natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Such purchase could include state aid if it cannot be considered a normal commercial transaction.
Tak nakup bi lahko zajemal državno pomoč, če se ga ne more obravnavati kot normalni trgovinski posel.
Even if a public authority purchases goods and services at a market price, state aid may nevertheless still be present if it turns out that the State did not have an actual need for the land or assets in question [47].
Tudi če javni organ kupi blago in storitve po tržni ceni, je lahko državna pomoč vseeno prisotna, če se izkaže, da država ni dejansko potrebovala zadevnih zemljišč ali sredstev [47].
Accordingly, the Commission has to assess whether the purchase of land can be considered a normal commercial transaction.
V skladu s tem mora Komisija oceniti, ali se nakup zemljišč lahko obravnava kot normalni trgovinski posel.
To this end, it has to be considered whether the price paid by the City of Mikkeli reflected the value of the properties and the building bought.
Zato je treba proučiti, ali je cena, ki jo je plačalo mesto Mikkeli, odražala vrednost kupljenih zemljišč in zgradbe.
According to the interested party, a private market investor would not have been willing to pay EUR 6,7 million for the factory buildings which the City of Mikkeli bought at this price.
Zainteresirana stran trdi, da zasebni vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu ne bi hotel plačati 6,7 milijona EUR za tovarniške zgradbe, ki jih je mesto Mikkeli kupilo po tej ceni.
Finland, on the other hand, provided the Commission with an indication of the value of the properties.
Vendar je Finska Komisiji zagotovila kazalnik vrednosti zemljišč.
According to Finland, private bank […] held a mortgage amounting to EUR 7,5 million on one of the properties sold at the time of the purchase [48].
Po navedbah Finske je imela zasebna banka […] hipoteko v vrednosti 7,5 milijona EUR na eno izmed zemljišč, prodanih v času nakupa [48].
Finland informed the Commission that no evaluation of the land exists.
Finska je Komisijo obvestila, da ocena zemljišča ne obstaja.
The Commission considers that the value of the mortgage held by a private bank might give an indication of the value of the property.
Komisija meni, da bi vrednost hipoteke, ki jo ima zasebna banka, lahko razkrila vrednost zemljišča.
Indeed, before accepting collaterals, a bank will value the property in question so that if the debtor is not able to pay back its debt, the bank may be satisfied by realising the mortgage.
Banka bo pred sprejetjem zavarovanj s premoženjem ocenila zadevno zemljišče, saj bo banka, če dolžnik ne bo mogel poplačati svojih dolgov, lahko uveljavila hipoteko.
For the properties in question, the City of Mikkeli paid a purchase price of EUR 6646787, which is below the registered amount of the mortgage held by a private party on one of the properties prior to closing the sale procedure.
Za zadevna zemljišča je mesto Mikkeli plačalo nakupno ceno v vrednosti 6646787 EUR, kar je manj kot zabeleženi znesek hipoteke, ki jo je imel v lasti zasebni akter na enem od zemljišč pred zaključkom prodajnega postopka.
In addition to this property, five other properties and a building were sold to the City of Mikkeli.
Poleg tega zemljišča je bilo mestu Mikkeli prodanih pet drugih zemljišč in zgradba.
In addition, the Commission notes that the City of Mikkeli bought the properties with a view to converting the land into residential area by implementing changes to local plans; the properties were located near city centre and in an attractive residential area.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da je mesto Mikkeli zemljišča kupilo z namenom, da jih spremeni v stanovanjsko območje s spremembami lokalnih načrtov, zemljišča pa so se nahajala blizu mestnega središča in v privlačnem stanovanjskem območju.
On the basis of the foregoing, the doubts raised by the Commission in the opening decision concerning the price paid for the properties and the buildings are dispelled.
Na podlagi navedenega se ovržejo pomisleki Komisije iz prve odločitve o začetku postopka glede cene, plačane za zemljišča in zgradbe.
It is considered that the City of Mikkeli bought the properties and the building at a price that reflected their value and that the market investor test is met.
Mesto Mikkeli je tako zemljišča in zgradbo kupilo po ceni, ki je odražala njihovo vrednost, preskus za vlagatelje v tržnem gospodarstvu pa je bil izpolnjen.
The Commission therefore concludes that the measure does not involve state aid.
Komisija je zato sklenila, da ukrep ne zajema državne pomoči.
