natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As a result, it appears that winding-up would have been less favourable than the scenario actually considered by the Spanish authorities, whose privileged position was explicitly provided for in the special agreement, clause 10 of which specifically stated that the agreement would be null and void if more favourable conditions were subsequently agreed with any other creditors.
Zato se zdi, da bi bila likvidacija manj ugodna kot možnost, ki so jo dejansko upoštevali španski organi, katerih prednostni položaj je bil izrecno zagotovljen s posebnim sporazumom, ki v klavzuli 10 posebej navaja, da bi bil sporazum ničen in neveljaven, če bi se s katerim koli drugim upnikom naknadno sporazumeli o ugodnejših pogojih.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission is satisfied that it has been adequately demonstrated that the Social Security Treasury acted in accordance with the principle of a creditor in a market economy, in accordance with the judgment in Tubacex [11], who seeks the alternative which will in fact guarantee the recovery of the highest possible amount on the most effective terms.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega je Komisija zadovoljna, da je bilo ustrezno dokazano, da je organ socialne varnosti upošteval načelo upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu v skladu s sodbo Tubacex [11], v kateri je poudarjena nadomestna možnost, ki bo dejansko jamčila povrnitev čim višjega zneska po najučinkovitejših pogojih.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the measure consisting in the waiver of Pickman’s Social Security debts does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da ukrep z odpisom dolgov podjetja Pickman do organa socialne varnosti ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
As far as measure 7 is concerned, the Commission expressed its doubts in the opening Decision that Pickman could have obtained a loan of EUR 1,6 million from the Caja Provincial San Fernando de Sevilla y Jerez bank without a guarantee from IDEA covering EUR 1,3 million.
Glede ukrepa 7 je Komisija v svoji uvodni odločitvi izrazila pomisleke, da bi lahko podjetje Pickman pridobilo posojilo v vrednosti 1,6 milijona EUR od banke Caja Provincial San Fernando de Sevilla y Jerez brez poroštva IDEA, ki zajema 1,3 milijona EUR.
The Commission has assessed the measure in the context of the Guarantee Notice.
Komisija je ukrep ocenila v okviru obvestila o poroštvih.
In fact, as specified in Section 4, an individual guarantee does not constitute State aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty if (i) the borrower is not in financial difficulty, (ii) the borrower is in principle able to obtain a loan on market terms without State intervention, (iii) the guarantee is linked to a specific financial transaction, is for a fixed amount, does not cover more than 80 % of the loan and is for a limited duration, and (iv) a market price has been paid for the guarantee which reflects various factors, such as the guarantee’s duration and the securities given.
Kot je določeno v oddelku 4, posamezno poroštvo dejansko ne pomeni državne pomoči po členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES, (i) če posojilojemalec ni v finančnih težavah, (ii) če lahko načeloma pridobi posojilo po tržnih pogojih brez posredovanja državne, (iii) če je poroštvo povezano s posebno finančno transakcijo, ima fiksno vrednost, ne zajema več kot 80 % posojila in ima omejeno trajanje ter (iv) če je bila za poroštvo, ki izraža različne dejavnike, kot so trajanje poroštva in dane garancije, plačana tržna cena.
On the basis of the Guarantee Notice and the Commission’s related practice, condition (iii) has been fulfilled, since the guarantee, which has not been enforced, is linked to a specific loan, limited to a term of 10 years, and covers only 80 % of that loan, i.e. a fixed amount of EUR 1,3 million.
Na podlagi obvestila o poroštvih in povezane prakse Komisije je bil pogoj (iii) izpolnjen, ker je poroštvo, ki ni bilo uveljavljeno, povezano s posebnim posojilom, ki je omejeno na obdobje 10 let, in zajema le 80 % tega posojila, tj. ima fiksno vrednost 1,3 milijona EUR.
As to condition (i), the Commission takes the view that, at the time when the loan and the guarantee were entered into on 28 December 2005, the restructuring period had not come to an end.
Glede pogoja (i) Komisija meni, da se obdobje prestrukturiranja ob dodelitvi posojila in poroštva 28. decembra 2005 še ni končalo.
However, as the period of restructuring had not come to an end, it cannot be ruled out that Pickman was not in difficulty.
Vendar ker se obdobje prestrukturiranja ni končalo, ni mogoče izključiti, da je bilo podjetje Pickman v težavah.
Accordingly, the Commission cannot rule out that the guarantee was not valued on market terms.
Zato Komisija ne more izključiti, da poroštvo ni bilo vrednoteno po tržnih pogojih.
