natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Germany's reply of 23 August 2004, Annex 6.
Odgovor Nemčije z dne 23. avgusta 2004, Priloga 6.
Germany's reply of 23 August 2004, pp. 11-12.
Odgovor Nemčije z dne 23. avgusta 2004, str. 11–12.
In the case of the [...] private banks in Germany listed there, [...], [...] and [...], the relevant proportion rose from some 5 % in 1998 to around 20-30 % in 2003.
V primeru tam navedenih […] zasebnih bank Nemčije, […], […] in […], se je ta delež povečal iz približno 5 % v letu 1998 na približno 20–30 % v letu 2003.
According to the information provided by Germany, the relevant proportion in the case of Helaba lies within the 33 % to 72 % range typical of Landesbanks.
Vendar je po navedbah Nemčije delež v primeru Helaba v razponu med 33 % in 72 %, razvidnem pri deželnih bankah.
This does not automatically mean that the Land has committed itself to Helaba ‘forever’ or can never again have at its disposal the funds comprised in the silent partnership.
To ne pomeni avtomatično, da se je dežela Hessen Helabi zavezala „za vedno“ in da nikoli več ne more razpolagati s sredstvi, vključenimi v vložek tihe družbe.
The Land can assign its rights from the silent partnership (at least with Helaba's agreement) to a third party against payment.
Dežela Hessen lahko namreč prepusti svoje pravice iz vložka tihe družbe – vsaj s privolitvijo Helabe – tretji stranki proti plačilu.
The fungibility of the silent partnership is not thus necessarily reduced to zero.
Torej ni nujno, da se tržnost vložka tihe družbe izniči.
Letter from Germany of 9 April 2004, p. 28.
Pripombe Nemčije z dne 9. aprila 2004, str. 28.
The remuneration premium of the Deutsche Bank perpetual (agreed fixed-interest remuneration of 6,60 %) is put here at 1,94 % a year in relation to 10-year federal loans in order to make it more comparable with the 12-year silent partnership contribution to Dresdner Bank (1,65 % above 10-year federal loans) and thus to get some idea of the level of the perpetuity premium.
Pribitek na nadomestilo za perpetual pri Deutsche Bank (dogovorjeno fiksno obrestovano nadomestilo 6,60 %) je tukaj določen na 1,94 % letno v povezavi z 10-letnimi nemškimi obveznicami, da bi bolj primerljiv z 12-letnim vložkom tihe družbe pri Dresdner Bank (1,65 % nad 10-letnimi nemškimi obveznicami) in da bi se omogočila predstava o obsegu pribitka na nadomestilo.
In the above table, the remuneration premium for the same perpetual is put at 1,15 % a year in relation to 30-year federal loans, since these are equivalent to the relevant period (30 years are regarded on the market as being ‘quasi-permanent’).
V zgornji preglednici je pribitek na nadomestilo za isti perpetual določen na 1,15 % letno v povezavi s 30-letnimi nemškimi obveznicami, saj te predstavljajo zadevno obdobje (30 let na trgu pomeni „kvazi-trajno“).
The remuneration premium in relation to 30-year federal loans is lower, since with a normal interest rate curve, as is the case here, longer-term (30-year) loans yield a higher return than shorter-term (10-year) loans and thus represent a higher deduction item from the agreed fixed-interest remuneration of 6,60 % a year.
Pribitek na nadomestilo v povezavi s 30-letnimi nemškimi obveznicami je manjši, saj ob običajni obrestni krivulji, kakršna je v zadevnem primeru, dolgoročnejša (30-letna) posojila prinašajo večji donos kot bolj kratkoročna (10-letna) in torej predstavljajo večjo odbitno postavko od dogovorjenega fiksno obrestovanega nadomestila 6,60 % letno.
See Germany's reply of 23. August 2004, p. 6-7.
