natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, in the early 1990s a surge in growth was expected as a result of unification especially in Berlin, which would open up the potential for business expansion in the financial sector too.
Vendar so v začetku devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja predvsem v Berlinu zaradi združitve pričakovali val rasti, ki je tudi v finančnem sektorju odprl možnosti za širitev poslovanja.
If banks wanted to increase their business volume significantly, a larger capital base was needed, especially in the light of the new solvency rules.
Vendar pa so banke, če so želele občutno povečati svoj obseg poslovanja zlasti zaradi novih pravil glede solventnosti, potrebovale večji kapital.
The transfer of WBK gave LBB a considerably stronger capital base for its commercial, competitive lending business, allowing it to extend its operations significantly.
S prenosom WBK je LBB imela precej večji kapital za svoje komercialno konkurenčno kreditno poslovanje, ki ji je omogočil, da je precej razširila poslovanje.
LBB paid or pays 0,25 % on average for calling on IBB's special-purpose reserve, but only on the amount actually used.
LBB je plačala oz. plača povprečno 0,25 % za koriščenje rezerve IBB za posebne namene, vendar se to obračuna samo od zneska, ki ga koristi.
Payment is made not to the Land of Berlin, but to IBB.
LBB tega ne plača deželi Berlin, ampak IBB.
Account should be taken of the fact that the part of IBB's special-purpose reserve which could be used as liable equity capital was far higher than the amount actually used.
Pri tem je treba upoštevati, da je bil del rezerve IBB za posebne namene, ki se ga je koristilo kot rizična lastna sredstva, precej višji kot kateri koli znesek, ki ga je kdaj koli koristila LBB.
Recourse was had to it for the first time in 1995.
LBB je rezervo za posebne namene začela koristiti šele leta 1995.
The starting point for the investigation was the principle of the market-economy investor.
Izhodišče za preiskavo je bilo načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
According to this principle, the fact that undertakings are publicly owned and receive funding from the public authorities does not in itself constitute state aid.
Po tem načelu okoliščina, da se podjetja nahajajo v javni lasti in od organov oblasti prejemajo finančna sredstva, ne predstavlja oblike državne pomoči.
The provision of public money confers an advantage only if own funds are made available to such an undertaking on terms which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Po tem načelu gre pri vlogi državnih sredstev za pomoč, če dobi podjetje od javnega vlagatelja na razpolago lastna sredstva, ki jih pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji ne bi prejelo.
The Commission took the view that the investigation in this case therefore had to examine whether the resources had been made available by the Land of Berlin on terms which a private investor — an ‘investor operating in a market economy’ — would also have found acceptable in providing funds to a private company.
Komisija je bila mnenja, da je zato v tem primeru treba preveriti, če je dežela Berlin zadevna sredstva dala na razpolago pod pogoji, pod katerimi bi bil tudi zasebni vlagatelj – tako imenovani vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu – zasebnemu podjetju pripravljen prepustiti sredstva.
Such a market investor would not be prepared to provide funds in particular if a normal return could not be expected within a reasonable time from the capital invested.
Da bi lastnik deležev v tržnem gospodarstvu zagotovil sredstva, še zlasti ne gre pričakovati takrat, če v ustreznem obdobju od takšne naložbe ne more pričakovati običajnih tržnih obresti.
In the Commission's view, a rate of 0,25 % on average payable on the sums actually used could hardly be regarded as appropriate remuneration for the Land, when even the long-term risk-free rate (for 10-year Federal bonds) was a good 7 % in 1992.
Kot je menila Komisija, bi v povprečni obrestni meri 0,25 % na vsak koriščen znesek, težko videli primerno nadomestilo za deželo, če je že dolgoročna netvegana obrestna mera (zvezna posojila za 10 let) leta 1992 znašala dobrih 7 %.
The Commission also noted that the remuneration was not paid directly to the Land, but to IBB, which is a division of LBB even though, as a dependent public-law institution and central promotional institution for the Land, it operates as an organisationally and financially separate unit within LBB.
Nadalje je Komisija pripomnila, da nadomestila ni dobila neposredno dežela, ampak IBB, ki je oddelek LBB, čeprav je kot ne pravno sposoben javni zavod in osrednji deželni zavod za pospeševanje v okviru LBB organizacijsko in gospodarsko samostojen.
Moreover, the sums used, as far as the Commission knew, lay well below the amounts of the special-purpose reserve available to LBB for use as liable equity capital.
