natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With regard to the restructuring of public debt under Chapter 5a, Poland did not put forward any additional arguments.
Seoses riigivõla ümberkorraldamisega peatüki 5a alusel ei esitanud Poola mingeid täiendavaid argumente.
However, in its response to the recipient’s comments, Poland expressed disagreement with the latter’s interpretation of Polish law.
Vastuses abisaaja märkustele ei nõustunud Poola siiski abisaaja tõlgendusega Poola õiguse kohta.
With regard to measures 28-34 of Annex I, part B of the decision, Poland did not rebut the conclusions of the Commission indicated in the decision to open a formal investigation.
Seoses otsuse I lisa B osas sisalduvate meetmetega 28–34 ei lükanud Poola ümber komisjoni järeldusi, millele osutatakse ametliku uurimise algatamise otsuses.
However, Poland put forward a new argument to the effect that statements by representatives of various state authorities within the Shipbuilding Industry Team concerning plans to extend these measures should be considered as official undertakings.
Poola esitas aga uue argumendi seoses sellega, et laevaehitustööstuse töörühmas osalevate eri riigiasutuste esindajate avaldusi nimetatud meetmete laiendamise kohta tuleks käsitleda ametlike kohustustena.
These statements were made prior to accession.
Kõnealused avaldused tehti enne ühinemist.
With regard to measure 32 (capital injection), Poland argued that, in so far as the Treasury had acted at the shareholders’ meetings as the owner of Gdynia Shipyard, this action could not be dissociated from its actions as a public aid awarding authority.
Meetme 32 (kapitalisüst) kohta väitis Poola, et kui riigivarade ministeerium tegutses aktsionäride koosolekul Gdynia laevatehase omanikuna, ei saa seda tegevust eristada tema tegevusest riigiabi andva asutusena.
At the same time Poland recognises that, while actions relating to capital injections belong to the ownership sphere (dominium) and are subject to civil law, when increasing the share capital of companies the Minister (for the Treasury) is obliged to observe additional public-law rules which do not apply to ordinary market players (imperium).
Samal ajal tunnistab Poola, et kuigi kapitalisüstidega seotud tegevus kuulub omandiküsimuse valdkonda (dominium) ja on reguleeritud tsiviilõigusega, peab minister (riigivaraminister) ettevõtjate aktsiakapitali suurendades järgima täiendavaid avaliku õiguse eeskirju, mida tavaliste turuosaliste suhtes ei kohaldata (imperium).
Poland then explained that the 6-month rule (the deadline for registering share subscriptions with the court) was merely a formal requirement which did not have any effect on the point in time at which the shareholder’s obligation to subscribe to the shares came into effect.
Seejärel selgitas Poola, et kuue kuu eeskiri (tähtaeg aktsiate märkimise kohtus registreerimiseks) oli lihtsalt formaalne nõue, mis ei mõjutanud mingil viisil seda ajahetke, mil jõustus aktsionäride kohustus aktsiaid märkida.
As regards the compatibility of the new aid with the common market, Poland stated that the 2004 restructuring plan constituted a sound economic basis for the yard’s restructuring process.
Uue abi kokkusobivuse suhtes ühisturuga väitis Poola, et 2004. aasta ümberkorraldamiskava kujutas endast laevatehase ümberkorraldamisprotsessi kindlat majanduslikku alust.
Poland acknowledged that the restructuring process was carried out with limited financial resources.
Poola tunnistas, et ümberkorraldamisprotsess toimus piiratud rahaliste vahenditega.
The Polish authorities then provided a brief description of the restructuring measures enshrined in the 2004 restructuring plan in order to demonstrate that restructuring was not purely financial in scope.
Seejärel kirjeldasid Poola ametiasutused lühidalt 2004. aasta ümberkorraldamiskavas kehtestatud ümberkorraldamismeetmeid, näitamaks, et ümberkorraldamine ei olnud üksnes rahaline.
