natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ministeren ville betale de uindfriede forpligtelser til BTPS og blive en af BT's simple kreditorer for det pågældende beløb.
The Secretary of State would make payment to BTPS in respect of these outstanding liabilities and would become an unsecured creditor of BT for that amount.
BTPS ville også blive en simpel kreditor over for det insolvente BT for forpligtelser over for ansatte, som ikke er dækkede af statsgarantien, eftersom loven ikke giver nogen særlig præference til pensionsordningsmedlemmer.
BTPS would also be an unsecured creditor of the insolvent BT for any liabilities related to staff not covered by the Crown guarantee since the law does not give any special preference to pension scheme trustees.
BT's pensionsordning
BT Pension Scheme
Frem til 1969 var ansatte ved postvæsenet tjenestemænd.
Until 1969, employees of the Post Office were civil servants.
I det år blev de ansatte i et offentligt selskab »Post Office public corporation«, hvorved deres status som tjenestemænd fik ende.
In that year, they became employees of the Post Office public corporation, which ended their status as members of the civil service.
Postvæsenet fik tildelt det generelle ansvar for betaling af de ansattes pension ved etablering af pensionsordningen »Post Office Staff Superannuation Scheme«, i det følgende benævnt »POSSS«.
The Post Office was assigned general responsibility for the payment of staff pensions, with the establishment of the Post Office Staff Superannuation Scheme (POSSS), to which the accrued pension rights of Post Office employees were transferred.
I 1983 blev BT's pensionsordning »British Telecommunications Staff Superannuation Scheme«, i det følgende benævnt »BTSSS«, indført, og den byggede tydeligvis på modellen for POSSS.
In 1983, the British Telecommunications Staff Superannuation Scheme (BTSSS), the terms of which were closely modelled on those of the POSSS, was established.
Den 31. marts 1986 indførte BT en ny ordning for nyansatte under navnet »the British Telecommunications plc New Pension Scheme«, i det følgende benævnt »BTNPS«.
As of 31 March 1986, BT established a further pension scheme for new employees called the British Telecommunications plc New Pension Scheme (BTNPS).
BTSSS blev lukket for nye medlemmer fra denne dato.
The BTSSS was closed to new members from that date.
I 1993 blev de to ordninger lagt sammen og omdøbt til BT Pension Scheme, i det følgende benævnt »BTPS«.
Both these schemes were merged and renamed the BT Pension Scheme (BTPS) in 1993.
Formålet med BTPS er at sikre, at der i ordningen på lang sigt altid vil være penge nok til at kunne udbetale pension.
The objective of BTPS is to ensure that over the long term, the scheme will always have enough money to meet the cost of the pension benefits to be paid.
Ifølge reglerne i BTPS skal BT regelmæssigt betale arbejdsgiverbidrag til ordningen, som fastsat af aktuaren, for at kunne dække pensionsbidrag og udgifter forbundet med ordningen.
Under the Rules of the BTPS, BT must contribute regular employment contributions to the scheme, as determined by the scheme actuary, to meet the benefits under and the costs and expenses of the scheme.
BT's faste arbejdsgiverbidrag beløb sig til 395 mio. GBP i regnskabsåret 2006/07.
BT’s regular employer contributions amounted to GBP 395 million in the financial year 2006/2007.
Ordningens aktuar skal også lave en aktuarberegning af ordningens aktiver og forpligtelser (nemlig fremtidige pensionsbidrag og andre udgifter) mindst hvert tredje år og aflægge beretning om resultatet til BTPS's bestyrelse og til BT.
The scheme actuary is also required to make an actuarial valuation of the assets and the liabilities (namely, future pension benefits and other costs and expenses) of the scheme at intervals not exceeding three years and report the position to BTPS’ trustees and to BT.
BT skal også bidrage yderligere for at afhjælpe et eventuelt underskud mellem ordningens aktiver og forpligtelser, der måtte fremgå af aktuarberegningen, som led i en genopretningsplan for at gøre BTPS's beholdning fuldt ud dækkende […] [2].
BT must also make further contributions as required to repair any deficit between the scheme assets and liabilities reported on the actuarial valuation under a recovery plan to return the BTPS to full funding […] [2].
I den treårlige vurdering af BTPS pr. 31. december 2002 var konklusionen f.eks., at der var et underskud, hvilket BT var indforstået i at betale med 232 mio. GBP om året fordelt over 15 år ud over det faste arbejdsgiverbidrag.
For instance, the triennial valuation of the BTPS as at 31 December 2002 concluded that there was a funding deficit, which BT agreed to repay at GBP 232 million per annum over 15 years, in addition to regular employer contributions.
