natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This is exactly what happened in reality, such that the Greek authorities did not pay the first tranche during several years.
In prav to se je v resnici tudi zgodilo, saj so grški organi z odplačilom prvega obroka zamujali več let.
ETVA was therefore not owned by the State anymore in the last two years of the loan, which was reimbursed in 2004.
Banka ETVA torej zadnji dve leti trajanja posojila, ki je bilo povrnjeno leta 2004, ni bila več v lasti države.
The question could then be raised (for this loan and for the other loans and guarantees granted by ETVA before March 2002 and having a duration spreading beyond March 2002) whether the part of the aid relating to the period after March 2002 should be reimbursed to ETVA instead of being reimbursed to the State.
Zato se je mogoče vprašati (v zvezi s tem posojilom ter v zvezi z drugimi posojili in poroštvi, ki jih je banka ETVA odobrila pred marcem 2002 ter ki so trajala še po marcu 2002), ali bi bilo treba del pomoči, ki se nanaša na obdobje po marcu 2002, povrniti banki ETVA in ne državi.
The loan contract between ETVA and HSY was concluded on 31 May 2002.
Posojilna pogodba med banko ETVA in podjetjem HSY je bila sklenjena 31. maja 2002.
The amount of the loan was EUR 13,75 million, its duration 2 years and its interest EURIBOR plus 125 basis points.
Znesek posojila je bil 13,75 milijona EUR za dobo 2 let in z obrestno mero EURIBOR, povečano za 125 bazičnih točk.
This is different from the situation of ETVA when it signed the loan contract in July 1999.
To se razlikuje od položaja, v katerem je bila banka ETVA v času podpisa posojilne pogodbe, torej julija 1999.
Another difference with measure P3 is that when the loan contract was signed on 31 May 2002, two international firms had completed the acquisition of HSY and would invest in it.
Druga razlika glede na ukrep P3 je, da sta v času podpisa posojilne pogodbe 31. maja 2002 dve mednarodni podjetji zaključili prevzem podjetja HSY in sta nameravali vanj vlagati.
This indicates that the Council could not be satisfied with the mere submission of a restructuring plan but really needed the implementation to be carried out.
To pomeni, da Svet ni mogel biti zadovoljen zgolj s predložitvijo načrta prestrukturiranja, temveč je bilo treba načrt dejansko tudi izvršiti.
Indeed, how aid could be granted ‘in connection with a systematic and specific restructuring programme’ if this programme is not implemented.
Kako bi bilo sploh mogoče dodeliti pomoč „v povezavi s sistemskim in posebnim programom prestrukturiranja“, če se ta program ne bi izvajal?
The preamble of the Directive 90/684/EEC indicates ‘Whereas a short-term financial restructuring of the shipbuilding industry in Greece is necessary in order to enable its public owners to restore its competitiveness by selling it off to new owners’.
V uvodni izjavi k Direktivi 90/684/EGS je navedeno: „Ob upoštevanju, da je kratkoročno finančno prestrukturiranje ladjedelniške industrije v Grčiji potrebno, da bi se javnim lastnikom omogočilo, da obnovijo svojo konkurenčnost z odprodajo novim lastnikom“.
Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 was applicable until 31 December 1998.
Uredba (ES) št. 1013/97 se je uporabljala do 31. decembra 1998.
The Commission observes that the Council again used the words ‘sold’ and ‘privatisation’ in respect of HSY.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Svet v zvezi s podjetjem HSY ponovno uporabil besedi „prodati“ in „privatizacija“.
However, the Commission recalls that the contract of September 1995 contained unusual provisions regarding the payment of the purchase price: the purchase price of GRD 8,1 billion (EUR 24 million) would not be paid immediately by the employees but it would be paid in 13 annual instalments after a grace period of 2 years, therefore from 1998 until 2010.
