natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission therefore noted that tranche B did not have the same collateral, even though the interest rate was the same.
Komisija je stoga napomenula da tranša B nije bila osigurana istim instrumentima osiguranja iako je kamatna stopa bila jednaka.
Since tranche B of the loan had lower collateral, it involved a higher risk for the FDES.
Budući da je tranša B zajma bila osigurana nižim instrumentima osiguranja, njome je FDES bio izložen većem riziku.
Under normal market conditions, the FDES should therefore have asked for a higher interest rate.
U uobičajenim bi tržišnim uvjetima FDES stoga trebao tražiti višu kamatnu stopu.
The Commission therefore concluded at this stage that tranche B of the FDES loan involved an advantage that a prudent private creditor would not have agreed to.
Komisija je stoga u toj fazi zaključila da je tranšom B zajma FDES-a dodijeljena prednost na koju razuman privatni zajmodavac ne bi pristao.
The FDES loan of EUR 47,5 million
Zajam FDES-a od 47,5 milijuna EUR
The Commission had doubts about whether the granting of this new loan to Groupe Brandt complied with the principle of the prudent private creditor.
Komisija je preispitala usklađenost dodjele tog novog zajma društvu Groupe Brandt s načelom privatnog vjerovnika.
According to France, collateral of EUR 150 million covered tranches A and B of the loan in the same way as the bank loans from Société Générale and Natixis.
Prema mišljenju Francuske, instrumentima osiguranja u iznosu od 150 milijuna EUR bile su pokrivene tranše A i B zajma jednako kao i zajmovi banaka Société Générale i Natixis.
However, the Commission noted that France had not provided any information on the estimate of the value of the collateral.
Komisija je međutim napomenula da Francuska nije dostavila nijednu informaciju o procjeni vrijednosti instrumenata osiguranja.
At the stage of the opening decision, the Commission was not aware of the method used to value the collateral (net book value, market value or another method).
U trenutku donošenja odluke o pokretanju postupka Komisija nije znala koja se metoda primijenila pri njihovoj procjeni (neto knjigovodstvena vrijednost, tržišna vrijednost ili druga vrijednost).
Furthermore, the Commission noted that the banks Société Générale and Natixis used the collateral only for their medium-term financing of EUR [5-10] million each, i.e. EUR [10-20] million in total, whereas the FDES loan amounted to EUR 47,5 million.
Nadalje, Komisija je napomenula da su banke Société Générale i Natixis te instrumente osiguranja upotrijebile samo za srednjoročno financiranje od [5 – 10] milijuna EUR, odnosno ukupno [10 – 20] milijuna EUR, dok je zajam FDES-a iznosio 47,5 milijuna EUR.
Level of remuneration of the loan.
Razina naknade zajma.
The loan is remunerated at different rates, depending on the tranches.
Stopa naknade zajma razlikovala se ovisno o tranšama.
By way of illustration, the Commission estimated that, if one applied the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates [10] (‘the 2008 Communication’), the rate used should have been at least 0,53 % (base rate in France from January to July 2014), to which would be added between 650 and 1000 basis points (undertaking rated CCC), depending on the level of collateral, i.e. a minimum rate of between 7,03 % and 10,53 %.
Komisija je okvirno smatrala da bi se, ako se primjenjuje Komunikacija Komisije o reviziji metode za utvrđivanje referentnih kamatnih i diskontnih stopa [10] (dalje u tekstu: „Komunikacija iz 2008.”), trebala primjenjivati kamatna stopa od najmanje 0,53 % (temeljna stopa za Francusku od siječnja do srpnja 2014.) kojoj se dodaje od 650 do 1000 baznih bodova (poduzetnik s rejtingom CCC), ovisno o procijenjenoj vrijednosti instrumenata osiguranja, odnosno najmanja stopa iznosi od 7,03 % do 10,53 %.
The Commission also considered another approach, based on data from Bloomberg and Capital IQ, which resulted in rates higher than those obtained using the 2008 Communication.
