natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The authorities of the United Kingdom underlined that under the Occupational Pension Schemes Regulations, only pension schemes that benefit from a Crown guarantee and that are established by enactment (by law) can be exempted from the application of the mandatory funding requirement.
Organi Združenega kraljestva so poudarili, da lahko po Pravilih o poklicnih pokojninskih shemah od izpolnjevanja predpisov o minimalnem financiranju izvzamejo le pokojninske sheme, za katere je izdano poroštvo države in ki so ustanovljene na podlagi zakona.
In this respect, it should be noted that BTPS was not established by enactment.
V zvezi s tem je treba omeniti, da BTPS ni bil ustanovljen na podlagi zakona.
Exemption of the payment of the levy to the Pension Protection Fund
Izvzetje od plačila dajatve za pokojninski zaščitni sklad
With regard to the exemption of the payment of the levy to the Pension Protection Fund, the authorities of the United Kingdom recall that the Pension Protection Fund was part of a package introduced under the Pensions Act 2004 with a view to improving the protection offered to members of pension schemes in case of employer insolvency.
Glede izvzetja od plačila dajatve za pokojninski zaščitni sklad so organi Združenega kraljestva opozorili, da je bil pokojninski zaščitni sklad del paketa, uvedenega s Pokojninskim zakonom iz leta 2004, da bi se izboljšala zaščita članov pokojninskih shem ob plačilni nezmožnosti delodajalca.
The Pension Protection Fund was specifically created to strengthen the protection for members in the event of schemes’ winding-up where they were under-funded, and where appropriate arrangements were not yet in place.
Pokojninski zaščitni sklad je bil ustanovljen posebej zato, da bi se okrepila zaščita članov v primeru likvidacij shem, kadar imajo te premalo sredstev in kadar se še niso uvedle ustrezne ureditve.
In the view of the authorities of the United Kingdom, since the obligation to pay levies is directly linked to the receipt of protection from the Pension Protection Fund, schemes with appropriate arrangements such as a Crown guarantee are not eligible for the Pension Protection Fund under the regulations, since the protection afforded by the Pension Protection Fund is not relevant.
Po mnenju organov Združenega kraljestva je obveznost plačevanja dajatve neposredno povezana z zagotavljanjem zaščite prek pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada, zato sheme z ustreznimi ureditvami, kot je poroštvo države, ne izpolnjujejo pogojev za pokojninski zaščitni sklad v skladu s predpisi, ker zaščita, ki jo zagotavlja pokojninski zaščitni sklad, zanje ni pomembna.
Therefore, the BTPS is outside the scope of the Pension Protection Fund system for employees covered by a Crown guarantee.
Zato BTPS ne spada v sistem pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada za zaposlene, ki jih krije poroštvo države.
Indeed, for these employees, the BTPS does not need or gain any protection from the Pension Protection Fund and therefore a levy is not paid.
Za te zaposlene BTPS dejansko ne potrebuje ali zagotavlja nobene zaščite prek pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada, zato se dajatev ne plačuje.
To categorise this as an exemption is, in the view of the authorities of the United Kingdom, inconsistent with the whole logic of the Pension Protection Fund system.
Opredelitev tega kot izjeme po mnenju organov Združenega kraljestva ni skladna s splošno logiko sistema pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada.
On the contrary, the payment of a full Pension Protection Fund levy by the BTPS would deliver a windfall gain to schemes that are eligible for and benefit from the protection of the Pension Protection Fund.
Celo nasprotno, če bi BTPS plačeval polno dajatev za pokojninski zaščitni sklad, bi to pomenilo nepričakovan dobiček za sheme, ki so upravičene do zaščite prek pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada in ki to zaščito tudi uporabljajo.
Position of BT and BTPS’ trustees
Stališče BT in skrbnikov BTPS
In their joint submission to the decision of 28 November 2007, BT and BTPS underline that the Crown guarantee is only part of a package that was introduced at the time of privatisation of BT in 1984 and was intended to protect the civil service-style pension rights of the pre-privatisation employees of BT.
Družba BT in BTPS v skupni predložitvi pripomb na odločitev z dne 28. novembra 2007 poudarjata, da je poroštvo države le del paketa, uvedenega med privatizacijo družbe BT leta 1984, da bi se zaščitile pokojninske pravice zaposlenih v družbi BT pred privatizacijo, ki so bile podobne pokojninskim pravicam javnih uslužbencev.
