natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the study, which is based on ex post data (data which were unknown at the time of the negotiation of the Agreement), is not appropriate for an assessment for State aid purposes.
Poleg tega študija, ki temelji na naknadnih podatkih (podatkih, ki med pogajanji o Sporazumu niso bili znani), ni primerna za oceno za namene državne pomoči.
The Commission therefore takes the view that the active management model explained in the […] study does not show that the Obligation penalises PI.
Zato Komisija meni, da model aktivnega upravljanja, pojasnjen v študiji […], ne dokazuje, da obveznost družbo PI oškoduje.
Quite the reverse, in 2005-2007, when the Agreement applied, it appears that the proposed active fund management would have led to returns lower than those of the Agreement and of the private borrower methodology.
Ravno nasprotno, zdi se, da bi lahko v obdobju 2005–2007, ko je veljal Sporazum, predlagano aktivno upravljanje sredstev povzročilo donose, nižje od donosov na podlagi Sporazuma in metodologije zasebnega posojilojemalca.
Comparison with alleged market peers
Primerjava z domnevno podobnimi družbami na trgu
Comparison of PI’s interest margin with the interest margin of comparable private-sector banks
Primerjava obrestne marže družbe PI in obrestne marže primerljivih bank v zasebnem sektorju
The […] study claims that PI’s interest margin was lower in 2005 and 2006 than the average interest margin in the Italian private banking system.
V študiji […] je navedeno, da je bila v letih 2005 in 2006 obrestna marža družbe PI nižja kot povprečna obrestna marža v italijanskem sistemu zasebnega bančništva.
The Commission would draw attention to what was said in the decision initiating the procedure: ‘The analysis of the elements constituting the spread between the loan/deposits rates is of relevance when assessing whether an advantage exists in favour of PI/BancoPosta.
Komisija opozarja na navedbo v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka: „Analiza elementov, ki sestavljajo razliko med obrestnimi merami za posojila in depozite, je pomembna pri oceni, ali obstaja prednost za družbo PI/Banco Posta.
The Commission notes that a market spread may contain State aid elements under certain circumstances, notably when the loan and deposit rates individually are off market.
Komisija ugotavlja, da lahko tržna razlika v nekaterih okoliščinah vključuje elemente državne pomoči, zlasti če obrestne mere za posojila in depozite posamezno niso v skladu s trgom.
This is not the case in the present case.
To za zadevni primer ne velja.
The Commission considers the deposit rate offered on final consumer’s current accounts is not constitutive of a State aid in favour of PI/BancoPosta.
Komisija meni, da obrestna mera za depozite, ponujena za tekoče račune končnega potrošnika, ne pomeni državne pomoči v korist družbe PI/Banco Posta.
Notably, the setting of this rate does not include a transfer of State resource to PI/BancoPosta.
Določitev te obrestne mere zlasti ne vključuje prenosa državnih sredstev družbi PI/Banco Posta.
Moreover, the rates offered over the period concerned appear to be within a market range, when comparing with interest rates offered by banks for similar products.
Poleg tega se zdi, da so ponujene obrestne mere v zadevnem obdobju v skladu s trgom, če se jih primerja z obrestnimi merami, ki jih za podobne produkte ponujajo banke.
Finally, the beneficiaries of the deposit rate are individuals.
Nazadnje, upravičenci do obrestne mere za depozite so posamezniki.
Therefore, at that stage, when examining the spread, the Commission comes to the conclusion that, in the present case, an advantage could only derive from the loan rates.
Zato Komisija na tej točki pri proučevanju razlike ugotavlja, da lahko v tem primeru prednost izhaja le iz obrestnih mer za posojila.
The loan rate paid by the State gives an economic advantage if it were higher than the rate which would have been paid to PI/BancoPosta, under market circumstances, by a private borrower for the deposited funds, according to their nature and amount’.
