natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For the assessment of the file, it is without any relevance that Combus has been effectively split in two through the sale of 50 % of its assets to Connex in May 2001.
Za oceno spisa je brezpredmetno, da je bilo podjetje Combus učinkovito ločeno na dva dela s prodajo 50 % sredstev podjetju Connex maja 2001.
For the reasons already explained in the decision to open the investigative procedure, this split cannot be seen as such as a sufficient compensatory measure [65], as Arriva was not legally obliged under the terms of the sales contract to sell part of its assets.
Zaradi razlogov, ki so že pojasnjeni v odločitvi o sprožitvi preiskovalnega postopka, te delitve ni mogoče razlagati kot zadostnega izravnalnega ukrepa [65], saj podjetja Arriva pogoji prodajne pogodbe niso pravno obvezovali, da proda del svojih sredstev.
In addition, the Commission notes that the sale did not take place through an open, transparent and fair procedure, but through exclusive negotiations between Arriva and Connex.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da prodaja ni bila izvedena po odprtem, preglednem in poštenem postopku, temveč prek pogajanj zgolj med podjetjema Arriva in Connex.
The Commission concludes that Denmark has not taken any compensatory measures to avoid undue distortions of competition, and this despite the fact that at least one possibility for such measures existed, namely the sale of a certain share of the public service contracts of Combus to competitors through an open, transparent and fair procedure.
Komisija ugotavlja, da Danska ni sprejela nobenih izravnalnih ukrepov, da bi preprečila nedovoljeno izkrivljanje konkurence, in to kljub dejstvu, da je obstajala najmanj ena možnost za take ukrepe, in sicer prodaja določenega deleža pogodb za javna naročila storitev podjetja Combus njegovim konkurentom prek odprtega, preglednega in poštenega postopka.
In the light of the important market share that both Combus and Arriva held on the Danish bus market at the time of the sale of Combus, the Commission considers that the complete absence of compensatory measures has created undue distortions of competitions on the Danish bus market.
Glede na to, da sta imela v času prodaje podjetja Combus le-to in podjetje Arriva pomemben tržni delež na danskem trgu avtobusnih prevozov, Komisija meni, da je zaradi popolnega neobstoja izravnalnih ukrepov prišlo do nedovoljenega izkrivljanja konkurence na danskem trgu avtobusnih prevozov.
Hence, the Commission considers that the 2001 measure does not fulfil the conditions set out in points 35 to 39 of the 1999 restructuring guidelines.
Zato Komisija meni, da ukrep iz leta 2001 ne izpolnjuje pogojev, opredeljenih v točkah 35 do 39 smernic o prestrukturiranju iz leta 1999.
Conclusion: Incompatibility of the 2001 measures
Sklep: nezdružljivost ukrepa iz leta 2001
The Commission concludes that the 2001 measures fail to meet at least two of the conditions set out in the 1999 restructuring guidelines, namely the condition ‘economic viability’ and the condition ‘avoidance of undue distortions of competition’.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep iz leta 2001 ne izpolnjuje najmanj dveh pogojev, določenih v smernicah o prestrukturiranju iz leta 1999, in sicer pogoj „sposobnosti ekonomskega preživetja“ in pogoj „preprečevanja nedovoljenega izkrivljanja konkurence“.
It is hence not necessary to analyse the remaining conditions for concluding that the 2001 measures are incompatible with the common market.
Zato ni potrebna analiza preostalih pogojev, da bi ugotovili, da je ukrep iz leta 2001 nezdružljiv s skupnim trgom.
CONCLUSION: THE 1999 AND THE 2001 MEASURE CONSTITUTE INCOMPATIBLE STATE AID
SKLEP: UKREPA IZ LETA 1999 IN 2001 POMENITA NEZDRUŽLJIVO DRŽAVNO POMOČ
The Commission considers that the 1999 measure and the 2001 measure implemented by Denmark in favour of Combus are not compatible with the common market under any provision of the Treaty.
