natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to facilitate the in-house production of turnkey hangars, Jahnke Bau GmbH was set up in conjunction with Jahnke Lenzen in 1998 with a view to carrying out work such as the production of concrete foundations for steel hangars.
Da bi omogočili proizvodnjo hal na ključ v podjetju, so leta 1998 v sodelovanju z Jahnke Lenzen ustanovili Jahnke Bau GmbH z namenom prevzema del, kot je na primer izdelava betonskih temeljev za jeklene hale.
Marketing and distribution
Trženje in distribucija
Jahnke was to be linked to the existing distribution network of Jahnke Lenzen and a systematic approach to marketing was to be adopted.
Jahnke naj bi bil vključen v obstoječ distribucijski sistem podjetja Jahnke Lenzen, trg naj bi bil sistematično obdelan.
According to Germany, Jahnke already has a well-established customer base, including well-known enterprises that rate it as a skilled and reliable supplier and are interested in placing further business with it.
Po navedbah Nemčije ima Jahnke zvest krog kupcev, vključno s priznanimi podjetji, ki podjetje Jahnke cenijo kot kvalificiranega in zanesljivega dobavitelja in so zainteresirana za nadaljevanje poslovanja z njim.
Jahnke is active in the steel construction industry (Nace code 1 28.1).
Podjetje Jahnke je dejavno na področju jeklenih konstrukcij (koda NACE 128.1).
Geographically the most important market for Jahnke is Germany where it has a market share of about 0,3 %.
Njegov geografsko najpomembnejši trg je Nemčija, kjer Jahnke obvladuje približno 0,3-odstotni tržni delež.
Its market share in Europe is less than 0,01 %.
Njegov delež na evropskem trgu je manjši od 0,01 odstotka.
According to the German authorities, so far it has had only one supply contract for the European market, amounting to EUR 154000.
Po navedbah nemških organov je imel Jahnke na evropskem trgu do zdaj le eno naročilo v vrednosti 154000 EUR.
According to information provided by Germany, there is no structural excess of production capacity either in the German market (about 80 % capacity utilisation in western Germany and about 90 % in eastern Germany) or in the EU market.
Po navedbah Nemčije ni presežnih proizvodnih kapacitet niti na nemškem trgu (okoli 80 % izkoriščenosti kapacitet v zahodni Nemčiji in okoli 90 % v vzhodni Nemčiji) niti na evropskem trgu.
Starting in 1990 Jahnke has continuously reduced its capacity and discontinued a number of activities to improve cost structures.
Jahnke je od leta 1990 svoje kapacitete nenehno zmanjševal in opustil vrsto področij delovanja, da bi izboljšal svojo strukturo stroškov.
It has also reduced its staff from 650 in 1991 to 80 at present.
Poleg tega je leta 1991 zmanjšal število zaposlenih s 650 na trenutnih 80.
The purpose of the aid is not to enable the recipient to expand production capacity but to finance mainly start-up costs.
Cilj pomoči ni pomagati upravičencu razširiti proizvodne kapacitete, temveč predvsem financirati njegove začetne stroške.
Opening of the investigation procedure
Sprožitev postopka preiskave
By letter dated 28 February 2001, the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to open the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in the absence of clarification of the following questions:
Z dopisom z dne 28. februarja 2001 je Komisija obvestila Nemčijo o svojem sklepu, da bo sprožila postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES zaradi naslednjih nepojasnjenih vprašanj:
Is Jahnke, as a newly created firm, eligible for restructuring aid in accordance with the guidelines?
Ali je Jahnke kot novoustanovljeno podjetje upravičen do pomoči za prestrukturiranje v skladu s smernicami?
Does the restructuring plan, as presented, fulfil the viability criteria of the guidelines?
Ali predloženi načrt za prestrukturiranje izpolnjuje merila rentabilnosti smernic?
Is competition unduly distorted by the aid?
Ali pomoč neprimerno izkrivlja konkurenco?
