natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De øvrige betingelser for at kunne betegnes som statsstøtte er opfyldt af de grunde, der allerede er gjort rede for i indledningsbeslutningen af 13. marts 2009 [104] og den betingede godkendelsesafgørelse [105]: Kommissionen mener, at Arcofin uden den belgiske stats garanti ikke var gået med til denne kapitaltilførsel, der tilførte Dexia-koncernen en stor fordel ved at formindske risikoen for insolvens. Kapitaltilførslen er selektiv, fordi den kun vedrørte en enkelt virksomhed, nemlig Dexia-koncernen. På grund af Dexias størrelse og dens betydning for det belgiske, franske og luxembourgske marked og det forhold, at koncernen uden indgrebene kunne være blevet insolvent, hvilket ville have ændret bankmarkedsstrukturen i tre lande på afgørende vis, mener Kommissionen, at de omhandlede foranstaltninger påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne og fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencen.
The other conditions required for it to be classified as State aid are met for the reasons already set out in the opening decision of 13 March 2009 [104] and the conditional authorisation decision [105]: the Commission considers that without the guarantee from the Belgian State, Arcofin would not have subscribed to this capital increase, which gave the Dexia Group a major advantage by reducing its risk of insolvency; the capital increase was selective since it involved only one undertaking, the Dexia Group; given Dexia’s size and importance in the Belgian, French and Luxembourg markets, and the fact that, without the measures taken, the Group might have become insolvent, which would have significantly changed the structure of the banking market in those three countries, the Commission considers that the measures in question affect trade between Member States and distort or threaten to distort competition.
Kommissionen understreger, at denne tilregnelse til staten af Arcofins deltagelse i rekapitaliseringen af Dexia ikke ville blive draget i tvivl af, at konklusionen i forbindelse med sag SA.33927 guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives eventuelt blev, at garantiordningen ikke udgør statsstøtte til Arcofin.
The Commission points out that the fact that Arcofin’s participation in the recapitalisation of Dexia was imputable to the State would not be called into question even if it were concluded in case SA.33927 ‘guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives’ that the guarantee scheme does not constitute State aid for Arcofin.
Faktisk kunne Arcofin, som Kommissionen konstaterer i nærværende afgørelse, godt have truffet en foranstaltning, der kan tilskrives staten og udgør støtte, uden selv at have været modtager af støtte i form af garantiordningen.
Arcofin might not itself have benefited from State aid under the guarantee scheme while still, as the Commission has found in this Decision, taking a measure imputable to the State and constituting aid.
Kommissionen blev ikke holdt underrettet af de belgiske myndigheder i forbindelse med den procedure, der mundede ud i den betingede godkendelsesafgørelse, om forhold vedrørende en garantiordning, der skulle beskytte enkeltmedlemmers andele i de finansielle kooperativer.
The Commission was not kept informed by the Belgian authorities, during the procedure which led up to the conditional authorisation decision, of details of the guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives.
Faktisk har de manglende fuldstændige oplysninger om betingelserne omkring Arcofins deltagelse i rekapitaliseringen haft en afgørende betydning for, at Kommissionen konkluderede, at der ikke var tale om støtte i denne investering, og at de øvrige elementer af støtte, den fandt i den betingede godkendelsesafgørelse, var forenelige.
Not having full details of the conditions surrounding Arcofin’s participation in the recapitalisation was decisive in persuading the Commission that there was no aid involved in this investment and that the other aid elements identified in the conditional authorisation decision were compatible.
Dexia modtog i realiteten et støttebeløb, der var højere end det, som Kommissionen angav i sin betingede godkendelsesafgørelse, og fejlen i støttebeløbet, som Kommissionen blev vildledt til, har kunnet have afgørende betydning for Kommissionens analyse.
Dexia actually received a larger amount of aid than that noted by the Commission in the conditional authorisation decision, and the error about the amount of aid which the Commission was led to make may have had a decisive influence on the Commission’s analysis.
Kommissionen sendte derfor de berørte medlemsstater et brev om, at den havde til hensigt at indlede en formel undersøgelsesprocedure med henblik på at tilbagekalde alle dele af den betingede godkendelsesafgørelse vedrørende Arcofins deltagelse i rekapitaliseringen af Dexia.
The Commission therefore sent letters to the Member States concerned announcing its intention to initiate a procedure with a view to revoking all the sections of the conditional authorisation decision relating to Arcofin’s participation in the recapitalisation of Dexia.