Poleg tega so bili zneski, ki se jih je koristilo, kolikor je znano, dosti nižji od zneskov in delov rezerve za posebne namene, ki jih je LBB lahko koristila kot rizični lastni kapital.
However, the increased equity base allowed LBB to expand its lending capacity and thus its business.
Vendar pa je ravno večji lastni kapital LBB omogočil, da poveča svoje kapacitete dajanja kreditov in s tem razširi svoje poslovanje.
The Commission established in its preliminary assessment that the data regarding the amount of IBB's capital available for covering liabilities, the amount used and the remuneration paid were incomplete or even unavailable and took as an initial, provisional amount for the transferred and usable funds a figure of ‘approximately DEM 2 billion’.
V okviru predhodne ocene je Komisija ugotovila, da so podatki o višini kapitala IBB, ki se ga je koristilo kot jamstvo, podatki o koriščenju ter o nadomestilu nepopolni oz. manjkajo, ter je prenesena in koriščena sredstva predhodno ocenila na „približno 2 milijardi DEM“.
However, the Commission acknowledged that the special-purpose reserve did not provide LBB with any liquidity because, under the Act of 25 November 1992 setting up IBB, WBK's revenue reserve, which now became a special-purpose reserve earmarked for IBB, was to be used in the first place to finance IBB's promotional work, notwithstanding its function as own funds within the meaning of the Banking Act, and LBB could not use the funds transferred directly for its banking business.
Vendar pa je Komisija priznala, da LBB zaradi rezerve za posebne namene ni postala bolj likvidna, ker je rezerva iz dobička WBK, ki je evidentirana kot rezerva IBB za posebne namene, v skladu z zakonom o ustanovitvi IBB z dne 25. novembra 1992 ne glede na njeno funkcijo rizičnega lastnega kapitala v smislu KWG prednostno treba porabiti za financiranje pospeševalnih nalog IBB in LBB prenesenih sredstev ne more porabiti neposredno za svoje kreditno poslovanje.
In order to be able actually to expand its business, LBB therefore had to refinance the additional volume of credit in full on the capital markets, meaning that the Land could not expect the same return as a provider of liquid capital could.
Da bi lahko dejansko razširila svoje poslovanje, je morala LBB za svoj celotni povečani obseg kreditov na kapitalskem trgu najeti posojila, tako da dežela ne more pričakovati enakega donosa, kot nekdo, ki zagotovi likviden kapital.
As regards the calculation of a remuneration in conformity with the market-economy investor principle, the Commission stated that, at this stage, it intended to apply the methodology set out in Decision 2000/392/EC, while taking into account the specific circumstances of the case in question.
V zvezi z izračunom nadomestila na osnovi načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu je Komisija napovedala, da v tej fazi zaradi posebnih okoliščin tega primera namerava uporabiti metodiko, ki jo je razložila v Odločbi 2000/392/ES.
According to this methodology, the appropriate remuneration for the capital usable to underpin the bank's commercial business is calculated starting from the market remuneration for liquid ordinary capital investment.
Po tej metodiki se primerno nadomestilo za kapital, ki se ga lahko uporabi za financiranje konkurenčnih poslov, izračuna na podlagi tržno primernega nadomestila za likvidne, običajne investicije delniškega kapitala.
A premium or a discount is then applied, in order to take account of the particularities of the measure concerned (before investor taxes).
Na podlagi tega je treba zaradi svojevrstnosti zadevnega ukrepa določeno vsoto dodati ali odbiti (pred obdavčitvijo naložbe).
So as to take into account the liquidity cost arising from the lack of liquidity of the capital investment in question, the net refinancing costs (total refinancing costs minus applicable taxes, in particular corporation tax) are deducted from this rate.
Razen tega se od tega odbijejo neto stroški refinanciranja (bruto stroški refinanciranja brez davkov, zlasti davkov na dohodke pravnih oseb), s čimer se upošteva slabost zadevne nelikvidne naložbe delniškega kapitala za likvidnost.
Germany had stated that in the years both before and after the transfer LBB was a high-return institution, with a return on equity stated to be 5,37 % in 1991, 13,5 % in 1992 and 30,83 % in 1993.
Nemčija je pojasnila, da je bila LBB v letih prej ter tudi po prenosu zelo donosno podjetje in je imela leta 1991 domnevno 5,37 % donosa iz lastnega kapitala, leta 1992 13,5 % in leta 1993 30,83 %.
The Commission commented that the basis for this calculation had not been clarified.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija opazila, da osnove za izračun niso bile pojasnjene.
Without further information, it was unable to assess this argument regarding the absence of any aid element in the measure.
