natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The loan is not backed by any public guarantee.
Posojilo ni zavarovano z javnim jamstvom.
The contract between VTO and the banks that was signed on 17 December 2003 was initially for EUR 1,95 billion. In March 2004 this amount was reduced to EUR 1,35 billion after TVO had been granted the Coface-guaranteed loan described in Section 2.2.2.
Prvotni znesek pogodbe med podjetjem TVO in bankami, podpisane dne 17. decembra 2003, je bil 1,95 milijarde EUR. Ta znesek se je znižal na 1,35 milijard EUR v marcu 2004, ko je TVO dobil posojilo, zavarovano z jamstvom Coface, ki je opisano v Oddelku 2.2.2.
In June 2005, alongside other financing, TVO concluded a new EUR 1,6 billion credit facility on the back of more favourable market conditions, paying an average spread of only […] bps above EURIBOR for this seven-year facility.
TVO je junija 2005 na podlagi boljših tržnih pogojev poleg drugih oblik financiranja sklenil nov kredit v vrednosti 1,6 milijarde EUR in za to sedemletno pogodbo v povprečju plačal le […] kreditnih točk nad EURIBOR-om.
Since it had met its initial Olkiluoto 3-related disbursements out of the other sources of financing described in this section, and in particular the shareholder funds, TVO in the end never had to call on the credit facility concluded in December 2003 and thus terminated it.
Ker je TVO svoje prvotne izdatke, povezane s projektom Olkiluoto 3, plačal iz drugih virov financiranja, navedenih v tem oddelku, in zlasti s sredstvi delničarjev, nazadnje ni potreboval kredita, ki ga je sklenil decembra 2003, zato je pogodbo prekinil.
On 11 June 2004 the Commission gave a positive opinion in accordance with Article 43 of the Euratom Treaty in which it concluded that the industrial project in question contributed to improving the security and diversity of supply at both regional and European level and that all aspects of the investment were consistent with the objectives of the Euratom Treaty.
Dne 11. junija 2004 je Komisija dala pozitivno mnenje v skladu s členom 43 Pogodbe Euratom, v katerem je menila, da je zadevni industrijski projekt pripomogel k izboljšanju varnosti in raznolikosti dobave tako na regionalni kot na evropski ravni ter da so vsi vidiki naložbe v skladu s cilji Pogodbe Euratom.
The loan guaranteed by Coface
Posojilo, zavarovano z jamstvom Coface
This is a EUR 570 million credit facility (‘the guaranteed loan’, the word ‘loan’ having been selected to avoid any confusion with the credit facility referred to in Section 2.2.1) and granted by the same mandated lead arrangers as those referred to in paragraph 31, excluding the bank […].
To je kredit v vrednosti 570 milijonov EUR („posojilo z jamstvom“, beseda „posojilo“ je bila izbrana, da ga ne bi zamenjevali s kreditom iz Oddelka 2.2.1) in so ga odobrile iste banke na vodilnih mestih kot tiste iz odstavka 31, razen banke […].
The loan principal will be gradually drawn down by TVO over a five-tear period, with the sums borrowed over time matching the payments to be made by TVO to AREVA NP.
Glavnico posojila bo TVO postopoma črpal v obdobju petih let, in sicer z zneski, ki si jih bo skozi čas izposojal in bodo enaki plačilom, ki jih mora TVO nakazovati podjetju AREVA NP.
Repayment of the loan will be in the form of constant six-monthly repayments of the principal.
Posojilo bo povrnjeno v obliki stalnih šestmesečnih povračil glavnice.
It will begin six months after the last disbursement and will be spread over 12 years.
Začelo se bo šest mesecev po zadnjem črpanju sredstev, trajalo pa bo 12 let.
The average duration of the loan as calculated by the French authorities is 8,92 years.
Po izračunu francoskih oblasti je povprečno trajanje posojila 8,92 leta.
The interest rate payable to the banks is variable and indexed to EURIBOR.
Obrestna stopnja, ki se plača bankam, je spremenljiva in indeksirana na EURIBOR.
