natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
it delivers a positive equity value to the investor (deducting the net financial debt, value of the pension deficit and the net cost of the escrow from the enterprise value); and
vlagatelju prinaša pozitivno kapitalsko vrednost (odtegljaj neto finančnega dolga, vrednosti pokojninskega primanjkljaja in neto stroškov depozita od vrednosti podjetja); in
a higher value could not be achieved by not investing in the escrow accounts as proposed.
večje vrednosti ne bi bilo mogoče doseči brez vlaganja v depozitne račune, kot je bilo predlagano.
Deloitte also calculated an associated internal rate of return ‘IRR’, defined as the discount rate for future cash flows which reduced the equity value of the business to […].
Družba Deloitte je izračunala tudi s tem povezano notranjo stopnjo donosnosti (IRR), ki je določena kot diskontirana stopnja prihodnjih denarnih tokov, ki so zmanjšali vrednost kapitala družbe na […].
The analysis performed by Deloitte indicated a post-investment equity value of over GBP […] and an internal rate of return (‘IRR’) of […], and that these returns were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses.
Analiza, ki jo je izvedla družba Deloitte, je prikazovala vrednost kapitala po naložbi v višini več kot […] GBP in notranjo stopnjo donosnosti („IRR“) v višini […] ter tudi, da so bili ti donosi odporni na številne analize občutljivosti.
Two alternative scenarios without escrow investment were examined under which, according to Deloitte, the value of the shareholder’s equity would potentially become significantly impaired.
Proučena sta bila dva alternativna scenarija brez depozitnih naložb, v skladu s katerimi bi se po mnenju družbe Deloitte vrednost kapitala delničarja lahko zelo zmanjšala.
In contrast, with the proposed investment, the value of the investment was expected to be significantly enhanced over time.
V nasprotju s tem pa se je s predlagano naložbo pričakovalo, da se bo vrednost naložbe s časom znatno povečala.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES: EXISTENCE OF STATE AID
OCENA UKREPOV: OBSTOJ DRŽAVNE POMOČI
As noted in the opening decision, the question of whether each of the measures under consideration constitutes State aid depends on the presence of an advantage to Royal Mail within the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty, the other criteria for the existence of aid being clearly met.
Kakor je bilo navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, je vprašanje, ali kateri od proučevanih ukrepov pomeni državno pomoč, odvisno od tega, ali je družba Royal Mail zato dobila prednost v smislu člena 87 Pogodbe, glede na to, da so druga merila očitno izpolnjena.
In order to determine whether the measure provided an advantage to RM, the Commission examines whether a private operator, acting in a market economy, would have been prepared to provide finance on the same terms.
Da bi opredelili, ali je ukrep dal prednost družbi RM, Komisija proučuje, ali bi bil zasebni operater, ki deluje v tržnem gospodarstvu, pripravljen zagotoviti financiranje pod enakimi pogoji.
The clarifications provided by the United Kingdom authorities explain why the interest rate at which the loan tranches were made was set at the long-term (20-year) rate average of 5,8 %, below the Commission’s reference rate then prevailing, which is a shorter term rate [12].
V pojasnilih Združenega kraljestva je obrazloženo, zakaj je bila obrestna mera, po kateri so bili dodeljeni obroki posojila, določena kot dolgoročna (20-letna) povprečna obrestna mera v višini 5,8 %, ki je nižja od referenčne obrestne mere Komisije, ki je takrat prevladovala in ki je kratkoročna obrestna mera [12].
They also explain, in the letter referred to in recital 49, how the origins of the loan were in 1999 and how the terms were set at this date.
Združeno kraljestvo je v dopisu iz uvodne izjave 49 pojasnilo tudi, da začetki posojila segajo v leto 1999 in da so bili pogoji določeni takrat.
They answer the points made by TNT (see recital 42) because TNT made comparisons with the loan rates in 2001, which was not when the loan rates were set.
