natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission expressed further doubts on the transparency of the final selection, given that there was no indication as to how the criteria would be weighted; moreover, the further criterion of ‘refinancing of BB after the sale’, which was stressed during the negotiations, was not included in the list (see paragraphs 65 to 69 of the opening decision for further details).
Komisija je izrazila nadaljnje dvome o preglednosti končne izbire glede na to, da ni bilo nobenih navedb, kako naj bi se merila presojala; poleg tega nadaljnje merilo „refinanciranja banke BB po prodaji“, ki je bilo poudarjeno med pogajanji, ni bilo vključeno na seznam (več podatkov je v odstavkih od 65 do 69 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka).
Furthermore, the Commission could not rule out the possibility that an economic advantage had been conferred on GRAWE, for the following reasons.
Komisija poleg tega tudi ni mogla izključiti možnosti, da je bila družbi GRAWE dodeljena gospodarska prednost zaradi naslednjih razlogov:
the price difference, indicating that the market price had not been paid in selling BB to GRAWE;
razlika v ceni, ki pomeni, da pri prodaji banke BB družbi GRAWE ni bila plačana tržna cena;
the issue of further bonds worth EUR 380 million covered by Ausfallhaftung, which was not an element of the business plan of BB which had been given to the potential buyers and which apparently had not been offered to the Consortium;
izdaja dodatnih obveznic v vrednosti 380 milijonov EUR, krita z garancijo Ausfallhaftung, ki ni bila del poslovnega načrta za banko BB, sporočenega morebitnim kupcem, in očitno ni bila ponujena konzorciju;
the uncertainty whether higher bids might have been offered or whether other competitors might have participated in the sale, had the conditions referred to above not been imposed.
negotovost, ali bi bile morda predložene višje ponudbe in ali bi morda pri prodaji sodelovali še drugi tekmeci, če ne bi bili postavljeni zgoraj navedeni pogoji.
The Commission also mentioned the potential effect of the tax loss carry-over on the economic value of the respective offers.
Komisija je omenila tudi mogoči učinek prenosa davčne izgube na tržno vrednost zadevnih ponudb.
The warranty clause contained in the contract with GRAWE was a further matter for concern.
Zaskrbljenost je povzročala tudi garancijska klavzula, ki jo je vsebovala pogodba z družbo GRAWE.
On the stipulation in the contract concerning compensation for early discharge (Vorfälligkeitsentschädigung) of the guarantee agreement of 20 June 2000, the Commission wondered whether the restructuring decision had been fully complied with by Austria.
V zvezi z določbo v pogodbi glede nadomestila za predčasno izpolnitev (Vorfälligkeitsentschädigung) garancijskega sporazuma z dne 20. junija 2000 se je Komisija spraševala, ali je Avstrija v popolnosti izpolnila Odločbo o prestrukturiranju.
The Commission received comments from the beneficiary GRAWE and from a Hungarian third party [19].
Komisija je prejela pripombe prejemnice, družbe GRAWE, in madžarske tretje stranke [19].
The comments from GRAWE support and supplement Austria’s arguments and these are dealt with together below.
Pripombe družbe GRAWE podpirajo in dopolnjujejo avstrijske argumente, kar je skupaj obravnavano v nadaljevanju besedila.
The Hungarian interested party submitted a number of documents which refer to an alleged earlier fraud concerning primarily the business of BB in Hungary, where its subsidiary Sopron Bank RT is situated. It maintained that the fraud could be kept secret only by selling BB to an Austrian bidder.
Madžarska zainteresirana stranka je predložila več dokumentov, ki se nanašajo na domnevno preteklo goljufijo, v glavnem v zvezi s poslovanjem banke BB na Madžarskem, kjer je njena podružnica Sopron Bank RT. Trdila je, da bi lahko goljufija ostala prikrita samo tako, da bi se banka BB prodala avstrijskemu ponudniku.
