natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Derfor ville Herlitz AG og Herlitz PBS AG normalt være blevet frigjort for disse fordringer under insolvensproceduren.
Therefore, normally Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG would have been freed from these claims by the insolvency proceedings.
Hvis de offentlige kreditorers afkald på fordringer imidlertid skulle betragtes som en ydelse, ville det være en modydelse fra Herlitz-gruppen i form af de fremtidige skatte- og socialsikringsindtægter, som de offentlige kreditorer ville kunne forvente ved virksomhedens videreførelse.
Germany argued that even if waivers of public claims were considered to be a service, there was a consideration from the Herlitz Group which counterbalanced it. This consideration was the future tax and social security revenue that the public creditors could expect by maintaining the operations of the company.
Ifølge Tyskland skal de offentlige kreditorers afkald på fordringer vurderes på grundlag af det princip om den private kreditor, der blev udviklet i HAMSA-dommen.
Germany submitted that the analysis of public creditors’ waivers had to be carried out in accordance with the private creditor principle as laid down in the HAMSA judgment.
Ifølge dette princip skal den offentlige kreditor sammenlignes med en privat kreditor, der befinder sig i samme situation, eller med en hypotetisk privat kreditor.
According to this principle, each public creditor had to be compared with private creditors in a similar situation, or with a hypothetical private creditor.
Ifølge Tyskland er de offentlige kreditorer i insolvensprocedurerne mod de to virksomheder i Herlitz-gruppen de offentlige banker, skattemyndigheden Berlin, Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, sygeforsikringer, delstaten Berlin og andre f.eks. hovedtoldkontoret og skattekontoret i Alfeld.
According to Germany, the public creditors in the insolvency proceedings of the two Herlitz Group companies are the public banks, the tax authority of Berlin, the Federal Employment Agency, Health Insurance Funds, the Land of Berlin and other creditors such as the Main Customs Office and the tax authority of Alfeld.
Ifølge EF-Domstolens dom af 16. maj 2002 i sag C-482/99 (Frankrig mod Kommissionen) [18] skal det i en grundig undersøgelse fastslås, hvilket afkald på fordringer der skal betragtes som en statslig ydelse.
In the opinion of Germany, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-482/99 (France v Commission) [18], a thorough analysis is necessary to determine whether certain credit waivers could be imputable to the State.
Blandt de offentlige banker, der bevilgede konsortiallånet og kreditlinjerne, er ifølge Tyskland Landesbank Berlin, Bayerische Landesbank og WestLB.
As regards public banks, Germany submitted that the consortium of banks that granted the consortium credit and lines of credit included the publicly controlled Landesbank Berlin, Bayerische Landesbank and WestLB.
Disse banker handlede som et bankkonsortiums private medlemmer, hvilket understøttes af, at bankkonsortiet kollektivt gav afkald på fordringerne i forbindelse med insolvensproceduren og ikke som individuelle banker.
These banks acted as private members of the banking consortium, which is supported by the fact that the waivers on the basis of the insolvency plans were undertaken collectively by the consortium of banks and not by individual banks.
Hvad angår de afkald på usikrede fordringer, der blev givet af enkelte banker uden for insolvensplanerne, skete dette for såvel private som offentlige banker.
Also, as regards the waivers of unsecured claims undertaken by individual banks outside the insolvency plans, such waivers were carried out by both private and public banks.
Med hensyn til skattemyndigheden i delstaten Berlin hævdede Tyskland, at dens fuldstændige afkald på fordringer i gruppe HAG 3 og PBS 3 var begrundet med, at den forventede, at dette afkald ville blive fuldstændig udlignet gennem de fremtidige skatteindtægter fra Herlitz AG og Herlitz PBS AG.
With regard to the tax authority of Berlin, Germany stated that the reason for fully waiving its claims in groups HAG 3 and PBS 3 was that it expected to be fully compensated by the future tax revenue from Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG.
Tilsvarende var det afkald på fordringer, der blev givet af Bundesanstalt für Arbeit og sygekasserne i PBS 3 begrundet med de forventede fremtidige indtægter via de lovpligtige socialsikringsbidrag.
Similarly, the full waivers of the Federal Employment Agency and the Health Insurance Funds in Group PBS 3 were motivated by the future revenue from statutary social security payments.
Lignende argumenter blev fremført med hensyn til de fordringer, som delstaten Berlin og Liegenschaftsfonds havde givet afkald på.
The same arguments were used to justify the full waivers of the Land of Berlin and the Liegenschaftsfonds.
