natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, it will examine circumstantial evidence submitted by both the Slovak authorities and the beneficiary.
Nazadnje bo proučila posredne dokaze, ki so jih predložili slovaški organi in upravičenec.
Comparison of the arrangement procedure and bankruptcy
Primerjava postopka dogovora s stečajem
The Commission does not consider the EKORDA report a reliable basis for comparing the proposed arrangement with a potential bankruptcy procedure.
Komisiji se poročilo revizijske družbe EKORDA ne zdi zanesljivo izhodišče za primerjavo predlaganega dogovora z možnim stečajnim postopkom.
The Slovak authorities share these doubts.
Tako mnenje imajo tudi slovaški organi.
At the outset, the Commission notes that, in issuing its report on 7 July 2004 (just two days before the creditors' meeting), EKORDA used for its calculations the status of the beneficiary's assets as at 31 March 2004.
Najprej Komisija ugotavlja, da je EKORDA v poročilu z dne 7. julija 2004 (le dva dni pred sestankom upnikov) za izračun uporabila stanje sredstev upravičenca dne 31. marca 2004.
It is clear from Table 3 that the level of the various assets changed considerably after 31 March 2004.
Iz preglednice 3 je razvidno, da se je obseg različnih sredstev po 31. marcu 2004 bistveno spremenil.
In particular, a considerable portion of the stocks was sold, which led to an increase in cash.
Predvsem je bil prodan velik del zalog, zaradi česar so se povečala denarna sredstva.
These changes are of great importance when applying EKORDA's liquidation factors, ranging from 20 % for stocks and short-time receivables to 100 % for cash.
Te spremembe so zelo pomembne pri uporabi likvidacijskih faktorjev revizijske družbe EKORDA, ki se gibljejo od 20 % za zaloge in kratkoročne poslovne terjatve do 100 % za denarna sredstva.
Assuming that the liquidation factors estimated by EKORDA are correct and applying the methodology used by EKORDA, the following table shows how the outcome of EKORDA's calculation would have been different if based on figures from 28 April 2004 and 17 June 2004, i.e. still before the creditors' meeting on 9 July 2004.
Ob predvidevanju, da so likvidacijski faktorji, ki jih je izračunala EKORDA, pravilni, in z uporabo metodologije, ki jo je uporabila EKORDA, naslednja preglednica prikazuje, kako bi se rezultat izračuna te revizijske družbe razlikoval, če bi temeljil na zneskih z dne 28. aprila 2004 in 17. junija 2004, torej vseeno še pred sestankom upnikov 9. julija 2004.
These figures also show that the liquidation factors proposed by EKORDA are not realistic.
Iz teh številk je tudi razvidno, da likvidacijski faktorji, ki jih je predlagala EKORDA, niso realni.
Comparison of the probable yield from the sale of the beneficiary's assets in a bankruptcy procedure [SKK million]
Primerjava verjetnega izkupička od prodaje sredstev upravičenca v stečajnem postopku [v milijonih SKK]
Situation on:
Stanje dne:
Liquidation factor [ %]
Likvidacijski faktor [ %]
Yield
Izkupiček
Non-current assets
Dolgoročna sredstva
Short-term receivables
Kratkoročne poslovne terjatve
It must be noted that the business plan submitted by the beneficiary to the court forecast the sale of stocks at [less than SKK 150] million over the period March-May 2004.
Treba je opozoriti, da je bila v poslovnem načrtu, ki ga je upravičenec predložil sodišču, za obdobje od marca do maja 2004 predvidena prodaja zalog v vrednosti [manj kot 150] milijonov SKK.
EKORDA must have therefore been aware that the assets of the beneficiary would be subject to significant changes after 31 March 2004 and did not take this into account.
EKORDA je torej morala vedeti, da se bodo sredstva upravičenca po 31. marcu 2004 precej spremenila, a tega ni upoštevala.
Again, it is noted that these results were obtained using EKORDA's assumptions and methodology.
Spet je treba opozoriti, da so ti rezultati pridobljeni z uporabo predpostavk in metodologije revizijske družbe EKORDA.
