natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden blev specifikt oprettet for at øge beskyttelsen af medlemmer i tilfælde af, at man afviklede underfinansierede ordninger uden at have truffet andre foranstaltninger.
The Pension Protection Fund was specifically created to strengthen the protection for members in the event of schemes’ winding-up where they were under-funded, and where appropriate arrangements were not yet in place.
Myndighederne i Det Forenede Kongerige påpeger, at eftersom forpligtelsen til at betale bidrag er direkte knyttet til pensionsbeskyttelsesfondens beskyttelse, er ordninger med hensigtsmæssige beskyttelsesforanstaltninger, såsom en statsgaranti, ifølge reglerne ikke berettigede til at få støtte fra pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden, idet beskyttelsen fra pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden ikke er relevant.
In the view of the authorities of the United Kingdom, since the obligation to pay levies is directly linked to the receipt of protection from the Pension Protection Fund, schemes with appropriate arrangements such as a Crown guarantee are not eligible for the Pension Protection Fund under the regulations, since the protection afforded by the Pension Protection Fund is not relevant.
BTPS falder derfor uden for anvendelsesområdet for pensionsbeskyttelsesfondens ordning, for så vidt angår ansatte, der er dækket af en statsgaranti.
Therefore, the BTPS is outside the scope of the Pension Protection Fund system for employees covered by a Crown guarantee.
For disse ansattes vedkommende hverken behøver eller får BTPS nogen beskyttelse fra pensionsbeskyttelsesordningen, og derfor betales der ikke bidrag.
Indeed, for these employees, the BTPS does not need or gain any protection from the Pension Protection Fund and therefore a levy is not paid.
At kategorisere dette som en fritagelse er efter myndighedernes opfattelse i strid med selve idéen med pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden.
To categorise this as an exemption is, in the view of the authorities of the United Kingdom, inconsistent with the whole logic of the Pension Protection Fund system.
Hvis BTPS skulle betale fuldt bidrag til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden ville det tværtimod være en ekstra fortjeneste for ordninger, der er berettiget til og nyder godt af beskyttelsen fra pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden.
On the contrary, the payment of a full Pension Protection Fund levy by the BTPS would deliver a windfall gain to schemes that are eligible for and benefit from the protection of the Pension Protection Fund.
Holdningen i BT og BTPS' bestyrelse
Position of BT and BTPS’ trustees
BT og BTPS understregede i deres fælles bemærkninger til beslutningen af 28. november 2007, at statsgarantien kun er en del af en pakke, der blev indført i 1984, hvor BT blev privatiseret, og at hensigten var at beskytte de tjenestemandslignende pensionsrettigheder, som de ansatte hos BT nød godt af før privatiseringen.
In their joint submission to the decision of 28 November 2007, BT and BTPS underline that the Crown guarantee is only part of a package that was introduced at the time of privatisation of BT in 1984 and was intended to protect the civil service-style pension rights of the pre-privatisation employees of BT.
I kontrast til den fordel, statsgarantien udgjorde for det personale, der var ansat før privatiseringen, omfattede pakken en række ekstra byrder, som normalt ikke indgår i en virksomheds budget:
In contrast to the benefit of the Crown guarantee for pre-privatisation employees, this package included a series of additional burdens which are not normally included in the budget of an undertaking:
tjenestemandslignende fordele, såsom en pensionsalder på 60
civil service-style enhanced benefits, such as retirement age at 60,
bedre vilkår for tidlig pensionering i tilfælde af afskedigelser
enhanced early retirement terms on redundancy,
restriktioner på BT's mulighed for at ændre disse forpligtelser, ophøre med at yde arbejdsgiverbidrag […] og
restrictions on BT’s ability to amend these obligations, cease employer contribution […], and
BT's overtagelse af ordningens nettounderskud på privatiseringstidspunktet.
inheritance by BT of the net deficit of the scheme at privatisation.
BT gør endvidere opmærksom på, at det manglende bidrag til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden er en logisk følge af statsgarantien, idet sidstnævnte allerede yder særskilt pensionsbeskyttelse.
BT further notes that the non-applicability of the Pension Protection Fund levy is the logical consequence of the Crown guarantee since the latter already offers separate pension protection.
En ekspertaktuar har fastsat nettonutidsværdien af de ekstra pensionsforpligtelser, som overgik til BT, til at være et beløb på […] GBP, hvilket er mere end hvad selskaber i den private sektor normalt ville skulle afholde.
