natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A document prepared by Dr. Zimmermann & Partner in September 1996 points to an extremely critical cash flow situation of the company.
Iz poročila, ki ga je septembra 1996 izdelalo podjetje Dr. Zimmermann & Partner, je mogoče sklepati, da je bila situacija z denarnim tokom podjetja takrat skrajno kritična.
The fact that the company was in financial difficulty was stated in the Commission Decision initiating the procedure [4] and has not been contested in the course of the investigation procedure. A reorganisation of Greußener Salamifabrik was considered necessary.
Dejstvo, da se je podjetje nahajalo v finančnih težavah, je navedeno v sklepu Komisije o sprožitvi postopka [4], in med preiskovalnim postopkom ni bilo vprašljivo.
To finance this reorganisation, the company took out additional loans (a loan of DEM 375000 at the Dresdner Bank AG and a loan of DEM 725000 at the Sparkasse Erfurt) in the fourth quarter of 1996.
Prestrukturiranje podjetja Greußener Salamifabrik, zaradi katerega je podjetje v zadnji četrtini leta 1996 najelo dodatna posojila (v višini 375000 DEM pri Dresdner Bank AG in v višini 725000 DEM pri Sparkasse Erfurt), je bilo potrebno.
For both these loans an 80 % State guarantee, thus covering the total amount of DEM 880000, was granted via the Thüringer Aufbaubank.
Za obe posojili je banka Thüringer Aufbaubank prevzela izjemno jamstvo v višini 80 %, s čimer je torej pokrit znesek v višini 880000 DEM.
The guarantee was not notified to the Commission, contrary to the provisions of the Commission letter to Member States SG(89) D/4328 of 5 April 1989, hereinafter referred to as Aid 1.
To jamstvo ni bilo priglašeno Komisiji, kar je v nasprotju z določbami Dopisa Komisije državam članicam SG(89) D/4328 z dne 5. aprila 1989; ta pomoč je v nadaljevanju označena kot pomoč 1.
As of 8 January 1997 Ergewa GmbH took over 75 % of the shares of the beneficiary.
januarja 1997 je Ergewa GmbH prevzel 75 % delež upravičenega podjetja.
The new owner wrote off DEM 1,2 million as bad debt related to exports to Russia and devaluation of stock.
Nov lastnik je opravil popravek vrednosti na terjatve za nezavarovane izvozne posle v Rusijo in razvrednotenje zalog v višini 1,2 mio DEM.
Combined with a further decrease in sales, this measures resulted in a deteriorated balance sheet making a second restructuring necessary.
To je skupaj z upadanjem prodaje vodilo k poslabšanju bilance, zaradi česar je ponovno prestrukturiranje postalo nujno.
The German authorities made clear in their notification letter of 6 November 1997 that as Greußener Salamifabrik failed to reach its turnover and income targets for 1997, the company was permanently threatened by insolvency and was considered no longer to be able to meet its repayment obligation towards banks.
Nemčija je v svojem obvestilu z dne 6. novembra 1997 jasno navedla, da podjetje Greußener Salamifabrik GmbH v letu 1997 ni doseglo svojih ciljev glede prometa in prihodka, da je podjetje nenehno v nevarnosti stečaja in da iz tega sledi, da podjetje ni več zmožno poplačati svojih obveznosti do bank.
Therefore, a new restructuring plan for Greußener Salamifabrik GmbH was elaborated by Schitag, Ernst & Young Deutsche Allgemeine Treuhand AG in August 1997.
Zato je avgusta 1997 družba Schitag, Ernst & Young Deutsche Allgemeine Treuhand AG pripravila novo zasnovo za sanacijo za Greußener Salamifabrik GmbH.
This new restructuring plan consisted of three parts:
Nova zasnova za sanacijo je predvidevala tri vrste ukrepov:
financial measures, such as:
Ozdravitev finančnih struktur:
a partial debt relief by creditors,
delen odpis dolgov podjetju z odstopom od terjatev,
a refinancing of existing debts,
reprogramiranje obstoječih bančnih obveznosti,
a capital contribution from shareholders;
dovod kapitala s strani družbenikov;
a new marketing strategy;
Izdelava in pretvorba novega koncepta trženja;
cost-saving measures.