Vendar Komisija opozarja, da je pogodba iz septembra 1995 vsebovala neobičajne določbe v zvezi s plačilom nakupne cene: nakupne cene v višini 8,1 milijarde GRD (24 milijonov EUR) zaposleni ne bi plačali takoj, temveč bi jo plačali v 13 letnih obrokih po dveletnem obdobju odloga, torej v času od leta 1998 do leta 2010.
Nevertheless, the ownership of the shares would be immediately transferred to the employees.
Kljub temu bi se lastništvo delnic takoj preneslo na zaposlene.
In exchange, ETVA gave up its claim toward the employees concerning the payment of the purchase price of 49 % of HSY’s shares which should have been paid by the employees according to the September 1995 contract.
V zameno se je banka ETVA odpovedala svoji zahtevi do zaposlenih v zvezi s plačilom nakupne cene v višini 49 % delnic podjetja HSY, ki bi jo zaposleni morali plačati v skladu s pogodbo iz septembra 1995.
This means that the employees as owners were never financially exposed to the success or failure of the restructuring.
To pomeni, da se zaposleni kot lastniki niso nikoli finančno izpostavili uspehu ali neuspehu prestrukturiranja.
It appears now that ETVA, which was controlled by the State, has never seriously tried to obtain the payment of the parts of the purchase price which, according to the September 1995 contract, should have been paid by the employees in 1998, 1999 and 2000.
Zdaj se zdi, da banka ETVA, ki je bila pod nadzorom države, ni nikoli resno poskušala izterjati obrokov nakupne cene, ki bi jih v skladu s pogodbo iz septembra 1995 zaposleni morali plačati v letih 1998, 1999 in 2000.
ETVA had several ways to obtain the payment of the purchase price.
Banka ETVA je imela več možnosti, da se ji nakupna cena izplača.
In addition, HSY and the association of the employees were also contractually bound towards ETVA by the individual agreements signed with each employee in the months following September 1995.
Poleg tega sta imeli podjetje HSY in združenje zaposlenih tudi pogodbene obveznosti do banke ETVA z individualnimi sporazumi, ki so jih po septembru 1995 podpisali vsi delavci.
Indeed, Decision C 10/94 as well as Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 are based on the fact that the shares have been ‘sold’ to the employees in September 1995.
Odločba C 10/94 in Uredba (ES) št. 1013/97 dejansko temeljita na dejstvu, da so bile delnice zaposlenim „prodane“ septembra 1995.
In other words, they are based on the hypothesis that the employees will pay the purchase price in accordance with the conditions laid down in the September 1995 contract.
Z drugimi besedami, temeljita na hipotezi, da bodo zaposleni plačali nakupno ceno v skladu s pogoji iz pogodbe iz septembra 1995.
They are not based on the fact that the shares have been ‘transferred’ or ‘given’ to the employees.
Ne temeljita na dejstvu, da so bile delnice „prenesene“ na zaposlene ali zaposlenim „dane“.
As explained earlier, it is logic that the Commission and the Council considered the payment of the purchase price as crucial since it forced the employees to attach importance to the value of the shares and manage the yard accordingly.
Kot je bilo že pojasnjeno, je razumljivo, da sta Komisija in Svet menila, da je plačilo nakupne cene ključnega pomena, saj je zaposlene prisililo, da pripišejo večji pomen vrednosti delnic in da temu ustrezno vodijo ladjedelnico.
As a subsidiary element, the Commission recalls that the total amount invested by the employees on the occasion of the three capital increases was much smaller than what they should have invested if they would have participated to these capital increases and paid the purchase price according to the terms of the September 1995 contract.
V dopolnilo temu Komisija opozarja, da je bil skupni znesek, ki so ga v času treh dokapitalizacij vložili zaposleni, precej manjši od zneska, ki bi ga morali vložiti, če bi bili udeleženi v teh dokapitalizacijah in če bi hkrati plačali nakupno ceno v skladu s pogoji iz pogodbe iz septembra 1995.
It is recalled that decision C 10/94 and Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 were based on the hypothesis that the September 1995 contract would be implemented, i.e. that the purchase price and the participation to the capital increases would be paid by the employees.
