natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
No remuneration was paid on the capital reserve of some DEM 659 million.
Na kapitalsko rezervo okoli 659 milijonov DEM se nadomestilo ni izplačevalo.
Germany nevertheless repeated the view that it was not only the agreed, direct remuneration for the silent partnership contribution that should be taken into account as a remuneration component.
Vendar pa je Nemčija ponovno pojasnila, da se kot del nadomestila ne sme upoštevati samo dogovorjeno neposredno nadomestilo za vlogo tihe družbe.
For one thing, the dividend payments to the sole shareholder FHH had to be taken into consideration since the profits earned by HLB were necessarily also attributable to the funds transferred by FHH.
V prvi vrsti je treba upoštevati izplačila dividend edini delničarki FHH, saj se prigospodarjeni dobički HLB nujno pripisujejo tudi sredstvom, ki jih je prenesla FHH.
And so, as the sole shareholder until 1997, FHH had received the highest dividend of 6 % laid down in the statutes and from 1997 onwards had received varying, but increasing dividends on its share of the share capital.
FHH je tako kot edina delničarka do leta 1997 prejemala s statutom določeno najvišjo dividendo 6 %, po letu 1997 pa različne, a naraščajoče dividende na svoj delež temeljnega kapitala.
These dividend payments rose from EUR [...] million in 1985 to EUR [...] million in 1996, when FHH had still been the only shareholder.
Ta izplačila so do leta 1996, ko je bila FHH še vedno edina lastnica, narasla iz [...] milijonov EUR leta 1985 na [...] milijonov EUR leta 1996.
As they were then payable only on 50,5 % of FHH's shares, they amounted to EUR [...] million in 1997 and to EUR [...] million in 2001.
Leta 1997 so bile na le še 50,5 % delnic FHH izplačale dividende v višini [...] milijonov EUR, ki so do leta 2001 narasle na [...] milijonov EUR.
Moreover, the reserves that HLB had itself built up were regularly converted into equity capital, which rose from EUR 228,3 million in 1985 to EUR 250,9 million in 1997 and has remained unchanged since.
Poleg tega so se rezerve, ki jih je prigospodarila HLB sama, redno pretvarjale v osnovni kapital. Ta se je iz 228,3 milijonov EUR leta 1985 povečal na 250,9 milijonov EUR leta 1997, nato pa se ni več spreminjal.
The revenue reserves had also risen steadily, from EUR 93,1 million in 1985 to EUR 321,8 million in 2001.
Tudi proste rezerve so se po letu 1985 vseskozi večale in sicer s 93,1 milijonov EUR leta 1985 na 321,8 milijonov EUR leta 2001.
All of these facts indicated a substantial increase in revenue.
Vse to kaže na znatno povečanje dobička.
Account must also be taken of the increases in value that has been produced by the transferred capital and were attributable solely to FHH.
Upoštevati je treba tudi povečanja vrednosti zaradi vloženega kapitala, ki se pripisujejo izključno FHH.
There was an increase in value of between some [...] % and [...] % that was attributable solely to the transfer of WK shares.
Gre za povečanje vrednosti med okoli [...] % in [...] %, ki se pripisuje zgolj vlogi delnic WK.
Germany provided more detailed calculations based on the capitalised value method.
Nemčija je podala natančnejše izračune, ki temeljijo na metodi izračuna donosnosti.
Between 1985 and 1992 the value of HLB had risen by DEM [...] million, or just under DEM [...] million a year, giving a return of [...] % in terms of the WK shares transferred in 1986.
Vrednost HLB se je tako med letoma 1985 in 1992 povečala za [...] milijonov DEM oziroma skoraj [...] milijonov DEM letno, kar v povezavi z delnicami WK, prenesenimi leta 1986, predstavlja [...] % donos.
Between 1992 and 1995 the company's value had risen by DEM [...] million a year, giving an annual yield of [...] % in terms of the WK shares transferred on 1 January 1993.
Med letoma 1992 in 1995 je vrednost podjetja narastla za [...] milijonov DEM letno, kar v povezavi z delnicami WK, prenesenimi 1. januarja 1993, predstavlja [...] % letni donos.
