natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, Germany committed that OpCo would comply with certain liquidity benchmarks [31] and with restrictions regarding the remuneration of OpCo's employees and members of its boards and other bodies.
Nagu juba märgitud, väitis Saksamaa 2013. aasta jaanuaris juhuks, kui komisjon peaks liigitama garantii ülempiiri suurendamise uueks abiks, et selle kokkusobivus siseturuga on kindlaks tehtud juba 2011. aasta otsuses, nii et komisjon on nüüd selle hinnanguga seotud ega saa teistsugust järeldust teha [42].
Therefore, the total remuneration of any of those individuals will not exceed 15 times the national average salary in Germany or 10 times the average salary of HSH Nordbank (before the split) [32].
Komisjon selgitas algatamisotsuses, et ta tunnistas 10 miljardi euro suuruse ülempiiri 2011. aastal küll siseturuga kokkusobivaks, aga et see hinnang põhines hinnangul, mis anti Saksamaa 30. aprillil 2009 teatatud garantiile, 2011. aasta otsuse tegemise aegsel majandusolukorral ja finantsprognoosidel, mille HSH oli esitanud kõnealuses otsuses kontrollimise alusena.
Grounds for initiating the procedure
Nii lähtuti ümberkorralduskavas sel ajal sellest, et HSH maksab garantiitasusid ainult 7 miljardi euro suuruse garantii eest [43].
As mentioned in recitals 2 and 15, the ceiling amount of the guarantee was reduced to EUR 7 billion in 2011 but had to be re-increased back to the initial level of EUR 10 billion in June 2013 due to a deterioration of the shipping market since 2011 (see recitals 16 and 17).
Edasi märkis komisjon algatamisotsuses, et tegurid, mis on olulised uue abi siseturuga kokkusobivuse hindamisel, olid küll olulised ka eelneva hinnangu seisukohalt, kuid neid tuleb siiski nende praegusel kujul kontrollida.
Germany notified the re-increase.
Otsustamaks, kas abi on siseturuga kokkusobiv, tuleb seetõttu eelkõige hinnata HSH elujõulisust praeguses majandusolukorras [44].
It took the position that the guarantee constituted aid but doubted that re-instating a ceiling amount of EUR 10 billion was to be considered new aid since exactly the same upper threshold had been already approved in the 2011 decision [33].
Sellega seoses tegi komisjon kindlaks, et majandusolukord laevandussektoris – HSH äritegevuse põhivaldkonnas, mida nimetati panga elujõulisuse seisukohast problemaatiliseks juba 2011. aasta otsuses – on vahepeal veelgi halvenenud.
It furthermore argued that, even if the Commission were to consider the re-increase to be new aid, it was already found compatible under the 2011 decision [34].
Kriis laevandussektoris osutus seega oodatust pikemaks ja raskemaks, kahjustas laevanduse rahastamise valdkonna krediidivõimet üldiselt ja põhjustas HSH riskiga kaalutud varade mahu kasvu [45].
However, the Commission decided that re-increase was new aid in the Opening decision.
Komisjon märkis algatamisotsuses, et garantii suurendamine tooks kaasa suuremad garantiitasud summas ligikaudu 1 miljard eurot ja et need lisakulud kahjustaksid oluliselt HSH elujõulisust tulevikus [46].
First, the increase of the guarantee was granted by the Finanzfonds, owned by Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein, thus stemming from State resources and supporting an internationally active bank, thereby affecting competition in the banking sector and having an impact on intra-Union trade [35].
Isegi kui lisanduvad garantiitasud sisalduksid koos garantii taassuurendamise teatega 2013. aastal esitatud äriplaanis, oleks komisjonil kahtlusi äriplaani aluseks olevate eelduste vastupidavuse suhtes.
Since the guarantee at such conditions would not have been provided by a private investor, it gave HSH an advantage constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU [36].
Lisaks märkis komisjon, et puudu on ajakohastatud stressistsenaarium.
