natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Austria argued that the FMA would never have authorized a sale of BB to the Consortium – not even if this bid had been the only offer.
Avstrija je trdila, da organ za finančni trg nikoli ne bi odobril prodaje banke BB konzorciju – tudi če bi bila ta ponudba edina.
According to Austria, GRAWE’s offer, even if it had not been the highest bid, had been the ‘best bid’.
Po trditvah Avstrije je bila ponudba družbe GRAWE „najboljša ponudba“, čeprav ni bila najvišja.
From a procedural point of view, the Commission does not dispute that the FMA was prohibited by Austrian law to carry out the so-called ‘fit & proper test’ based on Section 20 of the Banking Act in view of the two potential bidders; it is indeed a common requirement in any comparable procedure that a specific buyer has to be identified before regulatory approval can be given.
S postopkovnega vidika Komisija ne oporeka, da organ za finančni trg v skladu z avstrijsko zakonodajo ni smel opravljati tako imenovanega „preizkusa sposobnosti in primernosti“ na podlagi oddelka 20 Zakona o bančništvu glede na dva mogoča kupca; dejansko je v vseh primerljivih postopkih običajna zahteva, da je treba opredeliti posameznega kupca, preden se lahko opravi odobritev.
It is therefore coherent that the FMA rejected both the Consortium’s and GRAWE’s ‘applications’ for approval prior to the sales decision.
Zato je skladno, da je organ za finančni trg zavrnil „vlogi“ konzorcija in družbe GRAWE za odobritev pred odločitvijo o prodaji.
Based on Austrian law, the Commission also accepts that an ex-post statement by the FMA was not possible.
Na podlagi avstrijske zakonodaje Komisija tudi dopušča, da naknadna izjava organa za finančni trg ni bila mogoča.
The Commission notes, however, that the FMA, while providing factual information on its procedures or the earlier application of SLAV AG, never openly endorsed Austria’s views in that regard, but confirmed to the Commission that the outcome of its investigation had been ‘completely open’.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da organ za finančni trg, medtem ko je zagotovil informacije o dejstvih v zvezi s svojimi postopki ali predhodno vlogo družbe SLAV AG, ni nikoli odkrito potrdil stališč Avstrije v zvezi s tem, je pa Komisiji potrdil, da je bil izid njegove preiskave „popolnoma odprt“.
In this context, the Commission also notes that the FMA refrained from making general statements, independently of the case in point, on elements it would have considered crucial to its assessment — such as, for example, the existence of a buyer rating.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da se je organ za finančni trg, neodvisno od tega primera, vzdržal dajanja splošnih izjav o elementih, za katere meni, da so bistveni za njegovo oceno – kot je na primer, ali obstaja bonitetna ocena kupca.
There are therefore no elements whatsoever indicating that this or any other considerations advanced by Austria would have adversely influenced its assessment, let alone have led necessarily to a negative outcome.
Zato ni nobenih elementov, ki bi kazali, da bi ta premislek ali kateri drugi premislek, ki ga je navedla Avstrija, lahko negativno vplival na njegovo oceno ali celo nujno povzročil negativen izid.
In the absence of such statements by the FMA or other evidence, the Commission cannot accept Austria’s argument that the FMA would certainly have prohibited a deal with the Consortium.
Ker organ za finančni trg ni dal takih izjav in ker ni nobenih drugih dokazov, Komisija ne more sprejeti trditve Avstrije, da bi organ za finančni trg zagotovo prepovedal posel s konzorcijem.
Also, the mere length of the FMA procedure – less than three months for GRAWE, but up to one year for the Consortium — is not sufficient to disqualify the Consortium.
Tudi sama dolžina postopka organa za finančni trg – manj kot tri mesece za družbo GRAWE in skoraj eno leto za konzorcij – ne zadostuje za izločitev konzorcija.
Austria pointed out that BB would have suffered from prolonged uncertainty, ending up as a bank in difficulty.
Avstrija je poudarila, da bi banki BB škodovala dolgotrajna negotovost, ker bi zašla v težave.
