natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission observes that Decision C 10/94 again used the word ‘sold’ and considered that the contract between ETVA and the employees concerning the sale of 49 % of HSY shares was a valid sale.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila v odločbi C 10/94 ponovno uporabljena beseda „prodati“, zato meni, da pogodba med banko ETVA in zaposlenimi v zvezi s prodajo 49 % delnic podjetja HSY pomeni veljavno prodajo.
The Commission underlines that it had received a copy of the sale contract before the adoption of decision C 10/94 and was therefore aware of its content.
Komisija poudarja, da je izvod prodajne pogodbe prejela še pred sprejemom odločbe C 10/94 in da je zato bila z njeno vsebino seznanjena.
The Commission concludes that, when adopting decision C 10/94, the Commission had no reason to request the sale of HSY (i.e. to put it as an explicit condition to be respected in the future) since a valid sale contract had already been signed in September 1995.
Komisija ugotavlja, da v času sprejema odločbe C 10/94 ni imela nikakršnega razloga, da bi zahtevala prodajo podjetja HSY (tj. da bi to opredelila kot izrecen pogoj, ki naj bi bil v prihodnosti izpolnjen), saj je bila veljavna prodajna pogodba že podpisana septembra 1995.
Until the payment of the purchase price by the employees, ETVA will keep a pledge on the shares.
Dokler zaposleni ne bi plačali nakupne cene, bi banka ETVA ohranila zastavno pravico na delnice.
In order to finance the payment of the yearly instalments to ETVA, HSY would retain a part of the monthly salary and of the allowances of the employees.
Da bi podjetje HSY financiralo plačilo letnih obrokov banki ETVA, bi zadržalo del mesečnih plač in dodatkov zaposlenih.
In the months following September 1995, a contract was signed between ETVA, HSY, the association of the employees and each individual employee of HSY (the contract of September 1995 was concluded between ETVA and the association of employees).
V mesecih po septembru 1995 je bila sklenjena pogodba med banko ETVA, podjetjem HSY, združenjem zaposlenih in vsakim posameznim zaposlenim v podjetju HSY (pogodbo iz septembra 1995 sta sklenili banka ETVA in združenje zaposlenih).
By this contract, each employee agreed to purchase a given number of shares in accordance with the terms of the September 1995 contract.
S to pogodbo se je vsak zaposleni strinjal, da bo kupil določeno število delnic v skladu s pogoji iz pogodbe iz septembra 1995.
These contracts also repeat that HSY will retain a part of the monthly wage and of the Easter and Christmas allowance to finance the annual instalments.
V teh pogodbah je ponovno zapisano, da bo podjetje HSY zadržalo del mesečnih plač in velikonočnih ter božičnih dodatkov, da bi lahko financiralo letne obroke. Komisija zdaj ugotavlja, da zaposleni niso nikoli plačali letnih obrokov.
The Commission has now established that the employees have never paid the yearly instalments. This means that they have not paid them while they were participating in the management of the yard as owner of 49 % of the shares.
To pomeni, da jih niso plačali, ko so kot lastniki 49 % delnic sodelovali pri vodenju ladjedelnice.
The first three instalments defined in the September 1995 contract — the ones that should have been paid in 1998, in 1999 and in 2000 — were not paid.
Prvi trije obroki, določeni v pogodbi iz septembra 1995 – obroki, ki bi morali biti plačani leta 1998, 1999 in 2000 – niso bili plačani.
In 2001, in the framework of the privatisation of HSY, the employees and ETVA concluded a contract by which the employees gave up their claim on 49 % of the revenue from the sale of HSY’s shares to HDW/Ferrostaal.
Leta 2001 so v okviru privatizacije podjetja HSY zaposleni in banka ETVA sklenili pogodbo, s katero so se zaposleni odpovedali svoji zahtevi do 49 % prihodka od prodaje delnic podjetja HSY konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal.
