natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
From the above evidence, it follows that the present case does not present circumstances in which access of the beneficiary to private finance can be ruled out so that the aid element in any public loan or guarantee should be considered State aid for the amount of the entire loan or guarantee.
Ker profil odplačila posojila v višini 400 milijonov EUR ustreza tehtanemu povprečnemu trajanju 14,86 leta, bi morala biti ustrezna izhodiščna obrestna mera 15-letna obrestna mera zamenjave.
The Commission then assessed whether the financial terms of the public guarantee on the EUR 400 million granted to Ilva adequately remunerate the risk taken by the State.
27. maja 2015, tj. ob odobritvi posojila v višini 400 milijonov EUR s strani treh zasebnih posojilodajalcev, je obrestna mera zamenjave za 15-letne zapadlosti znašala 1,18 %.
In this respect, the Commission recalls the Guarantee Notice: ‘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.’
Na tej podlagi je tržna obrestna mera, navedena v sporočilu iz leta 2008, enaka 1,18 % + 1000 bazičnih točk, tj. 11,18 %.
In the present case, the State guarantee was granted with an annual premium of 3,12 %.
Znesek prednosti, povezane s poroštvom, ki ga je odobrila država, je treba za posojilo izračunati ločeno v skladu naslednjo metodologijo: razlika med (i) obrestno mero, izračunano, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 190, uporabljeno za glavnico posojila, ter (ii) skupnimi finančnimi stroški posojila s poroštvom, izračunanimi kot vsota obrestne mere, ki so jo banke uporabile za glavnico posojila, in poroštvene premije, ki jo je uporabila država, izračunanima in zaračunanima za obdobje, v katerem so bili zneski dani na voljo družbi Ilva.
This premium was set on the basis of the […] opinion.
Državno poroštvo, opredeljeno kot ukrep 3, je ad hoc ukrep podpore, odobren v korist enega samega podjetja: družbe Ilva.
Contrary to the Italian authorities, the Commission considers that the […] opinion does not estimate properly the remuneration that a prudent market economy operator would have asked in exchange for its guarantee, as the […] opinion does not provide an adequate estimate of the likelihood that the guarantee may be called, and repaid if called.
Ukrep 3 je kot tak selektiven.
In fact, the […] opinion entirely relies on the flawed assumption that the EUR 400 million loan granted to Ilva would be transferred to a new company (‘NewCo’) operating Ilva's assets under better conditions.
Sklepna ugotovitev o ukrepu 3
The […] opinion makes an in-depth assessment of the creditworthiness of this hypothetical NewCo and concludes, based on NewCo's estimated credit score, that the Italian State should apply a guarantee premium in the range of 1,53 % to 3,12 %.
Ker ukrep 3 izpolnjuje vsa merila iz člena 107(1) PDEU, Komisija ugotavlja, da pomeni državno pomoč, katere znesek se lahko določi na podlagi metodologije, opisane v uvodni izjavi 191.
However, at the time of granting of the guarantee, there was no reason to assume that the EUR 400 million loan would be automatically transferred to a hypothetical new owner of Ilva's assets.
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka zavzela predhodno stališče, da je mogoče dogovor o poravnavi spora med družbo Fintecna in družbo Ilva pripisati italijanski državi ter da vključuje državna sredstva.
In this context, the Italian authorities should have assessed the creditworthiness of Ilva (not of a hypothetical acquirer) and estimated the loan LGD on that basis.
Komisija je tudi izrazila dvome glede tega, ali je družba Fintecna, s tem ko je marca 2015, takoj po tem, ko je bila družba Ilva razglašena za insolventno, privolila v poravnavo dolgega spora, sprejela razumno odločitev, ki bi jo sprejel udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu v podobnem položaju.
Since the […] opinion could not be used to assess whether the premium charged by the Italian State adequately remunerates the risk, the Commission had to look for benchmarks of rates applied to entities in a similar financial situation as Ilva.
Komisija je na podlagi pripomb, prejetih med formalnim postopkom, najprej ocenila, ali je bila odločitev o poravnavi spora dejansko razumna z vidika udeleženca na trgu, tj. ali je bila s to odločitvijo družbi Ilva dodeljena gospodarska prednost.
In line with established and recent decisional practice on firms undergoing insolvency proceedings and earmarked for sale, the Commission considers that, without any available alternative credit rating and in light of its qualification as undertaking in difficulty, Ilva's rating is at best CCC (see also recital 189).
