natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The beneficiary should have contested these decisions within two months if it found that the assessment was wrong, as provided for in Article 230(5) of the EC Treaty.
Ugodnosti deležno podjetje bi moralo proti omenjenima odločbama v skladu s členom 230(5) Pogodbe ES v roku dveh mesecev vložiti tožbo, če bi menilo, da je ocena napačna.
Point 7.6.2 of the Privatisation Agreement reads as follows: ‘The projected balance sheet was to reflect a special accrual in the amount of DEM 435500000,00 meant to finance catch-up investments to be effected by the Company during the restructuring period and a special accrual in the amount of DEM 450000000,00 meant to finance losses incurred by the companies during the restructuring period due to shortfalls in productivity of the company and for other losses due to the presently lacking competitiveness of the company.’ From this it follows that the payment of DEM 450 million to cover losses was a condition to acquire Warnow Werft, which was taken into account in the projected balance sheet.
V številki 7.6.2 Pogodbe o privatizaciji piše: „The projected balance sheet was to reflect a special accrual in the amount of DM 435500000,00 meant to finance catch-up investments to be effected by the Company during the restructuring period and a special accrual in the amount of DM 450000000,00 meant to finance losses incurred by the companies during the restructuring period due to shortfalls in productivity of the company and for other losses due to the presently lacking competitiveness of the company.“ Iz tega sledi, da je bilo izplačilo 450 milijonov DEM za pokritje izgube pogoj za nakup družbe Warnow Werft, ki je bilo upoštevano v predhodni bilanci.
Therefore, the projected balance sheet included positions, which were not direct elements of the transferred assets but which KWW received to cover losses from shipbuilding contracts; such positions constitute State aid.
Predhodna bilanca je zato vsebovala postavke, ki niso neposredno spadale k prenesenim premoženjskim vrednostim, ampak tiste, ki jih je KWW prejel za pokritje izgub iz naročil za ladje. Te postavke so državne subvencije.
KWW cannot pretend that it never attacked the decisions in the parts concerning non-cash aid because the Commission provided a positive decision.
KWW se ne more sklicevati na to, da odločb v delih, ki zadevajo „non-cash“ subvencije, ni izpodbijal zato, ker je Komisija izdala pozitivno odločbo.
Qualifying the transfer of assets as State aid weighted on KWW in a way that an application against the decision was admissible if KWW had not agreed to this.
Uvrstitev prenosa premoženjskih vrednosti pod državno subvencijo je bila za KWW takšna obremenitev, da bi bila tožba proti odločbi dopustna, če se KWW s tem ne bi strinjal.
The Commission classified the measures as aid and examined the compatibility with the common market.
Komisija je ukrepe ocenila kot subvencijo in preverila njihovo združljivost s skupnim trgom.
It meant that the Commission was able to impose conditions respectively to accept Germany’s undertakings directly affecting the beneficiary’s operations.
To pomeni, da je lahko Komisija postavila pogoje oz. pristala na obveznosti s strani Nemčije, ki so neposredno vplivali na transakcije ugodnosti deležne družbe.
In such a situation, an application for the annulment of the decision is considered to be admissible [8].
V takšnih okoliščinah je dopustna ničnostna tožba [8].
The Commission carried out an in-depth analysis of the aid amounts, which KWW received after the approval of the aid based on all information available.
Komisija je z razpoložljivimi informacijami podrobno preverila zneske subvencij, izplačane družbi KWW po odobritvi ukrepa.
Following the screening of the pre-privatisation balance sheet, the takeover balance sheet, spillover reports from the auditor Arthur Anderson, the privatisation procedure and the privatisation contract, it appears that the shipyard did not receive operating aid equivalent to the waiver of old current liabilities of EUR 42,1 million (DEM 82,400 million) as authorised in the Commission decision of 3 March 1993.
