natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They were particularly worried about what would happen if the privatised successor company were to become insolvent leaving the pension scheme with a deficit.
Zaposlene je zlasti skrbelo, kaj se bo zgodilo, če privatizirana družba naslednica postane plačilno nezmožna in če nastane primanjkljaj v pokojninski shemi.
According to the authorities of the United Kingdom, the Crown guarantee issued in 1984 responded to these concerns, which were exacerbated by the actuarial deficit of the pension scheme revealed in 1983.
Kot so navedli organi Združenega kraljestva, se je država z izdajo poroštva leta 1984 odzvala na te skrbi, ki so se še povečale, kot je aktuarska ocena leta 1983 pokazala primanjkljaj v pokojninski shemi.
According to the explanations provided by the authorities of the United Kingdom, if BT became insolvent, the Government of the United Kingdom would become liable immediately — on commencement of liquidation — for any of BT’s outstanding liabilities relating to the pension scheme for staff transferred to BT at privatisation.
V skladu s pojasnili, ki so jih predložili organi Združenega kraljestva, naj bi ob plačilni nezmožnosti družbe BT vlada Združenega kraljestva takoj ob začetku likvidacije prevzela odgovornost za vse neporavnane obveznosti družbe BT, ki se nanašajo na pokojninsko shemo zaposlenih, ob privatizaciji preneseno na družbo BT.
The Secretary of State would make payment to BTPS in respect of these outstanding liabilities and would become an unsecured creditor of BT for that amount.
Državni sekretar naj bi izvedel plačilo BTPS v zvezi z navedenimi neporavnanimi obveznostmi in postal nezavarovan upnik družbe BT v višini tega zneska.
BTPS would also be an unsecured creditor of the insolvent BT for any liabilities related to staff not covered by the Crown guarantee since the law does not give any special preference to pension scheme trustees.
Tudi BTPS bi postal nezavarovan upnik plačilno nezmožne družbe BT za vse obveznosti, ki se nanašajo na zaposlene in ki jih ne krije poroštvo države, ker zakon ne določa posebnih prednostnih pravic za skrbnike pokojninskih shem.
BT Pension Scheme
Pokojninska shema BT
Until 1969, employees of the Post Office were civil servants.
Do leta 1969 so imeli zaposleni na pošti status javnih uslužbencev.
In that year, they became employees of the Post Office public corporation, which ended their status as members of the civil service.
Leta 1969 je pošta postala javna družba, zaradi česar so njeni zaposleni izgubili status javnih uslužbencev.
The Post Office was assigned general responsibility for the payment of staff pensions, with the establishment of the Post Office Staff Superannuation Scheme (POSSS), to which the accrued pension rights of Post Office employees were transferred.
Pošti je bila dodeljena splošna odgovornost za plačilo pokojnin osebju in ustanovljena je bila pokojninska shema za osebje pošte (Post Office Staff Superannuation Scheme, v nadaljnjem besedilu: POSSS), na katero so bile prenesene pridobljene pokojninske pravice zaposlenih na pošti.
In 1983, the British Telecommunications Staff Superannuation Scheme (BTSSS), the terms of which were closely modelled on those of the POSSS, was established.
Leta 1983 je bila ustanovljena pokojninska shema za osebje British Telecommunications (British Telecommunications Staff Superannuation Scheme, v nadaljnjem besedilu: BTSSS), katere pogoji so bili zelo podobni pogojem POSSS.
As of 31 March 1986, BT established a further pension scheme for new employees called the British Telecommunications plc New Pension Scheme (BTNPS).
Družba BT je 31. marca 1986 ustanovila še eno pokojninsko shemo za nove zaposlene, ki se je imenovala nova pokojninska shema British Telecommunications plc. (British Telecommunications plc.
The BTSSS was closed to new members from that date.
New Pension Scheme, v nadaljnjem besedilu: BTNPS). BTSSS je bil od navedenega datuma zaprt za nove člane.
Both these schemes were merged and renamed the BT Pension Scheme (BTPS) in 1993.
