natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
What matters to the investor is that he himself can no longer invest that amount and obtain a corresponding return.
Zanj je pomembno, da on sam z vloženim zneskom ne more več gospodariti in s tem doseči ustreznega donosa.
Nor does the BdB regard the guarantee fee mentioned by Germany as forming an element of remuneration.
BdB še dodaja, da se provizija za jamstvo, ki jo navaja Nemčija, ne bi smela upoštevati kot del nadomestila.
This was in particular because the transfer was made at its cash value (DEM 1197 million) and not at its nominal value (DEM 5027 million).
To izhaja zlasti iz tega, da se je prenos sredstev za pospeševanje že od vsega začetka izvršil pri denarni vrednosti (1,197 milijard DEM) in ne pri nominalni vrednosti (5,027 milijard DEM).
The fact that the cash value was used meant that account was already taken of the (default) risks connected with uncollectible loan claims and that there was no justification for any additional remuneration for the default guarantee.
Dejstvo, da je bila uporabljena denarna vrednost, je pomenilo, da so bila tveganja (izpada), ki so povezana z nedonosnostjo terjatev iz posojil, že upoštevana in da dodatno nadomestilo za dodelitev jamstva ni več upravičeno.
Applying the WestLB method, a guarantee commission of 0,3 % per annum should also be paid for the period between the transfer of the capital and its recognition as core capital, since the injected capital had at least a guarantee function up to that point.
V skladu z metodologijo WestLB je poleg tega treba za časovno obdobje med prenosom kapitala ter priznavanjem kot temeljni kapital plačati provizijo za jamstvo v višini 0,3 % letno. Vloženi kapital je namreč tudi vse do tega trenutka imel vsaj funkcijo jamstva.
This applied up to 8 May 1996 for the full amount of DEM 1197 million and between 8 May and 23 December 1996 for the amount of DEM 542 million.
To je veljalo do 8. maja 1996 za celotni znesek 1,197 milijard DEM ter med 8. majem in 23. decembrom 1996 za znesek 542 milijonov DEM.
GERMANY'S RESPONSE TO THE BDB'S COMMENTS
ODZIV NEMČIJE NA STALIŠČE BDB
In its reply to the above-mentioned comments from the BdB, Germany pointed out that an investment in the share capital of a public limited company does not guarantee either dividends or an increase in equity price or value and that an investor naturally bears the risk of his return expectations not actually being fulfilled.
Nemčija v svojem odgovoru na zgoraj navedene ugotovitve BdB poudarila, da pri naložbi v osnovni kapital delniške družbe niso zagotovljene niti dividende niti povečanje tečaja oz. vrednosti, in da vlagatelj seveda sam tvega, ali se bo njegov pričakovan donos tudi dejansko uresničil.
Setting a fixed remuneration, as in the case of BayernLB, removed forecasting risks and the return was therefore generally lower.
Po dogovoru o fiksno obrestovanem nadomestilu, kot v primeru BayernLB, je odpadlo napovedovanje tveganj in donosi so bili zaradi tega praviloma manjši.
This shows that it would not have been normal market practice if BayernLB had, at the time of the injection of the special-purpose assets, guaranteed the Land of Bavaria a return that was merely expected, thereby placing the investor in special assets on a better footing than an investor in shares.
To kaže na to, da ne bi bilo ravno običajno za trg, če bi BayernLB Svobodni državi Bavarski v času prenosa posebnih namenskih sredstev s pogodbo zagotovil zgolj pričakovan donos, s čimer bi vlagatelja v posebna namenska sredstva postavil v boljši položaj kot vlagatelja v delnice.
The BdB's method was also problematic in that an investor in shares could realise the increase in value only by selling his shares, without burdening the company.
Prav tako naj bi bilo ravnanje BdB že zavoljo tega problematično, ker bi lahko vlagatelj v primeru naložbe v delnice povečanje vrednosti dosegel samo s prodajo svojega deleža, ne da bi s tem obremenjeval delniško družbo.
