natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lastly, the restructuring plan for DBB/Belfius contains sufficient elements that may be characterised as viability restoration, own contribution and compensatory measures, precluding any additional measure or commitment on the part of DBB/Belfius.
Načrt prestrukturiranja banke DBB/Belfius vsebuje dovolj elementov, ki se jih lahko označi kot obnova uspešnega poslovanja, lasten prispevek in izravnalni ukrepi, iz katerih je izključen kakršen koli dodaten ukrep ali zaveza s strani banke DBB/Belfius.
Comments by the Belgian authorities on the comments of interested third parties in respect of the purchase of DBB/Belfius
Pripombe belgijskih organov glede pripomb zainteresiranih tretjih strani v zvezi z nakupom banke DBB/Belfius
As regards comment A, the Belgian authorities consider that DBB/Belfius is not profiting from the fact that it has been purchased by the State.
Belgijski organi glede pripombe A menijo, da banka DBB/Belfius nima koristi od tega, da jo je kupila država.
DBB/Belfius has not received any favourable regulatory treatment as a result of its acquisition by the Belgian State, its customers’ deposits benefit from exactly the same State guarantee threshold as all other banks in Belgium and its rating has not been revised upwards since then.
Ta banka ni imela ugodnejše regulativne obravnave, ker si jo je pripojila Belgija, vloge njenih strank imajo povsem enake pragove državnega jamstva kot v vseh drugih bankah v Belgiji, njena bonitetna ocena pa od tedaj ni bila popravljena navzgor.
Its acquisition by the State has not, moreover, given it any preferential access to the liquidity provided by the ECB.
Poleg tega ni dobila nobenega prednostnega dostopa do likvidnih sredstev, ki jih zagotavlja ECB, ker si jo je pripojila država.
The pricing strategies of the Treasury Plus and Treasury Plus Special accounts comply with the regulatory framework in force in Belgium and do not create a risk of excessive liquidity.
Strategiji določanja cen pri računih, imenovanih „Treasury Plus“ in „Treasury Plus Special“, sta skladni z regulativnim okvirom, ki se uporablja v Belgiji, in ne ustvarjata tveganja presežne likvidnosti.
Rather than imposing pricing policy obligations by product, the regulatory framework oversees the overall liquidity situation of a bank.
Z regulativnim okvirom se nadzira celotni likvidnosti položaj banke, ne pa nalagajo obveznosti glede politike določanja cen za produkt.
DBB/Belfius takes account, moreover, of the behavioural maturity profile of its customers which the bank considers to be more realistic than the contractual maturity profile.
Poleg tega banka upošteva vedenjski profil zapadlosti strank, ki je po njenem mnenju bolj realističen od pogodbenega profila zapadlosti.
The prices offered on these products have not, moreover, changed since summer 2011 and appear to be in line with the market.
Cene obeh navedenih produktov se od poletja leta 2011 niso spremenile, poleg tega se zdi, da so skladne s trgom.
Overall, the volumes of these two products have remained stable since late 2009, demonstrating the lack of distortions of competition in this respect.
Na splošno sta obsega obeh produktov ostala od konca leta 2009 nespremenjena, kar kaže na odsotnost izkrivljanja konkurence v tem pogledu.
As regards comment B, the Belgian authorities do not consider that DBB/Belfius incurred excessive marketing expenditure or expenditure connected with its change of name from DBB/Belfius to Belfius.
Belgijski organi glede pripombe B menijo, da banka DBB/Belfius ni imela previsokih odhodkov zaradi trženja ali odhodkov, povezanih s spremembo imena iz banke DBB/Belfius v Belfius.
These costs were unavoidable if the bank was to continue in the future as it had suffered greatly from its association with the Dexia name.
Banka je utrpela precejšnjo izgubo zaradi povezave z imenom Dexia, zato se tem stroškom ni bilo mogoče izogniti, če naj bi banka nadaljevala dejavnosti v prihodnosti.
