natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Andel hybrid kerne-kapital ( %) [18]
Share of hybrid core capital ( %) [18]
I modsætning til, hvad BdB anfører, bliver både delstaten Hessens stille indskud og de på kapitalmarkedet optagne stille indskud ved insolvens tilbagebetalt før indskudskapitalen, dvs. som foranstillet denne.
Contrary to what the BdB argued, both the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen and silent partnership contributions taken up on the capital market would be paid back in the event of insolvency before the share capital, i.e. on a prior-ranking basis compared to the share capital.
Tilsvarende får både delstaten Hessen og investorerne for andre stille indskuds vedkommende ved virksomhedens insolvens konkursdividende, mens ejeren intet får, således at risikoen bliver mindre end for indskudskapital.
Contrary to what the BdB stated, the Land of Hessen like the investor of any other silent partnership contribution would in the event of insolvency receive the recovery percentage, whereas the owner would receive nothing, resulting in a reduced risk compared with share capital.
Det stille selskab adskiller sig væsentligt fra indskudskapital i og med, at den stille partner ikke har nogen andel i virksomhedens formue og heller ingen stemmeret.
A silent partnership differed significantly from share capital because the silent partner did not have a stake in the assets of the undertaking and also did not have any voting rights.
BdB ignorerer dette i sin afgrænsning og forlanger tværtimod et tillæg herfor.
The BdB had mistaken this in its analysis and thought that a premium should be paid for it.
Markedet følger ikke denne logik.
The market did not follow this line of thinking.
BdB’s tvivl om, hvorvidt godtgørelsen er skattemæssigt fradragsberettiget, er ubegrundet.
The BdB's doubts as to the tax deductibility of the remuneration were unfounded.
Delstaten Hessen har ikke overtaget hverken den driftsherrerisiko, der er en forudsætning for at antage et partnerskab i form af Mitunternehmerschaft, eller det påkrævede driftsherreinitiativ.
The Land of Hessen had taken on neither the entrepreneurial risk nor the entrepreneurial initiative necessary for the assumption of a partnership.
Delstaten Hessen får således kun — som enhver typisk stille partner — efter bestemmelserne i aftalen om oprettelse af det stille selskab del i Helabas løbende overskud og tab, og ikke i dens stille reserver eller dens goodwill eller driftsformuens værdistigninger.
The Land of Hessen, like any typical silent partner, participated, under the contract on the setting up of the silent partnership, only in Helaba's current profit and loss, but not in its undisclosed reserves, nor in the business value and increases in value in the operating assets.
Ved ophør af det stille selskab får delstaten alene sit indskud tilbage.
Upon termination of the silent partnership, it merely got back its contribution.
Delstaten Hessen kan ikke udøve selskabsrettigheder, der svarer til en kommanditists stemme-, kontrol- og indsigelsesrettigheder eller en BGB-interessents kontrolrettigheder efter § 716, stk. 1, i BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch).
The Land of Hessen had not been given any possibility of exercising company rights that corresponded to the voting, monitoring and contradictory rights of a limited partner or the monitoring rights of a shareholder in accordance with Article 716(1) of the Civil Code.
I øvrigt ville statstraktaten mellem delstaterne Hessen og Thüringen om etablering af en fælles sparekasseorganisation ikke have tilladt banken at optage en atypisk stille deltager.
Furthermore, the state contract between the Länder of Hessen and Thuringia on the formation of a joint savings bank organisation had authorised the bank to take up an atypical silent partner.
Da der ikke var tale om Mitunternehmerschaft, havde finansmyndighederne også anerkendt skattefradragsretten for den godtgørelse, der betales til delstaten Hessen.
In the absence of partnership, the financial authorities had accordingly also recognised the tax deductibility of the remuneration paid to the Land of Hessen.
Også den regnskabsmæssige behandling er forskellig.
Balance sheet treatment was also different.
Indskudskapital belønnes efter generalforsamlingsbeslutning på grundlag af balanceoverskuddet (overskud på aktivposterne i forhold til passivposterne).
Share capital was serviced from the balance sheet profit (surplus of asset items over liability items) by decision of the general meeting of shareholders.
Når det drejer sig om delstaten Hessens stille indskud, formindsker godtgørelsen derimod bankens driftsresultat og belaster renteoverskuddet (godtgørelsen er en del af renteudgifterne), og der er ikke tale om overskudsanvendelse, som kræver en generalforsamlingsbeslutning.
