natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Second, the Commission notes that, according to the notification, ship C.180 (ex C.173) should have been delivered by 31 October 2004. However, considering the Italian authorities’ request that the 10-month extension should start from the Commission’s decision to authorise the requested extension, taken in conjunction with the fact the yard launched the unfinished ship C.180 (ex C.173) in August 2004, it is clear that the yard would not have been able to deliver the vessel even within the original 10-month extension requested to the delivery limit.
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da bi, kot izhaja iz uradnega obvestila, morala biti ladja C.180 (prej C.173) dobavljena do 31. 10. 2004. Vendar je glede na zahtevo italijanskih organov, da se desetmesečno podaljšanje začne z odločbo Komisije, in dejstvo, da je ladjedelnica splavila nedokončano ladjo C.180 (prej C.173) avgusta 2004, jasno, da ladjedelnica ne bi uspela izročiti ladje niti v zahtevanem desetmesečnem podaljšanju roka.
On 1 October 2001, before construction started, the shipowner asked Cantieri Navali Termoli to suspend execution of the contract until 30 September 2003 rather than cancel it. The shipowner eventually withdrew its request for suspension of the contract on 29 September 2003.
Lastnik ladje je 1. oktobra 2001, pred začetkom izgradnje, od Cantieri Navali Termoli namesto razveljavitve zahteval prekinitev izvajanja pogodbe do 30. 9. 2003. Lastnik ladje je dne 29. septembra 2003 zahtevo za prekinitev pogodbe preklical.
concerning a measure taken by the Netherlands with regard to VAOP
o ukrepu, ki ga je sprejela Nizozemska za združenje VAOP
(notified under document number C(2006) 3224)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2006) 3224)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi členi, in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
By letter dated 12 June 2002, recorded as incoming mail on 17 June 2002, the Commission received a complaint against four allegedly irregular aid measures benefiting the Association of Suppliers of Waste Paper (Vereniging van Aanbieders van Oud Papier — ‘VAOP’), namely partial exemption from corporation tax and from value added tax, the provision of a loan by Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten (‘BNG’), and the provision of a subordinated loan by a number of municipalities (gemeenten).
V dopisu z dne 12. junija 2002, evidentiranem 17. junija 2002, je Komisija prejela pritožbo zoper štiri domnevno nezakonite ukrepe pomoči v korist Združenja dobaviteljev odpadnega papirja (Vereniging van Aanbieders van Oud Papier – „VAOP“), in sicer delni oprostitvi plačila davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb in davka na dodano vrednost, odobritvi posojila s strani banke Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten („BNG“) in odobritvi podrejenega dolga s strani več občin (gemeenten).
By letters dated 30 July 2002 and 6 December 2002, the Commission requested information from the Dutch authorities, which replied respectively by letters of 10 October 2002 and 10 February 2003.
V dopisih z dne 30. julija 2002 in 6. decembra 2002 je Komisija zahtevala dodatne informacije od nizozemskih organov, ki so odgovorili z dopisoma z dne 10. oktobra 2002 in 10. februarja 2003.
A meeting between the complainant and Commission staff took place on 29 April 2003.
Dne 29. aprila 2003 je potekal sestanek pritožnika in osebja Komisije.
By letter dated 5 May 2003, the complainant informed the Commission that it intended to collect more information on the case from the Dutch authorities and that, on that basis, it would then focus its complaint on certain measures.
V dopisu z dne 5. maja 2003 je pritožnik obvestil Komisijo, da namerava zbrati več informacij o zadevi od nizozemskih organov in da bo nato na podlagi teh informacij svojo pritožbo osredotočil na nekatere ukrepe.
By letter dated 13 September 2004, the complainant submitted additional information and announced its intention to limit its complaint to the loan provided by BNG to VAOP.
V dopisu z dne 13. septembra 2004 je pritožnik predložil dodatne informacije in napovedal, da namerava omejiti svojo pritožbo na posojilo, ki ga je združenju VAOP odobrila banka BNG.
