natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
All of the comments praised the beneficiary’s status, both as a contributor to the local economy and as a well-established company.
V vseh pripombah je bil izražen pozitiven odnos do položaja upravičenke, in sicer glede njenega prispevka k lokalnemu gospodarstvu in uveljavljenosti.
It was also stated that the company’s cessation of operations would significantly reduce employment and production capacity in Greece and especially Imathia.
Prav tako je bilo navedeno, da bi se s prenehanjem poslovanja družbe bistveno zmanjšali zaposlenost in proizvodna zmogljivost v Grčiji, zlasti v Imathii.
In addition, it was stated that the aid to Varvaressos does not create any distortion of competition, given the company’s minimal market share.
Poleg tega je bilo navedeno, da pomoč družbi Varvaressos glede na njen minimalni tržni delež ne izkrivlja konkurence.
ASSESSMENT: EXISTENCE OF AID
OCENA: OBSTOJ POMOČI
Measures 1 and 2: The State guarantees of 2007 and 2008
Ukrepa 1 in 2: državni poroštvi iz let 2007 in 2008
Article 107(1) TFEU declares incompatible with the internal market any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, and affects trade between Member States.
Člen 107(1) PDEU določa, da je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga in ki vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom.
Thus, in order to be considered State aid, a measure must fulfil the following four criteria.
Da se torej ukrep šteje za državno pomoč, mora izpolnjevati naslednja štiri merila.
Firstly, a measure must be granted by a Member State or through State resources.
Prvič, ukrep mora dodeliti država ali mora biti dodeljen iz državnih sredstev.
State guarantees put at risk State resources, as their call is paid through the State budget.
Državna poroštva ogrožajo državna sredstva, ker se unovčujejo iz državnega proračuna.
Moreover, any guarantee that is not properly remunerated implies a loss of financial resources for the State.
Vsako poroštvo, ki ni ustrezno povrnjeno, za državo pomeni izgubo finančnih sredstev.
In addition, State guarantees are granted through decisions of the competent Ministries.
Poleg tega se državna poroštva odobrijo s sklepi pristojnih ministrstev.
In the case at hand, it was by decision of the Greek Ministry of Finance that the 2007 and 2008 guarantees were granted to Varvaressos.
V zadevnem primeru sta bili družbi Varvaressos poroštvi iz let 2007 in 2008 odobreni s sklepom grškega ministrstva za finance.
Thus, the criterion of State resources is fulfilled.
Merilo v zvezi z državnimi sredstvi je torej izpolnjeno.
Secondly, a measure must give the beneficiary an advantage.
Drugič, ukrep mora za upravičenko pomeniti prednost.
The Commission considers that the two guarantees in question have conferred an undue advantage on Varvaressos.
Komisija meni, da sta zadevni poroštvi za družbo Varvaressos pomenili neupravičeno prednost.
Indeed, for the reasons set out in the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (‘the Guarantee Notice’) [15], sections 2.2 and 3.2, when the borrower does not pay a market-oriented price for the guarantee, it obtains an advantage.
Dejansko ima posojilojemalec zaradi razlogov iz oddelkov 2.2 in 3.2 Obvestila Komisije o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES za državno pomoč v obliki poroštev (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo o poroštvih) [15], ko za poroštvo ne plača tržno oblikovane cene, prednost.
In some cases, the borrower, as a firm in financial difficulty, would not find a financial institution prepared to lend on any terms, without a State guarantee.
V nekaterih primerih finančne institucije posojilojemalcu kot podjetju v težavah v nobenih pogojih ne bi bile pripravljene dati posojila brez državnega poroštva.
In point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice, the Commission has set out three cumulative conditions which it deems sufficient to rule out the presence of State aid (i.e. an advantage) in the form of a guarantee.
V točki 3.2. obvestila o poroštvih je Komisija določila tri kumulativne pogoje, katerih izpolnjevanje zadošča za izključitev obstoja državne pomoči (tj. prednosti) v obliki poroštev.
These are:
Ti pogoji so:
the borrower is not in financial difficulties,
posojilojemalec ni v finančnih težavah,
the guarantee does not cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan,
poroštvo ne zajema več kot 80 % neodplačanega posojila,
the extent of the guarantee can be properly measured when it is granted,
obseg poroštva je mogoče pravilno določiti ob njegovi dodelitvi,
a market-oriented price is paid for the guarantee.
za poroštvo se plača tržno oblikovana cena.
