natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Crédit Mutuel also holds that the Commission is trying to transfer to it the burden of proof that the first condition of the Altmark case-law has been met, which is not what is laid down in the case-law in question.
Crédit Mutuel meni še, da ji Komisija poskuša naložiti, naj dokaže, da je prvi pogoj iz sodne prakse Altmark izpolnjen, kar pa v zadevni sodni praksi ni predvideno;
With respect to the second condition, Crédit Mutuel stresses that the brokerage commission was created at the same time as the obligation to centralise to centralise deposits with the CDC and that the conditions for calculating the commission were drawn up in an objective and transparent manner.
kar zadeva drugi pogoj, Crédit Mutuel poudarja, da je bila posredniška provizija uvedena hkrati z obveznostjo centralizacije sredstev pri CDC ter da je bil način izračuna te provizije določen objektivno in pregledno;
The level of the brokerage commission was based on the costs actually incurred by Crédit Mutuel in distributing the Livret blue.
Znesek posredniške provizije naj bi bil določen glede na stroške, ki jih je Crédit Mutuel dejansko imela zaradi distribuiranja sheme Livret bleu.
Crédit Mutuel is a well-run undertaking within the meaning of the Altmark case-law, since its administrative costs are amongst the lowest.
Crédit Mutuel je dobro vodeno podjetje v smislu sodne prakse Altmark, ker so bili njeni stroški upravljanja med najnižjimi.
The Commission is, moreover, said to have acknowledged this in its extension Decision [24]; It is of the opinion that the Commission has not provided sufficient grounds to underpin its view that this condition has not been met.
Komisija je to sicer priznala v odločitvi o razširitvi postopka. [24] Meni, da Komisija ni zadostno podkrepila razlogov, zaradi katerih po njenem mnenju ta pogoj ni izpolnjen.
In any event, Crédit Mutuel holds that the measure is compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU.
Crédit Mutuel vsekakor meni, da je ukrep združljiv z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 106(2) PDEU.
Crédit Mutuel criticises, inter alia, the method used to calculate the overcompensation to which reference was made in the extension Decision.
Kritizira tudi metodo izračuna prekomernega nadomestila, navedeno v odločitvi o razširitvi postopka.
In its view, the Commission made calculation errors in its assessment of gross operating profit for the Livret bleu by making its own the mistaken conclusions of its consultant, despite the areas of disagreement outstanding between the Commission’s consultant and Crédit Mutuel’s consultant [25].
Po njenem mnenju je Komisija najprej storila računske napake pri oceni skupnega dobička v izkazu poslovnega izida sheme Livret bleu, ko je kljub nerešenim nesoglasjem med svetovalcem Komisije in svetovalcem Crédit Mutuel povzela napačne ugotovitve svojega svetovalca [25].
In addition, in its extension Decision the Commission did not take reasonable profit into account properly.
Poleg tega Komisija v odločitvi o razširitvi postopka ni pravilno upoštevala zmernega dobička.
It based its assessment of reasonable profit on the costs of regulatory capital, estimated at 6 %, whereas these costs represent a cost accounting expense, not a margin.
Oceno zmernega dobička je oprla na stroške regulatornega lastnega kapitala, ocenjene na 6 %, čeprav so ti stroški v analitičnih računovodskih evidencah odhodki in ne marža.
The Commission should have taken into account the return on equity recommended by Arthur Andersen [27].
Komisija bi morala upoštevati stopnjo donosa lastnega kapitala, ki jo je priporočila družba Arthur Andersen [27].
Moreover, the calculation of reasonable profit was made on the basis of a rapidly diminishing base, which falls to zero on the complete centralisation of deposits with the CDC, since such deposits incur no cost in terms of regulatory capital.
Poleg tega je izračun zmernega dobička oprla na izginjajočo osnovo, ki postane nična s popolno centralizacijo hranilnih vlog pri CDC, ker ta sredstva nimajo nobenih stroškov v zvezi z regulatornim lastnim kapitalom.
Crédit Mutuel emphasises that the indicator used by the Commission leads to it being deprived of any normal margin on the Livret bleu.
Crédit Mutuel poudarja, da je zaradi kazalnika, ki ga je uporabila Komisija, ostala brez celotne običajne marže od sheme Livret bleu.
In its view, any bank must be able to generate a normal margin, even on a centralised use incurring no cost of capital within the strict regulatory meaning of the solvency ratio.
Po njenem mnenju mora imeti vsaka banka možnost, da ustvari običajno maržo, celo pri centralizirani naložbi, ki ne ustvarja stroškov lastnega kapitala v predpisanem ožjem pomenu stopnje solventnosti.
