natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the restructuring plan comprised all the elements necessary to restore PZL Dębica’s viability and whether a restructuring period of 12 years were not too long in view of point 35 of the Community Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [4] (‘the R&R Guidelines’).
Poleg tega je Komisija izrazila dvome o tem, ali je načrt prestrukturiranja vseboval vse elemente, potrebne za ponovno vzpostavitev uspešnega poslovanja PZL Dębica, in ali je 12-letno obdobje prestrukturiranja predolgo glede na točko 35 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [4] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje).
In view of the aid already awarded under the first plan (recitals (12)a) and (12)b)), the Commission also questioned the company’s eligibility for new restructuring aid (see recital (15)) in the light of the one-time-last-time principle (laid down in Section 3.3 of the R&R Guidelines).
Komisija je v zvezi s pomočjo, ki je bila že dodeljena na podlagi prvega načrta (uvodni izjavi 12(a) in 12(b)), izrazila pomisleke tudi glede upravičenosti podjetja do nove pomoči za prestrukturiranje (glej uvodno izjavo 15) glede na načelo enkratne pomoči (določeno v oddelku 3.3 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje).
In the opening decision the Commission stated that for the measures which Poland had classified as pre-accession measures (recitals (16)a) to (16)c)) no legally binding document had been presented to it by which the competent national authorities had undertaken to grant aid.
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka navedla, da za ukrepe, ki jih je Poljska opredelila kot predpristopne ukrepe (uvodne izjave 16(a) do 16(c)), ni prejela nobenega pravno zavezujočega dokumenta, s katerim so se pristojni nacionalni organi zavezali, da bodo dodelili pomoč.
As regards the actual amount of the aid already awarded to the company, the Commission also expressed its doubts as to whether the de minimis aid awarded in 2006 could be considered as such, as it had awarded it to a company in difficulty, which, according to Article 1(1)(h) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid [5], did not qualify for such aid.
V zvezi z dejanskim zneskom pomoči, ki je bil že dodeljen podjetju, je Komisija izrazila dvome glede tega, ali se lahko pomoč de minimis, ki je bila dodeljena leta 2006, res obravnava kot taka, saj se je dodelila podjetju v težavah, ki glede na člen 1(1)(h) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1998/2006 z dne 15. decembra 2006 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe pri pomoči de minimis [5] ni bilo upravičeno do takšne pomoči.
Lastly, the Commission doubted that the proposed compensatory measures could be accepted as they were associated with the restoration of the company’s long-term viability and as such could not be considered as compensatory measures.
Nazadnje je Komisija dvomila, da bi lahko bili predlagani izravnalni ukrepi sprejeti, saj so bili povezani s ponovno vzpostavitvijo dolgoročnega uspešnega poslovanja podjetja in jih kot take ni bilo mogoče obravnavati kot izravnalne ukrepe.
The Commission also stated that Poland had not demonstrated that the abandoned activities were not loss-making.
Komisija je navedla tudi, da Poljska ni dokazala, da opuščene dejavnosti niso ustvarjale izgub.
COMMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATE
PRIPOMBE DRŽAVE ČLANICE
This chapter contains only the comments of the Polish authorities relating to the measures which were not withdrawn in the course of the investigation.
To poglavje vsebuje le pripombe pojskih organov glede ukrepov, ki med preiskavo niso bili umaknjeni.
The length of restructuring
Trajanje prestrukturiranja
As regards the length of the restructuring process, the Polish authorities stated that both restructuring plans should be treated as a single plan as the failure of the first plan was not the fault of the company and the second restructuring plan essentially continued the incomplete financial restructuring of the first plan.
Poljski organi so v zvezi s trajanjem procesa prestrukturiranja navedli, da je treba oba načrta prestrukturiranja obravnavati kot en sam načrt, saj podjetje ni odgovorno za neuspešno izvedbo prvega načrta, drugi načrt prestrukturiranja pa v bistvu nadaljuje nedokončano finančno prestrukturiranje iz prvega načrta.
One-time-last-time principle
Načelo enkratne pomoči
Poland withdrew the aid measures listed under recitals (15)a) and (15)b) as, under the opening decision, granting these measures could potentially be incompatible with the one-time-last-time principle.
