natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the interests forgone for a loan amounting to the total costs incurred by BIZKAILUR for the purchase of the land according to this contract - a loan with a duration of 7 years, a grace period of 4 years and 4 equal annual repayment instalments (of 25 % of the reimbursed sum each); and
izpadle obresti za posojilo, ki vključuje celotne stroške, ki bi jih imelo podjetje BIZKAILUR za nakup zemljišča v skladu s pogodbo o zemljišču, tj. posojilo s sedemletnim obdobjem odplačila, štiriletnim obdobjem mirovanja dolga in štirimi enakimi letnimi obroki odplačila (po 25 % zneska za vračilo), ter
the costs that BIZKAILUR would have incurred for the adaptation to industrial use of the parcel of land totalling at least 101403 sqm necessary for this project, as stipulated in Article 1(ii) of the Land Contract (i.e. at least 81600 sqm for the factory, 5300 sqm for offices and annexes, and 14300 sqm for industrial use).
stroške, ki bi jih imelo podjetje BIZKAILUR za prilagoditev za industrijsko rabo parcele s skupno površino najmanj 101403 m2, ki je potrebna za ta projekt, kot je določeno v členu 1(ii) pogodbe o zemljišču (tj. najmanj 81600 m2 za tovarno, 5300 m2 za pisarne in prizidke ter 14300 m2 za industrijsko rabo).
With respect to the first component, i.e. the interests forgone in respect of the repayment of the price for the land purchase, the Commission estimates that those would have amounted to a net grant equivalent (NGE) of 13,21 % of the price paid for the land purchase by BIZKAILUR.
Komisija je v zvezi s prvim elementom, tj. izpadlimi obrestmi za odplačilo cene nakupa zemljišča, ocenila, da bi ta znašal neto ekvivalent dotacije (NED) v višini 13,21 % cene, ki jo je podjetje BIZKAILUR plačalo za nakup zemljišča.
This NGE was calculated as indicated in recitals (74) to (77).
Izračun NED je pojasnjen v uvodnih izjavah od (74) do (77).
In a first step, the interest rate applicable to a similar loan was identified on the basis of the reference rate applicable in Spain in December 2006, of 4,36 %, as reported in the Commission’s Reference Rate Communication [41].
Najprej je bila določena obrestna mera, ki se uporablja za podobno posojilo na podlagi obrestne mere, ki je veljala v Španiji decembra 2006, in sicer 4,36 %, kot je navedeno v sporočilu Komisije o referenčnih obrestnih merah [41].
In a second step, based on the Commission notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates of 1997 [42] (hereinafter "the 1997 Commission Notice" - which was in force at the time when the Land Contract was concluded) no top-up needs to be added to this reference rate so as to reflect the credit risk profile of Habidite.
Na podlagi Obvestila Komisije o načinu določanja referenčnih obrestnih mer in diskontnih stopenj iz leta 1997 [42] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo Komisije iz leta 1997) (to obvestilo je veljalo v času sklenitve pogodbe o zemljišču) tej obrestni meri ni treba dodati povečanja glede na profil kreditnega tveganja podjetja Habidite.
Under the 1997 Commission Notice, reference rates were considered to reflect the average level of interest rates charged in the various Member States on medium- and long-term loans (five to ten years) backed by normal security.
V skladu z obvestilom Komisije iz leta 1997 se je štelo, da obrestne mere izražajo povprečno raven obrestnih mer, ki se v različnih državah članicah zaračunavajo za srednje- in dolgoročna posojila (od pet do deset let), zavarovana z običajnim jamstvom.
This general principle was not specifically modified by the Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [43].
To splošno načelo ni bilo izrecno spremenjeno z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 [43].
In the absence of direct information on the credit risk rating of Habidite or the AFER group at the time, the Commission considers that it can be assumed that Habidite qualified at the time as a normal company with normal collateralisation.
Ker v tistem času ni bilo neposrednih informacij o stopnji kreditnega tveganja za podjetje Habidite ali skupino AFER, se po mnenju Komisije lahko sklepa, da se je podjetje Habidite takrat štelo za običajno podjetje, ki je imelo običajno zavarovanje s premoženjem.
