natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission must therefore assess the transaction on the basis of the information available and the economic and market circumstances obtaining at the time.
Seetõttu peab komisjon tehingut hindama kättesaadava teabe ning tolle aja majanduslike ja turutingimuste kohaselt.
The figures provided in this decision that refer to subsequent years are used only to illustrate the effects of the transfer on BayernLB's situation and not to justify or question the transaction after the event.
Kõnealuses otsuses esitatud andmeid, mis viitavad järgnevatele aastatele, kasutatakse ainult üleandmise mõjude selgitamiseks BayernLB puhul, mitte aga üleandmise õigustamiseks ega kahtluse alla seadmiseks.
In this regard Germany argues that the Land's investment here is not comparable to that of any third party which is interested only in achieving the best possible return on its capital.
Selles osas väidab Saksamaa, et liidumaa investeering ei ole võrreldav kolmanda osapoole investeeringuga, kes on huvitatud ainult parima võimaliku kasumi saamisest oma kapitalilt.
According to Germany, the main concern of the Land, as owner of half of the shares, was to maintain the long-term competitiveness of its affiliated state bank and, by injecting new funds, to ensure that ‘its’ bank could carry on serving its existing customers in future.
Saksamaa väitel oli liidumaa peamine mure poolte aktsiate omanikuna säilitada oma sidus-riigipanga pikaajaline konkurentsivõime uusi vahendeid paigutades, et tagada, et “tema” pank võiks jätkata oma olemasolevate klientide teenindamist ka tulevikus.
Lastly, the investment was also said to be guided by considerations relating to brand image.
Lõpetuseks leiti, et investeeringu puhul juhinduti ka kaubamärgi mainega seotud kaalutlustest.
Given the bank's position at that time, Germany argues, even a private shareholder such as a private holding company or group of companies would have injected capital, and achieving an optimum return would not have been the only major consideration.
Arvestades panga positsiooni tol ajal väidab Saksamaa, et ka eraaktsionär, nt eravaldusettevõte või ettevõtete rühm, võis kapitali paigutada ning optimaalse kasumi saamine ei oleks olnud ainus peamine kaalutlus.
However, the Commission cannot accept Germany's arguments.
Samas ei saa komisjon Saksamaa väiteid heaks kiita.
Even if a market-economy investor already holds shares in an undertaking, he will investigate other investment options outside that undertaking.
Isegi kui turumajanduslik investor juba omab ettevõttes aktsiaid, otsib ta teisi investeerimisvõimalusi väljaspool vastavat ettevõtet.
As a rule he will then choose to invest further resources in the public undertaking only if he can expect a reasonable return on the investment of the fresh capital contributions.
Reeglina otsustab ta siis investeerida rohkem ressursse riigi osalusega äriühingusse juhul, kui ta võib värskete kapitalipanuste investeeringu pealt eeldada mõistlikku kasumit.
So, in determining whether a capital injection constitutes state aid, one must in principle disregard the shareholder's prospects of long-term profitability or even the simple concern to maintain a brand image.
Et kindlaks teha, kas kapitali paigutus sisaldab riigiabi, tuleb põhimõtteliselt kõrvale jätta osanike väljavaated pikaajalise kasumlikkuse osas kui ka huvi säilitada kaubamärgi maine.
Whatever the motives behind it, a capital injection by a shareholder should be measured instead according to whether the investor can expect a normal return on the additional resources within a reasonable period.
Põhjusest olenemata tuleb osaniku kapitalipaigutust hoopis mõõta vastavalt sellele, kas investor võib oodata lisaressurssidelt normaalset kasumit mõistliku aja jooksul.
The European Court has raised no objections to this interpretation of the market-economy investor principle, which the Commission has already applied in its decision on WestLB (paragraphs 161 et seq.).
Euroopa Kohus ei ole esitanud vastuväiteid kõnealusele turumajandusliku investori põhimõttele, mida komisjon on juba kohaldanud oma otsuses WestLB osas (põhjendus 161 ja järgmised põhjendused).
