natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The exemption could have, in principle, provided an economic advantage to employer companies like BT whose liabilities in relation to their pension fund are covered by the Crown guarantee.
Izvzetje bi lahko načeloma pomenilo gospodarsko prednost za družbo delodajalca, kot je BT, katere obveznosti do pokojninskega sklada krije poroštvo države.
Those companies could have followed more lenient requirements, if at all, as to (i) the obligation to correct any deficit; (ii) the methodology followed to assess the schemes’ position as to assets and liabilities; and (iii) the conditions and period for doing so.
Te družbe bi lahko izpolnjevale manj stroge ali pa sploh nikakršne predpise glede (i) obveznosti odpravljanja kakšnega koli primanjkljaja, (ii) metodologije za ocenjevanje stanja sredstev in obveznosti pokojninske sheme ter (iii) pogojev in rokov za izvedbo navedenega.
Indeed, the funds released from not following those requirements could have been used for other economic activities.
Dejansko bi se lahko sredstva, pridobljena zaradi neizpolnjevanja navedenih zahtev, uporabila za druge gospodarske dejavnosti.
In respect of the funding obligation, the rules of BTPS between 1995 and 2004 placed BT under an obligation to correct any deficit identified by the scheme actuary.
Glede predpisov o financiranju so pravila o BTPS med letoma 1995 in 2004 določala, da mora družba BT odpraviti kakršen koli primanjkljaj, ki ga ugotovi aktuar pokojninske sheme.
Although BT could have availed itself of the exemption from the Pensions Act 1995, it did not do so as concerns the obligation of return to full funding.
Čeprav bi družba BT lahko izkoristila izvzetje od Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995, tega ni storila glede obveznosti doseganja popolnega kritja.
In respect of the methodology, the authorities of the United Kingdom provided all BTPS’ Statement of investment principles since 1996 to the Commission.
V zvezi z metodologijo so organi Združenega kraljestva Komisiji predložili vse izjave o načelih naložbene politike BTPS od leta 1996.
The authorities of the United Kingdom have also shown that those requirements were complied with in the valuations carried out in 1999 and 2002, notwithstanding the deficit established according to a different, ongoing valuation, basis.
Organi Združenega kraljestva so dokazali tudi, da so se navedeni predpisi upoštevali v ocenah, opravljenih v letih 1999 in 2002, ne glede na primanjkljaj, ugotovljen na podlagi drugačne, redne ocene.
As a matter of fact, BTPS’ funding position resulting from the valuations carried out in 1999 and 2002, when the minimum funding requirements of the Pensions Act 1995 were in force, does not disclose any deficit which BT would have been forced to make good in application of those requirements.
Stanje sredstev pokojninske sheme BTPS na podlagi ocen, opravljenih v letih 1999 in 2002, ko so veljali predpisi o minimalnem financiranju iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995, dejansko ne kaže nobenega primanjkljaja, ki bi ga morala družba BT odpraviti v skladu z navedenimi predpisi.
Although BT could have availed itself of the exemption from the Pensions Act 1995 as concerns the prescribed methodology, it did not do so and actually applied a methodology which placed more stringent obligations on the funding of BTPS’ deficit.
Čeprav bi družba BT lahko izkoristila izvzetje od Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995, kar zadeva predpisano metodologijo, tega ni storila in je dejansko uporabila metodologijo, ki je nalagala strožje obveznosti glede financiranja primanjkljaja BTPS.
In respect of the prescribed period for return to full funding, had a deficit existed under the minimum funding requirements set out in the Pensions Act 1995, the correction needed not to be immediate but could be carried forward within prescribed periods of 10 years or less.
Glede predpisanega roka za doseganje popolnega kritja v primeru primanjkljaja po predpisih o minimalnem financiranju iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995 tega ni bilo treba popraviti takoj, temveč v predpisanem roku, ki ni daljši od desetih let.
It is true that BT was, and still is, obliged under the rules of BTPS to repair any deficit between the scheme assets and liabilities reported on an actuarial valuation, […].