This again demonstrated that, all factors being taken into consideration, FHH had received appropriate returns.
To znova potrjuje, da je FHH ob upoštevanju vseh dejavnikov dosegala primerne donose.
Lastly, FHH could have expected appropriate returns at the time of the two investments.
Poleg tega je FHH lahko pričakovala primerne donose že v času obeh naložb.
At the end of 1985 and at the end of 1992 HLB had been a profitable company with equity returns (before tax), given here as examples, of over 19 % in 1985, 8 %-9 % in 1989 and 1990 and over 12 % in 1992.
HLB je bila ob koncu let 1985 in 1992 donosno podjetje z donosi lastnega kapitala (pred obdavčitvijo), tu navedenimi kot primeri, več kot 19 % leta 1985, 8-9 % v letih 1989/90 in več kot 12 % leta 1992.
For purposes of comparison, Germany communicated capital returns it had itself calculated for five private German banks which showed that in the years 1980-92 HLB had not or had in only a few years lagged behind the relevant annual average of the other five institutions by some 1 %-6 % (before tax) and 1 %-4 % (after tax).
Nemčija je za primerjavo navedla donose lastnega kapitala, ki jih je sama izračunala za pet zasebnih nemških bank, kar kaže na to, da HLB v posameznih letih v obdobju med 1980 in 1992 ni ali pa je le v posameznih letih zaostajala za okoli 1-6 % (pred obdavčitvijo) oziroma 1-4 % (po obdavčitvi) za ustreznim letnim povprečjem petih drugih institucij.
In other words, HLB ‘does not lag behind’ the other private banks.
HLB torej „ne zaostaja“ za drugimi zasebnimi bankami.
For the rest, Germany took the view that the transfers were to be compared to a non-monetary capital contribution because of the lack of liquidity of the funds made available.
Nemčija tudi meni, da je treba prenose zaradi premajhne likvidnosti sredstev primerjati s stvarnim vložkom.
For a calculation of return, what mattered therefore was the difference between a non-monetary contribution and a cash contribution, which consisted in the refinancing costs for the lending to promote business expansion or in the disadvantage represented by the fact that the cash value of the deposit cannot be invested directly.
Pri izračunu donosa je zato ključna razlika med stvarnim in denarnim vložkom, ki temelji na stroških refinanciranja za posojilo za pospeševanje širjenja dejavnosti oziroma na pomanjkljivosti, zaradi katere se denarna vrednost vloge ne more naložiti neposredno.
According to the calculations provided, the interest-rate difference relative to a cash contribution in the case of the non-monetary capital transferred in 1986 was some 6,8 % in respect of lending and some 6,8 % in respect of income-producing, risk-free investments.
Po posredovanih izračunih razlika v obrestni meri v primerjavi z denarnim vložkom v primeru stvarnega kapitala, prenesenega leta 1986, znaša okoli 7,6 % pri posojilih in okoli 6,8 % pri netveganih naložbah, ki prinašajo dobiček.
For the contribution made on 1 January 1993, the difference was around 8,3 % for lending and 7,36 % for risk-free investments.
Pri vlogi z dne 1. 1. 1993 je razlika približno 8,3 % pri posojilih in 7,36 % pri netveganih naložbah.
In terms of the gross return, this represented a difference of some 6 % (1996) and 6,6 % (1993) between capital assumed to be provided in cash and the illiquid capital actually provided.
Kar zadeva bruto donos, to predstavlja razliko okoli 6 % (1986) oziroma 6,6 % (1993) med domnevnim denarnim vložkom in dejansko zagotovljenim nelikvidnim kapitalom.
A market-economy investor too must take this disadvantage into account when assessing whether his remuneration is appropriate.
To pomanjkljivost mora pri oceni primernosti svojega nadomestila upoštevati tudi vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu.
V. COMMENTS FROM THE BDB
V. PRIPOMBE BDB
The BdB considers the remuneration that was actually paid to be insufficient.
