natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Authority has provided detailed guidance regarding the pricing of state guarantees, recapitalisations and asset relief measures respectively in the Banking Guidelines, the Recapitalisation Guidelines and the Impaired Assets Guidelines.
Nadzorni organ je v smernicah o bančništvu, smernicah o dokapitalizaciji in smernicah o oslabljenih sredstvih zagotovil natančna navodila za določanje cene državnih jamstev, dokapitalizacije in ukrepov finančne pomoči za oslabljena sredstva.
To the extent that such a price is being paid, the shareholders of the bank see their position diluted in a financial sense.
Kolikor se plačuje taka cena, delničarji banke menijo, da je njihov položaj v finančnem smislu oslabljen.
Impaired Asset Guidelines points 24 and 25.
Smernice o oslabljenih sredstvih, točki 24 in 25.
See also Section 4 of this Chapter.
Glej tudi oddelek 4 tega poglavja.
See Commission Decision of 18 December 2008 in case N 615/08 Bayern LB (OJ C 80, 3.4.2009, p. 4).
Glej Odločbo Komisije z dne 18. decembra 2008 v zadevi N 615/08, Bayern LB (UL C 80, 3.4.2009, str. 4).
However, this does not prevent the bank from making coupon payments when it is under a binding legal obligation to do so.
Vendar pa to ne preprečuje bankam, da ne bi izplačale kuponov, če za to obstaja zavezujoča pravna obveznost.
See Impaired Asset Guidelines, point 31, and the nuanced approach to dividend restrictions in the Recapitalisation Guidelines, points 33, 34 and 45, reflecting that although temporary dividend or coupon bans may retain capital within the bank and increase the capital cushion and hence improve the solvency of the bank, they may equally impede the bank's access to private finance sources, or at least increase the cost of new future financing.
Glej smernice o oslabljenih sredstvih, točka 31, in niansiran pristop k omejitvam glede izplačil dividend v smernicah o dokapitalizaciji, točke 33, 34 in 45, ki odraža dejstvo, da tudi če začasna prepoved izplačila dividend ali kuponov ohrani kapital v banki in povečuje kapitalsko rezervo ter s tem izboljšuje plačilno sposobnost banke, pa lahko po drugi strani ovira dostop banke do zasebnih virov financiranja ali pa vsaj poveča stroške novega financiranja v prihodnosti.
See point 21.
Glej točko 21.
If the Authority has, pursuant to Banking Guidelines, the Recapitalisation Guidelines or the Impaired Assets Guidelines, exceptionally accepted aid that departed from the principles required by those Guidelines, the resulting additional distortion of competition will require additional structural or behavioural safeguards; see point 58 of the Impaired Assets Guidelines.
Če je Nadzorni organ v skladu s smernicami o bančništvu, smernicami o dokapitalizaciji ali smernicami o oslabljenih sredstvih izjemoma odobril pomoč, ki odstopa od načel, določenih v navedenih smernicah, potem bo dodatno izkrivljanje konkurence, ki je posledica take pomoči, zahtevalo dodatne strukturne zaščitne ukrepe ali zaščitne ukrepe glede ravnanja bank; glej točko 58 smernic o oslabljenih sredstvih.
In particular, concentration levels, capacity constraints, the level of profitability, barriers to entry and to expansion will be taken into account.
Upoštevani bodo zlasti stopnja koncentracije, omejitve zmogljivosti, raven donosnosti, ovire za vstop in širjenje.
For example by favouring early redemption of State aid.
Na primer s spodbujanjem predčasnega odplačila državne pomoči.
See for example Commission Decision of 21 October 2008 in Case C 10/08 IKB, not yet published and Commission Decision of 7 May 2009 in case N 244/09 Capital injection into Commerzbank (OJ C 147, 27.6.2009, p. 4).
Glej npr. Odločbo Komisije z dne 21. oktobra 2008 v zadevi C 10/08, IKB (še ni objavljena) in Odločbo Komisije z dne 7. maja 2009 v zadevi N 244/09, Capital injection into Commerzbank (UL C 147, 27.6.2009, str. 4).
