natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indeed, point 3.2 singled out only the ‘repayment of short-term loans and the sale of unnecessary assets not connected with production’ as a restructuring task.
Dejansko sta bila v točki 3.2 le „odplačilo kratkoročnih posojil in prodaja nepotrebnih sredstev, ki niso povezana s proizvodnjo,“ poudarjena kot nalogi prestrukturiranja.
Moreover, it is also not usual to consider all kind of losses simply as restructuring costs as Poland claims.
Poleg tega ni običajno šteti vse vrste izgub preprosto za stroške prestrukturiranja, kot trdi Poljska.
Balance sheet liabilities are not necessarily equivalent to restructuring costs, as liabilities as such form part of normal business operations.
Bilančne obveznosti niso nujno enake stroškom prestrukturiranja, saj so obveznosti kot take del običajnih poslovnih dejavnosti.
It is true that excessive liabilities may give raise to difficulties but then restructuring must identify specific measures such as capital injections or loans or rescheduling agreements to deal with the liabilities.
Res je, da čezmerne obveznosti lahko povzročijo težave, vendar morajo biti v tem primeru v prestrukturiranju opredeljeni posebni ukrepi, kot so dokapitalizacije, posojila ali pogodbe o reprogramiranju, za izvajanje obveznosti.
The plan does not include any of these measures for the financial restructuring (point 4.7, fifth paragraph).
Načrt ne vključuje nobenega izmed teh ukrepov za finančno prestrukturiranje (točka 4.7, peti odstavek).
Moreover, the PLN 60 million mentioned in point 4.7 seems to relate to future working capital.
Poleg tega se zdi, da se 60 milijonov PLN, navedenih v točki 4.7, nanaša na prihodnja obratna sredstva.
Thus, PLN 300 million at most was to go towards the restructuring (see above point (30)).
Tako je bilo največ 300 milijonov PLN namenjenih za prestrukturiranje (glej točko 30 zgoraj)).
Given that this was also to cover investments, as indicated above in point (26), the funds left for financial restructuring were only PLN […] million.
Glede na to, da bi moral ta znesek kriti tudi naložbe, kot je navedeno v točki (26) zgoraj, so sredstva, ki so ostala na voljo za finančno prestrukturiranje, znašala samo […] milijonov PLN.
The PLN 81,5 million would not even cover the amount to pay off the sale and leaseback agreement.
Znesek v višini 81,5 milijona PLN ne bi pokril niti zneska za odplačilo pogodbe o prodaji in povratnem najemu.
Point 3.2 indicated clearly that financial restructuring would only concern the short-term debt.
V točki 3.2 je bilo jasno navedeno, da bo finančno prestrukturiranje zadevalo samo kratkoročni dolg.
Therefore, the financial restructuring included in the plan was limited to PLN 81,5 million, which did not, however, concern the paying off of the sale and lease agreement, which, as it was to have been repaid over the years up to 2010, was clearly a long-term liability.
Zato je bilo finančno prestrukturiranje, vključeno v načrtu, omejeno na 81,5 milijona PLN in ni zadevalo odplačila pogodbe o prodaji in povratnem najemu, ki je bila očitno dolgoročna obveznost, saj jo je bilo treba odplačati do leta 2010.
Hence paying off the sale and leaseback agreement can also not be viewed as part of the financial restructuring to be supplemented by aid.
Odplačila pogodbe o prodaji in povratnem najemu prav tako ni mogoče obravnavati kot del finančnega prestrukturiranja, ki ga dopolnjuje pomoč.
Finally, the Polish authorities seem to accept that paying off the sale and leaseback transaction was not part of the asset restructuring, as they do not argue that this is the case.
Nazadnje, zdi se, da poljski organi sprejemajo, da odplačilo pogodbe o prodaji in povratnem najemu ni bilo del prestrukturiranja sredstev, saj tega ne trdijo.
However, they indirectly refer to the asset restructuring when citing a passage from the part on asset restructuring, ‘the above sale will enable Huta L.W. to repay part of its loans and maintain financial liquidity’ (point 64 of letter of 4 June).
