natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Clause 5.1.(a)(iv)
Določba 5.1(a)(iv)
Customs and excise liabilities: AGB agreed to indemnify the Purchaser in respect of losses resulting from claims brought against it by the Czech customs and excise authorities in relation to AGB Customs Guarantee.
Carinske in trošarinske obveznosti: AGB soglaša, da bo kupcu poravnala škodo zaradi vseh izgub, ki bi izhajale iz zahtevkov, ki bi jih proti njemu vložili češki carinski in trošarinski organi v zvezi s carinsko garancijo AGB.
Warranties and indemnities expiring on 22 June 2013
Jamstva in garancije, ki potečejo 22. junija 2013
Operations of AGB1: AGB warrants that, except as set forth in disclosure schedules of the transaction documents, no other asset or liability forms part of AGB1.
Poslovanje AGB1: AGB jamči, da AGB1 sestavljajo samo sredstva in obveznosti, kot so navedena v razporedih razkritja transakcijskih dokumentov.
Clause 2.22
Določba 2.22.
Authorisation: AGB warrants its full power and authorisation to sign the contractual documentation and implement the transaction.
Pooblastilo: AGB jamči, da ima vsa pooblastila in pristojnosti za podpis pogodbene dokumentacije in izvedbo transakcije.
AGB further warrants that the contracts are binding and enforceable against it.
AGB tudi jamči, da so pogodbe zanjo zavezujoče in izvršljive.
Clause 2.4
Določba 2(4)
Validity of the sale: AGB agreed to indemnify the Purchaser in respect of any loss resulting from any claim concerning the validity or constitutional legitimacy of the sale of AGB1.
Veljavnost prodaje: AGB soglaša, da bo kupcu povrnila škodo za vse izgube, ki bi izhajale iz zahtevkov v zvezi z veljavnostjo ali ustavno legitimnostjo prodaje AGB1.
Clause 5.1.(a)(iii)
Določba 5.1(a)(iii)
Warranties and indemnities expiring 15 years after closing
Jamstva in garancije, ki potečejo 15 let po zaprtju banke
Environmental losses: AGB agreed to indemnify the Purchaser in respect of any environmental loss which the purchaser may incur in respect of any premises of AGB1 and which arises from a condition existing prior to closing.
Okoljske izgube: AGB soglaša, da bo kupcu povrnila škodo zaradi okoljskih izgub, ki bi jih kupec morda utrpel v zvezi s prostori AGB1 in ki bi izhajale iz razmer pred njenim zaprtjem.
Clause 5.1.(b)
Določba 5.1.(b)
The Put Option
Prodajna opcija
On 22 June 1998, CNB and GECIH entered into the Put Option Deed which provides that, under certain circumstances, GECIH is entitled to require that CNB purchases from GECIH all its shares in GECB.
ČNB in GECIH sta 22. junija 1998 sklenili Pogodbo o prodajni opciji, ki predvideva, da v določenih okoliščinah GECIH od ČNB lahko zahteva, da od nje odkupi vse delnice, ki jih ima v GECB.
Two events remain that permit GECIH to exercise the Put Option.
Ostajata dva dogodka, ki bi GECIH lahko omogočila izvršitev prodajne opcije.
These are:
To sta:
a decision or judgment which orders or declares the transactions by the Purchase Agreement void or invalid or that they be unwound or that any portion of the assets of AGB1 be returned; or
odločba ali sodba, ki odreja ali ugotavlja, da so transakcije iz Pogodbe o nakupu nične ali neveljavne ali da se bodo razveljavile ali da se bo del sredstev AGB1 vrnilo, ali
CNB elects not to provide indemnity payments under the ‘Indemnity Agreement’ in excess of CZK 2000 million or CNB default in making such payments.
če se ČNB odloči, da ne bo plačala odškodnine na podlagi „Sporazuma o garanciji“, ki bi presegala 2000 milijona CZK ali če ČNB teh plačil ne izvrši.
After the clarifications made by the Czech Republic and GECB the Commission considers that the triggering event referred to in point (b) of recital (28) refers only to refusals to make payments under Clause 4.1, Clause 8.3. of the Indemnity Agreement which concern claims for invalidity of the sale of AGB1 to GECB [9].
