natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This observation is also found in the case-law of the General Court of the European Union.
Ta tvrdnja proizlazi i iz sudske prakse Općeg suda Europske unije.
In the Arbel Fauvet case [47], the General Court confirmed the Commission's analysis that the conditions of remuneration of a short term credit and a long term credit cannot be similar:
Opći sud potvrdio je u predmetu Arbel Fauvet [47] analizu Komisije prema kojoj uvjeti naknade kratkoročnog i dugoročnog zajma ne mogu biti jednaki:
‘A current account overdraft granted by a private bank is a very short-term credit facility, unlike the repayable advances at issue, which have a maturity of three years, and the overdraft is not, therefore, subject to the same risk analyses by creditors. The fact that a debtor can obtain short-term credit is therefore not sufficient to assess whether it could obtain a longer-term loan, the repayment of which will depend on the debtor's ability to survive.’
„Naime, povećanje prekoračenja po transakcijskom računu koje odobri privatna banka kratkoročan je zajam, za razliku od spornih predujmova koji se protežu na tri godine, u pogledu kojeg vjerovnici ne provode jednake analize rizika. Stoga činjenica da dužnik može dobiti kratkoročan zajam ne znači da se može procijeniti njegova mogućnost dobivanja dugoročnog zajma, čiji povrat ovisi o njegovoj sposobnosti opstanka.”
The Commission considers that the nature of the loan also influences its remuneration.
Komisija smatra da i vrsta zajma utječe na njegovu naknadu.
The risk of relating to the financing project for working capital requirements cannot be remunerated in the same way as the risk of a capital investment project.
Naknada za rizik povezan s projektom financiranja obrtnog kapitala ne može biti jednaka kao u projektu ulaganja u kapital.
Since the level of risk is different, depending on the nature of the project to be financed, its remuneration must be adapted as a result.
Budući da se razina rizika razlikuje ovisno o projektu koji se financira, njegova je naknada nužno tome prilagođena.
For these reasons, the Commission does not accept Belgium's objection and confirms its refusal to apply a comparative approach on the basis of the loans provided by Belgium.
Zato Komisija ne prihvaća prigovor Belgije i potvrđuje da odbija primijeniti komparativni pristup na temelju zajmova koje je navela Belgija.
After the Commission refused to examine the loans provided by Belgium, […] and SIF wished to bring other loans to the Commission's attention.
Nakon što je Komisija odbila ispitati zajmove koje je navela Belgija, […] i SIF željeli su Komisiju obavijestiti o drugim zajmovima.
[…] therefore produced a table setting out 19 multi-currency loans for amounts higher than those listed by Belgium.
[…] je tako dostavio tablicu sa 19 viševalutnih zajmova većih iznosa od onih koje je popisala Belgija.
Most of the other loans were granted between 2003 and 2008, i.e. before the financial crisis began and at a time when the steel market was still growing.
Većina drugih zajmova dodijeljena je od 2003. do 2008., odnosno prije početka financijske krize i tijekom razdoblja u kojem je tržište čelika bilo i dalje u porastu.
Given these substantial differences, the Commission takes the view that the 19 loans presented by […] are not good comparators for the FSIH loan.
Baš zbog tih znatnih razlika, Komisija smatra da 19 zajmova koje je naveo […] nisu dobri za usporedbu sa zajmom društva FSIH.
With regard to SIF, the Commission does not consider the two loans brought to its attention to be relevant.
U pogledu društva SIF, Komisija smatra da nije relevantan ni jedan od dva zajma o kojima je Komisija obaviještena.
Admittedly they are two long-term loans.
Točno je da je riječ o dugoročnim zajmovima.
However, both these loans had significant collateral: (i) collateral from DPH and NLMK; (ii) for the Rabobank loan: […]; (iii) for the Sumitomo loan: a guarantee from […].
