natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission can therefore at most examine whether the determination of the perpetuity premium was wrong in economic terms, i.e. was based for example on false premises.
Komisija lahko torej kvečjemu preveri, ali je bila določitev pribitka za trajnost napačna v gospodarskem smislu, t.j. je morda temeljila na napačnih ugotovitvah.
In carrying out this examination, therefore, reference must be made to market data from a later period.
Pri tej preiskavi se morajo zato v pomoč uporabiti tržni podatki iz kasnejšega obdobja.
In the Commission's view, there is no reason to believe that a premium for the perpetuity of a silent partnership varies much over time.
Po mnenju Komisije ni razloga za domnevo, da se pribitek za trajnost vložka tihe družbe močno spreminja s časom.
However, no specific data on the level of the perpetuity premium can be deduced from the market.
Vendar se iz trga ne dajo razbrati konkretni podatki o obsegu pribitka za trajnost.
Perpetuals, including the silent partnership contribution of unlimited duration, have established themselves on the market since the Sydney Declaration of October 1998, but more particularly since 1999.
Instrument perpetualov, ki vključuje tudi časovno neomejen vložek tihe družbe, se je uveljavil na trgu po Sydneyski izjavi iz oktobra 1998, zlasti pa po letu 1999.
Germany did not therefore present separate data on the level of the appropriate perpetuity premium for carrying out the market comparison, but rather presented data on overall pricing of perpetuals and silent partnerships of unlimited duration observable on the market since 1999 (contributions with a term of thirty years or more are also regarded as being of unlimited duration on the market).
Nemčija zato ni predložila ločenih podatkov o obsegu primernega pribitka za trajnost za izvedbo (kasnejše) tržne primerjave temveč podatke o skupnem ovrednotenju perpetualov oziroma časovno neomejenih vložkih tihe družbe, razvidnem na trgu po letu 1999 (tudi vložke za obdobje 30 let ali več se na trgu štejejo za časovno neomejene).
The data are summarised in the following table, with the perpetuals from 1999 listed in the above table being listed here once again for the sake of completeness:
Ti podatki so strnjeni v naslednji preglednici, pri čemer so perpetuali iz leta 1999, navedeni že v zgornji preglednici, zaradi popolnosti navedeni tudi tu:
Relevant comparative transactions [41]
Pomembne primerljive transakcije [41]
Reference interest rate and any adjustment [42] of the remuneration premium by deduction of the refinancing premium
Referenčna obrestna mera in prilagoditve [42] pribitka na nadomestilo z odbitkom pribitka za refinanciranje
(adjustment through deduction of 65 bp [43]
(prilagoditev z odbitkom 65 odstotnih točk [43]
no limit
Neomejeno
Fixed 6,6 % (corresponds to 115 bp)
Fiksno 6,6 % (115)
Fixed 7,75 % (corresponds to 160 bp)
Fiksno 7,75 % (160)
Deutsche Bank, December 2003
Deutsche Bank iz decembra 2003
EUR 300 million
300 milijonov EUR
Fixed 6,15 % (corresponds to 99 bp over mid-swaps)
Fiksno 6,15 % (99 odstotnih točk nad Mid-Swaps)
Corresponds to mid-swaps (no adjustment)
Mid-Swaps (ni prilagoditev)
The few specified comparative data for perpetuals do not produce any change here in the market comparison corridor as compared with silent partnership contributions of limited duration.
Le nekaj navedenih primerjalnih podatkov o perpetualih tu ne spreminja razpona tržne primerjave v primerjavi s časovno omejenimi vložki tihe družbe.
However, economic theory dictates that a market-economy investor naturally requires a premium for perpetuity as compared with an otherwise similar silent partnership contribution of limited duration, so as to offset in particular the additional risk of non-payment resulting from the stronger and longer tie.
Vendar gospodarska teorija narekuje, da vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu seveda zahteva pribitek za trajnost v nasprotju s sicer enako, a časovno omejen vložek tihe družbe predvsem za izravnavo dodatnega tveganja neizplačila, ki je posledica močnejše in daljše vezave.