De forventede ydelser fra Herlitz-gruppen var årsag til, at der blev givet afkald på fordringerne i gruppe PBS 3.
According to Germany, the prospect of future ground rent revenue from the Herlitz Group was the reason for their waivers in group PBS 3.
Tyskland er af den opfattelse, at de offentlige kreditorers afkald på 100 % af deres fordringer i gruppe HAG 3 og PBS 3 var rationelt begrundet og ikke kan sammenlignes med de øvrige kreditorgruppers adfærd.
Germany claims that the public creditors who waived 100 % of their claims in groups HAG 3 and PBS 3 acted in a rational way and were not comparable to the other creditor groups.
Begrundelsen for dette afkald på 100 % var de fremtidige indtægter i form af skat, socialsikringsbidrag og lejebetalinger, som de offentlige kreditorer kunne forvente ved virksomhedens videreførelse.
The motive behind their 100 % waiver was the future revenue (tax, social security and ground rent) that the public creditors could expect by maintaining the operations of the company.
Ifølge det tyske argument er fremtidige indtægter en af de vigtigste årsager til, at en kreditor giver afkald på sine fordringer.
In Germany’s view, future revenue is one of the most important motives for a creditor when deciding on a waiver of claims.
Da myndighederne havde bedre udsigter til fremtidige indtægter hidrørende fra betalinger fra Herlitz-gruppen end de private kreditorer, er det lettere at retfærdiggøre, at de offentlige myndigheder giver afkald på deres fordringer.
Since the public authorities had a much higher chance of obtaining future revenue from the Herlitz Group than private ones, a higher proportion of public waivers was justifiable.
Efter tysk opfattelse gælder sondringen mellem en offentlig myndigheds rolle og en offentlig investors kun ved sammenligning med en privat investors adfærd og ikke med en privat kreditors.
Germany claims that the rule of avoiding the confusion between the roles of public authority and public investor applies only to the market economy investor test but not to the private creditor test.
Hvis offentlige kreditorer ikke kan tage hensyn til fremtidige indtægter, når de giver afkald på fordringer, ville det svare til, at der diskrimineres mellem kreditorer, således at de ikke vil kunne sammenlignes effektivt.
If public creditors could take into account future revenue when writing off past claims, this would be tantamount to discrimination between creditors, so that no effective comparison of creditors could be carried out.
Under henvisning til kurators vurdering anfører Tyskland, at kreditorerne ikke ville have godkendt insolvensplanerne, hvis de offentlige kreditorer i HAG 3 og PBS 3 ikke havde givet fuldstændig afkald på deres fordringer.
Referring to the opinion of the insolvency administrator, Germany pointed out that without such a full waiver by the public creditors in groups HAG 3 and PBS 3 the creditors would not have approved the insolvency plans.
De private kreditorer krævede et større offer fra de offentlige kreditorer, da virksomhedens fortsatte drift sikrede de fleste offentlige kreditorer lovpligtige garanterede indtægter, som de private kreditorer ikke kunne regne med.
In fact the private creditors had demanded a bigger sacrifice from the public creditors, because the continuance of the Herlitz Group ensured statutorily guaranteed revenue for most of these creditors, while the private creditors did not have such a guaranteed future income from the firm.
En yderligere begrundelse for, at denne kreditorgruppe gav fuldstændig afkald på sine fordringer var, at skattekravene ikke var fastlagt på tidspunktet for kreditorernes godkendelse, således at planerne kunne godkendes, efter at disse uvisheder var fjernet.
Another justification for the full waivers in these creditor groups was that the public tax claims were not clear at the time of the creditors’ agreement, therefore, by eliminating these uncertainties, the plans could be agreed.
Det fremhæves fra tysk side, at de offentlige kreditorer, der gav afkald på en del af deres fordringer i gruppe HAG 2 og PBS 5, blev behandlet på samme måde som de private kreditorer i disse grupper.
Germany submitted that all public creditors that undertook partial waivers in groups HAG 2 and PBS 5 were treated equally as private creditors in those groups.
Disse grupper omfattede kravene fra Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, sygekasserne, hovedtoldkontoret, skattemyndighederne i Alfeld og Berlin samt Liegenschaftsfonds.
These groups contained claims of the Federal Employment Agency, the Health Insurance Funds, the Main Customs Office and the tax authority of Alfeld, the Land of Berlin and the Liegenschaftsfonds.