Međutim, oba su zajma osigurana znatnim instrumentima osiguranja: i. instrumentima osiguranja društava DPH i NLMK; ii. u pogledu zajma banke Rabobank: […]; iii. u pogledu zajma banke Sumitomo: jamstvo od […].
The loan granted by FSIH does not have any guarantee.
Zajam koji je dodijelio FSIH nije osiguran nikakvim jamstvom.
Furthermore, the loans presented by SIF were […], while the loan granted by FSIH is […].
Osim toga, zajmovi koje je naveo SIF bili su […], dok je zajam koji je dodijelio FSIH […].
It follows from this information that the loan granted by FSIH was riskier than those mentioned by SIF.
Iz tih podataka proizlazi da je zajam koji je dodijelio FSIH bio riskantniji od zajmova koje je naveo SIF.
Therefore these loans cannot be used as comparators.
Stoga ti zajmovi ne mogu poslužiti kao elementi za usporedbu.
In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the examples of loans supplied by Belgium […] and SIF are not comparable with the two loans under investigation.
S obzirom na prethodno navedeno, Komisija zaključuje da primjeri zajmova koje su naveli Belgija, […] i SIF nisu usporedivi s dvama zajmovima koji se ispituju.
The comparative method is therefore not conclusive in this instance.
Stoga metoda usporedbe u ovom slučaju nije odlučujuća.
Analysis of the loans using the 2008 Reference Rate Communication
Analiza zajmova na temelju Komunikacije o referentnim stopama iz 2008.
In cases where it is difficult or impossible to identify comparable transactions on the market, the Commission has drawn up indicators that serve to determine whether loans contain any aid.
U slučajevima kada je na tržištu teško ili nemoguće naći usporedive transakcije, Komisija je sastavila pokazatelje koji služe kako bi se utvrdilo sadržavaju li zajmovi elemente potpore.
The Commission would first apply this methodology to the loan granted to [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time].
Kao prvo, Komisija želi tu metodu primijeniti na zajam odobren [društvu koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco].
Belgium argues that [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] could justify an AAA rating at the time the loan was granted by FSIH.
Belgija tvrdi da je [društvo koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco] moglo opravdati rejting AAA u vrijeme dodjele zajma društva FSIH.
The Commission rejects this argument.
Komisija osporava taj argument.
The loans set out in the table provided by Belgium present a margin generally ranging from 70 to 150 basis points.
Marža zajmova navedenih u tablici koju je dostavila Belgija uglavnom se kreće od 70 do 150 baznih bodova.
A significant number of these loans were negotiated at 100 basis points.
Za veliki dio tih zajmova ugovoreno je 100 baznih bodova.
Since Belgium seems to claim that Duferco furnished its loans with high collateral, the 2008 Reference Rate Communication indicates that a margin of 100 basis points corresponds to a BB rating for this level of collateral.
Međutim, s obzirom na to da se čini da Belgija tvrdi da je Duferco svoje zajmove osigurao visokim instrumentima osiguranja, iz Komunikacije o referentnim stopama iz 2008. proizlazi da marža od 100 baznih bodova odgovara rejtingu BB za tu razinu instrumenta osiguranja.
Therefore, Belgium's reasoning results in [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] receiving a BB rating at most.
Stoga obrazloženje Belgije tim više dovodi do pripisivanja rejtinga BB [društvu koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco].
Of the 10 or so leading global steel groups rated in 2009 [49], the Commission notes that only two of them were rated A and A-, three were in the BBB category and four were in the BB category.
Od dvanaestak glavnih svjetskih grupa u području čelika čiji su rejtinzi ocijenjeni 2009. [49], Komisija tvrdi da su među njima samo dvije bile ocijenjene ocjenama A i A-, tri su se našle u kategoriji BBB, a četiri u kategoriji BB.
The Commission concludes that the Duferco Group would have found it difficult to justify a rating equivalent to AAA in 2009 and that the BB rating resulting from the approach proposed by Belgium seems to be in line with that of a number of other steel groups — it is even the most frequent rating in 2009.
