natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the rest of the comfort letters (i.e. the ones provided in 2009, 2010 and 2011), given that EMPORDEF declares to be ready to step in if ENVC does not honour the underlying loan contract, it appears clear that they are equivalent to a guarantee, since EMPORDEF reassures the granting financial institution by undertaking to do everything necessary for ENVC to have the means available to pay back the loans.
Komisija prav tako ugotavlja, da je bila ENVC najmanj trikrat v tehničnem stečaju (glej uvodno izjavo 64) in da se je EMPORDEF kljub temu odločil, da izda patronatske izjave brez premije.
A normal market operator would have asked a premium in exchange for providing this type of ‘guarantee’, which however EMPORDEF never did despite the significant risk that ENVC would not be able to repay the loans in view of its difficulties at the time.
V zvezi s tem Komisija sklepa, da ne obstaja tržna stopnja, ki bi se lahko uporabila kot razumna primerjava, zato meni, da je ENVC prejela državno pomoč v znesku, enakemu skupnim zneskom, zagotovljenim s patronatskimi izjavami iz let 2009, 2010 in 2011 (tj. 51280000 EUR).
According to section 2.2 of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees [40] (‘the Guarantee Notice’), ‘risk-carrying should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium.
Podobna logika se uporablja za posojila, zagotovljena ENVC, tj. posojila v letih 2012 in 2013, posojila DGTF in posojilo za plovilo Atlântida.
When the borrower does not need to pay the premium, or pays a low premium, it obtains an advantage.
EMPORDEF in DGTF sta ta posojila ENVC zagotovila v času, ko je bila v težavah, kar ne bi storil noben razumen udeleženec na trgu.
Compared to a situation without guarantee, the State guarantee enables the borrower to obtain better financial terms for a loan than those normally available on the financial markets.
To je očitno zlasti v primeru posojil v letih 2012 in 2013, saj so banke, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 21, ENVC prenehale zagotavljati posojila in so bile pripravljene to storiti le v povezavi z EMPORDEF.
Typically, with the benefit of the State guarantee, the borrower can obtain lower rates and/or offer less security.
Prav tako Komisija ugotavlja, da so bila posojila DGTF in posojilo za plovilo Atlântida zagotovljena med letoma 2006 in 2011: v teh letih so bile zasebne banke pripravljene zagotoviti posojilo ENVC le na podlagi jamstva (v obliki patronatske izjave) EMPORDEF.
In some cases, the borrower would not, without a State guarantee, find a financial institution prepared to lend on any terms’.
To kaže, da noben udeleženec na trgu ni bil pripravljen zagotoviti posojila ENVC sami.
It is thus necessary to examine whether the guarantee could in principle have been obtained on market conditions from the financial markets and whether the market premium for the guarantee was paid [41].
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija torej sklepa, da je ENVC prejela državno pomoč v znesku, enakemu skupnemu znesku posojil v letih 2012 in 2013 (101118066,03 EUR), posojil DGTF (30 milijonov EUR, 8 milijonov EUR, 5 milijonov EUR in 13 milijonov EUR, v tem zaporedju) in posojila za plovilo Atlântida (37 milijon EUR).
The Commission observes that the comfort letters were not remunerated and that ENVC did not pay to EMPORDEF any premium.
Nezakonita pomoč
Therefore, the risk incurred by EMPORDEF was not remunerated.
Člen 108(3) PDEU določa, da država članica ne sme izvajati ukrepa pomoči, dokler Komisija ni sprejela sklepa o odobritvi tega ukrepa.
This in itself is sufficient to conclude that the comfort letters, which have very similar features to a guarantee, provided ENVC with an undue advantage.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Portugalska dodelila ENVC pretekle ukrepe, ne da jih posredovala Komisiji v odobritev (z izjemami iz uvodne izjave 125).
