natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Authority considers that the interest rate of the A Term Loan could be compared with the D Term Loan [27], which is the only one not backed up by the State or a state-owned company.
V svoji odločbi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvome, ali naj obrestno mero terminskega posojila A primerja s terminskim posojilom B ali D. Nadzorni organ meni, da bi lahko obrestno mero terminskega posojila A primerjali s terminskim posojilom D [27], ki je edino, ki ga ni podprla država oziroma podjetje v državni lasti.
The difference between the interest rate for these two loans is 1,32 percentage points.
Razlika med obrestno mero za ti dve posojili je 1,32 odstotne točke.
Deducting a guarantee premium of 0,50 %, the difference amounts to 0,82 percentage points [28].
Po odbitju 0,50-odstotne jamstvene premije znaša razlika 0,82 odstotne točke [28].
That would result in an aid amount of some EUR 720000 [29]. However, it should be taken into account that the D Term Loan has a shorter repayment period (maturity) than the A Term Loan.
To bi pomenilo pomoč v znesku približno 720000 EUR [29].
Whereas the A Term Loan will only be paid back in 2015, i.e. 11 years after the conclusion of the loan agreement, the D Term Loan will be paid back in 2009 (see table in I.2.2(a) of this Decision).
Vendar pa je treba upoštevati, da ima terminsko posojilo D krajšo dobo odplačevanja (dospelost) kot terminsko posojilo A. Medtem ko bo terminsko posojilo A odplačano šele leta 2015, tj. 11 let po sklenitvi posojilnega sporazuma, bo terminsko posojilo D odplačano leta 2009 (glej tabelo v I.2.2(a) te odločbe).
If the D Term Loan had the same long maturity as the A Term Loan (i.e. until 2015), there is reason to believe that Íslandsbanki hf. would have requested an interest rate, higher than Euribor + 1,50 %.
Če bi imelo terminsko posojilo D enako dospelost kot terminsko posojilo A (tj. do leta 2015), bi upravičeno pričakovali, da bi banka Íslandsbanki hf. zahtevala obrestno mero, ki bi presegala Euribor + 1,50 %.
Using Eurobond yield rate curves for 2004 [30] the difference between a bond maturity of five years and of 11 years shows a difference in the yield rate of some 0,8 percentage points.
Pri uporabi krivulj stopenj donosa Eurobond za leto 2004 [30] razlika med 5- in 11-letno dospelostjo obveznic kaže razliko v stopnji donosa, ki znaša približno 0,8 odstotne točke.
In order not to understate the advantage of the guarantee and the respective aid intensity, this difference must be taken into account, which would for the D Term Loan lead to an interest rate of Euribor + 2,3 % (1,5 % as the original rate plus the additional 0,8 %), thereby increasing the aid intensity to 1,62 % [31] or around EUR 1,4 million [32].
Da ne bi podcenjevali prednosti jamstva in zadevne intenzivnosti pomoči, je treba upoštevati to razliko, ki bi pri terminskem posojilu D vodila k obrestni meri Euribor + 2,3 % (1,5 % kot prvotna mera plus 0,8 %), s čimer bi se intenzivnost pomoči povečala na 1,62 % [31] ali približno 1,4 milijona EUR [32].
This figure should be taken rather as an illustration than as an exact calculation of what the aid amounts to.
Ta podatek naj raje velja kot ponazoritev in ne kot točen izračun zneska pomoči.
It cannot be taken for granted that a commercial lender for a non-guaranteed loan would have charged 2,12 percentage points [33] more than the rate for the A Term Loan, even if the maturity were the same.
Ni nujno, da bi komercialni posojilodajalec za posojilo brez jamstva zaračunal 2,12 odstotne točke [33] več od obrestne mere za terminsko posojilo A, čeprav bi bila dospelost enaka.
A required rate would depend on the lender’s risk assessment, which not necessarily leads to the mark-up as calculated above.
Zahtevana stopnja bi bila odvisna od posojilodajalčeve ocene tveganja, ki pa ne vodi nujno do zgoraj izračunanega pribitka.
Thus, three out of the four cumulative conditions laid down in the Guidelines for assessing whether or not an individual State guarantee constitutes State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are not fulfilled.
Tako trije od štirih kumulativnih pogojev, določenih v Smernicah za oceno, ali gre za individualno državno jamstvo po členu 61(1) Sporazuma o EGP ali ne, niso izpolnjeni.
