natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With a total average salary of EUR 46200 per FTE per annum […], the total cost of this social liability would therefore be EUR 122,4 million.
Pri polnih povprečnih stroških dela v višini 46200 EUR na EPDČ na leto […] bi torej skupni stroški te socialne obveznosti družbe znašali 122,4 milijona EUR.
The 10-year DCF analysis is based on IFB’s balance sheet of 31 December 2002, and on the restructuring plan drawn up in February–March 2003, including projections to the end of 2005.
Analiza DCF za 10 let temelji na bilanci IFB na dan 31. decembra 2002 ter na načrtu za prestrukturiranje, ki se je pripravljal od februarja do marca 2003 in ki vsebuje tudi napovedi do konca leta 2005.
For the year 2006, when the restructuring of IFB brought about the stabilisation of the business, the trading profit had been set at 3,2 % of turnover.
Za leto 2006, ko prestrukturiranje IFB privede do stabilizacije podjetja, je bil izid iz rednega poslovanja določen na ravni 3,2 % prometa.
According to the Belgian Government, the fact that the duration of the rescue measures is more than 12 months would not have the effect of ruling out the possibility of their being compatible with the common market on the basis of the 1999 guidelines.
Po mnenju belgijske vlade dejstvo, da so ukrepi reševanja trajali več kot dvanajst mesecev, ne bi smelo pomeniti, da niso združljivi s skupnim trgom v skladu s smernicami iz leta 1999.
Belgium considers that SNCB maintained the rescue measures with the sole aim of covering the period necessary for the Commission to take the final decision in this case.
Belgija meni, da je družba SNCB vzdrževala ukrepe reševanja samo zato, da bi zapolnila čas, ki ga potrebuje Komisija, da dokončno odloči o tem spisu.
The total number of wagons of which IFB is the owner or which are subject to a long-term lease fell from 744 units in 2002 [25] to 377 units at the beginning of 2006 [26].
Skupno število vagonov, ki so v lasti ali dolgoročnem najemu IFB, se je namreč zmanjšalo s 744 enot leta 2002 [25] na 377 enot v začetku leta 2006 [26].
This is a reduction of 49 %.
Gre torej za zmanjšanje za 49 %.
Firstly, a contract for the transport of coal […] which generated a turnover […] in 2004 and […] in 2005.
Prva je bila pogodba o prevozu premoga […], ki je ustvarila promet […] leta 2004 in […] leta 2005.
Secondly, a contract for the bulk transport of aggregates which yielded an increase in turnover […] in 2004 and […] in 2005.
Druga je bila pogodba o prevozu razsutih granulatov, ki je povečala promet […] leta 2004 in […] leta 2005.
IFB achieved a profit margin on these two contracts, which adequately confirms the absence of anti-competitive practices on the part of IFB.
Družbi IFB sta ti pogodbi prinesli dobiček, kar potrjuje, da vodstvo IFB ni ravnalo protikonkurenčno.
According to the Belgian Government, SNCB and IFB carried out an in-depth analysis of IFB’s capital requirements on the basis of the results as at 31 December 2005 and the forecasts for the year 2006.
Po mnenju belgijske vlade sta SNCB in IFB opravili poglobljeno analizo potreb IFB po kapitalu na podlagi poslovnega izida na dan 31. decembra 2005 in napovedi za leto 2006.
The aim was to allow IFB to pursue its activities in the freight transhipment and logistics markets with a level of solvency comparable to its competitors in these markets.
Namen tega je bil, da se IFB omogoči nadaljevanje dejavnosti na trgu pretovarjanja in logistike s stopnjo solventnosti, primerljivo s konkurenti na teh trgih.
The financing requirement for 2006 has been limited to half of this sum, on the assumption of an increase in capital on 30 June 2006.
Potrebe po financiranju za leto 2006 so bile omejene na polovico tega zneska ob predpostavki, da se 30. junija 2006 poveča kapital.