The Court also adopted as a guiding principle that even a private investor who already owns share capital in an undertaking is not normally content with the fact that an investment does not cause him a loss or yields only limited profits.
Kohus võttis vastu ka juhtpõhimõtte, mille kohaselt ei ole isegi erainvestor, kes juba omab ettevõttes aktsiakapitali, üldjuhul rahul asjaoluga, et investeering ei too talle kahju või toob talle piiratud kasu.
On the contrary, he will always seek to achieve a reasonable return on his investment according to the particular circumstances and the satisfaction of his short-, medium- or long-term interests.
Vastupidi, ta otsib alati võimalust saada oma investeeringust mõistlikku tulu vastavalt üksikasjalikele tingimustele ning rahuldust oma lühiajalistest, keskmistest või pikaajalistest intressidest.
According to the market-economy investor principle, the key question in examining this case is, therefore, whether a market-economy investor would have transferred under the same conditions capital that had the same characteristics as the promotion-related assets of the Land of Bavaria, especially in view of the expected return of the investment.
Vastavalt turumajandusliku investori põhimõttele on käesoleva juhtumi uurimisel võtmeküsimuseks see, kas turumajanduslik investor oleks samadel tingimustel üle kandnud kapitali, millel olid samasugused omadused kui Baieri edendamisega seotud varadel, iseäranis investeeringu oodatavat tulu arvestades.
Article 295 of the Treaty
Asutamislepingu artikkel 295
Article 295 lays down that the system of property ownership in the various Member States must not be affected.
Artiklis 295 sätestatakse, et ei tohi mõjutada omandi õiguslikku režiimi erinevates liikmesriikides.
This does not, however, justify any infringement of the competition rules of the Treaty.
See ei õigusta asutamislepingu konkurentsieeskirjade pettust.
In connection with the Landesbank cases, Germany has stated that the resources transferred could not have been used in any other profitable manner than by being injected into a similar public institution.
Liidumaade pankade juhtumite osas on Saksamaa väitnud, et ülekantud ressursse ei oleks saanud kasutada ühelgi muul tulutooval viisil kui paigutades nad samalaadsesse avalik-õiguslikku asutusse.
Consequently, the transfer represented the commercially most sensible use of those assets.
Sellest tulenevalt oli ülekannete puhul tegemist kaubanduslikult kõige arukama varade kasutusega.
So any remuneration for the transfer, i.e. any additional return on the assets transferred, would be sufficient to justify the transfer in the light of the market-economy investor principle.
Seetõttu on igasugune tasu ülekannete eest, st igasugune lisakasum ülekantud varade eest, piisav õigustamaks ülekannet turumajandusliku investori seisukohalt.
This line of argument cannot be accepted.
See väide ei ole õigustatav.
It may be that the transfer of the promotion-related assets to BayernLB and the resulting opportunity for the bank to use the capital for solvency purposes was the economically most sensible use to which it could be put.
Võib olla, et edendamisega seotud varade üleandmine BayernLB'le ning sellest tulenenud võimalus pangal kasutada kapitali solventsuse eesmärgil oli majanduslikult kõige arukam kasutusviis.
However, as soon as public monies and other assets are used for commercial, competition-oriented activities, the normal market rules must be applied.
Kuid niipea, kui riigi raha ja muid vahendeid kasutatakse kaubanduslikes ja konkurentsisuunitlusega tegevustes, tuleb kohaldada tavalisi turueeskirju.
This means that the State, once it decides to use certain assets (also) commercially for public purposes, must demand a remuneration in line with the normal market remuneration.
See tähendab, et riik peab nõudma tasu vastavalt turu tavatasudele, kui ta otsustab ühiskondlikul eesmärgil (ka) kaubanduslikult kasutada teatud varasid.