Komisija je na temelju podataka društava Bloomberg i Capital IQ predvidjela i drugi pristup kojim su dobivene više stope od onih koje su proizašle iz primjene Komunikacije iz 2008.
It seemed, therefore, that the rate on the FDES loan was lower than market rates, whatever the calculation method used.
Stoga je bilo očito da je, neovisno o primijenjenoj metodi izračuna, stopa zajma FDES-a bila manja u odnosu na stope u tržišnim uvjetima.
The Commission therefore considered, at the stage of the opening decision, that the terms of the FDES loan could have constituted an advantage for Groupe Brandt.
Prema tome, Komisija je u trenutku donošenja odluke o pokretanju postupka smatrala da su uvjeti zajma FDES-a mogli predstavljati prednost u korist društva Groupe Brandt.
Unlike France, the Commission took the view that the write-off of social security and tax debts could be considered a cancellation of public claims and involve the granting of an advantage to FagorBrandt by enabling it to reduce its costs.
Suprotno stajalištu Francuske, Komisija je tvrdila da se otpis poreznih i socijalnih dugova mogao smatrati otpisom javnih dugova te se moglo smatrati da je doveo do dodjele prednosti u korist društva FagorBrandt time što mu je smanjio izdatke.
Compatibility assessment
Ispitivanje spojivosti
With regard to the compatibility of the measures with the State aid rules, the Commission considered that the applicable legal basis was the 2004 Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [11] (‘the 2004 Guidelines’).
U pogledu spojivosti mjera s pravilima o državnim potporama, Komisija je smatrala da je primjenjivi pravni okvir utvrđen Smjernicama Zajednice o državnim potporama za sanaciju i restrukturiranje poduzeća u teškoćama iz 2004. [11] (dalje u tekstu: „Smjernice iz 2004.”).
On this basis, the Commission raised doubts concerning (i) eligibility under the 2004 Guidelines and (ii) compliance with the ‘one time, last time’ principle. Furthermore, the Commission noted that France had not provided any analysis of the compatibility of the measures under investigation.
Komisija je na temelju toga istaknula sumnje u pogledu i. prihvatljivosti s obzirom na Smjernice iz 2004. i ii. poštovanja načela jednokratne dodjele.
Admittedly it had produced a business plan for the 2014-2016 financial years that was likely to provide indications on the return to viability, but it did not constitute a restructuring plan.
Osim toga, Komisija je utvrdila da Francuska nije dostavila nikakvu analizu spojivosti mjera koje se ispituju: točno je da je dostavila poslovni plan za poslovne godine 2014.–2016. koji je mogao ukazivati na ponovnu uspostavu održivosti, ali taj plan nije predstavljao plan restrukturiranja.
In particular, it did not include the information required under points 35 and 36 of the 2004 Guidelines (market survey, description of the circumstances that led to the company's difficulties, scenarios reflecting best-case, worst-case and intermediate assumptions).
Među ostalim, nije sadržavao elemente koji se zahtijevaju u točkama 35. i 36. Smjernica iz 2004. (istraživanje tržišta, opis okolnosti koje su dovele do poduzetnikovih teškoća te najbolji, najgori i srednji scenariji).
Eligibility: firm in difficulty within the meaning of the 2004 Guidelines
Prihvatljivost: poduzeće u teškoćama u smislu Smjernica iz 2004.
In the opening decision, the Commission did not contest the fact that FagorBrandt fulfilled the criteria for a firm in difficulty set out under point 10 of the 2004 Guidelines.
Komisija u odluci o pokretanju postupka nije osporavala činjenicu da je društvo FagorBrandt ispunjavalo kriterije poduzeća u teškoćama navedene u točki 10. Smjernica iz 2004.
However, the Commission took the view that it was unable to verify whether FagorBrandt's difficulties were intrinsic, despite its belonging to the Fagor group, and consequently whether the conditions set out under point 13 of the 2004 Guidelines were met.
Ipak, Komisija je smatrala da ne može procijeniti jesu li teškoće društva FagorBrandt bile njemu svojstvene, unatoč pripadnosti grupi Fagor i, prema tome, jesu li bili ispunjeni uvjeti iz točke 13. Smjernica iz 2004.
