natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, the advantage of this preferential status is not an absolute priority, but that it enables the creditor to refrain from signing the general creditors’ agreement and to opt for a special agreement in order to obtain conditions which, on the basis of the applicable national law, must be more favourable than those provided for in the general creditors’ agreement.
Zato prednost tega prednostnega statusa ni absolutna prednost, ampak to, da omogoča upniku, da ne podpiše sporazuma za splošne upnike in se odloči za posebni sporazum, s čimer zagotovi pogoje, ki morajo biti na podlagi veljavne nacionalne zakonodaje ugodnejši od pogojev v sporazumih za splošne upnike.
The Spanish authorities correct the statement made in paragraph 16 of the opening Decision, specifying that, under the general creditors’ agreement, there were two alternatives rather than just two cumulative possibilities: to recover either 5 % of claims within 75 days or 20 % within 17 years without interest.
Španski organi popravljajo izjavo iz odstavka 16 uvodne odločitve in navajajo, da sta v skladu s sporazumom za splošne upnike obstajali dve nadomestni možnosti in ne le dve kumulativni možnosti, tj. povrniti 5 % terjatev v 75 dneh ali 20 % v 17 letih brez obresti.
However, taking advantage of its preferential position, the Social Security Treasury refrained from signing the general creditors’ agreements and opted for a special agreement which, in its view, gave a better prospect of recovery than the general creditors’ agreement.
Vendar je organ socialne varnosti izkoristil prednostni položaj in ni podpisal sporazuma za splošne upnike, ampak se je odločil za posebni sporazum, na podlagi katerega bi bile možnosti za povračilo po njegovem mnenju boljše kot na podlagi sporazuma za splošne upnike.
Accordingly, Pickman, which owed EUR 4 million to the Social Security Treasury, agreed to pay 18 % of that amount over eight years, plus interest at an annual rate of 3,25 %.
Podjetje Pickman, ki je organu socialne varnosti dolgovalo 4 milijone EUR, je upoštevalo odločitev zadevnega organa in se je strinjalo, da plača 18 % tega zneska v osmih letih z dodatnimi 3,25-odstotnimi obrestmi na letni ravni.
In addition, the special agreement included a guarantee that it would be terminated automatically if any other creditor received more favourable treatment.
Poleg tega je posebni sporazum vključeval poroštvo, da bo prenehal veljati samodejno, če bo kateri koli upnik obravnavan ugodneje.
In fact, after the payment of EUR 595676,89 for workers’ contributions, the amount of 2012786,39 was paid by Pickman on 27 May 2004.
Po plačilu 595676,89 EUR za prispevke delavcev je podjetje Pickman 27. maja 2004 zadevnemu organu dejansko plačalo 2012786,39 EUR.
Finally, the Spanish authorities maintain that ‘the general interest’, referred to in paragraph 18 of the opening Decision, forms part of a generic formula used in all agreements concluded in debt recovery proceedings.
Poleg tega španski organi trdijo, da so „splošne obresti“ iz odstavka 18 uvodne odločitve del splošne formule, ki je uporabljena v vseh sporazumih, sklenjenih v postopkih za povračilo dolga.
In fact, the Social Security Treasury sought to recover the maximum possible sum from the debtor, thus acting in line with the market economy investor principle, and denies that it had any other intention than to seek the maximum recovery possible.
Organ socialne varnosti si je dejansko prizadeval, da bi mu dolžnik povrnil čim večji znesek, tako da je deloval v skladu z načelom vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji, pri čemer zanika, da bi si prizadeval za kar koli drugega kot za čim večje povračilo.
Measure 7: Public guarantee for a loan
Ukrep 7: Javno poroštvo za posojilo
The Spanish authorities claim that, in the light of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees [6] (hereinafter ‘the Guarantee Notice’), the measure does not constitute State aid.
Španski organi trdijo, da ukrep ob upoštevanju Obvestila Komisije o uporabi členov 78 in 88 Pogodbe ES za državno pomoč v obliki poroštev [6] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo o poroštvih) ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Firstly, Pickman cannot be regarded as a firm in difficulty and that was the status required to obtain a loan without the intervention of the State, since its situation improved significantly in 2005, to the point that it achieved positive results in 2006, and it enjoyed the confidence of banks, which in fact gave it a loan on normal market terms, i.e. at the Euribor rate, which at that time was 2,783 points, plus 1,25 points.
