natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On this basis, the Commission has decided on 25 September 2007 (the date of the Commission decision) that the exemption from income tax for Finnvera does not constitute state aid.
Na podlagi tega se je Komisija 25. septembra 2007 (datum sklepa Komisije) odločila, da oprostitev plačevanja dohodnine za podjetje Finnvera ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Measures 13 to 17 have been granted before the Commission decision in case N 715/2006.
Ukrepi 13–17 so bili odobreni pred odločitvijo Komisije v primeru N 715/2006.
Measure 18 has been granted after the adoption of the Commission decision in case N 715/2006.
Ukrep 18 je bil odobren po sprejetju odločitve Komisije v primeru N 715/2006.
The Commission therefore has to take into account the commitment given by the Finnish authorities in this case in its assessment of measure 18.
Komisija mora pri oceni ukrepa 18 zato upoštevati zavezo finskih organov v tem primeru.
In order to be considered state aid in the sense of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, a measure must be granted directly or indirectly from state resources and it must be imputable to the State.
Ukrep mora biti posredno ali neposredno dodeljen iz državnih sredstev in se mora pripisati državi, da se upošteva kot državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Finland has not disputed that measures taken by Finnvera consist of state resources and are imputable to the State.
Finska ni zanikala, da ukrepi, ki jih je sprejelo podjetje Finnvera, zajemajo državna sredstva in se pripišejo državi.
According to case law, resources of an undertaking are to be considered state resources if the State is capable, by exercising its dominant influence over such undertakings, to direct the use of their resources [61].
V skladu s sodno prakso se sredstva podjetja upoštevajo kot državna sredstva, če lahko država uveljavlja svoj prevladujoči vpliv nad takimi podjetji, da usmerja rabo njihovih sredstev [61].
Measures granted by a special financing institution, which can be considered a public sector body according to its statute, are generally imputable to the State [62].
Ukrepi, ki jih je odobrila posebna finančna institucija, ki se lahko po svojem statutu obravnava za organ javnega sektorja, se običajno pripišejo državi [62].
The Court has further explained the notion of imputability in Stardust Marine [63].
Sodišče je nadalje pojasnilo pojem pripisljivosti v zadevi Stardust Marine [63].
It provided the following indicators for establishing imputability: integration of the public 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.
Opredelilo je naslednje kazalnike za vzpostavljanje pripisljivosti: vključevanje javnega podjetja v strukture javne uprave, narava njegovih dejavnosti in njihovo izvajanje na trgu pod običajnimi konkurenčnimi pogoji z zasebnimi subjekti, pravni status podjetja (v smislu, ali zanj velja javno pravo ali običajno pravo gospodarskih družb), intenzivnost nadzora, ki ga nad upravljanjem podjetja izvajajo javni organi.
In this context, the Commission notes that Finnvera's actions are subject to administrative law, indicating that it is closely linked to the administration.
V tem okviru Komisija ugotavlja, da za ukrepe podjetja Finnvera velja upravno pravo, kar kaže na to, da je tesno povezano z upravo.
Finnvera is a 100 % state owned special financing company, which enjoys a State guarantee and is mainly providing state aid and financing which is not readily available on the market, such as export credits.
Podjetje Finnvera je posebno finančno podjetje, ki je v 100-odstotni državni lasti, uživa državno poroštvo ter zagotavlja državno pomoč in sredstva, ki niso vedno na voljo na trgu, kot na primer izvozne kredite.
Therefore, although its activities may overlap on the margins with commercial banks, it does not exercise its activities in normal conditions of competition with private operators.
Čeprav se njegove dejavnosti delno prekrivajo s poslovnimi bankami, svojih dejavnosti ne izvaja pod običajnimi konkurenčnimi pogoji z zasebnimi subjekti.
It is incorporated under ordinary company law; at the same time, the State exercises strong supervision: the State appoints the Supervisory Board members from the parliamentary groups of political parties on the basis of their representation in the Finnish Parliament. Most of the Managing Board members have to be chosen among candidates elected by several Ministries.
Vključeno je v okvir običajnega prava gospodarskih družb, obenem pa država izvaja strog nadzor: država imenuje člane nadzornega sveta iz poslanskih skupin političnih strank na podlagi njihove zastopanosti v finskem parlamentu.
(see recitals 56-57).
Večino članov uprave je treba izbrati med kandidati, ki jih je izvolilo več ministrstev (glej uvodni izjavi 56 in 57).
In light of this, the Commission considers that measures taken by Finnvera consist of state resources and are imputable to Finland.
