natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The assignment of the price of the ships represents a solid security only if the yard brings the construction of the ship to a good end, what is uncertain.
Pripis cene ladji predstavlja dobro zavarovanje samo, če ladjedelnica dokonča gradnjo ladje, kar pa je negotovo.
If the yard goes bankrupt during the construction of the ship, this security has no value since the purchase price can not be claimed from Strintzis because the latter has not received the ordered vessels.
Če gre ladjedelnica v času gradnje ladje v stečaj, je vrednost tega zavarovanja nična, saj nakupne cene ne bi bilo mogoče izterjati od podjetja Strintzis, ker slednje naročenih plovil ne bi prejelo.
This means that the security would be worthless exactly in the scenario where it would be needed.
To pomeni, da bi bilo zavarovanje brez vsake vrednosti prav v scenariju, kjer je potrebno.
As regards the constitution of a mortgage upon each one of the ships under construction, it was granted to ETVA only in June 2001, well after the loan had been paid out to HSY.
Kar zadeva oblikovanje hipoteke na vsako izmed ladij v gradnji, je bila ta banki ETVA zagotovljena šele junija 2001, veliko pozneje po izplačilu posojila podjetju HSY.
In addition, the Commission observes that the value of ships under construction is relatively low and they are difficult to sell.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da je vrednost ladij v gradnji dokaj nizka in da jih je težko prodati.
This is illustrated by the present case.
To kaže tudi ta primer.
As regards the assertion of Greece, HSY and Deloitte that the interest rate of the loan granted to HSY was similar to the interest rate of many other loans granted during the same period by ETVA and by Greek banks, it does not show that the loan granted to HSY is not an aid.
Kar zadeva trditev Grčije, podjetja HSY in revizijske hiše Deloitte, da je bila obrestna mera za posojilo, odobreno podjetju HSY, podobna obrestni meri za številna druga posojila, ki so jih v istem obdobju odobrile tako banka ETVA kot grške banke na splošno, iz tega ni razvidno, da posojilo, odobreno podjetju HSY, ne predstavlja pomoči.
Indeed, Greece, HSY and Deloitte have neither analysed nor shown that the financial situation of the other borrowers used as comparison point was similar to the one of HSY, i.e. that their financial situation was as bad as the situation of HSY.
Grčija, podjetje HSY in revizijska hiša Deloitte dejansko niso ne analizirale ne pokazale, da je bil finančni položaj drugih posojilojemalcev, ki so bili uporabljeni za primerjavo, podoben finančnemu položaju podjetja HSY, tj. da je bil njihov finančni položaj tako slab kot položaj podjetja HSY.
They have therefore not shown that private banks were ready to lend to firms in difficulty at an interest rate similar to the one of the present loan.
Niso torej pokazale, da so bile zasebne banke pripravljene posojati podjetjem v težavah po obrestni meri, ki naj bi bila podobna obrestni meri za to posojilo.
Comparing the interest rate of loans granted to different firms without verifying that the risk supported by the lending banks is similar is a pointless exercise.
Primerjanje obrestne mere za posojila, ki so bila odobrena različnim podjetjem, brez preverjanja, ali je podobno tudi tveganje bank, ki so posojilo odobrile, je nesmiselno.
The Commission therefore concludes that no market economy investor in similar circumstances would have granted this loan to HSY, which therefore constitutes aid.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da v podobnih okoliščinah noben vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva ne bi odobril posojila podjetju HSY, ki torej v tem primeru pomeni pomoč.
As concluded here above, the loan in fact allowed HSY to undertake this commercial contract, which HSY could not have financed by raising funds from the market.
Na podlagi te ugotovitve se je s posojilom podjetju HSY dejansko omogočilo, da sklene poslovno pogodbo, ki je samo ne bi moglo financirati s sredstvi s trga.
In addition, the hulls were sold to a new purchaser only in 2004, i.e. several years after 31 December 2000.
Poleg tega sta bila trupa prodana novemu kupcu šele leta 2004, tj. več let po 31. decembru 2000.
Since the aid is unlawful and incompatible, it has to be recovered.