Podjetja Pickman ni mogoče šteti za podjetje v težavah, kar je bil status, potreben za pridobitev posojila brez posredovanja države, saj se je leta 2005 njegov položaj bistveno izboljšal, tako da je imelo leta 2006 pozitivne rezultate in uživalo zaupanje bank, ki so mu dejansko dale posojilo po normalnih tržnih pogojih, tj. po obrestni meri Euribor, ki je takrat znašala 2,783 odstotne točke z dodatkom 1,25 odstotne točke.
Furthermore, the Spanish authorities maintain that no State aid was involved, since the guarantee related solely to one specific financial transaction, namely coverage of 80 % (EUR 1,3 million) of the total sum of a loan with a limited term of 10 years.
Španski organi poleg tega trdijo, da ni prejelo nobene državne pomoči, ker se je poroštvo nanašalo na eno samo posebno finančno transakcijo, in sicer kritje 80 % (1,3 milijona EUR) skupnega zneska posojila z omejenim obdobjem 10 let.
Moreover, the Spanish authorities point out that Pickman paid the market price for the guarantee, as it paid an annual premium of 1,5 % and also registered a mortgage in favour of IDEA which in itself represented 13 % of the real estate’s value of 10950000.
Španski organi prav tako poudarjajo, da je podjetje Pickman plačalo tržno ceno za poroštvo, ker je plačalo 1,5-odstotno letno premijo in evidentiralo hipoteko v korist IDEA, kar je bilo samo po sebi 13 % vrednosti nepremičnine, ki je znašala 10950000 EUR.
Measures 3 to 6: Participation loans and subsidies
Ukrepi 3 do 6: sindicirana posojila in subvencije
The Spanish authorities do not deny that measures 3 to 6 constituted aid, but claim that they did not notify them as they took the view that the measures formed part of an aid scheme to support investment, job creation and SMEs in Andalusia which also provided for the possibility of granting rescue and restructuring aid to SMEs in difficulty, and that had already been approved by the Commission [7] (hereinafter ‘the approved scheme’).
Španski organi ne zanikajo, da so ukrepi 3 do 6 pomenili pomoč, vendar trdijo, da jih niso priglasili, ker so menili, da so bili ukrepi del sheme pomoči za podporo naložbam, ustvarjanju delovnih mest ter ustanavljanju malih in srednje velikih podjetij v Andaluziji, ki je zagotovila tudi možnost za dodelitev pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje malih in srednje velikih podjetij v težavah ter jo je Komisija že odobrila [7] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odobrena shema).
In this regard, the Spanish authorities maintain that all the conditions laid down under the approved scheme were satisfied.
V zvezi s tem španski organi trdijo, da so bili izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz odobrene sheme.
They concede that the provision which fixed the maximum total amount authorised and per beneficiary at EUR 4 million was not respected precisely, since measures 3 to 6 amounted to a total of EUR 4,46 million. However, they take the view that failure to notify the Commission of the small excess of EUR 0,46 million, or even the total amount of the aid, constitutes an administrative irregularity which does not affect the substantive conformity of the measure with the approved scheme, a fact which the Commission should also reasonably acknowledge.
Priznavajo, da se določba, ki določa najvišji odobreni skupni znesek in ki določa dodelitev 4 milijonov EUR na upravičenca, ni upoštevala natančno, ker so ukrepi 3 do 6 skupaj znašali 4,46 milijona EUR. Vendar španski organi menijo, da je neizpolnitev obveznosti v zvezi z obveščanjem Komisije o majhnem presežku 0,46 milijona EUR ali celo skupnem znesku pomoči upravna nepravilnost, ki ne vpliva na vsebinsko skladnost ukrepa z odobreno shemo, kar je dejstvo, ki bi ga morala tudi Komisija razumno potrditi.
On the other hand, the Spanish authorities submit that measures 3 to 6 should be assessed in the light of the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [8] adopted in 1999 (hereinafter ‘the 1999 Guidelines’), since these were the only guidelines in force at the time the aid was granted, as being a one-off transaction under a restructuring plan sent to the Spanish authorities in the context of the approved scheme.
Vendar španski organi trdijo, da bi bilo treba ukrepe 3 do 6 oceniti ob upoštevanju smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [8], sprejetih leta 1999 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice iz leta 1999), ker so bili to edini veljavni ukrepi ob dodelitvi pomoči kot enkratne transakcije v skladu z načrtom za prestrukturiranje, poslanim španskim oblastem v okviru odobrene sheme.
In fact, contrary to the preliminary assessment conducted by the Commission in the opening Decision, the Spanish authorities take the view that measure 7 should not be regarded as State aid (see recitals 15 and 16 above) since no restructuring aid was granted after the publication of the 2004 Guidelines.