Would the guarantee of the Land of Saxony-Anhalt, as envisaged, be provided in accordance with the criteria laid down in the applicable aid scheme?
Ali je predvideno jamstvo dežele Saška-Anhalt dodeljeno v skladu z merili izvajanega programa pomoči?
The Commission accordingly considered the guarantee to be ad hoc aid.
Komisija je to jamstvo označila kot začasno pomoč.
The Commission also ordered Germany, pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, to submit all the information necessary to enable it to verify whether the consolidation loan from the Land of Saxony-Anhalt had actually been granted in accordance with the criteria laid down in the applicable aid scheme.
Komisija je nemške organe zaprosila, da v skladu s členom 10(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 predložijo vse potrebne podatke, da bo Komisija lahko preverila, ali je bilo konsolidacijsko posojilo dežele Saška-Anhalt dodeljeno v skladu z merili izvajanega programa pomoči.
In its response to the opening of the investigation procedure, Germany took the view that a letter dated 30 November 1999 from HAMESTA’s receiver to Mr Jahnke was to be regarded as a takeover agreement and that Jahnke therefore fell within the exception to the general prohibition on restructuring aid to a newly created firm, provided for in footnote 10 of the guidelines.
V svojem odgovoru na sprožitev postopka preiskave Nemčija zavzema stališče, da dopis z dne 30. novembra 1999, ki ga je stečajni upravitelj HAMESTE poslal gospodu Jahnkeju, velja kot dogovor o prevzemu in da zaradi tega za podjetje Jahnke ne velja splošna prepoved pomoči za prestrukturiranje za novoustanovljeno podjetje v skladu z opombo 10 smernic.
The German authorities also pointed out that Jahnke had already taken over HAMESTA’s stock and between 2000 and 2002 had invested some EUR 237000 in repairs.
Nemški organi so opozorili tudi na to, da je podjetje Jahnke med letoma 2000 in 2002 prevzelo zaloge podjetja HAMESTA in vložilo 237000 EUR v vzdrževanje.
Germany maintained that the restructuring plan was suited to restoring Jahnke to long-term viability while avoiding undue distortions of competition.
Nemčija vztraja, da je bil načrt za prestrukturiranje namenjen vzpostavitvi dolgoročne rentabilnosti podjetja Jahnke, ne da bi pri tem prišlo do nedopustnega izkrivljanja konkurence.
The German authorities also submitted additional information on the application of the scheme under which the Land of Saxony-Anhalt had granted the consolidation loan.
Nemški organi so podali dodatne informacije k uporabi programa pomoči, v skladu s katerim je dežela Saška-Anhalt dodelila konsolidacijsko posojilo.
In their opinion, the loan had been granted in accordance with all the conditions of the scheme.
Po njihovem mnenju je bilo posojilo dodeljeno v skladu z vsemi pogoji tega programa.
Germany reminded the Commission that restructuring aid to newly created firms had been approved in the past and referred in particular to the Commission’s decision of 2 August 2000 on aid to Homatec Industrietechnik GmbH (Homatec) and Ambau Stahl- und Anlagenbau GmbH (Ambau) [7].
Nemčija je Komisijo opomnila, da je bila pomoč za prestrukturiranje novoustanovljenim podjetjem dodeljena že v preteklosti in se pri tem sklicevala na Odločbo Komisije z dne 2. avgusta 2000 o pomoči za Homatec Industrietechnik GmbH (HOMATEC) in Ambau Stahl- und Anlagenbau GmbH (AMBAU) [7].
In January and July 2003 Germany informed the Commission that Jahnke had applied for insolvency and that the proceedings would last at least until mid-2004.
Januarja in julija 2003 je Nemčija Komisiji sporočila, da je podjetje Jahnke zaprosilo za stečajni postopek, ki bo trajal najmanj do sredine leta 2004.
ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
PRESOJA POMOČI
According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources, in any form whatsoever, which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES so državne pomoči ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljale konkurenco z dodelitvijo prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljive s skupnim trgom.
Pursuant to the established case-law of the Courts of the European Communities, the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries out an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišč Evropskih skupnosti je merilo oviranja trgovine izpolnjen, ko upravičeno podjetje izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost, ki vključuje trgovino med državami članicami.
Jahnke has received from the BvS two loans totalling EUR 560000 and from the Land of Saxony-Anhalt a consolidation loan amounting to EUR 260000. The Land was prepared to provide an additional guarantee in order to secure a bank loan, which was to be granted in order to finance the sales price of the assets.
Podjetje Jahnke je od BvS prejelo dve posojili v skupni višini 560000 EUR in od dežele Saška-Anhalt konsolidacijsko posojilo v višini 260000 EUR. Dežela je bila pripravljena dati dodatno jamstvo za bančno posojilo, ki naj bi bilo dodeljeno za financiranje nakupne cene premoženja.
These measures confer on Jahnke advantages that a company in such economic difficulties would not have obtained on the financial market.
S temi ukrepi so bile podjetju Jahnke dodeljene prednosti, ki jih podjetje s podobnimi gospodarskimi težavami na finančnem trgu ne bi moglo pridobiti.
The Land of Saxony-Anhalt is part of the federal structure of Germany, and as a constituent State of the Federation shares in public authority. The BvS is likewise a public body.
Zvezna dežela Saška-Anhalt je ozemeljska skupnost in BvS je javna ustanova, ki svoje dejavnosti financira iz državnih sredstev.
It finances its activities with public money, and acts as a public institution whose terms of reference require it to privatise the enterprises in its keeping on behalf of the authorities and in the public interest.
Deluje kot javna pravna organizacija, ki je po statutu dolžna privatizirati podjetja v imenu države in v javni interes.
For these reasons, the measures taken by it are also imputable to the State.
Iz teh razlogov je mogoče njene ukrepe pripisati državi.
The measures at issue are granted through State resources to an individual company favouring it by reducing the costs it would normally have to bear if it wanted to carry out its restructuring project.
Zadevni ukrepi izhajajo iz državnih sredstev v korist podjetja. Na ta način so se stroški znižali, v normalnih okoliščinah pa bi podjetje moralo te stroške poravnati samo, če bi hotelo izpeljati načrt za prestrukturiranje.
Moreover, the recipient of the aid, Jahnke, is active in steel construction and manufactures products that are traded between Member States.
Upravičeno podjetje Jahnke je dejavno na področju jeklenih konstrukcij, z njihovimi izdelki se trguje med državami članicami.
As the aid threatens to distort competition, it falls within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Ker bi pomoč lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, spada v področje uporabe člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
A derogation from the prohibition in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty may be granted under either Article 87(2) or Article 87(3) of that Treaty.
Izjema iz prepovedi člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES lahko izhaja iz uporabe odstavkov 2 ali 3 tega člena.
Germany has not claimed that the aid should be authorised under Article 87(2).
Nemčija ni zahtevala, da mora biti pomoč odobrena v skladu s členom 87(2).
Indeed, it is evident that this provision does not apply.
Jasno je, da ta določba ni uporabna.
This case falls under Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty, which gives the Commission discretion to permit State aid in certain specified circumstances.
V poštev pride uporaba člena 87(3) Pogodbe ES, po katerem lahko Komisija državno pomoč dodeli v določenih okoliščinah.
The derogations in Article 87(3)(b), (d) and (e) were not invoked in the present case and are indeed not relevant.
Izjeme v členu 87(3)(b), (d) in (e) v tem primeru niso bile navedene in tudi niso pomembne.
Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty empowers the Commission to approve State aid meant for the improvement and economic development of regions with especially low living standards or employment levels.
