natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
on measure C 35/04 implemented by Hungary for Postabank and Takarékpénztár Rt./Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt.
o ukrepu C 35/04 Madžarske za banko Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt./Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt.
(notified under document number C(2008) 6023)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 6023)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above,
ob pozivu zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi členi,
By letter dated 23 September 2003, registered on 22 October 2003, the Commission was notified of State measures in favour of Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt., now Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt., (‘Postabank’ or the ‘Bank’).
Z dopisom z dne 23. septembra 2003, evidentiranim 22. oktobra 2003, je bila Komisija obveščena o državnih ukrepih v korist banke Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt., zdaj Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt., (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Postabank ali banka).
By e-mail dated 23 January 2004, registered on 26 January 2004, the Hungarian authorities notified a series of additional measures adopted for Postabank.
Madžarski organi so z elektronsko pošto z dne 23. januarja 2004, evidentirano 26. januarja 2004, priglasili več dodatnih ukrepov, sprejetih za banko Postabank.
All measures were notified under the interim mechanism procedure, provided for in Annex IV.3 of the Act of Accession, which forms part of the Accession Treaty to the European Union (Accession Treaty).
Vsi ukrepi so bili priglašeni v skladu s postopkom začasnega mehanizma iz poglavja 3 Priloge IV k Aktu o pristopu, ki je del Pristopne pogodbe k Evropski uniji (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Pristopna pogodba).
On 30 April 2004, the Hungarian authorities submitted, as a supplement to the notification, an irrevocable unilateral declaration by Postabank’s buyer, Erste Bank.
Madžarski organi so 30. aprila 2004 kot dodatek k priglasitvi predložili nepreklicno enostransko izjavo kupca banke Postabank, tj. banke Erste Bank.
The declaration, which was signed on 29 April 2004, provides for an overall cap on the payments payable by Hungary, as laid down in the share purchase agreement, to Postabank’s buyer in respect of threatened or unknown litigation claims and also narrows the scope of the definition of risk in connection with unknown claims.
Izjava, ki je bila podpisana 29. aprila 2004, določa splošno omejitev plačil, ki jih Madžarska plača kupcu banke Postabank na podlagi terjatev, ki izhajajo iz sodnih sporov, ki grozijo, ali neznanih sodnih sporov, kakor je določeno v pogodbi o nakupu delnic, ter omejuje obseg opredelitve tveganja v zvezi z neznanimi terjatvami.
By a decision dated 20 October 2004, the Commission declared that most of the notified measures did not qualify as applicable after accession and it initiated the procedure in respect of one measure, which was the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims, given that there were serious doubts regarding its compatibility with the common market.
Komisija je z odločbo z dne 20. oktobra 2004 odločila, da večina priglašenih ukrepov ni veljavnih po pristopu, ter na podlagi resnih pomislekov v zvezi z združljivostjo s skupnim trgom sprožila postopek v zvezi z enim ukrepom, tj. zagotovitvijo jamstva za neznane terjatve.
The Commission Decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [1].
Odločitev Komisije, da sproži postopek, je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [1].
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments.
Komisija je zainteresirane stranke pozvala, naj predložijo svoje pripombe.
On 25 November 2004 the Hungarian authorities submitted their observations on the decision initiating the procedure and on 15 April 2005 Erste Bank also submitted its comments.
Madžarski organi so 25. novembra 2004 predložili svoje pripombe v zvezi z odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka, 15. aprila 2005 pa je svoje pripombe predložila tudi banka Erste Bank.
The Commission received comments from interested parties and forwarded them to Hungary, which was given the opportunity to react.
Komisija je prejela pripombe zainteresiranih strank in jih posredovala Madžarski ter ji dala možnost odgovora.
Postabank, which was established in 1988, used to operate as a retail-oriented bank providing a full range of banking services.
Banka Postabank, ki je bila ustanovljena leta 1988, je poslovala z občani in zagotavljala raznovrstne bančne storitve.
By the end of 2002, Postabank was the seventh largest commercial bank in Hungary with a market share of about 3,7 % in terms of total assets.
Do konca leta 2002 je bila banka Postabank sedma največja poslovna banka na Madžarskem s približno 3,7-odstotnim tržnim deležem v smislu bilančne vsote.
As Postabank was lacking sufficient capital, over a period of time the Hungarian authorities implemented a number of financial and regulatory measures with a view to restoring its capital adequacy ratio.
Ker banka Postabank ni imela dovolj kapitala, so madžarski organi sčasoma izvedli veliko finančnih in ureditvenih ukrepov, da bi ponovno vzpostavili njen količnik kapitalske ustreznosti.
