natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission decision to extend the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities [4].
Sklep Komisije o razširitvi postopka je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti [4].
The aid recipient, NHW, is located in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, which is an assisted region within the meaning of Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
Prejemnica pomoči, družba NHW, se nahaja v nemški zvezni deželi Saška-Anhalt, ki je prejemnica pomoči za območja v smislu člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti.
It was set up in March 1996, when its owners acquired the assets of Harzer Werke GmbH, in liquidation, from the receiver through an asset deal.
NHW je bila ustanovljena marca 1996, ko so njeni lastniki od stečajnega upravitelja z delitvijo premoženja prevzeli podjetje v stečaju Harzer Werke GmbH.
NHW produced iron castings.
Družba NHW se je ukvarjala z ulivanjem železa.
It originally had two lines consisting of sand casting and centrifugal casting.
Imela je dve proizvodni liniji, eno za litje v pesek, drugo pa za centrifugalno litje.
On 24 July 2000 NHW had to file for insolvency.
NHW je morala 24. julija 2000 podati vlogo za insolventnost.
On 4 January 2001 the receiver, with the consent of the committee of creditors, sold the shares in the company for DEM 1 to a new investor, ASSET GmbH.
Po stečaju je upravitelj s privolitvijo sveta upnikov 4. januarja 2001 delnice podjetja prodal novemu investitorju, podjetju ASSET GmbH, za ceno 1 DEM.
Germany further informed the Commission that the efforts of the new investor, ASSET GmbH, to continue the company’s business had failed in July 2001 and the insolvency proceedings subsequently had had to be resumed.
Nemčija je v nadaljevanju obvestila Komisijo, da so bila prizadevanja novega vlagatelja, ASSET GmbH, da bi julija 2001 vnovič zagnal podjetje, neuspešna ter da je treba postopek v primeru insolventnosti nadaljevati.
In order to satisfy NHW’s creditors, the assets had to be disposed of as part of the regular insolvency proceedings.
Po mnenju Nemčije je bilo treba zato posamezno premoženje razdeliti v skladu z običajnim postopkom v primeru insolventnosti, da se zadovolji upnike NHW.
The sand casting business ceased on 21 December 2001 and the assets used in it were disposed of.
Dejavnosti v zvezi z litjem v pesek so bile ustavljene 21. decembra 2001, premoženje pa je bilo likvidirano.
Centrifugal-casting production has been continued in the context of the insolvency proceedings and it is intended that the receiver, with the consent of the committee of creditors, will sell it to a new investor through an asset deal.
Obrat za centrifugalno litje je nadaljeval proizvodnjo med stečajnim postopkom in je, ob soglasju sveta upnikov, predviden za prodajo s strani upravitelja novemu investitorju v okviru premoženjskega dogovora.
The present investigation procedure covers the restructuring of NHW between 1996 and 1999.
Ta preiskava pokriva prestrukturiranje NHW med letoma 1996 in 1999.
In 1996 a restructuring plan was drawn up envisaging a return to profitability within three years.
Leta 1996 je bil narejen načrt prestrukturiranja, ki je predvideval oživitev podjetja v treh letih.
The costs of restructuring amounted to EUR 8415864 (DEM 16460000).
Stroški prestrukturiranja so znašali 8431203 EUR (16490000 DEM).
Under the plan, NHW was granted aid amounting to EUR 4963110 (DEM 9707000) for restructuring between 1996 and 1999.
Ob upoštevanju načrta je bilo NHW odobrenih 4963110 EUR (9707000 DEM) pomoči za prestrukturiranje podjetja med letoma 1996 in 1999.