Guarantee granted on 8 March 2004 (measure 4) and guarantee granted on 10 May 2004 (measure 5)
Poroštvo, dodeljeno 8. marca 2004 (ukrep 4), in poroštvo, dodeljeno 10. maja 2004 (ukrep 5)
Measure 4: Contrary to Finland's arguments, presented under recital (92), the Commission considers that converting existing liabilities in a new guarantee can constitute state aid.
Ukrep 4: V nasprotju s trditvami Finske, predstavljenimi v uvodni izjavi (92), Komisija meni, da pretvorba obstoječih obveznosti v novo poroštvo lahko pomeni državno pomoč.
In this context, a distinction has to be made between existing aid and new aid.
V tem okviru je treba razlikovati med veljavno pomočjo in novo pomočjo.
The definition of existing aid entails individual aid measures that had been put into effect prior to the entry into force of the Treaty (Article 1(b) of the Procedural Regulation).
Opredelitev veljavne pomoči vključuje posamezne ukrepe pomoči, ki so obstajali pred začetkom veljavnosti Pogodbe (člen 1(b) postopkovne uredbe).
New aid, on the contrary, is "all aid […] which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid" (Article 1(c) of the Procedural Regulation).
V nasprotju je nova pomoč „vsaka pomoč […], ki ni veljavna pomoč, vključno s spremembami veljavne pomoči“ (člen 1(c) postopkovne uredbe).
According to Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [49], an alteration is "any change, other than modifications of a purely formal or administrative nature which cannot affect the evaluation of the compatibility of the aid measure with the common market".
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 z dne 21. aprila 2004 o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 [49] določa, da je sprememba „katera koli sprememba, razen preoblikovanja povsem formalne ali upravne narave, ki ne more vplivati na ocenjevanje združljivosti ukrepa pomoči s skupnim trgom“.
The fact that this loan replaced a loan granted in 1992 by Tapiola that had already been guaranteed by the City of Mikkeli does not alter the view of the Commission.
Dejstvo, da je to posojilo nadomestilo posojilo, ki ga je banka Tapiola dodelila leta 1992 in ki ga je že zajamčilo mesto Mikkeli, stališča Komisije ne spremeni.
Whereas it is true that the new loan amounted to the outstanding capital of the old loan, and the interest rate was more favourable for Karjaportti (4,5 % p.a. for the old loan; 4 % p.a. for the new loan), there was a change in the duration of the loan (the old loan should have been repaid ten years after granting, that is to say in November 2002; the new loan allowed repayment until 2014).
Čeprav je res, da je bilo novo posojilo v vrednosti neporavnanega kapitala starega posojila in je bila obrestna mera ugodnejša za podjetje Karjaportti (4,5 % letno za staro posojilo; 4 % letno za novo posojilo), se je spremenilo trajanje posojila (staro posojilo bi moralo biti poplačano po desetih letih od dodelitve, to je novembra 2002, novo posojilo pa je lahko odplačano do leta 2014).
Overall, the amount of the new loan (capital plus interest for the years 2004 to 2014) is higher than the amount of the old loan.
Na splošno je znesek novega posojila (kapital in obresti za obdobje 2004–2014) višji od zneska starega posojila.
Accordingly, by granting the new guarantee, the risk of the City of Mikkeli and hence the amount of the measure increased compared to the old guarantee.
V skladu s tem sta se z dodelitvijo novega poroštva tveganje mesta Mikkeli in znesek ukrepa povečala v primerjavi s starim poroštvom.
Granting the new guarantee has to be seen as an alteration of the old guarantee that allows classifying the new guarantee as new aid.
Dodelitev novega poroštva je treba obravnavati kot spremembo starega poroštva, ki dovoljuje uvrstitev novega poroštva kot nove pomoči.
Accordingly, Finland's argument that the old guarantee was granted before Finland's accession and can thus be considered as existing aid and that the new guarantee cannot be considered as involving granting new aid can be dismissed.
V skladu s tem se utemeljitev Finske, da je bilo staro poroštvo dodeljeno pred pristopom Finske in se zato lahko obravnava kot veljavna pomoč ter da novega poroštva ni mogoče obravnavati kot poroštvo, ki vsebuje dodelitev nove pomoči, lahko zavrne.
However, as explained in recital (134), the Commission will rely on the Guarantee Notice 2008 when assessing the measure.
Vendar se bo Komisija pri oceni ukrepa zanašala na obvestilo o poroštvih 2008, kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi (134).
According to point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008, the existence of state aid within an individual state guarantee can be ruled out if four cumulative requirements are fulfilled (see recital 135).