Po mnenju Komisije ukrepa iz leta 1999 in 2001, ki ju je izvedla Danska v korist podjetja Combus, nista združljiva s skupnim trgom po nobeni določbi Pogodbe.
Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 659/1999 stipulates:
Člen 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 659/1999 določa:
‘Where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary (hereinafter referred to as a “recovery decision”). The Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.’
„Če se v primerih nezakonite pomoči sprejmejo negativne odločbe, Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločba o vračilu). Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti.“
Hence, it has to be verified whether recovery in the present case would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.
Zato je treba v pričujočem primeru preveriti, ali bi bilo vračilo v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti.
In the present case, the question arises as to whether the initial decision of the Commission, which authorised the 1999 and the 2001 measure, might have created legitimate expectations for Combus.
V pričujočem primeru se pojavlja vprašanje, ali je prvotna odločba Komisije, s katero je odobrila ukrepa v letih 1999 in 2001, morda zbudila upravičena pričakovanja podjetja Combus.
In its Decision 2005/786/EC of 2 March 2005 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Chemische Werke Piesteritz [66], the Commission decided that where a positive Commission decision is challenged within the prescribed time-limits and annulled by the CFI, the general principles of Community law, and in particular the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, do not preclude recovery.
V Odločbi 2005/786/ES z dne 2. marca 2005 o državni pomoči Nemčije za Chemische Werke Piesteritz [66] se je Komisija odločila, da če se pozitivna odločitev Komisije izpodbija v predpisanem roku in jo SPS razveljavi, potem splošna načela prava Skupnosti ter zlasti načela pravne gotovosti in zaščite upravičenih pričakovanj ne izključujejo vračila.
To conclude otherwise would render ineffective the review conducted by the Community courts in accordance with Article 220, the first paragraph of Article 230 and Article 233 of the EC Treaty of the legality of measures adopted by the Community institutions.
Drugačen sklep bi povzročil neučinkovitost pregleda, ki ga izvajata sodišči Skupnosti v skladu s členom 220, prvim odstavkom člena 230 in členom 233 Pogodbe ES o zakonitosti ukrepov, ki jih sprejmejo ustanove Skupnosti.
The unlawful and incompatible aid must be recovered from the undertakings that actually benefited from it [67].
Nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč morajo vrniti podjetja, ki so imela od nje dejansko korist [67].
In the present case, one beneficiary of the aid was clearly Combus, which continues to exist.
V pričujočem primeru je bil en upravičenec očitno podjetje Combus, ki še vedno obstaja.
The question then arises whether the recovery needs to be extended to other undertakings.
Nato se pojavi vprašanje, ali je treba vračilo razširiti na druga podjetja.
In the present case, the shares of Combus have been sold to Arriva Denmark A/S, and Combus became a 100 % subsidiary of Arriva Denmark A/S.
V pričujočem primeru so bile delnice podjetja Combus prodane podjetju Arriva Denmark a/s, podjetje Combus pa je postalo 100-odstotno odvisno podjetje podjetja Arriva Denmark a/s.
Subsequent to that transaction, Combus has sold all the assets and liabilities on its books to another 100 % subsidiary of Arriva Denmark A/S, namely Arriva Scandinavia A/S, in exchange of one share in Arriva Scandinavia with a nominal value of DKK 1000.
Po tej transakciji je podjetje Combus prodalo vsa sredstva in obveznosti, zavedena v svojih knjigah, drugemu 100-odstotnemu odvisnemu podjetju podjetja Arriva Denmark a/s, in sicer podjetju Arriva Scandinavia a/s, v zameno za eno delnico v podjetju Arriva Scandinavia z nominalno vrednostjo 1000 DKK.
Subsequent to this transaction, Arriva Scandinavia A/S has sold approximately 50 % of Combus’ assets to Connex.
Po tej transakciji je podjetje Arriva Scandinavia a/s prodalo približno 50 % sredstev podjetja Combus podjetju Connex.
