natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Regarding the purchase of the INH shares held by TŽ, the Commission doubted whether the price of CZK 1250 per share paid by the State would have been acceptable to a market economy investor and was free of aid in favour of the seller.
Glede nakupa delnic INH, ki so v lasti TŽ, je Komisija dvomila, da bi bila cena 1250 CZK za delnico, ki jo je plačala država, sprejemljiva za vlagatelja pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva in ne bi vključevala pomoči v korist prodajalca.
Indeed, in March 2004 the Czech Securities Commission (CSC) authorised INH to buy back its own shares on the stock market at a price of CZK 550.
Marca 2004 je Češka komisija za vrednostne papirje res odobrila, da INH ponovno odkupi svoje delnice na trgu vrednostnih papirjev po ceni 550 CZK.
In its submission to the CSC, INH underpinned the proposed price by the valuation report of an expert.
INH je v svoji predložitvi Češki komisiji za vrednostne papirje predlagano ceno podprl s izvedenskim poročilom o vrednotenju.
The Commission observed that the State did not take into account the much lower price approved by the CSC a few weeks before and accepted to pay the price calculated by its own expert (KPMG).
Komisija je ugotovila, da država ni upoštevala mnogo nižje cene, ki jo je Češka komisija za vrednostne papirje odobrila nekaj tednov prej, in da je pristala, da bo plačala ceno, ki jo je izračunal njen strokovnjak (KPMG).
The title of Resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic No 1126 adopted on 12 November 2003, which stated that this resolution ‘concerns the finalisation of the restructuring of the steel sector and proposes a solution for Třinecké železárny, a.s’, reinforced the Commission's doubts.
Naslov Resolucije Vlade Češke republike št. 1126, sprejete 12. novembra 2003, ki določa, da navedena resolucija „zadeva prestrukturiranje jeklarskega sektorja in predlaga rešitev za Třinecké železárny a.s.“, je še okrepil dvome Komisije.
The Commission therefore decided to investigate whether these three measures constituted disguised restructuring aid to the steel producer TŽ and thus were in contradiction with Protocol 2.
Komisija je zato sklenila proučiti, ali navedeni trije ukrepi pomenijo prikrito pomoč za prestrukturiranje v korist proizvajalca jekla TŽ in so zato v nasprotju s Protokolom št. 2.
COMMENTS FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC
PRIPOMBE ČEŠKE
The Czech authorities submitted to the Commission copies of all the projects of TŽ for training of employees in the period 2004-06, which were assessed by the OPC and on the basis of which the State aid was granted.
Češki organi so Komisiji predložili kopije vseh projektov TŽ za usposabljanje zaposlenih v obdobju 2004–2006, ki jih je ocenil češki Urad za varstvo konkurence in na podlagi katerih je bila dodeljena državna pomoč.
Moreover, they explained in details all activities covered by general and specific training and indicated how the training aid would improve and update the skill levels of the company's workforce and thus its employability in the light of the new challenges of the market.
Poleg tega so podrobno razložili vse dejavnosti, zajete v splošnem in posebnem usposabljanju, in navedli, kako bi pomoč za usposabljanje izboljšala in posodobila ravni znanj in spretnosti delovne sile v družbi in s tem tudi njeno zaposljivost glede na nove izzive na trgu.
The training projects, to be carried out from 2004 to 2006, consist of a comprehensive training programme of many different courses (personal development, communication, marketing, management training, auditing, new technologies, engineering, quality etc.).
Programi usposabljanja, ki naj bi se izvajali med letoma 2004 in 2006, zajemajo celovit program usposabljanja s številnimi različnimi tečaji (osebni razvoj, komuniciranje, trženje, usposabljanje poslovodnih delavcev, revidiranje, nove tehnologije, inženiring, kakovost itd.).
The total eligible costs of these projects amount to CZK […] [6].
Skupni upravičeni stroški teh projektov znašajo […] CZK [6].
