natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission notes that, even if Malév were to be eligible for aid under the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines (i.e. the "one time, last time" condition were met, quad non), the requirements for compatible rescue and restructuring aid would be not fulfilled, for the reasons set out below.
Komisija ugotavlja, da tudi, če bi bila družba Malév po Smernicah za reševanje in prestrukturiranje upravičena do pomoči (tj. bi bil izpolnjen pogoj o „enkratni pomoči“, kar v tem primeru ne drži), zahteve za pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, ki je združljiva z notranjim trgom, zaradi spodaj navedenih razlogov ne bi bile izpolnjene.
With regard to rescue aid, points 25(a)-(e) of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines are not fulfilled.
Kar zadeva pomoč za reševanje, točka 25(a)–(e) Smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje ni izpolnjena.
In particular, the measures at hand are not restricted to the minimum necessary, it is not demonstrated that they are warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and that they have no unduly adverse spill-over effects on other Member States.
Zlasti obravnavani ukrepi niso omejeni na najnižjo potrebno vsoto in niso bili predloženi nobeni dokazi, da so utemeljeni z resnimi socialnimi težavami in da nimajo nobenih neupravičenih škodljivih učinkov prelivanja na druge države članice.
Moreover, with the exception of measures 5 and 8, the majority of them were not granted in the form of loans or guarantees.
Razen ukrepov 5 in 8 večina ni bila odobrena v obliki posojil ali poroštev za posojilo.
With regard to restructuring aid, none of the compatibility conditions under the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines is met.
Kar zadeva pomoč za prestrukturiranje, ni izpolnjen noben pogoj združljivosti z notranjim trgom po Smernicah za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
In particular, as regards points 34-35 of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines, "restoration of long-term viability", the Hungarian authorities did not demonstrate the viability prospects of the airline and did not submit a restructuring plan complying with the requirements set by points 36-37 of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines.
Zlasti glede točk 34–35 Smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje „obnova dolgoročne sposobnosti preživetja“ madžarski organi niso dokazali možnosti sposobnosti preživetja letalske družbe in niso predložili načrta za prestrukturiranje, skladnega z zahtevami, določenimi v točkah 36–37 Smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
In addition, concerning the requirement of "avoidance of undue distortion of competition" (points 38-42 of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines), the Commission notes that no compensatory measures were implemented.
Poleg tega v zvezi z zahtevo „izogibanja neupravičenemu izkrivljanju konkurence“ (točke 38–42 Smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje) Komisija ugotavlja, da ni bil izveden noben izravnalni ukrep.
Finally, as regards the condition of "aid limited to the minimum" (points 43-45 of the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines), no own contribution is present.
Glede pogoja „omejitve pomoči na najnižjo vsoto“ (točke 43–45 Smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje) Komisija ugotavlja, da lastnega prispevka ni.
In view of the foregoing, measures 1-8 implemented in favour of Malév since 2007 are not compatible with the Rescue and restructuring Guidelines.
Zaradi zgoraj navedenega ukrepi 1–8, ki so bili izvedeni v korist družbe Malév od leta 2007, niso združljivi s Smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
As the measures were granted to a company in difficulty, no other basis for compatibility is applicable.
Ker so bili ukrepi odobreni za družbo v težavah, se ne uporablja nobena druga podlaga za združljivost.
Therefore, the measures are incompatible with the internal market.
Zato ukrepi niso združljivi 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 [33] 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 [33], za katero je ugotovila, da je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom.
The Court has also consistently held that the obligation of 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 [34].
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 [34].
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 [35].
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče odločilo, da je ta cilj dosežen, ko prejemnik odplača znesek, ki mu je bil dodeljen v okviru nezakonite pomoči, s čimer izgubi prednost, ki jo je užival glede na konkurente na trgu, ter se ponovno vzpostavijo razmere pred plačilom pomoči [35].
Following that case-law, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [36] 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 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 [36] 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, given that the measures at hand are to be considered as unlawful and incompatible aid, the aid has to be recovered in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid.
Ker obravnavani ukrepi pomenijo pomoč, ki je nezakonita in nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, jo je treba izterjati, da se ponovno vzpostavijo razmere na trgu, kakršne so bile pred dodelitvijo pomoči.
