natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, the measure at hand provides an economic advantage also through the provision of guarantee cover which would otherwise not be available on the market.
Zato zadevni ukrep omogoča gospodarsko prednost tudi z zagotavljanjem jamstva, ki ga sicer na trgu ne bi bilo.
The Hungarian authorities have not provided comments on these aspects.
Madžarski organi niso predložili pripomb glede teh vidikov.
The Commission therefore considers that the measure confers an economic advantage on the beneficiaries.
Komisija zato meni, da ukrep upravičencem daje gospodarsko prednost.
The measure is selective since it concerns only export transactions carried out by SMEs with limited export turnover and because the annual Budget Act sets an overall limit to the amount of guarantee given by Eximbank and counter-guaranteed by the State.
Ukrep je selektiven, ker zadeva samo izvozne transakcije, ki jih izvajajo MSP z omejenim izvoznim prometom in ker je v letnem zakonu o proračunu določena splošna omejitev za znesek jamstva, ki ga zagotavlja Eximbank in ima posredno jamstvo države.
The measure has a potential effect on competition and trade between Member States since it is directly linked to export transactions of SMEs with limited export turnover.
Ukrep lahko vpliva na konkurenco in trgovino med državami članicami, saj je neposredno vezan na izvozne transakcije MSP z omejenim izvoznim prometom.
In addition, intra-Community export is not excluded.
Poleg tega to ne izključuje izvoza med državami članicami Skupnosti.
Consequently, the measure is to be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zato ukrep velja za državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Compatibility of the measure
Združljivost ukrepa s skupnim trgom
State aid can be declared compatible with the common market if it complies with one of the exceptions provided for in the EC Treaty.
Državna pomoč je lahko združljiva s skupnim trgom, če spada pod eno izmed izjem iz Pogodbe ES.
Article 87(2) provides for automatic exemptions from the general ban on State aid; however, it is clear that in the case at hand none of these exemptions apply.
V členu 87(2) so določene avtomatične izjeme od splošne prepovedi državne pomoči; vendar pa je očitno, da v zadevnem primeru ne velja nobena od teh izjem.
Article 87(3) specifies four types of cases in which State aid can be considered compatible with the common market.
V členu 87(3) so predvidene štiri vrste primerov, v katerih se državna pomoč lahko šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
Article 87(3)(a) covers aid to promote the economic development of disadvantaged regions.
V členu 87(3)(a) je obravnavana pomoč za gospodarski razvoj regij v neugodnem položaju.
It should be noted in this respect that, in the case at hand, the conditions of the guarantee are not modulated according to the level of backwardness of the region where the exporting SME operates.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da v zadevnem primeru pogoji za jamstvo niso prilagojeni stopnji zaostalosti regije, v kateri deluje izvozno MSP.
Also, the scheme covers the whole territory of Hungary whereas under the current Hungarian regional aid map 2007-2013 [8], only part of Hungary is eligible for aid under Article 87(3)(a).
Prav tako shema pomoči pokriva celotno ozemlje Madžarske, medtem ko je v skladu s sedanjo madžarsko karto regionalne pomoči 2007–2013 [8] samo del Madžarske upravičen do pomoči na podlagi člena 87(3)(a).
The measure does not fulfil other conditions of the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 [9] either.
Ukrep tudi ne izpolnjuje drugih pogojev iz Smernic o državni regionalni pomoči za obdobje 2007–2013 [9].
Consequently, this exemption does not apply in the present case.
Torej ta izjema v tem primeru ne velja.
Article 87(3)(b) provides that aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State could be considered compatible with the common market.
V členu 87(3)(b) je določeno, da se pomoč za pospeševanje izvedbe pomembnega projekta skupnega evropskega interesa ali za odpravljanje hujše motnje v gospodarstvu države članice lahko šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
This provision is not applicable in the case at hand.
Ta določba ne velja v zadevnem primeru.
Nor does Article 87(3)(d) covering aid to promote culture and heritage conservation apply.
Prav tako v tem primeru ne velja člen 87(3)(d), v katerem je obravnavana pomoč za pospeševanje kulture in ohranjanja kulturne dediščine.
Article 87(3)(c) provides that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas can be considered compatible with the common market, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
V členu 87(3)(c) je določeno, da se pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij lahko šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
The Commission has developed various guidelines and communications setting out how it intends to implement this article.
Komisija je izdelala številne smernice in sporočila, v katerih je opredeljeno, kako namerava izvajati ta člen.