Brez dodatnih podatkov preiskava tega argumenta Nemčije, da pri ukrepu ne gre za pomoč, ni bila mogoča.
The German authorities had also argued that the Land of Berlin had secured proper remuneration for the function of IBB's capital as liable own funds for supervisory purposes on the basis of the Land’s sale to BGB of its silent partnership in 1994 and of its claim to profits in 1998, excluding IBB in both cases.
Nemški organi so tudi navedli, da je dežela Berlin s prodajo tihe udeležbe leta 1994 oz. pravic do dobička leta 1998 BGB – obakrat brez IBB – v skladu s predpisi dobila nadomestilo za nadzorstveno funkcijo jamstva kapitala IBB.
However, further details had not been given.
Vendar so v zvezi s tem manjkali nadaljnji podatki in informacije.
The Commission summed up by stating that it lacked important information for a proper and sufficiently detailed assessment of the capital injection and the remuneration paid.
Komisija je ugotovila, da za primerno in dovolj podrobno oceno sredstev in nadomestil zanje manjkajo pomembni podatki.
In its decision initiating the formal investigation procedure, it therefore asked Germany to provide this information, including a full statement of all the resources transferred, the amount recognised as liable equity capital for LBB, the take-up and remuneration, the basis on which the remuneration was determined, the basis for the calculation of LBB's return on equity, updated figures and all the factors which, in Germany's opinion, ensured a normal market return.
V sklepu za sprožitev formalnega postopka preiskave je Komisija Nemčijo zato zaprosila za te informacije, na primer za popoln pregled vseh prenesenih sredstev, lastnega kapitala LBB, ki jamči za prenesena sredstva, informacije o koriščenju in nadomestilih, za utemeljitev nadomestila, osnove za izračun donosa LBB iz lastnega kapitala ter aktualne številke in vse dejavnike, ki so po mnenju Nemčije zagotovili tržno običajen donos.
However, on the basis of the information available, the Commission expressed serious doubts about whether the Land of Berlin had received a normal market remuneration or rate of interest for the transfer of some DEM 2 billion, almost all of which appeared to be available to LBB as a liable capital base and which placed it at an advantage over its competitors.
Na osnovi razpoložljivih dejstev pa je Komisija izrazila resne pomisleke glede tega, da je dežela Berlin za prenos približno 2 milijard DEM, ki jih je LBB očitno skoraj v celoti imela na razpolago kot rizični kapital in se je zaradi njih znašla v prednostnem položaju nasproti svojim tekmecem, dobila tržno običajno nadomestilo/obresti.
The Commission drew the provisional conclusion that it was likely that competition was being, or might be, distorted and that, in view of the increasing integration in the financial services sector, trade between Member States was being affected.
Komisija je prišla do predhodnega zaključka, da je bila konkurenca verjetno ali skoraj izkrivljena in je bilo zaradi večjega združevanja trgov za finančne storitve ovirano trgovanje med državami članicami.
The measure therefore probably constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zato je bilo treba ukrep obravnavati najverjetneje kot pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Since none of the exemption clauses contained in Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty were applicable to this case, the Commission supposed that, if aid were present, there was reason to doubt that it was compatible with the common market.
Spričo dejstva, da v tej situaciji ni moč uporabiti nobene od klavzul o izvzetju iz člena 87(2)(3) Pogodbe ES, je Komisija sklepala, da če je bila dana pomoč, to zbuja pomisleke, ali je bila združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Since neither Germany nor any other legal or natural person had indicated that LBB provided services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission was unable to conclude that the aid could be approved under that provision.
Ker niti Nemčija niti druge pravne ali fizične osebe niso navedle, da LBB opravlja storitve, ki so v splošnem interesu gospodarstva v smislu člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES, Komisija ni mogla zaključiti, da bi bile pomoči na podlagi člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES lahko odobrene.
In the absence of any change in this situation, it assumed that this point would not be relevant for a final decision on an assessment of the measure at issue.
Komisija je sklepala, da ta točka za oceno zadevnega ukrepa pri končni odločitvi ni relevantna, če se ta dejstva ne spremenijo.
The Commission also explained that, in making its preliminary 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, it had assumed that, inasmuch as it constituted state aid, the measure was new and not existing aid.
Nadalje je Komisija pojasnila, da v okviru svoje predhodne ocene in v skladu s členom 1(b) Uredbe Sveta 659/1999/ES z dne 22. marca 1999 o posebnih predpisih za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES sklepa, da gre pri ukrepu, če je pomoč, za novo in ne za že obstoječo pomoč.
