natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With the exception of these two groups, all other creditor groups established in the insolvency proceedings correspond to comparable creditors for the purpose of analysing the private creditor principle.
Za namen preiskave v skladu z osnovnim načelom zasebnega upnika so se vsi v stečajnih postopkih določeni upniki, razen teh dve skupin, izkazali za primerljive upnike.
As set out in paragraph 168 of the HAMSA judgment, the factors determining the similarity of creditors are the type and amount of securities, the privileged nature of claims, the creditors’ evaluation of the chances of recapitalising the company and the share of the liquidation revenue they can expect.
V skladu z odstavkom 168 sodbe v zadevi HAMSA o podobnosti upnikov odločajo naslednji dejavniki: vrsta in znesek jamstev, prednost terjatev, ocena možnosti za rekapitalizacijo podjetja in ocena upnikov, kolikšen del izkupička likvidacije lahko pričakujejo.
Judging by these criteria the creditor groups HAG 3 and HAG 2 are similar and should belong to a single group with an equal right to satisfaction.
V skladu s temi kriteriji so upniki skupin HAG 3 in HAG 2 primerljivi, zato bi morali biti razporejeni v skupino z enako terjatvijo.
The same can be said about creditors in PBS 3 and PBS 5.
Enako velja za upnike skupin PBS 3 in PBS 5.
All these groups comprised unsecured non-lower ranking claims, which were non-privileged and which would have received an equal share or nothing at all in the event of liquidation.
Upniki teh skupin so imeli nezavarovane in nepodrejene terjatve, ki niso imele prednostnih pravic: v primeru likvidacije bi prejeli enak delež ali pa sploh nič.
The lower-ranking land charge of the Liegenschaftsfonds represents no security in an insolvency scenario where the banks’ first-ranking mortgage and right to separate satisfaction fully covered the value of the security.
Podrejen osnovni dolg Liegenschaftsfondsa v stečajnem postopku ne jamči, da sta prednostna hipoteka bank in izločitvena pravica v celoti pokriti z vrednostjo jamstva.
Furthermore, all creditors in these groups had an equal interest in avoiding liquidation and obtaining a quota in the going concern settlement.
Poleg tega so imeli vsi upniki v teh skupinah enak interes, in sicer izogniti se likvidaciji in doseči kvoto v postopku stečajnega načrta.
Nevertheless, only the creditors in groups PBS 5 and HAG 2 got a quota on the basis of their existing insolvency claims.
Vendar so le upniki skupin PBS 5 in HAG 2 dobili kvoto v skladu z obstoječimi stečajnimi terjatvami.
Contrary to Germany’s submission, public creditors in groups HAG 3 and PBS 3 could not take into account their future statutory tax and social security revenue to justify a proportionally larger waiver.
V nasprotju s trditvami Nemčije upniki skupin HAG 3 in PBS 3 ne morejo navesti svojih prihodnjih prihodkov iz davka in socialnega zavarovanja, da bi utemeljili razmeroma velik odpis terjatev.
The case-law of the Court of First Instance and of the European Court of Justice [24] prevents a public authority from taking into account its future tax and social security revenue when deciding on the proportion of the claims it should waive against a debtor.
V skladu s sodno prakso sodišča prve stopnje in Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti [24] se upravni organ ne sme odločiti za odpis dela svojih terjatev proti dolžniku na podlagi bodočih prihodkov iz davkov in socialnega zavarovanja.
If such considerations were allowed, the roles of public authority and investor would be confused.
Če bi bilo to dopustno, bi bile vloge javnega urada in vlagatelja nejasne.
The need to avoid any confusion between the roles of public authority and investor applies not only to the market economy investor principle, but also to the private creditor principle.
Ločitev vlog javnega urada in vlagatelja ne velja le za osnovno načelo v zasebno gospodarstvo usmerjenega financerja, temveč tudi za osnovno načelo zasebnega upnika.
These two principles have essentially the same purpose of establishing whether public investors behave in a comparable way to private ones.
