natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
After all, although some entities were sold in good time, two of the largest entities to be sold, Crediop and Sabadell, remain subsidiaries of Dexia even though the time-limit set for their sale has expired, and they do not appear likely to be sold in the immediate future.
Čeprav je bilo nekaj subjektov pravočasno prodanih, dva izmed največjih subjektov, ki bi ju bilo treba prodati, tj. družbi Crediop in Sabadell, kljub temu še vedno ostajata odvisni družbi te skupine, četudi sta roka za njuno prodajo potekla in v bližnji prihodnosti verjetno ne bosta prodani.
The deleveraging target for 2010 was ‘met’ on 31 March 2011 rather than by 31 December 2010, as the Member States concerned had committed to.
Cilj zmanjšanja finančnega vzvoda za leto 2010 ni bil „izpolnjen“ do 31. decembra 2010, kakor so se zavezale zadevne države članice, ampak 31. marca 2011.
Point 18d of the commitments requires the Member States concerned, where annual targets are not met, to submit to the Commission measures to enable the targets to be met by 30 June of the following year.
Točka 18d zavez vsebuje zahtevo, da morajo zadevne države članice, kadar letni cilji niso izpolnjeni, Komisiji predložiti ukrepe, na podlagi katerih se bodo lahko cilji izpolnili do 30. junija prihodnje leto.
If Dexia met its annual deleveraging target at the end of 2011, it was because the balance sheet no longer included the assets and liabilities of DBB/Belfius, which was sold in October 2011, whereas the target was set on the assumption that this major subsidiary of the Group would still belong to Dexia.
V bilanco stanja skupine Dexia niso bila več vključena sredstva in obveznosti banke DBB/Belfius, ki je bila prodana oktobra 2011, zato je ob koncu leta 2011 izpolnila letni cilj zmanjšanja finančnega vzvoda, čeprav je določeni cilj izhajal iz predpostavke, da bo ta glavna odvisna družba skupine Dexia še vedno v lasti te skupine.
While noting that the target for 2011 was officially met, the Commission considers that the deleveraging achieved at the end of 2011 by a Dexia Group without DBB/Belfius was well below the rate required by the conditional authorisation decision for a Dexia Group with DBB/Belfius.
Komisija navaja, da je bil cilj za leto 2011 uradno izpolnjen, obenem pa meni, da je bilo zmanjšanje finančnega vzvoda, ki ga je skupina Dexia brez banke DBB/Belfius dosegla ob koncu leta 2011 precej nižje od stopnje, ki se zahteva v sklepu o pogojnem dovoljenju za skupino Dexia z banko DBB/Belfius.
Lastly, in reply to the comments of the Member States concerned, the Commission notes that although the sovereign debt crisis may indeed be seen as having hampered the implementation of the conditional authorisation decision, the sovereign debt crisis may not, however, be relied on as a reason for failing to comply with certain commitments such as the minimum RAROC.
Komisija v odgovor na pripombe zadevnih držav članic še navaja, da se na dolžniško krizo ni mogoče sklicevati kot na razlog za neizpolnitev določenih zavez, kot na primer najnižje stopnje tveganju prilagojene donosnosti kapitala, čeprav se lahko dejansko šteje, da je ta kriza ovirala izvajanje sklepa o pogojnem dovoljenju.
For the reasons set out above, the doubts expressed by the Commission in its temporary approval decision [88] and in its decision to extend the procedure [89] have not been allayed by the comments from the Member States concerned claiming that the commitments and conditions set out in the conditional authorisation decision have been complied with [90].
Dvomov, ki jih je Komisija izrazila v sklepu o začasni odobritvi [88] in sklepu o razširitvi postopka [89] zaradi navedenih razlogov niso odpravile pripombe zadevnih držav članic, ki so trdile, da so zaveze in pogoji iz sklepa o pogojnem dovoljenju izpolnjeni [90].
