natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The total estimated theoretical exposure to all litigation (threatened and unknown) in the worst-case scenario was significantly lower than the difference between the sales price of HUF 101 billion and the proceeds originally envisaged by the State before the privatisation.
Skupna ocenjena teoretična izpostavljenost vsem sodnim sporom (tistim, ki grozijo, in neznanim) je bila v najslabšem primeru znatno nižja od razlike med prodajno ceno 101 milijard HUF in iztržkom, ki ga je država predvidela pred privatizacijo.
This amount was also significantly lower than the difference between the sales price and the highest indicative bid received [6].
Ta znesek je bil tudi znatno nižji od razlike med prodajno ceno in najvišjo prejeto okvirno ponudbo [6].
Therefore, the Hungarian authorities believe that by giving the indemnity undertaking the State was able to generate an additional premium on the sale and that the State acted wholly in line with the market economy investor principle.
Zato so madžarski organi prepričani, da je zagotovilo o jamstvu državi omogočilo oblikovanje dodatne premije pri prodaji in da je država v celoti ravnala v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The Hungarian authorities furthermore state that a rescue and restructuring analysis is unnecessary since the measure does not constitute State aid.
Madžarski organi poleg tega navajajo, da analiza reševanja in prestrukturiranja ni potrebna, ker ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči.
In the decision initiating the procedure the Commission considered that the Strategic Cooperation Agreement between Postabank and Magyar Posta (Hungarian Post) signed in December 2002 reinforces the competitive position of Postabank on the Hungarian market and confers an advantage on it by granting it exclusivity for the postal sale of jointly developed new products.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka izrazila mnenje, da strateški sporazum o sodelovanju med banko Postabank in pošto Magyar Posta (Madžarska pošta), podpisan decembra 2002, krepi konkurenčni položaj banke Postabank na madžarskem trgu ter ji podeljuje prednost z dodelitvijo izključne pravice do poštne prodaje skupaj razvitih novih proizvodov.
The Hungarian authorities claim that the Commission misinterprets the relationship between Magyar Posta and Postabank.
Madžarski organi trdijo, da si Komisija napačno razlaga odnos med pošto Magyar Posta in banko Postabank.
They state that the Strategic Cooperation Agreement is a wholly commercial agreement and does not grant either party any form of general exclusivity.
Navajajo, da je strateški sporazum o sodelovanju v celoti trgovinski sporazum, ki nobeni strani ne dodeljuje nobene oblike splošne izključne pravice.
If the measure were to qualify as State aid, Hungary does not agree with the doubts expressed by the Commission (see paragraphs 135-138 of the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure) in respect of the application of Article 45(2) of the Europe Agreement in the present case to justify the measures granted for Postabank.
Če se ukrep opredeli kot državna pomoč, se Madžarska ne strinja s pomisleki, ki jih je izrazila Komisija (glej odstavke 135–138 odločitve o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave) glede uporabe člena 45(2) Evropskega sporazuma v obravnavani zadevi, da se utemeljijo ukrepi, ki so bili odobreni za banko Postabank.
They argue that the Commission should take into account the fact that Hungary was not yet a member of the EU when the measures under assessment took place.
Trdijo, da bi Komisija morala upoštevati dejstvo, da Madžarska še ni bila članica EU, ko so bili sprejeti ukrepi, ki se proučujejo.
They claim that the Hungarian Government could not have allowed Postabank to fail in 1998 at a time when it was experiencing its greatest difficulties and the Hungarian market was not stable.
Trdijo, da madžarska vlada ni mogla dopustiti stečaja banke Postabank leta 1998, ko je imela največje težave in madžarski trg ni bil stabilen.
The failure of Postabank, given its size, could have led to a major financial crisis.
Stečaj banke Postabank bi lahko glede na njeno velikost povzročil veliko finančno krizo.
Comments by Erste Bank
Pripombe banke Erste Bank
Erste Bank submitted arguments similar to those put forward by the Hungarian authorities.
Banka Erste Bank je predložila podobne pripombe kot madžarski organi.
Erste Bank disagrees with the conclusions of the Commission that the measure constitutes aid incompatible with the common market.
Banka Erste Bank se ne strinja s sklepi Komisije, da ukrep pomeni pomoč, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Erste Bank also contests the contention that the measure is applicable after accession.
Banka Erste Bank nasprotuje tudi trditvi, da je ukrep veljaven po pristopu.
It claims that the measure is limited in scope, amount and duration.
Trdi, da so področje uporabe, znesek in trajanje ukrepa omejeni.
