natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It appears that only the latter case would be feasible for United Textiles, due to its critical financial situation (see Table 1) and its difficult access to finance (see recital 15).
Vendar se v primeru podjetja United Textiles zdi, da bi bila zaradi njegovega kritičnega finančnega položaja (glej preglednico 1) in težav pri dostopanju do finančnih sredstev (glej uvodno izjavo 15) izvedljiva le kapitalizacija izgub.
On the basis of the above, the Commission considers that the company lost more than half of its registered capital.
Zato Komisija meni, da je podjetje dejansko izgubilo več kot polovico svojega delniškega kapitala.
Furthermore, concerning point 10(c) of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, since 2008 the company fulfilled the criteria under Greek law for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings [16].
Kar zadeva točko 10(c) smernic, podjetje od leta 2008 izpolnjuje merila, na podlagi katerih je v skladu z grško zakonodajo upravičeno do kolektivnih postopkov zaradi insolventnosti [16].
Finally, as regards point 11 of the of the Rescue and restructuring guidelines, the usual signs of a firm being in difficulty, such as increasing losses, diminishing turnover and mounting debt, have been present since at least 2004.
Kar pa zadeva točko 11 smernic, so običajni znaki podjetja v težavah, kot so povečevanje izgub, zmanjševanje prihodkov in kopičenje dolga, prisotni vsaj od leta 2004.
V(b) Presence of aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
V(b) Obstoj pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU
Article 107(1) TFEU states that ‘Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by 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 shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
Člen 107(1) PDEU določa, da „[r]azen če Pogodbi ne določata drugače, 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, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
The Commission will assess whether the measures under scrutiny in favour of United Textiles constitute State aid in the sense of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisija bo v nadaljevanju ocenila, ali ukrepi, sprejeti v zvezi s podjetjem United Textiles, pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
V(b)(1) Measure 1: State guarantee of May 2007
V(b)(1) Ukrep 1: državno poroštvo iz maja 2007
Aid to United Textiles
Pomoč podjetju United Textiles
The Commission notes that the State guarantee in question indeed involves State resources, as it has been granted directly by the State.
Navedeno državno poroštvo je dejansko dodeljeno iz državnih sredstev, ker ga je neposredno dodelila država.
The decision has been made by the responsible minister; therefore, the measure is also imputable to the State.
Odločitev je sprejel pristojni minister, zato je tudi ukrep mogoče pripisati državi.
Thus, the criterion of State resources is fulfilled.
Merilo v zvezi z državnimi sredstvi je tako izpolnjeno.
Greece and the beneficiary claim that the National Bank of Greece (the lending bank) has accepted to decline the State guarantee and in its place to inscribe a mortgage on real estate assets of United Textiles, which will deactivate the guarantee.
Grčija in upravičenec trdita, da je Narodna banka Grčije (banka upnica) soglašala z zavrnitvijo državnega poroštva, pri čemer bi se namesto njega vzela hipoteka na nepremičninska sredstva podjetja United Textiles, s katero bi bilo poroštvo deaktivirano.
To demonstrate their claim, Greece and the beneficiary submit a letter of the National Bank of Greece, dated 24 December 2010 (replying to a letter of United Textiles dated 23 December 2010).
V podporo tej trditvi sta predložila dopis Narodne banke Grčije z dne 24. decembra 2010, s katerim banka odgovarja na dopis podjetja United Textiles z dne 23. decembra 2010.
The Commission cannot accept the above.
Komisija ne more sprejeti tega argumenta.
Indeed, in the submitted letter of the National Bank of Greece, it is only stated that the bank would be willing to examine the proposed exchange of securities, mainly under the conditions that the bank would choose the assets to be pledged and that the exchange would be accepted by all concerned parties.
Narodna banka Grčije v predloženem dopisu navaja le, da bi bila pripravljena preučiti predlagano zamenjavo zavarovanja, če bi bila ta izvedena pod določenimi pogoji, pri čemer bi bila glavna pogoja, da bi sredstva, ki bi se zastavila, izbrala banka in da bi zamenjavo morale sprejeti vse zainteresirane strani.
Thus, the Commission considers that the National Bank of Greece has not actually accepted the proposed exchange of securities.
Po mnenju Komisije zato Narodna banka Grčije dejansko ni sprejela predlagane zamenjave zavarovanja.
Greece also argues that the 2007 guarantee was granted in line with the State aid rules that are in force in the EU.