Lastly, point 12 of the 2004 Guidelines provides that: ‘a newly created firm is not eligible for rescue or restructuring aid … This is the case, for instance, where a new firm emerges from the liquidation of a previous firm or merely takes over such firm's assets.’ With regard to Groupe Brandt, a company created on 15 January 2014, the Commission had doubts about the classification as a new company of a company that had bought a relatively large part of the assets of a firm in difficulty to carry on apparently the same activity.
Naposljetku, točkom 12. Smjernica iz 2004. propisuje se sljedeće: „novoosnovano poduzeće ne može dobiti potporu za sanaciju ili restrukturiranje […]. To je slučaj, primjerice, ako je novo poduzeće nastalo likvidacijom prethodnog poduzeća ili je samo preuzeo imovinu takvog poduzeća.” U pogledu društva Groupe Brandt osnovanog 15. siječnja 2014., Komisija je preispitala kvalifikaciju kao novog poduzetnika društva koje je otkupilo relativno velik obujam imovine od poduzetnika u teškoćama kako bi, očito, obavljalo istu djelatnost.
Compliance with the ‘one time, last time’ principle
Poštovanje načela jednokratne dodjele
Economic continuity
Gospodarski kontinuitet
Lastly, the Commission pointed out that, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the obligation imposed by a Commission decision on a Member State to abolish aid regarded as being incompatible with the internal market has as its purpose to re-establish the previously existing situation.
Naposljetku, Komisija je podsjetila na ustaljenu sudsku praksu Suda Europske unije prema kojoj se obveza ukidanja potpore nespojive s unutarnjim tržištem, koja se državi članici nalaže odlukom Komisije, odnosi na ponovnu uspostavu prethodne situacije.
This objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors in the market [13].
Taj je cilj ostvaren kada korisnik vrati navedenu potporu i tako izgubi prednost koju ima na tržištu u odnosu na svoje konkurente [13].
Still according to case-law, the obligation to recover aid may be extended to a new company to which the company in question has transferred part of its assets, where that transfer permits the conclusion that there is an economic continuity between the two companies [14].
I dalje u skladu sa sudskom praksom, obveza povrata može se odnositi i na novo društvo na koje je predmetno društvo prenijelo dio svoje imovine, ako je tim prijenosom moguće utvrditi gospodarski kontinuitet između tih dvaju društava [14].
The obligation to recover aid may be extended to another company, provided that it is established that the latter is effectively benefiting from the aid in question due to an economic continuity between the two entities.
Naime, nije isključeno da se obveza povrata može odnositi i na neki drugi subjekt, ako se utvrdi da je taj subjekt stvarno uživao dotične potpore zbog gospodarskog kontinuiteta između tih dvaju subjekata.
In this case, the aid granted to FagorBrandt by way of the EUR 10 million loan and the write-off of social security and tax debts seemed to provide an advantage to Groupe Brandt, which was the economic successor to FagorBrandt.
U ovom se slučaju čini da su potpore koje su društvu FagorBrandt dodijeljene putem zajma od 10 milijuna EUR te otpisa poreznih i socijalnih dugova pogodovale društvu Groupe Brandt, koje je očito nastavilo gospodarsku djelatnost društva FagorBrandt.
A number of indicators of economic continuity between FagorBrandt and Groupe Brandt seemed to be present [15]: in particular, the takeover of almost all the tangible and intangible assets of a number of companies belonging to the Fagor group in France, the retention of more than two thirds of the staff, the pursuit of the same production activity with the same brands and the same economic logic of the operation.
Naime, čini se da postoji više dokaza da između društava FagorBrandt i Groupe Brandt postoji gospodarski kontinuitet [15]: posebno, otkup gotovo cijele materijalne i nematerijalne imovine više društava u vlasništvu grupe Fagor u Francuskoj, preuzimanje više od dvije trećine zaposlenika, nastavak iste proizvodne djelatnosti s istim markama i gospodarskom logikom poslovanja.