V nasprotju s predhodno oceno, ki jo je Komisija izvedla v uvodni odločitvi, španski organi dejansko menijo, da ukrep 7 ne bi smel šteti za državno pomoč (glej uvodni izjavi 15 in 16), ker ni bila po objavi smernic iz leta 2004 odobrena nobena pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
Moreover, the Spanish authorities point to the fact that, under both the 1999 and 2004 Guidelines, the aid would be regarded as compatible restructuring aid.
Poleg tega španski organi poudarjajo, da bi se pomoč v skladu s smernicami iz let 1999 in 2004 štela za združljivo pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
In fact, in 2003 Pickman employed 128 people and had a turnover of EUR 2,35 million, thus qualifying as an SME, a type of company for which the Commission does not need to approve a plan.
Podjetje Pickman je leta 2003 dejansko zaposlovalo 128 oseb, pri čemer je njegov promet znašal 2,35 milijona EUR, kar ga uvršča med mala in srednje velika podjetja ter je tako vrsta podjetja, za katerega Komisiji ni treba odobriti načrta.
In any event, the restructuring plan satisfies the Commission’s requirements, given that it is for 6 years, is limited to the minimum required to restore Pickman’s viability, as set out in the enclosed market study, and provides that Pickman is to make a significant contribution to ensuring its viability.
Načrt za prestrukturiranje v vsakem primeru izpolnjuje zahteve Komisije, ker traja 6 let, je omejen na najmanjšo vrednost, ki je potrebna za obnovitev sposobnosti podjetja Pickman za preživetje, kot je določeno v priloženi tržni raziskavi, in zagotavlja, da podjetje Pickman znatno prispeva k zagotavljanju svoje sposobnosti za preživetje.
In this regard, the Spanish authorities refer to a Decision in which the Commission approved non-notified restructuring aid in favour of another Spanish SME operating in the same sector as Pickman, Porcelanas del Principado [9], on the basis of the substantive compliance with the conditions under the 1999 Guidelines and of the limited distortion of competition resulting from the aid.
V zvezi s tem se španski organi sklicujejo na odločbo, v kateri je Komisija odobrila nepriglašeno pomoč za prestrukturiranje v korist drugega španskega podjetja, ki deluje v istem sektorju kot podjetje Pickman, tj. podjetja Porcelanas del Principado [9], na podlagi vsebinske skladnosti s pogoji iz smernic iz leta 1999 in omejenega izkrivljanja konkurence, ki izhaja iz pomoči.
Finally, the Spanish authorities point to Pickman’s importance to the local industry in Andalusia and Spain, balancing its long historical and cultural tradition against the limited distortion of competition resulting from aid granted to an SME with a very limited market share.
Nazadnje španski organi poudarjajo pomembnost podjetja Pickman za lokalno industrijo v Andaluziji in Španiji, ker uravnava dolgo zgodovinsko in kulturno tradicijo ter omejeno izkrivljanje konkurence zaradi pomoči, odobrene malim in srednje velikim podjetjem z zelo majhnim tržnim deležem.
OBSERVATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES
PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANK
Measure 2: Waiver of debt to the Social Security Treasury
Ukrep 2: odpis dolga organu socialne varnosti
Pickman contests the Commission’s preliminary analysis that measure 2 constitutes State aid and endorses the arguments put forward by the Spanish authorities that the special agreement signed with the Social Security Treasury was preferential and guaranteed the highest and quickest recovery rate possible, which is consistent with the rationale of a private creditor in a market economy.
Podjetje Pickman izpodbija predhodno analizo Komisije, da ukrep 2 pomeni državno pomoč, in potrjuje trditve španskih organov, da je bil posebni sporazum, podpisan z organom socialne varnosti, prednosten ter je zagotavljal najvišjo in najhitrejšo stopnjo izterjave, kar je v skladu z utemeljitvijo zasebnega upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The beneficiary also points out that, since then, all Pickman’s outstanding debts to the Social Security Treasury have been recovered and subsequent contributions have been paid on a regular basis.
Upravičenec prav tako poudarja, da so bili pozneje povrnjeni vsi neporavnani dolgovi podjetja Pickman do organa socialne varnosti, nadaljnji prispevki pa redno plačani.
Pickman contends that measure 7 cannot be regarded as State aid since it satisfies all four of the conditions laid down in the Guarantee Notice.
Podjetje Pickman trdi, da ukrepa 7 ni mogoče šteti za državno pomoč, ker izpolnjuje vse štiri pogoje iz obvestila o poroštvih.
