natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, HSY fails to see how it could have benefited financially from a guarantee, which was agreed upon between ETVA Bank and HDW/Ferrostaal, or from a guarantee agreed upon between the Greek State and Piraeus Bank.
Poleg tega podjetje HSY ne razume, kako bi lahko imelo finančno korist od poroštva, ki je bilo dogovorjeno med banko ETVA in konzorcijem HDW/Ferrostaal, ali od poroštva, ki je bilo dogovorjeno med grško državo in banko Piraeus Bank.
Even if HDW/Ferrostaal was to receive compensation, there is no obligation for the consortium to inject this amount in HSY.
Tudi če bi konzorcij HDW/Ferrostaal prejel odškodnino, tega zneska ne bi bil zavezan vložiti v podjetje HSY.
Therefore the Commission also fails to show why the indemnifying clause would neutralise a recovery decision.
Zato Komisiji tudi ni uspelo pokazati, kako bi odškodninska določba lahko nevtralizirala odločbo o povrnitvi.
According to the Courts’ case law, by repaying the aid, the recipient forfeits the advantage, and the situation prior to the granting of the aid can be restored.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča prejemnik s povračilom pomoči izgubi prednost in lahko se obnovi položaj pred odobritvijo pomoči.
Finally, if the Commission considered the indemnifying clause to be State aid, Greece claims that Articles 296 to 298 of the Treaty would be applicable.
Če Komisija meni, da odškodninska določba pomeni državno pomoč, potem Grčija trdi, da bi v tem primeru veljali členi 296 do 298 Pogodbe ES.
In this context, HSY indicates that, given that the Hellenic Navy was always the most important client of the yard, the procedure and the terms of the privatisation, including the entry into force of Law 2941/2001, should be examined under the light of the State-client, which for national defence reasons is interested in maintaining the operation and the viability of the yard.
V zvezi s tem podjetje HSY navaja, da bi bilo treba glede na to, da je Grška mornarica bila vedno najpomembnejša stranka ladjedelnice, postopek in pogoje privatizacije, vključno z začetkom veljavnosti Zakona 2941/2001, pregledati z vidika države-stranke, ki iz razlogov državne varnosti želi ohraniti dejavnosti in sposobnost preživetja ladjedelnice.
In the present case, the Greek State has adopted such measures, which any private company, whose interests are related to the viability of another undertaking, would have adopted.
V tem primeru je grška država sprejela takšne ukrepe, ki bi jih sprejelo tudi vsako zasebno podjetje, katerega interesi so povezani s sposobnostjo preživetja drugega podjetja.
Moreover, this assessment is even more important when the State has the obligation to bear the burden and the losses of the company’s dissolution and liquidation, which would be more costly and thus non-profitable.
Ta ocena je toliko bolj pomembna, kadar mora država nositi breme in izgube zaradi prenehanja delovanja in likvidacije podjetja, kar bi povzročilo še večje stroške in bi zato bilo nedonosno.
The Commission considers that the measure does not fall within the scope of Article 296 of the Treaty.
Komisija meni, da ukrep ne spada na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe.
Indeed, the indemnification mechanism applies in case of recovery of State aid from HSY.
Odškodninski mehanizem se dejansko uporablja v primeru izterjave državne pomoči od podjetja HSY.
As has been claimed by Greece and accepted consistently by the Commission, the military activities of HSY are essential for Greece’s security, are falling under Article 296 and therefore the State aid rules do not apply to them.
Kot je zatrdila Grčija in kot je skladno s tem sprejela tudi Komisija, so vojaške dejavnosti podjetja HSY temeljnega pomena za varnost Grčije, spadajo v okvir člena 296 in zato zanje ne veljajo pravila o državni pomoči.
Since all State support provided to the military activities of HSY is exempted from State aid rules, any recovery of State aid can only be the recovery of State support provided to the civil activities of HSY.
Ker je vsa državna podpora vojaških dejavnosti podjetja HSY izvzeta iz pravil o državni pomoči, pomeni izterjava državne pomoči samo izterjavo tiste državne podpore, namenjene civilnim dejavnostim podjetja HSY.