The loan offers the banks a spread of […] bps above EURIBOR.
Posojilo bankam omogoča rast […] kreditnih točk nad EURIBOR-om.
The loan is backed by a guarantee granted by Coface as part of its export credit insurance activities on behalf of the French State.
Posojilo je zavarovano z jamstvom družbe Coface kot del njenih dejavnosti zavarovanja kreditnih izvoznih dejavnosti v imenu francoske države.
The insurance has been taken out by the banks and the insured parties are the banks, with Coface insuring 95 % of the loan amount.
Zavarovanje so sklenile banke, ki so obenem tudi zavarovane stranke, 95 % zneska posojila pa je zavarovanega z jamstvom družbe Coface.
The French Export Credit and Guarantee Commission (CGCCE), which was responsible for deciding whether or not the guarantee should be provided, delivered a positive decision on 17 November 2003.
Francoska komisija za izvozni kredit in jamstva, ki je bila odgovorna za odločitev o tem, ali naj se jamstvo odobri ali ne, je o tem dne 17. novembra 2003 odločila pozitivno.
Coface promised to provide a guarantee on 1 December 2003.
Coface je obljubil, da bo jamstvo odobril dne 1. decembra 2003.
The guaranteed loan was concluded on 25 March 2004.
Posojilo z jamstvom je bilo sklenjeno 25. marca 2004.
France gave notification of the guarantee to the participants in the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits concluded within the OECD (the OECD Arrangement) on 20 November 2003.
Francija je o jamstvu obvestila udeležence v Sporazumu o uradno podprtih izvoznih kreditih, ki ga je dne 20. novembra 2003 sprejel OECD („Sporazum OECD“).
It should be pointed out that the transaction in question was not challenged by any of the participants to the OECD Arrangement.
Treba je poudariti, da na zadevno transakcijo nihče od podpisnikov Sporazuma OECD ni imel pripomb.
The bilateral loans
Dvostranska posojila
In addition to the credit facility, when the investment decision was taken, TVO contracted a number of bilateral loans with various other financial bodies totalling EUR […] million. One of the loans was contracted with SEK for an amount of EUR 100 million (see the decision in Case NN 62/B/06).
Ko je bila sprejeta odločitev o naložbi, je podjetje TVO sklenilo številna dvostranska posojila z različnimi drugimi finančnimi ustanovami v skupni vrednosti […] milijonov EUR. Eno od teh posojil je sklenilo z banko SEK v vrednosti 100 milijonov EUR (glej odločitev v zadevi NN 62/B/2006).
Synopsis of the financial package and the chronology of events
Povzetek finančnega paketa in časovno zaporedje dogodkov
The following table gives the breakdown of the financing for the Olkiluoto 3 project as at 25 march 2004:
V naslednji razpredelnici je razčlenjeno financiranje projekta Olkiluoto 3 na dan 25. marca 2004:
Breakdown of the financing for the Olkiluoto 3 project (as at 25 March 2004)
Razčlenitev financiranja projekta Olkiluoto 3 (na dan 25. marca 2004)
Source of financing
Vir financiranja
amount (EUR)
Znesek (v evrih)
Proportion of project cost
Delež stroškov projekta
Increase in capital of TVO
Povečanje kapitala podjetja TVO
[…] million
[…] milijonov
Subordinated shareholder loan
Podrejeno posojilo delničarjev
Credit facility
Kredit
1,35 billion
1,35 milijarde
approx. 42 %
pribl. 42 %
Loan guaranteed by Coface
Posojilo, zavarovano z jamstvom Coface
570 million
570 milijonov
approx. 18 %
pribl. 18 %
Bilateral loans
Bilateralna posojila
> 3 billion
> 3 milijarde
The following table gives the chronology of events:
V naslednji razpredelnici je predstavljen časovni potek dogodkov:
Project schedule (main stages 2002-04)
Časovni razpored projekta (glavne stopnje 2002–2004)
Selection by TVO of the nuclear reactor for the power station (procedure for obtaining the corresponding permits)
TVO izbere jedrski reaktor za elektrarno (postopek za pridobitev ustreznih dovoljenj).
