natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Overall waivers in group PBS 3: 100 % of the claims was waived
Odpis terjatev v skupini PBS 3: odpisanih je bilo 100 % terjatev.
All remaining claims from connected undertakings in the Herlitz Group
Vse preostale terjatve povezanih podjetij Skupine Herlitz
Former management and executive employees (private) [14]
Nekdanje vodstvo / vodilni zaposleni (zasebni) [14]
[private creditors 22,61; public creditors 19,56] *
[zasebni upniki 22,61; javni upniki 19,56]*
Private Leasing Banks (private)
Zasebne kreditne banke (zasebni)
Unpaid and capitalised future leasing payments
Neplačani in kapitalizirani prihodnji obroki za kredit
Austrian Post (private for this case)
Avstrijska pošta (v tem primeru zasebni)
Complaint credit note and returned bonus
Dobropisi na reklamacijo in povračilo premije
Employer's Liability Insurance Association (public)
Poklicni sindikat (javni)
Accident insurance fees
Prispevki za nezgodno zavarovanje
Main Customs Office (public)
Glavni carinski urad (javni)
Import sales tax, customs duty
Davek na prihodke od uvoza, carina
Duales System Deutschland (private)
Duales System Deutschland (zasebni)
Fees for ‘Der Grüne Punkt’ recycling system
Prispevki za „Der Grüne Punkt“
Contributions for the period (1 to 4 March 2002)
Prispevki za obdobje od1. do 4. marca 2002
Ground rent for the period July to September 2002
Dajatve za dedno stavbno pravico za obdobje od julija do septembra 2002
Other private suppliers without securities (private)
Druge dobave brez jamstva
Overall waivers in group PBS 5: 90 % of the claims was waived
Odpisane terjatve v skupini PBS 5: odpisanih je bilo 90 % terjatev
Banks with right to separate satisfaction (private and public)
Banke z jamstvom na premičnine (zasebni in javni)
Credits dating from before 3 April 2003
Krediti iz obdobja pred 3. aprilom 2003
(waived all but EUR 76,75 million)
(odpis terjatev do 76,75 mio EUR
Additional information on debts with public creditors
Dodatni podatki o dolgovih do javnih upnikov
Public creditors declared claims in several groups of the insolvency proceedings.
Javni upniki so uveljavljali terjatve v različnih skupinah.
It is worth noting that none of the public or private creditors in groups HAG 2, HAG 3, PBS 3 and PBS 5 had any securities on their claims.
V skupinah HAG 2, HAG 3, PBS 3 in PBS 5 ni bila zavarovana nobena izmed terjatev javnih in zasebnih upnikov.
Despite this fact, the non-lower-ranking claims within groups HAG 3 and PBS 3 were waived completely, while the non-lower-ranking creditors in groups HAG 2 and PBS 5 received a proportional share of payment.
Kljub temu pa so bile nepodrejene terjatve v skupinah HAG 3 in PBS 3 v celoti odpisane, medtem ko so nepodrejeni upniki v skupinah HAG 2 in PBS 5 prejeli sorazmeren del plačil.
In accordance with the insolvency plans, the creditors within group HAG 2 received by 31 March 2004 a share of a total amount of EUR 0,5 million, corresponding to the relative size of their claims.
V skladu s stečajnima načrtoma so upniki skupine HAG 2 najpozneje do 31. marca 2004 prejeli delež celotne vsote v višini 0,5 milijona EUR, ki je ustrezal obsegu njihovih terjatev.
The creditors of group PBS 5 received 10 % of their claims by 31 December 2003.
Upniki skupine PBS 5 so prejeli 10 % svojih terjatev do 31. decembra 2003.
Tables 2 and 3 above show the amounts of the public claims and the respective waivers.
V tabelah 2 in 3 so razvidne vsote javnih terjatev in odpisi terjatev.
Additional information on financial institutions covered by the settlement agreement
Dodatni podatki o finančnih institucijah, udeleženih v sporazumu o poravnavi
Both insolvency plans mention a pending credit granted to Herlitz PBS AG by a bank consortium (hereinafter referred to as the consortium credit).
