natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As such, even if the maturity extension was provided, there was no evidence that Citadele without the Wealth Management Business could be sold at […] which leads the Commission to conclude that in June 2013 Latvia did not have […] in its investment to be preserved which was […] for providing the Second Measure.
Turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtja põhimõtte kohaldamise mõttes ei saa komisjon nõustuda sellega, et ettevõtte enamusaktsionär oleks olnud nõus katma kogu kulu, mis oli seotud kõnealusesse ettevõttesse tehtud investeeringute väärtuse säilitamisega, ja kaitsnud sellega vähemusaktsionäri investeeringu väärtust, ilma et ta oleks isegi pöördunud viimatinimetatu poole sooviga paluda tema osalust.
Those further reasons also lead the Commission to consider that the Second Measure cannot be considered to be in line with the behaviour of a market economy operator finding itself in a comparable position to that of Latvia in June 2013.
Kõiki neid tegureid silmas pidades on asjaolu, et 1. märtsist 2013 kuni 27. juunini 2013 ei pöördutud kordagi EBRD poole, järjekordne märk sellest, et teist meedet ei viidud ellu kooskõlas turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtja põhimõtte nõuetega.
In the fourth and final place, the Commission also notes that the EBRD, which in June 2013 was the only other shareholder of Citadele apart from the Latvian State, did not prolong the maturity of its outstanding subordinated loan to Citadele and that Latvia never approached the EBRD to discuss the latter's participation in the Second Measure, as explained in recitals 46 to 48.
Kõigil neljal põhjendustes 85–103 esitatud põhjusel ei ole üheselt ega objektiivsete ja kontrollitavate tõendite põhjal tõendatud, et teine meede pärineb liikmesriigilt, kes tegutseb nagu eraaktsionär.
That absence of any attempt to discuss sharing the burden of the cost of the Second Measure if that measure was to be a means to preserve the value of investments in Citadele is an additional indication that the Second Measure was not in line with the requirements of the market economy operator principle.
Neil asjaoludel ei saa komisjon nõustuda sellega, et Citadele võiks saada tavapärastele turutingimustele vastavates tingimustes sama eelise kui see, mis on antud talle teise meetme kujul riigi ressursside abil.
In that context, the Commission considers that a majority shareholder would have exploited the entire 10-month period in order identify an adequate solution to meet the new capital requirement which minimised its own costs.
Lisaks on kõnealune meede valikuline, sest see toob kasu üksnes Citadelele.
As such, Latvia's argument regarding the facilitation of the sale of Citadele does not explain why the Second Measure was adopted without any approach to the minority shareholder of Citadele within 4 months of the FCMC letter rather exploiting more of the period of up to 10 months that could have been taken.
Seda rahastatakse riigi ressurssidest.
Furthermore, even if the participation of the EBRD in a maturity extension would have involved a measure with characteristics different from those of the Second Measure, Latvia does not provide any evidence that such a different measure including the EBRD would have been less effective than the Second Measure or that it would have been more costly to the majority shareholder compared with the costs of the Second Measure itself.
Nagu Läti on selgitanud põhjenduses 45, ei oleks turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev kolmandast isikust ettevõtja võtnud võrreldavatel tingimustel 2013. aasta juunis teise meetmega sarnanevat meedet.
As for Latvia's argument that an extension by the EBRD of the maturity of its subordinated loan would have led to additional burdens at the time of the sale of Citadele, the Latvian authorities have not produced any element to show that such an extension would in fact have created such additional costs.
Seepärast kinnitab komisjon oma menetluse algatamise otsuses antud esialgset hinnangut, et teine meede kujutab endast täiendavat riigiabi.
No specific study of the costs of divestment of Citadele after the Second Measure compared with the costs of a hypothetical sale of Citadele after an extension in which the EBRD participated has been carried out to justify Latvia's assertion that there would have been additional burdens.
