natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
While prior decisions of the interdepartmental expert committee and the Ministry responsible are indeed necessary for the award, they are not sufficient to grant the aid.
Predhodni sklepi medresorskega strokovnega odbora in pristojnega ministrstva so sicer potrebni za dodelitev, vendar pa ne zadostujejo za odobritev pomoči.
The definitive decision lies with the government.
Končno odločitev sprejme Vlada.
In the present case, the Government’s resolution was issued on 27 May 2004, and Slovenia joined the European Union on 1 May 2004.
V tem primeru je bil sklep Vlade izdan 27. maja 2004, Slovenija pa se je pridružila Evropski uniji 1. maja 2004.
Therefore, the measures constitute new aid and would have had to be notified on the basis of Article 88 EC and assessed under Article 87 EC.
Zato ukrepi pomenijo novo pomoč in bi jih bilo treba priglasiti na podlagi člena 88 Pogodbe ES in presojati na podlagi člena 87 Pogodbe ES.
Given that the aid in question is restructuring aid, it is compatible with the common market if it complies with the criteria under the guidelines.
Glede na to, da zadevna pomoč predstavlja pomoč za prestrukturiranje, je združljiva s skupnim trgom le, če izpolnjuje merila iz smernic.
In view of Slovenia’s comments and the information gathered in the course of its enquiry, the commission has reached the following conclusions on the points which caused it to open the formal procedure.
Komisija je na podlagi pripomb Slovenije in podatkov, ki jih je zbrala med svojo preiskavo, sprejela naslednje zaključke o točkah, zaradi katerih je bil sprožen formalni postopek.
In view of the information submitted by Slovenia, the Commission takes the view that Javor Pivka’s performance as described in section 2.1 above shows that it was indeed a company in difficulty at the time the state aid in issue was granted.
Glede na podatke, ki jih je predložila Slovenija, Komisija sprejme stališče, da poslovanje družbe Javor Pivka, opisano v zgornjem oddelku 2.1, kaže, da je bilo podjetje v času, ko je bila zadevna pomoč dodeljena, zares v težavah.
The Commission notes in particular that Javor Pivka experienced increasing losses, diminishing turnover and declining cash flow.
Komisija zlasti ugotavlja, da je družba Javor Pivka imela naraščajoče izgube, zmanjšan promet in padec denarnih tokov.
The Commission further notes that these problems were part of a trend for the years 2000-2004, and not simply an exceptional occurrence in 2003.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da so bile te težave del trenda v letih 2000–2004 in ne le izjemen dogodek v letu 2003.
The Commission also notes Slovenia’s explanations concerning the nature of Javor Pivka’s ownership.
Komisija upošteva tudi pojasnila Slovenije v zvezi z naravo lastništva družbe Javor Pivka.
In view of the passive nature and poor capital resources of Javor Pivka’s institutional owners and the fragmentation of its remaining ownership, the Commission accepts that the company could not obtain the necessary funds from its shareholders.
Glede na pasivno naravo in skromna kapitalska sredstva institucionalnih lastnikov družbe Javor Pivka ter razdrobljenost preostalega lastništva družbe Komisija sprejema, da družba potrebnih sredstev ni mogla pridobiti od svojih delničarjev.
For the same reasons, and taking into account the fact that no single owner holds more than 15 % of Javor Pivka’s share capital, the Commission also takes the view that Javor Pivka does not belong to a larger business group.
Iz istega razloga in ob upoštevanju, da noben posamezni lastnik nima v lasti več kot 15 % delniškega kapitala družbe Javor Pivka, Komisija tudi sprejema stališče, da družba Javor Pivka ni del večje poslovne skupine.
The Commission accordingly accepts that Javor Pivka was eligible for restructuring aid.
Komisija v skladu s tem sprejema, da je bila družba Javor Pivka upravičena do pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
The Commission indicated in the opening decision that it was unclear how the restructuring plan would enable Javor Pivka to restore long term viability.
Komisija je v sklepu o sprožitvi postopka navedla, da ni jasno, kako naj bi načrt prestrukturiranja družbi Javor Pivka omogočil ponovno vzpostavitev dolgoročne rentabilnosti.
This related mainly to the five year projections indicating how the company was likely to evolve as a result of the restructuring measures.
To se je nanašalo predvsem na petletna predvidevanja o tem, kako naj bi se družba razvijala zaradi ukrepov prestrukturiranja.
The Commission's remarked that Slovenia had not submitted the information and data necessary to enable the Commission to assess the assumptions on Javor Pivkas's likely performance under the restructuring plan.