V obeh stečajnih načrtih je omenjen kredit, ki ga je Herlitzu PBS AG odobril bančni konzorcij (v nadaljevanju „konzorcijski kredit“).
The composition of the consortium is very similar to that of the shareholder banks described in recital 10.
Sestav konzorcija se sklada s sestavo konzorcija, navedenega v uvodni izjavi 10.
The consortium credit was granted by the whole consortium to Herlitz PBS AG in order to enable the full repayment of a convertible loan of EUR 100 million. On 3 April 2002, EUR 53,9 million of the EUR 65,4 million consortium credit was used up. Furthermore, before July 2001 most of these same banks granted the entire Herlitz Group other credits (lines of credit) totalling EUR 156,6 million, EUR 134,11 million of which was used up on 3 April 2003.
Konzorcijski kredit je Herlitzu PBS AG odobril celoten konzorcij, da bi mu omogočil poplačilo konvertibilnega posojila v višini 100 milijonov EUR. 3. aprila 2002 je bilo porabljenih 53,9 milijona EUR konzorcijskega kredita, ki je znašal 65,4 milijona EUR. Poleg tega je večina konzorcijskih bank Skupini Herlitz pred julijem 2001 odobrila nadaljnje kredite (kreditna linija) v višini 156,6 milijona EUR. Od tega je bilo do 3. aprila 2003 porabljenih 134,11 milijona EUR.
In group PBS 6 the banks uniformly waived the repayment of the consortium credit and the lines of credit exceeding a total amount of EUR 76,714 million with respect to Herlitz PBS AG. The same credit claims were uniformly waived in group HAG 1 with regard to Herlitz AG regarding amounts exceeding in total EUR 5 million.
V skupini PBS 6 so se banke enotno odpovedale poplačilu konzorcijskega kredita in kreditnih linij za vsoto, ki presega 76,714 milijona EUR. Tudi v skupini HAG 1 so se enotno odpovedali terjatvam za poplačilo kreditov za vsoto, ki presega 5 milijonov EUR. Deli kreditov, ki niso bili odpisani, so podaljšani krediti, odobreni Skupini Herlitz.
The parts of the credits that were not waived represent prolonged credits to the Herlitz Group. However, despite the fact that the banks waived the credits with respect to Herlitz PBS AG and Herlitz AG, these liabilities were simultaneously assumed by the real estate companies GGB and GGF.
Obveznosti, povezane z odpisom terjatev za kredite Herlitza PBS AG in Herlitza AG, sta sočasno prevzeli nepremičninski družbi GGB in GGF.
Additional information on other debts with financial institutions
Dodatni podatki o drugih dolgovih do finančnih institucij
At the time of the approval of the insolvency plans by the creditors, further bank liabilities existed within the Herlitz Group, which were not covered by the consortium credit and the lines of credit.
V času, ko so upniki odobrili stečajna načrta, so v Skupini Herlitz obstajale še druge obveznosti do bank, ki pa jih konzorcijski kredit in kreditne linije niso pokrivali.
Firstly, Hypovereinsbank (Ireland), the Bayerische Landesbank and the Landesbank Berlin banks fully waived the repayment of their non-secured credits in order not to endanger the recovery of their partly secured claims within the consortium credit.
Najprej so banke Hypovereinsbank (Irska), Bayerische Landesbank in Landesbank Berlin v celoti odpisale terjatve za nezavarovane kredite, da ne bi ogrozile izterjave delno zavarovanih terjatev znotraj konzorcijskega kredita.
Furthermore, on 15 April 2002 the consortium of banks granted a liquidity loan to the Herlitz Group (liquidity loan). The liquidity loan of EUR 15 million was granted in order to enable the continuation of the group’s operative business.
aprila 2002 so konzorcijske banke Herlitzu odobrile likvidnostno posojilo v višini 15 milijonov EUR, namenjeno nadaljevanju poslovanja Skupine.
The loan was twice prolonged (renewed) until 17 November 2003, when it was fully repaid.
Posojilo je bilo dvakrat podaljšano in 17. novembra 2003 v celoti vrnjeno.
