natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Items still remaining at the end of the restructuring phase, mainly as a result of long‐term contracts and agreements, would be reduced further after 2006.
Postavke, ki so ob koncu faze prestrukturiranja še obstajale zlasti zaradi dolgoročnosti nekaterih pogodb in sporazumov, bi se po letu 2006 nadalje krčile.
In the public sector business sector, abandonment of all supraregional business reduced the assets in that segment by almost [...]* %.
Z opustitvijo celotnega nadregionalnega poslovanja na poslovnem področju javni organ se je premoženje segmenta zmanjšalo za skoraj [...]* %.
This sector was to be assigned to corporate business.
Poslovno področje javni organ se prišteva k področju poslovanja s podjetji.
The planned divestment of real estate services, which was offered as an additional compensatory measure, will reduce the segment assets almost to zero.
Z načrtovano izločitvijo posla nepremičninskih storitev, ponujene kot nadaljnji kompenzacijski ukrep, bi se premoženje segmenta tega področja poslovanja skoraj popolnoma ukinilo.
Combined with further reductions in asset items, e.g. in interest rate management or through the divestment of IBB’s government assistance business (around EUR 20 billion of segment assets), and the effects of consolidation, these measures would reduce the balance‐sheet total by some EUR [...]* — or [...]* % — from around EUR 189 billion in 2001 to around EUR [...]* in 2006.
Skupaj z nadaljnjim krčenjem postavk sredstev, na primer pri upravljanju obresti ali z izločitvijo razvojnega posla IBB (okoli 20 milijard EUR premoženja segmenta) ter učinki uskupinjevanja bi prišlo do skupnega skrčenja bilančnega obsega v višini skoraj 189 milijard EUR v letu 2001 za skoraj [...]* EUR ali [...]* % na približno [...]* EUR v letu 2006.
Leaving aside the divestment of the IBB, it being doubtful whether it qualified as a compensatory measure, the balance‐sheet total would fall by about [...]*.
Brez upoštevanja izločitve IBB, katere vrednotenje je kot kompenzacijski ukrep vprašljivo, bi znašal zmanjšani obseg bilančne vsote približno [...]*.
On the question of market shares, private and corporate retail banking were regional businesses, and so the relevant market shares referred to Berlin.
Kar zadeva tržnih deležev, ti veljajo za področje poslovanja z občani in podjetji v Berlinu, saj gre za regionalno poslovanje.
By contrast, real estate financing and the capital market business formed national — and, in the latter case, largely international — markets.
V nasprotju so trgi poslovanja financiranja nepremičnin in poslovanja na trgu kapitala državni, slednji pa pretežno celo mednarodno obarvani.
Compared with the figures submitted in the notification, the market shares in private and corporate business in Berlin were revised downwards (to between a little 20 % and over 40 % in the private business sector and just over or just under 25 % in the corporate business sector), as BGB’s reports to the Land central bank on the statistics used to calculate them failed, according to Germany, to give the requisite regional and thematic breakdown (see paragraph 291 et seq. below).
Tržni deleži v segmentih poslovanja z občani in podjetji na območju Berlina so v primerjavi s številkami, predloženimi v priglasitvi, popravljeni navzdol (na deleže v višini nekaj več kot 20 % do nekaj več kot 40 % pri poslovanju z občani ter na skoraj ali nekoliko manj kot 25 % pri poslovanju s podjetji), ker naj priglasitve BGB centralni deželni banki (Landeszentralbank) o upoštevni uporabljeni statistiki ne bi upoštevale potrebne regionalne in stvarne razmejitve (glej obrobne številke 291 in naprej).
BGB’s share of the Berlin market in loans to private customers was expected to increase slightly by 2006, accompanied by only a slight dip in its share of the deposit business market.
Za kreditno poslovanje pri občanih je na berlinskem trgu napovedano manjše povečanje tržnega deleža BGB do leta 2006, medtem ko se bo za vloge nepomembno zmanjšal.
The reason for this was a refocusing of BGB’s business activities on the Berlin market.
Ta razvoj temelji na osredotočenju poslovne dejavnosti BGB na berlinski trg.
