natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the framework of Postabank’s privatisation the Hungarian Government (through ÁPV [8] provided the buyer with an indemnity undertaking covering payment liabilities that might arise from unknown litigation claims in respect of Postabank up to five years after the conclusion of the share purchase agreement.
V okviru privatizacije banke Postabank je madžarska vlada (prek podjetja ÁPV [8]) kupcu zagotovila jamstvo, ki zajema obveznosti plačila, ki lahko nastanejo zaradi neznanih terjatev iz sodnih sporov v zvezi z banko Postabank v obdobju petih let od sklenitve pogodbe o nakupu delnic.
In other words, in this way the Hungarian Government committed public money in order to make the sale of Postabank possible.
To pomeni, da je madžarska vlada na ta način namenila javni denar za omogočanje prodaje banke Postabank.
It is thus clear that the measure involves State resources.
Zato je jasno, da ukrep vključuje državna sredstva.
As stated above, the Hungarian authorities and Erste Bank argue in their comments on the decision initiating the procedure that the measure is not capable of constituting State aid given that it is a typical commercial term in a sale and purchase agreement concluded pursuant to an open and competitive procedure and that the market price paid for Postabank precludes aid.
Kot je navedeno, madžarski organi in banka Erste Bank v svojih pripombah o odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka trdijo, da ukrep ne more pomeniti državne pomoči, ker gre za običajen komercialen pogoj v kupoprodajni pogodbi, sklenjeni na podlagi javnega in konkurenčnega postopka, in ker tržna cena, po kateri je bila prodana banka Postabank, izključuje pomoč.
They argue that the Commission should apply the market economy investor principle and not consider the measure under assessment to be aid since a market price, taking into account the value of the measure to Erste Bank, had been paid.
Trdijo, da bi morala Komisija upoštevati načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu ter da proučevanega ukrepa ne bi smela obravnavati kot pomoč, ker je bila tržna cena, ki upošteva vrednost ukrepa za banko Erste Bank, plačana.
They also claim that the market economy investor test analysis carried out by the Commission should not lump together Postabank’s pre-accession restructuring measures and its privatisation, as the measure is not a restructuring measure but an integral part of the share purchase agreement.
Trdijo tudi, da bi bilo treba analizo preskusa vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki jo je izvedla Komisija, razlikovati med ukrepi prestrukturiranja za banko Postabank pred pristopom in njeno privatizacijo, ker ukrep ni ukrep prestrukturiranja, ampak sestavni del pogodbe o nakupu delnic.
As stated in the decision initiating the procedure, aid measures that are not applicable after accession cannot be examined by the Commission under the procedures laid down in Article 88 EC.
Kot je določeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, Komisija v skladu s postopki iz člena 88 Pogodbe ES ne more proučiti ukrepov pomoči, ki ne veljajo po pristopu.
The Commission’s power of review under the interim mechanism is inapplicable as regards aid measures definitively and unconditionally granted for a given amount before accession.
Pristojnost Komisije za pregled v okviru začasnega mehanizma ne velja v primeru ukrepov pomoči, ki so bili dokončno in brezpogojno odobreni za dani znesek pred pristopom.
With the exception of the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims the Commission found the notified restructuring measures for Postabank not to be applicable after accession [9].
Z izjemo zagotovila o jamstvu za neznane terjatve je Komisija ugotovila, da priglašeni ukrepi prestrukturiranja za banko Postabank ne veljajo po pristopu [9].
They are therefore not subject to this analysis.
Zato niso vključeni v to analizo.
Therefore, when assessing the only measure applicable after accession (the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims given in 2003), the Commission has to examine whether the Hungarian State’s action at the time was in line with that of a market economy investor in respect of the decision giving the undertaking at the time of privatisation.
Zato mora Komisija pri oceni edinega ukrepa, veljavnega po pristopu (zagotovilo o jamstvu za neznane terjatve iz leta 2003), preveriti, ali je bil takratni ukrep madžarske države usklajen z vlagateljem v tržnem gospodarstvu glede odločitve o zagotovilu v času privatizacije.
Consequently, the measure is being assessed by the Commission in isolation from previous measures.
Zato Komisija ocenjuje ukrep ločeno od prejšnjih ukrepov.
The assessment of the sale of Postabank can be separated from the previous measures also because restructuring had already been completed before privatisation.
Ocena prodaje banke Postabank se lahko loči od prejšnjih ukrepov tudi zato, ker se je prestrukturiranje končalo že pred privatizacijo.