Res je, da je po pravilih BTPS družba BT bila in še vedno je dolžna odpraviti kakršen koli primanjkljaj med sredstvi in obveznostmi sheme, ugotovljen v aktuarski oceni […].
However, in the absence of any deficit of the BTPS under the methodology prescribed by the Pensions Act 1995, the longer period within which BT could have corrected it as compared with the Act does not appear to have provided an actual economic advantage to BT.
Ker pa metodologija, določena v Pokojninskem zakonu iz leta 1995, ni pokazala nobenega primanjkljaja v BTPS, se ne zdi, da bi daljše obdobje, v katerem bi družba BT lahko odpravila primanjkljaj v primerjavi z Zakonom, pomenilo dejansko gospodarsko prednost za družbo BT.
The Commission notes the argument made by third parties that a measure does not cease being State aid because it has not yet been used.
Komisija je upoštevala trditev tretjih strani, da dejstvo, da se ukrep še ni uporabil, ne pomeni, da ta ukrep ni državna pomoč.
However, in the current circumstances, the measure in question is no longer in force and there is no evidence of an economic benefit having accrued to BP between 1995 and 2004.
Vendar pa v trenutnih okoliščinah zadevni ukrep ni več veljaven in ni dokazov, da je imela družba BT med letoma 1995 in 2004 gospodarsko prednost.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that it is not established that the exemption from the minimum funding requirements laid down in the Pensions Act 1995 and, even less so, the rules contained in the Pensions Act 2004 have procured or still procure an economic advantage to BT.
V teh okoliščinah Komisija meni, da ni ugotovljeno, da je izvzetje od izpolnjevanja predpisov o minimalnem financiranju iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995, še manj pa predpisov iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004 pomenilo ali še vedno pomeni gospodarsko prednost za družbo BT.
There is therefore no State aid in this respect since the cumulative conditions laid down by Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty are not fulfilled.
S tega vidika zato državna pomoč ne obstaja, saj niso izpolnjeni kumulativni pogoji iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The exemption from the payment of levy to the Pension Protection Fund corresponding to the pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee set out in the Pensions Act 2004
Izvzetje od plačevanja dajatve za pokojninski zaščitni sklad po Pokojninskem zakonu iz leta 2004 za tiste pokojninske obveznosti, ki jih krije poroštvo države
The Pensions Act 2004 created the Pension Protection Fund, to which pension funds generally have to contribute by paying an annual levy, unless they benefit from a Crown guarantee and are as a result exempted from this payment.
Na podlagi Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004 je bil ustanovljen pokojninski zaščitni sklad, v katerega morajo pokojninski skladi na splošno prispevati letno dajatev, razen če jih krije poroštvo države in so zato izvzeti od plačevanja te dajatve.
As from 2004, the Pension Protection Fund general system has been established and occupational pension schemes, and indirectly employers, have to make contributions to the Pension Protection Fund, which guarantees the employees of any contributor scheme.
Leta 2004 je bil ustanovljen splošni sistem pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada, poklicne pokojninske sheme in posredno delodajalci pa morajo plačevati prispevke v pokojninski zaščitni sklad, ki pomeni poroštvo za zaposlene, ki so člani katere koli sheme, ki prispeva v sklad.
In other words, the general system is that additional protection must be paid by the employers in the form of the payment of a full levy.
Z drugimi besedami, splošen sistem pomeni, da morajo delodajalci plačevati dodatno zaščito v obliki plačila polne dajatve.
Under the Pension Protection Fund entry rules regulations, the section of BTPS for the part of its employees’ pension rights guaranteed by the Crown is exempted.
V skladu s pravili o začetku veljavnosti pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada je izvzet del BTPS za pokojninske pravice njegovih zaposlenih, ki jih krije država.
Therefore, BTPS levy is calculated by the Pension Protection Fund excluding all members of the scheme who joined before privatisation on the understanding that section 68 of the 1984 Act guarantees the liability of BT to make contributions to BTPS in respect of these members.
