natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The measures included a pro rata ‘sale’ of customers to competitors, a closure of online shops and other direct channels for a limited period, and withdrawal from the UMTS business as a service provider (enhanced service providing) for a limited period.
Ukrepi obsegajo sorazmerno „prodajo“ strank tekmecem, časovno omejeno zaprtje spletne trgovine in drugih neposrednih kanalov ter umik iz posla UMTS kot ponudnik storitev (t.i. „Enhanced Service Providing“) za omejeno časovno obdobje.
Comments from a third party which wished to keep its identity secret
Stališče tretjega, ki je zaprosil za ohranitev tajnosti identitete
The Commission also received comments from a further competitor, likewise a pure service provider without its own network structure.
Komisija je poleg tega prejela mnenje še enega tekmeca, ki je tudi le ponudnik storitev brez lastne omrežne strukture.
This competitor also thinks that the quid pro quo offered is not sufficient to achieve the reduction of capacities in MobilCom's core business necessary for offsetting distortions of competition.
Tudi ta tekmec zastopa stališče, da ponujene dolžnosti ne zadoščajo za omejitev zmogljivosti, ki bi zadoščale za izravnavo izkrivljanja konkurence v temeljni dejavnosti podjetja MobilCom.
MobilCom wanted to concentrate on high‐yield customers in the middle and upper segments.
MobilCom se namerava koncentrirati na premožnejše stranke srednjega in zgornjega segmenta.
Consequently, despite a decline in customers, it would be able to maintain its market presence since, by concentrating on high‐yield customers, costs could be reduced and turnovers increased.
Posledično bo podjetje MobilCom kljub zmanjšanju strank ohranilo svojo prisotnost na trgu, ker lahko s koncentracijo na donosnejše stranke zmanjša stroške in poveča promet.
Under current market conditions, viz. saturation, lower average turnovers per customer and falling margins, the repositioning that MobilCom was trying to achieve was what all service providers were striving for.
Pri sedanjem tržnem položaju, obeleženem z zasičenostjo, manjšim povprečnim prometom na stranko in padajočimi maržami, je cilj vseh podjetij, dejavnih kot ponudniki storitev, premik, ki ga je izvedlo podjetje MobilCom.
The aid, which was not available to direct competitors, was being used by MobilCom to secure a competitive advantage in the valuable, and fiercely contested, customer stratum.
Pomoči, ki neposrednim tekmecem niso na voljo, bo podjetje MobilCom uporabilo za pridobitev konkurenčne prednosti pri dragocenem in močno zaželenem sloju strank.
Germany had therefore supported the restructuring of MobilCom at the direct expense of competitors, which was not acceptable without further compensatory measures.
Nemčija je tako prestrukturiranje podjetja MobilCom podpirala neposredno na stroške tekmecev, kar brez dodatnih kompenzacijskih ukrepov ni sprejemljivo.
V. GERMANY'S RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THIRD PARTIES
V. ODZIV NEMČIJE NA STALIŠČE TRETJEGA
In response to the comments submitted by third parties, Germany argues that the second aid measure was necessary because in mid‐November 2002 the liquidity needed to maintain MobilCom's current business had run out.
V svojem odzivu na stališče tretjega je Nemčija na vprašanje nujnosti druge pomoči razložila, da je bila likvidnost, potrebna za nadaljevanje tekočega poslovnega obratovanja podjetja MobilCom, izrabljena v sredini novembra 2002.
Without the loan from the KfW consortium, MobilCom would have had to apply for insolvency immediately.
Brez odobritve posojila konzorcija KfW bi moralo podjetje MobilCom takoj prijaviti plačilno nesposobnost.
In the event of an application for insolvency, MobilCom's management board estimated that a substantial proportion of customers would very rapidly be lost; a restructuring of MobilCom on the basis of an insolvency would thus have been impossible.