Kolmas meede
Finally, as noted in recital 48(c), Latvia explains that it believed that the EBRD would have been willing to extend the maturity of its loans to Citadele.
Komisjon märkis tollal, et Parex Bankal puuduvad likviidsed tagatised ja et Läti on hoiustanud vahendid panga likviidsusvajadusi arvesse võttes ajal, mil Parex Banka ebakindla olukorra tõttu ei olnud valmis likviidsust pakkuma ükski turuinvestor [29].
In that situation, even if the EBRD's involvement would have led to more complexity, the Commission considers that a private majority shareholder which was contemplating extending the maturity of its own existing subordinated debt in favour of Citadele would have at least made an approach to the minority shareholder which was also a holder of subordinated debt of Citadele to see if the latter would have either: (i) shared the costs of the additional support to Citadele by extending its own loans' maturity date; or (ii) entered into some alternative arrangement dir ectly with the majority shareholder to defray the costs of the Second Measure to the majority shareholder.
Pärast Parexit käsitleva lõpliku otsuse tegemist (ning panga jagamist toimivaks pangaks ja rämpspangaks) kanti likviidsustoetus üle Citadelele ja Revertale.
Within the application of the market economy operator principle the Commission cannot accept that a majority shareholder of a company would have accepted all of the cost of protecting the value of all investments in that company and thereby have protected the value of the investment of a minority shareholder without even approaching the latter to seek a contribution from it.
Neist esimene on oma osa likviidsustoetusest juba täielikult tagasi maksnud.
In view of each of those factors, the absence of any approach to the EBRD in the period between 1 March 2013 and 27 June 2013 is a further indication that the Second Measure was not conducted in compliance with the requirements of the market economy operator principle.
Selle täiendava likviidsustoetusega antakse võrreldes päästmisotsustes ja Parexit käsitlevas lõplikus otsuses heaks kiidetud abiga Revertale lisaeelis.
For each of the four reasons set out in recitals 85 to 103, it has not been established unequivocally and on the basis of objective and verifiable evidence that the Second Measure is to be ascribed to the Member State acting as private shareholder.
Läti ei ole väitnud, et ta toimis sellise likviidsuse pakkumisel turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva laenuandjana.
In those circumstances, the Commission cannot accept that Citadele could, in circumstances which correspond to normal market conditions, obtain the same advantage as that which has been made available to it through State resources in the form of the Second Measure.
Samuti ei ole Läti esitanud mingeid andmeid, mis võimaldaksid komisjonil järeldada, et Reverta võiks saada tavapärastele turutingimustele vastavates tingimustes sama eelise kui see, mis on antud talle kolmanda meetme kujul riigi ressurssidest.
Latvia has implemented the Second Measure for Citadele which is and will be active on markets open to international competition.
Ühtki muud likviidsustoetuse näitajat peale selle summa ei ole muudetud, seega leiab komisjon, et kõnealune meede kujutab endast riigiabi.
Therefore any advantage from State resources would affect competition in the banking sector and have an impact on intra-Union trade.
Kuna põhjenduste 106 ja 107 kohaselt antakse suurema likviidsustoetusega selgelt lisaeelis võrreldes heakskiidetud abimeetmetega, kujutab see endast täiendavat abi (kuivõrd kõik teised aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 kriteeriumid on endiselt täidetud).
Furthermore, that measure is selective as it solely benefits Citadele.
Uue täiendava abi kokkusobivuse õiguslik alus
The Commission therefore confirms its previously provisional assessment from the Opening Decision that the Second Measure represents additional State aid.
Seepärast hinnati Parex Banka jaoks heaks kiidetud meetmeid päästmisotsustes ja Parexit käsitlevas lõplikus otsuses aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti b alusel ning finantskriisi kontekstis vastu võetud ja abi andmisel jõus olnud teatiste põhjal [30].
The Third Measure
Komisjon leiab, et esimese ja teise meetme kaudu antud täiendava abi puhul kehtib tulenevalt meetmete võtmise ajast ja meetmete sarnasusest heakskiidetud abimeetmetega sama õiguslik alus.
