natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its answer to the extension decision, Greece claims that several of the measures investigated by the Commission have supported the military activities of the yard.
Grčija v svojem odgovoru na odločbo o podaljšanju postopka trdi, da je več ukrepov, ki jih je preiskala Komisija, omogočilo podporo vojaškim dejavnostim ladjedelnice.
Greece therefore claims that they fall under Article 296 of the Treaty, and can not be assessed — and even less recovered — under State aid rules.
Grčija torej trdi, da ti ukrepi spadajo v okvir člena 296 Pogodbe in se jih ne more ocenjevati – še manj pa povrniti – na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči.
The Commission has therefore to assess whether some measures could partially or entirely fall within the scope of Article 296 of the Treaty.
Komisija mora zato oceniti, ali bi lahko nekateri izmed ukrepov delno ali v celoti spadali na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe.
None of the parties to the present procedure contests that HSY has civil and military activities.
Nobena od strani v tem postopku ne izpodbija dejstva, da podjetja HSY opravlja tako civilne kot vojaške dejavnosti.
Over the last 15 years, the main civil activity was the repair of civil ships.
V zadnjih petnajstih letih je glavna civilna dejavnost obsegala popravilo civilnih ladij.
HSY has also built railstock material and hulls of civil ships.
Podjetje HSY gradi tudi železniške vozne parke in trupe civilnih ladij.
HSY’s military activities consisted in the construction and repair of military ships and submarines for the Greek Navy.
Vojaške dejavnosti podjetja HSY so obsegale gradnjo in popravilo vojaških ladij ter podmornic za grško mornarico.
The Commission recalls that the extension decision has already identified the measures supporting exclusively the military activities of the yard.
Komisija opozarja, da so bili že v odločbi o podaljšanju postopka ugotovljeni ukrepi, ki podpirajo izključno vojaške dejavnosti ladjedelnice.
The extension decision concludes that these measures entirely fall under Article 296 of the Treaty and are not subject to State aid rules.
V odločbi o podaljšanju postopka je ugotovljeno, da ti ukrepi v celoti spadajo na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe in da zanje ne veljajo pravila o državni pomoči.
The extension decision has not been challenged at the Court.
Odločba o podaljšanju postopka na Sodišču ni bila izpodbijana.
Some of the State supports covered by the present decision were not assigned to a particular activity, i.e. they were not earmarked to finance a given project.
Nekatere od državnih pomoči, na katere se nanaša ta odločba, niso bile dodeljene določenim dejavnostim, tj. niso bile namensko rezervirane za financiranje določenega projekta.
The Commission has therefore to determine to which extent these State supports benefited the military activities and to which extent they benefited the civil activities.
Komisija mora zato ugotoviti, v kolikšnem obsegu so bile te državne pomoči zagotovljene vojaškim dejavnostim in v kolikšnem obsegu so bile zagotovljene civilnim dejavnostim.
This calculation is made complicated by the fact that HSY did not keep separate accounts for the civil activities and for the military activities.
Ta izračun toliko bolj zapleta dejstvo, da podjetje HSY ni vodilo ločenih knjig za civilne in vojaške dejavnosti.
In these circumstances, the Commission will base its analysis on the relative size of the two activities.
V teh okoliščinah bo Komisija svojo analizo utemeljila na ustreznem obsegu teh dveh dejavnosti.
It must therefore assess the relative weight each activity.
Oceniti mora torej relativno težo vsake dejavnosti.
The Commission observes that any State support (e.g. financing, capital injection, etc) granted to HSY (and not assigned to finance a particular activity) has at the same time covered losses of the past (i.e. losses generated by past contracts) and allowed the yard to finance future activities.
Komisija opaža, da je vsaka državna podpora (npr. finančna sredstva, dokapitalizacija itd.), ki je bila odobrena podjetju HSY (in ne dodeljena za namen financiranja določene dejavnosti), sočasno pokrila tudi pretekle izgube (tj. izgube, ki so nastale v okviru preteklih pogodb) in ladjedelnici omogočila financiranje prihodnjih dejavnosti.