Totalled over the entire period of restructuring, the gross operating loss which IFB would have incurred in the absence of productivity gains is EUR 27,9 million,
V obdobju prestrukturiranja bi skupni znesek bruto izgube iz poslovanja IFB brez povečanja produktivnosti znašal 27,9 milijona EUR.
During the restructuring period, IFB achieved important gains in productivity (see section B.2.1).
v obdobju prestrukturiranja je IFB zelo povečala produktivnost (glej odsek B.2.1).
These achievements improved the gross operating profit, as a result of which the loss in 2002 disappeared partially in 2003 and entirely in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
To je izboljšalo bruto izid iz rednega poslovanja, tako da je izguba iz leta 2002 delno izginila leta 2003, v celoti pa v letih 2004, 2005 in 2006.
Furthermore, a surplus was made in 2004 and 2005, which should also be the case in 2006.
Poleg tega je bil v letih 2004 in 2005 ustvarjen presežek, ki naj bi bil ustvarjen tudi leta 2006.
The Commission notes that SNCB is a public undertaking within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 80/723/EEC: the Belgian State owns 100 % of the share capital of SNCB, and the Management Board, along with the Chief Executive, are appointed by the King, by decree debated in the Council of Ministers.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je SNCB javno podjetje v smislu člena 2 Direktive 80/723/EGS: Belgija ima v lasti 100 % vpisanega kapitala SNCB, upravni odbor in generalnega direktorja pa z odlokom, o katerem odloča svet ministrov, imenuje kralj.
Thus, the criteria in Article 2(2)(a) and (c) of that Directive are fulfilled.
Torej so merila iz člena 2(2)(a) in (c) navedene direktive izpolnjena.
As regards the imputability of the State measures concerned, the Stardust Marine ruling states that ‘… the mere fact that a public undertaking is under State control is not sufficient for measures taken by that undertaking, such as the financial support measures in question here, to be imputed to the State. It is also necessary to examine whether the public authorities must be regarded as having been involved, in one way or another, in the adoption of those measures.
Da bi se ukrepi lahko pripisali zadevni državi, po sodbi Stardust Marine„… samo dejstvo, da je javno podjetje pod državnim nadzorom, ni dovolj, da bi ukrepe podjetja, kot so zadevni ukrepi finančne podpore, pripisali državi.
According to the facts at the Commission’s disposal neither the examination of the dossier, nor the third party observations resulted in evidence suggesting that the Belgian Government sought to influence the decision by the Management Board of 19 July 2002.
Vendar iz tega, s čimer razpolaga Komisija, izhaja, da preučitev spisa in pripombe tretjih strani niso razkrile dokazov, da je belgijska vlada poskušala vplivati na odločitev upravnega odbora 19. julija 2002.
The SNCB, being an autonomous public undertaking, which has the status of a public limited company in law, enjoys management independence in relation to Belgium.
Ker je SNCB samostojno javno podjetje in ima status delniške družbe, ki deluje po javnem pravu, v razmerju do belgijske države uživa avtonomijo pri upravljanju podjetja.
The Commission’s consistent practice is to consider that a private investor would have continued a subsidiary’s activities, if a comparison between the costs of liquidation of the subsidiary and the costs of restructuring the subsidiary showed that the costs of liquidation exceeded the costs of restructuring [45].
Stalna praksa Komisije je mnenje, da bi zasebni vlagatelj nadaljeval dejavnost hčerinske družbe, če primerjava stroškov likvidacije hčerinske družbe in stroškov njenega prestrukturiranja pokaže, da so stroški likvidacije višji kot stroški prestrukturiranja [45].
It is only in exceptional cases and under very strict conditions that certain national legislation allows the possibility for third parties to have recourse to the shareholders [46].
Samo v izjemnih primerih in pod zelo strogimi pogoji določene nacionalne zakonodaje predvidevajo možnost, da se tretje osebe obrnejo na delničarje [46].
This amount of EUR 13 million can therefore be considered to be a maximum limit.
Znesek 13 milijonov EUR je torej treba razumeti kot najvišji možni znesek.
