natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, the Commission finds that capital increases C-IV, C-V, C-VI, C-VII, C-X and C-XI have provided ÅI with an advantage that it would not have been able to get on market terms [18].
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da so povečanja kapitala C-IV, C-V, C-VI, C-VII, C-X in C-XI podjetju ÅI zagotovila prednost, ki je v tržnih pogojih ne bi moglo dobiti [18].
The remaining capital increases
Preostala povečanja kapitala
The Commission will now look at the remaining capital increases covered by the opening decision which, according to Finland, where not motivated by the iTiden project.
V nadaljevanju Komisija preučuje preostala povečanja kapitala, zajeta v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, ki po mnenju Finske niso bila izvedena zaradi projekta iTiden.
C-I capital increase of 18 June 1997
Povečanje kapitala C-I z dne 18. junija 1997
Under the de minimis rules applicable at the time of this capital injection, subsidies of less than ECU 100000 granted to an undertaking over a period of three years did not constitute State aid [19].
V skladu s pravili de minimis, ki so se uporabljala v času te dokapitalizacije, subvencije, nižje od 100000 ECU, ki se podjetju dodelijo v obdobju treh let, niso državna pomoč [19].
This capital increase amounts to EUR 84094,39, i.e. well below the ECU 100000de minimis ceiling.
To povečanje kapitala znaša 84094,39 EUR, t.j. precej pod zgornjo mejo de minimis, ki je 100000 ECU.
ÅI did not benefit from any other measure during a period of three years [20].
Podjetje ÅI v obdobju treh let ni uživalo ugodnosti nobenega drugega ukrepa [20].
Based on this, the 1997 capital injection would in any event — irrespective of the circumstances in which it was performed — not constitute State aid.
Na podlagi tega dokapitalizacija v letu 1997 v nobenem primeru – ne glede na okoliščine, v katerih je bila izvedena – ne bi bila državna pomoč.
C-II and C-III capital increases of 22 June 2000 and 10 October 2000
Povečanje kapitala C-II z dne 22. junija 2000 in C-III z dne 10. oktobra 2000
Finland has indicated that these measures were intended for the construction of an industrial property in Norrböle, the renovation of a property in Mariehamn (C-II) and the purchase of an industrial property in the eastern part of Åland (C-III).
Finska je navedla, do so bili ti ukrepi namenjeni izgradnji industrijske nepremičnine v kraju Norrböle, obnovi nepremičnine v Mariehamnu (C-II) ter nakupu industrijske nepremičnine na vzhodnem delu Ålandskih otokov (C-III).
There is thus no clear link to the iTiden project, which at that time had not yet clearly taken shape (this would happen in 2001 when the land was purchased).
Ni jasne povezave s projektom iTiden, ki takrat še ni bil jasno oblikovan (to se je zgodilo leta 2001, ko je bilo kupljeno zemljišče).
The investments motivating these two capital increases seem proportionate to the size and ‘traditional’ business model of ÅI prior to the expansion linked to the iTiden project.
Zdi se, da so naložbe, ki so spodbudile ti dve povečanji kapitala, sorazmerne velikosti in „tradicionalnemu“ poslovnemu modelu podjetja ÅI pred širitvijo, povezano s projektom iTiden.
There is therefore no compelling reason to consider that a private investor would not have undertaken the same capital increases, and there is thus no clear evidence of an advantage to ÅI.
Zato ni utemeljenih razlogov za mnenje, da zasebni vlagatelj ne bi izvedel enakih povečanj kapitala in tako ni jasnega dokaza o prednosti za podjetje ÅI.
Up until 2000 ÅI’s business operations were showing modest but positive results (in the range of EUR 9000 to EUR 38000 in 1997-2000).
Do leta 2000 so poslovne dejavnosti podjetja ÅI izkazovale skromen, vendar pozitiven rezultat (od 9000 EUR do 38000 EUR v obdobju 1997–2000).
ÅI’s business operations were in accordance with the company’s plan in place then.
Poslovne dejavnosti podjetja ÅI so bile skladne s takrat vzpostavljenim načrtom podjetja.
Accordingly ÅI owned and let warehouses and offices around the Åland Islands.
