natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since FHH also did not have adequate liquid budgetary funds available at the time, it opted for a contribution of non-monetary capital and, on 1 January 1993, transferred the 57,68 % of WK shares (DEM 959,362 million) directly and via HGV to HLB.
Ker takrat tudi FHH ni razpolagala z zadostnimi likvidnimi proračunskimi sredstvi, se je odločila za vložek v osnovna sredstva in 1. januarja 1993 prenesla 57,68 % delnic WK (959,362 milijonov DEM) neposredno in prek HGV na HLB.
The total stated value of the transfers was DEM 1171,552 million.
Skupna vrednost prenosov je bila ocenjena na 1171,522 milijonov DEM.
Of this amount, DEM 212,16 million corresponded to the contribution to the open reserves in 1986 (24 % of the WK shares), DEM 659,362 million to the contribution to the open reserves in 1993 (38 % of the WK shares) and DEM 300 million to HGV's silent partnership reserve of the same year.
Od tega zneska je bilo 212,160 milijonov DEM vloženih v javne rezerve leta 1986 (24 % delnic WK), 659,362 milijonov DEM v javne rezerve leta 1993 (38 % delnic WK) in istega leta 300 milijonov DEM v rezerve tihe družbe HGV (19,86 % delnic WK).
This calculation was based on WK valuation reports by two auditing firms in 1986 and 1993.
Izračun je temeljil na strokovnih poročilih dveh revizijskih podjetij o ovrednotenju WK v letih 1986 in 1993.
The total amount of DEM 1171,522 million was incorporated into the balance sheet for 1993 and subsequent financial years.
Skupni znesek 1171,522 milijonov DEM je bil vknjižen v bilanco stanja za leto 1993 in prihodnja poslovna leta.
The Federal Banking Supervisory Authority (Bundesaufsichtsamt für das Kreditwesen or ‘BAKred’) recognised the capital amount of DEM 212,16million for 1986.
Zvezni nadzorni urad za kredite („BAKred“) je priznal znesek kapitala 212,160 milijonov DEM za leto 1986.
With regard to the overall capital valuation after the further transfers in 1993, BAKred did not initially approve the relevant application from HLB because it took the view that, for WK to be recognised as a valuable holding, HLB would have to be entitled to sell it off. After a amendment to the WK Act in 1997 under which a decision on dissolution could be taken by shareholders at the request of a single shareholder (including HLB), the problem was settled and the full value was recognised as HLB's liable capital.
Glede na ovrednotenje celotnega kapitala po nadaljnjih prenosih leta 1993, BAKred sprva ni odobril ustrezne prošnje HLB, saj je menil, da bi morala biti HLB za priznanje od koristi udeležbe WK upravičena do odprodaje WK. Po spremembi Zakona glede WK leta 1997, ki je predvidel možnost odločitve za likvidacijo s strani delničarjev na zahtevo enega delničarja (tudi HLB), je bila težava odpravljena in celotna vrednost je bila priznala kot rizični lastni kapital HLB.
According to Germany, HLB expanded its business significantly following the two transfers; in the period 1986-99 its balance-sheet total rose from DEM 36,5 billion to over DEM 145 billion.
Po obrazložitvah Nemčije je HLB po obeh prenosih občutno razširila svoje dejavnosti: v obdobju med 1986 in 1999 se je bilančna vsota povečala iz 36,5 milijard DEM leta 1986 na dobrih 145 milijard DEM leta 1999.
According to the available information, FHH received no remuneration for the shares transferred on 1 January 1986 (24 % or DEM 212,16 million).
Po posredovanih informacijah FHH ni prejela nadomestila za delnice, prenesene 1. januarja 1986 (24 % ali 212,160 milijonov DEM).
Likewise, no remuneration was agreed for the shares transferred directly to HLB on 1 January 1993 (38 % or DEM 659,362 million); however, HGV received DEM [...] million each year from HLB for the contribution.
