natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For instance, the balance sheet as of 31 December 2000 shows that the advance payments received by HSY for the gunboats contract and the submarines contract amounted respectively to EUR 49,1 million and EUR 33,1 million. At the same date, the sum of the inventories, work in progress, advances for inventories and trade debtors (in accounting terms, these items are referred to as current assets) related to the contracts for the Navy amounted to EUR 14,8 million. In other words, the advance payments exceeded by an amount of EUR 67,4 millions the current assets which had to be financed. Since the amounts quoted in the extension decision have not been contested and since a different source shows that they seem to be a reasonable approximation of the reality, the Commission concludes that, during at least one year, these advance payments were not used for the purpose of executing the military contracts concerned.
Na primer, bilanca stanja z dne 31. decembra 2000 kaže, da so predplačila, ki jih je podjetje HSY prejelo za naročilo majhnih bojnih ladij in za naročilo podmornic, znašala 49,1 milijona EUR oziroma 33,1 milijona EUR. Na isti dan je vsota zalog, nedokončane proizvodnje, predujmov za zaloge in terjatev kupcev (v računovodskem pomenu so te postavke navedene kot „obratna sredstva“), povezana z naročili mornarice, znašala 14,8 milijona EUR. Z drugimi besedami, predplačila so obratna sredstva, ki jih je bilo treba financirati, presegla za 67,4 milijona EUR. Ker se zneski, navedeni v odločbi o podaljšanju postopka, niso izpodbijali in ker drug vir kaže, da so očitno predstavljali precej dobro oceno realnega stanja, Komisija ugotavlja, da vsaj v teku enega leta ta predplačila niso bila uporabljena za namen izvrševanja zadevnih vojaških naročil.
Paragraph 4 of this letter indicates ‘Given the fact that HSY has closely cooperated with the Greek State within the context of its reply to the European Commission, the Company does not believe it is necessary neither to resubmit information that has already been submitted by the Greek State, nor to set out the same arguments, the content of which it fully supports, but for the purpose of completion of the reply and in order to assist the Commission with its task, it will summarise the arguments already put forward and will submit any new evidence that was gathered during the time that has lapsed between the Greek State’s reply and the present reply and will present any new or supplementary arguments’.
V odstavku 4 tega dopisa je navedeno: „Ker je podjetje HSY pri sestavi odgovora za Evropsko komisijo tesno sodelovalo z grško državo, meni, da mu ni treba ponovno predložiti informacij, ki jih je že predložila grška država, niti podrobno pojasnjevati vseh trditev, katerih vsebino v celoti podpira, temveč bo za namen dokončnega odgovora in z željo, da bi pomagalo Komisiji pri njeni nalogi, povzelo že predstavljene trditve in predložilo morebitne nove dokaze, ki so bili zbrani v času od predložitve odgovora grške države do tega odgovora, ter predstavilo vse morebitne nove ali dopolnilne trditve“.
In the present decision, the comments of HSY and Greece on the extension decision will therefore be merged, instead of repeating twice the arguments.
V tej odločbi bodo pripombe podjetja HSY in Grčije v zvezi z odločbo o podaljšanju postopka združene, da trditev ne bi bilo treba dvakrat ponavljati.
Appendix C of this report is ‘The Due Diligence Report on Hellenic Shipyards S.A. titled “Copy for Presentation Purposes” and its Executive Summary prepared by Arthur Andersen, dated 19 June 2001’.
Dodatek C k temu poročilu je „Poročilo o primerni skrbnosti v zvezi s podjetjem Hellenic Shipyards S.A. z naslovom ‚Izvod za predstavitvene namene‘ ter njegov povzetek, ki ga je pripravil Arthur Andersen 19. junija 2001“.
Page 7 of this due diligence report analyses the receivables of HSY and indicates that trade debt due by Strintzis Lines ‘is only collectible upon delivery of the vessels in 2002’.