Obrestna mera za posojila, ki jo plačuje država, zagotavlja gospodarsko prednost, če je višja kot obrestna mera, ki bi jo v tržnih razmerah zasebni posojilojemalec plačal družbi PI/Bancoposta za deponirana sredstva glede na njihovo naravo in količino.“
On the basis of the initiating decision, therefore, the comparison between the interest margins of PI and other banks in the private sector is irrelevant, and the only element to be analysed in the present decision is the interest rate paid by the State to PI for the funds deposited.
Na podlagi odločitve o sprožitvi postopka je primerjava obrestnih marž družbe PI in drugih bank v zasebnem sektorju torej nepomembna, zato je edini element, ki ga je treba analizirati v tej odločbi, obrestna mera, ki jo država plačuje družbi PI za deponirana sredstva.
Moreover, there is no Italian private bank really comparable to PI in terms of balance-sheet structure.
Poleg tega ni nobena italijanska zasebna banka dejansko primerljiva z družbo PI v smislu strukture bilanc stanja.
PI’s liabilities are essentially made up of current accounts (postal current accounts).
Obveznosti družbe PI v bistvu sestavljajo tekoči računi (poštni tekoči računi).
This is not the case with ‘normal’ banks, which rely notably on bonds, current accounts, savings accounts etc.
Pri „običajnih“ bankah je drugače, ker uporabljajo zlasti obveznice, tekoče račune, varčevalne račune itd.
The Commission would also point out that PI is not authorised to lend money to its customers; the personal loans and mortgages it offers are offered on behalf of other banks.
Komisija poudarja tudi, da družba PI ni pooblaščena za posojanje denarnih sredstev svojim strankam; osebna posojila in hipoteke, ki jih ponuja, se ponujajo v imenu drugih bank.
In conclusion, the interest margins of PI and of private banks are different in their composition, and cannot be meaningfully compared.
Če povzamemo, obrestne marže družbe PI in zasebnih bank se razlikujejo glede na sestavo in jih ni mogoče ustrezno primerjati.
Comparison of PI’s tenor mismatch with those of its private-sector peers
Primerjava neusklajenosti trajanja sredstev pri družbi PI in podobnih družbah v zasebnem sektorju
The […] study indicates that PI’s postal current accounts are a long-term liability, given the high diversification and stable behaviour of its customers.
V študiji […] je navedeno, da so poštni tekoči računi družbe PI dolgoročna obveznost zaradi svoje velike razpršenosti in stabilnega vedenja strank.
It also indicates that it is common practice for the banking system to fund long-term assets in large part using deposits.
Navedeno je tudi, da je v bančnem sistemu običajna praksa, da se dolgoročna sredstva financirajo zlasti z depoziti.
In this respect, the study compares PI’s asset and liability approach to those of private banks investing their funds in loans to the public sector (Depfa, Dexia, CCF etc.).
V zvezi s tem se v študiji primerja pristop družbe PI k sredstvom in obveznostim z enakovrednim pristopom zasebnih bank, ki svoja sredstva vlagajo v posojila javnemu sektorju (Depfa, Dexia, CCF itd.).
According to […], those banks follow the same approach as PI, since they invest in very long-term public assets (above 15 years), and obtain funds from a mix of short-term and long-term sources.
Po trditvah […] te banke uporabljajo enak pristop kot družba PI, ker vlagajo v zelo dolgoročna javna sredstva (nad 15 let) ter sredstva pridobivajo iz mešanice kratko- in dolgoročnih virov.
In particular, they collect about 50 % of their requirements on a medium- to long-term basis, financing the rest short term from repurchase transactions with the European Central Bank and deposits from financial intermediaries, and invest their funding in loans to public authorities, usually with maturities of from 10 to 50 years.
Natančneje, približno 50 % potrebnih sredstev zberejo na srednje- do dolgoročni podlagi, preostali del pa financirajo kratkoročno s transakcijami začasnega nakupa/prodaje pri Evropski centralni banki in depoziti finančnih posrednikov, svoja finančna sredstva pa vlagajo v posojila javnim organom, ponavadi z zapadlostjo od deset do 50 let.