Consequently, the present guarantee is directly and exclusively related to the civil activities of HSY.
Zaradi tega je to poroštvo neposredno in izključno povezano s civilnimi dejavnostmi podjetja HSY.
Some parties claim that, without this guarantee, no investor would have purchased HSY and the yard would probably have gone bankrupt.
Nekatere stranke trdijo, da brez tega poroštva noben vlagatelj ne bi kupil podjetja HSY in da bi zato ladjedelnica verjetno šla v stečaj.
Therefore, even if it relates exclusively to the civil activities of HSY, this measure was nevertheless indispensable to ensure the survival of the military activities of HSY and therefore falls under Article 296.
Tudi če se ta ukrep torej nanaša izključno na civilne dejavnosti podjetja HSY, je kljub temu neizogiben za zagotovitev preživetja vojaških dejavnosti podjetja HSY in zato spada na področje uporabe člena 296.
The Commission cannot accept this argument.
Komisija te trditve ne more sprejeti.
On the basis of Article 296, Greece could have granted to the military activities the financial support they needed to ensure their continuation.
Na podlagi člena 296 bi Grčija lahko odobrila finančno podporo vojaškim dejavnostim, ki je bila potrebna za njihovo nadaljevanje.
Greece would have thereby avoided the demise of the military activities.
Grčija bi se s tem izognila dajanju vojaških dejavnosti v zakup.
Alternatively, Greece could have granted the financial support necessary to render the military activities attractive for a potential investor, such that these military activities would have been purchased and thereby their continuation would have been ensured.
Grčija bi lahko odobrila tudi finančno podporo, potrebno za predajo vojaških dejavnosti, ki bi bile zanimive za potencialnega vlagatelja, kar pomeni, da bi vlagatelj te vojaške dejavnosti kupil, s čimer bi zagotovil njihovo nadaljevanje.
An investor purchasing the military activities would not have needed a guarantee like the present one since, as just explained, no aid could be recovered from the military activities of HSY.
Vlagatelj, ki bi kupil vojaške dejavnosti, ne bi potreboval tukaj opisanega poroštva, saj, kot je bilo pravkar pojasnjeno, od podjetja HSY ne bi bilo mogoče izterjati nikakršne pomoči za opravljanje vojaških dejavnosti.
Consequently, the present measure was solely necessary in order to find a purchaser for the entire HSY, i.e. including the civil activities.
Zaradi tega je bil ta ukrep potreben samo zato, da bi se našel kupec za celotno podjetje HSY, tj. tudi za civilne dejavnosti.
The effect of the present measure was thus to permit to find a purchaser for the civil activities of HSY, and thereby to ensure the continuation of these activities.
Učinek tega ukrepa je torej omogočiti iskanje kupca za civilne dejavnosti podjetja HSY in s tem zagotoviti nadaljevanje teh dejavnosti.
It was not necessary to ensure the continuation of the military activities.
Nadaljevanja vojaških dejavnosti ni bilo treba zagotavljati.
It does therefore not fall within the scope of Article 296 of the Treaty.
Ukrep torej ne sodi na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe.
Since some parties contests that the two guarantees — the one granted by the State to Piraeus Bank and the one granted by ETVA to HDW/Ferrostaal — constitute one single guarantee mechanism and that HSY is the beneficiary of the two guarantees, the Commission will first assess separately the guarantee granted by ETVA to HDW/Ferrostaal and demonstrates that it constitutes State aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Ker nekatere stranke izpodbijajo, da poroštvi – poroštvo, ki ga je država odobrila banki Piraeus Bank, in poroštvo, ki ga je banka ETVA odobrila konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal – predstavljata en sam poroštveni mehanizem in da je bilo podjetje HSY upravičenec do obeh poroštev, bo Komisija najprej posebej ocenila poroštvo, ki ga je banka ETVA odobrila konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal, ter pokazala, da to pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
In order to constitute a State aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, a measure must be imputable to the State.
Da bi ukrep predstavljal državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe, ga mora biti mogoče pripisati državi.