V skladu s členom 87(3)(a) lahko Komisija odobri državno pomoč, ki služi izboljšanju in gospodarskemu razvoju območij s posebej nizkim življenjskim standardom in visoko stopnjo brezposelnosti.
The Land of Saxony-Anhalt is such a region.
Dežela Saška-Anhalt je takšno območje.
In this case, however, the main purpose of the aid is to promote the development of a certain economic sector rather than to promote the economic development of a region.
V tem primeru je glavni namen pomoči pospeševanje razvoja določenega gospodarskega sektorja, ne pa gospodarskega razvoja regije.
Hence the aid for restructuring the company in accordance with the restructuring plan presented falls to be assessed under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty rather than under Article 87(3)(a).
Zato je mogoče pomoč za prestrukturiranje podjetja oceniti v skladu s predloženim načrtom za prestrukturiranje po členu 87(3)(c) in ne po členu 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES.
Jahnke is an SME within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises [8].
Podjetje Jahnke je MSP v smislu Priporočila Komisije 96/280/ES z dne 3. aprila 1996 o opredelitvi majhnih in srednje velikih podjetij [8].
Granting of aid under an approved scheme
Dodelitev pomoči v okviru odobrenega programa pomoči
In its decision to open the investigation procedure the Commission noted that the Land of Saxony-Anhalt intended to provide a loan guarantee under the guarantee guidelines of the Land of Saxony-Anhalt [9], which is a scheme approved by the Commission (N 413/91) (hereinafter called the guarantee scheme).
V svojem sklepu o sprožitvi postopka preiskave je Komisija zapisala, da je dežela Saška-Anhalt nameravala zagotoviti jamstvo za posojilo v skladu s smernicami o jamstvu dežele Saška-Anhalt [9], enim izmed programov, ki jih je Komisija odobrila pod številko N 413/91 (garancijska shema).
The guarantee of EUR 2 million was to be provided in order to secure 80 % of a loan totalling EUR 2,5 million.
Jamstvo v višini 2 milijona EUR je veljalo za 80 % posojila v višini 2,5 milijona EUR.
The Land of Saxony-Anhalt also granted a consolidation loan amounting to EUR 260000. According to Germany, the loan was granted in accordance with the guidelines for granting consolidation loans to small and medium-sized businesses in the Land of Saxony-Anhalt, which is also a scheme approved by the Commission (N 452/97) (hereinafter called the second scheme).
Nadalje je dežela Saška-Anhalt dodelila konsolidacijsko posojilo v višini 260000 EUR. Po navedbah Nemčije je bilo posojilo odobreno v skladu s smernicami za dodeljevanje konsolidacijskih posojil srednje velikim podjetjem v deželi Saška-Anhalt, ki jo je Komisija potrdila pod številko N 452/97 (drugi program).
In the case of both schemes, in order for aid to be granted, certain conditions must be met. In the case of a restructuring, the aid must be limited to restructuring plans that will restore the long-term viability of the recipient; in addition, it must be combined with a substantial contribution from the recipient; and lastly, it must be the minimum required to restore the recipient’s competitiveness.
Pri obeh programih pomoči morajo biti za dodelitev pomoči izpolnjeni določeni pogoji: v primeru prestrukturiranja mora biti pomoč omejena na načrte za prestrukturiranje, s katerimi se lahko ponovno vzpostavi dolgoročna rentabilnost upravičenca; poleg tega mora biti dodelitev povezana z lastnim znatnim prispevkom upravičenca in mora predstavljati najnižjo vsoto za obnovitev konkurenčnosti upravičenca.
Both schemes prohibit investment aid to newly created firms.
Oba programa prepovedujeta pomoč za naložbe novoustanovljenim podjetjem.
As to the consolidation loan from the Land of Saxony-Anhalt, the Commission issued an information injunction pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 to enable it to determine whether this measure fulfilled all the conditions of the second scheme.
