natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Costs for these measures were to be covered entirely from Javor Pivka's own resources.
Stroški teh ukrepov naj bi se v celoti krili iz lastnih virov družbe Javor Pivka.
Financial restructuring: Insufficient liquidity led to mounting liabilities and rising financial charges.
Finančno prestrukturiranje: Zaradi nezadostne likvidnosti so se kopičile obveznosti in finančna bremena.
The purpose of the financial restructuring was to adapt the company’s sources of financing and its repayment schedules to secure its current and long-term payment capability.
Cilj finančnega prestrukturiranja je bila prilagoditev virov financiranja družbe in njenih odplačilnih načrtov, da se zagotovi njena tekoča in dolgoročna plačilna sposobnost.
The activities were to focus on rescheduling debt, reducing interest rates, extending repayment deadlines and obtaining a moratorium on repayment of principal.
Pozornost je bila usmerjena na reprogramiranje dolga, znižanje obrestnih mer, podaljšanje rokov odplačila in doseganje moratorija na odplačilo glavnice.
Restructuring costs
Stroški prestrukturiranja in njegovo financiranje
The table below gives an overview of the costs of the restructuring and its financing [6]:
Pregled financiranja stroškov prestrukturiranja je podan v spodnji tabeli [6]:
Restructuring costs and financing
Stroški prestrukturiranja in financiranje
Funds required (in thousand SIT)
Potrebna sredstva (v tisočih SIT)
Market restructuring
Tržno prestrukturiranje
Restructuring of workforce
Prestrukturiranje zaposlenih
The main element of support from state resources is public guarantees covering loans in the amount of SIT 1100000000 intended to finance Javor Pivka's technological restructuring.
Glavni element pomoči iz državnih virov so državna jamstva za posojila v višini 1100000000 SIT za financiranje tehnološkega prestrukturiranja družbe Javor Pivka.
As collateral for the guarantees, the Slovenian authorities received a mortgage on assets belonging to Javor Pivka to a value corresponding to the amount covered by the guarantees, i.e. SIT 1100000000 (approx. EUR 4584000).
Za zavarovanje teh jamstev so slovenski organi prejeli hipoteko na premoženje v lasti družbe Javor Pivka v vrednosti, ki ustreza znesku, ki ga krijejo jamstva, tj. 1100000000 SIT (okvirno 4584000 EUR).
In addition, aid was given in the form of a grant of SIT 382250000 (approx. EUR 1592000) for the costs of the restructuring of the workforce.
Poleg tega je bila dodeljena subvencija v višini 382250000 SIT (okvirno 1592000 EUR) za stroške prestrukturiranja zaposlenih.
This aid will contribute to both the severance pays for the redundant workers and for the training costs of those workers who are kept on.
Ta pomoč bo krila odpravnine za presežne delavce in stroške usposabljanja preostalih delavcev.
Slovenia submitted that Javor Pivka would contribute SIT 2119650000 (approx. EUR 8832000) towards the restructuring, corresponding to 53,7 % of the total costs.
Slovenija je predložila, da bi družba Javor Pivka prispevala za prestrukturiranje 2119650000 SIT (okvirno 8832000 EUR), tj. 53,7 % celotnih stroškov.
Market situation
Razmere na trgu
Javor Pivka is producing the following products, for which it has the indicated market shares at EU level (figures refer to 2003, and the CN numbers refer to the Combined Nomenclature):
Javor Pivka proizvaja naslednje proizvode, za katere njen tržni delež na ravni EU znaša (vrednosti se nanašajo na leto 2003, številke KN pa se nanašajo na kombinirano nomenklaturo):
Shuttering panels (CN 441840): 3,91 %
opažne plošče (KN 441840): 3,91 %;
Plywood panels (CN 4412): 0,18 %
vezane plošče (KN 4412): 0,18 %;
Veneer (CN 4408): 0,22 %
furnir (KN 4408): 0,22 %;
Wood chairs (CN 940161 + 940169 + 94019030): 0,08 %
leseni stoli (KN 940161 + 940169 + 94019030): 0,08 %.