Ukrepi za prihranke pri stroških.
Financial measures
Finančna struktura
As part of the restructuring, Sparkasse Erfurt renounced an outstanding debt amounting to DEM 1700000.
Kot del prestrukturiranja se je Sparkasse Erfurt odpovedal terjatvi v višini 1,7 mio DEM.
In compensation, the guarantee previously given by Thüringer Aufbaubank (a State bank) for a loan of DEM 725000 (cf. recital 7) was partly liquidated and DEM 370000 (64 % of the guaranteed amount) were paid to Sparkasse Erfurt in the context of this restructuring.
Za izravnavo je bilo delno izterjano jamstvo, ki ga je pred tem prevzela banka Thüringer Aufbaubank (državna banka) za posojilo v višini 725000 DEM (glej uvodno izjavo 7); 370000 DEM (64 % zneska jamstva) je bilo v okviru prestrukturiranja plačanih Sparkasse Erfurt.
Additionally, another guarantee given in 1993 by a private bank, Bürgschaftsbank Thüringen GmbH for a loan amounting to DEM 1000000 was partly liquidated which resulted in a payment of DEM 590000 (74 % of the guaranteed amount) to Sparkasse Erfurt.
Poleg tega je bilo za izravnavo delno izterjano jamstvo, ki ga je leta 1993 za posojilo v višini 1 mio DEM prevzela banka Thüringen GmbH (zasebna banka): 590000 DEM (74 % zneska jamstva) je bilo plačanih Sparkasse Erfurt.
Furthermore, Dresdner Bank Erfurt refinanced a DEM 2500000 loan, formerly granted by Sparkasse Erfurt.
Poleg tega je banka Dresdner Bank Erfurt refinancirala posojilo v višini 2,5 mio DEM, ki ga je odobril Sparkasse Erfurt.
Dresdner Bank was only prepared to give this loan under an 80 % guarantee to be granted by Thüringer Aufbaubank.
Dresdner Bank je dodelila to posojilo le pod pogojem poroštva banke Thüringen Aufbaubank za 80 % posojila.
This new guarantee, covering an amount of DEM 2000000, as well as the partial mobilisation of the DEM 370000 under the old guarantee were notified to the Commission by letter of 6 November 1997 pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty as well as to the Commission letter to Member States SG(89) D/4328 of 5 April 1989.
Novo jamstvo v višini 2 mio DEM in delno uveljavljanje (370000 DEM) prejšnjega jamstva sta bila Komisiji priglašena z dopisom z dne 6. novembra 1997 v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES ter v skladu s Dopisom Komisije državam članicam SG(89) D/4328 z dne 5. aprila 1989.
These two measures are hereinafter referred to as Aid 2.
Oba ukrepa sta v nadaljevanju označena kot pomoč 2.
The German authorities stated in their letter of 4 February 1999, and reiterated in their letter of 18 May 2005, that the guarantee by Thüringer Aufbaubank covering DEM 2000000 was given subject to the Commission authorisation.
Nemčija je v svojem dopisu z dne 4. februarja 1999 in ponovno v dopisu z dne 18. maja 2005 sporočila, da bo jamstvo banke Thüringer Aufbaubank v višini 2 mio DEM dodeljeno le pod pogojem odobritve s strani Komisije.
The loan of DEM 2500000 by Dresdner Bank Erfurt was paid out to Greußener Salamifabrik.
Posojilo banke Dresdner Bank Erfurt v višini 2,5 mio DEM je bilo izplačano podjetju Greußener Salamifabrik GmbH.
Finally, Ergewa GmbH, the 75 % shareholder of the company, injected DEM 1500000 in the form of a subordinated loan to Greußener Salamifabrik.
Ergewa GmbH, ki je 75 % lastnik, je podjetju dodelil še podrejeno posojilo v višini 1,5 mio DEM.
