natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the case of Landsvirkjun, the legal basis for state guarantees is the Landsvirkjun Act.
Täisühingute seaduse nr 50/2007 kohaselt vastutavad omanikud täisühingu kõigi kohustuste eest otsese, piiramatu ja tingimusteta garantii alusel ning seega piiranguteta.
Under the Landsvirkjun Act, before and after the existing aid procedure, the owners' guarantee is a guarantee of collection.
Maksegarantii kohaselt peab võlausaldaja enne riigile nõude esitamist kasutama Landsvirkjuni vastu ära kõik õiguskaitsevahendid.
Furthermore, the guarantees are granted by the Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs rather than the GDM.
Tegelikkuses tähendab see, et võlausaldaja peab Islandi õiguse üldpõhimõtete kohaselt tõendama võlgniku maksejõuetust.
A guarantee of collection is different from the normally applicable liability rules for owners of partnership companies.
Niisiis, enne kui võlausaldaja võib oma nõude esitada garantii andjale, peab tema arestimisnõue osutuma edutuks või ta (ise või koos teistega) peab ametlikult algatama pankrotiseaduses sätestatud menetluse.
Under the Act on Partnership Companies No 50/2007, the owners are liable for the partnership company's obligations on the basis of a direct, unlimited and unconditional guarantee, and thus without limitations, for all the obligations of the company.
Kuna võlgnevuse garantii andjalt väljanõudmine tähendab väga rasket ja pikka menetlust ning kõik õiguskaitsevahendid äriühingu vastu peavad olema enne seda ammendatud, on maksegarantii väärtus võlausaldajate jaoks palju väiksem.
Under a guarantee of collection a creditor must exhaust all legal remedies against Landsvirkjun before proceeding against the state.
Landsvirkjun juhib tähelepanu ka järelevalveameti varasemale tavale selles küsimuses.
In practice, this means that the creditor must prove that the debtor is insolvent, according to the general principles of Icelandic law.
Kuidas Landsvirkjun tuletislepinguid kasutas
The creditor therefore would need to have unsuccessful distraint or formally start (or be a part of with others) the procedures set out in the Bankruptcy Act before reverting to the guarantor.
Kõnealused riigigarantiiga tuletislepingud olid seotud aluseks olevate finantskohustustega (laenud ja võlakirjad), mis võeti enne olemasoleva abi menetluse kohaselt nõutud meetme rakendamist.
Due to the very burdensome and lengthy procedure and the requirement that all means are exhausted with respect to the company before the guarantor can be addressed, a guarantee of collection has far less value for the creditors.
Landsvirkjun väidab, et korraldab rahastamist täies kooskõlas OECD riikide suurettevõtete tavapraktikaga ja tuletislepingud on riskijuhtimise lahutamatu osa.
Landsvirkjun also refers to the Authority's previous practice in this regard.
Landsvirkjun sõlmib vastaspooltega ISDA raamlepingud, kus on kirjas tüüptingimused, mida kohaldatakse kõigile nendevahelistele tuletistehingutele.
Landsvirkjun's use of derivative contracts
Landsvirkjuni finantskohustused on USA dollarites ja teistes valuutades ning nii muutuva kui ka fikseeritud intressimääraga.
As regards the derivative contracts in question that were covered by a state guarantee, these derivative contracts concerned underlying financial obligations (loans or bonds) that were entered into prior to implementing the appropriate measure under the existing aid procedure.
Seetõttu mõjutab Landsvirkjuni nii valuuta- kui ka intressirisk.
Landsvirkjun states that it structures its financing fully in line with standard practice throughout the OECD countries for large undertakings and derivative contracts form an integral part of risk management.
Landsvirkjun maandab neid tuletislepingutega nii, et konverdib muus kui USA dollarites finantskohustused USA dollaritesse (ettevõtte arvestusvaluuta alates aastast 2008) ja muutuva intressimääraga finantskohustused fikseeritud intressiga kohustusteks.