Ker je pomoč nezakonita in nezdružljiva, jo je treba povrniti.
Since the loan has been reimbursed, part of the advantage received by HSY has already been withdrawn.
Ker je bilo posojilo povrnjeno, je bil del prednosti, ki je bila omogočena podjetju HSY, že umaknjen.
However, thanks to this loan of ETVA, HSY had at its disposal the amount of the loan during several years, an amount which HSY could otherwise not have had at its disposal during that period.
Vendar pa je podjetje HSY zahvaljujoč temu posojilu, ki ga je odobrila banka ETVA, imelo več let na razpolago znesek posojila, torej znesek, s katerim podjetje HSY v navedenem obdobju sicer ne bi moglo razpolagati.
This advantage needs also to be recovered.
Tudi to prednost je treba povrniti.
The Commission thus considers that aid has to be recovered which amounts to the difference between the interest rate paid to ETVA and reference rate for Greece plus 600 bps for the period from the payment of the loan to HSY until the date when the loan was secured by a mortgage on the hulls.
Komisija zato meni, da je treba povrniti znesek pomoči, ki znaša toliko, kolikor znaša razlika med obrestno mero, plačano banki ETVA, in referenčno obrestno mero Grčije, povečano za 800 bazičnih točk, za obdobje od izplačila posojila podjetju HSY do datuma, ko je bilo posojilo zavarovano s hipoteko na trupa.
For the period thereafter until the reimbursement of the loan, the aid to recover is the difference between the interest rate paid to ETVA and the reference rate for Greece plus 400 bps.
Za obdobje po zgoraj navedenem obdobju in do odplačila posojila znaša pomoč, ki jo je treba povrniti, toliko, kolikor znaša razlika med obrestno mero, plačano banki ETVA, in referenčno obrestno mero Grčije, povečano za 400 bazičnih točk.
The reduction by one third of this risk premium reflects the fact that the mortgage on the hulls would have partially reduced the loss of the lender in case of default of HSY, and therefore reduced the risk of the loan for ETVA.
Zmanjšanje te premije za tveganje za eno tretjino kaže na to, da bi hipoteka na trupa deloma zmanjšala izgubo posojilodajalca, če podjetje HSY ne bi izpolnjevalo svojih obveznosti, s tem pa bi se zmanjšalo tveganje posojila za banko ETVA.
In particular, as just indicated, HSY succeeded to sell the hulls at a price roughly equivalent to one third of the money lent by ETVA.
Zlasti, kot je bilo pravkar navedeno, je podjetje HSY trupa prodalo po ceni, ki približno ustreza tretjini denarja, ki ga je posodila banka ETVA.
Guarantee of ETVA in relation to the Strintzis contract (measure E13b)
Poroštvo banke ETVA v povezavi s pogodbo s podjetjem Strintzis (ukrep E13b)
In 1999, HSY used two guarantees from ETVA to secure Strintzis’s advance payments amounting to EUR 6,6 million. The guarantees have been cancelled in July 2002 when the shipbuilding contract with Strintzis was cancelled.
Leta 1999 je podjetje HSY uporabilo dve poroštvi banke ETVA, da bi zavarovalo predplačila podjetja Strintzis, ki so znašala 6,6 milijona EUR. Poroštvi sta bili preklicani julija 2002, ko je bila pogodba o gradnji ladij s podjetjem Strintzis razveljavljena.
The extension decision considers that the two guarantees, the terms of which were not known at the time of the decision, could constitute aid.
V odločbi o podaljšanju postopka je navedeno, da bi poroštvi, katerih pogoji v času sprejema odločbe niso bili znani, lahko pomenili pomoč.
Elefsis emphasizes the fact that the State/ETVA has at the same time assumed the role of guarantor, creditor, shareholder and largest customer of HSY.
Podjetje Elefsis poudarja dejstvo, da sta država/banka ETVA v istem času igrali vlogo poroka, posojilodajalca, lastnika in največje stranke podjetja HSY.
By doing so, the State was putting itself in a situation of serious financial risk.
S tem se je država postavila v položaj resnega finančnega tveganja.
