natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the collateral, ÅI provided collateral at the nominal value of the guarantees in the form of mortgages on real estate on which the iTiden project was built.
Podjetje ÅI je zagotovilo zavarovanje v nominalni vrednosti poroštev v obliki hipotek na nepremičnino, na kateri je bil zgrajen projekt iTiden.
Finland has not provided Loss Given Default (LGD) related information under footnote 2 of the Reference Rate Communication.
Finska ni zagotovila informacij v zvezi z izgubo ob neplačilu v skladu z opombo 2 sporočila o referenčni obrestni meri.
This information helps to define the level of collateralisation and the loan margins to be added on top of the base rate.
Te informacije so v pomoč pri določitvi stopnje zavarovanja in razlik pri posojilu, ki jih je treba prišteti izhodiščni obrestni meri.
Therefore the Commission requested information on the priority of the mortgages pledged and the value of the property at the time of granting the guarantees.
Zato je Komisija zahtevala informacije o prednostnih zastavljenih hipotekah in vrednosti nepremičnine v času dodelitve poroštev.
Finland does not have valuations that show the value of the property at the time of the guarantee measures.
Finska nima cenitev, ki bi izkazovale vrednost nepremičnine v času poroštvenih ukrepov.
The Finnish authorities have, however, argued that the value of the property has accrued over time, as the project progressed.
So pa finski organi trdili, da se je vrednost nepremičnine z napredovanjem projekta povečevala.
According to Finland, in 2010 the property was valued at EUR […].
Finska meni, da je bila vrednost nepremičnine v letu 2010 […] EUR.
As regards the seniority of the collateral, the Commission notes that for guarantees G-I and G-II, the LG collateral had the highest seniority of all mortgages granted on the property.
Glede časovnega vrstnega reda zavarovanja Komisija ugotavlja, da je bilo za poroštvi G-I in G-II zavarovanje lokalne vlade prvo od vseh hipotek, danih za nepremičnino.
The Commission notes that commercial banks have granted non-guaranteed loans to ÅI and accepted as collateral mortgages on the same property that rank lower in seniority (and are thus less good collateral) than the collateral received by the LG.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so poslovne banke podjetju ÅI odobrile posojila brez poroštev in kot zavarovanje sprejele hipoteke na to isto nepremičnino, ki so nižje v časovnem vrstnem redu (in so zato slabše zavarovanje) kot zavarovanje, prejeto od lokalne vlade.
In view of this, and in the absence of better evidence, the Commission assumes that the level of collateralisation of the guarantees was ‘normal’ for the purpose of applying the Guarantee Notice.
Glede na to in ker ni boljših dokazov, Komisija predvideva, da je bila raven zavarovanja poroštev „običajna“ za uporabo obvestila o poroštvih.
On the basis of the above, the reference rate will be assessed separately for each guarantee that ÅI received from the LG.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega bo referenčna obrestna mera ocenjena ločeno za vsako poroštvo, ki ga je podjetje ÅI prejelo od lokalne vlade.
The Commission notes that, for all guarantees granted to ÅI, the premiums were made up of two parts: (i) a recurrent premium, paid annually and expressed as a percentage of the outstanding principal of the loan and (ii) a ‘one-off’ fee, also expressed as a percentage of the loan amount, but paid only once, at the emission of the guarantee.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so bile za vsa poroštva, dodeljena podjetju ÅI, premije sestavljene iz dveh delov: (i) ponavljajoče se premije, plačane letno in izražene kot odstotek neodplačane glavnice posojila in (ii) „enkratne pristojbine“, ki je tudi izražena kot odstotek zneska posojila, vendar se plača samo enkrat in sicer ob izdaji poroštva.
In the assessment below, the total financial cost of the guaranteed loans includes only the recurrent premium paid annually.
V oceni v nadaljevanju skupni stroški financiranja posojil s poroštvom vključujejo samo ponavljajoče se premije, plačane letno.
