natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It also understands the difficulties of SACE in spite of iterative process to precisely evaluate in money terms the amount of capital to be spent for these future acquisitions and the returns to be generated by such companies, before the owner of the potential target agrees to sell and the expected returns are evaluated for such potential acquisition targets.
Upravni odbor družbe SACE je drugi, tretji in četrti ukrep pravzaprav obravnaval že 26. maja 2009 [110], da bi zagotovil podporo družbi SACE BT [111].
In light of the considerations of SACE done before the investment as well as the detailed analysis sought from the reputable external advisor, which preliminary identified the potential targets, the Commission can agree with the claim of Italy and SACE that the acquisition plans were considered by SACE, when investing the capital into SACE BT, without being able to estimate their profitability or expected synergies without having access to internal data of such potential targets and without knowing the sale price.
Kot bo ugotovljeno v oceni navedenih ukrepov, zasebni vlagatelj ne bi nadaljeval s temi dokapitalizacijami, temveč bi dopustil, da gre družba v stečaj.
In view of the extensive acquisition strategy, common to the sector and expected by SACE, the Commission can also agree with the argument of Italy and SACE that the capital to be used in the future acquisitions can be approximated to an investment into an equity fund.
Zato je treba sprejeti sklep, da zasebna matična družba ne bi nadaljevala z drugim ukrepom, ki je še bolj povečal izpostavljenost matične družbe svoji odvisni družbi.
Indeed, in an equity fund only expected rate of return may be defined in line with market benchmarks (in this case approximating the required rate of return by the three biggest credit insurance players having expanded significantly through acquisitions), whilst more specific evaluation is done before each investment, once such opportunity arises.
V zvezi z vprašanjem, ali je pozavarovanje pomenilo prednost za družbo SACE BT, je ukrep, kot priznava SACE (glej uvodno izjavo 70), SACE BT omogočil, da poveča svojo zmogljivost zagotavljanja zavarovanja kreditov in tako prevzame več pogodb, kot bi jih lahko drugače.
There may also be some delay before all the capital is invested.
Drugače bi SACE BT brez tega ukrepa morala podpirati ta tveganja na svoji bilanci stanja oziroma bolj ogroziti svoj kapital ali ponuditi višjo premijo za pridobitev navedenega pozavarovanja, ki bi bila vsaj 10 % višja (glej uvodno izjavo 128).
In terms of profitability from acquisitions, the Commission observes that an external consultant's advice was consistently sought before making acquisitions.
Zato je ukrep SACE BT omogočil, da pozavarovanje pridobi po nižji ceni, in sicer pozavarovanje, ki ji je omogočalo, da prevzame več zavarovanj, kot bi to lahko brez pozavarovanja družbe SACE, ali da nosi manj tveganj za svoj račun.
As regards Assedile, the price offered was below (for the first acquisition of 70 % of the stake in Assedile) or within the valuation range (when considering combined acquisition of 100 % of Assedile) proposed by the external consultant [99].
Komisija je sklenila, da je drugi ukrep pomenil prednost za SACE BT, ki ustreza razliki med provizijo, ki jo je SACE BT dejansko plačala, in provizijo, ki je vsaj 10 % višja, ki bi jo zahteval zasebni pozavarovatelj in ki bi upoštevala višjo raven prevzetih tveganj.
However, as regards investment in KUP in 2007 jointly with SA Ducroire, the price paid was above the valuation made by the consultant (Rothschild) by 5 %.
Obstoj prednosti pri tretjem in četrtem ukrepu
On the other hand, quite quickly after realising that KUP's profitability could not be restored, SACE BT sold this investment [100].
V uvodni izjavi 107 sklepa o začetku postopka je Komisija izrazila svoje pomisleke glede možnosti, da bi zasebni gospodarski subjekt v družbo SACE BT vložil znesek, ki se trenutno ocenjuje.
The Commission also notes that SACE, being a firm working on long-term export credit insurance, has some knowledge of the market for credit insurance risk.
