natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since June 2008 ISD Polska has held 83,6 % of shares, with the remaining stake held by the IDA.
Družba ISD Polska ima od junija 2008 83,6 % delnic, pri čemer ima ostali delež ARP.
The share capital amounts to PLN 405 million.
Osnovni kapital znaša 405 milijonov PLN.
Gdańsk Shipyard rents three slipways with a total capacity of approximately 160000 CGT (according to company figures).
Ladjedelnica Gdańsk najema tri operativne površine s skupno zmogljivostjo približno 160000 KBT (glede na podatke družbe).
The company used to produce mainly container ships, bulk carriers, sections, blocks and hulls for its parent company Gdynia Shipyard and other companies.
Družba je včasih proizvajala zlasti kontejnerske ladje, ladje za razsuti tovor, profile, škripce in ladijske trupe za svojo matično ladjedelnico Gdynia ter druge družbe.
Following privatisation, in 2007 and 2008 the yard focused on producing hulls of smaller specialised vessels and semi-equipped hulls.
Po privatizaciji se je ladjedelnica leta 2007 in 2008 usmerila k proizvodnji trupov manjših specializiranih plovil in delno opremljenih trupov.
In addition the yard produces blocks and sections for other yards and steel structures for various industries and construction businesses.
Ladjedelnica proizvaja tudi škripce in profile za druge ladjedelnice ter jeklene konstrukcije za različne gospodarske panoge in gradbena podjetja.
At end-2006 the yard employed 2893 workers, 60 % being directly engaged in production.
Na koncu leta 2006 je bilo v ladjedelnici zaposlenih 2893 delavcev, pri čemer jih je 60 % delo opravljajo neposredno v proizvodnji.
In 2008 the workforce was reduced to 2235, a fall of 23 %.
Leta 2008 se je delovna sila zmanjšala na 2235 oseb, to je za 23 %.
The restructuring of Gdańsk Shipyard began as early as 1998, immediately after it was declared bankrupt and its assets were taken over by Gdynia Shipyard.
Prestrukturiranje ladjedelnice Gdańsk se je začelo že leta 1998, tj. takoj ko je bil razglašen njen stečaj in je njena sredstva prevzela ladjedelnica Gdynia.
The problems of the Group naturally spilled over to Gdańsk Shipyard.
Težave skupine so se tako prenesle na ladjedelnico Gdańsk.
In its attempt to fill its order book, especially after the increase in its production potential following the acquisition of Gdańsk Shipyard in 1998, Gdynia Shipyard took a number of managerial decisions which proved to be problematic.
V ladjedelnici Gdynia je bilo pri pridobivanju čim več naročil, zlasti po povečanju njene proizvodne zmogljivosti zaradi pridobitve ladjedelnice Gdańsk leta 1998, sprejetih veliko poslovodnih odločitev, ki so se izkazale za težavne.
Gdynia Shipyard assumed design, technological, financial and commercial risks (new products, prototypes, loss-making construction of vessels new for the yard: small bulk carriers, chemical carriers, ro-lo vessels, chemical-gas carriers, bulk-container carriers and general cargo vessels).
Ladjedelnica Gdynia je prevzela konstrukcijsko, tehnološko, finančno in poslovno tveganje (novi izdelki, prototipi, proizvodnja plovil, ki so bila nova za ladjedelnico in so prinašala izgubo: majhne ladje za razsuti tovor, ladje za prevoz kemikalij, ro-lo plovila, ladje za prevoz kemijskih plinov, kontejnerske ladje za razsuti tovor in splošna tovorna plovila).
The rate at which the yard reduced operating costs was also unsatisfactory.
Nezadovoljiva je bila tudi stopnja znižanja stroškov poslovanja ladjedelnice.
The Group’s financial difficulties led to arrears in settling public and civil law obligations and wages, shortages in supplies of materials, slowdowns in production processes, increased costs (labour consumption, penalties), and delays in completing contracts.