Recovery shall be hence effected from the time when the advantage occurred to the beneficiary, i.e. when the aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary and shall bear recovery interest until effective recovery.
Izterjavo se torej uporablja od takrat, ko je bila upravičencu dana prednost, tj. ko je bila pomoč dana upravičencu na voljo, vključuje pa tudi obresti na terjatev do trenutka dejanske izterjave.
Aid element in the individual measures
Element pomoči v posameznih ukrepih
The Commission acknowledges that "Malév" as the brand of the Hungarian national carrier operating over decades has a certain value on the aviation market.
Komisija priznava, da ima „Malév“ kot blagovna znamka madžarskega nacionalnega prevoznika, ki posluje že desetletja, na letalskem trgu neko vrednost.
On the other hand the Commission is of the view that under the specific contractual structure, the value of the brand as claimed by the Hungarian authorities cannot be accepted.
Po drugi strani pa Komisija meni, da ni mogoče sprejeti vrednosti znamke, ki jo navajajo madžarski organi po posebni pogodbeni strukturi.
An objective value should have been based on an independent evaluation also taking into account Malév's overall financial situation.
Objektivna vrednost bi morala temeljiti na neodvisnem vrednotenju, ki bi upoštevalo tudi splošen finančni položaj družbe Malév.
On the basis of the foregoing, the aid element of measure 1 is thus calculated as up to EUR 56 million, i.e. EUR 76 million minus the value of the kerosene pipeline and the aircraft (amounting to EUR 20 million), minus the objective value of the Malév brand [37].
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega je element pomoči ukrepa 1 izračunan v višini 56 milijonov EUR, tj. 76 milijonov EUR minus vrednost cevovoda za transport kerozina in zrakoplova (v višini 20 milijonov EUR). Od tega zneska pa se odšteje še objektivna vrednost znamke Malév [37].
The exact aid element must be calculated by Hungary.
Točen element pomoči mora izračunati Madžarska.
Should Hungary not present convincing arguments for an objective value of the brand at the time of the conclusion of the transaction on the transfer of the brand to MAVA, the entire amount of EUR 56 million is considered as aid element.
Če Madžarska ne bo predložila prepričljivih argumentov o objektivni vrednosti znamke ob zaključku transakcije prenosa znamke na družbo MAVA, se bo kot element pomoči upošteval celoten znesek 56 milijonov EUR.
As set out above, the Commission is of the view that the measure transferred to Malév an advantage when the repayment of the advance was not enforced after it became due.
Kot je bilo navedeno, Komisija meni, da je družba Malév s tem ukrepom pridobila prednost, ko vračilo predplačila po zapadlosti ni bilo izterjano.
Moreover, an advantage occurred even before, at least at the moment when the preliminary purchase agreement was modified in February 2009 and the advanced payment increased (above the evaluated market price of the company).
Do prednosti je prišlo celo že prej in sicer vsaj v trenutku, ko je bila februarja 2009 predhodna kupna pogodba spremenjena in se je predplačilo zvišalo (nad ocenjeno tržno vrednostjo družbe).
The Commission concludes that such a cash facilty would not have been granted by any private operator.
Komisija ugotavlja, da noben zasebni subjekt ne bi odobril takega gotovinskega posojila.
In fact, no private market operator would have agreed to put these funds at Malév's disposal, in particular free of charge and no steps whatever taken to recover them.
Noben zasebni akter na trgu se ne bi strinjal, da bi družbi Malév dal taka sredstva na voljo, zlasti ne brezplačno in brez kakršnegakoli ukrepanja, da se izterjajo.
In fact, in their comments to the opening decision the Hungarian authorities acknowledge themselves that the advanced payment intended to secure Malév's survival (see paragraph (80) above).
Madžarski organi v pripombah na sklep o začetku postopka sami priznavajo, da je bil namen predplačila zagotoviti preživetje družbe Malév (glej uvodno izjavo (80) zgoraj).
Therefore, the entire amount of the facility for the period it was at the disposal of the beneficiary is the aid element:
Zato je celotni znesek sredstev v obdobju, ko jih je upravičenec imel na voljo, element pomoči:
between February 2009 and July 2009 HUF 0,8 billion (the difference between the "overpayment" in respect of GH's market value) and between July 2009 and February 2010 HUF 4,3 billion (the entire amount of the advanced payment).
od februarja 2009 do julija 2009 0,8 milijarde HUF (razlika med tržno vrednostjo GH in „preplačilom“) in od julija 2009 do februarja 2010 4,3 milijarde HUF (celotni znesek predplačila).
