natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Piraeus Bank submitted additional comments by letter of 22 October 2007, which were forwarded to Greece by letter of 13 November 2007.
Banka Piraeus Bank je predložila dodatne pripombe z dopisom z dne 22. oktobra 2007, ki so bile predložene Grčiji z dopisom z dne 13. novembra 2007.
On 12 February 2008, Piraeus Bank asked to meet once more the Commission.
Banka Piraeus Bank je 12. februarja 2008 zaprosila za ponovno srečanje s Komisijo.
This concerns the submission of Elefsis dated 7 Mars 2008, 24 April 2008, and 2 June 2008, and the submission of GNSH/TKMS of 2 April 2008.
To se nanaša na pripombe, ki jih je 7. marca 2008, 24. aprila 2008 in 2. junija 2008 predložilo podjetje Elefsis, ter pripombe, ki sta jih 2. aprila 2008 predložili podjetji TKMS/GNSH.
This means that these submissions have not been sent to Greece for comments and have not been taken into account in the present decision.
To pomeni, da te pripombe niso bile poslane Grčiji in da niso bile upoštevane v tej odločbi.
HSY was established in 1939 by the Hellenic Navy and purchased in 1957 by Mr Niarchos’ group.
Podjetje HSY je leta 1939 ustanovila Grška mornarica, leta 1957 pa ga je kupila skupina grškega ladjarja Niarchosa.
The extended crisis in the shipping sector, which followed the first oil crisis, had a negative effect on HSY’s level of activity.
Naraščajoča kriza v sektorju ladijskega prevoza, ki je sledila prvi naftni krizi, je negativno vplivala na obseg dejavnosti podjetja HSY.
ThyssenKrupp took over HDW in January 2005 and acquired Ferrostaal’s shares in GNSH in November 2005.
Januarja 2005 je podjetje ThyssenKrupp prevzelo podjetje HDW, novembra 2005 pa pridobilo delnice podjetja Ferrostaal v podjetju GNSH.
Since the end of 2005, ThyssenKrupp has therefore 100 % ownership and control of HSY.
Od konca leta 2005 ima podjetje ThyssenKrupp torej 100-odstotno lastništvo in nadzor nad podjetjem HSY.
Indeed, if the Commission had been of the opinion that the yard was unable to obtain loans amounting to at least GRD 4,67 billion, it should have indicated that the restructuring plan was unfeasible and should have prohibited the large amounts of restructuring aid (including the investment aid).
Če bi Komisija menila, da ladjedelnica ne more pridobiti posojil v višini najmanj 4,67 milijarde GRD, bi morala navesti, da je načrt prestrukturiranja neizvedljiv in preprečiti izplačilo visokih zneskov pomoči za prestrukturiranje (vključno z naložbeno pomočjo).
In conclusion, the Commission can not contradict these two earlier assessments in the present Decision.
Komisija torej ne more nasprotovati prejšnjima ocenama iz te odločbe.
However, this positive situation was entirely the consequence of the massive debt waivers implemented by the State in 1996.
Vendar pa je bil ta pozitivni položaj v celoti posledica odpisov visokih dolgov, ki jih je država odobrila leta 1996.
In particular, the State wrote off GRD 54,52 billion (EUR 160 million) of debts related to civil activities — this waiver was approved by decision C. 10/94 — and GRD 46,35 billion (EUR 136 million) of debts related to military activities.
Država je zlasti odpisala 54,52 milijarde GRD (160 milijonov EUR) dolgov, povezanih s civilnimi dejavnostmi – ta odpis je bil odobren z odločbo C 10/94 – ter 46,35 milijarde GRD (136 milijonov EUR) dolgov, povezanih z vojaškimi dejavnostmi.
HSY recorded slight net profits in 1997 and 1998.
Podjetje HSY je v letih 1997 in 1998 zabeležilo majhne čiste dobičke.
It was signed only at the beginning of 1999.
Podpisana je bila šele v začetku leta 1999.
In addition, from the outset it was known that the sales price was too low to cover the costs and that this contract would therefore cause a loss.