Glej odgovor Nemčije z dne 23. avgusta 2004, str. 6–7
(‘BdB’), an association representing private banks established in Germany, informed the Commission among other things that housing-promotion loans had been or would be transferred to the liable equity capital of the Landesbanks in North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, Bavaria, Hamburg and Berlin, i.e. the Westdeutsche Landesbank, the Norddeutsche Landesbank, the Landesbank Schleswig-Holstein, the Hamburger Landesbank and the Landesbank Berlin.
(„BdB“), združenje, ki predstavlja zasebne banke s sedežem v Nemčiji, je v pismih z dne 31. maja in 21. decembra 1994 Komisijo med drugim obvestilo o tem, da so bila ali bodo prenesena posojila za pospeševanje gradnje stanovanj na rizični lastni kapital deželnih bank v zveznih deželah Severno Porenje-Vestfalija, Spodnja Saška, Schleswig-Holstein, Bavarska, Hamburg in Berlin, t.j. na Westdeutsche Landesbank, Norddeutsche Landesbank, Landesbank Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburger Landesbank in Landesbank Berlin.
The BdB considered the resulting increase in the equity capital of the relevant Landesbanks distorted competition in their favour, since the parties had not agreed remuneration consistent with the market-economy investor principle.
To je povečalo lastna sredstva zadevnih deželnih bank, kar je po mnenju BdB izkrivilo konkurenco v njihov prid, saj se stranke niso dogovorile o nadomestilu, ki bi bilo skladno z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Preferred shares
Trajne prednostne delnice
These ranged up into the area of around EUR 1 billion. In relative terms, any silent partnership contribution even over the 15 % limit was recognised as core capital if it met the requirements of the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision and was in line with the practice of the German supervisory authorities which was based on them.
Ti dosegajo območje približno 1 milijarde EUR. V relativnem smislu se vsak vložek tihe družbe, tudi če presega mejo 15 %, prizna kot temeljni kapital, kadar izpolnjuje zahteve Baselskega odbora za bančni nadzor in je v skladu s prakso nemškega nadzornega organa, ki temelji na teh zahtevah.
The basis for the remuneration of the relevant capital instrument is, therefore, ‘normal’, i.e. time-limited silent partnership assets typical in size of those observable on the market, on whose remuneration a premium may possibly have to be charged.
Izhodišče za nadomestilo zadevnega instrumenta kapitala so torej „običajni“, t.j. časovno omejeni vložki tihe družbe obsega, ki je značilen za vloge, razvidne na trgu, nadomestilu katerih se mora morda prišteti pribitek.
The comments of the BdB on the appropriate remuneration of share capital are therefore not relevant.
Ugotovitve BdB glede primernega nadomestila za osnovni kapital torej niso več pomembne.
Remuneration premium p.a. (in bp)
Pribitek na nadomestilo letno v odstotnih točkah)
In 1 July 1999, the current yield for ten-year federal loans was 4,66 % a year, which meant that the remuneration premium in relation to them amounted to 1,94 % a year .
julija 1999 je tekoči donos na 10-letne nemške obveznice znašal 4,66 % letno, tako da pribitek na nadomestilo v povezavi z njimi znaša 1,94 % letno.
By contrast, the euro tranche of the twelve-year silent partnership contribution to Dresdner Bank of May 1999 was remunerated at 1,65 above ten-year federal loans.
Euro-tranša 12-letnega vložka tihe družbe pri Dresdner Bank iz maja 1999 pa se nadomešča s 1,65 nad 10-letnimi nemškimi obveznicami.
Aa2; A+
OR: Aa2; A+
A2/A
OR: A2/A
Helaba's creditors based their assessment of its financial strength during 1999 on the figures in the 1998 annual accounts, which contained the preliminary lower amount of EUR 1023 million for the silent partnership contribution.
Upniki Helabe so za oceno finančne moči banke med letom 1999 uporabili vrednosti letnega obračuna za leto 1998 s predhodno vknjiženim manjšim zneskom 1023 milijonov EUR vložka tihe družbe.