An expert actuary has determined the net present value of the additional pension liabilities transferred to BT to be GBP […], a sum not normally borne by companies in the private sector.
Eftersom byrden er langt større end et eventuelt beløb, der ville skulle betales til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden, hvis der ikke var ydet en statsgaranti, er BT ikke indrømmet nogen overordnet fordel, og der er derfor ikke tale om statsstøtte.
Since that burden far outweighs any amount that would be due to the Pension Protection Fund in the absence of the Crown guarantee, allegedly, there is no overall advantage granted to BT, and therefore no State aid.
BT hævder også, at det ville være i strid med statsstøttelovgivningen at betragte en foranstaltning som statsgarantien som statsstøtte, når den ikke blev betragtet som støtte på det tidspunkt, hvor den blev givet, som følge af en udefra kommende begivenhed, såsom oprettelsen af pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden 20 år senere, som ikke har ændret bestemmelserne i den oprindelige foranstaltning.
BT also argues that it would be contrary to State aid law to characterise as State aid a measure such as the Crown guarantee that was not aid at the time it was granted as a result of an exogenous event such as the creation of the Pension Protection Fund twenty years later which has not altered the provisions of the initial measure.
Under alle omstændigheder er der angiveligt ikke tale om overførsel af statsmidler.
In any event, there is allegedly no transfer of State resources involved.
Klageren og andre interesserede parter
The complainant and other interested parties
I det omfang tredjeparternes bemærkninger sætter spørgsmålstegn ved konklusionen om, at statsgarantien i sig selv ikke giver BT ekstra fordele, som Kommissionen nåede frem til i sin beslutning af 28. november 2007 om indledning af proceduren, vedrører sådanne bemærkninger ikke emnet for denne beslutning og behandles derfor ikke i heri.
To the extent that the comments of third parties challenge the Commission conclusion set out in the Commission Decision of 28 November 2007 opening the procedure that the Crown guarantee did not, in itself, confer any specific additional advantage on BT, such comments are not related to the object of the present decision and shall not be addressed in this decision.
Klageren påpeger, at i det omfang garantien har en virkning på finansieringen af pensionsforpligtelserne, er denne virkning på BT betydelig, idet størrelsen af BTPS' underskud — 3,4 mia. GBP i 2006 — er væsentlig sammenlignet med BT's nettoværdi på 1,55 mia. GBP på samme tidspunkt.
The complainant points out that, to the extent that the guarantee has an effect on the funding of the pension liabilities, this effect on BT is very substantial since the size of the BTPS’ deficit — GBP 3,4 billion in 2006 — is material in comparison to BT’s net worth of GBP 1,55 billion at the same time.
Hvis ordningens underskud blev opført på balancen, ville det få indflydelse på BT's nøgletal, dets muligheder for at optage lån og lånebetingelserne.
If the scheme deficit were taken to the balance sheet, this would have affected BT’s ratios, ability to borrow and the terms on which it could do so.
Det forhold, at der på grund af statsgarantien stilles andre kapitalkrav til BTPS, ville ud over den beskyttelse, som medlemmerne af BTPS nyder godt af, alene give BT fordele selv i en situation, hvor der ikke var tale om insolvens.
The different funding requirements of the BTPS allowed by the Crown guarantee would thus procure benefits to BT alone without any need to resort to actual insolvency, on the top of the benefits of protection to beneficiaries of the BTPS.
UKCTA er af den opfattelse, at fritagelsen for mindstekapitalkravet og betalingen af bidraget til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden giver BT en fordel, som idéen med ordningen ikke berettiger.
UKCTA holds the view that the exemption from the minimum funding requirements and the payment of the Pension Protection Fund levy give BT an advantage, which is not justified by the logic of the system.
Selv om medlemmerne af pensionsordninger ikke blev ydet nogen beskyttelse under de generelle regler for erhvervspensionsordninger såsom BTPS i 1984, da garantien blev stillet, var formålet med reformen i 1995 og 2004 at yde medlemmer den fornødne beskyttelse, hvilket gjorde statsgarantien overflødig.
Whilst no protection to beneficiaries of pension schemes under the general regulatory provisions governing occupational pension schemes such as BTPS was available in 1984 when the guarantee was issued, the object of the 1995 and 2004 reforms was to provide efficient protection to beneficiaries which made the Crown guarantee redundant.