Strani 7 tega poročila vsebuje analizo terjatev podjetja HSY in navedbo, da je terjatev do kupca, ki ga predstavlja podjetje Strintzis Lines „možno izterjati samo v času dobave plovil leta 2002“.
As regards the possibility to collect proceeds during the execution of the contract (i.e. before delivery), the Commission again refers to the document quoted in footnote 128 of the present decision, which indicates that on 31 December 2000 the trade debt related to the contracts with OSE amounted to only EUR 0,5 million. In addition, the document indicates that ‘These receivables will be set off against the respective advances received’.
Kar zadeva možnost izterjave premoženjskih koristi v času izvajanja pogodbe (t.j. pred dobavo), se Komisija ponovno sklicuje na dokument, citiran v opombi 128 te odločbe, v katerem je navedeno, da je dne 31. decembra 2000 dolg kupca, povezan s pogodbami s podjetjem OSE, znašal samo 0,5 milijona EUR. Poleg tega je v dokumentu navedeno, da „bodo te premoženjske koristi izravnane z ustreznimi prejetimi predplačili“.
This illustrates that at that moment no money was collectible from OSE.
To kaže, da v tistem trenutku od podjetja OSE ni bilo mogoče izterjati nobenega denarja.
Decision C 10/94 then indicates than this condition was fulfilled since ‘49 % of the shares in the yard were sold on 18 September 1995 to a cooperative of the yard’s workers’. However, since the aid amount is larger than what the Directive 90/684/EEC authorised, ‘The Commission could not give its approval on the basis of the provisions of the 7th Directive’ which therefore was amended by Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 to increase the amount of aid that can be granted to HSY.
V odločbi C 10/94 je nato navedeno, da je bil ta pogoj izpolnjen saj je bilo „49 % delnic ladjedelnice […] prodanih 18. septembra 1995 zadrugi delavcev ladjedelnice.“ Ker pa je znesek pomoči višji od zneska, ki je odobren z Direktivo 90/684/EGS, „Komisija ni mogla dati odobritve na temelju določb 7. direktive“, ki je bila torej spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1013/97, da bi se znesek pomoči, ki bi se lahko odobril podjetju HSY, povečal.
After that date, only EUR 1,32 million — i.e. 25 % of GRD 3 billion (EUR 8,8 million) minus EUR 3,52 million — is compatible. The rest of the aid is incompatible with the common market.
Po tem datumu je združljivih samo 1,32 milijona EUR – tj. 25 % od 3 milijarde GRD (8,8 milijona EUR), zmanjšanih za 3,52 milijona EUR. Preostala pomoč je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
The second Deloitte report confirms this conclusion: ‘Based on our experience and the above analysis, we tend to believe that no rational investor would have been prepared to acquire HS and in parallel assume any additional risk related to State aid (which at that time was neither certain nor quantified by the EC), for the company that a) was under the ownership and management of a State-owned company (ETVA Bank) for a number of years, and at the same time b) had a significant negative shareholders’ equity position, amongst other operational problems (i.e. low productivity, high operational costs, excess staff, etc.)’. This conclusion is also confirmed by the fact that Greece, anticipating that such a guarantee would be necessary to attract private investors, promised in the tender documents that the highest bidder would receive such a guarantee.
To ugotovitev potrjuje drugo poročilo revizijske hiše Deloitte: „Na podlagi naših izkušenj in zgoraj navedene analize menimo, da noben razumen vlagatelj ne bi bil pripravljen kupiti podjetja HSY in obenem prevzeti kakršnega koli dodatnega tveganja, povezanega z državno pomočjo (ki v tistem trenutku ni bila niti gotova niti je ES še ni ocenila) za podjetje, ki je bilo a) več let v lasti in pod upravo državnega podjetja (banka ETVA) in ki je imelo obenem b) izrazito negativen kapital poleg drugih problemov poslovanja (tj. nizka produktivnost, visoki stroški poslovanja, presežek delavcev itd.).“ To ugotovitev potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da je Grčija, ki je predvidevala, da bo takšno poroštvo potrebno, da bi se pritegnilo zasebne vlagatelje, v razpisni dokumentaciji obljubila, da bo to poroštvo prejel najboljši ponudnik.