The total aid amounts to CZK 44088300 (EUR 1,5 million).
Skupna pomoč znaša 44088300 CZK (1,5 milijona EUR).
Closure aid
Pomoč za zaprtje
In their letter of 20 March 2006, the Czech authorities indicated that they would not be paying the closure aid, amounting to CZK 4152500 (EUR 0,14 million), covering part of the redundancy payments to employees of the closeddown furnace because TŽ had changed its business strategy.
V dopisu z dne 20. marca 2006 so češki organi navedli, da ne bodo plačali pomoči za zaprtje v višini 4152500 CZK (0,14 milijona EUR), ki zajema del odpravnin ob odpustu delavcev zaprte peči, ker je TŽ spremenil svojo poslovno strategijo.
Purchase of INH shares held by TŽ
Nakup delnic INH, ki so v lasti TŽ
The Czech authorities assert that they acted like a market economy investor in not taking into account the price of CZK 550 approved by the CSC and consecutively negotiating the price with the seller — TŽ — only on the basis of their expert's report (KPMG report).
Češki organi trdijo, da so ravnali kot vlagatelj pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva, ko niso upoštevali cene v višini 550 CZK, ki jo je odobrila Češka komisija za vrednostne papirje, in so se o ceni dosledno pogajali s prodajalcem – TŽ – zgolj na podlagi svojega izvedenskega poročila (poročilo KPMG).
In support of this assertion, the Czech authorities have put forward several elements, including the following.
V podporo tej trditvi so češki organi predstavili več elementov, med drugim tiste, ki so navedeni v nadaljevanju.
First, they claim that a market economy investor knows that the interest of a company (INH in this case), when buying back its own shares, is to pay the lowest price possible.
Prvič, trdijo, da se vlagatelj pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva zaveda, da je v interesu družbe (v tem primeru INH), kadar ponovno odkupuje svoje delnice, da plača najnižjo možno ceno.
Therefore, during the negotiation of the price of the shares with the seller, the rational investor will not consider the price proposed within the framework of the buy-back offer as constituting the market value.
Zato med pogajanji o ceni delnic s prodajalcem razumen vlagatelj ne bo domneval, da cena, ki je predlagana v okviru ponudbe za ponovni odkup, predstavlja tržno vrednost.
Second, the Czech authorities claim that it cannot be concluded from the fact that the price proposed by INH was underpinned by an expert report and was approved by the CSC that it represented the market value of the shares:
Drugič, češki organi trdijo, da iz dejstva, da je bila cena, ki jo je predlagal INH, podprta z izvedenskim poročilom in da jo je odobrila Češka komisija za vrednostne papirje, ni mogoče sklepati, da ta cena predstavlja tržno vrednost delnic:
indeed, regarding the expert report, the market economy investor knows that the expert is chosen and paid by INH, which was particularly interested in setting a low purchase price.
kar zadeva izvedensko poročilo, se vlagatelj pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva res zaveda, da je izvedenca izbral in plačal INH, v interesu katerega je bilo zlasti, da se določi nizka nakupna cena.
Therefore the impartiality of the expert report could be questioned and a tendency to set a lower price suspected;
Zato bi bilo mogoče dvomiti o nepristranosti izvedenskega poročila in domnevati težnjo po določitvi nižje cene;
regarding the fact that the price was approved by the CSC, the Czech authorities stress that, contrary to the hypothesis of the Commission expressed in the opening decision, the CSC assesses the bid on the basis of the applicable law and its internal methodology on ‘Expert reports for setting the price of participating securities within a mandatory take-over bid and within a public offer to purchase shares’ and it does not have the competence to set the price of the shares itself or to replace the expert valuation report by its own analysis.
kar zadeva dejstvo, da je ceno odobrila Češka komisija za vrednostne papirje, so češki organi poudarili, da v nasprotju z domnevo, ki jo je Komisija izrazila v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, Češka komisija za vrednostne papirje ocenjuje ponudbo na podlagi veljavne zakonodaje in svoje interne metodologije za „Izvedenska poročila za določanje cene udeležbenih vrednostnih papirjev v obvezni prevzemni ponudbi in v javni ponudbi za nakup delnic“ in nima pristojnosti, da bi sama določala ceno delnic ali zamenjala izvedensko poročilo o vrednotenju s svojo analizo.