In contrast to the benefit of the Crown guarantee for pre-privatisation employees, this package included a series of additional burdens which are not normally included in the budget of an undertaking:
V nasprotju z učinki poroštva države za zaposlene pred privatizacijo je ta paket vključeval vrsto dodatnih bremen, ki navadno niso vključena v proračun podjetja:
civil service-style enhanced benefits, such as retirement age at 60,
večje pravice, podobne pravicam javnih uslužbencev, kot je upokojitvena starost 60 let,
enhanced early retirement terms on redundancy,
boljši pogoji za predčasno upokojitev pri odpuščanju presežnih delavcev,
restrictions on BT’s ability to amend these obligations, cease employer contribution […], and
omejitve možnosti, da družba BT spremeni te obveznosti, preneha plačevati prispevke delodajalca […], in
inheritance by BT of the net deficit of the scheme at privatisation.
ob privatizaciji se je čisti primanjkljaj sheme prenesel na družbo BT.
BT further notes that the non-applicability of the Pension Protection Fund levy is the logical consequence of the Crown guarantee since the latter already offers separate pension protection.
Poleg tega družba BT navaja, da je izvzetje od plačevanja dajatev za pokojninski zaščitni sklad logična posledica poroštva države, ker to že vsebuje posebno pokojninsko zaščito.
An expert actuary has determined the net present value of the additional pension liabilities transferred to BT to be GBP […], a sum not normally borne by companies in the private sector.
Aktuarski strokovnjak je ugotovil, da čista sedanja vrednost dodatnih pokojninskih obveznosti, prenesenih na družbo BT, znaša […] GBP, ki je znesek, ki ga podjetja v zasebnem sektorju običajno ne krijejo.
Since that burden far outweighs any amount that would be due to the Pension Protection Fund in the absence of the Crown guarantee, allegedly, there is no overall advantage granted to BT, and therefore no State aid.
Ker je to breme mnogo višje od vsakega zneska, ki bi ga bilo treba plačevati pokojninskemu zaščitnemu skladu, če ne bi obstajalo poroštvo države, se domneva, da družbi BT ni bila dodeljena splošna prednost in zato tudi ni prejela državne pomoči.
BT also argues that it would be contrary to State aid law to characterise as State aid a measure such as the Crown guarantee that was not aid at the time it was granted as a result of an exogenous event such as the creation of the Pension Protection Fund twenty years later which has not altered the provisions of the initial measure.
Družba BT trdi tudi, da bi bilo v nasprotju z zakonom o državni pomoči, če bi se ukrep, kot je poroštvo države, ki v času, ko se je dodelil, ni bil pomoč, opredelil kot državna pomoč zaradi zunanjega dogodka, kot je ustanovitev pokojninskega zaščitnega sklada dvajset let pozneje, ki ni spremenil določb prvotnega ukrepa.
In any event, there is allegedly no transfer of State resources involved.
Vsekakor pa naj pri tem ne bi šlo za prenos državnih sredstev.
The complainant and other interested parties
Pritožnik in druge zainteresirane strani
To the extent that the comments of third parties challenge the Commission conclusion set out in the Commission Decision of 28 November 2007 opening the procedure that the Crown guarantee did not, in itself, confer any specific additional advantage on BT, such comments are not related to the object of the present decision and shall not be addressed in this decision.
Če pripombe tretjih strani izpodbijajo sklep Komisije, naveden v odločitvi Komisije z dne 28. novembra 2007 o sprožitvi postopka, da samo poroštvo države ne pomeni nobene posebne dodatne prednosti za družbo BT, take pripombe niso povezane s predmetom te odločitve in se v tej odločitvi ne obravnavajo.
The complainant points out that, to the extent that the guarantee has an effect on the funding of the pension liabilities, this effect on BT is very substantial since the size of the BTPS’ deficit — GBP 3,4 billion in 2006 — is material in comparison to BT’s net worth of GBP 1,55 billion at the same time.
Pritožnik glede učinka poroštva na financiranje pokojninskih obveznosti poudarja, da je v primeru družbe BT ta učinek precejšen, ker je obseg primanjkljaja BTPS, ki je leta 2006 znašal 3,4 milijarde GBP, velik v primerjavi s čistim premoženjem družbe BT, ki je v istem letu znašalo 1,55 milijarde GBP.
If the scheme deficit were taken to the balance sheet, this would have affected BT’s ratios, ability to borrow and the terms on which it could do so.
Če bi bil primanjkljaj sheme prikazan v bilanci stanja, bi to vplivalo na koeficiente zadolženosti družbe BT, njeno kreditno sposobnost in pogoje najemanja kreditov.
