natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the basis of these figures, the Commission found that the capacity reduction after closure of the small slipway would be between 25 % and 46 %, depending on what product mix was assumed.
Na podlagi teh številk je Komisija ugotovila, da bi bilo zmanjšanje zmogljivosti po zaprtju manjše operativne površine 25- do 46-odstotno, odvisno od predpostavljenega izbora proizvodov.
On this basis and taking into account that the closure of a further slipway would mean a capacity reduction of at least 59 %, the Commission provisionally concluded that the closure of the smallest slipway, Wulkan 1, proposed by Poland would be a sufficient compensatory measure.
Na tej podlagi in ob upoštevanju, da bi zaprtje druge operativne površine pomenilo najmanj 59-odstotno zmanjšanje zmogljivosti, je Komisija začasno sklenila, da je zaprtje najmanjše operativne površine, Wulkana 1, ki ga je predlagala Poljska, zadosten izravnalni ukrep.
AID MEASURES
UKREPI POMOČI
The Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure concerning the aid measures described in part B of the annex to the decision.
Komisija je sprožila formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi z ukrepi pomoči, opisanimi v delu B priloge k odločitvi.
This included a capital injection and two performance guarantees to be granted by ARP and several deferrals and write-offs of real estate tax by the City of Szczecin.
K ukrepom spadajo dokapitalizacija in dve garanciji za dobro izvedbo pogodbenih obveznosti s strani ARP, ter več odlogov in odpisov davka na nepremičnine s strani mesta Ščečin.
The nominal value of these measures was PLN 126524652.
Nominalna vrednost teh ukrepov je bila 126524652 PLN.
Poland informed the Commission that the two performance guarantees listed as measures 62 and 63 in part B of the annex to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure were not granted [11].
Poljska je Komisijo obvestila, da dve garanciji za dobro izvedbo pogodbenih obveznosti, navedeni kot ukrep 62 in ukrep 63 v delu B priloge k odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, nista bili dodeljeni [11].
Poland also informed the Commission that the write-offs of real estate tax listed as measures 64 and 68 in part B of the annex to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure had been postponed [12].
Poljska je Komisijo tudi obvestila, da so bili odpisi davka na nepremičnine, navedeni kot ukrep 64 in ukrep 68 v delu B priloge k odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, odloženi [12].
Measure 1 corresponds to measure 61 in part B of the annex to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Ukrep 1 ustreza ukrepu 61 v delu B priloge k odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
Table 3 includes loans from KPS used to finance the working capital needs of the yard.
Preglednica 3 zajema posojila KPS, s katerimi so se financirale potrebe ladjedelnice po obratnem kapitalu.
In letters of 11 July 2007 and 9 January 2008 Poland claimed that these loans did not constitute State aid because the interest charged corresponded to the risk assessment of the particular project for which the loan was sought.
Poljska je v dopisih z dne 11. julija 2007 in 9. januarja 2008 trdila, da ta posojila niso pomenila državne pomoči, saj so zaračunane obresti ustrezale oceni tveganja določenega projekta, za katerega so bila potrebna posojila.
For these loans granted in 2005-2007, KPS charged an interest rate of just over 6 %.
Za ta posojila, dodeljena v letih 2005 do 2007, je KPS zaračunal obrestno mero malo nad 6 %.
The reference rate for Poland in the period when the KPS loans were provided to the yard ranged from 5,56 % to 6,24 %.
Referenčna stopnja za Poljsko v obdobju, ko so bila ladjedelnici dodeljena posojila KPS, se je gibala med 5,56 in 6,24 %.
In addition, KPS charged a one-off fee of between 0,1 % and 0,4 %.
Poleg tega je KPS zaračunal enkratno pristojbino v višini med 0,1 in 0,4 %.
According to the Polish authorities, KPS required collateral in the form of acceptance of enforcement, an agreement on cession of receivables, an unconditional payment order, a non-denominated bond or asset pledges [13].
