natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This State aid was illegal, given that it was not notified to the Commission and it is not compatible with the Common market since it cannot be authorised as restructuring aid or any other type of aid.
Ta državna pomoč je bila nezakonita, ker ni bila priglašena Komisiji in ni v skladu s skupnim trgom, saj ne more biti odobrena kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje ali kakšna druga vrsta pomoči.
According to Spain, the loans, amounting to EUR 192100000, have on 12 September 2000 been repaid to SEPI, with interest, by IZAR which at that time had taken over and dissolved the companies Juliana, Cadiz and Manises.
Španija trdi, da je družba IZAR, ki je takrat prevzela gospodarske družbe Juliana, Cádiz in Manises in jih razpustila, družbi SEPI dne 12. septembra 2000 vrnila posojila 192100000 EUR z obrestmi.
This illegal aid has therefore been recovered.
Zato je bila ta nezakonita pomoč povrnjena.
However, the Commission intends to use this information in another State aid investigation, C 38/03, which concerns the extent to which SEPI’s capital injections to IZAR benefited civil shipbuilding.
Komisija kljub temu namerava te podatke uporabiti v drugi preiskavi v zvezi z državno pomočjo C 38/03, ki se nanaša na to, v kakšni meri so kapitalski vložki družbe SEPI v družbo IZAR koristile civilnemu ladjedelništvu.
Aid contained in transactions linked to transfer 2, between AESA and IZAR
Pomoč znotraj transakcij, vezanih na drugi prevzem med družbama AESA in IZAR
AESA on 20 July 2000 sold to Bazán its remaining three shipyard companies, Puerto Real, Sestao and Sevilla [28].
Družba AESA je 20. julija 2000 družbi Bazán prodala še ostale tri ladjedelnice: Puerto Real, Sestao in Sevilla [28].
There are two aspects that need to be assessed, and which were raised in the decisions to extend the procedure, in order to determine the existence of State aid.
Za potrditev državne pomoči je treba oceniti dve zadevi, ki sta se pojavili v odločbah za širitev postopka.
One is whether the purchase price paid by IZAR to AESA was market price, and the other is whether SEPI’s capital injection of EUR 252425000 to AESA complied with the market investor principle.
En element je, če je bila nakupna cena, ki jo je družba IZAR plačala družbi AESA, tržna cena, in drugi, če je bila naložba 252425000 EUR družbe SEPI v gospodarsko družbo AESA v skladu z načelom tržnega vlagatelja.
SEPI decided on 18 July 2000 to provide AESA with EUR 252425000 capital injection, two days before AESA sold its shipyards companies (Sestao, Sevilla, Puerto Real) to Bazán.
Družba SEPI se je 18. julija 2000 odločila v družbo AESA vložiti 252425000 EUR kapitala, dva dni preden je družba AESA družbi Bazán prodala svoje ladjedelnice (Sestao, Sevilla in Puerto Real).
This capital was provided in September 2000.
Ta kapital se je izplačal v septembru 2000.
Spain claims that since this capital was only provided in September 2000, when AESA already had sold its shipyards, it could not distort competition for shipbuilding.
Španija trdi, da, glede na to da se je kapital zagotovil le v septembru 2000, ko je družba AESA že prodala svoje ladjedelnice, to ni moglo izkrivljati konkurence v ladjedelništvu.
According to the annual report of AESA for the year 2000, AESA provided EUR 309 million to its three shipyard companies before they were sold to Bazán/IZAR.
V skladu z letnim poročilom družbe AESA iz leta 2000 je ta vložila 309 milijonov EUR v svoje tri ladjedelnice, preden jih je prodala družbi Bazán/IZAR.
The annual reports of these shipyards reveal that this capital was provided to the shipyards through debt cancellations.
Letna poročila teh ladjedelnic razkrivajo, da se je kapital ponudil v obliki odpisa dolga.
Spain has confirmed that AESA ‘adjusted’ its debts to its shipyard companies in connection with their sale to Bazán to ‘better reflect the value of the yards’, but did not provide any figures.
Španija je potrdila, da je družba AESA za prodajo ladjedelnic družbi Bazán „prilagodila“ njihove dolgove „da bi s tem dvignila njihovo vrednost“, vendar ni predložila nobenih številk.
