natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The BdB went on to comment that it was not only the special-purpose reserve which was at issue here but also the transfer of WBK's capital of DEM 187,5 million, which was assigned to LBB's subscribed capital; this constituted a financial advantage as it influenced the rating and the terms for raising external capital.
BdB je nadalje pripomnilo, da tukaj ni šlo samo za rezervo za posebne namene, ampak tudi za prenos kapitala WBK v vrednosti 187,5 milijonov DEM, ki so bile dodane zabeleženemu kapitalu LBB, kar je denarna prednost, ker je vplivala na rating in na pogoje za najemanje tujega kapitala.
However, of much greater significance was the increase in core capital recognised for supervisory purposes as a result of the transfer.
Dosti bolj pomembno pa je bilo za potrebe nadzora priznano povečanje temeljnega kapitala, do katerega je prišlo s prenosom.
As this had been available in full as liable capital, despite the special-purpose reserve's being used primarily for promotional activities, its purpose was not the issue.
Ker je bil temeljni kapital, kljub temu da se je rezerva za posebne namene prednostno uporabljala za naloge pospeševanja, v celoti na razpolago kot rizični kapital, ni šlo za namensko vezavo.
The key factor was the economic advantage of the business expansion function, especially since the core capital had powerful leverage (lending capacity increased by 12,5 times for 100 % risk-weighted assets such as lending to companies and by 25 times for 50 % risk-weighted assets such as loans to public authorities).
Merodajna je gospodarska prednost za širitev poslovanja, zlasti, ker je imel ravno temeljni kapital veliko funkcijo vzvoda (12,5-kratna možnost dajanja kreditov pri 100 % tveganju prilagojeni tehtani aktivi, kot na primer krediti podjetjem; 25-kratna pri 50 % tveganju prilagojeni tehtani aktivi, kot na primer krediti javnim službam).
If additional capital were raised, with a core capital of (hypothetically) €1 billion and a risk weighting of 50 %, loans amounting to as much as €50 billion could be given.
Pri najemanju dopolnilnega kapitala bi se lahko s temeljnim kapitalom v višini (hipotetično) 1 milijarde EUR in tveganju prilagojene tehtane aktive 50 % dajalo celo kredite v višini 50 milijard EUR.
For the calculation of what constituted a normal market remuneration, the BdB referred to the tried-and-tested method applied by the Commission in Decision 2000/392/EC and the benchmark of 12 % for a normal market return, to which, in a second stage, premiums and discounts had been applied to take account of the particularities of the transaction.
Za izračun trgu primernega nadomestila BdB opozarja na zanesljivo metodiko, ki jo je Komisija uporabila v Odločbi 2000/392/ES in na merilo tržno običajnega donosa v vrednosti 12 %, ki ga je uporabila v Odločbi, ter na dodatke in odbitke zaradi posebnosti transakcije.
In any event, neither the 0,25 % paid to IBB nor the sale to BGB of the silent partnership and the claims to profits in 1994 and 1998 could be regarded as normal market remuneration.
V vsakem primeru trgu primernega nadomestila ne moremo videti niti v 0,25 %, ki so bili plačani IBB, niti v prodaji tihe udeležbe in odstopu pravic do dobička BGB leta 1994 oz. 1998.
For one thing, it was not appropriate for payment to be made only on the amount taken up and, for another, IBB belonged to LBB, with the result that LBB had almost paid itself, rather than the Land.
Prvič plačilo nadomestila samo za koriščenje ni ustrezno, drugič pa IBB spada k LBB, tako da je LBB plačala sebi in ne deželi.
Moreover, Germany's argument that the guarantee function of the special-purpose reserve had been properly remunerated by the establishment of an atypical silent partnership holding in LBB for BGB in 1994 was not convincing, since important data on values were not available and, in principle, it was erroneous to confine the assessment to the aid donor's point of view.
