natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
in the case of the processing and marketing of agricultural products: EUR 3000 per three-year period, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, or EUR 200000 per period of three fiscal years if, at the time of granting it was in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006.
v primeru predelave in trženja kmetijskih proizvodov: 3000 EUR v treh letih, če so bile v času dodelitve v skladu z določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 1860/2004, ali 200000 EUR v obdobju treh proračunskih let, če so bile v času dodelitve v skladu z določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 1998/2006.
The Commission recalls, however, that firms in difficulty are not eligible for the provisions of Regulations (EC) No 1998/2006 and (EC) No 1535/2007.
Komisija poudarja, da so podjetja v težavah izvzeta iz določb uredb (ES) št. 1998/2006 in (ES) št. 1535/2007.
In sectors other than the agricultural sector (that is to say, in this case, the different sectors mentioned in this Decision, with the exception of the shipping sector, which will be addressed in recitals 80 and 81 below [28]), the de minimis rule set out in the Commission’s Communication of 20 May 1992 — Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises [29] (hereinafter, ‘the 1992 Guidelines’) was applicable at the time when the aid measures in question were granted.
V drugih sektorjih, razen v kmetijstvu (z drugimi besedami, v tem konkretnem primeru, različnih sektorjih, ki jih zajema ta sklep, razen v ladjedelniškem sektorju, ki je obravnavan v uvodnih izjavah 80 in 81 spodaj [28]), je pravilo de minimis, ki je omenjeno v Sporočilu Komisije z dne 20. maja 1992 – Smernice Skupnosti o pomoči malim in srednje velikim podjetjem [29] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice iz leta 1992), veljalo v času dodelitve takšnih pomoči.
The Communication stipulated that ‘one-off payments of aid of up to ECU 50000, in respect of a given type of expenditure and schemes under which the amount of aid a given firm may receive in respect of a given type of expenditure over a three-year period is limited to that figure, will no longer be considered notifiable under Article 93(3) [of the EC Treaty] [30], provided that it is an express condition of the award or scheme that any further aid the same firm may receive in respect of the same type of expenditure from other sources or under other schemes does not take the total aid the firm receives above the ECU 50000 limit.’ This rule was subsequently amended in the 1996 Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid [31] (hereinafter ‘the 1996 Notice’), which set the amount of de minimis aid at ECU 100000 for the same period, and thereafter in Regulation (EC) No 69/2001, which set the amount at EUR 100000 for the same period.
To Sporočilo je navajalo, da „[…] enkratne dodelitve pomoči za zneske do 50000 ECU, ki zadevajo določeno kategorijo izdatkov in programe pomoči, na podlagi katerih se znesek pomoči, ki ga lahko dobi konkretno podjetje za določeno kategorijo izdatkov v treh letih, omeji na ta znesek, medtem ko se ne bo štelo, da je treba sporočiti pomoči na podlagi člena 93(3) [Pogodbe ES] [30], če je pri dodeljevanju pomoči ali izvajanju sheme izpolnjen jasen pogoj, da katera koli nadaljnja pomoč istemu podjetju za isto kategorijo izdatkov iz drugih virov financiranja ali iz drugih sistemov pomoči ne bo kumulativno presegala navedenega zneska v višini 50000 ECU ...“. To pravilo se je nato na novo opredelilo v Obvestilu Komisije o pomoči de minimis leta 1996 [31] (v nadaljevanjem besedilu: obvestilo izleta 1996), ki je določilo znesek pomoči de minimis v višini 100000 ECU za isto obdobje, nato pa v Uredbi (ES) št. 69/2001, ki je določila enak znesek 100000 EUR za isto obdobje.
On account of the expiry dates for the schemes analysed (the last being 31 December 2005) and the non-retroactive applicability of the regulations in respect of the sectors mentioned under recital 78, the Commission will not consider as State aid aid granted under the Decisions analysed which does not exceed the following amounts per beneficiary:
Upoštevajoč datume prenehanja veljavnosti obravnavanih shem (zadnji je 31. december 2005) in odsotnost retroaktivnosti pri uporabi uredb, ki se nanašajo na sektorje iz uvodne izjave 78, Komisija ne bo upoštevala kot državnih tistih pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene na podlagi pregledanih ministrskih sklepov in ki ne presegajo na upravičenca:
ECU 50000 per three-year period between 19 August 1992 and 5 March 1996, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the provisions of the 1992 Guidelines;
50000 ECU za obdobje treh let v obdobju od 19. avgusta 1992 do 5. marca 1996, če so bile v času dodelitve v skladu z ustreznimi določbami iz smernic iz leta 1992;
ECU/EUR 100000 per three-year period between 6 March 1996 and 1 February 2001, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 1996 Notice;
100000 ECU/EUR za obdobje treh let v obdobju od 6. marca 1996 do 1. februarja 2001, če so bile v času dodelitve v skladu z ustreznimi določbami iz obvestila iz leta 1996;
EUR 100000 per three-year period between 2 February 2001 and 31 December 2005, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.