Nor did the Commission correctly take into account the expenses arising from the other service of general economic interest which Crédit Mutuel regards itself as providing, that is maintaining a branch presence in rural areas with a view to encouraging saving by the general public throughout the country’s territory by facilitating access to banking services to the greatest number of people.
Komisija tudi ni pravilno upoštevala stroškov, nastalih zaradi druge naloge splošnega pomena, ki jo Crédit Mutuel po lastnem mnenju opravlja, in sicer ohranjanje podružnic na podeželju, katerega cilj je spodbujati k varčevanju na celotnem ozemlju z omogočanjem dostopa do bank čim več prebivalcem.
Crédit Mutuel also denies that there was ever any pull factor.
Nazadnje, Crédit Mutuel zavrača obstoj morebitnega učinka vabe.
It notes that the Commission had acknowledged in its annulled Decision that there was no formal evidence attesting to a pull factor and is of the view that no new evidence has appeared since then.
Opozarja, da je Komisija v razveljavljeni odločbi priznala, da tega učinka vabe ni bilo mogoče formalno dokazati, in meni, da se od takrat novi dokazi niso pojavili.
With respect to the proceedings, Crédit Mutuel relies on a number of general principles of Community law to dispute the recovery of potential aid, inter alia, the principle of legitimate expectation and the duty to act within a reasonable time.
Crédit Mutuel se glede postopka sklicuje na več splošnih načel prava Skupnosti, zlasti na načeli zaupanja v pravo in upoštevanja razumnega roka, za izpodbijanje vsakršnega morebitnega vračila pomoči.
France is of the opinion that the conditions of the Altmark case-law have been met:
Francija meni, da so pogoji iz sodne prakse Altmark izpolnjeni:
With respect to the first condition, it emphasises that the Commission has acknowledged that Crédit Mutuel was attributed the task of providing a service of general economic interest by gathering deposits to finance social housing.
v zvezi s prvim pogojem poudarja, da je Komisija priznala, da je Crédit Mutuel pooblaščena za opravljanje storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, tj. zbiranje hranilnih vlog za financiranje socialnih stanovanj.
It recalls that the Commission stated in its extension Decision that maintaining branches in rural areas for regional development purposes could also be regarded as a service of general economic interest [28], but does not react to the arguments raised by the Commission in its extension Decision that the first condition of the Altmark case-law has not been met because there is no national legislation or regulations requiring, in a sufficiently clear manner, the institution to perform this task pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU [29].
Opozarja, da je Komisija v odločitvi o razširitvi postopka navedla, da je ohranitev poslovalnic na podeželju za cilje prostorskega načrtovanja prav tako mogoče šteti za storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena [28], vendar ne odgovarja na trditve Komisije v odločitvi o razširitvi postopka, da prvi pogoj iz sodne prakse Altmark ni izpolnjen, ker ne obstaja nacionalna zakonodaja ali predpis, ki bi dovolj jasno določal nalogo v smislu člena 106(2) PDEU [29];
With respect to the second condition, France is of the opinion that the parameters for calculating the compensation were established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
Francija v zvezi z drugim pogojem meni, da so bili parametri za izračun nadomestila predhodno objektivno in pregledno določeni;
As for the third condition, it argues that the amount of compensation (the brokerage commission) did not exceed what was necessary to cover the costs of the system and refers in this respect to Crédit Mutuel’s detailed profit-and-loss accounts for the Livret bleu for the years 1999 to 2005.
v zvezi s tretjim pogojem trdi, da znesek nadomestila (posredniške provizije) ni presegal tega, kar je bilo potrebno za pokrivanje stroškov sistema, pri čemer se sklicuje na analitični izkaz poslovnega izida sheme Livret bleu banke Crédit Mutuel za obdobje 1999–2005;
The fourth condition is also fulfilled, with France stating that Crédit Mutuel’s management meets the efficiency requirements [30].
tudi četrti pogoj naj bi bil izpolnjen, saj Francija trdi, da upravljanje Crédit Mutuel izpolnjuje zahtevana merila učinkovitosti [30].