Following the debt cancellation AESA sold the companies for ESP 1 each to Bazán.
Z odpisom dolga je družba AESA družbi Bazán prodala tri ladjedelnice za eno špansko pezeto za vsako.
The sales transaction generated a book loss of EUR 198 million for AESA. Together with other losses generated from shipbuilding activities, the total loss for AESA for year 2000 amounted to EUR 271 million. Without the capital injection from SEPI, AESA would have had a negative own capital of EUR 259 million at the end of 2000 and would have had to be liquidated according to company law.
Prodajna transakcija je družbi AESA ustvarila knjigovodsko izkazano izgubo 198 milijonov EUR. Skupaj z ostalimi izgubami, ki izvirajo iz ladjedelniške dejavnosti, so skupne izgube družbe AESA v letu 2000 znašale 271 milijonov EUR. Gospodarska družba AESA bi imela konec leta 2000 brez kapitalskega vložka s strani družbe SEPI minus 259 milijonov EUR lastnega kapitala in bi morala v skladu s pravnimi predpisi v postopek likvidacije.
The issue to be assessed is, as noted above, whether in similar circumstances a private shareholder, would have injected the capital and could expect an acceptable rate of profitability on the capital invested.
Ob upoštevanju predhodnega je zadeva, ki jo je treba oceniti, ali bi v podobnih okoliščinah zasebni delničar vložil kapital in bi od vloženega kapitala lahko pričakoval sprejemljiv delež donosnosti.
It is firstly evident that AESA could not generate any acceptable return on the capital, since it used the funds to cover costs linked to the cancellation of debts to its shipyards and the subsequent loss when selling these shipyards to Bazán.
Tako je očitno, da družba AESA z vloženim kapitalom ni mogla ustvariti nobenega sprejemljivega dobička, saj je sredstva porabila, da je lahko krila stroške, ki so nastali zaradi odpisa dolga svojim ladjedelnicam in zaradi izgube, ki posledično izvira iz prodaje teh ladjedelnic družbi Bazán.
In addition, AESA is a pure holding company, which is not involved in any other economic activity. Thus, it is not able to generate own profits.
Nadalje je družba AESA skupina gospodarskih družb, ki ne opravlja nobene druge dejavnosti, zato ni sposobna ustvariti lastnih dobičkov.
It can therefore be concluded that the capital injection by SEPI to AESA did not comply with the market investor principle and therefore constitute State aid.
Zato se lahko zaključi, da kapitalski vložek družbe SEPI v družbo AESA ni bil v skladu z načelom tržnega vlagatelja in se šteje kot državna pomoč.
It has to be stressed in this regard that AESA, by cancelling debts of its shipyards for EUR 309 million improved their financial situation by the same amount.
V tem pogledu je treba poudariti, da si je družba AESA z odpisom dolgov svojim ladjedelnicam v znesku 309 milijonov EUR izboljšala finančni položaj v višini tega zneska.
It can also be established that since AESA’s debt cancellation did not involve any cash payment, SEPI’s decision on 18 July 2000 to inject EUR 252425000 to AESA, although the money was only provided in September 2000, enabled AESA to immediately cancel the debts without having to declare immediate bankruptcy.
Ugotavlja se tudi, da, ker odpis dolga s strani družbe AESA ni vseboval nikakršnega gotovinskega plačila, je odločitev družbe SEPI z dne 18. julija 2000, da vloži 252425000 EUR v družbo AESA, čeprav se znesek ni izplačal do septembra 2000, omogočila družbi AESA takojšen odpis dolgov, ne da bi razglasila stečaj.
From a State aid perspective the aid was granted by SEPI’s decision on 18 July 2000 to provide the capital injection, since this decision was the precondition to enable AESA to relieve the shipyards of its debts.
Z vidika državne pomoči, je bila pomoč odobrena na podlagi odločitve družbe SEPI z dne 18. julija 2000, da vloži kapital, saj je bila ta odločitev predpogoj, da bi družba AESA lahko ladjedelnicam odpisala dolgove.
