natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The recipient presented two types of argument: concerning the Commission’s competence in respect of the measures listed in Annex I, part B of the decision and concerning the Commission’s doubts on the compatibility of this aid, in so far as it was deemed to constitute new aid, with the common market.
Prejemnica je predstavila dve vrsti argumentov: glede pristojnosti Komisije v zvezi z ukrepi, navedenimi v delu B Priloge I k odločitvi, in glede dvomov Komisije v zvezi z združljivostjo te pomoči s skupnim trgom, v kolikor se šteje, da gre za novo pomoč.
With regard to the restructuring of public debt under Chapter 5a, the recipient argued that the fact of awarding the aid constituted a restructuring decision on the part of the Chairman of the Industrial Development Agency.
V zvezi s prestrukturiranjem javnega dolga po poglavju 5a je prejemnica navedla, da že sama dodelitev pomoči pomeni odločbo o prestrukturiranju s strani predsednika Industrijske razvojne agencije.
The recipient maintained, however, as did Poland in the initial phase of the Commission’s investigation, that the relevant decision was adopted by the Chairman of the Industrial Development Agency prior to accession, on 19 April 2004.
Prejemnica je vztrajala, tako kot Poljska v začetni fazi preiskave Komisije, da je zadevno odločitev sprejel predsednik Industrijske razvojne agencije pred pristopom k EU, in sicer 19. aprila 2004.
The recipient argued that it was the agreement of all the individual public creditors with the restructuring under Chapter 5a which constituted the award of the aid, prior to accession [14].
Prejemnica je trdila, da so se vsi posamezni javni upniki strinjali s prestrukturiranjem po poglavju 5a, kar pomeni dodelitev pomoči pred pristopom [14].
Contrary to what Poland stated in the first phase of the Commission’s investigation, the recipient argued that no default interest had accrued after 30 June 2003 on the public-law debts restructured under Chapter 5a.
V nasprotju z navedbami Poljske v prvi fazi preiskave Komisije je prejemnica trdila, da od 30. junija 2003 niso nastale zamudne obresti za dolgove po javnem pravu, prestrukturirane po poglavju 5a.
The recipient argued that the State’s precise exposure in respect of measure 32 (capital injection) had been known prior to accession and that therefore the aid should be regarded as having been granted before accession.
Prejemnica je navedla, da je bila izpostavljenost države v zvezi z ukrepom 32 (povečanje kapitala) znana pred pristopom in da je zato pomoč treba označiti kot dodeljeno pred pristopom.
The recipient also commented on other aspects of the decision.
Prejemnica je podala pripombe tudi v zvezi z drugimi vidiki odločitve.
In particular, it stated that the production guarantees provided to the yard by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation did not constitute State aid.
Zlasti je navedla, da jamstva za proizvodnjo, ki jih je ladjedelnici zagotovila izvozno-kreditna agencija Export Credit Insurance Corporation, ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
The recipient argued that the Export Credit Insurance Corporation guarantee scheme is a self-financing system in which, over the long term, premiums collected exceed risks covered and amounts actually paid out.
Prejemnica je navedla, da je garancijska shema izvozno-kreditne agencije sistem samofinanciranja, v okviru katerega vplačane premije dolgoročno presežejo krita tveganja in dejansko izplačane zneske.
The recipient described the conditions in which the Export Credit Insurance Corporation issues these guarantees (premiums and type of collateral required).
Prejemnica je opisala pogoje, pod katerimi izvozno-kreditna agencija izda ta jamstva (premije in zahtevane vrste zavarovanj).
With regard to the requirement that aid be limited to the minimum necessary, the recipient argued that the amount of the aid had been limited to the strict minimum, and that it would be justified to award more aid, if available.
V zvezi z zahtevo, da mora biti pomoč omejena na najmanjši potrebni znesek, je prejemnica navedla, da je bil znesek pomoči strogo omejen na najmanjši potrebni znesek in da bi bila lahko upravičena do več pomoči, če bi bila ta na voljo.