Po pregledu bilance pred privatizacijo, bilance pri predaji, „spillover“ poročil revizijske družbe Arthur Andersen, postopka privatizacije in pogodbe o privatizaciji kaže, da ladjedelnica ni prejela subvencije za tekoče poslovanje v obliki odpisa starih dolgov v višini 42,1 milijona EUR (82,4 milijona DEM), ki jo je odobrila Komisija v svoji odločbi 3. marca 1993.
Indeed, such a waiver would only constitute payment of State aid if the beneficiary accordingly kept at his disposal assets freed of financial liabilities (or received these assets if a new company were created as in the current case).
Takšna opustitev bi pomenila državno subvencijo samo, če sredstva ne bi bila obremenjena s starimi obveznostmi (ali če bi sredstva prešla na prejemnika subvencij, kadar bi šlo, kot v predloženem primeru, za ustanavljanje nove družbe).
However, KWW’s takeover balance sheet does not include such assets transferred free of financial liabilities corresponding to this waiver, which would represent this operating aid.
Bilanca družbe KWW pri predaji pa ne kaže nobenega prenosa sredstev, ki bi bila razbremenjena obveznosti v višini opustitve, kar bi pomenilo subvencijo za tekoče poslovanje.
Since the loan waived just before privatisation was a liability of WW (a public owned company), the State, as the previous shareholder, was the only beneficiary and did not transfer the advantage to the new company.
Ker je bilo posojilo, katerega vračilu se je malo pred privatizacijo odpovedalo, obveznost WW (državne ladjedelnice), je imela samo država kot prejšnji delničar posebne ugodnosti, ne da bi ugodnost prenesla na novo podjetje.
It appears that the shipyard did not benefit from this operating aid that the Commission formerly approved.
Zato ladjedelnica očitno ni prejela subvencij za tekoče poslovanje, ki jih je poprej odobrila Komisija.
Finally, according to the spillover report, shipbuilding contracts for special ships called ‘cash carriers’ were not transferred to KWW.
Končno po „spillover“ poročilu naročila za posebne ladje – tako imenovane „ladje za prevoz zabojnikov“ – niso bila prenesena na KWW.
Although a loss compensation for those contracts was included in the operating aid of EUR 315,5 million (DEM 617,1 million) as approved by the Commission on 17 January 1994, KWW was not in charge to carry out the contracts.
Čeprav je bila v subvencijo za tekoče poslovanje, ki jo je odobrila Komisija 17. januarja 1994 v višini 315,5 milijona EUR (617,1 milijona DEM), vračunana izravnava izgube za ta naročila, KWW-ju ni bila poverjena njihova izvedba.
Accordingly KWW could not receive a compensation for envisaged losses resulting from those contracts.
Temu ustrezno naj KWW ne bi smel prejeti nobene izravnave za predvidene izgube iz teh naročil.
There is therefore no reason to compensate KWW for not having received this aid of EUR 17,7 million (DEM 34,6 million).
Zato ni nobenega razloga za izravnavo neprejete subvencije 17,7 milijona EUR (34,6 milijona DM).
As mentioned in recitals 12 to 20, this last amount was not included in the loss cover of EUR 230,08 million (DEM 450 million) indicated in the spillover report.
Kot je omenjeno v uvodnih izjavah 12 do 20, ta vsota ni bila del izravnave izgube 230,08 milijona EUR (450,0 milijonov DEM), ki je omenjena v „spillover“ poročilu.
KWW received EUR 8 million (DEM 15,6 million) less investment aid from the Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
KWW je od dežele Mecklenburg-Vorpommern prejel 8 milijonov EUR (15,6 milijona DEM) manj investicijskih subvencij.
‘Wettbewerbshilfe’
Pomoč za konkurenčnost
KWW and Germany further comment that if the Commission came to the conclusion that the difference between the actual and estimated losses was of State aid relevance, then in any case the difference would be smaller than claimed by the Commission.
KWW in Nemčija utemeljujeta, da naj, če bo Komisija kljub temu prišla do sklepa, da je razlika med ocenjenimi in dejanskimi izgubami pomembna za določanje upravičenosti subvencij, le-ta ne bi bila tako velika, kot trdi Komisija.
