natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Repsol was not due to pay any premium for the guarantees, as it is not market practice that companies obtaining a security for the respect of contractual obligations must pay for this security.
Repsolu ni bilo treba plačati nobene premije za garancije, saj ni v skladu s tržno prakso, da bi morala podjetja, ki dobijo jamstvo za pogodbene obveznosti, zanj plačati;
In addition, the guarantees did not provide Repsol with any economic advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
poleg tega Repsol zaradi garancij ni imel gospodarske prednosti v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Similarly to the guarantees received from the shipowner parent companies, SEPI’s counter-guarantees only ensured that the contractual terms of the vessels’ chartering contracts and shipbuilding contracts would be complied with, thereby enabling Repsol to comply with the LNG transportation contracts signed with other parties.
Protigarancije holdinga SEPI so podobno kot garancije, ki jih je prejel od matičnih družb lastnikov ladij, samo zagotovile izpolnitev določil pogodb o zakupu plovil in ladjedelniških pogodb in s tem omogočile Repsolu, da ravna v skladu s pogodbami o prevozu tankerjev LNG, ki jih je podpisal z drugimi strankami;
Repsol would have required additional guarantees to those given by Izar, irrespective of whether they had been granted by SEPI or any other entity.
Repsol bi zahteval dodatne garancije poleg garancij, ki mu jih je dala skupina Izar, ne glede na to, ali bi mu jih dal SEPI ali kakšna druga pravna ali fizična oseba.
Those guarantees are a requirement in accordance with market practice, in view of the size and risks of the investments and commercial commitments at stake.
Glede na velikost in tveganje naložb in gospodarskih obveznosti je zahteva po takšnih garancijah v skladu s tržno prakso.
The submission from Spain concurred with the above arguments as regards the position of Repsol.
Glede položaja Repsola se je Španija v pripombah, ki jih je predložila, strinjala z navedenimi argumenti.
The Spanish authorities therefore concluded that Repsol could not be deemed to be a beneficiary of State aid.
Španski organi oblasti so zato sklenili, da Repsola ne morejo šteti za prejemnika državne pomoči.
The position of Repsol as a potential beneficiary of the aid
Položaj Repsola kot potencialnega prejemnika pomoči
One of the aims of the opening decision was to identify the beneficiary of any State aid involved in the delivery guarantees granted by SEPI.
Eden od namenov odločitve o sprožitvi postopka je bil ugotoviti, kdo je prejemnik državne pomoči, ki je bila vključena v garancije o dostavi holdinga SEPI.
The Commission notes that, according to civil law, the provider of a good or service is liable for the performance of the contract signed with the buyer.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je v skladu s civilnim pravom ponudnik blaga ali storitve odgovoren za izvajanje pogodbe, ki jo podpiše s kupcem.
This liability covers both the quality of the product and the agreed time of delivery.
Ta odgovornost vključuje kakovost izdelka in dogovorjeni čas dostave.
Thus, if a contractual agreement is not respected and the buyer suffers loss or damage as a result, the latter can claim compensation.
Zato lahko kupec, če se pogodbenega dogovora ne spoštuje in kupec posledično utrpi izgubo ali škodo, zahteva nadomestilo.
In the case at hand, this compensation would have been borne by the yard or its parent company Izar.
V obravnavanem primeru bi to nadomestilo nosila ladjedelnica ali njena matična družba Izar.
In view of this, it appears that Repsol, which rented the vessels produced by (yards that are owned by) Izar, was in a creditor position vis-à-vis the shipowners and Izar.
Glede na to se zdi, da je bil Repsol, ki je najel plovila, ki jih je izdelal Izar (oziroma ladjedelnice, ki so v lasti skupine Izar), v položaju upnika nasproti lastnikom ladij in skupini Izar.
Hence, it cannot be held liable under the charter and shipbuilding contracts, including the additional clause thereto.
Zato se v skladu s pogodbami o zakupu in ladjedelniškimi pogodbami, vključno z dodatnim določilom k tem pogodbam, ne more šteti za odgovornega.
In consideration of the above, and in accordance with the observations from Repsol and Spain, the Commission concludes that Repsol cannot be regarded as a beneficiary of the aid, since it did not obtain any benefit to which it would not have been entitled on the basis of general civil or commercial law.
Na podlagi navedenega in v skladu z opažanji Repsola in Španije je Komisija sklenila, da se Repsol ne more obravnavati kot prejemnik pomoči, saj ni imel nobenih koristi, do katerih ne bi bil upravičen na podlagi splošnega civilnega ali gospodarskega prava.
