natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Three different economic approaches were discussed which could be used to calculate the normal market remuneration for a capital injection: the insurance premium approach, the risk profile approach and the share capital approach.
Obravnavani so bili trije različni gospodarski pristopi, s pomočjo katerih bi bilo mogoče izračunati običajno tržno nadomestilo za kapitalski vložek: pristop zavarovalne premije, obravnava profila tveganja in obravnava osnovnega kapitala.
The starting-point for the insurance premium approach is the fact that the transfer of WAK's and WKA's assets to LSH was subject to restrictions and that, because of their special purpose, the liquidity remained entirely with the Land.
Izhodišče pri pristopu zavarovalne premije je dejstvo, da so bila sredstva WAK in WKA pri LSH vložena omejeno in da je likvidnost zaradi njihove namenske vezanosti v celoti ostala pri deželi Schleswig-Holstein.
As a result, remuneration is said to be payable only for the risk to the Land that IB's capital might be used in the event of the Landesbank becoming insolvent.
Nadomestiti je treba tako samo tveganje dežele, da je kapital IB mogoče uporabiti v primeru insolventnosti deželne banke.
Under the risk profile approach, the point of reference for determining the appropriate market remuneration is the risk underlying an investment in a bank's liable equity capital.
Obravnava profila tveganja pri določanju primernega tržnega nadomestila izhaja iz tveganja, ki mu je kapital izpostavljen pri naložbi v rizični lastni kapital banke.
In this respect, the transfer of assets such as IB's capital is compared with capital market instruments that are similar to the Land's investment in terms of economic profile, and the normal market remuneration is determined as a result.
Pri tem se vloga kapitala, kakršen je kapital IB, primerja z instrumenti na trgu kapitala, ki so podobni naložbi dežele, kar zadeva njihov gospodarski profil. Iz tega se nato izpelje običajno tržno nadomestilo.
The share capital approach is much more complex and prone to errors but, if applied properly, it should yield the same result as the other two approaches.
Obravnava osnovnega kapitala je veliko bolj zapletena in izpostavljena napakam, a ob pravilni uporabi privede do istega rezultata kot druga pristopa.
The following comments were made on the basic interest rate used and the individual premiums and discounts applied:
Glede izhodiščne obrestne mere ter posameznih pribitkov in odbitkov so bila podana naslednja stališča:
Minimum return after tax: Given current earnings in the banking sector, and especially public banks, the 12 % rate applied is said to be too high.
Najmanjši donos po obdavčitvi: Stopnja 12 % naj bi bila glede na finančne rezultate v bančnem sektorju, zlasti na področju javnih bank, prevelika.
The basic rate should be 11 % at most.
Izhodiščna stopnja je lahko največ 11 %.
Reference is made here to various expert reports submitted in the WestLB case.
Tu se sklicuje na različna izvedenska mnenja, predložena v postopku zoper WestLB.
Risk premium: It is argued that the 1,5 % risk premium in Decision 2000/392/EC is unwarranted and should be dropped altogether.
Premija tveganja: Premija tveganja 1,5 % v Odločbi 2000/392/ES naj ne bi bila upravičena in bi jo bilo treba v celoti opustiti.
The capital injection in LSH totalled only DEM 1600 million, compared with DEM 5900 million in the WestLB case (a substantial financial investment).
V primeru LSH ne gre za skupni kapitalski vložek 5,9 milijarde DEM (obsežna finančna naložba), kakor v primeru WestLB, temveč za skupni vložek 1,6 milijarde DEM.
Moreover, from the investor's standpoint, what matters is not the size of the investment, but the risk structure.
Poleg tega s stališča vlagatelja ne šteje velikost naložbe temveč struktura tveganja.
The failure to increase voting rights is not pertinent in the LSH case as additional rights would not have secured any greater influence.
Tudi nezmožnost povečanja glasovalnih pravic v primeru LSH ne velja, saj dodatne pravice ne bi zagotovile večjega vpliva.