These costs amounted to some EUR [25000-50000] per bank branch and are in line with other similar market players in Belgium and in Europe.
Ti stroški so znašali približno [25000–50000] EUR na bančno podružnico ter so skladni z vsemi podobnimi udeleženci na trgu v Belgiji in Evropi.
Sports and cultural sponsorship was already taking place prior to the acquisition of DBB/Belfius by the Belgian State and is a current practice by other banks in Belgium and in Europe.
Šport in kultura pa sta se sponzorirala že, preden je Belgija kupila banko DBB/Belfius, to pa je tudi običajna praksa drugih bank v Belgiji in po Evropi.
Moreover, DBB/Belfius’ share of the Belgian bank advertising market fell between January 2010 and October 2011 and between November 2011 and February 2012.
Poleg tega se je med januarjem 2010 in oktobrom 2011 ter novembrom 2011 in februarjem 2012 zmanjšal delež banke DBB/Belfius na belgijskem trgu bančnega oglaševanja.
The commercial policy of DBB/Belfius is not, moreover, creating distortions of competition in the Belgian market.
Trgovinska politika banke DBB/Belfius prav tako ne ustvarja izkrivljanja konkurence na belgijskem trgu.
DBB/Belfius prices for mortgage loans, internet accounts and savings bonds are in line with its main Belgian competitors.
Ta banka za hipotekarne kredite, spletne račune in varčevanje v obveznicah zaračunava cene, ki so skladne z njenimi največjimi belgijskimi konkurentkami.
Since October 2011, the market shares of DBB/Belfius have been […] for mortgage loans, and […] for internet accounts and savings accounts.
Tržni deleži te banke so od oktobra 2011 znašali […] za hipotekarne kredite ter […] za spletne račune in varčevalne račune.
This demonstrates the lack of distortions of competition by DBB/Belfius in these areas.
Iz tega je razvidno, da ta banka na teh področjih ni izkrivljala konkurence.
COMMENTS BY THE MEMBER STATES CONCERNED ON THE DECISION TO EXTEND THE PROCEDURE AND THE DECISION TO INCREASE THE GUARANTEE CEILING
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH DRŽAV ČLANIC GLEDE SKLEPA O RAZŠIRITVI POSTOPKA IN SKLEPA O POVEČANJU ZGORNJE MEJE JAMSTVA
On 2 July 2012, the authorities of the three Member States concerned provided the Commission with their joint comments on the decision to extend the procedure and the temporary approval decision.
Organi zadevnih držav članic so Komisiji 2. julija 2012 poslali skupne pripombe glede sklepa o razširitvi postopka in sklepa o začasni odobritvi.
The Member States concerned contend that the restructuring plan approved by the conditional authorisation decision has been properly implemented and that the few possible failures to comply with the commitments are due to external factors (reference is made to the presentation of the arguments put forward on this point by Dexia, in recitals 332 to 334 above).
Zadevne države članice trdijo, da se je načrt prestrukturiranja, odobren s sklepom o pogojnem dovoljenju, pravilno izvajal ter da nekaj zavez morda ni izpolnjenih zaradi zunanjih dejavnikov (pri tem je navedena predstavitev utemeljitev, ki jih je glede te točke predložila skupina Dexia v uvodnih izjavah 332 do 334).
Comments on the characterisation of the measures contained in the orderly resolution plan as aid
Pripombe glede opredelitve ukrepov iz načrta nadzorovanega reševanja kot pomoč
First, the Member States concerned dispute the characterisation of the ELAs decided by the BNB and BdF as aid.
Zadevne države članice najprej nasprotujejo temu, da bi se izredna likvidnostna pomoč, za katero sta se odločili banka BNB in banka BdF, označila kot pomoč.
The Belgian authorities point out that that the BNB decides autonomously and at its own discretion on the grant, prolongation and amount of ELA, as part of its task of keeping the financial situation stable.
