natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As has also been explained in the present decision, the contract concluded with Strintzis at the beginning of 1999 was a big failure for HSY.
Kot je bilo že pojasnjeno v tej odločbi, je bila pogodba, sklenjena v začetku leta 1999 s podjetjem Strintzis, velik poraz za podjetje HSY.
The contract was cancelled in 2002, HSY had to pay the contractual indemnities to Strintzis and sold the hulls in 2004 at a price which was only a small fraction of the tens of millions of Euro of costs which HSY had incurred to build these hulls.
Pogodba je bila razveljavljena leta 2002, podjetje HSY je podjetju Strintzis moralo plačati pogodbeno odškodnino, leta 2004 pa je prodalo trupe po ceni, ki je bila samo majhen del več deset milijonov EUR stroškov, ki jih je podjetje HSY ustvarilo pri gradnji teh trupov.
This contract was therefore also highly loss-making.
Ta pogodba je zato ustvarila zelo visoko izgubo.
Finally, the last civil activity was the ship repair.
Zadnja civilna dejavnost je bila popravilo ladij.
It is a low margin business since there is fierce competition between yards.
Gre za dejavnost z nizkimi maržami, saj med ladjedelnicami obstaja huda konkurenca.
The Commission therefore doubts that this activity has been profitable, and, in any event, it was certainly unable to compensate the big losses stemming from the ISAP, OSE and Strintzis contracts.
Komisija zato dvomi, da je bila ta dejavnost donosna, v vsakem primeru pa zagotovo ni mogla nadomestiti velikih izgub, ki izhajajo iz pogodb s podjetji ISAP, OSE in Strintzis.
Above all, the failure to carry out correctly the ISAP, OSE and Strintzis contracts proves that, without being purchased by a large firm and without benefiting from the technical and project management skills of the latter, the civil activities would have remained loss-making.
Neuspeh pravilne izvršitve pogodb s podjetji ISAP, OSE in Strintzis predvsem dokazuje, da bi civilne dejavnosti še naprej ustvarjale izgubo, če jih ne bi kupilo veliko podjetje in če ne bi imele koristi od njegovega tehničnega znanja in znanja na področju vodenja projektov.
In summary, the Commission has shown in this paragraph that without the guarantee, no investor would have purchased the civil activities of HSY and, if these activities had not been purchased, they would have stopped rapidly.
Komisija je torej v tem odstavku pokazala, da brez poroštva noben vlagatelj ne bi kupil civilnih dejavnosti podjetja HSY in da bi se te hitro ustavile, če ne bi bile prodane.
The Commission concludes that the beneficiary of the guarantee is HSY and that the advantage is to allow the continuation of the civil activities.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je upravičenec do poroštva podjetje HSY in da je prednost namenjena za to, da se omogoči nadaljevanje civilnih dejavnosti.
Elefsis disagree with the prior conclusion regarding the identification of the beneficiary.
Podjetje Elefsis se ne strinja s predhodno ugotovitvijo o določitvi upravičenca.
Elefsis claims that, in addition to HSY, HDW/Ferrostaal was also a beneficiary of the guarantee granted by ETVA.
Trdi namreč, da je bil poleg podjetja HSY upravičenec do poroštva, ki ga je odobrila banka ETVA, tudi konzorcij HDW/Ferrostaal.
The Commission disagrees with this assessment.
Komisija se s to oceno ne strinja.
As has been shown, in the tender document submitted to the bidders, it was already indicated that they would be indemnified in case of recovery of State aid from HSY.
Kot je bilo navedeno, je bilo že v razpisni dokumentaciji, poslani ponudnikom, navedeno, da bodo ponudniki prejeli odškodnino v primeru, če bo podjetje HSY moralo povrniti državno pomoč.
This means that when HDW/Ferrostaal made its bid for the purchase of HSY, it made the assumptions that, if any aid would be recovered from HSY, it would receive a corresponding indemnification from ETVA.