With regard to the liquidity support granted to Reverta, it was initially approved as part of the compatible State aid measures approved in the first rescue Decision, in the form of State deposits.
Tegelikult tuleb kontrollida selle teatise alusel ükskõik millist abi, mis on antud ilma komisjoni loata täielikult või osaliselt (ja seega rikkudes aluslepingu artikli 108 lõiget 3) pärast 2013. aasta pangandusteatise avaldamist Euroopa Liidu Teatajas.
At that time, the Commission noted that Parex banka lacked liquid collateral and that Latvia had deposited the funds, taking into account the bank's liquidity needs, when no market investor was willing to provide liquidity in view of the fragile situation of Parex banka [29].
Kuna kolmandat meedet on kohaldatud alates 2011. aastast kuni praeguse hetkeni pidevalt, võib järeldada, et abi anti osaliselt pärast 2013. aasta pangandusteatise avaldamist Euroopa Liidu Teatajas 1. augustil 2013.
Following the Parex Final Decision (and the split into a good and a bad bank) the liquidity aid was subsequently transferred to Citadele and Reverta.
Abi kokkusobivus siseturuga
The former has already repaid in full its share of the liquidity support.
Esimene meede
Reverta was required to limit the amounts of liquidity support it received, as set out in recital 19(c).
Läti poolt Parex Bankale antud allutatud laenu tähtaeg oli alates laenu andmise kuupäevast (22. mai 2009) seitse aastat (st 21. mai 2016) ning seega ületas see esimeses päästmisotsuses kindlaks määratud ja hiljem Parexit käsitlevas lõplikus otsuses kinnitatud viieaastast maksimumtähtaega.
However, the amount of liquidity support actually granted to Reverta exceeds even the levels foreseen for the worst case scenario which was approved in the Parex Final Decision.
Meetmest komisjoni ei teavitatud.
That additional liquidity support provides a supplementary advantage for Reverta compared to the aid approved by the Rescue Decisions and Parex Final Decision.
Täiendav abimeede seisnes allutatud laenudele otsustes ette nähtust pikema tähtaja kehtestamises.
None of the other features of the liquidity support apart from its quantity have been altered and so the Commission concludes that the measure constitutes State aid.
Komisjon tuletas menetluse algatamise otsuses meelde, et päästmisotsustes anti Parex Banka puhul heaks kiidetud viieaastase tähtajaga allutatud laenule hinnang, mille kohaselt oli selle summa ja tähtaja puhul piirdutud minimaalse vajalikuga.
On the basis of recitals 106 and 107, as the increased liquidity support clearly represents an additional advantage compared to the approved aid measures, it therefore represents additional aid (as all of the other criteria under Article 107(1) of the Treaty are still in place).
Selle järelduse põhjal oli viieaastast allutatud laenu peetud päästmisotsustes ja Parexit käsitlevas lõplikus otsuses siseturuga kokkusobivaks.
Legal basis for the compatibility of the new additional aid
Päästmisotsustes ja Parexit käsitlevas lõplikus otsuses esitatud väidete põhjal ning uute väidete puudumise tõttu väljendas komisjon kahtlust algselt heaks kiidetud viie aasta asemel seitsme aasta pikkuse tähtajaga antud allutatud laenude pikema tähtaja kokkusobivuse suhtes.
Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty empowers the Commission to find that aid is compatible with the internal market if it serves ‘to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State’.
Võttes arvesse uusi väiteid, mille Läti esitas pärast menetluse algatamise otsuse tegemist ja mida on kirjeldatud punktis 5.1, tuleb komisjonil uuesti hinnata, kas seitsmeaastase tähtajaga allutatud laenud, mille Läti andis Parex Bankale, vastavad kokkusobivusnõudele, mille kohaselt tuleb riigiabi puhul piirduda minimaalselt vajalikuga.