The ultimate beneficiary of this aid was the shipyards, since the effect of the operation was that the shipyards were relieved of their debts to AESA.
Zadnji upravičenci do te pomoči so bile ladjedelnice, kljub temu da je bil namen ukrepa, da družba AESA ladjedelnicam odpiše dolgove.
AESA’s debt cancellation improved the financial situation of the concerned shipyards by EUR 309 million. However, the Commission is only assessing the provision of funds from SEPI, which in this transaction amounts to EUR 252425000. This State aid was illegal, given that it has not been notified to the Commission and it is not compatible with the common market, since it cannot be authorised as restructuring aid or any other type of aid.
Odpis dolgov s strani gospodarske družbe AESA je izboljšal finančni položaj zadevnih ladjedelnic za 309 milijonov EUR. Kljub temu je Komisija ocenila le kapitalski vložek družbe SEPI, ki je v tej transakciji znašal 252425000 EUR. Ta državna pomoč je bila nezakonita, ker ni bila priglašena Komisiji in ker ni bila v skladu s skupnim trgom, zato ne more biti odobrena kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje ali katera koli druga vrsta pomoči.
Even if it can be concluded that the market economy investor principle has not been complied with, Spain also refers to the right to make a capital injection in order to ensure an orderly closing, as expressed in the Lanerossi judgment [29].
Čeprav se lahko zaključi, da pomoč ni bila v skladu z načelom tržnega vlagatelja, se Španija nadalje sklicuje na pravico do dokapitalizacije, da bi lahko opravila odrejeno zaprtje, kot je navedeno v sodbi Lanerossi [29].
The Commission considers that Spain’s argument cannot be accepted for the following reasons:
Komisija meni, da utemeljitve Španije niso sprejemljive iz naslednjih razlogov:
Firstly, the Lanerossi judgment is not relevant in this case, since the three shipyards benefiting from the capital injection via the debt reduction are still in operation, and were never intended to be closed when the aid was provided.
Najprej, sodba Lanerossi ni povezana s tem primerom, saj tri ladjedelnice, ki so prejele kapitalski vložek zaradi odpisa dolga, še vedno obratujejo in njihovo zaprtje ob odobritvi pomoči gotovo ni bilo predvideno.
Furthermore, even if the Spanish argument is assessed from the point of view of a closure of AESA, instead of a closure of its last three shipyards, it can be noted that procedures to start a closure of AESA only started in the middle of 2002.
Nadalje, tudi če bi se utemeljitev Španije presojala z vidika zaprtja družbe AESA namesto zaprtja njenih zadnjih treh ladjedelnic, se ugotavlja, da se je postopek zapiranja družbe AESA začel šele sredi leta 2002.
Furthermore, the Court stated in the Lanerossi judgment that when the injection of capital disregard any prospects of profitability even in the long term, such a provision must be regarded as aid.
Nadalje je Sodišče v sodbi Lanerossi trdilo, da se mora, ko dokapitalizacija ni dobičkonosna niti dolgoročno, tak ukrep šteti kot pomoč.
This is the situation in this case, since SEPI can not be expected to ever receive any remuneration for the capital it has provided to civil shipbuilding companies via AESA.
Zadeva je taka v tem primeru, saj ni sprejemljivo, da bi družba SEPI kadar koli prejela povračilo za sredstva, ki jih je vložila v civilna ladjedelniška podjetja preko družbe AESA.
Finally, it can be noted that the closing costs of AESA, according to Spain, consists of social costs linked to the 1994 to 1998 restructuring of the civil shipyards.
Na koncu je treba navesti, da so stroški zaprtja družbe AESA, kot trdi Španija, del socialnih stroškov, ki so nastali zaradi prestrukturiranja civilnih ladjedelnic, ki je potekalo v med leti 1994 in 1998.
Any further aid to cover these costs would imply a violation of the 1997 Commission decision authorising the restructuring aid.
Katera koli druga oblika pomoči, namenjena kritju teh stroškov, bi pomenila kršenje odločbe Komisije iz leta 1997, na podlagi katere se je odobrila pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
The question of whether the purchase price constituted State aid to IZAR was raised in the first extension of the procedure, dated 28 November 2001.