Numerous documents were provided, relating especially to a number of Hungary-based subsidiaries linked with BB, such as extracts from trade registers, the founding charters of the undertakings concerned, minutes of annual meetings or other company data, covering periods clearly prior to the sale of BB.
Zagotovila je številne dokumente, ki so se nanašali predvsem na več podružnic s sedežem na Madžarskem, povezanih z banko BB, na primer izpiske iz trgovskih registrov, ustanovne listine zadevnih podjetij, na zapisnike letnih sestankov in druge podatke družb, ki se očitno nanašajo na obdobja pred prodajo banke BB.
V. COMMENTS FROM AUSTRIA AND GRAWE
V. PRIPOMBE AVSTRIJE IN DRUŽBE GRAWE
Austria stressed and supplemented the arguments which had already been presented before the Commission decided to open the formal investigation procedure.
Avstrija je poudarila in dopolnila argumente, ki jih je predstavila, že preden se je Komisija odločila, da bo sprožila formalni postopek preiskave.
In this, Austria was largely supported by GRAWE.
Pri tem je avstrijske argumente precej podprla družba GRAWE.
Admissibility
Dopustnost
On procedural grounds, Austria maintained that the Commission should not go into the details of this complaint as the Consortium, which had not yet entered the European banking market and was therefore not even a competitor, could not be regarded as an ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 [now Article 88] of the EC Treaty [20].
Avstrija je s postopkovnega vidika vztrajala, da se Komisija ne bi smela ukvarjati s podrobnostmi te pritožbe, saj konzorcij, ki še ni vstopil na evropski bančni trg in torej ni bil niti tekmec, ne more šteti za „zainteresirano stranko“ po členu 1(h) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 (zdaj člena 88) Pogodbe ES [20].
Any alleged discrimination would, rather, be linked with the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital; entry into the European banking market could not be obtained via a State aid procedure.
Kakršna koli domnevna diskriminacija bi bila tako povezana s pravico do ustanavljanja in prostega pretoka kapitala; vstop na evropski bančni trg ni mogel biti omogočen s postopkom državne pomoči.
The Commission should also take into consideration the fact that the Consortium was not active subsequent to the Commission’s opening decision and had made it publicly known that it no longer had any interest in acquiring the bank.
Komisija bi morala upoštevati tudi dejstvo, da konzorcij po odločitvi Komisije o sprožitvi postopka ni bil več dejaven in je javno izjavil, da se ne zanima več za nakup banke.
The Commission would be exceeding its discretionary powers by examining this case.
S preiskavo te zadeve bi Komisija presegla svoje diskrecijske pravice.
Austria stressed that the Austrian courts had dealt extensively with the case under State aid law, had intensively heard witnesses, had fully evaluated the facts and had concluded that an open, fair and transparent tender procedure had been carried out.
Avstrija je poudarila, da so se avstrijska sodišča s to zadevo podrobno ukvarjala v skladu z zakonodajo o državni pomoči, zaslišala veliko prič, v celoti ocenila dejstva in odločila, da je bil opravljen odprt, pošten in pregleden razpisni postopek.
The Commission should have endorsed this view instead of opening a formal investigation procedure.
Komisija bi morala podpreti to stališče, ne pa sprožiti formalni postopek preiskave.
General issues related to the tender procedure and its outcome
Splošna vprašanja glede razpisnega postopka in njegovega izida
The circumstances of the tender
Okoliščine razpisa
Austria stressed that there had been an open, fair and transparent tender procedure, confirmed by the courts in Austria dealing with the matter.
Avstrija je poudarila, da je bil razpisni postopek odprt, pošten in pregleden, kar so potrdila avstrijska sodišča, ki so obravnavala to zadevo.
The final decision was not taken before 4 March 2006.
Končna odločitev ni bila sprejeta do 4. marca 2006.
All parties had been given the same opportunities to obtain the information they needed for their due diligence, even if the parties did not use it in the same way.
Vse stranke so imele enake priložnosti pridobiti informacije, ki so jih potrebovale za svojo dolžno skrbnost, tudi če jih niso uporabile na isti način.