Pokojninski zaščitni sklad zato izračuna dajatev za BTPS tako, da izvzame vse člane sheme, ki so se vanjo vključili pred privatizacijo, pri čemer se razume, da člen 68 Zakona iz leta 1984 določa obveznost družbe BT, da plačuje prispevke v BTPS za te člane.
As a result, there is a difference between the Pension Protection Fund levy which the BTPS actually paid since 2005 and the levy which the BTPS would have paid had the existence of the Crown guarantee been ignored.
Zato obstaja razlika med dajatvijo za pokojninski zaščitni sklad, ki jo je BTPS dejansko plačeval od leta 2005, in dajatvijo, ki bi jo BTPS plačeval, če se ne bi upošteval obstoj poroštva države.
For instance, the levy which BTPS paid in 2005/2006 was GBP […] whilst the putative levy payable without the Crown guarantee would have been GBP […] In other words, the fee actually paid amounted to less than […] of the amount which the BTPS would have had to pay without the Crown guarantee.
Na primer, dajatev, ki jo je BTPS plačeval v letih 2005/2006, je znašala […] GBP, medtem ko bi domnevna dajatev, ki bi jo moral plačevati brez poroštva države, znašala […] GBP. Z drugimi besedami, dejansko plačana dajatev je znašala manj kot […] zneska, ki bi ga moral BTPS plačevati brez poroštva države.
For subsequent years, the fee payable if the existence of the Crown guarantee had been ignored would have been GBP […] in 2006/2007 and GBP […] in 2007/2008.
V naslednjih letih bi dajatev, ki bi jo moral BTPS plačevati, če se ne bi upošteval obstoj poroštva države, znašala […] GBP v letih 2006/2007 in […] GBP v letih 2007/2008.
The Commission does not consider that the reduction of the levy to be paid to the Pension Protection Fund is justified ‘by the logic of the system’.
Po mnenju Komisije „logika sistema“ ne utemeljuje zmanjšanja dajatve, ki se mora plačevati za pokojninski zaščitni sklad.
The Commission considers that the ‘system’ set out in the United Kingdom for the protection of pension rights cannot be regarded as constituted by the Pension Protection Fund alone.
Komisija meni, da se „sistem“, ki je bil ustanovljen v Združenem kraljestvu za zaščito pokojninskih pravic, ne more obravnavati, kot da temelji le na pokojninskem zaščitnem skladu.
Rather, all measures established in order to achieve protection of pensions must be taken into consideration.
Treba je upoštevati vse ukrepe, uvedene za zaščito pokojnin.
In case BT becomes insolvent and its pension fund is in deficit, the pensions of the pre-privatisation employees concerned will be paid by the State, rather than by the privately funded Pension Protection Fund, as would be the case if the normal rules had applied.
Če družba BT postane plačilno nezmožna in v njenem pokojninskem skladu nastane primanjkljaj, bo pokojnine zaposlenim pred privatizacijo plačevala država in ne zasebno financiran pokojninski zaščitni sklad, ki bi jih sicer plačeval, če bi veljala običajna pravila.
As indicated above, the BTPS obtains the protection of the Crown guarantee without any payment.
Kot je že zgoraj navedeno, ima BTPS zagotovljeno kritje poroštva države brez kakršnega koli plačila.
The only ‘logic’ apparent in this case is that where State resources are made available for the protection of an undertaking’s pension scheme, private provision becomes superfluous.
Edina „logika“, ki iz tega izhaja, je, da postane zasebna rezervacija odvečna, če so za kritje pokojninske sheme podjetja na voljo državna sredstva.
The argument put forward by the authorities of the United Kingdom to the effect that the protection system set out by the Pension Protection Fund only applies in the absence of other adequate protection arrangements being put in place, such as a Crown guarantee, disregards the fact that the protective arrangements from which the BTPS benefits are made available at no cost to BT.