The aggregated Javor Pivka market share in its product range on the EU-25 market was 0,21 % in 2003.
Skupni tržni delež družbe Javor Pivka v njenem programu proizvodov na trgu EU-25 je leta 2003 znašal 0,21 %.
REASONS FOR OPENING THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 88(2) EC
RAZLOGI ZA SPROŽITEV POSTOPKA V SKLADU S ČLENOM 88(2) POGODBE ES
As indicated above, the Slovenian authorities did not notify the measures in favour of Javor Pivka.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, slovenski organi niso priglasili ukrepov v korist družbe Javor Pivka.
In its letter of 16 May 2006 opening the procedure under Article 88(2) EC, the Commission explained in detail why the measures in question would constitute new aid which should be notified on the basis of Article 88 EC and assessed under Article 87 EC.
V svojem dopisu z dne 16. maja 2006 o sprožitvi postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES je Komisija podrobno pojasnila, zakaj naj bi zadevni ukrepi pomenili novo pomoč, ki jo je treba priglasiti na podlagi člena 88 Pogodbe ES in presojati po členu 87 Pogodbe ES.
In addition, the Commission expressed doubts on the aid's compatibility with the common market, and in particular with the Community Guidelines on aid for rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty of 1999 [7] (hereinafter ‘the guidelines’) on the following grounds:
Komisija je poleg tega podvomila v združljivost pomoči s skupnim trgom in zlasti s Smernicami Skupnosti o pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah iz leta 1999 [7] (v nadaljnjem besedilu „smernice“) na podlagi naslednjega:
The Commission had doubts whether Javor Pivka was eligible for restructuring aid under the guidelines.
Komisija je podvomila, ali je bila družba Javor Pivka v skladu s temi smernicami upravičena do pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
In particular, the Commission, questioned whether it was ‘in difficulty’ within the meaning of the guidelines as its poor performance in 2003 could be an exceptional occurrence rather than part of a trend.
Komisija je zlasti dvomila, da je bila družba „v težavah“ v smislu smernic, saj bi bilo njeno slabo poslovanje v letu 2003 lahko izjemen dogodek in ne del trenda.
In addition, the Commission questioned whether Javor Pivka belonged to a larger business group and whether it could not obtain the necessary funds from its owners.
Poleg tega Komisiji ni bilo jasno, ali je bila družba Javor Pivka del večje poslovne skupine in bi lahko potrebna sredstva pridobila od njenih lastnikov.
It was not clear how the company was to restore its long term viability since the Commission had not been provided with sufficient data to assess the assumptions of future performance under the restructuring plan.
Ni bilo jasno, kako naj bi družba ponovno vzpostavila svojo dolgoročno rentabilnost, saj Komisija ni dobila zadostnih podatkov za presojo prihodnjega poslovanja po načrtu prestrukturiranja.
No market analysis was provided to justify the absence of compensatory measures.
Predstavljena ni bila nobena tržna analiza, ki bi upravičevala odsotnost izravnalnih ukrepov.
The Commission also had doubts whether the aid was limited to the minimum necessary because it was unclear whether Javor Pivka had provided a significant own contribution to its restructuring costs as it was unclear how the own funds were to be sourced.
Komisija je tudi dvomila, da je bila pomoč omejena na minimalno potrebno, ker ni bilo jasno, ali je družba Javor Pivka zagotovila pomemben lastni prispevek za svoje stroške prestrukturiranja, saj ni bilo jasno, od kod naj bi lastna sredstva izvirala.
Finally, the Commission requested information on all other aids granted to Javor Pivka in 2004 in order to ensure that it had not received any previous rescue and restructuring aid, in which case the ‘one time, last time’ condition set out in point 48-51 of the guidelines might bar it from receiving such aid again.