The granting of the unlawful and incompatible aid has hence been followed by a share deal and then two subsequent asset deals.
Odobritvi nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči sta torej sledila delniški posel in zatem dva zaporedna posla s sredstvi.
The following paragraphs set out the impact of deals on the recovery of the aid.
Naslednji odstavki opredeljujejo vpliv poslov na vračilo pomoči.
SHARE DEAL BETWEEN ARRIVA DENMARK A/S AND THE DANISH STATE
DELNIŠKI POSEL MED PODJETJEM ARRIVA DENMARK A/S IN DANSKO DRŽAVO
The European Courts have given some guidance on the conditions under which the recovery obligation must be extended to companies other than the original beneficiary of the unlawful and incompatible aid.
(380) Evropska sodišča so posredovala nekaj smernic o pogojih, pod katerimi je treba obveznost vračila razširiti še na druga podjetja, ki niso prvotni upravičenec nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči.
As regards transfer of shares of a company that has to reimburse an illegal and incompatible aid (share deals), the ECJ held that the sale of shares in such a company to a third party does not affect the obligation of the beneficiary to reimburse such aid [68].
Kar zadeva prenos delnic podjetja, ki mora vrniti nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč (delniški posli), SPS meni, da prodaja delnic v takem podjetju tretji stranki ne vpliva na obveznost upravičenca, da vrne to pomoč [68].
When it can be established that the buyer of the shares paid the prevailing market price for the shares of that company, it cannot be regarded as having benefited from an advantage that could constitute a State aid [69].
Če je mogoče ugotoviti, da je kupec delnic plačal prevladujočo tržno ceno za delnice tega podjetja, ni mogoče šteti, da je imel koristi od prednosti, ki bi lahko pomenile državno pomoč [69].
In the present case, the sale of Combus to Arriva Denmark A/S constituted such a share deal.
V pričujočem primeru je bila prodaja podjetja Combus podjetju Arriva Denmark a/s takšen delniški posel.
Therefore, the question arises as to whether Arriva Denmark A/S paid the market price for Combus.
Zato nastaja vprašanje, ali je podjetje Arriva Denmark a/s plačalo tržno ceno za podjetje Combus.
In this context, the Commission first of all notes that the sale was preceded by a transparent, open and non-discriminatory public tender, and Arriva Denmark A/S had submitted the best offer.
V zvezi s tem Komisija opominja najprej na to, da je bil pred prodajo izveden pregleden, odprt in nediskriminatoren javni razpis ter da je podjetje Arriva Denmark a/s predložilo najboljšo ponudbo.
This constitutes a first strong indication that Arriva Denmark A/S has indeed paid the market price for Combus.
To je prvi močan pokazatelj, da je podjetje Arriva Denmark a/s dejansko plačalo tržno ceno za podjetje Combus.
In addition, the Commission has asked an independent financial expert, Ecorys Netherlands BV (hereinafter: Ecorys), to assess the financial value of Combus at the time of the sale to Arriva Denmark A/S.
Poleg tega je Komisija prosila neodvisnega finančnega strokovnjaka, podjetje Ecorys Netherlands BV (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Ecorys), da oceni finančno vrednost podjetja Combus v času prodaje podjetju Arriva Denmark a/s.
Ecorys Netherlands BV has cooperated on this assignment with Cowi A/S, an independent Danish transportation consultancy.
Podjetje Ecorys Netherlands BV je pri tej nalogi sodelovalo s Cowi a/s, neodvisnim danskim svetovalnim podjetjem za prevoz.
The valuation report for Combus drawn up by Ecorys is based on the discounted cash flow method, a standard practice for valuing companies.
Podjetje Ecorys je poročilo o vrednotenju o podjetju Combus sestavilo na podlagi metode diskontiranega denarnega toka, kar je standardna praksa za vrednotenje podjetij.
The value of Combus has been assessed as of 1 January 2001, based on the information available at the time to the buyer, that is Arriva Denmark A/S.
