natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Concerning the price paid for the guarantee, the Commission had doubts as to whether the premium paid (0,2 % per year on the outstanding guaranteed debt; no formalisation fee) corresponded to the market price of a similar guarantee taking mainly into account the lists of maximum prices for guarantees published by two of the banks participating in the loan.
V zvezi s plačano ceno za poroštvo Komisija dvomi, da je plačana premija (0,2 % na leto na zavarovani dolg brez formalizacijske provizije) ustrezala tržni ceni podobnega poroštva zlasti ob upoštevanju seznamov maksimalnih cen za poroštva, objavljenih v dveh bankah, ki sta sodelovali pri posojilu.
The Commission cannot accept as a comparator the ‘offers’ submitted ex post by the two banks (see recital (48)) since they are hypothetical and were made for the purposes of this procedure.
Komisija ne more sprejeti za primerjavo naknadnih „ponudb“ obeh bank (glej uvodno izjavo (48)), ker sta hipotetični in sta bili sestavljeni za namene tega postopka.
In addition, they are those of two banks and do not therefore necessarily represent the market’s view.
Poleg tega sta to zgolj ponudbi dveh bank in ni nujno, da predstavljata tržno sliko.
Neither can the Commission accept the arguments concerning the special features of the guarantee (see recital 47) and therefore the reduction in price on the ‘normal’ market rate, for the following reasons: (a) the fact that guarantees in Spain are normally enforceable at first request is explained by the demand for further security from the beneficiary.
Komisija tudi ne more sprejeti argumentov v zvezi s posebnimi značilnostmi poroštva (glej točko (47) zgoraj) in s tem stopnje znižanja cene na „običajnem“ trgu iz naslednjih razlogov: (a) dejstvo, da so poroštva v Španiji običajno izvršljiva na prvo zahtevo, pojasnjuje zahteva po drugih zavarovanjih od upravičenca.
In the present case, however, IGAPE expressly waived its right to require any other security (after having obtained the agreement of the Galician regional government); (b) the fact that the guarantee covers only 30 % of the loan is not relevant since what matters for the guarantor is the amount of the risk; and (c) the fact that the project is promoted by groups known for their solvency is not relevant either, because these groups would not be liable for Siderúrgica Añón’s debts.
Vendar se je v tem primeru IGAPE izrecno odpovedal pravici po zahtevi drugih zavarovanj (po pridobitvi soglasja od galicijske regionalne vlade); (b) dejstvo, da poroštvo pokriva le 30 % posojila, ni pomembno, kajti za vlagatelja je pomembno samo, koliko tvega; (c) dejstvo, da projekt pospešujejo skupine, znane po svoji likvidnosti, tudi ni pomembno, kajti te skupine ne bi bile odgovorne za dolgove podjetja Siderúrgica Ańón.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that, in this specific case, the market rate for a similar guarantee should be at least that indicated by the Spanish authorities, namely 0,6 % per year (see recital 47).
V teh okoliščinah Komisija meni, da bi v tem posebnem primeru morala biti tržna mera za podobno poroštvo 0,6 % na leto, kot so to opredelili španski organi (glej uvodno izjavo (47)).
The Commission considers therefore that the guarantee in question confers an advantage on Siderúrgica Añón which is financed through state resources.
Komisija zato meni, da poroštvo dejansko daje prednost podjetju Siderúrgica Ańón, ki se financira iz državnih sredstev.
As for the amount of the state aid involved in such guarantee, point 3.2 of the notice on guarantees establishes that the cash grant equivalent for an individual guarantee should be calculated in the same way as the grant equivalent of a soft loan, the interest subsidy representing the difference between the market rate and the rate obtained thanks to the state guarantee after any premiums paid have been deducted.
