natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In November 2005, a commercial court in Vâlcea annulled the Oltchim General Meeting's decision on the debt conversion, on the ground that the debt conversion had been carried out without allowing the minority shareholders to also participate in the capital increase.
Novembra 2005 je gospodarsko sodišče v Vâlcei razveljavilo sklep skupščine delničarjev podjetja Oltchim o pretvorbi dolga z utemeljitvijo, da je bila pretvorba dolga izvedena brez možnosti udeležbe manjšinskih delničarjev pri povečanju kapitala.
In June 2006 the Romanian Government issued an Emergency Ordinance [11] mandating the state representatives in the Oltchim General Meeting of Shareholders to vote not to appeal against the court ruling which had annulled the first debt conversion, and to take the necessary steps to reverse the conversion.
Junija 2006 je romunska vlada izdala izredni odlok [11], s katerim je državne predstavnike pooblastila, da na skupščini delničarjev podjetja Oltchim glasujejo proti pritožbi zoper odločbo sodišča, ki je razveljavilo prvo pretvorbo dolga, in da sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za storniranje pretvorbe.
Further accumulated debt
2.3 Nadaljnje kopičenje dolga
In application of the convention concluded in June 2002 between the Ministry of Finance and AVAS for the transfer of the public debt, the Ministry of Finance also transferred to AVAS, in successive instalments following the actual payments made on account of the guarantees, all these receivables.
V skladu s sporazumom, sklenjenim junija 2002 med Ministrstvom za finance in agencijo AVAS za prenos javnega dolga, je Ministrstvo za finance v zaporednih obrokih, ki so sledili dejanskim plačilom na podlagi jamstev, preneslo na agencijo AVAS tudi vse te terjatve.
AVAS also consolidated these receivables in USD, which in 2006 totalled USD 60 million.
Agencija AVAS je te terjatve, ki so leta 2006 znašale 60 milijonov USD, tudi konsolidirala v USD.
Thus on 1 January 2007, the date of Romania's accession to the EU, Oltchim's total debt to AVAS amounted to USD 60 million [12].
Tako je 1. januarja 2007, na dan pristopa Romunije k EU, skupni dolg podjetja Oltchim do agencije AVAS znašal 60 milijonov USD [12].
Events after Romania's accession to the EU
Dogodki po pristopu Romunije k EU
Evolution of the debt
3.1 Gibanje dolga
Since 1 January 2007, all payments concerning the external loans have been made by Oltchim.
Od 1. januarja 2007 so bila vsa plačila v zvezi z zunanjimi posojili izvedena s strani podjetja Oltchim.
The Ministry of Finance no longer made any additional payment under the state guarantees.
Ministrstvo za finance ni izvedlo nobenih dodatnih plačil na podlagi državnih jamstev.
In November 2007, the amount of the reversal of the debt conversion of USD 95 million was entered into Oltchim's accounts and added to the USD 60 million linked to the further payments, thus resulting in a total public debt of USD 155 million (RON 508 million).
Novembra 2007 je bil znesek, ki je izhajal iz razveljavitve pretvorbe dolga in je znašal 95 milijonov USD, vnesen v računovodske izkaze podjetja Oltchim in dodan k 60 milijonom USD, povezanih z nadaljnjimi plačili, kar je ustvarilo skupni javni dolg v višini 155 milijonov USD (508 milijonov RON).
This public debt of USD 155 million is indicated in Oltchim's accounts in RON (i.e. RON 508 million).
Ta javni dolg v višini 155 milijonov USD je razviden v računovodskih izkazih podjetja Oltchim, in sicer v RON (tj. 508 milijonov RON).
This USD-denominated debt has been reported since then in Oltchim's accounts in RON, and the amount remained unchanged in the Romanian currency because, at every new reporting interval, the company reported in the balance sheet the historical RON value [13], which was always higher than the then-applicable value, as the RON appreciated against the USD over time.