Since none of these apply to the present case, any State aid involved in the measure at hand is to be assessed directly under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Ker nobeden od teh ne velja v tem primeru, je treba katero koli državno pomoč v zadevnem ukrepu ocenjevati neposredno na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe.
In this context, it should be noted that an export insurance scheme benefiting export transactions of SMEs with limited export turnover already exists and has been approved by the Commission [10] in accordance with the provisions of the Communication on short-term export-credit insurance.
V tem smislu je treba opozoriti, da že obstaja izvozno zavarovanje, ki je namenjeno izvoznim transakcijam MSP z omejenim izvoznim prometom in ga je Komisija [10] že odobrila v skladu z določbami Sporočila o kratkoročnem zavarovanju izvoznih kreditov.
The Commission considers that Hungary has not demonstrated the necessity of an additional instrument benefiting export transactions of SMEs with limited export turnover.
Po mnenju Komisije Madžarska ni dokazala, da obstaja potreba po dodatnem instrumentu za pomoč izvoznim transakcijam MSP z omejenim izvoznim prometom.
Moreover, it is recalled that the Commission has in principle strictly condemned export aid in intra-Community trade, since export subsidies directly affect competition in the market between rival potential suppliers of goods and services.
Poleg tega je treba spomniti, da je Komisija načeloma strogo obsodila izvozno pomoč v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti, saj izvozne subvencije neposredno vplivajo na konkurenco na trgu med konkurenčnimi potencialnimi dobavitelji blaga in storitev.
Since it is closely and inseparably linked to the underlying trade transaction, such export aid is likely to adversely affect trading conditions to a considerable extent.
Ker je takšna izvozna pomoč tesno in neločljivo povezana s trgovinsko transakcijo, ki jo podpira, verjetno precej negativno vpliva na trgovinske pogoje.
In its previous decisions [11] the Commission clearly indicated that guarantees offered at below market price in the context of export contracts within the Community constitute export aid which is incompatible with the common market.
Komisija je v prejšnjih odločbah [11] jasno navedla, da jamstva, ki se dajejo pod tržno ceno v izvoznih pogodbah znotraj Skupnosti, pomenijo izvozno pomoč, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Moreover, Member States’ support for their exports outside the Community can also affect competition within the Community.
Še več, podpora držav članic, namenjena njihovemu izvozu zunaj Skupnosti, lahko vpliva tudi na konkurenco znotraj Skupnosti.
For the reasons set out above, the Commission concludes that the measure entails State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep omogoča državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Since it does not facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, the measure cannot be justified under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty and is therefore not compatible with the common market.
Ker ne pospešuje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, ne da bi negativno vplival na trgovinske pogoje v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi, ta ukrep ne more biti upravičen v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES in je zato nezdružljiv s skupnim trgom.
Since the measure has not been implemented, there is no need for recovery of state aid,
Ker se ukrep ni izvajal, ni potrebe po povrnitvi državne pomoči –
The state aid which Hungary is planning to implement in the form of a short-term export-credit guarantee for SMEs with limited export turnover is incompatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč, ki jo Madžarska namerava izvajati v obliki kratkoročnega jamstva za izvozne kredite za MSP z omejenim izvoznim prometom, je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
The aid may accordingly not be implemented.
Pomoč se zato ne sme izvajati.
Hungary shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Madžarska Komisijo v dveh mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tej odločbi obvesti o ukrepih, ki jih je sprejela za uskladitev s to odločbo.
OJ C 234, 6.10.2007, p. 18.
UL C 234, 6.10.2007, str. 18.
As defined in the Hungarian Act XXXIV of 2004.
Kakor je določeno v madžarskem zakonu XXXIV iz leta 2004.
This definition of SMEs is in line with the relevant criteria contained in the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).
Ta opredelitev MSP je v skladu z ustreznimi merili iz Priporočila Komisije z dne 6. maja 2003 o opredelitvi mikro, majhnih in srednje velikih podjetij (UL L 124, 20.5.2003, str. 36).
OJ C 281, 17.9.1997.
UL C 281, 17.9.1997.
Council Directive 98/29/EC of 7 May 1998 on harmonisation of the main provisions concerning export-credit insurance for transactions with medium and long-term cover.
Direktiva Sveta 98/29/ES z dne 7. maja 1998 o usklajevanju glavnih določb o zavarovanju izvoznih kreditov za posle s srednjim- in dolgoročnim kritjem.
Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission (‘Tubemeuse’), [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 32.
Zadeva C-142/87, Belgija proti Komisiji („Tubemeuse“), Recueil 1990, str. I-959, odstavek 32.