The Commission therefore concludes that the conditions and commitments in the conditional authorisation decision have not been complied with, and that the Member States concerned have misused, within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU, the aid which was the subject of the conditional authorisation decision.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da pogoji in zaveze iz sklepa o pogojnem dovoljenju niso izpolnjeni ter da so zadevne države članice v smislu člena 108(2) PDEU napačno uporabile pomoč, ki se je obravnavala v sklepu o pogojnem dovoljenju.
Presence of additional aid to Dexia in the form of Arcofin’s participation in Dexia’s recapitalisation
Prisotnost dodatne pomoči za skupino Dexia v obliki udeležbe družbe Arcofin pri dokapitalizaciji skupine
When the Commission examined Dexia’s recapitalisation in the context of its conditional authorisation decision, it concluded that the measure fulfilled all the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU, except as regards the participation of Arcofin, Ethias and CNP Assurances in the capital increase.
Komisija je ob proučevanju dokapitalizacije skupine Dexia v okviru svojega sklepa o pogojnem dovoljenju ugotovila, da ukrep izpolnjuje vse pogoje iz člena 107(1) PDEU, razen kar zadeva udeležbo družb Arcofin, Ethias in CNP Assurances pri dokapitalizaciji.
It concluded in recital 130 of that decision that the participation of these companies in Dexia’s recapitalisation did not satisfy the condition that it should be financed through State resources.
V uvodni izjavi 130 tega sklepa je ugotovila, da se s sodelovanjem teh družb pri dokapitalizaciji skupine Dexia ni izpolnil pogoj, po katerem bi se morala ta skupina financirati z državnimi sredstvi.
As described in recital 31 of the decision to extend the procedure, on 3 April 2012 the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in case SA.33927 [91] ‘guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives’, considering, on a preliminary view, that the guarantee scheme might constitute aid incompatible with the internal market for financial cooperatives whose individual members were covered by the scheme, and therefore in particular for Arcofin.
Komisija je 3. aprila 2012 začela formalni postopek preiskave ukrepa SA.33927 [91] z naslovom „Jamstvena shema, ki ščiti deleže posameznih članov finančnih zadrug“, kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 31 sklepa o razširitvi postopka, pri čemer je v predhodni oceni upoštevala, da bi lahko jamstvena shema pomenila pomoč, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, za finančne zadruge, katerih posamezne člane obsega ta shema, torej zlasti za družbo Arcofin.
Among other things, according to the decision of 3 April 2012, the guarantee scheme might have helped cooperatives to obtain more capital or, at least, to preserve their existing capital by persuading their existing individual members not to leave their cooperative.
Glede na sklep z dne 3. aprila 2012 je jamstvena shema zadrugam med drugim morda pomagala pridobiti več kapitala ali vsaj ohraniti obstoječ kapital s prepričevanjem tedanjih posameznih članov o tem, naj ne zapustijo svoje zadruge.
This was particularly relevant during the period from autumn 2008 to the date when the royal decree was adopted (10 October 2011), when the fragile state of the markets in general and financial institutions in particular would otherwise have encouraged investors to leave cooperatives [92].
To je bilo zlasti pomembno v obdobju od jeseni leta 2008 do datuma sprejetja kraljevega odloka (10. oktobra 2011), ko bi lahko nestabilne razmere na trgih na splošno in še zlasti v finančnih institucijah vlagatelje spodbudile k zapuščanju zadrug [92].
As stated in the decision of 3 April 2012 and in the decision to extend the procedure, the Commission pointed out that:
Kot je navedeno v sklepu z dne 3. aprila 2012 in v sklepu o razširitvi postopka, je Komisija opozorila na to, da:
on 10 October 2008, the Belgian Government issued a press release announcing its decision to extend the protection provided by the deposits and financial instrument protection fund, which covers the assets of customers of the banking institutions [93].
je belgijska vlada 10. oktobra 2008 v sporočilu za javnost objavila svojo odločitev o razširitvi zaščite, ki jo zagotavlja sklad za zaščito vlog in finančnih instrumentov, ki obsega sredstva strank v bančnih institucijah [93].