Komisija je opozorila, da Slovenija ni predložila podatkov, ki jih Komisija potrebuje za presojo predpostavk glede verjetnega poslovanja družbe Javor Pivka po načrtu prestrukturiranja.
In the course of the procedure, Slovenia has submitted the complementary information mentioned in section 4.3 above.
Med potekom postopka je Slovenija predložila dopolnilne podatke, omenjene v zgornjem oddelku 4.3.
This information adequately explains the basis for the assumptions.
Ti podatki ustrezno pojasnjujejo osnove za predpostavke.
The Commission notes that the forecasts for Javor Pivka's sales performance might today appear rather optimistic given that in 2005 and 2006 the sector faced fierce competition from the Far East which resulted in excess supply and pressure to reduce prices.
Komisija opaža, da so predpostavke o gibanju prodaje družbe Javor Pivka morda preveč optimistične glede na to, da se je sektor v letih 2005 in 2006 soočal z močno konkurenco z Daljnega vzhoda, kar je povzročilo presežno ponudbo in pritisk na znižanje cen.
However it is not clear that this information was already known in the beginning of 2004.
Vendar pa ni jasno, ali je bil ta podatek že znan v začetku leta 2004.
In addition the Commission itself observed in 2006 that: ‘plywood production and consumption have seen significant increase in the past few years, with a strong export market developing for certain grades’ [9].
Poleg tega je sama Komisija v letu 2006 ugotavljala: „proizvodnja in poraba vezanih plošč sta se v zadnjih nekaj letih občutno povečali, pri čemer se za nekatere razrede razvija zelo močen izvozni trg“ [9].
Given that the Commission has not been provided with any contradictory information which put the companies and its own assumptions into question, the Commission has no grounds to dispute them.
Glede na to, da Komisija ni dobila nobenih nasprotujočih podatkov, na podlagi katerih bi lahko podvomila v predpostavke podjetij in v svoje lastne predpostavke, Komisija tudi nima utemeljenih razlogov, da bi jih zavračala.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the projections made in 2004 do not appear implausible, so that the Commission's doubts on this point have been allayed.
Zato Komisija meni, da ne kaže, da bi bila predvidevanja iz leta 2004 neverjetna, tako da je Komisija glede teh dvomov pomirjena.
According to points 35 and 36 of the guidelines, measures must be taken to mitigate as far as possible any adverse impact of the state aid on competitors.
V skladu s točkama 35 in 36 smernic je treba sprejeti ukrepe, ki bodo čim bolj zmanjšali škodljive učinke državne pomoči na položaj konkurentov.
However, such compensatory measures are not required where the beneficiary's share of the relevant market is negligible.
Vendar pa ti izravnalni ukrepi niso potrebni, kadar je zadevni tržni delež prejemnika zanemarljiv.
In these cases, compensatory measures are not a condition for finding the aid compatible with the common market.
Zato v teh primerih izravnalni ukrepi niso pogoj, da je državna pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The Commission notes that according to the information provided by the Slovenian authorities, Javor Pivka is active in several product markets (plywood, shuttering panels, veneer and furniture, see point 22 above).
Komisija ugotavlja, da je družba Javor Pivka v skladu s podatki, ki so jih zagotovili slovenski organi, dejavna na več proizvodnih trgih (vezane plošče, opažne plošče, furnir in pohištvo, glej točko 22 te odločbe).
As regards plywood the Commission first notes that in a merger case a ‘market investigation has largely confirmed that the different type of wood-based boards such as plywood, hardboard, raw particleboards and coated particleboards, decorative laminates (HPL/CPL) and wood-based panel components for the furniture and construction industry belong to separate product markets’ [10].
Kar zadeva vezane plošče, Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da je v primeru združitve „tržna preiskava v veliki meri potrdila, da različne vrste lesenih plošč, kot so vezane plošče, lesonit plošče, surove iverne plošče in oplemenitene iverne plošče, dekorativni laminati (HPL/CPL) ter elementi iz lesenih plošč za pohištvo in gradbeno industrijo, pripadajo ločenim proizvodnim trgom“ [10].
As regards the definition of the relevant market, Slovenia has provided the Commission with a market study which indicates the market shares for the relevant product market in the EU-25.
Za opredelitev upoštevnega trga je Slovenija Komisiji predložila tržno študijo, ki prikazuje tržne deleže na upoštevnem trgu proizvodov v EU-25.
In this respect, the Commission has little reason to depart from the presumption in footnote 20 of the guidelines that the relevant market is the EEA.
Komisija ima v zvezi s tem malo razlogov, da bi oporekala predpostavki iz opombe 20 smernic, da je zadevni trg EGP.
