natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They now had to strengthen their own-funds base as a matter of urgency in order to avoid restrictions on their business expansion and indeed to maintain their current level of activities.
Zadevne kreditne institucije so morale zato nujno povečati lastni kapital, da bi preprečile omejitev širjenja dejavnosti ali vsaj zadržale svojo obstoječo raven dejavnosti.
However, because the budgetary situation was tight, public shareholders were unable to provide any fresh capital but neither were they prepared to contemplate privatisation and to raise additional capital on the capital markets.
Zaradi tesnega proračunskega stanja pa javni delničarji niso mogli zagotavljati svežega kapitala in po drugi strani niso hoteli privatizirati ter zbirati dodatnega kapitala na trgih kapitala.
It was therefore decided to undertake asset and capital transfers: in WestLB's case, for example, there was a transfer of the assets of the housing organisation Wohnungsbauförderungsanstalt des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (‘Wfa’).
Zato je prišlo do odločitve za prenose sredstev oziroma kapitala, npr. v primeru WestLB sredstev stanovanjske organizacije Wohnungsbauförderungsanstalt dežele Severno Porenje-Vestfalija („WfA“).
However, in BayernLB's case the housing-promotion loans were transferred only afterwards, so that, apart from their role of strengthening its capital base, they also served to maintain and expand its general business activities.
V primeru BayernLB pa so navedena posojila za pospeševanje gradnje stanovanj prenesli šele po tem datumu, tako da so, poleg njihove vloge pri krepitvi kapitalske osnove, služile tudi ohranitvi oz. razširitvi splošnih možnostih poslovanja.
EFFECTS OF THE TRANSFER ON BAYERNLB'S CAPITAL BASE
POSLEDICA PRENOSA ZA OBSEG LASTNEGA KAPITALA BAYERNLB
The scale of a credit institution's business depends to a large extent on the amount of its equity capital.
Obseg poslovanja kreditne institucije je v veliki meri odvisen od višine njenega lastnega kapitala.
In BayernLB's case, this was increased to a not insignificant extent by the transfer of the housing-promotion loans.
Ta se je s prenosom posojil za pospeševanje gradnje stanovanj z LABO na BayernLB precej povečal.
Before the transfer took place, the loans in question had been valued in two expert reports, dated 5 October 1994 and 30 April 1996, by the auditors […], and the resulting cash value of the loan claims was paid to BayernLB as equity capital in the form of a capital reserve.
Pred prenosom na BayernLB, so bila zadevna posojila za pospeševanje gradnje stanovanj ocenjena v dveh izvedenskih mnenjih revizijskega podjetja [...] z dne 5. oktobra 1994 in 30. aprila 1996, in iz tega izhajajoča denarna vrednost terjatev iz posojil je bila plačana kot lastni kapital BayernLB v obliki kapitalske rezerve.
The cash value of the first instalment made on 31 December 1994 stood at DEM 655 million, and that of the second instalment made on 31 December 1995 at DEM 542 million.
Denarna vrednost prve tranše z dne 31. decembra 1994 je znašala 655 milijonov DEM, denarna vrednost druge tranše z dne 31. decembra 1995 pa je znašala 542 milijonov DEM.
This constituted a special-purpose reserve totalling DEM 1197 million.
To je predstavljalo rezervo za posebne namene v skupni višini 1,197 milijard DEM.
By letter of 8 May 1996, the Federal Banking Supervisory Authority (Bundesaufsichtsamt für das Kreditwesen, or ‘BAKred’ ) indicated that it recognised the full amount of the special-purpose reserve of DEM 655 million as liable equity capital within the meaning of Section 10 of the German Banking Act (KWG).
V pismu z dne 8. maja 1996 je nemški bančni nadzorni organ (Bundesaufsichtsamt für das Kreditwesen – „BAKred“) sporočil, da priznava celoten znesek rezerve za posebne namene v višini 655 milijonov DEM kot rizični lastni kapital BayernLB v skladu s poglavjem 10 nemškega zakona o bančništvu (KWG).