Even though there had been strong reservations against the Consortium from the start, it was legitimate to keep the Consortium in the tender procedure as long as possible, instead of excluding it on the basis of the indicative offers.
Čeprav so že od začetka obstajali resni pomisleki glede konzorcija, je bilo pravno upravičeno, da ostane čim dalj vključen v razpisni postopek, ne pa da se izključi na podlagi okvirnih ponudb.
Such behaviour was in keeping with that of a private vendor, who would thus increase competition between the bidders in order to drive the price as high as possible.
Tako vedenje je skladno z vedenjem zasebnega prodajalca, ki bi tako povečal konkurenco med ponudniki, da bi dosegel čim višjo ceno.
In addition, Austria had kept expecting the Consortium to put itself forward as a financially strong business partner, as it had announced during the negotiations.
Poleg tega je Avstrija od konzorcija pričakovala, da se bo uveljavil kot finančno močan poslovni partner, kakor je napovedal med pogajanji.
Such a partner could have changed the situation substantially.
Tak partner bi lahko položaj zelo spremenil.
GRAWE submitted that it could not perceive that it had been treated in a preferential manner during the tender procedure, either by the Province of Burgenland or by the Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA).
Družba GRAWE je izjavila, da ni imela občutka, da bi jo Gradiščanska ali organ Avstrije za finančni trg med razpisnim postopkom prednostno obravnavala.
The recommendation
Priporočilo
Austria pointed out that HSBC’s recommendation was no more than a summary of the privatisation process and could not in itself be regarded as the only basis for the decision taken.
Avstrija je poudarila, da je bilo priporočilo družbe HSBC samo povzetek postopka privatizacije in samo ne bi moglo šteti za edino podlago za sprejeto odločitev.
The recommendation was only intended to give a short overview of the procedure and the offers.
Namen priporočila je bil samo predstaviti kratek pregled postopka in ponudb.
Its findings had been complemented by oral explanations given to the decision makers.
Ugotovitve tega priporočila so bile dopolnjene z ustnimi obrazložitvami nosilcem odločanja.
Austria supplemented this information by providing a note which had been drafted by HSBC for the Province of Burgenland to help it prepare its reply to the Commission’s first request for information of 12 April 2006, and in which the findings were further commented on.
Avstrija je te informacije dopolnila tako, da je predložila sporočilo, ki ga je pripravila družba HSBC za Gradiščansko, da bi ji pomagala pripraviti odgovor na prvi zahtevek Komisije po informacijah z dne 12. aprila 2006, in v katerem so bile dodatne pripombe o ugotovitvah.
According to Austria, the recommendation should not be regarded as an expert opinion on the value of the bank, which was not required by European law.
Po trditvah Avstrije priporočilo ne bi smelo šteti za strokovno mnenje o vrednosti banke, ki se v skladu z evropsko zakonodajo ni zahtevalo.
The decision made on 5 March 2006 was instead based on experience acquired in the course of the privatisation process, the recommendation, oral valuations and confidential explanations by HSBC representatives.
Namesto tega je odločitev z dne 5. marca 2006 temeljila na izkušnjah, pridobljenih med postopkom privatizacije, priporočilu, ustnih ocenah in zaupnih obrazložitvah predstavnikov družbe HSBC.
The comparability of the offers by GRAWE and the Consortium
Primerljivost ponudb družbe GRAWE in konzorcija
A number of elements in both the submissions by Austria and the comments by GRAWE address the comparability of the offers made by the two bidders.
Številni elementi trditev Avstrije in pripomb družbe GRAWE se nanašajo na primerljivost ponudb, ki sta jih predložila ponudnika.
As far as the compensation for early discharge (Vorfälligkeitsentschädigung) of the 4guarantee agreement of 20 June 2000 is concerned, Austria argued that the Commission had misinterpreted the relevant arrangements provided for in the offers of both final bidders.
