natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the first Deloitte report submitted by HSY, they respectively amounted to EUR 3,26 million and EUR 3,38 million. Greece recalls that ETVA did not pay out any amounts under the guarantees after the cancellation of the Strintzis contract in 2002.
V skladu s prvim poročilom revizijske hiše Deloitte, ki ga je predložilo podjetje HSY, sta poroštvi znašali 3,26 milijona EUR oziroma 3,38 milijona EUR. Grčija opozarja, da banka ETVA po razveljavitvi pogodbe s podjetjem Strintzis leta 2002 ni izplačala nobenih zneskov, zavarovanih s poroštvi.
This proves that HSY was not a borrower whose default risk was high.
To dokazuje, da podjetje HSY ni bilo posojilojemalec z visokim plačilnim tveganjem.
The Commission observes that both guarantees were granted before 30 June 1999.
Komisija ugotavlja, da sta bili obe jamstvi odobreni pred 30. junijem 1999.
As explained previously, the Commission considers that HSY had still access to the financial market at that time, but at a price which reflected the very fragile economic situation of HSY.
Kot je bilo že pojasnjeno, Komisija meni, da je v tistem času podjetje HSY še vedno imelo dostop do finančnega trga, vendar po ceni, ki je odražala zelo šibak gospodarski položaj podjetja HSY.
After the earthquake of September 1999, ETVA granted on 13 January 2000 a GRD 10 billion (EUR 29,3 million) loan to HSY, which was secured by a State guarantee granted by decision of the Minister of Finance dated 8 December 1999.
Po potresu septembra 1999 je banka ETVA 13. januarja 2000 podjetju HSY odobrila posojilo v višini 10 milijard GRD (29,3 milijona EUR), ki je bilo zavarovano z državnim poroštvom, odobrenem na podlagi odločbe ministra za finance z dne 8. decembra 1999.
ETVA charged an interest rate of EURIBOR plus 125 basis points and the State charged a guarantee premium of 100 basis points.
Banka ETVA je zaračunala obrestno mero EURIBOR, povečano za 125 bazičnih točk, država pa je zaračunala poroštveno premijo v višini 100 bazičnih točk.
In other words, out of part of the State guarantee constituting aid, GRD 750 million (EUR 2,20 million) — i.e. 25 % of GRD 3 billion (EUR 8,8 million) — is compatible until the payment of the indemnification by the insurers in the first quarter of 2002.
Z drugimi besedami, od dela državnega poroštva, ki pomeni pomoč, je 750 milijonov GRD (2,20 milijona EUR) – tj. 25 % od 3 milijard GRD (8,8 milijona EUR) – združljivih do plačila zavarovalnine s strani zavarovalnic v prvem trimesečju leta 2002.
First, on 25 July 1997, ETVA granted a credit line of GRD 1,99 billion (EUR 5,9 million), with an expiration date set at 31 October 1997.
Prvič, 25. julija 1997 je banka ETVA odobrila kreditno linijo v višini 1,99 milijarde GRD (5,9 milijona EUR) z datumom izteka na dan 31. oktobra 1997.
It had an interest rate of ATHIBOR plus 200 basis points and was granted to cover HSY’s needs for working capital.
Obrestna mera je bila ATHIBOR, povečana za 200 bazičnih točk in odobrena za pokritje potreb podjetja HSY pri obratnih sredstvih.
Directive 90/684/EEC prohibits aid to ship repair, which was the main civil activity of HSY in 1997 and 1998.
Direktiva 90/684/EGS prepoveduje pomoč za popravilo ladij, ki je bila glavna civilna dejavnost podjetja HSY v letih 1997 in 1998.
The aid can therefore not be found compatible with the common market and, since it has been granted unlawfully, it has to be recovered.
Pomoč torej ne more biti združljiva s skupnim trgom in jo je treba povrniti, saj je bila odobrena na nezakoniti osnovi.
First, HSY’s 2001 Management Report mentions that ‘amounts up to EUR 81,3 million have been received as advance payments for defence activities, but were mostly used on other activities and operation costs of the company’.
Prvič, v Poslovnem poročilu podjetja HSY iz leta 2001 je navedeno, da „so bili zneski v višini 81,3 milijona EUR prejeti kot predplačilo za vojaške dejavnosti, vendar so bili večinoma uporabljeni za druge dejavnosti in stroške poslovanja podjetja“.
