natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to Germany, therefore, in comparing the remunerations, the trade tax effect of 0,26 % a year in relation to Helaba's silent partnership contribution had to be taken into account.
Po navedbah Nemčije je torej pri primerjavi nadomestil treba upoštevati učinek obratovalnega davka – v povezavi z vložkom tihe družbe v primeru Helaba – v višini 0,26 % letno.
Commercial investors in Germany pay trade tax on profit shares from silent participations.
Poslovni vlagatelji v Nemčiji plačujejo obratovalni davek od dividend iz tihih udeležb.
However, the Land of Hessen is not subject to trade tax.
Vendar dežela Hessen ni zavezana k plačevanju obratovalnega davka.
In its place, Helaba had to pay the trade tax applicable to the remuneration of the silent partnership contribution.
Namesto tega mora obratovalni davek ob nadomestilu za vložek tihe družbe plačevati Helaba.
A market-economy institutional investor would therefore have required a higher remuneration than the Land in order to offset the charge he had to pay in the form of trade tax.
Institucionalni vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu bi torej zahteval večje nadomestilo kot dežela Hessen za izravnavo obremenitve v obliki obratovalnega davka.
Conversely, Helaba would have been immediately prepared to pay a remuneration premium to such an investor, since it made no difference to it whether it paid the premium as a remuneration to the investor or as trade tax to the tax office.
V nasprotnem primeru bi bila Helaba takoj pripravljena takemu vlagatelju izplačevati pribitek na nadomestilo, saj je vseeno, ali pribitek plačuje kot nadomestilo vlagatelju ali kot obratovalni davek davčni upravi.
Inclusive of the trade tax effect of 0,26 % a year, Helaba's charge resulting from the remuneration it had to pay of 1,40 % a year for the silent partnership contribution amounted in total to 1,66 % a year, which was clearly in the market corridor and represented the result of negotiations between Helaba and the Land of Hessen.
Vključno z obratovalnim davkom 0,26 % letno je skupna obremenitev Helabe ob obveznem nadomestilu v višini 1,40 % letno za vložek tihe družbe 1,66 % letno, kar je nedvomno v tržnem razponu in predstavlja rezultat pogajanj med Helabo in Hessnom.
According to Germany, the remuneration paid was tax deductible by Helaba as operating expenditure.
Po navedbah Nemčije je v primeru Helabe izplačano nadomestilo kot strošek poslovanja odbitna postavka.
Silent partnership contributions represented equity capital only in the calculation of solvability for banking supervisory purposes, whereas in company and tax law terms they were treated as outside capital.
Vložki tihe družbe predstavljajo lastni kapital le v izračunu solventnosti s strani bančnega nadzorstva, v smislu prava družb in davčnega prava pa se štejejo za tuji kapital.
According to Germany, the bank needed only DEM [...] million in equity capital for its planned annual growth, whereas the value of the promotion-related assets as liable equity capital for banking supervisory purposes amounted to over DEM [...] billion.
Banka naj bi za svojo načrtovano letno stopnjo rasti potrebovala le […] milijonov DEM lastnega kapitala, medtem ko znaša vrednost sredstev za pospeševanje, priznanih s strani bančnega nadzorstva kot rizični lastni kapital, več kot […] milijard DEM.
Helaba would, according to Germany, not have taken up a silent partnership contribution amounting to some DEM 2,5 billion in a single step, since this amount covered its equity capital requirements for several years; rather, it would have made repeated calls on the capital market.
Helaba po navedbah Nemčije ni sprejela vložka tihe družbe v višini približno 2,5 milijarde DEM v enem koraku, saj ta znesek pokriva njene potrebe po lastnem kapitalu za več let; raje je večkrat pozvala k vložku na trgu kapitala.
Despite these effects and the charges they imposed on Helaba, no deduction from the remuneration rate of 1,4 % was agreed.
Kljub tem učinkom, ki bremenijo Helabo, ni prišlo do dogovora za odbitek na stopnjo nadomestila 1,4 %.
The Land and Helaba had instead agreed, as a transitional solution, on a gradual use and remuneration of the silent partnership contribution (the phased arrangement).
Hessen in Helaba sta se namesto tega dogovorila za začasno rešitev in sicer za postopno uporabo vložka tihe družbe in njegovo nadomestilo (t.i. stopenjski model).
The bank had endeavoured here to reach an arrangement under which it would remunerate the silent partnership contribution only in accordance with the growth targets agreed with its owner to the tune of its actual use to cover risk assets.
Banka si je pri tem prizadevala za ureditev, po kateri bi nadomeščala vložek le v skladu s cilji rasti, dogovorjenimi z njenim lastnikom, v višini njegove dejanske uporabe za kritje rizičnega kapitala.