Landsvirkjun enters into ISDA Master Agreements with counterparties, which set out standard terms that apply to all the derivative transactions entered into between those parties.
Landsvirkjun kasutab tuletislepinguid ainult riskide maandamiseks.
Landsvirkjun has financial obligations denominated in USD and other currencies, with both variable and fixed interest rates.
Landsvirkjun ei sõlmi tuletislepinguid spekulatiivsel ega arbitraaži eesmärgil.
Landsvirkjun is therefore exposed to FX and interest rate risks.
Tuletislepingute kasutamine vaid riskide maandamiseks on tingitud ka omaniku ehk riigi nõudmisest.
Landsvirkjun hedges these risks by using derivative contracts to convert financial obligations denominated in currency other than USD (its functional currency since 2008) to USD and financial obligations with variable interest rates to fixed interest rates.
Landsvirkjun esitas nende väidete kinnituseks sisedokumendid ja omaniku kirjad.
Landsvirkjun uses derivative contracts for hedging purposes only.
Samuti selgitab Landsvirkjun, et äriühingu poliitika on mitte kasutada ühegi tehingu jaoks erasektori ega riigigarantiisid.
Landsvirkjun does not enter into derivative contracts for speculative or arbitrage purposes.
Landsvirkjun on esitanud ka tõendid selle kohta, et riigigarantiide kaotamine ei muutnud tuletislepingute majanduslikke tingimusi.
Limiting the use of derivate contracts to hedging purposes only has also been imposed on Landsvirkjun by its owner — the State.
Eelise puudumine
Landsvirkjun submitted internal documents and letters from its owner to confirm these claims.
Landsvirkjun on seisukohal, et kõnealuste tuletislepingute riigigarantiid ei andnud mingit eelist.
Following the amendments to the state guarantee system, Landsvirkjun started to negotiate a renewal of the guaranteed derivative contracts, with the last state guarantee removed in July 2017.
Landsvirkjun kordab, et tuletislepingute muutmine riigigarantii kaotamiseks ei tähendanud äriühingule mingit lisakulu.
Landsvirkjun is able to and indeed does enter into derivative contracts without state guarantees.
Landsvirkjuni rahastamise tingimused ega nõuded ei ole riigigarantii kaotamisega muutunud.
Landsvirkjun has also provided evidence showing that removing the state guarantees did not result in changes to the economic terms of the derivate contracts.
Landsvirkjun on esitanud kaks aruannet riigigarantiide mõju kohta tuletislepingutele.
No advantage
Nende aruannete kohaselt ei andnud tuletislepingutega seotud riigigarantiid mingit eelist.
Landsvirkjun is of the opinion that no advantage was granted through the state guarantees for the derivative contracts in question.
Landsvirkjun selgitab ka, et perioodil 2010–2017 oli äriühingul 142–287 miljonit USA dollarit vaba raha.
A hedging derivative will by definition reduce the risk exposure which should lead to a reduction of the premium paid for the guarantee linked to the underlying transaction.
Sellist summat on hoitud likviidsusriski maandamiseks (puhvrina ootamatu riski puhuks).
Landsvirkjun reiterates that the amendment of the outstanding derivative contracts to eliminate the state guarantee has not entailed any additional cost for the company.
Suur likviidsus toob kaasa alternatiivkulu, mis on otseselt seotud praegu riigile makstavate tasudega.
The conditions and requirements with respect to the financing of Landsvirkjun with or without a state guarantee have not changed.
Selle asemel, et vaba raha hoida, oleks äriühing võinud osta turult tagasi võlakirju ja/või laenuandjatelt ettemakstud/amortiseerunud laene.
Landsvirkjun has submitted two reports on the effect of the state guarantees on the derivative contracts.
Sellega oleks hoitud kokku mitte ainult intressiraha, vaid ka [0,1–2] % garantiitasu, mida Landsvirkjun praegu garantiiga võlakirjade ja laenude eest maksab.