The Commission notes that the scheme also does not fall under the ‘guarantee notice’ ( OJ C 71, 11.3.2000).
Komisija ugotavlja, da ta shema pomoči prav tako ne spada pod „obvestilo o poroštvih“ ( UL C 71, 11.3.2000).
Point 1.2 of the guarantee notice states that it does not apply to export-credit guarantees.
V točki 1.2 obvestila o poroštvih je določeno, da se to obvestilo ne uporablja za poroštva za izvozna posojila.
Since the measure provides guarantee against the non-repayment of loans which have been contracted to finance an export transaction, the Commission considers that the guarantee notice is not applicable.
Ker ukrep zagotavlja jamstvo za primer nevračila posojil, ki so bila namenjena financiranju izvozne transakcije, Komisija meni, da se obvestilo o poroštvih ne uporablja.
N 487/06 — Commission letter of 13.9.2006, OJ C 256, 24.10.2006, p. 7.
N 487/06 – dopis Komisije z dne 13. septembra 2006 (UL C 256, 24.10.2006, str. 7).
State aid N 488/06.
Državna pomoč N 488/06.
Commission Decision of 17 May 1982 concerning the subsidising of interest rates on credits for exports from France to Greece after the accession of that country to the European Economic Community (OJ L 159, 10.6.1982, p. 44); Commission Decision of 27 June 1984 concerning the French Government’s intention to accord special exchange risk cover to French exporters in respect of a tender for the construction of a power station in Greece (OJ L 230, 28.8.1984, p. 25).
Odločba Komisije z dne 17. maja 1982 o subvencioniranju obrestnih mer na kredite za izvoz iz Francije v Grčijo, potem ko je ta država postala članica Evropske gospodarske skupnosti (UL L 159, 10.6.1982, str. 44); Odločba Komisije z dne 27. junija 1984 o nameri francoske vlade, da francoskim izvoznikom z ozirom na razpis za izgradnjo elektrarne v Grčiji podeli posebno jamstvo za valutno tveganje (UL L 230, 28.8.1984, str. 25).
Idem.
Prav tam.
on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/06) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland
o državni pomoči št. C 56/06 (ex NN 77/06) Avstrije za privatizacijo banke Bank Burgenland
(notified under document number C(2008) 1625)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 1625)
On 4 April 2006, the Commission received a complaint from a Ukrainian/Austrian investors’ consortium (hereinafter called ‘the Consortium’) [2] claiming that Austria had infringed the State aid rules in the privatisation process of Hypo Bank Burgenland AG (hereinafter called ‘BB’).
Komisija je 4. aprila 2006 prejela pritožbo ukrajinsko-avstrijskega konzorcija vlagateljev (v nadaljnjem besedilu „konzorcij“), ki navaja, da je Avstrija v postopku privatizacije družbe HYPO Bank Burgenland AG (v nadaljnjem besedilu „banka BB“) kršila pravila o državni pomoči [2].
In particular, the tender procedure, which allegedly had been unfair, untransparent and discriminatory towards the complainant, had resulted in the sale of BB, not to the highest bidder (the complainant), but to the Austrian insurance company Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG together with GW Beteiligungserwerbs- und –verwaltungs-G.m.b.H.
Zlasti razpisni postopek, ki naj bi bil nepošten in nepregleden ter diskriminacijski do pritožnika, ni imel za posledico prodaje banke BB najboljšemu ponudniku (pritožniku), ampak avstrijski zavarovalnici Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG skupaj z GW Beteiligungserwerbs- und -verwaltungs-G.m.b.H.
(hereinafter called ‘GRAWE’).
(v nadaljnjem besedilu „družba GRAWE“).
A first request for information was sent to Austria on 12 April 2006.
Prvi zahtevek za informacije je bil Avstriji poslan 12. aprila 2006.
On 25 April 2006 Austria requested an extension of the time limit, which was partially granted by letter dated 28 April 2006.
Avstrija je 25. aprila 2006 zahtevala podaljšanje roka, kar ji je bilo delno odobreno z dopisom z dne 28. aprila 2006.
Austria answered by letters dated 15 May 2006 and 1 June 2006.
Avstrija je odgovorila z dopisoma z dne 15. maja 2006 in 1. junija 2006.
A meeting was held with the Austrian authorities on 27 June 2006.
Sestanek z avstrijskimi organi je bil sklican 27. junija 2006.
A second request for information was sent on 17 July 2006 and the complete reply received on 18 September 2006.