The recipient also suggested that even if the Commission defined the restructuring costs narrowly (i.e. as not including the running costs of the yard), the financing component of these costs free of State aid would still be of the order of 30 %, thus satisfying the 1999 Restructuring Guidelines [15].
Prejemnica je tudi navedla, da tudi če bi Komisija stroške prestrukturiranja natančno opredelila (tj. brez tekočih stroškov ladjedelnice), finančna komponenta teh stroškov brez državne pomoči še vedno ne bi presegla 30 %, kar je v skladu s Smernicami za prestrukturiranje iz leta 1999 [15].
The recipient also argued that the State aid to Gdynia Shipyard does not distort competition in Europe, claiming that the real competitive threat to European shipyards comes from the Far East.
Prejemnica je tudi navedla, da državna pomoč za ladjedelnico Gdynia ne izkrivlja konkurence v Evropi, saj naj bi prava konkurenca evropskim ladjedelnicam prihajala z Daljnega vzhoda.
The recipient acknowledged that container vessels were also built in other European shipyards, particularly in Germany, but claimed that the container vessels built in Germany differed in terms of design and technical specifications.
Prejemnica priznava, da kontejnerske ladje izdelujejo tudi druge evropske ladjedelnice, zlasti nemške, vendar navaja, da se nemške kontejnerske ladje razlikujejo po zasnovi in tehničnih specifikacijah.
The recipient asserted that no other EU shipyard built car carriers and that therefore Gdynia Shipyard was not competing in this segment with any other EU shipyard.
Prejemnica je zagotovila, da ladij za prevoz avtomobilov ne izdeluje nobena druga ladjedelnica v EU in da zato ladjedelnica Gdynia v tem segmentu ne predstavlja konkurence nobeni drugi ladjedelnici v EU.
Lastly, the recipient stated that its restructuring would definitely be completed by end-2007.
Prejemnica je nazadnje navedla, da bo prestrukturiranje zagotovo zaključeno do konca leta 2007.
Comments by other interested parties
Pripombe drugih zainteresiranih strank
Denmark and Danish Maritime supported the Commission’s efforts to ensure that State aid was granted in line with the applicable rules.
Danska in združenje Danish Maritime sta podprla prizadevanja Komisije za zagotovitev, da je bila državna pomoč dodeljena v skladu z veljavnimi pravili.
They pointed out that, as a result of the competitive situation in the world shipbuilding market, a number of Danish shipyards had closed or faced bankruptcy without any State aid being provided.
Poudarila sta, da je zaradi konkurence na svetovnem ladjedelniškem trgu veliko danskih ladjedelnic prenehalo delovati oziroma so bankrotirale, ker niso imele na voljo državne pomoči.
They also confirmed that the product range of the Danish yards was similar to that of the Polish yards, with the result that the Danish yards could be affected by any unfair competition.
Potrdila sta tudi, da je ponudba proizvodov danskih ladjedelnic podobna ponudbi poljskih ladjedelnic, kar pomeni, da lahko na danske ladjedelnice vpliva katera koli nelojalna konkurenca.
Denmark also urged the Commission to require Gdynia Shipyard to reduce its capacity so that State aid was not used to increase overcapacity worldwide.
Danska je Komisijo pozvala, naj od ladjedelnice Gdynia zahteva zmanjšanje zmogljivosti, tako da se državna pomoč ne bo uporabljala za svetovno povečanje presežnih zmogljivosti.
Ray Car Carriers, as the largest customer of Gdynia Shipyard and a minority shareholder in the company, stressed the importance of Gdynia Shipyard to its own operations in view of its ongoing contracts with the yard.
Ray Car Carriers, največja stranka ladjedelnice Gdynia in manjšinski delničar podjetja, je poudaril pomembnost ladjedelnice Gdynia za lastno poslovanje, in sicer zaradi veljavnih pogodb z ladjedelnico.
Ray Car Carriers was convinced that, with its highly skilled workforce and management, the yard would become one of the best in Europe, if it were restructured and received State aid for that purpose.
