natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its opinion the market price for ordinary table wine cannot be taken as a benchmark for this 60 % of the stock because the relevant market for GfW is not the ordinary table wine market but the market for higher quality raw wine to be used in the production of sparkling wine.
Po njenem mnenju tržne cene za navadno namizno vino ni mogoče uporabiti kot merilo za teh 60 % zaloge, ker upoštevni trg družbe GfW ni trg z navadnim namiznim vinom, ampak trg kakovostnejše osnove za proizvodnjo penečega vina.
Germany also makes reference to the theory of demand substitution which points out that two products are not traded on the same market if one cannot be replaced by the other even if the price of one changes.
Nemčija se sklicuje tudi na teorijo zamenljivosti povpraševanja, ki poudarja, da se dva proizvoda ne prodajata na istem trgu, če enega ni mogoče zamenjati z drugim, tudi če se cena enega spremeni.
In the case at hand, the specific requirements for must and raw wine for the production of sparkling wine makes it impossible to replace it with ordinary table wine must or table wine even if the price for table wine would decrease significantly.
V zadevnem primeru zaradi posebnih zahtev za mošt in osnovo za proizvodnjo penečega vina zamenjava teh z moštom za navadno namizno vino ali z navadnim namiznim vinom ne bi bila mogoča, tudi če bi se cena namiznega vina znatno znižala.
Therefore, a decrease in the price of table wine will not influence the price of must for the production of sparkling wine because they cannot be substituted for one another.
Znižanje cene namiznega vina tako ne more vplivati na ceno mošta za proizvodnjo penečega vina, ker nista medsebojno zamenljiva.
According to the import statistics of the German winegrowers association (Deutsche Weinbauverband) for the years 1998-2001, imported white wine, which due to its high quality is suitable for the production of sparkling wine, had a market price of EUR 0,38 per litre, significantly higher than the EUR 0,26 per litre quoted to table wine.
V skladu s statističnimi podatki o uvozu nemškega združenja vinogradnikov (Deutsche Weinbauverband) za obdobje 1998–2001 je imelo uvoženo belo vino, ki je zaradi svoje visoke kakovosti primerno za proizvodnjo penečega vina, tržno ceno 0,38 EUR na liter, kar je precej več od navedene cene za namizno vino, ki znaša 0,26 EUR na liter.
In its comments, Germany concludes that two separate markets exist, one for ordinary table wine and table wine must, and another for high quality raw wine and high quality must to be used for the production of sparkling wine.
Nemčija v pripombah ugotavlja, da obstajata dva ločena trga, prvi za navadno namizno vino in mošt za navadno namizno vino, drugi pa za visokokakovostno osnovo in mošt, ki sta namenjena za proizvodnjo penečega vina.
According to Germany it should therefore be concluded that the relevant market for the wine not being sent for distillation is the market for high quality raw wine for the production of sparkling wine, with much higher achievable prices (EUR 0,38 per litre) and not the ordinary table wine market price (EUR 0,26 per litre).
Po mnenju Nemčije naj bi torej veljalo, da je upoštevni trg za vino, ki ni namenjeno za destilacijo, trg visokokakovostne osnove za proizvodnjo penečega vina, na katerem se dosegajo precej višje cene (0,38 EUR na liter), kot je tržna cena za navadno namizno vino (0,26 EUR na liter).
Germany therefore reasons that the price paid for the must by GfW was in conformity with the market price of the relevant market and included a normal profit margin.
Nemčija zato meni, da je cena, ki jo je za mošt plačala družba GfW, ustrezala tržni ceni na upoštevnem trgu in je vključevala običajno stopnjo dobička.
In addition, GfW planned to participate in EU stocking and distillation programmes (GfW had already offered such services to winegrowers before).
Poleg tega je družba GfW načrtovala sodelovanje v programih EU za skladiščenje in destilacijo (družba GfW je vinogradnikom že prej ponujala tovrstne storitve).