This loan covered the seasonal liquidity needs of the group and may be granted again in June 2004.
To posojilo je pokrilo sezonske likvidnostne potrebe Skupine, junija 2004 pa bi ga lahko ponovno obnovili.
Additional information on debts with suppliers
Dodatni podatki o dolgovih do dobaviteljev
Herlitz AG’s debts with the suppliers amounted to EUR 9,30 million in group HAG 2. The suppliers of Herlitz PBS AG can be divided into those with securities (in group PBS 1) and those without any securities (in group PBS 5).
Dolgovi Herlitza AG do dobaviteljev so v skupini HAG 2 znašali 9,3 milijonov EUR. Dobavitelje Herlitza PBS AG je mogoče razdeliti na dobavitelje z jamstvom (skupina PBS 1) in dobavitelje brez jamstva (skupina PBS 5).
The suppliers in group PBS 1 had a right of separate satisfaction on 35 % of each Herlitz PBS AG’s current assets and therefore made no waivers.
Dobavitelji skupine PBS 1 so imeli izločitvene pravice za 35 % premoženja v obtoku Herlitza PBS AG in zaradi tega svojih terjatev niso odpisali.
By contrast, the unsecured suppliers in group PBS 5 relinquished 90 % of their claims like the other non-lower-ranking creditors in that group.
Nasprotno pa so nezavarovani dobavitelji skupine PBS 5 odpisali 90 % svojih terjatev, prav tako kot ostali nepodrejeni upniki te skupine.
Additional information on debts with the workforce and connected undertakings
Dodatni podatki o dolgovih do zaposlenih in povezanih podjetij
Under German insolvency law, employees and connected undertakings can also participate and receive quotas on their claims in insolvency proceedings.
Po nemškem stečajnem zakonu lahko zaposleni in povezana podjetja sodelujejo pri stečajnem postopku in prejmejo kvote za svoje terjatve.
This is why separate ‘creditor’ groups were created for these (HAG 4, PBS 4) or they were included in mixed groups (HAG 2, PBS 5).
Za te so bile ustanovljene ločene „skupine upnikov“ (HAG 4 in PBS 4), ostali pa so bili vključeni v mešane skupine (HAG 2 in PBS 5).
Alternatives to the insolvency plans
Druge možnosti stečajnih načrtov
In the Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG proceedings, the insolvency administrator and the creditors opted for maintaining the going concern through insolvency plans.
V postopkih proti Herlitzu AG in Herlitzu PBS AG so se stečajni upravitelj in upniki odločili za nadaljevanje dejavnosti podjetja s stečajnimi načrti.
As explained in recital 33, under the going-concern procedure all the insolvency costs and the debts of the insolvency assets were paid.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 33, so bili v postopkih stečajnega načrta plačani vsi stroški stečajne mase in stečajne obveznosti.
Furthermore, EUR 0,5 million was distributed as a quota to some non-lower ranking creditors of Herlitz AG, while some non-lower ranking creditors of Herlitz PBS AG received 10 % of their claims as a quota.
Poleg tega so plačali 0,5 milijona EUR kot kvoto nekaterim nepodrejenim upnikom Herlitza AG, nekateri nepodrejeni upniki Herlitza PBS AG pa so prejeli okoli 10 % svojih terjatev kot kvoto.
As explained in recital 47, the expected value of the insolvency mass was much lower in the option of liquidating the company.
Kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi 47, bi bila pričakovana vrednost stečajne mase ob likvidaciji podjetja precej nižja.
Selling the entire company in an asset deal was expected to produce better satisfaction of creditors, but no investor was willing to take over the totality of the assets of the group.
S prodajo celotnega podjetja bi upnike lahko bolj zadovoljili. Vendar pa se ni našel investitor, ki bi bil pripravljen prevzeti celotno premoženje Skupine.
According to an evaluation prepared by the firm Roland Berger and also in the opinion of the independent auctioneer, a liquidation would have reduced the value of movable assets from EUR 84,2 million to EUR [10-30] * million. This amount would have been first used to satisfy the claims with a right to separate satisfaction, leaving free insolvency assets of only EUR [0-5] * million. The revenues of the Herlitz Group during the insolvency proceedings would have amounted to approximately EUR 1 million. After adding this amount to the free assets, the result would have been total free insolvency assets of EUR [1-6] * million.