Po ocenitvi uprave podjetja MobilCom bi se pri predlogu plačilne nesposobnosti kratkoročno odpadel pomemben del odnosov s strankami, zato prestrukturiranje podjetja MobilCom v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti ne bi bilo možno.
Germany further states that, in the settlement negotiations in the second half of September 2002, France Télécom always made it clear that it could undertake to release MobilCom from its UMTS commitments only if it could be certain that MobilCom would not need to seek insolvency within the periods in which challenges might be possible under insolvency law.
Nemčija je razložila tudi, da je tudi podjetje France Télécom ob začetku pogajanj o poravnavi v drugi polovici septembra leta 2002 vedno znova poudarjalo, da lahko podjetje MobilCom reši obveznosti v zvezi z UMTS le ob zagotovilu, da podjetje MobilCom v izpodbojnem roku za nesolventnost te ne bo rabilo prijaviti.
From the outset of the negotiations, therefore, France Télécom had wanted an outside expert's report giving a positive forecast for the continued existence of the business areas remaining to MobilCom and had demanded undertakings from third parties ensuring that the financing necessary for a successful reorganisation would be available.
Ustrezno je podjetje France Télécom že na začetku pogajanj zahtevalo izvedensko stališče o pozitivni napovedi nadaljnjega obstoja preostalih področij poslovanja podjetja MobilCom in zagotovila tretjih za zagotovitev financiranja, potrebnega za uspešno sanacijo.
The loan of EUR 112 million granted for this purpose by the KfW consortium was accordingly made a condition of the MC Settlement Agreement.
Posojilo KfW konzorcija v višini več kot 112 milijonov EUR za te namene je bilo izvedeno ustrezno s pogoji sporazuma o poravnavi („MC Settlement Agreement“).
France Télécom also demanded that the necessary loan facilities be open for at least 18 months.
Podjetje France Télécom je zahtevalo tudi, da morajo biti potrebni krediti zagotovljeni vsaj 18 mesecev.
The fact that the loan and guarantee ran until 20 May 2004 meant, in Germany's view, that this demand had been met.
S časovno omejitvijo kreditov in poroštva do 20. maja 2004 je bilo po navedbah Nemčije tej zahtevi ustreženo.
Germany also submits that the State guarantee was necessary for the granting of the loan.
Nemčija je razložila tudi, da je bilo za odobritev posojila potrebno državno poroštvo.
The loan contract with the KfW consortium required MobilCom to provide all the collateral it had at its disposal.
Posojilna pogodba s konzorcijem KfW je podjetje MobilCom zavezala k zagotovitvi vseh mogočih zavarovanj.
But this was not enough to convince the consortium to grant the necessary funding.
Vendar ta konzorciju KfW niso zadostovala za odobritev potrebnih finančnih sredstev.
Despite intensive efforts on the part of the Federal Government to induce the banks in the consortium to assume a higher proportion of the risk, the banks insisted that there had to be a deficiency guarantee from the Federal Government and the Land of Schleswig-Holstein covering 80 % of the loan.
Nasprotno, konzorcijske banke so kljub intenzivnemu trudu zvezne vlade za višje lastno tveganje bank vztrajale pri zavarovanju 80 % zneska kredita z jamstvom za zanesljivost plačila Zveze in dežele Šlezija-Holstein.
Without this official cover for the loan (risk shield), none of the banks would have been prepared to provide funding for MobilCom, and MobilCom would have become insolvent.
Brez te javne omejitve tveganj ne bi bila nobena banka pripravljena zagotoviti podjetju MobilCom finančnih sredstev, kar bi povzročilo plačilno nesposobnost podjetja MobilCom.
On the question of whether the aid was limited to the minimum necessary, Germany argued that in the loan contract with the KfW consortium MobilCom undertook to use all net revenue from the sale of major physical or financial assets to redeem the loans, and thus also the State guarantee.