However, at the same time it would withdraw completely from the supra‐regional market in line with the restructuring plan.
Sočasno se bo v skladu z načrtom prestrukturiranja povsem umaknila iz nadregionalnega trga.
The compensatory measures in the private customer sector would have barely any impact on the Berlin market shares, as reductions here primarily affected supra‐regional operations.
Kompenzacijski ukrepi pri poslovanju z občani bi se na številkah tržnega deleža v Berlinu komaj poznali, saj bi potekalo krčenje poslovanja zlasti nadregionalno.
In the corporate business sector, the market share for loans would contract slightly between 2001 and 2006, while the share of the deposit market would remain almost constant.
Na področju dejavnosti poslovanja s podjetji naj bi prišlo med leti 2001 in 2006 do rahlega zmanjšanja tržnega deleža pri kreditnem poslovanju, medtem ko naj bi tržni delež poslovanja z vlogami ostal skoraj nespremenjen.
In the real estate financing sector, the national market share indicated initially had to be revised, on the basis of updated statistics, from around 5 % to around 3 %, falling further to around 2 % by 2006.
Pri poslu financiranja nepremičnin je treba prvotno naveden državni tržni delež zaradi posodobljene statistike popraviti iz približno 5 % na 3 %, ki naj bi se leta 2006 zmanjšal na približno 2 %.
There would probably be no change in the capital market sector by 2006.
Na področju trga kapitala do leta 2006 naj ne bi bilo predvidenih sprememb.
In the course of the proceedings, Germany stated that BGB had examined very closely the possibility of further compensatory measures.
Nemčija je v nadaljevanju postopka navedla, da je BGB intenzivno preverila možnost nadaljnjih kompenzacijskih ukrepov.
However, apart from the sale of the real estate services business — promised at an earlier stage, but not part of the original plan — no further compensation was possible [...]*.
Poleg odsvojitve področja nepremičninskih storitev, obljubljene v prejšnji fazi dodatno k prvotnemu načrtu, naj ne bi bile mogoče nadaljnje dolžnosti [...]*.
Overall, according to Germany, the compensatory measures were also appropriate.
Kompenzacijski ukrepi naj bi bili v celoti ustrezni.
The total amount of aid used as a point of reference for assessing its appropriateness included the EUR 1,755 billion capital injection by the Land and the aid value of the risk shield, which in a worst‐case scenario was equivalent in financial terms to EUR 6,07 billion. As remuneration for the risk shield, BGB would pay a guarantee commission of EUR 15 million each year.
Skupni znesek pomoči, ki je referenčna točka za preverjanje ustreznosti, obsega priliv kapitala dežele v višini 1,755 milijarde EUR, in vrednost pomoči omejitve tveganja, ki gospodarsko ustreza najslabšemu scenariju v višini 6,07 milijarde EUR. Kot nadomestilo za omejitev tveganja naj bi BGB plačala letno provizijo za jamstvo v višini 15 milijonov EUR.
In its decision to initiate proceedings, the Commission had used as an indication of market distortion the scope for extending business on the basis of the solvency ratios required under banking supervisory legislation.
Kot oporno točko za izkrivljanje tržnih razmer je Komisija v svojem Sklepu o uvedbi postopka navedla možnost za širitev poslovanja na osnovi koeficienta solventnosti na osnovi zahtev bančnega nadzora.
However, Germany argued that the assumption that a core capital injection of EUR 1 billion could boost the risk‐adjusted assets by up to EUR 25 billion could not be inferred directly from the basic rules of banking supervisory legislation.
Vendar pa Nemčija navaja, da domneve, da bi bilo mogoče s prilivom temeljnega kapitala v višini 1 milijarde EUR povišati aktivo z uteženimi tveganji za do 25 milijard EUR, ni mogoče brez nadaljnjega izpeljati iz okvirnih pogojev določb bančnega nadzora.
Only if core and supplementary capital were injected simultaneously could a bank boost its risk‐adjusted assets by 25 times the amount of the core capital injection.
Samo pri sočasnem prilivu temeljnega in dodatnega kapitala bi lahko banka svojo aktivo z uteženimi tveganji povišala za 25-kratni znesek priliva temeljnega kapitala.
