natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For instance, in the case of an equity or debt intervention in a public undertaking in difficulty, the expected return on such an investment should be compared with the expected return in the counterfactual scenario of the liquidation of the company.
Predhodno izpostavljenost je treba obravnavati v okviru hipotetičnih scenarijev za namene preskusa udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu.
In the event that liquidation provides higher gains or lower losses, a prudent market economy operator would choose that option [166].
V primeru posredovanja v obliki lastniškega ali dolžniškega kapitala v javnem podjetju v težavah bi bilo treba pričakovani donos takšne naložbe primerjati s pričakovanim donosom v hipotetičnem scenariju likvidacije družbe.
For this purpose, the liquidation costs to be considered should not include costs linked to the responsibilities of the public authorities, but only costs that a rational market economy operator would incur [167], also taking into account the evolution of the social, economic and environmental context in which it operates [168].
Če bi likvidacija povzročila višji donos ali nižje izgube, bi preudaren udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu izbral to možnost [166].
Specific considerations to establish whether the terms for loans and guarantees are in line with market terms
V ta namen upoštevani stroški likvidacije ne bi smeli zajemati stroškov, povezanih s pristojnostmi javnih organov, temveč le stroške, ki bi jih imel razumen udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu [167], ob upoštevanju sprememb v socialnih, gospodarskih in okoljskih razmerah, v katerih deluje [168].
In the same way as any other transaction, loans and guarantees granted by public bodies (including public undertakings) may entail State aid if they are not in line with market terms.
Posebni preudarki za določitev, ali so pogoji za posojila in poroštva v skladu s tržnimi pogoji.
For guarantees, a triangular situation involving a public entity as a guarantor, a borrower and a lender normally has to be analysed [169].
Enako kot pri vseh drugih transakcijah lahko posojila in poroštva, ki jih dodelijo osebe javnega prava (vključno z javnimi podjetji), pomenijo državno pomoč, če niso v skladu s tržnimi pogoji.
In most cases, aid can only be present at the level of the borrower, as the public guarantee may grant it an advantage, by enabling it to borrow at a rate that would not have been obtainable on the market without the guarantee [170] (or to borrow in a situation where, exceptionally, no loan could have been obtained on the market at any rate).
Kar zadeva poroštva, je običajno treba preučiti trikotno razmerje, ki vključuje javni subjekt kot garanta, posojilojemalca in posojilodajalca [169].
However, under certain specific circumstances, the granting of a public guarantee might also entail aid to the lender, in particular where the guarantee is given ex post on an existing obligation between lender and borrower, where a complete passing on of the advantage to the borrower is not ensured [171] or where a guaranteed loan is used to pay back a non-guaranteed one [172].
V večini primerov je pomoč lahko prisotna le na ravni posojilojemalca, ker mu javno poroštvo lahko daje prednost z omogočanjem, da najame posojilo po obrestni meri, ki brez poroštva na trgu ne bi bila dostopna [170] (ali da najame posojilo v okoliščinah, v katerih izjemoma na trgu ne bi bilo mogoče najeti posojila po kakršni koli obrestni stopnji).
Any guarantee granted on terms that are more favourable than market conditions, taking into account the economic situation of the borrower, confers an advantage on the latter (who pays a fee that does not appropriately reflect the risk that the guarantor assumes) [173].
Vendar v nekaterih posebnih okoliščinah dodelitev javnega poroštva lahko vsebuje tudi pomoč posojilodajalcu, zlasti kadar je poroštvo dodeljeno naknadno za obstoječo obveznost med posojilodajalcem in posojilojemalcem, kadar ni zagotovljeno, da se prednost v celoti prenese na posojilojemalca [171], ali če se posojilo s poroštvom uporabi za poplačilo posojila brez poroštva [172].
In general, unlimited guarantees are not in line with normal market conditions.
Vsako poroštvo, dodeljeno pod ugodnejšimi pogoji od tržnih, ob upoštevanju gospodarskega položaja posojilojemalca, daje prednost slednjemu (saj plača provizijo, ki ne odraža ustrezno tveganja, ki ga prevzame garant) [173].
This also applies to implicit guarantees stemming from State liability for the debts of insolvent undertakings sheltered from ordinary bankruptcy rules [174].
Na splošno neomejena poroštva niso v skladu z običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
In the absence of specific market information on a given debt transaction, the debt instrument's compliance with market conditions may be established on the basis of a comparison with comparable market transactions (that is to say through benchmarking).