The restructuring was financed as follows:
Financiranje prestrukturiranja naj bi bilo naslednje:
Public contributions to restructuring
Javni prispevki za prestrukturiranje
Grant [Gemeinschaftsaufgabe (GA Mittel)] [5]
Investicijska podpora „Gemeinschaftsaufgabe (GA-Mittel)“ [5]
Investment allowance [Investitionszulage] [6]
Investicijska subvencija „Investitionszulage“ [6]
WBG [7] loan [Konsolidierungsprogramm] [8]
Posojilo WBG [7]„Konsolidierungsprogramm“ [8]
LFI [9] loan [Konsolidierungsprogramm] [10]
Posojilo LFI [9]„Konsolidierungsprogramm“ [10]
BvS [11] grant
Podpora BvS [11]
Subtotal DEM
Skupaj DEM
Private contributions for restructuring
Zasebni prispevki za prestrukturiranje
Capital injection
Kapitalski vložek
Loan KfW
Posojilo KfW
Credit NordLB
Kredit NordLB
Leasing agreement
Sporazum o finančnem leasingu
Total (Tables 1 and 2)
Skupna vrednost (tabeli 1+2) DEM
Since Germany had indicated that Measures 1 to 4 in Table 1 were implemented under approved aid schemes, these measures were originally considered to constitute existing aid and were not assessed as part of the formal investigation procedure initiated on 13 July 2000.
Ker je Nemčija navedla, da so bili ukrepi št. 1–4 iz tabele 1 odobreni v skladu s programi pomoči, te pa je že prej odobrila Komisija, je bilo sprva mišljeno, da bodo navedeni ukrepi predstavljali obstoječo pomoč ter zato niso bili ocenjeni med uradno preiskavo, sproženo 13. julija 2000.
Initially, therefore, only Measure 5 was considered ad hoc aid for restructuring which had to be assessed as to its compatibility with the common market.
Zato je bil sprva le ukrep št. 5 obravnavan kot ad hoc pomoč za prestrukturiranje, za katero je bilo treba oceniti združljivost s skupnim trgom.
Subsequently, on 17 October 2001, the Commission adopted Decision 2002/377/EC on this ad hoc aid measure totalling EUR 1022584 (DEM 2 million), which was assessed in accordance with the 1994 Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (the 1994 guidelines) [12].
Dne 17. oktobra 2001 je Komisija sprejela Odločbo 2002/377/ES o ad hoc pomoči, ki je znašala 1022584 EUR (2 milijona DEM), kar je bilo ocenjeno na osnovi Smernic Skupnosti glede državnih pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [12] iz leta 1994 (v nadaljevanju: smernice iz leta 1994).
In that decision the Commission found that the ad hoc aid granted for the restructuring of NHW was incompatible with the common market.
V tej odločbi je Komisija zaključila, da je bila ad hoc pomoč za prestrukturiranje NHW nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
Measures 7, 8 and 9 in Table 2 were not taken into account in the assessment as private contributions since Germany, despite the issue of an information injunction pursuant to Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [13], failed to supply the information necessary for the Commission to assess whether these measures had been implemented on market terms.
Ukrepi št. 7, 8 in 9 iz tabele 2 med ocenjevanjem niso bili upoštevani kot zasebni prispevki, saj Nemčija kljub zahtevi po podatkih iz člena 10 Uredbe Sveta (ES) 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [13] ni priskrbela podatkov, potrebnih za preverjanje, ali so bili ti ukrepi odobreni pod tržnimi pogoji.
On the same day that Decision 2002/377/EC as regards Measure 5 was adopted, the Commission adopted a decision extending the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty to Measures 3 and 4, which together totalled EUR 1402985 (DEM 2744000).
Istega dne, kot je bila sprejeta Odločba 2002/377/ES glede ukrepa št. 5, je Komisija sprejela odločbo, s katero je uradno preiskavo po členu 88(2) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti razširila še na ukrepa št. 3 in 4 iz tabele 1, pri katerih gre za znesek 1402985 EUR (2744000 DEM).