The CSC decided only whether all legal requirements for the tender offer to buy back the companys shares and for the expert valuation report were satisfied.
Češka komisija za vrednostne papirje je zgolj odločila, ali so izpolnjene vse zakonske zahteve za ponudbo za ponovni odkup delnic družbe in za izvedensko poročilo o vrednotenju.
Third, in addition to the last consideration, the Czech authorities indicate that, before eventually granting its approval in March 2004, the CSC had already rejected one submission by INH and one by LNM (the majority shareholder of INH).
Tretjič, poleg prejšnjega premisleka češki organi navajajo, da je Češka komisija za vrednostne papirje, preden je izdala odobritev marca 2004, že zavrnila eno ponudbo, ki jo je predložil INH, in eno, ki jo je predložil LNM (večinski delničar v INH).
Indeed, in both cases the expert report which formed the basis for the price proposed contained serious deficiencies with regard to the regulatory requirements for an expert report.
V obeh primerih je izvedensko poročilo, ki je bilo podlaga za predlagano ceno, vsebovalo resne pomanjkljivosti glede zakonskih zahtev za izvedensko poročilo.
INH then made a new submission on the basis of a valuation report respecting all the regulatory requirements.
INH je nato predložil novo ponudbo na podlagi poročila o vrednotenju, v katerem so bile upoštevane vse zakonske zahteve.
The CSC no longer had any grounds to reject this last submission and consequently approved it.
Češka komisija za vrednostne papirje ni imela več razlogov, da bi zavrnila zadnjo ponudbo, in jo je zato odobrila.
According to the Czech authorities, a market economy investor would have interpreted this earlier double rejection by the CSC as confirming its expectation that INH and LNM were trying, through these deficiencies identified by the CSC in the expert reports, to undervalue the company in order to pay the lowest possible price for the shares they planned to buy back.
Češki organi menijo, da bi vlagatelj pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva razumel predhodno dvojno zavrnitev s strani češke Komisije za vrednostne papirje kot potrditev njegovih pričakovanj, da sta INH in LNM poskušala s temi pomanjkljivostmi, ki jih je Češka komisija za vrednostne papirje ugotovila v izvedenskih poročilih, prenizko oceniti družbo, da bi plačala najnižjo možno ceno za delnice, ki sta jih nameravala ponovno odkupiti.
Fourth, the Czech authorities indicate that a market economy investor will consider that the price of CZK 550 is underestimated given the fact that it corresponds to an exaggeratedly low price-earnings ratio (P/E).
Četrtič, češki organi navajajo, da bo vlagatelj pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva vedel, da je cena 550 CZK postavljena prenizko, saj kaže pretirano nizko razmerje med tečajem in dobičkom na delnico (T/D).
This ratio is obtained by dividing the price of a share by the net profit per share.
To razmerje dobimo, če delimo ceno delnice s čistim dobičkom na delnico.
On the basis of the net profit of INH for 2003, which could be estimated at the beginning of 2004 when the transaction was performed, a price per share of CZK 550 gives a P/E equal to around 1,25.
Na podlagi čistega dobička INH v letu 2003, ki ga je bilo mogoče oceniti v začetku leta 2004, ko je bila izvedena transakcija, pomeni cena delnice v višini 550 CZK, da je T/D znašal približno 1,25.
A price of CZK 1250 per share gives a P/E of 2,8, which was at the extreme bottom of the range of P/E observable for the steel producers quoted on a stock exchange.
