natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By letter of 20 March 1987 (reference SG (87) D/3738), the Commission informed Greece that it has decided that the capital injection by ETVA constitutes State aid, which is however compatible with the common market.
Z dopisom z dne 20. marca 1987 (napotilo SG (87) D/3738) je Komisija obvestila Grčijo o svoji odločitvi, da dokapitalizacija, ki jo je izvršila banka ETVA, pomeni državno pomoč, ki pa je združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Chapter E (article 12-15) of Law 2367/1995.
Poglavje E (členi 12–15) zakona 2367/1995.
For instance Article 13 of Law 2367/1995 provided for the reduction of 600 in the company’s workforce and specified the redundancy incentives.
Na primer, člen 13 Zakona 2367/1995 določa zmanjšanje delovne sile podjetja za 600 delavcev in opredeljuje stimulacije za odpuščanje.
Also, according to article 14 of this law, 99 % of the then existing debts of HSY will be written off.
Poleg tega bo v skladu s členom 14 tega zakona odpisanih 99 % takratnih dolgov podjetja HSY.
As indicated previously, the State in fact started to provide large aids to HSY as soon as it purchased it.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, je država dejansko začela dajati velike pomoči podjetju HSY takoj, ko ga je kupila.
ETVA had therefore, given the state influence, no choice but to grant a loan demanded by HSY.
Banka ETVA zato zaradi vpliva države ni imela druge izbire, kot da odobri posojilo, ki ga je zahtevalo podjetje HSY.
Commission notice pursuant to Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty to other Member States and interested parties concerning aid which Greece has decided to grant to Hellenic Shipyards plc (OJ C 80, 13.3.1997, p. 8).
Obvestilo Komisije na podlagi člena 93 (2) Pogodbe ES državam članicam in zainteresiranim stranem v zvezi s pomočjo, ki jo je Grčija sklenila odobriti podjetju Hellenic Shipyards plc (UL C 80, 13.3.1997, str. 8).
ECJ, case C-482/99, France v Commission (‘Stardust’) ECR [2002] I-4397, paragraph 56.
SES, zadeva C-482/99, Francija proti Komisiji („Stardust“), Recueil [2002] I-4397, odstavek 56.
Letter of the Greek authorities dated 18 September 2002 (registered by the Commission on 23 September 2002 with number A/36895), sent in the framework of the case CP 101/02.
Dopis grških organov z dne 18. septembra 2002 (evidentiran s strani Komisije dne 23. septembra 2002 pod številko A/36895), poslan v okviru zadeve CP 101/02.
Letter of the Greek authorities dated 20 November 2003, sent in the framework of the case CP 101/02.
Dopis grških organov z dne 20. novembra 2003, poslan v okviru zadeve CP 101/02.
Moreover, they were granted in addition to the already existing involvement of ETVA in HSY, such that the total exposure of ETVA towards HSY was significant.
Poleg tega so bila odobrena poleg že obstoječe udeležbe banke ETVA v podjetju HSY, tako da je bilo skupno finančno tveganje banke ETVA v podjetju HSY precejšnje.
The proof of the significance of this exposure is that ETVA’s Annual Report of the year 2000 acknowledges the damages brought to the bank by the involvement in Hellenic Shipyards (p. 42-43).
Dokaz pomembnosti tega tveganja je, da banka ETVA v svojem letnem poročilu za leto 2000 priznava škodo, ki jo je utrpela zaradi udeležbe v podjetju Hellenic Shipyards (str. 42–43).
Greece’s letter dated 15 June 2006 (the recovery procedure has number CR 40/02).
Dopis Grčije z dne 15. junija 2006 (številka postopka za izterjavo je CR 40/02).
In decision C 10/94, the Commission does not assess the waiver of debts stemming from ‘the building of military vessels’ because it is an ‘activity which is outside the scope of the EC Treaty’.
V odločbi C 10/94 Komisija ne ocenjuje, da odpis dolgov izhaja iz „izgradnje vojaških plovil“, saj gre za „dejavnost, ki ne spada na področja uporabe Pogodbe ES“.
Similarly in decision N 513/01, the Commission does not assess 75 % of the State support amounting to EUR 118 million because it is related to military shipbuilding.
