natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Cyprus shall provide the Commission with any reports and documents concerning both the participation of the State and of the bank and the private shareholders of Cyprus Airways Public Ltd and particularly the final contracts with the bank and the reports justifying the fees and eventual share price in the context of the capital increase.
Ciper Komisiji predloži vsa poročila in dokumentacijo v zvezi z udeležbo države, banke in zasebnih delničarjev letalske družbe Cyprus Airways Public Ltd ter zlasti končne pogodbe z banko in poročila, ki utemeljujejo višino provizije in dejansko ceno delnic v okviru povečanja kapitala.
This Decision is addressed to Cyprus.
Ta odločba je naslovljena na Ciper.
Vice-President of the Commission
Podpredsednik Komisije
OJ C 113, 13.5.2006, p. 2.
UL C 113, 13.5.2006, str. 2.
Cf footnote 1.
Prim. opomba 1.
OJ C 244 1.10.2004 p. 2.
UL C 244 1.10.2004, str. 2
Business secret.
poslovna skrivnost.
Audited financial statements.
revidirani računovodski izkazi.
M = management accounts, not yet audited.
M = poslovodski izkazi, ki še niso revidirani.
E = Estimated.
E = ocena.
OJ C 71, 11.3.2003, p 14.
UL C 71, 11.3.2000, str. 14.
See the judgement of the Court of 16 May 2002 in Case C482/99 2002 ECR I-4397 as well as the conclusions of Advocate general Geelhoed of 27 September 2001, in Joint cases C-328/99 &t C-399/00, Italy v Commission & SIM 2 Multimedia SpA v Commission.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 16. maja 2002 v zadevi C482/99 2002 ECR I-4397 ter sklepe generalnega pravobranilca Geelhoeda z dne 27. septembra 2001 v združenih zadevah C-328/99 & C-399/00, Italija proti Komisiji in SIM 2 Multimedia SpA proti Komisiji.
Judgement of 21 March 1991, Italy v Commission‘Alfa Romeo’ (C-305/89) 1991 ECR I-1603 point 20.
Sodba z dne 21. marca 1991, Italija proti Komisiji, „Alfa Romeo“ (C-305/89) 1991 ECR I-1603, točka 20.
Judgement of the CFI of 12 December 2000 in Case T-296/97, Alitalia v Commission, 2000, ECR II-3871, point 81.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 12. decembra 2000 v zadevi T-296/97, Alitalia proti Komisiji, 2000, ECR II-3871, točka 81.
Case T11/95 BP Chemicals Ltd v. Commission [1998] ECR II-3235 paragraphs 170 & 171.
Zadeva T11/95 BP Chemicals Ltd proti Komisiji [1998] ECR II-3235, odstavka 170 in 171.
State aid CY 14/2003 — Cyprus — Regional aid map 2004-2006 (C(2004) 1757/1 of 28.4.2004).
Državna pomoč CY 14/2003 – Ciper – Karta regionalnih pomoči 2004–2006. (C(2004) 1757/1 z dne 28.4.2004).
Cyprus has an air passenger per head of population ratio of 8,50, by way of comparison the EU 25 ratio is 1,30.
Razmerje letalskih potnikov na število prebivalstva znaša za Ciper 8,50, medtem ko je povprečje za EU-25 1,30.
Commission Decision 2005/406/EC of 15 October 2003 concerning RTP — (OJ L 142 of 6.6.2005, p. 1 and Commission decision 2005/418/EC of 7 July 2004 concerning Alstom OJ L 150 of 10.6.2005, p. 24) (in particular points 125 and 215).
Odločba 2005/406/ES Komisije z dne 15. oktobra 2003 o RTP (UL L 142, 6.6.2005, str. 1) in Odločba 2005/418/ES Komisije z dne 7. julija 2004 o podjetju Alstom (UL L 150, 10.6.2005 str. 24) (zlasti točki 125 in 215).
