natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A coupon on that instrument had not been paid.
Kupon na ta instrument ni bil plačan.
The savings bank associations had not received dividends since 2008.
Združenjema hranilnic dividende niso bile izplačane že od leta 2008.
In May 2009, the savings bank associations had been willing to sell their shares.
(133) Maja 2009 sta bili združenji hranilnic pripravljeni prodati svoje deleže.
The holding agreement could not be terminated before 31 December 2013.
Holdinškega sporazuma ni bilo mogoče prekiniti pred 31. decembrom 2013.
The savings bank associations pointed out that in the course of the recapitalisation their shareholdings had been considerably diluted, from 13,2 % and 1,62 % to 4,7 % and 0,6 % respectively.
Združenji hranilnic sta poudarili, da sta se njuna deleža med dokapitalizacijo precej zmanjšala, in sicer s 13,2 % in 1,62 % na 4,7 % oziroma 0,6 %.
With 85,5 % of direct and indirect shareholdings, the public-sector owners had joint control over all strategic decisions in HSH.
S 85,5 % neposrednih in posrednih deležev sta imela lastnika v javnem sektorju skupni nadzor nad vsemi strateškimi odločitvami v banki HSH.
From the point of view of a private investor that joint control meant an additional decrease of the value of the shares held by the minority shareholders.
Z vidika zasebnega vlagatelja je skupni nadzor pomenil dodatno zmanjšanje vrednosti delnic v lasti manjšinskih delničarjev.
The savings bank associations noted that the valuation of HSH by PwC was commissioned by HSH and not by the minority shareholders.
Združenji hranilnic sta ugotovili, da vrednotenja banke HSH pri podjetju PwC niso naročili manjšinski delničarji, ampak banka HSH.
PwC conducted the valuation in line with recognised valuation principles.
Podjetje PwC je vrednotenje izvedlo v skladu z veljavnimi načeli za vrednotenje.
The savings bank associations argued that specific values and a modified risk premium should have been taken into account, which would have given a share price of EUR 30 per share.
Združenji hranilnic sta trdili, da bi bilo treba upoštevati posebne vrednosti in spremenjeno premijo tveganja, zaradi česar bi bila cena delnice določena na 30 EUR za delnico.
The savings bank associations concluded that their holdings had been excessively diluted and estimated the loss at around EUR 200 million.
Združenji hranilnic sta sklenili z ugotovitvijo, da sta bila njuna deleža močno zmanjšana, izgubo pa sta ocenili na približno 200 milijonov EUR.
COMMENTS FROM FLOWERS
PRIPOMBE INVESTICIJSKE DRUŽBE FLOWERS
Flowers put forward similar arguments to those of the savings bank associations.
Investicijska družba Flowers je navedla podobne trditve kot združenji hranilnic.
In addition, they argued that they had already made a considerable contribution of their own to the restructuring of HSH.
Poleg tega je trdila, da so sami že precej prispevali k prestrukturiranju banke HSH.
As regards the mandatory convertible silent capital contribution in the amount of EUR 962 million, Flowers had subscribed EUR 301,5 million. The mandatory convertible silent capital contribution had participated in losses; a coupon had not been paid.
Od obveznega zamenljivega tihega kapitalskega prispevka v višini 962 milijonov EUR je investicijska družba Flowers vpisala 301,5 milijona EUR. Obvezni zamenljivi tihi prispevek je bil udeležen pri izgubah; kupon ni bil plačan.
The investors provided 48 % of those capital measures, which went considerably beyond their shareholding of 25,67 % at the time.
Vlagatelji so zagotovili 48 % teh ukrepov v zvezi s kapitalom, kar je precej presegalo njihov delež, ki je takrat znašal 25,67 %.
Flowers disagreed with the Commission’s preliminary assessment, in recitals 65 and 73 of the Decision initiating the procedure, regarding an insufficient own contribution and lack of genuine burden sharing measures.
Investicijska družba Flowers se ni strinjala s predhodno oceno Komisije iz odstavkov 65 in 73 sklepa o začetku postopka, ki se je nanašala na nezadosten lastni prispevek in pomanjkanje dejanskih ukrepov v zvezi s porazdelitvijo bremena.
The investors considered that the capital measures provided in 2008 should be taken into account.
Vlagatelji so menili, da bi bilo treba upoštevati ukrepe v zvezi s kapitalom iz leta 2008.
The investors contended that their loss of the blocking minority due to the dilution should also be considered as own contribution.
Vlagatelji so trdili, da bi bilo treba njihovo izgubo manjšine, ki lahko prepreči sprejetje, do česar je prišlo zaradi zmanjšanja deležev, prav tako upoštevati kot lastni prispevek.