On the basis of this new submission, the Commission requested additional information from the Dutch authorities, by letter of 21 October 2004; they replied by letter dated 17 December 2004.
Na podlagi te nove predložitve je Komisija v dopisu z dne 21. oktobra 2004 zahtevala dodatne informacije od nizozemskih organov, ki so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 17. decembra 2004.
By letter dated 3 May 2005, the Commission informed the Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the loan granted by BNG and the loan granted by the participating municipalities.
V dopisu z dne 3. maja 2005 je Komisija obvestila Nizozemsko, da se je odločila sprožiti postopek na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES v zvezi s posojilom, ki ga je odobrila banka BNG, in posojilom, ki so ga odobrile sodelujoče občine.
The Dutch authorities requested two extensions of the time allowed for a reply to the decision initiating the procedure, and ultimately replied by letter dated 29 August 2005.
Nizozemski organi so zaprosili za dve podaljšanji roka, predvidenega za odgovor na odločitev o sprožitvi postopka, in na koncu odgovorili z dopisom z dne 29. avgusta 2005.
By letter dated 9 November 2005, the Commission requested additional information, which was submitted by letter of 8 December 2005.
V dopisu z dne 9. novembra 2005 je Komisija zahtevala dodatne informacije, ki so ji bile predložene v dopisu z dne 8. decembra 2005.
By email message of 4 May 2006, the Commission made an additional request for information, which was answered by letter of 2 June 2006 and by letter of 19 June 2006
V elektronskem sporočilu z dne 4. maja 2006 je Komisija poslala dodatno zahtevo po informacijah, na katero je dobila odgovor v dopisih z dne 2. junija 2006 in 19. junija 2006
The Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure was published in the Official Journal on 30 September 2005.
Odločitev Komisije, da sproži formalni postopek preiskave, je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije dne 30. septembra 2005.
The complainant sent observations on this decision by letter dated 28 October 2005, and requested the Commission to attach the complainant’s letters of 12 June 2002 and 13 September 2004 and the record of the discussions of 29 April 2003 to that submission and to consider them an integral part of the submission.
Pritožnik je v dopisu z dne 28. oktobra 2005 posredoval stališča o tej odločitvi in zaprosil Komisijo, da prej navedena dopisa z dne 12. junija 2002 in 13. septembra 2004 ter zapisnik razprav z dne 29. aprila 2003 priloži k tej predložitvi in da jih obravnava kot sestavni del predloženih dokumentov.
A non-confidential version of the two letters was sent to the Netherlands by letter of 24 November 2005, and the Netherlands replied by letter of 16 December 2005.
Nezaupna različica obeh dopisov je bila poslana Nizozemski z dopisom z dne 24. novembra 2005 in Nizozemska je odgovorila z dopisom z dne 16. decembra 2005.
By letter of 28 October 2005, the Commission received comments on the decision initiating the procedure from the alleged recipient, VAOP, which also requested a meeting.
V dopisu z dne 28. oktobra 2005 je Komisija na odločitev o sprožitvi postopka prejela pripombe domnevnega prejemnika pomoči, združenja VAOP, ki je zaprosilo tudi za sestanek.
A meeting was held on 31 January 2006.
Sestanek je potekal 31. januarja 2006.
By letter dated 27 March 2006, VAOP submitted further information to supplement the observations it had put forward at the meeting.
V dopisu z dne 27. marca 2006 je združenje VAOP predložilo dodatne informacije, s katerimi je dopolnilo stališča, ki jih je navedlo na sestanku.
The recipient
Prejemnik pomoči
VAOP was set up in the beginning of the 1990s by a number of Dutch municipalities.
Združenje VAOP je v začetku devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja ustanovilo več nizozemskih občin.
It is a not-for-profit cooperative association with limited liability, which seeks to offer certain services to its members on terms as favourable as possible.