Za konsolidacijsko posojilo dežele Saška-Anhalt je Komisija zahtevala predložitev podatkov v skladu s členom 10(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, da bi ugotovila, ali so bili pri teh ukrepih izpolnjeni vsi pogoji drugega programa pomoči.
As to the envisaged guarantee, the Commission raised doubts whether it would fulfil all the conditions of the guarantee scheme (restoration of long-term viability; no aid for initial investment to a newly created firm).
Glede predvidenega jamstva je Komisija izrazila pomisleke, ali so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji garancijske sheme (vzpostavitev dolgoročne rentabilnosti; nobene pomoči za začetne naložbe novoustanovljenega podjetja).
The Commission therefore considered the envisaged guarantee to be ad hoc aid.
Komisija je zato predvideno jamstvo označila kot začasno pomoč.
In its response to the information injunction and the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, Germany took the view that both measures were granted/would be granted in accordance with the conditions laid down in the respective scheme.
V svojem odgovoru na uredbo o predložitvi podatkov in na sklep o sprožitvi uradnega postopka preiskave je Nemčija zastopala stališče, da sta bila oba ukrepa odobrena/bi bila odobrena v skladu s pogoji zadevnega programa.
As for the reasons given in point 3 below, the Commission considers that the restructuring plan presented does not fulfil the viability criterion of the guidelines.
Glede na utemeljitve v oddelku 3 spodaj je Komisija mnenja, da predloženi načrt za prestrukturiranje ne izpolnjuje meril rentabilnosti smernic.
It also considers Jahnke to be ineligible for restructuring aid.
Po njenem mnenju podjetje Jahnke ni upravičeno do pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
It therefore considers that the loan and the guarantee from the Land of Saxony-Anhalt was not granted/would not be granted in accordance with all the conditions of the respective scheme.
Zato posojilo in jamstvo dežele Saška-Anhalt ni bilo odobreno/ne bi bilo odobreno v skladu z vsemi pogoji zadevnih programov.
As both measures do not fulfil the conditions of the applicable aid scheme, they must be treated as ad hoc aid.
Ker ukrepa ne izpolnjujeta pogojev zadevnih veljavnih programov pomoči, ju je potrebno označiti kot začasno pomoč.
Accordingly, the total amount of ad hoc State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty to be assessed in the present Decision is EUR 2,82 million.
Skupni znesek s to odločbo ocenjenih začasnih pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES znaša 2,82 milijona EUR.
Restructuring aid to Jahnke
Pomoč za prestrukturiranje za podjetje Jahnke
In the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [10], the Commission spelled out in detail the criteria for assessing aid for the purpose of restructuring a company.
V smernicah Skupnosti o državnih pomočeh za namene reševanja in prestrukturiranje gospodarskih družb v težavah [10] je Komisija podrobno razložila merila za presojo pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
Eligibility for restructuring aid
Izpolnjevanje pogojev za pomoč za prestrukturiranje
According to point 3.2.2 of the guidelines, a newly created firm is not eligible for rescue or restructuring aid, even if its initial financial position is insecure.
V skladu s točko 3.2.2 smernic novoustanovljeno podjetje ni upravičeno do pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, tudi če je njegov začetni finančni položaj negotov.
This is the case, for instance, where a new firm emerges from the liquidation of a previous firm or merely takes over such firm’s assets.
To se nanaša na primer novoustanovljenega podjetje, ki nastane iz likvidacije predhodnega podjetja ali zgolj prevzame premoženje takšnega podjetja.
The only exceptions to this rule are cases dealt with by the BvS in the context of its privatisation remit and other similar cases in the new Länder, involving companies emerging from a liquidation or a takeover of assets occurring up to 31 December 1999.
Edine izjeme tega pravila so primeri, s katerimi se ukvarja BvS v okviru privatizacije, ali podobni primeri v novih zveznih deželah, kjer so do 31. decembra 1999 podjetja nastala iz likvidacije podjetij ali so prevzela premoženje podjetij.