V zvezi z nadomestilom za predčasno izpolnitev (Vorfälligkeitsentschädigung) garancijskega sporazuma z dne 20. junija 2000 je Avstrija trdila, da je Komisija napačno razlagala zadevne dogovore, predvidene v ponudbah obeh končnih ponudnikov.
The compensation related to the fact that the Province of Burgenland would be making its payments under the guarantee agreement several years earlier than planned [21].
Nadomestilo je bilo povezano z dejstvom, da bi Gradiščanska morala izplačati svoje obveznosti v skladu z garancijskim sporazumom več let pred tem, ko je bilo predvideno [21].
This was not an element of the purchase price, as apparently assumed by the Commission.
To ni bil element nakupne cene, kot je očitno domnevala Komisija.
Furthermore, the scheme did not call the earlier decision on the restructuring of BB into question, but helped reduce the aid which had at the time been authorised by the Commission.
Poleg tega ta načrt ni postavil pod vprašaj predhodne odločbe o prestrukturiranju banke BB, ampak je prispeval k zmanjšanju pomoči, ki jo je takrat odobrila Komisija.
In regard to the warranty clauses and the warranty periods provided for in the sales contracts with GRAWE and the Consortium, Austria argued that they were the result of the individually conducted negotiations with each party.
V zvezi z garancijskimi klavzulami in garancijskimi roki, predvidenimi v prodajnih pogodbah z družbo GRAWE in konzorcijem, je Avstrija trdila, da so bile posledica individualnih pogajanj z vsako stranko.
The different arrangements in regard to the limits of liability, the amounts of exemption and the warranty periods (two years for the Consortium and three years for GRAWE) did not discriminate between bidders.
Različni dogovori glede omejitev obveznosti, višine oprostitev in garancijskih rokov (dve leti za konzorcij in tri leta za GRAWE) niso pomenili neupravičenega razlikovanja med ponudnikoma.
Only the draft contract with the Consortium stipulated an annual fee of EUR 100000 for Ausfallhaftung, to be paid until 2017 to the Province of Burgenland.
Samo osnutek pogodbe s konzorcijem je določal letno nadomestilo v višini 100000 EUR za garancijo Ausfallhaftung, ki jo je Gradiščanski treba plačevati do leta 2017.
In explanation, Austria pointed out that the contract with GRAWE did not stipulate an annual fee as this was already included in the sales price offered by GRAWE.
V pojasnilo je Avstrija poudarila, da v pogodbi z družbo GRAWE ni bilo določeno letno nadomestilo, ker je bilo vključeno že v prodajno ceno, ki jo je ponudila družba GRAWE.
Concerning the issue of new bonds, Austria argued that the decision of the management board to issue new bonds to the amount of EUR 380 million, complementing the prior decision — based on the planning in BB’s business plan — to issue bonds worth EUR 320 million in September 2005, had been independent of the forthcoming privatisation and from the future owner of BB.
V zvezi z izdajo novih obveznic je Avstrija trdila, da je bila odločitev upravnega odbora o izdaji novih obveznic v višini 380 milijonov EUR, ki je na podlagi načrtovanja v poslovnem načrtu banke BB dopolnila predhodno odločitev o izdaji obveznic v vrednosti 320 milijonov EUR septembra 2005, neodvisna od bližajoče se privatizacije in prihodnjega lastnika banke BB.
The Province of Burgenland did not think that the issue of those additional bonds had been worth mentioning in the process letter, as this would not have been decisive for the sale.
Gradiščanska ni menila, da bi bilo treba izdajo teh dodatnih obveznic navesti v pismu o postopku, saj to ne bi bilo odločilno za prodajo.
However, both bidders had been informed during the due diligence and the issue would have taken place regardless of the identity of the buyer.
Vendar pa sta bila oba ponudnika obveščena o tem med fazo dolžne skrbnosti, obveznice pa bi se izdale ne glede na to, kdo bi bil kupec.
GRAWE alone had incorporated this in its draft contract.