Je nepridobitna zadružna zveza z omejeno odgovornostjo, ki poskuša svojim članicam ponujati nekatere storitve pod čim ugodnejšimi pogoji.
More specifically, its object is to organise the optimal collection, initial treatment (sorting/pressing) and sale of waste paper from the municipalities which are its members.
Natančneje je cilj združenja organiziranje optimalnega zbiranja, začetne obdelave (razvrščanje/stiskanje) in prodaje odpadnega papirja, zbranega v občinah, ki so njegove članice.
Its activities have subsequently been expanded to include waste glass and other recyclable waste.
Te dejavnosti so se nato razširile in vključujejo zbiranje odpadnega stekla ter drugih reciklažnih odpadkov.
VAOP is not a fully vertically integrated undertaking.
Združenje VAOP ni popolnoma vertikalno integrirano podjetje.
It merely organises the tasks concerned for its members: most of the operational work, such as the transport of the waste, it subcontracts to other enterprises.
Organizira namreč le zadevne naloge za svoje članice in večino operativnega dela, kot je prevoz odpadkov, odda podizvajalcem.
The Dutch tax authorities do not consider VAOP to be a branch of public administration.
Nizozemski davčni organi menijo, da združenje VAOP ni del javne uprave.
The first entity that was set up was the cooperative association with limited liability Coöperative Vereniging VAOP BV.
Prva pravna oseba, ki je bila ustanovljena, je bila zadružna zveza z omejeno odgovornostjo Coöperative Vereniging VAOP BV.
Over the course of the years, this parent body set up several subsidiaries to harbour the operational part of its activities.
Z leti je omenjena matična družba ustanovila več odvisnih družb, ki so prevzele operativni del njenih dejavnosti.
These subsidiaries are in the form of private limited companies.
Te odvisne družbe imajo obliko družb z omejeno odgovornostjo.
The Commission will consider all these companies as a group constituting one single economic entity (‘VAOP’), because the parent holds majority stakes in all the subsidiaries.
Komisija bo vse te družbe obravnavala kot skupino, ki sestavlja en sam gospodarski subjekt („VAOP“), ker ima matična družba večinski delež v vseh odvisnih družbah.
The subsidiaries are included in the consolidated accounts of the parent.
Odvisne družbe so vključene v konsolidirani zaključni račun matične družbe.
In addition, BNG, which is VAOP’s principal creditor, has concluded only a single loan contract with the group, and not one with each separate company, even though that contract lays down credit limits for some individual subsidiaries.
Poleg tega je banka BNG, ki je glavna upnica združenja VAOP, sklenila le posojilno pogodbo s skupino in ni sklenila posojilne pogodbe z vsako posamezno družbo, čeprav pogodba določa kreditne limite za nekatere posamezne odvisne družbe.
Finally, the contract provides for cross-guarantees between the different companies of the group: each company is liable vis-à-vis BNG for the debts of any of the others.
Končno, pogodba zagotavlja protigarancije med različnimi družbami skupine: vsaka družba je odgovorna nasproti banki BNG za dolgove drugih odvisnih družb skupine.
In the 1990s VAOP’s activities grew strongly.
V devetdesetih letih so se dejavnosti združenja VAOP močno povečale.
Its share of the Dutch market for waste paper collection reached between 25 and 30 % by the beginning of the present decade.
Njegov delež na nizozemskem trgu zbiranja odpadnega papirja se je v začetku sedanjega desetletja gibal med 25 in 30 %.
It is also an important player on the market for waste paper initial treatment (sorting/pressing).
Združenje je tudi pomemben udeleženec na trgu začetne obdelave odpadnega papirja (razvrščanje/stiskanje).
It entered the Dutch market for waste glass collection, where it became one of the market leaders.
Poleg tega je vstopilo na nizozemski trg zbiranja odpadnega stekla in postalo ena vodilnih družb na tem trgu.
Some of the companies active on these markets are subsidiaries of foreign companies.
