natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The granting of loans to third parties is by itself an economic activity.
Dodjeljivanje kredita trećim osobama samo po sebi čini gospodarsku djelatnost.
Therefore, when the various measures forming Measure 4 were granted to EEL GmbH, the latter was engaged in an economic activity.
Prema tome, kada su razne mjere koje čine mjeru 4. dodijeljene društvu EEL GmbH, ono je obavljalo neku gospodarsku djelatnost.
With reference to Article 101 TFEU, the concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed.
U skladu s člankom 101. UFEU-a, koncept poduzetnika obuhvaća svaki subjekt koji se bavi gospodarskom djelatnosti, bez obzira na pravni status i na način na koji se financira.
EEL GmbH is only acting as a vehicle of public authorities, and does not, as such, carry economic activities: its only purpose is to pool the resources of two public authorities in view to financing the development of the airports.
Društvo EEL GmbH djeluje samo kao sredstvo javnih tijela i kao takvo ne bavi se gospodarskim djelatnostima: njegova jedina svrha je prikupljati sredstva dva javna tijela s ciljem financiranja razvoja zračnih luka.
As the cumulative criteria pursuant to Article 107(1) of the TFEU are not fulfilled, the Commission considers that Measure 4 does not contain any State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
S obzirom da kumulativni kriteriji u skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 1. UFEU-a nisu ispunjeni, Komisija smatra da mjera 4. ne sadržava državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. UFEU-a.
Even if EEL GmbH had to be regarded as an undertaking subject to the EU competition law throughout the period during which the measures forming Measure 4 were granted (which is not), the Commission assessment would lead to the same conclusion that Measure 4 does not constitute State aid as demonstrated in the sections below.
Čak i kada bi se društvo EEL GmbH moralo smatrati poduzetnikom na kojeg se primjenjuju zakoni EU-a o tržišnom natjecanju tijekom razdoblja u kojem su dodijeljene mjere koje čine mjeru 4. (što nije slučaj), ocjena Komisije imala bi isti zaključak da mjera 4. ne čini državnu potporu kako je objašnjeno u odjeljcima u nastavku.
EEL GmbH has received all the capital, liquidity benefits and capital injections included in the scope of Measure 4 from its shareholders, which financed these measures through their respective budgets.
Društvo EEL GmbH sav je kapital, potpore za likvidnost i sredstva za dokapitalizacije, uključen u mjeru 4. primio od svojih dioničara koji su te mjere financirali preko svojih odnosnih proračuna.
Measure 4 also includes a 100 % guarantee granted by the municipality of Weeze, which exposed the budget of the municipality.
Mjera 4. obuhvaća i 100-postotno jamstvo koje je dodijelila općina Weeze, što je izložilo proračun općine.
Therefore, the all the measures constituting Measure 4 were financed through budget resources of two local authorities, which in addition, decided to grant these various measures.
Prema tome, sve mjere koje čine mjeru 4. financirane su iz sredstava proračuna dva lokalna tijela koja su pored toga odlučila dodijeliti i te razne mjere.
Therefore, Measure 4 is financed through State resources and is imputable to the State.
Prema tome, mjera 4. financirala se iz državnih sredstava i može se pripisati državi.
In this respect, the Commission must analyse whether the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze acted as prudent market economy operators guided by profitability prospects [67] would have done in the same circumstances in providing EEL GmbH with the capital measures, guarantees, loans and loan repayment deadline extensions that constitute Measure 4.
U tom smislu, Komisija mora analizirati jesu li okrug Kleve i općina Weeze djelovali onako kako bi razboriti subjekti u tržišnom gospodarstvu koji se vode izgledima za stjecanje dobiti [67] djelovali u istim okolnostima prilikom dodjeljivanja društvu EEL GmbH kapitalnih mjera, jamstava, kredita i produljivanja rokova otplate kredita, što sve čini mjeru 4.