Under the stocking programme EUR 0,06 per litre was paid for 20 % of the stocks which should later be sold as raw wine for sparkling wine production.
V okviru programa za skladiščenje je bila cena za 20 % zalog, ki naj bi se pozneje prodale kot osnova za proizvodnjo penečega vina, 0,06 EUR na liter.
Under the distillation programme EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre was paid for the 40 % of the stock sent for distillation.
V okviru programa za destilacijo je bila cena za 40 % zalog, poslanih v destilacijo, 0,50–0,55 EUR na liter.
In the opinion of Germany it was possible to make a profit from these activities when WAK granted the loan to GfW.
Po mnenju Nemčije so bile te dejavnosti dobičkonosne v času, ko je banka WAK odobrila posojilo družbi GfW.
On the one hand, GfW intended to use 40 % of the must purchases for preventive distillation in December 1999 at a distillation price considerably higher than the purchase price (EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre).
Na eni strani je družba GfW nameravala 40 % kupljenega mošta decembra 1999 uporabiti za preventivno destilacijo po ceni, ki je bila znatno višja od nakupne cene (0,50–0,55 EUR na liter).
On the other, it was predicted that sparkling wine producers would pay relatively good prices (between EUR 0,36 and EUR 0,41 per litre) for large lots of uniform, guaranteed quality raw wine.
Na drugi strani se je predvidevalo, da bodo proizvajalci penečih vin plačali sorazmerno visoke cene (0,36–0,41 EUR na liter) za velike količine enotne osnove zajamčene kakovosti.
Germany reasons that GfW could have achieved an average sales revenue of EUR 0,44 to EUR 0,46 per litre, much above the average of EUR 0,38 per litre paid to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants.
Nemčija meni, da bi lahko družba GfW dosegla povprečen prihodek od prodaje v višini 0,44–0,46 EUR na liter, kar je veliko več od povprečnih 0,38 EUR na liter, ki jih prejmejo vinogradniška podjetja in trgovci.
The planning was based on the following assumptions of target prices:
Načrtovanje je potekalo na podlagi naslednjih predpostavk ciljnih cen:
Price/litre (EUR)
Cena/liter (v EUR)
EU subsidy for stocking of wine/must (1 year): EUR 0,06/l and subsequent sale as raw wine for sparkling wine
Subvencija EU za skladiščenje vina/mošta (1 leto): 0,06 EUR/l in naknadna prodaja kot osnova za peneče vino
Sale as raw wine for sparkling wine
Prodaja kot osnova za peneče vino
Based on these assumptions an average sales price of 0,44 to 0,46 EUR /l was expected.
Na podlagi navedenih predpostavk je bila pričakovana povprečna prodajna cena 0,44–0,46 EUR na liter.
The above sales forecast results in the following profit calculation:
Iz zgoraj navedene napovedi prodaje izhaja naslednji izračun dobička:
Purchase price and processing
Nakupna cena in obdelava
Income from sale as raw wine for sparkling wine, distillation, stocking subsidies
Prihodek od prodaje osnove za peneče vino, destilacije, subvencij za skladiščenje
Expected profit
Pričakovani dobiček
Based on a total volume of some 44 million litres, a total profit between some EUR 2,64 million and some EUR 3,96 million was expected.
Na podlagi skupne količine približno 44 milijonov litrov je bil pričakovan dobiček v znesku približno 2,64–3,96 milijona EUR.
For 2000 the spread lay between EUR 0,20 and EUR 0,41 per litre.
Leta 2000 je razpon znašal 0,20–0,41 EUR na liter.
Germany also emphasises that 60 % of the must bought by GfW had an average degree of Oechsle of 81, much higher than the requirement for table wine of 44 and this was of course reflected in the price GfW paid for the must.
Nemčija poudarja tudi, da je imelo 60 % mošta, ki ga je kupila družba GfW, povprečno 81 stopinj Oechsleja, kar močno presega 44 stopinj Oechsleja, zahtevanih za namizno vino, pri čemer se je to izražalo v ceni, ki jo je družba GfW plačala za mošt.
