natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In fact, Germany had in its letter referred to the fact that the Commission can verify how the aid should be used before releasing the tranches.
V dopisu naj bi se opozorilo samo na to, da bo Komisija pred odobritvijo obrokov lahko preverila, za kaj naj bi bile subvencije uporabljene.
Therefore in the letter of 28 May 1993 a reference was made to the document on the proof of the use of the aid (Verwendungsnachweis) prepared by the yards at the time.
Zato naj bi dopis z dne 28. maja 1993 opozoril na dokument, ki ga je nekoč sestavila ladjedelnica in ki naj bi pojasnil namen uporabe subvencije.
The information given by KWW on 26 May 1993 on the use of aid was attached to the letter.
Ta dokument KWW naj bi bil priložen dopisu.
The invitation to verify the use of the aid concerned only this information.
Zahteva po preverjanju uporabe subvencij naj bi se navezovala samo na ta dokument.
Germany explains that the fact of submitting the Commission information after the approval of the aid, in particular the spillover reports, does not result in a competence for the Commission to verify the necessity of the aid.
Iz okoliščin, da je bilo Komisiji po odobritvi subvencij predano poročilo, predvsem v obliki tako imenovanih „spillover“ poročil, nikakor ni mogoče izpeljati pooblastila Komisije za ponovno preverjanje nujnosti subvencij.
The spillover reports were submitted in order to demonstrate that no spillover of aid took place from the yard to other undertakings.
„Spillover“ poročila naj bi bila mišljena kot dokazilo, da iz ladjedelnice v druge družbe niso odtekale nobene subvencije.
Contrary to what the Commission claims, the meaning and purpose of the reports was not to show the actual amount of losses.
V nasprotju s trditvami Komisije naj namen poročil ne bi bil ugotavljanje dejanske višine izgub.
The information on the use of aid contained in these reports was only meant to help in presenting in a transparent way, considering 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 za to, da bi v skladu z namenom „spillover“ nadzora razumljivo dokumentirali, da vlagatelj na druge ladjedelnice ni prenesel nobenih subvencij.
Germany states that it had fulfilled all its reporting obligations in time.
Nemčija pojasnjuje, da naj bi pravočasno izpolnila svoje obveznosti poročanja.
The last spillover report concerning the period until 31 December 1995 was submitted to the Commission by letter of 6 July 1996.
Zadnje „spillover“ poročilo za obdobje do 31. decembra 1995 naj bi bilo Komisiji poslano 6. julija 1996.
On the basis of the information contained in this last report the Commission was, at the latest from July 1996, aware that the actual losses were significantly less than EUR 262,037 million (DEM 512,5 million).
Na podlagi podatkov v tem poročilu naj bi bila Komisija najkasneje od julija 1996 dalje seznanjena s tem, da so bile dejanske izgube precej pod 262,037 milijona EUR (512,5 milijona DEM).
Some risks that were envisaged did not materialise.
Nekatera pričakovana tveganja se naj ne bi uresničila.
Therefore, the actual losses turned out to be less than those estimated at 31 December 1995.
Zato naj bi bile dejanske izgube navsezadnje nižje, kot je bilo napovedano 31. decembra 1995.
However, Germany explains that contrary to what the Commission claims in the opening procedure, it was not to be expected in summer 1996 that the actual losses would turn out to be higher than those indicated in the last spillover report.
V nasprotju s trditvami Komisije pri uvedbi postopka pa se poleti 1996 ni izhajalo iz tega, da bodo izgube nižje od izgub, navedenih v zadnjem „spillover“ poročilu.
The yard’s balance sheet was carefully drafted taking into consideration the rules on maintaining sufficient capital.
Bilanca ladjedelnice naj bi bila skrbno izdelana ob upoštevanju predpisov o zadostnih rezervacijah.
Therefore the losses were estimated in such a way that greater losses were not to be expected.
Pri ocenah izgube naj bi se izhajalo iz najvišjih možnih izgub.