Glede zneska državne pomoči v takšnem poroštvu točka 3.2 obvestila o poroštvih ugotavlja, da bi bilo treba izračunati ekvivalent pomoči v denarju za posamezno poroštvo na enak način kot ekvivalent pomoči za mehko posojilo, ob tem pa bi subvencija iz obresti predstavljala razliko med tržno mero in mero, pridobljeno zaradi državnega poroštva, potem ko so bile vse plačane premije odštete.
In the present case, in order to determine the market rate of such a loan, and in the absence of other non-guaranteed loans for the financing of the investment, the Commission considers it appropriate to use the interest rate of a non-secured credit facility granted by Caixa de Galicia to Siderúrgica Añón (principal EUR 3000000, interest rate Euribor 12 months + 0,75, formalisation fee 0,15 %, maturity one year as from 20 March 2002) [25].
V tem primeru, da bi določili tržno mero takšnega posojila, in ob pomanjkanju drugih nezajamčenih posojil za financiranje naložbe, Komisija meni, da je primerno uporabiti obrestno mero nezavarovanega kreditiranja, odobrenega pri Caixa de Galicia za podjetje Siderúrgica Ańón (glavnica 3000000 EUR, obrestna mera – 12-mesečna Euribor + 0,75, formalizacijska provizija 0,15 %, zapadlost eno leto od 20. marca 2002) [25].
The interest subsidy on the INESGA loan is therefore 0,3 % (the difference of 0,50 % between the risk premium on the INESGA loan (Euribor three months + 0,25 %) and the risk premium on that credit facility (Euribor 12 months + 0,75 %) minus 0,2 % paid for the guarantee).
Subvencija iz obresti na posojilo INESGA je torej 0,3 % (razlika 0,50 % med premijo za tveganje posojila sklada INESGA (3-mesečna Euribor + 0,25 %) in premijo za tveganje tega kreditiranja (12-mesečna Euribor + 0,75 %) minus 0,2 %, plačanega za poroštvo).
This amounts to EUR 28848,6 (0,3 % of EUR 9616193) p.a.
To znaša 28848,6 EUR (0,3 % od 9616193 EUR) na leto.
The grant provided by IGAPE (see recital 24), the interest-free loan granted by the Ministry of Science and Technology (see recital 25), the subsidisation by IGAPE of the interest and the formalisation fee granted through INESGA (see recital 26) confer an advantage on Siderúrgica Añón which is financed through state resources.
Dotacija, odobrena s strani IGAPE (glej uvodno izjavo (24)), brezobrestno posojilo španskega ministrstva za znanost in tehnologijo (glej uvodno izjavo (25)), subvencioniranje obresti in formalizacijske provizije s strani IGAPE pri posojilu, odobrenem prek sklada INESGA (glej točko (26) zgoraj), dajejo prednost podjetju Siderúrgica Ańón, ki se financira iz državnih sredstev.
The amounts of the aid measures mentioned in the previous point are the following: the grant provided by IGAPE: EUR 2399407; the subsidies granted by IGAPE on the loan granted by INESGA: 0,25 % per year on EUR 9616193 (interest subsidy), i.e. EUR 24040,5 p.a., and 0,5 % on EUR 9616193 (formalisation fee), i.e. EUR 48081 p.a.; the interest-free loan granted by the Ministry of Science and Technology: 5,7 % per year on EUR 1803036, i.e. EUR 102773,5 p.a.