Finančne težave skupine so povzročile zamude pri poravnavi javnopravnih in civilnopravnih obveznosti ter izplačilu plač, nezadostno dobavo materialov, upočasnitev proizvodnih postopkov, večje stroške (poraba za delovno silo, kazni) in zamude pri izpolnjevanju pogodb.
The following data on the operation of the shipyard has been made available.
Na voljo so bili naslednji podatki o delovanju ladjedelnice.
Operation of Gdańsk Shipyard
Delovanje ladjedelnice Gdańsk
(in PLN million)
(v mio PLN)
Operating result (1999 to 2003);
Izid iz rednega poslovanja (1999–2003);
Net result (2005 to 2008).
neto izid (2005–2008).
Decision to initiate proceedings under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty
Odločitev o začetku postopka na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES
In its decision to open a formal investigation, the Commission decided that a number of measures indicated in part A of Annex II to the decision had been granted to Gdańsk Shipyard prior to 1 May 2004 and were not applicable after accession within the meaning of point 3 of Annex IV to the Accession Treaty and, therefore, would not be examined under the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija se je v odločitvi o začetku formalne preiskave odločila, da je bilo več ukrepov, navedenih v delu A Priloge II k odločitvi, dodeljenih ladjedelnici Gdańsk pred 1. majem 2004 in po pristopu niso bili veljavni v smislu točke 3 Priloge IV k Pristopni pogodbi, zato se ti ukrepi ne bodo preverjali v skladu s postopkom iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
Those measures are therefore not caught by this decision.
Zato ta odločitev ne zajema navedenih ukrepov.
Nonetheless, they had to be taken into account when assessing the compatibility with the common market of the measures granted after accession.
Kljub temu jih je treba upoštevati pri ocenjevanju združljivosti ukrepov pomoči, ki se dodelijo po pristopu, s skupnim trgom.
The Commission also indicated that some of the measures for Gdańsk Shipyard constituted new aid because they had been granted after Poland’s accession to the EU on 1 May 2004 or had not yet been granted at the time of the decision.
Komisija je navedla tudi, da so nekateri ukrepi za ladjedelnico Gdańsk pomenili novo pomoč, ker so bili dodeljeni po pristopu Poljske k EU 1. maja 2004 ali pa v času odločitve še niso bili dodeljeni.
The Commission listed these measures in part B of Annex II to the decision.
Komisija je te ukrepe navedla v delu B Priloge II k odločitvi.
In essence, the Commission argued that no legally binding decision had been taken on the measures listed in part B of Annex II to the decision prior to Poland’s accession, although it recognised that some preliminary steps had been taken at that time with a view to adopting a legally binding decision.
Komisija je trdila, da v zvezi z ukrepi iz dela B Priloge II k odločitvi pred pristopom Poljske ni bila sprejeta nobena pravno zavezujoča odločitev, čeprav je priznala, da so bili takrat sprejeti nekateri predhodni ukrepi za sprejetje pravno zavezujoče odločitve.
With regard to the restructuring of public debt under the Chapter 5a procedure based on the State Aid (Enterprises of Special Significance for the Labour Market) Act of 30 October 2002, as amended [7] (measures 10-16 of part B of Annex II to the Decision) the Commission concluded that a restructuring decision issued by the Chairman of the IDA, the government agency responsible for administering the Chapter 5a procedure, would constitute a legally binding decision to award aid.
V zvezi s prestrukturiranjem javnega dolga v skladu s postopkom iz poglavja 5(a) na podlagi zakona o državni pomoči (podjetja s posebnim pomenom za trg dela) z dne 30. oktobra 2002, kakor je bil spremenjen [7] (ukrepi št. 10–16 iz dela B Priloge II k odločitvi), je Komisija odločila, da bi odločba o prestrukturiranju, ki jo je izdal predsednik ARP, tj. vladne agencije, odgovorne za uporabo postopka iz poglavja 5(a), pomenila pravno zavezujočo odločbo za dodelitev pomoči.
In this case, however, no such restructuring decision had been issued prior to accession [8].
Vendar v tem primeru pred pristopom takšna odločba o prestrukturiranju ni bila izdana [8].
