natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The BdB clearly acknowledged this when, in discussing capital contributions by private banks to subsidiaries, it stated that the expected return was not expressed in the setting of a fixed interest rate but in the form of dividends as well as revenue increases and associated increases in value.
BdB je to jasno priznalo, ko je pri obravnavanju prenosov kapitala s strani zasebnih bank na hčerinske družbe izjavilo, da se pričakovan donos ne izraža z dogovorom o fiksni obrestni meri, temveč v obliki dividend ter povečanj dobička in s tem povezanih povečanj vrednosti.
It should be pointed out in this connection that the BdB was not aware of the facts regarding the possibility — which it itself doubted — of an increase in the value of HLB as, contrary to what BdB believed, 49,5 % of the shares were not negotiable since they were sold to LSH in 1997.
V tej zvezi je treba poudariti, da se BdB ni zavedalo dejstev, ki zadevajo možnost povečanja vrednosti HLB, o kateri je dvomil tudi sam, saj v nasprotju z njegovim mnenjem 49,5 % delnic ni bilo trženih, ker so bile prodane banki LSH leta 1997.
The minimum returns of 13,41 % (1986 transfer) and 10,88 % (aggregate 1993 transfer), which had been calculated on the basis of the CAPM method, were incorrect.
Izračun najmanjših donosov v višini 13,41 % (prenos leta 1986) in 10,88 % (celoten prenos leta 1993) na podlagi tako imenovane metode CAPM je bil netočen.
On the one hand, fundamental misgivings were expressed regarding the use of the CAPM method and specific misgivings regarding its use by the BdB.
Najprej so bili izraženi temeljni pomisleki glede uporabe metode CAPM ter posebni pomisleki glede njene uporabe s strani BdB.
Among other things, the BdB had restricted the market portfolio to the German shares making up the CDAX, had estimated the parameters solely on the basis of what were in part past data without checking their validity for the relevant date of the investment, had derived the market risk premium from a study that dealt solely with the average return on German shares in the period 1954-88 and, in calculating the beta factors, had regarded the CDAX banks as companies with the same business and risk profile.
BdB je med drugim omejilo tržni portfelj na nemške delnice, vključene v CDAX, ocenilo parametre zgolj na podlagi delno zastarelih podatkov, ne da bi preverilo njihovo veljavnost za zadevni datum naložbe, izpeljalo premijo tržnega tveganja iz študije, ki obravnava izključno povprečen donos na nemške delnice v obdobju med 1954 in 1988, ter za izračun beta faktorjev uporabilo banke CDAX kot podjetja z enakim profilom poslovanja in tveganja.
As a result, virtually all the factors needed for the CAPM were wrongly estimated and the normal minimum market returns for the transactions in question were overstated.
Potemtakem je BdB napačno ocenilo vse dejavnike, potrebne za CAPM, in precenilo najmanjše običajne tržne donose za zadevne prenose.
In addition, the BdB had maintained that a premium charged to take account of the special features of the transactions was simply the result of applying the criteria specified in Decision 2000/392/EC, without however carrying out a quantitative assessment such as that criticised in that decision.
Poleg tega je BdB pribitek zaradi posebne narave prenosov utemeljilo preprosto z uporabo meril, navedenih v Odločbi 2000/392/ES, vendar ni izvedlo kvantitativne ocene, kakršna je bila predmet kritike v sodbi WestLB.
Moreover, on account of the lack of liquidity, the full refinancing rate had been deducted since it was not at all admissible to set off the tax-reducing effect claimed by the BdB as a liquidity deduction against the appropriate return.
Zaradi nelikvidnosti je bilo treba odbiti tudi celotno obrestno mero refinanciranja, saj ni dopustno, da se učinek zmanjšanja davka, ki ga navaja BdB, obračuna kot odbitek zaradi nelikvidnosti na ustrezen donos.
This was based on a fundamental misconception.
To je temeljilo na osnovnem napačnem prepričanju.
Expected returns for investors had nothing to do with the tax effects on the balance sheet for companies.