Na podlagi pojasnil, ki sta jih zagotovili Češka republika in banka GECB, Komisija meni, da se sprožitveni dogodek iz točke (b) uvodne izjave 28 nanaša samo na zavrnitev plačil v skladu z določbama 4.1 in 8.3 Sporazuma o garanciji v zvezi z zahtevki za ugotovitev ničnosti prodaje banke AGB1 banki GECB [9].
The CNB has the right to remedy an event which gives rise to the Put Option by putting GECB and GECIH in the same position as they would have been if such event had not occurred.
ČNB ima pravico odpraviti dogodek, ki je povod za prodajno opcijo, s postavitvijo banke GECB in korporacije GECIH v tak položaj, v kakršnem bi bili, če se tak dogodek ne bi zgodil.
It is stated that this could involve payments or the transfer of assets to GECB.
Navedeno je, da bi to lahko vključevalo plačila ali prenos sredstev na banko GECB.
The put option right expires on 22 June 2008.
Pravica prodajne opcije poteče 22. junija 2008.
The Put Price
Cena prodajne opcije
The price for which CNB has to purchase all of the shares in GECB varies depending on the date on which the Put Option is exercised.
Cena, po kateri mora ČNB odkupiti vse delnice v banki GECB, se spreminja odvisno od datuma izvršitve prodajne opcije.
From June 2003 until the date when the Put Option right expires the Put Price is the greatest of the following:
Od junija 2003 do datuma, ko poteče pravica prodajne opcije, ta cena ustreza največji od spodaj navedenih vrednosti:
the adjusted unwind amount;
usklajenim sproščenim zneskom;
the net asset value of GECB as of the date at which the put price is determined;
neto vrednostjo premoženja banke GECB na dan določitve cene prodajne opcije;
the fair market value of GECB as of the date at which the put price is determined.
pošteno tržno vrednostjo banke GECB na dan določitve cene prodajne opcije.
In case that the purchase price is determined by the fair market value referred to in point (c) the events which triggered the right to exercise the Put Option will not be taken into account.
Če se bo nakupna cena določila na podlagi poštene tržne vrednosti iz točke (c), se dogodki, ki sprožijo pravico uresničitve prodajne opcije, ne bodo upoštevali.
The Czech Republic informed the Commission that it was CNB’s and GECB’s understanding that for the determination of the put price an independent third party’s opinion in all circumstances had to be obtained and that such opinion was binding on the parties.
Češka republika je obvestila Komisijo, da sta ČNB in GECB razumeli, da je treba za določitev cene prodajne opcije vsekakor pridobiti mnenje neodvisne tretje strani in da je tako mnenje za stranke zavezujoče.
COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE OPENING OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
PRIPOMBE, KI SO PRISPELE PO SPROŽITVI FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
Comments from the Czech Republic
Pripombe Češke republike
The Czech Republic considers that the measures under assessment are not applicable after accession.
Po mnenju Češke republike se ukrepi, ki so predmet presoje, po pristopu niso uporabljali.
The potential liability of the State would be limited in time and amount since the maximum exposure of the Czech State is fixed and could not increase in the future.
Morebitna odgovornost države bi bila omejena časovno in z zneskom, saj je največja možna izpostavljenost Češke republike točno določena ter se v prihodnje ne more povečati.
Also, the list relating to the Deed of Warranties is exhaustive.
Prav tako je izčrpen tudi seznam, ki se nanaša na Dogovor o jamstvih.
A further detailed definition of the potential exposure would not be necessary.
Podrobnejša opredelitev morebitne izpostavljenosti naj ne bi bila potrebna.
In particular, the Czech Republic cannot see the relevance of being able to predict who might bring a claim and on what basis it might be brought.
Češka republika predvsem ne more razumeti, zakaj je pomembna sposobnost predvideti, kdo bi lahko vložil zahtevek in na kakšni podlagi.
The Czech Republic also relies on the guarantee provided by the State to the benefit of Komercni banka where the Commission accepted a similar level of definition as sufficient to consider the measure not being applicable after accession.