Cena 1250 CZK za delnico pomeni T/D v višini 2,8, kar je bila skrajna spodnja meja za T/D, ki ga je bilo mogoče ugotoviti za proizvajalce jekla, ki so kotirali na borzi.
In other words, the price calculated by INHs expert corresponds to a very low valuation of the company, which was not reconcilable with the valuation by the financial markets of the companies operating in the steel sector at that time.
Z drugimi besedami, cena, ki jo je izračunal izvedenec družbe INH, ustreza zelo nizki oceni družbe, kar pa ni združljivo z ovrednotenjem družb na finančnem trgu, ki so v tistem času delovale v jeklarskem sektorju.
Finally, the Czech authorities point out that the public offer by INH to buy back its shares at a price of CZK 550 met with very little response.
Končno, češki organi poudarjajo, da je bil odziv na javno ponudbo s strani INH za ponovni odkup njegovih delnic po ceni 550 CZK zelo majhen.
The large majority of the eligible investors decided not to sell their shares at this price.
Velika večina upravičenih vlagateljev se je odločila, da ne bo prodala svojih delnic po tej ceni.
Several of them have even lodged complaints alleging breach of their rights.
Nekaj jih je celo vložilo pritožbo, ker naj bi bile kršene njihove pravice.
Protocol 2 allows the granting of restructuring State aid to the Czech steel industry in connection with its restructuring in the period between 1997 and 2003 of up to a maximum of CZK 14147 million (EUR 453 million).
Protokol št. 2 dopušča dodelitev državne pomoči za prestrukturiranje češki jeklarski industriji v povezavi z njenim prestrukturiranjem v obdobju med letoma 1997 in 2003 v višini največ 14147 milijonov CZK (453 milijonov EUR).
The Protocol combines the granting of State aid with several conditions, inter alia, with re-establishing viability and the commitment to reduce capacity.
V protokolu je za dodelitev državne pomoči določenih več pogojev, med drugim ponovna vzpostavitev sposobnosti preživetja in zavezanost zmanjšanju zmogljivosti.
Point 1 of Protocol 2 provides that ‘notwithstanding Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, State aid granted by the Czech Republic for restructuring purposes to specified parts of the Czech steel industry shall be deemed to be compatible with the common market’ if, inter alia, the conditions set out in the Protocol are met.
Točka 1 Protokola št. 2 navaja, da se „ne glede na člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES državna pomoč, ki jo je podelila Češka v namene prestrukturiranja določenim delom češke jeklarske industrije, šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom“, če so med drugim izpolnjeni pogoji, določeni v Protokolu.
The last sentence of point 6 of Protocol 2 prohibits granting any additional aid for the purpose of restructuring to the Czech steel industry.
Zadnji stavek točke 6 Protokola št. 2 prepoveduje dodelitev kakršne koli dodatne pomoči v namene prestrukturiranja češki jeklarski industriji.
To this end, point 20 gives the Commission the power to take ‘appropriate steps requiring any company concerned to reimburse any aid granted in breach of the conditions laid down in this Protocol’ should the monitoring of the restructuring show non-compliance by way of granting ‘additional incompatible State aid to the steel industry’.
V ta namen točka 20 Komisiji daje pooblastilo, da „naredi vse potrebno, da se od zadevnih družb zahteva povrnitev vseh pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene s kršenjem pogojev iz tega Protokola“, če spremljanje prestrukturiranja pokaže kršitev s tem, da se dodelijo „jeklarski industriji dodatne, nezdružljive državne pomoči“.
The grace period for granting restructuring aid to the Czech steel industry under the Europe Agreement was extended by the Council until 31 December 2006.
Obdobje odloga za dodelitev pomoči za prestrukturiranje češki jeklarski industriji v Evropskem sporazumu je Svet podaljšal do 31. decembra 2006.
This arrangement was recognised by Protocol 2.
