natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Examples of indicators provided by the Court are the integration of the public company into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the compass of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains.
Primeri kazalcev, ki jih je določilo Sodišče, so vključitev javne gospodarske družbe v okvir javne uprave, značaj njenih dejavnosti in izvajanje le-teh na trgu znotraj splošnih pogojev konkurence z zasebnimi izvajalci, pravni status gospodarske družbe (ki je pod nadzorom javnega prava ali skupnega prava gospodarskih družb), intenzivnost nadzora, ki ga izvajajo javne oblasti nad upravo gospodarske družbe ali kateri koli drugi kazalec, ki v posameznem primeru kaže na vključevanje javne uprave pri sprejemanju ukrepa ali majhno verjetnost, da niso vpleteni, upoštevajoč tudi okoliščine ukrepa, njegovo vsebino ali pogoje, ki jih vsebuje.
SEPI is a company with a particular legal status, with e.g. its annual reports not accessible in the public Spanish registry.
SEPI je gospodarska družba s posebnim pravnim statusom tako, da na primer njena letna poročila niso dostopna na španskem javnem uradu.
The supervision of the company is exercised by its board of directors constituting to a large extent of State secretaries and other persons directly linked to the government.
Gospodarsko družbo vodi upravni odbor, ki ga v glavnem sestavljajo državni sekretarji in druge osebe, ki so neposredno povezane z vlado.
The nature of its activities include privatisation of State owned companies, which is an activity that is closely linked to public policy.
Značaj njihovih dejavnosti vključuje privatizacijo državnih gospodarskih družb, dejavnost, ki je vezana na javni red.
Furthermore, SEPI has a history of behaviour towards the shipyards which has been carried out in a manner that can be considered imputable to the State, such as providing part of the authorised restructuring aid in 1997 and unlawful aid in 1998 [21].
Nadalje je država odgovorna za preteklo ravnanje družbe SEPI z ladjedelnicami, pa tudi za način razporejanja obrokov pomoči za prestrukturiranje, odobrene v letu 1997, in nezakonite pomoči v letu 1998 [21].
It can also be noted that SEPI in other circumstances provides State aid, such as to the Spanish coal industry [22].
Ugotavlja se tudi, da družba SEPI vlaga državno pomoč tudi na druga področja, med njimi v premogovništvo [22].
It derives from points 66 and 67 above that SEPI’s funds are State resources.
Iz predhodnih točk 66 in 67 se zaključi, da so sredstva družbe SEPI državna sredstva.
Furthermore, it derives from points 68 to 70 above that the provision of its funds under investigation in this case, to shipbuilding companies, must be considered imputable to the State in so far as they are provided on terms not in conformity with market economy principles.
Nadalje se od točke 68 do točke 70 pojasni, zakaj bi se morala dodelitev sredstev ladjedelniškim gospodarskim družbam šteti kot državna odgovornost, saj je bila zagotovljena v okoliščinah, ki niso v skladu z načeli tržnega gospodarstva.
The general principle that applies for financial transactions between the State and public companies, is the so called market economy investor principle.
Glavno načelo, ki se nanaša na finančne transakcije med državo in javnimi gospodarskimi družbami, je tako imenovano načelo tržnega vlagatelja.
Given that SEPI’s funds are State resources, it is essential that SEPI, in its economic transactions with its shipbuilding subsidiaries (whether the subsidiaries are companies with economic activities or holding companies to such companies) acts fully in line with the market economy investor principle.
Ker so sredstva družbe SEPI državna sredstva, je bistvenega pomena, da družba SEPI v ekonomskih transakcijah svojih hčerinskih ladjedelniških družb (ne glede na to ali gre za družbe gospodarskih dejavnosti ali matične družbe, ki vključujejo te gospodarske družbe) deluje popolnoma v skladu z načelom tržnega vlagatelja.
The market economy investor principle is explained in detail in the Commission communication to the Member States on the Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and of Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC to public undertakings in the manufacturing sector [23].