BdB pojmuje dejansko izplačano nadomestilo kot nezadostno.
No remuneration at all had been agreed for the WK shares transferred on 1 January 1986 while, for the shares transferred in 1993, only the interest payable on the silent partnership contribution had been agreed.
Za delnice WK, prenesene 1. januarja 1986, ni bilo sklenjenega dogovora o nadomestilu, medtem ko je bil za delnice, prenesene leta 1993, sklenjen le dogovor glede obresti na vlogo tihe družbe.
In terms of the total capital transferred, this corresponded to less than 3 % per annum and could not in any way be regarded as normal for the market.
Glede na celoten prenesen kapital to predstavlja manj kot 3 % letno in se nikakor ne more obravnavati kot običajno za tržišče.
FHH's claim to an appropriate remuneration was not undermined, for instance, by the fact that it had been HLB's sole shareholder.
Zahteve FHH po primernem nadomestilu na primer ne izpodbija dejstvo, da je bila FHH edina lastnica HLB.
What mattered was the expectation at least of an average return that private banks too regularly associate with the provision of equity capital to their subsidiaries.
Bistvenega pomena je pričakovanje najmanj povprečnega donosa, ki ga tudi zasebne banke redno povezujejo z zagotavljanjem lastnega kapitala svojim hčerinskim družbam.
Admittedly, it is true that this anticipated return did not figure in the understanding on a fixed interest rate since the return to the parent company could be in the form not only of dividend payments but also of the increase in the revenue and associated value of the subsidiary.
Sicer drži, da se ta pričakovan donos ne odraža v dogovoru o fiksni obrestni meri, saj se donos matičnemu podjetju lahko vrača v obliki izplačil dividend in povečanja dobička ter s tem povezane vrednosti hčerinskega podjetja.
Even so, the expected normal market return corresponded to the setting of a fixed interest rate.
Vseeno pa je pričakovano običajno tržno nadomestilo skladno z dogovorom o fiksni obrestni meri.
As a market-economy investor, FHH should, therefore, have expected a normal market return from HLB.
FHH bi kot vlagateljica, ki ravna po načelu tržnega gospodarstva, od HLB torej morala pričakovati običajen tržni donos.
However, it had by no means been able to count on this.
Vendar se na to nikakor ni mogla zanesti.
Even for the transfer on 1 January 1986, it appears that, according to the Land Government notice of 17 December 1985, a below-average return of between DEM 0,3 million and DEM 0,5 million (according to the BdB, corresponding to between 0,1 % and 0,2 %) was expected.
Glede na sporočilo senata mestni skupščini z dne 17. decembra 1985 je bil podpovprečni donos med 0,3 in 0,5 milijona DEM (po navedbah BdB med 0,1 in 0,2 %) očitno pričakovan že pri prenosu dne 1. januarja 1986.
Since dividends were to be paid only after business had actually expanded, there had clearly been no remuneration at all for FHH in the early years.
Ker naj bi se dividende izplačevale šele po dejanski razširitvi dejavnosti, FHH v prvih letih očitno sploh ni prejemala nadomestila.
Even the dividends actually paid out subsequently to FHH were not to be taken into account since, under the circumstances obtaining, a private investor would have demanded a fixed annual remuneration.
Tudi dividend, ki so se nato dejansko izplačale FHH, ni mogoče upoštevati, saj bi zasebni vlagatelj v zadevnih okoliščinah zahteval fiksno letno nadomestilo.
Similarly, the reserves and revenue converted into share capital could not be taken into consideration.
Prav tako ni mogoče upoštevati rezerv in dobičkov, pretvorjenih v osnovni kapital.
Possible increases in value could not have been expected here either since the shares in HLB had not been negotiable.
Prav tako ni mogoče pričakovati glede na okoliščine sicer pričakovanih povečanj vrednosti, saj se z delnicami HLB ni trgovalo.
In addition, therefore, the shares had not been subject to any ongoing assessment of their value.
Poleg tega delnice zato niso bile podvržene redni oceni vrednosti.
