natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission also recalls that Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 amended Directive 90/684/EEC only in respect of the amount of operating aid for restructuring that can be granted to HSY.
Komisija prav tako opozarja, da je bila Direktiva 90/684/EGS z Uredbo (ES) št. 1013/97 spremenjena samo, kar zadeva znesek pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja, ki se podjetju HSY lahko odobri.
On that basis, decision C 10/94 concludes that ‘The conditions set in Article 10 of the Directive […] were met’ In other words, the assessment made by the Commission in Decision C 10/1994 (and the one made by the Council in Regulation (EC) No 1013/97) takes into account the existence of the September 1995 contract, which was presented as a sale by Greece and, above all, which contractually obliges the employees to pay EUR 24 million to ETVA for the purchase of 49 % of HSY and which precisely determines how this purchase price would be collected from the employees and paid to ETVA.
Na tej podlagi je v odločbi C 10/94 navedeno, da so bili „pogoji iz člena 10 Direktive […] izpolnjeni“. Z drugimi besedami Komisija v svoji oceni iz odločbe C 10/94 (kakor tudi Svet v svoji oceni iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1013/97) upošteva obstoj pogodbe iz septembra 1995, ki jo je Grčija predstavila kot prodajno pogodbo in ki predvsem obvezuje zaposlene, da banki ETVA plačajo 24 milijonov EUR za nakup 49-odstotnega deleža podjetja HSY, in ki natančno določa, kako je treba to nakupno ceno izterjati od zaposlenih in izplačati banki ETVA.
Since the obligations and rights of the parties where precisely determined in a contract, since Greece itself presented the contract as a sale of HSY, and since the Greek government itself had adopted a law obliging the employees to pay the purchase price to ETVA (see footnote 100), the Commission had no reason to doubt that the State would correctly implemented the contract.
Ker so bile obveznosti in pravice strank v pogodbi natančno določene, ker je Grčija to pogodbo predstavila kot pogodbo o prodaji podjetja HSY in ker je sama grška vlada sprejela zakon, ki zavezuje zaposlene, da plačajo nakupno ceno banki ETVA (glej opombo 100), Komisija ni imela nikakršnega razloga, da bi dvomila v pravilno izvrševanje pogodbe s strani države.
In particular the Commission could not expect that the State itself will consciously refrain from collecting the purchase price from the purchaser.
Zlasti Komisija ni mogla pričakovati, da se bo država sama zavestno vzdržala od izterjave nakupne cene od kupca.
The Commission was entitled to consider that HSY had been sold and did not have to repeat that HSY had to be sold.
Komisija je lahko upravičeno menila, da je bilo podjetje HSY prodano, in zato ni bilo potrebe, da bi ponovila, da je treba podjetje HSY prodati.
As regards the third ground raised by Greece to dismiss Commission’s doubts — the September 1995 contract was correctly implemented — the Commission observes that the September 1995 contract indicated clearly how the purchase price would be paid.
Kar zadeva tretji dokaz, ki ga je Grčija navedla, da bi odpravila dvome Komisije – v zvezi s tem, ali je bila pogodba iz septembra 1995 pravilno izvršena – Komisija ugotavlja, da je bilo v pogodbi iz septembra 1995 jasno navedeno, kako se bo nakupna cena plačala.
The annual instalments would be paid from 1998 and they would be financed by retaining a part of the Christmas and Easter allowances as well as a part of the monthly wage.
Letni obroki bi se morali začeti plačevati leta 1998, financirali pa naj bi se iz zadržanega dela velikonočnih in božičnih dodatkov, kakor tudi iz dela mesečnih plač.
Since the employees had accepted a reduction of their future salaries and allowances, ETVA did not need to collect the purchase price from each individual employee: HSY was able to directly withhold a part of their monthly salary.
Ker so zaposleni privolili v zmanjšanje svojih prihodnjih plač in dodatkov, ni bilo potrebe, da bi banka ETVA nakupno ceno terjala od vseh zaposlenih: podjetje HSY je lahko neposredno zadržalo del njihove mesečne plače.
