natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For this loan [the loan granted by DBB to ARCO and Holding Communal to enable them to participate in the capital increase], they could only apply to Banque Dexia Belgique, so it was actually circular financing.
Za to posojilo [posojilo, ki ga je skupini ARCO in družbi Holding Communal odobrila DBB, da jima je omogočila udeležbo pri dokapitalizaciji] sta lahko zaprosili le banko Banque Dexia Belgique, tako je šlo dejansko za krožno financiranje.
The capital increase was designed to safeguard dividends and was carried out under government pressure.
Dokapitalizacija je bila namenjena zaščiti dividend in je bila izvedena pod pritiskom vlade.
In return, ARCO was given access to the guarantee fund, with savers having to be paid compensation for management errors.
V zameno je skupina ARCO dobila dostop do jamstvenega sklada, varčevalcem pa je bilo treba izplačati nadomestilo zaradi napak upravljanja.
In order to join, ARCO only had to pay if this was necessary.
Skupina ARCO je morala za priključitev plačati le, če je bilo to potrebno.
So once again the government explicitly rewarded ARCO by handing it EUR 1,5 billion on a plate’ [102].
Tako je vlada še enkrat jasno nagradila skupino ARCO, tako da ji je preprosto izročila 1,5 milijarde EUR“ [102].
For the reasons set out in recitals 397-400, the doubts expressed by the Commission in the decision to extend the procedure have not been allayed by the comments received from the Member States concerned.
Zaradi razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah 397 do 400, pripombe zadevnih držav članic niso odpravile dvomov, ki jih je izrazila Komisija v sklepu o razširitvi postopka.
The Commission therefore considers that the State guarantee for members of Arcofin was planned by the Belgian authorities in order to persuade Arcofin to participate in Dexia’s recapitalisation.
Komisija zato meni, da so državno jamstvo za člane družbe Arcofin načrtovali belgijski organi, da bi to družbo prepričali glede udeležbe pri dokapitalizaciji skupine Dexia.
In reply to Belgium’s comments (see recital 377), the Commission points out that the announcement and the guarantee came from the Belgian Government.
Komisija v odgovor na pripombe Belgije (glej uvodno izjavo 377) poudarja, da je snovalka objave in jamstva belgijska vlada.
It notes that the guarantee operation did not occur until the point at which, without the guarantee, Arcofin would have faced a major risk that its shareholders would incur losses linked to Arcofin’s participation in the recapitalisation of Dexia.
Navaja, da se je ukrep jamstva pojavil šele tedaj, ko bi se družba Arcofin brez jamstva spoprijemala z večjim tveganjem, da bi njeni delničarji utrpeli izgube, povezane z udeležbo te družbe pri dokapitalizaciji skupine Dexia.
It points to the fact that the announcement of the guarantee plan (on 10 October 2008) was concomitant with the preparations for Dexia’s recapitalisation (which became definitive on 3 October 2008, and was thus prepared before that date), and it considers, in the light of the evidence set out above [103], that Arcofin would not have participated in the recapitalisation of Dexia if it had not been able to count on the guarantee scheme protecting the investment of individual members in cooperatives, disclosure of the plans for which encouraged it to go ahead with the injection of capital.
Opozarja na dejstvo, da je objava načrta o jamstvu (10. oktobra 2008) sovpadala s pripravami na dokapitalizacijo skupine Dexia (ki je postala dokončna 3. oktobra 2008 in je bila torej pripravljena pred tem datumom), in meni, da glede na navedene dokaze [103] družba Arcofin ne bi bila udeležena pri dokapitalizaciji skupine Dexia, če se ne bi mogla zanesti na jamstveno shemo, s katero se zaščitijo naložbe posameznih članov v zadrugah, razkritje načrtov te sheme pa jo je spodbudilo, da je izvedla kapitalsko injekcijo.
The measure is thus imputable to the State.
Ukrep se torej lahko pripiše državi.