Vendar pa se posredno sklicujejo na prestrukturiranje sredstev, ko navajajo odlomek iz dela o prestrukturiranju sredstev: „zgoraj navedena prodaja bo družbi Huta L. W. omogočila odplačilo dela njenih posojil in ohranila finančno likvidnost“ (točka 64 dopisa z dne 4. junija).
However, the Polish authorities fail to accept that it is nowhere stated that the entire debt from the sale and leaseback is to be rescheduled, while the plan indicates at several points that the rescheduling concerns only the non-productive assets.
Vendar pa poljski organi ne sprejemajo, da ni nikjer navedeno, da se bo reprogramiral celotni dolg iz prodaje in povratnega najema, medtem ko je v načrtu v več točkah navedeno, da se reprogramiranje nanaša samo na neproizvodna sredstva.
This is reiterated twice in the same chapter from which the above quote of the Polish authorities was taken.
To je ponovljeno dvakrat v istem poglavju, iz katerega je bil vzet zgornji navedek poljskih organov.
In fact, it is clearly set out there that certain debts under the sale and leaseback agreement, namely those concerning non-productive assets (see point 4.12.1 of the 2003 IBP), are to be subject to asset restructuring.
Dejansko je jasno določeno, da bodo nekateri dolgovi na podlagi pogodbe o prodaji in povratnem najemu, in sicer tisti, ki zadevajo neproizvodna sredstva (glej točko 4.12.1 načrta IPN iz leta 2003), predmet prestrukturiranja sredstev.
These concern the 100-hectare and 88-hectare projects.
Ti se nanašajo na tako imenovani 100-hektarski projekt in 88-hektarski projekt.
However, no indication is given that the entire sale and leaseback agreement should be paid off ahead of schedule in order to reduce financial costs.
Vendar pa ni bilo navedeno, da je treba celotno pogodbo o prodaji in povratnem najemu odplačati pred rokom za znižanje finančnih sredstev.
Rather the asset restructuring aims only to ‘reduce’ financial costs, not eliminate them.
Cilj prestrukturiranja sredstev je namreč zgolj „znižanje“ finančnih stroškov, ne pa njihova odprava.
Finally, given HLW’s financial constraints, the Commission does not see any reason why HLW had to aim to purchase its productive assets when the repayment was only due at a later stage.
Nazadnje, glede na finančne omejitve družbe HLW Komisija ne vidi nobenega razloga, zakaj je morala družba HLW kupiti svoja proizvodna sredstva, ko pa je bil rok odplačila šele pozneje.
Indeed, it was in no way indicated that the lease contract would be an obstacle to the restructuring.
Dejansko ni bilo nikakor navedeno, da bo pogodba o najemu ovira za prestrukturiranje.
In particular, point 4.12 of the 2003 IBP does not support this, since it only indicates that by selling off some assets, which were previously identified as the unproductive ones, HLW would be able to reduce the costs of serving the leasing contract.
Tega ne podpira zlasti točka 4.12 načrta IPN iz leta 2003, saj je v njej navedeno le, da bo družba HLW s prodajo nekaterih svojih sredstev, ki so bila predhodno opredeljena kot neproduktivna, lahko znižala stroške izvajanja pogodbe o najemu.
This is only logical, given that assets were to be sold in order to (partly) repay the loan and thus relieve HLW from paying interest on the loan.
To je popolnoma logično, saj bi se sredstva prodala za (delno) odplačilo posojila, in družba HLW bi bila tako razbremenjena plačila obresti za posojilo.
However, it in no way relates to the re-purchase of the productive assets, which could not generate any cash as these assets would be kept by the firm.
Nikakor pa to ne velja za ponovni nakup proizvodnih sredstev, ki ne bi mogel ustvariti denarnih sredstev, saj bi ta sredstva obdržala družba.
This means that the aid was used in contravention of the NRP and the authorisation decision, i.e. Protocol 8.
