natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the one hand, it would be compatible on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty since it pursues a legitimate objective and does not affect trade to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Po eni strani bi bil združljiv na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, ker zasleduje legitimen cilj in ne učinkuje na trgovino v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
On the other hand, it would be compatible on the basis of Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty.
Po drugi strani pa bi bil združljiv na podlagi člena 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES.
In the latter respect, France furthermore points to various obstacles to recovery, referring in particular to the principle of legitimate expectations.
V zvezi s tem Francija opozarja tudi na različne ovire pri izterjavi in se pri tem sklicuje predvsem na načelo upravičenih pričakovanj.
According to France, the Commission has traditionally taken no action with regard to medium- or long-term export credits.
Po mnenju Francije Komisija kot ponavadi ni ukrepala v zvezi s srednjeročnimi in dolgoročnimi izvoznimi krediti.
The measure is also compatible with the rules of the OECD Arrangement.
Ukrep je združljiv tudi s predpisi Sporazuma OECD.
On these points, France's analysis reflects the comments presented by the other Member States mentioned in paragraph 53.
V teh točkah analiza Francije odraža pripombe, ki so jih podale druge države članice, navedene v odstavku 53.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
6 OCENA UKREPA
In order to assess the measure implemented by France in March 2004, the Commission has first to establish whether it constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Da bi lahko ocenila ukrep, ki ga je Francija izvedla marca 2004, je morala Komisija najprej ugotoviti, ali pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
In this connection, it points out that an export credit or a guarantee linked to such a credit may, especially where it relates to a transaction between Member States, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
V zvezi s ten poudarja, da je izvozni kredit ali jamstvo, povezano s takim kreditom, lahko pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, zlasti kadar se nanaša na transakcije med državami članicami.
The OECD Arrangement does not automatically rule out the possibility that such a measure may constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) [9].
Sporazum OECD ne more samodejno izključiti možnosti, da tovrstni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) [9].
In its decision initiating the procedure, the Commission states that, on the basis of an initial analysis, the measure does not seem to constitute aid, in particular because it does not seem to confer an advantage on the beneficiary.
V svoji odločitvi o sproženju postopka Komisija trdi, da ukrep na podlagi prvotne analize očitno ne pomeni pomoči, zlasti ker ne predstavlja koristi za upravičenca.
Accordingly, it should be ascertained whether there are any new elements that call the preliminary analysis into question.
Skladno s tem je treba ugotoviti, ali obstajajo kakršni koli novi elementi, ki bi spodbijali predhodno analizo.
Classification as State aid: existence of an advantage
Opredelitev državne pomoči: obstoj koristi
In its decision initiating the procedure, the Commission notes that the measure is a guarantee in respect of a loan provided by some banks to TVO and rules out the possibility that it confers an advantage on the banks.
V svoji odločitvi o sproženju postopka Komisija navaja, da je ukrep jamstvo v skladu s posojilom, ki so ga podjetju TVO zagotovile nekatere banke, in izključuje možnost, da bankam prinaša koristi.
This assessment has not been challenged by the parties that presented their comments to the Commission under the present procedure.
Stranke, ki so Komisiji predložile svoje pripombe v zvezi z zadevnim postopkom, niso izpodbijale te ocene.
The Commission, in this decision, will therefore simply verify the existence or otherwise of an advantage for the borrower TVO and its supplier AREVA NP.
Komisija bo zato pri tej odločitvi zgolj preverila obstoj koristi za kreditojemalca, podjetje TVO, in njegovega dobavitelja, podjetje AREVA NP.
As regard the latter, the decision initiating the procedure states that it cannot be ruled out at this stage that France made the provision of the guarantee to TVO conditional on the contract being concluded with AREVA NP.
Glede podjetja AREVA NP je v odločitvi o sproženju postopka navedeno, da na tej stopnji ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da je Francija odobrila jamstvo podjetju TVO pod pogojem, da pogodbo sklene s podjetjem AREVA NP.
If this were the case, France would be conferring an advantage on TVO provided that AREVA NP were selected as the supplier.
Če je tako, bi Francija prednostno obravnavala podjetje TVO pod pogojem, da za dobavitelja izbere podjetje AREVA NP.
AREVA NP would, therefore, also benefit from the measure.
Podjetje AREVA NP bi torej prav tako pridobilo koristi na podlagi ukrepa.
It follows that the existence of an advantage for TVO is a necessary prior condition for the existence of an advantage for AREVA NP.
Iz tega sledi, da je obstoj koristi za podjetje TVO nujen predpogoj za obstoj koristi za podjetje AREVA NP.