All the potential claims were clearly defined before accession; therefore, no new aid could arise as a result of it after accession.
Vse morebitne terjatve so bile jasno opredeljene pred pristopom, zato po pristopu ne more izhajati iz njih nobena nova pomoč.
It further argues that the measure does not confer a commercial advantage or distort competition, because it is simply a standard market term in a share purchase agreement for dealing with particular risks and it was agreed on under a competitive procedure, which ensures that the market price was paid for the indemnity undertaking and that, therefore, there was no element of aid.
Dodaja, da ukrep ne podeljuje poslovne prednosti ali izkrivlja konkurence, ker je preprosto standardni tržni pogoj v pogodbi o nakupu delnic, namenjen za obravnavanje posebnih tveganj, pri čemer je bil dogovor v zvezi z njim sprejet v okviru razpisnega postopka, kar zagotavlja, da je bila za zagotovilo o jamstvu plačana tržna cena in zato v tem primeru ni bilo elementa pomoči.
On the basis of case-law in relation to privatisations conducted under open, non-discriminatory, competitive and transparent procedures, Erste Bank argued that it had legitimate expectations that the sale of Postabank did not involve any State aid being conferred on it.
Banka Erste Bank je v skladu s sodno prakso v zvezi s privatizacijami, izvedenimi na podlagi javnih, nediskriminatornih, konkurenčnih in preglednih postopkov, trdila, da je zakonito pričakovala, da prodaja banke Postabank ni vključevala nikakršne državne pomoči v zvezi s tem.
In addition, in contrast to a guarantee, which can be a legal obligation in its own right, the measure is, by its nature, an indemnity undertaking, which cannot be viewed as a stand-alone measure, since it is always inextricably linked to a specific sale agreement.
Poleg tega je ukrep v nasprotju z garancijo, ki je lahko pravna obveznost sama po sebi, v osnovi zagotovilo o jamstvu, ki se ne sme obravnavati kot samostojen ukrep, ker je vedno neločljivo povezan s posebno prodajno pogodbo.
The indemnity undertaking serves to protect the value of the assets transferred at the time of the sale against risks arising in respect of the period prior to the sale.
Zagotovilo o jamstvu ščiti vrednost sredstev, prenesenih v času prodaje, pred tveganji, ki izhajajo iz obdobja pred prodajo.
Erste Bank also argues that the measure should be assessed in isolation from past measures and that the private investor test analysis carried out by the Commission should not lump together the pre-accession restructuring measures for Postabank and its privatisation.
Banka Erste Bank tudi meni, da je treba ukrep oceniti ločeno od preteklih ukrepov in da mora analiza preskusa zasebnega vlagatelja, ki jo je izvedla Komisija, razlikovati med ukrepi prestrukturiranja za banko Postabank pred pristopom in njeno privatizacijo.
The measure is not a restructuring measure, but an indemnity undertaking inextricably linked to the share purchase agreement, which is separate from the restructuring process.
Ukrep ni ukrep prestrukturiranja, ampak zagotovilo o jamstvu, neločljivo povezano s pogodbo o nakupu delnic, ki je ločena od postopka prestrukturiranja.
Postabank was viable at the time of its privatisation.
Banka Postabank je bila v času privatizacije sposobna preživetja.
Second, the Commission has no jurisdiction to examine previous restructuring measures that are not applicable after accession.
Komisija prav tako ni pristojna za proučitev prejšnjih ukrepov prestrukturiranja, ki ne veljajo po pristopu.
The Commission’s approach of lumping together measures not applicable after accession and the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims treats the 1998-2002 measures as aid, although it has no jurisdiction to examine them.
Komisija v okviru svojega pristopa nerazlikovanja med ukrepi, ki ne veljajo po pristopu, in zagotovilom o jamstvu za neznane terjatve, obravnava ukrepe iz obdobja 1998–2002 kot pomoč, čeprav ni pristojna za njihovo proučitev.
Erste Bank also states, as a subsidiary argument, that the Commission’s private investor test analysis is, in any event, incomplete as it does not examine the costs of liquidation or the relevant Hungarian banking rules preventing liquidations from taking place.
Kot dodaten razlog banka Erste Bank tudi navaja, da je analiza preskusa zasebnega vlagatelja, ki jo je opravila Komisija, v vsakem primeru nepopolna, ker ne vključuje proučitve stroškov likvidacije ali zadevnih madžarskih bančnih pravil, ki preprečujejo likvidacijo.
Erste Bank considers that, since the measure does not constitute aid and is not applicable after accession, there is no need for a compatibility assessment.