To pomeni, da je konzorcij HDW/Ferrostaal, ko je dal ponudbo za nakup podjetja HSY, predpostavil, da bo od banke ETVA prejel ustrezno odškodnino, če bi bila od podjetja HSY izterjana kakršna koli pomoč.
In order words, the purchase price proposed by HDW/Ferrostaal was already taking into account the indemnification guarantee.
Z drugimi besedami, v nakupni ceni, ki jo je predlagal konzorcij HDW/Ferrostaal, je bilo odškodninsko poroštvo že upoštevano.
The guarantee has therefore not favoured HDW/Ferrostaal.
Poroštvo torej ni bilo namenjeno za podporo konzorcija HDW/Ferrostaal.
The Commission concludes that the guarantee granted by ETVA to HDW/Ferrostaal constitutes State aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and the beneficiary of this aid is HSY.
Komisija ugotavlja, da poroštvo, ki ga je banka ETVA odobrila konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe, upravičenec do te pomoči pa je podjetje HSY.
As regards the guarantee granted by the Greek State to Piraeus Bank, it also constitutes aid.
Poroštvo, ki ga je grška država odobrila banki Piraeus Bank, prav tako pomeni pomoč.
It is a selective measure financed by State resources.
Gre za selektivni ukrep, financiran iz državnih sredstev.
A market economy investor selling ETVA would not have granted such a guarantee.
Vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva, ki bi prodajal banko ETVA, takšnega poroštva ne bi odobril.
Indeed, the only justification for granting this guarantee was the guarantee granted by ETVA to HDW/Ferrostaal.
Edino opravičilo za odobritev tega poroštva je bilo poroštvo, ki ga je banka ETVA odobrila konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal.
If the latter guarantee had not been granted, it would not have been necessary to provide the guarantee to Piraeus Bank.
Če slednje ne bi bilo odobreno, ne bi bilo treba odobriti poroštva banki Piraeus Bank.
Since, as has been explained, no market economy investor would have granted the guarantee granted by ETVA, which constitutes State aid, no market economy investor would have granted the guarantee to Piraeus Bank (since the latter guarantee would not have been necessary, i.e. it would have been irrelevant).
Ker noben vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva, kot je bilo že pojasnjeno, ne bi odobril poroštva, ki ga je odobrila banka ETVA in ki predstavlja državno pomoč, potem tudi noben vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva ne bi odobril niti poroštva banki Piraeus Bank (ker to poroštvo ne bi bilo potrebno, tj. bilo bi brezpredmetno).
As regards the identification of the beneficiary of the guarantee granted by the State to Piraeus Bank, the Commission recalls that the present procedure concerns potential State aid to HSY.
Kar zadeva določitev upravičenca do poroštva, ki ga je država odobrila banki Piraeus Bank, Komisija opozarja, da ta postopek zadeva možno državno pomoč podjetju HSY.
No other potential beneficiary is mentioned in the extension decision.
V odločbi o podaljšanju postopka ni omenjen noben drug potencialni upravičenec.
Therefore, only aid to HSY can be investigated in the framework of the present procedure.
Zato je mogoče v okviru tega postopka preiskati samo pomoč, zagotovljeno podjetju HSY.
If the guarantee granted by the State to Piraeus Bank were to constitute aid to HSY, it would not constitute additional State aid on top of the State aid included in the guarantee granted by ETVA to HDW/Ferrostaal.
Če bi poroštvo, ki ga je država odobrila banki Piraeus Bank, pomenilo pomoč za podjetje HSY, ne bi predstavljalo dodatne državne pomoči poleg tiste, ki je vključena v poroštvo, ki ga je banka ETVA odobrila konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal.
Indeed, it is thanks to the latter guarantee that a private investor accepted to purchase HSY and that the civil activities of HSY were thereby saved.
Prav zaradi slednjega poroštva je namreč zasebni vlagatelj privolil v nakup podjetja HSY in prav zato so se ohranile civilne dejavnosti podjetja HSY.
In other words, the guarantee granted by the State to Piraeus Bank does not provide an additional advantage to HSY and can therefore not constitute additional aid to HSY: all the advantage to HSY is granted by the guarantee granted by ETVA to HDW/Ferrostaal.