A decision issued by the Chairman of the IDA on 30 April 2004 approving the March 2004 restructuring plan for Gdańsk Shipyard did not fulfil the procedural and substantive requirements to qualify as a restructuring decision and thus did not constitute a legally binding decision to award aid.
Odločba o odobritvi načrta prestrukturiranja iz marca 2004 za ladjedelnico Gdańsk, ki jo je izdal predsednik ARP 30. aprila 2004, ni izpolnjevala postopkovnih in vsebinskih zahtev, da bi se štela za odločbo o prestrukturiranju, zato ni pomenila pravno zavezujoče odločbe za dodelitev pomoči.
The Commission accepted Poland’s explanation that the interest accrued on these public-law debts would be automatically written off together with the principal in view of its ancillary nature, without it being necessary to issue a separate decision.
Komisija se je strinjala s pojasnilom Poljske, da bodo obresti, obračunane za te dolgove po javnem pravu, samodejno odpisane skupaj z glavnico ob upoštevanju njene pomožne narave, ne da bi bilo treba izdati ločeno odločitev.
The Commission did not find any evidence of legally binding decisions for a series of measures listed as measures 17-22 in part B of Annex II to the decision.
Komisija ni našla dokazov o pravno zavezujoči odločbi v zvezi z vrsto ukrepov, ki so navedeni kot ukrepi št. 17–22 v delu B Priloge II k odločitvi.
The Commission found in particular that the Supervisory Board had not been empowered to adopt decisions with financial repercussions for the shareholders in so far as the shareholders had not taken the requisite steps to that end.
Komisija je ugotovila zlasti, da nadzorni svet ni bil pristojen za sprejemanje odločitev s finančnimi posledicami za delničarje, če delničarji v ta namen niso sprejeli zahtevanih ukrepov.
The Commission also found that, even assuming that the Supervisory Board was entitled to take such decisions on behalf and on account of the shareholders, it remained unclear whether such a decision would create a positive obligation on the part of the Treasury to award State aid, since it is not normally possible to assimilate actions taken by the state as a market player with actions taken by the state in pursuance of various public goals.
Komisija je prav tako ugotovila, da bi bilo celo v primeru pristojnosti nadzornega sveta za sprejemanje takšnih odločitev v imenu in za račun delničarjev še vedno nejasno, ali bi takšna odločitev ustvarila pozitivno obveznost za finančno ministrstvo, da dodeli državno pomoč, ker ukrepi, ki jih sprejme država kot udeleženec na trgu, običajno niso enakovredni ukrepom, ki jih sprejme država v skladu z različnimi javnimi cilji.
The Commission also noted that notification had been given of measures 24 and 25 of part B of Annex II to the Decision (cancellation of debt and capital injection) as alternatives in the light of Gdynia Shipyard’s being unable to realise the planned capital injection in Gdańsk Shipyard; hence it was clear that these measures had not been granted before accession and that they constituted planned new aid.
Komisija je tudi ugotovila, da sta bila ukrepa št. 24 in 25 iz dela B Priloge II k odločitvi (odpis dolga in dokapitalizacija) priglašena kot nadomestni možnosti ob upoštevanju, da ladjedelnica Gdynia ni mogla uresničiti načrtovane dokapitalizacije v ladjedelnici Gdańsk; zato je bilo jasno, da ti ukrepi niso bili dodeljeni pred pristopom in so pomenili načrtovano novo pomoč.
Furthermore, the Commission noted that Gdynia Shipyard Group had been benefitting from production guarantees provided by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation, the Polish export credit agency.
Poleg tega je Komisija ugotovila, da je imela skupina Gdynia koristi od jamstev za proizvodnjo, ki jih je zagotovila družba Export Credit Insurance Corporation, tj. poljska izvozna agencija.
The Commission raised doubts as to the commercial nature of these guarantees since they had been issued within the framework of the Export Credit Insurance Corporation’s non-commercial activities (with Treasury guarantees).
