natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Third, Romania emphasises that the criteria in the presentation file did not have any effect on the bidders, especially since all potential interested parties were automotive undertakings.
Tretjič, Romunija poudarja, da merila v predstavitvenem dokumentu niso vplivala na ponudnike, zlasti zato, ker so vse potencialne zainteresirane strani avtomobilska podjetja.
It also submits that these criteria had no influence on the purchase price offered by Ford, since they were compatible with its business plan.
Dodaja, da ta merila niso vplivala na nakupno ceno, ki jo je ponudil Ford, saj so bila skladna z njegovim poslovnim načrtom.
According to Romania, the production level of 200000 cars per year, as required by AVAS in the presentation file, needs to be achieved for economic reasons: given the size and capacity of the car plant, which is equipped to build small models, production of less than 200000 cars per year would not be profitable.
Po mnenju Romunije je treba obseg proizvodnje 200000 avtomobilov letno, kot ga zahteva AVAS v predstavitvenem dokumentu, uresničiti iz ekonomskih razlogov: glede na obseg in zmogljivost tovarne avtomobilov, ki je opremljena za proizvodnjo majhnih modelov, proizvodnja manj kot 200000 avtomobilov letno ne bi bila dobičkonosna.
Fourth, Romania argues that it acted as a market economy operator when selling its participation in Automobile Craiova.
Četrtič, Romunija trdi, da je delovala kot tržni subjekt pri prodaji svojega deleža v podjetju Automobile Craiova.
It claims that the price obtained represents the market value and presents the following arguments: DWAR purchased 51 % of the shares in 2006 from the former parent company Daewoo Motors Ltd. for a sales price of USD 50 million.
Izjavlja, da dosežena cena predstavlja tržno vrednost in to utemeljuje z naslednjimi razlogi: DWAR je leta 2006 kupil 51 % delnic od nekdanje matične družbe Daewoo Motors Ltd. za prodajno ceno 50 milijonov USD.
Finally, according to the valuation of DWAR made by an independent expert KPMG after the bankruptcy of the parent company, the company was valued in 2004 at between USD 18 million and USD 81 million, depending on the valuation method used.
Končno pa na podlagi vrednotenja, ki ga je DWAR naročil pri neodvisni ekspertni firmi KPMG po bankrotu matične družbe, je bila družba v letu 2004 ocenjena na 18 do 81 milijonov USD, odvisno od uporabljene metode.
Fifth, as regards the alleged indemnification, Romania submitted detailed information on the debt arrangement included in the special law on the privatisation of Automobile Craiova.
Petič, kar zadeva domnevno odškodnino, je Romunija predložila podrobne informacije o sporazumu glede dolga, ki je vključen v poseben predpis o privatizaciji podjetja Automobile Craiova.
It argues that, according to normal business practice, AVAS takes over only debts which are not foreseeable and cannot be quantified.
Trdi, da na podlagi običajne poslovne prakse AVAS prevzema samo dolgove, ki niso predvidljivi in jih ni mogoče količinsko opredeliti.
It emphasises that Automobile Craiova and DWAR do not have any outstanding debts towards the State, except those deriving from the normal course of business.
Poudarja, da podjetji Automobile Craiova in DWAR nimata neporavnanih dolgov do države, razen tistih, ki izvirajo iz običajnega poslovanja.
In addition, because of the payments amounting to USD 10 million paid in 2006 to the parent company [5], DWAR does not have any outstanding debts to former Daewoo subsidiaries.
Poleg tega so bili v letu 2006 matični družbi izplačani zneski v višini 10 milijonov USD [5], zato DWAR nima neporavnanih dolgov do nekdanjih hčerinskih družb podjetja Daewoo.
The local customs authority calculated the production integration level of the company in 2005 and came to the conclusion that the 60 % ceiling was not reached.
Lokalni carinski organ je izračunal integracijsko raven družbe v letu 2005 in prišel do zaključka, da 60 % zgornja meja ni bila dosežena.
Thus, it claimed repayment of the tax exemptions, which amounted to EUR 800 million. DWAR challenged the decision before the National Customs Authority.
Zato je terjal povračilo davčnih oprostitev v višini 800 milijonov EUR. DWAR se je na odločitev pritožil pri nacionalni Carinski upravi.
Since the court of first instance upheld the repayment decision, DWAR filed a new appeal.
Ker je prvostopenjsko sodišče potrdilo odločitev o vračilu sredstev, je DWAR vložil ponovno pritožbo.
The court of appeal, in a judgment of 27 June 2007, annulled the repayment order.
