natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG were insolvent, in a liquidation scenario, their assets would not have been sufficient to pay any quota on public claims.
Ker sta bila Herlitz AG in Herlitz PBS AG plačilno nesposobna, njuno premoženje v primeru likvidacije ne bi zadostovalo za kvoto za javne upnike.
Therefore, normally Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG would have been freed from these claims by the insolvency proceedings.
Tako bi stečajni postopki obe podjetji odrešili teh terjatev.
Germany argued that even if waivers of public claims were considered to be a service, there was a consideration from the Herlitz Group which counterbalanced it. This consideration was the future tax and social security revenue that the public creditors could expect by maintaining the operations of the company.
Četudi bi odpis terjatev s strani javnih upnikov šteli za denarno storitev, bi Skupina Herlitz za to v prihodnosti nudila protiuslugo, in sicer v obliki bodočih prihodkov iz davkov in socialnega zavarovanja, ki bi jih javni upniki lahko pričakovali pri nadaljevanju poslovanja podjetja.
Germany submitted that the analysis of public creditors’ waivers had to be carried out in accordance with the private creditor principle as laid down in the HAMSA judgment.
Nemčija je trdila, da je potrebno odpis terjatev javnih upnikov oceniti v skladu z osnovnim načelom zasebnega upnika iz sodbe v zadevi HAMSA.
According to this principle, each public creditor had to be compared with private creditors in a similar situation, or with a hypothetical private creditor.
Glede na to načelo je potrebno javnega upnika primerjati z zasebnim upnikom v enakem položaju oziroma s hipotetičnim zasebnim upnikom.
According to Germany, the public creditors in the insolvency proceedings of the two Herlitz Group companies are the public banks, the tax authority of Berlin, the Federal Employment Agency, Health Insurance Funds, the Land of Berlin and other creditors such as the Main Customs Office and the tax authority of Alfeld.
Po mnenju Nemčije so javni upniki v stečajnih postopkih obeh podjetij Skupine Herlitz javne banke, berlinski davčni urad, zvezni urad za zaposlovanje, sklad za zdravstveno zavarovanje, zvezna dežela Berlin in drugi, kot npr. glavni carinski urad in finančni urad Alfeld.
In the opinion of Germany, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-482/99 (France v Commission) [18], a thorough analysis is necessary to determine whether certain credit waivers could be imputable to the State.
V skladu s sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-482/99 (Francija proti Komisiji) [18] je potrebno natančno oceniti, kateri odpis terjatev lahko označimo kot storitev države.
As regards public banks, Germany submitted that the consortium of banks that granted the consortium credit and lines of credit included the publicly controlled Landesbank Berlin, Bayerische Landesbank and WestLB.
K javnim bankam, ki so dodelile konzorcijski kredit in kreditne linije, spadajo Landesbank Berlin, Bayerische Landesbank in WestLB.
These banks acted as private members of the banking consortium, which is supported by the fact that the waivers on the basis of the insolvency plans were undertaken collectively by the consortium of banks and not by individual banks.
Te banke so ravnale kot zasebni člani bančnega konzorcija, kar izhaja iz dejstva, da je odpis terjatev v okviru stečajnih načrtov odobril celoten konzorcij, ne pa posamezne banke.
Also, as regards the waivers of unsecured claims undertaken by individual banks outside the insolvency plans, such waivers were carried out by both private and public banks.
Nezavarovane terjatve so izven stečajnih načrtov odpisale tako javne kot tudi zasebne banke.
With regard to the tax authority of Berlin, Germany stated that the reason for fully waiving its claims in groups HAG 3 and PBS 3 was that it expected to be fully compensated by the future tax revenue from Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG.
Popoln odpis terjatev s strani davčnega urada dežele Berlin v skupinah HAG 3 in PBS 3 je po mnenju Nemčije mogoče utemeljiti s tem, da je davčni urad pričakoval popolno kompenzacijo za ta odpis iz bodočih prihodkov iz davkov podjetij Herlitz AG in Herlitz PBS AG.
Similarly, the full waivers of the Federal Employment Agency and the Health Insurance Funds in Group PBS 3 were motivated by the future revenue from statutary social security payments.
Tudi odpis terjatev s strani zveznega urada za zaposlovanje in bolniške blagajne v skupini PBS 3 je bil utemeljen z bodočimi prihodki iz naslova zakonsko predpisanih prispevkov za socialno zavarovanje.
The same arguments were used to justify the full waivers of the Land of Berlin and the Liegenschaftsfonds.
Enaki argumenti so bili predloženi v zvezi z odpisom terjatev s strani dežele Berlin in Liegenschaftsfondsa.