Although the borrower, Farice hf., was technically not in financial difficulty, it was not able to obtain a loan from the financial markets on market conditions without any intervention by the State but needed the State guarantee for 100 % of the outstanding A Term Loan. Furthermore, Farice hf. did not pay a market price for the guarantee, which would reflect the amount and duration of the guarantee and the security given by the borrower, as well as, in particular, the sector of activity and the prospects.
Čeprav posojilojemalec, Farice hf., tehnično ni bil v finančnih težavah, ni mogel dobiti posojila od finančnih trgov pod tržnimi pogoji brez kakršne koli intervencije države, temveč je potreboval državno jamstvo za 100 % neporavnanega terminskega posojila A. Poleg tega Farice hf. ni plačal tržne cene za jamstvo, ki bi izražala znesek in trajanje jamstva ter zavarovanje s strani posojilojemalca, predvsem pa sektor dejavnosti in obete.
For these reasons, the Authority cannot conclude that the State guarantee in favour of Farice hf. for the A Term Loan excludes the involvement of State aid.
Zato Nadzorni organ ne more skleniti, da državno jamstvo v korist Farice hf. za terminsko posojilo A izključuje vključenost državne pomoči.
The conditions of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Pogoji člena 61(1) Sporazuma o EGP
In order for a measure to be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, it must fulfil the following cumulative conditions: the aid constitutes a selective advantage in favour of certain undertakings, is granted through state resources, distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Da bi ukrep veljal za državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma o EGP, mora izpolnjevati naslednje kumulativne pogoje: pomoč pomeni selektivno prednost za določena podjetja, dodeljena je iz državnih sredstev, izkrivlja oziroma lahko bi izkrivljala konkurenco ter vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami Sporazuma o EGP.
The measure constitutes a selective advantage in favour of an undertaking
Ukrep pomeni selektivno prednost za podjetja
A measure which grants an advantage to certain specific beneficiaries and which is not a general measure constitutes aid.
Ukrep, ki zagotavlja prednost nekaterim posameznim upravičencem in ki ni splošen ukrep, pomeni pomoč.
The Icelandic authorities have argued that the support to the Farice project does not comprise any State aid, given that the submarine cable qualifies as infrastructure and support in its favour therefore constitutes a ‘general’ and not a selective measure.
Islandski organi so menili, da podpora projektu Farice ne pomeni nobene državne pomoči, saj podvodni kabel velja za infrastrukturo, zato podpora v njegovo korist pomeni „splošni“ in ne selektivni ukrep.
As stated in the European Commission Communication COM(2001) 35 final, ‘Reinforcing quality service in sea ports: a key for European transport’ [34], the criterion of selectivity is an important benchmark for deciding whether a concrete financing measure constitutes State aid.In Commission practice, state funding for the construction or management of infrastructure is not to be regarded as aid if the infrastructure is directly managed by the State (which is not the case in the present project) or if there is a public tender for the selection of the manager and if access to the infrastructure is open to all potential users on a non-discriminatory basis [35].
Kot je navedeno v Sporočilu Evropske komisije COM(2001) 35 konč., „Okrepitev kakovosti storitev v pomorskih pristaniščih: ključ za evropski transport“ [34], je merilo selektivnosti pomembno merilo za odločanje, ali konkretni finančni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč.V praksi Komisije državna sredstva za gradnjo ali upravljanje infrastrukture ne veljajo za pomoč, če infrastrukturo neposredno upravlja država (kar v obravnavanem projektu ne velja) ali če gre za javni razpis za izbiro upravitelja in če je dostop do infrastrukture nediskriminatorno odprt vsem potencialnim uporabnikom [35].
As it pointed out in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, while wide participation might have been sought within the project, neither the construction nor the management of the company was organised by a public tender.
Kot je poudarjeno v odločbi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave, niti gradnja niti upravljanje podjetja nista bila organizirana z javnim razpisom, čeprav se je morebiti v okviru projekta iskala široka udeležba.
The government participation rather responded to a private initiative, started by the two incumbent telecommunication operators [36].
Država se je s svojo udeležbo samo odzvala na zasebno pobudo, ki sta jo sprožila prvotna telekomunikacijska operaterja [36].
Moreover, regarding non-discriminatory access, while the participation in the company according to the shareholders’ agreement is not restricted, the founding shareholders keep certain pre-emptive rights, which seems to place them in a better position than new shareholders.
Glede nediskriminatornega dostopa pa poleg tega velja, da udeležba v podjetju v skladu s sporazumom delničarjev sicer ni omejena, vendar pa ustanovni delničarji ohranjajo nekatere predkupne pravice, zaradi katerih se zdi, da so v boljšem položaju kot novi delničarji.