The EUR 31,955 million (DEM 62,5 million) Wettbewerbshilfe was not meant for loss compensation but, as usual, for compensating for the disadvantages suffered by all the German yards due to their location in Germany and in Europe.
Pomoč za konkurenčnost v višini 31,955 milijona EUR (62,5 milijona DEM) naj ne bi bila namenjena izravnavi izgub, ampak tudi kompenzaciji pomanjkljivosti, ki naj bi jih vse nemške ladjedelnice trpele zaradi svojega geografskega položaja v Nemčiji in Evropi.
The Commission notes that as explained earlier, the privatisation contract and explanatory notes on the privatisation of Warnow Werft contained detailed aid budgets for the restructuring of the yard.
Komisija ugotavlja, da sta pogodba o privatizaciji in njej pripadajoča utemeljitev, kot je bilo že navedeno, vsebovali izčrpen pregled subvencij za prestrukturiranje ladjedelnice.
As explained earlier, these documents lay down the total amount of aid for loss compensation during the restructuring at EUR 285,096 million (DEM 557,6 million).
V njej je celotna višina subvencij, določenih za izravnavo izgub med prestrukturiranjem, ocenjena na 285,096 milijona EUR (557,6 milijona DEM).
This amount included EUR 230,091 million (DEM 450 million) loss compensation, EUR 37,32 million (DEM 73 million) Wettbewerbshilfe and EUR 17,69 million (DEM 34,6 million) for losses, which resulted from a pending contract taken over by Treuhandanstalt.
Ta vsota je vsebovala 230,091 milijona EUR (450 milijonov DEM) subvencij za izravnavo izgub, 37,32 milijona EUR (73 milijonov DEM) subvencij za konkurenčnost in 17,69 milijona EUR (34,6 milijona DEM) subvencij za izgube iz še neizpolnjenega naročila, ki ga je prevzela agencija za privatizacijo.
As regards Wettbewerbshilfe, KWW received only EUR 31,955 million (DEM 62,5 million) instead of the approved EUR 37,3 million (DEM 73 million).
Pod postavko „pomoč za konkurenčnost“ je KWW prejel samo 31,955 milijona EUR (62,5 milijona DEM) namesto odobrenih 37,3 milijona EUR (73 milijonov DEM).
The amount of Wettbewerbshilfe was approved in order to cover losses during restructuring.
Pomoč za konkurenčnost je bila odobrena za pokrivanje izgub med prestrukturiranjem.
For this reason the Commission has included the compensation for Wettbewerbshilfe not paid of EUR 31,955 million (DEM 62,5 million) in the total aid approved for loss compensation.
Zato je Komisija izravnavo za neplačano pomoč za konkurenčnost vključila v odobreno celotno subvencijo za izravnavo izgub.
Even if one could follow the arguments of KWW they could not have any influence on the assessment of the Commission.
Celo, če bi se želeli pridružiti utemeljitvam KWW, to ne bi spremenilo ocene Komisije.
It is not disputed that KWW received aid classified as Wettbewerbshilfe.
Nesporno je, da je KWW prejel subvencije v obliki pomoči za konkurenčnost.
Whether it is earmarked for loss compensation or not, Wettbewerbshilfe constituted an income and diminished losses.
Ta pomoč za konkurenčnost je pomenila vir dohodka in znižala izgube, ne glede na to, ali jo klasificiramo kot izravnavo za izgube ali ne.
Consequently, the need for operating aid to compensate losses was lower.
Posledično je bila potreba po pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za izravnavo izgub manjša.
The argument of KWW to completely disregard Wettbewerbshilfe is not supported by any serious argument and must be dismissed.
Utemeljevanje KWW, da se pomoč za konkurenčnost ne sme v celoti upoštevati, ne vzdrži in ga je zato treba zavreči.
Monitoring and investigative powers
Pristojnosti nadzora in preverjanja
Germany also questions the monitoring powers of the Commission to establish whether the aid was used for the purposes for which it was granted.
