natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Apart from that, the measures would not be selective because they were available to all bidders.
Poleg tega naj ukrepi ne bi bili selektivni, saj so bili na voljo vsem ponudnikom.
There would be no distortion of competition since GECIH paid the market price after an unconditional and transparent tender and there would be no effect on trade since no other bank had been interested in AGB’s share of the Czech retail market.
Izkrivljanja konkurence naj ne bi bilo, saj je GECIH plačala tržno ceno po postopku brezpogojnega in preglednega javnega razpisa, pa tudi vpliva na prodajo ne, saj se nobena druga banka ni zanimala za delež AGB na češkem maloprodajnem trgu.
Concerning the compatibility of the measures, GECB submits that any aid would be compatible under Article 87(2)(b), Article 87(3)(b) EC, and in the light of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.
Glede združljivosti ukrepov GECB meni, da bi bila katera koli pomoč združljiva v skladu s členoma 87(2)(b) in 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES ter ob upoštevanju Smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
GECB considers that Article 87(2)(b) EC applies in the present context since there was a serious threat to the stability of the entire banking sector which came close to a natural disaster.
Po mnenju banke GECB se v danem okviru uporabi člen 87(2)(b) Pogodbe ES, ker je bila resno ogrožena stabilnost celotnega bančnega sektorja, kar je mejilo že na naravno nesrečo.
Also, Article 87(3)(b) EC would apply as the Commission had already qualified a systemic crisis of the banking sector as a potential ‘serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State’.
Člen 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES naj bi se uporabil tudi zato, ker je Komisija sistemsko krizo bančnega sektorja že opredelila kot mogočo „resno motnjo v gospodarstvu države članice“.
The requirement that the aid needs to be granted in neutral fashion to all credit institutions would have been fulfilled in the Czech Republic since the entire banking sector was in a crisis and all banks were assisted by the State.
Zahteva, da je treba pomoč nepristransko odobriti vsem kreditnim institucijam, naj bi bila v Češki republiki izpolnjena, saj je bil celoten bančni sektor v krizi in je vsem bankam pomagala država.
Concerning the 1994 Guidelines GECB points out that the Commission would be extending its jurisdiction in looking not only at those measures that are applicable after accession when assessing the compatibility but at the whole restructuring.
V zvezi s Smernicami iz leta 1994 GECB opozarja, da naj bi Komisija pri presoji združljivosti razširila svojo pristojnost in naj ne bi proučila samo ukrepov, ki so se uporabljali po pristopu, temveč celotno prestrukturiranje.
Concerning the beneficiaries of the aid, the 1994 Guidelines did not contain a strict limitation concerning newly created companies.
Glede upravičencev pomoči Smernice iz leta 1994 ne vsebujejo dosledne omejitve glede na novo ustanovljenih podjetij.
Also, the Commission had not applied the prohibition against restructuring aid to newly created companies in the former East Germany.
Komisija tudi ni uporabila prepovedi dodelitve pomoči za prestrukturiranje na novo ustanovljenim podjetjem v nekdanji Vzhodni Nemčiji.
Footnote 10 of the 1999 Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulties [11] (1999 Guidelines) mentioned this explicitly.
V opombi 10 Smernic Skupnosti iz leta 1999 o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [11] („Smernice iz leta 1999“) je to izrecno navedeno.
GECB further states that the Commission could not require a full restructuring plan in the present case since it was not possible to foresee this requirement when the measures were granted.
GECB nato navaja, da Komisija v tem primeru ne bi smela zahtevati celotnega načrta prestrukturiranja, saj ob odobritvi ukrepov te zahteve ni bilo mogoče predvideti.
In addition, there would be no undue distortion of competition in view of the fact that the 1999 Guidelines explicitly mention that in assisted areas, like the Czech Republic, the conditions for authorising aid may be less stringent as regards the implementation of compensatory measures so as to take into account the severity of the regional problems.