The EUR 350 million recapitalisation of Dexia by the Arcofin financial cooperative as part of the first Dexia rescue plan is thus imputable to the State.
Dokapitalizacija skupine Dexia v višini 350 milijonov EUR, ki jih je kot del prvega načrta reševanja skupine Dexia zagotovila družba Arcofin, se lahko torej pripiše državi.
The other conditions required for it to be classified as State aid are met for the reasons already set out in the opening decision of 13 March 2009 [104] and the conditional authorisation decision [105]: the Commission considers that without the guarantee from the Belgian State, Arcofin would not have subscribed to this capital increase, which gave the Dexia Group a major advantage by reducing its risk of insolvency; the capital increase was selective since it involved only one undertaking, the Dexia Group; given Dexia’s size and importance in the Belgian, French and Luxembourg markets, and the fact that, without the measures taken, the Group might have become insolvent, which would have significantly changed the structure of the banking market in those three countries, the Commission considers that the measures in question affect trade between Member States and distort or threaten to distort competition.
Tudi drugi pogoji, da bi bila opredeljena kot državna pomoč, so izpolnjeni zaradi razlogov, navedenih v sklepu o začetku postopka z dne 13. marca 2009 [104] in sklepu o pogojnem dovoljenju [105]: Komisija meni, da brez jamstva Belgije družba Arcofin ne bi soglašala s to dokapitalizacijo, s katero je skupina Dexia dobila večjo prednost, s tem da se je zmanjšalo tveganje njene plačilne nesposobnosti; dokapitalizacija je bila selektivna, saj je vključevala le eno podjetje, tj. skupino Dexia; Komisija ob upoštevanju obsega in pomena te skupine na belgijskem, francoskem in luksemburškem trgu ter dejstva, da bi skupina brez sprejetih ukrepov morda postala plačilno nesposobna, zaradi česar bi se struktura bančnega trga v teh treh državah močno spremenila, meni, da zadevni ukrepi prizadenejo trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljali konkurenco.
The Commission points out that the fact that Arcofin’s participation in the recapitalisation of Dexia was imputable to the State would not be called into question even if it were concluded in case SA.33927 ‘guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives’ that the guarantee scheme does not constitute State aid for Arcofin.
Komisija poudarja, da dejstvo, da se udeležba finančne zadruge Arcofin pri dokapitalizaciji skupine Dexia lahko pripiše državi, ne bi zbujalo dvomov, čeprav bi bilo v državni pomoči SA.33927 „Jamstvena shema, ki ščiti deleže posameznih članov finančnih zadrug“ ugotovljeno, da jamstvena shema ne pomeni pomoči za družbo Arcofin.
Arcofin might not itself have benefited from State aid under the guarantee scheme while still, as the Commission has found in this Decision, taking a measure imputable to the State and constituting aid.
Morda družba Arcofin sama ni bila upravičena do državne pomoči po jamstveni shemi, vendarle pa je, kot je Komisija ugotovila v tem sklepu, sprejela ukrep, ki se lahko pripiše državi in je pomoč.
The Commission was not kept informed by the Belgian authorities, during the procedure which led up to the conditional authorisation decision, of details of the guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives.
Belgijski organi med postopkom, ki je vodil do sklepa o pogojnem dovoljenju, Komisije niso obveščali o podrobnostih jamstvene sheme, ki ščiti deleže posameznih članov finančnih zadrug.
Not having full details of the conditions surrounding Arcofin’s participation in the recapitalisation was decisive in persuading the Commission that there was no aid involved in this investment and that the other aid elements identified in the conditional authorisation decision were compatible.
Komisijo je o tem, da v to naložbo ni bila vključena pomoč in da so drugi elementi pomoči, opredeljeni v sklepu o pogojnem dovoljenju, združljivi, prepričalo dejstvo, da ni poznala vseh podrobnosti glede pogojev udeležbe družbe Arcofin pri dokapitalizaciji.
