natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The market-economy investor principle applies to all public undertakings, regardless of whether they are profitable or not.
Načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu se na enak način uporablja za vsa javna podjetja in sicer ne glede na to, ali so donosna ali poslujejo z izgubo.
This view of the Commission has been confirmed by the Court of First Instance in WestLB.
To stališče Komisije je potrdilo Evropsko sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi v primeru WestLB.
It is also clear that the Commission must base its assessment of a case on the information that was available to the investor when he decided on the financial measure in question.
Nadalje je jasno, da mora Komisija svojo oceno primera podpreti s podatki, ki so bili na razpolago vlagatelju v času njegove odločitve o vprašljivem finančnem ukrepu.
The transfer of the special-purpose assets was decided in 1994 and 1995 by the relevant public bodies.
Prenos posebnih namenskih sredstev so v letih 1994 in 1995 sklenili pristojni javni organi.
The Commission must therefore assess the transaction on the basis of the information available and the economic and market circumstances obtaining at the time.
Tako mora Komisija prenos oceniti na podlagi podatkov, ki so bili takrat na razpolago, in takratnih gospodarskih in tržnih razmer.
The figures provided in this decision that refer to subsequent years are used only to illustrate the effects of the transfer on BayernLB's situation and not to justify or question the transaction after the event.
Podatki navedeni v tej odločbi, ki se nanašajo na kasnejša leta, se uporabljajo samo za prikaz posledic prenosa na položaj BayernLB in prenosa ne upravičujejo naknadno ali postavljajo pod vprašaj.
As explained above, application of the ‘market-economy investor principle’ entails an assessment of whether the expected and/or agreed remuneration for the transferred resources is lower than the remuneration paid on the market for comparable investments. The fact that the Land of Bavaria already owned half of the credit institution's shares does not stand in the way of such an assessment.
Dejstvo, da je bila Bavarska že polovični delničar kreditne institucije, ni v nasprotju z uporabo načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, po katerem je kot je navedeno zgoraj treba preveriti, če pričakovan ali dogovorjen donos za prenesena sredstva zaostaja za nadomestili, ki se na trgu plačajo za primerljive naložbe.
In this regard Germany argues that the Land's investment here is not comparable to that of any third party which is interested only in achieving the best possible return on its capital.
Nemčija s tem v zvezi trdi, da obravnavana naložbe Bavarske ni primerljiva z naložbo poljubnega tretjega, ki ga zanima zgolj realizacija najbolj ugodnih obresti za njegov vložen kapital.
According to Germany, the main concern of the Land, as owner of half of the shares, was to maintain the long-term competitiveness of its affiliated state bank and, by injecting new funds, to ensure that ‘its’ bank could carry on serving its existing customers in future.
Po mnenju Nemčije je bila glavna skrb Bavarske, kot lastnika polovice delnic, da ohrani dolgoročno konkurenčnost svoje vodilne državne banke in z dovajanjem novih, dodatnih sredstev zagotovi, da bi „njena“ banka lahko tudi v prihodnje služila svojim dosedanjim strankam.
Lastly, the investment was also said to be guided by considerations relating to brand image.
Konec koncev naj bi bila naložba vodena tudi z vidika imidža blagovne znamke.
Given the bank's position at that time, Germany argues, even a private shareholder such as a private holding company or group of companies would have injected capital, and achieving an optimum return would not have been the only major consideration.
Glede na položaj banke v tistem času, bi lahko tudi zasebni vlagatelj, na primer zasebni holding ali skupina podjetij, v njo vložili kapital, ne da bi bil v ospredju zgolj vidik optimalnega donosa.
However, the Commission cannot accept Germany's arguments.
Vendar pa Komisija trditev Nemčije ne more sprejeti.
Even if a market-economy investor already holds shares in an undertaking, he will investigate other investment options outside that undertaking.
Vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu bo tudi v primeru, da že ima delnice nekega podjetja, preveril ostale investicijske možnosti izven tega podjetja.
As a rule he will then choose to invest further resources in the public undertaking only if he can expect a reasonable return on the investment of the fresh capital contributions.
Praviloma se bo za naložbo dodatnih sredstev v javno podjetje odločil samo, če lahko za ta dodatna sredstva pričakuje primerne donose.
So, in determining whether a capital injection constitutes state aid, one must in principle disregard the shareholder's prospects of long-term profitability or even the simple concern to maintain a brand image.