Nadalje argument Nemčije, da je bilo za funkcijo jamstva rezerve za posebne namene plačano ustrezno nadomestilo, z utemeljitvijo netipične tihe udeležbe BGB v LBB leta 1994, ni prepričljiv, saj manjkajo pomembni podatki o vrednostih in je upoštevanje samo vidika tistega, ki daje pomoč, zgrešeno.
Of relevance to the state aid assessment was the transfer of WBK to LBB on 31 December 1992, the advantages conferred thereby on LBB and the resulting distortions of competition, and not whether the aid debt had been discharged subsequently.
Kar je z vidika pomoči pravno relevantno, je prenos WBK na LBB z iztekom 31. decembra 1992, s tem povezane prednosti LBB in izkrivljena konkurenca kot posledica, in ne, ali je bila obveznost pomoči naknadno izpolnjena.
Moreover, the transfer of LBB to BGB was an internal transaction since BGB was also majority-owned by the Land.
Nadalje je šlo pri vključitvi LBB v BGB samo za postopek znotraj skupine, saj tudi BGB večinsko nadzira dežela.
The same applied to the transfer to BGB of the remaining claims to 24,99 % of profits in 1998.
Podobno velja za preostali 24,99 % odstop pravic do dobička BGB leta 1998.
In any event there had been no complete abolishment of the aid element since 1998.
V vsakem primeru pa delež pomoči do leta 1998 sploh ni bil v celoti odpravljen.
Subsequently, and a long time after the period for submitting comments laid down in Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 had expired, the BdB supplemented these remarks, stating in particular that the sales value calculated for LBB and for the silent partnership in LBB for the purpose of setting up BGB had not included IBB, with the result that the guarantee function of IBB's special-purpose reserve could not, in the BdB's view, have been taken into account in the sales value of the silent partnership in LBB.
Kasneje, dolgo po poteku roka, ki ga Uredba 659/1999/ES dovoli za oddajo pripomb tretjih, je BdB to točko dopolnilo in navedlo, da prodajna vrednost LBB oz. tiha udeležba v LBB, ki se jo je določilo za ustanovitev BGB, ni obsegala IBB, tako, da se BdB ne zdi mogoče, da je prodajna vrednost tihe udeležbe v LBB vsebovala jamstvo rezerve IBB za posebne namene.
On the limitation period of ten years pursuant to Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the BdB stated that it had begun only with the Act establishing IBB on 31 December 1992 and could have come to an end at the earliest on 31 December 2002.
Glede roka za vračilo 10 let v skladu s členom 15(1) Uredbe 659/1999/ES je BdB pojasnilo, da je začel teči šele z Zakonom o ustanovitvi IBB z iztekom 31. decembra 1992 in se tako ne more izteči prej kot 31. decembra 2002.
However, the period had been interrupted pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 by action taken by the Commission.
Vendar pa je Komisija ta rok v skladu s členom 15(2) Uredbe 659/1999/ES z ukrepi prekinila.
This provision was broad in scope and covered any action taken by the Commission in connection with its investigations, including requests for information.
Ta uredba je zasnovana široko in vključuje vsako dejanje Komisije v okviru preiskav, kot na primer prošnjo za informacije.
A basis for the further interpretation of this provision was Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of the Council of 26 November 1974 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions under the rules of the European Economic Community relating to transport and competition, pursuant to which interruption is linked to ‘action taken … for the purpose of the preliminary investigation or proceedings in respect of an infringement’.
Pri nadaljnji razlagi te uredbe se lahko opremo na Uredbo Sveta 2988/74/EGS z dne 26. novembra 1974 o zastaranju pregona in izvršbe v prometnem in konkurenčnem pravu Evropske gospodarske skupnosti, po kateri je prekinitev posledica „dejanja, ki je usmerjeno v preiskavo ali pregon ravnanja zoper koga ali kaj“.
For the rest, Germany had itself asked the Commission to wait for clarification of the issues in WestLB and, for that reason alone, could not invoke the limitation period.