Komisija je izrazila dvom o komercialni naravi teh jamstev, ker so bile izdane v okviru nekomercialnih dejavnosti družbe Export Credit Insurance Corporation (z jamstvi finančnega ministrstva).
Considering that the group was in financial difficulties, the Commission doubted whether the premiums charged properly reflected the risk involved and whether the collateral required by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation was sufficient.
Ker je bila skupina v finančnih težavah, je Komisija dvomila, da so zaračunane premije ustrezno izražale vključeno tveganje in da je bilo zavarovanje, ki ga je zahtevala družba Export Credit Insurance Corporation, zadostno.
Having found that a number of measures for Gdańsk Shipyard constituted new aid, the Commission expressed doubts that any of the conditions for the aid to be approved as restructuring aid had been met.
Ker je Komisija ugotovila, da je več ukrepov za ladjedelnico Gdańsk pomenilo novo pomoč, je izrazila dvom, da so bili izpolnjeni pogoji za odobritev pomoči kot pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
Comments by Gdynia Shipyard Group
Pripombe skupine Gdynia
The Commission notes that Gdańsk Shipyard itself did not submit comments on the decision to open the formal investigation.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ladjedelnica Gdańsk ni predložila pripomb v zvezi z odločitvijo o začetku formalne preiskave.
However the comments submitted by its parent company also addressed the Commission’s conclusions on its competence in respect of the measures listed in part B of Annex II to the decision and in respect of the Commission’s doubts on the compatibility of this aid.
Vendar so se pripombe, ki jih je predložila njena matična družba, nanašale tudi na sklepe Komisije o njeni pristojnosti v zvezi z ukrepi iz dela B Priloge II k odločitvi in dvomi Komisije o združljivosti te pomoči.
With regard to the restructuring of public debt under the Chapter 5a procedure, Gdynia Shipyard Group argued that the aid had been awarded by the restructuring decision issued by the Chairman of the IDA.
V zvezi s prestrukturiranjem javnega dolga v skladu s postopkom iz poglavja 5(a) je skupina Gdynia trdila, da je bila pomoč dodeljena z odločbo o prestrukturiranju, ki jo je izdal predsednik ARP.
Gdynia Shipyard Group maintained, however, as did Poland in the initial phase of the Commission’s investigation, that the decision concerning Gdańsk Shipyard had been adopted by the Chairman of the IDA prior to accession, on 30 April 2004.
Vendar je skupina Gdynia tako kot Poljska v začetni fazi preiskave Komisije vztrajala, da je sprejel predsednik ARP odločbo v zvezi z ladjedelnico Gdańsk pred pristopom, in sicer 30. aprila 2004.
Gdynia Shipyard Group argued that it was the agreement of all the individual public creditors to the restructuring under the Chapter 5a procedure which constituted the award of the aid, prior to accession [9].
Skupina Gdynia je trdila, da je pomenil dodelitev pomoči pred pristopom sporazum vseh posameznih javnih upnikov v zvezi s prestrukturiranjem v skladu s postopkom iz poglavja 5(a) [9].
Contrary to what Poland stated in the first phase of the Commission’s investigation, Gdynia Shipyard Group argued that no default interest had accrued after 30 June 2003 on the public-law debts restructured under Chapter 5a.
V nasprotju z navedbami Poljske v prvi fazi preiskave Komisije je skupina Gdynia trdila, da po 30. juniju 2003 ni bilo obračunanih nobenih zamudnih obresti za dolgove po javnem pravu, prestrukturirane v skladu s poglavjem 5(a).
Gdynia Shipyard Group also commented on other aspects of the decision.
Skupina Gdynia je predložila tudi pripombe v zvezi z drugimi vidiki odločitve.
In particular, it stated that the production guarantees provided to the yard by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation did not constitute State aid.
Navedla je zlasti, da jamstva za proizvodnjo, ki jih je ladjedelnici zagotovila družba Export Credit Insurance Corporation, niso pomenila državne pomoči.