Zneski ukrepov pomoči, navedenih v prejšnji točki, so naslednji: pri dotaciji IGAPE: 2399407 EUR; pri dotacijah IGAPE na posojilo sklada INESGA: 0,25 % na leto na 9616193 EUR (subvencija obresti) – oziroma 24040,5 EUR na leto – in 0,5 % na 9616193 EUR (formalizacijska provizija) – oziroma 48081 EUR na leto; pri brezobrestnem posojilu ministrstva za znanost in tehnologijo: 5,7 % na leto na 1803036 EUR – oziroma 102773,5 EUR na leto.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade
Izkrivljanje konkurence in učinek na trgovino
In view of the existence of competition and intra-Community trade in the sector (see recitals 20 to 23), the Commission considers that the abovementioned aid measures distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Ob upoštevanju obstoja konkurence in trgovine znotraj Skupnosti v sektorju (glej uvodne izjave (20) do (23) zgoraj) Komisija meni, da zgoraj omenjeni ukrepi pomoči izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljali konkurenco in imajo negativen vpliv na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission concludes therefore that the grant provided by IGAPE, the interest-free loan granted by the Ministry of Science and Technology, the subsidisation by IGAPE of the interest and the loan formalisation fee granted through INESGA, the stake acquired by SODIGA in the share capital of Siderúrgica Añón and the guarantee granted by IGAPE constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija torej ugotavlja, da dotacija IGAPE, brezobrestno posojilo ministrstva za znanost in tehnologijo, subvencioniranje obresti s strani IGAPE in formalizacijske provizije na posojilo s strani sklada INESGA, delež, ki ga je pridobilo podjetje SODIGA v delniškem kapitalu podjetja Siderúrgica Ańón, in poroštvo IGAPE predstavljajo državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission firstly cannot accept the argument that some of the aid measures were granted under approved schemes (N 21/95 [26] and N 182/01 [27]).
Komisija najprej ne more sprejeti argumenta, da so bili nekateri ukrepi pomoči dodeljeni po odobrenih shemah (N 21/95 [26] in N 182/01 [27].
In the Decisions authorising those schemes the Commission took note of the Spanish authorities' commitment to respect the relevant rules for the steel sector.
Pri odločbah za potrditev teh shem je Komisija upoštevala zavezo španskih organov, da bodo spoštovali ustrezna pravila za jeklarski sektor.
The Commission notes that the rules for the steel sector were contained in the Steel Aid Code, which excluded the steel sector from those schemes and imposed the prior notification obligation.
Komisija opaža, da so bila pravila za jeklarski sektor v zakoniku o pomoči jeklarski industriji, kar je izločilo jeklarski sektor iz teh shem in zahtevalo predhodno obvestilo.
Since this prior notification obligation has not been respected, the aid granted to Siderúrgica Añón is not covered by those two schemes.
Ker ta obveznost predhodnega obvestila ni bila spoštovana, ti dve shemi ne zajemata pomoči, dodeljene podjetju Siderúrgica Ańón.
According to point 44 of the Commission communication concerning certain aspects of the treatment of competition cases resulting from the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, ‘when taking decisions after 23 July 2002 in respect of state aid put into effect on or before that date without prior Commission approval, the Commission will proceed in accordance with the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful state aid’ [28].
V skladu s točko 44 sporočila Komisije o nekaterih vidikih obravnavanja konkurenčnih primerov zaradi izteka veljavnosti Pogodbe ESPJ „ob sprejemanju odločb po 23. juliju 2002 glede državne pomoči, izvajane tega dne ali prej brez predhodnega dovoljenja Komisije, bo ukrepala v skladu z Obvestilom Komisije o ugotavljanju uporabnih pravil za oceno nelegalne državne pomoči“ [28].
According to the last paragraph of this latter notice, the rules set out therein are nevertheless ‘without prejudice to the interpretation of Council and Commission regulations in the field of state aid’.
V skladu z zadnjim odstavkom omenjenega sporočila so v njem določena pravila vendarle „brez prejudiciranja tolmačenja pravil Sveta in Komisije na področju državnih pomoči“.
According to the second subparagraph of Article 9(2) [29] of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001, ‘individual aid outside any scheme granted before the date of entry into force of this Regulation in the absence of a Commission authorisation and in breach of the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, shall be compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3) of the Treaty and shall be exempt if it fulfils all the conditions of this Regulation, except the requirement in Article 3(1) that express reference be made to this Regulation’.
V skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 9(2) [29] Uredbe (ES) št. 70/2001, „(i)ndividualna pomoč, ki se dodeli zunaj sheme pomoči pred začetkom veljavnosti te uredbe, v odsotnosti dovoljenja Komisije in se z njo krši obveznost priglasitve iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe, je združljiva s skupnim trgom v smislu člena 87(3) Pogodbe in je oproščena te obveznosti, če izpolnjuje pogoje iz te uredbe, z izjemo zahteve iz člena 3(1), da se izrecno sklicuje na to uredbo“.
The Commission considers that, in view of the figures on turnover, workforce or total balance sheet of Siderúrgica Añón and its linked enterprises (see recitals 15 and 17), it is a medium-sized enterprise (according to Annex 1 to the SME Regulation).
Komisija meni, da je glede na podatke o prometu, delovni sili in skupni bilančni vsoti podjetja Siderúrgica Ańón in povezanih podjetij (glej uvodni izjavi (15) in (17)) podjetje srednje veliko (po Prilogi 1 k uredbi o MSP).
It therefore has to be assessed whether any investment aid granted to Siderúrgica Añón fulfils the conditions of the SME Regulation.
Zato je treba oceniti, ali katera od naložbenih pomoči, odobrenih za podjetje Siderúrgica Ańón, izpolnjuje pogoje uredbe o MSP.
In this respect the Commission notes that, according to Article 6(1) of the SME Regulation, individual aid grants are not exempted from the prior notification obligation where one of the two thresholds mentioned under (a) and (b) are met.
V tem pogledu Komisija opaža, da v skladu s členom 6(1) uredbe o MSP posamezne odobrene pomoči niso opravičene obveznosti predhodnega obvestila, če je izpolnjen eden od dveh pragov, omenjenih v (a) in (b).
It follows that the aid in the form of a grant of EUR 2399407 provided by IGAPE cannot be exempted.
Iz tega sledi, da pomoč v obliki dotacije, ki jo je dodelil IGAPE, v višini 2399407 EUR ne more biti izvzeta.
According to the Spanish authorities (see recital 24 above) the aid represents 8 % of the investment.
Po trditvah španskih organov (glej uvodno izjavo (24)) predstavlja pomoč 8 % naložbe.
The investment amounts therefore to EUR 29992588, which is higher than the EUR 25000000 threshold laid down in Article 6(1)(a).
Naložba torej znaša 29992588 EUR, kar presega prag 25000000 EUR, določen v členu 6(1)(a).
Furthermore, the steel industry has to be regarded as a sector which does not qualify for regional aid according to the third paragraph of point 1 of the Commission communication on rescue and restructuring aid and closure aid for the steel sector [30] and point 27 of the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects [31].
Poleg tega je treba jeklarsko industrijo obravnavati kot sektor, ki ni upravičen do regionalne pomoči v skladu s tretjim odstavkom točke 1 sporočila Komisije o pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje ter zaprtje v jeklarskem sektorju [30] in v skladu s točko 27 večsektorskega okvira za regionalno pomoč pri velikih naložbenih projektih [31].
The situation was the same at the time when the steel aid was granted under the Steel Aid Code.
Enako je veljalo, ko je bila odobrena pomoč za jeklarstvo po zakoniku o pomoči jeklarski industriji.
As Siderúrgica Añón is a medium-sized enterprise, the starting point for the applicable ceiling as referred to in Article 6(1)(a)(i) is indicated in Article 4(2)(b) as being 7,5 %.
Ker je podjetje Siderúrgica Ańón srednje veliko, je začetna točka za uporabno zgornjo mejo, kot je omenjena v členu 6(1)(a)(i), označena v členu 4(2)(b) pri 7,5 %.
Pursuant to Article 6(1)(a)(i), the gross aid intensity may thus not exceed 50 % of 7,5 %, i.e. 3,75 %.