Furthermore, the Commission had concerns about the fact that this aid, and the aid granted directly to Groupe Brandt by way of the EUR 47,5 million loan, could have given an advantage to Cevital and Exagon, which took over the above-mentioned assets of FagorBrandt through the medium of the subsidiary Groupe Brandt.
Osim toga, Komisija je sumnjala u činjenicu da su te potpore i potpore dodijeljene izravno društvu Groupe Brandt putem zajma od 47,5 milijuna EUR mogle pogodovati grupi Cevital i društvu Exagon, koji su posredstvom društva kćeri Groupe Brandt preuzeli prethodno navedenu imovinu društva FagorBrandt.
Contrary to the argument put forward by the Commission in the opening decision, France considers that the collateral for tranche B of the loan is not lower than the collateral for tranche A, and that it is at least as strong as the latter.
Suprotno tvrdnjama koje je Komisija iznijela u odluci o pokretanju postupka, Francuska smatra da instrumenti osiguranja tranše B zajma nisu niži od instrumenata osiguranja tranše A te da su barem jednako vrijedni kao potonji.
As described in Article 10 of the loan agreement of 28 November 2013, tranche A had, pari passu with the EUR 5 million loan granted by Thémis, the following collateral:
Naime, kao što je opisano u članku 10. Ugovora o zajmu od 28. studenoga 2013., tranša A bila je, pari passu sa zajmom od 5 milijuna EUR koji je dodijelila banka Thémis, osigurana sljedećim instrumentima osiguranja:
a charge on the stock of finished goods with dispossession for a minimum stock level of EUR 5 million until the end of December 2013, EUR 4 million until the end of February 2014 and EUR 3 million until the end of March 2014,
založnim pravom na zalihe gotovih proizvoda s predajom u posjed za zalihe od najmanje 5 milijuna EUR do kraja prosinca 2013., 4 milijuna EUR do kraja veljače 2014. i 3 milijuna EUR do kraja ožujka 2014.;
a charge on the stock of spare parts (gross value EUR [10-20] million) without dispossession, and
založnim pravom na zalihe rezervnih dijelova (bruto vrijednost od [10–20] milijuna EUR) bez predaje u posjed i
Tranche B had the following collateral:
Tranša B bila je osigurana sljedećim instrumentima osiguranja:
a promise of repayment, for the amount of the tranche, of the proceeds of sale of immovable property in Lyon that was the subject of an undertaking to sell for EUR [10-20] million, or, alternatively, a promise of a first-rank mortgage on that immovable asset,
obvezom povrata, u visini iznosa tranše, prihoda od prodaje nekretnine u Lyonu koja je predmet kupoprodajnog predugovora u iznosu od [10–20] milijuna EUR ili ugovora o hipoteci prvog reda na tu nekretninu,
Although the pledge for tranche B of EUR 5 million of the FDES loan was second rank, it was more than enough to guarantee that tranche, having regard to the fact that the first-rank creditor had the collateral only up to an amount of EUR 5 million.
Iako je založno pravo kojim je osigurana tranša B od 5 milijuna EUR zajma FDES-a bilo drugog reda, ono je bilo uvelike dovoljno za osiguravanje te tranše jer je vjerovnik prvog reda taj instrument osiguranja mogao dobiti samo za iznos od 5 milijuna EUR.
Therefore, although part of the collateral provided for tranche B was different from that provided for tranche A, it was none the less reinforced by the existence of a pledge on an asset with a value well above that of the amount of the loan.
Stoga, iako je dio instrumenata osiguranja dodijeljenih u okviru tranše B bio drukčiji od onih dodijeljenih u okviru tranše A, oni su ipak bili ojačani postojanjem založnog prava na imovini čija je vrijednost znatno veća od vrijednosti zajma.
Furthermore, France stresses that the loan had been fully repaid in April 2014.
Nadalje, Francuska ističe da je taj zajam u travnju 2014. bio u cijelosti vraćen.
Collateral.
Instrumenti osiguranja.
