natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det skal i den forbindelse betænkes, at den del af den særlige IBB-reserve, der kunne anvendes som ansvarligt egenkapitalgrundlag, var langt større end det beløb, der rent faktisk blev anvendt.
Account should be taken of the fact that the part of IBB's special-purpose reserve which could be used as liable equity capital was far higher than the amount actually used.
Midlerne blev først taget i brug fra 1995.
Recourse was had to it for the first time in 1995.
Undersøgelsen tog udgangspunkt i det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip.
The starting point for the investigation was the principle of the market-economy investor.
Efter dette princip er det forhold, at en virksomhed ejes af det offentlige og tilføres offentlige midler, ikke afgørende for, om der er tale om statsstøtte.
According to this principle, the fact that undertakings are publicly owned and receive funding from the public authorities does not in itself constitute state aid.
Tilførslen af offentlige midler udgør kun en begunstigelse, hvis den offentlige virksomhed får stillet egenkapital til rådighed af en offentlig investor på betingelser, den ikke ville have opnået under normale markedsvilkår.
The provision of public money confers an advantage only if own funds are made available to such an undertaking on terms which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Kommissionen mente, at det derfor måtte undersøges i den foreliggende sag, om delstaten Berlin havde stillet de pågældende midler til rådighed på vilkår, hvorpå også en privat investor — den såkaldte markedsøkonomiske investor — ville have været rede til at stille midler til rådighed for en privat virksomhed.
The Commission took the view that the investigation in this case therefore had to examine whether the resources had been made available by the Land of Berlin on terms which a private investor — an ‘investor operating in a market economy’ — would also have found acceptable in providing funds to a private company.
En investor, der disponerer ud fra markedsøkonomiske betragtninger, ville navnlig ikke stille midler til rådighed, hvis han ikke kunne forvente en normal godtgørelse på markedet for sin investering inden for et passende tidsrum.
Such a market investor would not be prepared to provide funds in particular if a normal return could not be expected within a reasonable time from the capital invested.
En gennemsnitlig sats på 0,25 % for de beløb, der blev taget i brug, kunne efter Kommissionens opfattelse næppe anses for en passende godtgørelse for delstaten, når selv den langfristede risikofrie sats (statsobligationer med ti års løbetid) var på ca. 7 % i 1992.
In the Commission's view, a rate of 0,25 % on average payable on the sums actually used could hardly be regarded as appropriate remuneration for the Land, when even the long-term risk-free rate (for 10-year Federal bonds) was a good 7 % in 1992.
Kommissionen gjorde videre gældende, at godtgørelsen ikke var blevet udbetalt direkte til delstaten, men til IBB, som er en afdeling under LBB, uanset at den som offentligretlig institution, der ikke er en juridisk person, og som delstatens centrale støtteorgan drives som organisatorisk og økonomisk uafhængig enhed under LBB.
The Commission also noted that the remuneration was not paid directly to the Land, but to IBB, which is a division of LBB even though, as a dependent public-law institution and central promotional institution for the Land, it operates as an organisationally and financially separate unit within LBB.
De beløb, der var taget i brug, var desuden, så vidt vides, væsentligt lavere end de beløb og de dele af den særlige reserve, LBB kunne anvende som ansvarligt egenkapitalgrundlag.
Moreover, the sums used, as far as the Commission knew, lay well below the amounts of the special-purpose reserve available to LBB for use as liable equity capital.
Det styrkede egenkapitalgrundlag gjorde det imidlertid netop muligt for LBB at øge sin udlånskapacitet og dermed at udvide sine forretninger.
However, the increased equity base allowed LBB to expand its lending capacity and thus its business.
Kommissionen konstaterede ved den foreløbige vurdering, at oplysningerne om størrelsen af den del af IBB's kapital, der kunne anvendes som sikkerhed, af det faktisk anvendte beløb og af godtgørelsen var ufuldstændige, eller at der slet ikke forelå sådanne oplysninger, og gik i første omgang ud fra »ca. 2 mia. DEM« som et foreløbigt beløb for de overdragne og disponible midler.
The Commission established in its preliminary assessment that the data regarding the amount of IBB's capital available for covering liabilities, the amount used and the remuneration paid were incomplete or even unavailable and took as an initial, provisional amount for the transferred and usable funds a figure of ‘approximately DEM 2 billion’.
