards, particularly in Germany, but claimed that these vessels differed in terms of design and technical specifications.
Abisaaja tunnistas, et konteinerlaevu ehitatakse ka teistes Euroopa laevatehastes, eelkõige Saksamaal, kuid väitis, et need laevad on teistsuguse ehituse ja tehniliste spetsifikatsioonidega.
Comments by other interested parties
Muude huvitatud isikute märkused
Denmark and Danish Maritime supported the Commission’s efforts to ensure that State aid was granted in line with the applicable rules.
Taani ja Danish Maritime toetasid komisjoni jõupingutusi tagada abi andmine kooskõlas kehtivate eeskirjadega.
They pointed out that, as a result of the competitive situation in the world shipbuilding market, a number of Danish shipyards had closed or faced bankruptcy without any State aid being provided.
Nad juhtisid tähelepanu asjaolule, et maailma laevaehitusturu konkurentsiolukorra tõttu oli mitu Taani laevatehast tegevuse lõpetanud või pankrotiohtu sattunud ning neile ei antud mingisugust riigiabi.
They also confirmed that the product range of the Danish yards was similar to that of the Polish yards, with the result that the Danish yards could be affected by unfair competition.
Nad kinnitasid ka, et Taani tehased sarnanesid tootevaliku poolest Poola tehastega ning seetõttu võib ebaaus konkurents Taani tehaseid mõjutada.
Denmark also urged the Commission to require a reduction in capacity at Gdańsk Shipyard so that State aid was not used to increase overcapacity worldwide.
Taani ärgitas komisjoni nõudma ka Gdański laevatehase tootmisvõimsuse vähendamist, et riigiabi ei kasutataks liigse tootmisvõimsuse suurendamiseks maailmas.
Ray Car Carriers, as the largest customer of Gdynia Shipyard Group and a minority shareholder of the parent company of Gdańsk Shipyard, stressed the importance of the group to its own operations in view of its ongoing contracts with the yard.
Gdynia laevatehase kontserni suurim klient ja Gdański laevatehase emaettevõtja väikeaktsionär Ray Car Carriers rõhutas kontserni tähtsust oma tegevuse seisukohalt, arvestades kehtivaid lepinguid tehasega.
The Solidarity trade union highlighted the declining situation at the yard, arguing that speedy restructuring was needed.
Ametiühing Solidarność tõstis esile tehase halvenevat olukorda ja väitis, et vaja on kiiret ümberkorraldust.
The union described some of the restructuring measures already undertaken at the yard and expressed the belief that, with the technology and workforce available to it, it would join the ranks of the profitable European shipyards.
Ametiühing kirjeldas teatavaid tehases juba võetud ümberkorraldusmeetmeid ja väljendas veendumust, et tehase käsutuses olevat tehnoloogiat ja tööjõudu arvestades saab sellest kasumlik Euroopa laevatehas.
State aid was therefore necessary to implement the restructuring plan.
Seega oli riigiabi vajalik ümberkorralduskava rakendamiseks.
The Polish shipbuilding association Forum Okrętowe explained the reasons for the yard’s difficulties and expressed its support for the restructuring process and for the use of State aid to that end.
Poola laevaehitusühing Forum Okrętowe selgitas tehase raskuste põhjusi ning väljendas oma toetust ümberkorraldusprotsessile ja riigiabi kasutamisele sel otstarbel.
Like the Gdynia Shipyard Group, Poland commented on aspects relating to both the Commission’s competence and the compatibility of the aid with the common market.
Sarnaselt Gdynia laevatehasega esitas Poola märkusi nii komisjoni pädevusega kui ka abi ühisturuga kokkusobivusega seotud aspektide kohta.
With regard to the restructuring of public debt under Chapter 5a, Poland did not put forward any additional arguments.
Poola ei esitanud täiendavaid argumente seoses avalik-õigusliku võla ümberkorraldamisega peatüki 5a kohaselt.
However, in its response to the Gdynia Shipyard Group’s comments, Poland expressed disagreement with the latter’s interpretation of Polish law.
Vastuses Gdynia laevatehase kontserni märkustele ei nõustunud Poola aga kontsernipoolse tõlgendusega Poola seadusest.
With regard to the measures indicated in part B of Annex II to the decision, Poland did not rebut the conclusions of the Commission as indicated in the decision to open a formal investigation.