Pričakovani donosi za vlagatelje niso bili povezani z davčnimi učinki na bilanco stanja za podjetja.
In line with its interpretation of the law, Germany calculated an alternative normal market return to that calculated by BdB.
Nemčija je ob upoštevanju svojega pravnega položaja izračunala običajni tržni donos kot alternativo tistemu, izračunanemu s strani BdB.
It did so only for the 1993 transaction since the 1986 transfer had been time-barred.
To je storila le za prenos iz leta 1993, saj je bil prenos iz leta 1986 zastaran.
Germany took the view here that a risk profile analysis should be carried out first for the two non-monetary contributions.
Nemčija je menila, da je treba najprej opraviti analizo profila tveganja za oba stvarna vložka.
The silent partnership contribution should be compared with such other contributions with a similarly long period to maturity (16 years).
V okviru tega je treba najprej primerjati vlogo tihe družbe z vlogami s podobno dolžino trajanja (16 let).
As regards the capital reserve, the comparison should preferably be made with a silent partnership contribution of unlimited duration in view of the risk profile, e.g. the guarantee, if any, afforded by institutional liability in the event of insolvency, the irrelevance of voting rights given that FHH was the sole owner, the participation in losses, the ranking of the dividend claim and the period to maturity.
Kar zadeva kapitalsko rezervo, je glede na profil tveganja, na primer redko obstoječe zakonsko določeno jamstvo v primeru nelikvidnosti, nepomembnost glasovalnih pravic zaradi 100 % lastništva FHH, udeležba pri izgubah, razvrstitev zahteve po izplačilu ter obdobje trajanja, najbolje izhajati iz primerjave s časovno neomejeno vlogo tihe družbe.
On this basis, Germany, in its reply to the BdB's comments, combined the two instruments when calculating the remuneration but weighted their shares of the overall contribution according to whether they were of limited or unlimited duration.
Na podlagi tega je Nemčija v odgovoru na stališče BdB pri izračunu nadomestila združila oba instrumenta, vendar ovrednotila njuna deleža pri celotni vlogi glede na njuno časovno omejenost ali neomejenost.
By deducting refinancing costs in full, it arrived at an appropriate remuneration of 1,48 % for the total contribution.
Z odbitkom stroškov refinanciranja v celoti je izračunala primerno nadomestilo v višini 1,48 % za celotno vlogo.
In line with its interpretation of the law, however, Germany also calculated in its reply the return on the capital reserve according to the CAPM.
Nemčija je ob upoštevanju svojega pravnega položaja v odgovoru izračunala donos na kapitalsko rezervo tudi na podlagi metode CAPM.
Assuming a market risk premium of 3 % and a beta value for HLB of 0,7861, this gave a hypothetical minimum return on cash deposits of 9,74 % in respect of the increase in the capital reserve although the full refinancing costs had to be deducted on account of the lack of liquidity, with the result that the actual minimum normal market return worked out at 2,36 %.
Z uporabo premije tržnega tveganja v višini 3 % in beta vrednosti za HLB 0,7861 znaša za povečanje kapitalske rezerve domnevni najmanjši donos na denarne vložke 9,74 %, od katerega pa je treba zaradi nelikvidnosti odbiti še celotne stroške refinanciranja, tako da znaša dejanski najmanjši tržni donos 2,36 %.
For the silent partnership contribution, because these instruments were not traded on the secondary market, Germany did not use the CAPM but the comparison with similar financing instruments.
Za vlogo tihe družbe Nemčija zaradi neobstoja trgovine s tema instrumentoma na sekundarnem trgu ni uporabila metode CAPM, temveč primerjavo s podobnimi finančnimi instrumenti.
After deducting again the full refinancing costs, this produced a premium of 1,29 % for silent partnership contributions of unlimited duration similar to HLB's contribution.
Po odbitku celotnih stroškov refinanciranja je dobljena premija znašala 1,29 % za časovno neomejene vloge tihe družbe, podobne vlogi pri HLB.