The transfer in 1997 of 49,5 % of the shares to LSH had not removed the aid element.
Prenos 49,5 % delnic na LSH leta 1997 ni odpravil elementa pomoči.
The sale had taken place after the time of the investment and had, therefore, been quite immaterial as regards the remuneration expectation.
Prodaja se je zgodila po naložbi in je bila zato za pričakovano nadomestilo povsem nepomembna.
For the state aid investigation it was a matter of whether a transaction had taken place under normal economic conditions.
Pri oceni državne pomoči je bistvenega pomena, ali je postopek potekal pod običajnimi gospodarskimi pogoji.
It transpired from all this that, under these circumstances, a private investor would have undertaken the investment only if revenue or cash flows could have been generated promptly, either in the form of fixed dividends or alternatively in the form of variable cash flows.
Iz vsega tega sledi, da bi zasebni vlagatelj v teh okoliščinah izvedel naložbo le, če bi hitro prinesla dobiček ali prilive bodisi v obliki fiksnih dividend bodisi v obliki spremenljivih prilivov.
In such a situation, however, a private investor would presumably prefer fixed interest payments.
Vendar pa bi zasebni vlagatelj v takem primeru verjetno izbral fiksno dogovorjene obresti.
There is also the fact that FHH had not been entitled to reassign the WK shares without any consideration (compensatory payment at book value).
To potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da FHH ni bila upravičena do povratnega prenosa delnic WK brez kakršnega koli vračila – nadomestila po knjižni vrednosti.
In calculating a normal market return, BdB first assumed that the resources transferred needed to be remunerated in the same way as share capital because they constituted core capital recognised for banking supervisory purposes.
Pri izračunu običajnega tržnega nadomestila je BdB najprej domnevalo, da je treba prenesena sredstva nadomeščati tako kot osnovni kapital, saj predstavljajo temeljni kapital, priznan s strani nadzorstva.
It stated that an appropriate return on capital made available would invariably be based on a risk-free return and a risk premium. In other words, the basic principle of ‘expected return on a risky investment = risk-free return + risk premium for the risky investment’ would be applied.
Bdb navaja, da izračun primernega donosa na razpoložljiv kapital vedno temelji na netveganem delu donosa in premiji tveganja, kar pomeni, da se uporabi temeljno načelo „pričakovan donos na tvegano naložbo = netvegan donos + premija tveganja za tvegano naložbo“.
The BdB then calculated the minimum remuneration applying the so-called Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), which determines the expected individual risk premium with the help of the so-called beta value (statistically measured deviation of the individual risk premium from the general long-term market risk premium).
BdB je nato izračunalo najnižje nadomestilo na podlagi tako imenovanega modela vrednotenja dolgoročnih naložb (CAPM), ki določa pričakovano posamezno premijo tveganja s pomočjo tako imenovane beta vrednosti (statistično izračunano odstopanje posamezne premije tveganja od splošne dolgoročne premije tržnega tveganja).
In determining the risk-free return, the BdB used the returns on long-term government bonds, fixed-rate securities issued by state bodies being the form of investment with the lowest risk or with no risk at all.
BdB je za določitev netveganega donosa uporabilo donose na dolgoročne državne obveznice, saj gre pri vrednostnih papirjih s fiksnimi obrestmi, ki jih izdajajo državni organi, za obliko naložbe z najmanjšim tveganjem ali brez tveganja.
For the purpose of deriving the risk premium, the BdB first determined the so-called general market risk premium, i.e. the difference between the long-term average return on the normal market share portfolio and the risk-free return (government bonds).
BdB je za izpeljavo premije tveganja najprej določilo tako imenovano splošno premijo tržnega tveganja, torej razliko med povprečnim dolgoročnim donosom na običajni portfelj delnic in netveganim donosom (državne obveznice).
In its comments of 25 June 2003, it assumed in the first place a long-term market risk premium of a uniform 4,6 %.
V svoji izjavi z dne 25. junija 2003 je najprej izhajalo iz enotne dolgoročne premije tržnega tveganja v višini 4,6 %.
