natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES ON THE OPENING DECISION
(Posamezni) upravičenci zadružne jamstvene sheme si zaslužijo enako zaščito kot vlagatelji drugih institucij, ki delujejo na istem poslovnem področju in so predmet enakega nadzora.
Comments from ARCO
Kar zadeva davke, so dividende, ki jih izplačajo finančne zadruge, in obresti, izplačane za vloge, do določenega zneska oproščene pri viru odtegnjenega davka [47].
According to ARCO, the Belgian government decided and announced on 10 October 2008 the creation of the cooperative guarantee scheme as part of a broader package (increasing of deposit guarantee for savings deposits of credit institutions to EUR 100000 and extending the guarantee scheme to ‘branch 21’ life insurance products and to individual shareholders of financial cooperatives).
Posamezni delničarji finančnih zadrug lahko vpišejo le določen najvišji znesek kapitala v skladu z določbami statuta finančne zadruge.
ARCO argued that the decision of 10 October 2008 was implemented for ‘branch 21’ products by the law of 15 October 2008 and Royal Decree of 14 November 2008 and for share certificates issued by financial cooperatives by the law of 14 April 2009 and Royal Decree of 10 October 2011.
Delničarji finančnih zadrug lahko iz družbe izstopijo samo v prvih šestih mesecih poslovnega leta in delničar, ki želi izstopiti, ni upravičen do sorazmernega dela kapitalskega dobička zadruge.
ARCO claimed that the cooperative guarantee scheme is not State aid as it does not confer a selective advantage on financial cooperatives.
Po navedbah Belgije vrednost delnic zadruge ne izraža vrednosti osnovnih sredstev finančne zadruge, zato te delnice ne konkurirajo naložbenim produktom na splošno, ampak le podskupini produktov, ki so že upravičeni do državnega jamstva (tj. vloge in produkti življenjskega zavarovanja „kategorije 21“).
ARCO also argued that the Commission concluded that a guarantee scheme for branch 21 products of insurance companies did not entail State aid, because it was open to all insurance companies and therefore not selective [46].
Delnice finančnih zadrug so registrirane in njihova prenosljivost je omejena z zakonom [48].
In addition ARCO affirms that the cooperative guarantee scheme is open to all financial cooperatives on equal terms and therefore not selective.
Ni jih mogoče prosto prodati s ciljem ustvariti kapitalski dobiček.
In line with observations of the Belgian government, ARCO argued that all the characteristics of shares in financial cooperatives confirm that they respond to the same client needs as deposits and are treated by the legislator as such.
Delničarji finančnih zadrug so upravičeni samo do skromnih (davka oproščenih) dividend in povračila, ko izstopijo iz zadruge.
ARCO underlined that the Belgian government was concerned about a contamination effect.
Delnic finančne zadruge ni mogoče obravnavati kot naložbo v delnice korporacije ali subjekta, ki kotira na borzi.
If the Belgian State had not introduced the cooperative guarantee scheme, it would have undermined investor confidence and could have led to a run on all savings products.
Delnic finančne zadruge ni mogoče šteti za tvegano naložbo, saj delničarji finančnih zadrug niso upravičeni do kapitalskih dobičkov.
Comments from the Belgian State
Zadružna jamstvena shema ščiti le delnice v lasti fizičnih oseb (v nasprotju z institucijami).
The Belgian State argued that the cooperative guarantee scheme does not meet all of the cumulative State aid criteria of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and is therefore not State aid.
Pojasnila je tudi, da družba ARCO od septembra 2008 ni izdala nobenih novih delnic.
Concretely, the Belgian State stated that three State aid criteria are not met.
Poleg tega je Belgija zanikala, da je zadružna jamstvena shema finančnim zadrugam pomagala ohraniti obstoječi kapital.
First, the Belgian State defended the viewpoint that the measure represents only aid to individuals and not to undertakings.