The amount of additional social cost for SNCB
Znesek dodatnih socialnih stroškov za SNCB
The last version of these guidelines came into force on 10 October 2004.
Zadnja različica smernic je začela veljati 10. oktobra 2004.
Point 7 thereof, ‘date of application and duration’, states:
V točki 7 sta določena „začetek uporabe in trajanje“.
‘Rescue aid must:
„Pomoč za reševanje mora biti:
The Commission notes that Belgium implemented this restructuring aid on 7 April 2003.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Belgija začela izvajati pomoč za prestrukturiranje 7. aprila 2003.
The period of six months for the submission of a restructuring plan therefore expired on 6 October 2003.
Šestmesečni rok za predložitev načrta za prestrukturiranje je torej potekel 6. oktobra 2003.
Having communicated the restructuring plan to the Commission at the meeting on 12 December 2003, the Belgian authorities did not comply with the period provided for in point 24 of the guidelines.
Ker so belgijski organi načrt za prestrukturiranje Komisiji predložili na srečanju 12. decembra 2003, niso upoštevali roka iz točke 24 smernic.
The Belgian authorities, in their reply to the letter initiating the procedure, had informed the Commission that SNCB was relinquishing to IFB the contribution in kind of its shareholding in the company TRW, and retracting its notification of 28 February 2005.
Belgijski organi so v odgovoru na dopis o sprožitvi postopka obvestili Komisijo, da se je SNCB odpovedala prenosu stvarnega vložka v obliki svojega deleža v družbi TRW na IFB in da umika priglasitev z dne 28. februarja 2005.
Due to this, the Commission notes that SNCB decided not to award any further benefit to IFB, but to limit itself to converting debts into capital.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da se je SNCB odločila, da IFB ne bo dodelila nove ugodnosti, ampak samo pretvorila terjatve v kapital.
It is necessary to determine whether SNCB committed to converting debts into capital before the publication of the 2004 guidelines.
Treba je ugotoviti, ali se je družba SNCB odločila, da bo pretvorila terjatve v kapital, preden so bile objavljene smernice iz leta 2004.
The Belgian authorities, in their reply to the letter initiating the procedure, demonstrated that, under Belgian law, SNCB’s commitment to converting debts into capital was firm as from 7 April 2003, the time of the conclusion of the framework agreement, and the fact that this commitment was subject to a condition precedent, that is to say notification to the Commission and approval by the Commission, did not have the consequence of removing the firm and definite nature of this commitment.
Belgijski organi so v odgovoru na dopis o sprožitvi postopka dokazali, da je bila zaveza SNCB, da pretvori terjatve v kapital, zavezujoča od 7. aprila 2003, ko je bila sklenjena okvirna pogodba, in zaradi dejstva, da je za zavezo veljal odložilni pogoj, to je priglasitev pri Komisiji in odobritev s strani Komisije, ta zaveza ni izgubila svoje dokončnosti.
The two conditions being fulfilled, the Commission concludes that it is appropriate to apply the 1999 guidelines to this case.
Ker sta izpolnjena oba pogoja, Komisija sklepa, da je treba za ta primer uporabiti smernice iz leta 1999.
This conclusion is moreover in keeping with the analysis presented in the decision initiating the procedure (point 240), in which the Commission concludes:
Ta sklep je v skladu z analizo iz odločbe o sprožitvi postopka (točka 240), kjer je Komisija sklepala:
In their reply to the letter initiating the procedure, the Belgian authorities established that IFB continued with the legal identity of FerryBoats SA, which had been registered in 1923.
Belgijski organi so v odgovoru na dopis o sprožitvi postopka trdili, da je IFB nadaljevanje pravne osebe FerryBoats SA, ki je bila vpisana v register leta 1923.
The Commission therefore concludes that IFB is not a newly created firm within the meaning of point 7 of the 1999 guidelines.
Komisija torej sklepa, da IFB ni na novo ustanovljeno podjetje v smislu točke 7 smernic iz leta 1999.
Compensatory measures can take different forms according to whether or not the firm is operating in a market where there is excess capacity.
