natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This meant that their returns in case of insolvency proceedings would be higher than the 2 % of the agreed purchase price which was on offer.
To je pomenilo, da bi njihova vračila v primeru postopkov zaradi nesolventnosti presegala 2 % dogovorjene nakupne cene, ki je bila ponujena.
In addition, a number of the winegrowing enterprises and merchants had handed in complaints against GfW and these complaints had been treated by the court who proposed settlements agreements.
Poleg tega je več vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev že vložilo tožbe proti družbi GfW, te pa je obravnavalo sodišče, ki je predlagalo sporazume o poravnavi.
According to the settlement agreements GfW should pay 70 % of the remaining claims and 30 % should be waived.
V skladu s sporazumi o poravnavi bi morala družba GfW plačati 70 % preostalih terjatev, 30 % pa bi se jih odpovedalo.
The court also decided that GfW would have to carry 80 % of the court fees.
Sodišče je tudi odločilo, da mora družba GfW kriti 80 % sodnih stroškov.
Similar settlement agreements were proposed by other courts and, with this in mind, it was no longer possible for GfW to expect that the other winegrowing enterprises and merchants would agree to waiving 90 % of their remaining claims.
Ker so podobne sporazume o poravnavi predlagala tudi druga sodišča, družba GfW ni več mogla pričakovati, da bi se preostala vinogradniška podjetja in trgovci strinjali z odpovedjo 90 % svojih preostalih terjatev.
In addition, several winegrowing enterprises and merchants now declared that they would demand 100 % repayment of the remaining 20 %.
Poleg tega je več vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev izjavilo, da bodo zahtevali celotno poplačilo preostalih 20 odstotkov.
§ 305a of the German insolvency law states that an out of court settlement (außergerichtliche Einigung) to avoid settlement of debts fails when one single creditor decides to proceed to enforcement after the out of court settlement negotiations have started.
Člen 305a nemškega zakona o nesolventnosti določa, da izvensodna poravnava (außergerichtliche Einigung) za preprečitev poravnave dolgov ni več mogoča, ko en sam upnik začne izvršbo po začetku pogajanj o izvensodni poravnavi.
Therefore, contrary to its original intention, GfW could no longer ask the winegrowing enterprises and merchants to waive any of their claims.
Zato družba GfW vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev ni več mogla prositi za odpoved terjatvam, kot je sprva nameravala.
The agreement also stated that the winegrowing enterprises and merchants remaining claims would be settled in full.
V sporazumu je tudi določeno, da se bodo preostale terjatve vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev poravnale v celoti.
This way, the security of WAK’s non-subordinated claims was guaranteed, the deficit situation was remedied, insolvency proceedings were avoided for the time being and GfW could continue trading.
Tako se je zagotovilo zavarovanje nepodrejenih terjatev banke WAK, odpravil se je primanjkljaj, začasno so se preprečili postopki zaradi nesolventnosti in družba GfW je lahko nadaljevala s poslovanjem.
During the period of 1 November 2000 to 31 December 2000 GfW made repayments to WAK on the loan at a value of EUR 1440446,92. During the period of 2001-2005 GfW continued trading and made regular repayments on its loan to WAK, totalling EUR 3728969,40. In addition, during 2001, GfW made interest payments totalling EUR 149757,16 to WAK.
V obdobju od 1. novembra 2000 do 31. decembra 2000 je družba GfW odplačala posojilo banke WAK v vrednosti 1440446,92 EUR. V obdobju od leta 2001 do 2005 je nadaljevala s poslovanjem in redno odplačevala posojilo banke WAK v skupni vrednosti 3728969,40 EUR. Poleg tega je družba GfW leta 2001 banki WAK plačala obresti v skupni vrednosti 149757,16 EUR.
All the proceeds were used to repay WAK.
Vsi iztržki bili uporabljeni za poplačilo banki WAK.
By 31 December 2005 EUR 9897154,65 of the loan had been repaid and EUR 793994,99 in interest payments had been made.