Poljska je umaknila ukrepe pomoči iz uvodnih izjav 15(a) in 15(b), saj bi lahko bila dodelitev teh ukrepov v skladu s sklepom o začetku postopka nezdružljiva z načelom enkratne pomoči.
The Polish authorities explained that the withdrawal was a consequence of the fact that PZL Dębica had lost large company status.
Poljski organi so pojasnili, da so bili ukrepi umaknjeni zaradi dejstva, da je podjetje PZL Dębica izgubilo status velikega podjetja.
As a company with fewer than 250 employees, PZL Dębica no longer qualified for financing from the Industrial Development Agency, which provides financing for large companies only.
Kot podjetje z manj kot 250 zaposlenimi PZL Dębica ni bilo več upravičeno do finančnih sredstev Agencije za industrijski razvoj, ki financiranje zagotavlja le velikim podjetjem.
However, the deferral of the debt to the Social Security Office and write-off of debt to the Office of the Marshall were not withdrawn.
Toda odlog dolga uradu za socialno varnost in odpis dolga maršalovemu uradu nista bila umaknjena.
Poland’s arguments concerning these measures are set out below.
Utemeljitve Poljske glede teh ukrepov so navedene spodaj.
Aid promised before accession
Pomoč, ki je bila obljubljena pred pristopom
As regards the three measures classified in the opening decision as aid promised before accession to the EU (recitals (16)a) to (16)c) of this Decision), Poland provided documentary evidence to support its claim that the aid was awarded prior to accession and therefore did not constitute new aid.
V zvezi s tremi ukrepi, ki so v sklepu o začetku postopka opredeljeni kot pomoč, obljubljena pred pristopom k EU (uvodne izjave 16(a) do 16(c) tega sklepa), je Poljska predložila dokumentarna dokazila v podporo svoji trditvi, da je bila pomoč dodeljena pred pristopom in zato ni bila nova pomoč.
Debt to Dębica City Council
Dolg mestnemu svetu Dębice
With regard to the debt to Dębica City Council, Poland submitted a notarial deed confirming that the debt had been settled on 31 May 2004 by way of a transfer of property to Dębica City Council.
Poljska je v zvezi z dolgom mestnemu svetu Dębice predložila notarsko listino, ki potrjuje, da je bil dolg poravnan 31. maja 2004 s prenosom lastnine na mestni svet.
The deed referred to the settlement of principal of PLN 1116788,60 and interest of PLN 592669,80 [6].
Listina se je nanašala na poravnavo glavnice v višini 1116788,60 PLN in obresti v višini 592669,80 PLN [6].
Poland also explained that this measure had not been included in the first restructuring plan because the aid application submitted by PZL Dębica to Dębica City Council had been rejected.
Poljska je tudi pojasnila, da ta ukrep ni bil vključen v prvi načrt prestrukturiranja, ker je bil zahtevek za pomoč, ki ga je podjetje PZL Dębica predložilo mestnemu svetu Dębice, zavrnjen.
Debt to the Tax Office
Dolg davčnemu uradu
With regard to the debt to the Tax Office of PLN 914552,15, Poland submitted a decision dated 20 October 2003 on restructuring conditions signed by the Head of the local Tax Office.
Poljska je v zvezi z dolgom davčnemu uradu v višini 914552,15 PLN predložila sklep z dne 20. oktobra 2003 o pogojih za prestrukturiranje, ki ga je podpisal vodja lokalnega davčnega urada.
According to that decision PLN 636729,85, plus interest of PLN 277822,30, was to be written off.
V skladu z navedenim sklepom naj bi bil znesek v višini 636729,85 PLN odpisan skupaj z obrestmi v višini 277822,30 PLN.
Poland explained that the statement in the opening decision that this aid had been promised before accession but was not awarded was incorrect for a number of reasons.
Poljska je pojasnila, da je trditev v sklepu o začetku postopka, da je bila ta pomoč obljubljena pred pristopom, toda ni bila dodeljena, napačna zaradi več razlogov.
First, Poland explained the aid award mechanism as provided for by the Restructuring of Businesses’ Public-Law Liabilities Act of 30 August 2002 [7] (‘the 2002 Act’).
Prvič, Poljska je pojasnila mehanizem dodeljevanja pomoči, kot je določeno v zakonu o javnopravnih obveznostih zaradi prestrukturiranja podjetij z dne 30. avgusta 2002 [7] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zakon iz leta 2002).