Po besedah poljskih organov je KPS zahteval zavarovanje v obliki sprejetja izvrševanja, soglasja o odstopu terjatev, neomejene odredbe za plačilo, prazne zadolžnice ali zastave premoženja [13].
KPS was created in 2004 as a full subsidiary of ARP with the function of a risk capital fund for ARP.
KPS je bil ustanovljen leta 2004 kot hčerinska družba ARP, z namenom delovati kot sklad tveganega kapitala za ARP.
According to the information available on the Government’s website, KPS was also to support shipbuilding operations in Poland through the issue of bonds fully guaranteed by ARP.
V skladu z informacijami na spletnih straneh poljske vlade naj bi KPS podpiral tudi dejavnosti ladjedelništva na Poljskem, in sicer z izdajo obveznic, za katere v celoti jamči ARP.
Indeed, the document ‘A strategy for the shipbuilding sector (maritime construction shipyards) in Poland 2006-2010’ [15] confirms that KPS was to generate resources from an issue of debt instruments worth approximately USD 100 million, secured on the assets earmarked for the restructuring of the shipbuilding industry in the form of funds transferred by the State Treasury to ARP.
Dokument z naslovom „Strategija za ladjedelniški sektor (ladjedelnice za pomorske gradnje) na Poljskem med letoma 2006 in 2010“ [15] potrjuje, da naj bi KPS ustvaril sredstva z izdajanjem dolžniških instrumentov v višini okoli 100 milijonov USD, zavarovanih s sredstvi, določenimi za prestrukturiranje ladjedelniške industrije v obliki sredstev, ki jih je finančno ministrstvo preneslo na ARP.
Considering the precarious financial situation of the yard, the Commission cannot rule out the possibility that further State aid of a similar nature has been granted to SSN.
Glede na negotovo finančno stanje ladjedelnice Komisija ne more izključiti možnosti, da je bila SSN dodeljena dodatna državna pomoč podobne narave.
Finally, SSN benefited from production guarantees from KUKE (hereinafter ‘advance payment guarantees’ or ‘KUKE guarantees’).
SSN je imela koristi tudi od jamstev za proizvodnjo s strani KUKE (v nadaljnjem besedilu: garancije za predplačila ali garancije KUKE). Pravzaprav je bila vsa proizvodnja ladjedelnice od 1. maja 2004 financirana s pomočjo teh garancij.
It is a common feature of the industry that shipyards typically do not have sufficient working capital for the construction of ships and rely on external financing, whether through borrowing (so-called production loans) or advance payments from shipowners, from which production is financed.
Za to industrijo je značilno, da ladjedelnice nimajo dovolj obratnega kapitala za izgradnjo ladij in se zato opirajo na zunanje financiranje, bodisi s pomočjo posojil (t. i. posojila za proizvodnjo) ali pa s pomočjo avansov s strani lastnikov ladij, za financiranje proizvodnje.
Shipowners typically pay 80 % of the price upfront in instalments, coinciding with certain decisive stages in construction, with the remaining 20 % being paid on delivery.
Lastniki ladij običajno vnaprej plačajo 80 % cene, in sicer v obrokih, ki sovpadajo z nekaterimi odločilnimi fazami dokončanja plovila, preostalih 20 % pa plačajo ob prevzemu plovila.
The participation of shipowners in the financing of construction is therefore crucial.
Zato je udeležba lastnikov ladij pri financiranju gradnje plovil ključnega pomena.
The role of the KUKE advance payment guarantees provided to SSN was to secure the advance payments from shipowners against the risk of failure on the part of the yard to deliver the ship.
Garancije za predplačila KUKE za SSN so bile namenjene zavarovanju avansov s strani lastnikov ladij pred tveganjem, da ladjedelnica ne bi izpolnila obveznosti dobave plovila.
KUKE issued a decision to the effect that it would ensure financing of the whole ship by guaranteeing the advance payments.
KUKE je izdala sklep, s katerim je zagotovila celotno financiranje ladje z jamčenjem avansov.