Prav tako ni prišlo do dogovora o nadomestilu za delnice, prenesene neposredno na HLB 1. januarja 1993 (38 % ali 659,362 milijonov DEM); vendar pa je HGV za vlogo od HLB prejemala $$$ milijonov DEM letno.
It was agreed that, in return for its contribution, HGV would receive [...] of profits, subject to a ceiling of 10 % each year.
Bilo je dogovorjeno, da HGV za svojo vlogo prejema [...] dobička, a največ 10 % letno.
According to the information supplied, a sum of DEM [...] million had been paid by HLB since this understanding of 23 December 1992 (effective as of 1 January 1993).
Po posredovanih informacijah je HLB po tem dogovoru z dne 23. decembra 1992 (v veljavi od 1. januarja 1993) izplačala [...] milijonov DEM.
No further remuneration was agreed.
Do dogovora o drugih nadomestilih ni prišlo.
Germany has nevertheless stated that, up to 1997, FHH, as HLB's sole shareholder, received the maximum annual dividend of 6 % laid down in the latter's statutes.
Vendar je Nemčija pojasnila, da je FHH kot edina delničarka HLB do leta 1997 prejemala s statutom določeno najvišjo letno dividendo 6 %.
In addition, HLB has regularly converted reserves which it had generated itself into interest-bearing share capital (according to Germany, comparable to the issue of free shares), and this, according to the data submitted, resulted in an effective after-tax return of more than [...] % (and a corresponding inflow) on the capital actually paid in by the shareholder; HLB is thus the Landesbank with the highest effective yield.
Poleg tega je HLB redno pretvarjala rezerve, ki jih je prigospodarila, v obrestovan osnovni kapital (po navedbah Nemčije primerljiv z izdajo brezplačnih delnic), kar se je po posredovanih podatkih odražalo v dejanskem donosu, ki je znašal več kot [...] % po obdavčitvi (in ustreznih prilivih) na dejansko vplačan kapital s strani delničarja, zato je HLB deželna banka z največjim dejanskim donosom.
In its decision of 13 November 2002 to initiate the procedure, the Commission explained that the provision of resources by FHH to HLB had to be investigated in the light of the market-economy investor principle.
V svojem Sklepu o sprožitvi postopka z dne 13. novembra 2002 je Komisija pojasnila, da je treba zagotovitev sredstev s strani FHH v korist HLB preučiti v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
According to this principle, no aid elements are present even in the case of resources provided by a state investor where such funds are provided on terms on which a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions would be willing to provide funds to a private company.
Po tem načelu tudi v primeru zagotovitve sredstev s strani javnega vlagatelja elementi pomoči niso prisotni, če se ta sredstva zagotovijo pod pogoji, pod katerimi bi bil tudi zasebni vlagatelj, ki deluje v običajnih pogojih tržnega gospodarstva, pripravljen prepustiti sredstva zasebnemu podjetju (običajni tržni pogoji).
For a credit institution, the economic benefit of a broader capital base created by the transfers of WK shares in question resides in the resulting greater capacity to lend and the opportunity to expand business.
Za kreditno institucijo predstavlja gospodarska korist razširjenega obsega lastnih sredstev, ustvarjenega z zadevnimi prenosi delnic WK, posledično povečano kreditno sposobnost in možnost širjenja dejavnosti.
If this broader capital base is provided by the public investor on terms that are more advantageous than normal market conditions, the company concerned is favoured by state resources.
Če ta širši obseg lastnih sredstev zagotovi javni vlagatelj pod pogoji, ki so ugodnejši od običajnih tržnih pogojev, gre za korist v obliki državnih sredstev.
As a result, the Commission conducted a preliminary assessment as to whether FHH had provided the funds in question on normal market conditions.
Komisija je zato predhodno preučila, ali je FHH zagotovila zadevna sredstva pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
Under normal market conditions, a remuneration corresponding to its value, its function and the risk incurred is expected for the contribution of capital.
Pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji se za vlogo kapitala pričakuje nadomestilo, ki ustreza vrednosti in funkciji vloge ter prevzetemu tveganju.