It is first important to recall, as concluded in section 8.3.2, that EEL GmbH constitutes an SPV created by its two public shareholders with a view to managing the real estate of the Niederrhein-Weeze airport, and used exclusively as of 2003 to provide financing to the same airport.
Najprije je važno prisjetiti se, kako je zaključeno u odjeljku 8.3.2, da društvo EEL GmbH čini društvo posebne namjene kojeg su osnovala njegova dva javna dioničara s ciljem upravljanja nekretninama zračne luke Niederrhein-Weeze i kojime se koriste isključivo od 2003. kako bi osigurali financiranje te iste zračne luke.
This is confirmed by the fact that in their (written) General Meeting of 10 and 11 April 2003 these two public shareholders have strictly circumscribed EEL GmbH's new financing activity to investments into Niederrhein-Weeze airport.
To je potvrđeno i činjenicom da su na njihovoj (pisanoj) općoj skupštini od 10. i 11. travnja 2003. ta dva javna dioničara strogo ograničila novu djelatnost financiranja društva EEL GmbH na ulaganja u zračnu luku Niederrhein-Weeze.
Both managing directors are representatives of the public bodies.
Oba generalna direktora predstavnici su javnih tijela.
It results from these elements that any decision taken by EEL GmbH is in fact taken by representatives from the public shareholders, who run it on a day-to-day basis in addition to sitting in its governing bodies.
Očito je iz tih elemenata da sve odluke koje donosi društvo EEL GmbH zapravo donose predstavnici javnih dioničara koji upravljaju njegovim svakodnevnim poslovanjem povrh sudjelovanja u radu njegovih upravnih tijela.
In applying the market economy operator principle to Measure 4, it is necessary to give due consideration to the fact that the beneficiary of these financing measures is an SPV created and owned by the entities from which Measure 4 originates, and exclusively used for a well-defined objective pursued by these same entities.
Prilikom primjenjivanja načela subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu na mjeru 4. potrebno je uzeti u obzir činjenicu da je korisnik tih mjera financiranja društvo posebne namjene kojeg su osnovali i čiji su vlasnici tijela koja dodjeljuju mjeru 4. te da je svrha tog društva isključivo ostvarivanje dobro definiranih ciljeva kojima streme ta ista tijela.
Moreover, in this context, it is necessary to give due consideration to the very objective in view of which the Special Purpose Objective is used and maintained in operation.
Štoviše, u tom kontekstu, potrebno je razmotriti i sami cilj u pogledu kojeg se društvo posebne namjene upotrebljava i održava u poslovanju.
SPVs are commonly created and used by private undertakings in a variety of circumstances.
Društva posebne namjene obično osnivaju i upotrebljavaju privatni poduzetnici u raznim okolnostima.
A possible situation where SPVs are used is cases where two independent undertakings set up a joint venture in order to develop a specific project or perform a specific activity or function (for instance research and development, production, distribution) [69] to the benefit of each undertaking.
Moguća situacija u kojoj se upotrebljava društvo posebne namjene su slučajevi u kojima dva neovisna poduzetnika pokrenu zajednički pothvat kako bi razvili konkretni projekt ili obavili konkretnu djelatnost ili funkciju (primjerice istraživanje i razvoj, proizvodnja, distribucija) [69] u korist svakog poduzetnika.
The SPV is therefore a legal structure to which both undertakings allocate the resources (funding, staff, assets …) that are necessary for the implementation of their joint project, function or activity and through which they implement this joint project or perform this joint function or activity.
Prema tome, društvo posebne namjene pravna je struktura kojoj oba poduzetnika dodjeljuju resurse (sredstva, osoblje, imovinu itd.) koji su potrebni za provedbu njihova zajedničkog projekta, funkcije ili djelatnosti i preko koje provode taj zajednički projekt ili obavljaju tu zajedničku funkciju ili djelatnost.
In certain situations, for instance when the SPV only has a production or research and development function, it receives funding on the part of its parent companies without by itself generating profit which can be redistributed to shareholders, for example in the form of dividends.