Poleg tega naj tudi ne bi bilo nedovoljenega izkrivljanja konkurence ob upoštevanju dejstva, da Smernice iz leta 1999 izrecno navajajo, da so za območja, ki prejemajo pomoč, kot je Češka republika, pogoji za odobritev pomoči lahko manj strogi, kar zadeva izvajanje kompenzacijskih ukrepov, tako da se upošteva resnost regionalnih težav.
Finally, GECB states that GECB’s capital adequacy ratio would not in itself allow for the conclusion that the aid was not in proportion to the restructuring costs and benefits.
Na koncu GECB navaja, da naj njen količnik kapitalske ustreznosti sam po sebi ne bi omogočil sprejetja sklepne ugotovitve, da pomoč ni bila v sorazmerju s stroški prestrukturiranja in koristmi.
The high capital adequacy ratio would rather reflect GE’s conservative credit policy.
Visok količnik kapitalske ustreznosti naj bi prej izražal konservativno kreditno politiko banke GE.
Applicability after accession
Uporaba po pristopu
As outlined above, the Czech Republic and GECB contest the Commission’s power to review measures granted before accession and GECB in particular maintains that the Commission would be applying law retroactively and creating an exception to the previously accepted rule that pre-accession aid granted by an acceding Member State qualifies as existing aid.
Češka republika in banka GECB sta, kot je že zgoraj opisano, izpodbijali pristojnost Komisije za presojo ukrepov, odobrenih pred pristopom, in zlasti GECB je trdila, da naj bi Komisija uporabila zakonodajo z učinkom za nazaj in naredila izjemo pri prvotno sprejetem pravilu, da predpristopna pomoč, ki jo odobri država članica pristopnica, izpolnjuje pogoje za obstoječo pomoč.
Annex IV.3(1) of the Act of Accession defines as existing aid only three categories of measures:
Priloga IV.3(1) Akta o pristopu opredeljuje kot obstoječo pomoč samo tri vrste ukrepov:
those put into effect before 10 December 1994;
ukrepe, ki so začeli veljati pred 10. decembrom 1994:
those that — having been examined by the Commission — were included in the list annexed to the Treaty of Accession; and
ukrepe, ki so bili potem, ko jih je proučila Komisija, vključeni v seznam, priložen k Pogodbi o pristopu, in
those which would be approved under the so-called interim mechanism.
ukrepe, ki bi bili odobreni na podlagi tako imenovanega začasnega mehanizma.
All the measures still applicable after the date of accession, which constitute State aid and do not fall within one of these three categories, are considered as new aid upon accession; the Commission has therefore full powers to prohibit the application of these measures and to order recovery of any sums unduly paid thereunder after accession.
Vsi ukrepi, ki so se uporabljali še po datumu pristopa, ki pomenijo državno pomoč in ne spadajo v eno od teh treh skupin, se štejejo kot nova pomoč po pristopu; Komisija ima torej vsa pooblastila, da prepove uporabo teh ukrepov in zahteva vračilo vseh v tem okviru neupravičeno izplačanih zneskov po pristopu.
This application of State aid rules to the future effects of measures still applicable after accession does not entail any retroactive application of the EC State aid rules and is in any event mandated by the Act of Accession.
Ta uporaba pravil o državni pomoči za prihodnje učinke ukrepov, ki se uporabljajo še po pristopu, ne pomeni uporabe pravil ES o državni pomoči z učinkom za nazaj in jo vsekakor zahteva Akt o pristopu.
Annex IV.3.(2) of the Act of Accession sets out the interim mechanism.
Priloga IV.3(2) Akta o pristopu opisuje začasni mehanizem.
It provides a legal framework for the assessment of aid schemes and individual aid measures put into effect in a new Member State before the date of accession and still applicable after accession.
Ta zagotavlja pravno podlago za presojo programov pomoči in posameznih ukrepov pomoči, ki so v novi državi članici začeli veljati pred datumom pristopa in se uporabljajo tudi še po njem.
