natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
These other interested parties argue that no other forms of sacrifice on the part of subordinated debt holders were legally feasible, since under the current law the subordinated debt holders could be forced to share losses only in the event of compulsory administrative winding up.
Če bi FITD zahteval donos, bi se pozicija v lastniških instrumentih Tercas poslabšala, to pa bi povzročilo višje stroške nakupa banke.
But the fact that no further burdens could be imposed on the subordinated debt holders did not result in higher costs for the public finances, since the resources for the intervention came entirely from private parties.
OCENA UKREPOV
Furthermore, sacrificing subordinated debt holders could have generated additional costs and significant risks for the FITD's member banks.
Obstoj državne pomoči
Those downsides would have been a consequence of a break-up of Tercas, the risks of legal action brought by Tercas's customers, and the negative impact on Tercas's reputation and the overall stability of the banking system.
Člen 107(1) Pogodbe določa, da je „vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
Finally, the absence of further burdens on subordinated debt holders did not carry any moral hazard, since the costs of covering the negative equity were absorbed entirely by the banking system without any added cost to taxpayers.
Izpolnjeni morajo biti vsi ti pogoji; v nadaljevanju Komisija presodi, ali so izpolnjeni v primeru ukrepov, ki jih je sprejel FITD.
The three interested parties submit that the absence of a conversion or writing down of subordinated debt was in line with point 42 of the Banking Communication, which makes clear that contributions from depositors are not a mandatory component of burden-sharing.
Italija ni priglasila sheme oprostitve plačila davkov iz uvodne izjave 4 sklepa o začetku postopka.
It was also in line with point 45 of the Communication, which allows an exception to the principle of conversion or writing-down of subordinated debts where ‘implementing such measures would endanger financial stability or lead to disproportionate results’.
Po informacijah, ki so zdaj na voljo Komisiji, se ni uporabila v zadevnem primeru.
Moreover, the three interested parties submit that the absence or inadequacy of a return is acceptable where, as here, it is offset by an in-depth and broad restructuring and is justified by the search for a purchaser for the bank in crisis.
Zato shema oprostitve plačila davkov ne spada na področje uporabe tega sklepa.
Furthermore, the intervention does not distort the internal market, given that:
Sodišče je večkrat potrdilo, da vsa finančna sredstva, ki jih lahko javni organi dejansko uporabijo za podporo podjetjem, spadajo pod nadzor državne pomoč, ne glede na to, ali so navedena sredstva v stalni lasti državne blagajne ali ne.
Tercas's operations were small in size and limited in their geographical reach;
Obvezni prispevki, ki se naložijo, upravljajo in porazdelijo v skladu z zakonom ali drugimi javnimi pravili, nakazujejo prisotnost državnih sredstev, tudi če jih ne upravljajo javni organi [59].
BPB was the only operator to express a real interest in injecting capital into Tercas, and the Commission has held that the sale of a failing bank, whose activity is the beneficiary of the alleged aid, to a private market player in the framework of an open sale process constitutes a form of mitigation of potential distortions of competition [57];
Samo dejstvo, da se sredstva financirajo z zasebnimi prispevki, ne pomeni, da sredstva nimajo javnega značaja.
Tercas's restructuring plan was sufficiently far-reaching, and provided for the integration of Tercas into BPB.
Dejavnik, ki se upošteva, ni prvotni izvor sredstev, temveč pomembnost poseganja javnega organa v določanje navedenih ukrepov in podrobnih pravil njihovega financiranja [60].
The transfer of Tercas to BPB was the only feasible option to overcome the issues addressed by the Italian supervisory authority and prevent possible distortion of competition.
Poleg tega je Sodišče v zadevah Ladbroke [61], Stardust Marine in Doux Élevage poudarilo, da sredstva, ki so še naprej pod javnim nadzorom in zato na voljo javnim organom, pomenijo državna sredstva.
Furthermore, the restructuring transaction required a complete recapitalisation of Tercas and a significant increase in BPB's capital.
V zadevi Doux Élevage so se dejavnosti medpanožne organizacije financirale z obveznimi prispevki, ki jih je naložila država: Sodišče je odločilo, da ni mogoče ugotoviti, da so ukrepi organizacije pripisljivi državi.
Finally, relying on the Commission's earlier decisions [58], these other interested parties claim that the recapitalisation of Tercas, and its incorporation into BPB following the unremunerated coverage of its negative equity by the FITD, can be considered to be justified on the ground that they were necessary in order to ensure the transfer of the company's assets and to implement deep and extensive restructuring of the bank.