The public guarantee for the EUR 1,6 million loan did not cover more than 80 % of that loan and lasted for only ten years.
Javno poroštvo za posojilo v višini 1,6 milijona EUR ni pokrivalo več kot 80 % tega posojila in je trajalo le deset let.
Finally, it paid the market price for the loan: Pickman paid an annual premium of 1,5 % and secured the guarantee in full with a mortgage in favour of IDEA on part of its real estate.
Končno je podjetje Pickman za posojilo plačalo tržno ceno; plačalo je 1,5-odstotno letno premijo in poroštvo v celoti zavarovalo s hipoteko v korist IDEA na delu svojih nepremičnin.
In response to a request from the Commission for an estimate of the value of Pickman’s real estate in recent years, Pickman sent two independent estimates dated 31 May 2005 (EUR 10962598,56) and 4 October 2007 (EUR 12512066,27).
Podjetje Pickman se je odzvalo na zahtevo Komisije po oceni vrednosti nepremičnin v zadnjih letih in poslalo dve neodvisni oceni z dne 31. maja 2005 (10962598,56 EUR) in 4. oktobra 2007 (12512066,27 EUR).
Consequently, Pickman is of the opinion that the four conditions are satisfied and that no State aid is involved.
Zato podjetje Pickman meni, da so štirje pogoji izpolnjeni in da ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Pickman makes no reference to the Commission’s initial assessment that the measures constitute State aid, but does claim that they are compatible with Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty and covered by the approved scheme, which provides for the possibility of granting rescue and restructuring aid to SMEs in difficulty.
Podjetje Pickman ne navaja uvodne ocene Komisije, da ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč, vendar trdi, da so skladni s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES in zajeti v odobreni shemi, kar omogoča dodelitev pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje malih in srednje velikih podjetij v težavah.
Pickman points out that the measures comply with the requirement laid down under the approved scheme and that they exceed the EUR 4 million ceiling by only EUR 0,46 million, significantly below the EUR 10 million threshold established in point 68 of the 1999 Guidelines for schemes to assist SMEs.
Podjetje Pickman poudarja, da so ukrepi v skladu z zahtevami iz odobrene sheme in zgornjo mejo 4 milijone EUR presegajo le za 0,46 milijona EUR, kar je znatno pod omejitvijo 10 milijonov EUR, ki je bila določena v točki 68 smernic iz leta 1999 za programe za pomoč malim in srednje velikim podjetjem.
Pickman maintains that the restructuring plan approving measures 3 to 6, which was drawn up by an independent assessor, Auditoria y Consulta SA, in October 2003 and approved by the Spanish authorities in March 2004, is fully compliant with those requirements in relation to the ‘one-time, last-time’ principle, necessity, own contribution, the prohibition on increasing capacity and the prospects of long-term viability in various scenarios.
Podjetje Pickman trdi, da je načrt za prestrukturiranje, ki je potrdil ukrepe 3 do 6 in ga je oktobra 2003 oblikoval neodvisni ocenjevalec, tj. Auditoria y Consulta S.A., odobrili pa so ga španski organi marca 2004, v celoti skladen z zahtevami glede načela o enkratni pomoči, nujnosti, lastnega prispevka, prepovedi povečanja zmogljivosti in obetov dolgoročne sposobnosti za preživetje v različnih razmerah.
Finally, Pickman points out that the measures have not caused any undue market distortion and have benefited a medium-sized company, located in an Article 87(3)(a) region, with a very limited market share in terms of the overall volume of trade, which has complied fully with the schedule of the approved restructuring plan and has duly improved its financial situation since 2006, with the result that there has been no need to implement compensatory measures.
Končno podjetje Pickman poudarja, da ukrepi niso povzročili nobenega neupravičenega izkrivljanja trga in so koristili srednje velikemu podjetju v regiji iz člena 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES, ki ima zelo omejen tržni delež v smislu celotnega obsega trgovine, ki je v celoti upoštevalo razpored odobrenega načrta za prestrukturiranje in je od leta 2006 ustrezno izboljšalo svoj finančni položaj, zaradi česar ni bilo treba izvesti izravnalnih ukrepov.
As far as the observations made by Pickman are concerned, the Spanish authorities fully endorse the arguments put forward as well as the conclusion that measures 2 and 7 are not to be regarded as State aid, whereas measures 3 to 6 do constitute existing aid which in any event is compatible with the common market.
