natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Germany considered that the Commission should determine the aid element of the second-loss guarantee according to the general state aid rules and in particular the Commission Notice on the application of Article 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to state aid in the form of guarantees [32] (hereinafter the ‘Guarantees Notice’).
Nemčija je menila, da bi morala Komisija element pomoči jamstva na drugo izgubo določiti v skladu s splošnimi pravili o državni pomoči in zlasti Obvestilom Komisije o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES za državno pomoč v obliki poroštev [32] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo o poroštvih).
According to Germany, in so far as it was recognised that the remuneration for the risk shield was market-oriented, applying the Guarantees Notice would lead to a marginal aid element.
Če bi bilo priznano, da je povračilo za zaščito pred tveganjem tržno naravnano, bi po mnenju Nemčije uporaba obvestila o poroštvih vodila v mejni element pomoči.
Application of the Impaired Assets Communication
Uporaba sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih
Even assuming it was correct to apply the Impaired Assets Communication, Germany took the view that the Commission had applied it erroneously as regards the quantification of the aid element and the remuneration, burden sharing and the management of assets by the restructuring unit.
Četudi bi bila uporaba sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih ustrezna, je Nemčija menila, da ga je Komisija glede količinske opredelitve elementa pomoči in povračila, porazdelitve bremena in upravljanja s sredstvi s strani enote za prestrukturiranje uporabila napačno.
The aid element involved in the second-loss guarantee was incorrect because incorrect assumptions had been made in regard to the transfer and market value of the portfolio.
Element pomoči jamstva na drugo izgubo ni pravilen, ker glede prenosa in tržne vrednosti portfelja niso bile postavljene pravilne predpostavke.
As regards the remuneration of the capital relief effect, Germany pointed out that the estimation of the capital relief effect in the Decision initiating the procedure was based on old data.
Glede povračila učinka razbremenitve kapitala je Nemčija poudarila, da je ocena učinka razbremenitve kapitala v sklepu o začetku postopka temeljila na starih podatkih.
According to more recently submitted data, the capital relief effect would be significantly lower.
V skladu z novejšimi predloženimi podatki bi bil učinek razbremenitve kapitala precej manjši.
The Commission’s preliminary assessment of the burden sharing was incorrect and too limited, since the Commission referred only to the first-loss tranche of the guarantee, which was considerably below the 10 % of the shielded portfolio required by the Impaired Assets Communication.
Predhodna ocena Komisije glede porazdelitve bremena je napačna in preveč omejena, saj je Komisija upoštevala samo tranšo prve izgube jamstva, ki pa je precej nižja od 10 % zaščitenega portfelja, ki jih zahteva sporočilo o oslabljenih sredstvih.
There was no link between the burden sharing and the first-loss tranche measured in absolute numbers.
Med porazdelitvijo bremena in tranšo prve izgube, merjene v absolutnih številkah, ni nobene povezave.
Furthermore HSH was to bear all losses going beyond the second-loss tranche.
Poleg tega bi banka HSH prevzela vse izgube, ki bi presegale tranšo druge izgube.
As regards the management of assets, the principles of the Impaired Assets Communication did not apply to the risk shield and it would be unreasonable to manage all shielded assets separately.
Glede upravljanja s sredstvi načela sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih ne veljajo za zaščito pred tveganjem, ločeno upravljanje z vsemi zaščitenimi sredstvi pa ne bi bilo razumno.
HSH might create a restructuring unit and ensure a clear accounting and organisational division between the core bank and the restructuring unit up to management board level.
Banka HSH bo morda ustanovila enoto za prestrukturiranje in vse do ravni upravnega odbora zagotovila jasno računovodsko in organizacijsko razmejitev med temeljno banko in enoto za prestrukturiranje.
Portfolio valuation
Vrednotenje portfelja
Germany disagreed with the asset valuation referred to in recital 47 of the Decision initiating the procedure.
Nemčija se ni strinjala z vrednotenjem sredstev iz odstavka 47 sklepa o začetku postopka.
The shielded portfolio contained mostly customer loans, which were difficult to value in a cash flow-based valuation.