Po strokovnem mnenju, ki ga je podalo svetovalno podjetje Roland Berger, in po mnenju neodvisnih dražiteljev bi pri likvidaciji vrednost premičnin padla s 84,2 milijona EUR na [10–30] * milijonov EUR. To vsoto bi morali najprej uporabiti za zadovoljitev terjatev z izločitvenimi pravicami, zaradi česar bi v stečajni masi ostalo le [0–5] * milijona EUR. Dohodki Skupine Herlitz bi med stečajnim postopkom znašali okoli 1 milijona EUR. Po prištetju te vsote k razpoložljivemu premoženju bi nastala razpoložljiva stečajna masa v višini [1–6] * milijonov EUR.
The free insolvency assets would have been used to settle, in advance, the insolvency costs and the debts of the insolvency assets, such as those created through the administration and disposition of insolvency assets.
Razpoložljivo stečajno maso bi uporabili za poravnavo stroškov stečajne mase in stečajnih obveznosti, ki bi nastali pri upravljanju in odsvojitvi stečajne mase.
After deduction of the insolvency costs, the final amount of free assets would have been only EUR [0-1] * million. This amount could not cover the debts of the insolvency assets of the company and therefore was insufficient for even a proportional satisfaction of the non-lower-ranking creditors.
Po odbitku stroškov stečajne mase bi razpoložljivo premoženje znašalo le [0–1] * milijona EUR. Ta vsota ne bi zadostovala za pokritje stečajnih obveznosti podjetja in bi bila zato nezadostna celo za delno zadovoljitev nepodrejenih upnikov.
According to the insolvency plans, a restructuring whereby all assets of the Herlitz Group would have been sold in an asset deal to a new owner was not practicable.
Po stečajnih načrtih prestrukturiranje s prodajo vsega premoženja Skupine Herlitz novemu lastniku ne bi bilo izvedljivo.
Offers were made for the takeover of certain areas of activity and stocks, but the price offered corresponded to the liquidation value.
Pripravljene so bile sicer ponudbe za prevzem določenih področij dejavnosti in zalog, vendar pa so cene ponudb ustrezale likvidacijskim vrednostim.
Therefore, the option promising best satisfaction to creditors was the going-concern restructuring through insolvency plan.
Za upnike je bila torej najbolj ugodna rešitev prestrukturiranje še vedno delujočega podjetja s stečajnim načrtom.
The decision to initiate proceedings under Article 88(2) of the Treaty
Sklep o sprožitvi postopka na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES
The Commission decided on 19 February 2003 to initiate proceedings under Article 88(2) of the Treaty for three main reasons based on its review of the compatibility of the measures with the Community guidelines on rescue and restructuring aid for firms in difficulty [16] (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines).
Za Sklep Komisije z dne 19. februarja 2003 o sprožitvi postopka na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES so bili odločilni trije razlogi, ki so izhajali iz pregleda združljivosti ukrepov s smernicami Skupnosti o pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [16] (v nadaljevanju „smernice“).
First, the Commission found that the loan granted by ILB to Herlitz PBS AG contained elements of state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty which needed to be analysed further.
Prvič, Komisija je ugotovila, da je posojilo, ki ga je ILB odobrila Herlitzu PBS AG, vsebovalo elemente državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, ki jih je bilo potrebno podrobneje preučiti.
As regards compatibility of the aid with the Guidelines, Germany did not submit sufficient information for establishing who the real beneficiary of the aid was.
Nemčija o združljivosti pomoči s smernicami ni predložila zadostnih informacij, da bi lahko ugotovili, kdo je dejansko upravičen do pomoči.
Second, the Commission wondered whether the waivers of several public creditors (tax authorities, employment institutions, social security and public financial institutions) in the insolvency plans constituted aid.