Applying these criteria to the case at hand, the Commission finds that:
Komisija je na podlagi teh meril v zadevnem primeru ugotovila naslednje:
Varvaressos was in financial difficulty [16] at the time of granting of both the 2007 and the 2008 guarantees.
Družba Varvaressos je bila v času odobritev poroštev iz let 2007 in 2008 v finančnih težavah [16].
Secondly, as demonstrated in recitals 13, 16 and 18, both the 2007 and 2008 guarantees did cover more than 100 % of the loan.
Kot je prikazano v uvodnih izjavah 13, 16 in 18, sta poroštvi iz let 2007 in 2008 zajemali več kot 100 % posojila.
Thirdly, with regard to the 2007 guarantee, the Commission notes that the extent of the guarantee could not be properly measured when it was granted.
Kar zadeva poroštvo iz leta 2007, Komisija ugotavlja, da njegovega obsega ob dodelitvi ni bilo mogoče pravilno določiti.
This is shown by the fact that, according to the information transmitted by the Greek authorities (see above, recitals 13 and 16), the guarantee was initially supposed to cover 80 % of the loan, or EUR 18,2 million, but eventually, on the basis of one of the provisions of the guarantee scheme, covered EUR 30 million.
To dokazuje dejstvo, da naj bi po informacijah, ki so jih posredovali grški organi (glej uvodni izjavi 13 in 16 zgoraj), poroštvo prvotno zajemalo 80 % posojila, tj. 18,2 milijona EUR, na koncu pa je na podlagi ene od določb poroštvene sheme krilo 30 milijonov EUR.
Fourthly, both the 2007 and 2008 guarantees were granted for loans to a firm in difficulty and did not provide for a premium for the guarantor (State).
Obe poroštvi iz let 2007 in 2008 sta bili dodeljeni za posojila podjetju v težavah in nista vključevali premije za izdajatelja poroštva (državo).
The mere fact that no fee was paid in exchange for the guarantees might indicate that the measures conferred an advantage on Varvaressos.
Že dejstvo, da ni bila plačana nobena provizija v zameno za poroštvi, lahko kaže, da so ukrepi pomenili prednost za družbo Varvaressos.
A guarantee without premium payment is not available on the commercial banking market.
Na trgu komercialnega bančništva poroštva brez plačila premije ni mogoče dobiti.
This is all the more true for guarantees given to undertakings in difficulty, which have a high risk of default.
To še bolj velja za poroštva podjetjem v težavah, pri katerih je verjetnost neplačila še večja.
On the basis of the above the Commission concludes that the company would not have obtained the 2007 and 2008 guarantees under the same terms on the market and hence these measures conferred an advantage.
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da poroštvi iz let 2007 in 2008 družbi pod enakimi pogoji na trgu ne bi bili dodeljeni, zato ta ukrepa pomenita prednost.
Thirdly, to be considered aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, a measure must be selective.
Da se ukrep šteje za pomoč v skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU, mora biti selektiven.
The 2007 guarantee was based on a sectoral scheme and the 2008 guarantee was an ad hoc measure for Varvaressos.
Poroštvo iz leta 2007 je temeljilo na sektorski shemi, poroštvo iz leta 2008 pa je bil ad hoc ukrep za družbo Varvaressos.
Thus, the criterion of selectivity is indeed fulfilled.
Merilo selektivnosti je torej dejansko izpolnjeno.
Finally, a measure must distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Ukrep mora izkrivljati konkurenco in vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami.
Varvaressos is active in a sector whose products are widely traded among Member States and which is subject to intense competition.
Družba Varvaressos deluje v sektorju, z izdelki katerega med državami članicami poteka obsežna trgovina in na katerem je konkurenca velika.
At the time the aid measures were granted, Varvaressos made most of its sales to other Member States (see recital 7 above).
V času odobritve ukrepov pomoči je družba Varvaressos večino prodaje opravila v druge države članice (glej uvodno izjavo 7 zgoraj).
Also, the aid measures in question granted Varvaressos an advantage over its competitors (see recitals 53-56 above).
Zadevni ukrepi pomoči, odobreni družbi Varvaressos, so pomenili tudi prednost pred njenimi konkurenti (glej uvodne izjave 53–56 zgoraj).
When State aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in trade between Member States, those other undertakings must be regarded as affected by that aid.
Če državna pomoč okrepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenčnimi podjetji na področju trgovine med državami članicami, je treba šteti, da navedena pomoč vpliva na ta druga podjetja.
Thus, the criterion of distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States is indeed fulfilled.
Merilo v zvezi z izkrivljanjem konkurence in vplivom na trgovino med državami članicami je torej dejansko izpolnjeno.