The Commission considers that the voluntary liquidation of Izar’s assets was an appropriate measure for the purpose of implementation by Spain of the three pending recovery decisions.
Komisija meni, da je bila prostovoljna likvidacija premoženja skupine Izar primeren ukrep za izvajanje treh odločb o vračilu Španije, ki so v teku.
In particular, it considers that the commitments and actions undertaken by Spain were sufficient to prevent distortion of competition.
Komisija zlasti meni, da so obveznosti in dejanja, ki jih je opravila Španija, zadostovali za preprečitev izkrivljanja konkurence.
The Commission is also of the opinion that the tendering procedure for the sale of the four civil shipyards was carried out by Spain in a satisfactory manner, through an open, transparent and unconditional procedure.
Po mnenju Komisije je bil tudi razpisni postopek za prodajo štirih državnih ladjedelnic odprt, transparenten in brezpogojen in ga je Španija izvedla zadovoljivo.
In particular, on 3 November 2006 the Spanish Council of Ministers authorised the sale of the Sestao, Gijón and Seville yards to the successful bidders.
Zlasti 3. novembra 2006 je španski svet ministrov dovolil prodajo ladjedelnic Sestao, Gijón in Seville uspešnim ponudnikom.
The privatisation contracts were signed on 30 November 2006.
Pogodbe o privatizaciji so bile podpisane 30. novembra 2006.
As regards the remaining yard (Manises), it was concluded that the option which maximised the liquidation value consisted in the closure of the yard, and the transfer of assets to SEPI.
Glede preostale ladjedelnice (Manises) je bilo sklenjeno, da bi njeno likvidacijsko vrednost najbolj povečalo njeno zaprtje in prenos premoženja na SEPI.
As a result of the liquidation and sale of Izar, the company definitively ceased all economic activity.
Zaradi likvidacije in prodaje skupine Izar je podjetje dokončno prenehalo opravljati vso gospodarsko dejavnost.
The sole reason why Izar still exists is so that it can carry out the tasks relating to the cessation of its activities, in particular the termination of employee contracts.
Edini razlog, da Izar še vedno obstaja, je v tem, da mora opraviti naloge v zvezi s prenehanjem svojih dejavnosti, zlasti v zvezi s prenehanjem pogodb o zaposlitvi.
Once these tasks have been completed, Izar will be liquidated.
Ko bodo te naloge opravljene, bo Izar likvidiran.
These activities are not of a kind to justify applying the competition rules provided for in the Treaty.
Te dejavnosti niso takšne vrste, da bi upravičile uporabo pravil o konkurenci v skladu s Pogodbo ES.
Consequently, even assuming that the measures in question had entailed a benefit for Izar and a distortion of competition, the Commission considers that any such distortion ceased at the moment when Izar ceased economic activities and closed its yards.
Zato tudi ob predpostavki, da so obravnavani ukrepi vsebovali koristi za Izar in izkrivljanje konkurence, Komisija meni, da je vsako takšno izkrivljanje prenehalo v trenutku, ko je Izar prenehal opravljati gospodarske dejavnosti in zaprl svoje ladjedelnice.
Under these circumstances, a Commission decision on the classification of such measures as aid and on their compatibility would not have any practical effect.
V teh okoliščinah odločitev Komisije o ocenitvi takšnih ukrepov za pomoč in o njihovi združljivosti ne bi imela praktičnega učinka.
Consequently, the formal investigation initiated under Article 88(2) of the Treaty no longer serves any purpose.
Zato formalni postopek preiskave, ki je bil sprožen na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES, ni več smiseln.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Commission finds that Repsol cannot be deemed a beneficiary of the disputed aid, and that the procedure against the Izar yards no longer serves any purpose,
Na podlagi navedenih stališč Komisija ugotavlja, da se Repsol ne more šteti za prejemnika sporne pomoči in da postopek proti Izarjevim ladjedelnicam ni več smiseln –
The formal investigation procedure under Article 88 (2) of the Treaty is closed.
Formalni postopek preiskave na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES je končan.
This Decision is addressed to Spain.
Ta odločba je naslovljena na Španijo.
Done at Brussels, 25 September 2007.
V Bruslju, dne 25. septembra 2007
OJ C 209, 4.7.2003, p. 24.
UL C 209, 4.7.2003, str. 24.
Cases C 38/2003 and C 40/2000.
Zadevi C 38/2003 in C 40/2000.
This Article allows a Member State to ‘take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war materials’.
Ta člen državi članici omogoča, da „v zvezi s proizvodnjo orožja, streliva in vojaških sredstev ali trgovino z njimi sprejme ukrepe, za katere meni, da so potrebni za zaščito bistvenih interesov njene varnosti“.
