natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Opening Decision does not allow (and could not have allowed) that.
Podlaga za prenos premoženja družine Riva na družbo Ilva je torej zasebni sporazum o poravnavi med družino Riva in družbo Ilva, ki ga ni mogoče pripisati državi.
In conclusion, Italy cannot rely on the requirements brought forward in the Reasoned Opinion as well as on the wording of recitals 114 and 115 of the Commission's Opening Decision to qualify the State funding of Ilva's current operations as well as environmental costs as non-aid.
Poleg tega Komisija glede obstoja gospodarske prednosti ugotavlja, da se ne zdi, da bi družba Ilva s sklenitvijo sporazuma o poravnavi z družino Riva pridobila kakršno koli ugodnost, ki je ne bi mogla pridobiti pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
Existence of aid
Družina Riva je bila zainteresirana za začetek pogajanj o poravnavi, ker je bila izpostavljena tveganju, da bi morala družbi Ilva plačati do […] EUR odškodnine, če bi nacionalno sodišče ugodilo vsem zahtevkom družbe Ilva.
According to Article 107(1) TFEU, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
Kar zadeva družbo Ilva, je ta imela precej nujne potrebe po likvidnosti, naj bo za financiranje tekočih poslov ali sanacijskih ukrepov, opredeljenih v okoljskem načrtu.
The criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are cumulative.
Zato je privolila, da se bo odpovedala vsem morebitnim prihodnjim zahtevkom (potencialno v višini do […] EUR) v zameno za takojšen prenos približno 1,2 milijarde EUR, del katerih je premoženje družine Riva, na katere se nanaša zakonski odlok št. 1/2015.
Therefore, in order to determine whether the measure in question constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, all of the following conditions need to be fulfilled:
To ravnanje izraža dejstvo, da bodo preudarni gospodarski subjekti, ki ne želijo imeti izgub, spor raje reševali sporazumno, namesto da bi se obrnili na sodišče ali arbitra po nadaljevanju spora.
the beneficiary is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, which implies that it engages in an economic activity;
V tem okviru nič ne kaže na to, da sporazum o poravnavi, ki sta ga dosegli družba Ilva in družina Riva, ni bil sklenjen v obojestranskem interesu obeh zasebnih strank.
the measure is financed by State resources and is imputable to the State;
Ker je bil torej sporazum o poravnavi kot celota med družbo Ilva in njenimi delničarji sklenjen pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji in torej družbi Ilva ne prinaša nikakršne gospodarske prednosti, tudi prenos premoženja družine Riva, ki je del te splošne poravnave, družbi Ilva ne zagotavlja nobene gospodarske prednosti.
the measure confers an economic advantage;
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija meni, da prenos premoženja družine Riva na družbo Ilva v pravni obliki, določeni z zakonskim odlokom št. 1/2015, družbi Ilva ne zagotavlja gospodarske prednosti niti ga ni mogoče pripisati italijanski državi.
this advantage is selective;
Sklepna ugotovitev o ukrepu 1
the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition and may affect trade between Member States.
Na podlagi zgornjih dejstev Komisija ugotavlja, da izvedenega ukrepa ni mogoče pripisati državi.
When it comes to fulfilment of the condition that the beneficiary must be an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Court of Justice has consistently defined undertakings as entities engaged in an economic activity, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed whereas any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a market is an economic activity.
Ker so merila iz člena 107(1) PDEU kumulativna, Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep 1 ne pomeni državne pomoči.
The Commission notes that Ilva produces and sells steel on the Union market and abroad, which qualifies as an economic activity.
Gospodarska prednost, ki izhaja iz državnih sredstev
Therefore the Commission concludes that Ilva, irrespective of its ownership or status under extraordinary administration pursuant to Italian law, is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisija je za oceno, ali je z ukrepom 2 družbi Ilva dodeljena gospodarska prednost, najprej analizirala trditve Italije iz uvodne izjave 87 o zakonodajnem značaju tega ukrepa.
The Commission has to analyse whether the measures at stake distort or threaten to distort competition and are liable to have an effect on trade between the Member States.
Italija je s sprejetjem ukrepa 2 vse družbe nacionalnega strateškega interesa, ki so blizu insolventnosti, kot je družba Ilva, vključila v shemo največje prednosti pri poplačilu, kar je običajna praksa v postopkih v primeru insolventnosti.
There is an assumption that when aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared to other undertakings competing in intra- Union trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid.