On the basis of the information available to it at the time, the Commission doubted whether the remuneration received by FHH and its holding company HGV, which amounted to DEM [...] million [...], or some [less than 3 %] of the total funds transferred, had been paid under normal market conditions.
Komisija je na podlagi takrat razpoložljivih podatkov dvomila o tem, da se je nadomestilo, ki sta ga prejemala FHH in njeno holding podjetje HGV, izplačevalo pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji. Izplačano nadomestilo v višini [...] milijonov DEM [...] je predstavljalo okoli [manj kot 3 %] vseh prenesenih sredstev.
Since, at the time of the two transfers, even the return on outstanding ten-year Federal securities, i.e. risk-free assets, ranged from over 6 % to 7 %, the provision of capital can hardly be regarded as having taken place under normal market conditions.
Ker je v obeh obdobjih prenosov celo tekoči donos na 10-letne državne vrednostne papirje, torej netvegane naložbe, znašal med 6 % in 7 %, se pri zagotovljenem kapitalu težko izhaja iz običajnih tržnih pogojev.
Even if the special features of the transaction, such as the transferred resources' lack of liquidity, were taken into consideration, the remuneration received by FHH and HGV can hardly be regarded as a normal market remuneration.
Tudi ob upoštevanju posebnosti transakcije, kot je manjkajoča likvidnost prenesenih sredstev, se nadomestilo, ki sta ga prejemala FHH in HGV, težko obravnava kot običajno tržno nadomestilo.
Germany, it is true, had stated that, at the time of the transfer, HLB was an economically sound company whose value as a going concern had increased year on year.
Nemčija je sicer navedla, da je bila HLB v času prenosa gospodarsko uspešno podjetje, katerega vrednost je iz leta v leto naraščala.
Proceeds were either distributed to FHH in the form of dividends or channelled into HLB's capital stock as revenue reserves, which, it is claimed, increased their value and benefited FHH as the only shareholder at the time.
Dobički so se tako FHH izplačevali v obliki dividend ali pa so kot proste rezerve odtekali v kapital HLB, kar naj bi povečalo vrednost banke in koristilo takrat edinemu delničarju FHH.
On the basis of a report drawn up at the time of the sale of shares (49 %) to LSH, an earning capacity value of DEM [...] million had been calculated for HLB as at [...]. According to internal calculations, this had still amounted to DEM [...] million as at 31 December 1985 and at DEM [...] million as at31 December 1992, representing an annual average rise in value of [...] % between 1986 and 1992 and of [...] % between 1993 and 1996 which FHH, the only shareholder until 1997, had been able to use entirely for its own benefit and which had been able to be realised on a pro rata basis on the occasion of the sale to LSH.
Na podlagi strokovnega poročila v času prodaje delnic banki LSH (49 %) je bila za HLB na dan [...] izračunana donosnost [...] milijonov DEM, ki je po internih izračunih 31. decembra 1985 znašala še [...] milijonov DEM in 31. decembra 1992 [...] milijonov DEM, tako da je bilo povprečno letno povečanje vrednosti med letoma 1986 in 1992 [...] %, med letoma 1993 in 1996 pa [...] %, kar je lahko FHH, do leta 1997 edina delničarka, v celoti uporabljala v svojo korist in pri prodaji banki LSH tudi sorazmerno času unovčila.
Since, however, no other information or calculations, e.g. relating to the increases in dividends and value attributable to the contribution of WK shares, were available, the Commission was unable to carry out an assessment.
Ker pa ni bilo na razpolago drugih podatkov in izračunov, npr. v zvezi s povečanjem dividend in vrednosti kot posledice vloge delnic WK, Komisija ni mogla podati ocene.
On the basis of the available information, the Commission thus had serious misgivings as to whether the conditions on which FHH had transferred the funds that were apparently available to HLB in full as liable capital were normal market conditions.
Komisija je imela na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij resne pomisleke, ali so bili pogoji, pod katerimi je FHH prenesla sredstva, ki so bila očitno v celoti na razpolago HLB kot rizični kapital, običajni tržni pogoji.
