natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
First, Greece claims that the fact that ETVA, because there was a risk that the investment aid would not be paid, decided not to disburse the loan to HSY illustrates that ETVA acted as a normal private lender and did not offer to HSY a favourable treatment.
Prvič, Grčija trdi, da dejstvo, da se je banka ETVA zaradi tveganja, da naložbena pomoč ne bo izplačana, odločila, da podjetju HSY posojila ne izplača, kaže, da je ravnala kot vsak običajen zasebni posojilodajalec in podjetju HSY ni nudila ugodnejše obravnave.
The Commission notes that Greece’s claim fails to take into account the fact that when ETVA refused to pay out the loan it was already under the control of Piraeus Bank and not under State control anymore.
Komisija ugotavlja, da Grčija v svoji trditvi ne upošteva dejstva, da je banka ETVA v času, ko je zavrnila zahtevo za izplačilo posojila, bila že pod nadzorom banke Piraeus Bank in ne več pod nadzorom države.
Therefore, the refusal to pay out the loan can not be taken as an illustration of the way ETVA behaved when it was under State control.
Zato zavrnitve izplačila posojila ne moremo razumeti kot ravnanje, ki je bilo za banko ETVA značilno, ko je bila še pod nadzorom države.
Conversely, this confirms that a private bank would have avoided to lend to HSY.
To pa tudi potrjuje, da bi se zasebna banka odobritvi posojila podjetju HSY izognila.
Second, the Commission notes that measure P4 has the same type of collateral as measure P3.
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da ima ukrep P4 enako vrsto zavarovanja kot ukrep P3.
Measure P4 was signed when Piraeus Bank had already taken control of ETVA.
Ukrep P4 je bil podpisan, ko je banka Piraeus Bank že prevzela nadzor nad banko ETVA.
However, this does not show that measure P3 was in fact acceptable to a private bank.
Vendar pa iz tega ni razvidno, da je bil ukrep P3 za zasebno banko dejansko spremenljiv.
Indeed, the two situations are not comparable for several reasons.
Ta dva položaja nista primerljiva iz več razlogov.
The Commission notes for instance that when the loan contract was signed on 31 May 2002, it was already known, and certainly to ETVA who was the shareholder of HSY until that date, that the payment of the investment aid had been ‘freezed’ for administrative reasons.
Komisija na primer ugotavlja, da se je v času podpisa pogodbe o posojilu dne 31. maja 2002 že vedelo, zagotovo pa je to vedela banka ETVA, ki je bila do tega datuma delničarka podjetja HSY, da je bilo plačilo naložbene pomoči „zamrznjeno“ iz upravnih razlogov.
Therefore, when ETVA signed the contract on 31 May 2002, it was already in a position to refuse to pay out the loan.
Zato bi banka ETVA že v času podpisa pogodbe na dan 31. maja 2002 lahko odklonila izplačilo posojila.
It knew that it had the possibility to refuse to pay out the loan.
Vedela je namreč, da to lahko stori.
The acquisition increased the chances of survival of the firm.
Prevzem je povečal možnosti za preživetje podjetja.
Such an acquisition could not be foreseen in July 1999.
Takšnega prevzema julija 1999 ni bilo mogoče predvideti.
Misuse of the GRD 54 billion (EUR 160 million) aid authorised in 1997 (measure E7)
Zloraba 54 milijard GRD (160 milijonov EUR) pomoči, ki je bila odobrena leta 1997 (ukrep E7)
On 15 July 1997, besides decision N 401/97 endorsing the investment aid, the Commission adopted decision C 10/94.
Komisija je 15. julija 1997 poleg odločbe N 401/97 o odobritvi naložbene pomoči sprejela tudi odločbo C 10/94.
That decision closed the procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) by approving under Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 a debt write-off amounting to GRD 54 billion (EUR 160 million), which corresponded to the debts related to civil work of the yard.