Marketing strategy
Strategija trženja
In the field of marketing, the restructuring plan described three areas for improvement: product development, product policy and sales promotion.
Strategija trženja vsebuje naslednje tri cilje: razvoj izdelkov, politika izdelkov in spodbujanje prodaje.
In general, Greußener Salamifabrik GmbH would become more market oriented.
V splošnem naj bi se tako dosegla močnejša usmerjenost na trgu.
Cost-saving measures
Ukrepi za prihranke pri stroških
In an earlier reorganisation the easiest cost-cutting measures had been taken already.
Najlažje uresničeni prihranki so bili izvedeni že v okviru prejšnjega prestrukturiranja.
However, the reorganisation plan mentioned further cost saving measures to reduce electricity consumption and transport costs.
Zasnova sanacije je predvidevala nadaljnje prihranke pri stroških, zlasti zmanjšanje porabe električne energije in zmanjšanje stroškov transporta.
According to information provided to the Commission services, these measures combined would have led to a return of viability of the company and to a return of profitability.
Po informacijah, predloženih Komisiji, naj bi ti ukrepi skupaj ponovno vzpostavili sposobnost preživetja podjetja in njegovo rentabilnost.
However, to regain profitability the turnover would have had to increase from DEM 6845000 in 1996 to DEM 7 million in 1998 and to DEM 8 million in 1999.
Za to pa bi se morali prihodki v višini 6845000 DEM v letu 1996 zvišati na 7 mio DEM v letu 1998 in na 8 mio DEM v letu 1999.
The Commission initiated the procedure provided for under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the abovementioned measures in favour of Greußener Salamifabrik GmbH, which can be summed up as follows:
Komisija je sprožila postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES glede navedenih ukrepov za Greußener Salamifabrik GmbH, ki jih je mogoče strniti kot sledi:
the 80 % guarantee given by Thüringer Aufbaubank for two bank loans totalling DEM 1,1 million in December 1996 (with the guarantee amount being DEM 880000),
80 % jamstvo banke Thüringer Aufbaubank za posojili v skupni višini 1,1 mio DEM decembra 1996 (znesek jamstva 880000 DEM);
the partial mobilisation of one of the guarantees amounting to DEM 370000 in the course of the restructuring/debt rescheduling in 1997,
delno uveljavljanje enega od jamstev (370000 DEM) v času prestrukturiranja/reprogramiranja leta 1997;
the second 80 % guarantee by Thüringer Aufbaubank for a bank loan amounting to DEM 2,5 million (with the guarantee amount being DEM 2 million) in 1997.
drugo 80 % jamstvo banke Thüringer Aufbaubank za bančno posojilo v višini 2,5 mio DEM (znesek jamstva 2 mio DEM) leta 1997.
As the guarantees were given to a company that was in financial difficulties, the Commission considered the aid element of these guarantees to be at the time of their granting equal to 100 % of the guaranteed amount, namely DEM 880000 in 1996 and DEM 2000000 in 1997, in total DEM 2,88 million.
Ker so bila jamstva za podjetje v finančnih težavah prevzeta, mora Komisija izhajati iz dejstva, da element pomoči v času dodelitve ustreza 100 % zajamčenega zneska, namreč 880000 DEM leta 1996 in 2 mio leta 1997, skupaj torej 2,88 mio DEM.
The Commission initiated the procedure provided for under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the above measures because it had doubts on the following points: compliance with the Commission letter SG(89) D/4328 of 5 April 1989 concerning State guarantees and compliance with the Community guidelines of 1994 and 1997 on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [5].
Komisija je sprožila postopek po členu 88(2) Pogodbe ES glede navedenih ukrepov, ker je dvomila, da je ukrep v skladu z Dopisom Komisije SG(89) D/4328 z dne 5. aprila 1989 o državnih jamstvih in s Smernicami za oceno državnih pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah iz leta 1994 in 1997 [5].