Skladno s tem je podjetje ÅI imelo v lasti skladišča in pisarne na Ålandskih otokih in jih oddajalo v najem.
The stock of real estate owned by ÅI had remained very stable until 2000, which also explains the company’s stable financial performance.
Do leta 2000 je bilo stanje nepremičnin, ki jih je imelo podjetje ÅI v lasti, zelo stabilno, kar pojasnjuje tudi stabilno finančno uspešnost podjetja.
ÅI’s turnover was in the range of EUR 95000 to EUR 101000 in 1997-2000. Accordingly, although with a relatively small turnover, ÅI was able to make its businesses profitable.
V obdobju 1997–2000 je bil promet podjetja ÅI od 95000 EUR do 101000 EUR. Kljub relativno nizkemu prometu, je podjetje ÅI poslovalo z dobičkom.
C-VIII and C-IX capital increases of 30 September 2004 and 16 June 2005
Povečanje kapitala C-VIII z dne 30. septembra 2004 in C-IX z dne 16. junija 2005
According to Finland, these capital increases were used to purchase an industrial property (C-VIII) and to construct a hangar at Jomala airport outside Mariehamn (C-IX).
Po navedbah Finske so bila ta povečanja kapitala uporabljena za nakup industrijske nepremičnine (C-VIII) in za izgradnjo hangarja na letališču Jomala blizu Mariehamna (C-IX).
Although not immediately justified by the iTiden project, these measures were implemented in circumstances that were completely different from those affecting previously discussed measures C-II and C-III.
Čeprav teh ukrepov projekt iTiden ne upravičuje, so bili izvedeni v okoliščinah, ki so bile popolnoma drugačne od okoliščin, ki so vplivale na prej obravnavana ukrepa C-II in C-III.
Crucially, too, these investments were made at a time when the LG had already invested more than EUR 2,25 million in ÅI since 2001 on the understanding that this investment would not provide a return that would be acceptable to a market investor.
Odločilno je tudi, da so bile te naložbe uresničene v času, ko je lokalna vlada od leta 2001 v podjetje ÅI že vložila 2,25 milijona EUR, pri čemer se je razumelo, da naložba ne bo zagotovila donosnosti, ki bi bila sprejemljiva za vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The inadequate return on the iTiden project would inevitably impact negatively on ÅI’s result as a whole.
Nezadostna donosnost projekta iTiden bi nujno negativno vplivala na rezultat podjetja ÅI kot celote.
Indeed, the equity of an undertaking is not earmarked but fungible and has to be remunerated from the overall performance of the firm.
Lastniški kapital podjetja ni namenski ampak zamenljiv in ga je treba nadomestiti iz splošne uspešnosti podjetja.
It must therefore have been clear to the LG, at the time when they undertook measures C-VIII and C-IX, that any additional increases in the capital of ÅI was unlikely to produce an adequate return in the foreseeable future.
Zato je moralo biti lokalni vladi v času, ko je sprejela ukrepa C-VIII in C-IX, jasno, da morebitna dodatna povečanja kapitala podjetja ÅI v predvidljivi prihodnosti verjetno ne bodo ustvarila ustrezne donosnosti.
A market investor would have been ready to make those capital injections if those investments had allowed a market return on the overall performance of the firm (i.e. a return that would have compensated for the low returns of the other capital increases), but there is nothing suggesting that this was expected to be the case.
Vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu bi bil pripravljen izvesti te dokapitalizacije, če bi te naložbe omogočale tržni donos splošne uspešnosti podjetja (t.j. donos, ki bi nadomestil nizke donose drugih povečanj kapitala), vendar nič ne nakazuje, da je bilo to pričakovati.
Finland has not provided any specific information regarding those measures that would change this view.
Finska ni predložila nobenih posebnih informacij o teh ukrepih, ki bi spremenile to stališče.
The Commission consequently considers that no private investor would have provided additional capital to ÅI in these circumstances.
Komisija zato meni, da v takih okoliščinah noben zasebni vlagatelj podjetju ÅI ne bi zagotovil dodatnega kapitala.
