natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Even if the loan was imputable to the State, the Netherlands submits that its terms would be acceptable to a market economy investor.
Tudi če je posojilo bilo v breme države, Nizozemska trdi, da bi bili njegovi pogoji sprejemljivi za vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
A higher level of equity would indeed have been desirable, but the risk of loss to BNG was limited, thanks to several forms of security, notably a first-rank lien on VAOP’s receivables, which had to amount to 100 % of the loan.
Višja raven lastniškega kapitala bi bila zaželena, vendar je bilo tveganje izgube za banko BNG omejeno zaradi več oblik zavarovanj, predvsem zastavne pravico prve stopnje na terjatve združenja VAOP, ki so morale znašati 100 % posojila.
The loan was granted at a time when the firm was not in difficulty and its prospects were good.
Posojilo je bilo odobreno, ko podjetje ni bilo v težavah, njegove nadaljnje možnosti pa so bile dobre.
The very serious deterioration in its financial situation could not have been foreseen.
Zelo resnega poslabšanja njegove finančnega stanja ni bilo mogoče predvideti.
With regard to the second measure, the Netherlands recalls that VAOP is a not for profit body that transfers to its members the net revenues generated from the sale of the recyclable waste collected on their territory.
V zvezi z drugim ukrepom Nizozemska opozarja, da je združenje VAOP nepridobitni organ, ki svojim članicam nakazuje čiste prihodke od prodaje reciklažnih odpadkov, zbranih na njihovem ozemlju.
In the beginning of 2001, VAOP was in a difficult financial situation as a result of the insolvency of a subsidiary engaged in the recycling of glass; it decided not to pay to the participating municipalities a small part of the revenues generated by the sale of the waste in 2000 , and to convert it instead into a five-year subordinated loan.
V začetku leta 2001 je bilo združenje VAOP v težkem finančnem položaju zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti odvisne družbe, ki se je ukvarjala z recikliranjem stekla; odločilo se je, da sodelujočim občinam ne bo plačalo majhnega dela prihodkov od prodaje odpadkov v letu 2000 in da bo ta prihodek spremenilo v petletni podrejeni dolg.
BNG was threatening that without additional resources such as this subordinated loan it would not continue to finance VAOP, which would then have been insolvent itself.
Banka BNG je grozila, da bo, če ne bo dodatnih sredstev, kot je ta podrejeni dolg, nehala financirati združenje VAOP, ki bi potem samo bilo plačilno nesposobno.
The Netherlands asserts, first, that on the basis of its constitution and its contracts with the participating municipalities VAOP was not obliged to pay this NLG 3 million (EUR 1,3 million) to the municipalities, because the amount exceeded the resources it had available.
Nizozemska trdi, da združenje VAOP na podlagi svojega statuta in pogodb s sodelujočimi občinami tem ni bilo dolžno plačati 3 milijonov NLG (1,3 milijona EUR), ker je znesek presegal sredstva, ki jih je imelo na voljo.
VAOP nevertheless decided to give the municipalities a corresponding claim against it in the form of an interest-bearing loan.
Združenje VAOP se je vseeno odločilo, da terjatve občin preoblikuje v obliko obrestonosnega posojila.
Second, from the point of view of the local authorities this conversion of part of their claims into a loan represented a more favourable option than insolvency.
Drugič, z vidika lokalni organov je bila ta pretvorba dela njihovih terjatev v posojilo ugodnejša možnost kot plačilna nesposobnost.
At that time they had claims against VAOP amounting to NLG 5,7 million (EUR 2,59 million) which were not secured.
V tistem času so njihove terjatve do združenja VAOP znašale 5,7 milijona NLG (2,59 milijona EUR) in niso bile zavarovane.
The Dutch authorities have calculated that, in the event of insolvency, the municipalities would have recovered around NLG 1,2 million (EUR 0,5 million), resulting in a net loss of NLG 4,5 million (EUR 2,05 million).