Z drugimi besedami, poroštvo, ki ga je država odobrila banki Piraeus Bank, ne zagotavlja dodatne prednosti podjetju HSY in zato ne more pomeniti dodatne pomoči za podjetje HSY: vsa prednost za podjetje HSY je zagotovljena s poroštvom, ki ga je banka ETVA odobrila konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal.
In the present procedure which concerns potential State aid to HSY, the Commission therefore does not have to take a final view on the identity of the beneficiary of the guarantee granted by the Greek State to Piraeus Bank and the Commission does not have to further investigate the latter guarantee.
V tem postopku, ki se nanaša na potencialno pomoč za podjetje HSY, Komisiji torej ni treba izraziti končnega mnenja o določitvi upravičenca do poroštva, ki ga je država odobrila banki Piraeus Bank, zato ji slednjega poroštva tudi ni treba natančneje raziskati.
It is sufficient to investigate the former guarantee — the guarantee of ETVA to HDW/Ferrostaal — and to cancel it if it constitutes incompatible aid to HSY.
Zadostuje že sama preiskava prvega poroštva – poroštva banke ETVA konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal – in njegova razveljavitev, v kolikor bi pomenilo nezdružljivo pomoč za podjetje HSY.
As regards the guarantee granted by ETVA to HDW/Ferrostaal, the Commission fails to see how this aid could be found compatible on the basis of Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty.
Kar zadeva poroštvo, ki ga je banka ETVA odobrila konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal, Komisija ne more razumeti, kako bi lahko bila ta pomoč združljiva na podlagi člena 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe.
As regards Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, the Commission observes that HSY was in difficulty.
Kar zadeva člen 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, Komisija ugotavlja, da je bilo podjetje HSY v težavah.
The Commission has already indicated that aid to shipbuilding was regulated from 1 January 1999 by Regulation (EC) No 1540/98.
Komisija je že navedla, da pomoč za ladjedelništvo od 1. januarja 1999 ureja Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1540/98.
Article 5 indicates that restructuring aid ‘may exceptionally be considered compatible with the common market provided that it complies with the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulties’.
V členu 5 je navedeno, da se lahko pomoč za prestrukturiranje „izjemoma šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom, če izpolnjuje smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah“.
For instance, under condition (b) ‘Restoration of viability’, the granting of the aid must be ‘conditional on implementation of the restructuring plan which must be endorsed by the Commission in the case of all individual aid measure’.
Na primer, v okviru pogoja (b) „Obnovitev sposobnosti preživetja“ mora biti odobritev pomoči „odvisna od izvajanja načrta za prestrukturiranje, ki ga mora Komisija odobriti v primeru vsakega posameznega ukrepa pomoči“.
The Commission observes that the grant of the guarantee was not conditional on implementation of a restructuring plan.
Komisija ugotavlja, da odobritev poroštva ni bila odvisna od izvajanja načrta za prestrukturiranje.
In addition, this plan, since it was not submitted to the Commission, has not been endorsed by it.
Poleg tega Komisija tega načrta ni odobrila, saj ji ni bil predložen.
The guidelines also indicate ‘the plan must be submitted in all relevant detail to the Commission’.
V smernicah je navedeno tudi, da „je treba vse podrobnosti načrta predložiti Komisiji“.
This pre-consultation of the Commission was especially necessary in the present case since the Commission had already approved a restructuring plan in 1997, which had failed to restore the viability of HSY.
To predhodno posvetovanje s Komisijo je bilo zlasti pomembno v tem primeru, saj je Komisija leta 1997 že odobrila načrt za prestrukturiranje, ki pa ni uspel obnoviti sposobnosti preživetja podjetja HSY.
As noted in the analysis of measure P1, the State granted this aid in December 1997 (but did not pay it out).
Kot je navedeno v analizi ukrepa P1, je država to pomoč odobrila decembra 1997 (vendar je ni izplačala).
As has been shown in this decision, the firm also received several non-notified and incompatible aids in the years before the 2001–2002 privatisation.