Article 10(3) of the Directive 90/684/EEC indeed provides that ‘Notwithstanding the obligation to dispose of the yards by sale referred to in paragraph 2, the Greek Government shall be allowed to maintain a 51 % majority holding in one of the yards if justified by defence interests.’
Člen 10(3) Direktive 90/684/EGS dejansko določa, da bo „[n]e glede na obveznost prodaje ladjedelnic, kot je določeno v odstavku 2, […] grška vlada lahko obdržala 51-odstotni večinski delež v eni izmed ladjedelnic, če je to upravičeno z obrambnimi interesi“.
With regards to HSY, Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 indicates that ‘All other provisions of Directive 90/684/EEC shall apply to this yard.’
V zvezi s podjetjem HSY je v Uredbi (ES) št. 1013/97 navedeno, da „Za to ladjedelnico veljajo vse druge določbe Direktive 90/684/EGS“.
The Commission recalls that the Directive 90/684/EEC authorises aid to Greek yards if ‘granted for the financial restructuring of yards in connection with a systematic and specific restructuring programme linked to the disposal by sale of the yards.’
Komisija opozarja, da se na podlagi Direktive 90/684/EGS grškim ladjedelnicam pomoč odobri, če je namenjena za „finančno prestrukturiranje ladjedelnic v povezavi s sistemskim in posebnim programom prestrukturiranja, ki se nanaša na prodajo ladjedelnic“.
Notwithstanding the obligation to dispose of the yards by sale referred to in paragraph 2, the Greek Government shall be allowed to maintain a 51 % majority holding in one of the yards if justified by defence interests’.
Ne glede na obveznost prodaje ladjedelnic, kot je določeno v odstavku 2, bo grška vlada lahko obdržala 51-odstotni večinski delež v eni izmed ladjedelnic, če je to upravičeno z obrambnimi interesi“.
The Commission observes that the Directive uses the words ‘selling […] to new owners’ and not ‘giving’ to new owners.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so v direktivi uporabljene besede „odprodajo novim lastnikom“ in ne „dajo“ novim lastnikom.
For instance, in a letter dated 6 December 2001 and addressed to HDW and copied to Ferrostaal, Alpha Finance, which was the adviser of the State and of ETVA, indicates: ‘we have been instructed by the Ministry of Development and ETVAbank to provide you with the attached language, proposed by ETVAbank, for […] the letter of guarantee to be provided by ETVAbank to HDW-Ferrostaal in the case that Clause 1.2.3 of the Agreement is not fulfilled’.
Na primer, v dopisu z dne 6. decembra 2001, ki je bilo naslovljen na podjetje HDW, izvod pa je bil poslan tudi podjetju Ferrostaal, Alpha Finance, ki je bil svetovalec države in banke ETVA, navaja: „Ministrstvo za razvoj in banka ETVA sta nam dala navodila, da vam predložimo naslednje besedilo, ki ga je predlagala banka ETVA, za […] pismo o poroštvu, ki bi ga banka ETVA morala posredovati konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal v primeru, da klavzula 1.2.3 sporazuma ni izpolnjena“.
In fax messages dated 23 January 2002, 31 January 2002 and 8 March 2002, HDW sent to Alpha Finance comments regarding the exact wording of the guarantee.
V sporočilih, poslanih prek telefaksa, z dne 23. januarja 2002, 31. januarja 2002 in 8. marca 2002, je podjetje HDW poslalo Alpha Finance pripombe v zvezi s točnim besedilom poroštva.
However, during these two years it did not succeed in concluding any shipbuilding contract — either military or civil — which would have been necessary to ensure a sufficient level of activity in the next years and to avoid making losses.
