natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Derimod foreligger der en begunstigelse efter EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, når den forudsete godtgørelsesordning og/eller virksomhedens finansielle situation er af en sådan art, at der ikke kan forventes en normal forrentning inden for en rimelig frist.
In contrast, the undertaking is being favoured within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty if the proposed remuneration arrangement and/or the financial position of the undertaking is such that a normal return on investment cannot be expected within a reasonable period of time.
Den markedsøkonomiske investors princip kan tilsvarende anvendes på alle offentlige virksomheder, uanset om de er overskudsgivende eller tabsgivende.
The market-economy investor principle is applicable in the same way to all public enterprises, whether profitable or loss-making.
Kommissionens opfattelse på dette punkt er blevet bekræftet af Retten i Første Instans i WestLB-dommen.
The Commission's view here was upheld by the Court of First Instance in WestLB.
Kernespørgsmålet i den aktuelle undersøgelse er således, om en markedsøkonomisk investor ville have overført en kapital, der havde samme kendetegn som delstaten Hessens investeringsfremmeformue, til Helaba på samme betingelser, særlig med hensyn til den forudsete forrentning af investeringen.
It follows that the key question in examining this case is whether a market-economy investor would have transferred to Helaba capital that had the same characteristics as the Land of Hessen's promotion-related assets and under the same conditions, especially in view of the probable return on the investment.
Den tilførte kapitals retlige og økonomiske status
Legal and economic classification of the capital contributed
Delstaten Hessen overførte pr. 31. december 1998 en formue øremærket til investeringsfremme (Fördervermögen), hvoraf dens andel bestod i en nominel udlånsbeholdning på 6,026 mia. DEM (3,081 mia. EUR) med en ekspertmæssigt beregnet kontantværdi på 2,473 mia. DEM (1,264 mia. EUR), som stille indskud i Helaba.
The Land of Hessen contributed to Helaba up to 31 December 1998 as silent partnership reserves promotion-related assets with a nominal loan portfolio for the Land share of DEM 6,026 billion (EUR 3,081 billion) and a cash value assessed on the basis of an expert evaluation of DEM 2,473 billion (EUR 1,264 billion).
BAKred anerkendte, jf. ovenfor, fuldt ud dette stille indskud som basisegenkapital i tilsynsmæssig henseende.
BAKred recognised these, as stated above, in full as basic own funds for supervisory purposes.
Denne egenkapital var kun i et beskedent og årligt svingende omfang nødvendig som grundlag for investeringsfremmeaktiviteterne.
They were to only a small extent required, on the basis of an amount which varied from year to year, to underpin promotion operations.
Denne del af det regnskabsførte stille indskud havde kun betydning for Helaba som ansvarlig kapital.
This part of the silent partnership reserves shown in the balance sheet served only a guarantee function for Helaba.
Den øvrige del af det stille indskud stod i hovedsagen til rådighed for Helaba som grundlag for dens konkurrenceprægede virksomhed, herunder udvidelse af denne.
Most of the remainder was available to Helaba to underpin and expand its competitive business.
Ligesom i WestLB-sagen beregner Kommissionen, hvad der er en passende godtgørelse for den overdragne investeringsfremmeformue, ud fra formuens kommercielle nytte for Helaba.
As in the WestLB case the Commission has determined the appropriate remuneration for the transferred promotion-related assets in the light of their commercial usefulness for Helaba.
Som nævnt er udgangspunktet for den normale markedsgodtgørelse den godtgørelse, som en markedsøkonomisk investor ville forlange for at stille denne form for egenkapital til rådighed for en bank.
As explained above, the starting point for determining the normal market remuneration is primarily the remuneration that would be demanded by a market-economy investor providing a bank with equity capital.
Klageren gør i den forbindelse gældende, at, som det var tilfældet med den til WestLB overdragne WfA-formue, er også den kapital, der er blevet stillet til rådighed for Helaba, en indskudskapitallignende investering.
The complainant argues that the capital made available to Helaba is, as in the case of the transfer of the WfA assets to WestLB, an investment similar to share capital.
Tyskland bestrider imidlertid denne lighed med indskudskapital.
Germany disputes its similarity with share capital.
Kapitalen er snarere et stille indskud, hvilket har betydning for godtgørelsens størrelse.
It argues, rather, that the capital is a silent partnership, which affects the level of the remuneration.