In accordance with point 4.2 of the Guarantee Notice, the aid element of a guarantee should be calculated as the difference between the market price (in this case the reference rate) and the price actually paid.
V skladu s točko 4.2 obvestila o poroštvih je element pomoči v poroštvu enak razliki med tržno ceno (v tem primeru referenčna obrestna mera) in dejansko plačano ceno.
The price actually paid by ÅI includes the recurrent premium paid annually and a one-off premium paid only once.
Cena, ki jo je podjetje ÅI dejansko plačalo, vključuje ponavljajočo se premijo, plačano letno in enkratno premijo, plačano samo enkrat.
For practical reasons the one-off premium will be addressed below in Section 8.2 dealing with recovery, since it is easier to deduct the amount of the one-off fee from the amount of aid to be recovered.
Iz praktičnih razlogov bo enkratna premija obravnavana v oddelku 8.2 v nadaljevanju, ki obravnava vračilo, ker je lažje odšteti znesek enkratne pristojbine od zneska pomoči, ki jo je treba vrniti.
In any case, even if the one-off premiums were added to the total financial costs of the guaranteed loans, the conclusion as to the presence of aid would not change.
Vsekakor se tudi če bi se enkratne premije prištele k skupnim stroškom financiranja posojil s poroštvom sklepna ugotovitev glede prisotnosti pomoči ne bi spremenila.
The one-off premium affects only the amount of aid granted to ÅI.
Enkratna premija vpliva le na znesek pomoči, dodeljene podjetju ÅI.
Guarantee G-I
Poroštvo G-I
Guarantee G-I was granted by the LG on 9 October 2003 to cover a loan of EUR […] from […] to ÅI (credit number […]).
Poroštvo G-I je lokalna vlada dodelila 9. oktobra 2003 za kritje posojila banke […] podjetju ÅI v višini […] EUR (številka posojila […]).
As collateral for any claims under the guarantee, ÅI provided a mortgage on real estate.
Podjetje ÅI je kot zavarovanje za morebitne zahtevke iz poroštva dalo hipoteko na nepremičnino.
Thus, the total financial cost of the guaranteed loan at the time of granting the loan amounted to […]% p.a., which should be compared with a reference rate calculated for the guarantee on the basis of the base rate and a margin that depends on ÅI’s rating and the collateralisation level of the loan.
Tako so skupni stroški financiranja posojila s poroštvom v času odobritve posojila znašali […] % na leto, kar je treba primerjati z referenčno obrestno mero, izračunano za poroštvo na podlagi izhodiščne obrestne mere in razlike, ki sta odvisni od ocene kreditne sposobnosti podjetja ÅI ter stopnje zavarovanja posojila.
The base rate (one-year Euribor) on 9 October 2003 was 2,235 %.
Dne 9. oktobra 2003 je bila izhodiščna obrestna mera (enoletni EURIBOR) 2,235 %.
At the time ÅI was rated ‘weak’ within the meaning of the Reference Rate Communication.
Takrat je imelo podjetje ÅI oceno kreditne sposobnosti „šibko“ v smislu Sporočila o referenčni obrestni meri.
As established above, the Commission assumes that the collateralisation level of the loan was normal, which means that the loan margin to be added on top of the basis rate is 400 bps.
Kot je bilo ugotovljeno, Komisija predvideva, da je bila raven zavarovanja posojila „običajna“, kar pomeni, da je razlika pri posojilu, ki jo je treba prišteti izhodiščni obrestni meri, 400 bazičnih točk.
Therefore, the reference rate for this loan amounts to 6,235 %, which is higher than the total financial cost of G-I amounting to […]% p.a.
Zato referenčna obrestna mera za to posojilo znaša 6,235 %, kar je več od skupnih stroškov financiranja G-I, ki znašajo […] % na leto.
In addition, as from 6 September 2004, the LG reduced the guarantee premium for G-I to […]%.
Poleg tega je lokalna vlada od 6. septembra 2004 znižala poroštveno premijo za G-I na […] %.