In weighted terms, this gave an aggregate remuneration of 2,08 %.
Celotno nadomestilo je bilo torej ovrednoteno na 2,08 %.
As regards the time-bar, which, according to the BdB, had not been triggered because of the linkage between the two transactions, Germany repeated the objections it had raised previously and stated once again that the 1986 transfer had been a transaction that was de facto and de jure separate from the 1993 transfer as the documents produced at the outset and subsequently proved.
V zvezi z zastaralnim rokom, ki po navedbah BdB ni bil uveden zaradi povezave med obema transakcijama, je Nemčija ponovila že prej predložene ugovore in znova pojasnila, da je bil prenos leta 1986 transakcija, ki je bila pravno in dejansko ločena od prenosa leta 1993, kakor so potrdili tudi dokumenti, predloženi na samem začetku in v nadaljevanju.
For the rest, the legal concept of a continuous series of acts, cited by the BdB, had in the meantime been called into question by criminal court judges at the Federal Constitutional Court.
Poleg tega so v pravni koncept neprekinjenega niza ukrepov, ki ga navaja BdB, medtem podvomili tudi kazenski sodniki Zveznega ustavnega sodišča (BGH).
The concept of continuing relationship in European cartel legislation, which had been explicitly dealt with in a regulation on prosecution and enforcement prescription, could not be applied to the state aid legislation relating to other facts, especially as Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 did not recognise that concept.
Koncepta neprekinjene povezave v evropski zakonodaji o kartelih, ki ga izključno ureja uredba o zastaranju sodnega pregona in izvršbe, ni mogoče prenesti na zakonodajo o državni pomoči, ki se nanaša na druga dejstva, zlasti ker Uredba (ES) št. 659/1999 tega koncepta ne pozna.
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BDB, FHH AND HSH
DOGOVOR MED BDB, FHH IN HSH NORDBANK
On 8 October 2004 the Commission was informed of the outcome of an understanding reached between the complainant BdB, FHH and HSH, which resulted from the merger of LSH and HLB in 2003.
Komisija je bila 8. oktobra 2004 obveščena o rezultatih dogovora med pritožnikom BdB, FHH in HSH Nordbank, ki je nastala z združitvijo LSH in HLB leta 2003.
Irrespective of their basic interpretations of the legal situation, which remained unchanged, the parties to the understanding agreed on the basic method of calculating a return as a comparative direct, fixed remuneration.
Ne glede na njihovo nespremenjeno temeljno pojmovanje prava so se stranke dogovorile za temeljno metodo za izračun donosa kot primerljivega neposrednega fiksnega nadomestila.
In the light of the 1993 transfer of 38 % of WK shares to the capital reserve amounting to some DEM959,4 million, they agreed on the amount of appropriate remuneration.
Glede prenosa leta 1993 38 % delnic WK v vrednosti okoli 959,4 milijonov DEM v kapitalsko rezervo so se dogovorile za znesek primernega nadomestila.
As regards the indirect contribution to a silent partnership reserve that also took place on 1 January 1993 of 19,86 % of WK shares amounting to DEM 300 million, although agreement could be reached on the basic approach of a fixed remuneration criterion, no agreement was reached on the exact calculation method, especially regarding the deduction for lack of liquidity (see paragraphs 81 to 203).
Glede neposredne vloge 19,86 % delnic WK v vrednosti 300 milijonov DEM v rezervo tihe družbe, prav tako 1. januarja 1993, so se sicer dogovorile za temeljni pristop pri merilu za fiksno nadomestilo, ne pa za natančni izračun, zlasti glede odbitka zaradi nelikvidnosti (glej odstavke 81 do 203).
The parties asked the Commission to take account of the outcome of the understanding in its decision.
Stranke so Komisijo prosile, da rezultate dogovora upošteva pri svoji odločitvi.
The understanding did not concern the 1986 transfer; the parties declared that they would not object to a definitive Commission decision on the limitation period for this transfer.
Dogovor ne zadeva prenosa leta 1986; stranke so izjavile, da ne bodo ugovarjale končni odločitvi Komisije o zastaralnem roku tega prenosa.