Banka Erste Bank meni, da ni potrebe po oceni združljivosti, ker ukrep ne pomeni pomoči in ne velja po pristopu.
It also claims that the compatibility assessment is based on the mistaken assumption that the measure is a restructuring measure rather than an element in the privatisation.
Prav tako trdi, da ocena združljivosti temelji na napačni predpostavki, da je ta ukrep ukrep prestrukturiranja in ne element privatizacije.
Erste Bank further argues that the measure does not distort competition or confer a commercial advantage, since it came about in the context of a competitive procedure under which Postabank was sold at a market price.
Banka Erste Bank nadalje trdi, da ukrep ne izkrivlja konkurence ali podeljuje poslovne prednosti, ker je bil sprejet med konkurenčnim postopkom, v okviru katerega je bila banka Postabank prodana po tržni ceni.
In any event, according to the case-law, the benefit of any advantage would remain with the seller and would not be passed on to the buyer.
V vsakem primeru se v skladu s sodno prakso kakršna koli ugodnost prodajalca ne bi prenesla na kupca.
Therefore, there was no selective commercial advantage in favour of Erste Bank (in respect of the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims or otherwise) as the State would have been prepared to sell Postabank to whichever company had offered the highest price.
Zato banka Erste Bank ni imela selektivne poslovne prednosti (v zvezi z zagotovilom o jamstvu za neznane terjatve ali čim drugim), ker bi bila država pripravljena prodati banko Postabank kateri koli družbi, ki bi ponudila najvišjo ceno.
Erste Bank states that the Commission does not identify the legal grounds for its applicability test and that in order to show that the Commission has the jurisdiction to examine the measure under Article 88(2), it would have to be shown that the undertaking constituted new aid within the meaning of Annex IV(3) of the Act of Accession.
Banka Erste Bank navaja, da Komisija ne določa pravne podlage za svoj preskus veljavnosti ter da bi bilo treba za dokaz, da je pristojna za proučitev ukrepa v skladu s členom 88(2), pokazati, da zagotovilo pomeni novo pomoč v smislu poglavja 3 Priloge IV k Aktu o pristopu.
It also states that Hungary was not a member of the EU at the time the measures were created and therefore not directly subject to Article 87(1) EC.
Navaja tudi, da Madžarska v času oblikovanja ukrepov ni bila članica EU, zato se zanjo člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES ne neposredno uporablja.
The Commission cannot apply State aid rules to situations definitively fixed before accession, such as the Postabank share purchase agreement, which is a legally binding act, as this would contravene the principle of non-retroactivity.
Komisija ne more uporabiti pravil o državni pomoči za primere, ki so bili dokončno določeni pred pristopom, kot je pogodba o nakupu delnic banke Postabank, ki je pravno zavezujoč akt, ker bi bilo to v nasprotju z načelom prepovedi retroaktivnosti.
At the time of privatisation neither Hungary nor Erste Bank was aware of the requirement that risks have to be precisely defined in order for indemnity undertakings not to be considered applicable after accession.
V času privatizacije Madžarska in banka Erste Bank nista bili seznanjeni z zahtevo, da morajo biti tveganja natančno določena, da se zagotovila o jamstvu ne bi obravnavala kot veljavna po pristopu.
Applicability after accession
Veljavnost po pristopu
As explained above as well as in the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission’s assessment first examines whether the measure on which the formal investigation procedure was initiated, i.e. the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims, is applicable after accession according to the criteria set out in paragraph 14.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno zgoraj in v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, Komisija v oceni najprej prouči, ali je ukrep, za katerega se sproži formalni postopek preiskave, tj. zagotovilo o jamstvu za neznane terjatve, v skladu z merili iz odstavka 14 veljaven po pristopu.
The question of aid being ‘applicable after accession’ is a distinct question from the question of whether a measure qualifies as aid (at any given relevant time) and is subject to distinct criteria.
Vprašanje, ali je pomoč „veljavna po pristopu“, se razlikuje od vprašanja, ali se ukrep šteje kot pomoč (ob katerem koli določenem času), in se zanj uporabljajo drugačna merila.
The irrevocable unilateral declaration signed on 29 April 2004 by Postabank’s buyer, Erste Bank, provides for an overall cap of HUF 200 billion and a narrower definition of risk in respect of Hungary’s liability towards the buyer, as laid down in the share purchase agreement.