However, neither in principle nor in concreto can the Commission accept this argument.
Vendar pa Komisija te trditve načelno in in concreto ne more sprejeti.
In principle, this would be tantamount to discriminating against any bidder outside the European Union — even maybe from another Member State, as this reasoning could equally be applied to any potential purchaser presently unknown to the FMA, i.e. any non-Austrian undertaking.
Načelno bi bilo to enakovredno diskriminaciji katerega koli ponudnika zunaj Evropske unije – morda celo iz druge države članice, ker bi se lahko ta argument enakovredno uporabil za katerega koli mogočega kupca, ki ga organ za finančni trg trenutno ne pozna, torej katero koli podjetje, ki ni avstrijsko.
As to the case in point, the Commission notes that BB was not in difficulty at the time of sale.
V zvezi s to zadevo Komisija ugotavlja, da banka BB v času prodaje ni bila v težavah.
As the sales procedures had been ongoing since 2003, the urgency is also not sufficiently explained.
Ker so postopki prodaje potekali že od leta 2003, nujnost tudi ni zadostno obrazložena.
In this context, the argument that GRAWE had put a time limit on its offer is also not acceptable, since this would afford numerous opportunities to influence tender procedures in a discriminatory fashion.
Glede na to tudi ni sprejemljiva trditev, da je družba GRAWE časovno omejila svojo ponudbo, saj bi to omogočilo številne priložnosti za diskriminacijsko vplivanje na razpisne postopke.
Referring to the Province of Burgenland’s own considerations in order to second-guess the FMA’s decision, the Commission also cannot accept Austria’s reference to an earlier application for a banking licence made by a predecessor of SLAV AG in 1994.
Ob sklicevanju na razmisleke Gradiščanske glede dvoma o odločitvi organa za finančni trg Komisija tudi ne more sprejeti sklicevanja Avstrije na predhodno vlogo za dovoljenje za opravljanje bančnih storitev, ki jo je vložil predhodnik družbe SLAV AG leta 1994.
The Commission would point out that the two situations are not comparable, even though the ‘fit & proper-test’ to be carried out in connection with the sale of BB is part of the — much wider — requirements of a full banking licence, as was applied for in the earlier case [42].
Komisija poudarja, da položaja nista primerljiva, čeprav je „preizkus sposobnosti in primernosti“, ki naj bi bil opravljen v zvezi s prodajo banke BB, del – precej obsežnejših – zahtev za dovoljenje za opravljanje vseh bančnih storitev, za katerega je bila vložena vloga v predhodnem primeru [42].
However, the ownership structure of the former applicant was quite different and the political situation in Ukraine has also changed considerably since.
Vendar pa je bila lastniška struktura predhodnega prosilca precej drugačna in medtem so se precej spremenile tudi politične razmere v Ukrajini.
In addition, the only reason put forward by Austria as to why permission was withheld — non-application of International Accounting Standards (IAS) by the fund owning the undertaking — seems to be of a purely formal nature and there was nothing to indicate that compliance with IAS was still an issue for the differently composed consortium at the time of the sale of BB.
Poleg tega se zdi edini razlog, ki ga je Avstrija navedla za zadržanje dovoljenja – to, da sklad, ki je imel v lasti podjetja, ni uporabljal mednarodnih računovodskih standardov – povsem formalen in nič ni kazalo na to, da je skladnost z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi še vedno pomenila težavo za drugače sestavljen konzorcij v obdobju prodaje banke BB.
As the FMA is legally bound to evaluate a new application in an unbiased manner, the Commission does not think that this earlier procedure relating to a different party would have had any influence if the Province of Burgenland had sold BB to the Consortium.
Ker je organ za finančni trg zakonsko zavezan, da nepristransko oceni novo vlogo, Komisija meni, da ta predhodni postopek v zvezi z drugo stranko ne bi imel nobenega vpliva, če bi Gradiščanska prodala banko BB konzorciju.