Češka republika se tudi zanaša na jamstvo, ki ga je dala država v korist Komercni banke, kjer je Komisija sprejela za zadovoljivo opredelitev na podobni ravni, na podlagi katere je menila, da se ukrep po pristopu ni uporabljal.
Also, in the case of Slovenska sporitelna the Commission accepted a lesser degree of definition as in that case only a closed group of potential claimants but not individual claims could be identified.
Komisija je sprejela opredelitev na nižji ravni tudi v primeru Slovenska sporitelne, saj se je v navedenem primeru lahko določila samo zaključena skupina morebitnih vlagateljev zahtevkov, ne pa posamezniki.
In any case, with respect to the four individual claims under Clause 4.1. the Commission’s requirements to consider a measure not being applicable after accession were fulfilled.
Vsekakor so bile v zvezi s štirimi posameznimi zahtevki na podlagi določbe 4.1 izpolnjene zahteve Komisije, da se ukrep šteje, kot da se po pristopu ni uporabljal.
In addition, in May 2006 the Czech Republic submitted a list comprising the names of all shareholders of AGB as of 30 April 2004.
Maja 2006 je Češka republika predložila tudi seznam imen vseh delničarjev banke AGB na dan 30. aprila 2004.
The Czech Republic believes that for any claims by these named shareholders under Clause 4.1 of the Indemnity Agreement, the Commission’s itemisation requirement is met.
Po njenem mnenju bi bila za vsak zahtevek teh imenovanih delničarjev v skladu z določbo 4.1 Sporazuma o garanciji izpolnjena zahteva Komisije glede sestave seznama.
With respect to the Put Option, the Czech Republic believes that the particular nature of the Put Option means that it is not susceptible to assessment under the interim mechanism or in the current procedure since it will be exercised only in the future.
V zvezi s prodajno opcijo Češka republika meni, da posebni značaj prodajne opcije pomeni, da ni dovzetna za presojo na podlagi začasnega mehanizma niti po tem postopku, saj se bo izvršila šele v prihodnje.
The Czech Republic states that it would be ready to notify the Put Option for assessment by the Commission once it is exercised.
Češka republika navaja, da bi bila pripravljena predložiti prodajno opcijo Komisiji v presojo, potem ko bi bila izvršena.
In any event, concerning the four individual claims for invalidity which are mentioned under Clause 4.1. the Put Option fulfils the Commission’s requirements to consider it being not applicable after accession.
Vsekakor prodajna opcija pri štirih posameznih zahtevkih za ugotovitev ničnosti iz določbe 4.1 izpolnjuje zahteve Komisije, da zanjo velja, da se po pristopu ni uporabljala.
The Put Price would be capped by way of a formula that is applied by an independent expert.
Cena prodajne opcije naj bi bila omejena s formulo, ki jo uporablja neodvisni strokovnjak.
Apart from that, the Czech Republic maintains that the measures do not constitute aid since it would have been more costly for the State to liquidate AGB than to adopt the measures it did to facilitate its sale.
Češka republika tudi trdi, da ukrepi ne pomenijo pomoči, saj bi bilo za državo dražje banko AGB likvidirati, kot pa sprejeti ukrepe za njeno lažjo prodajo.
Also, the measures in question represent standard commercial practice which would not involve any unusual benefit and the impact on trade would be minor.
Sporni ukrepi pomenijo tudi običajno poslovno prakso, ki naj ne bi vključevala neobičajnih koristi, vpliv na poslovanje pa naj bi bil manjši.
In addition, since AGB1 was sold in an unconditional and open tender procedure, GECB did not receive any benefit as it paid the market price for AGB’s banking business.
Ker je bila banka AGB1 prodana na podlagi brezpogojnega in odprtega postopka javnega razpisa, banka GECB ni imela nobenih koristi, saj je za bančno poslovanje banke AGB plačala tržno ceno.
Any benefit for the seller (AGB) would have disappeared, since AGB is in liquidation and no longer active on the market.
Vse koristi za prodajalca (AGB) naj bi izpuhtele, saj je ta v likvidaciji in nič več ne posluje na trgu.
