natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In any event, it does not involve state aid as the other party involved was a private lender and the guarantee fee imposed by Finnvera was considerably higher than the guarantee fee imposed by the private lender.
V vsakem primeru ni vključevalo državne pomoči, saj je bila druga sodelujoča stran zasebni posojilodajalec, provizija za poroštvo podjetja Finnvera pa bistveno višja kot provizija za poroštvo zasebnega posojilodajalca.
The interested party alleges that the City of Mikkeli bought six abandoned factory buildings in Mikkeli and paid a total of EUR 6,7 million for them. An investor acting in accordance with the market economy investor principle would not have bought properties of a company in deep financial troubles at such a price.
Zainteresirana stran trdi, da je mesto Mikkeli kupilo šest zapuščenih tovarniški zgradb v mestu Mikkeli in za njih skupaj plačalo 6,7 milijona EUR. Vlagatelj, ki ravna v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, ne bi kupil lastnine podjetja, ki je v velikih finančnih težavah, po taki ceni.
The interested party submitted a copy of minutes of the meeting of the Mikkeli City Board dated 5 February 2007, in which the debt-write off in the financial statements of 2006 was decided.
Zainteresirana stran je predložila kopijo zapisnika seje mestnega odbora mesta Mikkeli z dne 5. februarja 2007, v katerem je zapisana odločitev o odpisu dolga v računovodskih izkazih iz leta 2006.
In addition, the interested party points out that it was at least unusual that the City of Mikkeli wrote off millions of euros of Karjaportti's debts in its 2008 financial statements, and questions in particular why the City of Mikkeli was at the same time prepared to grant further guarantees to Karjaportti.
Poleg tega zainteresirana stran izpostavlja, da je bilo vsaj nenavadno, da je mesto Mikkeli odpisalo milijone evrov dolgov podjetja Karjaportti v svojih računovodskih izkazih iz leta 2008, in se zlasti sprašuje, zakaj je bilo mesto Mikkeli ob istem času pripravljeno dodeliti nadaljnja poroštva podjetju Karjaportti.
The question whether Karjaportti can be considered a company in difficulty has to be assessed under the R&R Guidelines 1999 until 9 October 2004, the date of expiry of the R&R Guidelines 1999 [38].
Vprašanje, ali se lahko podjetje Karjaportti obravnava kot podjetje v težavah, je treba oceniti v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 do 9. oktobra 2004, datuma izteka smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 [38].
As from 10 October 2004, the R&R Guidelines 2004 are applicable [39].
Od 10. oktobra 2004 veljajo smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 2004 [39].
Turnover was decreasing and losses had significantly increased from 2003 to 2004.
Prihodki so se zmanjšali in izgube so se znatno povečale z leta 2003 na 2004.
Debt was mounting and already at the beginning of 2004, the beneficiary started rescheduling of debts and had to ask the creditors for deferral of due payments [40].
Dolg se je večal in že na začetku leta 2004 je upravičenec začel odlagati plačila dolgov ter moral upnike zaprositi za odlog zapadlih plačil [40].
According to Karjaportti's financial statements, the share capital of Karjaportti almost disappeared in 2004, as it dramatically fell to less than a tenth of its value compared to the year 2003.
Po računovodskih izkazih podjetja Karjaportti je delniški kapital podjetja leta 2004 skoraj izginil, saj je strmo padel na manj kot desetino svoje vrednosti v primerjavi z letom 2003.
Since then the company recorded negative equity that tended to increase over the last years.
Od takrat je podjetje zabeležilo negativni lastniški kapital, ki se je v zadnjih letih še povečeval.
In light of the facts presented in recitals 125-127, it can be concluded that Karjaportti qualifies as a firm in difficulty under Point 5 of the R&R Guidelines 1999 and under Point 11 of the R&R Guidelines 2004 respectively since the beginning of 2004.