Vrednost podjetja Combus je bila ocenjena na dan 1. januarja 2001 na podlagi informacij, s katerimi je takrat razpolagal kupec, podjetje Arriva Denmark a/s.
The information includes in particular the due diligence reports established for Arriva Denmark A/S and the material that had been available in the data room during due diligence.
Informacije vključujejo zlasti poročila o skrbnem pregledu poslovanja, ki so bila pripravljena za podjetje Arriva Denmark a/s, in gradivo, ki je bilo na voljo v podatkovni sobi med skrbnim pregledom.
Ecorys has established three scenarios: a low case, a base case and a high case.
Ecorys je pripravil tri scenarije: za slab primer, za osnovni primer in za dober primer.
These scenarios are defined as follows:
Ti scenariji se opredeljeni, kot sledi:
‘In the Base Case scenario it is assumed that the turnover level of Combus will remain stable, the operational efficiency will improve slightly with one percent per year and investments will be made for replacement of over aged buses (8 year for city buses, 12 year others).
„Scenarij za osnovni primer predvideva, da bo promet podjetja Combus ostal stabilen, učinkovitost se bo nekoliko izboljšala, namreč za en odstotek na leto, in izvedene bodo naložbe za zamenjavo prestarih avtobusov (osem let za mestne avtobuse, 12 let za druge).
Banks are willing to finance 50 percent of the funding needs
Banke so pripravljene financirati 50 odstotkov potrebnih sredstev.
In the Low Case scenario the market size remains stable, but Combus will fail to win new tenders and Turnover will decline.
Po scenariju za slab primer ostane velikost trga stabilna, toda podjetje Combus bo neuspešno na novih razpisih in promet bo upadel.
As a result, no new investments are required as redundant buses will replace the over aged ones.
Zato niso potrebne nobene nove naložbe, saj bodo odvečni avtobusi zamenjali prestare avtobuse.
It is furthermore assumed that banks are only willing to finance 25 percent of the funding needs.
Poleg tega se predvideva, da so banke pripravljene financirati samo 25 odstotkov potrebnih sredstev.
In the High Case scenario it is assumed that debt providers are willing to write off DKK 340 mln at the transaction date.
Scenarij za dober primer predvideva, da so upniki pripravljeni odpisati 340 milijonov DKK na dan transakcije.
The market size will temporarily increase due to the tendering of contract in the Aarhus and Odense region and as the market share of Combus will remain stable, the turnover will slightly increase with one percent per year.
Velikost trga se bo začasno povečala zaradi razpisa za pogodbo v regijah Aarhus in Odense in medtem ko bo tržni delež podjetja Combus ostal stabilen, se bo promet nekoliko povečal za en odstotek na leto.
Combus will be able to improve operational performance indicators up to industry standards, resulting in an increase of operational efficiency and a reduction of costs.
Podjetje Combus bo lahko izboljšalo kazalce poslovne uspešnosti do ravni industrijskih standardov, zaradi česar se bo povečala učinkovitost, stroški pa zmanjšali.
Investments are needed to replace over aged buses and for the expansion of the bus fleet.
Potrebne so naložbe za zamenjavo prestarih avtobusov in razširitev avtobusne flote.
Banks are willing to fund 50 percent of funding needs.’
Banke so pripravljene financirati 50 odstotkov potrebnih sredstev.“
Ecorys distinguishes in its valuation report between the firm value and the equity value of Combus.
Ecorys v svojem poročilu o vrednotenju razlikuje med vrednostjo podjetja in kapitalsko vrednostjo podjetja Combus.
The firm value is defined as the value of Combus as a company under the assumption of efficient financing (in line with comparable companies).
Vrednost podjetja je opredeljena kot vrednost podjetja Combus pod predpostavko učinkovitega financiranja (glede na primerljiva podjetja).
The equity value corresponds to the value of Combus’ shares, given the actual financing.
