natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For this reason, the Commission takes the view that, under normal market-economy conditions, a bank, such as Crédit Maritime, for example, which describes itself in its own terms as ‘the natural partner of the fishing industry’, would never have lent (or ‘advanced’ to use the terms of the agreements concluded between the State and the FPAP) the amounts in question (or even only part of the amounts) to the FPAP to operate on a futures market, without having obtained reasonable assurance beforehand of its probable solvency on expiry of the loan.
Zato Komisija ocenjuje, da v normalnih pogojih tržne ekonomije banka, kakršna je na primer Crédit Maritime, ki se s svojimi besedami predstavlja kot „naravni partner ribiškega sektorja“, FPAP ne bi nikoli posodila (ali „vnaprej plačala“, če povzamemo besede iz sporazumov med državo in FPAP) zadevnih zneskov (niti samo dela te vsote) za posredovanje na terminskem trgu, ne da bi predhodno dobila razumno zagotovilo o njegovi plačilni sposobnosti za povračilo posojila ob zapadlosti.
To limit their credit risk vis-à-vis their customers, the management of financial institutions requires compliance with standard ceilings based on a number of ratios allowing the financial health of the undertaking and its ability to serve its debt to be assessed, according to various criteria such as its own funds, balance sheet, the level of long-term indebtedness, turnover and financial costs.
Da bi omejili svoje tveganje pri kreditiranju strank, so bili vodilni v bančnih ustanovah prisiljeni naložiti upoštevanje skrajne meje standardov, ki temeljijo na vrsti razmerij za analiziranje finančne trdnosti in sposobnosti podjetja za odplačilo svojega dolga glede na različna merila, kot so lastna sredstva, bilanca stanja, terminska zadolženost, promet in finančni stroški.
It follows from this analysis in particular that a ratio of ‘total banking debt to own funds’ higher than 2,50 triggers a risk indicator which, although it does not totally compromise the granting of a loan leads the establishment to take increased securities.
Iz te analize izhaja, da če je razmerje „skupne bančne zadolženosti lastnega kapitala“, večje od 2,50, to sproži opozorilo glede tveganja, ki seveda dodelitve posojila nepreklicno ne ogrozi, vendar pa povzroči zahtevo po večjih poroštvih.
In the case of the FPAP, if the EUR 65 million in advances are set against the optimistic estimate of its own funds set out above (EUR 4,7 million, see recital 56), the ratio is 13,82, i.e. almost six times the maximum risk.
Če v primeru FPAP primerjamo 65 milijonov EUR predplačila z zgoraj predstavljeno optimistično oceno lastnega kapitala (4,7 milijona, glej uvodno izjavo 56), dobimo razmerje 13,82, to je skoraj šestkrat več od zgornje meje tveganja.
Of course, if the actual amount of the advances were higher (EUR 77 million, taking into account the possible additional advance of EUR 12 million referred to in recital 22), or if the actual amount of own funds were appreciably smaller, this hypothetical ratio would increase further.
Če bi bil dejanski znesek predplačil višji (77 milijonov EUR, ob upoštevanju morebitnega dodatnega predplačila v višini 12 milijonov EUR, navedenega v uvodni izjavi 22), ali če bi bil dejanski znesek lastnega kapitala bistveno nižji, bi se to hipotetično razmerje še povečalo.
With such a risk level, a bank would never have considered granting a loan, even though the use of real securities (such as pledging the purchase options or the fuel stocks acquired by the FPAP as collateral) or personal securities (taking out a mortgage on the members’ personal assets and pledging their vessels as collateral) is in fact one of the methods used by banks to minimise the risk of insolvency.
Pri taki ravni tveganja bančna ustanova ne bi nikoli obravnavala možnosti dodelitve posojila, čeprav so stvarna jamstva (kot je zastavitev opcij odkupa ali zastavitev zalog goriva, ki jih pridobi FPAP) ali osebna jamstva (hipoteke na osebno lastnino članov in zastavitev njihovih plovil) dejansko del bančnih postopkov, ki omogočajo čim bolj zmanjšati tveganje plačilne nesposobnosti.