They defended the countervailing measures proposed in the 2004 restructuring plan and implemented within the Gdynia Shipyard Group.
Nad kaitsesid 2004. aasta ümberkorraldamiskavas välja pakutud ja Gdynia laevatehase kontsernis rakendatud tasakaalustusmeetmeid.
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, mille kohaselt abi peab piirduma minimaalselt vajalikuga, väitis Poola, et abi ei kasutatud muudel eesmärkidel peale ümberkorraldamise ning et selle osatähtsus, st abi osakaal kõikidest ümberkorraldamiskuludest, sealhulgas tegevuskuludest, oli 31 %.
Poland argued that the re-negotiation of contract prices, together with the cumulated profits and positive cash flow generated by the yard in future, should be regarded as constituting the ‘own contribution’.
Poola väitis, et tehase omapanusena tuleks käsitleda uusi lepinguliste hindade läbirääkimisi koos laevatehase akumuleerunud kasumi ja positiivsete rahavoogudega tulevikus.
The Polish authorities described in detail how the Export Credit Insurance Corporation’s guarantee system operated and argued that these guarantees did not constitute State aid.
Poola ametiasutused kirjeldasid üksikasjalikult ekspordikrediidikindlustuse ühingu garantiisüsteemi toimimist ning väitsid, et need garantiid ei kujuta endast riigiabi.
CHRONOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF DECISIVE EVENTS FOLLOWING THE COMMISSION’S DECISION TO OPEN THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION
KOMISJONI AMETLIKU UURIMISE ALGATAMISE OTSUSELE JÄRGNENUD OTSUSTAVA TÄHTSUSEGA SÜNDMUSTE KRONOLOOGILINE KIRJELDUS
The Commission investigation and the events which occurred in the course of it are summarised below.
Järgnevalt on kokkuvõtvalt kirjeldatud komisjoni uurimist ning selle käigus toimunud sündmusi.
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 on 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.
Vastuseks komisjoni otsusele algatada ametlik uurimine, esitasid Poola ametiasutused 2005. aasta sügisel kahte liiki selgitusi, seades esiteks kahtluse alla komisjoni pädevuse astuda samme seoses meetmetega, mida komisjoni otsuses määratletakse uue abina, ning väites teiseks, et isegi kui kõnealused meetmed kujutasid endast uut abi, olid need ümberkorraldamisabina ühisturuga kokkusobivad.
The reaction of Gdynia Shipyard to the Commission’s decision was of a similar nature.
Gdynia laevatehase vastus komisjoni otsusele oli samalaadne.
Both are described above.
Mõlemat on eespool kirjeldatud.
In support of its argument on the compatibility of the aid, Poland submitted to the Commission Gdynia Shipyard’s 2004 restructuring plan, which was identical to the restructuring plan for which the Commission opened the formal investigation because of doubts as to its credibility and robustness.
Toetamaks oma väidet abi kokkusobivuse kohta esitas Poola komisjonile Gdynia laevatehase 2004. aasta ümberkorraldamiskava, mis oli identne selle ümberkorraldamiskavaga, mille kohta komisjon algatas ametliku uurimise, kuna olid tekkinud kahtlused selle usaldusväärsuse ja tugevuse suhtes.
Nevertheless, the Commission carefully studied the 2004 restructuring plan and sought assistance from an external consultant.
Sellele vaatama uuris komisjon 2004. aasta ümberkorraldamiskava hoolikalt ning palus abi ka 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 jõudis järeldusele, et 2004. aasta ümberkorraldamiskava ei vastanud ühelegi asjaomastes suunistes ette nähtud ümberkorraldamisabi lubamise tingimusele.
At the meeting of 22 February 2006, the Commission explained its main doubts to the Polish authorities.
veebruaril 2006 toimunud kohtumisel selgitas komisjon oma peamisi kahtlusi Poola ametiasutustele.