Taking into account the entire special-purpose reserve of DEM 1197 million, BAKred, in a letter dated 20 December 1996, fixed BayernLB's liable equity capital, including additional own funds, at DEM 14,6 billion as at 23 December 1996 .
Ob upoštevanju celotne rezerve za posebne namene v višini 1,197 milijard DEM kot rizični temeljni kapital, je BAKred v pismu z dne 20. decembra 1996 določil rizični lastni kapital BayernLB, vključno z dodatnimi lastnimi viri sredstev, dne 23. decembra 1996 na znesek 14,6 milijard DEM.
Of this liable equity capital a total of DEM 8,8 billion was core capital.
Delež temeljnega kapitala v rizičnem lastnem kapitalu je tako znašal skupno 8,8 milijard DEM.
The capital injection by means of the special-purpose reserve therefore represented some 8 % of BayernLB's liable own funds of DEM 14,6 billion at 31 December 1995 and around 13 % of the recognised core capital of around DEM 8,8 billion.
Vloga kapitala z rezervo za posebne namene je tako znašala, izmerjena z lastnimi sredstvi v višini 14,6 milijard z dne 31. decembra 1995, okrog 8 % rizičnega lastnega kapitala in okrog 13 % priznanega temeljnega kapitala v višini okrog 8,8 milijard DEM.
According to the information available, the funds could actually be used to cover liabilities as from the receipt of BAKred's decision, i.e. from 20 May 1996 in respect of DEM 655 million and from 23 December 1996 in respect of DEM 1197 million.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov bi se lahko bila sredstva od prejema določitev BAKred dejansko uporabila za kritje obveznosti, t.j. v višini 655 milijonov DEM od 20. maja 1996 in v višini 1,197 milijard DEM od 23. decembra 1996.
According to Germany, the only time BayernLB actually drew on the special-purpose reserve was in 1998, when it used DEM 14 million for a period of only one month.
Po navedbah Nemčije je BayernLB rezervo za posebne namene dejansko uporabila samo enkrat v letu 1998 z zneskom v višini 14 milijonov DEM, pa še takrat samo za dobo enega meseca.
Germany also argued that the cash value of the special-purpose reserve recognised by BAKred as own funds (DEM 1197 million) should be understood as merely as an upper limit on the amount available to cover risk assets and that it was not permanently available to the full extent of that amount to underpin lending.
Nemčija je nadalje poudarila, da je treba denarno vrednost rezerve za posebne namene, ki jo je BAKred priznal kot lasten vir sredstev BayernLB v višini 1,197 milijarde DEM, razumeti zgolj kot zgornjo mejo za kritje tvegane aktive ter da banki ni bila stalno na razpolago v tej višini za morebitno krepitev njenih poslovnih dejavnosti.
Indeed the cash value fluctuated, mainly because of the current use of liquid funds to grant loans afresh (on which the Land alone could decide in accordance with Section 1(3) of the transfer agreement) , but also because of discounts granted on the outstanding principal for reasons to do with promotion.
Ravno nasprotno, denarna vrednost je bila podvržena številnim nihanjem, med drugim zaradi tekoče uporabe likvidnih sredstev za odobritev novih posojil, o čemer je v skladu s § 1 (3) dogovora o prenosu odločala samo Svobodna država Bavarska, ampak tudi zaradi dodeljenih popustov za posojila, ki so temeljili na določenih merilih za odobritev.
Thus, the cash value of the special-purpose assets was lower than the amount of DEM 1197 million recognised for supervisory purposes by DEM […] in 1998 and by €[…] in 1999 and had to be offset by drawing on other items of capital.
Tako denarna vrednost posebnih namenskih sredstev v letu 1998 ni dosegla zneska 1,197 milijard DEM, priznanega za potrebe nadzora, v višini [...] DEM in v letu 1999 za [...] EUR, zato jo je bilo treba izravnati z uporabo drugih postavk kapitala.