However, this had been too unfavourable for the Land of Hessen and had therefore not been acceptable to it.
To pa je bilo za deželo Hessen preveč neugodno in zato nesprejemljivo.
Following negotiations to offset the conflicting interests, an arrangement had been agreed involving annually increasing remunerated tranches (DEM [...] million in 1999, DEM [...] billion in 2000, DEM [...] billion in 2001, DEM [...] billion in 2002, DEM [...] billion in 2003, i.e. the upper limit for usable core capital).
Po pogajanjih za uskladitev nasprotujočih si interesov je bila dogovorjena ureditev z letno naraščajočimi tranšami, ki se morajo nadomeščati (1999: […] milijonov DEM, 2000: […] milijard DEM, 2001: […] milijard DEM, 2002: […] milijard DEM, 2003: […] milijard DEM ali zgornja meja za uporaben temeljni kapital).
These phased arrangements had provided for a significantly faster increase for the first few years than was necessary for the bank's planned growth.
S tem stopenjskim modelom je bila za prva leta predvidena znatno hitrejša rast kot je potrebna za načrtovano stopnjo rasti banke.
The managing board had then asked the board of directors to approve an additional special quota of DEM [...] million to cover liable equity capital, from whose yields the remuneration of the difference was to be financed so as to ensure that the contribution was used in a way that was neutral in terms of operating result.
Upravni odbor je nato zaprosil svet direktorjev, naj odobri dodatno posebno kvoto […] milijonov DEM za kritje rizičnega lastnega kapitala, z donosi katere naj bi se financiralo nadomestilo za razliko z namenom zagotovitve, da se vložek uporablja na način, ki je v smislu rezultata poslovanja nevtralen.
In Germany's view, this showed that the ‘over-endowment’ of the bank had not only not conferred any additional advantage, but that, without the special quota, it would rather have burdened the profit situation of the bank, because the remuneration for those parts of the gradually increasing assessment basis not covered by additional business would not have been matched by any income.
Po mnenju Nemčije to kaže na dejstvo, da „prekomerna dotacija“ banki ni prinesla dodatnih prednosti, poleg tega pa bi brez posebne kvote celo bremenila profitno stanje banke, saj prihodek ne bi dosegel nadomestila za tiste dele postopoma naraščajoče davčne osnove, ki niso kriti z dodatnim poslovanjem.
This would have produced annually increasing payment obligations up to an amount of some DEM 33 million as from 2003.
S tem bi z letom 2003 nastale letno naraščajoče plačilne obveznosti do višine približno 33 milijonov DEM.
In addition to the remuneration of the silent partnership contribution, the bank had to bear the refinancing costs of lending.
Banka mora poleg nadomestila za vložek tihe družbe kriti tudi stroške refinanciranja za posojilo.
Germany also made comments on the market-economy investor principle.
Nemčija je izrazila mnenje tudi o načelu vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
It followed from case law that an assessment must be made of the market nature of the transaction from the investor's point of view.
Po sodni praksi se mora tržna narava transakcije ocenjevati z vidika vlagatelja.
It therefore had misgivings if the Commission, as made clear in the decision to initiate proceedings, set out to examine primarily from the recipient's point of view whether Helaba had received an economic concession which it would not receive under normal economic conditions.
Zato se poraja dvom glede namena Komisije, kakor je navedeno v sklepu o začetku preiskovalnega postopka, da preveri zlasti z vidika prejemnika, ali je Helaba prejela gospodarsko ugodnost, kakršne ne bi prejela pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
It could not therefore be right for the Commission, irrespective of whether a market-economy investor would have accepted a gradually increasing assessment basis for the remuneration, to set out to examine whether Helaba gained further advantages (improvement in general credit rating) from the non-remunerated part of the silent partnership contribution.
Torej ne more biti prav, da Komisija ne glede na to, ali bi vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu sprejel postopoma naraščajočo davčno osnovo za nadomestilo, namerava preveriti, ali Helabi prinaša dodatne ugodnosti (izboljšanje splošne kreditne sposobnosti) tisti del vložka tihe družbe, ki se ne nadomešča.
In accordance with paragraph 327 of the WestLB judgment, reference could not be made only to the single undertaking benefiting from the investment.
V skladu z odstavkom 327 sodbe v primeru WestLB se ne more sklicevati le na podjetje, ki mu vložek prinaša koristi.
Any additional advantage to the recipient was irrelevant if, for whatever reason, a market-economy investor would not have required additional remuneration for such advantage.