V skladu s točko 3.2 obvestila o poroštvih 2008 izpolnjevanje štirih kumulativnih zahtev izključuje obstoj državne pomoč znotraj posameznega državnega poroštva (glej uvodno izjavo 135).
The guarantee under assessment covers 100 % of the loan.
Poroštvo v postopku ocenjevanja zajema 100 % posojila.
In addition, the guarantee was granted without any guarantee fee, even though the company was facing difficulty and the risk for the City of Mikkeli could be considered as considerable.
Obenem je bilo poroštvo dodeljeno brez provizije za poroštvo, čeprav je bilo podjetje v težavah, tveganje za mesto Mikkeli pa je bilo veliko.
The guarantee covered 100 % of the loan in question, i.e. that the granting authority bore the risk of default of the beneficiary alone and the guarantee was granted as an absolute guarantee, that is to say the guarantor is liable for the principal debt as if it were the guarantor's own and the creditor can ask for the repayment of principal debt from the guarantor when the principal debt has become due.
Poroštvo je zajemalo 100 % zadevnega posojila, kar pomeni, da je organ dodelitve sam nosil tveganje neplačila upravičenca in da je bilo poroštvo dodeljeno kot absolutno poroštvo, tj. da je garant odgovoren za glavnico, kot če bi bila garantova, in upnik lahko zaprosi garanta za odplačilo glavnice, ko glavnica zapade.
In addition, Finland believes that the measure is in line with the market economy investor principle, in particular as private parties were involved.
Poleg tega Finska meni, da je ukrep v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, zlasti ker so bili udeleženi zasebni akterji.
This argument can be rejected.
To trditev je mogoče zavrniti.
According to the information submitted by Finland, firstly, the private parties did not grant guarantees but loans to the beneficiary.
Glede na informacije, ki jih je predložila Finska, zasebni akterji upravičencu niso dodelili poroštev, temveč posojila.
Second, the loans by the private parties were not granted at the same time as the guaranteed pension loans.
Drugič, posojila zasebnih akterjev niso bila dodeljena ob istem času kot zajamčena posojila za pokojnine.
Third, the interest rate asked for by at least one of the private parties for a loan was already higher than the interest rate for the pension loan.
Tretjič, obrestna mera, ki jo je za posojilo zahteval vsaj eden od zasebnih akterjev, je že bila višja kot obrestna mera za posojilo za pokojnine.
More importantly, private parties only agreed on short term loans, with a duration of several months, whereas the guarantee granted by the City of Mikkeli covered a loan with a duration of ten years.
Še pomembneje je, da so se zasebni akterji strinjali le s kratkoročnimi posojili z nekajmesečnim trajanjem, poroštvo, ki ga je dodelilo mesto Mikkeli, pa je zajemalo posojilo z desetletnim obdobjem trajanja.
In view of the foregoing, it is considered that the measure confers an advantage to Karjaportti.
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija meni, da ukrep dodeljuje prednost podjetju Karjaportti.
In addition, measure 4 meets all other requirements for the existence of state aid.
Poleg tega ukrep 4 izpolnjuje vse druge zahteve za obstoj državne pomoči.
As described in detail in recitals 133, 140 and 141, also this guarantee consists of state resources and is imputable to the state, is selective and distorts competition and affects trade among the Member States.
Kot je podrobno opisano v uvodnih izjavah 133, 140 in 141, tudi to poroštvo zajema državna sredstva in se pripiše državi, je selektivno ter izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Measure 5: Finland's argument that the measure was granted to continue the investment started in 2000 can be rejected, as the guarantee was clearly a new measure.
Ukrep 5: Trditev Finske, da je bil ukrep odobren za nadaljevanje naložbe iz leta 2000, se lahko zavrne, saj je bilo poroštvo nedvoumno nov ukrep.
Like measure 4, the guarantee under assessment covers 100 % of the loan and Karjaportti was already in difficulty within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999 in May 2004 (see recitals 123-128).
Kot pri ukrepu 4 poroštvo v postopku ocenjevanja zajema 100 % posojila in podjetje Karjaportti je maja 2004 že bilo v težavah v smislu smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 (glej uvodne izjave 123–128).
Accordingly, the guarantee cannot fall under point 3.2 of the Guarantee Notice 2008.
V skladu s tem poroštvo ne spada pod točko 3.2 obvestila o poroštvih 2008.
In addition, and similar to measure 4, the guarantee was granted without any guarantee fee, even though the company was facing difficulty and the risk for the City of Mikkeli could be considered as considerable.