The Commission notes that 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.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je madžarski državni urad za revizijo aprila 2003 objavil poročilo, v katerem je ugotovljeno, da je bilo prestrukturiranje banke Postabank uspešno končano ter da banka posluje zanesljivo.
This separation of the measures under assessment is not at odds with the case-law in BP Chemicals [10], since that case included three capital injections granted as part of a single continuing restructuring process ‘the common purpose of which was to finance the restructuring measures necessary and to restore EniChem’s capital base which had been eroded by losses.’
To ločeno ocenjevanje ukrepov ni v nasprotju s sodno prakso v zadevi BP Chemicals [10], ker je ta zadeva vključevala tri povečanja kapitala, odobrena kot del enotnega stalnega procesa prestrukturiranja, „katerega skupni cilj je bil financirati potrebne ukrepe prestrukturiranja in obnoviti kapitalsko osnovo EniChem, ki so jo ogrozile izgube“.
In the assessment of whether the three measures had to be examined as a whole or the last measure had to be assessed separately, the Court of Justice considered the decisive factors to be the timing of the measures, their purpose and the situation of the firm at the time when each decision to make an injection was made.
Pri ocenjevanju, ali je treba te tri ukrepe preveriti kot celoto ali zadnjega oceniti ločeno, je Sodišče obravnavalo kot odločilne dejavnike časovno razporeditev ukrepov, njihov namen ter položaj podjetja v času sprejetja posamezne odločitve o povečanju kapitala.
In that case, without the last measure, liquidation would have been inevitable.
V navedeni zadevi bi bila likvidacija brez zadnjega ukrepa neizogibna.
In contrast, in the present case the indemnity undertakings for unknown claims was connected with the sale of Postabank and formed an integral part of the share purchase agreement at a time when the Bank had been successfully restructured and its liquidation was no longer an issue.
Nasprotno so bila v obravnavani zadevi zagotovila o jamstvu za neznane terjatve povezana s prodajo banke Postabank in so bila sestavni del pogodbe o nakupu delnic v času, ko je bila banka uspešno prestrukturirana in likvidacija ni bila več verjetna.
When assessing the action of the Hungarian authorities in the light of the market economy investor principle in 2003, it has to be noted that the Commission does not question the way Postabank was privatised and acknowledges that it was sold to the highest bidder under an open competitive tender procedure.
Pri ocenjevanju ukrepa madžarskih organov iz leta 2003 ob upoštevanja načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu je treba poudariti, da Komisija nima pomislekov glede načina privatizacije banke Postabank ter priznava, da je bila prodana najvišjemu ponudniku v okviru javnega konkurenčnega razpisnega postopka.
However, this fact is not a sufficient condition to exclude the existence of an advantage in the present case.
Vendar to dejstvo ni zadosten pogoj za izključitev obstoja prednosti v obravnavani zadevi.
First, at the time of the conclusion of the share purchase agreement, the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims was not capped.
Ob sklenitvi pogodbe o nakupu delnic zagotovilo o jamstvu za neznane terjatve še ni bilo omejeno.
When the Hungarian Government sold Postabank, it committed public money under the measure to the buyer of Postabank to an unlimited extent.
Ko je madžarska vlada prodala banko Postabank, je v okviru ukrepa kupcu banke Postabank namenila javni denar v neomejenem obsegu.
The Commission, therefore, considers that — even though the Hungarian State conducted a thorough litigation due diligence before the privatisation process started and found that the probability of having to make payments under the indemnity undertaking was very low — a prudent private seller in the present case would not have given a commitment of an unlimited size to cover payment obligations arising from unknown claims up to five years after the conclusion of the share purchase agreement, even if the provision of the indemnity undertaking resulted in a higher sales price than the price the seller would have obtained by selling Postabank without this undertaking.
Zato Komisija kljub temu, da je Madžarska s potrebno skrbnostjo izvedla temeljito pravdo pred začetkom postopka privatizacije in ugotovila, da je verjetnost obveznosti plačil na podlagi zagotovila o jamstvu majhna, meni, da se preudaren zasebni prodajalec v obravnavani zadevi ne bi zavezal k neomejenemu kritju obveznosti plačil, ki izhajajo iz neznanih terjatev, v obdobju petih let od sklenitve pogodbe o nakupu delnic, tudi če bi bila zaradi zagotovila o jamstvu prodajna cena višja od cene, ki bi jo prodajalec dosegel s prodajo banke Postabank brez tega zagotovila.