Opozoriti je treba, da sta odločba C 10/94 in Uredba (ES) št. 1013/97 temeljili na hipotezi, da se bo pogodba iz septembra 1995 izvršila, tj. da bodo zaposleni plačali nakupno ceno in udeležbo v dokapitalizacijah.
Since the September 1995 contract had already been submitted to the Commission and the Council at the time of the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 and decision C 10/94, these legal acts did not need to repeat the condition of the sale of the yard.
Ker je bila v času sprejetja Uredbe (ES) št. 1013/97 in odločbe C 10/94 pogodba iz septembra 1995 Komisiji in Svetu že predložena, v teh zakonskih aktih pogoj, ki je zadeval prodajo ladjedelnice, ni bil ponovno naveden.
They simply recall that the shares of HSY have been ‘sold’.
Navedeno je samo, da so bile delnice podjetja HSY „prodane“.
The Commission therefore concludes that ETVA, which was controlled by the State, has not tried to obtain the payment of the purchase price as it was supposed to do under the provisions of the sale contract of September 1995.
Komisija zato sklepa, da banka ETVA, ki je bila pod nadzorom države, ni niti poskušala izterjati nakupne cene, kot bi morala storiti na podlagi določb iz prodajne pogodbe iz septembra 1995.
As earlier explained, this constitutes a misuse of decision C 10/94, since the latter legitimately supposed a correct implementation of that contract.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno, to pomeni zlorabo odločbe C 10/94, saj se v njej jasno predpostavlja ustrezno izvrševanje pogodbe.
In relation to the third ground raised by Greece, the Commission also rejects the claim that the enforcement of the pledge on the unpaid shares and their sale in the framework of the privatisation of 2001–2002 is similar to obtaining from the employees the payment due under the September 1995 contract.
Kar zadeva tretji dokaz, ki ga je navedla Grčija, Komisija prav tako zavrača trditev, da sta uveljavljanje zastavne pravice na neplačane delnice in njihova prodaja v okviru privatizacije v obdobju 2001–2002 podobni izterjavi obrokov od zaposlenih na podlagi pogodbe iz septembra 1995.
First, since ETVA did not seek to obtain the payment of the purchase price from the employees, they did not expect to actually have to invest the corresponding amount of money and consequently did not risk losing this money if the value of the shares would decrease.
Prvič, ker banka ETVA ni poskusila izterjati nakupne cene od zaposlenih, zaposleni niso pričakovali, da bodo dejansko morali vložiti ustrezen znesek denarja, in tako niso tvegali, da bi izgubili denar, če bi vrednost delnic padla.
As late as in its answer to the extension decision, Greece and HSY claimed that the employees had started to pay the purchase price in 1998, as planned in the September 1995 contract.
Še v odgovoru na odločitev o podaljšanju sta Grčija in podjetje HSY trdila, da so zaposleni začeli odplačevati nakupno ceno leta 1998, kot je bilo predvideno v pogodbi iz septembra 1995.
However, in the framework of the investigation procedure, the Commission accumulated evidence that it was no the case.
Vendar je Komisija v okviru preiskovalnega postopka zbrala dokaze, da to ni bilo res.
Finally, HSY and Greece acknowledged that the employees did not pay the annual instalments in accordance with the September 1995 contract.
Podjetje HSY in Grčija sta na koncu priznala, da zaposleni letnih obrokov niso odplačali, kot to določa pogodba iz septembra 1995.
The Commission, having eventually clarified the relevant facts of the case, was at that moment able to assess whether there has been misuses of earlier decisions.
Ko so bila ustrezna dejstva v zvezi s to zadevo končno pojasnjena, je lahko Komisija ocenila, ali je šlo pri prejšnjih odločbah za zlorabo.
By using this method, Greece arrives at a total number of hours below 420000 for the each of year from 2002 until 2006.
S to metodo je Grčija izračunala, da je skupno število ur nižje od 420000 za vsako posamezno leto v obdobju od leta 2002 do leta 2006.
Greece thus concludes that the limitation has been complied with.