Načelo tržnega vlagatelja je natančno pojasnjeno v sporočilu Komisije državam članicam o izvajanju členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe in člena 5 Uredbe Komisije 80/723/EGS za javne gospodarske družbe proizvodnega sektorja [23].
The Court has also, e.g. in Case-40/85 (Boch) [24] stated that the appropriate ways of establishing whether the measure is State aid is to apply the criterion to what extent the undertaking would be able to obtain the sums in question on the private capital markets at the same conditions. It continues, ‘in particular, whether in similar circumstances a private shareholder, having regard to the forseeability of obtaining a return and leaving aside all social, regional policy and sectoral considerations, would have subscribed the capital in question’.
Sodišče je tudi izjavilo, na primer v sodbi z dne 10. julija 1986, primer C 40/85, Bélgica/Comisión (Boch [24]), da je primeren način za ugotavljanje, ali se ukrep šteje kot državna pomoč, uporaba merila, do katere mere bi bila gospodarska družba upravičena prejeti zadevna sredstva na zasebnih kapitalskih trgih v enakih pogojih in zlasti, ali bi v podobnih okoliščinah zasebni vlagatelj, tu se misli na možnost ustvarjanja dobička brez upoštevanja katerega koli elementa socialne, regionalne ali sektorske politike, vpisal zadevni kapital.
The Commission does not exclude that funds provided by SEPI may be free of aid as long as SEPI’s actions comply with the market investor principle.
Komisija ne izključuje, da sredstva, zagotovljena s strani družbe SEPI, ne vsebujejo elementov pomoči, dokler se matična družba SEPI drži načela tržnega vlagatelja.
The Commission will therefore, for each of the transactions under scrutiny, assess whether SEPI acted according to the market investor principle.
Zato bo Komisija za vsak prevzem v preiskavi ocenila, ali je družba SEPI delovala v skladu z načelom tržnega vlagatelja.
Spain further claims that transactions within the SEPI group do not have to correspond to market conditions, and refers to cases where the Commission had not required that intra-group transactions were done on market terms.
Španija nadalje trdi, da transakcijam znotraj matične družbe SEPI ni treba upoštevati tržnih pogojev in se sklicuje na primere, v katerih Komisija ni zahtevala, da se transakcije znotraj družbe opravijo v skladu s tržnimi pogoji.
The Commission considers that while it could, in certain very specific cases, be accepted that within a State-owned group firms are transferred on non-market terms, this can not be accepted when State resources are transferred to companies in competition with other companies in the common market.
Komisija meni da, čeprav je v izjemnih primerih lahko sprejemljivo, da se znotraj skupine državnih družb prevzem gospodarskih družb ne opravi v skladu s tržnimi pogoji, to ni sprejemljivo, ko gre za prenos državnih sredstev družbam, ki z ostalimi družbami tekmujejo na skupnem trgu.
Aid contained in transactions linked to transfer 1, between AESA and SEPI
Pomoč v transakcijah, vezanih na prvi prevzem med družbama AESA in SEPI
SEPI on 28 December 1999 bought the three companies Juliana, Cadiz, and Manises from AESA.
Matična družba SEPI je 28. decembra 1999 družbi AESA kupila tri gospodarske družbe Juliana, Cádiz in Manises.
There are two aspects that need to be assessed in order to determine the existence of State aid in this transfer.
Za potrditev državne pomoči v tem prevzemu je treba oceniti dva elementa.
One issue is if the purchase price paid by SEPI to AESA was market price, and the other issue is if SEPI’s provision of loans to the companies it bought, complied with the market investor principle.
Prvi problem je, če je nakupna cena, ki jo je družba SEPI plačala družbi AESA, tržna cena, in drugi, če so posojila družbe SEPI gospodarskim družbam, ki jih je kupila, v skladu z načelom tržnega vlagatelja.