In order to determine to which extent a given State support benefited the civil and the military activities, the Commission therefore considers that the analysis must not be limited to the division between civil and military activities (i.e. the relative weight of each activity) in the year when the support was provided, but it is necessary to calculate the average division between these two activities over a sufficiently long period.
Da bi ugotovila, v kolikšnem obsegu je državna podpora prinesla koristi civilnim in vojaškim dejavnostim, Komisija meni, da analiza ne bi smela biti omejena na porazdelitev civilnih in vojaških dejavnosti (tj. na relativno težo vsake dejavnosti) v letu, ko je bila podpora zagotovljena, temveč da je treba izračunati, kako sta bili ti dejavnosti v povprečju porazdeljeni v dovolj dolgem obdobju.
The fact that the relative weight of the two activities varies strongly from one year to another also justifies using an average over several years.
Uporabo povprečja v večletnem obdobju upravičuje tudi dejstvo, da se relativna teža obeh dejavnosti iz leta v leto močno spreminja.
Indeed, a given year may not be representative of the average division between the two activities over the medium and long term.
Iz stanja v danem letu dejansko ne more biti razvidno, kako sta ti dejavnosti v povprečju porazdeljeni srednjeročno ali dolgoročno.
In the framework of the procedure for the recovery of the aid found unlawful and incompatible by decision C 40/02, Greece has claimed that the civil activities accounted for 25 % of the activities of HSY and the military activities accounted for 75 % of the activities.
V okviru postopka za povrnitev pomoči, za katero je bilo na podlagi odločbe C 40/02 ugotovljeno, da je nezakonita in nezdružljiva, je Grčija trdila, da civilne dejavnosti predstavljajo 25 % vseh dejavnosti podjetja HSY, vojaške dejavnosti pa 75 % vseh dejavnosti.
In addition, the Commission had already accepted a division 25 % civil/75 % military in the decision N 513/01, which has not been contested in front of the Court.
Poleg tega je Komisija v odločbi N 513/01 že sprejela porazdelitev na 25 % civilnih in 75 % vojaških dejavnosti, kar pred Sodiščem ni bilo izpodbijano.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission will consider that the civil activities accounted for 25 % of the activities of HSY and the military activities for 75 % of the activities.
Na podlagi navedenega bo Komisija upoštevala, da civilne dejavnosti predstavljajo 25 % dejavnosti podjetja HSY, vojaške pa 75 % dejavnosti.
With regards to the military activities of HSY, the Commission has consistently accepted in earlier decisions that the support provided to them is outside the scope of the State aid rules.
V zvezi z vojaškimi dejavnostmi podjetja HSY je Komisija v prejšnjih odločbah dosledno upoštevala dejstvo, da podpora, ki je bila zagotovljena za te dejavnosti, ne spada na področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči.
The Commission repeated that assessment in paragraphs 86 to 90 of the extension decision.
Komisija je ponovila navedeno oceno v odstavkih 86 do 90 odločbe o podaljšanju postopka.
Since the measures which are the subject of the present decision were granted to HSY (i.e. HSY as a whole) during the same period as the period analysed in these earlier decisions, it must be concluded that the part of these measures which has supported the military activities of HSY also fall within the scope of Article 296 of the Treaty and is exempted of State aid rules.
Ker so bili ukrepi, ki so predmet te odločbe, odobreni podjetju HSY (tj. podjetju HSY v celoti) v obdobju, ki je bilo analizirano v teh prejšnjih odločbah, je treba sklepati, da del teh ukrepov, ki so bili namenjeni za podporo vojaških dejavnosti podjetja HSY, prav tako spada na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe in je izvzet iz pravil o državni pomoči.