Gdynia Shipyard Group argued that the Export Credit Insurance Corporation guarantee scheme was a self-financing system in which, over the long-term, the premiums collected exceeded the risks covered and the amounts actually paid out.
Skupina Gdynia je trdila, da je bila jamstvena shema družbe Export Credit Insurance Corporation sistem samofinanciranja, v katerem so zbrane premije dolgoročno presegle krita tveganja, zneski pa so se dejansko izplačali.
Gdynia Shipyard Group described the conditions in which the Export Credit Insurance Corporation issues these guarantees (premiums and type of collateral required).
Skupina Gdynia je opisala pogoje, pod katerimi družba Export Credit Insurance Corporation izdaja ta jamstva (premije in vrste zahtevanega zavarovanja).
With regard to the requirement that aid be limited to the minimum necessary, the recipient argued that the amount of the aid had been limited to the strict minimum, and that it would be justified to award more aid, if available.
V zvezi z zahtevo, da je treba pomoč omejiti na najmanjšo potrebno, je prejemnik trdil, da je bila višina pomoči omejena na najnižji potrebni znesek in da bi bilo upravičeno dodeliti več pomoči, če bi bila na voljo.
Gdynia Shipyard Group also suggested that even if the Commission defined the restructuring costs narrowly (i.e. as not including the running costs of the yard), the financing component of these costs free of State aid would still be of the order of 30 %, thus satisfying the 1999 Restructuring Guidelines [10].
Poleg tega je skupina Gdynia menila, da bi bila komponenta financiranja teh stroškov brez državne pomoči tudi v primeru, če bi Komisija stroške prestrukturiranja opredelila ozko (tj. brez tekočih stroškov ladjedelnice), še vedno 30 %, s čimer bi bile izpolnjene smernice o prestrukturiranju iz leta 1999 [10].
Gdynia Shipyard Group also argued that the State aid to the group did not distort competition in Europe, claiming that the real competitive threat to European shipyards came from the Far East.
Skupina Gdynia je prav tako trdila, da državna pomoč skupini ni izkrivljala konkurence v Evropi in da je resnična grožnja za konkurenčnost evropskih ladjedelnic Daljni vzhod.
The recipient acknowledged that container vessels were also built in other European shipyards, particularly in Germany, but claimed that these vessels differed in terms of design and technical specifications.
Prejemnik je priznal, da kontejnerska plovila proizvajajo tudi druge evropske ladjedelnice, zlasti v Nemčiji, vendar je trdil, da so ta plovila drugačna po zasnovi in tehničnih specifikacijah.
Comments by other interested parties
Pripombe drugih zainteresiranih strani
Denmark and Danish Maritime supported the Commission’s efforts to ensure that State aid was granted in line with the applicable rules.
Danska in združenje Danske Maritime sta podprla prizadevanje Komisije za zagotovitev dodeljevanja državne pomoči v skladu z veljavnimi pravili.
They pointed out that, as a result of the competitive situation in the world shipbuilding market, a number of Danish shipyards had closed or faced bankruptcy without any State aid being provided.
Poudarila sta, da je zaradi konkurence na svetovnem ladjedelniškem trgu veliko danskih ladjedelnic prenehalo delovati ali šlo v stečaj, ne da bi bila zagotovljena kakršna koli državna pomoč.
They also confirmed that the product range of the Danish yards was similar to that of the Polish yards, with the result that the Danish yards could be affected by unfair competition.
Potrdila sta tudi, da so bili izdelki danskih in poljskih ladjedelnic podobni, zaradi česar bi lahko danske ladjedelnice prizadela nelojalna konkurenca.
Denmark also urged the Commission to require a reduction in capacity at Gdańsk Shipyard so that State aid was not used to increase overcapacity worldwide.
Poleg tega je Danska pozvala Komisijo, naj zahteva zmanjšanje zmogljivosti v ladjedelnici Gdańsk, da se državna pomoč ne bi uporabljala za povečanje presežne zmogljivosti po vsem svetu.
Ray Car Carriers, as the largest customer of Gdynia Shipyard Group and a minority shareholder of the parent company of Gdańsk Shipyard, stressed the importance of the group to its own operations in view of its ongoing contracts with the yard.
