natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission notes that the case-law of the Community Courts makes it clear that the private operator criterion is applicable only to situations in which the intervention of the State is of an economic nature and not to those where it forms part of the exercise of public powers [15].
Komisija ugotavlja, da sodna praksa Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti jasno kaže, da se merilo zasebnega subjekta uporablja le v primerih, v katerih je posredovanje države gospodarske narave, in ne, kadar je del izvajanja javnih pooblastil [15].
In the present case, the State acted with the aim of protecting the stability of the financial system and not as a private investor acting with the aim of making a profit.
V obravnavanem primeru je država ukrepala z namenom zaščite stabilnosti finančnega sistema in ne kot zasebni vlagatelj, katerega namen je ustvarjanje dobička.
In addition, to assess whether it is more profitable for the State to wind up a company rather than to sell it, the Community Courts have clarified that a distinction must be drawn between the obligations which the State must assume as owner of the share capital of a company and its obligations as a public authority: only the former can be duly taken into account for the assessment of the existence of aid [16].
Poleg tega je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti za presojo, ali je za državo donosnejša likvidacija družbe ali njena prodaja, pojasnilo, da je treba razlikovati med dolžnostmi, ki jih mora država prevzeti kot lastnica osnovnega kapitala družbe, in njenimi dolžnostmi v vlogi javnega organa: samo prve se lahko upravičeno upoštevajo pri oceni obstoja pomoči [16].
Therefore, excluding from the calculations the costs that would not have been taken into account by a private investor, liquidation would have cost less for the State than restructuring and privatisation taken together.
Če torej iz izračuna izključimo stroške, ki jih zasebni vlagatelj ne bi upošteval, bi državo manj stala likvidacija kot prestrukturiranje in privatizacija skupaj.
As mentioned above, Erste Bank argues that the measure does not confer a commercial advantage, because it arose pursuant to a competitive procedure and therefore the benefit of any advantage would remain with the seller and would not be passed on to the buyer.
Kot je navedeno, banka Erste Bank trdi, da ukrep ne podeljuje poslovne prednosti, ker je bil sprejet v skladu s konkurenčnim postopkom, zato se kakršna koli ugodnost prodajalca ne prenese na kupca.
As stated above, this holds true only if the open and competitive tendering procedure takes place under normal market conditions.
Kot je navedeno, to velja le, če poteka javni in konkurenčni razpisni postopek pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
This condition is, however, not fulfilled since a private seller would not have pledged unlimited indemnities for unknown claims.
Vendar ta pogoj ni izpolnjen, ker zasebni prodajalec ne bi obljubil neomejenih jamstev za neznane terjatve.
Furthermore, a private investor would not have implemented the measures for Postabank, since the total measures following the State’s capital injection resulted in a negative price for the State.
Poleg tega zasebni vlagatelj ne bi izvajal ukrepov, sprejetih za banko Postabank, ker so ukrepi po povečanju kapitala s strani države povzročili negativno ceno za državo.
In view of the above, the whole set of State measures since December 1998 adopted with a view to facilitating the restructuring and privatisation of Postabank, of which the measure at issue forms part, does not meet the private investor test, and therefore confers an economic advantage on Postabank and Erste Bank, which were merged on 1 September 2004.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega celoten sklop državnih ukrepov od decembra 1998, sprejetih z namenom spodbujanja prestrukturiranja in privatizacije banke Postabank, katerih del je obravnavani ukrep, ne izpolnjuje pogojev preskusa zasebnega vlagatelja ter tako podeljuje gospodarsko prednost bankama Postabank in Erste Bank, ki sta se združili 1. septembra 2004.
Since it has been established that despite the tender procedure, the measure resulted in an advantage for Erste Bank (as no private seller would have pledged unlimited indemnity), it follows that the measure is selective.
Ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da je ukrep kljub razpisnemu postopku podelil prednost banki Erste Bank (noben zasebni prodajalec ne bi zagotovil neomejenega jamstva), sledi, da je ukrep selektiven.
Potential distortion of competition and impact on intra-Community trade
Možnost izkrivljanja konkurence in vpliv na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti
At the end of 2002 Postabank was the seventh largest commercial bank in Hungary.
Ob koncu leta 2002 je bila banka Postabank sedma največja poslovna banka na Madžarskem.
