natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In September 2005 the fifth Polish report confirmed that TB had lost financial liquidity.
Septembra 2005 je 5. poljsko poročilo potrdilo, da je TB izgubil finančno likvidnost.
It also stated that this was due to the spinning-off of the rolls business [29].
Navedlo je tudi, da se je to zgodilo zaradi oddelitve dejavnosti proizvodnje rol [29].
Changes in strategy
Spremembe strategije
TB has changed its management and its business strategy several times.
TB je večkrat spremenil svoje vodenje in strategijo poslovanja.
TB has attempted to implement various structural changes.
TB je poskusil izvesti različne strukturne spremembe.
The board was dismissed several times, in 2003, 2005 (February and October) and 2006.
Upravni odbor je bil večkrat razpuščen: leta 2003, 2005 (februarja in oktobra) ter leta 2006.
At end-2003, in September 2005 and at the beginning of 2006 TB changed its restructuring strategy.
Konec leta 2003, septembra 2005 in na začetku leta 2006 je TB spremenil svojo strategijo prestrukturiranja.
The 2005 IBP clearly changed the strategy by narrowing down TB’s activity to ALU coated steel tubes and tubes made from chromium steel.
V IPN za leto 2005 je jasno spremenjena strategija, tako da se je dejavnost TB skrčila na jeklene cevi, prevlečene z aluminijem, in cevi iz kromovega jekla.
To this end, manpower was to be reduced to 267 employees.
Zato naj bi število zaposlenih zmanjšali na 267.
The updated IBP apparently imposed an obligation on TB to discontinue production of unprofitable high alloy seamless and welded tubes.
S posodobljenim IPN je bila TB očitno naložena obveznost, naj prekine proizvodnjo nedobičkonosnih visokolegiranih brezšivnih in varjenih cevi.
The company also stopped production of welded tubes from HR strip.
Podjetje je zaustavilo tudi proizvodnjo varjenih cevi iz toplovaljanih trakov.
As indicated by Poland in a letter of 14 February 2006, as of 2006 TB intended to terminate production in 2007 and wanted to continue as a purely management company.
Kot je navedla Poljska v dopisu z dne 14. februarja 2006, je TB od leta 2006 nameraval končati proizvodnjo v letu 2007 in nadaljevati izključno kot družba za upravljanje.
It planned to set up a new company with the intention of creating a leading Polish company specialising in the production of aluminium and chrome pipes for the motor vehicle industry.
Načrtoval je ustanovitev novega podjetja, s katerim je želel oblikovati vodilno poljsko podjetje, specializirano za proizvodnjo aluminijskih in kromovih cevi za industrijo motornih vozil.
To this end a separate company was to be set up as the ‘ongoing restructuring of TB's assets and finances […] precludes financial stabilisation, the repayment of budget arrears and the obtaining of loans giving access to cheaper sources of financing’ [30].
Zato naj bi ustanovili ločeno družbo, saj „tekoče prestrukturiranje sredstev in financ TB […] preprečuje finančno stabilizacijo, odplačilo zaostalih proračunskih plačil in pridobitev posojil, ki bi omogočila dostop do cenejših virov financiranja“ [30].
It was to use the welding lines W-4 and W-2, leasing them from TB while the entire workforce was transferred to it (with the exception of a few workers left to run TB).
Uporabljala naj bi varilni liniji W-4 in W-2, ki bi ju zakupila od TB, in vanjo naj bi preusmerili vse delavce (razen peščice, ki naj bi ostali zaradi upravljanja TB).
The necessary infrastructure had clearly been hived off from TB's assets.
Potrebna infrastruktura je bila očitno odcepljena od sredstev TB.
The remaining welding machines were to be sold for reasons of asset restructuring.
Preostale varilne stroje naj bi prodali zaradi prestrukturiranja sredstev.
Given that production was to cease by end-2006 the Commission concludes that the new restructuring strategy implied the de facto winding-up of TB.
Glede na to, da naj bi proizvodnjo ustavili do konca leta 2006, Komisija sklepa, da je nova strategija prestrukturiranja pomenila dejansko zaprtje TB.