Obe shemi sta se leta 1993 združili in preimenovali v pokojninsko shemo BT (BT Pension Scheme, v nadaljnjem besedilu: BTPS).
The objective of BTPS is to ensure that over the long term, the scheme will always have enough money to meet the cost of the pension benefits to be paid.
Cilj BTPS je zagotoviti, da bo imela shema dolgoročno vedno dovolj sredstev za kritje stroškov pokojninskih pravic, ki jih je treba izplačati.
Under the Rules of the BTPS, BT must contribute regular employment contributions to the scheme, as determined by the scheme actuary, to meet the benefits under and the costs and expenses of the scheme.
V skladu s pravili BTPS mora BT v shemo prispevati redne prispevke delodajalca, kot jih določi aktuar sheme, za kritje pravic, ki izhajajo iz sheme, ter njenih stroškov in odhodkov.
BT’s regular employer contributions amounted to GBP 395 million in the financial year 2006/2007.
Redni prispevki delodajalca so v proračunskem letu 2006/2007 znašali 395 milijonov GBP.
The scheme actuary is also required to make an actuarial valuation of the assets and the liabilities (namely, future pension benefits and other costs and expenses) of the scheme at intervals not exceeding three years and report the position to BTPS’ trustees and to BT.
Aktuar sheme mora opraviti tudi aktuarsko oceno sredstev in obveznosti (in sicer prihodnjih pokojninskih pravic ter drugih stroškov in odhodkov) sheme v časovnih razmikih, ki niso daljši od treh let, ter o tem poročati skrbnikom BTPS in družbi BT.
BT must also make further contributions as required to repair any deficit between the scheme assets and liabilities reported on the actuarial valuation under a recovery plan to return the BTPS to full funding […] [2].
Družba BT mora plačati tudi dodatne prispevke, potrebne za odpravo kakršnega koli primanjkljaja med sredstvi in obveznosti sheme, ki se ugotovi v aktuarski oceni, v skladu s sanacijskim načrtom, da se spet zagotovi popolno kritje BTPS […] [2].
For instance, the triennial valuation of the BTPS as at 31 December 2002 concluded that there was a funding deficit, which BT agreed to repay at GBP 232 million per annum over 15 years, in addition to regular employer contributions.
Tako je na primer triletna ocena BTPS na dan 31. decembra 2002 pokazala primanjkljaj sredstev, ki ga je BT sklenil sanirati tako, da bo petnajst let poleg rednih prispevkov delodajalca plačeval 232 milijonov GBP na leto.
The results of the most recent valuation were announced in December 2006 and disclosed liabilities of GBP 37,8 billion and assets of GBP 34,4 billion, which resulted in a deficit of GBP 3,4 billion.
Decembra 2006 so bili objavljeni rezultati zadnje ocene, na podlagi katere obveznosti znašajo 37,8 milijarde GBP, sredstva pa 34,4 milijarde GBP, kar pomeni primanjkljaj v višini 3,4 milijarde GBP.
Should the next actuarial valuation reveal that the scheme will not return to full funding as planned, a new recovery plan and amended additional contributions will have to be agreed.
Če bo naslednja aktuarska ocena pokazala, da se ne bo doseglo popolno kritje sheme v skladu z načrtom, se bo treba dogovoriti o novem sanacijskem načrtu in spremembi dodatnih prispevkov.
Main developments of pension legislation in the United Kingdom since 1984
Glavne spremembe v pokojninski zakonodaji Združenega kraljestva od leta 1984
Pension law in the United Kingdom has undergone several changes since 1984.
Pokojninska zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva je bila od leta 1984 večkrat spremenjena.
According to the information available, the Pensions Acts 1995 and the Pensions Acts 2004 introduced the main modifications to the general pension regulatory framework.
Po razpoložljivih informacijah sta pokojninska zakona iz leta 1995 in 2004 uvedla glavne spremembe v splošni pokojninski regulativni okvir.