No change in ownership structure
Muutuste puudumine omandistruktuuris
One way of ensuring an adequate return on the capital provided would have been to increase the Land's participation in BayernLB accordingly, provided that the bank's overall profitability corresponded to the normal rate of return that a market-economy investor would expect from his investment.
Üks viis saadud kapitalilt piisava kasu tagamiseks oleks olnud liidumaa osalust BayernLB's vastavalt suurendades, tingimusel et panga üldine kasumlikkus vastab kasumi tavamäärale, mida turumajanduslik investor eeldaks oma investeeringult saavat.
However, this course was not adopted by the Land.
Samas liidumaa seda teguviisi ei kohaldanud.
Germany argues here that, given the circumstances, not even a private investor could have pushed through a change in ownership structure.
Saksamaa väidab, et olukorda arvestades ei oleks isegi erainvestor suutnud omandistruktuuri muuta.
As owner of the other half of the shares, the Sparkassenverband would not have agreed to a change in ownership structure, since, at the time when the special-purpose reserve was transferred, BayernLB needed no extra core capital whatsoever in order to maintain its credit volume and, under Section 2 of the transfer agreement, the Sparkassenverband would have borne half of the cost of any depletion of the special-purpose reserve.
Teise poole aktsiate omanikuna ei oleks Sparkassenverband nõustunud omandistruktuuri muutma, kuna ajal, mil sihtotstarbelist reservi üle kanti, ei vajanud BayernLB mingisuguseid omavahendeid lisaks, et oma krediidimahtu säilitada, ning vastavalt üleandmislepingu 2. jaole oleks Sparkassenverband kandnud poole kuludest, mis oleksid tekkinud seoses sihtotstarbelise reservi vähendamisega.
Moreover, when the first instalment was transferred, the Bavarian savings banks had already contributed a total of around DEM 900 million — by the time of the second instalment it was already EUR 1100 million — in the form of silent partnerships, without this being matched by a comparable contribution by the Land of Bavaria.
Esimese sissemakse üleandmise ajal olid Baieri hoiupangad juba panustanud kokku umbes 900 miljonit Saksa marka – teise sissemakse ajaks oli see juba 1100 miljonit eurot – vaikivate seltsingute näol, mis ei olnud võrreldav Baieri panusega.
However, if a redistribution of shares were not feasible, a market-economy investor would, in the Commission's view, have embarked on the investment only if agreement had at least been reached on an appropriate direct remuneration.
Kui aktsiate ümberjaotamine ei olnud võimalik, oleks turumajanduslik investor komisjoni arvates alustanud investeerimist ainult siis, kui oleks kokkuleppele jõutud vähemalt asjakohase otsese tasu osas.
Normally a private investor is not content to avoid losses or to obtain a limited return on his investment, but attempts to maximise the return on his assets according to the circumstances in question and his interests.
Tavaliselt ei piirdu erainvestor ainult kahjude vältimise või piiratud tasu saamisega oma investeeringult, vaid proovib maksimeerida oma varade eest saadavat tulu vastavalt olemasolevatele tingimustele ning tema huvidele.
So a private investor who already holds shares in the beneficiary undertaking will usually insist on either a change in ownership structure or an appropriate fixed remuneration.
Seega tavaliselt nõuab erainvestor, kes juba omab aktsiaid abisaajas ettevõttes, omandistruktuuri muutust või asjakohast fikseeritud tasu.
Otherwise he would forgo part of the additional returns achieved as a result of the capital injection, as the other shareholders would also profit from higher dividends and an increase in the undertaking's value without having made a corresponding contribution.
Vastasel juhul annaks ta käest ära kapitalipaigutusest saadud lisatulud, kuna teised osanikud saaksid samuti kasu kõrgematest dividendidest ning ettevõtte väärtuse tõusust, ilma et nad oleksid teinud vastavat panust.
Nor is there is any call here to adopt another view based on the fact that, at the time of the second transfer in 1995, the Bavarian savings banks had already contributed a total of around DEM 1100 million to BayernLB in the form of silent partnerships.