TB has since filed for bankruptcy (15 September 2006).
Od takrat je TB objavil stečaj (15. septembra 2006).
The bankrupt TB Group has been allowed to continue its business activity.
Skupini TB v stečaju je bilo dovoljeno nadaljevati njeno poslovno dejavnost.
This now consists in leasing assets to its subsidiaries.
Ta zdaj zajema oddajanje sredstev v zakup njenim odvisnim družbam.
The administrator in bankruptcy plans to sell off the organised parts of the company and to continue leasing activity until that time.
Stečajni upravitelj načrtuje odprodati organizirane dele družbe, do takrat pa nadaljevati dajanje v zakup.
Corporate restructuring
Prestrukturiranje družbe
TB has restructured its group and spun off two profitable activities, rolls production (to HB) and the aluminium and chrome pipe business (to BA) (see recital (14) above).
TB je prestrukturiral svojo skupino in odcepil dve dobičkonosni dejavnosti, proizvodnjo rol (za HB) ter dejavnost aluminijskih in kromovih cevi (k BA) (glej zgornjo uvodno izjavo 14).
TB’s rolls production activities were not considered part of its core business.
Proizvodnja rol v TB ni veljala za del osnovne dejavnosti družbe.
As early as 2002 the IBP indicated that no further investments should be made in HB and that it should be spun off.
Že leta 2002 je bilo v IPN navedeno, da naj ne bi več vlagali v HB in da naj bi to družbo odcepili.
HB was founded in December 2004 with initial capital of PLN 100000.
HB je bil ustanovljen decembra 2004 z ustanovnim kapitalom 100000 PLN.
The following year its value was increased to PLN 14911600 by a way of an asset injection of PLN 3330900 on 17 January 2005, capital injections of PLN 3850000 and PLN 1830700 in February/March and November 2005 respectively and an injection of intangible assets with a value of PLN 5800000 on 13 July 2006.
Naslednje leto se je njegova vrednost povečala na 14911600 PLN z injekcijo sredstev v znesku 3330900 PLN 17. januarja 2005 ter dokapitalizacijama v znesku 3850000 PLN in 1830700 PLN februarja/marca in novembra 2005 ter injekcijo neopredmetenih osnovnih sredstev v vrednosti 5800000 PLN 13. julija 2006.
The overall value of HB was estimated at PLN 38 million on the basis of the Swiss method.
Skupna vrednost HB je bila po švicarski metodi ocenjena na 38 milijonov PLN.
Hence its market value is much higher than its share value of PLN 14,9 million.
Zato je njegova tržna vrednost precej višja od vrednosti njegovih deležev, ki je 14,9 milijona PLN.
In fact HB is recording profits.
HB ima dejansko dobiček.
It has no arrears with public bodies.
Nima neporavnanih plačil do javnih organov.
In June/July 2005 HB purchased real estate and machinery from TB for PLN 9450013 with an estimated value of PLN 10430194.
Junija/junija 2005 je HB za 9450013 PLN od TB kupil nepremičnine in stroje z ocenjeno vrednostjo 10430194 PLN.
The pledges on the assets remained and, in accordance with Polish law (Article 112 of the Tax Act), HB even became a joint and several debtor with TB for some of TB’s debts vis-à-vis ZUS.
Zastavne pravice na sredstvih so ostale in v skladu s poljsko zakonodajo (člen 112 Davčnega zakona) je HB celo postal skupno in solidarno odgovoren dolžnik skupaj s TB za nekaj dolgov TB do ZUS.
BA was revived in 2005 to receive the aluminium and chrome pipe business.
BA so v letu 2005 spet oživili, da je prevzel dejavnost aluminijskih in kromovih cevi.
To that end, TB's workforce was transferred to BA and, in July 2006, capital of PLN 1550000 was injected.
Zato so iz TB preusmerili delavce v BA in družbo julija 2006 dokapitalizirali v znesku 1550000 PLN.
BA leases production assets for the automotive exhaust pipes business from TB (including welding lines W2 and W4 and a slitting line).
