natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fourthly, several of them had already taken GfW to court and the court had rules in their favour, obliging GfW to settle 80 % of the remaining claims.
Nazadnje, več vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev je že vložilo tožbe proti družbi GfW, pri čemer je sodišče razsodilo v njihovo korist in družbi GfW naložilo, da mora poravnati 80 % preostalih terjatev.
It can be concluded that despite the fact that the winegrowing enterprises and merchants and WAK were all creditors to GfW, the choices and outcome of those choices for WAK and the winegrowing enterprises and merchants were so dissimilar that they are not comparable.
Čeprav so bila vinogradniška podjetja in trgovci ter banka WAK vsi upniki družbe GfW, je mogoče ugotoviti, da so bile njihove izbire in izid izbranih možnosti za banko WAK ter vinogradniška podjetja in trgovce tako različni, da niso primerljivi.
The fact that the winegrowing enterprises and merchants chose not to waive their claims should not have a negative bearing when analysing whether WAK acted in accordance with the private creditor test.
Dejstvo, da se vinogradniška podjetja in trgovci niso hoteli odpovedati terjatvam, ne bi smelo negativno vplivati na analizo, ali je banka WAK delovala v skladu s preskusom zasebnega upnika.
Weighing the different options for WAK against each other the Commission concludes that the partial subordination and waiver of claims of 4 December 2000 and of 21 February 2001 totalling of EUR 5005441,60 and waiver of interest payments as from 31 December 2000 was the most favourable option for WAK and is therefore in accordance with the private creditor test.
Komisija po primerjavi različnih možnosti banke WAK ugotavlja, da sta delna podreditev in odpoved terjatev 4. decembra 2000 in 21. februarja 2001 v skupnem znesku 5005441,60 EUR ter odpoved plačil obresti od 31. decembra 2000 naprej za banko WAK najugodnejša možnost, ki je zato v skladu s preskusom zasebnega upnika.
The subordination and waiver of claims make out a debt deferral, which is more advantageous to the creditor compared to liquidation.
Podreditev in odpoved terjatev pomenita odlog plačila dolga, kar je za upnika ugodneje od likvidacije.
In accordance with settled case-law [28], a public creditor will balance the advantage inherent in obtaining the offered sum under the restructuring plan and the sum they would be able to recover via the firm’s liquidation.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [28] javni upnik ugodnost, ki izhaja iz zneska, ponujenega v okviru načrta za prestrukturiranje, primerja z zneskom, ki bi ga lahko izterjal, če bi bila družba likvidirana.
Hence, GfW did not receive any advantage it would not have received under normal market conditions and thus no State aid was awarded to GfW as a result of WAK’s decision to subordinate and waive part of its claims.
Družba GfW tako ni imela ugodnosti, ki jih ne bi imela tudi pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji, torej družba ni prejela državne pomoči zaradi odločitve banke WAK, da bo podredila in odpovedala del svojih terjatev.
In the opening of procedures doubt was expressed as to whether WAK kept the subordination and waiver of claim to a strict minimum.
Ob začetku postopkov je bil izražen dvom, ali je banka WAK podreditev in odpoved terjatev omejila na najnižjo raven.
However, according to the comments of Germany, WAK waived the share of its claims needed to cover GfW’s deficit for 2000, which was necessary according to German insolvency law (see recital 25) in order to avoid insolvency proceedings and enable GfW to continue trading.
Vendar Nemčija v pripombah navaja, da se je banka WAK odpovedala deležu svojih terjatev, potrebnih za kritje primanjkljaja družbe GfW za leto 2000, kar je bilo potrebno v skladu z nemškim zakonom o nesolventnosti (glej uvodno izjavo 25), da bi se preprečili postopki zaradi nesolventnosti in bi se družbi GfW omogočilo nadaljevanje poslovanja.
In the first contract (signed on 4 December 2000) between GfW and WAK, in order to avoid GfW’s insolvency, WAK agrees with GfW on a subordination of claims of the same amount as GfW’s deficit after the winegrowing enterprises and merchants had agreed to waive 90 % of their remaining claims and to, if necessary, waive the amount of claim they had agreed to subordinate (see recitals 79 and 80).
V prvi pogodbi (podpisani 4. decembra 2000) med družbo GfW in banko WAK sta se podpisnici, da bi se preprečila nesolventnost družbe GfW, dogovorili o podreditvi terjatev v enakem znesku kot primanjkljaj družbe GfW po privolitvi vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev v odpoved 90 % preostalih terjatev in po potrebi odpoved zneska terjatve, za katerega je bila dogovorjena podreditev (glej uvodni izjavi 79 in 80).
