natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, in order to determine whether the notified measures constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU all of the following conditions must be fulfilled.
Za določitev, ali priglašeni ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, morajo biti torej izpolnjeni vsi naslednji pogoji.
The financial support would have to:
Finančna pomoč mora:
be granted by the State or through state resources;
biti dodeljena s strani države ali dodeljena iz državnih sredstev,
confer an economic advantage on the recipient;
pomeniti gospodarsko prednost za prejemnika,
favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods;
dajati prednost določenim podjetjem ali proizvodnji določenega blaga,
distort or threaten to distort competition; and
izkrivljati konkurenco ali omogočati izkrivljanje konkurence in
State resources and imputability
Državna sredstva in odgovornost
The concept of state aid applies to any advantage granted directly or indirectly, financed out of state resources, granted by the State itself or by any intermediary body acting by virtue of powers conferred on it.
Pojem državne pomoči zajema vsako neposredno ali posredno dodeljeno prednost, ki se financira iz državnih sredstev in jo odobri država sama ali kateri koli posredniški organ, ki deluje na podlagi svojih pooblastil.
Therefore, it has to be established, first, whether the Osinek loan must be regarded as state resources.
Zato je treba najprej ugotoviti, ali je treba posojilo podjetja Osinek šteti za državna sredstva.
As mentioned above, Osinek was, at the time when the loan was granted, 100 %-owned by the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic and, for this reason, irrespective of its corporate or any other legal status, it is a public undertaking within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as financial transparency within certain undertakings [12].
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je bilo podjetje Osinek ob odobritvi posojila v 100-odstotni lasti ministrstva za finance Češke, zato ne glede na poslovni ali kateri koli drug pravni status gre za javno podjetje v smislu člena 2(b) Direktive Komisije 2006/111/ES z dne 16. novembra 2006 o preglednosti finančnih odnosov med državami članicami in javnimi podjetji ter o finančni preglednosti znotraj določenih podjetij [12].
Thus, the Commission considers that the Osinek loan is financed from state resources.
Zato Komisija meni, da je posojilo podjetja Osinek financirano iz državnih sredstev.
However, the Court of Justice has also ruled that, even if the State is in a position to control a public undertaking and to exercise a dominant influence over its operations, actual exercise of that control in a particular case cannot be automatically presumed.
Vendar je Sodišče tudi odločilo, da čeprav lahko država nadzira neko javno podjetje in ima prevladujoč vpliv na njegovo poslovanje, ni mogoče samodejno sklepati, da se tak nadzor v konkretnem primeru dejansko izvaja.
A public undertaking may act with more or less independence, according to the degree of autonomy left to it by the State.
Javno podjetje lahko deluje z večjo ali manjšo neodvisnostjo, glede na stopnjo avtonomije, ki mu jo prepušča država.
Therefore, the mere fact that a public undertaking is under state control is not sufficient for measures taken by that undertaking, such as the loan agreement in question, to be considered imputable to the State.
Zato zgolj dejstvo, da je javno podjetje pod državnim nadzorom, ne zadošča, da bi ukrepe tega podjetja, kot je obravnavana posojilna pogodba, pripisali državi.
It is also necessary to examine whether the public authorities must be regarded as having been involved, in some way or other, in the adoption of this measure.
Poleg tega je treba preveriti, ali so javni organi kakor koli sodelovali pri sprejetju tega ukrepa.
On that point, the Court indicated that the imputability to the State of a measure taken by a public undertaking may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which that measure was taken [13].
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče opozorilo, da se lahko državi pripiše ukrep pomoči, ki ga je sprejelo javno podjetje, na podlagi sklopa kazalcev, ki izvirajo iz okoliščin v postopku v glavni zadevi, in okoliščin, v katerem je bil sprejet ukrep [13].
Such indicators can be the integration of the undertaking into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the scope of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains.
Taki kazalci so lahko vključenost podjetja v okvir javne uprave, značaj njegovih dejavnosti in izvajanje teh dejavnosti na trgu v splošnih pogojih konkurence z zasebnimi izvajalci, pravni status podjetja (glede na to, ali zanj velja javno pravo ali običajno pravo družb), intenzivnost nadzora, ki ga izvajajo javni organi nad upravo podjetja, ali kateri koli drug kazalec, ki v posameznem primeru kaže na vključenost javnih organov v sprejemanje ukrepa ali majhno verjetnost njihove nevključenosti, pri čemer se upošteva tudi obseg ukrepa, njegova vsebina ali pogoji, ki jih zajema.