The third argument raised, namely the lack of fungibility of IB's capital, is also dismissed as inaccurate since IB's capital was transferred to LSH for an unlimited period, but not irrevocably.
Tudi tretji navedeni razlog, nezadostna tržnost kapitala IB, naj ne bi bil ustrezen, saj je bil kapital IB sicer prenesen na LSH za neomejeno obdobje, a ne nepreklicno.
Discount for lack of liquidity: The liquidity cost is said to reside in the fact that, because of the restrictions on the transfer, LSH received IB's capital only as subordinated capital but had to obtain the corresponding liquidity on the capital market, since the liquidity of IB's capital remained with the Land.
Odbitek zaradi manjkajoče likvidnosti: Strošek zaradi likvidnosti temelji na dejstvu, da je LSH zaradi omejenosti vloge prejela kapital IB le kot drugoten kapital, a si je morala pridobiti ustrezno likvidnost na trgu kapitala, saj je likvidnost kapitala IB ostala pri deželi Schleswig-Holstein.
The additional interest on the outside funds — up to the amount of the risk-free interest rate — should therefore be deducted in full from the return demanded by the Land as an investor.
Dodatne obresti na tuj kapital v višini netvegane obrestne mere se morajo torej v celoti odbiti od donosa, ki ga zahteva dežela kot vlagatelj.
Accordingly, under German corporation tax law, it is not levied on the undertaking.
Zato se ga v skladu z nemškimi predpisi o davku od dobička ne odmerja podjetju.
Corporation tax credit procedure: LSH argues that, if the Commission wishes to abide by its share capital approach, it must either subtract the tax credit balance from the return of a comparable private investor or add a corresponding fictional tax credit balance to the Land's return.
Imputacijski sistem v zvezi z davkom od dobička pravnih oseb: LSH trdi, da mora Komisija, če želi vztrajati pri obravnavi osnovnega kapitala, odšteti davčni dobropis od donosa primerljivega zasebnega vlagatelja ali pa prišteti ustrezen fiktiven davčni dobropis k donosu dežele Schleswig-Holstein.
Owner effect, coupon effect, discount for fixed remuneration: LSH mentions other economic effects that lead to a reduction in what can be regarded as an ‘appropriate’ remuneration for IB's capital.
Lastniški učinek, učinek kupona, odbitek zaradi fiksno obrestovanega nadomestila LSH omenja druge gospodarske učinke, ki vodijo k zmanjšanju nadomestila za kapital IB, ki se obravnava kot „primerno“.
It was also argued that it was irrelevant for the purposes of state aid legislation how the Land of Schleswig-Holstein arranged a remuneration from LSH for the transfer of IB's capital.
Nadalje naj za pravila o državni pomoči ne bi imelo pomena, na kakšen način si dežela Schleswig-Holstein ureja nadomestilo s strani LSH za vlogo kapitala IB.
In assessing the remuneration paid to the Land, account must be taken of the synergy gains achieved through the transfer.
Pri oceni nadomestila, izplačanega deželi, je potrebno upoštevati tudi sinergijske prednosti, dosežene z vlogo.
The transfer of IB's capital enabled the Land to obtain a higher price than would have otherwise been possible for holdings in LSH acquired by WestLB and Landesbank Baden-Württemberg.
Prenos kapitala IB na LSH naj bi deželi Schleswig-Holstein omogočil doseči za udeležbo WestLB in Landesbank Baden-Württemberg pri LSH višjo nakupno ceno od tiste, ki bi bila mogoča brez tega prenosa.
It was also claimed that the special-purpose real-estate reserve did not perform either a financing or a business-generating function for LSH since it was not recognised by BAKred as core capital for supervisory purposes.
Navedeno je bilo tudi, da LSH z nepremičninami kot rezervo za posebne namene ni opravljala funkcij financiranja in ustvarjanja posla, saj jih BAKred ni priznal kot temeljni kapital za potrebe nadzora.