Belgijski organi poudarjajo, da se banka BNB neodvisno in po lastni presoji odloča o odobritvi, podaljšanju in znesku izredne likvidnostne pomoči, kar je del njene naloge ohranjanja stabilnih finančnih razmer.
ELA operations are temporary measures that are part and parcel of the conventional tasks of national central banks and are endorsed by the Governing Council of the ECB.
Ukrepi izredne likvidnostne pomoči so začasni ukrepi, ki so bistveni del običajnih nalog nacionalnih centralnih bank, podpira pa jih Svet ECB.
According to the Member States concerned, the ELA was granted to Dexia at penalising, even prohibitive, interest rates and was guaranteed by adequate securities to which safety margins that were substantial and depended on their quality were applied.
Zadevne države članice navajajo, da je bila izredna likvidnostna pomoč skupini Dexia dodeljena po obrestnih merah s penali, ki so bile celo nesprejemljivo visoke, ter da je bila zajamčena z ustreznimi vrednostnimi papirji, pri katerih so se uporabljali varnostni pribitki, ki so bili precejšnji in odvisni od njihove kakovosti.
According to the Belgian authorities, moreover, the guarantee granted by Belgium was not granted specifically for the ELAs, but covered all the loans granted by the BNB as part of its contribution to the stability of the financial system.
Po trditvah belgijskih organov se jamstvo, ki ga je odobrila Belgija, ni bilo namenjeno zgolj ukrepom, temveč je zajemalo vsa odobrena posojila, s katerimi je banka BNB prispevala k stabilnosti finančnega sistema.
Lastly, the Belgian authorities point out that Belgium’s guarantee on the loans granted by the BNB cannot be construed as a ‘counter-guarantee’ as referred to in the Communication from the Commission — The application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis [79] (‘the Banking Communication’).
Belgijski organi nazadnje poudarjajo, da jamstva Belgije za posojila, ki jih je odobrila banka BNB, ni mogoče zasnovati kot „posrednega jamstva“, kakor se nanj sklicujejo v Sporočilu Komisije z naslovom „Uporaba pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe v zvezi s finančnimi institucijami v okviru trenutne svetovne finančne krize“ [79] (v nadaljevanju besedila: sporočilo o bančništvu).
Belgium’s specific guarantee does not cover the ELAs alone, but guarantees all the BNB’s loans provided that they are granted as part of its contribution to maintaining the stability of the financial system which, in the view of the Belgian authorities, goes well beyond measures to tackle the crisis.
Posebno jamstvo Belgije ne zajema le ukrepov izredne likvidnostne pomoči, ampak jamči za vsa posojila banke BNB, če so odobrena kot del prispevka k ohranjanju stabilnosti finančnega sistema, kar po mnenju belgijskih organov močno presega ukrepe za reševanje krize.
The Member States concerned also point out that such an interpretation is ultimately in line with the Commission’s decision-making practice and cite the 2007 Northern Rock decision [80] by way of example.
Zadevne države članice tudi poudarjajo, da je taka razlaga konec koncev skladna s prakso sprejemanja odločitev Komisije in kot primer navajajo njeno odločbo iz leta 2007 o banki Northern Rock [80].
As regards the agreement between the BNB and BdF [81], the Belgian authorities point out that the Commission observed in recital 108 of the conditional authorisation decision that ‘the Banque de France … does not benefit from any explicit guarantee on the part of the French State and the guarantee by the Belgian State obviously cannot apply to an operation carried out on behalf of and at the risk of a foreign central bank’ and consider that the guarantee by the Belgian State in favour of the BNB [82] cannot be applied to an operation carried out on behalf of and at the risk of a foreign bank.
Belgijski organi glede sporazuma med banko BNB in banka BdF [81] poudarjajo, da je Komisija v uvodni izjavi 108 sklepa o pogojnem dovoljenju ugotovila, da „za banka BdF […] ne velja nobeno izrecno jamstvo države Francije, jamstva države Belgije pa seveda ni mogoče uporabiti pri ukrepu za račun in na odgovornost tuje centralne banke“, ter menijo, da jamstva Belgije v korist banke BNB [82] ni mogoče uporabiti pri ukrepu za račun in na odgovornost tuje centralne banke.