To pomeni, da je bila pomoč uporabljena v nasprotju s programom NPP in odločbo o odobritvi, tj. Protokolom št. 8.
Under Article 1(g) of the Procedural Regulation, this may be considered misuse, since this is defined as using the aid in contravention of the State aid approval decision [22].
Na podlagi člena 1(g) postopkovne uredbe je to mogoče šteti za zlorabo, saj je ta opredeljena kot uporaba pomoči v nasprotju z odločbo o odobritvi državne pomoči [22].
Incompatibility of the misused aid
Nezdružljivost zlorabljene pomoči
After it has been established that the State aid obtained was not used in accordance with the plan, it needs to be demonstrated that this misused aid is also incompatible with the common market.
Po tem, ko je bilo ugotovljeno, da prejeta državna pomoč ni bila uporabljena v skladu z načrtom, je treba dokazati, da je ta zlorabljena pomoč tudi nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
In formal terms, this can already be concluded from the fact that, firstly, the company did not use the aid in accordance with the plan, which, under Protocol No 8, it is obliged to implement properly and, secondly, that any other State aid outside the IBP, NRP and Protocol No 8 is incompatible with the common market under point 18 of Protocol No 8.
To je mogoče formalno sklepati že na podlagi dejstva, da, prvič, družba ni uporabila pomoči v skladu z načrtom, čeprav jo mora na podlagi Protokola št. 8 izvajati pravilno, in, drugič, da je vsaka druga državna pomoč zunaj načrta IPN, programa NPP in Protokola št. 8 nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom v skladu s točko 18 Protokola št. 8.
In addition, the Commission notes that it would not have been able to find the actual use compatible with the common market, despite the fact that AHW restored its viability.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da dejanske uporabe ne bi mogla šteti za združljivo s skupnim trgom kljub dejstvu, da je družba AHW znova vzpostavila rentabilnost.
In this context the Commission would like to clarify that, although the beneficiary doubts that the beneficiary’s current viability is sufficient, it must be considered that its understanding of viability departs from the way viability was predefined in Annex 3 of Protocol No 8.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno želi Komisija pojasniti, da je treba, čeprav prejemnik pomoči dvomi, da trenutna rentabilnost prejemnika pomoči zadostuje, upoštevati dejstvo, da njegovo razumevanje rentabilnosti odstopa od prej določene opredelitve rentabilnosti iz Priloge 3 k Protokolu št. 8.
This understanding was agreed under Protocol No 8, was monitored by both contracting parties and cannot be altered retroactively by a beneficiary.
To razumevanje je bilo dogovorjeno na podlagi Protokola št. 8, spremljali sta ga obe pogodbenici in ga prejemnik pomoči ne more spremeniti z učinkom za nazaj.
However, the Commission reiterates firstly that compatibility does not simply follow from the fact that HLW did restore viability in 2006.
Vendar pa Komisija ponovno poudarja, da, prvič, združljivost ne izhaja le iz dejstva, da je družba HLW leta 2006 ponovno vzpostavila rentabilnost.
In fact, the restoration of viability is not alone sufficient to render a restructuring project compatible with the common market.
Ponovna vzpostavitev rentabilnosti sama po sebi dejansko ne zadostuje, da je projekt prestrukturiranja združljiv s skupnim trgom.
Moreover, it must be ensured that the restoration of viability is achieved with the minimum amount of State aid necessary for the restructuring and that compensatory measures are implemented.
Poleg tega je treba zagotoviti, da se ponovna vzpostavitev rentabilnosti doseže z minimalnim zneskom državne pomoči, potrebne za prestrukturiranje, in da se izvajajo izravnalni ukrepi.
The Commission recalls that these conditions are stated in Article 8(4) of the Europe Agreement, to which reference is made in point 1 of Protocol No 8.
Komisija poudarja, da so ti pogoji določeni v členu 8(4) Evropskega sporazuma, na katerega se sklicuje v točki 1 Protokola št. 8.