Nizozemski organi so izračunali, da bi občine v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti dobile povrnjeno približno 1,2 milijona NLG (0,5 milijona EUR), nastala čista izguba pa bi znašala 4,5 milijona NLG (2,05 milijona EUR).
The municipalities acted as market economy creditors would have done by accepting the conversion of NLG 3 million (EUR 1,3 million) of their claims against VAOP into a loan, which enabled VAOP to continue in business in the knowledge that BNG would continue to finance it.
Občine so ravnale tako, kot bi upniki v tržnem gospodarstvu, ko so sprejele pretvorbo terjatev v višini 3 milijone NLG (1,3 milijona EUR) do VAOP v posojilo, kar je združenju VAOP omogočilo nadaljevanje poslovanja ob zavedanju, da ga bo banka BNG financirala še naprej.
The first measure
Prvi ukrep
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty indicates that ‘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, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.’
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES navaja, da „je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
The Court of Justice has held that ‘It should also be noted that, pursuant to the principle that the public and private sectors are to be treated equally, capital placed directly or indirectly at the disposal of an undertaking by the State in circumstances which correspond to normal market conditions cannot be regarded as State aid … Therefore, in accordance with equally settled case-law, it is necessary to determine whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a dimension comparable to that of the bodies managing the public sector could have been prevailed upon to make capital contributions of the same size … having regard in particular to the information available and foreseeable developments at the date of those contributions’.
Sodišče je menilo: „Poudariti je treba tudi, da v skladu z načelom, da je treba javni in zasebni sektor obravnavati enako, kapital, ki ga država da neposredno ali posredno na voljo podjetju v okoliščinah, ki ustrezajo običajnim tržnim pogojem, ne more veljati za državno pomoč … Zato je treba v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso ugotoviti, ali bi se lahko v podobnih okoliščinah zasebnega vlagatelja, po velikosti primerljivega z organi, ki upravljajo javni sektor, prepričalo, da prispeva kapital enake velikosti … ob upoštevanju zlasti razpoložljivih informacij in predvidljivega razvoja na dan teh prispevkov“.
In order to determine whether the grant of the credit facility by BNG constituted aid, the Commission has therefore to verify whether the transaction respects the market economy investor principle as expounded by the Court in the judgment referred to.
Za ugotovitev, ali je odobritev kredita s strani banke BNG pomenila pomoč, mora zato Komisija preveriti, ali je posel v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, kot je pojasnilo Sodišče v omenjeni sodbi.
At the request of the Commission, in addition to a copy of the loan agreement of March 1998 itself, the Dutch authorities have provided a copy of the internal documents of BNG relating to each step of the decision-making process that led to the provision of this financing to VAOP: the proposal by the account managers, dated 21 January 1998, the opinion of the credit analyst, dated 22 January 1998, and the positive decision by the credit committee, dated 26 January 1998.
Na zahtevo Komisije so nizozemski organi poleg kopije posojilnega dogovora iz marca 1998 predložili kopijo internih dokumentov banke BNG v zvezi z vsako stopnjo postopka odločanja, katerega posledica je bila odobritev financiranja združenja VAOP: predlog računovodij z dne 21. januarja 1998, mnenje kreditnega analitika z dne 22. januarja 1998 in sprejeto odločitev kreditnega odbora z dne 26. januarja 1998.
These papers show that BNG identified and analysed the risks associated with the loan, including the very limited equity.
Ti dokumenti kažejo, da je banka BNG opredelila in analizirala tveganja, povezana s posojilom, vključno z zelo omejenim lastniškim kapitalom.
On the basis of this analysis, BNG gave VAOP a low rating (‘C-’).
Na podlagi te analize je banka BNG dala združenju VAOP nizko oceno („C-“).
To offset the risks identified, BNG decided to impose strict conditions and to require substantial security.