Kot je navedeno že v uvodni izjavi 163, posredovanje javnega organa ne zagotavlja nujno prednosti upravičencu in kot tako ne pomeni pomoči, če poteka pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji, tj. če je javni organ ravnal, kot bi v podobnih okoliščinah ravnal preudaren udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Consequently, the Commission collected financial data from the database S&P Capital IQ Platform on credit default swaps (‘CDS’) spreads as well as bond yields for companies with a rating of CCC+, D or SD at the date of granting of measure 3.
Prvič, Komisija je v okviru poglobljene ocene ocenila okoliščine, v katerih se je družba Fintecna odločila, da bo dolgoletni spor z družbo Ilva poravnala s plačilom 156 milijonov EUR.
The CDS is a financial swap agreement that the seller of the CDS will compensate the buyer (usually the creditor of the reference loan) in the event of a loan default (by the debtor).
Družba Fintecna je pri sprejetju te odločitve morala upoštevati tedanje gospodarske razmere, raven tveganja in prihodnje obete.
In other words, the seller of the CDS insures the buyer against some reference loan defaulting.
Družba Fintecna je odločitev o poravnavi spora sprejela v okviru zakonskega odloka št. 1/2015, s katerim je bil spodbujen sporazum med zadevnima stranema.
This instrument is as such very relevant to give an indication of what would be the risk premium/guarantee fee a market operator would require to ensure the risk of default of a loan.
Kar zadeva razumno oceno tveganj v primeru insolventnosti družbe Ilva, ki sta jo zagotovila neodvisna pravna svetovalca, zgolj dejstvo, da se je družba Fintecna odločila spor poravnati šele tedaj in ne pred sprejetjem zgoraj navedenega zakonskega odloka, ne spremeni dejstva, da je bila odločitev o poravnavi spora razumna odločitev, ki bi jo udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu sprejel v podobnem položaju.
The data collected on 11 observations available in May 2015 shows CDS spreads for maturities of 10 years varying from 6,3 % to 277,7 % with a median value of 17,6 %.
Preudaren gospodarski subjekt, ki ne želi imeti izgub, bo namreč spor raje reševal sporazumno, namesto da bi se obrnil na sodišče ali arbitra po nadaljevanju spora, če njegova odgovornost ni vprašljiva kot taka in bi njegova izpostavljenost lahko privedla do zneskov, med […] in […] višjih od neposredno dogovorjenega zneska.
The bond yields give a good indication of the ‘all-in’ cost of borrowing for a company, that is interest rate and guarantee premium altogether in percentage.
Ne zdi se, da bi nadaljnje odlašanje poravnave lahko privedlo do boljšega finančnega rezultata za družbo Fintecna.
The data collected on 8 observations available in May 2015 indicates rates between 5,3 % and 35,6 % with a median value of 17,0 % for 10-year maturity bonds.
Glede na to, da ukrepi, ki jih je sprejela družba Fintecna, ustrezajo ravnanju preudarnega udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu in da postopek, ki je bil izveden pred sprejetjem odločitve, izraža preudaren pristop družbe Fintecna k določitvi zneska morebitne poravnave z družbo Ilva, Komisija ugotavlja, da je odločitev o plačilu zneska, nižjega od lastnih ocen, načeloma razumna odločitev zasebnega udeleženca na trgu, ki si prizadeva za poravnavo, in da kot taka družbi Ilva ne more zagotoviti prednosti.
Only two observations were available for 25-year maturity bonds: these observations present a rate of 14,2 %.
Sklepna ugotovitev o ukrepu 4
As the analysed data shows, the cost of financing for companies rated CCC+, D or SD at the date of granting of measure 3 was substantially higher than what Ilva obtained thanks to the State guarantee.
Komisija je dokazala, da ukrep 4 družbi Ilva ne daje gospodarske prednosti.
Indeed, Ilva was able to get a loan at a total cost (interest rate of […] + guarantee premium of 3,12 %) of […] while the market indications show a total cost close to 17 % during the same period.
Ker so merila iz člena 107(1) PDEU kumulativna, Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep 4 ne pomeni državne pomoči.
This plausibility check demonstrates that the State guarantee defined as measure 3 confers an economic advantage on Ilva, which Ilva would not have obtained at market conditions.
Kar zadeva državni izvor ukrepa, Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep vključuje posojilo, ki ga je ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finance odobrilo s sredstvi iz državnega proračuna.
This finding is in line with the opinion of competitors (see recital 118).
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 in da vključuje prenos državnih sredstev.
Having established the existence of an economic advantage not available at market conditions, comes the question of its quantification.