It recalls that it has previously made some market investigations in the European wood-based products industry (including in particular wood-based panels made out of particleboard) in a merger case [11], and concluded that the relevant market was wider than the national market, and at least cross-border regional.
Komisija opozarja, da je v preteklosti izvedla nekaj tržnih preiskav v evropski industriji lesnih proizvodov (zlasti lesnih ivernih plošč) v primeru združitve [11] ter sklenila, da je upoštevni trg širši od nacionalnega trga in da je najmanj čezmejni regionalni trg.
This was underpinned by the important cross boarder trade flows.
To so potrdili pomembni čezmejni trgovinski tokovi.
That similar trade flows exist also in the case of plywood is shown by figures provided by Slovenia as confirmed by the Commission's internal experts (this is further confirmed by the fact that the intra-Community exports account for the majority of Javor Pivka's turnover, with 55 %).
Obstoj podobnih trgovinskih tokov tudi v primeru vezanih plošč je razviden iz podatkov, ki jih je predložila Slovenija, kakor potrjujejo notranji strokovnjaki Komisije (to še dodatno potrjuje dejstvo, da znaša izvoz znotraj Skupnosti za večino prometa družbe Javor Pivka 55 %).
Moreover, ‘cross-border regional’ was found to relate to a distance of about 1000 km, the distance varying according to the value added to the products, i.e. coated products would trade over even longer distances than none-coated products.
Poleg tega se je ugotovilo, da se čezmejni regionalni trg nanaša na oddaljenost približno 1000 km, pri čemer se oddaljenost razlikuje glede na dodano vrednost proizvodov, tj. oddaljenosti, na katerih se je trgovalo z oplemenitenimi proizvodi, so bile celo daljše kot oddaljenosti za neoplemenitene proizvode.
As plywood is already a higher-quality product and exports concern mainly plywood, transportation costs are less important than for particleboard (and even less important for chairs and other furniture made out of plywood).
Ker so vezane plošče že višje kakovosti in se izvažajo v glavnem vezane plošče, so prevozni stroški manj pomembni kot za iverne plošče (in še manj pomembni za stole in drugo pohištvo iz vezanih plošč).
In view of the above, the Commission takes the view that the relevant market for the products manufactured by Javor Pivka should be, if not the entire EEA or EU-25, at least a good part of the EU-25.
Glede na navedeno Komisija meni, da bi moral biti upoštevni trg za proizvode, ki jih izdeluje družba javor Pivka, če ne celoten EGP ali EU-25, pa vsaj dobršen del EU-25.
Given that Javor Pivka's market share of the EU-25 as indicated in section 2.4 above is 0,21 % (in 2003) for its product range as a whole, and that this share should in principle not more than double even if the geographical market were reduced by half, the Commission considers that the market share is still well below 1 % which, in connection with the fact that the market comprises a large number of small and medium-sized producers, can be considered negligible [12].
Glede na to, da – kakor je navedeno v zgornjem oddelku 2.4 – znaša tržni delež družbe Javor Pivka na trgu EU-25 0,21 % (leta 2003) za njen celoten proizvodni program in da se ta delež načeloma ne bi smel več kot dvakrat povečati, tudi če bi se geografski trg zmanjšal za polovico, Komisija meni, da je tržni delež še vedno precej pod 1 %, kar lahko v povezavi z dejstvom, da trg zajema veliko število malih in srednjih proizvajalcev, štejemo za zanemarljiv delež [12].
Consequently, and since this decision is based on the 1999 guidelines, compensatory measures are not necessary to ensure that the state aid is compatible with the common market.
Zato in ker ta odločba temelji na smernicah iz leta 1999, izravnalni ukrepi za zagotavljanje združljivosti državne pomoči s skupnim trgom niso potrebni.
According to point 40 of the guidelines, aid must be limited to the strict minimum needed to enable restructuring, and beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources ‘including through the sale of assets that are not essential to the firm's survival, or from external financing at market conditions’.
V skladu s točko 40 smernic je treba pomoč omejiti na najnujnejše, da se omogoči prestrukturiranje, in pričakuje se, da prejemniki pomoči pomembno prispevajo k načrtu prestrukturiranja iz lastnih virov, „tudi s prodajo sredstev, ki niso bistvenega pomena za preživetje podjetja, ali iz zunanjega financiranja pri tržnih pogojih“.
Javor Pivka's own contribution to the restructuring is set out in section 4.5 above.
Lastni prispevek družbe Javor Pivka k prestrukturiranju je naveden v zgornjem oddelku 4.5.
It should be said at the outset that the Commission cannot accept that depreciation of assets provides a genuine own contribution [13] because it does not provide resources available to the company and is also depending on future operations which are the result of the State aid provided [14].