It should be noted that balance-sheet reductions due to asset write-offs, which are partly compensated with State aid, do not reduce the bank's actual market presence and cannot therefore be taken into account when assessing the need for structural measures.
Opozoriti je treba, da znižanje bilančne vsote zaradi odpisov sredstev, ki se delno nadomestijo z državno pomočjo, ne zmanjšuje dejanske prisotnosti banke na trgu in ga zato pri oceni potrebe po strukturnih ukrepih ni mogoče upoštevati.
See for example Commission Decision of 19 November 2008 in case NN 49/08, NN 50/08 and NN 45/08 Guarantees to Dexia (not yet published), point 73, Commission Decision of 19 November 2008 in case N 574/08 Guarantees to Fortis Bank (OJ C 38, 17.2.2009, p. 2), point 58 and Commission Decision of 3 December 2008 in case NN 42/08, NN 46/08 and NN 53/A/08 Restructuring aid to Fortis Bank and Fortis Bank Luxembourg (OJ C 80, 3.4.2009, p. 7), paragraph 94.
Glej npr. Odločbo Komisije z dne 19. novembra 2008 v zadevi NN 49/08, NN 50/08 in NN 45/08, Jamstva za banko Dexia (še ni objavljena), točka 73, Odločbo Komisije z dne 19. novembra 2008 v zadevi N 574/08, Jamstva za Fortis Bank (UL C 38, 17.2.2009, str. 2), točka 58, in Odločbo Komisije z dne 3. decembra 2008 v zadevi NN 42/08, NN 46/08 in NN 53/A/08, Pomoč za prestrukturiranje bank Fortis Bank in Fortis Bank Luxemburg (UL C 80, 3.4.2009, str. 7), točka 94.
For instance a bank may, in certain circumstances, be prohibited from proposing the highest interest rates offered on the market to retail depositors.
Banki se lahko na primer v določenih okoliščinah prepove, da vlagateljem na drobno predlaga najvišjo obrestno mero, ponujeno na trgu.
It is recalled that restructuring costs have to be limited to the minimum necessary for the restoration of viability.
Naj spomnimo, da morajo biti stroški prestrukturiranja omejeni na najnižje potrebne za ponovno vzpostavitev uspešnega poslovanja.
See point 23.
Glej točko 23.
Credit provided on non-commercial terms might constitute State aid and might be authorised by the Authority, upon notification, if it is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, for example under the Guidelines — Temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis.
Posojila, dana po netržnih pogojih, lahko pomenijo državno pomoč in jih Nadzorni organ po priglasitvi lahko odobri, če so združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, npr. na podlagi smernic – začasni okvir Skupnosti za ukrepe državnih pomoči v podporo dostopu do financiranja ob trenutni finančni in gospodarski krizi.
Commission Decision of 12 November 2008 in Case N 528/08 ING (OJ C 328, 23.12.2008, p. 10), point 35.
Odločba Komisije z dne 12. novembra 2008 v zadevi N 528/08, ING (UL C 328, 23.12.2008, str. 10). točka 35.
See for example Commission Decision 2005/418/EC of 7 July 2004 on the aid measures implemented by France for Alstom (OJ L 150, 10.6.2005, p. 24), point 204.
Glej npr. Odločbo Komisije 2005/418/ES z dne 7. julija 2004 v zvezi z ukrepi pomoči, ki jih Francija dodeljuje podjetju Alstom (UL L 150, 10.6.2005, str. 24), točka 204.
Criteria have already been established to delineate the conditions under which a bank may need to be subject to more substantial restructuring, and when measures are needed to cater for distortions of competition resulting from the aid [6]. This Chapter does not alter those criteria.
Vzpostavljena so bila merila za določitev pogojev, pod katerimi bo morala banka morda opraviti temeljitejše prestrukturiranje in kdaj so potrebni ukrepi zaradi izkrivljanja konkurence, ki izvira iz pomoči [6].
Guidance provided in this Chapter refers to banks for ease of reference. However it applies, mutatis mutandis, to other financial institutions where appropriate.
Zaradi lažjega razumevanja je v tem poglavju uporabljen izraz „banke“, ki pa se, kadar je primerno, smiselno nanaša tudi na druge finančne institucije.