To je bistvena značilnost splošnega okvira insolvenčnega prava, ki se uporablja za vsa podjetja, ki poslujejo v Italiji in so insolventna ali blizu insolventnosti (Legge Fallimentare, določen v Regio decreto z dne 16. marca 1942, št. 267) (glej uvodno izjavo 92).
Thereby it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition.
Komisija meni, da ni razlogov, da se za ukrep 2 uporabi preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, ker je Italija delovala kot javni regulativni organ in ne kot vlagatelj.
The carbon steel markets where Ilva operates are subject to intense competition and intra-Union trade and Ilva sells its products in Italy and other Member States.
Povedano drugače, Italija je s sprejetjem ukrepa 2 delovala v okviru izvajanja svojih regulativnih državnih pooblastil, da bi ohranila vrednost sredstev podjetij, ki jim grozi insolventnost, in ne kot udeleženec na trgu.
As a result, all measures under assessment distort or threaten to distort competition and may affect trade between Member States.
Dejansko je Italija z ukrepom 2 enostransko ponovno določila prednostni vrstni red upnikov družbe Ilva, kar je ukrep, ki ni primerljiv z ukrepi, ki jih lahko izvedejo zasebniki.
For the other criteria set out in Article 107(1) TFEU and listed above in recital 140, points (b), (c) and (d), the Commission will proceed with a measure by measure assessment.
Samo država je pooblaščena, da vse obstoječe terjatve (vključno z nadrejenim dolgom) podredi novejšim, saj tako pooblastilo ni na voljo zasebnim upnikom ali zasebnikom na splošno.
As explained in recital 21, on 24 May 2017 the Riva family and Ilva reached a settlement agreement, through which the ongoing dispute between Ilva's extraordinary administration and the members of the Riva family was resolved.
Preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu se torej ne uporablja za ukrep 2.
The settlement agreement is purely an agreement between private parties, namely certain Riva family members acting in their capacity as shareholders of Ilva and the current management of Ilva under extraordinary administration.
Ker se preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu ne uporablja, iz tega izhaja, da odločilno merilo za ugotovitev obstoja prednosti pri ukrepu 2 ni to, ali država maksimira donosnost ali minimizira izgubo državnih sredstev, ki izhaja iz ukrepa.
Ilva is not a party to those criminal proceedings.
Kljub temu mora Komisija oceniti, ali ukrep 2 vključuje kakršno koli drugo obliko prednosti, ki izhaja iz državnih sredstev.
The amounts to be transferred to Ilva under the settlement agreement include: (i) the Riva assets held by the Riva family on their foreign bank accounts, which are to be made definitely available to Ilva in the legal form provided for by Article 3, paragraph 1, of Law Decree No 1/2015, i.e. in the form of bonds to be subscribed by the Fondo Unico di Giustizia, without the bonds having to be returned to the Riva family members even in case of their acquittal; and (ii) a further amount of EUR 145 million.
Glede na zgornje okoliščine je morebitna manjša verjetnost, da bo država lahko izterjala dolgove do nekaterih javnih subjektov, potem ko je bil novemu dolgu odobren status največje prednosti pri poplačilu, zgolj stranski učinek zadevnega regulativnega ukrepa.
As compared to the situation at the time of the Opening Decision, this settlement agreement constitutes a new fact that needs to be taken into account in the Commission's final assessment of measure 1, in particular as regards the possible advantage granted to Ilva and the imputability of the measure to the State.
Glavni namen in učinek spremembe zadevnega zakona ni bil odpovedati se dolgu družbe Ilva do države in tako družbi Ilva zagotoviti prednost.
In this respect, it is not disputed that the intention of having the Riva assets transferred to Ilva before the end of the criminal proceedings was originally that of the Italian authorities, as explained in the Opening Decision.
Poleg tega se lahko, kot poudarjajo italijanski organi, status največje prednosti pri poplačilu posojila odobri tudi na podlagi splošnega insolvenčnega prava (uvodna izjava 92) in obstajajo empirični dokazi o njegovi naraščajoči uporabi v Italiji za posojila družbam v položajih insolventnosti, ki pod nadzorom sodišča sklenejo dogovor z upniki, potem ko so bile leta 2010 uvedene nekatere reforme, ki so postopoma razširile področje uporabe posojila z največjo prednostjo pri poplačilu.
Nevertheless it is a fact that, despite the provisions of Law Decree No 1/2015 and the subsequent Decreto di Trasferimento, the transfer of the Riva assets did not take place due to the steady opposition of the Swiss court to execute the order without prior consent of the putative owners of the assets — the Riva family members.