Grčija zato sklepa, da je bila omejitev upoštevana.
In addition, the Commission observes that the turnover of the repair activities of HSY has rapidly increased since 2002.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da se je promet, ustvarjen v okviru popravil, ki jih je podjetje HSY opravilo po letu 2002, hitro večal.
However this trend is not reflected at all in the total number of man-hours communicated by Greece.
Vendar pa ta trend sploh ni razviden iz skupnega števila delovnih ur, ki ga je sporočila Grčija.
Fourth, in the method proposed by Greece, the year 2003 has only nine months, i.e. until September 2003.
Četrtič, v metodi, ki jo je predlagala Grčija, ima leto 2003 samo devet mesecev, tj. traja do septembra 2003.
Greece claims that from that moment the accounting year started to run from October to October.
Grčija trdi, da se je v tem letu obračunsko leto začelo obračunavati od oktobra do oktobra.
As regards the compatibility of this aid, the Commission observes that it is undisputed that HSY’s workforce was reduced from 3022 persons in 1995 to 1977 persons in 1997.
Kar zadeva združljivost pomoči, Komisija ugotavlja, da se je delovna sila podjetja HSY zares zmanjšala s 3022 delavcev v letu 1995 na 1977 delavcev v letu 1997.
This reduction of the workforce was also reported in the two decisions adopted on 15 July 1997 (Decisions C 10/94 and N 401/97) because it constituted one pillar of the restructuring plan.
To zmanjšanje delovne sile je bilo tudi zabeleženo v dveh odločbah, sprejetih 15. julija 1997 (odločbi C 10/94 in N 401/97), saj je pomenilo steber načrta prestrukturiranja.
Decision N 401/97 considers there is ‘a reduction in the yard’s repair capacity equivalent to the reduction in the number of employees, which will not be possible to compensate with the envisaged increase in productivity and a reduction of docking capacity for commercial vessels’. The Decision also indicates that there is a small reduction of the shipbuilding capacity.
V skladu z odločbo N 401/97 obstaja „zmanjšanje zmogljivosti pri popravilu ladij, ki je enakovredno zmanjšanju števila zaposlenih, česar pa ne bo mogoče nadomestiti s predvidenim povečanjem produktivnosti in zmanjšanjem zmogljivosti pri pristajanju trgovskih plovil.“ V odločbi je navedeno tudi, da je zmanjšanje zmogljivosti pri gradnji ladij majhno.
Even if decision N 401/97 adopted on 15 July 1997 considers that the future participation of ETVA to the capital increases can in principle be considered free of aid within the implementation of the restructuring plan, this participation may nevertheless have constituted aid when it was implemented in 1998, 1999 and 2000.
Tudi če je v odločbi N 401/97, ki je bila sprejeta 15. julija 1997, navedeno, da se prihodnja udeležba banke ETVA v dokapitalizacijah načeloma lahko šteje za udeležbo brez elementa pomoči v okviru izvajanja načrta prestrukturiranja, bi ta udeležba kljub temu lahko pomenila pomoč v letih 1998, 1999 in 2000.
In particular, the situation of HSY worsened between these dates.
Položaj podjetja HSY se je v tem času poslabšal.
The extension decision further indicates that the fact that the employees participated in the capital increase pro rata to their stake in HSY’s capital does not exclude aid: first, it is not sure that they paid to ETVA the price for the 49 % stake in HSY in accordance with the partial privatisation agreement of September 1995.
V odločbi o podaljšanju postopka je navedeno tudi, da dejstvo, da so bili zaposleni v dokapitalizaciji udeleženi sorazmerno glede na njihov delež v podjetju HSY, ne izključuje pomoči: prvič, ni gotovo, da so banki ETVA plačali ceno za 49-odstotni delež v podjetju HSY v skladu s sporazumom o delni privatizaciji iz leta 1995.
Second, it is not excluded that the State has secretly committed to reimburse the employees any amount they would inject in HSY’s capital.
Drugič, ni izključeno, da je država na skrivaj delavcem povrnila znesek, ki so ga vložili za dokapitalizacijo podjetja HSY.