U određenim situacijama, primjerice kada društvo posebne namjene ima samo funkciju proizvodnje ili istraživanja i razvoja, ono prima sredstva svojih matičnih društava, a da samo ne stvara dobit koja se može raspodijeliti dioničarima, primjerice u obliku dividendi.
Instead of generating such profit, it contributes to the performance of operations that its parent companies consider necessary in view of their objectives.
Umjesto stvaranja takve dobiti, ono pridonosi obavljanju operacija koje njegova matična društva smatraju potrebnima s obzirom na svoje ciljeve.
In view of these considerations, the behaviour of the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze towards EEL GmbH ought to be analysed taking account of the fact that these two public authorities are the sole shareholders of EEL GmbH and taking account of the exclusive objective assigned to EEL GmbH as of 2003, namely, the granting to FN GmbH of the various loans and repayment deadline extensions constituting Measure 1.
S obzirom na ta razmatranja, ponašanje okruga Kleve i općine Weeze prema društvu EEL GmbH trebalo bi se analizirati uzimajući u obzir činjenicu da su ta dva javna tijela jedini dioničari društva EEL GmbH i uzimajući u obzir isključivi cilj radi kojeg je društvo EEL GmbH osnovano i kojeg nastoji ostvariti od 2003., naime, dodjeljivanje društvu FN GmbH različitih kredita i produljenja rokova otplate, što čini mjeru 1.
It should be recalled in this respect that the various measures forming Measure 1 are, as indicated in section 8.3.2, clearly imputable to the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze.
U tom smislu trebalo bi podsjetiti da se razne mjere koje čine mjeru 1, kako je navedeno u odjeljku 8.3.2., jasno mogu pripisati okrugu Kleve i općini Weeze.
In other words, the two public authorities designed and decided to implement Measure 1 and decided to use EEL GmbH for that purpose.
Drugim riječima, ta dva javna tijela osmislila su mjeru 1. i odlučila su je provesti te su za postizanje tog cilja odlučila upotrijebiti društvo EEL GmbH.
Therefore, when applying of the Market Economy Operator Principle to Measure 4, the fact that the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze decided to implement Measure 1 and to use EEL GmbH for that purpose ought to be taken as a starting point.
Prema tome, prilikom primjene načela subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu na mjeru 4. kao početnu točku trebalo bi uzeti činjenicu da su okrug Kleve i općina Weeze odlučili provesti mjeru 1. i upotrijebiti društvo EEL GmbH za tu svrhu.
The relevant question that the Commission must address is the following: if two hypothetical market economy operators had decided to implement measures such as those forming part of Measure 1, would they have used an SPV such as EEL GmbH and provide it with similar funding as that stemming from Measure 4 in order to achieve this objective?
Bitno pitanje koje Komisija mora postaviti je sljedeće: da su dva hipotetska subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu odlučila provesti mjere poput onih koje čine mjeru 1., bi li upotrijebili neko društvo posebne namjene poput društva ELL GmbH te mu osigurali sredstva slična onima iz mjere 4. kako bi postigla taj cilj?
Against this backdrop, the fact that certain loans may have been provided to EEL GmbH by its shareholders at rates lower than normal market rates, that a guarantee was provided free of charge, or that capital was injected with no clear prospects of financial return would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze did not act vis-à-vis EEL GmbH as market economy operators would have done.
U odnosu na taj kontekst, činjenice da su njegovi dioničari društvu EEL GmbH možda osigurali određene kredite uz stope niže od uobičajenih tržišnih stopa, da je jamstvo osigurano besplatno, ili da je obavljena dokapitalizacija bez jasnih izgleda da će doći do financijskog povrata ne bi nužno vodile do zaključka da okrug Kleve i općina Weeze nisu djelovali u odnosu na društvo EEL GmbH onako kako bi to učinili subjekti u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
The relevant question is rather whether the financing provided to EEL GmbH under Measure 4 is reasonable, from a market economy operator perspective, in light of the objective pursued by EEL GmbH's shareholders, namely, the implementation of Measure 1.
