natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As the amount of capital injection required was established after negotiations with interested buyers — who had registered as part of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory sales procedure — the aid measures were in line with the market price for the company and therefore naturally limited to what was strictly necessary.
Ker je bila višina potrebnega kapitalskega vložka določena po pogajanjih z zainteresiranimi kupci – ki so se prijavili v okviru dela odprtega, preglednega in nediskriminatornega postopka prodaje –, so bili ukrepi pomoči v skladu s tržno ceno podjetja in tako seveda omejeni na najnujnejše.
Contribution to the restructuring plan
Prispevek k načrtu prestrukturiranja
In recital 119 of the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission stated that the beneficiary itself must make a contribution to the restructuring plan.
V uvodni izjavi 119 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija navedla, da mora upravičenec sam prispevati k načrtu prestrukturiranja.
The Commission has stated that Arriva’s take-over of part of Combus’ debt constituted such a contribution.
Komisija je navedla, da prevzem dela dolga podjetja Combus s strani podjetja Arriva pomeni takšen prispevek.
In this connection, the Commission asked for information on other contributions made by Combus and/or Arriva.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija zaprosila za informacije o drugih prispevkih podjetij Combus in/ali Arriva.
The Danish government considers that the savings and rationalisations foreseen in the restructuring plans constitute a contribution from the beneficiary pursuant to point 40 of the Restructuring guidelines.
Danska vlada meni, da prihranki in racionalizacije, predvidene v načrtih prestrukturiranja, predstavljajo prispevek upravičenca v skladu s točko 40 smernic o prestrukturiranju.
Other contributions are, in the view of the Danish government, the sales price of DKK 100, the revenues from the sale of 50 % of Combus to Connex (DKK 113,9 million), and Arriva’s direct contribution to the restructuring costs of DKK 33,6 million.
Drugi prispevki po mnenju danske vlade vključujejo prodajno ceno 100 milijonov DKK, prihodke od prodaje 50 % podjetja Combus podjetju Connex (113,9 milijona DKK) in neposreden prispevek podjetja Arriva k stroškom prestrukturiranja v višini 33,6 milijona DKK.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY DANSKE BUSVOGNMAEND
PRIPOMBE PODJETJA DANSKE BUSVOGNMAEND
RESPECT OF THE MARKET ECONOMY INVESTOR PRINCIPLE
SPOŠTOVANJE NAČELA VLAGATELJA POD TRŽNIMI POGOJI
Danske Busvognmaend considers that the prospect of Combus achieving viability and profitability has not been demonstrated.
Po mnenju podjetja Danske Busvognmaend ni bilo dokazano, da lahko podjetje Combus pridobi sposobnost ekonomskega preživetja in postane donosno.
Rather to the contrary, Danske Busvognmaend, referring to paragraph 19 of the Combus judgment, finds it clear that a private investor would not have acted in the way the Danish government did when granting the aid.
Ravno nasprotno, podjetju Danske Busvognmaend se s sklicevanjem na točko 19 sodbe Combus zdi jasno, da zasebni vlagatelj ne bi ravnal, kot je danska vlada, ko je dodelila pomoč.
In addition to the factual circumstances provided for by the Commission, Danske Busvognmaend refers to three reports presented subsequently to the Combus judgment in Denmark [37].
Poleg dejanskih okoliščin, ki jih je predložila Komisija, podjetje Danske Busvognmaend omenja tri poročila, ki so bila predložena po sodbi Combus na Danskem [37].
According to Danske Busvognmaend, these reports affirm that a private investor would not have acted as the Danish government did in a similar situation.
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend pravi, da ta poročila potrjujejo, da zasebni vlagatelj v podobni situaciji ne bi ravnal, kot je danska vlada.
Danske Busvognmaend recalls that when, in May 1999, the Danish government granted Combus economic aid of DKK 300 million, it based its action on the principle of the investor in a market economy (see page 22, note 36, of the application).
