natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Case C-265/85 Van den Bergh en Jurgens v Commission, [1987] ECR 1155, paragraph 44; case C-152/88 Sofrimport v Commission, [1990] ECR I-2477, paragraph 26; case T-290/97 Mehibas Dordtselaan v Commission, [2000] ECR II-15, paragraph 59; case T-223/00 Kyowa Hakko Kogyo v. Commission, [2003] ECR II-2553, paragraph 51.
Glej sodbo Sodišča v zadevah C-265/85 Van den Bergh en Jurgens proti Komisiji, Recueil 1987, str. 1155, odstavek 44, in C-152/88 Sofrimport proti Komisiji, Recueil 1990, str. I-2477, odstavek 26; sodbi sodišča prve stopnje v zadevah T-290/97 Mehibas Dordtselaan proti Komisiji, Recueil 2000, str. II-15, odstavek 59, in T-223/00 Kyowa Hakko Kogyo proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. II-2553, odstavek 51.
Case T-308/00 Salzgitter AG v Commission, not yet reported in the ECR, paragraph 180.
Sodba z dne 1. julija 2004 v zadevi T-308/00 Salzgitter AG proti Komisiji, še ni objavljena v Zodl, odstavek 180.
Deufil Gmbh & Co. KG v Commission [1987] ECR 901.
Deufil Gmbh & Co.KG proti Komisiji, Recueil 1987, str. 901.
OJ L 337, 21.12.2007, p. 35.
UL L 337, 21.12.2007, str. 35.
ENERGY TAXATION
DAVČNA OBREMENITEV ENERGENTOV
Heating oil
Grelno gorivo
Standard rate of taxation
Predpisana davčna stopnja
Reduction pursuant to s. 25(3a) first sentence, No 1,2 in conjunction with s. 25(4) of the Mineral Oil Tax Law
Razbremenitev v skladu s točko 1.2 prvega stavka člena 25 (3a) v povezavi s četrtim odstavkom Zakona o davku na mineralno olje
since 1 August 2006: s. 54(2)(1) in conjunction with s. 54(3) of the Energy Taxation Law
od 1. avgusta 2006: Točka 1 drugega odstavka člena 54 v povezavi s tretjim odstavkom Zakona o davku na energijo
Reduction pursuant to s. 25(3a) first sentence, No 1,4 of the Mineral Oil Tax Law
Razbremenitev v skladu s točko 1.4 prvega stavka člena 25 (3a) Zakona o davku na mineralno olje
since 1 August 2006: s. 58(2)(1) of the Energy Taxation Law
od 1. avgusta 2006: točka 1 člena 58(2) Zakona o davku na energijo
Net taxation
Neto davčna obremenitev
EU minimum tax
Najnižja davčna stopnja v EU
in EUR/1000 l
V EUR/1000 l
Natural gas
Metan
Reduction pursuant to s. 25(3a) first sentence, No 3,2 in conjunction with s. 25(4) of the Mineral Oil Tax Law
Razbremenitev v skladu s točko 3.2 prvega stavka člena 25 (3a) v povezavi s četrtim odstavkom Zakona o davku na mineralno olje
since 1 August 2006: s. 54(2)(2) in conjunction with s. 54(3) of the Energy Taxation Law
od 1. avgusta 2006: Točka 2 člena 54(2) v povezavi s tretjim odstavkom Zakona o davku na energijo
Reduction pursuant to s. 25(3a) first sentence, No 3,4 of the Mineral Oil Tax Law
Razbremenitev v skladu s točko 3.4 prvega stavka člena 25 (3a) Zakona o davku na mineralno olje
since 1 August 2006: s. 58(2)(2) of the Energy Taxation Law
od 1. avgusta 2006: Točka 2 člena 58(2) Zakona o davku na energijo
in EUR/MWh
V EUR/MWh
not harmonised
Ni usklajena
Liquid gas
Tekoči plin
Reduction pursuant to s. 25(3a) first sentence, No 4,2 in conjunction with s. 25(4) of the Mineral Oil Tax Law
Razbremenitev v skladu s točko 4.2 prvega stavka člena 25 (3a) v povezavi s četrtim odstavkom Zakona o davku na mineralno olje
since 1 August 2006: s. 54(2)(3) in conjunction with s. 54(3) of the Energy Taxation Law
od 1. avgusta 2006: Točka 3 člena 54(2) v povezavi s tretjim odstavkom Zakona o davku na energijo
Reduction pursuant to s. 25(3a) first sentence, No 4,4 of the Mineral Oil Tax Law
Razbremenitev v skladu s točko 4.4 prvega stavka člena 25 (3a) Zakona o davku na mineralno olje
since 1 August 2006: s. 58(2)(3) of the Energy Taxation Law
od 1. avgusta 2006: Točka 3 člena 58(2) Zakona o davku na energijo
in EUR/1000 kg
V EUR/1000 kg
Until 31 March 1999, the standard rate of taxation on heating oil (HEL) was DM 80,00/1000 litres.
