natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
SEPI also owned Bazán, a company which mainly comprised three military shipyards (not as independent companies).
Poleg tega je imela SEPI v lasti tudi Bazán, gospodarsko družbo, ki jo pretežno sestavljajo tri vojaške ladjedelnice (kot odvisne družbe).
By the beginning of 1998 the structure of ownership of the public shipyards was as follows:
Na začetku leta 1998 je bila lastniška struktura javnih ladjedelnic taka:
In a first set of transactions (hereafter referred to as transfer 1) on 28 December 1999, SEPI bought shipyard companies Cadiz, Juliana and the ship motor factory company Manises from AESA for a price of EUR 15300000 [7].
V prvem sklopu transakcij (v nadaljevanju „prvi prevzem“) je družba SEPI 28. decembra 1999 od družbe AESA kupila ladjedelnici Cádiz in Juliana ter tovarno motorjev v Manisesu za ceno 15300000 EUR [7].
The yards Barreras and Astander were privatised and are no longer part of the present investigation.
Ladjedelnici Barreras in Astander sta bili privatizirani in nista več predmet preiskave, ki zdaj poteka.
This led to the following structure:
Rezultat tega je naslednja struktura:
SEPI in July 2000 decided to merge all the publicly owned shipyards into one group.
V juliju 2000 se je matična družba SEPI odločila za združitev vseh državnih ladjedelnic v eno skupino.
The merger took place through two main operations.
Združevanje je potekalo na podlagi dveh glavnih postopkov.
In one operation (hereafter referred to as transfer 2), the SEPI-owned military shipbuilding group Bazán bought AESA’s three remaining shipyard companies (Puerto Real, Sestao and Sevilla) for ESP 1 each.
V postopku („drugi prevzem“) je družba vojaških ladjedelnic Bazán, ki je v lasti matične družbe SEPI, kupila tri ladjedelnice, ki so ostale družbi AESA (Puerto Real, Sestao in Sevilla) za ceno ene španske pezete za vsako.
In the other operation (hereafter referred to as transfer 3), Bazán bought three shipyard companies (Juliana, Cadiz and Astano) and the ship motor factory Manises directly from SEPI, also this for ESP 1 each.
V drugem postopku („tretji prevzem“) je družba Bazán kupila tri ladjedelnice (Juliana, Cádiz in Astano) in tovarno Fábrica de motores de Manises neposredno od matične družbe SEPI, prav tako za ceno ene španske pezete za vsako.
All the companies were then dissolved and merged into Bazán, which changed name to IZAR.
Vse družbe so bile razpuščene in premeščene v družbo Bazán, ki se je preimenovala v IZAR.
The current structure of the shipyards is thus as follows:
Sedanja struktura ladjedelnic je zato naslednja:
SEPIASTANOAESAEx Bazan vardsPUERTOREALSEVILLASESTAOMANISESJULIANACADIZIZAR
SEPIASTANOAESAantiguos astilleros BazánPUERTOREALSEVILLASESTAOMANISESJULIANACÁDIZIZAR
The decision to open the formal investigation procedure
Odločba za sprožitev uradnega postopka preiskave
In the opening of the procedure the Commission stated that it had doubts whether transfer 1, where SEPI paid a price, which then was reported to be EUR 60 million to AESA for the three companies Juliana, Cadiz, and Manises contained State aid.
Ob sprožitvi postopka je Komisija izjavila, da je dvomila, da se je prvi prevzem, kjer je matična družba SEPI od družbe AESA odkupila tri družbe Juliana, Cádiz in Manises, kot se je kasneje ugotovilo za ceno 60 milijonov EUR, štel kot državna pomoč.
It was also doubtful whether such aid was compatible with the common market as it appeared not to be compatible with the Commission decision of 1997 approving the last restructuring aid package for the public shipyard group and, therefore, constituting incompatible restructuring aid pursuant to the first indent of the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (hereafter the Shipbuilding Regulation).