Applying the CAPM, the parties first determined a minimum normal market remuneration for the contribution to the capital reserve (some DEM 959 million).
Stranke so na podlagi CAPM najprej določile najnižje običajno tržno nadomestilo za vlogo v kapitalsko rezervo (okoli 959 milijonov DEM).
Assuming a risk-free interest rate of 7,23 %, a general market risk premium of 4 % and a beta value of 0,74, the appropriate minimum remuneration for the shares transferred to the capital reserve should, under this understanding, amount to 10,19 %.
Z uporabo netvegane obrestne mere v višini 7,23 %, splošne premije tržnega tveganja v višini 4 % in beta vrednosti 0,74 mora najnižje primerno nadomestilo za delnice, prenesene v kapitalsko rezervo, po tem dogovoru znašati 10,19 %.
Since FHH was the sole owner, no other premium, e.g. for the lack of voting rights, was agreed.
Ker je bila FHH edina lastnica, ni prišlo do dogovora za druge pribitke, kot na primer za pomanjkanje glasovalne pravice.
Lastly, a deduction of 3,62 % was determined for the capital's lack of liquidity (on the basis of the risk-free interest rate as gross refinancing costs, of which some 50 % company taxes plus solidarity surcharge to determine net refinancing costs).
Stranke so določile tudi odbitek v višini 3,62 % zaradi nelikvidnosti kapitala (na podlagi netvegane obrestne mere kot bruto stroški refinanciranja, od tega okoli 50 % davka od dobička plus solidarnostni davek za določitev neto stroškov refinanciranja).
This gives an appropriate remuneration of 6,57 %.
Primerno nadomestilo tako znaša 6,57 %.
HSH and FHH calculated a remuneration margin of 129 basis points for the DEM 300 million transfer to the silent partnership reserve since the gross refinancing costs had to be deducted.
HSH Nordbank in FHH sta za vlogo 300 milijonov DEM v rezervo tihe družbe izračunali stopnjo nadomestila v višini 129 odstotnih točk, saj je bilo treba odšteti bruto stroške refinanciranja.
The BdB also preferred a calculation based on the CAPM and, applying a lower beta factor (0,32) for this special transaction, which took place at the same time, and the after-tax liquidity deduction of 3,62 % and deducting solely the (net refinancing costs), arrived at an appropriate remuneration of 4,89 %.
Tudi BdB se je odločilo za izračun na podlagi CAPM in z uporabo manjšega beta faktorja (0,32) za to posebno transakcijo, ki je bila opravljena istočasno, ter odbitka zaradi nelikvidnosti po obdavčitvi v višini 3,62 % (neto stroški refinanciranja) izračunalo primerno nadomestilo v višini 4,89 %.
ON THE GENERAL QUESTION OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD
TEMELJNO VPRAŠANJE ZASTARALNEGA ROKA
Germany has taken the view that the ten-year limitation period provided for in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 has elapsed as regards the transfer on 1 January 1986 of 24 % of the shares, which increased HLB's capital by DM 212160000, in so far as it constituted state aid.
Nemčija je menila, da je zastaralni rok iz člena 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 za prenos 24 % delnic z dne 1. januarja 1986, ki je povečal kapital HLB za 212,160 milijonov DEM, če predstavlja državno pomoč, potekel.
The Commission requests for information dated 12 January, 10 November and 13 December 1993, i.e. those prior to 1 January 1996, were general in nature and so were not measures under Article 15(2) of the Regulation that could have interrupted the limitation period.
Zahtevki Komisije za podatke z dne 12. januarja 1993, 10. novembra 1993 in 13. decembra 1993, torej tisti pred 1. januarjem 1996, so splošne narave in zato ne predstavljajo ukrepov v skladu s členom 15(2) te uredbe, ki bi lahko prekinili zastaralni rok.
After examining the facts of the case closely, the Commission agrees with this view and will not subject the transfer of 1 January 1986 to a further state aid investigation.