As far as condition (ii) is concerned, it must be stated that, in 2004, when the company certainly qualified as a firm in difficulty, Pickman obtained a EUR 3,3 million loan from Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Huelva y Sevilla because it was able to secure it in full by mortgaging part of the company’s assets.
Glede pogoja (ii) je treba navesti, da je podjetje Pickman leta 2004, ko je zagotovo bilo v težavah, pridobilo posojilo v vrednosti 3,3 milijona EUR od Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Huelva y Sevilla, ker ga je lahko v celoti zavarovalo s hipoteko na del premoženja podjetja.
A fortiori it cannot be stated that Pickman would not have been able to obtain a loan without State intervention at the end of 2005.
Toliko bolj ni mogoče trditi, da podjetje Pickman ne bi bilo sposobno pridobiti posojila brez posredovanja države konec leta 2005.
For, unlike in the case of its failure to obtain a loan without State intervention in 2004, the first part of the restructuring process had been completed and the plan had been consolidated on the basis of a healthier financial situation.
Razlog je, da se je prvi del procesa prestrukturiranja, nasprotno kot v primeru nepridobitve posojila brez posredovanja države leta 2004, končal, načrt pa je bil konsolidiran na podlagi boljšega finančnega položaja.
In addition, Pickman guaranteed its loan in 2004 directly with the bank instead of with IDEA.
Poleg tega je podjetje Pickman leta 2004 svoje posojilo zavarovalo neposredno pri banki namesto pri IDEA.
Furthermore, the fact that Caja Provincial San Fernando de Sevilla y Jerez agreed to give Pickman a loan on market terms and assumed the risk corresponding to 20 % of that loan without any additional guarantee or security over that part of it confirms that finding.
To ugotovitev dodatno potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da je dala Caja Provincial San Fernando de Sevilla y Jerez podjetju Pickman posojilo po tržnih pogojih in prevzela tveganje v višini 20 % tega posojila brez vsakega dodatnega poroštva ali zavarovanja za ta del.
Finally, as far as condition (iv) is concerned, the Commission acknowledges that the loan had been granted for 10 years at market price, i.e. at the Euribor interest rate, which at that time was 2,783 points plus 1,25 % and was comparable to that found on the Spanish market for loans to healthy firms.
Nazadnje Komisija glede pogoja iv) priznava, da je bilo posojilo dodeljeno za 10 let po tržni ceni, tj. po obrestni meri Euribor, ki je takrat znašala 2,783 odstotne točke in dodatnega 1,25 % ter jo je bilo mogoče primerjati z obrestno mero na španskem trgu za posojila zdravim podjetjem.
With regard to the price paid for the guarantee, as pointed out above, since it cannot be ruled out that Pickman was in difficulty, it should be established whether the premium corresponded to market premiums.
Kot je že bilo poudarjeno, je treba glede cene, plačane za poroštvo, ugotoviti, ali je premija ustrezala tržnim premijam, ker ni mogoče izključiti, da je bilo podjetje Pickman v težavah.
In this case, it cannot be ruled out, taking into account the company’s situation, that that premium contained an element of aid.
Ob upoštevanju položaja podjetja v tem primeru ni mogoče izključiti, da je ta premija vključevala element pomoči.
However, it should also be pointed out that, in the light of the Commission’s practice at that time, the aid element appears to be relatively limited.
Vendar je treba prav tako poudariti, da se ob upoštevanju prakse Komisije v tistem obdobju zdi element pomoči razmeroma omejen.
Firstly, the Commission accepts a guarantee premium of 1,5 % as being free from State aid in accordance with its practice of accepting a premium of 0,5 % in the case of guarantee schemes for healthy companies without a guarantee deposit [12].
Komisija dopušča, da 1,5-odstotna poroštvena premija ne pomeni državne pomoči, v skladu s svojo prakso dopuščanja 0,5-odstotne premije v primeru poroštvenih shem za zdrava podjetja brez garancijskega pologa [12].
In this case, the premium is three times higher.
V tem primeru je premija trikrat višja.
Secondly, the guarantee in this case was secured by a mortgage in favour of the State valued at EUR 10962598,56 on 31 May 2005 and at EUR 12512066,27 on 4 October 2007.
Poleg tega je bila v tem primeru premija zavarovana s hipoteko v korist države, ki je bila 31. maja 2005 ovrednotena na 10962598,56 EUR, 4. oktobra 2007 pa na 12512066,27 EUR.