In this connection, it also referred to Article 15(2) of the above Regulation, pointing out that the limitation period had been interrupted by the actions described in the decision initiating the procedure, such as the Commission's letters dated 12 January, 10 November and 13 December 1993 and 1 September 1999, the decision initiating the procedure in this case, as well as the decision initiating the procedure and Decision 2000/392/EC closing the procedure in WestLB.
Pri tem se je Komisija sklicevala na člen 15(2) omenjene uredbe in je opozorila na to, da je bil rok zastaranja prekinjen z ukrepi, ki so opisani v sklepu o sprožitvi postopka, kot je to razvidno iz dopisov Komisije z dne 12. januarja 1993, 10. novembra 1993, 13. decembra 1993 in 1. septembra 1999, ki so prekinili ta sklep o sprožitvi postopka in sklep o sprožitvi postopka ter končno odločbo 2000/392/ES v primeru WestLB.
Since the potential aid had not been notified and had been effective since its implementation, the Commission also found that the decision to initiate the procedure added nothing to the suspensory effect of the third sentence of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty with regard to Germany's obligation to refrain from putting the measure into effect until such time as the Commission has reached a final decision.
Ker verjetna pomoč ni bila prijavljena in se izvaja, odkar je bila sprejeta, je Komisija ugotovila tudi, da sklep o sprožitvi postopka o odložilnem učinku člena 88(3)(3) Pogodbe ES glede obveznosti Nemčije, da ukrepa ne izvede, dokler Komisija ne izda končne odločbe, ni nič spremenil.
In its comments, Germany began by outlining the reasons for the transfer of the former WBK (later IBB), stating that the Land’s objectives at the time were geared towards establishing a ‘strong banking group’ in the interests not only of the merged credit institutions but also of the Land as owner and of its banking sector.
Nemčija je v svojih pripombah najprej navedla razloge za prenos takratne WBK (takrat IBB) in pojasnila, da je bil cilj dežele takrat ustvariti „močno bančno skupino“, kar se je zdelo koristno združenim kreditnim institucijam in lastniku, deželi Berlin, ter njenim bankam.
It again stressed that for LBB, unlike in the WestLB case, satisfying the capital ratios under the new solvency rules played no role in the transfer, as demonstrated by the fact that LBB did not have recourse to IBB's (formerly WBK's) liable equity capital until late 1995.
Pri tem je Nemčija ponovno poudarila, da zagotovitev kapitalskih kvot v skladu z novimi pravili o solventnosti LBB, drugače kot v primeru WestLB, pri prenosu ni imela nobene vloge, kar se je tudi pokazalo s tem, da LBB do konca leta 1995 ni koristila rizičnega lastnega kapitala IBB (prej WBK).
Germany confirmed that DEM 1,902714 million of LBB's liable equity capital determined by the banking regulator as at 31 December 1992 corresponded to the increase brought about by the transferred funds.
Nemčija je potrdila, da je rizični lastni kapital LBB, katerega vrednost je bila določena 31. decembra 1992, vključeval za 1,902714 milijard DEM prenesenih sredstev.
DEM 187,5 million of that amount corresponded to the increase in LBB's nominal capital and some DEM 1,715214 million corresponded to WBK's revenue reserves, without the net profit for the year of DEM 190,586 million.
Od tega je šlo 187,5 milijonov DEM za zvišanje osnovnega kapitala LBB in 1,715214 milijarde DEM za rezervo iz dobička WBK, pri čemer se letnega presežka 190,586 milijonov DEM ni upoštevalo. Z iztekom 31. decembra 1992, se pravi 1. januarja 1993, so se vse pristojnosti WBK prenesle na IBB in IBB se je prenesla na LBB.
According to Germany, in the years which followed, IBB's special-purpose reserve continued to grow.
V letih, ki so sledila, je rezerva IBB za posebne namene, kot pravi Nemčija, stalno rasla.
However, it was not fully available to LBB since part of it was needed each year to underpin IBB's promotional activities.
Vendar pa rezerva IBB za posebne namene LBB ni bila na razpolago v celoti, saj je bil del nje vsako leto potreben za financiranje jamstva za dejavnost pospeševanja IBB.
Germany submitted precise data for each year from 1993 to 2003 (which can be found in the table at paragraph 142).
Nemčija je posredovala natančne podatke za posamezna leta od 1993 do 2003, ki so navedeni v tabeli v odstavku 149.