Obenem je bilo poroštvo dodeljeno brez provizije za poroštvo, podobno kot pri ukrepu 4, čeprav je bilo podjetje v težavah, tveganje za mesto Mikkeli pa se je lahko štelo za veliko.
The guarantee covered 100 % of the loan in question and was granted as an absolute guarantee.
Poroštvo je zajemalo 100 % zadevnega posojila in je bilo dodeljeno kot absolutno poroštvo.
Accordingly, in the case at hand, contrary to the view of Finland, the Commission is of the opinion that the measure confers an advantage to Karjaportti.
V skladu s tem Komisija v zadevnem primeru v nasprotju s Finsko meni, da ukrep podjetju Karjaportti dodeljuje prednost.
In addition, measure 5 meets all other requirements for the existence of state aid.
Poleg tega ukrep 5 izpolnjuje vse druge zahteve za obstoj državne pomoči.
As described in detail in recitals 133, 140 and 141 also this guarantee consists of state resources and is imputable to the state, is selective and distorts competition and affects trade among the Member States.
Kot je podrobno opisano v uvodnih izjavah 133, 140 in 141, tudi to poroštvo zajema državna sredstva in se pripiše državi, je selektivno ter izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that measure 4 and measure 5 constitute state aid.
Na podlagi navedenega je Komisija sklenila, da ukrepa 4 in 5 pomenita državno pomoč.
Finland did not bring forward any arguments as regards the compatibility of measure 4.
Finska ni predložila utemeljitev glede združljivosti ukrepa 4.
For measure 5, Finland invoked Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU and the RAG 1998 (see recital 95).
Pri ukrepu 5 se je Finska sklicevala na člen 107(3)(a) PDEU in smernice o regionalni pomoči 1998 (glej uvodno izjavo 95).
The RAG 1998 can however not serve as compatibility basis, as, Karjaportti was in difficulty at the time of granting of the two guarantees (see recitals 123-128).
Vendar pa smernice za regionalno pomoč 1998 ne morejo biti podlaga za združljivost, saj je bilo podjetje Karjaportti ob dodelitvi dveh poroštev v težavah (glej uvodne izjave 123–128).
According to the RAG 1998, aid to companies in difficulty has to be assessed under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines [50].
V skladu s smernicami o regionalni pomoči 1998 je treba pomoč podjetjem v težavah oceniti v okviru smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje [50].
Therefore, the Commission first assesses whether measures 4 and 5 are compatible as rescue and restructuring aid according to the R&R Guidelines.
Zato Komisija najprej ocenjuje, ali sta ukrepa 4 in 5 združljiva kot pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranje v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
At the time of granting, the R&R Guidelines 1999 were applicable [51].
Ob dodelitvi so se uporabljale smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 [51].
According to the R&R Guidelines 1999, a rescue aid has to meet certain requirements, which are not all fulfilled by the measure under consideration.
V skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 mora pomoč za reševanje izpolnjevati določene zahteve, ki jih proučevani ukrep ne izpolnjuje.
First, whereas the measures consist of liquidity support in the form of a guarantee (point 23(a) of the R&R Guidelines 1999), the loans covered by the respective guarantees were not granted at an interest rate at least comparable to those observed for loans to healthy firms (reference rate for Finland in March 2004: 4,43 % plus 100 basis points; reference rate for Finland in May 2004: 4,43 % plus 100 basis points).
Čeprav ukrepi zajemajo likvidnostno pomoč v obliki poroštva (točka 23(a) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999), posojila, ki jih zajemajo zadevna poroštva, niso bila dodeljena po obrestni meri, ki bi bila vsaj primerljiva z ugotovljenimi obrestnimi merami za posojila zdravim podjetjem (referenčna obrestna mera za Finsko marca 2004: 4,43 %, zvišana za 100 bazičnih točk; referenčna obrestna mera za Finsko maja 2004: 4,43 %, zvišana za 100 bazičnih točk).
Second, the guarantees were not linked to a loan that was to be reimbursed over a period of not more than twelve months after disbursement of the last instalment to the firm (point 23(b) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).
Drugič, poroštva niso bila povezana s posojilom, ki naj bi bilo povrnjeno v roku, ki ni daljše od dvanajstih mesecev po izplačilu zadnjega obroka podjetju (točka 23(b) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999).
Third, Finland did not provide any information that the aid was warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and had no unduly adverse spillover effects on other Member States (point 23(c) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).