Umjesto toga, bitno pitanje je je li financiranje koje je osigurano društvu EEL GmbH u okviru mjere 4. razborito iz perspektive subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu, s obzirom na cilj kojeg dioničari društva EEL GmbH žele ostvariti, naime provedba mjere 1.
Two prudent market economy operators pursuing the same objective as EEL GmbH's public shareholders would have had essentially two options: create a Special Purpose Vehicle similar to EEL GmbH (option 1) or grant loans directly to FN GmbH without a dedicated body (option 2).
Dva razborita subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu koja nastoje ostvariti isti cilj kao i dioničari društva EEL GmbH u biti bi imala dvije mogućnosti: osnovati društvo posebne namjene slično društvu EEL GmbH (prva mogućnost) ili izravno dodijeliti kredite društvu FN GmbH bez posebnog namjenskog tijela (druga mogućnost).
A rational market economy operator would not have considered any other option, like the use of private financial intermediaries, which would have charged a fee for the provision of such a service.
Racionalni subjekt u tržišnom gospodarstvu ne bi razmatrao nijednu drugu mogućnost, poput angažiranja privatnih financijskih posrednika koji bi naplatili naknadu za pružanje takve usluge.
This option would have increased the cost of channelling funds to FN GmbH due to these fees.
Zbog tih naknada u okviru te mogućnosti narasli bi troškovi usmjeravanja sredstava društvu FN GmbH.
The Commission notes that, when making the Decision to finance EEL GmbH themselves instead of using financial intermediaries, the public shareholders limited their financial exposure to what was strictly necessary to fund FN GmbH under Measure 1:
Komisija primjećuje da su, kada su donijeli odluku da sami financiraju društvo EEL GmbH umjesto angažiranja financijskih posrednika, javni dioničari ograničili svoju financijsku izloženost na razinu koja je bila nužna za financiranje društva FN GmbH u okviru mjere 1.:
the level of funding directly provided by public shareholders to EEL GmbH until 2010 (EUR [20-40] million [70]) was proportionate to the amounts borrowed by FN GmbH from EEL GmbH (EUR [20-40] million [71]);
razina financiranja koju su javni dioničari izravno osigurali društvu EEL GmbH do 2010. ([20–40] milijuna EUR [70]) bila je razmjerna iznosima koje je društvo FN GmbH posudilo od društva EEL GmbH ([20–40] milijuna EUR [71]);
the conditions of the funding of EEL GmbH (date, amount and maturity) have been aligned to the funding of FN GmbH by EEL GmbH:
uvjeti financiranja društva EEL GmbH (datum, iznos i dospijeće) usklađeni su s financiranjem društva FN GmbH od strane društva EEL GmbH:
Date of loan agreement granted by EEL GmbH to FN GmbH
Datum sporazuma o kreditu koji je EEL GmbH dodijelio FN GmbH
Date of public measures granted by Germany to EEL GmbH
Datum javnih mjera koje je Njemačka dodijelila društvu EEL GmbH
[5-15] (+ [2-5] received from a bank loan on 2 May 2003)
[5–15] (+ [2–5] primljenih iz kredita banke 2. svibnja 2003.)
Loan roll over to 31.12.2010 (+ 6,5)
Obnavljanje kredita do 31.12.2010.
Loan roll over to 31.12.2010 and debt restructuring
Obnavljanje kredita do 31.12.2010. i restrukturiranje duga
Loan roll over to 31.12.2016
Obnavljanje kredita do 31.12.2016.
EEL GmbH does not have any material assets in its balance sheet other than its claims vis-à-vis FN GmbH.
u svojoj bilanci društvo EEL GmbH nema nikakve materijalne imovine osim svojih potraživanja u odnosu na društvo FN GmbH.
