natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is therefore logic that when decision N 513/01 indicates that ‘subcontracted labour’ is included in the limitation, both the subcontractors of HSY and the subcontractors of the shipowner which are working within the yard are covered.
Zato je logično, da v primeru navedbe v odločbi N 513/01, da je „delo podizvajalcev“ vključeno v omejitev, to velja tako za podizvajalce podjetja HSY in podizvajalce lastnikov ladij, ki delajo v ladjedelnici.
Third, following detailed questions raised by the Commission, Greece acknowledged that HSY manages the payment to some of these ‘third party contractors’: The latter make an agreement with the shipowner regarding the tasks to be performed and the price, but then the shipowner pays HSY, which in turn transfers the money to the contractors.
Tretjič, na podlagi natančnih vprašanj, ki jih je sprožila Komisija, je Grčija priznala, da podjetje HSY ureja plačilo za nekatere izmed teh „izvajalcev tretjih strank“: slednji so se z lastniki ladij dogovorili o nalogah, ki jih je treba opraviti, ter o ceni, vendar nato lastniki ladij plačajo podjetju HSY, ki potem denar nakaže izvajalcem.
In such cases, there is a contractual relationship between HSY and the contractors, and the amounts paid by the shipowner for the work of the contractor appears in HSY income statement as a revenue (i.e. they are included in the sales/turnover of HSY).
V takšnih primerih gre za pogodbeno razmerje med podjetjem HSY in izvajalci, zneski, ki so izplačani lastnikom ladij za delo izvajalca, pa se v izkazu poslovnega izida podjetja HSY pojavljajo kot prihodek (tj. vključeni so v prodajo/promet podjetja HSY).
It is therefore beyond doubts that at least these contracts with ‘contractors of third parties’ fall within the limitation.
Zato je nesporno, da omejitev velja vsaj za te pogodbe z „izvajalci tretjih strank“.
Greece has neither calculated nor communicated to the Commission the number of man-hours performed by these ‘contractors of third parties’.
Grčija ni ne izračunala ne sporočila Komisiji števila delovnih ur, ki so jih opravili ti „izvajalci tretjih strank“.
This constitutes an additional breach of decision N 513/01.
To pomeni dodatno kršitev odločbe N 513/01.
It is therefore likely that the number of man-hours performed by third party contractors paid by HSY has significantly increased.
Zato je verjetno, da se je število delovnih ur, ki so jih opravili izvajalci tretjih strank, ki jih je plačalo podjetje HSY, močno povečalo.
Since according to the figures provided by Greece, HSY was just below the limit of 420000 hours in 2003, the Commission concludes that, if the contractors of third parties which are paid by HSY are included in the total number of man hours performed by HSY, it is reasonable to suppose that this limit has been breached in the following years.
Ker podjetje HSY glede na podatke, ki jih je predložila Grčija, leta 2003 ni preseglo omejitve 420000 ur, Komisija ugotavlja, da je v primeru, če so izvajalci tretjih strank, ki jih plačuje podjetje HSY, vključeni v skupno število delovnih ur, ki jih je opravilo podjetje HSY, upravičena domneva, da je bila ta omejitev v naslednjih letih kršena.
Third, even if it were accepted that ‘contractors of third parties’ do not fall under the limitation of hours laid down in decision N 513/01 (which is not) and that the man-hours performed by the ‘subcontractors retained by HSY’ can be approximated by dividing the amounts paid to them by the hourly cost of labour, the limitation is not respected.
Tretjič, tudi če bi bilo sprejemljivo (kar pa ni), da za „izvajalce tretjih strank“ omejitev ur, ki je določena v odločbi N 513/01, ne velja in da je število delovnih ur, ki so jih opravili „podizvajalci podjetja HSY“, mogoče oceniti tako, da se zneske, ki so jim bili izplačani, deli z urno delovno postavko, omejitev ne bi bila upoštevana.
Indeed, the ‘annual cost rate of a man-hour derived from HSY’s official books’, which is used by Greece, is an inappropriate approximation of the hourly cost of a worker working for a subcontractor.
