natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, the scheme would constitute existing aid as it existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement (cf. Article 1(b) in part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement).
Poleg tega bi shema pomenila obstoječo pomoč, ker je obstajala pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP (glej člen 1(b) v delu II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču).
Only if it were found that the relief from the payment of dividends could not be derived from the general principles of Icelandic public law, but rather followed from the Housing Act and its predecessors, could the conditions under which the different housing bodies were operated become part of the compatibility assessment on new aid.
Samo če bi se ugotovilo, da oprostitve plačila dividend ni bilo mogoče izpeljati iz splošnega načela islandskega javnega prava, ampak je izhajala iz Stanovanjskega zakona in predhodnih zakonov, bi lahko pogoji, pod katerimi so delovali različni subjekti s stanovanjskega področja, postali del ocene združljivosti nove pomoči.
Hence, it would only be in that hypothetical situation that changes to the house financing system that have taken place after 1 January 1994 could potentially imply that any aid connected to the non-payment of dividends changed from existing to new aid.
Zato bi lahko samo v teh hipotetičnih okoliščinah spremembe sistema stanovanjskega financiranja, ki so se zgodile po 1. januarju 1994, morda pomenile, da se je kakršna koli pomoč, povezana z neplačevanjem dividend, spremenila iz obstoječe pomoči v novo pomoč.
CONCLUSION AS TO NEW VERSUS EXISTING CHARACTER OF FOUR POTENTIAL STATE AID MEASURES
UGOTOVITEV GLEDE NOVE OZIROMA OBSTOJEČE NARAVE ŠTIRIH MOREBITNIH UKREPOV DRŽAVNE POMOČI
On the basis of the foregoing assessment, the Authority considers that following measures: state guarantee, interest support, tax exemption and relief from paying dividends, identified in the opening decision, do not constitute new aid measures that can be assessed under the present formal investigation procedure.
Nadzorni organ na podlagi navedene presoje meni, da naslednji ukrepi: državno jamstvo, subvencioniranje obresti, davčna oprostitev in oprostitev plačila dividend, opredeljeni v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, ne pomenijo novih ukrepov pomoči, ki se lahko ocenjujejo v okviru tega formalnega postopka preiskave.
Accordingly, the Authority will close the formal investigation procedure and open proceedings under Article 1(1) of Part I and Section V in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, which concerns existing aid.
Skladno s tem bo Nadzorni organ končal formalni postopek preiskave in sprožil postopek v skladu s členom 1(1) dela I in oddelkom V v delu II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, ki se nanaša na obstoječo pomoč.
For the sake of being exhaustive, the Authority would like to add that even if one were to take the approach suggested by SFF and find that the Housing Act with subsequent amendments was indeed relevant for the assessment of the classification of the possible aid measures identified above, the Authority would still have concluded that the concrete changes made to the housing system were not of such a kind as to trigger a reclassification from existing to new aid:
Nadzorni organ zaradi izčrpnosti dodaja, da bi moral, tudi če bi sprejel pristop, ki ga je predlagalo združenje SFF, in ugotovil, da je Stanovanjski zakon s poznejšimi spremembami resnično pomemben za oceno opredelitve morebitnih ukrepov pomoči, navedenih zgoraj, vseeno skleniti, da spremembe stanovanjskega sistema niso bile take, da bi bilo treba zaradi njih spremeniti opredelitev pomoči iz obstoječe pomoči v novo pomoč.
First, the mere fact that Iceland chose the legislative technique of enacting a new act rather than amending an already existing act cannot in itself lead to a reclassification of an hitherto existing aid measure [49].
Prvič, zgolj to, da je Islandija izbrala zakonodajno tehniko sprejetja novega zakona namesto spremembe že veljavnega zakona, samo po sebi ne more povzročiti, da bi se spremenila opredelitev dosedanjega obstoječega ukrepa pomoči [49].
What matters is solely whether the new act implied a substantive changes in the relevant aid measures such as to influence the appreciation of the compatibility of these measures.
