natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Likewise, insofar as the legitimate expectations of ÅI are relevant, the Commission notes that according to established jurisprudence, in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of State aid by the Commission under Article 108 of the TFEU, undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that Article.
Kolikor so upravičena pričakovanja podjetja ÅI ustrezna, Komisija podobno ugotavlja, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, da se glede na obvezen nadzor državne pomoči, ki ga mora Komisija izvajati v skladu s členom 108 PDEU, podjetja, ki jim je bila pomoč odobrena, načeloma ne morejo sklicevati na upravičeno pričakovanje, da je pomoč zakonita, razen če je bila odobrena v skladu s postopkom za dodelitev državne pomoči, določenim v navedenem členu.
A diligent businessman should normally be able to determine whether that procedure has been followed [38].
Preudaren gospodarski subjekt mora namreč biti ponavadi sposoben ugotoviti, ali se je ravnalo v skladu s tem postopkom [38].
The Commission points out that no firm was in a better position than ÅI to have insight into the actions of the LG concerning the alleged aid schemes, since the LG is its main shareholder and is represented on the ÅI board by individuals who are also members of the LG executive.
Komisija poudarja, da nobeno podjetje ni imelo boljšega položaja kot podjetje ÅI pri vpogledu v dejanja lokalne vlade glede domnevnih shem pomoči, ker je lokalna vlada glavni delničar in jo v upravnem odboru podjetja ÅI zastopajo posamezniki, ki so tudi člani izvršilnega organa lokalne vlade.
This argument is corroborated by the fact that, as shown above in connection with the capital increases, representatives of ÅI and the LG regularly exchange information.
To trditev podpira dejstvo, da, kot je prikazano zgoraj v zvezi s povečanji kapitala, predstavniki podjetja ÅI in lokalna vlada redno izmenjujejo informacije.
Therefore, even though the Finnish authorities have not expressly argued legitimate expectation on behalf of the aid beneficiary, the Commission believes that ÅI cannot claim any legitimate expectation in the present case.
Čeprav finski organi niso izrecno navajali upravičenega pričakovanja v imenu upravičenca do pomoči, Komisija meni, da podjetje ÅI v obravnavani zadevi ne more uveljavljati nobenega upravičenega pričakovanja.
Finally, the Commission has never given either Finland or the aid beneficiary any precise assurance that the measures at issue would not be State aid or would be compatible aid, which might create expectation to that effect [39].
Komisija tudi Finski ali upravičencu do pomoči ni nikoli dala jasnega zagotovila, da ukrepi, ki jih ta sklep obravnava, niso državna pomoč ali da so združljiva pomoč, ki bi lahko ustvarilo pričakovanje v tem smislu [39].
Finland has further argued that in the event of a recovery of aid granted through the capital increases, the aid element should not necessarily be the whole amount of the capital provided, but rather (by analogy with the calculation of the aid element in guarantees), the cost to ÅI of finding alternative investment on the markets.
Finska je tudi trdila, da v primeru vračila pomoči, dodeljene prek povečanj kapitala, ni nujno, da je element pomoči celotni znesek zagotovljenega kapitala, ampak (po analogiji z izračunom elementa pomoči v poroštvih) strošek podjetja ÅI pri iskanju nadomestne naložbe na trgih.
In this respect, Finland has suggested that the cost of such alternative funding could be established by reference to the 7 % expected return on investment for office property as established in the KPMG report.
V tej zvezi je Finska predlagala, da bi se strošek takega nadomestnega financiranja lahko določil s sklicevanjem na 7 % pričakovano donosnost naložb za pisarniške prostore, kot je določena v poročilu KPMG.
The Commission cannot accept this view.
Komisija tega stališča ne more sprejeti.
It is certainly correct, as a general proposition, that State aid in a given case is constituted by the difference between the advantage (in the form of funding) that the firm has effectively received from State resources and what it would have been able to obtain on the capital markets.