Consequently, in 1999 only the difference between this amount and the core capital usable, under the phased arrangement, to underpin competitive business is to be remunerated with the guarantee commission of 0,3 % a year (before tax), i.e. EUR [...] million. For the following years, the figure in the previous year's balance sheet corresponds to the figure for the silent partnership contribution specified in the annual balance sheet.
V letu 1999 se mora zato le razlika med tem zneskom in temeljnim kapitalom, po stopenjskem modelu uporabnim za kritje konkurenčnih dejavnosti, nadomestiti s provizijo za jamstvo 0,3 % letno (pred obdavčitvijo), torej […] milijonov EUR. Za naslednja leta je vrednost v bilanci stanja prejšnjega leta skladna z vrednostjo vložka tihe družbe, navedeno v letni bilanci stanja.
of 25 January 2006
z dne 25. januarja 2006
on the State Aid implemented by the Netherlands for AZ and AZ Vastgoed BV
o državni pomoči Nizozemske za AZ in AZ Vastgoed BV
(notified under document number C(2006) 80)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2006) 80)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenimi določbami, in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
By letters registered as received on 26 June 2002 and 6 February 2003, the Commission received complaints regarding the state aid granted by the Netherlands to the football club AZ Alkmaar.
Komisija je z dopisi, evidentiranimi 26. junija 2002 in 6. februarja 2003, prejela pritožbe glede državne pomoči, ki jo je Nizozemska odobrila nogometnemu klubu AZ Alkmaar.
In the course of the preliminary investigation of the complaints, it received additional information from the complainants and from the Dutch authorities.
Med predhodno preiskavo pritožb je prejela dodatne podatke od pritožnikov in nizozemskih organov.
By letter dated 23 July 2003, the Commission informed the Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the measures.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 23. julija 2003 obvestila Nizozemsko, da se je odločila sprožiti postopek na podlagi člena 88(2) pogodbe ES v zvezi z ukrepi.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Odločitev Komisije, da sproži postopek, je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments.
Komisija je pozvala zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo svoje pripombe.
The Netherlands requested an extension of the deadline for submitting comments; its request was granted.
Nizozemska je zahtevala podaljšanje roka za predložitev pripomb; njen zahtevek je bil odobren.
It responded to the decision to initiate the procedure by letters registered as received on 29 October and 5 November 2003.
Z dopisoma, evidentiranima 29. oktobra in 5. novembra 2003, je odgovorila na odločitev o sprožitvi postopka.
In December 2003 the Commission received several letters containing comments from interested parties.
Komisija je decembra 2003 prejela več dopisov, ki vsebujejo pripombe zainteresiranih strank.
The interested parties sent additional comments by letters registered as received on 9 February, 6 April and 6 October 2004.
Zainteresirane stranke so poslale dodatne pripombe z dopisi, evidentiranimi 9. februarja, 6. aprila in 6. oktobra 2004.
In the spring of 2004 the Commission received information that the municipality intended to renegotiate the agreement with AZ and AZ Vastgoed.
Spomladi 2004 je Komisija prejela podatke, da se je občina nameravala ponovno pogajati o sporazumu z nogometnim kluboma AZ in AZ Vastgoed.
It therefore asked the Dutch authorities for additional information by letter of 3 June 2004, to which they replied by letter of 5 July 2004, stating that the municipality, AZ and AZ Vastgoed were indeed considering whether to conclude a new agreement.
Zato je od nizozemskih organov zahtevala dodatne podatke z dopisom z dne 3. junija 2004, na katerega so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 5. julija 2004. Nizozemski organi so navedli, da so občina in nogometna kluba AZ in AZ Vastgoed resnično proučevali možnost sklenitve novega sporazuma.
They reiterated that, on account of the suspension injunction imposed by the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, the agreement could not be implemented.