Poleg tega se je že od samega začetka vedelo, da je prodajna cena prenizka za pokritje stroškov in da bo ta pogodba zato povzročila izgubo.
These measures were granted by ETVA between 1996 and 2002.
Banka ETVA je te ukrepe odobrila v obdobju 1996–2002.
According to case-law, such measures may qualify as State aid pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Treaty only if the State was in a position to control ETVA and if the public authorities have ‘been involved, in one way or another, in the adoption of those measures’.
V skladu s sodno prakso se takšni ukrepi lahko na podlagi člena 87(1) Pogodbe opredelijo kot državna pomoč samo, če je bila država v položaju, v katerem je lahko nadzorovala banko ETVA, in če so bili javni organi „tako ali drugače vključeni v sprejemanje navedenih ukrepov“.
The State kept a majority shareholding until the transfer of the majority of the shares to Piraeus Bank on 20 March 2002.
Država je ohranila večinski delež vse do 20. marca 2002, ko je na banko Piraeus Bank prenesla lastništvo večine delnic.
The State was therefore in a position to control ETVA at least until 20 March 2002.
Banko ETVA je torej lahko nadzorovala do 20. marca 2002.
This also illustrate that State resources were involved in the measures implemented by ETVA.
Iz tega je razvidno tudi to, da so bila državna sredstva vključena tudi v ukrepe, ki jih je izvajala banka ETVA.
Regarding the involvement of the State in the adoption of the different measures, the Commission observes the following points:
V zvezi z vključenostjo države v sprejetje različnih ukrepov Komisija ugotavlja naslednje:
First, the Commission notes that the three most significant decisions regarding ETVA’s shareholding in HSY have not been decided independently by ETVA’s management: these decisions have been taken by the government and implemented by ETVA.
prvič, Komisija ugotavlja, da treh najpomembnejših odločitev v zvezi z deležem banke ETVA v podjetju HSY vodstvo banke ETVA ni sprejelo neodvisno: sprejela jih je namreč vlada, banka ETVA pa jih je izvajala.
Indeed, when ETVA purchased the bankrupt HSY in 1985, this was a government decision.
Ko je banka ETVA leta 1985 kupila podjetje HSY, ki je bilo v stečaju, je bila to dejansko odločitev vlade.
ETVA simply implemented this State decision and rapidly made a large capital injection in HSY, which was considered to be State aid by the Commission.
Banka ETVA je to odločitev države samo izvedla in hitro izvršila še dokapitalizacijo podjetja HSY, kar je Komisija štela za državno pomoč.
The tender documents dated 2 April 2001 also indicate that the State will select the preferred bidder with the Sellers.
V razpisni dokumentaciji z dne 2. aprila 2001 je navedeno tudi, da bo država izbrala najboljšega ponudnika skupaj s prodajalci.
In conclusion, the three crucial decisions concerning ETVA’s shareholding in HSY were decided by the State.
Tri ključne odločitve v zvezi z deležem banke ETVA v podjetju HSY je torej sprejela država.
This illustrates that ETVA’s 51 % stake in HSY was aimed at allowing the State to control HSY with the goal of preserving the defence interests of Greece.
Iz tega je razvidno, da je država prek 51-odstotnega deleža banke ETVA v podjetju HSY želela dobiti nadzor nad podjetjem HSY za namen obvarovanja obrambnih interesov Grčije.
In this context, the Commission recalls that ETVA purchased HSY in 1985.
Komisija na podlagi tega opozarja, da je banka ETVA kupila podjetje HSY leta 1985.
The involvement of ETVA within HSY was therefore developed within this mandate as ‘development bank’, and not within the framework of its commercial activities which started not earlier than 1997.
Udeležba banke ETVA v podjetju HSY je bila torej vzpostavljena v okviru teh pristojnosti kot „razvojne banke“ in ne v okviru njenih komercialnih dejavnosti, ki so se pričele šele leta1997.
Since ETVA had until then to support HSY within its mandate as ‘development bank’, ETVA could not suddenly from 1997 stop providing the loans and guarantees demanded by HSY and let the yard go bankrupt.