Organi Združenega kraljestva v svoji trditvi, da sistem zaščite, ki ga zagotavlja pokojninski zaščitni sklad, velja le, kadar niso uvedene druge ustrezne zaščitne ureditve, kot je poroštvo države, niso upoštevali dejstva, da so zaščitne ureditve, ki prinašajo koristi BTPS, družbi BT na voljo brezplačno.
Even if one were to admit that the Pension Protection Fund is as a ‘safety net’ intended only for pension schemes not benefiting from adequate protection in case of insolvency of the employer, the fact remains that BT does not pay for such protection as concerns the pension rights of pre-privatisation employees and has been supplemented by the State for the provision of the adequate protection which the United Kingdom deems it necessary to put in place for other employees of occupational pension schemes.
Tudi če bi priznali, da je pokojninski zaščitni sklad „varnostna mreža“, namenjena le pokojninskih shemam, ki nimajo ustrezne zaščite ob plačilni nezmožnosti delodajalca, je dejstvo, da BT ne plačuje take zaščite za pokojninske pravice zaposlenih pred privatizacijo in da ga država dopolnjuje pri zagotavljanju ustrezne zaščite, za katero Združeno kraljestvo meni, da ga je treba uvesti za druge zaposlene, včlanjene v poklicne pokojninske sheme.
Indeed, as concerns its post-privatisation employees whose rights are not covered by the Crown guarantee, BTPS benefits from and contributes to the Pension Protection Fund.
BTPS za zaposlene po privatizaciji, katerih pravice ne krije poroštvo države, dejansko uporablja pokojninski zaščitni sklad in vanj prispeva.
Nor does the Commission share the view put forward by BT and BTPS that a measure which was allegedly not aid in 1984 when it was granted cannot be characterised as aid 20 years later as a result of exogenous events.
Komisija se prav tako ne strinja s stališčem družbe BT in BTPS, da ukrep, ki leta 1984, ko se je dodelil, domnevno ni bil pomoč, ne more biti opredeljen kot pomoč dvajset let pozneje zaradi zunanjega dogodka.
The Commission firstly points out that it does not find the guarantee to be, in itself, an aid to BT.
Komisija prvič poudarja, da po njenem mnenju poroštvo samo po sebi ni pomoč družbi BT.
As the Commission noted in its decision of 28 November 2007, the Crown guarantee on pension liabilities was made for the benefit of the said employees and did not confer an economic advantage directly to BT.
Kot je Komisija navedla v svoji odločitvi z dne 28. novembra 2007, je bilo poroštvo države za pokojninske obveznosti zagotovljeno v korist navedenih zaposlenih in ni prineslo gospodarske prednosti neposredno družbi BT.
The guarantee does however now constitute the underlying reason why BT receives an advantage in the form of the derogation from the full levy to finance the Pension Protection Fund which was introduced by the Pensions Act 2004, which BT pays only as far as its post-privatisation employees are concerned.
Vendar pa poroštvo zdaj pomeni osnovni razlog, da ima družba BT prednost v obliki izvzetja od polne dajatve za financiranje pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada, ustanovljenega s Pokojninskim zakonom iz leta 2004, ki jo BT plačuje le za svoje zaposlene po privatizaciji.
That derogation could not exist at the time when the Crown guarantee was issued because there was no obligation to contribute to the same or a similar fund, but the guarantee is recognised by the Pensions Act 2004 as justification for the derogation.
To izvzetje ni moglo obstajati v času, ko je bilo izdano poroštvo države, ker takrat ni obstajala obveznost plačevanja prispevkov v isti ali podoben sklad, temveč je bilo s Pokojninskim zakonom iz leta 2004 poroštvo priznano kot utemeljitev za izvzetje.
However, the exemption from the Pension Protection Fund and the payment of the full levy is a benefit for BT insofar as it diminishes the levy which would otherwise be due and that exemption owes to the existence of the Crown guarantee.
Vendar pa pomeni izvzetje od pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada in plačila polne dajatve korist za družbo BT, če se s tem zmanjša dajatev, ki bi se sicer morala plačevati, in če to izvzetje temelji na obstoju poroštva države.