In this regard see Commission decision (2005/346/EC) of 14 July 2004 concerning MobilCom (OJ L 116 of 4.5.2005) (in particular point 173).
V zvezi s tem glej Odloč 2005/346/ES bo Komisije z dne 14. julija 2004 o podjetju MobilCom (UL L 116, 4.5.2005) (zlasti točka 173).
Such contribution must be real, i.e., actual, excluding all future expected profits such as cash flow, and must be as high as possible.’
Takšen prispevek mora biti realen, tj. dejanski, izključevati mora vse pričakovane prihodnje dobičke, kot je denarni tok, in mora biti čim višji“.
Such contribution is a sign that the markets believe in the feasibility of the return to viability.
Takšen prispevek kaže, da trgi verjamejo, da lahko podjetje znova postane sposobno preživeti.
This results in a total own contribution of at least CYP 36,2 million. This amounts to 51 % of the restructuring costs.
Skupni prispevek tako znaša vsaj 36,2 milijona CYP, kar je 51 % stroškov za prestrukturiranje.
The government firmly refutes the allegation of political interference in the company and stated that while the majority of the Board are appointed by the government that these members have the same responsibilities as those of the Board members of any publicly listed company. The decisions taken by the Board are motivated only by the company's best interests.
Vlada je odločno zavrnila obtožbo o političnem vmešavanju v družbo; potrdila je, da je imenovala večino članov uprave, ob tem pa poudarila, da imajo ti člani enake odgovornosti kot člani uprave drugih javnih delniških družb in da so odločitve uprave sprejete v najboljšem interesu družbe.
Cyprus Airways
Družba Cyprus Airways
on State aid concerning compensations under the manure decree (C 12/1999)
o državni pomoči v zvezi z nadomestili iz dekreta o gnoju (C 12/1999)
(notified under document number C(2007) 6777)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 6777)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above [1],
po pozivu zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z zgoraj navedeno(-imi) določbo(-ami) [1],
By letter of 3 July 1998, the Belgium authorities notified the above mentioned aid pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
Belgijski organi so z dopisom z dne 3. julija 1998 uradno priglasili zgoraj navedeno pomoč v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
By letter No SG-Greffe (1999) D/2211 of 26 March 1999, the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.
Z dopisom št. SG-Greffe (1999) D/2211 z dne 26. marca 1999 je Komisija začela uradni postopek preiskave v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
Belgium subsequently expressed comments by letter of 28 April 1999.
Belgija je nato predložila pripombe z dopisom z dne 28. aprila 1999.
It forwarded them to Belgium by letter of 30 June 1999, which was given the opportunity to react.
Posredovala jih je Belgiji z dopisom z dne 30. junija 1999, ki je imela priložnost odgovoriti.
The Belgian authorities sent the Commission additional information by letter of 1 June 1999, 27 June 2000 and 23 July 2001.
Belgijski organi so poslali Komisiji dodatne informacije z dopisi z dne 1. junija 1999, 27. junija 2000 in 23. julija 2001.
By letter of 12 March 2007, Belgium informed the Commission that it was withdrawing the notified measure.
Belgija je z dopisom z dne 12. marca 2007 obvestila Komisijo, da umika priglašeni ukrep.
In this letter Belgium confirmed that the aid has not been paid.
V tem dopisu je Belgija potrdila, da pomoč ni bila plačana.
Up to the date on which it received the request of withdrawal from Belgium, the Commission had not taken any formal decision on the notification in question.
Komisija do dne, ko je od Belgije prejela zahtevek za umik, ni sprejela nobene uradne odločitve o zadevni uradni priglasitvi.
The formal investigation procedure should therefore be closed pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as it is now superfluous,
Uradni postopek preiskave je zato treba v skladu s členom 8(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 zaključiti, saj je zdaj odvečen –
The formal investigation procedure regarding an aid concerning compensations under the manure decree is hereby closed pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Uradni postopek preiskave, kar zadeva pomoč v zvezi z nadomestili iz dekreta o gnoju, je tako zaključen v skladu s členom 8(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
This Decision is addressed to Belgium.
