natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to recover this advantage, the Commission considers, in accordance with the conclusion reached in section 3.1 of the present decision, that the difference between the total cost of the guaranteed loan (interest rate and guarantee premium) and the reference rate for Greece increased by 600 basis points needs to be recovered for the years during which the guarantee was running.
Da bi se ta prednost povrnila, Komisija v skladu s sklepom iz oddelka 3.1 te odločbe ugotavlja, da je treba za vsa leta trajanja poroštva povrniti razliko med skupnimi stroški posojila, zavarovanega s poroštvom (obrestna mera in poroštvena premija), ter referenčno obrestno mero za Grčijo, povečano za 600 bazičnih točk.
The Commission considers that this will restore the situation that would have existed without a State guarantee.
Komisija meni, da se bo s tem obnovil položaj, ki bi sicer obstajal brez državnega poroštva.
Thereby, the breach of the prohibition of State guarantees and financing below market rate laid down in decision N 401/97 is eliminated.
Zato je kršitev prepovedi državnih poroštev in financiranja pod tržno obrestno mero iz odločbe N 401/97 odpravljena.
GRD 1,56 billion (EUR 4,58 million) loan granted in 1999 (measure P3)
Posojilo v višini 1,56 milijarde GRD (4,58 milijona EUR), odobreno leta 1999 (ukrep P3)
In 1999, HSY received a loan amounting to GRD 1,56 billion (EUR 4,58 million) from ETVA, which received as securities a right on the payment of the first tranche of the investment aid authorised by decision N 401/97.
Podjetje HSY je leta 1999 prejelo posojilo v višini 1,56 milijarde GRD (4,58 milijona EUR) od banke ETVA, ki je prejela zavarovanje v obliki pravice do prvega obroka naložbene pomoči, odobrene z odločbo N 401/97.
The loan was concluded on 28 July 1999 and fully paid out to HSY the next day.
Posojilo je bilo sklenjeno 28. julija 1999 in podjetju HSY v celoti izplačano naslednji dan.
In the opening decision, the Commission indicates that the loan could constitute aid, the compatibility of which is doubtful.
Komisija v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka navaja, da bi državno poroštvo lahko pomenilo državno pomoč, katere združljivost je dvomljiva.
In addition, if it turned out that this loan benefited from a State guarantee, it seems to infringe decision N 401/97, which indicated that, in order to finance the investment programme, bank loans would be raised at normal market conditions without State guarantees.
Poleg tega, če bi se izkazalo, da je bilo to posojilo zavarovano z državnim poroštvom, bi lahko to pomenilo kršitev odločbe N 401/1997, v kateri je navedeno, da je treba za namen financiranja naložbenega programa bančna posojila pridobiti po običajnih tržnih pogojih brez državnih poroštev.
Elefsis claims, in addition to the comments indicated previously with respect to measure P2, that since the measures P3 and P4 have been granted at a time when it was clear that HSY had failed to implement its restructuring/investment plan and had failed to respect the terms of decision N 401/97, there was a material risk that the security given for these loans, i.e. the payment of the approved investment aid, was unlawful and thus void and unenforceable.
Podjetje Elefsis poleg zgoraj navedenih pripomb v zvezi z ukrepom P2 trdi, da je zato, ker sta bila ukrepa P3 in P4 odobrena v času, ko je bilo očitno, da podjetju HSY ne bo uspelo izvesti načrta prestrukturiranja/naložbenega načrta in da ni upoštevalo pogojev iz odločbe N 401/97, obstajalo veliko tveganje, da bo zavarovanje teh posojil, tj. plačilo odobrene naložbene pomoči, nezakonito in s tem nično ter neizvršljivo.
The Greek authorities (and HSY) claim that this loan was granted on market terms.
Grški organi (in podjetje HSY) trdijo, da je bilo to posojilo odobreno po tržnih pogojih.
In particular, the interest rate is similar to the one of some loans granted by ETVA to other firms during this period.