The different funding requirements of the BTPS allowed by the Crown guarantee would thus procure benefits to BT alone without any need to resort to actual insolvency, on the top of the benefits of protection to beneficiaries of the BTPS.
Drugačni predpisi o financiranju za BTPS, ki jih omogoča poroštvo države, bi tako poleg koristi, ki jih imajo upravičenci BTPS zaradi zaščite, prinesli koristi sami družbi BT brez potrebe po uveljavljanju dejanske plačilne nezmožnosti.
UKCTA holds the view that the exemption from the minimum funding requirements and the payment of the Pension Protection Fund levy give BT an advantage, which is not justified by the logic of the system.
Po mnenju združenja UKCTA izvzetje od izpolnjevanja predpisov o minimalnem financiranju in plačevanja dajatve za pokojninski zaščitni sklad pomeni prednost za družbo BT, ki je ne utemeljuje logika sistema.
Whilst no protection to beneficiaries of pension schemes under the general regulatory provisions governing occupational pension schemes such as BTPS was available in 1984 when the guarantee was issued, the object of the 1995 and 2004 reforms was to provide efficient protection to beneficiaries which made the Crown guarantee redundant.
Čeprav leta 1984, ko je bilo poroštvo izdano, ni bila na voljo nikakršna zaščita za upravičence pokojninskih shem v skladu s splošnimi zakonskimi določbami, ki so urejale poklicne pokojninske sheme, kot je BTPS, je bil cilj reform iz let 1995 in 2004 zagotoviti učinkovito zaščito upravičencev, zaradi česar je postalo poroštvo države nepotrebno.
To exempt a specific company of the general obligation that companies are themselves responsible to set up or participate in arrangements for protection is openly contradictory to the logic of the system.
Izvzetje določenega podjetja od splošne obveznosti, v skladu s katero so podjetja sama odgovorna za oblikovanje zaščitnih ureditev ali sodelovanje v njih, je očitno v nasprotju z logiko sistema.
In particular, as to minimum funding requirements, UKCTA stresses that, by exempting schemes which are covered by the Crown guarantee from the 1995 and 2004 regulatory requirements, the United Kingdom deliberately renounced the possibility to reduce its exposure under the Crown guarantee.
Združenje UKCTA zlasti glede predpisov o minimalnem financiranju poudarja, da se je Združeno kraljestvo z izvzetjem shem, ki jih krije poroštvo države, od zakonskih predpisov iz let 1995 in 2004 namenoma odpovedalo možnosti, da zmanjša svojo izpostavljenost, ki izhaja iz državnega jamstva.
Moreover, in that respect, the unilateral decision of BT to contribute to the BTPS beyond what would be required does not have any effect on the liability of the State.
Poleg tega enostranska odločitev družbe BT, da prispeva v BTPS v večjem obsegu, kot se zahteva, ne vpliva na odgovornost države.
A measure does not cease being State aid because it has not yet been used.
Dejstvo, da se ukrep še ni uporabil, ne pomeni, da ta ukrep ni državna pomoč.
Qualification of the measures as State aid
Opredelitev ukrepov kot državne pomoči
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty states:
V členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES je določeno:
‘Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.’
„Razen če ta pogodba ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor škodi trgovini med državami članicami.“
In order for Article 87(1) EC to be applicable, there needs to be an aid measure imputable to the State which is granted by State resources, affects trade between Member States and distorts competition in the common market by conferring a selective economic advantage to certain undertakings.
Člen 87(1) ES se lahko uporablja, če se ukrep pomoči, za katerega je odgovorna država, dodeli iz državnih sredstev, prizadene trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja konkurenco na skupnem trgu z dajanjem selektivne gospodarske prednosti posameznim podjetjem.
Aid granted by a Member State or through State resources
Pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali pomoč iz državnih sredstev
The exemption from the minimum funding requirements laid down in the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2004 and the exemption from the payment of levy to the Pension Protection Fund corresponding to the pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee set out in the Pensions Act 2004 result from provisions adopted by the legislative bodies of the United Kingdom.
Izvzetje od izpolnjevanja predpisov o minimalnem financiranju iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995 in Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004 ter izvzetje od plačevanja dajatve za pokojninski zaščitni sklad po Pokojninskem zakonu iz leta 2004 za tiste pokojninske obveznosti, ki jih krije poroštvo države, izhajata iz določb, ki so jih sprejeli zakonodajni organi Združenega kraljestva.
It should be noted that the same is also true with respect to the Crown guarantee.
Treba je omeniti, da enako velja tudi za poroštvo države.