Second, in its submission in the framework of a legal action before a Greek Court, the consortium HDW/Ferrostaal indicates that at least part of the funds (estimated by Elefsis to be in excess of EUR 40 million) given to HSY for the construction of the gunboats (contract signed on 21 December 1999) were used for other purposes.
Drugič, konzorcij HDW/Ferrostaal v svojem dopisu, ki ga je predložil v okviru pravnega spora na grškem sodišču, navaja, da je bil vsaj del teh sredstev (po oceni podjetja Elefsis naj bi ta sredstva presegala 40 milijonov EUR), danih podjetju HSY za gradnjo majhnih bojnih ladij (pogodba je bila podpisana 21. decembra 1999), uporabljen za druge namene.
Piraeus Bank
Banka Piraeus Bank
ETVA
Banka ETVA
ETVA decided to grant this guarantee not earlier than in May 2002.
Banka ETVA se je odločila, da to jamstvo odobri šele maja 2002.
TKMS/GNSH also claims that ETVA and the State acted as a private vendor.
Podjetji TKMS/GNSH trdita tudi, da sta banka ETVA in država ravnali kot zasebni prodajalki.
TKMS/GNSH concludes that the guarantee granted by ETVA on 31 May 2002 is wider than the one received by Piraeus Bank on 20 March 2002.
Podjetji TKMS/GNSH ugotavljata, da je poroštvo, ki ga je banka ETVA odobrila 31. maja 2002, večje od poroštva, ki ga je 20. marca 2002 prejela banka Piraeus Bank.
Therefore, this can not form one single guarantee mechanism and the fact that ETVA granted a wider guarantee proves that it acted as any private vendor.
Zato to ne more predstavljati enega samega poroštvenega mehanizma, dejstvo, da je banka ETVA odobrila širše poroštvo, pa dokazuje, da je ravnala kot zasebna prodajalka.
They claim in particular that the guarantee was granted on 31 May 2002 by means of the Addendum to HSY SPA, at a date when ETVA was not under State control anymore but under the control of Piraeus Bank.
Zlasti trdijo, da je bilo poroštvo odobreno 31. maja 2002 v okviru dodatka k sporazumu HSY SPA, torej na dan, ko banka ETVA ni bila več pod državnim nadzorom, temveč pod nadzorom banke Piraeus Bank.
The Commission dismisses this claim and considers that there is ample evidence that the measure is imputable to the State:
Komisija to trditev zavrača in meni, da obstajajo dovolj veliki dokazi, da je ukrep mogoče pripisati državi:
Article 8.2.2.(b) for instance provides that the State ‘shall assume the control, care and responsibility of the acts and negotiations with the third purchaser of the Holding in Hellenic Shipyards’. In accordance with Article 8.2.2 of the Agreement of 20 March 2002, Piraeus Bank asked by letter of 28 May 2002 the agreement of the State regarding the guarantee that ETVA intended to grant to HDW/Ferrostaal.
V skladu s členom 8.2.2 Sporazuma z dne 20. marca 2002 je banka Piraeus Bank v svojem dopisu z dne 28. maja 2002 prosila državo za soglasje v zvezi s poroštvom, ki ga je banka ETVA nameravala odobriti konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal.
The State gave its authorisation by letter of 31 May 2002.
Država je dala svojo odobritev z dopisom z dne 31. maja 2002.
All this shows that the grant of the guarantee is imputable to the State,
Vse to kaže, da je odobritev poroštva mogoče pripisati državi.
Whether or not a guarantee constitutes State aid […] must be assessed at the moment the guarantee is given’. As indicated above, the Commission considers that ETVA contractually committed to grant this guarantee to HDW/Ferrostaal at a time when the State still owned the large majority of the shares of ETVA.
V trenutku, ko se izda poroštvo, je treba oceniti, ali to pomeni državno pomoč ali ne […].“ Kot je navedeno zgoraj, Komisija meni, da je bila banka ETVA pogodbeno zavezana k odobritvi takšnega poroštva konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal v času, ko je država še vedno imela v lasti večinski delež banke ETVA.
