natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, even where they are in good faith, beneficiaries cannot derive any rights from the acceptance of an aid measure if the Commission or a Member State has infringed the rules laid down by the Council or enshrined in the Treaty.
Vendar pa prejemniki pomoči, čeprav so prepričani, da imajo prav, od dodelitve ukrepa pomoči ne morejo pridobiti nobenih pravic, če Komisija ali država članica prekršita predpise, ki jih je določil Svet ali so utemeljeni v Pogodbi ES.
Comments from KWW
Pripombe družbe KWW
KWW argues that there is no legally valid reason why the Commission would question the legality of the restructuring aid seven years after approving it.
Družba KWW utemeljuje, da ni pravno pomembnega razloga, zakaj bi Komisija sedem let po odobritvi dvomila o zakonitosti pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
In the privatisation agreement between Treuhandanstalt and Kvaerner, the loss compensation was agreed as a lump sum and these documents did not impose any obligation on Kvaerner to repay the difference in case the contract related losses would turn out to be lower than estimated.
V pogodbi o privatizaciji med agencijo za privatizacijo in skupino Kvaerner je bil za izravnavo naročniško pogojenih izgub določen pavšalni znesek, ne da bi se od Kvaernerja zahtevala vrnitev razlike v primeru nižjih izgub.
The Commission was aware of the contents of these documents.
Komisija je poznala vsebino teh dokumentov.
Under these circumstances the Commission decided on the necessity of the aid in question and its decisions on approval of the aid do not contain any condition or clause on possible repayment of the difference between the estimated and real losses.
Glede na tako ozadje naj bi Komisija odločala o nujnosti vprašljive pomoči, odločbe za odobritev pa niso vsebovale nobenega pogoja ali klavzule, po katerih bi bilo treba vrniti razliko med predvideno in dejansko izgubo.
KWW claims that the contested amount of EUR 60,988 million (DEM 119,284 million) is part of the total operating aid approved by the Commission in its decisions of 1993.
Za družbo KWW je sporen znesek v višini 60,988 milijona EUR (119,284 milijona DEM) del celotne pomoči za tekoče poslovanje, ki jo je Komisija v svojih odločbah odobrila leta 1993.
Therefore it is existing aid of which the compatibility cannot be subsequently reassessed.
Govor je o obstoječi pomoči, katere združljivosti ni bilo mogoče naknadno preverjati.
The next point raised by KWW is that only part of the contested amounts is aid.
Dalje je družba KWW uveljavljala dejstvo, da je le del spornega zneska tudi pomoč.
Only EUR 29,812 million (DEM 58,309 million) operating aid was paid in cash.
Samo 29,812 milijona EUR (58,309 milijona DEM) naj bi bilo gotovinsko izplačanih subvencij za tekoče poslovanje.
The positions in the balance sheet also used to cover the restructuring costs cannot be considered as aid, since they were assets of the yard which were sold as a result of an open and unconditional bidding procedure.
Bilančnih postavk, ki so se uporabljale tudi za kritje stroškov prestrukturiranja, ni mogoče obravnavati kot subvencije, saj je tukaj govor o premoženjskih vrednostih ladjedelnice, ki so bile odtujene v javnem, brezpogojnem postopku.
KWW argues that the Commission decisions approving the aid are the legal basis for the assessment of the case.
Po mnenju družbe KWW mora pravna presoja tega primera potekati na podlagi odločb za odobritev, ki jih je sprejela Komisija.
It is the opinion of KWW that it has fully complied with the Commission decisions approving the aid, since:
Družba KWW meni, da je njihovo ravnanje iz naslednjih razlogov popolnoma v skladu z odločbami Komisije za odobritev:
the Commission approved the lump sum of aid being fully aware that the privatisation contract did not provide for any possible repayment obligations.
Komisija je pavšalno subvencijo odobrila, pri čemer je vedela, da pogodba o privatizaciji ne vsebuje obveznosti povrnitve.