Vendar v teh dveh letih podjetje ni uspelo skleniti nobenih pogodb za gradnjo ladij – bodisi civilnih bodisi vojaških – ki bi bile potrebne, da bi se zagotovil dovolj velik obseg dejavnosti v naslednjih letih in bi se podjetje izognilo ustvarjanju izgub.
[…] there is no issue of non-payment of the buy-out price’.
[…] neplačilo odkupne cene ni več problem“.
In addition, it can not be contested that the sale to HDW/Ferrostaal constitutes a real privatisation.
Poleg tega ni mogoče zanikati, da prodaja konzorciju HDW/Ferrostaal pomeni resnično privatizacijo.
The procedure of declaration, which preceded the conclusion of, initially, the promissory contract of 11.10.2001, and, subsequently, of the executing contract (31.5.2002), contained all the essential conditions of the transfer, and also the delivery of the analytical memorandum of the financial advisor (dated April 2001) and the submission of offers.
Deklaratorni postopek, ki je potekal pred sklenitvijo, sprva, zavezujoče pogodbe z dne 11.10.2001, in kasneje z izvrševanjem pogodbe (31.5.2002), je vseboval vse nujne pogoje prenosa in tudi sestavo analitičnega memoranduma finančnega svetovalca (april 2001) ter predložitev ponudb.
During all these stages, in which all the interested parties (including the complainant) had access to the information, the condition of the guarantee was stipulated.
V vseh teh fazah, v katerih so zainteresirane stranke (vključno s pritožnikom) imele dostop do informacij, je bil pogoj poroštva jasno določen.
by the first decision (hereafter ‘decision C 10/94’), the Commission closed the procedure C 10/94 launched in 1994 by approving a debt write-off amounting to GRD 54,5 billion (EUR 160 million) under Regulation (EC) No 1013/97, by decision N 401/97, the Commission, further to a notification of the Greek authorities of 20 June 1997, approved a grant of GRD 7,8 billion (EUR 22,9 million) for an investment programme of GRD 15,6 billion (EUR 45,9 million) aimed at the restructuring of the shipyard.
s prvo odločbo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločba C 10/94) je Komisija z odobritvijo odpisa dolga, ki je znašal 54,5 milijarde GRD (160 milijonov EUR) na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1013/97 zaključila postopek C 10/94, ki ga je sprožila leta 1994;z odločbo N 401/97 je Komisija po uradnem obvestilu grških organov z dne 20. junija 1997 odobrila subvencijo v višini 7,8 milijarde GRD (22,9 milijona EUR) za naložbeni načrt v vrednosti 15,6 milijarde GRD (45,9 milijona EUR) za prestrukturiranje ladjedelnice.
As regards the amount and the intensity of the aid, the Commission observes that the aid amounted to EUR 25,6 million for a reduction of the workforce by 1000 persons. In 2002, just six years later, the Commission found compatible an amount four time larger for a workforce reduction of a smaller size.
Kar zadeva znesek in intenzivnost pomoči, Komisija ugotavlja, da je pomoč za zmanjšanje delovne sile za 1000 delavcev znašala 25,6 milijona EUR. Leta 2002, torej samo šest let pozneje, je Komisija ugotovila, da je štirikrat večji znesek, namenjen manjšemu zmanjšanju delovne sile, združljiv.
If HSY as a whole was supported, the Commission considers that, since 75 % of the activities of the yard is related to military production, 75 % of the State support benefited the military activities and fall under Article 296 of the Treaty. The remaining 25 % of the State support can be assessed under State aid rules.
če je bila podpora namenjena podjetju HSY v celoti, potem je bilo po mnenju Komisije glede na to, da je 75 % dejavnosti ladjedelnice povezanih z vojaško proizvodnjo, 75 % državne podpore zagotovljene vojaškim dejavnostim in zato spada na področje uporabe člena 296 Pogodbe; preostalih 25 % državne podpore je mogoče oceniti na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči.
