natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Concerning the specific measure under consideration, it is true that Finnvera granted the loan at the same time at similar conditions as […] and […].
V zvezi z določenim proučevanim ukrepom je res, da je podjetje Finnvera dodelilo posojilo ob istem času pod podobnimi pogoji kot […] in […].
The duration of the loans was for all creditors six months; for all loans, payment was delayed in the same proportion (outstanding amount for all creditors is approximately […]% of the original amount).
Posojila vseh upnikov so veljala za obdobje šestih mesecev, plačila za vsa posojila so bila odložena v enakem razmerju (neporavnani znesek za vseh upnike je približno […] % prvotnega zneska).
All three loans were secured with the same collateral, as described in recital 66, and the collateral is divided among the creditors according to the risk of the respective creditor in relation to the loan it granted.
Vsa tri posojila so bila zavarovana z istim zavarovanjem v premoženju, kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 66, in zavarovanje v premoženju je razdeljeno med upnike glede na tveganje zadevnega upnika v zvezi s posojilom, ki ga je dodelil.
Concerning the interest rate, it seems that the interest rate that Finnvera asked was even more favourable for Finnvera (EURIBOR 6 months + 2,5 % was 6,847 % on 6 July 2007) than the interest rate the private creditors received (on 9 July 2007, EURIBOR 1 month + 2 % was 6,105 %).
V zvezi z obrestno mero se zdi, da je bila obrestna mera, za katero je zaprosilo podjetje Finnvera, še ugodnejša za podjetje Finnvera (6-mesečni EURIBOR, zvišan za 2,5 % je 6. julija 2007 znašal 6,847 %) kot obrestna mera, ki sta jo prejela zasebna upnika (1-mesečni EURIBOR, zvišan za 2 % je 9. julija 2007 znašal 6,105 %).
Accordingly, the loan can be considered to be in line with the market economy investor principle and not to entail state aid.
V skladu s tem je posojilo v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu in ne zajema državne pomoči.
First, it has to be determined which entity benefits from the measure in question, […] or Karjaportti Finnvera granted the counter-guarantee to […], the main bank of Karjaportti.
Treba je ugotoviti, kateri subjekt ima koristi od zadevnega ukrepa, […] ali podjetje Karjaportti. Podjetje Finnvera je banki […], glavni banki podjetja Karjaportti, dodelilo posredno osebno jamstvo.
[…] granted in turn a guarantee to Karjaportti.
Banka […] je v zameno podjetju Karjaportti dodelila poroštvo.
[…] charged a very low fee from Karjaportti for this guarantee, which indicates, that […] only granted the guarantee to Karjaportti as it was covered by the counter-guarantee of Finnvera.
Banka […] je podjetju Karjaportti zaračunala zelo nizko provizijo za to poroštvo, kar kaže na to, da je […] dodelila poroštvo podjetju Karjaportti šele, ko je zajemalo posredno osebno jamstvo podjetja Finnvera.
The Commission also notes that not […], but Karjaportti pays the guarantee premium for the counter-guarantee to Finnvera.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da premijo za poroštvo za posredno osebno jamstvo podjetju Finnvera plačuje podjetje Karjaportti in ne […].
In light of this, the Commission considers that the beneficiary of the measure is Karjaportti.
Ob upoštevanju tega Komisija meni, da je upravičenec ukrepa podjetje Karjaportti.
Secondly, it has to be assessed whether the measure gives an advantage to Karjaportti.
Treba je oceniti, ali ukrep dodeljuje prednost podjetju Karjaportti.
In this context, Finland claims that the counter-guarantee does not involve state aid, as another private party was involved in the arrangement.
V tem okviru Finska trdi, da posredno osebno jamstvo ne zajema državne pomoči, saj je pri dogovoru sodeloval še en zasebni akter.
This argument can be rejected, as Finnvera granted a counter-guarantee for the guarantee of the private party involved, meaning that Finnvera and the private party were not at all in a similar situation.
Ta trditev se lahko zavrne, saj je podjetje Finnvera dodelilo posredno osebno jamstvo za poroštvo udeleženega zasebnega akterja, kar pomeni, da podjetje Finnvera in zasebni akter nikakor nista bila v podobnem položaju.
In light of this, the Commission assesses the measure on the basis of the Guarantee Notice 2008.
Ob upoštevanju tega Komisija ukrep ocenjuje na podlagi obvestila o poroštvih 2008.
Whereas it is true that Finnvera's counter-guarantee does not cover more than 80 % of […] guarantee, the beneficiary, Karjaportti, was in difficulty at the time of granting, as described in more detail in recitals 123–128.
