natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The fact that the guarantees were still set up was the result, according to the Deputy Prime Minister [the Belgian Finance Minister], of a political compromise dating from 2008 and the first Dexia rescue plan.
Endise peaministri [Belgia finantsministri] arvates tuleneb asjaolu, et tagatised siiski kasutusele võeti, 2008. aastal Dexia esimese päästeplaani raames saavutatud poliitilisest kompromissist.
This is the first time that anyone involved has admitted that such a compromise existed, even though it was by no means a secret.
Tegemist oli juba teada oleva kompromissi esmakordse tunnistamisega ühe asjaosalise poolt.
According to [the Minister], the question of protection … for Arco’s members had already been raised in late September 2008 at the Egmont Palace, on the night of the first Dexia rescue.
[Ministri] väitel oli Arco partneritele kaitse andmise küsimus […] õhus juba 2008. aasta septembri lõpus Dexia esimese päästeplaani otsustamise ööl Egmonti palees.
‘… Regarding Arco, the question had come from the inner Cabinet (‘Kernkabinet’] itself’, declared the [Finance Minister], who did not give any further details.
„[…] Arco küsimuse tõstatas kinnisel ministrite nõukogul [„Kernkabinet”] ise”, teatas [finantsminister], peatumata üksikasjadel.
[The Minister] said that the political compromise had been necessary at that point to be able to save Dexia.
[Ministri] sõnul oli poliitiline kompromiss vajalik Dexia päästmiseks.
‘Before the Dexia Commission [the Belgian Finance Minister] also confided that he had not initially been in favour of this guarantee, which was the result of a political compromise reached in 2008, the former Finance Minister confirmed. He recalled that around the time of the first Dexia rescue in September 2008, the idea had been to extend the guarantee for savers to branch 21 products, …, and to Arco members. ‘… On Arco, the question was raised in the inner Cabinet itself’ ’ [101].
„Endine finantsminister kinnitas, et [Belgia finantsminister] ütles Dexia pankrotti uurivale komisjonile veel, et esialgu ei olnud ta 2008. aasta poliitilise kompromissi tulemusel otsustatud tagatise poolt. Ta meenutas, et Dexiale esimese päästepaketi vastu võtmise ööl 2008. aasta septembris […] arutleti pakutud tagatise laiendamist 21. kategooria toodetele […] ning Arco partneritele. „[…] Arco puhul tõstatati küsimus otse „kernis” [kinnine ministrite nõukogu]” [101].
According to a statement by an MP during the debate on the report by the Special Commission of the Belgian House of Representatives tasked with examining the circumstances which led to the break-up of Dexia SA, the State had given Arco Group members access to the guarantee scheme in return for Arcofin’s participation, under government pressure, in Dexia’s capital increase:
Belgia esindajatekoja moodustatud Dexia SA pankroti põhjuseid uuriva erikomisjoni aruande arutelude raames väitis üks parlamendisaadik, et riigi poolne Arco partneritele antud juurdepääs riigitagatisele oli vastutasu Arcofini osalemise eest Dexia kapitali suurendamises, mis toimus valitsuse survel:
‘In 2008, the ARCO Group and Holding Communal participated in the Group’s capital increase for a huge amount that would be impossible to raise.
„2008. aastal osalesid ARCO kontsern ja Holding Communal kontserni kapitali suurendamises üüratu ja hoomamatu summaga.
For this loan [the loan granted by DBB to ARCO and Holding Communal to enable them to participate in the capital increase], they could only apply to Banque Dexia Belgique, so it was actually circular financing.
Laenu saamiseks [DBB laen ARCO kontsernile ja Holding Communalile kapitali suurendamises osalemiseks] ei saanud nad pöörduda kellegi muu kui Banque Dexia Belgiquei poole, mistõttu on järelikult tegemist ettevõttesisese rahastamisega.
The capital increase was designed to safeguard dividends and was carried out under government pressure.
Kapitali suurendamine oli mõeldud dividendide tagamiseks ning toimus valitsuse survel.
In return, ARCO was given access to the guarantee fund, with savers having to be paid compensation for management errors.
Vastutasuks sai ARCO juurdepääsu hoiuste tagatisfondile sellisel moel, mis andis hoiustajatele võimaluse saada juhtimisvigade ilmnemisel hüvitist.
In order to join, ARCO only had to pay if this was necessary.