In these circumstances, the Commission fails to see how the non-payment of the yearly instalments can be justified by the fact that ‘the workers found it difficult to honour their commitment to pay the price of the shares’.
V teh okoliščinah Komisija ne more razumeti, kako je mogoče neplačilo letnih obrokov upravičiti z dejstvom, da „je bilo delavcem težko izpolniti svojo obveznost in poplačati ceno delnic“.
ETVA had simply to ensure that HSY withheld the respective amounts from the allowances and wages.
Banka ETVA je samo morala zagotoviti, da je podjetje HSY zadržalo ustrezne zneske iz dodatkov in plač.
ETVA, being the majority shareholder, controlled HSY.
Banka ETVA je kot večinska lastnica nadzorovala podjetje HSY.
In addition, HSY was supposed to withhold these amounts under the terms of the agreements concluded between ETVA, HSY, the association of the employees and each individual employee.
Poleg tega bi moralo podjetje HSY te zneske zadržati pod pogoji iz pogodb, sklenjenih med banko ETVA, podjetjem HSY, združenjem zaposlenih in vsemi zaposlenimi.
Therefore, ETVA could have directly sued HSY if it did not act according to the terms of the contract.
Zato bi lahko banka ETVA tožila kar samo podjetje HSY, če slednje ne bi ravnalo v skladu s pogodbenimi pogoji.
As a subsidiary ground, the Commission notes that, even if Greece’s claim that it was impossible for ETVA to collect the purchase price from the workers is true, this would also require the recovery of the aid authorised by decision C 10/94.
Poleg tega Komisija opozarja, da bi se s tem, če bi bila trditev Grčije, da banka ETVA ni nikakor mogla izterjati nakupne cene od delavcev, resnična, zahtevala tudi povrnitev pomoči, ki je bila odobrena na podlagi odločbe C 10/94.
Indeed, if this claim is true, it means that Greece has notified to the Commission a sale agreement which from the outset could not be implemented (i.e. the State can not collect the purchase price from the purchaser).
Če je ta trditev točna, potem to dejansko pomeni, da je Grčija Komisijo obvestila o prodajni pogodbi, ki je že v samem začetku ni bilo mogoče izvršiti (tj. država ne more izterjati nakupne cene od kupca).
In that case, the Commission should consider that decision C 10/94 is based on misleading information from Greece and should therefore rescind it.
V tem primeru bi morala Komisija oceniti, da odločba C 10/94 temelji na zavajajočih informacijah Grčije, in slednjo razveljaviti.
As explained earlier, this is in contradiction with decision C 10/94, which supposed that HSY had been ‘sold’, i.e. that a private investor put a precise and large amount of its own money at risk by purchasing shares of HSY and it would therefore be incited to manage the yard with the objective of maximising the value of its holding.
Kot je bilo že pojasnjeno, je to v nasprotju z odločbo C 10/94, ki temelji na domnevi, da je bilo podjetje HSY „prodano“, tj. da je zasebni vlagatelj tvegal natančen in visok znesek svojega denarja z nakupom delnic podjetja HSY in da bo zato želel voditi ladjedelnico na tak način, da bi čim bolj povečal vrednost deleža v njej.
Second, the cash received by ETVA — and therefore by the State — is totally different.
Drugič, gotovina, ki jo je prejela banka ETVA – in s tem država – je popolnoma drugačna.
By enforcing the pledge on the shares, ETVA supported 100 % of the risk related to the value of HSY (thereby it reverted the partial privatisation).
Z uveljavljanjem zastavne pravice na delnice je banka ETVA podprla 100-odstotno tveganje, povezano z vrednostjo podjetja HSY (in s tem obrnila delno privatizacijo v nasprotno smer).
In addition, ETVA received only EUR 6,1 million when it sold 100 % of the shares of HSY to HDW/Ferrostaal.
Poleg tega je banka ETVA prejela samo 6,1 milijona EUR, ko je prodala 100 % delnic podjetja HSY konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal.
This means that ETVA received only EUR 3 million from the sale of the 49 % stake.