Kot je razvidno iz te odločbe, je podjetje v letih pred privatizacijo v obdobju 2001–2002 prejelo tudi več nepriglašenih in nezdružljivih pomoči.
The restructuring aid authorised by decision C 10/94 was granted to the yard but the conditions attached to its approval were not respected.
Pomoč za prestrukturiranje, ki je bila odobrena z odločbo C 10/94, je bila dodeljena ladjedelnici, vendar pa niso bili spoštovani nobeni pogoji, povezani z njeno odobritvijo.
Since the guarantee granted by ETVA to HDW/Ferrostaal constitutes incompatible aid in favour of HSY, the Commission considers that it has to be stopped immediately.
Ker poroštvo, ki ga je banka ETVA odobrila konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal, pomeni nezdružljivo pomoč v korist podjetja HSY, Komisija meni, da ga je treba takoj razveljaviti.
Per se prohibition of the guarantee
Prepoved poroštva kot taka
As indicated in the extension decision, the guarantee granted to HDW/Ferrostaal is incompatible with the common market for a second reason.
Kot je navedeno v odločbi o podaljšanju postopka, je poroštvo, dodeljeno konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal, nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom iz še enega razloga.
The Commission considers that it is per se incompatible since, by preventing any recovery of aid from HSY to have an ‘effect utile’, it prevents the application of the State aid rules.
Komisija meni, da je nezdružljivo samo po sebi, saj s tem, ko onemogoča učinkovitost izterjave pomoči od podjetja HSY, onemogoča uporabo pravil o državni pomoči.
TKMS/GNSH and HSY contest this position.
Podjetji TKMS/GNSH in podjetje HSY to stališče izpodbijajo.
In particular, they recall that HSY is not the recipient of any indemnity payment.
Zlasti opozarjajo, da podjetje HSY ni prejemnik nikakršne odškodnine.
Indeed, the guarantee issued by ETVA insures HDW/Ferrostaal and not HSY.
Poroštvo, ki ga je izdala banka ETVA, je dejansko namenjeno kot zavarovanje za HDW/Ferrostaal in ne za podjetje HSY.
Therefore, if the Commission would order the reimbursement of aid, HSY would have to make the reimbursement and this would restore the initial situation.
Če bi torej Komisija zahtevala povračilo pomoči, bi podjetje HSY to moralo storiti, s čimer bi se obnovil izhodiščni položaj.
TKMS/GNSH fails to understand why the indemnification of TKMS/GNSH (as successor of HDW/Ferrostaal) would invalidate this conclusion.
Podjetji TKMS/GNSH ne razumeta, kako bi odškodnina, ki bi jo prejeli (kot naslednika konzorcija HDW/Ferrostaal), to ugotovitev ovrgla.
Indeed, there is no obligation for TKMS/GNSH to re-invest in HSY the indemnification received.
Podjetji TKMS/GNSH dejansko nista dolžni v podjetje HSY ponovno vložiti prejete odškodnine.
The Commission observes that 100 % of the shares of HSY were purchased by HDW/Ferrostaal and are now held by TKMS/GNSH.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je 100-odstotni delež podjetja HSY kupil konzorcij HDW/Ferrostaal, ta delež pa je zdaj v lasti podjetij TKMS/GNSH.
This means that, even if HSY and its shareholder are two different legal entities, they form one single economic unit.
To pomeni, da tudi če sta podjetje HSY in njegov delničar dva različna pravna subjekta, tvorita eno samo gospodarsko enoto.
Thanks to the guarantee, this economic unit would be 100 % indemnified for any aid it would have to reimburse to the State.
Zahvaljujoč temu poroštvu bi ta gospodarska enota prejela 100-odstotno odškodnino za vsako pomoč, ki bi jo morala povrniti državi.
The Commission therefore considers that this constitutes an elimination of the ‘effet utile’ of any recovery decision.
Komisija zato meni, da to pomeni odpravo učinkovitosti vsake odločbe o povrnitvi.