In the latter case specific doubts were raised concerning the effect of the restructuring which should be a return to viability of the company, compliance with the one time — last time principle, and compliance with the condition to fully implement the restructuring plan.
Z ozirom na Smernice je Komisija podvomila, da se lahko s prestrukturiranjem ponovno vzpostavi rentabilnost podjetja, da se je načelo, da je pomoč za prestrukturiranje dovoljeno dodeliti le enkrat, upoštevalo in da se je upoštevala zahteva po popolni pretvorbi načrta za prestrukturiranje.
Aid 1 was given in the form of State guarantees which means that the aid had to comply with the letter to the Member States SG(89) D/4328 of 5 April 1989.
Pomoč 1 je bila dodeljena v obliki državnih jamstev, kar pomeni, da mora biti v skladu z Dopisom Komisije državam članicam SG(89) D/4328 z dne 5. aprila 1989.
In this letter the Commission stated it would accept guarantees only if their mobilisation would be contractually linked to specific conditions which might go as far as the compulsory declaration of bankruptcy of the benefiting company.
V tem dopisu je Komisija pojasnila, da bo jamstva odobrila le pod pogojem, da bo uveljavljanje pogodbeno vezano na posebne pogoje, ki lahko vsebujejo celo predlog izjave o stečaju upravičenega podjetja.
It seemed no such conditions were attached to the guarantees granted under the measure.
Iz predloženih informacij ni razvidno, ali je bilo uveljavljanje omenjenih jamstev vezano na posebne pogoje.
The aids were granted because the company was in financial difficulty and needed restructuring.
Pomoč je bila dodeljena, ker se je podjetje znašlo v finančnih težavah in ker ga je bilo treba sanirati.
This means the aid had to be considered in the light of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty applicable at the time when the guarantee was granted.
Zato je bilo treba pomoč preveriti v okviru Smernic Skupnosti za oceno državnih pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah, ki so veljale v času dodelitve jamstva.
As far as Aid 1 is concerned, the Commission had no information to evaluate the compatibility of the aid with the abovementioned guidelines.
Glede pomoči 1 Komisija nima informacij, na podlagi katerih bi lahko preverila združljivost z zgoraj navedenimi smernicami.
As for Aid 2, it seemed that three of the conditions of the restructuring guidelines were not met.
Za pomoč 2 očitno niso bili izpolnjeni trije od pogojev iz smernic za prestrukturiranje.
It seemed as if the aid would not lead to a return of viability of the benefiting company.
S to pomočjo rentabilnost podjetja očitno ni bila ponovno vzpostavljena.
Moreover, it seemed the company tried to regain its viability by outgrowing its problems.
Poleg tega je podjetje rentabilnost očitno poskušalo vzpostaviti tako, da bi težave premagalo s širitvijo.
This expansion would seem to unduly distort competition.
S takšno širitvijo bi se lahko na neupravičen način izkrivljala konkurenca.
Finally, it was not clear whether the restructuring plan was adhered to.
Končno ni bilo jasno, če je bil načrt za prestrukturiranje izveden v celoti.
All three parties argued that an increased turnover could only be realised by lowering prices which would be detrimental to the sector.
Vse tri zainteresirane stranke so mnenja, da bi do povečanja prihodka lahko prišlo le z zniževanjem cen, kar pa bi bilo lahko za ta sektor škodljivo.
The Bundesverband der Deutschen Fleischwarenindustrie e.V. pointed out that every year 1 % of the meat-processing companies in Germany are forced to halt their activities.
Zvezno združenje mesne industrije je opozorilo na dejstvo, da na trgu letno propade 1 % nemških mesnopredelovalnih obratov.
In this highly competitive market only the best undertakings can survive.
Na tem zelo konkurenčnem trgu lahko preživijo samo najboljši.
By artificially keeping a company afloat, the interests of the sector are harmed.
Če se podjetje umetno drži pri življenju, to škodi interesom sektorja.
Moreover, the proposed new marketing strategy was the common strategy followed by almost all companies.
Poleg tega skoraj vsa podjetja v tem sektorju sledijo predlagani strategiji trženja.