Aid element at time of subordination of claims and waiver of claims
Element pomoči v času podreditve in odpovedi terjatvam
According to Germany, it was established that GfW was facing insolvency after an interim statement of accounts was drawn up in November 2000.
Po mnenju Nemčije je bilo po vmesnem obračunu poslovanja novembra 2000 ugotovljeno, da družbi GfW grozi nesolventnost.
According to the information submitted by Germany, on 31 October 2000, WAK still had claims of some EUR 10 million towards GfW.
V skladu z informacijami, ki jih je predložila Nemčija, je imela banka WAK 31. oktobra 2000 še vedno 10 milijonov EUR terjatev do družbe GfW.
As collateral WAK had GfW’s secured assets, valued at EUR 5,7 million at the same moment in time. These were subject to retention of title (simple, extended or prolonged) by the winegrowing enterprises and merchants which according to Germany would give them priority in case of insolvency.
Banka WAK je kot zavarovanje sprejela zavarovana sredstva družbe GfW, ki so takrat imela vrednost 5,7 milijona EUR. Ta sredstva so bila odvisna od pridržka lastninske pravice (navadnega, razširjenega ali podaljšanega) vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev, ki bi po mnenju Nemčije zato imela prednost v primeru nesolventnosti.
So according to Germany, in case of insolvency procedure, GfW would need to settle the payment to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants, at a value of around EUR 3,5 million, before payments to any other creditor could be made.
Tako bi morala družba GfW po mnenju Nemčije v primeru postopka zaradi nesolventnosti plačila vinogradniškim podjetjem in trgovcem v znesku približno 3,5 milijona EUR poravnati pred plačili drugim upnikom.
In order to remedy the deficit situation in time and avoid the opening of the insolvency proceedings in accordance with § 64 GmbHG a.F. i. V. m. § 19 InsO, immediate action was needed.
Da bi se pravočasno odpravil primanjkljaj in preprečil začetek postopkov zaradi nesolventnosti v skladu s členom 64 nemškega zakona o družbah z omejeno odgovornostjo (stara različica) v povezavi s členom 19 nemškega zakona o nesolventnosti, je bilo potrebno takojšnje ukrepanje.
Germany points out that, as principle creditor with a weaker security position, WAK had a considerable interest in avoiding the impending insolvency.
Nemčija poudarja, da je imela banka WAK kot glavna upnica s slabšim položajem zavarovanja velik interes, da se prepreči grozeča insolventnost.
It therefore tried to convince the winegrowing enterprises and merchants to waive part of their claims and also agreed to the following with GfW on 4 December 2000:
Zato je poskušala vinogradniška podjetja in trgovce prepričati, da se odpovejo delu svojih terjatev, in je 4. decembra 2000 z družbo GfW sprejela tudi dogovor, da:
a subordination of claims of the same amount as the deficit after the winegrowing enterprises and merchants had agreed to waive 90 % of their remaining claims,
po dogovoru vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev o odpovedi 90 % svojih preostalih terjatev podredi terjatve v višini primanjkljaja,
to, but only if necessary, waive the amount of claim they had agreed to subordinate.
se bo odpovedala enakemu znesku zahtevkov, kot jih je podredila, vendar le, če bo to potrebno.
Despite a successful start to the negotiations with a majority of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants agreeing to waive their claims, GfW eventually failed due to concerted actions by some of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants and their lawyers.
Družba GfW kljub uspešnemu začetku pogajanj, ko se je večina vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev strinjala z odpovedjo terjatvam, na koncu ni bila uspešna zaradi usklajenega delovanja nekaterih vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev ter njihovih odvetnikov.
They were not willing to waive their claims because of their preferential security position as a result of their extended or prolonged retention of title and filled complaints.