The decisions do not mention a specific amount earmarked to cover losses;
Odločbe ne omenjajo nobene vsote, ki bi jo bilo treba uporabiti posebej za pokrivanje izgub;
the Commission decided on the necessity of the aid before releasing the tranches;
Komisija je pred sprostitvijo obrokov subvencije odločala o njihovi nujnosti;
the Commission decided on the necessity of the aid without laying down in its decisions approving the aid any conditions, which would justify reassessment of the aid later;
Komisija je, ne da bi v svojih odločbah za odobritev navedla kakršne koli razloge, ki bi upravičevali naknadna preverjanja, odločila, da je pomoč potrebna;
the funds for restructuring were used pursuant to their objectives.
Sredstva za prestrukturiranje so bila uporabljena za pravi namen.
Other restructuring costs than loss compensation, were higher than the estimated.
Drugi stroški prestrukturiranja, ki niso krili izgub iz naročil, so bili višji, kot je bilo pričakovano.
As regards point (a), KWW argues that the concept of the privatisation agreement was to make Kvaerner liable for any greater losses than those estimated.
K točki (a) družba KWW navaja, da je bila pogodba za privatizacijo zasnovana tako, da skupina Kvaerner jamči za vse morebitne izgube, višje od predvidenih izgub.
As a counterpart, the situation where the losses would be lower than estimated should benefit Kvaerner.
Če so izgube nižje od pričakovanj, ima skupina Kvaerner dobiček.
From Kvaerner’s point of view, compensation of all restructuring costs without any possibility of repayment was the essential condition for Kvaerner to take over the yard.
Kritje vseh stroškov prestrukturiranja brez možnosti terjatve vračila, je bil za družbo Kvaerner eden od bistvenih pogojev za prevzem ladjedelnice.
In case of possible repayment obligations, Kvaerner would never have taken over the yard.
V primeru morebitnega obveznega vračila skupina Kvaerner ladjedelnice ne bi nikoli prevzela.
This is illustrated by paragraph 12 of the privatisation agreement, in which it is stated that in case individual payments would be prohibited under EEC law, Kvaerner has the right to rescind the privatisation agreement.
To je razvidno iz odstavka 12 pogodbe o privatizaciji, ki se glasi, da ima skupina Kvaerner, če so posamezna plačila po pravnem redu ES prepovedana, pravico odstopiti od pogodbe.
According to KWW, the Commission was aware of the agreement between Kvaerner and Germany and the way the loss compensation was intended to be paid, namely as a lump sum.
Po mnenju družbe KWW je Komisija vedela za pogodbo med skupino Kvaerner in Nemčijo ter za določbo o izravnavi izgub v obliki plačila pavšala.
If the Commission objected to this approach, it should have opened a procedure and made a clear condition on a possible repayment in its decisions.
Pri morebitnih pomislekih bi morala Komisija sprožiti postopek in v svoje odločbe kot pogoj vključiti možna vračila.
As regards points (b) and (c), KWW argues that the decisions of the Commission contain no clauses that would justify reassessment of the approved aid.
K točkama (b) in (c) družba KWW navaja, da v odločbah Komisije ni nobene klavzule, ki bi upravičevala ponovno preverjanje že odobrenih subvencij.
The aid was approved in its totality.
Subvencija je bila odobrena v celoti.
Especially as there are no conditions or indications in the decisions on the fact that only the loss compensation corresponding to the real losses would be covered by the decisions approving the aid.
V odločbah ni bila navedena nobena klavzula ali opozorilo, po kateri odločbe o odobritvi krijejo izravnavo za izgubo le do višine dejanskih izgub.
There was no restriction in the decisions that would justify later control.
Odločbe niso vsebovale nobenih pridržkov, ki bi upravičevali naknaden nadzor.
The only sentence in the decisions to this effect is the one stating that Commission gave its commitment to the Council to use its monitoring and investigating powers to ensure that the yards only receive the aid necessary for their restructuring.