Pomembno je samo, ali je novi zakon pomenil vsebinske spremembe zadevnih ukrepov pomoči, ki bi vplivale na oceno njihove združljivosti.
In that respect, the Authority finds of considerable importance that the Housing Act was, as regards all essential characteristics, a continuation of the previous system with the same objective of securing affordable housing for all residents in Iceland.
Nadzornemu organu se v zvezi s tem zdi zelo pomembno, da je bil Stanovanjski zakon, kar zadeva vse pomembne značilnosti, nadaljevanje prejšnjega sistema in je imel enak cilj zagotavljanja dostopnih stanovanj vsem prebivalcem Islandije.
As shown above in Section 2.2.3.1, the aim of the Housing Act is the same as the one pursued under the Act No 97/1993.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj v oddelku 2.2.3.1, je cilj Stanovanjskega zakona enak cilju, zastavljenemu v skladu z Zakonom št. 97/1993.
Second, as referred to above, there is consistent Commission practice to the effect that a change of legal personality of the aid recipient is not relevant for the classification of the aid.
Drugič, kot je navedeno zgoraj, je dosledna praksa Komisije, da sprememba pravne osebnosti prejemnika pomoči ni pomembna za opredelitev pomoči.
Third, the financing of the potential aid measures in favour of the HFF, currently in force, has not changed as a consequence of the enactment of the Housing Act and subsequent amendments to that Act.
Tretjič, financiranje morebitnih ukrepov pomoči v korist sklada HFF, ki trenutno velja, se ni spremenilo zaradi sprejetja Stanovanjskega zakona in poznejših sprememb tega zakona.
Fourth, the Housing Act did not change anything as regards the issuance of the housing bonds, the main loan category.
Četrtič, s Stanovanjskim zakonom se ni spremenilo nič v zvezi z izdajo stanovanjskih obveznic, ki je glavna kategorija posojil.
A new loan category the so-called additional loan category was introduced as a part of the reform of social housing under the Housing Act.
Pri reformi področja socialnih stanovanj v skladu s Stanovanjskim zakonom je bila uvedena nova kategorija posojil, tako imenovana kategorija dodatnih posojil.
However, in fact this loan category replaced the categories of social loans which could be granted pursuant to Act No 97/1993.
Vendar je ta kategorija posojil pravzaprav nadomestila kategorije socialnih posojil, ki so se lahko dodelila v skladu z Zakonom št. 97/1993.
As referred to Section I.2.2.3.3.3, the maximum percentage of these types of loans and the criteria governing entitlement were almost identical.
Kot je navedeno v oddelku I.2.2.3.3.3, so bili najvišji odstotni deleži teh vrst posojil in merila za upravičenost skoraj povsem enaki.
Thus, the main difference in the rules regarding these types of loans is that the Housing Act provides that these apartments could, subject to certain conditions, be sold on the general market for a market price.
Tako je glavna razlika v pravilih v zvezi s temi vrstami posojil določba Stanovanjskega zakona, da se ta stanovanja pod določenimi pogoji lahko prodajo na splošnem trgu po tržni ceni.
The Authority is of the opinion that these legislative changes did neither materially change the circle of possible recipients of social loans nor extend the activities of the HFF in that field compared to its predecessors.
Nadzorni organ meni, da se zaradi teh zakonodajnih sprememb ni pomembno spremenil krog mogočih prejemnikov socialnih posojil, dejavnosti sklada HFF na tem področju pa se niso razširile v primerjavi z njegovimi predhodniki.
Furthermore, abolition of social loan categories (cf. Section I.2.2.3.3.3 above) cannot cause an aid scheme to be categorised as new aid.
Poleg tega odprava kategorij socialnih posojil (glej oddelek I.2.2.3.3.3 zgoraj) ne more povzročiti, da se shema pomoči opredeli za novo pomoč.
Such changes could, at most, be regarded as abolition of aid.