In subsequent individual agreements KUKE activated the guarantee for each individual advance payment (typically four).
V nadaljnjih posameznih sporazumih je KUKE aktivirala jamstvo za vsak posamezen avans (običajno štiri).
The overall exposure of KUKE to possible failure of the yard to deliver is usually 80 % of the full purchase price corresponding to the total advance payments paid by the shipowner prior to delivery.
Običajno je bila celotna izpostavljenost KUKE tveganju neizpolnitve obveznosti dobave plovila s strani ladjedelnice 80 % nakupne cene, tj. celotnega zneska avansov, ki jih je lastnik ladje vplačal pred prevzemom plovila.
This overall exposure is known when KUKE issues the decision securing the advance payments made by the shipowner.
Ta celotna izpostavljenost je znana, ko KUKE izda sklep o zavarovanju avansov lastnika ladje.
The guarantee expires on delivery of the ship.
Garancija preneha veljati ob prevzemu plovila.
KUKE’s operations as a Polish export credit agency are varied [19], and can essentially be divided into the commercial part of the business and the business conducted on behalf of, and guaranteed by, the State Treasury.
Poslovanje KUKE kot poljske izvozno-kreditne agencije je raznoliko [19] ter se deli na komercialne dejavnosti in dejavnosti, ki se izvajajo v imenu finančnega ministrstva, ki za te dejavnosti tudi jamči.
The latter business is carried out through a separate bank account, ‘Interes Narodowy’.
Za namen teh slednjih dejavnosti je odprt ločen bančni račun pod nazivom „Interes Narodowy“.
The guarantees extended to SSN fall within the business guaranteed by the State Treasury.
Jamstva, dodeljena ladjedelnici Gdynia, so del poslovanja, za katerega jamči finančno ministrstvo
According to the information provided by Poland, KUKE advance payment guarantees were granted to SSN against a guarantee premium which varied according to the value of the guarantee.
V skladu z informacijami, ki jih je posredovala Poljska, je KUKE SSN dodelila garancije za predplačila za premijo jamstva, ki je bila odvisna od vrednosti garancije.
The charge was 2 % per annum for guarantees not exceeding PLN 35 million and 1 % per annum for guarantees exceeding PLN 35 million.
Pristojbina je znašala 2 % na leto za garancije do 35 milijonov PLN in 1 % na leto za garancije, ki presegajo 35 milijonov PLN.
As collateral KUKE required the transfer of ownership of the ship, the ship under construction or the materials.
KUKE je za zavarovanje zahtevala prenos lastništva ladje, ladje v izgradnji ali konstrukcijskega materiala.
It follows from Tables 3-5 and the above information that since 1 May 2004 SSN has benefited from measures of a total nominal value of PLN 3047943120,5 (approximately EUR 896 million).
Iz preglednic 3 do 5 in iz zgornjih informacij izhaja, da je SSN od 1. maja 2004 koristila ukrepe v skupni nominalni vrednosti 3047943120,5 PLN (približno 896 milijonov EUR).