With IBB's hive-off from LBB on 1 September 2004, the special-purpose reserve was transferred back to the Land of Berlin, and €1,1 billion of it was transferred to two silent partnerships held by the Land in LBB.
Z izločitvijo IBB iz LBB se je 1. septembra 2004 rezerva za posebne namene prenesla nazaj na deželo Berlin, pri čemer je šlo 1,1 milijarde EUR te rezerve za posebne namene za dva vložka tihe družbe dežele v LBB.
IBB's nominal capital of DEM 187,5 million incorporated at the time remained in the nominal capital of LBB.
Takrat najeti osnovni kapital IBB v višini 187,5 milijonov DEM je ostal osnovni kapital LBB.
LBB was in turn sold to BGB in 1994 (75,01 % of the shares) and 1998 (24,99 % of the shares).
LBB je bila leta 1994 (75,01 % delež) in leta 1998 (24,99 % delež) prodana BGB.
Germany also completed the other data.
Nemčija je dopolnila tudi druge podatke.
It again stated that only part of the special-purpose reserve had actually been used to cover liabilities.
Tako je ponovno pojasnila, da se je za financiranje jamstva dejansko vedno koristilo samo del rezerve za posebne namene.
The amount taken up in this way, starting in December 1995, had varied between about DEM 212 million in 1995 and over DEM […] billion in recent years.
Zato je znesek, ki je imel funkcijo jamstva, ki se ga je delno začelo koristiti decembra 1995, nihal med 212 milijoni DEM leta 1995 in dobrimi[…] milijardami DEM v zadnjih letih.
The remuneration paid to IBB for the amounts used as of December 1995 (between a good DEM 1 million for 1995/96 and DEM […] million in 2001) was calculated monthly on the basis of an interest rate which ranged over the period from 0,2 % (1998) to 0,35 % (1996).
Nadomestila, ki jih je IBB dobila samo zaradi koriščenja od decembra 1995 dalje (v vrednosti med dobrim 1 milijonom DEM za 1995/1996 in […] milijoni DEM za leto 2001), se je vsak mesec izračunalo na podlagi obrestne mere, ki je v zadevnem časovnem obdobju nihala med 0,2 % (1998) in 0,35 % (1996).
The precise figures provided by Germany can be found in the table at paragraph 149.
Natančni zneski, ki jih je posredovala Nemčija, so navedeni v tabeli v odstavku 142.
As the basis for determining the remuneration for any use made of IBB's special-purpose reserve, Germany provided a management board resolution dating from June 1993.
Kot utemeljitev za določitev nadomestila za morebitno koriščenje rezerve IBB za posebne namene je Nemčija posredovala sklep upravnega odbora, ki je bil sprejet junija 1993.
This resolution states that ‘… remuneration should be paid to Investitionsbank Berlin for this capital charge (take-up) in an amount equivalent to the cost of raising subordinated liable capital’.
V njem piše, da „je ... investicijski banki Berlin nadomestilo za obremenitev lastnega kapitala (koriščenje) treba plačati v višini stroškov, ki bi bili potrebni za najemanje podrejenega rizičnega kapitala“.
This resolution was given practical effect in 1995, when the remuneration was equated to a subordination premium.
Leta 1995 se je ta sklep uresničil v tem smislu, da se je nadomestilo izenačilo s podrejenim dodatkom.
The reason given was that LBB could have raised alternative subordinated capital on the market which would have been fully available not only in its guarantee function but also in an earnings function.
Navedena je bila utemeljitev, da bi LBB na trgu alternativno lahko najemala podrejena sredstva, ki ji v celoti ne bi bila na razpolago samo v funkciji jamstva, ampak tudi v funkciji donosa.
However, since the IBB special-purpose reserve performed only a guarantee function, the difference between the interest rate for ordinary outside capital, which does not perform that function, and capital which also performs a guarantee function was set as the ‘price’ for the utilisation function.
Ker je imela rezerva IBB za posebne namene samo funkcijo jamstva, je bila razlika med obrestno mero za normalen tuji kapital, ki nima funkcije jamstva, in kapital, ki ima tudi funkcijo jamstva, določena kot „cena“ za kupljeno funkcijo uporabe.
This premium was calculated in basis points by comparison with LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) on the basis of specific terms or external market data for subordinated loans.
Ta dodatek se je izračunalo na osnovi lastnih pogojev oz. zunanjih tržnih podatkov za podrejene instrumente v osnovnih točkah v skladu z LIBOR (londonska medbančna obrestna mera).
The bases for the calculation and statistical data were attached.
Osnove za izračun in statistike so bile priložene.