100000 EUR za obdobje treh let v obdobju od 2. februarja 2001 do 31. decembra 2005, če so bile v času dodelitve v skladu z ustreznimi določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 69/2001.
Lastly, in the shipbuilding sector, the de minimis rule has only been applicable since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.
Poleg tega se v sektorju ladjedelništva pravilo de minimis uporablja šele po začetku veljavnosti Uredbe (ES) št. 69/2001.
Consequently, the Commission will not consider as State aid aid granted under the Ministerial Decisions analysed which do not exceed EUR 100000 per beneficiary and per three-year period over the period 2 February 2001-30 June 2007, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.
Zato Komisija ne bo upoštevala kot državno tisto pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena v okviru sklepov Ministrskega sveta, ki so bili preverjeni, in ki ne presega 100000 EUR na upravičenca za obdobje treh let v obdobju od 2. februarja 2001 do 30. junija 2007, če je bila v času dodelitve v skladu z ustreznimi določbami Uredbe (ES) št. 69/2001.
The other arguments put forward by the Greek authorities to justify the absence of State aid cannot be accepted by the Commission for the following reasons, valid in every case in which those arguments were cited:
Komisija ne more sprejeti argumentov, ki so jih predstavile grški organi oblasti, da upravičijo odsotnost elementov državne pomoči, zaradi naslednjih razlogov, ki veljajo za vse primere, v zvezi s katerimi so bili ti argumenti predstavljeni:
by claiming that the loan consolidation does not result in high costs for the public authorities (cf. recitals 57(a) and 58(a) in particular), the Greek authorities recognise that the operation imposes a cost on the State, or in other words uses State resources;
grški organi, ki poudarjajo, da konsolidacija posojil ne vključuje visokih stroškov za javne organe (glej zlasti uvodno izjavo 57(a) in uvodno izjavo 58(a)), s tem priznavajo, da ta praksa povzroča strošek za državo, z drugimi besedami, porablja javnih sredstev;
until the entry into force of the Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees [32] (hereinafter ‘the 2000 Notice’), all guarantees were considered to include an element of State aid (cf. recital 105(a)); the 2000 Notice states that a guarantee may be deemed not to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty where the beneficiaries are not borrowers in financial difficulty and would in principle be able to obtain a loan on market conditions from the financial markets without any intervention by the State, the guarantee is linked to a specific financial transaction, is for a fixed maximum amount, does not cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan or other financial obligation (except for bonds and similar instruments) and is not open-ended, the terms of the scheme are based on a realistic assessment of the risk so that the premiums paid by the beneficiary enterprises make it, in all probability, self-financing, the scheme provides for the terms on which future guarantees are granted and the overall financing of the scheme to be reviewed at least once a year, and the premiums cover both the normal risks associated with granting the guarantee and the administrative costs of the scheme, including, where the State provides the initial capital for the start-up of the scheme, a normal return on that capital; however, no documentation has been submitted by the Greek authorities demonstrating the applicability of this scenario in this case;
do začetka uporabe Obvestilo Komisije o uporabi členov 87 in 88 pogodbe ES za državno pomoč v obliki poroštev [32] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo iz leta 2000) je bilo mišljeno, da vsa jamstva vsebujejo nekatere elemente državne pomoči (glej uvodno izjavo 105(a)). V skladu z objavo obvestila iz leta 2000 se lahko šteje, da jamstvo ne vključuje državnih pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, če upravičenci niso posojilojemalci, ki se soočajo s finančnimi težavami in bi načeloma lahko dobili posojilo iz finančnega trga brez kakršnega koli posredovanja države, če so jamstva povezana s konkretno finančno transakcijo, zadevajo določen najvišji znesek, ne pokrivajo več kot 80 % vsakega neodplačanega posojila ali drugih finančnih obveznosti (razen za obveznice ali podobne instrumente) in niso odprtega tipa, pogoji sheme pa temeljijo na realni oceni tveganja, tako da zavarovalne premije, ki jih upravičenci plačajo, verjetno dovoljujejo samofinanciranje, če shema določa pogoje, pod katerimi se dodeljujejo prihodnja jamstva, in se zagotavlja pregled celotne finančne sheme vsaj enkrat na leto, če premije pokrivajo tako običajna tveganja, povezana z dodelitvijo jamstva in administrativnimi stroški sheme, kakor tudi običajen donos kapitala, v primeru ko država zagotovi začetni kapital za zagon sheme; vendar pa grški organi niso predložili nobenega dokaza, ki bi potrjeval izpolnjevanje zgoraj navedenih pogojev;