For this reason the Commission was already fully aware of the difference between the original loss estimation and the actual losses since July 1996.
Komisija naj bi bila zato o razliki med prvotno napovedanimi izgubami in dejanskimi izgubami obveščena že od julija 1996.
However, it only started asking for information on the actual losses in summer 1999 and only opened the procedure in February 2000.
Vendarle pa naj bi si šele poleti 1999 priskrbela podatke o dejanskih izgubah in šele februarja 2000 uvedla postopek.
Germany further argues that in case the Commission should come to the conclusion that the difference between the estimated and actual losses has State aid relevance, the difference would be smaller than claimed by the Commission.
Nemčija nato utemeljuje, 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 Commission claims that the amount of aid received for loss compensation was EUR 262,037 million (DEM 512,5 million).
Komisija je celotno višino subvencij, prejetih za izravnavo izgub, ocenila na 262,037 milijona EUR (512,5 milijona DEM).
This amount consists of the estimated loss compensation (EUR 230,081 million (DEM 450 million)) and the Wettbewerbshilfe (EUR 31,955 million (DEM 62,5 million)).
Ta vsota naj bi bila sestavljena iz ocenjenih izgub (230,081 milijona EUR (450 milijonov DEM)) in pomoči za konkurenčnost (31,955 milijona EUR (62,5 milijona DEM)).
However, 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 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.
This was a scheme approved by the Commission.
To določbo naj bi potrdila Komisija.
Therefore the amount of the actual losses can only be compared with the original loss estimation of EUR 230,081 million (DEM 450 million).
Zato naj bi bilo mogoče dejanske izgube primerjati samo s prvotnim izračunom izgub 230,081 milijona EUR (450 milijonov DEM).
The difference is thereby only EUR 29,033 million (DEM 56,784 million).
Razlika bi tako znašala samo 29,033 milijona EUR (56,784 milijona DEM).
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
V. PRESOJA SUBVENCIJE
Legal basis of the aid
Pravna podlaga subvencije
Directive 90/684/EEC in the version as amended by Directive 92/68/EEC provides for a derogation from the abolition of operating aid applicable to shipbuilding in favour of the shipyards in the former GDR.
Direktiva 90/684/EGS v sklopu Direktive 92/68/EGS vsebuje izjemo od prepovedi dodeljevanja subvencij za tekoče poslovanje za ladjedelniški sektor v prid ladjedelnicam, prisotnim na območju nekdanje Vzhodne Nemčije.
This operating aid should enable these yards to undergo urgent and comprehensive restructuring and to become competitive.
Zadnje naj bi s tem dobile možnost, da izvedejo obsežne ukrepe prestrukturiranja, nujno potrebne za doseganje konkurenčnosti.
According to Article 10a(2) of Directive 90/684/EEC, operating aid for the shipbuilding and ship conversion activities of the yards situated in the former GDR may be considered, under certain conditions, compatible with the common market until 31 December 1993.
Po členu 10a(2) Direktive 90/684/EGS se lahko subvencije za tekoče poslovanje za novogradnjo ali rekonstrukcijo ladjedelnic na območju nekdanje Vzhodne Nemčije do 31. decembra 1993 pod določenimi pogoji obravnavajo kot združljive s skupnim trgom.
These conditions include an annual reporting obligation for Germany.
Eden od teh pogojev je letna obveznost poročanja Nemčije.
In addition, the Commission shall ensure that the aid referred to in this Article does not affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Hkrati mora Komisija zagotoviti, da subvencije, odobrene na podlagi tega člena, ne bodo ovirale pogojev trgovanja v takšni meri, ki bo nasprotovala skupnim interesom.
Based on Directive 90/684/EEC as amended by Directive 92/68/EEC, the Commission adopted, in two decisions in 1993, certain measures in favour of shipyards in the former GDR.