In particular the concept of State aid being the minimum necessary implies that the aid should not be used to finance an investment or measure that is not essential for the restructuring [23].
Zlasti koncept državne pomoči kot najnižjega zneska pomeni, da se pomoč ne sme uporabljati za financiranje naložb ali ukrepov, ki niso bistveni za prestrukturiranje [23].
Secondly, the Commission recalls that the plan, i.e. the restructuring tasks and the measures to finance them, must, from an ex ante point of view, ensure that viability will be achieved.
Drugič, Komisija opozarja, da mora načrt, tj. naloge prestrukturiranja in ukrepi za njihovo financiranje, z vidika ex ante zagotoviti, da bo rentabilnost dosežena.
In fact, the 2003 IBP put special emphasis on investments and on bringing forward investments in its use of State aid.
Dejansko so bile v načrtu IPN iz leta 2003 posebej poudarjene naložbe in pospešena izvedba naložb v njegovi uporabi državne pomoči.
The plan indicated that investments were to be brought forward to 2003 thanks to the bridging loan.
V načrtu je bilo navedeno, da bodo naložbe pospešene zaradi premostitvenega posojila in bodo izvedene že leta 2003.
Moreover, it is indicated that the asset restructuring was expected to take place in 2004 and 2005, which was obviously too late for implementation of the investment programme.
Poleg tega je navedeno pričakovanje, da se bodo sredstva prestrukturirala v letih 2004 in 2005, kar je bilo očitno prepozno za izvajanje programa naložb.
Therefore the loan was provided to bridge the financing gap.
Posojilo je bilo tako zagotovljeno za premostitev vrzeli v financiranju.
Indeed, the introduction to the plan reiterates that ‘implementation of the restructuring programme in accordance with the adopted schedule and continuation of the enterprise will require the necessary bridging loan’.
Dejansko je v uvodu v načrt ponovno poudarjeno, da „bosta izvajanje programa prestrukturiranja v skladu s sprejetim časovnim načrtom in nadaljevanje spodbud zahtevala potrebno premostitveno posojilo“.
In conclusion, the bridging loan was considered necessary in order to bring investments forward according to a specific schedule.
Nazadnje, premostitveno posojilo se je štelo za nujno za preložitev naložb na zgodnejši datum v skladu s posebnim časovnim načrtom.
The fact that HLW did opt to pay off the productive assets sale and lease agreement and not to make the investments in time therefore indicates that, from an ex ante point of view, HLW’s action endangered its chances of restoring viability.
Dejstvo, da se je družba HLW odločila odplačati pogodbo o prodaji in povratnem najemu proizvodnih sredstev, ne pa pravočasno izvesti naložbe, zato kaže, da je z vidika ex ante ukrep družbe HLW ogrozil njene možnosti za obnovitev sposobnosti preživetja.
In fact, the Polish authorities have not communicated any reason why in August 2003, when HLW applied for the guarantee, the situation should have changed, given that it was only five months after the last update of the plan in March 2003.
Dejansko niso poljski organi sporočili nobenega razloga, zakaj bi se položaj avgusta leta 2003, ko je družba HLW zaprosila za jamstvo, moral spremeniti, glede na to, da je preteklo le pet mesecev od zadnje posodobitve načrta marca 2003.
Such use of the aid was therefore not an implementation of the plan but rather, given the fact that the investments were tied to a time schedule, obstruction of proper implementation of the plan.
Tovrstna uporaba pomoči zato ni bila izvajanje načrta, temveč glede na to, da so bile naložbe vezane na časovni načrt, oviranje ustreznega izvajanja načrta.
Thus, from the ex ante point of view, the company clearly endangered viability, despite the fact that it later restored it.
Z vidika ex ante je zato družba očitno ogrozila svojo rentabilnost ne glede na to, da jo je pozneje ponovno vzpostavila.
It is true that financial resources are fungible, and the fact that the State aid was not used in accordance with the plan might imply that the restructuring plan could be financed by other means, which it was originally planned to use for other purposes, for which the aid is now being used.