May-June 2003
Maj–junij 2003
Alongside and independently of the assessment procedure, TVO asks the bidders to comment on the possibility of obtaining an export credit as an alternative source of financing
Poleg ocenjevalnega postopka in neodvisno od njega je podjetje TVO pozvalo ponudnike, da predložijo pripombe glede možnosti pridobitve izvoznega kredita kot druge možnosti vira financiranja.
August-September 2003
Avgust–september 2003
TVO launches an invitation to tender for banks interested in providing a EUR 2.5 billion syndicated loan
TVO je objavil javni razpis za banke, ki so zainteresirane za odobritev 2,5 milijarde EUR sindikalnega posojila.
11 November 2003
november 2003
Commitment by five banks to provide up to EUR 2,5 billion
Zaveza petih bank, da bodo odobrile do 2,5 milijarde EUR.
1 December 2003
december 2003
Following the positive decision by the CGCCE of 17 November 2003, Coface issues the promise of a guarantee to AREVA NP in respect of a EUR 570 million export credit
Po pozitivni odločitvi Francoske komisije za izvozni kredit in jamstva z dne 17. novembra 2003 je Coface podjetju AREVA NP izdal zagotovilo o jamstvu za izvozni kredit v vrednosti 570 milijonov EUR.
17 December 2003
december 2003
Signing of the EUR 1,95 billion syndicated credit facility (with no Coface guarantee) to cover total financing needs with the support of shareholders and the other bilateral loans
Podpis pogodbe o sklenitvi sindiciranega kredita v vrednosti 1,95 milijarde EUR (brez zavarovanja z jamstvom Coface) za pokritje potreb financiranja s podporo delničarjev in ostalih dvostranskih posojil.
End December 2003-January 2004
Konec decembra 2003–januar 2004
TVO begins discussions with the banks on the terms and conditions of an export credit
TVO sproži razprave z bankami o rokih in pogojih izvoznega kredita.
4 February 2004
februar 2004
The terms and conditions of an export credit are agreed on by TVO and the banks (in particular, fixing of the bank spread)
TVO in banke se dogovorijo o rokih in pogojih izvoznega kredita (določijo zlasti obseg bank).
25 March 2004
marec 2004
Signing of the EUR 570 million loan guaranteed by Coface and subsequent reduction of the syndicated credit facility to EUR 1,35 billion
Podpis posojila v vrednosti 570 milijonov EUR, zavarovanega z jamstvom Coface, in posledično zmanjšanje sindikalnega kredita na 1,35 milijarde EUR.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
3 RAZLOGI ZA SPROŽITEV POSTOPKA
In its decision of 24 October 2006, the Commission examined for the first time whether the measure constituted aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
V svoji odločbi z dne 24. oktobra 2006 je Komisija prvič preučila, ali ukrep pomeni pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The decision ascertained in detail whether or not an advantage was conferred.
Odločba je natančno preverila, ali je bila omogočena posebna korist ali ne.
The Commission noted that the insurance premium of [2,5-3,5]% charged by Coface could not be compared directly to a market rate since no insurer seemed to offer this type of financial product.
Komisija je ugotovila, da zavarovalne premije [2,5–3,5] %, ki jo je zaračunal Coface, ni mogoče neposredno primerjati s tržno vrednostjo, ker nobena od zavarovalnic ni ponujala tovrstnega finančnega izdelka.
However, as the public guarantee was for a loan, it seemed that the total cost of the guaranteed loan — defined as the sum of the interest paid and the guarantee premium — could be compared with that which would have had to be borne by the borrower if there had been no public guarantee.
Ker pa je bilo posojilo zavarovano z javnim jamstvom, se je zdelo, da se lahko celotni strošek posojila z jamstvom – opredeljen kot vsota plačanih obresti in jamstvenih premij – primerja s tistim, ki bi ga kreditojemalec moral plačati, če ne bi dobil javnega jamstva.