In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that Pickman could have obtained a loan without State intervention on the strength of the high-quality security and its improved financial situation.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da bi podjetje Pickman lahko pridobilo posojilo brez posredovanja države na podlagi trdnosti visoko kakovostnega zavarovanja in boljšega finančnega položaja podjetja.
Therefore, the aid is not to be calculated on the basis of the total amount of the loan.
Zato se pomoč ne izračuna na podlagi skupnega zneska posojila.
The aid consists in the difference between the premium paid and the premium a company in a similar situation would have had to pay, taking into account the full financial guarantee obtained.
Pomoč vključuje razliko med plačano premijo in premijo, ki bi jo moralo plačati podjetje v podobnem položaju, pri čemer se upošteva celotno pridobljeno finančno poroštvo.
In view of the small value of the EUR 1,6 million loan, the high quality of the guarantee and the fact that a premium of 1,5 % was charged, the Commission takes the view that the aid element will not exceed EUR 100000, the de minimis threshold then applicable [13].
Ob upoštevanju majhne vrednosti posojila, ki znaša 1,6 milijona EUR, visoko kakovostnega poroštva in dejstva, da je bila zaračunana 1,5-odstotna premija, meni Komisija, da element pomoči ne bo presegel 100000 EUR, tj. praga de minimis, ki je veljal takrat [13].
As far as measures 3 to 6 are concerned, the Commission expressed doubts in the opening Decision that they could be regarded as not constituting aid on the basis of the market economy investor principle.
Glede ukrepov 3 do 6 je Komisija v uvodni odločitvi izrazila dvom, da je mogoče navedene ukrepe obravnavati kot ukrepe, ki ne vključujejo pomoči na podlagi načela vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji.
Those doubts are confirmed in this Decision: the subsidies were non-reimbursable and the participation loans had to be paid back annually by means of a transfer of 10 % of the non-interesting-bearing profits.
V tej odločbi so ti dvomi potrjeni: subvencije so bile nepovratne, sindicirano posojilo pa je bilo treba letno povrniti s transferjem v višini 10 % dobička brez obresti.
It is therefore clear that the Regional Government of Andalusia did not act as a market economy investor would have done, since it did not expect a return on the investment.
Zato je jasno, da regionalna vlada Andaluzije ni ukrepala kot vlagatelj pod tržnimi pogoji, ker ni pričakovala donosnosti naložbe.
In addition, these measures, which were granted in the context of a restructuring plan for the period 2004-2009, were approved by the Regional Government of Andalusia and, therefore, attributable to the State or a public authority.
Poleg tega je te ukrepe, ki so bili odobreni v okviru načrta za prestrukturiranje za obdobje 2004–2009, odobrila regionalna vlada Andaluzije, zaradi česar jih je mogoče pripisati državi ali javnemu organu.
The measures gave a single beneficiary, Pickman, a selective advantage in the form of preferential loans and direct subsidies which are not generally available to other companies.
Ukrepi so edinemu upravičencu, tj. podjetju Pickman, omogočili selektivno prednost v obliki prednostnih posojil in neposrednih subvencij, ki na splošno niso na voljo drugim podjetjem.
Pickman operates in the market segment of dishes, ceramics and chinaware.
Podjetje Pickman deluje v segmentu trga, ki se ukvarja s posodo, keramiko in porcelanom.
As these products are traded within the Community, the measures in question threaten to distort competition between Member States.
Ker se s temi proizvodi trguje znotraj Skupnosti, pomenijo zadevni ukrepi nevarnost za izkrivljanje konkurence med državami članicami.
Spain does not question the classification of these measures as State aid.
Španija ne dvomi v razvrstitev teh ukrepov kot državne pomoči.
Consequently, measures 3 to 6 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and their possible compatibility must be assessed accordingly.
Zato ukrepi 3 do 6 pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, njihovo morebitno združljivost pa je treba ustrezno oceniti.
The fact that the aid has already been granted, in breach of the Member States’ duty of prior notification, laid down in Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, means that it constitutes illegal aid.
Dejstvo, da je bila pomoč že dodeljena in je kršila obveznost držav članic v zvezi s predhodno priglasitvijo iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES, pomeni, da vključuje nezakonito pomoč.
Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty provide for exceptions to the general incompatibility described in paragraph 1 of that Article.