Ta odločba je naslovljena na Belgijo.
OJ C 129, 8.5.1999, p. 2.
UL C 129, 8.5.1999, str. 2.
on State aid promoting investment in the rationalisation of steep-slope winegrowing in Rhineland Palatinate
o državni pomoči za spodbujanje naložb v racionalizacijo vinogradništva v strmih pobočjih zvezne dežele Porenje-Pfalz
(notified under document number C(2007) 4462)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 4462)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above [1],
ob pozivu zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenim členom [1],
By letter of 30 September 1994, received on 7 October 1994, the German authorities notified the above mentioned aid pursuant to Article 93(3) (now Article 88(3)) of the EC Treaty.
Nemške oblasti so v dopisu z dne 30. septembra 1994, prejetem 7. oktobra 1994, priglasile zgoraj navedeno pomoč v skladu s členom 93(3) (zdaj členom 88(3)) Pogodbe ES.
No comments from interested third parties were received by the Commission.
Komisija ni prejela nobenih pripomb od zainteresiranih tretjih strank.
The German authorities sent the Commission additional information by letter of 1 June 2007.
Nemške oblasti so Komisiji z dopisom z dne 1. junija 2007 poslale dodatne podatke.
By letter of 24 June 1996, Germany informed the Commission that it was withdrawing the notified measure.
Nemčija je Komisijo v dopisu z dne 24. junija 1996 obvestila, da umika priglašeni ukrep.
In reply to a question from the Commission, Germany has also confirmed that the investment aid has not been paid.
V odgovoru na vprašanje Komisije je Nemčija tudi potrdila, da pomoč za naložbe ni bila plačana.
Up to the date on which it received the notification from Germany, the Commission had not taken any formal decision on the notification in question.
Do datuma, ko je prejela obvestilo Nemčije, ni Komisija sprejela nobene uradne odločitve v zvezi z navedeno priglasitvijo.
In these circumstances, it accepts the withdrawal of the notification within the meaning of Article 8(1) 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 [3].
V teh okoliščinah Komisija sprejme umik uradne priglasitve v smislu člena 8(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [3].
The formal investigation procedure should therefore be closed pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as it is now superfluous,
Formalni postopek preiskave se zato v skladu s členom 8(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 zaključi, ker je nepotreben –
The formal investigation procedure regarding aid promoting investment in the rationalisation of steep-slope winegrowing in Rhineland Palatinate is hereby closed pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi s pomočjo za spodbujanje naložb v racionalizacijo vinogradništva v strmih pobočjih zvezne dežele Porenje - Pfalz je s tem zaključen v skladu s členom 8(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
OJ C 169, 5.7.1995, p. 12.
UL C 169, 5.7.1995, str.12.
OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
UL L 83, 27.3.1999.
By letter No SG(95) D/4615 of 7 April 1995, the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 93(2) (now Article 88(2)) of the EC Treaty [2].
Komisija je z dopisom št. SG(95) D/4615 z dne 7. aprila 1995 sprožila formalni postopek preiskave v skladu s členom 93(2) (zdaj členom 88(2)) Pogodbe ES [2].
Germany subsequently expressed comments by letter of 29 May 1995 and 24 June 1996.
Nemčija je nato v dopisih z dne 29. maja 1995 in 24. junija 1996 Komisiji sporočila svoje pripombe.
on State aid promoting investment in favour of a malthouse (Maltacarrión, SA) in Castilla y León (C 48/2005)
o državni pomoči za spodbujanje naložb v sladarno (Maltacarrión, SA) v avtonomni regiji Castilla y León (C 48/2005)
(notified under document number C(2007) 6897)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 6897)
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 88(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti in zlasti člena 88(2),
By letter of 1 December 2004 the Spanish authorities notified the abovementioned aid pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
Španski organi so z dopisom z dne 1.12.2004 uradno priglasili zgoraj navedeno pomoč v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
By letter No SG-Greffe (2005) D/207666 of 22 December 2005, the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty [1].