The Member States concerned consider that 1) the BNB, and not the State, is party to the guarantee contract; 2) the guarantee contract clearly assigns the risks of/the debt incurred by the relevant operations by the BNB and the BdF; and 3) in any case only the share of the losses that the BNB could suffer following the application of the guarantee contract is guaranteed by the State, i.e. the Belgian State is not guaranteeing any risks or debts on the part of the BdF.
Zadevne države članice menijo, da: 1) podpisnica pogodbe o jamstvu ni država, ampak banka BNB, 2) pogodba o jamstvu jasno določa tveganja/nastali dolg, ki ga imata banka BNB in banka BdF zaradi zadevnih ukrepov, ter 3) da v vsakem primeru država jamči le za del izgub, ki jih lahko utrpi banka BNB po začetku uporabe pogodbe o jamstvu, in sicer Belgija ne jamči za kakršna koli tveganja ali dolgove banka BdF.
Moreover, concerning the beneficiaries of potential aid in the context of Dexia’s restructuring, the Member States point out that there is no structure that can be considered to be a ‘new mortgage lending structure’ and that the economic activities of the NEC, the JV and DMA should be differentiated.
Države članice glede upravičencev do morebitne pomoči v okviru prestrukturiranja skupine Dexia poudarjajo, da ne obstaja nobena struktura, ki bi se lahko obravnavala kot „nova struktura hipotekarnega kreditiranja“ ter da je treba razlikovati med gospodarskimi dejavnostmi nove kreditne institucije, skupnega podjetja in družbe DMA.
These entities, which have different shareholders and pursue their own business interest, are vertically integrated by service links.
Ti subjekti, ki imajo različne delničarje in svoj lasten poslovni interes, so s službenimi povezavami vertikalno integrirani.
Concerning the guarantees planned in the orderly resolution plan for Dexia, the Member Stares concerned consider that only the guarantee by the French State of DCL’s commitment in relation to the sensitive loans constitutes State aid and not the other guarantees (the ‘stop-loss’ guarantee, the other vendor guarantees non counter-guaranteed by the State and the ‘sensitive loans’ guarantee) [83].
Kar zadeva jamstva iz načrta nadzorovanega reševanja skupine Dexia, zadevne države članice menijo, da je državna pomoč zgolj jamstvo Francije za zavezo banke DCL glede občutljivih posojil, ne pa druga jamstva (jamstvo za omejitev izgube, druga jamstva prodajalcev, ki nimajo posrednega jamstva države, in jamstvo za občutljiva posojila) [83].
The guarantee by the French State in respect of DCL’s commitment confers an advantage, in the view of the Member States concerned, only for the residual group and not for DMA or a hypothetical ‘new mortgage lending structure’.
Po mnenju zadevnih držav članic jamstvo Francije glede zavez banke DCL koristi le preostali skupini, ne pa družbi DMA ali domnevni „novi strukturi za hipotekarno kreditiranje“.
Without substantial downward value adjustments, it could not be characterised, however, as a measure to treat impaired assets.
Vendar tega ne bi bilo mogoče označiti kot ukrep za obravnavo oslabljenih sredstev, če se vrednost ne bi bistveno popravila navzdol.
The other guarantees (the ‘stop-loss’ guarantee, the other vendor guarantees not counter-guaranteed by the State and the ‘sensitive loans’ guarantee) were granted, in the view of the Member States concerned, by a private enterprise whose resources are not under State control and whose decisions cannot be imputed to the State.
Zadevne države članice so menile, da je druga jamstva (jamstvo za omejitev izgube, druga jamstva prodajalcev, ki nimajo posrednega jamstva države, in jamstvo za občutljiva posojila) odobrilo zasebno podjetje, katerega sredstva niso pod državnim nadzorom in katerega odločitve se ne morejo pripisati državi.