V podporo tej trditvi je navedla, da je bilo sporočilo za javnost z dne 10. oktobra 2008 zgolj predlog politične pobude, v katerem so bile finančne zadruge le na kratko omenjene.
Next, the Belgian State argued that the measure does not represent a selective advantage to financial cooperatives and finally, the Belgian State contended that the measure is not distortive.
Po navedbah Belgije sporočilo za javnost z dne 10. oktobra 2008 ni bilo podroben sporazum, usklajen s sočasnimi sporočili finančnih zadrug za javnost.
As regards the argument that the aid does not benefit undertakings, the Belgian State argued that the normal deposit guarantee scheme for credit institutions, including its extension (i.e. the cooperative guarantee scheme) had been adopted in implementation of and in accordance with the Decisions of the ECOFIN Council, the DGS Directive as amended and the Investor Compensation Scheme Directive.
V zvezi s tem je Belgija razlikovala med svojim sporočilom za javnost in sporočili za javnost, ki sta jih izdali vlada Združenega kraljestva in družba Lloyds v zadevi Lloyds [49], na katero se je Komisija sklicevala v svojem sklepu o začetku postopka.
The Belgian State defended the viewpoint that individual shares in financial cooperatives have all the characteristics of deposits and are also purchased as such.
Belgija je zaključila, da sporočilo za javnost z dne 10. oktobra 2008 ni ukrep, ki bi finančnim zadrugam lahko dal selektivno prednost.
It pointed to the following features:
Glede poznejšega sporočila za javnost z dne 21. januarja 2009 je bilo po mnenju Belgije normalno, da je družba ARCO to sporočilo vlade takoj objavila na svoji spletni strani, saj so takrat vse finančne zadruge (vključno z ARCO) pozorno spremljale to zadevo.
The (individual) beneficiaries of the cooperative guarantee scheme deserve the same protection as depositors with other institutions active in the same business area and subject to the same supervision.
Belgija je vztrajala, da bi morala Komisija uporabiti enak pristop kot v zadevi v zvezi z družbo Ethias in skleniti, da zadružna jamstvena shema ni selektivna.
For tax purposes, dividends paid by financial cooperatives and interest paid on deposits are both — up to a fixed amount — exempted from withholding tax [47].
Trdila je tudi, da je Sodišče v zadevi Paint Graphos [50] že priznalo posebni položaj pravih zadrug.
Individual shareholders of financial cooperatives can only subscribe to a specific maximum amount of capital, in line with provisions in the Articles of Association of the financial cooperative.
Opozorila je predvsem na točko 61 sodbe v zadevi Paint Graphos, iz katere je razvidno, da se take zadruge ob upoštevanju njihovih posebnih značilnosti „načeloma ne štejejo, da so v dejanskem in pravnem položaju, ki je primerljiv s položajem gospodarskih družb“.
Shareholders of financial cooperatives can only exit the company in the first six months of a financial year and a shareholder wishing to exit is not entitled to a pro rata part of the capital gains of the cooperative.
Belgija je predložila tudi informacije o številu delničarjev družbe ARCO, ki so iz družbe izstopili po začetku krize.
The shares in financial cooperatives are registered and their transferability is limited by law [48].
Belgija je glede izkrivljajočih učinkov ukrepa trdila, da bi morala Komisija v razumni meri pojasniti, katerim finančnim produktom konkurirajo delnice finančnih zadrug, čeprav so belgijski organi priznali, da Komisiji v postopku v zvezi z državno pomočjo ni treba podati podrobne opredelitve trga.
They cannot be sold freely in order to realise capital gains.
Belgija je v bistvu trdila, da je bila posameznim delničarjem finančnih zadrug na voljo enaka raven zaščite kot vlagateljem v podobne depozitne ali varčevalne produkte.
Shareholders in financial cooperatives are only entitled to a modest (tax-exempt) dividend and a reimbursement when they cease to be shareholders.