In 1998 Postabank faced the risk of collapse and the Hungarian Government had to step in and save the Bank through a huge recapitalisation of HUF 152 billion [2], thus becoming a 99,9 % shareholder in the Bank.
Banki Postabank je leta 1998 grozil stečaj, zato se je madžarska vlada odločila za posredovanje in banki ponudila pomoč v obliki obsežne dokapitalizacije v višini 152 milijard HUF [2], s čimer je postala 99,9-odstotni delničar banke.
This bailout of Postabank was intended to prepare it for restructuring with a view to its privatisation within a short time.
Namen te rešitve banke iz finančnih težav je bil pripraviti banko Postabank na prestrukturiranje in privatizacijo v kratkem času.
In 2000 the first attempt to privatise Postabank failed.
Prvi poskus privatizacije banke Postabank leta 2000 ni bil uspešen.
It was eventually privatised following an open tender procedure in October 2003, when the State-owned majority stake in it was sold to the Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen, whose bid — at HUF 101,3 billion — was the highest submitted.
Nazadnje je bila privatizirana po javnem razpisnem postopku oktobra 2003, ko je bil večinski delež v lasti države prodan banki Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen, ki je predložila najvišjo ponudbo, tj. 101,3 milijarde HUF.
On the basis of the notification and submissions by the Hungarian authorities, it is the Commission’s understanding that Postabank was sold to the highest bidder following an open, non-discriminatory and unconditional two-round tender procedure.
Na podlagi priglasitve in predloženih stališč madžarskih organov Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila banka Postabank prodana najvišjemu ponudniku na podlagi javnega, nediskriminatornega in brezpogojnega razpisnega postopka v dveh krogih.
On 1 September 2004 Postabank was merged with Erste Bank Hungary.
Banka Postabank se je 1. septembra 2004 združila z banko Erste Bank Hungary.
THE MEASURE (THE INDEMNITY UNDERTAKING FOR UNKNOWN CLAIMS)
UKREP (ZAGOTOVITEV JAMSTVA ZA NEZNANE TERJATVE)
In the tender procedure the Hungarian Government offered all bidders the same contractual terms, including an undertaking to provide indemnity in the event of litigation that would cover payment liabilities arising from threatened and unknown litigation claims in respect of Postabank arising up to five years after the conclusion of the sale and purchase agreement [3].
V razpisnem postopku je madžarska vlada ponudila vsem ponudnikom enake pogodbene pogoje, vključno z zagotovilom jamstva v primeru sodnih sporov, ki bi zajemalo obveznosti plačila, ki izhajajo iz sodnih sporov, ki grozijo, ali neznanih sodnih sporov v zvezi z banko Postabank in so nastali največ pet let po sklenitvi kupoprodajne pogodbe [3].
The Hungarian authorities explained that it became clear during the privatisation process that bidders had to be given an undertaking providing for indemnities for unknown claims, since no bidder would submit a bid unless such an undertaking were given; the indemnity undertaking was therefore indispensable for the privatisation to take place.
Madžarske oblasti so obrazložile, da je med postopkom privatizacije postalo jasno, da je treba ponudnikom zagotoviti jamstvo za neznane terjatve, ker v nasprotnem primeru nihče od ponudnikov ne bo predložil ponudbe; zagotovitev jamstva je bila zato nujna za izvedbo privatizacije.
On 29 April 2004, Erste Bank made a unilateral irrevocable declaration in which it narrowed the scope of the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims by defining the categories of risk, as well as reducing the overall cap from its previously unlimited size to HUF 200 billion.
Banka Erste Bank je 29. aprila 2004 predložila nepreklicno enostransko izjavo, v kateri je zmanjšala obseg zagotovila o jamstvu za neznane terjatve, tako da je opredelila kategorije tveganja in zmanjšala splošno omejitev s prej neomejene vrednosti na 200 milijard HUF.
The unilateral declaration by Erste Bank also provides for an overall cap of HUF 350 billion in respect of the indemnity for threatened litigation claims, which the Commission declared to be a measure not applicable after accession [4].
Enostranska izjava banke Erste Bank določa tudi splošno omejitev 350 milijard HUF za jamstvo za terjatve v primeru sodnih sporov, ki grozijo, kar je Komisija razglasila za ukrep, ki ni veljaven po pristopu [4].