In the view of the Member States concerned, Dexia’s decisions cannot be imputed to the State as the public authorities could not exercise a dominant influence over Dexia SA.
Odločitve skupine Dexia se po mnenju zadevnih držav članic ne morejo pripisati državi, saj javni organi ne bi mogli imeti prevladujočega vpliva na skupino Dexia SA.
First, because it is not a public enterprise (and the Member States concerned cannot, in particular, control its resources, in an ongoing manner, via their holdings in the capital of other shareholders) and, second, because there is no controlling holding by an individual Member State in Dexia’s capital.
Prvič, zato ker ni javno podjetje (zadevne države članice zlasti ne morejo sproti nadzirati njenih sredstev z deleži v kapitalu drugih delničarjev), drugič pa zato, ker posamezna država članica v kapitalu skupine Dexia nima nadzornega deleža.
Only decisions in the company interest of Dexia SA and in keeping with the applicable regulations may be adopted by its managing organs.
Organi upravljanja družbe Dexia SA lahko sprejmejo le odločitve v interesu te družbe in v skladu s predpisi, ki se uporabljajo.
Moreover, the criteria of the Stardust Marine judgment [84] are not met: Dexia is not integrated into the public administration, its activities take place in the market in normal conditions of competition, its status is subject to ordinary company law and no public entity supervises Dexia.
Poleg tega niso izpolnjena merila iz sodbe v zadevi Stardust Marine [84]: skupina Dexia ni vključena v javno upravo, njene dejavnosti se opravljajo na trgu pod običajnimi konkurenčnimi tržnimi pogoji, njen položaj je odvisen od običajnega prava gospodarskih družb in noben javni subjekt ne nadzoruje te skupine.
Lastly, the authorities concerned strongly dispute that the vendor guarantee in respect of the ‘sensitive loans’ can be considered to contain elements of State aid as a result of the counter-guarantee by the State.
Zadevni organi močno nasprotujejo temu, da bi se lahko štelo, da jamstvo prodajalca glede občutljivih posojil zaradi posrednega jamstva države vsebuje elemente državne pomoči.
The Hellenic Shipyard [85] case that the Commission invoked in support of its preliminary assessment in its decision to extend the procedure is factually very different from the present case.
Zadeva v zvezi s podjetjem Hellenic Shipyard [85], na katero se je sklicevala Komisija v podporo svoji predhodni oceni v sklepu o razširitvi postopka, se dejansko močno razlikuje od te zadeve.
The Member States concerned consider, moreover, that the vendor guarantees were granted under market conditions and do not therefore confer any selective advantage.
Zadevne države članice prav tako menijo, da so bila jamstva prodajalcev zagotovljena pod tržnimi pogoji in zato ne dajejo nobene selektivne prednosti.
They observe that the risk covered is particularly low in relation to the constitutional and legislative framework for local authority finances.
Ugotavljajo, da je v zvezi z ustavnim in zakonodajnim okvirom za sredstva lokalne skupnosti krito tveganje posebej nizko.
This type of guarantee is conventional in business sale contracts.
V poslovnih prodajnih pogodbah je taka vrsta jamstva običajna.
Even though there is no ceiling, the grant of these guarantees is entirely pertinent for a private market economy investor because of the particular nature of the risk covered which cannot be attributed to DMA and its acquirers, but to the vendors of DMA.
Zaradi posebne narave kritega tveganja, ki ga ni mogoče pripisati družbi DMA in njenim kupcem, ampak prodajalcem te družbe, je odobritev teh jamstev povsem primerna za zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, čeprav zgornja meja ni določena.
Characterisation as impaired assets is not applicable and in any case cannot concern all of DMA’s assets.
Ni mogoče uporabiti opredelitve, da gre za oslabljena sredstva, v vsakem primeru pa se ne more nanašati na vsa sredstva družbe DMA.
