natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The calculation of the amount of aid in the original AFR decision of 2 April 2008 was based on a method devised in a previous decision of the Commission in the ‘Biria Group’ case C 38/2005 (hereinafter ‘the Biria decision’) [5].
Izračun zneska pomoči v prvotni odločbi AFR z dne 2. aprila 2008 je temeljil na metodi, izoblikovani v predhodni odločbi Komisije v zvezi z zadevo C 38/2005 „Biria group“ (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločba Biria) [5].
By proceedings [6] brought on 5 April 2007 (Case T-102/07) and 16 April 2007 (Case T-120/07), the Biria decision was challenged before the Court of First Instance by the authority which had granted the aid and by the legal successor to the aid recipients respectively.
Organ, ki je odobril pomoč, in pravni naslednik prejemnikov pomoči sta odločbo Biria izpodbijala s tožbama [6] z dne 5. aprila 2007 (T-102/07) oziroma 16. aprila 2007 (T-120/07).
On 3 March 2010 [7], the General Court annulled the Biria decision.
Splošno sodišče je 3. marca 2010 [7] odločbo Biria razglasilo za nično.
Although the Court confirmed to a large degree the reasoning of the Commission, the decision was, nonetheless, annulled for failure to state adequate reasons on a particular point.
Čeprav je Splošno sodišče večinoma pritrdilo utemeljitve Komisije, je bila odločba kljub temu razglašena za nično zaradi pomanjkljive obrazložitve točno določenega vidika.
The General Court held that the Commission could not confine itself to a mere reference to the Commission notice of 1997 for setting the reference and discount rates [8] (hereinafter ‘the Commission notice of 1997 on reference rates’) in the reasons relating to the risk premiums when calculating the amount of the aid element contained in a loan to a firm in difficulty.
Sodišče je menilo, da Komisija pri obrazložitvi izračuna pribitkov na tveganje ne more opredeliti zneska elementa pomoči, ki ga vsebuje posojilo podjetju v težavah, le s sklicevanjem na Obvestilo Komisije o načinu določanja referenčnih obrestnih mer in diskontnih stopenj [8] iz leta 1997 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Obvestilo o referenčnih obrestnih merah iz leta 1997).
The original AFR decision made explicit reference to the recital in the Biria decision which prompted its annulment by the General Court.
Prvotna odločba AFR se izrecno sklicuje na uvodno izjavo odločbe Biria, zaradi katere je Sodišče prve stopnje to odločbo razglasilo za nično.
The reasoning in the Biria decision and that in the original AFR decision with respect to the risk premium to be used were based on similar elements.
V odločbi Biria in prvotni odločbi AFR je v zvezi s pribitkom na tveganje, ki ga je treba uporabiti, navedena obrazložitev, ki temelji na podobnih prvinah.
Consequently, the Commission notes, in the light of the Biria judgment, that the original AFR decision of 2 April 2008 did not provide reasons to the requisite legal standard concerning the level of risk premium to be used.
Zato Komisija na podlagi sodbe Biria meni, da prvotna odločba AFR z dne 2. aprila 2008, kar zadeva raven pribitka na tveganje, ki ga je treba uporabiti, ni v pravno zadostni meri obrazložena.
As the decision has yet to become final, there is thus reason to withdraw it and issue a new decision.
Ker navedena odločba ni postala pravnomočna, jo je torej treba umakniti in sprejeti nov sklep.
The company is located in Douai (Nord) and employed around 265 people in 2008.
Sedež ima v Douaiju (Nord) in je leta 2008 zaposlovala približno 265 oseb.
In 2005, AFR was fully owned by Arbel SA [9].
Leta 2005 je bila družba AFR v 100-odstotni lasti družbe Arbel SA [9].
At the time, AFR employed some 330 people.
Takrat je družba AFR zaposlovala približno 330 oseb.
AFR's business has been running at a loss for several years.
Družba AFR je več let poslovala z izgubo.
This trend gathered momentum between 2002 and 2005.
Na dan 31.12.2003
The following table shows some of AFR's key performance indicators for the period before the aid was granted.
Na dan 31.12.2002
To 31.12.2004
Na dan 31.12.2001
To 31.12.2003
Promet v EUR
To 31.12.2002
Čisti rezultat v EUR
To 31.12.2001
Lastniški kapital v EUR
Turnover in EUR
Ukrepi podpore
Net loss in EUR
Regija Nord-Pas-de-Calais in Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis sta 4. julija 2005 družbi AFR skupaj odobrili vračljivo predplačilo v višini 1 milijona EUR vsaka, torej skupaj 2 milijona EUR.
