natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Landsvirkjun was already established as a partnership under the previously applicable Act on Landsvirkjun.
Poleg tega pa poroštva dodeli minister za finance in gospodarske zadeve, ne pa GDM.
According to Article 1 of the State Guarantee Act, the state can never issue a guarantee without a legal basis.
Poroštvo za izterjavo se razlikuje od običajno veljavnih pravil o odgovornosti, ki veljajo za lastnike partnerskih družb.
In the case of Landsvirkjun, the legal basis for state guarantees is the Landsvirkjun Act.
Na podlagi Zakona o partnerskih gospodarskih družbah št. 50/2007 so lastniki odgovorni za obveznosti partnerske družbe na podlagi neposrednega, neomejenega in brezpogojnega poroštva, torej brez omejitev in za vse obveznosti družbe.
Under the Landsvirkjun Act, before and after the existing aid procedure, the owners' guarantee is a guarantee of collection.
V skladu s poroštvom za izterjavo mora upnik uporabiti vsa pravna sredstva zoper družbo Landsvirkjun, preden začne postopek proti državi.
Furthermore, the guarantees are granted by the Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs rather than the GDM.
V praksi to pomeni, da mora upnik dokazati insolventnost dolžnika v skladu s splošnimi načeli islandskega prava.
A guarantee of collection is different from the normally applicable liability rules for owners of partnership companies.
Zato bi moral biti upnik neuspešen pri zaplembi ali uradno začeti (sam ali z drugimi) postopke, določene v Zakonu o stečaju, preden bi se obrnil na izdajatelja poroštva.
Under the Act on Partnership Companies No 50/2007, the owners are liable for the partnership company's obligations on the basis of a direct, unlimited and unconditional guarantee, and thus without limitations, for all the obligations of the company.
Zaradi zelo obremenjujočega in dolgotrajnega postopka ter zahteve, da se izčrpajo vsa sredstva glede družbe preden se lahko upnik obrne na izdajatelja poroštva, ima poroštvo za izterjavo precej manjšo vrednost za upnike.
Under a guarantee of collection a creditor must exhaust all legal remedies against Landsvirkjun before proceeding against the state.
Družba Landsvirkjun se sklicuje tudi na prejšnjo prakso Nadzornega organa v zvezi s tem.
In practice, this means that the creditor must prove that the debtor is insolvent, according to the general principles of Icelandic law.
Uporaba pogodb o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih družbe Landsvirkjun
The creditor therefore would need to have unsuccessful distraint or formally start (or be a part of with others) the procedures set out in the Bankruptcy Act before reverting to the guarantor.
Zadevne pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih, ki so bile krite z državnim poroštvom, so se nanašale na osnovne finančne obveznosti (posojila ali obveznice), ki so bile sklenjene pred izvedbo ustreznega ukrepa v okviru obstoječega postopka pomoči.
Due to the very burdensome and lengthy procedure and the requirement that all means are exhausted with respect to the company before the guarantor can be addressed, a guarantee of collection has far less value for the creditors.
Družba Landsvirkjun navaja, da je njeno financiranje dosledno strukturirano v skladu s standardno prakso v državah OECD za velika podjetja, pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih pa so sestavni del obvladovanja tveganja.
Landsvirkjun also refers to the Authority's previous practice in this regard.
Družba Landsvirkjun sklepa okvirne pogodbe ISDA z nasprotnimi strankami, ki določajo standardne pogoje, ki se uporabljajo za vse posle z izvedenimi finančnimi instrumenti, sklenjene med temi strankami.
Landsvirkjun's use of derivative contracts
Družba Landsvirkjun ima finančne obveznosti v USD in drugih valutah z variabilnimi in fiksnimi obrestnimi merami.
As regards the derivative contracts in question that were covered by a state guarantee, these derivative contracts concerned underlying financial obligations (loans or bonds) that were entered into prior to implementing the appropriate measure under the existing aid procedure.
Zato je izpostavljena valutnemu in obrestnemu tveganju.
Landsvirkjun states that it structures its financing fully in line with standard practice throughout the OECD countries for large undertakings and derivative contracts form an integral part of risk management.
Za varovanje pred temi tveganji uporablja pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih ter tako pretvori finančne obveznosti, izražene v valuti, ki ni USD (ki je funkcijska valuta družbe od leta 2008), v USD, finančne obveznosti z variabilno obrestno mero pa v fiksno obrestno mero.