Kommissionen anerkendte dog, at den særlige LBB-reserve ikke tilførte likvide midler, fordi WBK's henlæggelser, der var opført som særlig IBB-reserve, ifølge Gesetz über die Errichtung der IBB af 25. november 1992 primært skulle anvendes til at finansiere IBB's støtteaktiviteter, selv om den fungerede som ansvarlig egenkapital i henhold til KWG, og fordi LBB ikke umiddelbart kan anvende de overdragne midler til sine udlånsforretninger.
However, the Commission acknowledged that the special-purpose reserve did not provide LBB with any liquidity because, under the Act of 25 November 1992 setting up IBB, WBK's revenue reserve, which now became a special-purpose reserve earmarked for IBB, was to be used in the first place to finance IBB's promotional work, notwithstanding its function as own funds within the meaning of the Banking Act, and LBB could not use the funds transferred directly for its banking business.
Ville LBB udvide sine forretninger, var den derfor nødt til at refinansiere den samlede ekstra udlånsvolumen på kapitalmarkedet, og delstaten kan derfor ikke forvente den samme forrentning som en investor, der stiller likvid kapital til rådighed.
In order to be able actually to expand its business, LBB therefore had to refinance the additional volume of credit in full on the capital markets, meaning that the Land could not expect the same return as a provider of liquid capital could.
For så vidt angår beregningen af en godtgørelse ud fra det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip, meddelte Kommissionen, at den på dette stadium — under hensyn til de særlige forhold i den konkrete sag — agtede at anvende den metode, der var blevet beskrevet i beslutning 2000/392/EF.
As regards the calculation of a remuneration in conformity with the market-economy investor principle, the Commission stated that, at this stage, it intended to apply the methodology set out in Decision 2000/392/EC, while taking into account the specific circumstances of the case in question.
Efter denne metode beregnes den passende godtgørelse for den kapital, der kan anvendes som sikkerhed for konkurrenceudsatte aktiviteter, ud fra den normale godtgørelse på markedet for investeringer i almindelig likvid selskabskapital.
According to this methodology, the appropriate remuneration for the capital usable to underpin the bank's commercial business is calculated starting from the market remuneration for liquid ordinary capital investment.
Der fastsættes derefter et tillæg eller et nedslag for at tage hensyn til de særlige forhold ved foranstaltningen (før investorskat).
A premium or a discount is then applied, in order to take account of the particularities of the measure concerned (before investor taxes).
Herfra fratrækkes nettoudgifterne ved refinansiering (bruttoudgifterne ved refinansiering minus gældende skat, særlig selskabsskat) for at tage højde for den likviditetsmæssige ulempe som følge af den ikke-likvide investering i selskabskapital.
So as to take into account the liquidity cost arising from the lack of liquidity of the capital investment in question, the net refinancing costs (total refinancing costs minus applicable taxes, in particular corporation tax) are deducted from this rate.
Tyskland havde gjort gældende, at LBB gav et stort afkast i årene før og efter overdragelsen, og at dens egenkapitalforrentning lå på 5,37 % i 1991, 13,5 % i 1992 og 30,83 % i 1993.
Germany had stated that in the years both before and after the transfer LBB was a high-return institution, with a return on equity stated to be 5,37 % in 1991, 13,5 % in 1992 and 30,83 % in 1993.
Hertil bemærkede Kommissionen, at der ikke var redegjort for beregningsgrundlaget.
The Commission commented that the basis for this calculation had not been clarified.
Uden nærmere oplysninger var den ikke i stand til at vurdere dette argument for, at der ikke var noget element af støtte i foranstaltningen.
Without further information, it was unable to assess this argument regarding the absence of any aid element in the measure.
De tyske myndigheder havde også gjort gældende, at delstaten Berlin havde fået en korrekt godtgørelse for IBB-kapitalens garantifunktion, da den solgte sine passive kapitalinteresser i 1994 og sine afkastkrav i 1998 (ekskl. IBB i begge tilfælde) til BGB.
The German authorities had also argued that the Land of Berlin had secured proper remuneration for the function of IBB's capital as liable own funds for supervisory purposes on the basis of the Land’s sale to BGB of its silent partnership in 1994 and of its claim to profits in 1998, excluding IBB in both cases.
Der manglede imidlertid også nærmere oplysninger herom.
However, further details had not been given.
Kommissionen konstaterede sammenfattende, at den manglede vigtige oplysninger for at kunne vurdere kapitalindskuddet og godtgørelsen korrekt og tilpas detaljeret.