Dodatna ugodnost prejemnika ne bi bila pomembna, če vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu – iz kakršnega koli razloga že – ne bi zahteval dodatnega nadomestila za to ugodnost.
No institution would have been prepared to pay immediate remuneration on the total volume if it could use only slowly increasing partial amounts for business expansion purposes and also had no use whatsoever for the surplus amounts.
Nobena institucija ne bi bila pripravljena izplačati takojšnjega nadomestila za celoten znesek, če bi lahko uporabljala le počasi naraščajoče delne zneske za namene širjenja dejavnosti in hkrati na noben način ne bi mogla uporabljati presežnih zneskov.
However, the Land of Hessen wanted to invest its special housing fund, despite its size, en bloc with a single credit institution.
Hessen pa je hotel svoj posebni sklad za gradnjo stanovanj kljub njegovemu obsegu vložiti v enem kosu v eno kreditno institucijo.
A private investor would in such a situation not have insisted on immediate remuneration of the entire investment, unless it had found a credit institution which needed a capital injection on such a scale either because of explosive growth in its business activity or to offset massive losses.
Zasebni vlagatelj v takem primeru ne bi zahteval takojšnjega nadomestila za celotni vložek, razen če bi našel kreditno institucijo, ki potrebuje vložek kapitala v zadevnem obsegu zaradi eksplozivne razširitve njenih dejavnosti ali izravnavo velikih izgub.
However, this had not been the case.
Vendar v tem primeru temu ni bilo tako.
Helaba had derived no advantage from those parts of the silent partnership contribution which in the first few years it could not use for banking supervisory reasons and was also not supposed to use because of the wishes of its owners.
Helaba ni imela koristi od tistih delov vložka tihe družbe, ki jih zaradi bančnega nadzorstva v prvih letih ni mogla uporabljati in jih zaradi zahteve njihovih lastnikov niti ni smela.
On the basis of the phased arrangements agreed with the Land of Hessen, Helaba made use for business expansion purposes only of tranches of some DEM [...] million a year plus the abovementioned special quota of some DEM [...] million.
Helaba na podlagi stopenjskega modela, dogovorjenega z deželo Hessen, za namene širjenja dejavnosti uporablja le tranše v višini približno […] milijonov DEM letno in navedeno posebno kvoto v višini približno […] milijonov DEM.
In economic terms, the phased arrangements corresponded to the taking up of several silent partnership contributions spread over time.
Stopenjski model v gospodarskem smislu pomeni prejem več časovno porazdeljenih vložkov tihe družbe.
The amounts taken up by private institutions were therefore at best to be compared with the amounts of individual tranches.
Zneski, ki jih prejemajo zasebne institucije, so zato najbolje primerljivi z zneski posameznih tranš.
It could therefore be said that the order of magnitude involved was in conformity with the market.
Že zaradi tega lahko govorimo o skladnosti reda velikosti s trgom.
The Land could not demand a remuneration premium for the taking up of the special fund en bloc, which only Helaba was prepared to do, but had rather, as a result of the negotiations, to accept that a remuneration would be paid only on gradually increasing partial amounts of the investment.
Dežela Hessen ni mogla zahtevati pribitka za nadomestilo za posebni sklad v enem kosu, ki ga je bila pripravljena sprejeti le Helaba, temveč je morala kot rezultat pogajanj sprejeti, da se nadomestilo izplačuje le za postopno naraščajoče delne zneske te vloge.
The investment had quite properly not received any remuneration for its additional liability function through payment of a guarantee commission, since it had not been used by the bank in banking supervisory terms for business expansion.
Prav je, da se vložek ni nadomestil zaradi dodatne funkcije jamstva z izplačevanjem provizije za jamstvo, saj ga banka ni uporabljala v smislu bančnega nadzorstva za širjenje dejavnosti.
It would not have made sense in economic terms for a credit institution that was already accorded the top credit rating by all the rating agencies to pay a remuneration for the liability function of additional resources it had taken up.
V gospodarskem smislu namreč ne bi bilo razumno, če bi kreditna institucija, kateri so vse rating agencije določile največjo kreditno sposobnost, izplačevala nadomestilo za funkcijo jamstva za dodatno prejeta sredstva.
The terms and conditions under which the institution could take up outside capital would not have improved any further, so that no monetary advantage existed.
Pogoji, pod katerimi lahko institut prejema tuji kapital, se niso dodatno izboljšali, tako da ne gre za obstoj denarnih ugodnosti.
The investor in whose interest the entire capital was transferred en bloc to the bank could therefore not have imposed any remuneration for the liability function.
Vlagatelj, ki je vztrajal pri prenosu celotnega kapitala na banko v enem kosu, torej ni mogel naložiti nadomestila za funkcijo jamstva.