In addition to the two 2004 decisions, an older decision from 1999 (Case C 3/99) also requested from Izar recovery of a further EUR 111 million.
Poleg dveh odločb iz leta 2004 je Komisija tudi v starejši odločbi iz leta 1999 (zadeva C 3/99) skupini Izar odredila vračilo dodatnih 111 milijonov EUR.
On 20 July 2000, AESA sold to Izar the two shipyards responsible for the construction of the LNG tankers.
Podjetje AESA je 20. julija 2000 skupini Izar prodalo ti dve ladjedelnici, ki sta bili odgovorni za izgradnjo tankerjev LNG.
By letter dated 13 February 2003, the Spanish authorities confirmed that Izar had taken over responsibility for AESA’s commitments in relation to the shipbuilding contracts.
Z dopisom z dne 13. februarja 2003 so španski organi oblasti potrdili, da je Izar prevzel odgovornost za obveznosti podjetja AESA, ki izhajajo iz ladjedelniških pogodb.
Under the terms of the guarantee, SEPI would indemnify Repsol at first request for all the direct and indirect costs and consequent losses Repsol would incur if the ships were not delivered according to the contract terms for reasons for which Izar could be held liable.
V skladu z določili garancije bi SEPI Repsolu na prvo zahtevo povrnila vse neposredne in posredne stroške in posledično izgubo, ki bi jo imel, če ladje ne bi bile dostavljene v skladu s pogodbenimi določili iz razlogov, za katere bi bil lahko odgovoren Izar.
Pursuant to the shipbuilding contracts, the vessels had to be delivered on 15 September 2003, 15 December 2003 and 15 March 2004, respectively.
V skladu z ladjedelniškimi pogodbami so morala biti plovila dostavljena 15. septembra 2003, 15. decembra 2003 oziroma 15. marca 2004.
on State aid C 32/2006 (ex N 179/2006) implemented by Poland for Huta Cynku Miasteczko Śląskie SA
o državni pomoči C 32/2006 (prej N 179/2006), ki jo Poljska izvaja za podjetje Huta Cynku Miasteczko Śląskie SA
(notified under document number C(2007) 4310)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 4310)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments [1] pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe [1] v skladu z navedenimi členi, in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
On 17 March 2006, Poland notified restructuring aid for Huta Cynku Miasteczko Śląskie SA (hereinafter ‘HCM’).
Poljska je 17. marca 2006 priglasila pomoč za prestrukturiranje podjetja Huta Cynku Miasteczko Śląskie SA (v nadaljnjem besedilu „HCM“).
This notification took place following a Commission decision raising no objections regarding rescue aid to HCM in the form of a guarantee for a loan of PLN 11,8 million (EUR 3,12 million [2]).
Priglasila jo je po tem, ko je Komisija sprejela sklep o nenasprotovanju v zvezi s pomočjo za reševanje za HCM v obliki jamstva za posojilo v višini 11,8 milijona PLN (3,12 milijona EUR [2].
On 19 July 2006, the Commission decided to initiate a procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the notified aid because of doubts about its compatibility with the common market.
Komisija se je 19. julija 2006 odločila, da bo sprožila postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES glede priglašene pomoči zaradi dvomov o njeni združljivosti s skupnim trgom.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 30 August 2006 [3].
Odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi postopka je bila v Uradnem listu Evropske unije objavljena 30. avgusta 2006 [3].
No such third party comments were submitted.
Pripomb ni predložila nobena takšna tretja stranka.
On 18 September 2006, Poland submitted an incomplete response concerning the initiation of the procedure.
Poljska je 18. septembra 2006 predložila nepopolni odgovor v zvezi s sprožitvijo postopka.
By letter dated 23 May 2007, Poland informed the Commission that it was withdrawing the notification.
Z dopisom z dne 23. maja 2007 je Poljska obvestila Komisijo, da umika priglasitev.
Beneficiary of the aid
Prejemnik pomoči
HCM is a state-owned company created in 1966.
HCM je podjetje v državni lasti, ustanovljeno leta 1966.
It is active in the market for the production and metallurgical processing of non-ferrous metals (production of zinc and lead).
Deluje na trgu proizvodnje in metalurške obdelave barvnih kovin (proizvodnja cinka in svinca).
In 2004 the company had a 51 % share of the Polish refined zinc market and a 3 % share of the European market.
Leta 2004 je podjetje imelo 51-odstotni delež na poljskem trgu rafiniranega cinka in 3-odstotni delež na evropskem trgu.
It has about 1100 employees and is based in a region eligible for regional aid under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
Zaposlenih ima okoli 1100 delavcev in leži v regiji, ki je upravičena do regionalne pomoči v skladu s členom 87(3) Pogodbe ES.