Drugostopenjsko sodišče je v razsodbi z dne 27. junija 2007 odločitev o vračilu razveljavilo.
In conclusion, Romania stresses that DWAR did not benefit from any debt waiver.
V zaključku Romunija poudarja, da DWAR ni imel koristi zaradi odpovedi dolgu.
Seventh, the Romanian authorities argue that maintaining the current workforce was never a condition of the privatisation since it was not an award criterion.
Sedmič, romunski organi trdijo, da ohranitev trenutnega števila zaposlenih nikoli ni bil pogoj za privatizacijo, ker to ni bilo merilo za dodelitev na razpisu.
In addition, the draft SPA attached to the presentation file was only indicative and so potential bidders could have understood that the individual terms of the contract could be subject to bilateral negotiations.
Poleg tega je osnutek SPA, priložen k predstavitvenemu dokumentu, zgolj indikativen, zato so potencialni ponudniki lahko razumeli, da so posamezni pogoji v pogodbi lahko predmet dvostranskih pogajanj.
Therefore, potential bidders who did not plan to maintain the current workforce could have nevertheless submitted an offer with a different business plan.
Zato bi potencialni ponudniki, ki niso nameravali ohraniti trenutno število zaposlenih, kljub temu lahko predložili ponudbo z drugačnim poslovnim načrtom.
Lastly, as regards the subsequent negotiations on other contractual terms, Romania claims that they were part of the normal negotiation process preceding the conclusion of the SPA.
Zadnjič, kar zadeva poznejša pogajanja o drugih pogodbenih pogojih, je Romunija trdila, da so bili del običajnega pogajalskega procesa pred sklenitvijo SPA.
COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES
PRIPOMBE TRETJIH OSEB
By letter of 23 November 2007, Ford intervened as an interested party in the procedure initiated by the Commission.
Podjetje Ford je kot zainteresirana stranka z dopisom z dne 23. novembra 2007 posredoval v postopku, ki ga je sprožila Komisija.
First, Ford argues that the privatisation process was open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional.
Prvič, Ford trdi, da je bil privatizacijski proces odprt, pregleden, nediskriminatoren in brezpogojen.
All the correspondence between Ford and AVAS during the privatisation process was disclosed in the Data Room.
Celotno dopisovanje med Fordom in AVAS-om med privatizacijskim procesom je bilo razkrito v podatkovni sobi.
Second, the award criteria were not mandatory conditions liable to deter potential bidders.
Drugič, merila za dodelitev niso bila obvezni pogoji, ki bi lahko odvrnili morebitne ponudnike.
On the contrary, Ford declared that it was its understanding that these criteria were negotiable.
Nasprotno, Ford je izjavil, da je razumel, da obstaja možnost pogajanja glede meril.
Further, the scoring criteria had no impact on Ford's offer since Ford's business plan easily exceeded the requirements set out in the presentation file.
Nadalje, točkovna merila niso imela vpliva na Fordovo ponudbo, saj je Fordov poslovni načrt zlahka presegel zahteve, določene v predstavitvenem dokumentu.
Third, the purchase price paid by Ford to AVAS represents the market value of the shares covered by the tender procedure.
Tretjič, odkupna cena, ki jo je Ford plačal AVAS-u, predstavlja tržno vrednost delnic, zajetih v razpisnem postopku.
Ford stated that it had intended paying a maximum purchase price of USD 100 million (i.e. EUR 71,4 million) for all the shares, which would correspond to a price of EUR 51,7 million for 72,4 % [6].
Ford je izjavil, da je najvišja odkupna cena, ki jo je imel namen plačati, 100 milijonov USD (tj. 71,4 milijona EUR) za vse delnice, kar bi ustrezalo ceni 51,7 milijonov EUR za 72,4 % [6].
It did not intend to offer a higher price, even in the absence of the award criteria.
Ni imel namena ponuditi višje cene, tudi če ne bi bilo meril za dodelitev.
Initially, Ford offered a purchase price of EUR 55 million and, after negotiations with the Romanian authorities, one of EUR 57 million. Furthermore, Ford was the only bidder, so that its offer represents the market value.
Najprej je Ford ponudil odkupno ceno 55 milijonov EUR, po pogajanjih z romunskimi organi pa ceno 57 milijonov EUR. Nadalje, Ford je bil edini ponudnik, tako da njegova ponudba predstavlja tržno vrednost.
Lastly, Ford argues that indemnifications contained in the SPA were standard business practice for the acquisition of companies and thus in conformity with the market and did not lead to a sale at a price lower than the highest possible bid.