In the present decision, the Commission will therefore ascertain initially the existence or otherwise of an advantage for TVO.
V zadevni odločbi bo zato Komisija najprej raziskala obstoj koristi za podjetje TVO.
The advantage that a borrower like TVO might obtain from a public guarantee in respect of a loan is a reduction in its financing costs.
Korist, ki bi jo kreditojemalec, kot je podjetje TVO, lahko pridobil iz javnega jamstva v zvezi s posojilom, je znižanje njegovih stroškov financiranja.
In order to establish whether or not a public guarantee confers an advantage on the borrower, there is a case therefore for determining which financial charges the borrower would have had to bear if it had resorted to the market in bank loans without any public intervention and for comparing this cost with the cost incurred after public intervention.
Da bi ugotovili, ali je javno jamstvo kreditojemalcu prineslo koristi, je treba opredeliti, kakšne finančne stroške bi imel kreditojemalec, če bi na trgu bančnih posojil deloval brez javnega posredovanja, in te stroške primerjati s stroški, ki so nastali po javnem posredovanju.
It should also be ascertained whether some companies simply have no access to the capital market and can take this step only with the help of public intervention.
Prav tako je treba ugotoviti, ali določena podjetja enostavno nimajo dostopa do kapitalskega trga in se tovrstnih korakov lahko lotijo le z javnim posredovanjem.
In such a case, the advantage accruing from public intervention may be even greater.
V takem primeru so lahko koristi, ki jih prinaša javno posredovanje, še večje.
In such circumstances and given the fact that EREF doubts that VTO had access to the market in bank loans at the time, the Commission, before analysing whether there was any reduction in financial charges, will ascertain whether TVO had access to the capital market and whether such access was sufficient to finance the entire Olkiluoto 3 project.
V teh okoliščinah in glede na dvom združenja EREF, da je imelo podjetje TVO v tistem času dostop do trga bančnih posojil, bo Komisija pred analizo, ali je prišlo do kakršnega koli zmanjšanja finančnih stroškov, ugotovila, ali je podjetje TVO imelo dostop do kapitalskega trga in ali je tak dostop zadostoval za financiranje celotnega projekta Olkiluoto 3.
Analysis of access to the market in bank loans
Analiza dostopa do trga bančnih posojil
In Section 2 of this decision the Commission analysed the different stages of the Olkiluoto 3 project and its financing.
V Oddelku 2 te odločbe je Komisija analizirala različne stopnje projekta Olkiluoto 3 in njegovega financiranja.
It transpires that the guaranteed loan was formally provided in March 2004.
Izkazalo se je, da je bilo posojilo z jamstvom uradno odobreno marca 2004.
However, Coface had undertaken to stand guarantor as early as 1 December 2003, a move that had been approved by the CGCCE on 17 November 2003.
Kljub temu je družba Coface postala porok že z dnem 1. decembra 2003, kar je Francoska komisija za izvozni kredit in jamstva odobrila dne 17. novembra 2003.
On 11 November 2003 five banks had formally undertaken to provide TVO with up to EUR 2,5 billion, this loan being sufficient to complete the financing of the project.
novembra je pet bank uradno odobrilo posojilo v vrednosti do 2,5 milijarde EUR podjetju TVO, kar je zadostovalo za celotno financiranje projekta.
The information provided by the French authorities demonstrates that, even before the intervention of the French Government, TVO had sufficient access to financial markets to be able to finance the entire project.
Informacija, ki so jo predložile francoske oblasti, dokazuje, da je imelo podjetje TVO še pred posredovanjem francoske vlade zadosten dostop do finančnih trgov, da bi lahko financiral celotni projekt.
The Commission would also point out that TVO was classified as investment grade by a leading rating agency when setting up the different financing packages for the Olkiluoto 3 project.
Komisija obenem poudarja, da je vodilna bonitetna agencija pri oblikovanju različnih paketov za financiranje projekta Olkiluoto 3 podjetje TVO uvrstila v naložbeni razred.
In the normal course of events, such a rating guarantees easy access to the market in bank loans and so TVO cannot be regarded as a firm in difficulty.
Pri običajnem poteku dogodkov taka uvrstitev jamči enostaven dostop do trga bančnih posojil, zato TVO ne more biti označeno kot podjetje v težavah.
As regards the amount of the guaranteed loan, the Commission would comment that on 11 November 2003 five banks had agreed to provide up to EUR 2,5 billion, i.e. up to EUR 500 million each.