As regards the argument of Portugal that EMPORDEF would in any case be considered liable in the last instance for the debts of ENVC given that it was its sole shareholder, the Commission refers to its reasoning in recital 88 above, which applies mutatis mutandis.
Komisija obžaluje, da Portugalska ni spoštovala obveznosti neukrepanja in da je s tem kršila svojo obveznost iz člena 108(3) PDEU.
Therefore, the Commission is of the view that the comfort letters of 2009, 2010 and 2011 provided ENVC with an undue advantage.
Združljivost preteklih ukrepov z notranjim trgom
As regards the loan for the Atlântida vessel, the Commission observes that in December 2009, EMPORDEF provided ENVC with EUR 37 million obtained from CGD for terminating the legal proceedings with Atlanticoline.
Če zgoraj navedeni ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, je treba njihovo združljivost oceniti ob upoštevanju izjem iz odstavkov 2 in 3 navedene določbe.
At that point in time, when ENVC was already a firm in difficulty, a rational market operator would have assessed the situation of the company and its capacity to repay the loan, instead of simply transferring the funds to ENVC.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča so države članice tiste, ki morajo uveljavljati morebitne razloge za združljivost in dokazati, da so pogoji za takšno združljivost izpolnjeni [42].
Also, a rational market operator would have assessed the risks associated to the operation and the possibility of selling the vessel to a different buyer — something which eventually happened in September 2014 (see recital 30 above).
Po mnenju portugalskih organov večina preteklih ukrepov ne pomeni državne pomoči, zato niso predložili morebitnih razlogov za združljivost.
The Commission moreover observes that the loan was provided to EMPORDEF at an annual interest rate of 6-month EURIBOR plus 2 %, which at the time of the contract meant 2,993 %.
Kljub temu je Komisija ocenila, ali bi se lahko za pretekle ukrepe uporabljali možni razlogi združljivosti iz PDEU.
However, in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates of 2008, applicable at the time, the base rate applicable for Portugal in December 2009 was 1,45 % to which a margin of at least 1000bp should be added in view of the difficulties of ENVC and the absence of strict collateralisation.
V zvezi s subvencijami za ladjedelništvo Portugalska trdi, da so bile zagotovljene v skladu z Uredbo z zakonsko močjo št. 296/89 o izvajanju Direktive 87/167/EGS (glej uvodno izjavo 68).
Therefore, the applicable reference rate would be at least 11,45 %.
Vendar kot je Komisija že ugotovila v sklepu o začetku postopka, je ta direktiva nehala veljati po 31. decembru 1990 (glej člen 13 Direktive).
The Commission understands that ENVC did not repay the EUR 37 million of the loan for the Atlântida vessel to EMPORDEF and that it did not pay any interest for this amount, with the exception of EUR 840480,54 in interests paid in 2010.
Poleg tega Portugalska ni predložila nobenih dokazov, da bi bile subvencije za ladjedelništvo združljive s katero koli od naknadnih pravnih podlag za razglasitev pomoči ladjedelništvu za združljivo.
On this basis, and bearing in mind the above, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the loan for the Atlântida vessel provided ENVC with an undue advantage.
Edina izjema zadeva dve subvenciji za ladjedelništvo, ki sta bili ENVC v letih 2003 in 2005 dodeljeni za gradnjo dveh plovil (pogodbi C224 in C225 – glej Prilogo II).
Distortion of competition and affectation of intra-EU trade
Te subvencije so bile odobrene z Odločbo Komisije v zadevi C 33/2004 [43] na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1540/98.
The past measures are likely to affect trade between Member States as ENVC is in competition with shipyards from other Members States of the European Union as well as from the rest of the world.
Zato Komisija na podlagi predloženih informacij ugotavlja, da subvenciji za pogodbi C224 in C225, vsaka v znesku 2675275 EUR (ali v skupnem znesku 5350550 EUR), pomenita pomoč ladjedelništvu, združljivo z notranjim trgom.