At fritage et bestemt selskab for den generelle forpligtelse om, at selskaber selv er ansvarlige for at etablere eller deltage i beskyttelsesordninger, er helt klart i strid med selve idéen med ordningen.
To exempt a specific company of the general obligation that companies are themselves responsible to set up or participate in arrangements for protection is openly contradictory to the logic of the system.
Med hensyn til mindstekravene understreger UKCTA navnlig, at Det Forenede Kongerige ved at fritage ordninger, som er dækket af statsgarantien, for kravene i lovgivningen fra 1995 og 2004 bevidst frasagde sig muligheden for at mindske den risiko, der er forbundet med at yde en statsgaranti.
In particular, as to minimum funding requirements, UKCTA stresses that, by exempting schemes which are covered by the Crown guarantee from the 1995 and 2004 regulatory requirements, the United Kingdom deliberately renounced the possibility to reduce its exposure under the Crown guarantee.
Endvidere har BT's unilaterale beslutning om at bidrage til BTPS ud over, hvad der pligtigt, ikke nogen betydning for statens forpligtelse.
Moreover, in that respect, the unilateral decision of BT to contribute to the BTPS beyond what would be required does not have any effect on the liability of the State.
En foranstaltning er stadig statsstøtte, selv om der aldrig har været gjort brug af den.
A measure does not cease being State aid because it has not yet been used.
Er der tale om statsstøtte?
Qualification of the measures as State aid
Det hedder i EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1:
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty states:
»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.«
‘Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.’
For at artikel 87, stk. 1, skal finde anvendelse, skal der være tale om en støtteforanstaltning, som kan tilskrives staten, som ydes ved hjælp af statsmidler, påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne, fordrejer konkurrencen på fællesmarkedet og giver visse selektive fordele til virksomheder.
In order for Article 87(1) EC to be applicable, there needs to be an aid measure imputable to the State which is granted by State resources, affects trade between Member States and distorts competition in the common market by conferring a selective economic advantage to certain undertakings.
Støtte ydet af en medlemsstat eller i form af statsmidler
Aid granted by a Member State or through State resources
Fritagelsen for mindstekapitalkravene i pensionsloven af 1995 og 2004 og fritagelsen for at bidrage til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden svarende til de pensionsforpligtelser, der er dækket af statsgarantien, jf. pensionsloven fra 2004, skyldes bestemmelser, som de lovgivende myndigheder i Det Forenede Kongerige har vedtaget.
The exemption from the minimum funding requirements laid down in the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2004 and the exemption from the payment of levy to the Pension Protection Fund corresponding to the pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee set out in the Pensions Act 2004 result from provisions adopted by the legislative bodies of the United Kingdom.
Det bør bemærkes, at det samme gælder statsgarantien.
It should be noted that the same is also true with respect to the Crown guarantee.
Følgelig er enhver form for hjælp, som disse foranstaltninger giver, ydet af Det Forenede Kongerige.
As a result, any aid contained in those measures is granted by the United Kingdom.
Endvidere involverer fritagelserne statsmidler, fordi de er en konsekvens af statsgarantien, som involverer Det Forenede Kongeriges statsmidler.
Furthermore, the exemptions involve State resources because they are the consequence of the Crown guarantee, which involves State resources of the United Kingdom.
Ifølge telekommunikationsloven fra 1984 vil Det Forenede Kongerige opfylde enhver af det efterfølgende selskabs udestående forpligtelser, som blev overdraget fra det offentlige selskab BT, hvis BT afvikles.
Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act 1984, the United Kingdom will discharge any outstanding liability of the successor company which vested in the public corporation BT if BT is wound up.
Forpligtelsen har siden 2003 været begrænset til eventuelle udestående pensionsforpligtelser.
This liability has been limited since 2003 to any outstanding liability for the payment of pensions.
Hvis BT afvikles og bliver insolvent, medfører dette en forpligtelse til at betale den relevante del af pensionsforpligtelserne i forhold til BTPS.
If BT is wound up and insolvent that commitment imposes an obligation to pay the relevant part of pension liabilities in relation to the BTPS.
I så fald ville Det Forenede Kongeriges midler skulle bruges til at betale eventuelle udestående forpligtelser, som BT ellers skulle have haft betalt.
In that case, the resources of the United Kingdom would be called to make good any outstanding liability that BT would have otherwise had to pay.
