natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
closures: Closure of some 90 branches serving private and corporate customers in Berlin and Brandenburg (the bulk of them in Berlin); 6 customer centres throughout Germany; 6 real estate financing offices in Germany and 3 abroad; 3 capital markets offices located abroad; and 14 large customer and international business offices located abroad,
Zapiranje lokacij: Opustitev približno 90 podružnic na področju dejavnosti poslovanje z zasebnimi strankami in podjetji v Berlinu/Brandenburgu (pretežno v Berlinu), 6 centrov za stranke na zveznem področju, 6 oz. 3 lokacij financiranja nepremičnin doma in v tujini, 3 lokacij poslovanja na trgu kapitala v tujini ter 14 predstavnikov v tujini na poslovnem področju velike stranke/tujina.
withdrawal from lines of business: long‐term withdrawal from large customer and international business (e.g. loan transactions with foreign banks, advisory services for large customers, privatisation and aircraft financing),
Opustitev poslovnih področij in dejavnosti: dolgoročni umik iz poslovnega področja velike stranke/tujina (npr. kreditno poslovanje s tujimi bankami, svetovanje velikim strankam, privatizacija, financiranje letal).
reduction measures: in capital markets, reduction of risk assets by [...]* % and of debt finance by [...]* %; in real estate, reduction of the volume of investment funds by over [...]* % (about EUR [...]*) and of project development by [...]* % (about EUR [...]*), and office closure and staff reductions of 50 %; reduction of the small public‐sector business and integration of the remainder into the corporate business.
Redukcijski ukrepi: pri poslovanju na trgu kapitala zmanjšanje tvegane aktive za [...]* % in področja financiranja s sposojenim denarjem za [...]* %, pri poslu z nepremičninami zmanjšanje obsega sklada za več kot [...]* % (okoli [...]* EUR) in projektnega razvoja za [...]* % (okoli [...]* EUR) ter zaprtje podružnic in zmanjšanje osebja za 50 %; skrčenje majhnega samostojnega področja javni organ in integracija preostalega posla v poslovanje s podjetji.
Germany stated that these measures together would lead to a reduction in staffing of 50 % (from about 15000 to 7500) and a reduction in the balance‐sheet total from roughly EUR 190 billion to EUR 140 billion.
Nemčija je razložila, da ti ukrepi skupno vodijo do zmanjšanja števila zaposlenih za 50 % (iz približno 15000 na 7500) in do zmanjšanja bilančne vsote za približno 190 milijard EUR na 140 milijard EUR.
In the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission commented that, for want of sufficiently detailed information, it could not make a proper assessment of the impact of these measures, which in some cases were described only vaguely, as regards both BGB’s individual areas of business and its position on the markets; it thus asked for further information.
Komisija je v sklepu o uvedbi postopka navedla, da učinkov teh delno slabo opisanih ukrepov, v celoti in tudi glede na posamezna poslovna področja BGB in na njen položaj na trgu, zaradi pomanjkanja natančnejših podatkov ni mogla ustrezno oceniti, zato je zaprosila za dodatne podatke.
Germany then supplied detailed information on the effects on the individual business areas or markets (see paragraph 291 et seq.) and the overall impact: total assets reduced by EUR 51,5 billion, or 25 %; total liabilities reduced by EUR 57,8 billion, or 27 %; and consolidated balance sheet reduced by EUR 50,2 billion, or just under 27 %.
Nemčija je nato predložila dodatne natančne informacije o učinkih na posamezna poslovna področja oz. trge (glej obrobne številke 291 in naslednje) ter o celotnem učinku — zmanjšanje dosedanjega celotne premoženja za 51,5 milijarde EUR ali 25 %, celotnih dosedanjih obveznosti v višini 57,8 milijard EUR ali 27 % in znižanje bilančne vsote po uskupinjenju za 50,2 milijardi EUR ali skoraj 27 % .
But, in the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission had already expressed doubts as to the adequacy of the planned compensatory measures.