Indeed, both the Diputación and Habidite agreed in considering that Habidite and the AFER group did not qualify as firms in difficulty within the meaning of Points 9, 10 and 11 of the R&R Guidelines at the time (see recital (52) above).
Dejansko sta se podjetji Diputación in Habidite strinjali, da se podjetje Habidite in skupina AFER takrat nista štela za podjetji v težavah v skladu s točkami 9, 10 in 11 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje (glej uvodno izjavo (52)).
In a third step, the gross grant equivalent of the aid involved in this repayment arrangement was adjusted to take into account the corporate tax that should have been paid by the recipient, which at the time in Spain was of 35 %.
Nato se je bruto ekvivalent dotacije za pomoč, ki jo vključuje ta dogovor o vračilu dolga, prilagodil tako, da se je upošteval davek od dobička pravnih oseb, ki bi ga plačal prejemnik in je v tistem času v Španiji znašal 35 %.
Based on the elements in recitals (74) to (76), the resulting NGE for this subsidised loan is indicated in the Table below:
Na podlagi elementov iz uvodnih izjav od (74) do (76) je v naslednji razpredelnici predstavljen NED za to subvencionirano posojilo:
Duration of loan
Trajanje posojila
Grace period for repayment
Obdobje mirovanja dolga
Margin/top-up
Pribitek/povečanje
interest rate applicable
skupna obrestna mera
Gross grant equivalent of the aid
Bruto ekvivalent dotacije za pomoč
Corporate tax
Davek od dobička pravnih oseb
Net grant equivalent (after tax)
Neto ekvivalent dotacije (po odbitku davkov)
The Commission also notes that the effective cost for the acquisition of the land for this project, which is the basis on which NGE should be applied in order to determine the aid amount, is disputed between the parties.
Komisija prav tako ugotavlja, da se pogodbenici ne strinjata glede dejanskih stroškov odkupa zemljišča za ta projekt, na podlagi katerih naj bi se uporabil NED za določitev zneska pomoči.
As indicated at recital (30) above, the Diputación claims that until September 2009 BIZKAILUR had paid EUR 4,7 million to purchase 205000 sqm of land, and it estimated that another EUR 2,6 million would have been needed to purchase the remaining 95000 sqm necessary for this project.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (30), podjetje Diputación trdi, da je do septembra 2009 podjetje BIZKAILUR plačalo 4,7 milijona EUR za nakup 205000 m2 zemljišča, po ocenah pa bi bilo potrebnih še 2,6 milijona EUR za nakup preostalih 95000 m2, potrebnih za ta projekt.
Habidite, on the other hand, claims that BIZKAILUR did not have to purchase such a large surface for this project, as the Land Contract stipulated a total of only 101403 sqm (see recital (47) above).
Po drugi strani podjetje Habidite trdi, da podjetju BIZKAILUR ni bilo treba kupiti tako velike površine za ta projekt, saj je v pogodbi o zemljišču določeno, da je skupaj potrebnih samo 101403 m2 (glej uvodno izjavo (47)).
In relation to this dispute, the Commission notes first that, according to the specific wording of Article 1(ii) of the Land Contract, the surface for the project should have been of “at least”101403 sqm in total.
Komisija glede tega spora ugotavlja prvič, da bi morala biti v skladu z natančnim besedilom člena 1(ii) pogodbe o zemljišču skupna površina zemljišča za projekt „najmanj“101403 m2.
Second, the Commission cannot take an informed view on this subject based on the information provided by the parties in the course of the formal investigation procedure.
Drugič, Komisija na podlagi informacij, ki sta jih pogodbenici predložili med formalnim postopkom preiskave, ne more sprejeti argumentiranega stališča v zvezi s tem vprašanjem.
However, as the aid in the Land Contract has not been disbursed, and there is no need to order recovery, the issue of the exact price that should have been reimbursed by Habidite for the land purchase can be left open.