with regard to competition, the granting of grace periods (cf. recitals 57(e) and 58(f)) does not constitute simply a restructuring of repayment over time, since it reduces the repayment burden at a specific time and therefore provides temporary financial relief for the beneficiary;
z vidika konkurence odobritev obdobij odloga (glej uvodno izjavo 57(e) in uvodno izjavo 58(e)) ni le enostavno prestrukturiranje plačila, saj zmanjšuje stroške vračila v določenem času in s tem začasno olajša finančno stanje dolžnika;
even if, as the Greek authorities state, the account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75 used to finance interest-rate reductions (cf. recitals 57(d), 58(e) and 59(f)) does not form part of the budget of the Greek State, it nevertheless constitutes a State resource [33];
račun, odprt v skladu z zakonom št. 128/75, ki se uporablja za financiranje zmanjšanj obresti za posojila (glej uvodno izjavo 57(d), uvodno izjavo 58(e) in uvodno izjavo 59(f)), tudi če ni vključen v grški državni proračun, kot navajajo grški organi oblasti, ostaja država vir [33];
the granting of an interest-rate reduction in respect of loans confers an advantage on the beneficiary firms, even if interest rates are high in the country in question;
dodelitev zmanjšanja obresti za posojila zagotavlja prednost upravičenim podjetjem, tudi če so obrestne mere v državi visoke;
the release of securities provided for the purposes of obtaining the guarantee (cf. recital 57(g)), while it may not involve any direct expenditure for the Greek State in accordance with Ministerial Decision No 2071670/11297, comprises an element of aid since, in providing this possibility, the State not only offers beneficiary firms the opportunity to obtain capital, but also waives one of the prerequisites for the obtention of its guarantee;
sprostitev garancij, ki so bile dodeljene za prejem jamstev (glej uvodno izjavo 57(g)), čeprav v skladu s sklepom Ministrskega sveta št. 2071670/11297 ne pomenijo neposrednih stroškov za grške organe oblasti, vsebuje element pomoči, ker v predvidevanju te možnosti država upravičencem ne ponuja le priložnosti, da obdržijo ta sredstva, ampak tudi odpravlja plačilo, ki je potrebno za pridobitev jamstva;
the fact that interest rates were high in Greece (cf. recital 57(d)) does not imply the absence of aid, in the sense that, irrespective of the economic context in which the restructuring with reductions was carried out, the granting of the aid in itself had the effect of relieving the beneficiaries of a burden which they would normally have had to bear in the exercise of their activity.
dejstvo, da so bile obrestne mere v Grčiji visoke (glej uvodno izjavo 57(d)), ne pomeni odsotnost pomoči v smislu, da ne glede na gospodarske razmere, v katerih so bile sprejeta prestrukturiranja z zmanjšanji, je preprosto dejstvo njihovih dodelitev enakovredno razbremenitvi bremena, ki bi mu običajno bili izpostavljeni prejemniki pri svojem poslovanju.
In the light of all these elements, the Commission can only conclude that aid measures which do not fall within the scope of and comply with the prerequisites for the granting of de minimis aid defined under recitals 68 to 81 do indeed fall within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Ob upoštevanju vseh teh dejavnikov je Komisija sklenila, da pomoči, ki niso v mejah in v skladu s pogoji za dodelitev pomoči de minimis, ki so določene v uvodnih izjavah od 68 do 81, dejansko spadajo na področje uporabe člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
However, in the situations provided for in Article 107(2) and (3) of the Treaty, certain types of aid may, by way of derogation, be deemed compatible with the internal market.
Vendar pa se v primerih iz člena 107(2) in (3) Pogodbe nekatere vrste pomoči izjemoma lahko štejejo kot združljive z notranjim trgom.
In the case under consideration, it is necessary to examine, in the context of each procedure opened, which exemption might apply in each of the sectors concerned (whilst differentiating between the agricultural and other sectors).
