natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Contrary to the arguments put forward by Italy and the interested parties, the Commission's practice in its decisions with regard to intervention by deposit guarantee schemes [92] provides ample indication that the action taken by the FITD is in the nature of State aid.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se pri uporabi načela udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu obveznosti, naložene v skladu z javnim pooblastilom, ne morejo upoštevati [96].
In light of the above, the Sicilcassa decision provides no grounds for invoking legitimate expectations on the part of Italy and the interested parties.
Brez upoštevanja obveznosti, ki jih ima FITD na podlagi svojega javnega pooblastila, Komisija ugotavlja, da udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu ne bi sprejel nobenega od navedenih treh ukrepov.
Selective advantage distorting competition and affecting trade between Member States
Pri navedeni presoji je neobstoj poslovnega načrta in kakršne koli možnosti donosa od naložbe temeljnega pomena in nujno potrjuje sklepno ugotovitev.
The support measures taken by the FITD conferred a selective advantage on Tercas, and the FITD was not acting in the capacity of an operator in a market economy.
Nazadnje, BPB in Tercas trdita, da je mogoče ukrep, ki ga je sprejel FITD, šteti za sočasen s prispevkom, ki ga je kot zasebni subjekt zagotovila BPB.
Measures 1, 2 and 3, for which there is no expectation or possibility of any return, are not measures that would be taken by a market economy operator.
Komisija opozarja, da morajo pri tovrstni sočasni naložbi veljati popolnoma enaki pogoji za zasebnega in javnega sovlagatelja.
They show that the FITD was acting not as a market economy operator but as a body fulfilling a public mandate [93].
V zadevnem primeru je jasno, da navedeni pogoj ni izpolnjen.
All three measures are grants of assistance without any fee, remuneration or associated return, whose combined effect was that Tercas did not exit the market as it would likely have done in the absence of such support, and which thereby conferred a selective advantage on Tercas.
BPB je pridobila popolno lastništvo nad Tercas, FITD pa ni prejel donosa od svoje naložbe.
Even if it were to be accepted that the measures ought to be assessed in the light of the conduct of a comparably situated market economy operator, it would in any event be for the Member State concerned to furnish the Commission with objective and verifiable evidence to show that the decision was based on a prior economic assessment, comparable to the assessment that might be carried out by a rational private operator in a similar situation in order to determine the future profitability of the measure.
Iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah 149 do 156, je Tercas na podlagi ukrepov, ki jih je FITD sprejel v njeno korist, prejela prednost, in sicer nepovratni prispevek za kritje negativnega lastniškega kapitala, jamstvo brez plačila za kreditni izpostavljenosti do […] ter po potrebi pogojen nepovratni prispevek za zaščito Tercas pred delom njenih davčnih obveznosti na podlagi takrat veljavnih predpisov o davku od prihodka.
In the case at hand, no evidence has been supplied to the Commission to demonstrate that the FITD demanded a business plan or a calculation of the return on the capital invested, which are fundamental requirements for any investment decision on the part of a private operator.
Gledano skupaj, se je z navedenimi ukrepi preprečil izstop Tercas s trga.
Italy and the interested parties claim that those measures were in fact compliant with the principle of the operator in a market economy [94], in particular because the action enabled the FITD to limit costs to which it would otherwise have been exposed, namely the costs to the FITD of reimbursing depositors at the stage of compulsory administrative winding up of Tercas.
V običajnih tržnih pogojih navedeni ukrepi Tercas ne bi koristili.
The interested parties claim further that the actions of the FITD are within the sphere of the private autonomy of the member banks.
Komisija meni, da so zadevni ukrepi selektivni, saj se nanašajo izključno na Tercas.
The Commission takes the view that the measures are clearly imputable to the FITD, which is controlled by the public authorities (see the assessment in recitals 134 to 136), and not to the member banks.
Tovrstni ukrepi podpore so na voljo samo bankam pod posebno upravo in samo v posameznem primeru.
Any comparison with action taken by the FITD before the member banks were legally bound to belong to it are irrelevant, in view of the fact that member banks now have no way of opting out of particular measures, as explained in recitals 134 and 135.
Komisija zato meni, da so bili ukrepi, ocenjeni v tem sklepu, namenjeni izrecno in izključno Tercas, da bi se preprečil njen izstop s trga, zato so bili selektivni.
This is aggravated by the mechanism by which the FITD decides such measures, as described in recital 36, which is skewed in favour of large banks [95] in such a way that decisions to intervene can be taken against the will of the majority of the member banks.
Nazadnje, prednosti, ki jih je FITD s svojim posredovanjem zagotovil Tercas, izkrivljajo konkurenco, ker preprečujejo propad in izstop Tercas s trga.
