natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To this end, the Commission would first like to point out that the present investigation did not find that some restructuring costs had become obsolete, but that parts of the State funds had been misused.
Zato želi Komisija najprej opozoriti, da ta preiskava ni odkrila, da so nekateri stroški prestrukturiranja zastareli, temveč da so bili deli državnih sredstev zlorabljeni.
It might be true that some investments could have been cancelled — ideally after obtaining Commission approval.
Mogoče je res, da so bile nekatere naložbe preklicane, po možnosti po odobritvi Komisije.
This would mean that the actual restructuring costs were lower and the relevant proportion of the aid would have to be recovered; an approach which the Commission has accepted in previous steel restructuring cases [24].
To bi pomenilo, da so bili dejanski stroški prestrukturiranja nižji in da bi bilo treba vrniti ustrezen delež pomoči; tak pristop je Komisija sprejela v prejšnjih primerih prestrukturiranja jeklarske industrije [24].
However, in the present case it is not only that some restructuring costs have become redundant but, as discussed above, the problem is that the entire financing of a part of the restructuring (i.e. the EUR 31,2 million) has lost its object, given that from the ex ante point of view the bridging loan was used almost entirely in a way that was not in line with the IBP and endangered the restoration of viability or, from the point of view of the time when the change occurred, it equipped the company with surplus cash, which must be returned.
Vendar je v tem primeru težava ne le, da so nekateri stroški prestrukturiranja postali odveč, temveč kot je omenjeno zgoraj, da je celotno financiranje dela prestrukturiranja (tj. 31,2 milijona EUR) izgubilo svoj predmet glede na to, da je bilo z vidika ex ante premostitveno posojilo skoraj v celoti uporabljeno na način, ki ni bil skladen z načrtom IPN in je ogrozil ponovno vzpostavitev rentabilnosti, ali z vidika časa, v katerem se je sprememba zgodila, da je družbo oskrbelo s presežnimi denarnimi sredstvi, ki jih je treba vrniti.
Moreover, such misuse can not be rectified retroactively, by the company implementing investment later, because the funds were given in order to enable financing of investments and financial restructuring at a certain point in time.
Poleg tega take zlorabe ni mogoče popraviti z učinkom za nazaj tako, da družba izvede naložbe pozneje, saj so bila sredstva dana za zagotovitev financiranja naložb in finančnega prestrukturiranja v določenem obdobju.
This incentive for the aid was already outdated in 2005.
Ta spodbuda za pomoč je bila v letu 2005 že zastarela.
In fact, if the restructuring had been arranged at a later stage, no aid, in particular not the bridging loan guaranteed by the State, would have been necessary.
Če bi bilo prestrukturiranje predvideno pozneje, dejansko ne bi bila potrebna nobena pomoč, še zlasti ne premostitveno posojilo, za katero je jamčila država.
Hence the misuse concerns all the funds provided under the bridging loan which were used for the sale and lease-back of the productive assets.
Zato zloraba zadeva vsa sredstva, ki so bila zagotovljena s premostitvenim posojilom ter so bila uporabljena za prodajo in povratni najem proizvodnih sredstev.
The Commission is further aware that an excess of resources at the end of the restructuring period is not unusual and that a company should not be punished for achieving better results than expected ex ante.
Komisija se poleg tega zaveda, da presežek sredstev na koncu obdobja prestrukturiranja ni nič neobičajnega in da se družba ne sme kaznovati za dosego boljših rezultatov, kot se je pričakovalo ex ante.
However, this should lead to better business results, allowing the company some more margins for bringing forward the debt repayment, for example.
Vendar naj bi to privedlo do boljših poslovnih rezultatov, kar bo družbi na primer zagotovilo več kritja za predčasno odplačilo posojila.
This does not mean that the company may redirect almost all the aid to purposes not indicated in the business plan.
To ne pomeni, da lahko družba preusmeri skoraj celotno pomoč za namene, ki niso navedeni v poslovnem načrtu.