To velja tudi za implicitna poroštva, ki izhajajo iz odgovornosti države za dolgove insolventnih podjetij, ki so zaščitena pred običajnimi stečajnimi pravili [174].
In the case of loans and guarantees, information on the financing costs of the undertaking may, for example, be obtained from other (recent) loans taken by the undertaking in question, from yields on bonds issued by the undertaking or from credit default swap spreads on that undertaking.
Če posebne tržne informacije o dani dolžniški transakciji niso na voljo, se skladnost dolžniškega instrumenta s tržnimi pogoji lahko ugotovi na podlagi primerjave s primerljivimi tržni transakcijami (tj. s primerjalno analizo).
Comparable market transactions may also be similar loan or guarantee transactions undertaken by a sample of comparator companies, bonds issued by a sample of comparator companies or credit default swap spreads on a sample of comparator companies.
Če gre za posojila in poroštva, se lahko informacije o stroških financiranja podjetja pridobijo na podlagi drugih (nedavnih) posojil, ki jih je najelo zadevno podjetje, donosov obveznic, ki jih je izdalo podjetje, ali razmikov kreditne zamenjave tega podjetja.
In the case of guarantees, if no corresponding price benchmark can be found on the financial markets, the total financing cost of the guaranteed loan, including the interest rate of the loan and the guarantee premium, should be compared to the market price of a similar non-guaranteed loan.
Primerljive tržne transakcije so lahko tudi podobne transakcije s posojili ali poroštvi, ki so jih izvedle vzorčne primerljive družbe, obveznice, ki so jih izdale vzorčne primerljive družbe, ali razmiki kreditne zamenjave v vzorcu primerljivih družb.
Benchmarking methods may be complemented with assessment methods based on the return on capital [175].
Če v primeru poroštev na finančnih trgih ni mogoče pridobiti ustrezne referenčne cene, je treba skupne stroške financiranja posojila s poroštvom, vključno z obrestno mero posojila in premijo za poroštvo, primerjati s tržno ceno podobnega posojila brez poroštva.
To facilitate assessment of whether a measure complies with the MEO test, the Authority has developed proxies to determine the aid character of loans and guarantees.
Metode primerjalne analize se lahko dopolnijo z metodami presoje, ki temeljijo na donosu kapitala [175].
For loans, the methodology to calculate a reference rate, to act as a proxy for the market price in situations where comparable market transactions are not easy to identify (something that is more likely to apply to transactions involving limited amounts and/or transactions involving small and medium sized undertakings (SMEs)) is set out in the Reference and Discount Rates Guidelines [176].
Za lažjo presojo, ali ukrep izpolnjuje preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu, je Nadzorni organ razvil približke za določitev, ali imajo posojila in poroštva naravo pomoči.
It should be recalled that this reference rate is only a proxy [177].
Za posojila je metodologija za izračun referenčne obrestne mere, ki bi morala delovati kot približek za tržno ceno, kadar primerljive tržne transakcije ni lahko opredeliti (kar se verjetneje uporablja za transakcije, ki vključujejo omejene zneske in/ali transakcije, ki vključujejo mala in srednja podjetja (MSP)), določena v Smernicah o referenčnih obrestnih merah in diskontnih stopnjah [176].
If comparable transactions have typically taken place at a lower price than that indicated as a proxy by the reference rate, the EEA State can consider this lower price to be the market price.
Opozoriti je treba, da je ta referenčna obrestna mera le približek [177].
If, on the other hand, the same company has carried out recent similar transactions at a higher price than the reference rate, and its financial situation and the market environment have remained substantially unchanged, the reference rate may not constitute a valid proxy of market rates for that specific case.
Če so se primerljive transakcije običajno izvedle po nižji ceni od tiste, ki je bila navedena kot približek z referenčno obrestno mero, lahko država EGP predpostavlja, da je ta nižja cena tržna cena.
The Authority has developed detailed guidance on proxies (and irrebuttable presumptions (‘safe harbours’) for SMEs) relating to guarantees in the Guidelines on Guarantees [178].
Vendar če je ista družba nedavno izvedla podobne transakcije po višji ceni od referenčne obrestne mere, njeno finančno stanje in tržno okolje pa sta ostala skoraj nespremenjena, referenčna obrestna mera ne more biti veljaven približek tržne obrestne mere v tem konkretnem primeru.