A private investor could never have persuaded a company in which he was investing to pay from its assets the equivalent of increases in value which an investor in share capital could have realised only by selling to a third party.
Zasebni vlagatelj ne bi mogel nikoli doseči, da podjetje, v katerega vlaga, da iz lastnih sredstev plača enak znesek za povečanje vrednosti, ki bi ga vlagatelj v primeru naložbe v osnovni kapital lahko dosegel samo s prodajo tretji stranki.
The CAPM method was said to be unsuitable for determining the market return.
Poleg tega velja metoda CAPM kot neustrezna za določitev tržnega donosa.
In particular, the risk assumed in the CAPM to account for market fluctuations did not exist, as the Landesbanks were not quoted on the stock exchange.
Zlasti ni obstajalo s CAPM predvideno tveganje za tržna nihanja, ker deželne banke niso kotirale na borzi.
There were therefore no historical data series for beta factors.
Temu primerno tudi ne obstaja noben zgodovinski niz podatkov za beta faktorje.
Germany also felt that the BdB committed errors in determining the individual components of the CAPM.
Ne glede na to pa je bila Nemčija mnenja, da je BdB delala napake pri določanju posameznih komponent metode CAPM.
It was incorrect to take account of long-term inflation expectations in setting the risk-free base rate.
Ni bilo prav, da se je pri določanju netvegane temeljne obrestne mere upoštevala dolgoročna pričakovana inflacija.
What mattered was only which rates could actually be obtained on the market.
Pomembno je bilo samo, katere obresti so bile dejansko dosegljive na trgu.
At the time of the transfers of the special-purpose assets to BayernLB, these were only 7,50 % and 6,10 % per annum respectively.
Te so bile v Nemčiji za časa prenosa posebnih namenskih sredstev na BayernLB samo 7,50 % oz. 6,10 % letno.
Current inflation expectations were already factored in.
Trenutna inflacijska pričakovanja so že bila vključena v ceno.
The market risk premium of 4,6 % applied by the BdB was inappropriately high.
Premija tržnega tveganja 4,6 %, ki jo je določila BdB, je neprimerno visoka.
Among other things Germany pointed out that the 1991 study of trends in returns on the German stock market, carried out by Stehle/Harmond and referred to by the BdB, said nothing about the market risk premium on the German capital market.
V zvezi s tem je Nemčija med drugim poudarila, da raziskava Stehle/Hartmond iz leta 1991 o razvoju donosov na nemškem delniškem trgu, na katero se nanaša BdB, ne priča o premiji tržnega tveganja na nemškem trgu kapitala.
Furthermore, there were different methods of determining the market risk premium, all producing different results.
Poleg tega obstajajo različne metode za določitev premije tržnega tveganja, ki vodijo do zelo različnih rezultatov.
Using its own calculations, Germany demonstrated that in the last 30 years the market risk premium had never reached anything approaching 4,6 %.
Nemčija je na podlagi lastnih izračunov prikazala, da premija tržnega tveganja v višini 4,6 % v zadnjih tridesetih letih niti približno ni bila dosežena.
Also, in defining the beta value, Landesbanks should not be compared to ‘commercial banks’, which, moreover, had not been clearly defined by the BdB.
Pri določanju beta vrednosti se deželne banke ne smejo enačiti s tako imenovanimi kreditnimi bankami, ki jih BdB med drugim niti ni jasno opredelil.
At most, the calculation should be based on the clearly defined group of listed banks, the so-called CDAX banks.
Vsekakor mora biti jasno opredeljena skupina bank, ki kotirajo na borzi, tako imenovane banke CDAX.
Taking a reference period of five years, a beta value of 0,85 at 31 December 1994 and 0,80 at 31 December 1995 was obtained for this group on a monthly basis, as could be seen from the attached calculations from the Datastream database, which correctly used only a five-year period for calculating beta factors.