Ta dogovor je bil priznan v Protokolu št. 2.
In order to achieve this objective, the Protocol covers a timeframe extending before and after accession.
Za dosego tega cilja Protokol zajema časovno obdobje pred pristopom in po njem.
More precisely, it authorised a limited amount of restructuring aid for the years 1997-2003 and forbids any further State aid for restructuring purposes to the Czech steel industry between 1997 and 2006.
Natančneje, v Protokolu je odobren omejen znesek pomoči za prestrukturiranje za leta 1997–2003 in prepovedana kakršna koli dodatna državna pomoč v namene prestrukturiranja češki jeklarski industriji med letoma 1997 in 2006.
In this respect, it clearly differs from other provisions of the 2003 Accession Treaty, such as the interim mechanism set out in Annex IV (the ‘existing aid procedure’), which only concerns State aid granted before accession in so far as it is ‘still applicable after’ the date of accession.
S tega vidika se Protokol jasno razlikuje od drugih določb Pogodbe o pristopu iz leta 2003, kot je začasni mehanizem, določen v Prilogi IV („postopek obstoječe pomoči“), ki zadeva le državno pomoč, dodeljeno pred pristopom, če je ta „še vedno veljavna“ po datumu pristopa.
Protocol 2 can, therefore, be regarded as a lex specialis which, for the matters that it covers, supersedes any other provision of the Accession Treaty.
Protokol št. 2 se tako lahko obravnava kot lex specialis, ki v zadevah, ki jih ureja, izpodrinja vse druge določbe Pogodbe o pristopu.
Consequently, while Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty would not normally apply to aid granted before accession, which is not applicable after accession, the provisions of Protocol 2 extend State aid control under the EC Treaty to any aid granted before accession for the restructuring of the Czech steel industry between 1997 and 2006.
In čeprav se člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES običajno ne bi uporabljala za pomoč, dodeljeno pred pristopom, ki ni veljavna po pristopu, določbe Protokola št. 2 tako razširjajo nadzor državne pomoči v skladu s Pogodbo ES na vso pomoč, dodeljeno pred pristopom za prestrukturiranje češke jeklarske industrije v obdobju med letoma 1997 in 2006.
Protocol 2 does not apply to other State aid measures granted to the Czech steel industry for specific purposes that can be declared compatible on other grounds, such as research and development aid, environmental protection aid, training aid, closure aid, etc. These aid measures do not fall under the scope of Articles 87 and 88 if they are granted before accession and are not applicable after accession.
Protokol št. 2 se ne uporablja za druge ukrepe državne pomoči, dodeljene češki jeklarski industriji za posebne namene, ki lahko veljajo za združljive na drugi podlagi, kot je pomoč za raziskave in razvoj, pomoč za varstvo okolja, pomoč za usposabljanje, pomoč za zaprtje itd. Ti ukrepi pomoči ne sodijo v področje členov 87 in 88, če so dodeljeni pred pristopom in ne veljajo po pristopu.
In any event, the Protocol does not limit the possibility to grant other kinds of aid to the Czech steel companies in accordance with the Community acquis.
V vsakem primeru pa Protokol ne omejuje možnosti dodeljevanja drugih vrst pomoči češkim jeklarskim družbam v skladu s pravnim redom Skupnosti.
Of course, it does not limit the possibility to adopt measures that do not qualify as aid, e.g. capital injections in accordance with the market economy private investor test.
Seveda ne omejuje možnosti, da se sprejmejo ukrepi, ki se ne štejejo za pomoč, kot na primer dokapitalizacija v skladu s preizkusom zasebnega vlagatelja pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva.
On the other hand, a measure concerning Czech steel companies which constitutes State aid and which cannot be held to be compatible with the common market under other rules is to be considered as restructuring aid — given the residual character of this qualification — or, in any event, as aid related to restructuring of the Czech steel sector and will therefore be subject to Protocol 2.