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend poudarja, da je danska vlada upoštevala načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, ko je maja 2009 podjetju Combus dodelila gospodarsko pomoč v višini 300 milijonov DKK (glej stran 22, opombo 36, vloge).
The Transport Minister at the time made the following statement:
Takratni minister za promet je podal naslednjo izjavo:
‘In summary, I consider that the injection of capital in Combus A/S by the Transport Minister does not constitute State aid and that this operation therefore does not have to be notified to the Commission, since the Minister had an assessment carried out which showed that the injection was necessary and sufficient, that the undertaking could be restructured to operate profitably, and that the additional capital invested could be expected to provide a return in the form of profit or interest and a repayment. I therefore consider this investment to be in line with the principle of the investor in a market economy’.
„Skratka, menim, da kapitalski vložek ministrstva za promet v Combus A/S ni državna pomoč in posledično ni potrebno, da se Komisijo uradno obvesti o tej operaciji, saj je ministrstvo naročilo vrednotenje, ki je pokazalo, da je bil kapitalski vložek nujen in zadosten, da se podjetje lahko prestrukturira za zagotovitev donosnega poslovanja ter da je mogoče predvideti, da se bo dodatni vloženi kapital poplačal v obliki dobičkov ali obresti in povrnitve stroškov. Iz tega razloga menim, da je ta naložba v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.“
Danske Busvognmaend states that the matter was then considered by the Danish Court of Auditors (see Annex A 22) and refers to the Court’s conclusions (Chapter V, pages 37 and 39 and, especially, pages 41 and 43) in which the Court explained in particular that:
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend poudarja, da je dansko računsko sodišče pozneje obravnavalo to zadevo (glej prilogo A 22), in se sklicuje na zaključke Sodišča (poglavje V, strani 37 in 39 ter zlasti strani 41 in 43), v katerih je obrazložilo zlasti, da:
‘The Court of Auditors’ investigation has shown that, when the file on the injection of capital into Combus was drawn up, the Transport Minister must have been aware of the undertaking’s poor management and the lack of a solid basis for taking any economic decisions, especially as regards monitoring the profitability of the bus transport contracts and the control of general cost trends.’
„Preiskava, ki jo je opravilo računsko sodišče, je pokazala, da bi se moralo pri pripravi dokumentacije za kapitalski vložek v Combus Ministrstvo za promet seznaniti s slabim upravljanjem podjetja in pomanjkanjem trdnih osnov za sprejetje ekonomskih odločitev, zlasti glede spremljanja donosnosti pogodb za avtobusni prevoz in nadzora rasti osnovnih stroškov.“
Danske Busvognmaend considers that the uncertainty as to whether the investment would return a profit was such that it is impossible to apply the principle of the investor in a market economy.
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend meni, da je bila donosnost naložbe tako negotova, da ni mogoče uporabljati načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
It takes the view that the injection of DKK 300 million was made in May 1999 to prevent the undertaking from going bankrupt, which it was about to do (see point 38 of the reply and the citations therein).
Meni tudi, da je bil vložek v višini 300 milijonov DKK izveden maja 1999 za preprečitev stečaja podjetja, do katerega bi prišlo (glej točko 38 ugovora in navedbe v njej).
Danske Busvognmaend takes the view that the subsequent course of events was not that officially stated by the Transport Minister.
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend meni, da so se nato stvari odvile drugače, kot je to uradno predstavil minister za promet.
From spring 2001 onwards, it was necessary to inject new capital and to cancel debt totalling DKK 240 million.
Spomladi 2001 je bilo treba vložiti nov kapital in odpisati skupaj 240 milijonov DKK dolga.
Furthermore, private creditors had to find an arrangement for their loans which amounted to DKK 100 million.
Poleg tega so se morali zasebni upniki dogovoriti glede njihovih terjatev v višini 100 milijonov DKK.
Danske Busvognmaend concludes that no investor in a market economy would have acted like the State had done since the capital could not be expected to be repaid.