When assessing each measure individually, the Commission will establish whether it has exclusively supported the civil activities of HSY or whether it was granted to HSY without being earmarked for a particular use:
V oceni vsakega posameznega ukrepa bo Komisija opredelila, ali je ta bil izključno namenjen za podporo civilnih dejavnosti podjetja HSY ali pa je bil odobren podjetju HSY, ne da bi bil namensko rezerviran za določeno uporabo:
If only the civil activities were supported, the Commission considers that Article 296 of the Treaty does not apply and the entire measure can be assessed under Article 87 of the Treaty,
če je bila podpora namenjena samo civilnim dejavnostim, potem se po mnenju Komisije člen 296 Pogodbe v tem primeru ne uporablja, celoten ukrep pa je mogoče oceniti na podlagi člena 87 Pogodbe,
THE MEASURES: DESCRIPTION, GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE, COMMENTS RECEIVED, ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION
UKREPI: OPIS, RAZLOGI ZA SPROŽITEV POSTOPKA, PREJETE PRIPOMBE, OCENA IN SKLEPNE UGOTOVITVE
As regards the comments of Greece and of third parties, the Commission observes that they cover a wide range of arguments.
Komisija ugotavlja, da pripombe Grčije in tretjih strank vsebujejo širok niz argumentov.
For instance, in its numerous submissions to the Commission, the complainant Elefsis has claimed that there exist numerous grounds on the basis of which the measures should be considered incompatible aid.
V svojih številnih pripombah, predloženih Komisiji, pritožnik, podjetje Elefsis, na primer trdi, da obstajajo številni dokazi, na podlagi katerih ukrepi pomenijo nezdružljivo pomoč.
Similarly, Greece, HSY, and TKMS/GNSH have claimed in their successive submissions to the Commission that there exist numerous grounds on the basis of which the measures could be found compatible with the common market.
Grčija, podjetje HSY in podjetji TKMS/GNSH v svojih zapovrstnih pripombah, predloženih Komisiji, podobno zatrjujejo, da obstajajo številni dokazi, na podlagi katerih so ukrepi združljivi s skupnim trgom.
Pursuant to Article 253 of the Treaty, a Commission decision has to state the reasons on which it is based.
Na podlagi člena 253 Pogodbe se v odločbi, ki jo sprejme Komisija, navedejo razlogi za njeno sprejetje.
However the Commission is not obliged to answer to each of the arguments raised by the parties.
Vendar pa Komisija ni dolžna odgovoriti na vsako izmed trditev strank.
Consequently, the present decision will explicitly deal only with the major points raised by the parties.
Zato bodo v tej odločbi obravnavane izključno glavne točke, ki so jih navedle stranke.
In particular, the decision will not deal with some grounds raised by the parties which are clearly irreconcilable with the facts, which are in contradiction with points made by the same party in its other submissions or which can be clearly dismissed on the basis of the facts and assessment presented in the present decision.
Odločba zlasti ne bo obravnavala nekaterih razlogov, ki so jih navedle stranke in ki so očitno nezdružljivi z dejstvi, v nasprotju s točkami, ki jih je ista stranka navedla v svojih drugih pripombah, ali ki jih je mogoče jasno zavreči na podlagi dejstev in ocene iz te odločbe.
Since the present investigation covers a significant number of measures, it is important to number them in order to facilitate the reading and avoid confusion.
Ker ta preiskava obsega veliko število ukrepov, je slednje treba našteti za namen lažjega branja in izogibanja nejasnostim.
Therefore, the four measures covered by the opening decision will be numbered P1 to P4.
Štirje ukrepi, ki so vsebovani v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka, bodo zato oštevilčeni s številkami od P1 do P4.
The twelve measures covered by the extension decision will keep the number attributed to each of them in that decision, but preceded by an E.
Dvanajst ukrepov, ki so vsebovani v odločbi o podaljšanju postopka, pa bo oštevilčenih s številkami, ki so jim bile pripisane v navedeni odločbi, vendar bo pred njimi črka E.