The past measures in question thus enabled ENVC to continue operating so that it did not have to face, as other competitors, the consequences that would normally follow from its poor financial results.
Kljub temu Komisija ugotavlja, da so druge subvencije za ladjedelništvo (v višini 21779383,21 EUR) – za katere Portugalska ne preučuje značaja državne pomoči – nezdružljive z notranjim trgom.
Therefore, the past measures also distorted competition.
V zvezi z drugimi preteklimi ukrepi (razen patronatskih izjav z dne 8. januarja 2007 in 26. junija 2008), kot je že navedeno v sklepu o začetku postopka, se glede na naravo ukrepov in težave ENVC zdi, da so edina ustrezna merila združljivosti tista, ki zadevajo pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah v skladu s členom 107(3)(c) PDEU na podlagi smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 2004 [44].
Conclusion on existence of State aid and quantification
Komisija v prvi vrsti ponovno poudarja svoje ugotovitve v sklepu o začetku postopka, da pogoji za pomoč za reševanje iz oddelka 3.1 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 2004 niso izpolnjeni.
On the basis of the assessment above, the Commission concludes that the past measures constitute State aid, since they meet the necessary requirements of the definition of State aid laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU, with the exception of the comfort letters of dated 8 January 2007 and 26 June 2008 (see recital 103 above).
V skladu s točko 25(a) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 2004 mora biti pomoč za reševanje sestavljena iz likvidnostne pomoči v obliki posojil ali poroštev za posojila; v obeh primerih mora biti obrestna mera vsaj primerljiva z obrestno mero, ki jo plačujejo zdrava podjetja.
As indicated in recitals 68 and 69 above, the totality of the shipbuilding subsidies and of the professional training subsidies constitute State aid for an amount of EUR 27129933,20 and EUR 257791, respectively.
Dokapitalizacija leta 2006 na primer te zahteve ne bi izpolnjevala.
As regards the rest of the past measures, the Commission reiterates that in view of the difficulties of ENVC at the time, no market-oriented operator would have provided them to the company.
Poleg tega točka 25(a) dodaja, da je treba vsako posojilo odplačati in da mora vsako poroštvo prenehati v obdobju največ 6 mesecev po izplačilu prvega obroka podjetju.
For this reason, the Commission is of the view that ENVC received State aid in an amount equal to the totality of the 2006 capital increase (EUR 24,875 million).
Kot je že bilo pojasnjeno, se to ni zgodilo pri nobenem od preteklih ukrepov, ki se ocenjujejo.
As regards the comfort letters of 2009, 2010 and 2011, the Commission reiterates that they have a very similar nature to guarantees (see recitals 103 and 104 above).
Točka 25(b) navaja, da mora biti pomoč za reševanje utemeljena z resnimi socialnimi težavami in ne sme imeti neupravičenih škodljivih učinkov prelivanja na druge države članice.
In this respect, the Guarantee Notice states the following in section 4.1: ‘The Commission notes that for companies in difficulty, a market guarantor, if any, would, at the time the guarantee is granted charge a high premium given the expected rate of default.
Portugalska ni zagotovila dokazov, da bi to veljalo za katerega koli od preteklih ukrepov.
If the likelihood that the borrower will not be able to repay the loan becomes particularly high, this market rate may not exist and in exceptional circumstances the aid element of the guarantee may turn out to be as high as the amount effectively covered by that guarantee’.
Poleg tega v primeru nepriglašene pomoči za reševanje točka 25(c) določa, da mora država članica najkasneje šest mesecev po prvem izvajanju ukrepa pomoči za reševanje Komisiji predložiti načrt za prestrukturiranje ali načrt za likvidacijo ali dokazilo, da je bilo posojilo v celoti povrnjeno in/ali da je poroštvo prenehalo.
The Commission observes that the banks provided the loans to ENVC only because of the existence of the ‘guarantees’ (in the form of comfort letters) of EMPORDEF reassuring the banks that it would do the necessary to ensure that ENVC would pay back the loans.