Landsvirkjun enters into ISDA Master Agreements with counterparties, which set out standard terms that apply to all the derivative transactions entered into between those parties.
Družba Landsvirkjun uporablja pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih samo za varovanje pred tveganji.
Landsvirkjun has financial obligations denominated in USD and other currencies, with both variable and fixed interest rates.
Pogodb o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih ne sklepa za špekulativne namene ali za namene arbitraže.
Landsvirkjun is therefore exposed to FX and interest rate risks.
Omejitev uporabe pogodb o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih le za varovanje pred tveganji je družbi Landsvirkjun naložila tudi država, ki je njena lastnica.
Landsvirkjun hedges these risks by using derivative contracts to convert financial obligations denominated in currency other than USD (its functional currency since 2008) to USD and financial obligations with variable interest rates to fixed interest rates.
Družba Landsvirkjun je kot dokaz teh trditev predložila notranje dokumente in dopise svoje lastnice.
Landsvirkjun uses derivative contracts for hedging purposes only.
Družba Landsvirkjun pojasnjuje tudi, da v skladu s svojo politiko pri svojih transakcijah ne uporabljala nobenega poroštva, niti zasebnega niti javnega.
Landsvirkjun does not enter into derivative contracts for speculative or arbitrage purposes.
Predložila je tudi dokaze, da odprava državnih poroštev ni povzročila sprememb v gospodarskih pogojih za pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih.
Limiting the use of derivate contracts to hedging purposes only has also been imposed on Landsvirkjun by its owner — the State.
Neobstoj prednosti
Landsvirkjun submitted internal documents and letters from its owner to confirm these claims.
Družba Landsvirkjun meni, da državna poroštva niso zagotovila nobene prednosti za zadevne pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih.
Following the amendments to the state guarantee system, Landsvirkjun started to negotiate a renewal of the guaranteed derivative contracts, with the last state guarantee removed in July 2017.
Družba Landsvirkjun ponovno poudarja, da sprememba neporavnanih pogodb o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih, tj. odprava državnega poroštva, ni povzročila nobenih dodatnih stroškov za družbo.
Landsvirkjun is able to and indeed does enter into derivative contracts without state guarantees.
Pogoji in zahteve v zvezi s financiranjem družbe Landsvirkjun z državnim poroštvom ali brez njega se niso spremenili.
Landsvirkjun has also provided evidence showing that removing the state guarantees did not result in changes to the economic terms of the derivate contracts.
Družba Landsvirkjun je predložila dve poročili o učinku državnih poroštev na pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih.
No advantage
Poročili ugotavljata, da državna poroštva za portfelj izvedenih finančnih instrumentov niso pomenila nobene gospodarske prednosti.
Landsvirkjun is of the opinion that no advantage was granted through the state guarantees for the derivative contracts in question.
Družba Landsvirkjun pojasnjuje tudi, da je bil denar v blagajni v letih od 2010 do 2017 v višini od 142 milijonov USD do 287 milijonov USD.
A hedging derivative will by definition reduce the risk exposure which should lead to a reduction of the premium paid for the guarantee linked to the underlying transaction.
Ta visoka vsota denarja v blagajni je bila namenjena obvladovanju likvidnostnega tveganja, tj. kot rezerva za nepredvideno tveganje.
Landsvirkjun reiterates that the amendment of the outstanding derivative contracts to eliminate the state guarantee has not entailed any additional cost for the company.
Močna likvidnost pomeni oportunitetne stroške, neposredno povezane s premijami, ki se trenutno plačujejo državi.
The conditions and requirements with respect to the financing of Landsvirkjun with or without a state guarantee have not changed.
Namesto da bi držala denar v blagajni, bi družba lahko na trgu odkupila obveznice in/ali vnaprej plačala/odplačala posojila svojih posojilodajalcev.
Landsvirkjun has submitted two reports on the effect of the state guarantees on the derivative contracts.
To bi pomenilo prihranek obresti pa tudi provizije za poroštvo v višini [0,1–2] %, ki jo družba Landsvirkjun trenutno plačuje za obveznice in posojila s poroštvom.
According to the reports, an economic advantage of the state guarantees on the derivative portfolio was non-existent.
OBSTOJ DRŽAVNE POMOČI
Landsvirkjun also explains that during 2010 to 2017 its cash at hand was between USD 142 million and USD 287 million.
Člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP se glasi:
This high cash at hand position has been held for liquidity risk purposes, i.e. as a buffer for unforeseen risk.