Tyskland, Helaba og klageren mener samstemmende, at den investeringsfremmeformue, der som helhed indgår i delstaten Hessens stille indskud, udgør kernekapital.
Germany, Helaba and the complainant agree that the promotion-related assets comprised in the silent partnership of the Land of Hessen constitute core capital.
BAKred har anerkendt den formålsbestemte reserve som kernekapital (»Tier 1«-kapital), og den kan derfor også kun sammenlignes med de egenkapitalinstrumenter, der dels var anerkendt i Tyskland det år, hvor overførslen som kernekapital fandt sted, dels på overførselstidspunktet konkret stod til rådighed for Helaba til investeringer af denne størrelsesorden, som klart udgjorde over 15 % af kernekapitalen.
The special-purpose reserve was recognised by BAKred as core capital (‘tier 1 capital’) and could therefore only be compared with equity instruments that were recognised as core capital in Germany in the year of the transfer and that were available to Helaba at the time of contribution specifically for an investment of this order of magnitude, which made up significantly more than 15 % of the core capital.
Kommissionen er på det punkt enig med de af proceduren berørte parter.
The Commission agrees with the parties on this point.
Allerede i beslutningen fra 1999 i WestLB-sagen gjorde Kommissionen det klart, at en sammenligning af den ligeledes som kernekapital anerkendte WfA-formue med kapitalinstrumenter, der kun kan anvendes som supplerende kapital, såsom udbyttebeviser og præferenceaktier uden stemmeret, ikke kan danne grundlag for fastsættelsen af, hvad der er en passende godtgørelse for den overdragne kapital (beslutning 2000/392/EF, betragtning 199).
It already made clear in its WestLB decision of 1999 that a comparison between the Wfa assets, which were also recognised as core capital, and equity instruments that were recognised only as additional capital, such as profit participation certificates and non-voting preference shares, cannot serve as a basis for determining the appropriate remuneration for the transferred capital (Decision 2000/392/EC, paragraph 199).
Kernekapitel er til større nytte for virksomheden, da den hermed kan skaffe sig supplerende egenkapital (f.eks. udbyttebeviser) i indtil et tilsvarende omfang og således udvide egenkapitalgrundlaget.
Core capital is of much greater use to an undertaking because it can be used to raise additional own funds (such as profit participation certificates) up to the same amount in order to increase the bank's own funds.
Anerkendelse som basisegenkapital forudsætter, at den kapital, der stilles til rådighed, er udsat for en højere risiko, som principielt også medfører en højere normal markedsgodtgørelse for disse instrumenter.
For the capital provided to be recognised as basic own funds, there must be greater exposure to risk, which as a general rule is also reflected in a higher market remuneration for such instruments.
Sammenlignelighed med såkaldt supplerende kapital, som kun i begrænset omfang kan anvendes til udvidelse af forretningsaktiviteterne, kan derfor på forhånd udelukkes.
Any point of comparison with ‘additional funds’ that offer only limited scope for use in business expansion can therefore be ruled out from the outset.
Efter BdB’s opfattelse kunne Helaba for den konkrete investering juridisk set kun anvende mulighederne aktiekapital eller indskudskapital.
In the view of the BdB, however, the only legal form properly available to Helaba for this specific investment was that of share capital.
Efter Tysklands opfattelse var der juridisk set også mulighed for et stille indskud med ubegrænset løbetid (perpetual), som opfyldte kravene i § 10, stk. 4, i KWG og ligeledes kriterierne i den såkaldte »Sydney-erklæring« fra Komitéen for Banktilsyn under Den Internationale Betalingsbank i Basel, som igen lå til grund for den tyske banktilsynsmyndigheds (BAKred) beslutningspraksis.
In the view of Germany, another legal form available was that of a silent partnership contribution of unlimited duration (perpetual), which met the requirements of Section 10(4) of the German Banking Act (KWG) and at the same time the criteria of the ‘Sydney Declaration’ of the Committee on Banking Supervision of the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, which in turn guided the decisions taken by the German banking supervisory authority BAKred.
Hvad angår den juridiske form, blev der således mellem delstaten Hessen og Helaba truffet aftale om et stille indskud med ubegrænset løbetid, som blev anerkendt af både den kompetente banktilsynsmyndighed, BAKred, og de kompetente skattemyndigheder.
