natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finnfjord requested additional aid from Enova to ensure that the project would meet its internal requirements of profitability.
dokončanje projekta, pri čemer se zvišanje stroškov financira v okviru splošnega denarnega toka podjetja;
Finnfjord elaborated on the reasons for the cost increases in its progress report dated 12 September 2012.
odložitev del v zvezi s tretjo pečjo, razvrstitev te peči kot ločenega projekta in predložitev vloge podjetju Enova za več pomoči;
In early August 2012, Finnfjord informally discussed with Enova the potential postponement of the works on the third furnace and classifying it as a separate project in order to apply for more aid from Enova on the basis of it being a new project.
pridobitev [80–95] milijonov NOK dodatnega financiranja od podjetja Enova (pomoč), banke SNN (posojilo) in podjetja IN (posojilo in pomoč) za dokončanje projekta.
By letter dated 20 August 2012, Enova rejected the application for aid.
Odbor je sklenil nadaljevati v skladu s tretjim ukrepom.
When Finnfjord's board met on 25 September 2012 the total cost estimate had been set to NOK [approximately 800] million.
Podjetje IN je Nadzornemu organu predložilo izvleček protokola seje upravnega odbora glede tretjega možnega ukrepa.
In that meeting Finnfjord's board considered three alternative courses of action:
V zvezi z vlogama podjetjema Enova in IN za več pomoči je v izvlečku navedeno:
Completing the project by financing the cost increases by way of the company's general cash flow.
„Morebitna nepovratna sredstva/posojila podjetij Enova in [IN] se bodo uporabila neposredno za zmanjšanje likvidnostnega posojila, za katerega je bila predložena vloga [banki SNN].“ [26](28) Po navedbah podjetja IN je upravni odbor sklenil, da bi prva možnost ukrepanja v bistvu pomenila financiranje projekta na stroške upnikov podjetja Finnfjord, kar s pravnega vidika ni priporočljivo in dolgoročno ni sprejemljiva rešitev.
Postponing the works on the third furnace, classifying it as a separate project and applying for more aid from Enova.
Poleg tega upravni odbor po navedbah podjetja IN druge možnosti ukrepanja ni štel za izvedljivo, saj je sklenil, da bi bila odložitev del v zvezi s tretjo pečjo nedopustno draga.
Obtaining NOK [80-95] million of additional financing from Enova (aid), SNN (loan) and IN (loan and aid) in order to complete the project.
Norveški organi so v svojih pripombah k sklepu Nadzornega organa o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave pojasnili, da končni skupni stroški znašajo [približno 800] milijonov NOK.
The board decided to proceed according the third alternative.
Norveški organi niso pojasnili, kdaj je bilo to dokončno dogovorjeno.
IN has provided the Authority with an extract of the board meeting protocol regarding the third alternative.
Pregled zvišanj stroškov
Concerning the applications to Enova and IN for more aid the extract provides the following:
Datum, dogodek
‘Potential grants/loans from Enova and [IN] will be used directly to reduce the liquidity loan applied for [from SNN].’ [26].(28) According to IN, the board concluded that the first course of action would essentially mean that the project would be financed at the expense of Finnfjord's creditors, which would be legally unadvisable and not a tenable solution in the long term.
Predvideni proračun v milijonih NOK
Also, according to IN, the board did not consider the second alternative a viable course of action as it concluded that the postponement of the works on the third furnace would be prohibitively expensive.
Prvotni proračun, kot je opisan v Odločbi št. 39/11/COL z dne 9. februarja 2011
In their comments to the Authority's decision to open the formal investigation, the Norwegian authorities have clarified that the final total cost amounted to NOK [approximately 800] million.
7. februar 2011, seja upravnega odbora podjetja Finnfjord
The Norwegian authorities have not clarified when this was finally settled.