Ker pa pomoč iz pogodbe o zemljišču ni bila izplačana in ni treba zahtevati vračila, lahko vprašanje natančne cene, ki bi jo moralo podjetje Habidite vrniti za nakup zemljišča, ostane odprto.
For the purposes of this Decision it is sufficient to define the aid element arising from the repayment terms established in the Land Contract.
Za namene tega sklepa zadostuje, da se določi element pomoči, ki izhaja iz odplačilnih pogojev, določenih v pogodbi o zemljišču.
This aid component is thereby defined as 13,21 % of the costs to be reimbursed to BIZKAILUR for the purchase of the land necessary for the Habidite project, under the terms of Part Two, Article 1(ii) of the Land Contract.
Ta element pomoči se tako določi v višini 13,21 % stroškov, ki jih je treba vrniti podjetju BIZKAILUR za nakup zemljišča, potrebnega za projekt Habidite pod pogoji iz člena 1(ii) drugega dela pogodbe o zemljišču.
The amount thus determined corresponds to the interests forgone by BIZKAILUR, and which would have been charged by a market operator, for a loan with a duration of 7 years, a grace period of 4 years, and for 4 equal annual repayment instalments (of 25 % of the reimbursed sum each).
Tako določen znesek ustreza izpadlim obrestim podjetja BIZKAILUR, ki bi jih subjekt na trgu zaračunal za posojilo s sedemletnim obdobjem odplačila, štiriletnim obdobjem mirovanja dolga in štirimi enakimi letnimi obroki odplačila (po 25 % zneska za vračilo).
The basis for calculating this aid component is the effective cost that should have been incurred by BIZKAILUR for the purchase of the land stipulated in Part Two, Article 1(ii) of the Land Contract.
Podlaga za izračun tega elementa pomoči je dejanski strošek, ki bi ga imelo podjetje BIZKAILUR za nakup zemljišča, določenega v členu 1(ii) drugega dela pogodbe o zemljišču.
Similar considerations must be made in respect to the other aid component in the Land Contract, i.e. the costs for adapting the land for industrial use – which, according to the Land Contract did not have to be repaid to BIZKAILUR (see in this sense recitals (69) and (70)).
Podobne vidike je treba preučiti v zvezi z drugim elementom pomoči v pogodbi o zemljišču, tj. stroški prilagoditve zemljišča za industrijsko rabo, ki jih v skladu s pogodbo o zemljišču ni bilo treba vrniti podjetju BIZKAILUR (v zvezi s tem glej uvodni izjavi (69) in (70)).
Here again, the parties disagree on the amounts.
Tudi v zvezi z njimi se pogodbenici ne strinjata glede zneskov.
According to the Diputación, in March 2009 these costs were estimated at EUR 28,5 million (see recital (30)).
Podjetje Diputación trdi, da so bili marca 2009 ti stroški ocenjeni na 28,5 milijona EUR (glej uvodno izjavo (30)).
Habidite, however, considers that this estimate is inflated (see recital (47)), partly because BIZKAILUR purchased more land than what was required under the Land Contract for this project, and partly because it has used the part of the land already purchased for the project for other purposes, e.g. waste deposits.
Podjetje Habidite pa po drugi strani meni, da je ta ocena previsoka (glej uvodno izjavo (47)), delno, ker je podjetje BIZKAILUR kupilo več površine, kot je bilo potrebno za ta projekt v skladu s pogodbo o zemljišču, in delno, ker je del zemljišča, ki je bilo že kupljeno za projekt, uporabilo za druge namene, npr. za odlaganje odpadkov.
Once again, considering that the aid has not been disbursed, and there is no need for recovery, it is sufficient for the purposes of this Decision to define this aid component in the Land Contract: it consists of the total costs that would have been incurred by BIZKAILUR for adapting to industrial use the parcel for the project – under the terms of Part Two, Article 1(iii) of the Land Contract-, costs which, according to the wording of Part Two, Article 1(vi) of the Land Contract, did not have to be reimbursed by Habidite to BIZKAILUR.