Unless a bank had previously ineligible supplementary capital corresponding to the amount of the core capital injection, it was impossible a priori to apply a factor of 25.
Če banki primanjkuje dodatni kapital, ki ga doslej ni bilo mogoče upoštevati, v višini, ki ustreza povišanju temeljnega kapitala, je uporaba faktorja 25 v naprej izključena.
It was wrong to regard an extension of business that was possible only as a result of supplementary capital that was available to the bank in any case as a market distortion caused by an injection of core capital classified as aid.
Neustrezno se zdi, da bi širjenje posla, ki bi ga omogočil šele dodatni kapital, ki ga banka že tako ima, obravnavali kot izkrivljanje tržnih razmer, ki bi ga povzročil priliv kapitala, kvalificiranega kot pomoč.
It was therefore considered that, from the very outset, the maximum possible market distortion should be set at no more than 12,5 times the amount of aid granted in the form of a capital injection.
Tako je priporočljivo omejiti najvišjo mogoče izkrivljanje tržnih razmer na 12,5-kratni znesek pomoči v obliki priliva kapitala.
The Land of Berlin injected only core capital totalling (EUR 1,755 billion) into BGB, and not supplementary capital.
Dežela Berlin je BGB dovedla le temeljni kapital v višini 1,755 milijarde EUR, ne pa tudi dodatnega kapitala.
The core capital injection meant that the previously ineligible supplementary capital of EUR 877,5 million could be taken into account. But, as explained above, this could not be regarded as market distortion caused by the core capital injection.
Posledica priliva temeljnega kapitala je bila, da bo bilo mogoče sedaj upoštevati dodatni kapital v višini 877,5 milijona EUR, ki ga doslej ni bilo mogoče upoštevati, kar pa se, kot je prikazano, ne sme ocenjevati kot izkrivljanje tržnih razmer zaradi priliva temeljnega kapitala.
Moreover, the (theoretical) core‐capital ratio of 4 % and the own‐funds ratio of 8 % constituted the minimum capital base required by law.
Poleg tega je šlo pri (teoretični) stopnji temeljnega kapitala v višini 4 % oz. stopnjo kapitalizacije v višini 8 % za zakonsko določene minimalne zahteve glede stopnje osnovnosti kapitala.
Institutions needed a much larger capital base if they were to run an orderly business and to have the room for manoeuvre necessary to operate in the financial markets.
Za manevrski prostor, ki ga ustanove potrebujejo za urejeno poslovanje in udeležbo na finančnih trgih, je potrebna bistveno boljša stopnja osnovnosti kapitala.
BAFin estimated that, from a market standpoint, BGB required at the time a core‐capital ratio of [...]* % and an own‐funds ratio of [...]* % in order to guarantee its liquidity and safeguard the restructuring process (cf. letter from BAKred dated 29 June 2001).
Po ocenah BAFin (Zvezna ustanova za nadzorovanje finančnih storitev) je iz tržnega vidika zdaj nujno potrebna stopnja temeljnega kapitala v višini [...]* % in stopnja kapitalizacije v višini [...]* %, da bi bila zagotovljena likvidnost BGB in da ne bi bil ogrožen nadaljevanji postopek prestrukturiranja (glej dopis BAFred-a (Zvezni urad za kreditni sistem) z dne 29. junija 2001).
On the basis of these considerations and the relevant capital ratios, the capital injection would cause market distortion equivalent to around EUR 18 billion (core capital injection of around EUR 1,8 billion multiplied by a factor of about 10).
Na osnovi teh razmislekov in zdaj odločilne stopnje kapitala je povišanje kapitala izkrivljanje tržnih razmer v višini 18 milijard EUR (približno 1,8 milijarde EUR priliva kapitala, pomnoženo s faktorjem 10).
In response to the Commission's decision to initiate proceedings, Germany had already proposed as a further compensatory measure that the real estate services businesses (IBAG, IBG, LPFV) be separated from BGB.
Kot odziv na postopek, ki ga je uvedla Komisija, je Nemčija kot nadaljnji kompenzacijski ukrep ponudila odcepitev področja nepremičninskih storitev (IBAG, IBG, LPFV) od BGB.