„Letni strošek delovnih ur, izpeljan iz uradnih knjig podjetja HSY“, ki ga uporablja Grčija, je dejansko neustrezna ocena urne postavke delavca, ki opravlja delo kot podizvajalec.
Indeed, the high volatility of the series (for instance, it goes from EUR 27 to EUR […] in the next year) proves that the annual cost rate of a man-hour derived from HSY’s official books does not indicate how much a worker costs per hour.
Velikost razpona (na primer od 27 EUR do […] EUR v naslednjem letu) dejansko dokazuje, da iz letnega stroška delovnih ur, izpeljanega iz uradnih knjig podjetja HSY, ni razvidno, kolikšen je strošek delavca na uro.
Indeed, the hourly gross wage in an industry never evolve in such a manner: it increases steadily over time, but never doubles from one year to the other.
Bruto urna postavka se v industriji dejansko ne razvija na tak način: sčasoma se postopno povečuje, nikoli pa se ne podvoji iz enega leta v naslednje.
In addition, yards use subcontractors precisely because it is cheaper than hiring more labour themselves.
Poleg tega ladjedelnice uporabljajo podizvajalce prav zato, ker je to ceneje, kot če bi same zaposlile še več delavcev.
Consequently, the use of the annual cost rate of a man-hour derived from HSY’s official books overestimates the cost per man-hour of the workers employed by the subcontractors.
Zaradi tega se z uporabo letnega stroška delovnih ur, izpeljanega iz uradnih knjig podjetja HSY precenjuje strošek delovne ure delavca, ki je zaposlen pri podizvajalcu.
This fact has been confirmed by the consultant retained by the Commission.
To dejstvo je potrdil svetovalec Komisije.
When more reasonable estimates of the cost per hour are taken into account, this significantly increases the number of man-hours performed by subcontractors, such that the limitation of 420000 hours is breached in 2003 and 2005.
Kadar se upoštevajo primernejše ocene ocen urne postavke, se v veliki meri poveča število delovnih ur, ki jih opravijo podizvajalci, kar pomeni, da je bila omejitev 420000 ur kršena leta 2003 in leta 2005.
It can not be accepted that an annual ceiling is applied on the activity of nine months only.
Možnosti, da bi se letna najvišja meja uporabljala za dejavnosti, ki so bile opravljene v devetih mesecih, ni mogoče sprejeti.
The Commission asked Greece to provide details over the activity during the last three months of 2003 but Greece has not provided the requested data.
Komisija je Grčijo prosila, naj posreduje podrobnosti o dejavnostih v zadnjih treh mesecih leta 2003, vendar Grčija zahtevanih podatkov ni posredovala.
If the activity of the last three months of the calendar year 2003 is approximated as a quarter of the activity of the business year 2004, it is clear that there is a breach of the limitation of man-hours.
Če se dejavnosti zadnjih treh mesecev koledarskega leta 2003 ocenijo na četrtino dejavnosti poslovnega leta 2004, je jasno, da je bila omejitev delovnih ur kršena.
Since there are several independent grounds from which the misuse can be concluded, the Commission concludes that the aid must be recovered.
Ker torej obstaja več samostojnih dokazov, na podlagi katerih je mogoče sklepati, da je prišlo do zlorabe, Komisija ugotavlja, da je treba pomoč povrniti.
Capital injection of GRD 8,72 billion (EUR 25,6 million) by the Greek State or ETVA in 1996–1997 (measure E9)
Dokapitalizacija v višini 8,72 milijarde GRD (25,6 milijona EUR) s strani grške države ali banke ETVA v obdobju 1996-1997 (ukrep E9)
In 1996–1997, ETVA made a GRD 8,72 billion (EUR 25,6 million) capital injection in HSY.
V obdobju 1996–1997 je banka ETVA odobrila 8,72 milijarde GRD (25,6 milijona EUR) sredstev za dokapitalizacijo podjetja HSY.
The extension decision raises doubts that this capital injection corresponds to the behaviour of a market economy investor.
V odločbi o podaljšanju postopka je izražen dvom glede tega, ali bi v primeru te dokapitalizacije vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva ravnal enako.