Resultatet af den seneste vurdering blev offentliggjort i december 2006 og viste forpligtelser på 37,8 mia. GBP og aktiver på 34,4 mia. GBP, hvilket svarer til et underskud på 3,4 mia. GBP.
The results of the most recent valuation were announced in December 2006 and disclosed liabilities of GBP 37,8 billion and assets of GBP 34,4 billion, which resulted in a deficit of GBP 3,4 billion.
Skulle det fremgå af næste aktuarberegning, at ordningen mod forventning ikke er i balance, skal der fastlægges en ny genopretningsplan og nye ekstra bidrag.
Should the next actuarial valuation reveal that the scheme will not return to full funding as planned, a new recovery plan and amended additional contributions will have to be agreed.
De vigtigste ændringer i pensionslovgivningen i Det Forenede Kongerige siden 1984
Main developments of pension legislation in the United Kingdom since 1984
Pensionslovgivningen i Det Forenede Kongerige er blevet ændret flere gange siden 1984.
Pension law in the United Kingdom has undergone several changes since 1984.
Ifølge de til rådighed værende oplysninger blev de største ændringer af de almindelige pensionsregler indført ved pensionsloven af 1995 (Pension Act 1995) og pensionsloven af 2004 (Pension Act 2004).
According to the information available, the Pensions Acts 1995 and the Pensions Acts 2004 introduced the main modifications to the general pension regulatory framework.
Pensionsloven af 1995: mindstekapitalkrav
The Pensions Act 1995: Minimum funding requirements
Ved section 56 i pensionsloven af 1995 blev der indført mindstekapitalkrav om, at værdien af ordningens aktiver ikke måtte være mindre end værdien af ordningens forpligtelser.
Section 56 of the Pensions Act 1995 introduced a minimum funding requirement that the value of the assets of the scheme is not less than the amount of the liabilities of the scheme.
Det fremgår imidlertid af reglerne for erhvervspensionsordninger fra 1996 (Occupational Pension Schemes (Minimum Funding Requirement and Actuarial Valuations) Regulations), at
However, the Occupational Pension Schemes (Minimum Funding Requirement and Actuarial Valuations) Regulations 1996 provide that:
»section 56 (mindstekapitalkrav) ikke finder anvendelse på […] erhvervspensionsordninger, for så vidt som der er stillet en statsgaranti eller truffet anden foranstaltning til at sikre, at ordningens aktiver kan opfylde forpligtelserne.
‘Section 56 (minimum funding requirement) does not apply to […] any occupational pension scheme in respect of which any Minister of the Crown has given a guarantee or made any other arrangements for the purpose of securing that the assets of the scheme are sufficient to meet its liabilities.
[…] Hvis en sådan garanti kun er stillet for en del af en ordning, gælder section 56 til 60, og disse regler skal anvendes, som var denne del og ordningens anden del to forskellige ordninger« (understregning tilføjet).
[…] Where such a guarantee has been given in respect of part only of a scheme, sections 56 to 60 and these Regulations shall apply as if that part and the other part of the scheme were separate schemes’ (emphasis added).
Det fremgår endvidere af section 75 i pensionsloven af 1995, at hvis værdien af aktiverne på tidspunktet for selskabets insolvens er mindre end værdien af ordningens forpligtelser, skal et beløb svarende til forskellen betragtes som gæld, som arbejdsgiver skylder ordningens bestyrelse eller administratorer.
Furthermore, section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 provides that if at the time of insolvency the value of the assets of the scheme is less than the amount of the liabilities of the scheme, an amount equal to the difference shall be treated as a debt due from the employer to the trustees or managers of the scheme.
Det fremgår imidlertid af reglerne om erhvervspensionsordninger fra 1996 (Occupational Pension Schemes (Deficiency on Winding up) Regulations), at:
However, the Occupational Pension Schemes (Deficiency on Winding up) Regulations 1996 provide that:
»section 75 ikke finder anvendelse […] på erhvervspensionsordninger, over for hvilke ministeren har stillet en garanti eller truffet anden foranstaltning til at sikre, at aktiverne i ordningen kan dække forpligtelserne« (understregning tilføjet).
‘Section 75 does not apply […] to any occupational pension scheme in respect of which any Minister of the Crown has given a guarantee or made any other arrangements for the purpose of securing that the assets of the scheme are sufficient to meet its liabilities’ (emphasis added).
Pensionsloven af 2004: Pensionsbeskyttelsesfonde og lovbestemte finansieringsmål
The Pensions Act 2004: Pension Protection Fund and Statutory Funding Objectives
Del 2 i pensionsloven fra 2004 indførte pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden som følge af det daværende kraftige politisk pres, efter at tusindvis af arbejdstagere havde mistet store pensionsbeløb, fordi det bidragydende selskab var gået konkurs.
Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 introduced the Pension Protection Fund as a result of intense political pressure at the time, after thousands of workers lost large amounts of their pension benefits following the bankruptcy of their sponsoring companies.
Pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden finansieres dels af aktiver, som overføres fra ordninger, for hvilke fonden formodes at have ansvar, dels af et årligt bidrag fra de støtteberettigede pensionsordninger.
The Pension Protection Fund is financed partly by the assets transferred from schemes from which it has assumed responsibility and partly by an annual levy raised on eligible pension schemes.
Bidraget omfatter et administrationsgebyr og et risikogebyr, som består af to elementer: et risikobaseret element, hvor der tages højde for ordningens underfinansieringsrisiko og arbejdsgivers insolvensrisiko (80 % af bidraget) og et element, der fastsættes på grundlag af størrelsen af den pågældende ordnings forpligtelser (20 % af bidraget).
This levy includes an administration levy and a risk levy which incorporates two elements: a risk-based element that takes into account the scheme’s under-funding risk and the employer insolvency risk (80 % of the levy) and a scheme-based element on the basis of the size of the scheme’s liabilities (20 % of the levy).
Det oprindelige bidrag for 2005/06 blev fastsat uden at tage hensyn til det risikobaserede element.
The amount of the initial levy for 2005/2006 was set without taking into consideration the risk-based element.
Det fremgår af pensionsbeskyttelsesfondens regler fra 2005, at »en ordning, over for hvilken en relevant offentlig myndighed har stillet en garanti eller truffet anden foranstaltning for at sikre, at aktiverne i ordningen er tilstrækkelige til at opfylde forpligtelserne«, er fritaget for pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden.
The Pension Protection Fund (Entry Rules) Regulations 2005 specify that ‘a scheme in respect of which a relevant public authority has given a guarantee or made any other arrangements for the purposes of securing that the assets of the scheme are sufficient to meet its liabilities’ is exempted from the Pension Protection Fund.
Hvis dele af en ordning nyder godt af en statsgaranti, skal den garanterede del og den del, der ikke nyder godt af en statsgaranti, behandles som to adskilte ordninger.
Where part of a scheme is guaranteed by the Crown, the guaranteed and non-guaranteed parts of the scheme should be considered as separate schemes.
Reglerne om erhvervspensionsordninger fra 2005 (The Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Funding) Regulations) fritager ordninger, for hvilke en offentlig myndighed har stillet garanti.
The Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Funding) Regulations 2005 exempt a scheme which is guaranteed by a public authority.
Det gælder også i dette tilfælde, at hvis en del af ordningen nyder godt af en statsgaranti, skal denne del behandles som en særskilt ordning i forhold til den del af ordningen, for hvilken der ikke stilles garanti.
Again, if a part of a scheme is guaranteed by the Crown, the guaranteed and non-guaranteed parts of the scheme should be considered as separate schemes.
KOMMISSIONENS BESLUTNING OM AT INDLEDE DEN FORMELLE UNDERSØGELSESPROCEDURE
COMMISSION DECISION ON THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
Kommissionen anførte i sin beslutning af 28. november 2007 om indledning af den formelle undersøgelse sin foreløbige vurdering og sin tvivl ved, om foranstaltningerne var forenelige med fællesmarkedet.
In its decision of 28 November 2007 initiating the formal investigation, the Commission set out its preliminary assessment and doubts as to the compatibility of the measures at hand with the common market.
De foranstaltninger, der blev rejst spørgsmål ved, var:
The measures in question were:
Statsgarantien til BT for BT's pensionsforpligtelser i 1984.
the Crown guarantee to BT on BT’s pension liabilities in 1984,
Fritagelsen af BTPS fra at anvende mindstekapitalkravene, der blev indført ved pensionsloven af 1995 og pensionsloven af 2004, på de af BTPS's pensionsforpligtelser, der var dækket af statsgarantien.
the exemption of BTPS from the application of the minimum funding requirements introduced by the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2004 to the BTPS’ pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee,
Fritagelsen af BTPS i henhold til pensionsbeskyttelsesfondens regler fra 2005 fra kravene i del 2 i pensionsloven af 2004 for at yde et årligt bidrag til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden svarende til de pensionsforpligtelser, der var omfattet af statsgarantien.
the exemption of BTPS under the Pension Protection Fund (Entry Rules) Regulations 2005 from the requirement laid down in part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 to contribute an annual levy to the Pension Protection Fund corresponding to its pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee.