Ugotovilo je, da je cilje, ki so se zasledovali z uporabo sredstev, popolnoma sama določila organizacija, in da obvezna narava prispevkov v navedeni zadevi ni bila „odvisna od zasledovanja konkretnih političnih ciljev, ki bi jih določili in opredelili javni organi“.
In the case at hand, no option that was capable of overcoming Tercas's deep crisis would have ensured a return.
Država je izvajala zgolj nadzor pravilnosti in skladnosti uvedbe prispevkov v okviru medpanožne organizacije z zakonom, tj. postopkovni okvir, ni pa bila pooblaščena za nadziranje upravljanja sredstev.
Had the FITD demanded a return Tercas's equity position would have worsened, thus increasing the cost to the purchasing bank.
V skladu s sodno prakso sodišč Unije je torej ukrep pripisljiv državi in se financira z državnimi sredstvi, kadar nabor kazalnikov kaže, da država v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo izvaja nadzor in vpliv za zagotovitev, da uporaba sredstev zasebnega subjekta izpolnjuje cilj javne politike, za katerega je navedeni subjekt pristojen.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES
V zadevi Stardust Marine je Sodišče prav tako odločilo, da je iz nabora kazalnikov, ki izvirajo iz okoliščin zadeve, mogoče ugotoviti, ali je državi pripisljiv ukrep pomoči, ki ga je sprejel subjekt, ki je na prvi pogled neodvisen in ni del države.
Existence of State aid
Eden od takih kazalnikov je dejstvo, da zadevni subjekt ne bi mogel sprejeti odločitve, ki domnevno vključuje državno pomoč, ne da bi upošteval navodila ali napotke javnih organov.
Article 107(1) of the Treaty states that ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.’
V nekaterih okoliščinah so lahko za ugotovitev, da je ukrep pomoči, ki ga je sprejelo podjetje, pripisljiv državi, pomembni drugi kazalniki.
All these conditions must be fulfilled; in what follows the Commission will assess whether they are met in the case of the measures taken by the FITD.
Kar zadeva ukrepe, v zvezi s katerimi je Komisija začela formalni postopek preiskave v zadevnem primeru, bi bilo treba spomniti, da je zakonodajalec Unije z Direktivo 94/19/ES uvedel sisteme jamstva za vloge, pri čemer je bil cilj politike, da se ohrani in poveča „trdnost bančnega sistema“ [62], ter jih pooblastil za zaščito vlagateljev [63].
The tax exemption scheme mentioned in recital 4 to the opening decision was not notified by Italy.
Z Direktivo 94/19/ES se od držav članic zahteva uvedba enega ali več sistemov jamstva za vloge, odgovornih za povračila vlagateljem v primeru propada kreditne institucije.
On the basis of the information currently available to the Commission, it was not applied in the case at issue.
V zvezi z možnostjo drugih oblik posredovanja v njej ni govora, tako da države članice ohranijo diskrecijsko pravico za presojo, ali bodo sistemom jamstva za vloge dovolile, da presežejo izključno nalogo izplačevanja in razpoložljiva finančna sredstva uporabijo na druge načine.
Hence the tax exemption scheme falls outside the scope of the present Decision.
Z Direktivo 2014/49/EU se to stanje ne spreminja, se pa izrecneje obravnavajo značilnosti takšnih alternativnih ukrepov.
The Court of Justice has repeatedly confirmed that all financial means by which the public authorities may actually support undertakings fall under State aid control, irrespective of whether or not those means are permanent assets of the public sector.
Namenjeni morajo biti preprečitvi propada kreditne institucije, „da bi se tako izognili stroškom povračil vlagateljem“, pa tudi stroškom, „ki jih propad kreditne institucije povzroči gospodarstvu na splošno,“ in „drugim negativnim učinkom“, kot je negativni učinek „na finančno stabilnost in zaupanje vlagateljev“ [64].
Compulsory contributions that are imposed, managed and apportioned in accordance with the law or other public rules imply the presence of State resources, even if they are not administered by the public authorities [59].
V skladu z Direktivo 2014/49/EU lahko države članice dovolijo uporabo sistemov jamstva za vloge za ohranitev dostopa vlagateljev do kritih vlog v začetni fazi delujočega podjetja ter v okviru nacionalnih postopkov zaradi insolventnosti [65].
The mere fact that resources are financed by private contributions does not prevent them from being of a public character.