Some parties contest that the guarantee granted by ETVA to HDW/Ferrostaal is imputable to the State.
Nekatere stranke izpodbijajo, da je poroštvo, ki ga je banka ETVA odobrila konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal, mogoče pripisati državi.
They claim that the decision to grant this guarantee was taken independently and freely by ETVA.
Trdijo namreč, da je banka ETVA odločitev o odobritvi tega poroštva sprejela neodvisno in svobodno.
First, during the privatisation process of HSY, this guarantee was appearing in the documents submitted to the potential bidders.
prvič, med postopkom privatizacije podjetja HSY se je to poroštvo pojavljalo v dokumentih, ki so bili predloženi potencialnim ponudnikom.
In other words, already during the privatisation process, there was a promise that the purchaser of HSY would be indemnified for any State aid recovered from HSY.
Z drugimi besedami, že v postopku privatizacije je nastala obljuba, da bo kupec podjetja HSY dobil odškodnino za vsako državno pomoč, ki jo bo podjetje HSY povrnilo.
In addition, on 14 September 2001, ETVA explicitly and unambiguously committed to provide this guarantee to HDW/Ferrostaal if the European Union would not give clearance regarding past and present State aid granted to HSY.
Poleg tega se je 14. septembra 2001 banka ETVA izrecno in jasno zavezala, da bo zagotovila to poroštvo konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal, če Evropska unija ne izda obračuna v zvezi s preteklimi in tekočimi državnimi pomočmi, odobrenimi podjetju HSY.
Clause 1.2.3 of HSY SPA signed on 11 October 2001 explicitly refers to the document signed on 14 September 2001.
Klavzula 1.2.3 sporazuma HSY SPA, podpisanega 11. oktobra 2001, se jasno sklicuje na dokument, podpisan 14. septembra 2001.
The discussion regarding the precise wording of the guarantee continued in the following months.
Razprava o natančnem besedilu poroštva se je nadaljevala v naslednjih mesecih.
Since the Commission did not give a letter of comfort/negative clearance regarding past and present aids to HSY, ETVA had on 31 May 2002 to issue the guarantee in favour of HDW/Ferrostaal, as had been agreed by the parties on 14 September 2001 and in Clause 1.2.3 of HSY SPA.
Ker Komisija ni izdala priporočilnega pisma/negativnega potrdila v zvezi s preteklimi in trenutnimi pomočmi za podjetje HSY, je banka ETVA 31. maja 2002 morala izdati poroštvo v korist konzorcija HDW/Ferrostaal, kot so se 14. septembra 2001 dogovorile stranke in kot je bilo določeno v klavzuli 1.2.3 sporazuma HSY SPA.
All the foregoing illustrates that, even though the Addendum containing the guarantee to HDW/Ferrostaal was signed on 31 May 2002, ETVA already committed to grant this guarantee (if the EU did not clear past and present aids) at a time when ETVA was still under the control of the State.
Vse navedeno kaže, da tudi če je bil dodatek, s katerim je bilo konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal zagotovljeno poroštvo, podpisan 31. maja 2002, se je banka ETVA že zavezala, da bo to poroštvo odobrila (če EU ne obračuna preteklih in trenutnih pomoči), v času, ko je bila še pod nadzorom države.
In other words, the Addendum of 31 May 2002 is the execution of a contract entered into by ETVA when it was still under State control.
Z drugimi besedami, dodatek z dne 31. maja 2002 pomeni, da se je pogodba, ki jo je sklenila banka ETVA, začela izvrševati, ko je bila banka ETVA še pod državnim nadzorom.
As shown in section 3.2 of the present decision, when ETVA was under State control, all the actions it took towards HSY can be considered imputable to the State.
Kot je navedeno v oddelku 3.2 te odločbe, se lahko vsi ukrepi, ki jih je banka ETVA sprejela v zvezi s podjetjem HSY, ko je bila še pod državnim nadzorom, razumejo kot ukrepi, ki jih je mogoče pripisati državi.