The Commission summed up by stating that it lacked important information for a proper and sufficiently detailed assessment of the capital injection and the remuneration paid.
I beslutningen om at indlede den formelle undersøgelse bad den derfor Tyskland om at fremsende disse oplysninger, herunder en fuldstændig oversigt over alle overdragne midler, og at oplyse det beløb, der var blevet godkendt som LBB's ansvarlige egenkapital, det faktisk anvendte beløb og godtgørelserne, begrundelsen for godtgørelsen, beregningsgrundlaget for LBB's egenkapitalforrentning, ajourførte tal og samtlige faktorer, der efter Tysklands opfattelse sikrede en normal forrentning på markedet.
In its decision initiating the formal investigation procedure, it therefore asked Germany to provide this information, including a full statement of all the resources transferred, the amount recognised as liable equity capital for LBB, the take-up and remuneration, the basis on which the remuneration was determined, the basis for the calculation of LBB's return on equity, updated figures and all the factors which, in Germany's opinion, ensured a normal market return.
Kommissionen nærede dog på baggrund af de disponible oplysninger alvorlig tvivl om, hvorvidt delstaten Berlin havde fået en normal godtgørelse/forrentning på markedet for de ca. 2 mia. DEM, der var blevet overdraget, og som LBB efter alt at dømme kunne disponere over som ansvarligt kapitalgrundlag i næsten fuldt omfang, og som ifølge Tyskland havde givet LBB en gunstig stilling i forhold til konkurrenterne.
However, on the basis of the information available, the Commission expressed serious doubts about whether the Land of Berlin had received a normal market remuneration or rate of interest for the transfer of some DEM 2 billion, almost all of which appeared to be available to LBB as a liable capital base and which placed it at an advantage over its competitors.
Kommissionen drog derfor den foreløbige konklusion, at der formentlig var tale om eller risiko for konkurrenceforvridning og — på grund af de stadig mere integrerede markeder for finansielle tjenesteydelser — påvirkning af samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
The Commission drew the provisional conclusion that it was likely that competition was being, or might be, distorted and that, in view of the increasing integration in the financial services sector, trade between Member States was being affected.
Foranstaltningen skulle derfor formentlig anses for statsstøtte i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
The measure therefore probably constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Da ingen af undtagelsesbestemmelserne i EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 2 og 3, fandt anvendelse i det foreliggende tilfælde, antog Kommissionen, at der, hvis der var tale om statsstøtte, var tvivl om, hvorvidt den var forenelig med fællesmarkedet.
Since none of the exemption clauses contained in Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty were applicable to this case, the Commission supposed that, if aid were present, there was reason to doubt that it was compatible with the common market.
Da det hverken var blevet gjort gældende af Tyskland eller af andre juridiske eller fysiske personer, at LBB udfører tjenesteydelser af almindelig økonomisk interesse i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 86, stk. 2, kunne Kommissionen ikke konkludere, at støtten kunne godkendes i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 86, stk. 2.
Since neither Germany nor any other legal or natural person had indicated that LBB provided services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission was unable to conclude that the aid could be approved under that provision.
Kommissionen gik ud fra, at dette forhold ikke er relevant ved vurderingen af den konkrete foranstaltning i den endelige beslutning, hvis situationen forbliver uændret.
In the absence of any change in this situation, it assumed that this point would not be relevant for a final decision on an assessment of the measure at issue.
Kommissionen anførte videre, at den ved sin foreløbige vurdering og i overensstemmelse med artikel 1, litra b), i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 af 22. marts 1999 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 93 går ud fra, at foranstaltningen, hvis der er tale om støtte, er ny støtte og ikke en eksisterende støtte.
The Commission also explained that, in making its preliminary assessment and in accordance with Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, it had assumed that, inasmuch as it constituted state aid, the measure was new and not existing aid.
Kommissionen henviste i den forbindelse til forordningens artikel 15, stk. 2, og påpegede, at forældelsesfristen blev afbrudt ved de foranstaltninger, der er beskrevet i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren, bl.a. Kommissionens brev af 12. januar 1993, 10. november 1993, 13. december 1993 og 1. september 1999, beslutningen om at indlede proceduren i det foreliggende tilfælde og beslutningen om at indlede proceduren og den endelige beslutning 2000/392/EF i WestLB's tilfælde.