Izravnalni ukrepi imajo lahko različne oblike glede na to, ali podjetje posluje na trgu, na katerem obstajajo presežki zmogljivosti ali ne.
Secondly, Belgium showed that IFB had reduced its capacity in the fright transhipment market from 1,5 million TEU in 2002 to 1,1 million TEU at the end of 2005.
Belgija je nato pokazala, da je družba IFB zmanjšala svojo zmogljivost na trgu pretovarjanja z 1,5 milijona TEU leta 2002 na 1,1 milijona TEU konec leta 2005.
The Commission considers that this reduction in capacity constitutes an important mitigating measure.
Komisija meni, da je to zmanjšanje zmogljivosti pomemben omilitveni ukrep.
IFB was able to release EUR 3,3 million in 2003 and 2006 by entering into credit arrangements with private credit institutions.
S posojili, najetimi pri zasebnih kreditnih ustanovah, je družba IFB lahko zbrala 3,3 milijona EUR v letih 2003 in 2006.
This credit has been described in detail in points 75 to 79 of the decision initiating the procedure.
Ta posojila so bila podrobno opisana v točkah 75 do 79 odločbe o sprožitvi postopka.
Judgment of 6 March 2003, WestLB Girozentrale v Commission (Cases T-228/99 and T-233/99 [2003] II-435).
Sodba Sodišča z dne 6. marca 2003 v zadevi WestLB Girozentrale proti Komisiji (T-228/99 in T-233/99 ZOdl. 2003, str. II-435).
Paragraph 2251.
Točka 2251.
15 million
15 milijonov
63 million
63 milijonov
17,3 million
17,3 milijona
95,3 million
95,3 milijona
This results in a net value of EUR – 18,2 million for the SNCB shareholding in IFB in the business-as-usual scenario.
Iz tega bi sledilo, da je neto vrednost deleža SNCB v IFB -18,2 milijona EUR po scenariju nadaljevanja dejavnosti.
This calculation is illustrated in diagram 6.
Ta izračun je ponazorjen v shemi 6.
IFB France, which subsequently became AGEP, was sold to NFTI-ou […] which represented a depreciation in capital of EUR 0,1 million.
Družba IFB France, ki je postala AGEP, je NFTI-ou prepustila […], kar je pomenilo 0,1 milijona EUR kapitalske izgube.
Since IFB divested itself of NFTI-ou at the same time, the transfer to NFTI-ou resulted in the divestiture by sale of IFB France.
Ker je družba IFB hkrati umaknila naložbe iz NFTI-ou, je prenos na NFTI-ou povzročil dezinvesticijo s prodajo IFB France.
As has already demonstrated in the decision initiating the procedure (point 225), IFB’s 2002 annual accounts show a subscribed capital of EUR 48 million and recurrent losses before tax of EUR 50 million.
Kot je bilo dokazano v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka (točka 225), zaključni račun IFB za leto 2002 izkazuje vpisani kapital v višini 48 milijonov EUR in 50 milijonov EUR tekočih izgub pred davki.
Consequently, the share capital had disappeared when SNCB decided in April 2003 to award the aid.
Torej osnovnega kapitala ni bilo več, ko se je SNCB aprila 2003 odločila dodeliti pomoči.
As in the assumption of its sale, IFB would have had to abandon its receivables to IFB France for a value of EUR 0,8 million.
Družba IFB bi morala kot v primeru prodaje opustiti terjatve do IFB France v vrednosti 0,8 milijona EUR. Belgija vseeno trdi, da bi stečaj ustvaril dodatne stroške.
Belgium however claims that filing for bankruptcy would have generated additional costs: IFB would not have been able to achieve the sale price of EUR 0,1 million, which would have generated capital losses on its shareholding, and IFB would have had to pay a total of EUR 0,8 million to 14 employees, who would have lost their employment following the bankruptcy, by virtue of French social law.
IFB ne bi mogla doseči prodajne cene v višini 0,1 milijona EUR, kar bi ustvarilo kapitalsko izgubo od njenega deleža, in IFB bi morala na podlagi francoske socialne zakonodaje plačati skupaj 0,8 milijona EUR 14 zaposlenim, ki bi izgubili zaposlitev zaradi stečaja.