Na vprašanje o omejitvi pomoči na potrebni minimum je Nemčija navedla, da se je podjetje MobilCom v posojilni pogodbi s konzorcijem KfW obvezalo vse neto prihodke, ki jih bo prejelo od odsvojitve bistvenih enot osnovnih sredstev in finančnih sredstev, uporabilo za poplačilo posojila in hkrati tudi za vrnitev državnega poroštva.
It also undertook to begin the sale of the landline network and the Internet business very soon.
Poleg tega se je podjetje MobilCom obvezalo kratkoročno uvesti prodajo panoge fiksnega omrežja/interneta.
It began at once efforts to sell these assets and the UMTS assets. It disposed of them so quickly and so successfully that it was able to redeem the loan financing advanced and the State guarantees ahead of schedule.
Podjetje MobilCom je takoj začelo s prodajo, tudi premoženja UMTS, ki jo je sklenilo tako hitro in uspešno, da je bilo mogoče predčasno plačati neporavnane kreditne linije in vrniti državna poroštva.
The sale of the landline business and the UMTS assets, and later the transfer of the Millenium shares, meant that the loan was gradually reduced, and the sale on 17 September 2003 of a stake in freenet.de AG ultimately brought it to zero.
S prodajo panoge fiksno omrežje, premoženja UMTS in kasneje z odsvojitvijo delnic Millenium se je uporabljen kredit postopoma manjšal in kredit je bil s prodajo udeležbe v Freenet.de AG dokončno poplačan dne 17. septembra 2003.
The State guarantee was thus in operation only for about half of the lifetime of the KfW loan.
Tako se je državno poroštvo dejansko uporabljajo le za približno polovico obdobja kredita KfW.
It was not possible to realise the assets and thus to repay the State‐guaranteed loans more quickly.
Še hitrejše unovčenje premoženja in poplačilo kreditov, za katere je jamčila država, ni bilo mogoče.
This was true of the sale of the landline business, which was agreed in March 2003, the sale of the UMTS assets, which was agreed in May 2003, and the sale of MobilCom shares by the trustee, Dr Dieter Thoma, which was permissible only from April 2003 onwards (MobilCom had no power to instruct Dr Thoma; under his trustee contract with Gerhard Schmid and Millenium, he was obliged to obtain as high a price as possible).
To je veljalo tako za prodajo panoge fiksno omrežje, ki je bila dogovorjena že marca leta 2003 in za odsvojitev premoženja UMTS, ki je bila dogovorjena za maj leta 2003, pa tudi za prodajo delnic podjetja MobilCom, ki jih je lahko upravitelj premoženja Dr. Dieter Thoma prodal šele po aprilu leta 2003 in ki mu podjetje MobilCom ni imelo pravice dajati navodil, ampak je bil po fiducirani pogodbi z Gerhardom Schmidom in Milleniumom obvezan doseči čim višji prihodek od prodaje.
Germany contends that the same applied to the sale of the freenet shares.
Po podatkih Nemčije je to veljalo tudi za prodajo delnic Freenet.
Under the German law governing limited companies, the management board had an obligation, in the interest of the company and its shareholders, to prevent any sale of its assets below their value.
Predpisi nemškega zakona o delniških družbah namreč upravni odbor obvezujejo v interesu podjetja in njegovih delničarjev preprečiti odsvojitev aktive podjetja pod njeno vrednostjo.
Germany states in particular that, at that time, the stake could have been sold quickly only through the stock market.
Nemčija podrobno navaja, da bi bila lahko kratkoročna odsvojitev udeležbe v tistem času mogoča le preko borze.
The market price of a freenet share was low, at about EUR 5, which gave a market value of EUR 68 million for the entire holding; if 76,1 % of freenet shares were to be disposed of rapidly, the price would probably have collapsed.
Takratni nizki borzni tečaj delnic Freenet v približni vrednosti 5 EUR (skupna borzna vrednost deleža: 68 milijonov EUR) bi se pri kratkoročni odsvojitvi 76,1 % delnic Freenet najverjetneje zrušil.