Zlasti je obrestna mera podobna obrestni meri nekaterih posojil, ki jih je v tem obdobju banka ETVA odobrila drugim podjetjem.
HSY could have borrowed from any other bank but logically preferred ETVA which was its shareholder.
Podjetje HSY bi lahko pridobilo posojilo pri vsaki drugi banki, vendar je dalo prednost banki ETVA, kar je bilo razumljivo, saj je bila banka ETVA njegova delničarka.
In addition, the security in the form of the conveyance of the claims on the first tranche of the investment aid constituted a collateral acceptable to any bank.
Poleg tega je zavarovanje v obliki prenosa terjatev prvega obroka naložbene pomoči pomenila zavarovanje, ki bi bilo sprejemljivo za katero koli banko.
Finally, Greece notes that the loan was fully reimbursed to the bank.
Grčija na koncu opozarja, da je bilo posojilo banki povrnjeno v celoti.
The Commission has already concluded in the assessment of measure P2 that measure P3 does not fall within the scope of Article 296 of the Treaty.
Komisija je v oceni ukrepa P2 že ugotovila, da ukrep P3 ne spada na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe.
It must therefore be assessed under State aid rule.
Zato ga je treba oceniti na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči.
First, the Commission notes that the loan has been granted by ETVA and was not covered by a State guarantee.
Prvič, Komisija ugotavlja, da je posojilo odobrila banka ETVA in da ni bilo zavarovano z državnim poroštvom.
As regards the selectivity of the measure, Greece observes that other firms received loans from ETVA at similar interest rates.
Kar zadeva selektivnost ukrepa, Grčija opozarja, da so druga podjetja najela posojilo pri banki ETVA s podobnimi obrestnimi merami.
However, as already explained in the assessment of measure P2, a measure is a general measure only if it fulfils strict conditions, which are clearly not fulfilled in the present case.
Vendar pa, kot je bilo že pojasnjeno v oceni ukrepa P2, je ukrep splošen ukrep samo, če izpolnjuje stroge pogoje, ki pa v tem primeru očitno niso izpolnjeni.
For instance the measure is not open to all firms on an equal access basis, since interest rates vary from one borrower to the other and depend on the decision of ETVA to grant the loan or not, and on which conditions.
Na primer, ukrep ni enako dostopen za vsa podjetja, saj se obrestne mere razlikujejo od enega posojilojemalca do drugega in so odvisne od odločitve banke ETVA, ali bo posojilo odobrila ali ne ter pod kakšnimi pogoji.
The measure is therefore selective.
Ukrep je torej selektiven.
As regards the existence of an advantage, the Commission notes that this loan was granted after 30 June 1999, at a time when the firm had no access to the loan market anymore, as explained in section 3.1 of the present decision.
Kar zadeva obstoj prednosti, Komisija ugotavlja, da je bilo to posojilo odobreno po 30. juniju 1999, v času, ko podjetje ni imelo več nobenega dostopa do trga posojil, kot je pojasnjeno v oddelku 3.1 te odločbe.
The fact that ETVA charged a similar interest rate for some loans to other firms during that period does not prove that this interest rate would have been acceptable for a private bank in similar circumstances.
Dejstvo, da je banka ETVA zaračunala podobno obrestno mero za nekatera posojila, ki so bila v tem obdobju odobrena drugim podjetjem, ne dokazuje, da bi bila ta obrestna mera v podobnih okoliščinah sprejemljiva za zasebne banke.
First, the interest rate demanded by a private bank on a particular loan depends on the creditworthiness of the borrower.
Prvič, obrestna mera, ki jo za določeno posojilo zahtevajo zasebne banke, je odvisna od kreditne sposobnosti posojilojemalca.
Greece has not shown that the other borrowers in the list had a risk of default similar to the risk of default of HSY.
Grčija ni dokazala, da so bili drugi posojilojemalci na seznamu soočeni s tveganjem neplačila, ki je bilo podobno tveganju neplačila podjetja HSY.