Zaščiteni portfelj je obsegal večinoma posojila strankam, ki jih je pri vrednotenju na podlagi denarnega toka težko ovrednotiti.
Valuation methods which used flat-rate haircuts to simulate market uncertainties and which were designed for the valuation of ‘complex’ assets were inappropriate for the valuation of the shielded portfolio in the current case.
Metode vrednotenja, ki za simulacijo tržnih negotovosti uporabljajo pavšalne odbitke in so bile oblikovane za vrednotenje „sestavljenih“ sredstev, v tem primeru niso bile primerne za vrednotenje zaščitenega portfelja.
Whereas the CIP portfolio had been valued by external experts on a cash-flow-based valuation method, the assets in the much larger credit portfolio had been valued by applying a standard credit analysis in line with the regulatory rules.
Medtem ko so zunanji strokovnjaki portfelj strukturiranega kredita ovrednotili z metodo vrednotenja na podlagi denarnega toka, so bila sredstva v precej večjem kreditnem portfelju vrednotena s standardno kreditno analizo v skladu z regulativnimi pravili.
The key point of such analysis was the creditworthiness of the borrower.
Glavni cilj take analize je bila kreditna sposobnost posojilojemalca.
Remuneration of the guarantee
Povračilo jamstva
Germany argued that it was inappropriate to apply to the second-loss guarantee the calculation methods laid down in the Impaired Assets Communication (as described in the Decision initiating the procedure) and concluded that the Guarantees Notice should be applied in order to determine the remuneration.
Nemčija je trdila, da uporaba metod izračunavanja iz sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih za jamstvo na drugo izgubo (kot je opisana v sklepu o začetku postopka) ni bila primerna, in sklenila, da bi bilo treba za določitev povračila uporabiti obvestilo o poroštvih.
In several meetings, teleconferences and other information exchanges between January and August 2010 Germany provided information demonstrating that a full claw-back of the […] would impede HSH’s capacity to restore viability.
Nemčija je na več sestankih, telefonskih konferencah in drugih izmenjavah podatkov med januarjem in avgustom 2010 predložila informacije, ki kažejo, da bi popolno vračilo neupravičeno prejetih sredstev […] negativno vplivalo na zmožnost banke HSH, da ponovno vzpostavi uspešno poslovanje.
COMMENTS ON THE RECAPITALISATION
PRIPOMBE O DOKAPITALIZACIJI
Germany took the view that the Commission’s assessment of the recapitalisation measure was incorrect as regards the valuation of HSH and the legal assessment of the possible benefits to the minority shareholders who did not participate in the recapitalisation.
Nemčija je zavzela stališče, da je ocena ukrepa dokapitalizacije s strani Komisije v zvezi z vrednotenjem banke HSH in pravno oceno morebitnih koristi manjšinskih delničarjev, ki pri dokapitalizaciji niso sodelovali, napačna.
The Commission’s doubts about the valuation of HSH were based on incorrect facts.
Pomisleki Komisije glede vrednotenja banke HSH so temeljili na napačnih dejstvih.
It was unimportant that the downgrading of HSH by S&P was not taken into account in the valuation conducted by PwC, and there were good reasons to believe that HSH would return to an A rating in 2013.
Ni bilo pomembno, da znižanje bonitetne ocene banke HSH s strani bonitetne agencije S&P ni bilo upoštevano pri vrednotenju, ki ga je izvedlo podjetje PwC, obstajali pa so dobri razlogi za prepričanje, da bo banka HSH v letu 2013 ponovno pridobila oceno A.
As regards the issue price of the new shares, discounts in a range of 30 % to 60 % were usual for listed banks.
Glede cen novo izdanih delnic so bili diskonti v višini 30–60 % za banke, ki kotirajo na borzi, nekaj običajnega.
The valuation of HSH was an appropriate basis for the setting of the price of the newly issued shares and the ‘old’ shareholders of HSH did not benefit from the aid measures by maintaining too high a share in HSH.