According to the Bundesverband, such a strategy would not be successful without a large marketing budget, which was not available.
Po mnenju zveznega združenja takšna strategija brez znatnih sredstev – ki pa niso bila na razpolago – ne more biti uspešna.
Apart from requests to prolong the period in which Germany could react, Germany gave its comments by letters of 22 July 1999, 28 July 1999, 6 August 1999 and 23 February 2000.
Poleg prošnje za podaljšanje roka za odgovor je Nemčija z dopisi z dne 22. julija 1999, 28. julija 1999, 6. avgusta 1999 in 23. februarja 2000 predložila svoje pripombe.
In the first letter Germany stated that the ownership of the company had partly changed hands.
V svojem prvem dopisu je Nemčija sporočila, da je bilo podjetje delno prevzeto.
In the second letter Germany mentioned that the guarantee contract showing the conditions under which the guarantee could be mobilised would be sent. A restructuring plan of the first restructuring was presented and the planned results following the second restructuring would be sent as well.
V svojem drugem dopisu je Nemčija napovedala, da želi posredovati poroštveno pogodbo s pogoji za zagotovitev jamstva, predložila je načrt za prestrukturiranje za prvo prestrukturiranje in sporočila, da želi posredovati tudi finančne rezultate, pričakovane po drugem prestrukturiranju.
Furthermore, Germany stated more information would follow which would explain why the targeted turnover was not reached after the second restructuring.
Končno je napovedala tudi nadaljnje informacije o vprašanju, zakaj cilji glede prihodkov po drugi sanaciji niso bili doseženi.
In the same letter of 28 July 1999 Germany stressed that the company would not increase its capacity, it would only produce the same amounts of products as in the past (years 1994/1995).
V dopisu z dne 28. julija 1999 je Nemčija tudi opozorila na to, da podjetje ne načrtuje širitve proizvodnih kapacitet, temveč bo proizvajalo v podobnih količinah kot v preteklosti (1994/1995).
The problems of the company were due to external factors such as swine fever, the implosion of the Russian market and the advent of BSE.
Težave podjetja gre iskati v zunanjih dejavnikih, kot npr. v izbruhih prašičje kuge, propadu ruskega trga in krizi BSE.
Finally, Germany argued it was unlikely that the aid would distort competition as the beneficiary was an SME which was only active in Thüringen.
Končno naj bi bilo malo verjetno, da bo pomoč vodila k izkrivljanju konkurence, saj je upravičeno podjetje MPS in je dejavno le v Thüringenu.
In the third letter of 6 August 1999 Germany presented the guarantee contract and the restructuring plan of the first restructuring.
Tretjemu dopisu z dne 6. avgusta 1999 je Nemčija priložila poroštveno pogodbo in zasnovo sanacije za prvo prestrukturiranje.
In its letter of 23 February 2000 Germany stated that the insolvency procedure had been initiated for Greußener Salamifabrik GmbH. Germany mentioned that the banks had withdrawn their credit.
V svojem dopisu z dne 23. februarja 2000 je Nemčija sporočila, da je bil sprožen stečajni postopek o premoženju podjetja Greußener Salamifabrik GmbH in da so banke odpovedale svoje kreditne linije.
Furthermore, a letter of Greußener’s main bank, Dresdner Bank, was handed over. In this letter the bank stated it was obvious that competitors would be against the aid.
Dopisu je bil priložen dopis glavne banke podjetja, banke Dresdner Bank, v katerem banka ugotavlja, da se bodo konkurenti zagotovo izrekli proti pomoči.
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
V. PRESOJA
Market organisations
Ureditev trga
The measure grants aid to an undertaking that is active in meat processing.
Z ukrepi je mesnopredelovalnemu obratu dodeljena pomoč.
Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal [6] and Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat [7] lay down that Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the EC Treaty apply to products covered by these Regulations.