Regardless of this, in line with Commission practice, a measure does not constitute a general measure, if the body managing the infrastructure is pursuing an economic activity, as this may provide a potential advantage to the beneficiary [37] in relation to competing operators.
Ne glede na to v skladu s prakso Komisije ukrep ne pomeni splošnega ukrepa, če organ, ki upravlja infrastrukturo, izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost, saj to lahko zagotovi potencialno prednost upravičenca [37] v odnosu do konkurenčnih operaterjev.
In this respect it suffices to note that the state support benefits Farice hf. which manages the cable and sells users’ rights to interested parties against remuneration.
V zvezi s tem zadošča navesti, da državna podpora prinaša prednost družbi Farice hf., ki za plačilo upravlja kabel in prodaja uporabniške pravice zainteresiranim strankam.
According to the case law of the European Court of First Instance, the management of infrastructure constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement [38].
V skladu s sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča prve stopnje pomeni upravljanje infrastrukture gospodarsko dejavnost v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma o EGP [38].
Farice hf. is able to profit from an infrastructure construction secured with a State guarantee and with government participation in a situation in which private parties were not willing to ensure the full financing of the project, whereas other operators might have to finance 100 % of it on their own.In addition, the participation in the company is mainly geared towards telecommunication operators.
Farice hf. ima lahko dobiček od gradnje infrastrukture, zavarovane z državnim jamstvom in sodelovanjem države, kadar zasebne stranke ne bi bile pripravljene zagotoviti polnega financiranja projekta, medtem ko bi morali drugi operaterji projekt 100-odstotno financirati sami.Poleg tega je udeležba v družbi usmerjena predvsem v telekomunikacijske operaterje.
Connectivity via the Farice cable is currently only sold in large units to business operators who resell the service on the downstream market to end-users.
Povezljivost prek kabla Farice se trenutno prodaja le v velikih enotah poslovnim operaterjem, ki storitev nadalje prodajajo uporabnikom na končnem prodajnem trgu.
It was these business operators who took the initiative to which the State responded.
Ti poslovni operaterji so prevzeli pobudo, na katero se je odzvala država.
The type of service is therefore targeted at commercial operators and not at the general public.
Ta vrsta storitve je torej usmerjena v komercialne operaterje in ne v širšo javnost.
As stated in Chapter 17.2.1, paragraph 1, of the Guidelines, a State guarantee enables the borrower to obtain better financial terms for a loan than those normally available on the financial markets.
Kot je navedeno v odstavku 1 poglavja 17.2.1 Smernic, državno jamstvo posojilojemalcu omogoča boljše finančne pogoje za posojilo od tistih, ki so navadno na voljo na finančnih trgih.
Typically, with the benefit of the State guarantee, the borrower would not, without a State guarantee, find a financial institution prepared to lend on any terms.
Za ugodnost državnega jamstva je značilno, da posojilojemalec brez nje ne bi našel finančne ustanove, ki bi bila pripravljena posoditi sredstva.
As stated above (in Section II.1.1.1 of this Decision), the fact that the banks did not only require a guarantee from the State for the A Term Loan but also from the two former state telecommunication monopolists (Síminn for the B Term Loan and Telefonverkið P/F for the C Term Loan), which were still owned by the respective States, shows that Farice was not in the position to obtain a loan on market conditions without any intervention by the State.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj (v oddelku II.1.1.1 te odločbe), dejstvo, da banke niso zahtevale jamstva le od države za terminsko posojilo A, temveč tudi od dveh nekdanjih državnih telekomunikacijskih monopolistov (družbe Síminn za terminsko posojilo B in družbe Telefonverkið P/F za terminsko posojilo C), ki sta bila še vedno v lasti zadevnih držav, kaže, da družba Farice brez posega države ni mogla dobiti posojila pod tržnimi pogoji.
Furthermore, the carrying of a risk by the State should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium.
Poleg tega se tveganje, ki ga nosi država, navadno nadomesti z ustrezno premijo.
As it has been shown above (in Section II.1.1.1 of this Decision), the premium charged to Farice hf. is on the very low end of the spectrum and might not represent an adequate remuneration.
Kot je bilo prikazano zgoraj (v oddelku II.1.1.1 te odločbe), je premija, zaračunana družbi Farice hf., čisto na spodnjem delu lestvice in morda ne pomeni ustreznega nadomestila.