Nepreklicna enostranska izjava, ki jo je 29. aprila 2004 podpisal kupec banke Postabank, tj. banka Erste Bank, določa splošno omejitev 200 milijard HUF in natančnejšo opredelitev tveganja v zvezi z odgovornostjo Madžarske do kupca, kot je določeno v pogodbi o nakupu delnic.
However, despite this setting of an overall cap and narrowing of the scope of the measure, the Commission notes that the indemnity undertaken by the Hungarian Government in order to facilitate the sale of Postabank was not precisely defined and did not involve an exhaustive and binding list finalised by the date of accession.
Vendar kljub določitvi omejitve in zmanjšanju področja uporabe ukrepa Komisija ugotavlja, da jamstvo, ki ga je zagotovila madžarska vlada za spodbuditev prodaje banke Postabank, ni bilo natančno opredeljeno in ni vključevalo izčrpnega in zavezujočega seznama, dokončno oblikovanega do datuma pristopa.
On the contrary, the measure covers indemnities with a wide scope, is not precisely defined and is capped at a high level, which moreover was introduced at a later date.
Nasprotno, ukrep zajema jamstva s širokim področjem uporabe, ni natančno opredeljen, pri čemer je njegova zgornja meja visoka in je bila poleg tega uvedena pozneje.
Therefore, the undertaking provides the potential for an undetermined number of further claims beyond what had been clearly defined by the time of accession, which is contrary to what the Hungarian authorities and Erste Bank maintain.
Zato zagotovilo o jamstvu omogoča nedoločljivo število nadaljnjih terjatev, ki presegajo jasno opredelitev ob pristopu, kar je v nasprotju s trditvami madžarskih organov in banke Erste Bank.
The Commission considers that a mere cap without listing (itemising) the specific events which might trigger the undertaking does not tie the payment of the indemnity after accession to specific events definitively and unconditionally identified prior to accession.
Komisija meni, da le omejitev brez seznama (navedbe) posebnih dogodkov, ki lahko sprožijo zagotovilo o jamstvu, ne povezuje plačila jamstva po pristopu s posebnimi dogodki, dokončno in brezpogojno določenimi pred pristopom.
It is true that the financial exposure of the State has been limited in theory, but the facts that would trigger the potential payments by the State have not been clearly identified, as is clear from the very name of the undertaking, i.e. that it is for unknown claims.
Res je, da je bila finančna izpostavljenost države teoretično omejena, vendar dejstva, ki bi sprožila morebitna plačila s strani države, niso bila jasno določena, kot je jasno iz samega poimenovanja zagotovila, tj. jamstvo za neznane terjatve.
The limitation is thus only apparent, as the scope and the concrete amounts which might have to be paid after accession may vary on the basis of criteria explained only in general terms.
Omejitev je torej le navidezna, ker se obseg in dejanski zneski, ki bi jih morda bilo treba plačati po pristopu, lahko razlikujejo na podlagi meril, ki so le splošno pojasnjena.
The measure at issue therefore qualifies as applicable after accession, with two exceptions.
Zadevni ukrep se zato šteje za veljavnega po pristopu z dvema izjemama.
Following the clarifications provided by the authorities, the Commission has concluded that there are two items which fulfil the criteria not to qualify as applicable after accession.
Na podlagi pojasnil, ki so jih predložili organi, je Komisija sklenila, da so v dveh primerih izpolnjena merila, v skladu s katerimi se ukrep ne šteje kot veljaven po pristopu.
These two items relate to the potential claims of Arthur Andersen Audit Könyvszakértő Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság and/or Prudentia Könyvvizsgáló és Gazdasági Tanácsadó Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság (or their assignees or legal successors) against Postabank or any material subsidiary relating to the preparation of an audit of Postabank or any material subsidiary in the period prior to the year 2000, with a total financial limit of HUF 200 billion (included in ‘Risk definition O’ in Erste Bank’s Unilateral Declaration of 29 April 2004).
Ta dva primera zadevata morebitne terjatve podjetij Arthur Andersen Audit Könyvszakértő Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság in/ali Prudentia Könyvvizsgáló és Gazdasági Tanácsadó Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság (ali njihove pooblaščene ali pravne naslednike) do banke Postabank ali katerega koli pomembnega podrejenega podjetja, povezanega s pripravo revizije banke Postabank, ali katerega koli pomembnega podrejenega podjetja v obdobju pred letom 2000 s skupno finančno mejo 200 milijard HUF (vključeno v „opredelitev tveganja O“ v enostranski izjavi banke Erste Bank z dne 29. aprila 2004).