Vrednotenje banke HSH je bila ustrezna podlaga za določanje cene novo izdanih delnic, „stari“ delničarji banke HSH pa zaradi prevelikega deleža v banki HSH od ukrepov pomoči niso imeli koristi.
COMMENTS ON THE RISK SHIELD AND THE RECAPITALISATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNLIMITED STATE GUARANTEE PROVIDED BY THE PUBLIC-SECTOR OWNERS (GEWÄHRTRÄGERHAFTUNG)
PRIPOMBE O ZAŠČITI PRED TVEGANJEM IN DOKAPITALIZACIJI OB UPOŠTEVANJU NEOMEJENEGA DRŽAVNEGA JAMSTVA S STRANI LASTNIKOV V JAVNEM SEKTORJU (JAMSTVO GEWÄHRTRÄGERHAFTUNG)
Germany argued that without the rescue measures HSH would have gone bankrupt and the public-sector owners would have been liable for much higher losses under the unlimited state guarantee (Gewährträgerhaftung).
Nemčija je trdila, da bi banka HSH brez ukrepov pomoči bankrotirala in da bi bila lastnika v javnem sektorju odgovorna za precej višje izgube pri neomejenem državnem jamstvu (jamstvo Gewährträgerhaftung).
The possible claims under Gewährträgerhaftung were estimated at around EUR 30 billion or higher.
Morebitni zahtevki na podlagi jamstva Gewährträgerhaftung so bili ocenjeni na približno 30 milijard EUR ali več.
Germany pointed out that a private investor in the situation of the public-sector owners would have taken the same rescue measures to avoid higher losses.
Nemčija je poudarila, da bi zasebni vlagatelj v položaju lastnikov v javnem sektorju sprejel enake ukrepe pomoči, da bi se izognil višjim izgubam.
Germany took the view that the rescue measures met the private investor test and therefore did not constitute state aid.
Nemčija je menila, da so ukrepi pomoči izpolnili načelo zasebnega vlagatelja in zato ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
The private investor test was fulfilled if it could be reasonably argued that the company would return to viability and if the liquidation costs of the company were higher than the capital measures [33].
Načelo zasebnega vlagatelja je izpolnjeno, če je mogoče razumno trditi, da bo podjetje ponovno vzpostavilo uspešno poslovanje in če bi bili stroški likvidacije podjetja višji od ukrepov v zvezi s kapitalom [33].
According to Germany, the initial restructuring plan submitted on 1 September 2009 was sufficient proof of the capacity of HSH to return to viability.
Po mnenju Nemčije je bil prvotni načrt prestrukturiranja, predložen 1. septembra 2009, zadosten dokaz zmožnosti banke HSH, da ponovno vzpostavi uspešno poslovanje.
As for the estimation of the liquidation costs, Germany stated that a distinction should be made between the obligations of the public-sector owners as HSH’s owners and as public bodies.
Glede ocene stroškov likvidacije je Nemčija trdila, da bi bilo treba razlikovati med obveznostmi lastnikov v javnem sektorju, ki jih imata kot lastnika banke HSH in kot javna organa.
Their obligations as public bodies (unemployment benefit, social insurance contributions) could not be taken into account when estimating the liquidation costs.
Njunih obveznosti, ki jih imata kot javna organa (denarno nadomestilo za brezposelnost, prispevki za socialno zavarovanje) pri oceni stroškov likvidacije ni mogoče upoštevati.
Only their obligations as HSH’s owners were to be counted towards the liquidation costs.
Pri stroških likvidacije se lahko upoštevajo samo njune obveznosti, ki jih imata kot lastnika banke HSH.
Germany cited the Linde judgment [34] to argue that liabilities originating from state aid that had already been properly granted had to be taken into account when conducting the private investor test.
Da bi podprla svojo trditev, da je treba pri preverjanju izpolnjevanja načela zasebnega vlagatelja upoštevati obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz že ustrezno dodeljene pomoči, se je Nemčija sklicevala na sodbo v zadevi Linde [34].
Gewährträgerhaftung was approved by the Commission and was therefore compatible state aid.