Obstajali so tudi pomisleki o tem, ali je bila zadevna pomoč v skladu z določili skupnega trga, saj ni bila v skladu z Odločbo Komisije iz leta 1997, ki je odobrila zadnji paket pomoči za prestrukturiranje javnih ladjedelnic in je tako pomenila pomoč za prestrukturiranje, ki ni v skladu s prvo alineo drugega pododstavka člena 5(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1540/98.
This finding in particular was based on the following arguments:
Postopek se je opravil na podlagi naslednjih utemeljitev:
Firstly, this ‘sale’ did not appear to be a genuine operation but rather a capital injection to allow AESA and its remaining yards (Puerto Real, Sevilla and Sestao) to continue in business for the time being.
Najprej se „prodaja“ ni zdela verodostojna, ampak bolj dokapitalizacija, ki je omogočala družbi AESA in ladjedelnicam, ki so bile še v njeni lasti (Puerto Real, Sevilla in Sestao), obratovanje za tisti čas.
Secondly, given their previous performance and apparently continued poor results, no commercial investor seemed likely to be prepared to purchase the yards on these conditions.
Prav tako bi bilo ob upoštevanju njihove predhodne storilnosti in domnevnih skopih dosežkov možno, da noben tržni vlagatelj ne bi bil pripravljen kupiti ladjedelnice v takem položaju.
The first decision to extend the formal investigation procedure
Prva odločba za širitev uradnega postopka preiskave
The Commission on 25 November 2001 decided to extend the procedure to cover transfer 2 and 3 undertaken to merge all public Spanish yards into one group.
novembra 2001 se je Komisija odločila za širitev postopka, da bi vključila drugi in tretji prevzem, ki sta se opravila zato, da bi združila vse španske ladjedelnice v eno skupino.
In the extension of the procedure the Commission noted that there was a proximity of the transactions that took place in between 1999 and 2000 which ultimately led to the creation of one group for all public yards.
V postopku širitve je Komisija ugotovila, da se je v letih 1999 in 2000 opravilo kar nekaj transakcij, ki so dokončno pripeljale do ustanovitve družbe vseh državnih ladjedelnic.
The procedure therefore needed to be extended to all transactions that lead to the merger in order to fully and correctly evaluate the possible State aid to civil shipyards contained in the different transactions within the SEPI group.
Zato se je moral postopek razširiti na vse transakcije, ki so pripeljale do združitve, da bi lahko v celoti in pravilno ocenili možno državno pomoč civilnim ladjedelnicam, ki je zajeta v številnih prevzemih skupine SEPI.
In this context the Commission underlined that the provision of capital to public undertakings needs to take place under market conditions in order to exclude the existence of State aid.
V tem smislu je Komisija poudarila, da se mora dokapitalizacija javnih gospodarskih družb opraviti v skladu s tržnimi pogoji, da bi izključili državno pomoč.
Therefore, it had doubts whether the sales price of ESP 1 per yard and for the motor factory could be considered as the market price, and whether therefore an economic advantage constituting State aid had been conferred to IZAR by the transactions.
Zaradi tega je dvomila v to, ali se lahko prodajna cena ene španske pezete za ladjedelnico in za tovarno motorjev vrednoti kot tržna cena, in ali je bila zaradi tega gospodarska korist, ki izvira iz državne pomoči, dodeljena družbi IZAR na podlagi zadevnih transakcij.
Since the applicable community provisions did not allow for more rescue or restructuring aid to the public civil shipyards the Commission had doubts on whether these transactions would be compatible with the common market.
Ker uredbe Komisije niso odobrile dodatne pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje civilnih javnih ladjedelnic, je Komisija dvomila v to, da so bile te transakcije v skladu z določili skupnega trga.
The second decision to extend the formal investigation procedure
Druga odločba za širitev uradnega postopka preiskave
In its further investigations on this case the Commission found out that SEPI in 1999 provided loans amounting to EUR 194400000 to the three companies Cadiz, Juliana and Manises it just had bought.
V nadaljnjih preiskavah je Komisija odkrila, da je v letu 1999 matična družba SEPI posodila 194400000 EUR trem družbam Cádiz, Juliana in Manises, ki jih je ravnokar kupila.