Do 31. marca 1999 je predpisana davčna stopnja za grelno olje znašala 80,00 DM/1000 litrov.
Figures have been provided in euro to facilitate comparison (exchange rate: EUR 1 = DM 1,95583).
Zdaj je zaradi lažje primerjave navedena v eurih (preračun: 1 EUR = 1,95583 DM).
As of 1 April 1999, the standard rate of taxation on heating oil (HEL) was DM 120,00/1000 litres.
Od 1. aprila 1999 je predpisana davčna stopnja za grelno olje znašala 120,00 DM/1000 litrov.
For the sake of simplicity, the net taxation figure does not take account of the tax ‘floor’ (deductible) of EUR 409 provided for by s. 25(4) of the Mineral Oil Tax Law. The actual net taxation figure depends on the amount consumed.
Zaradi preglednosti je bila neto davčna obremenitev prikazana brez upoštevanja denarnega praga (nespremenljiv odbitek) v skladu s členom 25(4) Zakona o davku na mineralno olje v višini 409 EUR. Posamezna neto davčna obremenitev je odvisna od posamezne količine porabe.
For the sake of simplicity, the net taxation figure does not take account of the tax ‘floor’ (deductible) of EUR 205 provided for by s. 25(4) of the Mineral Oil Tax Law (as of 1 August 2006: s. 54(3) of the Energy Tax Law). The actual net taxation figure depends on the amount consumed.
Zaradi preglednosti je bila neto davčna obremenitev prikazana brez upoštevanja denarnega praga (nespremenljiv odbitek) v skladu s členom 25(4) Zakona o davku na mineralno olje (od 1. avgusta 2006: člen 54(3)) v višini 205 EUR. Posamezna neto davčna obremenitev je odvisna od posamezne količine porabe.
Minimum rate of taxation referred to in Article 5(3) of Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils.
Najnižja davčna stopnja v skladu s členom 5(3) Direktive Sveta 92/82/EGS z dne 19. oktobra 1992 o približevanju trošarinskih stopenj za mineralna olja.
Until 31 March 1999, the standard rate of taxation on natural gas was DM 3,60/MWh.
Do 31. marca 1999 je predpisana davčna stopnja za metan znašala 3,60 DM/MWh.
From 1 April 1999 until 31 December 2001, the standard rate of taxation on natural gas was DM 6,80/MWh.
Od 1. aprila 1999 do 31. decembra 2001 je predpisana davčna stopnja za metan znašala 6,80 DM/MWh.
Amount of tax reduction pursuant to s. 25(3a)(3.4) of the Mineral Oil Tax Law of 1 August 2002 (Federal Law Gazette Part I, p. 2778).
Znesek razbremenitve v skladu s točko 3.4 člena 25 (3a) Zakona o davku na mineralno olje s 1. avgustom 2002 (BGBl. I str. 2778).
For the sake of simplicity, the net taxation figure does not take account of the tax ‘floor’ (deductible) of EUR 205 provided for by s. 25(4) of the Mineral Oil Tax Law. The actual net taxation figure depends on the amount consumed.