On the basis of the above, it is concluded that the State guarantees of 2007 and 2008 (measures 1 and 2) constitute State aid in favour of Varvaressos within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Na podlagi navedenega je ugotovljeno, da državni poroštvi iz let 2007 in 2008 (ukrepa 1 in 2) pomenita državno pomoč za družbo Varvaressos v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
As regards the criterion of State resources and imputability, this direct State grant comes from the State budget and is approved by the responsible ministry.
Kar zadeva merilo v zvezi z državnimi sredstvi in pripisljivost, so ta neposredna nepovratna sredstva države dodeljena iz državnega proračuna, odobrilo pa jih je pristojno ministrstvo.
Therefore, the criterion is fulfilled.
Zato je merilo izpolnjeno.
As regards the criterion of advantage, the direct grant was decided in favour of a company in financial difficulty.
Kar zadeva merilo v zvezi s prednostjo, so bila neposredna nepovratna sredstva odobrena za družbo v finančnih težavah.
The Greek State does not receive any consideration in return for the grant.
Grška država ni prejela nobenega nadomestila v zameno za ta nepovratna sredstva.
Therefore, the grant gives an advantage to Varvaressos.
Zato nepovratna sredstva pomenijo prednost za družbo Varvaressos.
Thus, the Commission considers that the notified direct grant of 2009 will confer an advantage on the company within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisija tako meni, da bodo priglašena neposredna nepovratna sredstva iz leta 2009 pomenila prednost za družbo v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
As regards the criterion of selectivity, the direct grant was decided on the basis of an ad hoc decision for the company.
Kar zadeva merilo selektivnosti, so bila neposredna nepovratna sredstva dodeljena na podlagi ad hoc odločitve za družbo.
Finally, the criterion of distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States is fulfilled in the same way as in recital 58 above.
Merilo v zvezi z izkrivljanjem konkurence in vplivom na trgovino med državami članicami je izpolnjeno na enak način, kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 58 zgoraj.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the notified direct grant of 2009 constitutes State aid in favour of Varvaressos within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da priglašena neposredna nepovratna sredstva iz leta 2009 pomenijo državno pomoč za družbo Varvaressos v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
According to Article 1(f) 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 [17], new aid that was put into effect in contravention of Article 108(3) TFEU is to be considered unlawful aid.
V skladu s členom 1(f) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [17] je treba novo pomoč, ki se izvaja v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU, šteti za nezakonito pomoč.
In the case at hand, the State guarantee of 2007 in favour of Varvaressos was put into effect by Greece without notifying it to the Commission and without waiting for the latter’s comments or final decision on the measure’s compatibility with the internal market.
V zadevnem primeru je Grčija družbi Varvaressos dodelila državno poroštvo iz leta 2007 brez priglasitve Komisiji, pri čemer ni počakala na pripombe Komisije ali njeno dokončno odločitev o združljivosti ukrepa z notranjim trgom.
Thus, the Commission considers at this stage that the State guarantee of 2007 is unlawful.
Zato Komisija na tej stopnji meni, da je državno poroštvo iz leta 2007 nezakonito.
ASSESSMENT: COMPATIBILITY WITH THE TFEU
OCENA: ZDRUŽLJIVOST S PDEU
As set out in point 4.1 of the Guarantee Notice, where an individual guarantee or a guarantee scheme does not comply with the market economy investor principle, it is deemed to entail State aid.
Kot je določeno v točki 4.1 obvestila o poroštvih, se šteje, da posamezno poroštvo ali poroštvena shema, kadar ni skladna z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, vsebuje državno pomoč.
The State aid element therefore needs to be quantified in order to check whether the aid may be found compatible under a specific State aid exemption.
Element državne pomoči je treba zato številčno ovrednotiti, da se ugotovi, ali je pomoč morda skladna v okviru posameznih izjem za državno pomoč.
Therefore, before assessing the compatibility of the aid, the Commission needs to quantify the aid element.
Zato mora Komisija pred oceno združljivosti pomoči številčno ovrednotiti element pomoči.
Quantification of the aid
Količinska opredelitev zneska pomoči
The 2007 and 2008 guarantees: the Commission has laid down the general principles for calculating the aid element in guarantees in the Guarantee Notice.
Poroštvi iz let 2007 in 2008: Komisija je v obvestilu o poroštvih določila splošna načela za izračun elementa pomoči v poroštvih.
The Commission considers that, in principle, a State guarantee can be deemed aid up to the total amount of the underlying loan if the beneficiary is not capable of accessing financial markets by its own means (see points 2.2 and 4.1(a) of the Guarantee Notice).