Vprašanje, ali se je nakupna cena štela kot državna pomoč, namenjena družbi IZAR, se je postavilo v prvem postopku širitve z dne 28. novembra 2001.
The reason why State aid could be provided in this manner is that once AESA had sold its shipyards to Bazán, it was an empty shell with virtually no activities.
Razlog, zakaj bi se državna pomoč lahko vrednotila na tak način, je, da je družba AESA, ko je prodala svoje ladjedelnice družbi Bazán, bila le družba na papirju, ki praktično ni izvajala nobene dejavnosti.
It could thus be tempting for the Spanish authorities to ensure that as many assets as possible were transferred from AESA to its shipyard companies and thus to the company that would take over the civil shipyards, Bazán.
Zato so se španski javni organi skušali prepričati, da se bo od družbe AESA na njene ladjedelnice in tako na gospodarsko družbo Bazán, ki bo prevzela civilne ladjedelnice, prenesla največja možna količina aktivnih sredstev.
It also appears evident that the probability that the market value of each of these three companies would be exactly the same, ESP 1, is very small.
Nadalje se zdi očitno, da je verjetnost, da bi bila tržna vrednost vsake izmed teh treh gospodarskih družb popolnoma enaka, ena španska pezeta, zelo majhna.
During the procedure Spain has provided information that the book values of the companies were EUR 91100000, EUR 37800000 and EUR 68800000 respectively for Sestao, Sevilla and Puerto Real, totalling EUR 197700000. Furthermore, Spain suggests that the market value of the three shipyards were, EUR […], EUR […] and EUR […], respectively, totalling EUR […].
V času postopka je Španija predložila poročilo v zvezi z knjigovodskimi vrednostmi gospodarskih družb, ki so si za vsako posebej sledile takole: 91100000 EUR (Sestao); 37800000 EUR (Sevilla) in 68800000 EUR (Puerto Real), kar skupaj znaša 197700000 EUR. Nadalje Španija namiguje, da je bila tržna cena ladjedelnic naslednja:[…]; […] in […] EUR za vsako posebej, kar bi skupaj znašalo […] EUR.
As already noted above, ESP 1 per yard clearly was not market prices and in theory implied a net gain for Bazán/IZAR of EUR […] if the Spanish estimation of market value is correct.
V zvezi z zgoraj pojasnjenim ena španska pezeta za ladjedelnico očitno ni bila tržna cena in je v teoriji pomenila neto dobiček […] EUR za družbo Bazán/IZAR, če je ocena tržne vrednosti s strani Španije pravilna.
However, since it has not been established that this gain for Bazán/IZAR directly involved resources from SEPI or the State, the Commission does not consider that the price of ESP 1 per yard can be used to establish further State aid to the buyer, Bazán/Izar.
Vendar ker se ni ugotovilo, ali ta dobiček družbe Bazán/IZAR neposredno vključuje sredstva družbe SEPI ali državna sredstva, Komisija ne meni, da se cena ene španske pezete za ladjedelnico lahko uporabi za zagotovitev državne pomoči kupcu, družbi Bazán/IZAR.
Aid contained in transactions linked to transfer 3, between SEPI and Bazán
Pomoč znotraj transakcij, vezanih na tretji prevzem med družbama SEPI in Bazán
The four companies Astano, Cadiz, Juliana and Manises were sold from SEPI to Bazán, on 20 July 2000, for ESP 1 each.
Družba SEPI je 20. julija 2000 štiri gospodarske družbe (Astano, Cádiz, Juliana in Manises) prodala družbi Bazán za eno špansko pezeto za vsako.
In the first extension of the procedure the Commission expressed doubts that this was market price and that therefore State aid could have been provided to Bazán/IZAR.
V prvem postopku širitve je Komisija podvomila, ali je bila ta cena tržna cena, in ali bi se zato družbi Bazán/IZAR smelo zagotoviti državno pomoč.
In the second extension of the procedure the Commission noted that these companies had a total book value of minus EUR 68200000. Since the Commission was not able to determine whether this sum has been booked in the annual report of Bazán/IZAR as a loss, the Commission had doubts that SEPI injected this amount into the four companies in connection with their transfer to Bazán.