Recovery should thus take account of the fact that the amount was swapped into equity in February 2010 (see measure 4 below).
Pri izterjavi je torej treba upoštevati, da je bil februarja 2010 znesek zamenjan v lastniške deleže (glej ukrep 4 spodaj).
Concerning the deferral and non-enforcement of tax and social contribution, the Commission considers that, all overdue Malév debt from July 2008 to March 2010 towards APEH constituted State aid.
Glede odloga plačila in neizterjave davčnih obveznosti in socialnih prispevkov Komisija meni, da ves dolg družbe Malév do APEH, ki je zapadel od julija 2008 do marca 2010, pomeni državno pomoč.
Moreover, all rescheduled amount after this date (July 2008) amount entirely to State aid as well.
Poleg tega državno pomoč pomeni tudi celotni prerazporejeni znesek po tem datumu (julij 2008).
Indeed, nothing suggests that a private creditor would have granted those deferrals and reschedulings.
Nobenega dokazila ni, da bi zasebni upnik odobril take odloge plačila in prerazporeditve.
Recovery should take account of the fact that the overdue amounts were paid back in March 2010.
Pri izterjavi je treba upoštevati dejstvo, da so bili zapadli zneski poplačani marca 2010.
With regard to the capital increase, the Commission considers that, given Malév's financial state, the apparent need for further support following the capital increase, the lack of any realistic prospective to recoup the "invested" funds, no private investor would have put those funds at Malév's disposal.
Glede dokapitalizacije Komisija meni, da glede na finančno stanje družbe Malév, očitno potrebo po nadaljnji podpori po dokapitalizaciji in nerealne možnosti povračila „vloženih“ sredstev noben zasebni vlagatelj družbi Malév ne bi dal na voljo teh sredstev.
The injected capital of HUF 25,4 billion plus the debt to equity swap of 4,7 billion HUF for the advanced payments for Malév GH is the aid element.
Vloženi kapital v višini 25,4 milijarde HUF in zamenjava terjatev za predplačilo za Malév GH v lastniške deleže v višini 4,7 milijarde HUF sta element pomoči.
As to the loans totalling HUF 9,2 billion, the Commission considers that in view of the debt history and situation of the airline at the moment of the granting of those loans, the State had no reason whatsoever to expect repayment and at the time of the granting of the loan it was even doubtful whether Malév would be able to pay the interest.
Kar zadeva posojila v skupnem znesku 9,2 milijarde HUF Komisija meni, da ob upoštevanju posojilne zgodovine in položaja letalske družbe v času odobritve teh posojil, država ni imela prav nobenega razloga pričakovati vračila in ob odobritvi posojila je bilo vprašljivo celo, ali bo družba Malév lahko plačevala obresti.
In fact, the interest charged was not paid but converted subsequently to equity.
Dejansko zaračunane obresti niso bile plačane in so bile pozneje spremenjene v lastniške deleže.
Therefore the Commission considers that the loan can be compared to a straightforward grant and hence the aid element is the entire loan amount of HUF 9,2 billion for the period it was at the disposal of the beneficiary, i.e. between the granting of the tranches (May, June, July 2010 respectively) and the conversion of the loans into equity (September 2010).
Zato Komisija meni, da je posojilo mogoče primerjati z neposrednimi nepovratnimi sredstvi in zato je element pomoči celotni znesek posojila v višini 9,2 milijarde HUF v obdobju, ko jih je upravičenec imel na voljo, tj. od odobritve obrokov (maj, junij in julij 2010) do preoblikovanja posojil v lastniške deleže (september 2010).
Due and not paid interest should be included in the aid element.
Zapadle neplačane obresti je treba vključiti v element pomoči.
Recovery should thus take account of the fact that the amount was swapped into equity in September 2010 (see measure 6 below).
Pri izterjavi je torej treba upoštevati, da je bil septembra 2010 znesek zamenjan v lastniške deleže (glej ukrep 6 spodaj).
For the reasons set out above in paragraph (120) above, the Commission considers that total amount of the converted debt to capital can be considered as a straightforward grant and hence the entire amount of HUF 9,4 billion is the aid element starting September 2010.