To pomeni, da je banka ETVA prejela samo 3 milijone EUR od prodaje 49-odstotnega deleža.
This is much less than what ETVA should have received from the employees under the terms of the September 1995 contract, namely EUR 24 million paid in yearly instalment from December 1998 to December 2010.
To je veliko manj, kot bi banka ETVA morala dobiti od zaposlenih v skladu s pogoji iz pogodbe iz septembra 1995, in sicer 24 milijonov EUR, izplačanih v letnih obrokih od decembra 1998 do decembra 2010.
Finally, as regards the claim that a real privatisation took place when HDW/Ferrostaal acquired 100 % of HSY, the Commission does not contest that point.
Vendar Komisija ne nasprotuje trditvi, da se je prava privatizacija izvršila, ko je konzorcij HDW/Ferrostaal pridobil 100-odstotni delež podjetja HSY.
However, it recalls that Article 10 of the Directive 90/684/EEC authorised aid only in connection with a sale of the yard.
Klub temu pa opozarja, da je bila pomoč na podlagi člena 10 Direktive 90/684/EGS odobrena samo v povezavi s prodajo ladjedelnice.
Similarly, Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 and decision C 10/94 authorised aid because the yard had just been ‘sold’.
Podobno sta tudi Uredba (ES) št. 1013/97 in odločba C 10/94 odobrili pomoč zato, ker je bila ladjedelnica pravkar „prodana“.
Therefore, the aid had to be granted in the context of the sale of the yard.
Zato je bilo treba pomoč odobriti v okviru prodaje ladjedelnice.
It could not be granted for a sale taking place several years later.
Ni je bilo mogoče odobriti v zvezi s prodajo, do katere bi prišlo nekaj let pozneje.
Therefore, the fact that HSY was really privatised by the sale to HDW/Ferrostaal does not change the conclusion that decision C 10/94 has been misused.
Dejstvo, da je bilo podjetje HSY s prodajo konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal zares privatizirano, dejansko ne spreminja ugotovitve, da je bila odločba C 10/94 zlorabljena.
It is also recalled that at the time of the sale to HDW/Ferrostaal, both Directive 90/684/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 had expired for several years.
Opozoriti je treba tudi na to, da v času prodaje konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal tako Direktiva 90/684/EGS kot tudi Uredba (ES) št. 1013/97 že nekaj let nista več veljali.
Therefore, HSY would not have been able to receive the aid approved by decision C 10/94 in the framework of the 2001-2002 privatisation.
Zato podjetje HSY ne bi moglo dobiti pomoči na podlagi odločbe C 10/94 v okviru privatizacije v obdobju 2001–2002.
The Commission concludes that none of the grounds raised by Greece can dismiss the earlier conclusion that, by not seeking to obtain the payment of the purchase price from the employees, the State-controlled ETVA has misused decision C 10/94.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da z nobenim izmed dokazov, ki jih je navedla Grčija, ni mogoče izpodbiti prejšnje ugotovitve, da je državna banka ETVA s tem, ko ni izterjala nakupne cene od zaposlenih, zlorabila odločbo C 10/94.
This constitutes therefore a second misuse — besides the non implementation of the investment plant — of Decision C 10/94 and a second reason for the recovery of the aid authorised by this Decision.
To je torej poleg neizvajanja naložbenega načrta druga zloraba odločbe C 10/94 in drugi razlog, da se zahteva povrnitev pomoči, ki je bila na podlagi navedene odločbe odobrena.
Justification for the procedural choice of the Commission
Utemeljitev postopkovne izbire Komisije
In the extension decision, the Commission has raised doubts that the employees have not paid the purchase price for their 49 % stake in HSY.
V odločbi o podaljšanju postopka je Komisija izrazila sum, da zaposleni niso plačali nakupne cene za njihov 49-odstotni delež v podjetju HSY.
However, these doubts were raised in the framework of the assessment of measure E10 (named measure 10 in the extension decision).
Vendar pa so bili ti sumi izraženi v okviru ocene ukrepa E10 (ali ukrepa 10 v odločbi o podaljšanju postopka).