Grčija tudi trdi, da je bilo poroštvo iz leta 2007 dodeljeno v skladu s pravili Evropske unije o državni pomoči.
According to Greece’s allegations, the guarantee had a maximum coverage of 80 % and that it was granted for loans with market interest rates.
Ob tem zatrjuje, da s poroštvom ni bilo zavarovanih več kot 80 % posojil in da je bilo dodeljeno po tržnih obrestnih merah.
The Commission cannot accept the above argumentation and considers that the 2007 guarantee has indeed procured an undue advantage to United Textiles.
Komisija ne more sprejeti te utemeljitve in meni, da je poroštvo iz leta 2007 dejansko pomenilo neupravičeno prednost za podjetje United Textiles.
According to the Guarantee Notice, points 2.2 and 3.2, when the borrower does not pay a market-oriented price for the guarantee, it obtains an advantage.
V skladu s točkama 2.2 in 3.2 obvestila o poroštvih je posojilojemalcu odobrena prednost, če za poroštvo ne plača tržne cene.
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 finančnih težavah pod nobenimi pogoji ne bi bile pripravljene dati posojila brez državnega poroštva.
In the case at hand, the 2007 guarantee was granted for loans of a firm in difficulty and did not foresee a premium for the guarantor (State).
Poroštvo iz leta 2007 je bilo dodeljeno za posojila podjetju v težavah, pri čemer poroku, tj. državi, ni bilo treba plačati nobene premije.
In the light of points 3.2 and 4.2 of the Guarantee notice, the Commission notes the significant deterioration of the company’s financial situation in the period 2004-07, the overdue situation of its loans and the fact that already since 2001 its lending banks’ support had been limited, with reduced credit lines and loans.
Ob upoštevanju točk 3.2. in 4.2 obvestila o poroštvih želi Komisija poudariti, da se je v obdobju 2004–2007 finančno stanje podjetja znatno poslabšalo, plačila njegovih posojil so zaostajala, banke upnice pa so mu od leta 2001 omejile podporo z zmanjšanjem kreditnih linij in posojil.
The Commission considers that, since at the time that the measure was taken United Textiles was in serious difficulty, it must be classified in the credit category ‘bad’.
Komisija meni, da je bilo podjetje United Textiles v času sprejetja ukrepa v resnih težavah, zato ga je treba uvrstiti v kategorijo podjetij s „slabo“ kreditno sposobnostjo.
In addition to the above, the Commission notes that, according to the company’s annual reports of 2007, 2008 and 2009, the guaranteed loan was still envisaged to be securitised with assets of the company, therefore that securitisation was apparently not realised yet (see recital 18).
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da je bilo glede na letna poročila podjetja za leta 2007, 2008 in 2009 še vedno predvideno, da bo posojilo s poroštvom zavarovano s sredstvi podjetja: jasno je, da se to še ni zgodilo (glej uvodno izjavo 18).
In addition, the Commission notes that the National Bank of Greece (the lending bank) was proposed in December 2010 to decline the State guarantee and in its place to inscribe a mortgage on real estate assets of United Textiles (see recital 37).
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da je bilo decembra 2010 Narodni banki Grčije (banki upnici) predlagano, da bi lahko zavrnila državo poroštvo, pri čemer bi se namesto njega vzela hipoteka na nepremičninska sredstva podjetja United Textiles (glej uvodno izjavo 37).
The Commission considers this proposal to be a clear indication that indeed the securitisation in question was not realised.
Komisija meni, da je ta predlog jasen znak, da takšno zavarovanje ni bilo zagotovljeno.
On this issue, the Greek authorities submit that the 2007 guarantee was securitised with commodities of the company and personal guarantees of its shareholders (see recital 35), however the facts of the case only verify the shareholders’ personal guarantees.
Grški organi trdijo, da je bilo poroštvo iz leta 2007 zavarovano z zastavljenimi nepremičninami podjetja in osebnimi jamstvi delničarjev (glej uvodno izjavo 35), vendar dejstva v tej zadevi kažejo le, da so bila zagotovljena osebna jamstva delničarjev.
Thus, the Commission considers that the underlying loan was not securitised.
Zato Komisija meni, da osnovno posojilo ni bilo zavarovano.
On the basis of the above, the Commission doubts that any private guarantor would have offered such a guarantee and that any private bank would have accepted to finance the company without a State guarantee at all, as in a similar situation it would appear extremely difficult for such company to be able to repay the loan and for the guarantor to avoid to honour the guarantee.