Komisija iz toga zaključuje da je grupa Duferco teško mogla opravdati ocjenu AAA 2009., a ocjena BB koja proizlazi iz pristupa koji predlaže Belgija čini se usklađena s ocjenom više drugih grupa u području čelika, što je najčešća ocjena dodijeljena 2009.
With regard to the value of the collateral, the Commission does not agree with Belgium that the collateral on the loan granted to [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] was very strong.
U pogledu vrijednosti instrumenata osiguranja, Komisija ne dijeli mišljenje Belgije prema kojem su instrumenti osiguranja povezani sa zajmom dodijeljenim [društvu koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco] bili vrlo snažni.
As a reminder, the collateral consists of a pledge on 15 % of the shares in DPH and an assurance that it will be repaid as a priority on maturity of a future, but almost certain, claim of USD […] million.
Potrebno je podsjetiti da se ti instrumenti osiguranja sastoje od založnog prava na 15 % dionica društva DPH i osiguranja prioritetnog povrata po dospijeću budućeg potraživanja, ali gotovo sigurno od […] milijuna USD.
With regard to the pledge on 15 % of shares in DPH, the Commission notes that DPH, registered in […], is a unlisted company whose shares are, therefore, by definition not very liquid.
Najprije, u pogledu založnog prava na 15 % dionica društva DPH, Komisija napominje da je DPH, registriran u […], društvo koje ne kotira na burzi te su samim time njegove dionice niske likvidnosti.
The value of collateral increases in relation to its liquidity in the event of a default of the lender, i.e. the possibility of selling it in the short term without losing value.
Međutim, vrijednost instrumenta osiguranja ocjenjuje se prema njegovu stupnju likvidnosti u slučaju da zajmoprimac ne ispunjava svoje obveze, odnosno prema tome može li se prodati u kratkom roku i bez gubitka vrijednosti.
Furthermore, as for all ordinary shares, the value of DPH shares remains variable, which is problematic for the purpose of guaranteeing a long-term loan to be repaid in full on maturity.
Nadalje, poput svih redovnih dionica, promjenjiva je vrijednost dionica društva DPH, što je problem pri jamstvu dugoročnog zajma koji se u cijelosti jednokratno otplaćuje po dospijeću glavnice.
Lastly, Belgium argues that the Commission had signalled DPH's financial soundness in recital 148 of the opening decision (increase in own funds and net result).
Naposljetku, Belgija tvrdi da je Komisija istaknula financijsku snagu društva DPH u točki 148. odluke o pokretanju postupka (povećanje vlasničkog kapitala i neto rezultata).
Consequently, the Commission does not consider this collateral can be classified as normal, but should rather be classified as low.
Prema tome, Komisija smatra da se taj instrument osiguranja ne može smatrati uobičajenim, nego, naprotiv, niskim.
With regard to the claim of USD […] million, the Commission points out that, under Article 3 of the loan agreement, [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] had to repay the loan on 31 December 2015, or earlier in the event of a change of control of SIF in accordance with the agreement of 1 September 2008 concluded between DII and NLMK.
Zatim, u pogledu potraživanja od […] milijuna USD, Komisija podsjeća da je, u skladu s člankom 3. Ugovora o zajmu, [društvo koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco] trebalo vratiti zajam 31. prosinca 2015. ili ranije u slučaju promjene u kontroli društva SIF, u skladu s Ugovorom od 1. rujna 2008. koji su sklopili DII i NLMK.
In the latter case, Article 6.1 of the agreement specifies that [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] undertook to allocate as a priority, before any other payment or repayment of any debts, the amounts necessary for the repayment due under the loan agreement.
U potonjem slučaju, člankom 6.1. Ugovora pojašnjeno je da se [društvo koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco] obvezalo prioritetno i prije bilo kakvog drugog plaćanja ili povrata dugova bilo kakve naravi rasporediti iznose potrebne za povrat dugovanja na temelju Ugovora o zajmu.