Sicer pa je Nemčija sama prosila Komisijo, da najprej počaka na razjasnitev spornih vprašanj v primeru WestLB in se že zato ne more sklicevati na zastaranje.
GERMANY'S RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS OF OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
ODZIV NEMČIJE NA PRIPOMBE OSTALIH ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANK
In its comments dated 16 December 2002, Germany essentially referred to its own comments on the decision initiating the procedure and its argument that no state aid was involved in this case.
Nemčija je v svoji izjavi 16. decembra 2002 načeloma izrazila svoje stališče do sklepa o začetku postopka in svojo ugotovitev, da v tem primeru pomoč ni bila dana.
Otherwise, it restricted itself to a brief response to the individual points made in the two sets of comments.
V svoji izjavi je povzela pripombe k posameznim točkam obeh stališč.
Regarding the BV's and the BdB's classification of WBK's transfer as aid, Germany stated that it was not enough to look only at the monthly remuneration.
V zvezi z oceno BV in BdB, da je šlo pri prenosu WBK za pomoč, je Nemčija pojasnila, da je upoštevanje samo mesečnega nadomestila premalo za analizo.
Rather, reference values such as — depending on the capital injection — return (on a loan), including collateralisation, dividends or capital growth should be considered.
Dosti bolj so pomembne orientacijske višine, kot na primer, odvisno od priliva kapitala – obresti (posojila), vključno z varščino, dividendo ali prirastkom kapitala.
However, in the relevant period (1992/93) LBB was an institution with high earning capacity, and the transfer of WBK's assets to LBB's liable equity capital was therefore a sound business decision.
LBB je bila v ustreznem obdobju leta 1992/1993 zavod z dobrimi možnostmi za doseganje donosa, tako da je bila vložitev premoženja WBK v rizični lastni kapital LBB gospodarsko smiselna.
WestLB and LBB, contrary to what was claimed by the BdB and the BV, were therefore in no way comparable with one another.
Zato WestLB in LBB, v nasprotju s tem, kar trdita BdB in BV, nikakor nista primerljivi.
Apart from this, it was inappropriate for the BdB to speak of the method used in WestLB as tried and tested in view of the (at the time) pending court proceedings in that case.
Poleg tega je zaradi sodnega postopka, ki je takrat tekel proti WestLB, zgrešeno govoriti o tem, da je metodika, ki je bila uporabljena tam, zanesljiva, kar pravi BdB.
Contrary to what was argued by the BdB, it was undisputed and clearly stated in the decision initiating the procedure that, besides the use of the special-purpose reserve's guarantee function by LBB, the transfer of WBK also increased LBB's equity capital shown in the balance sheet by DEM 187,5 million and that this amount had been recognised as liable equity capital for supervisory purposes.
V nasprotju s tem, kar pravi BdB, je nesporno in v sklepu o začetku postopka tudi navedeno, da si je LBB s prenosom WBK poleg možnosti koriščenja funkcije jamstva rezerve za posebne namene tudi zvišala bilančni lastni kapital za 187,5 milijonov DEM in je bil ta za potrebe nadzora tudi priznan kot rizični lastni kapital.
The question of the extent to which equity capital shown in the balance sheet conferred a financial advantage did not arise here, unlike in WestLB, since it was not necessary to distinguish between recognised and unrecognised parts of the capital.
Problema, v kakšni meri je bilančni lastni kapital treba razumeti kot denarno prednost, tukaj v nasprotju s primerom WestLB ni, ker je treba razlikovati med za potrebe nadzora priznanimi in nepriznanimi deli kapitala.
No aid was involved in the increase in equity capital shown in the balance sheet or the transferred reserves (see paragraphs 40 to 64).
Glede na zvišanje bilančnega lastnega kapitala in prenesene rezerve pomoč ni bila dana (glej odstavke 40 do 64).
The hypothetical leverage of 1:50 was also groundless.
Tudi drugače je sestavljena funkcija vzvoda 1:50 brez vsake podlage.
In applying the principle of the market-economy investor, the analysis should be geared to an investor in a comparable situation.