Ikke alene har Det Forenede Kongerige ydet tilsagn om finansielle midler, hvis BT bliver insolvent, men tilsagnet gives gratis, idet det ikke samtidig indebærer, at BT fast eller efterfølgende skal betale til de kompetente myndigheders offentlige budget i Det Forenede Kongerige i form af et gebyr eller en anden form for finansiel kompensation.
Not only are the financial resources of the United Kingdom committed if BT becomes insolvent, but that commitment is granted for free since it does not concomitantly trigger the regular or deferred payment by BT to the public budget of competent financial bodies of the United Kingdom of any fee or financial compensation whatsoever.
Det Forenede Kongerige giver således afkald på en mulig indtægt og dermed de statsmidler, det kunne få ved at indrømme en statsgaranti.
It follows that the United Kingdom foregoes the possible revenues and, hence, the State resources which it could obtain from granting the benefit of the Crown guarantee.
Fritagelsen for mindstekapitalkravene i pensionsloven af 1995 og 2004 i kraft af statsgarantien og fritagelsen for at bidrage til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden svarende til de pensionsforpligtelser, der er dækket af statsgarantien, jf. pensionsloven fra 2004, skyldes en statsgaranti, som indebærer midler fra Det Forenede Kongerige.
The exemption from the minimum funding requirements laid down in the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2005 by virtue of the Crown guarantee and the exemption from the payment of levy to the Pension Protection Fund corresponding to the pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee set out in the Pensions Act 2004 are triggered by the existence of a Crown guarantee which involves resources of the United Kingdom.
Det følger heraf, at disse fritagelser er afhængige af og derfor involverer midler fra Det Forenede Kongerige som omhandlet i EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
It follows that these exemptions are dependent on and thus involve resources of the United Kingdom within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
(Selektiv) økonomisk fordel for BT
(Selective) economic advantage to BT
Efter partnernes bemærkninger til den indledende beslutning må det undersøges om fritagelsen fra mindstekapitalkravene i pensionsloven fra 1995 og 2004 eller fritagelsen for at betale bidrag til pensionsbeskyttelsesfonden, jf. pensionsloven fra 2004, svarende til de pensionsforpligtelser, der var omfattet af statsgarantien, har givet BT en økonomisk fordel.
Following the comments of the parties on the opening decision, it is necessary to examine whether the exemption from the minimum funding requirements laid down in the Pensions Acts 1995 and the Pensions Act 2004 or the exemption from the payment for a levy to the Pension Protection Fund set out in the Pensions Act 2004 corresponding to the pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee have procured an economic advantage to BT.
Fritagelsen fra mindstekapitalkravene i pensionsloven af 1995 og 2004
The exemption from the minimum funding requirements laid down in the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2004
Ifølge pensionsloven fra 1995 må værdien af aktiverne i ordningen ikke være mindre end værdien af forpligtelserne.
The Pensions Act 1995 introduced a minimum funding requirement that the value of the assets of the scheme must not be less than the amounts of the liabilities of the scheme based on a prescribed actuarial methodology for valuation.
Pensionsfonde, som er statsgaranterede, blev fritaget for kapitalkravet.
Pension funds which enjoy a Crown guarantee were exempted from that funding requirement.
Del 3 i pensionsloven fra 2004 ændrede loven fra 1995, idet den indførte en ordning for kapitalkrav og aktuarberegninger, fra hvilke statsgaranterede pensionsfonde også er fritaget, forudsat at de er indført ved lov.
Part 3 of the Pensions Act 2004 modified the 1995 Act in that it introduced a new scheme of funding requirements and actuarial valuations, from which pension funds with a Crown guarantee are also exempted, provided that they are established by enactment.
Med hensyn til opfyldelse af mindstekapitalkrav, som blev indført ved pensionsloven af 2004, følger det af oplysningerne fra myndighederne i Det Forenede Kongerige, at BTPS ikke opfylder en af betingelserne om fritagelse, idet den ikke er indført ved lov.
Concerning compliance with the minimum funding requirements introduced by the Pensions Act 2004, it follows from the information submitted by the authorities of the United Kingdom that BTPS does not fulfil one of the conditions for exemption, since it was not established by enactment.
Det følger, at BTPS er underlagt mindstekapitalkravene i pensionsloven af 2004 på trods af statsgarantien.