V skladu s členom 6(1)(a)(i) bruto intenzivnost pomoči ne sme preseči 50 % od 7,5 %, tj. 3,75 %.
8 % is clearly above this threshold.
8 % je opazno nad tem pragom.
The gross intensity of the IGAPE grant has indeed to take into account the full amount of the grant (which amounts to 8 %) and not what has been initially disbursed (which amounts to 0,95 %) as claimed by the Spanish authorities (see recital 37) because it is the amount granted and not the amount disbursed that has to be considered for the assessment of aid.
Pri bruto količini dotacije s strani IGAPE je dejansko treba upoštevati celotno količino dotacije (ki znaša 8 %) in ne tisto, kar je bilo po trditvah španskih organov (glej uvodno izjavo (37)) izplačano na začetku (kar znaša 0,95 %), ker je pri oceni pomoči treba upoštevati odobreno količino in ne izplačane količine.
As it also follows from the last sentence of point 27 of the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects that large individual aid grants in the steel sector not exempted under the SME Regulation are incompatible with the common market, the grant provided by IGAPE cannot be exempted under the SME Regulation.
Kot sledi tudi iz zadnjega stavka točke 27 večsektorskega okvira za regionalno pomoč pri velikih naložbenih projektih, da so velike posamezne odobrene pomoči v jeklarskem sektorju, ki niso izvzete po uredbi o MSP, nezdružljive s skupnim trgom, dotacija, ki jo je dodelil IGAPE, ne more biti izvzeta po uredbi o MSP.
It should be stressed that the same conclusions would be reached if the Steel Aid Code in place at the time when the aid was granted were to be applied.
Treba je poudariti, da bi prišli do enakih sklepov, če bi uporabili zakonik o pomoči jeklarski industriji, ki je veljal v času dodelitve pomoči.
All the other aid considered to be investment aid could not be exempted under the SME Regulation either.
Vse ostale oblike pomoči, ki se obravnavajo kot naložbena pomoč, prav tako ne morejo biti izvzete po uredbi o MSP.
It would therefore have to be combined with the grant provided by IGAPE and would therefore be incompatible following the reasoning set out in recitals 86 to 88.
Zato bi jih bilo treba združiti z dotacijo, ki jo je dodelil IGAPE, in bi tako bile nezdružljive iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah od (86) do (88).
Possible compatibility under the regional derogation for state aid has to be assessed in accordance with the substantive criteria set out in any instrument in force at the time when the aid was granted, in line with the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful state aid.
Združljivost po regionalnih odstopanjih za državne pomoči je treba oceniti v skladu z vsebinskimi merili, določenimi v katerem koli instrumentu, veljavnem v času dodelitve pomoči, v skladu z obvestilom Komisije o določanju uporabnih pravil za oceno nelegalne državne pomoči.
As already mentioned, the Steel Aid Code did not authorise any regional aid at the time the aid was granted.
Kot je že bilo omenjeno, zakonik o pomoči jeklarski industriji ni odobril nobene regionalne pomoči v času dodelitve pomoči.
Therefore, the aid cannot qualify for the regional derogation.
Zato pomoč ne more izpolnjevati pogojev za regionalno odstopanje.
The Commission cannot accept either the argument that some of the investments were eligible for environmental aid, for the following reasons:
Komisija tudi ne more sprejeti argumenta, da so bile nekatere naložbe upravičene kot pomoč na področju varstva okolja iz teh razlogov:
According to Article 3 of the Steel Aid Code [32], which sets out the criteria for the application of the environmental guidelines, the Commission must avoid general investment aid for new plants or equipment being granted under cover of environmental protection.
V skladu s členom 3 zakonika o pomoči jeklarski industriji [32], ki določa merila za uporabo smernic za varstvo okolja, se mora Komisija izogibati dodeljevanju splošne naložbene pomoči za nove tovarne ali opremo pod pretvezo varstva okolja.