Throughout the period under assessment it was active in the financial sector, which is open to intense international competition and where there was trade between Hungary and the European Union, including a substantial number of EU banks operating in the Hungarian banking market.
V celotnem ocenjevalnem obdobju je bila dejavna v finančnem sektorju, ki je odprt ostri mednarodni konkurenci in v katerem je potekala trgovina med Madžarsko in Evropsko unijo, vključno z velikim številom bank EU, ki delujejo na madžarskem bančnem trgu.
According to case-law [17], when State aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, the latter undertakings must be regarded as being affected by that aid.
Glede na sodno prakso [17] je treba, če državna pomoč okrepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenčnimi podjetji v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti, upoštevati, da zadevna pomoč vpliva na slednja podjetja.
It has been established that by giving the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims the Hungarian State granted a selective advantage to Erste Bank.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je Madžarska s tem, ko je zagotovila jamstvo za neznane terjatve, podelila selektivno prednost banki Erste Bank.
It can, therefore, be concluded that this selective advantage in connection with the purchase of Postabank strengthened Erste Bank’s position and consequently has the potential to affect intra-Community trade and to distort competition.
Zato je mogoče skleniti, da je ta selektivna prednost v zvezi z nakupom banke Postabank okrepila položaj banke Erste Bank ter lahko zato vpliva na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti in izkrivlja konkurenco.
In conclusion, all the criteria of Article 87(1) being met, the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims constitutes State aid within the meaning of the EC Treaty.
Ob izpolnjevanju vseh meril iz člena 87(1) pomeni zagotovilo o jamstvu za neznane terjatve državno pomoč v smislu Pogodbe ES.
Compatibility assessment
Ocena združljivosti
Under the interim mechanism the Commission has the power to take action only in respect of those aid measures that are considered applicable after accession.
V okviru začasnega mehanizma ima Komisija pristojnost za ukrepanje le v zvezi s tistimi ukrepi pomoči, ki se obravnavajo kot veljavni po pristopu.
The notified measure is applicable after accession and constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Priglašeni ukrep je veljaven po pristopu in pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Therefore the Commission has to assess its compatibility with the common market.
Zato mora Komisija oceniti njegovo združljivost s skupnim trgom.
Article 87(2)(b) and Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty
Člen 87(2)(b) in člen 87(3)(b) Pogodbe ES
The conditions according to which an aid measure is compatible or may be deemed compatible with the common market are set out in Article 87(2) and (3) EC.
Pogoji, pod katerimi je ukrep pomoči združljiv ali bi se lahko štel za združljivega s skupnim trgom, so navedeni v členu 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe ES.
The exemptions provided for in Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty do not apply to the present case.
Izjeme iz člena 87(2) Pogodbe ES ne veljajo za obravnavani primer.
The Commission considers in particular that the aid granted in the present case was not aimed at making good damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences pursuant to Article 87(2)(b) EC.
Komisija zlasti meni, da cilj pomoči, dodeljene v obravnavanem primeru, ni bila povrnitev škode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki v skladu s členom 87(2)(b) Pogodbe ES.
The term ‘exceptional occurrences’ does not cover financial losses caused by commercial decisions of economic operators.
Izraz „izjemni dogodki“ ne vključuje finančnih izgub, nastalih zaradi poslovnih odločitev gospodarskih subjektov.
The Commission also notes that there was no general banking crisis in Hungary.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da na Madžarskem ni bilo splošne bančne krize.
Likewise, the aid cannot be exempted on the basis of Article 87(3)(b).
Prav tako pomoči ni mogoče izvzeti v skladu s členom 87(3)(b).
In 2003, at the time when the indemnity undertaking was given, there was no systemic crisis in the Hungarian banking sector that might have led to a serious disturbance of the Hungarian economy.
Ko je bilo leta 2003 zagotovljeno jamstvo, v madžarskem bančnem sektorju ni bilo sistemske krize, ki bi lahko povzročila resne motnje v madžarskem gospodarstvu.
According to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, the Commission may authorise State aid that is granted to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Komisija lahko v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES odobri državno pomoč za spodbujanje razvoja nekaterih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali nekaterih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne škoduje trgovinskim pogojem v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
The Hungarian authorities notified most of the measures introduced between 1998 and 2002 for Postabank as restructuring measures, whereas the indemnity undertaking in connection with the Bank’s privatisation was notified separately.