Secondly, it must be recalled that the company also received several other State aid measures, such as the debt write-off and a part of the guaranteed loan used to finance investments.
Drugič, opozoriti je treba, da je družba prejela tudi več drugih ukrepov državne pomoči, kot sta odpis dolga in del posojila z jamstvom, uporabljen za financiranje naložb.
These measures were implemented according to the plan and helped to achieve viability for the company.
Ti ukrepi so se izvajali v skladu z načrtom in so družbi pomagali doseči rentabilnost.
Nevertheless, it could be assumed that the entire restructuring must be deemed to have failed, because the plan was only partly implemented and, from an ex ante point of view, only full implementation of the restructuring plan would ensure that viability was restored.
Kljub temu je mogoče sklepati, da je treba šteti, da je bilo celotno prestrukturiranje neuspešno, saj je bil načrt izveden le delno in bi z vidika ex ante le polno izvajanje načrta prestrukturiranja zagotovilo ponovno vzpostavitev rentabilnosti.
However, in this context it might be of relevance that the company did restore viability [25].
Vendar je tu morda pomembno, da je družba ponovno vzpostavila rentabilnost [25].
This is the case at least so long as the company did not obtain any excess aid which was not necessary to restore viability.
To drži samo v primeru, če družba ni prejela nobene presežne pomoči, ki ni bila potrebna za ponovno vzpostavitev rentabilnosti.
In other words if this advantage were recovered it would restore the ex ante situation, i.e. make good the receipt of excessive aid.
Povedano drugače, če bi se ta prednost vrnila, bi ponovno vzpostavila stanje ex ante, tj. popravila prejem prevelike pomoči.
In this case the remaining measures, which were implemented in accordance with the plan, may indeed have contributed to restoring viability.
V tem primeru so lahko preostali ukrepi, ki so bili izvedeni v skladu z načrtom, dejansko prispevali k ponovni vzpostavitvi rentabilnosti.
They could therefore, provided that the excess aid received was recovered, be considered compatible.
Če bi se prevelika pomoč povrnila, bi se tako lahko ti ukrepi šteli za združljive.
Therefore, as the remaining measures did ensure that viability was restored with the minimum aid necessary, the Commission can conclude that only the redirected amount of the guaranteed loan, and not the entire amount of the restructuring aid, was misused, and that the other measures under the 2003 IBP remained compatible.
Ker je bilo s preostalimi ukrepi zagotovljeno, da je bila rentabilnost ponovno vzpostavljena z minimalno potrebno pomočjo, lahko Komisija zato sklene, da je bil zlorabljen le preusmerjeni znesek posojila z jamstvom in ne celotni znesek pomoči za prestrukturiranje in da so drugi ukrepi iz načrta IPN iz leta 2003 ostali združljivi.
Aid element of the misused part of the guaranteed loan
Element pomoči zlorabljenega dela posojila z jamstvom
Finally, the aid element of the State-guaranteed loan of EUR 31245684 must be determined. In principle the aid intensity of a guarantee can be up to 100 % [26].
Nazadnje, treba je določiti element pomoči posojila z državnim jamstvom v višini 31245684 EUR. Intenzivnost pomoči jamstva lahko načeloma znaša do 100 % [26].
The Commission acknowledges however that the guarantee as a form of aid had in this case a limited distortive effect given that the loan for which HLW obtained a guarantee was repaid after one year by Arcelor.
Vendar pa Komisija priznava, da je imelo jamstvo kot oblika pomoči v tem primeru omejen učinek izkrivljanja, saj je družba Arcelor po enem letu odplačala posojilo, za katero je družba HLW pridobila jamstvo.
Therefore, the Commission considers that in order to recover all the advantage received by the company it is necessary to recover only the interest subsidy given by the guarantee for the period when the borrowed money was at the company’s disposal.