Ponovili so, da se zaradi začasnega odloga, ki ga je odredilo drugostopenjsko sodišče v Amsterdamu, sporazum ni mogel izvajati.
They provided additional information by letter registered as received on 5 November 2004, in which they confirmed that a new agreement had been concluded between the parties and that the previous agreement had been dissolved.
Predložili so dodatne podatke z dopisom, evidentiranim 5. novembra 2004, v katerem so potrdili, da je bil med strankami sklenjen nov sporazum in da je bil prejšnji sporazum razveljavljen.
On 7 December 2001 the municipality of Alkmaar reached an agreement with Stichting AZ and AZ Vastgoed BV (hereafter referred to as ‘AZ’ and ‘AZ Vastgoed’ respectively) concerning a new location for the football stadium.
Občina Alkmaar je 7. decembra 2001 dosegla sporazum z nogometnima kluboma Stichting AZ in AZ Vastgoed BV (v nadaljnjem besedilu „AZ“ oziroma „AZ Vastgoed“) glede nove lokacije za nogometni stadion.
The agreement between the municipality of Alkmaar, on the one hand, and AZ and AZ Vastgoed, on the other, concerned four transactions connected to the sale of several plots of land.
Ta sporazum med občino Alkmaar na eni strani in nogometnima kluboma AZ in AZ Vastgoed na drugi je zadeval štiri transakcije, povezane s prodajo več zemljiških parcel.
According to the Dutch authorities, two plots of land were sold to AZ and AZ Vastgoed for the construction of a new stadium, business premises and a car park.
Po navedbah nizozemskih organov sta bili dve zemljiški parceli prodani nogometnima kluboma AZ in AZ Vastgoed za gradnjo novega stadiona, poslovnih prostorov in parkirišča.
The municipality of Alkmaar sold the land on which the existing stadium was built to AZ.
Občina Alkmaar je prodala zemljišče, na katerem je bil zgrajen obstoječi stadion, nogometnemu klubu AZ.
AZ and AZ Vastgoed would demolish the old stadium, develop the land and build 150 apartments.
Nogometna kluba AZ in AZ Vastgoed naj bi podrla stari stadion, urbanizirala zemljišče in zgradila 150 stanovanj.
Lastly, a plot of land was sold to AZ for the construction of training facilities.
Nazadnje je bila nogometnemu klubu AZ prodana tudi zemljiška parcela za gradnjo objektov za trening.
The agreement imposes obligations on the buyers of the land.
Sporazum nalaga obveznosti kupcem zemljišča.
Certain items of infrastructure have to be developed and maintained by AZ and AZ Vastgoed.
Določeno infrastrukturo morata razvijati in vzdrževati nogometna kluba AZ in AZ Vastgoed.
In July 2003 the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure; if the agreement constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, it was doubtful whether the aid to AZ and AZ Vastgoed was compatible with the EC Treaty.
Komisija se je julija 2003 odločila sprožiti formalni postopek preiskave; če je sporazum pomenil državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, so obstajali pomisleki, ali je bila pomoč nogometnima kluboma AZ in AZ Vastgoed skladna s Pogodbo ES.
As the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam issued an order in April 2004 for implementation of the agreement to be suspended, the land has never been transferred pursuant to the agreement of 7 December 2001.
Ker je drugostopenjsko sodišče v Amsterdamu aprila 2004 odredilo odložitev izvajanja sporazuma, prenos zemljišča ni bil nikoli opravljen v skladu s sporazumom z dne 7. decembra 2001.
However, in November 2004 the Dutch authorities informed the Commission that the agreement concluded on 7 December 2001 between the municipality of Alkmaar, on the one hand, and AZ and AZ Vastgoed BV, on the other, had been dissolved.
Vendar so nizozemski organi novembra 2004 obvestili Komisijo, da je bil sporazum, sklenjen 7. decembra 2001 med občino Alkmaar na eni strani in nogometnima kluboma AZ in AZ Vastgoed BV na drugi, razveljavljen.