ETVA therefore did not behave as a market economy investor. If the comparison between the sale of HSY and the liquidation of HSY is performed at the level of the State, it leads exactly to the same conclusions.
Če se primerjava med prodajo in likvidacijo podjetja HSY opravi na ravni države, so ugotovitve povsem enake.
In case of sale of HSY, the State would just receive a few million Euro while, because it granted the guarantee, it ran the risk of having to pay tens or hundreds of millions of Euro. In conclusion, the State did not act in a way acceptable to a private firm in similar circumstances.
Pri prodaji podjetja HSY bi država prejela samo nekaj milijonov EUR, medtem ko je hkrati zaradi poroštva, ki ga je odobrila, tvegala, da bo morala plačati več deset ali več sto milijonov EUR. Država torej ni ravnala na način, ki bi bil v podobnih okoliščinah sprejemljiv za zasebno podjetje.
The Commission observes that the financial situation of HSY deteriorated dramatically between 1998 and 2002.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se je finančni položaj podjetja HSY močno poslabšal med letoma 1998 in 2002.
Even if HSY does not publish separate accounts for civil activities, it is reasonable to suppose that these activities were deeply loss-making during these years.
Tudi če podjetje HSY ne objavi ločenih računov za civilne dejavnosti, se lahko utemeljeno predpostavlja, da so te dejavnosti v teh letih prinašale veliko izgubo.
It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the civil activities were strongly loss making until 2002.
Zato se lahko predpostavi, da so civilne dejavnosti do leta 2002 ustvarjale zelo veliko izgubo.
As has been shown in the present decision, these activities have been constantly supported by aid, a part of which has now to be recovered.
Kot je razvidno iz te odločbe, so bile tem dejavnostim ves čas omogočene pomoči, katerih del je treba zdaj povrniti.
The second Deloitte report confirms that HSY had ‘operational problems (i.e. low productivity, high operational costs, excess staff, etc.)’.
Drugo poročilo revizijske hiše Deloitte potrjuje, da je podjetje HSY imelo „probleme pri poslovanju (tj. nizko produktivnost, visoke stroške poslovanja, presežek delavcev itd.)“.
Consequently, if the civil activities had not been sold, they should have ceased rapidly (except if Greece would have continued to provide unlawful and incompatible aid to these activities).
Zaradi tega bi se morale civilne dejavnosti, če ne bi bile prodane, hitro ustaviti (razen če bi Grčija tem dejavnostim še naprej zagotavljala nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč).
The guidelines applicable at the time of the granting of the guarantee were the 1999 R & R guidelines.
Smernice, ki so veljale v času odobritve poroštva, so bile smernice za pomoč in prestrukturiranje 1999.
The guarantee clearly did not fulfil all the conditions for authorisation of the aid laid down in section 3.2.2 of the guidelines.
Poroštvo očitno ni izpolnjevalo vseh pogojev za odobritev pomoči, določenih v oddelku 3.2.2 teh smernic.
The guarantee also breached the ‘one time, last time’ condition laid down in section 3.2.3 of the 1999 R & R guidelines.
Poroštvo je prekršilo tudi pogoj „prvič in zadnjič“, ki je določen v oddelku 3.2.3 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999.
Indeed, by decision N 401/97, the Commission had authorised investment aid under the Directive 90/684/EEC, which was a kind of restructuring aid.
Z odločbo N 401/97 je Komisija dejansko odobrila naložbeno pomoč na podlagi Direktive Sveta 90/684/EGS, ki je bila neke vrste pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
GRD 750 million (EUR 2,20 million) of this aid was compatible with the common market until 31 March 2002.
750 milijonov GRD (2,20 milijona EUR) te pomoči je bilo združljivih s skupnim trgom do 31. marca 2002.
After that date, only EUR 1,32 million was compatible with the common market. The rest of the aid is incompatible.
Po tem datumu je bilo s skupnim trgom združljivih samo 1,32 milijona EUR. Preostali del pomoči je nezdružljiv.
The restructuring plan also planned a dramatic increase of the ship conversion activities after 1998.
Z načrtom prestrukturiranja se je načrtovalo tudi močno povečanje dejavnosti predelave ladij po letu 1998.
HSY did not succeed in achieving this goal.