V skladu s členom 40 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1254/1999 z dne 17. maja 1999 o skupni ureditvi trga za goveje in telečje meso [6] in v skladu s členom 21 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2759/75 z dne 29. oktobra 1975 o skupni ureditvi trga za prašičje meso [7] veljajo za izdelke, zajete v teh uredbah, členi 87, 88 in 89 Pogodbe ES.
The sectors concerned by the aid scheme in question are therefore subject to the Community rules on granting State aids.
Sektorji, ki jih zadevajo ukrepi pomoči, so torej zajeti v določbah Skupnosti za državne pomoči.
Prohibition of State aids under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty
Prepoved državnih pomoči v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES
Under 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 is, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES so državne pomoči ali kakršne koli vrste pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljale konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljive s skupnim trgom, v kolikor prizadenejo trgovino med državami članicami.
The aid was granted in the form of State guarantees.
Pomoč je bila dodeljena v obliki državnih jamstev.
The guarantees enabled the beneficiary undertaking to raise money in order to remain active instead of being eliminated or restructured.
Zahvaljujoč tem jamstvom je upravičeno podjetje lahko dobilo denar, da bi preživelo, namesto da bi šlo v stečaj ali se prestrukturiralo.
Aid 1 was granted in 1996.
Pomoč 1 je bila dodeljena leta 1996.
Non-notified State aid has to be assessed on the basis of the legislation in force at the time of its granting.
Državne pomoči, ki niso priglašene, morajo biti ocenjene na podlagi zakonskih določb, ki veljajo v času dodelitve.
The legal basis applicable for State guarantees in 1996 was the Commission letter to the Member States SG(89) D/4328 of 5 April 1989.
Pravna osnova za presojo državnih jamstev je bil leta 1996 Dopis Komisije državam članicam SG(89) D/4328 z dne 5. aprila 1989.
According to this letter the Commission regards all guarantees given by a State as falling within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
V tem dopisu je Komisija pojasnila, da so vsa državna jamstva zajeta v členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Moreover, pursuant to point 2.3 of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (1994 guidelines), funding guaranteed by the State to an enterprise that is in financial difficulties is presumed to involve State aid.
Iz tega sledi, da v skladu s točko 2.3 Smernic za oceno državnih pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah (smernice iz leta 1994) pri državnih kreditnih jamstvih za podjetje, ki je v težavah, obstaja domneva, da finančni transferji vsebujejo državne pomoči.
As described in point 7, the beneficiary was a firm in financial difficulties at the time of granting of Aid 1.
Kot je opisano v odstavku 7, je bilo upravičeno podjetje v času dodelitve pomoči 1 v finančnih težavah.
According to point 2.1 of the 1994 guidelines, deteriorating profitability, diminishing turnover and declining cash flow are typical symptoms for firms in difficulties.
V skladu s točko 2.1 smernic iz leta 1994 so upadajoča rentabilnost, upadajoči prihodki in zmanjšan denarni tok tipični simptomi, ki kažejo na to, da je podjetje v težavah.
Aid 2 was notified in 1997.
Pomoč 2 je bila priglašena leta 1997.
Notified aid has to be assessed on the basis of the legal framework applicable at the time of its assessment.
Priglašene pomoči morajo biti ocenjene na podlagi zakonskih določb, ki veljajo v času dodelitve.
Point 4 of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees [8] sets out the four conditions that have to be met for an individual State guarantee not to constitute State aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
V odstavku 4 Obvestila Komisije o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES za državno pomoč v obliki poroštev [8] so navedeni štirje pogoji, pod katerimi posamezna državna poroštva ne predstavljajo pomoči, zajete v členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
As the German authorities made clear that the borrower Greußener Salamifabrik GmbH had to be classified as a firm in difficulties at the time of the granting of the second guarantee (cf. recital 9), already the first condition is not met.
Ker je Nemčija jasno izrazila, da je kreditojemalec, podjetje Greußener Salamifabrik GmbH, v času dodelitve drugega jamstva moral veljati za podjetje v težavah (glej uvodno izjavo 9), prvi izmed zgoraj navedenih pogojev ni izpolnjen.