BA ima od TB zakupljena proizvodna sredstva za dejavnost avtomobilskih izpušnih cevi (vključno z varilnima linijama W2 in W4 ter rezalno linijo).
Under the lease agreement, which is of unlimited duration, BA pays PLN 258000 per month + VAT.
Po zakupni pogodbi neomejene veljavnosti BA mesečno plačuje 258000 PLN plus DDV.
On this basis BA is clearly benefiting from the investments made in these assets.
Tako ima BA očitne koristi od naložb v ta sredstva.
In fact the seventh Polish report confirms that TB has transferred 20 thousand tonnes of production capacity to BA [31].
Pravzaprav 7. poljsko poročilo potrjuje, da je TB na BA prenesel proizvodne zmogljivosti za 20 tisoč ton [31].
In February 2004 EF signed a factoring service contract with TB.
Februarja 2004 je EF s TB podpisal pogodbo o storitvah faktoringa.
Pledges on the shares of HB and BA were registered in order to ensure compliance with the contract.
Zaradi zagotovitve skladnosti s pogodbo so bile evidentirane zastavne pravice na deležih HB in BA.
EF thus became TB’s biggest creditor.
Tako je EF postal največji upnik TB.
As EF was only a shareholder of GFR, EF's claims are not deemed to constitute capital investment in TB.
Ker je bil EF le deležnik v GFR, zahtevki EF ne veljajo za kapitalsko naložbo v TB.
TB is currently the owner of 51,2 % of BA shares.
TB ima trenutno v lasti 51,2 % delnic BA.
The remaining shares in BA were taken over by EF when a pledge was enforced on 20 July 2006 as debt settlement.
Preostale delnice v BA je prevzel EF ob realizaciji zastavne pravice 20. julija 2006 kot poravnave dolga.
Settlement was effected at the nominal value of shares (PLN 7,2 million).
Poravnava je bila izvršena pri nominalni ceni delnic (7,2 milijona PLN).
As a creditor, EF also lodged an application with the administrator for 48,8 % of HB shares to be excluded from the bankruptcy proceedings.
Kot upnik je EF pri stečajnem upravitelju vložil tudi zahtevek, naj se 48,8 % delnic HB izloči iz stečajnega postopka.
This application was, however, dismissed by the judge in September 2006.
Vendar pa je sodnik septembra 2006 ta zahtevek zavrnil.
In its decision to initiate the procedure the Commission found that the restructuring of TB was incompatible with Protocol No 8 and raised three issues:
V svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija ugotovila, da prestrukturiranje TB ni bilo združljivo s Protokolom št. 8, in sprožila tri zadeve:
given that the restructuring plan had not been implemented, it had decided to investigate whether there had been misuse of restructuring aid;
glede na to, da načrt prestrukturiranja ni bil izveden, se je odločila preiskati, ali je bila zlorabljena pomoč za prestrukturiranje;
whether the non-enforcement of the outstanding public debt constituted State Aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;
ali je neizterjava neporavnanega javnega dolga pomenila državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES;
whether additional budgetary support had been awarded for employment restructuring after 2003, possibly constituting State Aid under Article 87(1) TEC.
ali je bila odobrena dodatna proračunska pomoč za prestrukturiranje zaposlovanja po letu 2003, ki mogoče pomeni državno pomoč na podlagi člena 87(1) PES.
The Commission indicated that it would consider the whole group as the recipient.
Komisija je navedla, da bo kot prejemnika obravnavala celotno skupino.
First, the Polish authorities dispute that restructuring aid was misused.
Prvič, poljski organi oporekajo, da je bila pomoč za prestrukturiranje zlorabljena.
Poland argues that the aid was not in its entirety restructuring aid.
Poljska meni, da pomoč ni bila v celoti pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
This mainly concerns R&D aid provided between 2002 and 2003.
To zadeva predvsem pomoč za R in R, zagotovljeno med letoma 2002 in 2003.
The Polish authorities have provided information on the Ordinance of the Chairman of the Committee for Scientific Research of 30 November 2001 on the criteria and methods used to award and calculate state funding for science.