The reason for the waiver being larger than first expected was that despite WAK’s and GfW’s efforts to convince the winegrowing enterprises and merchants to contribute their part in helping GfW to avoid insolvency (see recitals 79 and 80 of the German comments), the winegrowing enterprises and merchants’ decision to not waive any of their claims for the reasons mentioned in recital 110 above.
Razlog za večjo odpoved od pričakovane je bil, da se vinogradniška podjetja in trgovci kljub prizadevanju banke WAK in družbe GfW, da bi dosegli njihovo pomoč pri preprečitvi nesolventnosti družbe GfW (glej uvodni izjavi 79 in 80, ki obravnavata pripombe Nemčije), niso odločili za odpoved svojim terjatvam zaradi razlogov iz uvodne izjave 110 zgoraj.
As mentioned in recital 108, the decision by the winegrowing enterprises and merchants to not waive a share of their remaining claims only had a limited impact on WAKs economic assessment and did not change the outcome of this assessment: that it was economically preferential for WAK to enable GfW to avoid insolvency proceedings.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 108, je odločitev vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev, da se ne odpovejo deležu svojih preostalih terjatev, le omejeno vplivala na ekonomsko oceno banke WAK in ni spremenila izida te ocene: da je za banko WAK ekonomsko ugodneje, da družbi GfW omogoči preprečitev postopkov zaradi nesolventnosti.
The Commission therefore concludes that WAK’s partial subordination and waiver of claims was the most favourable option for WAK and is therefore in according with the private creditor principle and are therefore not to be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU to GfW.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da sta bili delna podreditev in odpoved terjatev najugodnejša možnost za banko WAK, zaradi česar sta v skladu z načelom zasebnega upnika in zato ne pomenita državne pomoči družbi GfW v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Existence of aid to winegrowing enterprises and merchants
Obstoj pomoči za vinogradniška podjetja in trgovce
In the opening and subsequent extension of the formal investigation procedure questions were raised regarding possible aid to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants.
Ob začetku in naknadnem podaljšanju formalnega postopka preiskave so se pojavila vprašanja glede morebitne pomoči vinogradniškim podjetjem in trgovcem.
Firstly, the security position awarded the winegrowing enterprises and merchants by GfW at the time of purchase seemed relatively strong and doubts were raised whether the awarded security position was really in accordance with normal business practice.
Položaj zavarovanja, ki ga je družba GfW v času nakupa dodelila vinogradniškim podjetjem in trgovcem, naj bi bil sorazmerno močan, pri čemer so se pojavili dvomi, ali je dodeljeni položaj zavarovanja dejansko v skladu z običajno poslovno prakso.
Secondly, the price paid for the purchased must was estimated to be above the market price.
Poleg tega naj bi bila cena, plačana za kupljeni mošt, višja od tržne cene.
Thirdly, the winegrowing enterprises and merchants decision to not waive any of their claims when GfW was faced with insolvency was put into question together with WAK’s decision to subordinate and then waive a share of its claims even though the winegrowing enterprises and merchants decided not to waive the 90 % of their remaining claims (20 % of value of stock).
Prav tako pa je bila odločitev vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev, da se ne bodo odpovedali svojim terjatvam, ko je družbi GfW grozila nesolventnost, vprašljiva skupaj z odločitvijo banke WAK za podreditev in poznejšo odpoved deleža terjatev, čeprav so se vinogradniška podjetja in trgovci odločili, da se ne bodo odpovedali 90 % preostalih terjatev (20 % vrednosti zaloge).
At the time of purchase of must — security position awarded
V času nakupa mošta – dodeljeni položaj zavarovanja
In their comments, Germany has given their assurances that that simple, extended or prolonged retentions of title awarded to the different winegrowing enterprises and merchants in connection with the purchase of must, was indeed in accordance with normal business practise.
Nemčija je v pripombah zagotovila, da so bili navadni, razširjeni ali podaljšani pridržki lastninske pravice, dodeljeni različnim vinogradniškim podjetjem in trgovcem v povezavi z nakupom mošta, dejansko v skladu z običajno poslovno prakso.
This means that though it gave the winegrowing enterprises and merchants a relatively strong security position, especially those awarded prolonged retention of title, it was in accordance with normal business practise and was not stronger than had they made arrangements with a private purchaser.
Čeprav je to vinogradniškim podjetjem in trgovcem omogočilo sorazmerno močan položaj zavarovanja, zlasti podjetjem in trgovcem, ki jim je bil dodeljen podaljšan pridržek, je bil ta položaj vseeno v skladu z običajno poslovno prakso in ni bil močnejši kot v primeru dogovora z zasebnim kupcem.