The purchase price
Nakupna cena
It can firstly be noted that Spain has informed the Commission that the price paid for the three companies was EUR 15302000 and not EUR 60 million, as stated in the opening of the procedure.
Na prvem mestu se ugotavlja, da je Španija obvestila Komisijo, da je bila cena za tri gospodarske družbe 15302000 EUR in ne 60 milijonov, kot se navaja v sprožitvi postopka.
Spain had previously claimed that the EUR 15302000 that SEPI paid for the three companies corresponded to book value at the time of the transaction, but at a late stage of the investigation informed that this was the book value at an earlier, unspecified, date in 1999.
Španija je predhodno trdila, da je 15302000 EUR, kolikor je družba SEPI plačala za tri gospodarske družbe, ustrezalo knjigovodski vrednosti v času transakcije, vendar je v zadnji fazi preiskovanja obvestila, da je bila ta knjigovodska vrednost iz prejšnjega, še vedno nedoločenega datuma iz leta 1999.
Spain further claims that SEPI did not have to pay the market price since it bought the three shipyards in order to privatise them.
Španija nadalje trdi, da družbi SEPI ni bilo treba plačati tržne cene, saj je tri ladjedelnice kupila z namenom, da jih privatizira.
However, the classification of a measure as State aid does not depend on its aim but on its effect.
Kljub temu klasifikacija merila za državno pomoč ni odvisna od njenega namena, ampak od učinka.
The fact that the shipyards were bought for a certain alleged purpose (privatisation) is therefore not a reason to disregard the State aid character of the transaction.
Dejstvo, da so se ladjedelnice kupile z nekim določenim namenom (za privatizacijo), ni razlog, da se ne upošteva značaja državne pomoči transakcije.
The Commission notes that SEPI did not succeed in privatising the three companies.
Komisija ugotavlja, da družba SEPI ni izvedla privatizacije treh gospodarskih družb.
Instead they were sold to SEPI’s subsidiary Bazán in July 2000, which is seven months after the sales transaction, for ESP 1 each.
Namesto tega so se v juliju 2000, torej sedem mesecev po prodajni transakciji, za ceno ene španske pezete za vsako prodale družbi Bazán, hčerinski družbi matične družbe SEPI.
From the annual reports of the concerned companies it is apparent that the book value of the three companies at the end of 1999, three days after the sales transaction, was EUR – 40646000 (Cadiz EUR – 13745000, Juliana EUR – 18679000, Manises EUR – 8222000).
Letna poročila zadevnih gospodarskih družb kažejo, da je bila knjigovodska vrednost vseh treh gospodarskih družb skupaj in vsake posamezno na koncu leta 1999, tri dni po prodajni transakciji, negativna in se kaže v končnem negativnem izračunu – 40646000 EUR, ki je razčlenjen v naslednjih zneskih: Cádiz – 13745000 EUR; Juliana – 18679000 EUR; Manises – 8222000 EUR.
Furthermore, as explained above, Spain evaluated the market value of these three companies in July 2000, when they were transferred to Bazán.
Nadalje, v zvezi z zgoraj pojasnjenim, je Španija ocenila tržno vrednost teh treh gospodarskih družb v juliju 2000, ko jih je prevzela družba Bazán.
Spain argues that, at that point in time, the market value was the book value minus the estimated risks not included in the balance sheet of the companies.
Španija trdi, da je bila takrat tržna vrednost enaka knjigovodski vrednosti, od katere se odštejejo vrednosti tveganja, ki niso vštete v bilanco stanja gospodarskih družb.
The risks were e.g. estimated losses for ships under construction and costs of under-activity.
Vrednosti tveganja upoštevajo, na primer, izgube zaradi ladij v gradnji in stroške, ki izvirajo iz manjše dejavnosti od običajne.
Although these factors may change over time, it is reasonable to assume that they did not change significantly over a seven-month period.