This guarantee was to be extended to other financial sector institutions, ‘in particular insurance companies [‘branch 21’ life insurance] or recognised cooperatives … upon request’ [94].
To jamstvo naj bi se „na zahtevo“ razširilo tudi na druge finančne sektorje, „zlasti zavarovalnice“ [življenjsko zavarovanje, imenovano „branche 21“] ali priznane zadruge […]“ [94].
The press release stated that ‘some organisations have already submitted requests’;
V sporočilu za javnost je navedeno, da „so nekatere organizacije že poslale zahtevke“,
on 15 October 2008, the Belgian Federal Parliament adopted a law to promote financial stability, under which the State may introduce by decree ‘a system for granting a State guarantee for commitments given by the institutions under supervision’, i.e. insurance companies, credit institutions, investment firms and stockbrokers;
je belgijski zvezni parlament 15. oktobra 2008 sprejel zakon za spodbujanje finančne stabilnosti, po katerem lahko država z odlokom uvede „sistem za dodelitev državnega jamstva za zaveze, ki jih sprejmejo institucije, ki so pod nadzorom,“, tj. zavarovalnice, kreditne institucije, investicijska podjetja in borzne hiše,
on 14 November 2008, a royal decree implemented the Law of 15 October 2008 by extending the State guarantee to holders of ‘branch 21’ life insurance products.
se je s kraljevim odlokom z dne 14. novembra 2008 izvajal Zakon z dne 15. oktobra 2008, tako da so se v državno jamstvo vključili še imetniki produktov življenjskega zavarovanja, imenovanega „branche 21“.
A new ‘special’ fund to protect deposits and life insurance was set up in the Belgian Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations.
V belgijski hranilnici in posojilnici Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations je bil vzpostavljen nov „poseben“ sklad za zaščito vlog in življenjskega zavarovanja.
on 21 January 2009, the Belgian Government issued a press release confirming its commitment to offer a guarantee scheme ‘to [individual] members of existing recognised cooperatives at least half of whose assets are invested in one or more companies active in the financial sector or which are authorised to operate as credit institutions’.
je belgijska vlada 21. januarja 2009 objavila sporočilo za javnost, v katerem je potrdila svojo zavezo, da ponuja jamstveno shemo „[posameznim] članom obstoječih priznanih zadrug, ki imajo vsaj polovico teh sredstev vloženih v eno ali več družb, dejavnih v finančnem sektorju, ali ki so pooblaščene, da delujejo kot kreditne institucije“.
On the same date the Arco Group informed its members of this confirmation by the Government [96];
Istega dne je tudi skupina Arco svoje člane obvestila, da je prejela potrdilo vlade [96],
on 14 April 2009 [97], a royal decree instructed the Minister of Finance to draft a law introducing a system for granting a State guarantee for the repayment to individual members of their share of the capital of recognised cooperatives;on 9 September 2011, the Belgian Federal Government confirmed that a draft regulation on the State guarantee for individual members of recognised cooperatives had been finalised [98];
je minister za finance s kraljevim odlokom z dne 14. aprila 2009 [97] prejel navodilo, naj pripravi osnutek zakona o uvedbi sistema za dodelitev državnega jamstva pri izplačilu deleža kapitala iz priznanih zadrug posameznim članom,je belgijska zvezna vlada 9. septembra 2011 potrdila, da je bil dokončan osnutek uredbe o državnem jamstvu za posamezne člane priznanih zadrug [98],
the royal decree of 10 October 2011 extended the guarantee introduced by the royal decree of 14 November 2008 to cover recognised cooperatives, so that the special fund also protected their capital.
je bilo s kraljevim odlokom z dne 10. oktobra 2011 jamstvo, uvedeno s kraljevim odlokom z dne 14. novembra 2008, razširjeno, da so bile vanj vključene priznane zadruge, tako da se je s posebnim skladom zaščitil tudi njihov kapital.
