natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This second option was a more favourable solution.
Ta druga možnost je bila ugodnejša rešitev.
When it initiated the procedure, the Commission also doubted whether a market economy investor who did accept such a conversion would not have demanded a higher interest rate.
Ko je Komisija sprožila postopek, prav tako ni bila prepričana, ali ne bi vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki je sprejel takšno pretvorbo, zahteval višje obrestne mere.
These doubts have been allayed: the municipalities’ bargaining position vis-à-vis BNG was not in fact such that they could have demanded a higher interest rate.
Teh dvomov več ni: občine so bile v primerjavi z banko BNG dejansko v takšnem pogajalskem položaju, da niso mogle zahtevati višjih obrestnih mer.
In the longer term higher interest rate charges would have reduced VAOP’s ability to repay its loan to BNG.
Dolgoročno bi zaračunane višje obrestne mere zmanjšale sposobnost združenja VAOP za povračilo posojila banki BNG.
BNG was in a position to resist such a demand on the part of the municipalities, by threatening to trigger the insolvency of VAOP, which, as indicated, would have been a less favourable outcome for the municipalities.
Banka BNG bi lahko nasprotovala takšni zahtevi s strani občin z grožnjo, da bo povzročila plačilno nesposobnost združenja VAOP, kar bi bil, kot je navedeno, manj ugoden izid za občine.
Indeed even if the municipalities had had the bargaining power necessary, it would not have been in their interest to increase the interest rate, because that would simply have increased the VAOP’s financial burdens over the next five years.
Tudi če bi občine imele potrebno pogajalsko moč, zvišanje obrestne mere ne bi bilo v njihovem interesu, ker bi povečalo finančna bremena združenja VAOP v naslednjih petih letih.
As the members pay VAOP for the costs of the services the receive, the higher interest rates they would have obtained would have been offset by higher payments to VAOP during that period.
Ker članice združenju VAOP plačujejo stroške za prejete storitve, bi se višje obrestne mere, ki bi jih dosegle, izravnale z višjimi plačili združenju VAOP v tem obdobju.
In can be concluded that for purposes of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty the conversion of the debt into a subordinated loan does not constitute state aid granted by the local authorities to VAOP.
Iz tega je mogoče sklepati, da za namene člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES pretvorba dolga v podrejeni dolg ne pomeni državne pomoči, odobrene združenju VAOP s strani lokalnih organov.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that neither of the measures constitutes aid,
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija sklepa, da ukrepa ne pomenita pomoči –
The measures taken by the Netherlands and Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten with regard to the Association of Suppliers of Waste Paper (Vereniging van Aanbieders van Oud Papier), for amounts respectively of NLG 3 million (EUR 1,3 million) and NLG 16,3 million (EUR 7,4 million), do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Ukrepa Nizozemske in Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten v zvezi z Združenjem dobaviteljev odpadnega papirja (Vereniging van Aanbieders van Oud Papier) glede zneskov v višini 3 milijone NLG (1,3 milijona EUR) in 16,3 milijona NLG (7,4 milijona EUR) ne pomenita pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Done at Brussels, 19 July 2006.
V Bruslju, 19. julij 2006.
OJ C 240, 30.9.2005, p. 36.
UL C 240, 30.9.2005, str. 36.
VAOP has tendered successfully only once.
Združenje VAOP je bilo le enkrat uspešno na razpisu.
In recent years, VAOP has decided not to participate in such tenders any more.
V zadnjih letih se je združenje VAOP odločilo, da ne bo več sodelovalo na takšnih razpisih.
Private sector companies may be vertically integrated to a greater degree than VAOP, but that does not mean they are not in competition with it.
Družbe zasebnega sektorja so lahko bolj vertikalno integrirane kot združenje VAOP, vendar to ne pomeni, da mu ne konkurirajo.
covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.
Poslovna skrivnost.
In the year 2000, VAOP paid the local authorities a total of NLG 40,7 million (EUR 18,5 million).