It did not imply any advantage until 2004, when its implications were substantially changed by the legislation.
To ni pomenilo nobene prednosti do leta 2004, ko je zakonodaja močno spremenila posledice poroštva države.
At the time of the privatisation, the Crown guarantee on pension liabilities had no discernible value for BT’s shareholders in view of subsequent and unforeseeable modifications to pension legislation.
Med privatizacijo poroštvo države za pokojninske obveznosti ni imelo opazne vrednosti za delničarje družbe BT glede na poznejše in nepredvidljive spremembe v pokojninski zakonodaji.
In 1984, it was not possible to anticipate any obligation for BT to contribute to the Pension Protection Fund established in 2004, nor the potential economic advantage resulting from the exemption from these obligations by virtue of a Crown guarantee.
Leta 1984 ni bilo mogoče predvideti kakršne koli obveznosti družbe BT za plačevanje prispevkov v pokojninski zaščitni sklad, ustanovljen leta 2004, niti morebitne gospodarske prednosti kot posledice izvzetja od teh obveznosti na podlagi poroštva države.
BTPS also argues that the potential advantage deriving from the lower levies to the Pension Protection Fund is more than compensated by extra liabilities and financial burdens of GBP […] borne by BT and BTPS because of the special nature of BTPS.
BTPS trdi tudi, da je morebitna prednost, ki izhaja iz nižjih dajatev za pokojninski zaščitni sklad, več kot izravnana z dodatnimi obveznostmi in finančnimi bremeni v višini […] GBP, ki jih imata BT in BTPS zaradi posebne narave BTPS.
The Commission does not consider that the alleged disadvantages could be used to offset this advantage:
Po mnenju Komisije se domnevni negativni učinki niso mogli uporabiti za izravnavo navedene prednosti:
first, the benefit secured to employees in case of BT bankruptcy was of little interest, if any, to BT shareholders,
prvič, delničarji družbe BT so imeli majhen, če sploh kakšen interes za koristi, zagotovljene zaposlenim ob stečaju družbe,
secondly, there is no temporal link between these alleged disadvantages and the advantage resulting from a reduced contribution to the Pension Protection Fund, which materialised 20 years later and for which there is no indication in the law that it was intended to offset the alleged disadvantages.
drugič, ni časovne povezave med temi domnevnimi negativnimi učinki in prednostmi, ki izhajajo iz manjših prispevkov v pokojninski zaščitni sklad, ki so se uresničile 20 let pozneje in za katere v zakonodaji ni navedeno, da so namenjene izravnavi domnevnih negativnih učinkov.
Nor is there a discernable substantive link between the alleged burdens placed on BT and the liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee which in 1984 also included, inter alia, short-term borrowings, trade creditors, value added tax and payroll taxes and foreign long-term loans,
Prav tako ni opazne vsebinske povezave med domnevnimi bremeni, ki jih je imela družba BT, ter obveznostmi, ki jih krije poroštvo države in ki so leta 1984 vključevale med drugim kratkoročna posojila, obveznosti do dobaviteljev, davek na dodano vrednost, davke na izplačane plače in tuja dolgoročna posojila,
thirdly, BT refers to the burdens of extra liabilities of civil servant-like rights.
tretjič, družba BT se sklicuje na breme dodatnih obveznosti zaradi pravic, podobnih pravicam javnih uslužbencev.
One cannot, however, exclude that those rights have, in turn, triggered benefits for BT such as increased loyalty or acceptance of different salary and working conditions by the employees concerned than if those rights had not existed.
Pri tem pa se ne sme pozabiti, da so te pravice družbi BT prinesle tudi koristi, kot je večja zvestoba zaposlenih ali njihovo strinjanje z drugačnimi plačilnimi in delovnimi pogoji, kot bi jih imeli, če teh pravic ne bi bilo.