The BdB stated that it estimated the beta values on the basis of a historical data sample for comparable banks.
Po navedbah BdB so bile beta vrednosti ocenjene na podlagi vzorca starih podatkov za primerljive banke.
It concluded first that all beta values for all Landesbanks and for all the periods under consideration were greater then one. In other words, it considered that the risk premium for investments in Landesbanks was higher than the market risk premium.
Bdb je najprej ugotovilo, da so vse beta vrednosti za vse deželne banke in vsa obravnavana obdobja večje od 1, kar pomeni, da je bila premijo tveganja za naložbe v deželne banke glede na statistično povprečje večja od premije tržnega tveganja.
Assuming a risk-free basic interest rate of 8,05 % (December 1985, for the 1986 transfer) and of 5,90 % (December 1992, for the 1993 transfer) and a beta factor for HLB of 1,1660 (first date) and of 1,0836 (second date), the BdB arrived at an expected minimum remuneration of 13,41 % for the shares transferred on 1 January 1986 and of 10,88 % for the shares transferred on 1 January 1993.
BdB je na podlagi netvegane temeljne obrestne mere 8,05 % (december 1985 za prenos leta 1986) in 5,90 % (december 1992 za prenos leta 1993) ter beta faktorja za HLB 1,1660 (prvi datum) in 1,0836 (drugi datum) izračunalo pričakovano najnižje nadomestilo 13,41 % za delnice, prenesene 1. januarja 1986, in 10,88 % za delnice, prenesene 1. januarja 1993.
The BdB also noted that the Commission's deduction pursuant to Decision 2000/392/EC from the minimum remuneration to take account of the lack of liquidity of Wfa's assets had been upheld by the Court of First Instance.
BdB je tudi ugotovilo, da je odbitek od najnižjega nadomestila zaradi nelikvidnosti sredstev Wfa, ki ga je Komisija določila v Odločbi 2000392/ES, potrdilo Sodišče prve stopnje.
There was therefore no reason to depart from this method in the present case, with the result that a deduction for liquidity should also be made here.
Zato ni bilo nobenega razloga za odstopanje od te metode v zadevnem primeru in je bil tudi tu potreben odbitek zaradi nelikvidnosti.
The amount of the deduction for lack of liquidity would be calculated, using the WestLB method, on the basis of net refinancing costs (gross refinancing costs less the applicable corporation tax).
Višina odbitka se izračuna s pomočjo „metodologije WestLB“ na podlagi neto stroškov refinanciranja (bruto stroški refinanciranja minus ustrezen davek od dobička).
The BdB also took the view that the deduction made by the Commission pursuant to Decision 2000/392/EC (1,5 %) and upheld as such by the Court of First Instance, ought similarly to be made in the case of HLB.
Poleg tega BdB meni, da se mora odbitek, ki ga je določila Komisija v Odločbi 2000/392/ES (1,5 %) in ga je kot takega potrdilo Sodišče prve stopnje, upoštevati tudi v primeru HLB.
In its opinion, if there were circumstances in the other Landesbank cases that had the effect of increasing risk as compared with a ‘normal share capital investment’, such as the in part exceptionally large size of the asset transfer, the decision not to issue new company shares and the associated absence of additional voting rights as well as the lack of fungibility of the asset, a deduction would be justified here too.
Če gre tudi v drugih primerih deželnih bank za okoliščine, ki vodijo v povečanje tveganja glede na „običajno naložbo v osnovni kapital“, kot so deloma izredno velik obseg prenesenih sredstev, odločitev o neizdaji novih delnic podjetja in s tem povezana odsotnost dodatnih glasovalnih pravic ter nezadostna tržnost naložbe, je po mnenju BdB tudi tu upravičen odbitek.
Instead of a normal market return calculated in this way, FHH had not agreed on or received any remuneration whatsoever for the 1986 transfer, and the remuneration for the 1993 transfer had been too small.
Namesto da bi prejemala običajno tržno nadomestilo, izračunano na ta način, se FHH ni dogovorila za nadomestilo oziroma ga ni prejemala za prenos leta 1986, nadomestilo za prenos leta 1993 pa je bilo premajhno.