Komisija poudarja, da lahko v nasprotju s stališčem drugih zainteresiranih strani iz uvodne izjave 79 alternativni ukrepi, ki jih sprejme sistem jamstva za vloge, pomenijo pomoč, ne glede na to, ali so namenjeni preprečitvi propada kreditne institucije ali sprejeti v zvezi z likvidacijo.
The relevant factor is not the immediate origin of the resources but the degree of intervention of the public authority in defining those measures and their methods of financing [60].
Zaščita prihrankov in vlagateljev ima poseben položaj v italijanski nacionalni zakonodaji: člen 47 ustave Italije določa, da „Republika […] ščiti prihranke v vseh njihovih oblikah“ [66].
Moreover, as the Court of Justice pointed out in Ladbroke [61], Stardust Marine and Doux Élevage, resources that remain under public control and are therefore available to the public authorities constitute State resources.
Banca d'Italia je organ, ustanovljen na podlagi javnega prava, in že samo iz tega razloga je njeno ravnanje pripisljivo državi ter spada na področje uporabe člena 107 Pogodbe, čeprav je po ustavi neodvisna [67]; opravlja nalogo varovanja stabilnosti italijanskega bančnega sistema [68] in zaščite vlagateljev [69].
In Doux Élevage, the activities of an inter-trade organisation were financed out of resources raised by levies made mandatory by the State: the Court of Justice held that it could not be concluded that the organisation's activities were imputable to the State.
Glede na navedeno je treba člen 96a zakona o bančništvu razlagati kot posebno opredelitev javnega pooblastila za zaščito vlagateljev, ki se uporablja za sisteme jamstva za vloge, priznane v Italiji.
The Court observed that the objectives pursued in the use of the resources had been determined entirely by the organisation, and that the mandatory nature of the levies in that case was not ‘dependent upon the pursuit of political objectives which are specific, fixed and defined by the public authorities’.
Z vključitvijo zadnjega stavka v člen 96a(1), v skladu s katerim lahko sistemi jamstva za vloge „opravljajo tudi druge vrste in oblike posredovanja“ poleg izplačil vlagateljev, so se italijanski organi odločili, da svojim priznanim sistemom jamstva za vloge dovolijo, da sredstva, ki jih pridobijo od bank članic, uporabijo za različne vrste ukrepov.
The State merely checked the validity and lawfulness of the inter-trade organisations levying of contributions, i.e. the procedural framework, and had no power to influence the administration of the funds.
Člen 96a zakona o bančništvu je torej podlaga za priznanje FITD kot obveznega sistema jamstva za vloge v Italiji, hkrati pa je v skladu z njim FITD pooblaščen za sprejemanje ukrepov podpore.
In the case-law of the Union courts, therefore, a measure is imputable to the State and financed through State resources where a set of indicators show that under the national legislation the State exercises control and influence to ensure that the use of the resources of a private body fulfils a public policy objective with which that body is entrusted.
Z navedenega vidika dejstvo, da je FITD organiziran kot konzorcij na podlagi zasebnega prava [70], ni pomembno, saj kot je Sodišče odločilo v zadevi Stardust Marine, zgolj dejstva, da je subjekt ustanovljen na podlagi splošnega prava, ni mogoče šteti za zadostno za izključitev možnosti, da je ukrep pomoči, ki ga sprejme tak subjekt, pripisljiv državi.
In Stardust Marine the Court of Justice also held that the imputability to the State of an aid measure taken by a body that was prima facie independent, and did not itself form part of the State, could be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case.
Cilji FITD – uresničevanje skupnih interesov članic s krepitvijo varnosti vlog in zaščite ugleda bančnega sistema – so očitno skladni z javnim interesom.
One such indicator would be that the body in question could not take the decision allegedly involving State aid without taking account of the instructions or directives of the public authorities.
To pa ne pomeni nujno, da bi lahko podjetje sprejelo odločitev, ne da bi upoštevalo zahteve javnih organov.
Other indicators might, in certain circumstances, be relevant in concluding that an aid measure taken by an undertaking was imputable to the State.
Poleg tega ni nujno, da bi moral biti vpliv države posledica pravno zavezujočega akta javnega organa.
With regard to the measures in respect of which the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure in the present case, it should be recalled that in Directive 94/19/EC the Union legislature introduced deposit guarantee schemes with the policy objective of preserving and increasing ‘the stability of the banking system’ [62] and gave them a mandate to protect depositors [63].
Načelna avtonomija podjetja ne preprečuje vključenosti države v praksi.