Zaradi prednostnega položaja zavarovanja, ki je bil posledica razširjenega ali podaljšanega pridržka lastninske pravice, se svojim terjatvami niso bili pripravljeni odpovedati in so vložili tožbe.
These complaints were treated by the court who proposed settlement agreements.
Te tožbe je obravnavalo sodišče, ki je predlagalo sporazume o poravnavi.
Similar settlement agreements were proposed by other courts.
Podobne sporazume o poravnavi so predlagala tudi druga sodišča.
With this in mind, it was no longer possible for GfW to expect that the winegrowing enterprises and merchants would agree to waiving 90 % of their remaining claims.
Družba GfW zato ni več mogla pričakovati, da bi se vinogradniška podjetja in trgovci strinjali z odpovedjo 90 % svojih preostalih terjatev.
The fact that 1700 out of 2700 winegrowing enterprises and merchants had already indicated that they would be willing to waive a share of their claims was no longer of relevance as § 305a of the German insolvency law states that an out of court settlement (außergerichtliche Einigung) to avoid insolvency proceedings fails when one single creditor decides to proceed to enforcement after the out of court settlement negotiations have started.
Dejstvo, da je 1700 od 2700 vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev že nakazalo, da bi se bili pripravljeni odpovedati delu svojih terjatev, ni bilo več pomembno, ker člen 305a nemškega zakona o nesolventnosti določa, da izvensodna poravnava (außergerichtliche Einigung) za preprečitev postopkov zaradi nesolventnosti ni več mogoča, ko en sam upnik začne izvršbo po začetku pogajanj o izvensodni poravnavi.
On 21 February 2001 WAK therefore agreed with GfW to cover the deficit of year 2000 by waiving EUR 5005441,60 of its claims, that no interest would be charged on the remaining debt for the time period of 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 and that the claims of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants would be settled in full.
Zato se je 21. februarja 2001 banka WAK z družbo GfW dogovorila, da bo primanjkljaj iz leta 2000 pokrila z odpovedjo svojim terjatvam v vrednosti 5005441,60 EUR, da za preostali dolg za obdobje od 1. januarja 2001 do 31. decembra 2001 ne bo zaračunavala obresti in da se bodo terjatve vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev poravnale v celoti.
The security of the non-subordinated claims was guaranteed.
Zavarovanje nepodrejenih terjatev je bilo zagotovljeno.
GfW’s deficit situation was remedied, insolvency proceedings were avoided and GfW could continue trading.
Primanjkljaj družbe GfW je bil odpravljen, postopki zaradi nesolventnosti so bili preprečeni, družba GfW pa je lahko nadaljevala s poslovanjem.
Germany claims that the subordination and the waiver of claims are both in accordance with the private creditor test.
Nemčija trdi, da sta podreditev in odpoved terjatev v skladu s preskusom zasebnega upnika.
To support this claim, Germany refers to relevant case-law.
Nemčija to trditev podpira s sklicevanjem na ustrezno sodno prakso.
Waiving part of the claim can be required in order to increase the amount which is effectively recovered [11].
Odpoved delu terjatve se lahko zahteva, da se poveča dejansko povrnjeni znesek [11].
A private creditor would act so as to minimise his losses.
Zasebni upnik bi ravnal tako, da bi čim bolj zmanjšal svojo izgubo.
In case a claim was not sufficiently secured, agreement to postpone the repayment would increase the chances of repayment without losses as the debtor would have the chance to overcome the crisis and improve its situation [12].
Če terjatev ni bila dovolj zavarovana, bi dogovor o preložitvi poplačila povečal možnosti za poplačilo brez izgube, ker bi imel dolžnik možnost, da premaga krizo in izboljša svoj položaj [12].
In the HAMSA judgment of the CFI, the court rejects the Commissions previous practice of requiring equal share of waivers of claims for private and public creditors in relation to their share of the debt.
V sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi HAMSA je sodišče zavrnilo prejšnjo prakso Komisije, ki je zahtevala, da imajo zasebni in javni upniki enak delež odpovedi terjatvam glede na njihov delež dolga.