Podjetje HSY tega cilja ni uspelo uresničiti.
According to HSY’s Board of Directors Minutes dated 1 December 1998, losses were expected for 1999.
V skladu z zapisnikom upravnega odbora podjetja HSY z dne 1. decembra 1998, so se pričakovanja glede izgub nanašala na leto 1999.
HSY’s management publicly acknowledged at the beginning of December 1999 that the yard was planned to register losses of GRD 10 billion (EUR 29 million) for the year 1999 and for the year 2000 (H‘ellenic boss expects profit in 2001’, Lloyd’s List, 6 December 1999).
Vodstvo podjetja HSY je v začetku decembra 1999 javno priznalo, da bo ladjedelnica najverjetneje prijavila izgubo v višini 10 milijard GRD (29 milijonov EUR) za leto 1999 in za leto 2000 („Šef podjetja Hellenic pričakuje dobiček v letu 2001“, Lloyd’s List, 6. december 1999).
This is confirmed by Deloitte Financial Advisory Services itself in page 8-8 and 8-9 of its second report written on 18 June 2007 (hereinafter the second Deloitte report) and submitted by TKMS/GNSH in support of its letter to the Commission dated 21 June 2007.
To je potrdila tudi Finančno svetovalna služba revizijske hiše Deloitte na straneh 8-8 in 8-9 svojega drugega poročila z dne 18. junija 2007 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: drugo poročilo revizijske hiše Deloitte), ki sta ga podjetji TKMS/GNSH predložili kot dopolnilo k svojemu dopisu Komisiji z dne 21. junija 2007.
In conclusion, the Commission considers the ‘Availability of Property that could be encumbered’ is irrelevant in the assessment of the measures, and, even if it would be relevant, a potential lender would not have considered this element as positively as Deloitte indicates in the first Deloitte report.
Komisija torej meni, da je „Obstoj premoženja, ki ga je mogoče obremeniti“ nepomemben pri oceni ukrepov in tudi če bi bil pomemben, potencialni posojilodajalec tega elementa ne bi štel za tako pozitivnega, kot je revizijska hiša Deloitte navedla v svojem prvem poročilu.
The assignment of contracts related claims therefore does not allow the lending bank to recover much money in case of bankruptcy of HSY (see for instance footnotes 128 and 131 of the present decision).
Odstop terjatev, povezanih s pogodbo, banki upnici torej ne omogoča, da v primeru stečaja podjetja HSY izterja še več denarja (glej, na primer, opombi 128 in 131 te odločbe).
Consequently, a potential lender would not have considered this element as positively as Deloitte indicates in the first Deloitte report.
Potencialni posojilodajalec zato tega elementa ne bi štel za tako pozitivnega, kot je revizijska hiša Deloitte navedla v svojem prvem poročilu.
Among others, the Commission recalls that as soon as in the last quarter of 1998 it could be foreseen that HSY would show a loss in 1999.
Med drugim opozarja, da je bilo mogoče že v zadnjem četrtletju leta 1998 predvideti, da bo podjetje HSY leta 1999 ustvarilo izgubo.
In the following months, it became clear that the size of this loss would be large, and that a large loss should be expected also for the year 2000, such that the net equity of the HSY would nearly vanish.
V naslednjih mesecih je postalo jasno, da bo obseg te izgube zelo velik in da je veliko izgubo mogoče pričakovati tudi za leto 2000, tako da bo neto lastniški kapital podjetja HSY skorajda izginil.
As established previously, HSY had no access to the banks from 30 June 1999.
Kot je bilo ugotovljeno, podjetje HSY po 30. juniju 1999 ni imelo nobenega dostopa do bank.
Since HSY could not borrow from the market and since it was in a precarious financial situation, if ETVA had refused to grant the loan or had required higher interest rates, this would have aggravated the difficulties of HSY (or even triggered the bankruptcy), what would have been unacceptable for the State.
Ker podjetje HSY ni moglo pridobiti posojila na trgu in ker je bilo v negotovem finančnem položaju, bi to v primeru, če banka ETVA ne bi odobrila posojila ali če bi zahtevala višje obrestne mere, težave podjetja HSY še poslabšalo (ali podjetje celo spravilo v stečaj), kar pa za državo ne bi bilo sprejemljivo.
