natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
State aid may have been granted to PZL Hydral in the form of continued non-enforcement of public liabilities against the company by various public creditors.
Obstaja možnost, da so različni javni upniki podjetju PZL Hydral odobrili državno pomoč v obliki dolgotrajne neizterjave javnopravnih obveznosti podjetja.
The Commission points out that Article 107(1) of the TFEU covers interventions in various forms which reduce a company’s normal costs and which, without therefore being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect.
Komisija poudarja, da člen 107(1) PDEU zajema različne oblike ukrepov, s katerimi se znižujejo običajni stroški podjetja ter ki imajo, čeprav niso subvencije v ožjem pomenu besede, podobne lastnosti in enak učinek.
It is universally accepted in case-law that the conduct of a public body with responsibility for collecting social security contributions which tolerates late payment of such contributions gives a company in financial difficulties which benefits from that conduct a significant commercial advantage by mitigating the burden associated with the normal application of the social security system which cannot be wholly removed by the interest and default surcharges applied to it [38].
V sodni praksi je splošno sprejeto, da javni subjekt, ki je pristojen za pobiranje prispevkov za socialno varnost in ki dopusti, da so ti prispevki plačani z zamudo, s svojim ravnanjem koristi podjetju v finančnih težavah, ki ima zaradi takega ravnanja precejšnjo gospodarsko prednost, saj se s tem zmanjša breme, ki je povezano z običajno uporabo sistema socialne varnosti, te prednosti pa ni mogoče popolnoma odpraviti z naloženimi obrestmi in kaznimi zaradi zamud [38].
This reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to other fees, charges and taxes collected by public authorities.
To sklepanje se smiselno uporablja za druge pristojbine, dajatve in davke, ki jih pobirajo javni organi.
In the present case, the public collecting bodies had not recovered their claims against PZL Hydral 1998–2007 in full when the public creditors adopted the Plan (see point 60 et seq.).
V obravnavanem primeru javni organi za pobiranje prispevkov niso v celoti izterjali terjatev do podjetja PZL Hydral v obdobju 1997–2007, ko so javni upniki sprejeli načrt prestrukturiranja (glej točko 60 in naslednje).
It follows from case-law that, in order to determine whether any state aid was granted by the public authorities by way of non-enforcement of public claims, it has to be ascertained whether the company concerned would manifestly have been unable to obtain comparable facilities from a private creditor in the same situation vis-à-vis that company as the public collecting body [39].
Iz sodne prakse izhaja, da se je treba za ugotovitev, ali so javni organi z neizterjavo javnopravnih terjatev odobrili državno pomoč, prepričati, ali zadevno podjetje primerljivih koristi očitno ne bi moglo pridobiti od zasebnega upnika, ki je v razmerju do tega podjetja v enakem položaju kot javni organ za pobiranje prispevkov [39].
The Commission notes that in order to ensure the long-term economic viability of PZL Hydral, its owner at that time, the Polish Treasury, and subsequently the IDA, developed a privatisation strategy on the basis of a 1998 study carried out by private consultants, and started a search for investors (see point 54).
Komisija ugotavlja, da sta poljsko ministrstvo za finance, ki je bilo takrat lastnik podjetja PZL Hydral, in pozneje agencija IDA za zagotovitev dolgoročne ekonomske uspešnosti tega podjetja na podlagi študije, ki so jo leta 1998 pripravili zasebni svetovalci, razvili privatizacijsko strategijo ter začeli iskati vlagatelje (glej točko 54).
The private and public creditors supported this approach and were closely involved in it.
Zasebni in javni upniki so ta pristop podprli in v njem tesno sodelovali.
In 2002 the Polish authorities, still with the support of private and public creditors, entered into negotiations with […].
Poljski organi so leta 2002, še vedno s podporo zasebnih in javnih upnikov, začeli pogajanja z […].
These creditors were given regular updates on the progress made (see points 30 and 56).
