natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, it also arises from the Court of Justice case-law that, in so far as it is very difficult for the Commission, on account of the special relations existing between CDC and Holding Communal and their respective State, to show that in this case the decisions to inject capital in Dexia were in fact taken on the instruction of the public authorities, the imputability to the State of these measures may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances in which these measures were taken [29].
Euroopa Kohtu praktikast ilmneb siiski samuti, et kuivõrd CDC ja Holding Communali erisuhete tõttu vastavate riikidega on komisjonil väga keeruline tõestada, et otsused Dexiasse kapitali süstida tehti käesoleval juhul riigiasutuste korraldusel, võib nende meetmete seostatavuse riigiga välja selgitada mitme näitaja alusel, mis tulenevad meetmete võtmise tingimustest [29].
Indicators such as, in particular, ‘integration [of the undertaking] into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the compass of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains’ may be relevant to conclude that an aid measure taken by a public undertaking is imputable to the State [30].
Riigi osalusega äriühingu võetud abimeetme riigiga seostatavuse suhtes järelduste tegemisel võivad olla olulised sellised näitajad nagu „ettevõtja lõimumine riigihaldusstruktuuridega, ettevõtja tegevusvaldkonnad, tema tegevus turul, kus ta konkureerib tavatingimustes erasektori ettevõtjatega, tema õiguslik seisund (avalikule õigusele või tavalisele äriühinguõigusele allumise tähenduses), riiklike asutuste järelevalve ulatus ettevõtte juhtkonna üle või mõni muu näitaja, mis konkreetse juhtumi puhul näitab riiklike asutuste seotust meetme võtmisega või nende mitteseotuse ebatõenäosust, kusjuures arvesse võetakse ka meetme piire, sisu ja tingimusi” [30].
In this case, it should be noted on the one hand that:
Konkreetse juhtumi puhul tuleb ühelt poolt tõdeda, et:
CDC is a public undertaking, placed by the French Finance Act of 28 April 1816 under the supervision and guarantee of the legislature, which carries out general interest missions (financing of public services bodies, in particular), is governed by statutory and regulatory rules and its director-general and senior directors are appointed by the President of the French Republic and the French Government [31]; at the time the events took place and by way of derogation from ordinary law, CDC was not subject to the supervision of the Commission bancaire or the Agence des Participations de l’Etat, or to the company tax law granting a ‘voluntary contribution’ to the Treasury,
CDC on avalik-õiguslik asutus, mis Prantsusmaa 28. aprilli 1816. aasta eelarveseaduse kohaselt allub seadusandliku võimu järelevalvele ja saab sellelt tagatist, täidab üldisi huve teenivaid ülesandeid (eelkõige avalikke teenuseid osutavate asutuste rahastamine) ning on reguleeritud seaduste ja määrustega ning mille peadirektori ja kõrgemad juhid määravad ametisse Prantsuse Vabariigi president ja Prantsuse valitsus; [31] erandina tavapärasest õigusest ei allunud CDC asjaomasel ajal panganduskomisjoni (Commission bancaire) ega riigiosaluste agentuuri (Agence des participations de l’État) järelevalvele, samuti mitte riigikassale „vabatahtlikku makset” tasuvaid äriühinguid käsitlevale maksuõigusele;
Holding Communal has as its shareholders 599 Belgian municipalities and provinces and is the local authorities’ primary financing vehicle; all the members of its board are municipal councillors, mayors or aldermen; the statutes of Holding Communal stipulate that it is subject to the supervision of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of the Interior according to the arrangements laid down by law; in this respect, it should be pointed out that the two Government Commissioners (representing the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Interior respectively) have the power to oppose decisions of the Holding Communal board; according to case-law [32], the existence of a right of veto or power of approval of the State indicates that the conduct of a legal entity is imputable to the State, which applies in the present case to Holding Communal.On the other hand, it has to be noted that, in the present case, the capital injection by CDC and Holding Communal occurred concomitantly with the other measures taken by the States (direct capital injection by the States and regions, guarantee by the States, FSA measure, LA operation guaranteed by the Belgian State).