The Commission's doubts, referred to in the decision to initiate proceedings, regarding the non-liquidity of the capital were based partly on the methodology of the WestLB decision, which could not however be applied to the present case because of the major differences in the underlying facts.
Dvomi Komisije glede nelikvidnosti kapitala, navedeni v sklepu o začetku preiskovalnega postopka, delno temeljijo na metodologiji Odločbe glede WestLB, ki pa se v zadevnem primeru zaradi velikih razlik med dejstvi ne more uporabljati.
According to Germany, in the present case the gross and not just the net refinancing costs had to be deducted from the remuneration of otherwise comparable, but liquid silent partnership contributions.
Po navedbah Nemčije se morajo v zadevnem primeru od nadomestila za sicer primerljive, toda likvidne vložke tihe družbe odbijati bruto in ne le neto stroški refinanciranja.
This was because, even in the case of private credit institutions, the remuneration for the liquidity function of the silent partnership contributions taken up by them was tax deductible.
Tudi v primeru zasebnih kreditnih institucij je namreč nadomestilo za jamstvo za prejete vložke tihe družbe odbitna postavka.
If, in the case of Helaba, only the net refinancing costs were deducted from the notional remuneration for a liquid silent partnership contribution, the same process would have to be applied in the case of private credit institutions as regards the remuneration actually paid by them for liquid silent partnership contributions.
Če bi se v primeru Helaba od dozdevnega nadomestila za likvidni vložek tihe družbe odbijali le neto stroški refinanciranja, bi se moral enak postopek uporabiti v primeru zasebnih kreditnih institucij, kar zadeva z njihove strani dejansko izplačano nadomestilo za likvidne vložke tihe družbe.
Otherwise the comparison would be distorted.
V nasprotnem primeru bi bila primerjava izkrivljena.
COMMENTS FROM THE COMPLAINANT BDB
PRIPOMBE PRITOŽNIKA BDB
The BdB submits that Helaba did not pay an appropriate remuneration for the transferred core capital and was therefore in receipt of state aid.
BdB meni, da Helaba ni izplačevala primernega nadomestila za prenesen temeljni kapital in je potemtakem prejemala državno pomoč.
In its comments of 29 July 2003 on the proceedings initiated on 13 November 2002 in respect of the Landesbanks, the BdB states that the question of whether the remuneration was appropriate should be determined using the method employed by the Commission in its WestLB decision.
BdB v svojih pripombah z dne 29. julija 2003 glede postopkov, začetih dne 13. novembra 2002 v zvezi z deželnimi bankami, navaja, da se mora na vprašanje glede primernosti nadomestila odgovoriti s pomočjo metodologije, ki jo je Komisija uporabila za sprejetje Odločbe glede WestLB.
The first step was therefore to compare the capital provided with other equity instruments.
Prvi korak je torej primerjava razpoložljivega kapitala z drugimi instrumenti lastnega kapitala.
The second step was to determine the minimum remuneration which an investor would expect for a real equity-capital investment in the Landesbank.
Drugi korak je določitev najmanjšega nadomestila, ki bi ga vlagatelj pričakoval za dejansko naložbo v lastni kapital deželne banke.
Finally, a calculation had to be made of any premiums and discounts applied by virtue of the peculiarities of the transfer.
Nazadnje se morajo izračunati morebitni pribitki in odbitki zaradi posebnosti prenosa.
Nearly all the Landesbanks are said by the BdB to have required fresh core capital from 1992 onwards in order to meet the stricter requirements arising from the new Solvency Directive.
Po navedbah BdB so skoraj vse deželne banke z letom 1992 potrebovale nov temeljni kapital, da bi izpolnile strožje zahteve nove Direktive o solventnosti.
It could therefore be concluded, the BdB argues, that the capital injected could be compared only with equity instruments that were recognised as core capital (‘tier 1 capital’) and available in Germany in the year of the transfer.
Na podlagi tega se po besedah BdB lahko zaključi, da se vložen kapital lahko primerja le s takimi instrumenti lastnega kapitala, ki so bili v Nemčiji v letu prenosa priznani in na razpolago kot temeljni kapital (kapital „razred 1“).
In Germany, these three equity instruments were recognised not as core capital, but as additional capital (‘tier 2 capital’).
Ti trije instrumenti lastnega kapitala v Nemčiji niso priznani kot temeljni kapital temveč kot dodatni kapital (kapital „razred 2“).
At the time of the respective transfers, only share capital and silent partnership contributions were recognised as core capital in Germany.