Dexia actually received a larger amount of aid than that noted by the Commission in the conditional authorisation decision, and the error about the amount of aid which the Commission was led to make may have had a decisive influence on the Commission’s analysis.
Skupina Dexia je dejansko prejela višji znesek od tistega, ki ga je navedla Komisija v sklepu o pogojnem dovoljenju, napaka o znesku pomoči, ki jo je bila prisiljena narediti Komisija, je morda odločilno vplivala na njeno analizo.
The Commission therefore sent letters to the Member States concerned announcing its intention to initiate a procedure with a view to revoking all the sections of the conditional authorisation decision relating to Arcofin’s participation in the recapitalisation of Dexia.
Komisija je zato zadevnim državam članicam poslala dopise, v katerih je navedla, da namerava začeti postopek preiskave, da bi razveljavila vse dele sklepa o pogojnem dovoljenju v zvezi s sodelovanjem družbe Arcofin pri dokapitalizaciji skupine Dexia.
It also warned the Member States concerned that, if it turned out that Arcofin’s participation in the recapitalisation of Dexia was additional aid, if new aid had been granted or might be granted in the restructuring period covered by the conditional authorisation decision, or if certain commitments and conditions arising from that decision were not complied with, it would have to review the compatibility of all the aid dealt with in the conditional decision.
Zadevne države članice je tudi opozorila, da bo morala proučiti združljivost celotne pomoči iz sklepa o pogojnem dovoljenju, če bi se izkazalo, da je udeležba družbe Arcofin pri dokapitalizaciji skupine Dexia dodatna pomoč, ter če je bila nova pomoč dodeljena ali bi lahko bila dodeljena v obdobju prestrukturiranja, zajetem v sklep o pogojnem dovoljenju, ali če določene zaveze in pogoji, ki izhajajo iz tega sklepa, ne bi bili izpolnjeni.
Then, in the decision to extend the procedure, the Commission invited the Member States concerned to submit their comments and supply any relevant information on this point, in order to establish whether the conditional authorisation decision should be revoked.
Komisija je zadevne države članice nato v sklepu o razširitvi postopka pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe ter zagotovijo vse ustrezne informacije o tej točki, da bi ugotovila, ali je treba razveljaviti sklep o pogojnem dovoljenju.
For the reasons set out above, after examining the comments submitted by the Member States concerned, the Commission considers that the conditional authorisation decision should be revoked.
Komisija zaradi navedenih razlogov in po proučitvi pripomb, ki so jih predložile zadevne države članice, meni, da bi bilo treba sklep o pogojnem dovoljenju razveljaviti.
The Commission nevertheless considers that the analysis of the existence of the aid measures already identified in the conditional authorisation decision (see recitals 121-138 of the conditional authorisation decision) remains entirely valid.
Komisija kljub temu meni, da analiza obstoja ukrepov pomoči, že opredeljenih v sklepu o pogojnem dovoljenju (glej uvodne izjave 121 do 138 sklepa o pogojnem dovoljenju), ostaja popolnoma veljavna.
Additional aid paid (after the conditional authorisation decision)
Dodatna izplačana pomoč (po sklepu o pogojnem dovoljenju)
Temporary refinancing guarantees for Dexia SA, DCL and their subsidiaries (initially for EUR 45 billion, increased to EUR 55 billion)
Začasno jamstvo za refinanciranje družbe Dexia SA, banke DCL in njunih odvisnih družb (prvotnih 45 milijard EUR se je povečalo na 55 milijard EUR)
The temporary guarantee from the Member States concerned for the refinancing of Dexia SA and DCL was classified as aid (and approved temporarily) by the temporary approval decision [106], the decision on the first prolongation of the guarantee [107], the decision to increase the guarantee ceiling [108] and the decision on the second prolongation of the guarantee [109] for EUR 45 billion initially, then EUR 55 billion.