Belgijski organi so tudi pojasnili, da ima zadružna jamstvena shema isti namen kot direktiva o sistemih zajamčenih vlog, tj. zaščititi vloge posameznih varčevalcev, ohraniti zaupanje vlagateljev in doseči večjo stabilnost na finančnih trgih.
Shares in financial cooperatives cannot be qualified as an investment in shares in a corporation or listed entity.
Belgija meni, da sistemi zajamčenih vlog drugih držav članic včasih krijejo tudi neklasične depozitne produkte, in trdi, da bi morala Komisija ta dejavnik upoštevati [51].
Shares of financial cooperatives cannot be considered to be a risk investment as shareholders of financial cooperatives are not entitled to receive capital gains.
Belgija je poleg tega vztrajala, da bi bilo treba v primeru, da bi Komisija ugotovila, da zadružna jamstvena shema pomeni državno pomoč, to pomoč šteti za združljivo z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(3)(b) Pogodbe.
The cooperative guarantee scheme only protects the shares of natural persons (as opposed to institutions).
Belgija je zagovarjala stališče, da je ukrep potreben, da so njegovi učinki omejeni na najmanjše in da so mehanizmi za porazdelitev bremena zagotovljeni.
As to the absence of a selective advantage, the Belgian State pointed out that the cooperative guarantee scheme only covers financial cooperative shares issued before 10 October 2011.
Belgija je najprej razvila argument, da je zadružna jamstvena shema primerna in potrebna za pomiritev vlagateljev v Belgiji.
The Belgian State observed that after that date financial cooperatives could not use the cooperative guarantee scheme to position themselves in any market.
Belgija je priznala, da je teoretično mogoče, da bi lahko imele institucije, ki imajo v svoji bilanci stanja zaščitene vloge, posredno korist od obstoja takih zaščitnih shem, saj te prispevajo k preprečevanju množičnega dvigovanja bančnih vlog.
The Belgian State also clarified that ARCO had not issued any new shares since September 2008.
Vendar je pojasnila, da so sistemi zajamčenih vlog potrebni za preprečevanje množičnega dvigovanja bančnih vlog in motenj na finančnih trgih.
The Belgian State also denied that the cooperative guarantee scheme helped financial cooperatives to maintain existing capital.
Belgija je trdila, da je zadružna jamstvena shema potrebna za preprečitev zmanjšanja zaupanja javnosti v belgijski finančni sistem.
In support of that argument, the Belgian State stated that the 10 October 2008 press release was merely a proposed policy initiative, making only a passing reference to financial cooperatives.
Osnovne lastnosti delnic zadrug kot varčevalnih produktov in dejstvo, da se več kot polovica sredstev zadrug vloži v banke, so povečali njihovo podobnost z vlogami in poudarili njihov pomen za belgijski bančni sistem.
According to the Belgian State, the 10 October 2008 press release was not a detailed agreement which had been coordinated with any concurrent press releases by financial cooperatives.
Nenadzorovano neizpolnjevanje obveznosti finančnih zadrug bi imelo učinek snežene kepe na vse finančne institucije in na belgijsko gospodarstvo.
In that regard, the Belgian State distinguished its press release from the press releases issued by the UK government and Lloyds in the Lloyds case [49] to which the Commission referred in the Opening Decision.
Če se za delnice finančnih zadrug ne bi zagotovila enaka raven zaščite kot za osnovne vloge, bi to pomenilo enako tveganje kot v primeru, da se ne bi zagotovila zaščita za vloge.
The Belgian State concluded that the 10 October 2008 press release is not the type of measure that could grant a selective advantage to financial cooperatives.
To bi resno vplivalo na zaupanje javnosti v vse depozitne produkte v Belgiji in ustvarilo sistemsko tveganje.
As regards the subsequent press release of 21 January 2009, the Belgian State considered it normal that ARCO had immediately put that press release of the government on its website, as all financial cooperatives (including ARCO) were closely following that matter at the time.