Despite their dilution to 9,19 % they would still be liable under Gewährträgerhaftung in line with their shareholding before the recapitalisation, i.e. 26,85 %.
Kljub zmanjšanju njenega deleža na 9,19 % bi bila družba na podlagi jamstva Gewährträgerhaftung v skladu s svojim deležem pred dokapitalizacijo, tj. 26,85 %, še vedno odgovorna.
The investors also disputed the Commission’s doubts regarding the valuation of HSH and an excessive share price.
Vlagatelji so tudi oporekali pomislekom Komisije glede vrednotenja banke HSH in previsoke cene delnic.
They argued that a number of aspects that would increase the share value had not been sufficiently considered.
Trdili so, da številni vidiki, ki bi zvišali vrednost delnic, niso bili ustrezno upoštevani.
Finally, the investors pointed out that German law did not provide for a transfer of shares, which would make a recovery of the indirect aid to the minority shareholders impossible.
Nazadnje so vlagatelji poudarili, da nemška zakonodaja ne določa prenosa delnic, zaradi česar povračilo posredne pomoči manjšinskim delničarjem ne bi bilo mogoče.
The investors considered that a split of the ongoing proceedings would not be possible, as there was only one aid measure granted in favour of HSH.
Vlagatelji so menili, da razdelitev tega postopka ne bi bila mogoča, saj je bil v korist banke HSH odobren samo en ukrep pomoči.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY ON THIRD PARTIES’ COMMENTS
PRIPOMBE NEMČIJE NA PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANI
Germany submitted comments on the arguments by the savings bank associations and Flowers.
Nemčija je predložila pripombe na trditve združenj hranilnic in investicijske družbe Flowers.
Germany maintained its opinion that the valuation of HSH was appropriate and that the minority shareholders had not benefited from any indirect state aid.
Nemčija je še naprej trdila, da je bilo vrednotenje banke HSH ustrezno in da manjšinski delničarji niso imeli koristi od nobene posredne državne pomoči.
Moreover, Germany favoured a split of proceedings if it would accelerate the conclusion of the case, which was expected by HSH and the markets.
Poleg tega je bila Nemčija naklonjena razdelitvi postopka, če bi to pospešilo zaključek zadeve, kar so pričakovali tako banka HSH kot trgi.
Germany questioned whether a recapitalisation was a homogeneous legal act and had to be assessed in one decision.
Nemčija je imela pomisleke glede tega, da je dokapitalizacija homogen pravni akt, ki ga je treba oceniti v enem sklepu.
Germany referred to the case law of the Union courts and argued that a split of the proceedings would be legally possible and that differing legal assessments of one aid measure in relation to different beneficiaries, i.e. HSH and the minority shareholders, would not put at risk the compatibility of the aid measure in favour of HSH.
Sklicevala se je na sodno prakso sodišča Unije in trdila, da bi bila razdelitev postopka pravno mogoča in da različni pravni oceni enega ukrepa pomoči v zvezi z različnimi upravičenci, tj. banke HSH in manjšinskih delničarjev, ne bi ogrozili združljivosti ukrepa pomoči v korist banke HSH.
The proportionality of the aid measure in relation to HSH could be ensured through a set of measures in the restructuring plan, whereas any advantage granted to the minority shareholders via an excessively high issue price would have to be treated and corrected differently.
Sorazmernost ukrepa pomoči v zvezi z banko HSH bi lahko bila zagotovljena s sklopom ukrepov v načrtu prestrukturiranja, morebitno ugodnost za manjšinske delničarje zaradi previsoke cene izdanih delnic pa bi bilo treba obravnavati in popraviti na drugačen način.
Germany disagreed with Flowers that German law did not provide for a transfer of shares and thus rendered recovery of the indirect aid to the minority shareholders impossible.
Nemčija se ni strinjala z investicijsko družbo Flowers, da nemška zakonodaja ne določa prenosa delnic, zaradi česar povračilo posredne pomoči manjšinskim delničarjem ne bi bilo mogoče.
Germany argued that such transfer was possible under German law, and that even if it were not possible, Germany would not be able to cite a lack of means of enforcement to justify the non-implementation of a Commission recovery decision.
Nemčija je trdila, da je tak prenos na podlagi nemške zakonodaje mogoč, pa tudi če ne bi bil, Nemčija pomanjkanja izvršilnih sredstev ne bi mogla navesti kot razlog za neizvršitev sklepa Komisije o vračilu.
According to Article 107(1) TFEU, ‘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 internal market’.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU 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 z notranjim trgom, če vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami“.