Accordingly, the total financial cost of the guaranteed loan came to […]%, i.e. […] basis points below the reference rate, thus generating a corresponding advantage for ÅI.
Skladno s tem so bili skupni stroški financiranja posojila s poroštvom[…] %, tj. […] bazičnih točk pod referenčno obrestno mero, kar je ustvarjalo ustrezno prednost za podjetje ÅI.
Guarantee G-II
Poroštvo G-II
On 2 November 2004 ÅI took a loan of EUR […] from […] (credit number […]).
Podjetje ÅI je 2. novembra 2004 pri […] najelo posojilo v višini […] EUR (številka posojila […]).
This loan was secured by a guarantee from the LG, for which ÅI provided security in the form of a lien on real estate.
To posojilo je bilo zavarovano s poroštvom lokalne vlade, za katero je podjetje ÅI zagotovilo zavarovanje v obliki zastavne pravice na nepremičnino.
The interest rate was set at […] + […] basis points and the guarantee fee at […]% of the loan amount p.a., meaning that the total financial cost of this guaranteed loan was […]% p.a [28].
Določena je bila obrestna mera […] + […] bazičnih točk in pristojbina za poroštvo v višini […] % zneska posojila na leto, kar pomeni, da so bili skupni stroški financiranja tega posojila s poroštvom […] % na leto [28].
The reference rate for G-II has to be calculated on the basis of the one-year Euribor on 2 November 2004, which was 2,314 %.
Referenčno obrestno mero je treba izračunati na podlagi enoletnega Euribora na dan 2. novembra 2004, ki je znašal 2,314 %.
Assuming a normal level of collateralisation, the reference rate for this loan amounts to 6,314 % p.a., which is higher than the total financial cost of G-II amounting to […]% p.a.
Ob predpostavki običajne ravni zavarovanja referenčna obrestna mera za to posojilo znaša 6,314 % na leto, kar je višje od skupnih stroškov financiranja G-II, ki znašajo […] % na leto.
Comparing the costs of this new guaranteed loan with the reference rate shows that the total financial cost of the loan covered by guarantee G-II was at least […] basis points below the reference rate, thus providing a financial advantage to ÅI.
Primerjava stroškov tega novega posojila s poroštvom z referenčno obrestno mero kaže, da so bili skupni stroški financiranja posojila, kritega s poroštvom G-II, najmanj […] bazičnih točk pod referenčno obrestno mero in so tako podjetju ÅI zagotovili finančno prednost.
According to the information available to the Commission, the interest rate on the guaranteed loan has not changed since it was issued.
Glede na informacije, ki so na voljo Komisiji, se obrestna mera za posojilo s poroštvom ni spremenila, odkar je bilo izdano.
Guarantee G-III
Poroštvo G-III
On 13 December 2005, the LG issued a new guarantee in favour of ÅI.
Lokalna vlada je 13. decembra 2005 izdala novo poroštvo v korist podjetja ÅI.
This guarantee was to cover the ‘reference loan’, i.e. the originally non-guaranteed loan of 9 October 2003, the terms of which were thus amended.
To poroštvo naj bi krilo „referenčno posojilo“, t.j. prvotno posojilo brez poroštva z dne 9. oktobra 2003, za katerega so bili pogoji tako spremenjeni.
The interest rate of the loan was at this point changed to […]% p.a.
Takrat je bila obrestna mera za posojilo spremenjena na […] % letno.
The guarantee fee was set at […]% of the loan amount, meaning a total financial cost of […]% p.a. [29] (the terms applied from this date are identical to those, described above, that apply to the loan covered by guarantee G-I, including the changes to the interest rate over time).
Določena je bila pristojbina za poroštvo v višini […] % zneska posojila, kar pomeni, da so skupni stroški financiranja […] % na leto [29] (pogoji, uporabljeni od navedenega dne dalje, so enaki zgoraj opisanim pogojem, ki se uporabljajo za posojilo, krito s poroštvom G-I, vključno s spremembami obrestne mere v teku časa).