According to Germany, the prospect of future ground rent revenue from the Herlitz Group was the reason for their waivers in group PBS 3.
Nemčija meni, da je bila pričakovana najemnina za zemljišče s strani Skupine Herlitz razlog za ta odpis terjatev v skupini PBS 3.
Germany claims that the public creditors who waived 100 % of their claims in groups HAG 3 and PBS 3 acted in a rational way and were not comparable to the other creditor groups.
Nemčija trdi, da je bil popoln odpis terjatev javnih upnikov v skupinah HAG 3 in PBS 3 racionalno utemeljen in da ga ni mogoče primerjati z ravnanjem drugih skupin upnikov.
The motive behind their 100 % waiver was the future revenue (tax, social security and ground rent) that the public creditors could expect by maintaining the operations of the company.
Razlog za popoln odpis terjatev so bili bodoči prihodki iz davkov, prispevki iz socialnega zavarovanja in najemnina za zemljišče, ki so jih javni upniki lahko pričakovali zaradi nadaljevanja dejavnosti podjetja.
In Germany’s view, future revenue is one of the most important motives for a creditor when deciding on a waiver of claims.
Nemčija meni, da so bodoči prihodki eden izmed najpomembnejših razlogov za to, da upnik odpiše terjatve.
Since the public authorities had a much higher chance of obtaining future revenue from the Herlitz Group than private ones, a higher proportion of public waivers was justifiable.
Ker so imeli javni uradi večjo možnost za bodoče prihodke iz dajatev Skupine Herlitz kot zasebni upniki, je bil javni odpis terjatev večinoma upravičen.
Germany claims that the rule of avoiding the confusion between the roles of public authority and public investor applies only to the market economy investor test but not to the private creditor test.
Nemčija trdi, da razločevanje med vlogo javnega urada in javnega investitorja velja le za primerjavo z delovanjem zasebnega financerja, ne pa za primerjavo z delovanjem zasebnega upnika.
If public creditors could take into account future revenue when writing off past claims, this would be tantamount to discrimination between creditors, so that no effective comparison of creditors could be carried out.
Če javni upniki ob odpisu terjatev ne morejo upoštevati bodočih prihodkov, to predstavlja diskriminacijo med upniki, tako da le-teh ni mogoče učinkovito primerjati.
Referring to the opinion of the insolvency administrator, Germany pointed out that without such a full waiver by the public creditors in groups HAG 3 and PBS 3 the creditors would not have approved the insolvency plans.
Nemčija je, sklicujoč se na mnenje stečajnega upravitelja, opozorila na dejstvo, da upniki ne bi odobrili stečajnih načrtov, če javni upniki v skupinah HAG 3 in PBS 3 ne bi v celoti odpisali svojih terjatev.
In fact the private creditors had demanded a bigger sacrifice from the public creditors, because the continuance of the Herlitz Group ensured statutorily guaranteed revenue for most of these creditors, while the private creditors did not have such a guaranteed future income from the firm.
Zasebni upniki so od javnih upnikov zahtevali veliko žrtev, saj je nadaljevanje poslovanja podjetja javnim upnikom zagotavljalo zajamčene prihodke, na kar pa zasebni upniki niso mogli računati.
Another justification for the full waivers in these creditor groups was that the public tax claims were not clear at the time of the creditors’ agreement, therefore, by eliminating these uncertainties, the plans could be agreed.
Dodatna utemeljitev popolnega odpisa terjatev te skupine upnikov je bilo dejstvo, da v času odobritve upnikov davčne terjatve niso bile razjasnjene. Da bi lahko odobrili stečajne načrte, so morali odpraviti te nejasnosti.
Germany submitted that all public creditors that undertook partial waivers in groups HAG 2 and PBS 5 were treated equally as private creditors in those groups.
Nemčija poudarja, da so bili javni upniki, ki so odpisali del svojih terjatev v skupinah HAG 2 in PBS 5, obravnavani enako kot zasebni upniki v teh skupinah.
These groups contained claims of the Federal Employment Agency, the Health Insurance Funds, the Main Customs Office and the tax authority of Alfeld, the Land of Berlin and the Liegenschaftsfonds.
V teh skupinah so združene terjatve zveznega urada za zaposlovanje, bolniške blagajne, glavnega carinskega urada, finančnega urada Alfeld, berlinskega davčnega urada in Leigenschaftsfondsa.
Finally, Germany argued in the alternative that, even if the Commission found that State aid was provided in the form of waivers of public claims to Herlitz AG or Herlitz PBS AG, the measures fulfilled the conditions for approval as restructuring aid under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty and the Guidelines.