In this context, measures to limit distortions of competition due to State aid play an important role, inter alia for the following reasons. First, banks across the EEA have been hit by the crisis to a very varying degree and State aid to rescue and restructure distressed banks may harm the position of banks that have remained fundamentally sound, with possible negative effects for financial stability.
V tem okviru imajo ukrepi za omejevanje izkrivljanja konkurence, ki izvira iz državne pomoči, pomembno vlogo, med drugim iz naslednjih razlogov: prvič, kriza je banke v EGP prizadela v zelo različnem obsegu in državna pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranje bank v težavah lahko poslabša položaj bank, ki so ostale načeloma zdrave, kar bi lahko negativno vplivalo na finančno stabilnost.
No 492/09/COL
št. 492/09/COL
Complaint by Norsk Lotteridrift ASA against alleged State aid in favour of Norsk Tipping AS (NORWAY)
Pritožba podjetja Norsk Lotteridrift ASA zoper domnevno državno pomoč v korist podjetja Norsk Tipping AS (NORVEŠKA)
THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY [1], Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area [2], in particular to Articles 61 to 63 thereof and Protocol 26,
NADZORNI ORGAN EFTE JE [1] – ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru [2] in zlasti členov 61 do 63 Sporazuma ter Protokola 26 k Sporazumu,
Having regard to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement [4],
ob upoštevanju člena 1(3) v delu I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču [4],
Having regard to the Authority’s Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement [5],
ob upoštevanju smernic Nadzornega organa o uporabi in razlagi členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP [5],
On 12 October 2004, the Authority received a complaint by Norsk Lotteridrift ASA concerning alleged State aid in favour of Norsk Tipping AS (Event No 295765).
Nadzorni organ je 12. oktobra 2004 prejel pritožbo podjetja Norsk Lotteridrift ASA v zvezi z domnevno državno pomočjo v korist podjetja Norsk Tipping AS (evidenčna št. 295765).
By letter dated 22 October 2004 (Event No 296715), the Authority asked the complainant to provide some additional information on certain specific points.
Nadzorni organ je z dopisom z dne 22. oktobra 2004 (evidenčna št. 296715) pozval pritožnika, naj predloži nadaljnje podatke o določenih posameznih točkah.
By letter dated 15 November 2004 (Event No 299345), the complainant provided the Authority with its answers to the questions raised.
Pritožnik je z dopisom z dne 15. novembra 2004 (evidenčna št. 299345) predložil Nadzornemu organu svoje odgovore na zastavljena vprašanja.
By letter dated 8 December 2004 (Event No 300861), the Authority provided the Norwegian authorities with a copy of the complaint and asked them to submit comments and additional information.
Nadzorni organ je z dopisom z dne 8. decembra 2004 (evidenčna št. 300861) predložil norveškim organom kopijo pritožbe in jih pozval, naj pošljejo svoje pripombe in nadaljnje podatke.
By letter dated 10 February 2005 (Event No 308469), the Norwegian authorities provided the Authority with their comments and additional information.
Norveški organi so z dopisom z dne 10. februarja 2005 (evidenčna št. 308469) predložili Nadzornemu organu svoje odgovore in nadaljnje podatke.
There was no exchange of correspondence after that date.
Po tem datumu ni bilo več izmenjave mnenj.
By letter dated 12 March 2008 (Event No 469510), the lawyer representing the complainant informed the Authority that Norsk Lotteridrift ASA was dissolved and no longer wished to pursue the complaint, which was consequently withdrawn.
Odvetnik, ki zastopa pritožnika, je z dopisom z dne 12. marca 2008 (evidenčna št. 469510) obvestil Nadzorni organ, da je podjetje Norsk Lotteridrift ASA likvidirano in ne želi nadaljevati s pritožbo, ki je bila posledično umaknjena.
Grounds of the complaint
Razlogi za pritožbo
Norsk Lotteridrift ASA was the largest company in Norway operating so called Amusement With Price machines (gaming machines, hereafter referred to as ‘AWP’).