These measures formed part of the same restructuring package as the measure assessed in Decision 2002/377/EC but, for formal reasons, they could not be included in the initial assessment as they were purportedly granted under aid schemes approved by the Commission and so had to be considered as existing aid.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno zgoraj, sta bila ukrepa del istega programa prestrukturiranja kot ukrep, ocenjen v Odločbi 2002/377/ES, vendar ju zaradi formalnih razlogov ni bilo mogoče vključiti v prvotno ocenjevanje, saj naj bi bila odobrena v sklopu programov pomoči, ki jih je potrdila Komisija, in ju je bilo zato treba obravnavati kot obstoječo pomoč.
In so far as a measure constitutes existing aid, it cannot be assessed directly under Article 88(2) as such measures must, in principle, be considered as having already been approved.
V kolikor ukrep predstavlja obstoječo pomoč, ga ni mogoče posamezno ocenjevati v skladu s členom 88(2), saj se ukrepe načeloma obravnava kot že potrjene.
In the decision to extend the formal investigation, the Commission concluded that aid amounting to EUR 1402985 (DEM 2744000) did not comply with the terms of the previously approved schemes and therefore had to be considered as ad hoc aid towards the overall restructuring plan and, like the ad hoc aid assessed previously, had to comply with the derogations allowed for the authorisation of restructuring aid.
V odločbi o razširitvi uradne preiskave je Komisija zaključila, da pomoči v znesku 1402985 EUR (2744000 DEM) niso združljive z merili prej odobrenih programov pomoči in jih je treba dejansko obravnavati kot ad hoc pomoči za program prestrukturiranja, ki mora biti – podobno kot prej ocenjena ad hoc pomoč – skladna z odstopanji, predvidenimi za odobritev pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
Pripombe Nemčije
By letter of 14 October 2003, Germany supplied additional information concerning the purportedly private contributions to the restructuring (Measures 7, 8 and 9 in Table 2).
Nemčija je v pismu z dne 14. oktobra 2003 predložila dodatne podatke glede domnevno zasebnih prispevkov za prestrukturiranje (ukrepi št. 7, 8 in 9, navedeni v tabeli 2).
According to this information:
Glede na te podatke:
Measure 7 contained an interest subsidy of EUR 2812 (DEM 5500);
je ukrep št. 7 vseboval subvencijo obresti v znesku 2812 EUR (5500 DEM);
Measure 8 contained an interest subsidy of EUR 8684 (DEM 16985);
je ukrep št. 8 vseboval subvencijo obresti v znesku 8684 EUR (16985 DEM);
Measure 9 was never put into effect.
ukrep št. 9 ni bil izveden.
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty declares any aid granted through state resources to certain undertakings incompatible with the common market where such aid distorts or threatens to distort competition in so far as it affects trade between Member States.
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti določa, da je kakršna koli vrsta pomoči, odobrena iz državnih sredstev za posamezna podjetja, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, če izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
Measures falling within the scope of Article 87(1) that do not constitute existing aid are generally incompatible with the common market unless they qualify for the derogation in Article 87(2) or (3).
Ukrepi s področja, ki ga zajema člen 87(1) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, ki ne predstavljajo obstoječe pomoči, so na splošno nezdružljivi s skupnim trgom, razen če izpolnjujejo pogoje za izjemo iz člena 87(2) ali člena 87(3) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission notes that the interest subsidies contained in Measures 7 and 8 together amount to EUR 11496 and are therefore below the threshold for de minimis aid laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) 69/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid [14].
Komisija ugotavlja, da subvenciji obresti, ki ju vsebujeta ukrepa št. 7 in 8 iz tabele 2, skupaj znašata 11496 EUR in sta torej pod pragom za minimalno (de minimis) pomoč, predvidenim v Uredbi Komisije (ES) 69/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri de minimis pomoči [14].
Consequently, these measures need not be further assessed in this decision.
Navedenih ukrepov posledično znotraj te odločbe ni več potrebno pregledati.
Contrary to Germany's assertion, Measures 3 and 4, involving two loans together amounting to EUR 1402985, are not covered by existing aid schemes.
Ukrepa št. 3 in 4, posojili v vrednosti 1402985 EUR, dejansko nista pokrita z obstoječimi programi pomoči, ki jih je omenila Nemčija.