Capital increases C-VIII and C-IX have thus provided ÅI with an advantage that it would not have been able to obtain on the market.
Povečanji kapitala C-VIII in C-IX sta torej podjetju ÅI zagotovili prednost, ki je na trgu ne bi moglo pridobiti.
The loan guarantees
Poroštva za posojila
When assessing the possible State aid involved in guarantees, the Commission applies the principles laid down in its Guarantee Notice.
Komisija pri ocenjevanju, ali poroštva vključujejo državno pomoč, uporablja načela, predpisana v obvestilu o poroštvih.
Point 3.2 of the Notice sets out the conditions that would normally be sufficient to rule out the presence of State aid in a guarantee granted by public authorities.
Oddelek 3.2 obvestila določa pogoje, ki običajno zadostujejo za izključitev obstoja državne pomoči v poroštvu, ki ga dodelijo organi oblasti.
However, these conditions are not met concerning guarantees G-I, G-II and G-III (it is sufficient to record that these guarantees covered 100 % of the underlying loans, see point 3.2(c) of the Guarantee Notice).
Vendar ti pogoji za poroštva G-I, G-II in G-III niso izpolnjeni (zadostuje, da se zabeleži, da so ta poroštva zajemala 100 % zadevnih posojil, glej oddelek 3.2 c) obvestila o poroštvih).
The Commission first notes that ÅI’s financial position in the period in which the guarantees were granted was strong enough not to exclude the firm’s ability to obtain loans on the market without guarantees.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da je bil finančni položaj podjetja ÅI v obdobju, ko so bila poroštva dodeljena, dovolj močan, da ni izločil zmožnosti podjetja, da na trgu dobi posojilo brez poroštev.
The firm was not a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Commission’s Guidelines on Rescue and Restructuring Aid [21].
Podjetje ni bilo podjetje v težavah v smislu Smernic Komisije o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje [21].
It cannot be concluded on the basis of the available evidence that ÅI was a firm that would not have survived at all without state support.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih dokazov ni mogoče sklepati, da je bilo ÅI podjetje, ki brez državne podpore sploh ne bi preživelo.
In the years preceding the capital injections, i.e. before the launch of the iTiden project, ÅI’s financial performance was stable and its business operations showed moderate positive results.
V letih pred dokapitalizacijami, t.j. pred začetkom projekta iTiden, je bila finančna uspešnost podjetja ÅI stabilna in njegove poslovne dejavnosti so izkazovale skromne pozitivne rezultate.
The reason why the public authorities started massively injecting capital in 2001 was not to rescue the firm but to finance its growth.
Razlog, da so organi oblasti leta 2001 začeli močno vlagati kapital, ni bilo reševanje podjetja, ampak financiranje njegove rasti.
In the absence of the aid in the form of capital increases, ÅI would not have been a bankrupt firm but a smaller firm that still would have had access to the financial markets.
Podjetje ÅI brez pomoči v obliki povečanj kapitala ne bi bilo podjetje v stečaju, ampak manjše podjetje, ki bi še vedno imelo dostop do finančnih trgov.
The Commission cannot, therefore, conclude that ÅI would not have had access to credit markets without guarantees.
Zato Komisija ne more sprejeti stališča, da podjetje ÅI brez poroštev ne bi imelo dostopa do kreditnih trgov.
The question is then whether the guarantees afforded the firm an advantage in the form of lower loan costs than it would have paid on market terms, in the absence of a guarantee.
Vprašanje je torej, ali so poroštva podjetju zagotovila prednost v obliki stroškov posojila, ki so bili nižji, kot bi jih podjetje plačalo v tržnih pogojih brez poroštva.
The question that needs to be examined next is whether an adequate premium is charged for the guarantees, comparable to what would have been charged by a private guarantee provider.
Naslednje vprašanje, ki ga je treba preučiti, je, ali se v primerjavi s tem, kar bi zaračunaval zasebni ponudnik poroštva, za poroštva zaračunavajo ustrezne premije.
In the present case, the Commission has found no private guarantees that allow for a ready comparison.
V obravnavani zadevi Komisija ni našla zasebnih poroštev, ki bi omogočala takojšnjo primerjavo.