No remuneration need therefore be paid for the assets transferred to LSH as a special-purpose real-estate reserve since the transfer conferred no economic advantage on LSH for which a market-economy investor would have demanded a remuneration.
Za nepremičninska sredstva, prenesena na LSH kot rezerva za posebne namene, torej ni potrebno izplačevati nadomestila, saj prenos LSH ni prinesel gospodarske prednosti, za katero bi vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu zahteval nadomestilo.
To sum up, the transfer of the housing-promotion assets of the Land of Schleswig-Holstein to LSH was said not to constitute state aid.
Vložek sredstev za pospeševanje gradnje stanovanj pri LSH s strani dežele Schleswig-Holstein naj torej ne bi predstavljal državne pomoči.
A hypothetical private investor would have undertaken a similar transfer.
Domnevni zasebni vlagatelj bi opravil podoben prenos.
The Land received for the transfer to LSH an appropriate remuneration in line with market conditions.
Dežela je za ta vložek od LSH prejemala primerno, običajno tržno povračilo.
V. COMMENTS BY THE BDB
V. STALIŠČE BDB
The BdB submits that LSH did not pay an appropriate remuneration for the transferred core capital and was therefore in receipt of state aid.
BdB meni, da LSH ni izplačevala primernega nadomestila za prenesen temeljni kapital in je torej prejemala državno pomoč.
In its comments of 29 July 2003 on the procedures initiated in respect of the Landesbanks on 13 November 2002, the BdB states that the question of whether the remuneration was appropriate should be determined using the method employed by the Commission in Decision 2000/392/EC.
BdB v svojem stališču z dne 29. julija 2003 glede postopkov, začetih dne 13. novembra 2002 v zvezi z deželnimi bankami, navaja, da je treba na vprašanje glede primernosti nadomestila odgovoriti s pomočjo metodologije, ki jo je Komisija uporabila v Odločbi 2000/392/ES.
Finally, a calculation must be made of any premiums and discounts applied by virtue of the particularities of the transfer.
Nazadnje je treba izračunati morebitne pribitke in odbitke zaradi posebnosti prenosa.
In its comments the BdB came to the conclusion that the transfer of housing-construction and promotion-related assets in all five of the above Landesbank cases, i.e. also in the case of LSH, can be compared to an injection of share capital.
BdB je v svojem stališču prišel do zaključka, da je prenos sredstev za gradnjo stanovanj in pospeševanje v vseh petih navedenih postopkih deželnih bank in s tem tudi v primeru LSH primerljiv z vlogo v osnovni kapital.
Nearly all the Landesbanks are said to have required fresh core capital from 1992 onwards in order to meet the stricter requirements arising from the Solvency Directive.
Skoraj vse deželne banke so z letom 1992 potrebovale nov temeljni kapital, da bi izpolnile strožje zahteve Direktive o solventnosti.
It can therefore be concluded, the BdB argues, that the capital injected can be compared only with equity instruments that were recognised as core capital (‘tier 1 capital’) and available in Germany in the year of the transfer.
Na podlagi tega se po besedah BdB lahko zaključi, da se vložen kapital lahko primerja le s takimi instrumenti lastnega kapitala, ki so bili v Nemčiji v letu prenosa priznani in na razpolago kot temeljni kapital (kapital „razred 1“).
At the time of the respective transfers, only share capital and silent partnership reserves were recognised as core capital in Germany.
V času zadevnih prenosov so bili v Nemčiji kot temeljni kapital priznani le osnovni kapital in vložki tihe družbe.
First, unlike share capital, silent partnership contributions were valid for a limited period only or could be terminated and had to be paid back to the investor on maturity.
Prvič, za razliko od razpoložljivega osnovnega kapitala so vložki tihe družbe časovno omejeni oz. se lahko odpovedo in jih treba po preteku roka povrniti vlagatelju.
In all cases the transferred capital made up a significant proportion of the total core capital, sometimes even more than 50 %.
V vseh primerih prenosa predstavlja prenesen kapital pomemben del celotnega temeljnega kapitala, deloma celo več kot 50 %.