First, the Commission notes that Greece made contradicting submissions, indicating first that this amount had been granted by the State to compensate for the cost of a workforce reduction of 1000 employees, and afterwards contradicted this explanation by claiming that this capital injection had been made by ETVA.
Prvič, Komisija ugotavlja, da je Grčija predložila nasprotujoče si dopise, v katerih je najprej navedla, da je ta znesek država odobrila zato, da bi pokrila stroške zmanjšanja delovne sile za 1000 zaposlenih, pozneje pa je nasprotno temu pojasnilu trdila, da je dokapitalizacijo opravila banka ETVA.
Second, the Commission observes that the employees, who owned 49 % of the shares, did not participate in this capital increase.
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da zaposleni, ki so bili lastniki 49 % delnic, pri tej dokapitalizaciji niso sodelovali.
In addition, it is surprising that this capital injection by ETVA did not increase its shareholding in HSY.
Poleg tega je presenetljivo, da se z dokapitalizacijo s strani banke ETVA ni povečal njen delež v podjetju HSY.
The Commission also indicated that, if found to constitute aid, it is doubtful whether this measure could constitute compatible aid.
Komisija je navedla tudi, da dvomi, da ta ukrep, tudi če bi se izkazalo, da pomeni pomoč, lahko pomeni združljivo pomoč.
Elefsis indicates that in 1996 49 % of the shares of HSY were owned by the employees.
Podjetje Elefsis navaja, da je bilo leta 1996 49 % delnic podjetja HSY v lasti zaposlenih.
If ETVA made a capital injection without a pro rata participation of the employees, its shareholding should have increased to above 51 %, what was prohibited by law and what did not take place.
Če bi banka ETVA opravila dokapitalizacijo brez sorazmerne udeležbe zaposlenih, bi njen delež moral preseči 51 %, kar pa je bilo z zakonom prepovedano in se tudi ni zgodilo.
This entails that ETVA did not receive any new shares in exchange for this capital injection.
To pomeni, da banka ETVA ni prejela novih delnic za dokapitalizacijo.
Such a scenario would have been unacceptable for a private investor.
Takšen scenarij bi bil za zasebnega vlagatelja nesprejemljiv.
Greece confirms that ETVA made a GRD 8,72 billion (EUR 25,6 million) capital injection in 1996–1997 and received an equivalent amount from the State.
Grčija potrjuje, da je banka ETVA v obdobju 1996–1997 odobrila 8,72 milijarde GRD (25,6 milijona EUR) za dokapitalizacijo in prejela enak znesek od države.
Greece claims that the State acted as market economy investor since the reduction of the workforce financed by the capital injection significantly improved the efficiency of the yard and its future profitability.
Grčija trdi, da je država ravnala kot vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva, saj je zmanjšanje delovne sile, ki je bilo financirano z dokapitalizacijo, v veliki meri izboljšalo učinkovitost ladjedelnice in njeno prihodnjo donosnost.
HSY explains that the amounts injected did not lead to the issuance of new shares and did not formally constitute a capital injection.
Podjetje HSY pojasnjuje, da zaradi sredstev dokapitalizacije ni prišlo do izdaje novih delnic in da formalno ni šlo za dokapitalizacijo.
That explains why the State shareholding did not increase above 51 %.
To pojasnjuje, zakaj državni delež ni presegel 51 %.
Should the Commission nevertheless consider that this measure constitutes aid, Greece considers that it is compatible closure aid according to Article 7 of Directive 90/684/EEC.
Če bi Komisija kljub vsemu sklenila, da ta ukrep pomeni pomoč, je ta pomoč po mnenju Grčije skladna s členom 7 Direktive 90/684/EGS.
This measure financed the entire activity of the yard and was not earmarked to support the civil activities only.
S tem ukrepom se je financirala celotna dejavnost ladjedelnice in ni bil namenjen izključno za podporo civilnih dejavnosti.
Since, as concluded in section 3.3 of the present decision, 75 % of the activities of yard are military and Greece invokes Article 296 of the Treaty, only 25 % of the measure, which is GRD 2,18 billion (EUR 6,4 million), may be assessed under State aid rules.