Komisija se po natančni preučitvi dejstev temu mnenju pridružuje in prenosa z dne 1. januarja 1986 ne bo podvrgla nadaljnji preiskavi o državni pomoči.
It is to be noted that Article 15(1) of the Regulation (entry into force on 16 April 1999), which sets a deadline for the recovery of unlawful aid, applies to any definitive action ordering recovery of aid taken after the date on which the Regulation entered into force, including aid granted before that date .
Treba je upoštevati, da člen 15(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, ki je stopila v veljavo 16. aprila 1999, določa rok za terjatev vračila nezakonite pomoči in se uporablja za vse dokončne ukrepe za terjatev vračila pomoči, sprejete po datumu začetka veljavnosti Uredbe, tudi v primeru pomoči, dodeljene pred tem datumom.
The beginning of the ten-year period, within which the Commission may recover unlawful aid, is the day on which the aid was granted, even if the Regulation was not applicable at that time .
Desetletno obdobje, v katerem lahko Komisija zahteva vračilo nezakonite pomoči, začne teči z dnevom dodelitve pomoči, tudi če Uredba v tistem času ni veljala .
The transfer on 1 January 1986 was a one-off, non-recurrent state measure.
Prenos z dne 1. januarja 1986 je bil enkraten, neponovljen državni ukrep.
The side letter of 22 December 1992, which is mentioned by Germany in a letter dated December 1999 and was subsequently handed over, does not, as originally claimed, speak of a uniform investment objective for both transfers.
Tudi v pismu Nemčije z decembra 1999 navedeno in kasneje predloženo „spremno pismo“ z dne 22. decembra 1992 ne omenja, kot je bilo navedeno prvotno, enotnega investicijskega namena za oba prenosa.
It refers solely to the 1993 transfer and, for this purpose, takes over a specific rule governing the 1986 transfer and applies it to the 1 January 1993 transfer of additional shares, namely the right of FHH to require the transfer of WK's shares.
To spremno pismo se nanaša zgolj na prenos leta 1993 in v ta namen uporablja poseben predpis, ki ureja prenos leta 1986, tudi za prenos dodatnih delnic dne 1. januarja 1993, namreč pravico FHH, da zahteva prenos delnic WK.
Accordingly, the ten-year period ended on 1 January 1996.
Desetletni zastaralni rok se je torej iztekel 1. januarja 1996.
In accordance with Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the ten-year period is interrupted by any action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid.
Ta desetletni zastaralni rok se v skladu s členom 15(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 prekine z vsemi ukrepi, ki jih sprejmeta Komisija ali država članica na zahtevo Komisije, v zvezi z nezakonito pomočjo.
In Scott the Court of First Instance ruled that, although a request made by the Commission prior to the entry into force of the Regulation for information concerning a clearly defined possible aid measure could not possibly interrupt the ten-year period at that time, such an effect could be attributed to it if the Commission exercises its powers to recover the aid in question following the entry into force of the Regulation.
V sodbi „Scott“ je Sodišče prve stopnje odločilo, da je kljub temu, da zahtevek Komisije za jasno opredelitev morebitnega ukrepa pomoči pred začetkom veljavnosti navedene Uredbe takrat ni mogel prekiniti desetletnega zastaralnega roka, zahtevku mogoče pripisati tak učinek, če Komisija izvaja svoja pooblastila za terjatev zadevne pomoči po začetku veljavnosti Uredbe.
In the present case the Commission requests for information prior to 1 January 1996 do not satisfy the requirements for action interrupting the ten-year period as they do not constitute action with regard to the unlawful aid, as provided for in Article 15(2).
V zadevne primeru zahtevki Komisije pred 1. januarjem 1996 ne izpolnjujejo pogojev za ukrep, ki prekinja desetletni zastaralni rok, saj ne predstavljajo ukrepov glede nezakonite pomoči, kakor je določeno že v členu 15(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
Prior to the request for information dated 1 September 1999, the Commission did not, in any letter to Germany, ask about the transfers in Hamburg and did not mentioned either FHH or HLB.