Leta 2000 je združenje VAOP lokalnim organom plačalo skupno 40,7 milijona NLG (18,5 milijona EUR).
Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00 Italy and SIM 2 Multimedia v Commission [2003] ECR I-4035, paragraphs 37 and 38.
Združeni zadevi C-328/99 in C-399/00 Italija in SIM 2 Multimedia proti Komisiji [2003] Recueil I-4035, odstavka 37 in 38.
Business secret
Zaupne informacije
As already indicated, this can be explained among other things by the securities available to the potential lender and by the fact that at that time the firm was considered to be an expanding enterprise with a stable and cost covering core business.
Kot je bilo že omenjeno, se lahko to pojasni med drugim z zavarovanji, ki so na voljo možnemu posojilodajalcu, in z dejstvom, da je podjetje takrat veljalo za razvijajoče se podjetje s stabilno osrednjo poslovno dejavnostjo, ki pokriva stroške.
Both credit facilities comprise loans of different kinds.
Oba kredita vključujeta različni posojili.
The Commission has compared those with similar maturities and conditions.
Komisija ju je primerjala s posojili s podobnimi dospelostmi in pogoji.
In the banking sector, the level of operating costs is often measured by the efficiency ratio, which is defined as operating expenses divided by total revenue.
V bančnem sektorju se raven poslovnih stroškov pogosto meri s koeficientom gospodarnosti, ki je opredeljen kot poslovni odhodki, deljeni s celotnim prihodkom.
In 1997, […]'s Netherlands division had an efficiency ratio of 64,8 %.
Leta 1997 je bil koeficient gospodarnosti nizozemskega oddelka […] 64,8 %.
In 1998 and 1999, it was respectively 65,2 % and 62,9 % (source: […]).
Leta 1998 in 1999 je bil 65,2 % in 62,9 % (vir: […]).
BNG's efficiency ratio is one third of that level, indicating a very low cost base.
Koeficient gospodarnosti banke BNG znaša tretjino navedene stopnje, kar pomeni zelo nizko stroškovno osnovo.
This is explained in part by the fact that it does not have a large network of offices.
To deloma pojasnjuje dejstvo, da banka BNG nima velike mreže poslovalnic.
Financial situation at the end of 2000.
Finančno stanje konec leta 2000.
The calculation submitted by the Dutch authorities is optimistic fro the municipalities' point of view among other things because it does not deduct the costs of settling the insolvency.
Izračun, ki so ga predložili nizozemski organi, je bil optimističen z vidika občin med drugim zato, ker v njem niso odšteti stroški postopka plačilne nesposobnosti.
It has already been seen that BNG, which as a financial institution has greater expertise in such calculations, is more prudent regarding the capacity of the liquidated assets to cover the creditors' claims.
Pokazalo se je že, da je banka BNG, ki ima kot finančna ustanova več strokovnega znanja in izkušenj pri takšnih izračunih, bolj preudarna v zvezi s tem, kako lahko likvidirana sredstva krijejo terjatev upnikov.
This explains why it had only 20 employees in 2002 for a turnover of EUR 27,5 million.
Zato je leta 2002 imelo le 20 zaposlenih in 27,5 milijona EUR prometa.
VAOP charges the local authorities for the cost of collection and initial treatment of the recyclable waste from their territory, and transfers to them the revenues generated by the sale of recyclable waste to producers of recycled material (e.g. recycled paper).
Združenje VAOP zaračunava lokalnim organom stroške zbiranja in začetne obdelave reciklažnih odpadkov, zbranih na njihovem ozemlju, ter jim nakazuje prihodke od prodaje reciklažnih odpadkov proizvajalcem recikliranega materiala (npr. recikliranega papirja).
They also acknowledge that some members of the supervisory board are appointed by these authorities, but they argue that the supervisory board is not involved in the bank’s day to day business, which is the responsibility of the management.
Prav tako priznavajo, da ti organi imenujejo nekatere člane nadzornega sveta, vendar trdijo, da nadzorni svet ne sodeluje pri vsakodnevnih dejavnostih banke, za katere je odgovorno vodstvo.