For the reasons already stated in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, they must therefore be considered as ad hoc measures for the restructuring of NHW.
Zaradi razlogov, že navedenih v sklepu o sprožitvi postopka, ju je treba upoštevati kot ad hoc pomoč za prestrukturiranje NHW.
These loans were granted by Germany to finance the restructuring of NHW, a firm in difficulty.
Posojili je odobrila Nemčija za financiranje prestrukturiranja NHW, podjetja v težavah.
They therefore conferred economic benefits on a specific undertaking which it would not have received on normal market terms.
S tem je bila določenemu podjetju dodeljena ekonomska podpora, ki je to pod normalnimi tržnimi pogoji ne bi dobilo.
Such measures may, therefore, distort competition.
Po svoji naravi lahko takšni ukrepi ogrozijo konkurenco.
Given the nature of the aid and since there is trade between Member States in the sector where the recipient operates, the financial measures fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. They therefore constitute State aid.
Glede na naravo in obstoj meddržavne trgovine znotraj skupnega trga v sektorjih, v katerih je dejaven prejemnik pomoči, spadajo ti finančni ukrepi v področje člena 87(1) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi ES in torej predstavljajo državno pomoč.
Derogations under Article 87 of the EC Treaty
Določbe o odstopanju po členu 87 Pogodbe ES
Article 87(2) and (3) sets out the conditions on which an aid is compatible or may be considered compatible with the common market.
Člen 87(2) in (3) postavlja pogoje, pod katerimi je pomoč združljiva ali pa se jo lahko obravnava kot združljivo s skupnim trgom.
The two loans, like the other restructuring measures already assessed in Decision 2002/377/EC, were granted between 1996 and 1999 to finance the restructuring of NHW.
Posojili sta bili – tako kot drugi ukrepi za prestrukturiranje, ocenjeni v Odločbi Komisije 2002/377/ES – odobreni z namenom financiranja prestrukturiranja NHW med letoma 1996 in 1999.
Therefore, like the measures previously assessed, they must be assessed under the 1994 guidelines, which lay down the detailed conditions for a favourable exercise of the Commission's discretion under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Torej morata biti obe posojili, tako kot že prej navedeni ukrepi, ocenjeni v skladu s pogoji Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah, kjer je Komisija določila podrobne pogoje za ugodno izvrševanje svojih pooblastil po členu 87(3)(c) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti.
Although the firm is located in an assisted region, ad hoc aid to firms in difficulty must be assessed in accordance with these guidelines even when the needs of regional development are considered.
Čeprav ima podjetje sedež v regiji, ki je upravičena do podpore, je treba ad hoc pomoči za podjetja v težavah oceniti v skladu s temi smernicami tudi, če se upošteva potrebe razvoja regije.
In particular, the result of the restructuring operation must be an economically viable business that will contribute to the real development of the region without requiring continual aid [15].
Zlasti mora biti rezultat prestrukturiranja gospodarsko uspešno podjetje, ki bo brez potrebe po dodatni pomoči prispevalo k razvoju regijed [15].
As already established in Decision 2002/377/EC, the information submitted by Germany indicates that all of the aid was granted to the recipient before the entry into force of the new guidelines in 1999 (the 1999 guidelines).
Kot že ugotovljeno v Odločbi 2002/377/ES, je bila po navedbah Nemčije celotna pomoč dodeljena prejemniku pred objavo Smernic Skupnosti glede državnih pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [16] iz leta 1999 (smernice iz leta 1999).
Accordingly, under point 7.5 if the 1999 guidelines, the 1994 guidelines are to be applied to the measures in question [16].
Zato je treba v skladu s točko 7.5 smernic iz leta 1999 uporabiti za zadevne ukrepe smernice iz leta 1994.
It should also be noted that the measures form part of a restructuring plan that had already been assessed by the Commission in Decision 2002/377/EC.
Treba je opozoriti, da so ukrepi del načrta prestrukturiranja, ki ga je Komisija že ocenila v Odločbi 2002/377/ES.