On the basis of the above, […] concludes that PI’s asset liability management (ALM) model is in line with that of its market peers, if not indeed more prudent.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega […] ugotavlja, da je model upravljanja sredstev in obveznosti v družbi PI usklajen z modeli podobnih družb na trgu ali morda celo bolj preudaren.
The Commission considers that no conclusions can be drawn from the comparison between PI’s asset liability management and that of comparable operators, for the following reasons.
Komisija meni, da iz razlogov, navedenih v nadaljevanju, ni mogoče oblikovati sklepov na podlagi primerjave med upravljanjem sredstev in obveznosti v družbi PI in pri primerljivih izvajalcih dejavnosti.
First, PI’s liabilities structure is not comparable to that of its market peers: almost 90 % of PI’s liabilities is made up of postal current accounts, while hardly 50 % of the liabilities of private banks investing in public-sector assets is made of up repurchase transactions and short-term deposits: the rest derives from medium- and long-term funding.
Prvič, struktura obveznosti družbe PI ni primerljiva s strukturo obveznosti podobnih družb na trgu; približno 90 % obveznosti družbe PI sestavljajo poštni tekoči računi, medtem ko komaj 50 % obveznosti zasebnih bank, ki vlagajo v sredstva javnega sektorja, sestavljajo transakcije začasnega nakupa/prodaje in kratkoročni depoziti, pri čemer preostali del izhaja iz srednje- in dolgoročnega financiranja.
Second, the comparison with other banks is also vitiated by the fact that PI does not incur the risks to which they are exposed and for which they expect to be compensated on market terms.
Drugič, primerjavo z drugimi bankami onemogoča tudi dejstvo, da družba PI ne nosi enakega tveganja, kot so mu izpostavljene te banke in zaradi katerega pričakujejo nadomestila v tržnem smislu.
Third, […] rightly says that La Banque Postale cannot be compared with PI from 2006 onward, because La Banque Postale began lending to the private sector in that year [92]; and for the same reasons no conclusions can be drawn from a comparison between PI and private banks operating in the public sector, because they also provide financing outside the public sector (for example, almost 50 % of Dexia loans are to non-public customers).
Tretjič, […] ustrezno navaja, da družbe La Banque Postale od leta 2006 ni mogoče primerjati z družbo PI, ker je La Banque Postale v tem letu začela posojanje zasebnemu sektorju [92]; iz istega razloga prav tako ni mogoče sklepati na podlagi primerjave med družbo PI in zasebnimi bankami, ki delujejo v javnem sektorju, ker tudi te banke zagotavljajo financiranje zunaj javnega sektorja (na primer približno 50 % posojil banke Dexia se dodeli zasebnim strankam).
Fourth, as already indicated in connection with the comparison with Efiposte/La Poste, in order to determine whether an advantage has been conferred on an undertaking the Commission does not compare the situation in different Member States.
Četrtič, kot je že bilo navedeno v zvezi s primerjavo z družbo Efiposte/La Poste, Komisija za ugotovitev, ali je bila podjetju zagotovljena prednost, ne primerja položajev v različnih državah članicah.
To close the comparison with alleged market peers, the Commission notes that ‘CDP SpA’s cash is deposited in an interest-bearing current account with the Central State Treasury, No 29814, entitled “Cassa DP SpA – gestione separata”.
Za konec primerjave z domnevno podobnimi družbami na trgu Komisija navaja, da je „gotovina družbe CDP SpA deponirana na obrestonosnem tekočem računu pri osrednji državni blagajni, št. 29814, z nazivom ‚Casa DP SpA – gestione separata‘.
Pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Order of the Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance of 5 December 2003, interest on the funds in that account is paid half-yearly at a floating six-month rate equal to the simple arithmetic mean of the gross yield on six-month ordinary Treasury bills and the movement of the Rendistato index.