Since it appears that these loans were provided to companies in difficulties, the Commission considered that they may be considered to be State aid.
Ker se zdi, da so bila ta posojila namenjena gospodarskim družbam v težavah, je Komisija menila, da bi jih lahko šteli kot državna pomoč.
Furthermore, the Commission noted that it appeared that on 18 July 2000 AESA received a capital injection from SEPI of EUR 252400000. The Commission considered that this could be State aid.
Prav tako je Komisija ugotovila, da je 18. julija 2000 AESA prejela kapitalski vložek s strani družbe SEPI v znesku 252400000 EUR, kar bi se lahko štelo kot državna pomoč.
It appeared that the shipyards Puerto Real, Sestao and Sevilla at virtually the same time received capital injections from AESA of a similar total amount.
Dokazano je, da so ladjedelnice Puerto Real, Sestao in Sevilla skoraj istočasno prejele kapitalske vložke v podobnih zneskih s strani gospodarske družbe AESA.
This capital injection from AESA to its three shipyards took place only two days before they were transferred to Bazán.
Ta vložek kapitala s strani družbe AESA v svoje tri ladjedelnice se je opravil le dva dni pred predajo družbi Bazán.
Finally, it appeared that Bazán was compensated for a loss of EUR 68200000 in connection with its buying of the shipyards Astano, Cadiz, Juliana and Manises.
Na koncu se zdi, da je družba Bazán nadomestila izgubo 68200000 EUR za nakup ladjedelnic Astano, Cádiz, Juliana in Manises.
The Commission therefore had doubts that SEPI may have injected this amount into the four companies in connection with their transfer to Bazán.
Komisija se je zato spraševala, ali bi matična družba SEPI lahko ponudila tako vsoto vsem štirim gospodarskim družbam v zvezi s prevzemom družbe Bazán.
Based on this new information, directly related to the transfers that led to the creation of IZAR, the Commission decided on 27 May 2003 to extend the procedure since it had doubts that these loans and capital injections were compatible with the common market.
Na podlagi tega novega podatka, ki neposredno velja za prevzeme, ki so pripeljali do ustanovitve družbe IZAR, se je Komisija 27. maja 2003 odločila za širitev postopka, ker je dvomila, da so bila ta posojila in dokapitalizacija v skladu z določili skupnega trga.
It can finally be noted that, in the second extension of the procedure, the Commission stressed that in case the doubts concerning the granting of additional aid as expressed within this decision initiating the current procedure are confirmed, aid granted in 1997 for the further restructuring of public Spanish yards may be considered to be incompatible and be recovered.
Na koncu se ugotavlja, da je v drugem postopku širitve Komisija poudarila, da bi se v primeru, da se zadevni dvomi v zvezi z dodelitvijo dodatne pomoči na podlagi določil Odločbe, ki je sprožila postopek v teku, potrdijo, lahko ocenilo, da pomoč za dodatno prestrukturiranje španskih javnih ladjedelnic, ki je bila dodeljena v letu 1997, ni bila upravičena in bi jo morali vrniti.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
PRIPOMBE S STRANI INTERESENTOV
Comments to the opening of the procedure
Pripombe na sprožitev postopka
The Commission received comments on the opening of the procedure from Denmark, which was of the opinion that the transaction between AESA and SEPI should be considered as illegal capital injection in violation to the aid package agreed to in 1997 for AESA.
Ob sprožitvi postopka je Komisija prejela pripombe Danske, ki je menila, da bi se morala transakcija med družbama AESA in SEPI šteti kot nezakonita dokapitalizacija, ki naj bi se okoristila s paketom pomoči, odobrene družbi AESA v letu 1997.
Denmark therefore supported the Commission decision to open the procedure.
Danska je zato podprla odločbo Komisije za sprožitev postopka.
Denmark furthermore claimed that since Bazán received aid in 1998 on the condition that it would cease with commercial shipbuilding, the takeover by Bazán of a number of civil shipyards would contradict that condition.