[680–720]
Overview of the cost increases
5. julij 2012, Finnfjord zaprosi podjetje Enova za več pomoči
Date, event
[730–760]
Estimated budget in NOK million
31. julij 2012, pregled proračuna podjetja Finnfjord
Initial budget as described in Decision No 39/11/COL of 9 February 2011
[740–790]
7 February 2011, Finnfjord board meeting
25. september 2012, seja upravnega odbora podjetja Finnfjord
[680-720]
Končni skupni stroški
5 July 2012, Finnfjord applies to Enova for more aid
[približno 800]
[730-760]
Dodelitev pomoči podjetja IN in paket v višini [80–95] milijonov NOK
31 July 2012, Finnfjord budget review
Podjetje Finnfjord je 28. avgusta 2012 začelo neformalen dialog s podjetjem IN in banko SNN, da bi pridobilo [80–95] milijonov NOK, ki jih je potrebovalo za financiranje dokončanja projekta.
[740-790]
Z dopisom z dne 1. oktobra 2012 je banko SNN uradno zaprosilo za dodatna posojila.
25 September 2012, Finnfjord board meeting
Za dodatna posojila in nepovratna sredstva podjetja IN je zaprosilo 11. oktobra 2012, pri čemer ni navedlo zneska pomoči.
Final total cost
Zdi se, da je banka SNN pred sredino oktobra 2012 podjetju Finnfjord ponudila posojilo v višini [80–95] milijonov NOK.
[approximately 800]
Vendar je kot pogoj za to posojilo postavila zavarovanje s premoženjem v škodo zavarovanja s premoženjem že obstoječega posojila podjetja IN [27].
IN's award of aid and the NOK [80-95] million package
Podjetje IN ni sprejelo te rešitve.
On 28 August 2012, Finnfjord initiated an informal dialogue with IN and SNN in order to obtain the NOK [80-95] million necessary to finance the completion of the project.
Namesto tega so se Finnfjord, SNN in IN dogovorili o naslednjem paketu financiranja v višini [80–95] milijonov NOK:
By letter dated 1 October 2012, Finnfjord formally applied for additional loans from SNN.
podjetje IN zagotovi pomoč v višini 16 milijonov NOK;
Finnfjord applied for additional loans and grants from IN on 11 October 2012, without specifying an aid amount.
podjetje IN odobri kratkoročno posojilo v višini 18 milijonov NOK s [5–9]-odstotno obrestno mero (ki je prilagodljiva v skladu s politiko kreditnega tveganja podjetja IN), ki je zavarovano pari passu s predhodnim posojilom podjetja IN v višini 100 milijonov NOK;
It appears that SNN prior to mid-October 2012 had offered Finnfjord a loan of NOK [80-95] million.
banka SNN odobri kratkoročno posojilo v višini [45–60] milijonov NOK z […]-mesečno obrestno mero NIBOR [28] + [300–600] bazičnih točk, ki je zavarovano pari passu s predhodnim posojilom banke SNN v višini [300–325] milijonov NOK.
However, SNN made the offer conditional on collateralisation to the detriment of the collateralisation of a pre-existing loan from IN [27].
Posojili podjetja IN in banke SNN sta bili izplačani, pomoč podjetju Finnfjord v višini 16 milijonov NOK pa se bo izplačala le z odobritvijo Nadzornega organa.
IN did not accept this solution.
Pripombe
Finnfjord, SNN and IN instead negotiated the following NOK [80-95] million financing package:
Pripombe, ki so jih norveški organi predložili v odziv na začetek formalnega postopka preiskave
A short-term loan of NOK 18 million from IN with a rate of [5-9] % (adjustable in accordance with IN risk loan policy) collateralised pari passu with a pre-existing loan of NOK 100 million from IN.
V zvezi s tem, zakaj podjetje Finnfjord februarja 2011 ni zaprosilo podjetja Enova za več pomoči, podjetje IN pojasnjuje, da je podjetje Enova enostransko zmanjšalo znesek z 200 milijonov NOK ter poudarilo, da dodelitev 175 milijonov NOK pomeni zelo visoko intenzivnost pomoči in da noben drug projekt ne bi mogel pričakovati podobne podpore.
A short-term loan of NOK [45-60] million from SNN with an interest rate of […] months NIBOR [28] + [300-600] bps collateralised pari passu with a pre-existing loan of NOK [300-325] million from SNN.