Ti upniki so bili redno obveščeni o doseženem napredku (glej točki 30 in 56).
The Commission notes that both private and public creditors took the view that the value of PZL Hydral, and in particular of its aviation and defence activities, as a going concern by far exceeded the value of its assets, in particular by virtue of its military certificates and arms-trading permits, as well as its human capital, and that for that reason they agreed to refrain from instituting bankruptcy proceedings against PZL Hydral.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so zasebni in javni upniki menili, da vrednost podjetja PZL Hydral, zlasti njegovih dejavnosti na področju letalstva in obrambe, kot delujočega podjetja izrazito presega vrednost njegovih sredstev, zlasti zaradi njegovih vojaških potrdil in dovoljenj za trgovanje z orožjem ter človeškega kapitala, zato so se dogovorili, da ne začnejo stečajnega postopka proti podjetju PZL Hydral.
The Commission notes in particular that the main private creditors, i.e. Bank […] and Bank […], refrained from forced enforcement of their liabilities in spite of holding first-rank collateral (see points 32 and 34) which was enforceable directly on the basis of bank enforcement orders and could be relatively easily disposed of (see point 28).
Komisija zlasti ugotavlja, da glavna zasebna upnika, tj, banka […] in banka […], nista prisilno izterjala obveznosti, čeprav sta imela prvovrstno zavarovanje (glej točki 32 in 34), na podlagi katerega je bilo sredstva mogoče izterjati neposredno z bančnimi izvršilnimi nalogi in bi ga bilo mogoče sorazmerno preprosto uporabiti (glej točko 28).
The public creditors, on the other hand, took enforcement actions via the court enforcement officer, and by end-2007 had recovered a total amount of PLN 28,76 million (see point 41).
Po drugi strani so javni upniki sprejeli ukrepe za izterjavo s sodnim izvršiteljem, pri čemer so do konca leta 2007 izterjali skupno 28,76 milijona PLN (glej točko 41).
The Commission therefore concludes that between 1998 and 2007, PZL Hydral was able to obtain comparable facilities from two private creditors, i.e. Bank […] and Bank […], which were not merely in the same but actually in a better situation vis-à-vis that company than the public collecting bodies.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da je lahko podjetje PZL Hydral med letoma 1998 in 2007 primerljive koristi pridobilo od dveh zasebnih upnikov, tj. banke […] in banke […], ki do tega podjetja nista bila zgolj v enakem položaju, ampak dejansko v boljšem kot javni organi za pobiranje prispevkov.
The Commission also concludes that the decision of both private and public creditors to refrain from instituting bankruptcy proceedings against PZL Hydral was justified by the good prospects for restoring viability to the aviation and defence activities once their debt arrears had been repaid, as indicated in the strategy developed in 1998 (see point 54).
Komisija še ugotavlja, da so se zasebni in javni upniki upravičeno odločili, da ne začnejo stečajnega postopka proti podjetju PZL Hydral, ker obstajajo dobre možnosti, da dejavnosti na področju letalstva in obrambe ponovno dosežejo rentabilnost, ko bi bil neplačani dolg povrnjen, kot je navedeno v strategiji iz leta 1998 (glej točko 54).
Therefore, the non-enforcement of the public collecting bodies of the amounts owed to them in 1998-2007 does not confer an advantage on PZL Hydral because the public authorities acted in the same way as a private creditor would have acted, and this therefore does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Zato neizterjava neplačanih zneskov za obdobje 1998–2007 s strani javnih organov za pobiranje prispevkov podjetju PZL Hydral ne zagotavlja prednosti, saj so javni organi ravnali enako, kot bi ravnal zasebni upnik, torej to ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Repayment of PZL Hydral's public liabilities (2007-10)
Poplačilo javnopravnih obveznosti podjetja PZL Hydral (2007–2010)
After the failure of the privatisation negotiations with […], the main private creditors of PZL Hydral, i.e. Bank […] and Bank […], settled their claims vis-à-vis PZL Hydral.