Začasno jamstvo zadevnih držav članic za refinanciranje družbe Dexia SA in banke DCL je bilo opredeljeno kot pomoč (in začasno odobreno) s sklepom o začasni odobritvi [106], sklepom o prvem podaljšanju jamstva [107], sklepom o povečanju zgornje meje jamstva [108] ter sklepom o drugem podaljšanju jamstva [109], in je sprva znašalo 45 milijard EUR, nato pa 55 milijard EUR.
In its decisions of 19 April 2008 [110] and 30 October 2009 [111], the Commission had already established that the guarantee mechanism provided by the Member States concerned for the finance raised by Dexia under an agreement of October 2008 constituted State aid.
Komisija je v sklepih z dne 19. aprila 2008 [110] in 30. oktobra 2009 [111] že ugotovila, da je mehanizem jamstva, ki so ga zagotovile zadevne države članice za finančna sredstva, ki jih je zbrala skupina Dexia po sporazumu iz oktobra 2008, pomenil državno pomoč.
The Commission reiterates the reasons already given in the above decisions for classifying the refinancing guarantee for Dexia SA and DCL as State aid.
Komisija ponovno navaja razloge iz navedenih sklepov, zaradi katerih je jamstvo za refinanciranje družbe Dexia SA in banke DCL opredeljeno kot državna pomoč.
The Commission observes that the Member States concerned cited Dexia’s inability to refinance itself on the markets as grounds for the temporary refinancing guarantee.
Komisija opaža, da so zadevne države članice kot razlog za začasno jamstvo za refinanciranje navedle nezmožnost družbe DMA, da se refinancira na trgih.
That being so, the Commission is entitled to consider that the interest charged on the guarantee is not at the market rate, thus conferring an advantage on the beneficiary.
Na podlagi tega Komisija upravičeno meni, da obresti za jamstvo niso zaračunane po tržni meri, s čimer dajejo upravičencu prednost.
The measure is selective in that it relates to only one undertaking, Dexia (Dexia SA and DCL being the legal persons which directly benefit).
Ukrep je selektiven zato, ker se nanaša le na eno družbo – Dexio (družba Dexia SA in banka DCL sta pravni osebi, ki jima je ukrep neposredno koristil).
The temporary refinancing guarantee granted by the Member States concerned clearly involves State resources.
V začasno jamstvo za refinanciranje, ki so ga odobrile zadevne države članice, so jasno vključena državna sredstva.
Given Dexia’s considerable size and the fact that, without the temporary refinancing guarantee, the bank would have risked immediate and disorderly winding-up as a result of the problems it faced with liquidity, asset quality, profitability and solvency, which would have affected the structure of the banking market in a number of Member States, the Commission considers that the measure affects trade between Member States and distorts or threatens to distort competition.
Komisija meni, da ukrep prizadene trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco, pri čemer je upoštevala precejšnji obseg skupine Dexia in dejstvo, da bi banka brez začasnega jamstva za refinanciranje tvegala, da bi bil zaradi težav z likvidnostjo, kakovostjo sredstev, donosnostjo in plačilno sposobnostjo uveden takojšnji in nenadzorovan likvidacijski postopek, ki bi vplival na strukturo bančnega trga v številnih državah članicah.
ELA granted by the Belgian and French central banks to DBB/Belfius and DCL respectively
Izredna likvidnostna pomoč, ki sta jo bankama DBB/Belfius in DCL dodelili centralni banki Belgije in Francije
The Commission considers that the ELA granted since 5 October 2011 is one of a series of new measures to help the Dexia Group and DBB/Belfius after the sale of DBB/Belfius, adopted (or to be adopted) after approval on 26 February 2010 of the first restructuring plan for Dexia, and in the same vein as the temporary refinancing guarantee, the acquisition of DBB/Belfius by the State, the sale of Dexia BIL and the measures provided for in the orderly resolution plan for Dexia.