Poljski organi so predložili informacije o Odloku predsednika odbora za znanstvene raziskave z dne 30. novembra 2001 o merilih in metodah, uporabljenih za dodelitev in izračun državnih sredstev za znanost.
Accordingly, R&D expenditure was monitored on the basis of invoices submitted and detailed annual reports which indicated that no misuse of aid had occurred.
Skladno s tem so izdatke za R in R spremljali na podlagi predloženih računov in podrobnih letnih poročil, ki so pokazali, da pomoč ni bila zlorabljena.
The employment aid awarded before 2004 was deemed compatible given that its approval had been linked to other factors in the accession negotiations.
Pomoč za zaposlovanje, dodeljena pred letom 2004, je veljala za združljivo, saj je bila njena odobritev povezana z drugimi dejavniki v pristopnih pogajanjih.
The Polish authorities do not, however, maintain that this aid is compatible on grounds other than for restructuring purposes.
Vendar pa poljski organi ne trdijo, da je ta pomoč združljiva na kakšni drugi podlagi, razen za prestrukturiranje.
Poland also argues that some of the aid awarded before 2002 was actually used for R&D, environmental protection and training purposes and was spent for its designated purpose.
Poljska tudi trdi, da je bilo nekaj pomoči, odobrene pred letom 2002, dejansko uporabljene za R in R, varstvo okolja in usposabljanje, čemur je bila pravzaprav namenjena.
Second, the Polish authorities have forwarded some explanations by the relevant institutional creditors, ZUS, Sosnowiec local authority and PFRON concerning their enforcement action, so as to underline that they behaved like private creditors.
Drugič, poljski organi so predložili nekaj razlag pomembnih institucionalnih upnikov, ZUS, lokalnega organa v mestu Sosnowiec in PFRON glede njihove izterjave, da bi poudarili, da so ti ravnali kot zasebni upniki.
In the course of its enforcement action ZUS seized the company’s accounts and claims and managed to enforce PLN 2,3 million in 2005.
Med izterjavo je ZUS zasegel račune in terjatve družbe; leta 2005 mu je uspelo izterjati 2,3 milijona PLN.
It also has a mortgage on TB’s real estate worth more than PLN 25 million and has taken out a fiscal pledge on the company’s assets to the value of PLN 12,2 million.
Poleg tega ima tudi hipoteko na nepremičnino TB, vredno več kot 25 milijonov PLN, zagotovil pa si je tudi davčno zastavno pravico na sredstvih družbe v vrednosti 12,2 milijona PLN.
According to ZUS, however, there were no grounds to conclude that, in the event of TB being declared bankrupt, a higher proportion of its claims would be settled than in the event of intensified enforcement proceedings being taken against TB.
Vendar pa po mnenju ZUS ni bilo razlogov za sklepanje, da bi bil v primeru razglasitve stečaja TB poravnan večji delež njegovih zahtevkov kot v primeru pospešenega izvršilnega postopka proti TB.
Instead, it was likely that the sales price obtained for the assets would be significantly lower than for most liabilities secured by pledge.
Namesto tega je obstajala verjetnost, da bo prodajna cena, dosežena za sredstva, precej nižja od večine odgovornosti, zavarovanih z zastavnimi pravicami.
In addition, the majority of forced mortgages encumbering TB’s assets which had been set up for ZUS had been preceded by securities set up for other creditors which, in the event of the real estate being sold off within the context of bankruptcy proceedings, would have priority for the settlement of existing claims.
Poleg tega so bile prisilne hipoteke, ki so bremenile sredstva TB in so bile uvedene zaradi ZUS, večinoma naslednice jamstev, uvedenih za druge upnike, ki bi imeli v primeru odprodaje nepremičnin v stečajnem postopku prednost pri poravnavi svojih zahtevkov.
Sosnowiec local authority conducted enforcement proceedings, seizing bank accounts (the amount of enforced claims is about PLN 1,7 million) and seizing claims in the form of rent (revenue equivalent to PLN 0,5 million).