Podjetje Norsk Lotteridrift ASA je bilo največje podjetje na Norveškem, ki se je ukvarjalo z upravljanjem plačljivih avtomatov, namenjenih zabavi (v nadaljnjem besedilu: igralni avtomati).
Norsk Tipping AS is Norway’s largest gaming company and wholly owned by the Norwegian State.
Podjetje Norsk Tipping AS je največje norveško podjetje, ki se ukvarja z igralništvom in je v celoti v lasti norveške države.
Until 2003, Norsk Tipping AS was not operating on the market of AWP machines.
Podjetje Norsk Tipping AS ni bilo dejavno na trgu igralnih avtomatov do leta 2003.
In June 2003, legislation was passed giving Norsk Tipping AS an exclusive right to operate such machines.
Zakonodaja, ki je podjetju Norsk Tipping AS dala izključno pravico upravljati igralne avtomate, je bila sprejeta junija 2003.
As from 1 January 2006, Norsk Tipping AS would be the only company operating AWP machines in Norway.
Podjetje Norsk Tipping AS je bilo od 1. januarja 2006 tako edino podjetje, ki je upravljalo igralne avtomate na Norveškem.
During the transitional period from June 2003 to 1 January 2006, Norsk Tipping AS started introducing its first AWP machines while the existing operators were forced to withdraw from the market as the authorisations to operate such machines were progressively expiring.
Podjetje Norsk Tipping AS je začelo v prehodnem obdobju od junija 2003 do 1. januarja 2006 uvajati svoje prve igralne avtomate, medtem ko so bili že obstoječi subjekti prisiljeni zapustiti trg, saj so se roki dovoljenj za upravljanje takšnih avtomatov počasi iztekli.
During the transitional period, Norsk Lotteridrift ASA and Norsk Tipping AS were therefore competing on the same market.
Podjetji Norsk Lotteridrift ASA in Norsk Tipping AS sta tako v prehodnem obdobju tekmovali na istem trgu.
Presently, Norsk Tipping AS enjoys an exclusive right to operate AWP in Norway [6].Norsk Lotteridrift ASA complained that, in a situation where Norsk Tipping AS was competing with other operators of AWP machines, two measures in favour of Norsk Tipping AS distorted competition and affected trade between the Contracting Parties.
Norsk Tipping AS je danes edino podjetje, ki ima izključno pravico do upravljanja igralnih avtomatov na Norveškem [6].Podjetje Norsk Lotteridrift ASA se je pritožilo, da sta bila v času, ko je podjetje Norsk Tipping AS tekmovalo z drugimi subjekti, ki upravljajo igralne avtomate, sprejeta dva ukrepa v korist podjetja Norsk Tipping AS, ki sta povzročila izkrivljanje konkurence in vplivala na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
The complainant referred to the two following elements:
Pritožba se nanaša na naslednja elementa:
firstly, Norsk Tipping AS did not pay corporate tax whereas the private operators were subject to the tax (2.1),
prvič, podjetje Norsk Tipping AS ni plačalo davka od dobička pravnih oseb, medtem ko so bili zasebni subjekti podvrženi plačilu tega davka (2.1),
secondly, the complainant argued that Norsk Tipping AS enjoyed much more flexibility in determining what revenues to donate to charities as it paid its contributions to charity from its net surplus, whereas private operators had to pay 40 % of the income of each machine to charity (2.2).
drugič, pritožnik je trdil, da je bilo podjetje Norsk Tipping AS deležno veliko več prožnosti pri odločanju, kolikšen delež prihodkov bo namenilo dobrodelnim ustanovam, saj je svoje prispevke plačevalo iz čistega presežka, medtem ko so ostali zasebni subjekti morali plačati dobrodelnim ustanovam 40 % od prihodkov od vsakega avtomata (2.2).
Exemption to pay corporate tax
Oprostitev plačevanja davka od dobička pravnih oseb
Section 2-30(g) No 3 (previously No 5) of the Tax Act No 14 of 26 March 1999 provides that Norsk Tipping AS was exempted from corporate tax.