Ray Car Carriers je bil prepričan, da bo ladjedelnica zaradi dobro usposobljene delovne sile in uprave postala ena izmed najboljših v Evropi, vendar pod pogojem, da se prestrukturira in v ta namen prejme državno pomoč.
The trade union Solidarność highlighted the declining situation at the yard, arguing that speedy restructuring was needed.
Sindikat Solidarność je izpostavil vedno slabše stanje ladjedelnice in poudaril, da je nujno hitro prestrukturiranje.
The trade union described some of the restructuring measures already undertaken at the yard and expressed the belief that, with the technology and workforce available to it, it would join the ranks of the profitable European shipyards.
Sindikat je opisal nekaj že sprejetih ukrepov za prestrukturiranje v ladjedelnici in izrazil mnenje, da bo s tehnologijo in delovno silo, ki jo ima na voljo, postala ena izmed evropskih ladjedelnic z dobičkom.
State aid was therefore necessary to implement the restructuring plan.
Za izvajanje načrta za prestrukturiranje pa je torej potrebna državna pomoč.
The Polish shipbuilding association Forum Okrętowe explained the reasons for the yard’s difficulties and expressed its support for the restructuring process and for the use of State aid to that end.
Poljsko združenje ladjedelničarjev Forum Okrętowe je pojasnilo razloge za težave ladjedelnice in izrazilo podporo postopku prestrukturiranja ter državni pomoči v ta namen.
Comments by Poland
Pripombe Poljske
Like the recipient, Poland commented on aspects of both competence and compatibility.
Podobno kot prejemnica je tudi Poljska predložila pripombe glede pristojnosti in združljivosti.
With regard to the restructuring of public debt under Chapter 5a, Poland did not put forward any additional arguments.
V zvezi s prestrukturiranjem javnega dolga po poglavju 5a Poljska ni predložila nobenih dodatnih argumentov.
However, in its response to the recipient’s comments, Poland expressed disagreement with the latter’s interpretation of Polish law.
Toda v svojem odgovoru na pripombe prejemnice je Poljska izrazila nestrinjanje z njeno razlago poljske zakonodaje.
With regard to measures 28-34 of Annex I, part B of the decision, Poland did not rebut the conclusions of the Commission indicated in the decision to open a formal investigation.
V zvezi z ukrepi 28 do 34 dela B Priloge I odločitve Poljska ni zavrnila sklepnih ugotovitev Komisije iz odločitve o sprožitvi formalne preiskave.
However, Poland put forward a new argument to the effect that statements by representatives of various state authorities within the Shipbuilding Industry Team concerning plans to extend these measures should be considered as official undertakings.
Vendar pa je Poljska predstavila nov argument, da je treba izjave s strani predstavnikov različnih državnih organov v ladjedelniški industriji v zvezi z načrti za razširitev teh ukrepov obravnavati kot uradne izjave.
These statements were made prior to accession.
Te izjave so bile dane pred pristopom.
With regard to measure 32 (capital injection), Poland argued that, in so far as the Treasury had acted at the shareholders’ meetings as the owner of Gdynia Shipyard, this action could not be dissociated from its actions as a public aid awarding authority.
V zvezi z ukrepom 32 (povečanje kapitala) je Poljska navedla, da če je finančno ministrstvo na skupščinah delničarjev delovalo kot lastnik ladjedelnice Gdynia, tega ukrepa ni mogoče ločiti od ukrepov ministrstva kot javnega organa, ki dodeljuje pomoč.
At the same time Poland recognises that, while actions relating to capital injections belong to the ownership sphere (dominium) and are subject to civil law, when increasing the share capital of companies the Minister (for the Treasury) is obliged to observe additional public-law rules which do not apply to ordinary market players (imperium).
Hkrati je Poljska priznala, da ukrepi v zvezi s povečanjem kapitala spadajo v okvir lastništva (dominium) in zanje velja civilno pravo, zato mora minister (za finance) pri povečanju osnovnega kapitala podjetij upoštevati dodatna pravila javnega prava, ki pa ne veljajo za običajne akterje na trgu (imperium).