The Commission makes reference to the recommendations [29] registered by the Federation of German wineries and wine retailers, Trier, the Federation of German wine merchants, Mainz and the German Winegrowers’ Association, Bonn (Der Bundesverband der Deutschen Weinkellereien und des Weinfachhandels e.V., Trier, der Bundesverband der Deutschen Weinkommissionäre e.V., Mainz und der Deutsche Weinbauverband e.V., Bonn) with the German competition authorities (Bundeskartellamt) in accordance with § 22 Abs. 3 Nr. 2 of the Act against Restraints of Competition (des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen) [30].
Komisija se sklicuje na priporočila [29] zveze nemških vinskih kleti in trgovcev z vinom (Trier), zveze nemških trgovcev z vinom (Mainz) ter združenja nemških vinogradnikov (Bonn) (Der Bundesverband der Deutschen Weinkellereien und des Weinfachhandels e.V., Trier, der Bundesverband der Deutschen Weinkommissionäre e.V., Mainz und der Deutsche Weinbauverband e.V., Bonn), predložena nemškim organom za konkurenco (Bundeskartellamt) v skladu s členom 22(3)(2) nemškega zakona proti omejevanju konkurence (des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen) [30].
The security positions awarded the winegrowing enterprises and merchants in the case at hand gave varying degree of security.
Položaji zavarovanj, dodeljeni vinogradniškim podjetjem in trgovcem v obravnavanem primeru, so zagotavljali različno stopnjo zavarovanja.
Only the ones with prolonged retention of title had the full security for payment.
Le tisti s podaljšanim pridržkom lastninske pravice so imeli v celoti zavarovana plačila.
This means that the security position for the winegrowing enterprises and merchants were in average not as strong as recommended in the recommendations mentioned above.
To pomeni, da položaj zavarovanja za vinogradniška podjetja in trgovce v povprečju ni bil tako močan, kot je bilo priporočeno v zgoraj navedenih priporočilih.
The Commission therefore accepts, with reference to the recommendations and the actual security position awarded, Germany’s assurances that it is normal business practice to award security positions as was done to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants in this case and that the security position awarded was not stronger than under a normal contract between two private actors and therefore do not constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Komisija zato ob sklicevanju na priporočila in dejanski dodeljeni položaj zavarovanja sprejema zagotovila Nemčije, da je dodelitev položajev zavarovanj, kakor so bili dodeljeni vinogradniškim podjetjem in trgovcem v tem primeru, običajna poslovna praksa ter da dodeljeni položaj zavarovanja ni bil močnejši kot v okviru običajne pogodbe med dvema zasebnima udeležencema in zato ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
At the time of purchase of must — the price paid for the purchased must
V času nakupa mošta – cena, plačana za kupljeni mošt
In the opening of procedures, the price paid by GfW for the must bought was said to be above the market price.
Ob začetku postopkov naj bi bila cena, ki jo je družba GfW plačala za kupljeni mošt, višja od tržne cene.
As market price the price for table wine was used and the price quoted as reference price was EUR 0,26 per litre.
Kot tržna cena je bila uporabljena cena za namizno vino, pri čemer je bila kot referenčna cena navedena cena 0,26 EUR na liter.
In their comments, Germany has supplied substantial information on the business strategy of GfW, which shows that the ordinary table wine market is not the relevant market and that the strategy of GfW was threefold.
Nemčija je v pripombah predložila bistvene informacije o poslovni strategiji družbe GfW, iz katere je razvidno, da trg za navadno namizno vino ni upoštevni trg in da ima družba GfW tri cilje.
First, to buy table wine must with which to participate to the EU’s distillation programme (40 % of the stock).
Prvič, kupiti mošt za namizno vino, s katerim bo sodelovala v programu EU za destilacijo (40 % zaloge).
Second, to buy high quality must with the intention to sell it on the market for high quality raw wine to be used for the production of sparkling wine (60 % of the stock).
Drugič, kupiti visokokakovostni mošt, ki bi ga prodajala na trgu za visokokakovostno osnovo za proizvodnjo penečega vina (60 % zaloge).
Third, to participate to the EU’s stocking programme with 20 % of the stock before it was sold for production of sparkling wine.
Tretjič, sodelovati v programu EU za destilacijo z 20 % zaloge, preden se ta proda za proizvodnjo penečega vina.
When analysing whether two products belong to the same market, the Commission makes use of the Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law [31].