Zato je podjetje Finnfjord menilo, da vloga za dodatno pomoč ne bi bila odobrena.
The NOK [80-95] million financing package was formalised and accepted by Finnfjord by way of a supplementing coordination agreement signed by SNN, IN and Finnfjord on 12 December 2012.
Vendar je spremenilo svoj pristop, ko je izvedelo, da je podjetje Enova sklenilo dodeliti 350 milijonov NOK pomoči skoraj popolnoma enakemu projektu, ki ga izvaja podjetje Elkem AS [29].
Such agreement, aimed at regulating the relationship between the three parties, covered the loan agreement between Finnfjord and SNN dated 12 December 2012, the loan agreement between Finnfjord and IN dated 10 December 2012.
Podjetje IN je predložilo revidirano razpredelnico, v kateri so upoštevane pripombe Nadzornega organa iz sklepa o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.
Whilst the loans from IN and SNN have been disbursed, the NOK 16 million of aid to Finnfjord will only be disbursed with the Authority's approval.
Na podlagi končnih stroškov projekta v višini [približno 800] milijonov NOK, 15-letne življenjske dobe projekta in preverjenega postopnega večanja proizvodnje električne energije v prvih treh letih do največje letne zmogljivosti v višini 344,5 GWh, pri čemer se uporablja model Enova, izračunana stopnja donosa brez pomoči v višini 16 milijonov NOK znaša [približno 9] %.
Comments
S pomočjo bi stopnja donosa znašala [približno 11] %.
Comments submitted by the Norwegian authorities in response to the opening of the formal investigation
Podjetje IN trdi, da zato projekt ob upoštevanju splošne naložbene politike podjetja Finnfjord, da je za takšne naložbe zunaj temeljnih poslovnih dejavnosti podjetja potrebna [10–20]-odstotna stopnja donosa, ni dobičkonosen.
IN stresses that it, at the time when it decided to conditionally grant the NOK 16 million, did not consider lending the money to Finnfjord, as the company did not have sufficient collateral to cover new loans up to NOK [80-95] million.
Podjetje IN poudarja, da je podjetje Finnfjord sklep o nadaljevanju projekta sprejelo na podlagi svojih notranjih izračunov, ki se razlikujejo od zgoraj predstavljenih izračunov (na podlagi modela Enova).
As to why Finnfjord did not apply for more aid from Enova in February 2011, IN clarifies that Enova unilaterally reduced the amount from NOK 200 million and stressed that the NOK 175 million award represented an exceptionally high aid intensity and that no other project could expect to receive similar support.
Navaja, da mu notranji izračuni podjetja Finnfjord niso bili predloženi.
Finnfjord therefore considered that an application for further aid would be unsuccessful.
Navaja tudi, da dozdevno nasprotujoča si stališča podjetij IN in Enova najverjetneje izhajajo iz razlik med notranjimi pravili in praksami podjetij IN in Enova.
However, the company changed its approach when it became aware of Enova's decision to award NOK 350 million in aid to an almost identical project carried out by Elkem AS [29].
Pripombe tretjih strank, ki jih je podjetje Finnfjord predložilo v odziv na objavo sklepa o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave
IN has submitted a revised spreadsheet taking into accounts comments made by the Authority in the decision to open the formal investigation.
Po navedbah podjetja Finnfjord si Nadzorni organ v svojem sklepu očitno nasprotuje, saj Nadzorni organ ne izključuje neposredno možnosti spodbujevalnega učinka pomoči v zadevnem primeru, hkrati pa izpostavlja vprašanje, ali je podjetje Finnfjord obravnavalo možnost zaustavitve, zmanjšanja obsega ali prekinitve projekta.
Based on the final project cost of NOK [approximately 800] million, a project lifetime of 15 years and a verified gradual increase in electricity production over the first three years to a maximum annual capacity of 344,5 GWh, using the Enova model, the rate of return without the NOK 16 million of aid is calculated to [approximately 9] %.