Komisija je na podlagi Direktive 90/684/EGS v sklopu Direktive 92/68/EGS v obliki dveh odločb odobrila določene ukrepe v prid ladjedelnicam na območju nekdanje Vzhodne Nemčije.
Among these measures were also grants of operating aid, which were considered compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(e) of the EC Treaty.
Ti ukrepi so zajemali tudi subvencije za tekoče poslovanje, ki so bile po člen 87(3)(e) Pogodbe ES obravnavane kot združljive s skupnim trgom.
These Commission decisions approving the aid refer to the obligation of the Commission to ensure that the yards in the new Länder only receive aid, which is necessary for their restructuring.
Odločbi o odobritvi subvencij navajata, da mora Komisija zagotoviti, da bodo ladjedelnice v novih državah prejele samo toliko subvencij, kolikor jih potrebujejo za svoje prestrukturiranje.
The aim of Directive 92/68/EEC providing a derogation from the general prohibition of operating aid applicable to shipbuilding, was to allow ‘the continued operation of the yards’ during their restructuring.
Direktiva 92/68/EGS, ki vsebuje izjemo od splošne prepovedi dodeljevanja subvencij za tekoče poslovanje za ladjedelništvo, naj bi omogočila „ohranitev obratovanja ladjedelnice“ med prestrukturiranjem.
Aid granted on the basis of this exceptional derogation had to be strictly limited to this purpose, namely the restructuring of the yards.
Subvencije, ki so bile dodeljene na podlagi te izjeme, so bile lahko uporabljene samo za ta namen, tj. izključno za prestrukturiranje ladjedelnic.
Therefore, the Commission only approved aid on the condition that it was necessary for the above, namely the continued operation during restructuring.
Komisija je zato odobrila subvencije samo, če so te potrebne za ohranitev obratovanja ladjedelnice med prestrukturiranjem.
This is clearly stated in the fourth paragraph of the decision communicated to Germany by letter of 3 March 1993 (SG (93) D/4052) and in the fourth paragraph of the decision communicated to Germany with the letter of 17 January 1994 (SG (94) D/567) [6].
To je popolnoma jasno razvidno iz četrtega odstavka odločb, ki so bile Nemčiji z dopisom poslane 3. marca 1993 (SG (93) D/4052) oz. 17. januarja 1994 (SG (94) D/567) [6].
In addition, the decision on the releasing of the second tranche of aid communicated to Germany by letter of 17 January 1994 underlines that this operating aid constitutes the maximum operating aid to be paid to the yard related to contracts signed until 31 December 1993.
V odločbi Komisije o odobritvi drugega obroka subvencije, ki je bila zvezni vladi poslana z dopisom 17. januarja 1994, je poleg tega poudarjeno, da je ta pomoč za tekoče poslovanje najvišja dovoljena pomoč za sklepanje pogodb ladjedelnice do 31. decembra 1993.
That makes it evident that the concept of the decision was made clear to Germany and the beneficiary: the aid approved is a maximum amount, which is to be granted only insofar as it is strictly necessary for the success of the restructuring process.
To kaže, da je bilo zvezni vladi in ugodnosti deležni ladjedelnici nedvoumno jasno povedano, kje je smisel in namen odločbe: da je odobrena pomoč najvišja vsota, ki se jo lahko izrabi samo toliko, kolikor je nujno potrebno za uspeh načrta prestrukturiranja.
Loss prognosis and the concept of ‘lump sum’
Napoved izgube in pojem „pavšalov“
Germany and KWW claim that the Commission decided in a final manner on the necessity of the aid before releasing the tranches.
Zvezna vlada in KWW trdita, da naj bi Komisija pred odobritvijo obrokov dokončno odločila o nujnosti subvencij.
In its decisions it did not lay down any conditions, which would justify a later reassessment of the aid.
Poleg tega naj svojih odločb ne bi vezala na pogoje, ki bi upravičili kasnejše ponovno preverjanje subvencije.
In addition, being fully aware that the privatisation contract did not provide for any possible repayment obligations, the Commission approved the lump sum of aid.