Če uporabimo načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, je treba poseči po takšnem vlagatelju, ki je v primerljive položaju .
In the case at issue, the Land as investor decided to tie the special-purpose reserve's liquidity into IBB's operations and not to make it available to LBB in its financing capacity.
V tem primeru se je dežela kot vlagatelj odločila, da bo likvidnost rezerve za posebne namene vezana na poslovanje IBB in ta kapital LBB ne bo na razpolago za financiranje.
The Land’s objective with respect to this capital was its own return (see paragraphs 40 to 64).
Dežela je s tem dosegla lastno donosnost (glej odstavke 40 do 64).
Moreover, only the Land continued to have a claim on IBB's special assets, even after LBB's transfer to BGB.
Poleg tega posebno premoženje IBB še naprej pripada izključno deželi, tudi po vključitvi LBB v BGB.
It was therefore also wrong to claim that the remuneration which LBB paid to IBB was paid to itself.
Zato je trditev, da je LBB nadomestila, ki jih je plačala IBB, v bistvu plačala sama sebi.
Moreover, it was usual for a market-economy investor to assign remuneration claims to third parties, especially when the third party was a company or an asset wholly owned by that investor.
Za vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu je običajno, da tretjim odstopi pravice do nadomestila, še zlasti, če gre pri tretji osebi za podjetje ali obseg premoženja, katere edini lastnik je vlagatelj.
Lastly, with respect to the BV's comments on its market share relative to that of BGB, Germany stated that BV had a larger market share in Berlin than it had indicated.
Kar zadeva stališče BV in primerjave tržnega deleža med BV in BGB, ki jo je navedla BV, je tržni položaj BV v Berlinu boljši, kot ga je prikazala BV.
It was the second-largest credit institution and its market shares had to be 60-70 % of those of BGB; as regards deposits by private customers alone, it had some 1/3 of BGB's market share.
BV je druga največja kreditna institucija in ima tržne deleže v vrednosti 60-70 % ustreznih vrednosti BGB in celo na področju vlog občanov v vrednosti približno 1/3 tržnega deleža BGB.
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BDB, THE LAND OF BERLIN AND LBB
DOGOVOR MED BDB, DEŽELO BERLIN IN LBB
On 7 October 2004, Germany informed the Commission of the outcome of an understanding between the complainant (the BdB), the Land of Berlin and LBB.
Nemčija je 7. oktobra 2004 Komisijo obvestila o rezultatih dogovora med vodilnim tožnikom BdB, deželo Berlin in LBB.
Notwithstanding their remaining fundamental legal positions, the parties had agreed on what they themselves regarded as suitable parameters for determining an appropriate remuneration for WBK's assets.
Čeprav se njihovi temeljni pravni položaji niso spremenili, so se stranke strinjale glede tega, kaj se jim zdijo primerni parametri za določitev ustreznega nadomestila za premoženje WBK.
The parties asked the Commission to take account of this understanding in its decision.
Komisijo so prosile, da rezultate dogovora upošteva pri svoji odločitvi.
First, the parties determined, on the basis of the approach detailed in Decision 2000/392/EC, a minimum remuneration for WBK's special-purpose reserve of 10,19 %.
Na podlagi, ki je podrobno opisana v Odločbi 2000/392/ES, so stranke kot primerno najnižje nadomestilo za rezervo WBK za posebne namene najprej določile znesek 10,19 %.
As the Land of Berlin was the sole owner, no further premium, such as to allow for the lack of voting rights, was agreed.
Ker je edina lastnica dežela Berlin, se za manjkajoče pravice glasovanja niso dogovorile za noben dodatek.
A discount of 3,62 % was then applied on account of the capital's lack of liquidity (on the basis of the risk-free interest rate taken as gross refinancing costs, with some 50 % in corporation tax plus a solidarity surcharge deducted to determine net refinancing costs).