It stated that the protection offered by the special fund protecting deposits, life insurance and the capital of recognised cooperatives was effective from receipt of payment of the annual contribution and the entrance fee by the insurance company or cooperative applying to participate in the fund;
V njem je bilo navedeno, da je zaščita, ki jo nudi posebni sklad, s katerim se zaščitijo vloge, življenjsko zavarovanje in kapital priznanih zadrug, začela veljati od prejema letnega prispevka in pristopne takse, ki ga je plačala zavarovalnica ali zadruga pri prijavi v sklad,
by a royal decree of 7 November 2011, Belgium announced that, pursuant to the royal decree of 14 November 2008, the application for capital protection from the recognised cooperatives ARCOPAR SCRL, ARCOFIN SCRL and ARCOPLUS SCRL had been approved.
je Belgija s kraljevim odlokom z dne 7. novembra 2011 oznanila, da je bila glede na kraljevi odlok z dne 14. novembra 2008 odobrena vloga za kapitalsko zaščito iz priznanih zadrug ARCOPAR SCRL, ARCOFIN SCRL in ARCOPLUS SCRL.
That approval had been granted ‘Having regard to the fact that … there is justification … for granting [to shares in recognised cooperatives] a guarantee scheme equivalent to the one that exists for substitute savings products, in other words bank deposits and ‘branch 21’ insurance for extending deposit protection to the capital of recognised cooperatives, in the near future, in accordance with the earlier announcement on the subject’.
Ta odobritev je bila dodeljena: „Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da … se lahko utemelji … odobritev jamstvene sheme [za delnice v priznanih zadrugah], ki je ustrezna tistim, ki obstajajo za nadomestne varčevalne produkte, z drugimi besedami za bančne vloge in življenjsko zavarovanje, imenovano „branche 21“, [ter] razširitev zaščite jamstva na kapital priznanih zadrug v bližnji prihodnosti v skladu s prejšnjo objavo na to temo“.
As far as the Commission is aware, the Arco Group — or more accurately its three subsidiaries Arcofin, Arcopar and Arcoplus — was the first recognised financial cooperative to have applied for the scheme for its individual members and remains, to date, the only financial cooperative covered by the guarantee scheme.
Kolikor je Komisija seznanjena, je bila skupina Arco, ali natančneje njene tri odvisne družbe Arcofin, Arcopar in Arcoplus, prva priznana finančna zadruga, ki je zaprosila za shemo za njene posamezne člane, in do danes ostaja edina finančna zadruga, zajeta v jamstveno shemo.
According to the report by the Special Commission of the Belgian House of Representatives tasked with examining the circumstances which led to the break-up of Dexia SA, there was no particular financial interest for Arcofin in participating in the recapitalisation of Dexia, and the operation was carried out under pressure from the authorities:
Glede na poročilo posebne komisije belgijskega predstavniškega doma, ki mora proučiti okoliščine, zaradi katerih je prišlo do razdelitve družbe Dexia SA, družba Arcofin ni imela posebnega finančnega interesa za udeležbo pri dokapitalizaciji skupine Dexia, transakcija je bila torej opravljena pod pritiskom organov oblasti:
‘The events occurred in a context where the private shareholders in question were already in a weak position.
„Dogajanje je potekalo v okviru, v katerem so bili zadevni zasebni delničarji že v šibkem položaju.
Holding Communal and the Arco Group relied on income from the portfolio which they held in Dexia, and their own resources were extremely limited.
[…] Družba Holding Communal in skupina Arco sta se zanašali na prihodek iz portfelja, ki sta ga imeli v družbi Dexia, njuna lastna sredstva pa so bila izjemno omejena.
On 30 September 2008, Arcofin (Arco Group) and Holding Communal subscribed to a capital increase of EUR 350 million and EUR 500 million respectively in order to rescue Dexia SA.
Družbi Arcofin (skupina Arco) in Holding Communal sta 30. septembra 2008 soglašali z dokapitalizacijo v višini 350 milijonov EUR oziroma 500 milijonov EUR za rešitev družbe Dexia SA.