Germany argued that the full amount of the capital recognised by BAKred was therefore not available throughout to cover risk-bearing assets.
Po navedbah Nemčije kapital tako ni bil vseskozi na razpolago v obsegu, ki ga je BAKred priznal za kritje tvegane aktive.
Germany provided the following figures on the actual fluctuations (Figure 1):
Dejanska nihanja je Nemčija prikazala v naslednji preglednici (preglednica 1).
DEM 1000
DEM ->
EUR 1000
EUR
Cash value of special-purpose assets
Denarna vrednost posebnih namenskih sredstev
Change in cash value of special-purpose assets
Sprememba vrednosti posebnih namenskih sredstev
Special-purpose reserve shown as equity
Rezerva za posebne namene prikazana kot lastni kapital
Difference between cash value and amount shown as equity
Razlika
REMUNERATION FOR THE OWN FUNDS TRANSFERRED
NADOMESTILO ZA PRENESENA LASTNA SREDSTVA
Under Section 4(1) of the transfer agreement of 15 December 1994 between the Land of Bavaria and BayernLB, remuneration was agreed for the funds made available as a result of the transfer, but only on the amount actually used.
V skladu s poglavjem 4(1) dogovora o prenosu med Svobodno državo Bavarsko in BayernLB z dne 15. decembra 1994, so se sporazumeli o povračilu za sredstva, ki so na razpolago kot posledica prenosa, vendar samo za dejansko uporabljene zneske.
The agreed rate was 0,6 % — payable out of income from banking business — on that portion of the transferred funds actually used to underpin competitive business, and the remuneration would fall due when the balance sheet for the relevant business year was established .
V skladu z dogovorom o prenosu je plačilo znašalo 0,6 % v breme dohodkov banke iz tistega dela prenesenih sredstev, ki so bila dejansko uporabljena za kritje konkurenčnih dejavnosti, pri čemer je to plačilo zapadlo ob potrditvi bilance stanja za posamezno obračunsko leto.
According to the information supplied by Germany, the rate was fixed taking into account the fact that the special-purpose reserve was being made available without liquidity, with the consequence that any actual business expansion would have to be refinanced entirely by borrowing liquid funds.
Pri določitvi te stopnje nadomestila se je po predloženih podatkih in informacijah Nemčije upoštevalo, da je bila rezerva za posebne namene dana na razpolago brez likvidnosti, tako da je bilo treba vsakršno dejansko razširitev poslovanja v celoti refinancirati z najemom likvidnih sredstev.
Germany also stated that the remuneration for the special-purpose assets was treated for tax purposes as use of profits, could therefore not be deducted as operating expenditure and, as a result, was payable after tax.
Nadalje je bilo, po navedbah Nemčije, nadomestilo za posebna namenska sredstva davčno obravnavano kot razdelitev dobička, torej ga ni bilo mogoče prikazati kot splošni strošek poslovanja, tako da je bilo treba nadomestilo plačati po obdavčitvi.
With regard to the basis of assessment for the remuneration payable, Germany stated during the proceedings that, in the event of the special-purpose reserve being used in full, the agreed remuneration of 0,6 % per annum would have amounted to some DEM 7,2 million.
V zvezi z osnovo za odmero nadomestila, ki se mora izplačati, je Nemčija v postopku navedla, da bi v primeru popolnega kritja rezerve za posebne namene dogovorjeno nadomestilo 0,6 % letno znašalo približno 7,2 milijona DEM.
As mentioned above, Germany stated that BayernLB actually drew on the special-purpose reserve only once: in 1998 it used DEM 14 million for a period of only one month, for which it paid remuneration of DEM 7000.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je BayernLB po navedbah Nemčije rezervo za posebne namene dejansko uporabila samo enkrat v letu 1998 z zneskom v višini 14 milijonov DEM, pa še takrat samo za dobo enega meseca, za kar je plačala nadomestilo 7000 DEM.