It therefore concluded that HLB was probably favoured by state resources.
Zato je prišla do zaključka, da je HLB verjetno prejela pomoč v obliki državnih sredstev.
As regards the calculation of remuneration, the Commission stated that, as things stood and given the special circumstances of the present case, it intended to apply the method used in the WestLB Decision of 8 July 1999.
V zvezi z izračunom nadomestila je Komisija navedla, da namerava glede na položaj in ob upoštevanju posebnih okoliščin v zadevnem primeru uporabiti metodologijo, uporabljeno v odločbi glede WestLB z dne 8. julija 1999.
As part of its provisional assessment and in accordance with Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, the Commission also assumed that, if there were aid, the measure constituted new aid and not existing aid and referred here to Article 15(2) of that Regulation.
Komisija je v okviru svoje začasne ocene in v skladu s členom 1(b) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES tudi domnevala, da v primeru obstoja pomoči ukrep predstavlja novo in neobstoječo pomoč, pri čemer se je sklicevala na člen 15(2) navedene uredbe.
In its view, the decision to initiate the procedure was a further Commission measure that interrupted the limitation period within the meaning of Article 15(2) and, as such, confirmed previous measures, including the Commission's requests for information dated 12 January, 10 November and 13 December 1993 and 1 September 1999 as well as the decisions to initiate the procedure in the WestLB case and in the case of Landesbank Berlin.
Sklep o sprožitvi postopka je pojmovala kot nadaljnji ukrep Komisije, ki prekinja zastaralni rok v smislu člena 15(2) in kot tak potrjuje predhodne ukrepe, vključno z zahtevki Komisije za podatke z dne 12. januarja 1993, 10. novembra 1993, 13. decembra 1993 in 1. septembra 1999 ter Sklepom o sprožitvi postopka v primeru WestLB in Sklepom o sprožitvi postopka v primeru Landesbank Berlin, vročenem HLB.
In its comments, Germany repeated first of all the view that the transfer on 1 January 1986 of 24 % of WK's capital (value transferred to the reserves: DEM 212,16 million) to HLB could not be recovered as unlawful aid in accordance with Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 since the ten-year period applicable to the transfer had expired on 1 January 1996.
Nemčija je v svojih pripombah najprej ponovila svoje mnenje, da se prenos 24 % kapitala WK (vrednost, prenesena v rezerve: 212,160 milijonov DEM) na HLB z dne 1. januarja 1986 ne more vrniti kot nezakonita pomoč v smislu člena 15(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, saj se je desetletni rok, ki je veljal za ta prenos, iztekel 1. januarja 1996.
This transfer (‘1986 transfer’) was to be seen as a legally and economically independent process separate from the 1993 transfers.
Ta prenos („prenos leta 1986“) je pravno in gospodarsko samostojen postopek, ki ga je treba razlikovati od prenosov leta 1993.
In so far as Germany had previously spoken of a ‘single intention to invest’, as the Commission had noted in its decision to initiate the procedure, this applied solely to the 1993 transfers.
Če je Nemčija pred tem govorila o „enotnem namenu za naložbo“, kot je Komisija opazila v svojem Sklepu o sprožitvi postopka, se to nanaša zgolj na postopke 1993.
The ‘side letter’ of 22 December 1992, which was referred to in Germany's letter of December 1999, also referred to — and was only concerned with — the 1986 transfer solely to the extent that the reassignment right to reassign the shares given to FHH in 1986 and 1993 was concerned.
Tudi „Spremno pismo“ z dne 22. decembra 1992, navedeno v pismu Nemčije z decembra 1999, se je sklicevalo le na prenos leta 1986 (in ga tudi obravnavalo) zgolj v smislu pravice za povratni prenos delnic, dodeljene FHH leta 1986 in leta1993.
In addition, Germany's statement that the direct remuneration of DEM [...] million each year corresponded to around [less than 3 %] of the total amount of all the transfers, was intended merely as an illustration.