Dolg, izražen v USD, je od takrat v računovodskih izkazih podjetja Oltchim prikazan v RON, znesek pa je v romunski valuti ostal nespremenjen, kajti ob vsakem novem intervalu poročanja je podjetje v bilanci stanja prikazalo izvirno vrednost v RON [13], ki je bila vedno višja kot takrat veljavna vrednost, saj se je vrednost v RON v primerjavi z USD sčasoma povečala.
As an exception to the general rule provided by GEO 51/1998 (see recital (27) above), based on Article 2(2) of Government Emergency Ordinance 45/2006 (hereinafter: ‘GEO 45/2006’), in 2007 AVAS charged interest amounting to RON 29,9 million, at the one-year LIBOR [14] rate for deposits in USD, for the Oltchim receivables transferred to it by the Ministry of Finance that were the subject of the 2003 debt conversion, for the period 2003-2006.
Kot izjema od splošnega pravila iz GEO 51/1998 (glej uvodno izjavo (27) zgoraj), na podlagi člena 2(2) izrednega odloka vlade 45/2006 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: GEO 45/2006) je agencija AVAS leta 2007 zaračunala obresti v višini 29,9 milijona RON z enoletno obrestno mero LIBOR [14] za depozite v USD za terjatve družbe Oltchim, prenesene z Ministrstva za finance, ki so bile predmet pretvorbe dolga leta 2003 za obdobje od 2003 do 2006.
Consequently, as from November 2007, the total amount owed by Oltchim to AVAS amounted to USD 155 million (RON 508 million) plus RON 29 million, for a total of RON 538 million.
Posledično je novembra 2007 skupna vsota dolga podjetja Oltchim do agencije AVAS znašala 155 milijonov USD (508 milijonov RON) plus 29 milijonov RON, kar skupaj znaša 538 milijonov RON.
In what follows, this Decision will refer to the debt in RON as the notified debt conversion is also denominated in RON.
V nadaljevanju se ta sklep sklicuje na dolg v RON, saj je priglašena pretvorba dolga prav tako izražena v RON.
The second debt conversion
3.2 Druga pretvorba dolga
In January 2007, the Romanian Parliament validated through Law 30/2007 the GEO 45/2006, which authorised AVAS to reverse the first debt conversion and mandated it to implement a second one, this time also respecting the priority rights of the minority shareholders.
Januarja 2007 je romunska vlada z zakonom št. 30/2007 potrdila GEO 45/2006, ki je agencijo AVAS pooblaščal za storniranje pretvorbe dolga in izvedbo druge pretvorbe, ki bi tokrat upoštevala tudi prednostne pravice manjšinskih delničarjev.
This second attempt to convert the debt into equity was opposed, however, by the new principal minority shareholder, PCC, which refused to participate in the operation.
Temu drugemu poskusu pretvorbe je nasprotoval glavni manjšinski delničar, podjetje PCC, ki ni želelo sodelovati v postopku.
PCC had acquired a 1,2 % stake in Oltchim for EUR 7,5 million in May 2007, i.e. after the date when the national court ruling which annulled the first debt conversion became final because neither Oltchim nor the Romanian authorities appealed.
Podjetje PCC je pridobilo 1,2-odstotni delež v podjetju Oltchim za 7,5 milijona EUR maja 2007, tj. po datumu, ko je odločitev sodišča o preklicu pretvorbe dolga postala končna, ker se niti podjetje Oltchim niti romunski organi niso pritožili.
When the debt conversion was reversed on the company's accounts, PCC's share of 1,2 % became a share of 12 % [15].
Ko je bila pretvorba dolga stornirana v računovodskih izkazih podjetja, je 1,2-odstotni delež podjetja PCC postal 12-odstoten [15].
In April 2008 PCC lodged a complaint with the Commission, alleging that the debt conversion involved incompatible state aid (see recital 2 above).
Aprila 2008 je podjetje PCC vložilo pritožbo pri Komisiji, ki navaja, da pretvorba dolga pomeni nezdružljivo državno pomoč (glej uvodno izjavo (2) zgoraj).
The Romanian authorities decided, in order to ensure compliance with Article 108(3) TFEU, to obtain state aid clearance from the Commission prior to carrying out the second debt conversion, and notified the measure.
