natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Second, as already analysed in detail in section 3.1 of the present decision, the commercial and financial success planned at the time of decision N 401/97 did not materialise.
Drugič, kot je bilo že podrobno analizirano v oddelku 3.1 te odločbe, se komercialni in finančni uspeh, ki sta bila načrtovana v času sprejetja odločbe N 401/1997, nista uresničila.
The Commission established the date of 30 June 1999 as the date from which no return to viability could reasonably be expected.
Komisija je datum 30. junij 1999 določila za datum, po katerem obnovitve sposobnosti preživetja ni bilo več mogoče utemeljeno pričakovati.
It is certain that at the beginning of June 1999, most of the bad news was already known and a return to viability was highly hypothetical on the basis of the existing restructuring plan.
Gotovo je, da so bile v začetku junija 1999 znane še skoraj vse slabe novice in da je bila obnovitev poslovne sposobnosti precej hipotetična na podlagi obstoječega načrta prestrukturiranja.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission considers that a market economy investor which would have found itself in the same situation as ETVA would not have invested anymore in HSY.
Glede na navedeno Komisija meni, da vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva, ki bi se znašel v enakem položaju kot banka ETVA, v podjetje HSY ne bi več vlagal.
Since such a capital injection provides a selective advantage to HSY, the Commission concludes that the participation of ETVA to the second and third capital increase constitutes State aid in favour of HSY.
Ker takšna dokapitalizacija daje selektivno prednost podjetju HSY, Komisija meni, da udeležba banke ETVA v drugi in tretji dokapitalizaciji pomeni državno pomoč v korist podjetju HSY.
Regarding the compliance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty, the Commission observes that it has never adopted any decision explicitly assessing and authorising ETVA’s participation to the capital increases of HSY.
Kar zadeva skladnost s členom 88(3) Pogodbe, Komisija ugotavlja, da ni nikoli sprejela nikakršne odločbe, v kateri bi izrecno ocenila in odobrila udeležbo banke ETVA v dokapitalizaciji podjetja HSY.
The Commission therefore considers that the aid has been put into effect in contravention of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Komisija zato meni, da je bila pomoč odobrena v nasprotju s členom 88(3) Pogodbe.
The Commission observes that, even if it were considered that this measure has been authorised by Decision N 401/97 (the decision N 401/97 describes that ETVA will participate in the capital increases of HSY and, by not raising doubts on the compliance with State aid rules, implicitly considers that this participation would not be an aid), it would not change the forthcoming conclusion that the aid has to be recovered.
Komisija ugotavlja, da tudi, če bi bil ta ukrep odobren z odločbo N 401/97 (v odločbi N 401/97 je navedeno, da bo banka ETVA udeležena v dokapitalizacijah podjetja HSY, in implicitno, ne da bi zbujala sum v zvezi s skladnostjo s pravili o državni pomoči, ugotavlja, da ta udeležba ne bi pomenila pomoči), to ne bi spremenilo prihodnje ugotovitve, na podlagi katere bi bilo treba pomoč povrniti.
Greece claims that this measure could constitute compatible restructuring aid.
Grčija trdi, da bi ta ukrep lahko pomenil združljivo pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
The Commission recalls that the aim of the capital increases was to finance the investment plan.
Komisija opozarja, da je bil cilj dokapitalizacij financirati naložbeni načrt.
In the framework of the assessment of measure P2 and measure P3, the Commission has already explained why additional restructuring aid in favour of the investment plan can not be considered compatible with the common market.
V okviru ocene ukrepa P2 in ukrepa P3 je Komisija že pojasnila, zakaj se pomoči za prestrukturiranje za namen naložbenega načrta ne more šteti za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
Since the two capital increases constitute incompatible aid, they have to be recovered from HSY.
Ker dve dokapitalizaciji pomenita nezdružljivo pomoč, ju mora podjetje HSY povrniti.