The subject of the agreement between the Land of Hessen and Helaba was, therefore, the legal form of a silent partnership contribution of unlimited duration, which was recognised as such both by the competent banking supervisory authority BAKred and also by the competent tax authority.
Det er Kommissionens opfattelse, at Tyskland i tilstrækkelig grad har godtgjort, at BdB’s påstand ikke er holdbar.
In the Commission's view, Germany has demonstrated sufficiently that the BdB's argument will not stand up.
BdB fremfører, at delstaten Hessens stille indskud i formen er misbrug af et »normalt« stille indskud.
The BdB argues that the silent partnership of the Land of Hessen represented a formal abuse of a ‘normal’ silent partnership.
Økonomisk set udviser det stille indskud så mange lighedspunkter med indskudskapital, at en investor ville have krævet en forrentning svarende til godtgørelsen for indskudskapital.
In economic terms, the silent partnership contribution had so many points in common with share capital that an investor would have insisted on the payment of interest corresponding to the remuneration of share capital.
Kommissionen tager for det første til efterretning, at det stille indskud udtrykkeligt blev aftalt som et sådant mellem delstaten Hessen og Helaba, og at det blev anerkendt som et sådant af de kompetente tyske myndigheder.
The Commission notes firstly that the silent partnership contribution was expressly agreed as such between the Land of Hessen and Helaba and accepted as such by the competent German authorities.
For at der kan være tale om formmisbrug, måtte det med fuldstændig sikkerhed fastslås, at de kompetente tyske myndigheder fejlagtigt har anerkendt delstaten Hessens stille indskud som et sådant.
In order to be able to assume that there was an abuse of form, it would have to be beyond question that the competent German authority wrongly recognised the silent partnership of the Land of Hessen as such.
Herfor er der imidlertid intet grundlag.
However, there is no evidence of this.
Kommissionen tilslutter sig for så vidt Tysklands opfattelse af, at et stille indskuds begrænsede løbetid eller opsigelighed hverken selskabsretligt eller banktilsynsretligt er et kendetegn af afgørende betydning for anerkendelsen af et stille indskud som kernekapital, jf. § 10, stk. 4, i KWG.
The Commission agrees here with Germany's view that the limited duration or withdrawability of a silent partnership contribution is, neither from the company law nor banking supervision points of view, a necessary characteristic feature for the recognition of a silent partnership as core capital pursuant to Section 10(4) of the German Banking Act.
Desuden fortolker Kommissionen »Sydney-erklæringen« af oktober 1998 fra Baselkomitéen for Banktilsyn således, at den kun opstiller en 15 %-grænse for anerkendelse af bestemte, herunder tidsbegrænsede, innovative kapitalinstrumenter som kernekapital.
Furthermore, the Commission interprets the ‘Sydney Declaration’ of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision of October 1998 as imposing a 15 % limit only for the recognition of certain innovative capital instruments, particularly those limited in time, as core capital.
På den anden side kan det af denne erklæring heller ikke sluttes, at permanente innovative kapitalinstrumenter slet ikke kan anerkendes som kernekapital eller falder under denne grænse.
However, the converse conclusion may not be drawn that permanent innovative capital instruments may not at all be recognised as core capital or are also covered by this limit.
For anvendeligheden af permanente innovative kapitalinstrumenter som kernekapital over 15 %-grænsen taler i øvrigt også private bankers praksis i de senere år, som det omfattende er blevet påvist af Tyskland.
Moreover, the usefulness of permanent innovative capital instruments as core capital above the 15 % limit is testified to by the practice of private banks as well in recent years, as was amply demonstrated by Germany.
Heller ikke de af BdB påberåbte selektive kriterier anser Kommissionen for tilstrækkeligt holdbare.
Nor does the Commission regard the selective criteria adduced by the BdB as sufficiently convincing.
Ud fra en risikoanalyse må delstaten Hessens stille indskud, hvad typen angår, snarere sammenlignes med et »normalt« stille indskud end med indskudskapital.
From the risk analysis point of view, the silent partnership of the Land of Hessen is more similar in type to a ‘normal’ silent partnership than to share capital.
Kommissionen tilslutter sig også på dette punkt Tysklands redegørelse.
The Commission agrees with Germany's comments here too.