Jamstvo Gewährträgerhaftung je Komisija odobrila, zato je to jamstvo združljiva državna pomoč.
In addition, the liabilities covered by Gewährträgerhaftung pertained to the obligations of the Länder in their capacity as HSH’s owners, not as public bodies.
Poleg tega so obveznosti, ki jih krije jamstvo Gewährträgerhaftung, povezane z obveznostmi zveznih dežel, ki jih imata kot lastnika banke HSH in ne kot javna organa.
Gewährträgerhaftung was in its nature comparable to a ‘letter of responsibility’(Patronatserklärung).
Jamstvo je bilo po svoji naravi primerljivo s „patronatsko izjavo“ (Patronatserklärung).
Therefore the liabilities of the public-sector owners under Gewährträgerhaftung amounting to at least EUR 30 billion, should be taken into account when estimating the liquidation costs.
Zato bi bilo treba obveznosti lastnikov v javnem sektorju, ki izhajajo iz jamstva Gewährträgerhaftung in znašajo vsaj 30 milijard EUR, upoštevati pri ocenjevanju stroškov likvidacije.
Finally, Germany concluded that the liquidation costs would be much higher than the capital measures provided to HSH by the public-sector owners.
Nemčija je sklenila, da bi bili stroški likvidacije precej višji od ukrepov v zvezi s kapitalom, ki sta jih banki HSH zagotovila lastnika v javnem sektorju.
Therefore the conditions of the private investor test were fulfilled and the rescue measures did not constitute state aid.
Zato so pogoji načela zasebnega vlagatelja izpolnjeni in ukrepi pomoči ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
COMMENTS ON HSH’S VIABILITY
PRIPOMBE O USPEŠNEM POSLOVANJU BANKE HSH
Although Germany initially viewed the Commission’s preliminary assessment of HSH’s business model as expressed in recital 62 of the Decision initiating the procedure as too negative, it subsequently updated HSH’s initial restructuring plan in order to alleviate the Commission’s concerns.
Čeprav je bila prvotno po mnenju Nemčije predhodna ocena Komisije o poslovnem modelu banke HSH iz odstavka 62 sklepa o začetku postopka preveč negativna, je kasneje, da bi ublažila pomisleke Komisije, posodobila prvotni načrt prestrukturiranja banke HSH.
COMMENTS ON OWN CONTRIBUTION AND COMPENSATORY MEASURES
PRIPOMBE O UKREPIH V ZVEZI Z LASTNIM PRISPEVKOM IN IZRAVNALNIH UKREPIH
Germany argued that the own contribution measures included in the initial restructuring plan, which consisted of the remuneration of the measures, the release of capital reserves, the sale of subsidiaries and cost reductions, added up to EUR 5,9 billion and should be sufficient.
Nemčija je trdila, da ukrepi v zvezi z lastnim prispevkom iz prvotnega načrta prestrukturiranja, ki obsegajo povračilo ukrepov, sprostitev kapitalskih rezerv, prodajo hčerinskih družb in zmanjšanje stroškov, skupno znašajo 5,9 milijarde EUR in bi morali zadoščati.
Moreover, while Germany initially considered the proposed compensatory measures, consisting of the balance sheet reduction, the cessation of profitable business portfolios, the closure of 12 [35] out of 21 international locations and the sale of sizeable subsidiaries (REAG and DAL [36]), to be sufficient, it later reconsidered them in the modified restructuring plan.
Čeprav je Nemčija sprva menila, da predlagani izravnalni ukrepi, ki so obsegali zmanjšanje bilance stanja, prenehanje donosnih poslovnih portfeljev, zaprtje 12 [35] od 21 poslovalnic v tujini in prodajo velikih hčerinskih družb (REAG in DAL [36]), zadoščajo, jih je kasneje v spremenjenem načrtu prestrukturiranja ponovno preučila.
The Commission also received comments from interested third parties.
Poleg tega je Komisija prejela tudi pripombe zainteresiranih strani.
Comments were submitted on 30 November and 11 December 2009 by the savings bank associations and on 17 December 2009 by Flowers.