With respect to the conditions relating to the existence of aid, France refers to the arguments it put forward before the annulment of the 2002 Decision:
Francija se v zvezi s pogoji o obstoju pomoči sklicuje na trditve, predstavljene pred razveljavitvijo odločbe iz leta 2002:
The state resources condition is not fulfilled since the income derived by Crédit Mutuel from the deposits not centralised with the CDC (non-earmarked uses and general-interest uses) arose from resources of private origin (monies deposited by savers) which were not at the disposal of the public authorities.
pogoj o državnih sredstvih ni izpolnjen, ker je dobiček, ki ga je Crédit Mutuel imela od hranilnih vlog, ki niso bile centralizirane pri CDC (proste naložbe in naložbe splošnega pomena), izviral iz sredstev zasebnega izvora (sredstev, ki so jih vložili varčevalci) in ni bil na voljo javnim organom;
Trade between Member States could not have been affected before completion of the single market for banking and financial activities on 1 January 1993, following the adoption of Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December 1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending Directive 77/780/EEC (hereinafter ‘the Second Banking Directive’) [31] The French authorities considered that, after that date, given the absence of an official European statute for cooperative societies and the constraints that this situation produced in terms of the cross-border expansion of cooperative societies such as Crédit Mutuel, the latter’s constituent regional entities did not operate across national borders.
trgovina med državami članicami ni mogla biti prizadeta pred oblikovanjem enotnega trga bančnih in finančnih dejavnosti 1. januarja 1993 po sprejetju Druge direktive Sveta 89/646/EGS z dne 15. decembra 1989 o usklajevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o začetku opravljanja in opravljanju dejavnosti kreditnih institucij in o spremembi Direktive 77/780/EGS (v nadaljnjem besedilu: druga bančna direktiva) [31]. Francoski organi so od tega datuma menili, da zaradi neobstoja evropskega statusa zadruge in omejitev, ki jih ima to za čezmejno širitev zadrug, kakršna je Crédit Mutuel, hranilnice te banke niso opravljale dejavnosti zunaj nacionalnih meja.
Moreover, the Livret bleu accounts opened for non-residents represented less than 0,1 % of the total.
Računi Livret bleu, ki so jih odprli nerezidenti, poleg tega predstavljajo manj kot 0,1 % hranilnih vlog.
The French authorities also stated that foreign banks in France were targeting a very different market to that of Crédit Mutuel.
Francoski organi so še menili, da je cilj tujih bančnih ustanov v Franciji trg, ki se zelo razlikuje od trga Crédit Mutuel;
The brokerage commission paid by the CDC to Crédit Mutuel on the total Livret bleu deposits centralised with it did not constitute aid, but rather remuneration for a service rendered by the bank, the price of which had been set in 1991 at 1,3 %.
posredniška provizija, ki jo je CDC plačeval banki Crédit Mutuel za centralizirane hranilne vloge Livret bleu, ni mogla biti pomoč, temveč je lahko bila le plačilo za storitev, ki jo je opravila banka in katere cena je bila leta 1991 s pogodbo določena na 1,3 %.
The French authorities underlined the scale of the management costs for the Livret bleu because of the number of accounts with deposits totalling less than FRF 5000 (EUR 762).
Francoski organi so poudarili pomen stroškov upravljanja sheme Livret bleu zaradi števila hranilnih vlog, na katerih so vložena sredstva znašala manj kot 5000 FRF (762 EUR).
They referred to the cost accounts produced by Crédit Mutuel (after the measure at hand was adopted), concluding that this level of remuneration was fully justified.
Sklicevali so se na analitične računovodske evidence, ki jih je vodila Crédit Mutuel (po uvedbi zadevnega ukrepa), in sklenili, da je ta znesek plačila v celoti upravičen.
The French authorities argued that the advantages which Crédit Mutuel received from the Livret bleu should be examined in the light of the costs relating to a general economic interest objective.
Trdili so, da je treba vsakršno prednost, ki jo je shema Livret bleu pomenila za Crédit Mutuel, preučiti v primerjavi s stroški, povezanimi s ciljem splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
In this respect, they drew the attention of the Commission to the increase in the attribution of the deposits to financing objectives of general interest, for which the proportion rose from 50 % of Livret bleu deposits between 1975 and 1983, to 65 % between 1983 and 1991, to 100 % of deposits centralised with the CDC from 1998 onwards.
V zvezi s tem so Komisijo opozorili na vedno večje dodeljevanje hranilnih vlog Livret bleu za finančne naložbe splošnega pomena, katerih delež je od leta 1975 do leta 1983 narasel na 50 % hranilnih vlog Livret bleu, od leta 1983 do leta 1991 na 65 % in leta 1998 na 100 % hranilnih vlog, centraliziranih pri CDC;
Even assuming that there had been aid, it would have been existing aid as the Livret bleu scheme was set up before the liberalisation of the banking sector on 1 January 1993 (the deadline for transposing the Second Banking Directive).
ob domnevi, da bi dejansko šlo za pomoč, bi bila ta vsekakor obstoječa pomoč, ker je bila shema Livret bleu uvedena pred liberalizacijo bančnega trga 1. januarja 1993 (iztek roka za prenos druge bančne direktive).