Do 31. decembra 2005 je bilo odplačanih 9897154,65 EUR posojila in plačanih 793994,99 EUR obresti.
After winding-up GfW’s remaining assets (EUR 87079,79), WAK’s remaining outstanding claims of around EUR 313000 were declared irrecoverable and were written off. The part of the loan that was never repaid therefore totalled EUR 5318441,60 (the original waiver of claims of EUR 5005441,60 plus the outstanding claims after liquidation of EUR 313000).
Po likvidaciji preostalih sredstev družbe GfW (87079,79 EUR) so bile preostale neporavnane terjatve banke WAK v vrednosti približno 313000 EUR razglašene za neizterljive in so bile odpisane. Del posojila, ki ni bil odplačan, je tako skupaj znašal 5318441,60 EUR (prvotna odpoved terjatvam v vrednosti 5005441,60 EUR plus neporavnane terjatve po likvidaciji v vrednosti 313000 EUR).
Nature and intensity of the aid
Značilnosti in intenzivnost pomoči
WAK’s EUR 15302696,25 loan to GfW was granted in several instalments in 1999 for a term of 12 to 18 months:
Posojilo banke WAK v vrednosti 15302696,25 je bilo družbi GfW odobreno v več obrokih v letu 1999 za obdobje 12 do 18 mesecev:
The interest rates charged was as follows:
Obračunane so bile naslednje obrestne mere:
4th quarter 1999
Zadnje četrtletje leta 1999
1st quarter 2000
Prvo četrtletje leta 2000
2nd quarter 2000
Drugo četrtletje leta 2000
3rd quarter 2000
Tretje četrtletje leta 2000
4th quarter 2000
Zadnje četrtletje leta 2000
On 11 November 1999 the suppliers received a down payment of 80 % of the agreed price.
Dobavitelji so 11. novembra 1999 prejeli predplačilo v vrednosti 80 % dogovorjene cene.
In addition, as a result of the prolonged retention of title awarded some of the suppliers, which would not come to an end on processing, blending or mixing, part of the stock was used to secure these suppliers’ remaining claim of 20 %.
Poleg tega se je zaradi podaljšanega pridržka lastninske pravice, dodeljene nekaterim dobaviteljem, ki ne bi dokončali obdelave, tipiziranja ali mešanja, del zalog uporabil za zavarovanje preostalih 20 % terjatev teh dobaviteljev.
The stocks were also agreed as collateral for WAK.
Tudi zaloge so bile sprejete kot zavarovanje za banko WAK.
However, due to the retention of title WAK had only a secondary claim on part of the stock as long as the claims with prolonged retention of title were not settled.
Vendar je imela banka WAK zaradi pridržka lastninske pravice le podrejeno terjatev na del zaloge, dokler se terjatve s podaljšanim pridržkom lastninske pravice niso poravnale.
The larger share of the risk of fluctuations in prices consequently lay with GfW and its creditors of which WAK was the main one.
Večji delež tveganja nihanj cen so tako nosili družba GfW in njeni upniki, med katerimi je bila banka WAK glavna upnica.
On the loan granted by WAK to GfW only limited interest was paid: from 11 November 1999 to 31 December 1999 (at a rate of 3,28 %), from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000 (3,51-5,15 %) and from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 (4,55-5,25 %).
Na posojilo, ki ga je banka WAK odobrila družbi GfW, so se plačale le omejene obresti: od 11. novembra 1999 do 31. decembra 1999 (po obrestni meri 3,28 %), od 1. januarja 2000 do 31. decembra 2000 (3,51 %–5,15 %) in od 1. januarja 2001 do 31. decembra 2001 (4,55 %–5,25 %).
No further interest was claimed after 31 December 2001.
Po 31. decembru 2001 se niso zahtevale dodatne obresti.
Considering the risk that WAK took when lending the money to GfW, a substantial risk premium should have been charged on top of the regular interest rate.
Glede na tveganje, ki ga je banka WAK prevzela s posojilom denarja družbi GfW, bi se morala poleg redne obrestne mere zaračunati znatna premija za tveganje.