The Pensions Act 1995: Minimum funding requirements
Pokojninski zakon iz leta 1995: predpisi o minimalnem financiranju
Section 56 of the Pensions Act 1995 introduced a minimum funding requirement that the value of the assets of the scheme is not less than the amount of the liabilities of the scheme.
V členu 56 Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995 so določeni predpisi o minimalnem financiranju, po katerih vrednost sredstev sheme ne sme biti manjša od zneska obveznosti sheme.
However, the Occupational Pension Schemes (Minimum Funding Requirement and Actuarial Valuations) Regulations 1996 provide that:
Vendar pa je v Pravilih o poklicnih pokojninskih shemah (predpisi o minimalnem financiranju in aktuarske ocene) iz leta 1996 določeno:
‘Section 56 (minimum funding requirement) does not apply to […] any occupational pension scheme in respect of which any Minister of the Crown has given a guarantee or made any other arrangements for the purpose of securing that the assets of the scheme are sufficient to meet its liabilities.
„Člen 56 (predpisi o minimalnem financiranju) se ne uporablja za […] nobeno poklicno pokojninsko shemo, za katero je kateri koli državni sekretar izdal poroštvo ali sklenil kakršne koli druge ureditve, da bi zajamčil, da sredstva sheme zadostujejo za pokritje njenih obveznosti.
[…] Where such a guarantee has been given in respect of part only of a scheme, sections 56 to 60 and these Regulations shall apply as if that part and the other part of the scheme were separate schemes’ (emphasis added).
[…] Če je tako poroštvo izdano le za del sheme, se členi od 56 do 60 in ta Pravila uporabljajo, kot če bi bila navedeni del in ostali del sheme ločeni shemi “(poudarek je dodan).
Furthermore, section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 provides that if at the time of insolvency the value of the assets of the scheme is less than the amount of the liabilities of the scheme, an amount equal to the difference shall be treated as a debt due from the employer to the trustees or managers of the scheme.
Poleg tega je v členu 75 Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995 določeno, da če je v katerem koli času plačilne nezmožnosti vrednost sredstev sheme manjša od zneska obveznosti sheme, se znesek razlike obravnava kot dolg delodajalca do skrbnikov ali upraviteljev sheme.
However, the Occupational Pension Schemes (Deficiency on Winding up) Regulations 1996 provide that:
Vendar pa je v Pravilih o poklicnih pokojninskih shemah (primanjkljaj ob likvidaciji) iz leta 1996 določeno:
‘Section 75 does not apply […] to any occupational pension scheme in respect of which any Minister of the Crown has given a guarantee or made any other arrangements for the purpose of securing that the assets of the scheme are sufficient to meet its liabilities’ (emphasis added).
„Člen 75 se ne uporablja […] za nobeno poklicno pokojninsko shemo, za katero je kateri koli državni sekretar izdal poroštvo ali sklenil kakršne koli druge ureditve, da bi zajamčil, da sredstva sheme zadostujejo za pokritje njenih obveznosti“ (poudarek je dodan).
The Pensions Act 2004: Pension Protection Fund and Statutory Funding Objectives
Pokojninski zakon iz leta 2004: pokojninski zaščitni sklad in zakonsko predpisano financiranje
Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 introduced the Pension Protection Fund as a result of intense political pressure at the time, after thousands of workers lost large amounts of their pension benefits following the bankruptcy of their sponsoring companies.
V 2. delu Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004 je določena uvedba pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada kot posledica močnega političnega pritiska v tistem času, ko je na tisoče delavcev izgubilo velike zneske pokojnin zaradi stečajev sponzorskih podjetij.
The Pension Protection Fund is financed partly by the assets transferred from schemes from which it has assumed responsibility and partly by an annual levy raised on eligible pension schemes.
Pokojninski zaščitni sklad se delno financira s sredstvi, prenesenimi iz shem, katerih odgovornost je prevzel, in delno z letno dajatvijo, ki jo plačujejo upravičene pokojninske sheme.