The Commission considers that a market economy seller selling Postabank would have at least included a ceiling in the sale contract limiting the potential payment to the purchaser under the indemnity.
Komisija meni, da bi prodajalec v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki prodaja banko Postabank, v pogodbo o prodaji vključil vsaj zgornjo mejo možnega plačila kupcu v okviru jamstva.
A market economy seller would not have accepted running the risk of having to pay an unlimited amount, even in the knowledge that the likelihood of such a high payment was very low.
Prodajalec v tržnem gospodarstvu ne bi sprejel tveganja za plačilo neomejenega zneska, čeprav bi vedel, da je verjetnost takšnega visokega plačila zelo majhna.
Therefore, the fact that at the time of the privatisation no ceiling was put on the indemnity shows that the State did not behave in the same way as a market economy operator.
Zato dejstvo, da se v času privatizacija ni določila zgornja meja jamstva, kaže, da država ni ravnala enako kot nosilec dejavnosti v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The fact that Erste Bank made a unilateral declaration whereby the State’s potential payment liabilities under the indemnity undertaking were limited to HUF 200 billion does not change the Commission’s assessment of the behaviour of the Hungarian State.
Dejstvo, da je banka Erste Bank predložila enostransko izjavo, s katero so se možne obveznosti plačila države na podlagi zagotovila o jamstvu omejile na 200 milijard HUF, ne spremeni ocene Komisije o ravnanju Madžarske.
This is because a unilateral declaration by the buyer six months later cannot render the behaviour of the Hungarian State in granting the undertaking compatible with the market economy investor principle.
Razlog je, da enostranska izjava kupca šest mesecev pozneje ne more zagotoviti, da je ravnanje madžarske vlade pri zagotovitvi jamstva združljivo z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
This conclusion is in no way altered by the fact that bidders, who were not able to fully quantify the litigation risk given the troubled past of Postabank, considered the measure to be an indispensable condition for the privatisation.
Tega sklepa nikakor ne spremeni dejstvo, da so ponudniki, ki niso mogli v celoti določiti tveganja v zvezi s sodnimi spori zaradi neprijetne preteklosti banke Postabank, šteli ukrep za nujen pogoj privatizacije.
If the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims had not been given, the Bank would probably have remained in State ownership.
Če se ne bi zagotovilo jamstvo za neznane terjatve, bi banka verjetno ostala v lastništvu države.
In such a situation, if a potential claim under the indemnity undertaking materialised in the future, the State — if acting in line with the market economy investor principle — would have had to cover claims only up to the value of the business and not up to an unlimited amount.
V takšnem primeru bi morala država, če bi se možna terjatev na podlagi zagotovila o jamstvu v prihodnosti realizirala in če bi ravnala v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, izplačati terjatve le do vrednosti dejavnosti in ne v neomejenem znesku.
Therefore if the State had been acting in line with the market economy investor principle, it would not have pledged unlimited indemnity.
Zato država, če bi ravnala v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, ne bi zagotovila neomejenega jamstva.
Second, though there was an open and competitive tender with equal treatment of all bidders, it cannot be said that the sale was conducted under market conditions.
Čeprav je potekal javni in konkurenčni razpisni postopek, pri katerem so se enakopravno obravnavali vsi ponudniki, ni mogoče trditi, da je bila prodaja izvedena v skladu s tržnimi pogoji.
Since the amount of the indemnity was not limited, the bids could not include a proper price for it.
Ker znesek jamstva ni bil omejen, ponudbe niso mogle vključevati primerne cene zanjo.
Since it was impossible to put a value on the unlimited indemnity undertaking, the tender procedure could not be said to have involved a ‘market price’ or, therefore, to have been conducted under market conditions.
Ker ni bilo mogoče oceniti vrednosti neomejenega zagotovila o jamstvu, ni mogoče trditi, da je razpisni postopek vključeval „tržno ceno“ ali da je bil izveden v skladu s tržnimi pogoji.
Erste Bank argues that the measure does not confer a commercial advantage, since it arose pursuant to a competitive procedure and the market price was paid.
Banka Erste Bank trdi, da ukrep ne podeljuje poslovne prednosti, ker je bil sprejet v skladu s konkurenčnim postopkom in je bila plačana tržna cena.
In this context, Erste Bank refers to a number of Commission Decisions [11].