Greece recalls that the participation of ETVA and of the employees in the capital increase was contractually settled in the partial privatisation agreement of September 1995.
Grčija opozarja, da je bila udeležba banke ETVA in zaposlenih pri dokapitalizaciji pogodbeno urejena s sporazumom o delni privatizaciji iz septembra 1995.
Decision N 401/97 also indicated that these capital increases would take place, with a participation of ETVA and HSY’s employees of respectively 51 % and 49 %, without considering that ETVA’s participation would constitute aid.
V odločbi N 401/97 je navedeno tudi, da bi se te dokapitalizacije izvršile z 51-odstotno udeležbo banke ETVA oziroma 49-odstotno udeležbo zaposlenih, ne da bi udeležba banke ETVA pomenila pomoč.
This non payment also meant that the employees were not respecting their obligation under the partial privatisation contract of September 1995.
To neplačilo je pomenilo tudi, da zaposleni niso upoštevali svoje obveznosti iz pogodbe o delni privatizaciji iz septembra 1995.
ETVA was not contractually bound by the partial privatisation agreement anymore since the employees had breached it.
Banke ETVA pogodba o delni privatizaciji ni več zavezovala, saj so jo zaposleni prekršili.
The Commission considers that these are major differences compared to what the Commission expected at the time of adopting decision N 401/97 on the basis of the September 1995 contract.
Komisija meni, da se to močno razlikuje od tega, kar je Komisija pričakovala v času sprejetja odločbe N 401/1997 na podlagi pogodbe iz septembra 1995.
This is therefore sufficient to revise the non-aid assessment made at that time,
To torej zadostuje za spremembo ocene, opravljene v navedenem obdobju, po kateri naj ne bi šlo za pomoč.
The company did not succeed in building a large and profitable orderbook in 1997 and 1998.
Podjetje v letih 1997 in 1998 ni uspelo sestaviti obsežne in donosne knjige naročil.
Therefore, from the end of 1998, it progressively became more and more certain that the yard would be loss making in the next years.
Zato se je od konca leta 1998 začelo čedalje bolj zavedati, da bo ladjedelnica v naslednjih let ustvarjala izgube.
Indeed, in such a case, it should be considered that this Decision has been misused by the State-owned bank ETVA which has not collected the purchase price from the employees in accordance with the September 1995 contract.
V takšnem primeru bi bilo dejansko treba oceniti, da je državna banka ETVA to odločbo zlorabila, saj v skladu s pogodbo iz septembra 1995 ni zahtevala plačila nakupne cene od zaposlenih.
Indeed, the conclusion that ETVA’s participation to the future capital increases was not an aid was based on the expectation of the employees would pay the purchase price in accordance with the September 1995 contract.
Ugotovitev, da udeležba banke ETVA v prihodnjih dokapitalizacijah ni pomenila pomoči, je bila dejansko utemeljena na pričakovanju, da bodo zaposleni plačali nakupno ceno v skladu s pogodbo iz septembra 1995.
It should therefore be concluded that the part of Decision N 401/97 authorising ETVA’s participation has been misused and therefore that ETVA’s participation should be recovered from HSY.
Zato je treba skleniti, da je bil del odločbe N 401/97, v katerem je udeležba banke ETVA odobrena, napačno uporabljen, in da mora podjetje HSY udeležbo banke ETVA povrniti.
ETVA issued the advance payment guarantees in relation to the ISAP contract in February 1998 and January 1999 and the guarantees in relation to the OSE contract in August 1999.
Banka ETVA je poroštva za predplačilo izdala v povezavi s pogodbo ISAP februarja 1998 in januarja 1999, poroštva v povezavi s pogodbo OSE pa je izdala avgusta 1999.
ETVA in turn received corresponding counter-guarantees from the State.
V zameno za to je dobila ustrezna posredna poroštva od države.