As there was no such risk premium added to the interest rate an aid element was present at the time of granting of the loan.
Ker se takšna premija za tveganje obrestni meri ni dodala, je bil v času odobritve posojila prisoten element pomoči.
This aid element can be calculated as the difference between the interest rate charged and the market interest rate plus the risk premium which should have been charged.
Ta element pomoči je mogoče izračunati kot razliko med zaračunano obrestno mero in tržno obrestno mero s prištetjem premije za tveganje, ki bi se morala zaračunati.
According to the Commission notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates [8] as amended by Commission notice on technical adaptation to the method for setting the reference and discount rates [9], applicable for the period in question, the base reference rate for Germany lay between 5,23 % and 6,33 %.
V skladu z obvestilom Komisije o načinu določanja referenčnih obrestnih mer in diskontnih stopenj [8], kakor je bilo spremenjeno s sporočilom Komisije o tehničnih prilagoditvah metode določanja referenčnih obrestnih mer in diskontnih stopenj [9], ki se uporablja za zadevno obdobje, je osnovna referenčna mera za Nemčijo med 5,23 % in 6,33 %.
According to the notice, the reference rate determined is a floor rate which may be increased in situations involving particular risk (for example, an undertaking in difficulty, or where the security normally required by banks is not provided).
V skladu z obvestilom je določena referenčna mera najnižja mera, ki se lahko poveča v okoliščinah, v katerih obstaja posebno tveganje (na primer podjetje v težavah ali, kadar ni zagotovljenega poroštva, ki ga običajno zahtevajo banke).
In such cases, the premium may amount to 400 basis points or more if no private bank would have agreed to grant the relevant loan.
V takšnih primerih lahko premija znaša do 400 baznih točk ali več, če nobena zasebna banka ne bi odobrila zadevnega posojila.
According to Germany, interest rates charged by German banks during the same period for similar credits lay between 5,25 % and 6,50 % (VR-Bank Südliche Winstrasse e.G.) and 5,40 % and 6 % (Die Kreissparkasse Bad Dürkheim).
Po navedbah Nemčije so bile obrestne mere nemških bank v enakem obdobju za podobna posojila med 5,25 % in 6,50 % (VR-Bank Südliche Winstrasse e.G.) ter 5,40 % in 6 % (Die Kreissparkasse Bad Dürkheim).
Duration of measure
Trajanje ukrepa
One-off measure.
Enkratni ukrep.
The Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure provided for under Article 108(2) of the TFEU because it suspected that the subordination and waiver of claims could constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 107 of the TFEU.
Komisija je začela formalni postopek preiskave v skladu s členom 108(2) PDEU zaradi suma, da bi lahko podreditev in odpoved terjatvam pomenili državno pomoč v smislu člena 107 PDEU.
In particular, the Commission had, based on the information available at the time of the initial opening of the formal investigation procedure, examined whether the subordination and waiver of claims were carried out pursuant to the private creditor test.
Komisija je na podlagi informacij, ki so bile na voljo ob začetku formalnega postopka preiskave, zlasti preučila, ali sta se podreditev in odpoved terjatvam izvedli v skladu s preskusom zasebnega upnika.
The private creditor test assesses whether, under the same market conditions, a private creditor would have acted or has acted in the same way as the public creditor.
S preskusom zasebnega upnika se oceni, ali bi zasebni upnik pod enakimi tržnimi pogoji ravnal ali je ravnal enako kot javni upnik.
As regards the case at hand, private creditors had claims on GfW totalling EUR 5,5 million on 31 October 2000, but none of them waived their claims.
Pri zadevnem primeru so imeli zasebni upniki 31. oktobra 2000 do družbe GfW terjatve v skupni vrednosti 5,5 milijona EUR, vendar se nobeden od njih terjatvam ni odpovedal.
The report by an independent auditor did appear to show that it made economic sense for WAK to subordinate and waive a share of their claims, but did not explain why none of the other creditors were prepared to waive their own claims.