Za to skupino sta bili iz referenčnega obdobja petih let na mesečni osnovi pridobljeni beta vrednosti 0,85 z dne 31. decembra 1994 in 0,80 z dne 31. decembra 1995, kot je razvidno iz priloženih izračunov podatkovne zbirke „Datastream“, ki je za določanje beta faktorjev ustrezno uporabila samo časovno obdobje petih let.
The period from 1974, which the BdB used to calculate the beta factor, was too long, as both the capital market environment and the banking sector changed significantly in the early 1990s.
Obdobje od leta 1974, ki ga je BdB uporabila za izračun beta faktorja, je bilo predolgo, saj sta se tako okolje trga kapitala kot tudi bančni sektor na začetku devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja močno spremenila.
Germany therefore argued that all the factors required for the CAPM had been wrongly established and that the appropriate minimum market rates for the transactions in question had been overestimated.
Potemtakem je BdB napačno ocenil vse faktorje potrebne za CAPM in precenil najmanjše običajne tržne donose za zadevne prenose.
On 30 October 2003 the Federal Government forwarded a response from the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia and WestLB to the Commission's decision of 13 November 2002 to initiate the investigation procedure in which they disputed the statement that the assets transferred to the Landesbanks could be compared to share capital.
Zvezna vlada je 30. oktobra 2003 posredovala odgovor na sklep Komisije o začetku preiskovalnega postopka z dne 13. novembra 2002, v katerem dežela Severno Porenje-Vestfalija in NordLB izpodbijata trditev, da so sredstva, prenesena na deželne banke, primerljiva z osnovnim kapitalom.
They argued that silent partnership contributions and ‘perpetuals’ had in fact been recognised as core capital in Germany since 1991.
Vložki tihe družbe in tako imenovani perpetuali se namreč v Nemčiji priznavajo kot temeljni kapital že od leta 1991.
They added that remuneration for an investment depended not on how it was classified by the banking supervisory authorities, but on its risk profile.
Nadomestilo zato ne temelji na tem, kako organi za bančni nadzor klasificirajo naložbo, temveč na njenem profilu tveganja.
Since the assets were junior-ranking, the risk pattern had more in common with silent partnership contributions or ‘perpetuals’ than with share-capital investments.
Ker so sredstva v podrejenem položaju, je struktura tveganja primerljivejša z vložki tihe družbe ali tako imenovanimi perpetuali kot z naložbami v osnovni kapital.
WestLB had no objections to the CAPM method for calculating the minimum remuneration for a share-capital investment, but it felt that the beta values determined by BdB — at well over 1 — were inappropriate.
Kar zadeva izračun najmanjšega nadomestila za naložbo v osnovni kapital, se WestLb strinja z metodo CAPM. Vendar pa beta vrednosti, določene s strani BdB, ki so znatno večje od 1, niso primerne.
Yet the risk of investing in a Landesbank was well below the overall market risk because of the institutional liability (Anstaltslast) and guarantor liability (Gewährträgerhaftung) which it enjoyed and which were not challenged at the time.
Vendar je tveganje pri naložbi v deželno banko zaradi takratnega nespornega obstoja pomoči Anstaltslast in Gewährträgerhaft znatno manjše od tveganja na celotnem trgu.
Permanently and systematically applying a rate of return of around 12 % placed the Landesbanks at an unjustifiable disadvantage compared with private competitors.
Zaradi trajne in sistematične uporabe stopnje donosa v višini približno 12 % so deželne banke neupravičeno v slabšem položaju v primerjavi z zasebno konkurenco.
As regards the discount for the lack of liquidity of the transferred assets, WestLB and the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia considered that the rate for risk-free government bonds should be deducted in full from the basic return.
Kar zadeva odbitek zaradi manjkajoče likvidnosti prenesenih sredstev, sta WestLB in Severno Porenje-Vestfalija mnenja, da se mora stopnja za netvegane državne obveznice v celoti odbiti od osnovne stopnje donosa.
Finally, the fact that the assets' lack of liquidity did not pose a risk to the liquidity position should be seen as reducing the risk — and hence the remuneration — and should be taken into account by applying a corresponding deduction.