Končno, Komisija je zahtevala podatke o vseh drugih pomočeh, ki so bile družbi Javor Pivka dodeljene v letu 2004, da bi se prepričala, da ni že prej prejela nobene pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, saj bi v tem primeru pogoj enkratne pomoči, določen v točkah 48–51 smernic, prepovedoval ponovno pridobitev takšne pomoči.
In the course of the formal proceedings, Slovenia has made in substance the following comments.
Med potekom formalnega postopka je Slovenija dala naslednje pripombe.
New aid, or aid granted before accession
Nova pomoč ali pomoč, dodeljena pred pristopom
Slovenia insisted that the favourable opinion of the inter-ministerial expert commission amounted, for all practical purposes, to a decision to grant the aid which was binding on the Slovenian state.
Slovenija je vztrajala, da je bil sklep o dodelitvi pomoči, ki je bil zavezujoč za državo Slovenijo, sprejet na podlagi pozitivnega mnenja medresorske strokovne komisije.
Since this decision was adopted on 6 April 2004, i.e. before Slovenia’s accession to the European Union, and since the aid no longer applied after the accession, Slovenia considered that it was aid granted before accession to which the provisions of Articles 87 and 88(3) EC do not apply.
Ker je bil sklep sprejet 6. aprila 2004, tj. pred pristopom Slovenije k Evropski uniji, in ker pomoč po pristopu ni več veljala, je Slovenija menila, da gre za pomoč, dodeljeno pred pristopom, za katero ne veljajo določbe člena 87 in člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
The notion of company ‘in difficulty’
Pojem družbe „v težavah“
Slovenia showed, submitting i.a. the performance indicators in table 1 above, that Javor Pivka featured several of the characteristics of a company in difficulty, and that this was not only an isolated occurrence in 2003 but a trend which could be distinguished over four years (2000-2003).
Slovenija je s predložitvijo med drugim kazalcev poslovanja v zgornji tabeli 1 prikazala, da je družba Javor Pivka izkazovala več značilnosti družbe v težavah in da to ni bil le izjemen dogodek v letu 2003, temveč trend, ki ga je bilo mogoče opaziti v obdobju štirih let (2000–2003).
In this respect, Slovenia pointed out that Javor Pivka failed to increase its net sales revenue over the period in question.
Slovenija je v zvezi s tem opozorila, da družbi Javor Pivka v tem obdobju ni uspelo povečati neto prihodkov iz prodaje.
The operating result was negative throughout the period, except for 2000, and the losses increased between 2001 and 2003.
Rezultati poslovanja so bili v celotnem obdobju negativni, razen v letu 2000, izgube pa so se v obdobju 2001–2003 povečale.
The current losses in 2003 were close to half the company’s share capital.
Tekoče izgube v letu 2003 so znašale skoraj polovico osnovnega kapitala družbe.
The return on sales, equity and assets was negative and deteriorated continuously 2001-2003.
Donos od prodaje, lastniškega kapitala in sredstev je bil negativen in se je celo obdobje 2001–2003 slabšal.
Free cash flow from operations fell over the period and was negative in 2003.
Prosti denarni tok iz poslovanja se je v tem obdobju zmanjšal, v letu 2003 pa je bil negativen.
This negative trend culminated in Javor Pivka being under a large threat of bankruptcy in 2003.
Ta negativna gibanja so dosegla vrhunec, tako da je družbi Javor Pivka leta 2003 grozil stečaj.
Javor Pivka’s ownership
Lastništvo družbe Javor Pivka
Slovenia clarified the ownership structure of Javor Pivka with reference to the particularities of the privatisation model applied by Slovenia after the end of the Communist regime.
Slovenija je pojasnila lastniško strukturo družbe Javor Pivka glede na posebnosti privatizacijskega modela, ki ga je Slovenija uporabila po koncu komunističnega režima.