The effect of the risk shield was focused on the real estate services sector, which in itself was not subject to the solvency ratio requirements and could just as easily be carried out by another company not authorised to engage in banking.
Učinek omejitev tveganj naj bi bil usmerjen na področje nepremičninskih storitev, za katerega ne veljajo zahteve koeficienta solventnosti in ga lahko brez dovoljenja banke izvaja tudi katera koli druga družba.
The risk shield related to old business, mainly investments already placed, and not to new business.
Omejitev tveganja velja na obstoječ posel, v glavnem na že ustanovljene sklade, in ne na nov posel.
It could though be argued that new business was possible only because of the risk shield.
Eventualno bi bilo mogoče zastopati stališče, da bi bil novi posel mogoč samo z omejitvijo tveganja.
But in that case the size of the market distortion could be no more than the total volume of new business.
Vendar bi lahko obseg izkrivljanja tržnih razmer v tem primeru dosegel največ celotni obseg novega posla.
In 2002 IBV was expected to sell fund investments totalling EUR [...]*. Bavaria anticipated a total project volume of EUR [...]* in 2002. IBAG’s new business amounted to around EUR [...]*.
Za IBV bi bilo v letu 2002 mogoče pričakovati prodajni obseg skladov v skupni višini [...]* EUR. Za Bavario se za leto 2002 predvideva projektni obseg v skupni višini [...]* EUR. Celoten novi posel družbe IBAG bi se ob tem gibal okoli [...]* EUR. Na nov posel družb IBAG lahko omejitev tveganj vpliva do največ sklenitve faze prestrukturiranja ob koncu leta 2006.
At most, IBAG’s new business up to the end of the restructuring period (end of 2006) could be attributed to the risk shield. After that, IBAG would be an efficient, reorganised undertaking able to compete in the market.
Po tem bo IBAG sanirano in sposobno podjetje, ki se bo sposobno samo uveljavljati v konkurenčnem okolju.
Otherwise, the market distortion caused by the risk shield could be estimated at best on the basis of the aid value of the risk shield in the worst‐case scenario (EUR 6,07 billion).
Izid tega je izkrivljanje tržnih razmer v nadaljevanju, ki je odločilna izhodiščna točka pri odmeri kompenzacijskih ukrepov:
Accordingly, the market distortion to be taken as a starting point for assessing the compensatory measures consisted of:
V korist BGB po novem s povišanjem kapitala: 18,3 milijarde EUR
a new amount for BGB in the form of the capital injection: EUR 18,3 billion,
V korist področja za nepremičninske storitve, ki bo odcepljeno, z omejitvijo tveganja: [...]* EUR — 6,1 milijarde EUR
a new amount for the real estate services sector — to be divested — in the form of the risk shield: EUR [...]* to EUR 6,1 billion.
Drugače kot je Komisija predvidela v Sklepu o uvedbi postopka na osnovi takrat razpoložljivih informacij, dejanski nižji tržni deleži BGB ne bi upravičevali izhajanja iz izjemno močnega tržnega položaja BGB, iz katerega bi nato potegnili ustrezne sklepe za določanje kompenzacijskih ukrepov. Skupno so se zdeli predlagani ukrepi za kompenzacijo izkrivljanja tržnih razmer ustrezni, in sicer tudi z upoštevanjem eventualnih pravnih težav v zvezi s pomočjo premoženja WBK na LBB.
Moreover, the compensatory measures as a whole were in line with or went even further than the demands placed by the Commission on banks in previous restructuring decisions.
Poleg tega naj bi bili vsi kompenzacijski ukrepi v okviru ali celo presegajoč okvir zahtev, ki jih je Komisija zastavila bankam v svojih predhodnih odločitvah o prestrukturiranju.
After further objections from the Commission, especially in view of the fact that the closures and sales already undertaken or still to be implemented left BGB’s position in the Berlin retail banking market virtually intact, Germany and the Land of Berlin finally agreed to sell the Berliner Bank after all.