Take spremembe bi se lahko obravnavale kvečjemu kot odprava pomoči.
Fifth, the Authority cannot agree with the SFF that the Housing Act entailed a substantial expansion of the possibility for the HFF to lend to undertakings building rental apartments [50].
Petič, Nadzorni organ se ne more strinjati z združenjem SFF, da so se zaradi Stanovanjskega zakona pomembno povečale možnosti sklada HFF za dajanje posojil podjetjem, ki gradijo najemna stanovanja [50].
As outlined above in Section I.2.2.3.3.2, both under the terms of the regulations issued on the basis of the Housing Act and its predecessor, loans from the housing bonds system could be granted to undertakings involved in the construction of apartments.Sixth, as described above, the housing bonds system was abolished by Act No 57/2004 and replaced by direct cash loans granted by the HFF.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj v oddelku I.2.2.3.3.2, so se lahko v skladu s pogoji uredb, sprejetih na podlagi Stanovanjskega zakona in predhodnega zakona, posojila iz sistema stanovanjskih obveznic dodelila podjetjem, povezanim z gradnjo stanovanj.Šestič, kot je opisano zgoraj, je bil sistem stanovanjskih obveznic odpravljen z Zakonom št. 57/2004 in nadomeščen z neposrednimi gotovinskimi posojili, ki jih dodeljuje sklad HFF.
SFF has claimed that this change calls for a qualification as new aid.
Združenje SFF trdi, da je zaradi te spremembe potrebna opredelitev za novo pomoč.
However, this Act changed nothing as regards the scope of potential recipients and alike, nor did it entail a change in the purpose and financing of any possible aid measure to HFF.
Vendar ta zakon ni spremenil ničesar, kar zadeva obseg mogočih prejemnikov, in ni povzročil spremembe namena in financiranja nobenega morebitnega ukrepa pomoči skladu HFF.
Therefore, the Authority is of the opinion that the changes are to be regarded as administrative and technical rather than substantive.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da je treba te spremembe obravnavati kot upravne in tehnične, ne pa vsebinske.
Seventh, by Act No 120/2004, the limit of the HFF’s general loan category was raised to 90 % of the appraised value of property.
Sedmič, z Zakonom št. 120/2004 se je omejitev kategorije splošnih posojil sklada HFF dvignila na 90 % ocenjene vrednosti nepremičnine.
As a consequence, Chapter VII of the Act on additional loans was abolished.
Zato je bilo odpravljeno Poglavje VII Zakona o dodatnih posojilih.
Act No 120/2004 altered nothing with the regard to the public service activities of the HFF system.
Zakon št. 120/2004 ni spremenil ničesar v zvezi z javnimi storitvami sistema HFF.
The aim of the Housing Act remained the same, the aid recipient was still only the HFF and its operations were essentially unchanged.
Cilj Stanovanjskega zakona je ostal enak, prejemnik pomoči je bil še vedno samo sklad HFF, njegove dejavnosti pa se niso pomembno spremenile.
Furthermore, it did not change who was eligible for loans from the HFF, it only meant that the 90 % maximum was open to everyone [51].
Poleg tega se ni spremenilo, kdo je upravičen do posojil iz sklada HFF, pomenilo je samo to, da je 90-odstotna omejitev na voljo vsem [51].
The situation here can be contrasted with Keller where the Court of First Instance held that an increase from 7 billion ITL to 80 billion ITL in the maximum fixed assets an undertaking was permitted to hold in order to come within an approved aid scheme, constituted a substantive amendment that should have been notified to the Commission.
Te okoliščine se razlikujejo od zadeve Keller, v kateri je Sodišče prve stopnje odločilo, da je dvig z največ 7 milijard ITL na največ 80 milijard ITL osnovnih sredstev, ki jih je podjetje lahko imelo, da se je lahko vključilo v odobreno shemo pomoči, pomenil vsebinsko spremembo, ki bi jo bilo treba priglasiti Komisiji.
The Court stated that this change had entailed an increase in potential aid recipients and had indeed opened the scheme for applicants [52].