Secondly, although Germany took the position that the re-increase could not be considered as new aid since the ceiling amount EUR 10 billion had already been approved by the 2011 decision, the Commission explained in the Opening decision that the cancellation of a guarantee is of a binding character and that any re-instatement had to be considered as a new agreement between guarantor and the guarantee holder, based on a new economic assessment of the risk factors that may have changed over time.
Kuna HSH-l ei õnnestunud 2011. aasta ümberkorralduskavas ette nähtud finantsprognoose täita ja oodatud mahus uusi tehinguid teha, tõstatas komisjon küsimuse, kas HSH äristrateegia kohandamine on vajalik ja kas panga pikaajalise elujõulisuse taastamiseks tuleks võtta alternatiivseid meetmeid [47].
Since an increase of the ceiling amount of the guarantee was not provided for in the terms and conditions of the guarantee approved by the 2011 decision, it required a change of the previous terms and conditions.
Nendel põhjustel kahtles komisjon, kas HSH muutub uuesti elujõuliseks, nagu 2011. aasta otsuses eeldati, ning palus lisateavet äriplaanis esitatud eelduste ja laevandusturgude kohta edastatud prognooside kinnituseks ja tõendit selle kohta, et lisanduvad garantiitasud ei ületa panga finantsvõimalusi ka stressistsenaariumi korral [48].
Consequently, the Commission decided that the increase was the granting of a new guarantee [37].
Siiski ei väljendanud komisjon algatamisotsuses kahtlust kulude jagamise või konkurentsimoonutuste piiramise meetmete suhtes, mis olid 2011. aasta otsuses heaks kiidetud, ja märkis, et need meetmed on ka algatamisotsuse tegemise hetkel endiselt asjakohased, kuna uus abi jäi 2011. aastal heaks kiidetud meetme piiridesse [49].
Regarding the temporary compatibility of the aid, the Commission based its assessment in the Opening decision on Article 107(3)(b) TFEU according to which State aid may be considered to be compatible with the internal market where it is intended to ‘remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State’.
Pidades silmas garantii suurendamise vajadust ja asjaolu, et hüvitist peeti asjakohaseks, tegi komisjon kindlaks abi esialgse kokkusobivuse siseturuga [50].
In view of the still fragile situation of the financial markets, the Commission acknowledged that a breakdown of HSH could directly affect the financial markets and thus the entire economy of Germany [38].
SAKSAMAA MÄRKUSED
As to the principles applicable to State aid for financial institutions the Commission referred to point 15 of the 2008 Banking Communication [39], that at the time of the Opening decision had been further elaborated in the Recapitalisation Communication [40] and in the 2010 and 2011 Prolongation Communications [41].
Saksamaa arvates on otsustaval kohal taassuurendamise majanduslik mõju liidumaade kui garantii andjate olukorrale, mis ei ole taassuurendamise tõttu muutunud, sest eelkõige taassuurendamisest mõjutatud garantiiosa kasutuselevõtu tõenäosus ei ole olulisel määral kasvanud.
As mentioned, Germany claimed in 2013 that, even if the Commission were to consider the increase of the guarantee ceiling to be new aid, it had already been found compatible under the 2011 decision so that the Commission would now be bound by that assessment and could not come to a different conclusion [42].
Peale selle kattub taassuurendamine suures ulatuses esialgse garantiiga; komisjon kontrollis seda juba 2011. aasta otsuse tegemisel, sealjuures mitte üksnes põhi-, vaid ka halvima stsenaariumi seisukohast [52].
The Commission explained in the Opening decision that, although it had indeed decided in 2011 that the EUR 10 billion ceiling amount was compatible with the internal market, that assessment was based on the Commission's evaluation of the guarantee as notified by Germany on 30 April 2009 and in light of the economic situation at the moment it adopted the 2011 decision and of the financial projections that HSH presented as basis for the examination in that decision.
Saksamaa asutused selgitasid, et vahepeal toimunud kõrvalekalded äriplaanist ei õigusta mingeid muid järeldusi.