According to the Netherlands, new negotiations were conducted and an independent expert evaluation of the plots had been carried out in accordance with the Commission communication on state aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities.
Po navedbah Nizozemske so potekala nova pogajanja in opravljena je bila neodvisna strokovna ocena parcel v skladu s Sporočilom Komisije o elementih državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti.
After this evaluation, a new agreement was concluded between the municipality and Egedi BV (the legal successor to AZ Vastgoed).
Po tej oceni je bil sklenjen nov sporazum med občino in nogometnim klubom Egedi BV (pravnim naslednikom nogometnega kluba AZ Vastgoed).
Under the circumstances, the agreement which is subject of the investigation has been dissolved, with the result that the formal investigation procedure no longer serves any useful purpose and should be terminated.
Glede na okoliščine je sporazum, ki je predmet preiskave, razveljavljen, tako da je formalni postopek preiskave postal brezpredmeten in ga je treba zaključiti.
Since the agreement subject to the formal investigation procedure has been dissolved, the investigation no longer serves any useful purpose.
Ker je sporazum, ki je predmet formalnega postopka preiskave, razveljavljen, je preiskava postala brezpredmetna.
Accordingly, the formal investigation procedure of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the above-mentioned agreement between the municipality of Alkmaar, on the one hand, and AZ and AZ Vastgoed, on the other, should be terminated,
Skladno s tem je treba zaključiti formalni postopek preiskave na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES v zvezi z zgoraj navedenim sporazumom med občino Alkmaar na eni strani ter nogometnima kluboma AZ in AZ Vastgoed na drugi –
The formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty initiated on 23 July 2003 against AZ and AZ Vastgoed BV is hereby terminated.
Formalni postopek preiskave na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES, sprožen 23. julija 2003 proti nogometnima kluboma AZ in AZ Vastgoed BV, se zaključi.
This decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Ta odločba je naslovljena na Kraljevino Nizozemsko.
Done at Brussels, 25. January. 2006.
V Bruslju, 25. januarja 2006.
OJ C 266, 5.11.2003, p. 8.
UL C 266, 5.11.2003, str. 8.
of 8 March 2006
z dne 8. marec 2006
on the State Aid implemented by Germany for Magog Schiefergruben GmbH & Co. KG
O državni Pomoči Nemčije za Magog Schiefergruben GmbH & Co. KG
(notified under document number C(2006) 641)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2006) 641)
On 12 November 2003, the Commission received a complaint concerning alleged state aid for Schiefergruben Magog GmbH & Co. KG (‘Magog’) from a German competitor of Magog.
Komisija je 12. novembra 2003 od nemškega konkurenta družbe Magog prejela pritožbo glede domnevnih državnih pomoči za Schiefergruber Magog GmbH & Co. KG (v nadaljevanju „Magog“).
The Commission requested information from Germany on 25 November 2003, which Germany submitted by letter dated 4 March 2004, registered as received on the same day.
Komisija je 25. novembra 2003 zaprosila Nemčijo, da predloži zadevne informacije, ki jih je Nemčija posredovala z dopisom z dne 4. marca 2004, evidentiranim istega dne.
On 6 October 2004 the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure with respect to the alleged state aid.
Komisija je 6. oktobra 2004 zaradi zadevne pomoči sprožila formalni postopek preiskave.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
The Commission invited interested parties to submit comments on the presumed aid.
Komisija je pozvala vse zainteresirane stranke, da predložijo svoje pripombe glede domnevne pomoči.
The comments were transmitted to Germany by letters dated 3 January 2005 and 7 July 2005.
Pripombe so bile Nemčiji posredovane z dopisoma z dne 3. januarja 2005 in 7. julija 2005.
Germany replied to the comments by letters dated 11 March 2005, registered as received on the same day, and 31 August 2005, registered as received on 1 September 2005.