This made it extremely likely that the injected capital could be drawn on — at least in part — in the event of losses.
Zaradi tega je obstajala zelo velika verjetnost, da bi bi bil vložen kapital uporabljen vsaj deloma v primeru izgub.
Third, the BdB submits that the difference in quality between silent partnership contributions and share capital is confirmed by the definition of core capital for supervisory purposes adopted by the Basle Committee for Banking Supervision.
Tretjič, različno kakovost vložkov tihe družbe v primerjavi z osnovnim kapitalom je potrdil tudi Baselski odbor za bančni nadzor glede opredelitve temeljnega kapitala za potrebe nadzora.
Furthermore, banks only ever took up subordinate equity instruments such as preference shares or profit participation rights in small volumes.
Poleg tega banke vedno opravljajo z drugotnimi instrumenti lastnega kapitala, kot so prednostne delnice ali pravice za udeležbo pri dobičku, le v majhnem obsegu.
The BdB argues that all methods of determining an appropriate remuneration (return) for the provision of share capital start from a risk-free return and add a risk premium.
BdB trdi, da vse metode za določitev primernega nadomestila (donosa) za razpoložljiv osnovni kapital izhajajo iz netveganega donosa in vključujejo premijo tveganja.
They can be traced back to the following basic principle:
Te metode je mogoče pojasniti na naslednjem temeljnem načelu:
Expected return on a high-risk investment
pričakovan donos na tvegano naložbo
In its comments of 29 July 2003, it assumed in the first place a long-term market risk premium of a uniform 4,6 %.
V svojem stališču z dne 29. julija 2003 je sprva izhajalo iz enotne dolgoročne premije tržnega tveganja v višini 4,6 %.
It then determined the beta value for the Landesbanks, i.e. the individual risk premium for the banks by which the general market-risk premium was to be adjusted.
BdB v drugem koraku določa beta vrednost za deželne banke, t.j. posamezno premijo tveganja bank, kateri je treba prilagoditi splošno premijo tržnega tveganja.
The BdB stated that it had determined the beta values statistically, which means that it estimated them on the basis of a historical data sample.
Po navedbah BdB so bile beta vrednosti določene statistično, kar pomeni, da so bile ocenjene na podlagi vzorca preteklih podatkov.
The BdB initially concluded that all the beta values for all the Landesbanks and periods considered were greater than one.
BdB je pri tem najprej ugotovilo, da so bile vse beta vrednosti za vse deželne banke in obravnavana obdobja večje kot ena.
On the basis of a risk-free basic interest rate of 9,74 % and a beta factor for LSH of 1,1105, the BdB calculated the expected minimum remuneration for an investment in the share capital of LSH to be 14,85 % per annum at the time when IB's capital was transferred on 31 December 1990.
Na podlagi netvegane temeljne obrestne mere 9,74 % ter beta faktorja za LSH 1,1105 je BdB izračunalo pričakovano najmanjše nadomestilo za naložbo v osnovni kapital LSH v času prenosa kapitala IB dne 31. decembra 199014,85 % letno.
The BdB also noted that the Commission's deduction pursuant to Decision 2000/392/EC from the minimum remuneration to take account of the lack of liquidity of Wfa's assets had been upheld by the Court of First Instance.
BdB tudi ugotavlja, da je odbitek od najmanjšega nadomestila zaradi manjkajoče likvidnosti sredstev Wfa, ki ga je Komisija določila v Odločbi 2000392/ES, potrdilo Sodišče prve stopnje.
It therefore saw no reason to depart from this method in the present case, with the result that a deduction for liquidity should also be made here.
Zato ne vidi nobenega razloga za odstopanje od te metode v zadevnih primerih in tudi tu se opravi odbitek zaradi manjkajoče likvidnosti.
In the BdB's view, three aspects of the transfer increased its risk compared with a ‘normal share capital investment’: the in part exceptionally high volume of assets transferred, the failure to issue new shares in the company and the related forgoing of additional voting rights, and the lack of fungibility of the investment, i.e. the impossibility of withdrawing the invested capital from the company again at any time.