Drugi zahtevek za informacije je bil poslan 17. julija 2006, popoln odgovor pa je bil prejet 18. septembra 2006.
In the meantime, by e-mail and letters dated 21 April 2006 and 2 June 2006, the Commission received further information from the Consortium.
Medtem je Komisija od konzorcija prejela nadaljnje informacije z e-pošto in dopisoma z dne 21. aprila 2006 in 2. junija 2006.
By letter dated 21 December 2006, the Commission informed Austria that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the measure.
Z dopisom z dne 21. decembra 2006 je Komisija Avstrijo obvestila o svoji odločitvi, da v zvezi z ukrepom sproži postopek, določen v členu 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure (hereinafter also called ‘the opening decision’) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [3].
Odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave (v nadaljnjem besedilu tudi „odločitev o sprožitvi postopka“) je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [3].
A Hungarian party submitted information both within, and also — without giving particular reasons — outside the deadline set by the decision.
Madžarska stranka je predložila del informacij v roku, določenem v odločitvi, del pa tudi po tem roku, ne da bi navedla razloge za to.
The comments received within the deadline were sent on 22, 26 and 27 February 2007 and on 9 March 2007.
Pripombe, prejete v roku, so bile poslane 22., 26. in 27. februarja 2007 ter 9. marca 2007.
Further information from that interested party was received after expiry of the deadline on 19 and 28 March 2007.
Nadaljnje informacije so bile od te zainteresirane stranke prejete po izteku roka, 19. in 28. marca 2007.
The successful bidder GRAWE — the potential aid beneficiary — also provided comments.
Tudi uspešna ponudnica in morebitna prejemnica pomoči družba GRAWE je predložila pripombe.
These comments were sent on 9 March 2007, together with a request for an extension of time, which was granted.
Poslala jih je 9. marca 2007 skupaj z zahtevo za podaljšanje roka, ki je bila odobrena.
GRAWE submitted further comments by letter dated 19 April 2007; the complete file including annexes arrived at the Commission on 26 April 2007.
Družba GRAWE je nadaljnje pripombe predložila z dopisom z dne 19. aprila 2007; celotno dokumentacijo, vključno s prilogami, je Komisija prejela 26. aprila 2007.
After a meeting with the Commission on 8 January 2008, GRAWE submitted more comments on 5 February 2008.
Po sestanku s Komisijo dne 8. januarja 2008 je družba GRAWE dne 5. februarja 2008 predložila dodatna pojasnila.
Austria submitted its own comments after the opening of the formal investigation procedure on 1 March 2007, after a time extension had been granted.
Avstrija je svoje pripombe predložila po sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave dne 1. marca 2007, potem ko je bilo odobreno podaljšanje roka.
All comments received within the initial (Hungarian party) or extended (GRAWE) deadline were forwarded to Austria, which was given the opportunity to react.
Vse pripombe, prejete v prvem roku (madžarska stranka) ali v podaljšanem roku (družba GRAWE), so bile posredovane Avstriji, ki ji je bila dana možnost, da se nanje odzove.
Its comments were received by letter dated 5 June 2007.
Njene pripombe so prispele z dopisom z dne 5. junija 2007.
At a later stage, on 8 February 2008, the Commission sent all other information received outside the deadline by GRAWE or the Hungarian third party to Austria for comments.
Pozneje, 8. februarja 2008, je Komisija Avstriji poslala vse druge informacije, ki jih je prejela po roku od družbe GRAWE ali madžarske tretje stranke, da je lahko Avstrija pripravila pripombe.
A number of meetings were held with Austria, GRAWE and the Ukrainian authorities.
Sklicani so bili številni sestanki z Avstrijo, družbo GRAWE in ukrajinskimi oblastmi.
The last meeting with Austria took place on 1 April 2008.
Zadnji sestanek z Avstrijo je potekal 1. aprila 2008.
More comments from Austria were received by e-mails dated 14 December 2007 and 23 January, 25 February, 5 March and 9 April 2008.
Avstrija je poslala dodatne pripombe z e-pošto z dne 14. decembra 2007 in 23. januarja, 25. februarja, 5. marca in 9. aprila 2008.
On 22 March 2007, the complainant, which had not commented on the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, provided the Commission with an update on the state of play with one of its court proceedings in Austria (decision of the Vienna Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) dated 5 February 2007 and subsequent appeal by the complainant to the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) of Austria).