The Icelandic authorities have not provided any information in their comments to the concerns on that point raised in the Decision to open the formal investigation procedure, on which basis the Authority could assess that the premium paid was adequate.
Islandski organi v svojih pripombah niso predložili nobenih informacij o pomislekih, ki so bili v zvezi s to točko navedeni v odločbi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave, na podlagi katerih bi Nadzorni organ lahko ocenil, da je bila plačana premija ustrezna.
This has to be seen in particular with regard to the fact that the premium did not fully removed the advantage which Farice hf. obtained from gaining a lower interest rate for the A Term Loan from the banks.
To je treba obravnavati predvsem glede na dejstvo, da premija ni v celoti odstranila prednosti, ki jo je Farice hf. dobil s pridobitvijo nižje obrestne mere za terminsko posojilo A od bank.
As can be seen from Chapter 17.2.1, paragraph 2 of the Guidelines, where the State foregoes an adequate premium, there is a benefit for the undertaking.
Kot je razvidno iz odstavka 2 poglavja 17.2.1 Smernic, je podjetje deležno ugodnosti, kadar se država odreče ustrezni premiji.
Thus, the Authority considers that Farice hf. has received an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Tako Nadzorni organ meni, da je družba Farice hf. pridobila gospodarsko prednost, ki je v običajnih tržnih pogojih ne bi bila deležna.
In order to be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the economic advantage must be granted by the State or through state resources.
Da bi veljala za državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma o EGP, mora biti gospodarska prednost dodeljena s strani države ali iz državnih sredstev.
The Icelandic State provided a guarantee for a loan of EUR 9,4 million in favour of Farice, i.e. the State guarantee involves state resources.
Islandska država je zagotovila jamstvo za posojilo v znesku 9,4 milijona EUR za Farice hf., tj. državno jamstvo vključuje državna sredstva.
Furthermore, as stated in Chapter 17.2.1, paragraph 2, of the Guidelines, where the State foregoes an adequate premium, this constitutes a drain on state resources.
Poleg tega, kot je navedeno v odstavku 2 poglavja 17.2.1 Smernic, gre za odtok državnih sredstev, kadar se država odpove ustrezni premiji.
As it has been shown above, the premium charged to Farice hf. is on the very low end of the spectrum and might not represent an adequate remuneration, in particular with regard to the lower interest rate obtained.
Kot je bilo prikazano zgoraj, je premija, zaračunana družbi Farice hf., na samem dnu lestvice in morebiti ne pomeni ustreznega nadomestila, zlasti glede na pridobljeno nižjo obrestno mero.
Since the Icelandic State could have required a higher premium to be paid, and consequently has forgone higher revenues, state resources are involved.
Ker bi islandska država lahko zahtevala plačilo višje premije, in se je posledično odrekla višjim prihodkom, so vpletena državna sredstva.
The State also did not act as a private market investor, which would exclude the application of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Država tudi ni ravnala kot zasebni vlagatelj v tržno gospodarstvo, kar bi izključilo uporabo člena 61(1) Sporazuma o EGP.
The discussion of the above two criteria shows that the project did not gain any momentum on commercial grounds.
Razprava o zgornjih dveh merilih kaže, da projekt ni zaživel na komercialni podlagi.
The State’s participation in the project, inter alia by guaranteeing the A Term Loan, became necessary in a situation where private market investors would have — if they had granted the guarantee — asked for a higher premium.
Udeležba države v projektu, med drugim z jamstvom za terminsko posojilo A, je postala potrebna v položaju, kjer bi zasebni vlagatelji v tržno gospodarstvo – če bi dodelili jamstvo – zahtevali višjo premijo.
This shows that the Icelandic State, when assuming the guarantee, did not act according to the private market investor principle.
To kaže, da islandska država ob prevzemu jamstva ni ravnala v skladu z načelom zasebnega vlagatelja v tržno gospodarstvo.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade between the Contracting Parties
Izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino med pogodbenicami
In order for Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement to be applicable, the measure must distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties.
Da se začne uporabljati člen 61(1) Sporazuma o EGP, mora ukrep izkrivljati konkurenco in vplivati na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
Undertakings benefiting from an economic advantage granted by the State which reduces their normal burden of costs, are placed in a better competitive position than those who cannot enjoy this advantage.
Podjetja, ki pridobijo ugodnosti zaradi gospodarske prednosti, dodeljene s strani države, ki zmanjšuje njihovo navadno breme stroškov, so v boljšem konkurenčnem položaju kot tista, ki te prednosti ne morejo imeti.