Poland then explained that the 6-month rule (the deadline for registering share subscriptions with the court) was merely a formal requirement which did not have any effect on the point in time at which the shareholder’s obligation to subscribe to the shares came into effect.
Poljska je nato pojasnila, da je bil šestmesečni rok (rok za registracijo vpisa delnic pri sodišču) le formalna zahteva, ki pa ni vplivala na rok, do katerega je moral delničar delnice vpisati.
As regards the compatibility of the new aid with the common market, Poland stated that the 2004 restructuring plan constituted a sound economic basis for the yard’s restructuring process.
V zvezi z združljivostjo nove pomoči s skupnim trgom je Poljska navedla, da je načrt za prestrukturiranje 2004 trdna gospodarska podlaga za postopek prestrukturiranja ladjedelnice.
Poland acknowledged that the restructuring process was carried out with limited financial resources.
Poljska je priznala, da je bil postopek prestrukturiranja izveden z omejenimi finančnimi viri.
The Polish authorities then provided a brief description of the restructuring measures enshrined in the 2004 restructuring plan in order to demonstrate that restructuring was not purely financial in scope.
Poljski organi so nato predložili kratek opis ukrepov za prestrukturiranje iz načrta za prestrukturiranje 2004, da bi dokazali, da prestrukturiranje ni bilo samo finančno.
They defended the countervailing measures proposed in the 2004 restructuring plan and implemented within the Gdynia Shipyard Group.
Zagovarjali so izravnalne ukrepe, ki so bili predlagani v načrtu za prestrukturiranje 2004 in izvedeni v Skupini ladjedelnice Gdynia.
With regard to the requirement that aid be limited to the minimum necessary, Poland stated that the aid was not used for purposes other than restructuring and claimed that the aid intensity amounted to 31 %, i.e. aid as a percentage of the total restructuring costs, including operating costs.
V zvezi z zahtevo, da mora biti pomoč omejena na najnižji potrebni znesek, je Poljska navedla, da je bila pomoč namenjena izključno za prestrukturiranje in da je intenzivnost pomoči znašala 31 %, tj. pomoč kot odstotek vseh stroškov prestrukturiranja, vključno s stroški poslovanja.
Poland argued that the re-negotiation of contract prices, together with the cumulated profits and positive cash flow generated by the yard in future, should be regarded as constituting the ‘own contribution’.
Poljska je navedla, da je treba ponovno izpogajane pogodbene cene, skupaj z dobički in pozitivnim denarnim tokom ladjedelnice v prihodnosti, označiti kot „lastni prispevek“.
The Polish authorities described in detail how the Export Credit Insurance Corporation’s guarantee system operated and argued that these guarantees did not constitute State aid.
Poljski organi so podrobno opisali delovanje sistema jamstev izvozno-kreditne agencije in navedli, da ta jamstva niso bila državna pomoč.
CHRONOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF DECISIVE EVENTS FOLLOWING THE COMMISSION’S DECISION TO OPEN THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION
KRONOLOŠKI OPIS ODLOČILNIH DOGODKOV PO ODLOČITVI KOMISIJE O SPROŽITVI FORMALNE PREISKAVE
The Commission investigation and the events which occurred in the course of it are summarised below.
Preiskava Komisije in dogodki v času preiskave so povzeti spodaj.
In reply to the Commission’s decision to open the formal investigation, the Polish authorities submitted explanations of two types in autumn 2005: first, questioning the competence of the Commission to act on the measures identified as new aid in its decision, and, second, arguing that even if these measures constituted new aid, they were compatible with the common market as restructuring aid.
V odgovor na odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi formalne preiskave so poljski organi jeseni 2005 predložili dve vrsti pojasnil: prvič, podvomili so v pristojnost Komisije, da se ukvarja z ukrepi, ki jih je v odločitvi opredelila kot novo pomoč; in drugič, navedli so, da tudi če bi ti ukrepi dejansko pomenili novo pomoč, bi še vedno bili združljivi s skupnim trgom kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
The reaction of Gdynia Shipyard to the Commission’s decision was of a similar nature.