Vendar je Komisija že v sklepu o uvedbi postopka izrazila dvome o zadostnosti načrtovanih dolžnosti.
It seemed questionable whether the proposed reduction in the balance‐sheet total could be regarded as sufficient in view of the large sum to be provided in aid and the Commission’s practice with regard to restructuring assistance for banks.
Zdelo se je vprašljivo, ali se na nameravano zmanjšanje bilančne vsote, glede znatne vsote pomoči in prakse Komisije v zvezi s pomočjo za prestrukturiranje bank, lahko upošteva kot zadostno.
It drew attention to the minimum capital ratios required by law, which might provide a rough guide for the assessment of compensatory measures in the banking sector. The argument is as follows.
V tej zvezi je Komisija opozorila tudi na zakonsko zahtevane minimalne stopnje kapitala, ki bi lahko glede na priliv kapitala predstavljale približno oporno točko za presojanje dolžnosti v bančnem sektorju.
In order to continue in business, an undercapitalised bank must either reduce its risk assets, and hence its volume of business, in proportion to the shortfall in capital (e.g. applying the legal minimum core‐capital ratio of 4 %, the risk assets must be reduced by a factor of up to 25); or seek a capital injection equal to the shortfall. Such a capital injection will enable it to avoid the reduction that would otherwise be necessary.
Pri tem igra vlogo naslednji razmislek: Za ohranjanje svojega poslovanja mora banka s prenizko stopnjo kapitalizacije ustrezno zmanjšati tvegano aktivo, torej njeno poslovno dejavnost (npr. če vzamemo za podlago zakonsko predpisano minimalno stopnjo temeljnega kapitala v višini 4 % v razmerju s tveganostjo uteženih bilančnih postavk maksimalno za 25-krat), ali pa zaprositi za ustrezni priliv kapitala.
This concept of an ‘opportunity reduction’ can serve to render visible the market distortion caused by a capital injection and thus provide a rough guide for the assessment of compensatory measures.
V zadnje imenovanem preprečuje sicer potrebno zmanjšanje. Ta razmislek o „zmanjšanju priložnosti“ lahko ponazori izkrivljanje trga pri prilivu kapitala in predstavlja približno oporno točko za dolžnosti.
But the Commission had pointed out that this would not be a mechanical rule and that, in any particular case, account would have to be taken of the economic circumstances, with special reference to the viability of the firm and the competitive situation on its markets.
Vendar je Komisija opozorila, da ne gre za „mehanično“ uporabno pravilo in da je potrebno v konkretnem posameznem primeru upoštevati gospodarske okoliščine, zlasti glede na sposobnost preživetja podjetja in položaj konkurence na trgih.
As regards the overall impact, Germany argued that the correct point of reference was not just the core capital but rather the own funds, made up of core capital and additional capital; here the legal minimum was 8 %, so that the expansion of business permitted by the aid, or the contraction of business it prevented, had to be valued using a factor not of 25 but of 12,5 at most.
Nemčija je glede celotnega učinka navedla, da ni vse odvisno le od stopnje temeljnega kapitala, ampak tudi od jamstvenega lastniškega kapitala (zakonska minimalna stopnja je 8 %), ki ga sestavljata temeljni in dodatni kapital, zaradi česar ob upoštevanju morebitnega širjenja posla oz. preprečenega zmanjševanja posla ne sme določiti faktor 25, ampak največ faktor 12,5.
In reality, a bank could increase its risk‐weighted assets by 25 only if a capital increase comprised additional capital as well as core capital.
Le če bi pri povečanju temeljnega kapitala prišlo do sočasnega dovajanja dodatnega kapitala, bi lahko banka utežene tvegane bilančne postavke dejansko povečala za 25-krat.
Even if the bank already had additional capital that could not previously be taken into account, the assessment should not be based on an expansion of business that had been made possible only by the additional capital that had been available in any event.