According to these Guidelines, in order to rule out the presence of aid, it is normally sufficient that the borrower is not in financial difficulty, that the guarantee is linked to a specific transaction, that the lender bears part of the risk and that the borrower pays a market-oriented price for the guarantee.
Nadzorni organ je v Smernicah o poroštvih [178] oblikoval podrobne napotke o približkih (in neovrgljivih predpostavkah („varni pristani“) za MSP), ki se nanašajo na poroštva.
An advantage can be conferred on undertakings other than those to which State resources are directly transferred (indirect advantage) [179].
V skladu z navedenimi smernicami je za izključitev prisotnosti pomoči običajno dovolj, da posojilojemalec ni v finančnih težavah, da je poroštvo vezano na točno določeno transakcijo, da posojilodajalec prevzame del tveganja in da posojilojemalec za poroštvo plača tržno oblikovano ceno.
A measure can also constitute both a direct advantage to the recipient undertaking and an indirect advantage to other undertakings, for instance, undertakings operating at subsequent levels of activity [180].
Prednost se lahko podeli tudi podjetjem, katerim državna sredstva niso bila prenesena neposredno (posredna prednost) [179].
The direct recipient of the advantage can be either an undertaking or an entity (natural or legal person) not engaged in any economic activity [181].
Ukrep lahko prav tako pomeni neposredno prednost za podjetje, ki prejema pomoč, in posredno prednost za druga podjetja, kot so tista, ki delujejo na naslednjih stopnjah dejavnosti [180].
Such indirect advantages should be distinguished from mere secondary economic effects that are inherent in almost all State aid measures (for example through an increase of output).
Neposredni prejemnik prednosti je lahko podjetje ali subjekt (fizična ali pravna oseba), ki ne izvaja nobene gospodarske dejavnosti [181].
For this purpose, the foreseeable effects of the measure should be examined from an ex ante point of view.
Take posredne prednosti bi bilo treba razlikovati od zgolj sekundarnih gospodarskih učinkov, ki so neločljivo povezani s skoraj vsakim ukrepom državne pomoči (na primer prek povečanja proizvodnje).
An indirect advantage is present if the measure is designed in such a way as to channel its secondary effects towards identifiable undertakings or groups of undertakings.
V ta namen bi bilo treba predvidljive učinke ukrepa proučiti z vidika predhodnega stanja.
This is the case, for example, if the direct aid is, de facto or de jure, made conditional on the purchase of goods or services produced by certain undertakings only (for example only undertakings established in certain areas) [182].
Posredna prednost je prisotna, če je ukrep zasnovan tako, da so njegovi sekundarni učinki usmerjeni v določljiva podjetja ali skupine podjetij.
SELECTIVITY
Primer takšne posredne prednosti je, če je neposredna pomoč dejansko ali pravno odvisna od nakupa blaga ali storitev, ki jih proizvajajo samo nekatera podjetja (npr. samo podjetja s sedežem na določenih območjih) [182].
To fall within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a State measure must favour ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.
SELEKTIVNOST
Hence, not all measures which favour economic operators fall under the notion of aid, but only those which grant an advantage in a selective way to certain undertakings or categories of undertakings or to certain economic sectors.
Državni ukrep mora dajati prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“, da se lahko uvršča na področje uporabe člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Measures of purely general application which do not favour certain undertakings only or the production of certain goods only do not fall within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Zato v okvir pojma pomoči ne moremo uvrstiti vseh ukrepov, ki dajejo prednost gospodarskim subjektom, ampak samo tiste, ki dajejo selektivno prednost posameznim podjetjem ali kategorijam podjetij ali posameznim gospodarskim sektorjem.
However, the case-law has made it clear that even interventions which, at first appearance, apply to undertakings in general may be selective to a certain extent and, accordingly, be regarded as measures designed to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods [183].
Ukrepi, ki se splošno uporabljajo in ne dajejo prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, ne spadajo v področje uporabe člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Neither a large number of eligible undertakings (which can even include all undertakings of a given sector), nor the diversity and size of the sectors to which they belong, provide grounds for concluding that a State measure constitutes a general measure of economic policy, if not all economic sectors can benefit from it [184].
Vendar je bilo v sodni praksi pojasnjeno, da so tudi posredovanja, za katera se na prvi pogled zdi, da se uporabljajo za podjetja na splošno, lahko do neke mere selektivna in se lahko zato obravnavajo kot ukrepi, ki dajejo prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga [183].