Madžarski organi so večino ukrepov, sprejetih v obdobju 1998–2002 za banko Postabank, priglasili kot ukrepe prestrukturiranja, medtem ko je bilo zagotovilo o jamstvu v zvezi s privatizacijo banke priglašeno posebej.
The Commission assesses whether the measure can be considered compatible in the light of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, under the rescue and restructuring guidelines.
Komisija oceni, ali je ukrep mogoče obravnavati kot združljiv v smislu člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES, v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
The Article 87(3)(c) compatibility conditions for rescue and restructuring aid are set out in Community guidelines.
Pogoji združljivosti za pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz člena 87(3)(c) so določeni v smernicah Skupnosti.
The current Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty entered into force on 10 October 2004 [18].
Veljavne smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah so začele veljati 10. oktobra 2004 [18].
For aid granted before the publication of these guidelines the previous Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [19] set out the conditions under which such aid was considered compatible [20].
V zvezi s pomočjo, dodeljeno pred objavo teh smernic, prejšnje smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [19] določajo pogoje, pod katerimi se je ta pomoč obravnavala kot združljiva [20].
The 1999 guidelines consider a firm to be in difficulties if it is unable to recover through its own resources or by raising the funds it needs from shareholders or borrowing.
V skladu s smernicami iz leta 1999 je podjetje v težavah, če je nezmožno vračila iz lastnih sredstev ali z zbiranjem potrebnih sredstev pri delničarjih ali z izposojo.
The Commission considers that Postabank’s problems in 1997-1998 were severe and it was a firm in difficulty since it would have been unable to recover without State intervention.
Komisija meni, da so bile težave banke Postabank v obdobju 1997–1998 resne in da je izpolnjevala pogoje podjetja v težavah, ker ne bi bila zmožna vračila brez posredovanja države.
As the Hungarian authorities stated, the measure did not form part of the restructuring, since it was related to the sale of the Bank and the need for it arose only during the tendering procedure.
Kot so navedli madžarski organi, ukrep ni bil del prestrukturiranja, ker je bil povezan s prodajo banke in se je potreba po njem pojavila šele med razpisnim postopkom.
Postabank had regained its viability.
Postabank je obnovila svojo sposobnost preživetja.
The Hungarian State Audit Office issued a report in April 2003, recognising that the restructuring of Postabank had been successfully completed and that the Bank was operating soundly.
Madžarski državni urad za revizijo je aprila 2003 objavil poročilo, v katerem je ugotovljeno, da je bilo prestrukturiranje banke Postabank uspešno zaključeno in da banka posluje zanesljivo.
Therefore, since Postabank was already viable in 2003, no further restructuring aid could be granted.
Ker je bila torej banka Postabank leta 2003 že sposobna preživetja, ni bilo mogoče dodeliti nobene dodatne pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
Therefore, the Commission considers that at the time when the indemnity undertaking was given in 2003 Postabank did not qualify as a firm in difficulty and therefore was not eligible for rescue or for further restructuring aid.
Zato Komisija meni, da leta 2003, ko je bilo zagotovljeno jamstvo, banka Postabank ni izpolnjevala pogojev za podjetje v težavah in zato ni bila upravičena do pomoči za reševanje ali do dodatne pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
This means that there is no basis to find it compatible under the rescue and restructuring guidelines.
To pomeni, da zadevne pomoči ni mogoče opredeliti kot združljive v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
The secondary assessment involves considering the measure in conjunction with the earlier restructuring measures as part of one restructuring and privatisation operation (see secondary reasoning above).
Sekundarna ocena vključuje obravnavanje ukrepa skupaj s prejšnjimi ukrepi prestrukturiranja kot del ene dejavnosti prestrukturiranja in privatizacije (glej sekundarno utemeljitev zgoraj).
As discussed above, Postabank was already viable in 2003 when the decision to provide the indemnity undertaking was taken.
Kot je navedeno, je bila banka Postabank leta 2003, ko je bila sprejeta odločitev o zagotovitvi jamstva, že sposobna preživetja.
In order for the measure to be considered as compatible restructuring aid, it would need to have been part of a pre-existing restructuring plan implemented at the time when the difficulties of the firm arose.
Da bi se lahko ukrep obravnaval kot združljiva pomoč za prestrukturiranje, bi moral biti del že obstoječega načrta za prestrukturiranje, ki se je izvajal, ko so se pojavile težave v podjetju.