The (small) profits derived from the financing activities to FN GmbH only appear in EEL GmbH's accounts, but they do not correspond to any cash or liquidity since FN GmbH has not repaid its debt to EEL GmbH.
(Mala) dobit ostvarena prilikom financiranja djelatnosti društva FN GmbH pojavljuje se samo u računima društva EEL GmbH, ali tu se ne radi o nekakvom novcu ili likvidnosti s obzirom da društvo FN GmbH nije otplatilo svoje dugove prema društvu EEL GmbH;
Indeed, given EEL GmbH's strategy to fund FN GmbH, these interests are only intended to allow EEL GmbH to break even and to pay the interests of the rolled over loans granted by the public shareholders and [bank], as evidenced by the minutes of EEL GmbH's general assemblies.
doista, s obzirom na strategiju društva EEL GmbH da financira društvo FN GmbH, te su kamate namijenjene samo tome da se društvo EEL GmbH pokrije i da plati kamate za obnovljene kredite koje su dodijelili javni dioničari i [banka], što je vidljivo i iz zapisnika opće skupštine društva EEL GmbH;
EEL GmbH's is therefore unable to reimburse its two shareholders and the [bank],as long as FN GmbH has not repaid the loans and interests due to EEL GmbH.
prema tome, društvo EEL GmbH nije u mogućnosti isplatiti svoja dva dioničara i [banku], sve dok društvo FN GmbH ne otplati svoje kredite i kamate koje duguje društvu EEL GmbH.
This means that EEL GmbH cannot engage into any other economic activities as claimed by Germany.
To znači da se društvo EEL GmbH ne može baviti niti jednom drugom gospodarskom djelatnosti, kako je tvrdila Njemačka.
The Commission takes the view that the choice of option 1 made by the two shareholders was therefore consistent with the latters' stated objective to dedicate EEL GmbH' resources to the sole financing of FN GmbH.
Komisija smatra da je to što su dva dioničara odabrala prvu mogućnost u skladu s njihovim ciljem da sredstva društva EEL GmbH namijene isključivo financiranju društva FN GmbH.
In addition, the Commission considers that under option 1 the administration and management costs of a SPV like EEL GmbH is reduced to the strict minimum (no immobilisation of assets other than the claims vis-à-vis FN GmbH, no permanent staff and management, almost no operating costs, no financial costs other than the reimbursement of the loan granted by the [bank]).
Osim toga, Komisija smatra da su u okviru prve mogućnosti troškovi administracije i upravljanja društvom posebne namjene poput društva EEL GmbH strogo svedeni na najmanju mjeru (nema imobilizacije imovine osim potraživanja u odnosu na društvo FN GmbH, nema stalnog osoblja i uprave, gotovo da nema troškova poslovanja, nema financijskih troškova osim otplate kredita kojeg je dodijelila banka]).
This is all the more so since when the two public shareholders decided to implement Measure 1, EEL GmbH was already existing, as a dormant structure, and did not have to be created ex nihilo.
Ta tvrdnja itekako stoji uzme li se u obzir da je društvo EEL GmbH već postojalo kao neaktivna struktura u trenutku kada su dva javna dioničara odlučila provesti mjeru 1, te ga nije bilo potrebno osnivati ex nihilo.
The choice of an SPV also facilitates the management of the financial transactions with third parties (like FN GmbH or a private bank) while minimising the transaction costs between the two shareholders.
Odabir društva za posebnu namjenu olakšava i upravljanje financijskim transakcijama s trećim stranama (poput društva FN GmbH ili privatne banke) istodobno svodeći troškove transakcija između dva dioničara na najmanju mjeru.
On the contrary, the choice of option 2 would induce the duplication of the mechanisms put in place to support FN GmbH, which would increase the administration and legal costs of channelling funds to FN GmbH (e.g. duplication of legal contracts) and possibly affect the quality of the supervision and coordination of the project.