Odgovorilo je na trditve družbe TNT (glej uvodno izjavo 42), ki je delala primerjavo z obrestnimi merami za posojila iz leta 2001, kar pa ni bilo leto, v katerem so bile obrestne mere za posojilo določene.
They also explain the absence of security on the loan (which was in any case subsequently amended when the 2003 loans were issued).
Razložilo je tudi, zakaj posojilo ni imelo zavarovanja (kar je pa bilo pozneje urejeno, ko so bila dodeljena posojila iz leta 2003).
Finally, they answer the point raised by the Commission in the decision opening the procedure that, at least in 2001, the decline in Royal Mail’s financial performance was beginning.
Nazadnje, odgovorilo je tudi na pripombo Komisije v odločitvi o začetku postopka, da se je finančna uspešnost družbe Royal Mail vsaj v letu 2001 začela slabšati.
This was not the case in 1999 when commitment was given to the loan and in the period 1999-2000 which are the relevant dates for setting interest rates.
To pa ni držalo leta 1999, ko so se organi Združenega kraljestva zavezali, da bodo odobrili posojilo, niti ne v obdobju od leta 1999 do leta 2000, ki sta ustrezni leti za določitev obrestnih mer.
At the time the loans were agreed, the Commission’s reference interest rates were set under the Commission notice of 1997 on the method for setting the reference and discount rates (‘the 1997 reference rate notice’) [13].
Ko so bila posojila sklenjena, so bile referenčne obrestne mere Komisije določene v skladu z obvestilom Komisije iz leta 1997 o metodi določanja referenčnih obrestnih mer in diskontnih stopenj (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sporočilo o referenčnih obrestnih merah iz leta 1997) [13].
Under that notice, the Commission defined rates based on the five-year interbank swap rates, plus a premium, but reserved the right to use a shorter base rate (for example, LIBOR one-year rate) or a longer base rate (for example, the rate on 10-year bonds) than the five-year interbank swap rate.
Komisija je v skladu s tem obvestilom opredelila obrestne mere na podlagi petletnih medbančnih menjalnih obrestnih mer in premije, vendar si je pridrževala pravico, da uporabi krajšo osnovno obrestno mero (na primer enoletno obrestno mero LIBOR) ali daljšo obrestno mero (na primer obrestno mero za desetletne obveznice), in ne petletne medbančne menjalne obrestne mere.
Because of the fixed longer duration of the loans, the Commission believes that the use of such a longer term rate is appropriate in this case.
Komisija meni, da je zaradi fiksnega daljšega trajanja posojil uporaba take obrestne mere za daljše obdobje v tem primeru ustrezna.
The Commission has noted that the rates charged were arrived at by a process based on observed commercial loan transactions which were then compared with the relevant Government bond [14].
Komisija je spomnila, da so bile zaračunane obrestne mere določene s postopkom, temelječim na opaženih poslovnih posojilnih transakcijah, ki so se nato primerjale z ustrezno vladno obveznico [14].
The spread over Government bonds ranged between 76 and 165 basis points, which is therefore sufficient in comparison with the 75 basis points set in the reference rate notice.
Razmik med vladnimi obveznicami se je gibal od 76 do 165 osnovnih točk, kar je torej dovolj v primerjavi s 75 osnovnimi točkami, določenimi v obvestilu o referenčni obrestni meri.
The Commission also compared the rates charged with 20 year interbank swap rates on the relevant dates.
Komisija je zaračunane obrestne mere primerjala tudi z 20-letnimi medbančnimi menjalnimi obrestnimi merami na ustrezne datume.
The rates charged are extremely close to these rates (generally less than 10 basis points of difference).
Zaračunane obrestne mere so izjemno blizu tem obrestnim meram (običajno je manj kot 10 osnovnih točk razlike).
The Commission notes that the UK and its consultants did not base themselves on the relevant interbank swap or other published rate but rather sought direct commercial benchmarks.