Glede pripomb podjetja Pickman španski organi v celoti potrjujejo navedene trditve ter sklep, da se ukrepa 2 in 7 ne štejeta za državno pomoč, medtem ko ukrepi 3 do 6 vključujejo obstoječo pomoč, ki je v vsakem primeru združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali katera koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, če vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
As a preliminary point, the Commission will evaluate measure 7 after assessing measure 2, following the order of the observations submitted by the Spanish authorities and the beneficiary.
Komisija bo po oceni ukrepa 2 najprej ovrednotila ukrep 7, pri čemer bo upoštevala zaporedje pripomb, ki so jih predložili španski organi in upravičenec.
In fact, the classification of measure 7 has implications on the set of rules to be applied to the remaining measures 3 to 6, as anticipated in the opening Decision and established in this Decision.
Razvrstitev ukrepa 7 dejansko vpliva na sklop pravil, ki jih je treba uporabiti za ostale ukrepe 3 do 6, kot je načrtovano v uvodni odločitvi in določeno v tej odločbi.
As far as measure 2 is concerned, the doubts raised by the Commission in the opening Decision concerned whether the Social Security Treasury had acted as a private creditor in its negotiations concerning Pickman’s debt.
Glede ukrepa 2 se pomisleki Komisije v uvodni odločitvi nanašajo na to, ali je organ socialne varnosti v pogajanjih glede dolga podjetja Pickman deloval kot zasebni upnik.
Firstly, under Spanish law, credits in respect of Social Security contributions enjoy preferential treatment, inasmuch as the creditor has the option of concluding a special agreement rather than participating in the proceedings available for non-preferential creditors [10].
V skladu s špansko zakonodajo se posojila v zvezi s prispevki za socialno varstvo obravnavajo prednostno, ker lahko upnik sklene posebni sporazum in ne sodeluje v postopkih, ki so na voljo neprednostnim upnikom [10].
In this regard, the information submitted by the Spanish authorities and confirmed by the copies of the two agreements shows that the special agreement reached by the Social Security Treasury with Pickman was more favourable than the agreement entered into by the company with general creditors.
V tem smislu informacije, ki so jih predložili španski organi in so bile potrjene z izvodi dveh sporazumov, kažejo, da je bil posebni sporazum, sklenjen med organom socialne varnosti in podjetjem Pickman, ugodnejši od sporazuma, ki ga je podjetje sklenilo s splošnimi upniki.
In fact, the latter gave general creditors only the choice between recovering 5 % of their claims within 75 days or 20 % of them within 17 years without interest, whereas the special agreement enabled the State to recover 18 % of its credit within 8 years at an annual interest rate of 3,25 %, and that debt was duly recovered in full in line with the agreed schedule.
Slednji je splošnim upnikom omogočal le izbiro med povračilom 5 % zahtevkov v 75 dneh ali 20 % v 17 letih brez obresti, medtem ko je posebni sporazum državi omogočil povračilo 18 % posojila v 8 letih po letni obrestni meri 3,25 %, pri čemer je bil ta dolg povrnjen v celoti in v skladu z dogovorjenim časovnim okvirom.
The Commission also acknowledges that, in the event of Pickman’s (hypothetical) winding-up, the only alternative which would have been open to the Social Security Treasury would have been to attempt to recover its credit by seizing certain specific tangible and intangible assets.
Komisija priznava tudi, da bi bila v primeru (hipotetične) likvidacije podjetja Pickman edina nadomestna možnost, ki bi bila na voljo organu socialne varnosti, poskusiti povrniti posojilo z zasegom nekaterih posebnih opredmetenih in neopredmetenih sredstev.
However, the Spanish authorities have demonstrated adequately that this would not have been a viable alternative: the seizure of tangible assets was of no real value, given the preferential status of a mortgage previously registered in favour of the public entity RUMASA, and it is reasonable to agree with the Spanish authorities’ view that any seizure of the intangible assets would have been precarious, given the necessary dependence under Spanish law on potential buyers for whom those assets, once separated from the name of the company, would be of very limited if any value.
Vendar so španski organi ustrezno dokazali, da to ne bi bila izvedljiva nadomestna možnost; zaseg opredmetenih sredstev ni imel prave vrednosti ob upoštevanju prednostnega statusa hipoteke, ki je bila predhodno evidentirana v korist javnega subjekta RUMASA, pri čemer se je smiselno strinjati s stališčem španskih organov, da bi bil vsak zaseg neopredmetenih sredstev negotov ob upoštevanju v španski zakonodaji določene obvezne odvisnosti od morebitnih kupcev, katerim bi ta sredstva, ko bi bila ločena od imena podjetja, pomenila zelo malo ali nič.