Komisija naj bi poleg tega odobrila pavšalne subvencije ob poznavanju okoliščine, da pogodba o privatizaciji ni predvidela nobene obveznosti vračila.
If the Commission doubted the plausibility of the loss prognosis submitted to it at the time, it should have inserted a provision in its decisions stating that the approval only covered aid that corresponded to the actual losses.
Če naj bi Komisija nekoč dvomila o verodostojnosti predložene napovedi izgube, bi morala v svoje odločbe vgraditi klavzulo, ki pravi, da velja odobritev samo za subvencije do višine dejanskih izgub.
As explained in the decision to open the procedure [7], the Commission notes that in cases where aid is granted for restructuring, which is to be carried out after the decision on the compatibility of aid is taken, the approval has to be based on estimations.
Kot je pojasnjeno že v njeni odločbi o uvedbi postopka [7], Komisija ugotavlja, da morajo, kadar so bile subvencije odobrene za prestrukturiranje, ki je bilo izpeljano neposredno po odločbi o združljivosti subvencije, odobreni zneski subvencij temeljiti na ocenah.
Estimations on the elements of the operating aid were especially needed in this case since Article 10a(2)(a) of Directive 90/684/EEC required that this aid was to be paid by 31 December 1993.
Takšne ocene so bile nujne ravno v predloženem primeru, saj je morala biti pomoč na osnovi člena 10a(2)(a) Direktive 90/684/EGS izplačana do 31. decembra 1993.
The above decisions take into consideration this urgency, when they stress that ‘[it] is clear to the Commission that a decision is urgently needed in order not to inhibit the possibilities of the yard to restructure’.
Prej omenjene odločbe upoštevajo to nujnost z opombo: „(it) is clear to the Commission that a decision is urgently needed in order not to inhibit the possibilities of the yard to restructure“ [Komisiji je jasno, da je nujno potrebna odločitev, da ne bi ogrozili možnosti za prestrukturiranje ladjedelnice].
The Commission had to adopt its decisions concerning operating aid on the basis of the information submitted in advance by the German government.
Komisija je bila prisiljena, da vnaprej objavi svojo odločbo na podlagi informacij, ki ji jih je sporočila zvezna vlada.
That is why appropriate conditions concerning the necessity had to be and were in fact inserted expressly into the decisions.
Zato je bilo treba v odločbe vključiti ustrezne pogoje glede na nujnost subvencij, kar se je potem tudi zgodilo.
When the decisions were taken, the Commission did not doubt the plausibility of the loss prognosis, but it had to ensure, that should the losses not be as high as estimated, granted loss compensation would become incompatible aid and consequently has to be recovered.
Pri sprejetju odločb Komisija ni podvomila o verodostojnosti napovedi izgub, vendar pa je morala zagotoviti, da bo, če izgube ne bodo tako visoke, odobrena izravnava za izgube obravnavana kot nezdružljiva pomoč in bi bilo zato treba terjati njeno vračilo.
That is also why all Commission decisions releasing the tranches of aid recall that on adoption of this derogation from the rules on operating aid applicable to other Community yards, the Commission gave an undertaking to the Council that the Commission would use its monitoring and investigative powers to ensure that the yards in the new Länder only receive the aid ‘needed in order not to inhibit the possibilities of the yard to restructure’.
Komisija je zato v vseh odločbah o odobritvi obrokov subvencij spomnila na svojo obveznost do Sveta, ki jo je prevzela pri objavi izjeme od predpisov, ki sicer veljajo za ladjedelnice v Skupnosti, da bo v okviru svojih pristojnosti preverjanja in nadzora poskrbela za to, da bodo ladjedelnice v novih državah dobile samo toliko subvencij, kot je potrebno, „da se ne bi ogrozilo možnosti prestrukturiranja ladjedelnice“.
It cannot be put into question that the concept of aid, to be granted as a lump sum presented by Germany after the restructuring was finalised, does not correspond to the provisions either of the Council directives or the Commission decisions.