Ob upoštevanju dejstev, predstavljenih v uvodnih izjavah 125–127, je mogoče skleniti, da podjetje Karjaportti velja za podjetje v težavah v skladu s točko 5 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 oziroma točko 11 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 2004 od začetka leta 2004.
In 2008, when Karjaportti was subject to bankruptcy proceedings, it also qualified as a firm in difficulty under Point 10(c) of the R&R Guidelines 2004.
Leta 2008, ko je bilo podjetje Karjaportti v stečajnem postopku, je veljalo tudi kot podjetje v težavah v skladu s točko 10(c) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 2004.
As the decision of the City Council of Mikkeli to provide a guarantee to Karjaportti did not become final and the City Board decided in February 2010 not to implement the guarantee, Finland withdrew the notification of the guarantee in March 2010.
Ker odločitev mestnega sveta mesta Mikkeli za zagotovitev poroštva podjetju Karjaportti ni bila dokončna in se je mestni odbor februarja 2010 odločil, da ne bo izvajal poroštva, je Finska marca 2010 umaknila priglasitev poroštva.
Thus, as regards the guarantee, the investigation became without object.
Zato je preiskava v zvezi s poroštvom postala brezpredmetna.
Guarantee (measure 1): As described in recitals (14)-(16), the City of Mikkeli gave the guarantee in June 2000 and made payments under the guarantee in December 2004.
Poroštvo (ukrep 1) Kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah (14)–(16), je mesto Mikkeli poroštvo dodelilo junija 2000 in izvršilo plačila v okviru poroštva decembra 2004.
After the City of Mikkeli had become creditor of Karjaportti, the conditions for the loan were changed within the court-supervised restructuring proceedings (for details see recitals 34-39).
Ko je mesto Mikkeli postalo upnik podjetja Karjaportti, so se pogoji za posojilo spremenili v okviru postopka prestrukturiranja pod nadzorom sodišča (za podrobnosti glej uvodne izjave 34–39).
In order to carry out that assessment, the Commission will rely on the Guarantee Notice 2000.
Za izvajanje navedene ocene se bo Komisija zanašala na obvestilo o poroštvih 2000.
At the time when the measure was granted, the Guarantee Notice 2000 was in force.
Ob odobritvi ukrepa je veljalo obvestilo o poroštvih 2000.
However, as the case-law of the Court clearly indicates, "the question whether aid is State aid within the meaning of the Treaty must be determined on the basis of objective elements, which must be appraised on the date on which the Commission takes its decision" [43].
Vendar, kot sodna praksa Sodišča jasno določa, „pojem državne pomoči namreč odgovarja objektivnemu stanju, ki se presoja na dan, ko Komisija sprejme odločbo [43]“.
Accordingly, for the assessment in hand, the Commission will rely on the Guarantee Notice 2008.
V skladu s tem se bo Komisija pri trenutni oceni zanašala na obvestilo o poroštvih 2008.
As they were granted in a sector to which the RAG 1998 are applicable, the measures fall in principle within the scope of the RAG 1998.
Odobreni so bili v sektorju, za katerega se uporabljajo smernice o regionalni pomoči 1998, zato ukrepi pravzaprav spadajo v področje uporabe smernic o regionalni pomoči 1998.
At the time of granting, the beneficiary was not in difficulty, as described in recitals 123–128 above, and it was located in Itä-Suomen, a region eligible for regional aid under Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU.
Ob odobritvi upravičenec ni bil v težavah, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah 123–128, in se je nahajal v regiji Itä-Suomen, ki je upravičena do regionalne pomoči v skladu s členom 107(3)(a) PDEU.
Therefore, the Commission has assessed the project under the RAG 1998.
Zato je Komisija projekt ocenila v skladu s smernicami o regionalni pomoči 1998.
This assessment has led to the following observations:
Ta ocena je vodila k naslednjim ugotovitvam:
As for the guarantee granted in June 2000, several steps have to be distinguished (granting of the guarantee; payment under the guarantee; change of conditions in the loan; compare recital 132).