Kapitalska vrednost ustreza vrednosti delnic podjetja Combus glede na dejansko financiranje.
Ecorys concludes with respect to the firm value:
V zvezi s vrednostjo podjetja je ugotovitev podjetja Ecorys naslednja:
‘The analysis illustrates that the value as per January 2001 of Combus as a company is between DKK 567 mln negative [low case] and DKK 1297 mln positive [high case], with a most likely value of DKK 426 mln [base case].
„Analiza kaže, da je januarja 2001 vrednost podjetja Combus med 567 milijonov DKK negativno [slab primer] in 1,297 milijarde DKK pozitivno [dober primer], najverjetnejša vrednost pa je 426 milijonov DKK [osnovni primer].
This indicates that Combus as a company is in itself viable under the assumption of efficient financing (in line with comparable companies), though certain conditions have to be met in order to achieve its expected return.
To kaže, da je Combus kot podjetje samo po sebi sposobno preživeti pod pogojem učinkovitega financiranja (glede na primerljiva podjetja), čeprav je treba izpolniti določene pogoje, da podjetje doseže pričakovani donos.
These conditions are:
Ti pogoji so:
Combus has to maintain at least a comparable turnover level-a not unrealistic condition in view of its status at the time of being a market leader.
Podjetje Combus mora ohraniti vsaj primerljivo stopnjo prometa – to ni nerealen pogoj glede na njegov status, ko je bilo vodilno podjetje na trgu.
Preferably its individual contracts should be profitable, though this is not a prerequisite as the key principle for profit optimisation is whether the marginal revenues exceed the marginal costs.
Zaželeno je, da so njegove posamezne pogodbe donosne, toda to ni predpogoj, ker je ključno načelo za optimizacijo dobička dejstvo, da mejni prihodki presegajo mejne stroške.
The profitability of a contract needs to be assessed from this economic principle.
Donosnost pogodbe je treba oceniti glede na to ekonomsko načelo.
This analysis is beyond the scope of the underlying study.
Ta analiza ni zajeta v osnovni raziskavi.
A second condition to be met is that Combus needs to improve its operating efficiency and bring it more in line with industry standards.
Drugi pogoj, ki mora biti izpolnjen, je, da podjetje Combus izboljša svojo učinkovitost in jo približa industrijskim standardom.
Again, this not an unrealistic condition in view of the recent change in the status of its employees enhancing the operational flexibility and enabling cost reductions.’
Tudi to ni nerealen pogoj glede na nedavno spremembo statusa njegovih zaposlenih, zaradi katere je poslovanje prožnejše in omogoča zmanjšanje stroškov. V zvezi s kapitalsko vrednostjo je ugotovitev podjetja Ecorys naslednja:“
With respect to the equity value, Ecorys concludes:
Vrednost delnic podjetja Combus je bila takrat [tj.
‘The value of the shares of Combus at the time [i.e. on 1 January 2001] was in the range of DKK 845 negative [low case] and 140 mln positive [high case], with a most likely value of DKK 543 mln negative [base case].
„1 januarja 2001] med 845 milijonov DKK negativno [slab primer] in 140 milijonov DKK pozitivno [dober primer], najverjetnejša pa je bila 543 milijonov DKK negativno [osnovni primer].
The main reason for the equity value being significantly less than the firm value is that the firm value assumes efficient financing.
Kapitalska vrednost je bistveno nižja od vrednosti podjetja, ker slednja predvideva učinkovito financiranje.
However, the rapid growth of Combus’ business was highly inefficiently financed, namely largely through debt, leading to a gearing which is far from comparable to industry standards.’
Toda hitra rast poslovanja podjetja Combus je bila zelo neučinkovito financirana, namreč večinoma z zadolževanjem, kar je privedlo do razmerja, ki je daleč od primerljivega z industrijskimi standardi.“
Arriva Denmark A/S acquired Combus at a negative purchase price of DKK 340 million.