In their letter of 26 October 2001, the French authorities provided the reason why, were the Commission to conclude the existence of aid, that aid would in any event be compatible with the internal market in accordance with Article 106(3) TFEU.
Francoski organi so v obvestilu z dne 26. oktobra 2001 navedli razlog, zakaj gre – če bi Komisija uporabila opredelitev pomoči – vsekakor za pomoč, ki je združljiva z notranjim trgom v skladu s členom 106(3) PDEU.
They criticise the Commission for making mistakes in its calculation of the gross operating profit from the Livret bleu by not following the method put forward by Crédit Mutuel’s consultant [32].
Komisiji očitajo napake pri izračunu skupnega dobička v izkazu poslovnega izida sheme Livret bleu, ker ni upoštevala metode, ki jo je zagovarjal svetovalec Crédit Mutuel [32].
They also contend that the Commission should take into account a reasonable profit, which they estimate at […] [33].
Trdijo tudi, da mora Komisija upoštevati zmerni dobiček, ki ga ocenjujejo na […] [33].
In their comments on the extension Decision, the French authorities also criticise the Commission for its ‘asymmetrical reasoning’, in that it did not offset the amounts for years in which overcompensation was found (1991, 1992, 1993 and 1998) by those for years of undercompensation (1994 to 1997) and for repeating in their entirety in Annex 1 to the extension Decision the conclusions of its consultant on the three areas of disagreement between France and the Commission.
Francoski organi v pripombah k odločitvi o razširitvi postopka Komisiji poleg tega očitajo, da je sledila „asimetričnemu sklepanju“, ko zneskov za leta, v katerih je prišlo do prekomernega nadomestila (1991, 1992, 1993 in 1998), ni izravnala z zneski za leta, v katerih je bilo nadomestilo premajhno (1994–1997), in da je v Prilogi 1 k odločitvi o razširitvi postopka v celoti povzela ugotovitve svojega svetovalca o treh točkah, o katerih se Francija in Komisija nista strinjali.
France specified that for the whole of the 1999-2005 period the system relating to the Livret bleu was undercompensated by the state.
Francija je pojasnila, da je država v celotnem obdobju 1999–2005 plačala premajhno nadomestilo za sistem, povezan s shemo Livret bleu.
The amount of the brokerage commission did not exceed what was required to cover the distribution costs of the Livret bleu as reflected in the cost accounts for the Livret bleu, which were drawn up in partnership with the Commission (subject to two adaptations [34]) and meet the requirements of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings [35].
Znesek posredniške provizije ni presegel tega, kar je bilo potrebno za pokrivanje stroškov distribuiranja sheme Livret bleu, kot so prikazani v analitičnih računovodskih evidencah sheme Livret bleu, ki so bile pripravljene skupaj s Komisijo (ob upoštevanju dveh prilagoditev [34]) ter ustrezajo zahtevam iz Direktive Komisije 80/723/EGS z dne 25. junija 1980 o preglednosti finančnih odnosov med državami članicami in javnimi podjetji ter o finančni preglednosti znotraj določenih podjetij [35].
France also explained that the recent reductions in the brokerage commission were made to meet the requirements of those engaged in financing social housing [36].
Francija je še pojasnila, da nedavna znižanja posredniške provizije ustrezajo predvsem potrebam akterjev financiranja socialnih stanovanj [36].
The French authorities explained that a mechanism for the repayment of any overcompensation has existed since 1999.
Francoski organi pojasnjujejo, da mehanizem povračila morebitnega prekomernega nadomestila obstaja od leta 1999.
France also explained that the risk of a lack of liquidity for the first month was borne by Crédit Mutuel and the risk of a lack of liquidity beyond that was borne by the CDC.
Francija je tudi pojasnila, da je tveganje nelikvidnosti za največ en mesec nosila Crédit Mutuel, tveganje nelikvidnosti za več kot en mesec pa CDC.
With respect to deposits collected for Livret bleu accounts, France further explained that the risk-weighting percentage for the calculation of capital requirements needed for the solvency margin was zero.
Pojasnila je, da je bil v zvezi z zneski, zbranimi s hranilnimi vlogami Livret bleu, odstotni delež ponderiranja tveganja za izračun potreb po lastnem kapitalu, potrebnem za kapitalsko ustreznost, nič.