However, it will be observed that, if the personal securities of the members were liable to be claimed, the fisheries undertakings would probably have been more reluctant to become members of the FPAP.
Kljub temu pa ugotavljamo, da bi pri uporabi osebnih jamstev članov, ribiška podjetja verjetno bolj oklevala glede članstva v FPAP.
There are also other client risk transfer or sharing methods, such as part-financing the loan by several banks, the use of guarantee companies or subscribing to regional or departmental guarantee funds (as a rule themselves counter-guaranteed by guarantee companies) but, in all cases, a guarantee is generally extended only to basically healthy and potentially profitable undertakings, and only ever up to an amount not exceeding 50 % of the debt (i.e. in the case of the FPAP, an amount of slightly more than EUR 30 million, leaving a residual risk of almost three times the maximum risk).
Obstajajo tudi drugi postopki prenosa ali delitve tveganja upnika, kot so sofinanciranje posojila s strani več bančnih ustanov, zatekanje k jamstvenim ustanovam ali naslonitev na regionalne in departmajske jamstvene sklade (ki imajo načeloma protijamstva jamstvenih ustanov), vendar pa se vsekakor poroštvo načelno odobri samo v dobro bistveno trdnih in potencialno rentabilnih podjetij in za znesek, ki nikoli ne sme presegati 50 % zadolženosti (to je pri FPAP za nekaj več kot 30 milijonov EUR, pri čemer ostane tveganje še vedno trikrat višje od določene zgornje meje tveganja).
When France comments on these methods, saying that security systems ‘could have been’ set up, it implicitly admits that they were not set up in this case and that the State advance was granted without securities comparable to those in use by banks being sought.
Ko Francija glede teh postopkov navede, da bi se „lahko vzpostavili“ sistemi poroštva, s tem smiselno potrdi, da v tem primeru niso bili vzpostavljeni in da je bilo predplačilo države odobreno brez poroštev, primerljivih s poroštvi, ki se uporabljajo v bančnih ustanovah.
Under these circumstances, the Commission concludes that France did not behave like a private creditor and that it did not have any security that the FPAP was in a position to repay the funds placed at its disposal.
V teh pogojih Komisija sklepa, da se Francija ni vedla kot zasebni upnik in da ni imela poroštva, da je FPAP sposoben povrniti sredstva, ki so mu bila dana na razpolago.
In addition, the FPAP, through its Board, points out that it bears civil liability under French law and that this liability is unlimited, noting that trade association action may entail responsibility for large amounts.
Poleg tega FPAP prek svojega sveta poudarja, da je po francoskem pravu civilno odgovoren in da je ta odgovornost neomejena, in dodaja, da lahko dejavnost združenja ustvarja odgovornost za velike zneske.
The Commission admits that very large amounts may be at stake, with an organisation like the FPAP where the operations undertaken on the futures markets present undeniable risks and may involve significant losses.
Komisija pripominja, da so pri organizaciji, kot je FPAP, kjer posli potekajo na terminskih trgih in gre za določena tveganja, ki lahko povzročijo velike izgube, lahko v igri velike vsote.
That being so, there is nothing to say that the FPAP’s liability in the event of significant losses will be covered by its members.
Vendar pa nikjer ni določeno, da bodo pri večjih izgubah FPAP te krili njegovi člani.
None of the documents provided (articles of association, rules of procedure or information note) refers to such a mechanism.
V nobenem od predloženih dokumentov (statut, navodila za uporabo, obvestilo) ni sklicevanja na tak mehanizem.
The only financial consideration appearing in these documents relates to the contribution, for which it is indicated that it is forfeited to the trade association when a member steps down (Article 10).