Lokalni organ v mestu Sosnowiec je opravil izterjavo, tako da je zasegel bančne račune (znesek izterjanih zahtevkov je približno 1,7 milijona PLN) in zahtevke v obliki najemnine (prihodek enakovreden 0,5 milijona PLN).
The local authority’s claims were also secured by registering forced mortgages to a total amount of PLN 3,2 million, plus interest.
Zahtevki lokalnega organa so bili zavarovani tudi z evidentiranjem prisilnih hipotek v skupnem znesku 3,2 milijona PLN plus obresti.
PFRON indicated that it conducted enforcement proceedings against TB in 2005, issuing six enforceable titles which led to partial repayment in July 2006.
PFRON je navedel, da je leta 2005 opravil izvršilni postopek proti TB, tako da je izdal šest izterljivih zakonitih zahtevkov, kar je vodilo do delnega odplačila julija 2006.
Third, Poland responded to the European Commission's doubts regarding aid for employment restructuring after 2003.
Tretjič, Poljska je odgovorila na pomisleke Evropske komisije o pomoči za prestrukturiranje zaposlovanja po letu 2003.
It explained that the Iron and Steel Industry (Restructuring) Act of 24 August 2001 had been amended in December 2003 so that aid was earmarked solely for redundant workers; the steelworks were used purely as intermediaries to transfer funds (see recital (20) above).
Razložila je, da je bil Zakon o železarski in jeklarski industriji (prestrukturiranje) z dne 24. avgusta 2001 spremenjen decembra 2003, tako da je bila pomoč namenjena izključno odvečnim delavcem; jeklarne so uporabili zgolj kot posrednike za prenos sredstev (glej zgornjo uvodno izjavo 20).
Lastly, the Polish authorities take the view that TB's subsidiaries can be held liable only if they actually benefited from the aid.
Poljski organi pa tudi menijo, da lahko odvisne družbe TB veljajo za odgovorne le, če so dejansko imele korist od pomoči.
They also claim that capital and asset injections were carried out in a proper manner.
Trdijo tudi, da so bile dokapitalizacija in injekcije sredstev izvedene pravilno.
The Polish authorities also note that HB is not a steel producer and is therefore not caught by Protocol No 8.
Poljski organi tudi navajajo, da HB ni proizvajalec jekla in potemtakem ni zajet v Protokolu št. 8.
Point 1 of Protocol No 8 states that ‘notwithstanding Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, State Aid awarded by Poland for restructuring purposes to specified parts of the Polish steel industry shall be deemed to be compatible with the common market’ if, inter alia, the conditions laid down in the Protocol are met.
Točka 1 Protokola št. 8 navaja, da „ne glede na člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES se državna pomoč, ki jo je podelila Poljska v namene prestrukturiranja določenim delom poljske jeklarske industrije, šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom“, če so, med drugim, izpolnjeni pogoji, določeni v protokolu.
The grace period for granting restructuring aid to the Polish steel industry under the Europe Agreement was extended by the Council until the accession of Poland to the EU.
Rok odobritve pomoči za prestrukturiranje poljski jeklarski industriji po Evropskem sporazumu je Svet podaljšal do pristopa Poljske k EU.
This arrangement was included in Protocol No 8 to the Treaty of Accession to the European Union.
Ta ureditev je bila vključena v Protokol št. 8 k Pogodbi o pristopu k Evropski uniji.
In order to achieve that objective, it covers a time-frame extending before and after accession.
Za dosego tega cilja zajema časovni okvir, ki se razteza v obdobje pred pristopom in po njem.
More precisely, it authorises the award of a limited amount of restructuring aid from 1997 to 2003 and forbids any further State Aid for restructuring purposes to the Polish steel industry between 1997 and 2006.
Natančneje povedano, dovoljuje dodelitev omejenega zneska pomoči za prestrukturiranje od leta 1997 do 2003 ter prepoveduje kakršno koli nadaljnjo državno pomoč za prestrukturiranje za poljsko jeklarsko industrijo med letoma 1997 in 2006.