Seoses otsuse II lisa B osas loetletud meetmetega ei esitanud Poola vastuväiteid ametliku uurimise algatamise otsuses tehtud komisjoni järeldustele.
As regards the compatibility of the new aid with the common market, Poland stated that the March 2004 restructuring plan constituted a sound economic basis for the yard’s restructuring process.
Seoses uue abi ühisturuga kokkusobivusega väitis Poola, et 2004. aasta märtsi ümberkorralduskava pani tehase ümberkorraldusprotsessile tugeva majandusliku aluse.
While Poland acknowledged that the restructuring process had been carried out with limited financial resources, it argued that it had already improved the yard’s financial situation.
Poola tunnistas, et ümberkorraldusprotsess toimus piiratud rahaliste vahenditega, kuid väitis, et see on tehase finantsolukorda juba parandanud.
In addition, the Polish authorities provided a brief description of the restructuring measures enshrined in the March 2004 restructuring plan in order to demonstrate that restructuring was not purely financial in scope.
Peale selle esitasid Poola ametiasutused 2004. aasta ümberkorralduskavaga ettenähtud ümberkorraldusmeetmete lühikirjelduse, et näidata, et ümberkorralduse rakendusala ei olnud puhtalt rahaline.
They defended the compensatory measures proposed in the March 2004 restructuring plan and implemented within Gdynia Shipyard Group.
Poola ametiasutused kaitsesid 2004. aasta märtsi ümberkorralduskavas kavandatud ja Gdynia laevatehase kontsernis rakendatud kompensatsioonimeetmeid.
With regard to the requirement that aid be limited to the minimum necessary, Poland stated that the aid was not used for purposes other than restructuring and claimed that the aid intensity amounted to 31 %, i.e. aid as a percentage of the total restructuring costs, including operating costs.
Seoses nõudega, et abi peab piirduma vajaliku miinimumiga, väitis Poola, et abi ei kasutatud muuks kui ümberkorraldamiseks ja et abi osatähtsus ulatus 31 % ümberkorralduse kogukuludest, sh tegevuskulud.
Poland argued that the planned capital injection from Gdynia Shipyard to Gdańsk shipyard, re-negotiation of contract prices and the cumulated profits and positive cash flow generated by the yard in future should be regarded as constituting an ‘own contribution’.
Poola väitis, et Gdynia laevatehase kavandatud kapitalisüsti Gdański laevatehasele, lepinguhindade uut läbirääkimist ning tehase tulevast kumulatiivset kasumit ja positiivne rahavoogu tuleks käsitleda „omaosalusena”.
The Polish authorities described in detail how the Export Credit Insurance Corporation’s guarantee system operated and argued that these guarantees had been provided on market terms and thus did not constitute State aid.
Poola ametiasutused kirjeldasid üksikasjalikult Ekspordikrediidiagentuuri garantiisüsteemi toimimist ja väitsid, et kõnealused garantiid anti turutingimustel ning need ei olnud riigiabi.
Chronological description of decisive events following the Commission’s decision to open the formal investigation
Komisjoni ametliku uurimise algatamise otsusele järgnenud sündmuste kronoloogiline kirjeldus
The Commission investigation and the events which occurred in the course of it are summarised below.
Allpool on kokkuvõte komisjoni uurimisest ja selle käigus toimunud sündmustest.
In reply to the Commission’s decision to open the formal investigation, the Polish authorities submitted explanations of two types in autumn 2005: first, questioning the competence of the Commission to act in respect of the measures identified as new aid in its decision, and, second, arguing that even if these measures constituted new aid, they were compatible with the common market as restructuring aid.
Vastuses komisjoni ametliku uurimise algatamise otsusele esitasid Poola ametiasutused 2005. aasta sügisel kaht liiki selgitusi: esiteks seati kahtluse alla komisjoni pädevus astuda samme tema otsuses uue abina käsitletud meetmete suhtes ja teiseks väideti, et isegi kui uute meetmete puhul oli tegemist uue abiga, sobisid need ühisturuga kokku ümberkorraldusabina.
The reaction of Gdynia Shipyard Group to the Commission’s decision was of a similar nature.
Gdynia laevatehase kontserni reaktsioon komisjoni otsusele oli samalaadne.
Both are described above.