Odziv ladjedelnice Gdynia na odločitev Komisije je bil podoben.
Both are described above.
Oba odziva sta opisana zgoraj.
In support of its argument on the compatibility of the aid, Poland submitted to the Commission Gdynia Shipyard’s 2004 restructuring plan, which was identical to the restructuring plan for which the Commission opened the formal investigation because of doubts as to its credibility and robustness.
Da bi podprla svoj argument v zvezi z združljivostjo pomoči, je Poljska Komisiji predložila načrt za prestrukturiranje ladjedelnice Gdynia 2004, ki je bil enak kot načrt za prestrukturiranje, za katerega je Komisija sprožila formalno preiskavo, saj je dvomila, da je verodostojen in trden.
Nevertheless, the Commission carefully studied the 2004 restructuring plan and sought assistance from an external consultant.
Kljub temu je Komisija podrobno proučila načrt za prestrukturiranje 2004 in poiskala pomoč pri zunanjem svetovalcu.
The Commission concluded that the 2004 restructuring plan did not fulfil any of the conditions for the approval of restructuring aid prescribed by the relevant guidelines.
Komisija je sklenila, da načrt za prestrukturiranje 2004 ne izpolnjuje pogojev za odobritev pomoči za prestrukturiranje, kot to predvidevajo zadevne smernice.
At the meeting of 22 February 2006, the Commission explained its main doubts to the Polish authorities.
Na sestanku 22. februarja 2006 je Komisija poljskim organom pojasnila svoje največje dvome.
The Commission highlighted the main weaknesses of the 2004 restructuring plan: low investments, low planned productivity, high production costs, in particular overheads and insufficient strengthening of the yard’s own capital base.
Komisija je poudarila glavne slabosti načrta za prestrukturiranje 2004: nizke naložbe, nizka načrtovana produktivnost, visoki proizvodni stroški, zlasti administrativni stroški, in nezadostna krepitev lastnega kapitala ladjedelnice.
The aid provided to the yard had to be regarded as operating aid in support of debt restructuring and the yard’s continued operation.
Pomoč, zagotovljeno ladjedelnici, je treba obravnavati kot pomoč za tekoče poslovanje pri prestrukturiranju dolgov in nadaljnjem poslovanju ladjedelnice.
In December 2005, the Commission learned from public sources [16] that Korporacja Polskie Stocznia (hereinafter referred to as KPS), a capital group under public ownership, had been created with the aim of integrating the three major Polish shipyards in Gdynia, Gdańsk and Szczecin under one umbrella (hereinafter referred to as the ‘consolidation plan’).
Decembra 2005 je Komisija iz javnih virov [16] izvedela, da je bila ustanovljena Korporacja Polskie Stocznia (v nadaljnjem besedilu: KPS), kapitalska družba v lasti države, z namenom povezati tri največje poljske ladjedelnice v Gdynii, Gdańsku in Szczecinu (v nadaljnjem besedilu: načrt konsolidacije).
The main role of KPS was to finance the shipyards production.
Glavna naloga KPS je bilo financiranje proizvodnje ladjedelnic.
Poland did not inform the Commission about the consolidation plan at any stage of the procedure, either prior to or after the decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Poljska Komisije ni obvestila o načrtu konsolidacije niti pred odločitvijo o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave niti po njej.
At the same time, the Commission learned from the press about ongoing talks on the sale of the shipyards in Gdynia and Gdańsk to strategic investors and on the separation of the two companies, which until that date had operated as part of the same group.
Hkrati je Komisija iz medijev izvedela za pogovore o prodaji ladjedelnic Gdynia in Gdańsk strateškim investitorjem in o ločitvi obeh podjetij, ki sta do takrat delovali v okviru iste skupine.
The Commission asked the Polish Government by letter of 13 January 2006 to spell out what its strategy for Gdynia Shipyard actually was.