Under that Act, further to an application from a company in difficulty, an awarding authority (e.g. the Tax Office) can issue a decision on the restructuring conditions (‘restructuring decision’).
V skladu z navedenim zakonom lahko organ, pristojen za dodelitev (npr. davčni urad), po predložitvi zahtevka podjetja v težavah izda sklep o pogojih za prestrukturiranje (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sklep o prestrukturiranju).
This decision confers on the beneficiary the right to receive aid.
Ta sklep upravičencu dodeli pravico do prejemanja pomoči.
The actual payment or write-off (depending on the measure) takes place on the basis of an implementing decision in which the awarding authority acknowledges that restructuring has been completed (‘implementing decision’).
Dejansko plačilo ali odpis (odvisno od vrste ukrepa) se izvrši na podlagi izvedbenega sklepa, v katerem organ, pristojen za dodelitev, potrdi, da je prestrukturiranje zaključeno (v nadaljnjem besedilu: izvedbeni sklep).
According to the Polish authorities, this implementing decision serves to confirm that the beneficiary (i) has submitted an updated restructuring programme together with information on the company’s financial condition, (ii) has paid a restructuring fee and (iii) has not accumulated new debts vis-à-vis the awarding authority.
Po navedbah poljskih organov ta izvedbeni sklep potrjuje, da je upravičenec (i) predložil dopolnjen program prestrukturiranja skupaj z informacijami o finančnem stanju podjetja, (ii) plačal pristojbino za prestrukturiranje in (iii) ni nakopičil novih dolgov do organa, pristojnega za dodelitev.
The implementing decision is merely an administrative document which confirms that the terms of the restructuring decision have been complied with.
Izvedbeni sklep je zgolj upravni dokument, ki potrjuje, da so pogoji iz sklepa o prestrukturiranju izpolnjeni.
Under the 2002 Act, the awarding authority checks compliance with the restructuring conditions not earlier than 15 months after the restructuring decision is handed down.
V skladu z zakonom iz leta 2002 organ, pristojen za dodelitev, izpolnjevanje pogojev za prestrukturiranje preveri najmanj 15 mesecev po izdaji sklepa o prestrukturiranju.
Second, Poland informed the Commission that the Tax Office had not issued an implementing decision for PZL Dębica.
Drugič, Poljska je Komisijo obvestila, da davčni urad ni izdal izvedbenega sklepa za PZL Dębica.
Poland has submitted a declaration by the Head of the Tax Office in question confirming that was the case for PZL Dębica.
Poljska je predložila izjavo vodje zadevnega davčnega urada, ki potrjuje, da se je to zgodilo v primeru podjetja PZL Dębica.
Third, Poland indicated that the decision of the Tax Office of 20 October 2003 had conferred the right to the write-off on PZL Dębica.
Tretjič, Poljska je navedla, da je bila v sklepu davčnega urada z dne 20. oktobra 2003 podjetju PZL Dębica dodeljena pravica do odpisa.
Poland referred to the Commission decision of 6 November 2008 concerning the Gdynia shipyard [8] in support of its claim that the domestic legal order must be applied to determine whether the document in question conferred the right to aid.
Poljska se je sklicevala na odločbo Komisije z dne 6. novembra 2008 v zvezi z ladjedelnico Gdynia [8] v podporo svoji trditvi, da je treba za ugotovitev, ali je zadevni dokument dodelil pravico do pomoči, uporabiti nacionalni pravni red.
Poland also referred to the legitimate expectations of the aid recipients and indicated that failure by the awarding authority to issue an implementing decision could be challenged by PZL Dębica in court.
Poljska se je sklicevala tudi na legitimna pričakovanja prejemnikov pomoči in navedla, da bi lahko podjetje PZL Dębica na sodišču izpodbijalo neizdajo izvedbenega sklepa organa, pristojnega za dodelitev.
In that connection, Poland referred to rulings by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court which confirmed that restructuring decisions placed an obligation on the state and that implementing decisions could not affect that obligation as they were mandatory i.e. not subject to administrative discretion [9].
Poljska se je v zvezi s tem sklicevala na odločbe vrhovnega sodišča in vrhovnega upravnega sodišča, ki potrjujejo, da sklepi o prestrukturiranju državi nalagajo obveznost in da izvedbeni sklepi ne morejo vplivati na navedeno obveznost, saj so obvezni, tj. niso odvisni od upravne presoje [9].