Tudi če je banki že na voljo doslej nevračunan dodatni kapital, upoštevanje širjenja posla, ki bi ga omogočil šele ta že tako obstoječ dodatni kapital, ne bi bilo ustrezno.
Germany further contended that the capital ratios actually required on the market were well above the legal minimum, at 6 % at least for core capital and about 10 % for own funds.
Sicer pa je Nemčija pojasnila, da so stopnje kapitalizacije, ki so na trgu dejansko potrebne, najmanj 6 % stopnja temeljnega kapitala in približno 10 % kapitalizacija, znatno nad zakonsko določeno minimalno stopnjo.
BAFin had confirmed this approach and had explained it in detail in comparisons with the averages for German banks (a core‐capital ratio of some 6 to 7 % and an own‐funds ratio of 9 to 11 % or, in the case of private banks, 10 to 11 %) and with the averages for large European banks, which were higher (a core‐capital ratio of 8,5 %).
Ta vidik je potrdila tudi BAFin s podrobno predstavitvijo s primerjavo povprečja nemških bank (približno 6-7 % temeljne kapitalizacije, 9-11 % stopnja kapitalizacije, od tega zasebne banke 10-11 %) in evropskih velikih bank, pri čemer je povprečje slednjih občutno večje (8,5 % temeljna kapitalizacija).
Germany concluded that the economic impact on the market of a capital injection of about EUR 1,8 billion should be valued at about EUR 18 billion. The Commission accepts these arguments.
Nemčija je iz tega sklepala, da je treba gospodarski učinek približno 1,8 milijard EUR priliva kapitala na trgu določiti s približno 18 milijardami EUR. Komisija se s temi razmisleki strinja.
Turning to the risk shield, at the time of the decision initiating the procedure, the economic value of this aid was not clear.
Glede omejitve tveganj so v času sklepa o uvedbi postopka še obstajale nejasnosti v zvezi z gospodarsko vrednostjo pomoči.
Since then Germany has argued that the economic value of the risk shield should be estimated at a little over EUR 6 billion (see paragraph 138).
Medtem je Nemčija razkrila, da je gospodarska vrednost določena z nekaj več kot 6 milijardami EUR (glej obrobno številko 138).
It has also stated that real estate services are not subject to the solvency rules, so that the contraction in business that is avoided cannot be derived from the capital ratios.
Nemčija je razložila tudi, da pri poslovanju z nepremičninskimi storitvami ne gre za poslovno področje, za katerega veljajo pravila solventnosti, zato preprečevanja zmanjšanja posla ni mogoče izpeljati iz stopenj kapitala.
It further contends that the risk shield relates essentially to old business in real estate services.
V nadaljevanju je bilo navedeno, da velja omejitev tveganj v glavnem na stare posle področja nepremičninskih storitev.
According to Germany, it could be argued that, during the restructuring of IBAG, new business was made possible only because cover had been provided for the company.
Vendar bi bilo to mogoče argumentirati s tem, da je nove posle v fazi prestrukturiranja IBAG omogočilo šele zavarovanje slednje.
But, in that event, the market distortion could be measured only by reference to the new business (estimated at about EUR [...]* altogether in the restructuring phase; see paragraph 90) or, at most, to the overall value of the risk shield (EUR 6,1 billion).
V tem smislu pa lahko stopnjo izkrivljanja trga opiše le obseg novih poslov (v fazi prestrukturiranja ocenjen na skupno skoraj [...]* EUR, glej obrobno številko 90) ali pa maksimalna vrednost celotne omejitve tveganj (6,1 milijard EUR).
The Commission cannot accept this estimate.
Komisija se tem ocenam ne more pridružiti.
Without the risk shield or, alternatively, a capital injection of about EUR 6 billion, BGB would not have been able to continue in business as a result of the interlocking risks within the group.
Kajti brez omejitve tveganj ali, alternativno, s prilivom kapitala v približni višini 6 milijard EUR, BGB zaradi internih medsebojnih vplivov tveganj ne bi mogla v celoti nadaljevati svoje poslovne dejavnosti.