Po mnenju BdB so trije vidiki prenosa vplivali na povečanje tveganja glede na „običajno naložbo v osnovni kapital“. v določeni meri izredno velik obseg prenesenih sredstev, neizdaja novih delnic v družbi in s tem povezana odpoved dodatnim glasovalnim pravicam ter nezadostna tržnost vloge, t.j. nemožnost, da bi se vložen kapital kadar koli dvignil iz podjetja.
Capital basis and elements of remuneration
Kapitalska osnova in elementi nadomestila
Lastly, the BdB argued that, in calculating the appropriate remuneration in LSH's case, the entire amount recognised as core capital should be taken into account, and not just the part which was actually used.
Nazadnje BdB poudarja, da mora biti pri izračunu primernega nadomestila v primeru LSH osnova skupni znesek, priznan kot temeljni kapital, in ne zgolj dejansko uporabljen del.
It backs up this argument by stating that a market-economy investor would never agree to limit his remuneration to the portion of funds actually used.
To utemeljuje z dejstvom, da se vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu zagotovo ne bi strinjal z omejitvijo svojega nadomestila le na dejansko uporabljen del.
The BdB also argued that a remuneration of 0,3 % should have been paid for the special-purpose real-estate reserve, which has not yet been recognised by BAKred as own funds for supervisory purposes.
Tudi za nepremičnine kot rezervo za posebne namene, ki jih Bakred še ni priznal kot lastni kapital za potrebe nadzora, je treba po mnenju BdB izplačevati nadomestilo 0,3 %.
Although this amount was not recognised as core capital, it too was available to the Landesbank's creditors to cover losses, and both investors and rating agencies take as a reference not only a bank's core capital, but also the economic equity capital shown on the balance sheet.
Čeprav ta znesek ni bil priznan kot temeljni kapital, je bil tudi na razpolago upnikom deželne banke za kritje izgub in tako vlagatelji kot rating agencije so se sklicevali ne samo na temeljni kapital banke temveč tudi na gospodarski lastni kapital, vknjižen v bilanci stanja.
The 0,3 % per annum guarantee commission (Haftungsprovision) applied by the Commission in its WestLB decision, which it calculated by comparing the amount of capital with a guarantee, is equally appropriate in this case.
Provizija za jamstvo 0,3 % letno, ki jo je Komisija uporabila v svoji Odločbi glede WestLB, izračunala pa jo je s primerjavo zneska kapitala z jamstvom, je v tem primeru tudi primerna.
GERMANY'S RESPONSE TO THE BDB'S COMMENTS AND FURTHER COMMENTS BY GERMANY
ODZIV NEMČIJE NA STALIŠČE BDB IN VNOVIČNO STALIŠČE NEMČIJE
In its response of 29 October 2003 to the BdB's comments, Germany rejected the argument that remuneration should also be paid for the IB capital that is recognised for supervisory purposes but not used.
Nemčija je v svojem odgovoru z dne 29. oktobra 2003 na pripombe Nemčije zavrnila ugovor, da je treba nadomestilo izplačevati tudi za kapital IB, priznan s strani nadzorstva, a neuporabljen.
It contended that this part of IB's capital conferred no economic advantage on LSH and therefore required no remuneration.
LSH s tem delom kapitala IB ni bila deležna gospodarske prednosti, zato ga ni bilo potrebno nadomeščati.
Not all of a bank's additional liable capital recognised for supervisory purposes was automatically of economic use or conferred an economic advantage.
Ni nujno, da ves dodatni rizični kapital, priznan s strani nadzorstva, za banko predstavlja gospodarsko korist ali prednost.
Moreover, the capital transferred to LSH was not liquid share capital but non-liquid assets which performed an — at most — limited guarantee function and so could not be used by LSH for investment or lending purposes.