The fact that the aid is not aimed at one or more specific recipients defined in advance, but that it is subject to a series of objective criteria according to which it may be granted, within the framework of a predetermined overall budget allocation, to an indefinite number of beneficiaries who are not initially individually identified, is insufficient to call into question the selective nature of the measure [185].
Niti veliko število upravičenih podjetij (ki lahko vključuje celo vsa podjetja v posameznem sektorju) niti raznolikost in velikost sektorjev, ki jim ta podjetja pripadajo, niso zadosten razlog za ugotovitev, da je ukrep države splošni ukrep ekonomske politike, če ne koristi vsem gospodarskim sektorjem [184].
To clarify the notion of selectivity under State aid law, it is useful to distinguish between material and regional selectivity.
Dejstvo, da pomoč ni namenjena enemu ali več posebnim vnaprej opredeljenim prejemnikom, ampak je predmet vrste objektivnih meril, na podlagi katerih se lahko dodeli v okviru vnaprej določenih skupnih proračunskih sredstev nedoločenemu številu upravičencev, ki prvotno niso posamično opredeljeni, ne zadošča, da se postavi pod vprašaj selektivni značaj ukrepa [185].
Moreover, it is useful to provide further guidance on certain issues specific to tax (or similar) measures.
Za pojasnitev pojma selektivnosti v okviru zakonodaje o državni pomoči je koristno razlikovati med materialno in regionalno selektivnostjo.
The material selectivity of a measure implies that the measure applies only to certain (groups of) undertakings or certain sectors of the economy in a given EEA State.
Poleg tega je koristno zagotoviti dodatne napotke glede nekaterih vprašanj, ki zadevajo samo davčne (ali podobne) ukrepe.
Material selectivity can be established de jure or de facto.
Materialna selektivnost ukrepa pomeni, da se ukrep uporablja samo za posamezna podjetja (ali skupine podjetij) ali za posamezne sektorje gospodarstva v zadevni državi EGP.
De facto selectivity may be the result of conditions or barriers imposed by EEA States preventing certain undertakings from benefiting from the measure.
Na primer, uporaba davčnega ukrepa (na primer davčne olajšave) samo za naložbe nad določenim pragom (razen manjšega praga zaradi upravne učinkovitosti) lahko pomeni, da je ukrep dejansko rezerviran za podjetja, ki imajo znatna finančna sredstva [193].
For example, applying a tax measure (for example a tax credit) only to investments exceeding a certain threshold (other than a minor threshold for reasons of administrative expediency) may mean that the measure is de facto reserved for undertakings with significant financial resources [193].
Ukrep, ki daje določeno prednost samo za kratko obdobje, je tudi lahko dejansko selektiven [194].
A measure granting certain advantages for a brief period only may also be de facto selective [194].
Splošni ukrepi, ki se uporabljajo prima facie za vsa podjetja, vendar jih omejujejo diskrecijska pooblastila javne uprave, so selektivni [195].
General measures which prima facie apply to all undertakings but are limited by the discretionary power of the public administration are selective [195].
O tem primeru govorimo, če podjetja kljub izpolnjevanju meril niso avtomatsko upravičena do ukrepa.
This is the case where meeting the given criteria does not automatically result in an entitlement to the measure.
Javne uprave imajo diskrecijsko pravico pri uporabi ukrepa zlasti, kadar so merila za dodeljevanje pomoči oblikovana zelo splošno ali ohlapno in je zato pri presoji nujna določena stopnja diskrecije.
Public administrations have discretionary power in applying a measure, in particular, where the criteria for granting the aid are formulated in a very general or vague manner that necessarily involves a margin of discretion in the assessment.
Tako lahko na primer davčna uprava spreminja pogoje za dodelitev davčne ugodnosti glede na značilnosti naložbenega projekta, ki ji je predložen v presojo.
One example would be that the tax administration can vary the conditions for granting a tax concession according to the characteristics of the investment project submitted to it for assessment.
Podobno velja, da če ima davčna uprava široko diskrecijsko pravico izbire upravičencev in pogojev za dodelitev davčne ugodnosti na podlagi meril, ki so tuja davčnemu sistemu, kot je ohranitev zaposlitve, je treba za izvajanje te diskrecijske pravice šteti, da daje prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“ [196].