Edina pripomba finančne narave v teh dokumentih zadeva prispevke, za katere je navedeno, da se zasežejo v dobro združenja, ko član izstopi (člen 10).
The Commission also observes that the act of 21 March 1884, under which the FPAP was set up, is the act which has allowed the creation of trade associations in France.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da je zakon z dne 21. marca 1884, po katerem je bil ustanovljen FPAP, zakon, ki je v Franciji dovolil ustanavljanje strokovnih združenj.
It is certainly not in the spirit of such an act to entail the commercial, and therefore financial, liability of the members of the trade association concerned.
Zagotovo ni v duhu takega zakona, da predpisuje odgovornost ekonomske, in s tem finančne narave članov zadevnega združenja.
As a result, in the event of major financial losses, the Commission does not see how the losses can be compensated by its members.
Zato pri večjih finančnih izgubah Komisiji ni jasno, kako bi jih člani sklada lahko nadomestili.
Taking all of the above factors into account, the Commission takes the view that the private creditor principle has not been complied with.
Zaradi vseh navedenih elementov Komisija ocenjuje, da načelo zasebnega upnika ni bilo upoštevano.
Existence of a financial advantage granted by means of State resources
Obstoj finančne ugodnosti, odobrene prek državnih sredstev
The Commission takes the view that, even in the case of the higher assumption, the estimated amount of revenue from the various member contributions would never have enabled the FPAP to operate on a futures market without the assistance of external funding.
Komisija meni, da ocenjeni znesek prihodkov iz različnih prispevkov članov kljub visoki predpostavki FPAP ne bi nikoli omogočil, da posreduje na terminskem trgu, če ne bi bilo zunanjih sredstev.
This external funding was provided by the State, via Ofimer, in the form of at least three advances spread out between November 2004 and October 2005, covering a total amount, according to the information forwarded by France, of EUR 65 million. A fourth advance of EUR 12 million was probably also paid, since the list of defensive points quoted in recital 22 implies that the agreement was in the course of being signed at that date.
Ta zunanja sredstva je zagotovila država prek Nacionalnega medpanožnega urada za morske proizvode in proizvode iz ribogojstva (OFIMER) v obliki vsaj treh gotovinskih predplačil, razporejenih od novembra 2004 do oktobra 2005, katerih skupni znesek je po informacijah, ki jih je sporočila Francija, znašal 65 milijonov EUR. Verjetno je bilo izplačano tudi četrto predplačilo v višini 12 milijonov EUR; dejansko je iz besedila utemeljitve iz uvodne izjave 22 mogoče razumeti, da je na ta datum potekalo podpisovanje sporazuma.
France has not submitted any evidence contradicting this assessment.
Francija ni navedla elementov, ki bi nasprotovali tej analizi.
In addition, for the Commission, the advances were granted under conditions which are not normal market conditions (see recitals 51 to 61 of this Decision).
Tudi Komisija se strinja, da so bila ta predplačila odobrena pod pogoji, ki niso normalni tržni pogoji (glej uvodne izjave od 51 do 61 te odločbe).
Also, the Commission observes that neither France nor the FPAP have given it any indication of the amount of funds invested by the FPAP on the futures markets, or of the result of the transactions carried out on them.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da ji niti Francija niti FPAP nista predložila podatka o znesku sredstev, ki jih je sklad dodelil za posle na terminskem trgu, ali o rezultatu poslov, ki jih je tam opravil.
Lastly, France and the FPAP and its Board take the view that the Commission cannot prejudge the existence of State aid as long as no repayment default has been established (France: ‘the repayable advance cannot be regarded as State aid as long as the repayment deadline has not fallen’; FPAP: ‘Can this amount be repaid or not?