„Razen če ta sporazum ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodelijo države članice ES, države Efte ali je dodeljena v kakršni koli obliki iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z delovanjem tega sporazuma, kolikor škodi trgovini med pogodbenicami.“
The strong liquidity entails opportunity cost that is directly linked to the premiums currently paid to the state.
Za opredelitev ukrepa kot državne pomoči v smislu navedene določbe morajo biti torej izpolnjeni naslednji kumulativni pogoji: ukrep (i) dodeli država ali je dodeljen iz državnih sredstev; (ii) zagotavlja prednost podjetju; (iii) daje prednost posameznim podjetjem; ter (iv) bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco in vplival na trgovino.
Instead of holding the cash at hand, the company could have bought back bonds from the market and/or prepaid/amortized loans from their lenders.
Nadzorni organ meni, da je primerno začeti z oceno, ali so poroštva za zadevne pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih zagotavljala prednost družbi Landsvirkjun.
It would not only save interest, but also the [0,1-2] % guarantee fee that Landsvirkjun currently pays for the guaranteed bonds and loans.
Prednost
PRESENCE OF STATE AID
Uvodne opombe
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:
Nadzorni organ se strinja z islandskimi organi in družbo Landsvirkjun, da zadevna poroštva spadajo v islandsko zakonodajo o državnih poroštvih, vključno z Zakonom o družbi Landsvirkjun, ki je bila predmet obstoječega postopka pomoči.
‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States 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 Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’
Sedanja formalna preiskava, ki se je začela z odločbo o začetku postopka, ima ožji pristop kot obstoječ postopek pomoči, saj zajema le uporabo Zakona o družbi Landsvirkjun glede državnih poroštev za nekatere pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih.
The qualification of a measure as aid within the meaning of this provision therefore requires the following cumulative conditions to be met: (i) the measure must be granted by the state or through state resources; (ii) it must confer an advantage on an undertaking; (iii) it must favour certain undertakings; and (iv) it must be liable to distort competition and affect trade.
V odločbi o začetku postopka je Nadzorni organ dvomil, da poroštva izpolnjujejo pogoje (b), (c) in (d) v točki 3.2 smernic o poroštvih, ki bi omogočili izključitev prisotnosti pomoči.
The Authority finds it appropriate to start its assessment with whether the guarantees for the derivative contracts in question conferred an advantage on Landsvirkjun.
Brez poseganja v vprašanje, ali so izpolnjeni pogoji iz smernic o poroštvih za izključitev državne pomoči, kot je pojasnjeno v nadaljevanju, in na podlagi informacij, ki sta jih predložili Islandija in družba Landsvirkjun med formalno preiskavo, Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da zadevna državna poroštva niso prinesla prednosti družbi Landsvirkjun.
Advantage
Izključitev prednosti iz državnih poroštev za pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih
Preliminary remarks
Prednost v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP je vsaka gospodarska korist, ki je podjetje ne bi moglo pridobiti pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji, tj. brez posredovanja države.
The Authority concurs with the Icelandic authorities and Landsvirkjun that the guarantees in question fall under the Icelandic legislation on state guarantees, including the Landsvirkjun Act, which was subject to the existing aid procedure.
Nadzorni organ je večkrat trdil, da lahko poroštvo pomeni prednost v skladu s členom 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The current formal investigation initiated by the opening decision has a narrower focus than the existing aid procedure in that it only covers the application of the Landsvirkjun Act to state guarantees for certain derivative contracts.
Ugodnost poroštva je, da tveganje, povezano z poroštvom, nosi država.
In the opening decision, the Authority questioned whether the guarantees met the conditions (b), (c) and (d) under point 3.2 of the Guarantee Guidelines that would allow ruling out the presence of aid.
Tovrstni državni prevzem tveganja se navadno plača z ustrezno premijo.
Without prejudice to the issue of whether the conditions set out in the Guarantee Guidelines for ruling out state aid are met, as explained below and based on the information received from Iceland and Landsvirkjun in the course of the formal investigation, the Authority finds that the state guarantees in question did not result in an advantage to Landsvirkjun.
Vendar smernice o poroštvih določajo naslednje: „če posamezno poroštvo ali poroštvena shema, ki jo sklene država, podjetju ne daje nikakršne prednosti, ne gre za državno pomoč“.
Exclusion of advantage from state guarantees for the derivative contracts
V točkah od 3.2 do 3.5 smernic o poroštvih so določeni pogoji za izključitev pomoči v posameznih poroštvih in poroštvenih shemah.