Slovenia applied the peculiar notion that the capital of companies had no identifiable owners, neither private nor public, but was ‘social capital’ which belonged to the population at large.
Slovenija je uporabila poseben model, po katerem kapital družb ni imel ugotovljivih lastnikov, niti zasebnih niti javnih, temveč je bil „družbeni kapital“, ki je pripadal celotnemu prebivalstvu.
The privatisation process sought to transform this abstract concept into clearer ownership structures by means of ownership certificates which were distributed to the population.
Privatizacijski proces za preoblikovanje tega abstraktnega koncepta v jasnejše lastniške strukture je potekal prek lastniških certifikatov, ki so bili razdeljeni državljanom.
These certificates could be exchanged against shares in formerly ‘social’ companies.
Te certifikate je bilo mogoče zamenjati za delnice prej „družbenih“ podjetij.
In this process, an important role was played by so-called authorised investment companies (known under the acronym ‘PID’) and administration companies (‘DZU’) which were set up to allow private investors to pool their certificates.
V tem procesu so pomembno vlogo igrale tako imenovane pooblaščene investicijske družbe (znane pod kratico „PID“) in družbe za upravljanje („DZU“), ki so bile ustanovljene, da bi zasebnim vlagateljem omogočili vlaganje njihovih certifikatov.
These were then transformed by the PIDs into shares in various privatised companies, whereas the individual investors in return received shares in the PID, rather than in the privatised companies directly (the PID acting somewhat in the manner of an investment fund).
Te certifikate so PID-i nato preoblikovali v delnice v različnih privatiziranih podjetjih, posamezni vlagatelji pa so v zameno dobili deleže v PID-u in ne neposredno v privatiziranih družbah (PID je deloval nekako kot investicijski sklad).
However, the PIDs had no freely available funds (the currency of their investments being the certificates) and lacked the professional skills and experience to take an active part in corporate governance.
Vendar pa PID-i niso imeli prosto razpoložljivih sredstev (valuta njihovih naložb so bili certifikati) ter strokovnega znanja in izkušenj, da bi lahko dejavno sodelovali pri upravljanju podjetij.
As a result, they have been passive owners who take little or no part in the management of the companies they own.
Zato so bili pasivni lastniki, ki so malo ali sploh niso sodelovali pri vodenju podjetij v njihovi lasti.
Such passive investors make up a large part of the ownership of Javor Pivka (some 44 % of share capital).
Taki pasivni vlagatelji predstavljajo velik del lastništva družbe Javor Pivka (približno 44 % delniškega kapitala).
They have no fresh capital to invest in the company.
Nimajo svežega kapitala, ki bi ga lahko naložili v podjetje.
Indeed, when the restructuring programme was established, all institutional owners were invited to participate in the refinancing but none responded.
Ob oblikovanju programa prestrukturiranja so bili k sodelovanju pri refinanciranju povabljeni vsi institucionalni lastniki, vendar se nihče ni odzval.
Another 40 % of the share capital is split amongst 1255 small shareholders making it at least 80 % of Javor Pivka’s ownership which is not actively managed.
Naslednjih 40 % delniškega kapitala je razdeljenih med 1255 malih delničarjev, kar pomeni, da najmanj 80 % lastništva družbe Javor Pivka ni dejavno upravljano.
On this point, Slovenia explained that the projections on Javor Pivka's performance under the restructuring plan and its consequent return to viability had been based on market analyses incorporated in the restructuring plan, sales forecasts in the company’s various segments and market research.
Glede tega je Slovenija pojasnila, da so predvidevanja poslovanja družbe Javor Pivka po načrtu prestrukturiranja in njena ponovna vzpostavitev rentabilnosti temeljila na tržnih analizah, ki so bile vključene v načrt prestrukturiranja, napovedih glede prodaje v različnih segmentih družbe in na tržni raziskavi.
To show the reliability of these forecasts, Slovenia submitted complementary additional information.