Although these shareholders did not themselves have the resources necessary to participate in this capital increase, first of all, they obviously wanted to avoid an excessive dilution of their shareholding, and second, it appears that they also came under pressure from the authorities to go ahead with the subscription.
Čeprav ti dve delničarki sami nista imeli potrebnih sredstev za udeležbo pri tej dokapitalizaciji, sta se očitno hoteli izogniti pretiranemu zmanjšanju svojega poslovnega deleža, zdi se, da sta z vpisom tudi soglašali pod pritiskom organov oblasti.
In order to understand the situation facing Arco and Holding Communal, we need to look at the 2008 recapitalisation operation, which was where their shared problem really started.
Da bi razumeli razmere, v katerih sta se znašli skupina Arco in družba Holding Communal, si moramo pogledati ukrep dokapitalizacije iz leta 2008, ko so se njune skupne težave pravzaprav začele.
At that time Arco was actively diversifying its portfolio, following a diagnosis that its main position was too heavily concentrated in Dexia.
Tedaj je skupina Arco po ugotovitvi, da je njen glavni položaj premočno usmerjen na skupino Dexia, dejavno širila svoj portfelj. […]
There was no economic interest in further concentrating its portfolio, beyond considerations relating purely to funding, which was also causing problems — see the section analysing this.
Ni imela nobenega gospodarskega interesa, da bi še naprej združevala svoj portfelj, razen pomislekov, ki se nanašajo izključno na financiranje, kar je prav tako povzročalo težave – glej oddelek, v katerem je to analizirano.
However, when the emergency recapitalisation was to be decided in October 2008, these two shareholders decided to do whatever was needed to avoid diluting their holding too much.
Toda ti dve delničarki sta se, ko je bila oktobra 2008 sprejeta odločitev o izredni dokapitalizaciji, odločili, da storita vse potrebno, da bi preprečili preveliko zmanjševanje svojih deležev.
The result of this decision … was that their portfolio of holdings was much more concentrated, with a major focus on the Dexia Group, which de facto became their biggest problem.
Rezultat te odločitve […] je bil, da je bil njun portfelj deležev mnogo bolj koncentriran, pri čemer je bil prednostno osredotočen na skupino Dexia, kar je dejansko postalo njuna največja težava.
This capital increase, which was financially beneficial for the Group [Dexia], thus placed these two shareholders in particular in a much weaker position, since they were not financially strong enough to absorb the operation in the systematic risk of their portfolio; for them, the Dexia risk became a specific, non-diversified risk’ [99].
Zlasti ta dva delničarja sta bila s to dokapitalizacijo, od katere je imela finančne koristi skupina [Dexia], tako postavljena v mnogo šibkejši položaj, saj sta bila finančno prešibka, da bi transakcijo absorbirala kot sistemsko tveganje svojih portfeljev, in tako je zanju tveganje skupine Dexia postalo posebno, nediverzificirano tveganje“ [99].
According to the Belgian press, the Minister of Finance in the previous government had stated on 25 January 2012, at a hearing before the Special Commission of the Belgian House of Representatives tasked with examining the circumstances which led to the break-up of Dexia SA, that the State guarantee for the shares of Arcofin’s members was the result of a political compromise dating back to 2008 and the first Dexia rescue plan:
Minister za finance v prejšnji vladi je po navedbah belgijskega tiska 25. januarja 2012 na zaslišanju pred posebno komisijo belgijskega predstavniškega doma, ki mora proučiti okoliščine, zaradi katerih je prišlo do razdelitve družbe Dexia SA, izjavil, da je bilo državno jamstvo za delnice članov skupine Arcofin posledica političnega kompromisa, ki sega v leto 2008, in prvega načrta za reševanje skupine Dexia:
‘He [the Belgian Finance Minister] also confided [on Wednesday, 25 January 2012, during his hearing before the Parliamentary Commission on the break-up of Dexia] that he had not been entirely sure about the Arco guarantees, particularly because he rather feared that Europe would not agree to them.