In the case of the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen, by contrast, the remuneration reduced the bank's operating result by reducing net interest received (the remuneration was a component part of expenditure on interest) and did not constitute profit utilisation, and did not therefore require any decision by shareholders.
Denne ufravigelige regnskabsmæssige behandling af det stille indskud belaster omkostnings-/indtægtsforholdet og den regnskabsmæssige egenkapitalforrentning.
This mandatory balance sheet treatment of the silent partnership contribution reduced the cost-income-ratio and the balance-sheet equity return.
I modsætning til, hvad BdB hævder, ville en markedsøkonomisk investor have accepteret, at beregningsgrundlaget for godtgørelsen blev begrænset til den del, der faktisk blev anvendt til forretningsudvidelse, og han ville for den resterende del ikke have forlangt en godtgørelse på 0,3 % under henvisning til Kommissionens WestLB-beslutning.
Contrary to what the BdB argued, a market-economy investor would have agreed to the assessment basis for calculating his remuneration being limited to the part actually used for business expansion and would, for the excess part, not have required a remuneration of 0,3 % in line with the Commission's WestLB decision.
Med Helabas begrænsede behov, som var tilkendegivet på forhånd, ville en anden investor ikke have opnået et bedre forhandlingsresultat end delstaten Hessen.
Because of Helaba's limited requirement, made known from the outset, any other investor would not have been able to achieve any better negotiating result than the Land of Hessen.
Med hensyn til størrelsen af en passende godtgørelse er allerede udgangspunktet for BdB’s argumentation forfejlet.
As far as the level of the appropriate remuneration was concerned, the BdB's argument was mistaken in its very approach.
Den eneste målestok, der kan anvendes, er de godtgørelser, der i den pågældende periode blev aftalt på markedet for sammenlignelige stille indskud i kreditinstitutter.
The criterion could only be remunerations that had been agreed during the relevant period on the market for comparable silent partnership contributions to credit institutions.
Forskelle i de enkelte stille indskuds udformning og også i de modtagende kreditinstitutters kvalitet skal ved sammenligning af godtgørelserne tilgodeses ved tillæg til eller nedslag i disse godtgørelser og ikke godtgørelsen for en hypotetisk investering af indskudskapital.
Differences in the shaping of the various silent partnership contributions, but also in the quality of the credit institutions taking them up, should be taken into account in the comparison of the remunerations through deductions from or premiums on such remunerations and not on the remuneration for a hypothetical share capital investment.
Men også BdB’s beregning af forrentningen af indskudskapitalinvesteringer er behæftet med fejl.
Quite apart from that, the determination of the yield on share capital investments by the BdB was erroneous.
Ved beregningen af betaværdien skal delstatsbankerne ikke sidestilles med såkaldte kreditbanker med en risiko, der systematisk ligger over gennemsnittet.
In determining the beta value, the Landesbanks should not be equated with credit banks with an above-average systematic risk.
Det vil snarere være rigtigt at tage udgangspunkt i den klart definerede gruppe af børsnoterede banker, de såkaldte CDAX-banker.
Rather, the proper criterion should be the clearly defined group of banks listed on the stock exchange, the so-called CDAX banks.
Helaba har i forhold til sin balancesum en høj andel af kommunal-, interbank- og realkreditfordringer med lav risiko.
A large proportion of Helaba's balance sheet total related to low-risk local authority, interbank and mortgage claims.
Som led i en objektiveret virksomhedsevaluering har en ekspert pr. 1. januar 1999 for syv kreditinstitutter, hvis risikostruktur er sammenlignelig på basis af forretningsrisiko, forretningsaktiviteter, kundestruktur og virksomhedsstørrelse, målt en gennemsnitlig betafaktor på […] og således klart mindre end 1.
As part of an objective business appraisal, an independent expert had, on 1 January 1999, determined for seven credit institutions with a comparable risk structure in terms of business risk, business activity, customer structure and size, an average beta factor of [...], i.e. well below 1.
Eksperten gik ud fra en langfristet markedsforrentning på 5,0 % og en langfristet risikofri rentesats på 6,0 %.
The expert had started from the assumption of a long-term market yield of 5,0 % and a long-term risk-free interest rate of 6,0 %.