The reference rate for G-III has to be calculated on the basis of the one-year Euribor on 13 December 2005, which was 2,769 %.
Referenčno obrestno mero za G-III je treba izračunati na podlagi enoletnega Euribora dne 12. decembra 2005, ko je bil 2,769 %.
At the time ÅI was rated ‘satisfactory’ within the meaning of the Reference Rate Communication.
Takrat je podjetje ÅI imelo oceno kreditne sposobnosti „zadovoljivo“ v smislu Sporočila o referenčni obrestni meri.
Taking into account a normal level of collateralisation, the reference rate for this loan amounts to 4,969 % p.a.
Ob upoštevanju običajne ravni zavarovanja referenčna obrestna mera za to posojilo znaša 4,969 % na leto.
This is higher than the total financial cost of G-III amounting to […]% p.a.
To je več od skupnih stroškov financiranja G-III, ki znašajo […] % na leto.
Therefore, the LG has given ÅI a corresponding financial advantage of at least […]% p.a.
Zato je lokalna vlada podjetju ÅI dala ustrezno finančno prednost najmanj višini […] % na leto.
DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECTS ON TRADE
IZKRIVLJANJE KONKURENCE IN VPLIV NA TRGOVINO
The Finnish authorities have claimed that the measures in question do not affect trade between Member States and do not therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Finski organi so trdili, da zadevni ukrepi ne vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami in zato ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In support of this argument Finland has in essence argued that ÅI is only one of several firms active on the real estate market, and not the largest one.
V podporo te trditve je Finska v bistvu trdila, da je podjetje ÅI samo eno od več podjetij, dejavnih na nepremičninskem trgu, in ni največje.
There is thus no evidence that the measures, if they are considered to constitute State aid, would have strengthened ÅI’s position to the detriment of competitors.
Tako ni nobenega dokaza, da so ukrepi, če bi se štelo, da pomenijo državno pomoč, okrepili položaj podjetja ÅI na škodo konkurentov.
The fact that ÅI has been provided with a financial advantage that was not made available to its competitors (and, as Finland has confirmed, there are several other operators on the Åland real estate market) means that ÅI has been able to make large investments and expand its operations on financial terms that were more advantageous than those made available to its competitors (who, in the absence of the advantage granted to ÅI, might have chosen to make similar investments).
Dejstvo, da je bila podjetju ÅI zagotovljena finančna prednost, ki njegovim konkurentom ni bila na voljo (in, kot je Finska potrdila, je na nepremičninskem trgu na Ålandskih otokih več drugih subjektov), pomeni, da je podjetje ÅI lahko uresničilo velike naložbe in svoje dejavnosti razširilo pod finančnimi pogoji, ki so bili ugodnejši od pogojev, ki so bili na voljo za njihove konkurente (ki bi v primeru, da podjetje ÅI ne bi dobilo prednosti, morebiti lahko uresničili podobne naložbe).
It is not necessary to demonstrate that the measures have allowed ÅI to take market shares from any specific competitor.
Ni treba dokazati, da so ukrepi podjetju ÅI omogočili prevzem tržnih deležev od določenega konkurenta.
Similarly, the advantage granted to ÅI was liable to affect trade between Member States.
Podobno je prednost, ki jo je dobilo podjetje ÅI, lahko vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
It is true that Åland is a small market, located on an archipelago that can only be reached by sea or air, and that specific restrictions on the right of establishment apply there by virtue of Finland’s EU Accession Treaty.
Res je, da so Ålandski otoki majhen trg, otočje, ki se dosegljivo samo po morju ali zraku in da se tam na podlagi pogodbe o pristopu Finske k EU uporabljajo posebne omejitve pravice do ustanavljanja.
However, the fact remains that there is no absolute obstacle to foreign undertakings operating in Åland, and certainly no obstacle to such undertakings making investments in the local property market.