Tudi v tem primeru pa glede na to, da pomoč ni bila izplačana in da ni treba zahtevati vračila, za namene tega sklepa zadostuje, da se določi element pomoči v pogodbi o zemljišču. Ta element pomoči vključuje skupne stroške, ki bi jih imelo podjetje BIZKAILUR za prilagoditev parcele za projekt industrijski rabi v skladu z določili člena 1(iii) drugega dela pogodbe o zemljišču, in katerih podjetju Habidite v skladu z besedilom člena 1(vi) pogodbe ne bi bilo treba vrniti podjetju BIZKAILUR.
The Commission also concludes that the advantage identified at recitals (68) to (77), consisting of two components, as identified at recitals (80) and (82), must be considered selective, insofar as it would have been conferred, on the basis of the Land Contract, to one specific beneficiary, namely Habidite and the AFER group to which it belongs.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da je treba prednost, ugotovljeno v uvodnih izjavah od (68) do (77), ki vključuje elementa, opisana v uvodnih izjavah (80) in (82), šteti za selektivno, če bi se na podlagi pogodbe o zemljišču dodelila enemu upravičencu, in sicer podjetju Habidite in skupini AFER, kateri to podjetje pripada.
As indicated in recital (43), Habidite argues that the notified contracts do not distort competition, because: (a) the relevant market is restricted to “production, sale and rental of prefabricated modules”, and (b) the unique characteristics of the Habidite prefabricated modules imply that the company has no competitors.
Kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (43), podjetje Habidite trdi, da priglašeni pogodbi ne izkrivljata konkurence, ker (a) je upoštevni trg omejen na „proizvodnjo, prodajo in oddajanje v najem montažnih elementov“ in (b) edinstvene značilnosti montažnih elementov Habidite pomenijo, da podjetje nima konkurentov.
The Commission cannot accept the arguments put forward by Habidite.
Komisija ne more sprejeti argumentov, ki jih je predstavilo podjetje Habidite.
Even if the Habidite prefabricated modules could be considered a singular product because of their characteristics, in the present case, the relevant product market must be defined in a broader sense, as being the market for the construction and sale of houses in general – including both houses sold on the free market, and houses sold on the regulated segment of the market (social housing).
Tudi če bi se montažni elementi Habidite zaradi svojih značilnosti lahko šteli za edinstven proizvod, je treba v tem primeru upoštevni trg proizvodov opredeliti v širšem smislu kot trg za izgradnjo in prodajo stanovanj na splošno, ki vključuje stanovanja, ki se prodajajo na prostem trgu, in tudi stanovanja, ki se prodajajo na reguliranem delu trga (socialna stanovanja).
As Habidite itself argues, the prices of the houses to be sold to BIZKAILUR can be benchmarked against the prices of houses sold on the free market, or of those eventually sold in protected or semi-protected regime.
Kot trdi podjetje Habidite, se lahko cene stanovanj, ki naj bi se prodale podjetju BIZKAILUR, primerjajo s cenami stanovanj, ki se prodajajo na prostem trgu, ali cenami stanovanj, ki se navsezadnje prodajajo v okviru zaščitenega ali delno zaščitenega sistema.
The fact that BIZKAILUR also contracted with constructors other than Habidite other houses to be sold under the semi-protected regime, demonstrates that other constructors were at the time indeed in competition with Habidite for providing to BIZKAILUR houses to be sold in protected and semi-protected regime.
Dejstvo, da je podjetje BIZKAILUR sklenilo pogodbe tudi z drugimi gradbeniki poleg podjetja Habidite za prodajo drugih stanovanj v okviru delno zaščitenega sistema, kaže, da so bili v tistem času konkurenti podjetja Habidite drugi gradbeniki, ki bi podjetju BIZKAILUR zagotavljali stanovanja za prodajo v okviru zaščitenega in delno zaščitenega sistema.