V zvezi s tem se banka Erste Bank sklicuje na številne odločbe Komisije [11].
Citing the Banks [12] and Systems Microelectronic [13] cases, Erste Bank further argues that when a company has been in receipt of an advantage and it is sold at a market price by the State, the benefit of any advantage would remain with the seller and would not be passed on to the buyer.
S citiranjem zadev Banks [12] in Systems Microelectronic [13] banka Erste Bank nadalje trdi, da kadar je prejemnik prednosti podjetje in ga država proda po tržni ceni, se kakršna koli prednost prodajalca ne prenese na kupca.
The Commission notes that the Banks case cited by Erste Bank establishes the general principle that where an open and competitive tender procedure takes place under market conditions, there is normally no aid to the buyer of the company.
Komisija ugotavlja, da zadeva Banks, ki jo je citirala banka Erste Bank, določa splošno načelo, da pri izvedbi javnega in konkurenčnega razpisnega postopka v skladu s tržnimi pogoji običajno ni pomoči za kupca podjetja.
In the present case, however, under normal market conditions Erste Bank would not have benefited from an unlimited indemnity, since a prudent market economy seller would not have sold Postabank together with an unlimited indemnity undertaking for unknown claims.
Vendar v obravnavani zadevi v skladu z običajnimi tržnimi pogoji banke Erste Bank ne bi imela koristi od neomejenega jamstva, ker preudaren prodajalec v tržnem gospodarstvu ne bi prodal banke Postabank skupaj z zagotovilom o neomejenem jamstvu za neznane terjatve.
In conclusion, since a market economy operator selling Postabank would not have pledged unlimited indemnity for unknown claims, Erste Bank received an economic advantage as a result of purchasing Postabank with the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims.
Končno, ker nosilec dejavnosti v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki prodaja banko Postabank, ne bi zagotovil neomejenega jamstva za neznane terjatve, je banka Erste Bank z nakupom banke Postabank z zagotovilom o jamstvu za neznane terjatve prejela gospodarsko prednost.
The Commission therefore considers that assessed in isolation, the measure does not meet the market economy seller test.
Komisija zato meni, da ukrep, ocenjen ločeno, ne izpolnjuje meril preskusa kupca v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Assessment of privatisation together with restructuring
Ocena privatizacije skupaj s prestrukturiranjem
In the decision initiating the procedure the Commission viewed the measures relating to restructuring and privatisation together because in 1998 the Hungarian Government had informed the Commission that it had decided to make a capital injection and become 99,9 % owner of Postabank, with a view to restructuring and privatising it, i.e. the Hungarian authorities themselves seemed to link the restructuring with the privatisation.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija obravnavala ukrepe, povezane s prestrukturiranjem in privatizacijo, skupaj, ker je leta 1998 madžarska vlada obvestila Komisijo, da se je odločila povečati kapital in postati 99,9-odstotna lastnica banke Postabank z namenom, da jo prestrukturira in privatizira, torej se zdi, da so madžarski organi sami povezali prestrukturiranje s privatizacijo.
The partly financial and partly regulatory support measures granted as of December 1998 made it possible to keep the bank operational and to facilitate its privatisation.
Delno finančni in delno ureditveni podporni ukrepi, odobreni decembra 1998, so omogočili nadaljnje poslovanje banke in spodbudili njeno privatizacijo.
Therefore, the Commission will carry out a secondary assessment of the undertaking given at the time of privatisation measure that examines it jointly with the earlier restructuring measures; however, since it has already been established that the measure viewed in isolation constitutes aid, it cannot but still constitute aid, if examined in conjunction with the earlier restructuring measures.
Zato bo Komisija izvedla sekundarno oceno zagotovila iz časa ukrepa privatizacije, ki se obravnava skupaj s prejšnjimi ukrepi prestrukturiranja; vendar, ker je že bilo ugotovljeno, da ukrep pomeni pomoč, če se obravnava ločeno, ne more več pomeniti pomoči, če se prouči skupaj s prejšnjimi ukrepi prestrukturiranja.
If the whole set of measures are jointly taken into account for the market economy investor principle test, the calculation of the costs born by the State includes the measures adopted by the Hungarian authorities to restructure the bank prior to its sale as well as those measures decided on within the framework of the sale.
Če se za preskus načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu upošteva celoten sklop ukrepov, izračun stroškov, ki jih plača država, vključuje ukrepe, ki so jih madžarski organi sprejeli za prestrukturiranje banke pred prodajo, in ukrepe, ki so bili določeni v okviru prodaje.