All these elements were confirmed by Greece in its letter of 23 May 2005,Second, even if it were considered that, on the basis of the aforementioned documents concluded by ETVA when it was under the control of the State (i.e. until end March 2002), there existed no contractual obligation of ETVA to grant this guarantee to HDW/Ferrostaal, the measure would still be imputable to the State.
Vse to je potrdila Grčija v svojem dopisu z dne 23. maja 2005.Drugič, tudi če bi veljalo, da na podlagi zgoraj navedenih dokumentov, ki jih je banka ETVA sklenila, ko je bila še pod nadzorom države (tj. do konca marca 2002), banka ETVA ni bila pogodbeno zavezana k odobritvi tega poroštva konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal, bi bilo ukrep še vedno mogoče pripisati državi. Komisija dejansko ugotavlja, da je Grčija še naprej vodila prodajo podjetja HSY tudi po prodaji banke ETVA banki Piraeus Bank.
Indeed, the Commission observes that Greece continued to manage the sale of HSY even after the sale of ETVA to Piraeus Bank.
V členu 8.2.2 Sporazuma z dne 20. marca 2002, sklenjenega med državo in banko Piraeus Bank, je navedeno, da banka ETVA ne bo odgovorna za postopek prodaje podjetja HSY, ki ga bo še naprej vodila država.
Article 8.2.2 of the Agreement of 20 March 2002 between the State and Piraeus Bank provides that ETVA will not be responsible for the sale process of HSY, which the State will continue to manage.
V členu 8.2.2(b) je na primer določeno, da bo država „prevzela nadzor, skrb in odgovornost za dejanja in pogajanja s tretjim kupcem deleža v podjetju Hellenic Shipyards“.
Third, even if the two foregoing points were dismissed, the guarantee would still be imputable to the State.
Tretjič, tudi če bi predhodni točki opustili, bi bilo poroštvo še vedno mogoče pripisati državi.
The Commission indeed observes that the State decided to privatise HSY.
Komisija namreč ugotavlja, da se je država odločila za privatizacijo podjetja HSY.
When Piraeus Bank took control of ETVA, it was therefore obliged by law to privatise HSY.
Ko je banka Piraeus Bank prevzela nadzor nad banko ETVA, je bila torej po zakonu obvezana, da podjetje HSY privatizira.
As acknowledged by TKMS/GNSH itself, HDW/Ferrostaal would not have purchased HSY if they would not have received such a guarantee.
Kot sta priznali že podjetji TKMS/GNSH, konzorcij HDW/Ferrostaal ne bi kupil podjetja HSY, če ne bi prejel takšnega poroštva.
Since the State decided that HSY had to be sold, and since the grant of the guarantee was indispensable to sell HSY, it can be concluded that the State put ETVA in a situation where it was forced to issue the guarantee.
Ker se je država odločila, da je treba podjetje HSY prodati, in ker je bila dodelitev poroštva za prodajo podjetja HSY nujno potrebna, se lahko ugotovi, da je država banko ETVA pripeljala v položaj, v katerem je bila takšno poroštvo prisiljena odobriti.
Therefore, even if it would be concluded that ETVA decided to grant the guarantee in May 2002 without any direct involvement of the State, the measure would remain imputable to the State,
Zato bi bilo ukrep še vedno mogoče pripisati državi, tudi če bi se ugotovilo, da je banka ETVA sklenila odobriti poroštvo maja 2002 brez kakršne koli neposredne vpletenosti države.
Fourth, even if all the previous points were dismissed, it should be concluded that ETVA accepted to grant the guarantee on 31 May 2002 only because its controlling shareholder (i.e. Piraeus Bank) had received a guarantee from the State protecting him against any financial damage stemming from this guarantee.
Četrtič, tudi če bi opustili vse predhodne točke, bi bilo treba ugotoviti, da je banka ETVA privolila v dodelitev poroštva 31. maja 2002 samo zato, ker je njena glavna delničarka (tj. banka Piraeus Bank) prejela poroštvo od države, s katerim je bila zavarovana pred morebitno finančno škodo, ki bi izhajala iz tega poroštva.
Indeed, as will be shown, a market economy investor would never have granted such a guarantee without having received a counter guarantee from the State.