Zato Komisija dvomi, da bi kateri koli zasebni porok ponudil takšno poroštvo in da bi se katera koli banka strinjala s financiranjem podjetja brez državnega poroštva, ker bi podjetje v takšnem položaju izredno težko vrnilo posojilo, zato bi verjetno moral porok sam kriti poroštvo.
Thus, the Commission considers that the aid amount stemming from the 2007 guarantee amounts up to the whole amount of the guaranteed loan, i.e. EUR 16 million (80 % of EUR 20 million).
Komisija torej meni, da je znesek pomoči, ki izhaja iz poroštva iz leta 2007, enak celotnemu znesku posojila s poroštvom, tj. 16 milijonov EUR (80 % od 20 milijonov EUR).
Greece and the beneficiary also support that the 2007 guarantee does not constitute aid, as it was not selective to United Textiles: it was granted on the basis of ministerial decision 2/75172/0025/26.01.2007 which concerned not only United Textiles but also other companies.
Grčija in upravičenec trdita, da poroštvo iz leta 2007 ne pomeni pomoči, ker ni bilo selektivno: ni bilo omejeno na podjetje United Textiles, ampak je bilo dodeljeno na podlagi ministrskega sklepa št. 2/75172/0025/26.01.2007, ki ni veljal le za zadevno podjetje, ampak tudi za druga podjetja.
The Commission notes that the ministerial decision on which the guarantee was based targeted certain sectors of a specific geographical area, i.e. the Imathia district.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bil ministrski sklep, na podlagi katerega je bilo dodeljeno poroštvo, ciljno usmerjen v nekatere sektorje na določenem geografskem območju, tj. v prefekturi Imathía.
In addition, in the case at hand, the Greek authorities had a wide range of manoeuvre in granting a guarantee in favour of United Textiles, as there were no objective criteria set for deciding whether to grant the guarantee or not.
Poleg tega so imeli grški organi v zadevnem primeru veliko manevrskega prostora v zvezi s poroštvom za podjetje United Textiles, ker objektivna merila za odločanje, ali se poroštvo dodeli ali ne, niso bila določena.
In the absence of such objective criteria, the measure was indeed selective, because the authorities applied it individually on a discretionary basis [17].
Ker takšnih objektivnih meril ni bilo, je bil ukrep dejansko selektiven, saj so ga pristojni organi uporabili individualno na diskrecijski osnovi [17].
According to established case-law [18], where the public body granting financial assistance enjoys a degree of latitude which enables it to choose the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the financial assistance is provided, that assistance cannot be considered to be general in nature.
Uveljavljena sodna praksa določa, da kadar ima organ, pristojen za odobritev finančne pomoči, toliko svobode, da lahko izbira upravičence ali pogoje za dodelitev pomoči, takšna pomoč ne more veljati za splošno [18].
Thus, the criterion of selectivity is indeed fulfilled.
Merilo selektivnosti je tako izpolnjeno.
United Textiles is active in a sector whose products are widely traded among Member States and who is subject to intense competition.
Podjetje United Textiles je dejavno v sektorju, z izdelki katerega države članice veliko trgujejo in za katerega je značilna močna konkurenca.
At the time of the granting of the aid measures, United Textiles was an undertaking which realised most of its sales to other Member States (see recital 11).
V času sprejetja ukrepov pomoči je podjetje United Textiles večino svoje prodaje realiziralo v drugih državah članicah (glej uvodno izjavo 11).
Also, the aid measure in question granted United Textiles an advantage over its competitors (see recitals 45, 46 and 47).
Zadevni ukrep pomoči je podjetju United Textiles zagotovil prednost pred konkurenti (glej uvodne izjave 45, 46 in 47).
According to established case-law [19], 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 se z državno pomočjo okrepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenčnimi podjetji na področju trgovine med državami članicami, je treba v skladu z uveljavljeno stalno sodno prakso šteti, da navedena pomoč vpliva na ta podjetja [19].
Thus, the criterion of distortion of competition and affectation of trade between Member States is indeed fulfilled.
Merilo glede izkrivljanja konkurence in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami je tako izpolnjeno.
Aid to the lending bank
Pomoč banki upnici
Regarding the bank lending the underlying loan of the 2007 guarantee (the National Bank of Greece), the investigation has shown that it did not benefit from the guarantee in question.
Banka, ki je dala posojilo na podlagi poroštva iz leta 2007, je bila Narodna banka Grčije. Preiskava je pokazala, da banka od poroštva ni imela koristi.