Z obema kriterijema je v bistvu treba ugotoviti, ali javni in zasebni vlagatelji ravnajo na enak način.
The effectiveness of both principles would be impaired if public authorities could take into account their future statutory income when making decisions as an investor.
Delovanje obeh osnovnih načel bi bilo oslabljeno, če bi javni uradi pri svojih odločitvah kot vlagatelj upoštevali svoje bodoče obvezne prihodke.
Insolvency creates an exceptional situation where the past statutory public claims (tax and social security) can be compared with civil claims of private creditors.
Stečaj ustvarja izredno stanje, kjer lahko nastale obvezne javne terjatve (davki in prispevki iz socialnega zavarovanja) primerjamo s civilnopravnimi terjatvami zasebnih upnikov.
Nevertheless, such a comparison can be performed only with regard to the past, for existing claims.
Takšna primerjava je za obstoječe terjatve mogoča le v povezavi s preteklostjo.
Although future revenue expectations can play a role when deciding on waivers, this is not the main consideration.
V prihodnosti pričakovani prihodki sicer lahko vplivajo na odločitev o odpisu terjatev, vendar pa niso najpomembnejši dejavnik.
Also, the State is not driven by profit considerations when levying taxes.
Tudi na državo ob zvišanju davkov ne vpliva razmišljanje o dobičku.
If the argument of Germany were taken further, private creditors should be required to waive more than public ones, because the waivers are deductible from their tax base.
Če bi logično nadaljevali z nemškim argumentom, bi morali zasebni upniki odpisati več terjatev kot javni, saj se odpis terjatev izloči iz odmere davka.
Furthermore, Germany does not explain why in other creditor groups, public creditors of the same type were granted a quota for similar claims and not in HAG 3 and PBS 3.
Nemčija ni pojasnila, zakaj je v drugih skupinah ista vrsta javnih upnikov prejela kvoto za istovrstne terjatve, v skupinah HAG 3 in PBS 3 pa ne.
For the same reason, the public but non-statutory ground rent claim of the Liegenschaftsfonds in group PBS 3 cannot be waived to a larger extent than that of private or public claims in group PBS 5.
Iz istega razloga Liegenschaftsfonds iz skupine PBS 3 ni smel odpisati javnega, a neobveznega zahtevka za osnovni dolg v večji meri kot javne ali zasebne terjatve v skupini PBS 5.
Finally, paragraph 167 of the HAMSA judgment of the Court of First Instance reiterated that public creditors in debt write-off situations do not have to be compared to private investors pursuing a global or sectoral structural policy, but rather to a private creditor seeking to recover as much of his claims as possible from the firm in financial difficulty.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v odstavku 167 sodbe v zadevi HAMSA odločilo, da javnih upnikov pri odpisu dolgov ni potrebno primerjati z zasebnimi vlagatelji, ki sledijo globalni ali sektorski strukturni politiki, temveč z zasebnim upnikom, katerega cilj je, da svoje terjatve do podjetja v finančnih težavah uveljavlja v največjem možnem obsegu.
This bears out the private and public creditors’ equal interest in obtaining a quota on their existing insolvency claims.
Ob tem se jasno pokaže enak interes zasebnih in javnih upnikov za doseganje kvote za obstoječe stečajne terjatve.
The amount of the rescue and the restructuring aid
Znesek sanacijske pomoči in pomoči za prestrukturiranje
The amount of rescue aid corresponds to the rescue aid loan of EUR 963855,42. The aid to the Herlitz Group in the form of waivers in the insolvency proceedings corresponds to the proportional difference between waivers made on the one hand by pubic creditors in groups PBS 3 and HAG 3 and on the other hand the waivers of the creditors in groups PBS 5 and HAG 2.
