natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It estimated the cost of such insurance at EUR 51,3-64,1 million in the event of a sale of BB to GRAWE and at EUR 521,6 million in the event of a sale of BB to the Consortium.
Ocenila je, da bi bila cena takega zavarovanja med 51,3 in 64,1 milijona EUR pri prodaji banke BB družbi GRAWE in 521,6 milijona EUR pri prodaji banke BB konzorciju.
Morgan Stanley’s estimates were lower (EUR 354 million as at 12 May 2006), but were still said to support Austria’s findings.
Ocene družbe Morgan Stanley so bile nižje (354 milijonov EUR dne 12. maja 2006), vendar so menda še vedno podpirale ugotovitve Avstrije.
Austria did not submit any comments on the compatibility of the aid with the common market.
Avstrija ni predložila nobenih pripomb o združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom.
GRAWE argued that the measure, if considered to be State aid, should be found compatible with the common market in the light of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Družba GRAWE je trdila, da bi moral ukrep, če bi se obravnaval kot državna pomoč, veljati za združljivega s skupnim trgom glede na člen 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
The privatisation of BB was closely bound up with the earlier restructuring decision, according to which BB should continue to operate as a regional bank in the Province of Burgenland.
Privatizacija banke BB je bila tesno povezana s predhodno odločbo o prestrukturiranju, v skladu s katero bi morala banka BB še naprej delovati kot regionalna banka na Gradiščanskem.
Judging by its business plan, the Consortium as owner did not foresee such an orientation.
Sodeč po njegovem poslovnem načrtu, konzorcij kot lastnik ni predvideval take usmeritve.
This would additionally have endangered the proper implementation of the restructuring decision.
To bi še dodatno ogrozilo pravilno izvajanje Odločbe o prestrukturiranju.
LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
PRAVNA PRESOJA POMOČI
First of all, the Commission would recall that, according to Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, it must examine information from whatever source regarding alleged unlawful aid.
Komisija najprej opozarja, da mora v skladu s členom 10(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 preučiti informacije iz katerega koli vira v zvezi z domnevno nezakonito pomočjo.
Austria therefore assumes the existence of a margin of discretion which in reality the Commission does not enjoy, being bound by law to deal with a complaint such as that lodged by the Consortium.
Avstrija torej predvideva, da obstaja stopnja diskrecije, ki je Komisija v resnici nima, ker je zakonsko zavezana k obravnavi takih pritožb, kot jih je predložil konzorcij.
As GRAWE’s only competitor in the final stage of the tender procedure for acquiring BB, the Consortium is undoubtedly an ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) of the above-mentioned Regulation.
Kot edini tekmec družbe GRAWE v zadnji fazi razpisnega postopka za prevzem banke BB je konzorcij nedvomno „zainteresirana stranka“ po členu 1(h) zgoraj navedene uredbe.
Subsequent developments — such as press reports suggesting that the Consortium had abandoned its initial plans to buy the bank — have no influence on the Commission’s obligation to continue with its investigation.
Nadaljnji razvoj dogodkov – kot so tiskovna poročila, ki namigujejo na to, da je konzorcij opustil prvotne načrte za nakup banke – ne vplivajo na obveznost Komisije, da nadaljuje svojo preiskavo.
In this respect the Commission would point out that the Consortium has not withdrawn its complaint [30].
V zvezi s tem Komisija poudarja, da konzorcij ni umaknil svoje pritožbe [30].
The Commission would point out that the national court decisions referred to by Austria neither predefine nor limit its competence to assess the case under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty.
Komisija poudarja, da odločbe nacionalnega sodišča, na katere se sklicuje Avstrija, ne določajo vnaprej ali omejujejo njene pristojnosti za ocenjevanje zadeve v skladu s členoma 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES.
In this respect, the Commission would also note that the outcome of none of the decisions it was provided with is actually based on State aid law [31].
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja tudi, da izid nobene od odločb, ki so ji bile predložene, dejansko ne temelji na zakonodaji o državni pomoči [31].
Existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty
Obstoj državne pomoči po členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES
As provided in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
Kot je določeno v členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
The privatisation of BB has to fulfil all the criteria of this Article in order to qualify as State aid.
Privatizacija banke BB mora izpolnjevati vsa merila tega člena, da bi štela za državno pomoč.