In assuming this multiple role, the State was in effect providing finance with no security since in the event of the company’s default and/or insolvency, the State would have no recourse and would sustain a definite loss since the value of the yard’s assets would be considered to be insufficient to cover all the liabilities.
S takšno večdelno vlogo je država dejansko zagotavljala finančna sredstva brez kakršnega koli zavarovanja, saj v primeru neizpolnjevanja obveznosti s strani podjetja in/ali plačilne nesposobnosti država ne bi prejela nikakršnih povračil in bi utrpela škodo, saj vrednost sredstev ladjedelnice ne bi zadostovala za pokritje vseh obveznosti.
In addition, Greece and HSY indicate that ETVA received as security for this EUR 6,6 million guarantee the assignment of proceeds of HSY resulting from Agreement 39 with OSE, of which the contractual price for HSY amounted to EUR 8,5 million. The consultant confirms that HSY could have received the two guarantees from a private bank.
Poleg tega Grčija in podjetje HSY navajata, da je banka ETVA kot zavarovanje za poroštvo v višini 6,6 milijona EUR prejela premoženjsko korist v podjetju HSY, ki je izhajala iz sporazuma 39 s podjetjem OSE, katere pogodbena cena za podjetje HSY je znašala 8,5 milijona EUR. Svetovalec potrjuje, da bi podjetje HSY poroštvi lahko prejelo tudi od zasebne banke.
Greece and HSY claim that the assignment of proceeds resulting from Agreement 39 with OSE was an adequate security which would render the grant of the guarantee acceptable for a private investor.
Grčija in podjetje HSY trdita, da je bil prenos premoženjskih koristi na podlagi sporazuma 39 s podjetjem OSE ustrezno zavarovanje, zaradi katere bi bila odobritev poroštva sprejemljiva za zasebnega vlagatelja.
The Commission observes that, in case of bankruptcy of HSY, this security would not have allowed a bank to recover money.
Komisija meni, da v primeru stečaja podjetja HSY, to zavarovanje banki ne bi omogočilo, da izterja denar.
Indeed, if HSY had gone bankrupt, the construction of the rolling stock would have stopped, no delivery would have been made to OSE and no payment could be requested from OSE under that Agreement.
Če bi šlo podjetje HSY v stečaj, bi se gradnja železniškega voznega parka dejansko ustavila, podjetje OSE ne bi prejelo naročenega materiala in na podlagi navedenega sporazuma od podjetja OSE ne bi bilo mogoče zahtevati nikakršnega plačila.
The Commission therefore fails to understand how this security would have significantly decreased the risk of a loan to HSY.
Komisija zato ne razume, kako bi lahko to zavarovanje močno zmanjšalo tveganje posojila, odobrenega podjetju HSY.
HSY has been able to indicate neither to the Commission nor to its own consultant (see first Deloitte report, page 4–9) whether HSY was contractually obliged to pay a guarantee premium to ETVA and what was the level of this premium.
Podjetje HSY ni uspelo ne Komisiji ne svojemu lastnemu svetovalcu (prvo poročilo revizijske hiše Deloitte, stran 4–9) pokazati, ali je bilo pogodbeno zavezano k plačilu poroštvene premije banki ETVA in kakšna je bila višina te premije.
As explained in the assessment of measure E12b, HSY should normally have paid an annual premium of at least 480 basis points for such a guarantee.
Kot je pojasnjeno v oceni ukrepa E12b, bi podjetje HSY v običajnih okoliščinah za takšno poroštvo plačalo letno premijo v višini najmanj 480 bazičnih točk.
Knowing the level of the other guarantee premiums paid by HSY to ETVA, it is highly unlikely that the guarantee premium actually paid by HSY was as high as 480 basis points.
Ker je višina drugih poroštveni premij, ki jih je podjetje HSY plačalo banki ETVA, znana, je malo verjetno, da je poroštvena premija, ki jo je podjetje HSY dejansko plačalo, znašala 480 bazičnih točk.