The Commission also has to reject the unsubstantiated claims which Austria has made in order to disqualify the Consortium as a credible buyer.
Komisija mora zavrniti tudi neutemeljene trditve, ki jih je Avstrija navedla, da bi izločila konzorcij kot verodostojnega kupca.
The Commission’s Decision needs to be based on facts.
Odločitev Komisije mora temeljiti na dejstvih.
This point concerns, first, the reference made by Austria to the second privatisation procedure, where, according to Austria, the FMA had implied that the sale to a Lithuania-based bank with a Russian owner would not have been permitted.
Prvič, ta točka se nanaša na sklicevanje Avstrije na drug postopek privatizacije, pri katerem je organ za finančni trg po navedbah Avstrije namignil, da prodaja banke s sedežem v Litvi in ruskim lastnikom ne bi bila dovoljena.
Not only was this allegation not substantiated but also it referred to a completely different party.
Ta navedba ni bila utemeljena in se je nanašala na povsem drugo stranko.
Second, the Austrian authorities referred at a very late stage in the procedure to the German court judgment confirming a BaFin decision prohibiting a sale of shares in a German bank to an unidentified Ukrainian group [43].
Drugič, avstrijski organi so se v zelo pozni fazi postopka sklicevali na sodbo nemškega sodišča, ki je potrdila odločbo urada BaFin o prepovedi prodaje delnic v nemški banki neimenovani ukrajinski skupini [43].
This information would not have been available at the relevant time and could thus not have played any part in a possible decision of the FMA.
Te informacije ne bi bile na voljo v zadevnem času in zato ne bi mogle igrati nobene vloge v morebitni odločitvi organa za finančni trg.
Last but not least, as already noted, the Commission notes that the FMA is bound to examine each case on its own merits.
Navsezadnje, kot je že bilo ugotovljeno, Komisija ugotavlja, da mora organ za finančni trg preučiti vsak primer posebej.
On the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that there is neither any evidence nor any indication that the FMA would have forbidden a sale to the Consortium.
Komisija na podlagi navedenega ugotavlja, da ni nobenih dokazov ali znakov, da bi organ za finančni trg prepovedal prodajo konzorciju.
A private market vendor would therefore not have disqualified the Consortium on this basis.
Zasebni prodajalec na trgu torej ne bi izločil konzorcija na podlagi tega.
The second aspect: the influence of Ausfallhaftung on the sales decision
Drugi vidik: vpliv garancije Ausfallhaftung na odločitev o prodaji
As in any other case, the Commission confirms that only those factors can be considered which would have been taken into consideration by a market economy investor [44].
Komisija kot v vseh drugih zadevah potrjuje, da se lahko upoštevajo samo tisti dejavniki, ki bi jih upošteval vlagatelj pod tržnimi pogoji [44].
This excludes risks stemming from potential liability to pay state aid as these would have not been incurred by a market economy investor [45].
To izključuje tveganja, ki izhajajo iz mogoče obveznosti plačila državne pomoči, ker jim vlagatelj pod tržnimi pogoji ne bi bil izpostavljen [45].
As far as the privatisation of BB is concerned, the decisive element in this respect is the existence of Ausfallhaftung, which Austria puts forward to justify the sale to GRAWE.
Kar zadeva privatizacijo banke BB, je odločilni element v zvezi s tem garancija Ausfallhaftung, ki jo Avstrija uveljavlja, da bi upravičila prodajo družbi GRAWE.
The Commission is of the opinion that Ausfallhaftung is an element which should not have been considered by the Province of Burgenland.
Komisija meni, da je Ausfallhaftung element, ki ga Gradiščanska ne bi smela upoštevati.
As stated in the opening decision, taking Ausfallhaftung into account would mix up the role of the Province of Burgenland as grantor of the aid and the role of the Province of Burgenland as seller of the bank.
Kot je navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, bi se zaradi upoštevanja garancije Ausfallhaftung pomešali vloga Gradiščanske kot dajalke pomoči in vloga Gradiščanske kot prodajalke banke.