Danska je prav tako trdila, da družba Bazán, ker je v letu 1998 dobila pomoč pod pogojem, da zaustavi ladjedelniške dejavnosti, z nakupom nekaj civilnih ladjedelnic ni upoštevala tega pogoja.
Finally Denmark claims that Danish yards have suffered from competition from Spanish yards that have received State aid.
Na koncu je Danska dodala, da so bile danske ladjedelnice zaradi konkurence španskih ladjedelnic, ki so dobile državno pomoč, oškodovane.
Comments to the first extension
Pripombe na prvo širitev
The Commission, received comments from the United Kingdom (hereafter the UK) on the extension of the procedure.
Komisija je od Združenega kraljestva prejela pripombe na prvi postopek širitve.
The UK shares the Commission’s doubts as to whether the restructuring of the public shipyards in Spain is compatible with market principles.
Združeno kraljestvo se strinja s pomisleki Komisije o tem, ali je prestrukturiranje španskih državnih ladjedelnic v skladu s tržnimi načeli.
It underlines that a key concern is the treatment of debts of the State-owned AESA yards, which the UK understands have been considerable at the time of the transaction.
Poudarja, da je najvažnejša skrb obravnava dolgov državne gospodarske družbe AESA, za katere Združeno kraljestvo trdi, da v času transakcije niso bili nepomembni.
The UK considers that the merging of commercial and naval groups into a single entity, IZAR, provides greater opportunities for the possible circumvention of State aid rules.
Združeno kraljestvo meni, da združitev trgovskih in pomorskih družb v eno gospodarsko družbo IZAR, ponuja večje priložnosti za možno izogibanje pravilom državne pomoči.
According to the UK it is a widely held view in the UK industry that Spanish yards secure shipbuilding and major conversion orders not because of their own competitiveness but because of the combination of aid measures at their disposal.
Po mnenju Združenega kraljestva je v britanski industriji široko razširjeno stališče, da španske ladjedelnice niso dobile pomembnih pogodb o ladjedelniški dejavnosti in o prenovi na podlagi lastne konkurenčnosti, ampak zaradi ukrepov pomoči, ki so jih bile deležne.
It claims that there are concrete examples where Spanish yards have taken work for which UK yards were also bidding, on terms that are hard to explain if normal commercial conditions were applying.
Trdi, da obstajajo nazorni primeri, ko so zadevne ladjedelnice dobile ponudbo za podpis pogodbe kljub temu, da so tudi britanske ladjedelnice predložile ponudbo, na podlagi katere bi težko rekli, da gre za uresničevanje običajnih tržnih pogojev.
It also believes that Spain plays ‘pass the parcel’ with loss making yards as a device for allowing continued provision of a subsidy to a sector that is avoiding the restructuring that is essential.
Meni tudi, da se stalno spreminjanje lastništva neprofitnih ladjedelnic uporablja kot sredstvo za nadaljnje pridobivanje subvencij za sektor, ki se izogiba nujno potrebnemu prestrukturiranju.
Comments to the second extension
Pripombe na drugo širitev
The Commission received comments from three parties.
Komisija je dobila pripombe treh strank.
A party requesting anonymity made a joint comment for this case and State aid Case C 38/03 [8].
Stranka, ki je želela ostati anonimna, se pridružuje kritiki te zadeve in zadeve C 38/03 (ex NN 10/03) o državni pomoči [8].
It notes that IZAR is active in the construction, reparation, maintenance and transformation of recreational ships, in particular luxury yachts. It underlines that the investigated aid has created a serious distortion in the market of recreational ships and that IZAR’s facilities in the military shipyards Cartagena and San Fernando are used for this purpose.
Ugotavlja, da se IZAR ukvarja z gradnjo, popravilom, vzdrževanjem in predelavo ladij za rekreacijo, posebno luksuznih jaht, in poudarja, da je investirana pomoč ustvarila hudo izkrivljanje razmer na trgu plovil za rekreacijo in da se objekti in naprave vojaških ladjedelnic družbe IZAR v Cartageni in San Fernandu uporabljajo v te namene.