State counter guarantee in relation to HSY’s contracts with OSE and ISAP (measure E12b)
Državno posredno poroštvo v zvezi s pogodbama podjetja HSY s podjetjema OSE in ISAP (ukrep E12b)
In the framework of contracts that HSY concluded with Hellenic Railway Organization (OSE) and Athens-Piraeus Electric Railways (ISAP) concerning the supply of rolling stock, ETVA granted guarantees for advance payments and good performance (hereinafter down payment guarantees or advance payment guarantees).
V okviru pogodb, ki jih je podjetje HSY sklenilo z Grško železniško organizacijo (OSE) in Električnimi železnicami Atene-Pirej (ISAP) v zvezi z dobavo železniškega voznega parka, je banka ETVA odobrila poroštva za predplačilo in garancije za dobro izvedbo posla (v nadaljnjem besedilu: poroštva za predujem ali poroštva za predplačilo).
The guarantees in the framework of the contracts with OSE and ISAP amounted respectively to EUR 29,4 million and EUR 9,4 million.
Poroštva v okviru pogodb OSE in ISAP so znašala 29,4 milijona EUR oziroma 9,4 milijona EUR
In the extension decision, the Commission raised doubts whether a private bank would have provided these counterguarantees at the same conditions.
V odločbi o podaljšanju postopka je Komisija izrazila dvom o tem, da bi zasebna banka zagotovila takšna posredna poroštva pod enakimi pogoji.
In view of the difficulties of HSY, it could even be questioned whether a bank would have granted them at all.
Zaradi težav podjetja HSY bi bilo celo vprašljivo, ali bi jih banka sploh odobrila.
Elefsis supports the doubts expressed by the Commission.
Podjetje Elefsis podpira dvome, ki jih je izrazila Komisija.
In particular, the State did not act as a market investor because it assumed a multiple risk, being not only HSY’s majority shareholder but also its sole creditor and guarantor, who bore nearly all the risk associated with its operations.
Država zlasti ni ravnala kot tržni vlagatelj, saj je prevzela večkratno tveganje, ne samo kot večinska lastnica podjetja HSY temveč tudi kot edina posojilodajalka in edini porok, ki je nosil skoraj vse tveganje, povezano z delovanjem podjetja.
Indeed, they were granted pursuant to Law 2322/1995 and several firms received State guarantees on the basis of that law.
Poroštva so bila namreč izdana na podlagi Zakona 2322/1995, na podlagi katerega je državna poroštva prejelo več podjetij.
In addition, Greece claims that the annual fee of 0,05 % was adequate to remunerate the risk.
Poleg tega Grčija trdi, da je letna premija v višini 0,05 % ustrezala kot nadomestilo za tveganje.
As regards ETVA’s behaviour, it was acceptable to a private bank since it received a counter-guarantee from the State and charged a premium of 0,4 %.
Ravnanje banke ETVA je bilo sprejemljivo za zasebno banko, saj je od države prejela posredno poroštvo in zaračunala premijo v višini 0,4 %.
HSY has submitted a report of a consultant — the first Deloitte report — which supports this assertion.
Podjetje HSY je predložilo poročilo svetovalcu – prvo poročilo revizijske hiše Deloitte – ki to trditev podpira.
This report also asserts that, without a State counter-guarantee, HSY could nevertheless have received from a private bank a guarantee similar to the one granted by ETVA by offering lien on certain assets as a security.
V poročilu je zatrjeno tudi, da bi podjetje HSY brez državnega posrednega poroštva od zasebne banke kljub temu lahko prejelo poroštvo, ki bi bilo podobno poroštvu, ki ga je odobrila banka ETVA, če bi v zavarovanje ponudilo zastavno pravico na določena sredstva.
Finally, Greece claims that the beneficiary of the State counter-guarantees is OSE and ISAP and not HSY.
Grčija trdi, da sta upravičenca do državnih posrednih poroštev podjetji OSE in ISAP, ne pa podjetje HSY.
The present measure does not fall within the scope of Article 296 of the Treaty since it directly supports a civil activity.