The Commission notes that the majority of Osinek Supervisory Board members are representatives of public authorities (such as the Ministry of Finance).
Komisija ugotavlja, da so člani nadzornega odbora podjetja Osinek večinoma predstavniki javnih organov (kot je ministrstvo za finance).
Osinek went into liquidation on 5 November 2008 by virtue of the decision of its sole shareholder of the same date.
Likvidacijski postopek podjetja Osinek se je začel 5. novembra 2008 na podlagi sklepa njegovega takratnega edinega delničarja.
Although, under Czech law, the liquidator has to act on his/her own and without instructions from the company's bodies during the liquidation process, the Commission further notes that the liquidator was appointed by the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic acting as the sole shareholder of Osinek.
Čeprav mora likvidacijski upravitelj v skladu s češko zakonodajo med likvidacijskim postopkom delovati samostojno in se ne sme ravnati po navodilih organov podjetja, Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da je likvidacijskega upravitelja imenovalo ministrstvo za finance Češke v vlogi edinega delničarja podjetja Osinek.
In addition, the Czech authorities have provided the Commission with expert opinions from JUDr.
Poleg tega so češki organi Komisiji predložili izvedensko mnenje odvetniške pisarne JUDr.
Pavel Štrbík which recommended that before taking the decision to grant a loan to ČSA the liquidator of Osinek should consult Osinek's shareholder, i.e. the Czech Republic.
Pavel Štrbík, ki je priporočila, naj se likvidacijski upravitelj pred odobritvijo posojila podjetju ČSA posvetuje z delničarjem podjetja Osinek, tj. s Češko.
As regards the supervision of the activities of Osinek by the State, the Commission further observes that the Czech Government subsequently also took the decision to decollateralise the Osinek loan and swap the debt for ČSA's equity by Resolution No 333.
Komisija v zvezi z nadzorom nad dejavnostmi podjetja Osinek, ki ga izvaja država, tudi ugotavlja, da se je češka vlada pozneje odločila za prenehanje zavarovanja posojila podjetja Osinek s premoženjem in zamenjavo terjatev podjetja ČSA v lastniške deleže v skladu z resolucijo št. 333.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the decision to grant the Osinek loan is imputable to the Czech State.
Komisija torej ugotavlja, da je odločitev o posojilu podjetja Osinek mogoče pripisati češki državi.
The Osinek loan must, therefore, be regarded as being financed from state resources.
Zato je treba šteti, da je posojilo podjetja Osinek financirano iz državnih sredstev.
The Commission notes that, according to well-established principles of EU law, if additional capital is made available by the State to an undertaking on conditions better than normal market conditions, this could fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU, as it would result in favouring the particular undertaking within the meaning of that Article.
Komisija ugotavlja, da bi bila lahko v skladu z uveljavljenimi načeli zakonodaje EU zagotovitev dodatnega kapitala s strani države nekemu podjetju pod pogoji, boljšimi od običajnih tržnih pogojev, zajeta v področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU, ker bi to pomenilo dajanje prednosti posameznemu podjetju v smislu navedenega člena.
In order to determine whether an undertaking has been granted an economic advantage by the State which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions, the Commission applies the ‘market economy investor principle’ (‘the MEIP’) [14].
Odločitev Komisije, ali je nekemu podjetju država omogočila pridobitev gospodarske prednosti, ki je pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji ne bi moglo pridobiti, temelji na „načelu vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji“ [14].
According to that principle, no state aid would be involved where, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a comparable size to that of the bodies operating in the public sector could, while operating in normal market conditions of a market economy, have been prompted to make the capital contribution in question.
V skladu s tem načelom ne gre za državno pomoč v primeru, če bi bil v podobnih okoliščinah zasebni vlagatelj, ki je po velikosti primerljiv z organi v javnem sektorju in deluje v običajnih pogojih tržnega gospodarstva, pripravljen vložiti kapital.
The Commission must therefore assess whether a private investor would have entered into the transaction in question on the same terms.
Zato mora Komisija oceniti, ali bi zasebni vlagatelj pod enakimi pogoji izvedel zadevni posel.
The projected behaviour of the hypothetical private investor is that of a prudent investor whose goal of profit maximisation is tempered by caution about the level of risk acceptable for a given rate of return.