Nazadnje Ford trdi, da so odškodnine, vsebovane v SPA, običajna poslovna praksa pri prevzemih podjetij in torej v skladu s trgom in niso vodile v prodajo po nižji ceni kot je najvišja ponudba.
Ford highlights the fact that such indemnifications relate only to risks outside the ordinary course of business and are impossible to assess by a new investor on taking over a company.
Ford poudarja, da so takšne odškodnine povezane le s tveganji zunaj običajne poslovne dejavnosti in jih nov vlagatelj ob prevzemu podjetja ne more oceniti.
Ford has assumed all the debts and liabilities of Automobile Craiova, including DWAR, that had arisen in the ordinary course of business and that were quantified and disclosed in the Data Room.
Ford je prevzel vse dolgove in obveznosti podjetja Automobile Craiova, vključno z DWAR, ki so se pojavili v običajnem poslovanju, in ki so bili količinsko določeni in razkriti v Podatkovni sobi.
However, Ford was not willing to assume potential risks which it could not assess and quantify on the basis of due diligence.
Vendar Ford ni želel prevzeti morebitnih tveganj, ki jih s potrebno skrbnostjo ni mogel oceniti in količinsko določiti.
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty states that, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the common market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States.
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES določa, da razen če ni drugače določeno v pogodbi, 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.
State resources and conferring of an advantage
Državna sredstva in dajanje prednosti
The conditions pertaining to the privatisation contract were attached by the Romanian public privatisation agency, AVAS.
Pogoje, ki se nanašajo na privatizacijsko pogodbo, je dodala romunska javna privatizacijska agencija, AVAS.
By attaching such conditions, which could lead to a fall in the sales price, as shown below, the Romanian State accepted that it would not obtain the highest possible price.
Z dodajanjem takih pogojev, ki bi lahko vodili v padec prodajne cene, kot je prikazano spodaj, je Romunija sprejela, da ne bo dosegla najvišje možne cene.
In addition, the Commission takes note of the fact that the actions of the public privatisation agency, AVAS, are attributable to the State.
Poleg tega Komisija upošteva dejstvo, da se dejanja javne privatizacijske agencije, AVAS, pripisujejo državi.
This fact is not disputed by the Romanian authorities.
Romunski organi tega ne zanikajo.
A given measure cannot be regarded as constituting aid if it does not confer an advantage [7].
Danega ukrepa ni mogoče šteti za pomoč, če ne prinaša ugodnosti [7].
Accordingly, the Commission must determine whether the measure in question confers an advantage.
V skladu s tem mora Komisija določiti, ali ta ukrep prinaša ugodnosti.
An undertaking benefits from an advantage if it obtains something positive from the State which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Podjetje ima korist od ugodnosti, če od države dobi nekaj pozitivnega, česar ne bi dobilo pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
To this end, it has first to be assessed whether the State acted as a market economy operator or as a state authority which sold a company under conditions not corresponding to normal market conditions.
V ta namen je treba najprej oceniti, ali je država ravnala kot tržni subjekt ali kot državni organ, ki je prodal podjetje pod pogoji, ki ne ustrezajo običajnim tržnim pogojem.
According to Article 86(1) of the EC Treaty, public companies are subject to State aid rules.
V skladu s členom 86(1) Pogodbe ES morajo javna podjetja upoštevati predpise državne pomoči.
Article 295 of the EC Treaty stipulates that Community rules are neutral as regards public and private ownership.
Člen 295 Pogodbe ES določa, da so predpisi Skupnosti glede javnega in zasebnega lastništva nevtralni.
In conformity with the settled case law of the European courts [8] and with the rules and practice developed by the Commission regarding State aid in the context of privatisations [9], when a Member State either acquires or sells shares in companies, no advantage is conferred if the behaviour of the Member States is the same as that which a market economy investor would have.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso evropskih sodišč [8] ter predpisi in prakso, ki jo je razvila Komisija glede državne pomoči na področju privatizacij [9], kadar država članica kupi ali proda deleže v podjetjih, to ne prinaša ugodnosti, če je ravnanje držav članic enako, kot bi bilo ravnanje tržnega vlagatelja.
Consequently, when the privatisation takes place by way of the sale of shares on the stock exchange, it is generally assumed to be on market conditions and not to involve aid.
Posledično, ko se privatizacija izvede s prodajo deležev na borzi, se na splošno predpostavlja, da je bila izvedena pod tržnimi pogoji, in da ni vključevala pomoči.