The effect of the risk shield is thus comparable to that of a capital injection of some EUR 6 billion. The same applies to the capital contribution provided for in the repayment agreement, which, in the event of a recovery decision by the Commission, can be estimated at a maximum value of EUR 1,8 billion.
V toliko je mogoče učinek omejitve tveganj izenačiti s hipotetičnim prilivom kapitala v približni višini 6 milijard EUR. Enako velja za vložitev sporazuma o vračilu, ki jo je potrebno v primeru, da se Komisija odloči za vračilo, določiti z maksimalno vrednostjo v višini 1,8 milijard EUR.
If the total economic value of the aid is EUR 9,7 billion and applying a factor of 10 to the own‐funds ratio is actually required, the reduction in the balance sheet that serves as the point of reference for an estimate of the market distortion and as a rough guide for the compensatory measures would come to almost EUR 100 billion out of EUR 190 billion.
Ob upoštevanju celotne gospodarske vrednosti pomoči v višini 9,7 milijarde EUR in faktor 10 glede na dejansko potrebno stopnjo kapitalizacije, bi kot oporno točko za izkrivljanje trga in kot približno orientacijo za določitev dolžnosti dobili zmanjšanje bilančne vsote v višini skoraj 100 milijard EUR iz 190 milijard EUR.
This demonstrates the limits to the applicability of the opportunity argument.
S tem so prikazane meje uporabnosti tovrstnih oportunitetnih razmislekov.
An immediate reduction on this scale would be possible only in the event of insolvency.
Takojšnje skrčenje obsega je mogoče samo pri nelikvidnosti.
Without the aid, therefore, the only possible course would have been for BGB to cease trading; conversely, the only acceptable compensatory measure would be the insolvency of BGB.
Brez pomoči bi bila tako mogoča le ustavitev poslovne dejavnosti BGB, kar bi pri obratnem sklepu pomenilo, da je edina dolžnosti za kompenzacijo nelikvidnost BGB.
But, within the time needed for an ordinary restructuring operation, compensatory measures on the scale described above can be implemented in the short and medium term only with difficulty or at the cost of heavy losses on the sale of parts of the organisation or the cancellation or termination of long‐term contracts and positions if the viability of the firm is not to be jeopardised for a long time to come or indeed rendered in all probability impossible.
Vendar so tudi v časovnem okviru normalnega prestrukturiranja dolžnosti ob upoštevanju zgoraj opisanega obsega kratkoročno in srednjeročno uresničljive le težko ali pa samo z znatnimi izgubami iz prodaje delov podjetja in odpovedmi ali razdrtjem dolgoročnih pogodb in postavk, brez da se trajno ogrozi ali verjetno celo onemogoči sposobnost preživetja podjetja.
Firstly, such a consequence would hardly be compatible with the objective of restructuring aid and the yardstick by which it is measured, namely the return of the recipient firm to long‐term viability.
Takšna posledica bi bila po eni strani komaj združljiva s ciljem in preskusnim kriterijem pomoči za prestrukturiranje, namreč ponovno vzpostavitvijo dolgoročne donosnosti podjetja, ki je pomoč prejelo.
Secondly, it would be out of proportion to the impact of the various aid measures on individual lines of business and markets.
Po drugi strani pa se zdi vpričo stopnje učinkovanja različnih pomoči na posameznih poslovnih poljih in trgih nesorazmerna.
Consequently, the opportunity argument cannot be applied mechanically to identify the required level of the reduction in the balance‐sheet total.
Ob upoštevanju potrebnega skupnega skrčenja obsega bilance zato tega oportunističnega premisleka ni mogoče uporabiti mehansko.
The Commission has accordingly sought to ensure an overall contraction in the volume of business in line with its practice in the past but, above all, also an effective reduction in the bank’s presence on the markets, having regard to the effects of the measures proposed on the individual lines of business.