On the basis of a comparison of the total cost of the guaranteed loan with the cost of the credit facility described in Section 2.2.1, the latter being regarded as a market rate, the Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that the guaranteed loan did not seem to reduce the financial charges that the borrower would normally have had to bear.
Na podlagi primerjave celotnih stroškov posojila z jamstvom s stroški sklenitve kredita, ki so navedeni v Oddelku 2.2.1, pri čemer zadnji velja za tržno stopnjo, je Komisija predhodno sklenila, da posojilo z jamstvom ne zmanjšuje finančnih stroškov, ki bi jih moral sicer kriti kreditojemalec.
It would seem, therefore, that no advantage was conferred on TVO.
Zato se je zdelo, da podjetje TVO ni bilo deležno nobene koristi.
The Commission would though point out that this preliminary conclusion is based on a certain number of assumptions.
Vendar pa je Komisija opozorila, da ta predhodna ugotovitev temelji na določenem številu predvidevanj.
And so it was unable to rule out at that stage any possibility that the measure constituted aid and it decided to allow France and the interested parties to comment on the methodology used and on the assumptions on which the Commission based its analysis of the existence of an advantage.
Zato na tej stopnji ni mogla izključiti vseh možnosti, da ukrep pomeni pomoč, zato je sklenila dovoliti Franciji in zainteresiranim strankam, da predložijo svoje pripombe v zvezi z uporabljeno metodologijo in predvidevanji, na katerih je temeljila analiza obstoja koristi, ki jo je izvedla Komisija.
As for the compatibility of any aid, the Commission would comment that, if some particulars suggest compatibility on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, others seem to point in the opposite direction.
Komisija je o združljivosti katere koli pomoči menila, da če določene podrobnosti kažejo na združljivost na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, druge ponavadi kažejo v drugo smer.
The compatibility of any aid cannot, therefore, be presumed a priori.
O združljivosti katere koli pomoči zato ni mogoče domnevati že na prvi pogled.
Since there can be no ruling out the possibility that the measure constituted aid and since, if this were the case, it was not certain that the measure would be compatible, the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Ker možnosti, da je ukrep pomenil pomoč, ni bilo mogoče izključiti, in ker ni bilo gotovo, ali bi bil v tem primeru ukrep združljiv, je Komisija sklenila, da bo sprožila formalni postopek preiskave.
COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES
4 PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANK
By letter of 2 January 2007, TVO sent its comments to the Commission.
TVO je z dopisom z dne 2. januarja 2007 Komisiji poslal svoje pripombe.
It stated that the decision to initiate the procedure contained a number of factual errors and suggested some corrections.
Navedel je, da je odločitev o sproženju postopka vsebovala številna napačna dejstva in predlagal nekatere popravke.
It also took the view that some of the assessments made by the Commission were based solely on a certain number of hypothetical suppositions and were speculative in nature.
Prav tako je menil, da nekatere ocene Komisije temeljijo le na določenem številu domnev in da so nezanesljive.
As to the existence of any advantage, TVO, referring back to the Commission's preliminary assessment, pointed out that the loan guaranteed by Coface was more expensive than the credit facility and the other sources of financing available at the time.
Glede obstoja koristi se je TVO navezal na predhodno oceno Komisije in poudaril, da je bilo posojilo, zavarovano z jamstvom Coface, dražje od kredita in drugih virov financiranja, ki so bili takrat na voljo.
It opted nevertheless for the guaranteed loan because of its longer period to maturity and because it reduced the amounts lent by the banks, thus making the amounts not lent available for future financing needs [7].
Kljub temu se je zaradi daljše dobe zapadlosti in nižanja zneskov, ki si jih je izposodil pri drugih bankah, odločil za posojilo, zavarovano z jamstvom, s čimer je neizposojene zneske prihranil za prihodnje potrebe po financiranju [7].
