natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to point 28 of the guidelines, aid for restructuring can be granted only if strict criteria are met and if it is certain that any distortions of competition will be offset by the benefits flowing from the firm’s survival, particularly where the net effect of redundancies resulting from the firm going out of business would exacerbate local, regional or national employment problems or, exceptionally, where the firm’s disappearance would result in a monopoly or tight oligopolistic situation.
Pomoči za prestrukturiranje je dovoljeno dodeljevati v skladu s številko 28 smernice le, če so izpolnjeni strogi kriteriji in če obstaja gotovost, da je morebitno izkrivljanje konkurence odtehtano s prednostmi, povezanimi z nadaljevanjem poslovanja podjetja, še zlasti če bi neto učinek odpuščenih zaposlenih zaradi stečaja dokazljivo zaostril lokalne, regionalne ali narodne težave pri zaposlovanju, ali bi, v izjemnih primerih, izginotje podjetja povzročilo monopol oz. tesen oligopolni položaj.
The latter can be ruled out as regards Berlin given the number of banks doing business there and the structure of the market for private and corporate business, on which BGB in the shape of Berliner Bank and Berliner Sparkasse is still the market leader.
Slednje lahko izključimo za območje Berlin zaradi števila bank, ki so na njem zastopane in strukture trga za poslovanje z zasebnimi strankami in podjetji, na katerih je BGB s svojimi imeni „Berliner Bank“ in „Berliner Sparkasse“ še zmeraj vodilna na trgu.
In the event of any bankruptcy on the part of the leading regional bank and the sale of its component parts that would presumably follow, no deterioration of the economic structure is, therefore, to be anticipated.
V primeru morebitnega stečaja vodilne regionalne banke in prodajo njenih delov, ki bi verjetno sledila, ni mogoče računati s poslabšanjem konkurenčne strukture.
This is conceivable only in an extremely improbable and hence theoretical scenario in which, following the insolvency of one of the larger regional competitors, all the subsidiaries/assets of BGB that account for its strong regional position were acquired.
To je predstavljivo samo v izjemno neverjetnem in zato teoretičnem scenariju, v katerem bi po plačilni nesposobnosti enega od močnih regionalnih tekmecev pridobil vse hčerinske družbe/osnovna sredstva BGB, ki pomenijo njen močan regionalni položaj.
Even then, however, the emergence of a monopoly or a tight oligopolistic situation is to be ruled out in view of the merger control procedure that would follow.
Vendar je mogoče nastanek monopola ali tesnega oligopola zaradi kontrole združitve, ki bi sledila, izključiti.
The position of BGB on national and international markets is not sufficiently strong to result in a monopoly or oligopolistic situation following any bankruptcy and any ensuing disposals.
Na državnem in na mednarodnih trgih položaj BGB ni dovolj močan, da bi zaradi morebitnega stečaja in sledeče odsvojitve povzročil nastanek monopola ali oligopola.
Germany has not disputed this assessment by the Commission, which was set out in the decision initiating the procedure.
Nemčija tej presoji, podani že v sklepu Komisije o otvoritvi postopka, ni ugovarjala.
As regards the economic and social repercussions in Berlin, Germany has already provided an estimate in which the impact of BGB’s restructuring is compared with the impact of its going out of business/bankruptcy, especially in connection with employment and tax revenue for the Land of Berlin.
Glede gospodarskih in socialnih učinkov v Berlinu je Nemčija predložila cenitev, s primerjavo učinkov prestrukturiranja BGB z učinki prenehanja poslovanja/stečaja, zlasti glede na zaposlitev in prihodke dežele Berlin iz davkov.
It was claimed that an insolvency would lead to the loss of 7200 jobs in Berlin (a decline of 59 %) by 2006, instead of the 3200 jobs (a decline of 26 %) that would be lost in the restructuring scenario.
Predstavljeno je bilo, da bi plačilna nesposobnost do leta 2006 povzročila izgubo 7200 delovnih mest v Berlinu (minus 59 %), namesto izgube 3200 delovnih mest (minus 26 %) pri scenariju prestrukturiranja.