Komisija opaža, da se Združeno kraljestvo in njegovi svetovalci niso zanašali na ustrezne medbančne menjalne obrestne mere ali druge objavljene obrestne mere, ampak so namesto tega iskali neposredne tržno primerljive obrestne mere.
In the light of all the above, the Commission accepts that the measure in question did not provide an advantage to Royal Mail and did not constitute State aid.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve Komisija ugotavlja, da zadevni ukrep družbi Royal Mail ni dal prednosti in ni pomenil državne pomoči.
The Commission did, however, raise the question of whether the facilities nonetheless had an option value to the company which should be assessed for State aid content.
Kljub temu pa je Komisija postavila vprašanje, ali so sredstva za družbo kljub temu imela vrednost opcije, zaradi česar bi bilo treba preveriti, ali imajo značilnosti državne pomoči.
On this subject, the Commission has established that the facilities, despite not being used, were nonetheless the subject of a commitment fee of […] per annum for those facilities which were committed.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija ugotovila, da se je za dodeljena sredstva vsako leto plačala provizija za neizkoriščeni del posojila v višini […], čeprav se sredstva niso uporabila.
The Commission has established to its satisfaction that this was a market rate, being set as a percentage of the margin over LIBOR of the underlying loan, which is the market practice, and at a level ([…]) in line with that practice (the Commission has noted examples ranging from 16 to 50 %).
Komisija je z zadovoljstvom ugotovila, da je bila ta obrestna mera tržna in da je bila določena kot odstotek razlike do obrestne mere Libor za posojilo, kar je praksa na trgu, in je bila v skladu s to prakso določena na stopnji ([…]) (Komisija je opazila primere, ki so segali od 16 do 50 %).
Other facilities were never approved by Parliament and were never therefore committed, which would not normally therefore give rise to a fee.
Drugih sredstev parlament ni nikoli potrdil in tako nikoli niso bila dodeljena, zaradi česar se zanja provizije običajno ne bi plačevale.
The Commission is therefore satisfied that the facilities granted in 2003 did not in practice confer State aid on Royal Mail.
Komisija je tako zadovoljna, da sredstva, ki so bila odobrena leta 2003, v praksi družbi Royal Mail niso dajala državne pomoči.
In 2007, the outstanding facilities from 2003 [15] were replaced by a ‘senior debt facility’ of GBP 900 million, under revised terms.
V letu 2007 so neizplačana sredstva iz leta 2003 [15] pod spremenjenimi pogoji nadomestila „prednostna dolžniška sredstva“ v višini 900 milijonov GBP.
The Commission has reviewed the terms of this facility.
Komisija je proučila pogoje za ta sredstva.
The interest rate charged is […] basis points above relevant LIBOR for the first 12 months, with the rate thereafter varying according to fixed charge cover but never below […] basis points above relevant LIBOR.
Zaračunana obrestna mera je za […] osnovnih točk višja od ustrezne obrestne mere LIBOR za prvih 12 mesecev, po tem obdobju pa se je spreminjala glede na fiksen zaračunan strošek, vendar ni bila nikoli nižja od […] osnovnih točk nad ustrezno obrestno mero LIBOR.
The facility is secured by a floating charge [16] over the assets of Royal Mail, a fixed charge over the shares of a new subsidiary Royal Mail Estates Ltd which holds RM’s property portfolio, and a floating charge over the assets of that company.
Sredstva so zavarovana z obremenitvijo vseh sredstev (floating charge) [16] družbe Royal Mail, fiksno obremenitvijo delnic nove odvisne družbe Royal Mail Estates Ltd, ki ima v lasti premoženjski portfelj družbe RM, in obremenitvijo veh sredstev (floating charge) te družbe.
The market value of the property held in RM Estates was valued at GBP […].
Tržna vrednost premoženja, ki ga ima v lasti družba RM Estates, je bila ocenjena na […] GBP.