Sodišče je navedlo, da se je zaradi te spremembe povečalo število morebitnih prejemnikov pomoči, shema pa se je dejansko odprla za prosilce [52].
Changing the aid scheme thereby potentially increasing the number of aid beneficiaries is an alteration to one of the basic features of a scheme capable of having an impact on its compatibility with EC Treaty.
Spreminjanje sheme pomoči, zaradi katere se lahko poveča število prejemnikov pomoči, je sprememba ene od temeljnih značilnosti sheme, ki lahko vpliva na njeno združljivost s Pogodbo ES.
However, in this case, whether general loans are 70 % or 90 % of the appraised value of a real estate is not significant with regard to whether such loans might be classified as public service pursuant to Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Vendar v tem primeru to, ali splošna posojila zajemajo 70 % ali 90 % ocenjene vrednosti nepremičnine, ni pomembno za vprašanje, ali se lahko taka posojila opredelijo kot javna storitev v skladu s členom 59(2) Sporazuma EGP –SPREJEL NASLEDNJO ODLOČBO:
The possible aid measures in the form of State guarantee, interest support, tax exemptions and no dividend payments in favour of the HFF would be existing aid.
Morebitni ukrepi pomoči v obliki državne garancije, subvencioniranja obresti, davčnih oprostitev in neplačevanja dividend v korist sklada HFF bi bili obstoječa pomoč.
The formal investigation procedure applicable to new aid is therefore closed.
Formalni postopek preiskave, ki se uporablja za novo pomoč, se zato konča.
The exemption of HFF from the application of the provisions of the Act referred to at point 14 of Chapter II of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement does not constitute State aid.
Izvzetje sklada HFF iz uporabe določb Akta iz točke 14 Poglavja II Priloge IX k Sporazumu EGP ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Hereinafter referred to as the Authority.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: Nadzorni organ.
Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP.
Hereinafter referred to as the Surveillance and Court Agreement (SCA).
V nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
Hereinafter referred to as Protocol 3.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: Protokol 3.
Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the Authority on 19 January 1994, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as OJ) L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1, and the EEA Supplement 1994 No 32.
Smernice o uporabi in razlagi členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP in člena 1 Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, ki jih je Nadzorni organ sprejel in objavil 19. januarja 1994, objavljene v Uradnem listu Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: UL) L 231 z dne 3.9.1994 in Dopolnilu EGP 1994 št. 32.
The updated version of the State Aid Guidelines is published on the Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/guidelines/
Posodobljena različica Smernic o državni pomoči je objavljena na spletni strani Nadzornega organa: http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/guidelines/
Published in OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37, and the EEA Supplement No 26.
Objavljena v UL 2006 L 139/37 in Dopolnilu EGP št. 26.
Judgment of 7 April 2006, Case E-9/04 The Bankers’ and Securities’ Dealers Association of Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2006] EFTA Court Report, p. 42.
Sodba z dne 7. aprila 2006, zadeva E-9/04 The Bankers‘ and Securities‘ Dealers Association of Iceland proti Nadzornemu organu Efte [2006], Poročilo Sodišča Efte, str. 42.
Decision No 185/06/COL of 21 June 2006 to initiate the formal investigation procedure with regard to the Icelandic Housing Financing Fund (OJ C 314, 21.12.2006, p. 89, EEA Supplement No 63).
Odločba št. 185/06/COL z dne 21. junija 2006 o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave v zvezi s skladom Icelandic Housing Financing Fund (UL 2006 C 314, Dodatek EGP št. 63).
The consolidation was done in accordance with Act No 61/1993, amending Act No 86/1988, and entered into force on 12 August 1993.
Besedilo je bilo prečiščeno v skladu z Zakonom št. 61/1993, ki je spremenil Zakon št. 86/1988 in je začel veljati 12. avgusta 1993.
Chapter VIII of Act No 97/1993 laid down rules regarding housing cooperatives.