Združenje WV Stahl v svojih pripombah k sklepu o začetku postopka od Komisije zahteva, naj zagotovi hitro izterjavo državne pomoči, dodeljene družbi Ilva v obliki posojil po stopnjah, nižjih od tržnih, na podlagi razlike med zaračunano obrestno mero in tržno obrestno mero ob odobritvi posojil (glej uvodno izjavo 120).
As explained above, the Commission was able to collect some indications of market rates of guarantees for the given period.
Komisija meni, da je za ugotovitev obstoja gospodarske prednosti, povezane z ukrepom 5, mogoče uporabiti enako sklepanje kot za ukrep 3, čeprav sta med obema ukrepoma dve stvarni razliki.
However, these data have been retrieved from entities which are not fully comparable to Ilva and from financial instruments which are different from the loan and guarantee contracted by Ilva and can, therefore, not serve of themselves as a proper benchmark for establishing the exact market rate for the guarantee in question to requisite level of accuracy.
Prva stvarna razlika je, da je ukrep 5 javno posojilo, medtem ko je ukrep 3 državno poroštvo za sindicirano posojilo.
Under such circumstances, the Guarantee Notice declares that the potential advantage linked to the granting of a guarantee (corresponding to the potential aid element) should be calculated as the difference between the specific market interest rate that the beneficiary would have borne without the guarantee and the interest rate obtained by means of the State guarantee after any premiums paid have been taken into account.
Druga stvarna razlika je datum odobritve: 30. april 2015 za ukrep 3 v primerjavi s 15. decembrom 2015 za ukrep 5.
The Commission considers it prudent to take also into account the 2008 Communication on the reference and discount rates for the purposes of estimating a proxy of the market-conform interest rate for the loan in question.
Vendar Komisija meni, da sklepanje iz uvodnih izjav od 166 do 179 velja tudi za datum odobritve ukrepa 5: decembra 2015 je bilo še vedno mogoče pričakovati, da bo likvidacijska vrednost sredstev družbe Ilva visoka, skupni znesek terjatev z največjo prednostjo pri poplačilu pa se je povečal za 400 milijonov EUR (tj. znesek ukrepa 3) v primerjavi z aprilom 2015, s čimer je dosegel približno […] EUR – kar je še vedno precej manj od stečajne mase v višini 1,8 milijarde EUR, ki jo je bilo mogoče pričakovati.
In that respect, Ilva's creditworthiness (rating) appears to be at the lowest of the five possible ratings provided for in the 2008 Communication, namely ‘Bad/Financial difficulties (CCC and below)’.
Poleg tega je z zakonskim odlokom št. 191/2015 ukrepu 5 dana večja prednost odplačila v primerjavi z drugimi terjatvami z največjo prednostjo pri poplačilu, kot je prikazano v grafu 2, kar dodatno povečuje potencialni LGD ukrepa 5.
Moreover, no collateral was attached to the loan, providing the lenders (or the guarantor) a sufficiently liquid, possibly transferable and immediately actionable right over Ilva's assets in case of default.
Graf 2
On that basis, the Commission takes the view that the market interest rate of the loan plus guarantee constituting measure 3 must be calculated for the loan as the result of the sum of an appropriate base rate plus 1000 basis points as defined in the 2008 Communication.
Zaporedje odplačila dolga družbe Ilva decembra 2015
As regards the appropriate base rate, the 2008 Communication recommends to use 1-year money market rates (i.e. in the case of Italy: the Euribor 1-year rate), the Commission reserving the right to use shorter or longer maturities adapted to certain cases.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno se zdi, da je bil LGD posojila še vedno razmeroma visok, in Komisija ugotavlja, da bi bil lahko zasebni posojilodajalec z izkušnjami z upravljanjem tveganih posojil zainteresiran za odobritev posojila družbi Ilva.
In the present case, the Commission considers that the very long maturity of the EUR 400 million loan object of the State guarantee justifies choosing a base rate in adequacy with this long maturity.
Komisija je nato tako kot pri ukrepu 3 ocenila, ali finančni pogoji javnega posojila ustrezno poplačajo tveganje, ki ga je prevzela država.
The Commission therefore decides to apply a swap rate corresponding to the weighted average life of the guaranteed loan.
Iz istih razlogov kot pri ukrepu 3 Komisija meni, da mnenje […] ne zagotavlja ustrezne metode za določitev, ali je bila letna obrestna mera, ki jo je uporabila država (2,94 %), ustrezna.
As the repayment profile of the EUR 400 million loan gives a weighted average life of 14,86 years, the appropriate base rate should be the 15-year swap rate.