Belgija se je v podporo svojim argumentom sklicevala na dejstvo, da je število delničarjev (fizičnih oseb) finančnih zadrug veliko glede na celotno prebivalstvo Belgije [52].
The Belgian State insisted that the Commission should follow the same approach as it had taken in regard to Ethias and conclude that the cooperative guarantee scheme was not selective.
Belgija je poleg tega močno nasprotovala izrazju, ki ga je Komisija uporabila v sklepu o začetku postopka, zlasti izrazu „kapitalski instrumenti“ iz uvodne izjave 62 in izrazu „tvegani kapital“ iz opombe 35.
The Belgian State also argued that the special position of genuine cooperatives had already been recognised by the Court of Justice in Paint Graphos [50].
Da bi Belgija dokazala potrebo po zadružni jamstveni shemi, je Komisiji predložila tudi pismo odbora za finančno stabilnost z dne 29. oktobra 2008 [53] in pismo guvernerja NBB takratnemu ministru za finance z dne 7. oktobra 2011 [54].
The Belgian State also provided information on the number of shareholders of ARCO exiting the entity since the start of the crisis.
Navedla je, da je Komisija sprejela ukrepe v korist družbe Ethias, vključno z razširitvijo sistema zajamčenih vlog na produkte „kategorije 21“, kot primerne in potrebne za preprečitev resne motnje v belgijskem gospodarstvu.
In the financial years leading up to the voluntary liquidation, the number of ARCO shareholders which asked to have their capital refunded amounted to 9764 in 2007/08, 21150 in 2008/09 and 23762 in 2010/11.
Nato je Belgija ponovila svoje mnenje, da je ukrep sorazmeren.
As regards the distortive impact of the measure, the Belgian State argued that the Commission should have explained to a reasonable extent with which financial products shares in financial cooperatives compete, even though the Belgian authorities acknowledged that the Commission in a State aid procedure is not obliged to proceed with a detailed market definition exercise.
Finančne zadruge si delijo breme, med drugim preko svojih prispevkov v posebni zaščitni sklad.
The Belgian State in essence claimed that the same level of protection was offered to individual shareholders of financial cooperatives as to investors in all similar deposit/savings products.
Belgija je menila, da je višina nadomestila za jamstvo razumna in podobna prispevkom za jamstvene sisteme drugih zaščitenih institucij.
The Belgian authorities also explained that the cooperative guarantee scheme serves the same purpose as the DGS Directive i.e. to protect the deposits of individual savers, to maintain depositor confidence and to attain greater stability of the financial markets.
Ni se strinjala, da bi bil lahko ukrep nesorazmeren zaradi prostovoljnega značaja zadružne jamstvene sheme.
The Belgian State believes that deposit guarantee schemes of other Member States sometimes also cover non-classic deposit products and argued that the Commission should take that factor into account [51].
Belgija je menila, da bi morala Komisija, če bi ugotovila, da je ukrep državna pomoč, skleniti, da je ukrep združljiva pomoč za likvidacijo.
The Belgian State also insisted that — if the Commission were to conclude that the cooperative guarantee scheme represented State aid — the aid should be considered compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty.
Opozorila je, da kraljevi odlok z dne 7. novembra 2011 jasno določa, da bi se kakršno koli plačilo iz posebnega zaščitnega sklada v primeru likvidacije katere koli zadevne zadruge izplačalo šele po izdaji in potrditvi dokončnega sklepa o likvidaciji.
The Belgian State considered that it is not relevant whether ARCO is a financial institution in the meaning of the 2008 Banking Communication.
Belgija je zagovarjala tudi stališče, da začasni odlog Komisije ni zajemal izplačil posameznikom po likvidaciji družbe ARCO, ker fizične osebe niso podjetja.
According to the Belgian State, the crucial question that the Commission should answer is whether the cooperative guarantee scheme is an appropriate and necessary response to prevent a serious disturbance of the economy.