According to the share purchase agreement as modified by Erste Bank’s unilateral declaration, the terms and conditions of the indemnities for unknown litigation claims regarding risk allocation between the seller and the buyer are as follows: The seller would make payment in respect of:
V skladu s pogodbo o nakupu delnic, kakor je bila spremenjena z enostransko izjavo banke Erste Bank, so določila in pogoji v zvezi z jamstvi za neznane terjatve, ki izhajajo iz sodnih sporov, glede razporeditve tveganja med prodajalcem in kupcem naslednji: Prodajalec plača:
90 % of the first HUF 10 billion of the total bank liabilities concerned,
90 % prvih 10 milijard HUF vseh zadevnih bančnih obveznosti,
100 % of the excess over HUF 10 billion, not exceeding a total amount of HUF 200 billion.
100 % presežka 10 milijard HUF, ki ne presega skupnega zneska 200 milijard HUF.
The obligations of the seller in respect of the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims lapse five years after the conclusion of the share purchase agreement in relation to third-party claims in respect of which: (i) no court or arbitration proceedings have been initiated; or (ii) no bank liability established with the seller’s written approval has arisen.
Obveznosti prodajalca glede zagotovitve jamstva za neznane terjatve se iztečejo pet let po sklenitvi pogodbe o nakupu delnic, in sicer v zvezi s terjatvami tretje stranke v zvezi s katerimi: (i) niso bili sproženi sodni ali arbitražni postopki ali (ii) ni nastala bančna obveznost, določena s pisnim dovoljenjem prodajalca.
Annex IV.3 of the Act of Accession sets out what is known as the interim mechanism procedure.
V poglavju 3 Priloge IV k Aktu o pristopu je določen tako imenovani postopek začasnega mehanizma.
This provides a legal framework for the assessment of aid schemes and individual aid measures put into effect in a new Member State before the date of accession and still applicable after accession.
To zagotavlja pravni okvir za oceno programov pomoči in posameznih ukrepov pomoči, ki so začeli veljati v novih državah članicah pred datumom pristopa in še vedno veljajo po pristopu.
Annex IV.3(1) states that the following aid schemes and individual aid put into effect in a new Member State before the date of accession and still applicable after that date are to be regarded on accession as existing aid: (a) aid put into effect before 10 December 1994; (ii) aid examined by the Commission and included in the list annexed to the Accession Treaty; and (iii) aid approved by the Commission under the interim mechanism procedure.
V poglavju 3(1) Priloge IV je navedeno, da so programi pomoči in posamezna pomoč, ki so začeli veljati v novih državah članicah pred datumom pristopa in še vedno veljajo po tem datumu, pri čemer se ob pristopu obravnavajo kot obstoječi programi pomoči, naslednji: (i) pomoč, ki se je začela izvajati pred 10. decembrom 1994; (ii) pomoč, ki jo je proučila Komisija in jo vključila v seznam, priložen k Pristopni pogodbi, in (iii) pomoč, ki jo je Komisija odobrila v okviru postopka začasnega mehanizma.
Any measures still applicable after the date of accession that constitute State aid and do not fall within one of these three categories are deemed to be new aid on accession; the Commission therefore has full powers to prohibit the application of these measures and to order recovery of any sums unlawfully paid after accession.
Vsi ukrepi, ki še vedno veljajo po datumu pristopa in pomenijo državno pomoč ter ne spadajo v eno od teh treh skupin, se ob pristopu obravnavajo kot nova pomoč. Komisija ima torej vsa pooblastila, da prepove uporabo teh ukrepov in zahteva vračilo vseh nezakonito izplačanih zneskov po pristopu.
This application of State aid rules to the future effects of measures still applicable after accession does not entail any retroactive application of the EC State aid rules and is in any event mandated by the Act of Accession.
Ta uporaba pravil o državni pomoči za prihodnje učinke ukrepov, ki še vedno veljajo po pristopu, ne pomeni uporabe pravil ES o državni pomoči z učinkom za nazaj in jo v vsakem primeru omogoča Akt o pristopu.
The Commission considers that for a measure to qualify as applicable after accession it must be shown that it is liable to produce an additional benefit that was not known or not precisely known at the time when the aid was granted.
Komisija meni, da se ukrep šteje kot veljaven po pristopu, če je dokazano, da lahko zagotovi dodatno ugodnost, ki ni bila znana ali natančno znana takrat, ko je bila pomoč odobrena.
However, 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.
Vendar pristojnost Komisije za pregled v okviru začasnega mehanizma ne velja v primeru ukrepov pomoči, ki so bili za dani znesek dokončno in brezpogojno odobreni pred pristopom.
In this respect, the relevant factor is the legally binding act by which the competent national authorities granted the aid.
V tem smislu je ustrezni dejavnik pravno zavezujoč akt, s katerim so pristojni nacionalni organi odobrili pomoč.