Poleg tega je obrazložitev Nemčije, da predstavlja neposredno izplačano nadomestilo v višini [...] milijonov DEM letno okoli [manj kot 3 %] skupnega zneska vseh prenosov, zgolj ponazoritev.
However, in its view, this in no way altered the fact that de facto and de jure the 1986 transfer was a quite separate process.
To pa nikakor ne spremeni dejstva, da je prenos leta 1986 pravno in dejansko povsem ločen postopek.
If, however, the 1986 transfer was to be viewed separately from the 1993 transfers, action by the Commission within the meaning of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 could interrupt the limitation period only if it were taken before 1 January 1996.
Če pa naj bi se prenos leta 1986 obravnaval ločeno od prenosov leta 1993, lahko ukrep Komisije v smislu člena 15(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 prekine zastaralni rok le v primeru, če je bil sprejet pred 1. januarjem 1996.
However, the Commission's requests for information that preceded the one dated 1 September 1999 were of a general nature, had not even mentioned HLB and so did not meet the conditions for them to be regarded materially as action interrupting the limitation period within the meaning of Article 15(2).
Vendar pa so bili zahtevki Komisije pred tistim z dne 1. septembra 1999 splošne narave in niso niti omenjali HLB, zato ne izpolnjujejo pogojev, da bi jih v konkretnem smislu obravnavali kot ukrepe, ki prekinjajo zastaralni rok v smislu člena 15(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
Germany also mentioned in this respect the judgment by the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2003 in Case T-369/00 Département du Loiret v Commission (hereinafter ‘Scott’).
V zvezi s tem je Nemčija omenila tudi sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 10. aprila 2003 v primeru T-369/00, Département du Loiret/Kommission (v nadaljevanju „Scott“).
The Court ruled that a Commission letter requesting information regarding a possible aid element was a measure interrupting the limitation period within the meaning of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Sodišče je v tej sodbi odločilo, da je lahko pismo Komisije z zahtevkom za podatke o morebitnem obstoju pomoči ukrep, ki prekinja zastaralni rok v smislu člena 15(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
According to Germany, the Court had thus laid down the minimum requirements that a request for information must meet in order to be regarded as action interrupting the limitation period.
Po navedbah Nemčije je Sodišče zato določilo minimalne zahteve, ki jih mora zahtevek za podatke izpolnjevati, da se ga lahko obravnava kot ukrep, ki prekinja zastaralni rok.
In the present case, the Commission, with its requests for information of 12 January, 10 November and 13 December 1993, which were mentioned by it in the decision to initiate the procedure and were addressed to Germany, fell far short of these requirements.
Komisija v zadevnem primeru s zahtevki z dne 12. januarja 1993, 10. novembra 1993 in 13. decembra 1993, navedenimi v njenem Sklepu o sprožitvi postopka in naslovljenimi na Nemčijo, še zdaleč ne izpolnjuje teh zahtev.
These letters had referred simply to Westdeutsche Landesbank and to a general request regarding possible similar transfers to other Landesbanks.
Ta pisma so se nanašala zgolj na Westdeutsche Landesbank in splošnim zahtevkom za podatke o morebitnih podobnih prenosih na druge deželne banke.
HLB and FHH had not been mentioned in any of those letters.
HLB in FHH v teh pismih nista bili omenjeni.
According to Germany, the triggering of the limitation period prevented further examination of the 1986 transfer.
Po navedbah Nemčije uvedba zastaralnega roka preprečuje nadaljnjo preiskavo postopka 1986.
As for the economic assessment of the capital transfer, Germany confirmed first of all that the total value of the WK shares transferred in 1986 and 1993 (DEM 1171,522 million) had been made available to HLB as equity capital.
V zvezi z gospodarsko oceno prenosa kapitala je Nemčija najprej potrdila, da je bila celotna vrednost delnic WK v višini 1171,522 milijonov DEM, prenesena v letih 1986 in 1993, HLB vseskozi na razpolago kot lastni kapital.