HSY submitted comments on the extension decision by letter of 30 October 2006.
Podjetje HSY je pripombe v zvezi z odločbo o podaljšanju postopka predložilo z dopisom z dne 30. oktobra 2006.
Letter of the Greek authorities dated 19 March 2007.
Dopis grških organov z dne 19. marca 2007.
This was repeated in the letter of 29 June 2007, paragraphs 62 and 63.
To je bilo še enkrat navedeno v dopisu z dne 29. junija 2007, v odstavkih 62 in 63.
It is an essential part of the September 1995 contract.
Je temeljni del pogodbe iz septembra 1995.
Greece should have verified whether the basic provisions of the contract were feasible before presenting it to the Commission as a privatisation.
Grčija bi morala preveriti, ali so temeljne določbe pogodbe izvedljive, preden jo je Komisiji predstavila kot privatizacijo.
A similar statement was made by HSY in paragraphs 35 and 36 of its letter of 31 October 2006.
Podobno izjavo je dalo podjetje HSY v odstavkih 35 in 36 svojega dopisa z dne 31. oktobra 2006.
Before the extension decision, the Greek authorities had made similar statements in the 8th chapter of its letter of 26 May 2005.
Pred odločbo o podaljšanju postopka so podobno izjavo dali tudi grški organi v 8. poglavju svojega dopisa z dne 26. maja 2005.
In addition, in several letters Greece indicated that the employees were the owners of 49 % of the shares.
Poleg tega je bilo v več grških dopisih navedeno, da so zaposleni lastniki 49 % delnic.
The timetable provided for completion of the work in January 2004.
Rok za dokončanje del je bil januar 2004.
The board decided unanimously in decision No 578/4/4-9-2002 to extend the delivery time to 19.5.2004, in view of the fact that the consortium was not to blame for the delay.
Odbor je z odločbo št. 578/4/4-9-2002 enoglasno sklenil, da rok za dobavo podaljša do 19. maja 2004 glede na dejstvo, da konzorcij ni bil odgovoren za zamudo.
The work was finally completed on 4.6.2004.
Delo je bilo dokončano 4. junija 2004.
Under paragraph 14 of the programme agreement, the penalties for non-compliance with an agreed delivery time were to commence 40 days after the contractual delivery date and only if the supplier was to blame for the non-compliance.
Na podlagi odstavka 14 sporazuma o programu bi se morale kazni za neupoštevanje dogovorjenega roka za dobavo pričeti izvrševati 40 dni po roku za dobavo, ki je bil določen v pogodbi, in samo če je bil dobavitelj odgovoren za to neupoštevanje.
This confirms that, except for the limited advance payments which anyway had already been paid at the time and were therefore not collectible anymore, the rest of the purchase price was not collectible before the delivery of the vessels.
To potrjuje, da razen v primeru omejenih predplačil, ki so bila v tistem času tako ali tako plačana in jih ni bilo mogoče več izterjati, preostalega dela nakupne cene ni bilo mogoče izterjati pred dobavo plovil.
The initial margin is 25 bps, which increased to 125 bps from 1 April 2000.
Prvotno kritje je znašalo 25 bazičnih točk, ki se je po 1. aprilu 2000 povečalo na 125 bazičnih točk.
The Commission bases itself on the first Deloitte report.
Komisija to utemeljuje na prvem poročilu revizijske hiše Deloitte.
And it is this securing that the guarantee of the Greek State of 18.3.2002 provides to it.
In prav ta varščina je tisto, kar je zagotovljeno s poroštvom grške države z dne 18. marca 2002.
This guarantee was self-explanatory and legal.
To poroštvo je bilo razumljivo samo po sebi in zakonito.
By letter dated 28 May 2002, Piraeus Bank consulted the government on the wording of the guarantee that ETVA intended to provide to HDW/Ferrostaal and asked confirmation that, in case of calling of this guarantee, what is envisaged in Article 8.2.4 of the Agreement of 20 March 2002 would apply.
Z dopisom z dne 28. maja 2002 se je banka Piraeus Bank posvetovala z vlado o besedilu poroštva, ki ga je banka ETVA nameravala zagotoviti konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal, ter prosila za potrditev, da bo v primeru uveljavitve tega poroštva veljalo tisto, kar je predvideno v členu 8.2.4 sporazuma z dne 20. marca 2002.