Restoration of viability
Oživitev podjetja
According to the 1994 guidelines, the restructuring plan should lead to the restoration of viability within a reasonable time, after which the company should be able to compete on the market on its own merits.
V skladu s smernicami iz leta 1994 mora načrt prestrukturiranja v razumnem časovnem obdobju voditi k dolgoročni oživitvi podjetja; po tem mora biti podjetje sposobno za samostojen spopad s konkurenco na trgu.
The Commission had already assessed the restructuring aid in the light of this criterion in Decision 2002/377/EC, and concluded that the viability criterion of the 1994 guidelines was not fulfilled as the restructuring plan could not be considered suitable to restoring the firm’s long term viability.
Komisija je v Odločbi 2002/377/ES o pomoči za prestrukturiranje že ocenila to merilo in ugotovila, da merilo za oživitev, kot ga določajo smernice iz leta 1994, ni bilo v celoti izpolnjeno, saj načrt prestrukturiranja ni bil ocenjen kot primeren za vzpostavitev dolgoročnega preživetja podjetja.
That conclusion was based on the finding that:
Ta sklep je temeljil na naslednjih ugotovitvah:
the turnover levels envisaged in the restructuring plan were overstated;
prihodki, ki jih je predvidel načrt, so bili precenjeni;
the overhead costs, one of the reasons for the initial failure, were not adequately tackled by the plan;
načrt se ni primerno lotil režijskih stroškov – enega izmed razlogov za prvotni neuspeh;
the staff reduction from 203 to 177 was insufficient to reduce staff costs;
zmanjšanje zaposlenih z 203 na 177 ni zadostovalo za zmanjšanje stroškov za zaposlene;
the operating costs envisaged by the plan, in particular the high maintenance costs, were excessive.
drugi operativni stroški, predvideni v načrtu, zlasti visoki stroški vzdrževanja, so bili previsoki.
Since the two loans were granted for the same restructuring project and on the basis of the same restructuring plan, the Commission can only restate its view that viability was not secured by the plan.
Ker sta bili posojili odobreni za isto prestrukturiranje in na podlagi istega načrta prestrukturiranja, lahko Komisija le še ponovi svoje ugotovitve, da načrt ni zagotovil oživitve podjetja.
Avoidance of undue distortions of competition
Izogibanje izkrivljanju konkurence
A further condition laid down in the 1994 Guidelines is that measures are taken to offset as far as possible adverse effects on competitors.
Še en pogoj iz smernic iz leta 1994 je, da je treba, kolikor je le mogoče, izravnati škodljive vplive pomoči na konkurenco.
In so far as a company is operating on markets with excess capacity, capacities should be reduced.
V kolikor je podjetje prisotno na trgih s presežnimi zmogljivostmi, je treba zmanjšati zmogljivosti.
It should be noted here that NHW, as already established in Decision 2002/377/EC, was to be considered an SME when the aid was granted.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je bilo mišljeno, da bo NHW – kot je že dokazano v Odločbi 2002/377/ES – v času, ko je bila pomoč odobrena, obravnavana kot MSP (mala in srednja podjetja).
Under the 1994 guidelines, the Commission adopts a less restrictive approach in relation to capacity reductions where restructuring aid is granted to SMEs [17].
V skladu s smernicami iz leta 1994 ima Komisija v zvezi z zmanjševanjem zmogljivosti manj restriktiven pristop do dodeljevanja pomoči za prestrukturiranje MSP [17].
Since the aid was granted to an SME with a very low market share, the Commission concludes that the aid to NHW could not unduly distort competition within the meaning of the 1994 guidelines.
Komisija, glede na to, da je bila pomoč odobrena MSP z zelo nizkim tržnim deležem, ugotavlja, da pomoč, odobrena NHW, ne bi mogla pretirano izkriviti konkurence v smislu smernic iz leta 1994.