Ker je banka ETVA morala do takrat podjetju HSY nuditi pomoč v okviru pristojnosti „razvojne banke“, od leta 1997 ni mogla nenadoma prekiniti zagotavljanja posojil in poroštev, ki jih je zahtevalo podjetje HSY, ter dovoliti, da bi šla ladjedelnica v stečaj.
In this context, the Commission recalls that, in the second half of the nineties, ETVA has been authorised to develop commercial activities besides its development activities, and not in replacement of its development activities, which had to be continued.
Komisija na podlagi tega opozarja, da je banka v drugi polovici devetdesetih let dobila pooblastila za razvoj komercialnih dejavnosti poleg razvojnih dejavnosti in ne namesto njih, saj so se morale razvojne dejavnosti nadaljevati.
This privatisation was completed in 2002.
Ta privatizacija je bila zaključena leta 2002.
This illustrates that during the period 1996–2002, the State was deeply interested in the operations of ETVA.
Iz tega je razvidno, da je v obdobju 1996–2002 država namenjala posebno pozornost poslovanju banke ETVA.
To underpin this claim, Greece provided data regarding the work-hours and the turnover (i.e. sales value) of the two activities for the years 1997 to 2005.
Da bi podprla to trditev, je Grčija predložila podatke o delovnih urah in prometu (tj. prodajni vrednosti) obeh dejavnosti za obdobje 1997–2005.
In the context of the present procedure, Greece has not contested these figures.
V okviru tega postopka Grčija teh podatkov ni izpodbijala.
By Decision N 401/97, the Commission authorised a GRD 7,8 billion (EUR 22,9 million) investment aid, which Greece had notified on 20 June 1997.
Komisija je z odločbo N 401/97 odobrila 7,8 milijarde GRD (22,9 milijona EUR) naložbene pomoči, ki jo je Grčija priglasila 20. junija 1997.
In that decision, the aid has been assessed on the basis of Article 6 ‘Investment aid’ of Chapter III ‘Restructuring aid’ of the Directive 90/684/EEC, which indicates that ‘Investment aid […] may not be granted […] unless it is linked to a restructuring plan which does not involve any increase in the shipbuilding capacity of the yard […].
V navedeni odločbi je bila pomoč ocenjena na podlagi člena 6 „Naložbena pomoč“ poglavja III „Pomoč za prestrukturiranje“ Direktive 90/684/EGS, v katerem je navedeno naslednje: „Naložbene pomoči […] ni mogoče dodeliti […], če ni povezana z načrtom prestrukturiranja, ki ne vključuje nikakršnega povečanja zmogljivosti ladjedelnice pri gradnji ladij […].
The Decision indicates that the plan foresees that the yard will have its viability restored at the end of the business plan, the year 2000.
V odločbi je navedeno, da načrt predvideva, da bo ladjedelnici ob izteku poslovnega načrta, torej leta 2000, povrnjena sposobnost preživetja.
The total cost of the investment programme was estimated at GRD 15,62 billion (EUR 45,9 million).
Celotni strošek naložbenega načrta je bil ocenjen na 15,62 milijarde GRD (45,9 milijona EUR).
Elefsis underlines that the earthquake invoked to justify the delay occurred only in September 1999.
Podjetje Elefsis poudarja, da je bil potres, ki je služil kot opravičilo za zamudo, šele septembra 1999.
That is four months before the end of the period to implement the investment plan, namely 31 December 1999.
To je štiri mesece pred iztekom obdobja za izvedbo naložbenega načrta: 31. decembra 1999.
At the end of 1999 HSY had carried out only a small part of the investment plan.
Do konca leta 1999 je podjetje HSY izvedlo samo majhen del naložbenega načrta.
This shows that HSY had already accumulated significant delays in the implementation of the plan before the earthquake occurred and that HSY could not have finished on time the investment programme even if the earthquake had not occurred.
To kaže, da so se v podjetju HSY precejšnje zamude pri izvajanju načrta nakopičile že pred potresom in da podjetje HSY ne bi moglo pravočasno dokončati naložbenega načrta, tudi če potresa ne bi bilo.
In December 1999, they carried out the first control on the implementation of the plan, which related to the expenses incurred by HSY until 30 June 1999.
