natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De finansielle kooperativer deler blandt andet byrden gennem deres bidrag til den særlige beskyttelsesfond.
The Belgian State considered that it is not relevant whether ARCO is a financial institution in the meaning of the 2008 Banking Communication.
Den belgiske stat anser vederlaget for garantien for at være rimelig og svare til bidragene for andre beskyttede institutioners garantiordninger.
According to the Belgian State, the crucial question that the Commission should answer is whether the cooperative guarantee scheme is an appropriate and necessary response to prevent a serious disturbance of the economy.
Belgien er uenig i, at garantiordningens frivillige karakter kunne gøre foranstaltningen uforholdsmæssig.
The Belgian State defended the viewpoint that the measure is necessary, that its effects are limited to the minimum and that there are burden sharing mechanisms in place.
Den belgiske stat fremfører, at hvis Kommissionen når frem til den konklusion, at foranstaltningen udgør statsstøtte, så burde den også nå frem til, at foranstaltningen var forenelig med afviklingsstøtte.
First, the Belgian State developed the argument that the cooperative guarantee scheme is appropriate and necessary to reassure depositors in Belgium.
Den belgiske stat minder om, at det kongelige dekret af 7. november 2011 klart fastsætter, at enhver betaling fra den særlige beskyttelsesfond ved afvikling af ethvert relevant kooperativ først ville finde sted efter den endelige afgørelse om og godkendelse af afvikling.
Belgium conceded that it was theoretically possible that institutions that have protected deposits on their balance sheet might derive an indirect benefit from the existence of such protection schemes as they help to avoid a ‘bank run’.
Belgien forsvarer også det synspunkt, at da fysiske personer ikke er virksomheder, så omfatter Kommissionens påbud om indstilling af ordningen ikke betalinger til privatpersoner efter afviklingen af ARCO.
However, it explained that deposit guarantee schemes are necessary to avoid ‘bank runs’ and a disturbance of the financial markets.
Belgien fremsatte yderligere bemærkninger til Kommissionen i et brev af 18. marts 2014, som var den oprindelige frist.
The Belgian State contended the cooperative guarantee scheme was needed to avoid a reduction of public confidence in the Belgian financial system.
Belgien fremfører, at Kommissionen ikke kunne forbyde udbetalingen af garantier til individuelle andelshavere.
The basic characteristics of cooperative shares as savings products and the fact that more than half of the funds held by cooperatives are invested in banks enhanced their similarity to deposits and highlighted their importance for the Belgian banking system.
Kommissionen kunne ikke forhindre Belgien i at suspendere nogen udbetalinger under garantiordningen for kooperativer og kunne heller ikke geninddrive udbetalingerne foretaget under ordningen til individuelle andelshavere.
An uncontrolled default of financial cooperatives would have had a snowball effect on all financial institutions and the Belgian economy.
Private andelshavere, der er fysiske personer, er ikke virksomheder efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, og udbetalingen af garantien til individuelle andelshavere ville ikke have påvirket ARCO eller sandsynligheden for, at den belgiske stat fik tilbagebetalt støtten, som disse virksomheder har modtaget.
Not to provide the same level of protection for financial cooperatives' shares as for basic deposits would have entailed the same risk as not providing protection to deposits.
VURDERING AF FORANSTALTNINGEN
It would have had a great impact on the public confidence in all deposit products in Belgium and create a systemic risk.
Støttemodtageren
In support of its arguments, the Belgian State referred to the fact that the number of shareholders (natural persons) in financial cooperatives is large relative to the total population in Belgium [52].
Indledningsvis bemærker Kommissionen, at den i betragtning 18 i åbningsafgørelsen fandt, at garantiordningen for kooperativer udgjorde end fordel for de finansielle kooperativer.
The Belgian State also strongly objected to the language that the Commission used in the Opening Decision, and in particular to the terms ‘capital instruments’ and ‘risk capital’ used in recital 62 and footnote 35 respectively.
En grundig analyse af foranstaltningens kronologi og kendetegn afslørede dog, at ARCO var den eneste egentlige støttemodtager, hvilket bliver beskrevet i dette afsnit.
In order to show the necessity of the cooperative guarantee scheme, the Belgian State also provided the Commission with letters from the Financial Stability Board and from the Governor of the NBB to the then Minister of Finance dated respectively 29 October 2008 [53] and 7 October 2011 [54].