Čeprav je res, da posredno osebno jamstvo podjetja Finnvera ne zajema več kot 80 % poroštva […], je bil upravičenec, podjetje Karjaportti, v času dodelitve v težavah, kot je podrobneje opisano v uvodnih izjavah 123–128.
Accordingly, the existence of state aid cannot be ruled out on the basis of point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008.
V skladu s tem ni mogoče izključiti obstoja državne pomoči na podlagi točke 3.2 obvestila o poroštvih 2008.
Even if a guarantee does not fulfil all the requirements of point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, the fee paid for a guarantee can still justify the conclusion that the guarantee does not entail state aid.
Tudi če poroštvo ne izpolnjuje vseh zahtev iz točke 3.2 obvestila o poroštvih 2008, lahko plačana provizija za poroštvo še vedno upravičuje sklep, da poroštvo ne zajema državne pomoči.
In any event, in the case at hand, contrary to the view of Finland, the Commission is of the opinion that the measure cannot be considered aid free.
V vsakem primeru Komisija v zadevnem primeru v nasprotju s Finsko meni, da ukrep zajema pomoč.
The guarantee was granted at a low guarantee fee, even though the company was facing difficulties (see recitals 123–128) and the risk for Finnvera could be considered as considerable.
Poroštvo je bilo dodeljeno po nizki proviziji za poroštvo, čeprav je bilo podjetje v težavah (glej uvodne izjave 123–128), tveganje za podjetje Finnvera pa je bilo mogoče šteti za veliko.
The Commission observes in this context also that Finnvera, according to the commitment given by the Finnish authorities in the context of case N 715/2006, was not allowed to grant market-based financing.
Komisija v tem okviru ugotavlja tudi, da podjetje Finnvera ni smelo dodeliti sredstev, ki temeljijo na trgu, v skladu z zavezo finskih organov v okviru zadeve N 715/2006.
As described in recital 241, measures granted by Finnvera consist of state resources and are imputable to the state.
Kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 241, ukrepi, ki jih je sprejelo podjetje Finnvera, zajemajo državna sredstva in se pripišejo državi.
Measure 17 is also selective, as the only company benefitting from it is Karjaportti.
Ukrep 17 je tudi selektiven, saj ima korist le podjetje Karjaportti.
Lastly, it distorts competition and affects trade among the Member States..
Poleg tega izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Finland did not argue that measure 17 was compatible with the internal market.
Finska ni trdila, da je bil ukrep 17 združljiv z notranjim trgom.
In fact, when Finnvera granted the measure, Karjaportti was in difficulty within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 2004 (see recitals 123-128).
Pravzaprav je bilo podjetje Karjaportti v času, ko je podjetje Finnvera odobrilo ukrep, v težavah v smislu smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 2004 (glej uvodne izjave 123–128).
Accordingly, the measure could only be compatible as rescue and restructuring aid according to the R&R Guidelines 2004.
V skladu s tem bi ukrep lahko bil združljiv le kot pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranje v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 2004.
According to the R&R Guidelines 2004, a rescue aid has to meet certain requirements, which are not all fulfilled by the measure under consideration.
V skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 2004 mora pomoč za reševanje izpolnjevati določene zahteve, ki jih proučevani ukrep ne izpolnjuje.
First, the guarantee did not come to an end within a period of not more than six months after the disbursement of the first instalment (point 25(a) of the R&R Guidelines 2004).
Poroštvo se ni zaključilo znotraj obdobja šestih mesecev po izplačilu prvega obroka (točka 25(a) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 2004).
Second, Finland did not communicate within six months after the first implementation of the measure a restructuring plan or liquidation plan or proof that the guarantee had been terminated (point 25(c) of the R&R Guidelines 2004).
Finska ni priglasila načrta prestrukturiranja ali načrta likvidacije ali dokaza, da je bilo poroštvo prekinjeno, v roku šestih mesecev po prvem izvajanju ukrepa (točka 25(c) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 2004).
Third, the one time, last time principle (point 25(e) of the R&R Guidelines 2004) is not met, as the company had received incompatible and illegal state aid at times when it was in difficulty before.
Tretjič, načelo o enkratni pomoči (točka 25(e) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 2004) ni izpolnjeno, saj je podjetje prejelo nezdružljivo in nezakonito državno pomoč v preteklosti, ko je bilo v težavah.
Third, in order to avoid undue distortions of competition, compensatory measures must be taken (point 38 of the R&R Guidelines 2004).