Čeprav se ti dejavniki s časom lahko spreminjajo, se lahko razumljivo domneva, da se v obdobju sedmih mesecev niso bistveno spremenili.
For the three companies under consideration here, Spain estimated the total risks to be EUR 25300000 in July 2000.
Za tri obravnavane gospodarske družbe je Španija ocenila, da bi se skupni stroški tveganj v juliju 2000 povečali na 25300000 EUR.
The Commission can thus conclude that SEPI on 28 December 1999 paid EUR 15302000 for three companies which had a book value of EUR – 40646000 three days later, plus risks that seven months later were estimated at EUR 25300000. It can therefore be concluded that SEPI paid more than the market price for the companies.
Komisija na podlagi tega zaključuje, da je družba SEPI 28. decembra 1999 za tri gospodarske družbe, ki so imele tri dni kasneje negativno knjigovodsko vrednost minus 40646000 EUR, čemur se prištejejo še stroški tveganja, ki so bili sedem mesecev kasneje ocenjeni na 25300000 EUR, plačala 15302000 EUR. Tako se lahko zaključi, da je družba SEPI za gospodarske družbe plačala več, kot je bila njihova tržna cena.
Any amount exceeding the market price has to be considered as State aid to the seller, AESA.
Kateri koli znesek, ki bi bil višji od tržne cene, bi se moral šteti kot državna pomoč prodajalcu, družbi AESA.
In the information injunction of July 2002 the Commission requested copies of all documents that could clarify the evaluation of the companies at the time of the transfer of ownership.
Na zahtevo za pridobitev poročila iz julija 2002 je Komisija prosila za kopije vseh dokumentov, ki bi lahko razjasnili oceno gospodarskih družb v času prevzema lastništva.
Spain did not provide any such information for this transaction, and therefore the Commission has no other option than to make an estimation of the market value based on the available information.
Španija poročila o tej transakciji ni predložila in zato je Komisija lahko ocenila tržno vrednost le na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov.
The market value in this case would correspond to the book value minus the financial risks.
Tržna vrednost je v tem primeru ustrezala knjigovodski vrednosti, od katere se odštejejo vrednosti finančnega tveganja.
Because of lack of information the Commission is not able to calculate the exact value of the financial risks.
Komisija zaradi pomanjkanja podatkov ni zmožna oceniti natančne vrednosti finančnih tveganj.
In order to exclude an overestimation of these risks, it therefore takes a prudent approach and assumes the financial risks to be zero.
Da bi se izključila možnost za precenitev teh vrednosti tveganj, sprejme varnostni ukrep in predvideva, da so vrednosti finančnih tveganj ničelne.
A prudent approximation of the market value would, therefore, in the current circumstances, be to use the best approximation of the book value.
Zaradi tega bi bil v danih okoliščinah razumen približek tržni vrednosti uporaba najboljšega približka knjigovodski vrednosti.
The best available estimation of the book value at the date of the transaction, i.e. on 28 December 1999, is the book value on 31 December 1999, which was EUR – 40,6 million. Based on this, the market value of the three companies would not exceed this amount.
Najboljša razpoložljiva ocena knjigovodske vrednosti, ki je na voljo na dan transakcije, 28. decembra 1999, je knjigovodska vrednost z dne 31. decembra 1999, to je negativna vrednost: minus 40646000 EUR. Če se za osnovo vzame to število, ga tržna vrednost treh gospodarskih družb ne bi presegla.
Based on available information, it can therefore be concluded that AESA sold to SEPI, for EUR 15302000, three companies worth at the most EUR – 40646000. This equals a gain of at least EUR 55948000 for AESA.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov se lahko zaključi, da je družba AESA matični družbi SEPI prodala tri gospodarske družbe, katerih vrednost je bila v skupnem seštevku minus 40646000 EUR, za 15302000 EUR, kar družbi AESA predstavlja dobiček vsaj 55948000 EUR.