Portugalska ponovno ni izpolnila te potrebne zahteve glede združljivosti.
Moreover, the Commission notes that the comfort letters were provided for free at a time when ENVC was in difficulty and despite the significant risk that it would not be able to honour its commitments.
V skladu s točko 25(d) mora biti pomoč za reševanje omejena na znesek, ki je potreben za delovanje podjetja.
The Commission moreover observes that ENVC had been in at least three occasions in a situation of technical bankruptcy (see recital 64 above) and despite this, EMPORDEF decided to issue the comfort letters without a premium.
Glede na precejšnje zneske pomoči, ki izhajajo iz vseh preteklih ukrepov, Komisija ugotavlja, da tudi ta zahteva ni bila izpolnjena.
In this context, the Commission concludes that there is no possible market rate that could be used as a reasonable comparator and therefore takes the view that ENVC received State aid in an amount equal to the totality of the amounts guaranteed by the comfort letters of 2009, 2010 and 2011 (i.e. EUR 51280000).
Nazadnje točka 25(e) smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 2004 zahteva, da se upošteva načelo o enkratni pomoči („enkrat in zadnjič“).
A similar logic applies to the case of the loans provided to ENVC, i.e. the 2012 and 2013 loans, the DGTF loans and the loan for the Atlântida vessel.
V skladu s tem načelom velja, da če je od dodelitve pomoči za reševanje ali od konca obdobja prestrukturiranja preteklo manj kot 10 let, Komisija ne dovoli dodelitve nadaljnje pomoči za reševanje ali prestrukturiranje.
EMPORDEF and the DGTF provided these loans to ENVC at a time when the company was in difficulty and no rational market operator would have provided them.
Glede na mnoga posredovanja države v časovnem obdobju, ki ga zajemajo pretekli ukrepi, je jasno, da načelo „enkrat in zadnjič“ ni bilo upoštevano in da je ENVC večkrat prejela nezakonito državno pomoč.
This is particularly obvious for the case of the 2012 and 2013 loans, since as indicated in recital 21 above, the banks had ceased providing loans to ENVC and were only willing to do so in relation to EMPORDEF.
V zvezi s pomočjo za prestrukturiranje iz oddelka 3.2 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 2004 Komisija ugotavlja, da je Portugalska ni obvestila o nobenem od ukrepov, ki so zgoraj opredeljeni kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje, in tako ni dokazala prisotnosti nobenega od elementov, ki so potrebni, da se obravnavajo kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje (načrt za prestrukturiranje, lasten prispevek, izravnalni ukrepi itd.).
Also, the Commission observes that the DGTF loans and the loan for the Atlântida vessel were provided between 2006 and 2011: during these years, private banks were willing to lend to ENVC only on the basis of a guarantee (in the form of a comfort letter) from EMPORDEF.
Zlasti uvodna izjava 34 smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 2004 navaja, da je dodelitev pomoči za prestrukturiranje pogojena z izvajanjem načrta za prestrukturiranje, ki ga mora v vseh primerih posameznih pomoči potrditi Komisija.
This indicates that no market operator was willing to provide a loan to ENVC alone.
Poleg tega mora vsaka pomoč za prestrukturiranje vključevati ukrepe, namenjene preprečevanju neupravičenega izkrivljanja konkurence („izravnalni ukrepi“ – glej uvodne izjave 38 do 42), predvidevati pa mora tudi „prispevek iz lastnih virov“ upravičenca, ki bi moral v primeru ENVC pokrivati 50 % stroškov prestrukturiranja glede na to, da je veljala za veliko podjetje (glej uvodne izjave 38 do 45).
Therefore, in view of the above, Commission concludes that ENVC received State aid in an amount equal to the totality of the 2012 and 2013 loans (EUR 101118066,03), the DGTF loans (EUR 30 million, EUR 8 million, EUR 5 million and EUR 13 million, respectively) and the loan for the Atlântida vessel (EUR 37 million).