Kommissionen hævdede i sin beslutning, at statsgarantien for BT's pensionsforpligtelser i tilfælde af BT's insolvens efter afvikling i sig selv kun er en fordel for de ansatte og derfor ikke giver BT nogen fordel, da den ikke påvirker BT's kreditværdighed eller investerings- eller beskæftigelsespolitik.
In that decision, the Commission held the view that, on its own, the Crown guarantee on BT’s pension liabilities in case of BT’s insolvency after being wound up is of benefit only to employees and therefore does not confer any advantage to BT since it does not affect the credit rating, investment, or employment policy of BT.
Kommissionen nåede derfor til den konklusion, at statsgarantien, for så vidt angår BT's pensionsforpligtelser i tilfælde af insolvens, ikke giver BT nogen særlige ekstra fordele, set uafhængigt af de ændringer i lovgivningen, der blev indført i 1995 og 2004, og at den derfor ikke udgjorde statsstøtte efter EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1 [3].
The Commission therefore concluded that the Crown guarantee, as far as it concerns BT pension liabilities in case of insolvency, did not confer any specific additional advantage to BT, viewed in isolation from the changes in the legal framework introduced in 1995 and 2004, and therefore did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC [3].
Kommissionen nåede imidlertid til en anden konklusion med hensyn til statsgarantien og de pensionsregler, der blev indført i 1995 og 2004.
However, the Commission reached a different conclusion with regard to the pension legal framework introduced in 1995 and 2004 in connection with the Crown guarantee.
Kommissionen gav udtryk for sin umiddelbare tvivl om, hvorvidt statsstøtten var forenelig med fællesmarkedet og bad Det Forenede Kongerige om nærmere oplysninger, navnlig om at:
Whilst expressing its preliminary doubts on the compatibility of possible State aid with the common market, the Commission called on the United Kingdom to provide explanations, in particular, as to the following:
fremlægge tydeligt bevis for, at BTPS ikke benyttede sig af fritagelsen for mindstekapitalkravene i pensionsloven af 1995 og 2004 og begrundelsen for denne beslutning.
clear evidence that BTPS did not avail itself of the exemption from the minimum funding requirements provided for in the 1995 and 2004 Pension Acts, and reasons for this decision.
I den forbindelse bemærkede Kommissionen, at BTPS stadig havde et underskud på 3,4 mia. GBP på trods af kravene i pensionsloven af 1995 om, at aktiverne i ordningen skal svare til forpligtelserne
In this connection, the Commission noted that the BTPS still had a GBP 3,4 billion deficit in 2006, despite the requirements of the 1995 Pension Act that the assets of the scheme had to match its liabilities,
give en fuldstændig redegørelse for, hvorfor fritagelsen fra at bidrage til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden ikke udgør statsstøtte i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1
full explanations as to why the exemption from the contribution to the Pension Protection Fund does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC,
give en fuldstændig redegørelse for, hvorfor disse foranstaltninger kan siges at være forenelige med statsstøttereglerne, navnlig EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c), såfremt Kommissionen når til den konklusion, at de udgør statsstøtte.
full explanations as to why these measures can be found to be compatible with State aid rules, and in particular under Article 87(3)(c) EC, should the Commission conclude that they constitute State aid.
BEMÆRKNINGER FRA INTERESSEREDE PARTER
COMMENTS FROM THE PARTIES INVOLVED
Myndighedernes holdning i Det Forenede Kongerige
Position of the authorities of the United Kingdom
Det Forenede Kongeriges bemærkninger vedrører de spørgsmål, der blev rejst i beslutningen af 28. november 2007 vedrørende mindstekapitalkrav og fritagelsen for at betale bidrag til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden.
The observations of the United Kingdom relate to the issues raised in the decision of 28 November 2007 as concerns minimum funding requirement and the exemption from payment of levies to the Pension Protection Fund.
Mindstekapitalkrav
Minimum funding requirement
Det Forenede Kongerige hævder, at BT og BTPS ikke benyttede sig af fritagelsen for anvendelsen af mindstekapitalkrav.
The United Kingdom claims that BT and the BTPS did not avail themselves of the exemption from the application of the minimum funding requirements.
Ifølge mindstekapitalkravet i section 56 i pensionsloven af 1995, som var i kraft indtil 2004, måtte værdien af aktiverne i pensionsfonden ikke være mindre end værdien af forpligtelserne.
The minimum funding requirement provided for in section 56 of the Pensions Act 1995, which was in force until 2004, imposed a requirement that the value of the assets of the pension fund should not be less than the amount of liabilities.