Ravnanje hipotetičnega zasebnega vlagatelja naj bi bilo primerljivo z ravnanjem previdnega vlagatelja, ki pri svojem cilju povečanja dobička upošteva tudi raven tveganja, sprejemljivo za zadevno stopnjo donosa.
According to this principle, capital put at the disposal of a company by the State, directly or indirectly, in circumstances which correspond to the normal conditions of the market, should not be regarded as state aid [15].
V skladu s tem načelom se kapital, ki ga v okoliščinah, ki ustrezajo običajnim tržnim pogojem, nekemu podjetju neposredno ali posredno zagotovi država, ne sme šteti za državno pomoč [15].
According to established case law, the MEIP is applicable to loans.
V skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso se načelo vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji uporablja za posojila.
When applied to the grant of a loan, this principle raises the question of whether a private investor would have granted the loan to the beneficiary on the terms on which it was actually granted [16].
Kadar se to načelo uporablja za odobritev posojila, se preuči, ali bi zasebni vlagatelj odobril posojilo upravičencu pod pogoji, pod katerimi je bilo posojilo dejansko odobreno [16].
In this respect, the Commission assesses whether the loan is made on normal commercial terms and whether such loans would have been available from a commercial bank.
V zvezi s tem Komisija oceni, ali je bilo posojilo odobreno pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji in ali bi lahko takšno posojilo dala komercialna banka.
With regard to the terms of such loans, the Commission takes into account in particular both the interest rate charged and the security sought to cover the loan.
Kar zadeva pogoje takih posojil, Komisija upošteva zlasti uporabljeno obrestno mero in zavarovanje, ki se zahteva za kritje posojila.
The Commission assesses whether the security given is sufficient to repay the loan in full in the event of default and the financial position of the company at the time when the loan is made [17].
Komisija oceni, ali zagotovljeno zavarovanje zadostuje za vračilo celotnega posojila v primeru neplačila, hkrati pa oceni tudi finančni položaj podjetja v času odobritve posojila [17].
The Commission notes that ČSA is a legal person engaged in economic activities and is therefore regarded as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je ČSA pravna oseba, ki opravlja gospodarske dejavnosti in se zato šteje za podjetje v smislu člena 107 PDEU.
In order to determine whether the Osinek loan was granted on favourable conditions or on market conditions, the Commission verified the compliance of the interest rate for the loan in question with the Commission reference rate as laid down in the Reference Rate Communication, which is applied as a proxy for the market rate.
Pri ugotavljanju, ali je bilo posojilo podjetja Osinek odobreno pod ugodnejšimi ali tržnimi pogoji, je Komisija preverila skladnost obrestne mere za zadevno posojilo z referenčno obrestno mero Komisije iz sporočila o referenčnih obrestnih merah, ki se uporablja kot približek za tržno obrestno mero.
As regards the relevant date to be taken into account when comparing the interest rate of the loan in question with the reference rate, the Commission already expressed its opinion in the opening decision that this should be the date of the legally binding act according to which the loan was granted, i.e. 30 April 2009 (date of conclusion of the loan agreement between Osinek and ČSA).
Kar zadeva ustrezen datum, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri primerjavi obrestne mere zadevnega posojila z referenčno obrestno mero, je Komisija v sklepu o začetku postopka že izrazila mnenje, da je treba upoštevati datum pravno zavezujočega akta, v skladu s katerim je bilo odobreno posojilo, tj. 30. april 2009 (datum sklenitve posojilne pogodbe med podjetjema Osinek in ČSA).
Although all of these banks acknowledged the worsening of ČSA's financial situation in early 2009, working capital loans and credit facilities were provided to ČSA during the first half of 2009.
Čeprav so vse te banke priznale, da se je finančno stanje podjetja ČSA v začetku leta 2009 poslabševalo, so bila podjetju ČSA v prvi polovici leta 2009 odobrena posojila obratnega kapitala in krediti.
The internal rating for ČSA of the three private banks corresponds roughly to a B rating.
Notranja bonitetna ocena ČSA, ki so jo uporabile zadevne tri zasebne banke, približno ustreza bonitetni oceni B.
The Commission notes that the banks' answers are consistent and sound.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so bili odgovori bank dosledni in jasni.
Although the internal ranking of the company deteriorated, the downgrading does not seem significant enough to justify a higher risk margin.
Čeprav se je notranja bonitetna ocena podjetja poslabšala, se zdi, da to poslabšanje ni bilo dovolj veliko, da bi upravičilo višje kritje tveganja.