Podjetje Finnfjord poudarja, da čeprav je bil do seje upravnega odbora dne 25. septembra 2012 cilj odbora dokončati projekt, se to ne bi smelo razlagati kot izraz želje ali zmožnosti dokončanja projekta za vsako ceno.
With the aid, the rate of return would be [approximately 11] %.
Po navedbah podjetja dejstva in številke, ki so bile predložene Nadzornemu organu, jasno kažejo, da podjetje Finnfjord ne bi moglo kriti stroškov dokončanja projekta brez dodatnega financiranja.
IN submits that the project therefore is not profitable, given Finnfjord's general investment policy of requiring a rate of return in the range of [10-20] % for such investments outside the company's core business activities.
Podjetje Finnfjord ni moglo zagotoviti nobenega dodatnega zavarovanja s premoženjem, zato ni moglo pridobiti dodatnega posojila.
IN stresses that Finnfjord based the decision to go ahead with the project on its own internal calculations, which differ from the calculations presented above (based on the Enova model).
Zato se podjetje Finnfjord ne strinja s predhodnim stališčem Nadzornega organa, da bi se pomoč štela za dobrodošel, vendar ne nujen element v paketu financiranja.
IN notes that it has not been provided with Finnfjord's internal calculations.
Tako kot podjetje IN tudi podjetje Finnfjord poudarja, da je bilo zmanjšanje pomoči podjetja Enova z 200 milijonov NOK na 175 milijonov NOK enostranska politična odločitev odbora podjetja Enova.
IN notes that the seemingly conflicting views between IN and Enova most likely stem from the difference between Enova's and IN's internal rules and practices.
Podjetje Finnfjord opozarja na izjave podjetja Enova o spodbujevalnem učinku dodatne pomoči na projekt, ki po njegovem mnenju vključujejo številne nedoslednosti, ter poudarja, da dozdevno nasprotujoča si stališča podjetij Enova in IN o spodbujevalnem učinku pomoči niso pomembna, ker je politika podjetja Enova bolj omejevalna, kot dovoljujejo smernice o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja (v nadaljnjem besedilu: smernice EAG) [30].
Third party comments from Finnfjord in response to the publication of the decision to open the formal investigation
Zdi se, da se podjetje Finnfjord v zvezi z oceno, ali je pomoč ustrezen instrument, ne strinja s tem, da je treba to oceno izvesti na podlagi posebnih okoliščin zadevnega primera, in se namesto tega sklicuje na Odločbo št. 39/11/COL, v kateri je Nadzorni organ navedel, da je začetna dodelitev pomoči v višini 175 milijonov NOK ustrezen instrument za spodbuditev naložb v projekt pred začetkom njegovega izvajanja.
Finnfjord refers to what it perceives to represent an apparent contradiction in the Authority's decision where the Authority on the one hand does not exclude outright that the aid could have incentive effect in the case at hand, but at the same time raises the question whether Finnfjord considered stopping, reducing or halting the project.
Kar zadeva vprašanje sorazmernosti, podjetje poudarja, da so stroški projekta več kot dvakrat višji od prvotne ocene.
Finnfjord stresses that although its board had the ambition, up until the board meeting of 25 September 2012, to complete the project, this should not be classified as an expression of a desire or an ability to complete the project at any cost.
12,35-odstotna stopnja donosa je bila bližje spodnji meji razpona dobičkonosnosti, ki jo zahteva podjetje Finnfjord.
According to the company, the facts and figures made available to the Authority clearly demonstrate that Finnfjord would be unable to pay for the completion of the project without the additional financing.
Pojasnjeno je, da je posodobljena [približno 9]-odstotna stopnja donosa brez 16 milijonov NOK pomoči veliko nižja, kot bi dovolilo podjetje Finnfjord, „če bi lahko ukrepalo po lastni volji“.
Finnfjord could not offer any additional collateral, thus it could not have secured further loan financing.
Tudi [približno 11]-odstotna stopnja donosa, ki bi bila dosežena s 16 milijoni NOK pomoči, se šteje za sorazmerno majhen donos.
Finnfjord therefore rejects the preliminary view of the Authority that the aid would be viewed as a welcome but not strictly necessary element in the financing package.