Z dopisom št. SG-Greffe (2005) D/207666 z dne 22.12.2005 je Komisija začela uradni postopek preiskave v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES [1].
Spain subsequently submitted its comments by letter of 23 January 2005.
Španija je nato predložila pripombe z dopisom z dne 23.1.2005.
By letter of 13 March 2006, Spain informed the Commission that it was withdrawing the notified measure.
Španija je z dopisom z dne 13.3.2006 obvestila Komisijo, da umika priglašeni ukrep.
In reply to a further question from the Commission, Spain confirmed, by letter of 5 May 2006, that no aid was ever paid.
V odgovor na novo vprašanje Komisije je Španija z dopisom z dne 5.5.2006 potrdila, da ni izplačala pomoči.
Up to the date on which it received the request for withdrawal from Spain, the Commission had not taken any formal decision on the notification in question.
Komisija do dne, ko je od Španije prejela zahtevek za umik, ni sprejela nobene uradne odločitve o zadevni uradni priglasitvi.
In these circumstances, the Commission accepts the withdrawal of the notification within the meaning of Article 8(1) 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 [2].
Glede na te okoliščine sprejema umik uradne priglasitve v skladu s členom 8(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [2].
The formal investigation procedure should therefore be closed pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as it has become devoid of purpose,
Uradni postopek preiskave je zato treba v skladu s členom 8(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 zaključiti, saj je zdaj brezpredmeten –
The formal investigation procedure concerning an aid promoting investment in favour of a malthouse (Maltacarrión, SA) in Castilla y León is hereby closed pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
V skladu z določbami člena 8(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 se uradni postopek preiskave v zvezi z državno pomočjo za spodbujanje naložb v sladarno (Maltacarrión, SA) v avtonomni regiji Castilla y León, zaključi.
Not published because the Spanish authorities notified withdrawal of the measure before it could be published.
Ni bil objavljen, ker so španski organi priglasili umik uradne priglasitve pred njegovo objavo.
on the measures C 47/2003 (ex NN 49/2003) implemented by Spain for Izar
o ukrepih C 47/2003 (prej NN 49/2003), ki jih je Španija izvedla v korist podjetja Izar
(notified under document number C(2007) 4298)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2007) 4298)
In March 2000, the Commission learnt that three delivery guarantees had been granted by the Spanish public holding company Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales (SEPI) to Repsol/Gas Natural (Repsol) in relation to the construction and delivery of three LNG tankers contracted to two public shipyards belonging at the time to Astilleros Españoles (AESA), and subsequently transferred to the Izar group.
Marca 2000 je Komisija izvedela, da je španski javni holding Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales (v nadaljevanju „SEPI“) podjetju Repsol/Gas Natural (v nadaljevanju „Repsol“) za izgradnjo in dostavo treh tankerjev LNG, za kar je bila pogodba sklenjena z dvema javnima ladjedelnicama, ki sta bili takrat v lasti podjetja Astilleros Españoles (v nadaljevanju „AESA“) in kasneje preneseni na skupino Izar, dal tri garancije za dostavo.
AESA and Izar were wholly owned by SEPI.
AESA in Izar sta bila v celoti last holdinga SEPI.
By letter dated 9 July 2003, the Commission notified Spain of its decision to initiate proceedings under Article 88(2) of the Treaty concerning the three non-notified measures.
Z dopisom z dne 9. julija 2003 je Komisija sporočila Španiji, da bo sprožila postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES glede treh nepriglašenih ukrepov.
By letters dated 5 August 2003 and 22 October 2003, the Spanish authorities submitted their comments on the Commission’s letter.
Z dopisoma z dne 5. avgusta 2003 in 22. oktobra 2003 so španski organi oblasti predložili svoje pripombe v zvezi z dopisom Komisije.
The Commission received comments from one interested party (Repsol) in October 2003 and February 2004.
Komisija je oktobra 2003 in februarja 2004 prejela pripombe ene zainteresirane stranke (Repsola).