In addition, the Commission observes that, as already indicated in the opening decision and based on the information provided by the Czech Republic, UniCreditBank provided a working capital, medium-term loan (4 years) of CZK 200 million to ČSA in September 2008, secured by a flight simulator.
Poleg tega Komisija na podlagi informacij, ki jih je predložila Čepka, in kot je bilo že navedeno v sklepu o začetku postopka, ugotavlja, da je banka UniCreditBank septembra 2008 podjetju ČSA zagotovila obratni kapital v obliki srednjeročnega posojila (4 leta) v višini 200 milijonov CZK, ki je bilo zavarovano s simulatorjem letenja.
On 25 June 2009, due to the deviation from the financial indicators agreed in the loan agreement, UniCreditBank increased the risk margin for the ČSA loan from 160 basis points (agreed in September 2008) to 325 basis points above the one-month PRIBOR (i.e. an interest rate of 5,10 % p.a. on 25 June 2009).
Banka UniCreditBank je 25. junija 2009 zaradi odstopanja od finančnih kazalnikov, dogovorjenih v posojilni pogodbi, kritje tveganja za posojilo podjetju ČSA povečala s 160 bazičnih točk (dogovorjeno septembra 2008) na 325 bazičnih točk nad enomesečno obrestno mero PRIBOR (tj. 5,10-odstotna letna obrestna mera na dan 25. junija 2009).
The Commission notes that this interest rate, which reflected the recent worsening of ČSA's financial situation, is below the interest rate of the Osinek loan (5,51 % p.a.) and corresponds approximately to a reference rate for a company with a B rating (with high collateralisation).
Komisija ugotavlja, da je ta obrestna mera, ki izraža nedavno poslabšanje finančnega stanja ČSA, nižja od obrestne mere, ki se je uporabila pri posojilu podjetja Osinek (5,51 % na leto), in da približno ustreza referenčni obrestni meri za podjetje z bonitetno oceno B (z visokim zavarovanjem s premoženjem).
In view of the above, it can be concluded that, in principle, ČSA had access to external financing at the time the Osinek loan was granted and that ČSA's creditworthiness in the first half of 2009 corresponded to a B rating.
Glede na navedeno je mogoče sklepati, da je podjetje ČSA v času odobritve posojila podjetja Osinek načeloma imelo dostop do zunanjega financiranja in da je kreditna sposobnost podjetja ČSA v prvi polovici leta 2009 ustrezala bonitetni oceni B.
The collateral used to secure the loan comprised buildings located at Prague Ruzyně Airport, land, inventories and spare parts.
Premoženje, s katerim je bilo zavarovano posojilo, je zajemalo zgradbe na letališču Ruzyně v Pragi, zemljišče, inventar in rezervne dele.
The market value of the collateral was established by independent experts from the Czech Republic, who are registered either in the Register of Expert Institutes or the Central Register of Authorised Experts maintained by the Czech Ministry of Justice and have experience in the field of the evaluation of assets [18].
Tržno vrednost zavarovanja s premoženjem so ocenili neodvisni strokovnjaki iz Češke, ki so vpisani v register strokovnih inštitutov ali centralni register pooblaščenih strokovnjakov, ki ga vodi češko ministrstvo za pravosodje, in imajo izkušnje na področju ocenjevanja premoženja [18].
Such a declaration is in line with paragraph 5.9.11 of the Osinek loan agreement provided that the complete appraisal report is submitted within one month from the date of payment of the first tranche.
Ta izjava je skladna z odstavkom 5.9.11 posojilne pogodbe s podjetjem Osinek, če je celotno poročilo o oceni vrednosti predloženo v enem mesecu od datuma plačila prvega obroka.
The Commission notes that this condition was fulfilled.
Komisija meni, da je bil ta pogoj izpolnjen.
Furthermore, the Commission has critically evaluated the submitted appraisal reports.
Poleg tega je Komisija kritično obravnavala predložena poročila o oceni vrednosti.
The evaluations give no cause for concern since no manifest errors have been detected, accepted methodologies are applied and the evaluations are based on credible assumptions.
V zvezi z zadevnimi ocenami ni nobenih razlogov za skrb, saj ni bila ugotovljena nobena očitna napaka, uporabljene so sprejete metodologije, ocene pa temeljijo na verodostojnih domnevah.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the results of the present appraisal reports are an appropriate approximation for the realistic market prices of the assets used as collateral for the Osinek loan.