Furthermore, in the Business Plan submitted to the Basque government in support of its application for the 2008 regional aid (dated November 2008, at pp. 10-12), Habidite indicated itself that it would have been in competition with constructors of traditional houses on several Spanish regional markets on which it intended to sell its products (including in particular the Basque Country, Navarra, Cantabria, La Rioja, Madrid and Catalonia, but also other Spanish comunidades autónomas to a lesser extent).
Poleg tega je podjetje Habidite v poslovnem načrtu, ki ga je predložilo baskovski vladi kot dodatno dokumentacijo k prošnji za regionalno pomoč za leto 2008 (iz novembra 2008, str. 10-12), navedlo, da je bilo konkurenčno gradbenikom tradicionalnih hiš na več španskih regionalnih trgih, kjer je nameravalo prodajati svoje proizvode (zlasti v Baskiji, Navarri, Kantabriji, La Rioji, Madridu in Kataloniji, v manjšem obsegu pa tudi v drugih avtonomnih skupnostih).
Regarding the market in the Basque Country in particular, Habidite estimated a market share of 0,5 % in 2011 and up to 2,8 % as of 2014 onwards, assuming that the total yearly demand for housing in this region would have been of 8000 houses for the period 2011-2016.
Zlasti glede trga v Baskiji je ocenilo, da bi njegov tržni delež leta 2011 znašal 0,5 % in od leta 2014 naprej do 2,8 %, ob predpostavki, da bi skupno letno povpraševanje po stanovanjih v tej regiji v obdobju 2011–2016 znašalo 8000 stanovanj.
According to an established jurisprudence, aid is to be considered as distorting competition insofar as it strengthens the financial position and opportunities of the recipient company with respect to those of competitors not receiving aid [44].
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se šteje, da pomoč izkrivlja konkurenco, če se zaradi nje izboljšajo finančni položaj in priložnosti podjetja prejemnika v primerjavi s konkurenti, ki ne prejmejo pomoči [44].
In the light of this principle and the above considerations, it must be concluded that the aid given to Habidite and the AFER group through the Land Contract would have had distortive effects on competition, because it would have allowed Habidite to reduce investment costs that normally are borne by the company itself, and thereby to derive a competitive edge vis-à-vis actual and potential competitors.
Ob upoštevanju tega načela in glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba skleniti, da bi imela pomoč, dodeljena podjetju Habidite in skupini AFER na podlagi pogodbe o zemljišču, učinek izkrivljanja konkurence, ker bi podjetju Habidite omogočila, da zmanjša naložbene stroške, ki jih navadno nosi podjetje samo, ter tako pridobi konkurenčno prednost pred dejanskimi in potencialnimi konkurenti.
Affectation of intra-EU trade
Učinki na trgovino znotraj EU
Similar to the discussion in recitals (84) to (87), the argument made by Habidite that the relevant geographic market is only local or regional when it comes to prefabricated houses in particular, because of the costs associated with the transportation of the prefabricates, cannot be accepted.
Podobno, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah od (84) do (87), ni mogoče sprejeti trditve podjetja Habidite, da je upoštevni geografski trg zlasti za montažne hiše le lokalen ali regionalen zaradi stroškov, povezanih s prevozom elementov.
Due to the geographic vicinity of the Basque Country to other Member States and its closeness to the sea, the additional transportation costs would probably not be decisive for eliminating potential competitors of Habidite in this comunidad autónoma.
Zaradi geografske lege Baskije, ki je blizu drugih držav članic in v bližini morja, dodatni stroški prevoza verjetno ne bi odločilno vplivali na izključitev potencialnih konkurentov podjetja Habidite v tej avtonomni skupnosti.
Conversely, transportation costs might not represent an obstacle for Habidite to compete for the construction of homes in close Member States.
In nasprotno, stroški prevoza verjetno ne bi pomenili ovire za podjetje Habidite, da konkurira na področju gradnje stanovanj v bližnjih državah članicah.
According to the same line of jurisprudence as cited in recital (88), when state aid strengthens the financial position of a company compared with others competing in intra-Union trade, the latter must be regarded as impaired by the aid.