Danske Busvognmaend ugotavlja, da noben vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu ne bi ravnal kot danska država, saj ni bilo mogoče pričakovati, da se bo kapital povrnil.
According to Danske Busvognmaend, a normal private investor would have tried to terminate the loss-making contracts and would have let other undertakings take them over, thus ensuring that Combus remained profitable.
Po mnenju podjetja Danske Busvognmaend bi si normalni zasebni vlagatelj prizadeval za odpoved pogodb, ki prinašajo izgube, in bi drugim podjetjem prepustil, da jih prevzamejo, ter tako zagotovil donosnost podjetja Combus.
For Danske Busvognmaend, it is therefore clear that a private investor would have considered as carefully as possible whether it could transfer the existing contracts or declare the undertaking bankrupt.
Za podjetje Danske Busvognmaend je torej jasno, da bi zasebni vlagatelj temeljito preučil možnost odstopa obstoječih pogodb ali razglasitve stečaja podjetja.
No such evaluation took place.
Takšno vrednotenje ni bilo opravljeno.
A whole series of other operators in the bus transport market would clearly have been interested in taking over the bus routes.
Očitno je, da bi bila vrsta drugih akterjev na trgu avtobusnega prevoza zainteresirana za prevzem avtobusnih linij.
In the capital region especially, Combus was penalised because its bid was particularly low, and also because it would have to build the facilities which it did not have at its disposal (garages, etc.).
Ker je bila njegova ponudba posebno slaba in je moral tudi zgraditi objekte, s katerimi ni razpolagal (garaže itd.), je bilo podjetje Combus kaznovano, zlasti na območju glavnega mesta.
It is conceivable that Arriva would have been interested in taking over contracts which Combus prevented it from obtaining since Arriva had the necessary installations at its disposal (garages, infrastructures, etc.), and could therefore run the transport operations at lower cost.
Obstaja možnost, da bi bilo podjetje Arriva zainteresirano za prevzem pogodb, ki mu jih je podjetje Combus preprečilo pridobiti, saj je podjetje Arriva razpolagalo z ustreznimi objekti (garaže, infrastruktura itd.) in bi zato lahko opravljalo cenejše prevoze.
Danske Busvognmaend considers that certain statements by the Court of Justice of the European Communities suggest that it may be consistent with the principle of the investor in a market economy to provide help for an undertaking when trying to sell it since having the undertaking file for bankruptcy would cost more.
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend meni, da nekatere izjave Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti kažejo, da je dodelitev pomoči podjetju v času, ko se ta poskuša prodajati, mogoče šteti za skladno z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, če bi bil postopek stečaja dražji.
However, for such a measure to be justifiable from the point of view of the investor in a market economy, there has to be documentation in the form of reliable economic figures to show that such a measure will provide better results for the public authorities than winding up or bankruptcy.
Da bi lahko kljub temu utemeljili tak ukrep z vidika načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, je treba imeti dokumentacijo v obliki zanesljivih ekonomskih podatkov, ki dokazujejo, da bo ta ukrep organom oblasti prinesel boljše rezultate kot likvidacija ali stečaj.
According to Danske Busvognmaend, the Danish authorities have not provided any documents showing that it would have cost the State more to wind up Combus or declare it to be bankrupt than to keep it alive and sell it the way it was sold.
Vendar podjetje Danske Busvognmaend meni, da danske oblasti niso predložile nobenega dokumenta, ki bi dokazal, da bi bilo za državo dražje izvesti likvidacijo ali stečaj podjetja Combusa, kot pa ga ohraniti pri življenju in ga prodati, kot v tem primeru.
On the contrary, it considers that it would have been more beneficial for the State to wind up Combus or declare it bankrupt.
Po drugi strani meni, da bi bilo za državo ugodneje izvesti likvidacijo ali objaviti stečaj Combusa.
Transferring the contracts to other transport undertakings would have allowed the major losses and substantial debts which ensued to be avoided, and equipment and installations could have been sold to the other party at realistic prices.