Nekatere družbe, ki delujejo na navedenih trgih, so odvisne družbe tujih družb.
Dutch law requires local authorities to collect waste paper separately and to offer it on the market for recycling, but the way in which these operations have to be performed is not defined.
Nizozemska zakonodaja zahteva, da lokalni organi ločeno zbirajo odpadni papir in ga ponudijo na trgu za recikliranje, vendar ne opredeljuje, kako je treba te dejavnosti izvajati.
Most Dutch municipalities put the work out to tender.
Večina nizozemskih občin za ta dela objavi javni razpis.
VAOP has tendered for such work, thus competing directly with private-sector companies offering the same services.
Združenje VAOP je sodelovalo na razpisih za to delo in tako neposredno konkuriralo družbam zasebnega sektorja, ki so ponujale enake storitve.
VAOP also tries to attract new members by approaching municipalities and suggesting that they should join.
Združenje VAOP si tudi prizadeva privabiti nove člane in se tako obrača na občine ter jim predlaga včlanitev.
Here too VAOP can be considered to be in competition with private sector companies seeking to attract the same customers.
Tudi pri tem se lahko šteje, da združenje VAOP konkurira družbam zasebnega sektorja, ki si prizadevajo privabiti iste stranke.
The two measures
Zadevna ukrepa
Firstly, in March 1998, BNG granted VAOP a credit facility of NLG 16,3 million (EUR 7,4 million, ‘the first measure’).
Prvič, marca 1998 je banka BNG združenju VAOP odobrila kredit v višini 16,3 milijona NLG (7,4 milijona EUR, „prvi ukrep“).
On 31 December 1997, VAOP’s consolidated balance sheet indicated that its equity amounted to NLG 0,8 million (EUR 0,4 million) and its balance sheet total amounted to NLG 17,3 million (EUR 7,9 million).
Konsolidirana bilanca stanja združenja VAOP na dan 31. decembra 1997 je izkazala lastniški kapital v višini 0,8 milijona NLG (0,4 milijona EUR) in bilančno vsoto v višini 17,3 milijona NLG (7,9 milijona EUR).
One year later, after the provision of the loan, the equity was NLG 0,09 million (EUR 0,04 million) and the balance sheet total was NLG 29,1 million (EUR 13,2 million).
Leto pozneje, po odobritvi posojila, je lastniški kapital znašal 0,09 milijona NLG (0,04 milijona EUR), bilančna vsota pa je bila 29,1 milijona NLG (13,2 milijona EUR).
Secondly, in the course of 2001, the local authorities agreed to convert debts that VAOP owed them for the supply of waste paper into a loan of NLG 3 million (EUR 1,3 million, ‘the second measure’).
Drugič, leta 2001 so se lokalni organi strinjali, da se plačila, ki jim jih dolguje združenje VAOP za dobavo odpadnega papirja, preoblikujejo v dolg v obliki posojila v višini 3 milijonov NLG (1,3 milijona EUR, „drugi ukrep“).
VAOP had undergone heavy losses at the end of 2000, following the insolvency of one of its subsidiaries.
Konec leta 2000 je združenje VAOP utrpelo velike izgube, potem ko je ena njegovih odvisnih družb postala plačilno nesposobna.
On 31 December 2000, the consolidated accounts of VAOP showed negative equity of NLG 3,4 million (EUR 1,5 million).
Konsolidirani zaključni računi združenja na dan 31. decembra 2000 so izkazali negativen lastniški kapital v višini 3,4 milijona NLG (1,5 milijona EUR).
At the same date, the balance sheet total was NLG 32,1 million (EUR 14,5 million).
Bilančna vsota na isti dan pa je znašala 32,1 milijona NLG (14,5 milijona EUR).
VAOP’s main creditor, BNG, had obtained liens (pandrechten) on nearly all the assets, so that this unsecured loan could be considered subordinate to BNG’s claims.