In such circumstances, the Commission will compare the total financial cost of the guaranteed loan, including the interest rate of the loan and the guarantee premium, with the market premium of a similar non-guaranteed loan [22].
V takih okoliščinah Komisija primerja skupne stroške financiranja posojila s poroštvom, skupaj z obrestmi posojila in poroštveno premijo, s tržno ceno podobnega posojila brez poroštva [22].
On 9 October 2003, […] [23], a commercial bank, granted ÅI a loan amounting to EUR […] against collateral […].
Poslovna banka […] [23] je 9. oktobra 2003 podjetju ÅI odobrila posojilo v višini […] EUR, zavarovano […].
The interest rate was set at […]% per annum until 15 January 2007 [24].
Določena je bila […] % letna obrestna mera do 15. januarja 2007. [24]
Although this loan was contemporaneous with guarantee G-I, the Commission does not consider it a suitable comparison for the cost of that measure.
Čeprav je bilo to posojilo sočasno s poroštvom G-I, Komisija meni, da ni ustrezna primerjava za stroške navedenega ukrepa.
Indeed, between June 2000 and March 2003, ÅI received five capital injections for a total amount of EUR 2208595,01. State support of such magnitude will inevitably have influenced the risk assessment conducted by […] before granting the loan and thus improved the loan terms, including cost, compared to the terms that the firm would have been able to obtain on the markets in the absence of the State aid element in the capital increases.
Od junija 2000 do marca 2003 je podjetje ÅI res prejelo pet kapitalskih vložkov v skupni višini 2208595,01 EUR. Tako velika država podpora je nedvomno vplivala na oceno tveganja, ki jo je […] izvedla pred odobritvijo posojila in tako je podjetje dobilo boljše posojilne pogoje, vključno s stroški, kot bi jih lahko dobilo na trgih, če v povečanjih kapitala ne bi bilo elementa državne pomoči.
Therefore, the Commission cannot assume that the interest rate for the 2003 non-guaranteed loan (or any later loans) accurately reflects the credit terms of ÅI in the absence of State aid and cannot use it as a credible and reliable benchmark for the cost of the loans covered by the guarantees granted by the LG.
Zato Komisija ne more domnevati, da obrestna mera za posojilo brez poroštev iz leta 2003 (ali za poznejša posojila) natančno odraža posojilne pogoje podjetja ÅI v odsotnosti državne pomoči in je ne more uporabiti kot verodostojno in zanesljivo merilo za stroške posojil, kritih s poroštvi, ki jih je dodelila lokalna vlada.
The Commission considers that, in the absence of any other reliable evidence as to comparable loans on market terms, the Reference Rate Communication [25] provides an appropriate benchmark external to the beneficiary for assessing whether measures G-I, G-II and G-III were granted on market terms.
Komisija meni, da v odsotnosti drugih zanesljivih dokazov o primerljivih posojilih pod tržnimi pogoji sporočilo Komisije o referenčni obrestni meri [25] zagotavlja ustrezno merilo od virov, ki niso od upravičenca, za oceno, ali so bili ukrepi G-I, G-II in G-III odobreni pod tržnimi pogoji.
The Reference Rate Communication provides a proxy for the market rate and for calculating the aid element in aid measures.
Sporočilo o referenčni obrestni meri določa približek za tržno stopnjo in za izračun elementa pomoči v ukrepih pomoči.
The methodology for defining the reference rate is based on the following two factors: the base rate (in this case the one-year Euribor) to which a loan margin is added.
Metodologija za določanje referenčnih obrestnih mer temelji na dveh dejavnikih: izhodiščni obrestni meri (v tem primeru enoletni EURIBOR), ki se ji prišteje razlika pri posojilu.
The loan margin to be added to the base rate depends on two factors: the rating of the undertaking receiving the loan and the level of collateral offered for the loan.
Razlika pri posojilu, ki se prišteje izhodiščni obrestni meri, je odvisna od dveh dejavnikov: ocene podjetja, prejemnika posojila in od ravni zavarovanja, ponujenega za posojilo.