Moreover, under Section 6(2) of the transfer agreement of 15 December 1994, read in conjunction with Section 2 of the transfer agreement of 28 December 1995, BayernLB paid a fee of 0,05 % to the Land for a default guarantee for loans from the special-purpose assets.
Poleg tega je BayernLB v skladu s poglavjem 6(2) dogovora o prenosu z dne 15. decembra 1994 v povezavi s poglavjem 2 dogovora o prenosu z dne 28. decembra 1995 Svobodni državi Bavarski plačala dajatev v višini 0,05 odstotka za dodelitev jamstva za posojila iz posebnih namenskih sredstev.
Germany provided detailed figures for the payments made.
Nemčija je navedla točne številke za plačane zneske.
In its decision of 13 November 2002 initiating the procedure, the Commission concluded that the transfer of housing-promotion loans by the Land of Bavaria to BayernLB probably constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
V svoji odločitvi o začetku postopka z dne 13. novembra 2002 je Komisija prišla do zaključka, da gre v primeru prenosa posojil za pospeševanje gradnje stanovanj za državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The starting point for its investigation was the principle of the market-economy investor.
Izhodišče za njeno preiskavo je bilo načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
According to this principle, it is not the fact that undertakings are publicly owned and receive funding from the public authorities which constitutes state aid.
Po tem načelu okoliščina, da se podjetja nahajajo v javni lasti in od organov oblasti prejemajo finančna sredstva, ne predstavlja oblike državne pomoči.
The provision of public money confers an advantage only if funds are made available to such a public undertaking on terms which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Po tem načelu gre pri vlogi državnih sredstev za pomoč, če dobi podjetje na razpolago državna sredstva, ki jih pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji ne bi prejelo.
In the present case, the Commission regarded the economic advantage conferred on BayernLB by the injection of own funds as consisting in particular in the increase in its commercial, competitive lending capacity (by dint of the business-expansion function of equity capital).
V tem primeru je Komisija obravnavala gospodarske prednosti, ki jih je bila BayernLB deležna z dokapitalizacijo lastnih sredstev, zlasti s povečanjem kreditne sposobnosti za komercialno in tržno usmerjeno kreditno poslovanje (širjenje dejavnosti kot funkcija lastnega kapitala).
Under normal market conditions, the capital contribution would be remunerated in line with the value of the contributed capital, taking account of its function and the risk incurred.
Pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji bi bil vložek kapitala nadomeščen v skladu z njegovo vrednostjo, ob upoštevanju njegove funkcije in nastalega tveganja.
One method of determining the normal market remuneration for the contributed capital was thus to take the long-term risk-free rate (for 10-year Federal bonds) and apply to it a risk premium corresponding to the higher risk of equity capital.
En način določitve običajnega tržnega nadomestila za vložen kapital je, da se vzame dolgoročna netvegana obrestna mera (10-letne nemške obveznice) in doda premija tveganja, ki ustreza povečanemu tveganju lastnih sredstev.
As Germany had already indicated that the rate of remuneration for a long-term, risk-free investment stood at 7,9 % per annum at the end of 1994, when the transfer of assets took place, the Commission had serious doubts as to whether a remuneration of 0,6 % per annum for the equity capital actually used could be deemed normal for the market, irrespective of any necessary risk premium.
Ker je Nemčija že navedla, da je stopnja nadomestila za dolgoročno netvegano naložbo v času prenosa sredstev konec leta 1994 znašala 7,9 % letno, je Komisija izrazila resne dvome o tem, da bi se nadomestilo 0,6 % letno za dejansko uporabljena lastna sredstva, brez upoštevanja potrebnih premij tveganj, lahko štelo kot običajno za trg.
The Commission also doubted whether a market-economy investor would have agreed to limit remuneration to the portion of the funds actually used.