Na splošno je gotovo res, da je državna pomoč v danem primeru sestavljena iz razlike med prednostjo (v obliki financiranja), ki jo je podjetje dejansko prejelo iz državnih sredstev, ter tem, kar bi podjetje lahko dobilo na kapitalskih trgih.
Consequently, ‘by repaying the aid, the recipient forfeits the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to payment of the aid is restored’ [40].
Zato „s povračilom pomoči se upravičenec odpove prednosti, ki jo je užival pred konkurenti na trgu, ter so obnovljene razmere, ki so obstajale pred dodelitvijo pomoči“ [40].
Anyone making an investment, be it by providing credit or by taking an equity stake in a firm, will seek to have a return on his investment that is commensurate with the risk.
Vsak, ki vlaga, bodisi z dajanjem posojil bodisi s prevzemom lastniškega deleža v podjetju, želi donosnost svoje naložbe, ki je sorazmerna tveganju.
When the aid is given in the form of a credit at a cost below markets costs (which is the case for a guaranteed loan when the total financial cost is lower than the interest rate of a market loan) to a firm that is not excluded from the loan market and that would thus, as an alternative to the aid, have been able to take out a loan at market rate, it is clear that the reparative purpose of the recovery can be achieved by making the firm pay the difference (with interest), thus putting it back on a par with its competitors.
Kadar je pomoč dana v obliki posojila po stroških, ki so nižji od stroškov na trgu (tako je v primeru posojila s poroštvom, ko so skupni stroški financiranja nižji od obrestne mere posojila pod tržnimi pogoji), podjetju, ki ni izločeno s trga posojil in ki bi torej namesto pomoči lahko najelo posojilo po tržni stopnji, je jasno, da je popravljalni namen vračila mogoče doseči tako, da podjetje plača razliko (z obrestmi) in je tako spet izenačeno s svojimi konkurenti.
The situation is different for equity investments.
Položaj pa je drugačen pri kapitalskih naložbah.
The return here is not dependent on the firm’s willingness to pay (as in the case of a loan) but is entirely a factor of the inherent profitability of the firm’s business model.
Tukaj donosnost ni odvisna od pripravljenosti podjetja, da plača (kot velja pri posojilu), ampak je v celoti dejavnik donosnosti poslovnega modela podjetja.
Unless the private investor believes that the business will adequately remunerate the risk it entails, he will not make the investment but put his money elsewhere.
Če zasebni vlagatelj meni, da podjetje ne bo ustrezno nadomestilo tveganja, ki ga prinaša, se ne bo odločil za naložbo, ampak bo denar dal drugam.
In other words the Commission cannot accept that the company would have been able to get the same money in the capital market to increase its capital by offering a higher remuneration because its expected performance did not allow it to offer this higher remuneration to any equity investor.
Z drugimi besedami, Komisija ne more sprejeti, da bi podjetje lahko na kapitalskem trgu dobilo enak denar za povečanje svojega kapitala tako, da bi ponudilo višje obrestovanje, ker pričakovana uspešnost ni dovoljevala, da bi vlagateljem kapitala ponudilo to višje obrestovanje.
The counterfactual, i.e. the situation in the absence of aid which the recovery is intended to restore or bring about, is thus that no capital would have been invested at all.
Nasprotno dejstvo, t.j. položaj brez pomoči, ki ga vračilo namerava ponovno vzpostaviti ali povzročiti, je torej, da ne bi bilo vloženega nič kapitala.
The aid to be recovered is therefore the full amount of the capital increases.
Vrniti je torej treba celotni znesek povečanj kapitala.
The Commission can consequently not accept Finland’s view as regards the aid element in the capital increases.
Zato Komisija ne more sprejeti stališča Finske glede elementa pomoči v povečanjih kapitala.