Another joint comment for this case and Case C 38/03 was received from Royal van Lent Shipyard BV, which is active in construction of mega yachts.
Kritiki te zadeve in zadeve C 38/03 se pridružuje Royal van Lent Shipyard Royal B.V., ki se ukvarja z gradnjo zelo velikih jaht.
The company claims that aids granted by the Spanish government during the past years have been extremely prejudicial for many of the current competitors in this market.
Družba potrjuje, da so bile podpore zadnjih let, dodeljene s strani španske vlade, neizmerno škodljive za številne konkurente na tem trgu.
The Commission also received comments from IZAR. IZAR firstly claims that any funds provided from SEPI is not to be considered as State resources.
Komisija je prejela tudi pripombe družbe IZAR, ki najprej trdi, da se sredstva, ki jih je vložila družba SEPI, ne smejo vrednotiti kot državna sredstva.
Concerning a loan of EUR 194400000 from SEPI to AESA, IZAR claims that this was no new loan but only a matter of SEPI taking over the claims of a loan that AESA had given to its shipyards.
V zvezi s posojilom, 194400000 EUR družbe SEPI družbi AESA, IZAR trdi, da ni šlo za novo posojilo, ampak le za način prevzema družbe SEPI kot oblika povračila posojila, ki ga je družba AESA dodelila svojim ladjedelnicam.
Concerning the capital injection of EUR 252400000 from SEPI to AESA, IZAR claims that this took place in September 2000, at a time when AESA owned no shipyards, and that it therefore can not be considered as aid to the shipyards.
V zvezi s kapitalskim vložkom, 254400000 EUR družbe SEPI družbi AESA, IZAR trdi, da je bila pomoč, dodeljena septembra 2000, v času, ko AESA ni imela v lasti nobene ladjedelnice in se zato ne sme šteti za pomoč ladjedelnicam.
Concerning loss covering of EUR 68200000 from SEPI to IZAR, IZAR claims that this never took place, as can be seen in the annual report of IZAR. IZAR finally claims that an incorrect legal base was used, and that it can not be question to recover any aid provided to the public Spanish shipyards in 1997.
V zvezi s kritjem izgube 68200000 EUR, s strani družbe SEPI v odnosu do družbe IZAR, IZAR trdi, da le-tega nikdar ni bilo, kar se lahko vidi v njihovem letnem poročilu, in na koncu dodaja, da niso imeli primerne pravne podlage in da je vračanje katere okoli pomoči, dodeljene španskim javnim ladjedelnicam v letu 1997, brez pomena.
COMMENTS FROM SPAIN
PRIPOMBE ŠPANIJE
Comments following the opening
Pripombe po sprožitvi
In its comments on the opening of the procedure, Spain clarified that the sum SEPI paid to AESA for the two shipyards and the motor factory was considerably lower than what was mentioned in the opening.
V pripombah o sprožitvi postopka je Španija pojasnila, da je bil znesek, ki ga je plačala družba SEPI za obe ladjedelnici in tovarno motorjev v Manisesu družbi AESA, znatno nižji od zneska, omenjenega v sprožitvi.
In fact, the price for the three companies was EUR 15300000, instead of EUR 60 million as stated in the opening. Price per company was EUR 8054000 for Cadiz, EUR 5235000 for Juliana, and EUR 2013000 for Manises.
Dejansko je bila cena za tri gospodarske družbe 15300000 EUR (in ne 60 milijonov EUR, kot navaja sprožitev) razdeljena v naslednjem vrstnem redu: 8054000 za ladjedelnico Cádiz; 5235000 za ladjedelnico Juliana; in 2013000 za Manises.
Spain furthermore provided the Commission with arguments why in its view transfer 1 did not contain State aid.
Španija je pred Komisijo prav tako utemeljila, zakaj po njihovem mnenju prvi prevzem ni bil sestavni del državne pomoči.
The main argument was that the transactions were made in order to prepare for a privatisation of the three companies.