Znesek sanacijske pomoči ustreza sanacijskemu posojilu v višini 963855,42 EUR. Pomoč Skupini Herlitz v obliki odpisa terjatev v stečajnih postopkih ustreza sorazmerni razliki med odpisom terjatev javnih upnikov v skupinah PBS 3 in HAG 3 ter odpisom terjatev upnikov v skupinah PBS 5 in HAG 2.
In the insolvency proceedings of Herlitz AG, the public creditor in group HAG 3 did not behave in the same way as the comparable private creditors in group HAG 2.
V stečajnem postopku za Herlitz AG javni upnik v skupini HAG 3 ni ravnal tako kot primerljivi zasebni upniki v skupini HAG 2.
Therefore, its waiver is State aid, the amount of which is higher than the difference between the waived proportion of its claim and the waived proportion of the private claims.
Zato predstavlja njegov odpis dolgov državno pomoč, katere znesek je višji od razlike med odpisanim delom njegovih terjatev in odpisanim delom zasebnih terjatev.
This is so because, for instance, the private bodies might not have waived to such an extent without the higher waiver of public creditors.
Zasebni upniki brez višjega odpisa terjatev javnih upnikov svojih terjatev verjetno ne bi odpisali v takšnem obsegu.
Similarly, not only the waived proportion of claims, but also the absolute amount in each class of creditors might be relevant.
Podobno je lahko pomemben ne le odpisan del terjatev, temveč tudi višina odpisanega zneska v vsaki skupini upnikov.
In these circumstances the aid amount may be anything up to 100 % of the waiver.
V teh okoliščinah lahko znesek pomoči doseže tudi 100 % odpisa dolga.
Nevertheless, in the present case it is not necessary to calculate this amount precisely as, in any event, even if it were to reach 100 % of the waiver, the aid would still be compatible with the common market.
Vendar pa v tem primeru ni potrebno izračunati natančnega zneska, saj bi bila pomoč, četudi bi dosegla 100 % odpisa dolgov, v vsakem primeru združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The same reasoning applies to the State aid in the insolvency proceedings of Herlitz PBS AG, which results from the different proportion of claims waived in group PBS 3 and by the comparable private creditors in PBS 5.
Enako velja za državno pomoč v stečajnem postopku proti Herlitzu PBS AG, ki izhaja iz različnega odstotka odpisa terjatev v skupini PBS 3 in pri primerljivih zasebnih upnikih v skupini PBS 5.
Assessment in the light of the Guidelines
Ovrednotenje v skladu s smernicami
The rescue aid loan and the disproportionate waivers conferred an advantage on the Herlitz Group, by reducing the costs it would normally have to bear and facilitating its restructuring process.
Sanacijsko posojilo in nesorazmerno visok odpis terjatev sta dala Skupini Herlitz prednost in tako zmanjšala stroške, ki bi jih v normalnih okoliščinah morala poravnati sama, to pa je olajšalo proces prestrukturiranja.
The Commission must therefore assess whether the measures can be considered to be compatible with the common market.
Komisija mora zato oceniti, ali je te ukrepe mogoče označiti kot združljive s skupnim trgom.
Since the aid measures were not granted under any scheme approved by the Commission, the aid falls to be assessed as ad hoc aid.
Ker ukrepi pomoči niso bili dodeljeni v okviru uredbe, odobrene s strani Komisije, jih je mogoče oceniti kot začasno pomoč.
Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty sets out the conditions according to which aid is compatible or may be considered compatible with the common market.
V členih 87(2) in 87(3) Pogodbe ES je razloženo, kateri pogoji morajo biti izpolnjeni, da je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom oziroma jo je mogoče označiti kot združljivo.
Article 87(3)(c) is relevant to this case, since the purpose of the aid measures was to enable rescue and the restructuring of the recipient and no other derogation mentioned in Article 87(2) and (3) was invoked or can be applied.
V tem primeru se uporablja člen 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, saj je bil namen ukrepov pomoč pri sanaciji in prestrukturiranju upravičenca, navedeno pa ni bilo nobeno drugo odstopanje od določb iz členov 87(2) in 87(3) Pogodbe ES, niti ga ni mogoče uporabiti.