Združenji hranilnic sta pripombe predložili 30. novembra 2011 in 11. decembra 2009, investicijska družba Flowers pa 17. decembra 2009.
COMMENTS FROM SGVSH AND SVB
PRIPOMBE ZDRUŽENJ HRANILNIC SCVSH IN SVB
The savings bank associations disagreed with the Commission’s preliminary view that they had disproportionately benefited from the recapitalisation granted to HSH by the public-sector shareholders as they considered that the share price of the newly issued shares was rather low.
Združenji hranilnic se nista strinjali s predhodnim mnenjem Komisije, da sta imeli nesorazmerno korist od dokapitalizacije, ki so jo banki HSH odobrili delničarji iz javnega sektorja, saj sta menili, da je bila cena novo izdanih delnic precej nizka.
Splitting the proceedings in the HSH case, with the aid measures being authorised in one set of proceedings and the issue of indirect aid to the minority shareholders being dealt with in another, would breach Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [37] (‘the Procedural Regulation’).
Razdelitev postopka v primeru banke HSH, pri čemer bi bili ukrepi pomoči odobreni v enem postopku, posredna pomoč manjšinskih delničarjev pa bi bila obravnavana v drugem postopku, bi pomenila kršitev člena 7 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 [37] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: postopkovna uredba).
The aid measure could not at the same time be compatible with the internal market in respect of HSH, and incompatible in respect of HSH’s owners.
Ukrep pomoči ne more biti hkrati združljiv z notranjim trgom glede banke HSH in nezdružljiv glede lastnikov banke HSH.
A negative decision on the recapitalisation in respect of the savings bank associations and Flowers would render the recapitalisation incompatible aid.
Zaradi negativnega sklepa o dokapitalizaciji glede združenj hranilnic in investicijske družbe Flowers bi dokapitalizacija postala nezdružljiva pomoč.
According to the savings bank associations, the Commission should address the issue of burden sharing by the minority shareholders in the general context of the burden sharing assessment of the recapitalisation.
Po mnenju združenj hranilnic bi morala Komisija vprašanje porazdelitve bremena s strani manjšinskih delničarjev obravnavati v splošnem okviru ocene porazdelitve bremena v zvezi z dokapitalizacijo.
As regards the Commission’s consideration that there was insufficient dilution of the minority shareholdings, the savings bank associations did not see how this could constitute state aid.
Glede pomisleka Komisije, da se manjšinski deleži niso dovolj zmanjšali, združenji hranilnic nista razumeli, kako naj bi to pomenilo državno pomoč.
They considered a dilution to be a secondary effect of a recapitalisation.
Menili sta, da je bilo zmanjšanje deležev sekundarni učinek dokapitalizacije.
Moreover, the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU were not fulfilled, in so far as the savings bank associations were not an undertaking within the meaning of the state aid rules.
Poleg tega pogoji člena 107(1) PDEU niso bili izpolnjeni, saj združenji hranilnic v smislu pravil o državni pomoči nista bili podjetji.
SGVSH and SVB were not active on any market; they only held shareholdings on behalf of their members (the public savings banks in Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein).
Združenji hranilnic SGVSH in SVB na trgu nista bili aktivni; deleže sta držali samo v imenu svojih članic (javnih hranilnic v mestu Hamburg in zvezni deželi Schleswig-Holstein).
The advantage to the savings banks could be seen only in the increase of the value of the HSH shares, which was inherent in all capital injections.
Ugodnost za hranilnice se je odražala samo v povečanju vrednosti delnic banke HSH, ki je bilo zajeto v vseh kapitalskih injekcijah.
Furthermore, the alleged advantage was not granted from state resources.
Poleg tega domnevna ugodnost ni bila dodeljena iz državnih sredstev.
The level of dilution depended on the number of the shares and the share price.
Stopnja zmanjšanja deleža je bila odvisna od števila delnic in cene delnice.
The price was decided not by the State, but by the shareholders’ meeting.
Cene ni določila država, ampak se je o njej odločalo na sestanku delničarjev.
That decision was not imputable to the State and, in line with the Stardust Marine judgment [38], could not be considered aid.