In conclusion, SEPIs payment of EUR 15302000 for the three companies Cadiz, Juliana and Manises cannot be considered to be in accordance with the market investor principle.
Plačilo 15302000 EUR družbe SEPI za tri gospodarske družbe Cádiz, Juliana in Manises se torej ne sme šteti za plačilo, ki bi bilo skladno z načelom tržnega vlagatelja.
The gain of EUR 55948000 made by AESA should therefore be considered to be State aid to AESA, which, following the sale, still owned three other shipyard companies involved in civil ship construction.
Tako se mora dobiček 55948000 EUR, ki ga je ustvarila družba AESA, šteti kot državna pomoč. Po prodaji je bila družba AESA še vedno lastnica ostalih treh ladjedelnic, ki gradijo civilne ladje.
This State aid was illegal, given that it has not been notified to the Commission and it is not compatible with the common market, since it cannot be authorised as restructuring aid or any other type of aid.
Ta državna pomoč je bila nezakonita, ker ni bila priglašena Komisiji in ni v skladu s skupnim trgom, zato ne more biti odobrena kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje ali katera koli druga vrsta pomoči.
The 1998 and 1999 annual reports of AESA and the companies it owned, state that the continuation of all the operations were dependent on the financial support of the respective shareholder, i.e. SEPI for AESA and AESA for the shipyards.
Letna poročila iz let 1998 in 1999 družbe AESA in gospodarskih družb, ki jih je imela v lasti, kažejo na to, da je bilo nadaljnje obratovanje vseh odvisno od denarne pomoči zadevnega delničarja, torej družbe SEPI družbi AESA in družbe AESA ladjedelnicam.
From this information the Commission concludes that the aid provided by SEPI to AESA in this transaction was transferred to the three companies still owned by AESA (Sestao, Sevilla and Puerto Real).
Na podlagi tega podatka Komisija zaključuje, da se je pomoč, ki jo je zagotovila družba SEPI družbi AESA, v tem prevzemu prenesla na tri gospodarske družbe (Sestao, Sevilla in Puerto Real), takrat še v lasti družbe AESA.
The conclusion that State aid to AESA implied State aid to its shipbuilding activities was already made in the Commission’s decision [25] on illegal State aid provided from SEPI to AESA in 1998, which subsequently was upheld by the court [26].
V Odločbi Komisije [25] o nezakoniti državni pomoči, ki jo je v letu 1998 družba SEPI zagotovila družbi AESA in jo je kasneje v sodbi z dne 21. marca 2002, primer C-36/00, España/Comisión [26], ratificiralo Sodišče, je Komisija že sprejela odločitev, da je državna pomoč družbi AESA pomenila državno pomoč vsem njenim ladjedelniškim dejavnostim.
Loans provided by SEPI to three shipyards in December 1999
Posojila družbe SEPI trem ladjedelnicam decembra 1999
In its second extension of the procedure, the Commission noted that SEPI had provided the three companies Juliana, Cadiz and Manises with loans of EUR 194400000 during the year 1999.
V drugem postopku širitve je Komisija odkrila, da je matična družba SEPI v letu 1999 trem družbam Cádiz, Juliana in Manises zagotovila 194400000 EUR posojil.
The Commission had doubts that this could be State aid to these companies.
Komisija je sumila, da bi lahko šlo za državno pomoč zadevnim gospodarskim družbam.
These loans carried an interest rate of MIBOR plus 8 points.
Obrestna mera teh posojil je bila enaka obrestni meri MIBOR plus 8 točk.
From a State aid point of view, the assessment needs to focus on the transaction by which State resources were transferred from the State to the beneficiaries. Therefore, the assessment will focus on SEPI’s loan of EUR 192100000 to the three companies Juliana, Cadiz and Manises.
Z vidika državne pomoči se mora ocena osredotočiti na transakcijo, s katero so bila državna sredstva prenesena od države na upravičence, torej na posojilo 192100000 EUR družbe SEPI trem ladjedelnicam: Juliana, Cádiz in Manises.