ARCO pidi liitumistasu maksma vaid vajaduse korral.
So once again the government explicitly rewarded ARCO by handing it EUR 1,5 billion on a plate’ [102].
Seega oli see selgelt valitsuse järjekordne kingitus ARCO kontsernile summas 1,5 miljardit eurot” [102].
For the reasons set out in recitals 397-400, the doubts expressed by the Commission in the decision to extend the procedure have not been allayed by the comments received from the Member States concerned.
Põhjendustes (397)–(400) toodud põhjustel ei olnud menetluse pikendamise otsuses komisjoni väljendatud kahtluste suhtes asjaomaste liikmesriikide esitatud märkused komisjoni jaoks veenvad.
The Commission therefore considers that the State guarantee for members of Arcofin was planned by the Belgian authorities in order to persuade Arcofin to participate in Dexia’s recapitalisation.
Seepärast leiab komisjon, et Arcofini partneritele antud riigitagatis on seotud Belgia ametiasutustega, et veenda Arcofini osalema Dexia kapitali suurendamises.
In reply to Belgium’s comments (see recital 377), the Commission points out that the announcement and the guarantee came from the Belgian Government.
Vastusena Belgia märkusele (vt põhjendus (377)) märgib komisjon, et nii teadaanne kui ka tagatis pärinevad Belgia riigilt.
It notes that the guarantee operation did not occur until the point at which, without the guarantee, Arcofin would have faced a major risk that its shareholders would incur losses linked to Arcofin’s participation in the recapitalisation of Dexia.
Tagatistehing toimus hetkel, mil Arcofin oleks sattunud ülimalt riskantsesse olukorda, kus tema aktsionärid oleksid võinud sattuda Arcofini osalemise tõttu Dexia kapitali suurendamises kahjumisse.
It points to the fact that the announcement of the guarantee plan (on 10 October 2008) was concomitant with the preparations for Dexia’s recapitalisation (which became definitive on 3 October 2008, and was thus prepared before that date), and it considers, in the light of the evidence set out above [103], that Arcofin would not have participated in the recapitalisation of Dexia if it had not been able to count on the guarantee scheme protecting the investment of individual members in cooperatives, disclosure of the plans for which encouraged it to go ahead with the injection of capital.
Komisjon tõstab esile tagatiskavandist teatamise ja Dexia kapitali suurendamise ettevalmistuse ajalist kokkulangevust (esimene leidis aset 10. oktoobril 2008 ning teine realiseerus 3. oktoobril 2008, seega toimusid ettevalmistustööd varem), mistõttu leiab komisjon eespool loetletud asjaolusid arvesse võttes [103], et kui Arcofin ei oleks saanud loota rahandusühistute füüsilisest isikust partnerite investeeringuid kaitsvale tagatismehhanismile, mille kavandi väljakuulutamine motiveeris teda seda kapitalisüsti tegema, ei oleks ta Dexia kapitali suurendamises osalenud.
The measure is thus imputable to the State.
Seega on meede seostatav riigiga.
The EUR 350 million recapitalisation of Dexia by the Arcofin financial cooperative as part of the first Dexia rescue plan is thus imputable to the State.
Dexia kapitali suurendamine 350 miljoni euro võrra rahandusühistu Arcofini poolt Dexia esimese päästeplaani raames on seega seostatav riigiga.
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.
Muud riigiabina määratlemise tingimused on täidetud põhjustel, mis on esitatud juba 13. märtsi 2009. aasta ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsuses [104] ning tingimuslikus otsuses [105]: ilma Belgia riigi tagatiseta ei oleks Arcofin kapitali suurendamises osalenud, kuna see andis Dexia kontsernile olulise eelise maksejõuetusriski vähendamise näol; kapitali suurendamine on valikuline, kuna puudutab vaid ühte ettevõtet – Dexia kontserni; samuti Dexia suuruse ja mõjukuse tõttu Belgia, Prantsuse ja Luksemburgi turul ning põhjusel, et ilma sekkumisteta oleks kontsern muutunud maksejõuetuks ja see oleks muutnud väga olulisel määral pangandusturu struktuuri kolmes nimetatud riigis. Seepärast leiab komisjon, et vaadeldavad meetmed mõjutavad liikmesriikide vahelist kaubandust ning moonutavad või tõenäoliselt moonutavad konkurentsi.
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.