The Land’s tax receipts in 2006 would fall by EUR 70 million in the event of a restructuring and by EUR 150 million if no restructuring took place. In the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission noted that it could not verify these estimates as no further explanations had been provided.
Letni prihodek dežele iz davkov bi v letu 2006 s prestrukturiranjem upadel za 70 milijonov EUR, brez prestrukturiranja pa za 150 milijonov EUR. V Sklepu o uvedbi postopka je Komisija pripomnila, da teh ocenjenih vrednosti zaradi pomanjkanja nadaljnje razlage ni mogla preveriti.
Germany has provided additional information, including a calculation by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) according to which, if BGB had become insolvent, this would have resulted in the loss of between just over 7000 and just under 10000 jobs in Berlin (of the 12200 jobs that existed in Berlin in 2001), whereas, according to the updated plan, the restructuring would lead to a loss of some 3500 jobs in Berlin by 2006.
Nemčija je nato predložila nadaljnje informacije, med drugim tudi izračun Nemškega zavoda za gospodarsko raziskovanje (DIW). Potemtakem bi takratna plačilna nesposobnost BGB v Berlinu povzročila izgubo nekaj več kot 7000 do skoraj 10000 delovnih mest (od 12200 delovnih mest v Berlinu leta 2001), medtem ko bi prestrukturiranje do leta 2006 po aktualiziranem načrtu povzročilo izgubo okoli 3500 berlinskih delovnih mest.
The Commission regards as excessive the job losses assumed in the case of insolvency since in this eventuality too the business areas deemed to be fundamentally viable could have been retained by acquirers in a likewise restructured form.
Komisija je ocenila domnevno izgubo delovnih mest v primeru nelikvidnosti za pretirano, ker bi lahko tudi v tem scenariju pridobitelji v prestrukturirani obliki nadaljevali s poslovanjem poslovnih področij, ki so načeloma ocenjena kot donosna.
Moreover, the job losses — currently estimated at some 5000 — that would result in Berlin as a result of the restructuring are significantly higher than originally assumed.
Nadaljnje je izguba delovnih mest v Berlinu, nastala zaradi prestrukturiranja, z aktualno ocenjenimi približno 5000 delovnimi mesti bistveno večja kot prvotno domnevano.
In any event, the Commission agrees with the assessment by Germany that a sudden insolvency would basically have resulted in significantly more job losses than an orderly and longer‐term restructuring because a sudden insolvency would have led to ‘fire sales’ and the closure of areas of business that could be restructured.
Vendar se je treba strinjati z ocenitvijo Nemčije, da bi bilo z nenadno plačilno nesposobnostjo izgubljenih bistveno več delovnih mest kot z urejenim dolgoročnim prestrukturiranjem, ker bi v prvem primeru prišlo do tako imenovane „nujne prodaje“ in zaprtja področij, ki jih je mogoče prestrukturirati.
Account also has to be taken of the indirect job losses resulting from domino effects.
Ob tem je treba upoštevati tudi posredno izgubljena delovna mesta zaradi učinka domin.
Accordingly, direct and indirect tax effects would lead to annual revenue shortfalls which, at some EUR 300 million a year, can be seen as significant, especially since they continue for many years.
Posledično bi prišlo zaradi posrednih in neposrednih davčnih učinkov do letnega izpada prihodkov za deželo Berlin, ki jih je treba s približno 300 milijoni EUR na leto uvrstiti kot znatne, zlasti ker so razširjeni na več let.
To that extent, the Commission agrees with the Federal Government that the firm’s survival will have economic and social advantages.
V tem smislu se Komisija strinja z Nemčijo, da so s preživetjem podjetja povezane gospodarske in socialne prednosti.
In its notification, Germany had, in the case of a hypothetical insolvency scenario, also identified factors that would result in losses for LBB as well as the Land’s obligations to provide support.
Nemčija je v priglasitvi za primer hipotetičnega scenarija plačilne nesposobnosti nadaljnje opozorila na vire izgub za LBB in na obvezo dežele, da jih krije.