These doubts were not raised in the assessment of measure E7 (named measure 7 in the extension decision).
V okviru ocene ukrepa E7 (oziroma ukrepa 7 v odločbi o podaljšanju postopka) niso bili izraženi.
Consequently, the extension decision does not indicate that that the non-payment of the purchase price could constitute a misuse of decision C 10/94.
Zaradi tega v odločbi o podaljšanju postopka ni navedeno, da bo neplačilo nakupne cene lahko pomenilo zlorabo odločbe C 10/94.
The question could thus be raised whether according to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 the Commission should have adopted a new decision extending for the second time the formal investigation procedure in order to raise doubts on this point.
Zato se je mogoče vprašati, ali bi morala Komisija v skladu s členom 6 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 sprejeti novo odločitev, ki bi že drugič podaljšala uradni preiskovalni postopek, da bi odpravila sume na tej točki.
Greece claims this to be the case.
Grčija to zagovarja.
The Commission does not consider that it was obliged to extend a second time the investigation procedure in this particular case.
Komisija meni, da v tem posebnem primeru ni bila obvezna še drugič podaljšati preiskovalnega postopka.
First, as indicated, the doubts concerning the precise fact (i.e. the payment or not of the purchase price by the employees) have been raised in the extension decision, thereby offering the possibility for the parties to comment on it.
Prvič, kot je bilo navedeno, so bili dvomi v zvezi z natančnim dejstvom (tj. plačilom ali neplačilom nakupne cene s strani zaposlenih) izraženi v odločbi o podaljšanju postopka, zato je bila strankam dana možnost, da v zvezi z njimi predložijo svoje pripombe.
Second, as regards the legal reasoning that this fact could constitute a misuse of measure E7, the Commission only reached this conclusion in the framework of the in-depth analysis of all the facts and laws that took place in the framework of the formal investigation procedure.
Drugič, kar zadeva pravno utemeljitev, da bi to dejstvo lahko pomenilo zlorabo ukrepa E7, je Komisija do te ugotovitve prišla samo v okviru poglobljene analize vseh dejstev in zakonov, ki so se bili prisotni v okviru uradnega preiskovalnega postopka.
In such a large and complex case, which concerns measures as old as 10 years old, the investigation procedure will nearly automatically allow the Commission to refine its analysis since it provides a better knowledge of the facts and legal issues.
V tako obsežnem in zapletenem primeru, ki zadeva ukrepe, ki so stari tudi 10 let, bo preiskovalni postopek skoraj avtomatično omogočil Komisiji, da izboljša svojo analizo, saj zagotavlja več informacij o dejstvih in pravnih vprašanjih.
Third, Greece has for a long time given confusing information regarding the payment of the purchase price by the employees.
Tretjič, Grčija že dalj časa pošilja nejasne informacije v zvezi s plačilom nakupne cene s strani zaposlenih.
It therefore requested Greece and HSY to submit solid evidence for their claims.
Zato je Grčijo in podjetje HSY zaprosila, da te trditve podpreta s trdnimi dokazi.
The Commission also stresses that, in order to allow Greece and HSY to participate effectively in the procedure and in order to be sure that the rights of defence had been respected, it offered the opportunity to Greece and HSY (i.e. the only parties that had submitted comments on measure E10, besides Elefsis which had however already indicated in its comments that it considered that, since the purchase price had not been pay, the Commission should order the recovery of the aid endorsed by decision C 10/94) to comment on its assessment that the non payment could be considered as a misuse of decision C 10/94.
Komisija poudarja tudi, da je zato, da bi Grčiji in podjetju HSY omogočila učinkovito udeležbo v postopku in da bi se prepričala, da so bile pravice do obrambe spoštovane, Grčiji in podjetju HSY (tj. edinima strankama, ki sta predložili pripombe o ukrepu E10, poleg podjetja Elefsis, ki pa je v svojih pripombah že navedlo, da bi morala Komisija zato, ker nakupna cena ni bila plačana, odrediti povrnitev pomoči, ki je bila odobrena z odločbo C 10/94) dala možnost, da predložita pripombe v zvezi z oceno, da se neplačilo lahko razume kot zloraba odločbe C 10/94.