The Commission first has to reject all Austria’s arguments which call the categorisation of Ausfallhaftung as (existing) State aid into question.
Komisija mora najprej zavrniti vse argumente, s katerimi Avstrija zagovarja vprašljivost kategorizacije garancije Ausfallhaftung za (obstoječo) državno pomoč.
In the light of Commission Decision C(2003) 1329 final on the abolition on Ausfallhaftung [46], which followed an agreement between Austria and the Commission and which was not challenged by Austria before the European Courts, this argument is not acceptable.
Glede na Sklep Komisije C(2003) 1329 konč. o odpravi garancije Ausfallhaftung [46], ki je sledil sporazumu med Avstrijo in Komisijo ter ga Avstrija ni izpodbijala pred evropskimi sodišči, ta argument ni sprejemljiv.
Had Austria — as it would appear in the course of these proceedings — indeed disagreed with the categorisation of Ausfallhaftung as State aid, it was free to challenge this before the Court of Justice.
Če se Avstrija – kot se zdi v tem postopku – dejansko ne bi strinjala s kategorizacijo garancije Ausfallhaftung za državno pomoč, bi to lahko izpodbijala pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti.
Furthermore, in response to Austria’s argument that existing aid is legal, it should be stressed that existing aid is still aid given by a public authority.
Poleg tega je treba v zvezi z argumentom Avstrije, da je obstoječa pomoč zakonita, poudariti, da je obstoječa pomoč kljub temu pomoč, ki jo je podelil javni organ.
All Court decisions so far clearly set out the basic principle that the role of the State as seller of an undertaking and the role of the State and its obligations as a public authority should not be mixed up when applying the market-economy investor test [47].
V vseh dosedanjih odločbah Sodišča je jasno opredeljeno osnovno načelo, da se vloga države kot prodajalke podjetja in vloga države in njene obveznosti kot javnega organa ne smeta pomešati pri uporabi preizkusa vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji [47].
There is no precedent to back up Austria’s view that a market economy investor would have taken into account a guarantee categorised as state aid: ex hypothesi, no market investor would have issued a guarantee that did not conform to the market investor principle and the decision on the abolition of Ausfallhaftung confirms that Ausfallhaftung was not granted on market terms.
Ni nobenega precedensa, s katerim bi se potrdilo stališče Avstrije, da bi vlagatelj pod tržnimi pogoji upošteval garancijo, kategorizirano za državno pomoč: hipotetično noben tržni vlagatelj ne bi izdal garancije, ki ne bi bila skladna z načelom tržnega vlagatelja, in sklep o odpravi garancije Ausfallhaftung potrjuje, da ta garancija ni bila dodeljena pod tržnimi pogoji.
The Court of Justice has held that specific guarantees, which were considered to be illegal aid, could not be taken into account when calculating the potential costs of liquidation [48].
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je presodilo, da se posebne garancije, ki so štele za nezakonito pomoč, ne smejo upoštevati pri izračunavanju mogočih stroškov likvidacije [48].
This does not mean that a contrario an existing aid measure could be taken into account.
To ne pomeni, da bi se v nasprotju s tem lahko upošteval obstoječi ukrep pomoči.
The Commission considers that it is not relevant whether the aid was illegal or existing.
Komisija meni, da ni pomembno, ali je bila pomoč nezakonita ali obstoječa.
As long as the measure qualifies as aid, no private vendor would have granted it and would not therefore have taken such a measure into consideration [49].
Če ukrep šteje za pomoč, ga zasebni prodajalec ne bi dodelil, zato takega ukrepa torej tudi ne bi upošteval [49].
It might have been different if the Province of Burgenland had granted a commercial guarantee, as a private investor and not as state aid.
Bilo bi drugače, če bi Gradiščanska podelila komercialno garancijo kot zasebni vlagatelj in ne kot državno pomoč.
This is however not the case here.
Vendar pa v tem primeru ni tako.