Ker je, kot je navedeno v oddelku 3.3 te odločbe, 75 % dejavnosti ladjedelnice vojaških in ker se Grčija sklicuje na člen 296 Pogodbe, se lahko na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči oceni samo 25 % ukrepa, kar znaša 2,18 milijarde GRD (6,4 milijona EUR).
The Commission observes that the State, through ETVA, gave money to HSY without receiving new shares, whereas it held only 51 % of HSY.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je država prek banke ETVA podjetju HSY dala denar, ne da bi prejela nove delnice, zato je ohranila samo 51-odstotni delež podjetja HSY.
A market economy investor would not make such a present to the other shareholders.
Vlagatelj iz tržnega gospodarstva drugim delničarjem ne bi dal takšnega darila.
It would have asked new shares or a pro rata capital injection by the other shareholders.
Zahteval bi namreč nove delnice ali sorazmerno dokapitalizacijo s strani drugih delničarjev.
Consequently, a private investor in similar circumstances would not have carried out this capital injection.
Zasebni vlagatelj v podobnih okoliščinah torej ne bi opravil takšne dokapitalizacije.
Since the State provided resources to HSY which it would not have received from the market, this measure gave a selective advantage to HSY.
Ker je država podjetju HSY zagotovila sredstva, ki jih od trga ne bi dobilo, je ta ukrep podjetju HSY omogočil selektivno prednost.
The measure therefore constitutes aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Ukrep torej pomeni pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Decision N 401/97 authorises investment aid, which, according to Directive 90/684/EEC, can be found compatible only if it is ‘linked to a restructuring plan which results in a reduction in the overall ship repair capacity’ and ‘which does not involve any increase in the shipbuilding capacity’.
Z odločbo N 401/97 je odobrena naložbena pomoč, ki je v skladu z Direktivo 90/684/EGS lahko združljiva samo, če se „nanaša na načrt prestrukturiranja, na podlagi katerega se bo zmanjšala skupna zmogljivost pri popravilu ladij“, in „če ne vključuje nikakršnega povečanja zmogljivosti pri gradnji ladij“.
Since the Commission itself acknowledged in decision N 401/97 that the workforce reduction in combination with the other measures proposed by Greece would lead to a reduction of the ship building and ship repair capacities, the Commission considers that there was a capacity reduction, as requested by Article 7 of Directive 90/684/EEC.
Ker je Komisija v odločbi N 401/97 sama priznala, da bi zmanjšanje delovne sile v povezavi z drugimi ukrepi, ki jih je predlagala Grčija, povzročilo zmanjšanje zmogljivosti pri gradnji in popravilu ladij, Komisija meni, da je prišlo do zmanjšanja zmogljivosti, kot to zahteva člen 7 Direktive 90/684/EGS.
The Commission considers therefore that the amount and the intensity of the aid are justified.
Komisija zato meni, da sta znesek in intenzivnost pomoči upravičena.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that the conditions laid down in Article 7 of Directive 90/684/EEC were met and therefore finds that the aid is compatible with the common market.
Komisija sklepa, da so bili pogoji iz člena 7 Direktive 90/684/EGS izpolnjeni in da je zato pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Capital increase in 1998–2000 to finance the investment plan (measure E10)
Dokapitalizacija v obdobju 1998-2000 za financiranje naložbenega načrta (ukrep E10)
As planned in decision N 401/97, three capital increases took place in 1998, 1999 and 2000, for a total amount of GRD 2,98 billion (EUR 8,7 million), in order to finance a part of HSY’s investment plan.
Kot je bilo načrtovano v odločbi N 401/1997, so se v letih 1998, 1999 in 2000 opravile tri dokapitalizacije v skupnem znesku 2,98 milijarde GRD (8,7 milijona EUR) za namen financiranja dela naložbenega načrta podjetja HSY.
They were financed by ETVA and HSY’s employees, in proportion to their shareholding in HSY.
Sredstva zanje so prispevali banka ETVA in zaposleni v podjetju HSY sorazmerno glede na njihov delež v podjetju HSY.