Za izravnavo opredeljenih tveganj se je banka BNG odločila naložiti stroge pogoje in zahtevati znatna zavarovanja.
Among other things, BNG insisted that all the parties (VAOP and its subsidiaries) should be jointly and severally liable for all the liabilities of the other members of the group.
Med drugim je vztrajala, da morajo biti vse stranke (združenje VAOP in njegove odvisne družbe) solidarno odgovorne za vse obveznosti drugih članic skupine.
It also demanded a first rank lien on various commercial claims held by VAOP.
Zahtevala je tudi zastavno pravico prve stopnje na različnih komercialnih terjatvah, ki jih ima združenje VAOP.
VAOP was to provide BNG with a monthly list of liens on commercial claims, the value of which had to amount to at least 100 % of the sum lent by the bank.
Združenje VAOP je moralo banki BNG mesečno predložiti seznam zastavnih pravic na komercialnih terjatvah, vrednost katerih je morala biti najmanj 100 % zneska, ki mu ga je posodila banka.
The credit committee decided that the loan could be granted provided that the loan agreement comprised these various conditions and forms of security for BNG.
Kreditni odbor je odločil, da se posojilo lahko odobri, če posojilni dogovor vsebuje te različne pogoje in oblike zavarovanj za banko BNG.
The new loan agreement also included an existing NLG 5 million (EUR 2,2 million) financing.
Nov posojilni dogovor je vključeval tudi obstoječe financiranje v višini 5 milijonov NLG (2,2 milijona EUR).
It increased BNG’s potential claim on VAOP from the existing maximum of NLG 5 million (EUR 2,2 million) to NLG 16,3 (EUR 7,4 million).
Z njim se je povišala možna terjatev banke BNG do združenja VAOP z obstoječega najvišjega zneska v višini 5 milijonov NLG (2,2 milijona EUR) na 16,3 milijona NLG (7,4 milijona EUR).
The net increase was therefore NLG 11,3 million (EUR 5,1 million).
Čisto povišanje je bilo tako 11,3 milijona NLG (5,1 milijona EUR).
These documents show that BNG conducted the lending operation in accordance with its normal procedures, and asked for substantial security for the loan.
Ti dokumenti kažejo, da je banka BNG dala posojilo v skladu z običajnimi postopki in da je zanj zahtevala znatna zavarovanja.
The Commission also notes that in January 1998 […] proposed to grant VAOP a loan.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da je banka […] januarja 1998 ponudila odobritev posojila združenju VAOP.
This would have come on top of the existing NLG 5 million facility provided by BNG.
To bi se dodalo obstoječim sredstvom v višini 5 milijonov NLG, ki jih je zagotovila banka BNG.
The size of the loan offered by […], at NLG 7,3 million (EUR 3,3 million), was not as large as the additional financing ultimately offered by BNG, which amounted to NLG 11,3 million (EUR 5,1 million), but did correspond to a large part of it.
Obseg posojila, ki ga je ponudila banka […], to je 7,3 milijona NLG (3,3 milijona EUR), je bil manjši od dodatnega financiranja v višini 11,3 milijona NLG (5,1 milijona EUR), ki ga je nazadnje ponudila banka BNG, vendar je ustrezal večjemu delu.
The interest rate margins which […] planned to charge in this firm proposal, at 125bps and 150bps, are below those that applied for lending to a company in difficulty or for equity provision.
Obrestna pribitka, ki ju je banka […] nameravala zaračunati v okviru tega predloga, 125 bazičnih točk in 150 bazičnih točk, sta nižja od tistih, ki se uporabljajo za posojilo družbi v težavah ali za lastniški kapital.
This shows that contrary to the doubts expressed by the Commission when it decided to launch the formal investigation procedure a private bank might have agreed to grant a large loan to VAOP despite its very limited equity.
To kaže, da bi lahko zasebna banka v nasprotju z dvomi, ki jih je izrazila Komisija, ko se je odločila začeti formalni postopek preiskave, odobrila veliko posojilo združenju VAOP kljub njegovemu zelo omejenemu lastniškemu kapitalu.