Thus, the restructuring plan at that time assumed that HSH would pay guarantee fees for only a EUR 7 billion guarantee [43].
Garantii osalise lõpetamise edasilükkamisega kahe kuni kolme aasta võrra on laevanduses kestvat kriisi ja järelevalvenõudeid silmas pidades tagatud jätkusuutlikum ja vähem riskidega seotud ärimudel.
The Commission also noted in its Opening decision that the factors relevant for the assessment of the compatibility of the new aid were also relevant for the previous assessment but that they had to be examined in their current form.
Suuremad tasud, mida pank peab garantii taassuurendamise tõttu maksma, on pangale jõukohased, arvestades tema piisavat kapitalibaasi ja 2011. aasta otsusega kinnitatud ümberkorralduskavas sisalduvaid muid meetmeid.
Against that background, in particular the assessment of HSH's viability had to take account of the prevailing economic situation in order to decide on the compatibility of the aid [44].
Lõpuks märkis Saksamaa, et garantii taassuurendamine on vajalik selliste väliste tegurite tõttu nagu jätkuv finantskriis, kasvanud regulatiivsed nõuded finantseerimisasutustele ja üleminek rahvusvahelistele finantsaruandlusstandarditele (edaspidi „IFRS“) kapitali suhtarvu arvutamisel.
Thus, the shipping crisis had proven to be longer and deeper than expected, affected the creditworthiness of ship financing in general and resulted in an increase of risk-weighted assets held by HSH [45].
Nendest jõupingutustest tulenesid seejärel 2016. aasta meetmete tähtsamad põhijooned, milles Saksamaa leppis 2015. aasta oktoobris komisjoniga kokku.
The Commission also noted in the Opening decision that the increase of the guarantee would result in higher guarantee fee payments of approximately EUR 1 billion and that those additional costs would significantly affect HSH's future profitability [46].
Seejärel teatas Saksamaa 21. märtsil 2016 komisjonile 2013. aastal garantii taassuurendamisest riigiabina HSH võõrandamiseks või selle ebaõnnestumise korral likvideerimiseks.
For those reasons the Commission expressed doubts that HSH would return to viability as assumed in the 2011 decision and asked for further information corroborating the assumptions of the business plan and the submitted outlook for the shipping markets as well as for evidence that the additional guarantee fees would not overstretch the bank's financial capacities even in a stress scenario [48].
Saksamaa väljendas algatamisotsuse kohta esitatud märkustes (vt põhjendus 49) küll arvamust, et garantii taassuurendamine ei kujuta endast uut riigiabi – ja juhul kui komisjon peaks ikkagi selle hinnanguni jõudma, siis et sellele abile laienevad 2011. aasta heakskiitmise põhjused –, kuid ei ole seda seisukohta lähemalt selgitanud ega tõenditega kinnitanud.
The Commission, however, did not express doubts in the Opening decision regarding burden-sharing or about the competition measures approved by the 2011 decision and stated that, since the new aid stayed within the boundaries of the measure approved in 2011, those measures were still adequate at that stage [49].
Lõpuks toetas Saksamaa komisjoni hinnangut, kui ta teatas taassuurendamisest uuesti „kui riigiabist ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses“ [55] HSH võõrandamiseks või likvideerimiseks.
In view of the necessity of the guarantee increase and the fact that remuneration was considered appropriate, the Commission concluded that the aid was temporarily compatible with the internal market [50].
Seega jääb komisjon käesolevas otsuses oma algatamisotsuses tehtud järelduse juurde, et kõnealune meede sisaldab riigiabi; see kinnitus antakse algatamisotsuses esitatud põhjustel ilma uue hindamiseta.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
Komisjon peab siiski uurima, kas 2016. aasta meetmed sisaldavad abi [56].
Germany in its comments on the Opening decision [51] repeated, first, the initial position that the re-increase of the guarantee was no new aid measure since the re-increase did not exceed the ceiling of EUR 10 billion approved by the 2011 decision.