Dolgoročne obete donosnosti delničarja ali tudi preprosto prizadevanje za negovanje imidža potemtakem pri vprašanju, ali vloga kapitala predstavlja državno pomoč, načeloma ni treba upoštevati.
Whatever the motives behind it, a capital injection by a shareholder should be measured instead according to whether the investor can expect a normal return on the additional resources within a reasonable period.
Ne glede na to, kakšni so motivi zanjo, je treba tudi vlogo kapitala delničarja oceniti glede na to, ali lahko vlagatelj za dodatna sredstva računa z običajnim donosom v primernem časovnem obdobju.
The European Court has raised no objections to this interpretation of the market-economy investor principle, which the Commission has already applied in its decision on WestLB (paragraphs 161 et seq.).
Evropsko sodišče ni nasprotovalo takšni razlagi načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki ji je Komisija sledila že v svoji Odločbi glede WestLB iz leta 1999 (odstavek 161isl.).
The Court also adopted as a guiding principle that even a private investor who already owns share capital in an undertaking is not normally content with the fact that an investment does not cause him a loss or yields only limited profits.
Sodišče je kot vodilno načelo sprejelo tudi umovanje, da se tudi zasebni vlagatelj, ki je že udeležen pri temeljnem kapitalu nekega podjetja, običajno ne zadovolji s tem, da mu naložba ne prinese izgube ali le omejen dobiček.
On the contrary, he will always seek to achieve a reasonable return on his investment according to the particular circumstances and the satisfaction of his short-, medium- or long-term interests.
Ravno nasprotno, vedno si bo prizadeval, da doseže primeren donos na njegovo naložbo sorazmerno z obstoječimi razmerami in njegovimi kratkoročnimi, srednjeročnimi in dolgoročnimi interesi.
According to the market-economy investor principle, the key question in examining this case is, therefore, whether a market-economy investor would have transferred under the same conditions capital that had the same characteristics as the promotion-related assets of the Land of Bavaria, especially in view of the expected return of the investment.
Ob upoštevanju „načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu“ se torej temeljno vprašanje v zadevni preiskavi glasi, ali bi vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu kapital, ki ima enake značilnosti kot sredstva Svobodne države Bavarske za pospeševanje, prenesel pod enakimi pogoji, zlasti glede na predviden donos na naložbo.
Article 295 of the Treaty
Člen 295 Pogodbe ES
Article 295 lays down that the system of property ownership in the various Member States must not be affected.
V skladu s členom 295 ostajajo lastninska razmerja v različnih državah članicah nespremenjena.
This does not, however, justify any infringement of the competition rules of the Treaty.
Vendar pa to ne upravičuje nobene kršitve pravil o konkurenci iz Pogodbe.
In connection with the Landesbank cases, Germany has stated that the resources transferred could not have been used in any other profitable manner than by being injected into a similar public institution.
Nemčija glede primerov deželnih bank trdi, da prenesena sredstva ne bi mogla biti uporabljena na kakršen koli drug dobičkonosen način kot s prenosom na podobno osebo javnega prava.
Consequently, the transfer represented the commercially most sensible use of those assets.
Zato je prenos predstavljal poslovno najbolj smiselno uporabo teh sredstev.
So any remuneration for the transfer, i.e. any additional return on the assets transferred, would be sufficient to justify the transfer in the light of the market-economy investor principle.
Tako bi bilo vsako povračilo za prenos, t.j. vsak dodaten donos iz prenesenih sredstev, zadostno za utemeljitev prenosa z ozirom na „načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu“.
This line of argument cannot be accepted.
Te argumentacije ni mogoče uporabiti.
It may be that the transfer of the promotion-related assets to BayernLB and the resulting opportunity for the bank to use the capital for solvency purposes was the economically most sensible use to which it could be put.
Morda je res tako, da je bil prenos sredstev za pospeševanje na BayernLB in posledična možnost banke, da kapital uporabi za namene solventnosti, gospodarsko najbolj smiselna uporaba.
However, as soon as public monies and other assets are used for commercial, competition-oriented activities, the normal market rules must be applied.
Vendar pa je treba, takoj ko gre za uporabo javnih sredstev ali drugih aktiv za komercialne in tržno usmerjene dejavnosti, uporabiti običajna pravila tržnega gospodarstva.
This means that the State, once it decides to use certain assets (also) commercially for public purposes, must demand a remuneration in line with the normal market remuneration.