Instead the court established that the private creditor test can be applied also when the waivers relationship between the different creditors is asymmetric.
Namesto tega je sodišče določilo, da se lahko preskus zasebnega upnika uporabi tudi, če je razmerje odpovedi različnih upnikov nesorazmerno.
The CFI emphasises that the creditor’s status as the holder of a secured, preferential or ordinary claim, i.e. the rank of the securities of the different creditors, is decisive.
Sodišče prve stopnje poudarja, da je odločilen status upnika kot lastnika zavarovanih, preferencialnih ali navadnih terjatev, tj. rang zavarovanj različnih upnikov.
The CFI established that a public creditor acts like a private creditor when he decides to waive a share of his claims, after extensive and reasonable evaluation of how much he might be able to recover, of the risk of liquidation and of the chance of the firm being restored to viability [13].
Sodišče prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da javni upnik ravna kot zasebni upnik, če se po obširni in razumni oceni zneska, ki bi ga lahko izterjal, tveganja likvidacije in možnosti, da bo podjetje ponovno vzpostavilo sposobnost preživetja odloči, da se bo odpovedal delu svojih terjatev [13].
Lastly, Germany refers to the Commission’s decision in the Huta Cynku case, where the Commission decided that no advantage and thus no State aid exists where restructuring would yield better proceeds than liquidation [14].
Nazadnje se Nemčija sklicuje na odločbo Komisije v zadevi Huta Cynku, kjer je Komisija odločila, da nobena ugodnost, in torej nobena državna pomoč, ne obstaja, kadar bi prestrukturiranje prineslo boljši iztržek kot likvidacija [14].
On these grounds Germany argues that taking into consideration WAK’s position as the main creditor and its weaker security position compared to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants, both the subordination as well as the waiver of claim was in accordance with the private creditor test and do not constitute State aid.
Na podlagi tega Nemčija trdi, da sta bili, ob upoštevanju položaja banke WAK kot glavne upnice in njenega slabšega položaja zavarovanja v primerjavi z vinogradniškimi podjetji in trgovci, podreditev in odpoved terjatev v skladu s preskusom zasebnega upnika ter ne pomenita državne pomoči.
In an insolvency procedure WAK would have lost at least the same and most probably a significantly larger amount of their remaining claim.
V postopku zaradi nesolventnosti bi banka WAK izgubila najmanj enak, zelo verjetno pa še večji obseg svojih preostalih terjatev.
Only through avoiding the insolvency of GfW and settling the winegrowing enterprises and merchants remaining claims did WAK have full security rights to the remaining stock and could secure a higher repayment on its remaining claims than what would be realised in case of insolvency.
Le s preprečitvijo nesolventnosti družbe GfW ter poravnavo preostalih terjatev vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev je lahko banka WAK koristila polne zavarovalne pravice do preostalih zalog in zagotovila poplačilo svojih preostalih terjatev, ki je višje od poplačila v primeru nesolventnosti.
From an ex-ante perspective, the behaviour of WAK was, according to Germany, correct, especially as they managed to secure a higher repayment by having converted their weak security position into a primary security right and avoided the impending insolvency of GfW.
Po mnenju Nemčije je bilo delovanje banke WAK s predhodnega vidika pravilno, zlasti ker ji je s tem, da je spremenila svoj slab položaj zavarovanja v primarno zavarovalno pravico in preprečila grozečo nesolventnost družbe GfW, uspelo zagotoviti višje poplačilo.
According to Germany, any private bank would have acted in the same way in the same situation.
Po mnenju Nemčije bi vsaka zasebna banka v takih razmerah ravnala enako.
According to the German authorities, an ex-ante evaluation of GfW accounts would have estimated that by a continuation of GfW, WAK would have been able to realise repayments of EUR 5112918,81 million. On the other hand, if GfW had entered into insolvency proceedings, WAK would only have been able to realise a repayment of maximum EUR 2,4 million. This leaves a difference of minimum EUR 2,7 million.