The Commission has compared the interest rate on BNG’s loan with the rate proposed by […].
Komisija je primerjala obrestno mero posojila banke BNG z obrestno mero, ki jo je predlagala banka […].
BNG’s interest rate is slightly smaller.
Obrestna mera banke BNG je nekoliko nižja.
However, the Commission notes, first of all, that BNG had (and still has) very low operating costs, much lower than […]’s.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, prvič, da je banka BNG imela (in še vedno ima) zelo nizke poslovne stroške, precej nižje kot banka […].
Second, the loan agreement between BNG and VAOP included various commissions to be charged in the event that VAOP actually called upon certain loan facilities.
Drugič, posojilni dogovor med banko BNG in združenjem VAOP je vključeval različne provizije, ki bi jih banka zaračunala, če bi združenje VAOP dejansko zahtevalo nekatera posojila.
The offer made by […] explicitly excluded the payment of such charges.
V ponudbi banke […] so bila plačila takšnih provizij izrecno izključena.
Finally, it is likely that the existence of […]’s offer encouraged BNG to make the very best offer it could (within the limits of its lending guidelines and subject to substantial security), in order not to lose the business of an existing client with what appeared at the time to be real prospects of expansion.
Končno, ponudba banke […] je verjetno spodbudila banko BNG, da predloži najboljšo možno ponudbo (v mejah svojih smernic za posojila in pogojeno z znatnimi zavarovanji), da ne bi izgubila obstoječe stranke, za katero se je takrat zdelo, da ima resnične možnosti za razširitev.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that even though BNG provided financing at an interest rate lower than the one proposed by a private bank, BNG, when it granted the loan in 1998, was acting as a market economy investor.
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da je banka BNG, čeprav je odobrila financiranje z nižjo obrestno mero kot zasebna banka, ravnala kot vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu, ko je leta 1998 odobrila posojilo.
The loan consequently does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Posojilo zato ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The complainant also asserts that a market economy creditor would not have continued to finance VAOP given the poor financial situation of the enterprise in the succeeding years.
Pritožnik tudi trdi, da bi upnik v tržnem gospodarstvu nehal financirati združenje VAOP glede na slabo finančno stanje podjetja v naslednjih letih.
The Commission has therefore analysed how BNG has dealt with the deterioration of VAOP’s financial situation.
Komisija je zato analizirala, kako je banka BNG obravnavala poslabšanje finančnega stanja združenja VAOP.
In 1999, when the financial situation of VAOP Glas BV and REVA deteriorated, BNG negotiated a new agreement, which was signed on 9 July 1999.
Leta 1999, ko se je poslabšalo finančno stanje odvisnih družb VAOP Glas BV in REVA, je banka BNG sklenila nov dogovor, ki je bil podpisan 9. julija 1999.
First, the security was expanded to include liens on inventories, plant and other assets.
Prvič, zavarovanje je bilo razširjeno in je vključevalo zastavne pravice na zalogah, obratu in drugih sredstvih.
Second, it was agreed that there would be a strict screening of the monthly list of claims subject to a lien.
Drugič, dogovorjeno je bilo, da se bodo izvajali strogi pregledi mesečnega seznama terjatev, za katere velja zastavna pravica.
Third, no long-term loans would any longer be granted for investments in fixed assets.
Tretjič, dolgoročna posojila se ne bi več odobrila za naložbe v osnovna sredstva.
Any such loans would have to take the form of short-term financing instruments known as ‘cash drawings’ (kasgeldtrekkingen).
Vsa takšna posojila bi morala imeti obliko kratkoročnega finančnega instrumenta, poznanega kot „gotovinski dvig“ (kasgeldtrekkingen).
Fourth, the price of the credit facility was increased.
Četrtič, cena kredita je bila povišana.