This levy includes an administration levy and a risk levy which incorporates two elements: a risk-based element that takes into account the scheme’s under-funding risk and the employer insolvency risk (80 % of the levy) and a scheme-based element on the basis of the size of the scheme’s liabilities (20 % of the levy).
Ta dajatev vključuje upravno dajatev in dajatev za tveganje, ki zajema dva elementa, in sicer element tveganja, pri katerem se upoštevata tveganje podkapitalizacije sheme in tveganje plačilne nezmožnosti delodajalca (80 % dajatve), ter element sheme, ki temelji na obsegu obveznosti sheme (20 % dajatve).
The amount of the initial levy for 2005/2006 was set without taking into consideration the risk-based element.
Znesek začetne dajatve za leti 2005/2006 je bil določen brez upoštevanja elementa tveganja.
The Pension Protection Fund (Entry Rules) Regulations 2005 specify that ‘a scheme in respect of which a relevant public authority has given a guarantee or made any other arrangements for the purposes of securing that the assets of the scheme are sufficient to meet its liabilities’ is exempted from the Pension Protection Fund.
V Pravilih o pokojninskem zaščitnem skladu (pravila o začetku veljavnosti) iz leta 2005 je določeno, da je „shema, za katero je ustrezni javni organ izdal poroštvo ali sklenil kakršne koli druge ureditve, da bi zajamčil, da sredstva sheme zadostujejo za pokritje njenih obveznosti“, izvzeta iz pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada.
Where part of a scheme is guaranteed by the Crown, the guaranteed and non-guaranteed parts of the scheme should be considered as separate schemes.
Kadar je za del sheme odobreno poroštvo države, je treba zajamčeni in nezajamčeni del sheme obravnavati kot ločeni shemi.
The Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Funding) Regulations 2005 exempt a scheme which is guaranteed by a public authority.
V Pravilih o poklicnih pokojninskih shemah (financiranje sheme) iz leta 2005 je določeno izvzetje za sheme, za katere je javni organ izdal poroštvo.
Again, if a part of a scheme is guaranteed by the Crown, the guaranteed and non-guaranteed parts of the scheme should be considered as separate schemes.
Tudi v tem primeru se morata zajamčeni in nezajamčeni del sheme obravnavati kot ločeni shemi, kadar je za del sheme odobreno poroštvo države.
COMMISSION DECISION ON THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
ODLOČITEV KOMISIJE O SPROŽITVI FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
In its decision of 28 November 2007 initiating the formal investigation, the Commission set out its preliminary assessment and doubts as to the compatibility of the measures at hand with the common market.
Komisija je v odločitvi z dne 28. novembra 2007 o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave navedla svojo predhodno oceno in dvome o združljivosti obravnavanih ukrepov s skupnim trgom.
The measures in question were:
Zadevni ukrepi so bili:
the Crown guarantee to BT on BT’s pension liabilities in 1984,
poroštvo države družbi BT za pokojninske obveznosti družbe BT leta 1984,
the exemption of BTPS from the application of the minimum funding requirements introduced by the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2004 to the BTPS’ pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee,
izvzetje BTPS od izpolnjevanja predpisov o minimalnem financiranju, ki jih določata pokojninska zakona iz let 1995 in 2004, v zvezi s pokojninskimi obveznostmi BTPS, ki jih krije poroštvo države,
the exemption of BTPS under the Pension Protection Fund (Entry Rules) Regulations 2005 from the requirement laid down in part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 to contribute an annual levy to the Pension Protection Fund corresponding to its pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee.
izvzetje BTPS, določeno v Pravilih o pokojninskem zaščitnem skladu (pravila o začetku veljavnosti) iz leta 2005, od zahteve iz 2. dela Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004 o plačilu letne dajatve za pokojninski zaščitni sklad za tiste pokojninske obveznosti BTPS, ki jih krije poroštvo države.
In that decision, the Commission held the view that, on its own, the Crown guarantee on BT’s pension liabilities in case of BT’s insolvency after being wound up is of benefit only to employees and therefore does not confer any advantage to BT since it does not affect the credit rating, investment, or employment policy of BT.