Indeed, the guarantee was granted in the context of a new loan contract, with a new duration of 10 years.
Poroštvo je bilo dodeljeno za novo posojilno pogodbo z novim obdobjem trajanja 10 let.
According to point 2.3.1 of the Guarantee Notice, if a State guarantee is given ex post in respect of a loan, without the terms of this loan being adjusted, then there may also be aid to the lender; in the case at hand, however, the terms of the existing loan were changed, through the change of the loan’s duration.
V skladu s točko 2.3.1 obvestila o poroštvih lahko poroštvo vključuje tudi pomoč posojilodajalcu, če se državno poroštvo za že odobreno posojilo dodeli naknadno, brez prilagoditve pogojev navedenega posojila. Vendar so se v obravnavanem primeru pogoji obstoječega posojila spremenili s spremembo trajanja posojila.
Therefore the Commission considers that the 2007 guarantee did not constitute aid to the lender.
Zato Komisija meni, da poroštvo iz leta 2007 ni pomenilo pomoči posojilodajalcu.
At the same time, the 2007 guarantee merely resulted in the bank not seeking immediately to collect its loan.
Hkrati je bil edini učinek poroštva iz leta 2007, da banka ni zahtevala takojšnjega vračila posojila.
However, the bank would be able to recover the existing loan through liquidation procedures.
Vendar bi lahko banka obstoječe posojilo izterjala na podlagi likvidacijskega postopka.
In this regard, the Commission notes that the 2007 loan was already covered with a mortgage on a fixed asset [20].
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da je bilo posojilo iz leta 2007 zavarovano s hipoteko na osnovna sredstva [20].
Conclusion on the existence of aid in Measure 1
Sklepne ugotovitve o obstoju pomoči pri ukrepu 1
On the basis of the above, it is concluded that the State guarantee of May 2007 (Measure 1) constitutes unlawful State aid in favour of United Textiles in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisija ugotavlja, da državno poroštvo iz maja 2007 (ukrep 1) pomeni nezakonito državno pomoč podjetju United Textiles v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Commission considers that the State guarantee of May 2007 did not constitute State aid in favour of the lending bank the National Bank of Greece in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisija meni, da državno poroštvo iz maja 2007 ne pomeni državne pomoči banki upnici, tj. Narodni banki Grčije, v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
V(b)(2) Measure 2: Rescheduling of overdue social insurance obligations
V(b)(2) Ukrep 2: reprogramiranje zapadlih obveznosti iz naslova socialnih prispevkov
The Commission notes that the aim of social insurance contributions is to finance the budget of Social Security Organisations, which constitute public legal entities under the State’s supervision.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je cilj socialnih prispevkov financiranje organizacij za socialno zavarovanje, ki so pravne osebe, ustanovljene v skladu z javnim pravom, katerih poslovanje nadzira država.
Therefore the non-collection of such contributions deprives the State of resources.
Če se takšni prispevki ne poberejo, je država prikrajšana za ta sredstva.
Thus, this criterion is fulfilled.
Zato je to merilo izpolnjeno.
The Commission notes that United Textiles was effectively granted a delay of eight years to the payment of a financial obligation, at the time of severe financial difficulty and high probability of default.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bilo podjetju United Textiles dejansko odobreno obdobje osmih let za izpolnitev finančne obveznosti v času, ko je bilo podjetje v resnih finančnih težavah in je bilo zelo verjetno, da ne bo moglo izpolnjevati svojih obveznosti.
According to well-established case-law [21], in order to establish whether a selective advantage is conferred by non-enforcement of debts and whether the advantage could be classified as State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, it must still be established that United Textiles could not have obtained such an advantage under normal market conditions.
Da bi se ugotovilo, ali je imelo podjetje United Textiles zaradi neizterjave dolgov selektivno prednost in ali bi bilo treba takšno prednost šteti za državno pomoč za namene člena 107(1) PDEU, je treba v skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso potrditi, da podjetje prednosti ne bi moglo imeti pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji [21].
In this regard the essential question to be asked is whether the behaviour of the State as creditor in the given circumstances could be compared to the behaviour of a diligent private creditor.
Ključno vprašanje v zvezi s tem je, ali je bilo v zadevnih okoliščinah ravnanje države primerljivo z ravnanjem skrbnega zasebnega upnika.
According to the Greek authorities, previous rescheduling agreements had not been respected by United Textiles.
Po mnenju grških organov podjetje United Textiles ni spoštovalo predhodnih dogovorov o reprogramiranju.