Zato ni dvoma, da predstava Nemčije o subvenciji, ki je bila po koncu prestrukturiranja odobrena kot pavšal, ni v skladu niti z besedilom direktive niti z odločbami Komisije.
Misinterpretation of State aid rules
Napačno razlaganje predpisov o državni pomoči
Before the decisions for aid were taken, Germany provided the Commission with a copy of the Acquisition Agreement between the THA and Kvaerner Warnow Werft.
Pred objavo odločb o pomoči je Nemčija Komisiji poslala kopijo sporazuma o prevzemu med THA in Kvaerner Warnow Werft.
According to Germany, this document fully informed the Commission about the provisions on aid, which was granted as a lump sum.
Po mnenju Nemčije je bila Komisija s tem popolnoma obveščena o subvenciji, odobreni kot pavšal.
Germany does not explain in which way such an agreement concluded between the THA and Kvaerner Warnow Werft could bind a third party, namely the Commission.
Nemčija pa ne pojasni, koliko bi lahko bil takšen dogovor med THA in Kvaerner Warnow Werft obvezujoč za tretjo stranko, namreč Komisijo.
Further to this, Germany refers to its letter to the Commission, by which it submitted on 28 May 1993 additional information concerning the privatisation of East German shipyards to the Commission.
Nemčija nadalje opozarja na svoj dopis z dne 28. maja 1993, v katerem je Komisijo obvestila o nadaljnjih podrobnostih o privatizaciji vzhodnonemških ladjedelnic.
The main issue of this communication was to explain the need for operating aid in order to cover losses from contracts and underemployment.
Treba je bilo pojasniti, da so nujne subvencije za tekoče poslovanje, s katerimi bi pokrili izgube iz naročil in izgube zaradi nezadostne izkoriščenosti delovne sile.
Germany also recalled that according to the Acquisition Agreements a refund of incurred losses against proof of payment was not envisaged in order to avoid uneconomic management of the enterprise.
Nemčija je nadalje opozorila, da povračilo izgub v zameno za predložitev potrdila o plačilu v sporazumih o prevzemu ni bilo predvideno, da bi se izognili negospodarnemu poslovodstvu.
It would have been the THA’s objective to assign the financial risk of additional losses to the purchaser.
Cilj THA naj bi bil prenos finančnega tveganja za dodatne izgube na vlagatelja.
Therefore, the expected losses for the shipyards, including Warnow Werft, had to be determined, in advance, as exactly as possible.
Zato bi morale biti predvidene izgube ladjedelnic – vključno z Warnow Werft – vnaprej izračunane tako točno, kot je mogoče.
Germany further explained that in a countermove it was agreed that the purchaser would benefit from the unlikely development of making savings.
Nemčija je poleg tega navedla, da je bilo v zameno dogovorjeno, da naj bi pri sicer neverjetnem ugodnejšem gibanju stroškov dobiček ostal vlagatelju.
This mechanism should encourage purchasers to carry out the transition of shipyards into the conditions of a market economy as quick as possible.
Ta mehanizem naj bi bil za vlagatelje spodbuda, da čim hitreje izvedejo prehod ladjedelnic v tržnogospodarske razmere.
This is precisely the reason why the Commission had to repeat, in its decision of 17 January 1994, the undertakings given by Germany, which were actually already set out unequivocally in the first decision communicated to Germany by letter of 3 March 1993.
Prav zato je Komisija v svoji odločbi 17. januarja 1994 še enkrat ponovila obveznosti, ki jih je prevzela Nemčija in ki so bile že jasno zapisane v prvi odločbi, ki jo je Komisija 3. marca 1993 z dopisom vročila Nemčiji.
In addition, the Commission decided to reply in a decision, i.e. in an attackable legal act, capable of becoming definitive.
Poleg tega je Komisija sklenila, da bo odgovorila z odločbo, tj. izpodbojnim pravnim aktom, ki bi po možnosti pridobil dokončnost.