V zvezi s poroštvom, dodeljenim junija 2000, je treba razlikovati več korakov (dodelitev poroštva, plačilo v okviru poroštva, sprememba pogojev posojila; glej uvodno izjavo 132).
Accordingly, in the following, it is examined whether the guarantees given in March 2004 and in May 2004 constitute state aid.
Zato se v nadaljevanju prouči, ali sta poroštvi, dodeljeni marca 2004 in maja 2004, pomenili državno pomoč.
The question whether the changes in the conditions of the loan could entail state aid is assessed as part of measure 6 (see recitalsto 188-195).
Vprašanje, ali bi spremembe pogojev posojila lahko zajemale državno pomoč, se prouči kot del ukrepa 6 (glej uvodne izjave 188–195).
In fact, the City of Mikkeli granted a new guarantee on 8 March 2004 that was securing a new loan granted by Tapiola on 14 April 2004.
Pravzaprav je mesto Mikkeli 8. marca 2004 dodelilo novo poroštvo, ki je zavarovalo novo posojilo banke Tapiola 14. aprila 2004.
The new guarantee cannot be seen as a continuation of the old guarantee as it was granted for a new loan with new conditions.
Novo poroštvo se ne more obravnavati kot nadaljevanje starega poroštva, saj je bilo dodeljeno za novo posojilo z novimi pogoji.
The question whether the guarantee conferred an advantage to the beneficiary can be assessed on the basis of the Guarantee Notice 2008.
Vprašanje, ali je poroštvo upravičencu dodelilo prednost, se lahko oceni na podlagi obvestila o poroštvih 2008.
This suffices to say that the existence of state aid cannot be ruled out on the basis of point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008.
To zadostuje za trditev, da obstoj državne pomoči ne more biti izključen na podlagi točke 3.2 obvestila o poroštvih 2008.
In addition, and contrary to Finland's arguments, the Commission considers that Karjaportti was in difficulty, within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999, already in March 2004 (see recitals123-128), which is another reason that the guarantee cannot fall under point 3.2. of the Guarantee Notice 2008.
Poleg tega in v nasprotju s trditvami Finske Komisija meni, da je bilo podjetje Karjaportti v težavah v smislu smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 že marca 2004 (glej uvodne izjave 123–128), kar je nadaljnji razlog, da poroštvo ne more spadati pod točko 3.2 obvestila o poroštvih 2008.
At the time when measures 4 and measures 5 were granted, the compatibility of state aid to assisted areas was regulated by the RAG 1998.
Ob odobritvi ukrepov 4 in 5 so združljivost državne pomoči območjem, ki prejemajo pomoč, urejale smernice o regionalni pomoči 1998.
Under those Guidelines, companies in difficulties are not eligible for regional aid.
V okviru navedenih smernic podjetja v težavah niso upravičena do regionalne pomoči.
This creditor received an interest rate of […] EURIBOR for all outstanding amounts from the commencement of the restructuring proceedings, whereas the other creditors received for a part of the outstanding amounts only […] EURIBOR minus […]% until 2010.
Ta upnik je prejel obrestno mero […] EURIBOR za vse neporavnane zneske od začetka postopka prestrukturiranja, drugi upniki pa so za del neporavnanih zneskov prejeli le […] EURIBOR, znižan za […] % do leta 2010.
This difference was due to the fact that […] had the highest ranking as regards the collaterals provided by Karjaportti as security.
Ta razlika je nastala, saj je bil […] najvišje uvrščen glede zavarovanj s premoženjem, ki jih je zagotovilo podjetje Karjaportti.
Conditional debt waiver: According to the restructuring programme, as described in recitals 42 and 43, the amounts to be waived at the end of the court-supervised restructuring proceedings, if certain economic requirements are not met, are based on a comparison between the value of the collateral if Karjaportti continues its operations, and the value of the collateral in case of its realisation, determined for each of the respective creditors, taking into account their respective rankings.