Pred izvedbo druge pretvorbe dolga so se romunski organi odločili pridobiti odobritev Komisije glede državne pomoči, da bi zagotovili skladnost s členom 108(3) PDEU, in priglasili ukrep.
Oltchim's current situation
Trenutno stanje družbe Oltchim
Moreover, according to the Romanian authorities, the challenges the company has been facing since 2008 are: (i) the stoppage of supplies of key raw materials from the main supplier Arpechim; (ii) the negative impact on the company’s net asset value caused by the reinstatement of a significant debt after the reversal of the 2003 debt conversion in November 2007; (iii) the undercapitalisation of the company, also due to the debt conversion reversal; and, finally (iv) the effects of the global financial and economic crisis.
Poleg tega romunski organi navajajo naslednje težave, s katerimi se je podjetje spopadalo od leta 2008: (i) zaustavitev dobave ključnih surovin s strani glavnega dobavitelja, podjetja Arpechim; (ii) negativni vpliv na čisto vrednost sredstev podjetja zaradi velikega dolga, nastalega novembra 2007 po storniranju pretvorbe dolga iz leta 2003; (iii) podkapitalizacija podjetja, ki je prav tako posledica storniranja pretvorbe dolga; in nenazadnje (iv) učinki globalne finančne in gospodarske krize.
For the financial year 2008, Oltchim made an operating loss of RON 71 million (EUR 17 million), a net loss of RON 226 million (EUR 54 million), and the accumulated losses reached RON 1,367 billion (EUR 325 million).
V poslovnem letu 2008 je imelo podjetje Oltchim izgubo iz poslovanja v višini 71 milijonov RON (17 milijonov EUR), čisto izgubo v višini 226 milijonov RON (54 milijonov EUR), nakopičene izgube pa so dosegle višino 1,367 milijarde RON (325 milijonov EUR).
After the closure of the main ethylene supplier Arpechim in November 2008, the company functioned at 45 % of capacity and about one third of the staff was temporarily laid off.
Po zaprtju glavnega dobavitelja etilena, in sicer podjetja Arpechim novembra 2008, je podjetje delovalo s 45 % zmogljivosti in približno tretjina zaposlenih je bila začasno odpuščena.
At the end of 2008, Oltchim's shares held until that time by AVAS were transferred to the Ministry of Economy's portfolio.
Ob koncu leta 2008 so bile delnice, ki so bile takrat v lasti agencije AVAS, prenesene v portfelj Ministrstva za gospodarstvo.
In December 2009 Oltchim purchased the assets (ethylene installation) of its previous supplier Arpechim for EUR [0]-[10] [16] and paid for its stocks/inventories EUR [10]-[20] million. According to the Romanian authorities, the acquisition was financed from customer advance payments.
Decembra 2009 je podjetje Oltchim nabavilo sredstva (proizvajalno opremo za etilen) od nekdanjega dobavitelja podjetja Arpechim za [0]-[10] EUR [16] in za svoje delnice/zaloge plačalo [10]-[20] milijonov EUR. Po navedbah romunskih organov je bil nakup financiran s predplačili kupcev.
Arpechim restarted operations in May 2011.
Podjetje Arpechim je ponovno začelo delovati maja 2011.
On 31 December 2009, Oltchim's financial accounts for 2009 showed an operating loss of EUR 26 million (RON 109 million), a net loss of EUR 52,4 million (RON 220 million), accumulated losses of EUR 377 million (RON 1,584 billion) and negative own funds in the amount of EUR 112 million (RON 469 million).
31. decembra 2009 so računovodski izkazi podjetja Oltchim za leto 2009 prikazali izgubo iz poslovanja v višini 26 milijonov EUR (109 milijonov RON), čisto izgubo v višini 52,4 milijona EUR (220 milijonov RON), nakopičene izgube v višini 377 milijonov EUR (1,584 milijarde RON) in negativna lastna sredstva v višini 112 milijonov EUR (469 milijonov RON).