Podjetje Arriva Denmark a/s je kupilo podjetje Combus po negativni nakupni ceni 340 milijonov DKK.
Hence, it accepted to pay a price that was DKK 203 million above the most likely value.
Tako je pristalo, da bo plačalo ceno, ki je bila 203 milijone DKK višja od najverjetnejše vrednosti.
Ecorys speculates about the motivation of Arriva, and observes:
Podjetje Ecorys ugiba, kakšna je bila motivacija podjetja Arriva, in ugotavlja:
‘Apparently, Arriva was convinced it would be able to achieve the operational performance improvements and maintain the turnover level, even beyond the most likely value of DKK 534 mln negative as assessed in this study. Most likely Arriva expected possible synergy gains which have not been assessed in this study.’
„Očitno je bilo podjetje Arriva prepričano, da bo lahko izboljšalo poslovno uspešnost in ohranilo raven prometa tudi v primeru vrednosti, ki presega najverjetnejšo vrednost 534 milijonov DKK negativno, kot je ocenjeno v tej raziskavi. Podjetje Arriva je najverjetneje pričakovalo sinergijske koristi, ki v tej raziskavi niso bile ocenjene.“
In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the buyer of the shares of Combus, Arriva Denmark A/S, paid at least the prevailing market price for the shares.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija sklepa, da je kupec delnic podjetja Combus, podjetje Arriva Denmark a/s, plačal vsaj prevladujočo tržno ceno za delnice.
Accordingly, it cannot be regarded as having benefited from an advantage that could constitute a State aid.
Skladno s tem ni mogoče šteti, da je imelo koristi od prednosti, ki bi lahko pomenile državno pomoč.
ASSET DEAL BETWEEN COMBUS AND ARRIVA SCANDINAVIA A/S
POSEL S SREDSTVI MED PODJETJEMA COMBUS IN ARRIVA SCANDINAVIA A/S
The ECJ considers that the recovery order can be extended to a third undertaking, if this undertaking has been set up to circumvent the recovery order [70].
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti meni, da se lahko nalog za vračilo razširi na tretje podjetje, če je bilo to podjetje ustanovljeno, da bi se izognili nalogu za vračilo [70].
Typical cases of circumvention are cases where the transfer does not reflect any economic logic other than the invalidation of the recovery order [71].
Za značilne primere izogibanja gre takrat, ko prenos ne odraža nobene gospodarske logike, razen razveljavitve naloga za vračilo [71].
As the ECJ points out, ‘such is the case when, following a Commission investigation or decision, the assets and liabilities of the firm as an ongoing concern are transferred to another firm controlled by the same persons at below-market prices or by way of procedures that lack transparency. The purpose of such a transaction can be to place the assets out of reach of the Commission decision and to continue the economic activity in question indefinitely’ [72].
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti izpostavlja, da „gre za tak primer, ko se po preiskavi ali odločitvi Komisije sredstva in obveznosti podjetja prenesejo po načelu delujočega podjetja in po cenah, nižjih od tržnih, ter prek nepreglednih postopkov na drugo podjetje, ki ga upravljajo iste osebe. Namen take transakcije je lahko plasirati sredstva zunaj obsega odločitve Komisije in nadaljevati z zadevno gospodarsko dejavnostjo neomejen čas“ [72].
If the Commission finds that an asset deal has the purpose of circumventing State aid recovery, it has to require that the recovery is not restricted to the original firm but is extended to the firm which continues the activity of the original firm, using the transferred means of production, in cases where certain elements of the transfer point to economic continuity between the two firms.
Če Komisija ugotovi, da je namen posla s sredstvi izogniti se vračilu državne pomoči, mora zahtevati, da vračilo ni omejeno na prvotno podjetje, temveč se nanaša tudi na podjetje, ki nadaljuje z dejavnostjo prvotnega podjetja in pri tem uporablja prenesena proizvodna sredstva, če določeni elementi prenosa kažejo, da gre za gospodarsko kontinuiteto med dvema podjetjema.