Prenos pogodb na druge prevoznike bi preprečil večje izgube in velike dolgove, ki so sledili, ter omogočil prodajo materiala in objektov drugi strani po realnih cenah.
RESPECT OF THE 1999 RESTRUCTURING GUIDELINES
SPOŠTOVANJE SMERNIC O PRESTRUKTURIRANJU IZ LETA 1999
Danske Busvognmaend considers that the conditions set out in the 1999 restructuring guidelines are not fulfilled.
Po mnenju podjetja Danske Busvognmaend pogoji, določeni v smernicah o prestrukturiranju iz leta 1999, niso izpolnjeni.
Danske Busvognmaend considers the aid measures to constitute two separate aid measures.
Po mnenju podjetja Danske Busvognmaend sta ukrepa pomoči dva ločena ukrepa pomoči.
According to them, neither the Danish government nor Arriva has demonstrated that the aid measures should form two tranches of the same aid.
Podjetje trdi, da ne danska vlada ne podjetje Arriva nista dokazala, da ukrepa pomoči predstavljata dve tranši iste pomoči.
Rather, the present case clearly indicates that Combus was a poorly managed company to the well awareness of the Danish government and that the financial support in 1999 was granted to Combus without a proper evaluation and follow-up, hence the need to grant further financial support in 2001.
Nasprotno, pričujoči primer jasno kaže, da je danska vlada dobro vedela, da se podjetje Combus slabo upravlja, in da je bila finančna podpora leta 1999 dodeljena podjetju Combus brez ustrezne presoje in spremljanja, zato je bila potrebna nadaljnja finančna podpora leta 2001.
Danske Busvognmaend considers that no restructuring plan has been provided by the Danish government prior to the first capital injection in 1999.
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend meni, da danska vlada ni posredovala nobenega načrta prestrukturiranja pred prvim kapitalskim vložkom leta 1999.
In their view, it is not possible to submit a restructuring plan in arrears [38].
Po njihovem mnenju ni mogoče predložiti načrta prestrukturiranja za nazaj [38].
Danske Busvognmaend opposes in this respect the Commission’s position as outlined in recitals 36, 48 and 49 of the decision to initiate the procedure.
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend v zvezi s tem nasprotuje stališču Komisije, ki je predstavljeno v uvodnih izjavah 36, 48 in 49 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka.
Economic viability
Sposobnost ekonomskega preživetja
Danske Busvognmaend contests that Combus would ever have been profitable and, hence, economically viable as a public enterprise.
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend izpodbija trditev, da bi bilo podjetje Combus kdaj koli donosno in torej sposobno preživeti kot javno podjetje.
It considers that the economic viability could only be achieved through the sale to Arriva.
Meni, da bi bilo mogoče sposobnost ekonomskega preživetja doseči le s prodajo podjetju Arriva.
It refers in this respect to the Commission’s decision to initiate the proceedings and the CFI’s stance in the Combus judgment, paragraphs 115 to 116.
V zvezi s tem se sklicuje na odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi postopka in stališče SPS v točkah 115 in 116 sodbe Combus.
Measures to mitigate undue distortions of competition
Ukrepi za ublažitev nedovoljenega izkrivljanja konkurence
It is Danske Busvognmaend position that the aid measures granted to Combus did de facto distort competition on the market, as they created the opportunity for Arriva to acquire market shares of up to approximately 70 % via the purchase of Combus.
Stališče podjetja Danske Busvognmaend je, da sta ukrepa pomoči, odobrena podjetju Combus dejansko izkrivljala konkurenco na trgu, ker sta podjetju Arriva omogočila pridobitev do približno 70 % tržnega deleža z nakupom podjetja Combus.
Consequently, Arriva came to hold a dominant position on the Danish market.
Posledično je podjetje Arriva pridobilo prevladujoč položaj na danskem trgu.
Meanwhile, many bus companies found themselves on the verge of bankruptcy.