Samo en in edini stavek, po katerem se Komisija obvezuje do Sveta, da bo v okviru svojih pristojnosti nadzora in preverjanja skrbela, da bodo ladjedelnice prejele toliko subvencij, kot jih za svoje prestrukturiranje dejansko potrebujejo, naj bi kazal v to smer.
According to KWW, this sentence is only an introduction, which stresses that the investigating and controlling powers were used in the context of the approval of the aid in order to check the necessity of the aid before releasing the tranches.
Družba KWW vidi v tem stavku samo pripombo k sprostitvi posameznih delov subvencij, s katero je poudarjeno, da je Komisija svoje pristojnosti nadzora in preverjanja v okviru odobritvenega postopka izkoristila za ugotovitev nujnosti subvencij.
This sentence was meant only to justify why the Commission approved the restructuring aid in several tranches.
Ta stavek naj bi samo utemeljil, zakaj je Komisija subvencije za prestrukturiranje odobrila v več obrokih.
Consequently, according to KWW the Commission’s decisions approving the aid could only be understood in that the aid was released in accordance with the provisions of the privatisation agreement, without later repayment obligations in case the real losses would turn out the be lower than estimated.
Družba KWW pravi, da je mogoče odločbe Komisije o odobritvi razumeti samo tako, da se subvencije odobrijo v skladu s pogodbo o privatizaciji, kar pomeni brez kasnejših obveznosti vračila, če bi bile dejanske izgube nižje, kot je bilo pričakovano.
As regards point (d) KWW argues that the Commission decisions did not approve aid particularly for loss compensation. Only operating aid in general was approved.
Pripomba družbe KWW k točki (d) se glasi, da v odločbah Komisije ni bilo določeno, da naj bi se subvencije uporabile za izravnavo izgub, ampak da odobritev velja na splošno za subvencije za tekoče obratovanje.
In accordance with the concept of the Acquisition Agreement between Kvaerner and THA aid was meant to cover part of the costs of the restructuring.
Subvencije naj bi se ustrezno s smislom in namenom sporazuma o prevzemu med skupino Kvaerner in agencijo za privatizacijo uporabile za ublažitev dela stroškov prestrukturiranja.
The aid was used for the restructuring of the yard and therefore in accordance to its objectives.
Subvencije so bile uporabljene za prestrukturiranje ladjedelnice, torej so bile uporabljene ustrezno.
A further argument of KWW is that the Commission has known since 1996 that the real losses were significantly lower than the estimated ones.
Dalje družba KWW utemeljuje, da je Komisija že od leta 1996 vedela, da so bile dejanske izgube občutno nižje od predvidenih.
According to Kvaerner, the facts were presented in a way, which corresponded to the time of drafting the report.
Skupina Kvaerner meni, da so bila dejstva prikazana taka, kakršna so bila ob izdelavi poročila.
Kvaerner and Germany were under no obligation, after submitting the last spillover report covering the period until the end of 1995, to submit any further documentation to the Commission on the further development of the losses.
Skupina Kvaerner in Nemčija naj po predložitvi zadnjega „spillover“ poročila za obdobje do konca leta 1995 ne bi bili zavezani, da Komisiji sporočita nadaljnje podatke o gibanju izgub.
In any case, the Commission should have already noticed, on the basis of the 1995 spillover report, that the losses were lower than estimated.
Komisija bi morala že na podlagi predloženega „spillover“ poročila za leto 1995 spoznati, da izgube niso bile tako visoke, kot je bilo pričakovano.
The difference between the amount of losses in the 1995 spillover report (31 December 1995 — EUR 224,861 million (DEM 439,791 million)) and the auditor’s report of 25 April 1997 (31 December 1996 — EUR 201,048 million (DEM 393,216 million)) results from the fact that in individual cases risk estimates were not fully realised.
Razlika med izgubami, prikazanimi v „spillover“ poročilu za leto 1995 (31. decembra 1995 – 224,861 milijona EUR (439,791 milijona DEM)), in poročilom revizorja z dne 25. aprila 1997 (31. decembra 1996 – 201,048 milijona EUR (393,216 milijona DEM)) izhaja iz dejstva, da se v posameznih primerih izračunano tveganje ni popolnoma uresničilo.