Decembra 1999 so opravili prvi nadzor izvajanja načrta, ki je zadeval stroške podjetja HSY do 30. junija 1999.
It turned out that they amounted to GRD 2,7 billion (EUR 8,1 million), which is 17,7 % of the total expenses of the investment programme.
Izkazalo se je, da so ti znašali 2,7 milijarde GRD (8,1 milijona EUR), kar je 17,7 % skupnih stroškov naložbenega načrta.
By decision of 14 June 2002, a new extension was granted until 30 June 2004.
Z odločbo z dne 14. junija 2002 je bilo odobreno novo podaljšanje roka, in sicer do 30. junija 2004.
By decision of23 July 2003, the authorities authorised a modification of the investment plan.
Z odločbo z dne 23. julija 2003 so organi odobrili spremembo naložbenega načrta.
By letter of 30 June 2004, the yard requested a new extension until 31 December 2004.
Z dopisom z dne 30. junija 2004 je ladjedelnica zaprosila za novo podaljšanje roka, in sicer do 31. decembra 2004.
As of today, the investment aid has not been paid out to the yard yet.
Na današnji dan naložbena pomoč ladjedelnici še ni bila izplačana.
They also claim that they informed the Commission of the prolongation in November 2002.
Trdijo tudi, da so o podaljšanju roka Komisijo obvestili novembra 2002.
Concerning the modification of the investment plan which they have authorised in 2003, it did change neither the nature, nor the substance, nor the purpose of the approved aid.
Kar zadeva spremembo naložbenega načrta, ki so jo odobrili leta 2003, ta ni spremenila ne narave ne vsebine ne namena odobrene pomoči.
In this case, the aid should be found compatible since the revised plan foresees a return to viability in a reasonable period, namely before 30 June 2004.
V tem primeru bi moralo biti ugotovljeno, da je pomoč združljiva, saj prenovljeni načrt predvideva obnovitev sposobnosti preživetja v razmnem obdobju, in sicer do 30. junija 2004.
The Greek authorities claim in particular that the delay is not caused by the firm but by force majeure (earthquake of 1999 and privatisation of the firm).
Grški organi zlasti trdijo, da zamude ni povzročilo podjetje temveč višja sila (potres leta 1999 in privatizacija podjetja).
Decision N 401/97 only indicates that ‘the yard will have its viability restored at the end of the business plan, the year 2000’.
V odločbi N 401/97 je navedeno samo, da bo „ladjedelnica obnovila svojo sposobnost preživetja pred iztekom poslovnega načrta leta 2000“.
In their letter of 20 October 2004, the Greek authorities indicate that, according to the Ministerial decision of December 2007 granting the subsidy, the investment programme had to be completed by 31 December 1999.
V svojem dopisu z dne 20. oktobra 2004 grški organi navajajo, da bi se moral v skladu z ministrsko odločbo o dodelitvi subvencij iz decembra 2007 naložbeni načrt zaključiti do 31. decembra 1999.
However, this date does not appear in decision N 401/97.
Vendar pa se ta datum ne pojavi v odločbi N 401/97.
Justifying the delay on the basis of the earthquake, the yard asked in November 2000 a first delay of the date to complete the investment programme until 31 December 2001.
Ladjedelnica je v opravičilu za zamudo zaradi potresa novembra 2000 zaprosila za prvi odlog roka za dokončanje naložbenega načrta, in sicer do 31. decembra 2001.
The question is whether the Commission would have accepted this request if it had received it.
Vprašanje je, ali bi Komisija tej zahtevi ugodila, če bi jo prejela.
As a subsidiary argument, the Commission notes that if prolongations after 31 December 2001 were accepted, the restructuring period would be so long that the investments carried out after that date could not be considered as ‘linked’ — in the meaning of the Directive 90/684/EEC — to the restructuring that began as early as in 1996.
V dopolnitev temu Komisija opozarja, da bi bilo v primeru odobritve podaljšanj roka po 31. decembru 2001 obdobje prestrukturiranja tako dolgo, da se naložbe, ki bi se izvršile po navedenem datumu, v smislu Direktive 90/684/EGS ne bi mogle šteti za „povezane“ s prestrukturiranjem, ki se je začelo že leta 1996.