V skladu s členom 6(2) Odredbe ministra za gospodarstvo in finance z dne 5. decembra 2003 se obresti za sredstva na tem računu plačujejo vsakih šest mesecev po spremenljivi šestmesečni obrestni meri, ki je enaka navadni aritmetični sredini bruto donosa šestmesečnih običajnih zakladnih menic in gibanja indeksa Rendistato.
From 1 January 2006, following the merger of Infrastrutture SpA into CDP SpA (Article 1(79) et seq. of Act No 266 of 23 December 2005), interest-bearing current account No 20347, in the name of ISPA, was renamed “Cassa DP SpA – gest.
Od 1. januarja 2006 se je po pridružitvi družbe Infrastrutture SpA družbi CDP SpA (člen 1(79) in naslednji Zakona št. 266 z dne 23. decembra 2005) obrestonosni tekoči račun št. 20347 v imenu ISPA preimenoval v ‚Cassa DP SpA – gest.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance pays six-monthly interest on deposits in this account at a rate equal to the average yield on the six-month ordinary Treasury bills issued during the previous six-month period.
Ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finance vsakih šest mesecev plačuje obresti za depozite na tem računu po obrestni meri, ki je enaka povprečnemu donosu šestmesečnih običajnih zakladnih menic, izdanih v predhodnem šestmesečnem obdobju.
In order to make use of the treasury and disbursement services performed by the Banca d’Italia, CDP SpA continues to use the non-interest-bearing current account No 29815, entitled “CDP SpA – pagamenti”.
Za uporabo storitev zakladniških storitev in storitev izplačevanja, ki jih izvaja Banca d’Italia, družba CDP SpA še naprej uporablja tekoči račun št. 29815 z nazivom ‚CDP SpA – pagamenti‘, ki se ne obrestuje.
With the increasing use of interbank payment systems, recourse to the national treasury channel for in- and out-payments has declined considerably’ [93].
Ob vse večji uporabi sistemov medbančnih plačil se je uporaba kanala nacionalne državne blagajne za vplačila in izplačila znatno zmanjšala“ [93].
The Commission is aware of the difficulty of drawing useful conclusions from comparisons between PI and operators alleged to be comparable, which differ from PI in various ways.
Komisija se zaveda, da je težko sprejeti uporabne sklepe na podlagi primerjav med družbo PI in domnevno primerljivimi izvajalci storitev, ki se od družbe PI razlikujejo z več vidikov.
It can be seen from what has been said, however, that financial intermediaries investing in the public sector, like CDP, are not necessarily remunerated in line with long-term parameters [94].
Vendar lahko iz navedenega sklepamo, da se finančni posredniki, ki vlagajo v javni sektor, kot je CDP, ne obrestujejo nujno v skladu z dolgoročnimi parametri [94].
This confirms the Commission’s view that for the purpose of this Decision no conclusions can be drawn from the comparison between PI and alleged market peers.
To potrjuje mnenje Komisije, da za namene te odločbe ni mogoče sklepati na podlagi primerjave med družbo PI in domnevno podobnimi družbami na trgu.
The Commission concludes that the comparisons referred to above, between the interest margins of PI and the interest margins of banks operating in the private sector, and between the tenor mismatch of PI and the tenor mismatches of operators specialised in funding the public sector, are irrelevant, and do not show that the Agreement confers no advantage on PI.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so zgoraj navedene primerjave, tj. med obrestnimi maržami družbe PI in obrestnimi maržami bank, ki delujejo v zasebnem sektorju, ter med neusklajenostjo trajanja sredstev pri družbi PI in izvajalcih, specializiranih za financiranje javnega sektorja, nepomembne in ne dokazujejo, da Sporazum ne daje prednosti družbi PI.
To sum up, the interest rate provided for in the Agreement can be compared with the rate for alternative investments in a risk-return perspective.
Obrestno mero, določeno v Sporazumu, je torej z vidika razmerja med tveganjem in donosom mogoče primerjati z obrestno mero za nadomestne naložbe.