Na začetku je treba povedati, da Komisija amortizacije ne more sprejeti kot pristnega lastnega prispevka [13], ker ta družbi ne zagotavlja razpoložljivih sredstev, poleg tega pa je odvisna od prihodnjega poslovanja, ki je rezultat zagotovljene državne pomoči [14].
Any funds from this source can therefore not be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating Javor Pivka's own contribution.
Morebitnih sredstev iz tega vira zato ni mogoče upoštevati pri izračunu lastnega prispevka družbe Javor Pivka.
On the other hand, the assets divested by Javor Pivka do not appear essential to its survival and the proceeds from this sale therefore constitutes a valid own contribution.
Po drugi strani pa kaže, da sredstva, ki jih je družba Javor Pivka prodala, niso bistvenega pomena za njeno preživetje, zato prihodki iz te prodaje predstavljajo veljaven lastni prispevek.
The same is true of the funds raised through loans taken on market terms from banks and free of aid.
Isto velja za sredstva, pridobljena z bančnimi krediti pri tržnih pogojih brez pomoči.
Together, the funds from these sources amount to SIT 2119650000, which the Commission considers as Javor Pivka's own contribution towards the restructuring.
Sredstva iz teh virov skupaj znašajo 2119650000 SIT, kar Komisija šteje za lastni prispevek družbe Javor Pivka k prestrukturiranju.
The own contribution corresponds to 45,5 % of the total restructuring costs which can be considered significant under the guidelines [15].
Lastni prispevek predstavlja 45,5 % skupnih stroškov prestrukturiranja, kar lahko v skladu s smernicami štejemo za pomemben prispevek [15].
The aid also appears limited to the minimum necessary as it is limited to providing the additional funds needed for the technological restructuring and for the restructuring of the workforce and does not provide the company with any surplus cash.
Zdi se, da je pomoč prav tako omejena na najnujnejše, saj je omejena na zagotovitev dodatnih sredstev, potrebnih za tehnološko prestrukturiranje in prestrukturiranje zaposlenih, družbi pa ne zagotavlja presežne likvidnosti.
Under the ‘one time, last time’ principle laid, down in points 48-51 of the guidelines, the Commission cannot approve restructuring aid to a company which has previously received restructuring aid.
V skladu z načelom enkratne pomoči, določenim v točki 48-51 smernic, Komisija ne more odobriti pomoči za prestrukturiranje družbi, ki je že pred tem prejela pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
The Commission considers that this principle requires it to take into account any restructuring aid granted within 10 years preceding the aid under consideration, irrespective of whether the first state aid was granted before the granting Member State's accession to the EU.
Komisija meni, da mora na podlagi tega načela upoštevati vse pomoči za prestrukturiranje, ki so bile dodeljene v obdobju 10 let pred obravnavano pomočjo, ne glede na to, ali je bila prva državna pomoč dodeljena pred pristopom države članice, ki daje pomoč, k EU.
State aid other than restructuring aid is not relevant in this respect.
Pri tem državna pomoč, ki ni pomoč za prestrukturiranje, ni pomembna.
Slovenia has argued that the purpose of this aid was to promote energy saving for environmental purposes.
Slovenija je dokazovala, da je bil namen te pomoči spodbujanje varčevanja z energijo zaradi okoljskih razlogov.
Nothing has emerged which would lead the Commission to question that information.
Komisija nima nobenega razloga, da bi dvomila v ta podatek.
The Commission therefore accepts that this aid was not given for restructuring purposes and that it should not be considered for the application of the ‘one time, last time’ principle.
Komisija zato sprejema, da ta pomoč ni bila dodeljena za namene prestrukturiranja, in se zato zanjo ne uporablja načelo enkratne pomoči.
Additional observation
Dodatna pripomba
It emerged in the course of the proceedings that the implementation of the restructuring plan have been delayed and that some parts of the technological restructuring have not been implemented according to schedule.
Med preiskavo se je izkazalo, da je prišlo pri izvajanju načrta prestrukturiranja do zamude in da nekateri deli tehnološkega prestrukturiranja niso bili izvedeni po načrtih.
It does not appear that these problems in the restructuring plan were apparent at the time of the granting of the aid and they do accordingly not justify calling into question the plan's ability to return Javor Pivka to viability.
Ne kaže, da bi bili ti problemi v načrtu prestrukturiranja opazni v času odobritve pomoči, zato na podlagi tega ni upravičeno dvomiti, da bo z načrtom mogoče ponovno vzpostaviti rentabilnost družbe Javor Pivka.