Glavna zasebna upnika podjetja PZL Hydral, tj. banka […] in banka […], sta po neuspešnih pogajanjih o privatizaciji poravnala svoje terjatve do podjetja PZL Hydral.
The private creditors’ claims were settled in April 2003 (Bank […]) and November 2006 (Bank […]) respectively.
Terjatve zasebnih upnikov so bile poravnane aprila 2003 (banka […]) in novembra 2006 (banka […]).
Despite the good quality of their collateral, Bank […] accepted the settlement of PZL Hydral's debts of PLN 51,6 million against a payment of PLN 4 million and Bank […] accepted the settlement of PZL Hydral's debts of PLN 86,4 million against a payment of PLN 11,5 million respectively (see points 31 and 33).
Čeprav sta imeli banki kakovostno zavarovanje, je banka […] sprejela poravnavo dolgov podjetja PZL Hydral v višini 51,6 milijona PLN na podlagi poplačila v višini 4 milijone PLN, medtem ko je banka […] sprejela poravnavo dolgov tega podjetja v višini 86,4 milijona PLN na podlagi poplačila v višini 11,5 milijona PLN (glej točki 31 in 33).
PLZ Hydral would pay all new taxes, charges and contributions on time,
podjetje PZL Hydral bo vse nove davke, dajatve in prispevke pravočasno plačalo;
PZL Hydral would pay off part of its outstanding liabilities in instalments; payment for the remainder would be deferred until PZL Hydral had sold off its subsidiaries and assets,
podjetje PZL Hydral bo del neporavnanih obveznosti plačalo v obrokih; plačilo preostalega dela se odloži, dokler podjetje PZL Hydral ne bo odprodalo svojih podružnic in sredstev;
PLZ Hydral would sell all its subsidiaries and assets, and use the proceeds to pay its debt arrears,
podjetje PZL Hydral bo prodalo vse svoje podružnice in sredstva, prihodke od prodaje pa uporabilo za poplačilo neplačanega dolga;
the aviation and defence business of PZL Hydral would be hived off into the subsidiary PZL Wrocław, which would subsequently be privatised and public creditors would be repaid from the proceeds.
letalski in obrambni posli podjetja PZL Hydral bodo preneseni na podružnico PZL Wrocław, ki se bo pozneje privatizirala, pri čemer bodo javni upniki poplačani z ustvarjenimi prihodki.
This would leave PZL Hydral as an empty shell, which would be liquidated.
S tem bo podjetje PZL Hydral ostalo le prazna lupina, ki bo likvidirana.
In accordance with the estimated proceeds from sales in 2007-2010, the Plan provided for the public collecting bodies to recover PLN 120,8 million (see point 61).
V načrtu prestrukturiranja je bilo v skladu z ocenjenimi prihodki od prodaje v obdobju 2007–2010 predvideno, da bodo javni organi za pobiranje prispevkov izterjali 120,8 milijona PLN (glej točko 61).
Ex post, this turned out to be a good estimate, as the amount established in 2010 is PLN 122,3 million (see point 133).
Pozneje se je pokazalo, da je bila ta ocena dobra, saj znesek, ugotovljen v letu 2010, znaša 122,3 milijona PLN (glej točko 133).
The Commission notes that the Plan also provided for two capital injections to PZL Hydral, which were designed to increase the amount of money available for settling past liabilities.
Komisija ugotavlja, da sta bili v načrtu prestrukturiranja predvideni tudi dve dokapitalizaciji podjetja PZL Hydral, namenjeni povečanju količine denarja, ki je na voljo za poravnavo preteklih obveznosti.
The inclusion of these capital injections in the Plan was to be subject to the Commission's prior authorisation; therefore, it was clear to the public creditors when agreement was reached on the Plan that they could not view the inclusion of these additional amounts in the Plan as acquired and certain.