Samuti pole põhjust vaadete muutmiseks selle tõttu, et teise ülekande ajal 1995. aastal olid Baieri hoiupangad juba panustanud kokku umbes 1100 miljonit Saksa marka vaikivate seltsingute näol.
The question can remain open as to whether a private investor would forgo a shift in share structure only if the other shareholders carried out a similar, corresponding capital injection, at the same time as and directly linked to his own capital injection, and if their transfers were just as likely to increase the returns.
Lahtiseks võib jääda küsimus, kas erainvestor loobuks aktsiastruktuuri vahetusest ainult siis, kui teised osanikud oleksid teostanud samasuguse vastava kapitalipaigutuse samaaegselt ja otseselt seotuna tema enda kapitalipaigutusega ning kui nende ülekanded oleksid samamoodi tõenäoliselt kasumit suurendanud.
In the Commission's view, there is no vital direct link here between the silent partnership contributions and the transfer of the housing-promotion assets.
Komisjoni arvates ei ole vaikiva seltsingu panuste ja elamuehituse edendamiseks antavate laenude ülekannete vahel otsest olulist seost.
And, as far as can be ascertained, no such link can be established later either, at the time the assets were transferred.
Ning nii palju kui on võimalik kindlaks teha, ei saa niisugust seost kindlaks teha ka hiljem, varade üleandmise ajal.
For example, there was no agreement to the effect that the savings banks must always maintain the total volume of their investment at a constant level .
Näiteks puudus kokkulepe selles osas, et hoiupangad peavad alati hoidma oma investeeringute kogu taseme muutumatuna.
Nor is it otherwise apparent that the Land took the savings banks' contribution into account in determining the remuneration for its capital injection.
Pole ka ilmne, et liidumaa arvestas hoiupankade panust tasu määramisel oma kapitalipaigutuse eest.
There was therefore no symmetry between the two capital contributions in respect of the components of the remuneration, which consisted of a direct remuneration on the one hand and a value increase on the other.
Seetõttu puudus kahe kapitalipanuse vahel sümmeetria tasu komponentide osas, mis koosnes ühelt poolt otsesest tasust ja teiselt poolt väärtuse kasvust.
The capital contribution by the Land of Bavaria therefore differed fundamentally from the silent partnerships of the savings banks.
Seetõttu erines Baieri panus põhiolemuselt hoiupankade vaikivatest seltsingutest.
Germany also refers here to the decision by the Court of First Instance in Alitalia.
Siinjuures viitab Saksamaa lisaks ka esimese astme kohtu otsusele Alitalia puhul.
However, that decision concerned investments by a private investor, whereas the Sparkassenverband and the savings banks are not private, but public-law bodies.
Samas puudutas nimetatud otsus erainvestori investeeringuid, kuid Sparkassenverband ja hoiupangad ei ole eraettevõtted, vaid avalik-õiguslikud asutused.
Moreover, as shown above, the capital contributions were not comparable to the transfer of the housing-promotion assets either in timing or in content.
Veelgi enam, vastavalt ülaltoodule ei olnud kapitalipanused võrreldavad elamuehituse edendamiseks antavate laenude ülekannetega ei ajastuselt ega sisult.
In conclusion, there is nothing to indicate that a private investor would have forgone an appropriate direct remuneration in a situation comparable to the transfer of promotion loans to BayernLB.
Kokkuvõtteks puuduvad tõendid selle kohta, et erainvestor oleks loobunud asjakohasest otsesest tasust olukorras, mis oli võrreldav edendamisega seotud laenude üleandmisega BayernLB'le.
Owner effect
Omaniku mõju
Germany also submits that, as owner of half of the shares, the Land could assume — at least at the time when the housing-promotion assets were transferred to BayernLB — that it would have the benefit of very advantageous capital returns in comparison with other credit institutions, as is clearly borne out by the capital returns achieved at that time.