Poleg tega je treba tako kot v primeru pomoči za reševanje upoštevati načelo „enkrat in zadnjič“.
Unlawful aid
Komisija najprej ponovno poudarja, da se načelo „enkrat in zadnjič“ ni upoštevalo (glej uvodno izjavo 133).
Article 108(3) TFEU states that a Member State shall not put an aid measure into effect before the Commission has adopted a decision authorising this measure.
Komisija v vsakem primeru poudarja, da je Portugalska predložila načrt za prestrukturiranje, ki ga je pripravila BPI, šele leta 2014, tj. 5 let po poteku načrtovanega obdobja za prestrukturiranje (2005–2009).
The Commission observes that Portugal granted the past measures to ENVC without notifying them to the Commission for approval (with the exceptions indicated in recital 125 below).
Poleg tega Komisija poudarja, da se zdi, da je načrt, ki ga je pripravila BPI, osnutek, ki ga je še treba obravnavati.
The Commission regrets that Portugal did not comply with the stand-still obligation and therefore violated its obligation according to Article 108(3) TFEU.
Čeprav se zdi, da načrt za prestrukturiranje vsebuje nekatere elemente, zahtevane v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 2004, v vsakem primeru ne vključuje nobenih izravnalnih ukrepov in ne predvideva prispevka ENVC iz lastnih virov.
Compatibility of the past measures with the internal market
Zato se za načrt za prestrukturiranje BPI ne more šteti, da upošteva potrebne zahteve smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 2004.
Insofar as the measures identified above constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, their compatibility must be assessed in the light of the exceptions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that provision.
Brez kakršnih koli predlaganih izravnalnih ukrepov in prispevka ENVC iz lastnih virov ter ob upoštevanju, da načelo „enkrat in zadnjič“ ni bilo upoštevano, Komisija sklepa, da druge pretekle ukrepe ni mogoče šteti za združljivo pomoč za prestrukturiranje v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
The Portuguese authorities consider that most of the past measures do not constitute State aid and have therefore not provided any possible grounds for compatibility.
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija meni, da subvenciji za ladjedelništvo za pogodbi C224 in C225, vsaka v znesku 2675275 EUR (glej uvodno izjavo 125), pomenita pomoč za ladjedelništvo, združljivo z notranjim trgom.
The Commission has nonetheless assessed whether any of the possible compatibility grounds laid down in the TFEU would be applicable to the past measures.
Komisija prav tako meni, da drugi pretekli ukrepi (tj. dokapitalizacija leta 2006, posojila v letih 2012 in 2013, posojila DGTF, patronatske izjave iz let 2009, 2010 in 2011, subvencije za strokovno usposabljanje, posojilo za plovilo Atlântida in druge subvencije za ladjedelništvo) ne izpolnjujejo pogojev iz smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 2004.
As regards the shipbuilding subsidies, Portugal argues that they were provided under Decree-Law 296/89 implementing Directive 87/167/EEC (see recital 68 above).
Komisija ni opredelila nobene druge osnove za združljivost.
However, as the Commission already noted in the opening Decision, this Directive has ceased to apply since 31 December 1990 (see Article 13 thereof).
Zato Komisija meni, da drugi pretekli ukrepi vključujejo državno pomoč, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
In addition, Portugal has not provided any evidence that the shipbuilding subsidies would be compatible with any of the subsequent legal bases for declaring compatible aid for shipbuilding purposes.
Izkoristek
The sole exception concerns two shipbuilding subsidies granted to ENVC in 2003 and 2005 for the construction of two vessels (contracts C224 and C225 — see Annex II).
Komisija je v skladu s Pogodbo in ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča pristojna za odločanje, ali mora zadevna država članica ukiniti ali spremeniti pomoč, za katero je ugotovila, da je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom [45].
These subsidies were authorised by Commission Decision in case C 33/2004 [43] on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98.