Holding Communali aktsionärideks on 599 Belgia kommuuni ja provintsi ning see on peamine kohalike omavalitsuste rahastamise kanal; kõik selle nõukogu liikmed on kommuunivolikogude ja -valitsuste liikmed; põhikirja kohaselt allub Holding Communal rahandusministeeriumi ja siseministeeriumi järelevalvele seadusega ette nähtud korras; seejuures on kahel valitsuse volinikul (kes esindavad vastavalt rahandusministeeriumi ja siseministeeriumi) õigus vaidlustada Holding Communali nõukogu otsust; kohtupraktika [32] kohaselt aga näitab riigi vetoõiguse või heakskiitmisõiguse olemasolu juriidilise isiku tegevuse seotust riigiga ning käesoleval juhul kehtib see Holding Communali kohta.Teisalt tuleb märkida, et käesoleval juhul toimus CDC ja Holding Communali kapitalisüst samaaegselt teiste riiklike meetmetega (riikide ja piirkondade otsene kapitalisüst, FSA meede, Belgia riigi tagatisega likviidsusabi).
These injections with the other measures form a consistent whole designed to rescue Dexia at the end of September 2009.
Need kapitalisüstid moodustavad koos teiste meetmetega tervikliku meetmete kogumi, mille eesmärk oli Dexia päästmine 2009. aasta septembris.
The concomitance of these interventions in combination with the elements referred to above make it unlikely that the public authorities were not involved in the decisions of CDC and Holding Communal to participate in the Dexia capital increase.
Pidades silmas sekkumismeetmete samaaegsust ning eespool osutatud asjaolusid, on ebatõenäoline, et riiklikud asutused ei olnud seotud CDC ja Holding Communali otsustega osaleda Dexia kapitali suurendamises.
There is therefore reason to consider that the capital injections granted by CDC and Holding Communal are imputable to their respective Member States.
Seega on alust arvata, et CDC ja Holding Communali kapitalisüstid on seotud vastavate liikmesriikidega.
The Commission considers that the recapitalisation carried out by the ‘historic’ shareholders does not satisfy the case-law criterion of the private investor in a market economy.
Komisjon leiab, et kauaaegsete aktsionäride ellu viidud rekapitaliseerimine ei vasta kohtupraktikas kasutusel olevale turumajandusliku erainvestori kriteeriumile.
In fact, the participation in the recapitalisation of Dexia by shareholders whose behaviour is not imputable to the State, limited to 12,4 % of the total capital increase, is insufficient to conclude that the historic shareholders acted as private investors in a market economy.
Asjaolust, et Dexia rekapitaliseerimises osalesid ka sellised aktsionärid, kelle tegevus ei ole seostatav riigiga (12,4 % ulatuses rekapitaliseerimise kogumahust), ei piisa, et järeldada, et kauaaegsed investorid toimisid turumajanduslike erainvestoritena.
The principle of the private investor in a market economy applies only under normal market conditions [33].
Turumajandusliku erainvestori põhimõte kehtib üksnes tavapärastes turutingimustes [33].
The historic shareholders intervened to rescue Dexia at the height of the financial crisis under entirely abnormal market conditions.
Kauaaegsed investorid sekkusid Dexia päästmiseks aga finantskriisi haripunktis – täiesti tavapäratutes turutingimustes.
In addition, this intervention by the ‘historic’ shareholders was part of a group of measures designed to rescue Dexia, an undertaking in serious difficulties, of systemic importance for the economies of the three Member States concerned.
Peale selle oli kauaaegsete aktsionäride sekkumine üks osa meetmete kogumist, mille eesmärk oli päästa Dexia, suurtes raskustes olev ettevõtja, mis on kolme asjaomase liikmesriigi majanduse jaoks süsteemselt oluline.
It should be pointed out that public, economic and social policy considerations must be disregarded in the assessment of the principle of the private investor in a market economy [34].
Riikliku, majandus- ja sotsiaalpoliitikaga seotud kaalutlused tuleb aga turumajandusliku erainvestori põhimõtte hindamisest välja jätta [34].
Then, to satisfy the criterion of the private investor in a market economy, the credibility of the investment must be corroborated by an ex ante business plan and, preferably, an ex ante business plan validated by independent auditors and stress tests [35].
Järgmiseks peab turumajandusliku erainvestori kriteeriumi täitmiseks kinnitama investeeringu usutavust eelnev äriplaan – eelistatavalt sõltumatu auditi ja kriisisimulatsioonid (stressitestid) läbinud eelnev äriplaan [35].
Finally, even where the public investor has owner status (which is the case of the ‘historic’ shareholders whose conduct is imputable to the State, i.e. CDC and Holding Communal), it is appropriate, when comparing it to a private investor in a market economy, to check that the investor behaves as a well-informed investor who does not take more risks than a private investor in a market economy would take [36].