Pri analizi, ali proizvoda pripadata istemu trgu, se Komisija sklicuje na Obvestilo Komisije o opredelitvi upoštevnega trga za namene konkurenčnega prava Skupnosti [31].
According to point 7 of the note, ‘a relevant product market comprises all those products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer, by reason of the products’ characteristics, their prices and their intended use’.
V skladu s točko 7 obvestila „[u]poštevni proizvodni trg obsega vse tiste proizvode in/ali storitve, ki jih potrošnik smatra za zamenljive ali nadomestljive glede na lastnosti proizvodov, njihove cene in namen uporabe“.
The market for the must bought for taking advantage of the EU’s distillation programme is of course that for ordinary table wine.
Trg za mošt, kupljen za izkoriščanje programa EU za destilacijo, je trg za navadno namizno vino.
However, the relevant price must be the price paid for wine sent for distillation.
Vendar mora biti ustrezna cena tista cena, ki se plača za vino, poslano v destilacijo.
As all traditional intervention measures on agricultural markets, preventive distillation of wine according to Article 38 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 has as its main aim to remove over-supply from the wine market and thus the price of this voluntary distillation had to be high enough to give producers the incentive to send wine for distillation.
Glavni cilj preventivne destilacije vina v skladu s členom 38 Uredbe (EGS) št. 822/87 je kot pri vseh tradicionalnih intervencijskih ukrepih na kmetijskih trgih odstranitev prekomerne zaloge s trga za vino, zato mora biti cena te prostovoljne destilacije dovolj visoka, da proizvajalce spodbudi k pošiljanju vina v destilacijo.
The actual yearly price of the distillation measure was defined by the Council as 65 % of the so called guide price.
Dejansko letno ceno ukrepa destilacije je Svet opredelil kot 65 % t. i. orientacijske cene.
The guide price itself was decided upon by the Council once a year and the price was expressly set to support the market.
Svet je orientacijsko ceno določil enkrat letno, ki je bila določena izrecno v podporo trgu.
To do this it obviously had to be set at a high enough level.
Zato je morala biti določena na dovolj visoki ravni.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/1999 of 19 July 1999 fixing the guide price for wine for the 1999/2000 wine year [32] fixed the guide prices for the different categories of wine.
V Uredbi Sveta (ES) št. 1676/1999 z dne 19. julija 1999 o določitvi orientacijske cene za vino za vinsko leto 1999/2000 [32] so bile določene orientacijske cene za različne kategorije vin.
The price for category AII (white table wine from vine varieties of the Sylvaner or Müller-Thurgau type) was set at EUR 82,81 per hectolitre and the one for AIII (white table wine from vine varieties of the Riesling type) at EUR 94,57 per hectolitre.
Za kategorijo AII (belo namizno vino iz sort vinske trte Sylvaner ali Müller-Thurgau) je bila določena cena 82,81 EUR na hektoliter, za kategorijo AIII (belo namizno vino iz sort vinske trte Riesling) pa 94,57 EUR na hektoliter.
According to Annex III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/1999 of 26 July 1999 fixing the buying-in prices, aids and certain other amounts applicable for the 1999/2000 wine year to intervention measures in the wine sector [33], the exact amount paid for distillation depended on the degree of alcohol of the wine delivered because the price for preventive distillation (65 % of the guide price) was calculated by the Commission not per hectolitre but by degree of alcohol per hectolitre that year.
V skladu s Prilogo III k Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 1681/1999 z dne 26. julija 1999 o določitvi odkupnih cen, pomoči in nekaterih drugih zneskov, ki se uporabljajo za vinsko leto 1999/2000 za intervencijske ukrepe v vinskem sektorju [33], je bil točen znesek, plačan za destilacijo, odvisen od vsebnosti alkohola v dobavljenem vinu, ker Komisija tistega leta cene za preventivno destilacijo (65 % orientacijske cene) ni izračunala na hektoliter, ampak glede na vsebnost alkohola na hektoliter.
The Commission’s main role in relation to distillation of wine was to assess the actual market situation and accordingly fix the quantities admitted for preventive distillation each year in each Member State.
Glavna vloga Komisije v zvezi z destilacijo vina je bila oceniti dejanske razmere na trgu in skladno s tem določiti količine, ki se vsako leto sprejmejo za preventivno destilacijo v vsaki državi članici.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2367/1999 of 5 November 1999 introducing preventive distillation as provided for in Article 38 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 for the 1999/2000 wine year [34] allocated 148000 hectolitres to the German market for the wine year 1999/2000.