In addition, Poland submitted a declaration by the Head of the local Tax Office confirming that PZL Dębica fulfilled the necessary legal requirements for the implementing decision (mentioned in recital (30)) to be issued, but stating that the Tax Office was awaiting the outcome of the Commission’s investigation.
Poleg tega je Poljska predložila izjavo vodje lokalnega davčnega urada, ki potrjuje, da je podjetje PZL Dębica izpolnilo potrebne zakonske zahteve za izdajo izvedbenega sklepa (navedenega v uvodni izjavi 30), in navaja, da je davčni urad kljub temu čakal na rezultate preiskave Komisije.
The measure referred to in recital (16)c) is dealt with under Title 5 below - Deferral of debt to the Social Security Office.
Ukrep iz uvodne izjave 16(c) je obravnavan pod naslovom 5 spodaj – Odlog dolga uradu za socialno varnost.
The Polish authorities informed the Commission that all the de minims measures had been awarded to the company in 2006 when Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid was in force [10] (Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 did not enter into force until 1 January 2007); under Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 it was not prohibited to award de minimis aid to companies in financial difficulty.
Poljski organi so Komisijo obvestili, da so bili vsi ukrepi de minimis podjetju dodeljeni leta 2006, ko je veljala Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 69/2001 z dne 12. januarja 2001 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri de minimis pomoči [10] (Uredba (ES) št. 1998/2006 je začela veljati šele 1. januarja 2007); Uredba (ES) št. 69/2001 ni prepovedovala dodelitve pomoči de minimis podjetjem v finančnih težavah.
Referring to the doubts raised by the Commission concerning the calculation mechanism, the Polish authorities explained the formula used to calculate the aid elements indicated in the Polish Regulation of 11 August 2004 [11].
V zvezi z dvomi Komisije glede mehanizma izračuna so poljski organi pojasnili formulo, ki so jo uporabili za izračun elementov pomoči in je navedena v poljski uredbi z dne 11. avgusta 2004 [11]. Enačba upošteva razliko med referenčno obrestno mero in obrestno mero, ki je bila uporabljena za izračun zamudnih obresti.
The formula takes into account the difference between the reference rate and the rate used to calculate the late payment charge An updated calculation of the de minimis aid element was provided (see Table 2).
Posodobljen izračun elementa pomoči de minimis je bil zagotovljen (glej preglednico 2).
De minimis aid – according to Poland
Pomoč de minimis – glede na navedbe Poljske
Awarding authority
Organ, pristojen za dodelitev
Type of measure and decision date
Vrsta ukrepa in datum sklepa
Mayor of Dębica
Župan mesta Dębica
Deferral decision of 7.4.2006
Sklep o odlogu z dne 7. 4. 2006
Head of Dębica Tax Office
Vodja davčnega urada Dębice
Deferral decision of 8.9.2006
Sklep o odlogu z dne 8. 9. 2006
Write-off decision of 5.10.2006
Sklep o odpisu z dne 5. 10. 2006
Deferral decision of 5.10.2006
Sklep o odlogu z dne 5. 10. 2006
72 days
72 dni
Poland informed the Commission that only the Tax Office had provided security for the purposes of the deferral.
Poljska je Komisijo obvestila, da je samo davčni urad zagotovil jamstvo za odlog.
This covered 100 % of the nominal value of the deferral.
Jamstvo je krilo 100 % nominalne vrednosti odloženega zneska.
Poland also pointed out that even if 600 base points were added to the rate, in line with the Commission notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates of 1997 [12], the value of the de minimis aid would still be far below the threshold of EUR 100000.
Poleg tega je Poljska poudarila, da bi bila vrednost pomoči de minimis še vedno precej pod pragom 100000 EUR tudi v primeru, da bi se obrestni stopnji dodalo 600 bazičnih točk v skladu z Obvestilom Komisije o načinu določanja referenčnih obrestnih mer in diskontnih stopenj iz leta 1997 [12].
Deferral of debt to the Social Security Office
Odlog dolga uradu za socialno varnost
As regards the deferral of debt in the form of social security liabilities, which increased in both restructuring plans, the Polish authorities recalled first that this debt increased as a consequence of the failure of the financial restructuring envisaged in the first restructuring plan.