It forwarded them to Spain, which was given the opportunity to react.
Komisija jih je posredovala Španiji in ji dala možnost odgovora.
The comments from Spain were received in letters dated 12 January 2004 and 10 May 2004, respectively.
Španija je odgovorila z dopisoma z dne 12. januarja 2004 oziroma 10. maja 2004.
In the context of two State aid decisions not related to the present procedure [2], adopted during 2004 (i.e. after the opening of the formal investigation concerning the LNG tanker guarantees), the Commission found State aid of EUR 864 million granted to Izar by Spain to be incompatible with the Treaty, and ordered its recovery.
V dveh odločbah o državni pomoči, ki nista povezani s sedanjim postopkom [2] in sta bili sprejeti leta 2004 (tj. po sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave glede garancij za tankerje LNG), je Komisija ugotovila, da je državna pomoč v višini 864 milijonov EUR, ki jo je Španija dodelila skupini Izar, nezdružljiva s Pogodbo ES, in odredila izterjavo.
By letter dated 5 August 2004, Spain invoked Article 296 of the Treaty [3] with the objective of rescuing the military shipbuilding activities from a foreseeable bankruptcy of Izar, as a consequence of that recovery order.
Z dopisom z dne 5. avgusta 2004 se je Španija, da bi vojaške ladjedelniške dejavnosti rešila pred predvidljivim stečajem skupine Izar zaradi naloga za izterjavo, sklicevala na člen 296 Pogodbe ES [3].
In subsequent correspondence, the Spanish authorities also explained to the Commission how the new military shipbuilding company formerly known as Bazán (Navantia) would function, outlined their commitments in relation to the competition concerns, and proposed a methodology for the follow-up of those commitments.
V nadaljevanju dopisovanja so španski organi oblasti Komisiji tudi razložili, kako bi delovalo novo vojaško ladjedelniško podjetje, prej poznano kot Bazán (v nadaljevanju „Navantia“), opisali svoje obveznosti glede problemov v zvezi s konkurenco in predlagali metodologijo za spremljanje teh obveznosti.
In the meanwhile, the pending recovery orders on Izar, for a total of EUR 1,2 billion [4], had led the company to a situation of negative net worth, and technical bankruptcy.
Medtem se je Izar zaradi nerešenih nalogov za izterjavo v skupni višini 1,2 milijarde EUR [4] znašel v položaju negativne neto vrednosti in tehničnega stečaja.
In view of this, on 1 April 2005 Spain put into liquidation the civil shipyards that remained in Izar (i.e., shipyards outside the perimeter of the newly created Navantia: Gijón, Sestao, Manises and Seville), and launched a privatisation procedure for those yards.
Zato je Španija 1. aprila 2005 začela postopek likvidacije državnih ladjedelnic, ki so ostale v skupini Izar (tj. ladjedelnic zunaj področja dejavnosti novo ustanovljene Navantie: Gijón, Sestao, Manises in Sevilla) in začela postopek privatizacije za te ladjedelnice.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AID MEASURES
OPIS UKREPOV POMOČI
In 1999, Repsol awarded three shipowners one contract each for the chartering of one LNG tanker each, plus the option for one extra tanker each, under a long-term time-charter arrangement.
Leta 1999 je Repsol z vsakim od treh lastnikov ladij sklenil pogodbo o zakupu vsakič po enega tankerja LNG z možnostjo zakupa dodatnega tankerja za vsakega od lastnikov na podlagi dolgoročnega dogovora o zakupu.
Subsequently, negotiations were undertaken between the shipowners and shipbuilders, including Korean yards, for the construction of the three LNG tankers.
Nato so se začela pogajanja med lastniki in graditelji ladij, vključno s korejskimi ladjedelnicami, o izgradnji treh tankerjev LNG.
On 31 July 2000, two public Spanish shipyards that had just been transferred from AESA to Izar [5] were awarded the three contracts for the construction of the LNG tankers and the final shipbuilding contracts were signed.