Podobno v odločbi N 513/01 Komisija ne ocenjuje 75 % državne pomoči, ki znaša 118 milijonov EUR, saj je ta pomoč povezana z gradnjo vojaških ladij.
It is recalled that HSY did not keep separate accounts between military and civil activities during the years concerned.
Opozoriti je treba, da podjetje HSY v teh letih ni vodilo ločenih računov za vojaške in civilne dejavnosti.
Therefore, a measure can be considered to finance a particular activity only if the granting decision indicates precisely which activity is financed.
Zato se lahko šteje, da ta ukrep financira določeno dejavnost samo, če je v odločbi o odobritvi natančno navedeno, katera dejavnost se s tem financira.
During the same year, the waiver of debts related to the military activities of the yard was not assessed under State aid rules by the Commission.
V istem letu Komisija ni ocenila odpisa dolga v zvezi z vojaškimi dejavnostmi na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči.
This is also clear from the wording of decision C 10/94.
To je razvidno tudi iz besedila določbe C 10/94.
This was also the information provided to the interested bidders during the privatisation process in 2001, as can be concluded from the ‘Due Dilligence’ report of 19 June 2001 performed by Arthur Andersen for HDW and Ferrostaal, p. 23 (provided as Appendix C of the report submitted by TKMS and GNSH in their letter of 21 June 2007).
Te informacije so bile posredovane tudi zainteresiranim ponudnikom v času postopka privatizacije leta 2001, kar je razvidno iz poročila „Primerna skrbnost“ z dne 19. junija 2001, ki ga je za podjetji HDW in Ferrostaal sestavil Arthur Andersen, str. 23 (predloženo kot Dodatek C k poročilu, ki sta ga v svojem dopisu z dne 21. junija 2007 predložili podjetji TKMS in GNSH).
The Commission recalls that the 2001–2002 privatisation — and even less the freezing of the investment programme during that process — was not something requested by the Commission.
Komisija opozarja, da privatizacije v letih 2001–2002, še manj pa zamrznitve naložbenega načrta v času tega postopka, ni zahtevala.
Section 1.3.b of the letter dated 20 October 2004.
Oddelek 1.3.b dopisa z dne 20. oktobra 2004.
Amount provided in EUR by the Greek authorities.
Znesek, ki so ga v EUR zagotovili grški organi.
This information appears in section 1.3 and in Annex 4, 5 and 6 of Greece’s letter dated 20 October 2004.
Ta podatek se pojavi v oddelku 1. 3 in Prilogi 4, 5 in 6 h dopisu Grčije z dne 20. oktobra 2004.
See footnote 14 in Greece’s letter of 20 October 2004.
Glej opombo 14 v dopisu Grčije z dne 20. oktobra 2004.
Point 2.1.2 of the Notice on guarantees indicates ‘even if no payments are ever made by the State under the guarantee, there may nevertheless be a State aid under Article 87(1).
V točki 2.1.2 obvestila o poroštvih je navedeno, da „tudi če država na podlagi poroštva ne izvrši nobenih plačil, to lahko še vedno pomeni državno pomoč na podlagi člena 87(1).
The aid is granted at the moment when the guarantee is given, not the moment at which the guarantee is invoked or the moment at which payments are made under the terms of the guarantee.
Pomoč se odobri v trenutku, ko se odobri poroštvo, in ne v trenutku uveljavitve poroštva ali v trenutku, ko se na podlagi pogojev poroštva opravijo plačila.
Whether or not a guarantee constitutes State aid, and, if so, what the amount of that State aid may be, must be assessed at the moment the guarantee is given’.
Ali poroštvo pomeni državno pomoč ali ne, in kolikšen je lahko znesek državne pomoči, če jo pomeni, je treba oceniti v trenutku, ko se poroštvo odobri.“
For instance, ‘Portugal shipyards’ were mentioned as competitors of HSY on page 10 of the document ‘Hellenic Shipyards S.A. — Confidential Information Memorandum — Alpha Finance/Commercial Bank of Greece/KPMG/Elias SP.
Na primer, podjetje „Portugal shipyards“ je bilo kot konkurent podjetja HSY omenjeno na strani 10 dokumenta „Hellenic Shipyards S.A. – Memorandum o zaupnih informacijah – Alpha Finance/Komercialna banka Grčije/KPMG/Elias SP.