Endelig blev det fra tysk side anført, at selv hvis Kommissionen ser et element af statsstøtte i den omstændighed, at de offentlige myndigheder giver afkald på deres fordringer mod Herlitz AG og Herlitz PBS AG, ville disse foranstaltninger kunne opfylde kriterierne for godkendelse af omstruktureringsstøtte i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c), og rammebestemmelserne.
Finally, Germany argued in the alternative that, even if the Commission found that State aid was provided in the form of waivers of public claims to Herlitz AG or Herlitz PBS AG, the measures fulfilled the conditions for approval as restructuring aid under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty and the Guidelines.
Betingelserne i rammebestemmelserne var opfyldt, da der forelå en reel og effektiv omstruktureringsplan. Herlitz-gruppens rentabilitet var genoprettet, kapaciteten nedbragt og de offentlige myndigheders afkald på fordringer var begrænset til et minimum.
The conditions of the Guidelines were met according to Germany because there was an effective and genuine restructuring plan, the viability of the Herlitz Group had been restored, there had been capacity reduction and the waivers of public claims had been limited to the minimum.
Endvidere havde Herlitz-gruppen ikke modtaget overflødig likviditet og ikke tidligere modtaget omstrukturerings- eller redningsstøtte.
Furthermore, no excess liquidity had been given to the Herlitz Group and the group had not received any restructuring or rescue aid in the past.
Bemærkninger vedrørende delstaten Berlin og Liegenschaftsfonds
Germany’s comments on the Land of Berlin and the Liegenschaftsfonds
Med hensyn til brugsretten til grunden i Berlin-Tegel fremlagde Tyskland kopier af aftalen om stiftelsen af denne ret.
As regards the emphyteusis on the real estate in Berlin-Tegel, Germany submitted an excerpt of the agreement establishing this right.
Liegenschaftsfonds har ikke forhøjet ydelsen i forbindelse med denne ret, da selskabet ikke betragtede salget af bygningerne i Berlin-Tegel til GGB som en ændring af brugsretten til grunden, der var i strid med ejerens interesser.
Germany stated that the Liegenschaftsfonds did not increase the ground rent for the emphyteusis because it did not consider the sale of the Berlin-Tegel buildings to GGB a change in the use of the land that was contrary to the interests of the owner.
Med hensyn til flyttelånet meddelte Tyskland, at forlængelsen af dette lån ikke var anmeldt, da delstaten Berlin havde handlet som privat kreditor.
Concerning the loan for the move, Germany informed the Commission that the deferral of this loan was not notified because the Land of Berlin acted as a private creditor.
Det fremgik af, at der ved forlængelsen var aftalt rentesats, selvskyldnererklæring og en ydelse svarende til de påløbne renter i forbindelse med brugsretten.
This was supported by the fact that the deferral was accompanied by an interest rate, an acknowledgment of debt and a land charge for the amount of the accrued interest on the emphyteusis.
Tilstedeværelsen af støtte
Existence of aid
Herlitz-gruppens produkter forhandles i Fællesskabet, og der er derfor konkurrence mellem medlemsstaterne.
The products of the Herlitz Group are traded within the Community and there is competition between Member States.
Redningslånet, overgangslånet til flytningen og afkald på bestemte offentlige fordringer under insolvensproceduren er statslige foranstaltninger eller baseret på statsmidler.
The rescue aid loan, the deferred loan for the move and certain waivers of public claims in the insolvency proceedings are State measures or derive from State resources.
Hvis der derved opstår en fordel, vil det medvirke til at fordreje konkurrencen og begrænse handelen.
If these confer an advantage, this would distort competition and affect trade.
Hvorvidt der foreligger en fordel må afgøres ved en undersøgelse på grundlag af det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip eller det private kreditorprincip.
The existence of advantage has to be assessed in accordance with the market economy investor and private creditor principles.
Med hensyn til indrømmelsen af flyttelånet i 1989 blev det i beslutningen om procedurens indledning fastslået, at den fandt sted inden for tiårsfristen og udgjorde eksisterende støtte i henhold til artikel 1, litra b), punkt 4, i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999.
As regards the granting of the loan for the move in 1989, the decision to initiate proceedings found that it was covered by the 10-year limitation period and constituted existing aid under Article 1(b)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99.
Derfor skulle indrømmelsen af dette lån ikke undersøges.
The granting of this loan therefore fell outside the investigation’s scope.
Desuden kunne enhver støtte, der måtte have forbindelse med tilbuddet om grunden til Herlitz-gruppen i 1989 ikke kræves tilbage i henhold til artikel 15 i ovennævnte forordning.