On 31 December 2010, Oltchim's financial accounts showed an operating profit of EUR 56 million, a net profit of EUR 32 million (RON 220 million) and accumulated losses of EUR 383 million. The positive operating and net result was due to the fact that the Arpechim assets purchased for EUR [0]-[10] were revalued at EUR [80]-[100] million, and the difference was entered in the books as ‘gain from a bargain purchase’.
31. decembra 2010 so računovodski izkazi podjetja Oltchim prikazali dobiček iz poslovanja v višini 56 milijonov EUR, čisti dobiček v višini 32 milijonov EUR (220 milijonov RON) in nakopičene izgube v višini 383 milijonov EUR. Pozitivno poslovanje in neto rezultat sta posledica nakupa sredstev podjetja Arpechim za [0]-[10] EUR, ki so bila prevrednotena na [80]-[100] milijonov EUR, razlika pa je bila v izkaze vnesena kot „dobiček pri izpogajanem nakupu“.
On 30 June 2011, Oltchim's six-months financial accounts [17] showed an operating loss of EUR 7,4 million and a net loss of EUR 17,4 million, accumulated losses of EUR 401 million and negative own funds in the amount of EUR 358 million (without taking into account the debt to AVAS).
30. junija 2011 so polletni računovodski izkazi podjetja Oltchim [17] prikazali izgubo iz poslovanja v višini 7,4 milijona EUR in čisto izgubo v višini 17,4 milijona EUR, nakopičene izgube v višini 401 milijonov EUR in negativna lastna sredstva v višini 358 milijonov EUR (brez upoštevanja dolga do agencije AVAS).
On 15 September 2009, the Commission opened a formal investigation into the two support measures in favour of Oltchim notified by Romania in July 2009:
15. septembra 2009 je Komisija začela formalni postopek preiskave glede dveh podpornih ukrepov v korist podjetja Oltchim, ki ju je Romunija priglasila julija 2009:
Measure 1: a debt conversion for the total value of RON 538 million (approximately EUR 128 million); and
ukrep 1: pretvorba dolga v skupni vrednosti 538 milijonov RON (približno 128 milijonov EUR); in
Measure 2: a ‘shareholder guarantee’ covering 80 % of a commercial loan of EUR 424 million for further modernisation investments.
ukrep 2:„jamstvo delničarjev“ za kritje 80 % komercialnega posojila v višini 424 milijonov EUR za nadaljnje investicije v posodobitev.
(Romania withdrew its notification with regard to Measure 2 by letter of 22 June 2011.)
(Romunija je svojo priglasitev v zvezi z ukrepom 2 umaknila z dopisom z dne 22 junija 2011.)
The Commission questioned whether, contrary to Romania's arguments, the notified support package conferred an undue advantage on the company and constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisija je preverjala, ali priglašeni paket pomoči v nasprotju z argumenti Romunije pomeni neupravičeno prednost za podjetje in državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Furthermore, the opening decision identified as possible further state aid the fact that, since 1 January 2007, the State had not charged interest and/or penalties on the pending public debt (identified as ‘Measure 3’).
Nadalje je sklep o začetku postopka ugotavljal možnost, ali se dejstvo, da država ni zaračunavala obresti in/ali kazni na javni dolg od 1. januarja 2007, lahko razume kot nadaljnja državna pomoč (opredeljena kot „ukrep 3“).
Finally, the Commission doubted that the measures could be found compatible with the TFEU under the relevant state aid rules if found to involve state aid.
In nazadnje, Komisija je dvomila, da so ukrepi ob upoštevanju ustreznih pravil o državni pomoči združljivi s PDEU, če bi se ugotovilo, da vključujejo državno pomoč.
ROMANIA'S COMMENTS ON THE OPENING DECISION
PRIPOMBE ROMUNIJE NA SKLEP O ZAČETKU POSTOPKA
In their reply to the opening decision, the Romanian authorities maintained that none of the three measures constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, as the behaviour of the Romanian State was consistent with market principles.