Den meddelte også de berørte medlemsstater, at den måtte foretage en fornyet undersøgelse af foreneligheden af samtlige støtteelementer, der var omhandlet af den betingede godkendelsesafgørelse, i tilfælde af en eventuel supplerende støtte i form af Arcofins deltagelse i rekapitaliseringen af Dexia, eventuel ny støtte, som var eller kunne blive tildelt i den omstruktureringsperiode, der var omfattet af den betingede godkendelsesafgørelse, eller eventuel manglende opfyldelse af visse forpligtelser og betingelser, som hidrører fra samme afgørelse.
It also warned the Member States concerned that, if it turned out that Arcofin’s participation in the recapitalisation of Dexia was additional aid, if new aid had been granted or might be granted in the restructuring period covered by the conditional authorisation decision, or if certain commitments and conditions arising from that decision were not complied with, it would have to review the compatibility of all the aid dealt with in the conditional decision.
Derefter opfordrede Kommissionen i sin beslutning om udvidelse af proceduren de berørte medlemsstater til at fremlægge deres bemærkninger og til at fremsende enhver nyttig oplysning i den henseende for at få fastslået, om den betingede godkendelsesafgørelse skulle tilbagekaldes.
Then, in the decision to extend the procedure, the Commission invited the Member States concerned to submit their comments and supply any relevant information on this point, in order to establish whether the conditional authorisation decision should be revoked.
Af ovenstående grunde mener Kommissionen efter analyse af de berørte medlemsstaters bemærkninger, at den betingede godkendelsesafgørelse skal tilbagekaldes.
For the reasons set out above, after examining the comments submitted by the Member States concerned, the Commission considers that the conditional authorisation decision should be revoked.
Ikke desto mindre mener Kommissionen, at analysen af eksistensen af støtteforanstaltninger, der allerede er identificeret i den betingede godkendelsesafgørelse (se betragtning 121-138 i den betingede godkendelsesafgørelse), fortsat er fuldt gyldig.
The Commission nevertheless considers that the analysis of the existence of the aid measures already identified in the conditional authorisation decision (see recitals 121-138 of the conditional authorisation decision) remains entirely valid.
Udbetalt supplerende støtte (efter vedtagelsen af den betingede godkendelsesafgørelse)
Additional aid paid (after the conditional authorisation decision)
De midlertidige refinansieringsgarantier til fordel for Dexia SA, DCL og deres datterselskaber (for et indledende beløb på 45 mia. EUR, der er steget til 55 mia. EUR).
Temporary refinancing guarantees for Dexia SA, DCL and their subsidiaries (initially for EUR 45 billion, increased to EUR 55 billion)
Den midlertidige garanti fra de berørte medlemsstater for refinansieringen af Dexia SA og DCL er blevet betegnet som statsstøtte (og godkendt midlertidigt) ved den midlertidige godkendelsesbeslutning [106], beslutningen om den første forlængelse af garantien [107], beslutningen om forhøjelse af garantiloftet [108] og beslutningen om den anden forlængelse af garantien [109] for et indledende beløb af 45 mia. EUR, senere 55 mia. EUR.
The temporary guarantee from the Member States concerned for the refinancing of Dexia SA and DCL was classified as aid (and approved temporarily) by the temporary approval decision [106], the decision on the first prolongation of the guarantee [107], the decision to increase the guarantee ceiling [108] and the decision on the second prolongation of the guarantee [109] for EUR 45 billion initially, then EUR 55 billion.
I sine beslutninger af 19. april 2008 [110] og 30. oktober 2009 [111] havde Kommissionen allerede fastslået, at de berørte medlemsstaters garantimekanisme til finansiering af Dexia i medfør af en aftale fra oktober 2008 udgjorde statsstøtte.
In its decisions of 19 April 2008 [110] and 30 October 2009 [111], the Commission had already established that the guarantee mechanism provided by the Member States concerned for the finance raised by Dexia under an agreement of October 2008 constituted State aid.
Kommissionen gentager de grunde, der allerede er angivet i de foregående beslutninger, ifølge hvilke refinansieringsgarantien til fordel for Dexia SA og DCL udgør statsstøtte.
The Commission reiterates the reasons already given in the above decisions for classifying the refinancing guarantee for Dexia SA and DCL as State aid.
Kommissionen bemærker, at de berørte medlemsstater begrunder den midlertidige refinansieringsgaranti med Dexias manglende kapacitet til at skaffe sig refinansiering på markederne.