First, since it was subject to a limitation of the number of man-hours, HSY had to put in place a mechanism to calculate precisely these hours. By having not put in place a mechanism to calculate precisely the number of man-hours carried out by subcontractors, and therefore by preventing a precise calculation of the number of man-hours carried out by the yard, HSY has misused decision N 513/01.
Prvič, ker je za podjetje HSY veljala omejitev pri številu delovnih ur, bi podjetje HSY moralo vzpostaviti mehanizem za natančen izračun teh ur. Ker podjetje HSY ni vzpostavilo mehanizma za natančen izračun delovnih ur, ki so jih opravili podizvajalci, in ker je s tem preprečilo natančen izračun števila delovnih ur, ki so bile opravljene v ladjedelnici, je zlorabilo odločbo N 513/01.
However, taking into consideration the significant operational problems and deteriorating financial position of the Company, we believe that the decision taken by the Sellers (and their Advisors) to set such terms was both rational and reasonable’ (page 9–2). The Commission interprets this quotation as confirming that this allocation of the purchase price was a rational and reasonable request of the State if one considers that its objective was to ensure the continuation of the activities of HSY over the long term (goal as public authority), not if one considers that its objective was to maximise the revenues from the sale (goal as market economy investor).
Vendar pa ob upoštevanju velikih problemov pri poslovanju in čedalje slabšega finančnega položaja podjetja menimo, da je bila odločitev za tak pogoj, ki so jo sprejeli prodajalci (in njihovi svetovalci) bila smotrna kakor tudi upravičena.“ (stran 9-2) Komisija ta citat razume kot potrditev, da je ta razporeditev nakupne cene bila smotrna in upravičena zahteva države, če se upošteva dejstvo, da je želela zagotoviti dolgoročno nadaljevanje dejavnosti podjetja HSY (cilj javnega organa), vendar ne, če se upošteva, da je cilj tega bil čim bolj povečati prihodke iz prodaje (cilj vlagatelja iz tržnega gospodarstva).
concerning the measures C 58/02 (ex N 118/02) which France has implemented in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM)
o ukrepih C 58/02 (ex N 118/02), ki jih je Francija izvedla v korist Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM)
(notified under document C(2008) 3182)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 3182)
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, in particular the first paragraph of Article 88(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti in zlasti prvega pododstavka člena 88(2) Pogodbe,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru in zlasti člena 62(1)(a) Sporazuma,
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those articles, and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenimi členi, in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
By letter of 19 August 2002, the Commission notified the French authorities of the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC laid down in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 19. avgusta 2002 francoske organe obvestila o odločitvi, da bo na podlagi člena 88(2) ES sprožila formalni postopek preiskave, določen v členu 6 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES.
On 8 October 2002, the French authorities communicated to the Commission their comments on the decision of 19 August 2002.
Francoski organi so 8. oktobra 2002 Komisiji sporočili svoje pripombe k odločbi z dne 19. avgusta 2002.
At the request of the French authorities, meetings were organised with the Commission on 24 October 2002, 3 December 2002 and 25 February 2003.
Na zahtevo francoskih organov so bili 24. oktobra 2002, 3. decembra 2002 in 25. februarja 2003 organizirani delovni sestanki s službami Komisije.
The French authorities submitted their comments on the observations of CFF and Stef-TFE on 13 February 2003 and 27 May 2003.
Francoski organi so svoja stališča o pripombah podjetja CFF in skupine Stef-TFE Komisiji poslali 13. februarja 2003 in 27. maja 2003.
On 16 January 2003, the Commission sent a request for additional information to which the French authorities replied on 21 February 2003.
Službe Komisije so 16. januarja 2003 poslale zahtevo za dodatne informacije, francoski organi pa so nanjo odgovorili 21. februarja 2003.
By letter of 10 February 2003, the French authorities expanded their arguments seeking to demonstrate that the planned aid complied in every respect with the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (the 1999 Guidelines).