Both Greece and HSY submitted extensive comments.
Tako Grčija kot podjetje HSY sta predložili obširne pripombe.
Misuse of the EUR 29,5 million closure aid authorised in 2002 (measure E8)
Zloraba 29,5 milijona EUR pomoči za zaprtje, ki je bila odobrena leta 2002 (ukrep E8)
On 5 June 2002, decision N 513/01 authorised aid amounting to EUR 29,5 million to encourage part of HSY’s employees to voluntarily leave the yard.
Z odločbo N 513/01 z dne 5. junija 2002 je bila odobrena pomoč v višini 29,5 milijona EUR, s katero naj bi se del zaposlenih v podjetju HSY spodbudil, da bi prostovoljno zapustili ladjedelnico.
The Commission found that the EUR 29,5 million aid constituted compatible closure aid in the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 and accepted as valid capacity reduction the limitation of the annual ship repair capacity of the yard to 420000 direct man-hours, including subcontractors.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je pomoč v višini 29,5 milijona EUR ustrezala pomoči za zaprtje v smislu člena 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 1540/98, in je kot veljavno zmanjšanje zmogljivosti sprejela omejitev letne zmogljivosti ladjedelnice pri popravilu ladij v ladjedelnici na 420000 neposrednih delovnih ur, kar je vključevalo tudi podizvajalce.
In the extension decision, the Commission expressed doubts whether this limitation has been respected.
V odločbi o podaljšanju postopka je Komisija izrazila dvom glede tega, ali je bila ta omejitev spoštovana.
The obligation to submit bi-annual reports was not respected.
Obveznost predložitve dveletnih poročil ni bila izpolnjena.
In addition, the Greek authorities have submitted confusing figures when asked to submit the relevant information.
Poleg tega so grški organi na prošnjo, da naj predložijo ustrezne informacije, predložili nejasne podatke.
According to Elefsis, the turnover of HSY and the number of ships annually repaired in the yard are so high that they are irreconcilable with the compliance with the 420000 hours limitation.
Po besedah podjetja Elefsis sta promet podjetja HSY in število letno popravljenih ladij v ladjedelnici tako visoka, da nista skladna z omejitvijo 420000 ur.
According to Greece and HSY, the yard resorts intensively to subcontractors, which have to be divided in two categories.
Po besedah Grčije in podjetja HSY se ladjedelnica v veliki meri zateka k podizvajalcem, ki jih je treba razdeliti na dve kategoriji.
First, the ‘subcontractors retained by HSY’.
Prvi so „podizvajalci podjetja HSY“.
They are chosen and paid by HSY.
Te izbira in plačuje podjetje HSY.
Second, the ‘contractors of third parties’.
Drugi so „izvajalci tretjih strank“.
The latter are chosen by the ship-owner.
Te izbira lastnik ladje.
The ship-owner selects them and discusses the price directly with them.
Ko jih lastnik ladje izbere, se neposredno z njimi dogovori o ceni.
The contractors of third parties pay a fee to HSY to use the yard’s facilities.
Izvajalci tretjih strank plačajo podjetju HSY pristojbino za uporabo objektov ladjedelnice.
According to Greece, only the first category has to comply with the limitation laid down in decision N 513/01.
Po besedah Grčije mora samo prva kategorija upoštevati omejitev iz odločbe N 513/01.
However, HSY does not know how many hours these ‘subcontractors retained by HSY’ work since they are paid on a fixed price basis.
Vendar pa podjetje HSY ne ve, koliko ur „podizvajalci podjetja HSY“ opravijo, saj so plačani na osnovi fiksne cene.
Greece therefore proposes a method to approximate the number of hours during which they worked: first, the sum of the contract prices paid to them is reduced by 15 % — which accounts for the profit margin — and by a further 20 % — which account for the indirectly productive man-hours.