Tretjič, za preprečevanje škodljivega izkrivljanja konkurence je treba sprejeti izravnalne ukrepe (točka 38 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 2004).
Such measures were not provided for.
Taki ukrepi niso bili zagotovljeni.
Fourth, the measure does not meet the one time, last time principle, as the company had received incompatible and illegal state aid at times when it was in difficulty before.
Četrtič, ukrep ne izpolnjuje načela o enkratni pomoči, saj je podjetje prejelo nezdružljivo in nezakonito državno pomoč v preteklosti, ko je bilo v težavah.
Further, it has to be considered whether measure 17 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 17 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 measures 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 17 involves state aid that is not compatible with the internal market.
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da ukrep 17 zajema državno pomoč in ni združljiv z notranjim trgom.
According to the TFEU and the Court of Justice's established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the state concerned must abolish or alter aid [67] when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market.
V skladu s PDEU in ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča je Komisija pristojna za odločanje, ali mora zadevna država članica ukiniti ali spremeniti pomoč [67], za katero je ugotovila, da je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom.
The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a state to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation [68].
Prav tako Sodišče dosledno meni, da je namen obveznosti države, da ukine pomoč, za katero Komisija meni, da ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, ponovna vzpostavitev prejšnjih razmer [68].
In this context, the Court has established that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored [69].
V tem okviru je Sodišče ugotovilo, da je cilj dosežen, ko prejemnik povrne zneske, ki so mu bili dodeljeni v obliki nezakonite pomoči, in tako izgubi prednost, ki jo je imel pred konkurenti na trgu, ter ko se ponovno vzpostavijo razmere pred izplačilom pomoči [69].
Following that case-law, Article 14 of the Procedural Regulation laid down that “where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.”
V skladu s to sodno prakso je v členu 14 postopkovne uredbe določeno, da „če se v primerih nezakonite pomoči sprejmejo negativne odločbe, Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč“.
Thus, six measures at hand are to be considered as illegal and incompatible aid:
Zato Komisija meni, da šest zadevnih ukrepov predstavlja nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč:
Guarantee granted on 8 March 2004 by the City of Mikkeli (measure 4);
poroštvo, ki ga je mesto Mikkeli dodelilo 8. marca 2004 (ukrep 4),
Guarantee granted on 10 May 2004 by the City of Mikkeli (measure 5);
poroštvo, ki ga je mesto Mikkeli dodelilo 10. maja 2004 (ukrep 5),
Conversion of unpaid interest rates into loans (measure 8);
pretvorbo neplačanih obrestnih mer v posojila (ukrep 8),
Rescheduling of debt since 2009 (measure 12);
odlog plačila dolgov od leta 2009 (ukrep 12),
Guarantee granted on 17 March 2004 by Finnvera (measure 13);
poroštvo, ki ga je podjetje Finnvera dodelilo 17. marca 2004 (ukrep 13),
Guarantee granted on 9 January 2008 by Finnvera (measure 17).
poroštvo, ki ga je podjetje Finnvera dodelilo 9. januarja 2008 (ukrep 17).
They must therefore be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid.
Zato jih je treba izterjati, da se ponovno vzpostavi položaj na trgu pred dodelitvijo pomoči.
Recovery shall hence take place from the time when the advantage occurred to the beneficiary, that is to say when the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary and shall bear recovery interest until effective recovery.
Izterjavo je torej treba uporabljati od takrat, ko je bila upravičencu dodeljena prednost, tj. ko je bila pomoč dana na voljo upravičencu, vključevati pa mora tudi obresti na terjatev do trenutka dejanske izterjave.
Recovery of the aid measures granted in the form of guarantees
Izterjava ukrepov pomoči, dodeljenih v obliki poroštev
The incompatible aid element of two guarantees granted by the City of Mikkeli in 2004 (measure 4 and measure 5) and of the guarantees granted by Finnvera in the years 2005 (measure 13) and 2008 (measure 17) shall be determined based on the following principles.
Nezdružljiv element pomoči dveh poroštev, ki jih je dodelilo mesto Mikkeli leta 2004 (ukrep 4 in ukrep 5), in poroštev, ki jih je dodelilo podjetje Finnvera v letih 2005 (ukrep 13) in 2008 (ukrep 17), bo ugotovljen na podlagi naslednjih načel.
In principle, a state guarantee could be aid up to the total amount of the underlying loan, if the beneficiary is not capable of accessing financial markets on its own powers [70].
