natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
First, these loans were granted from the end of 1999 onwards, when HSY’s financial situation was catastrophic and raised the risk of the revocation of the company’s operating licence.
Prvič, ta posojila so bila odobrena s koncem leta 1999, ko je bil finančni položaj podjetja HSY porazen in je obstajala nevarnost preklica dovoljenja za obratovanje.
Second, the loans were granted at a time when it was clear that HSY had failed to implement its restructuring/investment plan and had failed to respect the terms of decision N 401/97.
Drugič, posojila so bila odobrena v času, ko je bilo jasno, da podjetje HSY ni uspelo izvršiti svojega načrta prestrukturiranja/naložbenega načrta in da ni spoštovalo pogojev iz odločbe N 401/97.
Third, given its catastrophic financial situation and the lack of arm’s length security, HSY would not have been able to raise these loans from the private sector.
Tretjič, zaradi svojega poraznega finančnega položaja in pomanjkanja poslovne varnosti, podjetje HSY teh posojil ne bi moglo pridobiti v zasebnem sektorju.
The Greek authorities (as well as HSY) claim that the State guarantee does not constitute State aid and was offered at normal market conditions.
Grški organi (kakor tudi podjetje HSY) trdijo, da državno poroštvo ne pomeni državne pomoči in da je bilo ponujeno po običajnih tržnih pogojih.
They base their analysis on the following elements:
Svojo analizo utemeljujejo na naslednjih elementih:
the yard could have concluded a similar loan with any other bank by offering other types of securities than a State guarantee.
Ladjedelnica bi lahko sklenila podobno posojilo s katero koli drugo banko, ki bi ponujala drugačna poroštva namesto državnega.
In particular, the company could have offered as securities some claims related to large contracts or some mortgages on its assets,
Podjetje bi kot poroštvo lahko ponudilo nekatere terjatve, povezane z velikimi naročili, ali hipoteke na svoje premoženje.
the annual guarantee fee of 1 % is the market rate.
Letna poroštvena premija višini 1 % je tržna obrestna mera.
In addition, it is not selective since the Greek State granted several guarantees during that period and in some cases the fee charged by the State was much smaller,
V tem primeru tudi ne gre za selektivni ukrep, saj je grška država v tem obdobju odobrila več poroštev in v nekaterih primerih je bila premija, ki jo je zaračunala država, veliko nižja.
even if the Commission should consider that the guarantee fee was below the market rate, the State nevertheless acted as a market economy investor since it was shareholder of HSY (through ETVA) and would benefit from the return to profitability following from the implementation of the investment plan,
Tudi če bi Komisija menila, da je bila poroštvena premija nižja od tržne obrestne mere, je država kljub temu ravnala kot vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva, saj je bila delničarka podjetja HSY (prek banke ETVA) in bi imela korist od ponovnega doseganja donosnosti, ki bi ga omogočila izvedba naložbenega načrta.
the fact that the loan aimed at financing an investment plan which had been approved by the Commission should have constituted a sufficiently solid ground for the lending bank and the guarantor to expect that HSY would be able to reimburse the loan,
Dejstvo, da je bil namen posojila financiranje naložbenega načrta, ki ga je odobrila Komisija, bi moralo biti dovolj močan razlog, da bi banka posojilodajalka in porok lahko pričakovala, da bo podjetje HSY posojilo lahko povrnilo.
the loan is regularly reimbursed and the guarantee fee paid.
Posojilo se redno odplačuje, poroštvena premija pa je plačana.
Before undertaking an assessment of the compatibility under Article 87 of the Treaty, the applicability of Article 296 of the Treaty needs to be considered.
Pred ocenjevanjem združljivosti na podlagi člena 87 Pogodbe je treba proučiti uporabo člena 296 Pogodbe.
The Commission notes that on the basis of the granting decision, HSY was obliged to use the guaranteed loan as well as the two others loans covered by the opening decision (i.e. measures P3 and P4) for the financing of the investment programme.
Komisija opozarja, da je podjetje HSY na podlagi odločbe o odobritvi za namen financiranja naložbenega načrta moralo uporabiti posojilo, zavarovano s poroštvom, kakor tudi dve drugi posojili, ki sta zajeti v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka (tj. ukrepa P3 in P4).
As concluded in the assessment of measure P1, the investment programme does not fall within the scope of Article 296 of the Treaty.
Kot je ugotovoljeno v oceni ukrepa P1, naložbeni načrt ne spada na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe.
The Commission therefore considers that these three loans earmarked for the financing of the investment programme are subject to State aid rules and are not covered by Article 296 of the Treaty.