Komisija si je ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega zastavila cilj, zagotoviti ustrezno zmanjšanje celotnega obsega v okviru svoje dosedanje prakse, zlasti pa zagotoviti, z upoštevanjem učinkovanja izvedbe ukrepov, nameravanih na posameznih poslovnih področjih, učinkovito zmanjšanje navzočnosti banke na trgih.
BGB operates primarily in private and corporate retail banking, real estate financing, real estate services (investment fund and project business) and capital markets (money and securities dealings).
BGB je dejavna zlasti na področjih poslovanja z zasebnimi strankami in podjetji (poslovanje z občani), financiranja nepremičnin (financiranje industrijskih nepremičnin), nepremičninskih storitev (poslovanje s skladi in projekti) in poslovanja na trgu kapitala (finančni posli in posli z vrednostnimi papirji).
The other lines of business are less significant in terms of volume, are to be cut back or closed down and are of no further relevance here.
Poleg tega so obstoječa poslovna polja glede na njihov obseg manj pomembna, zato bodo skrčena ali v celoti opuščena, in niso pomembna za dodatno obravnavanje.
This applies to the public‐sector lending segment, which is to be substantially reduced and will in future form part of the corporate business, and to the large customer and international segment (e.g. project and export financing), which is to be wound up.
To velja za segment javnega organa (dodeljevanje kreditov), ki bo znatno zmanjšan in v prihodnje prištevan k poslovanju s podjetji, ter na področje velikih strank/tujina (npr. projektno in izvozno financiranje), ki bo opuščen.
Investment banking activities consisted only of a relatively small volume of share and security issues and will not play an independent role in future.
Aktivnosti na področju investicijskega bančništva obsegajo le delnice in posojila v relativno manjšem obsegu in v prihodnosti ne bodo imele lastne vloge.
IBB’s development banking role is to be hived off from LBB when institutional liability and guarantor liability for LBB come to an end in 2005.
Razvojna dejavnost IBB bo z odpadom obveznosti za ohranjanje javnega podjetja in jamstva garanta pri LBB v letu 2005 odcepljena.
On the basis of the information provided by Germany, the decision initiating the procedure treated real estate as one line of business but, in order to assess the compensatory measures further, this had to be divided into real estate financing and real estate services because of their different supply and demand structures.
Območje dejavnosti, v sklepu o uvedbi postopka na osnovi informacij, ki jih je predložila Nemčija še opisano kot poslovanje z nepremičninami, je bilo treba za dodatna preverjanja dolžnosti zaradi različnih struktur ponudnikov in povpraševalcev razdeliti na delni območji financiranje nepremičnin in nepremičninske storitve.
According to BGB’s in‐house definition, real estate financing is large‐volume financing (involving sums of EUR 5 million and upward) and thus primarily commercial real estate financing (for housing construction or shopping centres, for example).
Poslovno polje financiranje nepremičnin zadeva po notranji definiciji BGB financiranje velikega obsega (od približno 5 milijonov EUR naprej) in s tem v glavnem investicijsko financiranje nepremičnin (npr. gradnja stanovanj ali nakupovalnih centrov).
It is carried on mainly by BGB’s subsidiary BerlinHyp, which accounts for about two thirds of the entire volume, but also by LBB and BGB itself.
Upravlja ga zlasti hčerinska družba BerlinHyp (približno 2/3 poslovnega obsega), vendar tudi LBB in sama BGB.
Private real estate financing falls predominantly within the group's private customer business.
Zasebno financiranje nepremičnin sodi v pretežnem obsegu k poslovanju koncerna z zasebnimi strankami.
BGB’s real estate services consist essentially of investment fund business and building and development work.
Poslovno polje nepremičninskih storitev zadeva v glavnem poslovanje s skladi in razvojni posel vlagateljev.
It was formerly conducted by IBG and is now handled by IBAG, which is a wholly owned division of BGB.