Komisjon rõhutab, et Dexia kapitali suurendamises Arcofini osalemise seostatavust riigiga ei saa panna kahtluse alla riigiabijuhtumis SA.33927 „tagatisskeem rahandusühistu üksikliikmete osakute kaitseks” tehtud järelduse tõttu, mille kohaselt ei kujuta tagatisskeem Arcofinile antud riigiabi.
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.
Arcofin ei olnud ehk tõesti ise tagatisskeemi alusel antud riigiabi saaja, kuid võttis meetme, mis on seostatav riigiabiga, nagu komisjon on käesolevas otsuses märkinud.
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.
Tingimusliku otsusega tipneva menetluse raames ei teavitanud Belgia ametiasutused komisjoni rahandusühistute füüsilisest isikust partnerite osakapitali kaitsva tagatisskeemiga seotud asjaoludest.
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.
Tervikteabe puudumine Arcofini osalemist ümbritsevate tingimuste kohta kapitali suurendamise tehingus oli määrava tähtsusega komisjoni poolt tingimuslikus otsuses tehtud järelduses, et investeering ei sisalda riigiabi ning et muud abikomponendid on siseturuga kokkusobivad.
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.
Dexiale antud abi oli tegelikkuses suurem, kui komisjon oma tingimuslikus otsuses määratles, mistõttu võis komisjonile ette antud ekslik abisumma avaldada määravat mõju komisjoni tehtud analüüsile.
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.
Seega edastas komisjon asjaomastele liikmesriikidele kirja, milles teatas oma kavatsusest algatada ametlik uurimismenetlus, et võtta tagasi tingimusliku otsuse kõik sätted, milles on käsitletud Arcofini osalemist Dexia kapitali suurendamises.
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.
Samuti hoiatati asjaomaseid liikmesriike, et tingimuslikus otsuses käsitletud kõigi abimeetmete kokkusobivus vaadatakse läbi, kui peaks toimuma uue täiendava abi andmine Arcofini osalemise näol Dexia kapitali suurendamises, uus abi andmine või tõenäoline andmine tingimuslikus otsuses käsitletud ümberkorraldusperioodil või sama otsuse teatavate kohustuste ja tingimuste mittetäitmine.
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.
Seejärel kutsus komisjon menetluse pikendamise otsuses asjaomaseid liikmesriike esitama oma märkusi ja andma mis tahes selleteemalist teavet, et oleks võimalik teha kindlaks, kas tingimuslik otsus tuleb tagasi võtta.
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.
Eespool nimetatud põhjustel ja pärast asjaomaste liikmesriikide esitatud märkuste analüüsimist otsustas komisjon tingimusliku otsuse tagasi võtta.
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.
See-eest leiab komisjon, et tingimuslikus otsuses juba esitatud analüüs abimeetmete olemasolu kohta (vt põhjendused 121–138) jääb täielikult jõusse.
Additional aid paid (after the conditional authorisation decision)
Tingimusliku otsuse järgselt antud täiendav abi
Temporary refinancing guarantees for Dexia SA, DCL and their subsidiaries (initially for EUR 45 billion, increased to EUR 55 billion)
ajutised refinantseerimistagatised Dexia SA-le, DCL-ile ja nende tütarettevõtjatele (esialgses summas 45 miljardit eurot, mis kasvasid 55 miljardile eurole).
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.
Asjaomaste liikmesriikide ajutine tagatis Dexia SA ja DCL-i refinantseerimiseks (mis kiideti ajutiselt heaks) määratleti riigiabina ajutise heakskiitmise otsuses [106], tagatise esimese pikendamise otsuses [107], otsuses ajutise tagatise ülemmäära tõstmise kohta [108] ning otsuses tagatise teistkordse pikendamise kohta [109] esialgu summas 45 miljardit eurot ning seejärel 55 miljardit eurot.
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.
Oma 19. aprilli 2008. aasta [110] ja 30. oktoobri 2009. aasta [111] otsustes oli komisjon juba määratlenud riigiabina 2008. aasta oktoobri kokkuleppe tulemusel asjaomaste liikmesriikide poolt Dexia finantseeringuks antud tagatismehhanismi.
The Commission reiterates the reasons already given in the above decisions for classifying the refinancing guarantee for Dexia SA and DCL as State aid.
Komisjon tõstab esile oma eelmistes otsustes juba nimetatud põhjused ja juhib tähelepanu, et otsuste kohaselt on Dexia SA ja DCL-i refinantseerimistagatise näol tegemist riigiabiga.