Komisija zato meni, da za ta tri posojila, namenjena financiranju naložbenega načrta, veljajo pravila o državni pomoči in zato ne spadajo na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe.
It first needs to be verified whether the State guarantee fulfils the conditions to be State aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Najprej je treba preveriti, ali državno poroštvo izpolnjuje pogoje za državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Greece did not contest that application.
Grčija navedene uporabe ni izpodbijala.
Conversely, Greece also applied it to assess measure P2.
Nasprotno, tudi Grčija je ukrep P2 ocenila na podlagi navedenega obvestila.
First, in order to fall under Article 87(1), a measure must involve State resources.
Prvič, da bi ukrep spadal na področje uporabe člena 87(1), mora vključevati državna sredstva.
This is the case for measure P2 since, by granting this guarantee, the State put State resources at risk.
To velja za ukrep P2, saj je država z odobritvijo tega poroštva postavila državna sredstva v tvegan položaj.
Second, it needs to be established whether the measure is selective.
Drugič, treba je ugotoviti, ali je ukrep selektiven.
Greece claims that the State has granted several guarantees to other firms and charged also a premium of 1 %.
Grčija trdi, da je država odobrila več poroštev drugim podjetjem in zaračunala tudi premijo v višini 1 %.
Greece provided a list of these firms.
Grčija je predložila seznam teh podjetij.
The Commission considers that this fact does not show that the measure was a general measure.
Komisija meni, da to dejstvo ne dokazuje, da je bil to splošen ukrep.
In order to be a general measure, a measure must be open to all economic agents operating within a Member State.
Da bi bil ukrep splošen, bi moral biti dostopen vsem gospodarskim subjektom, ki poslujejo znotraj ene države članice.
It must be effectively open to all firms on an equal access basis, and they may not de facto be reduced in scope through, for example, the discretionary power of the State to grant them or through other factors that restrict their practical effect.
Na razpolago in enako dostopen bi moral biti vsem podjetjem, njegovega obsega pa dejansko ne bi smela zmanjševati na primer diskrecijska pravica države, da ukrep odobri, ali drugi dejavniki, ki omejujejo njegov praktični učinek.
The present measure can therefore not be considered to be a general one.
Ta ukrep se torej ne more šteti kot splošen ukrep.
In particular, it is not because certain firms have received a State guarantee that all the firms could receive one.
Zlasti to, da so nekatera podjetja dobila državno poroštvo, ne pomeni, da bi ga lahko dobila vsa podjetja.
Greece has not shown that the granting of a State guarantee is open to all economic agents on an equal access basis.
Grčija ni dokazala, da je odobritev državnega poroštva enako dostopno za vse gospodarske subjekte.
In addition, all the firms that appear in the list provided by Greece are State-owned firms or firms carrying out some military activities.
Poleg tega so vsa podjetja na seznamu, ki ga je predložila Grčija, državna podjetja ali podjetja, ki izvajajo nekatere vojaške dejavnosti.
It seems therefore that private firms could not have received such a guarantee for the financing of their normal activities.
Zaradi tega se zdi, da zasebna podjetja ne bi mogla pridobiti takšnega poroštva za financiranje svojih običajnih dejavnosti.
In fact, Greece does not indicate the legal basis on the basis of which the Minister of Finance decided on 8 December 1999 to grant the guarantee.
Grčija dejansko ne navaja pravne podlage, na temelju katere se je minister za finance 8. decembra 1999 odločil, da poroštvo odobri.
It is likely that it is Law 2322/1995, which is a selective measure as it will be explained in the assessment of measure E12b.
Verjetno je, da je podlaga zakon 2322/1995, ki je selektiven ukrep, kar bo pojasnjeno v oceni ukrepa E12b.
Third, the existence of an advantage must be demonstrated.
Tretjič, dokazati je treba obstoj prednosti.
In accordance with point 2.2.2 of the Notice on guarantees, since the guarantee was granted before the granting of the loan and not ‘ex post’, there is no presumption of aid to the lender.
V skladu s točko 2.2.2 obvestila o poroštvih glede na to, da je bilo poroštvo odobreno pred odobritvijo posojila in ne naknadno, ne obstaja nikakršna domneva o pomoči posojilodajalcu.
It is therefore the aid to the borrower that needs to be investigated, as defined in point 2.1.1 of the Notice on guarantees.
Preiskati je torej treba pomoč posojilojemalcu, kot je navedeno v točki 2.1.1 obvestila o poroštvih.
Greece claims that there is no advantage since HSY could have obtained a similar loan by offering a bank other securities instead of a State guarantee.