According to the reports, an economic advantage of the state guarantees on the derivative portfolio was non-existent.
RIIGIABI OLEMASOLU
Landsvirkjun also explains that during 2010 to 2017 its cash at hand was between USD 142 million and USD 287 million.
EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõikes 1 on sätestatud järgmine:
This high cash at hand position has been held for liquidity risk purposes, i.e. as a buffer for unforeseen risk.
„Kui käesolevas lepingus ei ole sätestatud teisiti, on igasugune EÜ liikmesriikide või EFTA riikide poolt või riigi ressurssidest ükskõik missugusel kujul antav abi, mis kahjustab või ähvardab kahjustada konkurentsi, soodustades teatud ettevõtjaid või teatud kaupade tootmist, käesoleva lepinguga kokkusobimatu niivõrd, kuivõrd see mõjutab lepinguosaliste vahelist kaubandust.“
The strong liquidity entails opportunity cost that is directly linked to the premiums currently paid to the state.
Seepärast peab selleks, et meede liigituks abiks kõnealuse sätte tähenduses, olema täidetud kõik järgmised tingimused: i) abimeetme annab riik või see on antud riigi ressurssidest; ii) see annab ettevõttele eelise; iii) see eelistab teatud ettevõtteid ning iv) see võib moonutada konkurentsi ja mõjutada kaubandust.
Instead of holding the cash at hand, the company could have bought back bonds from the market and/or prepaid/amortized loans from their lenders.
Järelevalveamet arvab, et õige oleks hindamist alustada küsimusest, kas kõnealused tuletislepingute garantiid andsid Landsvirkjunile eelise.
It would not only save interest, but also the [0,1-2] % guarantee fee that Landsvirkjun currently pays for the guaranteed bonds and loans.
Eelis
PRESENCE OF STATE AID
Sissejuhatavad märkused
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:
Järelevalveamet on Islandi ja Landsvirkjuniga nõus, et kõnealustele garantiidele kohaldatakse Islandi riigigarantiidega seotud õigust, kaasa arvatud Landsvirkjuni seadust, mida käsitleti olemasoleva abi menetluses.
‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’
Praeguses ametlikus uurimises, mis algatati algatamisotsusega, keskendutakse kitsamale teemale kui olemasoleva abi menetlus ehk ainult Landsvirkjuni seaduse kohaldamisele teatud tuletislepingute riigigarantiide suhtes.
The qualification of a measure as aid within the meaning of this provision therefore requires the following cumulative conditions to be met: (i) the measure must be granted by the state or through state resources; (ii) it must confer an advantage on an undertaking; (iii) it must favour certain undertakings; and (iv) it must be liable to distort competition and affect trade.
Järelevalveamet seadis algatamisotsuses kahtluse alla selle, kas need garantiid vastasid garantiisuuniste punktis 3.2 sätestatud tingimustele b, c ja d, mis lubavad riigiabi olemasolu välistada.
The Authority finds it appropriate to start its assessment with whether the guarantees for the derivative contracts in question conferred an advantage on Landsvirkjun.
Ilma et see mõjutaks küsimust, kas garantiisuunistega ette nähtud riigiabi puudumise tingimused on täidetud, leiab järelevalveamet ametliku uurimise käigus Islandilt ja Landsvirkjunilt saadud teabe alusel (selgitus allpool), et kõnealused riigigarantiid ei andnud Landsvirkjunile eelist.
Advantage
Tuletislepingute riigigarantiidest tingitud eelise välistamine
Preliminary remarks
EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 tähenduses on eelis majanduslik kasu, mida ettevõte ei oleks saanud tavalistes turutingimustes, st riigi sekkumiseta.
The Authority concurs with the Icelandic authorities and Landsvirkjun that the guarantees in question fall under the Icelandic legislation on state guarantees, including the Landsvirkjun Act, which was subject to the existing aid procedure.
Järelevalveamet on mitmel korral otsustanud, et garantii võib olla EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõikes 1 sätestatud eelis.