Francoski organi so z dopisom z dne 10. februarja 2003 poslali trditve, s katerimi so želeli dokazati, da je načrt pomoči popolnoma v skladu s Smernicami Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Smernice iz leta 1999).
At the Commission’s request, on 25 February 2003, the French authorities forwarded a copy of the shareholders agreement binding SNCM and the Stef-TFE group.
Francoski organi so 25. februarja 2003 na zahtevo Komisije poslali kopijo delničarskega sporazuma, ki povezuje družbo SNCM in skupino Stef-TFE.
By decision 2004/166/EC of 9 July 2003 (the 2003 decision), the Commission approved, under certain conditions, the grant of restructuring aid to SNCM payable in two parts, one of EUR 66 million and the other of a maximum amount of EUR 10 million to be determined on the basis of net products arising from disposals of assets made after the adoption of the 2003 decision.
Komisija je z Odločbo 2004/166/ES z dne 9. julija 2003 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Odločba iz leta 2003) pod določenimi pogoji odobrila dodelitev pomoči za prestrukturiranje za družbo SNCM, plačljive v dveh obrokih, prvem v višini 66 milijonov EUR in drugem v višini največ 10 milijonov EUR, ki se bo določil glede na neto prihodke od prodaje sredstev, opravljene po sprejetju Odločbe iz leta 2003.
On 13 October 2003, CFF brought an action for annulment of the 2003 decision before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (the CFI) (Case T-349/03).
Podjetje CFF je 13. oktobra 2003 vložilo ničnostno tožbo na Sodišče prve stopnje ES (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče prve stopnje) (zadeva T-349/03).
On 8 September 2004, the Commission decided to regard the amendments requested by France on 23 June 2004, namely the swap of the vessel Aliso with the vessel Asco in the list of vessels which SNCM was authorised to use following the 2003 decision and the sale of the Aliso instead of the Asco, were not such as to call into question the compatibility with the common market of the restructuring aid authorised by the 2003 decision.
Komisija se je 8. septembra 2004 odločila, da spremembe, ki jih je Francija zahtevala 23. junija 2004, tj. zamenjava ladje Aliso z ladjo Asco na seznamu ladij, ki jih je SNCM lahko uporabljala na podlagi Odločbe iz leta 2003, in prodaja ladje Aliso namesto ladje Asco, niso take, da bi izpodbijale združljivost pomoči za prestrukturiranje, odobrene z Odločbo iz leta 2003, s skupnim trgom.
By decision of 16 March 2005 (the 2005 decision), the Commission approved the payment of the second part of the restructuring aid, for EUR 3,3 million, which brought the total amount of restructuring aid to EUR 69292400.
Komisija je z odločbo z dne 16. marca 2005 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Odločba iz leta 2005) odobrila izplačilo drugega obroka pomoči za prestrukturiranje v višini 3,3 milijona EUR, s čimer se je skupni znesek odobrene pomoči za prestrukturiranje povišal na 69292400 EUR.
On 15 June 2005, in Case T-349/03, the CFI annulled the 2003 decision on account of an incorrect assessment of the minimal nature of the aid.
Sodišče prve stopnje je 15. junija 2005 v zadevi T-349/03 razveljavilo Odločbo iz leta 2003 zaradi napačne presoje omejenosti pomoči na najnižjo vsoto.
That judgment resulted in returning the Commission back to the formal investigation procedure initiated by decision of 19 August 2002 and rendering inoperative the decisions of 8 September 2004 and 16 March 2005, which were based on the annulled 2003 decision.
Posledica te sodbe je bila, da se je Komisija vrnila na stopnjo formalnega postopka preiskave, sproženega z odločbo z dne 19. avgusta 2002, in da sta odločbi z dne 8. septembra 2004 in 16. marca 2005, ki sta temeljili na razveljavljeni Odločbi iz leta 2003, postali zastareli.