Viimaks peab komisjon kontrollima, kas kõnealuseid abimeetmeid – 2013. aasta meedet ja 2016. aasta meetmeid (kui need sisaldavad abi) – saab pidada siseturuga kokkusobivaks.
In Germany's view, the economic effect of the re-increase on the situation of the Länder as guarantors is decisive, and their situation did not change as a consequence of the re-increase, in particular because there was no significantly increased probability of use of the re-increased guarantee tranche.
Komisjon märgib, et Saksamaa arvates ei anta 2016. aasta meetmete raames uut riigiabi.
Moreover, the re-increase was to a large extent congruent with the initial, full guarantee which the Commission had already analysed in the context of the 2011 decision, not only on the basis of a base case but also on the basis of a worst-case scenario [52].
ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 kohaselt „on igasugune liikmesriigi poolt või riigi ressurssidest ükskõik missugusel kujul antav abi, mis kahjustab või ähvardab kahjustada konkurentsi, soodustades teatud ettevõtjaid või teatud kaupade tootmist, siseturuga kokkusobimatu niivõrd, kuivõrd see kahjustab liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust“.
Secondly, Germany confirmed its earlier view that the re-increase, even if qualified as new aid, was covered by the reasons for the approval in 2011 as the Commission noted in the Opening decision when stating that it had no doubts — at that stage — that the burden-sharing and competition measures that were considered as appropriate and sufficient in the 2011 decision were still adequate in view of the new aid staying within the boundaries of the measures approved in the 2011 decision [53].
Meede kujutab endast ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses riigiabi, kui täidetud on järgmised tingimused: a) meede on seostatav riigiga ja seda rahastatakse riigi ressurssidest, b) see annab soodustatud isikule eelise, c) see eelis on valikuline ja d) meede kahjustab või ähvardab kahjustada konkurentsi ja kahjustab liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
According to Germany, the Commission is bound by the reasons it had given for approving the aid in the 2011 decision.
Riigi ressursside kasutamise kohta tuleb märkida, et 2016. aasta 1. meede hõlmab nii järjekohast taganemise klauslit kui ka osalise ajatamise mehhanismi avalik-õiguslike omanike ees olevate garantiitasu maksmise kohustuste täitmiseks.
Thirdly, Germany submitted that the re-increase of the guarantee ceiling supported the purpose of restoring HSH's long-term viability and, furthermore, was in line with the aims of the restructuring plan approved in 2011.
Mõlema eesmärk on HoldCo maksejõuetusriski vähendamine.
In that context, Germany stated that there were no reasons to doubt the long-term viability of the bank and the sustainability of its business model.
Need eeskirjad hõlmavad kohustusi, mis tuleb hüvitisena avalik-õiguslikele omanikele tasuda, ning kui 2016. aasta 1. meede peaks andma HSH-le eelise, võivad need elemendid kaasa tuua riigi ressursside kaotuse.
It contended that the deviations from the business plan that occurred in the meantime did not justify other conclusions.
Komisjon on seetõttu seisukohal, et riigi ressursse sisaldavad 2016. aasta mõlemad meetmed: 1. meede järjekohast taganemise kokkuleppe ning 2011. aasta otsuse alusel garantii eest hüvitisena tasutavate tasude osalise ajatamise mehhanismi tõttu ning 2. meede üleantud varade eest liidumaade tasutud summade alusel.
The delay of the partial guarantee cancellations by 2 to 3 years would ensure a more sustainable and less risky business model, in view of the continuing shipping crisis and having regard to supervisory requirements.
2016. aasta 2. meede – varade omandamine liidumaade poolt – on riigi võetud meede.
The higher fee payments the bank must pay as a consequence of the guarantee re-increase would be sustainable for it given that it has a sufficient capital base and in light of the other measures included in the restructuring plan approved by the 2011 decision.