Mõlemaid on kirjeldatud eespool.
In support of its argument on the compatibility of the aid, Poland referred to the 2004 restructuring plan for Gdańsk Shipyard submitted to the Commission in October 2004 with regard to which the Commission opened the formal investigation because of doubts as to its credibility and robustness.
Et toetada oma väidet abi ühisturuga kokkusobivuse kohta, viitas Poola Gdański laevatehase 2004. aasta ümberkorralduskavale, mis esitati komisjonile 2004. aasta oktoobris ja mille suhtes komisjon algatas ametliku uurimise, sest ta kahtles kava usaldusväärsuses ja tugevuses.
Nevertheless, the Commission carefully studied the 2004 restructuring plan and sought assistance from an external consultant.
Siiski uuris komisjon 2004. aasta ümberkorralduskava hoolikalt ja palus abi väliskonsultandilt.
The Commission concluded that the 2004 restructuring plan did not fulfil any of the conditions for the approval of restructuring aid prescribed by the relevant guidelines.
Komisjon järeldas, et 2004. aasta ümberkorralduskava ei vastanud mitte ühelegi tingimusele, mis olid asjaomaste suunistega ette nähtud ümberkorralduskava heakskiitmiseks.
At a meeting on 22 February 2006 the Commission explained its main concerns to the Polish authorities.
veebruari 2006. aasta kohtumisel selgitas komisjon oma peamisi muresid Poola ametasutustele.
The Commission highlighted the main weaknesses of the 2004 restructuring plan: low investments, low planned productivity, high production costs, in particular overheads, and insufficient strengthening of the yard’s own capital base.
Komisjon tõstis esile 2004. aasta ümberkorralduskava peamised nõrgad küljed: väikesed investeeringud, väike kavandatav tootlikkus, suured tootmiskulud, eriti üldkulud, ja tehase oma kapitalibaasi ebapiisav tugevdamine.
The aid provided to the yard had to be regarded as operating aid in support of debt restructuring and the yard’s continued operation.
Tehasele antud abi tuli käsitleda võlgade ümberkorraldamiseks ja tehase tegevuse jätkamiseks antud tegevusabina.
In December 2005 the Commission learned from public sources [11] that Korporacja Polskie Stocznia (‘KPS’), a capital group under public ownership, had been created with the aim of integrating the three largest Polish shipyards in Gdynia, Gdańsk and Szczecin under one umbrella (‘the consolidation plan’).
aasta detsembris sai komisjon avalikest allikatest [11] teada, et loodud oli avalik-õiguslik kapitalikontsern Korporacja Polskie Stocznia (edaspidi „KPS”), mille eesmärk oli koondada kolm Poola suurimat laevatehast (Gdynias, Gdańskis ja Szczecinis) ühe katusorganisatsiooni alla (edaspidi „konsolideerimiskava”).
The main role of KPS was to finance the shipyards’ production.
KPSi põhiülesanne oli rahastada laevatehaste tootmistegevust.
Poland did not inform the Commission about the consolidation plan at any stage of the procedure, either prior to or after the decision to open the formal investigation.
Poola ei olnud komisjoni konsolideerimiskavast teavitanud üheski menetlusetapis, ei enne ega pärast ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsuse vastuvõtmist.
Poland explained by letter of 20 February 2006 that a consolidation plan had indeed been envisaged previously but that it had been discarded and a new restructuring strategy for the Polish shipbuilding sector would be adopted shortly.
Poola selgitas 20. veebruari 2006. aasta kirjaga, et konsolideerimiskava oli varem tõesti koostatud, kuid sellest loobuti ja peagi võetakse vastu Poola laevaehitussektori uus ümberkorraldusstrateegia.
At the meeting of 22 February 2006 and by letter of 13 March 2006 the Polish authorities informed the Commission that the 2004 restructuring plan for Gdańsk Shipyard was outdated and had to be amended.
veebruari 2006. aasta kohtumisel ja 13. märtsi 2006. aasta kirjaga teatasid Poola ametiasutused komisjonile, et Gdański laevatehase 2004. aasta ümberkorralduskava on iganenud ja seda tuleb muuta.
First, Gdańsk Shipyard was to be separated from Gdynia Shipyard Group as soon as possible.
Esiteks kavatseti Gdański laevatehas Gdynia laevatehasest võimalikult kiiresti eraldada.