However, without any clear identification and quantification of these liability risks, the Commission could not make a proper assessment of these economic effects.
Brez jasne identifikacije in kvantifikacije teh jamstev za tveganja Komisija teh gospodarskih učinkov ni mogla ustrezno oceniti.
In the course of the proceedings, Germany thus presented a legal opinion and calculations relating to the repercussions — over and above the revenue shortfalls mentioned — of a hypothetical insolvency of BGB for the Land of Berlin.
Nemčija je zato med postopkom predložila pravno mnenje in izračune o učinkih hipotetične nelikvidnosti BGB za deželo Berlin, ki bi presegali zgoraj omenjene izpade dohodka.
These repercussions would materialise as a result of the very complex risk interlinkage within the firm (including internal loans, comfort letters, and profit‐and‐loss pooling arrangements), in conjunction with the institutional and guarantor liability for LBB that will continue until 2005.
Gre za tiste učinke, ki bi se sprožili zaradi kombinacije zelo zapletene prepletenosti tveganj znotraj koncerna (med drugim notranje odobravanje kreditov, izjav o nameri materinske družbe, pogodbe o odvajanju rezultatov) v sinergiji z obveznostjo za ohranjanje javnega podjetja in jamstvo garanta, ki za LBB obstajata še do leta 2005.
According to Germany, the insolvency of BGB would lead for LBB, which is linked to it by virtue of an atypical undisclosed holding, loans and guarantees, to losses amounting to between some EUR 18,5 billion and EUR 25 billion consisting essentially of: the declining value of LBB’s claims on BGB (in the case of a balance‐sheet total of EUR [...]* and depending on the default rate, some EUR [...]*‐ EUR [...]*) and of claims on customers (in the case of a balance‐sheet total of some EUR [...]* and depending on the failure rate, some EUR [...]* ‐ EUR [...]*); recourse to guarantees granted to BGB Finance in Dublin (some EUR [...]*‐ EUR [...]*); and insolvency costs (some EUR [...]*).
Glede na izjave Nemčije bi scenarij plačilne nesposobnosti BGB za LBB, ki je z njo povezana z netipično tiho udeležbo, krediti in garancijami, povzročil izgube v višini okoli 18,5 do 25 milijard EUR, ki bi jih večinoma sestavljale izgube vrednosti zaradi kreditnih terjatev LBB do BGB (pri bilančnem volumnu v višini [...]* EUR glede na stopnjo izpada okoli [...]* do [...]* EUR), izgube vrednosti zaradi terjatev strank (pri bilančnem volumnu v višini [...]* EUR, glede na stopnjo izpada okoli [...]* do [...]* EUR), uveljavljanja garancij, danih BGB Finance v Dublinu (okoli [...]* do [...]* EUR), ter stroški plačilne nesposobnosti (okoli [...]* EUR).
According to Germany, this scenario would impose charges of some EUR 31 billion to EUR 40 billion on the Land. It was assumed here that the Land decides to terminate LBB’s business and would, therefore, exercise not the institutional liability but the guarantor liability of the Land, i.e. liability for the total amount of LBB’s liabilities not covered by assets.
Po podatkih Nemčije bi ta scenarij povzročil obremenitev države v višini približno 31 milijard EUR do 40 milijard EUR. Pri tem je bilo predvideno, da se bo dežela odločila za prekinitev poslovanja LBB, in se torej ne bi odločila za obveznosti za ohranjanje javnega podjetja, temveč za jamstvo garanta dežele, ki velja za jamstvo celotnega zneska obveznosti LBB, ki jih ne krije premoženje.
The amount covered by the guarantor liability was estimated at between some EUR [...]* (base case) and EUR [...]* (worst case).
Uveljavljanje jamstva garanta je bilo ocenjeno na [...]* EUR („base-case“) do [...]* EUR („base-case“).
Other charges on the Land amounting to between some EUR [...]* (base case) and EUR [...]* (worst case) would result under this scenario from the claims of the Deposit Guarantee Fund of German private banks.