V svojem odgovoru na sklep o začetku postopka so romunski organi vztrajali, da noben od navedenih ukrepov ne predstavlja državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, saj je bilo ravnanje romunske države skladno s tržnimi načeli.
In particular, Romania insisted that the notified measures (the debt conversion and the shareholder guarantee) would have ensured Oltchim's return to profitability by resolving the undercapitalisation issue and by providing the necessary funds for its growth strategy.
Romunija je zlasti trdila, da bi priglašena ukrepa (pretvorba dolga in jamstvo delničarjev) podjetju Oltchim ponovno zagotovila donosnost z reševanjem problema podkapitalizacije in zagotavljanjem sredstev, potrebnih za njegovo strategijo rasti.
Moreover, Romania stressed that the Commission had to take account of the dual role of the State as shareholder and creditor to Oltchim.
Nadalje je Romunija poudarila, da mora Komisija upoštevati dvojno vlogo države kot delničarja in upnika do podjetja Oltchim.
Finally, Romania maintained that Measure 3 did not constitute state aid as the State's behaviour with regard to the non-enforcement of the past debt strictly related to the planned debt conversion, and that with regard to this debt the Romanian authorities had behaved consistently in line with what a market operator in a similar situation would have chosen to do.
Na koncu je Romunija trdila, da ukrep 3 ni pomenil državne pomoči, saj se je ravnanje države glede neizvršbe preteklega dolga izrecno nanašalo na načrtovano pretvorbo dolga, in da so romunski organi v zvezi s tem dolgom ravnali dosledno tako, kot bi deloval upravljavec trga v podobnem položaju.
According to Vestolit, no private investor would have supported an investment programme exclusively geared to the purchase and revamping of the outdated Arpechim ethylene installation.
Glede na navedbe podjetja Vestolit noben zasebni vlagatelj ne bi podprl programa investicije, katerega izključni namen bi bil nakup in prenova zastarele proizvajalne opreme za etilen podjetja Arpechim.
In its letter of 21 January 2010, Ineos argued that, based on the information in the opening decision, Oltchim seemed to be a firm in difficulty, and therefore the support measures to be taken by the Romanian State in its favour were unlikely to have been undertaken by a private investor.
Z dopisom z dne 21. januarja 2010 je podjetje Ineos na osnovi informacij iz sklepa o začetku postopka trdilo, da je bilo podjetje Oltchim v težavah, zato naj podpornih ukrepov, ki jih je sprejela romunska država v njegovo korist, ne bi prevzel zasebni vlagatelj.
Ineos also drew attention to the fact that the European PVC market is characterised by significant overcapacity, and therefore any potential aid to one of the market players is likely to be highly distortive.
Podjetje Ineos je tudi poudarilo, da je evropski trg za PVC zelo zasičen, zato bi vsakršna pomoč enemu izmed akterjev na trgu lahko bila zelo izkrivljajoča.
The comments submitted by Firebird on 28 May 2010 are of similar content to those presented by the above-mentioned interested parties.
Pripombe podjetja Firebird z dne 28. maja 2010 so po vsebini podobne predstavljenim pripombam zgoraj omenjenih zainteresiranih strank.
By letter of 28 January 2010, another competitor of Oltchim, Anonymous party I, also made comments along the same lines as those of Vestolit and Ineos.
Z dopisom z dne 28. januarja 2010 je drugi konkurent podjetja Oltchim, anonimna stranka I, prav tako podal pripombe, skladne s pripombami podjetij Vestolit in Ineos.
It also stresses that operating aid cannot be found to be compatible with the TFEU, and there do not seem to be other grounds of compatibility in the case of Oltchim.
Poudarja tudi, da pomoč za tekoče poslovanje ne more biti združljiva s PDEU in da v primeru podjetja Oltchim ni drugih razlogov, ki bi omogočali združljivost.
By letter of 27 January 2010, Anonymous party II argued that all the support measures identified in the opening decision constitute incompatible aid.
Z dopisom z dne 27. januarja 2010 je anonimna stranka II trdila, da vsi podporni ukrepi iz sklepa o začetku postopka pomenijo nezdružljivo pomoč.