A copy of this report was provided by TKMS/GNSH in its letter of 21 June 2007.The Commission also observes that the Commission Decision in Merger case No COMP/M.2772 — HDW/FERROSTAAL/HELLENIC SHIPYARD indicates under the heading ‘Geographical market definition’ that ‘The parties argue, that the market for construction, repair and conversion of all kinds of commercial vessels are world wide in geographical scope, as the transportation costs for ships are comparatively low and there is no significant trade barriers’.
Izvod tega poročila sta podjetji TKMS/GNSH predložili v svojem dopisu z dne 21. junija 2007.Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da je v odločbi Komisije o zadevi o združitvi COMP/M.2772 – HDW/FERROSTAAL/HELLENIC SHIPYARD pod naslovom „Geografska opredelitev trga“ navedeno, da „stranki trdita, da je geografski obseg trga gradnje, popravil in predelave vseh vrst komercialnih ladij ves svet, saj so stroški prevoza za ladje razmeroma nizki in ker ni nobenih velikih ovir za trgovino.“
The Commission also observes that prior decisions of the Commission and of the Council concerning State aid provided to HSY hinged on the existence of a distortion of competition and an effect of trade.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da so se predhodne odločbe Komisije in Sveta o državni pomoči za podjetje HSY sklicevale na obstoj izkrivljanja konkurence in učinek trgovine.
These decisions have never been contested.
Te odločbe niso bile nikoli izpodbijane.
Therefore, when assessing measures implemented during the same period, an extensive verification of the fulfilment of these two criteria is not necessary.
Zato pri oceni ukrepov, ki so se izvajali v istem obdobju, obsežno preverjanje izpolnjevanja teh dveh meril ni potrebno.
This information was provided by Greece in section 1.3.a and Annex 4 of its letter of 20 October 2004.
Ta podatek je Grčija predložila v oddelku 1.3.a in Prilogi 4 k dopisu z dne 20. oktobra 2004.
If the yard had ceased operations, the competent control bodies could have decided not the make any control regarding the implementation of the plan and therefore the condition to pay the first tranche would not have been met.
Če bi ladjedelnica ustavila svoje dejavnosti, bi se lahko pristojni nadzorni organi odločili, da ne opravijo nadzora nad izvajanjem načrta, zaradi česar pogoj o plačilu prvega obroka ne bi bil izpolnjen.
In section 1.2.2 ‘First control made by competent organs’ (English translation) of their letter of 20 October 2004, the Greek authorities explain that the Ministry of national economy has been late in the writing the control form, such that the deadline of 31 December 1999 set in the Greek government approval decision has been missed.
V oddelku 1.2.2 „First control made by competent organs“ (angleški prevod) [ Prvi nadzor s strani pristojnih organov] dopisa z dne 20. oktobra 2004 so grški organi pojasnili, da Ministrstvo za gospodarstvo ni pravočasno izpolnilo obrazca o nadzoru, zato je bil rok 31. decembra 1999, določen v odločbi grške vlade o odobritvi, zamujen.
In order to pay the aid after that date, a prolongation of the period to implement the investment plan needed to be authorised by the Greek authorities.
Da bi se pomoč izplačala po tem datumu, bi morali grški organi odobriti podaljšanje roka za izvedbo naložbenega načrta.
The decision authorising the prolongation supposed itself the prolongation of the commission taking such a decision, which was made complicated by legislative changes.
Odločba o odobritvi podaljšanja roka je predpostavljala tudi podaljšanje delovanja odbora za odločanje, kar je bilo zaradi zakonodajnih sprememb zapleteno.
The difference between the two interest rates has to be multiplied by the principal of the loan outstanding (i.e. not yet reimbursed) during the year concerned.
Razliko med obema obrestnima merama je treba pomnožiti z glavnico neporavnanega posojila (tj. še nepovrnjenega) v zadevnem letu
In a similar manner, the Notice on guarantees indicates that the aid is given when the guarantee is granted and not at a future date (see footnote 76).
Podobno je v obvestilu o poroštvih navedeno, da se pomoč izplača v času odobritve poroštva in ne pozneje (glej opombo 76).
Indeed, the market value of a loan depends on the present value of the future cash flows, which are discounted using an interest rate reflecting the risk of the loan.