Zato je Komisija iz podatkovne zbirke S&P Capital IQ Platform zbrala podobne javne podatke kot za ukrep 3 (razmiki CDS in donosi obveznic), ki pa so ustrezali datumu odobritve ukrepa 5.
On 27 May 2015, i.e. at the time of granting by the three private lenders of the EUR 400 million loan, the swap rate for 15-year maturities was 1,18 %.
Podatki, zbrani v zvezi s 14 primeri, ki so bili na voljo decembra 2015, kažejo, da razmiki CDS za zapadlosti petih let segajo od 6,2 % do 300,5 % s srednjo vrednostjo 44,1 %, razmiki CDS za zapadlosti enega leta pa od 3,0 % do 648 % s srednjo vrednostjo 32,7 %.
On that basis, the market interest rate given by the 2008 Communication is 1,18 % + 1000 bps, i.e. 11,18 %.
Podatki, zbrani v zvezi z 31 primeri, ki so bili na voljo decembra 2015, kažejo stopnje donosa obveznic od 2,2 % do 99,0 % s srednjo vrednostjo 17,6 % za triletne obveznice.
The amount of the advantage linked to the guarantee granted by the State must be calculated separately for the loan according to the following methodology: the difference between (i) the interest rate calculated as explained in recital 190 applied to the loan principal; and (ii) the total financial cost of the guaranteed loan calculated as the sum of the interest rate applied by the banks to the loan principal and the guarantee premium applied by the State, calculated and charged for the period during which the amounts were made available to Ilva.
Kot je razvidno iz analiziranih podatkov, so bili na datum odobritve ukrepa 5 stroški financiranja družb z bonitetnimi ocenami CCC+, D ali SD precej višji od tistih, ki jih je imela družba Ilva zaradi posredovanja države.
The State guarantee defined as measure 3 is an ad hoc support measure granted in favour of one single undertaking: Ilva.
Za obresti za posojilo, odobreno družbi Ilva, je bila namreč določena letna obrestna mera v višini 2,94 %, medtem ko tržni podatki kažejo precej višje skupne stroške v istem obdobju.
As such, measure 3 is selective.
Kot pri ukrepu 3 to preverjanje verodostojnosti kaže, da je z javnim posojilom, opredeljenim kot ukrep 5, družbi Ilva dodeljena gospodarska prednost, ki je po tržnih pogojih ne bi pridobila.
Conclusion on measure 3
Znesek prednosti, povezane z javnim posojilom, opredeljenim kot ukrep 5, je treba izračunati kot razliko med (i) obrestno mero, izračunano, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 213, uporabljeno za glavnico posojila, ter (ii) dejansko obrestno mero, ki je veljala za družbo Ilva, izračunano in zaračunano v obdobju, v katerem so bili zneski dani na voljo družbi Ilva.
Since measure 3 meets all the criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission concludes that it constitutes State aid, the amount of which can be determined based on the methodology described in recital 191.
Državno posojilo, opredeljeno kot ukrep 5, je ad hoc ukrep podpore, odobren v korist enega samega podjetja: družbe Ilva.
In the Opening Decision the Commission took the preliminary view that the dispute settlement agreed between Fintecna and Ilva is imputable to the Italian State and involves State resources.
Ukrep 5 je kot tak selektiven.
The Commission also raised doubts as to whether by accepting to settle a long dispute in March 2015, just after Ilva was declared insolvent, Fintecna took a rational decision that a market economy operator would have taken in a similar situation.
Sklepna ugotovitev o ukrepu 5
Based on the observations received during the formal proceedings, the Commission first assessed whether the decision to settle the dispute was indeed rational from a market operator point of view, i.e. whether this decision confers an economic advantage on Ilva.
Ker ukrep 5 izpolnjuje vsa merila iz člena 107(1) PDEU, Komisija ugotavlja, da pomeni državno pomoč, katere znesek se lahko določi na podlagi metodologije, opisane v uvodni izjavi 214.
As already stated in recital 163, an intervention by a public authority does not necessarily confer an advantage on the beneficiary, and as such does not constitute aid, if it is carried out under normal market conditions, in other words, if the public authority acted as a prudent operator in a market economy would have done in similar circumstances.
Nezakonitost pomoči
First of all, in the in-depth assessment the Commission evaluated the circumstances under which Fintecna made a decision to settle the dispute with Ilva after long period of time by paying EUR 156 million.
Ukrepa 3 in 5 pomenita državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU in sta bila izvedena brez predhodne priglasitve Komisiji, kar je v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU.