State aid in the context of privatisation – the legal framework
Državna pomoč v okviru privatizacije – zakonski okvir
As set out in the opening decision, the Commission’s assessment in the context of a privatisation starts from a number of principles which are set out in the XXIIIrd Report on Competition Policy (herein after called ‘the Competition Report’) and subsequent practice [32].
Kot je navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, ocena Komisije v okviru privatizacije izhaja iz nekaterih načel, ki so določena v triindvajsetem poročilu o politiki konkurence (v nadaljnjem besedilu „poročilo o konkurenci“) in nadaljnji praksi [32].
One of the circumstances set out in the report which allows the Commission to assume, without further examination, that no State aid is involved is that the undertaking is sold to the highest bidder.
Ena od okoliščin, navedenih v poročilu, ki Komisiji omogoča, da brez nadaljnjega preučevanja sklene, da ne gre za državno pomoč, je, da se podjetje proda najboljšemu ponudniku.
However, it is evident in this case that BB has not been sold to the highest bidder.
Vendar pa je v tem primeru očitno, da banka BB ni bila prodana najboljšemu ponudniku.
This is sufficient in itself to justify the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure [33].
To je samo po sebi dovolj, da se upraviči odločitev o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave [33].
Another important element to consider in the privatisation context is the conditions attached to such a sale.
Še en pomemben element, ki ga je treba upoštevati v okviru privatizacije, so pogoji, povezani s tako prodajo.
In the opening decision, the Commission referred to the importance attached to this in the Competition Report when requiring, as a condition of accepting a privatisation to be free of aid, that ‘a competitive tender must be held that is open to all comers, transparent and not conditional on the performance of other acts such as the acquisition of assets other than those bid for or the continued operation of certain businesses’.
Komisija se je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka sklicevala na pomen, ki se pripisuje temu v Poročilu o konkurenci, pri čemer se kot pogoj za to, da se sprejme, da pri privatizaciji ni pomoči, zahteva, da „je treba opraviti razpis za zbiranje ponudb, ki je odprt za vse sodelujoče, pregleden in ni pogojen z opravljanjem drugih dejanj, kot je pridobitev sredstev, razen tistih, ki so predmet ponudbe, ali nadaljnje opravljanje nekaterih dejavnosti“.
The Commission also pointed to its subsequent Stardust Marine decision, in which it further emphasised the importance of the ‘non-discriminatory’ character of the procedure [34].
Komisija je opozorila tudi na svojo poznejšo odločbo Stardust Marine, v kateri je še poudarila pomen „nediskriminacijskega“ značaja postopka [34].
In line with the Communication on State aid in sales of land and buildings by public authorities [35] (hereinafter called ‘the Communication on sales of land’), the Commission now takes the approach that conditions in principle can be imposed, if all potential buyers would have to, and be able to, meet that obligation, irrespective of the nature of the buyer’s business [36].
V skladu s Sporočilom o elementih državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti [35] (v nadaljnjem besedilu „Sporočilo o prodaji zemljišč“) Komisija zdaj zagovarja pristop, da se pogoji načelno lahko postavijo, če bi morali to obveznost izpolnjevati in bi jo lahko izpolnjevali vsi morebitni kupci ne glede na njihovo vrsto dejavnosti [36].
In this context, the Commission had noted that the selection criteria chosen for the sale of the bank could imply conditions and have to be evaluated as such (see paragraphs 141-143 below for details).
V zvezi s tem je Komisija ugotovila, da bi lahko izbirna merila, določena za prodajo banke, vključevala pogoje in bi jih bilo treba ocenjevati kot taka (za podrobnosti glej spodnje odstavke 141–143).
During the formal investigation procedure, Austria seemed to proceed, firstly, from the assumption that the Communication on sales of land can be directly applied to the privatisation of an undertaking and, secondly, Austria seemed to assume that a potentially faulty tender procedure could be overcome by falling back on prior independent evaluations which had been carried out in the context of the privatisation of BB.
Zdi se, da je Avstrija med formalnim postopkom preiskave, prvič, izhajala iz domneve, da se lahko Sporočilo o prodaji zemljišč neposredno uporablja za privatizacijo podjetja, in, drugič, da je Avstrija domnevala, da se lahko morebitni nepravilni razpisni postopek premosti z opiranjem na predhodne neodvisne ocene, ki so bile opravljene v okviru privatizacije banke BB.
Austria even proposed to commission a new study on the market value of BB.
Avstrija je celo predlagala, naj se naroči izdelava nove študije o tržni vrednosti banke BB.