Misuse of the investment aid endorsed in 1997 (measure P1)
Zloraba naložbene pomoči, odobrene leta 1997 (ukrep P1)
Such aid may not be granted to ship repair yards unless linked to a restructuring plan which results in a reduction in the overall ship repair capacity’.
Takšne pomoči se ladjedelnicam za popravilo ladij ne sme dodeliti, če ni povezana z načrtom prestrukturiranja, ki bo povzročil celotno zmanjšanje zmogljivosti pri popravilu ladij“.
The Decision N 401/97 indicates that a business plan has been set up which aims at restoring the competitiveness of the yard through increased productivity and modernisation.
V odločbi N 401/97 je navedeno, da je bil oblikovan poslovni načrt, katerega namen je obnoviti konkurenčnost ladjedelnice s povečano produktivnostjo in modernizacijo.
The first pillar of this plan is an important reorganisation and reduction of the workforce.
Prvi steber tega načrta je pomembna reorganizacija in zmanjšanje delovne sile.
In particular, the number of workers will be reduced to 2000 by the end of 1997 and more flexible work methods will be introduced.
Število delavcev se bo zlasti do konca leta 1997 zmanjšalo na 2000, sprejete pa bodo bolj prožne metode dela.
The Decision N 401/97 indicates that most of the workforce reduction had already been implemented at the time of the decision, what will contribute to increase the productivity.
V odločbi N 401/97 je navedeno, da je bil večji del zmanjšanja delovne sile v času sprejetja odločbe že izveden, kar bo prispevalo k povečanju produktivnosti.
The second pillar of the restructuring plan is an investment programme, which aimed at replacing the old and obsolete equipment with new updated technology.
Drugi steber načrta prestrukturiranja je naložbeni načrt, katerega namen je zamenjati staro in izrabljeno opremo z novo, posodobljeno tehnologijo.
The descriptive part of the decision indicates that this programme will be financed in the following manner: GRD 7,81 billion (EUR 22,9 million) of State aid, GRD 3,13 billion (EUR 9,2 million) by an increase of the share capital, and GRD 4,67 billion (EUR 13,7 million) by bank loans.
V opisnem delu odločbe je navedeno, da bo ta načrt financiran na naslednji način: 7,81 milijarde GRD (22,9 milijona EUR) iz naslova državne pomoči, 3,13 milijarde GRD (9,2 milijona EUR) s povečanjem osnovnega kapitala in 4,67 milijarde GRD (13,7 milijona EUR) iz naslova bančnih posojil.
The capital increase will be made in the same proportion as the distribution of capital, i.e. 51 % by ETVA and 49 % by the employees of HSY.
Dokapitalizacija bo izvršena sorazmerno s porazdelitvijo kapitalskih deležev, tj. 51-odstotnega s strani banke ETVA in 49-odstotnega s strani zaposlenih v podjetju HSY.
The decision further indicates that the bank loans will be raised at normal market conditions without State guarantees.
V odločbi je nadalje navedeno, da bodo bančna posojila najeta po običajnih tržnih pogojih brez državnih poroštev.
In its assessment, the Commission notes that according to the restructuring plan, there is no increase in shipbuilding capacity and a decrease in the shiprepair capacity.
Komisija v svoji oceni ugotavlja, da glede na načrt prestrukturiranja ni prišlo do nikakršnega povečanja zmogljivosti pri gradnji ladij niti do zmanjšanja zmogljivosti pri popravilu ladij.
The Commission also notes that the intensity of the aid (50 %) stays within the regional aid intensity allowed for Greece.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da intenzivnost pomoči (50 %) ne presega intenzivnosti regionalne pomoči, dovoljene za Grčijo.
The intensity is also justified by the extent of the restructuring involved.
Intenzivnost je upravičena tudi z obsegom opravljenega prestrukturiranja.
The Exchange of Letters between Greece and the Commission which has preceded the opening of the procedure has been described in the chapter 1 ‘Procedure’ of the present decision.