Ob upoštevanju tega Komisija meni, da ukrepi, ki jih je sprejelo podjetje Finnvera, zajemajo državna sredstva in se pripišejo Finski.
Concerning the question whether measure 13 provides an advantage to the beneficiary, contrary to Finland's view, the measure was not granted together with private creditors at the same conditions.
Glede vprašanja, ali ukrep 13 zagotavlja prednost upravičencu, Komisija v nasprotju s stališčem Finske meni, da ukrep ni bil dodeljen skupaj z zasebnimi upniki pod enakimi pogoji.
First, as explained above, the Commission relies on the Guarantee Notice 2008 when assessing the measure (see recital 134).
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, se Komisija pri oceni ukrepa zanaša na obvestilo o poroštvih 2008 (glej uvodno izjavo 134).
According to point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, the existence of state aid within an individual state guarantee can be ruled out if the borrower is not in financial difficulty.
V skladu s točko 3.2 obvestila o poroštvih 2008 se obstoj državne pomoč znotraj posameznega državnega poroštva izključuje, če posojilojemalec ni v finančnih težavah.
As the Commission considers that Karjaportti was already in difficulty, within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999, in March 2004 (see recitals 123-128), the application of the Guarantee Notice can be excluded.
Ker Komisija meni, da je podjetje Karjaportti že bilo v težavah v smislu smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 marca 2004 (glej uvodne izjave 123–128), se uporaba obvestila o poroštvih lahko izključi.
Finland also brings forward that the guarantee was subject to a high fee.
Finska navaja tudi, da je za poroštvo veljala visoka provizija.
In light of Karjaportti's financial difficulties at the time of granting of the guarantee, it is, however considered that the guarantee fee charged by Finnvera is not a market fee.
Ob upoštevanju finančnih težav podjetja Karjaportti ob dodelitvi poroštva Komisija vseeno meni, da provizija za poroštvo, ki jo je zaračunalo podjetje Finnvera, ni tržna provizija.
In fact, the beneficiary had total financing costs of [5-8]% for the loan together with the guarantee, whereas the Reference Rate applicable at that time was 4.43 %, to which at least 400 basis points would have to be added, considering the beneficiary's financial difficulties.
Pravzaprav je upravičenec imel skupaj [5–8] % stroškov financiranja za posojilo, skupaj s poroštvom, referenčna obrestna mera, ki je veljala ob tistem času, pa je bila 4,43-odstotna in bi morala biti zvišana za vsaj 400 bazičnih točk zaradi finančnih težav upravičenca.
Furthermore, to be considered state aid, a measure must be specific or selective in that it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.
Ukrep mora biti specifičen ali selektiven tako, da koristi le nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, da se ga uvrsti kot državno pomoč.
Measure 13 was granted to Karjaportti, one specific company.
Ukrep 13 je bil dodeljen podjetju Karjaportti, enemu določenemu podjetju.
Therefore, the Commission considers that it constitutes a selective advantage to the beneficiary.
Komisija zato meni, da pomeni selektivno prednost za upravičenca.
In addition, the Commission has to consider whether measure 13 is likely to distort competition and affect trade between the Member States.
Poleg tega mora Komisija proučiti, ali je verjetno, da bo ukrep 13 izkrivljal konkurenco in vplival na trgovino med državami članicami.
In this context, Finland argues that the aid element of the guarantee was below the de minimis threshold.
V tem okviru Finska trdi, da je bil element pomoči poroštva pod pragom de minimis.
When measure 13 was granted, Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid [64] ('the de minimis Regulation 2001') was applicable [65].
Ob dodelitvi ukrepa 13 se je uporabljala Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri de minimis pomoči [64] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: uredba de minimis 2001) [65].
One of the requirements for applying the de minimis Regulation 2001 is that the total de minimis aid granted to an enterprise must not exceed EUR 100000 over any period of three years.
Ena od zahtev za uporabo uredbe de minimis 2001 je, da skupna de minimis pomoč, dodeljena podjetju, ne sme presegati 100000 EUR v obdobju treh let.
The guarantee under assessment only amounted to EUR 91000, that is to say it would even respect the ceiling of EUR 100000 if the whole amount had to be taken into account as aid element.
Proučevano poroštvo je znašalo le 91000 EUR, kar pomeni, da bi spoštovalo zgornjo mejo 100000 EUR, če bi se skupni znesek upošteval kot element pomoči.
It has, however, to be determined whether measure 13 has to be assessed together with measure 4, a guarantee which the City of Mikkeli granted in March 2004, only 9 days prior to measure 13, the guarantee granted by Finnvera.