The specific relevance of the conditions attached to the transaction is considered in paragraphs 141-143.
Svojevrstna pomembnost pogojev, povezanih s transakcijo, je obravnavana v odstavkih od 141 do 143.
As a general observation on the first point, however, it has to be noted that it is necessary to distinguish between the rules as regards privatisations and the rules concerning the sale of land and buildings.
Vendar je treba kot splošno pripombo v zvezi s prvo točko navesti, da je treba razlikovati med pravili, kar zadeva privatizacijo, in pravili v zvezi s prodajo zemljišč in objektov.
While not imposing a call for tenders as the only possible procedure for a privatisation, the Competition Report explicitly refers to privatisations and provides guidance on the prerequisites of a procedure ensuring that privatisation does not entail State aid.
V Poročilu o konkurenci javni razpis sicer ni predpisan kot edini mogoči postopek za privatizacijo, vendar so privatizacije izrecno navedene, vsebuje pa tudi navodila o prvih pogojih za postopek, da se zagotovi, da privatizacija ne povzroči državne pomoči.
The Competition Report does not state that an independent evaluation of the entity to be privatised, carried out before the sale, would be sufficient to establish that a sale at that price would then be considered automatically as being free of aid.
V poročilu o konkurenci ni navedeno, da bi lahko neodvisna ocena podjetja, ki bo privatizirano, opravljena pred prodajo, zadostovala za ugotovitev, da bi se prodaja po tej ceni samodejno obravnavala, kot da ne vključuje pomoči.
This is particularly evident where there has in fact been a bidding process.
To je še zlasti očitno takrat, ko je bil dejansko opravljen ponudbeni postopek.
The possibility of establishing the market price by evaluation is only mentioned in the Communication on sales of land as a means of establishing the market price in the absence of a bidding procedure.
Možnost ugotavljanja tržne cene z oceno je v Sporočilu o prodaji zemljišč navedena samo kot sredstvo za ugotavljanje tržne cene, če ponudbenega postopka ni.
Even in the case of a land sale, it follows from the terms and the structure of the Communication on sales of land that a Member State cannot justify selling to a person other than the highest bidder by reference to an evaluation.
Tudi pri prodaji zemljišča sledi iz pogojev in zgradbe Sporočila o prodaji zemljišč, da država članica ne more upravičiti prodaje drugi osebi kot najboljšemu ponudniku s sklicevanjem na oceno.
In the case of the sale of land as in the case of a privatisation, a bidding procedure must be considered to result in a market price being established.
Pri prodaji zemljišča kot pri privatizaciji je treba ponudbeni postopek obravnavati, kot da je njegova posledica določitev tržne cene.
However, the Commission is of the opinion that this is not the situation in this case, even supposing — for the sake of argument — that Austria’s view on the ‘applicability’ of the Communication on sales of land could be endorsed.
Vendar pa Komisija meni, da v tej zadevi ni tako, tudi če se domneva – zavoljo utemeljitve – da bi bilo stališče Avstrije o „uporabi“ Sporočila o prodaji zemljišč odobreno.
It is true that the Communication on sales of land accepts both an open tender and an ex-ante evaluation as valid means of demonstrating the absence of State aid.
Res je, da je v Sporočilu o prodaji zemljišč navedeno, da sta javni razpis in predhodna ocena ustrezni sredstvi za dokazovanje odsotnosti državne pomoči.
However, this latter approach is a priori only admissible if the evaluation is carried out prior to the sale.
Vendar pa je drugi pristop a priori dopusten samo, če se ocena opravi pred prodajo.
Once the Province of Burgenland opted for an open tender which produced valid offers on the market, it would be inconsistent to accept any prior evaluation and to set aside higher offers, as suggested by Austria in the second point mentioned in paragraph 107.
Ko je Gradiščanska izbrala javni razpis, s katerim so bile pridobljene veljavne ponudbe na trgu, bi bilo neskladno sprejeti kakršno koli predhodno oceno in razveljaviti višje ponudbe, kot je to predlagala Avstrija v drugi točki, navedeni v odstavku 107.
The proposal of Austria would only need to be considered if the outcome of the tender procedure needed to be set aside owing to the absence of an open, transparent and unconditional tender.
Predlog Avstrije bi bilo treba upoštevati samo, če bi bilo treba izid razpisnega postopka razveljaviti, ker ne bi bilo odprtega in preglednega razpisa brez pogojev.