Izmenjava dopisov med Grčijo in Komisijo pred sprožitvijo postopka je opisana v poglavju 1 „Postopek“ te določbe.
In the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts that the investment aid approved by decision N 401/97 may have been misused.
V odločbi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija izrazila sum, da je bila naložbena pomoč, ki je bila z odločbo N 401/97, zlorabljena.
First, the Commission observed that the investment plan was implemented only partially and with important delays.
Prvič, Komisija je ugotovila, da je bil naložbeni načrt izvršen le delno in z velikimi zamudami.
The Greek authorities granted several extensions of the deadline to execute the investment plan after 31 December 1999 without consulting the Commission.
Grški organi so po 31. decembru 1999 odobrili več podaljšanj roka za izvršitev naložbenega načrta, ne da bi se o tem posvetovali s Komisijo.
Second, whereas decision N 401/97 indicates that the investment programme will be financed by banks loans raised at normal market conditions without State guarantees, the firm seems to have received loans from a State-owned bank with non market-conform interest rates and it seems that one of the loans was covered by a State guarantee.
Drugič, medtem ko je v odločbi N 401/97 navedeno, da se bo naložbeni načrt financiral z bančnimi posojili, najetimi po običajnih tržnih pogojih brez državnih poroštev, se zdi, da je podjetje pridobilo posojila od državne banke po obrestnih merah, ki ne ustrezajo tržnim pogojem, ter da je bilo eno izmed posojil zavarovano z državnim poroštvom.
Third, the Greek authorities did not send the yearly reports on the implementation of the plan, as requested by the decision N 401/97.
Tretjič, grški organi niso poslali letnih poročil o izvajanju načrta, kot to zahteva odločba N 401/97.
Due to these three breaches of decision N 401/97, it seems that the investment aid was misused.
Zaradi teh treh kršitev odločbe N 401/97 je mogoče reči, da je bila naložbena pomoč zlorabljena.
Similarly, the privatisation of HSY invoked to justify a delay took place well after the end of 1999 and therefore could not justify HSY’s failure to respect decision N 401/97.
Podobno se je privatizacija podjetja HSY, ki je služila kot opravičilo za zamudo, zgodila precej po koncu leta 1999, zato ne more biti razlog za to, da podjetje HSY ni upoštevalo odločbe N 401/97.
Finally, Elefsis claims that, since HSY received a loan guaranteed by the State and loans at non arm’s length conditions, it has breached the conditions laid down in decision N 401/97.
Podjetje Elefsis trdi, da je podjetje HSY s prejemom posojila, za katero je poroštvo dala država, ter posojil po netržnih pogojih, kršilo pogoje iz odločbe N 401/97.
Therefore, this additional aid as well as the investment aid should be recovered.
Zato bi moralo povrniti tako dodatno kot naložbeno pomoč.
HSY submitted the same comments as Greece, which are summarised in the next section.
Podjetje HSY je predložilo enake pripombe kot Grčija, ki so povzete v naslednjem oddelku.
Comments from Greece
Pripombe Grčije
In their letter of 20 October 2004, the Greek authorities confirm that they initially set the date of 31 December 1999 for the completion of the investment plan.
V svojem dopisu z dne 20. oktobra 2004 so grški organi potrdili, da so za dokončanje naložbenega načrta sprva določili datum 31. december 1999.
On 27 June 2001, the Greek authorities granted a prolongation until 31 December 2001 for the completion of the investment, because the earthquake of 7 September 1999 had caused damages to the yard’s facilities and delayed the execution of the investment plan.
Grški organi so 27. junija 2001 odobrili podaljšanje roka za izvedbo naložbenega načrta, in sicer do 31. decembra 2001, saj je potres z dne 7. septembra 1999 povzročil škodo na objektih ladjedelnice in izvajanje naložbenega načrta zavlekel.