As regards the absence of a legal provision forcing TKMS/GNSH to re-inject into HSY any indemnification received, the Commission fails to understand how it would invalidate the prior conclusion.
Kar zadeva odsotnost pravnih določb, ki bi podjetji TKMS/GNSH prisilile, da prejeto odškodnino ponovno vložita v podjetje HSY, Komisija ne razume, kako bi se s tem lahko ovrgla prejšnja ugotovitev.
In addition, the Commission observes that, if there is no obligation, there is also no prohibition to do it.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da, če ni nobene obveznosti, potem tudi ni nobene prepovedi, da bi se to storilo.
Therefore, TKMS/GNSH could inject in HSY the indemnification received.
Zato bi podjetji TKMS/GNSH v podjetje HSY lahko vložili prejeto odškodnino.
Moreover, one can reasonably assume that, since TKMS is a successful private group, its financial resources are optimally allocated among the different legal entities of the group.
Poleg tega je mogoče upravičeno predpostaviti, da so finančna sredstva podjetja TKMS kot uspešne zasebne skupine optimalno razporejena med različne pravne subjekte v skupini.
Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that, if one legal entity of the group has to pay a fine and another legal entity receives an indemnification for that fine, the management of the group will decide to transfer the latter amount to the former entity, thereby re-establishing the optimal allocation of resources among the different legal entities of the group.
Zato je upravičeno predpostaviti, da bi se v primeru, če bi en pravni subjekt v skupini moral plačati kazen in bi drug pravni subjekt prejel odškodnino za to kazen, vodstvo skupine moralo odločiti za prenos slednjega zneska na prejšnji subjekt, s čimer bi ponovno vzpostavilo optimalno razporeditev sredstev med različne pravne subjekte v skupini.
In other words, even if there is no obligation for TKMS/GNSH to re-inject the funds in HSY, it seems likely that the management will decide to do it.
Z drugimi besedami, tudi če podjetjema TKMS/GNSH ni treba ponovno vložiti sredstev v podjetje HSY, se zdi verjetno, da se bo za to odločilo vodstvo.
The Commission concludes that the guarantee granted by ETVA to HDW/Ferrostaal is per se incompatible with State aid rules.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je poroštvo, ki ga je banka ETVA odobrila konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal, samo po sebi nezdružljivo s pravili o državni pomoči.
The Commission has found that, out of the 16 measures covered by the formal investigation procedure, some do not constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 87(1), some constitute compatible aid, several constitute incompatible aids and several aids approved by the Commission in the past have been misused.
Komisija je ugotovila, da nekateri izmed šestnajstih ukrepov, zajetih v formalnem preiskovalnem postopku, ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1), da nekateri pomenijo združljivo pomoč, da jih več pomeni nezdružljivo pomoč in da je bilo nekaj pomoči, ki jih je Komisija odobrila v preteklosti, zlorabljenih.
For the cases of incompatible aid granted in breach of the provisions of Article 88(3) of the Treaty and for the cases of misused aid, the Commission concluded that the aid has to be recovered.
V zvezi s primeri nezdružljive pomoči, ki je bila odobrena s kršenjem določb člena 88(3) Pogodbe, in v zvezi s primeri zlorabljene pomoči, Komisija ugotavlja, da je treba pomoč povrniti.
The Commission considers that the following problem could hinder an effective recovery of this aid and that it is necessary to impose additional conditions to avoid this happening.
Komisija meni, da bi naslednji problem lahko predstavljal oviro za uspešno povrnitev te pomoči in da je zato treba opredeliti dodatne pogoje, da bi se temu izognili.
This will be explained in the next section.
To bo pojasnjeno v naslednjem oddelku.
Necessity to ensure that the reimbursement of the aid, which has benefited the civil activities of HSY, is not partially financed by the military activities
Potreba po zagotovitvi, da povračilo pomoči, ki je bila uporabljena za civilne dejavnosti podjetja HSY, ni delno financirano iz vojaških dejavnosti
As explained in section 3.3 of the present decision and applied to the measures concerned, the Commission has accepted that if a State support was provided to the yard without being earmarked to finance a precise activity, it can be considered that 75 % of the support benefited the military activities and 25 % benefited the civil activities.