An advantage within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is any economic benefit which an undertaking could not have obtained under normal market conditions that is to say in the absence of the state intervention.
V skladu s točko 3.6 smernic o poroštvih „neizpolnjevanje katerega koli od pogojev iz točk 3.2 do 3.5 ne pomeni, da se poroštvo ali poroštvena shema samodejno šteje za državno pomoč.“
The Authority has held on several occasions that a guarantee may constitute an advantage under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ meni, da so bile nasprotne stranke pripravljene odpraviti državna poroštva, ne da bi zahtevale boljše gospodarske pogoje, kar je znak, da poroštva niso prinašala prednosti družbi Landsvirkjun.
The benefit of a guarantee is that the risk associated with the guarantee is carried by the state.
Poleg tega družba Landsvirkjun ni uporabila zasebnih poroštev, na podlagi informacij, predloženih med formalno preiskavo, pa ni mogoče določiti tržne cene poroštev za izvedene finančne instrumente za varovanje pred tveganjem.
Such risk-carrying by the state should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium.
Da bi količinsko opredelili potencialno prednost, ki jo zagotavlja poroštvo (če tržne cene ni mogoče določiti), je v smernicah o poroštvih predvidena primerjava gospodarskih pogojev transakcije s poroštvom in brez njega.
However, according to the Guarantee Guidelines, ‘if an individual guarantee or a guarantee scheme entered into by the state does not bring any advantage to an undertaking, it will not constitute state aid’.
Odprava zadevnih državnih poroštev ni spremenila gospodarskih pogojev za zadevne pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih.
According to point 3.6 of the Guarantee Guidelines, ‘a failure to comply with any one of the conditions set out in points 3.2 to 3.5 does not mean that the guarantee or guarantee scheme is automatically regarded as state aid.’
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ nima na voljo nobenih navedb ali informacij, ki bi kazale, da bi bili gospodarski pogoji zadevnih pogodb o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih drugačni brez državnih poroštev v času, ko so bila državna poroštva dejansko dodeljena.
After 1 January 2010, Landsvirkjun has managed to negotiate with the derivative contracts counterparties the removal of the state guarantees, with the last such guarantee removed in July 2017.
Zato mora Nadzorni organ predpostavljati, da odprava (ali neobstoj) državnih poroštev v nobenem trenutku ni spremenila gospodarskih pogojev za zadevne pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih med trajanjem teh poroštev.
As the evidence provided during the formal investigation shows, removing the state guarantees did not change the economic terms of the derivative contracts.
Ugotovitev, da poroštva za zadevne pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih niso prinesla prednosti družbi Landsvirkjun, prav tako podpirajo poročila iz uvodne izjave 33.
The Authority sees the fact that the counterparties were willing to remove the state guarantees without requesting better economic terms as an indication that the guarantees did not entail an advantage for Landsvirkjun.
Tako je agencija Zanders (svetovalna agencija, specializirana za finančne storitve) v imenu družbe Landsvirkjun zlasti preučila vzorec izvedenih finančnih instrumentov v lasti družbe Landsvirkjun in izračunala ustrezne marže za te pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih.
Furthermore, Landsvirkjun has not used private guarantees and from the information provided during the formal investigation, it is not possible to establish a market price for the guarantees on hedging derivatives.
Poročilo je pokazalo, da so bile te marže v razponu od [(–) 2–2] in [10–15] bazičnih točk v skladu z maržami za podobne pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih, ki jih imajo družbe s primerljivo bonitetno oceno, ki pa za razliko od družbe Landsvirkjun niso koristile poroštva za izterjavo.
In order to quantify the potential advantage conferred by a guarantee (where a market price cannot be established), the Guarantee Guidelines foresee a comparison of the economic terms of a transaction with and without the guarantee.
Na tej podlagi poročilo agencije Zanders ugotavlja, da v povprečju ni nobene cenovne prednosti družbe Landsvirkjun pred drugimi družbami zaradi poroštva za izterjavo.
The removal of the state guarantees in question did not change the economic terms of the relevant derivative contracts.
Zato poročilo ugotavlja, da družba Landsvirkjun ni imela gospodarske koristi od takšnega poroštva.
Therefore, the guarantees cannot be seen to constitute an advantage to Landsvirkjun.