Pritožnik, ki ni imel pripomb na odločitev o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, je 22. marca 2007 Komisiji predložil posodobljene informacije o trenutnem stanju enega od njegovih sodnih postopkov v Avstriji (odločitev višjega deželnega sodišča – Oberlandesgericht – na Dunaju z dne 5. februarja 2007 in poznejša pritožba pritožnika na avstrijsko vrhovno sodišče – Oberster Gerichtshof).
The complainant had filed a number of actions with Austrian courts which have all been unsuccessful so far.
Pritožnik je na avstrijskih sodiščih vložil številne tožbe, ki so bile do zdaj neuspešne.
The Consortium (the complainant)
Konzorcij (pritožnik)
The complainant is an Austro-Ukrainian consortium which, at the time of the sale of BB, consisted of two Ukrainian joint-stock companies, Ukrpodshipnik and Ilyich, and two Austrian companies, SLAV AG and SLAV Finanzbeteiligung GmbH, the latter one having been founded specifically for the purpose of acquiring BB.
Pritožnik je avstrijsko-ukrajinski konzorcij, ki je bil ob prodaji banke BB sestavljen iz dveh ukrajinskih delniških družb, Ukrpodshipnik in Ilyich, ter dveh avstrijskih družb, SLAV AG in SLAV Finanzbeteiligung GmbH, pri čemer je bila slednja ustanovljena posebej za nakup banke BB.
Ukrpodshipnik and Ilyich are major Ukrainian groups employing nearly 100000 staff and having a total annual turnover of about USD 4 billion in various fields such as steel production, shipbuilding, pipelines, metal processing and power stations.
Ukrpodshipnik in Ilyich sta veliki ukrajinski podjetniški skupini, ki zaposlujeta skoraj 100000 oseb in katerih skupni letni promet znaša približno 4 milijarde USD ter delujeta na različnih področjih, kot so na primer proizvodnja jekla, ladjedelništvo, cevovodi, predelava kovin in elektrarne.
Ukropodshipnik is also active in the financial markets via Commercial Bank Active Bank Ltd (hereinafter called ‘Active Bank’), which has operated since 2002 under a full banking licence in Ukraine.
Družba Ukrpodshipnik je dejavna tudi na finančnih trgih prek banke Commercial Bank Active Bank Ltd (v nadaljnjem besedilu „banka Active Bank“), ki ima od leta 2002 dovoljenje za opravljanje vseh bančnih storitev v Ukrajini.
SLAV AG was founded in Vienna in 1992 as a subsidiary of the Ukrpodshipnik corporation, operating as a trading company.
Družba SLAV AG je bila ustanovljena leta 1992 na Dunaju kot hčerinska družba družbe Ukrpodshipnik, deluje pa kot trgovinska družba.
Its shares are quoted on the Vienna stock exchange.
Njene delnice kotirajo na dunajski borzi.
The fact that there was a reorganisation between the members of the Consortium after the sale which led to SLAV AG now being the owner of the Ukraine-based companies is irrelevant to the assessment of this case.
Za ocenjevanje te zadeve ni pomembno, da je bila po prodaji banke BB opravljena reorganizacija med člani konzorcija, zaradi katere je družba SLAV AG zdaj lastnica družb s sedežem v Ukrajini.
Through the intended acquisition of BB, the Consortium was pursuing two major strategic objectives.
S predvidenim nakupom banke BB si je konzorcij prizadeval doseči dva glavna strateška cilja.
First, being already active in the financial market sector in Ukraine, the Consortium wished to grow in this business segment.
Prvič, ker je že bil dejaven v sektorju ukrajinskega finančnega trga, je želel rasti na tem področju poslovanja.
Secondly, with it exporting a large part of its products across the world, BB would have provided access to the international financial markets and supported the Consortium’s international expansion.
Drugič, ker konzorcij izvaža velik del svojih proizvodov po vsem svetu, bi banka BB zagotovila dostop do mednarodnih finančnih trgov in podpirala mednarodno širitev konzorcija.
The business plan for BB drawn up by the Consortium reflected these strategic objectives and would, therefore, have changed BB’s regional focus.
Ti strateški cilji so bili razvidni iz poslovnega načrta za banko BB, ki ga je pripravil konzorcij in s katerim bi se torej spremenila regionalna osredotočenost banke BB.
Neither the information at the disposal of the Commission nor comments by third parties submitted following the opening of the procedure called the economic viability of the Consortium into question.
Niti informacije, ki jih je imela na voljo Komisija, niti pripombe tretjih strank, predložene po sprožitvi postopka, niso povzročile pomislekov o sposobnosti ekonomskega preživetja konzorcija.