The Commission therefore concludes that the guarantee granted by ETVA constitutes State aid, which amounts to the difference between the annual guarantee premium actually paid to ETVA and a guarantee premium of 480 basis points.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da poroštvo, ki ga je odobrila banka ETVA, pomeni državno pomoč, ki znaša toliko, kolikor znaša razlika med letno poroštveno premijo, ki je bila banki ETVA dejansko izplačana, ter poroštveno premijo v višini 480 bazičnih točk.
As indicated in the assessment of measure E13a, the Commission considers that aid like the present one constitutes operating aid, which can not be found compatible on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98.
Kot je navedeno v oceni ukrepa E13a, Komisija meni, da pomoč, kot je ta, pomeni pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki ne more biti združljiva na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1540/98.
It is therefore unlawful and incompatible and must be recovered.
Zato je nezakonita in nezdružljiva in jo je treba povrniti.
State guarantee securing a GRD 10 billion (EUR 29,3 million) loan (measure E14)
Državno poroštvo za zavarovanje posojila v višini 10 milijard GRD (29,3 milijona EUR) (ukrep E14)
Given the financial situation of HSY at the time, it is doubtful that the terms of the guarantee would have been acceptable to a market economy investor.
Glede na finančni položaj podjetja HSY v tistem času je malo verjetno, da bi pogoji za odobritev poroštva bili sprejemljivi za vlagatelja iz tržnega gospodarstva.
As regards the compatibility on the basis of Article 87(2)(b), Greece has not shown that the size of the measure was commensurate to the damage suffered by HSY.
Kar zadeva združljivost na podlagi člena 87(2)(b), Grčija ni pokazala, da je bil obseg ukrepa sorazmeren s škodo, ki jo je utrpelo podjetje HSY.
Elefsis considers that no bank would have lent money to HSY at that time in view of its financial situation.
Podjetje Elefsis meni, da nobena banka ne bi posodila denar podjetju HSY v tistem času glede na njegov finančni položaj.
The guarantee should be considered compatible aid only if it is limited to amounts strictly necessary to make good damage resulting from a specific natural disaster.
Poroštvo bi se lahko štelo za združljivo pomoč samo, če bi bilo omejeno na znesek, ki bi bil dejansko potreben za odpravo škode, ki je posledica določene naravne katastrofe.
Greece and HSY contest that the measure is selective since the guarantee was granted according to the provisions of Law 2322/1995, which stipulates the terms and conditions for the granting of a guarantee on behalf of the Greek State to any applying company.
Grčija in podjetje HSY izpodbijata trditev, da je ukrep selektiven, saj je bilo poroštvo odobreno v skladu z določbami Zakona 2322/1995, ki določajo pogoje za odobritev poroštva v imenu grške države podjetju, ki zanj zaprosi.
In addition, they claim that the guarantee premium of 1 % would have been acceptable for a private investor.
Poleg tega trdita tudi, da bi bila poroštvena premija v višini 1 % sprejemljiva za zasebnega vlagatelja.
In addition, HSY could have borrowed from the market without a State guarantee by using other forms of security, as for example the cession of claims from major contracts and the mortgage of its assets.
Poleg tega bi podjetje HSY lahko vzelo posojilo tudi na trgu brez državne pomoči s pomočjo drugih oblik zavarovanja, na primer z odstopom terjatev iz večjih pogodb ter hipoteko na sredstva podjetja.
Even if the measure should constitute aid, it is partially compatible on the basis of Article 87(2) b) insofar as the said capital was granted as compensation for the damage that HSY suffered by the earthquake and partially falls within Article 296 of the Treaty insofar as it relates directly to the military activities of HSY.
Tudi če ukrep pomeni pomoč, je ta delno združljiva na podlagi člena 87(2)(b), v kolikor je bil zadevni kapital odobren kot nadomestilo za škodo, ki ga je podjetje HSY utrpelo v potresu, deloma pa spada na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe, v kolikor se nanaša neposredno na vojaške dejavnosti podjetja HSY.
As regards the applicability of Article 296, the text of the decision by which ETVA decided to grant the guaranteed loan shows that ETVA was among others concerned by the continuation of the military activities of HSY.