Kot je potrdilo Sodišče, negativen posredni učinek na državne prihodke zaradi regulativnih ukrepov ne pomeni prenosa državnih sredstev, če gre za značilnost, neločljivo povezano z ukrepom .
The situation could only be unlocked when the members of the Riva family decided themselves, by means of a purely private settlement agreement, to transfer the assets under their control to Ilva.
Ker je torej mogoči negativni učinek na posojila države družbi Ilva značilnost, ki je neločljivo povezana s shemo največje prednosti pri poplačilu v okviru postopka v primeru insolventnosti v Italiji, to ne more biti sredstvo, s katerim bi bila družbi Ilva dodeljena posebna prednost iz državnih sredstev.
It is also a fact that the scope of the settlement agreement does not perfectly match the whole construction designed by the Italian authorities in Law Decree No 1/2015: first, the amounts transferred to Ilva are in fact higher than provided for by this Law Decree and, second, there are important counterparts given to the Riva family in exchange for the transfer of the amounts.
Sklepna ugotovitev o ukrepu 2
The existence of this private settlement agreement and the fact that the situation only unlocked after this agreement was reached, constitute evidence that the decision to transfer the Riva assets to Ilva was eventually (i) part of a broader deal that was reconciling the private interests of both the Riva family and Ilva; and (ii) in the hands of the Riva family and Ilva (not of the State).
Komisija ugotavlja, da z ukrepom 2 družbi Ilva ni dodeljena gospodarska prednost iz državnih sredstev.
This has to be taken into account to determine whether the Commission's initial doubts that the transaction would confer an economic advantage on Ilva and be imputable to the State remain.
Ker so merila iz člena 107(1) PDEU kumulativna, Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep 2 ne pomeni državne pomoči.
As regards the imputability to the State of the transfer to Ilva of the Riva assets, the Commission takes note that this transfer took place as part of a broader deal which was decided by the Riva family and Ilva.
Državna sredstva in pripisljivost
Again, it is not disputed that the initial intention to transfer assets from the Riva family to Ilva before the end of the criminal proceedings was that of the Italian authorities.
Kar zadeva državni izvor ukrepa, Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep vključuje poroštvo za posojilo, ki ga je odobrilo ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finance.
Nevertheless, the final decision was made by the Riva family by means of the settlement agreement, in implementation of which a letter from the Riva family instructing the foreign banks to release the funds effectively allowed the transfer to Ilva.
Ker pojem države članice vključuje vse ravni javnih organov, ne glede na to, ali gre za nacionalni, regionalni ali lokalni organ, Komisija ugotavlja, da je ukrep mogoče pripisati državi.
Therefore, the basis for the transfer of the Riva assets to Ilva is the private settlement agreement between the Riva family and Ilva, which is not imputable to the State.
Državna poroštva ogrožajo državna sredstva, ker se unovčujejo iz državnega proračuna.
In addition, the Commission observes, as regards the existence of an economic advantage, that in the settlement agreement with the Riva family Ilva does not appear to have received any benefit that it would not have been able to receive under normal market conditions.
Iz tega razloga in v nasprotju s trditvami italijanskih organov celo ustrezno plačana državna poroštva vključujejo državna sredstva.
The Riva family had an incentive to enter into settlement negotiations as it was exposed to the risk of owing Ilva up to EUR […] in damage claims under the assumption that all of Ilva's claims would be upheld by the national judge.
Poleg tega, kot je pojasnjeno v nadaljevanju, Komisija v tej zadevi meni tudi, da se je italijanska država glede na to, da je provizija za poroštvo, ki jo je uporabila Italija, nižja od tržne provizije, odpovedala – in se še vedno odpoveduje – sredstvom, ki bi jih pridobila z višjo, na trgu temelječo provizijo za poroštvo.
On its side, Ilva was in rather urgent need for liquidity, be it to finance current operations or the clean-up measures defined in the Environmental Plan.
Z oceno pogojev državnega poroštva, vključno s provizijo, zaračunano zanj, se lahko izključi le ugotovitev gospodarske prednosti (če pogoji ne ustrezajo tržnim pogojem), ne pa ugotovitev o uporabi državnih sredstev, ki je nesporna.
Ilva therefore agreed to renounce to any future claims (potentially worth up to EUR […]) in exchange for the immediate transfer of ca.
Komisija torej ugotavlja, da ukrep 3 vključuje državna sredstva.