Pri tem scenariju bi zaradi zahtevkov do nadomestil iz varnostnih skladov za vloge nemških zasebnih bank prišlo do dodatnih obremenitve dežele v višini [...]* EUR („base-case“) do [...]* EUR („worst-case“).
It was also assumed that the Land’s capital injection of just under EUR 2 billion would be lost and that the provision of liquidity during the winding‐up would have interest‐rate costs of some EUR 5 billion.
Nadaljnje izhodišče je bila izguba kapitalnega vložka dežele v višini skoraj 2 milijardi EUR ter iz stroškov za obresti za zagotavljanje plačilne sposobnosti v postopku likvidacije v višini 5 milijard EUR.
The Commission has checked these figures and calculations and asked for further explanations.
Komisija je te podatke in izračune preverila ter zahtevala nadaljnje razlage.
It has come to the conclusion that, in a hypothetical insolvency scenario, the existing state guarantees for LBB would impose on the Land substantial charges for which only a rough estimate could be made, with a distinction having to be drawn in any event between the subscenarios with or without the continued existence of LBB and assuming institutional liability.
Ob tem je prišla do izida, da bi v hipotetičnem scenariju plačilne nesposobnosti zaradi še obstoječih državnih garancij za LBB deželo bremenili znatne, četudi le grobo ocenljive obveznosti, pri tem pa je treba razlikovati med podscenariji z in brez nadaljevanja LBB z obveznostjo ohranjanja javnega podjetja.
According to its own estimates, which are based on the figures supplied by Germany, the Commission assumes that, if LBB were to continue in business, the charges on the Land would be of the order of some EUR 13 billion to EUR 20 billion or more. This would comprise first the loss of the Land’s share in BGB's capital (just under EUR 2 billion).
Po lastnih ocenah Komisija na osnovi podatkov Nemčije izhaja iz tega, da bi znašala obremenitev dežele ob nadaljevanju LBB nekje približno 13 milijard EUR do več kot 20 milijard EUR. Ob tem bi na deželo najprej neposredno vplivala izguba deleža dežele Berlin pri temeljnem kapitalu BGB (skoraj 2 milijardi EUR).
In addition, by virtue of its institutional liability for LBB, the Land would have to offset the effects of the claim represented by the guarantees granted by LBB to BGB Finance in Dublin (estimated by the Commission at some EUR [...]*) and the decline in value of LBB’s claims on BGB (estimated at around EUR [...]*) to the extent that, subject to compliance with the solvency criteria, its continuing operation could be properly safeguarded.
Nadaljnje je morala dežela zaradi obveznosti ohranjanja javnega podjetja LBB poravnati posledice uveljavljanja garancij za garancije, ki jih je odobrila BFB Finance v Dublinu (Komisija jih je ocenila na okoli [...]* EUR), ter izgubo vrednosti kreditnih terjatev, ki jih je imela LBB na BGB (ocenjena vrednost okoli [...]* EUR) in sicer v taki meri, da je bilo ob upoštevanju kriterijev solventnosti mogoče posel LBB pravilno ohraniti.
In view of the possible claims ‐ indicated by Germany ‐ of the Deposit Guarantee Fund of German private banks, a number of uncertainties exist — [...]*.
Glede na možne pravice zahtevati nadomestila iz varnostnih skladov nemških zasebnih bank, ki jih je navedla Nemčija, obstajajo negotovosti - [...]*.
Substantial legal doubts also exist regarding the legal validity of LBB’s liability for certain third‐party claims stemming from the fund business in the real estate services area (e.g. prospectus liability, exemption declarations for shareholders of investment and ad hoc companies acting in a personal capacity).
Nadaljnje obstajajo znatni pravni dvomi glede pravne veljavnosti jamstva LBB za nekatere pravice tretjih iz poslovanja s skladi na področju nepremičninskih storitev (na primer jamstvo za izjave v prospektih, izjava o razrešitvi odgovornosti za družabnike investicijskih in nepremičninskih družb, ki jamčijo osebno.
Any risks cannot, therefore, be quantified.