At the same time, the company was effectively granted an extension of eight years for the payment of a financial obligation of EUR 14,57 million (see recital 16), at the time of severe financial difficulty and high probability of default.
Podjetju je bilo dejansko odobreno osemletno podaljšanje roka za plačilo finančne obveznosti v višini 14,57 milijona EUR (glej uvodno izjavo 16) v času, ko je bilo v resnih finančnih težavah in je bilo zelo verjetno, da obveznosti ne bo moglo poravnati.
Such an extension would not have been granted by a market economy creditor, especially since previous reschedulings had already failed.
Takšnega podaljšanja upnik pod tržnimi pogoji ne bi odobril, zlasti ker predhodna reprogramiranja niso bila uspešna.
For the above-stated reasons, the Commission considers that the behaviour of the Greek authorities could not be compared to that of a diligent private creditor, since the rescheduling of 2009 was applied in spite of previous failed rescheduling agreements and the company was already in serious financial difficulties and had stopped most of its production, thus the perspective of obtaining a repayment of the debt appeared unlikely.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ravnanje grških organov ni bilo primerljivo z ravnanjem skrbnega zasebnega upnika, saj je bilo reprogramiranje leta 2009 izvedeno kljub neuspehu predhodnih dogovorov o reprogramiranju, pri čemer je bilo podjetje že v resnih finančnih težavah in je ustavilo večino svoje proizvodnje, zaradi česar je bilo vračilo dolga malo verjetno.
Thus, the Commission considers that the 2009 rescheduling of the company’s public insurance debts has conferred an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU on the company.
Komisija zato meni, da je reprogramiranje dolgov podjetja za socialne prispevke iz leta 2009 pomenilo prednost za podjetje za namene člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Greek authorities and the beneficiary claim that the rescheduling was based on a general national law [22], applicable to all companies in Greece, therefore the measure was not selective.
Grški organi in upravičenec trdijo, da je reprogramiranje temeljilo na splošni nacionalni zakonodaji, ki se uporablja za vsa podjetja v Grčiji [22], in da ukrep zato ni bil selektiven.
The Commission cannot accept the above argument.
Komisija ne more sprejeti tega argumenta.
Indeed, in the case at hand, the Greek authorities had a wide range of manoeuvre in the treatment of United Textiles’ social insurance debts, as there were no objective criteria set for deciding whether to grant the rescheduling or not.
Grški organi so imeli v zadevnem primeru veliko manevrskega prostora v zvezi z obravnavanjem dolgov podjetja United Textiles za socialne prispevke, ker objektivna merila za odločanje, ali se reprogramiranje odobri ali ne, niso bila določena.
In the absence of such objective criteria, the measure was indeed selective, because the authorities applied it individually on a discretionary basis [23].
Ker takšnih objektivnih meril ni bilo, je bil ukrep dejansko selektiven, saj so ga pristojni organi uporabili individualno na diskrecijski osnovi [23].
Also, according to established case-law, where the public body granting financial assistance enjoys a degree of latitude which enables it to choose the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the financial assistance is provided, that assistance cannot be considered to be general in nature [24].
Uveljavljena sodna praksa določa, da kadar ima organ, pristojen za odobritev finančne pomoči, toliko svobode, da lahko izbira upravičence ali pogoje za dodelitev pomoči, takšna pomoč ne more veljati za splošno [24].
Finally, the criterion of distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States is fulfilled in the same way as in recital 63.
Merilo glede izkrivljanja konkurence in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami je izpolnjeno zaradi razlogov iz uvodne izjave 63.
Conclusion on the existence of aid in Measure 2
Sklepne ugotovitve o obstoju pomoči pri ukrepu 2
On the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that the 2009 rescheduling of overdue social insurance obligations constitutes State aid in favour of United Textiles in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisija ugotavlja, da reprogramiranje zapadlih obveznosti iz naslova socialnih prispevkov iz leta 2009 pomeni državno pomoč podjetju United Textiles v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The amount of aid equals to EUR 14,57 million, granted to the company at the moment of the overdue debts’ rescheduling on 25 May 2009, as the total amount of the rescheduled debts.
Znesek pomoči znaša 14,57 milijona EUR, kar je skupni znesek zapadlih dolgov, reprogramiranih 25. maja 2009.
V(b)(3) Measure 3: State guarantee of June 2010
V(b)(3) Ukrep 3: državno poroštvo iz junija 2010