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 tõi välja 2004. aasta ümberkorraldamiskava peamised nõrkused: väikesed investeeringud, madal kavandatud tootlikkus, suured tootmiskulud (eeskätt üldkulud) ja laevatehase enda kapitalibaasi ebapiisav parandamine.
The aid provided to the yard had to be regarded as operating aid in support of debt restructuring and the yard’s continued operation.
Laevatehasele antud abi tuli käsitleda tegevusabina, millega toetati võlgade ümberkorraldamist ja laevatehase tegevuse jätkamist.
In December 2005, the Commission learned from public sources [16] that Korporacja Polskie Stocznia (hereinafter referred to as KPS), a capital group under public ownership, had been created with the aim of integrating the three major Polish shipyards in Gdynia, Gdańsk and Szczecin under one umbrella (hereinafter referred to as the ‘consolidation plan’).
Detsembris 2005 sai komisjon avalikest allikatest [16] teada, et on loodud riiklik kontsern Korporacja Polskie Stocznia (edaspidi „KPS”) eesmärgiga ühendada Poola kolm suurimat laevatehast Gdynia, Gdańskis ja Szczecinis ühe katusorganisatsiooni alla (edaspidi „liitmiskava”).
The main role of KPS was to finance the shipyards production.
KPSi põhiroll oli laevatehaste tootmise rahastamine.
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 procedure.
Poola ei teavitanud komisjon liitmiskava menetluse üheski etapis, ei enne ega pärast ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsust.
At the same time, the Commission learned from the press about ongoing talks on the sale of the shipyards in Gdynia and Gdańsk to strategic investors and on the separation of the two companies, which until that date had operated as part of the same group.
Samal ajal sai komisjon ajakirjanduse kaudu teada käimasolevatest läbirääkimistest Gdynia ja Gdański laevatehaste müümise kohta strateegilistele investoritele ning kahe ettevõtte eraldamise kohta, mis tolle ajani olid tegutsenud ühe kontserni osadena.
The Commission asked the Polish Government by letter of 13 January 2006 to spell out what its strategy for Gdynia Shipyard actually was.
jaanuari 2006. aasta kirjas palus komisjon Poola valitsusel täpsemalt selgitada Gdynia laevatehasega seotud tegelikku strateegiat.
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 oma 20. veebruari 2006. aasta kirjas, et liitmiskava oli tõepoolest varem eksisteerinud, kuid sellest loobuti, ning peatselt võetakse vastu Poola laevaehitussektori uus ümberkorraldamisstrateegia.
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 was outdated and had to be amended.
veebruaril 2006 toimunud kohtumisel ja oma 13. märtsi 2006. aasta kirjas teatasid Poola ametiasutused komisjonile, et 2004. aasta ümberkorraldamiskava on aegunud ja seda tuleb muuta.
First, Gdańsk Shipyard was to be separated from the Gdynia Shipyard Group as soon as possible.
Esiteks kavatseti Gdański laevatehas võimalikult kiirelt eraldada Gdynia laevatehase kontsernist.
Second, the Government was to allow an injection of private capital into the Gdańsk and Gdynia shipyards with the long-term objective of fully privatising the yards.
Teiseks kavatses valitsus lubada erakapitali süsti Gdański ja Gdynia laevatehasesse ning mõlemad tehased pikemas perspektiivis täielikult erastada.
The General Assembly of Gdynia Shipyard of 19 April 2006 decided on a capital increase of up to PLN 300 million.
aprillil 2006 toimunud Gdynia laevatehase üldkogul otsustati suurendada kapitali kuni 300 miljoni zloti ulatuses.
The management board was mandated to search for investors interested in participating.
Juhatust volitati otsima osalemisest huvitatud investoreid.
Accordingly, the information memorandum of May 2006 was made available as of 10 May 2006 to potential investors, and some 80 such investors were directly approached by Gdynia Shipyard’s privatisation consultant.