Morebitnih tveganj zatorej ni mogoče številčno izraziti.
In the event of termination of LBB’s business, there would be additional charges for the Land of approximately EUR 8 billion (some EUR 6 billion as a result of the loss in value for LBB of claims on customers as a result of liquidity problems triggered by the insolvency — virtually as a domino effect ‐ for customers (in particular investment companies, shelf companies and residential property companies) and around EUR 2 billion by way of depreciation on participating interests).
Scenarij za ukinitev poslovne dejavnosti LBB je treba izhajati iz dodatne obremenitve dežele v višini približno 8 milijard EUR (približno 6 milijard EUR izgube vrednosti LBB zaradi terjatev strank pogojenih s plačilno nesposobnostjo, tako rekoč domino učinek, tako pogojenih težav s plačilno sposobnostjo strank, še posebej investicijskih in varovalnih družb ter družb, ki gradijo za trg, ter okoli 2 milijardi EUR amortizacije na udeležbe).
In the course of the proceedings, Germany has also claimed that, in the event of the hypothetical insolvency of the real estate service business (divestment and liquidation without the risk shield), these scenarios would not be significantly affected because of the risk interlinkage within the company.
Nemčija je v postopku prav tako povedala, da se ti scenariji pri hipotetični nelikvidnosti področja nepremičninskih storitev (izločitev in likvidacija brez omejitve tveganj) zaradi prepletenosti tveganj v koncernu ne bi bistveno spremenili.
Of decisive importance here are the large amount of lending to subsidiaries in the growing and, at the same time, increasingly difficult real estate service business (IBAG/IBG/LPFV, including the IBAG subsidiaries IBV and Bavaria) by the group’s subbanks (BGB, LBB and BerlinHyp), as well as the profit‐and‐loss pooling arrangements between IBG and its subsidiaries Bavaria and IBV, on the one hand, and BGB and IBAG, on the other.
Odločilni za to so po eni strani krediti, ki so jih pretežno prejele hčerinske družbe področja nepremičninskih storitev, ki se vedno bolj širi in zahaja v vedno večje težave (IBAG/IBG/LPFV z vključno IBV, hčerinsko družbo IBAG-a in Bavaria) od specializiranih bank koncerna (BGB, LBB in BerinHyp), ter po drugi strani pogodbe o odvajanju rezultatov med IBAG in njenima hčerinskima družbama Bavaria in IBV na eni strani in BGB in IBAG na drugi strani.
In addition, BGB gave guarantees in respect of all the liabilities of IBG, Bavaria and IBV that were justified at the end of 1998.
Poleg tega je BGB v zvezi z vsemi obveznostmi, nastalimi do IBG do konca 1998, Bavarii in IBV dala izjavo o nameri materinske družbe.
The Commission has no reason to doubt these observations by Germany.
Komisija nima razloga dvomiti v obrazložitev Nemčije.
To this extent, it agrees with Germany that divestment and liquidation of the real estate service business IBAG/IBG/LPFV would, without the risk shield, also lead to the insolvency of BGB, together with the consequences described above, because of the risk interlinkage.
S stališčem Nemčije se strinja do te mere, da bi izločitev in likvidacija področij za nepremičninske storitve IBAG/IBG/LPFV brez omejitve tveganj zaradi medsebojnega vpliva tveganj prav tako pripeljali do plačilne nesposobnosti BGB z zgoraj opisanimi posledicami.
Lastly, it should be pointed out that the repercussions of a hypothetical insolvency of BGB — with or without the survival of LBB — are difficult to calculate and that the estimations are subject to considerable uncertainty.
Končno je mogoče ugotoviti, da so učinki hipotetične plačilne nesposobnosti BGB, z nadaljevanja posla LBB ali brez, težko izračunljivi, ocenitve pa zelo negotove.
The charges for the Land can, therefore, be estimated only roughly and range from some EUR 13 billion to over EUR 30 billion. However, taking a probable value between these extremes, it can be concluded that, with the help of the aid measures in question, a restructuring will impose less onerous charges on the Land of Berlin.