Should the measures constitute aid, the Czech Republic argues that the aid is compatible with the common market.
Češka republika trdi, da če ukrepi pomenijo pomoč, potem je ta pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom.
In view of the specific situation in the Czech Republic and the peculiarities of the accession process, the Commission had to interpret the provisions of the Treaty and the 1994 Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [10] (1994 Guidelines) more generously than it did in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Komisija je morala ob upoštevanju posebnih razmer v Češki republiki in značilnosti pristopnega procesa razložiti določbe Pogodbe in Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah iz leta 1994 [10] („Smernice iz leta 1994“) ohlapneje kot v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
The Czech Republic considers that Article 87(2)(b) EC and Article 87(3)(b) EC apply in the present context and render the measures to be compatible with the common market.
Po mnenju Češke republike se v tem okviru uporabita člena 87(2)(b) in 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES, na podlagi katerih so ukrepi združljivi s skupnim trgom.
With respect to the 1994 Guidelines, the Czech Republic points out that there was a general concept for the restructuring of AGB’s banking business and in other cases the Commission had not insisted on a strict existence of the restructuring plan.
V zvezi s Smernicami iz leta 1994 je Češka republika izpostavila, da se je za prestrukturiranje bančnega poslovanja banke AGB uporabil splošni koncept, Komisija pa v drugih primerih ni dosledno zahtevala pripravo načrta za prestrukturiranje.
The Czech Republic further considers that the measures could only be seen as aid to AGB but not as aid to GECB or GECIH since all measures were aimed at the single goal of ensuring the long-term viability of AGB’s banking business.
Češka republika še meni, da se na ukrepe lahko gleda samo kot na pomoč banki AGB, ne pa tudi banki GECG in korporaciji GECIH, saj so imeli vsi ukrepi enotni cilj zagotoviti dolgoročno rentabilnost bančnega poslovanja AGB.
Apart from that, the 1994 Guidelines did not include a prohibition against aid to newly created companies.
Smernice iz leta 1994 tudi niso vključevale prepovedi zagotavljanja pomoči na novo ustanovljenim podjetjem.
Since there was no structural excess of capacity there should be no strict requirement of reducing or closing capacity.
Ker ni bilo strukturnega presežka zmogljivosti, se tudi ne bi smelo dosledno zahtevati zmanjšanja ali zaprtja zmogljivosti.
AGB/GECB would not be left with a cash surplus, which would be the main issue under the 1994 Guidelines when considering proportionality.
Banki AGB/GECB naj ne bi ostal gotovinski presežek, kar naj bi bilo glavno vprašanje pri presojanju sorazmernosti v skladu s Smernicami iz leta 1994.
Also, the contributions by the investors had been sufficient.
Prav tako so bili zadostni tudi prispevki vlagateljev.
The relatively high capital adequacy ratios would just be the technical effect of the chosen method of capital contribution.
Sorazmerno visoki količniki kapitalske ustreznosti naj bi bili samo tehnični učinek izbrane metode kapitalskega vložka.
The Czech Republic also considers that Article 46(2) of the Europe Agreement (EA) applies in the present context.
Po mnenju Češke republike se v danem okviru uporabi člen 46(2) Evropskega sporazuma.
Article 46(2) EA would not limit the type of measures which might be permissible, nor would it prevent State aid measures.
Člen 46(2) Evropskega sporazuma naj ne bi omejeval vrste ukrepov, ki naj bi bili dovoljeni, niti naj ne bi preprečeval ukrepov državne pomoči.
In addition, in the case of Komercni banka the Commission applied Article 46(2) EA.
Poleg tega je Komisija v primeru Komercni banke uporabila člen 46(2) Evropskega sporazuma.
Should the Commission nonetheless come to the conclusion that the measures are applicable after the accession and represent incompatible State aid the Commission should allow an adequate phase-out of the Warranties and Indemnities and the Put Option.
Če bi Komisija kljub vsemu ugotovila, da se ukrepi uporabljajo po pristopu in pomenijo nezdružljivo državno pomoč, bi morala omogočiti ustrezno postopno opustitev jamstev in garancij ter prodajne opcije.