While making its decision to settle Fintecna must have taken into account the economic situation at the time at which it decided to settle, the level of risk and future expectations.
Navedena ukrepa sta bila torej izvedena nezakonito.
In this respect, the Commission takes note that the liability incurred and assumed by the State as seller before the privatisation took place is not contestable on its principle and that, as regards the settlement amount i.e. EUR 156 million, Fintecna, as a prudent creditor, undertook the estimations of its exposure towards Ilva in 2011 and adjusted those in 2014.
Združljivost pomoči z notranjim trgom
The calculations revealed the exposure of EUR […], i.e. the adjusted amount of EUR […] in 2014.
Prepoved državne pomoči ni niti absolutna niti brezpogojna.
In order to properly assess the legal risks, Fintecna ordered two legal opinions both of which independently confirmed that EUR 156 million was an acceptable amount, within the maximum cap agreed in the privatisation contract (EUR […], excluding interests, or EUR […], including interests) and the estimated potential exposure (EUR […] in 2014).
Zlasti odstavka 2 in 3 člena 107 PDEU sta pravni podlagi, ki omogočata, da se nekateri ukrepi pomoči štejejo za združljive z notranjim trgom.
Fintecna made the decision to settle in the context of Law Decree No 1/2015 which prompted the agreement between the two parties.
Ker italijanski organi menijo, da preiskovani ukrepi ne pomenijo državne pomoči, niso navedli nobenega razloga v zvezi z njihovo združljivostjo.
Given the sensible estimation of the risks which occur in case of Ilva's insolvency provided by independent legal advisors, the mere fact that Fintecna decided to settle only then and not before the above Law Decree was adopted, does not change the qualification of the decision to settle as a rational decision that a market economy operator would have taken in a similar situation.
Komisija bo zato na lastno pobudo ocenila, ali je mogoče ukrepa državne pomoči, odobrena družbi Ilva, tj. ukrepa 3 in 5, razglasiti za združljiva z notranjim trgom na podlagi katere koli od zgoraj navedenih pravnih podlag.
Indeed, a prudent loss-averse operator may prefer to settle a dispute amicably rather than resorting to a judge or arbitrator after continued litigation in circumstances where its liability is not questionable as such and its exposure could lead to amounts between […] and […] higher than the immediately settled amount.
Komisija ugotavlja, da odstopanja iz člena 107(2) PDEU očitno niso upoštevna.
Considering the fact that steps undertaken by Fintecna correspond to the behaviour of a rational market economy participant and that the process preceding the decision reflects the prudent approach Fintecna took towards the amount of a possible settlement to be reached with Ilva, the Commission concludes that paying less than its own estimates is in principle a reasonable decision of a private market operator in settlement and as such is not liable to confer an advantage on Ilva.
Točka (a) določa, da se lahko za združljivo z notranjim trgom šteje pomoč za pospeševanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je podzaposlenost velika.
Conclusion on measure 4
V točki (c) pa je navedeno, da se lahko za združljivo z notranjim trgom šteje pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
The Commission has shown that measure 4 does not confer an economic advantage on Ilva.
Kar zadeva točko (a) člena 107(3) PDEU, podjetja, ki delujejo v jeklarskem sektorju, kot je družba Ilva, niso upravičena do regionalne pomoči v skladu s točko 9 smernic o regionalni državni pomoči.
Since the criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are cumulative, the Commission concludes that measure 4 does not constitute State aid.
Zato te pravne podlage ni mogoče uporabiti za preiskovana ukrepa.
As regards the State origin of the measure, the Commission observes that the measure consists in a loan granted by the Ministry of Economy and Finance through resources from the State budget.
Kar zadeva točko (c) člena 107(3) PDEU, Komisija meni, da ni okvira ali smernic v zvezi z uporabo člena 107(3), ki bi jih bilo mogoče uporabiti za zadevna ukrepa.
Given that the notion of Member State includes all levels of public authorities, regardless of whether it is a national, regional or local authority, the Commission concludes that the measure is imputable to the State and involves a transfer of State resources.
Zlasti podjetja, ki delujejo v jeklarskem sektorju, kot je družba Ilva, niso upravičena do pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje v skladu s točko 18 Smernic o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje nefinančnih podjetij v težavah.
In its observations to the opening decision, WV Stahl requests the Commission to ensure a quick recovery of State aid granted in the form of loans to Ilva below market conditions, based on the difference between the interest rate charged and the market rate when the loans were granted (see recital 120).
Ker družba Ilva izpolnjuje 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, tudi ni upravičena do okoljske pomoči v skladu s točko 16 Smernic o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja in energijo.