The granting of restructuring aid is conditional on the implementation of a restructuring plan that must restore the long-term viability of the firm within a reasonable timescale on the basis of realistic assumptions as to future operating conditions.
Dodelitev pomoči za prestrukturiranje je odvisna od izvajanja načrta za prestrukturiranje, ki mora v razumnem roku obnoviti dolgoročno sposobnost preživetja podjetja na podlagi realnih predpostavk glede prihodnjih pogojev poslovanja.
Consequently, even if the indemnity undertaking is assessed together with the other measures, it cannot be found compatible under the rescue and restructuring guidelines since Postabank was not eligible as a firm in difficulty at the time of the decision to provide the undertaking and the undertaking did not form part of a pre-existing restructuring plan.
Tudi če se zagotovilo o jamstvu oceni skupaj z drugimi ukrepi, ga ni mogoče opredeliti kot združljivega v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, ker banka Postabank takrat, ko je sprejela odločitev o zagotovitvi jamstva, ni bila upravičena kot podjetje v težavah in to zagotovilo o jamstvu ni bilo del že obstoječega načrta za prestrukturiranje.
Article 45(2) of the Europe Agreement
Člen 45(2) Evropskega sporazuma
Article 45(2) of the Europe Agreement reads as follows: ‘In respect of financial services, described in Annex XIIa, this Agreement does not prejudice the right of the Parties to adopt measures necessary for the conduct of the Party’s monetary policy, or for prudential grounds in order to ensure the protection of investors, depositors, policy holders, or persons to whom a fiduciary duty is owed, or to ensure the integrity and stability of the financial system.
Člen 45(2) Evropskega sporazuma določa: „Glede finančnih storitev, opisanih v Prilogi XIIa, ta sporazum ne posega v pravico pogodbenice, da sprejme ukrepe, potrebne za izvajanje njene monetarne politike, ali zaradi varnega in skrbnega poslovanja, da bi zagotovila zaščito investitorjev, vlagateljev, imetnikov polic ali oseb, ki so v fiduciarnem razmerju, ali da bi zagotovila celovitost in stabilnost finančnega sistema.
These measures shall not discriminate on grounds of nationality against companies and nationals of the other Party in comparison to its own companies and nationals.’
Ti ukrepi ne diskriminirajo družb in državljanov druge pogodbenice na podlagi državljanstva v primerjavi z lastnimi družbami in državljani.“
In the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission had serious doubts as to whether Article 45(2) of the Europe Agreement applied to State aid measures at all, since it forms part of the ‘Establishment’ chapter of the Europe Agreement, whereas the provisions concerning State aid are listed in Article 62 et seq.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija izrazila resne pomisleke, ali se člen 45(2) Evropskega sporazuma sploh uporablja za ukrepe državne pomoči, ker je v Evropskem sporazumu del poglavja o ustanavljanju, medtem ko so določbe v zvezi z državno pomočjo navedene v členu 62 in naslednjih členih.
In addition, the Commission considered that this provision could apply to any measures with a general scope of application adopted by a financial supervisory authority and that there was no general banking crisis in Hungary.
Poleg tega je Komisija menila, da se lahko ta določba uporablja za katere koli ukrepe s splošnim področjem uporabe, ki jih je sprejel finančni nadzorni organ, in da na Madžarskem ni splošne bančne krize.
The Hungarian authorities argue that the Hungarian Government could not have allowed Postabank to fail in 1998 at a time when it was experiencing its worst difficulties and the Hungarian market was not stable and that the failure of Postabank, given its size, could have led to a major financial crisis.
Madžarski organi trdijo, da madžarska vlada ni mogla dopustiti stečaja banke Postabank leta 1998, ko je ta imela največje težave in madžarski trg ni bil stabilen, ter da bi lahko stečaj te banke glede na njeno velikost povzročil veliko finančno krizo.
However, the indemnity undertaking was given at a time when Postabank was no longer a firm in difficulty.
Kljub temu je bilo jamstvo zagotovljeno takrat, ko banka Postabank ni več bila podjetje v težavah.
In any event, the Commission considers that Article 45(2) of the Europe Agreement does not in itself provide a legal basis to consider any measure in the form of State aid to be compatible with the common market.