V drugem postopku širitve je Komisija ugotovila, da so imele zadevne gospodarske družbe negativno knjigovodsko vrednost, katere znesek je znašal minus 68200000 EUR. Ker Komisiji ni uspelo ugotoviti, ali se je ta znesek v letnem poročilu družbe Bazán/IZAR vknjižil kot izguba, je Komisija dvomila v to, da je družba SEPI vložila tako vsoto v štiri gospodarske družbe, da bi jih predala družbi Bazán.
Concerning the book values, Spain has informed the Commission that the transferred companies indeed had a total book value of EUR – 68200000 at the time of the transaction. However, it appears that this amount in fact was booked as a loss in the annual report for year 2000 for Bazán/IZAR, contrary to what was assumed in the second extension of the procedure [30].
Španija je v zvezi s knjigovodskimi vrednostmi Komisijo obvestila, da so imele prevzete družbe skupno negativno knjigovodsko vrednost, katere znesek je v času transakcije znašal minus 68200000 EUR. Vendar se zdi, da se je ta znesek v letno poročilo družbe Bazán/IZAR za leto 2000 vknjižil kot izguba, kar je v nasprotju s tem, kar se je predvidevalo v drugem postopku [30].
Concerning the price, Spain has provided credible information which indicates that market value for each of the four companies was negative.
V zvezi s ceno je Španija predložila verjeten podatek, ki kaže na to, da je bila knjigovodska vrednost vsake izmed štirih gospodarskih družb negativna.
It can therefore be concluded that the price was not too low, and therefore did not imply State aid to Bazán/IZAR.
Zato se lahko zaključi, da cena ni bila prenizka in da zaradi tega ni vsebovala državne pomoči za družbo Bazán/IZAR.
Recovery of restructuring aid already granted and approved in 1997
Vračilo pomoči za prestrukturiranje, dodeljene in odobrene v letu 1997
Since the doubts of further illegal State aid to the public shipyards have been confirmed, the Commission must assess, as noted in the second extension of the procedure, whether some of the restructuring aid granted in 1997 will be considered to be incompatible and be recovered.
Ker so se potrdili dvomi o dodatnih nezakonitih državnih pomočeh javnim ladjedelnicam, mora Komisija oceniti, v zvezi ugotovljenim v drugem postopku širitve, ali se bo del pomoči za prestrukturiranje, ki je bila odobrena v letu 1997, štel kot neupravičen in bo moral biti povrnjen.
On this issue, the Commission considers that, taking into consideration the comments made by Spain and IZAR in the context of this procedure, there are no grounds to consider part of the restructuring aid authorised in 1997 to be incompatible.
Komisija s tem v zvezi meni, da ob upoštevanju pripomb s strani Španije in družbe IZAR v zvezi z vsebino zadevnega postopka, ni razlogov, da bi del pomoči za prestrukturiranje, odobrene v letu 1997, vrednotili kot neupravičeno pomoč.
The reason is that, according to the decision [31] authorising the aid, the Commission’s right to request recovery of the aid authorised in 1997 expired with the last monitoring report [32], dated 13 October 1999.
Razlog je ta, da je v skladu z Odločbo [31], na podlagi katere je bila pomoč odobrena, pravica Komisije, da zahteva vračilo pomoči, dodeljene v letu 1997, potekla z zadnjim poročilom o spremljanju [32] z dne 13. oktobra 1999.
Therefore, the aid approved in 1997 became existing aid once the monitoring period expired.
Zato se je pomoč, odobrena v letu 1997, dejansko pojavila takrat, ko je obdobje spremljanja že poteklo.
Aid recovery following change of ownership
Vračilo pomoči po zamenjavi lastništva
The shipyard companies benefiting from the illegal aid established above are now owned by IZAR, and this illegal aid should therefore be recovered from IZAR.
Ladjedelnice, ki so bile upravičene nezakonite pomoči, ki jim je bila predhodno dodeljena, so zdaj v lasti družbe IZAR in zato bi morala zadevno nezakonito pomoč vrniti družba IZAR.
The change of ownership of the yards, from AESA or SEPI to IZAR does not mean that the recovery of the aid could fall on the previous owner of the concerned companies.