V poročilu neodvisnega revizorja je navedeno, da je bilo za banko WAK z ekonomskega vidika smiselno, da podredi in odpove del svojih terjatev, vendar ni pojasnjeno, zakaj nobeden od drugih upnikov ni bil pripravljen odpovedati svojih terjatev.
In the opening of the formal investigation procedure the Commission concluded that at the time of the opening of procedure, it could not be excluded that WAK’s subordination and waiver of claims (the loan to GfW and future interest payments on this loan) were not in accordance with the private creditor test as they seemed to be higher than absolutely necessary and excessively favoured not only GfW but also the other creditors (primarily the winegrowing enterprises and merchants) who had their claims refunded in full.
Na začetku formalnega postopka preiskave je Komisija sklenila, da ob začetku postopka ni bilo mogoče izključiti, da podreditev in odpoved terjatev banke WAK (posojilo družbi GfW in prihodnja plačila obresti na to posojilo) nista v skladu s preskusom zasebnega upnika, saj sta bili očitno višji, kot je bilo nujno potrebno, ter pretirano v korist družbe GfW in drugih upnikov (zlasti vinogradniških podjetij in trgovcev), ki so jim bile terjatve v celoti povrnjene.
The opening of the formal investigation procedure was then extended to include the granting of the loan.
Začetek formalnega postopka preiskave se je nato razširil, da bi se vključila odobritev posojila.
Specifically, doubt was expressed concerning whether the granting of the loan was done on market terms (no risk premium was charged) and with sufficient securities.
Zlasti je bil izražen dvom, ali je bila odobritev posojila v skladu s tržnimi pogoji (premija za tveganje ni bila zaračunana) in z zadostnimi zavarovanji.
In the extension of the formal investigation procedure, doubt regarding possible aid to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants was again raised.
Pri podaljšanju formalnega postopka preiskave se je spet pojavil dvom glede mogoče pomoči vinogradniškim podjetjem in trgovcem.
The information available at the time seemed to indicate that the price paid for the must was above the relevant market price, that the aim of the transaction was not to maximise profits but to support the wine and must market, and that the security position awarded the winegrowing enterprises and merchants under the sales contract were more advantageous than under normal circumstances.
Na podlagi informacij, ki so bile takrat na voljo, je kazalo, da je bila cena, plačana za mošt, višja od ustrezne tržne cene, da cilj transakcije ni bil povečanje dobičkov, ampak podpora trga za vino in mošt, ter da je bil položaj zavarovanja, dodeljen vinogradniškim podjetjem in trgovcem v skladu s prodajno pogodbo, ugodnejši kot v običajnih okoliščinah.
The doubt regarding the price was emphasised by documents provided by Germany after the first opening of procedure, which showed a fluctuation in the price per litre of table wine (not including VAT) in 1999 in the Pfalz-Rheinhessen region from a minimum EUR 0,26 (October/November) to EUR 0,30 (June to September), EUR 0,35 (April), and a maximum EUR 1,10 (February, June, November/December).
Dvom glede cene je bil poudarjen v dokumentih, ki jih je predložila Nemčija po prvem začetku postopka in so prikazovali nihanje v ceni na liter namiznega vina (brez vključenega DDV) leta 1999 v regiji Pfalška-Rheinhessen od najmanj 0,26 EUR (oktober/november) do 0,30 EUR (junij do september), 0,35 EUR (april) in do največ 1,10 EUR (februar, junij, november/december).
The minimum market price that could be achieved for table wine at the time of granting the loan was therefore EUR 0,26 per litre.
Tako je bila najmanjša tržna cena za namizno vino v času odobritve posojila 0,26 EUR na liter.
The average purchase price of EUR 0,38 per litre therefore seemed to be above the lowest market price of around EUR 0,26 per litre.
Povprečna nakupna cena 0,38 EUR na liter je bila tako očitno višja od najnižje tržne cene približno 0,26 EUR na liter.