The Commission indicated to Greece and HSY that the non-payment of the purchase price by the employees seems to constitute a misuse of decision C 10/94 since it entails that the partial privatisation, aiming at restoring the competitiveness of the yard, never took place.
Komisija je Grčiji in podjetju HSY pojasnila, da neplačilo nakupne cene s strani zaposlenih razume kot zlorabo odločbe C 10/94, saj to pomeni, da ni prišlo do delne privatizacije, katere namen je bila obnovitev konkurenčnosti ladjedelnice.
Greece and HSY contest these conclusions.
Grčija in podjetje HSY te ugotovitve izpodbijata.
Among others, they raise the following three grounds to dismiss the Commission doubts.
Med drugim ponujata naslednje tri dokaze, da bi odpravila sume Komisije.
As a first ground, Greece claims that the privatisation is ‘real’ and ‘genuine’.
Prvič, Grčija trdi, da je privatizacija „resnična“ in „prava“.
In particular, the Greek Government underlines that: ‘The employees acquired the shareholder’s capacity according to the provisions of Greek law.
Grška vlada zlasti poudarja naslednje: „Zaposleni so v skladu z določbami grške zakonodaje postali delničarji.
They were registered in the company’s Shareholders’ Book and acquired all relevant rights as shareholders, including the right to participate and vote in the General Meetings and thus exercising control and influence on the day-to-day administration of the shipyards.
Vpisani so bili v Knjigo delničarjev podjetja in so pridobili vse pripadajoče pravice kot delničarji, vključno s pravico do udeležbe v glasovanju na generalnih sejah, s tem pa so lahko izvajali nadzor in vplivali na vsakodnevno upravljanje ladjedelnic.
In addition, the acquisition of shares entailed the risk that the shares might loose their value’.
Poleg tega je pridobitev delnic pomenila tveganje, da bodo delnice izgubile na svoji vrednosti“.
‘The employees exercised their pre-emption rights, provided by the relevant laws, and participated in the share capital increase, pro rata to their stake in the share capital, therefore private capital was invested in the shipyards’.
„Zaposleni so uveljavljali svoje predkupne pravice, ki jih določajo ustrezni zakoni, in bili udeleženi v povečanju delniškega kapitala, sorazmerno njihovemu deležu v delniškem kapitalu, tako da je bil v ladjedelnice vložen zasebni kapital“.
As a second ground, Greece claims that the payment of the purchase price was not a condition laid down in decision C 10/94, and even if it was the case, the Commission considered it as already fulfilled.
Drugič, Grčija trdi, da plačilo nakupne cene ni bilo pogoj, ki bi bil določen v odločbi C 10/94, in tudi če bi bil, ga je Komisija razumela kot že izpolnjenega.
In particular, Greece recalls that ‘The Commission mentioned in its Decision of 31 October 1995 that it will continue to examine, within the procedure it had opened, all the actions of the Greek Government regarding the application of the agreement to transfer 49 % of the shares to the employees’ union, as well as its content, before taking a final decision on the authorisation of the debt write-off.
Grčija zlasti opozarja, da je „Komisija […] v svoji odločbi z dne 31. oktobra 1995 navedla, da bo v okviru postopka, ki ga je sprožila, še naprej pregledovala vse ukrepe grške vlade v zvezi z izvajanjem sporazuma o prenosu 49 % delnic na sindikat zaposlenih, kakor tudi njeno vsebino, preden bo sprejela končno odločitev o odobritvi odpisa dolga.
By acting accordingly, it reached a final positive decision in 1997 which approved the write-off, without imposing the condition of privatisation.
Z ustreznim ukrepanjem je leta 1997 sprejela končno pozitivno odločitev, s katero je dolg odpisala, pri tem pa privatizacije ni navedla kot pogoj.
In other words, the Commission had already examined in 1997 the content of the agreement and had concluded that it is a matter of privatisation before authorising the debt write-off;’.
Z drugimi besedami, Komisija je že leta 1997 pregledala vsebino sporazuma in ugotovila, da je bila privatizacija izvršena še pred odobritvijo odpisa dolga“.