V tem primeru je treba v okviru vseh začetih postopkov preučiti, katere izjeme se lahko uporabljajo za vsak sektor (pri čemer se razlikuje med kmetijskim in drugimi sektorji).
AID TO THE PREFECTURES OF KASTORIA AND EVIA, ADDRESSED WHEN THE FIRST PROCEDURE WAS OPENED
1 POMOČ, KI ZADEVA REGIJI KASTORIA IN EUBOIA, NA KATERO SE NANAŠA PRVI POSTOPEK
Agricultural sector
Kmetijski sektor
In view of the nature of the aid granted, the only exemption which may be relied on to demonstrate its compatibility with the internal market is that provided for in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty pursuant to which aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered to be compatible with the common market.
Glede na naravo dodeljene pomoči je edino odstopanje, ki se lahko uporabi za utemeljitev združljivosti pomoči z notranjim trgom, odstopanje iz člena 107(3)(c) Pogodbe, v skladu s katerim se lahko šteje, da so s skupnim trgom združljive pomoči za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
Since the aid in question is non-notified aid, it is essential in order for this exemption to apply that it complies with the rules on State aid in place at the time the aid was granted.
Ker so to plačila nepriglašene pomoči, morajo biti, da se to odstopanje uporabi, v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči, ki veljajo v času dodelitve.
One of the reasons on which the Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty was based is that the aid was apparently intended for firms in difficulty.
Eden od razlogov za to, da je Komisija sprožila postopek v skladu s členom 108(2) Pogodbe, je ta, da je menila, da je pomoč namenjena podjetjem v težavah.
In this regard, the Greek authorities indicated in their letter of 9 August 2004 that the ‘viability after restructuring’ criterion had absolutely no bearing on the overall assessment of the firm’s viability carried out by the credit institution, since the decision regarding eligibility for restructuring was made immediately after the viability study was carried out.
V zvezi s tem so grški organi v svojem dopisu z dne 9. avgusta 2004 navedli, da merilo „rentabilnosti po prestrukturiranju“ sploh ni vplivalo na celovito oceno rentabilnosti podjetja s strani kreditne ustanove, saj se je o prestrukturiranju odločalo takoj po študiji o rentabilnosti podjetja.
This argument was reiterated in the letters of 15 and 29 March 2011 (see recital 61).
Ta argument so ponovili v dopisih z dne 15. in 29. marca 2011 (glej uvodno izjavo 61).
The Commission considers that this explanation does not enable it to exclude the possibility that aid was granted to firms in difficulty, because even if the decision regarding eligibility for restructuring was made immediately after the viability study had been carried out as the Greek authorities claim, the study itself focused on the viability prospects of the beneficiaries post-restructuring.
Komisija ocenjuje, da ta razlaga ne upravičuje ugotovitve, da pomoči niso bile dodeljene podjetjem v težavah, kajti kljub temu, da naj bi se, kot zagotavljajo grške oblasti, o izpolnjevanju pogojev odločalo takoj po študiji rentabilnosti, je bila sama študija osredotočena na možnosti rentabilnosti upravičencev, potem ko bi bila izvedeno prestrukturiranje.
This implies that it is possible that applicants could have been in difficulty at the time of the study but may nevertheless have been admitted to the scheme because the institution carrying out the study predicted a potential return to viability after debt restructuring (the Commission had also highlighted this evidence in point 23 of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty because reference was made in the preamble to Ministerial Decision No 2045909/7931/0025 to the need to support firms experiencing cash-flow problems in the Prefectures of Kastoria and Evia).
To pomeni, da so lahko bili upravičenci v času študije podjetja v težavah, ampak kljub temu upravičeni do sheme pomoči, saj je organizacija, ki je opravljala študije, videla možnosti ponovne vzpostavitve rentabilnosti po prestrukturiranju dolga (Komisija je tudi poudarila ta vidik v uvodni izjavi 23 sklepa o začetku postopka v skladu s členom 108(2) Pogodbe, pri čemer se je sklicevala na to, da je v preambuli ministrskega sklepa št. 2045909/7931/0025 navedeno, da je treba pomagati podjetjem v regijah Kastoria in Euboia z likvidnostnimi težavami).
Rules applicable to rescue and restructuring aid to firms in difficulty during the period in question
Pravila o reševanju in prestrukturiranju podjetij v težavah v obravnavanem obdobju
I. From 1 October 1993 to 31 December 1997
I. Med 1. oktobrom 1993 in 31. decembrom 1997
Aid to firms in difficulty is subject to a number of rules.