Komisija zato meni, da je treba za vračilo vseh prednosti, ki jih je prejela družba, vrniti le subvencionirane obresti, prejete na podlagi jamstva, za obdobje, v katerem je bil družbi na voljo izposojen denar.
According to constant Commission practice, the interest subsidy would be equivalent to the difference between the interest that would have had to be paid on market terms and the interest actually paid by the company.
V skladu s stalno prakso Komisije so subvencionirane obresti enake razliki med obrestmi, ki bi jih bilo treba plačati pod tržnimi pogoji, in obrestmi, ki jih je družba dejansko plačala.
The market interest in this case would be calculated on the basis of the reference rate at the time when the money was made available (August 2004) plus 400 basis points, given that HLW was not viable in 2004 (see above point (46)), but was a company in difficulty [27].
V tem primeru bi se tržne obresti izračunale na podlagi referenčne mere, ki se je uporabljala v času, ko je bil denar dan na voljo (avgusta 2004), plus 400 bazičnih točk, glede na to, da družba HLW v letu 2004 ni bila rentabilna (glej točko (46) zgoraj), temveč je bila družba s težavami [27].
Established Commission practice does not allow going below 400 basis points [28].
Uveljavljena praksa Komisije ne dopušča manj kot 400 bazičnih točk [28].
However no further increase is necessary as the company provided security and the steel sector was performing well in 2004.
Vendar pa ni potrebno nobeno nadaljnje povečanje, saj je družba predložila garancijo in je jeklarski sektor leta 2004 dobro deloval.
As the loan was provided not in PLN but in euro, the Commission is applying the reference rate for the Eurozone, i.e. 4,43 %.
Ker posojilo ni bilo zagotovljeno v poljskih zlotih, temveč v eurih, Komisija uporablja referenčno mero za euroobmočje, tj. 4,43 %.
In this context it should be recalled that the benefit actually achieved must be assessed by comparing the conditions obtained by the company and the conditions that would have been achieved under market conditions (without the State guarantee).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je treba dejansko doseženo ugodnost oceniti s primerjavo pogojev, ki jih je pridobila družba, in pogojev, ki bi jih dosegla pod tržnimi pogoji (brez državnega jamstva).
It is normal market practice to determine credit interest on the basis of the reference rate (usually the relevant interbank reference rate) for the currency of the principal, because the fluctuation of the value of money is related to the economy in which a particular currency is used.
Običajna tržna praksa je določiti kreditne obresti na podlagi referenčne mere (po navadi ustrezne medbančne referenčne mere) za valuto glavnice, saj je nihanje vrednosti denarja povezano z gospodarstvom, v katerem se uporablja določena valuta.
Therefore, in the case of a loan denominated in euro the reference rate applied by a market economy creditor should also be the one used for credit denominated in euro, even though the loan was granted in Poland.
Zato mora biti v primeru posojila, izraženega v eurih, referenčna mera, ki jo uporablja upnik v tržnem gospodarstvu, tudi tista, ki se uporablja za kredit, izražen v eurih, čeprav je bilo posojilo odobreno na Poljskem.
Thus, the interest should have been at 8,43 % p.a., i.e. it should have amounted to EUR 2807206. This needs to be compared with the expenses the company actually incurred.
Obresti bi tako morale znašati 8,43 %, tj. znašati bi morale 2807206 EUR. To je treba primerjati z izdatki, ki jih je družba dejansko imela.
These consist of the interest of EUR 1061050 plus some premiums for the guarantee (as indicated in points (42)(a) and (b)), which, according to Commission practice, have to be considered when calculating the aid amount of a guarantee [29].
Ti so sestavljeni iz obresti v višini 1061050 EUR in nekaterih premij za jamstvo (kot je navedeno v točki 42(a) in (b)), ki jih je treba v skladu s prakso Komisije upoštevati pri izračunavanju zneska pomoči jamstva [29].
The cost of the guarantee should be spread over the total amount of the guarantee and related to the misused aid plus the interest covered by the guarantee.