Medtem so se številna avtobusna podjetja znašla na robu stečaja.
In Danske Busvognmaend perspective, the Danish government did nothing to avoid distortions of competition; Combus did not renounce from any of its contracts when granted aid in 1999, while the aid measures in 2001 even awarded Arriva a profit.
Z vidika podjetja Danske Busvognmaend ni danska vlada storila ničesar, da bi preprečila izkrivljanje konkurence; podjetje Combus se ni odpovedalo nobeni svoji pogodbi, ko je prejelo pomoč leta 1999, medtem ko je ukrep pomoči v letu 2001 podjetju Arriva prinesel celo dobiček.
As a consequence, Arriva made a profit when selling a part of Combus to Connex, to the disadvantage of its competitors.
Posledično je podjetje Arriva ustvarilo dobiček, ko je prodalo del podjetja Combus podjetju Connex, na škodo svojih konkurentov.
In light of the guidelines and the condition to mitigate as far as possible any undue distortions on competition, Combus should at least have renounced from its contracts.
Glede na smernice in pogoj, da se vsako nedovoljeno izkrivljanje konkurence ublaži, kolikor je mogoče, bi se moralo podjetje Combus vsaj odpovedati svojim pogodbam.
In this respect, Danske Busvognmaend shares the stance of the Commission as outlined in the decision to initiate the procedure, recital 112.
V tem smislu ima podjetje Danske Busvognmaend enako stališče, kot ga je Komisija navedla v uvodni izjavi 112 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka.
Limitation of aid to the strict minimum
Omejitev pomoči na najnujnejše
Danske Busvognmaend considers that no consideration of this point at all was taken by the Danish government in relation to the sale of Combus and that there is no certainty that the sale took place at the market price, which would be the best way to ensure that the aid was limited to a minimum.
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend meni, da danska vlada te točke sploh ni upoštevala v zvezi s prodajo podjetja Combus in da ni gotovo, da je prišlo do prodaje po tržni ceni, s čimer bi najbolje zagotovili, da je bila pomoč omejena na najnujnejše.
Danske Busvognmaend considers that the Danish government has clearly recognised that there was no monitoring of the measure whereby the aid granted is limited to the minimum necessary.
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend meni, da je danska vlada jasno priznala, da ni bilo preverjeno, v kolikšni meri je bila dodeljena pomoč omejena na nujni minimum.
Danske Busvognmaend believes there are good reasons for seriously doubting whether the aid granted to Combus in conjunction with the sale to Arriva was restricted to the minimum.
Podjetje Danske Busvognmaend meni, da obstajajo dobri razlogi za resen dvom, da je pomoč podjetju Combus v zvezi s prodajo podjetju Arriva omejena na minimum.
On the contrary, it takes the view that Arriva got a good deal and refers in this regard to Chapter 8 of its memo of 24 February 2003.
Po drugi strani meni, da je podjetje Arriva opravilo dober posel in se pri tem sklicuje na poglavje 8 njegovega poročila z dne 24. februarja 2003.
It comments that the Danish government should have called in independent experts during the sale, as the Commission often provides for during the divestiture of assets, and that the sale was not on transparent terms, nor were the procedures open to all competitors in a given field.
Poudarja, da je bilo danski vladi svetovano, da se mora vlada v okviru prodaje obrniti na neodvisne strokovnjake, kot to pogosto predvidi Komisija v primeru odsvojitve sredstev s prodajo, ki se ne izvaja pod preglednimi pogoji ali s postopki, ki so odprti vsem konkurentom na določenem področju.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ARRIVA
PRIPOMBE, KI JIH JE PREDLOŽILO PODJETJE ARRIVA
The Commission received also comments from Arriva Denmark A/S.
Komisija je prejela tudi pripombe podjetja Arriva Denmark A/S.
These concerned only a factual point, namely the sales price agreed between Arriva and Connex, and are thus outlined in part II of the present decision.