Viimaks, isegi juhul, kui riiklik investor on omanik (nagu riigiga seostatavad kauaaegsed aktsionärid CDC ja Holding Communal), tuleb selle võrdluses turumajandusliku erainvestoriga kontrollida, kas investor käitub aruka investorina, kes ei võta rohkem riske kui võtaks turumajanduslik erainvestor [36].
The historic characteristic of the investor could not therefore justify ‘more flexible’ application of the principle of the private investor in a market economy.
Asjaolu, et tegemist on kauaaegse investoriga, ei õigusta seega turumajandusliku erainvestori põhimõtte paindlikumat kohaldamist.
Moreover, the Commission considers that the capital increase imputable to the Member States concerned is selective, since it only relates to a single undertaking, the Dexia group.
Peale selle leiab komisjon, et asjaomaste liikmesriikidega seostatav kapitali suurendamine on valikuline, sest see hõlmab ainult ühte ettevõtjat, st Dexia kontserni.
Given the size of Dexia and its importance on the Belgian, French and Luxembourg markets, and the fact that, without the interventions, the group could have found itself insolvent, which would have changed the structure of the banking market significantly in the three territories, the Commission considers that the measures in question affect trade between Member States.
Arvestades Dexia suurust ja olulist rolli Belgia, Prantsusmaa ja Luksemburgi turul, ning asjaolu, et ilma sekkumiseta oleks kontsern võinud muutuda maksejõuetuks, mis oleks märkimisväärselt muutnud kolme riigi pangandusturu struktuuri, leiab komisjon, et asjaomased meetmed mõjutavad liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that the capital injection by CDC and Holding Communal therefore constitutes an element of the aid received by Dexia, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Kokkuvõttes leiab komisjon, et CDC ja Holding Communali kapitalisüstid moodustavad osa Dexia saadud abist ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
On the other hand, the Commission considers that the resources made available to Dexia by virtue of the conduct of Ethias (which was not nationalised at the time of the capital increase), Arcofin (the majority of whose capital is held by private shareholders) and CNP Assurance (the majority of whose capital belongs to private shareholders, i.e. the Banque Populaire Caisses d’Épargne group and the holders of floating capital) are not State resources.
Ressursid, mille andsid Dexia käsutusse Ethias (mida ei riigistatud kapitali suurendamise käigus), Arcofin (mille aktsiakapitalist enamus kuulub eraaktsionäridele) ja CNP Assurances (mille aktsiakapitalist enamus kuulub eraaktsionäridele, kelleks on kontsern Banque Populaire Caisses d’Épargne ja käibekapitali valdajad), ei ole seevastu komisjoni hinnangul riigi ressursid.
THE GUARANTEE BY THE STATES
RIIKIDE TAGATIS
The Commission established that the guarantee constituted aid in its decisions of 19 November 2008 (recitals 24 to 27) and 30 October 2009 (recital 13).
Komisjon märkis oma 19. novembri 2008. aasta otsuses (põhjendused 24–27) ja 30. oktoobri 2009. aasta otsuses (põhjendus 13), et tagatise puhul on tegemist abiga.
In this respect, the Commission considers that the reasoning set out in these decisions remains applicable and that the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisjon on seisukohal, et neis otsustes esitatud arutluskäik on endiselt kehtiv ning et meede on riigiabi ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
With regard to the existence of aid associated with the LA operation, the Commission notes the observations made by the Belgian authorities regarding the LA operation put in place by the BNB in favour of Dexia.
Seoses abi olemasoluga likviidsusabi puhul võtab komisjon teatavaks Belgia ametiasutuste märkused BNB-lt Dexiale antud likviidsusabi kohta.
The Commission considers, however, that these observations are not of a nature to modify its conclusions concerning the aid element associated with the LA operation, as set out in its decision of 19 November 2008.
Need märkused ei muuda komisjoni hinnangul siiski tema 19. novembri 2008. aasta otsuses esitatud järeldusi, mille kohaselt sisaldab likviidsusabi abi elementi.
In point 51 of its communication on the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis [37] (‘the Banking Communication’), the Commission indicated that it considered that the provision of funds by a central banks to a financial institution did not constitute aid when a number of conditions are met [38].
Nimelt osutas komisjon oma teatises riigiabi kohaldamise kohta meetmete suhtes, mida on võetud seoses finantsasutustega praeguse ülemaailmse finantskriisi olukorras [37] (edaspidi „pangandusteatis”), et keskpanga vahenditest finantsasutusele antud abi ei pruugi olla riigiabi, kui on täidetud teatavad tingimused (punkt 51) [38].