Vendar je treba ugotoviti, ali je treba ukrep 13 oceniti skupaj z ukrepom 4, poroštvom, ki ga je mesto Mikkeli dodelilo marca 2004, le 9 dni pred ukrepom 13, poroštvom, ki ga je dodelilo podjetje Finnvera.
In light of this close link between the two measures, the Commission considers that measure 4 and measure 13 have to be seen as one measure for the purpose of applying the ceiling of EUR 100000 ceiling of the de minimis Regulation 2001.
Ob upoštevanju tesne povezave med obema ukrepoma Komisija meni, da je treba ukrep 4 in ukrep 13 obravnavati kot en ukrep za namen uporabe zgornje meje 100000 EUR uredbe de minimis 2001.
Taken together, the aid element involved in those two measures exceeds EUR 100000. The Commission therefore concludes that measure 13 does not fall under the de minimis Regulation 2001.
Če se ju obravnava skupaj, element pomoči v navedenih dveh ukrepih presega 100000 EUR. Komisija je zato sklenila, da ukrep 13 ne spada pod uredbo de minimis 2001.
Finally, Finland argues that measure 13 is the continuation of already existing liabilities and that hence Finnvera's exposure is not increased.
Finska trdi tudi, da je ukrep 13 nadaljevanje že obstoječih obveznosti, zato se izpostavljenost podjetja Finnvera ni povečala.
Finland presented a similar argument in relation to measure 4.
Finska je podobno utemeljitev predstavila v zvezi z ukrepom 4.
By the same token as for measure 4, the Commission does not consider measure 13 as mere continuation of a previously granted measure (see recitals 164-165).
Tako kot pri ukrepu 4 Komisija meni, da ukrep 13 ni le nadaljevanje predhodnega odobrenega ukrepa (glej uvodni izjavi 164 in 165).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that measure 13 constitutes state aid.
Na podlagi navedenega je Komisija sklenila, da ukrep 13 pomeni državno pomoč.
Finland did not bring forward any arguments as regards the compatibility of measure 13.
Finska ni predložila nobenih utemeljitev glede združljivosti ukrepa 13.
As Karjaportti was in difficulty when Finnvera granted the guarantee (see recitals 123-128), the Commission first assesses whether it is compatible as rescue and restructuring aid according to the R&R Guidelines.
Ker je bilo podjetje Karjaportti v času, ko je podjetje Finnvera dodelilo poroštvo, v težavah (glej uvodne izjave 123–128), Komisija najprej ocenjuje, ali je združljivo kot pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranje v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
At the time of time of granting, the R&R Guidelines 1999 were applicable [66].
V času dodelitve so se uporabljale smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 [66].
According to the R&R Guidelines 1999, a rescue aid has to meet certain requirements, which are not all fulfilled by the measure in question.
V skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 mora pomoč za reševanje izpolnjevati določene zahteve, ki jih zadevni ukrep ne izpolnjuje.
First, the guarantee was not linked to a loan that was to be reimbursed over a period of not more than twelve months after disbursement of the last instalment to the firm (point 23(b) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).
Poroštvo ni bilo povezano s posojilom, ki naj bi bilo povrnjeno v roku, ki ni daljše od dvanajstih mesecev po izplačilu zadnjega obroka podjetju (točka 23(b) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999).
Second, Finland did not provide any information that the aid was warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and had no unduly adverse spillover effects on other Member States (point 23(c) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).
Finska tudi ni zagotovila informacij, da je bila pomoč zajamčena na podlagi resnih socialnih težav in ni imela škodljivih učinkov na druge države članice (točka 23(c) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999).
Third, the guarantee was neither reimbursed within 6 months nor had a restructuring plan within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999 been set up (point 23(d) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).
Poroštvo ni bilo povrnjeno v roku šestih mesecev, niti ni imelo oblikovanega načrta prestrukturiranja v smislu smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 (točka 23(d) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999).
Lastly, there are no indications that the guarantee was restricted to the amount needed to keep the firm in business for the period during which the aid was authorised (point 23(e) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).
Poleg tega ni bilo znakov, da je bilo poroštvo omejeno na znesek, ki je bil potreben, da je podjetje lahko poslovalo v obdobju, v katerem je bila odobrena pomoč (točka 23(e) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999).
Further, it has to be considered whether measure 13 could be compatible on the basis of any other of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU.
Treba je še proučiti, ali bi lahko bil ukrep 13 združljiv na podlagi katere druge izjeme, določene v členih 107(2) in (3) PDEU.
For the same reasons as set out above for measure 4 and measure 5 (see recitals 179–186), the Commission considers that none of the exemptions is met.