The Commission, however, is unable to accept the methodology used by EKORDA and does not find the assumptions of its analysis credible.
Vendar pa Komisija ne more sprejeti metodologije, ki jo je uporabila EKORDA, predpostavke v njeni analizi pa se ji ne zdijo verodostojne.
This conclusion is reinforced by the doubts of the Slovak authorities as described in paragraphs 55 and 60.
To ugotovitev potrjujejo pomisleki slovaških organov, navedeni v odstavkih 55 in 60.
To start with, in its report EKORDA does not explain how it determined the three liquidation factors.
Prvič, EKORDA v svojem poročilu ne pojasni, kako je določila tri likvidacijske faktorje.
The Slovak authorities stated that the liquidation factor for the stocks should be higher than 20 %.
Slovaški organi so navedli, da bi moral biti likvidacijski faktor za zaloge višji od 20 %.
The Commission observes that in 2004 the beneficiary was able to generate SKK [less than 150] million from the sale of its stocks (see paragraph 30).
Komisija ugotavlja, da je v letu 2004 upravičenec lahko dobil [manj kot 150] milijonov SKK od prodaje svojih zalog (glej odstavek 30).
This is more that [40-50] % of the book value of stocks on which EKORDA based its assessment.
To je več kot [40–50] % knjigovodske vrednosti zalog, ki jo je EKORDA uporabila kot izhodišče za oceno.
This strongly suggests that the liquidation factor of 20 % was too low.
Iz tega je precej jasno, da je 20-odstotni likvidacijski faktor prenizek.
The changes in the balance sheet in 2004 with regard to stocks supports this conclusion.
Spremembe bilance stanja v letu 2004, kar zadeva zaloge, potrjujejo to ugotovitev.
In addition, the beneficiary itself in its business plan estimated the yield from the sale of stocks over the period March-May 2004 to be SKK [less than 110] million (see paragraph 30).
Poleg tega je upravičenec v poslovnem načrtu sam ocenil izkupiček od prodaje zalog v obdobju od marca do maja 2004 na [manj kot 110] milijonov SKK (glej odstavek 30).
EKORDA ignored this estimate.
EKORDA ni upoštevala te ocene.
Finally, from the nature of the beneficiary's activities it can be assumed that the stocks comprised final products that could have been easily sold direct to distributors or consumers, rather than semi-finished products requiring further processing.
Nazadnje je mogoče iz vrste dejavnosti upravičenca sklepati, da so bili v zalogah končni izdelki, ki jih ni težko prodati neposredno distributerjem ali potrošnikom, in ne polizdelki, ki bi jih bilo treba dodatno predelati.
Furthermore, EKORDA used double adjusting with regard to the short-term commercial receivables.
Poleg tega je EKORDA uporabila dvojno prilagoditev v zvezi s kratkoročnimi poslovnimi terjatvami.
First, it adjusted their book value by 40 % (the book value being SKK 166 million and the value that EKORDA used in its calculations being SKK 98 million) and then applied the low liquidation factor of 20 %.
Najprej je njihovo knjigovodsko vrednost prilagodila za 40 % (knjigovodska vrednost je bila 166 milijonov SKK, vrednost, ki jo je EKORDA uporabila pri izračunih, pa 98 milijonov SKK), nato pa je uporabila nizki 20-odstotni likvidacijski faktor.
This methodology is questionable.
Ta metodologija je vprašljiva.
It is acceptable to adjust the book value of receivables to reflect their actual value at a given time.
Sprejemljiva je prilagoditev knjigovodske vrednosti terjatev, tako da izraža njihovo dejansko vrednost v določenem obdobju.
However, EKORDA does not provide any clarification as to why the yield in the bankruptcy/liquidation would be only one fifth (SKK 20 million) of what the beneficiary itself believed it would be able to obtain from its debtors (SKK 98 million).
Vendar pa EKORDA ne pojasni, zakaj bi izkupiček pri stečaju/likvidaciji znašal samo petino (20 milijonov SKK) zneska, za katerega je upravičenec sam menil, da bi ga lahko izterjal od svojih dolžnikov (98 milijonov SKK).