One of the conditions for the absence of aid defined by the Banking Communication is that ‘the measure […] is not backed by any counter-guarantee of the State’.
Üks pangandusteatises määratletud abi puudumise tingimus on see, et meetmel „puudub riiklik […] edasitagatis”.
In this case, the Commission noted that the credits granted by the BNB benefit from a guarantee from the Belgian State (with retroactive effect) pursuant to the Act of 15 October 2008 on measures to promote financial stability and introducing in particular a State guarantee on credits granted and other operations conducted in the context of financial stability.
Käesoleva juhtumi puhul märkis komisjon, et BNB antud laenudel on (tagasiulatuvalt) Belgia riigi tagatis 15. oktoobri 2008. aasta seaduse alusel, millega kehtestatakse meetmed finantsstabiilsuse parandamiseks ning seatakse sisse riiklik tagatis finantsstabiilsuse tagamise eesmärgil antud laenudele ja muudele sel eesmärgil tehtud tehingutele.
Since the LA operation granted by the BNB benefits from a guarantee from the Belgian State, the condition provided for in the Communication is therefore not met.
Pidades silmas, et BNB antud likviidsusabil on Belgia riigi tagatis, ei ole pangandusteatises sätestatud tingimus täidetud.
The conditions defined in the Banking Communication to exclude the presence of aid are therefore not met in full.
Pangandusteatises määratletud tingimused, mis välistavad abi olemasolu, ei ole seega täies ulatuses täidetud.
Consequently, it is a matter of verifying whether the conditions constituting State aid are in fact met.
Niisiis tuleb kontrollida, kas täidetud on riigiabi kriteeriumid.
Since the BNB is a Belgian State body, its resources are public resources.
Kuivõrd BNB on Belgia riigiasutus, on selle ressursid riigi ressursid.
This is all the more so in the present case as the counter-guarantee has the effect that any loss will be borne directly by the Belgian State.
Käesoleval juhul kehtib see kriteerium seda enam, et riigi edasigarantii kaudu kannab Belgia riik otse kõik kahjud.
What is more, the LA is a measure granted selectively to Dexia.
Peale selle on likviidsusabi meede, mida on Dexia suhtes rakendatud valikuliselt.
Finally, the measure benefits Dexia selectively by granting it the funding that the bank can no longer obtain on the market.
Viimaks, meede soodustab Dexiat valikuliselt, võimaldades talle rahastamist, mida pank enam turult ei saa.
Since Dexia operates in several Member States and, in most of its activities, is in competition with other financial institutions, most of which did not receive comparable aid, this advantage distorts competition and affects trade between Member States.
Arvestades, et Dexia tegutseb mitmes liikmesriigis ning konkureerib enamikul oma tegevusaladest teiste finantseerimisasutustega, millest suurem osa ei ole saanud samalaadset abi, moonutab see soodustus konkurentsi ja kahjustab liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
The Commission concludes that the LA operation put in place by the BNB on its own account does indeed constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisjon järeldab, et likviidsusabi, mida BNB andis enda nimel, on riigiabi ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
The Commission established that the FSA measure constitutes aid in its decision of 13 March 2009 (recitals 53 to 56) and considers that the observations of the Member States concerned are not of a nature to call its conclusions into question.
Komisjon järeldas oma 13. märtsi 2009. aasta otsuses (põhjendused 53–56), et FSA meetme puhul on tegemist abiga, ning on seisukohal, et liikmesriikide märkused ei sea tema järeldust kahtluse alla.
The Commission concludes that the FSA measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisjon leiab, et FSA meede on riigiabi ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
QUANTIFICATION OF THE AID
ABI SUURUSE MÄÄRAMINE
In its decisions of 19 November 2008 and 13 March 2009, the Commission already carried out a first evaluation of the amount of aid associated with the measures in question.
Komisjon hindas asjaomaste meetmetega seotud abisumma suurust juba oma 19. novembri 2008. aasta ja 13. märtsi 2009. aasta otsustes.
On the basis of this first evaluation and additional information communicated by the Member States concerned since 13 March 2009, the Commission calculates an aid amount comprising the following elements:
Selle esimese hindamise ning asjaomaste liikmesriikide pärast 13. märtsi 2009 edastatud lisateabe alusel saab komisjon tulemuseks abisumma, mis koosneb alljärgnevalt kirjeldatud komponentidest.