As a third ground, Greece claims that ETVA has correctly applied the sale contract.
Tretjič, Grčija trdi, da je banka ETVA pravilno uporabila prodajno pogodbo.
Indeed, the employees, since they already had to participate in three capital increases aimed at financing the investment plan, ‘found it difficult to honour their commitment to pay the price of the shares.
Zaposleni, ki so že morali biti udeleženi pri treh dokapitalizacijah za namene financiranja naložbenega načrta, so dejansko „imeli težave pri izpolnjevanju svoje obveznosti, da plačajo ceno delnic.
ETVA did not take out injunctions in order to recover the amount owed by each of the 2000 employees because, realistically, there was no chance of bringing any such action to a successful conclusion […].
Banka ETVA ni uporabila sodnih prepovedi za izterjavo zneska, ki ga je dolgovalo vseh 2000 delavcev, ker, realno gledano, ni bilo nikakršne možnosti, da bi bila takšna tožba uspešna […]. Namesto da bi svoje terjatve zahtevala z zapletenim, dolgotrajnim, dragim in na koncu še neuspešnim sodnim postopkom, […] je banka ETVA uveljavila zastavno pravico na neplačanih delnicah in tako izterjala znesek iz prihodkov od prodaje delnic zaposlenih, s čimer so zadevni prihodki pokrili zadevni dolg“.
Rather than engaging in complicated, time-consuming, costly and ultimately futile court proceedings in order to satisfy its claims […], ETVA enforced the pledge on the unpaid shares and recovered its claim from the proceeds of the sale of the shares belonging to the employees, in that the said proceeds covered the debt in question’, In other words, Greece claims that, since in the framework of HSY’s privatisation in 2001–2002 ETVA received from HDW/Ferrostaal 100 % of the sale price — instead of only 51 % — ‘it may be seen that the price was received.
Z drugimi besedami, ker je v okviru privatizacije podjetja HSY v letih 2001-2002 banka ETVA od konzorcija HDW/Ferrostaal prejela 100 % prodajne cene – namesto 51 % – Grčija trdi, „da lahko to pomeni, da je bila cena izplačana.
It is evident that the discharge of the price of the workers’ shares by means of the sale satisfied ETVA’s requirement to be paid the price […].
Očitno je, da je bila s poplačilom cene delnic delavcev prek prodaje izpolnjena zahteva banke ETVA, da se ji cena izplača […].
The Commission has reached the following conclusions.
Komisija ugotavlja naslednje.
As indicated earlier, decision C 10/94 and Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 concluded that, since the shares of HSY had been sold to the employees by the September 1995 contract, the condition of the sale of the yard laid down in Article 10 of the Directive 90/684/EEC was fulfilled.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, je bilo v odločbi C 10/94 in Uredbi (ES) št. 1013/97 ugotovljeno, da je bil pogoj iz člena 10 Direktive 90/684/EGS, s katerim se zahteva prodaja ladjedelnice, izpolnjen, saj so bile delnice podjetja HSY prodane zaposlenim na podlagi pogodbe iz septembra 1995.
As indicated earlier, the purpose of this condition was to transfer the ownership to owners who, since they would aim at maximising the value of their investment, would take the measures necessary to restore the competitiveness of the yards.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, je bil namen tega pogoja prenesti lastništvo na lastnike, ki bi s ciljem čim večjega povečanja vrednosti njihove naložbe sprejeli potrebne ukrepe za obnovitev konkurenčnosti ladjedelnice.
In this context, the Commission accepted the September 1995 contract as a valid sale since it contractually obliged the employees to pay EUR 24 million in exchange of a 49 % stake in HSY.
V tem okviru je Komisija pogodbo iz septembra 1995 sprejela kot veljavno prodajno pogodbo, saj je vsebovala pogodbeno obveznost, v skladu s katero naj bi zaposleni plačali 24 milijonov EUR za 49-odstotni delež v podjetju HSY.