Det Forenede Kongerige understreger, at beregningsgrundlaget for pensionsforpligtelser ifølge section 56(3) i pensionsloven 1995 adskiller sig fra det, der normalt bruges for pensionsordninger ved den løbende vurdering.
The United Kingdom stresses that the basis for calculations of pension liabilities pursuant to section 56(3) of the Pensions Act 1995 differed from those generally used by pension schemes in the course of their regular ongoing valuations.
De forskellige beregningsmetoder har resulteret i forskellige værdiansættelser af forpligtelserne.
As a result, the different methodology produced different values for liabilities.
Forskellen mellem værdiansættelsen efter metoden for mindstekapitalkrav (»MFR«) og BTPS' løbende værdiansættelser fremgår af nedenstående tabel:
The differences between the valuations under the methodology of the minimum funding requirement (MFR) and the BTPS ongoing valuations are detailed in the table below:
Dato for værdiansættelse
Date of valuation
Forpligtelser
Liabilities
(MFR-grundlag)
(MFR basis)
Forhold mellem aktiver og forpligtelser
Ratio assets/liabilities
(løbende grundlag)
(ongoing basis)
22,8 mia. GBP
GBP 22,8 billion
22,5 mia. GBP
GBP 22,5 billion
24,9 mia. GBP
GBP 24,9 billion
29,9 mia. GBP
GBP 29,9 billion
26,5 mia. GBP
GBP 26,5 billion
30,9 mia. GBP
GBP 30,9 billion
Tallene viser, at for de to værdiansættelser, som BTPS foretog i perioden, hvor mindstekapitalkravene af 1995 var gældende, nemlig værdiansættelsen i 1999 og 2002, var finansieringsniveauet beregnet på grundlag af metoden for mindstekapitalkrav på over 100 %, selv om den løbende beregningsmetode viste et underskud.
These figures show that, in the case of the two valuations of BTPS carried out during the period in which the 1995 minimum funding requirement was in force, namely, the 1999 and 2002 valuation, its funding position calculated on the basis of the minimum funding requirement methodology exceeded 100 % even though its ongoing valuation under a different methodology showed a deficit.
Det Forenede Kongerige understreger, at mindstekapitalkravet ikke pålagde noget krav om, at ordningernes aktiver skulle overstige forpligtelserne ved de løbende værdiansættelser.
In that respect, the United Kingdom stresses that the minimum funding requirement imposed no requirement on schemes for their assets to exceed the liabilities calculated in the course of their ongoing valuations.
Endvidere behøvede et underskud ifølge mindstekapitalkravet ikke at blive dækket øjeblikkeligt, men det skal sikres, at aktiverne dækker forpligtelserne 100 % inden for en fastsat periode på højst 10 år.
Moreover, even a deficit under minimum funding requirement did not need to be corrected immediately but within a prescribed period of no more than 10 years to reach a funding position of 100 % ratio assets/liabilities.
Pensionsloven af 2004 erstattede mindstekapitalkravene fra 1995 med en ny finansieringsordning, som forpligter pensionsfondens bestyrelse til at nå til enighed med det bidragydende selskab om en plan for, hvordan et eventuelt finansieringsunderskud dækkes.
The Pensions Act 2004 replaced the 1995 minimum funding requirement with a new scheme funding regime, which obliges pension funds’ trustees to agree with the sponsor company on a plan to restore any funding deficit.
Myndighederne i Det Forenede Kongerige understregede, at ifølge reglerne for erhvervspensionsordninger kan kun pensionsordninger, der nyder godt af en statsgaranti, og som er etableret ved lov, fritages for det obligatoriske finansieringskrav.
The authorities of the United Kingdom underlined that under the Occupational Pension Schemes Regulations, only pension schemes that benefit from a Crown guarantee and that are established by enactment (by law) can be exempted from the application of the mandatory funding requirement.
Det bør i den forbindelse bemærkes, at BTPS ikke er indført ved lov.
In this respect, it should be noted that BTPS was not established by enactment.
Fritagelse for betaling af bidrag til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden
Exemption of the payment of the levy to the Pension Protection Fund
Med hensyn til fritagelsen for at betale bidrag til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden minder myndighederne i Det Forenede Kongerige om, at pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden var en del af en pakke, der blev indført med pensionsloven af 2004 for at forbedre beskyttelsen af medlemmerne af pensionsordninger i fald arbejdsgiveren blev insolvent.
With regard to the exemption of the payment of the levy to the Pension Protection Fund, the authorities of the United Kingdom recall that the Pension Protection Fund was part of a package introduced under the Pensions Act 2004 with a view to improving the protection offered to members of pension schemes in case of employer insolvency.