natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the price payable under the Put Option is set by way of a complex calculation, including variables which were uncertain at the time of the agreement of the measures, uncertain at the time accession and which would continue to change over time.
Poleg tega se cena, ki naj bi se plačala na podlagi prodajne opcije, določi z zapletenim izračunom, ki vključuje spremenljivke, ki so bile ob določitvi ukrepov negotove, negotove pa so bile tudi ob pristopu in se bodo sčasoma še spreminjale.
Therefore the price payable under the Put Option would depend on imponderables subject to future developments and could be determined only at a specific date after accession.
Zato bi bila cena, ki naj bi se plačala na podlagi prodajne opcije, odvisna od nepredvidljivih okoliščin, na katere bo vplival prihodnji potek dogodkov, in bi se lahko določila šele na določeni dan po pristopu.
In view of the foregoing, the potential exposure of the CNB is not sufficiently defined by way of a formula.
Glede na to morebitna izpostavljenost ČNB na podlagi formule ni dovolj podrobno opredeljena.
In consequence of all this, the Put Option is considered applicable after accession.
Zato menimo, da se prodajna opcija uporablja po pristopu.
Conclusions on applicability after
Sklepne ugotovitve glede uporabe po
Accordingly, the Commission confirms its decision of 14 July 2004 concerning the applicability after of the measures on which it opened the formal investigation procedure and considers that all these measures are applicable after accession.
V skladu z navedenim Komisija potrjuje svojo odločbo z dne 14. julija 2006 o uporabi ukrepov po, za katere je sprožila formalni postopek preiskave, in meni, da se vsi ti ukrepi uporabljajo po pristopu.
These are the Warranties and Indemnities listed in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well as the Put Option.
To so jamstva in garancije iz razpredelnic 1, 2, 3 in 4 ter prodajna opcija.
State aid character
Značaj državne pomoči
Article 87(1) EC Treaty declares any aid granted through State resources to specific undertakings incompatible with the common market if such aid distorts or threatens to distort competition in so far as it affects trade between Member States.
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES določa, da je vsaka pomoč, dodeljena iz državnih sredstev določenim podjetjem, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, če taka pomoč izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in če vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Through the Indemnity Agreement the CNB, as a public entity, guarantees for the commitments made by AGB in the Warranty Agreement vis-à-vis GECB and GECIH.
S Sporazumom o garanciji ČNB kot oseba javnega prava jamči za obveznosti, ki jih je banka AGB s sklenitvijo Dogovora o jamstvih prevzela do banke GECB in korporacije GECIH.
Therefore the guarantee arrangements involve State resources.
Zato dogovori o jamstvih vključujejo državna sredstva.
Also with respect to the Put Option State resources are involved since the CNB committed itself to acquire all shares in GECB in case that GECIH exercises the Put Option.
Državna sredstva so vključena tudi pri prodajni opciji, saj se je ČNB zavezala, da bo kupila vse delnice v GECB, če bo GECIH izvršila prodajno opcijo.
The Czech Republic and GECB argue that the measures do not constitute aid given that it would have been more costly for the State to liquidate the bank than to sell it.
Češka republika in banka GECB trdita, da ukrepi ne pomenijo pomoči, ker bi bila likvidacija banke za državo dražja od njene prodaje.
In particular, the CNB would have been obliged under the Depositors’ Guarantee, referred to in recital (14), to reimburse AGB’s creditors.
ČNB bi morala zlasti v skladu z Jamstvom za vlagatelje iz uvodne izjave 14 poplačati upnike AGB.
If AGB had not been restructured, the Czech State would have had to bear high costs under that guarantee.
Če se AGB ne bi prestrukturiralo, bi morala Češka država prevzeti visoke stroške iz te garancije.
GECB also argues that the CNB has to be seen as de facto owner of AGB since under Czech law the forced administrator is appointed by and must be an employee of the CNB.
Banka GECB tudi trdi, da je treba na ČNB gledati kot na dejanskega lastnika AGB, saj v skladu s češko zakonodajo izrednega upravitelja imenuje in zaposluje ČNB.