Second, the Government was to allow an injection of private capital into Gdańsk Shipyard with the long-term objective of fully privatising the yard.
Teiseks kavatses valitsus lubada erakapitalisüsti Gdański laevatehasesse eesmärgiga tehas pikas perspektiivis täielikult erastada.
The Commission noted that the restructuring strategy did not seem to be based on a thorough analysis of the profitability of the different activities of the yard in the past, but instead assumed considerable expansion in shipbuilding activity, that there was no real prospect of financing restructuring from resources free of State aid and, lastly, that in view of its expansionist nature, the plan clearly failed to comply with the compensatory measures requirement.
Komisjon märkis, et ümberkorraldusstrateegia ei näi tuginevat tehase eri tegevusalade varasema kasumlikkuse põhjalikul analüüsil, vaid sellega kavatsetakse hoopis laevaehitustegevuse märkimisväärset laiendamist, et ümberkorraldust ei saa reaalselt rahastada ilma riigiabita ja et laiendamisele suunatud kava ilmselgelt ei vasta kompenseerimismeetmete nõudele.
Referring to continuous reliance on ship financing guarantees provided by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation, a government agency, the Commission warned the yard and the Polish authorities that these guarantees constituted State aid.
Viidates pidevale tuginemisele Ekspordikrediidiagentuuri kui riigiasutuse antud laevade rahastamise garantiidele, hoiatas komisjon tehast ja Poola ametiasutusi, et kõnealused garantiid kujutavad endast riigiabi.
Despite these warnings, the 2006 restructuring plan eventually submitted by Poland in September 2006, with a two-month delay, did not differ substantially from the first draft.
Nendele hoiatustele vaatamata ei erinenud 2006. aasta ümberkorralduskava, mille Poola viimaks kahekuulise hilinemisega 2006. aasta septembris esitas, esimeses projektist oluliselt.
In August 2006, the majority of shares in Gdańsk Shipyard were taken over by the ARP and its subsidiary Centrala Zaopatrzenia Hutnictwa by way of a debt-for-equity transaction (Gdynia Shipyard’s shares in Gdańsk Shipyard served as collateral for a loan awarded by the ARP to Gdynia Shipyard, part of which became payable in June 2006).
aasta augustis oli Gdański laevatehase aktsiate enamuse võlgnevuse osaluse vastu vahetamise tehingu teel omandanud ARP ja selle tütarettevõtja Centrala Zaopatrzenia Hutnictwa (Gdynia laevatehasele kuuluvad Gdański laevatehase aktsiad olid tagatiseks laenule, mille ARP andis Gdynia laevatehasele ja millest osa kuulus 2006. aasta juunis tagasimaksmisele).
As a result Gdańsk Shipyard was separated from Gdynia Shipyard Group.
Selle tulemusena eraldati Gdański laevatehas Gdynia laevatehase kontsernist.
At a meeting on 7 December 2006 and by letter of 29 January 2007 the Commission indicated to the Polish authorities that a preliminary examination had concluded that the 2006 restructuring plan for Gdańsk Shipyard did not comply with any of the conditions for the approval of restructuring aid under the current guidelines.
Komisjon teatas Poola ametiasutustele 7. detsembri 2006. aasta kohtumisel ja 29. jaanuari 2007. aasta kirjaga, et esialgse uurimise järelduse kohaselt ei vasta Gdański laevatehase 2006. aasta ümberkorralduskava kehtivate eeskirjade alusel mitte ühelegi ümberkorraldusabi heakskiitmise tingimusele.
The Polish authorities announced at that meeting that they intended to privatise Gdańsk Shipyard.
Poola ametiasutused teatasid kohtumisel, et nad kavatsesid Gdański laevatehase erastada.
In the following months the management of Gdańsk Shipyard conducted talks with various potential investors with a view to finding a strategic investor for the yard who would acquire newly issued shares in the company, thus providing the funds necessary for the restructuring process and taking control of the company.
Järgnenud kuudel pidas Gdański laevatehase juhtkond läbirääkimisi mitme võimaliku investoriga, et leida tehasele strateegiline investor, kes omandaks äriühingu äsja emiteeritud aktsiad ja tagaks sel moel ümberkorraldusprotsessiks vajaliku raha ja saaks äriühingu üle kontrolli.