Tržna vrednost posojila je dejansko odvisna od trenutne vrednosti prihodnjih denarnih tokov, ki so diskontirani z uporabo obrestne mere, ki odraža tveganost posojila.
If the interest rate set in the loan contract is below the latter interest rate, the market value immediately decreases below the nominal value of the loan.
Če je obrestna mera, določena v pogodbi o posojilu, nižja od poznejše obrestne mere, tržna vrednost takoj pade pod nominalno vrednost posojila.
If the new owner of ETVA decided after the privatisation to prolong a non-state guaranteed loan beyond its initial maturity, there is no aid in the period beyond the initial maturity since there are no State resources according to the reasoning just explained.
Če bi se novi lastnik banke ETVA odločil, da po privatizaciji podaljša posojilo brez državnega poroštva za dobo, ki je daljša od njegove prvotne zapadlosti, v obdobju po prvotni zapadlosti ne more biti nobene pomoči, saj v skladu s to utemeljitvijo ni nikakršnih državnih sredstev.
This information was provided by Greece in section 1.3 and Annex 6 of its letter of 20 October 2004.
Ta podatke je predložila Grčija v oddelku 1.3 in Prilogi 6 k svojem dopisu z dne 20. oktobra 2004.
One could ask why ETVA signed the loan contract on 31 May 2002 if the intention was not to pay out the corresponding amount to HSY.
Mogoče bi se bilo vprašati, zakaj je banka ETVA 31. maja 2002 sploh podpisala posojilno pogodbo, če tega zneska podjetju HSY ni imela namena izplačati.
The Commission observes that the contract date is exactly the date of the signature of the closing of the sale of HSY.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bil datum sklenitve pogodbe prav datum podpisa zaključka prodaje podjetja HSY.
It is therefore likely that the purchasers of HSY put ETVA under pressure to grant more financing to HSY by threatening not to accept the closing of the sale.
Zato je verjetno, da so kupci podjetja HSY banko ETVA prisilili, da podjetju HSY odobri več sredstev s tem, da so ji zagrozili, da ne bodo privolili v zaključek prodaje.
In these circumstances, ETVA probably accepted to conclude this loan contract, but put in the contract provisions allowing her to refuse to pay out the loan when HSY would ask such a payment.
Banka ETVA je verjetno zaradi tega privolila v sklenitev pogodbe, vendar je vanjo vključila določbe, ki ji omogočajo, da zavrne izplačilo posojila, ko bi jo podjetje HSY zanj zaprosilo.
As will be explained in the assessment of measure E18c, under section 8.2.2 of the contract of 20 March 2002, Piraeus Bank was supposed to help the State to complete the sale of HSY.
Kot bo pojasnjeno v oceni ukrepa E18c, naj bi banka Piraeus Bank na podlagi oddelka 8.2.2 pogodbe z dne 20. marca 2002 državi pomagala, da zaključi prodajo podjetja HSY.
On that basis, the State has probably also put pressure on ETVA to sign this loan contract in order to facilitate the closing of the sale of HSY.
Na tej osnovi je država verjetno prisilila banko ETVA, da podpiše pogodbo o posojilu, da bi tako omogočila zaključek prodaje podjetja HSY.
Under Directive 90/684/EEC, the restructuring aid (Chapter III) is divided between investment aid (Article 6), closure aid (Article 7), R & D aid (Article 8) and operating aid for restructuring (Articles 9 and 10).
Na podlagi Direktive 90/684/EGS je pomoč za prestrukturiranje (Poglavje III) razdeljena na naložbeno pomoč (člen 6), pomoč za zaprtje (člen 7), pomoč za RR (člen 8) in pomoč za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja (člena 9 in 10).
Letter of the Greek authorities dated 15 February 2008, paragraph 26.
Dopis grških organov z dne 15. februarja 2008, odstavek 26.
The details of this participation will be provided in the analysis of measure E10.
Podrobnosti o udeležbi bodo navedene v analizi ukrepa E10.
Letter of the Greek authorities dated 31 March 2003, extract of answer to question 5.
Dopis grških organov z dne 31. marca 2003, odlomek odgovora na 5. vprašanje.