Ta ukrep ne spada na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe, saj neposredno podpira civilno dejavnost.
It needs first to be clarified which of the two types of measures — the down payments guarantees granted by ETVA and the counter-guarantees granted by the State to ETVA — could constitute an aid measure.
Najprej je treba ugotoviti, kateri izmed dveh vrst ukrepov – poroštva za predujme, ki jih je odobrila banka ETVA, in posredna poroštva, ki jih je banki ETVA odobrila država – bi lahko pomenil ukrep pomoči.
Since Greece claims that the State counter-guarantees were already firmly promised to ETVA when the latter granted the advance payment guarantees, it has to be concluded that when ETVA granted the guarantees, it was fully protected by the State counter-guarantees.
Ker Grčija trdi, da so bila banki ETVA v času, ko je odobrila poroštva za predplačilo, državna posredna poroštva že zatrdno obljubljena, je treba sklepati, da je bila v času odobritve teh poroštev v celoti zavarovana z državnimi posrednimi poroštvi.
Therefore, since ETVA run no risks (thanks to the State counter guarantees) while receiving a fee of 0,4 % per quarter, this measure would have been acceptable to a market economy investor in similar circumstances.
Ker torej banka ETVA ni prevzela nikakršnega tveganja (zahvaljujoč državnemu posrednemu poroštvu) in je vsako trimesečje prejela premijo v višini 0,4 %, ta ukrep v podobnih okoliščinah za vlagatelja iz tržnega gospodarstva ne bi bil sprejemljiv.
Conversely, the State granted counter-guarantees, which were not secured by any collateral, and for which it received a guarantee premium of only 0,05 %.
Nasprotno, država je odobrila posredna poroštva, ki niso bila zavarovana z nobenim premoženjem in za katere je prejela poroštveno premijo v višini samo 0,05 %.
This second measure would clearly not be acceptable to a market economy investor.
Ta drugi ukrep očitno ne bi bil sprejemljiv za vlagatelja iz tržnega gospodarstva.
It is therefore this second measure which constitutes State aid.
Zatorej je drugi ukrep tisti, ki pomeni državno pomoč.
The Commission however observes that since the State owned 100 % of ETVA and all the measures implemented by the latter bank are imputable to the State, the separation between the two measures (i.e. guarantee and counter-guarantee) is somehow artificial.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da je ločevanje teh dveh ukrepov (tj. poroštvo in posredno poroštvo) na nek način umetno, saj je bila država 100-odstotna lastnica banke ETVA in se lahko vsi ukrepi, ki jih je banka izvajala, pripišejo državi.
Since Greece claims that the beneficiary were OSE and ISAP, it needs to be clarified who is the beneficiary of this measure.
Ker Grčija trdi, da sta bila upravičenca podjetji OSE in ISAP, je treba pojasniti, kdo je upravičenec tega ukrepa.
The Commission observes that in the framework of contracts for the supply of rolling stock material, the seller has usually to provide bank guarantees to the purchaser for the advance payments the latter makes.
Komisija ugotavlja, da mora prodajalec v okviru pogodb za dobavo železniškega voznega parka običajno predložiti bančna poroštva kupcu za namen predplačil, ki jih opravi kupec.
Indeed, the purchaser wants to be sure to recover these amounts if the seller does not deliver the material, for instance because it went bankrupt.
Kupec se dejansko želi prepričati, da bo te zneske dobil povrnjene, v kolikor prodajalec ne dostavi materiala, na primer zato, ker je šel v stečaj.
Therefore, it is the seller that has to obtain these guarantees from a bank and to supports their costs.
Zato je kupec tisti, ki mora pridobiti takšna poroštva od banke in plačati njihove stroške.
In other words, it is a normal cost that a seller of rolling stock material has to support.
Z drugimi besedami, strošek, ki ga mora plačati prodajalec železniškega voznega parka, je običajen.
In the present case, the State counter-guarantee allowed HSY to obtain from ETVA guarantees at a price of only 0,4 % per quarter.