Te odločitve ni mogoče pripisati državi in v skladu s sodbo v zadevi Stardust Marine [38] ne more pomeniti državne pomoči.
In any event, the alleged advantage had no impact on the competitive position of the savings banks in the markets in which they operated.
V vsakem primeru domnevna ugodnost ni imela nobenega vpliva na konkurenčni položaj hranilnic na trgih, na katerih so delovale.
Therefore the alleged advantage did not distort competition or affect trade between Member States.
Zato domnevna ugodnost ni izkrivljala konkurence ali vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
The savings bank associations also pointed out that the Commission had not investigated secondary effects in other recapitalisation cases.
Združenji hranilnic sta poudarili tudi, da Komisija v drugih zadevah glede dokapitalizacije ni preučila sekundarnih učinkov.
Nor had the Union courts endorsed such an approach in the WestLB judgment [39].
Prav tako pa sodišče Unije takega pristopa ni uporabilo pri sodbi v zadevi WestLB [39].
Furthermore, the savings bank associations observed that the Commission had not investigated secondary effects in other cases where the issue price of the new shares appeared extremely high [40] and concluded that an investigation of the issue only in cases such as those of HSH and BayernLB would infringe the principle of equal treatment.
Poleg tega sta združenji hranilnic ugotovili, da Komisija ni preučila sekundarnih učinkov v drugih zadevah, v katerih je bila cena na novo izdanih delnic izjemno visoka [40], in sklenili, da bi preiskava tega vprašanja samo v zadevah kot v primeru banke HSH in banke BayernLB kršila načelo enake obravnave.
The savings bank associations further explained that the shareholders in a public limited company Aktiengesellschaft had an option on new stock.
Združenji hranilnic sta nadalje pojasnili, da so imeli delničarji v delniški družbi (Aktiengesellschaft) možnost nakupa novih delnic.
It was, however, an option and not a purchase obligation.
Vendar pa je bila to samo možnost nakupa in ne obveznost.
The savings bank associations considered the share price of the new shares appropriate but they were not able to participate in the recapitalisation for financial reasons.
Združenji hranilnic sta menili, da je bila cena na novo izdanih delnic primerna, vendar zaradi finančnih razlogov nista mogli sodelovati pri dokapitalizaciji.
Furthermore, the savings bank associations argued that in 2008 they contributed significantly to capital measures in favour of HSH.
Poleg tega sta združenji hranilnic trdili, da sta v letu 2008 znatno prispevali k ukrepom v zvezi s kapitalom v korist banke HSH.
In July 2008, the savings bank associations converted a silent participation in the amount of EUR 685 million into EUR 125 million equity and EUR 560 million capital reserves.
Združenji hranilnic sta julija 2008 tihi delež v znesku 685 milijonov EUR pretvorili v 125 milijonov EUR kapitala in 560 milijonov EUR kapitalskih rezerv.
In July 2008 the savings bank associations together with Flowers subscribed to a mandatory convertible silent capital contribution (hybrid instrument) of EUR 962 million (of which the savings banks took EUR 660,5 million).
Združenji hranilnic sta julija 2008 skupaj z investicijsko družbo Flowers vpisali obvezni zamenljivi tihi kapitalski prispevek (hibridni instrument) v višini 962 milijonov EUR (od tega sta združenji hranilnic vpisali 660,5 milijona EUR).
At the end of 2008, HSH released capital reserves of EUR 3,1 billion in order to compensate the balance sheet loss and avoid the loss absorption of the hybrid instruments.
Konec leta 2008 je banka HSH sprostila kapitalske rezerve v višini 3,1 milijarde EUR, da bi nadomestila bilančne izgube in se izognila absorbiranju izgub hibridnih instrumentov.
In that context the savings bank associations lost their EUR 560 million of the capital reserves.
Zaradi tega sta združenji hranilnic izgubili svojih 560 milijonov EUR kapitalskih rezerv.
The mandatory convertible silent capital contribution was loss-absorbing.
Obvezni zamenljivi tihi kapitalski prispevek je absorbiral izgube.