Furthermore, the liquidation factor of 45 % for non-current assets seems to be too low.
Poleg tega se zdi, da je 45-odstotni likvidacijski faktor za dolgoročna sredstva prenizek.
According to the beneficiary, the value of its assets pledged in favour of the tax office was SKK 194 million.
Po trditvah upravičenca je bila vrednost njegovih sredstev, zastavljenih davčnemu uradu, 194 milijonov SKK.
This value is, according to the beneficiary, expressed in prices estimated by independent experts at around the end of 2003/beginning of 2004.
Ta vrednost je po trditvah upravičenca izražena v cenah, ki so jih izračunali neodvisni izvedenci približno ob koncu leta 2003 oziroma na začetku leta 2004.
In the Commission's view, such an ‘expert price’ should normally reflect the general price of the asset, expressing the price at which the asset could be sold at the time.
Po mnenju Komisije naj bi „izvedenska cena“ ponavadi izražala splošno ceno sredstev, po kateri bi se v tistem času sredstva lahko prodala.
EKORDA does not provide any clarification as to why the yield from the bankruptcy sale of the non-current assets would generate only 45 % of their book value of SKK 205 million whereas the beneficiary himself valued these assets much higher.
EKORDA ne pojasni, zakaj bi izkupiček od prodaje dolgoročnih sredstev pri stečaju znašal samo 45 % njihove knjigovodske vrednosti 205 milijonov SKK, medtem ko je upravičenec sam ta sredstva ocenil precej višje.
As to the argument of the beneficiary that it would be difficult to find a buyer because most of the pledged machinery was confined to the production of spirit and spirit-based beverages, non-alcoholic beverages or canned products, the Commission has the following two comments to make.
V zvezi z argumentom upravičenca, da bi bilo težko najti kupca, ker je bila večina zastavljenih strojev namenjena izključno proizvodnji žganih pijač in pijač na osnovi žganih pijač, brezalkoholnih pijač in proizvodov v pločevinkah, je imela Komisija naslednji dve pripombi.
First, it is noted that the ‘expert price’ of the pledged real estate was SKK 105 million, which in itself is higher than the total yield forecast by EKORDA (SKK 92 million).
Prvič, ugotavlja se, da je bila „izvedenska cena“ zastavljenih nepremičnih 105 milijonov SKK, kar je samo po sebi več kot celotni izkupiček, ki ga je predvidela EKORDA (92 milijonov SKK).
Second, the actual developments in the company show that some of these production assets quickly found a user, Old Herold, s.r.o., once the beneficiary had lost its licence to produce spirit and spirit-based beverages.
Drugič, dejanski razvoj dogodkov v družbi kaže, da se je za del teh proizvodnih sredstev, potem ko je upravičenec izgubil dovoljenje za proizvodnjo žganih pijač in pijač na osnovi žganih pijač, hitro našel uporabnik, in sicer družba Old Herold s.r.o.
It seems therefore that there was an imminent interest from a competitor for these production assets.
Zato se zdi, da so tekmeci takoj pokazali zanimanje za ta proizvodna sredstva.
In addition, the credibility of EKORDA's report is also affected by the manner of calculating the various fees involved in a bankruptcy procedure that were to be subtracted from the total yield from the sale of the assets.
Poleg tega na verodostojnost poročila revizijske družbe EKORDA vpliva tudi način izračuna različnih pristojbin, ki so vključene v stečajni postopek in bi jih bilo treba odšteti od celotnega izkupička prodaje sredstev.
Whereas EKORDA deducted SKK 45 million in fees, the beneficiary in its submission gave the figure of SKK 36 million and the estimate of the auditor Ms Kochová is SKK 22 million at most.
EKORDA je odbila 45 milijonov SKK pristojbin, upravičenec je v predloženih trditvah navedel znesek 36 milijonov SKK, revizorka ga. Kochová pa jih je ocenila na največ 22 milijonov SKK.