Furthermore, any State aid element that might be involved in the offering of land to the Herlitz Group in 1989 could not be recovered in conformity with Article 15 of the said Regulation.
I beslutningen om procedurens indledning anførte Kommissionen, at det forhold, at lejen af bygningerne i Berlin-Tegel ikke blev forhøjet i 2002, kunne indebære statsstøtte.
The decision to initiate proceedings mentioned the possibility that the non-increase of the ground rent for the land in Berlin-Tegel in 2002 might have involved aid.
Denne antagelse blev modbevist af bestemmelserne i brugsretsaftalen.
This was later proved not to be the case by the terms of the ground rent contract.
I henhold til denne aftale kunne lejen kun forhøjes i tilfælde af, at bygningerne blev udnyttet til andet formål.
The contract provided for the possiblity of a rent increase only if the use of the land was changed.
Det var imidlertid ikke aktuelt, da grunden med bygningerne fortsat blev benyttet til samme formål.
Such a change did not take place because the land and the buildings on it were used for the same purpose as before.
Den eneste ændring bestod i, at bygningerne, der tidligere tilhørte Herlitz-gruppen, nu var lejet af denne.
The Herlitz Group now simply leases the same buildings which it used to own previously.
Med hensyn til forlængelsen af flyttelånet i 1999 anførte Tyskland, at dette var sket på markedsvilkår.
Regarding the deferral of the loan for the move in 1999, Germany argued that it was granted under market conditions.
Forlængelsen blev indrømmet på et tidspunkt, da Herlitz-gruppen endnu ikke var i vanskeligheder, og renten lå over referencesatsen.
The deferral was granted at a time when the Herlitz Group was not yet in difficulty with an interest rate still higher than the reference rate applicable.
Renten var sikret og blev regelmæssigt betalt indtil insolvensproceduren.
The interest was secured and in any case regularly paid until the insolvency proceedings.
Kommissionen betragter derfor ikke denne forlængelse som en ny støtte.
The Commission therefore considers that the deferral was not new aid.
Støtte i forbindelse med redningslån og de afkald på fordringer, der blev givet under insolvensproceduren
Aid in the rescue aid loan and the waivers of the insolvency proceedings
I forbindelse med redningslånet har Herlitz-gruppen opnået fordele, som en kriseramt virksomhed ikke ville kunne opnå på markedet.
The rescue aid loan provides the Herlitz Group with advantages that a company in difficulties would not have obtained on the market.
Heri er Tyskland enig.
Germany agrees on this.
Som nedenfor beskrevet fik Herlitz-gruppen indrømmet en fordel, da nogle offentlige kreditorer på urimelig vis gav afkald på fordringer, som hidrørte fra offentlige midler.
Furthermore, as will be shown below, in the insolvency proceedings of Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG, the disproportionate waivers by certain public creditors derive from State resources and confer an advantage on the group.
Der er derfor tale om statsstøtte i den i EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, anførte betydning.
They therefore constitute aid measures within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Offentlige kreditorer
Public creditors
For at fastslå, hvilke foranstaltninger der hidrører fra offentlige midler og kan henføres til staten, blev hver enkelt kreditor undersøgt.
In order to establish which measures concern State resources and are imputable to the State, each creditor was analysed.
Den gruppe offentlige kreditorer, som var opstillet af Kommissionen, var større, end det var anført af Tyskland.
The Commission finds that the group of public creditors is larger than submitted by Germany.
I henhold til § 14 i lov om forbedring af den erhvervstilknyttede alderspension (Gesetz zur Verbesserung der betrieblichen Altersversorgung) [19] hører insolvensforsikring under Pensionssicherungsverein.
The Mutual Insurance Association was designated by paragraph 14 of the 1974 Occupational Pensions Schemes Act (Gesetz zur Verbesserung der betrieblichen Altersversorgung, BetrAVG) [19] as the institution in charge of the insolvency insurance.
I henhold til § 10, stk. 1 og 2, i ovennævnte lov skal alle arbejdsgivere betale lovpligtige bidrag via en udligningsfond.
In accordance with paragraphs 10(1) and 10(2) of that Act, the Mutual Insurance Association receives, through an Ausgleichfonds, compulsory contributions under public law from all employers.
I henhold til § 144 SGB 7 (lovpligtig ulykkesforsikring) [20] hører den lovpligtige ulykkesforsikring ind under Berufsgenossenschaft.
The Employer’s Liability Insurance Association was designated by paragraph 144 of the SGB 7 (German Social Code, Seventh Book on Statutory Accident Insurance) [20] as the institution in charge of statutory accident insurance.