In the Guidelines, the Commission set out the conditions for the positive exercise of its discretion under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.
V smernicah je Komisija pojasnila, pod katerimi pogoji na pozitiven način izvaja svoja pooblastila v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
Since the information submitted by Germany indicates that all of the aid that is to be assessed was granted to the recipient after the entry into force of the Guidelines, they apply to the measures in question [25].
Ker iz navedb Nemčije izhaja, da je bila vsa pomoč, ki jo je treba oceniti, dodeljena po začetku veljavnosti smernic, je le-te mogoče uporabiti pri zadevnih ukrepih [25].
Aid beneficiary
Upravičenec
The Commission considers that the beneficiary of all the aid measures covered by the investigation is the entire Herlitz Group and not individual companies within that group.
Za Komisijo je do vseh ukrepov pomoči, zajetih v to preiskavo, upravičena celotna Skupina Herlitz, in ne posamezna podjetja znotraj te skupine.
This conclusion follows from the closely intertwined structure of the Herlitz Group and the systematic allocation of tasks and assets between the two main companies (Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG) and their subsidiaries.
Ta sklep izhaja iz tesne povezanosti v skupini in sistematične dodelitve nalog in premoženja med obema glavnima družbama, Herlitzom AG in Herlitzom PBS AG, ter njunimi hčerinskimi podjetji.
The Herlitz Group appears and acts on the market as a single firm.
Skupina Herlitz na trgu deluje kot eno podjetje.
For example Herlitz AG concluded the agreement on the emphyteusis with the Land of Berlin for the site in Berlin-Tegel, though the ground rent claim was registered and waived in the insolvency proceedings of Herlitz PBS AG only.
Na primer, sklenila je sporazum o dedni stavbni pravici z deželo Berlin za zemljišče v Berlin Teglu, medtem ko je bila terjatev za najemnino vpisana in odpisana le v stečajnem postopku proti Herlitzu PBS AG.
Furthermore, the Herlitz Group published consolidated financial statements in accordance with Article 290 of the German Commercial Code.
Poleg tega je Skupina Herlitz objavila konsolidirane letne obračune v skladu s členom 290 nemškega trgovinskega zakonika.
Finally, the creditors of the Herlitz Group treated it as a single firm when they adopted in a uniform manner the parallel and interrelated insolvency plans of Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG.
Tudi upniki so skupino obravnavali kot eno podjetje, ko so odobrili vzporedna in povezana stečajna načrta za Herlitz AG in Herlitz PBS AG.
Herlitz AG, Herlitz PBS AG and FOP are all located in assisted areas (Berlin/objective 2 covered by Article 87(3)(c), Brandenburg covered by Article 87(3)(a)).
Herlitz AG, Herlitz PBS AG in FOP se nahajajo v regijah, ki so prejemnice pomoči (Berlin: cilj 2 v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, Brandenburg v skladu s členom 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES).
The Herlitz Group had not received restructuring aid in the 10-year period before the insolvency proceedings.
Skupina Herlitz v obdobju 10 let pred stečajnim postopkom ni prejela nobene pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
Firm in difficulty
Podjetje v težavah
Section 2.1 of the Guidelines defines a firm in difficulty.
V poglavju 2.1 smernic je opisano podjetje v težavah.
The Herlitz Group can be considered a firm in difficulty in accordance with point (5)(a) of the Guidelines because it is a limited company more than half of whose registered capital disappeared during the 12-month period from 31 December 2000 to 31 December 2001.
Skupino Herlitz lahko v skladu s točko 5(a) smernic označimo kot podjetje v težavah, saj gre za delniško družbo, ki je v 12-mesečnem obdobju od 31. decembra 2000 do 31. decembra 2001 izgubila več kot polovico vpisanega kapitala.
The amount of the group’s registered capital is set out in the following table:
Vsota vpisanega kapitala Skupine je razvidna iz spodnje tabele:
Source: the Herlitz Group’s Annual Reports for the years 1999 and 2001 to 2002.