Given the systemic importance of Parex banka (which was a leading bank in Latvia) and the significance of its lending activities for the Latvian economy at the time of the approval of the aid measures, the Commission accepted that the failure to address the bank's difficulties would have entailed serious consequences for the Latvian economy.
Vastavalt 2008. aasta pangandusteatisele peab abimeede olema oma suuruselt ja vormilt vajalik püstitatud eesmärgi saavutamiseks.
In the Rescue Decisions and the Parex Final Decision, the aid measures approved for Parex banka were therefore assessed under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty, as well as on the basis of the Communications [30] adopted in the context of the financial crisis that were in force at the time the aid was granted.
See tähendab, et kapitalisüsti tegemisel tuleb piirduda eesmärgi saavutamiseks vajaliku miinimumsummaga.
The Commission considers that the same legal basis applies to the additional aid granted thought the First and Second Measures, based on the timing of their implementation and their similar characteristics to the approved aid measures.
Teise taseme omavahenditeks kvalifitseeruva allutatud laenu andmisel Parex Bankale oli eesmärk võimaldada pangal säilitada kapitali adekvaatsuse määr ning tagada panga piisav kapitaliseeritus, et see suudaks paremini kanda võimalikke kahjusid, vältimaks tõsiseid häireid Läti majanduses.
As regards the Third Measure, the Commission's compatibility assessment has to be conducted on the basis of the updated criteria set out in the 20 13 Banking Communication [31].
Esimeses päästmisotsuses põhinesid komisjoni arvesse võetud miinimumnõuded, millele allutatud laenud pidid Parex Banka teise taseme omavahenditeks kvalifitseerumiseks vastama, Läti kohaldatavatel õigusaktidel, nagu Läti oli need edastanud [32].
Indeed, any aid wholly or partially granted without the Commission's authorisation (and therefore in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty) after the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the 2013 Banking Communication has to be examined on the basis of that Communication.
Tehti kindlaks, et allutatud laenu kvalifitseerumiseks teise taseme omavahenditeks oli miinimumtähtaeg viis aastat.
Since the Third Measure has been applied continuously starting 2011 and until the present time, it can be concluded that the aid was partially granted after 1 August 2013, the publication date in the Official Journal of the European Union of the 2013 Banking Communication.
Järgnevates otsustes seda hinnangut ei muudetud.
Compatibility of the aid with the internal market
Olles läbi vaadanud Läti esitatud lisateabe, mida on käsitletud põhjendustes 30–39, tunnistab komisjon, et lisapiirangud muutsid allutatud laenude omadusi, mis olid vajalikud kvalifitseerumiseks 2010. aastani täielikult teise taseme omavahenditeks.
Regarding the First Measure
Eelkõige märgib komisjon, et allutatud laenude esialgse miinimumtähtaja kindlaksmääramisel oli eriti oluline tegur Basel II raamistiku kriteeriumide mõju 2009. aastal Parex Banka poolt saadud teise taseme omavahenditeks kvalifitseeruvate allutatud laenude summale.
The subordinated loan granted by Latvia to Parex banka had since its issuance date (22 May 2009) a maturity of seven years (i.e. until 21 May 2016) and so exceeded the maximum five-year maturity which was set forth in first rescue Decision and later confirmed in the Parex Final Decision.
Et saavutada abimeetme lõppeesmärk tagada Parex Banka piisav kapitaliseeritus ja vältida esialgse allutatud laenu andmise ajal tõsiseid häireid Läti majanduses, tuli nõuetekohaselt arvesse võtta Basel II amortiseerimistegurit.
The measure was not notified to the Commission.
Komisjon leiab, et kui eeldused ja prognoosid, mille Läti esitas päästmisotsuste tegemise ajal, oleksid asjakohaselt ja täielikult kajastanud allutatud võlakirjade Basel II eeskirjade kohast amortisatsiooni, nagu seda on kirjeldatud põhjenduses 37, oleks allutatud laenude tähtaja kohta antud teistsugune hinnang ja jõutud järeldusele, et minimaalselt vajalik ei ole mitte viis, vaid seitse aastat.