Taking into account Germany’s knowledge of State aid rules and background information of the case, the Commission cannot understand the misinterpretation of the Commission’s authorising decisions in 1993 and 1994 by Germany.
Ker Nemčiji niso bili nepoznani niti predpisi o zakoniti pomoči niti dejansko stanje, Komisija njenega napačnega razlaganja odločb o odobritvi subvencij iz let 1993 in 1994 ne more razumeti.
These decisions clearly underlined that the Commission would use its investigating and monitoring powers to ensure that the yards only receive the aid necessary for their restructuring.
V tej odločbi je bilo jasno razloženo, da bo Komisija v okviru svojih pristojnosti nadzora zagotovila, da bodo ladjedelnice prejele le toliko subvencij, kot jih za prestrukturiranje dejansko potrebujejo.
Aid amounts received by KWW
Višina subvencij, ki jih je prejel KWW
In its comments both Germany and KWW argue that the contested amount of EUR 60,988 million (DEM 119,284 million) is part of the total operating aid approved by the Commission decisions communicated to Germany in March 1993 and January 1994 and therefore existing aid, of which the compatibility cannot be subsequently reassessed.
V svojih mnenjih Nemčija in KWW utemeljujeta, da naj bi bila sporna vsota 60,988 milijona EUR (119,284 milijona DEM) del splošnih subvencij za tekoče poslovanje, ki naj bi jih Komisija odobrila v svojih odločbah, vročenih Nemčiji marca 1993 in januarja 1994, in katerih združljivosti naj zato naknadno ne bi bilo mogoče ponovno preverjati.
They further comment that not all the amounts the Commission approved as aid were in fact aid.
Poleg tega navajata, da niso vsi zneski, ki jih je odobrila Komisija, dejansko bili subvencije.
A part of the restructuring costs was covered by the yard’s own resources, which appeared as items in the balance sheet.
Del stroškov prestrukturiranja naj bi se financiral iz lastnih sredstev ladjedelnice, ki so v bilanci prikazane kot postavke.
The Commission notes that the total aid includes cash and non-cash aid.
Komisija ugotavlja, da celotna pomoč vključuje tako „cash (gotovinske)“ kot tudi „non-cash (negotovinske)“ subvencije.
This non-cash aid consists in the transfer of assets to the new company, a transfer of certain fixed and current assets, joined with a less than proportional transfer of financial liabilities.
„Non-cash“ subvencije so sestavljene iz premoženjskih vrednosti, prenesenih na novo družbo – deloma osnovna, deloma gibljiva sredstva – v zvezi s prav tako prevzetimi, vendar sorazmerno nižjimi obveznostmi.
However, the form of payment of the aid is not decisive as regards the nature of a payment as aid.
Način izplačila subvencije pa za kvalificiranje plačila kot subvencije ni odločilen.
The Commission approved, in its two decisions, a total of EUR 380,9 million (DEM 745 million) of operating aid and a part of this aid was paid in cash, another part non-cash.
Komisija je v obeh svojih odločbah odobrila subvencijo za tekoče poslovanje za skupno 380,9 milijona EUR (745 milijonov DEM), pri čemer je bil del te subvencije odobren v gotovini in del kot „non-cash“.
Neither Decision has been challenged by Germany or by the beneficiary.
Nemčija in ugodnosti deležna ladjedelnica nista izpodbijali nobene odločbe.
Consequently, they are binding for Germany, for the beneficiary and for the Commission itself.
S tem sta za Nemčijo, ugodnosti deležno podjetje in Komisijo celo pravno obvezujoči.
At this stage, it has also to be stated that according to the decisions the total amount of aid granted in cash is clearly higher than the contested amount of EUR 60,988 million (DEM 119,284 million).
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da je celotna vsota subvencije, odobrena v gotovini, precej višja od sporne vsote 60,988 milijona EUR (119,284 milijona DEM).