Austria did not mention any other factors, such as off-balance-sheet risks or guarantees other than Ausfallhaftung, which could have been taken into account for the evaluation of the bids.
Avstrija ni navedla nobenih drugih dejavnikov, kot so zunajbilančna tveganja ali garancije, razen garancije Ausfallhaftung, ki bi se lahko upoštevali pri ocenjevanju ponudb.
In view of these findings, given that ‘continued operation of BB and, at the same time, avoidance of the use of Ausfallhaftung’ was one, if not the decisive element in the Province of Burgenland’s decision to sell BB to GRAWE regardless of its lower bid, the Commission finds that Austria did not behave as a private market vendor would have done.
Ob upoštevanju teh ugotovitev in glede na to, da je bilo „neprekinjeno delovanje banke BB in hkrati izogibanje uporabi garancije Ausfallhaftung“ eden od elementov, če že ne odločilni element, pri odločitvi Gradiščanske o prodaji banke BB družbi GRAWE kljub njeni nižji ponudbi, Komisija ugotavlja, da se Avstrija ni vedla, kot bi se vedel zasebni prodajalec na trgu.
The economic advantage to GRAWE is at least equal to the difference between the Consortium’s bid and the actual sales price [50].
Gospodarska prednost, dodeljena družbi GRAWE, je vsaj enakovredna razliki med ponudbo konzorcija in dejansko prodajno ceno [50].
The conditions attached to the sale of BB
Pogoji, povezani s prodajo banke BB
Even if the existence of aid is already proven by the choice of the lower bid in this case, the Commission also had to consider to what extent the different conditions of the tender might have affected the sales price.
Tudi če obstoj pomoči dokazuje že izbira nižje ponudbe v tej zadevi, mora Komisija tudi preučiti, v kolikšnem obsegu bi lahko različni razpisni pogoji vplivali na prodajno ceno.
As stated, the Commission had doubted in the opening decision that the tender had been open, transparent and non-discriminatory; furthermore, the Commission had expressed doubts regarding the impact of the conditions on potential bidders who might have refrained from bidding and regarding the impact of the conditions on the price offered by the bidders (those bids being potentially lower than in an unconditional tender).
Kot je že bilo navedeno, je Komisija v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka izrazila dvom o tem, ali je bil razpis odprt, pregleden in nediskriminacijski; poleg tega je Komisija izrazila dvom o vplivu pogojev na mogoče ponudnike, ki bi se lahko vzdržali predlaganja ponudb, in glede vpliva pogojev na ceno, ki so jo ponudili ponudniki (te ponudbe bi lahko bile nižje kot pri razpisu brez pogojev).
On the basis of the information obtained during the formal investigation procedure, the Commission finds that the Consortium, from a purely procedural point of view (due diligence, possibility of meetings, FMA) does not seem to have been disfavoured by the HSBC experts mandated to carry out the tender procedure.
Na podlagi informacij, pridobljenih med formalnim postopkom preiskave, Komisija ugotavlja, da se zdi, da konzorcija s povsem postopkovnega vidika (dolžna skrbnost, možnost sestankov, organ za finančni trg) strokovnjaki družbe HSBC, pooblaščeni za izvedbo razpisnega postopka, niso prikrajšali.
The Commission finds this view also confirmed by the extensive fact-finding carried out by the Eisenstadt Regional Court, as evidenced by its ruling of 20 May 2006 [51].
Komisija ugotavlja, da to stališče potrjuje tudi obsežno ugotavljanje dejstev, ki ga je opravilo deželno sodišče v Eisenstadtu, kot je razvidno iz njegove sodbe z dne 20. maja 2006 [51].
The Commission evaluated the impact of the conditions on the offers.
Komisija je ocenila vpliv pogojev na ponudbe.
The conditions set out in the privatisation procedure might suggest that the Province of Burgenland did not endeavour to obtain the highest price for the bank.
Pogoji, določeni v privatizacijskem postopku, bi lahko kazali na to, da si Gradiščanska ni prizadevala pridobiti najvišje cene za banko.
