natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission agrees with the recipient that the event which gave rise to the partial write-off of public-law liabilities under Chapter 5a was the adoption of the restructuring decision by the Chairman of the Industrial Development Agency.
Komisija se strinja s prejemnico, da je bil dogodek, ki je sprožil delni odpis obveznosti po javnem pravu po poglavju 5a, sprejetje odločbe o prestrukturiranju s strani predsednika Industrijske razvojne agencije.
The Commission, however, cannot accept the submission that this decision was adopted on 19 April 2004, i.e. prior to accession.
Vendar pa Komisija ne more sprejeti trditve, da je bila ta odločba sprejeta 19. aprila 2004, tj. pred pristopom.
The Commission explained the reasons for its stance in the decision to open the formal investigation, and neither Poland nor the recipient has submitted any further arguments.
Komisija je pojasnila razloge za svoje stališče v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalne preiskave, niti Poljska niti prejemnica pa nista predložili dodatnih argumentov.
The Commission reiterates that the decision of 19 April merely approved the 2004 restructuring plan, and did not restructure public-law liabilities pursuant to Chapter 5a.
Komisija ponavlja, da je odločba z dne 19. aprila zgolj odobrila načrt za prestrukturiranje 2004 in ni prestrukturirala obveznosti po javnem pravu po poglavju 5a.
The Chairman of the Industrial Development Agency could not issue the restructuring decision before accession because he did not have, as required by Chapter 5a, the agreement of all the public-law creditors involved in restructuring and of the Operator, the company managing the restructuring operation [53].
Predsednik Industrijske razvojne agencije odločbe o prestrukturiranju ni mogel izdati pred pristopom, saj ni imel, kot to zahteva poglavje 5a, soglasja vseh upnikov po javnem pravu, udeleženih pri prestrukturiranju, in nosilca dejavnosti, podjetja, ki upravlja dejavnosti prestrukturiranja [53].
The Commission notes that the Chairman of the Industrial Development Agency recognised this fact when he mentioned in his decision of 19 April 2004 that a further decision would be necessary to complete restructuring under Chapter 5a and when he eventually issued the restructuring decisions on 4 January 2005, i.e. after accession.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je predsednik Industrijske razvojne agencije to dejstvo priznal, ko je v svoji odločbi z dne 19. aprila 2004 omenil, da bo potrebna dodatna odločba za dokončanje prestrukturiranja po poglavju 5a, in ko je 4. januarja 2005, torej po pristopu, izdal odločbo o prestrukturiranju.
The Commission cannot accept the recipient’s argument that the agreement of all the public-law creditors involved to restructure their receivables from Gdynia Shipyard under Chapter 5a constituted the legally binding act required by the Fleuren Compost judgment.
Komisija ne more sprejeti argumenta prejemnice, da soglasje vseh udeleženih upnikov po javnem pravu o prestrukturiranju terjatev do ladjedelnice Gdynia po poglavju 5a predstavlja pravno zavezujoči akt, kot ga zahteva sodba v primeru Fleuren Compost.
The recipient basically argued that Chapter 5a was not lex specialis in relation to other laws permitting restructuring of public-law liabilities and that the function of the Chairman of the Industrial Development Agency was to administer and facilitate the restructuring process, not to replace the authorities involved and competent for specific liabilities.
Prejemnica je trdila, da poglavje 5a ni lex specialis glede na druge zakone, ki dovoljujejo prestrukturiranje obveznosti po javnem pravu, ter da je naloga predsednika Industrijske razvojne agencije upravljati in pospeševati postopek prestrukturiranja in ne zamenjati udeležene organe, pristojne za posebne obveznosti.
The Commission notes that this interpretation of Polish law is at odds with all the submissions from Poland to date and with the text and logic of Chapter 5a itself.
Komisija upošteva, da je ta razlaga poljske zakonodaje v nasprotju z vsemi dosedanjimi trditvami Poljske, pa tudi z besedilom in logiko samega poglavja 5a.
Admittedly, as the recipient argued, the Act of 30 October 2002‘does not prohibit the restructuring authorities from issuing any write-off decisions in so far as they are allowed to do so by general provisions’.
Res je, kot je trdila prejemnica, da Zakon z dne 30. oktobra 2002„organom za prestrukturiranje ne prepoveduje odločitev v zvezi z odpisi, če jim to omogočajo splošne določbe“.
Nevertheless, if they did so, those liabilities would no longer fall under Chapter 5a with all the advantages associated therewith and that the recipient itself has enumerated as follows: eligibility for a loan from the Industrial Development Agency, suspension of any ongoing enforcement proceedings, exemption from bankruptcy and non-accrual of interest on amounts due.