The Polish authorities notified the Commission that Agencja Rozwoju Przemysłu SA (Industrial Development Agency SA, hereinafter ‘ARP’) intended to provide a loan of PLN 21,8 million (EUR 5,76 million) for a period of five years.
Poljski organi so Komisijo uradno obvestili, da je agencija za industrijski razvoj Rozwoju Przemysłu SA (v nadaljnjem besedilu „ARP“) nameravala dati posojilo v višini 21,8 milijona PLN (5,76 milijona EUR) za petletno obdobje.
Reimbursement was to start one year after the date on which the loan was granted.
Posojilo naj bi se začelo vračati eno leto po datumu, ko je bilo odobreno.
The loan was to be based on a variable interest rate equal to the Commission’s reference rate.
Temeljilo naj bi na spremenljivi obrestni meri, ki je enaka referenčnemu tečaju Komisije.
PLN 10 million (EUR 2,64 million) was to be spent on investment related to technological restructuring.
10 milijonov PLN (2,64 milijona EUR) naj bi bilo porabljenih za naložbe v tehnološko prestrukturiranje.
The remaining PLN 11,8 million (EUR 3,11 million) was to be used to finance reimbursement of the rescue loan, i.e. the loan for which ARP had provided a guarantee.
Preostalih 11,8 milijona PLN (3,11 milijona EUR) naj bi se uporabilo za financiranje povračila posojila za pomoč za reševanje, tj. posojila, za katero je agencija ARP zagotovila jamstvo.
Poland also informed the Commission of a planned composition agreement to be signed with creditors enabling the company to regain solvency.
Poljska je Komisijo obvestila tudi o načrtovanem sporazumu o poravnavi, ki naj bi ga podpisali z upniki, da bi bila podjetju omogočena povrnitev plačilne sposobnosti.
To this end, the creditors, who had claims on HCM worth PLN 65,3 million (EUR 15,9 million), were divided according to the size of the amounts due and the security held.
V ta namen so bili upniki, ki so imeli terjatve do podjetja HCM v višini 65,3 milijona PLN (15,9 milijona EUR), razdeljeni glede na višino dolgovanih zneskov in jamstvo, ki so ga imeli.
The composition agreement essentially provides for deferral of the repayment of private and public debts for several years.
Sporazum o poravnavi predvsem predvideva odložitev poplačila zasebnih in javnih dolgov za več let.
To this end, different groups were formed according to the security held.
V ta namen so se glede na jamstvo oblikovale različne skupine.
The debt was deferred for a specific period for each group.
Za vsako posamezno skupino je bil dolg odložen za določeno obdobje.
The loan was notified by the Polish authorities as state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Poljski organi so posojilo priglasili kot državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission decided to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty because it had doubts as to whether all the conditions for approving restructuring aid laid down in the Community Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [4] (hereinafter ‘the Guidelines’) applicable at the time were fulfilled, and in particular whether:
Komisija je sklenila, da bo sprožila postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES, ker dvomi, ali so bili izpolnjeni vsi pogoji za odobritev pomoči za prestrukturiranje, določeni v Smernicah Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [4] (v nadaljnjem besedilu „Smernice“), ki so takrat veljali, in zlasti dvomi, da:
the restructuring plan would result in the beneficiary's long-term viability being restored, as the restructuring was mainly financial and was based primarily on a composition agreement which had not been signed at the date on which the procedure was initiated.
bodo načrti prestrukturiranja privedli do dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja prejemnika pomoči, saj prestrukturiranje obsega predvsem finančno prestrukturiranje in temelji zlasti na sporazumu o poravnavi, ki na dan sprožitve postopka še ni bil podpisan.
Moreover the problem of the major impact of exchange rate variations on the company’s financial results had not been sufficiently addressed;
Poleg tega ni bil dovolj resno obravnavan problem prevelike odvisnosti finančnih rezultatov podjetja od sprememb menjalnega tečaja;
the own contribution of the beneficiary to the coverage of restructuring costs was significant;
je lasten prispevek prejemnika za kritje stroškov prestrukturiranja znaten;
the compensatory measures were sufficient, as they consisted in a decrease of production capacity of only 0,7 %.
izravnalni ukrepi zadostujejo, saj vsebujejo zmanjšanje proizvodne zmogljivosti za samo 0,7 %.
In addition, the Commission raised doubts about whether the composition agreement in fact included elements of state aid.
Poleg tega Komisija dvomi, ali sporazum o poravnavi dejansko vsebuje elemente državne pomoči.