Nemčija prav tako dvomi o pooblastilu Komisije, da le-ta lahko ugotovi, ali je bila pomoč uporabljena ustrezno.
The Commission notes that it is clearly stated in the Commission decisions approving aid for loss compensation that the Commission would use its investigating and monitoring powers to ensure that the yards in the new Länder only receive the aid necessary for their restructuring.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je pri odločanju o odobritvi subvencije treba izrecno vztrajati, da bo v okviru svojih pristojnosti nadzora in preverjanja poskrbela za to, da bodo ladjedelnice v novih državah članicah prejele samo subvencije, nujne za njihovo prestrukturiranje.
The Commission does not agree with Germany that the sentence in the Commission decisions referring to the monitoring and investigating powers of the Commission only relates to the time at which the estimations were assessed and the aid tranches released.
Komisija se ne strinja z mnenjem Nemčije, po katerem se pristojnosti nadzora in preverjanja, omenjene v zadevnem stavku, nanašajo samo na čas, ko so bile ocene preverjene in odobreni obroki subvencij.
In this context both the specific circumstances of the case, above all the wording of Directive 92/68/EEC according to which the operating aid needed to be paid out before end 1993, and the fact that the same Directive imposed reporting obligations on Germany, should be recalled.
V tej zvezi je treba upoštevati tako posebne okoliščine primera, predvsem dejstvo, da je morala biti v skladu z določili Direktive 92/68/EGS pomoč za tekoče poslovanje izplačana pred koncem leta 1993, in tudi okoliščino, da je bila nemška zvezna vlada v isti direktivi zavezana k poročanju.
Considering this, the Commission’s commitment to the Council can only be understood as a requirement to monitor that the aid is limited to that strictly necessary for restructuring.
Na podlagi tega je mogoče obveznost Komisije do Sveta razumeti samo tako, da bo Komisija preverila, ali je pomoč tudi dejansko omejena na minimum, potreben za prestrukturiranje.
As regards the monitoring obligations, it is noted that in accordance with Article 10a(2)(d) of Directive 90/684/EEC, Germany was to provide evidence to the Commission, in the form of annual reports by an independent chartered accountant, that aid payments are strictly limited to the activities of yards situated in the former GDR.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila Nemčija v skladu s členom 10a(2)(d) Direktive 90/684/EGS zavezana, da ji v obliki letnih poročil neodvisnega revizorja predloži dokazila, da so bila izplačila subvencij dodeljena v prid izključno ladjedelnicam na območju nekdanje Vzhodne Nemčije.
These spillover reports were submitted to the Commission until the end of restructuring period (end of 1995) to monitor whether the aid had been used exclusively for KWW.
Ta tako imenovana „spillover“ poročila so bila Komisiji poslana do konca prestrukturiranja, torej do konca leta 1995, da bi tako z dokumenti utemeljila, da so bile subvencije uporabljene izključno za KWW.
Further to this information, the reports included information on the use of aid.
Poleg tega so poročila vsebovala podatke o konkretni uporabi subvencij.
Germany argues that the fact that Germany submitted to the Commission information after the approval of the aid, in particular the spillover reports, does in no way constitute a competence for the Commission to verify the necessity of the aid.
Nemčija utemeljuje, da iz okoliščin, da je bilo Komisiji po odobritvi subvencij predano poročilo, predvsem v obliki tako imenovanih „spillover“ poročil, nikakor ni mogoče izpeljati pooblastila za ponovno preverjanje nujnosti subvencij.
However, the meaning and purpose of the reports was not to show the actual amount of losses.
Njihov namen naj ne bi bil ugotavljanje dejanske višine izgub.
The information on the use of aid included in these reports was only meant to help the transparent presentation, with regard to the purpose of the spillover controls, that no aid was transferred to the investor or to the other yards.
Podatki za uporabo subvencij v poročilih naj bi se uporabili samo zato, da bi v skladu z namenom „spillover“ nadzor razumljivo dokumentirali, da vlagatelj ni nobenih subvencij prenesel na druge ladjedelnice.