IFB utilised EUR 30,9 million of its financial headroom obtained by the granting of the provisional credit facility of EUR 15 million and by the provisional non-recovery of the existing debts of the order of EUR 63 million to finance the divestiture. EUR 7,7 million of finance correspond to interest due for this sum by virtue of the framework agreement of 7 April 2003, which provides that the interest is not paid until the time of the payment of the principle debt (or converted into capital at the same time as the principal debt).
Dejansko je IFB za financiranje dezinvesticij uporabila 30,9 milijona EUR manevrskega prostora, ki ga je pridobila z začasnim posojilom v višini 15 milijonov EUR in začasno neizterjavo obstoječih terjatev v višini 63 milijonov EUR. 7,7 milijona EUR financiranja ustreza zapadlim obrestim za ta znesek v skladu z okvirno pogodbo z dne 7. aprila 2003, ki določa, de se obresti plačajo hkrati s plačilom glavnice (ali se hkrati z glavnico pretvorijo v kapital).
Net cost — adjusted sums Total asset value
Skupaj računovodska vrednost sredstev
on the State aid C 41/05 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements
o državni pomoči C 41/05, ki jo je Madžarska dodelila v obliki sporazumov o nakupu električne energije
(notified under document C(2008) 2223)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 2223)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above [1], and having regard to those comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi določbami [1] in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
By letter dated 31 March 2004, registered on the same day, the Hungarian authorities notified the Commission of Government Decree 183/2002 (VIII.23) [2] under the procedure referred to in Annex IV, paragraph 3, subparagraph 1(c) to the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (interim procedure).
Z dopisom z dne 31. marca 2004, evidentiranim istega dne, so madžarski organi obvestili Komisijo o Uredbi vlade 183/2002 (VIII.23.) [2] v okviru postopka iz pododstavka 1(c) odstavka 3 Priloge IV k Pogodbi o pristopu Češke republike, Estonije, Cipra, Latvije, Litve, Madžarske, Malte, Poljske, Slovenije in Slovaške k Evropski uniji („začasni postopek“).
The notified Decree provides for a system of compensation of the costs borne by the State-owned electricity wholesaler (közüzemi nagykereskedelmi engedélyes), the company Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt.
Priglašena uredba določa sistem nadomestil za stroške, ki jih je imel grosist za dobavo električne energije, ki je v lasti države (közüzemi nagykereskedelmi engedélyes), podjetje Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt.
(hereinafter referred to as MVM).
(v nadaljevanju „MVM“).
The Commission registered the notification under State aid case number HU 1/04.
Komisija je evidentirala obvestilo pod številko primera državne pomoči HU 1/2004.
A number of official letters were exchanged between the Hungarian authorities and the Commission concerning the measure [3].
Madžarski organi so s Komisijo izmenjali več uradnih pisem v zvezi z ukrepom [3].
The Commission also received comments from third parties [4].
Komisija je prejela tudi pripombe tretjih oseb [4].
In the course of the interim procedure, the Commission discovered that the Hungarian electricity wholesale market was essentially structured around long-term Power Purchase Agreements (hereinafter referred to as PPAs) between MVM and certain power generators.
Med začasnim postopkom je Komisija ugotovila, da je madžarski veleprodajni trg z električno energijo v bistvu temeljil na dolgoročnih sporazumih o nakupu električne energije (v nadaljevanju: SNEE) med MVM in določenimi proizvajalci električne energije.
Based on the information available to it at that time, the Commission suspected that the PPAs contained unlawful State aid elements.
Na podlagi takrat dostopnih informacij je Komisija posumila, da SNEE vključujejo nezakonite elemente državne pomoči.
By letter dated 13 April 2005, registered on 15 April 2005, the Hungarian authorities withdrew the notification of Government Decree 183/2002.