For a measure to be considered applicable after accession it must be liable to produce an additional benefit that was not known, or not precisely known, when the aid was granted.
Da se ukrep šteje, da se uporablja po pristopu, mora biti zanj verjetno, da prinaša dodatno korist, ki ob odobritvi pomoči ni bila znana oziroma ni bila natančno znana.
On the other hand, the Commission’s power of review under the interim mechanism is inapplicable as regards aid measures that have already been finally and unconditionally granted for a given amount before accession.
Po drugi strani pa Komisija ne more uporabiti svoje pristojnosti za presojo na podlagi začasnega mehanizma pri ukrepih pomoči, ki so bili že pred pristopom dokončno in brezpogojno odobreni v določenem znesku.
Guarantee arrangements with possible payments occurring after accession are considered to fall outside the definition of ‘applicability after’ to the extent that the following conditions are met [12]:
Za dogovore o jamstvih z možnostjo izplačil po pristopu velja, da ne spadajo v okvir opredelitve „uporaba po“, če so izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji [12]:
the facts which give rise to the covered risks are precisely defined and included in an exhaustive list closed by the date of accession;
dejstva, ki so povod za pokrito tveganje, so natančno opredeljena in vključena v izčrpen seznam, ki se zaključi z datumom pristopa;
there is an overall cap and a time-limit for the payments that the State can effect; and
plačila, ki jih lahko izvrši država, so na splošno omejena navzgor in časovno; in
the guarantee/indemnification relates to events that had already occurred by the date of the granting of this guarantee/indemnification and not for any future events.
jamstvo/garancija se nanašata na dogodke, ki so se zgodili že pred datumom izdaje tega jamstva/garancije, in ne na prihodnje dogodke.
As set out in its decision of 14 July 2004, the Commission considers all Warranties and Indemnities as well as the Put Option on which the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure to be applicable after accession.
Kot je Komisija navedla že v svoji odločitvi z dne 14. julija 2004, so se po njenem mnenju vsa jamstva in garancije ter prodajna opcija, za katere je Komisija sprožila formalni postopek preiskave, uporabljali po pristopu.
As the Commission found all these measures to be applicable after accession, the subsequent waiver concerning certain Warranties and Indemnities made by GECIH and GECB therefore cannot remove the effects of these Warranties and Indemnities as established by the Commission Decision of 14 July 2004 for so long as they subsisted after accession.
V skladu z ugotovitvami Komisije so se vsi ti ukrepi uporabljali po pristopu ter naknadna odpoved določenim jamstvom in garancijam s strani korporacije GECIH in banke GECB ne more, kot je ugotovila že Komisija v svoji odločbi z dne 14. julija 2004, odpraviti učinkov teh jamstev in garancij, če ta obstajajo tudi po pristopu.
However, the Commission also reiterates and confirms this finding on ‘applicability after’ for all those measures listed in the tables in recital (26).
Komisija tudi ponavlja in potrjuje to ugotovitev glede „uporabe po“ za vse ukrepe iz razpredelnic uvodne izjave 26.
In response to the arguments raised against the opening decision the Commission first has the following general remarks:
V odgovor na argumente, predložene proti odločbi o sprožitvi postopka, ima Komisija najprej naslednje splošne pripombe:
The Czech Republic and GECB state that the potential claims are exhaustively listed in the notification and that the maximum financial exposure of the Czech Republic is defined therein.
Češka republika in banka GECB navajata, do so morebitni zahtevki izčrpno našteti v priglasitvi, kjer je opredeljena tudi največja finančna izpostavljenost Češke republike.
However, although the lists may include all potential grounds for claims, these grounds are — with few exceptions, as explained below — described in abstract terms.
Čeprav seznami morda vključujejo vse možne razloge za zahtevke, so ti razlogi – z nekaj izjemami, kot je pojasnjeno v nadaljevanju – opisani abstraktno.
In addition, the Commission considers that a mere cap without listing (itemisation) of the specific events which might give rise to indemnity does not tie the payment of the indemnity after accession to a specific event finally and unconditionally identified prior to accession.