Te so zadevale samo stvarno točko, namreč prodajno ceno, o kateri sta se dogovorili podjetji Arriva in Connex, zato so predstavljene v delu II te odločbe.
REPLY OF THE DANISH GOVERNMENT TO THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY DANSKE BUSVOGNMAEND AND ARRIVA
ODGOVOR DANSKE VLADE NA PRIPOMBE, KI STA JIH PREDLOŽILI PODJETJI BUSVOGNMAEND IN ARRIVA
THE MARKET ECONOMY INVESTOR PRINCIPLE
NAČELO VLAGATELJA POD TRŽNIMI POGOJI
First of all, the Danish government considers that by quoting the passage of the report of the Office of the Auditor General of Denmark out of context, Danske Busvognmaend is giving a distorted impression.
Prvič, danska vlada meni, da z navajanjem odlomka iz poročila Urada generalnega državnega revizorja Danske zunaj sobesedila podjetje Danske Busvognmaend izkrivlja podobo.
According to the Danish government, the quoted passage is from page 47 of the report, under the heading ‘Remarks by the Office of the Auditor General of Denmark’, and relates to the factual information which formed the basis for the bill presented by the Ministry of Transport to the Parliamentary Finance Committee, which was the legal basis for the capital injection of DKK 300 million being made into Combus.
Po trditvah danske vlade je navedeni odlomek s strani 47 poročila pod naslovom „Pripombe Urada generalnega državnega revizorja Danske“ in se nanaša na stvarne informacije, ki so bile podlaga predloga zakona, ki ga je Ministrstvo za promet predložilo finančnemu odboru parlamenta in ki je pravna podlaga za kapitalski vložek v višini 300 milijonov DKK v podjetje Combus.
On page 47, the Office of the Auditor General says of the basis for the bill:
Na strani 47 Urad generalnega državnega revizorja glede podlage predloga zakona pravi:
‘From the information in the bill, it must be understood that, after factoring in a provision of DKK 65 million in the company's annual accounts for 1998, the impression of Combus’ financial situation at the end of 1998 was reasonably accurate and thereby also a reasonable starting point for establishing the company’s need for capital.
„Glede na podatke iz predloga zakona je treba razumeti, da je bila po upoštevanju zagotovljenih 65 milijonov DKK v letnih izkazih podjetja za leto 1998 predstava o finančnem stanju podjetja Combus konec leta 1998 razmeroma točna in torej smiselna začetna točka za ugotavljanje potrebe podjetja po kapitalu.
But the Ministry of Transport did not state that the financial information on the basis of which the provision of DKK 65 million was fixed was merely derived from budgets, estimates and planned savings according to the company’s board.
Toda Ministrstvo za promet ni navedlo, da so finančni podatki, na podlagi katerih je bila določena višina zagotovljenega kapitala 65 milijonov DKK, izhajali le iz finančnih načrtov, ocen in načrtovanih prihrankov, ki jih je zagotovila uprava podjetja.
The Office of the Auditor General of Denmark takes the view that the Ministry of Transport was responsible for assessing the material presented with a view to providing the Minister and the Finance Committee with all relevant information in connection with the bill. The Ministry of Transport should not have introduced a bill on the existing basis.
Urad generalnega državnega revizorja meni, da je bilo Ministrstvo za promet odgovorno za oceno predloženega gradiva z namenom, da se ministru in finančnemu odboru zagotovijo vse potrebne informacije v zvezi s predlogom zakona. Ministrstvo za promet ne bi smelo predložiti predloga zakona na obstoječi podlagi.
Alternatively, the Ministry should have emphasised, taking into account the need for a quick injection of capital into Combus, that the bill was only based on general budgets and estimates drawn up by the company.’
Namesto tega bi moralo ministrstvo poudariti, ob upoštevanju potrebe po hitrem kapitalskem vložku v podjetje Combus, da predlog zakona temelji zgolj na splošnih finančnih načrtih in ocenah, ki jih je pripravilo podjetje.“