However, the Commission recalls that the approval of the aid is conditional upon full implementation of the plan (point 43 of the guidelines) and will be monitored (point 45 of the guidelines).
Vendar pa Komisija opozarja, da je odobritev pomoči pogojena s polno izvedbo načrta prestrukturiranja (točka 43 smernic) in bo spremljana (točka 45 smernic).
The Commission therefore expects Slovenia, pursuant to point 46 of the guidelines, to provide at least two monitoring reports, one concerning 2007 at the end of January 2008 and one concerning 2008 at the end of January 2009, containing detailed information on the financial performance of the company as well as of its investments made.
Komisija zato pričakuje, da bo Slovenija v skladu s točko 46 smernic predložila najmanj dve poročili o spremljanju, eno konec januarja 2008 o letu 2007 in eno konec januarja 2009 o letu 2008, s podrobnimi podatki o finančnem poslovanju družbe in o izvedenih naložbah.
The Commission underscores that if the company fails to make all the investments in the restructuring plan, it may be liable to pay back some state aid even if it managed to return to viability [16].
Komisija poudarja, da je lahko družba, če ne izvede vseh naložb iz načrta prestrukturiranja, dolžna povrniti del državne pomoči, tudi če ji je uspelo ponovno vzpostaviti rentabilnost [16].
In view of the above, the Commission finds that the aid in question is restructuring aid which complies with the conditions of the applicable guidelines, i.e. the 1999 rescue and restructuring guidelines.
Glede na navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da zadevna pomoč pomeni pomoč za prestrukturiranje, ki izpolnjuje pogoje veljavnih smernic, tj. smernic o reševanju in prestrukturiranju iz leta 1999.
The Commission therefore finds that although Slovenia has unlawfully implemented the restructuring aid to Javor Pivka in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, the state aid is compatible with the common market,
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da je državna pomoč, čeprav je Slovenija nezakonito izvedla pomoč za prestrukturiranje družbi Javor Pivka in kršila člen 88(3) Pogodbe, združljiva s skupnim trgom –
The State aid which Slovenia has implemented for Javor Pivka is compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) EC and the Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty of 1999.
Državna pomoč Slovenije za družbo Javor Pivka je združljiva s skupnim trgom v smislu člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES in smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah iz leta 1999.
The restructuring plan shall be fully implemented.
Načrt prestrukturiranja se izvede v celoti.
In particular, a report concerning the 2007 activities shall be submitted by the end of January 2008 and a report concerning the 2008 activities shall be submitted by the end of January 2009.
Podrobno poročilo o dejavnostih v letu 2007 se predloži konec januarja 2008, podrobno poročilo o dejavnostih v letu 2008 pa konec januarja 2009.
The reports shall contain detailed information on the financial performance of the company as well as of the investments it has made.
Poročili vsebujeta podrobne podatke o finančnem poslovanju družbe in o izvedenih naložbah.
OJ C 194, 18.8.2006, p. 26.
UL C 194, 18.8.2006, str. 26.
Details of the procedure were described in the decision to open the procedure (see footnote 1) and remain relevant for the purpose of the present decision.
Podrobni podatki o postopku so bili opisani v odločbi o začetku postopka (glej opombo 1) in so ustrezni tudi za namene te odločbe.
Figures as at 30 January 2004.
Vrednosti na dan 30. januarja 2004.
Any conversions of SIT amounts to EUR are purely indicative and based on the rate 1 EUR = SIT 240.
Vse zamenjave zneskov iz SIT v EUR so zgolj informativne in temeljijo na menjalnem tečaju 1 EUR = 240 SIT .
In the course of the procedure, Slovenia declared that the costs of the financial restructuring were ‘outside the restructuring programme’ and would be met by commercial loans obtained by Javor Pivka without any involvement of state aid.
Med potekom postopka je Slovenija izjavila, da so bili stroški finančnega prestrukturiranja „izven programa prestrukturiranja“ in naj bi se krili iz komercialnih posojil, ki naj bi jih družba Javor Pivka pridobila brez kakršnega koli posredovanja državne pomoči.
The corresponding amount, SIT 400000000, was not included by Slovenia in the costs of the restructuring programme.
Slovenija zadevnega zneska 400000000 SIT ni vključila v stroške programa prestrukturiranja.
However the Commission takes the view that the financial restructuring is an integral and necessary part of the restructuring programme and that consequently its costs should be included in the restructuring cost.
Vendar pa Komisija meni, da je finančno prestrukturiranje sestavni in potrebni del programa prestrukturiranja in je zato treba njegove stroške vključiti v stroške prestrukturiranja.