To pomeni, da mora država, takoj ko se odloči javna sredstva uporabiti (tudi) v gospodarske namene, za to zahtevati povračilo, ki ustreza običajnemu tržnemu nadomestilu.
No change in ownership structure
Nespremenjena lastniška struktura
One way of ensuring an adequate return on the capital provided would have been to increase the Land's participation in BayernLB accordingly, provided that the bank's overall profitability corresponded to the normal rate of return that a market-economy investor would expect from his investment.
En način zagotovitve primernega donosa iz zagotovljenega kapitala bi bilo ustrezno povečanje udeležbe dežele v BayernLB, v kolikor splošna donosnost banke ustreza običajnemu donosu, ki ga vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu pričakuje za svojo naložbo.
However, this course was not adopted by the Land.
Vendar pa se Bavarska ni odločila za takšno postopanje.
Germany argues here that, given the circumstances, not even a private investor could have pushed through a change in ownership structure.
Nemčija v tem smislu ugovarja, da tudi zasebni vlagatelj v obravnavani situaciji ne bi mogel doseči spremembe lastniške strukture.
As owner of the other half of the shares, the Sparkassenverband would not have agreed to a change in ownership structure, since, at the time when the special-purpose reserve was transferred, BayernLB needed no extra core capital whatsoever in order to maintain its credit volume and, under Section 2 of the transfer agreement, the Sparkassenverband would have borne half of the cost of any depletion of the special-purpose reserve.
Sparkassenverband se kot drugi polovični lastnik ne bi strinjal s spremembo lastniške strukture, saj v času prenosa posebnih namenskih sredstev s strani BayernLB ni bilo nikakršne potrebe po dodatnem temeljnem kapitalu za ohranitev obsega kreditiranja, in bi moral Sparkassenverband v skladu s poglavjem 2 dogovora o prenosu financirati polovico porabe posebnih namenskih sredstev.
Moreover, when the first instalment was transferred, the Bavarian savings banks had already contributed a total of around DEM 900 million — by the time of the second instalment it was already EUR 1100 million — in the form of silent partnerships, without this being matched by a comparable contribution by the Land of Bavaria.
Poleg tega so bavarske hranilnice za časa prenosa prve tranše skupaj v banko že prispevale okrog 900 milijonov DEM v obliki vložka tihe družbe – ob prenosu druge tranše je ta znesek znašal 1,1 milijarde DEM – brez da bi Svobodna država Bavarska vložila kaj podobnega.
However, if a redistribution of shares were not feasible, a market-economy investor would, in the Commission's view, have embarked on the investment only if agreement had at least been reached on an appropriate direct remuneration.
V kolikor prerazdelitev deležev ni možna, bi se po mnenju Komisije vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu odločil za naložbo le v primeru, da se je sporazumel vsaj o primernem neposrednem nadomestilu.
Normally a private investor is not content to avoid losses or to obtain a limited return on his investment, but attempts to maximise the return on his assets according to the circumstances in question and his interests.
Zasebni vlagatelj se ponavadi ne zadovolji s tem, da se izogne izgubam ali da za svojo naložbo doseže omejen donos, temveč skuša, donos iz svojih sredstev sorazmerno z obstoječimi razmerami in svojimi interesi čimbolj povečati.
So a private investor who already holds shares in the beneficiary undertaking will usually insist on either a change in ownership structure or an appropriate fixed remuneration.
Zato bo ponavadi tudi zasebni vlagatelj, ki že ima delnice upravičene družbe, zahteval bodisi spremembo lastniške strukture bodisi primerno stalno nadomestilo.
Otherwise he would forgo part of the additional returns achieved as a result of the capital injection, as the other shareholders would also profit from higher dividends and an increase in the undertaking's value without having made a corresponding contribution.
Sicer bi se odrekel delu dodatnih donosov, doseženih kot posledice vložka kapitala, saj imajo tudi ostali delničarji koristi od višjih dividend ter povečanja vrednosti družbe, brez da bi sami prispevali ustrezen vložek.
Nor is there is any call here to adopt another view based on the fact that, at the time of the second transfer in 1995, the Bavarian savings banks had already contributed a total of around DEM 1100 million to BayernLB in the form of silent partnerships.