Apart from that, the guarantee arrangements would represent a standard commercial practice that was reflected in the price paid for AGB1.
Poleg tega naj bi dogovori o jamstvih pomenili običajno poslovno prakso, ki se je izrazila v ceni, plačani za AGB1.
The Commission considers that in acting as a forced administrator the CNB cannot be considered a de facto owner of the bank.
Po mnenju Komisije se ČNB, ki nastopa kot izredni upravitelj, ne more šteti za dejanskega lastnika banke.
Rather, AGB in forced administration remained the owner of the banking business.
Banka AGB je pod izredno upravo ostala lastnik bančnega poslovanja.
A forced administrator may have the power to sell the bank but he is acting on behalf of the bank.
Izredni upravitelj ima lahko pooblastila za prodajo banke, vendar deluje v njenem imenu.
The CNB therefore acted to facilitate the sale of a private bank to another private bank.
ČNB je torej pomagala pri prodaji zasebne banke drugi zasebni banki.
The Commission does not consider that taking over the Depositors’ Guarantee by the purchaser could be a sufficient ground for a rational market operator to enter into the Warranties and Indemnities and the Put Option.
Po mnenju Komisije kupčev prevzem jamstev za vlagatelje ne more biti zadosten razlog, da razumen udeleženec na trgu prevzame jamstva in garancije ter prodajno opcijo.
The Czech Republic itself stated explicitly in the Assessment provided along with the notification that ‘the CNB never expected to pay under the Guarantee’.
Češka republika je v oceni, ki jo je priložila priglasitvi, izrecno navedla, „da ČNB ni nikoli pričakovala, da bo morala izplačati odškodnine v skladu z garancijo“.
The measure would have been intended only for the ‘psychological’ purpose of calming the public.
Namen ukrepa naj bi bil samo „psihološke narave“ za pomiritev javnosti.
Indeed, the Czech Republic has stated that the Depositors’ Guarantee that was granted by the CNB on 17 September 1996 was never invoked and by the time AGB1 was sold to GECB it must have seemed very unlikely that claims could be brought under the Depositor’s Guarantee.
Res pa je Češka republika navedla, da se Jamstva za vlagatelje, ki jih je ČNB izdala 17. septembra 1996, niso nikoli uveljavljala in da je bilo ob prodaji banke AGB1 banki GECB zelo malo verjetno, da bi se lahko vložili zahtevki na podlagi Jamstva za vlagatelje.
With respect to the Put Option the Czech Republic and GECB argue that in any case it would not represent an actual advantage but only could become an advantage once it is exercised.
V zvezi s prodajno opcijo Češka republika in GECB trdita, da nikakor ne pomeni dejanske prednosti; prednost bi lahko postala šele po izvršitvi.
However, the Commission considers that the Put Option already from the day it was granted involves a right with a value to GECB.
Po mnenju Komisije pa prodajna opcija vključuje pravico z določeno vrednostjo za GECB že od dneva njene odobritve.
Similarly to a guarantee the advantage of a Put Option arises not only when the Put Option is exercised (the guarantee is invoked) but already with the granting of the measure [16].
Podobno kot pri jamstvih se tudi pri prodajni opciji prednost ne pojavi šele tedaj, ko se ta izvrši (uveljavlja jamstvo), temveč že ob odobritvi ukrepa [16].
The parties to the Indemnity Agreement were the CNB, GECB and GECIH.
Stranke Sporazuma o garanciji so bile ČNB, GECB in GECIH.
The Parties to the Put Option Deed were CNB and GECIH.
Stranki Pogodbe o prodajni opciji pa ČNB in GECIH.
GECB, GECIH as well as AGB as the seller of AGB1 and the banking business of AGB1 owned by AGB before 22 June 1998 and by GECB afterwards are therefore the potential beneficiaries of the measures.
GECB, GECIH in AGB kot prodajalka AGB1 in bančnega poslovanja AGB1, katerega lastnica je bila pred 22. junijem 1998 AGB in potem GECB, so zato morebitne upravičenke ukrepov.