EUR 1,2 billion, part of it being the Riva assets targeted by Law Decree No 1/2015.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je treba za določitev, ali državni ukrep pomeni pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, med drugim ugotoviti, ali je upravičeno podjetje pridobilo gospodarsko prednost, ki je pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji ne bi.
This behaviour reflects the fact that prudent loss-averse operators may prefer to settle a dispute amicably rather than resorting to a judge or arbitrator after continued litigation.
Gospodarska prednost obstaja vedno, kadar se zaradi posredovanja države pod pogoji, ki se razlikujejo od običajnih tržnih pogojev, izboljša finančni položaj podjetja.
Against this background, nothing indicates that the settlement agreement reached by Ilva and the Riva family was not decided in the mutual interests of both private parties.
Vendar pa posredovanje javnega organa ne zagotavlja nujno prednosti upravičencu in kot tako ne pomeni državne pomoči, če poteka pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
Therefore, since the settlement agreement as a whole has taken place under normal market conditions between Ilva and its shareholders and thus does not confer any economic advantage on Ilva, the transfer of the Riva assets which is part of this global settlement does not confer any economic advantage on Ilva either.
Povedano drugače, če javni organ ravna, kot bi v podobnih okoliščinah ravnal preudaren udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu, državne pomoči ni.
In light of the above, the Commission considers that the transfer to Ilva of the Riva assets in the legal form provided for by Law Decree No 1/2015 neither confers an economic advantage to Ilva, nor is imputable to the Italian State.
Italijanski organi v zvezi s tem trdijo, da je bila premija, ki so jo italijanski organi zaračunali za državno poroštvo, določena na podlagi priporočila […] strokovnjaka.
Conclusion on measure 1
Po njihovem mnenju je plačilo za tveganje, ki ga je prevzela država, v skladu s plačilom, ki bi ga zahteval preudaren udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu, zato s poroštvom družbi Ilva ni dodeljena gospodarska prednost.
Based on the above facts, the Commission concludes that the implemented measure is not imputable to the State.
Zainteresirane strani, ki so predložile pripombe k ukrepu 3, pa menijo, da udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu ne bi sprejel takih finančnih pogojev.
Since the criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are cumulative, the Commission concludes that measure 1 does not constitute State aid.
Zlasti združenje WV Stahl poziva Komisijo, naj določi veljavno tržno stopnjo in izterja znesek nezdružljive pomoči v obliki razlike med to tržno stopnjo in dejansko stopnjo, ki so jo italijanski organi zaračunali družbi Ilva.
Economic advantage stemming from State resources
Komisija želi uvodoma poudariti, da je bila družba Ilva v času odobritve spornega državnega poroštva v postopku zaradi insolventnosti.
In order to assess whether measure 2 confers an economic advantage on Ilva, the Commission first analysed Italy's arguments presented in recital 87 as to the regulatory character of this measure.
Kot taka je izpolnjevala pogoje za opredelitev kot podjetje v težavah v skladu s točko 20(c) Smernic o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje nefinančnih podjetij v težavah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice R&P).
By adopting measure 2, Italy placed all nearly insolvent companies, such as Ilva, which are of national strategic interest under the pre-deductibility regime, which is a common characteristic of insolvency proceedings.
Komisija v oddelku 4.1 obvestila o poroštvih pojasnjuje, da „bo tržni porok, če obstaja, podjetjem v težavah v trenutku dodelitve poroštva zaračunal visoko premijo zaradi pričakovane stopnje tveganja neplačila.
It is an essential characteristic of the general insolvency law framework applicable to all undertakings subject to or close to insolvency operating in Italy (‘Legge Fallimentare’ set out in Regio decreto 16 March 1942, No 267 (see recital 92).
Če postane verjetnost, da posojilojemalec ne bo mogel odplačati posojila, zelo visoka, mogoče te tržne stopnje ni, v izjemnih okoliščinah pa je lahko element pomoči poroštva celo enak znesku, ki ga dejansko krije navedeno poroštvo“.
The Commission considers that, since Italy acted as a public regulatory authority rather than as an investor, there are no grounds to apply the market economy operator test to measure 2.
Tak pristop je sprejelo tudi Sodišče, ki je razsodilo, da je treba, kadar država da poroštvo za bančno posojilo družbi, ki je v težavah, „brez ustreznega nadomestila“, poroštvo šteti za pomoč, enako znesku posojila, za katero je bilo dano poroštvo.
In other words, by adopting measure 2, Italy acted in the exercise of its regulatory State powers to preserve the value of assets of undertakings faced with the risk of insolvency and not as a market operator.