V Poglavju VIII Zakona št. 97/1993 so bila določena pravila v zvezi s stanovanjskimi zadrugami.
As regards the entitlement of these cooperatives to loans from the Housing Financing Fund, that is governed by the provisions in Chapter VIII of the Housing Act (cf. sub-paragraph (d) of Article 5 of Act No 66/2003).
Upravičenost teh zadrug do posojil iz sklada HFF je urejena na podlagi določb Poglavja VIII Stanovanjskega zakona (glej pododstavek d člena 5 Zakona št. 66/2003).
The Authority’s unofficial translation.
Neuradni prevod s strani Nadzornega organa.
The original Icelandic text can be found at http://www.althingi.is/altext/122/s/0877.html
Izvirno islandsko besedilo je na spletni strani http://www.althingi.is/altext/122/s/0877.html
The original Icelandic text can be found at http://www.althingi.is/altext/122/03/r06115030.sgml
Izvirno islandsko besedilo je na spletni strani http://www.althingi.is/altext/122/03/r06115030.sgml
As will outlined below, one of the categories, the additional loans was abolished by Act No 120/2004 (cf. 2.2.3.4.2).
Kot je opisano spodaj, je bila ena kategorija, dodatna posojila, odpravljena z Zakonom št. 120/2004 (glej 2.2.3.4.2).
By Act No 57/2004 the provisions related to Housing Bonds were abolished as the Fund started granting loans in cash (cf. 2.2.3.4.1).
Z Zakonom št. 57/2004 so bile odpravljene določbe v zvezi s stanovanjskimi obveznicami, ker je Sklad začel dodeljevati posojila v gotovini (glej 2.2.3.4.1).
Cf. 2.2.2.4 above.
Glej 2.2.2.4 zgoraj.
These additional loans were abolished by Act No 120/2004 (cf. Section 2.2.3.4.2 below).
Ta dodatna posojila so bila odpravljena z Zakonom št. 120/2004 (glej oddelek 2.2.3.4.2 spodaj).
An individual could not earn more than 1620000 ISK and have assets in excess of 1900000 ISK.
Posameznik ni smel zaslužiti več kot 1620000 ISK, njegovo premoženje pa ni smelo presegati 1900000 ISK.
These figures were to be adjusted annually.
Ti zneski naj bi se prilagodili vsako leto.
With regard to the losses that the Housing Financing Fund might incur with the granting of these additional loans, Article 43 of the Housing Act provided that the municipalities should own and operate a so-called reserve fund administered by the Housing Financing Fund.
V zvezi z izgubami, ki bi jih sklad HFF lahko imel zaradi dodeljevanja teh dodatnih posojil, je bilo v členu 43 Stanovanjskega zakona določeno, da morajo občine imeti v lasti in voditi tako imenovani rezervni sklad, ki ga upravlja sklad HFF.
According to Article 44 the reserve fund compensates the Housing Financing Fund losses it incurs on additional loans.
V skladu s členom 44 rezervni sklad nadomesti izgube, ki jih ima sklad HFF zaradi dodatnih posojil.
Article 45 provided that the municipalities should initially pay a contribution of 5 % of each additional loan granted in the municipality.
V členu 45 je bilo določeno, da morajo občine na začetku plačati prispevek v vrednosti 5 % vsakega dodatnega posojila, ki se dodeli v občini.
The Authority’s unofficial translation.’
Neuradni prevod s strani Nadzornega organa.
The original Icelandic text can be found at: http://www.althingi.is/altext/131/s/0223.html
Izvirno islandsko besedilo je na spletni strani: http://www.althingi.is/altext/131/s/0223.html
See Regulation No 540/2006, as last amended by Regulation No 587/2007.
Glej Uredbo št. 540/2006, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo 587/2007.
The Regulation also lays down a nominal lending cap which is currently 18 million ISK.
V Uredbi je določena tudi nominalna omejitev posojila, ki je trenutno 18 milijonov ISK.