In this connection, it also referred to Article 15(2) of the above Regulation, pointing out that the limitation period had been interrupted by the actions described in the decision initiating the procedure, such as the Commission's letters dated 12 January, 10 November and 13 December 1993 and 1 September 1999, the decision initiating the procedure in this case, as well as the decision initiating the procedure and Decision 2000/392/EC closing the procedure in WestLB.
Da den mulige støtte ikke var blevet anmeldt og havde været i kraft, siden den blev indført, konstaterede Kommissionen også, at beslutningen om at indlede proceduren ikke ændrede ved den opsættende virkning af EF-traktatens artikel 88, stk. 3, tredje punktum, for så vidt angår Tysklands pligt til ikke at gennemføre foranstaltningen, før Kommissionen har truffet sin endelige beslutning.
Since the potential aid had not been notified and had been effective since its implementation, the Commission also found that the decision to initiate the procedure added nothing to the suspensory effect of the third sentence of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty with regard to Germany's obligation to refrain from putting the measure into effect until such time as the Commission has reached a final decision.
Tyskland redegjorde i sine bemærkninger allerførst for grundene til overdragelsen af det daværende WBK (senere IBB) og forklarede, at delstatens mål dengang havde været at skabe en »stærk bankkoncern«, og at dette havde forekommet gunstigt ikke kun for de fusionerede kreditinstitutter, men også for delstaten Berlin som ejer og dens banksektor.
In its comments, Germany began by outlining the reasons for the transfer of the former WBK (later IBB), stating that the Land’s objectives at the time were geared towards establishing a ‘strong banking group’ in the interests not only of the merged credit institutions but also of the Land as owner and of its banking sector.
Tyskland understregede i den forbindelse, at kravet om at opfylde kapitalprocenterne efter de nye solvensregler — modsat i WestLB's tilfælde — for LBB ikke havde spillet nogen rolle for overdragelsen, hvad der også fremgik af, at LBB først havde anvendt IBB's (tidligere WBK's) ansvarlige egenkapital ultimo 1995.
It again stressed that for LBB, unlike in the WestLB case, satisfying the capital ratios under the new solvency rules played no role in the transfer, as demonstrated by the fact that LBB did not have recourse to IBB's (formerly WBK's) liable equity capital until late 1995.
Tyskland bekræftede, at 1,902714 mia. DEM af LBB's ansvarlige egenkapital, som finanstilsynet havde fastsat pr. 31. december 1992, svarede til forhøjelsen som følge af de overdragne midler.
Germany confirmed that DEM 1,902714 million of LBB's liable equity capital determined by the banking regulator as at 31 December 1992 corresponded to the increase brought about by the transferred funds.
Heraf svarede 187,5 mio. DEM til forhøjelsen af LBB's grundkapital og 1,715214 mia. DEM til WBK's henlæggelser, ekskl. årets overskud på 190,586 mio. DEM.
DEM 187,5 million of that amount corresponded to the increase in LBB's nominal capital and some DEM 1,715214 million corresponded to WBK's revenue reserves, without the net profit for the year of DEM 190,586 million.
Med virkning pr. den 1. januar 1993 overgik alle WBK's opgaver til IBB, som blev overdraget til LBB.
As at the close of 31 December 1992, so with effect on 1 January 1993, all WBK's responsibilities were transferred to IBB, which was itself transferred to LBB.
LBB disponerede over den overdragne kapital og den særlige reserve som ansvarlig kernekapital med virkning pr. den 1. januar 1993.
The transferred capital and special-purpose reserve were available to LBB for use as liable core capital as at the close of 31 December 1992 or on 1 January 1993.
Den særlige IBB-reserve steg ifølge Tyskland støt i de efterfølgende år.
According to Germany, in the years which followed, IBB's special-purpose reserve continued to grow.
LBB havde dog ikke disponeret over hele den særlige IBB-reserve, da en del af den hvert år skulle bruges til at dække IBB's støtteaktiviteter.
However, it was not fully available to LBB since part of it was needed each year to underpin IBB's promotional activities.
Tyskland fremsendte nøjagtige oplysninger for hvert år i perioden 1993-2003, som er angivet i skemaet i betragtning 149.
Germany submitted precise data for each year from 1993 to 2003 (which can be found in the table at paragraph 142).
Da IBB blev udskilt fra LBB, fik delstaten Berlin den særlige reserve tilbage pr. 1. september 2004, idet ca. 1,1 mia. EUR af den særlige reserve blev indskudt i form af to passive indskud i LBB fra delstatens side.