The Commission recalls that the situation of HSY was very bad at the time.
Komisija opozarja, da je bil položaj podjetja HSY v tistem času zelo slab.
It is therefore likely that a market economy investor would have requested a higher interest rate for loans to HSY than for loans to healthy firms.
Zato je verjetno, da bi vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva določil višjo obrestno mero za posojila podjetju HSY kot za posojila zdravim podjetjem.
Second, even if the other borrowers had a risk of default as high as HSY, the list provided by Greece would still be insufficient to conclude that this interest rate was the market price.
Drugič, tudi če bi bilo tveganje neplačila drugih posojilojemalcev tako visoko kot pri podjetju HSY, seznam, ki ga je posredovala Grčija, še vedno ne bi bil dovolj, da bi se lahko sklepalo, da je ta obrestna mera predstavljala tržno ceno.
Indeed, the list provided by Greece contains only loans granted by ETVA, which was a State-owned bank (and in addition a development bank), and it is therefore possible that the other loans also contain an aid element.
Seznam, ki ga je predložila Grčija, dejansko vsebuje samo posojila, ki jih je odobrila banka ETVA, ki je državna banka (poleg tega pa še razvojna banka), zato je mogoče, da tudi druga posojila vsebujejo element pomoči.
It therefore does not prove that they would have been acceptable to a private bank.
To torej ne dokazuje, da bi bila posojila sprejemljiva tudi za zasebno banko.
The Greek authorities also assert that the security in the form of the conveyance of the claims on the first tranche of the investment aid constituted a collateral, which would have rendered the loan acceptable to any private bank.
Grški organi zatrjujejo tudi, da je zavarovanje v obliki terjatev prvega obroka naložbene pomoči pomenila zavarovanje, ki bi bilo sprejemljivo za katero koli zasebno banko, ki bi želela odobriti posojilo.
The Commission notes that, according to the government decision by which the investment aid was approved, the payment of the first tranche of the aid would take place once the competent control body would have observed that the investment expenses amount to GRD 2,73 billion.
Komisija opozarja, da bi se v skladu z odločbo vlade, s katero je bila naložbena pomoč odobrena, prvi obrok pomoči odplačal, ko bi pristojen nadzorni organ ugotovil, da stroški naložb znašajo 2,73 milijarde GRD.
In addition, the payment had to take place before 31 December 1999.
Poleg tega bi se plačilo moralo izvršiti pred 31. decembrom 1999.
However, different problems preventing the payment of the aid could still occur.
Vendar pa bi lahko še vedno obstajale druge težave, ki bi preprečile izplačilo obroka.
First, in case of bankruptcy of HSY, it was not certain that the Greece authorities would have accepted to pay the investment aid to a firm that would have ceased operations.
Prvič, ni bilo gotovo, ali bi grški organi v primeru stečaja podjetja HSY privolili v plačilo naložbene pomoči podjetju, ki bo ustavilo svoje dejavnosti.
The bank would then have had to start costly and lengthy legal actions to recover the money.
Banka bi potem morala sprožiti drage in dolgotrajne pravne spore, da bi izterjala denar.
Second, it is not certain that the competent control bodies would have accepted to validate the investment expenses incurred, such that the threshold would not be reached in due time.
Drugič, prav tako ni gotovo, ali bi pristojni nadzorni organi hoteli potrditi nastale stroške naložb, tako da prag ne bi bil dosežen pravočasno.
As indicated in chapter 1 ‘Procedure’ of the present decision, when the Commission later learnt about the delay in the implementation of the investment plan, it asked the suspension of the payment of the aid which had not yet been paid to HSY.
Kot je navedeno v poglavju 1 te odločbe „Postopek“, je Komisija, ko je bila pozneje seznanjena z zamudo pri izvajanju naložbenega načrta, zahtevala zaustavitev plačila pomoči, ki podjetju HSY še ni bila izplačana.