I nærværende sag bemærker Kommissionen, at der er en vigtig forskel mellem ARCO og de andre finansielle kooperativer, der potentielt var berettiget til at deltage i garantiordningen for kooperativer.
When commenting on the compatibility of the measure, the Belgian State refers to the Commission's decision on Ethias.
Det fremgår tydeligt af sagsfremstillingen [55], at garantiordningen for kooperativer fra starten var skræddersyet til ARCO, som løb ind i problemer pga. sine investeringer i Dexia.
According to the Belgian State, the Commission accepted measures in favour of Ethias, including the extension of the deposit guarantee scheme to ‘branch 21’ products, as appropriate and necessary to prevent a serious disturbance to the Belgian economy.
I sidste ende var ARCO det eneste finansielle kooperativ, der søgte om at deltage i foranstaltningen.
Second, the Belgian State reiterated its view that the measure is proportionate.
For så vidt angår andre finansielle kooperativer, konstaterer Kommissionen, at garantiordningen for kooperativer er en frivillig ordning, at det belgiske ministerråd kunne bestemme, om og under hvilke betingelser finansielle kooperativer, der søgte om deltagelse i garantiordningen for kooperativer, skulle optages, at ingen andre finansielle kooperativer søgte at blive optaget i garantiordningen, og at nogle af dem aktivt tog afstand fra den.
The financial cooperatives share the burden, inter alia, through their contributions to the Special Protection Fund.
Kommissionen konstaterer ligeledes, at ingen andre finansielle kooperativer havde problemer med deres investeringer i samme grad, som ARCO havde med Dexia.
The Belgian State considered the level of remuneration for the guarantee to be reasonable and similar to the contributions for guarantee schemes of other protected institutions.
Derfor finder Kommissionen, at den eneste reelle begunstigede af garantiordningen for kooperativer, som udøver en økonomisk aktivitet, er ARCO.
The Belgian State disagreed that the voluntary character of the cooperative guarantee scheme could make the measure disproportionate.
Bekendtgørelsen og indførelsen af foranstaltningen udgør én intervention
The Belgian State submitted that if the Commission were to conclude that the measure is State aid, it should conclude that the measure was compatible liquidation aid.
Pressemeddelelserne blev også offentliggjort via de officielle kanaler:
The Belgian State recalled that the Royal Decree of 7 November 2011 clearly provides that any payment by the Special Protection Fund in case of liquidation of any relevant cooperative would take place only after the issuance and the approval of the final order of the liquidation.
Pressemeddelelsen af 10. oktober 2008 blev udsendt af finansministeriet, mens pressemeddelelsen af 10. januar 2009 blev udsendt på vegne af premierministeren og finansministeren.
The Belgian State also defended the viewpoint that, because natural persons were not undertakings, the Commission's suspension injunction did not cover the payment of individuals after the liquidation of ARCO.
Pressemeddelelsens gentagne natur styrkede det underliggende budskab.
In a letter to the Commission dated 18 March 2014, which was after the time limit, Belgium made some further comments.
Desuden hæfter Kommissionen sig ved foranstaltningens konsistens over tid, idet den ikke har ændret sig væsentligt fra den oprindelige meddelelse den 10. oktober 2008 til det endelige kongelige dekret.
It argued that the Commission could not prohibit the payment of guarantees to individual shareholders.
I sin dom af 19. marts 2013 i forenede sager C-399/10 P og C-401/10 P [58] fandt Domstolen, at meddelelsen om en foranstaltning og dens effektive gennemførelse kan betragtes som én intervention, hvis dette er begrundet i kronologien, formålet hermed og virksomhedens situation på tidspunktet for interventionen.
The Commission could not oblige Belgium to suspend any payments under the cooperative guarantee scheme nor could it recover the payments made under the scheme to individual shareholders.
På lignende vis vedtog og offentliggjorte den belgiske stat en foranstaltning den 10. oktober 2008, der senere blev gennemført til samme formål, for så vidt angår den oprindeligt tiltænkte støttemodtager.
Shareholders who were natural persons were not undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and the payment of the guarantee to individual shareholders would have no impact on ARCO or the likelihood of the Belgian State recovering the aid received by these undertakings.
Desuden har Kommissionen i sine afgørelser anset meddelelse og gennemførelse som én foranstaltning og mener, at der er blevet skabt en fordel fra meddelelsens offentliggørelse [59].