Similarly, if the tax administration has broad discretion to determine the beneficiaries or the conditions under which a tax advantage is granted on the basis of criteria unrelated to the tax system, such as maintaining employment, the exercise of that discretion must then be regarded as favouring ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ [196].
Dejstvo, da davčna oprostitev zahteva predhodno upravno dovoljenje, samo po sebi ne pomeni, da je ta ukrep selektiven.
The fact that a tax relief requires prior administrative authorisation does not automatically mean that it constitutes a selective measure.
To ne velja, če predhodna pridobitev upravnega dovoljenja temelji na objektivnih, nediskriminatornih in vnaprej znanih merilih, ki tako določajo meje diskrecijske pravice javnih uprav.
This is not the case where a prior administrative authorisation is based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria which are known in advance, thus circumscribing the exercise of the public administrations' discretion.
Tak sistem predhodnega upravnega dovoljenja mora temeljiti tudi na taki ureditvi postopka, ki je enostavno dostopen in ki lahko zagotovi, da se bodo zahteve za dovoljenje obravnavale objektivno in nepristransko v razumnem roku, za morebitne zavrnitve dovoljenja pa mora biti predvideno pravno varstvo v obliki sodnega nadzora ali kvazisodnega nadzora [197].
Such a prior administrative authorisation scheme must also be based on a procedural system which is easily accessible and capable of ensuring that a request for authorisation will be dealt with objectively and impartially within a reasonable time and refusals to grant authorisation must also be capable of being challenged in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings [197].
Ko države EGP sprejmejo ad hoc pozitivne ukrepe, ki dajejo prednost enemu ali več opredeljenim podjetjem (na primer dodeljevanje denarja ali sredstev posameznim podjetjem), običajno ni težko ugotoviti, da so ti ukrepi selektivni, saj prednostno obravnavajo eno ali več podjetij [198].
When EEA States adopt ad hoc positive measures benefiting one or more identified undertakings (for instance, granting money or assets to certain undertakings), it is normally easy to conclude that such measures have a selective character, as they reserve favourable treatment for one or a few undertakings [198].
Položaj običajno ni tako jasen, kadar države EGP sprejmejo ukrepe s širšim področjem uporabe, ki veljajo za vsa podjetja, ki izpolnjujejo določena merila, pri čemer ti ukrepi zmanjšujejo stroške, ki bi jih ta podjetja običajno morala kriti (na primer davčne olajšave ali olajšave na področju socialne varnosti za podjetja, ki izpolnjujejo določena merila).
The situation is usually less clear when EEA States adopt broader measures applicable to all undertakings fulfilling certain criteria, which mitigate the charges that those undertakings would normally have to bear (for instance, tax or social security exemptions for undertakings fulfilling certain criteria).
V takih primerih bi bilo treba selektivnost ukrepov običajno presojati s tristopenjsko analizo.
In such cases, the selectivity of the measures should normally be assessed by means of a three-step analysis.
Najprej je treba določiti referenčni sistem.
First, the system of reference must be identified.
Drugič, treba je ugotoviti, ali zadevni ukrep pomeni odstopanje od tega sistema, kadar različno obravnava gospodarske subjekte, ki so z vidika ciljev, ki so lastni sistemu, v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju.
Second, it should be determined whether a given measure constitutes a derogation from that system insofar as it differentiates between economic operators who, in light of the objectives intrinsic to the system, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Presoja, ali prihaja do odstopanja, je ključni element tega dela preskusa in na njeni podlagi je mogoče ugotoviti, ali je ukrep selektiven prima facie.
Assessing whether a derogation exists is the key element of this part of the test and allows a conclusion to be drawn as to whether the measure is prima facie selective.
Če zadevni ukrep ne pomeni odstopanja od referenčnega sistema, ni selektiven.
If the measure in question does not constitute a derogation from the reference system, it is not selective.
Če pa od tega sistema odstopa (in je zato selektiven prima facie), je treba v tretji stopnji preskusa ugotoviti, ali je odstopanje utemeljeno z naravo ali splošno shemo (referenčnega) sistema [199].
However, if it does (and therefore is prima facie selective), it needs to be established, in the third step of the test, whether the derogation is justified by the nature or the general scheme of the (reference) system [199].
Če ukrep, ki je selektiven prima facie, utemeljuje narava ali splošna shema sistema, se ne bo obravnaval kot selektiven in torej ne bo spadal v področje uporabe člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP [200].