Banka BNG, glavna upnica združenja VAOP, je dobila zastavno pravico (pandrechten) na skoraj vsa sredstva in tako lahko to nezavarovano posojilo šteje za podrejeno terjatvam banke BNG.
It was therefore referred to as ‘the subordinated loan’ (achtergestelde lening).
Zato je bilo opredeljeno kot „podrejeni dolg“ (achtergestelde lening).
As regards the first measure, the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure because it doubted whether a normal market economy investor would have acted in the same way.
V zvezi s prvim ukrepom: Komisija je sprožila formalni postopek preiskave, ker ni bila prepričana, ali bi običajni vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu ravnal enako.
At the material time VAOP had nearly no equity.
Združenje VAOP takrat skoraj ni imelo lastniškega kapitala.
In addition, the size of the new loan seemed very high in comparison with the borrower’s balance sheet total.
Poleg tega je bil obseg novega posojila zelo visok v primerjavi z bilančno vsoto posojilojemalca.
In short, the risk involved seemed too big for a normal market economy investor.
Povezano tveganje je bilo torej preveliko za običajnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Regarding the second measure, the Commission doubted whether a normal market economy creditor would have agreed to convert its claim into a subordinated loan of this kind.
V zvezi z drugim ukrepom je Komisija dvomila, ali bi bil običajni upnik v tržnem gospodarstvu pripravljen spremeniti svojo terjatev v tak podrejeni dolg.
The loan seemed to present a high degree of risk, as the borrower’s financial situation was bad and all its assets appeared to be subject to a lien in favour of BNG.
Podrejeni dolg je predstavljal visoko stopnjo tveganja, ker je bilo finančno stanje posojilojemalca slabo, za vsa njegova sredstva pa je veljala zastavna pravica v korist banki BNG.
Finally, the Commission wondered whether a market economy creditor would not have requested a higher interest rate.
Nazadnje, Komisija se je spraševala, ali ne bi upnik v tržnem gospodarstvu zahteval višje obrestne mere.
In conclusion, the Commission suspected that the two measures might constitute state aid to VAOP falling under the prohibition laid down in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija je torej sumila, da bi ukrepa lahko pomenila državno pomoč združenju VAOP, ki jo prepoveduje člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission has received the following comments from the complainant.
Komisija je od pritožnika prejela naslednje pripombe.
Regarding the first measure, the complainant asserts that the general policy and practice of BNG is to offer financial products to public bodies and associated institutions on terms that are not in line with the market.
V zvezi s prvim ukrepom pritožnik trdi, da sta splošna politika in praksa banke BNG ponujati finančne produkte javnim organom in pridruženim ustanovam pod pogoji, ki niso v skladu s trgom.
The complainant analyses the size of VAOP’s equity, and concludes that at the time its balance sheet structure was far from healthy.
Pritožnik analizira obseg lastniškega kapitala združenja VAOP in ugotavlja, da je bila struktura bilance stanja v tem času zelo slaba.
There was a significant lack of equity.
Lastniškega kapitala je bilo znatno premalo.
The complainant also points to the scale of debt.
Pritožnik opozarja tudi na obseg dolga.
In these circumstances, the BNG financing allowed VAOP to expand its business despite its lack of equity and at low cost.
V teh okoliščinah je financiranje s strani banke BNG združenju VAOP omogočilo, da je razširilo svoje dejavnosti kljub pomanjkanju lastniškega kapitala in ob nizkih stroških.
The complainant reckons that a high-risk loan of that kind would not have been provided by a private bank, and constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Pritožnik meni, da zasebna banka ne bi odobrila tovrstnega posojila z visokim tveganjem in da to pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The complainant also argues that given that VAOP’s financial situation did not improve over the years, BNG should have not continued to finance it.
Pritožnik tudi trdi, da bi banka BNG morala nehati financirati združenje VAOP, ker se njegovo finančno stanje z leti ni izboljšalo.