Directive 94/19/EC requires Member States to introduce one or more deposit guarantee schemes, which are to reimburse depositors in the event that a credit institution fails.
Vsekakor ima Banca d'Italia v skladu z zakonodajo Unije in Italije pooblastila in sredstva za zagotovitev, da so vsi ukrepi, ki jih sprejme FITD kot sistem jamstva za vloge, priznan na podlagi zakona o bančništvu, skladni z navedenim pooblastilom v okviru javne politike in prispevajo k zaščiti vlagateljev.
On the possibility of other forms of intervention Directive 94/19/EC is silent, so that Member States retain discretion on whether to allow deposit guarantee schemes to go beyond a pure reimbursement function and to use the available financial resources in other ways.
To je jasno določeno v uvodnem stavku člena 96b(1) zakona o bančništvu, v katerem seznam vseh pooblastil, ki jih Banca d'Italia izvaja v zvezi z italijanskimi sistemi jamstva za vloge, sledi izjavi, da je treba navedena pooblastila izvajati „ob upoštevanju zaščite vlagateljev in stabilnosti bančnega sistema“.
The situation remains unchanged under Directive 2014/49/EU, which is, however, more explicit as to the nature of such alternative measures.
Glede na navedene dokaze in v nasprotju z zadevo Doux Élevage, v kateri je bil predmet naknadne odobritve, ki jo zagotovi javna uprava, zgolj postopkovne narave, mora Banca d'Italia odobriti vsako posredovanje FITD na podlagi vsebine posredovanja, pri čemer presodi, ali je v skladu z javnim pooblastilom, ki ga ima FITD na podlagi zakona o bančništvu.
They must have the aim of preventing the failure of the credit institution with a view to avoiding not only ‘the costs of reimbursing depositors’, but also ‘the costs of the failure of a credit institution to the economy as a whole’ and ‘other adverse impacts’, such as an ‘adverse impact on financial stability and the confidence of depositors’ [64].
Italija je potrdila, da bilo treba ob uporabi te logike bonitetni nadzor bank šteti za javni nadzor, sredstva bank pa za javna sredstva (uvodna izjava 53); to je očitno nebistveno.
Under Directive 2014/49/EU Member States may allow deposit guarantee schemes to be used in order to preserve the access of depositors to the deposits covered, both in an initial, going-concern phase and in the context of domestic insolvency proceedings [65].
Komisija ugotavlja zgolj, da nadzor nad bankami, ki ga izvaja Banca d'Italia, ni namenjen preverjanju skladnosti s pooblastilom v okviru javne politike, ki ga imajo banke pod nadzorom.
The Commission would point out that, contrary to the position of the other interested parties mentioned in recital 79, alternative measures taken by a deposit guarantee scheme may constitute aid irrespective of whether they are aimed at preventing the failure of a credit institution or whether they are taken in connection with a liquidation.
Prednost javnega pooblastila in povezani javni nadzori so priznani tudi v statutu FITD [71], v skladu s katerim morajo vsi ukrepi podpore izpolnjevati sočasna pogoja, da mora obstajati razumna možnost sanacije in da je mogoče domnevati, da bodo stroški sklada nižji od stroškov, ki bi nastali zaradi ukrepov, sprejetih v primeru likvidacije („načelo najnižjih stroškov“).
The protection of savings and depositors has a specific position in Italian national law: under Article 47 of the Italian Constitution, ‘The Republic … shall protect savings in all their forms’ [66].
Navedena sočasna pogoja pomenita, da je odločitev o sprejetju ukrepov podpore dopustna samo, če omogoči FITD, da izpolni svoje javno pooblastilo za zaščito vlagateljev.
The Banca d'Italia is a body established under public law, and for that reason alone its behaviour is imputable to the Member State, and does not fall outside the scope of Article 107 of the Treaty on the ground that it is constitutionally independent [67]; it has the task of safeguarding the stability of the Italian banking system [68] and protecting depositors [69].
Navedeno prednost potrjuje zahteva za odobritev, ki jo zagotovi Banca d'Italia v skladu z zakonom o bančništvu.
In view of the foregoing, Article 96-bis of the Banking Act has to be read as a specific definition of the public mandate of protecting depositors that applies to deposit guarantee schemes recognised in Italy.