The Commission has assessed these terms under the 1997 reference rate notice which applied when they were established.
Komisija je te pogoje ocenila v skladu z obvestilom o referenčnih obrestnih merah iz leta 1997, ki je veljalo, ko so bili pogoji določeni.
Given that the value of the assets over which a charge is held in respect of the loans exceeds the value of the loans by nearly 50 % the collateral is judged to be ‘high’.
Glede na to, da vrednost sredstev, ki so obremenjena v zvezi s posojili, presega vrednost posojil za skoraj 50 %, se šteje, da je zavarovanje „visoko“.
The margin over LIBOR of between […] and […] bps is therefore sufficient in terms of the notice which set a margin of 75 bps (as noted in recital 68, the Commission envisaged in the 1997 reference rate notice the possible use of LIBOR as a basis for assessment).
Razlika do obrestne mere LIBOR, ki znaša od […] do […] osnovnih točk, je tako ustrezna glede na obvestilo, ki je določalo maržo v višini 75 osnovnih točk (kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 68), je Komisija v sporočilu o referenčnih obrestnih merah iz leta 1997 določila, da je za osnovo pri oceni mogoče uporabiti obrestno mero LIBOR).
In addition, the Commission has noted the information provided by the UK authorities drawn from other transactions secured on property companies which appears to show that the terms have been ‘benchmarked’ to comparable commercial transactions.
Komisija je poleg tega upoštevala informacije o drugih transakcijah, zavarovanih s premoženjskimi podjetji, ki so jih predložili organi Združenega kraljestva in za katere se zdi, da kažejo, da so bili pogoji usklajeni s pogoji primerljivih tržnih transakcij.
The Commission has determined on the basis of its reference rate analysis that, taken independently, these loan facilities do not constitute State aid.
Komisija je na podlagi svoje analize referenčne obrestne mere ugotovila, da če se posojilna sredstva proučijo posamezno, ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
Given that the 2007 facilities were made available as part of a package together with other measures, and given the UK’s insistence that the components of the 2007 financing package should not be evaluated on a stand-alone basis, the Commission would need to determine whether the separate assessment in the recital 71 can be conclusive.
Glede na to, da so bila sredstva iz leta 2007 dana na voljo kot del paketa skupaj z drugimi ukrepi, in glede na vztrajanje Združenega kraljestva, da se sestavni deli paketa financiranja iz leta 2007 ne smejo oceniti posamezno, bi Komisija morala ugotoviti, ali je ločena ocena iz uvodne izjave 71 lahko dokončna.
This question is treated further in section 5.5 below.
To vprašanje je dodatno obravnavano v razdelku 5.5 spodaj.
Following the comments and explanation of the United Kingdom authorities the Commission was able to understand the mechanism involved in the pensions measure.
Komisija je po prejemu pripomb in razlage organov Združenega kraljestva lahko razumela mehanizem, ki je bil vključen v pokojninski ukrep.
As described at recital 22 above, Royal Mail is required to account for its large pensions deficit on its balance sheet, and UK pensions law requires it to agree with the trustees a plan, and in particular a period, for eliminating that deficit through deficit payments to the scheme’s fund.
Kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 22 zgoraj, je morala družba Royal Mail pokriti velik pokojninski primanjkljaj v bilančnem stanju, zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva o pokojninah pa zahteva, da se s skrbniki dogovori o načrtu in še posebno času za odpravo zadevnega primanjkljaja z nakazili v sklad pokojninske sheme.
The measure allowed Royal Mail to extend that period with a consequent effect on the payments it must make.
Ukrep je družbi Royal Mail omogočil podaljšanje zadevnega obdobja, kar vpliva na plačila, ki jih mora opraviti.
The Commission noted at the outset that the legal nature of the measure (involving the release of reserves over which the State had effective control through specific legislation for use in an escrow arrangement in favour of the pension fund) had no immediate parallel in normal commercial transactions, even if the model of placing funds in an escrow account can be envisaged in the private sector [17].