Izredna likvidnostna pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena od 5. oktobra 2011, je po mnenju Komisije eden v nizu novih ukrepov za pomoč skupini Dexia in banki DBB/Belfius po prodaji te banke, ki je bil sprejet (ali naj bi bil sprejet) po odobritvi prvotnega načrta prestrukturiranja skupine Dexia 26. februarja 2010, prav tako kot začasno jamstvo za refinanciranje, pripojitev banke DBB/Belfius s strani države, prodaja družbe Dexia BIL in ukrepi iz načrta nadzorovanega reševanja skupine Dexia.
In reply to the comments of the Member States concerned about the ELA, the Commission points out that, according to point 51 of the Banking Communication [112], one of the conditions for a finding that funding provided does not constitute aid is that ‘the measure … is not backed by any counter-guarantee of the State’.
Komisija v odgovor na pripombe zadevnih držav članic o izredni likvidnostni pomoči poudarja, da je glede na točko 51 sporočila o bančništvu [112] eden od pogojev za ugotovitev, da zagotovljena finančna sredstva ne pomenijo pomoči, ta, da „ukrepa […] ne podpira nobeno posredno osebno jamstvo države“.
It notes that the State guarantee for the ELA granted to DBB/Belfius came under a Belgian State guarantee for the BNB, in accordance with the Law of 22 February 1998 establishing the Statute of the BNB.
Navaja, da je bilo državno jamstvo za izredno likvidnostno pomoč, dodeljeno banki DBB/Belfius, zagotovljeno v okviru jamstva Belgije za banko BNB, v skladu z Zakonom z dne 22. februarja 1998 o uvedbi statuta banke BNB.
It does not share the Belgian authorities’ opinion that Belgium’s guarantee for the BNB did not come under the Banking Communication [113] because the guarantee was not an ‘anti-crisis’ measure specifically granted for ELAs, but ‘guarantees all [sic] loans issued by the BNB, provided that they are granted as part of the BNB’s contribution to the stability of the financial system, which goes far beyond anti-crisis measures’.
Ne strinja se z mnenjem belgijskih organov, da jamstvo Belgije za banko BNB ni spadalo v sporočilo o bančništvu [113], saj jamstvo ni bil „protikrizni“ ukrep, odobren posebej za izredno likvidnostno pomoč, ampak je „jamčilo za vsa [sic] posojila, ki jih izda banka BNB, če so odobrena kot del prispevka banke BNB k stabilnosti finančnega sistema, ki močno presega protikrizne ukrepe“.
The Commission points out that the requirement that there should be no counter-guarantee of the State, laid down in the Banking Communication as one of the cumulative criteria if funding is not to be classified as aid, is not defined in any further detail.
Komisija poudarja, da ni podrobneje pojasnjena zahteva, da ne sme obstajati posredno jamstvo države, ki je v sporočilu o bančništvu določeno kot eno izmed kumulativnih meril, da se finančna sredstva ne opredelijo kot pomoč.
The Communication does not state anywhere, even by implication, that such a counter-guarantee must have specifically been provided in order to combat the current financial crisis.
V sporočilu o bančništvu ni nikjer niti implicitno navedeno, da bi se moralo tako posredno jamstvo zagotoviti posebej za preprečevanje sedanje finančne krize.
The criteria laid down in point 51 of the Banking Communication merely reproduce the analysis given by the Commission in recitals 32 and 33 of its Northern Rock decision of 5 December 2007 [114], well before any legal framework relating to the financial crisis was introduced.
Z merilom iz točke 51 sporočila o bančništvu se zgolj ponavlja analiza Komisije iz uvodnih izjav 32 in 33 njene odločbe z dne 5. decembra 2007 o banki Northern Rock [114], mnogo preden je bil uveden kakršen koli pravni okvir v zvezi s finančno krizo.
It is therefore enough that the counter-guarantee of the State covers the provision of funds by the central bank, without any need, as the Belgian authorities suggest, for the counter-guarantee to be specifically granted for ELAs.
Zato je dovolj, da posredno jamstvo države obsega finančna sredstva, ki jih zagotovi centralna banka, pri čemer ni nobene potrebe po tem, da bi se moralo posredno jamstvo odobriti posebej za ukrepe izredne likvidnostne pomoči, kot trdijo belgijski organi.