The Dutch authorities acknowledge that BNG’s shares are owned entirely by the State, the provinces and the municipalities.
Nizozemski organi priznavajo, da so vse delnice banke BNG v lasti države, provinc in občin.
on aid measure No C 49/2005 (ex N 233/2005) for Chemobudowa Kraków S.A.
o ukrepu pomoči št. C 49/2005 (prej N 233/2005) za družbo Chemobudowa Kraków S.A.
(notified under document number C(2006) 4214)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2006) 4214)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenimi določbami, in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
The planned aid to Chemobudowa Kraków S.A. (‘Chemobudowa Kraków’ or ‘the recipient’), a State-owned building company, was notified to the Commission by letter dated 29 April 2005, registered on 2 May 2005.
Komisija je bila z dopisom z dne 29. aprila 2005, evidentiranim 2. maja 2005, obveščena o načrtovani pomoči družbi Chemobudowa Kraków S.A. („Chemobudowa Kraków“ ali „prejemnik“), gradbenemu podjetju v državni lasti.
On 20 June 2005, the Commission asked Poland to submit certain missing documents.
Dne 20. junija 2005 je Komisija zaprosila Poljsko, naj predloži določene manjkajoče dokumente.
These were provided by letter dated 9 August 2005 registered on 11 August 2005.
Ti so bili predloženi z dopisom z dne 9. avgusta 2005, evidentiranim 11. avgusta 2005.
The Commission requested further information by letter dated 15 September 2005, to which Poland replied by letter dated 26 October and registered on 27 October 2005.
Komisija je zahtevala dodatne informacije z dopisom z dne 15. septembra 2005, na katerega je Poljska odgovorila z dopisom z dne 26. oktobra, ki je bil evidentiran 27. oktobra 2005.
On 21 December 2005, the Commission decided to initiate the Article 88(2) procedure in respect of two notified measures and two non-notified measures granted after Poland's accession to the EU because of doubts as to their compatibility with the common market.
Dne 21. decembra 2005 se je Komisija odločila, da sproži postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) glede dveh priglašenih in dveh nepriglašenih ukrepov, odobrenih po pristopu Poljske k EU, zaradi dvomov o njihovi združljivosti s skupnim trgom.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 28 June 2006.
Odločitev Komisije, da sproži postopek, je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti dne 28. junija 2006.
The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the aid measures.
Komisija je pozvala vse zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo svoje pripombe o ukrepih pomoči.
No comments were submitted.
Predložena ni bila nobena pripomba.
By letter dated 25 January 2006, registered on the following day, Poland informed the Commission that it had withdrawn the notification.
Z dopisom dne 25. januarja 2006, evidentiranim naslednjega dne, je Poljska obvestila Komisijo, da je umaknila priglasitev.
By letter dated 7 February 2005 the Commission called on Poland to comment on the two state aid measures granted after accession without prior notification to the Commission.
Z dopisom z dne 7. februarja 2005 je Komisija pozvala Poljsko, da izrazi svoje mnenje o dveh ukrepih državne pomoči, odobrenih po pristopu brez predhodne priglasitve Komisiji.
By letter of 7 March 2006, registered on 9 March 2006, Poland submitted its comments on these two measures and asked for the rectification of some incorrect data in the decision to initiate the Article 88(2) procedure.
Z dopisom z dne 7. marca 2006, evidentiranim 9. marca 2006, je Poljska predložila pripombe glede teh dveh ukrepov in prosila za popravek nekaterih napačnih podatkov glede odločitve o sprožitvi postopka v skladu s členom 88(2).
By letter dated 12 September 2006, registered on the following day, the Polish authorities provided further clarifications on the two aforementioned aid measures.
Z dopisom z dne 12. septembra 2006, evidentiranim naslednjega dne, so poljski organi podali nadaljnje razjasnitve glede dveh zgoraj omenjenih ukrepih pomoči.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
II PODROBEN OPIS
The aid recipient
1 Prejemnik pomoči
ChK is a large company created in 1949, which in 2004 employed 919 workers, 343 of whom in branches of the company located abroad (in the Czech Republic and Germany).