Capital and reserves in EUR
Po informacijah, ki so jih dali francoski organi, so bili pogoji za predplačili naslednji:
Support measures
vračljivo predplačilo Regije je bilo odobreno po letni obrestni meri v višini 4,08 % (kolikor je bila referenčna obrestna mera v času odobritve) ob pogoju, da se konča finančni načrt, ki ga pripravlja družba AFR.
On 4 July 2005 the Nord-Pas-de-Calais regional authorities and the Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis jointly granted AFR a repayable advance of EUR 1 million each, making a total of EUR 2 million.
Predplačilo je bilo treba vrniti v polletnih odplačilih v treh letih od 1. januarja 2006,
According to the information provided by the French authorities, the terms of the advances were as follows:
predplačilo Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis je bilo odobreno po letni obrestni meri 4,08 % (kar ustreza referenčni obrestni meri Unije, ki je veljala v času odobritve) pod pogojem, da se predplačilo vrne pod istimi pogoji, kot veljajo za Regijo, in da se predloži dokazilo o nepreklicni združitvi družb AFR in Lormafer, ki jo prav tako nadzira družba Arbel SA.
the repayable advance from the regional authorities was granted at an annual interest rate of 4,08 % (equivalent to the Community reference rate applicable at the time) subject to the completion of a financing plan that AFR was drawing up;
To predplačilo je bilo treba prav tako vrniti v polletnih odplačilih v treh letih od 1. januarja 2006.
it was to be repaid in 6-monthly instalments over a 3-year period starting on 1 January 2006,
RAZLOGI ZA SPROŽITEV FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
the advance from the Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis was granted at an annual interest rate of 4,08 % (equivalent to the Community reference rate applicable at the time), subject to payment of the advance from the regional authorities, repayable under the same terms, and to supply of proof of the irrevocable merger between AFR and Lormafer, another company controlled by Arbel SA.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave menila, da sta vračljivi predplačili državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
This advance was also to be repaid in 6-monthly instalments over a 3-year period from 1 January 2006.
Komisija je v zvezi s tem predvsem poudarila, da so omenjena predplačila prinesla koristi družbi AFR, ker podjetje zaradi svojega finančnega položaja na finančnem trgu ne bi moglo dobiti sredstev pod tako ugodnimi pogoji.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
Komisija je tudi menila, da je družba AFR podjetje v težavah v smislu Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Smernice) [10] in da je treba zato združljivost državne pomoči, ki jo je družba prejela, presojati z vidika Smernic.
In its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission took the view that the repayable advances constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Komisija je menila, da je združljivost zadevne pomoči s skupnim trgom glede na Smernice dvomljiva.
In this connection, it noted that the advances conferred an advantage on AFR in that the firm, given its financial situation, could not have raised funds on such favourable terms on the financial markets.
PRIPOMBE FRANCIJE
The Commission also took the view that AFR was a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the ‘Community Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty’ (hereinafter ‘the Guidelines’) [10] and that the compatibility of the state aid it had received needed, therefore, to be assessed in the light of the Guidelines.
Francoski organi so trdili, da je družba AFR ohranila zaupanje svojih strank in bank, čeprav je preživljala težke čase v obdobju, ko sta ji bili odobreni in nato nakazani vračljivi predplačili (tj. julija in v drugem polletju leta 2005).
The Commission was doubtful whether, in the light of the Guidelines, the aid in question was compatible with the internal market.
Francoski organi so v podporo svojim trditvam navedli naslednje dejavnike, ki so jih opredelili kot „znake zaupanja“ strank in bank do družbe AFR:
COMMENTS FROM FRANCE
banka […] [11] je odobrila povečanje odobrenega limita na tekočem računu družbe AFR v višini 2 milijonov EUR (za kar je jamčil […]),
The French authorities claimed that, although AFR was going through a difficult period at the time when the repayable advances were granted and then paid (i.e. July and the second half of 2005), it had maintained the confidence of its customers and bankers.
družba AFR je prejela 7 milijonov EUR predplačil strank (za kar je jamčil […]), k čemur je treba prišteti 4 milijone EUR novih predplačil, prejetih januarja 2006,
To support their claims, the French authorities mentioned the following points, which they described as ‘signs of confidence’ in AFR on the part of customers and banks:
podjetje je v istem času prejelo jamstva „dobaviteljev“ v višini 4 milijonov EUR od […].