AID TO BE RECOVERED
POMOČ, KI JO JE TREBA VRNITI
In consequence, the unlawful and incompatible aid that has been identified by the Commission and that Finland shall recover from ÅI is as follows:
Zato je pomoč, za katero je Komisija ugotovila, da je nezakonita in nezdružljiva in ki jo Finska mora izterjati od podjetja ÅI, naslednja:
Capital increases:
Povečanja kapitala:
Capital increase C-IV: EUR 353199,00. This aid was put at the disposal of ÅI on 20 July 2001.
Povečanje kapitala C-IV: 353199,00 EUR. Ta pomoč je bila podjetju ÅI dana na voljo 20. julija 2001.
Capital increase C-V: EUR 599933,78. This aid was put at the disposal of ÅI on 15 August 2002.
Povečanje kapitala C-V: 599933,78 EUR. Ta pomoč je bila podjetju ÅI dana na voljo 15. avgusta 2002.
Capital increase C-VI: EUR 799911,64. This aid was put at the disposal of ÅI on 13 March 2003.
Povečanje kapitala C-VI: 799911,64 EUR. Ta pomoč je bila podjetju ÅI dana na voljo 13. marca 2003.
Capital increase C-VII: EUR 515165,97. This aid was put at the disposal of ÅI on 6 May 2004.
Povečanje kapitala C-VII: 515165,97 EUR. Ta pomoč je bila podjetju ÅI dana na voljo 6. maja 2004.
Capital increase C-VIII: EUR 669896,95. This aid was put at the disposal of ÅI on 30 September 2004.
Povečanje kapitala C-VIII: 669896,95 EUR. Ta pomoč je bila podjetju ÅI dana na voljo 30. septembra 2004.
Capital increase C-IX: EUR 199977,91. This aid was put at the disposal of ÅI on 16 June 2005.
Povečanje kapitala C-IX: 199977,91 EUR. Ta pomoč je bila podjetju ÅI dana na voljo 16. junija 2005.
Capital increase C-X: EUR 234961,43. This aid was put at the disposal of ÅI on 16 June 2005.
Povečanje kapitala C-X: 234961,43 EUR. Ta pomoč je bila podjetju ÅI dana na voljo 16. junija 2005.
Capital increase C-XI: EUR 1379998,95. This aid was put at the disposal of ÅI on 15 February 2007.
Povečanje kapitala C-XI: 1379998,95 EUR. Ta pomoč je bila podjetju ÅI dana na voljo 15. februarja 2007.
Loan guarantees: the aid element for all guarantees is calculated as the difference between, on the one hand, the reference rate applied as a benchmark for loan costs a company with financial strength comparable to ÅI would have borne without the guarantee and, on the other, the interest rate obtained by means of the State guarantee after any premiums paid have been taken into account, pursuant to point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice (as explained in detail in recitals 66 to 80).
Poroštva za posojila: Element pomoči se za vsa poroštva po eni strani izračuna kot razlika med referenčno obrestno mero, uporabljeno kot merilo za stroške posojila, ki bi jih podjetje s finančno močjo, primerljivo z močjo podjetja ÅI, imelo brez poroštva, ter po drugi strani obrestno mero, pridobljeno z državnim poroštvom, po tem, ko se upoštevajo morebiti plačane premije, v skladu z oddelkom 4.2 obvestila o poroštvih (kot je podrobneje pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 66 do 80).
As regards guarantee G-I, the aid element is made up of the difference between the reference rate for a loan to a firm in the rating category ‘weak (B)’ and with a normal collateralisation and the total financial cost of the loan covered by the guarantee (understood as the premiums paid for the guarantee plus the interest on the loan).
Pri poroštvu G-I je element pomoči sestavljen iz razlike med referenčno obrestno mero za posojilo podjetju, ki ima oceno kreditne sposobnosti „šibko (B)“, in z običajnim zavarovanjem ter skupnimi stroški financiranja posojila s poroštvom (ki pomeni premije, plačane za poroštvo, ki se jim prištejejo obresti na posojilo).
This aid was put at the disposal of ÅI on 9 October 2003 (as explained in recitals 81 and 82).