Vir: Poročila Skupine Herlitz za leto 1999 in 2001–2002.
(in EUR million)
(v mio EUR)
Registered capital
Vpisan kapital
Furthermore, the Herlitz Group was in difficulty from at least April 2002, also pursuant to point (5)(c) of the Guidelines, because it fulfilled the criteria under German law for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings.
Poleg tega je bila Skupina Herlitz že vsaj od aprila 2002, prav tako v skladu s točko 5(c) smernic, v težavah, saj je v skladu s kriteriji zadevnih nemških zakonov izpolnjevala pogoje za kolektivne stečajne postopke.
As described in recital 13, insolvency proceedings were requested in April 2002 for several main companies within the Herlitz Group.
Kot je omenjeno v uvodni izjavi 13, je bilo aprila 2002 zaprošeno za stečajne postopke za več glavnih podjetij znotraj Skupine.
Therefore, the Herlitz Group was in difficulty from 31 December 2001 since more than half of its registered capital disappeared during the 12 months preceding this date.
Skupina Herlitz je bila od 31. decembra 2001 v težavah, saj je več kot polovico vpisanega kapitala izgubila v 12 mesecih pred tem datumom.
Being a firm in difficulty, the Herlitz Group was eligible for both rescue and restructuring aid.
Kot podjetje v težavah je bila Skupina Herlitz upravičena do sanacijske pomoči in pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
Analysis of the rescue aid loan
Ocena sanacijskega posojila
The rescue aid loan was granted by ILB. ILB, an institution incorporated under public law, was created in 1992 with the task of supporting the Land of Brandenburg in its activities to promote local industry.
Sanacijsko posojilo je odobrila ILB – institucija, ki je bila ustanovljena leta 1992 z namenom pospeševanja industrije v deželi Brandenburg.
It is not a commercial bank under the German Commercial Code and profit making is not the main purpose of its operations.
Po nemškem trgovinskem zakoniku ta institucija ni komercialna banka, saj glavni cilj njenega delovanja ni dobičkonosnost.
It acts as the development and structural bank of the Land of Brandenburg and is closely supervised by the Land.
Njena naloga je sodelovati pri razvoju gospodarskih struktur dežele Brandenburg, v kateri minister za gospodarstvo natančno nadzoruje njeno delovanje.
State supervision of the bank is performed by the Ministry of Finance of Brandenburg and promotional committees are formed to advise on individual projects [26].
Ustanovijo se podporni odbori, ki se ukvarjajo s posameznimi projekti [26].
The Commission therefore considers that the measure at issue is imputable to the State.
Komisija zato meni, da je za ta ukrep odgovorna država.
The rescue aid loan confers on the Herlitz Group advantages that a company in difficulties would not have obtained on the market.
S sanacijskim posojilom je bila Skupina Herlitz deležna prednosti, ki jih podjetje v težavah na trgu ne bi moglo pridobiti.
Since Germany recognises that the loan is aid, the Commission does not consider it necessary to apply the market economy investor principle.
Ker Nemčija priznava, da je to posojilo pomoč, tukaj ni potrebno uporabiti osnovnega načela tržno usmerjenega vlagatelja.
Consequently, the rescue aid loan includes State aid elements within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and has to be assessed accordingly.
Sanacijsko posojilo torej vsebuje elemente državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES in ga je potrebno ustrezno oceniti.
The Guidelines set out clear conditions for such aid.
V smernicah so jasno navedeni pogoji za dodelitev tovrstne pomoči.
Firstly, the aid has to consist of liquidity help in the form of loan guarantees or loans bearing normal commercial interest rates.
Prvič, pomoč mora biti sestavljena iz likvidnostne pomoči v obliki garancije za posojilo ali v obliki posojila z običajnimi tržnimi obrestnimi merami.
The rescue aid loan conforms to this requirement and its interest rate exceeded the Commission reference rate [27].