Če pa bi organi to storili, te obveznosti ne bi več spadale v poglavje 5a z vsemi povezanimi prednostmi. Prejemnica jih je naštela, kot sledi: upravičenost do posojila od Industrijske razvojne agencije, ustavitev vseh tekočih postopkov izvršbe, izvzetje iz stečaja in nenaraščanje obresti za zapadla plačila.
The Commission cannot accept the recipient’s argument that no interest accrued after 30 June 2006 on the liabilities restructured under Chapter 5a.
Komisija ne more sprejeti argumenta prejemnice, da se po 30. juniju 2006 za obveznosti, prestrukturirane po poglavju 5a, ni nabralo nič obresti.
This interpretation of Polish law was rejected by Poland.
To razlago poljske zakonodaje je Poljska zavrnila.
In addition, Poland notified as new aid the planned (partial) write-off of interest accrued after 30 June 2006, so it is obvious that this interest had actually accrued.
Poleg tega je Poljska kot novo pomoč priglasila načrtovani (delni) odpis obresti, nastalih po 30. juniju 2006, tako da je jasno, da so te obresti dejansko nastale.
Measures 28-34 of Annex I, part B to the decision to open the formal investigation
Ukrepi 28 do 34 dela B Priloge I k odločitvi o sprožitvi formalne preiskave
The Commission cannot accept Poland’s argument that this aid was granted de facto by virtue of the fact that all the relevant awarding authorities made verbal statements at a meeting of the Government working group on the restructuring of shipyards in Poland (the shipbuilding industry team).
Komisija ne more sprejeti argumenta Poljske, da je bila ta pomoč de facto dodeljena zaradi dejstva, da so vsi zadevni organi, ki dodeljujejo pomoč, na sestanku vladne delovne skupine za prestrukturiranje ladjedelnic na Poljskem (skupina ladjedelniške industrije) podali ustne izjave.
Such statements, if any, were purely verbal and further implementing measures were clearly necessary to create legitimate expectations under Polish law.
Te izjave, če so sploh bile dane, so bile zgolj ustne, za legitimna pričakovanja po poljski zakonodaji pa so bili jasno potrebni nadaljnji izvedbeni ukrepi.
Capital injection from the Industrial Development Agency
Povečanje kapitala s strani Industrijske razvojne agencije
The recipient’s argument that the aid was granted before accession because the precise economic exposure was known before that date stems from a misunderstanding of Annex IV, point 3 to the Accession Treaty.
Argument prejemnice, da je bila pomoč dodeljena pred pristopom, ker je bila natančna gospodarska izpostavljenost znana pred tem datumom, izhaja iz napačnega razumevanja točke 3 Priloge IV k Pristopni pogodbi.
To qualify as previous aid, a measure must fulfil two requirements: it must have been granted before accession (which is equivalent to a legally binding decision by the competent awarding authority) and it must ‘not be applicable after accession’.
Da bi ukrep veljal za predhodno pomoč, mora izpolnjevati dve zahtevi: ukrep mora biti dodeljen pred pristopom (kar je enakovredno pravno zavezujoči odločbi pristojnega organa, ki dodeli pomoč) in „ne sme veljati po pristopu“.
These are two separate and cumulative conditions.
To sta dva ločena in kumulativna pogoja.
The recipient’s argument that the State’s economic exposure was known before accession refers to the second of these requirements and not to the point in time at which the aid was granted.
Argument prejemnice, da je bila gospodarska izpostavljenost države znana pred pristopom, se nanaša na drugo od teh zahtev in ne na trenutek, ko je bila pomoč dodeljena.
The Commission cannot accept Poland’s argument that the requirement to register the subscription of new shares within 6 months was purely formal.
Komisija ne more sprejeti argumenta Poljske, da je bila zahteva po registraciji vpisa novih delnic v roku 6 mesecev zgolj formalna.
The Commission notes that, in reality, two distinct new decisions were necessary after the 6-month period expired: a new resolution of the General Assembly on the capital increase and the subscription itself.
Komisija upošteva, da sta bili dejansko potrebni dve novi odločbi po preteku šestmesečnega obdobja: nov sklep Generalne skupščine o povečanju kapitala in samem vpisu.
It seems to be the case that, under Polish commercial law, the entitlement of a company to a capital injection becomes effective on the date when the resolution to increase the capital is adopted (i.e. the first resolution of 17 February 2004).
Zdi se, da je po poljskem gospodarskem pravu upravičenost podjetja do dokapitalizacije veljavna šele na datum, ko je sprejet sklep o dokapitalizaciji (tj. prvi sklep z dne 17. februarja 2004).