However, it is evident from the data presented that, on the market for perpetuals, it is not necessarily the case that a significantly higher liability remuneration is required than for silent partnership contributions of limited duration.
Iz predloženih podatkov pa je razvidno, da na trgu za perpetuale ni nujno, da se zahteva občutno večje nadomestilo za jamstvo kot v primeru časovno omejenih vložkov tihe družbe.
This finding, though it certain cannot be described as statistically robust, given the lack of a sufficient number of comparative transactions, also lends further plausibility to Germany's argument that the perpetuity aspect does not change the silent partnership contribution into a capital instrument of a different type, as argued by the BdB, for example.
Ta ugotovitev, ki se sicer zaradi pomanjkanja zadostnega števila primerljivih transakcij zagotovo ne more opisati kot statistično trdna, poleg tega še povečuje verjetnost trditve Nemčije, da trajnost ne preoblikuje vložka tihe družbe v instrument kapitala druge oblike, kakor je, na primer, trdilo združenje BdB.
Germany presented a comparative calculation of the perpetuity premium for the Deutsche Bank's euro transaction (perpetual) of July 1999, which was of unlimited duration, as compared with the Dresdner Bank's transaction of May 1999, which was of limited duration .
Nemčija je predložila primerjalni izračun pribitka za trajnost za časovno neomejeno euro transakcijo (perpetual) pri Deutsche Bank iz julija 1999 v primerjavi s časovno omejeno transakcijo pri Dresdner Bank iz maja 1999.
It stated that the Deutsche Bank perpetual of July 1999 showed an overall remuneration of 6.6 % a year (see above table).
Perpetual pri Deutsche Bank iz julija 1999 kaže celotno nadomestilo 6,6 % letno (glej zgornjo preglednico).
This gave a difference of 0,29 % a year.
Razlika je torej 0,29 % letno.
This, it was argued, was only slightly above the premium agreed here of 0,20 % a year (0,23 % a year with the trade tax effect).
To naj bi bilo le malo nad pribitkom 0,20 % letno (0,23 % letno z učinkom obratovalnega davka), dogovorjenim tukaj.
Another reason for the difference was that the Deutsche Bank perpetuals were rated lower by Moody's at A1 than the Dresdner Bank silent partnership contribution, rated Aa2, and consequently had a higher remuneration.
Razlog za razliko je tudi dejstvo, da so bili perpetuali pri Deutsche Bank s strani rating agencije Moody ocenjeni z A1, kar je slabše od ocene vložka tihe družbe Aa2 pri Dresdner Bank, zato se morajo nadomeščati v večjem obsegu.
The Commission believes this comparative calculation is plausible, bearing in mind the limited data available in the period 1998/1999, which is not the fault of the Land of Hessen and Helaba.
Komisiji se zdi ta primerjalni izračun ob upoštevanju omejenosti podatkov v obdobju 1998/1999, kar ni krivda dežele Hessen in Helabe, verjeten.
The figure of 0,29 % resulting from the comparative calculation is only slightly above the perpetuity premium agreed between the Land of Hessen and Helaba, i.e. 0,23 %.
Vrednost 0,29 %, ki jo je pokazal primerjali izračun, je le malo nad pribitkom za trajnost, dogovorjenim med deželo Hessen in Helabo, z ustrezno stopnjo 0,23 %.
In addition, at least part of the difference is attributable to differences in product rating, which would probably be smaller if one were to compare silent partnership contributions to Helaba of limited and unlimited duration, since the issuer is identical.
Poleg tega gre vsaj del razlike pripisati razlikam pri oceni rezultata, ki bi bile verjetno manjše, če bi se primerjala vložka tihe družbe pri Helabi za omejeno in neomejeno obdobje, saj je izdajatelj identičen.
Consequently, the Commission has no evidence that the comparative rate of 0,23 % a year for the perpetuity premium lies below the market corridor and that there was therefore any favouring of Helaba, i.e. state aid.
Komisija iz teh razlogov nima dokaza, da je primerljiva stopnja 0,23 % letno za pribitek za trajnost pod tržnim razponom in da gre torej za korist Helabi, t.j. državno pomoč.