KWW requests that the EUR 31,955 million (DEM 62,5 million) of Wettbewerbshilfe should not be calculated within the loss compensation.
Po mnenju družbe KWW pomoč za konkurenčnost v višini 31,955 milijona EUR (62,5 milijona DEM) ne bi smela biti knjižena kot izravnava za izgube.
This would lead to a smaller difference between estimated and real losses.
Tako bi se zmanjšala razlika med ocenjenimi in dejanskimi izgubami.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
PRIPOMBE NEMČIJE
Germany explains that EUR 60,988 million (DEM 119,284 million) subject to the present procedure is existing aid forming part of the operating aid approved by the Commission decisions of 3 March 1993 and 17 January 1994.
Po podatkih Nemčije gre pri spornih 60,988 milijona EUR (119,284 milijona DEM) za obstoječe subvencije, ki so del subvencij za tekoče poslovanje, ki jih je Komisija odobrila z odločbama 3. marca 1993 in 17. januarja 1994.
Therefore it is not understandable that the Commission initiated the procedure concerning non-notified aid, meaning new aid.
Zato naj ne bi bilo mogoče razumeti, da je Komisija uvedla postopek zaradi neprijavljene subvencije, tj. nove subvencije.
Without an explicit provision in its decision, the Commission cannot assess anew the compatibility of aid that it had, years before, already declared as being compatible with the common market.
Komisija naj ne bi mogla brez ustrezne določbe v svoji odločbi ponovno preveriti združljivosti subvencije, ki jo je leta prej določila kot združljivo s skupnim trgom.
This is against the principles of legal security and legitimate expectations.
To naj bi nasprotovalo temeljnemu načelu pravne varnosti in varstva zaupanja.
Further, Germany says that not all the amounts that the Commission dealt with in its decisions approving the aid in fact were aid.
Nemčija poleg tega navaja, da niso vsi zneski, ki jih je Komisija navedla v svojih odločbah o odobritvi, dejansko bili subvencije.
The Commission approved the full coverage of the restructuring costs.
Komisija naj bi odobrila popolno pokritje stroškov prestrukturiranja.
In this context it did not examine, to what extent the restructuring was carried out by using the own resources of the yard.
Pri tem naj ne bi preverila, koliko je bilo prestrukturiranje financirano iz lastnih sredstev ladjedelnice.
The prognosis for losses resulting from contracts signed after 1 July 1990 was EUR 230,08 million (DEM 450 million).
Napovedane izgube za pogodbe, podpisane po 1. juliju 1990, naj bi znašale 230,08 milijona EUR (450 milijonov DEM).
To cover this amount, there was not only the amount of EUR 29,812 million (DEM 58,309 million) operating aid paid in cash, as indicated in the paying schedule (Zahlungsplan) submitted to the Commission, but also own resources of the yard which appeared as positions in the balance sheet.
Za pokritje te vsote naj ne bi bila uporabljena samo pomoč v gotovini v višini 29,812 milijona EUR (58,309 milijona DEM), kot je navedeno v načrtu izplačevanja, posredovanega Komisiji, ampak tudi lastna sredstva ladjedelnice, ki naj bi bila v bilanci navedena kot postavke.
These own resources cannot be considered as aid, since they were assets of the yard, which were sold as a result of an open and unconditional bidding procedure.
Lastnih sredstev naj ne bi bilo mogoče obravnavati kot subvencij, saj naj bi pri tem šlo za premoženjske vrednosti ladjedelnice, ki so bile odtujene v odprtem, brezpogojnem postopku.
Germany stresses that the yard could not have been restructured without the aid laid down in the privatisation contract and approved by the Commission, since Kvaerner, as the best bidder, was only willing to carry out the restructuring at its own risk if it received this aid.