Aid in proportion to the restructuring costs and benefits
Sorazmernost stroškov in koristi prestrukturiranja
The 1994 guidelines require that aid be limited to the strict minimum needed for the restructuring.
Smernice iz leta 1994 zahtevajo, da mora biti pomoč omejena na najmanjši obseg, potreben za izvedbo prestrukturiranja.
In Decision 2002/377/EC the Commission came to the conclusion that the proportionality criterion was not fulfilled in two respects.
Komisija je v Odločbi 2002/377/ES ugotovila, da merilo sorazmernosti ni bilo spoštovano v dveh ozirih.
On the one hand, according to the proportionality criterion, the recipient is required to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from its own resources or external commercial financing on market terms.
Po eni strani mora prejemnik pomoči zaradi zahteve po sorazmernosti zagotoviti pomemben prispevek k stroškom prestrukturiranja iz lastnih sredstev ali iz zunanjih sredstev po tržnih cenah.
It transpires from the information available that the investor has contributed DEM 0,5 million.
Iz podatkov na voljo je razvidno, da je vlagatelj dejansko zagotovil prispevek v višini 0,5 milijonov DEM.
Since no further information on the terms of the lease (Measure 9 in Table 2) was provided during the investigation procedure, the Commission was unable to assess whether the contribution was made on market terms.
Ker med preiskavo niso bili sporočeni nobeni dodatni podatki o pogojih finančnega leasinga (ukrep 9 iz tabele 2), Komisija ni mogla presoditi, ali je šlo pri tem za prispevek po tržnih pogojih.
However, the assessment of the lease was considered to be immaterial to determining the significance of the recipient’s contributions.
Ne glede na to, je bila presoja finančnega leasinga za oceno pomembnosti prispevka prejemnika pomoči obravnavana kot nebistvena.
Moreover, the other contributions could not be considered contributions by the aid recipient.
Poleg tega drugih prispevkov ni bilo mogoče obravnavati kot prispevke prejemnika pomoči.
Since, notwithstanding the information injunction, no further information was provided on the KfW loans (Measure 7 in Table 2), the Commission was unable to assess whether the amounts were granted on market terms.
Ker kljub odredbi o predložitvi podatkov niso bili sporočeni nobeni dodatni podatki o posojilu KFW (ukrep 7 iz tabele 2), Komisija ni mogla presoditi, ali gre pri tem za prispevke po tržnih pogojih.
The same reasoning applies to the NordLB loan (Measure 8 in Table 2).
Enaki razlogi veljajo za posojilo Nord LB (ukrep 8 iz tabele 2).
The cash flow (Measure 10 in Table 2) could not be considered as a contribution by the recipient.
Denarni tok (ukrep 10 iz tabele 2) se ne more obravnavati kot prispevek prejemnika.
It was, to a large extent, generated on the basis of previous State aid.
Denarni tok je bil večinoma pridobljen iz prejšnjih državnih pomoči.
In addition, at the time the restructuring plan was drawn up in 1996, this cash flow had still to be generated and was therefore uncertain.
Poleg tega denarni tok leta 1996, v času, ko je bil načrt prestrukturiranja oblikovan, še ni bil pridobljen in je bil zato negotov.
These contributions therefore could not be considered contributions by the recipient and so could not be taken into account in assessing the proportionality of the aid.
Posledično ti prispevki ne morejo biti obravnavani kot prispevki prejemnika in zato ne morejo biti upoštevani pri ocenjevanju sorazmernosti pomoči.
Accordingly, the total costs of the restructuring amounted to DEM 16,46 million, of which State bodies contributed DEM 9,707 million or 58,9 % and the investor DEM 1,679 million or 10,2 % (or possibly only DEM 0,5 million or 3 %).
V skladu s tem so znašali skupni stroški prestrukturiranja 16,49 milijonov DEM, h katerim so državni organi prispevali 9,707 milijonov DEM oz. 58,9 % in vlagatelj 1,679 milijonov DEM oz. 10,2 % (ali morda celo samo 0,5 milijonov DEM oziroma 3 %).