Komisija je v navedeni odločitvi izrazila stališče, da samo poroštvo države za pokojninske obveznosti družbe BT ob plačilni nezmožnosti družbe BT po njeni likvidaciji prinaša koristi le zaposlenim in zato ne pomeni nobene prednosti za družbo BT, ker ne vpliva na njeno boniteto, naložbe ali politiko zaposlovanja.
The Commission therefore concluded that the Crown guarantee, as far as it concerns BT pension liabilities in case of insolvency, did not confer any specific additional advantage to BT, viewed in isolation from the changes in the legal framework introduced in 1995 and 2004, and therefore did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC [3].
Komisija je zato sklenila, da poroštvo države, kar zadeva pokojninske obveznosti družbe BT ob plačilni nezmožnosti, ni prineslo nobene posebne dodatne prednosti za družbo BT, če se obravnava ločeno od sprememb v zakonski podlagi iz let 1995 in 2004, ter zato ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) ES [3].
However, the Commission reached a different conclusion with regard to the pension legal framework introduced in 1995 and 2004 in connection with the Crown guarantee.
Vendar pa je Komisija sprejela drugačen sklep v zvezi s pokojninsko zakonodajo iz let 1995 in 2004 v povezavi s poroštvom države.
Whilst expressing its preliminary doubts on the compatibility of possible State aid with the common market, the Commission called on the United Kingdom to provide explanations, in particular, as to the following:
Ko je izrazila svoje predhodne dvome o združljivosti morebitne državne pomoči s skupnim trgom, je pozvala Združeno kraljestvo, naj predloži obrazložitve zlasti naslednjega:
clear evidence that BTPS did not avail itself of the exemption from the minimum funding requirements provided for in the 1995 and 2004 Pension Acts, and reasons for this decision.
jasen dokaz, da BTPS ni izkoristil izvzetja od predpisov o minimalnem financiranju, določenega v pokojninskih zakonih iz let 1995 in 2004, ter razloge za tako odločitev.
In this connection, the Commission noted that the BTPS still had a GBP 3,4 billion deficit in 2006, despite the requirements of the 1995 Pension Act that the assets of the scheme had to match its liabilities,
V zvezi s tem je Komisija omenila, da je imel BTPS leta 2006 še vedno primanjkljaj v višini 3,4 milijarde GBP, in to kljub zahtevam iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995, da morajo sredstva sheme ustrezati njenim obveznostim,
full explanations as to why the exemption from the contribution to the Pension Protection Fund does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC,
popolno obrazložitev, zakaj izvzetje od plačila prispevkov v pokojninski zaščitni sklad ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) ES,
full explanations as to why these measures can be found to be compatible with State aid rules, and in particular under Article 87(3)(c) EC, should the Commission conclude that they constitute State aid.
popolno obrazložitev, zakaj se ti ukrepi lahko štejejo za združljive s pravili o državni pomoči in zlasti s členom 87(3)(c) ES, če bi Komisija sklenila, da pomenijo državno pomoč.
COMMENTS FROM THE PARTIES INVOLVED
PRIPOMBE UDELEŽENIH STRANI
Position of the authorities of the United Kingdom
Stališče organov Združenega kraljestva
The observations of the United Kingdom relate to the issues raised in the decision of 28 November 2007 as concerns minimum funding requirement and the exemption from payment of levies to the Pension Protection Fund.
Pripombe Združenega kraljestva se nanašajo na vprašanja, sprožena v odločitvi z dne 28. novembra 2007 glede predpisov o minimalnem financiranju in izvzetja od plačila dajatve za pokojninski zaščitni sklad.
Minimum funding requirement
Predpisi o minimalnem financiranju
The United Kingdom claims that BT and the BTPS did not avail themselves of the exemption from the application of the minimum funding requirements.
Združeno kraljestvo trdi, da družba BT in BTPS nista izkoristila izvzetja od izpolnjevanja predpisov o minimalnem financiranju.