Nadalje je Komisija podvomila, da bi vlagatelj, ki se ravna po načelih tržnega gospodarstva, sprejel omejitev nadomestila na delež dejansko uporabljenih sredstev.
It also seemed doubtful that the additional elements of remuneration cited by Germany, such as the fee equal to 0,05 % per annum of guaranteed transferred claims and payable to the Land for a default guarantee covering the loan claims, the interest payments made by borrowers (and also accruing to the Land) or the interest on intermediate investments abroad , actually constituted remuneration for the business-expansion function of equity capital.
Prav tako se je zdelo dvomljivo, da dodatne oblike nadomestila, ki jih je navedla Nemčija, kot na primer pristojbina v višini 0,05 % letno za zajamčene prenesene zahtevke v korist Svobodne države Bavarske za dodelitev jamstva za kritje terjatev iz posojil, plačila obresti posojilojemalcev (prav tako v dobro dežele Bavarske) ali obresti začasnih naložb v tujini, dejansko predstavljalo nadomestilo za širjenje dejavnosti kot funkcijo rizičnega lastnega kapitala.
However, the Commission acknowledged that the contributed capital's lack of liquidity should be taken into account when determining the normal market remuneration.
Vendar pa je Komisija priznala, da je treba pri običajnem tržnem nadomestilu upoštevati nezadostno likvidnost obravnavanega prispevanega kapitala.
Under Article 1 of the Special-purpose Assets Act, the housing-promotion loans forming the special-purpose reserve had to be used in the same way as prior to the transfer for the purposes of social-housing construction.
Po členu 1 zakona o posebnih namenskih sredstvih bi se morala posojila za gradnjo stanovanj, ki tvorijo rezervo za posebne namene, uporabiti na enak način kot pred prenosom za potrebe gradnje socialnih stanovanj.
The transfer of the housing-promotion assets therefore did not provide BayernLB with liquidity.
Prenos sredstev za pospeševanje potemtakem BayernLB ni zagotovil likvidnosti.
Although the bank's non-liquid capital permitted an increase in the volume of its activities, it had to be borne in mind that BayernLB was able to achieve the full extent possible of any increase in its business volume only if it refinanced the additional lending in full on the capital market.
Čeprav so nelikvidna sredstva banke dovoljevala razširitev obsega njenih dejavnosti, je treba upoštevati, da je BayernLB lahko dosegla poln obseg možnega povečanja svojega poslovanja samo v primeru, da je refinancirala dodatno kreditno aktivnost v celoti na kapitalskem trgu.
The Land could not therefore expect exactly the same return as a provider of liquid capital, and the appropriate remuneration had to be reduced accordingly.
Zato dežela ne more pričakovati natanko enakega donosa kot vlagatelj likvidnih sredstev in je torej ustrezen odbitek upravičen.
The Commission could not see that the Land, when transferring the housing-promotion loans, had ensured that it was going to participate to an appropriate extent in the distribution of the bank's profits and the increase in its value.
Komisija ni mogla ugotoviti, da si je Bavarska pri prenosu posojil za pospeševanje gradnje stanovanj zagotovila primerno udeležbo pri razdelitvi dobička banke in povečanju vrednosti banke.
In particular, the Land did not insist on a change in the ownership structure in its favour, which it would have had to do in order to ensure that dividend payments and increases in value were consistent with the level of invested capital.
Zlasti Bavarska ni vztrajala pri spremembi lastniške strukture v lastno korist, kar bi sicer bilo potrebno za zagotovitev skladnosti plačil dividend in povečanja vrednosti z višino zneska vloženega kapitala.
As none of the exemptions provided for in Article 87(2) and (3) or Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty applied in the present case, the state aid appeared not to be compatible with the common market.
Ker se v obravnavanem primeru ni uporabila nobena izjema iz člena 87(2) in (3) ali člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES, se je državna pomoč izkazala kot nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
In its comments on the decision initiating the procedure, Germany took the view that, unlike in the WestLB case, the transfer of the special-purpose assets to BayernLB was comparable not to an injection of share capital but to the contribution of a silent partner within the meaning of Section 10(4) of the German Banking Act, something which the Commission had failed to take into account.