Komisija zaradi istih razlogov, kot so opredeljeni zgoraj za ukrepa 4 in 5 (glej uvodne izjave 179–186), meni, da ni izpolnjena nobena izjema.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that measure 13 involves state aid that is not compatible with the internal market.
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da ukrep 13 zajema državno pomoč in ni združljiv z notranjim trgom.
Finland argues that the measure was foreseen in the restructuring programme for the court-supervised restructuring proceedings and that Finnvera took the measure together with private creditors.
Finska trdi, da je bil ukrep predviden v programu prestrukturiranja za postopek prestrukturiranja pod nadzorom sodišča in da je podjetje Finnvera sprejelo ukrep skupaj z zasebnimi upniki.
It is true that the measure was already foreseen in the restructuring programme for both private and public creditors of Karjaportti.
Res je, da je bil ukrep predviden že v programu prestrukturiranja za zasebne in javne upnike podjetja Karjaportti.
First, following the logic of the BP Chemicals case (see recitals 189-191), it has to be determined whether the market economy investor principle can be applied to measure 14.
Po logiki v zadevi BP Chemicals (glej uvodne izjave 189–191) je treba ugotoviti, ali za ukrep 14 velja načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
In this context, the Commission notes that measures 4, 5 and 13 were taken before the beginning of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings, whereas measure 14 was taken in the course of such proceedings.
V tem okviru Komisija ugotavlja, da so bili ukrepi 4, 5 in 13 sprejeti pred začetkom postopka pod nadzorom prestrukturiranja, ukrep 14 pa je bil sprejet med tem postopkom.
For the reasons set out above in recitals 189–191, the Commission considers that measure 14 can be severed from measures 4, 5, and 13.
Zaradi razlogov, opredeljenih v uvodnih izjavah 189–191, Komisija meni, da je ukrep 14 lahko ločen od ukrepov 4, 5 in 13.
In addition, measure 14 was even foreseen in the restructuring programme itself, which had the purpose of bringing the company back on track.
Poleg tega je bil ukrep 14 predviden celo v programu prestrukturiranja, katerega namen je bilo okrevanje podjetja.
Second, as regards the application of the market economy investor principle to the measure at hand, the Commission considers that the loans granted by the private creditors […] and by […] are comparable to the loan granted by Finnvera.
O uporabi načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu za zadevni ukrep Komisija meni, da sta posojili, ki sta ju dodelila zasebna upnika […] in […], primerljivi s posojilom, ki ga je dodelilo podjetje Finnvera.
As secured creditors in the court supervised restructuring proceedings the companies are all in a similar situation.
Kot zavarovani upniki v postopku prestrukturiranja pod nadzorom sodišča so vsa podjetja v podobnem položaju.
Given that these loans were granted at similar conditions to the loan granted by Finnvera (same loan period, comparable reimbursement period) and that the interest rate that Finnvera asked was even more favourable for Finnvera (EURIBOR 6 months + 2 % was 4,643 % on 1 January 2006) than the interest rate the private creditors received (on 1 January 2006, EURIBOR 3 months + 1,5 % was 3,988 %; EURIBOR 3 months + 2 % was 4,488 %), the Commission concludes that the measure did not confer an advantage to Karjaportti.
Ker sta bili ti posojili dodeljeni pod podobnimi pogoji kot posojilo, ki ga je dodelilo podjetje Finnvera (enako obdobje odplačila, primerljivo obdobje povračila), in ker je bila obrestna mera, za katero je zaprosilo podjetje Finnvera, še ugodnejša za podjetje Finnvera (6-mesečni EURIBOR, zvišan za 2 %, kar je 1. januarja 2006 znašalo 4,643 %) kot obrestna mera, ki sta jo prejela zasebna upnika (3-mesečni EURIBOR, zvišan za 1,5 %, kar je 1. januarja 2006 znašalo 3,988 %, 3-mesečni EURIBOR, zvišan za 2 % je znašal 4,488 %), je Komisija sklenila, da ukrep ni dodelil prednosti podjetju Karjaportti.
On the basis of the foregoing, it is concluded that the measure does not include state aid.
Na podlagi navedenega je Komisija sklenila, da ukrep ne zajema državne pomoči.
Counter-guarantee granted on 14 September 2006 (measure 15)
Posredno osebno jamstvo, dodeljeno 14. septembra 2006 (ukrep 15)
First, the Commission considers that the beneficiary of the measure is Karjaportti, although the counter-guarantee was granted to […].
Komisija meni, da je upravičenec ukrepa podjetje Karjaportti, čeprav je bilo posredno osebno jamstvo dodeljeno […].