Kommissionen finder det i denne sammenhæng væsentligt, at både delstaten Hessens stille indskud og andre »normale«, dvs. tidsbegrænsede, stille indskud, der er rejst på kapitalmarkedet, ved insolvens skal tilbagebetales før indskudskapitalen, således at investoren får konkursdividende, mens investoren, når det drejer sig om indskudskapital, ingenting får.
For the Commission, it is crucial in this context that both the silent partnership of the Land of Hessen and other ‘normal’, i.e. time-limited silent partnerships taken up on the capital market must in insolvency proceedings be paid back before share capital and that the investor thus gets the recovery percentage, whereas in the case of a share capital investment he gets nothing.
Tyskland har under henvisning til en retserklæring oplyst, at delstaten Hessens stille indskud ifølge de aftalte ordninger, for så vidt som det ikke er blevet formindsket eller opbrugt som følge af tab, i tilfælde af insolvens eller likvidation i løbetiden ville blive fyldestgjort af et eventuelt restprovenu forud for indskudskapitalen.
Germany submitted a legal opinion demonstrating that, under the contractual provisions, the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen will, in the event of solvency or liquidation, in so far as it has not been reduced or used up by losses, be met on a prior-ranking basis before share capital from any remaining assets.
Desuden får — så længe virksomheden ikke lider tab — både delstaten Hessen og investoren, når det drejer sig om et tidsbegrænset stille indskud, den samlede aftalte godtgørelse, mens investoren, når det drejer sig om indskudskapital, kun har krav på betaling af en udbyttedividende.
Furthermore, so long as the undertaking is not making a loss, both the Land of Hessen and the investor of a time-limited silent partnership get the entire agreed remuneration, whereas the investor in share capital can claim only payment of a dividend that is in proportion to profits.
Også på dette punkt er delstaten Hessens stille indskud et typisk stille indskud efter § 10, stk. 4, i KWG.
In this respect too, the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen is a typical silent partnership contribution within the meaning of Section 10(4) of the German Banking Act.
Desuden er BdB’s indvending om, at det stille indskud skal sammenlignes med indskudskapital, fordi det på lang sigt har ført til en forhøjelse af Helabas kernekapital med næsten 50 %, ikke overbevisende.
Nor is the BdB's objection convincing that the silent partnership was equivalent to share capital because in the long term it had resulted in an increase of almost 50 % in Helaba's core capital.
Her skal for det første henvises til den trinvise ordning, som blev aftalt mellem delstaten Hessen og Helaba, og ifølge hvilken Helaba i årene 1999-2002 i overensstemmelse med det faktiske kapitalbehov kun kunne udnytte en årligt stigende del af den disponible kernekapital til kernevirksomhed.
Account should be taken here firstly of the phased arrangement which the Land of Hessen and Helaba had agreed and under which, in the period from 1999 to 2002, in line with its actual capital requirement, Helaba could use only an annual increasing partial amount of the usable core capital to actually cover core business.
Desuden henviser Kommissionen i denne sammenhæng udtrykkeligt til, at kapitaltilførslens størrelse også for WestLB er en strømpil, men ikke i sig selv afgørende for at antage lighed med indskudskapital.
Furthermore, the Commission would in this context draw explicit attention to the fact that, in the WestLB case too, the large volume of the capital injection is merely an indicator, but not on its own decisive in assuming similarity to share capital.
I WestLB-beslutning 2000/392/EF og ligeledes i den nye beslutning af 20. oktober 2004 nåede Kommissionen ud fra en samlet betragtning til det resultat, at det var mest nærliggende at sammenligne den pågældende transaktion med en indskudskapitalinvestering.
In the WestLB decision, the Commission concluded, on the basis of an overall assessment, that the similarity of the transaction being examined to a share capital investment was predominant.
En af de væsentlige omstændigheder i den forbindelse var f.eks., at WfA-formuen ligesom indskudskapital risikerede at gå helt tabt i tilfælde af insolvens eller likvidation.
An essential consideration in this respect was, for example, the fact that the WfA assets had, like share capital, been exposed to the full risk of loss in the event of solvency or liquidation.
For WestLB tog Kommissionen desuden hensyn til, at markedet for hybride kernekapitalinstrumenter i Tyskland endnu ikke var udviklet ved tilførslen af WfA-formuen i 1991 — i modsætning til, hvad der gjaldt ved delstaten Hessens stille indskud i Helaba i 1998 — og at et kreditinstitut som WestLB kun ville have kunnet skaffe sig et tilsvarende kapitalvolumen på markedet i form af indskudskapital.