Stroške jamstva je treba razporediti po celotnem znesku jamstva in povezati z zlorabljeno pomočjo skupaj z obrestmi, ki jih pokriva jamstvo.
This is because the limited use of the guaranteed part of the loan for investments was a business decision that had not yet been taken when the guaranteed loan was arranged as a loan of EUR 46 million plus interest for five years.
To je zato, ker je bila omejena uporaba dela posojila z jamstvom poslovna odločitev, ki še ni bila sprejeta, ko je bilo posojilo z jamstvom dogovorjeno kot posojilo v višini 46 milijonov EUR plus obresti za pet let.
Otherwise the guaranteed loan would have been arranged differently.
V nasprotnem primeru bi bilo posojilo z jamstvom urejeno drugače.
Hence a pro rata division should be made by calculating the proportion of the fee relating to the actual amount guaranteed and misused.
Zato je treba narediti sorazmerno razdelitev z izračunom deleža pristojbine, ki se nanaša na dejanski zajamčeni in zlorabljeni znesek.
Moreover, for the same reasons the fee should be calculated pro rata of the time actually used in relation to the guarantee for the total period of five years, as the guarantee was theoretically amortised in that period.
Poleg tega je treba iz istih razlogov pristojbino izračunati sorazmerno s časom, ki je bil dejansko porabljen v zvezi z jamstvom, za skupno obdobje petih let, saj se je jamstvo v tem obdobju teoretično amortiziralo.
If it is terminated earlier, this is a revision of a business decision which is independent of the former arrangement.
Če se konča pred tem, je to revizija poslovne odločitve, ki je neodvisna od prejšnje ureditve.
This means that the Commission accepts deduction of the costs for the State Treasury fee and the preparation fee as indicated above in point (42), but on the basis of a pro rata calculation, based on (a) the ratio of the amount actually guaranteed (32,3 (=31,24 + 1,06 (principal plus interest actually paid)) to the total amount of the guarantee (EUR 58330000)) and (b) the ratio of actual use to the intended use for five years (i.e. 388 days out of a potential 1826 days).
To pomeni, da Komisija sprejema odbitek stroškov pristojbine za državno zakladnico in pristojbine za pripravo, kot je navedeno v točki 42, vendar na podlagi sorazmernega izračuna, ki temelji na a) razmerju med dejansko zajamčenim zneskom (32,3 (= 31,24 + 1,06 (glavnica plus dejansko plačane obresti)) in skupnim zneskom jamstva (58330000 EUR) in b) razmerju med dejansko uporabo in nameravano uporabo za pet let (tj. 388 dni od mogočih 1826 dni).
However, as regards fees for the loan indicated above in point (42)(c), the Commission does not consider these as costs deductible from the advantage, given that any loan on market terms must also involve similar costs, which could possibly even have been higher.
Vendar pa v zvezi s pristojbinami za posojilo, navedenimi v točki 42(c) zgoraj, Komisija meni, da to niso stroški, ki se lahko odštejejo od prednosti, glede na dejstvo, da tudi vsako posojilo pod tržnimi pogoji vključuje podobne stroške, ki bi lahko bili celo višji.