The restructuring plan approved in 1997 was inadequate to tackle the difficult financial situation of the yard in the years from 2001.
Načrt prestrukturiranja, ki je bil odobren leta 1997, ni bil primeren za reševanje težkega finančnega položaja ladjedelnice po letu 2001.
Greece claims that even if the Commission finds that aid in favour of some investment expenses would not fall within the scope of decision N 401/97, this aid should nevertheless be considered compatible as restructuring aid on the basis of the 1999 R & R guidelines.
Grčija trdi, da bi se ta pomoč, tudi če bi Komisija ugotovila, da v zvezi z nekaterimi stroški naložb ne spada v področje uporabe odločbe N 401/97, kljub temu morala na podlagi smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 1999 šteti za združljivo kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
The Commission must therefore analyse whether aid in favour of the investment expenses incurred by HSY after 31 December 2001 could be found compatible.
Komisija mora zato analizirati, ali bi lahko bila pomoč za stroške naložb, ki jih je ustvarilo podjetje HSY po 31. decembru 2001, združljiva.
The Commission notes that there is no doubt that HSY was a firm in difficulty after 31 December 2001.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ni nikakršnega dvoma, da je bilo podjetje HSY po 31. decembru 2001 podjetje v težavah.
For instance, the losses accumulated over the preceding years were so important that the net equity was negative.
Na primer, izgube, ki so se nakopičile v predhodnih letih, so bile tako velike, da je bil neto lastniški kapital podjetja negativen.
The Commission considers however that the firm did not comply with the conditions for receiving aid under the 1999 R & R guidelines.
Vendar pa Komisija meni, da podjetje ni izpolnjevalo pogojev za prejem pomoči v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 1999.
For instance, the ‘one time, last time’ condition laid down in paragraph 48 of these guidelines was breached because Greece had already granted restructuring aid to HSY by Ministerial decision of December 1997.
Na primer, pogoj „prvič in zadnjič“, ki je določen v odstavku 48 teh smernic, je bil kršen, ker je Grčija že odobrila pomoč podjetju HSY z ministrsko odločbo iz decembra 1997.
Indeed, the investment aid approved by decision N 401/97 was a restructuring aid according to Directive 90/684/EEC and according to decision N 401/97 itself.
Naložbena pomoč, odobrena z odločbo N 401/97, je bila dejansko pomoč za prestrukturiranje v skladu z Direktivo 90/684/EGS in tudi v skladu s samo odločbo N 401/97.
The Commission fails to identify which exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances could justify restructuring aid to be granted in favour of investment expenses incurred after 31 December 2001.
Komisija ne more ugotoviti, katere izjemne in nepredvidljive okoliščine bi lahko upravičile odobritev pomoči za prestrukturiranje v zvezi s stroški naložb, ki so nastali po 31. decembru 2001.
In particular, the earthquake of September 1999 may, as concluded previously, justify a limited delay in the implementation of the investment plan.
Manjšo zamudo pri izvajanju naložbenega načrta lahko, kot je bilo že ugotovljeno, upraviči predvsem potres iz septembra 1999.
But it is not the cause of the delay of the implementation of the investment plan after 31 December 2001.
Vendar pa potres ni razlog za zamudo pri izvajanju naložbenega načrta po 31. decembru 2001.
As regards the freezing of the plan during the privatisation process, it does not fulfil the definition of ‘exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances’.
Zamrznitev načrta v postopku privatizacije ne ustreza opredelitvi „izjemnih in nepredvidljivih okoliščin“.
According to the initial plan the yard should have its viability restored by 2000.
V skladu s prvotnim načrtom naj bi ladjedelnica svojo sposobnost preživetja obnovila do leta 2000.
The Commission therefore considers that the planned restoration of viability in June 2004 was a too long delay compared to the initial plan and was not within a reasonable timescale anymore.
Komisija zato meni, da načrtovana obnovitev sposobnosti preživetja v juniju 2004 pomeni preveliko zamudo v primerjavi s prvotnim načrtom in da ni več znotraj ustreznega časovnega okvira.