The communication distinguishes five rating categories (strong [AAA-A], good [BBB], satisfactory [BB], weak [B] and bad [CCC and below]) and three collateralisation levels (high, normal and low) for each rating category.
Sporočilo razlikuje pet ocen kreditne sposobnosti (zelo dobra [AAA–A], dobra [BBB], zadovoljiva [BB], šibka [B] in slaba [CCC in manj]) ter tri stopnje zavarovanja (visoko, običajno in slabo) za vsako oceno kreditne sposobnosti.
On 18 June 2010, Finland submitted to the Commission a report from the consultancy firm […] that provides an annual rating for ÅI for December each year.
Finska je Komisiji 18. junija 2010 predložila poročilo svetovalnega podjetja […], ki vsebuje letno oceno kreditne sposobnosti za podjetje ÅI za december vsakega leta.
The rating is prepared retrospectively and based on the figures available at the end of the financial year (i.e. the rating given in December 2002 looks retrospectively at the health of the company in 2002).
Ocena je pripravljena za nazaj in temelji na številkah, ki so bile na voljo ob koncu poslovnega leta (t.j. ocena, dana v decembru 2002 preučuje stanje podjetja v letu 2002).
[…] produced the rating report describing the overall financial status and development of the company and covering the following sectors of evaluation: growth, profitability, cash flow, liquidity, solvency and obligations.
Svetovalno podjetje […] je izdelalo poročilo o ocenjevanju kreditne sposobnosti, ki opisuje celotni finančni položaj in razvoj podjetja ter zajema naslednja področja ocenjevanja: rast, donosnost, denarni tok, likvidnost, solventnost in obveznosti.
The applied rating scale has five rating categories: excellent (A + and A), good (A – and B +), satisfactory (B and B –), adequate (C + and C) and poor (C – and D), allowing a direct comparison with the rating scale of the Reference Rate Communication.
Uporabljena lestvica ocenjevanja kreditne sposobnosti ima pet ocen kreditne sposobnosti: odlično (A + in A), dobro (A– in B+), zadovoljivo (B in B–), zadostno (C + in C) ter slabo (C– in D), kar omogoča neposredno primerjavo z lestvico ocenjevanja iz Sporočila o referenčni obrestni meri.
In December 2002, 2003 and 2004, […] rated ÅI respectively at C +, C + and C, which places the company in the category ‘adequate’.
Svetovalno podjetje […] je decembra 2002 in decembra 2003 podjetje ÅI ocenilo s C+, decembra 2004 pa s C, kar podjetje uvršča v kategorijo „zadostno“.
This category corresponds to the ‘weak’ rating category within the meaning of the Reference Rate Communication.
Ta kategorija ustreza oceni kreditne sposobnosti „šibko“ v smislu sporočila o referenčni obrestni meri.
For a company rated ‘weak’, the loan margins to be added to the base rate under the Reference Rate Communication range, depending on the collateral offered, from 220 bps for a high collateralisation to 650 bps for a low collateralisation.
Za podjetje z oceno „šibko“ je v skladu s sporočilom o referenčni obrestni meri glede na ponujeno zavarovanje izhodiščni obrestni meri treba prišteti razlike pri posojilu od 220 bazičnih točk za visoko zavarovanje do 650 za slabo zavarovanje.
In December 2005, […] rated ÅI at B – (satisfactory), which corresponds to a ‘satisfactory’ rating within the meaning of the Reference Rate Communication.
Decembra 2005 je svetovalno podjetje […] podjetje ÅI ocenilo z B– (zadovoljivo), kar ustreza oceni kreditne sposobnosti „zadovoljivo“ v smislu sporočila o referenčni obrestni meri.
On 27 June 2011 Finland submitted additional information on the rating and collateralisation of the loans.
Finska je 27. junija 2011 predložila dodatne informacije o oceni in zavarovanju posojil.
The rating was produced by […], the bank that gave ÅI the non-guaranteed loans and two of the guaranteed loans.
Oceno je izdelala banka […], ki je podjetju ÅI dala posojila brez poroštva in dve posojili s poroštvom.
The […] rating uses a letter system for the years 2000 to 2003, complemented with one-word qualifications.