Pogojna opustitev dolga: V skladu s programom prestrukturiranja, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah 42 in 43, zneski, ki bodo opuščeni na koncu postopka prestrukturiranja pod nadzorom sodišča, če ne bodo izpolnjene določene gospodarske zahteve, temeljijo na primerjavi med vrednostjo zavarovanja v premoženju, če bo podjetje Karjaportti še naprej delovalo, in vrednostjo zavarovanja v premoženju v primeru realizacije, ki je ugotovljena za vsakega zadevnega upnika, pri čemer se upošteva njihova uvrstitev.
The value of the collateral in the two scenarios was determined by two independent valuators at the time when the restructuring programme was set up, based on comparable prices and rental information.
Vrednost zavarovanja v premoženju v obeh primerih sta ugotovila dva neodvisna cenilca v času oblikovanja programa prestrukturiranja na podlagi primerljivih cen in informacij o najemu.
Whereas the City of Mikkeli would have deferred the payment of the outstanding debts to 2011, the private creditors would still have received an instalment in 2009.
Če bi mesto Mikkeli odložilo plačilo neporavnanih dolgov do leta 2011, bi zasebni upniki še vedno prejeli obrok leta 2009.
In the light of this, the argument brought forward by Finland can be rejected.
Ob upoštevanju tega se lahko utemeljitev Finske zavrne.
Compatibility of State aid to assisted areas is regulated by the RAG 1998.
Združljivost državne pomoči območjem, ki prejemajo pomoč, urejajo smernice o regionalni pomoči 1998.
Whereas it is true that […] and […] both granted loans to Karjaportti in 2004, the Commission has no indication that those banks also granted guarantees.
Čeprav sta […] in […] leta 2004 dodelila podjetju Karjaportti posojila, Komisija nima nobenega dokaza, da sta navedeni banki dodelili tudi poroštvi.
In addition, the loans granted by the two private creditors were only granted in summer 2004, that is to say a couple of months after Finnvera had granted measure 13, and it can hence not be considered that Finnvera acted "together" with them.
Poleg tega sta bili posojili dveh zasebnih upnikov dodeljeni šele poleti 2004, tj. nekaj mesecev po tem, ko je podjetje Finnvera odobrilo ukrep 13, zato se ne more obravnavati, kot da je podjetje Finnvera delovalo „skupaj“ z njima.
Finland's argument that the guarantee was granted in accordance with the Guarantee Notice 2000, can also be rejected.
Tudi utemeljitev Finske, da je bilo poroštvo dodeljeno v skladu z obvestilom o poroštvih 2000, se lahko zavrne.
Whereas the two guarantees were granted by two different entities and covered two separate loans with a different duration, these two loans replaced one single loan granted by Tapiola in 1992.
Čeprav sta dve poroštvi dodelila dva različna subjekta in sta zajemali dve ločeni posojili z različno veljavnostjo, sta obe posojili nadomestili eno posojilo, ki ga je dodelila banka Tapiola leta 1992.
It can hence be considered that measure 4 and measure 13 were granted for the same purpose, which was to allow converting the Tapiola loan granted in 1992 into new loans.
Zato se lahko upošteva, da sta bila ukrep 4 in ukrep 13 odobrena za isti namen, to je za omogočanje pretvorbe posojila banke Tapiola, dodeljenega leta 1992, v nova posojila.
For the same reasons as set out above for measure 4 and measure 5 (see recitals 177–178), the Commission considers measure 13 does not meet all the requirements for restructuring aid set out in the R&R Guidelines 1999 either.
Komisija zaradi istih razlogov, kot so opredeljeni zgoraj za ukrepa 4 in 5 (glej uvodni izjavi 177 in 178), meni, da ukrep 13 ne izpolnjuje vseh zahtev za pomoč za prestrukturiranje, opredeljenih v smernicah za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999.
Accordingly, the Commission considers that the measure was not granted in accordance with the R&R Guidelines 1999.
Skladno s tem Komisija meni, da ukrep ni bil odobren v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999.
According to the documents submitted by Finland, the conversion of interest actually took place in the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006.