Slovenija je kot dokaz zanesljivosti teh napovedi predložila dopolnilne dodatne podatke.
In particular, Slovenia accounted for the sources of the data on which the projections were based and submitted sales projections for the years 2004-2006 broken down by specific articles within the company's product range.
Slovenija je zlasti navedla vire podatkov, na katerih so predvidevanja temeljila, in predložila predvidevanja glede prodaje za obdobje 2004–2006, razčlenjeno po posameznih artiklih znotraj proizvodnega programa družbe.
On this point, Slovenia argued that no compensatory measures were necessary since, in view of Javor Pivka’s negligible market share, there is no undue distortion of competition.
V zvezi s tem je Slovenija trdila, da niso potrebni nobeni izravnalni ukrepi, ker zaradi zanemarljivega tržnega deleža družbe Javor Pivka ni nobenega neupravičenega izkrivljanja konkurence.
In addition, Slovenia argued that the need for compensatory measures must be assessed with due account to the fact that Javor Pivka is located in an area eligible for regional aid pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) EC (see point 54 of the guidelines).
Slovenija je poleg tega dokazovala, da je treba preveriti potrebo po izravnalnih ukrepih ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je družba Javor Pivka na območju, ki je upravičeno do regionalne pomoči v smislu člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES (glej točko 54 smernic).
Slovenia specified the sources of Javor Pivka’s own contributions as set out in the table in paragraph 18 above.
Slovenija je navedla vire lastnih prispevkov družbe Javor Pivka, navedene v tabeli v točki 18 te odločbe.
This funds were to be sourced as follows: Divestment of assets (financial and real estate) were to provide SIT 958427170.
Viri za ta sredstva naj bi bili naslednji: dezinvestiranje premoženja (finančnega in nepremičninskega) naj bi zagotovilo 958427170 SIT.
Another SIT 900000000 would come from bank loans obtained on market terms, without the support of aid.
Naslednjih 900000000 SIT naj bi prišlo iz bančnih posojil, pridobljenih po tržnih pogojih, brez podpore pomoči.
The remainder would be provided trough ‘depreciation and amortisation’ of assets (expected to amount to a total of SIT 1111786000 in 2004-2006).
Preostanek bi se zagotovil z „amortizacijo“ premoženja (v obdobju 2004–2006 po pričakovanjih v skupnem znesku 1111786000 SIT).
Finally, on this point, Slovenia advised the Commission that Javor Pivka had received state aid for energy saving measures.
Končno, Slovenija je v zvezi s tem obvestila Komisijo, da je družba Javor Pivka prejela državno pomoč za varčevanje z energijo.
The aid was given under a scheme to promote renewable sources of energy, effective use of energy and co-generation of heat and electricity.
Pomoč je bila dodeljena v okviru programa za spodbujanje obnovljivih virov energije, učinkovite rabe energije in soproizvodnje toplote in elektrike.
The aid was granted on 1 September 2003 and paid out on 19 February 2004.
Pomoč je bila dodeljena 1. septembra 2003 in izplačana 19. februarja 2004.
This information was corrobarated by documents.
Ta podatek je bil podkrepljen z dokumenti.
According to Article 87 EC, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, constitutes incompatible state aid unless it can be justified under Article 87(2) or (3) EC.
V skladu s členom 87 Pogodbe ES 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 državna pomoč, če prizadene trgovino med državami članicami, razen kadar jo je mogoče upravičiti na podlagi člena 87(2) ali (3) Pogodbe ES.
The criterion of favouring the individual company is also met.
Izpolnjen je tudi kriterij dajanja prednosti posameznemu podjetju.
As regards the aid given in the form of a grant, the advantage for the beneficiary is obvious.
Kar zadeva pomoč, dodeljeno v obliki subvencije, je prednost za prejemnika očitna.
In the case of the guarantee, the advantage may seem less obvious as Javor Pivka provided collateral in the form of a mortgage in return for the guarantee.