The minimum funding requirement provided for in section 56 of the Pensions Act 1995, which was in force until 2004, imposed a requirement that the value of the assets of the pension fund should not be less than the amount of liabilities.
Predpisi o minimalnem financiranju iz člena 56 Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995, ki je veljal do leta 2004, so določali, da vrednost sredstev pokojninskega sklada ne sme biti manjša od zneska obveznosti.
The United Kingdom stresses that the basis for calculations of pension liabilities pursuant to section 56(3) of the Pensions Act 1995 differed from those generally used by pension schemes in the course of their regular ongoing valuations.
Združeno kraljestvo poudarja, da se je osnova za izračun pokojninskih obveznosti po členu 56(3) Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995 razlikovala od osnov, ki so jih pokojninske sheme na splošno uporabljale za svoje redne stalne ocene.
As a result, the different methodology produced different values for liabilities.
Posledica različne metodologije so bile različne višine obveznosti.
The differences between the valuations under the methodology of the minimum funding requirement (MFR) and the BTPS ongoing valuations are detailed in the table below:
Razlike med ocenami po metodologiji predpisov o minimalnem financiranju (v nadaljnjem besedilu: MFR) in rednimi ocenami BTPS so podrobno prikazane v naslednji tabeli:
Date of valuation
Datum ocene
(MFR basis)
(ocena na podlagi MFR)
Ratio assets/liabilities
Razmerje med sredstvi in obveznostmi
(ongoing basis)
(redna ocena)
GBP 22,8 billion
22,8 milijarde GBP
GBP 22,5 billion
22,5 milijarde GBP
GBP 24,9 billion
24,9 milijarde GBP
GBP 29,9 billion
29,9 milijarde GBP
GBP 26,5 billion
26,5 milijarde GBP
GBP 30,9 billion
30,9 milijarde GBP
These figures show that, in the case of the two valuations of BTPS carried out during the period in which the 1995 minimum funding requirement was in force, namely, the 1999 and 2002 valuation, its funding position calculated on the basis of the minimum funding requirement methodology exceeded 100 % even though its ongoing valuation under a different methodology showed a deficit.
Te številke kažejo, da je v primeru dveh ocen, ki jih je BTPS opravil v obdobju, ko so veljali predpisi o minimalnem financiranju iz leta 1995, in sicer ocen iz let 1999 in 2002, stanje sredstev, izračunano na podlagi metodologije predpisov o minimalnem financiranju, presegalo 100 %, medtem ko je redna ocena, pri kateri se uporablja drugačna metodologija, pokazala primanjkljaj.
In that respect, the United Kingdom stresses that the minimum funding requirement imposed no requirement on schemes for their assets to exceed the liabilities calculated in the course of their ongoing valuations.
V zvezi s tem Združeno kraljestvo poudarja, da predpisi o minimalnem financiranju niso določali, da morajo sredstva presegati obveznosti, izračunane med rednimi ocenami shem.
Moreover, even a deficit under minimum funding requirement did not need to be corrected immediately but within a prescribed period of no more than 10 years to reach a funding position of 100 % ratio assets/liabilities.
Celo primanjkljaja po predpisih o minimalnem financiranju ni bilo treba popraviti takoj, temveč v predpisanem roku, ki ni daljši od desetih let in v katerem je treba doseči stanje sredstev, ko razmerje med sredstvi in obveznostmi znaša 100 %.
The Pensions Act 2004 replaced the 1995 minimum funding requirement with a new scheme funding regime, which obliges pension funds’ trustees to agree with the sponsor company on a plan to restore any funding deficit.
Pokojninski zakon iz leta 2004 je predpise o minimalnem financiranju iz leta 1995 zamenjal z novo ureditvijo financiranja shem, v skladu s katero se morajo skrbniki pokojninskih skladov dogovoriti s sponzorskim podjetjem o načrtu za sanacijo kakršnega koli primanjkljaja sredstev.