Turning to the second measure, the complainant argues that this subordinated loan carried a very high degree of risk, given the scale of the debts owed by VAOP that would have to be reimbursed first in the event of insolvency.
V zvezi z drugim ukrepom pritožnik trdi, da je podrejeni dolg pomenil zelo veliko tveganje glede na obseg dolgov združenja VAOP, ki bi jih bilo treba najprej povrniti v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti.
The margin on the loan was not sufficient to compensate for that risk.
Pribitek na posojilo ni bil dovolj velik, da bi se to tveganje izravnalo.
This loan therefore constitutes state aid too.
Zato tudi to posojilo pomeni državno pomoč.
The Commission has received the following comments from the alleged recipient, VAOP.
Komisija je od domnevnega prejemnika, združenja VAOP, prejela naslednje pripombe.
VAOP claims that the first measure was a purely commercial transaction, in accordance with the market investor principle.
Združenje VAOP trdi, da je bil prvi ukrep zgolj gospodarski posel v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
VAOP says that at the time it was also in contact with several private banks, which were proposing to provide financing on terms close to those offered by BNG.
Pravi, da je bilo takrat v stiku z več zasebnimi bankami, ki so ponujale odobritev financiranja pod podobnimi pogoji, kakor jih je ponudila banka BNG.
VAOP has provided a copy of a signed offer of financing made by [a private bank] on 7 January 1998.
Združenje VAOP je predložilo kopijo podpisane ponudbe za financiranje, ki jo je dala [zasebna banka]7. januarja 1998.
Regarding the second measure, VAOP asserts that it was not obliged to enter into the loan arrangement with the municipalities.
V zvezi z drugim ukrepom združenje VAOP trdi, da ni bilo zavezano skleniti posojilnega dogovora z občinami.
On the basis of its constitution (statuten) and its supply contracts with the municipalities, VAOP cannot be required to pay its paper suppliers more than its liquidity position allows.
Na podlagi njegovega statuta (statuten) in dobavnih pogodb z občinami se od združenja VAOP ne more zahtevati, da plača svojim dobaviteljem papirja več, kot omogoča njegov likvidnostni položaj.
In addition, VAOP is entitled to impose obligations on its members in the form of a ‘yearly contribution’, which may be used to cover operating charges or may be regarded as risk-bearing capital.
Poleg tega ima združenje VAOP pravico, da naloži obveznosti svojim članicam v obliki „letnega prispevka“, ki se lahko uporabi za kritje poslovnih odhodkov ali pa velja za tvegani kapital.
VAOP’s contract with the municipalities also allowed VAOP to give the municipalities a claim against it, and that was what the management of VAOP had decided to do.
Pogodba z občinami je združenju VAOP tudi omogočila, da prijavi terjatev občin do sebe, in to se je vodstvo združenja VAOP tudi odločilo narediti.
Regarding the first measure, the Netherlands argues that the granting of the credit facility by BNG was not a matter for the State.
V zvezi s prvim ukrepom Nizozemska trdi, da odobritev kredita s strani banke BNG ni bila zadeva države.
BNG is a public limited company.
Banka BNG je javna delniška družba.
There is no provision in the constitution of the bank requiring the management to comply with the directions of the supervisory board when offering financial products.
Statut banke ne vsebuje določbe, ki zahteva, da vodstvo pri ponujanju finančnih produktov ravna po navodilih nadzornega sveta.
There was no provision requiring that the supervisory board be consulted or that it give its authorisation for the loan concerned, which was the responsibility exclusively of the management.
Poleg tega ni bilo določbe, ki bi zahtevala posvetovanje z nadzornim odborom ali da mora ta odobriti zadevno posojilo, za katero je bilo odgovorno izključno vodstvo.
Finally, the Dutch authorities assert that there is nothing else to suggest that this transaction was attributable to the State.
Nazadnje, nizozemski organi trdijo, da nič drugega ne kaže na to, da je ta posel mogoče pripisati državi.