In order to assess the existence of aid in the different guarantees investigated in this decision, the Commission will use the Commission Notice on the application of Article 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (hereinafter ‘the Notice on guarantees’), which was published in March 2000.
Da bi se ocenil obstoj pomoči v različnih poroštvih, ki so predmet preiskave v tej odločbi, bo Komisija uporabila Obvestilo Komisije o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES za državno pomoč v obliki poroštev (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo o poroštvih), ki je bilo objavljeno marca 2000.
However, as indicated in its section 1.4, it did not consist in a change of policy, but rather explains in more details the method that the Commission used until then to assess guarantees.
Vendar pa, kot je navedeno v oddelku 1.4 navedenega obvestila, to ne zadeva spremembe politike temveč je predvsem natančnejše pojasnilo o metodi, ki jo je Komisija do takrat uporabljala za oceno poroštev.
Consequently, the principles laid down in the Notice on guarantees can also be used to assess the guarantees granted before March 2000.
Zaradi tega je načela, določena v obvestilu o poroštvih, mogoče uporabiti tudi za oceno poroštev, odobrenih pred marcem 2000.
In accordance with this conclusion, in the opening decision the Commission used the Notice on guarantees to assess measure P2.
V skladu s tem sklepom je Komisija v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka obvestilo o poroštvih uporabila za oceno ukrepa P2.
Section 3.1 also shows that from 30 June 1999 there was sufficient information available to conclude that HSY had not succeeded to conclude enough shipbuilding contracts to restore its viability and would face heavy losses in 1999 and 2000.
Iz oddelka 3.1 je razvidno tudi, da je bilo po 30. juniju 1999 na voljo dovolj informacij, na podlagi katerih je bilo mogoče ugotoviti, da podjetje HSY ni uspelo skleniti dovolj pogodb o gradnji ladij, da bi obnovilo svojo sposobnost preživetja, in da bo v letih 1999 in 2000 utrpelo težke izgube.
Therefore, whereas the fact that the loan was financing an investment plan approved in 1997 by the Commission would have comforted a potential lender in 1997 and 1998, it would not have comforted a bank in December 1999 since it was clear that the business plan had failed.
Torej kljub temu, da bi dejstvo, da se je s posojilom financiral naložbeni načrt, ki ga je leta 1997 odobrila Komisija, lahko prepričalo potencialnega posojilodajalca v letih 1997 in 1998, to dejstvo ne bi moglo prepričati banke decembra 1999, saj je bilo jasno, da je poslovni načrt propadel.
The initial duration was until 31 March 2001.
Prvotna posojilna doba je potekla 31. marca 2001.
After successive prolongations, it was reimbursed on 2 August 2004.
Po več zapovrstnih podaljšanjih je bilo posojilo povrnjeno 2. avgusta 2004.
The interest rate was ATHIBOR (EURIBOR from 1 January 2001) plus 100 basis points.
Obrestna mera je bila ATHIBOR (od 1. januarja 2001 EURIBOR), povečana za 100 bazičnih točk.
As was revealed by the control made by the Greek authorities in December 1999 (see comments of Greece on measure P1), the amount of GRD 2,73 billion had just been reached by 30 June 1999.
Kot je bilo ugotovljeno v okviru nadzora, ki so ga decembra 1999 izvedli grški organi (glej pripombe Grčije v zvezi z ukrepov P1), je bil znesek v višini 2,73 milijarde GRD dosežen že pred 30. junijem 1999.
Therefore, since the loan was granted in July 1999 and since at the time it could probably be estimated already that the threshold of GRD 2,73 billion had been reached or would be reached soon, the probability of receiving the first tranche of the aid could at first sight be considered as quite high.
Ker je bilo torej posojilo odobreno julija 1999 in ker bi bilo v tistem času že mogoče oceniti, da je bil prag 2,73 milijarde GRD že dosežen ali da bo dosežen kmalu, bi bila verjetnost prejema prvega obroka pomoči na prvi pogled lahko videti precej visoka.
Third, other administrative problem could happen.
Tretjič, lahko bi se pojavila kakšna druga upravna težava.