Kar zadeva možnost uporabe člena 296, je iz besedila odločbe, na podlagi katere se je banka ETVA odločila, da dodeli posojilo, zavarovano s poroštvom, razvidno, da je banka ETVA med drugim imela pomisleke v zvezi z nadaljevanjem vojaških dejavnosti v podjetju HSY.
However, there is no contractual provision that forces HSY to use the guaranteed loan for the financing of the military activities.
Vendar pa ni nikakršne pogodbene določbe, ki bi od podjetja HSY zahtevala, da posojilo, zavarovano s poroštvom, uporabi za financiranje vojaških dejavnosti.
In other words, ETVA wanted to keep HSY alive in order to ensure the continuation of the military activities, but it did not assign the guaranteed loan to the financing of a particular activity.
Z drugimi besedami, banka ETVA je želela ohraniti sposobnost preživetja podjetja HSY, da bi zagotovila nadaljevanje vojaških dejavnosti, vendar pa posojila, zavarovanega s poroštvom, ni namenila za financiranje zadevne dejavnosti.
HSY was free to use the money as it wished to.
Podjetje HSY je lahko uporabilo denar, kakor je želelo.
As already explained, for such measures which are granted to the yard as a whole, the Commission considers that 25 % of the guaranteed loan was used for civil activities and 75 % for military activities.
Kot je bilo že pojasnjeno, Komisija za takšne ukrepe, ki so odobreni ladjedelnici v celoti, meni, da je bilo 25 % posojila, zavarovanega s poroštvom, uporabljenega za civilne dejavnosti, 75 % pa za vojaške dejavnosti.
Therefore, only 25 % of the State guarantee (this means initially an amount of GRD 2,5 billion (EUR 7,34 million) has to be assessed under State aid rules, and could be recovered if constituting incompatible aid.
Zato je treba na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči oceniti samo 25 % državnega poroštva (to pomeni prvotni znesek v višini 2,5 milijarde GRD (7,34 milijona EUR)), ki bi moralo biti povrnjeno, če bi pomenilo nezdružljivo pomoč.
75 % of the State guarantee falls within the scope of Article 296 of the Treaty and is not covered by State aid rules.
75 % državnega poroštva spada na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe in zanje pravila o državni pomoči ne veljajo.
As regards the selectivity of the measure, the Commission has already shown in the assessment of measure E12b that Law 2322/1995 is not a general measure.
Kar zadeva selektivnost ukrepa, je Komisija v oceni ukrepa E12b že pokazala, da Zakon 2322/1995 ne pomeni splošnega ukrepa.
As regards the existence of an advantage, the Commission recalls that the guaranteed loan was granted in January 2000, at a time when no market economy investor would have provided a loan or a guarantee to HSY anymore, as previously concluded.
Kar zadeva obstoj prednosti, Komisija opozarja, da je bilo posojilo, zavarovano s poroštvom, odobreno januarja 2000, torej v času, ko noben vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva podjetju HSY ne bi več zagotovil posojila ali poroštva, kot je bilo že ugotovljeno.
Without a State guarantee, no bank would have therefore provided a loan to HSY.
Brez državnega poroštva torej podjetju HSY nobena banka ne bi odobrila posojila.
The State guarantee therefore gave a clear advantage to HSY.
Državno poroštvo je torej podjetju HSY omogočilo očitno prednost.
In conclusion, the part of the State guarantee which is not covered by Article 296 of the Treaty constitutes aid.
Del državnega poroštva, ki ni zajet s členom 296 pogodbe, tako pomeni pomoč.
As regards the compatibility of this aid on the basis of Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty, no party contests that the earthquake of September 1999 was a ‘natural disaster’.
Kar zadeva združljivost te pomoči na podlagi člena 87(2)(b) Pogodbe, niti ena stranka ne ugovarja, da je bil potres septembra 1999 „naravna katastrofa“.
Whereas the loan contract was signed only on 13 January 2000, HSY demanded this financing to ETVA already in the weeks following the earthquake.
Medtem ko je bilo posojilo podpisano šele 13. januarja 2000, je podjetje HSY ta sredstva od banke ETVA zahtevalo že v tednih, ki so sledili potresu.