V skladu z isto sodno prakso, kot je navedena v uvodni izjavi (88), se šteje, da pomoč izkrivlja konkurenco, če se zaradi nje izboljša finančni položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenti na trgu v Uniji.
Aid may be of such kind as to affect intra-Union trade even if the recipient undertaking does not participate itself in cross-border activities [45].
Pomoč lahko vpliva na trgovino znotraj Unije tudi, če podjetje prejemnik samo ne sodeluje v čezmejnih dejavnostih [45].
On the basis of the considerations at recitals (89) and (90), the Commission concludes that the aid involved in the Land Contract would have been likely to affect trade between the Member States.
Komisija na podlagi premislekov iz uvodnih izjav (89) in (90) ugotavlja, da bi pomoč, ki jo vključuje pogodba o zemljišču, verjetno vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
Measure 2: Houses Contract
Ukrep 2: pogodba o stanovanjih
The considerations made at recitals (64) to (67), (84) to (88) and (89) to (90) on the criteria of use of State resources and imputability of the State, distortion of competition and affectation of intra-Union trade in the definition of state aid are also applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the Houses Contract.
Premisleki iz uvodnih izjav od (64) do (67), od (84) do (88) in od (89) do (90) o merilih uporabe državnih sredstev in odgovornosti države, izkrivljanju konkurence ter učinkih na trgovino znotraj EU v opredelitvi državne pomoči smiselno veljajo tudi za pogodbo o stanovanjih.
Consequently, in recitals (93) to (96), only the criterion of selective advantage shall be examined.
Zato se v uvodnih izjavah od (93) do (96) preuči samo merilo selektivne prednosti.
As explained in recital (45), Habidite argues that the Houses Contract did not convey to it any advantage, because, in essence, the prices to be paid by BIZKAILUR for the 1500 homes to be constructed by Habidite under this contract were actually below market levels.
Kot je obrazloženo v uvodni izjavi (45), podjetje Habidite trdi, da mu s pogodbo o stanovanjih ni bila dodeljena nobena prednost, ker so bile v bistvu cene, ki naj bi jih plačalo podjetje BIZKAILUR za 1500 stanovanj, ki naj bi jih v skladu s pogodbo zgradilo podjetje Habidite, dejansko pod tržnimi ravnmi.
In particular, Habidite first argues that the 1500 houses which were to be delivered by Habidite under this contract would have been sold by BIZKAILUR under the semi-protected regime (as viviendas tasadas), at a maximum price limited by the applicable regional law to 1,7 of the price established by the Basque government's Order of 1.8.2004, as successively indexed on the basis of the Consumption Price Index (IPC) determined by the Spanish National Institute of Statistics (see in this sense recitals (17) and (18)).
Prvič trdi, da bi podjetje BIZKAILUR 1500 stanovanj, ki naj bi jih podjetje Habidite zagotovilo v skladu z navedeno pogodbo, prodalo v okviru delno zaščitenega sistema (viviendas tasadas) po najvišji ceni, ki je omejena z veljavnim regionalnim zakonom na 1,7-kratnik cene, določene v odredbi baskovske vlade z dne 1. avgusta 2004, ki naj bi se nato indeksirala na podlagi indeksa cen življenjskih potrebščin (IPC), ki ga določi španski nacionalni statistični urad (v zvezi s tem glej uvodni izjavi (17) in (18)).
Second, Habidite argues that the price that it would have obtained from BIZKAILUR under the Houses Contract for the 1500 houses was comparable to the prices obtained by other construction companies which had concluded similar contracts with BIZKAILUR in that period (examples are indicated in recital (45)).
Podjetje Habidite drugič trdi, da je bila cena, ki bi jo dobilo po pogodbi o stanovanjih od podjetja BIZKAILUR za 1500 stanovanj, primerljiva s cenami, ki so jih dobila druga gradbena podjetja, ki so s podjetjem BIZKAILUR v istem obdobju sklenila podobne pogodbe (primeri so navedeni v uvodni izjavi (45)).