The Commission observes that the Member States concerned cited Dexia’s inability to refinance itself on the markets as grounds for the temporary refinancing guarantee.
Under disse omstændigheder kan Kommissionen mene, at garantien ikke betales til markedssats, og at den giver modtageren en fordel.
That being so, the Commission is entitled to consider that the interest charged on the guarantee is not at the market rate, thus conferring an advantage on the beneficiary.
Foranstaltningen er selektiv, fordi den kun vedrører en enkelt virksomhed, Dexia (idet Dexia SA og DCL er de direkte støttemodtagende juridiske personer).
The measure is selective in that it relates to only one undertaking, Dexia (Dexia SA and DCL being the legal persons which directly benefit).
Den midlertidige refinansieringsgaranti tildelt af de berørte medlemsstater omfatter åbenlyst statsmidler.
The temporary refinancing guarantee granted by the Member States concerned clearly involves State resources.
På baggrund af Dexias betydelige størrelse og det forhold, at banken uden den midlertidige refinansieringsgaranti ville have risikeret at blive sat til øjeblikkelig og ikke velordnet afvikling på grund af sine samtidige problemer med likviditet, sine aktivers kvalitet, rentabilitet og solvens, hvilket ville have påvirket bankmarkedsstrukturen i flere medlemsstater, mener Kommissionen, at foranstaltningerne påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne og fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencen.
Given Dexia’s considerable size and the fact that, without the temporary refinancing guarantee, the bank would have risked immediate and disorderly winding-up as a result of the problems it faced with liquidity, asset quality, profitability and solvency, which would have affected the structure of the banking market in a number of Member States, the Commission considers that the measure affects trade between Member States and distorts or threatens to distort competition.
ELA ydet af den belgiske og den franske centralbank til henholdsvis DBB/Belfius og DCL
ELA granted by the Belgian and French central banks to DBB/Belfius and DCL respectively
Kommissionen vurderer, at den ELA, der er tildelt siden den 5. oktober 2011, er led i en række nye foranstaltninger til fordel for Dexia-koncernen og DBB/Belfius efter afhændelsen af DBB/Belfius, vedtaget (til vedtagelse) efter godkendelse den 26. februar 2010 af den første omstruktureringsplan for Dexia i lighed med især den midlertidige refinansieringsgaranti, købet af DBB/Belfius, afhændelsen af Dexia BIL og de foranstaltninger, der er planlagt for en velordnet afvikling af Dexia.
The Commission considers that the ELA granted since 5 October 2011 is one of a series of new measures to help the Dexia Group and DBB/Belfius after the sale of DBB/Belfius, adopted (or to be adopted) after approval on 26 February 2010 of the first restructuring plan for Dexia, and in the same vein as the temporary refinancing guarantee, the acquisition of DBB/Belfius by the State, the sale of Dexia BIL and the measures provided for in the orderly resolution plan for Dexia.
Som svar på de berørte medlemsstaters bemærkninger om ELA anfører Kommissionen, at en af betingelserne ifølge punkt 51 i bankmeddelelsen [112] for at konkludere, at der ikke var tale om støtte, er, at »foranstaltningen […] ikke [er]bakket op af nogen modgaranti fra staten«.
In reply to the comments of the Member States concerned about the ELA, the Commission points out that, according to point 51 of the Banking Communication [112], one of the conditions for a finding that funding provided does not constitute aid is that ‘the measure … is not backed by any counter-guarantee of the State’.
Den konstaterer, at statens garanti for den ELA-foranstaltning, der er tildelt DBB/Belfius, indgår i en garanti fra den belgiske stat til fordel for BNB i medfør af loven af 22. februar 1998 om BNB's vedtægter.
It notes that the State guarantee for the ELA granted to DBB/Belfius came under a Belgian State guarantee for the BNB, in accordance with the Law of 22 February 1998 establishing the Statute of the BNB.
Den deler ikke de belgiske myndigheders mening om, at Belgiens garanti til fordel for BNB ikke skal ses på baggrund af bankmeddelelsen [113], fordi denne garanti ikke er en »kriseforanstaltning«, der er specifikt tildelt for ELA-foranstaltningerne, men garanterer alle de kreditter, der ydes af BNB, for så vidt som de tildeles i forbindelse med BNB's bidrag til det finansielle systems stabilitet, som rækker langt ud over kriseforanstaltningerne.