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
Endelig kvalificerede den siddende finansminister i marts 2014 foranstaltningen som en forpligtelse indgået i 2008 [60].
Beneficiary of the measure
Både den belgiske stat og ARCO argumenterer for, at Kommissionen bør undersøge, hvorvidt ARCO modtog statsstøtte med udgangspunkt i en af Kommissionens andre afgørelser, nemlig den om Ethias [61].
From the description of the facts [55], it is clear that the cooperative guarantee scheme was from the beginning tailor-made for ARCO, which had run into trouble because of its investments in Dexia.
Dog er statsstøtte et objektivt begreb, der er defineret i traktaten.
ARCO was ultimately the only financial cooperative that applied to participate in the measure.
For at blive betragtet som statsstøtte skal en foranstaltning opfylde følgende fire (kumulative) kriterier:
In relation to the other financial cooperatives, the Commission notes that the cooperative guarantee scheme is a voluntary scheme, that the Council of Ministers had discretion over whether and if so on what conditions to admit an applicant financial cooperative to the cooperative guarantee scheme, that none of the other financial cooperatives applied to join the cooperative guarantee scheme and that some of them actively distanced themselves from it.
og iv) skal påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
The Commission observes that the measure was decided and announced by the government on 10 October 2008 [56].
Kommissionen skal vurdere foranstaltningen ud fra disse fire kriterier (betragtning 94 til 110).
It is clear that the Belgian government had made the decision to offer ARCO the benefit of a cooperative guarantee scheme at the same time as the measure in favour of Dexia was designed in 2008 [57].
Statsmidler
Another press release of 21 January 2009 further detailed the measure and after that the legal transposition of the government's commitment began.
Kommissionen skal vurdere, hvorvidt garantiordningen for kooperativer finansieres gennem statsmidler og kan tilregnes staten.
The Commission takes note of the binding and unambiguous language in the press releases of 10 October 2008 and 21 January 2009, which used terms such as ‘décidé’ and ‘l'engagement’, thus creating a legitimate expectation as to their fulfilment.
Ifølge fast retspraksis [62] omfatter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, alle økonomiske midler, som offentlige myndigheder faktisk kan anvende til at støtte virksomheder, uden at det har nogen betydning, om disse til stadighed udgør en del af statens formue, forudsat at de til stadighed er under de offentlige myndigheders kontrol og således står til rådighed for de kompetente nationale myndigheder.
The press releases were also sent out via the official channels:
Der er navnlig tale om statsstøtte, når midlerne stammer fra bidrag pålagt af national lovgivning, og når disse midler forvaltes og fordeles i overensstemmelse med denne lovgivnings bestemmelser, selv om de forvaltes af institutioner, der er adskilt fra staten.
the press release of 10 October 2008 was sent out by the services of the Minister of Finance, while the press release of 10 January 2009 was sent on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
Den juridiske status af den enhed eller virksomhed, der yder den pågældende støtte, anses ikke som en afgørende faktor for anvendelsen af statsstøttereglerne.
The repeated nature of the press communication strengthened the underlying message.
Med hensyn til tilrettelæggelsen af garantiordningen for kooperativer konstaterer Kommissionen, at den belgiske lovgivning fastsætter de bidrag, som deltagerne skal betale, samt hvordan disse midler skal anvendes.
The Commission notes that it was clear already at the time of the press release of 10 October 2008 that the cooperative guarantee scheme would be designed as an extension of the deposit guarantee scheme.
Derfor betragtes bidragene til finansiering af den særlige beskyttelsesfond som statsmidler, også selv om de oprindeligt stammer fra private kilder.
The press release of 21 January 2009 contains further technical details.
Hvis det er nødvendigt, udbetaler CDC, et offentligt organ, desuden forskudsvis de udbetalinger, som den særlige beskyttelsesfond skal foretage.
As soon as the press release of 21 January 2009 was published, ARCO put it on its website.
Under alle omstændigheder udgør dette aspekt af garantiordningen for kooperativer en tilstrækkelig konkret økonomisk risiko for at bebyrde medlemsstatens budget til, at det kan konkluderes, at der er tale om statsmidler efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1 [63].
The latter step was clearly taken with a view to reassuring its individual shareholders.
Med hensyn til, hvorvidt foranstaltningen kan tilregnes den belgiske stat, er det tydeligt, at garantiordningen for kooperativer ikke kan betragtes som en gennemførelse af direktiv 94/19/EF.