Komisija tudi meni, da samo omejitev brez sestave seznama določenih dogodkov, ki lahko sprožijo odškodninski zahtevek, ne povezuje plačila odškodnine po pristopu z določenim dogodkom, ki je bil dokončno in brezpogojno opredeljen pred pristopom.
The State has in some respects theoretically limited its financial exposure, but it has not clearly determined the specific facts directly giving rise to payments.
Država je v nekaterih pogledih teoretično omejila svojo finančno izpostavljenost, vendar ni jasno opredelila določenih dejstev, ki neposredno sprožijo plačila.
Contrary to what the Czech Republic and GECB argue, this is also the line taken in the cases concerning Komercni banka [13] and Ceska sporitelna [14].
V nasprotju s trditvijo Češke republike in banke GECB je to stališče enako stališču, zavzetemu v primerih Komercni banka [13] in Ceska sporitelna [14].
The guarantees in these cases, which were declared not to be applicable after accession, satisfied the criteria listed above since the guarantees concerned a well defined and closed number of ring-fenced assets, precisely and exhaustively identified prior to accession, whose value was guaranteed by the State.
Jamstva iz teh primerov, za katera je bilo navedeno, da se po pristopu niso uporabljala, izpolnjujejo zgoraj našteta merila, saj se nanašajo na točno določeno in zaključeno število namensko dodeljenih sredstev, ki so bila natančno in izčrpno opredeljena pred pristopom, za njihovo vrednost pa jamči država.
Also, in the case of Slovenska sporitelna [15] the litigation indemnification concerned specific pending or threatened litigation that was included in an exhaustive and legally binding list.
V primeru Slovenska sporitelna [15] se je odškodnina v pravdnem sporu nanašala na določene nerešene spore ali spore, ki so grozili, in so bili vključeni v izčrpen in pravno zavezujoč seznam.
In addition, as explained below, the financial exposure of the Czech Republic is not sufficiently capped with respect to the indemnifications concerning the validity of the sale in Clause 4.1 of the Indemnity Agreement as well as the Put Option.
Kot je pojasnjeno v nadaljevanju, finančna izpostavljenost Češke republike ni dovolj omejena glede odškodnin v zvezi z veljavnostjo prodaje iz določbe 4.1 Sporazuma o garanciji in prodajno opcijo.
Specific remarks concerning certain individual measures
Posebne pripombe glede nekaterih posameznih ukrepov
Indemnification for tax matters and customs and excise liabilities (Table 2 Nos 1, 3 and 5)
Odškodnina za davčne zadeve ter carinske in trošarinske obveznosti (razpredelnica 2, št. 1, 3 in 5)
The Czech Republic and GECB argue that the indemnifications for tax matters meet the Commission’s requirements for considering a measure not being applicable after accession since the future plaintiff (the Czech authorities) would be known due to the nature of these claims.
Češka republika in banka GECB trdita, da odškodnine za davčne zadeve izpolnjujejo zahteve Komisije, da se za ukrep šteje, da se po pristopu ni uporabljal, saj bi bil glede na značaj teh zahtevkov prihodnji tožnik (češki organi) znan.
The Commission considers that, if this reasoning were valid, it would apply not only to tax matters but also to the indemnifications for customs and excise liabilities.
Komisija meni, da če bi ti argumenti veljali, se ne bi uporabljali samo za davčne zadeve, temveč tudi za odškodnine za carinske in trošarinske obveznosti.
Claims under Clause 4.1 of the Indemnity Agreement (Table 1 Nos 5-9)
Zahtevki v skladu z določbo 4.1 Sporazuma o garanciji (razpredelnica 1, št. 5–9)
The claims as described in Table 1, No 9 concern indemnifications in case the sale of AGB1 to GECB is found to be void or invalid.
Zahtevki iz razpredelnice 1, št. 9, se nanašajo na odškodnine, če bi se ugotovilo, da je prodaja banke AGB1 banki GECB nična ali neveljavna.