Saksamaa väitis lisaks, et liidumaa saab poolte aktsiate omanikuna eeldada – vähemalt ajal, mil elamuehituse edendamiseks antavad varad kanti üle BayernLB'le –, et ta saaks võrreldes teiste krediidiasutustega kasu väga soodsatest emissioonituludest, mis selgelt tekivad sel ajal saadud kapitalituludest.
So, in making its investment, the Land of Bavaria was not content with a limited return or no return at all, but had in mind an undertaking with above-average profitability.
Seega ei olnud Baieri investeeringu teostamisel rahul piiratud tuluga või tulu täieliku puudumisega, vaid pidas silmas keskmisest suurema kasumlikkusega ettevõtet.
Germany maintains that the ‘owner effect’, i.e. the fact that the investor already holds shares in the undertaking in which he is investing, must be taken into account at least where an undertaking has above-average profitability, the Court of First Instance having acknowledged as much in its judgment in WestLB.
Saksamaa väidab, et “omaniku mõju”, st asjaolu, et investoril juba on aktsiaid ettevõttes, millesse ta investeerib, tuleb arvesse võtta vähemalt siis, kui ettevõttel on keskmisest suurem kasumlikkus, mida esimese astme kohus on kinnitanud oma WestLB'd puudutavas otsuses.
The Commission cannot accept Germany's argument.
Samas ei saa komisjon Saksamaa väidet heaks kiita.
At the time of the investment, the Land of Bavaria owned only half of the shares.
Investeeringu ajal omas Baieri ainult pooli aktsiatest.
It would therefore benefit from only half of the increase in the undertaking's value and dividends which might be expected as a result of the investment, although it alone had made that investment.
Seetõttu saaks ta kasu ainult poolest ettevõtte väärtuse tõusust ning dividendidest, mida võib oodata investeeringu tulemusena, kuigi ta oli üksi investeeringu teinud.
No market-economy investor would agree, as joint owner, to bear the entire cost of an investment if it were then to realise only part of the gains from it.
Ükski turumajanduslik investor ei nõustuks ühisomanikuna kandma kõiki investeeringuga seotud kulusid, kui sellest saadud kasumist oleks realiseeritud ainult osa.
Contrary to Germany's claims, the Court has specifically confirmed this view in its judgment in WestLB.
Vastupidiselt Saksamaa väidetele on kohus üksikasjalikult seda vaadet kinnitanud oma otsuses seoses WestLB'ga.
The Court found that it is not consistent with the conduct of a market-economy investor if an increase in capital generates profits for the other shareholders of an undertaking without their contributing in any way to them.
Kohus leidis, et see ei vasta turumajandusliku investori käitumisele, kui kapitalikasv tekitab kasumit teistele ettevõtte osanikele, ilma et nad mingil viisil ise sellesse panustaksid.
Even in the case of an undertaking with above-average profitability, as BayernLB is described by Germany, the key point is not by how much its profitability lies above the average and whether the investor may nevertheless continue to achieve a satisfactory return in overall terms at the time of the investment.
Isegi juhul, kus on tegemist keskmisest suurema kasumlikkusega ettevõttega, nagu on BayernLB'd kirjeldanud Saksamaa, ei ole põhipunktiks see, kui palju kasumlikkus on üle keskmise ning kas investor võib sellele vaatamata investeeringu ajal jätkuvalt saada üldiselt rahuldavat kasumit.
Even where the undertaking is far more profitable than average, the private investor would take care to realise all the additional gains made possible by his investment.
Isegi kui ettevõte on keskmisest palju tulutoovam, sooviks erainvestor realiseerida kõik lisatulud, mida tema investeering võimaldab.
Where the investment is made by only one joint owner and there is no proportional increase in shares at the expense of the other (inactive) joint owners or the other joint owners fail to make a corresponding and proportional parallel contribution, this can be achieved only by opting for an advance remuneration at the expense of all joint owners, paid direct to the investor, independently of his owner status and for his sole benefit, before the regular dividends.