Nazadnje pa se mora dejstvo, da manjkajoča likvidnost sredstev ne ogroža stanja likvidnosti, obravnavati kot znižanje tveganja – in s tem nadomestila. To se mora upoštevati z ustreznim odbitkom.
Likewise, a discount should be granted on account of the ‘owner effect’, since an investor who already owned shares in a company took a different view of an additional investment from that of a new investor.
Prav tako se mora opraviti odbitek zaradi tako imenovanega lastniškega učinka, saj vlagatelj, ki že ima svoj delež v podjetju, dodatne naložbe vrednoti drugače kot nov vlagatelj.
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BDB, THE LAND OF BAVARIA AND BAYERNLB
DOGOVOR MED BDB, SVOBODNO DRŽAVO BAVARSKO IN BAYERNLB
On 24 September 2004 the BdB, the Land of Bavaria and the BayernLB submitted to the Commission an understanding on the BayernLB case.
septembra 2004 so pritožnik BdB, Svobodna država Bavarska in BayernLB predložili dogovor o postopku glede pomoči v primeru BayernLB.
Irrespective of their basic interpretations of the legal situation, which remained unchanged, the parties to the understanding agreed on what they themselves regarded as suitable parameters for determining an appropriate remuneration for a hypothetical share-capital investment in BayernLB.
Ne glede na še naprej obstoječe razlike v temeljnem pojmovanju prava med strankami dogovora, so se stranke dogovorile o tem, kar one razumejo kot ustrezne parametre za določitev primernega nadomestila za domnevno naložbo v osnovni kapital BayernLB.
The parties asked the Commission to take account of this understanding in its decision.
Stranke prosijo Komisijo, da pri svoji odločitvi upošteva rezultate dogovora
Applying the CAPM, the parties first determined the minimum expected remuneration for a hypothetical share-capital investment in BayernLB.
Stranke so sprva na osnovi metode CAPM določile pričakovana najmanjše nadomestilo za domnevno naložbo v osnovni kapital BayernLB.
On this basis, the appropriate minimum renumeration for the first instalment of the special-purpose assets should amount to 9,87 % per annum and for the second instalment to 8,0 %.
Skladno s tem naj bi primerno najmanjše nadomestilo za prvo tranšo posebnih namenskih sredstev znašalo 9,87 % letno in za drugo tranšo 8,0 % letno.
To arrive at this figure, the parties used the long-term risk-free interest rates calculated on the basis of the REX10 Performance Index of Deutsche Börse AG and beta factors estimated on the basis of a study by […] of 26 May 2004 commissioned by the Landesbanks.
Stranke so za izračun tega najmanjšega nadomestila uporabile dolgoročne netvegane obrestne mere, ki so jih deželne banke določile z uporabo t.i. indeksa uspešnosti REX10 Performance Index nemške borze (Deutsche Börse AG), in predvidene beta faktorje iz izvedenskega mnenja [...] z dne 26. maja 2004, ki je bilo izdelano na pobudo deželnih bank.
In practical terms, this resulted for BayernLB in a risk-free basic interest rate of 7,5 % on 31 December 1994 and 6,1 % on 31 December 1995 (the dates when the transfers took place).
Za BayernLB je to konkretno v času prenosa pomenilo netvegano obrestno mero 7,5 % za 31. december 1994 in 6,1 % za 31. december 1995.
On the basis of the study by […], the beta factor was calculated at 0,593 on 31 December 1994 and 0,475 on 31 December 1995.
Kot beta faktorji sta bili na podlagi mnenja [...] določeni vrednosti 0,593 (31. december 1994) in 0,475 (31. december 1995).
A market-risk premium of 4 % was determined for all the Landesbanks.
Premija tržnega tveganja je bila za vse deželna banke določena na 4 %.
The initial interest rate of 9,87 % (31 December 1994) was calculated as follows: risk-free interest rate of 7,5 % + (general market-risk premium of 4,0 % × beta factor of 0,593).