Greece and HSY claim that, even if the State counter-guarantees were formally issued in December 1999, they were already promised to ETVA when it issued the advance payment guarantees in relation to the ISAP contract in February 1998 and January 1999 and the guarantees in relation to the OSE contract in August 1999.
Grčija in podjetje HSY trdita, da tudi, če so bila državna posredna poroštva uradno izdana decembra 1999, so bila banki ETVA obljubljena že, ko je odobrila poroštva za predplačilo v povezavi s pogodbo ISAP februarja 1998 in januarja 1999 ter poroštva v povezavi s pogodbo OSE avgusta 1999.
Greece claims that these counter-guarantees did not constitute selective measures.
Grčija trdi, da ta posredna poroštva ne pomenijo selektivnih ukrepov.
As will be shown afterwards, without State counter-guarantee, a private bank would have at least charged 480 bps per year for guarantees granted before 30 June 1999.
Kot bo navedeno v nadaljevanju, bi brez državnega posrednega poroštva zasebna banka zaračunala najmanj 480 bazičnih točk na leto za poroštva, ki bi bila odobrena prej 30. junijem 1999.
After that date, no private bank would have provided such guarantees.
Po tem datumu takšnih poroštev ne bi odobrila več nobena zasebna banka.
Accordingly, the counter-guarantees related to ISAP’s advance payments were granted before end of June 1999.
V skladu s tem so bila posredna poroštva, povezana s predplačili podjetja ISAP, že odobrena pred koncem junija 1999.
The total annual cost of these guarantees (guarantee fee paid to ETVA plus counter guarantee fee paid to the State) was much less than 480 basis points.
Skupni letni strošek teh poroštev (poroštvene premije, plačane banki ETVA, skupaj s premijami za posredna poroštva, plačanimi državi) je bil veliko manjši od 480 bazičnih točk.
The programme agreements were activated in August and September 1999 through payment by OSE of the advance payments agreed in the contracts of 1997.
Sporazumi o programu so se pričeli izvajati avgusta in septembra 1999 s predplačili podjetju OSE, kot je bilo dogovorjeno v pogodbah iz leta 1997.
OSE demanded timely implementation of the agreements from 2000 onwards after the first delays in the delivery of the material in that year.
Podjetje OSE je zahtevalo pravočasno izvršitev sporazumov od leta 2000 naprej po prvem odlogu dobave materiala v navedenem letu.
Indeed, HSY did not succeed in completing the construction of the two ships and, consequently, the contract with Strintzis was revoked in July 2002.
Podjetje HSY dejansko ni uspelo dokončati gradnje dveh ladij, zaradi česar je bila pogodba s podjetjem Strintzis julija 2002 razveljavljena.
HSY needed not less than two years to sell the hulls in construction and HSY received only EUR 14 million, which corresponds to only a third of the amount borrowed from ETVA to finance the construction.
Podjetje HSY je potrebovalo nič manj kot dve leti, da je prodalo trupe v izgradnji, in je prejelo samo 14 milijonov EUR, kar ustreza zgolj tretjini zneska, ki ga je najelo pri banki ETVA za financiranje gradnje.
The Commission observes that, on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98, contract-related operating aid was authorised for shipbuilding contracts signed until 31 December 2000.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila na podlagi člena 3 Uredbe (ES) št. 1540/98 pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki je izhajala iz pogodbe, odobrena za pogodbe o gradnji ladij, podpisane pred 31. decembrom 2000.
However, HSY was not entitled to receive aid for the contract with Strintzis since HSY never finished the ships, they were never delivered, and the contract with Strintzis was cancelled.
Vendar podjetje HSY ni bilo upravičeno do prejema pomoči za pogodbo s podjetjem Strintzis, saj ni nikoli dokončalo gradnje ladij, ladji nista bili nikoli dobavljeni, pogodba s podjetjem Strintzis pa je bila razveljavljena.
Greece indicates that a first guarantee was granted on 4 March 1999 and a second on 17 June 1999.
Grčija navaja, da je bilo prvo poroštvo odobreno 4. marca 1999, drugo pa 17. junija 1999.