TVO therefore considered that the Commission should come to the conclusion that the guarantee did not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
TVO je zato menil, da bi morala Komisija odločiti, da jamstvo ne pomeni pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
By letter of 1 March 2007, Greenpeace, which was the first to submit a complaint when the present procedure was initiated (see Section 1), set out its comments, recalling that export aids within the Community had always been prohibited so that, in its opinion, the Commission should take a negative decision on the measure in question, with the aid being recovered.
Greenpeace, ki je prvi vložil pritožbo ob sproženju tega postopka (glej Oddelek 1), je z dopisom z dne 1. marca 2007 predložil svoje pripombe in opozoril, da so bile izvozne pomoči v Skupnosti vedno prepovedane, zato je menil, da bi morala Komisija sprejeti negativno odločitev o zadevnem ukrepu in izterjati pomoč.
The letter did not comment on the preliminary analysis in the decision initiating the procedure as to the existence or otherwise of an advantage.
V dopisu ni bilo pripomb na predhodno analizo odločitve, s katero je bil sprožen postopek ugotavljanja obstoja koristi.
By letter also dated 1 March 2007, EREF, which was the second complainant at the time (see Section 1), set out its comments.
EREF, ki je bil drugi pritožnik v tistem času (glej Oddelek 1), je svoje pripombe predložil z dopisom z dne 1. marca 2007.
In its view, it was clear that the granting of an export credit for intra-Community exports constituted unlawful State aid.
Po njegovem mnenju je bilo jasno, da dovoljenje za izvozni kredit za izvoze znotraj Skupnosti pomeni nezakonito državno pomoč.
EREF referred back to the arguments contained in its letter of 18 November 2005 and asked that that letter be included in the file relating to the present procedure.
EREF se je skliceval na argumente, ki jih je navedel v dopisu z dne 18. novembra 2005, in zahteval, da se ta dopis vključi v dokumentacijo v zvezi z aktualnim postopkom.
For EREF, Coface's involvement in the financing of the project gives a strong signal to private banks that they should participate too since, in its view, the Coface guarantee mitigates the risk for the banks involved in the financing and reduces the amount of own funds mobilised by the banks for the loans in question.
Po mnenju združenja EREF je vpletenost družbe Coface v financiranje projekta jasno sporočilo zasebnim bankam, naj se pridružijo, saj jamstvo Coface ublaži tveganje bank, vključenih v financiranje, in znižuje zneske lastnih sredstev, ki jih banke namenijo zadevnim posojilom.
By lowering the risks borne by the banks, the Coface guarantee would be an incentive for them to grant reduced-rate loans to TVO.
Z zmanjšanjem tveganja za banke bi jih jamstvo Coface spodbudilo k odobritvi posojil podjetju TVO po znižanih obrestnih stopnjah.
The advantage conferred by the guarantee would, therefore, be greater.
Koristi, pridobljene z jamstvom, bi bile tako večje.
EREF considers that the structure of the project financing might collapse if Coface were to withdraw its guarantee.
EREF meni, da bi se struktura financiranja projekta lahko porušila, če bi Coface svoje jamstvo preklical.
It asked the Commission to take a look at all the contractual relationships between the parties and at the negotiating process that led to these contracts being concluded.
Prosil je Komisijo, naj preuči pogodbene odnose med strankami in pogajalski postopek, ki je pripeljal do sklenitve teh pogodb.
Apart from the general points summarised in paragraph 51, EREF's letter does not comment on the preliminary analysis in the decision to initiate the procedure as to the existence or otherwise of an advantage.
Poleg splošnih točk, ki so povzete v odstavku 51, EREF v svojem dopisu ni predložil pripomb glede predhodne analize odločitve, s katero je bil sprožen postopek ugotavljanja obstoja koristi.
In addition to the three letters mentioned in paragraphs 48, 49 and 50, the Commission received comments from six Member States — the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany — and from the Chairman of the Council Export Credits Group [8].
Poleg treh dopisov, navedenih v odstavkih 48, 49 in 50, je Komisija prejela pripombe šestih držav članic – Nizozemske, Švedske, Finske, Češke, Avstrije in Nemčije – ter predsednika Sveta skupine za izvozne kredite [8].