Grčija trdi, da ni nikakršne prednosti, saj bi podjetje HSY lahko pridobilo podobno posojilo tudi, če bi banki namesto državnega ponudilo drugačna poroštva.
The Commission considers that it does not have to investigate whether, by offering other securities, HSY could have obtained this loan.
Komisija meni, da ji ni treba preiskovati, ali bi podjetje HSY s ponudbo drugih poroštev lahko pridobilo to posojilo.
Indeed, the Commission must assess whether the actual transaction implemented by the State, namely granting a guarantee on a loan without benefiting of any security, would have been acceptable to a market economy investor.
Komisija mora dejansko oceniti, ali bi bila dejanska transakcija, ki jo je opravila država, in sicer odobritev poroštva za posojilo brez kakršnega koli zavarovanja, sprejemljiva za vlagatelja iz tržnega gospodarstva.
A guarantee on a loan secured by a lien on some assets or by the conveyance of claims constitutes a different transaction.
Poroštvo za posojilo, zavarovano z zastavno pravico na določeno premoženje ali s prenosom terjatev, pomeni drugačno transakcijo.
As indicated in section 2.1.1 of the Notice on guarantee, one of the potential advantages of the State guarantee is the possibility for the borrower ‘to offer less security’.
Kot je navedeno v oddelku 2.1.1 obvestila o poroštvih, je ena izmed potencialnih prednosti državnega poroštva možnost, da posojilojemalcu omogoči „nižje stroške zavarovanja“.
In addition, even if the possibility to obtain a financing by offering more securities had to be assessed, the Commission has already concluded in section 3.1 of the present decision that after 30 June 1999 HSY would not have received loans or guarantees from private banks, even by offering a security to the bank.
Poleg tega je Komisija, tudi če bi morala oceniti možnost pridobitve finančnih sredstev s ponudbo večjega zavarovanja, v oddelku 3.1 te odločbe že ugotovila, da podjetje HSY po 30. juniju 1999 od zasebnih bank ne bi dobilo posojil ali poroštev, tudi če bi banki ponudilo zavarovanje.
The Commission concludes that, since the State guarantee was granted in December 1999, it gave an advantage to HSY by providing financing which HSY could not have received from the market.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je državno poroštvo s tem, ko je bilo odobreno decembra 1999, podjetju HSY dalo prednost z zagotovitvijo finančnih sredstev, ki jih na trgu ne bi moglo dobiti.
Greece also claims that the guarantee fee of 1 % was the market price and there is therefore no advantage.
Grčija trdi tudi, da je bila poroštvena premija v višini 1 % tržna cena, zato ni mogoče govoriti o prednosti.
The Commission notes that Greece did not provide any market data showing that banks were ready to grant a guarantee at that price.
Komisija opozarja, da Grčija ni posredovala nikakršnih podatkov o trgu, ki bi dokazovali, da so bile banke pripravljene odobriti poroštvo po navedeni ceni.
Greece only provided a list of guarantees provided by the State during the same period for the same price.
Grčija je predložila samo seznam poroštev, ki jih je zagotovila država v istem obdobju po isti ceni.
The Commission fails to understand how this list of State guarantees could prove that the guarantee fee asked from HSY is market conform and does not constitute aid.
Komisija ne more razumeti, kako bi lahko ta seznam državnih poroštev dokazoval, da je poroštvena premija, ki jo je moralo plačati podjetje HSY, združljiva s trgom in da ne pomeni pomoči.
In particular, this list can not be considered as ‘a State guarantee scheme [which] does not constitute State aid under Article 87(1)’ since, as the guarantee in favour of HSY illustrates, it does not fulfil many of the conditions laid down in section 4.3 of the Notice on guarantees.
Seznama zlasti ni mogoče šteti za „državn[o] poroštven[o] shem[o][, ki] ne pomeni državne pomoči po členu 87(1)“, saj ta, kot je razvidno iz poroštva, zagotovljenega podjetju HSY, ne izpolnjuje številnih pogojev, določenih v oddelku 4.3 obvestila o poroštvih.
Furthermore, even if a guarantee fee of 1 % might have been market conform for other (healthy) companies, this would not automatically make it market conform for a company in difficulties like HSY.
Poleg tega, tudi če bi bila poroštvena premija v višini 1 % za druga (zdrava) podjetja združljiva s trgom, to ne bi samodejno pomenilo, da bi bila tudi združljiva s trgom v primeru podjetja v težavah, kot je podjetje HSY.