(million GRD (million EUR))
(V milijonih GRD (v milijonih EUR))
Contribution of ETVA (51 %)
Prispevek banke ETVA (51 %)
Contribution of the employees (49 %)
Prispevek zaposlenih (49 %)
20 May 1998
maj 1998
24 June 1999
junij 1999
22 May 2000
maj 2000
In 2001, the Greek State paid to the employees an amount equal to their contribution to the three capital increases (see recital 33 of the present decision, which describes Law 2941/2001).
Leta 2001 je grška država zaposlenim izplačala znesek, enak njihovemu prispevku pri treh dokapitalizacijah (glej uvodno izjavo 33 te odločbe, ki opisuje Zakon 2941/2001).
In the extension decision, the Commission raised doubts that the participation of ETVA in the capital increases constitutes incompatible aid.
Komisija je v odločbi o podaljšanju postopka izrazila sum, da udeležba banke ETVA v dokapitalizacijah pomeni nezdružljivo pomoč.
Such a commitment would entail that the employees did not support any risk.
Takšno ravnanje bi pomenilo, da zaposleni niso prevzeli nikakršnega tveganja.
Elefsis supports the doubts expressed in the opening decision, recalls the Alitalia case-law regarding employees’ participation in the capital increase of their own firm, and conclude that the participation of ETVA to the capital increases constituted incompatible aid.
Podjetje Elefsis podpira dvome, izražene v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka, opozarja na sodno prakso podjetja Alitalia v primeru udeležbe zaposlenih pri dokapitalizaciji podjetja in ugotavlja, da je udeležba banke ETVA v dokapitalizaciji pomenila nezdružljivo pomoč.
Finally, Greece and HSY contest both the hypothesis that the employees did not pay the purchase price to ETVA and the existence of a secret agreement promising the employees that the State would reimburse them any amount paid to finance the investment plan.
Grčija in podjetje HSY skupaj zanikata hipotezo, da zaposleni banki ETVA niso plačali nakupne cene in da obstaja skrivni dogovor, ki bi zaposlenim obljubljal, da jim bo država povrnila znesek, ki so ga plačali za namen financiranja naložbenega načrta.
HSY claims that if the Commission should consider the measure as aid, it would constitute compatible restructuring aid.
Podjetje HSY trdi, da bi ta ukrep, če bi ga Komisija štela za pomoč, pomenil združljivo pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
As regards the potential application of Article 296 of the Treaty, the Commission observes that the capital increases aimed at financing the investment plan.
Kar zadeva možnost uporabe člena 296 pogodbe, Komisija ugotavlja, da je bil cilj dokapitalizacij financiranje naložbenega načrta.
As already concluded in the framework of the assessment of measures P1, P2, P3 and P4, this investment plan and the State support financing it can be assessed under State aid rules.
Kot je bilo ugotovljeno v okviru ocene ukrepov P1, P2, P3 in P4, je ta naložbeni načrt in državno pomoč, namenjeno njegovemu financiranju, mogoče oceniti na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči.
On the basis of the partial privatisation agreement of September 1995, ETVA was contractually obliged to participate at a level of 51 % in the future capital increase of HSY, the remaining 49 % being contributed by the employees.
Na podlagi sporazuma o delni privatizaciji iz septembra 1995 je bila banka ETVA pogodbeno zavezana k 51-odstotni udeležbi v prihodnji dokapitalizaciji podjetja HSY, medtem ko bi preostalih 49 % prispevali zaposleni.
The capital increase was necessary to partially finance the investment plan.
Dokapitalizacija je bila potrebna za delno financiranje naložbenega načrta.
In decision N 401/97 regarding the investment aid, the Commission implicitly considered that this participation of ETVA in the future capital increase of HSY will not constitute State aid.
V odločbi N 401/97 v zvezi z naložbeno pomočjo Komisija implicitno ugotavlja, da ta udeležba banke ETVA v prihodnji dokapitalizaciji podjetja HSY ne bo pomenila državne pomoči.