As a result, any aid contained in those measures is granted by the United Kingdom.
Kakršno koli pomoč, ki jo ti ukrepi vključujejo, zato dodeli Združeno kraljestvo.
Furthermore, the exemptions involve State resources because they are the consequence of the Crown guarantee, which involves State resources of the United Kingdom.
Poleg tega izvzetja vključujejo državna sredstva, ker so posledica poroštva države, ki vključuje državna sredstva Združenega kraljestva.
Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act 1984, the United Kingdom will discharge any outstanding liability of the successor company which vested in the public corporation BT if BT is wound up.
Po Zakonu o telekomunikacijah iz leta 1984 bo Združeno kraljestvo ob likvidaciji BT poravnalo vse neporavnane obveznosti družbe naslednice, ki so se prenesle na javno družbo BT.
This liability has been limited since 2003 to any outstanding liability for the payment of pensions.
Ta odgovornost je od leta 2003 omejena na vse neporavnane obveznosti za plačilo pokojnin.
If BT is wound up and insolvent that commitment imposes an obligation to pay the relevant part of pension liabilities in relation to the BTPS.
Ob likvidaciji in plačilni nezmožnosti družbe BT navedena zaveza pomeni obveznost plačila ustreznega dela pokojninskih obveznosti v zvezi z BTPS.
In that case, the resources of the United Kingdom would be called to make good any outstanding liability that BT would have otherwise had to pay.
V tem primeru bi se sredstva Združenega kraljestva uporabila za poravnavo vseh neporavnanih obveznosti, ki bi jih sicer morala plačati družba BT.
Not only are the financial resources of the United Kingdom committed if BT becomes insolvent, but that commitment is granted for free since it does not concomitantly trigger the regular or deferred payment by BT to the public budget of competent financial bodies of the United Kingdom of any fee or financial compensation whatsoever.
Če družba BT postane plačilno nezmožna, se uporabijo finančna sredstva Združenega kraljestva, poleg tega pa se ta zaveza odobri brezplačno, ker se hkrati z njo ne sproži redno ali odloženo plačevanje kakršnih koli pristojbin ali denarnega nadomestila družbe BT v javni proračun pristojnih finančnih organov Združenega kraljestva.
It follows that the United Kingdom foregoes the possible revenues and, hence, the State resources which it could obtain from granting the benefit of the Crown guarantee.
Iz tega sledi, da se je Združeno kraljestvo odreklo morebitnim prihodkom in s tem državnim sredstvom, ki bi jih lahko pridobilo z odobritvijo poroštva države.
The exemption from the minimum funding requirements laid down in the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2005 by virtue of the Crown guarantee and the exemption from the payment of levy to the Pension Protection Fund corresponding to the pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee set out in the Pensions Act 2004 are triggered by the existence of a Crown guarantee which involves resources of the United Kingdom.
Izvzetje od izpolnjevanja predpisov o minimalnem financiranju iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995 in Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004 na podlagi poroštva države ter izvzetje od plačevanja dajatve za pokojninski zaščitni sklad po Pokojninskem zakonu iz leta 2004 za tiste pokojninske obveznosti, ki jih krije poroštvo države, izhajata iz obstoja poroštva države, ki vključuje sredstva Združenega kraljestva.
It follows that these exemptions are dependent on and thus involve resources of the United Kingdom within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Iz tega izhaja, da sta ti izvzetji odvisni od sredstev Združenega kraljestva in da ta sredstva vključujejo v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
(Selective) economic advantage to BT
Dajanje (selektivne) gospodarske prednosti družbi BT
Following the comments of the parties on the opening decision, it is necessary to examine whether the exemption from the minimum funding requirements laid down in the Pensions Acts 1995 and the Pensions Act 2004 or the exemption from the payment for a levy to the Pension Protection Fund set out in the Pensions Act 2004 corresponding to the pension liabilities covered by the Crown guarantee have procured an economic advantage to BT.
Po predložitvi pripomb strank na odločitev o sprožitvi postopka je treba preučiti, ali izvzetje od izpolnjevanja predpisov o minimalnem financiranju iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995 in Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004 oziroma izvzetje od plačevanja dajatev za pokojninski zaščitni sklad po Pokojninskem zakonu iz leta 2004 za tiste pokojninske obveznosti, ki jih krije poroštvo države, pomenita gospodarsko prednost za družbo BT.
The exemption from the minimum funding requirements laid down in the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2004
Izvzetje od izpolnjevanja predpisov o minimalnem financiranju iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995 in Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004
The Pensions Act 1995 introduced a minimum funding requirement that the value of the assets of the scheme must not be less than the amounts of the liabilities of the scheme based on a prescribed actuarial methodology for valuation.