V dokumentu za razpravo („materiale per discussione“) upravnega odbora družbe SACE BT z dne 31. marca 2009 je navedeno, da SACE BT „potrebuje dokapitalizacijo ('ricapiralizzazione)' v višini do 70 milijonov EUR, da se zagotovijo ustrezna sredstva za kritje rezerv konec leta 2009“ [113].
It was therefore not investing without any own knowledge of the sector.
Isti dokument navaja, da so bila sredstva že konec prvega semestra leta 2009 nezadostna za kritje rezerv, kar pomeni, da je bilo konec junija 2009 potrebnih 23 milijonov EUR in 68 milijonov EUR konec leta 2009.
In summary, the Commission notes that the business plan was prepared ex ante and with the help of a reputable external consultant which looked into new market opportunities that were presented to SACE before the creation of SACE BT.
Sklep o začetku postopka navaja, da se zdi, da SACE BT ni bila v položaju, ko bi lahko krila izgube, zabeležene konec leta 2008, njena takratna sredstva pa so bila nezadostna za kritje rezerv.
Moreover, the investment was clearly targeted to a start-up company and was underpinned by a plan based on a detailed benchmarking to market practices, notably in terms of costs and pricing, and adequately identifying business opportunities for its growth and development.
Zdi se, da SACE BT ne bi mogla zbrati kapitala, vloženega v družbo, na trgu, saj je bila pričakovana donosnost nezadostna.
Given all the circumstances listed above and notably the level of profitability that could be expected from the second and the third pillars of business of SACE BT, which was explored in detail at the time, it can be concluded that an expectation to reach an adequate return from the initial capital investment, i.e. from the first measure, was realistic and in line with market practices.
V uvodni izjavi 108 sklepa o začetku postopka je Komisija Italijo pozvala k predložitvi pripomb glede tega, ali je bil tretji ukrep nujen, da se družbi SACE BT omogoči nadaljnje poslovanje, in kako visoki bi bili ocenjeni stroški za SACE, če bi prodala ali likvidirala SACE BT.
Therefore, it can be concluded that when SACE injected money in SACE BT, it required (as stipulates in the minutes and notes to the Board) and could have reasonably expected a sufficient return on its investment.
Komisija je opozorila, da bi matična družba svojo odvisno družbo dokapitalizirala, vendar le, če bi obstajala razumna verjetnost, da bo družba, ki prejme pomoč, ponovno donosna [114].
In conclusion, the first measure is deemed as not having conferred an advantage to SACE BT.
Vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu ne bi vložil dodatnega kapitala v SACE BT, če bi bilo v gospodarskem smislu to dražje kot likvidacija zadevnih sredstev (tj. s prodajo zadevne naložbe).
Hence, it did not constitute aid and the other criteria required to qualify as state aid do not have to be assessed.
V uvodnih izjavah 111 in 117 sklepa o začetku postopka je Komisija izrazila pomisleke, da sta tretji in četrti ukrep izpolnjevala načelo vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji.
Presence of an advantage in the second measure
Komisija je nadalje trdila, da se zdi, da ta dva ukrepa pomenita prednost za SACE BT.
In recital 100 of the opening decision, the Commission expressed its doubts that the reinsurance by the market operators and parent company SACE was provided under comparable terms.
V sklepu o začetku postopka (uvodni izjavi 109) je navedeno, da ima glavno vlogo načrt, ki je bil takrat razpoložljiv.
The reinsurance provided by the State indirectly (i.e. via a public export-credit insurer SACE) seems to lead to the artificial creation of capacity that would not be available from the private market.
Načrt je ključnega pomena, saj bi zasebni vlagatelj zagotovil nov kapital družbi s pomanjkanjem dobička le, če pričakuje donos do zadostne ravni donosnosti.
Furthermore, in recital 103 of the opening decision the Commission did not exclude that the second measure conferred an advantage to SACE BT.