Z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 2367/1999 z dne 5. novembra 1999 o uvedbi preventivne destilacije iz člena 38 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 822/87 za vinsko leto 1999/2000 [34] je bilo nemškemu trgu za vinsko leto 1999/2000 dodeljenih 148000 hektolitrov.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 546/2000 of 14 March 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 2367/1999 introducing preventive distillation as provided for in Article 38 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 for the 1999/2000 wine year [35] increased this to 468000 hectolitres.
Z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 546/2000 z dne 14. marca 2000 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 2367/1999 o uvedbi preventivne destilacije iz člena 38 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 822/87 za vinsko leto 1999/2000 [35] je bila ta količina povečana na 468000 hektolitrov.
Regulation (EC) No 2367/1999 limited the quantity of wine sent for distillation to 40 % of the production.
Z Uredbo (ES) št. 2367/1999 je bila količina vina, poslanega v destilacijo, omejena na 40 % proizvodnje.
According to the Commission’s records German producers distilled around 400000 hectolitres under this scheme.
V skladu z evidenco Komisije so nemški proizvajalci v okviru te sheme destilirali približno 400000 hektolitrov.
According to Germany the price paid for the wine sent for distillation was EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre.
Po navedbah Nemčije se je za vino, poslano v destilacijo, plačala cena 0,50–0,55 EUR na liter.
Taking the calculation method above into consideration, the Commission finds the price quoted by Germany to be realistic.
Komisija ob upoštevanju navedene metode izračuna ugotavlja, da je cena, ki jo je navedla Nemčija, realna.
The Commission concludes that because of the EU’s market intervention for a substantial share of the wine two separate markets were created.
Komisija ugotavlja, da sta bila zaradi posredovanja EU na trgu za bistveni delež vina oblikovana dva ločena trga.
One where the reference price was that paid for wine sent to distillation, in this case EUR 0,50-0,55 per litre, and another where the reference price was that of the market.
Na enem od trgov je bila referenčna cena tista cena, ki je bila plačana za vino, poslano v destilacijo, v tem primeru 0,50–0,55 EUR na liter, referenčna cena na drugem trgu pa je bila tržna cena.
The EUR 0,26 per litre as quoted in the opening of procedure decision can therefore not be seen as the relevant reference price for the must bought to be sent for distillation.
Cene 0,26 EUR na liter, navedene v sklepu o sprožitvi postopka, zato ni mogoče obravnavati kot ustrezne referenčne cene za mošt, kupljen za namen destilacije.
In order to establish what was the relevant market for the must bought in order to turn it into raw wine for the production of sparkling wine it is first necessary to evaluate if separate markets exist for wine and if whether the must bought by GfW belongs to the same market as table wine or not.
Da bi se opredelil upoštevni trg za mošt, kupljen z namenom, da bi iz njega nastala osnova za proizvodnjo penečega vina, je treba najprej oceniti, ali obstajajo ločeni trgi za vino, in ali mošt, ki ga je kupila družba GfW, pripada istemu trgu kot namizno vino.
It will also be necessary to decide whether higher quality wine could achieve higher prices.
Prav tako bo treba opredeliti, ali lahko kakovostnejše vino dosega višje cene.
The Commission in its statistics always refer to different prices depending on the quality of the wine.
Komisija v statističnih podatkih vedno navaja različne cene, odvisne od kakovosti vina.
According to the Commission’s in-house wine experts the price of wine is not the same for each batch and the wine statistics available only give average prices for different quality of wine.
Strokovnjaki za vino pri Komisiji navajajo, da cena vina ni enaka za vsako serijo, pri čemer razpoložljivi statistični podatki za vino navajajo le povprečne cene za različno kakovost vina.
The actual price is influenced by several elements.
Na dejansko ceno vpliva več elementov.
The main elements are the quality, the aging, the reputation, the demand and the alcoholic degree/degrees of Oechsle.
Glavni elementi so kakovost, staranje, sloves, povpraševanje in vsebnost alkohola/stopinje Oechsleja.
The degree of Oechsle indicates the ripeness and the level of sugar which is present in the grapes.
Stopinje Oechsleja kažejo zrelost in vsebnost sladkorja v grozdju.
It is important as it determines the final natural alcoholic degree of a wine.
Pomembne so, ker določajo končno naravno vsebnost alkohola v vinu.
According to the Deutsches Weininstitute (German wine institute) the production of sect/sparkling wine requires a high degree of alcohol content in the raw wine [36].
Inštitut Deutsches Weininstitute (Nemški vinski inštitut) navaja, da je za proizvodnjo sekta/penečega vina potrebna visoka vsebnost alkohola v osnovi [36].