The Commission concludes that the payment of the first tranche of the investment aid by the State was likely but not certain.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bilo plačilo prvega obroka naložbene pomoči s strani države verjetno, vendar ni bilo gotovo.
In view of the difficult situation of HSY, a private bank would have required securities that could be enforced rapidly and with certainty, and would have not been satisfied with security of which the value could be zero in certain circumstances.
Zaradi težkega položaja podjetja HSY bi zasebne banke zahtevale zavarovanje, ki bi bilo hitro in zagotovo izvršljivo, in se ne bi zadovoljile z zavarovanjem, katerega vrednost bi lahko v nekaterih okoliščinah bila nična.
The Commission thus concludes that a private bank would not have accepted to grant this loan.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da zasebne banke ne bi privolile v odobritev takšnega posojila.
As indicated previously, this is confirmed by HSY’s unsuccessful attempts to raise funds from market economy investors.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, je to potrdilo tudi podjetje HSY, ki je večkrat neuspešno poskušalo pridobiti sredstva od vlagateljev iz tržnega gospodarstva.
Greece also claims that, since ETVA was the shareholder of HSY, it served its interests by providing this loan to HSY.
Grčija trdi tudi, da je banka ETVA kot delničarka podjetja HSY z odobritvijo posojila služila interesom podjetja HSY.
In section 3.1.3 of the present decision, the Commission has already rejected this claim.
V oddelku 3.1.3 te odločbe je Komisija to trditev že zavrnila.
Finally, regarding the fact that the loan has been reimbursed, the Commission has already explained in the assessment of measure P2 why such a fact does not show that a private bank would have accepted to provide this financing to HSY at that moment.
Kar zadeva dejstvo, da je bilo posojilo povrnjeno, je Komisija v oceni ukrepa P2 že pojasnila, zakaj to dejstvo ne dokazuje, da bi zasebne banke v tistem trenutku privolile v zagotovitev finančnih sredstev podjetju HSY.
From the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the loan gives an advantage to HSY since it could not have received this loan from the market.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da posojilo podjetju HSY zagotavlja prednost, saj takšnega posojila na trgu ne bi moglo pridobiti.
The Commission concludes that measure P3 constitutes aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep P3 pomeni pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Since, contrary to the requirement laid down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty, the aid was granted without prior notification, it constitutes unlawful aid.
Ker je bila pomoč v nasprotju z zahtevo iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe odobrena brez predhodne priglasitve, pomeni nezakonito pomoč.
As measure P2, the compatibility of the present measure must be assessed under Regulation (EC) No 1540/98.
Združljivost tega ukrepa je treba tako kot v primeru ukrepa P2 oceniti na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1540/98.
Since, as measure P2, this loan aimed at financing an investment plan which was a part of a restructuring plan and since it was granted to a firm in difficulty, it should also be considered as restructuring aid covered by Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98.
Ker je, tako kot v primeru ukrepa P2, namen tega posojila financiranje naložbenega načrta, ki je bil del načrta za prestrukturiranje, in ker je bilo posojilo odobreno podjetju v težavah, ga je treba oceniti tudi kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje iz člena 5 Uredbe (ES) št. 1540/98.
The guidelines applicable at the time of the grant were the ones published in the Official Journal on 23 December 1994 and which entered into force on the same day (hereinafter the 1994 R & R guidelines).
Smernice, veljavne v času odobritve posojila, so bile smernice, ki so bile objavljene v Uradnem listu Evropske unije dne 23. decembra 1994 in ki so začele veljati istega dne (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 1994).
For instance, regarding condition (i) ‘Restoration of viability’, the Commission notes that the State guarantee financed an investment plan which was part of a restructuring plan which, in July 1999, had become insufficient to restore the long term viability of HSY.
Na primer, kar zadeva pogoj (i) „Obnovitev sposobnosti preživetja“, Komisija ugotavlja, da se je z državnim poroštvom financiral naložbeni načrt, ki je bil del načrta prestrukturiranja, ki julija 1999 ni več zadostoval za obnovitev dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja podjetja HSY.