Komisija je na začetku ugotovila, da pravna narava ukrepa (ki je vključeval sprostitev rezerv, nad katerimi je država imela učinkovit nadzor s posebno zakonodajo za uporabo v depozitni ureditvi v korist pokojninskega sklada) ni imela neposredne ustreznice v običajnih tržnih transakcijah, tudi če je model dodelitve sredstev na depozitni račun mogoče predvideti v zasebnem sektorju [17].
In order to assess the United Kingdom’s claim that the measure was on commercial terms, therefore, the Commission had to determine the appropriate benchmark against which to compare it.
Da bi Komisija lahko ocenila trditev Združenega kraljestva, da je bil ukrep izveden pod tržnimi pogoji, je tako morala določiti primerno merilo za primerjavo ukrepa.
The measure releases funds that were totally under shareholder control to be used by RM to alter the deficit payments which it is obliged to make to its pension scheme by putting those funds in an escrow account (despite the Mails Reserve being formally on its balance sheet RM could not make use of the reserves and associated assets without the Government’s approval).
Z ukrepom se sproščajo sredstva, ki so bila v celoti pod delničarjevim nadzorom, v uporabo družbi RM, da spremeni poplačila primanjkljaja, ki jih mora plačevati v pokojninsko shemo, tako da sredstva polaga na depozitni račun (čeprav so poštne rezerve uradno del bilančnega stanja družbe RM, ta ni mogla uporabljati rezerv in z njimi povezanih sredstev brez soglasja vlade).
Although this release of funds is not a pure equity injection, it can be best assimilated, in terms of its effects, to such an operation.
Čeprav ta sprostitev sredstev ni pravi vložek kapitala, jo je mogoče glede na njen učinek vsaj šteti za enakovredno takemu dejanju.
If the funds had not been released, Royal Mail could not have constituted the escrow account without raising capital from other sources or drawing on other reserves.
Če sredstva ne bi bila sproščena, družba Royal Mail ne bi mogla ustvariti depozitnega računa brez zbiranja kapitala iz drugih virov ali črpanja drugih rezerv.
It is true that the measure prescribed that, on release of the escrow account, the funds would return to the control of the State.
Drži, da je ukrep določal, da se bodo sredstva po zaprtju depozitnega računa vrnila pod nadzor države.
However, the length of time expected to be necessary for this to happen (17 years), the associated uncertainty concerning whether the funds could in practice be returned to the shareholder if RM’s financial performance were to decline over this period, and the lack of guaranteed interest income led the Commission to discard the possibility of assimilating the transaction to the provision of a loan.
Vendar pa so čas, ki naj bi bil po pričakovanjih potreben za to (17 let), s tem povezana negotovost, ali bodo sredstva dejansko lahko vrnjena delničarju, če bi se finančna uspešnost družbe RM v tem obdobju poslabšala, in neobstoj zagotovljenega dohodka od obresti Komisijo prepričali, da je zavrnila možnost, da bi transakcijo enačila z zagotovitvijo posojila.
The Commission decided that this conclusion was all the more reasonable given that when the mails reserve amounted only to GBP 796 million on 31 March 2007, the UK authorities injected GBP 54 million as new equity in order to bring the mails reserve to the agreed level of GBP 850 million before establishing the escrow account.
Komisija se je odločila, da je ta ugotovitev še toliko bolj smiselna, ker so organi Združenega kraljestva, ko je poštna rezerva 31. marca 2007 znašala 796 milijonov GBP, vložili 54 milijonov GBP kot svež kapital, da bi poštno rezervo povečali na dogovorjenih 850 milijonov GBP pred ustanovitvijo depozitnega računa.
In the light of the above and for the purposes of analysing its conformity with the market economy investor principle, the Commission has analysed the release of funds that were totally under shareholder control to be used by RM as an equity injection.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega in za namene analize skladnosti z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu je Komisija proučila sprostitev sredstev, ki so bila v celoti pod nadzorom delničarja, da bi jih družba RM lahko uporabila kot vložek kapitala.