(dd) Taking appropriate account of liquidity costs
(dd) Primerno upoštevanje stroškov zaradi nelikvidnosti
The arguments of Germany, Helaba and the BdB regarding liquidity costs, which are in agreement in this respect, can be accepted, in so far as a ‘normal’ capital injection into a bank supplies it both with liquidity and with an own funds base which it requires for supervisory reasons to expand its activities.
V tej zvezi skladne trditve Nemčije, Helabe in BdB glede stroškov zaradi nelikvidnosti, so sprejemljive, saj „običajna“ vloga kapitala pri banki slednji zagotovi tako likvidnost kot obseg lastnega kapitala, ki ju banka potrebuje zaradi nadzorstva za širjenje svojih dejavnosti.
Since the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen did not provide Helaba with initial liquidity because the assets transferred and all the income from them remained earmarked by law for housing promotion, Helaba faced additional funding costs equal to the amount of the capital if it was to raise the necessary funds on the financial markets to take full advantage of the business potential opened up by the additional capital, i.e. to expand risk-adjusted assets by 12,5 times the capital amount (or to maintain existing assets at that level).
Ker vložek tihe družbe s strani dežele Hessen Helabi sprva ni zagotovil likvidnosti, ker so bila prenesena sredstva in celoten donos na sredstva za pospeševanje po zakonu namenjena pospeševanju gradnje stanovanj, je imela Helaba dodatne stroške financiranja v višini kapitala, če je želela zbrati sredstva na finančnih trgih, potrebna za popolno izrabo poslovnih možnosti, ki so se ji odprle z dodatnim lastnim kapitalom, t.j. razširiti svojo tveganju prilagojeno tehtano aktivo z 12,5-kratnim zneskom kapitala (ali ohraniti obstoječa sredstva v tem obsegu).
Because of these extra costs, which do not arise in the case of liquid equity capital, the appropriate remuneration must be reduced accordingly.
Zaradi teh dodatnih stroškov, ki pri likvidnem lastnem kapitalu ne nastajajo, se mora primerno povračilo ustrezno znižati.
Unlike the BdB, but like Germany and Helaba, however, the Commission takes the view that the gross refinancing interest rate is deductible.
V nasprotju z BdB, a tako kot Nemčija in Helaba, pa je Komisija mnenja, da se bruto obrestna mera refinanciranja lahko odbije.
Refinancing costs are operating expenses and thus reduce taxable income.
Stroški refinanciranja so stroški poslovanja in zato zmanjšujejo obdavčljiv dobiček.
However, the same applies to the remuneration on a silent partnership contribution which from the outset is made in liquid form.
Enako pa velja za nadomestilo za vložek tihe družbe, ki je že od vsega začetka v likvidni obliki.
In comparison to the latter, which, as stated above, provides the appropriate market test, no further tax advantage arises.
V primerjavi s slednjim, ki, kakor je navedeno zgoraj, predstavlja primeren tržni test, tako ne gre za dodatno davčno ugodnost.
The bank's net result is thus reduced in both cases by the amount of the interest paid for the liquidity.
Neto rezultat banke se torej v obeh primerih zmanjša za znesek obresti, plačanih za likvidnost.
The entire refinancing costs are thus deductible.
Celotni stroški refinanciranja se torej lahko odbijejo.
This situation distinguishes Helaba significantly from WestLB and the other Landesbanks, which were also the subject of proceedings, since in the case of the latter the promotion-related assets were entered in the balance sheet as reserves and the entire remuneration is to be regarded as profit utilisation, but not as operating expenses, and must be paid from taxable profit.
V tem položaju se Helaba odločilno razlikuje od WestLB in drugih deželnih bank, ki so tudi bile predmet preiskovalnih postopkov, saj so se v slednjih primerih sredstva za pospeševanje vknjižila v bilanco stanja kot rezerve in celotno nadomestilo se mora obravnavati kot uporaba dobička in ne kot stroški poslovanja in se mora zato poravnati iz obdavčenega dobička.