[…] [11] bank had increased the overdraft facility on AFR's current account by EUR 2 million (guaranteed by […]),
Francoski organi so podprli svoje pripombe z dokumenti, iz katerih izhaja predvsem naslednje:
AFR had received EUR 7 million in advance payments from customers (guaranteed by […]), to which a further EUR 4 million in new advance payments was added in January 2006,
obrestna mera za odobreni limit je 1. julija 2005 znašala 4,4199 %,
at the same time, the firm held supplier guarantees worth EUR 4 million with […].
neporavnana različna jamstva (dobavitelji, tržne varščine, finančna jamstva) s strani […] za družbo AFR so 6. maja 2005 znašala 29 milijonov EUR.
The French authorities backed up their comments with documents which show the following:
Francoski organi so še navedli, da je družba AFR pripravljala ukrepe „za sanacijo knjige naročil, dejavnosti, poslovanja in računov družbe AFR“.
the overdraft interest rate was 4,4199 % as at 1 July 2005,
Ti ukrepi, ki so jih francoski organi opredelili kot „načrt za prestrukturiranj“, so se nanašali na tri področja:
the outstanding amount of the various guarantees (suppliers, contract guarantees, financial guarantees) provided by […] to AFR was EUR 29 million as at May 2005.
novo poslovno strategijo (za izboljšanje pozicioniranja proizvodov družbe AFR), (b) zmanjšanje števila zaposlenih ter (c) finančni načrt in načrt za dokapitalizacijo.
The French authorities also argued that AFR had devised measures ‘for a recovery in its orders, business, operating performance and P&L’.
Izvajanje teh ukrepov, ki se je začelo leta 2004, naj bi imelo pozitivne učinke, ki naj bi se kazali zlasti v povečanju prometa (z 22,6 milijona EUR v letu 2004 na 45 milijonov EUR v letu 2005) in izboljšanju neto rezultata, ki pa je še vedno negativen (v letu 2004 je znašal – 11,9 milijona EUR, v letu 2005 pa – 8,1 milijona EUR).
The measures, which were described by the French authorities as a ‘restructuring plan’ were centred on three main areas:
Kar zadeva tožbi, ki sta bili vloženi zoper prvotno odločbo AFR, je treba še poudariti, da sta tožeči stranki iz uvodne izjave 7 trdili, da družba AFR v času odobritve pomoči ni bila podjetje v težavah.
a new sales strategy (aimed at achieving better positioning for AFR's products), (b) a reduction in the headcount and (c) a funding and recapitalisation plan.
Glede tega trdita, da je Komisija storila očitno napako pri presoji, ker ni dovolj upoštevala „sanacijskih“ ukrepov družbe AFR (navedenih v uvodni izjavi 23), katerih pozitivni učinki (ki se kažejo zlasti v več pogodbah o dobavi, ki jih je družba AFR sklenila leta 2004 in v prvi polovici leta 2005) naj bi ovrgli trditve, na katere se sklicuje Komisija v podporo sklepu, da je bila družba AFR podjetje v težavah.
According to the French authorities, the implementation of these measures from 2004 on had brought benefits, leading notably to an increase in turnover (from EUR 22,6 million in 2004 to EUR 45 million in 2005) and an improvement in the bottom line, which remained, however, in the red (net loss down from EUR 11,9 million in 2004 to EUR 8,1 million in 2005).
PRESOJA POMOČI Z VIDIKA ČLENA 107 POGODBE
It should also be noted that in the proceedings filed against the original AFR decision, the applicants mentioned in recital 7 claimed that AFR was not a firm in difficulty at the time when the aid was granted.
Obstoj državne pomoči
In this respect, they argue that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when it did not give sufficient consideration to AFR's ‘recovery measures’ (referred to in recital 23), the positive effects of which (reflected notably in a series of supply contracts awarded to AFR in 2004 and the first half of 2005) allegedly invalidate the Commission's arguments in support of the finding that AFR was a firm in difficulty.
Državna sredstva
ASSESSMENT OF THE AID IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 107 OF THE TREATY
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU, razen če ta pogodba ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
Existence of state aid
Komisija glede vračljivih predplačil ugotavlja naslednje.
State resources
Člen 107 PDEU se ne nanaša samo na pomoči, ki jih zagotovijo nacionalne vlade držav članic, ampak tudi na pomoči ozemeljskih skupnosti, kot so regija Nord-Pas-de-Calais ali Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis.
Article 107(1) of the TFEU stipulates that, save as otherwise provided for in the Treaties, aid granted by a Member State or through state resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade among Member States, incompatible with the internal market.