V času zadevnih prenosov so bili v Nemčiji kot temeljni kapital priznani le osnovni kapital in vložki tihe družbe.
In the BdB's opinion, the only legal form properly available to Helaba for the investment was share capital.
Po mnenju BdB je bila edina primerna pravna oblika, ki jo je imela Helaba na razpolago za dejansko naložbo, osnovni kapital.
The BdB does not challenge the recognition by the relevant authorities that actually took place.
BdB pri tem ne izpodbija dejanskega priznanja navedenih organov.
It argues rather that such recognition should not have taken place, since the silent contribution by the Land of Hessen that was specifically agreed was economically and legally comparable not with ‘normal’ silent partnership contributions, but rather with share capital.
Trdi pa, da do takega priznanja ne bi smelo priti, saj konkretno dogovorjen vložek tihe družbe s strani dežele Hessen gospodarsko in pravno ni primerljiva z „običajnimi“ vložki tihe družbe, temveč veliko bolj z osnovnim kapitalom.
Given then, that such recognition had actually taken place, the remuneration at least of the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen had to be based on that of share capital, since a market-economy investor would have required such remuneration on the basis of its similarity to share capital and specific risk structure.
Ker pa je do takega priznanja dejansko prišlo, mora vsaj nadomestilo za vložek tihe družbe s strani dežele Hessen temeljiti na nadomestilu za osnovni kapital, saj bi vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu tako nadomestilo zahteval na podlagi podobnosti vložka z osnovnim kapitalom in konkretno strukturo tveganja.
The BdB gives an analysis here, based on a list of criteria, of why in its opinion the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen was, in economic and legal terms, comparable with share capital and not with silent partnership contributions observed on the market.
BdB pri tem na podlagi seznama meril analizira, zakaj je po njegovem mnenju vložek tihe družbe s strani dežele Hessen v gospodarskem in pravnem smislu primerljiv z osnovnim kapitalom in ne z vložki tihe družbe, razvidnimi na trgu.
The BdB bases this view essentially on the fact that ‘normal’ silent partnership contributions are only of limited duration and can be withdrawn and, under the principles of the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, cannot be used for volumes above 15 % of core capital, whereas the silent partnership contribution of the Land of Hessen, like share capital, was of unlimited duration and allowed the 15 % limit to be exceeded.
Izhaja predvsem iz dejstva, da so „običajni“ vložki tihe družbe časovno omejeni in se lahko odpovedo, po načelih Baselskega odbora za bančni nadzor pa se ne morejo uporabljati za obsege, ki presegajo 15 % temeljnega kapitala, medtem ko je vložek tihe družbe s strani dežele Hessen kot osnovni kapital časovno neomejen in lahko preseže mejo 15 %.
Furthermore, it could not be deduced from an agreement on the junior-ranking nature of the assets that there was a lower risk for the investor, since the transferred capital represented an important part of the entire core capital, in some instances more than 50 %.
Poleg tega se iz sporazuma o podrejenosti sredstev ne more sklepati manjše tveganje za vlagatelja, saj vložen kapital predstavlja pomemben del celotnega temeljnega kapitala, v nekaterih primerih več kot 50 %.
This meant a much higher probability that the transferred capital would be called upon in the event of a loss, for which consequently a higher risk premium should be paid.
To pomeni veliko večjo verjetnost, da se bo vloženi kapital uporabil v primeru izgub, zato se mora izplačevati tudi večja premija tveganja.
The BdB also stated that, for banking supervisory purposes, silent partnership contributions were to be recognised only as lower tier 1 capital and hence, under the 1998 ‘Sydney Declaration’ of the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, could make up only 15 % of the necessary core capital ratio.
BdB še navaja, da se morajo vložki tihe družbe priznavati s strani bančnega nadzorstva le kot tako imenovan nižji kapital razreda 1 in lahko torej v skladu s „Sydneysko izjavo“ Baselskega odbora za bančni nadzor iz leta 1998 predstavljajo le še 15 % potrebnega deleža temeljnega kapitala.
Large-volume silent partnership contributions above this limit could not therefore be used.
Vložki tihe družbe velikega obsega, ki presegajo to mejo, se torej ne morejo uporabljati.
Lastly, the Deutsche Bank perpetuals referred to by Germany could not be taken as a criterion for the appropriate remuneration, since they all lay below the 15 % limit and hence would not have been alternatives for Helaba at the end of 1998.
Nazadnje pa perpetuali v lasti Deutsche Bank, ki jih je navedla Nemčija, ne morejo predstavljati merila za primerno nadomestilo, saj ne dosegajo meje 15 % in zato ne bi bili druga možnost za Helabo ob koncu leta 1998.