DMA’s assets are not exposed to substantial impairments or substantial downward value adjustments.
Sredstva te družbe niso izpostavljena bistvenim oslabitvam ali bistvenim popravkom vrednosti navzdol.
It is not, moreover, the quality of DMA’s assets that gave rise to the scepticism about Dexia’s viability, but a business model combining long-term assets and short-term refinancing.
Poleg tega dvoma o uspešnem poslovanju skupine Dexia ni povzročila kakovost sredstev družbe DMA, temveč poslovni model, ki združuje dolgoročna sredstva in kratkoročno refinanciranje.
Concerning the sale of DMA, the Member States concerned contend that the decisions of the CDC and La Banque Postale in relation to their investment in DMA cannot be imputed to the State and that the sale price of DMA is in keeping with the market price, whereas placing DMA in run-off would have been more costly for Dexia than its disposal under the planned conditions.
Zadevne države članice glede prodaje družbe DMA trdijo, da se odločitve hranilnice in posojilnice CDC in banke LBP glede njune naložbe v to družbo ne morejo pripisati državi ter da je prodajna cena te družbe skladna s tržno ceno, medtem ko bi bilo za skupino Dexia dražje, če bi za družbo DMA uvedla likvidacijski postopek, kot pa če bi jo prodala pod načrtovanimi pogoji.
The Member States concerned point out, as to whether or not the decisions of the CDC and La Banque Postale can be imputed to the State, that the CDC’s decision to acquire a holding in the capital of the NEC is a strategic choice to seize a market opportunity.
Zadevne države članice glede tega, ali se odločitev hranilnice in posojilnice CDC ter banke LBP lahko pripišejo državi, opozarjajo, da je bila odločitev hranilnice in posojilnice CDC glede pridobitve deleža v novi kreditni instituciji strateška izbira za izrabo tržne priložnosti.
They maintain that the Commission’s position upheld by the Court of First Instance in the 1996 Air France judgment is no longer relevant in view of the subsequent case law (Stardust Marine) and the changes in the status of the CDC.
Trdijo, da stališče Komisije, ki ga je zavzemala v sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi Air France iz leta 1996, glede na poznejšo sodno prakso (sodba v zadevi Stardust Marine) ter spremembe položaja hranilnice in posojilnice CDC ni več primerno.
While there is no doubt that the CDC is a public establishment, its status gives it considerable autonomy from the State and its decision-making process is the same as that of any other private bank.
Čeprav ni dvoma o tem, da je hranilnica in posojilnica CDC javna ustanova, ji njen položaj zagotavlja precejšno avtonomijo, njen proces sprejemanja odločitev pa je enak kot v kateri koli drugi zasebni banki.
Its indirect investment in the NEC comes within the competitive activities that the CDC Group can undertake in relation to subsidiaries.
Njena posredna naložba v novo kreditno institucijo spada v okvir konkurenčnih dejavnosti, ki jih lahko izvaja hranilnica in posojilnica CDC v zvezi s svojimi odvisnimi družbami.
The CDC’s decisions concerning its competitive activities are taken with greater autonomy from the State.
Njene odločitve glede konkurenčnih dejavnosti se sprejemajo z večjo avtonomijo od države.
Similarly, account has to be taken of the organisational and decision-making autonomy of La Poste, and La Banque Postale.
Podobno je treba upoštevati organizacijsko avtonomijo in avtonomijo odločanja družbe La Poste in banke LBP.
The criteria of the Stardust Marine judgment are not met in this case and the presence of the Government Commissioner and the Economic and Financial Comptroller General, and the participation of a member of the management board of La Poste, in the proceedings before the Commission are not relevant arguments.
Merila sodbe v zadevi Stardust Marine v tej zadevi niso izpolnjena, prisotnost vladnega komisarja in generalnega nadzornika za ekonomske in finančne zadeve ter udeležba člana upravnega odbora družbe La Poste v postopku pred pa Komisijo niso primerne utemeljitve.