Germany disregards the fact that both approving decisions set out undertakings for granting of operating aid to cover losses, which should exclude overcompensation.
Nemčija pri tem ne upošteva, da obe odločbi o odobritvi v zameno za sprostitev subvencije za tekoče poslovanje za namene pokritja izgube vsebujeta obveznosti, da bi preprečili čezmerno kompenzacijo.
In the light of these provisions further discussion on the monitoring powers of the Commission appear to be unnecessary, given that it cannot be seriously questioned that the Commission is empowered and even obliged to draw consequences from the non-compliance with crucial conditions of an approving State aid decision.
Glede na te previdnostne ukrepe bi bila lahko odveč nadaljnja razprava o pristojnostih nadzora, saj ni mogoče resno dvomiti, da ima Komisija pristojnosti ali celo obveznosti, da na podlagi neizpolnjevanja bistvenih predpogojev za odobritev subvencije sprejme potrebne sklepe.
In such cases, the Commission has to insist on the recovery of such aid, which has to be seen as incompatible and illegal, i.e. granted without Commission approval.
V teh primerih mora Komisija vztrajati pri zahtevi po vračilu subvencije, ki jo ima za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom in nezakonito ter s tem za neodobreno.
The Commission agrees with Germany on the point that the purpose of the spillover reports was to demonstrate that no aid for the restructuring of the yard was transferred or was spilled over to other undertakings, like the mother company of the yard.
Komisija se z Nemčijo strinja, da je bil namen „spillover“ poročil prikazati, da na druge družbe, npr. na matično podjetje niso odtekale nobene subvencije za prestrukturiranje ladjedelnice.
However, the monitoring of the use of the aid according to the approving decisions included a monitoring for the purposes it was earmarked for in order to ensure that all aid has been strictly used for the restructuring of the yard.
Po odločbah o odobritvi je nadzor nad uporabo subvencij vendarle vključeval preverjanje namena, za katerega so bile dodeljene, da bi se s tem prepričali, da so bile vse subvencije uporabljene izključno za prestrukturiranje ladjedelnice.
The orderly use of aid for the purposes it was granted for was an essential part of the monitoring.
Pravilna uporaba subvencij za vsak predviden namen je bila pomemben vidik preverjanja.
This is also illustrated by the structure and contents of the spillover reports, in which the explanation on the use of the aid received is an important part.
To ponazarjata struktura in vsebina „spillover“ poročil, v katerih zavzemajo veliko prostora izvajanja o uporabi prejetih subvencij.
It was considered as important to include this information in the reports to provide to the Commission all information necessary to monitor the orderly use of the aid in compliance with the authorising decisions and the commitment to the Council.
Te informacije so bile po predvidevanjih tako pomembne, da so bile vključene v poročila, da bi s tem dali Komisiji možnost, da izpolni obveznost, ki jo je prevzela do Sveta, in da v soglasju z odločbami o odobritvi preveri ustrezno uporabo subvencij.
Timing of the Commission’s investigation
Trenutek preverjanja s strani Komisije
A further common argument made by both KWW and Germany is that the Commission has been aware since 1996, the time when the last spillover report was submitted to the Commission, that the actual losses were significantly lower than the estimated ones.
KWW in tudi Nemčija nato utemeljujeta, da naj bi Komisija že od leta 1996, tj. od predložitve zadnjega „spillover“ poročila, vedela, da dejanske izgube precej zaostajajo za ocenami.
Nevertheless, the Commission only started investigating the matter in 1999.
Kljub temu naj bi Komisija šele leta 1999 začela s preverjanjem.
The Commission notes that, as explained in the decision opening the procedure, the last spillover report submitted covers the period until 31 December 1995.
Kot že v sklepu o uvedbi postopka, Komisija ugotavlja, da zadnje „spillover“ poročilo zajema samo časovno obdobje do 31. decembra 1995.