Such discrepancies raise doubts as to the accuracy of EKORDA's assumptions regarding the level of the fees and, therefore, also the level of the yield that could have been obtained in a bankruptcy procedure.
Zaradi teh razlik je vprašljiva pravilnost predpostavk revizijske družbe EKORDA, kar zadeva raven pristojbin in torej tudi raven izkupička, ki bi bil lahko pridobljen v stečajnem postopku.
It is noted, nevertheless, that, considering the beneficiary's situation on 17 June 2004, even with fees of SKK 36 million, the yield in bankruptcy would have been higher than with the proposed arrangement.
Vendar pa se ugotavlja, da bi bil glede na stanje upravičenca dne 17. junija 2004, tudi če bi bila vrednost pristojbin 36 milijonov SKK, izkupiček pri stečaju višji kot pri predlaganem dogovoru.
Finally, the Commission notes that the Slovak authorities do not support the beneficiary's claim that the tax office would have had EKORDA's report at its disposal prior to the creditors' meeting on 9 July 2004.
Nazadnje Komisija ugotavlja, da slovaški organi ne podpirajo trditve upravičenca, da naj bi imel davčni urad na voljo poročilo revizijske družbe EKORDA pred sestankom upnikov 9. julija 2004.
As to the report by Ms Kochová, the Commission cannot assess it because it does not have a copy of it.
Komisija ne more oceniti poročila gospe Kochové, ker nima izvoda tega poročila.
From the information submitted it is not clear when and for what purpose this report was drawn up or on what assumptions and data it was based.
Iz predloženih informacij ni jasno, kdaj in zakaj je bilo pripravljeno to poročilo ter na katerih predpostavkah in podatkih temelji.
The Commission, however, observes that the conclusions of this auditor are significantly different from the conclusions of EKORDA.
Vendar pa Komisija ugotavlja, da se ugotovitve te revizorke bistveno razlikujejo od ugotovitev revizijske družbe EKORDA.
The report of the receiver Ms Holovačová states only that, in general, the arrangement procedure is more advantageous for creditors than bankruptcy.
V poročilu stečajne upraviteljice gospe Holovačové je navedeno le, da je postopek dogovora na splošno bolj ugoden za upnike kot stečaj.
The Commission cannot accept either of these two reports as evidence in support of or against the beneficiary's assertion that the market economy creditor test was met.
Komisija teh dveh poročil ne more sprejeti kot dokaz za trditev upravičenca o uspešno opravljenem preizkusu upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu ali proti tej trditvi.
On the basis of the evidence available, the Commission therefore concludes that the sale of the assets in a bankruptcy procedure would, in all probability, have led to a higher yield for the beneficiary's creditors.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih dokazov Komisija torej ugotavlja, da bi bil pri prodaji sredstev v stečajnem postopku izkupiček upnikov upravičenca najverjetneje večji.
Considering that the tax office would be satisfied in the first group as a separate creditor and, in addition, obtain most of the yield distributed in the second group (owing to the size of its claims when compared to other creditors), the Commission concludes that almost the entire yield obtained in the bankruptcy would accrue to the tax office.
Glede na to, da bi bil davčni urad izplačan v prvi skupini kot posamezni upnik in da bi poleg tega dobil večino izkupička, razdeljenega v drugi skupini (zaradi višine njegovih terjatev v primerjavi z drugimi upniki), Komisija ugotavlja, da bi skoraj ves izkupiček iz stečaja pripadel davčnemu uradu.
Comparison of the arrangement procedure and tax execution
Primerjava postopka dogovora z davčno izvršbo
The tax office, unlike the private creditors, was entitled to initiate on its own initiative the tax execution through the sale of real estate, machinery or the firm as a whole.
Davčni urad je imel za razliko od zasebnih upnikov pravico, da na lastno pobudo sproži davčno izvršbo s prodajo nepremičnin, strojev ali podjetja v celoti.
The Commission finds irrelevant the argument of the beneficiary that the arrangement procedure shelters the company from the tax execution procedure.
Komisiji se zdi argument upravičenca, da postopek dogovora družbo ščiti pred postopkom davčne izvršbe, nepomemben.