The low fee charged by […] from Karjaportti indicates that […] only granted the guarantee in the light of the guarantee granted by Finnvera.
Nizka provizija, ki jo je […] zaračunal podjetju Karjaportti, nakazuje, da je […] dodelil poroštvo le ob upoštevanju poroštva, ki ga je dodelilo podjetje Finnvera.
Indeed, in fact, Karjaportti and not […] pays the guarantee premium for the counter-guarantee to Finnvera.
Pravzaprav premijo za poroštvo za posredno osebno jamstvo podjetju Finnvera plačuje podjetje Karjaportti in ne […].
In any event, Finland considers that Finnvera acted on the same terms as private creditors […] and […] did.
V vsakem primeru Finska meni, da je podjetje Finnvera delovalo pod enakimi pogoji kot zasebna upnika […] in […].
It is true that […] and […] were in a similar situation as Finnvera.
Res je, da sta bila […] in […] v podobnem položaju kot podjetje Finnvera.
All three companies are secured creditors in the court-supervised restructuring proceedings.
Vsa tri podjetja so zavarovani upniki v postopku prestrukturiranja pod nadzorom sodišča.
They all have granted loans and guarantees to Karjaportti before ([…]).
Vsa so podjetju Karjaportti dodelila posojila in poroštva pred ([…]).
By the same token as for measure 14, following the logic of the BP Chemicals case (see recitals 189–191) it is considered that the market economy investor principle can be applied to measure 15, as this measure is severable from measures 4, 5 and 13 (see recital 253).
Tako kot za ukrep 14, po logiki v zadevi BP Chemicals (glej uvodne izjave 189–191), Komisija meni, da se načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu lahko uporablja za ukrep 15, saj je ta ukrep ločen od ukrepov 4, 5 in 13 (glej uvodno izjavo 253).
Concerning the measure in question, overall the guaranteed loan amounted to EUR 1,8 million. Finnvera counter-guaranteed […] for only 16,7 % of this sum (EUR 300000).
Pri zadevnem ukrepu je posojilo s poroštvom skupaj znašalo 1,8 milijona EUR. Podjetje Finnvera je […] posredno jamčilo le za 16,7 % tega zneska (300000 EUR).
The remainder of the loan was covered by guarantees from […] and […] (EUR 825000 and EUR 675000 respectively), which were not counter-guaranteed by Finnvera.
Preostali del posojila sta zajemali poroštvi […] in […] (825000 EUR oziroma 675000 EUR), ki ju podjetje Finnvera ni posredno jamčilo.
From the perspective of the beneficiary Karjaportti, the overall costs for the counter-guaranteed guarantee were higher than for the guarantees granted by […] and […].
S stališča upravičenca, tj. podjetja Karjaportti, so bili skupni stroški za posredno jamčenje poroštva višji kot za poroštvi, ki sta ju dodelila […] in […].
Whereas the latter two charged a guarantee fee of 1,75 % from Karjaportti, the total financing costs for the counter-guarantee for Karjaportti were 2,9 % (1,65 % for the […] guarantee plus 1,25 % for the counter-guarantee).
Čeprav sta slednja podjetju Karjaportti zaračunala 1,75-odstotno provizijo za poroštvo, so bili skupni stroški financiranja posrednega osebnega jamstva za podjetje Karjaportti 2,9-odstotni (1,65 % za poroštvo […], zvišani za 1,25 % za posredno osebno jamstvo).
It follows that the measure taken by Finnvera did not confer an advantage to Karjaportti.
Iz tega sledi, da ukrep, ki ga je sprejelo podjetje Finnvera, ni dodelil prednosti podjetju Karjaportti.
As described at recital 110, Finland argues that the loan did not involve state aid as it was part of a larger funding measure in which also private creditors took part.
Kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 110, Finska trdi, da posojilo ni zajemalo državne pomoči, saj je bilo del večjega ukrepa financiranja, v katerem so sodelovali tudi zasebni upniki.
By the same token as for measure 14, following the logic of the BP Chemicals case (see recitals 189–191) it is considered that the market economy investor principle can be applied to measure 16 (see recital 253).
Tako kot za ukrep 14, po logiki v zadevi BP Chemicals (glej uvodne izjave 189–191), Komisija meni, da se načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu lahko uporablja za ukrep 16 (glej uvodno izjavo 253).
As outlined in recital 254, the Commission considers that […] and […] are in a comparable situation to Finnvera.
Kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 254, Komisija meni, da sta […] in […] v primerljivem položaju kot podjetje Finnvera.