Sredstva teh skupnosti so državna sredstva in njuni odločitvi, da družbi AFR odobrita zadevni predplačili, se lahko pripišeta državi.
With regard to the repayable advances, the Commission notes the following.
Pomoč, ki daje prednost nekaterim podjetjem
Article 107 of the TFEU does not apply only to aid granted by the national governments of Member States, but also to aid from local and regional authorities such as the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region or the Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis.
Predplačili sta bili odobreni, ko je bila družba AFR v občutljivem finančnem položaju.
The funds of such authorities constitute state resources, and their decisions to grant the advances in question to AFR are attributable to the State.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka menila, da je bila družba AFR ob upoštevanju njenega ekonomskega položaja, kot izhaja iz uvodne izjave 15 tega sklepa, podjetje v težavah v smislu Smernic, ko je bila pomoč odobrena.
Aid favouring certain undertakings
Komisija je tudi ugotovila, da sta bili predplačili odobreni brez vsakršnega poroštva za zavarovanje vračila, medtem ko naj bi uporabljeni obrestni meri ustrezali obrestnim meram, ki se uporabljajo za posojila „z običajnim poroštvom“ [12].
The advances were granted at a time when AFR was in a difficult financial situation.
Komisija zato meni, da družba AFR glede na njen finančni položaj ne bi mogla pridobiti sredstev na kreditnem trgu pod tako ugodnimi pogoji.
In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission was of the opinion that, given its financial situation as described in recital 15 of this decision, AFR was a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines when the aid was granted.
Zato sta zadevni predplačili ugodnost v korist družbe AFR.
It also noted that the advances were granted without any guarantee being lodged for their repayment, whereas the interest rates applied are supposed to reflect the interest rate applicable to loans ‘backed by normal security’ [12].
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da so francoski organi, ki so se oprli na primere, navedene v uvodni izjavi 24, potrdili, da je družba AFR še uživala zaupanje svojih bank in strank, ko ji je bila odobrena pomoč.
It therefore considers that AFR, given its financial situation, would by no means have been able to obtain funding on such favourable terms on the credit market.
Komisija razlaga te pripombe tako, da Francija zanika, da družba AFR ni mogla pridobiti sredstev pod podobnimi pogoji na kreditnem trgu (kar pomeni, da zanika, da sta vračljivi predplačili prinesli koristi družbi AFR), in a fortiori, da je bila družba AFR podjetje v težavah v smislu Smernic, ko sta ji bili odobreni vračljivi predplačili.
The advances in question consequently confer an advantage on AFR.
Pripombe Francije vseeno ne morejo spremeniti analize v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, in sicer zaradi naslednjih razlogov.
In this connection, it is worth noting that, basing themselves on the examples given in recital 24, the French authorities stated that AFR still had the confidence of its bankers and customers at the time the aid was granted.
Primeri posojil, ki so jih navedli francoski organi (zlasti odobritev limita na tekočem računu in predplačila strank), niso primerljivi z zadevnima vračljivima predplačiloma.
The Commission takes these comments to mean that France disputes the idea that AFR was unable to obtain funds on similar terms on the credit market (which amounts to disputing the notion that the repayable advances conferred an advantage on AFR) and a fortiori that AFR was a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines at the time the repayable advances were granted.
Odobreni limit na tekočem računu je zelo kratkoročno posojilo, medtem ko je treba vračljivi predplačili vrniti v treh letih.
However, France's comments cannot alter the analysis made in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, for the following reasons.
Te različne oblike posojil torej niso predmet istih analiz tveganja, ki jih opravijo upniki, in iz dejstva, da dolžnik lahko pridobi kratkoročno posojilo, ni mogoče sklepati o njegovih možnostih, da pridobi posojilo z daljšim rokom odplačila, katerega povračilo bo odvisno od dolžnikove zmožnosti preživetja.
The examples of credit quoted by the French authorities (such as the current account overdraft facility and the advance payments from customers) are not comparable to the repayable advances in question.
Komisija o predplačilih strank ugotavlja, da je zanje posredno jamčila […], ki je neodvisna institucija, kar pomeni, da stranke in dobavitelji niso bili izpostavljeni tveganjem, povezanim s finančnim položajem družbe AFR, in da posledično niso imeli razlogov, da bi zahtevali, da se za izplačilo predplačil opravi analiza finančne trdnosti podjetja, ki je podobna analizi, ki bi jo opravil upnik, ki namerava odobriti posojilo brez poroštva.