Nemčija je odgovorila z dopisom z dne 11. marca 2005, evidentiranim istega dne, in z dopisom z dne 31. avgusta 2005, evidentiranim 1. septembra 2005.
Germany's response to the initiation of the formal investigation procedure was submitted by letter dated 6 December 2004, registered as received on 13 December 2004.
Nemčija je na sprožitev formalnega postopka preiskave odgovorila z dopisom z dne 6. decembra 2004, evidentiranim 13. decembra 2004.
The Commission requested further information on 5 October 2005, which Germany submitted by letter dated 15 November 2005, registered as received on 16 November 2005.
Komisija je dne 5. oktobra 2005 zaprosila za dodatne informacije, ki jih je Nemčija posredovala z dopisom z dne 15. novembra 2005, evidentiranim 16. novembra 2005.
The annexes were submitted by letter dated 18 November 2005, registered as received on 24 November 2005.
Priloge so bile posredovane z dopisom z dne 18. novembra 2005, evidentiranim 24. novembra 2005.
Germany submitted additional information by letter dated 21 December 2005, registered as received on the same day.
Z dopisom z dne 21. decembra 2005, evidentiranim istega dne, je Nemčija posredovala dodatne informacije.
The recipient
Upravičeno podjetje
The recipient, Magog, which is based in Bad Fredeburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, is active in the production of slate.
Upravičeno podjetje Magog s sedežem v Bad Fredeburgu v Severnem Porenju – Vestfaliji je dejavno na področju proizvodnje skrilavca.
In 2002 the company had 43 employees and a balance sheet total of below EUR 5 million. As the independence criterion is also met the company qualifies as a small company as defined by the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.
Leta 2002 je podjetje zaposlovalo 43 delavcev in imelo bilančni rezultat v višini manj kot 5 mio EUR. Ker je izpolnjeno tudi merilo neodvisnosti, se podjetje uvršča med majhna podjetja v smislu Priporočila Komisije z dne 6. maja 2003 o opredelitvi mikro, majhnih in srednje velikih podjetij.
The project
Postopek
At the request of the Westfälischer Schieferverband e.V. (Westphalian State Federation) the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia supported a project for the development of a new system for the cutting of roofing slate (project title: ‘development and testing of digitally controlled and robot-supported roofing slate production’) in 2002 and 2003.
Na prošnjo Westfälischer Schieferverband e.V. je dežela Severno Porenje – Vestfalija (NRW) v letih 2002 in 2003 podprla razvoj novega postopka za rezanje strešnega skrilavca (naslov projekta: „Razvoj in preizkušanje digitalno krmiljenega in z roboti podprtega pridobivanja strešnega skrilavca“).
The project was carried out by Magog, which is a member of the Westfälischer Schieferverband, in collaboration with a university of applied science.
Projekt je izvedel Magog, ki je član Westfälischer Schieferverband, v sodelovanju z Visoko šolo za ekonomijo in tehniko (Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Technik).
According to Germany the objective of the project was the development of an innovative technology for the treatment of roofing slate in order to reduce health risks for the employees.
Po navedbah Nemčije je bil namen projekta razviti inovativno tehniko za predelavo strešnega skrilavca, s pomočjo katere bi zmanjšali tveganje za zdravje zaposlenih.
Up to then the treatment of roofing slate was to a large extent manual work, which resulted in a physical burden for the employees.
Dotedanja pretežno ročna obdelava strešnega skrila je za delavce predstavljala telesno obremenitev.
Germany claims that the project has contributed significantly to an increase in occupational safety and as such serves as a model for the whole roofing slate industry.
Po mnenju Nemčije je projekt znatno pripomogel k povečanju varnosti pri delu in predstavlja model za celotno industrijo strešnega skrilavca.
Only the first stage was subsidised by the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia.
Dežela Severno Porenje – Vestfalija je finančno podprla le prvo fazo.