ChK je veliko podjetje, ustanovljeno leta 1949, ki je leta 2004 zaposlovalo 919 delavcev, od tega 343 v podružnicah podjetja, lociranih v tujini (v Češki republiki in Nemčiji).
ChK is the parent company of Towarzystwo Budownictwa Społecznego Krak-System S.A. (‘TBS’), in which it owns 78 % of shares.
ChK je matično podjetje družbe Towarzystwo Budownictwa Społecznego Krak-System S.A. („TBS“), v kateri ima v lasti 78 % delnic.
Its activity consists in building apartment blocks and renting them out.
Njene dejavnosti zajemajo gradnjo in oddajanje stanovanjskih blokov.
According to the Polish authorities its turnover is insignificant.
Po navedbah poljskih organov je promet družbe nepomemben.
The recipient has a market share of 0,13 % of the Polish building market.
Prejemnik ima tržni delež 0,13 % poljskega gradbenega trga.
It has branches in Germany and the Czech Republic and 42 % of its turnover comes from those two branches.
Družba ima podružnici v Nemčiji in Češki republiki ter 42 % prometa družbe realizirata ti dve podružnici.
The aid measures
2 Ukrepi pomoči
The Polish authorities have given notice that they intend to grant two measures for the restructuring of Chemobudowa Kraków.
Poljski organi so sporočili, da nameravajo odobriti dva ukrepa za prestrukturiranje družbe Chemobudowa Kraków.
First, the recipient was supposed to receive a loan of about PLN 10 million (EUR 2,57 million).
Prvič, prejemnik naj bi prejel posojilo v višini okoli 10 milijonov PLN (2,57 milijona EUR).
The loan was to be secured by a mortgage on real estate evaluated at PLN 17,35 million (about EUR 4,46 million).
Posojilo naj bi bilo zavarovano s hipoteko na nepremičnino, ocenjeno na 17,35 milijona PLN (približno 4,46 milijona EUR).
Second, Chemobudowa Kraków was to benefit from deferral of payments to the ‘State Fund for Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons’ (‘PFRON’) and these payments were to be made in instalments.
Drugič, družba Chemobudowa Kraków naj bi imela koristi od odložitve plačila v „Državni sklad za rehabilitacijo invalidnih oseb“ („PFRON“) in ta plačila naj bi bila izvedena v obrokih.
The deferred amount was to be equal to PLN 693000 (about EUR 178000).
Odloženi znesek naj bi bil enak 693000 PLN (okoli 178000 EUR).
In addition to the above notified measures, the Polish authorities have informed the Commission of 18 measures in favour of Chemobudowa Kraków granted between December 2001 and May 2004.
Poleg zgoraj omenjenih priglašenih ukrepov so poljski organi obvestili Komisijo o 18 ukrepih v korist družbe Chemobudowa Kraków, odobrenih med decembrom 2001 in majem 2004.
According to the Polish authorities, the nominal value of these measures is PLN 8,511 million (EUR 2,19 million).
Po navedbah poljskih organov nominalna vrednost teh ukrepov znaša 8,511 milijona PLN (2,19 milijona EUR).
Poland has requested that these measures not be treated as state aid, claiming that some of them are de minimis aid and that the others pass the private creditor test.
Poljska je zahtevala, naj se ti ukrepi ne štejejo kot državna pomoč, in trdila, da so nekateri izmed njih de minimis pomoč, drugi pa so prestali preskus zasebnih upnikov.
The Commission concluded that two of these eighteen measures had been granted after accession without the Commission's approval and therefore had to be treated as potential new unlawful aid.
Komisija je ugotovila, da sta bila dva od teh osemnajstih ukrepov odobrena po pristopu brez odobritve Komisije in zato ju je treba obravnavati kot potencialno novo nezakonito pomoč.