COMPLAINTS AND INFORMATION FROM THIRD PARTIES
PRITOŽBE IN INFORMACIJE TRETJIH STRANI
The Commission received information indicating that the above waiver of claims was financed through WAK funds.
Komisija je prejela informacije, iz katerih je razvidno, da se je navedena odpoved terjatvam financirala prek sredstev banke WAK.
As the public authority funding WAK, the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate was said to have examined a possible capital injection due to WAK’s reduced capital base, but ultimately decided against it.
Zvezna dežela Porenje-Pfalška naj bi kot javni organ, ki financira banko WAK, preučevala mogočo dokapitalizacijo zaradi zmanjšane kapitalske osnove banke WAK, vendar se na koncu zanjo ni odločila.
The Commission received a complaint concerning the alleged State aid involved in the waiver of claims by WAK.
Komisija je prejela pritožbo v zvezi z domnevno državno pomočjo, ki naj bi bila vključena v odpoved terjatvam s strani banke WAK.
The complainant stated that GfW was competing in selling wine distillates and, as a result of the waiver in favour of this company, competitors would have considerable problems selling their own products.
Pritožnik je navedel, da je družba GfW konkurirala pri prodaji vinskih destilatov in zaradi odpovedi v njeno korist so imeli konkurenti velike težave s prodajo svojih proizvodov.
The complainant submitted several news paper articles with information concerning the waiver of claim by WAK to the benefit of GfW.
Pritožnik je predložil več časopisnih člankov z informacijami o odpovedi terjatev banke WAK v korist družbe GfW.
The same complainant also forwarded a letter he had received from the public prosecutor’s office in Kaiserslautern (central economic crime office) as a response to a letter he had sent there.
Isti pritožnik je posredoval tudi dopis, ki ga je od urada javnega tožilca v Kaiserslauternu (centralni urad za gospodarski kriminal) prejel kot odgovor na svoj dopis temu uradu.
The letter from the public prosecutor’s office in Kaiserslautern summarises the information received from the complainant in the form of news paper articles and statements and in the letter informs the complainant that, based on this information they had received, there are no grounds for opening criminal investigation proceedings (strafrechtliches Ermittlungsverfahren einzuleiten).
Dopis urada javnega tožilca v Kaiserslauternu povzema informacije, ki jih je predložil pritožnik v obliki časopisnih člankov in izjav, ter pritožnika obvešča, da glede na prejete informacije ni podlage za začetek kazenskopreiskovalnih postopkov (strafrechtliches Ermittlungsverfahren einzuleiten).
The Commission did not receive any comments as part of the formal investigation procedures.
Komisija ni prejela nobenih pripomb kot del formalnega postopka preiskave.
The repeated letters from the complainant after the initial opening of procedure did not add any new facts or arguments.
V ponovnih dopisih pritožnika po prvotnem začetku postopka ni bilo nobenih novih dejstev ali argumentov.
Aid element at time of granting of the loan
Element pomoči v času odobritve posojila
Germany has provided comprehensive information on the conditions of the loan granted by WAK to GfW which has been included in the description of the measure in section II.
Nemčija je predložila izčrpne informacije o pogojih za odobritev posojila banke WAK družbi GfW, ki so vključene v opis ukrepa v oddelku II.
In its comments, Germany agrees that the interest charged by WAK for the loan to GfW was lower than the market rate.
Nemčija se v svojih pripombah strinja, da so bile obresti, ki jih je banka WAK zaračunala za posojilo družbi GfW, nižje od tržne obrestne mere.
Germany recognises that the difference between the market rate and the interest rate charged constitutes aid to GfW in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Nemčija priznava, da razlika med tržno obrestno mero in zaračunano obrestno mero pomeni pomoč družbi GfW v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In accordance with settled case-law [10] recovery is according to Germany therefore not possible.
Po mnenju Nemčije v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [10] vračilo zato ni mogoče.
Germany gives their assurances that GfW’s granting of simple, extended or prolonged retention of title to the winegrowing enterprises and merchants in connection with the sale of must, was in accordance with common business practise.