State aid granted to SSN between 1 May 2004 and 30 June 2007, data provided by the Polish authorities
Državna pomoč, dodeljena SSN med 1. majem 2004 in 30. junijem 2007; podatki, ki so jih predložili poljski organi
Granting body
Organ, ki dodeli ukrep
Number of decision or agreement
Številka odločbe ali sporazuma
Date of granting
Datum dodelitve
Period for which aid was granted
Obdobje, za katerega je bila pomoč dodeljena
Nominal value of aid
Nominalna vrednost pomoči
Rep. A No 4528/2004
Rep. A št. 4528/2004)
One-off aid
Enkratna pomoč
Agreement No 1/10/2005
Sporazum št. 1/10/2005
Agreement No 1/2/2006
Sporazum št. 1/2/2006
(annexes: 27.4.2006, 24.8.2006, 26.9.2006, 27.11.2006, 21.12.2006, 31.1.2007)
(aneksi: 27.4.2006, 24.8.2006, 26.9.2006, 27.11.2006, 21.12.2006, 31.1.2007)
No data
Ni podatkov
Agreement of 12.1.2007
Sporazum z dne 12.1.2007
Agreement No 1/2/2007
Sporazum št. 1/2/2007
(annexes: 29.3.2007, 4.4.2007)
(aneksi: 29.3.2007, 4.4.2007)
Agreement No 2/2/2007
Sporazum št. 2/2/2007
Additional State aid granted to SSN from 30 June 2007 to 12 September 2008, data provided by the Polish authorities
Dodatna državna pomoč, dodeljena SSN med 30. junijem 2007 in 12. septembrom 2008; podatki, ki so jih predložili poljski organi
Agreement between SSN and ARP on State aid in the form of a capital injection
Sporazum med SSN in ARP o državni pomoči v obliki dokapitalizacije
Agreement OPP/3/08
Sporazum OPP/3/08
Agreement 1.11.2007
Sporazum 1/11/2007
Agreement 1.3.2008
Sporazum 1/3/2008
Agreement OPP/5/08
Sporazum OPP/5/08
Debt for equity swap
Zamenjava dolga za kapital
Rep. A. No 6603/2008, 8014/2008
Rep. A. št. 6603/2008, 8014/2008
Public-law liabilities not enforced after 1 May 2004
Obveznosti po javnem pravu, ki po 1. maju 2004 niso bile izvršene
Amount outstanding
Zapadla vsota
City of Szczecin
Mesto Ščečin
Deferral
Odlog
Real estate tax debt accrued between July 2003 and December 2004
Dolg iz naslova davka na nepremičnine, nastal v obdobju med julijem 2003 in decembrom 2004
COMPETENCE OF THE COMMISSION
PRISTOJNOSTI KOMISIJE
Point 3 of Annex IV to the Accession Treaty sets out the so-called interim mechanism procedure.
Točka 3 Priloge IV k Pristopni pogodbi določa tako imenovani postopek začasnega mehanizma.
It constitutes a legal framework for the assessment of aid schemes and individual aid measures put into effect in a new Member State before the date of its accession to the EU and still applicable after accession.
Ta predstavlja pravni okvir za oceno shem pomoči in posameznih ukrepov pomoči, ki se v novi državi članici izvajajo pred datumom njenega pristopa k EU in veljajo tudi po pristopu.
Aid measures that were put into effect before accession and are not applicable after accession cannot be examined by the Commission, either under the interim mechanism procedure or under the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.
Ukrepov, ki so začeli veljati pred pristopom in po pristopu ne veljajo več, Komisija ne more preveriti niti v okviru postopka začasnega mehanizma niti v okviru postopka iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
On the other hand, measures that were not put into effect until after accession will be assessed by the Commission as notified aid or as unlawful aid pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.
Vendar pa bo Komisija ukrepe, ki so začeli veljati po pristopu, ocenila kot priglašeno pomoč ali kot nezakonito pomoč v skladu s postopkom, določenim v členu 88(2) pogodbe ES.
In order to establish the date on which a certain measure was put into effect, the relevant criterion is the legally binding act by which the competent national authority undertakes to grant the aid [20].
Merilo, ki se uporablja za določitev trenutka, ko je zadevni ukrep začel veljati, je pravno zavezujoč akt, s katerim je pristojen državni organ dodelil pomoč [20].
Whether an administrative act is legally binding is a matter of national law.
Stvar nacionalne zakonodaje je, ali je upravni akt pravno zavezujoč.
However, the Commission must, especially in borderline cases, be able to review these administrative acts and to assess on the basis of their form and content whether they could have given rise to legitimate expectations on the part of the beneficiaries enforceable before a Polish court of law.
Komisija mora biti sposobna proučiti te upravne akte, zlasti v mejnih primerih, na podlagi njihove oblike in vsebine pa mora oceniti, ali so ti akti vzbudili legitimna pričakovanja upravičencev, ki jih je mogoče uveljavljati na poljskem sodišču.