This price to pay entailed that, when participating to the management of the yard, the employees would take care of preserving and increasing the value of their investment.
Ta cena je pomenila, da bodo zaposleni pri sodelovanju v vodenju ladjedelnice poskrbeli za ohranitev in povečanje vrednosti svoje naložbe.
ETVA controlled HSY, which was legally entitled to collect the amounts from the wages and allowances of the employees.
Banka ETVA je namreč nadzorovala podjetje HSY, ki je imelo zakonsko pravico, da zbere zneske iz plač in dodatkov zaposlenih.
The Commission therefore concludes that the Greek authorities consciously did not request the payment of the annual instalments from the employees.
Komisija zato sklepa, da grški organi od zaposlenih zavestno niso zahtevali poplačila letnih obrokov.
By adopting this behaviour, Greece showed that it did not intend to obtain from the employees the payment of the purchase price.
S takšnim ravnanjem je Grčija pokazala, da od zaposlenih ni nameravala izterjati nakupne cene.
This dramatically modified the situation in which the employees found themselves.
To je v veliki meri spremenilo položaj, v katerem so se znašli zaposleni.
Instead of having to pay a purchase price, the employees would not have to put at risk this amount of own money.
Namesto da bi plačali nakupno ceno, zaposlenim ni bilo treba tvegati tega zneska lastnega denarja.
This means that, when participating in the management of the yard, they attached less importance to the preservation and the increase of the value of the shares and the restoration of financial viability (and more to the preservation of the employment and of the working conditions).
To pomeni da so pri sodelovanju v vodenju ladjedelnice pripisali manj pomena ohranitvi in povečanju vrednosti delnic in povrnitvi finančne sposobnosti preživetja (več pa ohranitvi delovnih mest in delovnih pogojev).
In addition, since they were not paying the purchase price, it could be expected that over the medium or long term, ETVA would enforce its pledge on the shares and therefore the employees would simply have no shareholding anymore in the yard.
Ker niso plačevali nakupne cene, je bilo poleg tega mogoče pričakovati, da bo banka ETVA srednjeročno ali dolgoročno uveljavila svojo zastavno pravico na delnice, zaradi česar zaposleni enostavno ne bi več imeli svojega deleža v ladjedelnici.
In this context, the Commission fails to see how the employees could have been interested in preserving and increasing the value of HSY and taking the necessary measures to restore its competitiveness.
Na podlagi tega Komisija ne more razumeti, kako bi lahko zaposleni bili zainteresirani za ohranitev in povečanje vrednosti podjetja HSY in sprejem potrebnih ukrepov za obnovitev njegove konkurenčnosti.
The Commission therefore considers that the fact that the State did not seek to obtain the payment of the purchase price from the employees under the terms of the September 1995 contract dramatically changed the situation of employees when they were participating in the management of the yard.
Komisija zato meni, da je dejstvo, da država ni poskušala pridobiti plačila nakupne cene od zaposlenih pod pogoji iz pogodbe iz septembra 1995, v veliki meri spremenilo položaj zaposlenih v času njihovega sodelovanja v vodenju ladjedelnice.
Consequently, because ETVA did not seek the payment of the purchase price from the employees, the change of ownership that took place in September 1995 did not constituted a real ‘sale’, aiming at restoration of competitiveness of the yard, as requested by Directive 90/684/EEC.
Ker banka ETVA ni izterjala nakupne cene od zaposlenih, sprememba lastništva, ki se je zgodila septembra 1995, ni pomenila prave „prodaje“, s katero naj bi se obnovila konkurenčnost ladjedelnice, kot je bilo zahtevano z Direktivo 90/684/EGS.
In conclusion, by not seeking the payment of the purchase price from the employees, Greece has misused decision C 10/94.
Ker Grčija ni izterjala nakupne cene od zaposlenih, je zlorabila odločbo C 10/1994.