Poleg tega ima Banca d'Italia v skladu z zakonom o bančništvu široka pooblastila v zvezi s sistemi jamstva za vloge:
By including the last sentence in Article 96-bis(1), according to which deposit guarantee schemes ‘may engage in other types and forms of intervention’ in addition to repayment of depositors, the Italian authorities have chosen to allow their recognised deposit guarantee schemes to use the resources collected from member banks for different types of action.
v skladu s točko (d) člena 96b(1) zakona o bančništvu mora „odobriti posredovanja sistemov jamstva“;
Article 96-bis of the Banking Act is therefore the basis for recognition of the FITD as a mandatory deposit guarantee scheme in Italy, and at the same time grants the FITD the power to take support measures.
v skladu s točko (b) člena 96b(1) zakona o bančništvu mora „usklajevati dejavnost sistemov jamstva s pravili za urejanje bančnih kriz in svojo nadzorno dejavnostjo“ [72];
From that perspective the fact that the FITD is organised as a consortium under private law [70] is irrelevant, as the mere fact that a body is constituted under ordinary law cannot be regarded as sufficient to exclude the possibility of an aid measure taken by such a body being imputable to the State, as the Court of Justice held in Stardust Marine.
v skladu s točko (a) člena 96b(1) zakona o bančništvu Banca d'Italia „prizna sisteme jamstva in potrdi njihove statute, če sistemi nimajo značilnosti, ki bi lahko povzročile neenakomerno porazdelitev tveganj insolventnosti v bančnem sistemu“ [73];
The FITD's objectives — pursuit of the common interests of its members by strengthening the safety of deposits and the protection of the reputation of the banking system — clearly coincide with the public interest.
v skladu s točko (h) člena 96b(1) zakona o bančništvu lahko „določi pravila za izvedbo pravil, določenih“ v oddelku IV zakona o bančništvu o sistemih jamstva za vloge [74].
But that does not necessarily mean that the undertaking could have taken its decision without taking into account the requirements of the public authorities.
Poleg pooblastil v zvezi s FITD, ki jih ima Banca d'Italia na podlagi zakona o bančništvu, so do ukrepov podpore FITD upravičene samo banke pod posebno upravo [75].
Moreover, it is not necessary that the State's influence should result from a legally binding act of a public authority.
Banka se da pod posebno upravo na predlog Banca d'Italia ter po odredbi ministrstva za gospodarstvo in finance.
The autonomy that the undertaking in principle enjoys does not prevent the practical involvement of the State.
V skladu s statutom FITD v tej fazi „sklad posreduje […] v primerih posebne uprave bank članic, ki lahko poslujejo v Italiji“ [76].
In any event, Union and Italian legislation gives the Banca d'Italia the authority and the means to ensure that all actions taken by the FITD as a deposit guarantee scheme recognised under the Banking Act comply with that public policy mandate and contribute to the protection of depositors.
Samo posebni upravitelj banke lahko FITD pošlje zahtevo za posredovanje, ki jo morajo na skupščini odobriti delničarji banke.
This is made clear in the introductory sentence of Article 96-ter(1) of the Banking Act, where the list of all the powers exercised by the Banca d'Italia with respect to Italian deposit guarantee schemes is preceded by a statement that those powers are to be exercised ‘having regard to the protection of depositors and the stability of the banking system’.
Posebni upravitelj je javni uslužbenec, ki zastopa javni interes, imenuje in nadzoruje pa ga Banca d'Italia.
In view of that evidence, and by contrast with Doux Élevage, where the object of the ex post approval by the public administration was purely procedural in nature, the Banca d'Italia has to approve every intervention by the FITD on its merits, assessing whether it complies with the FITD's public mandate under the Banking Act.
Banca d'Italia je pooblaščena tudi za odpoklic ali zamenjavo posebnega upravitelja [77] ter dajanje navodil, s katerimi lahko določi posebne zaščitne ukrepe in omejitve za upravljanje banke [78].
Italy has affirmed that if this line of reasoning were to be followed prudential supervision of banks would have to be considered to be the exercise of public control, and the banks' resources would consequently have to be considered public resources (recital 53); this is clearly immaterial.
Posredovanje FITD torej sproži javni uslužbenec pod nadzorom Banca d'Italia.
The Commission will merely observe that the supervision of banks carried out by the Banca d'Italia does not serve to verify compliance with a public policy mandate that is entrusted to the supervised banks.
Kar zadeva pooblastilo za odobritev ukrepov s strani sistemov jamstva za vloge, Komisija ugotavlja, da pojem odobritve zahteva upravni ukrep, ki mora biti sprejet pred začetkom veljavnosti ukrepa, ki naj bi se odobril.