The classification of a measure as state aid requires that the following conditions be met: (a) it must be financed by a Member State or through state resources; (b) it must grant an advantage liable to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods; (c) that advantage must be selective; and (d) the measure must distort or threaten to distort competition and have the potential to affect trade between Member States.
Za opredelitev ukrepa kot državne pomoči morajo biti izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji: a) financirana mora biti s strani države ali iz državnih sredstev; b) dodeliti mora prednost, ki bi lahko bila v korist določenih podjetij ali proizvodnje določenega blaga; c) ta prednost mora biti selektivna in d) pomoč mora izkrivljati konkurenco ali groziti, da jo bo izkrivljala, in lahko vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Those conditions being cumulative, they must all be present before a measure is characterised as state aid.
Ti pogoji so kumulativni, zato morajo biti prisotni vsi, da se ukrep lahko opredeli kot državna pomoč.
The Commission maintains its view that the conditions are met.
Komisija vztraja pri svojem stališču, da so pogoji izpolnjeni.
First, the measures were granted by HSH Finanzfonds AöR.
Prvič, ukrepe je odobrila javnopravna ustanova HSH Finanzfonds AöR.
This is an institution governed by German public law that was established by the public-sector owners and is owned and controlled by them in equal shares.
Ustanova, ki sta jo ustanovila lastnika v javnem sektorju, je subjekt nemškega javnega prava; je v njuni lasti, obvladujeta pa jo v enakih deležih.
It was created on the basis of the State Agreement between theLänder of Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein [42] signed on 3 April 2009 in Kiel and on 5 April 2009 in Hamburg.
Ustanovljena je bila z deželnim sporazumom med zveznima deželama Hamburg in Schleswig-Holstein [42], ki je bil podpisan 3. aprila 2009 v Kielu in 5. aprila 2009 v Hamburgu.
The object of HSH Finanzfonds AöR is the support of HSH on behalf of the public-sector owners.
Namen javnopravne ustanove HSH Finanzfonds AöR je podpora banke HSH v imenu lastnikov v javnem sektorju.
In order to fulfil its task, HSH Finanzfonds AöR is empowered to issue guarantees of up to EUR 10 billion, to acquire the shares of HSH and to obtain loans for such acquisitions.
Da bi izpolnila svojo nalogo, je javnopravna ustanova HSH Finanzfonds AöR pooblaščena za izdajo jamstev v višini do 10 milijard EUR za nakup delnic banke HSH in pridobivanje posojil za take nakupe.
According to paragraph 3 of the State Agreement, the public-sector owners are responsible for the liabilities of HSH Finanzfonds AöR.
V skladu z odstavkom 3 deželnega sporazuma so lastniki v javnem sektorju odgovorni za obveznosti javnopravne ustanove HSH Finanzfonds AöR.
The measures are thus clearly financed by the State.
Ukrepi so zato očitno financirani s strani države.
Second, the risk shield and the recapitalisation were put in place to avoid insolvency on the part of HSH [43] and consequently helped it to remain in business.
Drugič, da bi se izognili insolventnosti banke HSH [43] in ji posledično pomagali, da nadaljuje s poslovanjem, sta bili vzpostavljeni zaščita pred tveganjem in dokapitalizacija.
Therefore, they constitute economic advantages within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Zato ukrepi pomenijo gospodarsko prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Third, the measures are individually targeted at HSH, so they are selective.
Tretjič, ukrepi so izrecno namenjeni banki HSH in so zato selektivni.
Lastly, to qualify as aid, the measures in question must distort or threaten to distort competition and have the potential to affect trade between Member States.
Ne nazadnje, da bi zadevni ukrepi pomenili državno pomoč, morajo izkrivljati konkurenco ali groziti, da jo bodo izkrivljali, in lahko vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami.
Those effects can be assessed on the basis of the aid amount, the features of the aid measure and the aid beneficiary [44].
Te učinke se lahko oceni na podlagi zneska pomoči, značilnosti ukrepa pomoči in prejemnika pomoči [44].
The aid measures allowed HSH to avoid insolvency and remain active in a number of markets.
Zaradi ukrepov pomoči se je banka HSH izognila insolventnosti in ostala dejavna na številnih trgih.
HSH is an internationally active bank, competing with other banks in Germany and other countries.
Banka HSH je mednarodno dejavna banka, ki konkurira drugim bankam v Nemčiji in drugih državah.
Furthermore, HSH is a bank of systemic importance for the banking system in Germany [45] and a major competitor in ship and aviation financing (HSH is the world’s largest provider of ship finance and has a significant market share in aviation financing).