Ocena banke […] za leta od 2000 do 2003 uporablja črkovni sistem, dopolnjen z eno besedo.
The rating is readily comparable with the rating scale of the Reference Rate Communication.
To ocenjevanje je neposredno primerljivo z lestvico ocenjevanja iz sporočila o referenčni obrestni meri.
For 2005 onwards, the rating is provided by […], a consultancy firm similar to […].
Od leta 2005 dalje oceno izdeluje […], ki je svetovalno podjetje, podobno podjetju […].
In 2003 and 2004 […] rated ÅI at B – (satisfactory) and A (satisfactory), which corresponds to a ‘satisfactory’ rating within the meaning of the Reference Rate Communication.
Leta 2003 je svetovalno podjetje […] podjetje ÅI ocenilo z B– (zadovoljivo), leta 2004 pa z A (zadovoljivo), kar ustreza oceni kreditne sposobnosti „zadovoljivo“ v smislu sporočila o referenčni obrestni meri.
This means that for 2003 and 2004 […] rated ÅI one category higher than […] did.
To pomeni, da je svetovalno podjetje […] podjetju ÅI za leti 2003 in 2004 dalo eno oceno višje kot svetovalno podjetje […].
For 2005 […] rated ÅI at A (satisfactory), which translates into a ‘satisfactory’ rating according to the Reference Rate Communication and thus places ÅI in the same category as […] does.
Za leto 2005 je svetovalno podjetje […] podjetje ÅI ocenilo z A (zadovoljivo), kar ustreza oceni „zadovoljivo“ v skladu s Sporočilom o referenčni obrestni meri in tako podjetje ÅI uvrstilo v isto kategorijo kot svetovalno podjetje […].
The Commission is of the opinion that the rating of […] should be applied when assessing whether guarantees G-I, G-II and G-III were granted on market terms.
Komisija meni, da je treba pri ocenjevanju, ali so bila poroštva G-I, G-II in G-III dodeljena pod tržnimi pogoji, uporabiti oceno svetovalnega podjetja […].
Bearing in mind that before the first guarantee G-I was granted in October 2003, when ÅI had already received five capital injections for a total of EUR 2208595,01, any rating of the company in 2003 is likely to have been affected by the considerable amount of State support.
Ob upoštevanju, da je pred dodelitvijo prvega poroštva G-I v oktobru 2003 podjetje ÅI že prejelo pet kapitalskih vložkov v skupni višini 2208595,01 EUR, je znaten znesek državne podpore verjetno vplival na vsako oceno podjetja v letu 2003.
Therefore the Commission considers it appropriate to apply the more conservative rating produced by […].
Po mnenju Komisije je primerno, da se uporabi bolj konservativna ocena, ki jo je izdelalo svetovalno podjetje […].
This has an impact for 2003 and 2004, as for these two years […] rated ÅI one category lower than […].
To vpliva na leti 2003 in 2004, ker je za ti dve leti svetovalno podjetje […] podjetju ÅI dalo eno oceno nižje kot svetovalno podjetje […].
It should also be noted that […] granted ÅI loans guaranteed by the LG while at the same time producing ÅI’s rating, which might have affected the assessment.
Opozoriti je treba tudi, da je banka […] podjetju ÅI odobrila posojilo, za katerega je poroštvo dala lokalna vlada in hkrati je ta banka tudi izdelala oceno podjetja ÅI, kar je lahko vplivalo na ocenjevanje.
[…] was not involved in the financial proceedings and their assessment is thus less likely to have been directly influenced by undue considerations linked to the State aid.
Svetovalno podjetje […] ni bilo vključeno v finančne postopke in zato je manj verjetno, da so na njihovo oceno neposredno vplivali neprimerni razmisleki, povezani z državno pomočjo.
Consequently, the Commission assumes the following ratings for ÅI for the purpose of applying the Reference Rate Communication: weak (B) in 2003 and 2004 and satisfactory (BB) in 2005.
Zato Komisija za uporabo sporočila o referenčni obrestni meri predpostavlja naslednje ocene kreditne sposobnosti za podjetje ÅI: šibka (B) v letih 2003 in 2004 ter zadovoljiva (BB) v letu 2005.