S druge strane, odabir druge mogućnosti uzrokovao bi udvostručavanje mehanizama uspostavljenih za davanje potpore društvu FN GmbH, što bi povećalo troškove upravljanja i pravne troškove usmjeravanja sredstava društvu FN GmbH (npr. udvostručavanje pravnih ugovora) te bi možda utjecalo na kvalitetu nadzora i koordinacije projekta.
Therefore, it would have been rational for two prudent market economy operators guided by medium to long-term profitability prospects and acting in lieu of EEL GmbH's public shareholders, to choose option 1 rather than option 2.
Prema tome, za dva razborita subjekta u tržišnom gospodarstvu koja djeluju u skladu s izgledima ostvarivanja dugoročne dobiti i koja djeluju u ime javnih dioničara društva EEL GmbH, bilo bi racionalno odabrati prvu, a ne drugu mogućnost.
The Commission takes the view that the market investor test is satisfied and that there is no economic advantage conferred to EEL GmbH.
Komisija smatra da su ispunjeni uvjeti testa tržišnog ulagača te da društvu EEL GmbH nije dodijeljena gospodarska prednost.
As of 2003, the activity of EEL GmbH was strictly limited to the provision of funding to FN GmbH.
Od 2003. djelatnost društva EEL GmbH bila je strogo ograničena na pružanje sredstava društvu FN GmbH.
EEL GmbH could not engage in any other activity.
Društvo EEL GmbH nije se moglo baviti niti jednom drugom djelatnosti.
For instance, it could not grant loans to any other entity.
Primjerice, nije moglo dodjeljivati kredite nijednom drugom subjektu.
Therefore, the only activity for which Measure 4 might have affected the competitive dynamics would be the provision of funding to FN GmbH.
Prema tome, jedina djelatnost u odnosu na koju bi mjera 4. mogla utjecati na dinamiku tržišnog natjecanja bila bi pružanje sredstava društvu FN GmbH.
Such competitive effect would have existed if, absent Measure 4, providers of funding other than EEL GmbH, such as banks or other investors, would have had a greater opportunity to provide funding to FN GmbH with a view to making a profit.
Takav učinak na tržišno natjecanje postojao bi ako bi u odsutnosti mjere 4. pružatelji financiranja, osim društva EEL GmbH, poput banaka ili drugih ulagača, imali bolju priliku osigurati sredstva društvu FN GmbH s ciljem ostvarivanja dobiti.
However, as indicated in section 8.5.3, the clear intention of the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze was to implement Measure 1 themselves in order to provide FN GmbH with funding.
Međutim, kako je navedeno u odjeljku 8.5.3. jasna namjera okruga Kleve i općine Weeze bila je da sami provedu mjeru 1. kako bi osigurali sredstva za društvo FN GmbH.
Indeed, the only rationale for Measure 4 is the implementation of Measure 1.
Doista, jedino obrazloženje za postojanje mjere 4. je provedba mjere 1.
Absent Measure 4, EEL GmbH would have been unable to implement Measure 1 itself.
Da nema mjere 4. društvo EEL GmbH samo ne bi moglo provesti mjeru 1.
However, the absence of Measure 4 would simply mean that the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze would have decided to implement Measure 1 without using EEL GmbH, for instance, through a direct legal relationship between themselves and FN GmbH.
Međutim, odsustvo mjere 4. značilo bi jednostavno da su okrug Kleve i općina Weeze odlučili provesti mjeru 1. bez angažiranja društva EEL GmbH, primjerice, izravnim pravnim odnosom između njih i društva FN GmbH.
Therefore, absent Measure 4, banks or other investors would not have enjoyed a greater opportunity to provide funding to FN GmbH with a view to making a profit because the necessary funding would have been provided by the district of Kleve and the municipality of Weeze in any event.
Prema tome, da nema mjere 4., banke ili drugi ulagači ne bi imali bolju priliku osigurati sredstva društvu FN GmbH s ciljem ostvarivanja dobiti s obzirom da bi potrebna sredstva u svakom slučaju osigurali okrug Kleve i općina Weeze.