Vendar je dejstvo, da ni absolutne ovire za delovanje tujih podjetij na Ålandskih otokih in zagotovo ni ovir, da bi taka podjetja vlagala v lokalni nepremičninski trg.
The Commission also notes that Finland has not disputed the statement in the opening decision that real estate in Åland has in the past been acquired by undertakings based in other Member States.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da Finska ni izpodbijala trditve v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, da so v preteklosti nepremičnine na Ålandskih otokih pridobivala podjetja s sedežem v drugih državah članicah.
Any advantage granted to ÅI through these measures would thus have at least the potential to affect trade between the Member States by unduly strengthening ÅI’s position in relation to potential foreign competitors or investors.
Vsaka prednost, dodeljena podjetju ÅI prek teh ukrepov, bi zaradi neupravičene krepitve položaja podjetja ÅI v razmerju do potencialnih tujih konkurentov ali vlagateljev imela vsaj možnost vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami.
CONCLUSION ON THE QUALIFICATION OF STATE AID
SKLEPNA UGOTOVITEV O OBSTOJU DRŽAVNE POMOČI
For the above reasons, the Commission finds that all capital increases (with the exception of C-I, C-II and C-III) and loan guarantees G-I, G-II and G-III constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.
Komisija zaradi zgoraj navedenih razlogov ugotavlja, da vsa povečanja kapitala (razen C-I, C-II in C-III) ter poroštva za posojila G-I, G-II in G-III pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107 PDEU.
ALLEGED LAWFULNESS OF THE AID
DOMNEVNA ZAKONITOST POMOČI
Finland has argued that both the capital injections and the guarantees, if State aid, were lawful under aid schemes that were put into place prior to Finland’s EU membership and duly submitted to the EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘ESA’) prior to EU accession under references 93-074 (capital increases) and 93-079 (guarantees).
Finska je trdila, da so bile dokapitalizacije in poroštva, če so državna pomoč, zakonite v okviru shem pomoči, ki so bile vzpostavljene pred članstvom Finske v EU in pravilno predložene Nadzornemu organu Efte (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Nadzorni organ) pred pristopom k EU pod referenčnimi oznakami 93-074 (povečanja kapitala) in 93-079 (poroštva).
This argument should be examined in the context of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
To trditev je treba preučiti v okviru določb Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
Pursuant to Article 1(d), ‘aid scheme’ means ‘any act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made to undertakings defined within the act in a general and abstract manner and any act on the basis of which aid which is not linked to a specific project may be awarded to one or several undertakings for an indefinite period of time and/or for an indefinite amount’.
Na podlagi člena 1(d) „shema pomoči“ pomeni „vsak akt, na podlagi katerega je mogoče brez nadaljnjih izvedbenih ukrepov dodeliti individualno pomoč podjetjem, opredeljenim v aktu na splošen in abstrakten način, in vsak akt, na podlagi katerega je mogoče enemu ali več podjetjem dodeliti pomoč, ki ni povezana z določenim projektom, za nedoločen čas in/ali v nedoločenem znesku“.
Furthermore, according to Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, ‘existing aid’ means: ‘(i) without prejudice to Sections 144 and 172 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, all aid which existed prior to the entry into force of the Treaty in the respective Member States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the Treaty’.
Nadalje v skladu s členom 1(b) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 „veljavna pomoč“ pomeni: „(i) brez poseganja v člena 144 in 172 Akta o pristopu Avstrije, Finske in Švedske vso pomoč, ki je obstajala pred začetkom veljavnosti Pogodbe v zadevnih državah članicah, to je sheme pomoči in individualno pomoč, ki se je začela izvajati pred začetkom veljavnosti Pogodbe in se še vedno uporablja.“
Furthermore, according to Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, ‘new aid’ means all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid [30].
Nadalje v skladu s členom 1(c) Uredbe (ES) No 659/1999 „nova pomoč“ pomeni vsako pomoč, to je sheme pomoči ali individualno pomoč, ki ni obstoječa pomoč, vključno s spremembami obstoječe pomoči [30].