Komisija je poljsko vlado z dopisom z dne 13. januarja 2006 zaprosila, naj pojasni, kakšna je njena strategija glede ladjedelnice Gdynia.
Poland explained by letter of 20 February 2006 that a consolidation plan had indeed been envisaged previously but that it had been discarded and a new restructuring strategy for the Polish shipbuilding sector would be adopted shortly.
Poljska je z dopisom z dne 20. februarja 2006 pojasnila, da je bil načrt konsolidacije dejansko načrtovan, vendar so ga opustili, kmalu zatem pa so za poljski ladjedelniški sektor sprejeli novo strategijo prestrukturiranja.
At the meeting of 22 February 2006 and by letter of 13 March 2006 the Polish authorities informed the Commission that the 2004 restructuring plan was outdated and had to be amended.
Na sestanku 22. februarja 2006 in z dopisom z dne 13. marca 2006 so poljski organi Komisijo obvestili, da je načrt za prestrukturiranje 2004 zastarel in da ga je treba spremeniti.
First, Gdańsk Shipyard was to be separated from the Gdynia Shipyard Group as soon as possible.
Prvič, ladjedelnico Gdańsk naj bi od Skupine ladjedelnice Gdynia ločili čim prej.
Second, the Government was to allow an injection of private capital into the Gdańsk and Gdynia shipyards with the long-term objective of fully privatising the yards.
Drugič, vlada bo dovolila vložek zasebnega kapitala v ladjedelnici Gdańsk in Gdynia z dolgoročnim ciljem popolne privatizacije ladjedelnic.
The General Assembly of Gdynia Shipyard of 19 April 2006 decided on a capital increase of up to PLN 300 million.
Na Generalni skupščini ladjedelnice Gdynia dne 19. aprila 2006 je bila sprejeta odločitev o povečanju kapitala v višini do 300 milijonov PLN.
The management board was mandated to search for investors interested in participating.
Upravni odbor so pooblastili za iskanje investitorjev, ki jih zanima udeležba pri dokapitalizaciji.
Accordingly, the information memorandum of May 2006 was made available as of 10 May 2006 to potential investors, and some 80 such investors were directly approached by Gdynia Shipyard’s privatisation consultant.
V skladu s tem so 10. maja 2006 potencialnim investitorjem posredovali informacijski memorandum iz maja 2006, svetovalec ladjedelnice Gdynia za privatizacijo pa je neposredno stopil v stik z okoli 80 investitorji.
Gdynia Shipyard received two preliminary offers to participate in the capital increase, from the Ukrainian steelmaker Donbas and the yard’s major customer Ray Car Carriers.
Ladjedelnica Gdynia je prejela dve predhodni ponudbi za udeležbo pri povečanju kapitala, in sicer od ukrajinskega jeklarja Donbasa in največje stranke ladjedelnice Ray Car Carriers.
These two companies eventually submitted binding offers on 28 August 2006 which were, however, conditional on debt coverage and cancellation by the seller — the State.
Ti dve podjetji sta 28. avgusta 2006 predložili zavezujoči ponudbi, ki pa sta bili pogojeni s kritjem dolgov in odpisom dolgov s strani prodajalca – države.
According to the timetable announced by Poland (letter of 26 September 2006), the negotiations with the two bidders were to be completed by end-October 2006 and the subscription of new shares was to be finalised by 15 December 2006.
V skladu s časovnim okvirom je Poljska naznanila (dopis z dne 26. septembra 2006), da bodo pogajanja z obema ponudnikoma zaključena do konca oktobra 2006 in da bo vpis novih delnic dokončan do 15. decembra 2006.
Referring to continuous reliance on ship financing guarantees provided by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation, a Government agency, the Commission warned the yard and the Polish authorities that these guarantees constituted State aid.
S sklicevanjem na nenehno opiranje na jamstva za financiranje ladij, ki jih je zagotovila izvozno-kreditna agencija (vladna agencija), je Komisija ladjedelnico in poljske organe opozorila, da ta jamstva pomenijo državno pomoč.