Registration is of significance for the company’s external contacts, not for relations with its shareholders.
Registracija je pomembna za zunanje pogodbe podjetja in ne za odnose z delničarji.
However, the lack of registration also has legal effects on the relationship between the company and its shareholders: if it is not effected within 6 months, the resolution to increase the company’s capital expires and the capital injection cannot take place.
Vendar pa ima odsotnost registracije pravni učinek na razmerje med podjetjem in njegovimi delničarji: če sklep o dokapitalizaciji ni izvršen v roku šestih mesecev, sklep poteče in dokapitalizacija se ne more izvršiti.
In these circumstances, a new resolution by the shareholders is required in order to increase the company’s capital.
V teh okoliščinah je potreben nov sklep delničarjev, če želijo izvesti povečanje kapitala podjetja.
The Commission also notes that the capital was eventually subscribed by the Industrial Development Agency, not the Treasury.
Komisija tudi upošteva, da je kapital nazadnje vpisala Industrijska razvojna agencija in ne finančno ministrstvo.
The resolution of 17 February 2004 cannot therefore be regarded as a final binding decision to award aid in the form of a capital injection listed as measure 32 of Annex I, part B to the decision to open the formal investigation.
Sklepa z dne 17. februarja 2004 torej ni mogoče obravnavati kot končno zavezujočo odločbo o dodelitvi pomoči v obliki dokapitalizacije, navedene kot ukrep 32 dela B Priloge I k odločitvi o sprožitvi formalne preiskave.
Lastly, the Commission notes that neither Poland nor the recipient has contested its conclusion that measures 19-27 of Annex I, part B to the decision to open the formal investigation constituted new aid and thus fall under the remit of the Commission under Article 88 of the EC Treaty.
Komisija tudi upošteva, da Poljska in prejemnica nista ugovarjali njenim sklepnim ugotovitvam, da ukrepi 19 do 27 iz dela B Priloge I k odločitvi o sprožitvi formalne preiskave pomenijo novo pomoč in zato po členu 88 Pogodbe ES spadajo v pristojnost Komisije.
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty states that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods and affects trade between Member States is incompatible with the common market.
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES določa, da je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga in prizadene trgovino med državami članicami, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
The Commission finds that all the aid described in recitals 209-232 was granted by the State or through State resources and, being directed to one particular undertaking, was selective.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je vso pomoč, opisano v uvodnih izjavah 209–232, dodelila država oziroma je bila dodeljena iz državnih sredstev, in ker je bila pomoč namenjena določenemu podjetju, je torej selektivna.
Gdynia Shipyard is one of the largest European shipyards and actively competes on the container ship market with shipyards in particular in Germany and Denmark, as Poland and the recipient have acknowledged, and as was noted by Denmark and the Danish shipbuilding association in their comments on the Commission’s decision to open the formal investigation.
Ladjedelnica Gdynia je ena izmed največjih evropskih ladjedelnic in na trgu kontejnerskih ladij aktivno konkurira predvsem nemškim in danskim ladjedelnicah, kot so navedli Poljska in prejemnica ter Danska in Dansko združenje ladjedelničarjev v pripombah k odločitvi Komisije o sprožitvi formalne preiskave.
Container vessels accounted for 26 % of European shipyards’ order books at the end of 2006 [54].
Konec leta 2006 so kontejnerske ladje predstavljale 26 % knjig naročil evropskih ladjedelnic [54].
It appears to be the case that Gdynia Shipyard is the only yard within the EU which produced a certain type of ro-ro vessel: big car carriers.
Zdi se, da je ladjedelnica Gdynia edina ladjedelnica v EU, ki izdeluje določeno vrsto ro-ro plovil: velike ladje za prevoz avtomobilov.
This specialisation, however, does not mean that Gdynia Shipyard is not in competition, at least potentially, with other yards in the EU.
Ta specializacija pa ne pomeni, da ladjedelnica Gdynia ne konkurira, vsaj potencialno, drugim ladjedelnicam v EU.
The Commission notes that there exists a significant level of supply-side substitutability, at least in the cargo ships segment [55], even though, considering the demand structure for various categories of cargo ship, these vessels do not belong to a single market.
Komisija upošteva, da obstaja znatna raven zamenljivosti na strani ponudbe, vsaj v segmentu tovornih ladij [55], čeprav ob upoštevanju strukture povpraševanja za različne kategorije tovornih ladij ta plovila ne spadajo na enotni trg.
This means that other shipyards in the EU may not encounter significant barriers to launching production of car carriers, at least not of a technological nature (production facilities, know-how etc.).