Načeloma bi državno poroštvo lahko bila pomoč do skupnega zneska osnovnega posojila, če upravičenec ne more dostopati do finančnih trgov po svoji moči [70].
In the case at hand, Finland has, however, demonstrated that Karjaportti was still able to access financial markets at the time of granting the guarantees in 2004, by providing information on loans granted by private lenders to the beneficiary (see recital 93).
Vendar je v zadevnem primeru Finska pokazala, da je podjetje Karjaportti še vedno lahko dostopalo do finančnih trgov ob odobritvi poroštev leta 2004, saj je zagotovila informacije o posojilih, ki so jih upravičencu dodelili zasebni posojilodajalci (glej uvodno izjavo 93).
There are little indications on whether Karjaportti had still access to the markets in 2008, when measure 17 was granted.
Znakov, ali je podjetje Karjaportti še vedno imelo dostop do trgov leta 2008, ko je bil odobren ukrep 17, je malo.
In this context, the Commission notes that the counter-guarantee granted by Finnvera only covered 80 % of the guarantee provided by a private creditor, which means that for 20 % the private creditor still carried the risk.
V tem okviru Komisija ugotavlja, da je posredno osebno jamstvo, ki ga je dodelilo podjetje Finnvera, zajemalo le 80 % poroštva, ki ga je zagotovil zasebni upnik, kar pomeni, da je za 20 % tveganje še vedno nosil upnik.
In light of this, it can be considered that the company was still capable of assessing financial markets without the guarantee of 2008.
Ob upoštevanju tega Komisija meni, da je podjetje še vedno lahko dostopalo do finančnih trgov brez poroštev iz leta 2008.
However, given Karjaportti's financial difficulties at the time of the granting of the measures, commercial banks would have charged a correspondingly higher interest rate than the one achieved with the state guarantees, because the latter are an additional security for the banks.
Vendar bi poslovne banke zaradi finančnih težav podjetja Karjaportti ob dodelitvi ukrepov zaračunale ustrezno višjo obrestno mero od tiste pri državnih poroštvih, ker te predstavljajo dodatno zavarovanje za banke.
Thus, the Commission considers that Karjaportti benefitted from lower interest rates, which it received thanks to the guarantees.
Zato Komisija meni, da je podjetje Karjaportti imelo koristi od nižjih obrestnih mer, ki jih je prejelo zaradi poroštev.
According to Point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, in the absence of a comparable market guarantee premium, the total financing costs of the guaranteed loan (interest rate plus guarantee premium) should be compared to the interest rate on the market for a similar loan without a state guarantee.
V skladu s točko 4.2 obvestila o poroštvih 2008 bi bilo treba ob odsotnosti primerljive tržne premije za poroštvo skupne stroške financiranja za posojilo s poroštvom (obrestna mera in premija za poroštvo) primerjati s tržno obrestno mero za podobno posojilo brez državnega poroštva.
In many cases, such a market interest rate is not available.
V mnogih primerih taka tržna obrestna mera ni na voljo.
Therefore, the Commission has developed in its Communication on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates [71] ('the Reference Rate Communication 2008') a financial methodology which, for the reasons set out in point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, can be used as proxy for the market interest rate.
Zato je Komisija v Sporočilu Komisije o spremembi metode določanja referenčnih obrestnih mer in diskontnih stopenj [71] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sporočilo o referenčnih obrestnih merah 2008) razvila finančno metodologijo, ki se zaradi razlogov, opredeljenih v točki 4.2 obvestila o poroštvih 2008, lahko uporablja kot približek za tržno obrestno mero.
In the case at hand, there is no indication of what Karjaportti would have paid for a comparable non-guaranteed loan.
V zadevnem primeru ni znakov, koliko bi podjetje Karjaportti plačalo za primerljivo posojilo brez poroštva.
Furthermore, the granting of the three guarantees predates the economic and financial crisis.
Poleg tega so bila tri poroštva dodeljena pred gospodarsko in finančno krizo.
In addition, the Commission is of the view that due to the time elapsed since the granting of the measures, the calculation of a "real" market rate for a Finnish meat producer would be a difficult exercise.
Stališče Komisije je tudi, da bi bilo zaradi časa, ki je pretekel od odobritve ukrepov, zelo težko izračunati „prave“ obrestne mere za finskega proizvajalca mesa.
The registered values of these two instruments are quite high (see recital 27).
Zabeleženi vrednosti teh dveh instrumentov sta kar visoki (glej uvodno izjavo 27).