Poleg tega pri LSH ni bil vložen likvidni osnovni kapital temveč nelikvidna sredstva, ki opravljajo kvečjemu omejeno funkcijo jamstva in jih LSH torej ne more uporabljati za namene vlaganja ali kreditiranja.
Germany also contested the argument that remuneration should be paid for the portion of transferred capital not recognised for supervisory purposes (in LSH's case, the special-purpose real-estate reserve).
Nemčija je zavrnila tudi ugovor, da je treba nadomestilo izplačevati za del vloženega kapitala, ki ni priznan s strani nadzorstva (v primeru LSH nepremičnine kot rezerva za posebne namene).
It argued that, since that capital is assigned to a specific long-term purpose, it forms part of a circular financial circuit and has not conferred any advantage on LSH by increasing its solvency.
Ta je zaradi svoje trajne namenske vezanosti del finančnega kroga in LSH ne zagotavlja prednosti s povečanjem njene solventnosti.
Germany added that the rating agencies concentrate exclusively on capital recognised for supervisory purposes as liable core capital.
Poleg tega se rating agencije osredotočajo izključno na kapital, priznan s strani nadzorstva kot rizični temeljni kapital.
Accordingly, it did not see why the banking supervisory authorities and creditors should regard the special-purpose real-estate reserve as a lasting reservoir of value.
Nemčija zato ne vidi razloga, zakaj bi morale nepremičnine kor rezerva za posebne namene z vidika bančnega nadzorstva in upnikov predstavljati trajno vrednostno rezervo.
Germany submitted that IB's capital is closest in nature to perpetual preferred shares, profit participation certificates and silent partnership contributions.
Nemčija je poudarila, da je kapital IB najbolj podoben trajnim prednostnim delnicam, pravicam za udeležbo pri dobičku in vložkom tihe družbe.
Germany argued that in 1994 LSH's guarantors agreed on a proportionate replenishment commitment which would ensure that, in the (unlikely) event of LSH becoming insolvent, IB's capital would not be called on.
Navedla je, da so se leta 1994 garanti LSH dogovorili za sorazmerno obveznost napolnitve in s tem zagotovili, da kapital IB ne bi bil uporabljen niti v primeru sicer malo verjetne plačilne nesposobnosti LSH.
Accordingly, an investor in a Landesbank faced a risk which might require remuneration in that the transferred capital might be lost as a result of ongoing losses.
Torej je vlagatelj pri deželni banki izpostavljen tveganju, ki bi ga bilo treba nadomeščati, kvečjemu zaradi dejstva, da se prenesen kapital lahko izgubi zaradi tekočih izgub.
However, an investor was protected from that risk by the existence of the subordination agreement.
Vendar ga pred tem tveganjem ščiti obstoječ dogovor o podrejenosti.
The BdB's calculation of the minimum remuneration was said to be wrong for a number of reasons: incorrectly defined factors in the CAPM calculation, the unrealistic assumption of the guaranteed fixed remuneration and incomprehensible discounts and premiums.
Izračuni najmanjšega nadomestila s strani BdB naj bi bili iz več razlogov napačni. Gre za uporabo netočno opredeljenih dejavnikov pri izračunu z metodo CAPM, nerealno domnevo o zagotovljenem fiksno obrestovanem nadomestilu in nerazumljive pribitke in odbitke.
Germany also took a critical view of the CAPM used by the BdB to determine the minimum return for share-capital investments in the Landesbanks.
Nadalje je Nemčija kritična do metode CAPM, uporabljene s strani BdB za določitev najmanjšega donosa na naložbe v osnovni kapital deželnih bank.
It criticised not only the suitability of the CAPM for determining the expected return on an investment which should yield a fixed remuneration, but also the factors employed (risk-free interest rate, market-risk premium and beta value).
Poleg primernosti metode CAPM za določitev pričakovanega donosa na naložbo, ki naj bi prinesla fiksno obrestovano nadomestilo, kritizira tudi uporabljene dejavnike (netvegana obrestna mera, premija tržnega tveganja in beta vrednost).