Ta ukrepa dokapitalizacije naj bi bila v načrt prestrukturiranja vključena po predhodni odobritvi Komisije; zato so javni upniki ob dogovoru o načrtu prestrukturiranja nedvomno vedeli, da vključitve teh dodatnih zneskov vanj ne morejo šteti za pridobljeno in gotovo.
The Commission also notes that the Plan does not include a final decision on how the proceeds will be divided between the different public creditors.
Komisija prav tako ugotavlja, da v načrtu prestrukturiranja ni končne odločitve glede razdelitve prihodkov med različne javne upnike.
This division was to be done after the process of selling the subsidiaries and assets had been carried out on the basis of the actual proceeds of the sale, taking account of the collateral of the different public creditors on these assets.
Ta razdelitev naj bi bila opravljena po koncu postopka prodaje podružnic in sredstev na podlagi dejanskih prihodkov od prodaje, pri čemer bi se upoštevalo zavarovanje različnih javnih upnikov na teh sredstvih.
With regard to the assessment of the conduct of public creditors from 2007 to 2010, the Commission considers that two different decisions on the part of the public creditors need to be assessed: first, the decision in 2007 to agree to the Plan, and second, the decision in 2010 to accept the final settlement as detailed in Table 26 of this Decision.
Komisija ob upoštevanju ocene ravnanja javnih upnikov v obdobju 2007–2010 meni, da je treba oceniti dve različni odločitvi, in sicer odločitev iz leta 2007, da se strinjajo z načrtom prestrukturiranja, ter odločitev iz leta 2010, da sprejmejo končno poravnavo, kot je podrobno opredeljena v preglednici 26 tega sklepa.
According to Court case-law, in such situations the Commission must apply the private creditor rule, i.e. in order to determine whether the reduction of some of the debts owed by a firm in difficulty to a public-law body constitutes state aid, it must compare that body to a private creditor seeking to recover amounts owed to it by a debtor in financial difficulty [40].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča mora Komisija v takih primerih uporabiti merilo zasebnega upnika, kar pomeni, da mora za ugotovitev, ali znižanje dela dolgov, ki jih podjetje v težavah dolguje osebi javnega prava, pomeni državno pomoč, to osebo primerjati z zasebnim tržnim upnikom, ki si prizadeva izterjati zneske, ki mu jih dolguje dolžnik v finančnih težavah [40].
However, according to case-law, when a company facing a significant deterioration in its financial situation proposes an agreement or series of agreements for debt restructuring to its creditors with a view to remedying the situation and avoiding bankruptcy, each creditor must take its decision in the light of the amount offered to it under the proposed agreement on the one hand, and the amount it expects to be able to recover in the event of the company's liquidation on the other.
Vendar je v sodni praksi prav tako navedeno, da se mora, kadar podjetje, katerega finančno stanje se znatno poslabša, upnikom predlaga enega ali več dogovorov za prestrukturiranje dolga, da bi izboljšalo svoje stanje in se izognilo stečaju, vsak upnik odločiti glede na znesek, ki mu je bil ponujen na podlagi predlaganega dogovora, po eni strani, ter glede na znesek, za katerega pričakuje, da ga bo v primeru likvidacije podjetja lahko izterjal, po drugi strani.
Its decision is influenced by number of factors, including the creditor's status as the holder of a secured, preferential or ordinary claim, the nature and extent of any collateral it may hold, its assessment of the likelihood of the company being restored to viability and the risks of its losses increasing in the event of this not taking place and the amount it would receive in the event of liquidation.
Na njegovo odločitev vpliva več dejavnikov, vključno s tem, ali je terjatev upnika zavarovana, prednostna ali običajna, kakšna sta narava in obseg njegovega morebitnega zavarovanja, kako ocenjuje verjetnost, da se znova doseže rentabilnost podjetja, in tveganje za izgube, če se to ne zgodi, ter kakšen znesek bi prejel v primeru likvidacije.