And the company supervisory bodies would not have agreed to a sale in November 2002 because at that time France Télécom's general meeting had not yet approved the MC Settlement Agreement.
Nadzorni odbori tudi ne bi soglašali z odsvojitvijo v novembru leta 2002, ker glavna skupščina podjetja France Télécom tedaj še ni odobrila sporazuma o poravnavi („MC Settlement Agreement“).
Germany submits that there were no alternative courses that would have enabled MobilCom to continue operating in the market.
Nemčija navaja, da za podjetje MobilCom ni bilo nobenih poslovnih alternativ, da se ohrani kot udeleženec na trgu.
Insolvency would, at best, have served the interests of competitors because MobilCom's clientele would readily have moved over to them.
V vsakem primeru bi bila plačilna nesposobnost v interesu tekmecev, saj bi bili brez nadaljnjega deležni baze strank podjetja MobilCom.
But Germany contends that there was no justification for breaking up MobilCom through an insolvency.
Po mnenju Nemčije pa razbitje skupine MobilCom zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti ni bilo utemeljeno.
Instead, considerations of competition, infrastructure and the labour market argued in favour of the granting of a State guarantee.
Za odobritev državnega poroštva so veliko bolj govorili zlasti konkurenčni in infrastrukturni vidiki ter vidiki delovnega trga.
Germany initially maintained its view that substantial compensatory measures had already been taken, the main ones being the sale of the UMTS business, the sale of the landline business, the reduction in MobilCom's stake in freenet.de AG from a qualified majority to a financial holding only, and the closure of the Hallbergmoos and Karlstein sites.
Nemčija je tudi najprej vztrajala, da so bili kompenzacijski ukrepi v velikem obsegu že izvedeni, zlasti s prodajo poslovnega področja UMTS, prodajo posla fiksnega omrežja, zmanjšanjem kvalificiranega večinskega deleža podjetja MobilCom pri Freenet.de AG na zgolj finančno udeležbo ter z zaprtjem podružnic Hallbermoss in Karlstein.
In direct talks held with Germany in January 2004, the Commission raised other possible compensatory measures, and in particular closure of MobilCom's online shops for a limited period of seven months, to which Germany initially agreed.
V neposrednih pogovorih januarja 2004 je Komisija z Nemčijo obravnavala možne nadaljnje kompenzacijske ukrepe, zlasti zaprtje spletne trgovine podjetja MobilCom za omejeno obdobje 7 mesecev, s katerim se je Nemčija prvotno strinjala.
However, in April 2004 Germany informed the Commission that it could not make a definite commitment to close the online shops.
Aprila leta 2004 pa je Nemčija sporočila, da ne more dokončno potrditi zaprtja spletnih trgovin.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES
PRESOJA UKREPOV
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty states that, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the common market, insofar as trade between Member States is affected.
V skladu s prvim odstavkom člena 87 Pogodbe ES so, razen če določa Pogodba ES drugače, državne ali iz državnih sredstev odobrene pomoči, ki zaradi koristi določenih podjetij ali proizvodnih panog izkrivljajo konkurenco ali pa ogrozijo, da jo bodo izkrivile, nezdružljive s skupnim trgom, če izkrivljajo trgovanje med državami članicami.
The Commission notes that the question of Germany's application to the Commission for authorisation to extend the loan guarantees until 2007 is now closed because the loans were repaid on 22 September 2003, with the guarantee bonds subsequently being returned to the guarantors.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se je zahtevek Nemčije za odobritev podaljšanja državnega poroštva za kredite do 2007 uredila s poplačilom kreditov dne 22. septembra 2003 in vrnitvijo poroštvenih listin porokom.
Thus the Commission no longer has to consider this application.
Komisija zato o tem zahtevku ne rabi odločati.