The current formal investigation initiated by the opening decision has a narrower focus than the existing aid procedure in that it only covers the application of the Landsvirkjun Act to state guarantees for certain derivative contracts.
Garantii eelis on see, et sellega seotud riski kannab riik.
In the opening decision, the Authority questioned whether the guarantees met the conditions (b), (c) and (d) under point 3.2 of the Guarantee Guidelines that would allow ruling out the presence of aid.
Riigi riskivalmidus tuleks tavaliselt hüvitada asjakohase garantiitasuga.
Without prejudice to the issue of whether the conditions set out in the Guarantee Guidelines for ruling out state aid are met, as explained below and based on the information received from Iceland and Landsvirkjun in the course of the formal investigation, the Authority finds that the state guarantees in question did not result in an advantage to Landsvirkjun.
Ent garantiisuunistes on sätestatud, et „kui riigi üksikgarantii või garantiikavaga ei kaasne ettevõtte jaoks mingit eelist, siis ei ole see riigiabi“.
Exclusion of advantage from state guarantees for the derivative contracts
Garantiisuuniste punktides 3.2–3.5 on kirjas üksikgarantiide ja garantiikavadega seotud abi välistamise tingimused.
An advantage within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is any economic benefit which an undertaking could not have obtained under normal market conditions that is to say in the absence of the state intervention.
Garantiisuuniste punktis 3.6 on sätestatud, et „kui ükskõik milline punktides 3.2–3.5 ettenähtud tingimustest jääb täitmata, ei tähenda see, et selline garantii või garantiikava loetaks automaatselt riigiabiks“.
The Authority has held on several occasions that a guarantee may constitute an advantage under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Järelevalveameti arvates tähendab vastaspoolte nõusolek loobuda riigigarantiidest paremaid majanduslikke tingimusi nõudmata seda, et garantiid ei andnud Landsvirkjunile eelist.
The benefit of a guarantee is that the risk associated with the guarantee is carried by the state.
Pealegi ei ole Landsvirkjun kasutanud erasektori garantiisid ja ametliku uurimise ajal esitatud info alusel ei ole võimalik välja selgitada riskide maandamise tuletislepingute garantiide turuhinda.
Such risk-carrying by the state should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium.
Garantiisuuniste kohaselt tuleb garantii antava võimaliku eelise kvantifitseerimiseks (kui turuhinda ei ole võimalik välja selgitada) võrrelda garantiiga ja ilma selleta tehingute majanduslikke tingimusi.
However, according to the Guarantee Guidelines, ‘if an individual guarantee or a guarantee scheme entered into by the state does not bring any advantage to an undertaking, it will not constitute state aid’.
Kõnesolevate riigigarantiide kaotamine ei muutnud asjaomaste tuletislepingute majanduslikke tingimusi.
According to point 3.6 of the Guarantee Guidelines, ‘a failure to comply with any one of the conditions set out in points 3.2 to 3.5 does not mean that the guarantee or guarantee scheme is automatically regarded as state aid.’
Peale selle ei ole järelevalveametil mingit alust arvata ega infot, mis viitaks sellele, et asjaomaste tuletislepingute majanduslikud tingimused oleks ilma riigigarantiideta lepingute puhul olnud riigigarantiide andmise ajal teistsugused.
After 1 January 2010, Landsvirkjun has managed to negotiate with the derivative contracts counterparties the removal of the state guarantees, with the last such guarantee removed in July 2017.
Järelikult peab järelevalveamet eeldama, et riigigarantiide kaotamine (või puudumine) ei muutnud asjaomaste tuletislepingute majanduslikke tingimusi nende garantiide olemasolu ajal mitte kunagi.
As the evidence provided during the formal investigation shows, removing the state guarantees did not change the economic terms of the derivative contracts.
Järeldust, et tuletislepingute garantiid ei andnud Landsvirkjunile eelist, toetavad ka põhjenduses 33 nimetatud aruanded.