Zaradi preglednosti je bila neto davčna obremenitev prikazana brez upoštevanja denarnega praga (nespremenljiv odbitek) v skladu s členom 25(4) Zakona o davku na mineralno olje v višini 205 EUR. Posamezna neto davčna obremenitev je odvisna od posamezne količine porabe.
Converted into MWh (Table C: 0,15/0,30 euro/gigajoule based on gross calorific value).
Preračunano na mersko enoto MWh (Preglednica C: 0,15/0,30 EUR/gigajoule za bruto kurilno vrednost).
Until 31 March 1999, the standard rate of taxation on liquid gas was DM 50,00/1000 kg.
Do 31. marca 1999 je predpisana davčna stopnja za tekoči plin znašala 50,00 DM/1000 kg.
From 1 April 1999 until 31 December 2001, the standard rate of taxation on liquid gas was DM 75,00/1000 kg.
Od 1. aprila 1999 do 31. decembra 2001 je predpisana davčna stopnja za tekoči plin znašala 75,00 DM/1000 kg.
Minimum rate of taxation referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils.
Člen 6(3) Direktive Sveta 92/82/EGS z dne 19. oktobra 1992 o približevanju trošarinskih stopenj za mineralna olja.
Information about the amounts of aid received, to be recovered and already recovered
Podatki o zneskih pomoči, ki so bili izplačani, ki jih je treba vrniti in ki so že bili izterjani
Identity of the beneficiary
Upravičenec
Total amount of aid received under the scheme [1]
Skupni znesek pomoči, izplačane v okviru sheme [1]
Total amount of aid to be recovered [1](principal)
Skupni znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti [1](glavnica)
Total amount of aid already recovered [1]
Že izterjan skupni znesek [1]
Recovery interest
Obresti
(°) National currency in millions.
(°) Nacionalna valuta v milijonih.
Article 14(1) provides as follows: ‘The Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.’ The Commission is required to take into consideration on its own initiative exceptional circumstances that provide such justification [19].
Člen 14(1) določa: „Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti.“ Komisija mora na lastno pobudo upoštevati nenavadne okoliščine, ki to utemeljujejo [19].
of 2 April 2008
z dne 2. aprila 2008
on State aid C 38/07 (ex NN 45/07) implemented by France for Arbel Fauvet Rail SA
o državni pomoči C 38/07 (ex NN 45/07) Francije za Arbel Fauvet Rail SA
(notified under document number C(2008) 1089)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 1089)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above [1],
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenima členoma [1],
The Commission received a complaint informing it of certain support measures implemented by France for Arbel Fauvet Rail (hereinafter AFR).
S pritožbo je bila Komisija obveščena o nekaterih ukrepih podpore, ki jih je Francija izvedla za družbo Arbel Fauvet Rail („družba AFR“).
In communications dated 28 January 2006, 25 October 2006, 30 January 2007 and 6 June 2007, France submitted additional information.
S sporočili z dne 28. januarja 2006, 25. oktobra 2006, 30. januarja 2007 in 6. junija 2007 je Francija poslala dodatne informacije.
By letter dated 12 September 2007, the Commission informed France that it had decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in respect of the measure.
Z dopisom z dne 12. septembra 2007 je Komisija obvestila Francijo o svoji odločitvi, da sproži formalni postopek preiskave po členu 88(2) Pogodbe glede te pomoči.
France submitted comments in communications dated 12 October and 18 and 19 December 2007.
Francija je pripombe predložila s sporočili z dne 12. oktobra 2007 ter 18. in 19. decembra 2007.
The Commission Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2].
Odločitev Komisije, da sproži formalni postopek preiskave, je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [2].
The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.
Komisija je pozvala zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo svoje pripombe glede zadevne pomoči.
The Commission has received no comments from interested parties.
Komisija od zainteresiranih strank ni prejela pripomb.
AID DESCRIPTION
OPIS POMOČI
AFR is a manufacturer of railway equipment specialising in goods wagons and tank containers.
Družba AFR proizvaja železniški material in je specializirana za tovorne vagone in cisterne-zabojnike.