Sprememba lastništva ladjedelnic družbe AESA ali SEPI na družbo IZAR ne pomeni, da vračilo pomoči zapade na prejšnjega lastnika zadevnih gospodarskih družb.
The reason is that the companies were transferred to IZAR, not on market terms in open and transparent tendering procedures, but in the form of a reorganisation of companies within the same SEPI group, with the use of a symbolic price.
Razlog je ta, da družba IZAR ni prevzela gospodarskih družb v skladu s tržnimi pogoji in na javnem razpisu, ampak v obliki reorganizacije gospodarskih družb znotraj iste matične družbe SEPI po simbolični ceni.
The European Court of Justice ruled in two recent judgments [33] that in so far as companies are bought under non-discriminatory competitive conditions and at the market price, that is to say at the highest price which a private investor acting under normal competitive conditions was ready to pay for those companies in the situation they were in, in particular after having enjoyed State aid, the aid element was assessed at the market price and included in the purchase price.
Sodišče je v dveh nedavnih sodbah [33] razsodilo, da je bil v primeru, da so gospodarske družbe kupljene v konkurenčnih pogojih, ki nikomur ne dajejo prednosti, in za tržno ceno (torej za najvišjo ceno, ki bi jo bil za gospodarske družbe, ki so se znašle v takem položaju, v običajnih tržnih pogojih pripravljen plačati zasebni vlagatelj) zlasti po tem, ko so bile deležne državnih pomoči, element pomoči ocenjen na podlagi tržne in nakupne cene.
Only in such circumstances, the undertakings to which the tenders were granted cannot be regarded as having benefited from an advantage in relation to other market operators.
Le v takih okoliščinah se družbe, katerim je bil dodeljen javni razpis, v odnosu do ostalih nosilcev tržne dejavnosti ne sme vrednotiti kot družbe, ki so se okoristile s prodajo.
They could not therefore be asked to repay the aid element in question.
Zato se ne sme zahtevati, da povrnejo zadevno pomoč.
It is obvious from the description of the facts in the present case that these conditions are not met.
Iz opisa dejstev zadevnega primera je očitno, da ti pogoji niso upoštevani.
In addition, in joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00 Italy and SIM 2 Multimedia SpA v. Commission [34], paragraph 38, the Court stressed that ‘the sale of shares in a company which is the beneficiary of unlawful aid by a shareholder to a third party does not affect the requirement for recovery’.
Nadalje je v združenih primerih C-328/99 in C-399/00 Italija in SIM 2 Multimedia SpA/Komisija [34], odstavek 38, Sodišče poudarilo, da prodaja delnic gospodarske družbe, ki je bila deležna nezakonite pomoči s strani delničarja tretje stranke, ne vpliva na pravilo, ki zahteva povračilo pomoči.
In the present case, Bazán/IZAR, owned by State holding company SEPI, acquired the shares of companies, also part of the SEPI group, and eliminated them as legal entities after the acquisition of the shares.
V zadevnem primeru je družba Bazán/IZAR, ki je v lasti državne matične družbe SEPI, kupila delnice družb, ki so prav tako del skupine gospodarskih družb matične družbe SEPI, in jih izločila kot pravne osebe.
As successor of the previously legally independent yards (in the form of share companies), IZAR is now the beneficiary and has to recover the aid granted to those yards.
Kot naslednica ladjedelnic, ki so bile predhodno s pravnega vidika (bile so javne družbe) neodvisne, je sedaj družba IZAR tista, ki je dobila pomoč, in mora vrniti pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena tem ladjedelnicam.
In so far as the capital injection into the yards is considered as aid to Bazán Spain claims that this aid would fall under Article 296 and thus outside the scope of the State aid rules, since Bazán was a military company at the time of the acquisition of the yards.
V primeru, da bi se dokapitalizacija ladjedelnic štela kot pomoč družbi Bazán, Španija trdi, da bi bila ta pomoč v skladu s členom 296 in bi zato ostala zunaj dosega pravil o državni pomoči, saj je bila družba Bazán v času prevzema ladjedelnic vojaška gospodarska družba.