V tem primeru je država s posrednim poroštvom podjetju HSY omogočila, da od banke ETVA pridobi poroštva po ceni, ki je znašala samo 0,4 % na trimesečje.
It is therefore clear that in the period before 30 June 1999 the State counter-guarantees allowed HSY to obtain guarantees at a lower price.
Zato je jasno, da je v obdobju pred 30. junijem 1999 država s posrednim poroštvom podjetju HSY omogočila, da pridobi poroštva po nižji ceni.
In the period after 30 June 1999, the State counter-guarantees allowed HSY to obtain guarantees, which HSY could not have received from the market at all.
V obdobju po 30. juniju 1999 je država podjetju HSY s posrednim poroštvom omogočila, da je pridobilo poroštva, ki jih sicer na trgu ne bi moglo pridobiti.
In conclusion, the beneficiary of the aid is HSY.
Upravičenec pomoči je torej podjetje HSY.
As regards Greece’s claim that the measure is not selective, the Commission recalls that, in order to be general, a measure must be effectively open to all economic agents operating within a Member State on equal access basis, and they must not de facto be reduced in scope through, for example, the discretionary power of the State to grant them or through other factors that restrict their practical effect.
Kar zadeva trditev Grčije, da ukrep ni selektiven, Komisija opozarja, da bi ukrep moral biti dejansko odprt in enako dostopen za vse gospodarske subjekte, ki delujejo v državi članici, če naj bi bil splošen, zato njegov obseg ne more biti omejen na primer z diskrecijsko pravico države do njegove odobritve ali z drugimi dejavniki, ki omejujejo njegov praktični učinek.
The Commission considers that Law 2322/1995 is far from fulfilling this definition.
Komisija meni, da Zakon 2322/1995 te opredelitve še zdaleč ne izpolnjuje.
First, Article 1 of the law states that the guarantee is granted by the Minister of Economy in agreement with three other ministers.
Prvič, v členu 1 zakona je navedeno, da poroštvo odobri minister za gospodarstvo v dogovoru s tremi drugimi ministri.
Therefore the granting of the guarantee depends on the discretionary power of the authorities.
Odobritev poroštva je torej odvisna od diskrecijske pravice organov.
Second, a State guarantee can be granted to a private firm only if it is located in a remote area and with the aim of improving the economic development of the area and not the specific firm (Article 1bb) or if it has suffered damages as a result of nature (Article 1cc).
Drugič, državno poroštvo se lahko odobri zasebnemu podjetju samo, če se to nahaja na oddaljenem območju in če je poroštvo namenjeno izboljšanju gospodarskega razvoja tega območja, ne pa točno določenemu podjetju (člen 1bb), ali v primeru, da je podjetje utrpelo škodo zaradi naravne katastrofe (člen 1cc).
Conversely, companies that are 100 % State-owned or where the State holds the majority of shares can be granted State aid for general reasons such as covering some of their liabilities (Article 1B).
Nasprotno, državno pomoč za splošne namene, kot je pokritje nekaterih obveznosti podjetja (člen 1B) lahko dobijo samo podjetja, ki so v 100-odstotni lasti države ali kadar je država lastnica večine njegovih delnic.
It is therefore clear that State-owned firms have a much wider access to the State guarantees than private firms.
Zato je jasno, da imajo državna podjetja veliko večji dostop do državnih poroštev kot zasebna.
This conclusion is confirmed by the analysis of the list of guaranteed loans provided in the first Deloitte report.
Ta sklep potrjuje analiza seznama posojil, zavarovanih s poroštvom, ki je vključen v prvo poročilo revizijske hiše Deloitte.
Third, the guarantees are not accessible on an equal access basis.
Tretjič, poroštva niso enako dostopna.
Indeed, Article 1(4) of the Law indicates that when granting a guarantee the State may ask for some security (i.e. lien on fixed assets of the company).