S slednjo se je zaključil postopek na podlagi člena 88(2) z odpisom dolga v višini 54 milijard GRD (160 milijonov EUR), ki je bil odobren na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1013/97 in ki se je ujemal z dolgovi v zvezi s civilnimi dejavnostmi ladjedelnice.
The write-off of the debts related to military work of the yard, which took place at the same time, has not been assessed under State aid rules.
Odpis dolgov, povezanih z vojaškimi dejavnostmi ladjedelnice, do katerega je prišlo v istem času, ni bil ocenjen na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči.
In the extension decision, the Commission raises doubts that two conditions laid down in decision C 10/94 have been breached.
Komisija v odločitvi o podaljšanju izraža sum, da sta bila pogoja iz odločbe C 10/94 kršena.
First, the authorisation of the debt write-off was conditional on the implementation of the restructuring plan, of which the investment plan was one of the two pillars.
Prvič, odobritev odpisa dolga je bila odvisna od izvajanja načrta za prestrukturiranje, v katerem je naložbeni načrt predstavljal enega izmed dveh stebrov.
As the Commission has explained in the opening decision (see description of measure P1), the Commission doubts that this investment plan has been implemented correctly.
Kot je pojasnila v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka (glej opis ukrepa P1), Komisija dvomi, da je bil ta naložbeni načrt pravilno izvršen.
Second, decision C 10/94 prohibits the granting of additional operating aid for restructuring purposes.
Drugič, odločba C 10/94 prepoveduje odobritev dodatne pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja.
The Commission observes that the different measures included in the extension decision seem to constitute additional restructuring aid.
Komisija ugotavlja, da različni ukrepi, vključeni v odločbi o podaljšanju postopka, očitno pomenijo dodatno pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
It seems therefore that this condition was breached.
Zato je mogoče sklepati, da je bil ta pogoj kršen.
Elefsis claims that the breach of two conditions brought forward in the opening decision constitute a valid basis to conclude that the aid was misused.
Podjetje Elefsis trdi, da je na podlagi kršitev dveh pogojev iz odločbe o podaljšanju postopka mogoče upravičeno sklepati, da je bila pomoč zlorabljena.
The Commission should consider the absence of any real privatisation, which was a condition for the waiver, as an additional breach of the decision C 10/94.
Komisija bi morala dejstvo, da do prave privatizacije, ki je bila pogoj za odpis, ni prišlo, razumeti kot dodatno kršitev odločbe C 10/94.
In their comments on the extension decision, Greece and HSY claim that the prohibition of additional restructuring aid only renders any new aid unlawful.
V svojih pripombah v zvezi z odločbo o podaljšanju postopka Grčija in podjetje HSY trdita, da prepoved dodatne pomoči za prestrukturiranje pomeni, da je vsaka nova pomoč nezakonita.
This prohibition, if breached, does not have the effect of rendering the aid authorised by decision C 10/94 incompatible.
Kršenje te prepovedi ne pomeni, da je pomoč, odobrena na podlagi odločbe C 10/94, nezdružljiva.
In addition, Greece stresses that the decision prohibits additional ‘operating aid’ (as defined in Article 5 of Directive 90/684/EEC) for restructuring.
Grčija poleg tega poudarja, da odločba prepoveduje dodatno „pomoč za tekoče poslovanje“ (kot je opredeljeno v členu 5 Direktive 90/684/ES) za namene prestrukturiranja.
It therefore contests that after 1997 no restructuring aid may be granted to HSY.
Zato nasprotuje trditvi, da po letu 1997 podjetje HSY ne bi moglo dobiti nikakršne pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
As regards the investment plan, Greece and HSY contend that decision C 10/94 did not contain a condition concerning the implementation of an investment plan.
Kar zadeva naložbeni načrt, Grčija in podjetje HSY trdita, da odločba C 10/94 ni vsebovala pogoja v zvezi z izvajanjem naložbenega načrta.
Moreover, it could not have contained such a condition since Directive 90/684/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/97, which formed the legal basis for the decision, did not contain such a condition.