Komisija meni, da se državno poroštvo načeloma lahko šteje za pomoč do celotnega zneska zadevnega posojila, če upravičenec z lastnimi sredstvi ne more dostopati do finančnih trgov (glej točko 2.2 in točko 4.1(a) obvestila o poroštvih).
The Guarantee Notice sets out, in points 4.1 (general rules), 4.2 (aid element in individual guarantees) and 4.4 (aid element in guarantee schemes), the rules it applies for calculating the aid element in the guarantees.
V točkah 4.1 (splošna pravila), 4.2 (element pomoči v posameznih poroštvih) in 4.4 (element pomoči v poroštvenih shemah) obvestila o poroštvih so določena pravila, ki se uporabljajo za izračun elementa pomoči v poroštvih.
The Commission will in the following recitals apply these rules to measures 1 and 2.
Komisija bo v naslednjih uvodnih izjavah uporabila ta pravila za ukrepa 1 in 2.
However, given its financial difficulties at the time of the granting of the measures, commercial banks would have charged a correspondingly higher interest rate than the one achieved with a State guarantee, because the latter is an additional security for the banks.
Vendar bi bila glede na finančne težave družbe v času odobritve ukrepov obrestna mera, ki bi jo poslovne banke zaračunale, temu primerno višja od obrestne mere, ki je bila določena ob državnem poroštvu, saj to za banke pomeni dodatno zavarovanje.
Thus, the Commission considers that the benefit of Varvaressos through the 2007 and 2008 guarantees was not the total loans, which it could have received even without the State guarantees, but the lower interest rate, which it received thanks to the guarantees.
Komisija torej meni, da korist, ki jo je imela družba Varvaressos zaradi poroštev iz let 2007 in 2008, niso predstavljala skupna posojila, ki bi jih družba lahko prejela tudi brez državnih poroštev, ampak nižja obrestna mera, ki je bila zanjo določena na podlagi poroštev.
According to point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice, in the absence of a comparable market premium, the all-in financing costs of the loan on the market with and without guarantee (i.e. the interest rate for a similar loan without guarantee should be compared to the interest rate + guarantee premium for the loan with the State guarantee) should be compared.
Kadar ni primerljive tržne premije, je treba v skladu s točko 4.2 obvestila o poroštvih primerjati skupne stroške financiranja posojila na trgu s poroštvom in brez njega (tj. obrestno mero za podobno posojilo brez poroštva je treba primerjati z obrestno mero in poroštveno premijo za posojilo z državnim poroštvom).
In many cases, such a market interest rate is not available.
Takšna tržna obrestna mera v veliko primerih ni na voljo.
Therefore, in its 2008 Notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates [19] (‘the 2008 Reference Rate Communication’), the Commission has developed a financial methodology which, for the reasons set out in point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice, can be used as proxy for the market interest rate.
Zato je Komisija v svojem obvestilu o načinu določanja referenčnih obrestnih mer in diskontnih stopenj iz leta 2008 [19] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sporočilo o referenčnih obrestnih merah iz leta 2008) razvila finančno metodologijo, ki jo je iz razlogov, določenih v točki 4.2 obvestila o poroštvih, mogoče uporabiti kot približek za tržno obrestno mero.
In the case at hand, there is no indication of what Varvaressos would have paid for a comparable non-guaranteed loan.
V zadevnem primeru ni znano, kakšno obrestno mero bi družba Varvaressos plačala za primerljivo posojilo brez poroštva.
Furthermore, the granting of both guarantees predates the economic and financial crisis.
Poleg tega sta bili obe poroštvi odobreni pred gospodarsko in finančno krizo.
In addition, the Commission is of the view that, due to the time that has elapsed since the granting of the measures, the calculation of a ‘real’ market rate for a Greek textile company would be a difficult exercise.
Komisija prav tako meni, da bi bilo zaradi časa, ki je pretekel od odobritve ukrepov, težko izračunati „dejanske“ tržne obrestne mere za grško tekstilno podjetje.
Therefore, the Commission will use the relevant reference rate as proxy for the market rate.
Zato bo Komisija uporabila ustrezno referenčno obrestno mero kot približek za tržno obrestno mero.
On this basis, the amount of market interest which should have been paid for the loan covered by the 2007 guarantee in the absence of the State guarantee was calculated at EUR 7,3 million in total. The interest actually paid for it (there was no guarantee fee) amounts to a total of EUR 4,9 million for the period from January 2007 to December 2010. Thus the difference between the specific market interest rate this company would have borne without the guarantee and the interest rate obtained by means of the State guarantee after any premiums paid is equal to an aid element of EUR 2,4 million, to be added to the aid amount of the restructuring plan [21].