The potential actions leading to this result are described in general terms and therefore do not limit the financial exposure of the Czech Republic.
Morebitni ukrepi, ki bi to lahko povzročili, so opisani na splošno in zato ne omejujejo finančne izpostavljenosti Češke republike.
Even if some of the groups of the potential claimants — like the shareholders of AGB at a specific point in time — were considered as representing a closed group of individuals; despite the fact that the groups are extremely large and are supposed to cover also the legal successors of the individuals, the claims brought by these groups of individuals are not specified so that an unlimited number of potential claims can be made.
Čeprav bi se nekatere skupine morebitnih vlagateljev zahtevkov – kot so delničarji AGB v določenem trenutku – obravnavale kot predstavnike zaključene skupine posameznikov, kljub dejstvu da so skupine izredno velike in naj bi vključevale tudi pravne naslednike posameznikov, zahtevki te skupine posameznikov niso točno določeni, tako da se lahko vloži neomejeno število morebitnih zahtevkov.
Due to this, the risk of the Czech Republic cannot be qualified as precisely defined.
Zato se za tveganje Češke republike ne more reči, da je natančno opredeljeno.
Concerning the four claims under Clause 4.1 of the Indemnity Agreement listed in Nos 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Table 1, the Commission considers that even if they were sufficiently defined in the sense of the first criterion illustrated above as these claims refer to individual actions brought by identified claimants, the requirement of an overall cap on the State’s liability is not met.
V zvezi s štirimi zahtevki v skladu z določbo 4.1 Sporazuma o garanciji iz št. 5, 6, 7 in 8 razpredelnice 1 Komisija meni, da čeprav bi bili dovolj podrobno določeni v smislu prvega zgoraj navedenega merila, ni izpolnjena zahteva o splošni omejitvi državne odgovornosti, ker se ti zahtevki nanašajo na posamezne tožbe, ki so jih vložili znani vlagatelji.
This is the case for all claims under Clause 4.1 of the Indemnity Agreement as listed in Table 1, Nos 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
To velja za vse zahtevke v skladu z določbo 4.1 Sporazuma o garanciji iz točk 5, 6, 7, 8 in 9 razpredelnice 1.
The potential financial exposure of the CNB appears limited to the amount of CZK 15000 million for each separately listed indemnification under Clause 4.1 of the Indemnity Agreement.
Zdi se, da je morebitna finančna izpostavljenost ČNB omejena na znesek 15000 milijonov CZK za vsako posebej našteto odškodnino v skladu z določbo 4.1 Sporazuma o garanciji.
This limitation is however removed by the fact that GECIH may exercise the Put Option in case the CNB refuses to make payments above CZK 2000 million.
To omejitev odpravlja dejstvo, da korporacija GECIH lahko izvrši prodajno opcijo, če ČNB zavrne izplačilo, ki bi presegalo zgoraj navedenih 2000 milijonov CZK.
In the event that the CNB refuses to make payments above this level, GECIH is entitled to exercise the Put Option.
Če ČNB zavrne izplačila nad to višino, GECIH lahko izvrši prodajno opcijo.
This could force the CNB to make payments even above the cap for a separately listed indemnification foreseen under Clause 4.1 of the Indemnity Agreement of CZK 15000 million in order to avoid that the Put Option is exercised.
S tem lahko prisili ČNB, da za posebej našteto odškodnino, predvideno v skladu z določbo 4.1 Sporazuma o garanciji, izvrši plačila tudi nad omejitvijo v znesku 15000 milijonov CZK, da prepreči izvršitev prodajne opcije.
As will be described below, the Put Option is also not sufficiently defined and capped in itself.
Kot bomo opisali v nadaljevanju, tudi prodajna opcija sama ni dovolj podrobno opredeljena in omejena.
The Commission therefore considers Clause 4.1 of the Indemnity Agreement as described in Nos 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Table 1 being applicable after accession.