It does not share the Belgian authorities’ opinion that Belgium’s guarantee for the BNB did not come under the Banking Communication [113] because the guarantee was not an ‘anti-crisis’ measure specifically granted for ELAs, but ‘guarantees all [sic] loans issued by the BNB, provided that they are granted as part of the BNB’s contribution to the stability of the financial system, which goes far beyond anti-crisis measures’.
Kommissionen understreger, at kriteriet om fravær af en krydsgaranti fra staten, der er udstukket i bankmeddelelsen som et af flere kumulative kriterier for at udelukke betegnelsen som støtte, ikke defineres nærmere.
The Commission points out that the requirement that there should be no counter-guarantee of the State, laid down in the Banking Communication as one of the cumulative criteria if funding is not to be classified as aid, is not defined in any further detail.
Denne meddelelse angiver intetsteds, end ikke implicit, at en sådan krydsgaranti skal være oprettet specifikt med det formål at bekæmpe den aktuelle finanskrise.
The Communication does not state anywhere, even by implication, that such a counter-guarantee must have specifically been provided in order to combat the current financial crisis.
De kriterier, der er nævnt i punkt 51 i bankmeddelelsen, er da også kun en gentagelse af den analyse, som Kommissionen gav i betragtning 32 og 33 i sin beslutning af 5. december 2007 om Northern Rock [114], længe før indførelsen af en juridisk ramme for finanskrisen.
The criteria laid down in point 51 of the Banking Communication merely reproduce the analysis given by the Commission in recitals 32 and 33 of its Northern Rock decision of 5 December 2007 [114], well before any legal framework relating to the financial crisis was introduced.
Det er derfor nok, at statens krydsgaranti dækker tilførslen af midler fra centralbanken, uden at det, sådan som de belgiske myndigheder foreslår, kræves, at krydsgarantien ydes specifikt for ELA.
It is therefore enough that the counter-guarantee of the State covers the provision of funds by the central bank, without any need, as the Belgian authorities suggest, for the counter-guarantee to be specifically granted for ELAs.
I artikel 9, stk. 2, i loven af 22. februar 1998 om BNB's vedtægter hedder det: Staten garanterer banken mod ethvert tab og garanterer tilbagebetalingen af enhver kredit, der er ydet af banken som følge af udøvelsen af de aftaler, der er omhandlet af det foregående stykke [dvs. de internationale monetære samarbejdsaftaler, som Belgien er bundet af] eller som følge af dens deltagelse i internationale monetære samarbejdsaftaler eller -operationer, som banken med ministerrådets godkendelse er part i. Staten garanterer i øvrigt banken tilbagebetaling af enhver kredit, der er ydet i forbindelse med dens bidrag til det finansielle systems stabilitet, og garanterer banken mod ethvert tab, der er lidt som følge af enhver operation, der er nødvendig i så henseende. [115]
The second paragraph of Article 9 of the Law of 22 February 1998 establishing the Statute of the BNB provides as follows: ‘The State shall guarantee the Bank against any loss and shall guarantee repayment of any loan granted by the Bank as a result of the execution of the agreements referred to in the previous paragraph [‘international monetary cooperation agreements binding on Belgium’] or as a result of its participation in international monetary cooperation agreements or operations to which the Bank, subject to the agreement of the Council of Ministers, is party. The State shall also guarantee the Bank repayment of any loan granted as part of its contribution to the stability of the financial system, and shall guarantee the Bank against any loss incurred as a result of any transaction necessary in that regard’ [115].
At de belgiske myndigheder i deres anmeldelse af 21. oktober 2011 om den nye ELA-foranstaltning fandt det nødvendigt at opgive eksistensen af en krydsgaranti fra staten til fordel for BNB næsten umiddelbart efter angivelsen af, at ELA er nødvendig for at bevare den finansielle stabilitet i Belgien, bekræfter, at denne krydsgaranti faktisk dækker ELA:
The fact that, in their notification of 21 October 2011 concerning the new ELA measure, the Belgian authorities felt the need to mention the presence of a State counter-guarantee for the BNB almost immediately after mentioning that the ELA was necessary to preserve Belgium’s financial stability confirms that this counter-guarantee does indeed cover the ELA:
In these circumstances, NBB and the Belgian Government, each within the ambit of their relevant roles and their respective competences, had started considering available options to preserve DBB's viability and the financial stability in Belgium.
In these circumstances, the BNB and the Belgian Government, each within the ambit of their relevant roles and their respective competences, had started considering available options to preserve DBB’s viability and the financial stability in Belgium.