Izhodiščna obrestna mera 9,87 % (31. december 1994) se je izračunala takole: netvegana obrestna mera 7,5 % + (splošna premija tržnega tveganja 4,0 % × beta faktor 0,593)
The initial interest rate of 8,00 % (31 December 1995) was calculated as follows: risk-free interest rate of 6,1 % + (general market-risk premium of 4,0 % × beta factor of 0,475).
Izhodiščna obrestna mera 8,00 % (31. december 1995) se je izračunala takole: netvegana obrestna mera 6,1 % + (splošna premija tržnega tveganja 4,0 % × beta faktor 0,475)
A deduction was then made to take account of the lack of liquidity of the special-purpose assets.
Potem se je zaradi manjkajoče likvidnosti posebnih namenskih sredstev določil še odbitek.
For this the risk-free interest rates of 7,5 % and 6,1 % were applied generally as gross refinancing costs.
Tako so bruto stroški refinanciranja pavšalno temeljili na navedenih netveganih obrestni merah 7,5 % in 6,1 %.
To determine the key net refinancing costs, the overall tax rate for BayernLB was fixed at 50 %, leading to deductions for lack of liquidity of 3,75 % (31 December 1994) and 3,05 % (31 December 1995).
Za določitev ustreznih neto stroškov refinanciranja je pavšal davčne obremenitve BayernLB v času obeh prenosov znašal 50 %, kar je privedlo do odbitkov v višini 3,75 % (31. december 1994) in 3,05 % (31. december 1995).
Lastly, a premium of 0,3 % was added because no new voting rights were granted.
Na koncu se je zaradi pomanjkljive izdaje glasovalnih pravic prištel pribitek v višini 0,3 %.
Altogether this produced an appropriate remuneration for the special-purpose assets of 6,42 % (first instalment) and 5,25 % (second instalment) after tax, which is payable on the full amount recognised by BAKred as core capital, from the end of the month in which recognition was granted (i.e. from 31 May 1996 onwards for the amount of DEM 655 million and from 31 December 1996 onwards for the total amount of DEM 1197 million).
Skupno iz tega izhaja primerno nadomestilo za posebna namenska sredstva v višini 6,42 % (prva tranša) oz. 5,25 % (druga tranša) po plačilu davkov za celoten znesek, priznan s strani BAKred, in sicer od konca meseca, v katerem je BAKred priznal sredstva kot temeljni kapital (za znesek 655 milijonov DEM od 31. maja 1996 in za celoten znesek 1,197 milijard DEM od 31. decembra 1996).
For 1998 and 1999, when fluctuations actually pushed the cash value below the amount recognised by BAKred, only the lower cash value is used as a basis for the calculation.
Za leti 1998 in 1999, v katerih je denarna vrednost zaradi nihanj dejansko padla pod znesek, ki ga je BAKred priznal, se za davčno osnovo uporabi samo zmanjšana denarna vrednost.
According to the understanding, the aid element, which BayernLB must pay back, resides in the difference between the 0,6 % per annum remuneration actually paid by BayernLB on the part of the special-purpose assets used to cover risk-bearing assets and the remuneration determined as appropriate — 6,42 % for the first instalment and 5,25 % for the second instalment.
V skladu z dogovorom element pomoči tako sestoji iz razlike med dejansko plačanim povračilom 0,6 % letno na del posebnih namenskih sredstev, ki se uporablja za kritje tvegane aktive, na eni strani in ustrezno določenim primernim nadomestilom 6,42 % (prva tranša) in 5,25 % (druga tranša), ki ga mora BayernLB vrniti.
The parties were unable to agree on whether the 0,05 % commission paid by BayernLB for a guarantee by the Land of Bavaria on the nominal value of the special-purpose assets constituted an additional element of remuneration that had to be deducted.
Stranke se niso mogle dogovoriti o tem, ali provizija 0,05 %, ki jo je BayernLB plačala za jamstvo Svobodne države Bavarske na nominalno vrednost posebnih namenskih sredstev, predstavlja dodaten že izplačan element nadomestila, ki ga je treba odbiti.