To pomeni, da druge ladjedelnice v EU ne bi smele naleteti na znatne ovire pri začetku proizvodnje ladij za prevoz avtomobilov, vsaj ne na ovire tehnološke narave (proizvodne zmogljivosti, strokovno znanje in izkušnje itd.).
However, the continuous subsidising of Gdynia Shipyard, which allowed it to conclude contracts without full recognition and remuneration of all the risks involved, could have constituted a significant barrier for other shipyards to entry on the car carriers market.
Vendar pa bi nenehno subvencioniranje ladjedelnice Gdynia, zaradi česar je lahko ladjedelnica sklenila pogodbe brez popolnega priznanja in plačila vseh tveganj, lahko predstavljalo znatno oviro za druge ladjedelnice pri vstopu na trg ladij za prevoz avtomobilov.
The Commission notes that Gdynia Shipyard also operates in other cargo ship segments by offering products such as multi-purpose vessels, liquefied petroleum gas carriers, product and chemical tankers and bulk carriers.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ladjedelnica Gdynia deluje tudi v drugih segmentih tovornih ladij, saj ponuja proizvode, kot so večnamenska plovila, ladje za prevoz utekočinjenega naftnega plina, tankerji za prevoz proizvodov in kemikalij ter ladje za prevoz razsutega tovora.
For example product and chemical tankers constituted about 8 % of the order book of European shipyards at the end of 2006 [56].
Tankerji za prevoz proizvodov in kemikalij so na primer konec leta 2006 predstavljali okoli 8 % knjige naročil evropskih ladjedelnic [56].
Yards in Germany and Romania are particularly active in these segments.
V tem segmentu so še posebej dejavne ladjedelnice v Nemčiji in Romuniji.
On the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that the State aid granted to Gdynia Shipyard affected trade between Member States.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Komisija sklepa, da je državna pomoč za ladjedelnico Gdynia prizadela trgovino med državami članicami.
Lastly, the Commission needs to determine whether the measures granted to Gdynia Shipyard conferred an undue advantage on it and thereby distorted or threatened to distort competition.
Komisija mora določiti, ali so ukrepi, dodeljeni ladjedelnici Gdynia, podjetju dodelili neupravičeno prednost in tako izkrivljali ali bi lahko izkrivljali konkurenco.
The Commission notes that the Polish authorities did not dispute the classification of the measures covered by the present decision as State aid, with the exception of the loans granted by KPS and the guarantees provided by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation which, in the view of the Polish authorities, comply with the market economy investor principle.
Komisija upošteva, da poljski organi niso nasprotovali uvrstitvi ukrepov, na katere se nanaša ta odločba, med državno pomoč, razen posojil, ki jih je dodelil KPS, in jamstev izvozno-kreditne agencije, ki so po mnenju poljskih organov skladna z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Below the Commission first explains why it took the view that the continuous non-enforcement of public-law debt did not pass the market economy creditor test.
V nadaljevanju Komisija najprej pojasni, zakaj meni, da nenehna neizvršba odločb o plačilu dolgov po javnem pravu ni zadovoljilo preizkusa upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The Commission then assesses the measures disputed by Poland.
Komisija nato oceni ukrepe, ki jim Poljska oporeka.
Finally, the Commission considers the circumstances in which the aid covered by this decision was granted and its impact on competition.
Na koncu Komisija obravnava okoliščine, v katerih je bila dodeljena pomoč iz te odločbe, in vpliv pomoči na konkurenco.
Continuous non-enforcement of public-law debt
Nenehna neizvršba odločb o poplačilu dolgov po javnem pravu
The principle that continuous non-enforcement of public-law debt can in itself constitute State aid is established in case-law [57].
Načelo, da lahko nenehna neizvršba odločb o poplačilu dolgov po javnem pravu že samo po sebi pomeni državno pomoč, je vzpostavljeno v sodni praksi [57].
Poland explained that the recipient intended to repay public liabilities outstanding as at 30 September 2007 (PLN 443 million in total) using the capital injection by the Treasury following the yard’s privatisation.
Poljska je pojasnila, da je nameravala prejemnica poplačati javne obveznosti, zapadle na dan 30. septembra 2007 (skupaj 443 milijonov PLN), in sicer s sredstvi dokapitalizacije s strani finančnega ministrstva po privatizaciji ladjedelnice.
This being an uncertain event with an uncertain timing, the yard’s intention suggests that in practice the public-law liabilities were deferred for an unlimited or unspecified period of time and were repaid only occasionally as permitted by the yard’s cash flow.