Samo družba GRAWE je to vključila v osnutek pogodbe.
Austria stressed that the issue of an additional EUR 380 million of bonds was done in order to benefit as much as possible from the favourable refinancing conditions under Ausfallhaftung.
Avstrija je poudarila, da se je izdaja obveznic za dodatnih 380 milijonov EUR opravila, da bi se čim bolje izkoristili ugodni pogoji za refinanciranje z garancijo Ausfallhaftung.
This had been mentioned repeatedly in the course of the negotiations with the Consortium.
To je bilo večkrat omenjeno med pogajanji s konzorcijem.
Indeed, had BB been sold to the Consortium, it would have profited from the better refinancing conditions to a considerably higher extent than GRAWE as buyer.
Če bi bila banka BB prodana konzorciju, bi imela dejansko bistveno večjo korist od boljših pogojev refinanciranja, kot če bi bila kupec družba GRAWE.
Austria argued that the refinancing conditions of BB in the event of a sale to the Consortium would have been more costly, given that GRAWE was rated and the Consortium was not only not rated, but had its seat in Ukraine and BB could therefore expect at most refinancing conditions for a — hypothetical — rating of ‘BB’ or ‘B’, if at all.
Avstrija je trdila, da bi bili pogoji za refinanciranje banke BB v primeru prodaje konzorciju dražji, ker je bila družba GRAWE ocenjena, konzorcij pa ne samo, da ni bil ocenjen, ampak je imel sedež v Ukrajini, tako da je lahko banka BB pričakovala kvečjemu pogoje refinanciranja za – hipotetično – bonitetno oceno „BB“ ali „B“, če sploh.
In regard to the special arrangement with GRAWE to transfer four of BB’s real estate subsidiaries back to the Province of Burgenland prior to closing at their book value of EUR 25 million, Austria pointed out that, given that BB’s auditor confirmed on 31 December 2005 that the market value of the property would be equal to its book value, this transfer would have only a liquidity effect.
V zvezi s posebnim dogovorom z družbo GRAWE o prenosu štirih podružnic za nepremičnine banke BB nazaj na Gradiščansko pred sklenitvijo posla po knjigovodski vrednosti 25 milijonov EUR je Avstrija poudarila, da bi imel ta prenos samo likvidnostni učinek glede na to, da je revizor banke BB 31. decembra 2005 potrdil, da bi bila tržna vrednost tega premoženja enaka knjigovodski vrednosti.
This liquidity effect therefore did not need to be taken into account in the comparison of the two offers.
Tega likvidnostnega učinka zato ni bilo treba upoštevati pri primerjavi obeh ponudb.
An advance payment of EUR 15 million into a trust account with Ukraine-based Active Bank on the day of signing of the contract was offered by the Consortium.
Konzorcij je ponudil predplačilo v višini 15 milijonov EUR na skrbniški račun pri banki Active Bank s sedežem v Ukrajini na dan podpisa pogodbe.
GRAWE had to transfer the sales price in full on the day of closing.
Družba GRAWE je morala na dan sklenitve posla nakazati polno prodajno ceno.
The warranty clause concerning State aid in the contract with GRAWE
Garancijska klavzula v zvezi z državno pomočjo v pogodbi z družbo GRAWE
Austria took the view that the clause, which was also part of the draft contract with the Consortium [22], was standard in any sales contract in such transactions as part of the sales conditions and price and was in line with the State aid rules.
Avstrija je menila, da je klavzula, ki je bila tudi del osnutka pogodbe s konzorcijem [22], standardna za vse prodajne pogodbe pri takih transakcijah kot del prodajnih pogojev in cene ter v skladu s pravili državne pomoči.
It was in the legitimate interest of BB’s buyer, who had not been willing to bid a higher price and might be asked to pay more through a recovery order as a consequence of a State aid decision.
Bila je v zakonitem interesu kupca banke BB, ki ni hotel ponuditi višje cene in bi lahko od njega z nalogom za povračilo zaradi odločbe o državni pomoči zahtevali, naj plača več.