Indeed, the latter was adopted by the Commission on the basis of the legitimate assumption that the September 1995 contract would be implemented by the State-owned bank ETVA, and in particular that ETVA would collect the payment of the purchase price from HSY employees in accordance with the precise provisions laid down in the contract, hereby ensuring that these new owners have a financial interest in supporting the measures necessary to restore competitiveness and viability.
Slednjo je Komisija dejansko sprejela na podlagi legitimne predpostavke, da bo državna banka ETVA izvršila pogodbo iz septembra 1995 in zlasti da bo od zaposlenih v podjetju HSY izterjala nakupno ceno v skladu z natančnimi določbami pogodbe, s čimer bi zagotovila, da bodo novi lastniki imeli finančni interes v podpori ukrepov, potrebnih za obnovitev konkurenčnosti in sposobnosti preživetja.
The Commission could not expect that Greece, after having itself presented the September 1995 contract as a sale of HSY, would consciously refrain from obtaining the payment of the sale price from the purchaser, despite the existence of several contractual and legal provisions allowing the collection of the price.
Komisija ni mogla pričakovati, da se bo Grčija potem, ko je pogodbo iz septembra 1995 predstavila kot pogodbo o prodaji podjetja HSY, zavestno vzdržala izterjave prodajne cene s strani kupca kljub obstoju več pogodbenih in zakonskih določb, ki to izterjavo omogočajo.
The Commission considers that such behaviour is similar to the submission of incorrect information to the Commission and to a misuse of aid.
Komisija meni, da je takšno ravnanje podobno predložitvi netočnih informacij Komisiji in zlorabi pomoči.
The aid authorised by Decision C 10/94 should therefore be recovered from HSY.
Pomoč, ki je bila odobrena z odločbo C 10/94, mora podjetje HSY zato povrniti.
The Commission has reached the conclusion that the three grounds raised by Greece and HSY which have been summarised earlier should be dismissed.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je treba tri dokaze, ki sta jih predložili Grčija in podjetje HSY in ki so bili pravkar povzeti, zavrniti.
As regards the first ground — the privatisation was genuine and real because the employees got ownership of the shares and the corresponding control over HSY — the Commission observes that the transfer of the ownership was a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Kar zadeva prvi dokaz - da je bila privatizacija prava in resnična, ker so zaposleni postali lastniki delnic in dobili ustrezen nadzor nad podjetjem HSY – Komisija opaža, da je bil prenos lastništva obvezen, vendar ne zadosten pogoj.
As indicated earlier, since they did not had to pay this price, they were in a different situation from a market economy owner.
Ker te cene torej niso bili obvezni plačati, niso bili v položaju, v kakršnem bi bil vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva.
As regards Greece’s claim that ‘the acquisition of shares entailed the risk that the shares might loose their value’, the Commission notes that, while it is undisputed that the employees become formally the owner of the shares, they were much less concerned by the evolution of the value of the shares since they did not have to pay a high price (i.e. reduction of the wages and allowances during 12 years) to obtain them.
Kar zadeva trditev Grčije, da je „pridobitev delnic pomenila tveganje, da bodo delnice izgubile na svoji vrednosti“, Komisija opaža, da so zaposleni kljub nespornem dejstvu, da so postali formalni lastniki delnic, veliko manj skrbeli za razvoj vrednosti delnic, saj jim zanje ni bilo treba plačati visoke cene (tj. zmanjšanje plač in dodatkov v času 12 mesecev).
In addition, since the employees were not paying the purchase price, they had to expect that ETVA would enforce its pledge on the shares, such that the employees would not remain the owners of these shares.
Ker zaposleni poleg tega niso odplačevali nakupne cene, so morali pričakovati, da bo banka ETVA uveljavila zastavno pravico na delnice, tako da zaposleni ne bi več mogli ostati lastniki teh delnic.
Finally, as regards Greece’s claims that ‘The employees […] participated in the share capital increase, pro rata to their stake in the share capital, therefore private capital was invested in the shipyards’, the Commission does not contest that the employees participated to the capital increase (this will be described in the description and assessment of measure E10).