Glede zneska posojila, zavarovanega z jamstvom, Komisija ugotavlja, da se je dne 11. novembra 2003 pet bank sporazumelo o odobritvi do 2,5 milijarde EUR, tj. do 500 milijonov EUR vsaka.
The risk borne by the French State is thus comparable to that which private banks were prepared to bear.
Tveganje za Francijo je tako primerljivo s tveganjem, ki so ga bile pripravljene prevzeti zasebne banke.
Accordingly, participation by the French State in the financing of the project did not diversify the sources of the finance or reduce the risks borne by the other banks any more than if another bank had participated in the financing of the project.
Skladno s tem udeležba Francije pri financiranju projekta ni nič bolj pripomogla k diverzifikaciji finančnih sredstev ali zmanjšanju tveganja, ki so ga prevzele ostale banke, kot če bi pri financiranju projekta sodelovala katera koli druga banka.
On the basis of the information at its disposal, the Commission has come to the conclusion that TVO had sufficient access to financial markets prior to any public intervention.
Komisija je na podlagi informacij, ki jih je imela na razpolago, sklenila, da je imelo podjetje TVO pred kakršnim koli javnim posredovanjem zadosten dostop do finančnih trgov.
Contrary to what EREF states, the French Government did not play the role of lead investor and provided its guarantee at a time when the financing for the entire project had already been secured.
V nasprotju s tem, kar trdi EREF, francoska vlada ni igrala vloge vodilnega vlagatelja in je svoje jamstvo ponudila takrat, ko je bilo financiranje celotnega projekta že zavarovano.
What is more, if the French Government had acted as lead investor, its intervention was in respect of an amount that was small compared with all the funds needed to finance the project and therefore insufficient to have a knock-on effect on private investors.
Poleg tega je bilo posredovanje francoske vlade v primerjavi s celotnimi sredstvi, ki so bila potrebna za financiranje projekta, majhno, in ne bi posebej vplivalo na zasebne vlagatelje, zaradi česar francoska vlada ni opravljala funkcije vodilnega vlagatelja.
The Commission also comes to the conclusion here that the possibility — referred to by EREF — of the financing for the project collapsing if the Coface guarantee were withdrawn can reasonably be ruled out.
Poleg tega Komisija sklepa, da se lahko možnost – ki jo navaja EREF –, da bi se financiranje projekta porušilo, če Coface ne bi preklical jamstva, upravičeno izključi.
Analysis of the existence of a reduction in financial charges for TVO
Analiza obstoja znižanja finančnih stroškov podjetja TVO
Since it has been established that, contrary to EREF's assertion, TVO had sufficient access to the capital market, it should be ascertained whether or not the level of the guarantee premium asked by the French Government led to a reduction in the financial charges that TVO would have had to bear in the absence of public intervention.
Ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da je imel TVO v nasprotju s trditvijo združenja EREF zadosten dostop do kapitalskega trga, je treba opredeliti, ali je stopnja jamstvene premije, ki jo je zahtevala francoska vlada, povzročila znižanje finančnih stroškov, ki bi jih imel TVO brez javnega posredovanja.
In the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission stated that no insurer or financial institution currently offered the precise type of insurance as that offered by Coface in the present case, i.e. insurance against a payment default by TVO in the long term.
V odločitvi o sproženju postopka je Komisija navedla, da nobena zavarovalnica ali finančna ustanova zaenkrat ni ponudila natančno take vrste zavarovanja, kot jo je v tej zadevi ponudil Coface, tj. dolgoročnega zavarovanja proti neizpolnjevanju obveznosti podjetja TVO.
The fact that the market does not at present offer this type of insurance is confirmed by the French authorities and has not been challenged by the complainants.
Francoske oblasti so potrdile dejstvo, da trg trenutno ne ponuja tovrstnega zavarovanja, in pritožniki tega niso izpodbijali.
This is not contradicted by the Commission communication to the Member States pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance [10], according to which, while there is a market for short-term export-credit insurance, this is not always the case for medium- and long-term insurance.
Sporočilo Komisije državam članicam v skladu s členom 93(1) Pogodbe ES o uporabi členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe za kratkoročno zavarovanje izvoznih kreditov [10], glede na katera trg za srednjeročna in dolgoročna zavarovanja ne obstaja vedno, medtem ko obstaja trg za zavarovanje kratkoročnih izvoznih kreditov, temu ne oporeka.
Consequently, the price charged by the French authorities cannot be directly compared to a market price.
Posledično cene, ki so jo zaračunale francoske oblasti, ni mogoče neposredno primerjati s tržno ceno.