According to the Greek authorities, the damage to the yard amounted first to the cost of repairing the physical installations and, second, to the costs generated by the delay in the execution of the contracts.
Po besedah grških organov je škoda na ladjedelnici sprva znašala toliko, kot je znašal strošek popravil in fizične namestitve, potem pa toliko, kot je znašal strošek odloga pri izvrševanju pogodb.
However, Greece has not submitted any estimation of the second type of damage.
Vendar Grčija ni predložila nikakršne ocene v zvezi z drugo škodo.
If Greece wished to compensate HSY for the latter type of costs, it should have at least tried to quantify them and this calculation should have been done on the basis of a verifiable method.
Če bi Grčija podjetju HSY želela nadomestiti stroške druge škode, bi jih morala vsaj poskusiti oceniti, ta izračun pa bi moral temeljiti na preverljivi metodi.
Since this was not done and since aid can be found compatible on the basis of Article 87(2)(b) only if it is strictly limited to the compensation for the damage suffered, the Commission considers that these hypothetical costs do not constitute a valid ground for the compatibility of the aid.
Ker to ni bilo storjeno in ker se pomoč lahko šteje za združljivo na podlagi člena 87(2)(b) samo, če je strogo namenjena za nadomestilo nastale škode, Komisija meni, da ti hipotetični stroški ne predstavljajo verodostojnega temelja, na podlagi katerega je pomoč mogoče oceniti kot združljivo.
As regards the first type of costs — the repair of physical damages — the Commission observes that no mechanism was set up to ensure that the size of the State guarantee would be reduced once the size of the damages suffered would be precisely established and once the indemnities would be paid out to HSY by the insurance companies.
Kar zadeva prve stroške – popravilo in fizična škoda –, Komisija ugotavlja, da ni bil sprejet nikakršen mehanizem, da bi se zagotovilo, da se bo obseg državnega poroštva zmanjšal po natančni oceni nastale škode in po tem, ko bodo zavarovalnice podjetju HSY izplačale zavarovalnino.
In its letter of 20 October 2004, Greece estimated that the physical damages amounted to around GRD 3 billion (EUR 8,8 million).
V svojem dopisu z dne 20. oktobra 2004 je Grčija ocenila, da znaša fizična škoda do približno 3 milijarde GRD (8,8 milijona EUR).
Consequently, the Commission considers that the amount exceeding that figures, namely EUR 20,5 million, was not related to damages caused by the earthquake.
Komisija zato meni, da se znesek, ki je to številko presegel, in sicer 20, 5 milijona EUR, ni nanašal na škodo, ki jo je povzročil potres.
Conversely, EUR 8,8 million can be assumed to be commensurate with the damages suffered, but only until the first quarter of 2002, when the insurance companies paid an indemnification of EUR 3,52 million. From that date onwards, the State guarantee should have been reduced by an equivalent amount.
Nasprotno, 8,8 milijona EUR se lahko šteje za sorazmernih nastali škodi, vendar samo do prvega trimesečja leta 2002, ko so zavarovalnice izplačale zavarovalnino v višini 3,52 milijona EUR. Od tega dne naprej bi moralo biti državno poroštvo zmanjšano za enak znesek.
Therefore, from that date, only the balance (EUR 8,8 million – EUR 3,5 million = EUR 5,3 million) could be considered to be commensurate with the net damages suffered (i.e. damages suffered minus the indemnifications paid to HSY by the insurance companies).
Zato se od tega dne naprej lahko samo bilanca (8,8 milijona EUR – 3,5 milijona EUR = 5,3 milijona EUR) šteje za sorazmerno z neto nastalo škodo (tj. nastala škoda, zmanjšana za zavarovalnine, ki so jih zavarovalnice izplačale podjetju HSY).
As indicated previously, since 75 % of the guaranteed loan is considered to finance military activities, only 25 % of the guarantee is falling under State aid control and was found to constitute State aid.
Ker naj bi bilo, kot je bilo že navedeno, 75 % posojila, zavarovanega s poroštvom, namenjenih za financiranje vojaških dejavnosti, samo 25 % poroštva spada v okvir nadzora državne pomoči in zato pomeni državno pomoč.