The Authority sees the fact that the counterparties were willing to remove the state guarantees without requesting better economic terms as an indication that the guarantees did not entail an advantage for Landsvirkjun.
Täpsemalt uuris finantsteenustele spetsialiseerunud konsultatsioonifirma Zanders Landsvirkjuni palvel valikut Landsvirkjuni tuletislepingutest ja arvutas nende lepingute marginaali.
Furthermore, Landsvirkjun has not used private guarantees and from the information provided during the formal investigation, it is not possible to establish a market price for the guarantees on hedging derivatives.
Aruandest selgus, et sellised marginaalid olid [(–)2…2] ja [10…15] baaspunkti vahel ning samas suurusjärgus sarnase krediidireitinguga ettevõtete (kellel erinevalt Landsvirkjunist ei olnud maksegarantiid) sarnaste tuletislepingute marginaalidega.
In order to quantify the potential advantage conferred by a guarantee (where a market price cannot be established), the Guarantee Guidelines foresee a comparison of the economic terms of a transaction with and without the guarantee.
Selle alusel järeldas Zanders oma aruandes, et Landsvirkjunil ei ole maksegarantii tõttu teiste äriühingute ees mingit hinnaeelist.
The removal of the state guarantees in question did not change the economic terms of the relevant derivative contracts.
Seega jõuti aruandes järeldusele, et selline garantii ei andnud Landsvirkjunile mingit majanduslikku kasu.
Therefore, the guarantees cannot be seen to constitute an advantage to Landsvirkjun.
Teise konsultatsioonifirma (Summa Consulting slf) aruandes märgitakse seoses riskide maandamise tuletislepingute hinnakujundusega, et „Landsvirkjuni korralikku bilanssi, likviidsuspositsiooni ja krediidikvaliteeti arvestades ei ole tõenäoline, et riigigarantii olemasolu või puudumine võiks märkimisväärselt mõjutada Landsvirkjuni tuletislepingute hinda“.
Further, the Authority has no indications or information at its disposal suggesting that the economic terms of the relevant derivative contracts would have been different without the state guarantees at the time when the state guarantees were actually granted.
Pealegi kasutas Landsvirkjun tuletislepinguid vaid riskide maandamiseks ehk muus kui USA dollarites finantskohustuste konvertimiseks USA dollaritesse (ettevõtte arvestusvaluuta alates aastast 2008) ja muutuva intressimääraga finantskohustuste konvertimiseks fikseeritud intressiga kohustusteks.
Consequently, the Authority must assume that a removal (or non-existence) of the state guarantees did not change the economic terms of the relevant derivative contracts at any given point during the lifetime of these guarantees.
Ametliku juurdluse ajal esitatud teabe kohaselt tähendas olemasoleva abi menetluse käigus nõutud meetmete võtmine seda, et riigigarantiisid piirati nii, et need kataks 80 % kõnesolevate tuletislepingute väärtusest, ja riskide maandamise tuletislepingute garantiid piirati konkreetse kumulatiivse nimiväärtusega.
The conclusion that the guarantees on the derivative contracts in question did not confer an advantage on Landsvirkjun is also supported by the reports referred to in recital 33.
Seega ei saa öelda, et Landsvirkjun või riik kui garantii andja oleks nende garantiide tõttu olnud avatud piiramatutele kohustustele.
In particular, Zanders (a consulting firm specialising in financial services) looked, on behalf of Landsvirkjun, at a sample of derivatives held by Landsvirkjun and calculated the corresponding margins for those derivative contracts.
Peale selle on kõnealused garantiid Landsvirkjuni seaduse artikli 1 kohaselt maksegarantiid.
The report showed that such margins, which ranged between [(–)2-2] and [10-15] basis points, were in line with the margins observed for similar derivative contracts held by companies with a comparable credit rating, which, unlike Landsvirkjun, did not benefit from a guarantee of collection.