Article 6.2 also stipulates that [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] undertakes that DII will delay the exercise of its sale option until 18 December 2012 and/or until the investments mentioned in the annex are made.
Člankom 6.2. propisano je i da se [društvo koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco] obvezuje da će DII odgoditi korištenje svoje opcije prodaje do 18. prosinca 2012. i/ili do provedbe ulaganja navedenih u prilogu.
The Commission points out that the value of collateral increases in line with its capacity to be realised.
Komisija navodi da se vrijednost instrumenta osiguranja ocjenjuje prema mogućnosti njegova ostvarivanja.
Nevertheless, the Commission recognises that given the context of the time, it was highly probable that Duferco would withdraw from SIF.
Ipak, Komisija potvrđuje da je povlačenje grupe Duferco iz društva SIF bilo vrlo vjerojatno zbog tadašnjeg konteksta.
Its probability of realisation and thereby its quality increased over time, all the more so because Duferco had undertaken to prioritise the claim which became certain on the repayment of the loan granted by FSIH.
Vjerojatnost njegova ostvarivanja i, de facto, kvaliteta povećavali su se s vremenom, i to tim više jer se Duferco obvezao na prioritetnu upotrebu potraživanja koje je postalo sigurno za povrat zajma koji je dodijelilo društvo FSIH.
Consequently, the Commission is minded to agree with Belgium's position on classifying the level of collateral as normal.
Prema tome, Komisija smatra da se treba prikloniti stajalištu Belgije u pogledu kvantifikacije uobičajene razine instrumenta osiguranja.
The Commission concludes that a rating of BB should be applied to [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] and that the level of collateral on the loans in question should be classified as normal at best.
Kada je riječ o [društvu koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco], Komisija zaključuje da je poduzetniku potrebno dodijeliti ocjenu BB, a predmetnim zajmovima razinu instrumenata osiguranja koja bi se u najboljem slučaju mogla smatrati uobičajenom.
On the basis of the 2008 Reference Rate Communication, the margin should have been 220 basis points — a much higher level than the 75 basis points agreed by FSIH.
Na temelju Komunikacije o referentnim stopama iz 2008., marža je trebala iznositi 220 baznih bodova, što je znatno više od 75 baznih bodova koje je odobrio FSIH.
An economic advantage was therefore conferred on SIF under conditions that were not market conditions.
Stoga je društvu SIF dodijeljena gospodarska prednost u uvjetima koji nisu tržišni.
Second, the Commission applies the 2008 Reference Rate Communication to the loan granted to SIF.
Kao drugo, Komisija primjenjuje Komunikaciju o referentnim stopama iz 2008. na zajam odobren društvu SIF.
The Commission observes that, like Duferco, the joint venture SIF did not have a public rating.
Komisija napominje da, poput grupe Duferco, zajednički poduzetnik SIF nije bio ocijenjen javnim kreditnim rejtingom.
In the absence of a rating or other information enabling approximation of the financial rating of SIF, the Commission had no other choice than to use the financial rating of the parent companies as a prudent basis.
U nedostatku rejtinga ili drugih elemenata s pomoću kojih bi se moglo približno procijeniti kreditni rejting društva SIF, Komisija nije imala drugog izbora nego se razumno osloniti na kreditni rejting društava majki.
It therefore notes that NLMK's parent company was rated BBB- by Standard & Poor's, Ba1 by Moody's and BB+ by Fitch Ratings (ratings taken from NLMK's annual report 2009).
Tako tvrdi da je društvu majci, NLMK, Standard and Poor's dodijelio ocjenu BBB-, Moody's Ba1, a Fitch ratings BB+ (rejtinzi iz godišnjeg izvješća grupe NLMK iz 2009.).
According to the 2008 Reference Rate Communication, these ratings correspond to the ‘satisfactory rating’ (BB).
Ti rejtinzi, u skladu s Komunikacijom o referentnim stopama iz 2008., odgovaraju kategoriji„zadovoljavajuća ocjena” (BB).