Regarding the condition (iii) ‘Aid in proportion to the restructuring costs and benefits’, the Commission had already decided in decision N 401/97 that State aid could at the maximum amount to 50 % of the investment costs and the remaining 50 % would be financed by funds raised from the shareholders and by bank loans raised at market conditions.
V zvezi s pogojem (iii) „Pomoč, sorazmerna s stroški in koristmi prestrukturiranja“ se je Komisija v odločbi N 401/1997 že odločila, da bi državna pomoč lahko znašala največ 50 % naložbenih stroškov, medtem ko bi se preostalih 50 % financiralo s sredstvi, ki bi jih zagotovili delničarji, ter bančnimi posojili, pridobljenimi po tržnih pogojih.
Consequently, no additional aid in favour of the investment plan could be granted otherwise the aforementioned percentages of 50 % would be breached and the Commission could not consider that the aid is proportional to ‘the restructuring costs and benefits’.
Zaradi tega ni bilo mogoče v korist naložbenega načrta dodeliti nobene dodatne pomoči, sicer bi se kršila zgoraj navedena 50-odstotna meja, Komisija pa te pomoči ne bi mogla oceniti kot pomoči, ki je sorazmerna „s stroški in koristmi prestrukturiranja“.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission consider that the loan constitutes unlawful and incompatible aid, which must be recovered.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Komisija meni, da posojilo pomeni nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč, ki jo je treba povrniti.
Since after 30 June 1999 HSY could not have received any loan from the market, the entire loan has to be reimbursed.
Ker po 30. juniju 1999 podjetje HSY na trgu ni moglo dobiti nobenega posojila, je treba povrniti celoten znesek posojila.
This is however insufficient to restore the situation that would have prevailed without aid since during several years HSY has benefited from a loan which it would not have received without State intervention.
To pa ni dovolj za obnovitev položaja, ki bi prevladoval brez pomoči, saj je podjetje HSY več let koristilo posojilo, ki ga brez posega države ne bi pridobilo.
In order to recover this advantage, the Commission considers, in accordance with the conclusion reached in section 3.1 of the present decision, that the difference between the interest rate of the loan and the reference rate of Greece increased by 600 basis points needs to be recovered for each year from the pay-out of the loan to HSY until its reimbursement.
Da bi se ta prednost povrnila, Komisija v skladu s sklepom iz oddelka 3.1 te odločbe ugotavlja, da je treba za vsako leto od izplačila posojila podjetju HSY do njegove povrnitve povrniti razliko med obrestno mero za posojilo ter referenčno obrestno mero za Grčijo, povečano za 600 bazičnih točk.
The Commission notes that in March 2002 the State sold the majority of ETVA’s shares to Piraeus Bank.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je marca 2002 država večinski delež v banki ETVA prodala banki Piraeus Bank.
In order to answer this question, the Commission recalls that when the State grants a loan with an interest rate below the market rate, the aid is granted at the time of the conclusion of the loan, even if the advantage only materialises at each interest payment dates, when the borrower pays a lower interest rate.
V odgovor na to vprašanje Komisija opozarja, da se v primeru, ko država odobri posojilo z obrestno mero, ki je nižja od tržne obrestne mere, pomoč odobri v času sklenitve posojila, tudi če se prednost realizira samo na dan plačila vsake obrestne mere, ko posojilojemalec plača nižjo obrestno mero.
In the same manner, the market value of a loan which has an interest rate not reflecting adequately the difficulties of the borrower decreases immediately after the signature of the loan contract (i.e. not at the future dates when the borrowers pays an interest rate below the market interest rate).
Na enak način se tržna vrednost posojila, katerega obrestna mera težav posojilojemalca ne odraža na ustrezen način, zmanjša takoj po podpisu posojilne pogodbe (tj. ne pozneje, ko posojilojemalec plača obrestno mero, ki je nižja od tržne obrestne mere).
In turn, the value of a bank depends on the value of its assets, and notably its portfolio of existing loans.