Res je, da so finančna sredstva zamenljiva, in dejstvo, da državna pomoč ni bila uporabljena v skladu z načrtom, lahko pomeni, da bi se načrt prestrukturiranja financiral iz drugih sredstev, ki so bila prvotno načrtovana za uporabo v druge namene, za katere se pomoč uporablja zdaj.
However, such argumentation is not acceptable in the case of a restructuring project, where the financial means of the company should be used for the firm’s reorientation and, owing to the company’s difficulties, no spare funds should be available for projects outside the plan.
Vendar taka utemeljitev ni sprejemljiva v primeru projekta prestrukturiranja, kjer je treba finančna sredstva družbe uporabiti za preusmeritev podjetja in kjer zaradi težav družbe ne bi smela biti za projekte zunaj načrta na voljo nobena rezervna sredstva.
Therefore, the use of the funds from the State-guaranteed loan to pay off the loan for the productive assets is a causal factor in the reduction of restructuring activities elsewhere, in particular timely implementation of the above investments.
Zato je bila uporaba sredstev iz posojila z državnim jamstvom za odplačilo posojila za proizvodna sredstva vzročni dejavnik pri zmanjšanju dejavnosti prestrukturiranja na drugih področjih, zlasti pravočasnega izvajanja zgoraj navedenih naložb.
Furthermore, the Commission does not see the relevance of the argument put forward by the Polish authorities and the beneficiary to the effect that in 2003 the company was in such financial distress that it was unable to undertake any investments.
Poleg tega Komisija ne razume pomena utemeljitve, ki so jo predložili poljski organi in prejemnik pomoči, da je bila družba v letu 2003 v tako velikih finančnih težavah, da ni mogla izvajati nobenih naložb.
This is because the Commission fails to see why a company in such a situation would have opted for repayment of a long-term debt rather than for other measures which were identified as being necessary to restore viability.
To je posledica dejstva, da Komisija ne razume, zakaj bi se družba v takem položaju odločila za odplačilo dolgoročnega dolga in ne za druge ukrepe, ki so bili opredeljeni kot nujni za ponovno vzpostavitev rentabilnosti.
Finally, it is also not relevant that the company is now offering to catch up with the investments forgone in 2004, because the implementation was bound to a particular time schedule, which was considered the only way to restore viability by the end of 2006.
Nazadnje, prav tako ni pomembno sedanje ponujanje družbe, da bo nadoknadila naložbe, ki so bile opuščene leta 2004, saj je bilo izvajanje vezano na točno določen časovni načrt, ki se je štel za edini način za ponovno vzpostavitev rentabilnosti do konca leta 2006.
This infringement is definite and can also not be altered by a change in the IBP.
Ta kršitev je dokončna in je ni mogoče spremeniti s spremembo načrta IPN.
This is so even despite the fact that the 2005 IBP provides for additional investments, as these cannot put right the misuse.
To drži kljub dejstvu, da so v načrtu IPN iz leta 2005 predvidene dodatne naložbe, saj te ne morejo odpraviti zlorabe.
Thirdly, even if HLW assumed in August 2003 that the investments were no longer necessary to restore viability, this would imply that HLW had indicated excessively high restructuring costs in the 2003 IBP and that the aid received was not necessary for the restructuring.
Tretjič, tudi če je družba HLW avgusta 2003 domnevala, da naložbe niso več potrebne za ponovno vzpostavitev rentabilnosti, bi to pomenilo, da je družba HLW navedla previsoke stroške prestrukturiranja v načrtu IPN iz leta 2003 in da prejeta pomoč ni bila nujna za prestrukturiranje.
However, the Commission finds it unlikely that the company changed its mind just five months after the 2003 IBP had been concluded (in March 2003) when, in August 2003, it applied for the guarantee and indicated that the main part was wanted to pay off the loan on the productive assets.