Sanacijsko posojilo izpolnjuje vse te zahteve, saj je bila njegova obrestna mera višja od referenčne obrestne mere Komisije [27].
Secondly, the aid should be warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and have no undue adverse effects on the industrial situation in other Member States.
Drugič, pomoč mora biti utemeljena z obstojem resnih socialnih težav in ne sme imeti neprimernih škodljivih učinkov na položaj industrije v drugih državah članicah.
The Commission can take account of the fact that the Herlitz Group is a large employer in the assisted areas of Berlin and Brandenburg.
Komisija lahko pri tem upošteva, da je Skupina Herlitz pomemben delodajalec v zadevnih regijah, ki prejemajo pomoč (Berlin in Brandenburg).
An immediate, disorderly insolvency would have led to serious social difficulties.
Takojšen, neurejen stečaj bi privedel do resnih socialnih težav.
For the bridging period of the rescue aid loan, the Commission considers the adverse effects on the industrial situation in other Member States to be limited and not undue.
Za premostitveno obdobje sanacijskega posojila Komisija meni, da so bili neugodni učinki na položaj industrije v drugih državah članicah omejeni in da niso bili neprimerni.
Thirdly, although the granting of the rescue aid loan was initially not notified to the Commission, during the formal investigation procedure Germany submitted proof that the loan has been reimbursed in full.
Tretjič, Nemčija je, čeprav Komisija z dodelitvijo sanacijskega posojila prvotno ni bila seznanjena, med preiskovalnim postopkom predložila dokaze o celotnem vračilu posojila.
Fourthly, the aid has to be restricted to the amount needed to keep a firm in business.
Četrtič, pomoč mora ostati omejena na vsoto, ki je potrebna za nadaljevanje poslovanja podjetja.
The Commission finds that this condition is fulfilled.
Po mnenju Komisije je ta pogoj izpolnjen.
The rescue aid loan was only used when the liquidity loan could no longer cover the increased liquidity needs due to routine supplies for the start of the school term in the autumn of 2002.
Sanacijsko posojilo je bilo uporabljeno šele tedaj, ko likvidnostno posojilo ni več zadostovalo za povečane likvidnostne potrebe zaradi dobav ob začetku šolskega leta jeseni 2002.
Even after receiving the rescue aid loan, the liquidity level of Herlitz PBS AG remained low between August and December 2002.
Celo po prejemu sanacijskega posojila je bila likvidnost Herlitza PBS AG med avgustom in decembrom 2002 na nizki ravni.
Finally, the aid has to be paid only for the time needed to devise the necessary and feasible restructuring plan.
Pomoč se lahko dodeli le za časovno obdobje, ki je potrebno za pripravo izvedljivega načrta za prestrukturiranje.
This time should not exceed six months, unless warranted by particular circumstances.
To časovno obdobje naj ne bi bilo daljše od šestih mesecev, razen v primeru izrednih okoliščin.
In the present case, although the decision to grant the rescue aid loan was taken on 10 May 2002, the actual disbursement took place on 24 July 2002 and the repayment followed exactly six months after the disbursement.
V tem primeru je bila odločba o dodelitvi sanacijskega posojila izdana 10. maja 2002, posojilo pa je bilo izplačano šele 24. julija 2002 in vrnjeno v šestih mesecih po izplačilu.
Furthermore, the repayment took place before the Commission was to take its decision on the measures involved in the insolvency plans.
Posojilo je bilo vrnjeno še preden naj bi Komisija izdala svojo odločbo glede ukrepov, zajetih v stečajnih načrtih.
In conclusion, the rescue aid loan fulfils the criteria of the Guidelines and is compatible with the common market.
Sanacijsko posojilo tako izpolnjuje kriterij smernic in je združljivo s skupnim trgom.
The restructuring through insolvency plans
Prestrukturiranje s stečajnimi načrti
Restoration of viability
Obnovitev rentabilnosti