Annex 2, page 1 of the report contains a table of the aid received by 31 December 1995.
Priloga 2 tega poročila na strani 1 vsebuje tabelo o pomoči, prejeti do 31. decembra 1995.
According to this table, the aid used for loss compensation by that date is indicated as being EUR 256,817 million (DEM 502,291 million) whereas the aid received was EUR 262,0 million (DEM 512,5 million).
Po njej so subvencije, do takrat uporabljene za izravnavo izgub, znašale 256,817 milijona EUR (502,291 milijona DEM). Izplačane pa so bile subvencije v višini 262,0 milijona EUR (512,5 milijona DEM).
Since it was possible that the missing EUR 5 million could have been necessary after the date of 31 December 1995 because not all the losses from the contracts signed by 31 December 1993 had been realised by that date, the Commission saw no reason to interfere.
Ker bi lahko po 31. decembru 1995 potrebovali manjkajočih 5 milijonov EUR, ker do tedaj še niso nastale vse izgube v zvezi s pogodbami, podpisanimi do 31. decembra 1993, Komisija ni imela razloga za ukrepanje.
The Commission had no indication at the time of the last spillover report that the difference between the actual and the estimated losses was in fact significantly higher than the one indicated in the last spillover report: EUR 60,988 million (DEM 119,284 million) instead of EUR 5 million. Since neither Germany nor KWW informed the Commission about this change of circumstances in 1997 when they received the auditors’ report confirming the final figures, the Commission was not aware of the real situation.
Komisija pri zadnjem „spillover“ poročilu ni mogla vedeti, da je bila razlika med dejansko in ocenjeno izgubo precej višja kot po podatkih v zadnjem poročilu, namreč pri 60,988 milijona EUR (119,284 milijona DEM) namesto pri 5 milijonih EUR. Ker niti Nemčija niti KWW, ki sta imela medtem na voljo zaključno poročilo neodvisnega revizorja, nista obvestila Komisije o spremenjenem položaju leta 1997, dejanskih okoliščin ni poznala.
The Commission only became aware of this in July 1999 when, following its own request, the Commission received by the letter dated 30 June 1999 from Germany, the auditor’s statement of 25 April 1997.
Spoznala jih je šele julija leta 1999, ko je na lastno poizvedovanje od Nemčije 30. junija 1999 pisno prejela izvajanja revizorja z dne 25. aprila 1997.
Since this statement was addressed only to Germany but was never submitted to the Commission, the Commission was not aware of the real situation before July 1999.
Ker so bila ta izvajanja usmerjena samo na Nemčijo, ne pa na Komisijo, ji dejansko stanje pred julijem 1999 ni bilo poznano.
In this regard, the Commission wishes to stress that Germany presented no evidence that the Commission was informed as alleged by Germany.
V tej zvezi bi Komisija rada poudarila, da Nemčija svoje trditve, da je bila Komisija obveščena, ni dokazala.
The use of aid according to its purposes
Ustrezna uporaba subvencij
KWW argues that the funds for restructuring were used pursuant to their objectives since the Commission decisions did not approve aid particularly for loss compensation; only operating aid in general was approved.
KWW utemeljuje, da naj bi bila sredstva, dana na voljo za prestrukturiranje, vsa skupaj porabljena ustrezno, saj naj se odobritev v odločbah Komisije ne bi nanašala posebej na subvencije za izravnavo izgub. Nasprotno, odobritev naj bi bila vsesplošno dodeljena za subvencije za tekoče poslovanje.
The aid would have been used for the restructuring of the yard and therefore in accordance with its objectives.
Subvencije naj bi bile uporabljene za prestrukturiranje ladjedelnice in s tem ustrezno porabljene.
The Commission notes that the Commission decisions communicated to Germany in March 1993 and January 1994 both mention amounts that were approved as being designated for loss compensation.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so bile v obeh odločbah, vročenih Nemčiji marca 1993 in januarja 1994, izkazane posebne vsote za izravnavo izgub.