The Polish authorities have informed the Commission that HCM successfully concluded the composition agreement after the procedure was initiated.
Poljski organi so Komisijo obvestili, da je podjetje HCM uspešno sklenilo sporazum o poravnavi, potem ko je bil postopek sprožen.
Moreover, the Polish authorities have informed the Commission that the company has now become profitable (it had a net profit of PLN 10,3 million (about EUR 2,72 million) for the first half of 2006); its liquidity has improved and it is able to secure financing on the market.
Poleg tega so poljski organi Komisijo obvestili, da je podjetje zdaj postalo donosno (imelo je 10,3 milijona PLN (okoli 2,72 milijona EUR) čistega dobička za prvo polovico leta 2006), njegova likvidnost se je izboljšala in je sposobno zavarovati financiranje na trgu.
Thus, as the guaranteed loan was no longer an advantage for the company, Poland withdrew the notification of the measure referred to in recital 6.
Ker tako zajamčeno posojilo ni bilo več ugodnost za podjetje, je Poljska umaknila priglasitev ukrepa iz uvodne izjave 6.
Furthermore, the company has reimbursed the loan for which a state guarantee was provided as rescue aid and so this guarantee no longer serves any purpose.
Poleg tega je podjetje vrnilo posojilo, za katero je bilo zagotovljeno državno jamstvo kot pomoč za reševanje, in tako to jamstvo ne služi več nobenemu namenu.
Under Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [5], Member States may withdraw a notification after the initiation of a formal investigation procedure in due time before the Commission has taken a decision on the aid.
V skladu s členom 8 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [5] lahko države članice umaknejo priglasitev po sprožitvi uradnega postopka preiskave v ustreznem roku, preden Komisija sprejme odločitev o pomoči.
In such cases, the Commission must take a decision closing that procedure without carrying out an assessment.
V takih primerih mora Komisija sprejeti odločitev o zaključku navedenega postopka, ne da bi opravila oceno.
Poland withdrew the notification of the state aid measure described in recital 6 above.
Poljska je umaknila priglasitev ukrepa državne pomoči, opisanega v uvodni izjavi 6 zgoraj.
However, in order to be able to terminate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission needs to assess whether the composition agreement mentioned in recital 6 involves state aid elements.
Da pa bo lahko Komisija zaključila postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES, mora oceniti, ali sporazum o poravnavi, naveden v uvodni izjavi 6, vsebuje elemente državne pomoči.
No advantage, and thus no state aid, exists where restructuring would yield better proceeds than liquidation [6].
Nobena ugodnost, in torej nobena državna pomoč, ne obstaja, kadar bi prestrukturiranje prineslo boljši iztržek kot likvidacija [6].
Poland provided a study showing that even if one assumes the deferral to result in a loss of funds if calculated in net present value, such a loss would still put the public creditors in a better position than the company's liquidation would do.
Poljska je predložila študijo, ki kaže, da bi tudi ob predpostavki, da bo odlog povzročil izgubo sredstev, če so le-ta izračunana v neto trenutni vrednosti, taka izguba javne upnike še vedno postavila v boljši položaj, kot bi jih likvidacija podjetja.
As a consequence of the composition agreement, the creditors will be able to recover 75,7 % of their claims on average and those in a less favourable position will obtain 72,9 %, which is still higher than the potential proceeds from the liquidation, which the study estimates to be 64,8 %.
Zaradi sporazuma o poravnavi bodo upniki lahko izterjali povprečno 75,7 % svojih terjatev, tisti v manj ugodnem položaju pa bodo dobili 72,9 %, kar je še vedno več kot morebitni iztržki od likvidacije, za katere je študija ocenila, da bi znašali 64,8 %.
Moreover, the Commission sees no grounds for finding that the public creditors received less favourable treatment than the private ones, as creditors of the same ranking were treated alike.
Poleg tega Komisija ne vidi nobenega razloga za ugotovitev manj ugodnega obravnavanja javnih oziroma zasebnih upnikov, saj so bili upniki v istem razredu razvrstitve obravnavani enako.
The notification of the restructuring plan meant that the rescue aid could be extended beyond the six-month deadline.
Priglasitev načrta za prestrukturiranje je pomenila, da bi se lahko pomoč za reševanje podaljšala čez šestmesečni rok.
However, Poland later withdrew this notification.
Vendar pa je Poljska pozneje to priglasitev umaknila.
Point 26 of the Guidelines states clearly that the notification of a restructuring plan is a condition sine qua non for an extension of the rescue aid.
Točka 26 Smernic jasno določa, da je priglasitev načrta za prestrukturiranje temeljni pogoj za podaljšanje pomoči za reševanje.