Komisija zaradi razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi (120) zgoraj, meni, da se lahko skupni znesek dolga, ki je bil spremenjen v lastniške deleže, šteje za neposredna nepovratna sredstva in zato je celotni znesek v višini 9,4 milijarde HUF od septembra 2010 element pomoči.
For the reasons set out above in paragraph (120), the Commission considers that the aid element is the injected capital of HUF 5,3 billion starting September 2010.
Komisija zaradi razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi (120) zgoraj, meni, da je kapital v višini 5,3 milijarde HUF, vložen od septembra 2010, element pomoči.
For the reasons set out above in paragraphs (120) above, the Commission considers that total amount of the loan is comparable to a straightforward grant and hence the entire amount of HUF 5,7 billion is the aid element starting September 2010.
Komisija zaradi razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi (120) zgoraj, meni, da je skupni znesek posojila primerljiv z neposrednimi nepovratnimi sredstvi in zato je celotni znesek v višini 5,7 milijarde HUF od septembra 2010 element pomoči.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that measures 1-8 implemented by Hungary in favour of Malév constitute State aid in the meaning of 107(1) TFEU.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrepi 1–8, ki jih je Madžarska izvedla v korist družbe Malév, pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In addition, the Commission concludes that measures 1-8 are incompatible with the internal market.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrepi 1–8 niso združljivi z notranjim trgom.
This incompatible aid must be recovered from Malév as set out in section VIII.2 above in order to re-establish the situation that existed on the market prior to the granting of the aid.
Od družbe Malév je treba zahtevati vračilo nezdružljive pomoči, kot je določeno v oddelku VIII.2 zgoraj, da se ponovno vzpostavijo razmere na trgu, kakršne so bile pred dodelitvijo pomoči.
The exact total amount of recovery plus recovery interest has to be computed by the Hungarian authorities.
Točen skupni znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti, ter obresti na terjatev morajo izračunati madžarski organi –
The following measures granted by Hungary to Malév Hungarian Airlines Zrt. constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU:
Naslednji ukrepi, ki jih je Madžarska odobrila družbi Malév Hungarian Airlines, pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU:
The taking over on 31 December 2007 by the state-owned MAVA of a loan granted to Malév by MFB, a 100 % state-owned development bank, in 2003;
31. decembra 2007 je družba v državni lasti MAVA prevzela posojilo, ki ga je leta 2003 družbi Malév odobrila razvojna banka MFB, ki je v 100-odstotni državi lasti,
The provision of a HUF 4,3 billion "cash facility" for one year in the context of a planned (subsequently failed) purchase by MNV of Malév's GH subsidiary;
zagotovitev enoletnega „gotovinskega posojila“ v višini 4,3 milijarde HUF podjetju MNV za načrtovani (in pozneje neizvedeni) nakup podružnice družbe Malév za storitve zemeljske oskrbe,
All overdue tax and social security debt from July 2008 to March 2010 and the deferral of different tax and social security payments as from July 2008;
ves dolg za davčne obveznosti in prispevke za socialno varnost, ki je zapadel od julija 2008 do marca 2010 in odlog plačila davčnih obveznosti in socialnih prispevkov od julija 2008,
In February 2010, a capital increase by MNV of HUF 25,4 billion (partly realised by injecting fresh capital of HUF 20,7 billion and partly through a debt-to-equity swap of the advanced payment for GH of HUF 4,7 billion HUF);
februarja 2010 dokapitalizacija s strani MNV v višini 25,4 milijarde HUF (delno izvedena z vložitvijo svežega kapitala v višini 20,7 milijarde HUF in delno z zamenjavo terjatev predplačila za GH v višini 4,7 milijarde HUF v lastniške deleže),
From May to August 2010, three shareholder loans totalling HUF 9,2 billion granted to Malév by MNV plus interest due but not paid;
tri posojila delničarjev v skupnem znesku 9,2 milijarde HUF, ki jih je družbi Malév med majem in avgustom 2010 zagotovilo podjetje MNV, z zapadlimi neplačanimi obrestmi,
In September 2010, the conversion of the shareholder loans (along with the interest owed thereon) referred to in Article 1(e) from debt to equity in the amount of HUF 9,4 billion;
konverzija posojil delničarjev septembra 2010 (z dolgovanimi obrestmi na posojila) iz člena 1(e) iz dolga v lastniški delež v višini 9,4 milijarde HUF,
In September 2010, a further capital increase in the amount of HUF 5,3;
nadaljnja dokapitalizacija v višini 5,3 milijarde HUF septembra 2010,
In September 2010, a further shareholder loan in the amount of HUF 5,7 billion, plus interest due but not paid.
nadaljnje posojilo delničarjev septembra 2010 v višini 5,7 milijarde HUF z zapadlimi neplačanimi obrestmi.