As regards the claim that a guarantee fee below the market price could be acceptable for a private investor in similar circumstances because Greece was shareholders of HSY, the Commission has already dismissed this claim in section 3.1 of the present decision.
Kar zadeva trditev, da bi bila poroštvena premija pod tržno ceno v podobnih okoliščinah sprejemljiva za zasebnega vlagatelja, ker je bila Grčija delničarka podjetja HSY, je Komisija to trditev že zavrnila v oddelku 3.1 te odločbe.
The corresponding point made by Greece must therefore be dismissed.
Trditev Grčije je torej treba zavrniti.
Finally, as regards the fact raised by Greece that the loan is reimbursed in accordance with the terms of the contract, the Commission fails to see how it could prove that a private bank would have granted the loan in question.
Kar zadeva trditev Grčije, da je bilo posojilo povrnjeno v skladu s pogodbenimi pogoji, Komisija ne more razumeti, kako lahko to dokazuje, da bi zadevno posojilo bila pripravljena odobriti tudi zasebna banka.
Indeed, what matters is the situation of the firm and the information available when the guarantee was granted.
Kar je dejansko pomembno, je položaj podjetja in informacije, ki so bile na voljo v času, ko je bilo poroštvo odobreno.
As a subsidiary element, the Commission observes that, in accordance with the information available at the time of the granting of the guarantee and on the basis of which it could be expected that the yard would book severe losses in the following years, the yard has really recorded heavy losses in the following years and its net equity really became very negative.
V dopolnilo temu Komisija ugotavlja, da se je v skladu z informacijami, ki so bile na voljo v času odobritve poroštva in na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče pričakovati, da bo ladjedelnica v prihodnjih letih zabeležila hude izgube, to dejansko tudi zgodilo, neto lastniški kapital ladjedelnice pa je postal zelo negativen.
In addition, HSY only survived (and thus is able to reimburse the loan) because of the continued support by State aid.
Poleg tega je podjetje HSY preživelo (in zato lahko posojilo tudi povrne) samo zaradi neprekinjene podpore, ki mu jo je zagotavljala državna pomoč.
From the foregoing, the Commission considers that the measure gives an advantage to HSY.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Komisija meni, da ta ukrep podjetju HSY zagotavlja prednost.
This selective advantage distorts competition because it provides financing at a time when HSY would not have received financing from the market and was in difficulty.
Selektivna prednost izkrivlja konkurenco, saj zagotavlja finančna sredstva v času, ko podjetje HSY na trgu teh sredstev ne bi pridobilo, ker je bilo v težavah.
The measure therefore contributed to keep HSY alive and to finance its activities.
Ta ukrep je torej prispeval k ohranitvi podjetja HSY in financiranju njegovih dejavnosti.
Since some competitors of HSY are located in other Member States, this distortion of competition affects trade between Member States .
Ker se nekateri konkurenti podjetja HSY nahajajo v drugih državah članicah, to izkrivljanje konkurence vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami .
Since it fulfils all the conditions laid down in Article 87(1) of the Treaty, the guarantee constitutes State aid.
Poroštvo pomeni državno pomoč, ker izpolnjuje vse pogoje iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Since, contrary to the requirement laid down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty, it was granted without prior notification, it constitutes unlawful aid.
Ker je bila v nasprotju z zahtevo iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe odobrena brez predhodne priglasitve, pomeni nezakonito pomoč.
Since the Commission has just demonstrated that a selective advantage granted to HSY distorts competition and trade, the Commission will not repeat the analysis of the existence of a distortion of competition and trade anymore when it will assess the remaining measures.
Ker je Komisija pravkar dokazala, da selektivna prednost, zagotovljena podjetju HSY, izkrivlja konkurenco in trgovino, svoje analize obstoja izkrivljanja konkurence in trgovine pri oceni preostalih ukrepov ne bo več ponovila.
As regards the compatibility under Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty, the Commission notes than none of the provisions laid down in Article 87(2) and Article 87(3)(b) and (d) apply.
Komisija opozarja, da se v zvezi z združljivostjo na podlagi člena 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe ne uporablja niti ena določba iz člena 87(2) in člena 87(3)(b) in (d).
As regards the compatibility under Article 87(3)(a), (c) and (e), aid to shipbuilding was regulated from 1 January 1999 by Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (hereinafter ‘Regulation (EC) No 1540/98’).
Kar zadeva združljivost na podlagi člena 87(3)(a), (c) in (e), je pomoč ladjedelništvu po 1. januarju 1999 urejala Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1540/98 z dne 29. januarja 1998 o oblikovanju novih pravil o pomoči ladjedelništvu (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Uredba (ES) 1540/98).