Det giver pr. 1. januar 1999 en egenkapitalomkostningsberegning på […] %.
This gave, on 1 January 1999, an equity capital cost of [...] %.
BdB’s påstand om en egenkapitalforrentning på 11,66 % pr. 31. december 1998 for Helaba beror på en alt for høj betafaktor og i øvrigt på historiske data, som har mistet deres aktualitet.
The BdB's assertion regarding the equity yield of 11,66 % on 31 December 1998 for Helaba was based on an excessive beta factor and, moreover, on historical data that were no longer current.
Renteniveauet har ændret sig væsentligt i de sidste årtier, og BdB’s bemærkninger om inflation og inflationsforventninger er i denne sammenhæng ikke forståelige.
The level of interest rates had changed significantly in recent decades, and the BdB's comments on inflation and inflation expectations were not comprehensible in this context.
Desuden kan den aftalte godtgørelse i det stille indskuds løbetid kun sammenlignes med den til enhver tid gældende forrentning af indskudskapital, og ikke med forrentningen af indskudskapital i virksomheden på investeringstidspunktet.
Furthermore, the agreed remuneration for the duration of the silent partnership contribution could be compared only with the changing level of the relevant share capital yield and not, for example, with the share capital yield of the undertaking at the time of the investment.
Ingen ville have garanteret en ejer af banken en egenkapitalforrentning på et niveau som ved udgangen af 1998 og dermed fjernet risikoen for udsving i forrentningen.
No-one would have guaranteed an owner of the bank an equity yield at the level of the end of 1998 and thus afforded protection from the risk of yield fluctuations.
BdB’s forklaring vedrørende størrelsen af fradraget for refinansieringsomkostningerne kan ikke verificeres.
The BdB's comments on the level of the deduction of refinancing costs did not stand up.
Nettorefinansieringsomkostningerne bør i øvrigt kun lægges til grund, hvis der også fra de til sammenligning anvendte godtgørelser, som private kreditinstitutter betalte for sammenlignelige stille indskud optaget på kapitalmarkedet, trækkes den teoretiske hhv. den faktiske skat for disse institutter.
Reference could be made to the net refinancing costs only if, from the comparative remunerations which private credit institutions pay for comparable silent partnership contributions taken up by them on the capital market, the theoretical or actual overall tax ratio of such institutions was deducted.
For de på kapitalmarkedet optagne indskud angives ikke regelmæssigt den samlede godtgørelse, men kun godtgørelsestillægget, som for variabelt forrentede instrumenter og apportindskud er identisk med hæftelsesgodtgørelsen.
For the contributions taken up on the capital market, however, it was usually not the overall remuneration, but only the remuneration premium that was given, which in the case of variable interest rate instruments and in the case of illiquid contributions, was identical with the liability remuneration.
Sammenligningen mellem godtgørelsen for delstaten Hessens stille indskud og de på markedet betalte godtgørelser kan derfor foretages direkte.
The comparison between the remuneration on the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen and the remunerations paid on the market could, therefore, be made directly.
Omvejen over en fiktiv samlet godtgørelse for et fiktivt kontantindskud, hvorfra der så skal foretages fradrag for refinansieringsomkostningerne, er overflødig og gør i øvrigt den kvantitative vurdering langt mere usikker, da der så må indføres vurderingsstørrelser over flere trin.
The roundabout approach of taking a fictitious overall remuneration on a fictitious cash contribution from which the refinancing costs then had to be deducted was unnecessary and, moreover, increased the uncertainty of the quantitative assessment many times over, since estimates then had to be introduced at a number of stages.
I modsætning til, hvad BdB hævder, er ingen godtgørelsestillæg berettigede.
Contrary to what the BdB argued, there was no justification for any remuneration premiums.
Det er ikke empirisk bevist, at der på markedet betales et tillæg for et særligt stort indskud.
There was no empirical evidence that a premium was paid on the market for a particularly large contribution.
Der har ikke ud fra private kreditinstitutters sammenlignelige kapitaloptagelser på markedet kunnet ses en sammenhæng mellem beløb og godtgørelse.
Comparable capital-raising operations by private credit institutions did not reveal any connection between the amount and the remuneration.