As confirmed by the Slovak authorities, the tax execution procedure was indeed an option for the tax office, either prior to the launch of the arrangement procedure or after the tax office's veto on the proposed arrangement.
Kot so potrdili slovaški organi, je imel davčni urad dejansko možnost postopka davčne izvršbe, in sicer pred sprožitvijo postopka dogovora ali po vetu davčnega urada na predlagani dogovor.
This possibility therefore needs to be considered when applying the market economy creditor test.
Zato je treba to možnost upoštevati pri preizkusu upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The beneficiary does not compare the proposed arrangement with the possible outcome of tax execution.
Upravičenec ne primerja predlaganega dogovora z možnim izidom davčne izvršbe.
In its analysis the Commission relies on the data provided by both the beneficiary and the Slovak authorities.
Komisija se pri analizi opira na podatke, ki so jih predložili upravičenec in slovaški organi.
In this context it is noted that the Slovak authorities confirmed that the pledge in favour of the tax office equalled SKK 397 million, as stated in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Glede na to se ugotavlja, da so slovaški organi potrdili, da je zastava v korist davčnega urada znašala 397 milijonov SKK, kot je navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
This value is said to have been obtained from the beneficiary's accounts.
Ta vrednost naj bi bila pridobljena iz računovodskih izkazov upravičenca.
The beneficiary, for its part, submits that the value of the pledged assets expressed in ‘expert prices’ is SKK 194 million (see paragraph 17).
Upravičenec pa trdi, da je vrednost zastavljenih sredstev, izražena v „izvedenskih cenah“, 194 milijonov SKK (glej odstavek 17).
While the Commission does not need to determine which figure is correct, the following conclusions can nevertheless be made.
Komisiji ni treba ugotavljati, kateri znesek je pravilen, lahko pa ugotovi naslednje.
First, the pledge was the countervalue of the deferred tax debt of the beneficiary, required by the Tax Administration Act.
Prvič, zastava je bila protivrednost odloženega davčnega dolga upravičenca v skladu z zahtevami Zakona o davčni službi.
If the value of the beneficiary's assets actually amounted to only half of the pledge, as suggested by the expert opinion submitted by the beneficiary, then the securities required by the State for those deferrals were insufficient.
Če bi vrednost sredstev upravičenca dejansko znašala samo polovico zastave, kot je navedeno v izvedenskem mnenju, ki ga je predložil upravičenec, so bile garancije, ki jih je zahtevala država za te odloge, nezadostne.
In these circumstances, the tax deferrals permitted by the tax office between November 2002 and November 2003 for a total amount of SKK 477 million therefore in all probability did not meet the market economy creditor test.
V teh okoliščinah torej odlogi plačila davkov v skupnem znesku 477 milijonov SKK, ki jih je davčni urad odobril v obdobju od novembra 2002 do novembra 2003, najverjetneje niso zadovoljili preizkusa upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu.
As these tax deferrals were put in effect before the date of accession and are not applicable thereafter, the Commission is not competent to assess the compatibility of those measures with the common market.
Ker so ti odlogi plačila davkov začeli veljati pred datumom pristopa in se po pristopu niso uporabljali, Komisija ni pristojna za ocenjevanje združljivosti teh ukrepov s skupnim trgom.
For the purpose of this case, it is also unnecessary for the Commission to determine whether those measures constituted state aid.
Za to zadevo Komisiji tudi ni treba ugotoviti, ali so bili ti ukrepi državna pomoč.
However, if the earlier deferrals already constituted state aid, the market economy creditor principle can no longer be referred to when the deferred debts are later (partly) written off.
Če pa so prejšnji odlogi že bili državna pomoč, se ni mogoče več sklicevati na načelo upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu, ko se odloženi dolgovi kasneje (delno) odpišejo.
Second, even if the lower figure submitted by the beneficiary were used in the calculation of the proceeds from a tax execution procedure, a market economy creditor would, had he had the possibility, have favoured this procedure over the arrangement procedure.