In the case of the others, therefore, there is a tax advantage if the costs for liquidity to be procured once more are deductible from tax as operating expenses, while this would not be the case with an investment which was from the outset cash, but otherwise identical, and which represents the relevant comparative reference.
Pri drugih gre torej za davčno ugodnost, če so stroški za likvidnost, ki se mora pridobiti znova, odbitni kot stroški poslovanja, medtem ko temu ne bi bilo tako pri naložbi, ki je že od vsega začetka denarni vložek, sicer pa identična, in predstavlja ustrezno merilo za primerjavo.
In the absence of any (further) tax advantage, consequently, Helaba has to pay only the remuneration for the risk to which the Land of Hessen is exposing its promotion-related assets in the form of the silent partnership contribution, i.e. the liability remuneration, expressed in basis points, above the relevant reference interest rate.
Helaba mora zaradi odsotnosti (dodatne) davčne ugodnosti izplačevati le nadomestilo za tveganje, kateremu dežela Hessen izpostavlja svoja sredstva za pospeševanje v obliki vložka tihe družbe, t.j. nadomestilo za jamstvo, izraženo v odstotnih točkah, nad ustrezno referenčno obrestno mero.
Determination of a minimum remuneration for the capital required to underpin the promotion-related business and for the capital not initially used, on the basis of the phased arrangement, to underpin competitive business
Določitev najmanjšega nadomestila za kapital, potreben za kritje dejavnosti za pospeševanje, in kapital, ki se zaradi stopenjskega modela sprva ni uporabljal za kritje konkurenčnih dejavnosti
In the WestLB Decision of 1999, the Commission applied a bank guarantee commission of 0,5-0,6 % before tax and 0,3 % after tax for the amount entered in the balance sheet, but not usable to underpin competitive business.
Komisija je v Odločbi glede WestLB iz leta 1999 naložila provizijo za jamstvo 0,5-0,6 % pred obdavčitvijo in 0,3 % po obdavčitvi za znesek, ki je bil vknjižen v bilanci stanja, a se ni mogel uporabljati za kritje konkurenčnih dejavnosti.
This guarantee commission is in line with the rate of 0,3 % before tax which Germany had indicated as the appropriate commission on a bank guarantee for a bank like WestLB at the end of 1991.
Ta provizija temelji na stopnji 0,3 % pred obdavčitvijo, ki jo je Nemčija navedla za primerno provizijo za jamstvo za banko, kot je WestLB, ob koncu leta 1991.
The Commission raised this rate to 0,5-0,6 % before tax (0,3 % after tax) for two reasons.
Komisija je to stopnjo povečala na 0,5 do 0,6 % pred obdavčitvijo (0,3 % po obdavčitvi) iz dveh razlogov.
Firstly, the amount of DEM 3,4 billion (EUR 1,74 billion) in the case of WestLB exceeded what was normally covered by such bank guarantees.
Kot prvo je znesek 3,4 milijarde DEM (1,74 milijarde EUR) v primeru WestLB presegel znesek, ki ga ponavadi krijejo taka bančna jamstva.
Secondly, bank guarantees were normally associated with certain transactions and limited in time.
Ko drugo pa so bančna jamstva običajno povezana z določenimi transakcijami in časovno omejena.
In the present proceedings on Helaba, the Commission similarly asked Germany to specify a guarantee provision that could be regarded as corresponding to market terms for a bank such as Helaba.
V zadevnem preiskovalnem postopku je Komisija podobno zaprosila Nemčijo, naj opredeli provizijo za jamstvo, ki se za banko, kot je Helaba, lahko spozna za običajno na trgu.
Germany did not do so, but argued that guarantees were always issued only for certain transactions and that there was therefore no market from which the remuneration for such guarantees could be deduced.
Nemčija tega ni storila, temveč je trdila, da se jamstva vedno izdajajo le za določene transakcije in da torej ne obstaja trg, iz katerega bi se dalo razbrati nadomestilo za taka jamstva.