Finally, Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [31] defines alteration of existing aid as ‘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. However an increase in the original budget of an existing aid scheme by up to 20 % shall not be considered an alteration to existing aid.’
Poleg tega člen 4(1) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 z dne 21. aprila 2004 o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [31] določa, da sprememba obstoječe pomoči pomeni „katero koli spremembo, razen preoblikovanja povsem formalne ali upravne narave, ki ne more vplivati na presojo združljivosti ukrepa pomoči s skupnim trgom. Vendar se povečanje začetnega proračuna obstoječe sheme pomoči do 20 % ne šteje kot sprememba obstoječe pomoči.“
From the above it follows that a measure that pre-dates accession and constitutes a State aid scheme can be said to be existing aid if two conditions are satisfied.
Iz zgoraj navedenega sledi, da za ukrep, ki je bil sprejet pred pristopom in pomeni shemo državne pomoči, velja, da je obstoječa pomoč, če sta izpolnjena dva pogoja.
The first is that the scheme was put into effect before the entry into force of the EC Treaty and the second is that its substance has not been substantially altered since.
Prvi pogoj je, da je shema začela veljati pred začetkom veljavnosti Pogodbe ES, drugi pa, da se vsebina od takrat ni bistveno spremenila.
The Commission will assess the Finnish argument about the lawfulness of the aid separately for the two alleged schemes.
Komisija bo finsko trditev o zakonitosti pomoči ocenila za vsako od domnevnih shem ločeno.
THE ALLEGED GUARANTEE SCHEME (93-079)
DOMNEVNA POROŠTVENA SHEMA (93-079)
The Commission will first assess whether these measures constitute an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Najprej bo Komisija ocenila, ali ti ukrepi pomenijo shemo pomoči v smislu člena 1(b) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
The national legal basis for the guarantee scheme is the provincial Act on provincial guarantees for industry and certain other enterprise sectors (ÅFS 1966:14) [32], which was passed in 1966, and amended by ÅFS 1979:84, 1982:37, 1988:53, 1992:9, 1994:29, 1996:56 and 2002:23.
Nacionalna pravna podlaga za poroštveno shemo je deželni zakon o deželnih poroštvih za sektor industrije in nekaterih drugih podjetij (ÅFS 1966:14) [32], ki je bil sprejet leta 1966 ter spremenjen z ÅFS 1979:84, 1982:37, 1988:53, 1992:9, 1994:29, 1996:56 in 2002:23.
As regards the budget or ‘envelope’, at the time of Finland’s accession to the EC, the 1966 provincial Act stipulated that ‘the amount of outstanding guarantees or loans [33] may not at any given time exceed FIM 20000000’.
Deželni zakon iz leta 1966 je glede proračuna ali „sredstev“ v času pristopa Finske k ES določal, da „znesek neodplačanih poroštev ali posojil [33] nikoli ne sme presegati 20000000 FIM“.
On the other hand, the measure in question does not provide for any temporal limitation to their application.
Po drugi strani zadevni ukrep ne predvideva časovne omejitve uporabe.
In the light of the above and of the provisions of the national act, the measures would prima facie appear to meet the definition of an aid scheme, as it seems that the act allows aid which is not linked to a specific project to be awarded to one or several undertakings for an indefinite period of time.
Z vidika zgoraj navedenega in določb nacionalnega zakona se na prvi pogled zdi, da ukrepi ustrezajo opredelitvi sheme pomoči in da zakon dovoljuje, da se enemu ali več podjetjem za nedoločen čas dodeli pomoč, ki ni povezana z določenim projektom.
The alleged scheme in question was put in place on 1 September 1982, i.e. well before 1 January 1994, and was communicated to the ESA.
Zadevna domnevna shema je bila vzpostavljena 1. septembra 1982, t.j. precej pred 1. januarjem 1994, in je bila sporočena Nadzornemu organu Efte.