Komisija v vsakem primeru meni, da člen 45(2) Evropskega sporazuma sam po sebi ne zagotavlja pravne podlage za obravnavanje katerega koli ukrepa v obliki državne pomoči kot združljivega s skupnim trgom.
In conclusion, the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims constitutes incompatible State aid.
Zagotovilo o jamstvu za neznane terjatve pomeni nezdružljivo državno pomoč.
The issue of recovery
Vprašanje izterjave
In the context of the interim mechanism, any action that the Commission is empowered to take is limited to measures applicable after accession, which in the present case means the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims.
V okviru začasnega mehanizma je vsak ukrep, ki ga Komisija lahko sprejme v okviru svojih pristojnosti, omejen na ukrepe, ki se uporabljajo po pristopu, kar v obravnavanem primeru pomeni zagotovilo o jamstvu za neznane terjatve.
In spite of the argument that this measure was paid for in the purchase price, on the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Commission believes that the measure constitutes incompatible aid and should therefore be terminated with retroactive effect from 30 April 2004.
Kljub utemeljitvi, da je bil ta ukrep plačan po nakupni ceni, je Komisija na podlagi navedenega prepričana, da ukrep pomeni nezdružljivo pomoč in ga je zato treba razveljaviti z učinkom za nazaj od 30. aprila 2004.
In practical terms, termination with retroactive effect from 30 April 2004 would imply the recovery of any claims paid after that date that do not qualify as claims inapplicable after accession.
V praksi bi razveljavitev z učinkom za nazaj od 30. aprila 2004 pomenila izterjavo vseh terjatev, ki so bile plačane po navedenem datumu in ki se ne štejejo za terjatve, neveljavne po pristopu.
However, no recovery is necessary as no payments have actually been made under the indemnity undertaking.
Vendar izterjava ni potrebna, ker v okviru zagotovila o jamstvu niso bila izvedena nobena plačila.
This is due to the entirely contingent character of the indemnity undertaking.
Razlog za to je v celoti pogojen značaj zagotovila o jamstvu.
The Commission should in principle ask for a charge to be levied for the indemnity undertaking in order to offset the advantage of the measure.
Komisija bi morala načeloma zahtevati, da se v zvezi z zagotovilom o jamstvu obračunajo dajatve, da se izravna prednost ukrepa.
However, the Commission accepts the argument that levying such a charge could contravene the principle of legal certainty, having regard to the specific circumstances in which an entirely contingent undertaking/guarantee, such as the indemnity for unknown claims, was given.
Vendar Komisija sprejme utemeljitev, da bi lahko bil obračun takšnih dajatev v nasprotju z načelom pravne varnosti, ob upoštevanju posebnih okoliščin, v katerih je bilo zagotovljeno v celoti pogojeno jamstvo, kot je jamstvo za neznane terjatve.
Although the concept of ‘applicability after accession’ is an objective one, the specific criteria applicable to the indemnity undertaking were not fully clear or foreseeable for the Hungarian Government or Erste Bank at the time when the undertaking was provided, i.e. when the privatisation of Postabank took place.
Čeprav je pojem „veljavnosti po pristopu“ objektiven, posebna merila v zvezi z zagotovilom o jamstvu madžarski vladi ali banki Erste Bank, takrat ko je bilo jamstvo zagotovljeno, tj. v času privatizacije banke Postabank, niso bila popolnoma jasna in predvidljiva.
Therefore, in the absence of clear and transparent criteria relating to the concept of applicability after accession with regard to indemnities, the interested parties may not have been in a position to foresee that indemnity undertakings for unknown claims granted before accession would be regarded as applicable after accession in circumstances such as those of the Postabank sale.
Ker merila glede pojma veljavnosti po pristopu v zvezi z jamstvi niso bila jasna in pregledna, zainteresirane stranke morda niso mogle predvideti, da se bodo jamstva za neznane terjatve, zagotovljena pred pristopom, v okoliščinah, kot so okoliščine prodaje banke Postabank, obravnavala kot veljavna po pristopu.
Moreover, despite the objective character of the legal text in the Treaty of Accession, the Commission’s guidelines on the concept of applicability after accession with regard to guarantees and indemnity undertakings were only gradually clarified over time.
Poleg tega so bile smernice Komisije o pojmu veljavnosti po pristopu v zvezi z garancijami in zagotovili o jamstvu kljub objektivnemu značaju pravnega besedila v Pristopni pogodbi sčasoma le postopno pojasnjene.