Advantage to AGB
Prednost za AGB
Even though AGB as the seller of AGB1 was not a party to the two agreements, it benefited from them since they allowed it to sell its banking business – to sell it at all or at least for a purchase price that was higher than the one it could have achieved without the guarantees and the Put Option provided by the CNB.
Čeprav AGB kot prodajalka AGB1 ni bila stranka obeh sporazumov, je imela od njih koristi, saj sta ji omogočila prodajo svojega bančnega poslovanja – prodajo na sploh ali vsaj po nakupni ceni, višji od cene, ki bi jo dosegla brez jamstev in prodajne opcije, ki jih je odobrila ČNB.
AGB did not pay any remuneration and the CNB was in no way obliged vis-à-vis the parties to enter into the Indemnity Agreement and the Put Option Deed.
AGB ni izvršila nobenih izplačil in ČNB ni imela do strank nobene obveznosti, da sklene Sporazum o garanciji in Pogodbo o prodajni opciji.
Rather, in the light of the banking crisis in the Czech Republic, the purpose of the CNB in providing the measures was to restructure AGB’s banking business in order to avoid negative consequences for the whole Czech economy.
Glede na krizo bančništva v Češki republiki je bil namen ČNB zagotoviti ukrepe za prestrukturiranje bančnega poslovanja AGB, da se preprečijo negativne posledice za celotno češko gospodarstvo.
The fact that certain guarantees and indemnities may be standard in sale and purchase agreements does not alter the advantageous nature of these measures.
Dejstvo, da so nekatera jamstva in garancije standardni v kupoprodajnih pogodbah, ne spremeni koristnega značaja teh ukrepov.
The Deed of Warranties between the seller AGB and the purchaser GECB/GECIH may be of a standard nature.
Dogovor o jamstvih med prodajalcem AGB in kupcem GECB/GECIH je morda res standarden.
The Indemnity Agreement, which is a wide-ranging State counter-guarantee, and the Put Option provided to ease the sale of a private business are, however, not a standard practice and involve financial benefits for the seller and the business sold.
Vendar pa Sporazum o garanciji, ki je široko posredno jamstvo države, in prodajna opcija, odobrena za lažjo prodajo zasebnega podjetja, nista običajna praksa ter vključujeta finančne koristi za prodajalca in prodano podjetje.
With respect to the Put Option, the Czech Republic and GECB argue that its particular nature would not allow an assessment of the State aid character now, since the purchase price for which GECB may be sold to CNB will only be determined in the future.
V zvezi s prodajno opcijo pa Češka republika in GECB trdita, da naj zdaj njen poseben značaj ne bi omogočal ocene značaja državne pomoči, ker bo cena, po kateri se bo GECB lahko prodala ČNB, določena šele v prihodnje.
This is however merely a matter of quantification and does not detract from the fact that the Put Option represented an immediate financial advantage for AGB.
Tu gre predvsem za vprašanje kvantifikacije in ne odvrača od dejstva, da je prodajna opcija za AGB pomenila neposredno finančno prednost.
It is not necessary to exactly quantify this advantage which in fact is the difference of the purchase price paid by GECB and the price AGB would have achieved for the sale of AGB1’s banking business without the Put Option given by the CNB.
Te prednosti ni treba natančno izračunati, saj dejansko pomeni razliko med nakupno ceno, ki jo je plačala GECB, in ceno, ki bi jo AGB dosegla za prodajo bančnega poslovanja AGB1, če ČNB ne bi odobrila prodajne opcije.
Advantage to the banking business of AGB1 and GECB and GECIH
Prednost za bančno poslovanje AGB1, GECB in GECIH
Concerning AGB’s banking business, AGB1, that was sold in an asset deal to GECB, the Commission considers the guarantee arrangements and the Put Option as beneficial since they allowed AGB1’s business to continue.
Glede bančnega poslovanja AGB, prodaje AGB1 banki GECB v okviru nakupa premoženja, Komisija meni, da so bili dogovori o jamstvih in prodajna opcija zanj koristni, saj so omogočili nadaljevanje poslovanja AGB1.