The costs in question thus arise from obligations imposed on the FITD as a deposit guarantee scheme acting under a public mandate to protect depositors.
Ta je v konkurenci s tujimi podjetji, torej je prizadeta trgovina med državami članicami.
No market economy operator would have to fulfil the obligations deriving from a public mandate, such as the obligation to reimburse depositors in the event of a liquidation of Tercas.
Kar zadeva ukrep 1, so bila nepovratna sredstva v višini 265 milijonov EUR zagotovljena v pravni obliki nepovratnega prispevka za kritje negativnega lastniškega kapitala Tercas brez kakršnega koli plačila.
According to established case-law, obligations incurred under a public mandate cannot be taken into account in the application of the market economy operator principle [96].
Komisija šteje celotni znesek v višini 265 milijonov EUR za element pomoči.
Leaving aside the obligations incurred under the FITD's public mandate, therefore, the Commission concludes that none of the three measures would have been adopted by a market economy operator.
Kar zadeva ukrep 2, je bilo jamstvo v vrednosti 35 milijonov EUR zagotovljeno za največ triletno obdobje za kritje kreditnega tveganja, povezanega z izpostavljenostma Tercas do […].
The absence of a business plan and any prospect of any return on investment whatsoever is fundamental to that assessment, and cannot but confirm the conclusion.
V skladu z obvestilom Komisije o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev [97] bi bilo treba element pomoči izračunati kot bruto ekvivalent dotacije na osnovi razlike med premijo, ki bi jo upravičenec moral plačati udeležencu na trgu, da bi pridobil tako jamstvo, in premijo, ki jo je dejansko plačal za isto jamstvo, ko je bilo zagotovljeno.
Finally, BPB and Tercas contend that the action taken by the FITD can be considered to be concurrent with the contribution of BPB as a private operator.
Komisija nima podatkov v zvezi s provizijo, ki bi jo udeleženec na trgu zaračunal za zavarovanje kreditne izpostavljenosti do […] ali kreditne kakovosti […].
The Commission points out that concurrent investment of this kind must be on fully equal conditions for the private and the public co-investors.
Glede na to, da je bila izpostavljenost v tistem trenutku donosna in da je bilo posojilo nazadnje vrnjeno v roku, ter ob upoštevanju veliko večjih zneskov pomoči, zagotovljenih v okviru ukrepov 1 in 3, po mnenju Komisije zadostuje, če se določi spodnja meja za oceno zadevnega zneska pomoči.
That condition is clearly not fulfilled here.
Navedeno spodnjo mejo je mogoče določiti tako, da se kot primerjalna vrednost upošteva povprečje vrednosti triletnih kreditnih zamenjav [98] v obdobju, ko je bila pomoč dodeljena, za največje italijanske nefinančne družbe, ki aktivno trgujejo s kreditnimi zamenjavami.
BPB obtained full ownership of Tercas, whereas the FITD received no return on its investment.
Navedeno povprečje znaša 53 bazičnih točk [99].
For the reasons set out in recitals 149 to 156, the measures taken by the FITD in favour of Tercas provided Tercas with an advantage, namely a non-repayable contribution to cover its negative equity, an unremunerated guarantee on some credit exposures towards […], and a conditional non-repayable contribution if needed in order to shield Tercas from part of its tax liabilities under the then applicable income tax rules.
Kar zadeva ukrep 3, Komisija ugotavlja, da je treba v skladu z italijansko zakonodajo oprostitev plačila davka priglasiti Evropski komisiji, ta pa jo mora odobriti.
Taken together those measures prevented Tercas's exit from the market.
Ko je bila pomoč dodeljena ali po tem Komisija ni sprejela odločitve v zvezi z ukrepom 3, zato je treba šteti, da je jamstvo zapadlo.
Tercas would not have benefited from those measures under normal market conditions.
Oprostitev plačila davka ni bila uradno priglašena Komisiji, kar pomeni, da je ni bilo mogoče uporabiti.
The Commission is of the opinion that the measures at issue are selective, because they relate to Tercas only.
Zato Komisija ne more obravnavati ukrepa kot jamstvo, temveč kot še en nepovratni prispevek brez plačila.
Such support measures are available only to banks in special administration, and only on a case-by-case basis.
Komisija šteje celotni znesek v višini 30 milijonov EUR za element pomoči.
The Commission consequently takes the view that the measures assessed in this Decision were aimed at Tercas specifically and exclusively, in order to prevent its exit from the market, and were therefore selective.
Sklepne ugotovitve v zvezi z obstojem pomoči
Finally, the advantages conferred on Tercas by the FITD action distort competition by preventing the failure and market exit of Tercas.