Letter of the Greek authorities dated 29 June 2007, extract of paragraphs 49, 50 and 51.
Dopis grških organov z dne 29. junija 2007, odlomek iz odstavkov 49, 50 in 51.
The Commission could not and did not ignore that employees have objectives like the preservation of the employment and therefore try to defend these objectives when managing their own firm.
Komisija ni mogla zanemariti in ni zanemarila dejstva, da želijo zaposleni ohraniti delovna mesta in da zato poskušajo zagovarjati ta cilj pri upravljanju podjetja.
However, the high purchase price meant that the preservation and the increase of the value of the shares would also have become an important objective for the employees.
Vendar pa je visoka nakupna cena pomenila, da bosta pomemben cilj za zaposlene postala tudi ohranitev in povečanje vrednosti delnic.
It is recalled that the payment of the purchase price by the employees by means of a withholding on their wages and allowances, in addition to being laid down in the September 1995 contract, was also laid down in Article 12 of Law 2367/1995.
Opozoriti je treba, da plačilo nakupne cene s strani zaposlenih z zadržanjem njihovih plač in dodatkov ni bilo določeno samo v pogodbi iz septembra 1995, temveč tudi v členu 12 Zakona 2367/1995.
It is recalled that ETVA could enforce its pledge on the shares if the employees did not pay the purchase price as provided with in the September 1995 contract.
Opozoriti je treba, da bi banka ETVA lahko uveljavila zastavno pravico na delnice, če zaposleni ne bi plačali nakupne cene, kot je določena v pogodbi iz septembra 1995.
It was clearly indicated in the September 1995 contract that the employees would have to pay in parallel the purchase price and the contribution to the capital increase.
V pogodbi iz septembra 1995 je bilo jasno navedeno, da bodo morali zaposleni plačati tako nakupno ceno kot tudi prispevek za dokapitalizacijo.
This double payment is therefore not something unexpected.
To dvojno plačilo torej ni nekaj nepričakovanega.
If essential provisions of a contract which Greece submitted itself to the Commission turn out to be unenforceable, it must be concluded that the Decision C 10/94 was based on misleading information from Greece and the decision should be repealed.
Če se izkaže, da temeljnih določb pogodbe, ki jo je Grčija predložila Komisiji, ni mogoče izvršiti, to potem pomeni, da je odločba C 10/94 temeljila na zavajajočih informacijah Grčije, zaradi česar je treba odločbo razveljaviti.
Paragraphs 59 and 60 of the letter of the Greek authorities dated 29 June 2007.
Odstavka 59 in 60 dopisa grških organov z dne 29. junija 2007.
Paragraph 191 of Greece letter of 5 October 2006 indicates: ‘From 31.12.1998 to the time of the sale of the shares of HSY to HDW/FS consortium (11.10.2001) a portion of the salaries of the employee shareholders was withheld, as explained above, as payment to ETVA of the price for the purchase of 49 % of the shares.’
V odstavku 191 grškega dopisa z dne 5. oktobra 2006 je navedeno: „V času od 31. decembra 1998 do trenutka prodaje delnic podjetja HSY konzorciju HDW/FS (11. oktobra 2001) je bil delež plač zaposlenih delničarjev zadržan, kot je bilo pojasnjeno zgoraj, kot plačilo cene za nakup 49 % delnic banki ETVA“.
Thereby, Greece gave the impression that the September 1995 contract had been implemented.
Grčija je zato dajala vtis, da je bila pogodba iz septembra 1995 izvršena. Komisija je šele po sprožitvi postopka ugotovila, da Grčija in izvršila svojega lastnega zakona (t.j.
The Commission only discovered after the opening that Greece had not implemented its own law (i.e. Law 2367/1995), since it had transferred the ownership of 49 % of HSY to the employees but had not implemented the rest of the contract, namely requesting the payment of the purchase price from them.
Zakon 2367/1995), saj je lastništvo 49 % podjetja HSY prenesla na zaposlene, ostalega dela pogodbe pa ni izpolnila od zaposlenih ni zahtevala plačila nakupne cene.
Conversely, in their letter of 31 March 2003, the Greek authorities had implicitly suggested that (part of) the employees had not paid (part of) the annual instalments as planned.