Po mnenju nemških organov bi predhodna ocena računovodskih evidenc družbe GfW pokazala, da bi banka WAK ob nadaljevanju poslovanja družbe GfW lahko izvedla poplačila v vrednosti 5112918,81 milijona EUR. Če pa bi družba GfW začela postopek zaradi nesolventnosti, potem bi banka WAK lahko izvedla poplačila v vrednosti največ 2,4 milijona EUR. To pomeni razliko najmanj 2,7 milijona EUR.
This is confirmed by a report from 3 February 2003, prepared by an independent auditor [15], commissioned by WAK and submitted by the German authorities.
To potrjuje poročilo neodvisnega revizorja [15] z dne 3. februarja 2003, ki ga je naročila banka WAK, predložili pa so ga nemški organi.
The report comes to the conclusion that it made economic sense for WAK to subordinate their claims, waive part of their claims to the abovementioned amount and to waive the future interest payments.
V sklepni ugotovitvi poročila je navedeno, da je bilo za banko WAK z ekonomskega vidika smiselno, da podredi svoje terjatve, se odpove delu svojih terjatev v zgoraj navedenem znesku in se odpove prihodnjim plačilom obresti.
The reasons for this conclusion were submitted by Germany and are as follows:
Nemčija je predložila naslednje razloge za to sklepno ugotovitev:
If WAK had not subordinated and waived its claims and interest payments GfW would have had to apply for insolvency and GfW would have been wound up.
Če banka WAK ne bi podredila in odpovedala svojih terjatev in plačil obresti, bi morala družba GfW vložiti predlog za postopek zaradi nesolventnosti in bi bila likvidirana.
WAK’s claims would have had to be met from the sale of GfW’s stocks.
Terjatve banke WAK bi bilo treba izplačati iz prodaje zalog družbe GfW.
If the company had been wound up the value of GfW’s stocks would have fallen.
Če bi bila družba likvidirana, bi se vrednost njenih zalog znižala.
The actual proceeds from the sale of the stocks would have been only about 50 % to 70 % of the book value.
Dejanski iztržki od prodaje zalog bi znašali le približno 50 do 70 % njihove knjigovodske vrednosti.
Therefore, allowing for security rights, the proceeds would have amounted to between EUR 1,84 million and EUR 2,4 million.
Zato bi ob ohranitvi zavarovalnih pravic iztržki znašali 1,84–2,4 milijona EUR.
Insolvency proceedings are costly.
Postopki zaradi nesolventnosti so dragi.
The German Insolvency Law (‘InsO’) provides for a right to separation for products with retention of title; however, this is determined on the basis of the insolvency administrator’s option to choose between performance of the contract and separation of assets (paragraph 103 InsO).
Nemški zakon o nesolventnosti določa pravico do izločitve za proizvode s pridržkom lastninske pravice, vendar se to opredeli na podlagi možnosti stečajnega upravitelja, da izbere med izpolnjevanjem pogodbe in izločitvijo sredstev (člen 103 nemškega zakona o nesolventnosti).
Separation of assets is possible only if the insolvency administrator refuses to perform the contract, in which case the creditor can withdraw from the contract and demand the separation of the assets, and is entitled to compensation for non-performance of the contract.
Izločitev sredstev je mogoča le, če stečajni upravitelj zavrne izpolnitev pogodbe, ker lahko v tem primeru upnik odstopi od pogodbe, zahteva izločitev sredstev in je upravičen do odškodnine zaradi neizpolnjevanja pogodbe.
Down payments may be offset.
Predplačila se lahko pobotajo.
In return, GfW can claim recovery of the payments already made, which may be offset against the compensation for non-performance of the contract.
V zameno lahko družba GfW zahteva povrnitev že izvedenih plačil, ki jih je mogoče pobotati z odškodnino zaradi neizpolnjevanja pogodbe.