The State guarantee on the EUR 112 million loan as aid
1 Državno poroštvo za posojilo v vrednosti 112 milijonov EUR kot pomoč
The Commission considers that it has been shown that the 80 % State guarantee on the EUR 112 million loan granted on 20 November constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Glede 80 % državnega poroštva za posojilo v višini 112 milijonov EUR, odobreno 20. novembra, Komisija upošteva kot dokazano, da gre za pomoč v smislu prvega odstavka člena 87 Pogodbe ES.
The guarantee was granted by the Federal Ministry of Finance and by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Technology and Communications of the Land of Schleswig‐Holstein, both of which are State authorities.
Poroštvo sta odobrila dva državna organa, zvezno finančno ministrstvo Zvezne republike Nemčije in ministrstvo za gospodarstvo, tehnologijo in promet dežele Šlezije-Holstein.
The aid must therefore be considered as having been granted by the State.
Zato ga je treba dodeliti državi.
State guarantees generally fall within the scope of Article 87(1) if no market premium is paid and trade between Member States is affected.
Državna poroštva sodijo praviloma v področje uporabe prvega odstavka člena 87 Pogodbe ES, če zanje ni plačana tržna premija in kadar vpliva na trgovanje med državami članicami.
The Commission takes the view that the premium paid for the State guarantee was not a market premium.
Komisija je mnenja, da premija, plačana za državno poroštvo, ni običajna za trg.
Germany stated that the premium which MobilCom had to pay to the Federal Government for the guarantee was 0,8 % per annum plus an application fee of EUR 25000 in each case.
Nemčija je sporočila, da je premija, ki jo je moralo podjetje MobilCom plačati Zvezi za poroštvo, znašala vsakokrat 0,8 % letno.
The Land of Schleswig‐Holstein was entitled to a guarantee premium of 1 % per annum and a processing fee of EUR 25564. But Germany did not supply any further data that might show that that the premiums were appropriate to the risk or in line with market conditions.
Dodatno je bilo treba plačati še plačilo za zahtevek v višini 25000 EUR. Deželi Šleziji-Holstein je bilo treba plačati plačilo za garancijo v višini 1 % letno in plačilo za obdelavo v višini 25564 EUR. Nemčija ne navaja drugih podatkov o primernosti tveganja ali tržni običajnosti premij.
Rather, Germany itself always refers to the guarantee on the second loan too as ‘aid’.
Nasprotno, Nemčija tudi poroštvo za drugo posojilo vedno opisuje kot pomoč.
Against this background, and given MobilCom's difficult economic situation and the fact that it was on the brink of insolvency, the Commission concludes that the premium did not reflect the risk that the Federal Government and the Land were running by giving the guarantee; no private investor would have granted a guarantee on those terms.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega in glede na težki finančni položaj, v katerem se je nahajalo podjetje MobilCom ter glede na dejstvo, da je bilo podjetje tik pred plačilno nesposobnostjo, je Komisija prišla do sklepa, da plačilo ni izražalo tveganja, v katerega sta s prevzemom državnega poroštva privolila Zveza in dežela in da pod temi pogoji ne bi odobril jamstva noben zasebni udeleženec trga.
The guarantee thus conferred a selective advantage on MobilCom which it would not have received under normal market conditions.
Poroštvo je tako podjetju MobilCom odobrilo selektivno prednost, ki je podjetje pod normalnimi pogoji na trgu ne bi bilo deležno.
In particular, its access to borrowing was improved.
Zlasti se je s tem izboljšala možnost družbe za najem kredita.
MobilCom was in financial distress and the guarantee enabled it to obtain loans on terms that did not correspond to its real financial position or to the risk accepted by a lender lending to a firm in a comparable position without a State guarantee.
Zaradi poroštva je lahko podjetje MobilCom, ki se je nahajalo v finančni stiski, najelo posojila pod pogoji, ki niso bili v skladu z njegovim dejanskim finančnim položajem in tveganjem, ki ga je prevzel posojilodajalec ob odobritvi posojila podjetjem v podobnem finančnem položaju brez državnega poroštva.