This would be justified by the fact that the CNB and GE had legitimate expectations as to the binding character of the provisions.
To bi se utemeljilo z dejstvom, da ČNB in GE pravno upravičeno pričakujeta, da so določbe zavezujoče.
On 13 March 2007 the Czech Republic informed the Commission that on 28 February 2007 GECIH and GECB had unilaterally and unconditionally waived the Warranties and Indemnities under Section 3.1 of the Indemnity Agreement for any and all losses in relation to the failure of the seller of AGB1 to satisfy its obligations pursuant to the warranties and indemnities given by the seller in Clause 5(1)(a)(i), Clause 5(1)(a)(ii), Clause 5(1)(a)(iii), Clause 5(1)(a)(v), Clause 5(1)(a)(vi) and Clause 5(1)(b).
Češka republika je 13. marca 2007 obvestila Komisijo, da sta se 28. februarja 2007 korporacija GECIH in banka GECB enostransko in brezpogojno odpovedali jamstvom in garancijam v skladu z oddelkom 3.1 Sporazuma o garanciji za vse izgube, ki bi jih povzročil prodajalec AGB1 zaradi neizpolnjevanja svojih obveznosti v skladu z jamstvi in garancijami, ki jih je navedel prodajalec v določbah 5(1)(a)(i), 5(1)(a)(ii), 5(1)(a)(iii), 5(1)(a)(v), 5(1)(a)(vi) in 5(1)(b).
These obligations correspond to the Warranties and Indemnities set out in recital 26 in:
Te obveznosti ustrezajo jamstvom in garancijam iz uvodne izjave 26 v:
Table 1, No 1 (Indemnification for any litigation adversely affecting the banking business);
razpredelnici 1, št. 1 („Odškodnina za vse pravdne spore, ki bi neugodno vplivali na bančno poslovanje“);
Table 1, No 2 (Indemnification for any violation of law);
razpredelnici 1, št. 2 („Odškodnina zaradi kršitve zakonodaje“);
Table 1, No 3 (Indemnification in respect of employment litigation);
razpredelnici 1, št. 3 („Odškodnina pri pravdnih sporih z zaposlenimi“);
Table 1, No 4 (Indemnification in respect of employment litigation);
razpredelnici 1, št. 4 („Odškodnina pri pravdnih sporih z zaposlenimi“);
Table 3, No 3 (Validity of the sale);
razpredelnici 3, št. 3 („Veljavnost prodaje“);
Table 4, No 1 (Environmental losses).
razpredelnici 4, št. 1 („Okoljske izgube“).
The waiver took effect ab initio of these Warranties and Indemnities and therefore renders them invalid with retroactive effect from the date of the agreement.
Odpoved tem jamstvom in garancijam je začela veljati ab initio, zato so postali neveljavni s povratnim učinkom od datuma sporazuma.
The Czech Republic further informed the Commission that no claims for indemnification had been brought by GECIH or GECB under these provisions up to the date of the waiver.
Češka republika je Komisijo tudi obvestila, da do datuma odpovedi GECIH in GECB nista vložili odškodninskih zahtevkov v skladu s temi določbami.
Comments from GECB
Pripombe banke GECB
GECB submits arguments similar to those advanced by the Czech authorities and contests the applicability after of the measures as well as their aid character.
GECB je predložila podobne argumente kot češki organi ter izpodbijala uporabo ukrepov po pristopu in njihov značaj pomoči.
In case that the measures constitute aid, it argues they would be compatible with the common market.
Trdila je, da so ukrepi, če pomenijo pomoč, združljivi s skupnim trgom.
GECB points out that six to eight years before accession the parties could not foresee that an interim mechanism would be introduced to control State aid granted before accession.
GECB opozarja, da šest do osem let pred pristopom stranke niso mogle predvideti, da bo uveden začasni mehanizem za nadzor državne pomoči, odobrene pred pristopom.
The Commission should have taken this into account when interpreting the notion of applicability after and when applying the rules on State aid.
Komisija bi morala to upoštevati pri razlagi pojma „uporaba po“ in pri uporabi pravil o državni pomoči.