Nemčija je zatrjevala, da bi tudi v primeru, če Komisija odpis javnih terjatev Herlitzu AG in Herlitzu PBS AG označi kot pomoč, ti ukrepi izpolnjevali pogoje za odobritev kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES in s smernicami.
The conditions of the Guidelines were met according to Germany because there was an effective and genuine restructuring plan, the viability of the Herlitz Group had been restored, there had been capacity reduction and the waivers of public claims had been limited to the minimum.
Pogoji smernic so bili izpolnjeni zaradi pristnega in učinkovitega načrta za prestrukturiranje, ponovno vzpostavljene rentabilnosti Skupine Herlitz, zmanjšanja kapacitet in omejitve odpisa javnih terjatev na minimum.
Furthermore, no excess liquidity had been given to the Herlitz Group and the group had not received any restructuring or rescue aid in the past.
Poleg tega Skupina Herlitz ni prejela presežne likvidnosti in ji v preteklosti ni bila dodeljena niti pomoč za prestrukturiranje niti sanacijska pomoč.
Germany’s comments on the Land of Berlin and the Liegenschaftsfonds
Pripombe o deželi Berlin in Liegenschaftsfonds
As regards the emphyteusis on the real estate in Berlin-Tegel, Germany submitted an excerpt of the agreement establishing this right.
Glede dedne stavbne pravice za zemljišče v Berlin Teglu je Nemčija predložila izpiske iz sporazuma, ki urejajo to pravico.
Germany stated that the Liegenschaftsfonds did not increase the ground rent for the emphyteusis because it did not consider the sale of the Berlin-Tegel buildings to GGB a change in the use of the land that was contrary to the interests of the owner.
Liegenschaftsfonds najemnine za dedno stavbno pravico ni zvišal, saj zanj prodaja zgradbe na lokaciji Berlin Tegel družbi GGB ni predstavljala spremembe namembnosti zemljišča, ki bi bila v nasprotju z interesi lastnika.
Concerning the loan for the move, Germany informed the Commission that the deferral of this loan was not notified because the Land of Berlin acted as a private creditor.
Glede posojila za preselitev je Nemčija sporočila, da odlog tega posojila ni bil prijavljen zato, ker je dežela Berlin ravnala kot zasebni upnik.
This was supported by the fact that the deferral was accompanied by an interest rate, an acknowledgment of debt and a land charge for the amount of the accrued interest on the emphyteusis.
To je izhajalo iz dejstva, da je odlog vključeval obrestno mero, priznanje dolga in dajatev za vsoto povečanih obresti za dedno stavbno pravico.
Under Article 87(1) of the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
Po členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES je državna pomoč ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, v kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
Pursuant to the established case-law of the European Courts, the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries out an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
V skladu s sodno prakso evropskih sodišč je kriterij izkrivljanja trgovine izpolnjen, če se upravičenec ukvarja z gospodarsko dejavnostjo, ki zadeva trgovino med državami članicami.
The products of the Herlitz Group are traded within the Community and there is competition between Member States.
Z izdelki Skupine Herlitz se trguje znotraj Skupnosti, kjer vlada konkurenca med državami članicami.
The rescue aid loan, the deferred loan for the move and certain waivers of public claims in the insolvency proceedings are State measures or derive from State resources.
Sanacijsko posojilo, premostitveno posojilo za preselitev in odpis določenih javnih terjatev v sanacijskih postopkih so državni ukrepi ali pa izhajajo iz državnih virov.
If these confer an advantage, this would distort competition and affect trade.
Če se s tem dodeli prednost, to izkrivlja konkurenco in prizadene trgovino.
The existence of advantage has to be assessed in accordance with the market economy investor and private creditor principles.
Obstoj prednosti je potrebno oceniti v skladu s kriteriji v tržno gospodarstvo naravnanega investitorja in s kriteriji zasebnega upnika.
As regards the granting of the loan for the move in 1989, the decision to initiate proceedings found that it was covered by the 10-year limitation period and constituted existing aid under Article 1(b)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99.
Glede dodelitve sanacijskega posojila leta 1989 je bilo v Sklepu o sprožitvi postopka ugotovljeno, da je bil rok za odplačilo 10 let in da je bilo posojilo obstoječa pomoč po členu 1(b)(iv) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/99.
The granting of this loan therefore fell outside the investigation’s scope.
Dodelitve tega posojila ni bilo potrebno preučiti.
Furthermore, any State aid element that might be involved in the offering of land to the Herlitz Group in 1989 could not be recovered in conformity with Article 15 of the said Regulation.