Grčija zato predlaga metodo približevanja števila ur, ki so jih opravili: najprej se vsota pogodbenih cen, ki se jim izplača, zmanjša za 15 % (obračun dobičkovne marže in nadaljnjih 20 % (obračun posrednih produktivnih delovnih ur).
The amount obtained is then divided by the ‘annual cost rate of a man-hour derived from HSY’s official books’.
Dobljeni znesek se nato deli z „letnim stroškom delovnih ur, izpeljanim iz uradnih knjig podjetja HSY“.
The method is summarised in the following table.
Metoda je povzeta v naslednji preglednici.
Directly productive man-hours preformed by HSY’s workers
Neposredno produktivne delovne ure, ki so jih opravili delavci podjetja HSY
Price paid to subcontractors retained by HSY (in Euro)
Cena, plačana podizvajalcem podjetja HSY (v EUR)
= B after deduction of profit margin (15 %) and indirect work (20 %)
= B po odbitku dobičkovne marže (15 %) in posrednega dela (20 %)
Price per hour (in Euro) of HSY direct workers
Cena na uro (v EUR) za delavce podjetja HSY
Estimation of the directly productive man-hours preformed by workers of the subcontractors retained by HSY (= C divided by D)
Ocena neposrednih produktivni delovnih ur, ki jih opravijo delavci podizvajalca podjetja HSY (= C deljeno z D)
Total directly productive man-hours falling under decision N 513/01 (= A + E)
Skupno število neposrednih produktivnih delovnih ur, ki spadajo v okvir odločbe N 513/01 (= A + E)
As regards the potential application of Article 296 to the present measure, the Commission recalls that the separation between the military activity and the civil activity was already done in decision N 513/01, which considered that the part of the State support falling under State aid rules was 25 %.
Kar zadeva možnost uporabe člena 296 pri tem ukrepu, Komisija opozarja, da je bila ločitev med vojaško in civilno dejavnostjo že opravljena v odločbi N 513/01, kjer je bilo navedeno, da del državne podpore, ki spada v okvir državne pomoči, znaša 25 %.
The EUR 29,5 million aid was therefore entirely related to the civil activities of HSY and can be assessed under State aid rules.
29,5 milijona EUR pomoči se je torej v celoti nanašalo na civilne dejavnosti podjetja HSY in se zato lahko oceni na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči.
The Commission has reached the conclusion that each of the following elements is individually sufficient to conclude that the limitation laid down in the authorising decision was not respected and therefore the aid was misused.
Komisija je ugotovila, da vsak izmed naslednjih elementov sam zase zadostuje za zaključek, da omejitev, določena v odločbi o odobritvi, ni bila spoštovana in da je bila zato pomoč zlorabljena.
This is especially the case since it is Greece that proposed to use the indicator ‘number of man-hours’ to prove that HSY was reducing its production capacity.
To zlasti drži, ker je bila Grčija tista, ki je predlagala uporabo kazalnika „število delovnih ur“, da bi dokazala, da je podjetje HSY zmanjševalo svojo proizvodno zmogljivost.
Second, the Commission contest Greece’s assertion that ‘contractors of third parties’ are not covered by the limitation of hours.
Drugič, Komisija izpodbija trditev Grčije, da za „izvajalce tretjih strank“ omejitev ur ne velja.
Greece claims it has no contractual relationship with them except renting the facilities.
Grčija trdi, da z njimi ni v nikakršnem pogodbenem razmerju, razen da jim oddaja objekte.
First, the Commission considers that accepting this reasoning would offer an easy way to circumvent the limitation: HSY, instead of signing contracts with subcontractors, would ask the shipowners to sign them, such that there is no contract between HSY and the subcontractors.
Prvič, Komisija meni, da bi s sprejetjem takšne utemeljitve omogočila lahek način za izogibanje omejitvi: namesto da bi podjetje HSY samo podpisalo pogodbe s podizvajalci, bi to zahtevalo od lastnikov ladij, tako da med podjetjem HSY in podizvajalci ne bi bilo nobenih pogodb.
Second, the aim of the limitation is to reduce the activities within the yard.
Drugič, cilj omejitve je zmanjšanje dejavnosti v ladjedelnici.