Komisija iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah 149 do 164, ugotavlja, da je Tercas z ukrepom 1 (nepovratni prispevek v višini 265 milijonov EUR), ukrepom 2 (jamstvo za kreditni izpostavljenosti v vrednosti 35 milijonov EUR do […], pri katerem element pomoči znaša 0,14 milijona EUR) in ukrepom 3 (še en nepovratni prispevek v višini 30 milijonov EUR), ki skupaj znašajo 295,14 milijona EUR državne pomoči, dodeljene s strani FITD, prejela selektivno prednost, ki je izkrivljala konkurenco in prizadela trgovino med državami članicami.
Tercas is in competition with foreign undertakings, so that trade between Member States is affected.
Navedena selektivna prednost je bila zagotovljena z državnimi sredstvi v okviru ukrepa FITD, ki je iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah 112 do 148, pripisljiv državi.
Regarding measure 1, the grant of EUR 265 million took the legal form of a non-repayable contribution to cover Tercas's negative equity without any element of remuneration.
Pomoč je bila dodeljena 7. julija 2014.
The Commission considers the aid component to be the full amount of EUR 265 million.
Upravičenec do pomoči
Regarding measure 2, the EUR 35 million guarantee was provided for a duration of up to three years to cover the credit risk associated with certain exposures of Tercas towards […].
Komisija opozarja na svojo presojo, da Tercas vsi trije zadevni ukrepi dajejo prednost.
According to the Commission Notice on Guarantees [97], the aid component should be calculated as the gross grant equivalent of the difference between the premium that the beneficiary would have had to pay to a market operator in order to obtain such a guarantee and the premium it actually paid for the same guarantee for the time it was in place.
Zato meni, da so ukrepi dali prednost gospodarskim dejavnostim Tercas, saj se je z njimi preprečil njen izstop s trga in omogočilo nadaljevanje navedenih gospodarskih dejavnosti v podjetju, ki je prevzelo Tercas, tj. BPB.
The Commission has no information concerning the fee that a market operator would have charged for insuring the credit exposure to […] or the credit quality of […].
Da bi Komisija ugotovila, ali prodaja dejavnosti banke vključuje državno pomoč kupcu v skladu s točkami 79, 80 in 81 sporočila o bančništvu iz leta 2013 in točko 20 sporočila o prestrukturiranju [100], mora oceniti, ali so izpolnjene nekatere zahteve.
That average amounts to 53 basis points [99].
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Tercas edini upravičenec do ukrepa pomoči in da kupec, tj. BPB ni prejel pomoči.
Considering that the guarantee covered EUR 35 million of exposures and was in place for only nine months, the cash value of the guarantee premium is EUR 0,14 million.
ZAKONITOST POMOČI
The agreements did not provide for any premium to the FITD that can be subtracted from that figure, and the Commission accordingly considers that the amount of the aid is EUR 0,14 million.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da opredeljeni ukrepi vključujejo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe ter da so bili dodeljeni v nasprotju z obveznostma priglasitve in mirovanja, ki ju nalaga člen 108(3) Pogodbe.
Regarding measure 3, the Commission observes that Italian law made the tax exemption subject to notification and approval by the European Commission.
Zato Komisija meni, da ukrepi, dodeljeni Tercas, pomenijo nezakonito državno pomoč.
At the time the aid was granted or thereafter the Commission had not taken a decision on measure 3, so that the guarantee has to be considered to have fallen due.
ZDRUŽLJIVOST POMOČI
The tax exemption had not been formally notified to the Commission, which means that it could not be applied.
Pravna podlaga za oceno združljivosti
Hence, the Commission cannot consider the measure to be a guarantee but rather another non-repayable contribution without remuneration.
Italija ne trdi, da so ukrepi združljivi z notranjim trgom.
The Commission considers that the aid component is the full amount of EUR 30 million.
Določbe člena 107(2) Pogodbe se ne uporabljajo.
Conclusions on the existence of aid
Prav tako je jasno, da se ne uporabljata pododstavka (a) in (d) člena 107(3), medtem ko so zahteve iz člena 107(3)(c) bolj omejevalne od tistih, ki jih Komisija zdaj uporablja za finančne institucije v težavah v skladu s členom 107(3)(b).
For the reasons set out in recitals 149 to 164 above, the Commission concludes that measure 1 (a non-repayable contribution of EUR 265 million), measure 2 (a guarantee for EUR 35 million of credit exposures to […] with an aid component of EUR 0,14 million) and measure 3 (a further non-repayable contribution of EUR 30 million), totalling EUR 295,14 million in State aid given by the FITD, conferred a selective advantage on Tercas that distorted competition and affected trade between Member States.