Under normal market conditions, few banks will refuse to grant a loan to a firm if reimbursement is guaranteed by the State.
Pod normalnimi tržnimi pogoji bi odobritev posojila podjetju zavrnile le redke banke, če za vračilo kapitala jamči država.
Moreover, the guarantee may affect competition and trade between Member States.
Poleg tega lahko poroštvo vpliva na konkurenco in trgovanje med državami članicami.
MobilCom provides second‐generation GSM mobile telephony services throughout Germany.
Podjetje MobilCom ponuja GSM storitve mobilne telefonije druge generacije po vsej Nemčiji.
The loan guarantee granted by Germany improved MobilCom's competitive position and is such as to have an adverse effect on the ability of other second‐generation mobile telephony providers to compete.
Poroštvo za posojilo, ki ga je zagotovila Nemčija, je izboljšalo konkurenčni položaj podjetja MobilCom in je tako ustrezno za vpliv na konkurenčne možnosti drugih ponudnikov mobilne telefonije druge generacije.
The guarantee also helped to reinforce MobilCom's position at Community level because it made it less likely that providers from other Member States might set up or expand operations in Germany.
Poroštvo je prav tako prispevalo k utrditvi položaja podjetja MobilCom na ravni Skupnosti, ker je omejila možnost ponudnikov drugih držav članic pri ustvarjanju ali širjenju svojega položaja v Nemčiji.
On the Community telecommunications market there is intense competition between providers from different Member States.
Na telekomunikacijskem trgu Skupnosti vlada močna konkurenca med operaterji različnih držav članic.
Many of MobilCom's current or potential competitors in the provision of second‐generation mobile telephony services are firms with their head offices in other Member States (e.g. O2, E‐Plus, Vodafone D2, Talkline and Debitel).
Veliko (aktualnih ali potencialnih) tekmecev podjetja MobilCom, ki nudijo storitve mobilne telefonije druge generacije so podjetja, ki imajo glavni sedež v drugih državah članicah (npr. O2, E-Plus, Vodafone D2, Talkline in Debitel).
The State guarantee accordingly constitutes State aid caught by Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zato gre pri odobrenem državnem poroštvu za državno pomoč v smislu prvega odstavka člena 87 Pogodbe ES.
The Commission takes the view that the loan on which the guarantee was granted does not itself contain any aid element.
Po mnenju Komisije zajamčen kredit sam ne vsebuje elementov pomoči, ki presegajo poroštvo.
The guarantee meant that the loan was secured in line with market requirements.
Kredit je bil s poroštvom le trgu primerno zavarovan.
The interest rate charged to MobilCom on the EUR 112 million loan (2,5 % per annum above Euribor) was comparable to interest rates charged in the case of healthy firms and was not below the Commission's reference rates.
Tudi obrestna mera, zaračunana podjetju MobilCom za posojilo v višini 112 milijonov EUR (2,5 % letno po EURIBOR) je bila primerljiva z obrestnimi merami zdravih podjetij in ni bila manjša od referenčne obrestne mere Komisije.
Compatibility with the common market
Združljivost s skupnim trgom
Article 87 of the EC Treaty lays down exceptions to the principle that State aid is incompatible with the common market.
V členu 87 Pogodbe ES so predvidene izjeme načela nezdružljivosti državnih pomoči s skupnim trgom.
It has to be considered first of all whether the aid at issue here is compatible with the common market under Article 87(2).
Določba o izjemah drugega odstavka člena 87 bi lahko utemeljila združljivost pomoči s skupnim trgom.
But the aid is not (a) aid having a social character and granted to individual consumers; (b) aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences; or (c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Vendar pa ni ukrep pomoči niti socialne narave, dodeljen posameznim porabnikom (točka a), niti ne služi odstranjevanju škode, nastale zaradi naravnih katastrof ali drugih nenavadnih dogodkov (točka b), in tudi ni predviden za gospodarstvo določenih področij v Zvezni republiki Nemčiji (točka c).