In that respect, it clearly differs from other provisions of the Accession Treaty such as the interim mechanism set out in Annex IV (the ‘existing aid procedure’), which only concerns State Aid awarded before accession in so far as it is ‘still applicable after’ the date of accession.
Glede tega se jasno razlikuje od drugih določb pristopne pogodbe, kot je začasni mehanizem, določen v Prilogi IV („postopek v zvezi z obstoječo pomočjo“), ki zadeva le državno pomoč, dodeljeno pred pristopom, če je „še vedno uporabna po“ datumu pristopa.
Protocol No 8 can therefore be regarded as lex specialis which, for the matters that it covers, supersedes any other provision of the Act of Accession [32].
Protokol št. 8 je torej mogoče obravnavati kot lex specialis, ki za zadeve, ki jih obravnava, nadomešča vsako drugo določbo Akta o pristopu [32].
The Commission also notes that the scope of the Polish NRP and Protocol No 8 is not limited to that of Annex 1 of the ECSC Treaty.
Komisija tudi navaja, da področje uporabe poljskega NPP in Protokola št. 8 ni omejeno na področje uporabe Priloge 1 k Pogodbi ESPJ.
Instead, Protocol No 8 also covers certain steel sectors not covered by the ECSC Treaty [33], in particular seamless tubes and large welded tubes.
Protokol št. 8 namesto tega zajema tudi določene jeklarske sektorje, ki niso zajeti v Pogodbi ESCJ [33], predvsem brezšivne cevi in velike varjene cevi.
This is in line with the definition of steel under the EC State Aid rules [34], which applied when Protocol No 8 came into effect.
To je skladno z definicijo jekla po pravilih ES o državni pomoči [34], ki so se uporabljala, preden je začel veljati Protokol št. 8.
Therefore, Protocol No 8 also applies to tube producers, in particular to TB.
Tako Protokol št. 8 velja tudi za proizvajalce cevi, zlasti za TB.
Consequently, while Articles 87 and 88 TEC would normally not apply to aid awarded before accession and not applicable after accession, Protocol No 8 extends State Aid monitoring under the EC Treaty to cover any aid awarded for the restructuring of the Polish steel industry between 1997 and 2006.
Ker člena 87 in 88 PES običajno ne bi veljala za pomoč, dodeljeno pred pristopom, ki po pristopu ni več veljavna, Protokol št. 8 posledično razširja spremljanje državne pomoči po Pogodbi ES, da bi zajel vsako pomoč, dodeljeno za prestrukturiranje poljske jeklarske industrije med letoma 1997 in 2006.
Decisions may be taken after Poland’s accession under Article 88(2) TEC because, in the absence of specific provisions in Protocol No 8, the normal rules and principles should apply.
Po pristopu Poljske je mogoče odločitve sprejemati po členu 88(2) PES, saj zaradi odsotnosti posebnih določb v Protokolu št. 8 veljajo običajna pravila in načela.
Consequently, Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (hereinafter ‘the Procedural Regulation’) [35] will also apply.
Posledično se bo uporabljala tudi Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 (v nadaljevanju „Postopkovna uredba“) [35].
According to Article 87(1) TEC, State Aid is any aid awarded by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts, or threatens to distort, competition by favouring certain undertakings, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, and is thereby incompatible with the common market.
Člen 87(1) PES določa, da je državna pomoč vsaka pomoč, ki jo odobri država članica, oziroma kakršna koli oblika pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti določenim podjetjem, če vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in je tako nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
Poland was authorised by Protocol No 8 to grant restructuring aid to TB in order to implement its restructuring plan.
Poljski je bilo s Protokolom št. 8 dovoljeno, da TB odobri pomoč za prestrukturiranje zaradi izvedbe njegovega načrta prestrukturiranja.
However, the granting of aid was limited by a grace period which expired at end-2003.
Vendar pa je bila odobritev pomoči omejena s podaljšanim rokom, ki je potekel konec leta 2003.
Thereafter, Poland was no longer authorised to grant restructuring aid under Protocol No 8.
Po tem Poljska ni bila več pooblaščena za dodelitev pomoči za prestrukturiranje po Protokolu št. 8.