Kot bo še opisano, vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva dejansko ne bi nikoli odobril takšnega poroštva, če prej ne bi prejel posrednega poroštva od države.
The granting of the guarantee occurred only because the State had protected the economic unit (i.e. the group) granting the guarantee from any negative consequence (by granting a counter guarantee).
Do odobritve poroštva je prišlo samo zato, ker je država ščitila gospodarsko enoto (tj. skupino), ki je poroštvo odobrila, pred morebitnimi negativnimi posledicami (z odobritvijo posrednega poroštva).
In such a case, where a firm simply transfer an aid to a second firm, the granting of the measure is imputable to the State.
V takšnem primeru, ko eno podjetje preprosto prenese pomoč na drugo podjetje, se odobritev ukrepa lahko pripiše državi.
In order to constitute a State aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, a measure must be financed by State resources.
Da bi ukrep pomenil državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe, mora biti financiran iz državnih sredstev.
The Notice on guarantees indicates that ‘The aid is granted at the moment when the guarantee is given, not the moment at which the guarantee is invoked or the moment at which payments are made under the terms of the guarantee.
V obvestilu o poroštvih je navedeno, da je „[p]omoč dodeljena v trenutku, ko je izdano poroštvo, in ne v trenutku, ko je poroštvo uveljavljeno, ali v trenutku, ko pride do izplačil pod pogoji poroštva.
Since the Notice on guarantees indicates that the existence of aid has to be analysed at the time of the grant of the guarantee and not later when the guarantee is invoked, it can be concluded that by committing to grant the guarantee, the State put State resources at risk and the guarantee therefore involves State resources.
Ker je v obvestilu o poroštvih navedeno, da je treba obstoj pomoči analizirati v trenutku odobritve poroštva in ne pozneje, ko se poroštvo uveljavlja, je mogoče ugotoviti, da je država s svojo obljubo, da bo poroštvo odobrila, povzročila tveganje za državna sredstva, kar pomeni, da poroštvo dejansko vključuje državna sredstva.
The fact that ETVA was sold to Piraeus bank shortly after does not affect this conclusion.
Dejstvo, da je bila banka ETVA kmalu po tem prodana banki Piraeus Bank, ne vpliva na to ugotovitev.
Indeed, if the State has correctly informed the bidders about the contractual obligations of ETVA — including this commitment of ETVA to provide the guarantee to HDW/Ferrostaal if the Commission does not issue a comfort letter — the bidders must have taken into account this commitment of ETVA.
Če je država ustrezno obvestila ponudnike o pogodbenih obveznostih banke ETVA – vključno z zavezanostjo banke ETVA k zagotovitvi poroštva konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal, če Komisija ne izda upravnega pisma –, so ponudniki to obveznost banke ETVA zagotovo upoštevali.
They must therefore have revised downwards the price they were ready to pay to purchase ETVA.
Cene, ki so jih bili pripravljeni plačati za nakup banke ETVA, so torej morali popraviti navzdol.
This means that the State sold ETVA at a lower price and therefore lost resources.
To pomeni, da je država banko ETVA prodala po nižji ceni in tako izgubila sredstva.
As indicated above, even if it were concluded that, at the time when ETVA was still under State ownership, ETVA did not contractually commit to issue the guarantee, the Commission considers that by deciding to privatise HSY in January 2001 — at a time when ETVA was still under State ownership — the State put ETVA in a situation where it was forced to issue such a guarantee since the latter was indispensable to find a purchaser for HSY.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, tudi če bi bilo ugotovljeno, da se v času, ko je bila še vedno v lasti države, banka ETVA ni pogodbeno zavezala k odobritvi poroštva, Komisija meni, da je država z odločitvijo, da bo podjetje HSY privatizirala januarja 2001 – v času, ko je bila banka ETVA še vedno v lasti države –, spravila banko ETVA v položaj, v katerem je bila takšno poroštvo prisiljena odobriti, saj je bilo nujno potrebno poiskati kupca za podjetje HSY.
This entails that when the bidders made their bid for ETVA, they must have taken into account the fact that ETVA would have to issue this guarantee.