Člen 14 zakona dejansko navaja, da lahko država pri odobritvi poroštva zahteva neko zavarovanje (tj. zastavno pravico na osnovna sredstva podjetja).
The decision to request a security or not is left at the discretion of the Minister of Economy.
Odločitev, ali se bo zavarovanje zahtevalo ali ne, sprejme minister za gospodarstvo po lastni presoji.
In the present case, the State did not ask a security when granting measure E12b.
V tem primeru država ni zahtevala zavarovanja, ko je odobrila ukrep E12b.
As regards the absence of access on an equal basis, the Commission observes that the guarantee fee is not the same for all loans.
Kar zadeva neobstoj enakega dostopa, Komisija ugotavlja, da poroštvena premija ni enaka za vsa posojila.
For instance, the guarantee premium amounted to only 0,05 % in the present case.
Na primer, poroštvena premija je znašala 0,05 % samo v tem primeru.
In the case of measure E14, also granted on the basis of Law 2322/1995, the premium was 1 %.
V primeru ukrepa E14, ki je bil prav tako odobren na podlagi Zakona 2322/1995, je premija znašala 1 %.
In the list of guaranteed loans provided in the first Deloitte report, some loans had also a premium of 0,1 % and 0,5 %.
Na seznamu posojil, zavarovanih s poroštvom, ki ga je v svojem poročilu predložila revizijska hiša Deloitte, so poroštva za nekatera posojila znašala tudi 0,1 % in 0,5 %.
In conclusion, the Commission dismisses Greece’s claim that Law 2322/1995 is a general measure.
Komisija zato zavrača trditev Grčije, da pomeni Zakon 2322/1995 splošen ukrep.
As regards the claim of the first Deloitte report that HSY could have received these down payment guarantees from a private bank by giving to the bank a lien on certain assets as collateral instead of giving to the bank a State counter-guarantee, the Commission considers that this claim is irrelevant in the analysis of the measure.
Kar zadeva trditev iz prvega poročila revizijske hiše Deloitte, da bi podjetje HSY lahko ta poroštva za predujem dobilo od zasebne banke, če bi banki v zavarovanje omogočilo zastavno pravico na nekatera sredstva namesto posrednega poroštva države, Komisija meni, da je ta trditev v analizi ukrepa brezpredmetna.
Indeed, the Commission has to analyse whether the terms of the measures which were actually granted by the State constituted aid to the yard.
Komisija je dejansko morala analizirati, ali pogoji ukrepa, ki je bil dejansko odobren s strani države, pomenijo pomoč ladjedelnici.
The Commission does not have to verify whether by providing more security, the yard could have received the same guarantee from the market.
Komisija ni obvezna preverjati, ali bi z zagotovitvijo dodatnega zavarovanja ladjedelnica lahko pridobila ista poroštva na trgu.
In the present case, none of the State counter-guarantees was secured by a lien on some assets of the yard.
V tem primeru ni bilo niti eno državno posredno poroštvo zavarovano z zastavno pravico na nekatera sredstva ladjedelnice.
Therefore, a counter-guarantee with an asset as security constitutes a different transaction, which does not have to be assessed.
Zato posredno poroštvo s sredstvom kot zavarovanjem pomeni drugačno transakcijo, ki je ni treba oceniti.
As a subsidiary ground, the Commission notes that, even if the claim of the first Deloitte report had to be assessed, HSY would not have been able to convince a private bank to provide such down payment guarantees by providing securities.
V dopolnilo temu Komisija opozarja, da podjetje HSY, tudi če bi bilo treba oceniti trditve iz prvega poročila revizijske hiše Deloitte, ne bi moglo prepričati zasebne banke, da zagotovi takšna poroštva za predujem na podlagi zavarovanj.
Indeed, the assets of yards were already encumbered and they had a low liquidation value (see the second and third items discussed in footnote 43 of the present decision).
Sredstva ladjedelnice so bila dejansko obremenjena in so imela nizko likvidacijsko vrednost (glej drugo in tretjo točko v opombi 43 k tej odločbi).