In respect to that additional aid measure, represented by a maturity of the subordinated loans in excess of the terms of the Decisions, the Commission had doubts that it was kept at minimum necessary, and therefore could not conclude that all the criteria for compatibility were met.
Samuti tuletab komisjon meelde, et kolmandas päästmisotsuses lähtuti abi kokkusobivuse hindamisel muu hulgas Läti ametiasutuste võetud kohustusest müüa oma aktsiad Parex Bankas võimalikult ruttu, hiljemalt kolm aastat pärast esimeste päästmismeetmete võtmist Parex Banka suhtes, [33] st mitte hiljem kui 2011. aastal.
In the Opening Decision, the Commission thus recalled that the subordinated loan approved for Parex banka with a five-year maturity had been assessed in the Rescue Decisions as being limited to the minimum necessary in amount and maturity.
Nende asjaolude valguses võib komisjoni meelest pidada esialgse seitsmeaastase tähtaja kehtestamist minimaalselt vajalikuks, et võimaldada Läti antud allutatud laenudel kvalifitseeruda täielikult teise taseme omavahenditeks ning tagada, et Parex Banka saavutab kapitali adekvaatsuse sihtmäära eesmärgiga säilitada Läti pangandussüsteemi stabiilsus ja täita kohustus pank ära müüa.
Based on that conclusion, the five-year subordinated loan had been therefore qualified as compatible by the Rescue Decisions and the Parex Final Decision.
Allutatud laenude tähtaja pikendamine, millest jäeti teatamata (teine meede)
On the basis of the arguments presented in the Rescue Decisions and the Parex Final Decision, and in absence of new arguments, the Commission expressed doubts on the compatibility of the extended maturity of subordinated loans issued with a maturity of seven years instead of five years as initially approved.
Komisjon avaldas menetluse algatamise otsuses kahtlust, kas täiendavat abi, mida kujutas endast allutatud laenude tagasimaksmiseks antud 18kuuline ajapikendus, saab pidada siseturuga kokkusobivaks, kuivõrd olemasoleva hinnangu põhjal tagas minimaalselt vajalikuga piirdumise allutatud laenu viieaastase tähtaja kehtestamine ning kokkusobivuse põhjendamiseks ei olnud laekunud ühtki uut väidet.
In light of the new arguments brought forward by Latvia following the Opening Decision, and reported in section 5.1, the Commission is in a position to re-assess if the subordinated loans with a seven-year maturity granted by Latvia to Parex banka meet the compatibility requirement of State aid being limited to the minimum necessary.
Võttes arvesse teavet, mille Läti esitas pärast menetluse algatamise otsuse tegemist, märgib komisjon, et 2013. aastal tehti seoses miinimumkapitali nõuetega regulatiivseid muudatusi [34].
According to the 2008 Banking Communication, an aid measure must, in its amount and form, be necessary to achieve the objective pursued.
Sellega seoses on komisjonile esitatud kiri, mille finants- ja kapitaliturgude komisjon saatis 1. märtsil 2013 Citadelele.
It means that the capital injection must be of the minimum amount necessary to achieve the objective.
Kiri sisaldab pangandust reguleeriva asutuse vastust sisemise kapitali adekvaatsuse hindamise aruandele, mille Citadele esitas finants- ja kapitaliturgude komisjonile 30. juunil 2012 pangas valitsenud finantsolukorra kohta.
The objective of granting a subordinated loan qualifying as Tier 2 capital to Parex banka was to enable the latter to continue to satisfy the capital adequacy ratio and to ensure that it is sufficiently capitalised so as to better withstand potential losses, in order to avoid a serious disturbance in the Latvian economy.