Moreover, the environmental guidelines [33] applicable in accordance with the Steel Aid Code state that aid ostensibly intended for environmental protection measures, but which is in fact for general investment, is not covered by them (point 3.2.1).
Poleg tega smernice za varstvo okolja [33], ki se uporabljajo v skladu z zakonikom o pomoči jeklarski industriji, navajajo, da ne zajemajo pomoči, ki je navidezno namenjena ukrepom na področju varstva okolja, v resnici pa predstavlja splošne naložbe (točka 3.2.1).
In the present case, the Commission notes, in the first place, that no environmental considerations were taken into account by the Spanish authorities when granting the aid.
V tem primeru Komisija najprej ugotovi, da španski organi niso upoštevali varstva okolja, ko so dodeljevali pomoč.
The Commission also notes that the investments in the water treatment system and in the reheating furnace will increase the efficiency of the company through a reduction in the costs of water or energy.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da bodo naložbe v čistilni sistem za vodo in v peč za pogrevanje povečale učinkovitost podjetja prek znižanih stroškov vode ali energije.
The installation of these types of equipment is normal practice in the industry without being considered environmental investment.
Namestitev tovrstne opreme je običajna praksa v industriji, ne da bi se jo upoštevalo kot naložbo v varstvo okolja.
The Commission considers that this is the reason for carrying them out and that they are therefore not covered by the environmental guidelines [34].
Komisija meni, da je to razlog za izvedbo teh naložb in da jih torej ne zajemajo smernice za varstvo okolja [34].
In any case, neither the Spanish authorities nor the recipient have provided any concrete evidence of the environmental benefits of those installations.
V nobenem primeru pa španski organi niti prejemnik niso predložili konkretnih dokazov o koristih teh namestitev za varstvo okolja.
There is therefore no need to make use of any independent expertise or to consult Member States (see the Annex to the Steel Aid Code).
Zato ni potrebe po uporabi neodvisnih strokovnjakov ali po posvetovanju z državami članicami (glej Prilogo k zakoniku o pomoči jeklarski industriji).
Nor have they deducted all the advantages in regard to lower costs of production, as the Annex [35] to the Steel Aid Code requires, or explained how the additional costs have been calculated.
Prav tako tudi niso odšteli vseh prednosti zaradi nižjih stroškov proizvodnje, kot to zahteva Priloga [35] k zakoniku o pomoči jeklarski industriji, ali razložili, kako so bili izračunani dodatni stroški.
As for the investment in the civil works, the Commission considers that there is no environmental benefit and that, if there were benefits for the safety of workers, these would not be covered by the environmental guidelines or by any provision of the Steel Aid Code.
V zvezi z naložbo v komunalna dela Komisija meni, da ni koristi za varstvo okolja in da, če bi obstajale koristi za varnost delavcev, te ne bi bile zajete v smernicah za varstvo okolja ali v določbah zakonika o pomoči jeklarski industriji.
The Commission cannot see either under which provision of the Steel Aid Code the aid could be deemed compatible.
Komisija prav tako ne vidi, po kateri določbi zakonika o pomoči jeklarski industriji bi se lahko pomoč štela za združljivo.
The aid is clearly not aid for research and development or closure aid and it was not granted in Greece.
Očitno ne gre za pomoč za raziskave in razvoj ali za pomoč za zaprtja, dodeljena pa ni bila v Grčiji.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that the aid is not training aid within the meaning of Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid [36] and not employment aid within the meaning of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to state aid for employment [37], [38].
Poleg tega Komisija opaža, da pomoči niso pomoči za usposabljanje v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 68/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri pomoči za usposabljanje [36] in niso pomoči za zaposlovanje v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 2204/2002 z dne 12. decembra 2002 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri državni pomoči za zaposlovanje [37] [38].
In any event, the Spanish authorities did not rely on any of these derogations or regulations.
V nobenem primeru se španski organi niso sklicevali na nobeno od teh odstopanj ali uredb.