At no time had the transferred capital been assigned to a special purpose or made subject to any other restriction as to its use.
Vloženi kapital ni bil nikoli določen za poseben namen ali podvržen drugim omejitvam, kar zadeva njegovo uporabo.
It should be borne in mind here that the capital transferred in 1986 was recognised from then on by BAKred as liable capital.
V tej zvezi je treba upoštevati, da je bil kapital, prenesen leta 1986, od vsega začetka priznan s strani BAKred-a kot rizični lastni kapital.
However, the total amount, i.e. including the 1993 transfer of around DEM 959 million (of which 38 % was directly transferred WK shares which were assigned to HLB's open reserves with a value of DEM 659,362 million, and 19,86 % was WK shares transferred indirectly via HGV, which were transferred to HLB as a silent partnership contribution amounting to DEM 300 million), was recognised by BAKred as liable capital only in 1997.
Skupni znesek, ki vključuje prenos leta 1993 okoli 959 milijonov DEM (38 % so predstavljale neposredno prenesene delnice WK, ki so bile v vrednosti 659,362 milijonov DEM vložene v javne rezerve HLB, 19,86 % pa delnice WK, prenesene posredno prek HGW, ki so bile pri HLB vložene kot vloga tihe družbe v višini 300 milijonov DEM), pa je bil s strani BAKred-a priznan kot rizični lastni kapital šele leta 1997.
This was because the WK Act was amended only on 25 June 1997 and because HLB as shareholder was granted the right to dissolve or liquidate WK.
Vzrok za to je dejstvo, da se je zakon glede WK spremenil šele 25. junija 1997 in da je bila HLB kot delničarki priznana pravica do razpustitve oziroma likvidacije WK.
Germany stated that the transferred funds had, therefore, been made available to HLB in full as liability cover only retrospectively on 1 January 1997.
Nemčija je pojasnila, da so bila prenesena sredstva za kritje jamstva zato HLB v celoti na razpolago šele 1. januarja 1997 za nazaj.
Even so, as Germany later explained, HLB had before that date used part of the capital reserve as liability cover, viz. DEM 183 million in 1993, more than DEM 436 million in 1994, DEM 255 million in 1995 and DEM 208 million in 1996 (figures rounded; see also the table in paragraph 183).
Kljub temu je HLB po kasnejših navedbah Nemčije že pred tem datumom uporabljala del kapitalske rezerve za kritje jamstva, in sicer zaokroženo 183 milijonov DEM leta 1993, več kot 436 milijonov DEM leta 1994, 255 milijonov DEM leta 1995 in 208 milijonov DEM leta 1996 (glej tudi tabelo v odstavku 183).
The remaining amount of the capital reserve had not been used and had not been recognised as liable core capital.
Preostali znesek kapitalske rezerve ni bil uporabljen in ni bil priznan kot rizični temeljni kapital.
It was only after 1 January 1997 and until the divestment of WK at the time of the merger with LSH to form HSH on 2 June 2003 that the amount of DEM 659,4 million had been available.
Znesek 659,4 milijonov DEM je bil na razpolago samo od 1. januarja 1997 do odsvojitve WK v času združitve z LSH v HSH Nordbank dne 2. junija 2003.
The silent partnership contribution of DEM 300 million had also been available in full as liable core capital until that date.
Tudi vloga tihe družbe v višini 300 milijonov DEM je bila v celoti na razpolago kot rizični temeljni kapital od leta 1997 do tega datuma.
Prior to 1997 these funds had not been used and had not been recognised as core capital.
Pred letom 1997 se ta sredstva niso uporabljala in niso bila priznana kot temeljni kapital.
As regards the remuneration, the maximum fixed amount of DEM [...] million [...], corresponding to [not more than 10 %], was paid throughout on the silent partnership contribution.
V zvezi z nadomestilom se je za vlogo tihe družbe vseskozi izplačeval največji fiksni znesek [...] milijonov DEM [...], kar predstavlja [največ 10 %].