By letter of 31 May 2002, the government gave its agreement that ETVA issues this guarantee and confirmed that, in case it would be invoked, what is envisaged in Article 8.2.4 would apply.
Z dopisom z dne 31. maja 2002 je vlada dala soglasje, da bo to poroštvo odobrila banka ETVA, in potrdila, da bo v primeru, da se bo poroštvo zahtevalo, veljalo tisto, kar je predvideno v členu 8.2.4.
HSY submitted comments by letter of 30 October 2006.
Podjetje HSY je predložilo pripombe z dopisom z dne 30. oktobra 2006.
In addition, Elefsis claims the privatisation of 1995 never constituted a real privatisation.
Poleg tega podjetje Elefsis trdi, da privatizacija leta 1995 ni bila nikoli prava privatizacija.
In particular, the employees never supported any financial risk as shareholders since they only paid a small part of what they should have paid and since the amounts they really paid were entirely reimbursed by the State at the time of the 2001–2002 privatisation.
Zlasti zaposleni kot delničarji niso nikoli prevzeli nikakršnega finančnega tveganja, saj so plačali samo majhen del zneska, ki bi ga sicer morali plačati, ker je zneske, ki so jih dejansko plačali, država v celoti povrnila v času privatizacije v letih 2001–2002.
Should the Commission consider that any of these conditions have not been complied with, it may require the suppression and/or recovery of the aid’.
Če Komisija ugotovi, da kateri koli izmed teh pogojev ni bil upoštevan, lahko zahteva ukinitev in/ali povrnitev pomoči“.
The fact that the Commission used the word ‘conditions’ in plural indicates that there was at least a second condition in addition to the prohibition of additional restructuring aid.
Dejstvo, da je Komisija uporabila besedo„pogojev“ v množini, pomeni, da je moral ob prepovedi dodatne pomoči za prestrukturiranje obstajati vsaj še en pogoj.
On that basis, Article 10 of the Directive indicates ‘2.
Na tej podlagi je v členu 10 direktive navedeno: „2.
The preamble of Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 indicates ‘Whereas, in spite of the efforts made by the Greek Government to privatise all its public yards by March 1993, the Hellenic shipyards was only sold in September 1995 to a cooperative of its workers, the State having kept a majority holding of 51 % for defence interests; Whereas the financial viability and the restructuring of the Hellenic shipyard necessitates the provision of aid which allows the company to write-off the debt accumulated before its delayed privatisation’.
V uvodni izjavi k Uredbi (ES) št. 1013/97 je navedeno: „Ob upoštevanju, da je kljub prizadevanjem grške vlade, da vse državne ladjedelnice privatizira do marca 1993, je bilo podjetje Hellenic Shipyards prodano šele septembra 1995 zadrugi njenih delavcev, pri čemer je država ohranila 51-odstotno večinsko lastništvo iz obrambnih interesov; ob upoštevanju, da je za finančno sposobnost poslovanja in prestrukturiranja podjetja Hellenic Shipyards potrebna pomoč, ki podjetju omogoča, da odpiše dolgove, ki so se nakopičili pred odloženo privatizacijo“.
Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 indicates ‘Drachma aid in the form of a waiver of debts of “Hellenic shipyards”, up to the amount of Dr 54525 million, corresponding to debts relating to civil work by the yard, as existing on 31 December 1991 and with accrued interest rates and penalties until 31 January 1996 may be regarded as compatible with the common market.
V členu 1(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1013/97 je navedeno: „Pomoč v drahmah v obliki odpisa dolga podjetja ‚Hellenic Shipyards‘ do 54525 milijonov DR, ki ustreza dolgovom, povezanim s civilnimi dejavnostmi ladjedelnice, ki je obstajal dne 31. decembra 1991 in z obračunanimi obrestnimi merami in kaznimi do 31. januarja 1996, se lahko šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
ETVA could therefore sue HSY and the association for the employees and did not need to sue the individual employees, as claimed by the Greek authorities.
Banka ETVA bi zato lahko tožila podjetje HSY in združenje zaposlenih, ne pa tudi posameznih zaposlenih, kot trdijo grški organi.