Poleg tega v skladu s členom 15 navedene uredbe ne bi bilo mogoče terjati nobenega elementa pomoči, ki bi ga lahko pripisali ponudbi zemljišča Skupini Herlitz leta 1989.
The decision to initiate proceedings mentioned the possibility that the non-increase of the ground rent for the land in Berlin-Tegel in 2002 might have involved aid.
V Sklepu o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija opozorila, da bi nezvišanje najemnine za zemljišče v Berlin Teglu leta 2002 lahko predstavljalo državno pomoč.
This was later proved not to be the case by the terms of the ground rent contract.
Ta domneva je bila ovržena s klavzulami pogodbe o dedni stavbni pravici.
The contract provided for the possiblity of a rent increase only if the use of the land was changed.
V skladu s to pogodbo bi lahko najemnino zvišali le v primeru spremembe namembnosti zemljišča.
Such a change did not take place because the land and the buildings on it were used for the same purpose as before.
Do tega ni prišlo, saj so zemljišče in pripadajoče zgradbe služile enakemu namenu kot prej.
The Herlitz Group now simply leases the same buildings which it used to own previously.
Edina sprememba je, da ima Skupina Herlitz zgradbe, ki so bile prej v njeni lasti, zdaj v najemu.
Regarding the deferral of the loan for the move in 1999, Germany argued that it was granted under market conditions.
Glede odloga vrnitve posojila za preselitev leta 1999 je Nemčija trdila, da je bilo posojilo dodeljeno pod tržnimi pogoji.
The deferral was granted at a time when the Herlitz Group was not yet in difficulty with an interest rate still higher than the reference rate applicable.
Odlog je bil odobren v času, ko Skupina Herlitz še ni bila v težavah in ko je bila obrestna mera višja od referenčne obrestne mere.
The interest was secured and in any case regularly paid until the insolvency proceedings.
Obrestna mera je bila zavarovana in redno plačana vse do stečajnih postopkov.
The Commission therefore considers that the deferral was not new aid.
Zato Komisija tega odloga ni obravnavala kot novo pomoč.
Aid in the rescue aid loan and the waivers of the insolvency proceedings
Pomoč, vključena v sanacijsko posojilo, in odpis terjatev v stečajnih postopkih
The rescue aid loan provides the Herlitz Group with advantages that a company in difficulties would not have obtained on the market.
Sanacijsko posojilo je Skupini Herlitz dajalo prednosti, kakršnih si podjetje v težavah na trgu ne bi moglo pridobiti.
Germany agrees on this.
Nemčija se s tem strinja.
Furthermore, as will be shown below, in the insolvency proceedings of Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG, the disproportionate waivers by certain public creditors derive from State resources and confer an advantage on the group.
Kot je razloženo spodaj, je Skupina Herlitz z nesorazmernim odpisom terjatev nekaterih javnih upnikov, ki izhaja iz javnih sredstev, pridobila prednost.
They therefore constitute aid measures within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
To predstavlja državne ukrepe v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Public creditors
Javni upniki
In order to establish which measures concern State resources and are imputable to the State, each creditor was analysed.
Da bi ugotovili, kateri ukrepi izhajajo iz javnih sredstev in jih je mogoče pripisati državi, so bili preiskani vsi upniki.
The Commission finds that the group of public creditors is larger than submitted by Germany.
Skupina javnih upnikov, ki jo je sestavila Komisija, je bila večja od skupine, ki jo je imenovala Nemčija.
Apart from the public banks, the tax authority of Berlin, the tax authority of Alfeld, the Federal Employment Agency, the Health Insurance Funds, the Land of Berlin (including the Liegenschaftsfonds) and the Main Customs Office, there are two more public creditors. These are the Mutual Insurance Association (Pensionssicherungsverein) and the Employer’s Liability Insurance Association (Berufsgenossenschaft).
Poleg javnih bank, berlinskega davčnega urada, finančnega urada Alfeld, zveznega urada za zaposlovanje, bolniške blagajne, dežele Berlin, Liegenschaftsfondsa in glavnega carinskega urada sta še dva javna upnika, in sicer zavod za pokojninsko zavarovanje in poklicni sindikat delodajalcev.
The Mutual Insurance Association was designated by paragraph 14 of the 1974 Occupational Pensions Schemes Act (Gesetz zur Verbesserung der betrieblichen Altersversorgung, BetrAVG) [19] as the institution in charge of the insolvency insurance.
V skladu s členom 14 zakona o izboljšavah poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja [19] je zavod za pokojninsko zavarovanje pristojen za stečajno zavarovanje.