Nazadnje tako Francija kot FPAP in njegov svet ocenjujejo, da Komisija ne more vnaprej sklepati na oprostitev povračila, ki mu je potekel rok za odplačilo, dokler ni bilo ugotovljeno nobeno neizpolnjevanje pri povračilu (Francija: „vračljivega predplačila ni mogoče opredeliti kot državno pomoč, dokler ne zapade rok njegovega povračila“; FPAP: „Ali je ta znesek mogoče povrniti ali ne?
That is the main question being asked by the Commission’; MQA: ‘None of the loans to the FPAP granted by France has expired.
To je temeljno vprašanje, ki ga zastavlja Komisija.“; odvetniška pisarna MQA: „Nobeno od posojil, ki jih je Francija odobrila FPAP, še ni zapadlo.
At this stage there is no repayment default nor any indication by the French government suggesting that the debt will be purely and simply cancelled on expiry’).
Na tej stopnji še ni nobenega neizpolnjevanja povračila ali objave francoske države, po katerih bi lahko sklepali na čisto in preprosto oprostitev dolga, ki mu je potekel rok za odplačilo.“).
The Commission would point out in this respect that regarding the aid to the FPAP as State aid is first and foremost the result of the French Decision to grant a loan to the FPAP that it would not otherwise have obtained, even if the repayment deadlines had been met.
Komisija v zvezi s tem opozori, da je opredelitev državne pomoči v korist FPAP najprej povezana z odločitvijo Francije, da skladu odobri posojilo, ki ga drugače ne bi dobil, in to celo, če bi bili upoštevani roki zapadlosti povračila.
The Commission questions the solvency of the FPAP on expiry of the loan because this question is at the core of the assessment of its situation in relation to the normal conditions for granting a loan by a private bank and not because it suspects that a loan has been transferred into straightforward financial assistance.
Ko se Komisija sprašuje o plačilni sposobnosti FPAP ob zapadlosti posojila, je to najprej zato, ker je to vprašanje plačilne sposobnosti tega sklada v jedru ocene stanja z vidika normalnih pogojev odobritve posojila s strani zasebne bančne ustanove, in ne zato, ker sumi, da se je posojilo spremenilo v preprosto finančno podporo.
From this point of view, if it turned out that advances were not repaid within the time limits, or not repaid at all, this would confirm both that the FPAP was not in a position to perform the tasks provided for in its articles of association without external loans, and that it would never have been granted such assistance by a bank under normal market conditions.
S tega vidika bi, če bi se izkazalo, da predplačila niso bila povrnjena v rokih oziroma sploh niso bila povrnjena, to hkrati potrdilo, da FPAP ni bil sposoben opravljati poslov, predvidenih v njegovem statutu brez zunanjih kreditnih sredstev in da teh sredstev v normalnih tržnih pogojih bančna ustanova nikoli ne bi odobrila.
However, in this connection the Commission observes that France has not informed it of any repayment of advances granted to the FPAP.
Vendar pa glede tega Komisija ugotavlja, da je Francija nikoli ni obvestila o morebitnem povračilu predplačil, ki jih je prejel FPAP.
They had to be repaid on 1 November 2006 in the case of the advance of EUR 15 million covered by the agreement of 12 November 2004, 1 May 2007 in the case of the advance of EUR 10 million covered by the agreement of 27 May 2005 and on 1 July 2007 in the case of the advance of EUR 40 million covered by the agreement of 11 October 2005 (see recital 21).
Ta predplačila bi morala biti povrnjena: predplačilo iz sporazuma z dne 12. novembra 2004 v znesku 15 milijonov EUR 1. novembra 2006, predplačilo iz sporazuma z dne 27. maja 2005 v znesku 10 milijonov EUR 1. maja 2007 in predplačilo iz sporazuma z dne 11. oktobra 2005 v znesku 40 milijonov EUR 1. julija 2007 (glej uvodno izjavo 21).
Regarding the fourth advance which the FPAP may have received (see recital 22), neither the date of the agreement nor the final repayment date are known.