The fact that there is no market for this type of insurance does not have any automatic consequences for the existence or otherwise of an advantage.
Dejstvo, da trg za tovrstno zavarovanje ne obstaja, nima nikakršnih samodejnih posledic na obstoj koristi.
Since the measure in question is a loan guarantee, TVO would, in the absence of public intervention, have had to obtain financing in the form of an unguaranteed loan.
Ker je zadevni ukrep posojilo z jamstvom, bi moral TVO, če ne bi bilo javnega posredovanja, pridobiti financiranje v obliki posojila brez jamstva.
To establish the existence of an advantage, it should therefore be ascertained whether TVO benefited from a reduction in its financing costs by comparing the total cost of the guaranteed loan (the interest rate charged by the banks plus the amount of the guarantee premium) with the interest rate that would have been charged by private banks for a similar loan in the absence of a public guarantee.
Za dokaz o obstoju koristi bi treba ugotoviti, ali je TVO užival koristi zmanjšanja svojih stroškov financiranja v primerjavi s celotnimi stroški posojila z jamstvom (obrestna stopnja, ki so jo zaračunale banke, in znesek jamstvene premije) z obrestno stopnjo, ki bi jo zaračunale zasebne banke za podobno posojilo brez javnega jamstva.
The Commission notes that, in addition to the guaranteed loan, TVO had recourse to bank financing in the form of a credit facility for the project.
Komisija opaža, da je imel TVO poleg posojila z jamstvom pravico do bančnega financiranja v obliki odobritve kredita za projekt.
It should, therefore, be examined whether the rate charged by the banks for the credit facility is a reliable indicator of the rate that would be charged by private banks for a loan similar to the guaranteed loan if no public guarantee had been provided.
Zato bi bilo treba preveriti, ali je stopnja, ki jo banke zaračunavajo za kredit, zanesljiv kazalec stopnje, ki bi jo zasebne banke zaračunale za posojilo, podobno posojilu z jamstvom, če ne bi bilo zagotovljenega javnega jamstva.
EREF disputes the assertion that the interest rate for the credit facility is a sound estimate of the market rate that would have been charged by the banks in the absence of a public guarantee.
EREF oporeka trditvi, da je obrestna stopnja za kredit dobra ocena tržne stopnje, ki bi jo zaračunale banke brez javnega jamstva.
Firstly, it takes the view that BLB's role regarding the credit facility constitutes aid and favourably influenced the conditions on which it was granted to TVO.
Prvi, meni, da je vloga banke BLB pri sklenitvi kredita pomenila pomoč in je ugodno vplivala na pogoje, pod katerimi je kredit odobrila podjetju TVO.
The Commission notes that, in its decision in Case NN 62/B/06 [11], it ruled out the possibility that BLB's role might constitute aid.
Komisija opaža, da je v svoji odločitvi v zadevi NN 62/B/2006 [11] izključila možnost, da bi vloga banke BLB pomenila pomoč.
It therefore rejects the complainant's first assertion.
Zato prvo trditev pritožnika zavrača.
Secondly, EREF considers that the Coface guarantee reduced the risk attaching to the credit facility and thus encouraged the banks to grant the latter on more favourable conditions than a loan not backed by a public guarantee.
Drugič, EREF meni, da je jamstvo Coface zmanjšalo tveganje, povezano s sklenitvijo kredita, in spodbudilo banke k zagotavljanju ugodnejših pogojev kot pri posojilih, ki niso zavarovani z javnim jamstvom.
On this point, la Commission notes that EREF does not indicate the precise mechanism by which the Coface guarantee would reduce the risk attaching to the credit facility.
Glede tega Komisija ugotavlja, da EREF ne navaja natančnih mehanizmov, s katerimi bi jamstvo Coface zmanjšalo tveganje, povezano s sklenitvijo kredita.
It has analysed in detail the financing of the Olkiluoto 3 project.
Opravilo je podrobno analizo financiranja projekta Olkiluoto 3.
Although the Coface guarantee clearly reduces the risk attaching to the loan as regards the banks that provided it and therefore lowers the interest rate charged by them for the guaranteed loan, the Commission has not identified any mechanism or contract whereby the Coface guarantee would lower the risk attaching to the credit facility.
Čeprav jamstvo Coface nedvomno zmanjšuje tveganje, povezano s posojilom, za banke, ki so ga odobrile, in tako zmanjšuje obrestne stopnje, ki so jih zaračunale za posojilo z jamstvom, Komisija ni ugotovila nobenih mehanizmov ali pogodb, s katerimi bi jamstvo Coface zmanjšalo tveganje, povezano s kreditom.