In accordance with paragraphs 10(1) and 10(2) of that Act, the Mutual Insurance Association receives, through an Ausgleichfonds, compulsory contributions under public law from all employers.
V skladu s členoma 10(1) in 10(2) omenjenega zakona morajo vsi delodajalci prek izravnalnega sklada prispevati po zakonu obvezne prispevke.
The Employer’s Liability Insurance Association was designated by paragraph 144 of the SGB 7 (German Social Code, Seventh Book on Statutory Accident Insurance) [20] as the institution in charge of statutory accident insurance.
V skladu s členom 144 Socialnega zakonika 7 (obvezno nezgodno zavarovanje) [20] je poklicni sindikat pristojen za obvezno nezgodno zavarovanje.
In accordance with paragraph 150(1) of the SGB 7 act, the Employer’s Liability Insurance Association receives compulsory contributions made under public law from all employers.
V skladu s členom 150(1) Socialnega zakonika 7 morajo vsi delodajalci prispevati po zakonu obvezne prispevke.
The situation of the Mutual Insurance Association and the Employer’s Liability Insurance Association corresponds to the one envisaged in paragraph 58 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-379/98 (PreussenElektra) [21].
Zavod za pokojninsko zavarovanje in poklicni sindikat sta v položaju, ki je opisan v odstavku 58 sodbe Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi C-379/98 (PreussenElektra) [21].
In the case of these associations, waivers were not granted directly by the State, but by a public or private body designated or established by the State.
Odpisa terjatev teh dveh ustanov ni odobrila država, temveč javna ali zasebna ustanova, ki je določena ali ustanovljena s strani države.
These waivers were the foregoing of State resources in the form of statutary contributions to a fund designated by the State.
Odpis terjatev je obstajal v odpisu državnih dohodkov v obliki obveznih prispevkov v državni sklad.
The waivers are also imputable to the State in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-342/96 (Spain v Commission) [22], because these independent social security associations are supervised by the State and financed by contributions paid by undertakings.
V skladu s sodbo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi C-342/99 (Španija proti Komisiji) [22] lahko tudi ta odpis terjatev pripišemo državi, saj neodvisne ustanove za socialno zavarovanje nadzoruje država, financirajo pa se z obveznimi prispevki podjetij.
Application of the private creditor principle
Izvajanje osnovnega načela zasebnega upnika
In accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Justice [23], the Commission first compared each public creditor in the insolvency proceedings of the Herlitz Group with similar private creditors.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti [23] je Komisija ravnanje javnih upnikov v stečajnih postopkih Skupine Herlitz primerjala z ravnanjem zasebnih upnikov.
Given that for each public creditor there were comparable private creditors, there was no need to perform a comparison with hypothetical private creditors.
Ker je bilo mogoče vsakega javnega upnika primerjati z zasebnim upnikom, primerjava s hipotetičnim zasebnim upnikom ni bila potrebna.
The private creditor principle was satisfied in the liquidation procedures of the Herlitz Group subsidiaries Diplomat, HKV and Susy, because all creditors received an equal share of the liquidation proceeds.
Osnovnemu načelu zasebnega upnika je bilo v likvidacijskih postopkih Diplomata, HKV in Susy, hčerinskih družb Herlitza, zadoščeno, saj so vsi upniki prejeli enak delež iz stečajne mase.
Private and public creditors behaved in a similar way with regard to the debts of the insolvency assets because these claims were fully satisfied.
Zasebni in javni upniki so v zvezi z stečajnimi obveznostmi ravnali podobno, saj je bilo tem terjatvam v celoti zadoščeno.
Similarly, the private creditor principle was respected with regard to the lower-ranking claims because all the public and private creditors concerned waived them.
Osnovnemu načelu je bilo zadoščeno tudi glede podrejenih terjatev, saj so jih odpisali vsi javni in zasebni upniki.
The comparison of non-lower-ranking creditors produced a similar result in the procedures of Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG.
Primerjava med nepodrejenimi upniki je prinesla podoben rezultat pri postopkih za Herlitz AG in Herlitz PBS AG.
Most groups contained creditors with equal ranking in the order of satisfaction, but some of the creditors with identical and comparable rights were placed in different groups.
V večini skupin so bili enakopravni upniki navedeni v zaporedju svojih zahtev, nekaj upnikov z enakimi ali podobnimi zahtevami je bilo razporejenih v različne skupine.
As a consequence, public creditors made a disproportionate waiver in creditor groups HAG 3 and PBS 3.
Posledično so javni upniki nesorazmerno odpisali terjatve v skupinah upnikov HAG 3 in PBS 3.