Interest rate.
Kamatna stopa.
France considers that the Commission's calculation is mistaken, as are its conclusions drawn therefrom.
Francuska smatra da je izračun Komisije pogrešan kao i zaključci koje je iz njega izvela.
First, the Commission takes as its starting point the fact that Electrom, which is now called Groupe Brandt, had a CCC rating.
Kao prvo, Komisija polazi od činjenice da je rejting društva Electrom, danas Groupe Brandt, bio CCC.
France considers that such a rating is not justified.
Francuska smatra da taj rejting nije opravdan.
The Cevital group, which includes Groupe Brandt, had a particularly healthy financial situation, as shown by the consolidated accounts for 2013, which were audited by KPMG.
Naime, kao što tome svjedoče konsolidirani financijski izvještaji za 2013., koje je revidirao KPMG, grupa Cevital, koja je vlasnik društva Groupe Brandt, bila je u izrazito stabilnom financijskom položaju.
France therefore takes the view that this very robust data would enable the Cevital group to obtain a very favourable rating of at least A, or even AA, had it instructed a ratings agency to that effect.
Stoga Francuska smatra da bi te vrlo uvjerljive brojke omogućile grupi Cevital, da je za te potrebe angažirala agenciju za kreditni rejting, da ostvari vrlo povoljnu ocjenu, najmanje A ili čak AA.
In any event, France believes that the 2008 Communication demonstrates unequivocally that the rate chosen for the EUR 47,5 million loan corresponds to a category of firm with a financial situation between weak (B) and satisfactory (BB).
U svakom slučaju, Francuska smatra da iz Komunikacije iz 2008. nedvosmisleno proizlazi da stopa primijenjena u okviru zajma od 47,5 milijuna EUR odgovara kategoriji poduzetnika koji se nalazi u slabom (B) do zadovoljavajućem (BB) financijskom položaju.
There is no question that the financial situation of the Cevital group is not at all comparable to that of a firm rated CCC.
Neosporno je da se financijski položaj grupe Cevital nikako ne može usporediti s položajem poduzetnika kojemu je dodijeljen rejting CCC.
Second, France points out that private lenders also took part in the financing of Groupe Brandt.
Kao drugo, Francuska podsjeća da su i privatni zajmodavci intervenirali u financiranje društva Groupe Brandt.
These private lenders, Société Générale and Natixis, agreed to lend to Groupe Brandt with margins of [0-5] % and [0-5] %.
Ti su privatni zajmodavci, Société Générale i Natixis, pristali dodijeliti društvu Groupe Brandt zajam uz marže od [0 – 5] % i [0 – 5] %.
This is enough to demonstrate as such that the calculation of the ‘market’ interest rate as presented in the opening decision (between 7,03 % in recital 49 and 17,77 % in recital 50) is mistaken.
To je dovoljno kako bi se dokazalo da je pogrešan izračun „tržišne” kamatne stope koja je navedena u odluci o pokretanju postupka (od 7,03 % u točki 49. do 17,77 % u točki 50. odluke o pokretanju postupka).
Lastly, the interest rates on tranches A and B of the FDES loan were set with reference to the interest rates on tranches A and B of the bank loans granted by Société Générale and Natixis.
Naposljetku, kamatne stope tranši A i B zajma FDES-a utvrđene su na temelju kamatnih stopa tranši A i B zajmova koje su dodijelile banke Société Générale i Natixis.
These two private investors clearly form the point of reference for tranches A and B of the FDES loans.
Jasno je da ta dva privatna ulagača predstavljaju referentnu točku za tranše A i B zajmova FDES-a.
Tranches A and B of the FDES loan were granted at the same time as the tranches of the loans from these banks and on comparable terms: the terms on which tranches A and B of the FDES loan were granted are therefore undoubtedly in line with market conditions [16].
Tranše A i B zajma FDES-a dodijeljene su istodobno s tranšama zajmova tih banaka i pod sličnim uvjetima: stoga su uvjeti dodjele tranše A i B zajma FDES-a neosporno u skladu s tržišnim uvjetima [16].