Še več, takšnega pogoja ne bi mogla vsebovati, saj ga ne vsebujeta niti Direktiva 90/684/EGS niti Uredba (ES) št. 1013/97, ki tvorita pravno podlago zanjo.
The only condition was the partial privatisation of HSY and the submission (i.e. not the implementation) of an investment plan.
Edini pogoj je bil delna privatizacija podjetja HSY in predložitev (tj. ne izvajanje) naložbenega načrta.
Article 296 does not apply to the present measure since it concerns the write-off of debts exclusively related to the civil activities of the yard.
Člen 296 se ne uporablja za ta ukrep, saj zadeva odpis dolgov, ki so povezani izključno s civilnimi dejavnostmi ladjedelnice.
In addition, decision C 10/94 was based on State aid rules and not on Article 296 of the Treaty
Poleg tega odločba C 10/94 temelji na pravilih o državni pomoči in ne na členu 296 Pogodbe.
Implementation of the investment plan
Izvajanje naložbenega načrta
As regards the implementation of the investment plan, the Commission considers that it was a condition laid down in decision C 10/94.
Kar zadeva izvajanje naložbenega načrta, Komisija meni, da je bil to pogoj, določen v odločbi C 10/94.
Indeed, the second before last paragraph indicates ‘The investment plan has not yet started […].
V predpredzadnjem odstavku je dejansko navedeno: „Naložbeni načrt se še ni začel […].
Once it is executed, the ongoing restructuring should be completed and the yard should return to viability’ In the one before last paragraph, the Commission recalls the prohibition of further restructuring aid.
Ko bo izvršen, bi se moralo končati tekoče prestrukturiranje, ladjedelnica pa bi morala obnoviti sposobnost preživetja“. V predzadnjem odstavku Komisija opozarja na prepoved dodatne pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
Finally, the last paragraph indicates ‘In the light of the above, the Commission has decided to close the procedure pursuant to Article 93(2) by authorising the aid subject to the conditions described in this letter.
V zadnjem odstavku pa je navedeno: „Glede na zgoraj navedeno se je Komisija odločila, da postopek v skladu s členom 93(2) zaključi tako, da odobri pomoč na podlagi pogojev, navedenih v dopisu.
On the basis of the structure and the content of the decision, it can be concluded that the implementation of the investment plan was a condition.
Na podlagi strukture in vsebine odločbe se lahko zaključi, da je bil ta pogoj izvajanje naložbenega načrta.
The Commission has already assessed in detail the implementation of the investment aid when analysing measure P1.
Komisija je že opravila podrobno oceno izvajanja naložbenega načrta, ko je analizirala ukrep P1.
The Commission has concluded that HSY has not implemented the investment plan in a reasonable period.
Komisija je ugotovila, da podjetje HSY naložbenega načrta ni izvedlo v ustreznem obdobju.
On 31 December 2001 — after one prolongation of the date for completing the investment plan — HSY had executed only 63 % of the plan.
decembra 2001 – po podaljšanju roka za izvedbo naložbenega načrta – je podjetje HSY izvršilo samo 63 % načrta.
The Commission concludes therefore that this condition has not been complied with.
Komisija torej sklepa, da ta pogoj ni bil izpolnjen.
Greece claims that the implementation of the investment plan is not a condition laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1013/97, which is the legal basis of decision C 10/94.
Grčija trdi, da izvajanje naložbenega načrta ni pogoj, ki je določen v Uredbi (ES) št. 1013/97, ki tvori pravno podlago za odločbo C 10/94.
The Commission recalls that the aid was authorised by decision C 10/94.
Komisija opozarja, da je bila pomoč odobrena z odločbo C 10/94.
Therefore, the conditions laid down in the latter decision have to be respected.
Zato je treba pogoje, določene v navedeni odločbi, upoštevati.
If Greece considered that the conditions laid down in decision C 10/94 did not comply with the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1013/97, it should have contested decision C 10/94.
Če je Grčija menila, da pogoji iz odločbe C 10/94 niso bili v skladu s pogoji iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1013/97, bi morala odločbo C 10/97 izpodbijati.