Poleg tega je banka HSH sistemsko pomembna za nemški bančni sistem [45] in velik konkurent na področju financiranja ladij in letalstva (banka HSH je največji vir financiranja ladij na svetu in ima velik tržni delež na področju financiranja letalstva).
Finally it has received a relatively high amount of aid (see below): in particular, the risk shield covers around 75 % of its balance sheet.
Prejela je sorazmerno visok znesek pomoči (glej v nadaljevanju): natančneje, zaščita pred tveganjem krije približno 75 % njene bilance stanja.
Taking into account the effect of the measure, the position of HSH in the banking sector and in shipping financing in particular, and the aid amount, the advantage granted to HSH was liable to affect trade between Member States.
Ob upoštevanju učinka ukrepa, položaja banke HSH v bančnem sektorju in zlasti na področju financiranja ladijskega prometa ter zneska pomoči bi lahko prednost, dodeljena banki HSH, vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
That assessment is not altered by the comments from Germany and third parties.
Na to oceno niso vplivale pripombe Nemčije in tretjih strani.
The comments by Germany on the aid nature of the measures in favour of HSH are contradictory.
Pripombe Nemčije o naravi pomoči ukrepov v korist banke HSH so protislovne.
On the one hand, Germany argues that the Commission should assess the risk shield under the Guarantees Notice instead of the Impaired Assets Communication, which seems to assume that the risk shield constitutes state aid.
Po eni strani Nemčija trdi, da bi morala Komisija zaščito pred tveganjem oceniti na podlagi obvestila o poroštvih namesto sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih, ki očitno predvideva, da zaščita pred tveganjem pomeni državno pomoč.
On the other hand, as summarised in section 6.3 of this Decision, Germany argues that, in the light of the unlimited state guarantee (Gewährträgerhaftung) covering estimated claims of at least EUR 30 billion, a private investor in the position of the public-sector owners would also have taken the measures in question to rescue HSH in order to avoid higher losses.
Po drugi strani, kot je povzeto v oddelku 6.3 tega sklepa, pa Nemčija trdi, da bi zaradi neomejenega državnega jamstva (jamstva Gewährträgerhaftung), ki je po ocenah krilo zahtevke v višini vsaj 30 milijard EUR, zasebni vlagatelj v položaju lastnikov v javnem sektorju prav tako sprejel zadevne ukrepe za reševanje banke HSH in se tako izognil večjim izgubam.
Germany contends on that basis that the private investor test is fulfilled, and that the measures in question are therefore not state aid.
Nemčija trdi, da je na podlagi tega načelo zasebnega vlagatelja izpolnjeno in da zadevni ukrepi zato ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
Germany has misinterpreted the case-law cited by it.
Nemčija si je napačno razlagala sodno prakso, ki jo je navajala.
In the case at hand Germany argues that one state aid measure (an unlimited state guarantee, Gewährträgerhaftung) should be treated as a liquidation cost in order to declare other state aid measures (the recapitalisation and risk shield) to be in line with the private investor principle.
Trdi namreč, da bi bilo treba v zadevnem primeru en ukrep pomoči (neomejeno državno jamstvo, Gewährträgerhaftung) obravnavati kot strošek likvidacije, zaradi česar bi lahko druge ukrepe državne pomoči (dokapitalizacijo in zaščito pred tveganjem) razglasili za skladne z načelom zasebnega vlagatelja.
In Linde the parties concluded, on market terms, a transaction involving a subsidy in order to cancel a supply contract which had previously been concluded, and which was also on market terms, because the performance of that supply contract had subsequently given rise to significant annual losses.
V zadevi Linde so stranke pod tržnimi pogoji sklenile transakcijo, v kateri je sodelovala podružnica, da bi prekinile predhodno sklenjeno dobavno pogodbo, ki je bila prav tako sklenjena pod tržnimi pogoji, ker so zaradi te dobavne pogodbe nastale precejšnje letne izgube.
The General Court stated that ‘[t]he comprehensive arrangement represents a normal commercial transaction in the course of which the [Treuhandanstalt] and LWG behaved as rational operators in a market economy. It is evident that they were motivated primarily by commercial considerations and did not have regard to any economic or social policy objectives’ [46].
Splošno sodišče je navedlo, da „[t]a obsežni dogovor predstavlja običajni trgovinski posel, v katerem sta se [Treuhandanstalt] in LWG obnašala kot razumna udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu. Očitno je, da so ju spodbujali predvsem poslovni vidiki in da nista upoštevala nobenih ciljev gospodarske ali socialne politike“ [46].
That situation is not comparable with the case in hand, as in Linde both transactions were concluded on market terms, while here neither of the transactions was concluded on market terms.