Kar pa zadeva trditve Grčije, da so „zaposleni […] bili udeleženi v povečanju delniškega kapitala, sorazmerno njihovemu deležu v delniškem kapitalu, tako da je bil v ladjedelnice vložen zasebni kapital“, Komisija ne nasprotuje dejstvu, da so zaposleni bili udeleženi v dokapitalizaciji (to bo obrazloženo v opisu in oceni ukrepa E10).
However, the Commission recalls that, according to the September 1995 contract, the participation to the capital increase did not entitle the employees to any new shares of HSY.
Vendar Komisija opozarja tudi, da v skladu s pogodbo iz septembra 1995 udeležba v dokapitalizaciji zaposlenim ni dala pravice, da pridobijo kakršne koli nove delnice podjetja HSY.
The Commission therefore fails to see how this participation alone could incite the employees to manage the yard in a way that preserves or increases the value of the shares since this participation did not give them any new shares.
Komisija zato ne more razumeti, kako bi ta udeležba sama lahko spodbudila zaposlene, da vodijo ladjedelnico na način, s katerim bi se ohranila ali povečala vrednost delnic, saj jim udeležba ni prinesla nobenih novih delnic.
The Commission also fails to see how this participation could constitute a ‘sale’ of HSY since the employees did not receive additional shares in exchange of their investments.
Komisija prav tako ne razume, kako bi ta udeležba lahko pomenila „prodajo“ podjetja HSY, saj zaposleni v zameno za svoje naložbe niso pridobili dodatnih delnic.
Since the amount of money that the employees had to invest was much smaller than what the Commission legitimately expected when it adopted decision C 10/94 (and what the Council expected when it adopted Regulation (EC) No 1013/97), the Commission considers it insufficient to incite them to attach sufficient importance to the value of the shares and the restoration of the competitiveness of HSY.
Ker je bil znesek, ki so ga morali vložiti zaposleni, precej manjši od zneska, ki ga je Komisija legitimno pričakovala, ko je sprejela odločbo C 10/94 (in ki ga je pričakoval Svet, ko je sprejel Uredbo (ES) št. 1013/97), je bil po mnenju Komisije zato nezadosten, da bi zaposlene spodbudil, da pripišejo več pomena vrednosti delnic in obnovitvi konkurenčnosti podjetja HSY.
As regards the second ground raised by Greece — the payment of the purchase price was not a condition laid down in decision C 10/94, and even if it was the case, the Commission considered it as already fulfilled after having examined the September 1995 contract — the Commission has earlier recalled that the sale of the yard was a condition laid down in the Directive 90/684/EEC and explained what was the reason for this condition.
Kar zadeva drugi dokaz, ki ga je navedla Grčija – plačilo nakupne cene ni bilo pogoj, ki bi ga določala odločba C 10/94, in tudi če bi bil, je Komisija po pregledu pogodbe iz septembra 1995 menila, da je bil pogoj že izpolnjen – je Komisija že opozorila, da je bila prodaja ladjedelnice opredeljena kot pogoj v Direktivi 90/684/EGS, ter pojasnila, kaj je bil razlog za določitev tega pogoja.
The Commission has also already explained that it took a negative decision in July 1995 because the yard had not been sold.
Komisija je prav tako pojasnila, da je julija 1995 sprejela negativno odločitev, ker ladjedelnica še ni bila prodana.
It was therefore evident to Greece that the Commission would not be satisfied by a mere transfer of ownership to the employees and it finally accepted the September 1995 contract only because it was a real sale, i.e. the employees would pay a significant purchase price and would thus have a real financial interest in restoration of competitiveness.
Zato je bilo Grčiji takrat jasno, da se Komisija ne bo zadovoljila zgolj s prenosom lastništva na zaposlene, in je septembra 1995 končno podpisala pogodbo samo zato, ker je šlo za pravo prodajo, tj. zaposleni naj bi plačali visoko nakupno ceno in tako imeli pravi finančni interes za obnovitev konkurenčnosti.