Tretjič, Finska ni zagotovila informacij, da je bila pomoč zajamčena na podlagi resnih socialnih težav in ni imela škodljivih učinkov na druge države članice (točka 23(c) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999).
Fourth, the guarantees were neither reimbursed within 6 months nor had a restructuring plan within the meaning of the R&R Guidelines 1999 been set up (point 23(d) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).
Četrtič, poroštva niso bila povrnjena v roku 6 mesecev, niti niso imela oblikovanega načrta prestrukturiranja v smislu smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999 (točka 23(d) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999).
Lastly, there are no indications that the guarantees were restricted to the amount needed to keep the firm in business for the period during which the aid was authorised (point 23(e) of the R&R Guidelines 1999).
Poleg tega ni bilo znakov, da so bila poroštva omejena na znesek, ki je potreben, da lahko podjetje posluje v obdobju, v katerem je odobrena pomoč (točka 23(e) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999).
Measure 4 and 5 do not meet all the requirements for restructuring aid set out in the R&R Guidelines 1999 either.
Ukrepa 4 in 5 poleg tega ne izpolnjujeta vseh zahtev za pomoč za prestrukturiranje, opredeljenih v smernicah za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999.
First, the measures were not conditional on the implementation of a restructuring plan (point 31 of the R&R Guidelines 1999).
Prvič, ukrepi niso bili pogojeni z izvajanjem načrta za prestrukturiranje (točka 31 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999).
It is noted that no restructuring plan within the meaning of point 32 et seq. of the R&R Guidelines 1999 has been set up.
Ugotavlja se, da ni bil oblikovan načrt za prestrukturiranje v smislu točke 32 in naslednjih smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999.
Second, aid beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources (point 40 of the R&R Guidelines 1999) and for the measures under consideration, there is no indication of an own contribution of the beneficiary.
Drugič, od upravičencev pomoči se pričakuje, da bodo k načrtu prestrukturiranja znatno prispevali iz svojih sredstev (točka 40 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999), pri proučevanih ukrepih pa ni znakov o lastnih prispevkih upravičenca.
Third, in order to avoid undue distortions of competition, compensatory measures must be taken (point 37 of the R&R Guidelines 1999).
Tretjič, za preprečevanje škodljivega izkrivljanja konkurence je treba sprejeti izravnalne ukrepe (točka 37 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999).
Such measures have not been provided for.
Taki ukrepi niso bili zagotovljeni.
Accordingly, the Commission considers that the measures were not granted in accordance with the R&R Guidelines 1999.
Zato Komisija meni, da ukrepi niso bili dodeljeni v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje 1999.
Further, it has to be considered whether measure 4 and 5 could be compatible on the basis of any other of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU.
Treba je še proučiti, ali bi lahko bila ukrepa 4 in 5 združljiva na podlagi katere druge izjeme, določene v členih 107(2) in (3) PDEU.
The exemptions in Article 107(2) of the TFEU do not apply in the present case because the measures in question do not have a social character, have not been awarded to individual consumers, are not designed to make good damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and have not been awarded to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of that country.
Izjeme iz člena 107(2) PDEU se v tem primeru ne uporabljajo, ker ta ukrepa nimata socialnega značaja, nista bila dodeljena posameznim potrošnikom, nista bila namenjena povrnitvi škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki, in nista bila dodeljena gospodarstvu nekaterih območij Zvezne republike Nemčije, ki jih je prizadela delitev te države.
Further exemptions are laid out in Article 107(3) of the TFEU.
Dodatne izjeme so določene v členu 107(3) PDEU.
Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU states that “aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment” may be declared compatible with the internal market.
Člen 107(3)(a) PDEU določa, da se „pomoč za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je podzaposlenost velika,“ lahko razglasi za združljivo z notranjim trgom.
Karjaportti, at the time of granting, was located in such an area.
Podjetje Karjaportti se je ob dodelitvi nahajalo v takem območju.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the aid is not eligible for the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(a) of the TFEU.
Komisija na podlagi navedenega ugotavlja, da pomoč ni upravičena do odstopanja, določenega v členu 107(3)(a) PDEU.
Article 107(3)(b) of the TFEU states that "aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State" may be declared compatible with the internal market.
Člen 107(3)(b) PDEU določa, da se „pomoč za pospeševanje izvedbe pomembnega projekta skupnega evropskega interesa ali za odpravljanje resne motnje v gospodarstvu države članice“ lahko razglasi za združljivo z notranjim trgom.