France recognises that tranche C of the FDES loan was not granted on the same terms as the bank loans.
U pogledu tranše C zajma FDES-a Francuska priznaje da ta tranša nije bila dodijeljena pod istim uvjetima kao bankovni zajmovi.
None the less, for this tranche too, the bank loans provide an indication of the market rate without the need to go into the detail of the calculation presented by the Commission in recitals 49 and 50 of the opening decision.
Ipak, za tu se tranšu iz bankovnih zajmova jednako tako može iščitati tržišna stopa, pri čemu nije potrebno ulaziti u detalje izračuna koje je Komisija iznijela u uvodnim izjavama 49. i 50. odluke o pokretanju postupka.
Moreover, tranche C of the FDES loan has the same collateral as tranches A and B (of the FDES loan and the bank loans), but it is second rank, which is enough to guarantee tranche C. To compensate for the junior nature of the collateral for tranche C in relation to tranches A and B, it should be noted that tranche C has a significantly higher interest rate than tranches A and B, i.e. a margin of [0-5] % (against [0-5] % and [0-5] % for tranches A and B respectively).
Usto, tranša C zajma FDES-a osigurana je istim instrumentima osiguranja kao i tranše A i B (zajma FDES-a i bankovnih zajmova), ali samo drugog reda, što je dovoljno da bi se osigurala navedena tranša C. Kako bi se nadoknadila podredna narav tranše C u odnosu na tranše A i B u pogledu instrumenata osiguranja, valja istaknuti da je kamatna stopa tranše C znatno veća od kamatnih stopa tranši A i B, pri čemu marža iznosi [0–5] % (u odnosu na [0–5] % za tranšu A i [0–5] % za tranšu B).
Furthermore, tranche C also has a tighter repayment schedule and a shorter repayment period than the other tranches.
Nadalje, tranša C ima i ograničeniji raspored povrata i kraći rok povrata od ostalih tranši.
Lastly, the first due date for tranche C takes precedence over tranches A and B of the FDES loan and of the loan from the private banks in the event of voluntary or mandatory early repayment, which constitutes an element of seniority of tranche C in relation to tranches A and B.
Naposljetku, prvo je dospijeće tranše C prioritetno u odnosu na tranše A i B zajma FDES-a te zajma privatnih banaka u slučaju dobrovoljnog ili obveznog prijevremenog povrata, zbog čega tranša C ima prednost u odnosu na tranše A i B.
In conclusion, France considers that the FDES loan of EUR 47,5 million granted by it, including tranche C thereof, has more than enough collateral and an interest rate in line with the principle of the prudent private creditor in a market economy.
Zaključno, Francuska smatra da je zajam FDES-a od 47,5 milijuna EUR koji je dodijelila Francuska, uključujući tranšu C, osiguran uvelike dovoljnim instrumentima osiguranja i kamatnom stopom koja je u skladu s načelom razumnog privatnog zajmodavca u tržišnom gospodarstvu.
France takes the view that the information it provided on the social security and tax debts incurred by FagorBrandt during the observation period that followed the opening of the court-supervised administration procedure has been misinterpreted.
Francuska smatra da su se pogrešno protumačile njezine tvrdnje u pogledu poreznih i socijalnih dugova društva FagorBrandt tijekom razdoblja promatranja koje je uslijedilo nakon pokretanja predstečajnog postupka.
France explains that, as is always the case for companies in court-supervised administration, FagorBrandt, with the assistance of the official receiver, continued its activity, which implies that all or some of the employees continue to work (and that social security contributions are due) and that this activity is likely to generate tax obligations.
Naime, Francuska objašnjava da je, kao što je to uvijek slučaj s poduzetnicima u predstečajnom postupku, društvo FagorBrandt, uz pomoć predstečajnog upravitelja, nastavilo svoju djelatnost, što podrazumijeva da su svi zaposlenici, ili dio njih, nastavili raditi (i da je društvo dugovalo socijalne doprinose) te da su zbog te djelatnosti mogle nastati porezne obveze.