Delstaten måtte acceptere den aftalte trinmodel, fordi Helaba i første omgang ikke kunne anvende den udelte særformue.
Rather, the Land had had to accept the agreed phased arrangements because Helaba had initially no use for the special fund en bloc.
På markedet ville det ikke være lykkedes nogen investor ikke blot straks at opnå en godtgørelse for det samlede beløb, men derudover også et tillæg.
On the market, no investor would have been able to receive not only a remuneration immediately for the entire amount, but in addition a premium as well.
Den idé, at afkald på stemmeret i forbindelse med en investering af indskudskapital skal opvejes af en tillægsgodtgørelse, kan i øvrigt ikke overføres til det stille selskab.
Furthermore, the argument that, in the case of share capital investments, the waiving of a voting right must be compensated for by an additional remuneration could not be applied to a silent partnership.
Den stille partner har ikke efter loven nogen stemmeret, og markedet honorerer ikke den stille partners »afkald« på indflydelsesmuligheder.
The silent partner had by law no voting right, and the market did not grant any remuneration for the silent partner's ‘waiving’ of the possibility of exercising influence.
Det er ganske vist principielt rigtigt, at en investor på markedet kunne acceptere en mindre fungibel investering mod en højere forrentning.
It was in principle true that, on the market, an investor accepted the lack of fungibility of his investment in return for a higher yield.
Det forhold, at delstatens stille indskud er mindre fungibelt end kapital med udbytterettigheder er således også blevet taget i betragtning på forhånd ved transaktionen.
Indeed, the lack of fungibility of the silent partnership contribution of the Land as compared with profit-sharing capital had been taken into account in the discussions leading up to the transaction.
Desuden tog parterne hensyn til indskuddets permanente karakter med godtgørelsestillægget på 0,20 % p.a.
The parties had taken account of the perpetuity of the contribution in the form of the remuneration premium of 0,20 % a year.
En privat investor ville imidlertid have taget i betragtning, at der i dette tilfælde ikke var tale om en investering af et kontant beløb, men af en stor særformue, som ikke skulle opdeles, og som var øremærket til et bestemt formål og kun kunne overføres som apportindskud.
However, a private investor would have taken account of the fact that in this instance an investment was sought not for cash, but for a large, non-divisible special fund earmarked for a specific purpose that could be transferred only as an illiquid capital contribution.
Når BdB anfører, at der praktisk talt ikke eksisterer et marked for en sådan investering, gælder det ikke blot for geninvestering (fungibilitet), men også for den første investering.
When the BdB argued that there was virtually no market for such an investment, this applied not only to reinvestment (fungibility), but also to the initial investment.
Det er ikke sandsynligt, at en privat investor dette taget i betragtning ville have forlangt eller kunnet opnå et endnu højere tillæg end de 0,20 % p.a., der blev aftalt for den permanente varighed.
It was not plausible that a private investor would in view of this have demanded or received an even higher premium than the 0,20 % a year agreed for the perpetuity aspect.
Det omtaler eller begrunder BdB heller ikke nærmere.
Nor had the BdB provided any further explanation or justification on this point.
Ved markedssammenligningen skal der sluttelig i modsætning til, hvad BdB anfører, tages hensyn til erhvervsskatteeffekten.
In the market comparison, lastly, contrary to the view put forward by the BdB, the trade tax effect had to be taken into account.
De stille indskud i kreditinstitutter kom i reglen fra institutionelle investorer, der selv skulle betale erhvervsskatten af den indtjente godtgørelse.
Silent partnership contributions to credit institutions were usually provided by institutional investors which had themselves to pay the trade tax on the remuneration received.
Delstaten er derimod fritaget for erhvervsskat og ville derfor være tilfreds med en tilsvarende mindre godtgørelse.
The Land, by contrast, was not liable to trade tax and would therefore be satisfied with a correspondingly lower remuneration.
Til udligning medfører delstatens fritagelse på den anden side en betalingspligt for banken, der så skal betale erhvervsskat.
The counter effect of the non-liability of the Land was the liability of the bank, which accordingly had to pay the trade tax.
Om betalingen sker til delstaten eller kommunen er uden betydning, og det samme gælder det forhold, at erhvervsskatten beregnes efter den skattepligtige indkomst — normalt indkomsten for den, der modtager godtgørelsen, men i dette tilfælde banken — så længe banken overhovedet har en indkomst.