Contrary to other undertakings in the electronic communications and other sectors which are not given the benefit of the exemption from the payment of levy to the Pension Protection Fund set out in the 2004 Pension Act and corresponding to the pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee, BT obtains an economic advantage in that it pays a greatly reduced levy to the Pension Protection Fund.
V nasprotju z drugimi podjetji v sektorju elektronskih komunikacij in drugih sektorjih, ki nimajo koristi zaradi izvzetja od plačila dajatve za pokojninski zaščitni sklad, ustanovljen s Pokojninskim zakonom iz leta 2004, za tiste pokojninske obveznosti, ki jih krije poroštvo države, ima družba BT gospodarsko prednost, ker plačuje mnogo manjšo dajatev za pokojninski zaščitni sklad.
As a result, BT can use these financial resources to finance its economic activities on the markets where it is active.
Zato lahko družba BT ta finančna sredstva uporabi za financiranje svojih gospodarskih dejavnosti na trgih, kjer deluje.
In conclusion, an economic advantage financed by the State appears to have been granted to BT from the entry into force of the Pension Protection Fund (Entry Rules) Regulations 2005.
Zdi se torej, da je imela družba BT od začetka veljavnosti Pravil o pokojninskem zaščitnem skladu (pravila o začetku veljavnosti) iz leta 2005 gospodarsko prednost, ki jo je financirala država.
Undertaking benefiting from selective measures
Podjetje, ki ima korist zaradi selektivnih ukrepov
As concerns the beneficiary of the measures at hand, it must be underlined that BTPS and BT are two different legal entities.
Glede upravičenca obravnavanih ukrepov je treba poudariti, da sta BTPS in družba BT dva različna pravna subjekta.
The exemption from payment of an adequate Pension Protection Fund levy directly concerns BTPS, whose trustees have responsibility for the payment.
Izvzetje od plačila ustrezne dajatve za pokojninski zaščitni sklad neposredno zadeva BTPS, saj so za plačevanje odgovorni njegovi skrbniki.
For instance, the 2005/2006 fee payable by BTPS was allegedly funded from the assets of the scheme.
Na primer, dajatev, ki jo je moral BTPS plačati v letih 2005/2006, se je domnevno financirala iz sredstev sheme.
However, BT must contribute to cover any deficit and administrative costs of its pension scheme as long as it is solvent.
Vendar pa mora družba BT, dokler je plačilno zmožna, plačevati prispevke za kritje kakršnega koli primanjkljaja in upravnih stroškov svoje pokojninske sheme.
Even if BT is not itself invoiced and does not disburse the amount of the pension protection levy when it becomes due, a lower levy decreases the costs of BTPS and is to the benefit of the assets of BTPS, thus diminishing BT’s own liabilities towards BTPS.
Tudi če družba BT ne prejema računov in ne plačuje zapadlih zneskov dajatve za zavarovanje pokojnin, manjša dajatev pomeni manjše stroške BTPS in koristi za sredstva BTPS, s čimer se zmanjšajo tudi obveznosti družbe BT do BTPS.
It follows that any economic advantage for BTPS resulting from the measure at hand is entirely transferred to BT.
Iz tega sledi, da se vsaka gospodarska korist za BTPS, ki izhaja iz obravnavanega ukrepa, v celoti prenese na družbo BT.
Moreover, the measure is selective in that the provision in the Pension Protection Fund (Entry Rules) Regulations 2005 implementing the Pensions Act 2004 granting an exemption from the Pension Protection Fund levy is selective because it resulted from having the benefit of the Crown guarantee, laid down in the 1984 Act which addressed liabilities vested on BT only.
Poleg tega je ukrep selektiven, saj je določba v Pravilih o pokojninskem zaščitnem skladu (pravila o začetku veljavnosti) iz leta 2005 o izvedbi Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004, ki določa izvzetje od dajatve za pokojninski zaščitni sklad, selektivna, ker izhaja iz obstoja poroštva države, določenega v Zakonu iz leta 1984, ki je obravnaval le obveznosti, prenesene na družbo BT.