Ker je to negotov dogodek z negotovim časovnim rokom, namen ladjedelnice nakazuje, da so bile obveznosti po javnem pravu odložene za neomejeno ali nedoločeno časovno obdobje in so bile poplačane samo občasno, kot to omogoča denarni tok ladjedelnice.
The Commission considers that no market economy creditor would accept such an unlimited deferral of its liabilities, which would be contingent on the uncertain event of privatisation and recapitalisation by the State (this constituting State aid of doubtful legality and compatibility with the single market).
Komisija meni, da takšnega neomejenega odloga obveznosti ne bi sprejel noben upnik v tržnem gospodarstvu, kar bi bilo pogojeno z negotovo privatizacijo in dokapitalizacijo s strani države (to pa predstavlja državno pomoč dvomljive zakonitosti in združljivosti z enotnim trgom).
In addition, there is no indication whatsoever that the relevant public creditors have undertaken any action to enforce their public-law receivables from Gdynia Shipyard, in particular by way of forced recovery or bankruptcy law.
Poleg tega ni nobenih dokazov, da so zadevni javni upniki sprejeli ukrepe za uveljavitev terjatev po javnem pravu od ladjedelnice Gdynia, zlasti s pomočjo prisilne izterjave ali Zakona o stečaju.
The Commission therefore concludes that continuous non-enforcement of public-law liabilities represents an advantage that the recipient would have not obtained from a market economy creditor and therefore constitutes State aid similar to an (interest-free) loan.
Komisija je zato sklenila, da nenehna neizvršba odločb o poplačilu obveznosti po javnem pravu pomeni prednost, ki je prejemnica ne bi dobila od upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu, in zato pomeni državno pomoč, podobno (brezobrestnemu) posojilu.
Measures which Poland regards as passing the private investor test
Ukrepi, ki jih Poljska označuje kot ukrepe, ki so zadovoljili preskus zasebnega vlagatelja
KPS loans
Posojila KPS
The Commission cannot accept Poland’s argument that aid in the form of working capital loans was free of State aid.
Komisija ne more sprejeti argumenta Poljske, da pomoč v obliki posojil za gibljiva sredstva ne vsebujejo državne pomoči.
The Commission observes that the interest rate charged by KPS was about 400 basis points above the reference rate.
Komisija opaža, da je bila obrestna mera, ki jo je zaračunal KPS, za približno 400 bazičnih točk višja od referenčne stopnje.
Its working capital was financed by advance payments fully covered by guarantees from the Export Credit Insurance Corporation, by loans fully covered by Treasury guarantees and by KPS loans.
Njena gibljiva sredstva so bila financirana s predplačili, ki so bila v celoti krita z jamstvi izvozno-kreditne agencije, s posojili, ki so bila v celoti krita z jamstvi finančnega ministrstva, in s posojili KPS.
The interest rate charged by KPS therefore does not appear to correctly reflect the risk incurred.
Obrestna mera, ki jo je zaračunal KPS, torej ne odraža ustrezno nastalega tveganja.
Although KPS did require collateral, its value remains questionable; it should be remembered that the Export Credit Insurance Corporation and Treasury required similar collateral and, considering Gdynia Shipyard’s assets/liabilities ratio, it seems likely that KPS was not able to obtain first-rank collateral on the yard’s assets.
Čeprav je KPS zahteval zavarovanje, ostaja njegova vrednost vprašljiva; treba je upoštevati, da sta izvozno-kreditna agencija in finančno ministrstvo zahtevala podobno zavarovanje, glede na razmerje med sredstvi in obveznostmi ladjedelnice Gdynia pa se zdi verjetno, da KPS ni uspel pridobiti prvovrstnega zavarovanja na sredstva ladjedelnice.
In any event, Poland has not provided detailed information enabling the Commission to determine the real value of the required collateral.
V vsakem primeru Poljska ni predložila podrobnih informacij, ki bi Komisiji omogočile določitev dejanske vrednosti zahtevanega zavarovanja.
Furthermore, there is no difference between loans granted by KPS and loans granted by the Industrial Development Agency, which owns KPS.
Poleg tega ni razlik med posojili, ki jih je dodelil KPS, in posojili, ki jih je dodelila Industrijska razvojna agencija, ki je lastnica KPS.
It is difficult to maintain simultaneously, as Poland does, that the loans granted by the Industrial Development Agency constitute State aid whereas the loans granted by its subsidiary, KPS, meet the requirements of the market economy investor principle.
Težko je hkrati trditi, tako kot to počne Poljska, da posojila Industrijske razvojne agencije pomenijo državno pomoč, medtem ko posojila njene hčerinske družbe KPS izpolnjujejo zahteve načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.