Poročilo druge svetovalne agencije, Summa Consulting slf, je glede oblikovanja cen izvedenih finančnih instrumentov za varovanje pred teganjem ugotovilo, da „ob upoštevanju močne bilance stanja, dobrega likvidnostnega položaja in kreditne kakovosti družbe Landsvirkjun državno poroštvo ali neobstoj tega poroštva verjetno ne bi imelo pomembnega učinka na oblikovanje cen pogodb o izvedenih finančnih instrumentov, ki jih sklepa družba Landsvirkjun“.
Further, the Authority has no indications or information at its disposal suggesting that the economic terms of the relevant derivative contracts would have been different without the state guarantees at the time when the state guarantees were actually granted.
Poleg tega je družba Landsvirkjun uporabljala pogodbe o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih, ki so bile sklenjene izključno za namene varovanja pred tveganjem, tj. da bi svoje finančne obveznosti, izražene v valuti, ki ni USD (ki je funkcijska valuta družbe od leta 2008), pretvorila v USD, finančne obveznosti z variabilno obrestno mero pa v fiksno obrestno mero.
Consequently, the Authority must assume that a removal (or non-existence) of the state guarantees did not change the economic terms of the relevant derivative contracts at any given point during the lifetime of these guarantees.
Glede na informacije, predložene med formalno preiskavo, je izvajanje ustreznih ukrepov v okviru obstoječega postopka pomoči privedlo do omejitve državnih poroštev na 80 % vrednosti zadevnih pogodb o izvedenih finančnih instrumentih, poroštva za izvedene finančne instrumente za varovanje pa so bila omejena na specifično kumulativno nominalno vrednost.
The conclusion that the guarantees on the derivative contracts in question did not confer an advantage on Landsvirkjun is also supported by the reports referred to in recital 33.
Zato niti družba Landsvirkjun niti država kot izdajateljica poroštva ne moreta trditi, da sta bili izpostavljeni neomejeni odgovornosti iz naslova teh poroštev.
In particular, Zanders (a consulting firm specialising in financial services) looked, on behalf of Landsvirkjun, at a sample of derivatives held by Landsvirkjun and calculated the corresponding margins for those derivative contracts.
Poleg tega gre pri zadevnih poroštvih, ki so v skladu s členom 1 Zakona o družbi Landsvirkjun, za poroštva za izterjavo.
The report showed that such margins, which ranged between [(–)2-2] and [10-15] basis points, were in line with the margins observed for similar derivative contracts held by companies with a comparable credit rating, which, unlike Landsvirkjun, did not benefit from a guarantee of collection.
V skladu s poroštvom za izterjavo mora upnik uporabiti vsa pravna sredstva zoper družbo Landsvirkjun, preden začne postopek proti državi.
On this basis, the Zanders report concludes that, on average, there is no pricing advantage between Landsvirkjun and other companies as a result of the guarantee of collection.
Nadzorni organ je pred tem ugotovil, da ta vrsta poroštva sicer ne izključuje prednosti, vendar pomeni nižjo stopnjo tveganja.
Accordingly, the report concludes that Landsvirkjun did not enjoy an economic benefit from such a guarantee.
Kot je navedla družba Landsvirkjun, so denarna sredstva in denarni ustrezniki družbe Landsvirkjun v letih od 2010 do 2017 presegli izgube iz naslova izvedenih finančnih instrumentov s poroštvom.
A report by another consulting firm, Summa Consulting slf, noted in respect of the pricing of the hedging derivatives that, ‘considering the strong balance sheet, good liquidity position and credit quality of Landsvirkjun, it is not likely that a state guarantee or an absence thereof will have meaningful effects on the pricing of derivative contracts that Landsvirkjun enters into’.
Zato se je za izdajatelja poroštva zmanjšalo vsakršno tveganje.
Further, Landsvirkjun used the guaranteed derivative contracts exclusively for hedging purposes, i.e. to convert its financial obligations denominated in currency other than USD (its functional currency since 2008) to USD and financial obligations with variable interest rates to fixed interest rates.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 36, ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, če so kumulativno izpolnjeni vsi štirje pogoji.
According to the information submitted during the formal investigation, the implementation of the appropriate measures in the course of the existing aid procedure led to limiting the state guarantees to 80 % of the value of the derivative contracts in question and the guarantees on hedging derivatives were limited by a specific cumulative nominal value.
Ker zadevna poroštva ne zagotavljajo prednosti družbi Landsvirkjun, ni treba izvesti ocene v zvezi z drugimi pogoji.
Hence, neither Landsvirkjun nor the state as its guarantor can be said to have been exposed to unlimited liabilities from these guarantees.
SKLEP