Ta pomoč je bila podjetju ÅI dana na voljo 9. oktobra 2003 (kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 81 in 82).
From this amount shall be deducted the one-off guarantee premium of EUR 19500 [41].
Od tega zneska se odšteje enkratna poroštvena premija v višini 19500 EUR [41].
As regards guarantee G-II, the aid element is made up of the difference between the reference rate for a loan to a firm in the rating category ‘weak (B)’ and with a normal collateralisation and the total financial cost of the loan covered by the guarantee (understood as the premiums paid for the guarantee plus the interest on the loan).
Pri poroštvu G-II je element pomoči sestavljen iz razlike med referenčno obrestno mero za posojilo podjetju, ki ima oceno kreditne sposobnosti „šibko (B)“ in z običajnim zavarovanjem ter skupnimi stroški financiranja posojila s poroštvom (ki pomeni premije, plačane za poroštvo, ki se jim prištejejo obresti na posojilo).
As regards guarantee G-III, the aid element is made up of the difference between the reference rate for a loan to a firm in the rating category ‘satisfactory (BB)’ and with a normal collateralisation and the total financial cost of the loan covered by the guarantee (understood as the premiums paid for the guarantee plus the interest on the loan).
Pri poroštvu G-III je element pomoči sestavljen iz razlike med referenčno obrestno mero za posojilo podjetju, ki ima oceno kreditne sposobnosti „zadovoljivo (BB)“ in z običajnim zavarovanjem ter skupnimi stroški financiranja posojila s poroštvom (ki pomeni premije, plačane za poroštvo, ki se jim prištejejo obresti na posojilo).
The exact total amount of aid to be recovered will be determined by the Finnish authorities, in collaboration with the Commission, within the framework of the recovery procedure according to the methodology described in recitals 138 to 139 above.
Natančen skupni znesek pomoči, ki ga je treba vrniti, bodo določili finski organi v sodelovanju s Komisijo v okviru postopka vračanja v skladu z metodologijo, opisano v uvodnih izjavah 138–139 zgoraj.
To the aid amount to be determined shall be added interest from the date on which the aid was put at the disposal of the recipient until the date of its recovery.
Znesku pomoči, ki ga je treba določiti, se prištejejo obresti od dne, ko je bila pomoč dana na voljo upravičencu, do dne vračila.
The Commission calls on the Finnish authorities, in accordance with their duty of sincere cooperation, to collaborate with it in determining the exact amount of aid to be recovered,
Komisija vabi finske organe, da v skladu s svojo dolžnostjo lojalnega sodelovanja z njo sodelujejo pri določitvi natančnega zneska pomoči za vračilo –
The capital increase in the amount of EUR 84094,39 granted by Finland in favour of Ålands Industrihus AB on 18 June 1997 does not constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Povečanje kapitala v znesku 84094,39 EUR, ki ga je Finska dne 18. junija 1997 dodelila podjetju Ålands Industrihus AB, ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
The State aid measures listed in Section 8.2 of this Decision unlawfully granted by Finland, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of Ålands Industrihus AB are incompatible with the internal market.
Ukrepi državne pomoči, navedeni v točki 8.2 tega sklepa, ki jih je Finska nezakonito dodelila podjetju Ålands Industrihus AB v nasprotju s členom 108(3) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije, so nezdružljivi z notranjim trgom.
Finland shall recover the State aid referred to in Article 2 from the beneficiary.
Finska od upravičenca izterja državno pomoč iz člena 2.
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.
Zneskom, ki jih je treba vrniti, se prištejejo obresti za obdobje od datuma, ko jih je upravičenec dobil na voljo, do dejanskega vračila.
Finland shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 2 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.
Finska z dnem sprejetja tega sklepa prekliče vsa še neporavnana plačila pomoči iz člena 2.
Finland shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.
Finska zagotovi, da se ta sklep izvede v štirih mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tem sklepu.