I henhold til § 150, stk. 1, i SGB 7 skal alle arbejdsgivere betale de lovpligtige bidrag hertil.
In accordance with paragraph 150(1) of the SGB 7 act, the Employer’s Liability Insurance Association receives compulsory contributions made under public law from all employers.
Pensionssicherungsverein og Berufsgenossenschaft befinder sig i en situation, som beskrevet i præmis 58 i EF-Domstolens dom af 13. marts 2002 i sag C-379/98 (PreussenElektra) [21].
The situation of the Mutual Insurance Association and the Employer’s Liability Insurance Association corresponds to the one envisaged in paragraph 58 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-379/98 (PreussenElektra) [21].
Det afkald på fordringer, som disse organer gav, blev ikke umiddelbart givet af staten, men af et offentligt eller privat organ, der er udpeget eller oprettet af staten.
In the case of these associations, waivers were not granted directly by the State, but by a public or private body designated or established by the State.
De omhandlede afkald på fordringer bestod i at give afkald på statslige indtægter i form af lovpligtige bidrag til en fond, der kræves oprettet af staten.
These waivers were the foregoing of State resources in the form of statutary contributions to a fund designated by the State.
I henhold til EF-Domstolens dom af 29. april 1999 i sag C-342/96 (Spanien mod Kommission) [22] skal et sådan afkald på fordringer også henføres til staten, da de uafhængige socialsikringsorganer kontrolleres af staten og finansieres med lovpligtige bidrag fra virksomhederne.
The waivers are also imputable to the State in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-342/96 (Spain v Commission) [22], because these independent social security associations are supervised by the State and financed by contributions paid by undertakings.
Anvendelse af »det private kreditorprincip«
Application of the private creditor principle
I overensstemmelse med EF-Domstolens retspraksis [23] har Kommissionen sammenlignet de offentlige kreditorers adfærd under insolvensproceduren mod Herlitz-gruppen med den adfærd, der udvises af private kreditorer.
In accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Justice [23], the Commission first compared each public creditor in the insolvency proceedings of the Herlitz Group with similar private creditors.
Da der for hver offentlig kreditor var en sammenlignelig privat kreditor, skulle der ikke foretages nogen sammenligning med hypotetiske private kreditorer.
Given that for each public creditor there were comparable private creditors, there was no need to perform a comparison with hypothetical private creditors.
Der blev taget hensyn til det private kreditorprincip under likvidationsproceduren mod Herlitz-gruppens datterselskaber Diplomat, HKV og Susy, da samtlige kreditorer modtog samme dividende af konkursboet.
The private creditor principle was satisfied in the liquidation procedures of the Herlitz Group subsidiaries Diplomat, HKV and Susy, because all creditors received an equal share of the liquidation proceeds.
De private og offentlige kreditorer forholdt sig på en sammenlignelig måde i forhold til massekravene, da disse krav blev opfyldt fuldt ud.
Private and public creditors behaved in a similar way with regard to the debts of the insolvency assets because these claims were fully satisfied.
Der blev også taget hensyn til dette princip i forbindelse med de efterstillede krav, da alle offentlige og private kreditorer gav afkald herpå.
Similarly, the private creditor principle was respected with regard to the lower-ranking claims because all the public and private creditors concerned waived them.
Sammenligningen mellem de almindelige kreditorer førte til samme resultat ved procedurerne mod Herlitz AG og Herlitz PBS AG.
The comparison of non-lower-ranking creditors produced a similar result in the procedures of Herlitz AG and Herlitz PBS AG.
De fleste grupper omfattede ligestillede kreditorer i rækkefølge efter krav, men nogle kreditorer med samme eller tilsvarende krav blev indplaceret i forskellige grupper.
Most groups contained creditors with equal ranking in the order of satisfaction, but some of the creditors with identical and comparable rights were placed in different groups.
Som følge heraf måtte de offentlige kreditorer give uforholdsmæssigt store afkald i kreditorgruppen HAG 3 og PBS 3.
As a consequence, public creditors made a disproportionate waiver in creditor groups HAG 3 and PBS 3.
Med henblik på analysen efter det private kreditorprincip omfattede alle de øvrige kreditorgrupper, der var opstillet under insolvensproceduren, sammenlignelige kreditorer, når der ses bort fra disse to grupper.
With the exception of these two groups, all other creditor groups established in the insolvency proceedings correspond to comparable creditors for the purpose of analysing the private creditor principle.