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.
Komisjon märgib, et asjaomased liikmesriigid õigustavad ajutise refinantseerimistagatise andmist Dexia suutmatusega refinantseerida end turgudelt.
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.
Seepärast leiab komisjon, et tagatist ei hüvitata turumäära alusel ning see kujutab abisaajale eelist.
The measure is selective in that it relates to only one undertaking, Dexia (Dexia SA and DCL being the legal persons which directly benefit).
Meede on valikuline, kuna hõlmab vaid ühte ettevõtet (Dexia SA ja DCL on vahetult kasu saavad juriidilised isikud).
The temporary refinancing guarantee granted by the Member States concerned clearly involves State resources.
Asjaomaste liikmesriikide antud ajutine refinantseerimistagatis sisaldab ilmselgelt riigi vahendeid.
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.
Võttes arvesse Dexia suurust ning asjaolu, et ilma ajutise refinantseerimistagatiseta oleks pank oma likviidsus-, vara kvaliteedi, kasumlikkus- ja maksejõulisusprobleemide tõttu olnud kiire ja korrastamatu likvideerimise ohus, mis oleks mõjutanud mitme liikmesriigi pangandusturu struktuuri, leiab komisjon, et meede mõjutab liikmesriikide vahelist kaubandust ning moonutab või ähvardab moonutada konkurentsi.
ELA granted by the Belgian and French central banks to DBB/Belfius and DCL respectively
erakorraline likviidsusabi, mida Belgia ja Prantsuse keskpank vastavalt DBB/Belfiusele ja DCLile andsid
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.
Komisjoni arvates asetub alates 5. oktoobrist 2011 antud erakorraline likviidsusabi Dexia ja DBB/Belfiuse (pärast DBB/Belfiuse müüki) suhtes võetud uute meetmete raamistikku, mis võeti (või kavatseti võtta) pärast Dexia esimese ümberkorralduskava heakskiitmist 26. veebruaril 2010, nagu ka eelkõige ajutine refinantseerimistagatis, DBB/Belfiuse müük, Dexia BILi müük ning Dexia saneerimise kava raames ette nähtud meetmed.
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’.
Vastuseks asjaomaste liikmesriikide märkustele erakorralise likviidsusabi kohta [112] märgib komisjon, et pangandusteatise punkti 51 kohaselt on abi puudumise üks tingimus see, et meetmel […] puudub riiklik […] edasitagatis.
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.
Komisjon täheldab, et riigi tagatise näol DBB/Belfiusele antud erakorraline likviidsusabi kuulub Belgia riigi poolt Belgia keskpangale 22. veebruari 1998. aasta seaduse (millega kehtestati Belgia keskpanga põhikiri) alusel antud tagatise raamistikku.
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’.
Komisjon ei jaga Belgia ametiasutuste arvamust, mille kohaselt ei kuulunud Belgia riigi tagatis keskpangale pangandusteatise raamistikku [113], sest tagatis ei olevat spetsiaalselt erakorralise likviidsusabi tarbeks võetud „kriisijuhtimismeede”, vaid „et sellega tagatakse kõik [sic] Belgia keskpanga antud laenud määral, mil nende eesmärk on aidata keskpanga poolt kaasa finantssüsteemi stabiilsusele, mis läheb kriisijuhtimismeetmetest oluliselt kaugemale”.
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.
Komisjon toob välja, et riikliku edasitagatise puudumist, millele osutati pangandusteatises kui ühele riigiabi välistavale kumulatiivsele kriteeriumile, ei ole varem määratletud.
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.
Teatises ei ole kusagil isegi kaudselt märgitud, et selline edasitagatis tuleb anda spetsiaalselt praeguse finantskriisi vastu võitlemiseks.
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.
Pangandusteatise punktis 51 määratletud kriteeriumid kajastavad see-eest komisjoni 5. detsembri 2007. aasta otsuse Northern Rock [114] põhjendustes 32 ja 33 esitatud analüüsi, mis pärineb palju varasemast ajast, kui hakati ellu viima finantskriisi õiguslikku raamistikku.
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.
Seega piisab, kui riiklik edasitagatis katab keskpanga antavad vahendid, ilma et oleks vajalik anda edasitagatist spetsiaalselt erakorralisele likviidsusabile, nagu on toonud välja Belgia ametiasutused.