Since the guaranteed loan aimed at financing an investment plan which was a part of a restructuring plan and since in addition HSY was in difficulty, the State guarantee should be assessed on the basis of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98.
Ker je bilo posojilo, zavarovano s poroštvom, namenjeno financiranju naložbenega načrta, ki je bil del načrta prestrukturiranja, in ker je bilo podjetje HSY poleg tega še v težavah, je treba državno poroštvo oceniti na podlagi člena 5 Uredbe (ES) št. 1540/98.
It is clear that the measure does not fulfil the conditions laid down in this article.
Jasno je, da ukrep pogojev iz tega člena ne izpolnjuje.
In particular, Article 5 indicates that restructuring aid ‘may exceptionally be considered compatible with the common market provided that it complies with the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulties’.
V členu 5 je zlasti navedeno, da se lahko pomoč za prestrukturiranje „izjemoma šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom, če izpolnjuje smernice Skupnosti za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah“.
The guidelines applicable at the time of the grant were the 1999 R & R guidelines, which had been published in the Official Journal on 9 October 1999 and which entered into force on the same day.
Smernice, ki so veljale v času odobritve, so bile smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 1999, ki so bile objavljene v Uradnem listu Evropske unije9. oktobra 1999 in so začele veljati istega dne.
Several of the conditions for authorisation of the aid laid down in section 3.2.2 of these guidelines are not fulfilled.
Nekateri pogoji za odobritev pomoči, določeni v oddelku 3.2.2 teh smernic, niso izpolnjeni.
For instance, regarding condition (b) ‘Restoration of viability’, the Commission notes that the State guarantee financed an investment plan which was part of a restructuring plan which, in December 1999, has become totally insufficient to restore the long term viability of HSY.
Na primer, kar zadeva pogoj (b) „Obnovitev sposobnosti preživetja“, Komisija opozarja, da se je z državnim poroštvom financiral naložbeni načrt, ki je bil del načrta prestrukturiranja, ki decembra 1999 ni več zadostoval za obnovitev dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja podjetja HSY.
Regarding the condition (d) ‘Aid limited to the minimum’, the Commission had already decided in decision N 401/97 that State aid could at the maximum amount to 50 % of the investment costs and the remaining 50 % would be financed by funds raised from the shareholders and by bank loans raised at market conditions.
V zvezi s pogojem (d) „Najmanjša potrebna pomoč“ se je Komisija v odločbi N 401/97 že odločila, da bi državna pomoč lahko znašala največ 50 % stroškov naložb, medtem ko bi se preostalih 50 % financiralo s sredstvi, ki bi jih zagotovili delničarji, ter bančnimi posojili, pridobljenimi po tržnih pogojih.
Consequently, no additional aid in favour of the investment plan could be granted otherwise the maximum aid intensity of 50 % would be breached.
Zaradi tega za naložbeni načrt ne bi bilo mogoče odobriti nobene dodatne pomoči, ne da bi se pri tem kršila največja intenzivnost pomoči v višini 50 %.
The State guarantee also breached the ‘one time, last time’ condition laid down in section 3.2.3 of the 1999 R & R guidelines since by decision N 401/97, the Commission had authorised investment aid, which, under Directive 90/684/EEC, was a kind of restructuring aid.
Z državnim poroštvom je bil kršen tudi pogoj „prvič in zadnjič“, določen v oddelku 3.2.3 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 1999, saj je Komisija z odločbo N 401/97 odobrila naložbeno pomoč, ki je bila v skladu z Direktivo 90/684/EGS neke vrste pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
This aid has been granted to HSY by Ministerial Decision of December 1997 (but, as described in recital 84 of the present decision, Greece indicates that it has not been paid out to HSY yet).
Pomoč je bila podjetju HSY odobrena z ministrsko odločbo iz decembra 1997 (vendar pa, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 84 te odločbe, Grčija trdi, da podjetju HSY še ni bila izplačana).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the State guarantee constitutes unlawful and incompatible aid, which must be recovered.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da državno poroštvo pomeni nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč, ki jo je treba povrniti.
If it is still outstanding at the time of this decision, the State guarantee has to be stopped immediately.
Če je v času te odločbe državno poroštvo še vedno neporavnano, ga je treba nemudoma razveljaviti.
This is however insufficient to restore the situation that would have prevailed without aid since HSY has during several years benefited from a loan which it would not have received without State intervention.
To pa ni dovolj za obnovitev položaja, ki bi prevladoval brez pomoči, saj je podjetje HSY več let koristilo posojilo, ki ga brez posega države ne bi pridobilo.