With IBB's hive-off from LBB on 1 September 2004, the special-purpose reserve was transferred back to the Land of Berlin, and €1,1 billion of it was transferred to two silent partnerships held by the Land in LBB.
IBB's oprindelige grundkapital på 187,5 mio. DEM forblev i LBB's grundkapital.
IBB's nominal capital of DEM 187,5 million incorporated at the time remained in the nominal capital of LBB.
LBB var blevet solgt til BGB i 1994 (75,01 % af kapitalandelene) og 1998 (24,99 % af kapitalandelene).
LBB was in turn sold to BGB in 1994 (75,01 % of the shares) and 1998 (24,99 % of the shares).
Tyskland leverede også yderligere supplerende oplysninger.
Germany also completed the other data.
Tyskland forklarede, at kun en del af den særlige reserve var blevet anvendt som sikkerhed.
It again stated that only part of the special-purpose reserve had actually been used to cover liabilities.
Det beløb, der var blevet anvendt som sikkerhed fra og med december 1995, varierede således fra ca. 212 mio. DEM i 1995 til lidt over […] mia. DEM i de senere år.
The amount taken up in this way, starting in December 1995, had varied between about DEM 212 million in 1995 and over DEM […] billion in recent years.
De godtgørelser, IBB havde modtaget for de beløb, der var blevet anvendt fra december 1995 (mellem lidt over 1 mio. DEM i 1995/96 og […] mio. DEM i 2001), blev beregnet på månedsbasis ud fra en rentesats, der var på mellem 0,2 % (1998) og 0,35 % (1996) i det pågældende tidsrum.
The remuneration paid to IBB for the amounts used as of December 1995 (between a good DEM 1 million for 1995/96 and DEM […] million in 2001) was calculated monthly on the basis of an interest rate which ranged over the period from 0,2 % (1998) to 0,35 % (1996).
De præcise beløb, der blev oplyst af Tyskland, er anført i skemaet i betragtning 142.
The precise figures provided by Germany can be found in the table at paragraph 149.
Som begrundelse for fastsættelsen af godtgørelsen for de dele af den særlige IBB-reserve, der blev anvendt, fremsendte Tyskland en bestyrelsesbeslutning fra juni 1993.
As the basis for determining the remuneration for any use made of IBB's special-purpose reserve, Germany provided a management board resolution dating from June 1993.
Ifølge denne beslutning skal IBB have udbetalt en godtgørelse for denne kapitalbelastning (det faktisk anvendte beløb) svarende til, hvad det koster at optage efterstillet ansvarlig kapital.
This resolution states that ‘… remuneration should be paid to Investitionsbank Berlin for this capital charge (take-up) in an amount equivalent to the cost of raising subordinated liable capital’.
Beslutningen blev i 1995 præciseret med det resultat, at godtgørelsen blev ligestillet med et tillæg, fordi der er tale om efterstillet kapital.
This resolution was given practical effect in 1995, when the remuneration was equated to a subordination premium.
Dette blev begrundet med, at LBB i stedet kunne have valgt at optage efterstillet kapital på markedet, og at ikke kun denne kapitals garantifunktion, men også dens udbyttefunktion havde været disponibel for LBB i fuldt omfang.
The reason given was that LBB could have raised alternative subordinated capital on the market which would have been fully available not only in its guarantee function but also in an earnings function.
Tyskland gjorde imidlertid gældende, at da den særlige IBB-reserve kun opfyldte garantifunktionen, var forskellen mellem rentesatsen for normal fremmedkapital, der ikke opfylder denne garantifunktion, og for kapital, der også opfylder denne funktion, blevet fastsat som »prisen« for den erhvervede brugsfunktion.
However, since the IBB special-purpose reserve performed only a guarantee function, the difference between the interest rate for ordinary outside capital, which does not perform that function, and capital which also performs a guarantee function was set as the ‘price’ for the utilisation function.
Tillægget blev beregnet i basispoint i forhold til LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) på grundlag af nærmere fastsatte vilkår og eksterne markedsdata for efterstillede lån.
This premium was calculated in basis points by comparison with LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) on the basis of specific terms or external market data for subordinated loans.
Beregningsgrundlagene og de statistiske oplysninger blev fremsendt som bilag.
The bases for the calculation and statistical data were attached.