Prav tako je v skladu s stalno prakso Sodišča namen obveznosti na strani države članice, da ukine pomoč, za katero Komisija meni, da ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, ponovna vzpostavitev prejšnjih razmer [46].
The Commission therefore concludes according to the information provided that the subsidies for contracts C224 and C225 amounting to EUR 2675275 each (or a total of EUR 5350550) constitute aid to shipbuilding compatible with the internal market.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče odločilo, da je ta cilj dosežen, ko prejemnik odplača znesek, ki mu je bil dodeljen v okviru nezakonite pomoči, s čimer izgubi prednost, ki jo je užival glede na konkurente na trgu, ter se ponovno vzpostavijo razmere pred plačilom pomoči [47].
The Commission nonetheless comes to the view that the rest of shipbuilding subsidies (amounting to EUR 21779383,21) — for which Portugal does not discuss their State aid character — are incompatible with the internal market.
V skladu s sodno prakso člen 14(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 [48] navaja, da „(č)e se v primerih nezakonite pomoči sprejmejo negativne odločbe, Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč[…]“.
In relation to the rest of the past measures (with the exclusion of the comfort letters dated 8 January 2007 and 26 June 2008), as already indicated in the opening decision, in view of the nature of the measures and of the difficulties of ENVC, the only relevant compatibility criteria appear to be those concerning aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU on the basis of the 2004 R&R Guidelines [44].
Člen 15 te uredbe pojasnjuje, da imajo „(p)ooblastila Komisije zahtevati vračilo pomoči […] desetletni zastaralni rok“, ki […] „začne teči na dan, ko je dodeljena nezakonita pomoč upravičencu […].
In the first place, the Commission reiterates its findings of the opening decision that that the conditions for rescue aid laid down in section 3.1 of the 2004 R&R Guidelines are not met.
Kakršen koli ukrep glede nezakonite pomoči, ki ga sprejme Komisija ali država članica na zahtevo Komisije, prekine zastaralni rok“.
According to point 25(a) of the 2004 R&R Guidelines, the rescue aid must consist of liquidity support in the form of loans or loan guarantees; in both cases, the loan must be granted at an interest rate at least comparable to those observed for loans to healthy firms.
Ker je bil prvi ukrep, ki ga je sprejela Komisija v primeru SA.35546, izveden 11. oktobra 2012 (glej uvodno izjavo 1), kakršno koli vračilo nezdružljive pomoči ne more vključevati pomoči, dodeljene pred 11. oktobrom 2002.
For instance the 2006 capital increase would already not meet this requirement.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da so bile nekatere subvencije za ladjedelništvo dodeljene pred 11. oktobrom 2002, zlasti v zvezi s pogodbami C206, C211, C217, C218, C219, C220, C221 in C222 (glej Prilogo II).
In addition, point 25(a) adds that any loan must be reimbursed and any guarantee must come to an end within a period of not more than six months after the disbursement of the first instalment to the firm.
Zato za nezdružljivo pomoč za te pogodbe, ki znaša 11297009,19 EUR, velja desetletni zastaralni rok, zato je ni mogoče vrniti.
As explained above, this does not seem to have occurred for any of the past measures under assessment.
Druge pretekle ukrepe, ki vključujejo nezakonito in nezdružljivo državno pomoč (glej preglednico 5), je treba vrniti, da bi znova vzpostavili razmere, ki so obstajale na trgu pred njihovo dodelitvijo.
Point 25(b) estates that the recue aid must be warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and have no unduly adverse spill-over effects on other Member States.
Vračilo pomoči bi moralo zato zajeti obdobje od datuma, ko je bila upravičencu dodeljena prednost, tj. ko mu je bila pomoč dana na voljo, do datuma njenega dejanskega vračila, zneskom, ki jih je treba vrniti, pa se prištejejo obresti do datuma dejanskega vračila.
Portugal has provided no evidence that this was the case for any of the past measures.
Preglednica 5