Družba Ray Car Carriers je kot največja stranka skupine Gdynia in manjšinski delničar matične ladjedelnice Gdańsk poudarila pomembnost skupine za njene lastne dejavnosti glede na obstoječe pogodbe z ladjedelnico.
The Solidarity trade union highlighted the declining situation at the yard, arguing that speedy restructuring was needed.
Sindikat Solidarność je izpostavil vedno slabše razmere v ladjedelnici, pri čemer je menil, da je potrebno hitro prestrukturiranje.
The union described some of the restructuring measures already undertaken at the yard and expressed the belief that, with the technology and workforce available to it, it would join the ranks of the profitable European shipyards.
Sindikat je opisal nekaj ukrepov za prestrukturiranje, ki se v ladjedelnici že izvajajo, in izrazil prepričanje, da bi se z razpoložljivo tehnologijo in delovno silo uvrstila med donosne evropske ladjedelnice.
State aid was therefore necessary to implement the restructuring plan.
Zato je bila državna pomoč potrebna za izvedbo načrta prestrukturiranja.
The Polish shipbuilding association Forum Okrętowe explained the reasons for the yard’s difficulties and expressed its support for the restructuring process and for the use of State aid to that end.
Poljsko ladjedelniško združenje Forum Okrętowe je pojasnilo razloge za težave ladjedelnice ter podprlo postopek prestrukturiranja in uporabo državne pomoči v ta namen.
Like the Gdynia Shipyard Group, Poland commented on aspects relating to both the Commission’s competence and the compatibility of the aid with the common market.
Poljska in skupina Gdynia sta predložili pripombe glede vidikov v zvezi s pristojnostjo Komisije in združljivostjo pomoči s skupnim trgom.
With regard to the restructuring of public debt under Chapter 5a, Poland did not put forward any additional arguments.
V zvezi s prestrukturiranjem javnega dolga v skladu s poglavjem 5(a) Poljska ni predložila dodatnih argumentov.
However, in its response to the Gdynia Shipyard Group’s comments, Poland expressed disagreement with the latter’s interpretation of Polish law.
Vendar se Poljska v odgovoru na pripombe skupine Gdynia ni strinjala z njeno razlago poljske zakonodaje.
With regard to the measures indicated in part B of Annex II to the decision, Poland did not rebut the conclusions of the Commission as indicated in the decision to open a formal investigation.
V zvezi z ukrepi iz dela B Priloge II k odločitvi Poljska ni izpodbijala sklepov Komisije, ki so navedeni v odločitvi o začetku formalne preiskave.
As regards the compatibility of the new aid with the common market, Poland stated that the March 2004 restructuring plan constituted a sound economic basis for the yard’s restructuring process.
V zvezi z združljivostjo nove pomoči s skupnim trgom je Poljska navedla, da je pomenil načrt prestrukturiranja iz marca 2004 trdno gospodarsko podlago za postopek prestrukturiranja ladjedelnice.
While Poland acknowledged that the restructuring process had been carried out with limited financial resources, it argued that it had already improved the yard’s financial situation.
Čeprav je Poljska priznala, da je bil postopek prestrukturiranja izveden z omejenimi finančnimi sredstvi, je trdila, da je že izboljšal finančni položaj ladjedelnice.
In addition, the Polish authorities provided a brief description of the restructuring measures enshrined in the March 2004 restructuring plan in order to demonstrate that restructuring was not purely financial in scope.
Poleg tega so poljski organi predložili kratek opis ukrepov za prestrukturiranje, zajetih v načrtu prestrukturiranja iz marca 2004, da bi dokazali, da obseg prestrukturiranja ni bil le finančni.
They defended the compensatory measures proposed in the March 2004 restructuring plan and implemented within Gdynia Shipyard Group.
Zagovarjali so izravnalne ukrepe, ki so bili predlagani v načrtu prestrukturiranja iz marca 2004 in izvedeni v skupini Gdynia.