Pomoč podjetjem v težavah urejajo določena pravila.
At the time of entry into force of Ministerial Decision No 69836/B1461, it was Commission policy to consider this type of aid in the agricultural sector to be operating aid which could be considered compatible with the internal market only if the following three conditions were satisfied:
Ob začetku veljavnosti ministrskega sklepa št. 69836/B1461 je Komisija sledila svoji politiki, da so bile na področju kmetijstva pomoči namenjene za tekoče poslovanje in se niso mogle razglasiti za združljive z notranjim trgom, razen če so izpolnjevale naslednje tri pogoje:
such aid had to concern financial charges on loans taken out to finance investments that had already been made;
te pomoči so morale zadevati finančna bremena sklenjenih posojil za financiranje že izvedenih investicij;
the overall grant equivalent of any aid granted when the loan was taken out and the aid in question could not exceed the percentage generally authorised by the Commission, i.e.:
skupni ekvivalent dotacije pomoči, ki so lahko bile dodeljene v času sklenitve posojil in omenjenih pomoči, ne bi mogel presegati splošne stopnje, ki jo odobri Komisija, in sicer:
for investments in primary agricultural production: 35 % or 75 % in less-favoured areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC;
za naložbe na ravni primarne kmetijske proizvodnje: 35 % ali 75 % na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi v smislu Direktive 75/268/EGS;
for investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products: 55 % or 75 % in Objective 1 regions for projects complying with the sectoral programmes or one of the objectives of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 [34] and 35 % (or 50 % in Objective 1 regions) for other projects not excluded on the basis of the selection criteria under point 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 90/342/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products [35] (or Commission Decision 94/173/EC [36] which replaced it);
za naložbe v smislu predelave ali trženja kmetijskih proizvodov: 55 % ali 75 % v regijah Cilja 1, za projekte, ki so v skladu s sektorskimi programi ali enim od ciljev iz člena 1 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 866/90 [34] in 35 % (ali 50 % v območjih cilja 1) za druge projekte, v obsegu, ki ni izvzet iz meril za izbor, navedenih v točki 2 Priloge k Sklepu Komisije 90/342/EGS z dne 7. junija 1990 o vzpostavitvi izbirnih meril, ki se morajo upoštevati za naložbe za izboljšanje pogojev predelave in trženja kmetijskih in gozdarskih proizvodov [35] (ali Sklepa 94/173/EGS [36], ki ga je nadomestil) ;
the aid in question could be paid only following changes in the rates for the new loans taken out, so as to take account of variations in the interest rates (in such cases, the amount of aid had to be less than or equal to the difference in interest rates on the new loans) or had to concern agricultural holdings providing guarantees of viability, particularly in the event that the financial burdens resulting from the existing loans were such as to threaten the viability of the holdings or put them at risk of bankruptcy.
te pomoči bi morale slediti ukrepu prilagoditev obrestnih mer za nova posojila, odobrenih ob upoštevanju nihanja obrestnih mer (znesek pomoči bi moral biti manjši ali enak razliki obrestnih mer za nova posojila) ali bi morale biti namenjene kmetijskim gospodarstvom, ki zagotavljajo jamstva rentabilnosti, zlasti če je finančno breme obstoječih posojil tako, da je sposobnost preživetja kmetijskih gospodarstev tvegana ali so v nevarnosti stečaja.
In their letter of 9 August 2004, the Greek authorities argued that Decision No 69836/B1451 and its subsequent amendments concerned processing firms in general and made no specific reference to agricultural processing firms covered by Regulations (EEC) No 866/90, (EC) No 951/97 and (EC) No 1257/1999, that all of Greece is an Objective 1 region, and that the firms which had invested and had therefore received aid from the Ministry of Rural Development and Food were unable to benefit from debt restructuring as this had not been provided for.
V svojem dopisu z dne 9. avgusta 2004 grški organi oblasti navajajo, da sklep št. 69836/B1451 oz. njegove spremembe ni povezan s predelovalnimi podjetji na splošno in se posebej ne nanaša na predelovalna podjetja v kmetijskem sektorju, ki so bila zajeta v Uredbah (EGS) št. 866/90, (ES) št. 951/97 in (ES) št. 1257/99; da je bila celotna država zajeta v Cilj 1 in da ni bilo prestrukturiranja dolgov podjetij, ki so realizirala naložbe in ki so prejela pomoč od ministrstva za razvoj podeželja in prehrano, ker to ni bilo predvideno.