Drugače bi se z vloženim kapitalom le poplačal obstoječi dolg družbe, pri čemer se ne bi zagotovilo, da bo družba ponovno imela dobiček v prihodnosti [115].
Italy and SACE did not provide new factual elements that would change the preliminary assessment set out in the opening decision.
Brez privlačnega načrta „prestrukturiranja“ razumni zasebni vlagatelj naložbe ne bi izvedel [116].
According to point 4.2 of the Export-credit Communication, the Member States were requested to end granting of certain types of State aid within one year of the publication of this Communication, including a reinsurance by the State, either directly, or indirectly via a public or publicly supported export-credit insurer, on terms more favourable than those available from the private reinsurance market, which leads either to under-pricing of the reinsurance cover or to the artificial creation of capacity that would not be forthcoming from the private market (point 4.2(f)).
Komisija je opozorila, da je poslovni načrt SACE BT za obdobje 2010–2011 predvideval zlasti ukrepe za povečanje tržnega deleža in širitev dejavnosti ter ni predvideval ukrepov za ponovno vzpostavitev donosnosti, npr. za zmanjšanje stroškov in prestrukturiranje poslovnega modela.
Point 4.2 further states that existing complementary reinsurance arrangements remained permissible for an interim period, provided that, inter alia, the State reinsurance is a minority element in the insurer's overall reinsurance package and the State reinsurance for marketable risks is open to all credit insurers who are able to satisfy the common eligibility criteria.
V zvezi z distribucijskim omrežjem SACE BT načrt med drugim predvideva oceno možnih priložnosti za nadaljnje prevzeme.
It is very clear that the latter provisions are not complied with in the case at hand since the State took the majority of the reinsurance.
Poleg tega se poslovni načrt med drugim zanaša na zunanje dejavnike, kot so izboljšanje gospodarskega in tržnega scenarija in postopno odpiranje trga pozavarovanj od leta 2011, ne pa na notranje spremembe.
In addition, it did not open a scheme open to all credit insurers.
Podatki, ki sta jih Italija in SACE predložili med formalnim postopkom preiskave, niso spremenili začetne ocene Komisije iz sklepa o začetku postopka.
In the assessment of the existence of an advantage, the Commission will first demonstrate that the measure could not be obtained from the rest of the market.
Komisija ni spremenila stališča o uvrstitvi tretjega in četrtega ukrepa kot povečanje kapitala („aumenti di capitale“).
Secondly, it will demonstrate that SACE did not act as a private reinsurer.
Čeprav po podatkih Italije poslovanje ni povečalo osnovnega kapitala („capitale sociale“), Komisija opaža, da je pozitivno vplivalo na lastniški kapital delničarjev („patrimonio netto“), ki je širša kategorija kot osnovni kapital („capitale sociale“), s prenosom matične družbe SACE v kapital SACE BT [117].
Third, it will demonstrate that even when one takes into account the fact that SACE was the parent company of SACE BT, this does not allow to conclude that SACE acted as a private company in such a situation would have done.
Po trditvah družbe SACE so bile odločitve za dokapitalizacijo SACE BT sprejete ob upoštevanju pričakovane ponovne donosnosti leta 2011.
Fourth, the Commission will demonstrate that the reinsurance provided by SACE provides an advantage to SACE BT.
Vendar Komisija opominja, da SACE ob odobritvi tretjega ukrepa ni imela posodobljenih finančnih napovedi ali poslovnega načrta, ki bi upošteval kapitalsko injekcijo in najnovejše finančne podatke.
The Commission observes that, in order to renew its reinsurance contracts for 2009, on 30 January 2009, SACE BT succeeded in raising 25,85 % of the Excess of loss reinsurance from the market for the marketable credit risk of 2009 [102].
Torej SACE ni imela podlage, da bi pričakovala ponovno donosnost SACE BT.
A number of market operators were approached and declined to provide reinsurance for the remaining part in spite of its alleged profitability (16 operators decided not to participate).