The understanding itself made no mention of any guarantee commission payable for the period between the transfer of the capital into the Bank and its recognition by BAKred as core capital.
Sam dogovor sicer ne vključuje stališča glede provizije za jamstvo, ki bi jo bilo treba plačati za časovno obdobje med prenosom kapitala v banko in priznanjem s strani BAKred.
However, in a table calculating the aid element and attached to the understanding, the parties took as a basis a guarantee commission for that period of 0,15 % per annum after tax for both instalments.
Kljub temu pa so stranke utemeljevale svoj izračun v tabeli, ki je priložena dogovoru in v kateri je bil element pomoči za obe tranši izračunan na osnovi provizije za jamstvo 0,15 % letno po obdavčitvi za to časovno obdobje.
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty states that, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the common market, insofar as trade between Member States is affected.
Po členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES, če v tej pogodbi ni določeno drugače, državne ali iz državnih sredstev dodeljene pomoči, ki koristijo določenim podjetjem in proizvodnji določenega blaga in s tem izkrivljajo konkurenco ali predstavljajo grožnjo, niso skladne s skupnim trgom, če ovirajo trgovino med državami članicami.
With the transfer of assets described above, the Land of Bavaria opted for a form of capital increase based on the concept of transferring public building-loan claims to BayernLB in order to strengthen its equity-capital base .
Z zgoraj opisanim prenosom sredstev se je Svobodna država Bavarska odločila za obliko povečanja kapitala, ki temelji na konceptu prenosa javnih terjatev iz stanovanjskih posojil na BayernLB, da bi se okrepil obseg lastnega kapitala.
In spite of the fact that the returns from these claims were still available for housing construction and hence served a public-benefit purpose, the assets were recognised by the supervisory authority and could therefore be used to provide cover for the liabilities of BayernLB, which was in competition with other credit institutions.
Ne glede na dejstvo, da so bila povračila iz teh terjatev še vedno na razpolago za gradnjo stanovanj in so torej služila za obče koristne namene, so bila sredstva priznana s strani nadzorstva ter so se potemtakem lahko uporabljala za namene jamstva BayernLB, ki je tekmoval z drugimi kreditnimi institucijami.
Also, under a law adopted by the Bavarian Parliament, the Land of Bavaria was empowered to conclude an agreement transferring to BayernLB the public loans used to promote housing construction.
Nadalje je bila Bavarska z zakonom, ki ga je sprejel deželni zbor, pooblaščena, da sklene dogovor o prenosu javnih posojil za pospeševanje gradnje stanovanj na BayernLB.
Thus state resources were transferred to BayernLB.
S tem so se na BayernLB prenesla državna sredstva.
The European Court of Justice and Court of First Instance have accepted and developed this principle in a number of cases, most recently in the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2003 in the WestLB case.
To načelo sta Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti in Sodišče prve stopnje sprejeli in razvijali v številnih primerih, zlasti v sodbi Evropskega sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. marca 2003 v primeru WestLB, ki je pomembna za zadevni primer.
According to this principle, no state aid is involved where funds are made available on ‘terms which a private investor would find acceptable in providing funds to a comparable private undertaking when the private investor is operating under normal market-economy conditions’ .
Glede na to načelo ne gre za pomoč podjetju, kadar so sredstva na razpolago pod „pogoji, pod katerimi bi bil zasebni vlagatelj, ki deluje v običajnih pogojih v tržnem gospodarstvu, pripravljen zagotoviti sredstva zasebnemu podjetju“.
In contrast, the undertaking is being favoured within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty if the agreed remuneration and/or the financial position of the undertaking are such that a normal return on investment cannot be expected within a reasonable period of time.
Nasprotno pa gre za pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, kadar sta predvideno nadomestilo in/ali finančni položaj podjetja taka, da se običajni donos na naložbo ne more pričakovati v primernem roku.