The Member States concerned do not comment on the specific features of the case but criticise the Commission for initiating the Article 88(2) procedure in respect of an export credit and for taking the view that such a measure may constitute incompatible State aid.
Zadevne države članice niso predložile pripomb glede nekaterih posebnosti zadeve, pač pa Komisijo kritizirajo, ker je sprožila postopek iz člena 88(2) v zvezi z izvoznim kreditom in ker meni, da tak ukrep lahko pomeni nezdružljivo državno pomoč.
They consider that export credits are governed by the OECD Arrangement, which has been incorporated into Community law.
Menijo, da izvozne kredite ureja Sporazum OECD, ki je del zakonodaje Skupnosti.
By subjecting an export credit to the state aid procedures laid down in Article 88 of the EC Treaty, the Commission is creating considerable legal uncertainty and may be weakening the position of European exporters vis-à-vis their foreign competitors.
Komisija je s tem, ko je za izvozni kredit sprožila postopke državne pomoči iz člena 88 Pogodbe ES, povzročila precejšnjo pravno negotovost in lahko poslabša položaj evropskih izvoznikov v primerjavi z njihovimi tujimi konkurenti.
COMMENTS BY FRANCE
5 PRIPOMBE FRANCIJE
The French authorities begin by recalling the characteristics and main stages of the project, especially as regards financing and the invitation to tender.
Francoske oblasti se najprej sklicujejo na posebnosti in glavne stopnje projekta, zlasti kar zadeva financiranje in javni razpis.
As for the assessment of the measure in question, the French authorities argue mainly that the measure cannot be classified as aid.
V zvezi z oceno zadevnega ukrepa francoske oblasti menijo, da ukrepa ni mogoče opredeliti kot pomoč.
They maintain in particular that it does not confer any advantage.
Trdijo predvsem, da ne prinaša nobenih koristi.
According to them, the Coface guarantee was granted on market terms.
Po njihovem mnenju je bilo jamstvo Coface odobreno po tržnih pogojih.
They comment on the methodology applied by the Commission in its decision to initiate the procedure.
Predložili so tudi pripombo glede metodologije, ki jo je Komisija uporabila pri svoji odločitvi o sproženju postopka.
They regard it as one commonly used by banks and note that it shows that the guarantee premium was granted at market rates.
Menijo, da tako metodologijo navadno uporabljajo banke, in ugotavljajo, da kaže na to, da je bila jamstvena premija odobrena po tržnih stopnjah.
They go on to say that the methodology can be usefully supplemented and verified by applying a more complex method for valuing financial assets which they describe as a ‘method for comparing credit values’.
Nadaljujejo s tem, da se metodologijo lahko učinkovito dopolni in preveri z uporabo bolj podrobne metode za oceno finančnih naložb, ki jo opišejo kot „metodo za primerjavo kreditnih vrednosti“.
On the basis of this second method, the French authorities come to the conclusion that a bank would have attributed a higher value to the guaranteed loan than to the credit facility, that is to say, they would have regarded the former as being more remunerative.
Na podlagi te druge metode francoske oblasti ugotavljajo, da banka lahko pripiše višjo vrednost posojilu z jamstvom kot pa kreditu, s čimer bi kredit veljal za bolj donosnega.
This amounts to saying that the credit guaranteed by Coface confers no advantage on any of the partners in the project in the form of lower financing costs.
Kredit z jamstvom Coface torej za nobenega od partnerjev v projektu ne predstavlja koristi v obliki nižjih stroškov financiranja.
The French authorities also argue that the measure cannot be classified as Sstate aid since it affects neither competition nor trade between Member States.
Francoske oblasti trdijo tudi, da se ukrep ne more pomeniti državne pomoči, ker ne vpliva ne na konkurenco in ne na trgovino med državami članicami.
In the alternative, France argues that, if the measure were to constitute aid, it would be compatible with the common market.
Francija obenem trdi, da bi bil ukrep združljiv s skupnim trgom, če bi mogoče pomenil pomoč.