GECB believes that the Commission’s interpretation of ‘applicability after’ of guarantees as applied in the decision to open proceedings is too restrictive.
GECB meni, da Komisija v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka prestrogo razlaga pojem „uporaba jamstev po“.
In the present case, all potential claims would be limited by maximum amounts and limited in time.
V tem primeru bi bili vsi morebitni zahtevki omejeni z najvišjimi zneski in časovno.
The claims provided in submitted lists are exhaustive in the sense that they list all potential grounds for claims.
Zahtevki, navedeni v predloženih seznamih, so izčrpni, kar zadeva navedbo vseh morebitnih razlogov za zahtevke.
The wording ‘not exhaustive’ only means that they do not mirror the text of the underlying agreements.
Izraz „ni izčrpen“ samo pomeni, da ne navajajo besedila osnovnih dogovorov.
In addition, the Put Option would not overcome the maximum amounts specified in the Indemnity Agreement since it relates only to specific claims of the Indemnity Agreement and is itself capped.
Prodajna opcija tudi ne bi presegla najvišjih zneskov iz Sporazuma o garanciji, saj se nanaša samo na določene zahtevke iz Sporazuma o garanciji in je že sama po sebi omejena.
The Commission’s concept of ‘applicability after’ as applied in its decision of 14 July 2004 would mean that only pending or threatened litigation could be considered being not applicable after accession.
Pojem „uporaba potem“, kot ga uporablja Komisija v svoji odločitvi z dne 14. julija 2004, bi pomenil, da se lahko samo za nerešene sodne spore in sodne spore, ki grozijo, šteje, da se po pristopu niso uporabljali.
However, even if this narrow interpretation is applied, GECB considers that four individual claims arising under Clause 4.1 of the Indemnity Agreement fully satisfy the Commission’s test.
Čeprav se uporabi ta ozka razlaga, GECB meni, da samo štirje individualni zahtevki, ki izhajajo iz določbe 4.1 Sporazuma o garanciji, v celoti izpolnjujejo zahteve preskusa Komisije.
In addition, the tax claims under Clauses 2.14(c), (d) and (e) would satisfy the Commission’s requirements since the future plaintiff (the Czech authorities) is known due to the nature of these claims.
Tudi davčni zahtevki na podlagi določbe 2.14(c), (d) in (e) bi izpolnjevali zahteve Komisije, saj je zaradi značaja teh zahtevkov prihodnji tožnik znan (češki organi).
Also, the Put Option would be ‘not applicable after accession’ since the triggering events were clearly defined and the put price clearly determined.
Tudi za prodajno opcijo naj bi veljalo, da se „po pristopu ni uporabljala“, ker so bili sprožitveni dogodki jasno opredeljeni in njena cena jasno določena.
With respect to the triggering events, the Put Option would be sufficiently defined at least as far as the four specifically listed validity claims are concerned.
Glede sprožitvenih dogodkov naj bi bila prodajna opcija zadovoljivo opredeljena, vsaj kar zadeva štiri posebej navedene zahtevke v zvezi z veljavnostjo.
Concerning the put price, GECB refers to the case of Ceska sporitelna where the Commission considered a subordinated debt and social loans not to be applicable after accession.
V zvezi s ceno prodajne opcije se GECB sklicuje na primer Ceska sporitelna, ko je Komisija menila, da se podrejeni dolg in socialna posojila po pristopu niso uporabljali.
Alternatively, if the Warranties and Indemnities and the Put Option were ‘applicable after’ they would not amount to State aid given that the CNB had to be considered a de facto owner of AGB and that it had a financial interest in the sale of AGB.
Če bi se jamstva in garancije ter prodajna opcija „uporabljali po“, ne bi pomenili državne pomoči, saj je treba na ČNB gledati kot na dejanskega lastnika AGB, ki ima pri njeni prodaji finančni interes.
Also, the Warranties and Indemnities and the Put Option were negotiated between the parties and were reflected in the price paid by GECB.
O jamstvih in garancijah ter prodajni opciji so se pogajale tudi pogodbene stranke in se izražajo v ceni, ki jo je plačala GECB.