Po nadaljnjih pripombah Komisije, zlasti glede dejstva, da ostaja položaj BGB kljub doslej izvedenim ali še ne udejanjenimi ukrepi zapiranja in odsvojevanja na berlinskem trgu za bančno poslovanje z občani skoraj nespremenjen, sta se Nemčija in dežela Berlin na koncu vendarle odločili, da potrdita odsvojitev Berliner Bank.
In so doing, Germany promised to ensure that the Bankgesellschaft group sold the ‘Berliner Bank’ division as an economic unit, including its trade mark, all customer relations, branch offices and accompanying staff, by way of an open, transparent and non‐discriminatory procedure, with the sale to be legally effective by 1 October 2006.
V skladu s to obljubo se Nemčija obvezuje zagotoviti, da bo koncern bančne družbe oddelek „Berliner Bank“ do 1. oktobra 2006 odsvojil kot gospodarsko enoto vključno z imenom, vsemi razmerji s strankami, podružnicami in upoštevnim osebjem v odprtem in preglednem postopku, ki ne bo diskriminacijski.
The divestment of Berliner Bank will reduce the assets in retail banking by EUR [...]* (EUR [...]* in the private customer sector and EUR [...]* in the commercial customer sector). Together with the measures already planned, the reduction in the assets will amount to EUR [...]*.
Odsvojitev „Berliner Bank“ bo segmentno premoženje na celotnem področju bančnega poslovanja s prebivalstvom zmanjšala za [...]* EUR ([...]* EUR na področju poslovanje z občani in [...]* EUR na področju poslovanja s podjetji).
The balance‐sheet total will be reduced from EUR 189 billion to EUR [...]* billion.
Z že načrtovanimi ukrepi bo segmentno premoženje zmanjšano za skupno [...]* EUR. Bilančna vsota bo v obdobju prestrukturiranja zmanjšana iz 189 milijard EUR na sedaj [...]* EUR.
Aid limited to the minimum necessary
Pomoč, omejena na minimum
Germany argued that the risks had not been overstated in the course of the restructuring, although they were based on the information on LPFV available in January 2002.
V postopku prestrukturiranja tveganja naj ne bi bila precenjena. Vendar temeljijo slednja na stanju informacij, ki jih je LPFV imela januarja 2002.
Assessment of the risks could change during the period covered by the guarantees as a result of macroeconomic factors and intensive real estate management.
Njihova ocenitev bi se lahko zaradi makroekonomskih dejavnikov in intenzivnega upravljanja nepremičnin v obdobju veljavnosti garancij spremenila.
However, LPFV’s indemnification agreements with IBG and the detailed arrangements of the Land of Berlin’s risk shield for LPFV served to ensure that only the actual claims on guarantees by the Land of Berlin were refundable.
Vendar pa bo tako s pogodbami o oprostitvi odškodninske odgovornosti, ki jo je LPFV sklenila z IBG, kot tudi na osnovi metod razmejitve LPFV, ki jo bo izvedla dežela Berlin, zagotovljeno, da bo vračilo mogoče le za garancije, ki jih bo dejansko uveljavljala dežela Berlin.
The Land of Berlin had the right to intervene and issue instructions in respect of LPFV in order to guarantee high‐quality management.
Za zagotovitev kakovostnega upravljanja ima dežela Berlin pravico posegati v poslovanje in dajati navodila LPFV.
Furthermore, appropriate control measures had been introduced to rule out multiple risk coverage in practice.
Uvedeni so bili tudi ustrezni kontrolni ukrepi za dejansko izključitev večkratnega kritja tveganj.
The risks arising from renewal and the right of offer were not cumulative but interchangeable.
Tveganja iz revitalizacije in prodajnih opcij se namreč ne prištevajo, temveč nadomeščajo.
This factor was taken into account in the description of LPFV’s risks.
To se bo upoštevalo pri prikazovanju tveganj LPFV.
However, there was actually multiple risk coverage in the case of rent guarantees and credit guarantees for the BGB group.
Dejansko večkratno kritje tveganj pa v nasprotju obstaja pri najemniških garancijah in kreditnih garancijah koncerna BGB.
LPFV verified claims on rent guarantees to ensure they were legally and factually in order and calculated correctly.