V zvezi z odlogom dolga v obliki obveznosti iz socialnega zavarovanja, ki se je povečal v obeh načrtih prestrukturiranja, so poljski organi najprej opozorili, da se je ta dolg povečal zaradi neuspešnega finančnega prestrukturiranja, ki je bilo predvideno v prvem načrtu prestrukturiranja.
Under that plan the debt to the Social Security Office was to be settled in the form of: (i) repayment of PLN 3890000 using the loan from the Enterprise Restructuring Fund and (ii) deferral of a further PLN 1364600.
V skladu s tem načrtom naj bi se dolg uradu za socialno varnost poravnal v obliki: (i) odplačila 3890000 PLN s posojilom sklada za prestrukturiranje podjetij in (ii) odloga nadaljnjih 1364600 PLN.
As stated above (see recital (13)) financial restructuring of this debt failed.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj (glej uvodno izjavo 13), je bilo finančno prestrukturiranje tega dolga neuspešno.
In addition, the Polish authorities noted that the Social Security Office had decided to participate in the second restructuring plan, which provided for (i) repayment of PLN 5,5 million from a loan to be granted by the Industrial Development Agency and (ii) deferral of an additional PLN 3 million.
Poleg tega so poljski organi opozorili, da se je urad za socialno varnost odločil sodelovati pri drugem načrtu prestrukturiranja, v katerem sta predvidena (i) odplačilo 5,5 milijona PLN s posojilom, ki ga bo odobrila Agencija za industrijski razvoj, in (ii) odlog nadaljnjih 3 milijonov PLN.
As indicated above (see recital (5)) PZL Dębica did not obtain the promised loan and Poland withdrew the corresponding part of the notification.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj (glej uvodno izjavo 5), PZL Dębica ni dobila obljubljenega posojila, Poljska pa je umaknila ustrezni del priglasitve.
The rate may not be lower than 8 %; in the present case it was between 10 % and 46 %.
Obrestna mera ne sme biti nižja od 8 %, v obravnavanem primeru pa se je gibala med 10 % in 46 %.
Changes in interest rates from 2000 to 2012
Spremembe obrestnih mer v obdobju 2000–2012
from 18.11.1999 to 23.02.2000
od 18. 11. 1999 do 23. 2. 2000
from 26.09.2002 to 23.10.2002
od 26. 9. 2002 do 23. 10. 2002
from 30.06.2005 to 27.07.2005
od 30. 6. 2005 do 27. 7. 2005
from 24.12.2008 to 28.01.2009
od 24. 12. 2008 do 28. 1. 2009
from 24.02.2000 to 30.08.2000
od 24. 2. 2000 do 30. 8. 2000
from 24.10.2002 to 27.11.2002
od 24. 10. 2002 do 27. 11. 2002
from 28.07.2005 to 31.08.2005
od 28. 7. 2005 do 31. 8. 2005
from 28.01.2009 to 26.02.2009
od 28. 1. 2009 do 26. 2. 2009
from 31.08.2000 to 28.02.2001
od 31. 8. 2000 do 28. 2. 2001
from 28.11.2002 to 29.01.2003
od 28. 11. 2002 do 29. 1. 2003
from 01.09.2005 to 31.01.2006
od 1. 9. 2005 do 31. 1. 2006
from 26.02.2009 to 26.03.2009
od 26. 2. 2009 do 26. 3. 2009
from 01.03.2001 to 28.03.2001
od 1. 3. 2001 do 28. 3. 2001
from 30.01.2003 to 26.02.2003
od 30. 1. 2003 do 26. 2. 2003
from 01.02.2006 to 28.02.2006
od 1. 2. 2006 do 28. 2. 2006
from 26.03.2009 to 25.06.2009
od 26. 3. 2009 do 25. 6. 2009
from 29.03.2001 to 27.06.2001
od 29. 3. 2001 do 27. 6. 2001
from 27.02.2003 to 26.03.2003
od 27. 2. 2003 do 26. 3. 2003
from 01.03.2006 to 25.04.2007
od 1. 3. 2006 do 25. 4. 2007
from 25.06.2009 to 09.11.2010
od 25. 6. 2009 do 9. 11. 2010
from 28.06.2001 to 22.08.2001