It should be pointed out that the Coface guarantee in no way covers the credit facility.
Treba je poudariti, da jamstvo Coface v nobenem pogledu ne pokriva kredita.
Accordingly, the Commission rejects the complainant's assertion that the Coface guarantee reduces the risk attaching to the credit facility.
Zato Komisija zavrača trditev pritožnika, da jamstvo Coface zmanjšuje tveganje, povezano s kreditom.
The Commission has not identified any other factors that might suggest that the interest rate for the credit facility is not a valid indicator of the interest rate that private banks would charge for a loan similar to the guaranteed loan in the absence of a public guarantee.
Komisija ni ugotovila nobenih drugih dejavnikov, ki bi lahko pomenili, da obrestna stopnja za kredit ni veljaven kazalec obrestne stopnje, ki bi jo v odsotnosti javnega jamstva zasebne banke zaračunale za posojilo, podobno posojilu z jamstvom.
It notes that the guaranteed loan is not a subordinated loan, i.e. a loan the repayment of which would be conditional on the prior repayment of the credit facility.
Opaža, da posojilo z jamstvom ni podrejeno posojilo, tj. posojilo, kjer bi bilo odplačilo posojila odvisno od predhodnega odplačila kredita.
The guaranteed loan has the same ranking as the credit facility.
Posojilo z jamstvom ima enako prednostno razvrstitev kot kredit.
The Commission also points out that the credit facility does not enjoy any preference or have any collateral that would distinguish it from the guaranteed loan [12].
Poleg tega Komisija poudarja, da kredit nima nobene prednosti ali zavarovanja, na podlagi katerega bi se razlikoval od posojila z jamstvom [12].
In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the interest rate for the credit facility is a valid indicator of the interest rate that private banks would charge for a loan similar to the guaranteed loan in the absence of any guarantee.
Glede na navedeno je Komisija sprejela odločitev, da je obrestna stopnja za kredit veljaven kazalec obrestne stopnje, ki bi jo v odsotnosti kakršnega koli jamstva zaračunale zasebne banke za posojilo, podobno posojilu z jamstvom.
The Commission has already compared the total cost of the guaranteed loan with the cost of the credit facility in paragraphs 59 and 63 of the decision initiating the procedure.
Komisija je že primerjala celotne stroške posojila z jamstvom s stroški odprtja kredita v odstavkih 59 in 63 odločitve o sproženju postopka.
The comparison is based on the average period to maturity of the guaranteed loan.
Primerjava temelji na povprečnem obdobju zapadlosti posojila z jamstvom.
The interest rate [13] that would be charged for such a period is calculated by linear extrapolation of the rate for the credit facility.
Obrestna stopnja [13], ki bi se jo zaračunalo za tako obdobje, se preračuna z linearno ekstrapolacijo stopnje za kredit.
This shows that the total cost (the interest rate charged by the banks plus the guarantee premium charged by Coface) of the guaranteed loan is not lower than the interest rate charged by the banks for the credit facility.
To kaže, da celotni stroški (obrestna stopnja, ki jo zaračunajo banke, in jamstvena premija, ki jo zaračuna Coface) posojila z jamstvom niso nižji od obrestne mere, ki jo banke zaračunajo za kredit.
The Commission notes that the French authorities consider the method of comparison described in paragraphs 59 and 63 of the decision initiating the procedure to be valid even though the complaints have not commented on this and have not proposed any alternative method of comparison.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so francoske oblasti upoštevale metodo primerjave, ki je navedena v odstavkih 59 in 63 odločitve o sproženju postopka, kot veljavno, čeprav glede tega ni bilo pritožb in tudi ne predlaganih drugih metod primerjave.
Agreeing with the Commission's analysis in this respect, TVO points out that the loan guaranteed by Coface was more expensive than the credit facility and the other sources of financing available at the time.
TVO se pri tem strinja z analizo Komisije in poudarja, da je bilo posojilo z jamstvom Coface dražje od kredita in drugih virov financiranja, ki so bili takrat na voljo.
The Commission concludes that the guarantee has not led to any reduction in TVO's financial charges compared with those that it would have had to bear if it had turned to the banking market without the backing of a public guarantee.
Komisija sklepa, da jamstvo ni povzročila kakršnega koli zmanjšanja finančnih stroškov za TVO v primerjavi s tistimi, ki bi jih imel, če bi se obrnil na bančni trg brez zavarovanja javnega jamstva.