The second parent company, Duferco, was also rated BB by the estimate adopted by the Commission in recital 313.
Drugom društvu majci, Duferco, jednako je tako dodijeljena ocjena BB na temelju procjene koju je Komisija iznijela u uvodnoj izjavi 313.
As a subsidiary of the two companies (NLMK and Duferco) rated BB according to the Commission's estimates, and taking into account the particularly difficult macroeconomic context of 2009 in the steel sector, the Commission takes the view that SIF's rating could prudently and reasonably be classified as BB.
Kao društvo kći tih dvaju društava (NLMK i Duferco) kojima su, prema procjenama Komisije, dodijeljene ocjene BB i uzimajući u obzir posebno tešku makroekonomsku situaciju u sektoru čelika 2009., Komisija smatra da se može opravdano i razumno smatrati da je društvo SIF imalo rejting BB.
The Commission also notes that the loan was granted without collateral.
Komisija zatim tvrdi da je zajam dodijeljen bez instrumenata osiguranja.
SIF objects that it had the capacity to provide its own guarantee, even that of NLMK or Duferco: ‘If FSIH did not ask for any guarantee from it, that is because its financial situation at the time, the fact that it belonged to the NLMK/Duferco Groups and the guarantee offered by NLMK in the event of a change of control were such as to reassure FSIH as to its capacity to repay the loan [50].’ SIF insists that it was financially sound in 2008.
Društvo SIF tvrdi da je moglo dati vlastito jamstvo, odnosno jamstvo društava NLMK ili Duferco: „Ako FSIH od njega nije tražio nikakvo jamstvo, to je zato što su njegovo tadašnje financijsko stanje, njegova pripadnost grupama NLMK i Duferco te jamstvo koje je NLMK ponudio u slučaju promjene u kontroli ulijevali sigurnost društvu FSIH da SIF može vratiti zajam” [50]. SIF ponovno ukazuje na to da je njegovo financijsko stanje 2008. bilo solidno.
However, the loan granted by FSIH was for [7-12] years with repayment on maturity.
Međutim, rok zajma koji je dodijelio FSIH iznosio je [7 – 12] godina, s in fine povratom.
Given these two characteristics, the Commission considers that a private lender would have required sufficient and proportional guarantees to remunerate its risk over [7-12] years and would not have been satisfied with only the financial results of SIF for the 2008 financial year to waive any collateral.
Zbog te dvije činjenice, Komisija smatra da bi privatni zajmodavac zahtijevao dovoljna i proporcionalna jamstva za naknadu svojeg rizika tijekom [7 –12] godina te se ne bi odrekao svakog instrumenta osiguranja samo zbog financijskih rezultata društva SIF iz poslovne godine 2008.
The Commission concludes that the level of collateral on the loan is weak.
Komisija iz toga zaključuje da je niska razina instrumenata osiguranja povezana sa zajmom.
The estimate of SIF's financial rating (BB) and of the level of collateral (weak) attached to the loan from FSIH lead the Commission to take the view that a remuneration of 400 basis points would have been required under the 2008 Reference Rate Communication.
Komisija je zbog procjene kreditnog rejtinga društva SIF (BB) i (niske) razine instrumenata osiguranja povezanih sa zajmom društva FSIH smatrala da je na temelju Komunikacije o referentnim stopama iz 2008. bila potrebna naknada od 400 baznih bodova.
This remuneration is much higher than the 75 basis points negotiated between SIF and FSIH.
Ta je naknada znatno veća od 75 baznih bodova koje su dogovorili SIF i FSIH.
Since SIF received an economic advantage under conditions that were not market conditions, the Commission finds that there is aid.
Budući da je društvu SIF dodijeljena gospodarska prednost pod uvjetima koji nisu tržišni, Komisija zaključuje da postoji potpora.
In light of the above, the Commission takes the view that no private lender would have agreed to grant EUR 100 million and EUR 75 million respectively to [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] and to SIF under the conditions agreed to by FSIH.