In this respect, the Commission considers that the tender produced two valid offers, although the Commission cannot fully exclude that the offers might even have been higher had the conditions not been applied to the sale (the impact of the conditions will be discussed in greater detail in paragraphs 141-143).
V zvezi s tem Komisija meni, da je razpis prinesel dve veljavni ponudbi, čeprav ne more popolnoma izključiti možnosti, da bi ponudbe lahko bile celo višje, če za prodajo ne bi veljali pogoji (vpliv pogojev bo podrobneje obravnavan v odstavkih od 141 do 143).
In the presence of both independent evaluations and a higher binding offer to buy BB, it is clearly the latter which gives a better proxy of the market value of the sales project, since it reflects not merely a hypothetical assessment, but an actual offer.
Če obstajajo neodvisne ocene in višja obvezujoča ponudba za nakup banke BB, je jasno, da slednja zagotavlja boljši približek tržne vrednosti prodajnega projekta, ker ne izraža samo domnevne ocene, ampak dejansko ponudbo.
Based on this, any prior evaluation of the value of BB presented by Austria has become irrelevant for the assessment of this case [37].
Na podlagi tega postane kakršna koli ocena vrednosti banke BB, ki jo je predstavila Avstrija, nepomembna za oceno te zadeve [37].
Furthermore, an ex-post evaluation, as proposed by Austria, is of no relevance in the presence of this tender and the valid offers it produced.
Poleg tega naknadna ocena, kot jo je predlagala Avstrija, ni pomembna v prisotnosti tega razpisa in veljavnih ponudb, ki so nastale na njegovi podlagi.
In view of the conditions applied, the Commission notes also that, even if the company was sold to the highest bidder for a price significantly higher than its estimated value, there may still be State aid involved if the price the private investor paid is lower than it would have been in the absence of such conditions [38].
Glede na uporabljene pogoje Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da bi lahko kljub temu šlo za državno pomoč, čeprav je bila družba prodana najboljšemu ponudniku za bistveno višjo ceno od ocenjene vrednosti, če je cena, ki jo je plačal zasebni vlagatelj, nižja, kot bi bila, če takih pogojev ne bi bilo [38].
In conclusion, the Commission has to assess the privatisation of BB in the light of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, without reference to the Communication on sales of land or the Competition Report, given the fact that the presumption ‘free of aid’ according to the latter does not apply.
Komisija mora torej oceniti privatizacijo banke BB glede na člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES, brez sklicevanja na Sporočilo o prodaji zemljišč ali Poročilo o konkurenci, glede na to, da se domneva „brez pomoči“ v skladu s slednjim ne uporablja.
The Province of Burgenland is one of nine Austrian federal states.
Gradiščanska je ena od devetih avstrijskih zveznih dežel.
The resources of the Province of Burgenland can in principle be considered as ‘granted by a Member State or through state resources’ within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Sredstva Gradiščanske se lahko načelno obravnavajo kot „pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev“ po členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Furthermore, the Commission notes GRAWE’s cross-border and international activities, so that any advantage from state resources would affect competition in the banking sector and have an impact on intra-Community trade [39].
Komisija poleg tega opozarja na čezmejne in mednarodne dejavnosti družbe GRAWE, zaradi česar bi kakršna koli prednost zaradi državnih sredstev vplivala na konkurenco v bančnem sektorju in trgovino v Skupnosti [39].
However, the sale of BB to GRAWE only involves State aid if the Province of Burgenland did not behave like a market economy operator, thus providing a selective advantage to the buyer.
Vendar pa prodaja banke BB družbi GRAWE vključuje državno pomoč, samo če se Gradiščanska ne bi vedla kot akter pod tržnimi pogoji, s čimer bi kupcu omogočila selektivno prednost.
This would be the case if the Province of Burgenland did not behave like a private seller and accepted a sales price below the market value of BB.
Tako bi bilo, če se Gradiščanska ne bi vedla kot zasebni prodajalec in bi sprejela prodajno ceno, nižjo od tržne vrednosti banke BB.
In assessing this question, the Commission applies the ‘private vendor test’.
Pri presoji tega vprašanja Komisija uporablja „preizkus zasebnega prodajalca“.
In applying this principle, it is necessary to evaluate the actual tender procedure and the offers it produced in order to find whether and to what extent an advantage has been granted to GRAWE.
Pri uporabi tega načela je treba oceniti dejanski razpisni postopek in ponudbe, ki so bile z njim pridobljene, da se ugotovi, ali je bila družbi GRAWE dodeljena prednost in v kolikšnem obsegu.