V skladu z dokumenti, ki jih je predložila Finska, je pretvorba obresti dejansko potekala konec leta 2005 in v začetku leta 2006.
Also private creditors converted their interest rates into loans.
Tudi zasebni upniki so pretvorili svoje obrestne mere v posojila.
It is noted that no restructuring plan within the meaning of point 35 of the R&R Guidelines was set up.
Ugotavlja se, da ni bil oblikovan načrt za prestrukturiranje v smislu točke 35 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
As regards measure 4, the securisation of Karjaportti's loans could be considered as normal for the purpose of the Reference Rate Communication 2008.
Glede ukrepa 4 bi se zavarovanje posojil podjetja Karjaportti lahko upoštevalo za običajno za namen sporočila o referenčnih obrestnih merah 2008.
Karjaportti provided a property mortgage and a business mortgage for measure 4.
Podjetje Karjaportti je zagotovilo hipoteko na nepremičnino in poslovno hipoteko za ukrep 4.
The aid was put at the disposal of the company from the moment Osuuskunta Karjaportti deviated from the payment schedule as agreed to during the court-supervised restructuring proceedings in 2006.
Pomoč je bila podjetju na voljo od trenutka, ko je podjetje Osuuskunta Karjaportti odstopilo od roka plačil, kot je bilo dogovorjeno med postopkom prestrukturiranja pod nadzorom sodišča leta 2006.
The Commission considers that at the time of granting the aid, Karjaportti was no longer capable of accessing financial markets.
Komisija meni, da v času dodelitve pomoči podjetje Karjaportti ni več moglo dostopati do finančnih trgov.
The guarantee granted by Finnvera on 17 March 2004 also entails state aid, which is not compatible under the R&R Guidelines 1999.
Tudi poroštvo, ki ga je podjetje Finnvera dodelilo 17. marca 2004, zajema državno pomoč, ki ni združljiva v okviru smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999.
The loan granted by Finnvera on 12 January 2006 does not constitute state aid, as it was granted together with comparable private creditors and at similar conditions.
Posojilo, ki ga je podjetje Finnvera dodelilo 12. januarja 2006, ne zajema državne pomoči, saj je bilo dodeljeno skupaj s primerljivimi zasebnimi upniki in pod podobnimi pogoji.
On 23 November 2011, EUR […] of the capital was still outstanding.
Dne 23. novembra 2011 je bilo […] EUR kapitala še vedno neporavnanega.
According to Finland, the market projections were satisfactory in the first half of 2004 and Karjaportti had budgeted a profit of EUR 3 million for 2004.
Po navedbah Finske so bile tržne projekcije v prvi polovici leta 2004 zadovoljive, podjetje Karjaportti pa je za leto 2004 predvidelo 3 milijone EUR dobička.
In addition, Karjaportti was able to get loans from private lenders at relatively low interest rates during spring and summer 2004.
Obenem je podjetje Karjaportti spomladi in poleti leta 2004 lahko pridobilo posojila zasebnih posojilodajalcev po relativno nizki obrestni meri.
on the State aid no SA.33114 (2012/C) (ex. 2011/NN) — Poland Alleged aid to Crist Shipyard
o državni pomoči št. SA.33114 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) – Poljska Domnevna pomoč ladjedelnici Crist
(notified under document C(2012) 5057)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2012) 5057)
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije, zlasti prvega pododstavka člena 108(2) PDEU,
On 6 November 2008, the Commission adopted two recovery decisions [2] concerning unlawful State aid to the shipyards in Gdynia and Szczecin (hereinafter the “Gdynia Shipyard” and the “Szczecin Shipyard”) allowing a special sales procedure.
Komisija je 6. novembra 2008 sprejela dve odločbi o vračilu pomoči [2] v zvezi z nezakonito državno pomočjo ladjedelnicama Gdynia in Szczecin (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ladjedelnica Gdynia oziroma ladjedelnica Szczecin).