Podjetje Finnfjord označuje dodelitev pomoči kot razumno porazdelitev bremena med podjetjema IN in SNN ter poudarja, da se je dolžniški kapital projekta bistveno povečal.
Like IN, Finnfjord stresses that the reduction of the Enova aid from NOK 200 million to NOK 175 million was a unilateral policy decision by Enova's board.
Tveganje neplačila nosi zgolj podjetje.
Finnfjord points to what it considers to be a number of inconsistencies in Enova's statements about the incentive effect of additional aid to the project, and stresses that the seemingly conflicting views of Enova and IN about the incentive effect of the aid is of no consequence since Enova's policy is more restrictive than what the Environmental Aid Guidelines (‘EAG’) [30] allow for.
Zato je po mnenju podjetja Finnfjord jasno, da pomoč ne pomeni prekomerne kompenzacije.
With regard to the assessment of whether aid is the appropriate instrument, Finnfjord appears to reject the idea that this assessment should be made on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case at hand, and instead refers back to Decision No 39/11/COL, where the Authority found that the initial grant of NOK 175 million of aid was an appropriate instrument to trigger the investment in the project prior to its implementation.
Podjetje Finnfjord meni, da dodatna pomoč podjetja IN ne bo ogrozila mehanizma za konkurenčnost v okviru sheme energetskega sklada.
With regard to the question of proportionality, the company stresses that the project has become more than twice as costly than initially estimated.
Poudarja, da mehanizem za konkurenčnost v okviru sheme energetskega sklada zgolj preprečuje, da bi pomoč prejeli najmanj uspešni projekti, ko zneski, za katere so bile predložene vloge, presežejo proračun sheme.
The rate of return of 12,35 % was in the lower end of the range of profitability required by Finnfjord.
Podjetje poziva Nadzorni organ, naj prouči, ali bi lahko prednostno obravnavanje mehanizma za konkurenčnost v okviru sheme energetskega sklada oviralo pravico norveških organov do lastne organizacije upravljanja javnih sredstev.
The updated rate of return of [approximately 9] % without the NOK 16 million of aid, is explained to be far lower than Finnfjord would have accepted ‘if it could have acted on its own free will’.
Podjetje Finnfjord v zvezi s tem izraža dvom, da ima Nadzorni organ, poleg pravil o kumulaciji, veljavno pravno podlago za zagotovitev, da dodelitve individualne pomoči ne vplivajo na delovanje sheme pomoči.
Even the rate of return of [approximately 11] % with the NOK 16 million in aid is held to be a rather modest return.
Pojasnjuje, da je priglašena pomoč porazdeljena na odprt in pregleden način.
Finnfjord refers to the aid award as a reasonable burden sharing between IN and SNN, and underlines that the loan capital of the project has increased significantly.
Drugi sklop pripomb tretjih strank, ki jih je predložilo podjetje Finnfjord
The risk of default is carried by the company alone.
Nadzorni organ je med formalnim postopkom preiskave od podjetja Finnfjord prejel drugi sklop pripomb tretjih strank, v katerih podjetje podrobneje pojasnjuje, kako bi se zaradi pomanjkanja njegove likvidnosti jeseni 2012 prenehalo izvajanje projekta, če se ne bi zagotovil dodaten paket financiranja na podlagi pomoči, ki jo je dodelilo podjetje IN.
Thus, in the view of Finnfjord, the aid clearly does not lead to overcompensation.
Da bi podjetje Finnfjord utemeljilo, zakaj ima priglašena pomoč, ki mu je dodeljena, spodbujevalni učinek, se sklicuje na sklep Nadzornega organa v zadevi Helguvík Aluminium Smelter [31].
Finnfjord is of the view that additional aid from IN will not undermine the competition mechanism under the Energy Fund Scheme.
Podjetje Finnfjord kot dokaz o nujnosti pomoči prilaga izjave banke SNN, svojega računovodje in predsednika.
Finnfjord stresses that the competition mechanism under the Energy Fund Scheme merely prevents the least efficient projects from receiving aid when the amounts applied for exceed the budget of the scheme.