However, it has not done so within the time limit set by article 230 of the Treaty.
Vendar pa tega v roku, ki ga določa člen 230 Pogodbe, ni storila.
As a subsidiary element, the Commission recalls that Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 is simply an amendment of the Directive 90/684/EEC and aimed at increasing the aid amount which can be granted to three groups of yards.
V dopolnilo temu Komisija opozarja, da je Uredba (ES) št. 1013/97 samo sprememba Direktive 90/684/EGS in da je njen namen povečati znesek pomoči, ki ga je mogoče odobriti trem skupinam ladjedelnic.
Since the condition has not been complied with, the aid has been misused and, in accordance with the last paragraph of decision C 10/94, it has to be recovered.
Ker ta pogoj ni bil izpolnjen, je bila pomoč zlorabljena in jo je treba v skladu z zadnjim odstavkom odločbe C 10/94 povrniti.
Prohibition of ‘further operating aid for restructuring purposes’
Prepoved „nadaljnje pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja“
The one before last paragraph of decision C 10/94 indicates that ‘the Commission notes that Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 was adopted by the Council with the condition that no further operating aid for restructuring purpose will be made available for the yards covered by the regulation.
V predzadnjem odstavku odločbe C 10/94 je navedeno, da „Komisija opozarja, da je Svet sprejel Uredbo 1013/97 pod pogojem, da se ladjedelnicam, ki jih ta uredba zajema, ne bo odobrila nikakršna dodatna pomoč za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja.
Accordingly, no such restructuring aid can be granted to this yard in the future.’ The parties to this procedure disagree on the interpretation of this condition.
V skladu s tem se tej ladjedelnici v prihodnosti ne sme odobriti nobena tovrstna pomoč za prestrukturiranje.“ Stranke v tem postopku se ne strinjajo o tolmačenju tega pogoja.
According to Greece and HSY, this entails that any operating aid for restructuring purpose which would be granted after the adoption of the decision would be automatically incompatible and should be recovered.
Po mnenju Grčije in podjetja HSY to pomeni, da bi vsaka pomoč za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja, ki bi bila odobrena po sprejemu odločbe, avtomatično veljala za nezdružljivo in bi jo bilo treba povrniti.
According to Elefsis, this condition entails that the grant of any operating aid for restructuring purposes after the adoption of the decision would be a misuse of the aid authorised by decision C 10/94 and should therefore lead to the recovery of the aid authorised by the decision C 10/94, in addition to the recovery of the additional operation aid for restructuring purposes.
Po mnenju podjetja Elefsis ta pogoj pomeni, da bi odobritev pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja po sprejemu odločbe pomenila zlorabo pomoči, odobrene z odločbo C 10/94, zaradi česar bi bilo treba poleg pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja povrniti tudi pomoč, ki je bila odobrena z odločbo C 10/94.
The Commission observes that the goal of the prohibition of further operating aid for restructuring is to avoid the accumulation of aid above the level set in the decision.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se s prepovedjo nadaljnje pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja želi preprečiti kopičenje pomoči nad ravnjo, ki je določena v odločbi.
The Commission considers that this objective is reached if any additional operating aid granted after the adoption of decision C 10/94 is recovered.
Komisija meni, da je ta cilj izpolnjen, če se povrne katera koli dodatna pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki je bila odobrena po sprejemu odločbe C 10/94.
Indeed, by the recovery of the additional aid, the initial situation is restored and accumulation of aid above the level set in decision C 10/94 is avoided.
S povrnitvijo dodatne pomoči se izhodiščni položaj dejansko obnovi, s čimer se lahko prepreči kopičenje pomoči nad ravnjo, določeno v odločbi C 10/94.