It follows that BTPS is subject to the minimum funding requirements laid down in the Pensions Act 2004 notwithstanding the existence of the benefit of the Crown guarantee.
BT kan følgelig ikke benytte sig af en eventuel fritagelse og skal opfylde kravene i loven, så længe de er gældende.
As a result, BT cannot avail itself from any exemption therein and must meet the requirements of that Act as long as they are in force.
Indholdet af BTPS' seneste genopretningsplan, som blev aftalt mellem BT og BTPS' bestyrelse i december 2005, blev genstand for et nøje gennemsyn af pensionstilsynsmyndigheden.
In that respect, the content of the latest BTPS recovery plan, agreed between BT and BTPS trustee in December 2005, was subject to the Pension Regulator’s scrutiny.
Pensionstilsynsmyndigheden er en uafhængig myndighed, der blev oprettet ved pensionsloven af 2004, og som har ansvaret for reglerne om pensionsordninger.
The Pension Regulator is an independent authority set by the Pensions Act 2004 and is in charge of the regulation of pension schemes.
Myndighederne i Det Forenede Kongerige bekræftede formelt, at pensionstilsynsmyndigheden havde fået godtgjort, at statsgarantien ikke blev anvendt til at udvide genopretningsperioden og ikke havde indflydelse på hovedantagelserne i aktuarberegningen for BTPS eller dens genopretningsplan.
The authorities of the United Kingdom formally confirmed that the Pension Regulator was satisfied that the Crown guarantee was not being used to extend the recovery period or affect any of the key assumptions in the actuarial valuation or recovery plan of BTPS.
Der må dog tages stilling til, om den fritagelse fra kapitalkravene, der blev givet i pensionsloven af 1995 i kraft af statsgarantien, og som ikke var underlagt betingelsen om, at den pågældende pensionsordning var etableret ved lov, gav BT eller BTPS en økonomisk fordel.
However, it is necessary to assess whether, by virtue of the Crown guarantee, the exemption from the funding requirements contained in the Pensions Act 1995, which was not subject to the condition of the pension scheme in question having been established by enactment, procured an economic advantage to BT or to BTPS.
Der kunne være tale om en fordel mellem 1995 og 2004, hvor disse krav var gældende.
Any possible advantage would have been present between 1995 and 2004, when those requirements were in force.
Disse krav blev fastlagt navnlig med hensyn til den metode, der skulle følges ved aktuarberegningen af ordningen, der skulle følges, og med hensyn til den tiårs periode inden for hvilken et eventuelt konstateret underskud skulle bringes i orden.
Those requirements were defined in particular as to the methodology to be followed for the actuarial valuation of the schemes’ position and as to the 10-year period within which any reported deficit had to be made good.
Fritagelsen kunne i princippet have givet selskaber som BT, hvis pensionsfondsforpligtelser er dækket af statsgarantien, en økonomisk fordel.
The exemption could have, in principle, provided an economic advantage to employer companies like BT whose liabilities in relation to their pension fund are covered by the Crown guarantee.
Med hensyn til kapitalforpligtelsen var BT ifølge BTPS' regler mellem 1995 og 2004 forpligtet til at dække det eventuelle underskud, som ordningens aktuar måtte have konstateret.
In respect of the funding obligation, the rules of BTPS between 1995 and 2004 placed BT under an obligation to correct any deficit identified by the scheme actuary.
Selv om BT kunne have benyttet sig af fritagelsen i pensionsloven af 1995, gjorde man det ikke, for så vidt angår forpligtelsen til at tilstræbe fuld dækning.
Although BT could have availed itself of the exemption from the Pensions Act 1995, it did not do so as concerns the obligation of return to full funding.
Med hensyn til metoden har myndighederne i Det Forenede Kongerige forelagt Kommissionen samtlige af BTPS' redegørelser for investeringsprincipper siden 1996.
In respect of the methodology, the authorities of the United Kingdom provided all BTPS’ Statement of investment principles since 1996 to the Commission.
Myndighederne i Det Forenede Kongerige har også ved de værdiansættelser, der blev foretaget i 1999 og 2002, påvist, at kravene heri blev opfyldt på trods af, at en anden løbende beregningsmetode viste et underskud.
The authorities of the United Kingdom have also shown that those requirements were complied with in the valuations carried out in 1999 and 2002, notwithstanding the deficit established according to a different, ongoing valuation, basis.