Vastavalt sellele tehti alates 10. maist 2006 potentsiaalsetele investoritele kättesaadavaks 2006. aasta mai teabekiri ning ligi 80 sellise investoriga võttis Gdynia erastamiskonsultant otse ühendust.
Gdynia Shipyard received two preliminary offers to participate in the capital increase, from the Ukrainian steelmaker Donbas and the yard’s major customer Ray Car Carriers.
Gdynia laevatehasele esitati kaks esialgset pakkumist kapitali suurendamises osalemiseks, üks Ukraina terasetootjalt Donbas ja teine laevatehase suurkliendilt Ray Car Carriers.
These two companies eventually submitted binding offers on 28 August 2006 which were, however, conditional on debt coverage and cancellation by the seller — the State.
Lõpuks esitasid need kaks ettevõtjat 28. augustil 2006 siduvad pakkumised, mille tingimuseks oli aga võlgade katmine ja kustutamine müüja, st riigi poolt.
According to the timetable announced by Poland (letter of 26 September 2006), the negotiations with the two bidders were to be completed by end-October 2006 and the subscription of new shares was to be finalised by 15 December 2006.
Vastavalt Poola väljakuulutatud ajakavale (26. septembri 2006. aasta kiri) pidid läbirääkimised kahe pakkujaga lõppema 2006. aasta oktoobri lõpuks ning uute aktsiate märkimine pidi lõpule viidama 15. detsembriks 2006.
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 jätkuvale sõltumisele ekspordikrediidikindlustuse ühingu kui riikliku asutuse antud laevaehituse rahastamise garantiidest, hoiatas komisjon laevatehast 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 2-month delay, did not differ substantially from the first draft.
Hoolimata nendest hoiatustest ei erinenud 2006. aasta ümberkorraldamiskava, mille Poola kahekuulise viivitusega lõpuks septembris 2006 esitas, oluliselt esialgsest projektist.
The Commission’s main criticisms of the 2006 restructuring plan are described below.
Järgnevalt kirjeldatakse peamisi punkte, mida komisjon 2006. aasta ümberkorraldamiskavas kritiseeris.
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 did not comply with any of the conditions for the approval of restructuring aid under the current guidelines.
detsembril 2006 toimunud kohtumisel ja 29. jaanuari 2007. aasta kirjas teatas komisjon Poola ametiasutustele, et esialgse kontrolli põhjal ei vasta 2006. aasta ümberkorraldamiskava ühelegi kehtivate suuniste alusel ümberkorraldamisabi lubamist võimaldavale tingimusele.
The Polish authorities announced at that meeting that they intended to re-launch the privatisation of Gdynia Shipyard by way of an open and transparent procedure with a view to attracting a private investor who would take full control over the yard.
Poola ametiasutused teatasid kohtumisel, et nad kavatsevad taaskäivitada Gdynia laevatehase erastamise avatud ja läbipaistva menetluse teel, eesmärgiga leida erainvestor, kes omandaks täieliku kontrolli laevatehase üle.
In May 2007 the Polish Government announced that the negotiations had failed and that the privatisation process would be relaunched.
Mais 2007 teatas Poola valitsus läbirääkimiste luhtumisest ning kavatsetavast erastamisprotsessi taaskäivitamisest.
The Commission also warned Poland that, at that point, the conditions that the yard’s long-term viability had to be restored and restructuring had to be financed at least in part from resources free of State aid did not appear to have been met.
Ühtlasi hoiatas komisjon Poolat, et sel hetkel ei olnud täidetud tingimus rahastada laevatehase pikaajalise elujõulisuse taastamist ja ümberkorraldamist vähemalt osaliselt muudest vahenditest kui riigiabi.
At the same time, following an agreement reached between Commissioner Kroes and Minister Woźniak in December 2006, the Commission was engaged in intensive discussions with the Polish authorities and Gdynia Shipyard with a view to determining the necessary countervailing measures.