The Commission therefore concludes that the grant of additional operating aid for restructuring purpose after the adoption of decision C 10/94 does not trigger the obligation to recover the aid approved by decision C 10/94, as long as the additional aid is actually recovered.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da dodelitev dodatne pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja po sprejetju odločbe C 10/94 ne pomeni obveznosti povrnitve pomoči, odobrene z odločbo C 10/94, v kolikor se dodatna pomoč povrne v celoti.
The Commission observes that, in order to determine whether the aid authorised by decision C 10/94 should be recovered, it is not necessary to determine which of the aid measures unlawfully implemented after the adoption of decision C 10/1994 constitute ‘operating aid for restructuring purpose’.
Komisija meni, da za ugotovitev, ali je treba pomoč, odobreno z odločitvijo C 10/94 povrniti, ni treba ugotavljati, kateri izmed ukrepov pomoči, ki so bili nezakonito izvršeni po sprejemu odločbe C 10/94, pomeni „pomoč za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja“.
Indeed, in the present decision, the Commission will conclude that all the aid measures unlawfully implemented after the adoption of decision C 10/94 should be recovered.
V tej določbi Komisija namreč ugotavlja, da je treba povrniti vse ukrepe pomoči, ki so bili nezakonito izvršeni po sprejetju odločbe C 10/94.
Consequently, any measure which could potentially qualify as further operation aid for restructuring purposes will have to be recovered.
Na podlagi tega je treba torej povrniti vsak ukrep, ki bi lahko pomenil dodatno pomoč za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja.
The recovery will restore the initial situation and therefore any potential accumulation of restructuring aid is avoided.
S tem se bo obnovil izhodiščni položaj in mogoče se bo izogniti morebitnemu kopičenju pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
Therefore, the objective of the condition laid down in decision C 10/94 will be complied with.
Zato je treba upoštevati cilj pogoja, določenega v odločbi C 10/94.
Non payment of the purchase price
Neplačilo nakupne cene
In the course of the deeper analysis of the case that took place during the investigation procedure, the Commission discovered an additional infringement of decision C 10/94: in the whole period during which the employees — as holder of a 49 % stake in HSY — were participating in the management of HSY, they have never paid the purchase price they were supposed to pay under the partial privatisation contract of September 1995.
Med temeljito analizo primera, ki je potekala v času preiskovalnega postopka, je Komisija odkrila dodatno kršitev odločbe C 10/94: v vsem času, v katerem so zaposleni – kot lastniki 49-odstotnega deleža podjetja HSY – sodelovali pri vodenju podjetja HSY, niso nikoli plačali nakupne cene, ki bi jo morali plačati na podlagi pogodbe o delni privatizaciji iz septembra 1995.
In order to understand this breach of decision C 10/94, it is first necessary to analyse the text of this decision and of the legal acts on which it is based.
Za razumevanje te kršitve odločbe C 10/94 je treba najprej analizirati besedilo te odločbe in pravnih aktov, na katerih temelji.
During 1991, operating aid for shipbuilding, ship conversion and ship repair not related to new contracts may be considered compatible with the common market 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.
V letu 1991 se pomoč za tekoče poslovanje za gradnjo, predelavo in popravilo ladij, ki ni bila povezana z novimi pogodbami, lahko šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom, če je bila dodeljena za finančno prestrukturiranje ladjedelnic v povezavi s programom sistemskega in posebnega prestrukturiranja, ki se nanaša na odprodajo ladjedelnic.
The new owners were thus supposed to pay a price in exchange for the ownership of the yards.
Od novih lastnikov se je torej pričakovalo, da bodo za lastništvo ladjedelnic plačali.
The ownership can not be granted for free.
Lastništva se ne more dati zastonj.
The sentence ‘to restore its competitiveness by selling it off to new owners’ explains the purpose of this condition.
Stavek „da obnovijo svojo konkurenčnost z odprodajo novim lastnikom“ pojasnjuje namen tega pogoja.
Under State ownership, the yards have not taken the necessary measures to restore their competitiveness.
Ladjedelnice v času, ko so bile v lasti države, niso sprejele potrebnih ukrepov za obnovitev svoje konkurenčnosti.