Člen 2–30(g) št. 3 (prej št. 5) Zakona o davku št. 14 z dne 26. marca 1999 določa, da je bilo podjetje Norsk Tipping AS oproščeno plačevanja davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
This provision must be read in conjunction with Act No 103 of 28 August 1992 relating to Money Games (hereinafter ‘the Money Games Act’) which provided that Norsk Tipping AS was obliged to pay all its profits after allocation to reserves for the investment fund [7].
To določbo je treba razumeti v smislu Zakona o igrah za denar št. 103 z dne 28. avgusta 1992 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Zakon o igrah za denar), ki določa, da je podjetje Norsk Tipping AS dolžno dodeliti v rezerve za investicijski sklad ves svoj dobiček [7].
The complainant — which was subject to the obligation to pay corporate tax — argued that the possibility for Norsk Tipping AS to benefit from such an exemption constituted State aid.
Pritožnik – za katerega velja obveznost plačila davka od dobička pravnih oseb – je trdil, da takšna oprostitev predstavlja državno pomoč v korist podjetja Norsk Tipping AS.
Possibility for Norsk Tipping AS to determine its own profits
Možnost za podjetje Norsk Tipping AS, da določi svoj dobiček
Regulation No 960 of 22 September 2000 regarding permission to set up AWP machines provided that such permissions would be granted on the following conditions: a minimum of 40 % of the surplus from each machines was to be paid to charity, a maximum of 20 % was paid to the owner of the premises where the machines are placed and a maximum of 40 % was kept by the operator.
Uredba št. 960 z dne 22. septembra 2000 v zvezi z dovoljenjem za upravljanje igralnih avtomatov določa, da je takšno dovoljenje odobreno pod naslednjimi pogoji: najmanj 40 % od presežka od vsakega igralnega avtomata gre v dobrodelne namene, največ 20 % gre lastniku prostorov, kjer se avtomati nahajajo, in največ 40 % zadrži subjekt.
This regulation did not apply to Norsk Tipping AS [8].
Ta uredba ni veljala za podjetje Norsk Tipping AS [8].
The activities of Norsk Tipping AS were regulated by the Money Games Act which provided that Norsk Tipping AS’ profit, after allocations to reserves, must be paid to charities.
Dejavnosti podjetja Norsk Tipping AS so bile regulirane z Zakonom o igrah za denar, ki določa, da se po dodelitvi v rezerve dobiček podjetja Norsk Tipping AS izplača dobrodelnim ustanovam.
The complainant argued that Norsk Tipping AS benefited from a much greater flexibility than its competitors.
Pritožnik je trdil, da je bilo podjetje Norsk Tipping AS deležno bistveno večje prožnosti kot ostali tekmeci.
The legislation did not contain any limitations as to the size of the reserves for the investment fund or any minimum requirement as to the level of the payments to be made to charities.
Zakonodaja ni določala nikakršnih omejitev glede velikosti rezerv za investicijski sklad ali kakršnih koli minimalnih zahtev pri višini izplačil dobrodelnim ustanovam.
Norsk Tipping AS had the option to make the necessary allocations to reserves for such investments while the competitors such as Lotteridrift ASA had less possibilities.
Podjetje Norsk Tipping AS je imelo na voljo možnost dodelitve v rezerve za takšne investicije, medtem ko so ostali tekmeci, kot na primer podjetje Lotteridrift ASA, imeli na voljo manj možnosti.
The complainant argued that such a benefit constituted aid within the meaning of Article 61 EEA.
Pritožnik je trdil, da takšne ugodnosti predstavljajo pomoč v smislu člena 61 Sporazuma EGP.
In its assessment of the complaint, the Authority will examine successively the two grounds of the complaint.
Nadzorni organ bo v svoji oceni pritožbe v nadaljevanju proučil oba razloga za pritožbo.
The measure must be granted by the State or through state resources.
Ukrep se mora odobriti s strani države ali prek državnih sredstev.
The Authority takes the view that through the grant of the exemption, the Norwegian State renounced tax revenue which it would normally have received.
Nadzorni organ meni, da se je norveška država z odobritvijo oprostitve plačevanja davka od dobička pravnih oseb odpovedala davčnim prihodkom, ki bi jih običajno dobila.