Volinik Kroesi ja minister Woźniaki vahel 2006. aasta detsembris saavutatud kokkuleppe alusel osales komisjon samal ajal pingelistes aruteludes Poola ametiasutuste ja Gdynia laevatehasega, et määrata kindlaks vajalikud tasakaalustusmeetmed.
By letter of 28 February 2007 Poland undertook to close the SD I dock in Gdynia Shipyard after outstanding orders had been processed and the necessary investments in the SD II dry dock had been completed, i.e. as of January 2010.
veebruari 2007. aasta kirjas kohustus Poola pärast olemasolevate tellimuste täitmist ning kuivdokki SD II tehtavate vajalike investeeringute lõpuleviimist, st jaanuaris 2010, sulgema Gdynia laevatehase doki SD I.
In order to check whether this proposal constituted a genuine countervailing measure, the Commission asked Gdynia Shipyard to provide it with information on a number of matters.
Kontrollimaks, kas kõnealune ettepanek on tõepoolest tasakaalustusmeede, palus komisjon Gdynia laevatehasel esitada teavet rea küsimuste kohta.
Eventually the Commission informed Poland by letter of 31 July 2007 that it was prepared, on a preliminary basis, to consider the closure of dry dock SD I as a sufficient countervailing measure on condition that the closure entailed scrapping the facility in such a way as to irreversibly disable ship assembly and launching activities and that closure was implemented as of 1 September 2009, or earlier if vessel 8185/04, the last one on the yard’s order book as at 8 March 2007, were launched prior to that date.
Lõpuks teatas komisjon 31. juuli 2007. aasta kirjas Poolale, et on ajutiselt valmis käsitlema kuivdoki SD I sulgemist piisava tasakaalustusmeetmena tingimusel, et sulgemisega kaasneb rajatise lammutamine viisil, mis teeb seal laevade monteerimise ja veeskamise jäädavalt võimatuks, ning et dokk suletakse 1. septembrist 2009 või varem, juhul kui laevatehase viimane tellimus 8. märtsi 2007. aasta seisuga ehk laev 8185/04 veesatakse enne seda kuupäeva.
In addition, in 2009, dock SD I could only be used to assemble the two vessels currently scheduled for assembly on that dock in 2009 and which could not be transferred to dock SD II (LPG carriers 8185/03 and 8185/04).
Lisaks tohtis dokki SD I 2009. aastal kasutada ainult nende kahe laeva monteerimiseks, mille monteerimine seal tol hetkel ette nähtud oli ning mida ei olnud võimalik dokki SD II üle viia (vedelgaasitankerid 8185/03 ja 8185/04).
The basis for the Commission’s conclusion is described below.
Komisjoni järelduste alused on kirjeldatud järgnevalt.
An information memorandum was prepared, dated 4 July 2007. It was made available to potential investors as of 10 July 2007, i.e. on the date of publication in the international and Polish press of the invitation to tender.
juuli 2007. aasta kuupäevaga koostati teabekiri, mis tehti potentsiaalsetele investoritele kättesaadavaks alates 10. juulist 2007, st kuupäevast, mil nii Poola kui ka rahvusvahelises ajakirjanduses avaldati pakkumiskutse.
As described in the procedure above, the Commission transmitted comments on the information memorandum of which Poland took due account.
Nagu eelkäsitletud menetluse raames kirjeldatud, edastas komisjon oma märkused teabekirja kohta ning Poola võttis need nõuetekohaselt arvesse.
Noting further delays in the privatisation process, the Commission urged Poland by letter of 3 October 2007 to complete privatisation without delay.
Täheldades järjekordseid viivitusi erastamisprotsessis, õhutas komisjon Poolat 3.oktoobri 2007. aasta kirjas erastamist viivitamata lõpule viima.
The Commission reiterated its concerns with regard to the delays by letter dated 30 November 2008 and indicated that it expected the new owner of Gdynia Shipyard to submit the first draft of a new restructuring plan by end-February 2008.