Komisija bo zato preučila združljivost posredovanja FITD samo na podlagi zadnjenavedene določbe.
That selective advantage was granted through State resources via the action taken by the FITD, which is imputable to the State for the reasons set out in recitals 112 to 148.
V skladu s členom 107(3)(b) Pogodbe lahko Komisija ugotovi, da je pomoč združljiva z notranjim trgom, če je namenjena „odpravljanj[u] resne motnje v gospodarstvu države članice“.
The aid was granted on 7 July 2014.
Komisija priznava, da lahko svetovna finančna kriza povzroči resno motnjo v gospodarstvu države članice in da so lahko ukrepi za pomoč bankam ustrezni za odpravljanje navedene motnje.
Beneficiary of the aid
Navedeno stališče je bilo postopoma podrobno obravnavano in izdelano v sedmih sporočilih o krizi [101] ter znova potrjeno v sporočilu o bančništvu iz leta 2013, v katerem Komisija navaja razloge za svoje mnenje, da so zahteve za uporabo člena 107(3)(b) še naprej izpolnjene.
The Commission recalls its assessment that all three measures in question confer an advantage on Tercas.
Da bi bil ukrep pomoči združljiv v skladu s členom 107(3)(b) Pogodbe, mora biti skladen s splošnimi načeli za združljivost iz člena 107(3), obravnavanimi ob upoštevanju splošnih ciljev Pogodbe.
The Commission therefore considers that the measures have favoured Tercas's economic activities, by preventing its exit from the market and allowing the continuation of those economic activities within the purchasing undertaking, BPB.
Zato je Komisija v prejšnjih sklepih [102] menila, da mora vsak ukrep ali shema pomoči uspešno opraviti tri preskuse: (i) ustreznost, (ii) potrebnost in (iii) sorazmernost.
To determine whether the sale of the bank's activities entails State aid to the buyer, in line with points 79, 80 and 81 of the 2013 Banking Communication and point 20 of the Restructuring Communication [100], the Commission needs to assess whether certain requirements are met.
Sporočilo o bančništvu iz leta 2013 se uporablja za državno pomoč, dodeljeno od 1. avgusta 2013.
It needs to examine in particular whether (i) the sale process was open, unconditional and non-discriminatory; (ii) the sale took place on market terms; and (iii) the credit institution or the government maximised the sale price for the assets and liabilities involved.
Banca d'Italia je podporni ukrep FITD odobrila 7. julija 2014.
As it said in the opening decision, the Commission has no evidence that would allow it to conclude (i) that the sales process was not open, unconditional and non-discriminatory, (ii) that the sale did not take place on market terms, or (iii) that the Italian authorities did not maximise the sale price for Tercas.
Da bi Komisija ugotovila, ali so ukrepi združljivi z zadevnimi sporočili o krizi, bo ocenila pomoč, dodeljeno v okviru treh ukrepov, kot sledi:
The Commission concludes that the sole beneficiary of the aid measure is Tercas, and that there was no aid to the buyer, BPB.
nepovratni prispevek v višini 265 milijonov EUR bo v okviru preučitve na podlagi sporočila o bančništvu iz leta 2013 in sporočila o prestrukturiranju obravnavan kot dejavnost dokapitalizacije, čeprav se od standardnega ukrepa dokapitalizacije razlikuje po tem, da organ, ki ga je dodelil, ni pridobil nobene pravice, ter po tem, da ni bilo plačano nadomestilo.
LAWFULNESS OF THE AID
jamstvo v vrednosti 35 milijonov EUR za pokritje kreditnega tveganja, povezanega z izpostavljenostma Tercas do […], ki vključuje element pomoči v višini 0,14 milijona EUR, se lahko kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje Tercas oceni na podlagi sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih [103], sporočila o bančništvu iz leta 2013 in sporočila o prestrukturiranju.3.
In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the measures identified entail State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, and have been granted in breach of the notification and stand-still obligations imposed by Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Ker Komisija ni sprejela nobenega odločitve, bo jamstvo v vrednosti 30 milijonov EUR ocenjeno kot dodatna podpora z nepovratnim prispevkom.
The Commission therefore considers that the measures granted to Tercas constitute unlawful State aid.
Zato ga je treba obravnavati kot dokapitalizacijo, ki se preuči enako kot ukrep 1.
COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID
Komisija bo najprej ocenila združljivost ukrepa 2 z notranjim trgom ob upoštevanju sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih, nato pa bo opravila združeno oceno vseh treh ukrepov na podlagi sporočila o bančništvu iz leta 2013 in sporočila o prestrukturiranju.