By decision of 28 December 2001, the Greek authorities granted a second prolongation until 30 June 2002 because the privatisation process, which started in January 2001 (and was finally completed on 31 May 2002), requested to freeze the investment plan.
Z odločbo z dne 28. decembra 2001 so grški organi odobrili drugo podaljšanje roka, in sicer do 30. junija 2002, saj je postopek privatizacije, ki se je pričel januarja 2001 (in se dokončno zaključil 31. maja 2002), zahteval zamrznitev naložbenega načrta.
When the Greek authorities carried out the second control in May 2002, they determined that the expenses incurred by HSY until 31 December 2001 amounted to GRD 9,8 billion (EUR 28,9 million), or 63 % of the total investment costs.
Ko so grški organi maja 2002 opravili drugi nadzor, so ugotovili, da so stroški podjetja HSY do 31. decembra 2001 znašali 9,8 milijarde GRD (28,9 milijona EUR) ali 63 % skupnih stroškov naložb.
On this occasion, the company asked to remove some of the investment expenses certified on the occasion of the second control.
Ob tej priložnosti je podjetje prosilo za odstranitev nekaterih stroškov naložb, ki so bili ugotovljeni v okviru drugega nadzora.
These expenses were advance payments concerning investments that the firm had decided to exclude from the investment plan.
Ti stroški so bili predplačila, ki so zadevala naložbe, ki jih je podjetje sklenilo izključiti iz naložbenega načrta.
Therefore, the total amount certified after the second control was reduced to EUR 23,3 million, or 50,75 % of the total.
Zato je bil skupni znesek, ugotovljen med drugim nadzorom, zmanjšan na 23,3 milijona EUR ali 50,75 % skupnega zneska.
The Greek authorities claim that, when granting the extensions, they considered in good faith that they acted within the limits of the approval decision of the Commission and that it concerned an existing aid for which no new notification was necessary.
Grški organi trdijo, da so v okviru odobritve podaljšanj v dobri veri menili, da ravnajo v okviru omejitev odločbe Komisije o odobritvi in da ta zadeva obstoječo pomoč, za katero se ni zahtevala nova priglasitev.
They considered that it was unrealistic not to provide for the possibility of a prolongation of an investment plan of such size and such scope, even more for a yard which had no experience with the implementation of such a plan, as acknowledged by the Commission itself in its approval decision.
Po njihovem mnenju bi bilo nerealno, če podaljšanje roka za izvedbo naložbenega načrta v takšnem obsegu in takšnem okviru ne bi bilo mogoče, in sicer toliko bolj, ker je šlo za ladjedelnico, ki z izvajanjem takšnega načrta ni imela nobenih izkušenj, kot je v svoji odločbi o odobritvi ugotovila tudi sama Komisija.
It simply aimed to adapt the content of the plan to the new circumstances: the privatisation of the yard, the new contracts of unforeseen nature (submarines), the 1999 earthquake, and the technological progress.
Njen cilj je bil samo prilagoditi vsebino načrta novim okoliščinam: privatizaciji ladjedelnice, novim naročilom nepredvidene narave (podmornice), potresu leta 1999 in tehnološkemu napredku.
The Greek authorities also fail to see how the prolongations could affect the substance of the aid and therefore its compatibility.
Grški organi prav tako ne morejo razumeti, kako bi lahko podaljšanja roka vplivalo na vsebino pomoči in s tem na njeno združljivost.
Finally, they claim that the Commission should assess the compatibility of the prolongation of the investment plan on the basis of the point 52 of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (hereafter ‘the 1999 R & R guidelines’).
Trdijo, da bi Komisija morala združljivost podaljšanja roka za izvedbo naložbenega načrta oceniti na podlagi točke 52 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 1999).
Finally, the ‘one time, last time’ principle would not be breached since the aid would take place in the adaptation of an existing restructuring plan.
Načelo „prvič in zadnjič“ torej ne bi bilo kršeno, saj bi pomoč prišla v času prilagoditve obstoječega načrta prestrukturiranja.