In principle, there are two elements here which could be the source of an advantage.
Načelno sta tukaj dva elementa, ki bi lahko bila vir prednosti.
First, selling the company to the second highest bidder, and second, the influence of the conditions on the value of the company to all bidders.
Prvič, prodaja družbe drugemu najboljšemu ponudniku in, drugič, vpliv pogojev na vrednost družbe za vse ponudnike.
The Province of Burgenland was confronted with a bid by the Consortium which at face value outweighed the offer of GRAWE by EUR 54,7 million. A private market operator might nevertheless exceptionally accept the lower bid if:
Gradiščanski je konzorcij predložil ponudbo, ki je po nominalni vrednosti presegala ponudbo družbe GRAWE za 54,7 milijona EUR. Zasebni akter na trgu bi sicer izjemoma lahko sprejel nižjo ponudbo:
first, it was obvious that the sale to the highest bidder was not realisable; and
prvič, če bi bilo očitno, da prodaja boljšemu ponudniku ni izvedljiva; in
second, it was justified in taking into account factors other than price.
drugič, če bi bilo to upravičeno ob upoštevanju različnih dejavnikov od cene.
Although the successful bid was at face value not the highest one, this is not in itself irrefutable evidence of aid.
Čeprav uspešna ponudba po nominalni vrednosti ni bila najvišja, to samo po sebi ni neizpodbiten dokaz za pomoč.
The concept of the ‘highest bid’ can be interpreted more broadly to take differences in off-balance-sheet risks between bids into account [40].
Načelo „najvišje ponudbe“ se lahko razlaga širše, da bi se upoštevale razlike v zunajbilančnih tveganjih med ponudbami [40].
The first aspect depends essentially on whether the Province of Burgenland could count on receiving payment of the purchase price, which is generally known as transaction security (first element) and whether the Consortium could be expected to obtain the necessary permission from the Financial Market Authority (or any other authority involved in the deal) (second element).
Prvi vidik je pravzaprav odvisen od tega, ali bi se Gradiščanska lahko zanesla na to, da bo prejela plačilo nakupne cene, kar je na splošno znano kot varnost transakcije (prvi element), in ali bi po pričakovanjih konzorcij lahko pridobil potrebno dovoljenje organa za finančni trg (ali drugega organa, vpletenega v posel) (drugi element).
The second aspect depends on whether other factors are present, such as guarantees or off-balance-sheet risks, which can be taken into account by the public seller, the Province of Burgenland, and which would outweigh the price difference with the highest bid.
Drugi vidik je odvisen od tega, ali obstajajo drugi dejavniki, kot so garancije ali zunajbilančna tveganja, ki jih lahko upošteva javni prodajalec, Gradiščanska, in bi prevladali nad razliko v ceni v primerjavi z najvišjo ponudbo.
The first element of the first aspect: transaction security
Prvi element prvega vidika: varnost transakcije
Concerning transaction security as the first element of the first aspect, the Commission stresses for reasons of clarity that this refers to the ability of the buyer to pay the purchase price and — in this context — nothing more [41].
Komisija v zvezi z varnostjo transakcije kot prvega elementa prvega vidika zaradi jasnosti poudarja, da se to nanaša na zmožnost kupca, da plača nakupno ceno in – v tem okviru – nič drugega [41].
The Commission agrees with Austria that this is a vital element of the sales process.
Komisija se strinja z Avstrijo, da je to bistven element prodajnega postopka.
No private vendor could be expected to choose a buyer when there was a realistic possibility that the purchase price would not be paid.
Od nobenega zasebnega prodajalca se ne pričakuje, da bi izbral kupca, kadar obstajajo realne možnosti, da nakupna cena ne bo plačana.
In the whole course of the procedure, Austria did not argue that the Consortium would not be capable of paying the purchase price.
Med celotnim postopkom Avstrija ni trdila, da konzorcij ne bi bil sposoben plačati nakupne cene.
The second element of the first aspect: approval of the FMA
Drugi element prvega vidika: odobritev organa za finančni trg
It is also evident that a private market seller would not choose a buyer who would in all probability not obtain the necessary permission from the FMA (or any other authority involved in the deal).
Očitno je tudi, da zasebni prodajalec na trgu ne bi izbral kupca, ki najverjetneje ne bi pridobil potrebnega dovoljenja organa za finančni trg (ali drugega organa, vpletenega v posel).