The first measure granted after Poland's accession, i.e. on 12 May 2004, is an agreement for payment of debts of PLN 3,164 million (EUR 0,81 million) to the Social Insurance Fund (hereinafter ‘ZUS’) to be made in instalments.
Prvi ukrep, odobren po pristopu Poljske, tj. 12. maja 2004, je sporazum o plačilu dolgov v višini 3,164 milijona PLN (0,81 milijona EUR) Skladu za socialno zavarovanje (v nadaljevanju „ZUS“), ki naj se izvede v obrokih.
According to the Polish authorities, the amount of the aid is PLN 147322 (EUR 37874).
Po navedbah poljskih organov znaša pomoč 147322 PLN (37874 EUR).
Even before the decision to initiate the Article 88(2) procedure, the Polish authorities informed the Commission that the arrangement had been annulled because Chemobudowa Kraków did not meet the relevant conditions.
Še pred odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka v skladu s členom 88(2) so poljski organi obvestili Komisijo, da je bil sporazum razveljavljen, ker družba Chemobudowa Kraków ni izpolnjevala ustreznih pogojev.
The Commission had doubts as to whether the above-mentioned debts had been honoured by the recipient and whether failure to enforce the debts might not constitute additional state aid.
Komisija je izrazila dvome o tem, ali je prejemnik plačal zgoraj omenjene dolgove in ali morda nezmožnost izterjave dolgov pomeni dodatno državno pomoč.
The second measure granted after accession on 20 May 2004 was granted by the Head of Małopolska Treasury Office and consisted of an agreement for debts of PLN 280000 (EUR 71979) to be paid in instalments.
Drugi ukrep, odobren po pristopu dne 20. maja 2004, je odobril vodja Urada za zakladništvo Małopolska in je zajemal sporazum o dolgovih v višini 280000 PLN (71979 EUR), ki naj bi bili plačani v obrokih.
Grounds for initiating the procedure
3 Razlogi za sprožitev postopka
The Commission wished to clarify whether the eighteen measures referred to above constituted state aid as, in order to assess the compatibility of measures granted after accession, it had to take into account all aid measures granted in the context of restructuring, especially with a view to determining whether aid was limited to the necessary minimum.
Komisija je želela razjasniti, ali osemnajst zgoraj omenjenih ukrepov predstavlja državno pomoč, saj je morala, da bi ocenila združljivost ukrepov, odobrenih po pristopu, upoštevati vse ukrepe pomoči, dodeljene v okviru prestrukturiranja, zlasti z namenom, da bi ugotovila, ali je bila pomoč omejena na najnižjo potrebno raven.
Moreover, two of the eighteen measures were granted after accession.
Poleg tega sta bila dva od osemnajstih ukrepov odobrena po pristopu.
The Commission has analysed this aid in the light of the 2004 Guidelines on rescue and restructuring aid for firms in difficulty.
Komisija je analizirala to pomoč z vidika Smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah iz leta 2004.
The Commission decided to initiate the Article 88(2) procedure because it doubted whether all the conditions for approving restructuring aid had been met, and in particular whether:
Komisija se je odločila sprožiti postopek v skladu s členom 88(2), ker je podvomila, da so bili vsi pogoji za odobritev pomoči za prestrukturiranje izpolnjeni in zlasti da:
the restructuring plan would restore the recipient's long-term viability, given that its main focus was financial restructuring;
bi načrt za prestrukturiranje ponovno vzpostavil prejemnikovo dolgoročno sposobnost preživetja, glede na to, da je bil glavni cilj prejemnika finančno prestrukturiranje;
the recipient's contribution to restructuring costs was significant, as the Commission lacked sufficient information on its source;
je bil prejemnikov prispevek k stroškom prestrukturiranja znaten, ker Komisija ni imela zadostnih informacij o prejemnikovem viru;
the company was eligible for restructuring aid as the recipient had managed to generate operating profits of PLN 5,4 million (EUR 1,388 million) in 2004.
je bila družba upravičena do pomoči za prestrukturiranje, ker je prejemniku uspelo zbrati dobiček iz poslovanja v višini 5,4 milijona PLN (1,388 milijona EUR) v letu 2004.