It is one of the leading manufacturers of railway rolling stock on the European market.
Družba je na evropskem trgu ena najpomembnejših proizvajalk železniških tirnih vozil.
The company is located in Douai (Nord) and currently employs around 265 people.
Sedež ima v Douaiju (Nord) in trenutno zaposluje približno 265 oseb.
In 2005 AFR was wholly owned by Arbel SA [3] and employed around 330 people.
Leta 2005 je bila družba AFR v 100-odstotni lasti družbe Arbel SA [3]. Takrat je družba AFR zaposlovala približno 330 oseb.
AFR’s business has been running at a loss for several years.
Družba AFR je več let poslovala z izgubo.
The company’s economic difficulties worsened from 2001 onwards.
Gospodarske težave družbe so se povečale od leta 2001.
This trend gathered momentum between 2002 and 2005.
To gibanje se je še okrepilo med letoma 2002 in 2005.
The following table shows some of AFR’s key performance indicators for the period before the aid was granted.
V naslednji tabeli so povzeti nekateri ključni pokazatelji uspešnosti družbe AFR v obdobju pred odobritvijo pomoči.
Capital and reserves
Lastniški kapital
On 4 July 2005 the Nord-Pas-de-Calais regional authorities and the Communauté d’agglomération du Douaisis jointly granted AFR a repayable advance of EUR 1 million each, making a total of EUR 2 million.
Regija Nord-Pas-de-Calais in Communauté d’agglomération du Douaisis sta 4. julija 2005 družbi AFR skupaj odobrili vračljivo predplačilo v višini 1 milijona EUR vsaka, torej skupaj 2 milijona EUR.
According to the information provided by the French authorities, the terms of the advances were as follows:
Po informacijah, ki so jih dali francoski organi, so bili pogoji za predplačili naslednji:
the repayable advance from the regional authorities was granted at an annual interest rate of 4,08 % (equivalent to the Community reference rate applicable at the time), subject to the completion of a financing plan that AFR was drawing up.
vračljivo predplačilo Regije je bilo odobreno po letni obrestni meri 4,08 % (kar ustreza referenčni obrestni meri Skupnosti, ki je veljala v času odobritve) ob pogoju, da se konča finančni načrt, ki ga pripravlja družba AFR.
It was to be repaid in six-monthly instalments over a three-year period starting on 1 January 2006.
Predplačilo je bilo treba vrniti v polletnih odplačilih v treh letih od 1. januarja 2006.
As far as the Commission is aware, these advances have not yet been repaid in full,
Po informacijah, ki jih ima Komisija, ti predplačili še nista bili v celoti vrnjeni,
the advance from the Communauté d’agglomération du Douaisis was granted at an annual interest rate of 4,08 % (equivalent to the Community reference rate applicable at the time), subject to payment of the advance from the regional authorities, repayable under the same terms, and to supply of proof of the irrevocable merger between AFR and Lormafer, another company controlled by Arbel SA.
predplačilo Communauté d’agglomération du Douaisis je bilo odobreno po letni obrestni meri 4,08 % (kar ustreza referenčni obrestni meri Skupnosti, ki je veljala v času odobritve) ob pogoju, da se predplačilo vrne pod istimi pogoji, kot veljajo za Regijo, in da se predloži dokazilo o nepreklicni združitvi družb AFR in Lormafer, ki jo prav tako nadzira družba Arbel SA.
This advance was also to be repaid in six-monthly instalments over a three-year period starting on 1 January 2006.
To predplačilo je bilo treba prav tako vrniti v polletnih odplačilih v treh letih od 1. januarja 2006.
The Commission also took the view that AFR was a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (‘the Guidelines’) [4] and that the compatibility of the State aid it had received needed, therefore, to be assessed in the light of the Guidelines.
Komisija je tudi menila, da je družba AFR podjetje v težavah v smislu Smernic Skupnosti o državnih pomočeh za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah (v nadaljnjem besedilu „Smernice“) [4] in da je treba zato združljivost državne pomoči, ki jo je družba prejela, presojati z vidika Smernic.