Pred zahtevkom z dne 1. septembra 1999 ni Komisija v nobenem pismu Nemčiji zastavila vprašanja o prenosih v Hamburgu in ni omenila niti FHH niti HLB.
The three letters from 1993 refer exclusively to the transfer of WfA to WestLB; what is more, they simply contain general requests relating to other possible transfers to Landesbanks of other Länder.
Tri pisma iz leta 1993 se nanašajo izključno na prenos WfA na WestLB; poleg tega vsebujejo le splošne zahtevke za podatke o drugih morebitnih prenosih na deželne banke drugih zveznih dežel.
In addition to questions concerning WestLB, the request for information dated 10 November 1993 mentions only the Länder of Berlin, Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony.
Zehtevek z dne 10. novembra 1993 omenja poleg vprašanj o WestLB le dežele Berlin, Schleswig-Holstein in Spodnjo Saško.
In its two letters of 1994 and its letter of 3 January 1995, the BdB did, it is true, draw attention to the transfers of FHH to HLB.
BdB je v obeh pismih iz leta 1994 in pismu z dne 3. januarja 1995 sicer opozorilo tudi na prenose s strani FHH na HLB.
However, the Commission reacted for the first time in its letter dated 1 September 1999 and requested information on the transfers in Hamburg.
Komisija pa se je prvič odzvala s pismom z dne 1. septembra 1999 in prosila za informacije o prenosih v Hamburgu.
Before the end of the ten-year recovery period on 1 January 1996, there was therefore no evidence of a Commission investigation into the transfers to HLB.
Pred iztekom desetletnega zastaralnega roka 1. januarja 1996 Komisija torej ni izvedla preiskave prenosov na HLB.
The correspondence relating to WestLB and the general enquiries regarding possible transfers in other Länder cannot replace requests for information with regard to a specific possible aid.
Pisma glede WestLB in splošni zahtevki za podatke o morebitnih postopkih v drugih zveznih deželah ne morejo nadomestiti zahtevkov za podatke o konkretni morebitni pomoči.
Otherwise, general Commission notices sent out every ten years would interrupt the period and would undermine the purpose of any limitation period.
V nasprotnem primeru bi že splošna obvestila Komisije, razposlana vsakih deset let, prekinila zastaralni rok in zmanjšala njegov pomen.
In the Commission's view, Germany and HLB can, under the special circumstances of the 1986 transfer, rely on legal certainty and confidentiality even though the contribution was not notified in accordance with Article 88 of the EC Treaty.
Po mnenju Komisije se lahko Nemčija in HLB glede na posebne okoliščine prenosa leta 1986 sklicujeta na pravno varnost in zaupnost, čeprav vloga ni bila priglašena v skladu s členom 88 Pogodbe ES.
It should be borne in mind here that state aid legislation and monitoring was not at that time as developed in all details as it has been since the 1990s.
Pri tem je treba upoštevati, da zakonodaja o državni pomoči in nadzor takrat še nista bila tako do potankosti razvita kot od 90-tih let prejšnjega stoletja.
This is particularly true as regards capital injections by public-sector owners and, for example, the market-economy investor principle, which was developed only after the first transfer to HLB and has been examined in practice.
To velja predvsem za področje vlaganja kapitala s strani lastnikov v javnem sektorju in na primer za načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki se je razvilo šele po prvem prenosu na HLB in se preučuje v praksi.
To this extent, the German authorities and HLB, which in 1986 undertook share transfers between two companies wholly owned by it, could not assume the existence of possible state aid and hence the need for a notification.
V tem oziru nemški organi in HLB, ki je leta 1986 opravila prenose med dvema podjetjema, ki sta bila v celoti v njeni lasti, takrat niso mogli izhajati iz obstoja morebitne državne pomoči in s tem potrebe po prijavi.
Accordingly, the Commission regards the ten-year period under Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as having expired.
Komisija zato zastaralni rok v skladu s členom 15(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 obravnava kot potečenega.