Kar pa zadeva četrto predplačilo, ki bi ga lahko prejel FPAP (glej uvodno izjavo 22), nista znana niti datum sporazuma niti datum zapadlosti povračila.
The three known expiry dates have now passed.
Trije znani datumi zapadlosti so danes že potekli.
The first had even already passed when France sent its last letter to the Commission on 27 November 2006, after the Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Prvi je celo potekel, še preden je Francija Komisiji 27. novembra 2006 poslala svoj zadnji dopis, po odločitvi Komisije, da začne formalni postopek preiskave.
The Commission takes the view that, if this advance had actually been repaid, France or the FPAP itself would have informed the Commission without delay since one of the arguments put forward to counter the Commission’s assessment was that these advances could not be regarded as State aid as long as the repayment deadline had not fallen.
Komisija meni, da če bi bilo to predplačilo dejansko povrnjeno, bi Francija ali FPAP o tem nemudoma obvestila Komisijo, saj je bil eden od argumentov nasprotovanja analizi Komisije, da teh predplačil ni mogoče opredeliti kot državno pomoč, dokler ne poteče rok povračila.
There is no doubt that, if the first advance had been repaid, France would have informed the Commission of this in its letter of 27 November 2006 and would then have done the same for the second and third advances, which had to be repaid by 1 May and 1 July 2007, and for the possible fourth advance.
Ni dvoma, da če bi bilo izvršeno povračilo prvega predplačila, bi Francija Komisijo o tem obvestila v dopisu z dne 27. novembra 2006, kar bi storila tudi za drugo in tretje predplačilo, ki bi morali biti povrnjeni 1. maja in 1. julija 2007, pa tudi morebitno četrto predplačilo.
What is more, the reports published in the trade press suggest that there has been no repayment up to now.
Po odmevih v strokovnem tisku lahko sklepamo, da predplačila do zdaj še niso povrnjena.
Thus, the Commission takes the view that the aid initially granted in the form of an advance was transformed into aid in the form of a direct subsidy.
Zato Komisija meni, da se je pomoč, ki je bila prvotno dodeljena kot predplačilo, spremenila v pomoč v obliki neposrednih nepovratnih sredstev.
Consequently, for all the reasons set out above, the Commission considers that the State advances represent a financial advantage granted by means of State financial resources.
Zaradi vseh zgoraj navedenih razlogov Komisija ocenjuje, da so bila predplačila, ki jih je odobrila država, finančna ugodnost, dana prek državnih sredstev.
Existence of a financial advantage imputable to the State
Obstoj finančne ugodnosti, ki jo je mogoče pripisati državi
The Commission observes that the three agreements concluded between the State and the FPAP expressly stipulate that the purpose of the public funds paid is the creation of a cover mechanism against fluctuations in international oil prices and that the mechanism will enable financial options to be acquired on the futures markets.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je v treh sporazumih med državo in FPAP izrecno predvideno, da je cilj izplačanih javnih sredstev vzpostavitev mehanizma kritja za nihanje mednarodnih cen nafte, ki bo omogočil pridobitev finančnih opcij na terminskih trgih.
However, it is obvious that the FPAP’s initial liquid assets, which were supplied only by its members’ contributions, could not have enabled it to undertake such operations, at least not on the scale to which they were.
Vendar pa je očitno, da FPAP začetna denarna sredstva, ki so se financirala le s prispevki njegovih članov, ne bi mogla omogočiti opravljanja poslov, vsaj ne v takem obsegu, kot so se.
This is because the first agreement, dated 12 November 2004, indicates that the purpose of the advance of EUR 15 million was to ‘enable the mechanism to be started’.
Dejansko je v prvem sporazumu z dne 12. novembra 2004 navedeno, da je cilj predplačila v znesku 15 milijonov EUR „omogočiti zagon mehanizma“.
Therefore it was indeed thanks to these advances that the FPAP was in a position to undertake significant acquisition operations on the futures markets.