V tem okviru je načrt predvideval bistveno boljše stopnje zavarovanja kreditov SACE BT, ki naj bi dosegla finančno rentabilnost nič leta 2011 (glej preglednico 5).
Consequently, ‘after numerous attempts to reach an agreement with the market participants’ [103], SACE BT decided to seek the remaining part of the excess of loss reinsurance from SACE.
Vendar ni podrobno opredelil sprememb pri oblikovanju cen ali kako bi se v ta namen lahko zmanjšali stroški.
SACE subscribed 74,15 % of the excess of loss reinsurance on 5 June 2009 on the same terms of priority, capacity and premium as the private reinsurers.
Treba je poudariti, da je poslovni načrt za obdobje 2010–2011 vključeval le napoved o finančni rentabilnosti leta 2011, vendar ni vključeval nobenega podatka, ki bi pokazal, da se bo položaj izboljšal po letu 2011, ali ocene donosnosti družbe SACE BT v prihodnosti po navedenem datumu (možnost, da bi družba imela dobiček po letu 2011, pravzaprav sploh ni bila omenjena).
It is therefore clear that the provision by SACE of 74,15 % excess of loss reinsurance could not have been received from the rest of the market [104].
Poleg tega je bil navedeni cilj v načrtu omejen na to, da družba preneha ustvarjati izgube ali dodatno razširi svojo prisotnost na trgu, pri tem pa ni bil predviden dobiček v prihodnosti.
To ascertain whether such measure constitutes an advantage, one has also to verify that, by granting this measure, SACE did not act as a private insurer would have done in similar circumstances.
V zvezi s tem Komisija meni, da bi preudaren vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu zahteval zanesljivo oceno za obnovitev donosnosti v prihodnosti na ustrezno raven.
The Commission observes that Italy and SACE themselves acknowledged that the global financial crisis influenced significantly the world reinsurance market and triggered restrictive reinsurance conditions in 2009.
Iz zapisnika sestanka upravnega odbora družbe SACE, na katerem sta bila odobrena tretji in četrt ukrep, se zdi tudi, da se je upravni odbor strinjal s kapitalizacijskimi ukrepi, da se krijejo izgube in izpolnijo regulativne zahteve ter družbi tako omogoči nadaljnje poslovanje.
As a result, a number of private reinsurers have significantly reduced their credit insurance capacity by decreasing their activity in this sector and were refocusing on more profitable areas which had an impact on the availability of such credit insurance and reinsurance on the market.
V navedenem zapisniku ni bila omenjena donosnost družbe v prihodnosti.
Secondly, the failure of SACE BT to find reinsurance on the market was also caused by its difficult financial situation and various private reinsurers involved in the discussions on the renewal of SACE BT's reinsurance have raised concerns about the situation of the company.
Uprava ni upoštevala morebitne likvidacije družbe SACE BT, ko je primerjala scenarij likvidacije z izbranim načinom vlaganja dodatnega kapitala v družbo v težavah.
SACE BT had registered significant losses in 2008 (around EUR 29,5 million).
Zato ni zahtevala ali obravnavala ocene stroškov likvidacije in torej ni bila v položaju za sprejetje sklepa, da bi kapitalska injekcija prinesla boljše gospodarske rezultate kot likvidacija družbe.
This weak situation entails that the risk on the reinsurance was higher [105].
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da SACE pri sprejetju navedenih ukrepov ni ocenila, ali je bila zagotovitev dodatnega kapitala bolj ekonomičen scenarij zanjo kot delničarko kot likvidacija odvisne družbe.
The behaviour of the reinsurers which participated in the reinsurance demonstrates that a private reinsurer would only take a limited part of such a risky reinsurance in the absence of a significantly higher fee.
Glede na okoliščine na trgu in takratno odsotnost napovedi o donosnosti za SACE BT preudarni zasebni udeleženec na trgu ne bi nadaljeval z naložbo brez takega premisleka.
It would never accept to cover such a high percentage as 74 % and under same conditions as were required by reinsurers for much smaller percentage of reinsurance.