The Commission’s approach to the market-conformity of equity injections is to compare the net present value of the public authorities’ equity holding with (post money) and without (pre money) investment [18].
Pristop Komisije k skladnosti vložkov kapitala s trgom je primerjati neto sedanjo vrednost lastniškega deleža organov z naložbo (po vložku) in brez naložbe (pred vložkom) [18].
If the difference is greater than the injected capital the injection is deemed to be MEIP conform.
Če je razlika večja od vloženega kapitala, se šteje, da je naložba skladna z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
This ‘incremental’ approach is necessary because otherwise it would not be obvious what part of the returns to the shareholder (dividends or in the case of the sale of the shareholding the sale price) would result from the investment and what would occur regardless of it.
Ta „prirastni“ pristop je nujen, saj drugače ne bi bilo očitno, kateri del dobičkov delničarja (dividende ali prodajna cena v primeru prodaje delniškega deleža) bi nastal iz naložbe in kateri od nje ni odvisen.
The method for calculating the value of an equity holding in both post and pre money cases over a defined period is to add the discounted value of the future cash flows extracted from that equity holding over that period (normally dividends but a capital reduction would be another possibility) to any increase in the value over the period.
Metoda za izračun vrednosti deleža v lastniškem kapitalu v primeru po naložbi in pred njo v določenem obdobju je, da se diskontirana vrednost prihodnjih denarnih tokov, pridobljenih iz tega deleža v lastniškem kapitalu v tem obdobju (to so običajno dividende, druga možnost pa je zmanjšanje kapitala) prišteje k morebitnemu povečanju vrednosti v tem obdobju.
The UK’s initial response enclosed a report by consultants Deloitte which purported to show an IRR for the planned investments of […].
Prvi odgovor Združenega kraljestva je vključeval poročilo svetovalne družbe Deloitte, ki naj bi pokazalo notranjo stopnjo donosnosti za načrtovane naložbe v višini […].
On investigation, however, there were several problems with the methodology used.
Med preiskavo pa se je pokazalo več težav z uporabljeno metodologijo.
Firstly, the calculation only concerned the investment case and was not based on a comparison between the invest and non-invest scenarios.
Prvič, izračun se je nanašal samo na primer z naložbo in ni temeljil na primerjavi scenarijev z naložbo in brez nje.
In response to this criticism, the UK replied that for the non-invest case an equity value of […] was supposed.
Združeno kraljestvo je v odgovor na to kritiko navedlo, da bi v primeru brez naložbe predvidena vrednost lastniškega kapitala znašala […].
The argument that the non-invest case resulted in an equity value of […] was however neither made in, nor borne out by, the Deloitte report.
Vendar pa utemeljitev, da bi v primeru brez naložbe vrednost lastniškega kapitala znašala […], ni bila navedena v poročilu družbe Deloitte niti iz njega ne izhaja.
Thus the Commission could not perceive the original Deloitte report as having followed what the Commission considers as the proper methodology, namely that based on the comparison between the projections with and without investment.
Komisija tako izvirnega poročila družbe Deloitte ni mogla šteti za poročilo, ki sledi metodologiji, ki je po mnenju Komisije pravilna – torej metodologiji, ki temelji na primerjavi projekcij z naložbo in brez nje.
Secondly, the method for valuing the equity holding was to calculate an enterprise value (that is, the sum of claims of debt-holders as well as shareholders) using enterprise level cash flows and terminal value and to deduct debts afterwards.
Drugič, metoda za vrednotenje deleža v lastniškem kapitalu je bila, da se izračuna vrednost družbe (se pravi vsota zahtevkov upnikov in delničarjev) z uporabo denarnih tokov na ravni podjetja in končne vrednosti, nato pa se odštejejo dolgovi.