Zato Komisija meni, da so rezultati teh poročil o oceni vrednosti ustrezen približek dejanskih tržnih cen premoženja, s katerim je bilo zavarovano posojilo podjetja Osinek.
For one type of collateral (the spare parts), the value was based on their net book value.
Vrednost pri eni vrsti zavarovanja s premoženjem (rezervni deli) je temeljila na neto knjigovodski vrednosti.
The Commission considers that this valuation method is appropriate for this type of asset given that spare parts can easily be traded and their value should therefore correspond to their original acquisition cost less accumulated depreciation.
Komisija meni, da je metoda ocene vrednosti primerna za to vrsto premoženja, glede na to, da je z rezervnimi deli preprosto trgovati, zato mora njihova vrednost ustrezati stroškom prvotnega nakupa, zmanjšanim za skupno vrednost amortizacije
The loan agreement stipulated that the actual loan amount must not exceed 90 % of the value of the collateral, i.e. the value of the collateral must be at least equal to 110 % of the loan amount.
V skladu s posojilno pogodbo dejanski znesek posojila ne sme presegati 90 % vrednosti zavarovanja s premoženjem, tj. vrednost zavarovanja mora znašati vsaj 110 % zneska posojila.
Based on the submitted information, at the time when the first tranche was granted in May 2009, the value of the original collateral as agreed in the loan agreement of 30 April 2009 was at least [110-117] %; at the time when the second tranche was granted in July 2009 at least [120-132] %; and at the time when the third tranche was granted in September 2009 at least [128-141] %.
Na podlagi predloženih informacij je bila ob odobritvi prvega obroka maja 2009 vrednost prvotnega zavarovanja, kot je bila dogovorjena v posojilni pogodbi z dne 30. aprila 2009, vsaj [110–117] %, ob odobritvi drugega obroka julija 2009 vsaj [120–132] % in ob odobritvi tretjega obroka septembra 2009 vsaj [128–141] %.
In addition, by several addendums to the Osinek loan agreement (see recital 8) additional collateral assets were added and some assets were released.
Poleg tega je bilo z več dodatki k posojilni pogodbi s podjetjem Osinek (glej uvodno izjavo 8) za zavarovanje posojila uporabljeno dodatno premoženje, del premoženja v ta namen ni bil več uporabljen.
Overview of collateralisation at different time periods of the Osinek loan
Pregled zavarovanja posojila podjetja Osinek s premoženjem v različnih obdobjih
Date of change
Datum spremembe
Amount drawn
Izplačan znesek
(CZK million)
(v milijonih CZK)
Value of collateral (CZK million)
Vrednost zavarovanja s premoženjem (v milijonih CZK)
% level of collateral
% ravni zavarovanja s premoženjem
11 May 2009
11. maj 2009
23 July 2009
23. julij 2009
30 July 2009
30. julij 2009
22 September 2009
22. september 2009
24 September 2009
24. september 2009
9 December 2009
9. december 2009
25 January 2010
25. januar 2010
The Reference Rate Communication assumes that ‘high’ collateralisation implies a loss given default below or equal to 30 %, which corresponds to a value of the collateral of at least 70 % of the loan amount.
Sporočilo o referenčnih obrestnih merah predvideva, da „visoko“ zavarovanje s premoženjem pomeni izgubo ob neplačilu v višini največ 30 %, kar ustreza vrednosti zavarovanja s premoženjem v višini vsaj 70 % zneska posojila.
The Commission notes that the collateralisation provided for the loan is significantly higher, which creates an important safety margin as regards any possible deviation in the estimates of the value of the collateral.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je zavarovanje s premoženjem, zagotovljeno za posojilo, znatno višje, kar pomeni pomembno varnostno rezervo v zvezi s katerim koli morebitnim odstopanjem pri oceni vrednosti zavarovanja s premoženjem.
The appropriate interest rate following the Reference Rate Communication at that time would be 5,16 % p.a. (base rate 2,96 % + 220 basis points = 5,16 % p.a.).
V zadevnem obdobju bi ustrezna obrestna mera v skladu s sporočilom o referenčnih obrestnih merah znašala 5,16 % na leto (osnovna stopnja 2,96 % + 220 bazičnih točk = 5,16 % na leto).
The margin of 220 basis points reflects a B rating as confirmed by the private banks and the high collateralisation described above.
Kritje v višini 220 bazičnih točk izraža bonitetno oceno B, kar so potrdile zasebne banke, in visoko zavarovanje s premoženjem, opisano zgoraj.