Že samo zato se lahko sklene, da SACE ni ravnala kot preudarni zasebni udeleženec na trgu ter da bi se zato kapitalske injekcije, ki so posledica tretjega in četrtega ukrepa, morale uvrstiti kot državna pomoč.
A rational investor would have asked for a fee that takes into account the higher level of risk assumed [106].
Komisija za namen celovitosti tudi dodaja, da ne more podpreti trditve SACE, da bi skladnost z regulativnimi kapitalskimi zahtevami preudarnemu zasebnemu vlagatelju v tržnem gospodarstvu zadostovala za dodatno naložbo kapitala v družbo.
Thus, the fee charged by SACE should have been in fact higher than the fee charged by the five private reinsurers for the much smaller percentage of reinsurance [107].
Kot navaja sporočilo Komisije o uporabi členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe EGS (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sporočilo o načelu vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji) [118], vlagatelje zakon pogosto zavezuje, da prispevajo dodaten lastniški kapital družbam, katerih kapitalsko osnovo so redne izgube zmanjšale pod predhodno določeno raven.
Therefore, the Commission calculates the aid amount in the second measure as the difference between the reinsurance fee that a private reinsurer would have charged for such a high portion of reinsurance and the one that was charged from SACE BT.
V odgovor trditvam držav članic, da se te kapitalske injekcije ne morejo obravnavati kot pomoč, saj le izpolnjujejo pravno obveznost, sporočilo o načelu vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji navaja, da bi zasebni vlagatelji v takem položaju premislili o vseh drugih možnostih, vključno z likvidacijo ali zaprtjem [119], in izbrali možnost, ki prinaša največ prednosti v finančnem smislu.
In line with the Commission's case practice [108], the Commission considers that the fee for such a high portion of reinsurance and risk should have been at least 10 % higher than the fee charged by the private reinsurers for the smaller part of reinsurance and risk.
SACE pravilno trdi, da lahko zasebni vlagatelji upoštevajo druge vidike, kot je javni ugled [120].
For an amount of EUR 1,56 million paid by SACE BT to SACE, the aid amounts to EUR 156000.
Sodišče je v zadevi ENI/Lanerossi razsodilo, da se začasna absorpcija izgub matične družbe, ki jih ustvari odvisna družba, „ki je začasno v težavah, vendar lahko ponovno postane donosna, morda po prestrukturiranju“, lahko upraviči ne le z možnostjo neposredne premoženjske koristi, temveč tudi z drugimi vidiki, tj. zaščito javne podobe skupine in preusmeritvijo njenega poslovanja [121].
Finally, the Commission notes that the allocation of such a high portion of reinsurance to one single company might have not been in compliance with the company's general principles on reinsurance, i.e. ‘the number of participating reinsurers to the treaties shall be such as to ensure an appropriate allocation of risk’ [109].
Vendar je Sodišče razsodilo, da bi se moralo vse kapitalske injekcije obravnavati kot državno pomoč, če ni možnosti za donosnost, tudi dolgoročnih ne [122].
For the above reasons the Commission concludes that SACE did not act as a private reinsurer.
Kot je potrdila sodna praksa, so trditve zato imele omejeno pomembnost za uporabo preskusa zasebnega vlagatelja ob odsotnosti napovedi v času kapitalskih injekcij, da bo SACE BT imela dobiček po letu 2011, tudi dolgoročnih ne.
As regards the question whether a parent company would have provided such a large share of reinsurance in a situation where its subsidiary would not be able to find on the market enough reinsurance at the proposed price, one has to note that such reinsurance contract increases the exposure of the parent company towards the operations of the subsidiary.
Poleg tega Italija in SACE nista zagotovili elementov, s katerimi bi pokazali ali količinsko opredelili negativne gospodarske učinke, ki bi jih domnevno poslabšanje javne podobe družbe SACE imelo za to družbo.
In the present case, SACE was in 2009 in a situation where it needed a large recapitalisation and reinsurance.