For a similar level of risk, the Agreement provides returns higher than alternative investments, and for similar returns it is subject to lower risks.
Pri podobni stopnji tveganja Sporazum zagotavlja višje donose kot nadomestne naložbe, pri podobnih donosih pa je izpostavljen manjšemu tveganju.
Italy itself takes the view that the deposit with the Treasury has a return-risk ratio higher than a fixed-rate portfolio would have.
Tudi sama Italija se strinja, da je razmerje med donosom in tveganjem za depozit pri državni blagajni večje kot za portfelj s fiksno obrestno mero.
The Commission considers that a risk-return approach is more appropriate than an analysis based on return only.
Komisija meni, da je pristop na podlagi razmerja med tveganjem in donosom primernejši kot analiza, ki temelji le na donosu.
The Commission concludes that in the absence of the Obligation over the relevant period the possible alternative investments would not have allowed PI to achieve returns which in a risk-return perspective were similar to or better than those provided by the Agreement.
Komisija nazadnje ugotavlja, da v odsotnosti obveznosti v zadevnem obdobju morebitne alternativne naložbe družbi PI ne bi omogočile doseganja donosov, ki bi bili z vidika razmerja med tveganjem in donosom podobni ali višji kot donosi na podlagi Sporazuma.
The appropriateness of the private borrower methodology is therefore confirmed.
S tem je potrjena ustreznost metodologije zasebnega posojilojemalca.
Additional observations
Dodatne pripombe
The nature of PI’s role
Narava vloge družbe PI
In its initiating decision of September 2006, the Commission said that given the specific position of PI, it was possible that no standard of comparison would be available on the market.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka septembra 2006 navedla, da je zaradi posebnega položaja družbe PI mogoče, da na trgu ne bo na voljo nobenega merila za primerjavo.
Under such circumstances, the Commission would have to establish the cost of operating the account for PI and add a reasonable margin.
Komisija bi v takih okoliščinah morala določiti stroške vodenja računa za družbo PI in dodati razumno maržo.
As explained in Section 7.4.2, the Commission is satisfied that a standard of comparison can in fact be indentified on the market, using the private borrower approach.
Kot je pojasnjeno v oddelku 7.4.2, se je Komisija prepričala, da je s pristopom zasebnega posojilojemalca na trgu dejansko mogoče določiti merilo za primerjavo.
The Commission considers that the role of PI is not in any way confined to that of a conduit for collecting funds for the State.
Komisija meni, da vloga družbe PI nikakor ni omejena na vlogo kanala za zbiranje sredstev za državo.
PI has been pursuing an active policy of developing its banking activities, notably by increasing the attractiveness of its postal current account.
Družba PI je izvajala dejavno politiko razvoja svojih bančnih dejavnosti, zlasti s povečevanjem privlačnosti svojega poštnega tekočega računa.
Besides, in another decision regarding PI, adopted in November 2006 [95], in a case where the postal operator was distributing postal savings books on behalf of CDP, and passing the money collected to CDP, the Commission took the view that that activity was not equivalent to the function of a conduit; the remuneration paid to PI was based on the annual average deposits on the savings books.
Poleg tega je Komisija v drugi odločbi v zvezi z družbo PI iz novembra 2006 [95], v primeru katere je izvajalec poštnih storitev razširjal poštne hranilne knjižice v imenu družbe CDP in ji posredoval zbrana denarna sredstva, menila, da to delovanje ni bilo enako vlogi kanala; obresti, ki so se izplačale družbi PI, so temeljile na letnih povprečnih depozitih na hranilnih knjižicah.
Finally, even ABI does not consider that PI’s remuneration should be based on its costs.
Nazadnje, niti združenje ABI ne meni, da bi moralo obrestovanje družbe PI temeljiti na njenih stroških.