However, if, despite these objections, the Commission insisted on a remuneration being specified, the level of such remuneration could, in Germany's view, only be calculated individually taking account of the specific risk which, on the basis of this approach, the Land had incurred in view of the differential amounts involved.
Če pa Komisija kljub navedenim ugovorom vztraja pri opredelitvi nadomestila, se obseg takega nadomestila po mnenju Nemčije lahko izračuna le posamezno ob upoštevanju konkretnega tveganja, ki se mu je dežela Hessen ob temu načinu obravnavanja izpostavila glede na razliko v zneskih.
Since the planned growth of the risk assets, at only DEM [...] million a year, represented a modest growth policy compared to WestLB, the very low probability of the differential amount, which was decreasing annually, being called on by the bank's creditors should at all events result in the application of a very low liability remuneration.
Ker načrtovana stopnja rasti tveganih sredstev, samo […] milijonov DEM na leto, predstavlja skromno politiko rasti v primerjavi z WestLB, mora izredno majhna verjetnost, da razliko v zneskih, ki se letno zmanjšuje, uporabijo upniki banke, v vsakem primeru privesti k določitvi izredno majhnega nadomestila za jamstvo.
Furthermore, Helaba had only partly used the graduated amounts that had to be remunerated in full and, in contrast to WestLB, more than filled the minimum core capital ratios required for banking supervisory purposes, so that Helaba's business risks were as a result more than adequately covered.
Poleg tega je Helaba le delno uporabljala postopne zneske, ki se morajo nadomeščati v celoti, in v nasprotju z WestLB več kot napolnila najmanjše deleže temeljnega kapitala, zahtevane s strani nadzorstva, tako da so poslovna tveganja Helabe s tem več kot zadovoljivo krita.
This safety margin meant that neither the basic remuneration rate of 0,3 % a year before tax nor a premium on this rate of 0,2-0,3 % a year before tax could be transferred from the WestLB Decision (a total of 0,3 % a year after tax) to the Helaba case.
Ta varnostna rezerva pomeni, da se niti osnovna stopnja nadomestila 0,3 % letno pred obdavčitvijo niti pribitek na to stopnjo 0,2 do 0,3 % letno pred obdavčitvijo ne moreta prenesti iz Odločbe glede WestLB (tam skupaj 0,3 % letno po obdavčitvi) na primer Helaba.
The Commission therefore must itself examine an appropriate guarantee commission for a bank such as Helaba.
Komisija mora zato sama določiti primerno garancijo za jamstvo za banko, kot je Helaba.
In view of the basic similarity of WestLB and Helaba and in the absence of other criteria, the Commission assumes here that, as in the case of WestLB, a basic rate of 0,3 % a year before tax can be regarded as appropriate.
Glede na temeljno primerljivost primerov WestLB in Helaba ter odsotnost drugih meril je Komisija tu mnenja, da se, kot v primeru WestLB, osnovna stopnja 0,3 % letno pred obdavčitvijo lahko spozna za primerno.
However, in the Commission's view, premiums on this rate are not appropriate.
Vendar meni, da pribitki na to stopnjo niso primerni.
In the first place, the amount of the silent partnership contribution (EUR 50 to 100 million) available in the long term to underpin the promotion-related business is much smaller than the corresponding amount of some EUR 1,7 billion in the case of WestLB.
Kot prvo je znesek vložka tihe družbe v območju med 50 do 100 milijonov EUR, ki je dolgoročno predviden za kritje dejavnosti za pospeševanje, veliko manjši od ustreznega zneska približno 1,7 milijarde EUR v primeru WestLB.
Secondly, the amount which, under the phased arrangement, was not usable to underpin competitive business was, as a result of the phased arrangement, limited in time and accordingly fell to zero by 2003.
Kot drugo pa je bil znesek, ki se po stopenjskem modelu ni mogel uporabljati za kritje konkurenčnih dejavnosti, kot posledica stopenjskega modela časovno omejen in se je tako do leta 2003 izničil.
These facts show clearly that the risk to the Land of Hessen was no higher than in the case of a market guarantee for a bank such as Helaba and does not accordingly justify any increase in the basic rate of 0,3 % a year before tax.