The intervention of the State strengthens the position of Farice hf. in securing the project financing versus competitors who do not profit from such a guarantee and would have to make the investment solely on market terms, as for example other providers of cables for Internet connectivity (such as the CANTAT-3 network).
Vključitev države krepi položaj Farice hf. pri zavarovanju projektnega financiranja pred konkurenti, ki jim takšno jamstvo ne prinaša ugodnosti in bi morali investirati izključno pod tržnimi pogoji, kot na primer drugi ponudniki kablov za internetno povezljivost (kot je omrežje CANTAT-3).
The consortium which operates the CANTAT-3 network includes, inter alia, the Icelandic telecom operator Landssími Íslands hf., Teleglobe and Deutsche Telekom.
Konzorcij, ki upravlja omrežje CANTAT-3, med drugim vključuje islandskega telekomunikacijskega operaterja Landssími Íslands hf., Teleglobe in Deutsche Telekom.
Furthermore, the guarantee is given for a project which is carried out by multinational business operators and constitutes an activity which is subject to trade between the Contracting Parties.
Poleg tega je jamstvo dano projektu, ki ga izvajajo mednarodni poslovni operaterji in pomeni dejavnost, ki je predmet trgovanja med pogodbenicami.
Hence, the measure distorts competition and affects trade between the Contracting Parties.
Zato ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
For the abovementioned reasons, the Authority concludes that the State guarantee granted in favour of Farice hf. for the A Term Loan constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Zaradi zgoraj navedenih razlogov Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da državno jamstvo, dodeljeno družbi Farice hf. za terminsko posojilo A, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma o EGP.
THE INCREASE IN THE PARTICIPATION OF THE STATE AS SHAREHOLDER OF FARICE HF.
POVEČANA UDELEŽBA DRŽAVE KOT DELNIČARJA V FARICE HF.
Between the time of the establishment of the company in September 2002 and the time of the notification at the beginning of 2004, the state participation in Farice hf. increased from an initial share of 27,33 % up to 46,5 %.
V času od ustanovitve družbe septembra 2002 do priglasitve na začetku leta 2004 se je državna udeležba v Farice hf. z začetnega 27,33-odstotnega deleža povečala na 46,5 %.
Following the explanation given by the Icelandic authorities in their reply of June 2004, Síminn made it clear that it did not intend to provide more than 33,33 % of the share capital [40].
Glede na razlago islandskih organov v odgovoru iz junija 2004 je Síminn jasno povedal, da ne namerava zagotoviti več kot 33,33 % delniškega kapitala [40].
For State aid purposes, it has to be established whether the capital increase at Farice hf. undertaken by the State is in conformity with the market economy investor principle.
Za namene državne pomoči je treba ugotoviti, ali je povečanje kapitala v Farice hf., ki ga je izvedla država, skladno z načelom vlagatelja v tržno gospodarstvo.
Chapter 19 of the Guidelines establishes the general approach of the Authority with regard to the acquisition of share holdings by public authorities.
Poglavje 19 Smernic določa splošen pristop Nadzornega organa glede pridobivanja deležev s strani javnih organov oblasti.
According to Chapter 19.6(b) of the Guidelines, no State aid is involved where fresh capital is contributed to an undertaking in circumstances that would be acceptable to a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions.
V skladu s členom 19.6(b) Smernic ne gre za državno pomoč, kadar se v podjetje prispeva svež kapital v razmerah, ki bi bile sprejemljive za zasebnega vlagatelja, ki posluje pod običajnimi pogoji tržnega gospodarstva.
This can apply when public holdings in a company are to be increased, provided that the capital injected is proportionate to the number of shares held by the authorities and goes together with the injection of capital by a private shareholder.
To lahko velja, kadar gre za povečanje javnih deležev v družbi, če je dokapitalizacija sorazmerna številu deležev, ki so v lasti organov oblasti, in skladna z dokapitalizacijo zasebnega delničarja.
The private investor’s holding must have real economic significance.
Delež zasebnega vlagatelja mora imeti realen gospodarski pomen.
On the other hand, there is State aid where fresh capital is contributed in circumstances that would not be acceptable to a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions.
Po drugi strani pa gre za državno pomoč, kadar se v podjetje prispeva svež kapital v razmerah, ki ne bi bile sprejemljive za zasebnega vlagatelja, ki posluje pod običajnimi pogoji tržnega gospodarstva.