Within two months following notification of this Decision, Finland shall submit the following information to the Commission:
Finska v dveh mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tem sklepu Komisiji predloži naslednje podatke:
the total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from the beneficiary;
skupni znesek (glavnica in obresti na terjatev), ki ga je treba izterjati od upravičenca;
a detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;
natančen opis ukrepov, ki so že sprejeti in načrtovani za uskladitev s tem sklepom;
Finland shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 has been completed.
Finska Komisijo obvešča o napredku nacionalnih ukrepov, sprejetih za izvajanje tega sklepa, do dokončne izterjave pomoči iz člena 2.
OJ C 76, 27.3.2008, p. 15.
UL C 76, 27.3.2008, str. 15.
With effect from 1 December 2009, Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty have become Articles 107 and 108, respectively, of the TFEU.
Z učinkom od 1. decembra 2009 sta člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES postala člen 107 oziroma člen 108 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
For the purpose of this Decision, references to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU should be understood as references to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty when appropriate.
V tem sklepu je treba sklicevanje na člena 107 in 108 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije razumeti kot sklicevanje na člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES, kadar je to primerno.
The TFEU also introduced certain changes in terminology, such as the replacement of ‘Community’ by ‘Union’ and ‘common market’ by ‘internal market’.
S PDEU so bile uvedene tudi nekatere spremembe izrazja, na primer besedo „Skupnost“ je zamenjala beseda „Unija“, besedno zvezo „skupni trg“ pa „notranji trg“.
The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this Decision.
V celotnem besedilu tega sklepa se uporablja terminologija PDEU.
With the exception of a negligible share held by the local business organisation ‘Ålands företagareförening rf’ (3 shares out of a total of 30392).
Razen zanemarljivega deleža, ki ga ima lokalna poslovna organizacija „Ålands företagareförening rf“ (3 delnice od skupaj 30392 delnic).
In 1999: total balance sheet EUR 733341; turnover EUR 101486; overall result EUR 27719.
V letu 1999: skupna bilančna vsota 733341 EUR; promet 101486 EUR; skupni izid 27719 EUR.
Balance sheet reduced from EUR 834645 (1997) to EUR 733341 (1999).
Bilanca stanja se je znižala z 834645 EUR (1997) na 733341 EUR (1999).
Most of the information in this Section is taken from the iTiden website (www.itiden.ax), complemented by information (consistent with the public information) submitted by the Finnish authorities.
Večina informacij v tem oddelku je pridobljenih s spletnega mesta projekta iTiden (www.itiden.ax), dopolnjujejo pa jih informacije (skladne z javnimi informacijami), ki so jih predložili finski organi.
‘The LG will strive to increase the offer of industrial property and office space suitable for IT and service sectors through the public property companies. These may consequently require more capital.’ Budget för landskapet Åland 2000, page 304.
„Lokalna vlada si bo prek podjetij v javni lasti prizadevala povečati ponudbo industrijskih nepremičnin in pisarniških prostorov, primernih za sektor informacijske tehnologije in storitev. Zato bodo ta podjetja morebiti potrebovala več kapitala.“ Proračun za deželo Åland 2000, stran 304.
‘The LG will work […] to become more efficient in facilitating the growth of new firms and business projects. The LG will continue its efforts to realise the project of an “IT village” […] ’.
„Lokalna vlada bo delala […] da bo bolj učinkovito omogočala rast novih podjetij in poslovnih projektov. Lokalna vlada si bi še naprej prizadevala za uresničitev projekta ‚IT vas‘ […] “.
Budget för landskapet Åland 2001, pages 319 and 321.
Proračun za deželo Åland 2001, strani 319 in 321.
Budget för landskapet Åland 2002, page 291.
Proračun för landskapet Åland 2002, stran 291.
These measures were granted before the euro was introduced; hence they were denominated in Finnish Mark (FIM).
Ti ukrepi so bili odobreni pred uvedbo evra; zato so izraženi v finskih markah (FIM).