Nove posle bo vodil delni koncern IBAG, ki je v 100 % lasti BGB in ki ga je v preteklosti upravljala IBG.
Real estate services are the area which was the main cause of the crisis and of the restructuring measures under consideration here, and they have benefited most from the risk shield, the measure that represents the largest volume of aid.
Prav poslovanje na področju nepremičninskih storitev je glavni vzrok za krizo in za pomoč za prestrukturiranje, ki je predmet te presoje, in ki je z omejitvijo tveganj, ukrepa z najvišjo vsoto pomoči, največ pridobilo.
From the outset, therefore, there were doubts about the continuation of this line of business.
Že od samega začetka obstajajo pomisleki proti nadaljevanju tega področja delovanja.
In the summer of 2002 Germany offered to hive the real estate services business off from BGB and to transfer it to the Land of Berlin.
Ob upoštevanju tega je Nemčija že poleti leta 2002 ponudila izključitev posla nepremičninskih storitev iz BGB in njegov prenos na deželo Berlin.
This general intention was spelt out in detail in the undertaking submitted by Germany in January 2004.
Ta splošni namen je bil podrobneje predstavljen v privolitvi, ki jo je Nemčija predložila januarja leta 2004.
Germany here undertakes to ensure that by 31 December 2005 the BGB group sells or liquidates all holdings in real estate service companies covered by the risk shield.
Nemčija se s privolitvijo obvezuje zagotoviti, da bo BGB odsvojila ali likvidirala vse udeležbe v družbah z nepremičninskimi storitvami, zajete v omejitvi tveganj, z bilančnim učinkom najkasneje do 31. decembra 2005.
In detail, the undertaking provides that by 31 December 2004 the Land and the bank are to take a final decision settling which holdings can suitably be sold to outsiders in a transparent, open and non‐discriminatory bidding procedure.
Podrobno ureditve predvidevajo, da bosta dežela in banka do 31. decembra 2004 dokončno določili, katere udeležbe se zdijo ustrezne za odsvojitev na tretje v postopku preglednega, odprtega in nediskriminativnega postopka oddaje naročil.
According to Germany, the number of such holdings can reasonably be expected to be small.
Po obrazložitvi Nemčije bo šlo po razumni presoji za majhno število udeležb.
Essentially, there is only one fairly large company involved which has about 160 employees and is covered by the book value guarantee afforded by the risk shield, so that under the detailed agreement any profit on the sale is to be transferred to the Land.
V glavnem gre le za eno samo pomembnejšo družbo s približno 160 zaposlenimi, ki je zajeta z garancijo knjižne vrednosti omejitve tveganj, zato je treba na osnovi uredb podrobnega sporazuma morebitni dobiček od odsvojitve odvesti na deželo.
If sold to outsiders, the company will no longer be covered by the guarantees in the risk shield.
Pri odsvojitvi na tretje zadevne družbe ne zajema garancija omejitve tveganj.
All holdings not sold or liquidated by 31 December 2005 will be acquired by the Land of Berlin on market terms, with the price being determined by an accountant commissioned by the Land or by arbitration if that proves necessary after the first valuation has been reviewed by an accountant commissioned by the bank.
Vse udeležbe, ki 31. decembra 2005 ne bodo odsvojene ali likvidirane, bo dežela Berlin pridobila pod tržno primernimi pogoji, kupno ceno pa bo določil revizor, ki ga bo naročila dežela. Ko bo ceno pregledal še revizor, ki ga bo naročila banka, bo cena, če bo treba, določena v razsodniškem postopku.
Under the detailed agreement, the Land already has special rights of assent, information and control in the real estate services area, which are exercised by BCIA.
Na osnovi predpisov iz podrobnega sporazuma ima dežela že sedaj posebne pravice do dajanja soglasja, biti obveščena in nadzirati na področju nepremičninskih storitev, ki jih izvaja družba v lasti dežele, Berliner Gesellschaft zum Controlling der Immobilien-Altrisken mbH („BCIA“).