The difference between this amount and the EUR 194400000 stated in the second extension of the procedure, EUR 2100000, will be assumed not to be State aid since it has not been established when and how this amount of money was provided.
Predvideva se, da razlika med tem zneskom in 194400000 EUR, navedenimi v drugem postopku širitve, 2100000 EUR ni državna pomoč, saj še ni bilo ugotovljeno, kdaj in kako je bil denar zagotovljen.
The issue to be assessed is, as the Court has established in Case 40/85 (Boch) whether in similar circumstances a private shareholder, having regard to the foreseeability of obtaining a return and leaving aside all social, regional policy and sectoral considerations would have provided such loans.
Element, ki ga je treba oceniti, je, kakor je določilo Sodišče v primeru 40/85 (Boch), ali bi v podobnih okoliščinah zasebni vlagatelj, upoštevajoč možnost ustvariti dobiček brez upoštevanja kakršne koli socialne in regionalne politike ter sektorskih pomislekov, zagotovil taka posojila.
Therefore, the question is if a private investor, even if taking a decision at the level of the whole group would under normal market economy conditions expect an acceptable rate of profitability on the capital invested.
Tako je vprašljivo, če bi zasebni vlagatelj, tudi če bi se odločil na ravni celotne skupine, v običajnem tržnem gospodarstvu lahko pričakoval ustrezno donosnost od vloženega kapitala.
The Court further stated that an appropriate way of establishing whether a loan is State aid is to apply the criterion of determining to what extent the undertaking would be able to obtain the sums in question on the private capital markets, the so called private creditor test [27].
Sodišče je v svojih sodbah nadalje trdilo, da je primeren način za ugotavljanje, ali se posojilo šteje kot državna pomoč, da uporabi merilo, do katere mere bi gospodarska družba lahko dobila potrebna sredstva na zasebnih kapitalskih trgih, tako imenovani kriterij zasebnega vlagatelja [27].
From the annual reports for Juliana, Cadiz and Manises it is clear that these three companies receiving the loans were in difficulties.
Letna poročila treh gospodarskih družb Juliana, Cádiz in Manises so jasno pokazala, da so bile v težavah.
Each of the three companies had negative book values at the end of 1998, and recorded losses for 1999.
Vsaka izmed njih je imela ob koncu leta 1998 negativno knjigovodsko vrednost in je v letu 1999 zabeležila izgube.
The auditor also stated in the annual accounts both for year 1998 and 1999 that the companies needed support from their shareholders in order to be able to continue operation.
Tudi revizor je v letnih obračunih tako iz leta 1998 kot iz leta 1999 izjavil, da so gospodarske družbe potrebovale podporo svojih delničarjev, da bi lahko nadaljevale z dejavnostjo.
There were furthermore no signs that the difficult financial situation for the shipyards would improve.
Nadalje tudi ni bilo znakov, da bi se težko finančno stanje ladjedelnic izboljšalo.
For these reasons, it can be established that the three companies would not have been able to obtain the loans on the private capital markets.
Zaradi tega razloga se lahko ugotovi, da tri gospodarske družbe niso bile sposobne pridobiti posojila na zasebnih kapitalskih trgih.
Therefore, these loans did not comply with the private creditor test.
Ta posojila torej niso upoštevala kriterija zasebnega vlagatelja.
For the same reasons SEPI could not have expected a repayment of the loans and the interest.
Zaradi istega razloga družba SEPI ni mogla pričakovati povračila posojil z obrestmi.
Therefore the provision of such resources from SEPI to the shipyard companies did not comply with the market creditor principle. Therefore the loans constitute State aid to the three companies.
Tako družba SEPI pri dodelitvi teh sredstev ladjedelnicam ni upoštevala kriterija zasebnega vlagatelja, zato se posojila trem gospodarskim družbam štejejo kot državna pomoč.