Belgija je z dopisom z dne 18. marca 2014, ki je bil poslan po izteku roka, Komisiji predložila nekaj dodatnih pripomb.
The Belgian State defended the viewpoint that the measure is necessary, that its effects are limited to the minimum and that there are burden sharing mechanisms in place.
Trdila je, da Komisija ne more prepovedati plačil jamstev za posamezne delničarje.
First, the Belgian State developed the argument that the cooperative guarantee scheme is appropriate and necessary to reassure depositors in Belgium.
Komisija Belgiji ne sme naložiti prekinitve plačil v okviru zadružne jamstvene sheme ali izterjati izvršenih plačil posameznim delničarjem v okviru sheme.
Belgium conceded that it was theoretically possible that institutions that have protected deposits on their balance sheet might derive an indirect benefit from the existence of such protection schemes as they help to avoid a ‘bank run’.
Delničarji, ki so bili fizične osebe, niso bili podjetja v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe in plačilo jamstva takim posameznim delničarjem ne bi vplivalo na ARCO ali na verjetnost, da bo Belgija izterjala pomoč, ki so jo prejela ta podjetja.
However, it explained that deposit guarantee schemes are necessary to avoid ‘bank runs’ and a disturbance of the financial markets.
OCENA UKREPA
The Belgian State contended the cooperative guarantee scheme was needed to avoid a reduction of public confidence in the Belgian financial system.
Upravičenec ukrepa
The basic characteristics of cooperative shares as savings products and the fact that more than half of the funds held by cooperatives are invested in banks enhanced their similarity to deposits and highlighted their importance for the Belgian banking system.
Komisija najprej opozarja, da je v uvodni izjavi 18 sklepa o začetku postopka trdila, da zadružna jamstvena shema koristi finančnim zadrugam.
An uncontrolled default of financial cooperatives would have had a snowball effect on all financial institutions and the Belgian economy.
Vendar je skrbna analiza časovnega zaporedja in značilnosti ukrepa pokazala, da je bila družba ARCO edina prava upravičenka ukrepa, kot je opisano v tem oddelku.
Not to provide the same level of protection for financial cooperatives' shares as for basic deposits would have entailed the same risk as not providing protection to deposits.
V tem primeru Komisija ugotavlja, da obstaja pomembna razlika med družbo ARCO in drugimi finančnimi zadrugami, ki bi lahko bile upravičene do sodelovanja v zadružni jamstveni shemi.
It would have had a great impact on the public confidence in all deposit products in Belgium and create a systemic risk.
Iz opisa dejstev [55] je razvidno, da je bila zadružna jamstvena shema od samega začetka prilagojena družbi ARCO, ki se je znašla v težavah zaradi svojih naložb v skupino Dexia.
In support of its arguments, the Belgian State referred to the fact that the number of shareholders (natural persons) in financial cooperatives is large relative to the total population in Belgium [52].
Na koncu je bila ARCO edina finančna zadruga, ki je zaprosila za sodelovanje v ukrepu.
The Belgian State also strongly objected to the language that the Commission used in the Opening Decision, and in particular to the terms ‘capital instruments’ and ‘risk capital’ used in recital 62 and footnote 35 respectively.
V zvezi z drugimi finančnimi zadrugami Komisija ugotavlja, da je zadružna jamstvena shema prostovoljna shema, da je Svet ministrov po lastni presoji odločal o sprejetju finančne zadruge prosilke v zadružno jamstveno shemo in o pogojih za sprejetje, da nobena druga finančna zadruga ni zaprosila za sodelovanje v zadružni jamstveni shemi ter da so nekatere finančne zadruge izkazale odklonilno stališče do sheme.
In order to show the necessity of the cooperative guarantee scheme, the Belgian State also provided the Commission with letters from the Financial Stability Board and from the Governor of the NBB to the then Minister of Finance dated respectively 29 October 2008 [53] and 7 October 2011 [54].