V dopisu z dne 31. marca 2003 pa so grški organi posredno namignili, da (del) zaposleni(-h) ni(-so) plačal(-i) (dela) letnih obrokov, kot je bilo predvideno.
Commission’s letter of 27 April 2007 sent to Greece (question 3) and Commission’s letter of 23 August 2007 sent to HSY.
Dopis Komisije z dne 27. aprila 2007, poslan Grčiji (3. vprašanje), in dopis Komisije z dne 23. avgusta 2007, poslan podjetju HSY.
Commission’s letter of 27 April 2007 sent to Greece (question 4) and Commission’s letter of 23 August 2007 sent to HSY.
Dopis Komisije z dne 27. aprila 2007, poslan Grčiji (4. vprašanje), in dopis Komisije z dne 23. avgusta 2007, poslan podjetju HSY.
The latter letter was sent to Greece for comments on 13 November 2007, what offered the opportunity to Greece to comment a second time.
Slednji je bil poslan v odgovor Grčiji dne 13. novembra 2007, kar je Grčiji dalo možnost, da svoje pripombe izrazi še drugič.
Points 2.3.c and 2.4 of Greece’s letter of 29 June 2007, HSY’s letter of 9 October 2007, and Greece’s letters of 14 December 2007 and 15 February 2008.
Točki 2.3.c in 2.4 dopisa Grčije z dne 29. junija 2007, dopis podjetja HSY z dne 9. oktobra 2007 ter dopisa Grčije z dne 14. decembra 2007 in 15. februarja 2008.
In respect of the repair of the KEYMAR in the first months of 2003, Greece claims that, since the reparation were much more sophisticated than in other cases, it is reasonable to suppose that the percentage of indirect hours was 25 % instead of 20 %.
V zvezi s popravilom ladje KEYMAR v prvih mesecih leta 2003 Grčija trdi, da je glede na to, da je bilo popravilo veliko bolj kompleksno kot v drugih primer, mogoče predpostaviti, da je bil odstotek neposrednih delovnih ur 25 % in ne 20 %.
Paragraph 144 of Greece’s letter of 5 October 2006.
Odstavek 144 dopisa Grčije z dne 5. oktobra 2006.
Covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.
Vsebovano v obveznosti varovanja poslovne skrivnosti.
Commission’s letter of 27 April 2004 (question 2.2) to which Greece replied by letter of 29 June 2007.
Dopis Komisije z dne 27. aprila 2004 (vprašanje 2.2), na katerega je Grčija odgovorila z dopisom z dne 29. junija 2007.
Most probably, this figure indicates how much a productive hour of HSY’s employees costs per hour for HSY in a given year.
Ta podatek najverjetneje kaže, koliko stane produktivna ura zaposlenih v podjetju HSY na uro za podjetje HSY v določenem letu.
The number of productive hours performed by a worker is only a fraction of the number of hours paid by HSY to this worker.
Število produktivnih ur, ki jih opravi delavec, je samo del števila ur, ki jih podjetje HSY izplača temu delavcu.
This number depends on many factors, notably the structure and efficiency of the yard.
Ta številka je odvisna od številnih dejavnikov, predvsem strukture in učinkovitosti ladjedelnice.
Conversely, the subcontractors are in competition with each others.
Zato podizvajalci konkurirajo med seboj.
Therefore, they have to be competitive and flexible.
Morajo torej biti konkurenčni in prožni.
They have limited fixed costs (i.e. permanent workers) and their costs have to be low.
Imajo omejene fiksne stroške (tj. stalne delavce), njihovi stroški pa morajo biti nizki.
Yards use subcontractors precisely because it is cheaper than hiring more labour themselves.
Ladjedelnice uporabljajo podizvajalce prav zato, ker je to ceneje, kot če bi same zaposlile še več delavcev.
Commission’s letter of 27 April 2004 (question 2.2.d) to which Greece replied by letter of 29 June 2007.
Dopis Komisije z dne 27. aprila 2004 (vprašanje 2.2.d), na katerega je Grčija odgovorila z dopisom z dne 29. junija 2007.
Case T-296/97 Alitalia v Commission [2000] ECR II-3871, paragraphs 82 and 84.
Zadeva T-296/97 Alitalia proti Komisiji [2000] ECR II-3871, odstavka 82 in 84.