COMMENTS FROM THE POLISH AUTHORITIES
III PRIPOMBE POLJSKIH ORGANOV
In their letter of 25 January 2006 the Polish authorities informed the Commission that they had withdrawn the notification of the measures referred to in paragraph 7 above.
V svojem dopisu z dne 25. januarja 2006 so poljski organi obvestili Komisijo, da so umaknili obvestilo o ukrepih iz odstavka 7 zgoraj.
With regard to the two measures granted after accession without prior notification to the Commission, Poland stated the following:
V zvezi z dvema ukrepoma, odobrenima po pristopu brez predhodne priglasitve Komisiji, je Poljska izjavila naslednje:
With regard to the first measure granted after accession, i.e. on 12 May 2004, described in paragraph 9 above, Poland indicated that the agreement had been annulled because Chemobudowa Kraków did not meet the relevant conditions.
V zvezi s prvim ukrepom, odobrenim po pristopu, tj. 12. maja 2004, opisanim v odstavku 9 zgoraj, je Poljska navedla, da je bil sporazum razveljavljen, ker družba Chemobudowa Kraków ni izpolnjevala ustreznih pogojev.
In addition, the company had paid off all its debts with interest.
Poleg tega je družba odplačala vse svoje dolgove skupaj z obrestmi.
With regard to the second measure granted after accession, i.e. on 20 May 2004, described in paragraph 10 above, Poland stated that the measure passed the private creditor test and added that if the Commission did not agree with that assessment, the measure constituted de minimis aid.
V zvezi z drugim ukrepom, odobrenim po pristopu, tj. 20. maja 2004, opisanim v odstavku 10 zgoraj, je Poljska navedla, da je ukrep prestal preskus zasebnih upnikov, in dodala, da če se Komisija ne strinja s tisto oceno, ukrep predstavlja pomoč de minimis.
The Polish authorities indicated that most of the aid received by the recipient during the corresponding three-year period, including the aid measure referred to in paragraph 10, was below the EUR 100000 threshold and as such constituted de minimis aid.
Poljski organi so navedli, da je bila večina pomoči, ki jo je prejemnik prejel v zadevnem triletnem obdobju, vključno z ukrepom pomoči iz odstavka 10, pod mejo 100000 EUR in je kot taka predstavljala pomoč de minimis.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES
IV OCENA UKREPOV
Poland withdrew notification of the two state aid measures referred to in paragraph 7 above.
Poljska je umaknila obvestilo o ukrepih dveh državnih pomoči iz odstavka 7 zgoraj.
However, in order to terminate the Article 88(2) procedure, the Commission needs to assess the two non-notified measures described in paragraphs 9 and 10.
Vendar pa mora Komisija, da bi zaključila postopek v skladu s členom 88(2), oceniti dva nepriglašena ukrepa, opisana v odstavkih 9 in 10.
With regard to the measure described in paragraph 9, Poland has confirmed that no state aid has been granted by ZUS since accession.
Glede na ukrep, opisan v odstavku 9, je Poljska potrdila, da od pristopa ZUS ni odobril nobene državne pomoči.
The Commission takes the view that as this measure was annulled and never came into force and as all debts vis-à-vis ZUS were reimbursed with interest, the measure does not constitute state aid.
Komisija meni, da ukrep ne predstavlja državne pomoči, ker so bili ti ukrepi razveljavljeni in niso nikoli začeli veljati, ker so bili vsi dolgovi do ZUS-a povrnjeni skupaj z obrestmi.
Regarding the measure described in paragraph 10 above, on the basis of the information available, the Commission concludes that the measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, since the Polish authorities have confirmed that the de minimis aid threshold was not exceeded.
Komisija v zvezi z ukrepom, opisanim v odstavku 10 zgoraj, na podlagi dostopnih informacij ugotavlja, da ukrep ne predstavlja državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, ker so poljski organi potrdili, da meja de minimis pomoči ni bila presežena.
V. CONCLUSION
V SKLEP