The Commission has no grounds to consider that in fact this restricted the number of bidders or influenced the price.
Komisija nima nobene utemeljitve, na podlagi katere bi menila, da je to dejansko omejilo število ponudnikov ali vplivalo na ceno.
No comments by third parties were received indicating that they had initially been interested in buying BB, but had been deterred from continuing with the tender process in view of these conditions in the process letter.
Predložene niso bile nobene pripombe tretjih strank, iz katerih bi bilo razvidno, da so se sprva zanimale za nakup banke BB, vendar so jih od nadaljevanja razpisnega postopka odvrnili ti pogoji iz pisma o postopku.
The tender had also been made public sufficiently.
Tudi razpis je bil dovolj javen.
Even if some of the other conditions of the tender are still questionable (‘time constraints’, ‘willingness to conduct any necessary capital increases’ and ‘maintenance of the autonomy of BB’), their impact on the value of the offers is not apparent.
Tudi če so nekateri drugi razpisni pogoji kljub temu vprašljivi („časovne omejitve“, „pripravljenost opraviti kakršno koli potrebno dokapitalizacijo“ in „ohranitev neodvisnosti banke BB“), njihov učinek na vrednost ponudb ni razviden.
The Commission has therefore not found any evidence or indications to suggest that a procedure allowing the full potential of BB to be realised would have led to a higher bid.
Komisija torej ni odkrila nobenih dokazov ali znakov, ki bi kazali, da bi postopek, ki bi omogočal uresničitev celotnega potenciala banke BB, prinesel višjo ponudbo.
Nor did the Consortium suggest that the conditions in the process letter had reduced the level of its own bid.
Konzorcij tudi ni trdil, da so pogoji v pismu o postopku znižali vrednost njegove ponudbe.
The Consortium, while accepting that the purchase price and transaction security were a valid criterion for any seller, pointed out that a condition such as ‘continued operation of BB and, at the same time, avoidance of the use of Ausfallhaftung’ or ‘willingness to conduct any necessary capital increases’ would not be enforceable in the future.
Konzorcij se je sicer strinjal, da sta nakupna cena in varnost transakcije veljavno merilo za katerega koli kupca, vendar je poudaril, da pogoj,kot je „neprekinjeno delovanje banke BB in hkrati izogibanje uporabi garancije Ausfallhaftung“ ali „pripravljenost opraviti kakršno koli potrebno dokapitalizacijo“, v prihodnosti ne bi bil izvršljiv.
Consequently, in this particular case where the tender produced two valid offers [52] and in view of the non-detectable impact of the conditions on the sales price, the higher offer is considered to be a good proxy of the market price [53].
Zato v tem primeru, v katerem je razpis prinesel dve veljavni ponudbi [52] in glede na nezaznaven vpliv pogojev na prodajno ceno, višja ponudba šteje za dober približek tržne cene [53].
Other considerations concerning ‘Ausfallhaftung’
Drugi premisleki v zvezi z garancijo Ausfallhaftung
Although the Commission cannot accept Austria’s position on the relevance of Ausfallhaftung to this case, it has dealt with the arguments Austria provided in relation to this — wrong — presumption.
Čeprav Komisija ne more sprejeti stališča Avstrije o pomembnosti garancije Ausfallhaftung za to zadevo, je obravnavala argumente, ki jih je Avstrija predložila v zvezi s to – napačno – domnevo.
However, the Commission found that, even if Austria’s position was followed and the existence of Ausfallhaftung was taken into account, this would still not turn GRAWE’s bid into the ‘best bid’.
Vendar pa je Komisija ugotovila, da ponudba družbe GRAWE kljub temu ne bi postala „najboljša ponudba“, tudi če bi upoštevali stališče Avstrije in bi se upošteval obstoj garancije Ausfallhaftung.
Liquidity withdrawal in the wake of a sale to the Consortium and consideration of Ausfallhaftung
Umik likvidnosti zaradi prodaje konzorciju in obravnava garancije Ausfallhaftung