This capacity to review national administrative acts is indispensable for the exercise of the Commission’s exclusive competence to approve derogations from the general prohibition of State aid with regard to measures put into effect in Poland after 1 May 2004.
Ta sposobnost Komisije, da prouči nacionalne upravne akte, je nepogrešljiva, če naj Komisija izvaja izključno pristojnost za odobritev odstopanj od splošne prepovedi državnih pomoči v zvezi z ukrepi, uveljavljenimi na Poljskem po 1. maju 2004.
A measure is applicable after accession if it was put into effect before accession but can still give rise, after accession, to the granting of additional aid or to an increase in the amount of aid already granted, i.e. if the precise economic exposure of the State is not known on the date on which the measure was put into effect and still not known on the date of accession.
Ukrep velja tudi po pristopu, če je bil uveljavljen pred pristopom, vendar lahko še vedno povzroči, tudi po pristopu, dodelitev dodatne pomoči ali zviša znesek že dodeljene pomoči, tj. če natančna gospodarska izpostavljenost države ni znana na datum, ko je bil ukrep uveljavljen, in ostane nerazkrita na datum pristopa.
In its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission concluded, on the basis of the information provided by Poland, that a series of measures notified to the Commission in fact constituted new aid, to be granted after 1 May 2004, the day of Poland’s accession to the EU.
V svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave je Komisija na podlagi informacij, ki jih je posredovala Poljska, sklenila, da je vrsta ukrepov, priglašenih Komisiji, dejansko pomenila novo pomoč, saj so bili ti ukrepi dodeljeni po 1. maju 2004, tj. po datumu pristopa Poljske k EU.
Specifically, the Commission considered that a capital injection, two performance guarantees and a real estate tax liability write-off and deferral constituted new aid.
Komisija je zlasti menila, da so dokapitalizacija, dve garanciji za dobro izvedbo pogodbenih obveznosti ter odpis in odlog dolgov z naslova davka na nepremičnine nova pomoč.
Firstly, Poland informed the Commission that the two contested performance guarantees (measures 62 and 63 in part B of the Annex to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure) had not in the end been granted at all.
Prvič, Poljska je Komisijo obvestila, da dve sporni garanciji za dobro izvedbo pogodbenih obveznosti (ukrepa 62 in 63 v delu B priloge k odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave) na koncu sploh nista bili dodeljeni.
They are therefore not covered by this Decision.
Zato ju ta odločba ne zajema.
Secondly, Poland confirmed that the real estate tax debt to the City of Szczecin accrued in the period between July 2003 and December 2004 (measures 64-68 in part B of the Annex to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure) had not been enforced or written off so far.
Drugič, Poljska je potrdila, da davek na nepremičnine, dolgovan mestu Ščečin in nastal v obdobju med julijem 2003 in decembrom 2004 (ukrepi 64 do 68 v delu B priloge k odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave), doslej ni bil niti uveljavljen niti odpisan.
This means that the liability was carried forward and not enforced well beyond the date of accession.
To pomeni, da je bila obveznost prenesena naprej in še dolgo po pristopu ni bila izvršena.
It is established case-law [21] that continuous non-enforcement of public-law debts can constitute State aid, as will be discussed in more detail below.
Iz sodne prakse [21] izhaja, da lahko stalno neizvrševanje dolgov po javnem pravu pomeni državno pomoč; to bo podrobneje obravnavano v nadaljevanju.
Such non-enforcement clearly falls within the competence of the Commission under Article 88 of the EC Treaty in so far as it concerns the period after accession.
Takšno neizvrševanje nedvomno spada v pristojnost Komisije v skladu s členom 88 Pogodbe ES, če se nanaša na obdobje po pristopu.
These measures are therefore covered by this Decision.
Te ukrepe ta odločba torej zajema.