Druge ocene v obravnavanem tudi ni na voljo, ker so v času drugega prenosa v letu 1995 tudi bavarske hranilnice BayernLB že prispevale kapital v skupini vrednosti okrog 1,1 milijarde DEM v obliki vložka tihe družbe.
The question can remain open as to whether a private investor would forgo a shift in share structure only if the other shareholders carried out a similar, corresponding capital injection, at the same time as and directly linked to his own capital injection, and if their transfers were just as likely to increase the returns.
Vprašanje, ali bi se zasebni vlagatelj odpovedal premiku v delniški strukturi v lastno korist oz. neposrednemu nadomestilu, če bi istočasno in v neposredni povezavi z njegovo vlogo kapitala tudi ostali delničarji izvršili podobno vlogo kapitala glede na njihov delež v družbi in bi njihovi prenosi na enak način povečali donosnost, pa ostaja odprto.
In the Commission's view, there is no vital direct link here between the silent partnership contributions and the transfer of the housing-promotion assets.
Po mnenju Komisije pa v obravnavanem v vsakem primeru manjka potrebna neposredna povezava med vložki tihe družbe in prenosom sredstev za pospeševanje. Vložki tihe družbe, ki so bili le delno neomejeni, so bili v času prenosa posebnih namenskih sredstev že opravljeni.
When the special-purpose reserve was transferred, the silent partnership contributions, only some of which were for an unlimited period, had already been transferred to BayernLB in a series of small instalments between 1991 and 1995.
Na BayernLB so bili preneseni postopoma in v manjših tranšah v letih 1991 do konca leta 1995.
They were therefore unconnected with the transfer of the housing-promotion assets both in timing and in material terms.
Tako niso bili niti v časovnem niti v predmetnem smislu povezani s prenosom sredstev za pospeševanje.
And, as far as can be ascertained, no such link can be established later either, at the time the assets were transferred.
V kolikor je razvidno, do te povezave ni prišlo niti kasneje, ko so bila sredstva za pospeševanje prenesena.
For example, there was no agreement to the effect that the savings banks must always maintain the total volume of their investment at a constant level .
Tako na primer ni bila dogovorjena nobena obveznost, da morajo hranilnice vedno vzdrževati celoten obseg svojih naložb na stalni ravni.
Nor is it otherwise apparent that the Land took the savings banks' contribution into account in determining the remuneration for its capital injection.
Tudi sicer ni razvidno, da bi Bavarska pri določitvi nadomestila za svojo vlogo kapitala upoštevala prispevek hranilnic.
Furthermore, the contributions are not objectively comparable. According to Germany, the sole compensation for the silent partnership contributions was a fixed remuneration at the market rate, whereas the capital contribution of the Land of Bavaria was remunerated partly by a fixed remuneration and — Germany argues — partly by the expected value increases.
Poleg tega manjka tudi predmetna primerjava vložkov, ker je bila edina kompenzacija za vložke tihe družbe po navedbah Nemčije fiksno obrestovano nadomestilo, ki je običajno za trg, medtem ko je bil vložek kapitala Svobodne države Bavarske delno nadomeščen s fiksno obrestovanim nadomestilom, delno pa po trditvah Nemčije s pričakovanim povečanjem vrednosti.
There was therefore no symmetry between the two capital contributions in respect of the components of the remuneration, which consisted of a direct remuneration on the one hand and a value increase on the other.
Zato med obema prispevkoma kapitala, ki ju med seboj primerjamo, ne ni nobene simetrije, kar zadeva dele nadomestila, ki naj bi se po eni strani realizirala z neposrednim nadomestilom in po drugi strani z morebitnim povečanjem vrednosti.
The capital contribution by the Land of Bavaria therefore differed fundamentally from the silent partnerships of the savings banks.
Zadevna vloga kapitala s strani Svobodne države Bavarske je bila tako bistveno drugačne vrste kot vložki tihe družbe s strani hranilnic.
Germany also refers here to the decision by the Court of First Instance in Alitalia.
Glede odločbe Sodišča prve stopnje v primeru Alitalia, ki jo je Nemčija citirala s tem v zvezi, je treba opozoriti, da se odločba nanaša na zasebnega vlagatelja.
However, that decision concerned investments by a private investor, whereas the Sparkassenverband and the savings banks are not private, but public-law bodies.
V primeru Sparkassenverband oz. hranilnic pa ne gre za zasebne, temveč javnopravne organizacije.
Moreover, as shown above, the capital contributions were not comparable to the transfer of the housing-promotion assets either in timing or in content.