Comparison with the cost of medium/long term funding of the Treasury
Primerjava s stroškom za srednje-/dolgoročno financiranje državne blagajne
Italy argues that the cost of medium- and long-term funding of the Treasury is often higher than the rate provided for in the Agreement (recitals 77 et seq.).
Italija trdi, da je strošek srednje- in dolgoročnega financiranja državne blagajne pogosto višji kot obrestna mera, določena v Sporazumu (uvodna izjava 77 in naslednje).
The Commission would point out the following:
Komisija poudarja:
a comparison with medium- and long-term funding is not enough by itself.
primerjava s srednje- in dolgoročnim financiranjem sama po sebi ni dovolj.
Italy has not convincingly demonstrated that postal current accounts serve to finance only the Treasury’s medium-to long-term needs.
Italija ni prepričljivo dokazala, da se poštni tekoči računi uporabljajo le za financiranje srednje- do dolgoročnih potreb državne blagajne.
The Commission considers that the deposit is used to cover the general needs of the Treasury,
Komisija meni, da se depozit uporablja za pokrivanje splošnih potreb državne blagajne,
about 60 % of Treasury issues are short-term instruments (BOTs and CTZs), having a maturity of no more than two years.
približno 60 % vrednostnih papirjev, ki jih izda državna blagajna, je kratkoročnih instrumentov (BOT in brezkuponske obveznice (CTZ)) z zapadlostjo, ki ne presega dveh let. Povprečna zapadlost finančnih instrumentov, ki jih je Italija izdala v obdobju 2001–2005 (CCT, CTZ, BTP, BOT), je bila približno štiri leta,
The Commission considers, too, that there is no logical reason for Italy to exclude three-year bonds from the computation, as these could also be regarded as medium-term instruments.
Komisija prav tako meni, da ni nobenega smiselnega razloga, da bi Italija iz izračuna izključila triletne obveznice, ki se lahko obravnavajo tudi kot srednjeročni instrumenti.
The Commission is of the view that the facts do not justify the use of this methodological analysis.
Komisija meni, da dejstva ne upravičujejo uporabe te metodološke analize.
Once again, each of the points set out above is sufficient by itself to show that the comparison made by Italy is not conclusive.
Če ponovimo, vsaka od zgornjih točk je sama po sebi dovolj kot dokaz, da primerjava Italije ni prepričljiva.
Other arguments
Drugi argumenti
In order to prove that the yield obtained by PI on the deposits it is required to hold with the Treasury is achievable in financial markets with a comparable risk profile, Italy has spoken of a hypothetical one-year swap operation against the Agreement rate.
Za dokaz, da je donos, ki ga družba PI pridobi z depoziti, ki jih mora imeti pri državni blagajni, dosegljiv na finančnih trgih s primerljivim profilom tveganja, je Italija navedla hipotetično enoletno operacijo zamenjave glede na obrestno mero iz Sporazuma.
The Commission considers that this argument, which has not been elaborated, is neither appropriate nor relevant to the present analysis.
Komisija meni, da ta argument, ki niti ni bil izčrpno raziskan, ni ustrezen in ne zadeva te analize.
Replies to the remaining observations from ABI
Odgovori na preostale pripombe združenja ABI
ABI states that the two interest-bearing accounts with the Treasury opened by CDP pay interest every six months at a floating rate equal to the simple arithmetic mean of the gross return on six-month ordinary Treasury bills and the movement of the monthly Rendistato index.
Združenje ABI navaja, da dva obrestonosna računa, ki ju je pri državni blagajni odprl CDP, izplačujeta obresti vsakih šest mesecev po spremenljivi obrestni meri, ki je enaka navadni aritmetični sredini bruto donosa šestmesečnih običajnih zakladnih menic in gibanja mesečnega indeksa Rendistato.
The Commission would make the following points:
Komisija izpostavlja naslednje točke:
the nature of CDP’s resources is different from that of the current accounts of PI’s customers.
narava sredstev družbe CDP se razlikuje od narave sredstev na tekočih računih strank družbe PI.