Nemčija je v svojih pripombah k odločitvi o začetku postopka zavzela stališče, da prenos posebnih namenskih sredstev na BayernLB, za razliko od primera WestLB, ni primerljiv z vlogo v osnovni kapital, temveč z vložki tihih družb v smislu poglavja 10(4) nemškega zakona o bančništvu, kar je Komisija spregledala.
What was decisive in Germany's view was that, up to the end of 1996, when the special-purpose assets were recognised for supervisory purposes, the Bavarian savings banks and private investors had provided BayernLB with core capital of just under DEM 1300 million (of which some DEM 900 million from the savings banks) in the form of silent partnerships.
Odločilni argument za Nemčijo je bil, da so do konca leta 1996, trenutka priznanja posebnih namenskih sredstev s strani bančnega nadzorstva, bavarske hranilnice in zasebni vlagatelji BayernLB že zagotovili temeljni kapital v skupni vrednosti slabih 1,3 milijard DEM – od tega okrog 900 milijonov DEM preko bavarskih hranilnic – v obliki vložkov tihih družb BayernLB.
These silent partnership assets were recognised by BAKred as core capital within the meaning of Section 10(4) of the Banking Act.
Te vložke tihih družb je BAKred priznal kot temeljni kapital v smislu poglavja 10(4) nemškega zakona o bančništvu.
At the time of the transfer, therefore, silent partnerships already constituted a normal means of procuring core capital for BayernLB.
Tako so vložki tihih družb v času prenosa že predstavljali običajen instrument pridobivanja temeljnega kapitala BayernLB.
Furthermore, the special-purpose assets were, by their nature, comparable to BayernLB's silent partnerships.
Poleg tega so bila posebna namenska sredstva tudi vsebinsko primerljiva z vložki tihih družb BayernLB.
In terms of their economic function, i.e. providing scope for business expansion, both forms of capital were identical since both were recognised as core capital.
Kar zadeva njuno gospodarsko funkcijo, t.j. možnost razširitve poslovanja, sta bili obe vrsti kapitala enaki, saj sta bili obe priznani kot temeljni kapital.
Neither would have contributed directly to increases in the bank's value or conferred additional voting rights.
Prav tako nobena od njiju ni pripomogla k povečanju vrednosti banke ali ji dodelila dodatne glasovalne pravice.
Nor was there any difference between them as far as the risk of loss was concerned since both could be used to offset any loss.
Prav tako ni bilo nobene razlike med njima glede tveganja izgube, saj sta se lahko obe uporabili za izravnavo izgub.
The only difference was that the special-purpose assets had been made available for an unlimited period of time, whereas silent partnerships were typically limited in time.
Edina razlika je v tem, da so bila posebna namenska sredstva na razpolago neomejen čas, medtem ko so vložki tihih družb značilno časovno omejeni.
However, the special-purpose reserve should not necessarily be regarded as unlimited, but could be terminated by agreement at any time.
Vendar pa rezerve za posebne namene ne gre nujno obravnavati kot časovno neomejene, saj se jo lahko kadarkoli sporazumno ukine.
Moreover, unlimited silent partnerships also existed.
Prav tako so poleg časovno omejenih vložkov tihih vlog obstajali tudi neomejeni vložki.
A comparison showed that there was no significant difference in price between limited and unlimited silent partnership contributions.
Primerljiva raziskava je pokazala, da na trgu ni nobene omembe vredne razlike v ceni med časovno omejenimi in časovno neomejenimi vložki tihih družb.
Germany also argued that the special-purpose assets were not exposed to the risk of loss in the same way as share capital.
Nemčija je navedla tudi, da posebna namenska sredstva niso bila izpostavljena tveganju na enak način kot osnovni kapital.