Drugič, Komisija si je zastavila vprašanje, ali odpis terjatev s strani več javnih upnikov (davčni uradi, zvezni urad za zaposlovanje, uradi za socialno zavarovanje, finančni uradi) v stečajnih načrtih predstavlja pomoč.
Third, as regards the Herlitz Group’s use of the Berlin-Tegel real estate belonging to the Land of Berlin, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the lease contract was concluded under market conditions.
Tretjič, Komisija je bila glede uporabe zemljišča v Berlin Teglu, ki pripada deželi Berlin, v dvomih, ali je bila zakupna pogodba sklenjena pod tržnimi pogoji.
Since more than 10 years had passed since the contract, the granting of the lease was regarded as existing aid.
Ker je od sklenitve zakupne pogodbe minilo že več kot deset let, so jo označili kot obstoječo pomoč.
However, the Commission considered that the Land of Berlin’s waivers of ground rent claims (Erbbauzinsen) and the fact that the rent was not increased could constituted new aid.
Komisija je ugotovila, da bi odpis najemnine za zemljišče s strani dežele Berlin in dejstvo, da se najemnina ni zvišala, lahko predstavljalo novo pomoč.
It also took the view that the granting and subsequent waiver of the interest-free loan of DEM 6 million by the Land of Berlin could constitute State aid.
Tudi dodelitev in kasnejši odpis brezobrestnega posojila v višini 6 milijonov DEM dežele Berlin bi lahko predstavljala državno pomoč.
The only interested party that commented on the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure was Herlitz PBS AG on behalf of the beneficiary Herlitz Group.
Edina zainteresirana stranka, ki je glede Sklepa o sprožitvi formalnega preiskovalnega postopka oddala svojo pripombo, je bil Herlitz PBS AG v imenu upravičenca, Skupine Herlitz.
Herlitz PBS AG expressed its support for a thorough examination of the facts underlying the allegation of unlawful State aid.
Herlitz PBS AG se je zavzel za temeljito preiskavo dejanskega stanja o tem, ali je bila dodelitev posojil nezakonita državna pomoč.
It informed the Commission that it had provided all the relevant documents to the German authorities.
Komisiji je tudi sporočil, da je nemškim organom predal vso zadevno dokumentacijo.
As regards the rescue aid loan, Herlitz PBS AG submitted that it had been repaid and that it fulfilled the conditions for approving rescue aid.
Glede sanacijskega posojila je Herlitz PBS AG navedel, da je bilo posojilo vrnjeno in da izpolnjuje pogoje za dodelitev sanacijske pomoči.
With respect to the waivers in the insolvency proceedings, Herlitz PBS AG stated that the public creditors had acted in a comparable manner to private ones, furthermore the waived claims were worthless.
Glede odpisa terjatev v stečajnih načrtih je Herlitz PBS AG uveljavljal, da so javni upniki ravnali podobno kot zasebni upniki in da so bile odpisane terjatve brez vrednosti.
Herlitz PBS AG stressed that all creditors had voted unanimously to adopt the insolvency plans.
Poudaril je, da so se upniki soglasno strinjali s stečajnimi načrti.
Herlitz PBS AG reiterated that any aid elements the Commission might find in the waivers of claims would be eligible for approval as restructuring aid under the Guidelines.
Po mnenju Herlitza PBS AG bi se vsak element pomoči, ki bi ga Komisija našla v odpisih terjatev, v skladu s smernicami uvrščal v pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
To avoid repetition, Herlitz PBS AG simply supported the legal arguments put forward by Germany.
Da bi se izognil ponavljanju, je Herlitz PBS AG podprl pravne argumente, ki jih je podala Nemčija.
Germany stated that the remaining measures and in particular the waivers in the insolvency proceedings did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Nemčija je pojasnila, da ostali ukrepi, in še posebej odpisi terjatev v stečajnih postopkih, niso državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Germany submitted that the public creditors in the insolvency proceedings had waived worthless claims and that otherwise their actions were compatible with the private creditor principle.
Javni upniki so v stečajnem postopku odpisali terjatve brez vrednosti, poleg tega je bilo njihovo ravnanje združljivo z osnovnim načelom zasebnih upnikov.