C-I was FIM 500003, C-II FIM 2025010 and C-III FIM 680003.
C-I je znašal 500003 FIM, C-II 2025010 FIM in C-III 680003 FIM.
At the time of conversion, the exchange rate was fixed at EUR 1 = FIM 5,94573.
V času pretvorbe je bil fiksni devizni tečaj 1 EUR = 5,94573 FIM.
See, among others, the judgment in cases 234/84, Belgium v Commission [1986] ECR 2263, paragraph 14; C-305/89 [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraphs 18 and 19; joined cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Hytasa [1994] ECR I-4103, paragraphs 20 and 21; C-303/88 Eni-Lanerossi [1991] ECR I-1433, paragraphs 20 et seq.; case T-11/95 BP Chemicals [1995] ECR II-599, paragraph 161.
Glej med drugim sodbo z dne 10. julija 1986 v zadevi Kraljevina Belgija proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti (234/84, Recueil, str. 2263, točka 14); sodbo z dne 21. marca 1991 v zadevi Italijanska republika proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti (C-305/89, Recueil, str. I-1603, točki 18 in 19); sodbo Sodišča z dne 14. septembra 1994 v združenih zadevah Kraljevina Španija proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti (C-278/92, C-279/92 in C-280/92, Recueil, str. I-4103, točki 20 in 21); sodbo Sodišča z dne 21. marca 1991 v zadevi Italijanska republika proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti (C-303/88, Recueil, str. I-1433, točka 20 in naslednje); sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. septembra 1998 v zadevi BP Chemicals Limited proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti (T-11/95, Recueil, str. II-599, točka 161).
See point 25 of the opening decision.
Glej točko 25 v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
See point 26 of the opening decision.
Glej točko 26 v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
KPMG ‘Projekt Tower’, 10.7.2007.
KPMG „Projekt Tower“, 10.7.2007.
It is true that capital increase C-IV was made in 2001, i.e. prior to the profitability analysis presented in 2002.
Res je, da je bilo povečanje kapitala C-IV izvedeno v letu 2001, t.j. pred analizo donosnosti, ki je bila predstavljena leta 2002.
No separate account has been given as to the financial assumptions that underpinned C-IV.
Glede finančnih predpostavk, ki so podpirale C-IV, ni bil podan ločen račun.
However, as this capital increase was used to purchase the land on which iTiden was to be built (and this was the intention from the start), the Commission takes the view that the LG, to the extent that it considered the return prospects at all, had no reason to expect a better return than the 3 % that was expected in 2002.
Ker pa je bilo povečanje kapitala uporabljeno za nakup zemljišča za gradnjo projekta iTiden (in tak je bil namen že od začetka), Komisija meni, da lokalna vlada, kolikor je sploh preučila možnosti donosnosti, ni imela razloga za pričakovanje donosnosti, ki bi bila boljša od 3 %, ki so bili pričakovani v letu 2002.
Although the formal procedure was only opened in 2008, the Commission questioned Finland on these measures by letter already on 25 October 2006, which is why the 1997 capital injection is not covered by the 10-year statute of limitations on recovery.
Čeprav je bil formalni postopek preiskave začet šele leta 2008, je Komisija Finsko o teh ukrepih vprašala že v dopisu z dne 25. oktobra 2006 in sicer zakaj dokapitalizacija iz leta 1997 ni krita z desetletnim rokom zastaranja izterjave.
The Guarantee Notice, point 3.2(d).
Obvestilo o poroštvih, oddelek 3.2 d.
After 15 January 2007, the interest rate was supposed to change to […] + […] basis points.
Po 15. januarju 2007 naj bi se obrestna mera spremenila v […] + […] bazičnih točk.
According to the information provided by Finland, this rate was to be applied until 15 January 2007, when it was to be changed to […] + […] basis points.
Po podatkih Finske naj bi se ta obrestna mera uporabljala do 15. januarja 2007, ko naj bi se spremenila v […] + […] bazičnih točk.