2016. aasta 1. meede – tasude maksmise struktuuri muutmine – on seostatav Finanzfonds AöR-i avalik-õiguslike omanikega ja seega riigiga.
Finally, Germany noted the need for a re-increased guarantee was caused by exogenous factors such as the continuing financial crisis, the increased regulatory requirements for financial institutions and the change to the accounting standard International Financial Accounting Standards (‘IFRS’) for the calculation of the capital quotas.
See seostatavus seisneb selles, et nimetatud muutmine on osa suuremast meetmepaketist, mille väljatöötamisel liidumaad aktiivselt osalesid.
After making those comments, Germany continued to work closely with the Commission and submitted several updated restructuring plans.
2016. aasta meetmed toovad kasu eranditult HSH-le.
The first was supplied in December 2013, a revised restructuring plan was provided with more prudent assumptions in April 2014 and a further update of the business planning was sent in April 2015.
Seega on need valikulised.
Moreover, when those plans did not assuage the Commission's doubts as to their ability to restore HSH's viability, the German authorities sought other solutions.
Need kahjustavad konkurentsi, takistades turujõudude normaalset toimimist.
Those efforts subsequently resulted in the principal outline of the 2016 measures which Germany agreed with the Commission in October 2015.
Võttes arvesse ELis toimunud finantsteenuste liberaliseerimist, kahjustavad need meetmed liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
Consequently, on 21 March 2016, Germany re-notified the 2013 re-increase of the guarantee as State aid for the sale or, if a sale fails, winding down of HSH.
Et hinnata, kas 2016. aasta meetmed sisaldavad abi, peab komisjon seetõttu kindlaks tegema, kas HSH-le antakse 2016. aasta meetmetega lisaeelis, mis läheb kaugemale talle 2013. aasta meetmega juba antud eelisest.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES
Enne kui komisjon saab hinnata, kas 2016. aasta meetmetega on seotud lisaeelis, peab ta meelde tuletama garantii toimimisviisi; selle põhjal saab ta uurida, kuidas 2016. aasta meetmete võtmine esitatud kujul hakkab garantii toimimisviisi mõjutama.
With regard to the 2013 measure, i.e. the re-increase of the guarantee from EUR 7 billion to EUR 10 billion which had been approved temporarily in the Opening decision, the Commission has already decided that that measure constituted State aid [54].
Garantii toimimine ja 2016. aasta meetmete mõju
Although Germany, in its comments on the Opening decision (see recital 49), took the view that the re-increase did not constitute new aid — and, even if it did, was covered by the reasons for the approval in 2011 — it did not expand on those positions nor did it submit evidence in support of them.
2011. aasta otsusega heaks kiidetud teise järjekoha kahju garantii on sünteetilise väärtpaberistamise kujul.
Finally, by re-notifying the re-increase ‘as State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU’ [55] to be used for the sale or winding down of HSH, Germany confirmed the assessment of the Commission.
See tähendab, et kogu tagatud portfell on jagatud virtuaalselt kolmeks osaks:
As a consequence, the Commission confirms in the present Decision its finding in the Opening decision as to the existence of State aid in that measure and it does so for the reasons set out in that decision and without any reassessment.
3,2 miljardi euro suurune madalama nõudeõiguse järgu seeria ehk esimese järjekoha kahju väärtpaberistamise seeria, mille pank katab täies ulatuses ja mis on juba maha kantud;
However, the Commission has to assess whether there is aid contained in the 2016 measures [56].
10 miljardi euro suurune mezzanine-seeria ehk teise järjekoha kahju väärtpaberistamise seeria, mille riik tagab (allesjäänud 7 miljardi euro suurune summa 2011. aastast ja veel 3 miljardit eurot, mis kiideti algatamisotsuses esialgu heaks);
Finally, the Commission has to assess whether the aid measures in question — the 2013 measure and the 2016 measures (if they contain aid) — can be considered compatible with the internal market.
kõrgema nõudeõiguse järguga väärtpaberistamise seeria.