Vendar pa se Komisiji ne zdi verjetno, da bi si družba premislila samo pet mesecev po dokončanju načrta IPN iz leta 2003 (marca 2003), ko pa je avgusta 2003 zaprosila za jamstvo in navedla, da glavni del potrebuje za odplačilo posojila za proizvodna sredstva.
In order to substantiate such a finding, the company should then in any event have indicated this fact to the Commission in due time, which it did not.
Za utemeljitev take ugotovitve bi morala družba vsekakor pravočasno naznaniti to dejstvo Komisiji, česar pa ni storila.
Nevertheless, even if the investments had not been necessary, the redirecting of the funds to pay off the sale and leaseback of the productive assets would not seem to be justifiable as restructuring costs.
Tudi če naložbe ne bi bile potrebne, se zdi, da preusmeritve sredstev za odplačilo pogodbe o prodaji in povratnem najemu proizvodnih sredstev ne bi bilo mogoče upravičiti kot stroškov prestrukturiranja.
In fact, the financing to pay off the productive assets sale and leaseback agreement was arranged, and could have been paid off after the end of the restructuring period.
Dejansko so bila zagotovljena finančna sredstva za odplačilo pogodbe o prodaji in povratnem najemu proizvodnih sredstev, ki bi lahko bila odplačana po koncu obdobja prestrukturiranja.
It may be true that it resulted in financial burdens, but these were apparently taken into account in the financial projections of the 2003 IBP.
Morda je res, da je to povzročilo finančna bremena, vendar so bila ta domnevno upoštevana v finančnih projekcijah v načrtu IPN iz leta 2003.
As the assets could not be sold off, the only effect of the repayment would thus be relief from the financial costs, which would have given HLW additional liquidity.
Ker sredstev ni bilo mogoče prodati, bi bil edini učinek odplačila razbremenitev finančnih stroškov, kar bi družbi HLW zagotovilo dodatno likvidnost.
This means that HLW obtained additional cash, which can be considered operating aid, which could have even resulted in measures involving excessive distortion of the market.
To pomeni, da je družba HLW pridobila dodatna denarna sredstva, ki jih je mogoče obravnavati kot pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, kar bi lahko imelo za posledico ukrepe, ki vključujejo čezmerno izkrivljanje trga.
Thus the Commission does not see how such measures could have been authorised if notified to the Commission.
Komisija zato ne razume, kako bi lahko bili taki ukrepi odobreni, če bi se priglasili Komisiji.
Thus also, if the investments were really not necessary, the actual use of the aid would also be considered incompatible with the common market.
Zato tudi če naložbe niso bile res potrebne, bi se tudi dejanska uporaba pomoči štela za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom.
Finally, the Commission does not dispute the beneficiary’s argument that the guarantee was used in accordance with the government decision and that the government was competent to determine the purpose of the aid.
Nazadnje, Komisija ne zavrača utemeljitve prejemnika pomoči, da je bilo jamstvo uporabljeno v skladu z odločitvijo vlade in da je vlada pristojna za določanje namena pomoči.
However, the Commission notes that this is without effect on the compatibility of the guarantee, which has to be determined in accordance with Protocol No 8 and the 2003 IBP, which do not include aid for the purpose approved by the government in the granting decision.
Vendar Komisija opozarja, da to ne vpliva na združljivost jamstva, ki jo je treba opredeliti v skladu s Protokolom št. 8 in načrtom IPN iz leta 2003, ki ne vključujeta pomoči za namen, ki ga odobri vlada v odločbi o odobritvi.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission must conclude that the aid has been used in a manner incompatible with points 9 and 18 of Protocol No 8.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno mora Komisija skleniti, da je bila pomoč uporabljena na način, ki ni združljiv s točkama 9 in 18 Protokola št. 8.
It is therefore incompatible with the common market.
Zato je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
Effect of the incompatibility of the misused aid on the entire restructuring plan
Učinek nezdružljivosti zlorabljene pomoči na celoten načrt prestrukturiranja
Finally, the effect of the incompatibility of the misuse must be determined.
Nazadnje, treba je opredeliti učinek nezdružljivosti zlorabe.