The capital injection announced on 30 September 2008 comes to a total amount of EUR 6,4 billion, from which should be deducted, for the reasons set out above, the capital injections by Ethias, Arcofin and CNP Assurance, amounting to EUR 150 million, EUR 350 million and EUR 288 million respectively.
septembril 2008 teatavaks tehtud kapitalisüsti kogusumma on 6,4 miljardit eurot, millest tuleb eespool kirjeldatud põhjustel maha arvata Ethiase, Arcofini ja CNP Assurancesi kapitalisüstid ehk vastavalt 150 miljonit eurot, 350 miljonit eurot ja 288 miljonit eurot.
The Commission also notes that, under its restructuring plan, Dexia waived the benefit of the EUR 376 million in the form of Dexia BIL convertible bonds, to which the Luxembourg State was to subscribe and which were never subscribed to.
Komisjon märgib samuti, et Dexia loobus ümberkorralduskava raames 376 miljoni euro suurusest kasumist Dexia BILi vahetusvõlakirjadelt, mille pidi ostma Luksemburgi riik, kes neid aga kunagi ei ostnud.
Consequently, this amount is also deducted from the amount to be taken into account in the aid elements relating to the capital increase.
Seega tuleb kapitali suurendamisega seotud abina arvesse võetavast summast lahutada ka see summa.
In conclusion, the total amount of aid relating to the capital increase amounts to EUR 5,2 billion [39].
Kokkuvõttes on kapitali suurendamisega seotud abisumma kokku 5,2 miljardit eurot [39].
In their observations relating to the decision to open the procedure, the Member States concerned contend that the amount of aid associated with the guarantee should be calculated in accordance with the Commission Communication on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (‘the Reference Rates Communication’) [40].
Oma märkustes menetluse algatamise kohta rõhutavad asjaomased liikmesriigid, et tagatisega seotud abisumma tuleks arvutada kooskõlas komisjoni teatisega viite- ja diskontomäärade kindlaksmääramise meetodi läbivaatamise kohta (edaspidi „viitemäärade teatis”) [40].
According to this Communication, the aid elements related to the guarantee would be equal to the difference between the remuneration rate on the guarantee and a reference rate defined as the interbank market reference rate (IBOR) plus 75 basis points.
Teatise kohaselt võrdub tagatisega seotud abi tagatise tasumääraga, millest on maha arvatud viitemäär (milleks on pankadevaheline laenuintressimäär rahaturul ehk IBOR) ning millele lisandub 75 baaspunkti.
In response to these observations, the Commission notes that in the case of undertakings in difficulties, the application of a reference rate based on market rates is not relevant as, without a guarantee, Dexia could not have raised any funding on the markets.
Vastuseks kõnealustele märkustele märgib komisjon, et raskustes olevate ettevõtjate puhul ei ole turul põhineva viitemäära rakendamine asjakohane, sest ilma tagatiseta ei oleks Dexia saanud turgudelt mingit rahastamist.
For this reason, in accordance with constant practice in the cases of restructuring submitted to it, the Commission considers that the aid element to be taken into account in the guarantee may extend up to the amounts in fact covered by the guarantee, i.e. EUR 100 billion, which corresponds to the maximum amount of Dexia’s liabilities which may in fact be covered by the guarantee since 1 November 2009 [41].
Seetõttu leiab komisjon kooskõlas oma tavapärase praktikaga varem menetletud ümberkorraldusjuhtumites, et tagatisega seotud abina arvesse võetav summa võib ulatuda reaalselt tagatisega hõlmatud summani ehk 100 miljardi euroni, mis on alates 1. novembrist 2009 Dexia kohustuste maksimaalne summa, mida tagatis võib reaalselt katta [41].
By way of analogy with the reasoning applied to the guarantee above, the Commission considers that the aid element contained in the guarantee by the Belgian State for the LA operation put in place by the BNB may extend to the amounts in fact covered by the guarantee, i.e. EUR […] billion, which corresponds to the portion of the maximum amount of the LA, as approved by the Governing Council of the ECB, covered by the BNB and guaranteed by the Belgian State.
Sarnaselt eelneva tagatist käsitleva arutluskäiguga leiab komisjon, et abi, mis sisaldub Belgia riigi tagatises BNB antud likviidsusabile, võib ulatuda reaalselt tagatisega hõlmatud summani ehk […] miljardi euroni, likviidsusabi maksimaalse summani, mille on heaks kiitnud EKP nõukogu, mille kannab BNB ja millel on Belgia riigi tagatis.