The Commission was doubtful whether, in the light of the Guidelines, the aid in question was compatible with the common market.
Komisija meni, da je združljivost zadevne pomoči s skupnim trgom glede na Smernice dvomljiva.
The French authorities claimed that, although AFR was going through a difficult period at the time the repayable advances were granted and then paid (i.e. July and the second half of 2005), it had maintained the confidence of its customers and bankers.
Francoski organi so trdili, da je družba AFR ohranila zaupanje svojih strank in bank, čeprav je preživljala težke čase v obdobju, ko sta ji bili odobreni in nato nakazani vračljivi predplačili (tj. julija in v drugem polletju leta 2005).
To support their claims, the French authorities mentioned the following points, which they described as ‘signs of confidence’ in AFR on the part of customers and banks:
Francoski organi so v podporo svojim trditvam navedli naslednje dejavnike, ki so jih opredelili kot „znake zaupanja“ strank in bank do družbe AFR:
[…] [5] bank had increased the overdraft facility on AFR’s current account by EUR 2 million (guaranteed by […]),
banka […] [5] je odobrila povečanje odobrenega limita na tekočem računu družbe AFR v višini 2 milijona EUR (za kar je jamčil […]),
AFR had received EUR 7 million in advance payments from its customers (guaranteed by […]) [5] Confidential information.
družba AFR je prejela 7 milijonov EUR predplačil od svojih strank (za kar je jamčil […], [5] Zaupen podatek.
, to which a further EUR 4 million in new advance payments was added in January 2006,
, k čemur je treba prišteti 4 milijone EUR novih predplačil, prejetih januarja 2006,
at the same time, the firm held supplier guarantees worth EUR 4 million with […] [5] Confidential information.
podjetje je v istem času prejelo jamstva „dobaviteljev“ v višini 4 milijonov EUR od […] [5] Zaupen podatek.
The French authorities backed up their comments with documents which show the following:
Francoski organi so podprli svoje pripombe z dokumenti, iz katerih izhaja predvsem naslednje:
to AFR was EUR 29 million of at 6 May 2005.
za družbo AFR so 6. maja 2005 znašala 29 milijonov EUR.
ASSESSMENT OF THE AID IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 87 OF THE TREATY
PRESOJA POMOČI Z VIDIKA ČLENA 87 POGODBE
Article 87(1) of the Treaty stipulates that, save as where otherwise provided for in the Treaty, aid granted by a Member State or through State resource which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade among Member States, incompatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe, razen če ta pogodba ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
With regard to the repayable advances, the Commission notes the following.
Komisija glede vračljivih predplačil ugotavlja naslednje.
Article 87 of the Treaty does not apply only to aid granted by the national governments of Member States, but also to aid from local and regional authorities such as the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region or the municipalities in the Communauté d’agglomération du Douaisis.
Člen 87 se ne nanaša samo na pomoči, ki jih zagotovijo nacionalne vlade držav članic, ampak tudi na pomoči ozemeljskih skupnosti, kot so regija Nord-Pas-de-Calais ali Communauté d’agglomération du Douaisis.
The funds of such authorities constitute state resources, and their decisions to grant the advances in question to AFR are attributable to the State.
Sredstva teh skupnosti so državna sredstva in njuni odločitvi, da družbi AFR odobrita zadevni predplačili, se lahko pripišeta državi.
Aid favouring certain undertakings
Pomoč, ki daje prednost nekaterim podjetjem
The advances were granted at a time when AFR was in a difficult financial situation.
Predplačili sta bili odobreni, ko je bila družba AFR v občutljivem finančnem položaju.
In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission was of the opinion that, given its financial situation as described in point 8, AFR was a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines when the aid was granted.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka menila, da je bila družba AFR ob upoštevanju njenega ekonomskega položaja, kot izhaja iz točke 8, podjetje v težavah v smislu Smernic, ko je bila pomoč odobrena.
It also noted that the advances were granted without any guarantee being lodged for their repayment, whereas the interest rates applied are supposed to reflect the interest rate applicable to loans ‘backed by normal security’ [6].