Furthermore, in the WestLB case, the Commission also took account of the fact that, at the time of the transfer of the WfA assets in 1991 — in contrast to the time of the transfer of the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen to Helaba in 1998 — there was not yet a developed market for hybrid core capital instruments in Germany and a credit institution such as WestLB could have taken up a comparable core capital volume on the market only in the form of share capital.
Som situationen var, ville Helaba også uden problemer kunne have dækket sit skønnede kapitalbehov i perioden 1998-2002 ved gradvis at skaffe sig flere mindre stille indskud fra forskellige institutionelle investorer på markedet.
In the current case, Helaba could also easily have covered its estimated capital requirement in the period from 1998 to 2002 on the market by taking up, at intervals, several smaller silent partnership contributions from a number of different institutional investors.
BdB anfører desuden, at Helabas indskudskapitalstødpude med delstaten Hessens stille indskud stadig kun var på 50 %, mens hybride instrumenters andel af kernekapitalen i private kreditinstitutter udgør under 20 % og indskudskapitalstødpuden dermed over 80 %.
The BdB also points out that, with the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen, Helaba's share capital buffer was only 50 %, whereas, in the case of private credit institutions, the share of hybrid instruments in core capital is below 20 % and hence the share capital buffer amounts to more than 80 %.
En institutionel investor ville ifølge BdB ikke have været parat til at foretage et tilsvarende indskud i betragtning af den store andel af Helabas samlede kernekapital.
An institutional investor would, according to the BdB, against the background of this high share in Helaba's overall core capital, not have agreed to a comparable contribution.
Tyskland har bekræftet, at det stille indskuds andel af kernekapitalen i 2003, altså efter at trinmodellens sidste trin var nået, udgjorde […] %, og at alle stille indskud tilsammen (dvs. ikke blot delstaten Hessens stille indskud) i 2003 tegnede sig for en andel på […] %.
Germany confirmed that the proportion of core capital accounted for by the silent partnership contribution in 2003, i.e. after the last stage of the phased arrangement had been reached, was [...] % and that the proportion accounted for by all the silent partnership contributions (i.e. not only the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen) in 2003 amounted to [...] %.
Efter Kommissionens opfattelse kan det dog ikke nødvendigvis udledes heraf, at en institutionel investor ikke ville have foretaget et tilsvarende stille indskud på grund af den store andel af den samlede egenkapital.
Nevertheless, in the Commission's view, it cannot necessarily be deduced from this that an institutional investor would not have made a comparable silent partnership contribution because of the high proportion of total equity capital it represented.
Tyskland kunne godtgøre, at delstatsbanker generelt i højere grad anvender stille indskud uden for 15 %-grænsen som instrument til tilvejebringelse af kernekapital, overvejende fra garantkredsen, men også fra andre investorer.
Germany pointed out that Landesbanks generally make greater use of silent partnership contributions beyond the 15 % limit as instruments of core capital procurement, and do so predominantly from amongst their guarantors, but also from third-party investors.
Efter hvad Tyskland har oplyst, udgjorde stille indskud således i 2003 i […] 72 %, i […] i 39 %, i […] ii 33 %, i […] v 39 % og i […] 42 %.
For example, according to the information provided by Germany, the share of silent partnership contributions of in 2003 was 72 % in the case of [...], 39 % in the case of [...] , 33 % in the case of [...] 39 %, in the case of [...] and 42 % in the case of [...].
Grunden til denne høje andel af hybride instrumenter er, at delstatsbankerne som følge af deres offentligretlige struktur er forhindret i at optage kapital på aktiemarkederne.
The reasons for this high share of hybrid instruments have to do with the fact that, because of their public-law structure, the Landesbanks are not allowed to raise capital on the stock markets.
Det ser også ud til, at investorer i højere grad er parat til at acceptere en mindre indskudskapitalstødpude i delstatsbanker, da kapitalen som følge af en anderledes forretningsstruktur og en dermed forbundet svagere risikostruktur i institutterne som helhed er udsat for en ringere risiko.
It also seems that investors in Landesbanks are more prepared to accept a smaller share capital buffer, since, because of the different business orientation and the accompanying reduced risk structure of the institutions, the capital is exposed to a generally smaller risk.