The fact that AGB1’s banking business was sold in an open and unconditional tender procedure to GECB did not remove the advantages since the purchase price for AGB1 was negative in that the value of the aid measures granted to AGB’s banking business exceeded the amount realised by its sale.
Dejstvo, da je bilo bančno poslovanje AGB1 banki GECB prodano na podlagi odprtega in brezpogojnega postopka javnega razpisa, ne ukinja teh prednosti, ker je bila nakupna cena za AGB1 negativna, saj je vrednost ukrepov pomoči, odobrenih za bančno poslovanje AGB, presegla znesek, ki je bil ustvarjen z njeno prodajo.
The purchase price of CZK 304 million did not compensate the CNB for the measure granted in the course of the restructuring since the CNB is not AGB1’s owner and the purchase price was not paid to the CNB but to the seller (AGB).
Nakupna cena v višini 304 milijone CZK za ČNB ni pomenila kompenzacije za ukrep, odobren med prestrukturiranjem, ker ČNB ni lastnik AGB1 in nakupna cena ni bila plačana ČNB, temveč prodajalcu (AGB).
Also, the Counter Indemnity by which GECIH assumed CNB’s obligations under the Depositors’ Guarantee did not offset the measures granted earlier by CNB to AGB.
Prav tako tudi posredno jamstvo, s katerim je GECIH prevzela obveznosti ČNB v skladu z Jamstvom za vlagatelje, ni nadomestilo ukrepov, ki jih je predhodno odobrila ČNB banki AGB.
In the Indemnity Agreement, GECB agreed to assume CNB’s liabilities under the Depositors’ Guarantee.
V Sporazumu o garanciji GECB soglaša, da prevzame obveznosti ČNB v skladu z Jamstvom za vlagatelje.
The Depositors’ Guarantee is a guarantee that was issued by CNB upon the imposition of forced administration on AGB on 17 September 1996 towards the creditors and depositors of AGB in order to avoid a run on the bank.
Jamstvo za vlagatelje je jamstvo, ki ga je izdala ČNB po uvedbi izredne uprave v AGB dne 17. septembra 1996 za upnike in vlagatelje AGB, da bi zaustavila umik sredstev iz banke.
The measure was notified by the Czech Republic within the interim mechanism procedure and was declared not being applicable after accession in the Commission Decision of 14 July 2004.
Ukrep je Češka republika priglasila v okviru postopka začasnega mehanizma, Komisija pa je v svoji odločbi z dne 14. julija 2004 navedla, da se po pristopu ni uporabljal.
The Commission considers that the assumption of CNB’s liabilities under the Depositors Guarantee does not compensate the CNB for the granting of the Warranties and Indemnities and the Put Option since the obligations under the Depositors’ Guarantee revert to the CNB in the event that GECIH exercises the Put Option.
Po mnenju Komisije ČNB s prevzemom obveznosti v skladu z Jamstvi za vlagatelje ni nadomestila izdajo jamstev in garancij ter prodajne opcije, saj se obveznosti iz Jamstva za vlagatelje ponovno prenesejo nanjo, če GECIH izvrši prodajno opcijo.
The Commission therefore considers that GECIH’s commitment cannot be considered as full assumption of CNB’s obligations under the Depositors’ Guarantee.
Zato Komisija meni, da se obveznost GECIH ne more šteti za popoln prevzem obveznosti ČNB iz Jamstva za vlagatelje.
Moreover, by the time of the sale of AGB1 in June 1998 CNB’s potential financial exposure resulting from the Depositors’ Guarantee (granted on 17 September 1996) was negligible since the likelihood of a run on the bank was minimal since the imposition of forced administration on AGB dated back already almost two years.
Do prodaje AGB1 junija 1998 je bila morebitna finančna izpostavljenost ČNB na podlagi Jamstva za vlagatelje (izdanega 17. septembra 1996) zanemarljiva, ker je bila verjetnost umika sredstev iz banke zelo majhna, saj je bila izredna uprava v AGB uvedena že skoraj dve leti prej.