Komisija poleg tega ugotavlja, da nobena druga finančna zadruga ni imela tako velikih težav s svojimi naložbami, kot jih je imela družba ARCO z Dexio.
When commenting on the compatibility of the measure, the Belgian State refers to the Commission's decision on Ethias.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da je družba ARCO edina prava upravičenka zadružne jamstvene sheme, ki je opravljala gospodarske dejavnosti.
According to the Belgian State, the Commission accepted measures in favour of Ethias, including the extension of the deposit guarantee scheme to ‘branch 21’ products, as appropriate and necessary to prevent a serious disturbance to the Belgian economy.
Objava in izvajanje ukrepa pomenita en sam poseg
Second, the Belgian State reiterated its view that the measure is proportionate.
Sporočilo za javnost z dne 21. januarja 2009 je vsebovalo dodatne podrobnosti o ukrepu, po njegovi objavi pa se je začel pravni prenos zaveze vlade.
The financial cooperatives share the burden, inter alia, through their contributions to the Special Protection Fund.
Sporočilo za javnost z dne 21. januarja 2009 vsebuje dodatne tehnične podrobnosti.
The Belgian State considered the level of remuneration for the guarantee to be reasonable and similar to the contributions for guarantee schemes of other protected institutions.
Družba ARCO je to sporočilo objavila na svoji spletni strani takoj, ko je bilo objavljeno.
The Belgian State disagreed that the voluntary character of the cooperative guarantee scheme could make the measure disproportionate.
Jasno je, da je to storila, da bi pomirila svoje posamezne delničarje.
The Belgian State submitted that if the Commission were to conclude that the measure is State aid, it should conclude that the measure was compatible liquidation aid.
Komisija poleg tega ugotavlja, da je bil ukrep ves čas dosleden, saj se od prve objave 10. oktobra 2008 do končnega kraljevega odloka ni bistveno spremenil.
The Belgian State recalled that the Royal Decree of 7 November 2011 clearly provides that any payment by the Special Protection Fund in case of liquidation of any relevant cooperative would take place only after the issuance and the approval of the final order of the liquidation.
Sodišče je v svoji sodbi z dne 19. marca 2013 v združenih zadevah C-399/10 P in C-401/10 P [58] odločilo, da se lahko objava in dejansko izvajanje ukrepa štejeta za en sam poseg, če to upravičujejo časovno zaporedje, namen objave in izvajanja ter položaj podjetja v času takega posega.
The Belgian State also defended the viewpoint that, because natural persons were not undertakings, the Commission's suspension injunction did not cover the payment of individuals after the liquidation of ARCO.
Podobno je Belgija v obravnavanem primeru 10. oktobra 2008 sprejela in objavila odločitev o ukrepu, ki je bil pozneje izveden za isti namen v zvezi s prvotno predvidenim upravičencem.
In a letter to the Commission dated 18 March 2014, which was after the time limit, Belgium made some further comments.
Poleg tega je Komisija v svojih odločbah objavo in izvajanje štela za en ukrep ter menila, da je bila prednost pridobljena na dan objave [59].
It argued that the Commission could not prohibit the payment of guarantees to individual shareholders.
Dejansko je sedanji belgijski minister za finance zadevni ukrep opredelil kot zavezo, sprejeto leta 2008 [60].
The Commission could not oblige Belgium to suspend any payments under the cooperative guarantee scheme nor could it recover the payments made under the scheme to individual shareholders.
Komisija na podlagi informacij iz uvodnih izjav od 85 do 89 ugotavlja, da je treba objavo in izvajanje zadružne jamstvene sheme obravnavati kot en ukrep.
Shareholders who were natural persons were not undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and the payment of the guarantee to individual shareholders would have no impact on ARCO or the likelihood of the Belgian State recovering the aid received by these undertakings.
Obstoj pomoči