In October 2000 REVA became insolvent, and a new agreement was negotiated and signed on 19 January 2001.
Oktobra 2000 je odvisna družba REVA postala plačilno nesposobna in sklenjen je bil nov dogovor, ki je bil podpisan 19. januarja 2001.
The credit facility was reduced to NLG 13,2 million (EUR 6 million) (the effective lending to VAOP at that point was NLG 15,2 million (EUR 6,9 million)); the credit facility was to be reduced further in accordance with a timetable laid down.
Kredit se je zmanjšal na 13,2 milijona NLG (6 milijonov EUR) (dejansko posojilo združenju VAOP je takrat znašalo 15,2 milijona NLG (6,9 milijona EUR)) in naj bi se še dodatno zmanjšal v skladu z določenim časovnim razporedom.
A penalty premium of 3 % would be applied to the amount exceeding that credit limit.
Za znesek, ki presega kreditni limit, bi se zaračunali 3 %.
At the same time, the security was expanded further.
Hkrati je bilo zavarovanje dodatno razširjeno.
On the basis of the liquidation value of VAOP’s assets BNG calculated that it stood to lose almost NLG 5,8 million (EUR 2,6 million) out of its total claim of NLG 15,2 million (EUR 6,9 million).
Na podlagi likvidacijske vrednosti sredstev združenja VAOP je banka BNG izračunala, da bi lahko izgubila skoraj 5,8 milijona NLG (2,6 milijona EUR) od skupnih terjatev v višini 15,2 milijona NLG (6,9 milijona EUR).
In September 2002, a new contract was signed, modifying the previous timetable for the reduction of the size of the credit facility.
Septembra 2002 je bila podpisana nova pogodba, v kateri je bil spremenjen prejšnji časovni razpored za zmanjšanje obsega kredita.
From this account it will be clear that BNG could not simply stop financing VAOP or ask for the immediate reimbursement of the amount lent.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da banka BNG ni mogla preprosto nehati financirati združenja VAOP ali zahtevati takojšnjega povračila posojenega zneska.
This would have rendered VAOP insolvent, causing considerable loss to BNG.
To bi povzročilo plačilno nesposobnost združenja VAOP in s tem znatne izgube banke BNG.
BNG sought to measure the potential loss against VAOP’s chances of recovery.
BNG je poskušala primerjati možno izgubo in možnosti za izboljšanje položaja združenja VAOP.
Given the stability of VAOP’s core business (waste paper) and its ability to generate cash flow, BNG decided not to push VAOP into insolvency, and to go on financing it.
Glede na stabilnost osnovne dejavnosti združenja VAOP (odpadni papir) in sposobnost njegovo ustvarjanja denarnega toka se je banka BNG odločila, da ne bo povzročila plačilne nesposobnosti združenja VAOP in da ga bo financirala še naprej.
The Commission has not found any manifest error in this assessment or the decision it led to.
Komisija ni odkrila očitne napake v tej oceni ali odločitvi.
Nor has the complainant brought forward any convincing argument showing why this decision would have not been acceptable to a private bank.
Prav tako pritožnik ni predložil nobenega prepričljivega argumenta, ki dokazuje, zakaj ta odločitev ne bi bila sprejemljiva za zasebno banko.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that BNG’s conduct in this case is in accordance with the market economy creditor principle, and consequently does not constitute state aid to VAOP.
Komisija torej meni, da je ravnanje banke BNG v tej zadevi v skladu z načelom upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu in zato ne pomeni državne pomoči združenju VAOP.
On the question whether BNG’s lending can be attributed to the State the Commission will not take a position, because in the light of the foregoing even if the lending could be attributed to the State it would not constitute state aid.
V zvezi z vprašanjem, ali se lahko posojilo banke BNG pripiše državi, Komisija ne bo zavzela stališča, ker posojilo glede na navedeno ne bi pomenilo državne pomoči, tudi če bi se lahko pripisalo državi.