Podjetje poleg tega prilaga razpredelnico s posodobljenim izračunom neto sedanje vrednosti projekta (ki ga je preverilo podjetje IN), ki s pomočjo znaša [nekoliko negativen donos] %.
The company invites the Authority to consider whether a preference for the competitive mechanism under the Energy Fund Scheme could interfere with the Norwegian authorities' right to organise its administration of public funds.
Finnfjord se sklicuje na prakso Nadzornega organa in Komisije [32] v primerih nepredvidenih stroškov pri inovativnih projektih, pri katerih je bila odobrena pomoč, ki ni bila izražena kot fiksni znesek, ampak kot odstotek neznanih skupnih stroškov, razglašena za združljivo z delovanjem pravil o državni pomoči.
In that context, Finnfjord states that it doubts that the Authority, beyond the rules on cumulation, has a valid legal basis for ensuring that individual aid awards do not interfere with the workings of an aid scheme.
Podjetje Finnfjord je zatem na zahtevo Nadzornega organa predložilo kopiji sporazumov o financiranju, ki so ju 14. junija 2011 in 12. decembra 2012 sklenili banka SNN ter podjetji IN in Finnfjord, in dokumentacijo v zvezi odsotnostjo nezastavljenega zavarovanja.
Finnfjord explains that the notified aid is distributed in an open and transparent manner.
Pripombe norveških organov na pripombe tretjih strank
Second round of third party comments from Finnfjord
Norveški organi so predložili pripombe na dva sklopa pripomb tretjih strank podjetja Finnfjord.
During the course of the formal investigation, the Authority received a second round of third party comments from Finnfjord, wherein the company elaborates on how its lack of liquidity in the fall of 2012 would have led to the project being stopped without the additional financing package which in turn was triggered by the granting of aid by IN.
Norveški organi se strinjajo s podjetjem Finnfjord in so pojasnili manjša dejanska vprašanja glede vira financiranja predlaganih nepovratnih sredstev v višini 16 milijonov NOK.
Finnfjord makes reference to the Authority's decision in the Helguvík Aluminium Smelter case [31] to substantiate why the notified aid to Finnfjord has incentive effect.
Ker se sredstva iz zadevnih virov izplačujejo na enoten način, se te pojasnitve niso izkazale za bistvene za oceno priglašenega ukrepa, ki jo opravi Nadzorni organ.
The company provides statements from SNN, Finnfjord's accountant and chairman as evidence for the necessity of the aid.
OCENA
The company furthermore provides a spreadsheet featuring an updated calculation of the net present value of the project (verified by IN) which gives a [marginally negative return] % with the aid.
Obstoj državne pomoči
Finnfjord makes reference to Authority and Commission practice [32] relating to cases of unforeseen cost in innovative projects where aid grants expressed, not as a fixed amount, but rather as a percentage of an unknown total cost were found to be compatible with the functioning of the State aid rules.
Člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP določa:
At the request of the Authority, Finnfjord subsequently provided copies of the two financing agreements concluded by SNN, IN and Finnfjord on 14 June 2011 and 12 December 2012 as well as documentation pertaining to the absence of unpledged collateral.
„Razen če ta sporazum ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodelijo države članice ES, države Efte ali je dodeljena v kakršni koli obliki iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z delovanjem tega sporazuma, kolikor škodi trgovini med pogodbenicami.“
Comments from the Norwegian authorities to the third party comments
Iz tega sledi, da ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, če so izpolnjeni vsi naslednji pogoji: ukrep: (i) odobri država oz. se pomoč dodeli iz državnih sredstev; (ii) zagotavlja upravičencu selektivno gospodarsko prednost; (iii) lahko vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami in izkrivlja konkurenco.
The Norwegian authorities have provided comments to the two rounds of third party comments from Finnfjord.
Ukrep pomoči mora odobriti država ali se pomoč dodeli iz državnih sredstev.
The Norwegian authorities agree with Finnfjord and have clarified minor factual issues concerning the source of funding of the proposed NOK 16 million grant.
V zvezi s tem se opozarja, da je podjetje IN javni subjekt.