Besides, the Commission should also take into account the fact that the clause included a right of the buyer to withdraw from the contract if the clause was invalid under the State aid rules.
Poleg tega bi morala Komisija upoštevati tudi to, da je ta klavzula vključevala pravico kupca, da odstopi od pogodbe, če bi bila klavzula v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči neveljavna.
According to GRAWE, the Commission’s doubts were irrelevant as long as there was no recovery order.
Po trditvah družbe GRAWE so bili pomisleki Komisije nepomembni, če ni naloga za povračilo.
GRAWE stressed that the buyer in a tender procedure had very limited means to prevent behaviour by a public seller that was potentially relevant to a State aid assessment.
Družba GRAWE je poudarila, da je imel kupec v razpisnem postopku zelo omejene načine za preprečevanje takega obnašanja javnega prodajalca, ki bi bilo lahko pomembno za oceno državne pomoči.
GRAWE considered that such a clause gave the State even more reason to comply with the State aid rules and was therefore in turn in the Commission’s interest.
Družba GRAWE je menila, da je taka klavzula za državo pomenila še dodaten razlog, da ravna skladno s pravili državne pomoči, tako da je bila torej v interesu Komisije.
The market conformity of the sales price paid by GRAWE
Tržna ustreznost prodajne cene, ki jo je plačala družba GRAWE
According to Austria, the existence of an open and transparent tender procedure which produced the market price was demonstrated by the fact that three bidders came forward with an indicative offer, of which GRAWE’s offer was second.
Po trditvah Avstrije je dokaz za odprt in pregleden razpisni postopek, ki je zagotovil tržno ceno, dejstvo, da so okvirne ponudbe predložili trije ponudniki, pri čemer je bila ponudba družbe GRAWE druga.
This indicated that GRAWE’s offer had not been below BB’s market value.
To je kazalo, da ponudba družbe GRAWE ni bila pod tržno vrednostjo banke BB.
Austria referred to the outcome of the second attempt to privatise BB.
Avstrija se je sklicevala na izid drugega poskusa privatizacije banke BB.
All four offers at the time had been within a range of EUR 85 million to EUR 93 million. The EUR 100,3 million paid by GRAWE could therefore also be considered to be in line with market conditions.
Vse štiri ponudbe so se takrat gibale med 85 milijoni EUR in 93 milijoni EUR. Znesek 100,3 milijona EUR, ki ga je plačala družba GRAWE, bi lahko zato tudi štel za skladnega s tržnimi pogoji.
According to the State aid rules, Austria was not obliged to sell the bank in an open tender procedure at all but was free to choose either an open tender procedure or an expert evaluation.
V skladu s pravili državne pomoči Avstrija banke sploh ni bila dolžna prodati z odprtim razpisnim postopkom, ampak je lahko prosto izbirala med odprtim razpisnim postopkom ali pa strokovno oceno.
As long as the sales price was in keeping with these prior evaluations, State aid was not involved.
Dokler je bila prodajna cena v skladu s temi predhodnimi ocenami, državna pomoč ni bila vpletena.
In this context, the Commission had disregarded the fact that Austria had already presented a number of studies in the early phase of the investigation confirming its view that the price paid by GRAWE had been in line with market conditions.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija zanemarila dejstvo, da je Avstrija v zgodnji fazi preiskave že predstavila številne študije, ki potrjujejo njeno stališče, da je bila cena, ki jo je plačala družba GRAWE, skladna s tržnimi pogoji.
Austria and GRAWE backed up their arguments by referring to the following studies and documents:
Avstrija in družba GRAWE sta svoje argumente podprli s sklicevanjem na naslednje študije in dokumente:
the Consortium’s own assessment, which assumed a stand-alone equity value of BB in the range of EUR 50-75 million.
Lastna ocena konzorcija, po kateri naj bi bila samostojna vrednost premoženja banke BB med 50 in 75 milijoni EUR.