The Commission notes that these two companies have already indicated to Erste Bank that they would file a claim for damages against Erste Bank subject to the outcome of ongoing legal action brought by the Hungarian State against Postabank’s auditors in connection with their role as the Bank’s auditors.
Komisija ugotavlja, da sta ti podjetji banko Erste Bank že opozorili, da bosta zoper njo vložili odškodninsko terjatev ob upoštevanju rezultata obravnavanega pravnega spora, ki ga je sprožila Madžarska zoper revizorje banke Postabank v povezavi z njihovo vlogo revizorjev te banke.
At this stage, these claims constitute threatened claims.
Na tej stopnji navedene terjatve pomenijo terjatve, ki grozijo.
In addition, Arthur Andersen has sought payment from Erste Bank for its legal costs incurred in connection with the Hungarian State’s lawsuit.
Poleg tega je podjetje Arthur Andersen zahtevalo od banke Erste Bank plačilo za pravne stroške, nastale v povezavi s tožbo Madžarske.
The State’s indemnity undertaking covering these two threatened claims fulfils all three criteria set out above and can therefore not be considered applicable after accession.
Zagotovilo o jamstvu države, ki zajema ti dve vrsti terjatev, ki grozijo, izpolnjuje vsa tri navedena merila in ga zato ni mogoče šteti za veljavnega po pristopu.
First, the Republic of Hungary (like all the other candidate countries at that time) were already bound — prior to accession — by the Europe Agreements, which, inter alia, declared any public aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods in so far as they may affect trade between the Community and the then candidate country incompatible with the proper functioning of the Agreement itself [7].
Republiko Madžarsko (kot vse druge države kandidatke takrat) so že pred pristopom obvezovali Evropski sporazumi, ki so med drugim določali, da katera koli javna pomoč, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, ni v skladu z ustreznim izvajanjem samega sporazuma, če to vpliva na trgovino med Skupnostjo in takratno državo kandidatko [7].
Subsequently, Annex IV.3 of the Accession Treaty defined three categories of measures as existing aid: (i) those put into effect before 10 December 1994; (ii) those examined by the Commission and included in the list annexed to the Treaty of Accession; and (iii) those approved under the interim mechanism.
V poglavju 3 Priloge IV k Pristopni pogodbi so bile nato tri kategorije ukrepov opredeljene kot obstoječa pomoč: (i) ukrepi, ki so se začeli izvajati pred 10. decembrom 1994; (ii) ukrepi, ki jih je proučila Komisija in jih vključila v seznam, priložen k Pristopni pogodbi, in (iii) ukrepi, ki jih je Komisija odobrila v okviru začasnega mehanizma.
The Treaty makes it clear that all measures still applicable after the date of accession that constitute State aid and do not fulfil the conditions of existing aid would be considered new aid upon accession.
Pogodba jasno določa, da se vsi ukrepi, ki so še vedno veljavni tudi po datumu pristopa ter ki pomenijo državno pomoč in ne izpolnjujejo pogojev za obstoječo pomoč, štejejo za novo pomoč po pristopu.
It is therefore clear — on the basis of this primary EU legislation — that the Commission has full powers to review aid measures put into effect before and applicable after accession that did not qualify as existing aid after accession.
Zato je na podlagi te primarne zakonodaje EU jasno, da ima Komisija vsa pooblastila za pregled ukrepov pomoči, ki so se začeli izvajati pred pristopom in veljajo po pristopu ter ne izpolnjujejo pogojev za obstoječo pomoč po pristopu.
The Commission can consider such measures to be ‘new aid’ as of 1 May 2004 and can thus prohibit the application of the aid after that date, as well as order recovery of any sums unlawfully paid after accession, if it considers that this aid is incompatible with the common market.
Komisija lahko obravnava takšne ukrepe kot „novo pomoč“ od 1. maja 2004 in s tem prepove izvajanje pomoči po tem datumu ter zahteva izterjavo vseh zneskov, nezakonito plačanih po pristopu, če meni, da ta pomoč ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
This application of State aid rules to the future effects of measures applicable after accession and not fulfilling the criteria of existing aid, as defined by the Treaty of Accession, does therefore not entail any retroactive effect of the EC State aid rules.
Ta uporaba pravil o državni pomoči za prihodnje učinke ukrepov, ki veljajo po pristopu in ne izpolnjujejo meril za obstoječo pomoč, kot je opredeljena s Pristopno pogodbo, zato ne pomeni uporabe pravil ES o državni pomoči z učinkom za nazaj.
Pursuant to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES je vsaka pomoč, ki jo odobri država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, če vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.