S obzirom na prethodno navedeno, Komisija smatra da nijedan privatni zajmodavac ne bi pristao odobriti 100 odnosno 75 milijuna EUR [društvu koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco] i društvu SIF, pod uvjetima koje je odobrio FSIH.
FSIH therefore conferred an economic advantage on the two beneficiaries of the loans by not acting as a private lender, which places the beneficiaries in a more favourable situation than their competitors.
FSIH je stoga dodijelio prednost obama korisnicima zajmova jer se nije ponio kao privatni zajmodavac, čime im je omogućen povoljniji položaj u odnosu na njihove konkurente.
Estimate of the amount of aid
Procjena iznosa potpore
The amount of aid results from the difference between the rates actually applied (1,99 %) and the rates under application of the 2008 Reference Rate Communication, i.e. 3,502 % (12-month Euribor + 220 basis points) for [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] and 4,302 % (12-month Euribor + 400 basis points) for SIF, applied to the period from the day the loans were granted to the day they were repaid early.
Iznos potpore proizlazi iz razlike između stvarno primijenjenih stopa (1,99 %) i stopa dobivenih na temelju primjene Komunikacije o referentnim stopama iz 2008., odnosno 3,502 % (12-mjesečna stopa Euribor + 220 baznih bodova) za [društvo koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco] i 4,302 % (12-mjesečna stopa Euribor + 400 baznih bodova) za društvo SIF, koje su primijenjene u razdoblju od dana kada su zajmovi odobreni do dana kada su prijevremeno vraćeni.
Thus, the loan to [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] was signed on 4 September 2009 for an amount of EUR 30 million, a duration of six years in principle and effective rate of 2,04 % at the time of disbursement. The amount was then increased by EUR 70 million with an effective rate of 1,99 % at the time of disbursement.
Tako je zajam dodijeljen [društvu koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco] potpisan 4. rujna 2009. u iznosu od 30 milijuna EUR u načelu na rok od šest godina i uz efektivnu kamatnu stopu od 2,04 % pri isplati, a iznos je zatim povećan za 70 milijuna EUR uz efektivnu kamatnu stopu od 1,99 % pri isplati.
Early repayment was agreed by tranches of principal and interest to be paid in June 2011, then in 2012 and 2013.
Prijevremeni povrati ugovoreni su u obrocima glavnice i kamata, u lipnju 2011., a zatim 2012. i 2013.
On the basis of a simplified discounting calculation, by way of illustration, the amount of aid is therefore approximately EUR 2,08 million for the loan to [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] and EUR 10,41 million for the loan to SIF [51].
Radi ilustracije, uz pojednostavnjenu osnovicu za izračun diskontiranja iznos potpore tako iznosi oko 2,08 milijuna EUR za zajam dodijeljen [društvu koje je u tom trenutku bilo na čelu grupe Duferco] i 10,41 milijuna EUR za zajam dodijeljen društvu SIF [51].
A transaction is deemed to have complied with the market economy investor principle if it can be proven that was made pari passu between public and private investors.
Smatra se da je usklađenost transakcije s načelom privatnog ulagača u tržišnom gospodarstvu postignuta ako je moguće dokazati da je navedena transakcija provedena pari passu između javnih i privatnih ulagača.
Belgium argues that FSIH's stake in the capital is pari passu with that of DII because the invested amounts are practically identical, DLP did not belong to the Duferco Group at the time of FSIH's investment and the purpose of these investments was to buy shares belonging to SIF and not to the Duferco Group.
Belgija tvrdi da je stjecanje udjela društva FSIH pari passu sa stjecanjem udjela društva DII jer su uloženi iznosi gotovo jednaki, da DLP u trenutku ulaganja društva FSIH nije bio u vlasništvu grupe Duferco i da je cilj tih ulaganja bio otkupiti imovinu koja je bila u vlasništvu društva SIF, a ne grupe Duferco.