Nemčija poudarja, da ladjedelnica ne bi mogla biti prestrukturirana brez subvencije, določene v pogodbi o privatizaciji, ki jo je odobrila Komisija, saj naj bi bil Kvaerner kot najboljši ponudnik samo na osnovi subvencije pripravljen izvesti prestrukturiranje na lastno tveganje.
In case the Commission doubted the plausibility of the loss prognosis in the business plan at the time, it should not have approved the aid as a lump sum but should have inserted a provision in its approval stating that the approval only covered aid that corresponded to the actual losses.
Če bi Komisija nekoč dvomila o verodostojnosti izgube, napovedane v načrtu izplačevanja, ne bi smela odobriti subvencije kot pavšalne vsote, ampak bi morala vgraditi klavzulo, da velja odobritev samo za subvencije do višine dejanskih izgub.
However, the wording of the decisions does not contain such provisions and this was not even the intention of the Commission at the time.
Takšne klavzule pa naj odločba ne bi vsebovala in Komisija takrat o njej sploh ni razmišljala.
Under these circumstances the lump sum agreed upon was indeed meant to be final.
Dogovorjeni pavšal naj bi bil zato mišljen kot dokončna vsota.
The risks and benefits linked with possible exceeding or undercutting of this amount were left for KWW as an incentive to restructure the yard as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Tveganja in priložnosti, povezana z možnim prekoračenjem oz. nedoseganjem te vsote, naj bi bili mišljeni kot spodbuda za KWW, da izpelje prestrukturiranje tako hitro in učinkovito, kot je mogoče.
Germany refers to its letter of 28 May 1993 to the Commission, which reminds the Commission, that the compensation of the actual losses against a proof of the losses submitted by the company is not provided for in the privatisation contract.
Nemčija opozarja na svoj dopis z dne 28. maja 1993 Komisiji, v katerem ji je sporočila, da pogodba o privatizaciji za izravnavo izgube od ugodnosti deležne ladjedelnice ne zahteva nobenega dokazila dejansko nastalih stroškov.
The buyer of the yard bears the risk for any additional costs.
Kupec ladjedelnice naj bi nosil tveganje za morebitne dodatne stroške.
As a counterpart the buyer can benefit from the, according to the experience, minor chances for achieving any savings.
Na drugi strani naj bi kupec imel po izkušnjah neznatne možnosti za nižje izdatke.
Thereby the operating aid as established in a lump sum and agreed upon with the buyers is necessary for the privatisation of the Eastern German yards.
Pavšalne subvencije za tekoče poslovanje, dogovorjene s kupci, naj bi bile zato za privatizacijo vzhodnonemških ladjedelnic nujne.
Germany also refers to its letter of 16 October 1993, in which is written that the continuous monitoring of the future loss provisions is note envisaged.
Nemčija se nadalje sklicuje na svoj dopis z dne 16. oktobra 1993, v katerem pojasnjuje, da naj neprekinjeno spremljanje gibanja izgub ne bi bilo predvideno.
This would also correspond to the contractual agreement with the buyer, according to which KWW bears the full risk of the losses being higher than those provided for when the contract was signed.
To naj bi ustrezalo pogodbenemu sporazumu s kupcem, po katerem nosi KWW celotno tveganje za višje izgube, kot so bile dogovorjene v trenutku podpisa pogodbe.
Consequently, the Commission approved in 1993 all the operating aid without any restrictive conditions, being fully aware of the circumstances.
Komisija naj bi zato leta 1993 pri popolnem poznavanju dejanskega položaja izdala odobritev celotnih subvencij za tekoče poslovanje brez vsakršne omejitve.
The aid was then immediately paid to the yard as planned, long before it could be established how high the actual losses would finally be.
Subvencije naj bi bile potem kot načrtovano takoj izplačane, tj. veliko prej, kot je bilo jasno, kako visoke naj bi bile dejansko izgube.
A further point raised by Germany is that the Commission did not reserve itself the right to later examine the necessity of the aid.