Consequently, they constantly needed State aid.
Zaradi tega so ves čas potrebovale državno pomoč.
To remedy this situation, unacceptable on the basis of Article 87 of the Treaty, the Council authorises aid for a last time (i.e. aid can be granted in 1991) but impose the sale of the yards to new owners.
Da bi popravil ta položaj, ki je bil na podlagi člena 87 Pogodbe nesprejemljiv, je Svet še zadnjič odobril pomoč (tj. pomoč je bilo mogoče odobriti leta 1991), vendar je določil, da je treba ladjedelnice prodati novim lastnikom.
The logic is therefore that the new owners will take the measures necessary to restore competitiveness, such that the yards will not need operating aid for restructuring anymore.
Novi lastniki naj bi sprejeli ukrepe, potrebne za obnovitev konkurenčnosti, tako da ladjedelnice ne bodo več potrebovale pomoči za tekoče poslovanje za namene prestrukturiranja.
As indicated in section 2 ‘Prior decisions of the Commission and of the Council’ of the present decision, the Commission took in July 1995 a negative decision in the procedure C 10/94 because HSY had not been sold, as requested by Directive 90/684/EEC.
Kot je navedeno v oddelku 2 „Prejšnje odločbe Komisije in Sveta“ te odločbe, je Komisija julija 1995 sprejela negativno odločitev v postopku C 10/94, ker podjetje HSY še ni bilo prodano, kot je zahtevala Direktiva 90/684/EGS.
Greece asked the suspension of that decision by claiming that the sale was imminent.
Grčija je prosila za odložitev navedene odločbe, saj je trdila, da bo do prodaje prišlo kmalu.
Greece itself then presented the contract of September 1995 as a sale of the yard.
Grčija je nato sama predložila pogodbo, sklenjeno septembra 1995, ki se je nanašala na prodajo ladjedelnice.
On that basis the Commission revoked its negative decision.
Na tej podlagi je Komisija svojo negativno odločitev preklicala.
All other provisions of Directive 90/684/EEC shall apply to this yard’. Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 was therefore adopted because, in order to become viable, HSY needed more aid than what was authorised under Article 10 of the Directive 90/684/EEC.
Vse ostale določbe Direktive 90/684/EGS se uporabljajo za to ladjedelnico.“ Uredba (ES) št. 1013/97 je bila torej sprejeta zato, ker je podjetje HSY za namen preživetja potrebovalo večjo pomoč, kot je bila odobrena na podlagi člena 10 Direktive 90/684/EGS.
More precisely, the former regulation authorised the waiver of the interests and penalties related to debts existing on 31 December 1991 and which had accrued since then.
Natančneje: s prejšnjo uredbo se je odobril odpis obrestnih mer in kazni, povezanimi z dolgovi, ki so obstajale dne 31. decembra 1991 in ki so bile obračunane po tem datumu.
The Council authorised the aid because it considered that a valid sale contract had been concluded in September 1995, in compliance with the condition laid down in the Directive 90/684/EEC.
Svet je odobril pomoč, ker je menil, da je bila septembra 1995 sklenjena veljavna prodajna pogodba v skladu s pogoji iz Direktive 90/684/EGS.
In other word, it was not necessary to put the sale of the yard as a condition since a valid sale contract already existed.
Z drugimi besedami, prodaje ladjedelnice ni bilo več treba postavljati kot pogoj, saj je veljavna prodajna pogodba že obstajala.
Decision C 10/94 starts by recalling that Article 10 of the Directive 90/684/EEC required the sale of the yard.
Odločba C 10/94 na začetku opozarja, da člen 10 Direktive 90/684/EGS zahteva prodajo ladjedelnice.
Since the conditions laid down in the latter regulation and the conditions laid down in Directive 90/684/EEC were met, Decision C 10/94 authorised the aid.
Ker so bili pogoji iz slednje uredbe in pogoji iz Direktive 90/684/EGS izpolnjeni, je bila pomoč na podlagi odločbe C 10/94 odobrena.