V tem okviru je Komisija najprej ocenila, ali obravnavani primer vključuje okoliščine, v katerih je verjetnost, da posojilojemalec ne bo mogel odplačati posojila, tako velika, da znesek posojila, za katero je bilo dano poroštvo, v celoti pomeni pomoč.
Indeed, via measure 2, Italy unilaterally re-determined the priority of Ilva's creditors, which is an action not comparable with actions that private persons can undertake.
Podjetje v težavah je podjetje, ki se sooča s hudimi gospodarskimi in finančnimi težavami ter ki bi brez posredovanja države kratko- ali srednjeročno skoraj zagotovo prenehalo poslovati.
Only the State has the power to subordinate all existing claims (including senior debt) to the newer ones, such a power not being available to private creditors, or private persons in general.
V takih okoliščinah je verjetno, da ne bo noben udeleženec na trgu odobril posojila ali poroštva takemu podjetju, tako da bi moralo vsako posojilo ali poroštvo, ki ga država dodeli takemu podjetju, načeloma pomeniti pomoč, enako celotnemu znesku posojila (za katero je dano poroštvo).
Therefore, the market economy operator test is not applicable for measure 2.
Vendar pa je treba to osrednjo domnevo preveriti glede na dejstva vsakega primera in, če je upravičenec v postopku zaradi insolventnosti, glede na predpise o insolventnosti, ki veljajo v zadevni državi članici.
It follows from the non-applicability of the market economy operator test that the decisive criterion for the existence of advantage in measure 2 is not whether the State maximises the return or minimises the loss of State resources stemming from the measure.
V zvezi z zadnjenavedenim vidikom Komisija ugotavlja, da je, kar zadeva velika podjetja, z italijanskim insolvenčnim pravom prednost odplačila iz stečajne mase (pre-deduzione) dana vsakemu novemu posojilu, odobrenemu med postopkom zaradi insolventnosti, pred posojili, odobrenimi pred objavo insolventnosti.
Nevertheless, the Commission still needs to assess whether measure 2 involves any other form of advantage stemming from State resources.
Poleg tega za razliko od posojil, odobrenih pred razglasitvijo insolventnosti, obresti še naprej tečejo za posojila, odobrena med postopkom zaradi insolventnosti.
In the above circumstances, the possibly lower likelihood for the State to recover debts owed to some public entities after new debt is granted pre-deductibility status is a mere side effect of the regulatory measure in question.
Namen teh določb je spodbuditi morebitne upnike, da podprejo družbo v času njenega postopka zaradi insolventnosti, da bi ohranila ekonomsko vrednost svojih sredstev do zaključka postopka (preusmeritev, prodaja ali likvidacija).
The main purpose and effect of the amendment of the law in question was not to forego Ilva's debt owed to the State thus favouring Ilva.
Sam obstoj navedenih določb kaže, da posojilodajalci v nekaterih primerih privolijo v novo posojilo podjetjem, ki so v postopku zaradi insolventnosti (tj. podjetjem v težavah).
In addition, as noted by the Italian authorities, pre-deductibility status for loans can also be granted under general insolvency law (recital 92) and there is empirical evidence of increasing use in Italy for credits to companies in insolvency situations concluding Court supervised composition agreements, after some reforms were introduced since 2010 which have progressively extended the scope of pre-deductible credit.
To tudi kaže, da se sklepanje posojilodajalca ali poroka, ki se pogaja s posojilojemalcem v težavah, lahko nekoliko razlikuje od sklepanja v običajnih poslovnih razmerah.
As confirmed by the Court, a negative indirect effect on State revenues stemming from regulatory measures does not constitute a transfer of State resources where it is an inherent feature of the measure .
Po eni strani bo posojilodajalec ali porok v obeh primerih ocenil verjetnost, da posojilojemalec ne bo mogel odplačati posojila.
Therefore, since a possible negative effect on State credits towards Ilva is an inherent feature of the pre-deductibility regime of insolvency proceedings in Italy, it cannot be a means of granting a particular advantage from State resources to Ilva.
Po drugi strani bo v običajnih poslovnih razmerah poudarek predvsem na verjetnosti neplačila posojilojemalca, medtem ko bo v primeru posojilojemalcev, ki verjetno na neki točki ne bodo plačilno sposobni, več pozornosti morda namenjene izgubi v primeru neplačila (Loss Given Default, v nadaljnjem besedilu: LGD) posojila ali poroštva.