Končno so zaradi pomanjkanja likvidnosti kapitala določile odbitek v vrednosti 3,62 % (na osnovi netvegane obrestne mere kot bruto stroškov refinanciranja, od tega približno 50 % davka na dohodke pravnih oseb plus solidarnostni dodatek za določitev neto stroškov refinanciranja).
This produced an appropriate remuneration of 6,57 %.
Rezultat tega je primerno nadomestilo v višini 6,57 %.
The understanding makes no mention of any remuneration for the part of WBK's assets not available for LBB's competitive business.
V poravnavi ni obravnavano nadomestilo za tisti delež sredstev WBK, ki se ga ne more uporabljati za konkurenčne dejavnosti LBB.
For IBB's nominal capital of DEM 187,5 million transferred to LBB's nominal capital no discount on the basis of refinancing costs was calculated as this capital constituted liquid funds.
Za osnovni kapital IBB v višini 187,5 milijonov DEM, ki se ga je vložilo v osnovni kapital LBB, stranke na podlagi stroškov refinanciranja niso določile odbitka, saj je šlo tu za likvidna sredstva.
As the nominal capital had been transferred to BGB in two stages in 1994 and 1998, the parties agreed that remuneration should be paid for it only up to these two points in time (proportionally in each case).
Ker se je osnovni kapital na BGB prenesel v dveh delih, leta 1994 in 1998, so se stranke strinjale, da je nadomestilo za osnovni kapital potrebno plačati samo do teh dveh letnic, vedno odvisno od deleža, ki se je v določenem letu prenesel.
The parties were unable to agree on whether any increase in LBB's value as a result of the transfer should be taken into account.
Stranke se niso mogle dogovoriti o tem, ali je zaradi vključitve LBB treba prišteti morebitno povečanje vrednosti.
In the Landesbank's view, an increase in value had been achieved by the transfer of LBB in 1994 and 1998.
Po mnenju Landesbank je zaradi odsvojitve LBB leta 1994 in 1998 prišlo do povečanja vrednosti.
ON THE GENERAL QUESTION OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD
TEMELJNO VPRAŠANJE ZASTARANJA
Germany stated that the relevant date with respect to any limitation period applicable to recovery was 16 June 1992 when the Berlin Land Government adopted a resolution establishing a Berlin bank holding company.
Kot merodajen čas za možno zastaranje zahtevka po vračilu je Nemčija določila sklep berlinskega senata o ustanovitvi berlinskega holdinga bank z dne 16. junija 1992.
However, this resolution, which is in the Commission's possession, laid down only that ‘Berlin's bank holdings will be restructured’.
V tem sklepu, ki je bil predložen Komisiji, je sprejeta samo odločitev, da se „udeležbe Berlina v bankah na novo strukturira“.
It provided for the ‘establishment of the Berliner Banken-Holding AG, which would bring together under its roof the Landesbank Berlin-Girozentrale, Berliner Bank AG and the … Berliner Pfandbrief-Bank’.
Pri tem „je predvidena ustanovitev berlinskega holdinga bank Berliner Banken-Holding AG, v katerega naj bi se združile Landesbank Berlin – Girozentrale, Berliner Bank AG in ... Berliner Pfandbrief-Bank“.
It did not bring about a transfer of assets.
Prenos premoženja ni posledica tega sklepa.
The measure at issue, namely the transfer of WBK's assets to LBB, was completed only at the close of 31 December 1992.
Do zadevnega ukrepa, tj. prenosa premoženja WBK na LBB, je prišlo šele z iztekom 31. decembra 1992.
The economic effect of the measure, i.e. the increase in LBB's equity capital and the resulting increase in its lending capacity, therefore kicked in only on 1 January 1993.
Zato je do gospodarskega učinka tega ukrepa, tj. povečanje lastnega kapitala LBB in kot posledica večja možnost dajanja kreditov, nastopilo šele 1. januarja 1993.
In the present case, no state aid can have been granted before that date.
Pred tem datumom v tem primeru državna pomoč ni mogla biti dana.