Individual measures are considered applicable after accession if the precise economic exposure of the State is not known on the date the aid is granted and still unknown on the date of accession.
Posamezni ukrepi se štejejo kot veljavni po pristopu, če natančna gospodarska izpostavljenost države ni znana niti na dan dodelitve pomoči niti na dan pristopa.
As stated in the decision initiating the procedure, with respect to guarantees and the indemnity undertaking the following conditions have to be met in order for a measure to be considered no longer applicable after accession:
Kot je navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, morajo biti glede garancij in zagotovitve jamstva izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji, da se ukrep po pristopu ne šteje kot veljaven:
the risks are precisely defined and included in an exhaustive list closed by the date of accession;
tveganja so natančno opredeljena in vključena v izčrpen seznam, ki se zaključi do datuma pristopa;
there is an overall cap on the amounts payable;
opredeli se splošna omejitev zneskov, ki jih je treba plačati;
the litigation relates to events that had already occurred by the date of the indemnity undertaking and not to any future events.
sodni spor se nanaša na dogodke, ki so se zgodili pred datumom zagotovila o jamstvu in ne na prihodnje dogodke.
V. DECISION TO INITIATE THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
V. ODLOČITEV O SPROŽITVI FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
However, on 20 October 2004 the Commission initiated a formal investigation procedure in respect of one of the notified measures: the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims.
Vendar je Komisija 20. oktobra 2004 sprožila formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi z enim od priglašenih ukrepov, tj. zagotovilom o jamstvu za neznane terjatve.
In that decision, the Commission stated that this indemnity undertaking is applicable after accession.
V zadevni odločbi je Komisija navedla, da je to zagotovilo o jamstvu veljavno po pristopu.
The Commission took the view that the measure could constitute State aid and had serious doubts about its compatibility with the common market.
Komisija je menila, da lahko ta ukrep pomeni državno pomoč, pri čemer je imela velike pomisleke glede njegove združljivosti s skupnim trgom.
COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE INITIATION OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
PRIPOMBE, PREJETE PO SPROŽITVI FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
Comments by Hungary
Pripombe Madžarske
The Hungarian authorities take the view that the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims constitutes a measure (rather than aid) that is not applicable after accession.
Madžarski organi menijo, da zagotovilo o jamstvu za neznane terjatve pomeni ukrep (in ne pomoč), ki ne velja po pristopu.
They claim that the measure meets the three conditions to be regarded as no longer applicable after accession within the meaning of paragraph 52 of the Commission decision initiating the procedure.
Trdijo, da ukrep izpolnjuje tri pogoje, ki so potrebni, da se ukrep ne obravnava kot veljaven po pristopu, v skladu z odstavkom 52 odločitve Komisije o sprožitvi postopka.
They consider that the measure cannot constitute State aid, since it is what its name says: an indemnity undertaking, i.e. a conventional commercial term in a sale and purchase agreement concluded under an open and competitive procedure.
Menijo, da ukrep ne more pomeniti državne pomoči, ker je to ukrep, kot ga določa njegovo poimenovanje: zagotovilo o jamstvu, tj. običajen poslovni pogoj v kupoprodajni pogodbi, sklenjeni na podlagi javnega in konkurenčnega postopka.
The market price paid for Postabank precludes aid.
Tržna cena, po kateri je bila prodana banka Postabank, izključuje pomoč.
They also argue that the Commission did not take into account the fact that Postabank was sold following an open, non-discriminatory and unconditional tender procedure.
Trdijo tudi, da Komisija ni upoštevala dejstva, da je bila banka Postabank prodana na podlagi javnega, nediskriminatornega in brezpogojnega razpisnega postopka.
They further state that the restructuring of Postabank and its privatisation are two entirely separate events and not one indivisible ‘package’ as stated in the Commission’s analysis, which assesses the pre-privatisation measures after the event.
Navajajo tudi, da sta prestrukturiranje ter privatizacija banke Postabank dva v celoti ločena dogodka in ne en nedeljiv „paket“, kakor je navedeno v analizi Komisije, ki po dogodku ocenjuje ukrepe pred privatizacijo.
The privatisation of Postabank was not part of the restructuring process, as the Bank had returned to viability by that time.
Privatizacija banke Postabank ni bila del postopka prestrukturiranja, ker je banka do takrat obnovila svojo sposobnost preživetja.
Therefore, the measure is not part of a chain of interventions and the need for it arose only in the course of the privatisation process.
Ukrep zato ni del niza posredovanj, pri čemer se je potreba po njem pojavila šele med postopkom privatizacije.