Furthermore, according to Germany even if some of the other measures might constitute aid, they would be eligible for approval as restructuring aid under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Če pa bi katerega izmed ostalih ukrepov lahko šteli za državno pomoč, bi ta prišel v poštev kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
Germany’s comments on the rescue aid loan
Pripombe k sanacijskemu posojilu
With respect to the rescue aid loan, Germany pointed out that the decision to grant the loan on 10 May 2002 preceded the final adoption of the insolvency plan on 15 June 2002.
Nemčija je opozorila na to, da je do sklepa o dodelitvi sanacijskega posojila z dne 10. maja 2002 prišlo pred sprejetjem stečajnega načrta z dne 15. junija 2002.
The fact that the loan was only paid out on 24 July 2002 was due to certain ‘unresolved questions’ which could not be settled with ILB before 24 July 2002. For the period between the contract and the disbursement, the liquidity loan ensured the liquidity of Herlitz PBS AG.
Dejstvo, da je bilo posojilo izplačano šele 24. julija 2002, je posledica „odprtih vprašanj“ z ILB, ki so jih lahko rešili šele 24. julija 2002.
However, the liquidity loan was not sufficient to cover the increased liquidity needs in August 2003, which arose because of the start of the school term.
Za obdobje med podpisom pogodbe in izplačilom je to posojilo Herlitzu PBS AG zagotavljalo potrebno likvidnost, vendar pa ni zadostovalo za pokritje likvidnostnih potreb, ki so se pojavile avgusta 2003 zaradi pričetka šolskega leta.
Therefore, according to Germany, the rescue aid loan was necessary to cover the period until the adoption of the insolvency plan.
Likvidnostno posojilo je bilo nujno za premostitev obdobja do sprejetja stečajnih načrtov.
Germany submitted that the rescue aid loan was limited to the minimum, as demonstrated by the very low liquidity level of Herlitz PBS AG between August and December 2002.
Po mnenju Nemčije je bilo posojilo omejeno na minimalno vsoto, kar izhaja iz zelo nizke likvidnosti Herlitza PBS AG med avgustom in decembrom 2002.
Germany stated that the beneficiary of the rescue aid loan was not FOP but Herlitz PBS AG.
Po mnenju Nemčije upravičenec do sanacijskega posojila ni bil FOP, temveč Herlitz PBS AG.
Germany’s comments on the restructuring through insolvency plans
Pripombe o prestrukturiranju s stečajnimi načrti
Germany submitted that the waivers of certain public creditors did not lead to loss of revenue by the State since the relevant claims were worthless.
Nemčija je trdila, da odpis terjatev s strani nekaterih javnih upnikov ni privedel do izgube prihodka države, saj so bile te terjatve brez vrednosti.
According to Germany, the assets of Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG were only sufficient to cover the claims of creditors with a right to separate satisfaction.
Premoženje Herlitza AG in Herlitza PBS AG je zadoščalo zgolj za zadovoljitev terjatev upnikov z izločitvenimi pravicami.
The public creditors outside this group had no securities or only a lower-ranking land charge.
Javni upniki izven te skupine niso imeli jamstev ali pa so lahko predložili zgolj podrejen osnovni dolg.
Germany pointed out that in a liquidation scenario little or no payment would have resulted to public creditors, including the ones secured by a lower-ranking land charge.
V primeru likvidacije bi javni upniki prejeli nično ali pa zelo majhno vsoto, tudi tisti s podrejenim osnovnim dolgom.
According to paragraph 168 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-152/99 (HAMSA v Commission) [17], a creditor with an unsecured claim that would be worthless in a liquidation scenario does not make a real sacrifice by waiving a substantial part of his claim.
V skladu z odstavkom 168 sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T-152/99 (HAMSA proti Komisiji) [17] upnik ne žrtvuje veliko, če odpiše znaten del nezavarovanih terjatev, ki bi bile v primeru likvidacije brez vrednosti.
Germany stated that waivers by public creditors do not represent a service (Leistung) or a benefit that can be expressed in monetary terms.
Po mnenju Nemčije odpis terjatev ni niti denarna storitev niti denarna ugodnost.