If it turned out, for example, that in the event of the company being liquidated, the realisation value of its assets sufficed only to cover mortgage and preferential claims, ordinary claims would have no value.
Če bi se na primer izkazalo, da bi ob likvidaciji podjetja iztržljiva vrednost njegovih sredstev zadostovala le za pokritje hipoteke in prednostnih terjatev, bi bile običajne terjatve brez vrednosti.
In these circumstances, acceptance by an ordinary creditor of the cancellation of a major part of its claim would not really be a sacrifice [41].
V takih okoliščinah pristanek običajnega upnika, da odpiše glavni del svojih terjatev, dejansko ne bi bila izguba [41].
Agreement to the Plan in 2007
Soglasje glede načrta prestrukturiranja v letu 2007
The Commission notes that the terms of the settlement with the public collecting bodies are different from the terms of the settlement with the two private banks.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se pogoji poravnave z javnimi organi za pobiranje prispevkov razlikujejo od pogojev poravnave z obema zasebnima bankama.
First of all, the private banks opted for an immediate payout, whereas the public collecting authorities agreed to await the results of the sale of PLZ Hydral's assets and subsidiaries.
Prvič, zasebni banki sta se odločili za takojšnje izplačilo, medtem ko so se javni organi za pobiranje prispevkov strinjali, da počakajo na rezultate prodaje sredstev in podružnic podjetja PZL Hydral.
Second, the expected recovery rate of the public collecting authorities by far exceeds the recovery rate of the private banks: Bank […] recovered 7 %, Bank […] recovered 13 %, whereas the public collecting authorities could expect to recover 38,5 % on the basis of sale proceedings of PLN 122,3 million.
Drugič, pričakovana stopnja izterjave pri javnih organih za pobiranje prispevkov izrazito presega stopnjo izterjave pri zasebnih bankah: banka […] je izterjala 7 %, banka […] pa 13 %, medtem ko so lahko javni organi za pobiranje prispevkov pričakovali, da bodo na podlagi postopka prodaje v vrednosti 122,3 milijona PLN izterjali 38,5 %.
The Commission must assess whether the decision of the public creditors to agree in 2007 to the Plan, which is different in nature to the settlement obtained by the private creditors, would have been taken by a private creditor in their place, applying the principles set out in points 188 and 189 above.
Komisija mora oceniti, ali bi tudi zasebni upnik sprejel odločitev javnih upnikov iz leta 2007, da sprejmejo načrt prestrukturiranja, ki bi se po svoji naravi razlikoval od poravnave, ki so jo dosegli zasebni upniki, v njihovem položaju na podlagi načel iz točk 188 in 189 zgoraj.
First, the Commission notes that the public creditors had only limited collateral, and that their collateral was of an inferior quality to that of the private banks (see Tables 16 to 20 above).
Prvič, Komisija ugotavlja, da so imeli javni upniki le omejeno zavarovanje, ki je bilo manj kakovostno od zavarovanja zasebnih bank (glej preglednice od 16 do 20 zgoraj).
They were therefore in a weaker negotiating position.
Zato je bil njihov pogajalski položaj slabši.
At the same time, following the settlement with the private creditors, the quality of their collateral increased significantly, giving them additional security that, even in the event of the Plan not working out as predicted, they would still obtain an acceptable recovery rate from the assets.
Hkrati se je kakovost njihovega zavarovanja po poravnavi z zasebnimi upniki znatno izboljšala, kar jim je zagotovilo dodatno varnost, da bodo vseeno lahko dosegli sprejemljivo stopnjo izterjave sredstev, tudi če z načrtom prestrukturiranja ne bodo doseženi pričakovani rezultati.
Second, the Commission notes that the public creditors could expect, on the basis of the assumptions underpinning the Plan, a substantially higher recovery rate than the private creditors, which had opted for a quick settlement.
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da bi lahko javni organi na podlagi predpostavk, na katerih temelji načrt prestrukturiranja, pričakovali znatno višjo stopnjo izterjave kot zasebni upniki, ki so se odločili za hitro poravnavo.