However, when the privatisation is carried out through a trade sale, it can be assumed that no aid is involved only if the following conditions are fulfilled: first, the company is sold by a competitive tender that is open to all comers, transparent and non-discriminatory; second, no conditions are attached which are not customary in comparable transactions between private parties and which are capable of potentially reducing the sales price; third, the company is sold to the highest bidder; and, fourth, bidders must be given enough time and information to carry out a proper valuation of the assets being bid for [10].
Vendar, kadar se privatizacija izvede preko tržne prodaje, se predvideva, da ni bilo nikakršne pomoči, če so izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji: prvič, podjetje se prodaja preko razpisa za zbiranje ponudb, ki je odprt za vse, pregleden in nediskriminatoren; drugič, na pogodbo niso vezani nobeni pogoji, ki niso običajni v primerljivem poslovanju med zasebnimi strankami, in ki bi lahko znižali prodajno ceno; tretjič, podjetje se proda najboljšemu ponudniku; in četrtič, ponudniki morajo imeti dovolj časa in informacij za ustrezno vrednotenje sredstev, ki so predmet ponudbe [10].
In other cases, trade sales must be vetted for any possible aid and must therefore be notified.
V drugih primerih morajo biti tržne prodaje povezane z morebitno pomočjo, za kar obstaja obveznost priglasitve.
In such cases, assessing whether a transaction concerning state assets involves aid generally means determining whether a market economy operator placed in a similar situation would have behaved in the same way, i.e. would have sold the company at the same price.
V takih primerih ocenjevanje, ali posel, ki zadeva državna sredstva, vključuje pomoč, na splošno pomeni določanje, ali bi tržni subjekt v podobni situaciji ravnal enako, tj. bi prodal podjetje po isti ceni.
In applying the market economy investor principle, non-economic considerations, such as industrial policy reasons, employment considerations or regional development objectives, which would not be acceptable to a market economy operator, cannot be taken into account as reasons for accepting a lower price but, on the contrary, point to the existence of aid.
Pri uporabi načela tržnega vlagatelja neekonomskih razlogov, kot so razlogi industrijske politike, zaposlitveni razlogi ali cilji regionalnega razvoja, ki za tržni subjekt ne bi bili sprejemljivi, ni mogoče upoštevati kot razloge za sprejem nižje cene, ampak nasprotno taki razlogi kažejo na obstoj pomoči.
This principle has been repeatedly explained by the Commission [11] and constantly confirmed by the Court [12].
To načelo je večkrat razlagala Komisija [11] in stalno potrjevalo Sodišče [12].
Therefore, if any of the above requirements are not fulfilled, the Commission considers that the privatisation should be assessed to determine whether it entails State aid and must therefore be notified [13].
Če torej katere od zgornjih zahtev niso izpolnjene, Komisija meni, da je treba oceniti privatizacijo in ugotoviti, ali vključuje državno pomoč in mora torej biti priglašena [13].
Consequently, compliance with these requirements would ensure that the State obtains the highest price, i.e. the market price, for its shares and no State aid is therefore involved.
Posledično bi izpolnjevanje teh zahtev zagotavljalo, da bi država dosegla najvišjo ceno, tj. tržno ceno za svoje deleže, in privatizacija tako ne bi vključevala državne pomoči.
By imposing certain conditions on the buyer in the privatisation, the State potentially lowers the sales price and thus forgoes additional revenues.
S postavljanjem določenih pogojev kupcu v privatizaciji država potencialno znižuje prodajno ceno in se tako odpoveduje dodatnim prihodkom.
Also, some conditions can deter potentially interested investors from submitting a bid in the first place, so that the competitive environment of the tender is disturbed and even the highest of the offers eventually submitted does not necessarily represent the actual market value [14].
Prav tako lahko zaradi nekaterih pogojev potencialni zainteresirani vlagatelji že na začetku odstopijo od oddaje, zaradi česar je motena konkurenčnost razpisa in celo najvišja izmed končno oddanih ponudb ne predstavlja nujno dejanske tržne vrednosti [14].
By imposing such conditions and thus accepting that it will not receive the best price for the shares or assets owned by it, the State does not act like a market economy operator, who would try to obtain the highest possible price.
S postavljanjem takih pogojev kupcu in s tem sprejemanjem, da ne bo dosegla najboljše cene za deleže ali sredstva v njeni lasti, država ne ravna kot tržni subjekt, ki bi skušal doseči najvišjo možno ceno.
Instead, the State chooses to sell the undertaking at a price below the market value.
Namesto tega se država odloči prodati podjetje po ceni pod tržno vrednostjo.
A market economy operator would not have an economic interest in attaching comparable conditions (in particular, such as maintenance of the level of employment, conditions beneficial for the geographical region concerned or ensuring a certain investment level) but would sell the company to the highest bidder, who would then be free to determine the future of the acquired company or assets [15].