The Czech Republic itself stated in the notification that the CNB never expected to make any payments under the Depositors’ Guarantee.
Češka republika je v priglasitvi že sama navedla, da ČNB ni nikoli pričakovala, da bo morala izplačati odškodnine v skladu z Jamstvom za vlagatelje.
In fact, up to the date GECB acquired the business of AGB1, no payments had been made under the Depositors’ Guarantee.
Dejansko do datuma, ko je GECB kupila poslovanje AGB1, na podlagi Jamstva za vlagatelje ni bilo izplačil.
As there was only a theoretical exposure of the CNB, GECB cannot reasonably argue that they compensated the CNB by way of taking over the obligations under the Depositors’ Guarantee in exchange for the Warranties and Indemnities and the Put Option.
Ker je bila ČNB izpostavljena samo teoretično, GECB ne more upravičeno trditi, da so ČNB s prevzemom obveznosti iz Jamstev za vlagatelje nadomestili izdajo jamstev in garancij ter prodajne opcije.
The maximum amounts of the Warranties and Indemnities on which the Commission opened proceedings alone sum up to CZK 126000 million and thus by far exceed any theoretical financial exposure under the Depositors’ Guarantee and also the purchase price of CZK 304 million.
Samo najvišji zneski jamstev in garancij, za katere je Komisija sprožila postopek, znašajo 126000 milijonov CZK, kar daleč presega teoretično izpostavljenost na podlagi Jamstva za vlagatelje in tudi nakupno ceno v znesku 304 milijone CZK.
The Court clarified in Germany v Commission [17] that an open transparent and unconditional tender procedure does not satisfy the private market investor test and therefore entailed State aid where a business is sold at a negative price and it would have cost less to liquidate that business.
Sodišče je v sodbi Nemčija proti Komisiji [17] pojasnilo, da odprt, pregleden in brezpogojen postopek javnega razpisa ne izpolnjuje pogojev za preizkus načela zasebnega vlagatelja v tržno gospodarstvo in zato pomeni državno pomoč, če se podjetje proda po negativni ceni in če bi ga bilo ceneje likvidirati.
The Commission therefore considers that in the present case, the sale by its owners of AGB1’s banking business for their own account did not remove the economic advantages; those directly in issue here were conferred to GECB on the sale of that business.
Zato Komisija meni, da v tem primeru lastniki s prodajo bančnega poslovanja AGB1 za lasten račun niso ukinili gospodarskih prednosti; tiste, ki se tukaj neposredno obravnavajo, so bile s prodajo zadevnega podjetja prenesene na GECB.
GECB and GECIH benefited from the Indemnity Agreement and the Put Option Deed since they obtained rights under those agreements; they obtained these rights for the purpose of allowing a restructuring of AGB1.
GECB in GECIH sta imeli koristi od Sporazuma o garanciji in Pogodbe o prodajni opciji, saj sta v skladu z njima pridobili pravice; te pravice sta pridobili, da se je omogočilo prestrukturiranje AGB1.
Result
Sklepne ugotovitve
Accordingly, the Warranties and Indemnities and the Put Option involve economic advantages for the seller (AGB) and GECB and its parent company GECIH for the operation of the banking business of AGB1.
Zato jamstva in garancije ter prodajna opcija vključujejo gospodarske prednosti za prodajalca (banka AGB) ter banko GECB in njeno matično podjetje GECIH pri vodenju bančnega poslovanja AGB1.
GECB argues that the Warranties and Indemnities and the Put Option were not selective within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC since they were available to all bidders for AGB1.
GECB trdi, da jamstva in garancije ter prodajna opcija niso bili selektivni v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, saj so bili na voljo vsem ponudnikom za AGB1.
This argument cannot be accepted; the measures in question were specifically limited to the buyer of AGB1 and are thereby selective in their very nature.
Ta argument je nesprejemljiv; sporni ukrepi so bili posebej omejeni na kupca AGB1 in so zato po svojem značaju selektivni.
Furthermore, the Indemnity Agreement and the Put Option Deed were individually negotiated after GECB had become the sole bidder for AGB1, the invitation to tender making no mention of the availability of State guarantees, far less that the same guarantees would be available to any bidder.