Prvi razlog je bil, da so se transakcije opravile zato, da bi se pripravili na privatizacijo treh gospodarskih družb.
Since SEPI is the specialist in privatisation, it was necessary to transfer the three companies to SEPI.
Ker je matična družba SEPI strokovnjakinja za privatizacije je bilo nujno, da je tri družbe prevzela SEPI.
However, very soon it became clear that no interested buyer could be found.
Kljub temu se je kmalu pokazalo, da ni bilo nobenega zainteresiranega kupca.
This was the reason for the subsequent transfer of the companies to Bazán.
To je bil razlog za kasnejši prevzem teh družb s strani družbe Bazán.
Since the alleged purpose of the transactions was to prepare the three companies for privatisation, Spain considers that SEPI did not need to act as a market actor when it bought the companies. It only needed to pay a reasonable price, and in these circumstances the book value seemed to be the optimal solution.
Ker je bil domnevni cilj transakcij, da se tri gospodarske družbe pripravi na privatizacijo, Španija meni, da družbi SEPI ni bilo treba nastopati kot tržna akterka, ko je kupila družbe, ampak je morala le plačati razumljivo ceno in v danih okoliščinah se je zdelo, da bi bila knjigovodska vrednost najboljša rešitev.
Comments following the first extension
Pripombe po prvi širitvi
Following the first extension of the procedure, Spain provided the Commission with the following arguments why no State aid was involved in transfer 2 and 3, i.e. why the price of ESP 1 per company was correct.
Po prvem postopku širitve je Španija Komisiji posredovala naslednje utemeljitve v zvezi s tem, zakaj v drugem in tretjem prevzemu ni šlo za državno pomoč, torej razlog, zakaj je bila cena ene španske pezete primerna.
According to Spain, SEPI as 100 % shareholder of all concerned companies behaved as a market actor when it decided to reorganise all shipbuilding into one group, with the aim of getting advantages from synergies.
Po mnenju Španije je družba SEPI, kot 100-odstotna delničarka vseh zadevnih družb, nastopala kot nosilec tržne dejavnosti, ko se je odločila za reorganizacijo celotnega ladjedelništva v eno družbo, da bi družbe medsebojno sodelovale.
There was also a necessity to increase the capacity for military production, given the large order book and expected future increase of this sector.
Potrebno je bilo tudi povečati zmogljivost vojaške proizvodnje zaradi obsežne knjige naročil in pričakovanega porasta zadevnega sektorja v prihodnosti.
Spain also underlined that there was no link between the first set of transactions involving AESA and SEPI, and the second set of transactions leading to the creation of IZAR.
Španija je še poudarila, da ni bilo nobene povezave med prvim sklopom transakcij, kjer sta sodelovali gospodarski družbi AESA in SEPI, in drugim sklopom transakcij, ki so privedle do ustanovitve družbe IZAR.
The first aimed at a privatisation of the three concerned companies, while the second aimed at creating one large shipbuilding group in Spain.
Prve so bile namenjene privatizaciji treh družb, medtem ko so druge skušale ustanoviti veliko špansko ladjedelniško družbo.
Spain claims that the fact that the price for the same companies (Cadiz, Juliana and Manises) changed within a short time frame, from EUR 15300000 million to ESP 3, only shows that the two transactions had different objectives.
Španija trdi, da dejstvo, da se je cena zadevnih družb (Cádiz, Juliana in Manises) po hitrem postopku spremenila iz 15300000 EUR v 3 španske pezete, dokazuje le, da sta imeli obe transakciji različne cilje.
The transfer of the shipyard companies to Bazán, with all their assets and liabilities unaffected, does not imply any advantage to any of the shipyard companies.
Prevzem ladjedelnic z vsemi njenimi aktivnimi in pasivnimi sredstvi s strani gospodarske družbe Bazán nobeni od ladjedelnic ne nudi nikakršnih koristi.
Furthermore, Spain claims that there were no public resources provided in the transactions.
Nadalje Španija trdi, da se pri transakcijah niso koristila javna sredstva.