It has, however, to be taken into account that the very same collateral was already used to collateralise other claims of the City of Mikkeli (such as measure 1), so that not the full amount would be available for the measure at stake.
Vendar je treba upoštevati, da je bilo isto zavarovanje s premoženjem uporabljeno že za zavarovanje drugih zahtevkov mesta Mikkeli (kot ukrep 1), tako da za zadevni ukrep ne bi bil na voljo celotni znesek.
Also, it has to be considered that the actual value of the property mortgage as well as of the business mortgage depends on the value of the encumbered goods and the City of Mikkeli's ranking.
Treba je upoštevati tudi, da je dejanska vrednost hipoteke na nepremičnino in poslovne hipoteke odvisna od vrednosti obremenjenega blaga ter uvrstitve mesta Mikkeli.
In this context, it is noted that Finland could not provide an evaluation of the value of the collaterals at the time of granting the guarantee.
V tem okviru Komisija ugotavlja, da Finska ob dodelitvi poroštva ne bi mogla zagotoviti ocene vrednosti zavarovanj s premoženjem.
It provided, however, two independent valuations of the collateral in general, used for drawing up the restructuring programme, dated 15 February 2005 (see recital 43), which is quite close to the date of granting the guarantee.
Vendar je zagotovila dve splošni neodvisni oceni za zavarovanje s premoženjem, ki sta bili uporabljeni pri načrtovanju programa prestrukturiranja z dne 15. februarja 2005 (glej uvodno izjavo 43), ki je blizu dneva dodelitve poroštva.
In this context, it is mentioned that in light of the rank of the City of Mikkeli the property mortgage might suffice to cover its claims if the property is kept in use; if Karjaportti has to be liquidated, the value of the property might be too low to cover any of the City of Mikkeli's claims.
V tem okviru je treba omeniti, da bo ob upoštevanju uvrstitve mesta Mikkeli hipoteka na poslovno nepremičnino mogoče zadostovala za kritje njegovih zahtevkov, če se bo nepremičnina še naprej uporabljala, če pa bo podjetje Karjaportti treba likvidirati, bo vrednost nepremičnine morda premajhna za kritje katerega koli zahtevka mesta Mikkeli.
The business mortgage might cover only part of the City of Mikkeli's claims.
Poslovna hipoteka bo morda krila le del zahtevkov mesta Mikkeli.
In light of this, it seems plausible to consider the collateral provided as normal quality collateral.
Ob upoštevanju tega se zdi verjetno, da se zagotovljeno zavarovanje v premoženju upošteva kot zavarovanje v premoženju normalne kakovosti.
Therefore, the interest rate Karjaportti should have paid for a loan under market conditions, without a guarantee, is the reference interest rate of 4,43 % plus a risk premium of 650 basis points, which reflects the risk premium applicable to a firm in difficulty providing normal collateral.
Zato je obrestna mera, ki bi jo moralo podjetje Karjaportti plačati za posojilo pod tržnimi pogoji brez poroštva, 4,43-odstotna referenčna obrestna mera, zvišana za premijo za tveganje v višini 650 bazičnih točk, kar odraža premijo za tveganje, ki velja za podjetje v težavah, ki je zagotovilo normalno zavarovanje v premoženju.
The aid amount should therefore be calculated as the difference between this theoretical market rate and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided (4 %), after the deduction of the price actually paid for the guarantee, that is to say 0 basis points.
Znesek pomoči bi bilo zato treba izračunati kot razliko med teoretično tržno obrestno mero in obrestno mero, po kateri je bilo posojilo s poroštvom dejansko zagotovljeno (4 %), po odbitku cene, ki je bila dejansko plačana za poroštvo, tj. 0 bazičnih točk.
The difference between these rates shall be calculated for the period the rate actually provided was applied.
Razlika med tema obrestnima merama se izračuna za obdobje, v katerem se je uporabljala dejansko zagotovljena obrestna mera.
The aid shall bear recovery interests calculated from the moment the difference between the theoretical interests and the interest rate at which the guaranteed loan was actually provided would have been due until effective recovery.
Pomoč vključuje obresti na terjatev, izračunane od trenutka, ko bi razlika med teoretičnimi obrestmi in obrestno mero, po kateri je bilo posojilo s poroštvom dejansko zagotovljeno, zapadla do dejanske izterjave.
As regards measure 5, the securisation could be considered as normal for the purpose of the Reference Rate Communication 2008.
Glede ukrepa 5 bi se zavarovanje lahko upoštevalo za običajno za namen sporočila o referenčnih obrestnih merah 2008.