Legal basis for the assessment of compatibility
Združljivost ukrepa 2 s sporočilom o oslabljenih sredstvih
Italy has not claimed that the measures are compatible with the internal market.
Ukrep 2 je treba oceniti na podlagi meril združljivosti, naštetih v sporočilu o oslabljenih sredstvih, saj je njegov namen „banko upravičenko [razbremeniti] potrebe, da izkaže izgubo ali oblikuje rezervacije za potencialno izgubo oslabljenih sredstev (ali ji [zagotoviti] nadomestilo v takih primerih)“.
None of the provisions of Article 107(2) of the Treaty are applicable.
Navedena merila so: (i) upravičena sredstva; (ii) preglednost in razkritje oslabljenih sredstev; (iii) upravljanje sredstev; (iv) ustrezen in skladen pristop k vrednotenju ter (v) ustreznost plačila in porazdelitve bremena.
In the same way, subparagraphs (a) and (d) of Article 107(3) clearly do not apply, while the requirements of Article 107(3)(c) are more restrictive than those which the Commission currently applies to financial institutions in difficulty pursuant to Article 107(3)(b).
Upravičena sredstva
The Commission will therefore examine the compatibility of the FITD's intervention solely on the basis of the last mentioned provision.
Glede upravičenih sredstev oddelek 5.4 sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih navaja, da je za finančno pomoč potrebna jasna opredelitev oslabljenih sredstev in da v zvezi z upravičenostjo veljajo nekatere omejitve.
Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty empowers the Commission to find that aid is compatible with the internal market if it is intended ‘to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State’.
Čeprav so v sporočilu o oslabljenih sredstvih kot upravičena navedena sredstva, ki so sprožila finančno krizo, je v skladu s sporočilom državam članicam omogočeno tudi, da „ob ustrezni utemeljitvi za primerne [veljajo] tudi dobro opredeljene kategorije sredstev, ki so povezane s sistemsko grožnjo, in sicer brez količinskih omejitev“.
The Commission has acknowledged that the global financial crisis can create a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State, and that measures to assist banks can be appropriate in order to remedy that disturbance.
V točki 35 sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih je navedeno, da „program pomoči ne more vključevati sredstev, ki trenutno ne veljajo za oslabljena“.
That view has been successively detailed and developed in the seven Crisis Communications [101] and was confirmed again in the 2013 Banking Communication, where the Commission lays out the reasons why it considers that the requirements for the application of Article 107(3)(b) continue to be fulfilled.
V zadevnem primeru je v poročilu FITD iz julija 2014 navedeno, da se izpostavljenosti iz ukrepa 2 nanašata na donosna, a težavna posojila.
In order for an aid measure to be compatible under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty, it must comply with the general principles for compatibility in Article 107(3), viewed in the light of the general objectives of the Treaty.
V skladu z merili iz oddelka 5.4 sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih donosna posojila niso upravičena.
In previous decisions [102], therefore, the Commission has held that any aid measure or scheme must satisfy three tests: (i) appropriateness, (ii) necessity, and (iii) proportionality.
Na podlagi tega Komisija sklepa, da ukrep 2 ne izpolnjuje meril za upravičena sredstva iz sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih.
The 2013 Banking Communication applies to State aid granted from 1 August 2013 onwards.
Preglednost in razkritje, upravljanje in vrednotenje
The FITD support intervention was authorised by the Banca d'Italia on 7 July 2014.
V skladu z oddelkom 5.1 sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih Komisija zahteva popolno vnaprejšnjo preglednost in razkritje oslabljenih sredstev, za katera bodo namenjeni ukrepi pomoči.
In order to establish whether the measures are compatible with the relevant Crisis Communications, the Commission will assess the aid granted in the three measures as follows:
Vendar ni Komisija prejela nobenih informacij o zadevnima izpostavljenostma ali osnovnem podjetju.
The non-repayable contribution of EUR 265 million will be treated as a recapitalisation operation for the purposes of examination under the 2013 Banking Communication and the Restructuring Communication, despite the fact that it differs from a standard recapitalisation measure in that no rights were acquired by the granting authority and no remuneration was paid.
Niti zadevna država članica niti zainteresirane strani niso predložile vrednotenja oslabljenih sredstev, kot se zahteva v skladu z oddelkom 5.5 sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih, poleg tega niso na voljo informacije, v skladu s katerimi bi lahko Komisija ugotovila ustrezno funkcionalno ali organizacijsko delitev sredstev, ki se zahteva v skladu z oddelkom 5.6 sporočila o oslabljenih sredstvih.