The assessment of the restructuring and the privatisation as a single package is also beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission, since, as the Commission itself acknowledges in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, most of the elements of this ‘package’ are not applicable after accession, which means that they are not examinable by the Commission.
Ocena prestrukturiranja in privatizacije kot enega paketa prav tako ni v pristojnosti Komisije, ker večina elementov tega „paketa“, kot Komisija sama priznava v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave, ne velja po pristopu, kar pomeni, da jih Komisija ne more proučiti.
The Hungarian authorities further state that the measure does not in itself distort competition as the market price was paid in the course of the privatisation, which included the value to Erste Bank of the indemnity undertaking.
Madžarski organi nadalje navajajo, da ukrep sam po sebi ne izkrivlja konkurence, ker je bila med privatizacijo plačana tržna cena, ki je za banko Erste Bank vključevala vrednost zagotovila o jamstvu.
It was the measure that enabled the privatisation of Postabank to go ahead.
Nadaljevanje privatizacije banke Postabank je dejansko omogočil ukrep.
The Hungarian authorities explained that the need for the measure became clear during the privatisation process, as no bidder was willing to buy Postabank without the possibility of indemnification.
Madžarski organi so pojasnili, da se je potreba po ukrepu pojavila med postopkom privatizacije, ker nihče od ponudnikov ni bil pripravljen kupiti banke Postabank brez možnosti nadomestila za škodo.
Therefore it became an indispensable condition for the privatisation to take place.
Ukrep je zato bil nujen za izvedbo privatizacije.
The Hungarian authorities argue that potential buyers, in valuing the business, were not in a position to fully assess the risk of litigation resulting from Postabank’s troubled past, this being a typical asymmetric information problem.
Madžarski organi trdijo, da morebitni kupci pri vrednotenju podjetja niso mogli v celoti oceniti tveganja v zvezi s sodnimi spori, ki izhajajo iz neprijetne preteklosti banke Postabank, kar je značilna težava nesimetričnih informacij.
The State as seller conducted an extensive litigation risk assessment before the privatisation.
Država je kot prodajalec pred privatizacijo izvedla obsežno oceno tveganja v zvezi s sodnimi spori.
No new claims were identified and it was strongly felt that any such claim would have come to light prior to the privatisation process as the Bank had been subject to various audits and inspections since 1998.
Ugotovljene niso bile nobene nove terjatve, pri čemer je prevladovalo mnenje, da bi se vsaka takšna terjatev ugotovila pred postopkom privatizacije, ker so bile od leta 1998 v zvezi z banko izvedene različne revizije in preiskave.
With regard to all litigation claims, at the time of the sale purchase agreement there was a certain risk-sharing between the Hungarian State as seller and Erste Bank as buyer, whereby the buyer took over all potential liabilities in respect of pending litigation, while threatened and unknown litigation claims were partially undertaken to a limited extent (for unknown claims 10 % of the first HUF 10 billion and for threatened claims 50 % of the first HUF 4 billion of the relevant bank liabilities in total).
V zvezi z vsemi terjatvami iz sodnih sporov je v času kupoprodajne pogodbe med Madžarsko kot prodajalcem in banko Erste bank kot kupcem obstajala nekakšna delitev tveganja, pri čemer je kupec prevzel vse morebitne obveznosti glede nerešenih sodnih sporov, medtem ko je terjatve iz sodnih sporov, ki grozijo, in terjatve iz neznanih sodnih sporov delno prevzel v omejenem obsegu (za neznane terjatve 10 % prvih 10 milijard HUF in za terjatve, ki grozijo, 50 % prvih 4 milijard HUF vseh ustreznih bančnih obveznosti).
By offering the risk-sharing mechanism the State intended to send an encouraging signal to bidders that the seller was confident that the State would not suffer financial loss as a result of that arrangement and thereby to strengthen bidders’ willingness to attribute a premium value to the Bank.
Država je želela z uvedbo mehanizma delitve tveganja ponudnikom zagotoviti, da je prodajalec prepričan, da država zaradi navedene ureditve ne bo utrpela finančne izgube, in jih s tem spodbuditi, da banki pripišejo dodatno vrednost.
The privatisation advisor of the State estimated the potential liability arising from the unknown claims to amount to zero in the best-case scenario and HUF 5 billion in the worst-case scenario.
Državni svetovalec za privatizacijo je ocenil, da bo morebitna odgovornost, ki izhaja iz neznanih terjatev, znašala v najboljšem primeru nič in v najslabšem primeru 5 milijard HUF.