The State aid measures referred to in Article 1 unlawfully granted by Hungary in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU in favour of Malév Hungarian Airlines Zrt. are incompatible with the internal market.
Ukrepi državne pomoči iz člena 1, ki jih je Madžarska nezakonito odobrila družbi Malév Hungarian Airlines in s tem kršila člen 108(3) PDEU, so nezdružljivi z notranjim trgom.
Hungary shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiary.
Madžarska od upravičenca izterja pomoč iz člena 1.
Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2(3) shall be immediate and effective.
Izterjava pomoči iz člena 1 se izvede takoj in učinkovito.
Hungary shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.
Madžarska zagotovi izvršitev tega sklepa v štirih mesecih od datuma uradnega obvestila o tem sklepu.
Within two months following notification of this Decision, Hungary shall submit the following information to the Commission:
Madžarska v dveh mesecih od datuma uradnega obvestila o tem sklepu Komisiji predloži naslednje informacije:
the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary;
skupni znesek (glavnica in obresti pri izterjavi), ki ga je treba izterjati od upravičenca;
Hungary 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(3) with interest has been completed.
Madžarska Komisijo obvešča o napredku nacionalnih ukrepov, sprejetih za izvajanje tega sklepa, dokler pomoč iz člena 2(3) z obrestmi ni v celoti izterjana.
It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.
Prav tako predloži podrobne podatke o zneskih pomoči in obrestih pri izterjavi, ki jih je upravičenec že vrnil.
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 in člen 108 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
the two sets of provisions are, in substance, identical.
Določbe novih členov so vsebinsko povsem enake prejšnjima členoma.
Commission decision C(2010) 9671 final of 21 December 2010 (OJ C 156, 26.5.2011, p. 11).
Sklep Komisije C(2010) 9671 konč. z dne 21. decembra 2010 (UL C 156, 26.5.2011, str. 11).
EUR figures in the present Decision are approximations provided only as indications.
Zneski v EUR v tem sklepu so samo približni in navedeni zgolj v ponazoritev.
All HUF figures (with the exception of the EUR 76 million MFB loan and the EUR 32 million VEB guarantee, which indeed are denominated in EUR, see paragraph (20)) are converted into EUR by using the exchange rate of 2 August 2011:
Vsi zneski v HUF (razen posojila MFB v višini 76 milijonov EUR in poroštva VEB v višini 32 milijonov EUR, ki sta izražena v EUR, glej odstavek (20)) so preračunani v EUR po menjalnem tečaju z dne 2. avgusta 2011:
In 2011 the HUF was strongly fluctuating between 260 and 300 EUR/HUF.
V letu 2011 je HUF zelo nihal in sicer od 260 do 300 HUF/EUR.
The Hungarian authorities withdrew the measure on 12 November 2009.
Madžarski organi so 12. novembra 2009 ukrep umaknili.
According to its website, "more than 3 million revenue passengers flew with Malév in 2010".
Na svoji spletni strani navajajo, da je „v letu 2010 z družbo Malév letelo več kot 3 milijone potnikov, ki so plačali vozovnico“.
This 49 % stake in AirBridge was pledged by Mr Abramovich to VEB, the Russian State-owned "Bank of Foreign Economic Activity", as a security for a loan from VEB to AirBridge.
G. Abramovich je ta 49-odstotni delež v družbi AirBridge zastavil VEB, ki je ruska „banka za tuje gospodarske dejavnosti“ v državni lasti, kot varščino za posojilo banke VEB družbi AirBridge.
More precisely, capital in the amount of EUR 20 million plus EUR 30 million in the form of capital, subordinated loan or loan.
Natančneje, kapital v višini 20 milijonov EUR plus 30 milijonov EUR v obliki kapitala, podrejenega dolžniškega kapitala ali posojila.