Na podlagi tega je bilo izračunano, da bi tržne obresti, ki bi jih bilo treba plačati za posojilo, zavarovano s poroštvom iz leta 2007, če državnega poroštva ne bi bilo, znašale skupno 7,3 milijona EUR. Obresti, ki so bile za posojilo dejansko plačane (provizije za poroštvo ni bilo), so za obdobje od januarja 2007 do decembra 2010 znašale skupno 4,9 milijona EUR. Tako je razlika med posebno tržno obrestno mero, ki bi jo ta družba plačala brez poroštva, in obrestno mero, pridobljeno na podlagi državnega poroštva po plačanih premijah, enaka elementu pomoči v višini 2,4 milijona EUR, ki ga je treba dodati znesku pomoči za načrt za prestrukturiranje [21].
It has not been repaid yet (it still remains with the initial capital).
Ni še bilo vrnjeno (še vedno ostaja pri začetnem kapitalu).
The company was still in difficulty and did not have any more free assets to offer as security [22].
Družba je bila še vedno v težavah in ni imela več prostih sredstev, da bi jih ponudila kot zavarovanje [22].
With regard to measure 3, given that it is a direct grant, the entire amount of EUR 14 million represents the aid element.
V zvezi z ukrepom 3 element pomoči predstavlja celotni znesek v višini 14 milijonov EUR, saj gre za neposredna nepovratna sredstva.
On the basis of the above, the total aid element in measures 1, 2 and 3 amounts to EUR 16,7 million.
Na podlagi navedenega skupni element pomoči v ukrepih 1, 2 in 3 znaša 16,7 milijona EUR.
Legal basis for the assessment: the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines
Pravna podlaga za oceno: smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje
Inasmuch as the measures constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, their compatibility must be assessed in the light of the exceptions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that Article.
Ker ukrepi pomenijo pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, je treba njihovo združljivost oceniti glede na izjeme iz odstavkov 2 in 3 navedenega člena.
The exceptions laid down in Article 107(2) and Article 107(3), points (d) and (e), are clearly not applicable and have not been invoked by the Greek authorities.
Jasno je, da izjeme iz člena 107(2) ter člena 107(3)(d) in (e) ne veljajo, pri čemer se grški organi nanje niso sklicevali.
Varvaressos was a firm in difficulty at the time the measures were granted (see recitals 9 above and 89-90 below), therefore the compatibility of the aid measures can be assessed only in the light of the R&R guidelines, i.e. under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Družba Varvaressos je bila v času odobritve ukrepov (glej uvodno izjavo 9 zgoraj ter uvodni izjavi 89 in 90 spodaj) podjetje v težavah, zato se lahko združljivost ukrepov pomoči oceni le na podlagi smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, tj. v skladu s členom 107(3)(c) PDEU.
With regard to point 10(a) of the R&R Guidelines, the Commission notes that although Varvaressos lost a substantial amount of its own equity in the period 2004-2009, it did not lose more than half of its registered capital in the period under assessment (2007 to 2009).
V zvezi s točko 10(a) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje Komisija ugotavlja, da čeprav je družba Varvaressos v obdobju 2004–2009 izgubila velik znesek lastniškega kapitala, v ocenjevalnem obdobju (2007–2009) ni izgubila več kot polovice svojega osnovnega kapitala.
As to point 10(c), Varvaressos did not fulfil the criteria under its domestic law for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings.
Kar zadeva točko 10(c), družba Varvaressos po domači zakonodaji ni izpolnjevala meril za uvedbo kolektivnih postopkov insolventnosti.
As regards point 9 of the R&R Guidelines, it appears that in 2007 the company indeed needed more funds than its existing loans in order to achieve viability.
V zvezi s točko 9 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje se zdi, da je leta 2007 družba dejansko potrebovala več sredstev, kot je imela obstoječih posojil, da bi bila sposobna preživeti.
This is demonstrated by the fact that in 2006 it applied for restructuring aid.
To dokazuje dejstvo, da je leta 2006 zaprosila za pomoč za prestrukturiranje.
Therefore, the rescheduling of 2007 was not enough for viability restoration, because it served only to settle the existing loans and not to raise more.
Zato reprogramiranje iz leta 2007 ni zadostovalo za obnovo sposobnosti preživetja, ker je omogočilo le vračilo obstoječih posojil, ne pa tudi pridobitve novih sredstev.