Third, the Commission notes that the private creditors obtained assurances from PZL Hydral and PZL Wrocław that all new liabilities would be paid on time.
Tretjič, Komisija ugotavlja, da sta podjetji PZL Hydral in PZL Wrocław zasebnim upnikom zagotovili, da se bodo vse nove obveznosti pravočasno plačevale.
Fourth, the Commission observes that as regards outstanding liabilities, PZL Hydral agreed to a payment schedule which provided for part of the debt to be repaid in instalments and for the remainder to be repaid once the proceeds of the sale of assets and subsidiaries were known.
Četrtič, Komisija ugotavlja, da se je podjetje PZL Hydral v zvezi z neporavnanimi obveznostmi strinjalo z načrtom plačil, v katerem je bilo določeno, da se del dolga poplača v obrokih, medtem ko se preostanek poplača, ko bodo znani prihodki od prodaje sredstev in podružnic.
These payments constituted a substantial improvement in comparison with recovery in the years before the Plan was agreed: in 2008, the first year of the Plan, PZL Hydral repaid PLN 54,6 million, against only PLN 9,5 million in 2007 (see Table 21).
Ta plačila so pomenila znatno izboljšanje glede na izterjavo v letih pred sprejetjem načrta prestrukturiranja; v letu 2008, tj. prvem letu tega načrta, je podjetje PZL Hydral poplačalo 54,6 milijona PLN, medtem ko je leta 2007 odplačalo le 9,5 milijona PLN (glej preglednico 21).
The Commission concludes that on the basis of these guarantees and the assurances received from PZL Hydral, the public creditors acted as a private creditor placed in a comparable situation would have acted.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so javni upniki na podlagi teh jamstev in zagotovil podjetja PZL Hydral ravnali tako, kot bi v primerljivih okoliščinah ravnal zasebni upnik.
The Commission also observes that due to the failure of negotiations with […] and […] (see point 94), the actual realisation of the Plan took longer than initially envisaged.
Komisija še ugotavlja, da je dejansko izvajanje načrta prestrukturiranja zaradi neuspešnih pogajanj z […] in […] (glej točko 94) trajalo dlje, kot je bilo prvotno predvideno.
The Commission considers that this was a risk inherent to the agreement given to the Plan by the public collecting bodies.
Komisija meni, da so javni organi za pobiranje prispevkov, s tem ko so se strinjali z načrtom prestrukturiranja, sprejeli s tem povezano tveganje.
Agreement to the final settlement in 2010
Pristanek na končno poravnavo v letu 2010
The final settlement between PZL Hydral and its public creditors is described in Table 26.
Končna poravnava med podjetjem PZL Hydral in njegovimi javnimi upniki je opisana v preglednici 26.
Once the sale price for PZL Wrocław had been established following an offer made by […], the public creditors agreed to settlement from the sale of PZL Hydral's assets, without any capital injections, in accordance with the private creditor rule, taking into account the value of their claims and the quality of their collateral (see point 96).
Ko je bila na podlagi ponudbe […] določena prodajna cena za podjetje PZL Wrocław, so javni upniki v skladu z merilom zasebnega upnika pristali na poravnavo na podlagi prihodkov od prodaje sredstev podjetja PZL Hydral brez kakršne koli dokapitalizacije, pri čemer so upoštevali vrednost svojih terjatev in kakovost svojega zavarovanja (glej točko 96).
The Commission must therefore determine whether, in the event of a sale without capital injections, each of the public creditors is better off than in the event of bankruptcy, and whether a sale to […] is the best sale scenario the public creditors could expect.
Zato mora Komisija ugotoviti, ali je v primeru prodaje brez dokapitalizacije vsak posamezni javni upnik v boljšem položaju kot v primeru stečaja ter ali je prodaja […] najboljši scenarij prodaje, ki bi ga javni upniki lahko pričakovali.