Nemčija zagotavlja, da je bila odobritev navadnega, razširjenega ali podaljšanega pridržka lastninske pravice družbe GfW vinogradniškim podjetjem in trgovcem v povezavi s prodajo mošta v skladu z običajno poslovno prakso.
Germany also assures that to accept the secured assets as collateral despite the retention of title as WAK did for the loan to GfW is also according to common business practice.
Poleg tega Nemčija zagotavlja, da je tudi sprejem zavarovanih sredstev kot zavarovanja kljub pridržku lastninske pravice, kot je ga je izvedla banka WAK za posojilo družbi GfW, v skladu z običajno poslovno prakso.
Further, Germany states that the purchase of must in autumn 1999 by GfW was carried out at the market price because 60 % of the must bought was quality must (minimum 60 degree Oechsle) and not ordinary table wine must as assumed in the opening of procedure.
Nemčija nadalje navaja, da je bil mošt, ki ga je jeseni 1999 kupila družba GfW, kupljen po tržni ceni, ker je bilo 60 % kupljenega mošta kakovostni mošt (najmanj 60 stopinj Oechsleja) in ne mošt za navadno namizno vino, kot je bilo predpostavljeno ob začetku postopka.
According to Germany the quality requirements for the production of sparkling wine are higher than the requirements for table wine (minimum 60 and 44 degree Oechsle respectively).
Po mnenju Nemčije so zahteve glede kakovosti za proizvodnjo penečega vina višje od zahtev za namizno vino (najmanj 60 stopinj Oechsleja za peneče vino in 44 stopinj Oechsleja za namizno vino).
The remaining 40 % of the must was ordinary table wine must and was bought to take advantage of the beneficial conditions of preventive distillation.
Preostalih 40 % mošta je bilo namenjenih za navadno namizno vino, pri čemer je bil mošt kupljen, da bi se izkoristili ugodni pogoji preventivne destilacije.
In its comments, Germany emphasises that the marketing concept of GfW for 60 % of the stock involved the purchase of high quality must in large quantities and the subsequent processing into homogenous batches of raw wine for sparkling wine (Sektgrundwein), in compliance with the homogeneity and quality requirements of wineries.
Nemčija v pripombah poudarja, da je koncept trženja družbe GfW za 60 % zalog vključeval nakup velikih količin visokokakovostnega mošta in njegovo naknadno predelavo v osnovo za peneče vino (Sektgrundwein) v skladu z zahtevami vinskih kleti glede homogenosti in kakovosti.
Raw wine for the production of sparkling wine requires a low level of SO2 and high levels of fruit acids.
Za osnovo za proizvodnjo penečega vina sta potrebni nizka vsebnost SO2 in visoka vsebnost sadnih kislin.
This could only be achieved if the must was purchased during the autumn sales period and through GfW’s own preparation of the must into raw wine.
To bi se lahko doseglo samo, če bi se mošt kupil v jesenskem prodajnem obdobju in bi ga nato družba GfW sama predelala v osnovo.
Pursuant to the information provided by Germany, on the market for raw wine for sparkling wine, the basic price paid for one litre of must of 60 degrees Oechsle was EUR 0,312 per litre.
V skladu z informacijami, ki jih je predložila Nemčija, je bila osnovna cena za liter mošta z vrednostjo 60 stopinj Oechsleja na trgu osnove za peneče vino 0,312 EUR na liter.
For each additional degree Oechsle (up to a maximum of 80 degrees Oechsle) EUR 0,005 per litre was paid.
Pri vsaki dodatni stopinji Oechsleja (do največ 80 stopinj Oechsleja) se je cena zvišala za 0,005 EUR na liter.
The winegrowing enterprises and merchants were paid for their high quality must, 60 % of the must purchased, in accordance with this principle.
Vinogradniška podjetja in trgovci so za svoj visokokakovostni mošt, tj. 60 % kupljenega mošta, prejemali plačilo v skladu s tem načelom.
In this context Germany points to the relevant market.
V zvezi s tem Nemčija opozarja na upoštevni trg.