Komisija je tudi ugotovila, da sta bili predplačili odobreni brez vsakršnega poroštva za zavarovanje vračila, medtem ko naj bi uporabljeni obrestni meri ustrezali obrestnim meram, ki se uporabljajo za posojila „z običajnim poroštvom“ [6].
It therefore considers that there is no way that AFR, given its financial situation, would have been able to obtain funding on such favourable terms on the credit market.
Komisija zato meni, da družba AFR glede na njen finančni položaj ne bi mogla pridobiti sredstev na kreditnem trgu pod tako ugodnimi pogoji.
The advances in question therefore confer an advantage on AFR.
Zato sta zadevni predplačili ugodnost v korist družbe AFR.
In this connection, it is worth noting that, basing themselves on the examples given in paragraph 14, the French authorities stated that AFR still had the confidence of its bankers and customers at the time the aid was granted.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da so francoski organi, ki so se oprli na primere, navedene v točki 14, potrdili, da je družba AFR še uživala zaupanje svojih strank, ko ji je bila odobrena pomoč.
The Commission takes these comments to mean that France disputes the idea that AFR was unable to obtain funds on similar terms on the credit market (which amounts to disputing that the repayable advances conferred an advantage on AFR) and a fortiori that AFR was a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines at the time the repayable advances were granted.
Komisija razlaga te pripombe tako, da Francija zanika, da družba AFR ni mogla pridobiti sredstev pod podobnimi pogoji na kreditnem trgu (kar pomeni, da zanika, da sta vračljivi predplačili prinesli koristi družbi AFR), in a fortiori, da je bila družba AFR podjetje v težavah v smislu Smernic, ko sta ji bili odobreni vračljivi predplačili.
However, France’s comments did not alter the analysis made in the decision to initiate the procedure, for the following reasons.
Pripombe Francije vseeno ne morejo spremeniti analize v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, in sicer zaradi naslednjih razlogov.
The examples of credit quoted by the French authorities (such as the current account overdraft facility and the advance payments from customers) are not comparable to the repayable advances in question.
Primeri posojil, ki so jih navedli francoski organi (zlasti odobritev limita na tekočem računu in predplačila strank), niso primerljivi z zadevnima vračljivima predplačiloma.
A current account overdraft is a very short-term credit facility, unlike the repayable advances, which have a maturity of three years.
Odobreni limit na tekočem računu je zelo kratkoročno posojilo, medtem ko je treba vračljivi predplačili vrniti v treh letih.
These different types of credit are not, therefore, subject to the same risk analyses by creditors, and the fact that a debtor can obtain short-term credit is not sufficient to assess whether it could obtain a longer-term loan, the repayment of which depends on the debtor’s ability to survive.
Te različne oblike posojil torej niso predmet istih analiz tveganja, ki jih opravijo upniki, in iz dejstva, da dolžnik lahko pridobi kratkoročno posojilo, ni mogoče sklepati o njegovih možnostih, da pridobi posojilo z daljšim rokom odplačila, katerega povračilo bo odvisno od dolžnikove zmožnosti preživetja.
Concerning the advance payments from customers, the Commission notes that they were counter-guaranteed by […] [5] Confidential information.
Komisija o predplačilih strank ugotavlja, da je zanje posredno jamčila […] [5] Zaupen podatek.
, an independent institution, which means that customers and suppliers were not incurring any risks in connection with AFR’s financial situation and therefore had no reason to subject the payment of these advances to an analysis of the financial soundness of the firm along the lines of that which would have been carried out by a creditor considering the possibility of providing an unsecured loan.
, ki je neodvisna institucija, kar pomeni, da stranke in dobavitelji niso bili izpostavljeni tveganjem, povezanim s finančnim položajem družbe AFR, in da posledično niso imeli pravice zahtevati, da se za izplačilo predplačil opravi analiza finančne trdnosti podjetja, ki je podobna analizi, ki bi jo opravil upnik, ki namerava odobriti posojilo brez poroštva.