Zato se po mnenju Komisije odločba 4.1 Sporazuma o garanciji v skladu z opisi iz št. 5, 6, 7, 8 in 9 razpredelnice 1 uporablja po pristopu.
As explained above, in principle two kinds of events remain under which the Put Option right can be exercised.
Kot je bilo že pojasnjeno, načeloma ostajata dve vrsti dogodkov, na podlagi katerih se lahko uresniči pravica prodajne opcije.
The first one is a decision or judgment which orders or declares the sale of AGB1 to GECB void or invalid.
Prvi je odločba ali sodba, ki odreja ali ugotavlja, da je prodaja banke AGB1 banki GECB nična ali neveljavna.
The second triggering event is a refusal by the CNB to make payments above CZK 2000 million in relation to validity claims under Clause 4.1 of the Indemnity Agreement.
Drugi sprožitveni dogodek je, če ČNB zavrne izplačilo nad 2000 milijonov CZK za zahtevke v zvezi z veljavnostjo v skladu z določbo 4.1 Sporazuma o garanciji.
These potential triggering events are in no way specified by reference to a limited number of persons who could bring such claims so as to identify in advance the court proceedings potentially leading to a finding of invalidity etc. of the sale of AGB1 to GECB.
Ta dva morebitna sprožitvena dogodka vsekakor nista točno določena glede omejenega števila morebitnih vlagateljev zahtevkov, da bi se lahko vnaprej določilo morebitne sodne postopke, katerih izid bi bila ugotovitev neveljavnosti itd. prodaje banke AGB1 banki GECB.
In consequence, the risks of the Czech Republic are not sufficiently defined and clearly identified.
Zato tveganje Češke republike ni dovolj podrobno in jasno opredeljeno.
In addition, the exposure of the Czech Republic is not capped.
Omejena ni niti izpostavljenost Češke republike.
In the case of Ceska sporitelna the Commission considered the exposure of the Czech Republic concerning the compensation for social loans as sufficiently defined where the compensation was determined by the difference between the ‘rate contracted for the social loan’ and the Prague Interbank Offered Rate plus a fixed percentage plus a fixed payment per account per year.
V primeru Ceska sporitelna je Komisija menila, da je izpostavljenost Češke republike zaradi nadomestila za socialna posojila dovolj podrobno opredeljena, saj je bilo nadomestilo določeno z razliko med „obrestno mero, sklenjeno za socialno posojilo“, in obrestno mero Prague Interbank plus nespremenljivim odstotkom plus nespremenljivim plačilom na komitenta na leto.
However, in that case, the variables were limited to a mere indexation to a single market benchmark and could not be influenced by the beneficiary.
V navedenem primeru so bile spremenljivke omejene samo na podlagi indeksacije z merilom enotnega trga in upravičenec nanje ni mogel vplivati.
In the case at hand, the Put Price is determined by the greatest of the following:
V tem primeru pa je cena prodajne opcije določena z najvišjim od naslednjih zneskov:
The Czech Republic informed the Commission that in any case the determination will be carried out by an independent expert whose finding is binding on the parties.
Češka republika je obvestila Komisijo, da bo ceno vsekakor določil neodvisni strokovnjak, katerega ugotovitve bodo zavezujoče za vse zadevne stranke.
Notwithstanding the involvement of an independent expert, which could perhaps make for a more objective assessment, the Commission considers that the method as such for determining the price does not set a cap to the Czech Republic’s financial exposure.
Ne glede na vključitev neodvisnega strokovnjaka, ki bi morda lahko pripravil nekoliko bolj nepristransko oceno, Komisija meni, da sama metoda za določitev cene ne določa omejitve finančne izpostavljenosti Češke republike.
The methods by which the price would be determined refer to parameters that are influenced by GECIH and GECB’s business performance.
Metode, s katerimi naj bi se določila cena, se nanašajo na parametre, na katere vpliva poslovna uspešnost korporacije GECIH in banke GECB.