Thirdly, with regard to the capital injection from ARP (measure 61 in part B of the Annex to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure), the comments provided by Poland and third parties on the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure have not convinced the Commission that this measure does not constitute new aid.
Tretjič, v zvezi z dokapitalizacijo ARP (ukrep 61 v delu B priloge k odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopa preiskave) pripombe Poljske in tretjih oseb na odločitev o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave Komisije niso prepričale, da ta ukrep ne predstavlja nove pomoči.
This measure is therefore covered by this Decision.
Tega ukrepa ta odločba torej zajema.
The Commission explains below the reasons why it cannot accept the arguments submitted by Poland and the interested parties.
V nadaljevanju Komisija navaja razloge, zakaj ne more sprejeti argumentov Poljske in zainteresiranih strani.
With regard to Poland’s argument that the capital injection should be seen in the context of the Polish Government’s far-reaching rescue programme for the shipbuilding industry in Poland, the Commission considers that such a general government programme cannot give rise to a legitimate claim on the part of SSN that one of its shareholders, ARP, must implement the full capital injection.
V zvezi z argumentom Poljske, da je treba dokapitalizacijo obravnavati v okviru daljnosežnega programa reševanja za ladjedelniško industrijo na Poljskem, ki ga je pripravila poljska vlada, Komisija meni, da takšen splošni vladni program ne more vzbuditi legitimnega pričakovanja na strani SSN, da mora eden od delničarjev, ARP, izvesti celotno dokapitalizacijo.
Indeed, for budgetary reasons ARP was originally unable to implement the capital injection declared in the 2003 restructuring plan in full.
Dejansko ARP zaradi proračunskih razlogov sprva ni bila sposobna v celoti izvesti dokapitalizacije, navedene v načrtu za prestrukturiranje 2003.
With regard to Poland’s argument that the Commission is applying the criteria of EC law to events and national law prior to accession, the competence of the Commission to act in respect of measures granted before accession is defined by the Act of Accession, which is binding upon the Communities and Poland.
V zvezi z argumentom Poljske, da Komisija merila zakonodaje ES uporablja za dogodke in nacionalno zakonodajo pred pristopom, je pristojnost Komisije, da deluje v zvezi z ukrepi, dodeljenimi pred pristopom, določena z Aktom o pristopu, ki je zavezujoč za Skupnosti in Poljsko.
The Commission has interpreted the concept ‘put into effect before accession’ by analogy with the concept of the granting of aid [22].
Komisija koncept „začetka veljavnosti pred pristopom“ razlaga po analogiji s konceptom dodelitve pomoči [22].
Poland argues that only approval of the restructuring plan and the aid measures contained therein by the President of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection was required under national law.
Poljska navaja, da nacionalna zakonodaja zahteva samo odobritev načrta za prestrukturiranje in tam vsebovanih ukrepov pomoči s strani predsednika Urada za konkurenco in varstvo potrošnikov.
The Commission does not consider that this approval can in itself be qualified as ‘putting the measure into effect before accession’.
Komisija ne meni, da lahko zgolj ta odobritev pomeni „začetek veljavnosti ukrepa pred pristopom“.
The national competition office checked the compatibility of the aid with national State aid legislation but, just as when the Commission reviews State aid under Article 88 of the EC Treaty, its approval did not create legitimate expectations under national law that the aid was actually going to be granted.
Nacionalni urad za konkurenco je preveril združljivost pomoči z nacionalno zakonodajo o državni pomoči, vendar, podobno kot pri preverjanju državne pomoči po členu 88 Pogodbe ES s strani Komisije, njegova odobritev ni ustvarila legitimnih pričakovanj po nacionalni zakonodaji, da bo pomoč dejansko dodeljena.
Poland also considers it an undisputed fact that the capital injection provided for in the 2003 restructuring plan was agreed between SSN and ARP.
Poljska meni, da je bila dokapitalizacija, predvidena v načrtu za prestrukturiranje 2003, nesporno dogovorjena med SSN in ARP.