The absence of these funds represented a burden on state resources from charges that are normally borne from the budgets of undertakings [9].
Odsotnost takšnega financiranja, ki ga država običajno črpa iz proračuna podjetij, je predstavljala breme za državna sredstva [9].
A loss of tax revenue is equivalent to the consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure [10].
Izguba davčnih prihodkov je enaka porabi državnih sredstev v obliki davčnih izdatkov [10].
The Authority therefore considers that the fact that Norsk Tipping AS is exempted from income tax at the outset involved the consumption of state resources.The measure must moreover be selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.
Dejstvo, da je bilo podjetje Norsk Tipping AS na začetku oproščeno davkov na dohodek, predstavlja za Nadzorni organ porabo državnih sredstev. Nadalje mora ukrep biti selektiven, s tem da daje prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“.
In order to determine whether a measure is selective, the Authority will examine whether, within the context of a particular legal system, the measure constitutes an advantage for the undertaking in comparison with other undertakings which are in a comparable legal and factual situation.
Nadzorni organ bo, da bi preveril, ali je ukrep selektiven ali ne, proučil, ali predstavlja ukrep v okviru posameznega pravnega sistema prednost za nekatera podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi, ki so v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju.
In this regard it is necessary first to identify the common or normal regime under the applicable tax system which constitutes the reference framework.
Tako je treba najprej ugotoviti skupno ali normalno ureditev v okviru veljavnega davčnega sistema, ki predstavlja referenčni okvir.
The Authority considers that the reference framework for assessing selectivity is the Norwegian Tax Act from which Norsk Tipping AS enjoys an explicit exemption in section 2.30(g) No 3 of the Norwegian Tax Act.
Nadzorni organ meni, da referenčni okvir za oceno selektivnosti predstavlja norveški Zakon o davku, na podlagi katerega je podjetje Norsk Tipping AS izrecno izvzeto v členu 2.30(g) št. 3 norveškega Zakona o davku.
It is in relation to the common or ‘normal’ tax regime that the Authority must, secondly, assess and determine whether the advantage granted by the tax measure at issue may be selective by demonstrating that the measure derogates from that common regime inasmuch as the measure differentiates between economic operators who, in light of the objective assigned to the tax system of the EFTA State concerned, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Nadzorni organ mora nato v povezavi s skupno ali normalno davčno ureditvijo oceniti in ugotoviti, ali je morebitna prednost, dodeljena z zadevnim davčnim ukrepom, selektivna, s tem, da dokaže, da ukrep odstopa od skupne ureditve, ker razlikuje med gospodarskimi subjekti, ki so glede na cilj, ki je bil zadan z davčnim sistemom zadevne države Efte, v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju.
The Authority considers, prima facie, that the tax exemption appears selective as Norsk Tipping is individually exempted.
Nadzorni organ na prvi pogled meni, da je oprostitev davkov selektivna, saj je izvzeto samo podjetje Norsk Tipping.
As mentioned above, Norsk Tipping AS, indeed the gaming sector as such, is subject to special regulatory regimes in Norway.
Podjetje Norsk Tipping AS, tako kot ves igralniški sektor na Norveškem, je podvrženo posebnim regulativnim ureditvam.
There are restrictions in place both with regard to who is permitted to offer gaming services, the performance of the services as such and finally the use of revenue generated from gaming.
Omejitve so postavljene tako za tiste, ki imajo dovoljenje za igralniške storitve, izvedbo storitev kot takih in uporabo prihodkov od igralništva.
Indeed, no other operator is now allowed to offer similar games as Norsk Tipping AS since it enjoys exclusive rights to operate a number of different money games.
Noben drug subjekt trenutno nima pravice do zagotavljanja podobnih storitev, kot jih nudi podjetje Norsk Tipping AS, saj ima izključno pravico do upravljanja iger za denar.
A common denominator for these other gaming providers, is that in principle, all the revenues generated from the gaming services shall be channelled to specific charitable causes.
Skupni imenovalec teh ostalih ponudnikov igralniških storitev je, da načeloma vse prihodke, ki jih ustvarijo na podlagi igralniških storitev, preusmerijo v določene dobrodelne namene.