Tržni subjekt ne bi imel ekonomskega interesa za vezanje primerljivih pogojev (še posebej takšnih, kot je ohranjanje stopnje zaposlenosti, ugodni pogoji za dano geografsko regijo ali zagotavljanje določenega obsega naložb), ampak bi prodal podjetje najboljšemu ponudniku, ki bi nato svobodno odločal o prihodnosti kupljenega podjetja ali sredstev [15].
This does not mean that all the conditions of a privatisation automatically result in the presence of some State aid elements.
To ne pomeni, da vsi pogoji privatizacije ne vodijo samodejno k prisotnosti elementov državne pomoči.
First, the conditions that are also normally encountered in transactions between private parties (certain standard forms of indemnification on account of the solvency of the bidder or conformity with domestic legislation on labour relations) do not constitute a problem.
Prvič, pogoji, ki tudi običajno veljajo v poslovanju med zasebnimi strankami (določene standardne oblike odškodnin na račun plačilne sposobnosti ponudnika ali skladnost z notranjim pravom o delovnih razmerjih), ne predstavljajo težav.
Second, the conditions which do not normally seem to be present in transactions between private persons result in the presence of State aid only to the extent that they make it possible to reduce the sales price and can confer an advantage.
Drugič, pogoji, ki običajno niso prisotni v poslovanju med zasebniki, vodijo k prisotnosti državne pomoči le v obsegu, ko omogočajo znižanje prodajne cene in lahko prinesejo ugodnost.
The fact that these conditions do not result in aid must be demonstrated in each case in question [16].
Dejstvo, da ti pogoji ne vodijo v pomoč, mora biti prikazano za vsak zadeven primer [16].
Conditions attached to the privatisation of Automobile Craiova
Pogoji, vezani na privatizacijo podjetja Automobile Craiova
In the case in point, the tender procedure organised by the Romanian authorities was geared primarily to achieving a given level of production and amount of employment in Craiova.
V tem primeru je bil razpisni postopek, ki so ga organizirali romunski organi, usmerjen predvsem k doseganju določene stopnje proizvodnje in ravni zaposlenosti v mestu Craiova.
The Romanian authorities have not produced any evidence to show that these conditions were imposed for reasons that a market economy operator would have taken into account.
Romunski organi niso predstavili nobenih dokazov, ki bi pokazali, da so bili ti pogoji postavljeni iz razlogov, ki bi jih upošteval tržni subjekt.
When privatising Automobile Craiova, the privatisation agency set four conditions in the form of award criteria in order to select the successful bidder: the price offered represented 35 % of the total score, the total investments 25 %, the achievement of a production integration level of 60 % in the fourth year 20 %, and the commitment to a production level of 200000 cars in the fourth year 20 %.
Pri privatizaciji podjetja Automobile Craiova je privatizacijska agencija določila štiri pogoje v obliki meril za dodelitev, da bi se izbral uspešen ponudnik: ponujena cena je predstavljala 35 % celotnega rezultata, celotne naložbe 25 %, doseganje 60 % ravni proizvodne integracije v četrtem letu 20 % in zaveza k ravni proizvodnje 200000 avtomobilov v četrtem letu 20 %.
If the last two requirements were not fulfilled by the potential investor, the offer would score 0 points on those particular criteria.
Če potencialni vlagatelj ne bi izpolnil zadnjih dveh zahtev, bi bil rezultat ponudbe po teh merilih 0 točk.
Thus, it was practically impossible for a potential investor making different industrial use of the car plant to win solely on account of a higher sales price, without achieving the production and integration levels required (assuming that the investment level was the same).
Tako je bilo praktično nemogoče, da bi potencialni vlagatelj, ki bi prakticiral različno industrijsko uporabo avtomobilskega obrata, dobil ponudbo samo zaradi višje prodajne cene brez doseganja zahtevanih proizvodnih in integracijskih ravni (ob predpostavki, da bi bil obseg naložb enak).
Assuming that a competitive investor might have proposed a similar level of investments but would not have been able to fulfil the production level criterion, this competitive bidder would (in order to win the bid) have to propose a price equivalent to 230 % of the price proposed by Ford [17].
Če bi konkurenčni vlagatelj ponudil podoben obseg naložb, a ne bi mogel izpolniti merila ravni proizvodnje, bi moral ta konkurenčni ponudnik (da bi dobil ponudbo) ponuditi ceno, ki bi ustrezala 230 % cene, ki jo je ponudil Ford [17].