Člen 87(2) in 87(3) Pogodbe ES določa izjeme k splošni nezdružljivosti iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
In particular, under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered to be compatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES se lahko pomoč za spodbujanje razvoja nekaterih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali nekaterih gospodarskih območij šteje zlasti za združljivo s skupnim trgom, če takšna pomoč tržnim pogojem ne škoduje v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
Since measure 7 does not constitute State aid (see recitals 41 to 50 above), contrary to the preliminary assessment in the opening Decision, the Commission is of the opinion that the compatibility of measures 3 to 6 must not be assessed on the basis of the 2004 Guidelines.
Ker ukrep 7 ne pomeni državne pomoči (glej uvodne izjave 41 do 50), Komisija v nasprotju s predhodno oceno iz uvodne odločitve meni, da združljivosti ukrepov 3 do 6 ni treba oceniti na podlagi smernic iz leta 2004.
In fact, paragraph 104 of the 2004 Guidelines makes clear that ‘the Commission will examine the compatibility with the common market of any rescue or restructuring aid granted without its authorisation and therefore in breach of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty on the basis of these Guidelines if some or all of the aid is granted after their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union’.
V odstavku 104 smernic iz leta 2004 je dejansko jasno navedeno, da bo „Komisija […] preverila združljivost s skupnim trgom kakršne koli pomoči za reševanje ali prestrukturiranje, dodeljene brez njene odobritve in zato v nasprotju s členom 88(3) Pogodbe na podlagi teh smernic, če je del pomoči ali vsa pomoč dodeljena po njihovi objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije“.
In this regard, the Commission acknowledges that measures 3 to 6, a one-off operation under a restructuring plan, were granted on the date the plan was approved by the Spanish authorities, 2 March 2004, no part of the aid having been granted after the publication of the 2004 Guidelines.
V zvezi s tem Komisija priznava, da so bili ukrepi 3 do 6, ki so enkratna transakcija v okviru načrta za prestrukturiranje, dodeljeni na dan, ko so načrt odobrili španski organi, tj. 2. marca 2004, pri čemer noben del pomoči ni bil dodeljen po objavi smernic iz leta 2004.
The 1999 Guidelines therefore apply.
Zato veljajo smernice iz leta 1999.
Section 3.2.2 of the 1999 Guidelines lays down the conditions for the authorisation of restructuring aid, subject to the special provisions of paragraph 55, which, in the case of SMEs, states that the conditions in question are applied less strictly and, in particular, compensatory measures are usually not required.
V delu 3.2.2 smernic iz leta 1999 so določeni pogoji za odobritev pomoči za prestrukturiranje, ki je odvisna od posebnih določb iz odstavka 55, v katerem je za primer malih in srednje velikih podjetij navedeno, da se obravnavani pogoji uporabljajo manj strogo, pri čemer je poudarjeno, da izravnalni ukrepi običajno niso potrebni.
The Commission has carried out this specific assessment, inter alia, in a case which likewise concerned an SME operating in the sector of ceramic dishes and chinaware manufacture, namely the company Porcelanas del Principado [14].
Komisija je to posebno oceno med drugim izvedla v primeru, ki je prav tako obravnavala malo in srednje veliko podjetje v sektorju proizvodnje keramične posode in porcelana, in sicer podjetje Porcelanas del Principado [14].
Firstly, the company must be regarded as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines.
Podjetje se mora šteti za podjetje v težavah v smislu smernic.
As the Spanish authorities acknowledged, until 2004 Pickman was in such a situation, as shown by the fact that it had negative own funds and increasing losses, whilst a mortgage over some of its assets taken out in favour of the company RUMASA had been foreclosed, with the result that it was almost certainly going to go out of business in the short term.
Kot so priznali španski organi, je bilo podjetje Pickman do leta 2004 v takšnem položaju, kar potrjuje dejstvo, da je imelo neaktivna lastna sredstva in vedno večje izgube, medtem ko je bila hipoteka na nekatera sredstva v korist podjetja RUMASA izključena, zaradi česar bi bilo njegovo poslovanje skoraj zagotovo kmalu onemogočeno.
Secondly, the grant of aid is conditional on the implementation of a restructuring plan, the duration of which must be as short as possible and which must restore the company’s long-term viability within a reasonable period of time on the basis of realistic assumptions as to future operating conditions.
Odobritev pomoči je odvisna od izvedbe načrta za prestrukturiranje, ki mora trajati čim manj časa in obnoviti dolgoročno sposobnost podjetja za preživetje v razumnem obdobju na podlagi realističnih predpostavk glede prihodnjih pogojev delovanja.
As far as SMEs are concerned, in accordance with the Commission’s practice, the provisions contained in paragraph 55 were interpreted as meaning that the Commission itself need not approve such a plan in the case of SME schemes.