Moreover, the Commission cannot and will not take a position on the question whether all lending by BNG in other cases conforms to the market economy investor principle.
Poleg tega Komisija ne more in ne bo zavzela stališča o vprašanju, ali so vsa posojila s strani banke BNG v drugih zadevah v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The second measure
Drugi ukrep
At the beginning of 2001, VAOP was unable to pay the participating municipalities the NLG 3 million (EUR 1,3 million) it owed them for the supply of waste paper.
V začetku leta 2001 združenje VAOP ni moglo plačati sodelujočim občinam 3 milijone NLG (1,3 milijona EUR), ki jim jih je dolgovalo za dobavo odpadnega papirja.
It did not have sufficient liquidity available.
Ni razpolagalo z zadostno likvidnostjo.
As a condition for further financing of VAOP, BNG was demanding that there be positive resources available for guarantee purposes, defined as capital and reserves, provisions plus long-term subordinated loans.
Kot pogoj za nadaljnje financiranje združenja VAOP je banka BNG zahtevala, da morajo biti na voljo pozitivna sredstva za jamstvo, opredeljena kot kapital in rezerve, rezervacije in dolgoročni podrejeni dolgi.
Paying the money to the municipalities would have pushed VAOP into insolvency.
Če bi združenje VAOP plačalo občinam, bi postalo plačilno nesposobno.
The Commission observes that the difficult financial situation was caused mainly by a one-off event, namely the insolvency of REVA in 2000.
Komisija opaža, da je slabo finančno stanje povzročil predvsem enkratni dogodek, in sicer plačilna nesposobnost odvisne družbe REVA leta 2000.
VAOP had invested in that company because it was active in the treatment of waste glass.
Združenje VAOP je v to družbo vložilo, ker je delovala na področju obdelave odpadnega stekla.
The Commission would point out that the municipalities' net claims on VAOP amounted to NLG 5,7 million (EUR 2,6 million).
Komisija bi poudarila, da so neto terjatve občin do združenja VAOP znašale 5,7 milijona NLG (2,6 milijona EUR).
These claims were unsecured, because another major creditor, BNG, had a fist-rank lien on important assets.
Te terjatve niso bile zavarovane, ker je imela druga glavna upnica, banka BNG, zastavno pravico prve stopnje na pomembnih sredstvih.
If VAOP had become insolvent and its assets had been liquidated, the local authorities would have been unable to recover a large part of their claims.
Če bi združenje VAOP postalo plačilno nesposobno in bi se njegova sredstva likvidirala, lokalni organi ne bi mogli izterjati večjega dela svojih terjatev.
The Commission has reviewed the calculation submitted by the Dutch authorities: from the creditors' point of view, it was on the optimistic side.
Komisija je pregledala izračun, ki so ga predložili nizozemski organi: z vidika upnikov je bil optimističen.
The Commission takes the view, therefore, that in the event of an insolvency the municipalities could have expected to recover no more than NLG 1,2 million (EUR 0,5 million) out of their claims of NLG 5,7 million (EUR 2,6 million).
Komisija zato meni, da bi lahko občine v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti pričakovale, da bodo izterjale največ 1,2 milijona NLG (0,5 milijona EUR) od svojih terjatev v višini 5,7 milijona NLG (2,6 milijona EUR).
In addition, the money would have been recovered only after the substantial delay inherent in a liquidation.
Poleg tega bi dobile denar povrnjen šele po znatni zamudi zaradi likvidacije.
Instead of taking this loss of NLG 4,5 million (EUR 2 million), the members preferred to convert NLG 3 million (EUR 1,3 million) into an interest-bearing loan and to recover the balance.
Namesto da bi članice sprejele to izgubo v višini 4,5 milijona NLG (2 milijona EUR), so se odločile pretvoriti 3 milijone NLG (1,3 milijona EUR) v obrestonosno posojilo in izterjati razliko.