The Polish authorities were given the opportunity to sell the yards' assets in bundles in open, transparent, unconditional and non-discriminatory tenders.
Ta pomoč je dopuščala poseben postopek prodaje, kar pomeni, da so imeli poljski organi možnost prodaje premoženja ladjedelnic v več delih prek odprtih, preglednih, brezpogojnih in nediskriminacijskih javnih razpisov.
The Commission, while following up the recovery process, requested clarifications about the tender procedures mentioned above.
Komisija je med spremljanjem postopka vračila pomoči zahtevala pojasnila o navedenih razpisnih postopkih.
Following press reports that the State-owned Industrial Development Agency (hereinafter "IDA") may have granted in September 2010 a loan (hereinafter "the measure", to Crist S.A. (hereinafter "Crist" or "the company") for the purchase of certain assets of the Gdynia Shipyard, the Commission requested clarifications on this issue at a meeting with the Polish authorities on 22 October 2010. The Polish authorities explained their position and undertook to submit all necessary information and corroborating documents regarding the transaction. The information was submitted on 25 November 2010 and on 5 December 2011.
Komisija je po tiskovnih poročilih, da naj bi Industrijska razvojna agencija (v nadaljnjem besedilu: IRA), ki je v državni lasti, septembra 2010 odobrila posojilo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ukrep) podjetju Crist S.A. (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Crist ali podjetje) za nakup določenega premoženja ladjedelnice Gdynia, na sestanku s poljskimi organi 22. oktobra 2010 zahtevala pojasnila v zvezi s tem. Poljski organi so pojasnili svoje stališče in se zavezali, da bodo predložili vse potrebne informacije in dodatne dokumente v zvezi s transakcijo. Informacije so bile predložene 25. novembra 2010 in 5. decembra 2011.
The Commission met with the Polish authorities on 6 December 2011.
Komisija se je s poljskimi organi sestala 6. decembra 2011.
A series of exchanges took place between Vice-President Almunia and the Polish Minister of Treasury, Mr Grad, culminating in a letter from Mr Grad dated 25 October 2011 and informing the Commission that the end of the liquidation procedure was planned for the end of 2011 for both the Gdynia Shipyard and the Szczecin Shipyard.
Po številnih izmenjavah dopisov med podpredsednikom Almunio in poljskim ministrom za finance Gradom je slednji z dopisom z dne 25. oktobra 2011 obvestil Komisijo, da se zaključek postopka likvidacije za ladjedelnico Gdynia in ladjedelnico Szczecin načrtuje za konec leta 2011.
By letter dated 25 January 2012, the Commission informed Poland that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter "TFEU") in respect of the measure at stake (hereinafter “the opening decision”).
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 25. januarja 2012 obvestila Poljsko o svoji odločitvi, da začne postopek na podlagi člena 108(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: PDEU) v zvezi z zadevnim ukrepom (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločitev o začetku postopka).
The opening decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [3].
Odločitev o začetku postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [3].
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.
Komisija je pozvala zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo svoje pripombe glede ukrepa.
Further information was provided by Poland on 4 and 5 June 2012.
Poljska je nadaljnje informacije zagotovila 4. in 5. junija 2012.
BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
DEJANSKO STANJE
Description of the beneficiary
Opis upravičenca
According to the Polish authorities, Crist, a private company located in Gdańsk, was established in 1990 by its two current shareholders.
Po navedbah poljskih organov sta podjetje Crist, ki je podjetje v zasebni lasti s sedežem v Gdansku, leta 1990 ustanovila dva sedanja delničarja.
It has about 150 employees and about 500 self-employed contractors providing services to the company.
Podjetje ima 150 zaposlenih in približno 500 samozaposlenih izvajalcev, ki podjetju nudijo storitve.
The main fields of Crist's activities are shipbuilding, ship repair and hydro-technical installations.
Glavna področja dejavnosti podjetja Crist so ladjedelništvo, popravljanje ladij in hidrotehnične inštalacije.