Glede malih in srednje velikih podjetij so se določbe iz odstavka 55 v skladu s prakso Komisije razlagale v smislu, da sami Komisiji v primeru shem za mala in srednje velika podjetja ni treba odobriti takšnega načrta.
As the Spanish authorities noted, Pickman sent to the national authorities a restructuring plan, drawn up by independent experts from the company Auditoría y Consulta SA, which:
Kot so opozorili španski organi, je podjetje Pickman nacionalnim organom poslalo načrt za prestrukturiranje, ki so ga oblikovali neodvisni strokovnjaki iz podjetja Auditoría y Consulta S.A., ki:
describes the circumstances which led to the company’s difficulties: unstable and inadequate ownership and management, demotivation caused by over-dimensioning and an imbalance in the deployment of staff, a high failure rate and high unitary costs compared to competitors, excess stocks, poor utilisation rate, absence of any medium or long-term strategy or sales policy,
opisuje razmere, zaradi katerih je imelo podjetje težave: nestabilno in neustrezno lastništvo ter upravljanje, izguba motivacije zaradi prevelikega povečanja in neravnotežja pri razporejanju delavcev, visoka stopnja napak in visoki skupni stroški v primerjavi s konkurenti, presežne zaloge, nizka stopnja porabe, odsotnost srednje- ali dolgoročne strategije ali prodajne politike;
analyses Pickman’s economic and financial situation on the basis of the data for the years 2000-2003: negative own funds, seizure of certain assets, high debt ratios and serious liquidity problems, decreasing profitability and sales value, together with the consequent relative increase in the impact of staff costs,
analizira gospodarski in finančni položaj podjetja Pickman na podlagi podatkov za leta 2000–2003: negativna lastna sredstva, zaseg nekaterih sredstev, visok delež dolga in resne težave z likvidnostjo, manjša dobičkonosnost in prodajna vrednost, vključno s posledično razmeroma večjim vplivom stroškov za delavce;
identifies the competitive position of Pickman in the relevant market, with very low market shares as compared to its competitors, underscoring its weaknesses, as well as its strengths, primarily its outstanding reputation for high quality and the historical and cultural value placed on Spanish traditions.
določa konkurenčni položaj podjetja Pickman na ustreznem trgu z zelo nizkimi tržnimi deleži v primerjavi s konkurenti, pri čemer so poudarjene njegove slabosti in prednosti, zlasti njegov velik ugled v zvezi z visoko kakovostjo ter zgodovinsko in kulturno vrednostjo španske tradicije.
Furthermore, the restructuring plan was divided into two different stages: the first scheduled the vast majority of intervention measures for 2004, whilst the second stage consisted in the gradual consolidation of Pickman’s overall situation in the years 2005-2009 (see Table 2 below).
Poleg tega je bil načrt za prestrukturiranje razdeljen v dve fazi: v prvi fazi je bila za leto 2004 načrtovana velika večina intervencijskih ukrepov, medtem ko je druga faza vključevala postopno konsolidacijo celotnega položaja podjetja Pickman v letih 2005–2009 (glej tabelo 2 spodaj).
The intervention measures, which were aimed at rectifying the company’s structural weaknesses and guaranteeing its long-term viability, related to the establishment of a new management structure, the planning of an organisational chart appropriate to the manufacturing process, the downsizing and redeployment of the workforce, the negotiation of a new collective agreement, the reorganisation of the plants’ activities with the objective of optimisation, significant technical and IT modernisation, investment in a commercial department in terms of staff and marketing campaigns, the establishment of new distribution channels, the rebalancing between own funds and registered capital, adjustment of the debt ratio and the acquisition of a minimum level of liquidity.
Intervencijski ukrepi, ki so bili namenjeni odpravljanju strukturne šibkosti podjetja in zagotavljanju njegove dolgoročne sposobnosti za preživetje, so bili povezani z vzpostavitvijo nove strukture upravljanja, načrtovanjem organizacijske sheme, primerne za proizvodni postopek, zmanjšanjem in prerazporeditvijo delavcev, pogajanjem o novi kolektivni pogodbi, reorganizacijo dejavnosti obratov z namenom optimizacije, bistveno tehnično in informacijsko posodobitvijo, vlaganjem v komercialni oddelek v smislu kampanj za delavce in trženjskih kampanj, vzpostavitvijo novih distribucijskih kanalov, ponovnim uravnoteženjem lastnih sredstev in delniškega kapitala, prilagoditvijo deleža dolga in pridobivanjem najnižje stopnje likvidnosti.