Even if the date on which the measure was awarded were none the less fixed as 16 June 1992, several months before the date of the transfer, it cannot be assumed, as argued by Germany, that the Commission's powers to recover the aid are subject to the limitation period laid down in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Tudi če bi čas dajanja pomoči določili mesece pred datumom prenosa, tj. pred 16. junijem 1992, ne moremo govoriti o zastaranju pooblastil Komisije za terjatev vračila v skladu s členom 15(1) Uredbe 659/1999/ES, kot trdi Nemčija.
Germany takes the view that the decision of 4 July 2002 initiating the procedure was the first Commission action to interrupt the limitation period, among other reasons because in that decision Germany was asked for the first time to forward a copy of the letter to the aid recipient.
Nemčija meni, da je Komisija šele s sklepom o začetku postopka z dne 4. julija 2002 prekinila rok zastaranja, med drugim tudi zato, ker je bila Nemčija šele s tem sklepom pozvana, da kopijo pisma posreduje prejemniku pomoči.
The Commission rejects this view.
Temu mnenju Nemčije Komisija ugovarja.
Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 refers to ‘any action’ taken by the Commission and not merely to a formal decision initiating the procedure.
Člen 15(2) Uredbe 659/1999/ES se navezuje na „vsak ukrep“ Komisije, ne na formalen začetek postopka.
In the present case, the various steps taken by the Commission, in particular its various requests for information referring to LBB, and at any rate its request of September 1999, suffice to interrupt the limitation period.
V tem primeru so različni ukrepi Komisije, še zlasti različne prošnje za informacije, ki zadevajo LBB, in v vsakem primeru prošnja za informacije septembra 1999 zadostovali za prekinitev roka zastaranja.
It is not necessary for LBB to have been aware of the steps taken by the Commission.
Pri tem ni nujno, da je bila LBB seznanjena z ukrepi Komisije.
In its judgment of 10 April 2003 in Case T-366/00 Scott SA v Commission, the Court of First Instance ruled that the mere fact that the aid recipient was not aware of the existence of the Commission's requests for information does not have the effect of depriving them of legal effect vis-à-vis the aid recipient.
V svoji sodbi z dne 10. aprila 2003 v zadevi T-366/00 (Scott SA proti Komisiji) je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da dejstvo, da prejemnik pomoči ni bil seznanjen s tem, da je Komisija državo članico zaprosila za informacije, tem prošnjam ne vzame pravnega učinka nasproti prejemniku pomoči.
The Commission is not obliged to warn potentially interested persons, including the beneficiary of the aid, of the measures which it is taking in respect of unlawful aid before it initiates the administrative procedure.
Komisiji o ukrepih, ki jih v zvezi z nezakonito pomočjo sprejme pred začetkom upravnega postopka, morebitnih zainteresiranih strank in prejemnika pomoči ni treba obvestiti.
The Court accordingly found that the relevant requests for information constituted, under Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, a measure interrupting the limitation period before that period expired, even though the aid recipient was not at the time aware of the existence of such correspondence.
Zato je sodišče prišlo do sklepa, da je šlo pri zadevni prošnji za informacije za ukrep v skladu s členom 15 Uredbe 659/1999/ES, ki je rok zastaranja prekinil pred njegovim potekom, tudi če prejemnik pomoči takrat ni bil seznanjen z dopisovanjem med Komisijo in državo članico.
Moreover, it seems unlikely that LBB was unaware of the Commission's request for information when Germany replied to it in December 1999.
Poleg tega se zdi neverjetno, da LBB ne bi bila seznanjena s tem, da je Komisija Nemčijo zaprosila na informacije, saj je Nemčija decembra 1999 na prošnjo odgovorila.
In conclusion, the Commission has the power in this case to order recovery of any aid.
Komisija na koncu ugotavlja, da ima v tem primeru pooblastilo za terjatev vračila pomoči.
STATE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 87(1) OF THE EC TREATY
DRŽAVNA POMOČ V SMISLU ČLENA 87(1) POGODBE ES