LPFV je preverila pravno, stvarno in računsko pravilnost uveljavljanja najemniških garancij.
Since January 2003 the BCIA Berliner Gesellschaft zum Controlling der Immobilien‐Altrisiken mbH, wholly owned by the Land of Berlin and acting on its behalf, had carried out checks to rule out simultaneous calls on the loan guarantee.
Kontrola, ki izključuje sočasno uveljavljanje kreditnih garancij, poteka po naročilu dežele Berlin od januarja 2003. Izvaja jo „BCIA Berliner Gesellschaft zum Controlling der Immobilien-Altrisiken mbH“, ki je v izključni lasti edine delničarke dežele Berlin.
All services performed by LPFV for which the Land had assumed obligations were checked by BCIA in detail from a legal, factual and accounting standpoint, with further checks on the legality of each claim on the credit guarantee and on balance‐sheet guarantees.
Vse storitve LPFV, na katere velja izpolnitvena obveznost, ki jo je prevzela dežela, naj bi BCIA podrobno preverjala v pravnem, stvarnem in računskem smislu. Enako velja za zakonitost vsake uveljavljene kreditne garancije ter bilančnih garancij. BCIA pomeni za deželo uspešen in učinkovit aparat zmanjševanja škode.
BCIA provided the Land with a powerful and effective means of minimising damage, as the Garantiegesetz (Guarantee Law) of 16 April 2002 explicitly stated that no payments may be made to third parties in connection with risk‐shielding, except where there is a legal obligation to do so.
Garancijski zakon z dne 16. aprila 2002 namreč izrecno predvideva, da v zvezi z omejenimi tveganji ni dovoljeno izvajati plačil tretjim, če ni pravne dolžnosti.
More specifically, under the detailed agreement, the Land or BCIA, on whose activities the Land Parliament must receive a report every quarter, enjoyed the following rights with regard to approval, inspection, the issuing of instructions, etc. vis‐à‐vis companies protected by the risk shield, the exercise of which was more closely regulated by a regulation on responsibilities and procedures:
Posamično ima dežela oz. BCIA, o katere poslovanju je treba vsake četrt leta poročati poslanski zbornici, v nadaljevanju naštete pravice do potrjevanja, kontroliranja, dajanja navodil in podobne pravice, utemeljene v podrobnem sporazumu, v primerjavi z družbami, ki so privilegirane zaradi omejitve odgovornosti. Njihovo uresničevanje je podrobneje urejeno v pravilniku o pristojnostih in postopkih:
right to reserve approval of payments on loan commitments, where certain value limits were exceeded,
pridržek do soglasja za izplačila odobrenih kreditov v primeru prekoračitve določene mejne vrednosti,
right to have a say in drawing up the positive list and the annual accounts for balance‐sheet guarantees,
sodelovanje pri določitvi pozitivnega seznama in letnega obračuna za bilančne garancije,
right to reserve approval of sales of assets underlying the book value guarantee, where certain value limits were exceeded,
pridržek do soglasja za odsvojitev aktive, ki je predmet garantirane knjižne vrednosti v primeru prekoračitve mejnih vrednosti,
right to reserve approval of investments which lead to additional acquisition and production costs, where certain value limits were exceeded,
pridržek do soglasja za naložbe, ki povzročijo naknadne stroške nabave in proizvodnje v primeru prekoračitve mejne vrednosti,
right to reserve approval of certain payments by LPFV,
pridržek do soglasja za določena plačila LPFV,
right to issue instructions to IBG and LPFV on protection against claims,
pravica dajanja navodila IBG in LPFV pri obrambi proti uveljavljanju,
right to reserve approval of assignments and other measures concerning claims arising from the detailed agreement,
pridržek do soglasja za cesije in drugo razpolaganje z zahtevami iz podrobnega sporazuma,
comprehensive rights to information and inspection,
obsežna pravica do informiranja in vpogleda,
right to reserve agreement on the appointment of auditors by IBG, IBAG and LPFV,
pridržek do strinjanja s pooblaščenim revizorjem za IBG, IBAG in LPFV,
right of audit by the Berlin Audit Court (Rechnungshof),
pravica do revizije računskega sodišča iz Berlina,