Vrednot banke je tako odvisna od vrednosti njenih sredstev in predvsem portfelja obstoječih posojil.
Therefore, the granting of loans at non market conform conditions decreased the value of ETVA and therefore diminished the price that the State later received when it sold ETVA’s shares.
Zato je odobritev posojil pod pogoji, ki so nezdružljivi s trgom, zmanjšala vrednost banke ETVA s tem pa tudi ceno, ki je bila pozneje plačana državi za delnice banke ETVA.
This illustrates that it is the State which supported the cost of these aid measures, including for their duration running after March 2002.
To kaže, da je država tista, ki je podprla stroške teh ukrepov pomoči, vključno s tistimi, ki so nastali pri izvajanju ukrepov po marcu 2002.
EUR 13,75 million loan granted in 2002 (measure P4)
Posojilo v višini 13,75 milijarde GRD (ukrep P4), odobreno leta 2002
The loan would be used as an advance on the second and third tranches of the investment aid.
Posojilo naj bi se uporabilo kot predujem za drugi in tretji obrok naložbene pomoči.
The loan was secured by the conveyance of the payment of the second and third tranches of the investment aid.
Zavarovano je bilo s prenosom drugega in tretjega obroka naložbene pomoči.
Elefsis’s comments on this measure are similar to the comments on measure P3.
Pripombe podjetja Elefsis v zvezi s tem ukrepom so podobne pripombam v zvezi z ukrepom P3.
The Greek authorities claim that this loan was granted on market terms.
Grški organi trdijo, da je bilo to posojilo odobreno po tržnih pogojih.
In addition, the security in the form of the conveyance of the claims on the second and third tranches of the investment aid constituted a collateral acceptable to any bank.
Poleg tega je zavarovanje v obliki prenosa terjatev drugega in tretjega obroka naložbene pomoči predstavljala zavarovanje, ki bi bilo sprejemljivo za katero koli banko.
Finally, the loan was never paid out to HSY and it could therefore not constitute aid to HSY.
Na koncu ni bilo podjetju HSY izplačano nobeno posojilo, zato to ne more pomeniti pomoči za podjetje HSY.
In addition, the fact that ETVA has refused to pay out the loan when it realised that the payment of the investment aid had been ‘freezed’ for procedural reasons and that the payment of the aid was uncertain illustrates that ETVA acted as any other bank would have done.
Poleg tega dejstvo, da banka ETVA ni odobrila izplačila posojila, ko je ugotovila, da je bilo izplačilo naložbene pomoči zaradi postopkovnih razlogov „zamrznjeno“ in da je izplačilo pomoči negotovo, kaže, da je banka ETVA ravnala tako, kot bi ravnala vsaka druga banka.
The Commission has previously concluded in the assessment of measure P2 that measure P4 does not fall in the scope of Article 296 of the Treaty.
Komisija je v oceni ukrepov P2 že ugotovila, da ukrep P4 ne spada na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe.
The Commission observes that, since ETVA refused to pay out the loan to HSY, HSY never received any money under the loan contract.
Komisija ugotavlja, da podjetje HSY ni nikoli prejelo nobenega denarja iz naslova posojilne pogodbe saj banka ETVA izplačila posojila podjetju HSY ni odobrila.
Therefore, there is no advantage to HSY and the Commission can immediately conclude that the measure does not constitute aid.
Podjetju HSY torej ni bila dana nikakršna prednost, zato lahko Komisija takoj zaključi, da ukrep ne pomeni pomoči.
The two following elements concerning measure P4, even if they are irrelevant for the assessment of measure P4, may cast doubts on the validity of the assessment of other measures.
Naslednja dva elementa, ki se nanašata na ukrep P4, pa lahko kljub temu, da za oceno ukrepa P4 nista pomembna, zbujata sum v zvezi z verodostojnostjo ocene drugih ukrepov.
Therefore the Commission will analyse them.
Komisija ju bo zato analizirala.