This was coherent with decision C 10/94 adopted the same day, in which the Commission considered that the sale of 49 % of HSY’s shares to the employees was a valid partial privatisation and a return to viability could be expected.
To je bilo skladno z odločbo C 10/94, ki je bila sprejeta istega dne in v kateri Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila prodaja 49 % delnic podjetja HSY zaposlenim veljavna delna privatizacija, zaradi česar naj bi bilo mogoče pričakovati obnovitev sposobnosti preživetja.
As regards ETVA’s participation in the capital increases of 20 May 1998, the Commission considers that there are no sufficient grounds to deviate from the implicit non-aid assessment made in the decision N 401/97.
Kar zadeva udeležbo banke ETVA v dokapitalizaciji na dan 20. maja 1998, Komisija ugotavlja, da ni dovolj razlogov, da bi se oddaljili od implicitne ocene, opredeljene v odločbi N 401/97, po kateri naj v tem primeru ne bi šlo za pomoč.
In particular, the circumstances in May 1998 were not sufficiently different from the ones forecasted at the time of the adoption of the decision.
Zlasti se okoliščine maja 1998 niso dovolj razlikovale od okoliščin, ki so bile napovedane v času sprejema odločbe.
In addition, the Commission found no proof of a (secret) commitment of the State to reimburse the employees any amount they would pay in the framework of the capital increases.
Poleg tega Komisija ni našla nikakršnega dokaza o (skrivni) obljubi države, da bo zaposlenim izplačala znesek, ki bi ga plačali v okviru dokapitalizacije.
Conversely, at the time of the capital increase of 24 June 1999 and 22 May 2000, fundamental elements that formed the basis of the no aid assessment of 15 July 1997 were not present anymore:
Nasprotno, v času dokapitalizacije 24. junija 1999 in 22. maja 2000 temeljni elementi, ki so tvorili podlago za oceno z dne 15. julija 1997, po kateri naj ne bi šlo za nikakršno pomoč, niso bili več prisotni:
First, as explained earlier, both decisions adopted on 15 July 1997 were based on the fact that Greece would implemented the partial privatisation agreement of September 1995, and in particular that the employees would pay the purchase price to ETVA, as laid down in the contract, thereby assuming a financial risk which would incentivise them to support the necessary measures for restoring competitiveness.
prvič, kot je bilo že pojasnjeno, sta obe odločbi, sprejeti 15. julija 1997, temeljili na dejstvu, da bo Grčija izvršila sporazum o delni privatizaciji iz septembra 1995, in zlasti, da bodo zaposleni banki ETVA za to plačali nakupno ceno, kot je določeno v pogodbi, s čimer bi prevzeli finančno tveganje, ki bi jih spodbudilo, da podprejo potrebne ukrepe za obnovitev konkurenčnosti.
Whereas the employees had to pay the first instalment of the purchase price to ETVA before 31 December 1998, no payment occurred.
Glede na to, da so morali zaposleni prvi obrok nakupne cene banki ETVA plačati pred 31. decembrom 1998, do plačila ni prišlo.
The State did not seek to obtain the payment.
Država plačila ni zahtevala.
As indicated in the assessment of measure E7, this meant that the employees were not put in the situation of investors having to pay in total GRD 8,17 billion (EUR 24 million) over the next 12 years, contrary to what the Commission expected in July 1997 when the two decisions were adopted.
Kot je navedeno v oceni ukrepa E7, je to pomenilo, da zaposleni niso bili v položaju vlagateljev, ki bi morali v naslednjih dvanajstih letih plačati skupaj 8,17 milijarde GRD (24 milijonov EUR), kar je v nasprotju s pričakovanji Komisije v juliju 1997, ko sta bili sprejeti odločbi.
In conclusion, contrary to what could legitimately be expected at the time of the decision N 401/97 on the basis of the existing contracts, no real partial privatisation had taken place and the contract was not binding ETVA anymore.
V nasprotju s tem, kar bi bilo mogoče v času sprejetja odločbe N 401/1997 upravičeno pričakovati na podlagi obstoječih pogodb, torej ni prišlo do resnične delne privatizacije, pogodba pa za banko ETVA ni bila več zavezujoča.