This leads to the following calculation, taking into account compound interest on the benefit from 24 August 2004 until repayment, at a recovery rate of 7,62 % p.a.:
Ob upoštevanju obrestnih obresti za obdobje od 24. avgusta 2004 do odplačila pri stopnji povračila v višini 7,26 % na leto to privede do naslednjega izračuna:
Total amount financed
Skupni financirani znesek
Appropriate interest required from 24.8.2004 to 16.9.2005
Ustrezne obresti, ki se zahtevajo od 24.8.2004 do 16.9.2005
Interest actually paid by HLW on guaranteed loan
Obresti, ki jih je družba HLW dejansko plačala za posojilo z jamstvom
Preparation fee for guarantee, pro rata over total guarantee and loan duration
Pristojbina za pripravo jamstva, sorazmerno porazdeljena na celotno jamstvo in trajanje posojila
State Treasury Fee, pro rata over total guarantee and loan duration
Pristojbina za državno zakladnico, sorazmerno porazdeljena na celotno jamstvo in trajanje posojila
Total costs for guaranteed loan actually incurred
Skupni dejansko nastali stroški v zvezi s posojilom z jamstvom
Interest differential (= benefit)
Razlika v obrestni meri (= ugodnost)
Plus compound interest at recovery rate from 24.8.2004 to 20.11.2007
Plus obrestne obresti pri stopnji povračila od 24.8.2004 do 20.11.2007
Payable on 20.11.2007
Plačljivo 20.11.2007
To summarise: the Commission concludes that the paying off of the sale and leaseback agreement for the productive assets was not envisaged in the 2003 IBP and put the restoration of viability at risk, at least at the time when the aid was required.
Če povzamemo, Komisija sklepa, da odplačilo pogodbe o prodaji in povratnem najemu za proizvodna sredstva v načrtu IPN iz leta 2003 ni bilo predvideno in je ogrozilo ponovno vzpostavitev rentabilnosti, vsaj v času, ko je bila pomoč potrebna.
However, as the company nevertheless restored viability, the misuse of the aid does not affect the compatibility of the remaining aid.
Ker pa je družba kljub temu ponovno vzpostavila rentabilnost, zloraba pomoči ne vpliva na združljivost preostale pomoči.
Moreover as the guarantee has been terminated and the loan has already been repaid, only the interest subsidy from which HLW benefited in the period when the money was available (i.e. from the transfer of money to the repayment) need now be recovered.
Ker se je poleg tega jamstvo izteklo in je bilo posojilo že odplačano, je treba zdaj vrniti le subvencionirane obresti, od katerih je imela koristi družba HLW v obdobju, v katerem so bila na voljo denarna sredstva (tj. od prenosa denarnih sredstev do odplačila).
This interest subsidy amounts to EUR 1645682.
Te subvencionirane obresti znašajo 1645682 EUR.
Change of plan
Sprememba načrta
Poland has asked the Commission to accept an updated IBP under point 10 of Protocol No 8.
Poljska je Komisijo zaprosila, naj sprejme posodobljeni načrt IPN na podlagi točke 10 Protokola št. 8.
The Commission has dealt with similar cases in the past and has clarified that, ‘An agreement by the Commission to a change of an IBP must be based on the consideration that there is no problem of compatibility of the change with the objectives of Protocol No 8.
Komisija je v preteklosti obravnavala podobne primere in pojasnila, da: „mora soglasje Komisije k spremembi načrta IPN temeljiti na presoji, da ne obstajajo težave glede združljivosti spremembe s cilji Protokola št. 8.
This is the case where the main figures indicated in the Protocol concerning State aid, capacity and timing remain unchanged and the proportionality of the State aids as stipulated in the Protocol remains in place without questioning the objective of viability [30].’
To drži v primeru, ko glavne številke, navedene v Protokolu, ki se nanašajo na državno pomoč, zmogljivost in časovni načrt, ostanejo nespremenjene in ko sorazmernost državne pomoči, kot je določena v Protokolu, ostane vzpostavljena, ne da bi se postavil pod vprašaj cilj rentabilnosti [30].“
The Commission clarified in the opening decision that in this case the changes concerned neither an increase of the total amount of State aid nor an increase of production capacity [31] within the restructuring period, but that the revised IBP mainly implied a significant change in the company’s investment strategy, that the State aid provided seemed to have been abused as operating aid and no more State aid was necessary to complete the investments (see points (54) and (56)).
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka pojasnila, da spremembe v tem primeru niso zadevale ne povečanja skupnega zneska državne pomoči niti povečanja proizvodne zmogljivosti [31] med prestrukturiranjem, temveč da spremenjeni načrt IPN pomeni predvsem bistveno spremembo strategije naložb družbe, da se zdi, da je bila zagotovljena državna pomoč zlorabljena kot pomoč za poslovanje in da za končanje naložb ni več potrebna državna pomoč (glej točki 54 in 56).