Existence of aid in the 2016 measures
Garantii olemasolu avaldab põhiliselt kahte liiki mõju: mõju raamatupidamisarvestusele IFRSi alusel ja mõju omakapitalinõuetele regulatiivsete ja järelevalve-eeskirjade raames, nii nagu järelevalveasutus neid kohaldab.
The Commission observes that, according to the German authorities, no additional State aid will be granted as part of the 2016 measures.
Mõju raamatupidamisarvestusele
According to Article 107(1) TFEU, State aid means ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts, or threatens to distort, competition by favouring certain undertakings, in so far as it affects trade between Member States’.
Esiteks hüvitatakse garantiist tagatud portfelli kogu kahjum, mida on rohkem kui 3,2 miljardit eurot, aga mis ei ületa 13,2 miljardit eurot [57].
A measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of that provision if all of the following conditions are met: (a) the measure must be imputable to the State and financed through State resources; (b) it must confer an advantage on its recipient; (c) that advantage must be selective; and (d) the measure must distort or threaten to distort competition and have the potential to affect trade between Member States.
Senikaua, kuni tagatud varasid veel bilansis kajastatakse, tasakaalustatakse nende varadega seoses IFRSi alusel tehtud väärtuse korrigeerimine ja reservid sama suure vastaskirjega.
Regarding State resources, the 2016 measure 1 contains both a subordination clause and a partial deferral mechanism for the guarantee fee obligations towards the public owners.
Alles siis, kui varad on lõpuks likvideeritud ja bilansis enam ei kajastu, nii et tekkinud kahjum on kindlaks tehtud, makstakse hüvitisnõuded garantii raames tegelikult välja.
They were included in order to minimise the insolvency risk as regards HoldCo.
Need erinevad garantii raames kehtivad hüvitisnõuete liigid tähendavad erinevaid määrasid garantii kasutuselevõtul.
Those provisions relate to obligations that are payable to the public owners as remuneration and, if the 2016 measure 1 conferred an advantage on HSH, those elements might entail a loss of State resources.
Tegelikult kasutusele võetud garantii suurus (edaspidi „tegelikult kasutusele võetud garantiisumma“) vastab teatud ajahetkel tagatud portfellist likvideeritud kahjumi summale.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the two 2016 measures involve State resources, the 2016 measure 1 through the subordination agreement and the partial deferral mechanism of fees due as remuneration for the guarantee under the 2011 decision and the 2016 measure 2 through the money paid by the Länder to OpCo in return for the transferred assets.
2015. aastal oli tegelikult tasaarvestatud kahjumi suurus kokku [1,2–2,0] miljardit eurot.
The 2016 measure 2, the purchase of assets by the Länder, is a measure undertaken by the State.
On juba teada, et 2016. aastal kasvab see summa praegu käsitletavate nõuete alusel [2–3] miljardi euro võrra.
The 2016 measure 1, the modification of the fee payment structure, is imputable to the public owners of Finanzfonds and thereby to the State.
Seevastu kasutusele võtmata garantii (edaspidi „kasutusele võtmata garantiisumma“) on summa, mida saab kasutada edasise kahjumi korral ja mis on käesoleval juhul [8,2–10,0] miljardit eurot (kogugarantii 10 miljardit eurot, millest on maha arvatud [3,2–5,0] miljardi euro suuruse likvideeritud ja teadaoleva kahjumi ja 3,2 miljardi euro suuruse esimese järjekoha kahju väärtpaberistamise seeria vahesumma).
That imputability is demonstrated through the fact that that modification is part of a larger package of measures that the Länder were actively involved in putting together.
Kogu kasutusele võetud garantii (edaspidi „kogu kasutusele võetud garantiisumma“) tähistab garantiisummat, mis makstakse välja kohe, kui likvideeritud on kogu portfell, mis kuulus esialgu garantii alla.
The 2016 measures are in favour of HSH alone.
Kogu kasutusele võetud garantiisummat ei ole võimalik praegu veel kindlaks määrata.