The original Icelandic text can be found at: http://www.althingi.is/altext/122/s/0099.html
Izvirno islandsko besedilo je na spletni strani: http://www.althingi.is/altext/122/s/0099.html
The Icelandic Government’s letter of 3 January 2007, p. 10.
Dopis islandske vlade z dne 3. januarja 2007, stran 10.
This is different when the State owns companies that are organised as limited liability companies and are governed by private law.
Drugače je, kadar ima država v lasti družbe, ki so organizirane kot družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo in za njih velja zasebno pravo.
For an application of this principle, see e.g. judgment of the Icelandic Supreme Court of 5 November 1998 in case No 50/1998.
Za uporabo tega načela glej npr. sodbo islandskega vrhovnega sodišča z dne 5. novembra 1998 v zadevi št. 50/1998.
OJ L 126, 26.5.2000, p. 1. The Act was incorporated by Decision No 15/2001 of the EEA Joint Committee and entered into force 1 October 2001.
UL L 126, 26.5.2000, str. 1.Ta akt je bil vključen s Sklepom Skupnega odbora EGP št. 15/2001 in je začel veljati 1. oktobra 2001.
This translation has been provided by the Icelandic Government.
Ta prevod je zagotovila islandska vlada.
Case C-44/93 Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit [1994] ECR I-3829.
Zadeva C-44/93, Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit, Recueil 1994 str. I-3829.
Case T-351/02 Deutsche Bahn v Commission [2006] ECR II-1047, paragraphs 100-103.
Zadeva T-351/02, Deutsche Bahn AG, ZOdl. 2004, str. II-1047, točke 100–103.
Case C-400/99 Italy v Commission [2005] ECR I-3657, paragraphs 47, 54-55.
Zadeva C-400/99, Italija proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2005, str. I-3657, točke 47, 54 in 55.
Case T-190/00 Regione Siciliana v Commission [2003] ECR II-5015, paragraph 48.
Zadeva T-190/00, Regione Siciliana proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. II-5015, točka 48.
Case C-312/90 Spain v Commission [1992] ECR I-4117, paragraphs 14-17, Case C-47/91 Italy v Commission [1992] ECR I-4145, paragraphs 22-25, Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01 Government of Gibraltar v Commission [2002] ECR II-2309, and Joined Cases T-297/01 and T-298/01 SIC II [2004] ECR II-743.
Zadeva C-312/90, Španija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1992, str. I-4117, točke 14–17, Zadeva C-47/91, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1992, str. I-4145, točke 22–25, združeni zadevi T-195/01 in T-207/01, Government of Gibraltar, Recueil 2002, str. II-2309, ter združeni zadevi T-297/01 in T-298/01 SIC II, Recueil 2004, str II-743.
Case cited above, Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit [1994] ECR I-3829, paragraphs 28-29 (underlined by the Authority).
Zadeva C-44/93, Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit, Recueil 1994, str. I-3829, točki 28–29 (besedilo podčrtal Nadzorni organ).
See also paragraph 23 of the judgment where the Court referred to changes ‘not affecting the substance of those advantages’.
Glej tudi točko 23 sodbe, v kateri se Sodišče sklicuje na spremembe „ki ne vplivajo na vsebino teh ugodnosti“.
Case cited above, Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit, paragraphs 32-33.
Zadeva C-44/93, Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit SA, citirana zgoraj, točki 32–33.
Joined cases cited above, Government of Gibraltar v Commission [2002], paragraph 111.
Združeni zadevi T-195/01 in T-207/01, Government of Gibraltar proti Komisiji, Recuil 2002, str. II-2309, točka 111.
See similarly Opinion of AG Fennelly in Joined Cases C-15/98 and C-105/98 Italy and Sardegna Lines, Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna v Commission [2000] ECR I-8855, paragraph 64.
Glej tudi sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Fennellyja v združenih zadevah C-15/98 in C-105/98, Italija in Sardegna Lines, Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna SpA proti Komisiji, Recueil 2000, str. I-8855, točka 64.