Z dopisom z dne 13. aprila 2005, evidentiranim 15. aprila 2005, so madžarski organi umaknili uradno objavo Uredbe vlade 183/2002.
On 4 May 2005, in line with Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [5], (hereinafter the ‘Procedural Regulation’) the Commission registered a State aid file on its own initiative (case number NN 49/05) concerning the PPAs.
Komisija je 4. maja 2005 v skladu z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [5] (v nadaljevanju: Postopkovna uredba), na lastno pobudo evidentirala dokument o državni pomoči (številka NN 49/05), ki se nanaša na SNEE.
By letter dated 24 May 2005 (D/54013), the Commission requested additional information from the Hungarian authorities.
Z dopisom z dne 24. maja 2005 (D/54013) je Komisija madžarske organe zaprosila za dodatne informacije.
By letter dated 9 November 2005, the Commission informed Hungary that it had decided to open the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the PPAs (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opening Decision’).
Z dopisom z dne 9. novembra 2005 je Komisija obvestila Madžarsko, da bo začela postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES v zvezi s SNEE (v nadaljevanju: Sklep o začetku postopka).
The Opening Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [6].
Sklep o začetku postopka je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [6].
In the Opening Decision, the Commission expressed its doubts as to the compatibility of the PPAs with the common market and called on interested parties to submit their comments.
V Sklepu o začetku postopka je Komisija izrazila svoje dvome glede skladnosti SNEE s skupnim trgom in pozvala zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo svoje pripombe.
Following a request for an extension of the deadline for comments, accepted by the Commission [7], Hungary submitted its comments on the Opening Decision on 31 January 2006, registered by the Commission on 1 February 2006.
Po prošnji za podaljšanje roka za oddajo pripomb, ki jo je prejela Komisija [7], je Madžarska posredovala svoje pripombe glede Sklepa o začetku postopka dne 31. januarja, Komisija pa jih je evidentirala 1. februarja 2006.
Requests registered on 9 January 2006 (Budapesti Erőmű), 16 January 2006 (AES-Tisza, […] [9], 17 January 2006 (Electrabel), 19 January 2006 […] and 20 January 2006 (Csepeli Erőmű), accepted by the Commission in letters dated 13, 18, 20, 24 January and 27 February 2006.
Prošnje, evidentirane 9. januarja 2006 (Budapesti Erőmű), 16. januarja 2006 (AES-Tisza, […] [9]), 17. januarja 2006 (Electrabel), 19. januarja 2006 […] in 20. januarja 2006 (Csepeli Erőmű), ki jih je Komisija prejela z dopisi z dne 13., 18., 20., in 24. januarja ter 27. februarja 2006.
, the comments of third parties were registered by the Commission as follows: comments submitted by MVM on 11 January 2006; by a third party that requested its identity to be withheld on 20 January 2006; by Marta power plant on 20 January and 6 March 2006; by the bank […] on 10 February 2006; by AES-Tisza power plant on 13 and 14 February 2006; by the bank […] on 13 February 2006; by Electrabel S.A. and its subsidiary Dunament power plant on 14 February 2006; by Budapest power plant on 21 February 2006; and by Csepel power plant on 21 February 2006.
, je Komisija evidentirala pripombe tretjih strank kot sledi: pripombe, ki jih je poslal MVM dne 11. januarja 2006; pripombe, ki jih je poslala tretja stranka, ki je zahtevala, da se njena identiteta ne razkrije, dne 20. januarja 2006; pripombe, ki jih je poslala elektrarna Marta dne 20. januarja in 6. marca 2006; pripombe, ki jih je poslala banka […] dne 10. februarja 2006; pripombe, ki jih je poslala elektrarna AES-Tisza 13. in 14. februarja 2006; pripombe, ki jih je poslala banka […] dne 13. februarja 2006; pripombe, ki sta jih poslala Electrabel S.A. in njegova podružnica elektrarna Dunament dne 14. februarja 2006; pripombe, ki jih je poslala elektrarna Budapest dne 21. februarja 2006; ter pripombe, ki jih je poslala elektrarna Csepel dne 21. februarja 2006.