„On [belgijski minister za finance] je[v sredo, 25. januarja 2012, na zaslišanju pred posebno komisijo belgijskega predstavniškega doma o razdelitvi skupine Dexia] priznal, da ni bil popolnoma prepričan o jamstvih skupine Arco, saj se je bal, da se Evropa z njimi ne bo strinjala.
The fact that the guarantees were still set up was the result, according to the Deputy Prime Minister [the Belgian Finance Minister], of a political compromise dating from 2008 and the first Dexia rescue plan.
Po mnenju namestnika ministrskega predsednika [tj. belgijski minister za finance] je dejstvo, da so bila jamstva še vedno vzpostavljena, rezultat političnega kompromisa, ki izhaja iz leta 2008, in prvega načrta za reševanje skupine Dexia.
This is the first time that anyone involved has admitted that such a compromise existed, even though it was by no means a secret.
To je bilo prvič, da je nekdo od sodelujočih priznal obstoj takega kompromisa, čeprav seveda ni bil skrivnost.
According to [the Minister], the question of protection … for Arco’s members had already been raised in late September 2008 at the Egmont Palace, on the night of the first Dexia rescue.
[Minister] je navedel, da se je vprašanje zaščite […] za člane skupine Arco pojavilo že konec septembra 2008 v palači Egmont, in sicer v noči prvega reševanja skupine Dexia.“
‘… Regarding Arco, the question had come from the inner Cabinet (‘Kernkabinet’] itself’, declared the [Finance Minister], who did not give any further details.
„[…] Glede skupine Arco je vprašanje zastavila sama vlada [‚Kernkabinet‘], je izjavil [minister za finance], ki tega ni dodatno pojasnil.
[The Minister] said that the political compromise had been necessary at that point to be able to save Dexia.
[Minister] je izjavil, da je bil politični kompromis na tisti točki potreben, da bi bilo skupino Dexia mogoče rešiti.
‘Before the Dexia Commission [the Belgian Finance Minister] also confided that he had not initially been in favour of this guarantee, which was the result of a political compromise reached in 2008, the former Finance Minister confirmed. He recalled that around the time of the first Dexia rescue in September 2008, the idea had been to extend the guarantee for savers to branch 21 products, …, and to Arco members. ‘… On Arco, the question was raised in the inner Cabinet itself’ ’ [101].
„Pred posebno komisijo belgijskega predstavniškega doma je [belgijski minister za finance] tudi priznal, da sprva ni bil naklonjen temu jamstvu, ki je bilo posledica političnega kompromisa, doseženega leta 2008, kar je potrdil nekdanji minister za finance. Spomnil se je, da je v času prvega reševanja skupine Dexia septembra 2008 obstajala zamisel o razširitvi jamstva na varčevalce produktov, imenovanih ‚branche 21‘, […], in na člane skupine Arco. […] Glede skupine Arco se je vprašanje pojavilo v sami vladi“ [101].
According to a statement by an MP during the debate on the report by the Special Commission of the Belgian House of Representatives tasked with examining the circumstances which led to the break-up of Dexia SA, the State had given Arco Group members access to the guarantee scheme in return for Arcofin’s participation, under government pressure, in Dexia’s capital increase:
Med razpravo o poročilu posebne komisije belgijskega predstavniškega doma, ki mora proučiti okoliščine, zaradi katerih je prišlo do razdelitve družbe Dexia SA, je poslanec izjavil, da je država dala članom skupine Arco dostop do jamstvene sheme v zameno za udeležbo družbe Arcofin pri dokapitalizaciji skupine Dexia, pri čemer je uporabila pritisk vlade.
‘In 2008, the ARCO Group and Holding Communal participated in the Group’s capital increase for a huge amount that would be impossible to raise.
„Skupina ARCO in družba Holding Communal sta bili leta 2008 udeleženi pri dokapitalizaciji skupine Dexia za ogromen znesek, ki ga ne bi bilo mogoče zbrati.