Torej je prav zaradi teh predplačil FPAP lahko v večjem obsegu opravljal posle pridobitve na terminskih trgih.
In other words, it appears that the State actively supported the creation of the FPAP, constituted as a trade association, and its involvement on the futures markets for petroleum products, although such an activity does not reflect the normal activity of a trade association, and that that activity was conducted in competition with private operators under competition conditions which are not normal.
Z drugimi besedami se zdi, da je država konkretno podprla ustanovitev FPAP v obliki združenja in njegovo delovanje na terminskih trgih naftnih proizvodov, čeprav ta dejavnost ne ustreza običajni dejavnosti združenja, in to v pogojih konkurence z zasebnimi subjekti, ki niso normalni konkurenčni pogoji.
Also, France recognised, as early as 7 October 2005, that ‘the government has encouraged an initiative by the trade, i.e. the creation of a fund for the prevention of risks to fishing.
Poleg tega Francija že od 7. oktobra 2005 priznava, da „je vlada podpirala pobudo članov ribiškega sektorja za ustanovitev FPAP.
This fund, managed by the trade, enables fishermen (…) to pool their financial capacity to buy financial options on the futures market to cover themselves against the risk of fluctuations in the price of fuel’, while omitting to state that the fishermen’s ‘financial capacity’ referred to was based on State resources, since two advances had already been paid by that date.
Ta sklad, ki ga upravljajo člani ribiškega sektorja, ribičem omogoča (…), da združijo svoje finančne sposobnosti za nakup finančnih opcij na terminskem trgu kot kritje pred tveganjem nihanj cene goriva“, ob tem pa pozablja navesti, da je navedena „finančna sposobnost“ ribičev obstajala zaradi državnih sredstev, ker sta na ta datum že bili izplačani dve predplačili.
However, there is no doubt that the FPAP had to take account of the requirements of the public authorities in deciding how to use the funds placed at its disposal.
Vendar ni dvoma, da je moral FPAP upoštevati zahteve javnih organov pri odločitvah o uporabi sredstev, ki so mu bila dana na razpolago.
From this point of view, the introduction of an interministerial inspection with the remit of ‘auditing the FPAP mechanism in its current operation and checking that the conditions for expenditure are satisfactory as regards public-expenditure law and rules, while complying with the commitments entered into by the managers of the funding’ demonstrates the State’s concern to ensure that the FPAP’s funds were in fact used for the purpose laid down in the agreements.
S tega vidika ustanovitev medresorske inšpekcijske misije, zadolžene „za presojo sedanjega delovanja mehanizma FPAP in preverjanje, da pogoji za trošenje ustrezajo pravu in pravilom javnih izdatkov, ter da so skladni z obveznostmi, ki so jih prevzeli upravljavci teh sredstev“, kaže skrb države, da se prepriča, ali so bila sredstva FPAP res uporabljena v skladu z namenom, predvidenim v sporazumih.
Consequently, taking all of the above factors into account, the Commission takes the view that the financial advantage represented by the advances granted to the FPAP for the acquisition of financial options on the oil futures markets is imputable to the State [11].
Zato Komisija glede na vse te dokaze meni, da je mogoče finančno ugodnost izplačanih predplačil, odobrenih FPAP za pridobitev finančnih opcij na terminskih naftnih trgih, pripisati državi [11].
Existence of a financial advantage which distorts or threatens to distort competition
Obstoj finančne ugodnosti, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco
The FPAP enjoys a financial advantage compared to the other companies operating on the futures markets, whether they are companies customarily active on these markets or companies which are or may be set up in the same way as the FPAP, in the form of a trade association in the other Member States or even in France itself.
FPAP je bil deležen finančne ugodnosti v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki poslujejo na terminskih trgih, pa naj gre za podjetja, ki običajno delujejo na teh trgih, ali za podjetja, ustanovljena enako kot sklad, to je kot strokovno združenje, v drugih državah članicah in tudi v Franciji.