Pursuant to the organic law of NBB of 22 February 1998 the Belgian State automatically guarantees the repayment of any credit granted in the context of NBB's contribution to the stability of the financial system as well as any loss incurred as a result of any transaction necessary in this regard.
Pursuant to the organic law of the BNB of 22 February 1998 the Belgian State automatically guarantees the repayment of any credit granted in the context of the BNB’s contribution to the stability of the financial system as well as any loss incurred as a result of any transaction necessary in this regard.
NBB has recognised that these operations have been undertaken in view of the systemic importance of Dexia Group […]«. [116]
The BNB has recognised that these operations have been undertaken in view of the systemic importance of Dexia Group …’ [116].
De betingelser, der er opstillet i bankmeddelelsen for at udelukke, at der er tale om støtte, er således ikke fuldstændig opfyldt, for så vidt angår ELA fra BNB til DBB/Belfius.
The conditions laid down in the Banking Communication in order for funding not to constitute aid are therefore not all satisfied as regards the BNB’s ELA for DBB/Belfius.
Det samme gælder halvdelen af den ELA-foranstaltning, som BdF tildelte DCL, af de grunde, der er nævnt i betragtning 414-429.
The same applies for the half of the ELA which the BdF granted to DCL, for the reasons set out in recitals 414-429.
Siden aftalen af 2. februar 2012 [117] mellem den belgiske og den franske centralbank har fået en begrænsende karakter, er BNB forpligtet til at erstatte halvdelen af de tab, som BdF måtte lide på grund af DCL's eventuelle misligholdelse.
Since the agreement of 2 February 2012 [117] between the Belgian and French central banks became binding, the BNB has been required to provide compensation of 50 % for any losses which the BdF might sustain as a result of a possible default by DCL.
Men denne garanti fra BNB til BdF er i sig selv bakket op af den belgiske stats garanti i henhold til loven af 22. februar 1998 om BNB's vedtægter.
This BNB guarantee for the BdF is itself covered by the Belgian State guarantee provided for in the Law of 22 February 1998 establishing the Statute of the BNB.
I mangel af tilstrækkelig information, der viser, at den foreløbige aftale mellem de to centralbanker, som gik forud for aftalen af 2. februar 2012 [118], havde bindende juridisk karakter, fastholder Kommissionen den 2. februar 2012 som den dato, hvor ELA-foranstaltningen fra BdF til DCL begyndte at udgøre støtte.
In the absence of adequate evidence that the provisional agreement between the two central banks which preceded the agreement of 2 February 2012 [118] was legally binding, the Commission regards 2 February 2012 as the date from which the BdF’s ELA for DCL may have begun to constitute aid.
Den betingelse, at denne ELA for ikke at udgøre statsstøtte i henhold til bankmeddelelsen ikke må være »bakket op af nogen modgaranti fra staten« [119], er heller ikke opfyldt, hvad angår BdF's ELA-foranstaltning til fordel for DCL.
In conclusion, the condition which requires that, for ELA not to constitute aid under the Banking Communication, that ELA must not be backed by a counter guarantee of the State [119] is also not satisfied as regards the BdF’s ELA for DCL.
De betingelser, der er opstillet i bankmeddelelsen for at udelukke, at der er tale om støtte, er således hverken fuldstændig opfyldt, for så vidt angår ELA fra BNB til DBB/Belfius eller ELA fra BdF til DCL.
The conditions laid down in the Banking Communication if funding is not to constitute aid are therefore not all satisfied either as regards the BNB’s ELA for DBB/Belfius or as regards the BdF’s ELA for DCL.
Det skal derfor undersøges, om betingelserne for, at der er tale om statsstøtte, rent faktisk er opfyldt.
Consequently, it must be ascertained whether the conditions constituting State aid are indeed met.
BNB er en offentlig institution, og dens indgreb involverer statsmidler i henhold til artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF.
The BNB is a public institution and the measures it takes involve State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Ifølge BNB selv har prioriteringen af den generelle interesse i forvaltningen af nationalbanken givet sig udslag i oprettelsen af en ordning, der danner en undtagelse til privatrettens regler for aktieselskaber.
According to the BNB itself, ‘When the National Bank was established, the fact that the general interest takes priority in its management was given shape in a legal system that differs from the normal statutory provisions regarding public limited liability companies’ [120].
Den udøver sine myndighedsfunktioner såsom fastholdelse af prisstabilitet til fordel for samfundet som helhed.
It performs State functions such as maintaining price stability for society as a whole.