Essentially, the investigation confirmed that these doubts were not allayed, as the aid was indeed misused, as concluded above, and is incompatible with the common market.
Preiskava je predvsem potrdila, da ti dvomi niso bili odpravljeni, ker je bila pomoč dejansko zlorabljena, kot je sklenjeno zgoraj, in je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
The 2005 IBP does not rectify this defect, i.e. the excess of State aid, and can thus not be approved in that form.
Načrt IPN iz leta 2005 ne odpravlja te nepravilnosti, tj. presežka državne pomoči, in ga zato ni mogoče odobriti v tej obliki.
In particular, the fact that AHW has in the meantime revived the investment programme does not suffice to rectify the defect.
Zlasti dejstvo, da je družba AHW medtem oživila program naložb, ne zadostuje za odpravo te nepravilnosti.
As discussed above, this would have been so even if the company had carried out only the investments indicated in the restructuring plan.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, bi bilo enako tudi v primeru, če bi družba izvedla le naložbe, navedene v načrtu prestrukturiranja.
It is clear that the new investment programme will be implemented at a much later stage than originally envisaged in the plan.
Jasno je, da se bo novi program naložb izvajal bistveno pozneje, kot je bilo prvotno predvideno v načrtu.
It is further clear that the original aid was provided to ensure adherence to the schedule of the restructuring programme.
Jasno je tudi, da je bila prvotna pomoč odobrena za zagotovitev spoštovanja časovnega načrta programa prestrukturiranja.
Thus the aid was related to the purpose of inciting HLW to make these investments in a scheduled, timely fashion in 2003 and 2004.
Namen pomoči je bil tako spodbuditi družbo HLW, naj izvede te naložbe v skladu z načrtom in pravočasno v letih 2003 in 2004.
In fact, if the restructuring schedule had been delayed ex ante to 2004 and 2005, no bridging loan and thus no aid would have been necessary.
Če bi se časovni načrt prej odložil na leti 2004 in 2005, dejansko ne bi bilo potrebno nobeno premostitveno posojilo in posledično pomoč.
Notwithstanding the misuse, the Commission notes that if the misused aid is recovered, it can accept the residual new plan.
Ne glede na zlorabo Komisija ugotavlja, da lahko sprejme preostanek novega načrta, če se zlorabljena pomoč povrne.
In the decision initiating the procedure the Commission noted its readiness to accept the new business strategy from an industrial point of view, accepting that the new investment would be beneficial for the company’s future economic performance and could have other positive effects as regards environmental protection and cost reduction.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka navedla, da je pripravljena sprejeti novo poslovno strategijo z industrijskega vidika, saj sprejema dejstvo, da bo nova naložba koristna za prihodnjo gospodarsko učinkovitost družbe in bo lahko imela druge pozitivne učinke v zvezi z varstvom okolja in znižanjem stroškov.
In any event the Commission notes that the amendment of the plan does not require any additional aid but is entirely financed from the investor’s funds.
Vsekakor Komisija ugotavlja, da sprememba načrta ne zahteva nobene dodatne pomoči, temveč se v celoti financira iz vlagateljevih sredstev.
Therefore, the Commission sees no reason to object to the updated programme, even if there is a change in strategy [32].
Komisija zato ne vidi nobenega razloga za nasprotovanje posodobljenemu programu, čeprav obstaja sprememba strategije [32].
In short, the Commission concludes that, pursuant to points (9) and (18) of Protocol No 8, the guarantee for loan of EUR 31,2 million was misused and was used in an incompatible manner by HLW.
Na kratko, Komisija v skladu s točkama 9 in 18 Protokola št. 8 sklepa, da je družba HLW zlorabila jamstvo za posojilo v višini 31,2 milijona EUR in ga uporabila na nezdružljiv način.