Poleg tega sta bila Sporazum o garanciji in Pogodba o prodajni opciji vsak posebej izpogajana šele potem, ko je GECB postala edini ponudnik za AGB1, javni razpis pa ne navaja razpoložljivosti državnih jamstev, kaj šele da bodo vsem ponudnikom na voljo enaka jamstva.
The measures are therefore selective.
Zato so ti ukrepi selektivni.
Distortive effects on competition and trade between Member States
Izkrivljajoči vplivi na konkurenco in trgovino med državami članicami
Before AGB entered into forced administration, it was one of the largest banks in the Czech Republic.
Preden je AGB prišla pod izredno upravo, je bila ena od največjih bank v Češki republiki.
In view of the fact that AGB is in the liquidation process there is no longer a distortion of competition in respect of the seller (AGB).
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je AGB v postopku likvidacije, prodajalec (AGB) nič več ne izkrivlja konkurence.
However, there is a distortion of competition in respect of the banking business of AGB1 that was sold to GECB.
Izkrivljanje konkurence pa obstaja pri bančnem poslovanju AGB1, ki je bila prodana GECB.
AGB1/GECB is active throughout the Czech Republic and belongs to the GE-group which is a global player.
AGB1/GECB posluje v vsej Češki republiki in pripada skupini GE-group, ki je globalni subjekt.
The Czech authorities themselves state that banks from the EU were looking closely at the Czech market for investment purposes at the relevant time.
Češki organi navajajo, da so banke iz EU ob ustreznem času pozorno spremljale češki trg zaradi morebitnih vlaganj.
If the banking business of AGB1 had gone into liquidation, other European and non–European banks would have been able to obtain the business GECB retained.
Če bi šlo bančno poslovanje AGB1 v likvidacijo, bi lahko druge evropske in neevropske banke pridobile poslovanje, ki ga je obdržala GECB.
In view of all this the Commission considers that the guarantee arrangements and the Put Option are capable of distorting competition and have an effect on the trade between the Member States [18].
Zato Komisija meni, da dogovori o jamstvih in prodajna opcija lahko izkrivljajo konkurenco in vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami [18].
In conclusion, all the elements of Article 87(1) EC being met, the parts of the Warranties and Indemnities and the Put Option which are applicable after accession constitute State aid within the meaning of the Treaty to GECB, for the purpose of it taking over the banking business of AGB1.
Sklepna ugotovitev se glasi, da ob tem da so izpolnjeni vsi elementi člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, tisti deli jamstev in garancij ter prodajne opcije, ki se uporabljajo po pristopu, pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu Pogodbe za GECB pri njenem prevzemu bančnega poslovanja AGB1.
COMPATIBILITY OF THE STATE AID
ZDRUŽLJIVOST DRŽAVNE POMOČI
Article 87(2)(b) and Article 87(3)(b) EC
Člena 87(2)(b) in 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES
Article 87(2) and (3) EC sets out the conditions according to which aid is compatible or may be considered compatible with the common market.
Člen 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe ES določa pogoje, pod katerimi je pomoč združljiva ali se lahko šteje za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
Contrary to what GECB argues, it is not possible to maintain that in the present case there existed exceptional occurrences or something ‘very close to a natural disaster’ pursuant to Article 87(2)(b) EC.
V nasprotju s stališčem GECB ni mogoče trditi, da gre v tem primeru za izredne dogodke ali nekaj „zelo podobnega naravni nesreči“ v skladu s členom 87(2)(b) Pogodbe ES.
A possible loss of confidence of the public in the banking system cannot be regarded as a ‘natural disaster’ within the meaning of that provision.
Možna izguba zaupanja javnosti v bančni sistem se ne more šteti za „naravno nesrečo“ v smislu navedene določbe.
Also, the notion of exceptional occurrences does not cover financial losses caused by commercial decisions of economic operators.
Tudi pojem izredni dogodki ne vključuje finančne izgube, ki jo povzročijo poslovne odločitve gospodarskih subjektov.