od 28. 6. 2001 do 22. 8. 2001
from 27.03.2003 to 24.04.2003
od 27. 3. 2003 do 24. 4. 2003
from 27.04.2007 to 26.06.2007
od 27. 4. 2007 do 26. 6. 2007
from 23.08.2001 to 25.10.2001
od 23. 8. 2001 do 25. 10. 2001
from 25.04.2003 to 28.05.2003
od 25. 4. 2003 do 28. 5. 2003
from 28.06.2007 to 29.08.2007
od 28. 6. 2007 do 29. 8. 2007
from 26.10.2001 to 28.11.2001
od 26. 10. 2001 do 28. 11. 2001
from 29.05.2003 to 25.06.2003
od 29. 5. 2003 do 25. 6. 2003
from 30.08.2007 to 28.11.2007
od 30. 8. 2007 do 28. 11. 2007
from 29.11.2001 to 30.01.2002
od 29. 11. 2001 do 30. 1. 2002
from 26.06.2003 to 30.06.2004
od 26. 6. 2003 do 30. 6. 2004
from 29.01.2007 to 31.01.2008
od 29. 1. 2007 do 31. 1. 2008
from 31.01.2002 to 25.04.2002
od 31. 1. 2002 do 25. 4. 2002
from 01.07.2004 to 28.07.2004
od 1. 7. 2004 do 28. 7. 2004
from 31.01.2008 to 28.02.2008
od 31. 1. 2008 do 28. 2. 2008
from 26.04.2002 to 29.05.2002
od 26. 4. 2002 do 29. 5. 2002
from 29.07.2004 to 25.08.2004
od 29. 7. 2004 do 25. 8. 2004
from 28.02.2008 to 27.03.2008
od 28. 2. 2008 do 27. 3. 2008
from 30.05.2002 to 26.06.2002
od 30. 5. 2002 do 26. 6. 2002
from 26.08.2004 to 30.03.2005
od 26. 8. 2004 do 30. 3. 2005
from 27.03.2008 to 26.06.2008
od 27. 3. 2008 do 26. 6. 2008
from 27.06.2002 to 28.08.2002
od 27. 6. 2002 do 28. 8. 2002
from 31.03.2005 to 27.04.2005
od 31. 3. 2005 do 27. 4. 2005
from 26.06.2008 to 27.11.2008
od 26. 6. 2008 do 27. 11. 2008
from 29.08.2002 to 25.09.2002
od 29. 8. 2002 do 25. 9. 2002
from 28.04.2005 to 29.06.2005
od 28. 4. 2005 do 29. 6. 2005
from 27.11.2008 to 24.12.2008
od 27. 11. 2008 do 24. 12. 2008
Poland submitted detailed tables setting out changes in the debt to the Social Security Office.
Poljska je predložila podrobne preglednice, v katerih so prikazane spremembe dolga uradu za socialno varnost.
Changes in the debt to the Social Security Office
Spremembe dolga uradu za socialno varnost
Social Security Office
Urad za socialno varnost
Year in which the debt was incurred
Leto, v katerem je dolg nastal
Amount of debt
Znesek dolga
Interest accrued on the amount until deferral
Nastale obresti na znesek pred odlogom
Paid debt
Odplačani dolg
(sale of assets, seizure, other)
(prodaja sredstev, zaplemba, drugo)
Current payments
Tekoča plačila
Total on 15.8.2012
Skupni znesek dne 15. 8. 2012
The Polish authorities also provided information on the other measures taken by the Social Security Office to secure and recover the debt.
Poljski organi so predložili tudi informacije o drugih ukrepih, ki jih je sprejel urad za socialno varnost za zavarovanje in izterjavo dolga.
Firstly, in 2001-07 the Social Security Office had a mortgage covering 100 % of the value of the debt.
Prvič, v obdobju 2001–2007 je imel urad za socialno varnost hipoteko, ki je krila 100 % vrednosti dolga.
As the amount of the debt grew, new assets were added to the mortgage to cover the new debt.
Ko se je dolg povečeval, so bila hipoteki dodana nova sredstva za kritje novega dolga.
Secondly, as of 2003 the Social Security Office took debt recovery action, obtaining almost PLN 9 million from the controlled sale of the company’s assets and the seizure of PZL Dębica’s accounts.
Drugič, urad za socialno varnost je leta 2003 sprejel ukrepe za izterjavo dolga in dobil skoraj 9 milijonov PLN z nadzorovano prodajo sredstev podjetja in zaplembo računov PZL Dębica.