Kot je pojasnjeno v oddelku 3.3 te odločbe in kot velja za zadevne ukrepe, je Komisija sprejela, da se v primeru, če je bila državna podpora odobrena ladjedelnici, ne da bi bila namenjena za financiranje točno določene dejavnosti, lahko šteje, da je 75 % podpore prineslo koristi vojaškim dejavnostim, 25 % pa civilnim dejavnostim.
This conclusion follows from the fact that HSY has no separate accounts and therefore the use of the funds can not be traced.
Ta ugotovitev izhaja iz dejstva, da podjetje HSY nima ločenih računov in da zato uporabe sredstev ni mogoče izslediti.
However, if the Commission accepts that 75 % of any inflow of State money will finance the military activities of the yard, it must also conclude that 75 % of any outflow of money from the yard will be supported by the military part of HSY.
Toda če Komisija priznava, da bo 75 % vseh prilivov državnega denarja financiralo vojaške dejavnosti ladjedelnice, mora ugotoviti tudi, da bi 75 % vseh odlivov denarja iz ladjedelnice moralo biti podprto iz vojaškega dela podjetja HSY.
In other word, 75 eurocent of any Euro recovered from HSY is paid by the military part of HSY.
Z drugimi besedami, 75 centov vsakega evra, ki bi bil izterjan od podjetja HSY, bi se plačalo iz vojaškega dela podjetja HSY.
Asking HSY to reimburse the aid received by the civil activities will restore the initial situation of the civil activities of the yard only if Greece submits solid evidence to the Commission that this reimbursement has been financed exclusively by the civil part of the yard.
Z zahtevo, da naj podjetje HSY povrne pomoč iz civilnih dejavnosti, bi se prvotna situacija civilnih dejavnosti ladjedelnice obnovila samo, če bi Grčija predložila Komisiji trdne dokaze, da se je ta odškodnina financirala izključno iz civilnih dejavnosti ladjedelnice.
In other words, since the majority of the HSY’s activities are military and since HSY does not hold separate accounts for the civil activities, there is a clear risk that the reimbursement of aid received by the civil activities will be mainly financed by funds which otherwise would have financed the military activities.
Z drugimi besedami, ker je večina dejavnosti podjetja HSY vojaških in ker podjetje HSY nima ločenih računov za civilne dejavnosti, obstaja očitno tveganje, da bo povrnitev pomoči, prejete za civilne dejavnosti, v večji meri financirana iz sredstev, s katerimi bi se sicer financirale vojaške dejavnosti.
The recovery which should have been entirely supported by the civil part of the yard would mainly be supported by the military part.
Povrnitev, ki bi morala v celoti izhajati iz civilnega dela ladjedelnice, bi torej v večji meri prišla iz vojaškega dela.
Since the State has provided large and repeated financial support and financing to the military activities of HSY, using funds — which otherwise would have financed the military activities — in favour of the civil activities of HSY is akin to a transfer of State aid to the civil activities of the yard.
Ker je država zagotovila veliko in večkratno finančno podporo in finančna sredstva vojaškim dejavnostim podjetja HSY, je uporaba sredstev – s katerimi bi se sicer financirale vojaške dejavnosti – v korist civilnih dejavnosti podjetja HSY sorodna prenosu državne pomoči na civilne dejavnosti ladjedelnice.
In other words, a part of the financial support granted by the State to the military activities would in fact support the civil activities of HSY (and therefore does not fall within the field of application of Article 296 of the Treaty.
Z drugimi besedami, z delom finančne podpore, ki jo je država odobrila za vojaške dejavnosti, bi se dejansko podprle civilne dejavnosti podjetja HSY (zato to ne spada na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe).
Indeed, these funds can not be deemed to be necessary for the financing of military production because they are not used for that purpose).
Ta sredstva se dejansko ne morejo šteti za potrebna za financiranje vojaške proizvodnje, saj za ta namen niso uporabljena.