For the 1993 transfer, which had been recognised as core capital for supervisory purposes only in 1997, HLB had, since 1993, paid out an annual share in profits consisting of a guaranteed remuneration of 7 % and a variable component (fixed interest rate of 0,5 % on the dividend payout from net profit for the year).
Za prenos leta 1993, ki je bil s strani nadzorstva priznan kot temeljni kapital šele leta 1997, je HLB od leta 1993 izplačevala letni delež pri dobičku, ki sta ga sestavljala zajamčeno povračilo v obsegu 7 % in spremenljiv del nadomestila (fiksna obrestna mera 0,5 % na izplačilo delnic iz bilančnega dobička).
The BdB did not know the actual amount.
Dejanski znesek združenju BdB ni bil znan.
However, since it could be compared to share capital, the remuneration appeared to be too low.
Nadomestilo pa se je zaradi svoje primerljivosti z osnovnim kapitalom zdelo premajhno.
In addition, it had been paid to HGV, which, although it was a holding company of FHH, was, economically speaking, an independent unit, whereas nothing had accrued directly to FHH.
Poleg tega se je nadomestilo izplačevalo HGV, ki je sicer holding podjetje FHH, a v gospodarskem smislu samostojna enota, medtem ko FHH neposredno ni prejemala ničesar.
No remuneration at all had been agreed for the transfer of the other shares to the capital reserve.
Za prenos drugih delnic v kapitalsko rezervo sploh ni bilo sklenjenega dogovora o nadomestilu.
The transfers in 1986 and 1993 were, therefore, to be regarded as a single capital measure, and the aid was not granted in full until 1 January 1993.
Prenosa leta 1986 in leta 1993 je bilo torej treba obravnavati kot enoten finančni ukrep, pomoč pa ni bila dodeljena v celoti do 1. januarja 1993.
Accordingly, it was also immaterial whether the Commission's requests for information in 1993 could have interrupted the limitation period.
Zato tudi ni pomembno, ali so zahtevki Komisije za podatke v letu 1993 lahko prekinili zastaralni rok.
However, the BdB maintains here that this period could have been interrupted as regards the aid granted to HLB only if those requests had also related to this aid measure.
BdB pri tem ugotavlja, da se je zastaralni rok, kar zadeva pomoč, dodeljeno HLB, lahko prekinil le, če so se te zahtevki nanašali tudi na to pomoč.
Since the BdB did not know the exact content of those letters, it could not take a definitive position on the matter.
Ker BdB ne pozna točne vsebine teh zahtevkov, o tem ne more zavzeti dokončnega stališča.
Germany stated first that the BdB had misinterpreted the judgment of 6 March 2003 by the Court of First Instance in the WestLB case (hereinafter ‘WestLB judgment’).
Nemčija je sprva navedla, da je BdB napačno interpretiralo sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje v primeru WestLB z dne 6. marca 2003 (v nadaljevanju „sodba WestLB“).
The BdB apparently felt that the judgment had made it clear that the increase in value attributable to the capital contribution was not a normal market return.
BdB je očitno menilo, da je bilo s sodbo jasno določeno, da povečanje vrednosti s prenosom kapitala ne predstavlja običajnega tržnega donosa.
However, the Court had not commented in any material way on the decision.
Vendar se Sodišče ni materialno izrazilo o odločitvi.
The Court's ruling that a private investor would not normally be content with minimum losses or a limited return even where he already held share capital in the company said nothing about the assessment from the viewpoint of state aid legislation of a return that consisted not in a fixed interest rate but, for example, in an increase in the company's value.
Izjava sodišča, da se zasebni vlagatelj običajno ne zadovolji z minimalnimi izgubami ali omejenim donosom, tudi v primeru, če je že imel delež pri osnovnem kapitalu podjetja, v katerega vlaga, ne zadeva ocene, ko gre za državno pomoč, o donosu, ki se izraža, na primer, s povečanjem vrednosti podjetja, ne pa s fiksno obrestno mero.