Obremenitve za deželo je tako mogoče oceniti le grobo z razponom nihanja od 13 do več kot 30 milijard EUR. Z verjetno vrednostjo med tema poloma lahko zagotovo izhajamo iz tega, da so posledice prestrukturiranja s pomočjo, o katerih je govora tukaj, za deželo Berlin manj obremenjujoče.
During the proceedings Germany has not claimed that BGB or other firms in the group provide services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty.
Nemčija med postopkom ni uveljavljala, da BGB ali druga podjetja koncerna zagotavljajo storitev splošnega gospodarskega interesa v smislu drugega odstavka člena 86 Pogodbe ES.
Accordingly, as stated in the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission has assumed that this aspect is of no relevance to the assessment of the measure in question and has concluded that aid cannot be approved on the basis of Article 86(2).
Zato je Komisija, kot je bilo omenjeno že v sklepu o uvedbi postopka, izhajala iz tega, da ta vidik ni pomemben za ocenitev zadevnega ukrepa in zaključila, da pomoči ni mogoče odobriti na osnovi drugega odstavka člena 86 Pogodbe ES.
Restoration of long-term viability
Presoja dolgoročne rentabilnosti
According to point 3.2.2(b) of the guidelines, the grant of aid is conditional on implementation of the restructuring plan, which must be endorsed by the Commission in the case of all individual aid measures and examined to determine whether it is likely to restore the firm’s long-term viability within a reasonable timescale.
V skladu s črko (b) odsek 3.2.2 smernice bo odobritev pomoči odvisna od izvedbe načrta za prestrukturiranje, ki ga mora Komisija odobriti za vsako pomoč posebej ter ugotoviti njegovo ustreznost za ponovno vzpostavitev dolgoročne rentabilnosti podjetja v ustreznem roku.
The restructuring plan must be of limited duration and be based on realistic assumptions.
Načrt prestrukturiranja mora biti omejen in temeljiti na realističnih predvidevanjih.
It must describe the circumstances that led to the firm's difficulties, thereby providing a basis for assessing whether the proposed measures are appropriate.
Opisovati mora okoliščine, ki so privedle do težav v podjetju, ker je tako mogoče presoditi ustreznost predlaganih ukrepov.
It should enable the firm to progress towards a new structure that offers it prospects for long-term viability and enables it to stand on its own feet, i.e. it should enable the firm to cover all its costs including depreciation and financial charges and to achieve a sufficient return on its capital for it to compete in the marketplace.
Podjetju mora omogočati prehod do nove strukture z dolgoročnimi možnostmi za rentabilnosti in možnost poslovanja iz lastnih moči, to pomeni, da podjetju omogoča kritje vseh stroškov, vključno z amortizacijo in stroški financiranja, ter da doseže donosnost lastniškega kapitala, ki bi zadoščala za obstoj v konkurenci.
The Commission has based its assessment on information furnished by Germany, including detailed plans for the individual restructuring measures, forecast profit and loss accounts for the restructuring period 2001 to 2006 on the basis of a best-case, a worst-case and a base-case scenario, an analysis of the structural deficits responsible for the difficulties and the costs of the planned restructuring measures.
Komisija je svojo presojo oprla na podatke Nemčije, med drugim tudi na podrobni načrt posameznih ukrepov za prestrukturiranje, na predvideno bilanco uspešnosti za obdobje prestrukturiranja od 2001 do 2006 na osnovi optimističnega, pesimističnega in osnovnega scenarija, na analizo strukturnih primanjkljajev, ki so odgovorne za težave, in na stroške načrtovanih ukrepov prestrukturiranja.
In making its assessment, the Commission also relied on information supplied by Germany on the current implementation of the restructuring plan and on modifications to individual measures including the scheduling of the sale of specific assets.
Pri presoji se je Komisija nadaljnje oprla na podatke Nemčije o tekoči uresničitvi načrta za prestrukturiranje in o spreminjanju posameznih ukrepov, vključno s časovnim načrtom nekaterih odsvojitev.