Komisija opaža tudi, da se dejavnosti zavarovanja družbe SACE izvajajo v okviru jamstva države.
Indeed, the second, third and fourth measures were all contemplated by SACE's Board of Directors already on 26 May 2009 [110] in order to support SACE BT [111].
Zato Komisija ne vidi razloga, zakaj bi bile zavarovane stranke družbe SACE zaskrbljene glede tega, da je bila odvisna družba družbe SACE, ki ne deluje v okviru jamstva države in je delniška družba, likvidirana.
As it will be concluded in the assessment of those measures, a private investor would not have proceeded with these recapitalisations but would have let the company go bankrupt.
Italija in SACE nista utemeljili, zakaj bi to vplivalo na te dejavnosti SACE, ki se izvajajo v okviru jamstva države.
It has therefore to be concluded that a private parent company would not have proceeded with providing the second measure, which increases even more the exposure of the parent company to its subsidiary.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da dejavnosti zavarovanja SACE niso tržne dejavnosti, ki bi jih izvajal zasebni subjekt, ker jih SACE izvaja z jamstvom države (tako jamstvo zavarovanja dejavnosti družbe SACE ni pomoč, saj se za te dejavnosti šteje, da jih trg ne ponuja in da zato ni izkrivljanja konkurence).
Finally, as regards the question whether the reinsurance provided an advantage to SACE BT, as acknowledged by SACE (see recital 70), the measure allowed SACE BT to increase its credit insurance provision capacity and hence allowed it to subscribe more contracts than it would have been able to do otherwise.
Komisija meni, da pri ocenjevanju, ali bi zasebni vlagatelj v takem položaju, kot je bila SACE, odvisni družbi, kot je SACE BT, pustil, da gre v stečaj oziroma ali bi jo dokapitaliziral, ni mogoče upoštevati morebitnega negativnega učinka likvidacije SACE BT na te netržne dejavnosti, ki jih izvaja SACE, saj zasebni vlagatelj nikoli ne bi bil v položaju, ko bi izvajal take dejavnosti.
Alternatively, without this measure SACE BT would have had to support these risks on its balance sheet/putting its own capital more at risk or offer a higher premium to obtain that reinsurance, at least 10 % higher (see recital 128).
Kot je navedeno, SACE ob sprejetju tretjega in četrtega ukrepa ni primerjala scenarija likvidacije z izbranim načinom naložbe dodatnega kapitala v družbo SACE BT, kljub temu da je bila družba v težavah.
Therefore, the measure allowed SACE BT to obtain reinsurance at a lower price, reinsurance which allowed it to subscribe more insurance than what it could have done without SACE's reinsurance or to bear less of risks on its own account.
Za namen popolnosti bo Komisija v spodnjih odstavkih vseeno pokazala, da bi SACE ob taki primerjavi ugotovila, da bi bila likvidacija družbe SACE BT ustreznejša od naložbe dodatnega kapitala v višini 70 milijonov EUR v družbo SACE BT, kljub temu da je bila družba v težavah.
The Commission concludes that the second measure provided an advantage to SACE BT corresponding to the difference between the fee actually paid by SACE BT and that, at least 10 % higher, that a private reinsurer would have requested taking into consideration the higher level of risk assumed.
Da se ugotovi, ali je bila SACE kot edina delničarka družbe SACE BT v boljšem položaju, ko je vložila dodatni kapital v višini 70 milijonov EUR, kot če bi družbo SACE BT likvidirala (opuščanje njenih dejavnosti), je treba primerjati pričakovane denarne tokove, če obstajajo, za SACE kot delničarko pri scenariju likvidacije (zaprtju) z denarnimi tokovi, pričakovanimi v scenariju kapitalske injekcije.
Presence of an advantage in the third and fourth measures
Na podlagi predloženih informacij je razvidno, da Italija in SACE takrat (ali naknadno) nista ocenili deleža lastniškega kapitala v družbi SACE BT pri scenarijih pred injekcijo in po njej.