This Anonymous party II also maintained that:
Anonimna stranka II je navedla tudi, da:
the state guarantees granted to Oltchim during the period 1995-2000 were still in place after Romania's accession to the EU, namely until 31 October 2009, and therefore should be treated as of the accession date as new aid;
so bila državna jamstva, dodeljena podjetju Oltchim v obdobju od 1995 do 2000, po pristopu Romunije k EU še vedno v veljavi, in sicer do 31. oktobra 2009, zato jih je od dneva pristopa dalje treba jemati kot novo pomoč;
the difficulties that Oltchim has been facing since the triggering of the state guarantees in November 1999 are due to structural problems of the company (poor management, wrong business strategy choices, the lack of real and effective restructuring);
so težave, s katerimi se podjetje spopada od izdaje državnih jamstev novembra 1999, posledica strukturnih težav podjetja (slabega vodenja, napačnih odločitev glede strategije poslovanja, pomanjkanja pravega in učinkovitega prestrukturiranja);
the acquisition of Arpechim is against the business interests of Oltchim; this will not generate profit in the future;
je prevzem podjetja Arpechim v nasprotju z interesi podjetja Oltchim; to ne bo ustvarilo dobička v prihodnosti;
the subsequent payments made by the Ministry of Finance during the period June 2002 to December 2006 on the basis of the triggered state guarantees show that Oltchim was in difficulty throughout that period;
nadaljnja plačila s strani Ministrstva za finance v obdobju od junija 2002 do decembra 2006 na podlagi izdanih državnih jamstev kažejo na to, da je podjetje Oltchim v celotnem obdobju imelo težave;
Romania truly attempted to privatise the company only once, in 2001, and the successive ‘failed’ privatisation attempts of 2003 and 2006 were only a strategy for not enforcing the public debt;
je Romunija samo enkrat zares hotela privatizirati podjetje, in sicer leta 2001, naslednja „neuspela“ poskusa privatizacije leta 2003 in 2006 sta bila samo del strategije za neizvršbo javnega dolga;
the business plan underlying the support package as notified in July 2009 was not credible, especially regarding the sensitivity analysis and the expected return on the investment;
poslovni načrt, na katerem je temeljil paket podpore, kot je bil priglašen julija 2009, ni bil verodostojen, še posebej glede analize občutljivosti in pričakovane donosnosti naložbe;
the State would have incurred a substantial loss by supporting such a sizeable investment programme, as the revenues expected from Oltchim's privatisation would not have covered the costs of the support measures;
bi država s podpiranjem tako velikega programa investicij utrpela znatno izgubo, saj pričakovani prihodki iz privatizacije podjetja Oltchim ne bi pokrili stroškov podpornih ukrepov;
in view of the fact that the notified measures involved state aid, Romania should have proposed a restructuring plan for Oltchim, allowing an assessment of the compatibility of the aid under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines [18].
bi morala Romunija v luči dejstva, da so priglašeni ukrepi vsebovali državno pomoč, predlagati načrt prestrukturiranja za podjetje Oltchim in s tem dati možnost ocene združljivosti pomoči v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje [18].
Later in the course of the procedure, PCC drew the attention of the Commission to the fact that in June 2010 the Romanian environmental protection agency had imposed an environmental fine of EUR 14,34 million on Oltchim for late return of CO2 certificates for the year 2009 [19].
Kasneje v postopku je podjetje PCC opozorilo Komisijo na podatek, da je junija 2010 romunska agencija za varstvo okolja podjetju Oltchim izrekla globo v višini 14,34 milijona EUR zaradi poznih vračil kuponov CO2 za leto 2009 [19].
In the view of PCC, the possible non-enforcement of the fine involved further state aid to the company.
Glede na navedbe podjetja PCC bi morebitna neizvršba globe pomenila nadaljnjo državno pomoč podjetju.
Firebird's letter of 8 July 2010 also raises the issue of the environmental fine.
Dopis podjetja Firebird z dne 8. julija 2010 se prav tako nanaša na vprašanje okoljske globe.