Nadalje, kot je bilo prikazano, vloge kapitala s strani Sparkassenverband oz. hranilnic niso niti časovno niti predmetno primerljive s prenosom posebnih namenskih sredstev.
In conclusion, there is nothing to indicate that a private investor would have forgone an appropriate direct remuneration in a situation comparable to the transfer of promotion loans to BayernLB.
Na koncu je treba poudariti, da nič ne kaže na to, da bi se zasebni vlagatelj v primerljivi situaciji prenosa sredstev za pospeševanje na BayernLB odrekel primernemu neposrednemu nadomestilu.
Owner effect
Lastniški vpliv
Germany also submits that, as owner of half of the shares, the Land could assume — at least at the time when the housing-promotion assets were transferred to BayernLB — that it would have the benefit of very advantageous capital returns in comparison with other credit institutions, as is clearly borne out by the capital returns achieved at that time.
Nemčija nadalje navaja, da bi Bavarska lahko vsaj v času prenosa sredstev za pospeševanje na BayernLB kot polovični lastnik izhajala iz tega, da bo imela koristi od zelo ugodnih donosov lastnega kapitala v primerjavi z drugimi kreditnimi institucijami.
So, in making its investment, the Land of Bavaria was not content with a limited return or no return at all, but had in mind an undertaking with above-average profitability.
Svobodna država Bavarska se potemtakem ni zadovoljila z omejenim donosom ali celo izpadom donosa, temveč je imela pri svoji naložbi v mislih nadpovprečno donosno podjetje.
Germany maintains that the ‘owner effect’, i.e. the fact that the investor already holds shares in the undertaking in which he is investing, must be taken into account at least where an undertaking has above-average profitability, the Court of First Instance having acknowledged as much in its judgment in WestLB.
Tako imenovani lastniški vpliv, torej okoliščine, v katerih vlagatelj že ima delež v podjetju, v katerega investira, je treba upoštevati vsaj takrat, ko je podjetje nadpovprečno donosno. To je v svoji sodbi glede WestLB priznalo tudi Sodišče prve stopnje.
The Commission cannot accept Germany's argument.
Vendar Komisija trditev Nemčije ne more sprejeti.
At the time of the investment, the Land of Bavaria owned only half of the shares.
Svobodna država Bavarska je bila za časa naložbe le polovični lastnik.
It would therefore benefit from only half of the increase in the undertaking's value and dividends which might be expected as a result of the investment, although it alone had made that investment.
Tako bi Svobodna država Bavarska imela koristi samo od polovice morebitnega povečanja vrednosti podjetja in izplačil dividend, ki bi jih lahko pričakovala na podlagi naložbe, čeprav je sama opravila zadevno naložbo.
No market-economy investor would agree, as joint owner, to bear the entire cost of an investment if it were then to realise only part of the gains from it.
Noben vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu se ne bi strinjal, da kot solastnik nosi celotno breme naložbe in ima od pri tem nastalega dobička le delno korist.
Contrary to Germany's claims, the Court has specifically confirmed this view in its judgment in WestLB.
To je v nasprotju z mnenjem Nemčije izrecno potrdilo tudi Evropsko sodišče prve stopnje v svoji sodbi glede WestLB.
The Court found that it is not consistent with the conduct of a market-economy investor if an increase in capital generates profits for the other shareholders of an undertaking without their contributing in any way to them.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da ni v skladu z ravnanjem vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, če povečanje kapitala ustvarja dobiček za ostale delničarje podjetja, brez kakršnega koli prispevka z njihove strani.
Even in the case of an undertaking with above-average profitability, as BayernLB is described by Germany, the key point is not by how much its profitability lies above the average and whether the investor may nevertheless continue to achieve a satisfactory return in overall terms at the time of the investment.
Pri tem ne gre niti v primeru podjetja z nadpovprečno donosnostjo – kakor trdi Nemčija za BayernLB – za to, koliko je njegova donosnost nad povprečjem in ali vlagatelj s tem glede na okoliščine kljub temu še v celoti v času naložbe dosega zadovoljiv donos.
Even where the undertaking is far more profitable than average, the private investor would take care to realise all the additional gains made possible by his investment.
Celo v primeru nadpovprečno donosnega podjetja bi zasebni vlagatelj pazil na to, da bi v celoti realiziral dodatne dobiček iz njegove naložbe.