Komisjon kordas oma 30. novembri 2007. aasta kirjas muret seoses viivitustega ning viitas sellele, et ootab Gdynia laevatehase uuelt omanikult 2008. aasta veebruari lõpuks uue ümberkorraldamiskava algprojekti esitamist.
This request was subsequently repeated by the Commission on numerous occasions.
Seda palvet kordas komisjon veel mitmel korral.
The Commission frequently insisted on strict adherence to the privatisation schedule, stating that there did not appear to be any justification for Poland to restart the privatisation process.
Komisjon nõudis korduvalt erastamise ajakava ranget järgimist väites, et Poolal ei ole mingit õigustust erastamisprotsessi taaskäivitada.
Poland informed the Commission that 11 companies had asked for Gdynia Shipyard’s information memorandum and that four companies had submitted initial offers by the deadline of 1 October 2007.
Poola teatas komisjonile, et Gdynia laevatehast käsitlevat teabekirja oli küsinud 11 ettevõtjat ning määratud tähtpäevaks, 1. oktoobriks 2007 oli esialgse pakkumise esitanud neli ettevõtjat.
The four companies were accepted for a due diligence examination.
Nendel neljal ettevõttel võimaldati läbi viia laevatehase olukorra ostueelne analüüs.
Eventually, three binding offers were submitted by the deadline of 20 December 2007.
Määratud tähtpäevaks, 20. detsembriks 2007 esitati kolm siduvat pakkumist.
At end-January 2008, Poland decided to enter into negotiations with two of these investors.
aasta jaanuari lõpuks otsustas Poola alustada läbirääkimisi kahega nimetatud investoritest.
In mid-February 2008, Poland announced that the privatisation process of Gdynia Shipyard would be completed by summer 2008, i.e. 1 year later than initially promised by Poland in January 2007.
aasta veebruari keskel teatas Poola, et Gdynia laevatehase erastamisprotsess jõuab lõpule 2008. aasta suveks, st aasta hiljem, kui Poola oli jaanuaris 2007 algselt lubanud.
As of 20 March 2008, one of these investors, Amber Sp. z o.o.
Alates 20. märtsist 2008 anti ühele kõnealustest investoritest, terasekaubandusega tegeleva Poola ettevõtte Złomrex tütarettevõttele Amber Sp. z o.o.
(hereinafter Amber), a subsidiary of Złomrex, a Polish steel trading company, was granted exclusive negotiating rights, which were subsequently extended several times, finally ending on 12 May 2008.
(edaspidi „Amber”) ainuõigus läbirääkimisi pidada, mida järgnevalt mitmel korral pikendati ja mis lõppes 12. mail 2008.
Poland forwarded a draft restructuring plan for Gdynia Shipyard prepared by Amber to the Commission on 29 February 2008 [17].
veebruaril 2008 edastas Poola komisjonile Amberi koostatud Gdynia laevatehase ümberkorraldamiskava projekti [17].
Amber submitted updated financial projections by email dated 9 April 2008.
aprilli 2008. aasta e-kirjas esitas Amber ajakohastatud finantsprognoosid.
The Commission provided verbal comments on this draft at a meeting with representatives of the Polish authorities, Amber and Gdynia Shipyard held in Warsaw on 10 April 2008, and written comments by letter of 21 April 2008.
Komisjon esitas selle projekti kohta märkusi Poola ametiasutuste, Amberi ja Gdynia laevatehase esindajatega 10. aprillil 2008 Varssavis toimunud kohtumisel suuliselt ning kirjalikult oma 21. aprilli 2008. aasta kirjas.
At a meeting with the Polish authorities on 12 May 2008, Amber announced that it had withdrawn from the privatisation process of Gdynia Shipyard.
mail 2008 toimunud kohtumisel Poola ametiasutustega teatas Amber, et on Gdynia laevatehase erastamisprotsessis osalemisest loobunud.