Maksegarantii kohaselt peab võlausaldaja enne riigile nõude esitamist kasutama Landsvirkjuni vastu ära kõik muud õiguskaitsevahendid.
On this basis, the Zanders report concludes that, on average, there is no pricing advantage between Landsvirkjun and other companies as a result of the guarantee of collection.
Järelevalveamet on varem jõudnud järeldusele, et kuigi see ei välista eelise olemasolu, kaasneb sellise garantiiga väiksem risk.
Accordingly, the report concludes that Landsvirkjun did not enjoy an economic benefit from such a guarantee.
Nagu Landsvirkjun tõendas, ületasid selle raha ja raha ekvivalendid igal aastal perioodil 2010–2017 garantiiga tuletislepingutest tingitud kahju.
A report by another consulting firm, Summa Consulting slf, noted in respect of the pricing of the hedging derivatives that, ‘considering the strong balance sheet, good liquidity position and credit quality of Landsvirkjun, it is not likely that a state guarantee or an absence thereof will have meaningful effects on the pricing of derivative contracts that Landsvirkjun enters into’.
Seega olid garantii andja riskid väiksemad.
Further, Landsvirkjun used the guaranteed derivative contracts exclusively for hedging purposes, i.e. to convert its financial obligations denominated in currency other than USD (its functional currency since 2008) to USD and financial obligations with variable interest rates to fixed interest rates.
Nagu selgitatud põhjenduses 36, peavad meetme EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 tähenduses riigiabiks liigitamiseks olema täidetud kõik neli tingimust.
According to the information submitted during the formal investigation, the implementation of the appropriate measures in the course of the existing aid procedure led to limiting the state guarantees to 80 % of the value of the derivative contracts in question and the guarantees on hedging derivatives were limited by a specific cumulative nominal value.
Kuna kõnealused garantiid Landsvirkjunile eelist ei anna, ei ole vaja teiste tingimuste täitmist hinnata.
Hence, neither Landsvirkjun nor the state as its guarantor can be said to have been exposed to unlimited liabilities from these guarantees.
JÄRELDUS
Furthermore, the guarantees in question are, according to Article 1 of the Landsvirkjun Act, guarantees of collection.
Eespool esitatud hinnangu alusel järeldab järelevalveamet, et Landsvirkjuni valuuta- ja intressiriskide maandamiseks kasutatud tuletislepingutele antud riigigarantiid, millest viimane kaotati 2017. aasta juulis, ei olnud EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 seisukohalt riigiabi,
Under a guarantee of collection, a creditor must exhaust all legal remedies against Landsvirkjun before proceeding against the state.
ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
The Authority has earlier concluded that, though not excluding the advantage, this type of guarantee comes with lesser risk.
Artikkel 1
As shown by Landsvirkjun, in each of the years 2010 to 2017 the company's cash and cash equivalents exceeded losses recorded from the guaranteed derivatives.
Landsvirkjuni valuuta- ja intressiriskide maandamiseks kasutatud tuletislepingutele antud riigigarantiid, millest viimane kaotati 2017. aasta juulis, ei olnud EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 tähenduses riigiabi.
Therefore, any risks to the guarantor were reduced.
Ametlik uurimine on sellega lõpetatud.
As explained in recital 36, for a measure to constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, all four conditions must be cumulatively fulfilled.
Artikkel 2
Since the guarantees in question do not confer an advantage on Landsvirkjun, it is not necessary to carry out an assessment with regard to the other conditions.
Otsus on adresseeritud Islandile.
On the basis of the foregoing assessment, the Authority concludes that the state guarantees to Landsvirkjun for derivative contracts for hedging Landsvirkjun's foreign currency exchange and interest rate risks, the last of which was removed in July 2017, did not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement,
Autentne on ainult otsuse ingliskeelne tekst.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Brüssel, 26. september 2018
The state guarantees to Landsvirkjun for derivative contracts for hedging Landsvirkjun's foreign currency exchange and interest rate risks, the last of which was removed in July 2017, did not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
kolleegiumi liige