Pri jamstvu je prednost morda manj očitna, ker je družba Javor Pivka v zameno za jamstvo zagotovila zavarovanje v obliki hipoteke.
However, the Slovenian authorities accepted to provide the guarantee against a mortgage with the ratio 1:1 (the value of the mortgage being equal to the amount covered by the guarantee).
Vendar pa so slovenski organi pristali, da zagotovijo jamstvo s hipoteko v razmerju 1:1 (vrednost hipoteke je bila enaka znesku jamstva).
By contrast, commercial lenders would not have provided a loan against less than a 2,5:1 mortgage ratio.
Komercialni posojilodajalci bi za posojilo namreč zahtevali hipotekarni delež, ki bi znašal najmanj 2,5:1.
At the time, Javor Pivka would not have been able to provide sufficient mortgage to secure the same credit on commercial terms.
Družba Javor Pivka v tistem času ne bi mogla zagotoviti zadostne hipoteke za zavarovanje enakega kredita po komercialnih pogojih.
In fact, the mortgage provided for the guarantee represented the full extent of the unencumbered property of Javor Pivka at the time.
V resnici je hipoteka, zagotovljena za jamstvo, predstavljala celoten takratni delež bremen proste lastnine družbe Javor Pivka.
Consequently, the guarantee provided by the Slovenian authorities favoured Javor Pivka by allowing the company to secure a larger loan than it would otherwise have been able to obtain against the collateral it could provide.
Zato je jamstvo, ki so ga zagotovili slovenski organi, izboljšalo položaj družbe Javor Pivka, ker je družbi omogočilo pridobiti večje posojilo, kot bi ga sicer lahko pridobila z zavarovanji, ki jih je lahko zagotovila.
As there is trade in processed wood products and furniture between Slovenia and other Member States the measure is liable to improve the position of the recipient in relation to its competitors in Slovenia and the EU, so that it may consequently distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Ker trgovina z izdelki iz obdelanega lesa in pohištvom med Slovenijo in drugimi državami članicami obstaja, bi lahko ukrep izboljšal položaj prejemnika v primerjavi z njegovimi konkurenti v Sloveniji in v EU, kar pomeni, da bi pomoč lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
Consequently, the Commission considers that the guarantee and subsidy in issue constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Zato Komisija meni, da jamstvo in subvencija dejansko pomenita državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Existence of new aid
Obstoj nove pomoči
The Slovenian authorities questioned whether the Commission was empowered to assess the aid under Articles 87 and 88 EC, arguing that it was granted before accession.
Slovenski organi so sprva dvomili, da je Komisija pristojna za presojo pomoči na podlagi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES, glede na to, da je bila pomoč dodeljena pred pristopom.
As the Commission clarified in the opening decision, in order to determine whether an aid has been put into effect before or after accession, the relevant event is the legally binding act by which the competent national authorities undertake to grant the aid [8].
Kakor je Komisija pojasnila v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, ustrezni kriterij, s katerim se ugotovi, ali je bila pomoč izvedena pred pristopom ali po njem, je pravni akt, s katerim se pristojni nacionalni organi obvežejo, da bodo odobrili pomoč [8].
In the absence of such a decision before accession, the measure constitutes new aid, even if the exposure of the state was known before.
Odsotnost takega sklepa pred pristopom pomeni novo pomoč, tudi če je bila izpostavljenost države znana pred tem.
In the present case the Commission concludes that the binding act by which the competent national authorities undertook to grant aid did not come into effect before accession.
V obravnavanem primeru Komisija zaključuje, da pravni akt, s katerim so se pristojni nacionalni organi obvezali, da bodo odobrili pomoč, ni začel veljati pred pristopom.
The relevant Slovenian provisions state that the aid shall be awarded by a decision of the government on the basis of a proposal from the competent ministry.
Ustrezni slovenski predpisi določajo, da se pomoč dodeli s sklepom Vlade na predlog pristojnega ministrstva.