Drugič, tudi če bi bili pri izračunu izkupička od postopka davčne izvršbe uporabljeni nižji zneski, ki jih je predložil upravičenec, bi upnik v tržnem gospodarstvu, če bi imel možnost, raje izbral ta postopek kot postopek dogovora.
In a tax execution procedure the tax authority can sell the debtor's assets (receivables and other current assets, movable assets, real estate) directly.
Pri postopku davčne izvršbe lahko davčni organ neposredno proda sredstva upravičenca (terjatve in druga kratkoročna sredstva, premičnine ter nepremičnine).
At the time when the tax office voted in favour of the arrangement, the beneficiary had stocks worth SKK 84 million, enforceable receivables of SKK 63 million and cash of SKK 161 million (see paragraph 54).
Ko je davčni urad glasoval za dogovor, je imel upravičenec zaloge v vrednosti 84 milijonov SKK, izvršljive terjatve v višini 63 milijonov SKK in denarna sredstva v višini 161 milijonov SKK (glej odstavek 54).
It should be noted that the value of the current assets alone (SKK 308 million; EUR 8,1 million) would exceed the yield obtained under the arrangement (SKK 225 million; EUR 5,93 million).
Treba je opozoriti, da bi samo vrednost kratkoročnih sredstev (308 milijonov SKK; 8,1 milijona EUR) presegala izkupiček, pridobljen v okviru dogovora (225 milijonov SKK; 5,93 milijona EUR).
Even if the receivables were wholly deducted, the value of the current assets alone (SKK 245; EU-6,4 million) would still exceed the yield obtained under the arrangement.
Tudi če bi se terjatve v celoti odštele, bi samo vrednost kratkoročnih sredstev (245 milijonov SKK; 6,4 milijona EUR) še vedno presegala izkupiček, pridobljen v okviru dogovora.
In addition, the beneficiary had other assets, the value of which was at least SKK 194 million.
Poleg tega je imel upravičenec druga sredstva, katerih vrednost je bila vsaj 194 milijonov SKK.
Furthermore, tax execution would not involve administrative fees as in the case of bankruptcy proceedings.
Davčna izvršba tudi ne bi vključevala upravnih pristojbin kot pri stečajnem postopku.
It is a procedure that is initiated and controlled by the tax authority itself, so it can be assumed that it would be conducted in a speedy manner.
Ta postopek sproži in nadzoruje sam davčni organ, zato je mogoče domnevati, da bi bil hitro opravljen.
The Commission therefore concludes that tax execution against the beneficiary's assets would have led to a higher return than the arrangement.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da bi bil iztržek pri davčni izvršbi na sredstva upravičenca višji kot pri dogovoru.
Other evidence
Drugi dokazi
The Commission takes particular note of the letter submitted by the Slovak authorities from the director of the Tax Director to his subordinate, the director of the tax office in question (see paragraph 57).
Komisija opozarja zlasti na dopis direktorja davčne uprave podrejenemu direktorju zadevnega davčnega urada, ki so ga predložili slovaški organi (glej odstavek 57).
The letter is clear proof that the Tax Directorate (which had had prior direct contacts with the beneficiary) opposed the proposed arrangement and gave the local tax office a clear instruction not to vote in favour of the arrangement.
Ta dopis jasno dokazuje, da je davčna uprava (ki je imela že prej neposredne stike z upravičencem) nasprotovala predlaganemu dogovoru in dala lokalnemu davčnemu uradu jasna navodila, naj glasuje proti dogovoru.
The reason mentioned in the letter was that the proposed arrangement was ‘not advantageous’ for the State.
V dopisu je bil naveden razlog, da predlagani dogovor za državo „ni ugoden“.
It was also shown by the Slovak authorities that there was a clear policy instruction given by the Ministry of Finance at the beginning of 2004 to tax offices to the effect that they should not accept arrangements that propose writing off tax offices' receivables.
Slovaški organi so tudi prikazali, da je Ministrstvo za finance na začetku leta 2004 dalo davčnim uradom jasno navodilo, naj ne sprejemajo dogovorov, v katerih se predlaga odpis terjatev davčnih uradov.