At the Commission’s request, France also provided precise information on the margin of compensation relating to the establishment of a compulsory reserve fund with the Banque de France.
Francija je na zahtevo Komisije navedla tudi pojasnila o stopnji nadomestila za oblikovanje obveznih rezerv pri Banque de France.
In the extension Decision the Commission considered that the only measure at issue likely to contain aid elements was the brokerage commission paid to Crédit Mutuel by the CDC [37].
Komisija je v odločitvi o razširitvi postopka menila, da je edini zadevni ukrep, ki bi lahko vseboval elemente pomoči, posredniška provizija, ki jo je banki Crédit Mutuel plačeval CDC [37].
Such aid as may be hidden in the brokerage commission was introduced on 27 September 1991 by the Order of the same date and, in the present Decision, is analysed up to the liberalisation of the distribution of the Livret A and the harmonisation of the Livret bleu with it on 1 January 2009 [38].
Morebitna pomoč, ki jo pomeni posredniška provizija, je bila uvedena 27. septembra 1991 z odlokom z istega dne in je v tem sklepu preučena do liberalizacije distribuiranja sheme Livret A in uskladitve sheme Livret bleu s shemo Livret A 1. januarja 2009 [38].
The conditions of the Altmark judgment are not met
Pogoji iz sodne prakse Altmark niso izpolnjeni
According to the Altmark case law [39] compensation paid in consideration of public-service tasks does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if four cumulative conditions are met.
Treba je opozoriti, da v skladu s sodno prakso Altmark [39] nadomestila, plačana v zameno za naloge javne službe, niso državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, če so izpolnjeni štirje kumulativni pogoji.
In their comments in response to the extension Decision the French authorities and Crédit Mutuel invoke the existence of two services of general economic interest, namely the maintenance of a significant branch presence in rural areas for regional development purposes and the gathering of deposits intended for social housing financing.
Francoski organi in Crédit Mutuel se v pripombah k odločitvi o razširitvi postopka sklicujejo na obstoj dveh storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, in sicer ohranjanje močne navzočnosti poslovalnic na podeželju zaradi ciljev prostorskega načrtovanja in zbiranje hranilnih vlog za financiranje socialnih stanovanj.
However, even before the measure at issue was introduced, Crédit Mutuel was no longer under any obligation to maintain rural branches since the 1987 repeal of the Bank Branches (opening and closing) Act (loi relative à l’ouverture et à la fermeture des agences bancaires) and the abolition on 1 July 1991 of the supervision arrangements (which were kept in place with respect to Crédit Mutuel from 1987 to 1991) [40].
Vendar Crédit Mutuel pred uvedbo zadevnega ukrepa ni imela več nobene obveznosti ohranjanja poslovalnic na podeželju, saj je bil zakon o odprtju in zaprtju bančnih poslovalnic razveljavljen leta 1987, sistem nadzora (ki se je za Crédit Mutuel ohranil v obdobju 1987–1991) pa odpravljen 1. julija 1991 [40].
Moreover, neither the French authorities nor Crédit Mutuel challenged the conclusion in the extension Decision that, after 1991 (or, to be precise, 1 July 1991), there was no longer any instrument in force on the basis of which Crédit Mutuel might have been entrusted, within the meaning of Article 86 EC (now Article 106 TFEU), with the task mentioned in paragraph 24, point (iii) of the extension Decision (maintenance of branches in rural areas for regional development purposes) [41].
Francoski organi in Crédit Mutuel pa niso izpodbijali sklepne ugotovitve v odločitvi o razširitvi postopka, da „po letu 1991 [to je po 1. juliju 1991] ne obstaja akt, na podlagi katerega bi imela Crédit Mutuel v smislu člena 86 ES [zdaj člen 106 PDEU] nalogo, omenjeno v točki 24(iii) zgoraj [ohranjanje poslovalnic na podeželju zaradi ciljev prostorskega načrtovanja]“ [41].
It is therefore only as regards the task of gathering deposits with a view to financing social housing that it falls to be examined whether the Altmark case law applies.
Torej je treba vprašanje, ali se sodna praksa Altmark uporablja, preučiti le z vidika naloge zbiranja hranilnih vlog za financiranje socialnih stanovanj.
The Commission would recall that Member States have a wide margin of discretion as to the nature of services which may be classified as services of general economic interest.
Komisija opozarja, da imajo države članice široko diskrecijsko pravico glede narave storitev, ki jih je mogoče opredeliti kot storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.