Dne 31. julija 2000 so bila oddana tri javna naročila za izgradnjo tankerjev LNG dvema javnima španskima ladjedelnicama, ki sta bili ravno preneseni s podjetja AESA na Izar [5], in z njima so se podpisale končne ladjedelniške pogodbe.
On the same day, AESA signed an additional clause to each shipbuilding contract whereby it committed to indemnify Repsol for all the costs Repsol would incur if the ships were not delivered according to the contractual terms for reasons for which the shipyards could be held liable.
Istega dne je podjetje AESA podpisalo dodatno določilo k vsaki ladjedelniški pogodbi, s katerim se je zavezalo, da bo Repsolu vrnila vse stroške, ki bi jih imel, če ladje ne bi bile dostavljene v skladu s pogodbenimi določili iz razlogov, za katere bi lahko odgovarjali ladjedelnici.
On the same day (31 July 2000), SEPI granted Repsol delivery guarantees for each of the three shipbuilding contracts, covering the same damages and prejudices for which AESA undertook to indemnify Repsol [6].
Isti dan (31. julija 2000) je SEPI Repsolu za vsako od treh ladjedelniških pogodb dal garancijo za dostavo, ki je vključevala enake odškodnine in škodo, za katero se je AESA zavezala, da jo bo povrnila Repsolu [6].
The losses were capped to a maximum of approximately EUR 180 million per ship, i.e. for a maximum aggregate total of approximately EUR 540 million. The guarantees were granted for a period starting on 31 July 2000 until the end of the period terminating 12 months after the delivery of each ship [7].
Izgube so bile omejene na vrednost največ približno 180 milijonov EUR na ladjo, tj. na največjo skupno vrednost približno 540 milijonov EUR. Garancije so bile dane za obdobje od 31. julija 2000 do konca obdobja 12 mesecev po dostavi vsake od ladij [7].
In its decision of 9 July 2003 to initiate the formal investigation procedure (the opening decision), the Commission concluded that the three aid measures constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, and questioned their compatibility with the common market.
V svoji odločitvi z dne 9. julija 2003, da sproži formalni postopek preiskave („odločitev o sprožitvi postopka“), je Komisija sklenila, da so trije ukrepi pomoči pomenili državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES in podvomila o njihovi združljivosti s skupnim trgom.
The Commission considered that the beneficiaries of the aid were the yards, but did not exclude the possibility that Repsol could have also benefited from the aid, and decided that the Article 88(2) procedure should include Repsol, in order to allow for the submission of the additional information needed to dispel those doubts.
Komisija je ocenila, da so bile prejemnice pomoči ladjedelnice, vendar ni izključila možnosti, da je imel koristi od pomoči tudi Repsol, in sklenila, da mora postopek na podlagi člena 88(2) vključevati Repsol, da se omogoči predložitev dodatnih informacij, ki jih potrebuje, da bi ovrgla te dvome.
COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE INITIATION OF FORMAL PROCEEDINGS
PRIPOMBE, PREJETE PO SPROŽITVI FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA
In its observations, Repsol insists on the distinction that must be drawn between its position as contractual beneficiary of the guarantees, and any alleged benefits deriving from the state aid.
Repsol v svojih pripombah vztraja, da je treba razlikovati med njegovim položajem, v katerem je kot pogodbeni prejemnik garancij, in domnevnimi koristmi, ki izhajajo iz državne pomoči.
According to Repsol:
Repsol meni:
The guarantees from SEPI covered benefits to which Repsol was entitled under Spanish civil and commercial law.
garancije holdinga SEPI so vključevale koristi, do katerih je bil Repsol upravičen v skladu s španskim civilnim in gospodarskim pravom.
The guarantees corresponded to Repsol’s creditor position vis-à-vis the shipowners, Izar and the shipyards.
Garancije so ustrezale položaju Repsola kot upnika v odnosu do lastnikov ladij, skupine Izar in ladjedelnic.