Kui investeeringu teeb ainult üks ühisomanik ning puudub proportsionaalne aktsiate kasv teiste (passiivsete) ühisomanike kulul või teistel ühisomanikel ei õnnestu teha vastavat ja proportsionaalselt paralleelset panust, saab seda saavutada ainult valides ettemakstud tasu kõigi ühisomanike kulul, mis makstakse otse investorile sõltumata tema omanikustaatusest ning ainult tema kasuks enne regulaarseid dividende.
Capital basis for the remuneration and elements of the remuneration
Kapitalibaas tasu jaoks ning tasu elemendid
Capital basis
Kapitalibaas
As in the WestLB case, the Commission has determined the appropriate remuneration for the transferred housing–promotion assets in the light of their commercial usefulness for BayernLB, while drawing a distinction in the present case between the ‘business-expansion function’ and the (mere) ‘guarantee function’ of the assets made available as equity capital for the bank's business activities.
Nagu ka WestLB juhtumi puhul on komisjon määratlenud asjakohase tasu elamuehituse edendamiseks antavate ülekantud laenude eest, arvestades nende kaubanduslikku kasulikkust BayernLB suhtes, samal ajal eristades käesoleva juhtumi puhul omakapitalina panga äritegevuse jaoks kättesaadavaks tehtud varade “äritegevuse laiendamise funktsiooni” ja (ainult) “tagatise funktsiooni”.
The ‘business-expansion function’ of capital refers to the expansion of business potential by means of risk-bearing assets following the recognition for supervisory purposes of a bank's additional equity capital.
Kapitali “äritegevuse laiendamise funktsioon” viitab äripotentsiaali laienemisele riskiga seotud vahendite abil, mis järgnevad panga lisaomakapitalile, mis on järelevalve eesmärgil kindlaks määratud.
In this regard the starting point for determining the normal market remuneration is the remuneration that would be demanded by a private investor providing a bank with equity capital.
Selles suhtes on tavalise turutasu määramisel lähtepunktiks tasu, mida võidakse nõuda erainvestorilt, kes annab pangale omakapitali.
Where the capital provided is shown in the balance sheet as equity but is not recognised as such for supervisory purposes or is intended to underpin promotion activities, it is not available for expanding business.
Kui hangitud kapital on bilansiaruandes näidatud omakapitalina, kuid ei ole järelevalve eesmärgil sellisena tunnustatud, või on see mõeldud edendamisega seotud äritegevuse toetamiseks, ei ole seda võimalik kasutada laiendamise eesmärgil.
However, equity is also important for reasons other than banking supervision.
Samas on omakapital oluline mitte ainult panganduse järelevalve eesmärgil.
Its availability to the bank's creditors at least for the purposes of covering liabilities (‘guarantee function’) means that its economic function can still be compared to that of a surety or guarantee.
Omakapitali kättesaadavus panga võlausaldajatele vähemalt vastutuse katmiseks (“tagatise funktsioon”) tähendab, et selle majanduslikku funktsiooni saab ikkagi võrrelda tagatise või garantii funktsiooniga.
The amount of equity shown in the balance sheet is an indication for the bank's lenders of its soundness and thus influences the conditions under which the bank is able to raise outside funds.
Bilansiaruandes toodud omakapital tõestab pangale laenajatele tema usaldatavust ning seega mõjutab tingimusi, mille alusel pank on võimeline kaasama kapitali väljastpoolt.
The normal market remuneration of the ‘guarantee function’ of capital is calculated according to the return which a private guarantor would have demanded from a credit institution comparable to BayernLB in size and risk strategy.
Kapitali “tagatise funktsiooni” tavaline turutasu arvutatakse vastavalt kasumile, mida erakäendaja oleks nõudnud BayernLB'ga suuruselt ja riskistrateegialt võrreldavalt krediidiasutuselt.