The second paragraph of Article 9 of the Law of 22 February 1998 establishing the Statute of the BNB provides as follows: ‘The State shall guarantee the Bank against any loss and shall guarantee repayment of any loan granted by the Bank as a result of the execution of the agreements referred to in the previous paragraph [‘international monetary cooperation agreements binding on Belgium’] or as a result of its participation in international monetary cooperation agreements or operations to which the Bank, subject to the agreement of the Council of Ministers, is party. The State shall also guarantee the Bank repayment of any loan granted as part of its contribution to the stability of the financial system, and shall guarantee the Bank against any loss incurred as a result of any transaction necessary in that regard’ [115].
V drugem odstavku člena 9 Zakona z dne 22. februarja 1998 o uvedbi statuta banke BNB je določeno: „Država jamči banki za kakršno koli izgubo in za izplačilo kakršnega koli posojila, odobrenega banki kot posledica izvajanja pogodb iz prejšnjega odstavka [‚pogodbe o mednarodnem monetarnem sodelovanju, ki so za Belgijo zavezujoče‘] ali kot posledica njene udeležbe v pogodbah o mednarodnem monetarnem sodelovanju ali transakcijah, katerih pogodbenica je banka, pri čemer se upošteva sporazum Sveta ministrov. Država banki tudi jamči za izplačilo kakršnega koli posojila, odobrenega kot del njenega prispevka k stabilnosti finančnega sistema, in za vsako izgubo, nastalo kot posledica kakršne koli transakcije, ki je v zvezi s tem potrebna“ [115].
In the Commission’s view, it follows that, for the activities referred to in that paragraph, the BNB is guaranteed by the State ‘against any loss’.
Po mnenju Komisije iz tega sledi, da pri dejavnostih iz tega odstavka država jamči banki BNB „za vsako izgubo“.
Furthermore, the Belgian authorities have continually cited the need to avoid destabilising the financial system as justification for the ELAs for Dexia.
Poleg tega so belgijski organi nenehno trdili, da ukrepe izredne likvidnostne pomoči za skupino Dexia utemeljuje potreba po preprečevanju destabilizacije finančnega sistema.
The fact that, in their notification of 21 October 2011 concerning the new ELA measure, the Belgian authorities felt the need to mention the presence of a State counter-guarantee for the BNB almost immediately after mentioning that the ELA was necessary to preserve Belgium’s financial stability confirms that this counter-guarantee does indeed cover the ELA:
Dejstvo, da so belgijski organi v svoji priglasitvi novega ukrepa izredne likvidnostne pomoči z dne 21. oktobra 2011 menili, da morajo omeniti prisotnost posrednega jamstva države za banko BNB skoraj takoj po omembi, da je bila taka pomoč potrebna za ohranitev finančne stabilnosti Belgije, potrjuje, da to posredno jamstvo obsega izredno likvidnostno pomoč:
In these circumstances, the BNB and the Belgian Government, each within the ambit of their relevant roles and their respective competences, had started considering available options to preserve DBB’s viability and the financial stability in Belgium.
Banka BNB in belgijska vlada sta v takih okoliščinah, vsaka v mejah svojih ustreznih vlog in v okviru svojih pristojnosti, začeli proučevati razpoložljive možnosti za ohranitev uspešnega poslovanja DBB in finančne stabilnosti v Belgiji.
Pursuant to the organic law of the BNB of 22 February 1998 the Belgian State automatically guarantees the repayment of any credit granted in the context of the BNB’s contribution to the stability of the financial system as well as any loss incurred as a result of any transaction necessary in this regard.
Belgija v skladu s sistemskim zakonom banke BNB z dne 22. februarja 1998 samodejno jamči za izplačilo kakršnega koli kredita v okviru prispevka banke BNB k stabilnosti finančnega sistema ter za vsako izgubo, nastalo kot posledica kakršne koli transakcije, ki je v tem pogledu potrebna.