Ti dve zadevi pa nista primerljivi, saj sta bili v zadevi Linde obe transakciji sklenjeni pod tržnimi pogoji, medtem ko v zadevnem primeru nobena od transakcij ni bila sklenjena pod tržnimi pogoji.
Gewährträgerhaftung is defined as a direct liability, based on statute or by-laws, on the part of a regional authority or an association under public law with respect to the creditors of a public-law credit institution for all of its obligations.
Jamstvo Gewährträgerhaftung je na podlagi statuta ali predpisov opredeljeno kot neposredna odgovornost regionalnega organa ali javnopravnega združenja do upnikov javnopravne kreditne ustanove za vse njene obveznosti.
Gewährträgerhaftung therefore obliges the guarantor (‘Gewährträger’) to intervene in the case of insolvency or liquidation of the credit institution.
Jamstvo Gewährträgerhaftung tako garanta („Gewährträger“) zavezuje, da posreduje v primeru insolventnosti ali likvidacije kreditne ustanove.
It creates direct claims by the creditors of the credit institution against the guarantor, which can, however, only be called in if the assets of the credit institution are not sufficient to satisfy the creditors.
Ustvarja neposredne zahtevke upnikov kreditne ustanove do garanta, ki pa ga je k posredovanju mogoče pozvati samo, če sredstva kreditne ustanove ne zadoščajo za poplačilo upnikom.
Gewährträgerhaftung is unlimited in time and in amount.
Jamstvo Gewährträgerhaftung je časovno neomejeno, neomejen pa je tudi njegov znesek.
In addition, the credit institution pays no remuneration for the guarantee [47].
Poleg tega kreditna ustanova za jamstvo ne plačuje nobenega nadomestila [47].
In summary, Gewährträgerhaftung constitutes an unremunerated unlimited subsidiary liability of a public corporate body (municipality or Land) for creditor claims against a public institution (public bank) where that institution is insolvent.
Na kratko, jamstvo Gewährträgerhaftung pomeni neizplačljivo neomejeno podrejeno odgovornost pravnega subjekta javnega prava (občine ali zvezne dežele) za zahtevke upnikov do javne ustanove (javne banke), če je ta ustanova insolventna.
A private investor in the situation of the public-sector owners would not have granted a bank an unlimited unremunerated guarantee covering the entire balance sheet of that bank as the public-sector owners did with Gewährträgerhaftung.
Zasebni vlagatelj v položaju lastnikov v javnem sektorju banki ne bi odobril neomejenega neizplačljivega jamstva, ki krije celotno bilanco stanja te banke, kot sta to z jamstvom Gewährträgerhaftung storila lastnika v javnem sektorju.
The Commission has in fact considered Gewährträgerhaftung to be state aid.
Komisija je jamstvo Gewährträgerhaftung dejansko štela za državno pomoč.
It has called for the abolition of Gewährträgerhaftung by Germany.
Nemčijo je pozvala, naj jamstvo Gewährträgerhaftung odpravi.
Gewährträgerhaftung is anchored in public law.
Jamstvo Gewährträgerhaftung je del javnega prava.
The public-sector owners are liable under that guarantee as public bodies and not as private owners.
Lastnika v javnem sektorju sta na podlagi tega jamstva odgovorna kot javna organa in ne kot zasebna lastnika.
In line with the Commission’s decision-making practice [48] and the case law [49], liquidation costs cover only liabilities that could have been paid by a private investor.
V skladu s prakso odločanja Komisije [48] in sodno prakso [49] stroški likvidacije krijejo samo obveznosti, ki bi jih plačal zasebni vlagatelj.
As mentioned in recital 149, a private investor would not have granted a bank unlimited unremunerated guarantees covering its entire balance sheet.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (149), zasebni vlagatelj banki ne bi odobril neomejenega neizplačljivega jamstva, ki krije njeno celotno bilanco stanja.
Therefore, the Linde judgment is of limited relevance for the assessment of the current case as the liabilities under Gewährträgerhaftung cannot be counted as liquidation costs.
Zato sodba v zadevi Linde za oceno te zadeve ni tako zelo pomembna, saj obveznosti na podlagi jamstva Gewährträgerhaftung ni mogoče šteti za stroške likvidacije.
Quantification of the aid amount
Količinska opredelitev zneska pomoči
The aid element of the recapitalisation should be the nominal value of that recapitalisation, as no private investor would have provided such funds to a firm in difficulty.
Element pomoči dokapitalizacije bi moral biti nominalna vrednost dokapitalizacije, saj takih sredstev podjetju v težavah ne bi zagotovil noben zasebni vlagatelj.