V Pokojninskem zakonu iz leta 1995 so določeni predpisi o minimalnem financiranju, po katerih vrednost sredstev sheme ne sme biti manjša od zneska obveznosti sheme na podlagi predpisane aktuarske metodologije ocenjevanja.
Pension funds which enjoy a Crown guarantee were exempted from that funding requirement.
Pokojninski skladi, zavarovani s poroštvom države, so izvzeti iz teh predpisov o financiranju.
Part 3 of the Pensions Act 2004 modified the 1995 Act in that it introduced a new scheme of funding requirements and actuarial valuations, from which pension funds with a Crown guarantee are also exempted, provided that they are established by enactment.
Pokojninski zakon iz leta 1995 je bil spremenjen s Pokojninskim zakonom iz leta 2004, ki v 3. delu uvaja nove predpise o financiranju in aktuarske ocene, od katerih so tudi izvzeti pokojninski skladi s poroštvom države, če so ustanovljeni na podlagi zakona.
Concerning compliance with the minimum funding requirements introduced by the Pensions Act 2004, it follows from the information submitted by the authorities of the United Kingdom that BTPS does not fulfil one of the conditions for exemption, since it was not established by enactment.
Glede izpolnjevanja predpisov o minimalnem financiranju iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004 je iz informacij, ki so jih predložili organi Združenega kraljestva, razvidno, da BTPS ne izpolnjuje enega od pogojev za izvzetje, ker ni bil ustanovljen na podlagi zakona.
It follows that BTPS is subject to the minimum funding requirements laid down in the Pensions Act 2004 notwithstanding the existence of the benefit of the Crown guarantee.
Iz tega je razvidno, da za BTPS ne glede na obstoj poroštva države veljajo predpisi o minimalnem financiranju iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004.
As a result, BT cannot avail itself from any exemption therein and must meet the requirements of that Act as long as they are in force.
Zato družba BT ne more izkoristiti nobenega izvzetja od teh predpisov in mora izpolnjevati zahteve navedenega zakona, dokler te veljajo.
In that respect, the content of the latest BTPS recovery plan, agreed between BT and BTPS trustee in December 2005, was subject to the Pension Regulator’s scrutiny.
V zvezi s tem je zakonodajalec na področju pokojnin natančno pregledal vsebino zadnjega sanacijskega načrta za BTPS, o katerem so se dogovorili družba BT in skrbniki BTPS decembra 2005.
The Pension Regulator is an independent authority set by the Pensions Act 2004 and is in charge of the regulation of pension schemes.
Zakonodajalec na področju pokojnin je neodvisni organ, ustanovljen na podlagi Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 2004, ki je odgovoren za zakonsko ureditev pokojninskih shem.
The authorities of the United Kingdom formally confirmed that the Pension Regulator was satisfied that the Crown guarantee was not being used to extend the recovery period or affect any of the key assumptions in the actuarial valuation or recovery plan of BTPS.
Organi Združenega kraljestva so uradno potrdili, da je zakonodajalec na področju pokojnin ugotovil, da se poroštvo ni uporabilo za podaljšanje sanacijskega obdobja ali vplivanje na katere koli glavne domneve v aktuarski oceni ali sanacijskem načrtu za BTPS.
However, it is necessary to assess whether, by virtue of the Crown guarantee, the exemption from the funding requirements contained in the Pensions Act 1995, which was not subject to the condition of the pension scheme in question having been established by enactment, procured an economic advantage to BT or to BTPS.
Vendar pa je treba oceniti, ali je izvzetje od izpolnjevanja predpisov o minimalnem financiranju iz Pokojninskega zakona iz leta 1995 na podlagi poroštva države, za katero ni veljal pogoj, da mora biti zadevna shema ustanovljena na podlagi zakona, pomenilo gospodarsko prednost za BT ali BTPS.
Any possible advantage would have been present between 1995 and 2004, when those requirements were in force.
Kakršna koli morebitna prednost bi obstajala med letoma 1995 in 2004, ko so ti predpisi veljali.
Those requirements were defined in particular as to the methodology to be followed for the actuarial valuation of the schemes’ position and as to the 10-year period within which any reported deficit had to be made good.
V teh predpisih je bila zlasti opredeljena metodologija za aktuarsko oceno stanja pokojninskih shem in desetletno obdobje, v katerem je treba odpraviti kakršen koli prijavljen primanjkljaj.