Iz teh dejstev je povsem razvidno, da tveganje dežele Hessen ni bilo večje kot v primeru na trgu običajnega jamstva za banko, kot je Helaba, in zato ne upravičuje povečanja osnovne stopnje 0,3 % letno pred obdavčitvijo.
Since the remuneration for the entire silent partnership contribution is, as operating expenses, deductible from tax and, on this point too, differs from the tax treatment of the remuneration in the WestLB Decision, the Commission establishes the guarantee commission in this Decision as a pre-tax rate which is fully eligible as operating expenditure.
Ker je nadomestilo za celoten vložek tihe družbe kot strošek poslovanja odbitna postavka in se tudi v tej točki razlikuje od davčne obravnave nadomestila v Odločbi glede WestLB, Komisija v tej odločbi določa provizijo za jamstvo kot stopnjo pred obdavčenjem, ki se v celoti lahko spozna za strošek poslovanja.
As stated above, the Commission considers a remuneration of 0,3 % a year before tax to be appropriate for the part of the capital which is not usable by Helaba to underpin its competitive business, but was entered in Helaba's balance sheet with effect from 31 December 1998.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, Komisija spoznava povračilo 0,3 % letno pred obdavčitvijo za primerno za tisti del kapitala, ki ga Helaba ni mogla uporabljati za kritje konkurenčnih dejavnosti, bil pa je vknjižen v bilanci stanja dne 31. decembra 1998.
Helaba pays a remuneration of 1,4 % a year only on the amount which, in accordance with the phased arrangement, is usable to cover risk assets, but not on the part of the silent partnership contribution which is entered in the balance sheet, but not used to underpin competitive business.
Helaba izplačuje povračilo 1,4 % letno le za tisti znesek, ki je po tako imenovanem stopenjskem modelu uporaben za kritje tveganih sredstev, ne pa za tisti del vložka tihe družbe, ki je sicer vknjižen v bilanci stanja, a se ne uporablja za kritje konkurenčnih dejavnosti.
The aid element can therefore be determined as the product of the guarantee commission of 0,3 % a year before tax regarded by the Commission as corresponding to market terms and the part of the silent partnership contribution entered in the balance sheet but not used to underpin competitive business, in accordance with the following table:
Element pomoči se torej lahko določi kot rezultat provizije jamstva 0,3 % letno pred obdavčitvijo, ki jo Komisija spoznava za običajno na trgu, in tistega dela vložka tihe družbe, ki je vknjižen v bilanci stanja, a se ne uporablja za kritje konkurenčnih dejavnosti, v skladu z naslednjo preglednico:
Remark on item (6) Safety margin deduction because of lower preliminary determination in the balance sheet as at 31 December 1998: according to information provided by Germany, the process of banking supervisory recognition had not yet been completed on 31.12.1998, so that initially a figure of EUR 1023 million (DEM 2000 million) had been entered in the balance sheet.
K 6) Odbitek varnostne rezerve zaradi manjše predhodne določitve v bilanci stanja z dne 31. decembra 1998: Po navedbah Nemčije postopek priznavanja s strani bančnega nadzorstva 31.12.1998 še ni bil zaključen, tako da se je na začetku v bilanco stanja vknjižila vrednost 1023 milijonov EUR (2000 milijonov DEM).
The figure of EUR 1264 million produced by the assessment process had been entered directly after the assessment and had accordingly featured in the annual accounts for 1999.
Vrednost 1264 milijonov EUR, določena s postopkom ocenjevanja, se je vknjižila neposredno po oceni in je bila torej vključena v letnem obračunu za leto 1999.
In view of this process, the Commission considers it appropriate to make a safety margin deduction on behalf of Helaba from the capital base to be remunerated for 1999.
Komisiji se zdi glede na ta postopek primerno, da v korist Helabi opravi odbitek varnostne rezerve od kapitalske osnove, ki se mora nadomestiti, za leto 1999.
Year-end values
Vrednosti ob koncu leta
in EUR millions
v milijonih EUR