Whether it was paid to the Land or the municipality was irrelevant, as was the fact that the trade tax was assessed on the taxable income (usually the taxable income of the recipient of the remuneration, but here the taxable income of the bank), so long as the bank did in fact achieve income.
Hvis resultatet derimod var et tab, ville ikke blot betalingen af erhvervsskatten bortfalde, men også betalingen af godtgørelsen for indskuddet.
If, by contrast, it suffered losses, not only was there no payment of trade tax, but also no payment of the remuneration on the contribution.
I modsætning til, hvad BdB anfører, betaler Helaba heller ikke godtgørelsen til sig selv.
Contrary to what the BdB argued, Helaba did not pay the remuneration to itself either.
Ifølge delstaten Hessens beslutning skal de indtægter, der efter skat er tilbage fra investeringen af særformuen, ikke indgå i den almindelige forvaltning, men ligeledes være øremærket til et bestemt formål og afsættes til styrkelse af investeringsfremmevirksomheden.
In accordance with the decision of the Land of Hessen, the yield remaining after tax from the investment of the special fund did not accrue to the general budget, but was similarly tied to the earmarked purposes of the fund and was to be used to strengthen the promotion-related business.
Det er et spørgsmål om anvendelsen af de midler, Helaba betaler til delstaten.
This was a question of the use of the resources paid by Helaba to the Land.
STATSSTØTTE EFTER ARTIKEL 87, STK. 1, I EF-TRAKTATEN
STATE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 87(1) OF THE EC TREATY
EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, fastsætter, at »bortset fra de i denne traktat hjemlede undtagelser er statsstøtte eller støtte, som ydes ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, uforenelig med fællesmarkedet i det omfang, den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne«.
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty states that, save as otherwise provided in that Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the common market, insofar as it affects trade between Member States.
Med overførslen af et stille indskud besluttede delstaten Hessen at anvende en kapitaltilførselsmetode, som grundlæggende bestod i at overdrage offentlige formuemidler, der var øremærket til investeringsfremme, til Helaba for at styrke bankens egenkapitalgrundlag, men også for at delstaten Hessen kunne opnå yderligere indtægter.
With the transfer of silent partnership assets, the Land of Hessen opted for a form of contribution of resources based on the concept of transferring public aid resources to Helaba in order to strengthen its equity-capital base, but also of achieving additional income for the Land of Hessen.
Selv om rente- og afdragsbetalingerne på investeringsfremmeformuens fordringer igen tilflød investeringsfremmeformuen og dermed tjente almennyttige formål, var formuen tilsynsmæssigt anerkendt og kunne følgelig anvendes til hæftelsesformål af Helaba, som på markedet konkurrerede med andre kreditinstitutter.
In spite of the fact that the returns from these claims were still available for promotion-related assets and hence served a public-benefit purpose, the assets were recognised by the supervisory authority and could therefore be used to provide cover for the liabilities of Helaba, which was in competition with other credit institutions.
Helaba fik således overdraget statsmidler.
State resources therefore were transferred to Helaba.
Ved undersøgelsen af, om overdragelsen af statsmidler til en offentlig virksomhed begunstiger denne virksomhed og dermed kan udgøre statsstøtte efter EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, anvender Kommissionen »den markedsøkonomiske investors princip«.
In order to verify whether the transfer of state resources to a publicly-owned undertaking favours the latter and is therefore liable to constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, the Commission applies the ‘market-economy investor principle’.
Domstolen og Retten i Første Instans har accepteret og videreudviklet dette princip i en række retssager, herunder i WestLB-dommen, som i dette tilfælde er særlig relevant.
This principle was accepted and developed by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance in a number of cases, in particular by the WestLB judgment, in a context which is relevant to the present case.
Den markedsøkonomiske investors princip
Market-economy investor principle
Ifølge dette princip skal det ikke betragtes som begunstigelse af en virksomhed, hvis der stilles kapitalmidler til rådighed på ”vilkår, som en privat investor ville finde acceptable at tilstå en tilsvarende privat virksomhed, når den private investor handler under normale markedsøkonomiske vilkår.
According to this principle, no state aid is involved where funds are made available on ‘terms which a private investor would find acceptable in providing funds to a comparable private undertaking when the private investor is operating under normal market-economy conditions’.