The aggregation of the measures concerned results in an overall negative price for the sale of about HUF 53,4 billion (i.e. about EUR 211 million), which is the result of the simplified approach of deducting the value of the State measures since December 1998 from the actual sale price achieved on privatisation.
Posledica seštevanja zadevnih ukrepov je splošna negativna cena za prodajo, tj. približno 53,4 milijarde HUF (približno 211 milijonov EUR), ki je rezultat poenostavljenega pristopa odštevanja vrednosti državnih ukrepov od decembra 1998 od dejanske cene prodaje, dosežene s privatizacijo.
This result does not include any additional costs the State may have to bear with regard to the indemnity undertakings given at the time of privatisation.
Ta rezultat ne vključuje nobenih dodatnih stroškov, ki jih morda mora plačati država v zvezi z zagotovilom o jamstvu v času privatizacije.
The Commission notes that at no point in time since 1998 was the restoration of viability of Postabank through privatisation predicated on the realisation of a ‘positive price’ for the Hungarian Government, i.e. on the realisation of a reasonable expected return on the investment.
Komisija ugotavlja, da od leta 1998 obnova sposobnosti preživetja banke Postabank s privatizacijo nikoli ni temeljila na uresničitvi „pozitivne cene“ za madžarsko vlado, tj. uresničitvi upravičeno pričakovane donosnosti naložbe.
This is borne out by the fact that the measures were introduced without any precise determination of a future target sale price.
To izhaja iz dejstva, da so bili ukrepi uvedeni brez kakršne koli natančne določitve prihodnje ciljne cene prodaje.
On this basis, in line with the market economy investor principle, a rational investor operating under normal market conditions would not, on purely commercial grounds, have contributed or committed money to Postabank without having concrete and reasonable expectations of being able to sell it for a price higher than the total funds injected into it.
V skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu na podlagi tega razumen vlagatelj, ki posluje pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji, ne bi izključno iz poslovnih razlogov prispeval ali namenil denarja banki Postabank brez dejanskih in razumnih pričakovanj, da jo lahko proda za višjo ceno od skupnih sredstev, ki jih je vložil vanjo.
As mentioned above, the Commission acknowledges that Postabank was sold to the highest bidder in an open unconditional competitive tender.
Kot je navedeno, Komisija priznava, da je bila banka Postabank prodana najvišjemu ponudniku v okviru javnega brezpogojnega in konkurenčnega razpisnega postopka.
However, an open tender procedure does not always rule out the possibility of State aid.
Vendar javni razpisni postopek vedno ne izključuje možnosti državne pomoči.
In Case C-344/99 the Court found as follows: ‘[…] with regard to the German Government’s claim that the procedure for GS’s privatisation satisfied the requirements of an open, transparent and unconditional procedure laid down in the general privatisation principles, it is enough to state that, regardless of the legal value of those principles, and assuming that claim to be established, it is not such as to challenge the finding that the option of privatising GS at a negative selling price did not satisfy the private investor test and therefore entailed elements of State aid’ [14].
V zadevi C-344/99 je Sodišče razsodilo: „[…] glede trditve nemške vlade, da je postopek privatizacije GS ustrezal zahtevam javnega, preglednega in brezpogojnega postopka, določenega s splošnimi načeli privatizacije, je dovolj navesti, da ne glede na pravno vrednost zadevnih načel in ob predpostavki, da je trditev dokazana, to ne izpodbija ugotovitve, da privatizacija GS po negativni ceni prodaje ni izpolnjevala pogojev preskusa zasebnega vlagatelja in je zato vključevala elemente državne pomoči“ [14].
If restructuring and privatisation are considered together, i.e. taking into account the amounts of the public measures implemented before the sale of the Bank, this results in a negative price for the State.
Če se prestrukturiranje in privatizacija obravnavata skupaj, pri čemer se upoštevajo zneski javnih ukrepov, izvedenih pred prodajo banke, to pomeni negativno ceno za državo.
Erste Bank states that the Commission’s private investor test analysis is incomplete as it does not examine the costs of liquidation or the relevant Hungarian banking rules preventing liquidations from taking place.
Banka Erste Bank navaja, da je analiza preskusa zasebnega vlagatelja, ki jo opravi Komisija, nepopolna, ker ne vključuje proučitve stroškov likvidacije ali zadevnih madžarskih bančnih pravil, ki preprečujejo likvidacijo.