Kot nadaljnji argument Nemčija navaja, da naj bi si Komisija ne pridržala pravice do ponovnega preverjanja nujnosti subvencij ob poznejšem trenutku.
Neither did the decision of March 1993 nor the one of January 1994 indicate that the aid was approved only to cover the actual losses and that the final assessment would only be carried out later once the final amount of the actual losses was known.
Odločbi iz marca 1993 in januarja 1994 naj ne bi dali opornih točk za to, da bi odobritev subvencije veljala samo do višine dejansko nastalih izgub in da bo dokončna presoja izvedena šele po poznavanju točnih izgub.
Neither do the Commission decisions indicate that the amount of the actual losses should be demonstrated or that the aid that would subsequently be proven as being ‘not necessary’, should be paid back.
V odločbah Komisije tudi ni nič kazalo na to, da bi bilo treba kasneje zahtevati dokazila o dejanskih izgubah in zahtevati vračilo „nepotrebnih“ subvencij.
The Commission should have inserted an express provision in its decisions in order to be able to legally enforce such right.
Da bi se lahko ta zahteva pravnomočno izvedla, bi morala Komisija v svojo odločbo vključiti izrecno določilo o tej vsebini.
Germany refers to the approving Commission decisions, in which it is stated that ‘The Commission can, in the light of the undertaking given to the Council described above, only approve the granting of aid for as far as the necessity is clearly shown …’.
Nemčija se navezuje tudi na del besedila v odločbah o odobritvi, ki pravi: „Vendar pa lahko Komisija v skladu s prevzeto obveznostjo do Sveta odobri samo subvencijo, ko se dokaže njena nujnost …“.
Since the Commission then approved the aid without attaching any conditions to it, this can only be interpreted as meaning that the Commission was convinced about the necessity of aid before approving it.
Ker naj bi Komisija takoj nato odobrila subvencije, ne da bi nanje vezala kakršne koli pogoje, naj bi se ta stavek razlagal samo tako, da je bila Komisija pred svojo odobritvijo prepričana o nujnosti subvencij.
According to Germany, the decisions cannot be interpreted in a way that the Commission would use its monitoring and investigating authority for a later assessment of the necessary amount of aid.
Po mnenju Nemčije odločb ni mogoče razlagati tako, da Komisija uporablja svoje pristojnosti preverjanja in nadzora, da bi ex post preverila potrebno subvencijsko vsoto.
Neither did the Commission reserve itself the right of such control.
Komisija si tudi naj ne bi pridržala pravice do takšnega pregleda.
In the Commission decisions approving the aid it is only stated that the Commission gave its commitment to the Council to use its monitoring and investigating powers in order to ensure that the yards only receive the aid necessary for their restructuring.
V odločbah o odobritvi naj bi se glasilo samo, da se je Komisija obvezala do Sveta, da bo v okviru svojih pristojnosti nadzora in preverjanja zagotovila, da bodo ladjedelnice prejele le toliko subvencij, kot jih za prestrukturiranje potrebujejo.
This statement was put in the decisions in order to explain why the Commission did not approve all the aid with one decision but released it in several tranches.
Ta izjava naj bi bila sprejeta, da bi razložili, zakaj Komisija subvencije ni odobrila z odločbo, ampak jih je sprostila v več obrokih.
In addition, this phrase indicated that the Commission took the final decision, each time, on the necessity of the aid before releasing a tranche.
Poleg tega naj bi stavek opozarjal na to, da je Komisija že pred odobritvijo obrokov dokončno odločila o nujnosti subvencij.
Germany also explains that to the contrary of what the Commission claims in the opening of procedure, its letter of 28 May 1993 does in no way indicate that Germany should ensure that the Commission verify the use of the aid after it had been granted and released.
Nemčija nadalje navaja, da njen dopis 28. maja 1993 v nasprotju s trditvami Komisije pri uvedbi postopka ne vsebuje nič, iz česar bi bilo mogoče razbrati, da bo Nemčija zagotovila, da bo Komisija lahko preverila uporabo subvencije po njeni dodelitvi in odobritvi.