In its decision to open the formal investigation procedure the Commission noted that Jahnke, which was registered in November 1999, was a newly created firm.
V svojem sklepu o sprožitvi uradnega postopka preiskave je Komisija ugotovila, da je bilo podjetje Jahnke, ki je bilo registrirano novembra 1999, novoustanovljeno podjetje.
It raised doubts whether Jahnke fell within the exception to the general prohibition on restructuring aid to a newly created firm because there had been no liquidation of HAMESTA’s assets, nor can Jahnke be considered to have taken over the assets since the creditors’ meeting had decided not to proceed with the sale of the assets to Jahnke Halle but instead to dispose of them by public auction.
Komisija je izrazila dvom, ali Jahnke spada med izjeme od splošne prepovedi za pomoč za prestrukturiranje za novoustanovljeno podjetje, saj premoženje HAMESTE ni bilo likvidirano in ker Jahnke ni prevzel premoženja, saj je upniški odbor sklenil, da premoženja HAMESTE ne bodo prenesli na drugo pravno osebo, temveč ga bodo prodali na javni dražbi.
In its comments Germany took the view that a letter dated 30 November 1999 from the receiver to Mr Jahnke was to be regarded as a takeover agreement.
V svojem odgovoru je Nemčija uveljavljala, da je dopis z dne 30. novembra 1999, ki ga je stečajni upravitelj poslal gospodu Jahnkeju, mogoče označiti za dogovor o prevzemu.
In this letter the receiver envisaged that Jahnke could utilise the assets until such time as a sale took place.
V tem dopisu je stečajni upravitelj navedel, da lahko podjetje Jahnke premoženje uporablja do prodaje.
The German authorities also pointed out that since December 1999 Jahnke had operated the business of HAMESTA and that both Mr Jahnke and his other company Jahnke Lenzen had made commitments.
Nemški organi so opozorili tudi na dejstvo, da podjetje Jahnke od decembra 1999 vodi posle podjetja HAMESTA in da sta tako gospod Jahnke kot njegovo podjetje Jahnke Lenzen prevzela odgovornosti.
Germany also argued that the Commission had already approved aid to newly created firms in a number of instances.
Nemčija je tudi trdila, da je Komisija že v več primerih odobrila pomoč novoustanovljenim podjetjem.
It referred in particular to the Homatec and Ambau cases.
Pri tem je še posebej omenila primera HOMATEC in AMBAU.
According to the German authorities, the takeover of HAMESTA’s assets by Jahnke occurred in the following way:
Po mnenju nemških organov je prevzem premoženja HAMESTE s strani podjetja Jahnke potekal na način:
On 30 November 1999, the receiver informed Mr Jahnke that he envisaged selling the assets to Jahnke provided he secured the agreement of the creditors’ meeting.
novembra 1999 je stečajni upravitelj gospodu Jahnkeju sporočil, da namerava prodati premoženje podjetju Jahnke pod pogojem, da gospod Jahnke pridobi soglasje upniškega odbora.
In the meantime, and in agreement with another tenant of the assets, Mr Jahnke might utilise the assets for a price of about EUR 13000, payable after 1 January 2000.
Medtem bi lahko gospod Jahnke s privolitvijo drugega najemnika premoženja le-to uporabljal v zameno za najemnino okoli 13000 EUR, plačljivo od 1. januarja 2000.
In February 2000 a draft sales contract was drawn up.
Februarja 2000 je bil sestavljen osnutek prodajne pogodbe.
After it appeared that HAMESTA’s creditors’ meeting would not agree to the sales contract but preferred to sell the assets by public auction, a new rental agreement for an unlimited duration was signed (in May 2000).
Nato se je izkazalo, da se upniški odbor podjetja HAMESTA s to prodajno pogodbo ne bo strinjal, temveč bo premoženje raje prodal na javni dražbi, nakar je bila maja 2000 podpisana nova najemna pogodba z neomejenim trajanjem.