Po drugi strani je treba ukrep, namenjen češkim jeklarskim družbam, ki pomeni državno pomoč in ki ne more veljati za združljivega s skupnim trgom v skladu z drugimi predpisi, obravnavati kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje – glede na preostale lastnosti te klasifikacije – ali v vsakem primeru kot pomoč, povezano s prestrukturiranjem češkega jeklarskega sektorja, in je kot tak predmet Protokola št. 2.
Therefore, in accordance with its constant practice and with point 20 of Protocol 2, the Commission can thus assess the measures in a formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty where it suspects that the Czech authorities have granted aid to steel companies that is not compatible with the common market on grounds other than restructuring and that, therefore, Protocol 2 is not being complied with by the Czech Republic.
Zato lahko Komisija v skladu s svojo stalno prakso in točko 20 Protokola št. 2 oceni ukrepe s formalnim postopkom preiskave v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES, kadar sumi, da so češki organi jeklarskim družbam dodelili pomoč, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom, na podlagi, ki ni prestrukturiranje, in da zato Češka ne ravna v skladu s Protokolom št. 2.
Also Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 [7] applies.
Uporablja se tudi Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [7].
Training subsidies in favour of TŽ constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Subvencije za usposabljanje v korist TŽ pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
They are financed by the State or through State resources.
Financirane so s strani države ali prek državnih sredstev.
These additional financial means are liable to distort competition in the Community by giving TŽ an advantage over competitors not receiving aid.
Ta dodatna finančna sredstva lahko izkrivijo konkurenco v Skupnosti z dajanjem prednosti TŽ pred drugimi konkurenti, ki ne prejemajo pomoči.
Lastly, there is extensive trade between the Member States in the steel sector in which TŽ is a non-negligible player, so the aid is likely to affect trade between Member States.
Navsezadnje je v jeklarskem sektorju prisotna obsežna trgovina med državami članicami, v kateri TŽ nima zanemarljive vloge, zato lahko pomoč vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Czech authorities will not pay to TŽ the closure aid covering part of the redundancy payments to employees of the closeddown furnace because of a change in the business strategy of TŽ.
Češki organi družbi TŽ ne bodo plačali pomoči za zaprtje, ki zajema del odpravnin ob odpustu delavcev zaprte peči, ker je TŽ spremenil svojo poslovno strategijo.
The company will therefore not receive the grant of CZK 4152500 (EUR 0,146 million) promised to it subject to certain conditions.
Družba zato ne bo prejela sredstev v višini 4152500 CZK (0,146 milijona EUR), ki so ji bila obljubljena pod določenimi pogoji.
This measure of the Czech authorities has therefore become inoperative.
Ta ukrep čeških organov je zato postal neveljaven.
The Commission will analyse, in the order in which they appear in the preceding section ‘Comments from the Czech Republic’, the elements put forward by the Czech authorities to underpin their assertion that they acted like a market economy investor [8] is not taking into account, within the framework of the negotiation with the seller, the price of CZK 550 submitted by INH and approved by the CSC.
Komisija bo preučila v vrstnem redu, kot se pojavijo v predhodnem oddelku „Pripombe Češke“, elemente, ki so jih predstavili češki organi, da bi podprli svojo trditev, da so ravnali kot vlagatelj pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva [8], ko v okviru pogajanj s prodajalcem niso upoštevali cene v višini 550 CZK, ki jo je predložil INH in odobrila Češka komisija za vrednostne papirje.
The Commission accepts the first claim of the Czech authorities that a market economy investor, as well as the seller, knows that the interest of a company (i.e. INH in this case), when buying back its own shares, is to pay the lowest price possible.
Komisija se strinja s prvo trditvijo čeških organov, in sicer, da se vlagatelj pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva in tudi prodajalec zavedata, da je v interesu družbe (v tem primeru INH), kadar ponovno odkupuje svoje delnice, da plača najnižjo možno ceno.