Therefore, even a security in the form of a lien on certain assets of HSY would not have been sufficient to convince a market economy investor to lend to HSY.
Zato tudi zavarovanje v obliki zastavne pravice na nekatera sredstva podjetja HSY ne bi bila dovolj, da bi prepričala vlagatelja iz tržnega gospodarstva, da odobri posojilo podjetju HSY.
The Commission has earlier in this decision established the interest rate which a private bank would have charged for giving a loan to HSY.
Komisija je v tej odločbi že določila obrestno mero, ki bi jo zasebna banka zaračunala za posojilo podjetju HSY.
For the period until 30 June 1999, it was concluded that, since HSY presented a particular risk, it was necessary to add a risk premium of at least 400 basis points above the interest rate charged for loans to healthy firms.
Za obdobje do 30. junija 1999 je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bilo treba – ker je podjetje HSY predstavljalo določeno tveganje – dodati premijo za tveganje v višini najmanj 400 bazičnih točk nad obrestno mero, ki se je zaračunala pri posojilih, odobrenih zdravim podjetjem.
In order to apply the same approach to guarantees on down payments, it is necessary to determine which premium a market economy investor would charge for granting an advance payment guarantee to a healthy firm.
Za namen uporabe istega pristopa do poroštev za predujme, je treba opredeliti, kakšno premijo bi vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva zaračunal zdravemu podjetju za odobritev poroštva za predplačilo.
No party to the current procedure has provided a reliable market price for such guarantees.
Niti ena stranka v tem postopku ni predstavila zanesljive tržne cene za takšna poroštva.
In several State guarantees schemes targeted at the shipbuilding sector and approved by the Commission as free of aid, the annual guarantee premium for the borrower with the lowest credit risk was set at 0,8 %, or 80 basis points.
Pri nekaterih shemah državnih poroštev, ki so bila namenjena sektorju ladjedelništva in ki jih je Komisija odobrila kot poroštva, ki ne vsebujejo elementa pomoči, je letna poroštvena premija za posojilojemalca z najnižjim posojilnim tveganjem znašala 0,8 % ali 80 bazičnih točk.
In the absence of other reliable indicators, the Commission will use this rate as an estimation of the minimum annual guarantee premium paid by healthy shipbuilding firms in Greece at the time.
Zaradi pomanjkanja zanesljivih kazalnikov bo Komisija to mero uporabila kot oceno najnižje letne poroštvene premije, ki so jo v tistem času plačevale zdrave ladjedelnice.
Even if the contracts with OSE and ISAP do not concern shipbuilding but the construction of rolling stock, the Commission will use 0,8 % as benchmark since the construction of rolling stock remained a marginal activity for HSY and most of the activities of HSY, and therefore most of the risk of HSY, concerned ship building and ship repair.
Tudi če se pogodbi s podjetjem OSE in podjetjem ISAP ne nanašata na gradnjo ladij, temveč gradnjo železniškega voznega parka, bo Komisija uporabila 0,8 % kot merilo, saj je gradnja železniškega voznega parka ostala obrobna dejavnost podjetja HSY, večina dejavnosti podjetja HSY in s tem tudi večina tveganj za podjetje HSY pa se je nanašala na gradnjo in popravilo ladij.
Consequently, for advance payments guarantees granted to HSY before 30 June 1999, the existence and amount of aid will be assessed by comparing the annual premium actually paid by HSY (including the counter guarantee fee paid to the State) with a premium of 480 basis points (i.e. 80 basis points increased by 400 basis points).
Zato bosta za poroštva za predplačila, ki so bila podjetju HSY odobrena pred 30. junijem 1999, obstoj in znesek pomoči ocenjena s primerjavo letne premije, ki jo je podjetje HSY dejansko plačalo (vključno s premijo posrednega poroštva, plačano državi) skupaj s premijo v višini 480 bazičnih točk (tj. 80 bazičnih točk, ki se jim doda 400 bazičnih točk).