Moreover the Commission notes the consistency of the measure over time given that the measure has not materially changed between the initial announcement on 10 October 2008 and the final Royal Decree.
Ifølge direktivet er medlemsstaterne kun forpligtet til at indføre en indskudsgarantiordning for indlån i kreditinstitutter, og artikel 2 fastsætter udtrykkeligt, at alle de instrumenter, der falder ind under definitionen af kreditinstitutters egenkapital, udelukkes fra tilbagebetaling via indskudsgarantiordninger.
In its judgment of 19 March 2013 in Joined Cases C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P [58] the Court of Justice held that the announcement of a measure and the effective implementation can be analysed as one single intervention, if to do so is justified by the chronology and purpose of the announcement and the implementation and by the circumstances of the undertaking at the time of such intervention.
Hvis en medlemsstat beslutter at oprette andre garantiordninger for finansielle produkter, følger en sådan beslutning ikke af EU-retten, men sker på medlemsstatens eget initiativ [64].
In a similar manner, in the case of this measure the Belgian State decided and announced a measure on 10 October 2008, which was later implemented for the same purpose in respect of the originally intended beneficiary.
Kommissionen konstaterer også, at Belgien henviser til investorgarantiordningen, men at sammenligningen er irrelevant, da investorgarantiordninger ikke er udformet til at dække investeringsrisiko.
Moreover, in its own decisions, the Commission has considered an announcement and an implementation to be one measure and considered an advantage to have been created as of the date of the announcement [59].
Som anført i betragtning 21 er investorgarantiordninger kun møntet på sager, hvor et investeringsfirma er ude af stand til at tilbagebetale aktiver, der tilhører en investor, eksempelvis pga. svindel eller pga. problemer med firmaets systemer.
Indeed, the current Belgian Minister of Finance qualified the measure in question as a commitment made in 2008 [60].
Selektiv fordel
Based on the information in recitals 85 to 89, the Commission concludes that the announcement and the implementation of the cooperative guarantee scheme have to be dealt with as a single measure.
Kommissionen konkluderer, at garantiordningen for kooperativer har givet ARCO en fordel.
Existence of aid
Domstolen accepterer, at virksomheder kan få en fordel i form af forbedret adgang til kapital i de tilfælde, hvor en foranstaltning truffet af en medlemsstat til fordel for investorerne øger sidstnævntes vilje til at placere deres penge i nærmere bestemte investeringsmål [65].
As stated in Article 107(1) of the 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, insofar as it affects trade between Members States, be incompatible with the internal market, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty.
For så vidt angår denne foranstaltning, har den hjulpet medlemmerne af ARCO-koncernen med at opretholde deres eksisterende kapital ved at overbevise eksisterende andelshavere om, ikke at trække sig ud af de pågældende finansielle kooperativer [66], hvilket i særlig grad var vigtigt i forbindelse med den ustabile markedssituation, der karakteriserede perioden umiddelbart efter Lehman Brothers' konkurs.
Both the Belgian State and ARCO argue that the Commission should analyse whether ARCO received State aid by basing itself on another decision of the Commission, namely that on Ethias [61].
Den 21. januar 2009 offentliggjorde ARCO en pressemeddelelse fra den belgiske regering på sit websted for at berolige sine andelshavere, hvilket tydeligt viser, at det var en stor fordel for ARCO at være i stand til at berolige investorerne.
However, State aid is an objective concept which is defined in the Treaty.
Kommissionen konstaterer i den forbindelse, at ARCOPAR-prospektet, der blev udsendt i sommeren 2008 [67], henviste til risikoen for, at individuelle andelshavere ville træde ud af det finansielle kooperativ [68] [69].
In order to be classified as State aid, a measure has to meet the following four (cumulative) State aid criteria:
Foranstaltningen er også klart selektiv.
the measure (i) should be granted by the State or through State resources;
For det første gælder den kun for indehavere af andele i finansielle kooperativer og ikke for personer, der er indehavere af investeringsprodukter udstedt af konkurrerende virksomheder.
should provide a selective advantage to the aid beneficiary;
Således kunne finansielle aktører, der udbyder konservative obligations- eller pengemarkedsforeninger eller kapital-garanterede investeringsforeninger, ikke tilbyde deres kunder en tilsvarende garanti.
should (potentially) distort competition;
Belgien har gjort gældende, at de privatpersoners andele i finansielle kooperativer i det væsentlige svarer til indlån [70].
and (iv) should affect trade between Member States.