To pomeni, da so ponudniki v času predložitve svojih ponudb za banko ETVA zagotovo upoštevali dejstvo, da bo banka ETVA morala to poroštvo odobriti.
According, they proposed a lower price for purchasing ETVA and this therefore also leads to the conclusion that State resources have been lost.
V skladu s tem so za nakup banke ETVA predlagali nižjo ceno, na podlagi česar se lahko ugotovi, da so bila državna sredstva izgubljena.
Even if it were concluded that when the State sold ETVA there was no obligation (neither contractually nor de facto) to issue this guarantee, it can still be demonstrated that the guarantee granted by ETVA involves State resources.
Tudi če bi bilo ugotovljeno, da v času, ko je država prodala banko ETVA, ni bilo nikakršne obveznosti (ne pogodbene ne dejanske) za odobritev tega poroštva, se še vedno lahko pokaže, da poroštvo, ki ga je odobrila banka ETVA, vključuje državna sredstva.
Indeed, the State granted to the purchaser of ETVA (i.e. Piraeus Bank) a guarantee by which the State promised to refund Piraeus Bank 100 % of any amount which ETVA would have to pay under the guarantee ETVA will issue in favour of HDW/Ferrostaal.
Država je dejansko kupcu banke ETVA (tj. banki Piraeus Bank) odobrila poroštvo, s katerim je obljubila povrniti banki Piraeus Bank 100 % vseh zneskov, ki bi jih banka ETVA morala plačati v okviru poroštva, ki ga bo izdala v korist konzorcija HDW/Ferrostaal.
This counter guarantee was granted in successive contracts.
To posredno poroštvo je bilo odobreno v zaporednih pogodbah.
In the Agreement of 18 December 2001 between the State and Piraeus Bank for the sale of 57,7 % of ETVA, the State committed to pay to Piraeus Bank 57,7 % of any amount which ETVA would pay to the purchaser of HSY.
V sporazumu z dne 18. decembra 2001 med državo in banko Piraeus Bank o prodaji 57,7-odstotnega deleža banke ETVA se je država zavezala, da bo banki Piraeus Bank plačala 57,7 % vseh zneskov, ki jih bo banka ETVA morala plačati kupcu podjetja HSY.
In the Agreement of 20 March 2002 between the same parties and which amended the agreement of 18 December 2001, the State committed to pay to Piraeus Bank 100 % of any amount ETVA would have to pay to the purchaser of HSY.
V sporazumu z dne 20. marca 2002 med istima strankama, s katerim je bil spremenjen sporazum z dne 18. decembra 2001, se je država zavezala, da bo banki Piraeus Bank plačala 100 % vseh zneskov, ki jih bo banka ETVA morala plačati kupcu podjetja HSY.
By letter dated 31 May 2002 sent to Piraeus Bank, the State confirmed to the latter that it would refund 100 % of any amount paid by ETVA to HSY’s purchaser.
Z dopisom z dne 31. maja 2002, poslanim banki Piraeus Bank, je država slednji potrdila, da ji bo povrnila 100 % vseh zneskov, ki jih bo banka ETVA plačala kupcu podjetja HSY.
In other words, when ETVA signed the Addendum to HSY SPA on 31 May 2002, Piraeus Bank had received a guarantee from the State providing that it would be 100 % indemnified for any amount ETVA would have to pay as a consequence of the guarantee planned to be granted to HDW/Ferrostaal.
Z drugimi besedami, ko je banka ETVA podpisala dodatek k sporazumu HSY SPA 31. maja 2002, je banka Piraeus Bank prejela od države poroštvo, na podlagi katerega ji je bilo zagotovljeno, da bo prejela 100-odstotno odškodnino za vsak znesek, ki bi ga banka ETVA morala plačati zaradi poroštva, ki bo odobreno konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal.
This shows that any amount paid by ETVA would ultimately be financed by the State budget and that the guarantee involves State resources.
To dokazuje, da bi bil vsak znesek, ki bi ga plačala banka ETVA, financiran iz državnega proračuna in da poroštvo vključuje državna sredstva.