Selles 1. märtsi 2013. aasta kirjas on kõigepealt juhitud tähelepanu asjaolule, et finants- ja kapitaliturgude poliitikadokumentide kohaselt peab kõikide pankade kapitali adekvaatsuse määr olema üle 10 %.
In the first recue Decision, the minimum requirements for the subordinated loans to be eligible as Tier 2 capital of Parex banka taken into account by the Commission were based on the applicable Latvian legislation as communicated by Latvia [32].
Seejärel on seal selgelt öeldud, et kui panga ja konsolideerimisgrupi kapitali adekvaatsuse määr langeb alla 10 %, peetakse panka ja konsolideerimisgruppi ebapiisavalt kapitaliseerituks ning finants- ja kapitaliturgude komisjon võib võtta parandusmeetmeid, nt piirata panga tegevust.
It was thus established that the minimum maturity for the subordinated loan to qualify as Tier 2 capital was of five years.
Kirjas on lisatud, et Citadele ja tema konsolideerimisgrupi puhul pidi kapitali adekvaatsuse määr tõusma 2013. aasta lõpuks […] %ni, et katta Citadele tegevusest tulenevad olemasolevad ja võimalikud riskid.
That assessment was not altered by the subsequent decisions.
Selle kirja põhjal nõustub komisjon, et Citadele kapitali adekvaatsuse määr pidi ületama 2013. aasta lõpus vähemalt 10 %, et panga tegevus saaks täies mahus jätkuda.
Having reviewed the additional information provided by Latvia and reflected in recitals 30 to 39, the Commission acknowledges that additional constraints modified the characteristics of the subordinated loans required for them to fully qualify as Tier 2 until 2010.
Komisjon tuletab meelde, et riigiabi andmisel allutatud laenude kujul oli lõppeesmärk — nagu määrati kindlaks päästmisotsustes ja Parexit käsitlevas lõplikus otsuses — tagada Parex Banka (pärast 2010. aastat Citadele) piisav kapitaliseeritus, et vältida tõsiseid häireid Läti majanduses.
In particular, the Commission notes that the impact of the criteria of the Basel II framework on the amount of subordinated loans received by Parex banka in 2009 being eligible as Tier 2 capital represented a fundamental element for defining the minimum initial maturity of the subordinated loans.
Et vältida uute nõuete valguses võimalikku kapitalipuudujääki, oleksid olnud ainukesed võimalikud lahendused:
The proper consideration of the Basel II amortization factor was necessary to achieve the ultimate objective of the aid measure, namely to ensure sufficient capitalisation of Parex banka and avoiding a serious disturbance in the Latvian economy at the time when the initial subordinated loan was granted.
paigutada panka uusi vahendeid kas esimese taseme omavahenditena või teise taseme omavahenditena (nt anda uusi allutatud laene);
The Commission considers that, if the assumptions and projections presented by Latvia at the time of the Rescue Decisions had adequately and completely reflected the subordinated debt amortization under Basel II rules as reflected in recital 37, they would have led to a different assessment of the maturity of the subordinated loans, concluding seven years was the minimum necessary and not five years.
pikendada olemasolevate allutatud laenude tähtaega, et korrigeerida nende amortisatsioonimäära ja võimaldada suuremal osal laenudest panustada panga kapitali.
The Commission also recalls that the compatibility assessment of the aid in third rescue Decision relied, inter alia, on the Latvian authorities' commitment that they would sell their shares in Parex banka as soon as possible, but not later than a period of three years after the first rescue measures were provided to Parex banka [33], i.e. not later than 2011.
Tabel 2
In light of these circumstances, the Commission considers that setting the initial maturity at seven years can be considered the minimum necessary to allow the subordinated loans provided by Latvia to fully qualify as Tier 2 capital and ensure that Parex banka achieved the target capital adequacy ratio, for reasons of preserving the stability within the Latvian banking system, as well as of complying with the commitment to sell the bank.
Kapitali adekvaatsuse määr tähtaja pikendamise korral ja tähtaja pikendamata jätmise korral