En række af Belgiens argumenter, henviser imidlertid til kooperativer i almindelighed og ikke til finansielle kooperativer.
The Commission is obliged to evaluate those four criteria and will do so in recitals 94 to 110.
Hertil kommer, at Belgiens beskrivelse af andele i finansielle kooperativer ikke indeholder henvisninger til relevante oplysninger, såsom risikoen ved at investere i disse instrumenter, [71], hvilket ikke kendetegner indskud.
State resources
Foranstaltningens selektive karakter ses også, når behandlingen af finansielle kooperativer sammenlignes med andre godkendte ikke-finansielle kooperativer.
The Commission has to assess whether the cooperative guarantee scheme is financed through State resources and is imputable to the State.
Belgien baserer sig på Paint Graphos-sagen i sin argumentation for særbehandlingen af individuelle andelshavere i finansielle kooperativer.
According to settled case law [62], all financial means by which the public sector may actually support undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those means are permanent assets of the public sector, fall under Article 107(1) of the Treaty, provided that they constantly remain under public control, and remain therefore available to the competent national State.
Paint Graphos-dommen var en præjudiciel afgørelse truffet på grundlag af en forelæggelseserkendelse fra en italiensk domstol, der ønskede at få fastlagt, om de skattefordele, som produktions- og arbejdskooperativer nød, kunne kvalificeres som statsstøtte i henhold til traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1.
In particular, State aid is involved when funds come from contributions imposed by State legislation and when those funds are managed and apportioned in accordance with provisions of that legislation, even if they are administered by institutions separate from the State.
I sin dom fastslog Domstolen, at skattefordelen skulle vurderes på baggrund af de fire kumulative kriterier for statsstøtte og gav mere detaljeret vejledning, navnlig hvordan man vurderer, om en sådan skattefordel udgør en selektiv fordel [72].
The status of the body or undertaking granting the aid in question is not regarded as a determining factor for the application of State aid rules.
Domstolen udtalte, at det måtte afgøres, i) om en skattefordel kunne begrundes med selve skattesystemets indre logik [73], ii) om der fandtes passende kontrol- og overvågningsprocedurer [74], og iii) om skattefordelen var forholdsmæssig og ikke gik ud over det nødvendige minimum [75].
As regards the organisation of the cooperative guarantee scheme, the Commission observes that Belgian legislation determines the contributions that participants have to pay and that Belgian legislation also determines how those funds will be used.
Kommissionen mener ikke, at Belgien kan få medhold i sine argumenter, idet arten af den fordel, som foranstaltningen medfører, er kvalitativt forskellig fra den, som Domstolen behandlede i Paint Graphos-sagen.
Therefore, the funds of the Special Protection Fund are considered to be State resources even if they originally stemmed from private sources.
Den belgiske foranstaltning indebærer en positiv fordel og ikke en lempelse af en skattebyrde eller af en forpligtelse til at betale en afgift.
Moreover, if it is necessary for the Deposit and Consignment Office to do so that governmental body will advance the funds required to finance pay-outs that the Special Protection Fund is supposed to make.
Derfor kan den undersøgelse i tre trin, som Domstolen har indført til vurdering af, om en skattefordel eller –fritagelse udgør en selektiv fordel, ikke anvendes for denne foranstaltning.
That aspect of the cooperative guarantee scheme creates in any event a sufficiently concrete economic risk of burdens on the budget of the Member State for State resources to be present for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [63].
Selv hvis Paint Graphos-undersøgelsen kunne anvendes på foranstaltningen, har den sådanne særlige karakteristika, at dens selektive karakter fortsat ville være til stede.
As regards the imputability of the measure to the Belgian State, it is clear that the cooperative guarantee scheme cannot be seen as a transposition of the DGS Directive.
Kommissionen finder for det første, at Paint Graphos-sagen omfatter alle produktions- og arbejdskooperativer, og ikke blot en relativt lille delsektor såsom finansielle kooperativer.
The DGS Directive only obliges Member States to introduce a deposit guarantee scheme for deposits of credit institutions and Article 2 of that Directive explicitly provides that all instruments that fall within the definition of own funds of credit institutions are excluded from repayment by deposit guarantee schemes.