A current account overdraft is a very short-term credit facility, unlike the repayable advances, which have a maturity of 3 years.
Skratka, iz pripomb Francije ni mogoče ugotoviti, da bi družba AFR lahko pridobila sredstva na kreditnem trgu pod podobnimi pogoji.
These different types of credit are not, therefore, subject to the same risk analyses by creditors, and the fact that a debtor can obtain short-term credit is insufficient in assessing whether it could obtain a longer-term loan, the repayment of which depends on the debtor's ability to survive.
Podjetje v težavah
Concerning the advance payments from customers, the Commission notes that they were counter-guaranteed by […], an independent institution, which means that customers and suppliers were not incurring any risks in connection with AFR's financial situation and therefore had no reason to subject the payment of these advances to an analysis of the financial soundness of the firm along the lines of that which would have been carried out by a creditor considering the possibility of providing an unsecured loan.
Kar zadeva opredelitev družbe AFR kot podjetja v težavah v smislu Smernic, Komisija ugotavlja naslednje.
In conclusion, France's comments do not lead to the conclusion that AFR would have been able to obtain funds on similar terms on the credit market.
Iz točke 10(a) Smernic izhaja, da je podjetje v težavah, kadar je izgubilo več kot polovico osnovnega kapitala in je v preteklih dvanajstih mesecih izgubilo več kot četrtino tega kapitala.
Firm in difficulty
Ta določba predvideva, da družba, ki izgubi veliko svojega osnovnega kapitala, ne bo mogla ustaviti izgub, ki bodo kratkoročno ali srednjeročno skoraj zanesljivo povzročile njen propad.
With regard to AFR's status as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines, the Commission makes the following observations.
Komisija meni, da ta predpostavka logično a fortiori velja za družbo, ki je izgubila celoten osnovni kapital in ima negativen lastniški kapital.
Point 10(a) of the Guidelines states that a firm is in difficulty where more than half of its registered capital has disappeared and more than one quarter of that capital has been lost over the preceding 12 months.
Kot izhaja iz finančnih podatkov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 15 (ki jih Francija ni izpodbijala v formalnem postopku preiskave), je družba AFR imela negativen lastniški kapital od leta 2001 ter v času, ko ji je bila odobrena pomoč, ni mogla ustaviti tega gibanja in znova doseči pozitivnega lastniškega kapitala.
This provision reflects the assumption that a company experiencing a massive loss in its registered capital will be unable to stem losses that will almost certainly condemn it to go out of business in the short or medium term.
V teh okoliščinah Komisija meni, da je bila družba AFR družba v težavah v smislu točke 10(a) Smernic, ko ji je bila odobrena pomoč.
The Commission considers that this assumption logically applies a fortiori to a company that has lost all its registered capital and has negative capital and reserves.
Poleg tega je Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi Biria potrdilo tudi, da je bistveno zmanjšanje kapitala dejansko znak težav in da je Komisija upravičeno menila, da je podjetje, katerega vrednost lastniškega kapitala je negativna, podjetje v težavah ne glede na zelo specifične določbe Smernic.
As shown by the financial data set out in recital 15 (which were not disputed by France during the formal investigation procedure), AFR had had negative capital and reserves since 2001 and had not, at the time the aid was granted, been able to reverse this trend and move back into a positive situation as regards capital and reserves.
Komisija podredno ugotavlja, da je družba AFR ob odobritvi pomoči ustrezala tudi opredelitvi podjetja v težavah iz točke 11 Smernic, v kateri je določeno, da družba lahko velja za podjetje v težavah, tudi če niso izpolnjene okoliščine, določene v točki 10 Smernic, zlasti ob prisotnosti običajnih znakov podjetja v težavah, kot sta zlasti naraščajoče izgube in upadanje prometa.
Under the circumstances, the Commission considers that AFR was a firm in difficulty within the meaning of point 10(a) of the Guidelines at the time the aid was granted.
V točki 11 je vseeno določeno, da je podjetje v težavah upravičeno le takrat, kadar lahko dokaže, da si z lastnimi sredstvi ali sredstvi lastnikov/delničarjev ali iz tržnih virov ne more opomoči.
In addition, in the Biria judgment, the General Court ruled that a substantial reduction in capital is indeed an indication of difficulties.
Ta določba torej opozarja, da je treba podjetje v težavah opredeliti z vidika vseh upoštevnih dejavnikov, pri čemer je vseeno odločilna sposobnost podjetja, da si opomore brez posredovanja javnih organov.